Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 258: Imminent Song

(+) Yeah! (+)

This won't help the inevitable move to throw Rudy under the bus by saying that everything was his idea:

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1217218939664715777

Rudy also notes that he's representing Trump's personal interests, not the United States' interests in requesting a meeting with Zelensky

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/nicholaswu12/status/1217211610114285574

That feeling when you try to literally quote a misspelling and misspell the quoted word you were trying to highlight was misspelled verbatim.

---

Kinglicious posted...

Video Shows Two Iranian Missiles Hit Ukrainian Plane https://nyti.ms/2QS757k

... two missiles 30s apart makes this accident a lot more questionable. Was it automatic with no way to disable?

Probably thought they didn't eliminate it and shot again at it.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

This won't help the inevitable move to throw Rudy under the bus by saying that everything was his idea:

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1217218939664715777

Rudy also notes that he's representing Trump's personal interests, not the United States' interests in requesting a meeting with Zelensky

What exactly is supposed to be scandalous about this letter? All he did was ask for a meeting. That's not illegal.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That feeling when you try to literally quote a misspelling and misspell the quoted word you were trying to highlight was misspelled verbatim.

What?

---

Maybe I'm an asshole, but I think student loan forgiveness in the manner Warren is describing is horrible

It's unfairly penalizing the people who made rational decisions to go to community college, or not go to college, in order to avoid debt

I'd legitimately rather the government just hand everybody $40,000 regardless of their debt situation. Yes, I understand how inflation works

---

red sox 777 posted...

What exactly is supposed to be scandalous about this letter? All he did was ask for a meeting. That's not illegal.

Its scandalous in the context of what else we know. This is further evidence that
a) Trump directed Rudys activity in Ukraine
b) Trumps Ukraine shakedown was done with the purpose of advancing his own interests, not some bullshit deep concern about corruption

Both of those things are obvious, but many Republicans defending him act as though theyre plausible.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Its scandalous in the context of what else we know. This is further evidence that
a) Trump directed Rudys activity in Ukraine
b) Trumps Ukraine shakedown was done with the purpose of advancing his own interests, not some bullshit deep concern about corruption

Both of those things are obvious, but many Republicans defending him act as though theyre plausible.

I don't understand how this letter adds to either of these.

a. Of course Trump directed Rudy's activities. Rudy was/is his personal attorney. Everyone already knew this.
b. Don't see how this supports that. This just shows Rudy asking for a meeting. It could have been to discuss Trump Tower Kiev for all we know.

---

I mean, everybody knows that Trump did everything hes being accused of (withholding military aid in exchange for announcing an investigation into his most likely 2020 opponent), but apparently we need to prove it ten times over to convince even a few Republicans to agree to that on the record!

---

Corrik7 posted...

Probably thought they didn't eliminate it and shot again at it.

Well it's poking holes in the logic again.
The current excuse is that they thought it was a missile. This is despite the size, speed, heat, and directional pattern. Now they fired at it twice, even after it changed direction to go back, which is a lot more human.

---

banananor posted...

Maybe I'm an asshole, but I think student loan forgiveness in the manner Warren is describing is horrible

It's unfairly penalizing the people who made rational decisions to go to community college, or not go to college, in order to avoid debt

I'd legitimately rather the government just hand everybody $40,000 regardless of their debt situation. Yes, I understand how inflation works

I regret to inform you that you have invoked the Boomer Trolley Problem



---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I regret to inform you that you have invoked the Boomer Trolley Problem

These situations arent comparable. Youre asking people who have already paid off their debt to pay more to pay off the debt of other people. (I know that the claim is that itll all be paid for by the super rich, but even if that math checks out money is fungible).

Im not necessarily opposed to reducing student debt, but eliminating it entirely is a huge moral hazard.

---

Yes, you are rewarding people for choosing to spend. Suppose you had 2 people, both of whom got into Harvard and Local State U. Person A took out loans to attend Harvard and Person B decided to save money by attending Local State U. Now Person A has a higher income because he got a better job after graduation with his fancy Harvard degree. Person B thinks that's alright because he has a lower income but doesn't have to pay loans, so he comes out even.

Until Person A gets a bailout and continues to enjoy the higher income from his fancy degree. While Person B is told tough luck. What is he going to tell his children? "Don't make the mistake I did - spend money now and ask for a bailout later!"

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

These situations arent comparable. Youre asking people who have already paid off their debt to pay more to pay off the debt of other people. (I know that the claim is that itll all be paid for by the super rich, but even if that math checks out money is fungible).

Im not necessarily opposed to reducing student debt, but eliminating it entirely is a huge moral hazard.

