Real talk...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by blackfox, Sep 12, 2016.

  1. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #1
    I have no link(s). I have no axe to grind. I'm not promoting either Candidate. I am (unfortunately) older, and somewhat so in this forum. So There's a Presidential Election approximately 8 weeks away, and no argument on Policy differences, plausibility of the Candidates proposed Plans as President, any of the boring, erudite, nuts-and-bolts stuff. Instead, Hillary is dying. Trump is a Dick. Hillary is a warmongering corporate shill. Trump is an insult to a narcissist. Fine. Choose your camp. I've seen dick about anything that we as US citizens should really be debating about before a major Election - policy. We can do better, right?

    Let's do better.
     
  2. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #2
    Trump has a d***? That is news to me!

    But seriously, 100% agreed. As a foeigner I guess I have somewhat of an (vaguebut still) idea about her program as I think she won't do a 180 on Obama but With Trump? No idea ( not taking that idiotic wall into consideration) and would be genuinely interested. Negotiating new international deals? Is that even feasible within 4years to show any success (which he would need come re-election)?

    On the other hand: see this wastelanded in 4, 3, 2, ... ;)
     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    There's' been plenty of discussion over Trump's broad themes: build a wall, ban the Muslims, bring back waterboarding, etc. But one reason policy specifics haven't been discussed is because he hasn't provided them. It makes it difficult to discuss specifics when they either don't exist, or seem to shift with the political wind.
     
  4. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #4
    I dunno, it's getting a little harder to land stuff in wasteland. Just another side effect of the decline of political discourse, possibly. This thread is a nice idea though (which means you could be right after all in this Through the Looking Glass world we've encountered here). I hope it won't end up wastelanded.

    OK so baby steps into policy ...

    It's fairly clear that something has to be done about college debt because people coming out of school now are too swamped to be able to hold up an independent version of their former parent-supported consumerism, which does not bode well for the kind of economy we still currently have.

    So I would expect both parties to be interested in at least negotiating a better way out of what's already happened and a way to look at moderating impact of college expenses going forward.

    As far as Trump is concerned, he seems to take umbrage at the government making any money off student loans, for one thing. However, Money mag ran a piece explaining some differences in how private sector and government do accounting for debt. It's a little wonky but bottom line the wonk translates to not fully accommodating Trump's view.

    http://time.com/money/4043672/trump-says-the-government-profits-on-student-debt-is-that-true/

    ...Jason Delisle, director of the Federal Education Budget Project at The New America Foundation, says that the accounting practices that the government uses here (by law) wouldn’t be used in the private sector. “If Donald Trump used the accounting method that the federal government uses to calculate loans, he’d be subject to serious fines, his businesses would go under,” says Delisle.

    The CBO itself has suggested a more “comprehensive” way to calculate to cost of its loan programs. It would show that instead of earning taxpayers $135 billion over ten years, student loans actually cost about $88 billion. Here’s why: Not only are some people likely to default on loans over time, but they are especially likely to do so when the economy is in trouble. For a private lending business, that possibility—the CBO calls it market risk—is something you’d need to account for. So a private business would likely demand higher rates than the government does.

    “On average, the Federal government will come out ahead on the loans,” says Delisle. “But the issue is that no one invests on average, everyone hedges for the bad times.”
    As far as I know Trump has not been specific about programs for loan forgiveness, deferment etc. and how to make that be anything like revenue-neutral to the government. He had said near the end of July he would provide details in four weeks. So give or take, we're past that, without any fanfare or details? This piece from Marketwatch mentioned that four week timeframe, but it also touches on party policies and says it's arguable whether the government now profits or runs a deficit on its resumption of participation in college financing operations since 2010.

    Here's something that contrasts Dem and GOP proposals on college debt, and I should note here that Clinton actually has spelled out details on her website. Anyway this is a CBS take on the two parties' views:


    While acknowledging that student debt levels for graduates are averaging around $27,000, the GOP college plank states "the federal government should not be in the business of originating student loans ... and private sector participation in student financing should be restored."

    In addition to reprivatizing the student loan industry, which many critics contend would raise costs to borrowers, the GOP platform declares that "states should be empowered to allow a wide array of accrediting and credentialing bodies to operate."

