The difference between the 2 plans is actually: Reality vs. Fantasy.

Do you like speculators gaming the system on Wall Street to make more money as insiders and to have the more honest traders be more victim to the upward and downward swings caused by these speculative trading games? This transaction tax would limit the speculators and serve as a way to get a lot of revenue from this sort of trading too. A truly appropriate tax in my opinion! I'd like to have others explain why financial transaction taxes that mostly affect high volume speculative trading are a "bad thing".

Bringing their level of expected contribution to the larger society somewhat nearer to the levels they were when prosperity was much more broadly based is a fairly reasonable idea.

The Waltons could learn to live on a net worth of a measly $15 BILLION, instead of over $100 BILLION for example.

There are many ways to eke out money to finance public benefit -- and the wealthy would still be immensely wealthy, and corporations would still be raking in the dough.

....a near bankrupt Burlington College?

Not a very smart argument under the circumstances.

Damn, makes me really REALLY wonder just what multi-million dollar payouts would be.

Goldenererererererererer(x100) parachute?

The difference is for settling for free-market solutions out of the gate vs advocating and pushing for better.

I'm all for raising taxes on the rich to fund social programs and pay down our $19Trillion debt, but taxing the rich is only part of a solution. For example: How will these professors get paid? And are they willing to take possible pay cuts in order to fulfill these plans?

Public elementary school? How are we going to pay for that?

Roads? We can;t pay for that. They all have to be built and operated by private corporations.

It realistically gets paid for in Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Mexico. How about looking to see how they do it.

Why is so many of the arguments against Sanders plans feel like the arguments conservatives use against ANY progressive policy?

I think you underestimate the money saved by cutting the banks and the entire loan apparatus out of the education process. We have constructed a system, like our healthcare system, that is more expensive than any in the world and delivers less.

Unburden yourself of your bias against Sanders and stick to the policy.

Hillary's policy is typical "revenue neutral" policy that tends to have tiny effects and functions through tax breaks designed to avoid insulting or offending the wealthy. It actually forces us to rob our own tax revenue by reducing money collected by the IRS. This inevitably results in larger deficits without honestly talking about "how you are going to pay for it?" as you keep repeating.

Honest spending programs where you say "We are going to levy this tax to pay for this service" are far more effective and don't try to hide the cost while liquidating our own federal checking account.

Our schools and colleges are training the work force for corporation and stock market to make profit and add value to their businesses. They should be the ones paying for this training through their taxes.

Technology, innovations, research, development, training these are all things colleges supply to corporations and the stock market increases because of these things. Yet we cut their taxes and place the burden on the worker to prepare themselves to go work their life away for these companies.

Education is a right and a duty of society. If we want to continue to be a successful society then we need to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to succeed. We should not be sending our children to school to come out 5 years later a debt slave to the federal government for 30 years. We should be giving our society the educations it needs to lift us all up and increase the freedoms of us all.

how it's going to be paid for because it's not going to happen. The bill has been submitted, he has no co-sponsors and the

Prognosis

2% chance of getting past committee.
1% chance of being enacted.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1373

Somehow, miraculously he is going to be elected president and everyone will rise up in the streets to make Congress pass this - not believable to me at all.

neither is Clinton's plan then. It too has a 1% chance of getting enacted.

I mean since we're making up statistics here...

that:

https://www.govtrack.us/about/analysis#prognosis

"Representatives and senators, their staff, and lobbyists all know what bills are important because they have the institutional knowledge of what makes a bill important."


See?... hilarious!

Last edited Fri Aug 21, 2015, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

On edit: If Hillary is also proposing free tuition and fees I'd give it the same probability of happening.

1% might as well be 0%.

It's like the weather forecasts we get these days - "20% chance of rain this afternoon" - if it's NOT raining it's a 0% chance, if it IS raining it's a 100% chance.

Reduce military spending. Stop corporate welfare, End off shore banking and tax evasion, etc.

