DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus How Progressives Can Win the Election

this says all we need to know.

mememememe

Let's extrapolate that out just a bit, shall we?


Matthew 7:16-20 King James Version (KJV)

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

President getting it done!

That was a long article, so I won't quote the entire thing. However, I think those polls were revealing and it's pretty much what I have been trying to say.

I think a lot of folks want to get Trump the hell out of there, but there are some things on the Democratic platform that make them cringe.

Almost every single one are economically related. The working class is sick of paying for everyone else. I think it would behoove the wise Democratic candidate to compromise a bit. Push for some things and back off on others. You can't change things if you do not get elected.

On the other hand, Trump's issues are about character. He isn't going to fix them. It's impossible because he is a truly bad person. Some can identify w/him, but there are not enough of those type of people to win an election. The reason he won last time and might this time is due to economic policies.

Here's the thing, y'all.

Call me a name because of something I believe in or belong to and I will probably get upset and talk back to you.

Try to steal my wallet and I will literally crush your fingers to the point that you won't be able to use them again.

The Dems need to consider that basic line of thinking. Most folks aren't all philosophical and uppity. It's about living from paycheck to paycheck and making a better life for your loved ones. Never lose site of man's primal instincts.

I get that, Swish. I was just speaking for myself. I could care less about crap like that. I want to make money and live in peace. It's not like I'm hangin' w/these folks.

I remember loving Bill Clinton. It's when I made the most money in my life. I was going back to school for yet another degree and took a sales job at the same time. My days were long as hell, bro. I didn't even sleep much. The sales job was great because the economy was escalating. We went up to the Detroit area because this hospital gave my wife a incredible offer to work there. Huge salary, stock, all moving expenses paid, signing bonus, the whole nine yards. I was doing medical sales and they hooked me up. Cha-ching!

The point is that people were freaking out about the cigar and Monica and I was like......"Bro, who cares? We're killing it w/this guy leading the country."

I think Warren is smart. I think she might be smart enough to figure out who to serenade while still getting things done for the left.

Then again, I could be way off. LOL.

I'm just hoping she is the one because she seems to make the most sense to me. The Native American thing means ZERO to me, but I agree w/you that folks will use it against her. She and her advisors need to plan to counter those attacks. The best way to do that is by addressing the voting majorities wallets.

I don't think you're off at all. Both sides seem to be slightly short sighted. There's not enough people that actually identify with Trump to win an election on their own. There's not enough people on the far left that endorse all these progressive policies to win on their own.

People don't seem to understand the old adage that, "you must crawl before you walk". Healthcare is a winning issue if they offer to make it elective and not mandated. People do not wish to give up their employer based healthcare. Overhauling college tuition to make a college education much more affordable for everyone is a winning issue if their answer isn't, "We'll just make it free for everyone and make taxpayers foot the entire bill".

Eventually employers will stop providing healthcare because it's a huge cost to them when their employees have an option at comprehensive healthcare at a reasonable cost.

You can provide two years of free Community College to everyone, make rates for college tuition the same as the prime rate, and mandate that public colleges change their tuition structure. I'm sure there are other ways of cutting those costs but that's a good start.

If you think you've taken heat for such a common sense approach you haven't been following along closely.



Not that I really give a damn.

There's a difference between trying to make positive changes and going bat crap crazy. This is the best opportunity I've ever seen for the Democrats to take over power in possibly the senate, the house of congress and The White House.

But we are witnessing first hand the results of what happens when the extremist wing of the GOP takes over. Complete chaos. I don't see any less chaos erupting if the extremist wing of the Democrats take over either.

I certainly don't see it as being the same type of chaos. But chaos none the less. It would be short lived if they could even garner enough support for most of America to support their ideas in the first place.

I read that Elizabeth Warren wants to transfer about $640 billion in student loan debt to taxpayers. This disappoints me because I like a lot of what she has to say, but this is not the type of policy that is going to win an election.

Is there a particular reason you feel that student loan debt forgiveness is an unelectable issue? I'm not sure we can solve the student loan crisis without at least two of these items happening:

- collateralize current loans (Warrens plan)
- collectively bargain for tuition rates (Also Warrens plan)

But I freely admit to missing something here. Would love your thoughts.

What does collateralize loans mean? ...

As far as i can tell were paying them off ... how does that equal collateral? ...

Please explain ...

What is it u like that she says? ...

Did you watch Warren's segment of the NEA conference that I posted in the Education thread? If not, I recommend you and others go back & do so. In her brief time on the stage she explains how she can fund these proposals.

student loans have no collateral, because there's nothing to repossess in the event of default. Our solution to this problem has been to have the Federal government guarantee these loans , effectively securitizing them. If a student can't pay, the US government will step in and pay. I should have used the term securitized, not collateralized, my bad.

