EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3407
| 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 | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21712 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18011 Posts
On December 16 2021 00:01 BisuDagger wrote: I can certainly see that. For Dem politicians, it almost would have been better to not have happened at all or just resumed payments on the originally scheduled plan. I personally think payments should resume as soon as possible. However, I'd strongly get behind a large reduction in interest rates. It's better that lenders are being repaid at a smaller profit then nothing at all. I would be way more optimistic knowing when my repayments resume the burden on me is lower, then knowing another year might pass but then it's back to the high interest payments that are really hard to deal with. Imho giving respite as long as the Covid crisis is affecting peoples' ability to earn money is reasonable. That is something the government can and should do as an "executive order". Whether the emergency that precipitates the need for student loan freezes is still in effect is something I cannot answer. Most of Spain is adjusting to a "new normal", which sucks considerably more than the "old normal", but it cannot really be called an emergency anymore. So here, if there were such a thing as student loans, it'd make sense to require payments to recommence. Now, whether student loans should exist in the first place and what to do about them is a question that requires a far larger legislative overhaul than can be done through executive order. I'm sure Democrats have a bill stashed away somewhere for overhauling higher education financing, and whether that would pass congress? I doubt it. But that is a rather separate issue. Oh, and didn't the Supreme Court already say the emergency was pretty much over, and they would rule it "over" and thus the executive order a form of government overreach if they tried to extend the loan freeze any longer? I remember something ike that? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25497 Posts
Surely the second the GOP are back in, likely after the midterms they’ll just resume the payments on the previous terms anyway? Feels like kicking a can down the road. US students are paying multiple times what even the likes of U.K. students, who do finance via loans pay, never mind places where student loans aren’t even a thing and they’re grants. And repaying it at 6% interest regardless of circumstances and with no ability to even escape via bankruptcy. I don’t think the U.K. system is optimal, as the costs have shot up but we only pay it back if we’ve earned above a certain threshold, and our overall debt is still considerably lower than in the US | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
I tend to think this investigation will not lead Democrats to their Holy Grail, the take-down of Trump by law enforcement. The facts we already know show that this was an unruly mob that got out of hand but was not specifically directed or led to the course of action it took. There's not much (if any?) evidence to suggest that a leadership cabal is criminally liable for the actions of the mob. | ||
KwarK
United States42803 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On December 16 2021 02:56 WombaT wrote: And repaying it at 6% interest regardless of circumstances and with no ability to even escape via bankruptcy. This is a big part of what makes people so resentful of payments resuming. 6% interest on loans for education is deeply immoral. No one should be profiting off of financing education. We have swaths of data showing us why an educated population is better for the country and the world. I don't mind paying back every dollar I borrowed, but it should be with the following changes made: 1) all loans set to 0% interest 2) all previous payments are applied to the original principle 3) student loan payments can be made directly pre tax, taken out of your check like a 401k If all of these changes were made, I see no issue with the current system. I would still support taxing me so that school can be free for future students, because I fundamentally believe education should be paid by the government. But I would not feel resentful paying my loans if those 3 changes were made. 6% interest on student loans is just so stupid and predatory. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19246 Posts
On December 16 2021 07:28 Mohdoo wrote: This is a big part of what makes people so resentful of payments resuming. 6% interest on loans for education is deeply immoral. No one should be profiting off of financing education. We have swaths of data showing us why an educated population is better for the country and the world. I don't mind paying back every dollar I borrowed, but it should be with the following changes made: 1) all loans set to 0% interest 2) all previous payments are applied to the original principle 3) student loan payments can be made directly pre tax, taken out of your check like a 401k If all of these changes were made, I see no issue with the current system. I would still support taxing me so that school can be free for future students, because I fundamentally believe education should be paid by the government. But I would not feel resentful paying my loans if those 3 changes were made. 6% interest on student loans is just so stupid and predatory. My only disagreement is that the lender should be paid for their service. I would be okay with a 0% interest if a static amount is owed at the end of the loan for services rendered and if there is a financial penalty (baring some sort of bankruptcy) for not paying the money back | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21712 Posts
On December 16 2021 09:20 BisuDagger wrote: The lender is the state, the payment is an educated member of the society.My only disagreement is that the lender should be paid for their service. I would be okay with a 0% interest if a static amount is owed at the end of the loan for services rendered and if there is a financial penalty (baring some sort of bankruptcy) for not paying the money back The government doesn't need to earn money on student loans, they can even lose money on them and still come out ahead because a more educated citizen is massively more likely to not be a net money loss (little to no taxes, potentially wellfare for the poor) but be a net gain (more education = higher income = more taxes) over their lifetime. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7242 Posts
