EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3579
| 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 | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
| ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On April 07 2022 01:10 Mohdoo wrote: And something can still be gigantic. Here is what Biden can do without congress: 1) Direct all federal agencies to withhold all grants from universities that increase their tuition more than inflation 2) Set all loans to their original amount 3) Apply all past payments to their original amount 4) Set interest to 0.1% This would be an enormous change and most people would be pleased with it. People who cheer for the government to charge students interest can't be saved. The government can already garnish wages if you don't pay, so having interest on the loans is purely predatory. The government will get their money. 6% is the common interest rate for federal loans, which is way more than a car or mortgage. https://www.calculator.net/payment-calculator.html?ctype=fixterm&cloanamount=50000&cloanterm=25&cmonthlypay=1000&cinterestrate=6&printit=0&x=0&y=0 ^That is the payment break down for a 25 year loan of $50,000. It is totally nuts. There are a few problems with this plan. 1) What if after waiving the interest it turns out someone has already paid more than their principal? Do they get a refund? If yes, where do those funds come from? 2) If student loans are interest free, what's to stop parents from having their children apply for the loan even if they were intending to pay for tuition, and use the saved money to invest for greater returns? You're essentially subsidizing wealthy people. 3) In the US, my understanding is that student loans are not tied to tuition, you can spend that money on other things like rent, living expenses and so on. So now the government is essentially subsidizing other economic activity with this policy. 2) | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On April 07 2022 12:22 gobbledydook wrote: There are a few problems with this plan. 1) What if after waiving the interest it turns out someone has already paid more than their principal? Do they get a refund? If yes, where do those funds come from? 2) If student loans are interest free, what's to stop parents from having their children apply for the loan even if they were intending to pay for tuition, and use the saved money to invest for greater returns? You're essentially subsidizing wealthy people. 3) In the US, my understanding is that student loans are not tied to tuition, you can spend that money on other things like rent, living expenses and so on. So now the government is essentially subsidizing other economic activity with this policy. 2) 1) The government pays it through some mechanism. I am not going to pretend I need to outline the intricacies of the government's financial accounting to make a suggestion. 2) What's to stop people from selling food stamps so they can buy drugs? What if people use welfare to buy drugs? What if wealthy people take the cash grants awarded to college students and use them to invest? This hypothetical is silly because it pretends the existence of some mechanism of abuse invalidates the entire thing and ignores the fact that there is a giant gaping problem to be solved. 3) Yes, people pay rent with student loans. People go out to lunch and pay rent with student loans, grants, scholarships, all sorts of stuff right now. Hyper fixation on making sure money is spent only incredibly perfectly ignores the fact that in all existing social programs, abuse is a very small fraction of the total money spent. Many families survive because of programs that other shitty people abuse. It doesn't mean we pull those programs. Abuse will happen in every single system, even the most fruitful and beneficial to society. The military awards enormous grants to all sorts of large and small corporations and those grants are abused to the count of billions of dollars every year. It doesn't mean we abolish the military. There plain and simply are not any examples in the world of large scale programs or even private organizations that do not contain abuse. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On April 07 2022 13:20 Mohdoo wrote: 1) The government pays it through some mechanism. I am not going to pretend I need to outline the intricacies of the government's financial accounting to make a suggestion. 2) What's to stop people from selling food stamps so they can buy drugs? What if people use welfare to buy drugs? What if wealthy people take the cash grants awarded to college students and use them to invest? This hypothetical is silly because it pretends the existence of some mechanism of abuse invalidates the entire thing and ignores the fact that there is a giant gaping problem to be solved. 3) Yes, people pay rent with student loans. People go out to lunch and pay rent with student loans, grants, scholarships, all sorts of stuff right now. Hyper fixation on making sure money is spent only incredibly perfectly ignores the fact that in all existing social programs, abuse is a very small fraction of the total money spent. Many families survive because of programs that other shitty people abuse. It doesn't mean we pull those programs. Abuse will happen in every single system, even the most fruitful and beneficial to society. The military awards enormous grants to all sorts of large and small corporations and those grants are abused to the count of billions of dollars every year. It doesn't mean we abolish the military. There plain and simply are not any examples in the world of large scale programs or even private organizations that do not contain abuse. Simple - student loans should be paid directly to the college in lieu of college fees. Then the student repays the government. This doesn't fix the 'rich parents' problem, but it fixes 3). | ||
