Election 2020

[GwynnInTheHall]

Is it really that easy to get approved for bankruptcy? I had a friend who tried and got rejected, so I figured it wasn't as easy as getting medical weed in Cali. I guess if you are a recent college grad you could sandbag and not get a job for as long as it took to file and get approved. IDK, it wouldn't have crossed my mind. My take was a took the loans, I should pay them back. I imagine at least some folks would feel the same, at least if that education actually translated to good jobs. I guess it would enable a bunch of humanities majors to do it. They wouldn't have much to lose. Not sure if folks who got practical degrees leading to 6 figure jobs would.

Which is where I sit. I have 2 degrees, a BA in voice (yes I sing) and an MFA in Arts admin. I have spent most my life performing on stage, directing or as an executive admin for theatre and I've never made more than 40K a year. I usually made around 20-25K. During college I accrued 40K in Loans, I also had several scholarships, but that didn't pay the fare because like an athlete, performers on scholarship were required to spend most off class hours in rehearsal (practice) or performance. so there was no time for an off campus job.

Sure I could have chosen to stay in the military after my duty, but It wasn't what I wanted to do, nor what I was best at doing. Nor did my after college jobs allow me to pay off my loans. I now owe 100K on my 40K loan even though I have tried to pay it down. I will never catch up, even though I now make almost 45K a year --(Whee!)

Sure it was my choice to pursue what I loved, but should that consign me to a lifetime of debt and bad credit?--(It Has)

This is why I follow and support Bernie--I am as smart, hardworking and diligent as anyone--yet because I don't follow the "Reasonable Choice path or Life--I have ended up here.

But that's absolutely OK. I can live with bad credit and debt, I have found a way to have what I need and be happy (amazingly so) living life on 40K or less a year. I'm not looking for sympathy because I'm doing excellent. I'm just illustrating that not everyone walks the same road and we shouldn't diminish anyone's choices without fully understanding how and why they were made.

My fingers are crossed that there will be loan forgiveness and I can start rebuilding my credit so on 10 years I can buy a house (never owned one) But if not, I'm cool with working until I drop.

I know there are a few others who post here with similar stories, some who've fared better--some who might be worse off.

The bottom line is this, we either are all in this together or we are in it for ourselves and only those we decide to care about. This is most of the issues facing us today in an easy to digest sound bite.

It's a personal choice, one I have made and one I hope I can understand in other should it be different from mine and no matter how much that difference might vex me.

Have a nice evening SM--

[Teenwolf]

I'm worried about Andrew Yang. His UBI plan is a right wing trick to implement austerity and kill all welfare programs. The craziest part is that it's so regressive, people with long term illnesses, disabilities, etc, are forced to choose between their welfare benefits or "Yang Bucks", while healthy people just collect and spend. He explained it all recently in an interview with Dave Rubin.

Rubin: "I think the best libertarian argument that I've heard for UBI is basically, if you wanna do UBI they've got the right idea. Blow apart the social safety net as is, cuz we know that it's just a boondoggle of mismanagement nonsense with all of the whacked out-"

Yang: "-incentives"

Rubin: "-why not just take all of that money, which, do we even know how much is put into these things?

Yang: "Of course, $600 Bn, give or take."

Rubin: "Why not take the $600 Bn that are on programs that we know are creating many problems, probably, as they're fixing, if not more, and then do it that way. Because it almost seems like a bit of a stop-gap, like you still have to get to that eventually."

Yang: "that's the beauty of the freedom dividend proposal, is that you have the $600 Bn or so, and you're saying 'hey, guess what? It's now a new right of citizenship and everyone gets it.' What's gonna happen is, you're gonna dramatically reduce the enrollment in these programs very very quickly because a lot of people will be like 'I prefer the cash.' Then this new incoming population would just opt for the dividend and never end up on these welfare programs. So you'd end up shrinking the enrollments over time in the way you describe. You just wouldn't do it all at once because, y'know, there are a lot of people in very distinct situations, and this is actually much more politically feasible and popular than trying to tear these programs up from the roots up."

He's a Libertarian trojan horse posing as a progressive. More terrible than any other candidate, even Biden. I hope he gets taken apart in the debates, but I'm doubtful. The large field will provide cover for a while.

[B-Fly]

I'm worried about Andrew Yang.

