U.S. Presidential debate

[kandrathe]

But isn't it the Electoral College that votes in the President, not the regular voters? You know, that group of people who many times don't even have to cast their vote in support of the people they supposedly represent.

In the electoral college, faithless electors are extremely rare, and I don't believe they have ever changed the outcome of an election (though I'm not entirely certain about this for elections before 1820 or so, when things were weird).

The electoral college system is weird, but the aspects that affects presidential elections is that states allocate their electors in blocks rather than proportionally, and that states do not have a number of electors exactly proportional to their population, not that electors change their votes in undemocratic ways.

Even then, it's pretty rare for that to matter for the outcome, though it did happen in 2000.

-Jester

The electoral system is in a way a throwback to federalism. The total popular vote is irrelevant, beyond the state level. The states are given a number of electoral votes proportional to their population (e.g. count of Representatives + 2 senators). Each state decides how their electoral votes are cast. Some are proportional, and some are winner takes all. My state has eight congressional districts, and every state has 2 senators, so we get to cast 10 electoral votes. Here, we have local caucuses to choose party delegates to the state convention, where they endorse the presidential candidate (here it was Bernie/Rubio), they then select delegates from the state to the national party convention (DNC/RNC) who endorse the national party nominee. The winner of the state popular vote wins the electoral votes, or proportion if that is the state's law. I believe it is the winning party's delegates who cast the electoral votes according to their laws.

But, here there is little love for either party's candidate. But, it has only a little to do with their stand on Capitalism as a system. More of the same old BS promises to deluded voter sycophants who believe their party's candidate will benefit their situation.

So, I will again propose some potential solutions to allow the "99% classes" to build their own ladder. We need to stop tossing free money at the 1% richest people via the central banks free helicopter money for billionaires plan, and focus the QE funding toward stimulus that has impact to the aspiring classes. The last decade of QE central bank policy has actually harmed the majority of the middle and lower classes. Yet, we keep thinking the political types in power are looking out for us.

Even as the economy has at last begun to expand at a more rapid pace, growth in wages and benefits for most American workers has continued its decades-long stagnation. Real hourly wages of the median American worker were just 5 percent higher in 2013 than they were in 1979, while the wages of the bottom decile of earners were 5 percent lower in 2013 than in 1979. Trends since the early 2000s are even more pronounced. Inflation-adjusted wage growth from 2003 to 2013 was either flat or negative for the entire bottom 70 percent of the wage distribution. Compounding the problem of stagnating wages is the decline in employer provided health insurance, with the share of non-elderly Americans receiving insurance from an employer falling from 67 percent in 2003 to 58.4 percent in 2013. Source: The High Public Cost of Low Wages Poverty-Level Wages Cost U.S. Taxpayers $152.8 Billion Each Year in Public Support for Working Families by Ken Jacobs, Ian Perry, and Jenifer MacGillvary

I would like to see monetary policy focus on redirecting stimulus investments in human capital, namely the 99% who supply the needed productivity, to allow us the means to improve our own lot. I've maybe mentioned this here before, but I see the aspiration to improve your quality of life is somewhat like a beetle attempting to climb the sides of a somewhat slippery sided bowl. Whenever something unexpected happens, maybe a health issue, or a hurricane, then that person slides back down toward a bleaker life (has a bought of negative social mobility). The government, somewhat due to the compulsion and necessity of regulation has made that bowl steeper, requiring more gumption and luck in climbing the sides of that bowl. What I envision is the means for us all to build our own ladder, and prevent those slides back down. The current implementation has the government in control of the safety net, which often comes into effect when you've already face planted squarely into the ground.

First, is the expansion and semi-privatization of social security over twenty years. Current participants will be converted in a fair manner away from the federal budget. Every citizen/participant will designate their own "America Fund" which you will fund with your own social security/FICA deductions and any % of self funding you'd like to contribute. Upon your death, the remains of your fund will be split equally into your spouse/children's funds. The fund can only be expended for three limited purposes (with the details to be defined), health care costs (outside of what is covered by insurance), education (tuition) costs, and retirement/disability stipend. The fund can only be invested as guaranteed rate of return, and is underwritten by FDIC. If your fund reaches zero, the government will provide up to a certain amount per year per category, with rules on what, when it is valid. This evolves to a less costly, more fully comprehensive safety net, funded by the individuals primarily. This is your own personal safety net established on your behalf at birth, and follows you to death. It is in your own self interest to invest in it, and be shrewd in expending it to further your own life goals.

Second, I would propose the expansion of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to cover all student loans, for all students who complete their program of study. This gives students the means (and incentive) to complete their education, and pay it back through a good citizenship contribution to society. The threshold for a student to qualify for it now is after you've paid 120 monthly payments (10 years). The way it is currently enacted is stupid. The average student loan debt, for those with loans is ~$28K-$40k, which is a burden for 10 years, and not indexed to income. For this to benefit and incentivize participation, it needs to go into effect upon graduation, and the dollars of forgiveness would be commensurate to your participation and current income level. In some of the worst case scenarios, students borrow in excess of $120K, which is a huge liability for a new graduate ready to get invested in their future. This is where stimulus spending would do more good by helping these motivated people shed their yokes.

Third, redirect more grant and low interest loan funding toward the Small Business Administration and look into easing or eliminating the red tape entrepreneurs face in building a new enterprise. Less write offs for the fortune 500, and more investment in the mom and pops, or small local start ups. The current allocation of $157 million for business loans and $231 million for entrepreneurial development programs is far too low. For context, 15 corporations in the fortune 500 paid zero taxes last year on $107 billion in profits. Just taxing them reasonably would garner 10-15 billion dollars to grow the economy by investing in small businesses.

Fourth, support redevelopment of the national electrical grid to better support renewable energy development. The heart of the future economy is cheap and abundant clean energy with the least damaging environmental impact. One good use of Federal involvement is helping to negotiate and navigate interstate agreements. I'd also like to see them pitch in with some low cost loans, red tape wrangling, and underwriting infrastructure projects.