Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 404: Fox Tuckers Out, CNN Sours On Lemon

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hypothetical question. Don't think about all the details too much, just gut reaction. Which would you rather have happen?

• Student loan forgiveness
• Medicare for all / single payer health care

Seanchan posted...

Hypothetical question. Don't think about all the details too much, just gut reaction. Which would you rather have happen?
* Student loan forgiveness
* Medicare for all / single payer health care

This is hard but my gut "if we can only have one" is healthcare while asking why the heck this has to be an either/or

(To be clear, a large part is because student loan forgiveness, while a great step, wouldn't achieve too much on its own and would need further change and reform for lasting effect)

Medicare for all obviously helps all the same people Student Loan Forgiveness does plus hundreds of millions more soeasy choice

Seanchan posted...

Hypothetical question. Don't think about all the details too much, just gut reaction. Which would you rather have happen?
* Student loan forgiveness
* Medicare for all / single payer health care

Single payer healthcare of course. That benefits most people instead of hurting most people. And it lowers the total cost of healthcare instead of increasing the total cost of education.

I was fortunate enough to have parents that gave clear instructions on avoiding student loans and why it was important to do so. Not everyone was so fortunate and they are absolutely a scam. Maybe they were "fine" 30-40 years ago, but the cost of education has gone way up and the availability of jobs that could put you in a strong enough financial situation to repay the loans have gone way down.

It's a tabletop game with a sadistic dungeon master and so many people feel the need to blame the players for participating in a game that's rigged against them. The reality is that the option of "leaving the table and finding a different game with different rules" is often going to be the last thing someone will think to do based upon their conditioning that "this is just the game that everyone has to play after high school".

Meanwhile other countries have figured out how to provide free healthcare AND free university level education. It's possible to want the entire society to be healthier and smarter and be willing to pay higher taxes to achieve that goal.

Yeah, the biggest issue with the "you chose to take out those loans" argument is that over the last fifty years or so, American society has rapidly shifted from a primary or secondary economy (agriculture/manufacturing) to a tertiary/quaternary/quinary economy (service/knowledge/human), and in order to find work in those fields, you need to have a college degree, or else you won't even be able to get your foot in the door. And meanwhile, people are being forced to work later and later in life to save up money because cost-of-living rates have risen far faster than wages, so even if you get a college degree in an appropriate field, you might struggle to find an opening, because no one is retiring to open a position for young people trying to find work that can utilize the college degree they went into debt to obtain.

Meanwhile, the jobs that DON'T require college degrees are widely disparaged (unless people are upset that there aren't enough people willing to work them...then it's the people being disparaged for their laziness), and their pay hasn't risen with cost of living, so if you're trying to enter the workforce as a young person, you're generally screwed from both ends of the spectrum.

TheRock1525 posted...

Because most of the people that agree to these loans are 17 years old and were sold a bill of damaged goods?

This would be more believable if they were trying to fix the problem instead of forgive a bunch of people while keeping the status quo

I understand the want for things to be fair, but "I had to pay, so everyone else should have to pay!" isn't necessarily fair either.

GTM posted...

I understand the want for things to be fair, but "I had to pay, so everyone else should have to pay!" isn't necessarily fair either.

Perhaps but it's relief catered moreso to the upper class, which is amusing. It's like when democrats went apeshit over SALT. I kept showing how SALT only benefits the rich due to the level of the standard reduction. Yet, democrats continued to stan for it because it was about their base. This is also in regards to their base. Nothing more.

Corrik7 posted...

This would be more believable if they were trying to fix the problem instead of forgive a bunch of people while keeping the status quo

Let's be honest here, Corrik. There are a LOT of fucked up financial issues in this country that no one is addressing in any capacity because one of our two parties does not give the slightest shit about fixing them (and in fact their only real economic policy seems to be cutting taxes for the rich), while the other party is made up of a voter base whose majority (older, middle class white people who are largely unaffected by the status quo) does not want to increase social programs, since said programs either wouldn't benefit them, or they WOULD benefit people they don't think deserve it.

Healthcare, minimum wage, student debt, unionization...these are all issues that the GOP does not give a shit about addressing, because their voters are easily riled up by threats of trans people. And the majority of Democratic voters don't really feel negative affects from those issues. So even if a very vocal group of young people support all of the above matters, there's no momentum in their favor. Meanwhile, forgiving student debt is a very simple concept to explain in execution, whether someone likes it or not, and it doesn't require the average person to really think long-term about fixing things.

I suppose this hardly helps the argument since I dont know how loans work in great detail over there... But in my country if you do not make enough money to pay back the debt at a steady rate, even though you have been working for 15 years, then the student debt is forgiven.

htaeD posted...