Complete reform of how we pay for everything is needed in this country.

Do we get to storm the halls of Congress and purge those, who for better than 40 years have refused to, significantly, raise taxes or cut military spending?

At the organizing meeting on July 29, 2015, one of the points made at the end was that we need to run progressive candidates for Congress.

How about you? Would you like to run? I know you are a Hillary supporter, but that is not the issue. You are progressive. You are concerned about race issues and certainly would qualify for the House or the Senate. Could you run?

I'm serious.

i'm very happy with my representative, Xavier Becerra, and even if I weren't, I am too old to run.

I'm in California and would very much like to see a replacement for Dianne Feinstein.

Have you ever thought of running for office? Seriously.

I don't admire much about the GOP .....But they sure as hell have a lot more determination, spirit and commitment to their beliefs than we do.

Christ, we might as well change the name to the Eyeore Party.

All this "oooohhhh nooo we can't do that. THEY won't let us" could apply to anything that was ever done in the name of progress at any point in history.

"If you try you might fail. If you don't try you're definitely fail."

I am tired of seeing Democrats propose the republican plan in order to try to be bipartisan.


We should propose our plan and then make them propose their own.

At some point we do need to stand up as a people and say 'No.'

I think Bernie is a good start that direction. But obviously we are not going to stop there.

Is there a joke I am not privy to here?

You talked about standing up to people and saying "no", and then said you could start with Bernie.

How sad.

Investing in the middle class through spending on education isn't "giving away free money". If you think it is, you might not know what you are talking about.

How about, instead of charging students high interest rates, we charge banks decent interest rates and use income from that interest to help fund our social programs.

We have to have more college-educated people in our workforce. As the fast food outlets are now pointing out, even their work, even frying a hamburger can be done by a computer now. What are uneducated people going to do in the world of the future that will be even more automated than it is now?

We have to find a way to educate people.

I'm less certain that we need to have so many military bases all over the world. Can't some of the countries like Germany that have enough money to provide free education to their children pick up a bit more of the cost of maintaining "peace" (is that really what we are doing with so many soldiers in German?) so that we can provide free education for our children?

to pay for it with some kind of tax. And they will all just jump up and say here is a blank check. Write out for however much you want.

Uh.... so does Hillary.




But if we ask for some 1/2 GOP-ish thing, it will work like a charm! And get passed instantly!

Just like is has in the past! Just like in this current administration!




Why does Hillary not have to mitigate these same hurtles?

passed. But hey, since Congress will love him I am sure they will give him carte blanche for everything he wants. By all means ask for it and it will most assuredly be granted. Because congress always votes the will of the liberal side.

Like I keep saying....


Why would they give Hillary anything.... no matter how RW she makes it.

Why not ask for some GOP-lite..... again? They've worked so well in the past, those Repug-lite bills. They alway do so much to solve our problems and everybody is happy with the results!

...and maybe even more than what I think is possible, and work like hell to get that passed.

It's called negotiating, and you never start by ceding your position before negotiations start. That is not a winning strategy.

Hey I am Sanders and I demand you give me what I want.

I bet cspan would be all over that.

Hey I am Clinton and I'll start by giving you 99% of what you want... if you just pretty, pretty please give me a little teeny itsy bitsy crumb.

I bet cspan would be all over that too.

The things that Sanders wants are things that a majority of the population wants. So it would not be "I demand you give me what I want", but rather "I demand you give us what we want".

It is amazing what can be done when people are willing to fight. But instead we have a bunch of politicians who are bought and paid for and have forgotten who they should be fighting for.

Here's hoping that changes.

The United States is the richest country in the world.

It's all about priorities and allocation of resources.

As I always say: there's never enough money to do anything useful, but just dangle a war in front of Congress and all of a sudden voila! they somehow find hundreds of billions of dollars they pull right out of their collective ass.

Time we started finding other uses for that money that always magically appears when the MIC gears up.

