| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On February 20 2021 00:25 Salazarz wrote: How is a one-off student debt write off a superior measure to freezing student debt repayments for anyone earning less than X salary permanently? Because those payments can be un-frozen at any time by a Republican president. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On February 20 2021 00:29 Stratos_speAr wrote: Because those payments can be un-frozen at any time by a Republican president. Those frozen loans would also still be on credit reports, and forcing reporting agencies to ignore them requires legislation. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On February 20 2021 00:36 farvacola wrote: Those frozen loans would also still be on credit reports, and forcing reporting agencies to ignore them requires legislation. Ah yes, should've mentioned that too. This makes it far more difficult to buy a house, car, etc. Banks require you to demonstrate that you can pay the full terms of your loan (the entire amount, not via an income based repayment plan) in order to give you a car loan, mortgage, etc. Having that debt still on your record would continue to make it extremely difficult to make major life expenditures. The same people advocating for freezing payments would also probably criticize people for budgeting without saving for the possibility of student loan payments starting up again if those payments were restarted and those folks could no longer afford their bills. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On February 20 2021 00:29 Stratos_speAr wrote: Because those payments can be un-frozen at any time by a Republican president. So it's another of those American things where the 'good guys' don't push for actual good policy because the 'bad guys' would just undermine it anyway so why even bother? Maybe I'm just too used to living in a country with an actual functioning government, but that just sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. edit: while we're on topic of red vs blue politics, wouldn't student loan forgiveness increase the divide massively, given that democrat support is significantly higher among college educated population? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44387 Posts
On February 20 2021 00:17 GreenHorizons wrote: I think we need to overhaul a lot in the US. The primary focus regarding the student debt thing is that Biden can do it himself. Seems advisable instead of adding it to the stack of critical policy that absolutely can't be done through the executive and Congress has neglected for decades. Immigration, healthcare, climate, racial wealth inequity, minimum wage, just to name some. I believe Congress should pass comprehensive legislation dealing with deep and persistent problems regarding all of those issues, but that's not the congress any of us has known in (at least) our adult lives as far as I can tell. I suppose the real question is whether Democrats/their supporters would tolerate Biden letting the pause on payments/interest expire without cancelling at least some debt/congress passing something better than an indefinite pause? Canceling at least some debt is more popular with people that are in debt (I don't think this surprises anyone, but they certainly aren't the only ones). There's several polls showing this: www.forbes.com More than half of voters support canceling $50,000 of debt without the service requirement, even more when you means test for people making less than $125,000 a year. www.filesforprogress.org I think your point about Biden being able to take care of some of this on his own is incredibly significant and avoids contrarian Republicans. That's important and at least gets the ball rolling in the right direction. Thanks for those polls too! And I hope that Biden is held accountable if he doesn't pursue some of these actions... whether or not we're in a global pandemic, student debt needs to be addressed. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On February 20 2021 00:27 Neneu wrote: There are few things that a country have higher return long term on than investing into education for their citizens. Why it is so crazy costly in the US is a thing I'll never understand and is what I consider one of the big reasons for your decline in living standards the last decades. When you also have extremely high interest rates on student loans which you cannot declare yourself bankrupt on (which means a lot less risk for the lenders, why were the interest rate so high again?), it is probably one of the most idiotic policies there is. Just set the interest rate close to 1%, reduce x ratio of it and make universities affordable enough for poor families to not having to seek financial support. In almost any other (we all know you aren't part of the fun club UK) western country, this would be a nobrainer. We'd be remiss to neglect in our considerations that Biden was instrumental in making them unable to be cleared by bankruptcy while other prominent Democrats (namely Ted Kennedy) noted the deeply problematic nature of the legislation. “Biden was one of the most powerful people who could have said no... Other leading Democrats and consumer advocates did say no. In the Senate debate on the 2005 bill, Ted Kennedy was scathing about its implications. “This legislation breaks the bond that unites America, it sacrifices Americans to the rampant greed of the credit card industry,” he said. www.theguardian.com I'm not confident he doesn't intend on doing something similar with similar reasoning here. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
dp
United States234 Posts
