Octopus Overlords

pr0ner wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:55 pm How will Wall Street pay for that?

Jeez. All you need is 1600 Wall Street billionaires and confiscate a billion dollars each. Easy peasy.

Are we talking about the Potato?

malchior wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:21 pm

pr0ner wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:55 pm How will Wall Street pay for that?

Jeez. All you need is 1600 Wall Street billionaires and confiscate a billion dollars each. Easy peasy.

Side note, as I just watched Molly's Game. Institute a rake. A fractional payment for every transaction - it would also reduce risk of Algorithmically generated market crashes.

The rake is interesting for several reasons but it likely ain't raising billions let alone trillions.

Pyperkub wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:28 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:21 pm

pr0ner wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:55 pm How will Wall Street pay for that?

Jeez. All you need is 1600 Wall Street billionaires and confiscate a billion dollars each. Easy peasy.

Side note, as I just watched Molly's Game. Institute a rake. A fractional payment for every transaction - it would also reduce risk of Algorithmically generated market crashes.

I skimmed part of the video and I think that's what Sanders suggests as the way to pay for it.

pr0ner wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:49 pm

Pyperkub wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:28 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:21 pm

pr0ner wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:55 pm How will Wall Street pay for that?

Jeez. All you need is 1600 Wall Street billionaires and confiscate a billion dollars each. Easy peasy.

Side note, as I just watched Molly's Game. Institute a rake. A fractional payment for every transaction - it would also reduce risk of Algorithmically generated market crashes.

I skimmed part of the video and I think that's what Sanders suggests as the way to pay for it.

My favorite part is paying for the loans of lawyers, doctors, and the private school for those 1%ers.

Holman wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:39 pm https://twitter.com/melaka_redux/status ... 8729508864

Option 2!

Debts are assets. The banks whom former students are indebted to simply lose these assets. No one needs to "pay" anyone anything.

Certainly, this is a hit to the banks (who lose a portion of their long-term income) but there aren't huge amounts of short-term capital that needs to change hands for this reform to work.

Every time the subject of free college or forgiveness of student debts comes up, I am reminded of this exchange I had with my mom shortly before the 2016 election. I told her I was voting for Hillary and she was PISSED.

Mom: "I can't believe you are going to vote for her. SHE LIES!"

Me: "About what?"

Mom: "She said she was going to make college free!!!!!"

Me: "What's wrong with that?"

Mom: "FOR MEXICANS!!!!"

I swear I wish I was making that up.

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:16 am Debts are assets. The banks whom former students are indebted to simply lose these assets. No one needs to "pay" anyone anything.

Certainly, this is a hit to the banks (who lose a portion of their long-term income) but there aren't huge amounts of short-term capital that needs to change hands for this reform to work.

Who do you think owns bank stock? CALPERS (Califorina Teacher's Pension) is the largest holder of public stock in America. 53% of Americans are invested in some form or fashion.

Also, a sudden higher loss ratio is what caused the last recession, so, yes, someone needs to pay.

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:16 am Debts are assets. The banks whom former students are indebted to simply lose these assets. No one needs to "pay" anyone anything.

Certainly, this is a hit to the banks (who lose a portion of their long-term income) but there aren't huge amounts of short-term capital that needs to change hands for this reform to work.

If you make $1.6 TRILLION of debt go away without somehow paying for it, the impacts the the US economy will be much bigger than that sum. It's a nonstarter.

You can’t eliminate bank assets without disastrous economic consequences.

The only way Americans are going to get on board with free college education is that it’s paid for by public service. Or requiring colleges to give more scholarships from existing endowments based on need/test scores.

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:16 am Debts are assets. The banks whom former students are indebted to simply lose these assets. No one needs to "pay" anyone anything.

Most student loans are guaranteed by the government. If the borrower defaults, the federal government is obligated to make the lender whole.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:39 am The only way Americans are going to get on board with free college education is that it’s paid for by public service.

