RT @alphaazeta: This may actually lead to higher defaults in student loans. Students that currently have a loan are probably thinking: “That’s great. I better not pay any more of that debt or I may miss out on this “cancellation””. https://t.co/QthLBlPmQx
I agree wholeheartedly with this. High school level education was made mandatory due to the fact that it was seen that this was the amount of education needed to 'survive' . Times change and now college degree's are needed in just about every field. Gone are the days of working your way up from the mail room. If we are to progress as a country then education is the first thing we need to focus on.
this is a garbage proposal and completely unfair to americans who have been saving and scraping by rather than taking out loans they couldnt afford. Why did I buy a house and take out tons of loans when I could have went to a better school free of charge?
Don't think that universities should be free however at much more reduced price; a price which will bring minimal impact for the student once he or she will graduate with a degree. Universities should be funded both publicly and privately.
Cancellation of student loan debt is a winner. Warren just won my vote. I'm donating now. I was for Bernie before but this will relieve me of $600 a month in expenses. I'd be a fool to vote for anyone else
I'm a college student who's worked full time while being a full time student. I have no student debt. Please explain why I should be just as well off as someone who didn't work at all throughout college.
I certainly appreciate this sentiment and have been consitently drifting back to Warren as my personal frontrunner despite also considering Sanders, Buttigieg, and Yang. That being said, I do wish that more consideration was also given to also providing free vocational training or technical programs. Our economy does not need everyone to have a college degree, and pretending that it does is going to lead to some major problems on down the line. Many of the most important jobs coming down the line in the next decade will be better filled by individuals with vocational backgrounds, and if everyone has a college degree then I think we will likely have a dearth of people ready to fill vital positions in the economy as it further develops.
Aren’t you feeling a little entitled? Good for you for paying your loans off early but people like you who are able to pay them off, don’t need help. I know a couple folks who got degrees they’ll be paying for, for the rest of their lives, with little
to no hope of ever paying them off. Or how about folks who gave up on their degrees but still have a ton of student debt they owe?
Just for my information (I am not from US) do you consider it fair, that people who worked their ass off, will now be on the same line as people who didn´t care about payments, and just paid the bare minimum, and spend the rest on parties, and travelling? Or maybe they did not party and travel, but they were saving money for house, and now they can use the money for buying it, while the first guy paid student loan, and has nothing to pay for house? Is this OK with you?
I wasn’t able to from nothing; I sacrificed my free time to get a second job specifically to pay off my loan early. I worked 65 hours a week for two years in order to do so.
If we’re going to go with this plan, it’s cool. I just think there should be consideration for people who paid off their loans early, even if it’s some kind of tax voucher for the difference between what they paid and the remaining minimum balance
Sorry to assume your gender but my man you know these are two different things. The above are entitlements that literally everyone pays into a system to receive. What is being discussed is targeted cash payments for those who have taken out student loans.
That… doesn't even remotely explain. That has as much explanatory power as "I was eating a ham sandwich". I get that the phrase "my man" is colloquial - why you decided it was necessary to assume an interlocutor's gender to use that phrase is completely unclear. Esp. given the "there are no women on the internet" trope this is also kind of a shitty take :-(
Ah I meant shitty, damn autocorrect. The "assume your gender" joke is intended to be transphobic, assuming people to be "default male" is sexist. Combined with your "if I can't get free money there shouldn't be debt relief for anyone" stance I'm really getting a picture here of someone with a ton of entitlement, anger and arrogance. And yeah, on the internet it's easy to assume things about people that are inaccurate, but you are painting a picture here.
Since when does the US have a national universal health care system? If we really established one, and started paying for people's treatments *going forward*, does it also mean we need to compensate everyone who paid out of pocket under the old system? Because that's essentially what you're suggesting.
I paid all my student loans. I don't expect to get a dime from this - I'd much rather the money go to people who are still suffering under crushing debt, and if you can't see beyond "but how does this benefit me", then… I'm sorry, but you're openly saying "I don't want to help people who need the help more than me unless I get a cut" and that's selfish and shitty. I really hope you re-examine your position here.
It’s not the same thing. A student loan is a fixed debt that once you pay, it goes away. Insurance is paid on until death. If you had a universal system, presumably each person would receive coverage to their needs.