It's also a big reason why student loan prices are out of control. Universities and private lenders know the US govt won't default, so they issue wild loans to students, confident in repayment. And the US government knows that student default is a problem, so student loans are one of the extremely rare items that can't be disposed of in the event of personal bankruptcy. Last I checked a PELL Grant only needs a debtor to have a GED and maintain a C average. Not quite the same as a credit check. Private loans generally have even fewer requirements because they know the system is designed to make repayment all but guaranteed. It's a profitable system for lenders, who can easily arbitrage the average 5-8% APR into even more profitable investments. It's a significantly safe income stream you can then use to freely invest in riskier assets such as stocks, confident that your downside risk is really just limited to the loan income.

Thanks ...

Your word usage confused me, hence why i asked for clarification ...

Now ... i’m Confused about what u want to do ...

Do u want them federally secured or no? .. what’s Warren plan in that regard? ...

Yea , no worries. Its not a huge difference but there there is definitely a difference

If we want to provide loan relief I think we have no choice but to securitize them. We do that already , and we provide loan relief through selective programs like PSLF. I really can't think of a way to guarantee defaulted loans without securitizing , and securitizing against t-bills is actually the cheapest way to do that. Any private solution would be more expensive on a rate basis. The US govt could simplify the red tape by filtering these securities through private banks and lenders , ala the mortgage industry, limiting the government waste by limiting the customer base.

Frankly my free market solution would be :
- use traditional LTV and Debt:Income ratios like buying a house. Our current obligations are really lax to encourage college admissions.
- force students to co sign for any lending if they don't meet that requirement. Typically this would be the parents or guardian.
- allow garnishment of cosigner wages in addition to that of the student to recoup losses.
- remove the bankruptcy guarantee so banks will be more choosy in lending.

Unfortunately this is a bit of my conservative idealism showing. It does nothing to deal with current underwater payees , nor does it curb the increasing cost of admission. We would just make it so only the wealthy could send their kids to college. So my preferred solution isnt really good at all, imo.

That said, I would love a system like I outlined above for ivy leagues and private schools even with Warren's proposal. I believe we should be mainstreaming college access , not subsidizing upper echelon educations. Heck i would prefer if we provide a one time relief bill, and then provide free tuition for cost effective institutions , eg. Community colleges and you're more cost effective public options. If we calculated the cost of just education on a per region basis we could tell universities for example : "well pay for the education but not the football team." Let that money come just from boosters.

I'm typing on my phone waiting to leave my plane so forgive run ons and typos

*L* ... i read the first line and had to respond ... ya, not much of a difference ... *L* ...

The size of that difference however varies greatly on if you're writing the loan or purchasing the loan. A loan buyer may only care if the settlement amount hits a certain value than it being the actual asset behind the loan. E.g. cash settled instruments work this way. Loan buyer in this case means a bank buying a loan from someone else , not the debtor.

But hey, if you wanna use that to disregard anything else I said , I guess that's your choices. You asked a question and I replied in good faith. I don't know why you didn't want to do the same. If you prefer to converse in bad faith then what's the point? Do you just want to play "gotcha"? Or do you want to converse.

Thanks for the reply ... appreciate the time ...

U gave solutions to different problem(s) other than what to do with the current student loan debt problem ... hard to decipher in that regard ...

Chill dude ... i said i read the first line and had to comment cause i thought it was funny ... this place is so whacked out u automatically default to me looking to pick a fight .. if that was the case, you’d know ... i don’t do subtle or play games ... ... i wasted enough time inthis cess pool .. i ask questions and try and understand i don’t come here to pick fights .. when i wanna take a shot it’s EVIDENT TO EVERYONE ...

As far as the differences ...

To me ... theres a huge difference between the gov’t securing it (securitized) and the individual securing it with collateral ...

No worries Diam, thanks for clarifying. I'm so used to one sentence responses to posts I make that I made an assumption. I am sorry. I think we all know these problems are hard , and distilling it into simple quips like free college for all, or everyone needs to pay their own way, don't always paint a full picture.

I agree there's a difference between the govt securitizing and the individual. I'm not sure how we can solve the crisis without some collective bargaining power, but hey, I'm not an economist. I just play one in my brokerage accounts

I would love to respond, but I don't want to upset you again and go through another round of anguish. Suffice to say that I believe that the average voter seeing that she wants $640 billion passed on to them is not going to go over well at all.

Once again, I think it is important to explore the mindset of the people who make-up the majority of the voting population.

On a similar vein to my last post, it's been noted that the elderly have a larger turnout of voters of any age bracket in our country. In fact, 71% of folks over 65 voted in the 2016 election.

The Dems are trying to win this group over and they are trying save Social Security and even increase benefits for the elderly.

I think that is a wise political move because the name of the game is winning votes.

VERS ... did miss this or are u “ignoring” me in here ... let me know either way please ...

I asked u for a reason ... your a smart guy and have a better understanding of money than most ... not that i agree with a lot of what u say but u understand “money” more than most ...

I understand your reaction ... i tried to have a conversation the other day and it was pretty one sided ... *L*... thats OK ... i just ask questions to try and understand ....

My solutions start with personal responsibility ... there’s a lot more too it but i always start in the mirror ... ..... education is extremely important but u best know what your doing today or your gonna end up with 30 or 40k in debt if your lucky with no real actionable degree ...