On February 19 2021 16:23 Zambrah wrote:"It's hard on people" is absolutely something that has to be considered when making policy. I felt like my point was clear. The fact you went into police brutality on black people as an example when discussing forgiving loans for college educated high earners confuses me. We really should craft policy so those poor doctors, lawyers, finance and business execs finally get a leg up and can live a good life. They work so very hard, and having something be hard for them would be unfair. Even if its only for a few years. Right?.. On February 19 2021 16:49 GreenHorizons wrote: [Snip]..sounds better to me than not helping millions of desperate people until you can exclude affluent people from benefiting too. I get your argument. But look at your wording. There. Is. No. Desperation. Not being able to buy a house because of past loans or bad credit is not a national emergency. No one, at all, would be forced to starve to pay back student loans. If your financial situation is bad, you can literally have your required payments dropped to 0$ a month, for as long as your income stays there, until they are eventually forgiven. If you think that is suffering, I really feel like the conversation wouldn't amount to much. On February 19 2021 21:18 Mohdoo wrote:It is very telling that you know a ton of people would need loan forgiveness but it’s the undeserving folks that make you want to scrap the whole thing. Because i actually understand the cost, who it goes to and who it affects as a by product. Yes, people earning good money that have to earmark a portion of it for to fulfill a contract they willingly entered, and are getting a hefty return back on, is not something you can make me feel sympathy for. The fact the point can't seem to be made without an attempt to pull at heart strings or scorn those that don't agree should make it obvious enough. On February 19 2021 23:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:Ideas of "the average degree holder earns a bunch of money" fails to realize that this is heavily skewed by the outliers. The average lawyer isn't a high flying corporate lawyer that makes a ton of money. The average physician, particularly a primary care physician, is absolutely swimming in debt that completely dwarfs their income for an incredibly long time (not to mention making maybe $50,000 a year for several years after school while in residency). Many, many, many college degree holders either have a difficult time finding a job or are forced to take a job that isn't in their field and doesn't even require a college degree. Even STEM and computer fields are becoming over-saturated in a lot of areas of the country. Satire is indeed dead. Will someone help the children?! / doctors and lawyers that hold debt at the beginning of their careers?! On February 19 2021 23:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:Forgiving student loan debt is important because it removed a financial burden from a generation that did not want that burden (and were conditioned to take it by the Boomer generation that never had that burden either) and will most likely not re-accumulate that same debt. This is the same generation that should be at the prime of their major life expenditures (house, kids, cars, kids education, etc.) and therefore this stimulus would be an incredible boost to the economy. Did not want it? And by that you mean signed for it, used it and then don't want to pay? Who know who else are at the prime major life expenditures? Every other person, which is the majority of their peers, that didn't go to college. They will/do earn less, have exactly the same costs otherwise and same potential life goals. Somehow the progressive outlook is to help which group?.. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On February 20 2021 00:08 JimmiC wrote: I mean yes that has been discussed back and forth every time this topic comes up because it is the major reason to be against this policy other than that you don't think it is a problem to begin with. I speak about it in more detail in my last post but spending your political capital to have this sued and held up in the courts is bad for the dems. I believe that suspending payments during the covid (maybe longer) and 0 % interest are positive policy for those with the loans without the political head aches of forgiveness and up the chances of an actual solution rather than just pushing the problem down a few years. Your also completely missing my point and being insulting when you say that I am saying that because not all need it nothing should be done. I'm saying that we should do something different that helps everyone (or at least more) that need it. Yes people being given large sums of money will all be helped, I know I could sure use it would put me way ahead from where I am now, but there are many people who need it more than me (and likely more that need it less but that is neither her nor there). But why just the students with existing loans? Why not everyone? I'd be way more behind everyone getting 50k than people with student loans getting 50k. What makes the student loan "special" compared to all the other reasons that people are hurting? Why is this the hill to die on, it affects a fairly small portion of the people in need. According to the below almost half of the US is in some kind of poverty (46.9%) over 75%!! of that group would be completely not impacted at all by this (23.7% no high school, 11.5% high school). Another 16% of that group (7.8% overall) would be marginally impacted as it is a fair presumption that some of this group would have little or no debt left. And those directly benefiting would make up only 8% (3.9% total) of the group. Is it bad to help 8-16% of the poor, no that is good, is it the best? Far from it. That money could be used to help a lot poor and not arbitrarily because they attended school, and since college people make way more on average it could be argued that many of that 8-16% are in the "better off" group of the poor. https://www.statista.com/statistics/233162/us-poverty-rate-by-education/ I think a lot of people really into this issue are wearing blinders to how large the poverty problem is and what % college educated people make of it. I get it because I bet this thread leans heavily to college educated people and therefor most of our social groups and so on are made up of people similar to us. But the reality is a program like this is going to pull a few out of poverty and accelerate many others into middle class. That is not a bad thing, it is just not the best thing. Edit: this is why public post secondary makes so much sense for society. It makes keeping the costs reasonable for everyone, matter to everyone because everyone is paying for it. It also opens up the opportunity for education to many of those who currently do not have that option. I think a lot of people are forgetting that to many many of the poor people see those who get to go to college are already very privileged compared to them. And while they may be in a similar boat currently financially because of that debt, they are also in a better position because they can earn more and have a much better chance of