I’ve addressed this elsewhere but I’m baffled why, when we’re talking about giving money directly to people due to the high cost of education that we aren’t considering people who have met their obligation, ie signed and completed a contract they agreed to. I don’t understand why you should not want me to have the money.
An analogy: you have two teenagers and lent them both $500 to buy cars and told them that they needed to pay you back within a year, at 50 a month, and one of them paid you 250 each month for two months plus interest, and the other one paid you for 6 months and then you called it and said you were good, the second one didn’t need to pay. If I was the first son, I would be pissed. If you’re not, it’s cool. I obviously haven’t changed your mind (and obviously, I want you to rethink your position) but there it is
No, a medical bill is a fixed debt that once you pay it goes away. I've paid medical bills in the past. And if we implement universal health care I don't expect to get reimbursed for the past bills I paid, and I sure as shit wouldn't say "no health care for all until you reimburse me for my old medical bills". That would be so fricking selfish and spiteful I can't even imagine a human being feeling that way.
(Also: you just literally retold the story of the Prodigal Son, one of the most famous parables about someone having a debt forgiven and someone else getting super pissy and selfishly entitled about it. You're… you're not the good guy in that story, either.)
It's not that I don't want you to have the money. It's that I don't want the money not to get to people who genuinely need it, and you're suggesting that people who actually need the debt relief shouldn't get it unless you and I (who are now debt-free and don't need it) get a cash payment too. That is the issue. It's not that it would suck if you got paid. It's that it's shitty of you to prevent people who actually need the debt relief from getting it unless you get free money too.
You’re conflating medical debt with insurance. They are two different things. You’re not taking what I’m saying at face value.
Okay? I don’t understand what a biblical story has to do with this discussion.
Then why not just say both groups should get the money? As I’ve said elsewhere, this is at the idea stage. It seems really easy to just say “both groups should get the money”.
Medical debt occurs because of a system that doesn't provide free health care. If we start providing free health care, people who think like you and had big bills in the past will say "but, I had to pay all these big bills, and now someone is getting it for free? No fair, where's my money!"
There are so many moral problems with what you're saying ("no one should get help they need of I don't get money I don't need") that we haven't even gone into the practical problems. How far back should we pay people who paid off their loans? Hell, I graduated in three years to avoid taking on too many loans, maybe I should get paid for my hard work avoiding loans in the first place? Why are we penalizing people who didn't take any loans in the first place, maybe we should give them money too?
This is all… it's just so stupid, and you're too blinded by your own greed and entitlement to see how gross you're being. That's the curse of arguing with strangers on the internet - if you had to stand in front of your friends still suffering from crushing debt and explain why they shouldn't get relief if you're not paid, maybe you'd have just a little more shame and compassion.
I know the difference between medical debt and insurance payments. Please go back and actually take the time to read what I wrote earlier.
I've explained elsewhere and will reiterate here: I think the least we can do would be to expand what is being offered to people with current loans to those who would have their loans "on the books" if they had not paid them off early. For example, if someone took out a loan that had a ten year term on it and it was paid off in two years, we could compensate them with some kind of portion of the term, maybe 80% (8 of 10 years) of the 50k, if we are using that as the reimbursement amount. I am not a policy expert but it seems to me, if we are saying this is due to the large increase in college costs, that we should extend benefit to those that paid their costs off early and would be receiving this benefit had they not.
I've actually spoken to my friends about this, some with 6 figures in debt, and the amount of sacrifice and time I put in to paying off my loans. They understand my position and respect it.
Why do we have to cancel student debt? Just lower the interest rate to inflation and reduce minimum payments. Sorry, but if you borrowed money knowing that you would have to pay it back, why shouldn't you pay it back?
The money to cancel these loans does come from somewhere - every other person. We'd all have to pay more to cancel someone's student loan that they took out knowing that they would have to pay it back.
So if you lower the interest rate and minimum payment, when (if) you do start making money, then you pay it back. If you don't start making money, you're deferring that to later when you can afford to pay it back. If you never are able to pay it back, then you don't.
Say you have a surgeon with $500k student debt. They'll be able to pay that back in their lifetime. So you want to just cancel that? Fuck that. You could make it easier on them, that's fine. Most of the people that need help with this are people that got a degree, have $50k in debt and the interest is killing them because they are only making enough to survive on. They're the ones that need help, so focus on them.
