14 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Vikas: "We end government backed loans, encourage colleges to tier their cost based on market value of the degree and/or offer income based repayment plans"

TEW: *double fisting whiskey* maybe black people just don't get to go to college?

if they do, that'll teach me for being a fiscally responsible adult and paying off my student loans early.

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

No surprises there. Their entire worldview is shaped by egotism, arrogance, and selfishness. But the logical inconsistency with which they argue against these kinds of things is truly laughable. Where are these guys when their wealth is systematically re-distributed to the 1% and Fortune-500 companies through corporate bailouts and the tax code? Talk about less deserving...

Were you talking about the left or the right here?

35 minutes ago, Bill said:

Were you talking about the left or the right here?

 

I agree that there's certainly an elitist element "on both sides." I'm not blind to that, and I can appreciate the principle of your response. However, I see this as more accurately describing the base of the Republican Party in general than it does the Democratic. I think that a lot of Democrats, however misguided some might be, are at least motivated by genuinely humanitarian sentiments. For most Republicans, the general sentiment that I perceive is something akin to "As long as I get mine..."

Pay for your own education free loader.

2 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Vikas: "We end government backed loans, encourage colleges to tier their cost based on market value of the degree and/or offer income based repayment plans"

TEW: *double fisting whiskey* maybe black people just don't get to go to college?

Yeah, I'm not sure why we'd want TEW anywhere near any decision making.

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I agree that there's certainly an elitist element "on both sides." I'm not blind to that, and I can appreciate the principle of your response. However, I see this as more accurately describing the base of the Republican Party in general than it does the Democratic. I think that a lot of Democrats, however misguided some might be, are at least motivated by genuinely humanitarian sentiments. For most Republicans, the general sentiment that I perceive is something akin to "As long as I get mine..."

Said another way. Real Republicans (i.e., not Trump supporters) understand the reality of human nature and the desire to maximize utility, mainly through the profit motivation. Democrats think the world resembles kindergarten where everyone shares equally, and they reject everything we know about human behavior. 
 

Potato, Potatoh. 

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Said another way. Real Republicans (i.e., not Trump supporters) understand the reality of human nature and the desire to maximize utility, mainly through the profit motivation. Democrats think the world resembles kindergarten where everyone shares equally, and they reject everything we know about human behavior. 
 

Potato, Potatoh. 

I appreciate that you at least don't try to mask your self-interest. I know where you stand and can understand the rationale behind it. It's the logical inconsistency of most folk that I find most frustrating. You're someone that I can at least agree to disagree with. I even sympathize with your cynicism. Also, I generally can't stand the far-left "woke" crowd. I mostly consider myself a social libertarian.

My reasoning for things like a social safety net goes beyond simply being nice to people. I mostly think humans are a bunch of morons who can't help but be stupid, and that stupidity infuriates me. But I also think that helping these people allows the nation to be more productive and peaceful overall. It's "A rising tide lifts all boats" kind of philosophy.

And for the record, I lean against cancelling all student debt. I'm all for providing some sort of assistance, whether it be reduced interest rates, extensions/forebearance, or some sort of economic tradeoff for loan forgiveness, etc., but I'm not sure that outright cancellation of all debts is the way to go. I tried to be smart and make sure that my education was affordable and my degree was valuable. I actually paid off all of my government loans first since they had the highest interest rates, so now I'm down to just a sliver of debt left in the form of private loans. It would be just my kind of luck for them to forgive government-held student debt right after I zeroed out all of my stafford loans

35 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

My reasoning for things like a social safety net goes beyond simply being nice to people. I mostly think humans are a bunch of morons who can't help but be stupid, and that stupidity infuriates me. But I also think that helping these people allows the nation to be more productive and peaceful overall. It's "A rising tide lifts all boats" kind of philosophy.

And for the record, I lean against cancelling all student debt. I'm all for providing some sort of assistance, whether it be reduced interest rates, extensions/forebearance, or some sort of economic tradeoff for loan forgiveness, etc., but I'm not sure that outright cancellation of all debts is the way to go. I tried to be smart and make sure that my education was affordable and my degree was valuable. I actually paid off all of my government loans first since they had the highest interest rates, so now I'm down to just a sliver of debt left in the form of private loans. It would be just my kind of luck for them to forgive government-held student debt right after I zeroed out all of my stafford loans

My issue with the social safety net is two-fold. First, and most importantly, I am vehemently against the interpretation of the general welfare clause that has allowed all of this. If enough people want health insurance for all, then amend the Constitution. I have long said that the founders would be embarrassed by how little we have amended the Constitution and instead found creative ways to work around its restrictions. Second, I believe that incentive structures matter. I am not heartless and give to charity, but when you tax productivity and reward unproductive behavior, you get more of the latter and less of the former. If we are going to have something like welfare, let’s not give people more money if they have more kids they can’t afford. The system is designed to incentivize greater dependence. 

47 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I have long said that the founders would be embarrassed by how little we have amended the Constitution and instead found creative ways to work around its restrictions.