    No further detail are provided on what the GOP accrediting proposal entails -- colleges are already accredited by independent organizations to various degrees. It's also not clear if this move would make college more affordable or accessible.

    ....

    In contrast, Clinton recently agreed to campaign on a Bernie Sanders-crafted plan to cover tuition at four-year state schools for families making under $125,000 annually. She has also advocated cutting student loan rates, refinancing existing loans, cracking down on predatory loans and for-profit schools, and deferring loans for social entrepreneurs. Of the two candidates, Clinton's college plan is the most detailed and pro-student.

    While the Clinton proposals won't cover room and board or addresses poor graduation rates, they provide tangible relief for middle- and lower-income families. It's far from perfect, but it in effect restores public college subsidies that have been dramatically eroded in recent years.

    The two candidates' basic philosophies are in basic conflict. The Democratic/Clinton camp sees higher education as more of a public good, like interstate highways and electrical infrastructure.

    The Republican/Trump, in contrast, sees a college degree as more of a privilege conferred through stricter accountability that will involve private banks in lending, which is unlikely to lower the total cost of a degree.

    Neither platform addresses how to directly improve college preparation or the soaring underlying cost of higher education. Although the Clinton plan would certainly make college more affordable for more middle- and lower-class families, Trump's proposals will economically harm students. His approach is poorly conceived and comes up short in addressing the core problems of higher education.
    Again the problem, in trying to suss out who has the better handle on how to make college debt less of of a problem for students and lenders as well, is that the Republicans have some ideas but Trump hasn't necessarily endorsed them. Maybe I should say "yet" since he's being nudged towards acting and talking like a Republican as the election date draws closer.



     
  5. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #5
    Just to be clear, I think it's a nice thread as well, my wasteland comment was regarding the amount of thriving "trashtalk-threads" so I don't think this one will do too well, but crossing fingers it does! Although I should add that I personally can't add anything meaningful since I don't follow the US presidential campaign THAT close and quite frankly, the coverage of meaningful content in the media here is quite lacking as well - except for the next faux-pas Trump committed..or whether there are more e-mails made public or not.
     
  6. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #6
    Yah I'm afraid this election has become global clickbait and infotainment of the worst sort by now.

    Usually when a thread is just trash from the get-go, I don't get too excited about it going off topic, in fact if it does, so much the better since that's an eventual skid into wasteland and good riddance.

    But this thread maybe will be worth maintaining for awhile, if we try to keep it about policies rather than personalities (or the ghoulish or comical aspects of the fact that once again we have a couple of senior citizens vying for the Presidency, after a few years where younger candidates were the eventual winners).

    So thanks to the OP @blackfox for starting this thread, hope it will not drown in the sea of more "exciting" infotainment.
     
  7. nfl46 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    #7
    Great point, OP! I used to bait them quite a bit during primaries, but I had to stop during the GE - now I barely post in this section. Every week or so, we come here to read the comments and it's the same people over and over with the childish antics. This forum section is equivalent to /the_donald reddit. If you have ever been there, then you know what I am talking about. Whenever you get time, go visit it and you'll see firsthand why Hillary called some of Trump supporters a basket of deplorables. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if quite of a few of them post in that reddit. I even saw a user call Hillary the "B" word on this forum, and no action was taken against the user. Apparently, that's the norm around here now.
     
  8. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #8
    Things aren’t going to improve until we definitively fix or crush all red herring issues and we are all living in a tent city in the lobby of Global Corporation and somebody says “Well, things aren’t any better. Anything else we can do? Maybe look around you for inspiration. I’m open to suggestions.”
     
  9. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #9
    The norm may be worse than that since it's frequently modified by some adjective like "criminal" or whatever.

    It's not against the forum rules to insult the candidates, just forum members. I think the de facto standard has become if the Secret Service would let it pass, it's "acceptable".

    I shall say no more on this lest the post be deleted for discussing moderation. Which so far I have not done.
     