But raping the poor to pay off a middle class debt? Nope.
In the meantime, while your loans are deferred your debt/income ratio is garbage, thereby precluding you from purchasing a home and spending more money than you should renting (see most millenials), this allows you to not save, have no equity in anything, and aids in keeping you working paycheck to paycheck until you manage to finally maybe get promoted, make a little more money, and then still not able to afford a home because your loans are no longer deferred and you are making what amounts to a mortgage payment monthly to pay back education expenses. The real problem, is selling kids on the fact that they need a HUGELY OVERPRICED college education at all. College tuition rises at nearly twice what consumer inflation does. Fix the fact that PUBLIC schools, which are subsidized by tax dollars anyway cost way too much money.
There are people in the politics tab bitching about this: "I paid my loans off, where's my relief? What about me?" And I'm like.. for fuck's sake. I paid my loans off in 2015. I'm not wanting a cookie for doing that, nor am I mad for anyone potentially getting relief (that may never happen). Am I the weirdo here?
Not a weirdo, just a person with a social conscience. I worked off my student loans and - just like when I think about every medical bill I ever paid - just want people going forward to be spared that particular misery. I'm lucky I was able to get a good job and pay off my loans, but not everyone is so fortunate. It'd be ridiculous to demand my past medical bills get reimbursed if we implemented true universal national health care, and it'd be ricidulous to pay people like me who've paid off their student loans.
If you don't get the concept of "help the people who need the help, whether it personally benefits you or not" I don't know how to explain that you should care about other people :-(
Yeah. I worked my ass off, didn’t have much fun for years. Paid them off at 30.
Wife’s good friend has 120k, doesn’t try at all. Travels multiple times every month (nurse), makes bare min payments. She says she makes ok money, but she says it stresses her out and she would rather just accept that they will always be there.
I know several others like that as well. Just enough to get by, do the minimum.
Would not feel too good about it if people that paid off loans and busted get no benefit while others get 10’s of thousands wiped free. I paid 20k in interest.
But at the same time, I’d go about my life the same.
I graduated from grad school in 2014 with about 60K in loans. I worked a second job, so about 65 hours a week, for 2 years in order to pay off my debt.
I think if this plan were to pass, there is definitely moral hazard to tell people who worked to pay off their loans, in essence money they owed to the federal government, that they were suckers to do so. I gladly would have not worked that time if I knew the loan would have been forgiven by the government but those were not the terms agreed to when I took out the money.
Meanwhile people like me dont feel like working bc we dont get to enjoy that money bc of our debt. Theres a moral hazard in making people work but having nothing to show for it. Instead of being upset people should be happy their fellow American is getting some relief. Most of us are broke and have no savings. If you know what it feels like you should be happy for others when they get some relief.
Passing judgment on people you havent meant isnt healthy nor a good human quality. You dont know the circumstances that led them to where they are. Everyone saying "it's not my fault they made a stupid choice or they should just work harder" aren't just being unfair, they're being cruel.
We built this country together. To abandon people who cant afford to pay their Bill's is fundamentally wrong and immoral.
The problem has to be addressed, and ignoring it wont help. At some point building up student loan debt is going to crater the economy. It makes no sense not to address it. None whatsoever, unless you just want to screw people and yourself in the long run.
This is exactly why shit never gets done in this country. Jesus. I’m paying off over blown student loans because I deferred for many years stupidly. But do I think the next gen of college bound students should have free college? ABSOLUTELY. Fair is irrelevant if we’re trying to move forward and actually take care of middle class and low income students. And to be honest, the wealthy have never ever ever played fair. The wealthy are paying to cheat their way in, are changing the laws, and are not remotely worried about college costs. One generation has to stand up and shoulder some of the shit the baby boomers got us in otherwise we just keep shoveling it on to the next generations. The boomers fucked us and I don’t have a problem being a part of the generation that rights the ship. Yeah I’ll always be broke but so what. My hope for the future is that no student has to shoulder the kind of debt I have in order to go to college.
What's happened in the past is in the past. Leave it there and look toward the future. Do you feel fucked over by this? Are you able to think of others instead of yourself? At all? We're all suckers, honey. If you're breathing, you're a sucker. Don't be mad at the wrong people.