Worried how? He's not going to win, so are you worried he'll get enough anti-establishment people interested to pull from other anti-establishment options, thereby boosting the establishment options? Or are you worried he'll convince the party to adopt significant parts of his plan at the convention?

[Teenwolf]

Worried how? He's not going to win, so are you worried he'll get enough anti-establishment people interested to pull from other anti-establishment options, thereby boosting the establishment options? Or are you worried he'll convince the party to adopt significant parts of his plan at the convention?

Worried that his phony progressivism splinters away enough progressives from Warren/Sanders to hurt either one in the primary. Worried that his UBI plan will be glossed over, not thoroughly examined by a lazy and disinterested media. Not so much worried the party would adopt it.

He was on Colbert last night doing the same shtick.

[Sour Masher]

Which is where I sit. I have 2 degrees, a BA in voice (yes I sing) and an MFA in Arts admin. I have spent most my life performing on stage, directing or as an executive admin for theatre and I've never made more than 40K a year. I usually made around 20-25K. During college I accrued 40K in Loans, I also had several scholarships, but that didn't pay the fare because like an athlete, performers on scholarship were required to spend most off class hours in rehearsal (practice) or performance. so there was no time for an off campus job.

Sure I could have chosen to stay in the military after my duty, but It wasn't what I wanted to do, nor what I was best at doing. Nor did my after college jobs allow me to pay off my loans. I now owe 100K on my 40K loan even though I have tried to pay it down. I will never catch up, even though I now make almost 45K a year --(Whee!)

Sure it was my choice to pursue what I loved, but should that consign me to a lifetime of debt and bad credit?--(It Has)

This is why I follow and support Bernie--I am as smart, hardworking and diligent as anyone--yet because I don't follow the "Reasonable Choice path or Life--I have ended up here.

But that's absolutely OK. I can live with bad credit and debt, I have found a way to have what I need and be happy (amazingly so) living life on 40K or less a year. I'm not looking for sympathy because I'm doing excellent. I'm just illustrating that not everyone walks the same road and we shouldn't diminish anyone's choices without fully understanding how and why they were made.

My fingers are crossed that there will be loan forgiveness and I can start rebuilding my credit so on 10 years I can buy a house (never owned one) But if not, I'm cool with working until I drop.

I know there are a few others who post here with similar stories, some who've fared better--some who might be worse off.

The bottom line is this, we either are all in this together or we are in it for ourselves and only those we decide to care about. This is most of the issues facing us today in an easy to digest sound bite.

It's a personal choice, one I have made and one I hope I can understand in other should it be different from mine and no matter how much that difference might vex me.

Have a nice evening SM--

The point I was trying to make was, would everyone file for bankruptcy that had student loans? When you first proposed the idea, the reason I liked it is that I assumed those who felt they needed to do that would, but some, especially the ones with the highest income (who often also have the highest debts--some med students go well over 200k into debt) would not. IF the situation is that folks in your spot do but the folks making more and have more to lose won't, your solution is a less costly one that just wiping out everyone's debt. You and Revo have started to make me think I may be wrong about that, but I still think the total cost of allowing for bankruptcy as an option for student loans would be a good bit less than just paying off everyone's loans. Since I only took out 10k in loans getting my English Degreess, I certainly would have still paid them off over bankruptcy. At 40k, the math is certainly different.

Certainly, if this is were the new norm, I do see both your points long term--if everyone knows going in that they could file for bankrupscy once they graduate, I imagine most would do what my wife did and take out way more loans. I knew I had to pay them back, so I chose to work multiple jobs and live very meagerly. I lost 30 lbs my freshmen, dropping to 130lbs cuz I only ate one meal a day that I made myself in the one $2 tin pot I bought, no meal plan. I had no car for my first three years in college. It was not fun. I would have taken out way more loans if I knew I could get them wiped away. So I've come around to agreeing with you both on that for the long term. With current loans though, no one who has those debts knew they'd be able to get rid of them. So I'd bet a lot of folks aren't so in debt that they bankruptcy is the obvious answer for them now. So the initial hit from existing loan holders would be less, I think.

But I could be wrong.

[Sour Masher]

Worried that his phony progressivism splinters away enough progressives from Warren/Sanders to hurt either one in the primary. Worried that his UBI plan will be glossed over, not thoroughly examined by a lazy and disinterested media. Not so much worried the party would adopt it.

He was on Colbert last night doing the same shtick.

