Pay It Forward
New Jersey's governor was just in the news, but because it was unrelated to all the other Chris Christie stories circulating right now, it likely will be ignored by most of the public. Democratic officeholders and candidates for office would do well, however, to pay it a bit more attention. Because this is seems like a tailor-made issue for Democrats to campaign on this fall (and beyond).
The news I am referring to is the fact that Chris Christie just vetoed a study of how to radically restructure student debt. I have written about the idea before, when it originated in Oregon last year, because I think it makes all kinds of sense. It's a fairly simple concept -- instead of taking out loans to pay a set price for public universities (state-run schools), in-state students would be able to attend college now and pay for it later through a "Pay It Forward" program. Students would pay a fixed percent of their earnings for a set period of time, no matter what salaries they made. As a student, you'd go to school, graduate, and then pay something like three percent of your income for twenty years, into a fund which covered future university students. Because the amount you'd owe would be proportional to your income, nobody would ever go broke paying for their college education. And nobody would be forced into a job they didn't like, just because it paid more than (say) being a high school teacher, because they were so far in debt when they graduated.
The Pay It Forward plan is one of those brilliant ideas which seems almost too good to be true, at first glance. Perhaps it will prove to be, but it at least deserves a chance to be tested in the real world on the chance that it could measurably improve the lives of young Americans (and their parents). Chris Christie just vetoed a bill which would have given it a chance to be studied in New Jersey.
Since an Oregon classroom came up with the proposal and convinced their state legislature to give it a chance to work, several other states have been looking into the prospect as well. The issue is bubbling up from the state level, but has yet to become a national issue. Democrats on the national level should realize the political benefits of championing this issue, especially now that a prominent Republican has vetoed the idea in his state.
Political campaign issues are too often remote and arcane in their supposed benefits to the public. This one is not. One of the biggest middle-class worries in life is paying for college for the kids. Student loan debt has exploded, with the cost of college rising much faster than most other expenses. So far, nobody's really proposed any feasible fixes to this problem, with the exception of Senator Elizabeth Warren, who introduced a bill to charge the same interest rate to students as we now charge to banks (almost nothing, currently). This bill didn't get much support, however. Pay It Forward is an even more radical concept for reforming how students pay for their higher education, though.
The idea, once the public becomes aware of it, should prove to be wildly popular. Parents everywhere will undoubtedly enthusiastically support the idea that they won't have to save up a mountain of cash to pay for tuition -- instead they'd just have to cover the price of incidentals like books. Students would likely equally welcome the idea that they would devote a small percentage of their earnings for twenty years to pay for their studies, rather than exiting college with over $30,000 due on their student loans (which has to be paid back in full no matter what income they manage to make).
Democrats are already making personal finances one of their bedrock issues for the 2014 midterm campaign, by championing a significant raise in the minimum wage. This is smart politically, since an overwhelming percentage of the public agrees with the concept, across almost all demographic groups. Republicans are already showing signs that they might be interested in cutting some sort of minimum wage deal, to insulate themselves against the issue in the upcoming campaign. That's all to the good, because whether Democrats chalk up a victory in Congress or not on the minimum wage, they'll still be able to campaign hard on the issue.
Getting behind Pay It Forward college funding would just be a broadening of the theme, really. For far too long, government has stood idly by while the middle class gets pinched harder and harder. The wealth of the one percent continues to explode, while the middle class is going nowhere fast. The one universal concept Americans believe is that more education means more opportunities in life, meaning that sending the kids to college is perhaps the biggest goal to be reached in life. This goal has become harder and harder to achieve, though, as college costs spiral out of control while wages stagnate. Changing this for the better would be a very direct way to address middle class hopes and fears for the future. It would be a tangible change that would be felt by millions.
I must admit that I have no idea how a federal Pay It Forward program (as opposed to a state-level program) would be constructed. The states own university systems, after all, usually with at least two or three tiers of excellence (state-level universities, state-level colleges, and community colleges). This allows them to directly tinker with the funding such schools get. The federal program, however, is entirely based upon loaning money to students, no matter what school they attend. So it would be a lot trickier to adapt the Pay It Forward idea on the national level.
