|
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 |
On March 30 2022 09:13 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2022 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2022 03:33 lestye wrote:On March 30 2022 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:
That was in 1976. It is extremely possible for someone's perspective to change over the course of 40 years. Especially when the situation is extremely different. And the whole idea of re-election. Even if Biden fundamentally hates the youth, if he wants to be re-elected, it is kind of mandatory. Yeah.... and my understanding was that people declaring bankruptcy like day 1 after graduation was a serious loophole back then. I get that. But yeah, hopefully he'll get desperate enough he'll keep his promise. Americans Will Always Do the Right Thing — After Exhausting All the Alternatives You should know that it was 2005 when Biden broke ranks to help Republicans pass the law that took away the ability to discharge private student loans through bankruptcy. I'm unclear on why you think it was a serious loophole back then? Idk, my understanding was that a ton of students strategically declared bankruptcy right after graduating so thats one of the reasons why they amended it. I'm not sure if thats 1) accurate or 2) justification for the 1978, 1998 or 2005 changes to the Bankruptcy code.
It seems your understanding was unfounded.
A 2015 Department of Education report even noted:
...significantly lowered interest rates had not been observed, which was the justification for the statutory change at the time; and there was no evidence of systematic abuse of student loan discharge prior to 2005.
govinfo.library.unt.edu
|
I definitely don't have a hard time with the idea that our government likes to make up problems so that the thing they want to pass seems like a convenient solution.
|
Yeah, the "lazy students declare bankruptcy to get out of paying back their student loans" thing is such a boomer concern.
|
On March 30 2022 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2022 09:13 lestye wrote:On March 30 2022 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2022 03:33 lestye wrote:On March 30 2022 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:
That was in 1976. It is extremely possible for someone's perspective to change over the course of 40 years. Especially when the situation is extremely different. And the whole idea of re-election. Even if Biden fundamentally hates the youth, if he wants to be re-elected, it is kind of mandatory. Yeah.... and my understanding was that people declaring bankruptcy like day 1 after graduation was a serious loophole back then. I get that. But yeah, hopefully he'll get desperate enough he'll keep his promise. Americans Will Always Do the Right Thing — After Exhausting All the Alternatives You should know that it was 2005 when Biden broke ranks to help Republicans pass the law that took away the ability to discharge private student loans through bankruptcy. I'm unclear on why you think it was a serious loophole back then? Idk, my understanding was that a ton of students strategically declared bankruptcy right after graduating so thats one of the reasons why they amended it. I'm not sure if thats 1) accurate or 2) justification for the 1978, 1998 or 2005 changes to the Bankruptcy code. It seems your understanding was unfounded. A 2015 Department of Education report even noted: Show nested quote +...significantly lowered interest rates had not been observed, which was the justification for the statutory change at the time; and there was no evidence of systematic abuse of student loan discharge prior to 2005. govinfo.library.unt.edu
I ctrl f’d and did not find that quote in that page.
But regardless I think I found a better source: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.d0003039724&view=1up&seq=9
Which is what recommended Congress to implement that change.
But regardless, yeah my understanding was unfounded because there was no proof they did that, that was just a possibility they saw. Which is silly in retrospect, because college was way more reasonable in 1978 so I dont think you’d have many people declaring bankruptcies like they would absolutely would do today.
|
Bankruptcy in the US also means that you'll have at least seven years of not being able to get anything on credit, so it's not exactly an appealing prospect just to shed some tens of thousands of dollars if you'd be capable of servicing that debt. It's a big hole to dig yourself into. Seems mostly like a fake problem.
The bankruptcy-proofing of the loan will primarily benefit the creditor by de-risking the loan. If they were still mostly privately owned - it'd be a heavenly asset to trade around with securities and collateralized obligations.
|
Joe Manchin continuing to cockblock his own party. Basically shooting down the already pathetically low 20% minimum tax on billionaires suggested by Biden.
Even if Democrats wanted to do something to help midterms they have no shot with Joe Manchin helping them out.
Boy howdy people are being shown that when you vote for a Democrat you’re voting for real leaders who are truly capable of and interested in creating a better life for you! Definitely inspired to vote Democrat in the midterm given this administrations numerous achievements that could only have been accomplished by Democrats!