I really can't disagree with this, only to the extent that I think political intransigence has left leadership few options in the face of popular demand. It feels like no one is willing to compromise anymore. I consider myself a pretty contemporary man, but I still think the founders, however flawed, were truly geniuses who did their best to anticipate how mankind's fallibility could undue the Republic, and they worked hard to write a Constitution that guarded against our worst impulses. They were far from perfect but were still ages ahead of their time. I wish we could appreciate that more as a society today. I think they intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, because they knew that true compromise would be necessary for lasting peace in a nation so diverse.

47 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

If we are going to have something like welfare, let’s not give people more money if they have more kids they can’t afford. The system is designed to incentivize greater dependence. 

I definitely think there is some truth to this, although I lament how this gets painted with broad strokes. Some people just need a little help to get on their feet, but they want to work and better themselves. There is certainly abuse, however. You point out a good example: Why is it that people with multiple kids get the biggest tax breaks, but they tax (no pun intended) the system much more than someone childless like me? These people require more resources and public services; they place more demands on public infrastructure. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't give people with children a helping hand. I'm an educator, so I see an inherent value in making sure every child is adequately provided for. But there's definitely something wrong with the structure of incentives when it gets to the point where it literally pays people to have more kids in an overpopulated world. We need to find a middle ground. I'm not sure what the answer is, but maybe there should be a cutoff. Like, you get tax breaks for the first 2-3 kids, but then after that, your tax breaks are reduced, and then after kids 5-6, your tax liability increases. Incentivize reproduction to the point of population replacement but not to the point of overpopulation. Just a thought...

 

They'll never actually do it they just say it to get votes

I think they will do some type of it

I think they'll start with something weird like cancelling/forgiving all loan payments that were due since March. Call it the Covid Loan Relief Bill or something. Yes I know they deferred payments until next year but I think they will outright forgive what was due this year. 

Broaden the government grant system to allow more to benefit.  I think they tried to pass a $10,000/student relief bill earlier.   I’d be okay with that.

13 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

But you don't complain about it like you do other bailouts. You're the kind of person who only takes issue with wealth redistribution when it goes from the top down, never when it's from the bottom up.

You’re right I rarely complain when I’m getting shaken down for a few bucks, but when someone comes along asking for 12% of my paycheck yeah I complain about that loudly

10 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

I think they will do some type of it

Congress could lower the interest which would be a good start.

47 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Congress could lower the interest which would be a good start.

For the students. I'm sure everyone else is worried about their taxes

1 hour ago, Mike030270 said:

For the students. I'm sure everyone else is worried about their taxes

Why would "everyone else be worried about their taxes"?

U borrowed 

U repay 

this means U

🥴

7 hours ago, Gannan said:

Congress could lower the interest which would be a good start.

you wouldn’t, with your own money, lend some 18 year old $50K at near zero interest so why in the hell should the government?

This mentality is everything that is wrong with the modern way of thinking, as if extension of easier credit solves everything. Worked out great in 2008, didn’t it?!!!

People need to take their medicine. They need to have actual consequences for their poor decisions. This no consequence society we are creating is the fundamental problem. 

You want a real start? Make colleges underwrite at least half of the loan. RAISE the interest rates to a level commensurate with the risk of an 18 year old with little or no job experience. And put a maximum LTV of the tuition at, say, 70%.

Guess what magically happens when you do this? Colleges suddenly give a sh** about who is enrolling in their school, what they are studying, and their ability to pay it back because they’re on the hook for the majority of the loan. Tuition suddenly stops rising since higher interest rates make the loans less affordable. Students suddenly give a sh** about what they are studying and their ability to pay it back because they have to come up with a big chunk of the money upfront.

Magically, this problem will disappear.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

you wouldn’t, with your own money, lend some 18 year old $50K at near zero interest so why in the hell should the government?

This mentality is everything that is wrong with the modern way of thinking, as if extension of easier credit solves everything. Worked out great in 2008, didn’t it?!!!

People need to take their medicine. They need to have actual consequences for their poor decisions. This no consequence society we are creating is the fundamental problem. 

You want a real start? Make colleges underwrite at least half of the loan. RAISE the interest rates to a level commensurate with the risk of an 18 year old with little or no job experience. And put a maximum LTV of the tuition at, say, 70%.

Guess what magically happens when you do this? Colleges suddenly give a sh** about who is enrolling in their school, what they are studying, and their ability to pay it back because they’re on the hook for the majority of the loan. Tuition suddenly stops rising since higher interest rates make the loans less affordable. Students suddenly give a sh** about what they are studying and their ability to pay it back because they have to come up with a big chunk of the money upfront.

Magically, this problem will disappear.

Usually when you take out a loan, the terms of the loan are established before you borrow the money, not after.

6 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Usually when you take out a loan, the terms of the loan are established before you borrow the money, not after.

So you agree they shouldn’t cancel the student loans? 

3 hours ago, Kz! said:

🥴

The way I read the wondering of Toms tweet is that the first $50k of student loans would be cancelled.  I’m sure a bank would take this to mean if a student had already repaid $50k of a $75k loan, the remaining $25k would be paid by the person as the first $50k has already been paid. Likewise, if a grad student took out a loan for their bachelors degree, the first $50k would come from that.