...the page on reforming Wall Street:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

If other countries can do this (see Germany) I think we're more than able to.
You invest in the system though that system may need tinkering. If the key to ending poverty is education, then let's stop enslaving our kids in the debt of education cost. EDU in many countries is seen basically as a human right, just like health care.

Clinton lost me clear back in 93 when she was assigned to create a national health care system and when someone suggested single payer, she is said to have replied, "Tell me something REAL."

Well, our rationed healthcare IS real. Millions still don't have healthcare. For those who do it is rationed because the profit motive (or retained earnings motive, in the case of non-profits) conflicts with delivering the best care to everyone.

Now you say this college deal is fantasy and scoff that Bernie can't 'pay' for it. Well, if you've listened to other Sanders positions:

1. Transaction tax on stock trades
2. Retool the corporate tax code and tax that $32 trillion in profits that is currently lying offshore UNTAXED
3. Systematic year over year cuts in war and domestic spying budgets

And, though it doesn't apply here, as Social Security does not contribute a dime to the deficit, Bernie wants to remove the Social Security payroll tax cap, which would allow Social Security benefits to be EXPANDED rather than curtailed as our establishment Democrats, including Clinton and Obama are willing to do.

Also, don't forget ACA is a giant welfare program for health insurance companies. We ALREADY pay out the nose for healthcare. These payments are called 'premiums. Eliminate those and:

a) businesses immediately are relieved of one of their biggest expense line items, so profits increase, and
b) you can raise the Medicare tax so everyone who works, no matter what the job, pays their share

Economically, SonderWoman, this will work.

... since in reality he's proposing paying for it with a financial transaction tax on Wall Street transactions. This transaction tax will be next to nothing for legitimate trading on Wall Street that most investors do where they aren't doing high volume speculative trades that have been used by Wall Street firms to drive up and drive down prices through high volume computerized trading which has the goal of driving certain stocks up or down at any one moment. This sort of speculative trading only helps insiders and the firms that manipulate that with investment houses doing analysis on firms, etc. and mostly hurts average investors. Even firms handling 401k plans, etc. are likely hurt more than they are helped by the speculative trading that goes on now.

We used to have this boiled in to all stock trades before the computer era and it really didn't hurt funds, etc. then either. It was stopped around the sixties because it was making too much money then, and they didn't need the extra funds to fund infrastructure payments, etc. that it was allocated for earlier.

Now, having it fund college educations, and perhaps even at some point helping to pay older college debt makes a lot of sense.

And Sanders has it right in making all public college institutions have this option for students, so that those students who might not be able to afford it, but who have the qualifications to be a part of many universities outside of the community college systems should be able to do so, both to help them, and to help society in general be able to profit from their participation in research and perhaps even be put in line for higher graduate programs later that they should be a part of to help drive the research capacity of our college institutions which have been leaders in the world.

I like the added freedom his plan provides of giving newer students more choices, and paying for it by means that limits the uber-wealthy's means to game the system for themselves. And this should help POC that much more who tend to be in the financial strata where more of them are qualified but less able to afford such education.

but the other poster is right.

This proposal is pure fantasy. Unlimited college education covering food and lodging? Other countries have limits on low long and how good you have to be to qualify.

And discuss how much you can get from a high frequency tax. Sure it sounds very appealing (lots of money! doesn't harm common people! only harms the fat cats!) but reality is quite different. How do you structure it so that it doesn't harm pension plans, 401K, foundations, etc?

Bernie Sanders sits on the following Senate committees:

Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Budget (Ranking Member)
Joint Economic Committee

While I have no clue how to answer your questions, I'm confident that Senator Sanders can. He has 40 years of experience in these matters.

where are his policy white papers?

Has Hillary issued white papers for her campaign initiatives?

for her plan.

They elect and re-elect him over and over.

Hillary on the other hand has been elected only at most a couple of times.

She is the one who has achieved utterly nothing in any legislative body.