I don’t know you and likely have never met you before so I say, with all love and respect accorded to you, the “what’s in the past is in the past” is a pretty flimsy argument against virtually anything.
I gave you my story of why I would not be for this plan without the consideration of people who paid off their loans early. You can say that I’m selfish for also wanting to get paid if everyone else is. I don’t see it that way.
Have no idea what you’re talking about with the suckers line.
I’m not mad at anyone. I just think bad behavior is being rewarded if credits or refunds are not extended to those who did the right thing here.
>I just think bad behavior is being rewarded if credits or refunds are not extended to those who did the right thing here.
Look, I am happy you were able to pay off your debt. But please do not extend this attitude "I was able to, everyone else should" when this is far from a feasible reality. It's not bad behavior, my generation is working tirelessly to try and stay afloat! I work three jobs and have only watched my balance increase over time because of insane interest rates. It's not about wiping all debt (I would still owe under this) but relieving a crippling burden. I would LOVE to pay back what I owe but literally cannot because of the way the system works. My story is the norm.
You are treating this as if the behavior of the individual is the main problem and not a system designed to trap and keep the majority of young people in never-ending debt. Again, I'm glad that wasn't the case for you, but that is a poor reason to do nothing for the vast majority of borrowers who are screwed for life because of this debt. That's like saying we shouldn't improve healthcare because someone went to extreme measures to pay off absurd medical debt, therefore everyone moving forward should also have to deal with absurd medical debt. Learn to think outside of yourself.
I’ll respond to some of your other points later but I’ll just say I graduated from undergrad in 2007, right before the financial crash in a very rough job market, so if we are from the same generation, know that and if we aren’t, understand that it was rough for us too.
I definitely have friends who owe 6 figures in debt. They are not the norm in my circle but I do realize that there are people who would greatly benefit from this plan. I just think it is wrong to in effect penalize those who worked harder than they could have in order to not be in debt. I’m not saying everyone can do what I did. I’m not saying that AT ALL but, for people who did do what I did, I feel that we should receive at least the same financial benefit than those who didn’t do what we did.
This is why nothing will ever get done. The individualism and selfishness is mind boggling. If you can’t think about others then think about your children. Would you rather figure out how to pay $25K/yr in-state or $40K-$80K/yr out of state AT CURRENT TUITION RATES? Just how do you think your kids and their kids (and all kids) will be able to benefit from free college if the process is not started? I have two kids in college and I would love it if they didn’t have the financial burden I have. Focus your attention on the system that has us arguing over crumbs while the wealthy politicians sit back benefitting from this discourse. Don’t let them convince you otherwise. Free tuition and debt relief are good things. It doesn’t matter if we all got fucked with student loans because the gov’t preyed on us. Just for the record, “doing the right thing” by paying back your loans shouldn’t make you mad at folks who couldn’t or didn’t. It should make you mad that we needed student loans in the first place.
I’m not mad at anyone. I feel that I got a good deal for the money I paid. I’m not sure if people are reading tone when there was none intended or what.
I’ve made my points elsewhere. I still don’t understand why you (and others) won’t also say, “but people who paid their loans off early should also be considered in this”. That’s it. This isn’t a law. It’s not close to passing today or tomorrow. Why shouldn’t there also be consideration for people who paid their loans off early??
(I'm an outsider trying to understand people's opinions here)
If two patients needed hip replacements and one went to a public hospital (and borrowed $20,000) and the other went to a private hospital/spa (and borrowed $100,000), and then the state said they'd pay off all medical debts, it seems pretty punishing to give 83.33% of the benefit to someone that had a choice and chose luxury.
> who worked harder than they could have in order to not be in debt
I am working 3 jobs and have been working at least 2 since I was 13. May I ask how on earth I was supposed to "work harder" to thrive under this broken system? You seem to be under the delusion that people can just pull themselves up my their bootstraps and get through their debt. Look, I'm glad it worked out for you and that people in extreme debt are not common in your circle but anecdotes are not representative data. 20% of borrowers owe over $100k. I pay my loans without fail by my balance just keeps increasing so unless you have Hermoine's time turner to allow me to work 10 jobs, not sure how on earth working harder will resolve anything.