Yeah, I'm perplexed when I see people fall for Yang's shtick. I am heartened by the fact that I doubt he gains enough traction to matter.

[DMT]

Yeah, I'm perplexed when I see people fall for Yang's shtick. I am heartened by the fact that I doubt he gains enough traction to matter.

I have a friend who was raving about him a couple months ago, hopefully not next time I see him.

[Sour Masher]

Anyone watch the debate tonight? Thoughts? A lot of passion on the stage tonight. I expected it from the ones who were do or die tonight. Was surprised to also see it from Warren. I thought she did well. No one rose up to challenge her as top dog in this group tonight, although at least Klobuchar laid out some specifics that helped her stand out from others some. I was surprised Warren didn't get more direct challenges. She came out relatively unscathed.

On a more superficial note, it was amusing/interesting to see Gabbard put that grey hair highlight front and center as a tactic to combat concerns about her youth. She also leaned on her military experience pretty hard, which I think was wise as it helps her stand out in that regard.

Strategically as whole, I was glad to see folks focus more on their ideas than just focusing on being anti-Trump.

[revo]

I thought Warren, Booker, Gabbard, Castro & Klobuchar did well. Ryan came off as a Democratic version of Trump. Beto rubbed me the wrong way with his Spanish, thought it was kitchy, but he may live to fight another day. The rest should be shaved off.

[Teenwolf]

Anyone watch the debate tonight? Thoughts? A lot of passion on the stage tonight. I expected it from the ones who were do or die tonight. Was surprised to also see it from Warren. I thought she did well.

On a more superficial note, it was amusing/interesting to see Gabbard put that grey hair highlight front and center as a tactic to combat concerns about her youth.

Tulsi's grey streak is combat/PTSD related, and she keeps it as a reminder of the suffering caused by warfare. I loved Tulsi crushing Tim Ryan on Afghanistan.

De Blasio was mostly strong. Warren was quite strong, and she seems to have hardened her healthcare position in support of Medicare for All. It would be nice to see her continue on this path.

Everybody is pushing left. Only Delaney and Klobuchar were "brave enough" to set lower expectations. Interesting that even Cory Booker is pushing into the progressive lane. Looks like he's auditioning for VP to Bernie/Warren.

Beto had a brutal night and he looks like toast. Looked like he was gonna puke the whole night. Klobuchar and Delaney looked hopeless. Inslee wasn't focused enough or inspiring enough.

[revo]

I agree that Booker would make a good VP candidate.

[frae]

Warren was good, Castro was someone I had not seen much of him before who at least made an impression, and Booker seemed solid.

Beto was not good and I think he is in trouble.

Ryan and DeBlassio can go now as far as I'm concerned.

Inslee can stay only because he will keep the climate crisis as a major issue. I'd like to see more of Tulsi just to keep her POV in the debates. I thought Delaney was pretty good with his time but I just don't see him getting real traction.

So we had 10 tonight, I still think Warren is the only one out there tonight with a real shot at the top spot on the ticket, but Castro and Booker could position themselves for VP slots. 10 is way too many even if we are going to have split debates the next time I'd like to see it down to two debates of no more than 7 each.

Edit - klobuchar was fine for me. She didn’t stand out brightly but unlike Beto she wasn’t bad. She needs to do more for a big bounce. I’m not sure I want to waste VP on her MN isn’t always deep blue and she may have more value in the senate. Time will tell I guess

[B-Fly]

I largely agree with frae. Warren held or even strengthened her hand as one of the top contenders.

Castro probably earned an extended seat at the table, likely at Beto's expense. And while he won't win the nomination, he may earn his way onto the ticket.

Booker did all the things he should have done to stay relevant - he made his best case to be the choice of black and brown primary voters. If it works, he's a critical power player in this race, but he may also be hurt by a Castro bump. If Booker's needle doesn't move there, he's toast despite doing about everything he needed to do last night.

DeBlasio also did exactly what he needed to do last night to show that no one - not even Warren or Sanders - will ultimately be able to outflank him on the left. But he just doesn't have enough support to be relevant. His aggressiveness helped wake up the debate, though.

Gabbard - I don't know - I think the moderators cut her off at the knees when after ignoring her for a long stretch they finally called her by name, but it was to defend her anti-LGBTQ+ youth. If you know things about her already, you would know she's one of the strongest candidates against military intervention, but I wonder if for those who didn't know about her, the time she spent touting her service record might have reduced the impact of her strong anti-war/anti-intervention credentials for voters who want that.