Bernie is certainly showing leadership now.

And the tax on trades is an excellent idea. It will discourage the trickery that is going on in the stock market right now.

Follow some of the stories about this on, say Zero Hedge or other websites. The computer fast-trading system is dishonest, cheats the public, and this tax will help slow it down.

And I think he will do very well against the GOP. He has dealt with them in Congress since 1992.

They ate Obama alive. They have refused to work with him. They also hate Hillary.

Bernie can't do worse than Obama and Hillary have.

Name a single big ticket initiative that Bernie has been able to marshal his Congressional peers in Congress to accomplish, in his 40 year tenure?

Perhaps it might ultimately end up making more sense (or be more passable) if it was only focused on tuition and supplies, and students would have to cover their other living costs on their own.

That's called negotiation and compromise. But as a starting point that's a good one.

And they ended that tax back in the 60's before this era of computerized high volume trading...

So, getting enough money out of these taxes won't likely be much of an issue. And even if it in effects stops or cuts heavily back on computerized high volume trading, providing less revenue than if the volume trading now were taxed that way, the benefits of having less of that kind of speculative trading also pay us all off in the long run, and reward less the GAMBLING that is being done on Wall Street for the fat cats at all of our expense!

I would argue that even 401k funds being traded with high volume trading is not really a good thing either. Why can't they just trade these funds honestly as for the investors that really want to have stock in them for more than a few minutes or a few seconds to fluctuate the price in an abnormal fashion? Are there any kinds of legitimate stock or other investment trading where average trades should be for only a few seconds or a minute or two? If you are taxing a very small fraction of the trade, it will cost next to nothing. THAT is the kind of trading that will be paying the most when they pay this tax for each trade every few seconds, whereas those who make trades like traditionally people have traded and INVESTING in companies or funds, may not trade a stock or fund for YEARS, making a fraction of a cent tax on many trades rather meaningless to these sorts of investors.

What is hurting average people more with their 401ks and IRAs are the silly rules that people have to go through and many times cannot qualify for to take out early distributions and not pay a 10% penalty, since so many people in this economy are being forced to do so when their savings are being sacked by so many aspects of this sick economy that was made sick by the actions of Wall Street and corporate America, and owned politicians that pass destructive "free trade" bills, etc. Those are far higher taxes, and also reduces average people's investment in 401ks, etc. too because we aren't offering them any way to keep them from having to dip in their retirement funds in this economy.

Even Republican Eisenhower saw the value of putting forth a GI bill that helped returning veterans get free college education, that served as an INVESTMENT that paid us all back in terms of a healthier economy, MORE tax revenue from these individuals in the years to come, etc. Giving kids of today a much needed opportunity to get out from under huge college debt and get free education will go a long way to reversing the outsourcing trend, and what we are heading towards as a third world economy where when we all retire we'll be a poorer country than other major countries who choose to INVEST in their younger generations the way the uber wealthy and GREEDY segment that controls our government doesn't want to do here.

When most of us were kids going to college, college costs were so much lower than they are now, allowing many to be able to work at part time jobs and still afford to pay for their expenses and maybe take out small loans that they could pay off within a year or so after graduating, and let them participate fully in the economy upon graduating and getting a job, instead of still not being able to spend any money even if they get a job when paying off huge debts, or not being able to get a decent job with no college education, and therefore also not participating in the economy as well. A recipe for disaster later.

...he also wants to make student loans have low interest rates (like they used to have) and not be used as a profit center for the government. He will also expand work study and the like. In other words, no, it is not "unlimited college education covering food and lodging" and yes, it does require students to qualify academically for the institution in question.

A small transaction tax on high speed trades has many benefits. In fact, the high speed trading has allowed Wall Street to skim money from all of those entities whom you name as being harmed by this tax. Interesting that you're okay will Wall Street skimming, but not with the government taking a small share in order to benefit all of us.

Bernie believes that education is a right that every American should have, regardless of economic status.