I don't really care to continue this conversation as your central tenant is still "I jumped through hoops on fire so everyone else should too because I cannot handle something that is a huge net good for our society if it's unfair to me personally." My point is that the hoops shouldn't be on fire and we should extinguish the fire for those who still have to jump through it. You point is that you somehow did a miraculous thing under a broken system therefore people should still have to jump through hoops on fire. Or that you still demand your fire to be put out retroactively after you were somehow able to already extinguish it? The underlying sentiment here is "me, me, me" and it's quite odd to argue that you need a benefit here. Harboring resentment at those who need more assistance than you to get out of this nightmare doesn't fix anything.
Yeah this is a bad take. We graduated two years apart (I graduated 2005) and paid off my debt and would be outraged if we held up forgiving student debt without paying people who already paid theirs like me and you. It's like saying if we gave free medicine to cancer patients, anyone who beat cancer should get their past bills reimbursed or no one should get free care.
It's selfish and ugly in the extreme. If you, like me, worked your way out of debt, just be grateful that you've been luckier than many. And yes, luck has a lot to do with it - virtually all success is a combination of work and luck, there are people who worked harder than you and are still in debt, and people who were lazier and were debt-free right away. The point is to help those who need it most, and to give kids access to education for the future. You wanna compensate people for past injustice? Let's talk about reparations for slavery first maybe, huh?
Luck is definitely a factor. That being said, I made a conscious choice to work a second job and devote the money made from it entirely to paying off my debt, so we may be looking at the situation from different angles.
I’m not sure if you saw my other posting but there may be a nuance that you’re not seeing if you focus on the undergrad date. I went to grad school and took out loans in 2014. Paid them off 2 years later. If this bill went into effect next year let’s just say, I would not receive any compensation because I had paid the loan off already. But if I had just made minimum payments I would receive compensation or have the debt forgiven. Do you see what I am saying?
I think we can both find many differences between this and the argument for slavery reparations yeah?
Considering the people who go to college have so much higher earning potential...yeah?
We also don't really help the poor that much...we still have insane levels of poverty compared to much of western europe.
This is a waste of money imo that could be better solved with structural reforms. There's no need for college to cost 50k/year and the reason why can be solved...not by just giving everyone free money.
So teachers aren’t the poor? You are required to have a degree to teach yet their earning potential is in the toilet (even with a Master’s). Some of the poverty is created because people have student loan debt. Debt relief is addressing the poor. Some poor people have college degrees.
Western Europe also has free university that seriously increases social mobility. And also does things that help the poor and middle class because it's not zero sum - you want poor people to be able to work their way up to th middle class, and free education is a huge part of that. Let the rich and corporations pay for it.
It's not an either or. If public institutions are low/no cost, that will drive private institutions to either reduce tuition/increase assistance or decide to only cater to the uber wealthy. While it seems likely the latter might happen, the reality is those colleges need a sizeable student body to function. They aren't going to simply settle for a handful of legacy students each year, they'll realize quickly that in order to remain function they will need to reduce costs for everyone else.
Doubt. Strong doubt. Columbia - my uni - is already 70k/year while SUNY and CUNY are free. Literally no change in tuition. They are literally one stop away and FREE. But nope. Still 3% yearly tuition rises.
No. The benefits reduce at 100k (which is a bit too low IMO, as people who are in lower-paying jobs with graduate degrees still need additional support). It's supposed to help people who are lower middle class who can't afford housing or a family because of their student loan debt. Also, if you read the article, it also talks about increased support for HBCUs and other colleges that support a diverse student body.
This effectively locks in degree inflation. Smart policy would solve the massive amount of jobs that require a college degree but don't need one. Not just give free money to people to get a degree for no reason.
Why can't we address both issues? Some fields require graduate degrees, so for those fields, let's make debt less burdensome. At the same time, let's increase vocational opportunities. Given how Warren has been releasing new policies every few weeks to stay in the press, she'll probably address that issue as well eventually.
> Given how Warren has been releasing new policies every few weeks to stay in the press, she'll probably address that issue as well eventually
And given the fact that she is a financial law scholar, I think she understands the full depth of these issues. It's sort of astounding to see people on reddit assume they know better than a top financial scholar as if she hasn't fully thought through the repercussions of each policy.
