US Politics: It’s Not A Crime If Your Feelings Got Hurt

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not a policy guy, and actively try to avoid getting into these type of conversations, but come the fuck on.  You're so full of shit here.

Like, here's the first thing you read about it.  It's so different than @Altherion's doom and gloom it makes me wonder why I bother responding to him in the first place?

Quote

While experts who study student loan debt say widespread forgiveness would boost the economy, some question whether it is the most effective way to stimulate the economy — or the best method to ease the strain on the borrowers who need relief most. Backlash could even come from the political left, as blanket debt relief is expected to benefit people with higher incomes who borrowed more to get advanced degrees.

“I think you also are going to see some concerns from the left that if you are wiping out all the debt, that that would be a pretty regressive thing to do,” said Matthew Chingos, the vice president of education data and policy at the Urban Institute. “And once you look at the numbers, this looks like the Trump tax cuts in terms of who it benefits. So it’s a little hard to be out there saying, well, ‘I’m against tax cuts for the wealthy, but at the same time I want to give this big handout to the wealthy.’”

 

[Altherion]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

The argument is way more than a few decades old, c'mon.

Fair enough -- in certain cultures, its age is measured in millennia -- but US government intervention in this way is only decades old (though maybe more than a few if you count the GI Bill as part of the same idea).

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

None of your brim and doom has any chance of happening anywhere based on Warren's proposal.

Probably not -- simply because I'm reasonably confident that Warren's proposal has no chance of going anywhere to begin with.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Fair enough -- in certain cultures, its age is measured in millennia -- but US government intervention in this way is only decades old (though maybe more than a few if you count the GI Bill as part of the same idea).

No, it's not.  The GI Bill is a pretty good example, but it started way beforehand.  And it didn't come from different cultures, read John Dewey.

5 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Probably not -- simply because I'm reasonably confident that Warren's proposal has no chance of going anywhere to begin with.

Me neither, but that's no point of agreement.  Point is you're wrong policywise and pretend as if you're not.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

No, it's not.  The GI Bill is a pretty good example, but it started way beforehand.

I'm not aware of any pre-WWII large scale intervention by the US government to help students with paying their college tuition. Which program are you thinking of?

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Me neither, but that's no point of agreement.  Point is you're wrong policywise and pretend as if you're not.

Wrong in what? Other than Warren's proposal not going anywhere (which I think you agree on), the only statement I've made is that if the federal government provides more money to the university system (whether as additional loans or simply cash), the universities will raise prices some more. This is what happened in the past and I'm fairly confident that this is what will happen if we do it again... but there's no way to prove it because the government isn't likely to pony up the funds.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I'm not aware of any pre-WWII large scale intervention by the US government to help students with paying their college tuition. Which program are you thinking of?

Well, maybe that's because you phrase it in that incredibly stupid way that demonstrates you have no idea about history.  If you want to have a serious conversation about this, let me know.

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Wrong in what? Other than Warren's proposal not going anywhere

Warren's proposal.  I kinda went off the rails there, I'll give you that, but I always was referring to Warren's proposal.

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

the universities will raise prices some more. This is what happened in the past and I'm fairly confident that this is what will happen if we do it again... but there's no way to prove it because the government isn't likely to pony up the funds.

Well, I don't think why you think I would ever agree to this.  I'm directly opposed to this.  I literally just voted because I'm opposed to this, even though it will not affect me either way.  Government funded universities are totally fine, I don't know what you're bitching about there.  But we grad students that do most of the work should be unionized and paid better.  You entered a Thunderdome you didn't even mean to.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

She explicitly states that unlike most income, it will not be subject to tax. The proposed way it's paid for is also fairly unique: it's a tax on wealth rather than on income or real estate. More specifically, 2% per year on everything over $50M.

Fine, let's spend half the money on half a dozen climate change moonshots and divide the other half between everyone except the rich -- or maybe even everyone with no exceptions (a-la a universal basic income). Again, there is a whole lot of ways to spend a trillion dollars. This doesn't answer the question of why it should be given to people with college loans rather than any other set of people.

Thanks.  I think that the wealth tax to pay for it is unconstitutional, but I digress.  So this is basically a huge probably regressive government hand out to pay for a sunk cost (something I read said that people with incomes over $250K wouldn't benefit and there is a sliding scale between 100-250K, so full credit for her trying, but I don't think this solves the problem because it doesn't take into account earning potential, and there is still a lot of forgiveness for people who earn between $100-$250 who arguably shouldn't get any benefit).   I gotta say, I'm with you and underwhelmed and would rather use the money for universal healthcare, or climate initiatives or infrastructure or other things that benefit the whole population rather than a limited class of persons.  This also doesn't fix the costs of education.  I'm curious to hear OGE's take on it, but overall, underwhelmed.

 

9 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

As much as I'd like to see my remaining student loan debt forgiven, and as much as I'd like to see the parasitic banks and debt collection agencies get shafted, I'd much rather see that money go towards single-payer healthcare and initiatives to combat global warming.

I think simply making student loans dischargable under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy would go a long way towards alleviating the student loan debt problem. That's an easy remedy that's already in place which accounts for individual situations without needing to reinvent the wheel. Capping interest and penalties would probably also be easy and popular solutions.

