Bernie Sanders ideas is to make Wall Street pay for free education
quad damage
Bernie Sanders speaks to "NowThis" about how to make college free by making Wall Street pay for it.
He says "We bailed out wall street now its wall street's chance to free the middle class"
[ame]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kO3C0GQO7M[/ame]
He says "We bailed out wall street now its wall street's chance to free the middle class"
[ame]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kO3C0GQO7M[/ame]
Replies
+1, Same here.
Having free education is great, but pretending that it comes basically free for the general public and people can get back at those bankers at the same time doesn't seem an honest approach to me. In the end the money could be used elsewhere or to lower taxes. Normally it should be self evident that free education in itself pays off, but that's probably hard to sell in a country that sees "socialism" in anything remotely social.
We also have to understand the dangers of moving over to a fiat currency in which the federal reserve can print money in the form of "I owe you slips" which the banks use for the rest of us.
Be very careful about falling for the emotion/sentiment based reasoning any politician tries to peddle to push policy or action.
2cents
how exactly is that done? I think government has to prove it's actually working for the people before an initiative like that can take place.
I'm a big fan of Sanders, the first guy to not treat the big S like a bad word. We're so far to the right these days that Eisenhower looks like a radical socialist.
I would be interested to know if Europe's University system has a similar problem.
But I'm guess its a real bad system because we are going bankrupt from it... no wait.
And some more information about tuition in europe:
http://www.studyineurope.eu/tuition-fees
one time when i couldnt find a job, i started studies instead, to support myself. so what should have been a disadvantage for me, not getting a job, actually made me smarter.
free education should be one of the base things provided by the state for any country that wants to call it self a "democracy". i mean its just as a obvious right as free healthcare. you guys have that, right?
hehe...
"Free at the point of sale" might be a better term then, since it's definitely subsidised and paid for through taxes (in europe).
But he is absolutely right, the state of both the education, and health care systems in america is a joke when compared to the rest of the modern civilized world.
For education? I'm not sure, his education reform plan doesn't exactly have a lot of detail. My primary issue with him though is with things he's said about other policies (minimum wage, free trade, immigration)
IMO, the best thing to do on an individual level is to get outside-of-academia experience or specialist skills, but then the starbucks-and-manbun kiddies wouldn't be able to blame "the bankers" or some such nonsense.
But who needs pesky economics when you can promise to wave the magic "compassion" wand, right?
Keep in mind, the content in the OP comes from a man who thinks that starving children are a direct result of *not* having the deodorant industry regulated to the compulsory production/sale of one brand or product..
According to research firm Gartner, The video game industry is one of the fastest growing sectors in the U.S. economy, worth $111.1 billion in 2015.
(Gartner 2015) http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Games_Economy-11-4-14.pdf
Noam Chomsky gives a talk on Student Debt
[vv]52391033[/vv]
please tell me what free means in this context? i have gotten 4 years in the university without paying barely any taxes, cuz of unemployment, it feels pretty free to me.
[ame]
[ame]
Also Noam Chomsky also gives a great talk on the importance of educating women in developing countries as it helps bring piece and stabilizing world population as women tend to put their carrier first Marry a little later and have children later thus slowing population....totally side tracked there....maybe I should dig out the talk, haha!
Thanks for the link. If the USA reigned in the abusive growth of college administrators and fired the worthless asses we could be comparable in price. Some administrators in the UC system make of $300k USD a year. Absolutely ridiculous.
Look at Obama. His healthcare plan was as bipartisan as a universal healthcare plan could be. He made concession after concession and focused pretty much his whole presidency on pushing it through - and between the compromising and republican lead opposition his plan was basically neutered and butchered to the point of complete ineffectiveness.
Sanders would fair much worse as his politics are far more left leaning than Obama and thus he's have even less support, and almost definitely dissent even from his own party.
I'm not fond of Hillary but she 1.)knows how to work the beurocracy and even across aisles and 2.) she has the much more centered politics in order to do at least something.
yeah, we can dream though
unfortunately you're 100% correct. until congress is cleansed the US is fucked.
America is in debt? JPMorgan Chase cleared 5.6 billion in 2014 third quarter that we know about.
The system we have that was created by banks doesn't work. Money does not care who spends it, and money does not care how it is obtained, there in lies the fatal flaw.
Check out the film trailer for: The True Cost, its how business is really done. Its a story about how a few fleas on the dogs back want to eat the whole dog regardless of the price. Then talk about free education, free healthcare, free food, clothing, housing and all the other things we should be smart enough to provide for each other if we were not so freakin stupid.