I don't believe I can begin to comprehend most Americans anymore but to date the only path to universally "free" college that has made any sense to me is through public service. So if that's most Americans, you can lump me in. I'll come to the table for other ideas but this one makes sense without your having to convince me, especially as infrastructure crumbles and we collectively pay lip service to its rebuild. Of course, that's socialism (unless it's military service, I guess, then it's somehow patriotism), so even if you have me, I'm betting it's a long hard fought uphill battle.

pr0ner wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:16 am

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:16 am Debts are assets. The banks whom former students are indebted to simply lose these assets. No one needs to "pay" anyone anything.

Certainly, this is a hit to the banks (who lose a portion of their long-term income) but there aren't huge amounts of short-term capital that needs to change hands for this reform to work.

If you make $1.6 TRILLION of debt go away without somehow paying for it, the impacts the the US economy will be much bigger than that sum. It's a nonstarter.

Also unless you create a whole new higher education financing system at the same time (good luck with that) it would make it exponentially harder for new college students to get loans at reasonable rates, because that category of loans would suddenly become vastly riskier for banks.

It seems like the best system would be to create fund to pay off loans / help people with loans with an income / wealth cap on eligible recipients. Also create financing / higher education reforms to help address this issue going forward. Oh, and fund state schools so that the affordable options are actually affordable.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:39 am The only way Americans are going to get on board with free college education is that it’s paid for by public service. Or requiring colleges to give more scholarships from existing endowments based on need/test scores.

I'm not sure I believe that. Most folks would be fine with some reasonable college. Community College + State School. There's no way I'm on board for sending people to a 4 year university right of high school or any form of private school for "free".

+1. I just don't see it happening without a breakdown at some point. I'm all for assistance, establishing public service requisites, etc.. But money for nothing at that scale is usually a bad way to go.

hepcat wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:35 am +1. I just don't see it happening without a breakdown at some point. I'm all for assistance, establishing public service requisites, etc.. But money for nothing at that scale is usually a bad way to go.

That ain't workin', that's the way you do it. You play the Geetar on the empty V.

hepcat wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:35 am +1. I just don't see it happening without a breakdown at some point. I'm all for assistance, establishing public service requisites, etc.. But money for nothing at that scale is usually a bad way to go.

There's a strong argument to made that the escalating cost of school is a result of all the "free" money being waved around.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:47 am

hepcat wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:35 am +1. I just don't see it happening without a breakdown at some point. I'm all for assistance, establishing public service requisites, etc.. But money for nothing at that scale is usually a bad way to go.

There's a strong argument to made that the escalating cost of school is a result of all the "free" money being waved around.

I think there a strong argument that "free" money is a contributing factor but I think it's a bit more complicated than that. In my estimation there are two heavier contributing factors. 1) School is becoming increasingly dependent on support infrastructure and that support infrastructure is changing rapidly. R&D know it. That is way so many companies locate next to major colleges and form "strategic partnerships" 2) Schools have made themselves part of a competitive market. There is a feedback loop of filling post secondary education with amenities to attract money to provide amenities to attract money to. My relatively minor university was on a serious spending spree building a golf course for it's elite business alma mater and students and new fields that I'd never see with my tuition money back in the late 80s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Cre ... _Michigan)

Which apparently they are now selling the attached conference center built by tuition...

https://today.emich.edu/story/news/11059

the original intent of the center is no longer consistent with the University’s business model for non-credit instruction.

My school built a lazy river. At least they finally built a business school that had hot water in the bathrooms as well.

"Free" (as in very low cost, basically no expense for tuition) college at public universities and community colleges is not some wild fantasy of the far left. It exists in many European nations, and existed here in the United States until the 1980s, when everything in America went bad. Restoring public funding to levels that would reduce the cost burden on future students to those borne by the Baby Boomers would be expensive, but it would also be a better use of that money than tax cuts for the rich or pointless wars in the middle east. Restoring public funding of public universities would also cut the administrative costs of the schools, as much of the non-instructional payroll growth in universities since 1980s has been in departments that manage the processing of student loans and fundraising to backfill budget deficits. It would also let public universities compete on cost and not on amenities. Let private universities try to lure students with finely-appointed dorms. Tuition-free public universities would also put market pressure on private universities to lower costs.

Returning the effective out-of-pocket cost of American public universities to the level it was at for the Boomers would be one of the best public policy decisions we could make as a nation.

