|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Lol yeah the incredibly good plan of "doing less than someone else has already promised to do for everyone, and also means testing it" This isn't an argument that her plans aren't good. Maybe they could go farther but if they were implemented it would be a massive net positive for the country.
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:This isn't an argument that her plans aren't good. Maybe they could go farther but if they were implemented it would be a massive net positive for the country. "Means testing a fraction of a real solution" is a terrible plan
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:"Means testing a fraction of a real solution" is a terrible plan You are selling her plans short of what they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:"Means testing a fraction of a real solution" is a terrible plan do you actually think the problem with her student loan plan is the "means testing" aspect -- that it's too mean to the rich and reduces the amount forgiven for households making greater than six figures a year? because i think the problem is that it doesn't forgive enough to completely erase the student loan debt of normal working people, not that households that make >200k won't get debt relief which doesn't change the fact that its a good plan that would be massively better than the status quo, just not as good as i'd like it to be eke out fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jul 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You are selling her plans short of what they are. I agree, but it's important to recognize that Warren's plans are set up in such a way that they can (and will) be chipped away and eroded by centrist slime and Republican scum. The bolder the plans are the harder it is for them to do that. Complicated proposals with a lot of moving parts get bogged down into uselessness -- same happened with PPACA a decade ago. That Warren chooses to start from this position instead of starting from "Abolish all student debt" doesn't inspire confidence that her position is where we'll actually finish at.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
These loan officers should be working
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
eke out posted:do you actually think the problem with her student loan plan is the "means testing" aspect -- that it's too mean to the rich and reduces the amount forgiven for households making greater than six figures a year? I don't care if rich people do or don't get their student loans forgiven, that the means testing exists at all provides an avenue for the proposal to narrow further and further who it applies to and what it can do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
a.lo posted:I still don’t know what Warren has done to mark a “good candidate” I guess she has been in Bill Maher more than other candidates (Cory Booker???)? If she had actually pegged Bill Maher then she might get my hypothetical vote
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
eke out posted:do you actually think the problem with her student loan plan is the "means testing" aspect -- that it's too mean to the rich and reduces the amount forgiven for households making greater than six figures a year? I think means testing is poo poo because by necessity it means people will fall through the cracks because they're just over the line, and once you introduce the idea that there's a certain group that will benefit from this, exclusively, you introduce the possibility of further limiting that group until it's fuckin poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Like if it was just "50k forgiven, universally", that would be poo poo too, but it would be less poo poo than means testing because means testing is loving bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:I don't care if rich people do or don't get their student loans forgiven, that the means testing exists at all provides an avenue for the proposal to narrow further and further who it applies to and what it can do. i have no idea why you'd zero in on that, considering that setting total forgiveness at $50k is a much more obvious target for reduction during negotiations and plainly insufficient to deal with the entire problem. BENGHAZI 2 posted:I think means testing is poo poo because by necessity it means people will fall through the cracks because they're just over the line, and once you introduce the idea that there's a certain group that will benefit from this, exclusively, you introduce the possibility of further limiting that group until it's fuckin poo poo okay so you don't even what the plan you're complaining about is if you think "fall through the cracks because they're just over the line" is a thing that could happen im shedding huge tears for those households making a quarter million a year that've tragically fallen through the cracks of the system
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Like if it was just "50k forgiven, universally", that would be poo poo too, but it would be less poo poo than means testing because means testing is loving bad I can't imagine the fantasy land you have to be living in and how far disconnected from reality you need to be to think this...
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
eke out posted:i have no idea why you'd zero in on that, considering that setting total forgiveness at $50k is a much more obvious target for reduction during negotiations and plainly insufficient to deal with the entire problem. I mean I happen to have experience with means tested programs and not getting help I need because I'm literally a hundred dollars over the cutoff but yeah no I don't know poo poo about poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I can't imagine the fantasy land you have to be living in and how far disconnected from reality you need to be to think this... I can't imagine the fantasy land where Warren is a good candidate and not just rearranging deck chairs
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
won't someone think about the people from the new york times articles with $4 million mortgages and $10k a month in childcare bills who might not get student loan relief truly, this is a bigger problem than the fact that $50k won't actually erase the majority of debt for a lot of working people who got tricked into full-price private colleges or private loans
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Whoa you mean asking what her plans are with the implication that she has no actual plans and then shifting the goalposts to those plans not being perfect enough means the original question was asked in bad faith? I have to sit down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
eke out posted:won't someone think about the people from the new york times articles with $4 million mortgages and $10k a month in childcare bills who might not get student loan relief Again I am literally a poor person who is Not Quite Poor Enough to actually get help so excuse me for knowing that means testing by necessity will leave some people uncovered, but I guess you could spin "has personal experience with being means tested out of important aid" into "cares about the rich" BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jul 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
eke out posted:im shedding huge tears for those households making a quarter million a year that've tragically fallen through the cracks of the system if it's not supposed to be a huge deal that people who can more then afford it end up getting excluded from the program, then they should be included anyway, because it makes the program more popular, and makes it more difficult to chip away at over time that exclusions are implemented in the first place demonstrates a lack of political imagination
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Again I am literally a poor person who is Not Quite Poor Enough to actually get help so excuse me for knowing that means testing by necessity will leave some people uncovered do you not get that a program that exclusively penalizes people making six figures or greater and then phases down (so only people making > 200k/yr get nothing) is substantially different than -- in fact, almost literally the opposite of -- an all-or-nothing means tested program where if you hit 201% of the Federal Poverty Level you're denied benefits but at 200% you get them