But that doesn't mean it is impossible. At the very least, the federal government should support state-level experimentation with the concept. Trial programs could get some sort of block grant from the Department of Education, which would go a long way towards making them workable. The biggest problem with the Pay It Forward idea is that to start it, you've got to have a fund already in place to pay for the initial participants (who won't be paying back into that fund for years). Once the system has been up and running for a decade or two, it should be self-sustaining, but there would need to be initial seed money to cover the costs until it reaches this point. This is where federal help could be crucial.
Democrats are already setting the stage for a campaign built around helping out Main Street. Income inequality is the new theme. Raising the minimum wage is a big part of attacking the problem, but it doesn't go far enough. It is a fine issue for Democrats to push in an election year, but it's not the only issue worth supporting. The problem is larger than just minimum wage, to put it another way. Attacking the cost barrier to higher education would compliment this political strategy perfectly. Innovation in how students pay for college is an issue that is ripe for Democrats to get behind in a big way. Especially now that Chris Christie has put Republicans firmly on the side of opposing what could become a wildly popular idea.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Hi Chris:
This is one of a slew of ideas that need to gain real traction. The question for the Democratic Party is when and how it's going to genuinely begin working for the 99%. It took Occupy Wall Street to start the conversation and to create an actual awareness of income inequality and all the streams that converge to create income inequality. The fact that most of our "rulers" either are part of the 1% or directly serve the 1%, of course, is the hurdle.
As I've said before: Repubs in power openly serve the 1% while Dems in power covertly serve the 1%, but are ambivalent about it. That's where the opening lies.
As I've said before: Repubs in power openly serve the 1% while Dems in power covertly serve the 1%, but are ambivalent about it. That's where the opening lies.
In other words, Republicans are honest about it and Democrats are sneaky and talk out both sides of their ass..
That's what *I* have been saying for years!! :D
Michale
Democrats are already setting the stage for a campaign built around helping out Main Street. Income inequality is the new theme.
But the funny thing is, the income equality gap has grown by leaps and bounds under Obama and the Democrats..
So, exactly how are Democrats going to talk about combatting Income Inequality when they are the CAUSE of it, in the here and now??
By talking out both sides of their ass?? :D
Michale
In other words, Republicans are honest about it and Democrats are sneaky and talk out both sides of their ass..
No, the difference is repubs lie their heads off and use their consitutents. They hire Frank Luntzes to create appealing lies and peddle them via FOX and through the mouths of people like you. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!
The Dems alternatively do good things and bad things because they can't resolve the conflict between the people with the dough and the people they have sworn to serve. That is why they offer opportunities that the pubs don't. The Dems are potentially reachable, the pubs are closed. Just like you.
No, the difference is repubs lie their heads off and use their consitutents. They hire Frank Luntzes to create appealing lies and peddle them via FOX and through the mouths of people like you. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!
And Democrats do the same and hire LEFT wing spin meisters and lie ("If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan) and peddle them via every MSM outlet EXCEPT Fox News..
ABU GHRAIB, BUSH LIED, ABU GHRAIB, BUSH LIED
Still waiting for you to come up with some REAL differences between Repubs and Dems...
Michale
Still waiting for you to come up with some REAL differences between Repubs and Dems...
Because, from where I sit, totally unencumbered by ANY political ideology, there really isn't ANY difference between the two..
Can you give me ONE thing, ONE SINGLE THING that differentiates a Republican politician from a Democrat politician..
ONE SINGLE THING...
They both lie..
They both cheat.
They are both corrupt.
They both only care about themselves and their Party.
They don't do anything altruistically.
I could go on and on but you get the idea.
Give me one single substantial relevant thing that differentiates a Republican from a Democrat...
Just one...
Michale
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/nsa-unleashed-obama-tells-public-trust-me-20140115
Stuff like this would have had the Left going hysterical and rioting in the streets..
Under a Democrat, it doesn't even rate a MENTION from the Left..