As for student loan forgiveness, Warren's plan, as usual, is much stronger than Sanders' latest scheme. She caps the amount to be forgiven at $50,000, enough to cover most young adults struggling with debt from an undergraduate degree at a public university, but not wiping out the debts of those who went to extremely expensive private schools or who have a lot of graduate school debt.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:47 am

hepcat wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:35 am +1. I just don't see it happening without a breakdown at some point. I'm all for assistance, establishing public service requisites, etc.. But money for nothing at that scale is usually a bad way to go.

There's a strong argument to made that the escalating cost of school is a result of all the "free" money being waved around.

It's not strong at all:

LordMortis wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:37 am

Zarathud wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:39 am The only way Americans are going to get on board with free college education is that it’s paid for by public service.

I don't believe I can begin to comprehend most Americans anymore but to date the only path to universally "free" college that has made any sense to me is through public service. So if that's most Americans, you can lump me in. I'll come to the table for other ideas but this one makes sense without your having to convince me, especially as infrastructure crumbles and we collectively pay lip service to its rebuild. Of course, that's socialism (unless it's military service, I guess, then it's somehow patriotism), so even if you have me, I'm betting it's a long hard fought uphill battle.

Actually, for Higher Education the State return on money spent in future tax revenue far outweighs the initial costs (previous estimates have put the multiplier at 3x as I recall). Here's North Dakota:

To put a number to all that, a 2013 analysis suggested that the total economic impact of our state higher education system and its students was $4.8 billion dollars a year—and growing. It is clear that higher education is providing a substantial and critical return on the public’s investment in it, while providing the economic foundation for a new future.

Indiana also has a comprehensive look at Higher Ed ROI in the State

Consumer Spending and Taxes
BOTTOM LINE:
Higher education is key to economic development. Over the course of a lifetime, a
class of Indiana public college graduates contributes
at least $13 billion
in additional spending and tax
revenue to the economy compared to Hoosiers with only a high school diploma..

...BOTTOM LINE:
Hoosiers with higher levels of educational attainment have significantly higher levels
of job security. Indiana residents with
no college
filed
two-thirds of all unemployment
claims over the
past ten years
1
. .

Pyperkub wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:26 pmIt's not strong at all:

Those are federal/state expenditures, not private loans backed by federal guarantees.

Forbes:

Several recent studies have found evidence that other federal student aid programs drive of tuition increases. A 2015 study found that a dollar of subsidized (non-PLUS) student loans increases published tuition by 58 cents at a typical college, with larger effects once reductions in institutional financial aid are taken into account. An NBER paper issued last year concluded that changes to federal student loans are more than sufficient to explain tuition increases at private nonprofit colleges. And a 2014 analysis found that for-profit colleges eligible for federal student aid charged tuition 78% higher than that of similar but aid-ineligible institutions.

Reason for Hope in the Senate?

Of the 22 seats Senate Republicans have to defend in 2020, only two -- Colorado and Maine -- voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Which means that if Republicans win only the seats they hold in the states President Donald Trump carried in the last presidential race, they hold their Senate majority. (Democrats need to net three Senate seats if they win the White House and four if they don't in order to retake control of the chamber following 2020.)That prospect seems entirely doable -- especially when you consider that one of the 12 seats Democrats have to defend next November is in Alabama, where Trump won by 27 points in 2016.

Right? Hello?
Meet Kris Kobach and Roy Moore.

Both men are running for the Senate as Republicans -- Kobach in Kansas, a candidacy he made official on Monday, and Moore in Alabama. And both men, if they wind up as the Republican nominees in their respective states, have a very real chance of losing a general election to a Democrats -- despite the heavily Republican nature of both states.

Texas starting from the bottom up:

In a move that could dismantle financial barriers to college for low-income students, University of Texas in-state students with household incomes of less than $65,000 a year will be given full scholarships beginning in fall 2020.

A $160 million endowment created Tuesday after a UT System Board of Regents vote means that an estimated 21 percent of new and enrolled undergraduate students will now automatically be given free rides at the state’s flagship public university. If it was applied now, 8,600 in-state students would qualify for free tuition.