Can't really see the comparison, Obama was never the liberal people made him out to be but a centrist. And because of that he could never rally any support from the left, people quickly became disillusioned with him.
In any case I don't really see the point in saying Sanders has no chance, we have Donald Trump leading in the republican polls. I can't take this election thing seriously anymore, I'll support who I want to win.
I think increasing minimum wages to livable level will be more impactful...
Thats the comparison, you said it: Obama is much more centrist. Even in the middle Obama couldn't get enough support to get anything done. Had he been closer to the left he would have had even less support, and Sanders is soooo far to the left that he wouldn't even have full support of his own party, much less far more aggressive opposition by the republicans.
>In any case I don't really see the point in saying Sanders has no chance, we have Donald Trump leading in the republican polls.
Right, thats how this part of the election process works. Nobody in the middle of the political spectrum, which is the vast majority of people, come out to vote or donate in the pre-election process.
So in order to win the nomination the candidates have to move further left or right in order to get support from their parties base. Then in the general election they move back towards center in order to get support from the center majority.
Trump is basically the republican version of Sanders in that way. He is super far to the right just like Sanders is super far to the left. They preform well in the primary because they're playing super into the hands of the fanatic supporters of their respective bases, since that is who contributes money in the primaries.
But these guys never win the nomination because in the primaries the candidate who wins is the person with the best shot of winning the general. Hillary is playing the game better by sticking closer to majority/center politics, so when she gets dumped into the general she'll already be viewed as a true contender. Trump and Sanders have both played far too partisan to be able to win. Majority America will never vote for a guy who has said the things Trump has said, and likewise majority American will never vote for a guy who has said the things Sanders has said (even though I agree with Sanders).
These candidates always run in the primaries there are several every year on both sides, and they have never won a primary, its been like this in politics since pretty much the beginning.
not for long..The service industry robot apocalypse is coming..sooner than you would imagine....but that is probably a whole different thread
Sanders seems too good to be true...The political landscape is such a wasteland on either side of the aisle it's like badly written television. With People like Clinton and Trump being forerunners it's like they are not even trying to hide the farce anymore
That's not to suggest it doesn't have problems, the ACA didn't and was never really designed to control for costs so insurance is very expensive for people who do not qualify for subsidies and poor people in the states that refused medicaid expansion are currently screwed. But to say it was neutered to the point of complete ineffectiveness is horribly and demonstrably wrong. By virtually every measure the ACA has improved healthcare access and coverage, particularly to the poorest people in America.
No need to take my word for it though:
While the ACA did help a certain % of the population, the original bill he attempted to introduce before republican meddling and compromising addressed far more. Bankruptcy from medical costs, even for the insured, remain largely the same (#1 cause for bankruptcy even among the insured), and medical costs/insurance costs have even gone up since the ACA, 65% of insurance plans have increased in cost in that time.
I am 100% for universal healthcare, but the ACA turned out to hardly be a step in the right direction for most people - most people are paying more now than they were before. The only redeeming factor is that extra cost helps cover the young and poor, which frankly I'm glad to pay the extra cost on my plan for.
But its hard to say it wasn't a failure, especially given how much of his presidency was dedicated to it, and what the original promises were.
Can you name these supposed Republican compromises and meddling? Because not a single Republican voted to pass the bill so I'm not sure why they would water it down to appease them to get zero votes.
The biggest piece missing from the law is the public option and that was killed off by Democrats, not Republicans. A small group of them threatened to filibuster the bill if a public option was included.
It's still too early to tell what the impact of the ACA will be on medical bankruptcy, the law has only been in (mostly) full effect for less than a year and the number of uninsured people hasn't peaked. Based on the results Romneycare had in Massachusetts though it's a safe assumption medical bankruptcy will go way down on states that accepted the Medicaid expansion.
The fact that insurance plans cost has gone up is not unexpected, that's what happens when you implement an insurance mandate. The hope is that the costs will grow slower. Which again, remains to be seen. Still it's probably not going to do much. In order for the ACA to really control costs in a meaningful way it would have had to be single payer. which it never was and was never promised to be.
It was modeled after what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, which is not single payer. So I'm not sure what you thought was being promised here.
>Can you name these supposed Republican compromises and meddling?