I suppose this hardly helps the argument since I dont know how loans work in great detail over there... But in my country if you do not make enough money to pay back the debt at a steady rate, even though you have been working for 15 years, then the student debt is forgiven.

student loans last forever and you can't discharge them, even in bankruptcy

I absolutely believe that student debt forgiveness cannot be the only thing done here. If it meant getting half of the forgiveness now but future generations would not be screwed over to the same extent, then I'd be one hundred percent on board.

The issue is that that kind of solution is going to be infinitely harder than striking a debt from the books. The problem has only gotten worse in the past decade, so i don't expect anything meaningful here any time soon.

To return to the logistics of this though, most borrowers have had their loans change hands at least once during the last three years. It would reduce the burden on both the government and the companies (whose call centers are entirely insufficient to handle the volume of starting payments back up for everybody) if they could simply... not worry about the bulk of borrowers, who have less than $10k in loans. It's not like there's one single place that lists every name and what they owe.

I worked through college. Became a teacher, which in the first years paid very little, and even now doesn't pay much. I struggled to pay my college debt, and that's despite inheriting a house. I can't imagine what i would've done if I had to pay rent on top of that, and things have only gotten worse since. I'm 100% okay with other people having their debt forgiven, even though I paid mine. Just because I struggled, doesn't mean other people should have to. We need to simultaneously address the raising cost of college, and alleviate the difficulties of people already in debt. Going into debt to buy a fancy car isn't the same as going into debt to get an education. College used to be affordable. It's not anymore, and hasn't been for a while. And that's precisely why we should help people. Because college should be affordable. A well educated populace is the best defense against tyranny.

htaeD posted...

I suppose this hardly helps the argument since I dont know how loans work in great detail over there... But in my country if you do not make enough money to pay back the debt at a steady rate, even though you have been working for 15 years, then the student debt is forgiven.

The same is true in the USA, except that it's after 20 years. In fact, you don't even have to work at all. If you have no income, your monthly payment under income-based repayment is zero, and that is a qualifying payment for loan forgiveness after the 20 years. You just have to pay a percentage of your income above some threshold, if you have it.

So again, some people are being disingenuous by talking about how much their payments would be under a more expensive repayment plan that would get the loan paid faster. If they can't afford that, there are plans with lower payments available - including ones that will end up with the balance forgiven if it hasn't been paid after 20 years.

Inviso posted...

Let's be honest here, Corrik. There are a LOT of fucked up financial issues in this country that no one is addressing in any capacity because one of our two parties does not give the slightest shit about fixing them (and in fact their only real economic policy seems to be cutting taxes for the rich), while the other party is made up of a voter base whose majority (older, middle class white people who are largely unaffected by the status quo) does not want to increase social programs, since said programs either wouldn't benefit them, or they WOULD benefit people they don't think deserve it.

Healthcare, minimum wage, student debt, unionization...these are all issues that the GOP does not give a shit about addressing, because their voters are easily riled up by threats of trans people. And the majority of Democratic voters don't really feel negative affects from those issues. So even if a very vocal group of young people support all of the above matters, there's no momentum in their favor. Meanwhile, forgiving student debt is a very simple concept to explain in execution, whether someone likes it or not, and it doesn't require the average person to really think long-term about fixing things.

Neither party actually wants to stop that. It's just a carrot on a stick.

htaeD posted...

I suppose this hardly helps the argument since I dont know how loans work in great detail over there... But in my country if you do not make enough money to pay back the debt at a steady rate, even though you have been working for 15 years, then the student debt is forgiven.

NFUN posted...

student loans last forever and you can't discharge them, even in bankruptcy

In America you can base your repayment on your income so it doesn't tank you, and if you pay it for 25 years straight, it is discharged regardless of balance left.

Tbh the only way I could see Trump winning another election is if his main opponent was another white woman.

HeroicCrono posted...

If we allow student loan forgiveness now, colleges will be motivated to charge even higher tuition. Distribute capital to young people directly if you want, but don't make it conditional on paying the colleges.

The extremely easy solution is to set price limits on what schools can charge and still receive government funds.

(Any good or service that receives federal subsidies or support should be subject to price controls, but thats another discussion).

It sounds more like a university gauging problem. Maybe instead of the government forgiving debt the colleges should have to refund money to former and current students.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The extremely easy solution is to set price limits on what schools can charge and still receive government funds.

(Any good or service that receives federal subsidies or support should be subject to price controls, but thats another discussion).

I disagree with any price controls in any circumstances, but I would support taxing the colleges both on income they make and potentially, a special tax on tuition and fees. The tax on tuition and fees can go to a special fund that gets distributed directly to students and former students to compensate them for the tuition they are paying/had to pay.