She, like the president, will (pretend to) be liberal on things that don't cut into the profits of the owning class. When it comes to healthcare, pharmaceuticals, education, and the pentagon budget, the payoffs to the hyper-rich will continue.

If someone can make money off of anything, she's going to support that.

She's all about the almighty Green Buck!

Bernie is clearly in the FDR category whose policies remain the most popular across the political spectrum. Hillary is definitely in the neo-liberal category as can be seen by her long public support for them including her voting record, on the Wars etc, the Patriot Act and on Welfare Reform.

Bernie's views on the right to education have resonated with a public that cannot see the light for their children regarding a future that THEY were able to access, until the introduction of Neo-Liberal policies which have decimated the working class, not to mention the poor of course, who are poorer than ever.

and are going to fall for manufactured divisions. Excellent summary

It's kinda traditional and conservative in a way....Let's go back to some of the basic assumptions we had when the economy was working better for more people, and the public interest and public services were not seen as lambs for the plucking by privateers.

most vulnerable people in this society, eg, Medicaid. The new Health Insurance Bill allows Private Corporations to get their hands on at least 20% of Medicaid funds, funds that when operated by the Govt, as intended, had only a 3% overhead cost.

The middlement, the Ins Corps, do NOTHING that addresses people's health, they merely hold out their hands and grab at least 20% of funds from Medicaid, now channeled through them before reaching the actual people they are intended for, and put it in their pockets.

It is an obscene, corrupt misdirecting of funds that SHOULD be going to actual HC, to nothing but PROFIT!

Offering a plan to get what is now considered part of a person's basic education is not freeloading. Do you think K-12 should be abolished to people don't freeload?

Like Hillary!

I know she's a Dem.

But the joke pokes her a bit because she is right of Sanders... and O'Malley... on many an issue.

But any of our candidates is more qualified than the ridiculous GOP field. I'll vote for whoever wins. We must vote for the sane party.

freeperville.

Trying to figure out what "Dem" is referring to in an intelligent fashion.

If you are talking about Democrats or the Democratic Party, then support what the Democratic Party has traditionally supported under FDR and most of the years that it was successful and had the huge support of a majority of the American people, not just the money of the "corporate people", and support Bernie Sanders!!!

how do you feel about the welfare queens?

..... how Sanders has got people talking about it.

Thinking about it ....


Instead of just nodding or brushing it aside (even tho' some here are just brushing it aside)

"
The difference between the two plans seems to be the difference between Sanders' democratic socialist worldview and Clinton's neoliberal one. For Sanders, college is a right, just like K-12 education, or police and fire services. You will get it, fully subsidized, because it is an essential. For the Clinton campaign, college is still a privilege, something you have to pay for and work for, even while you are a student. It's a consumer good. The competing plans are a microcosm of the two candidates' approach to policy."


http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-campaign-calls-out-hillarys-college-plan-disappointment-not-truly-free

Bernie views education as a benefit to society. It isn't just that education is a right for the individual who gets it. It is that education is something that society needs. Society needs educated voters, educated workers, educated citizens.

Education is not a right as are the rights in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights lists our innate rights. Education is a right economically, but we have to study to get an education. We don't just get an education because it doesn't cost us money. We have the right to freedom of speech no matter. That's a right the government cannot take from us. Education is a little different somehow.

Bernie is saying that society gains when a person gets and education and that, therefore, education should be free for anyone who can qualify and work hard enough to get an education. It is in that sense that education is a right.

A free education is a responsibility and a covenant. My state university does not charge me tuition on a sort of tacit understanding that I will be a better citizen, contribute more to society and provide more social value if I am educated, if I work to educate myself.

I think the difference is important. It isn't a matter of the government giving away education. It is a matter of the government enriching our society by making sure more young people get an education and can then contribute more to society.