Why is that???
Because, for political ideologues, the ONLY thing that is important is power..
Either BEING in power or having your people in power..
Everything else and ANYTHING else is secondary to that...
Michale
Because, from where I sit, totally unencumbered by ANY political ideology
Keep telling yourself that buddy. Turn on your little mental tape and replay that over and over. So much easier than thinking.
Benghazi, Benhazi, Benghazi!!
Keep telling yourself that buddy. Turn on your little mental tape and replay that over and over. So much easier than thinking.
It's actually YA'ALL that have a problem with thinking...
Would a THINKING person attack a GOP POTUS mercilessly for actions taken and then give a DEM POTUS a complete and utter free ride for ESCALATING those same actions??
Nope.. THAT person would just blindly follow political ideology and throw their integrity, their morals, their principles onto the garbage heap...
Party uber alles....
Michale
Michale says to himself: hmm, which of my standard responses shall I pull out of my little tiny bag...
OK, the: "you criticize righties but not lefties when they do the same thing!!" That's an evergreen. Can say it over and over, without context or specifics. Just a good 'ol general assertion.
Because, says the little tape in my head: both sides are equally bad and therefore I never have to delve any deeper. It's so much easier to repeat bullshit than it is to evaluate. And its fun to piss off liberals while pretending to myself that I'm saying something meaningful, right and true! After all, I'm the only true American on CW so anything I say is ipso facto correct!
Both sides do it! Both sides do it! Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!
Basically, it's like this..
"This domestic surveillance is CRIMINAL!!! The 4th Amendment is sacrosanct!!! There doesn't need to be ANY domestic surveillance at all!!! This President should be prosecuted as a WAR CRIMINAL for these heinous and criminal actions!! He should.... What?? It's a DEMOCRAT President???
.............
Never mind....
Now, is that or is that not an accurate representation??
Of course it is...
It's indefensible...
Michale
Do you have any FACTS to dispute my conclusions???
No??
Didna think so... :D
Michale
Can say it over and over, without context or specifics.
I ALWAYS give context and specifics..
The problem for you is the actions are utterly hypocritical and completely indefensible..
Don't blame me because the argument works.. :D
All you have to do is concede the point and then I'm done. =:D
Michale
I ALWAYS give context and specifics..
The problem ensues when ya'all don't LIKE the context or don't LIKE the specifics...
For example. The biggest problem with Benghazi is that OUR AMBASSADOR was brutally killed and the Obama Administration blatantly LIED about why...
THAT is the context..
THAT is the specifics...
Your response???
Michale
You can grouse all you want about Benghazi, but here's the facts.
Until Obama and the Democrats come COMPLETELY clean on Benghazi, until Obama and the Democrats are COMPLETELY transparent about Benghazi, as they promised they would be (remember?? The "most transparent administration in history"..), until that time, Benghazi will ALWAYS be an issue..
ESPECIALLY if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee for POTUS...
If the Democrats don't want Benghazi to be an issue thru 2016, then they better not have Hillary "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!!???" Clinton as the Dem nominee for POTUS...
Michale
Your attack dog ISSA held hearing after hearing and did everything short of planting the smoking gun he was so desperately seeking and came up with nothing. But it doesn't matter because you have decided to follow the right wing position that Repubs can make up anything then demand that Dems do the impossible: prove negatives.
No one can prove a negative: Prove to me right now that you are NOT a Wiccan. Prove it. Go ahead. Prove it.
I've decided you are a Wiccan. When we're not looking, you're running out with other Wiccans to do ceremonies by the light of the moon, worshipping nature gods. Prove me wrong.
That is the nature of your continual stupid assertions -- that's why Benghazi is such a joke. Because there's no there, there, but rightie mouthpieces like you will keep yelling Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi! while there's a breath in your bodies. And so long as you can work yourself into frenzies about invented scandals you will be unable to invest any energy or effort in actually examining the validity of anything.
You assert that you provide specifics but you never really do -- you make accusations: Obama LIED about Benghazi, and tell yourself "that's specific".