Thats not how US politics really works. The republicans started a very vitriolic anti-'obamacare' campaign that was extremely effective in turning a good portion of the public against the bill. In response, democrats focused on their own re-election campaigns were forced to take varying degrees(depending on how tight their races were projected to be) of stances against the bill, forcing president Obama to make concessions and compromises to try to mitigate republican lead attacks. Remember 'death panels', and debates over womens health services? The concessions made during that spate were fairly vast.
And I think we're losing sight of the initial point/why I bought up the ACA.
The point is that even president Obama with a much more centrist political leaning wasn't able to accomplish much. You even said he had opposition from his own party.
Sanders, with his far far left leaning would have a vastly more difficult time passing anything even nearing the kind of stuff he's campaigning on.
Yet you can't name any of these supposedly vast concessions that he made that crippled the law to complete ineffectiveness? Come on dude...
No disagreement here. Every time there's a presidential election people begin treating everything they say as if they're going to accomplish it by royal decree.
I don't think Sanders economic policy ideas could survive expert scrutiny let alone the political process.
Sanders is just a populist. Like you said, similar to Trump (though you probably don't agree with my stance on Sanders)
I'm not as confident as you are that they won't win the nomination though. Especially in Trump's case since he's leading, but maybe America needs an awful Trump presidency in order to fully appreciate evidence based policy making.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Obama is one of the most effectual Presidents of all time.
I think Sanders has a great shot. Everyone I know wants to vote for him. And if he's up against Trump, it's no contest. The idea of "President Trump" will drive every non-stupid voter to the polls to prevent that from happening.
I'm sure they are enjoying their democracy now, and leaving my country (Italy) to deal with the mass of people escaping the war that now is raging.
I was not replying directly to you, but in a general way of what voting for Hillary Clinton may lead to.
To not derail the thread further, if you consider that the most brilliant minds, who are now naturalized as American citizens, came from countries where there is free education for everybody, you can clearly see that even if it's free, the competitive level is pretty high.
Or you can just leave the situation as it is, letting people sustain an incredible amount of debts (pleasing your presidential campaign sponsors), and then get for free trained people from other countries. To be honest, if I had to decide, I would do just like that.
So even if you're jaded to the gills and want to be apathetic and all that ... that's fine, you can ... but I would at least ask that you show up to prevent people like Trump from gaining seats of power. At least do that much.
keep in mind that gay rights are good, but they are not only here today out of the goodness of the heart's of the presidents. its strategic politics to stimulate the economy since the LGBT population is also part of the economic farm that we live in. money is the bigger influence here than basic humanity. its the same reason why sometimes a big corporation would publicly support LGBT even though majority of their CEO's or shareholders hates LGBT. it has very little to do with fairness, humanity or equality and a lot to do with economics, profit and power like everything else.
these rights would have come eventually from any party. it doesnt really matter who comes to power, Trump or no Trump. these fake politics and fake democracy is meaningless and pointless in the bigger scope of things that really matter.
we live a privileged life here in USA at the expense of the people being killed elsewhere in the worlds, so it is also hypocritical to criticize the same powers that bring us the somewhat limited freedom we have here.
Not to tarnish his legacy but I don't get why Obama could've stood for zero tolerance for Iran's nuke development. Why does an oil rich country like Iran need nuclear capabilities in the first place? I don't think number 1 reason is for power generation.
You dont' have to pro this or anti that to know that they want to play crazy with Israel.
The ME situation is a complete mess, at the beginning of the 80s, Iran and Israel attacked an Iraqi nuclear reactor in a somehow conjuncted strike, later the US helped Iraq fight Iran with the UN consensus, few year later, in 1991, they bombed Iraq.
Is it clear that Israel do not want a nuclear capable nation near them.
Im no pro Israel particularly how they deal with the Palestinians but I don't understand the hate and hypocrisy by nations against Israel.
Supposedly they want to get rid of Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians but they themselves persecute and practice the occasional genocide of Kurds - a majority Muslim group of people. Turkey bombs them, Iraq gas them, etc.
Anyone want to check on Venezuela, see how the socialist thing is working out? No "the bankers"/eeeevvvvil CEOs/Skeletors there - must be a paradise where everything is free, right? Right?
Doubly so for education, where the average person seems fine supporting it because it feels good and warms their tingly little hearts, but ignores the factual - increased supply of graduates drops their own value without parallel sector growth, just look at England's unemployed young people.
As it has been mentioned in this thread, approaching anything like this just dogmatic rhetoric, without regard for economics, is like attempting to command the tide to not come in.