Midterms gonna be such a blood bath and no one will learn a single lesson from it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-manchin-biden-billionaire-tax-plan-2022-3?utm_source=reddit.com
|
On March 30 2022 13:40 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2022 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2022 09:13 lestye wrote:On March 30 2022 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2022 03:33 lestye wrote:On March 30 2022 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:
That was in 1976. It is extremely possible for someone's perspective to change over the course of 40 years. Especially when the situation is extremely different. And the whole idea of re-election. Even if Biden fundamentally hates the youth, if he wants to be re-elected, it is kind of mandatory. Yeah.... and my understanding was that people declaring bankruptcy like day 1 after graduation was a serious loophole back then. I get that. But yeah, hopefully he'll get desperate enough he'll keep his promise. Americans Will Always Do the Right Thing — After Exhausting All the Alternatives You should know that it was 2005 when Biden broke ranks to help Republicans pass the law that took away the ability to discharge private student loans through bankruptcy. I'm unclear on why you think it was a serious loophole back then? Idk, my understanding was that a ton of students strategically declared bankruptcy right after graduating so thats one of the reasons why they amended it. I'm not sure if thats 1) accurate or 2) justification for the 1978, 1998 or 2005 changes to the Bankruptcy code. It seems your understanding was unfounded. A 2015 Department of Education report even noted: ...significantly lowered interest rates had not been observed, which was the justification for the statutory change at the time; and there was no evidence of systematic abuse of student loan discharge prior to 2005. govinfo.library.unt.edu I ctrl f’d and did not find that quote in that page. But regardless I think I found a better source: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.d0003039724&view=1up&seq=9Which is what recommended Congress to implement that change. But regardless, yeah my understanding was unfounded because there was no proof they did that, that was just a possibility they saw. Which is silly in retrospect, because college was way more reasonable in 1978 so I dont think you’d have many people declaring bankruptcies like they would absolutely would do today.
My bad, that was the wrong link. This is the report from the Department of Education where the previous quote is from.
It was definitely silly by 2005 when Biden used it (again). The first (misplaced) link was to a 1997 National Bankruptcy Review Commission report that mentioned the report you linked (and a preceding one) this way:...the 1973 Report of the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States recommended that student loans be nondischargeable for five years after repayment commenced. However, the 1970 Commission acknowledged that student loan abuse was more perception than reality. They go on to reinforce the point this way:
...a limitless number of individuals arguably could have attempted to use Chapter 13 to unburden themselves of student debt. However, no empirical evidence has been discovered showing that students systematically were able to take advantage of Chapter 13 to discharge their student debts.
As LL (and the linked report) points out, the 2005 law places the lender on an inexplicable pedestal above other lenders a person has debt to.
Your previous understanding is anti-poor people propaganda born from the same sort of thinking as the "welfare queen" (which Clinton used to pass anti-poor welfare reform). As NewSunshine insinuates, it is a frequently used trick.
There's a lot of attempted rationalizations for why it might not be irreconcilably exploitative for the government to do this for their own loans, but putting private lenders on that pedestal as Biden joined Republicans to do in 2005 is nakedly in favor of private lenders at the explicit expense of people receiving private student loans.
It also paved the way for countless scam universities (including Trump's) to exploit and profit from people seeking an education. This is all entirely in character for Biden, the former senator of Delaware (notorious haven for unscrupulous corporations).
|
On March 30 2022 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2022 13:40 lestye wrote:On March 30 2022 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2022 09:13 lestye wrote:On March 30 2022 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2022 03:33 lestye wrote:On March 30 2022 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:
That was in 1976. It is extremely possible for someone's perspective to change over the course of 40 years. Especially when the situation is extremely different. And the whole idea of re-election. Even if Biden fundamentally hates the youth, if he wants to be re-elected, it is kind of mandatory. Yeah.... and my understanding was that people declaring bankruptcy like day 1 after graduation was a serious loophole back then. I get that. But yeah, hopefully he'll get desperate enough he'll keep his promise. Americans Will Always Do the Right Thing — After Exhausting All the Alternatives You should know that it was 2005 when Biden broke ranks to help Republicans pass the law that took away the ability to discharge private student loans through bankruptcy. I'm unclear on why you think it was a serious loophole back then? Idk, my understanding was that a ton of students strategically declared bankruptcy right after graduating so thats one of the reasons why they amended it. I'm not sure if thats 1) accurate or 2) justification for the 1978, 1998 or 2005 changes to the Bankruptcy code. It seems your understanding was unfounded. A 2015 Department of Education report even noted: ...significantly lowered interest rates had not been observed, which was the justification for the statutory change at the time; and there was no evidence of systematic abuse of student loan discharge prior to 2005. govinfo.library.unt.edu I ctrl f’d and did not find that quote in that page. But regardless I think I found a better