That's my view. Maybe I am being too picky, but that is what I think Bernie is talking about. Education is a right like voting is a right. It is a civic duty to get an education. Therefore there should be no charge for it.

... is what created the huge brain trust that created the computer boom and subsequent dotcom booms of the 80's and 90's that was centered in California, that has petered out now in terms of us leading the world with the outsourcing that has gone on and the making it harder for Californians as well as the rest of the American kids these days to get a decent education that matches their capabilities.

Instead of Silicon Valley being the technology hub where most computer professionals are employed, today Bangalore, India has that mantle. I wonder why! Maybe because India, even with a lot of poor people in that country also has free bachelor degree educations there too!

children of the smart, educated people. The benefits multiply exponentially. (Am I using that term correctly, please, smart, educated people out there?)

Yes, their are.

And it's very easy to tell which one I prefer.

there are fees and books etc. What is to prevent colleges from just jacking up fees to the high heavens under Sanders plan? And if the answer to that is nothing, then what precisely is the difference between his plan and hers?

When it is more that college get less tax revenue federally and from the states to pay for their expenses, etc., which over the years they've been forced to shift on to the students instead. Now if we found newer ways to pay for these students educations, they'd still get the revenue they'd need the way they have been getting, and perhaps even more, as they'll get MORE students who will have MORE educations paid for to these institutions. WHY would they jack up prices on other things to make it so these kids can't afford it? That would be plain STUPID!

Yes, kids still would likely have to earn enough money to pay for food and housing, and perhaps some on books and supplies, but it would be closer or perhaps even better than some of us earlier had 20-30 years ago when we could afford a college education then on top of those expenses, without getting in to huge debt, unless we went to a private school like MIT.

would garner a call out. I mean how can you beat that. Even though there is no way in hell Bernie could possibly EVER get that passed.

... it doesn't seem that far fetched that the Republicans and perhaps even some corporate Dems would lose their seats to similar progressives in 2016. Republicans have far more seats to lose than Democrats in 2016 in the Senate. A lot of those that will be in congress then will realize that they got there because the public felt they were going to work with someone like Sanders who would have a mandate for such actions, and that they'd be well served, especially if they are in the House where they could get voted out in 2 years, to follow suit to do such legislation.

Bernie now has been and SHOULD give his vision of what he sees America shifting to in the political revolution he's advocating. That way, if he wins, it will be a mandate for change, not just for him as president and the executive branch, but those in congress, and to some degree the courts too!

...and are qualified for the institution in question.

Students still have to manage their living expenses and supplies, so that means expanded work-study as well as low-interest loans and of course grants and scholarships would still be available.

That's how I was able to attend college: a combination of grants, low-interest loans and work-study. If those programs had not been available, and if tuition had been as high as it is today I probably would not have been able to swing it -- or I would have ended up tens of thousands of $$ in debt, as so many students are now.

I am constantly amazed at the demeaning way in which people characterize a liberal proposal. It's almost like people would rather see others have to work their fingers to the bone in order to get a little ahead, or get a little more educated -- rather than have the richest country the world has ever seen do something worthwhile for its citizens (and not incidentally, for itself).

Bizarre.

that has no shot in hell of passing, even diluted 99%.

...for all in-state students for many years. It contributed to it becoming a magnet for highly educated people. It helped California's economy.

That is no longer the case. But the point is, not only can it be done, it has already been done successfully. But then the Republicans (cough Reagan cough) came in and started dismantling programs like that, and we now have high tuition and high-interest loans and students who enter a dismal job market already burdened with high debts. Somehow though that seems more "realistic" to some people.

This mean-spirited vision of "reality" and "what's possible" is not doing anyone any good.

I commend Hillary for proposing changes that reduce debt, but condemn her for stretching the truth about the result.

I commend Hillary for proposing changes that reduce student debt, but condemn her for stretching the truth about the outcome of her proposed policy.

I used to get a full grant when I went to college. Then Conservative Margaret Thatcher came along and stopped it in England and Wales.