Benghazi isn't an "issue" it is an invention. I have no doubt your side will attempt to use it, and will attempt to use a million other manufactured tidbits because righties lack the courage to conduct stand up fights. Lies are always easier, particularly when willing minions like you dutifully amplify them. What a sad bunch you are.
Though your flirting with being a warlock is intriguing! How did you locate your coven?
No one can prove a negative: Prove to me right now that you are NOT a Wiccan. Prove it. Go ahead. Prove it.
I am!! How did you know!?? :D
Your entire rant is devoid of one thing..
FACTS...
I have provided you with FACTS and asked you to address them..
Fact #1. A US Ambassador was brutally killed.
Fact #2. Obama and his administration lied about it.
Now, according to ya'all, when a president lies it's a "big fucking deal"...
But, apparently, it's only a "big fucking deal" when a GOP President lies...
So, now the ball is in your court..
No matter HOW you tap dance, you can't escape the facts..
Obama lied about Benghazi...
This is fact...
And it utterly decimates ANY "moral" argument you have in favor of Democrats...
Michale
Give me ONE thing that differentiates Democrats from Republicans...
Just ONE thing....
You can't...
And THAT destroys ANY argument for superiority that you can come up with...
Michale
Dear Warlock Michale:
Fact #2. Obama and his administration lied about it.
The lies are?
Keep in mind that another report has just been released today by the Senate Intelligence committee. The basic conclusions: there were definite screw-ups, poor communication between CIA and Embassy Security, thus the attacks were preventable. There wasn't enough money for security either.
All of this was determined a long time ago and no one disputes it.
No evidence whatsoever of any nefarious anythings by Obama, Susan Rice, etc. Same conclusions reached by other investigations, including those by the, count 'em:
*the independent State Department Accountability Review Board, led by former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and career diplomat Thomas Pickering;
* the Senate Intelligence Committee;
* the Senate Armed Services Committee;
* the House Intelligence Committee,
* the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee;
* the House Armed Services Committee;
* the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform;
* and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Go read the actual report: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
Not the FOX spin, the report.
Then tell me what "lies" Obama told. Your "facts". Also provide your sources. Random assertions by wingnuts, including wingnuts in congress, don't count. If you just dredge up more FOX News bullshit then you'll entirely prove my point.
What lies, dude.
Specifically.
What lies, dude.
Specifically.
That Benghazi was caused by a anti-muslim video.
That Al-Qaeda wasn't involved in the attack.
There are plenty more, but those can likely be chalked up to being incompetent.. As I often say about Bush's "lies", being wrong does not a lie make...
Michale
Your turn..
Give me specific differences between Republicans and Democrats in Congress vis a vis their actions...
Michale
Michale:
This is a perfect illustration of the problem with you righties.
You didn't read the report, did you? It's there. It's 85 pages.
It goes over the events quite specifically. It outlines specific failures by several players and it makes a series of recommendations.
They address the video several times, and Al-Qaeda -- the two "lies" you presented.
And you know what? At the end it also includes several pages of vague accusations by the republicans on the committee who complain of various non-specific withholdings if information. Indeed, their complaints read like the perfect set-ups for FOX News.
Now, frankly, this particular issue never interested me so I haven't followed it closely. My conclusion was that something awful happened -- as it does regularly in those parts of the world -- that there were screw-ups and that the Obama Admin would work to improve things. Then there was the hysterical reaction by the right, which has been desperately trying to find some kind of scandal to pin on Obama. Any kind of scandal. Anything at all.
But you bring up Benghazi all the time -- without knowing anything about it beyond the vague bullshit spewed by rightwing media.
That's how you become a tool.
{21} Uh uh. Not my turn. This is another typical tactic by righties when they're losing: change the subject!
I'm curious: do you do that consciously or is it just so ingrained you don't realize you're doing it? I'm serious, not snarking.
Coz once again, that's how you become a tool.
Yes, Paula.
I did read the report..