|
ramisthand76
1 Post
MyFiosGateway Verizon mobdro | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
Also it's an exhausting flood, a constant stream of idiotic regressive bills from Republicans in Republican states. Its like covering all of the dumb shit Trump said except coming from like half a dozen Trumps. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22703 Posts
Yes its ok to spend a student loan on rent and food, what crazy world is this. An especially weird take in the US, imo, where I believe its common to live on campus. Student loans are to help students go to college/university. Its hard to do that when your homeless and starving. Yes you can pay for basic living expenses, and even an Ipod if you feel like it, without the world exploding. Again, look outside the US. The rest of the world can manage it just fine, your not inventing the wheel here. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18489 Posts
On April 07 2022 12:22 gobbledydook wrote: There are a few problems with this plan. 1) What if after waiving the interest it turns out someone has already paid more than their principal? Do they get a refund? If yes, where do those funds come from? 2) If student loans are interest free, what's to stop parents from having their children apply for the loan even if they were intending to pay for tuition, and use the saved money to invest for greater returns? You're essentially subsidizing wealthy people. 3) In the US, my understanding is that student loans are not tied to tuition, you can spend that money on other things like rent, living expenses and so on. So now the government is essentially subsidizing other economic activity with this policy. 2) Well, regarding (3): that just plain makes sense. Most people when studying don't have time to work a job that pays a living wage. Part-time jobs to make a bit on the side maybe, but studies are expected to be full-time. So obvioulsy rent and living expenses will be paid for from their loans. Not much point in paying tuition if you starve to death meanwhile. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9077 Posts
On April 07 2022 18:37 Gorsameth wrote: The rest of the world has low to no interest rate student loans and somehow manage to not have massive issues with rich kids using it as investment money, shocking really. Yes its ok to spend a student loan on rent and food, what crazy world is this. An especially weird take in the US, imo, where I believe its common to live on campus. Student loans are to help students go to college/university. Its hard to do that when your homeless and starving. Yes you can pay for basic living expenses, and even an Ipod if you feel like it, without the world exploding. Again, look outside the US. The rest of the world can manage it just fine, your not inventing the wheel here. America used to be good at stealing ideas and making them even better. Don't know why we didn't steal this idea. But I digress. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46705 Posts
 | ||
|
farvacola
United States18876 Posts
On April 08 2022 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Today will be the day that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson becomes a Supreme Court Justice The vote is in at 53-47 in favor of confirmation. She will take the bench upon Breyer’s retirement at the end of this term. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12086 Posts
The US is on a scary path towards being even more of a shitty dystopia, the hate that is going on is disgusting and scary, and the GOP is an utter disgrace of a political party. I think it is worth mentioning that it is not 100% clear that the incident in your link is linked to anti-LGBTQ+ hate, though, at least according to the article you mentioned. It can be, and it sounds plausible that it is. But other explanations are also plausible (spurned lover, not paying protection money to the mob, ...) | ||
|
lestye
United States4280 Posts
I delight in this news. Itd be great if the GOP flounders because Trump is sucking up all the air/money. User was warned for this post. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
Background on domestic terror entrapment: The ‘Herald Square Bomber’ Who Wasn’t https://nyti.ms/2Qv76QQ | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
Certainly though the FBI has form in this regard, and I’m not privy to all the particulars as the jurors would be. People seem rather pissed on that Twitter thread, I’m not entirely sure why. If the FBI isn’t observing, or to a degree facilitating criminals committing crimes, but actively inducing them to do things they would not otherwise an entrapment defence, and an acceptance of said defence is entirely reasonable IMO. The frustration from my position is not that the benefit of the doubt was extended to these folks, or Kyle Rittenhouse or whoever, it’s quite notable that other people don’t seem to get close to the same courtesy extended. | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
Certainly appears as though juries were ready to convict Muslims charged with terrorism at the drop of a hat in the years after 9/11. I'd certainly support some sort of criminal justice reform bill that addresses the FBI & DOJ's overreach during the war on terror. At least now, juries are on to the government's tactics, and this was a major blow to those tactics. High profile case, perfect red meat for the media, and then it all blows up in their faces thanks to the jury. Hopefully that will cause a top down review of law enforcement strategy in these terrorism cases. | ||
| ||