getting out of their current situation. Someone with no education has no hope at landing that 60k, 80k 100k whatever job. Since it is clear there is burnout on parts of this discussion: How about actually applying the liberal views on wealth redistribution towards Universities that pay outrageous amounts of money towards their sports programs and coaches. Nick Saban earns $9.3 million dollars annually. How come more liberals aren't attacking the top 1% earners at University and demanding that Universities stop delivering large payouts to a small group of individuals and instead redistribute large amounts earned by the athletic department profits towards student scholarship programs? I'm certain if liberals got loud enough, they could at least make this a leading conversation. "Attend a game and X% goes towards helping our young adults get through college." | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On February 20 2021 01:10 BisuDagger wrote: Since it is clear there is burnout on parts of this discussion: How about actually applying the liberal views on wealth redistribution towards Universities that pay outrageous amounts of money towards their sports programs and coaches. Nick Saban earns $9.3 million dollars annually. How come more liberals aren't attacking the top 1% earners at University and demanding that Universities stop delivering large payouts to a small group of individuals and instead redistribute large amounts earned by the athletic department profits towards student scholarship programs? I'm certain if liberals got loud enough, they could at least make this a leading conversation. "Attend a game and X% goes towards helping our young adults get through college." Public universities are primarily creatures of state law, so how exactly do your propose the feds go about forcing the government of the state of Alabama to change what it pays employees like Saban? I take it you understand how politically impossible it would be for the feds to change the Alabama state constitution, and the incentive-based federal funding mechanisms that used to be relied upon by the feds relative to encouraging states to do particular things have been gutted by decades of conservative SCOTUS decisions, NFIB v. Sebelius being a prime example. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44387 Posts
On February 20 2021 01:09 dp wrote: I get your argument. But look at your wording. There. Is. No. Desperation. Not being able to buy a house because of past loans or bad credit is not a national emergency. No one, at all, would be forced to starve to pay back student loans. If your financial situation is bad, you can literally have your required payments dropped to 0$ a month, for as long as your income stays there, until they are eventually forgiven. If you think that is suffering, I really feel like the conversation wouldn't amount to much. Student loan forgiveness often takes 20-25 years. That's not feasible. Student loan debt is something like $1.6 trillion in this country, and it's absolutely hamstringing millions of people into not being able to progress in their lives for at least a decade. GH is spot on in that there is plenty of desperation when it comes to student loans and interest, and you're simply incorrect when you say that no one is starving because of their loans. People can't afford to pay rent (let alone own their own property) or afford other necessities because of their eternal student debt. It's actually a big deal for a lot of people. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On February 20 2021 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think your point about Biden being able to take care of some of this on his own is incredibly significant and avoids contrarian Republicans. That's important and at least gets the ball rolling in the right direction. Thanks for those polls too! And I hope that Biden is held accountable if he doesn't pursue some of these actions... whether or not we're in a global pandemic, student debt needs to be addressed. Indeed and np  Not sure how he could be other than a midterm blowout (if he lets the pause lapse before then as an act of political chicken with Democrats in Congress) and/or getting primaried in 2024 after thinking he should have another term? Considering the ~90% support from Black women for him using his executive powers to (at least attempt) cancelling some debt, and Black women's crucial role in Georgia and generally for Democrats, I think it'd be reasonable to say he owes them at least that much. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44387 Posts
On February 20 2021 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote: Indeed and np Not sure how he could be other than a midterm blowout (if he lets the pause lapse before then as an act of political chicken with Democrats in Congress) and/or getting primaried in 2024 after thinking he should have another term? Considering the ~90% support from Black women for him using his executive powers to (at least attempt) cancelling some debt, and Black women's crucial role in Georgia and generally for Democrats, I think it'd be reasonable to say he owes them at least that much. Agreed. Ignoring key demographics would be pretty silly of him. Unless Biden really messes up badly, I can't see him losing the next Democratic primary. If he doesn't become the 2024 Dem nominee, I think it would be more likely because he decides not to rerun (due to age or whatever), rather than him running and failing. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44387 Posts
On February 20 2021 01:37 JimmiC wrote: True, but a small % of the over all poor and a small % of those with student loans. Sure, but why do we need to wait until people are literally starving to death, because they can't afford their student loans, to help them out? Why can't we make society more comfortable for people who are middle class or lower-middle class, before they become completely impoverished? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War ggaemo Dota 2 1640Pusan  539firebathero  393ToSsGirL 136sorry 96Free 30Noble 29JulyZerg 25ajuk12(nOOB) 24Sharp 22[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Zoun vs Bunny
herO vs Solar
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo League
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Classic vs Percival
Spirit vs NightMare
CSO Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
