Jump to content

~*Official 2020 Presidential Election Thread of miscellaneous stuff that isn't worth its own thread and now sayswho finishes his edits to the OP until November*~


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-last-candidate-qualifies-for-the-november-debate/?

 

Here are the candidates who qualified for the November debate:

 

Joe Biden   
Bernie Sanders    
Elizabeth Warren    
Pete Buttigieg    
Kamala Harris   
Andrew Yang    
Tom Steyer 
Amy Klobuchar  
Cory Booker  
Tulsi Gabbard    

 

These haven't and very likely won't:


Julián Castro     
Michael Bennet          
Steve Bullock      
John Delaney         
Joe Sestak        
Marianne Williamson   

 

 

Here are the candidates who have already qualified for December's:

 

Joe Biden    
Bernie Sanders    
Elizabeth Warren   
Pete Buttigieg    
Kamala Harris   
Amy Klobuchar    

 

Still have time to qualify:

 

Tulsi Gabbard       
Tom Steyer  
Andrew Yang   
Michael Bennet      
Cory Booker         
Steve Bullock    
Julián Castro         
John Delaney     
Joe Sestak     
Marianne Williamson    

 

 

And I guess Michael Bloomberg as well.

 

how are we still having 10 person debates this deep in

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's pretty liberal on guns and has put quite a bit of money combating extreme groups like the NRA. He's arguably done more than the leftist candidates on gun control. Since that was specified, I don't think it's a stretch to say he's one of the most left on guns unless Sanders or Warren have policies I'm unaware of that set them apart.

 

Everything else sounds like Chuck falling in love with himself as he "analyzes."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elbobo said:

quad post, wtf, delete this please

 

You can delete it yourself, just click on the thing that says options next to edit and delete your post. Could have saved you some time since you went through and edited every one. :p

 

2 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

Marianne Williamson  

 

 

She wasn't even at the last one. I think she just forgot to tell people she dropped out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg unveiled a plan Friday to make tuition at four-year public colleges free for families earning up to $100,000. The move is part of a package of new economic policies aimed at boosting the fortunes of middle- and working-class Americans and positioning Buttigieg as a clear alternative to more liberal candidates.

 

While Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have proposed making college free for everyone, Buttigieg is taking a more targeted approach of giving free tuition only to families he considers middle-class and lower. His new policy calls for reduced tuition at public universities for families earning $100,000 to $150,000 and no tuition for those below that threshold. Like several in the Democratic field, Buttigieg also proposes expanding Pell Grants to help low-income students pay for housing and fees and investing $50 billion in historically black colleges.

 

Buttigieg’s new economic plan includes proposals for universal prekindergarten, greater college access, major expansions of affordable housing and job training, and a bigger tax credit for the working poor. He plans to fund the $2.1 trillion worth of new expenditures over the next decade by hiking taxes on the top 1 percent of earners.

 

Buttigieg increasingly appears to be carving a policy lane that is left of former vice president Joe Biden but not nearly as far as Warren and Sanders. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Buttigieg’s college and health-care plans.

...

Warren has pitched a wealth tax on Americans with more than $50 million in assets, among other new taxes on the rich. Buttigieg favors a more slimmed-down approach of taxing the capital gains of the top 1 percent every year by forcing the richest Americans to calculate how much their assets rose (or fell) each year, even if they do not sell the asset. The rich would have to pay the top income tax rate on any capital gains, according to the Buttigieg plan, a major shift from the current system, which taxes capital gains at a lower rate to encourage people to invest.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/08/pete-buttigieg-promises-free-college-americans-earning-under/?utm_source=reddit.com#click=https://t.co/xNDMLxtILD

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

And a generation that didn't grow up in poverty will still be stuck in debt, not to mention the millions still in over $1 trillion of debt

 

 

Imagine wanting to spend political capital on that half assed bullshit

Wealth redistribution 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Massdriver said:

 

Congratz Pete, you created another means tested program that'll be a bitch to administer, leave behind those from middle class yet broken homes (you'd think he'd know better being from the LGBT community where parents disown their kids), and piss people off who are right on the line. Keeping the program simple is worth the slightly extra cost (plus you don't have to create a bureaucracy solely for keeping rich kids out). I'd love to see an actual cost comparison between the two plans. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Congratz Pete, you created another means tested program that'll be a bitch to administer, leave behind those from middle class yet broken homes (you'd think he'd know better being from the LGBT community where parents disown their kids), and piss people off who are right on the line. Keeping the program simple is worth the slightly extra cost (plus you don't have to create a bureaucracy solely for keeping rich kids out). I'd love to see an actual cost comparison between the two plans. 