This is so important, and I love that she's continuing to address race AND class in a thoughtful way. I will say though, I wish she would have address simplifying PSLF in here more. On average, fields in desperate need of PSLF are ones that require graduate degrees and aren't considered high-paying, like social work, teaching, psychology, and rehab therapies (PT, OT, and speech). These fields, which are SO important, are female-dominated. When we're struggling to figure out if we're actually going to receive PSLF, why not work on reducing the fear? I know she mentions the extension of PSLF bill she supported, but we need more.
So I'm all in for Bernie, but if I have to make a pragmatic second choice what do yall think of Warren vs Buttigieg? I'm leaning toward Warren bc Pete feels kind of astroturfy to me. I've been told he's just another corporate centrist dem, and I'll gag if I get taken for a ride again like I did for Obama.
Thank you. I really really don't trust Bootygig. All anyone can talk about are character features; he's gay, he served in the military, he was a Rhodes scholar, he knows seven languages. Like fuck off or discuss policy I couldn't give a shit that he's what you imagine you'd get if you had an unlimited budget to build a best friend.
bernie is a senator from a state w/ 650k people not that much bigger than a town in Indiana....and is a front runner. What does it say about him? If we go population = qualification, should we then go w/ Kamala harris?
>bernie is a senator
This is more relevant experience that small town mayor. I'm just saying if we're going to hire someone to hold the highest office in the land lets make sure we have qualified and experienced candidates.
Pete is no doubt very talented. I think he just needs to be around more before being president. I'm not confident he would be able to do much in a town where he has no connections or a deep understanding of how things work on the ground. Obama had the same issue. He didn't have much experience and was not able to get much done. He was smart and pragmatic, but that is not, sadly, how things get done up there.
Being a mayor is better preparation for the non-law passing duties of a president which are many. Being a senator is better preparation for passing laws, and that is an important part of the president's job.
> This is more relevant experience that small town mayor.
How? What does senator experience gives you in terms of running executive? What are the translatable skills?
Buttigieg makes a good point his staff is 1000s, a senator juggles a staff of 10s of ppl.
> Obama had the same issue. He didn't have much experience and was not able to get much done
Obama was a senator and a constitutional lawyer.....
1000s as in police/fire/teachers etc. Does he oversee those people? Isn't that selling the police chief, fire chief and others short?
There are thousands of mayors. Are all of them qualified for president?
Pete's good and I'm glad he's on our side and I want him to stick around, don't get me wrong. I just think Warren is great.
it's a strong mayoral system. aka he makes a lot of the decisions w/o a city manager. And has a lot more power even though he has a council.
>There are thousands of mayors. Are all of them qualified for president?
yes if they're over 35 and seems to have their jobs effective. Everyone of the previous presidents in recent memory from Bush, Clinton, Bush2, to Obama have said this in multiple interviews, there will never be a job that prepares you to be president.
The mayor–council government system is a system of organization of local government. It is one of the two most common forms of local government in the United States and is also used in Canada. It is the one most frequently adopted in large cities, although the other form, council–manager government, is the local government form of more municipalities.
Characterized by having a mayor who is elected by the voters, the mayor–council variant may be broken down into two main variations depending on the relationship between the legislative and executive branches, becoming a weak-mayor or a strong-mayor variation based upon the powers of the office.
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/ElizabethWarren/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
I agree that I don't think population of the constituency he has experience with shouldn't be a very big deal, but I think Bernie is better simply because he's been on the right side of every issue for such a long time. He has proven himself as far as I'm concerned. With bootysledge I'm still skeptical that he could be astroturf.
oh great name calling and "astroturf"
protest iraq war in college, liked bernie in highschool. His policies held for nearly a decade now since he's been mayor. And he goes further than bernie in certain things like filibuster, electoral college and suprreme court. These are institutional changes to get progressive policies passed. Same w/ Warren who wants some of these changes too. That's the major factor I want in my candidate I'm voting for in primary, someone who recognizes our gov as an institution needs more than just new bills, it needs structural reforms.
It just seems like an extremely inopportune time for him to show up and could split the progressive vote and guarantee a Biden primary. The demo played dirty last time to keep Bernie out and they will do it again.
