• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Um given the above did you mean to say that Donald Trump is the opposite of your perfect policy President?

Name one fiscally responsible Trump policy. Like a single one.

How about Trump announcing new tariffs on Chinese good this morning? That's sounds responsible.
 
RJ, free public college isn’t going to prevent kids from going to private schools. Sure maybe some of the kids on the fringes will opt instead for public universities, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that kids will lose spots as a result.

Much like free public K-12 education doesn’t prevent kids from going to private K-12 schools.
 
Also by a 56-38 polling in the most recent Quinnipiac poll independents believe Donald is racist v not a racist. But yeah everyone thinks the democrats are “reaching”!

"America is tired of the race thing"

- Independent Voters
 
That makes no sense. Are you saying the interest rate doesn't cover any expenses?

The feds guarantee most of the loans rather than making them. If they were "forgiven", the government would still have to pay the full amount to the originator or cause major losses.

There's only about 10-11% default rate. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/national-student-loan-cohort-default-rate-falls

What happens to the freshmen that enter college the day after the forgiveness and need to borrow money or only those currently in debt beneficiaries of this largess?

In 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated 55% of loans had private or third party origination. Between 2011 and 2016, the share of privately originated student loans fell by nearly 90%. Mostly this is because of a tiny provision in ACA that more or less eliminates private loan origination. So for any loan older than 2010, you're right, the govt guaranteed those (meaning taxpayers footed the bill yet again for defaulting loans). But for the better part of the past decade, the govt has been borrowing at 2.8%, and lending at 6.8% for a 4% markup, more or less levying another tax. The money they do get back and don't spend on administration (an absurd $40BN a year) they spend predominately on Pell grants ($36 BN a year).

How about instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul we just make it more affordable to go to college, full-stop? Debt forgiveness is one plan, free college is another. There are also plans that include debt forgiveness tied to service, business ownership, etc. that work for the more small-minded among us.
 
I’m pretty sure fiscal conservative these days just means you like lower taxes. They use to pretend lower taxes were always offset by spending deductions but now that myth doesn’t even need to be spread.
 
The interest pays for the overhead. If there are no loans, that $40B doesn't come from anywhere else or stop investing in other things.

When you say "free college" , is that free all college? Is Wake going to be free?

Whose plan includes room, board, books and other costs?

What about the kids who start school now and have to borrow money? Why should they have to pay it back but current borrowers don't?

I have no problem with a public service deduction for loans or other quid pro quo but simply giving away over $1.6T for nothing is a bad idea and one that will re-elect Trump.
 
The interest pays for the overhead. If there are no loans, that $40B doesn't come from anywhere else or stop investing in other things.

When you say "free college" , is that free all college? Is Wake going to be free?

Whose plan includes room, board, books and other costs?

What about the kids who start school now and have to borrow money? Why should they have to pay it back but current borrowers don't?

I have no problem with a public service deduction for loans or other quid pro quo but simply giving away over $1.6T for nothing is a bad idea and one that will re-elect Trump.

lol jesus i quit
 
RJ, you always say that millennials and young voters don’t vote enough, right? This would be an incredibly popular policy proposal for that demographic, popular enough that it could possibly attract a large amount of first time voters. I don’t know exactly why you’re so sure that free college or loan forgiveness is such a slam dunk for the GOP, but even if it were a motivating factor for people to vote for Trump, I think it would be easily offset and overcome by those young voters you malign so often.
 
RJ, you always say that millennials and young voters don’t vote enough, right? This would be an incredibly popular policy proposal for that demographic, popular enough that it could possibly attract a large amount of first time voters. I don’t know exactly why you’re so sure that free college or loan forgiveness is such a slam dunk for the GOP, but even if it were a motivating factor for people to vote for Trump, I think it would be easily offset and overcome by those young voters you malign so often.

I said cancellation of debt would be a GOP wet dream not "free college". They are two different issues.

It would motivate some millennials, but it would also invigorate tons of of Joe Six Pack voters and drive a lot more resentment for the "elites".

What do the people who don't have college debt get? If it's only a bonanza for college grads and the middle finger to the other 75% of the public, it's a loser.

No one has answered what will happen to the new kids in college who have to borrow money for non-tuition expenses at public schools or for all expenses at private schools? Why won't anyone answer this?
 
And one last Tulsi point: if she simply disavows Assad and comes out as against him just once instead of continuing to equivocate and ignore the question, this could easily have been avoided. She literally has not answered the point blank question if she views him as a murderer or answered why (or how) she went to visit him on her own accord.

You’re right that it shouldn’t be that big an issue. It only is because she hasn’t done what any politician would do. This begs the question of why.

Because she has principles against American interventionism and war.
 
So she refuses to condemn a dictator who is responsible for tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of deaths?

Explain how that makes sense.
 
So she refuses to condemn a dictator who is responsible for tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of deaths?

Explain how that makes sense.

She has point blank said she believes Assad has done what he has been accused of.

It makes sense if she wants to make changes via diplomacy and not military interventionism. Which is exactly why the establishment can't stand her.
 
She has said “if” there is evidence he has committed war crimes then he should be prosecuted. She visited Aleppo with Assad - a location which he directly attacked with chemical weapons - and then took two years to admit that he was responsible for the attacks. However despite all this, she still maintains “if” he committed war crimes then he should be prosecuted while also ignoring evidence from international agencies as well as our own intelligence that he has in fact committed such crimes.

At best she’s intellectually dishonest and at worst she’s intentionally turning an eye to his crimes for some unknown reason. Nobody is asking her to personally prosecute Assad or for America to lead such an effort - she simply won’t even condemn his actions.
 
She has point blank said she believes Assad has done what he has been accused of.

It makes sense if she wants to make changes via diplomacy and not military interventionism. Which is exactly why the establishment can't stand her.

Yes. She says she thinks he did it (again after two years of equivocation in spite of direct evidence to the contract) but then won’t follow through and say that he’s a murderer or that the consequences she herself offered up for such actions should follow. She’s a coward on this front.
 
Catamount is not a huge fan of condemnation in general
 
She may not have direct ties to Russia but it’s obvious they support her largely in part to her repeated Assad defense. She has a weird cult following from some Donald supporters as well (on both the Donald and on twitter).

I don’t know what her end game is beyond trying to come across as “fair and balanced” on diplomacy issues since her whole spiel is that she will negotiate with everyone. But that doesn’t mean that you can just ignore human rights’ abuses that clearly occurred.

And with that I’ve given way more substance or thought to Tulsi’s candidacy than she ever deserves. That Donald supporters like her the most of the democrats running is indication enough that we should nope the fuck away from her as a party.

 
Back
Top