The student loan story is just another in the long line of things that were created with great intentions and served their intended purpose for awhile and then ended up having the exact opposite affect ...

That could change...they are saying Millennials could outnumber Boomers as the largest generation. However, the question is...will they vote in numbers?

Have you watched Warren on that vid, Vers?

Vers, you ARE not the majority. Sorry you need to feel that way, but you are not in that group. The majority is completely uninvolved in politics until a few months before the election. They are much less informed than you, and don't have this great opportunity to be informed like you do. So stop wasting your chance to see and live the arguments all sides put up. If you were truly open minded you would see some of their ideas aren't so 'extreme' after all.

Please do not tell me who I am or what to think. Thanks.

I didn't say population. I said voter turnout.

No, I haven't watched the video. Would you like to summarize her key points?

You got it Vers! Now you do the same for everybody else.

I listed some of the things I like about her earlier in the thread. I was hoping this thread would be more about how the election can be won that about some other things. But, to humor you, I will mention a few things.

Warren said: “We are now in an America where one-tenth of 1% has about the same wealth as 90% of America,” Warren said in an appearance on MSNBC. “And here’s the deal: 40% of America today can’t come up with 400 bucks in an emergency. That is not an economy that is sustainable, and it’s not a democracy that’s sustainable.” Her idea here is to put a 3% tax increase on billionaires that would raise approximately $275 trillion.

I also like her idea to make things more competitive in the "Tech" market by not allowing all the mergers that are now going on and reducing competition.

I think her ideology on climate control is logical and practical.

I'm wary of her health care plans, but it's better than some of the more radical ones I have seen.

So..........w/that said, I am asking that you [or others] don't turn this into a which candidate is better and which is worse thread. I believe there is an existing thread about the candidates. I only answered you because you are an old friend and you asked twice. I would rather this thread focus on how the Dems can win over the vote of the middle working class and the elderly because they make-up such a large portion of the voting populace.

I'm not doing this, OCD. I will pm you.

OK ... would like some clarification on some of the things u said but i’ll respect your wishes in this thread ...

Thanks.

Just know this, Diam. We are not going to agree on politics. We see things differently. I am okay w/that and would never dream of trying to change your ideologies.

I will engage in other threads ... with the intent to learn so i can understand why u think what u do, not to try and change your ideologies ... also to see why u end up voting for who u do ... what it is about them that differentiated them from the other candidates in your mind ...

I haven't decided who I am going to vote for. I haven't educated myself enough. Frankly, I think both parties are a mess and don't identify very well w/the voters.

I guess I can tell you where I lean in this thread, because it is about how to win the election.

I most certainly am moderate while leaning more left than right, but I don't dislike others if they are Republicans. These are not in order and I am just saying things randomly, but I want a candidate that:

--believes in equality for all races, sexes, beliefs, etc.

--understands the importance of economic growth for all, especially the working middle class rather than granting huge tax breaks to the rich and giving the poor handouts for not trying to improve themselves.

--believe in being fiscally responsible. I believe our government foolishly wastes money on a grandiose scale. That has a ripple down effect that hurts its citizens and ultimately the country itself.

--furthers education and tries to shift the emphasis on education to a positive outlook rather than a negative one. I just read on another thread where a poster said "we force our kids to go to school...." What?!? Going to school is a great privilege. We must change the perception.

--believes in helping those who need help, such as the elderly, the mentally ill, the folks who suffer from generational poverty, etc.

--wants to develop programs that assist the downtrodden rather than just "giving" them things. Educate them. Teach them trades. Employ them. Don't let them rot in a the hell-holes that are America's ghettos.

--allows for fair competition business and does away w/these mergers that are ripping off the American public.

--that won't tax the hell out of me in order to pay for the rich and the freeloaders. This one is huge for me. I think it is huge for a lot of the working middle class. It's the reason I started the thread. Don't ignore us or we will ignore you.

I have a lot more, but that's enough to outrage people and it allows them to place more labels on me. LOL

I have already summarized her key points in here at least three times, but as nobody replied or made comment on the NEA video it's obvious education is very low on people's priority or they are too lazy to search things out themselves.. My advice, as I am sure you would have told your students...if you really want to know more about her and her stances you should watch the video rather than having me summarize (again).

Regarding education being a low priority to many Americans...I wish people could see that is exactly what the government wants. An educated society is dangerous to the ruling class because people become aware, question and fight back. An uneducated society allows the small majority to shape, manipulate, control and oppress in a variety of ways. Sadly, it appears that America is falling right into their hands and buying it hook, line and sinker.

I had to reply to this because we are not that different. I think the difference is on the fine points.

J\C

When they all raised there hands for open borders and free healthcare and other stuff for the illegals there aint a thing they can say to get me to vote for anyone of those anti semite. anti American and pro illegal over legal tax paying americans and that's my way of honest Critical thinking.

Bro you should go into comedy.

Ill consider that...thxs