Billionaire Robert F. Smith's gift to forgive the student debts

[Uncle Joe]

Link to tweet

[MineralMan]

1. Well, Bernie's right about that. However,

the gesture by that billionaire might well stimulate additional billionaires to do similar things. I'm all for that.

Suppose every billionaire paid off the loans for a class or four at their own alma maters. Wouldn't that be a kick in the head?

It still would leave many students in debt, but would make the news and amplify knowledge of the problem.

I can't minimize such generosity, and won't.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Bernie is not minimizing the gift of charity but it will never be enough on its' own,

that's just stark reality.

Even if other billionaires became inspired by Robert Smith's generosity and paid for other students' debts it wouldn't approach the scale of the crisis in volume nor most likely duration.

It will require governmental policies to address both those issues.

[MineralMan]

4. And that's just what I said, too.

Did you miss the line, "Bernie's right?"

However, I won't object if America's billionaires follow that example. Will you?

[Uncle Joe]

5. I did not miss that line nor this one

"I can't minimize such generosity, and won't."

There was no stated nor implied point in the OP regarding "minimizing" the gift of charity.

I would welcome any and all billionaires following Robert Smith's example.

[MineralMan]

6. Any governmental relief for student debt will

be provided by taxpayers. The targeted taxpayers should be the wealthy, since they benefit the most from college-educated potential employees. If every billionaire paid off a class's college debt, that would indicate a willingness to do their part. The two things are not completely separate.

Taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate than they are now taxed should be a fundamental change. They benefit more, and so should pay more. They have more means, so they owe more.

It is time for the wealthy to pay their dues.

How's that?

[Uncle Joe]

8. I like that better

[MineralMan]

13. See, the thing is that some people have accused me of

not being progressive enough. They don't know me at all.

My own personal philosophy has little to do with whom I support as a candidate. I want Democrats to win, because we make at least some progress when Democrats control the government. Not enough, but some.

I don't support Bernie Sanders in this primary, because I do not believe he can win. I do not believe he can drag enough Democratic Senators on his coattails to regain the majority in the Senate.

If I were in charge, we would have almost confiscatory tax rates on the very wealthy, along with transaction taxation on investments. I would insist that the wealthy pay their fair share, not the same share of our income and wealth that the rest of us pay. There would be no more ceiling on Social Security or Medicare contributions by the wealthy.

On a local basis, I would apply a higher property tax rate on high value properties than on the typical residential property, too. In states, I would call for an excise tax on luxury goods and services as well. I would apply an overconsumption tax on energy usage, as well.

Then, I would use those additional revenues to ease the burden on the middle class and lower income citizens in many areas.

Will those things happen? Nope. Not a chance. Not in this decade or any decade soon to come. So, needs must.

I'm actually a hard-core socialist in my personal philosophy. But, given the nature of our social and governmental structure, I am compelled to do the best I can to support changes in those directions. But, I will not support a candidate with no chance to win an election. Never. I will support the Democratic candidate in any general election and the Democrat most likely to be able to win in a primary election. This year, for President, that candidate is Joe Biden. Really, it can be no other, from my point of view.

In 2016, that candidate was Hillary Clinton, who did not win for some pretty scary reasons.

We aren't going to elect any brand of socialist to the highest office in this country. Not now. Maybe not ever. So, needs must.

[Uncle Joe]

16. I agree with much if not most of what you say, but take an opposite

political point of view in regards to the candidate having the greatest chance of winning the G.E.

While I agree that some progress is made when Democrats control the government, there have still been way too many Americans that have fallen through the cracks.

I believe this is in large part due to the Republicans point of view at least since the days of Reagan largely controlling the narrative even when Democrats were in power.

This dynamic has led to both "moderate" Democratic candidates dominating within the party over the past 35-40 years but also allowing with no strong enough counter force at least in the economic spectrum for the Republicans to increasingly maneuver to the right with the inevitable result of a Trump coming to power in the first place.

If not checked on a fundamental basis, I believe the existing narrative will become increasingly adverse to the nation in regards to future occupants of the White House, Trump is a symptom not the disease.

I believe the best way to reverse this nationally destructive dynamic is a sharp 180 to the narrative, even should Bernie win the primaries and the G.E. (which I hope he does) won't be enough on its' own.

It's equally about the movement and the message, Bernie has many times stated he can't do it alone, he will need the people after the primaries and G.E. should he win, at all levels of government; local, state, national and activists.

I believe that kind of movement has by far the greatest chance of changing our 40 year old self-destructive narrative and defeating Trump.