Where is the evidence that keeping the program simple is worth it? If you want to argue it on principle that it should be like public schools, that’s one thing. But trying to pretend like administering means testing doesn’t work or doesn’t save lots of money is incorrect. As an example, Warren’s means tested student debt forgiveness costs 1.25 trillion over ten years vs Sanders who doesn’t means test which costs 2.2 trillion. A trillion dollars is not just slightly more money. This is a shit load of spending. Buttigieg makes Obama look like Sean Hannity. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Where is the evidence that keeping the program simple is worth it? If you want to argue it on principle that it should be like public schools, that’s one thing. But trying to pretend like administering means testing doesn’t work or doesn’t save lots of money is incorrect. As an example, Warren’s means tested student debt forgiveness costs 1.25 trillion over ten years vs Sanders who doesn’t means test which costs 2.2 trillion. A trillion dollars is not just slightly more money. This is a shit load of spending. Buttigieg makes Obama look like Sean Hannity. 

 

Means tested programs fail to imagine every possible situation a family can be in and inevitably leave benefit people the program was designed to help, especially those who aren't good at navigating complicated bureaucracy (which tend to be the ones in most need). Let's say you have a student who's parents make good money but disown their kid because he's gay and therefore refuse to fund his college, how do you come up with a policy that's not going to punish him for having shitty parents. I had a friend in college who hadn't seen her father in years, but his income blocked her ability to get financial aide. How do you prevent an exception from being exploited by those making $151k and are now staring at a $50k tuition bill? Now you've got to come up with a method to combat that. It's the same endless cycle of fighting welfare fraud, which every time hurts those who really need it.  I've spent the last 3 weeks trying to arrange my new Full Time job's compensation and benefits around 4 different disability programs, each of which has strict means testing (SSI, Medicaid, Medicaid Waiver, Department of Voc Rehab) but have programs to get around those rules which are also means tested with strict rules (SSI 1619B, Voc Rehab economic offset, ABLE Account, Special Needs Trust). My point is, anytime we create a government program that excludes X, we need to think about are the enforcement mechanisms worth the harm you're going to cause to your target population. Buttigieg's program excludes the top 10% of earners, all things being equal with admissions that should only cost the program 10% more. That cost increase is absolutely worth not having a bureaucracy which erode's people's faith in government, especially the middle class.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Means tested programs fail to imagine every possible situation a family can be in and inevitably leave benefit people the program was designed to help, especially those who aren't good at navigating complicated bureaucracy (which tend to be the ones in most need). Let's say you have a student who's parents make good money but disown their kid because he's gay and therefore refuse to fund his college, how do you come up with a policy that's not going to punish him for having shitty parents. I had a friend in college who hadn't seen her father in years, but his income blocked her ability to get financial aide. How do you prevent an exception from being exploited by those making $151k and are now staring at a $50k tuition bill? Now you've got to come up with a method to combat that. It's the same endless cycle of fighting welfare fraud, which every time hurts those who really need it.  I've spent the last 3 weeks trying to arrange my new Full Time job's compensation and benefits around 4 different disability programs, each of which has strict means testing (SSI, Medicaid, Medicaid Waiver, Department of Voc Rehab) but have programs to get around those rules which are also means tested with strict rules (SSI 1619B, Voc Rehab economic offset, ABLE Account, Special Needs Trust). My point is, anytime we create a government program that excludes X, we need to think about are the enforcement mechanisms worth the harm you're going to cause to your target population. Buttigieg's program excludes the top 10% of earners, all things being equal with admissions that should only cost the program 10% more. That cost increase is absolutely worth not having a bureaucracy which erode's people's faith in government, especially the middle class.  

Don't forget it's punishing the child for the sins of the parent. 

 

Not to mention his plan only covers tuition which is maybe a third of the actual cost of going to college (yes the Pell grants get expanded for the poor but the middle class just gets fuck all and more debt)

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:


the funniest outcome would be Fox News turning into conservative CNN and losing the diehards. Then a charismatic person (Trump) starts Fox News successor that is even crazier than Fox News.

 

That wouldn't have the veneer of legitimacy that FNC still has, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:


the funniest outcome would be Fox News turning into conservative CNN and losing the diehards. Then a charismatic person (Trump) starts Fox News successor that is even crazier than Fox News.


Yeah, except like healthcare, Trump has no idea how hard actually getting a channel on cable providers is. He can just ask Vince McMahon, who once announced a WWE channel was coming in 2012 and never got it off the ground, then went the Netflix route in 2014.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Klobuchar goes after Buttigieg:

 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-klobuchar-claims-pete-buttigieg-popularity-highlights-sexism-1470903

 

Quote

Klobuchar has positioned herself in the crowded Democratic primary field to be an alternative moderate candidate to former Vice President Joe Biden, the front-runner according to most recent polls. Buttigieg has similarly also cast himself as a pragmatic alternative to Biden and progressive front-runners, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and is currently polling higher than the Minnesota Democrat.

 

Klobuchar on Sunday went on to tell CNN host Jake Tapper that she is more qualified than Buttigieg because unlike him, she has "actually won in a statewide race."

 

"I'm the one from the Midwest that's actually won in a statewide race over and over again," she said. "Those are the kind of voters I've won and that's not true of Mayor Pete."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...