source: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.d0003039724&view=1up&seq=9Which is what recommended Congress to implement that change. But regardless, yeah my understanding was unfounded because there was no proof they did that, that was just a possibility they saw. Which is silly in retrospect, because college was way more reasonable in 1978 so I dont think you’d have many people declaring bankruptcies like they would absolutely would do today. My bad, that was the wrong link. This is the report from the Department of Education where the previous quote is from. It was definitely silly by 2005 when Biden used it (again). The first (misplaced) link was to a 1997 National Bankruptcy Review Commission report that mentioned the report you linked (and a preceding one) this way: Show nested quote +...the 1973 Report of the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States recommended that student loans be nondischargeable for five years after repayment commenced. However, the 1970 Commission acknowledged that student loan abuse was more perception than reality. They go on to reinforce the point this way: Show nested quote +...a limitless number of individuals arguably could have attempted to use Chapter 13 to unburden themselves of student debt. However, no empirical evidence has been discovered showing that students systematically were able to take advantage of Chapter 13 to discharge their student debts. As LL (and the linked report) points out, the 2005 law places the lender on an inexplicable pedestal above other lenders a person has debt to. Your previous understanding is anti-poor people propaganda born from the same sort of thinking as the "welfare queen" (which Clinton used to pass anti-poor welfare reform). As NewSunshine insinuates, it is a frequently used trick. There's a lot of attempted rationalizations for why it might not be irreconcilably exploitative for the government to do this for their own loans, but putting private lenders on that pedestal as Biden joined Republicans to do in 2005 is nakedly in favor of private lenders at the explicit expense of people receiving private student loans. It also paved the way for countless scam universities (including Trump's) to exploit and profit from people seeking an education. This is all entirely in character for Biden, the former senator of Delaware (notorious haven for unscrupulous corporations).
You seem to be on a crusade against someone who agrees with you. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in this thread who disagrees with you that the change to making student loans persist through bankruptcy was thoroughly unnecessary.
|
Biden proposing a 31 billion dollar military spending increase, bringing military spending up to 813b a year and 8.13 trillion dollars in normal budgetary terms.
And to restate for anyone unfamiliar, most everything budget wise is talked about in ten year terms, so the BBB plan would’ve been, what, 200b a year over a decade. Military budget is the one that’s talked about in yearly terms.
They definitely have the money to spend on improving infrastructure and dealing with student loans, etc, don’t ever let them pretend like they don’t.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/defense/599599-biden-to-ask-for-813-billion-national-security-budget-report?amp
I’ll bet Manchin will vote yes on this! Really votes with the Democrats when it’s most important, I’m sure.
|
United States24813 Posts
I'm not sure if now is the best time to use military spending as an argument for increased spending on other programs. Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union and actively invading Europe.
|
On March 30 2022 19:40 micronesia wrote:
I'm not sure if now is the best time to use military spending as an argument for increased spending on other programs. Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union and actively invading Europe.
And horribly failing at that. And even if they were succeeding, the current US military budget would still be more than enough to deal with any of that.
|
Russia is not the only country interested in blowing up the world order. They were just the one that decided to open the box.
We all know Xi is taking notes. If we're lucky the last line says "not worth", but it's very optimistic to assume that.
|
On March 30 2022 19:42 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2022 19:40 micronesia wrote:
I'm not sure if now is the best time to use military spending as an argument for increased spending on other programs. Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union and actively invading Europe. And horribly failing at that. And even if they were succeeding, the current US military budget would still be more than enough to deal with any of that.
Agreed.
America still spends on the military what like the ten countries ranked below it in military spending spend lol. Three times what China is estimated to spend, more than ten times what Russia spends, ten times what India spends, it’s crazy.
American military spending is wasteful on many levels.
|
Those countries only have to project power to the area they want to invade.
The country trying to prevent them has to project power to all the possible places that could be invaded.
One of those is much more expensive.
|
On March 30 2022 19:40 micronesia wrote:
I'm not sure if now is the best time to use military spending as an argument for increased spending on other programs. Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union and actively invading Europe. The US doesn't need to increase military spending to be safe from Russia, or protect the rest of the world from them.
You have a point if your talking to the EU, not the US.
|
On March 30 2022 19:42 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2022 19:40 micronesia wrote:
I'm not sure if now is the best time to use military spending as an argument for increased spending on other programs. Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union and actively invading Europe. And horribly failing at that. And even if they were succeeding, the current US military budget would still be more than enough to deal with any of that.
US military and police always seem to need more money...
Fun fact: Just the NYPD's budget is bigger than the budget of the entire Ukrainian military.