[MineralMan]

19. The problem is a human one. Humans vote.

There are about 320 million of them in the United States. Maybe 150 million vote, at best. Every last one of those voters looks at the world in a unique way.

All of those voters play a role in deciding who the President will be. We have two major political parties, and the President will be aligned with one or the other of those parties.

Inertia is always at play. Making a 180 degree change takes more force than exists among voters. The majority of all voters are aligned with a centrist point of view, with some variation to the left and the right. There is a narrow band in the center that contains voters who might vote for the candidate of either party in any election. However, that narrow band includes more than enough voters to shift the election either way.

In the end, the center decides who the President will be. In the individual states and the congressional districts within them, the center matters less, but nationally, the center always determines the victor, even with the Electoral College taken into consideration.

A Presidential candidate who strays too far to the left or the right will lose. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but lost in three critical states, giving the White House to the asshole who now occupies it. I won't belabor the reasons for that again.. Bernie Sanders would have lost by a much larger margin, because he has positioned himself too far to the left side of the political spectrum.

In 2020, there will be a reaction to the Trump presidency, and that will favor the Democratic candidate. But, it will not be an insurmountable advantage. However, a known candidate who is positioned just a little to the left of center will defeat Trump handily, I'm certain. Bernie Sanders would still lose to Donald Trump, though.

But, Bernie Sanders isn't going to be the Democratic nominee. Neither are any of the other primary candidates who are robbing Sanders of his support. The nominee is going to be Joe Biden. Why? Because he is a known quantity, with a history in the White House, and is correctly positioned on the political spectrum to defeat Trump. And he'll do so fairly easily and by a large margin.

So, we get a Democratic President. And, as a bonus, enough Democratic voters will probably turn out for us to regain control of the Senate, if we GOTV hard enough. Then, we will have an opportunity to undo what Trump has done. If we're lucky. If we turn out in high enough numbers.

That's my assessment. That's my opinion. That's my prediction. Yours might differ.

[Uncle Joe]

27. The Democratic Party didn't transition from a New Deal party

to a centrist get along with the Republican Party because of a shift in the perceived center without a powerful opposing force coming from the Republicans ie; McCarthy, Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan.

Likewise it won't happen in reverse without a strong left based on morals, ideals and a universal vision, anything short of that leaves a vacuum to be filled by Republicans' message of division, cynicism and hatred which will only be setting us up for another future Trump, probably worse if the trend holds.

I remember when Bush the least was ranked by historians as among the worst Presidents in U.S. History, now Trump makes him look like a statesman.

Trying to appease the Republican Party did Obama no good, they never supported him nor his policies, indeed the Republicans chose as their standard bearer one that most acutely slandered the President.

As for Bernie being "too far to the left" continuous polls had him defeating Trump by even greater margins than Hillary and today are only second to Biden; the former Vice-President.

The marathon is just beginning.

[guillaumeb]

2. Imagine a country where higher education was free.

A country where the working class did not have to hope for a billionaire to rescue them from tuition debt slavery.

[MineralMan]

7. A truly progressive income tax rate would see the wealthy paying

for that free higher education, among other things.

That should be the goal. Return to progressive taxation.

The billionaires benefit. Let them pay for those benefits.

[guillaumeb]

20. I absolutely agree. eom

[LibFarmer]

9. Typical. Taking credit for someone else's action

and generating publicity.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Reading is fundamental. n/t

[LanternWaste]

21. So is reading between the lines for context.

Pretending otherwise does not insight create.

[Uncle Joe]

24. The context is that micro charitable giving can not make up for macro government policy.

No matter how much you may wish it to be.

[Amimnoch]

14. Yep. Exactly. -nt

[Uncle Joe]

18. Perhaps you can actually point out in way, shape or form in which Bernie took credit

for Robert Smith's generosity but I doubt it.

[Uncle Joe]

12. You were wrong, however the current system is immoral and dysfunctional.

[LongtimeAZDem]

15. I keep forgetting that some folks are sarcasm impaired

[Uncle Joe]

17. I know exactly what you mean.

[Blue_Tires]

22. So how much is St. Bern kicking into the pot, then?

[oasis]

23. Woulda been great if Bernie inserted Smith's "pay it forward" message

in his second paragraph, and left it at that. Missed an opportunity to be bigger than politics.

[Uncle Joe]

25. Government policy is a much greater, more expansive even universal way to

pay it forward, don't confuse policy with politics.

[Kurt V.]

26. the carried interest tax loophole has to be fixed. Period.