I would point out that the second choice of Bernie voters isn't Buttigieg...it's Joe Biden. And even if Buttigieg was splitting the vote, Bernie isn't owed them. AND you can say same about Warren about splitting the vote....if we're going w/ your logic that ignores polling but basing this on what gut feelings of policy platform.
anyway we're going off topic. i'm peacing out of this convo
and primaries won't be another year. Every other candidate announced before and had a team together to put these policies together. if he doesn't in few months that's when one should worry. But it's apples and oranges comparison now.
Please link me directly to where the policy is. I have found scant few actual positions of his on his website. Copy paste it for me. He has very little to say about policy as far as I can see, but I'd love to be wrong.
Lmao I've looked at his website 5 times and it is still way more about 'who is Pete' than 'what does Pete stand for'. I understand the pregmatics of building a brand for voters to identify with and trust but bro is all sizzle and no steak.
her proposals are a lot more nuanced. And very specific. He throws numbers that math might not even check out.
And she goes further and wants institutional reforms that can pass her plans (getting rid of filibuster) so far some these other dudes are running away from that idea.
It's not copying him. If you read this, it's a fleshed-out proposal that also includes wiping out some of current student debt (which I don't think Sanders ever actually addressed?) and also mentioned increased support for HBCUs. There is definitely an overlap of Warren and Sanders, but they're not copying each other. Also, Warren wasn't running in 2016, so that's not really fair.
That’s why I’m calling for something truly transformational — the cancellation of up to $50,000 in student loan debt for 42 million Americans.
My plan for broad student debt cancellation will:
Cancel debt for more than 95% of the nearly 45 million Americans with student loan debt;
Of course education should be free. When college equals job, it means if you don’t have college–even with experience–you don’t get job.
> WHEN college equals job, it means if you don’t have college–even with experience–you don’t get job.
Agreed! And that stance reduces the worth, necessity, and importance of trades. Training in trades has to be included as an opportunity without cost the same as is being proposed for college education.
That said, learning a trade and going to college are not mutually exclusive. And plenty of college graduates practice trades while plenty of tradespeople are college graduates and attend university for degrees and lifelong learning.
I went and worked at a paper mill doing hard grunt work to save up for living expenses during college. I earned $14 / hr and even got some overtime and didnt spend nearly any of it until college, except for a bullshit speeding ticket I got (but thats a different story).
Where'd you go? What happened to your fake anecdote about how you never took any help from your parents and you weren't just born and raised in an area with a low cost of living, and how affirmative action kept you out of better schools that cost more?
I moved 3 states away from my parents to have that low cost of living and my mom died of cancer while I was at college and my dad had his own issues to deal with. Is it really that hard to conceive that some people make sacrifices in order to succeed?
My biological parents both died before I was 3 when a drunk driver hit them. I was in foster care and abused until I was adopted at 8. 5 years later my adopted parents were both killed by terrorists. I moved to this country with only $3 in my pockets. After 3 years of hard manual labor, I then built my own company to support myself. Using the earnings from that company I paid my way through university. I even went to grad school where I studied macroeconomics. Your points on the subject are wrong. This move by Warren is good for the economy as a whole.
I don’t have a degree, and I have a great job in a knowledge field. (Edit: I am a well-paid consultant for AWS) Not easy, difficult to navigate to this point without a roadmap, but absolutely doable.
Edit: I still support Warren’s proposal, I just take issue with your point about “if you don’t have a degree, you don’t get a job”, it’s just patently false. A lot of people in my field don’t have degrees and make six figures. Not sure where the downvotes are coming from.
Comfortably retired, with a union pension, solid 401k, investments ... no college degree. But I deeply regret not having gotten a degree. Would I have been financially better off with one? Maybe, maybe not. Even besides career there are many advantages to college such as health decisions may be better.
There’s nothing wrong with union work, in fact you may earn more than with a degree. But everyone who studies hard, can get into college, wants that path should be able to do it. My kids, and future grand kids (no rush though) should not be penalized for life for it.
In case you're wondering where the money will come from to cover this plan, here's the explanation, buried halfway down the article:
> The entire cost of my broad debt cancellation plan and universal free college is more than covered by my Ultra-Millionaire Tax — a 2% annual tax on the 75,000 families with $50 million or more in wealth.
It sounds like this is not an income tax but a tax on assets. Which becomes very interesting when your assets are not liquid.