Finally, the report does not go far enough to address the Administration's
failure to correctly label the incident as a deliberate and organized terrorist attack
in the days following the attack. As our "Flashing Red" report found, there was
never any doubt among key officials, including officials in the IC and the
Department of State, that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terrorism. Yet,
high-ranking Administration officials, including the President himself, repeatedly
cast doubt on the nature of the attack, at times attributing it to the reaction to an
anti-Islamic video and to a spontaneous demonstration that escalated into violence.
Obama KNEW that it was a terrorist attack. The White House briefed the Pentagon nearly in real time that a "TERRORIST ATTACK" was in progress.
Yet, for almost TWO WEEKS after the terrorist attack, Obama and his minions stated that it was the results of a protest.. That it was NOT a terrorist attack..
It's as much of a lie as Obama's constant "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" lies...
Our Ambassador died. And Obama lied..
I realize the facts are not very pleasant for you.
But, regardless of that, they ARE the facts...
Michale
Despite the fact that the September J 1, 2012 attacks in Benghazi were
recognized as terrorist attacks by the Intelligence Community and personnel at the
Department of State from the beginning, Administration officials were inconsistent
and at times misleading in their public statements and failed for days to make cleat
to the American people that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist
attack. It took eight days before the Administration communicated clearly and
unequivocally to the American people and to Congress regarding this fact through
testimony by NCTC Director Matthew Olsen before the Senate Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee on September 19,2012.
Even after the Administration finally published the complete time line of the
changes made to the talking points, it is baffling how a fundamental, unclassified
fact that was known to the IC from the beginning was only communicated clearly
to the American people by the Administration after the issue had already been
sufficiently muddled to result in confusion.
This is from the Senate Report, Paula...
Obama lied. Pure and simple.
It's all there in black and white...
Michale
Good man! You went to a source! Well done!
Having said that, please specify from where in the report did you find the quoted text?
In the body of the report, or in the Republican addendum? Give me the page numbers.
Then, please explain why it matters? You're/they're unhappy that the word "terrorism" wasn't used? That's what all this hysteria and 8 or 9 heavy duty investigations boils down to? You guys didn't like the wording?
Not liking the wording translates into "he lied, he lied, he lied!!!!"
Read what you posted. The world was going to end because the administration's communications were muddled and confusing in the initial days after the events? Your own quote admits the administration "finally published the complete time line of the changes made to the talking points," but they needed smelling salts because there had been MUDDLE???
The report didn't raise enough hell about "labeling"????
The administration was "inconsistent for several days" because it didn't scream "terrorism!!" all over the media?
And this is unforgivable because why? How did it hurt anything or affect anything that mattered? Where is the crime here? The malfeasance? Why do the repubs get to dictate the words Obama must use? Exactly where in the Constitution is that? Where in the presidential oath does it say the president must use the most inflammatory language possible at all times?
So here's the deal on this one. We both consulted a source document. We operated from different viewpoints and different levels of actual interest. You glommed onto the repub talking points at the end because they offered an sort of "official" justification for your previous position of "Obama Lied!" and you provided some of their language. You get points for using real text from a source.
You don't change my mind because the stuff you quote is such weak tea -- the pathetic efforts by repubs to justify their venom and to provide fodder for right wing media. You don't care that this is the best they could come up with, in the face of the exhaustive information provided earlier in the report.
But that's ok. Well, its ok in that I think people can agree to disagree -- I just want them, if they're going to bother to argue at all, to have some basis for their opinion beyond ANYONE's press releases and talking points. But I think you should carefully evaluate what you read, and how you reacted to it. If you genuinely think that the use/or lack of use of the word/label "terrorism" justifies the relentless attacks by repubs on this topic I have to say I can't respect that. If you really truly, after reflection, still believe that "Obama Lied!" and the apocalypse is around the corner because of that, well, I'm at a loss.
I'm not saying you have change your mind about everything-Obama, or about a single-other-thing-Obama, but if you can't change your mind about anything no matter what the evidence is then you are no longer developing as a human being. You have abdicated both your capacity and responsibility for the exercise of your own judgement and intelligence.