  10. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #10


    Part of the problem is that one candidate (Trump) has been remarkably reticent on realistic policy proposals. Other than his wall (which is absurd) and his deportation plans (which are inhuman) and furthermore, Trump seems to change his position from day-to-day, or audience to audience as he sees fit.

    There is a a fairly broad range of issues that seem to get ignored: North Korea exploded a nuclear device last week, and didn't get a peep here on PRSI. Whoever is President next year, they will have to deal with North Korea. Climate change seems to be taking an increasing toll on all of us: Record floods; heat waves; coastal subsidence. Income inequality continues to grow in this country. And our nation's infrastructure is literally crumbling around us.
     
  11. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    Yeah, and the other one is so "cookie cutter" that no one really believe what she's saying, not even those minorities which are usual a stronghold.
    This election has little to do with policy, unfortunately.
     
  12. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    I'm not sure what you mean by "cookie cutter."

    But if you mean she's championing policies typical of an established Democrat, well there's a reason for that ... because she's an established Democrat.
     
  13. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #13
    That the things she said were heard first from Obama. And by Bush 42. And by Bill Clinton. It's the same, old, tired rhetoric.
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    Sorry you get bored by it.

    Running the nation (IMO) is best done with a slow and steady hand, and I'd much rather see our leaders embrace slow and steady growth and progress. That is probably a reflection of my age. At 55, with retirement coming along, a home that's nearly paid off, and IRA's that I'd like to see grow, revolution is the last thing I'd like to see.
     
  15. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #15
    And at 55 you should know that 99.9999% of what they promise won't be done (often because reality kicks in, not because they lie or don't want to do the work).
    As for the speed of change, it depends on the times and circumstances.

    BTW: Good job on the house. I am now following Dave Ramsey's method and it's doing wonderful. I hope to pay it off in 4 or 5 years, when I am 40.
     
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    Well that will certainly be reassuring if the Donald becomes president.
     
  17. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #17
    In the spirit of this thread, anyone here can accept or discard my views. I'll not be debating my opinion. :)

    Easy to say, but our politics are driven by a flood red herring issues coming from the Right to preserve the 1950s on a wide spectrum of social, political, economic issues, and to benefit a specific group that the Right represents. Yes, I have a preference based on some level of intelligence. ;) Btw, I consider myself the Middle who has been categorized as Left by people who are so far Right, everything looks Left to them.

    Is the Left always correct or flawless? Absolutely not, but this is very much an issue of being able to honestly looking at the issues and addressing them in a honest way. By all appearances, today's Right is completely dishonest in it's examination and expression of the problems, motivations, and the true agenda behind every policy they prefer.

    An easy example, voter suppression with the red herring: voter fraud. This policy is absolutely heinous, undemocratic, and unpatriotic. Obviously the people who are pushing this policy have vast voter support, otherwise they would not be in office doing the condoned damage they are exacting on the democratic process. The forces who are frequently described as Right, but now include a functional narrcacisist-sociopath, are the prime example of inability to truthfully express themselves and are either self deluded or whose specific intent is to mislead.

    Where do we go from here? Until a signicantly majority calls BS on whatever philosophy we disagree with and insist on honesty, as long as we remain functionally divided 50-50, we are going to slide, important issues and problems will be ignored and get worse, until finally something major breaks.

    One part I'll get politically specific with. If you want a chance, if you are a betting person, if you can see relative good, you'll support flawed Hillary. If you want a catalyst that might just destroy us, go for The Trust. Everyday I listen to Trust and thank him profusely for reinforcing why I'll never vote for him.
     
  18. Solomani macrumors 68030

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #18
    Yes let's do better.

    Don't vote for those Lesser Evils Trump and Hillary. Vote smart. Vote for the Greater Evil.


    [​IMG]
     
  19. CSpackler, Sep 12, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2016

    CSpackler macrumors regular

    CSpackler

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Location:
    On a plane
    #19
    It is one of the more godforsaken presidential races in recent memory. Looking pretty bleak for us in the US of A.
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    Which unfortunately means it's looking pretty bleak for everyone else too.
     