The Ukrainian military budget was nearly $6 billion in 2020, according to the World Bank; the New York Police Department’s FY2020 budget in 2020 was nearly $11 billion www.vice.com
That's apparently not enough though as Biden is pushing for even more police funding in his budget while encouraging states and cities to increase their police funding as well. The idea either needs more funding strikes me as absurd.
|
On March 30 2022 16:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2022 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2022 13:40 lestye wrote:On March 30 2022 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2022 09:13 lestye wrote:On March 30 2022 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2022 03:33 lestye wrote:On March 30 2022 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:
That was in 1976. It is extremely possible for someone's perspective to change over the course of 40 years. Especially when the situation is extremely different. And the whole idea of re-election. Even if Biden fundamentally hates the youth, if he wants to be re-elected, it is kind of mandatory. Yeah.... and my understanding was that people declaring bankruptcy like day 1 after graduation was a serious loophole back then. I get that. But yeah, hopefully he'll get desperate enough he'll keep his promise. Americans Will Always Do the Right Thing — After Exhausting All the Alternatives You should know that it was 2005 when Biden broke ranks to help Republicans pass the law that took away the ability to discharge private student loans through bankruptcy. I'm unclear on why you think it was a serious loophole back then? Idk, my understanding was that a ton of students strategically declared bankruptcy right after graduating so thats one of the reasons why they amended it. I'm not sure if thats 1) accurate or 2) justification for the 1978, 1998 or 2005 changes to the Bankruptcy code. It seems your understanding was unfounded. A 2015 Department of Education report even noted: ...significantly lowered interest rates had not been observed, which was the justification for the statutory change at the time; and there was no evidence of systematic abuse of student loan discharge prior to 2005. govinfo.library.unt.edu I ctrl f’d and did not find that quote in that page. But regardless I think I found a better source: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.d0003039724&view=1up&seq=9Which is what recommended Congress to implement that change. But regardless, yeah my understanding was unfounded because there was no proof they did that, that was just a possibility they saw. Which is silly in retrospect, because college was way more reasonable in 1978 so I dont think you’d have many people declaring bankruptcies like they would absolutely would do today. My bad, that was the wrong link. This is the report from the Department of Education where the previous quote is from. It was definitely silly by 2005 when Biden used it (again). The first (misplaced) link was to a 1997 National Bankruptcy Review Commission report that mentioned the report you linked (and a preceding one) this way: ...the 1973 Report of the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States recommended that student loans be nondischargeable for five years after repayment commenced. However, the 1970 Commission acknowledged that student loan abuse was more perception than reality. They go on to reinforce the point this way: ...a limitless number of individuals arguably could have attempted to use Chapter 13 to unburden themselves of student debt. However, no empirical evidence has been discovered showing that students systematically were able to take advantage of Chapter 13 to discharge their student debts. As LL (and the linked report) points out, the 2005 law places the lender on an inexplicable pedestal above other lenders a person has debt to. Your previous understanding is anti-poor people propaganda born from the same sort of thinking as the "welfare queen" (which Clinton used to pass anti-poor welfare reform). As NewSunshine insinuates, it is a frequently used trick. There's a lot of attempted rationalizations for why it might not be irreconcilably exploitative for the government to do this for their own loans, but putting private lenders on that pedestal as Biden joined Republicans to do in 2005 is nakedly in favor of private lenders at the explicit expense of people receiving private student loans. It also paved the way for countless scam universities (including Trump's) to exploit and profit from people seeking an education. This is all entirely in character for Biden, the former senator of Delaware (notorious haven for unscrupulous corporations). You seem to be on a crusade against someone who agrees with you. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in this thread who disagrees with you that the change to making student loans persist through bankruptcy was thoroughly unnecessary.
I always though the argument for making student nondischargeable was that if you borrow money to, say, open a business and it goes broke and you go bankrupt, you lose that investment and don’t keep any of it. whereas student loans give you knowledge, which bankruptcy can’t take away, so it’s not fair that someone else has to foot the bill when you declare bankruptcy.
Of course there are other reasons to argue that you should be able to discharge student debt when you go bankrupt, but this I think is the main reason for the opposition.
|
|
|
On March 30 2022 21:43 JimmiC wrote:
The problem with US school is not the existence of loans, it is the ballooning and unreasonable cost of the schooling itself.
Agreed. Same as healthcare. They charge because they can. You dont have many, if any, alternatives. Its gouging plane and simple. We need some method of price controls in both industries.
|
Yeah but have you considered that price controls in healthcare could affect the wallet of Joe Manchin's daughter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