Does that make any sense? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On December 16 2021 09:33 Sadist wrote: Do you think a 0% interest rate would actually increase the amount of debt people take on? I ceel like with interest rates being low in housing, you can afford more house because you are paying less in interest which causes housing prices to rise. Does that make any sense? You're not able to just be like "Give me a million dollars lol", loans from the government are computed based on need. I was offered an amount based on tuition and living costs. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 16 2021 09:33 Sadist wrote: Do you think a 0% interest rate would actually increase the amount of debt people take on? I ceel like with interest rates being low in housing, you can afford more house because you are paying less in interest which causes housing prices to rise. Does that make any sense? Artificially easy to obtain loans definitely send prices soaring, and student loans and mortgages are undoubtedly the two biggest culprits of that. But I actually think the structure of the loans, and the limits thereof, are different between the two in a way that matters. Mortgage loan limits are based on a maximum monthly payment as a percentage of income, and obviously a lower interest rate means you can afford a higher principal without increasing your monthly payment. But student loans are based on just a maximum borrowing limit, completely ignoring any calculation about ability to pay. That just encourages costs of schooling to rise to meet the maximum borrowing limit, regardless of what the interest rate is. Hell, 6% isn't even a constant. Some of the most favorable loans are a mere 3%, whereas if you go high enough you get loan-shark rates like 15%. | ||
|
Husyelt
United States832 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7312 Posts
It'd also make the issue more pressing, because letting colleges price gouge to hell and back isn't going to be sustainable, and you do it once youre going to have to deal with the people who it doesn't apply to which would hopefully be done via actual legislation. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23251 Posts
On December 16 2021 13:44 Zambrah wrote: Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Theres almost 0% chance the US government is going to do anything to adequately deal with the state of higher educations within any reasonable timeframe, student loan forgiveness is just a low hanging fruit that can be targeted to at least help some people. It'd also make the issue more pressing, because letting colleges price gouge to hell and back isn't going to be sustainable, and you do it once youre going to have to deal with the people who it doesn't apply to which would hopefully be done via actual legislation. The other aspect is that Biden can do it himself without needing to pass it through a hopeless senate first. Can anyone point to a downside to canceling student debt (even if only the $10k Biden campaigned on) that is avoided by Biden's solo push to restart payments? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18011 Posts
On December 16 2021 13:44 Zambrah wrote: Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Theres almost 0% chance the US government is going to do anything to adequately deal with the state of higher educations within any reasonable timeframe, student loan forgiveness is just a low hanging fruit that can be targeted to at least help some people. It'd also make the issue more pressing, because letting colleges price gouge to hell and back isn't going to be sustainable, and you do it once youre going to have to deal with the people who it doesn't apply to which would hopefully be done via actual legislation. Except that if you forgive student loans now, future students will expect their loans to be gifts as well. And why shouldn't they? And to do that ad infinitum is not sustainable at all as long as the cost of education isn't controlled as well. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18011 Posts
On December 16 2021 16:30 Starlightsun wrote: Can't believe that ice shelf set to break off in the next five years may cause 6 ft rise in sea levels. Just amazing our ability to kick the can down the road until the disaster is too bad to ignore. I guess that is typical human psychology and yet you would think collectively we would overcome that rather than amplify it? Why is our government falling into complete paralysis now of all times? The ice shelf won't cause much of a sea level rise (mostly Archimedes' law at work, but because it is resting on the ocean floor, it will still cause some rise). The multiple feet is for the glacier that is being held back by that ice shelf. It will slide into the ocean over the next couple of decades, and *that* will add a LOT of water to the oceans, potentially causing a few feet rise (although I haven't heard 6 mentioned for just that glacier). None of this is new, btw. The only thing that study shows is why that ice shelf is melting away so quickly. It was already known that it *was* melting away quickly. As were the previous ice shelves around it that have already broken off. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On December 16 2021 17:07 Acrofales wrote: The ice shelf won't cause much of a sea level rise (mostly Archimedes' law at work, but because it is resting on the ocean floor, it will still cause some rise). The multiple feet is for the glacier that is being held back by that ice shelf. It will slide into the ocean over the next couple of decades, and *that* will add a LOT of water to the oceans, potentially causing a few feet rise (although I haven't heard 6 mentioned for just that glacier). None of this is new, btw. The only thing that study shows is why that ice shelf is melting away so quickly. It was already known that it *was* melting away quickly. As were the previous ice shelves around it that have already broken off. Isn't a few feet quite catastrophic? The guy they were interviewing on the news said it's possible that the surrounding glaciers might also go, and that the rise could be 6-10 feet. We would see a dramatic rise of several feet of sea level. And it could be Thwaites itself perhaps two to three feet, but Thwaites is holding back its neighbors. And they, too, could fall apart, raising sea level by an additional maybe six feet, so, altogether, something of scale 10 feet. And if you try to wrap your head around that, we're talking around the entire Earth, the entire ocean. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/melting-of-the-thwaites-glacier-could-rewrite-the-global-coastline | ||
| ||