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:if it's not supposed to be a huge deal that people who can more then afford it end up getting excluded from the program, then they should be included anyway, because it makes the program more popular, and makes it more difficult to chip away at over time Also starting from a position of compromise means that the end result is going to be absolute poo poo, as we saw in *checks notes* the entirety of American history
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
eke out posted:do you not get that a program that exclusively penalizes people making six figures or greater and then phases down (so only people making > 200k/yr get nothing) is substantially different than -- in fact, almost literally the opposite of -- an all-or-nothing means tested program where if you hit 201% of the Federal Poverty Level you're denied benefits but at 200% you get them Do you not get thAt means testing is bad and starting with it as an option means that if/when it's actually passed it's going to be far more restrictive
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I can't imagine the fantasy land you have to be living in and how far disconnected from reality you need to be to think this... Probably the one where full student loan forgiveness is already being offered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Means testing has never, ever meant that you get an objectively fair cutoff point where only the people who can afford it have to pay, but rather it's always been a way to make people who need help jump through unnecessary and demeaning hoops and as a wedge to chip away at social programs. It's poo poo because it's all downside and no upside, except that some numbers fuckstein types get to feel all smart about themselves, and gently caress that noise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Do you not get thAt means testing is bad and starting with it as an option means that if/when it's actually passed it's going to be far more restrictive is the best you can do really "i think after negotiations this won't be good enough" because it seems like you're accidentally admitting that the program might be good as-is, which is verging on crypto-warrenism if it's not obvious from me repeatedly saying i think it could be better: i think it could be better. but i think ensuring total debt forgiveness for the working and middle class matters a whole lot more than whether or not means testing excludes the top 2-5% of society (im not looking up what % of households are >200k/yr), so the big problem i have with it is that it forgives less than one full year at (many) private universities costs
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
eke out posted:is the best you can do really "i think after negotiations this won't be good enough" because it seems like you're accidentally admitting that the program might be good as-is, which is verging on crypto-warrenism Yes, when I have explicitly said "I think it's bad and can only get worse" what I really mean is "actually it's fine but it might get worse"
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Does she actually have a plan for breaking up Amazon or is it just something she's said she wants to do, because all her actual plans suck Does literally anyone have a plan for this that isn't just "cripple amazon and send all the customers back to walmart" or some incredibly milquetoast "peel off their video service" thing? (nationalize amazon and throw bezos into the sea) eke out posted:do you not get that a program that exclusively penalizes people making six figures or greater and then phases down (so only people making > 200k/yr get nothing) is substantially different than -- in fact, almost literally the opposite of -- an all-or-nothing means tested program where if you hit 201% of the Federal Poverty Level you're denied benefits but at 200% you get them Eventually that line gets dropped to 30-40k. 20k if you're in a red state. This is why means testing is never good. If you're that worried about the rich getting a social benefit then loving -tax- them and it'll even out. https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1150093807272321024 Man this dude owns
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Student debt forgiveness can basically be done by fiat so it's exactly as hard to do an universal forgiveness as it is to do a more restrictive one, which makes the old lie that more limited programs are easier to accomplish even dumber when trotted out in this case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
eke out posted:i have no idea why you'd zero in on that, considering that setting total forgiveness at $50k is a much more obvious target for reduction during negotiations and plainly insufficient to deal with the entire problem. Do you think that the red tape and bureaucracy involved in administering means-tested programs doesn't let anyone without the resources to navigate that bureaucracy fall through the cracks? You think being too rich is the only reason someone might not get, say, SNAP?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
"But this way it won't benefit those who dont deserve it." - Someone who believes in equality
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
one thing that seems harder to figure out is whether Warren's proposal would be an ongoing federal program that provides one-time-per-person forgiveness, or if it's also a one-time-only-ever thing like the Omar/Sanders/etc bill (which basically creates a single jubilee year that wipes the slate clean but does not deal with future debt)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
It's almost like Bernie plans to fix that by making college free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
eke out posted:do you not get that a program that exclusively penalizes people making six figures or greater and then phases down (so only people making > 200k/yr get nothing) is substantially different than -- in fact, almost literally the opposite of -- an all-or-nothing means tested program where if you hit 201% of the Federal Poverty Level you're denied benefits but at 200% you get them No all those Henry’s need full loan forgiveness now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's almost like Bernie plans to fix that by making college free. Was gonna say, you don’t accrue a lot of debt if it costs $0.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's almost like Bernie plans to fix that by making college free. TrixR4kids posted:Was gonna say, you don’t accrue a lot of debt if it costs $0. bernie's plan will "eliminate tuition and fees at four-year public colleges and universities, tribal colleges, community colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeship programs" this'll still leave lots of people going to private colleges, graduate schools, etc incurring student loan debt, and also probably a lot of people with free tuition still taking out some loans for cost-of-living. they'll accrue at a lower rate per year and be way less of a problem overall, but i think if we're going to do universal forgiveness we should probably also figure out how to keep doing it
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's almost like Bernie plans to fix that by making college free. You're not sposed to mention that part, it ruins the narrative
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
eke out posted:bernie's plan will "eliminate tuition and fees at four-year public colleges and universities, tribal colleges, community colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeship programs" what the gently caress do you want. we both know its not full communism now so what are you complaining about with sentence 2
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
eke out posted:verging on crypto-warrenism New thread title?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:what the gently caress do you want. we both know its not full communism now so what are you complaining about with sentence 2 to keep forgiving student loans on an ongoing basis my dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
eke out posted:bernie's plan will "eliminate tuition and fees at four-year public colleges and universities, tribal colleges, community colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeship programs" If Harvard wants to stop charging $40k a semester or whatever then we'll talk? Alternatively we can nationalize these dogshit private schools that only exist so the already incredibly rich can network more effectively. I'm down for that. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jul 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
eke out posted:to keep forgiving student loans on an ongoing basis my dude Man, look at those goal posts go
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:52
|
|