Also for what Joe should do:

https://twitter.com/grylxndr/status/1669411678084055041?s=46&t=v9nzYLLBIiNYrqldFs9NWQ

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also for what Joe should do:

https://twitter.com/grylxndr/status/1669411678084055041?s=46&t=v9nzYLLBIiNYrqldFs9NWQ

Crazy concept, politicians should follow through on their promises

Going to reiterate at this point if you aren't voting against the GOP at this point it is basically inhumane.

And i dont mean that in a "I'm staying home or voting third party" kind of way.

People should look at the prospect of them seizing power and be fucking outraged.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also for what Joe should do:

i mean that's kinda what he already did

All you can really say is he didn't cancel all of it, but he cancelled a big chunk of it. And it's currently at SCOTUS. Hell, I have a bad feeling about tomorrow because it's an opinion day and the perfect time for a Friday dump of trash opinions.

I interrupt this real conversation to crush the wildest dreams of one specific person here.

https://www.theonion.com/nikki-haley-announces-she-will-marry-trump-if-elected-p-1850544426

Corrik7 posted...

In America you can base your repayment on your income so it doesn't tank you, and if you pay it for 25 years straight, it is discharged regardless of balance left.

And you have to personally monitor it like a hawk to ensure that it is renewed annually and applied appropriately.

Although details have changed significantly over the years, the basic design is straightforward: Pay a percentage of your monthly income above some threshold for some number of years possibly zero payments in some months and you are eligible to get any remaining balance forgiven after some period, usually longer than the standard 10-year period for repaying loans. About one in every three student-loan borrowers whose loan comes directly from the government, known as Direct Loan borrowers, is enrolled in some form of IDR, according to Department of Education data.

Discussion of Income-Driven Repayment dates at least to the 1950s, and Congress created a pilot program in 1992. The report, Income-Driven Repayment of Student Loans: Problems and Options for Addressing Them, summarizes the evolution of IDR over the past three decades. It also identifies problems with IDR and the pros and cons of solutions that have been offered for addressing them, including:

Few borrowers have historically used IDR, including some who would likely have qualified for reduced payments and eventual forgiveness. Many borrowers never learn about IDR and, while federal loan contracts with servicers have improved, IDR is bureaucratically challenging, and servicers have not always had incentives to enroll borrowers in IDR.

Borrowers who enroll in IDR plans often fail to remain in them, many because they fail to recertify each year, as currently required. U.S. Department of Education data from 2013 and 2014 show that more than half of borrowers in IDR plans did not recertify on time. For some borrowers, this might be intentional (perhaps they find a higher-paying job and/or wish to avoid interest costs by paying their loan faster). But many borrowers fail to recertify because of inattention or because of bureaucratic, technical, or legal difficulties recertifying. For many borrowers, this leads to an increase in required payments (sometimes an increase in the automatic debits from a borrowers bank account, capitalization of unpaid interest that increases total debt, and delays in payments that extend the life of the loan, and, for some, default).

Many borrowers find their IDR payment unaffordable. The current formula protects a borrowers income up to 150% of the federal poverty level and sets monthly payments at up to 10% of the discretionary income above that level. The formula for setting IDR monthly payments reflect income and family size, but not regional differences in the cost of living or other expenses a borrower may have. Because individuals file taxes based on prior years income, the federal government has no real-time measure of income or employment, so payments are based on last years income. If a borrower falls on hard times, for example by losing a job, it falls on the borrower to update their income. Several of the recommendations for the prior problem have also been proposed to address affordability.

No matter how well-intended IDR is, its success depends on how well it is administered. Borrowers generally deal not directly with the federal government, but with servicers hired by the government to deal with borrowers. Servicing errors and abuses along with Department of Education policies often prevent borrowers from accessing all of the benefits of IDR. For example, lost paperwork can result in delays in IDR processing and a loss of qualifying payments towards cancellation. Many borrowers say that servicers either failed to alert them to the existence of IDR and/or encouraged them to enroll in forbearance and deferment which may not qualify for IDR cancellation. This leads to increased loan balances (interest keeps accruing and is capitalized) and prevents a borrower from accumulating months that could have counted towards the 25-year forgiveness threshold. In part, this reflects Department of Education guidance to servicers; the GAO found the Departments instructions and guidance to loan servicers are sometimes lacking, resulting in inconsistent and inefficient services to borrowers.
Many borrowers in IDR do not make payments large enough to cover the accruing interest, so they see their balances grow over time. Even though their balances may eventually be forgiven, rising balances are, to say the least, discouraging to borrowers who are making required monthly payments and can mar borrowers credit reports. In contrast, borrowers in fixed-payment plans see their balances fall over time. In certain repayment plans the government subsidizes the interest to reduce or eliminate this problem. For instance, for qualifying loans under REPAYE, the government pays 100% of the interest for the first 36 payments in which a borrowers payments dont cover the interest, and then the government subsidizes 50% of the interest on any subsequent payments.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/income-driven-repayment -of-student-loans-problems-and-options-for-addressing-them/

Edited for readability and emphasis

a good one of those moments when i read the url route before the before the domain name

And it made it less readable anyway. Dumb gfax mobile quotes.