My entire point has been very simple.
Obama lied.
Obama and his administration had stated over and over again for weeks that Benghazi was a protest gone bad.
That was a lie.
Obama and his administration had stated over and over again that the non-existent protest was due to some anti-muslim youtube video.
That was a lie.
These are facts.
It's not spin, it doesn't matter if HuffPo is saying this or FOxNews is saying this.
Facts know no political ideological master.
Obama lied.
That's the beginning and end of my point.
I know your ideological position doesn't allow you to concede these facts..
But they are facts, nonetheless...
Michale
In the body of the report, or in the Republican addendum? Give me the page numbers.
Wait a minute..
You told me to read "the report"...
I wasn't aware that I was supposed to read only the parts of the report that support YOUR argument...
I read the report, as you suggested..
IN THE REPORT, it states unequivocally that Obama lied...
Don't blame me because the report that YOU held up as the final word completely supports the facts as I have laid them out...
There was no protest.
There was no video in Libya.
Obama's White House *knew* from the start that it was a terrorist attack.. Yet, for TWO WEEKS they pounded home this bullshit story about a mythical protest..
I seem to remember how the Left went practically apeshit when Colin Powell went to the UN with his faulty intelligence..
Obama KNEW that the protest/video story was bullshit.. Yet he sent Rice to the UN to relay that bullshit story...
The response from the Left??
{{chiiirrrrppppp}} {{{chirrrp}}}
Cricket city...
Our Ambassador was brutally killed.
Obama lied about it..
It's that simple...
Michale
I'm talking about the last several pages of the report, which are the republican remarks. Signed by the repubs on the committee.
The are part of the report and appear to be a sort of written republican response to the report's conclusions. As I've noted, they appear to be a screed about nonsensical stuff like "labeling". But they are part of the official document.
On what pages did you get your quotes?
And find me the quote, btw, that says "Obama unequivocally lied". Page number please.
And find me the quote, btw, that says "Obama unequivocally lied". Page number please.
I don't need a Senate report to tell me Obama lied..
Obama said that there was a protest because of an anti-Muslim video.
This was not true.
Obama KNEW it was not true when he said it.
Textbook definition of a lie..
It doesn't matter whether it was from a HuffPo commentary, a Fox News report or Repub notes on a Senate report.
Obama made a statement.
It was a false statement.
Obama KNEW it was a false statement when he made it.
Ergo. He lied...
Keep in mind, I don't have a problem with a POTUS that lies..
It's WHY a POTUS lies that is important...
Michale
On what pages did you get your quotes?
Read the report.. :D They are direct quotes, so they should be easy to find.. :D
Michale
No dude this is how it's done:
Re: the protests, or lack thereof: this is discussed starting on page 33 of the report, beginning with:
In the immediate aftermath ofthe attacks, the IC received numerous reports, both classified and unclassified, which provided contradictory accounts that there were demonstrations at the Temporary Mission Facility. In some cases, these intelligence reports-which were disseminated widely in the Intelligence Community--contained references to press reports on protests that were simply copied into intelligence products. Other reporting indicated there wete no protests. Fot lC Qpt~ined closed circuit television video from the Mission facility and there were credible eyewitness statements of U.S. personnel on the ground that night, which the FBI began to collect from interviewing survivors starting on September 15, 2012, in Ramstein Air Base, Germany.
The IC also had information that there were no protests outside the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks, but did not incorporate that information into its widely circulated assessments in a timely manner.
Starting on page 43 there's the history of the Talking Points provided by the CIA to the admininstration, Susan Rice, etc. followed by the edits that had been done. From the CIA on September 15, 2012:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
Now, that turns out to have been wrong. There's lots of stuff in the report about the conflicting data and when information filtered through to the U.S.
Now, you read the report: what pages do your quotes come from?
Many people here said, at the time, that Benghazi was just an Election..
They were partially right..
Benghazi is going to be a BIG issue, a HUGE issue in the 2016 POTUS Election..
You heard it here first...
Michale
And Michale (32) cries "UNCLE!!"