Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
There are really three primary areas of spending that democrats are aimed at at the moment.
1. Measures related to climate change. Just about every policy "climate change plan" put forward by the democratic candidates, other than Biden's and Klobuchar's proposals, are extravagantly expensive... But the justification is that failing to address the issue is going to be considerably more expensive going forward. The correct follow up question is, how does this address the issue. If, for example, you're talking about building infrastructure for coastal cities to diminish property damage when the next big storm inevitably hits, and the one after that and the one after that, that seems like a good investment, because the cost of those improvements now is likely more than offset by the savings later. If you're subsidizing the production of solar cells, the benefits are far more speculative.
2. Education - Depends what you want to do with it. If you're just promising free college, well, that doesn't accomplish very much. A significant number of graduates don't work in their field of study, even though they would like to. It'd be nice if more candidates recognized this and instead of simplistically saying "everyone should get to go to college", focus more of their policy prescriptions on things like technical or vocational training aimed at the economy as it's likely to look over the next few decades. The cost of post-secondary needs to be reigned in, but I think it's actually a matter of tuition needing to come down rather than the government paying the currently inflated cost.
But on the student loan debt forgiveness thing... I'm not sure why anyone complains about that. If you're going to spend government money on anything - and especially a bailout - it's clearly best targeted at people who will actually spend their suddenly-increased disposable income on things that will actually cycle through the economy and create a few jobs, rather than on passive investments. Forgiving student loan debt is a pretty solid economic stimulus. And the debt servicing payments that are being made currently have no economic value to anyone.
3. Health Care. This one's the most baffling... whether you want medicare for all or a public option, for some reason, this is looked at as prohibitively expensive. Realistically, the United States populace pays considerably more for health care now, per capita, because the system is deliberately designed to drive up costs. The incentive is to make treatment as expensive as possible, as it's currently designed, and competitive pressure isn't really having much of an effect. Either demolishing and replacing that system (Medicare for All) or creating a public option whose sole purpose is to give people good treatment for a lower cost (Public Option) are obviously preferable to the status quo, which, again, is ludicrously costly. The democratic proposals, in the long run, will save health care costs.
Basically, the "everyone gets free stuff" analysis is too simplistic. Some policies might look like just buying votes, but you actually have to see what the long-term economic benefit is to determine whether or not it's money well spent.
NOTE: building a gigantic border wall is the quintessential example of money not well spent.
|
If the government is going to spend a couple of billion (or trillion) dollars on something, I'd much prefer it be spent on national health care than on anything else in your list.
Simply because everyone uses and needs health care.
Free college is a non-starter for me.
First, not everyone would truly benefit from it, in the sense that there are plenty of people who should pay for college (whether because they can certainly afford to do so, or because having some skin in the game incentivizes better outcomes). Second, I'm not seeing how free college would reduce economic inequality.
Student loan forgiveness is something I'm very much on the fence about.
There are many (like me) who took out rather large loans and then paid them back, living below one's means while doing so. Wasn't fun, but that was the deal that was made. So there is a bit of "I did it, so can you" and "where was my bailout" to the issue.
Also, why should Johnny Richpants get his student loans forgiven? (True story: when attending law school, a fellow student, the daughter of the governor, was also on student loans. I don't believe for a second that her family couldn't have paid the law school tuition out of pocket).
Additionally, why forgive student loans for those students who, well, let's face it, didn't do particularly well in college?
Lastly, I'm not seeing how student loan forgiveness would be much more than a one-time economic stimulus and could very well result in housing inflation (money that would have gone to student loan payments would now go to housing payments)---for those who diligently paid off their student loans and are just now trying to buy a house, having housing prices go up even further would be, um, annoying.
Spending money on climate change initiatives? Yeah, that is a complete no for me.