Klobuchar is interesting. I think she was highly competent up there, but she had two strategic options in this field: (1) try to prove she's progressive, or (2) make the case for a careful, competent, responsible, moderate approach. I think she needed to go with (2), but other than making an "electability" argument in closing, she deferred on any and all moderator prompts and opportunities to say that the Warren policies or the Sanders policies cost too much or can't make it through Congress, so her approach is what's needed to actually get legislation done. Instead, she dodged opportunities to distinguish herself from them on policy, instead embracing the progressive end goal - with maybe her student debt/community college plan as a notable exception. Absent a Joe Biden crash and burn, I just don't see a path for her.

(Delaney was the only one who affirmatively sought out the Democratic moderate/bi-partisan lane, but I didn't think he was likeable enough to gain traction.)

O'Rourke - I dunno. I thought he had the worst night in terms of being a guy who had the second-best poll numbers of the ten on stage going in, looking too rehearsed, losing a few testy exchanges, and not really making a case for himself. I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall behind Booker, Klobuchar and Castro by the time next week's polls come out.

[Steve 2.0]

I largely agree with frae. Warren held or even strengthened her hand as one of the top contenders.

Castro probably earned an extended seat at the table, likely at Beto's expense. And while he won't win the nomination, he may earn his way onto the ticket.

Booker did all the things he should have done to stay relevant - he made his best case to be the choice of black and brown primary voters. If it works, he's a critical power player in this race, but he may also be hurt by a Castro bump. If Booker's needle doesn't move there, he's toast despite doing about everything he needed to do last night.

DeBlasio also did exactly what he needed to do last night to show that no one - not even Warren or Sanders - will ultimately be able to outflank him on the left. But he just doesn't have enough support to be relevant. His aggressiveness helped wake up the debate, though.

Gabbard - I don't know - I think the moderators cut her off at the knees when after ignoring her for a long stretch they finally called her by name, but it was to defend her anti-LGBTQ+ youth. If you know things about her already, you would know she's one of the strongest candidates against military intervention, but I wonder if for those who didn't know about her, the time she spent touting her service record might have reduced the impact of her strong anti-war/anti-intervention credentials for voters who want that.

Klobuchar is interesting. I think she was highly competent up there, but she had two strategic options in this field: (1) try to prove she's progressive, or (2) make the case for a careful, competent, responsible, moderate approach. I think she needed to go with (2), but other than making an "electability" argument in closing, she deferred on any and all moderator prompts and opportunities to say that the Warren policies or the Sanders policies cost too much or can't make it through Congress, so her approach is what's needed to actually get legislation done. Instead, she dodged opportunities to distinguish herself from them on policy, instead embracing the progressive end goal - with maybe her student debt/community college plan as a notable exception. Absent a Joe Biden crash and burn, I just don't see a path for her.

(Delaney was the only one who affirmatively sought out the Democratic moderate/bi-partisan lane, but I didn't think he was likeable enough to gain traction.)

O'Rourke - I dunno. I thought he had the worst night in terms of being a guy who had the second-best poll numbers of the ten on stage going in, looking too rehearsed, losing a few testy exchanges, and not really making a case for himself. I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall behind Booker, Klobuchar and Castro by the time next week's polls come out.

I'm voting for B-Fly.

[Steve 2.0]

Warren was good, Castro was someone I had not seen much of him before who at least made an impression, and Booker seemed solid.

Beto was not good and I think he is in trouble.

Ryan and DeBlassio can go now as far as I'm concerned.

Inslee can stay only because he will keep the climate crisis as a major issue. I'd like to see more of Tulsi just to keep her POV in the debates. I thought Delaney was pretty good with his time but I just don't see him getting real traction.

So we had 10 tonight, I still think Warren is the only one out there tonight with a real shot at the top spot on the ticket, but Castro and Booker could position themselves for VP slots. 10 is way too many even if we are going to have split debates the next time I'd like to see it down to two debates of no more than 7 each.

Edit - klobuchar was fine for me. She didn’t stand out brightly but unlike Beto she wasn’t bad. She needs to do more for a big bounce. I’m not sure I want to waste VP on her MN isn’t always deep blue and she may have more value in the senate. Time will tell I guess

I'm voting for frae.