  21. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #21
    There's a few policy positions from Trump that I would like nailed down:

    Healthcare: He is on record that Obamacare should be scrapped. But he is also on record as saying everyone should be covered and when asked who would pay for poor people his response was that the government would pay for it. So, exactly what does he want to do with healtcare? What would healtcare look like under a President Trump? I don't need vauge responses. I need real concrete answers here.

    Debt: He keeps saying how he wants to grow the military. New ships, planes, more troops. Just this morning he said that he would supply the National Guard with “the best, most modern equipment” and rebuild the “depleted” American military in a speech before guardsmen and their families in Baltimore. Meanwhile, he has adopted the usual republican platform of saying taxes are too high and wanting to make cuts. So, how do we pay for all these expensive new toys, and all the salaries and training cost of all these new troops while cutting taxes and not add to the debt load? On top of building a wall and hiring a new deportation force? I don't think all of this is financially sustainable.
     
  22. blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #22
    Well, I really didn't think this thread would gain much traction as noted previously...I am pleasantly surprised. Briefly touching upon issues brought up here:
    Student Loan Debt: I happen to believe Education is a sound investment in a Nations future, and that it should not be subject to profit-motives. I have yet to see that costs of providing free tuition to state schools for (relatively) low-income households - but it's something I'd be willing to pay for. OTOH, I know people what have $100K+ Private loans, and the interest rates combined with the principal make them staggering to deal with. I think as a Partisan issue, most people are OK with the idea of Educating our children - even into University. I think the issue is more what those Universities teach, and any perceived Liberal bias of the University experience itself. I would fully expect, if subsidized tuition ever came up as a votable issue, that Christian Colleges would also be included...

    Healthcare: Neither Candidate is particularly specific about their plans. MadeTheSwitch basically outlined Trump's "position", and Hillary's is the usual "expand ACA, cut drug prices etc", but doesn't address the alarming lack of competition in many State healthcare pools, or that some States actively sabotage the system on principle. Clinton does say that she's lower access to Medicaid/Care to 55 - which seems to be step 1 of Single-payer - perhaps that will ratchet down to say 40 eventually.

    Debt: This, for the first time I can remember, has not been a major issue at all in this Campaign. I have seen debt invest in the underpinnings of a solid Economy that in turn erased the Debt - so depending what we're spending our credit on, I can live with it.

    Infrastructure: It is sad and terrifying the the "richest country in the world" is literally crumbling. I'd like to see some New Deal-esque program here - with jobs and training - even perhaps involving Prisoners. Again, to be clear - not slave-labor, but a concerted effort to train and provide a living wage to people while putting us back together again. As to how we'd pay for this - I'd consider a gas-tax (we all use the roads), a tax on most Businesses (so do they) or anything that reflects that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

    That's it for now...and thanks for such a nice, civil thread guys...
     
  23. Solomani macrumors 68030

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #23
    You're welcome! Polite, civil threads and discussions is what MacRumors' PRSI is all about!
     
  24. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #24
    To be honest, @yaxomoxay, I genuinely doubt that this is down to 'laziness' or 'reality kicking in'.

    Rather, I think your political system has become so polarised that the enactment of sensible bipartisan policies - which depend on compromise and negotiation to get passed - have become well night impossible, because both parties - but especially the GOP - are in thrall to their fundamentalist wing, which deplores the very idea of compromise, seeing it as a 'sell-out' and preferring complete gridlock to encouraging incremental, intelligent, governance which has come about through mutual compromise.
     
  25. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #25
    Well, that's what reality is. See how many problems Obama had in closing Guantanamo even if he worked on it since day 1 (and then he gave up).
    Compromise, for better or for good, is part of every Republic or any state with democratic suffrage. It's the essence of it, and paradoxically it's easier to compromise when things are going bad (war?) than when things are going well, as fear is a common denominator.
    I don't think that your side of the pond is much different, except for technicalities like the fact that your PM (the executive) depends on your MPs. If your PM wants to survive he has to compromise with your legislative chamber, while the WH can avoid compromise on a series of things.
    That's probably why it's easier for your PMs to commit political suicide, such as Cameron (the stupidest suicide in the history of democracy, followed only by Nixon with the idiotic watergate, and Berlisconi's with the bunga bunga)
     

Share This Page