Moral hazard? That's a stretch. I realize you're opposed to the most progressive universal programs but I understand that generally these programs are paid for by a shared tax burden, yes. If someone doesn't plan on having kids or going to college, their taxes still go to public schools. Is that a moral hazard? Where is the line?

Besides, there are ways of paying for this that dont involve raising taxes on most people. I'm not 100% on this, but because it's part of Warren's education plan, this may be covered under her wealth tax. But if that's still not acceptable there's also deficit spending, which we don't seem to have a problem with if it's for tax breaks or wars.

---

It appears that Lev and friends were stalking Yovanovitch:

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/1217215352754577409?s=21

And am I misinterpreting this, or is this a GOP House candidate passing along an assassination offer??

https://twitter.com/katiephang/status/1217222871921188864?s=21

---

But the only real way to deal with this is to get the money back from the schools. Or at least stop more money from going to the schools. Taxing the rich is just a wealth transfer from some rich people to other rich people (schools).

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Moral hazard? That's a stretch. I realize you're opposed to the most progressive universal programs but I understand that generally these programs are paid for by a shared tax burden, yes. If someone doesn't plan on having kids or going to college, their taxes still go to public schools. Is that a moral hazard? Where is the line?

Besides, there are ways of paying for this that dont involve raising taxes on most people. I'm not 100% on this, but because it's part of Warren's education plan, this may be covered under her wealth tax. But if that's still not acceptable there's also deficit spending, which we don't seem to have a problem with if it's for tax breaks or wars.

No, Im not opposed to public services that not everyone chooses to take advantage of. My issue here is that to the extent that anyone made sacrifices to pay off their student loans, theyre actively being punished: they would have been better off paying as little as they could.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

It appears that Lev and friends were stalking Yovanovitch:

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/1217215352754577409?s=21

And am I misinterpreting this, or is this a GOP House candidate passing along an assassination offer??

https://twitter.com/katiephang/status/1217222871921188864?s=21

hi yes FBI these tweets right here

LordoftheMorons posted...

No, Im not opposed to public services that not everyone chooses to take advantage of. My issue here is that to the extent that anyone made sacrifices to pay off their student loans, theyre actively being punished: they would have been better off paying as little as they could.

Theyre literally not being punished if their remaining debt is still being forgiven.

Alternatively, if they managed to pay it off, thats great, clearly theyre doing well.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

No, Im not opposed to public services that not everyone chooses to take advantage of. My issue here is that to the extent that anyone made sacrifices to pay off their student loans, theyre actively being punished: they would have been better off paying as little as they could.

Okay but it sounds like you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. How would you universally reduce student debt at all without screwing someone over? Is the only moral solution to just hand everyone a lump sum as previously suggested?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Theyre literally not being punished if their remaining debt is still being forgiven.

Alternatively, if they managed to pay it off, thats great, clearly theyre doing well.

They are being punished. If they hadnt paid off their loans theyd be accruing a benefit from the debt forgiveness, but instead theyre paying (through taxes) for someone else who was in the same situation but didnt prioritize paying off their loans.

I know there is a decent amount circumstances beyond ones control involved in how much student debt one accrues, but theres a lot more personal choice than for someone getting into a situation where they need, say, food stamps. I dont see why society should be fully bailing out somebody who knowingly took on 200k in debt to get a degree in philosophy or whatever (or physics, for that matter).

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Theyre literally not being punished if their remaining debt is still being forgiven.

Alternatively, if they managed to pay it off, thats great, clearly theyre doing well.

The issue is that people have heretofore had great latitude to choose a payment plan. Some people are on a 20-25 year payment plan. Others are on a 10-year plan. Others wanted to finish in 5 years and paid way more than they needed to. So no, maybe they're not doing well - maybe they just decided to spend their life savings paying off their debt quickly.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Okay but it sounds like you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. How would you universally reduce student debt at all without screwing someone over? Is the only moral solution to just hand everyone a lump sum as previously suggested?

Thats one option. I might be convinced that its okay to forgive some large-but-not-close-to-100% fraction of debt (though this would need to go along with reforms to avoid giving a huge windfall to people who happened to have debt now as opposed to a decade from now).

---

I think we need to start taxing schools as for-profit corporations. Use the tax revenues to refund a portion of the tuitions of everyone who's gone to school within the last 20 years, with bigger refunds going to people who were in school more recently (during times when tuition was higher). Tie the refund to tuition paid, not loan balance.