Further, the endowment will provide tuition assistance to any in-state student with a family income of $125,000 or less — an estimated 5,700 additional students.

State law mandates that 90% of UT’s student body come from Texas.

“And now we can bring in more international students! “

Does full ride cover housing and food?

If I was a college age kid from Texas I could get in 6 times over or more.

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:43 pm Does full ride cover housing and food?

No. Also not textbooks and various fees. It's usually just tuition.

Then it’s helpful, but it’s no golden ticket.

LordMortis wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:37 am

Zarathud wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:39 am The only way Americans are going to get on board with free college education is that it’s paid for by public service.

I don't believe I can begin to comprehend most Americans anymore but to date the only path to universally "free" college that has made any sense to me is through public service. So if that's most Americans, you can lump me in. I'll come to the table for other ideas but this one makes sense without your having to convince me, especially as infrastructure crumbles and we collectively pay lip service to its rebuild. Of course, that's socialism (unless it's military service, I guess, then it's somehow patriotism), so even if you have me, I'm betting it's a long hard fought uphill battle.

I've never understood this. Why? We're fine with public financing of the first 18 years of school, but the last 4 are a bridge too far? Is it that crazy to think that the schooling needs for children have expanded in the last 200 years since we agreed on K12? As I've mentioned before, my schooling through the University of California system was virtually free - I think I paid $300 a semester for classes. I didn't see any negative impacts from that, but I did have other students in my classes that probably would never have been able to go to college if they were paying tens of thousands of dollars a year in tuition.

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:18 pm Then it’s helpful, but it’s no golden ticket.

Nor should it be. People gotta have SOME skin in the game.

Not everyone is fine with public education up to age 18. And there is already resentment of college education by those with no skills and no future.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:47 pm Not everyone is fine with public education up to age 18. And there is already resentment of college education by those with no skills and no future.

It's not that. It's that college success rates are poor.

There's a lot of ways increased funding could help those outcomes, but just making it free to the student is unlikely to be the most efficient.

The Brookings Institute takes a look at free college in England...and why it ultimately was ended.

Rather than looking to emulate the English model of the 1990s, the U.S. might instead consider emulating some key features of the modern English system that have helped moderate the impact of rising tuition, such as deferring all tuition fees until after graduation, increasing liquidity available to students to cover living expenses, and automatically enrolling all graduates in an income-contingent loan repayment system that minimizes both paperwork hassle and the risk of default.

Fireball wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:44 pm Restoring public funding to levels that would reduce the cost burden on future students to those borne by the Baby Boomers would be expensive, but it would also be a better use of that money than tax cuts for the rich or pointless wars in the middle east.

Better for whom? Certainly not for those who benefitted from the tax cuts to the tune of millions or those who get rich off of foreign wars. Better for the rest of us maybe but the rest of us don't call the shots. A money grab for the 1% always wins.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:34 am

Fireball wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:44 pm Restoring public funding to levels that would reduce the cost burden on future students to those borne by the Baby Boomers would be expensive, but it would also be a better use of that money than tax cuts for the rich or pointless wars in the middle east.

Better for whom? Certainly not for those who benefitted from the tax cuts to the tune of millions or those who get rich off of foreign wars. Better for the rest of us maybe but the rest of us don't call the shots. A money grab for the 1% always wins.

If I get the choice between higher no strings subsidies for higher education, the of tax cuts of 2018, and any war in the Middle East beyond that which is fulfillment of our commitment to the Kurds (which is predicated on Middle East war that I also would reject) it's a no brainer. I don't recall that ever being the choice. I don't ever recall any Congress or president since Bush the Elder and the first "Gulf War" presenting an option. That said, it doesn't put my in the cheering section for higher no strings subsidies for higher education. It say more about my nearly 40 years of becoming more jaded opinion on our bipartisan wars of imperialism and my opinion on the self serving malefactors of the GOP and their support network at every level.

Fucking Democrats

https://twitter.com/JonEasley/status/11 ... 74208?s=19

Democrats do like to eat their own sometimes, but Lacy Clay is a black man, so if he wants to rip POC for using the race card, I would say he's earned that right.