Is there something wrong with that source? I don't know anything about them, I remembered seeing it way back when and had it in mind during the discussion earlier.

Off the top of my head Brookings is a legit think tank unless something changed recently.

I'm assuming they were referring to the Onion article preceding yours, haha.

oh yeah i dont see posts that quote corrik

Suprak_the_Stud posted...

I'm assuming they were referring to the Onion article preceding yours, haha.

Oh yeah that makes a lot more sense, thanks

Obellisk posted...

It sounds more like a university gauging problem. Maybe instead of the government forgiving debt the colleges should have to refund money to former and current students.

If only it were that simple, but many private colleges are struggling to break even or losing money every year.

The free speech absolutist is at it again

https://twitter.com/alannavagianos/status/1669426612759035910?s=21

Blocking political ads for one side should be a crime already, tbqh

https://twitter.com/RobDenBleyker/status/1669539155020242944

Somehow not The Onion this time

Pittsburgh synagogue shooter found guilty on all 63 counts.

Sentencing expected to last up to 6 weeks, will start in two.

Very cool that Elon and friends are now pushing all-around conspiracy nutjob RFK Jr

Elon and friends are conspiracy nutjobs so of course they're gonna push one of their own.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Very cool that Elon and friends are now pushing all-around conspiracy nutjob RFK Jr

going full DEBATE ME BRO too

great platform

I despise how the alt right idolizes debates as though they're equivalent to (or greater than) scientific journals.

We watched Who We Are on Netflix last night to recognize Juneteenth and educate ourselves. I thought I knew about a lot of the history but I still learned so much. Highly recommend.

And of course if the guy did go and debate him hed probably lose in the eyes of most of Rogans viewers because its very hard to fact check someone making shit up in real time

I forget who said it, but basically "debating you looks much better on your cv than on mine" when it's a respected scientist or public figure vs a nobody

Wimp Lo has never lost a fight.

reddit has gone malicious compliance and a lot of subreddits are now about john oliver

r/Art
r/Aww
r/videos
r/evilbuildings

among others

r/wellthatsucks is now vacuums
r/Steam is now actual steam

GTM posted...

reddit has gone malicious compliance and a lot of subreddits are now about john oliver

r/Art
r/Aww
r/videos
r/evilbuildings

among others

r/wellthatsucks is now vacuums
r/Steam is now actual steam

r/interestingasfuck is now very nsfw...

Alito has also been paid for and didn't include it on any of his forms, nor provide any comment.

https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court

Very long winded article that is difficult to find one single sufficient quote, but the tldr is a billionaire treated Alito to private vacations and flights, and had cases before the court on multiple occasions. One of the most prominent ones was a case where the Supreme Court agreed to force Argentina to give the billionaire's hedge fund $2.4 billion dollars. Quite the return on investment there.

The year after that, in 2010, Alito delivered the keynote speech at a dinner for donors to the Manhattan Institute. Once again, Singer delivered a flattering introduction. He and his small band of like-minded justices are a critical and much-appreciated bulwark of our freedom, Singer told the crowd. Samuel Alito is a model Supreme Court justice.
Alito did not disclose the flight or the stay at the fishing lodge in his annual financial disclosures. A federal law passed after Watergate requires federal officials including Supreme Court justices to publicly report most gifts. (The year before, Alito reported getting $500 of Italian food and wine from a friend, noting that his friend was unlikely to appear before this Court.)
The law has a personal hospitality exemption: If someone hosts a justice on their own property, free food, lodging, or entertainment dont always have to be disclosed. But the law clearly requires disclosure for gifts of private jet flights, according to seven ethics law experts, and Alito appears to have violated it. The typical interpretation of the law required disclosure for his stay at the lodge too, experts said, since it was a commercial property rather than a vacation home. The judiciarys regulations did not make that explicit until they were updated earlier this year.
In his op-ed, Alito said that justices commonly interpreted the laws exception for hospitality to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts.

https://twitter.com/bad_takes/status/1671603994395901952

.... BRUH

Supreme Court: Why doesnt the country trust us and why do we have the lowest approval rating?

Also Supreme Court: Hey those were gifts from billionaire friends and I totally didnt bend to their interests.

Whole system is rotted to the core and the only fix is to gut the cancer and tax the living fuck out of the rich. They could probably afford even 95% tax rates