---

Also, I think if it is a refund of tuition paid, it probably won't be taxable. It's an acknowledgement by the country that our educational system has been swindling students for years now, with the tacit encouragement and approval of Congress. And now it's time to fix it and compensate those who have been wronged.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

No, Im not opposed to public services that not everyone chooses to take advantage of. My issue here is that to the extent that anyone made sacrifices to pay off their student loans, theyre actively being punished: they would have been better off paying as little as they could.

---

"I guess we can never fix the problem since it was a problem in the past!"

---

That is not a good example because (1) we are trying to legislate for the future, and (2) the cost of forgiving student debt is not zero. In fact, the net gain to society from forgiving student debt probably is zeroish so the whole question is one of redistribution. In the train example the net gain to society from diverting the train is strictly positive and no one at all would lose from doing it. Just not a good example.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Thats one option. I might be convinced that its okay to forgive some large-but-not-close-to-100% fraction of debt (though this would need to go along with reforms to avoid giving a huge windfall to people who happened to have debt now as opposed to a decade from now).

Okay, but this is actually Warren's plan (and Bernie's for that matter). Lump sum now, heavily subsidize public universities in the future to avoid debt/bailouts later. I don't think you can look at the "cancel student debt" plan in a vacuum divorced from that angle.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Okay, but this is actually Warren's plan (and Bernie's for that matter). Lump sum now, heavily subsidize public universities in the future to avoid debt/bailouts later. I don't think you can look at the "cancel student debt" plan in a vacuum divorced from that angle.

Heavily subsidizing public universities is not a good solution for the future. The problem isn't that schools aren't getting enough money, it's that they are getting too much.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Okay, but this is actually Warren's plan (and Bernie's for that matter). Lump sum now, heavily subsidize public universities in the future to avoid debt/bailouts later. I don't think you can look at the "cancel student debt" plan in a vacuum divorced from that angle.

I was under the impression that Bernie's plan totally wiped out existing debt (having a hard time finding the specifics, but the articles I'm looking at are vague but non inconsistent with that).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I was under the impression that Bernie's plan totally wiped out existing debt (having a hard time finding the specifics, but the articles I'm looking at are vague but non inconsistent with that).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/
policy-2020/education/student-debt/

Assuming WaPo is accurate here... Sanders does intend to cancel all student debt. Warren's plan is that debt cancellation is dependent on your income level. None for households making $250k+ to up to $50k in cancellation for households making less than $100k. Both would make public college tuition-free. This matches up with my understanding of both their plans but if anyone has newer info/that WaPo is off, by all means.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I was under the impression that Bernie's plan totally wiped out existing debt (having a hard time finding the specifics, but the articles I'm looking at are vague but non inconsistent with that).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/
education/student-debt/

Assuming WaPo is accurate here... Sanders does intend to cancel all student debt. Warren's plan is that debt cancellation is dependent on your income level. None for households making $250k+ to up to $50k in cancellation for households making less than $100k. Both would make public college tuition-free. This matches up with my understanding of both their plans but if anyone has newer info/that WaPo is off, by all means.

---

Hey President Trump....you want to join in on the debt forgiveness bidding war? How about "Bankruptcy For All"? Under Bankruptcy For All, all Americans will be able to achieve wealth the Trump way - by borrowing a ton of money, declaring bankruptcy, not paying debts, and keeping the money. I think it's a winner!

---

Preview of Rudys legal argument:

https://twitter.com/kt_so_it_goes/status/1217250709785194498?s=21

---

first reasonably sized debate time

---

Joe Biden is stumbling bad on this omg lol

---

Klobuchar, please, stop hurting yourself.

---

Not a chance in hell that the Iran agreement can be revived

---

Warren gave a really good answer, I think.

---

lol Biden's answer about how Trump bombing Iran without asking was bad but the Obama/Biden admin's actions without asking Congress was fine because of the AUMF

fuck off dude

---

Warren and Sanders: Interesting debate.

Amy: Canned story.

---

Is Yang in the debate? Dave Chappelle just endorsed him

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Is Yang in the debate? Dave Chappelle just endorsed him

Nope.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Is Yang in the debate? Dave Chappelle just endorsed him

Nope, he didn't make it

---

Shucks. Guess Biden is the only Good Person left.

---

"This issue is personal to me" is Pete's signature phrase lol.

---

Oh fuck off CNN.

---

Ahh. Now we know why it was leaked. This wasn't an attack on Sanders at all, this was a pivot to her broader point.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Ahh. Now we know why it was leaked. This wasn't an attack on Sanders at all, this was a pivot to her broader point.

Didn't I tell you this was 100% coordinated by her? She's an amoral calculating banshee.

---