Long-term, getting the banks completely out of funding higher education is probably the best solution. Education is a public good and should be treated and funded like one.

I agree on the bankruptcy front.  This should be an option.  I also agree that we need to rethink how public higher education is funded.  I really, really, believe that a robust public university system which is well-funded by taxpayer money is a big part of the answer.  The part that makes me a little uncomfortable is that I worry that the vicissitudes of our political system will put unwarranted pressure on academic freedom as a result, but I guess that's why the 1st amendment exists? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

This whole conversation seems misguided. Before we figure out how to make public universities tuitionless, we need to dramatically improve our k-12 public schools.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 hours ago, karaddin said:

Yeah this got to me as well. Its the double punch of the US not even pretending to be the good guys compared to Russia and China, and also if the US ceases to be an advocate for certain basic liberties around the world we're pretty cooked on long term trends because the other two major powers sure as fuck aren't going to pick up the slack.

Russia is not a major power, they just have a lot of nukes. China is a major power in some regards, but not on a truly international scale, and their society depends on unrealistic sustained economic growth.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This whole conversation seems misguided. Before we figure out how to make public universities tuitionless, we need to dramatically improve our k-12 public schools.

You will hear no argument from me regarding improving k-12 education.  My only quibble is that I would go back further.  I think there need to be quality pre-pre-school child care alternatives, universal nursery and pre-K options and ALSO better k-12 options.

[Ormond]

Andy McKean, the longest serving Republican in the Iowa State House of Representatives, has switched to the Democrats.

On the one hand, this guy is from far eastern Iowa (his district is in the easternmost bulge of Iowa along the Mississippi River, south of Dubuque) and eastern Iowa is traditionally much less conservative than the western part of the state. On the other hand, his district is actually fairly rural and includes counties that voted for Trump in 2016. It will be interesting to see if he can win as a Democrat in 2020.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/politics/andy-mckean-iowa-gop-lawmaker-change-party/index.html

 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

35 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

You will hear no argument from me regarding improving k-12 education.  My only quibble is that I would go back further.  I think there need to be quality pre-pre-school child care alternatives, universal nursery and pre-K options and ALSO better k-12 options.

If we’re going for pie in the sky solutions, parents should be forced to take continued child education courses. I was a part time educator out of college working with kids who were struggling to keep up with their peers, and the parents were largely the problem.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Russia is not a major power, they just have a lot of nukes. China is a major power in some regards, but not on a truly international scale, and their society depends on unrealistic sustained economic growth.

Russia has major influence over potus, more than one successful operation to influence Western elections, a whole shit ton of nukes and a legacy of having been a major player. It also has a permanent seat on the UN security council and is again seeking to extend its influence around the world.

As to China I really don't think you could view them the way you do if you aren't from the US. You guys are so used to being the top dog you have a hard time seeing it from anyone elses perspective.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

This whole conversation seems misguided. Before we figure out how to make public universities tuitionless, we need to dramatically improve our k-12 public schools.

Good luck with that!  Also, kids don't vote.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Russia is not a major power, they just have a lot of nukes.

Russia still qualifies as a major power, yes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Russia has major influence over potus, more than one successful operation to influence Western elections, a whole shit ton of nukes and a legacy of having been a major player. It also has a permanent seat on the UN security council and is again seeking to extend its influence around the world.

Their influence over the presidency will hopefully be over in a year and a half, their influence over Western countries is not that large, their influence over non-Western countries is minimal compared to what it once was and having a permanent seat on the UN security council does not make you a super power. No one thinks France or the UK are super powers anymore. Furthermore, their GDP and economy writ large are a joke. Canada is a larger economic driver than Russia. All Russia has to offer is mutually assured destruction.  

Quote

As to China I really don't think you could view them the way you do if you aren't from the US. You guys are so used to being the top dog you have a hard time seeing it from anyone elses perspective.

Not really. This has nothing to do with hegemonic supremacy. The Chinese model is simply not sustainable, and we don’t know how they’ll adapt when they’re forced to change.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

Good luck with that!  Also, kids don't vote.

Parents do.

Quote

Russia still qualifies as a major power, yes.

See above.

[Which Tyler]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Their influence over the presidency will hopefully be over in a year and a half, their influence over Western countries is not that large, their influence over non-Western countries is minimal compared to what it once was and having a permanent seat on the UN security council does not make you a super power. No one thinks France or the UK are super powers anymore. Furthermore, their GDP and economy writ large are a joke. Canada is a larger economic driver than Russia. All Russia has to offer is mutually assured destruction. 

Major power =/= Super power

There is only one super  - which is currently trying to reduce that number further. All G8 members are major powers (including Russia, despite their current suspension). There are also non-G8 countries that are major powers.

ETA, I think you could  (AKA "should") count all the G20 nations are major powers.

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, Which Tyler said:

Major power =/= Super power

This. The US has been the only super power since the collapse of the USSR, but I was talking about major powers. The EU as a whole would be a 4th one, but I was talking countries and I don't think any of them individually count any more.

China may be on the cusp of being a superpower and the US may be on the precipice of falling from that status but the future can't be stated as though it's a fact.

I'd add that India may also become a major power, and I thought Brazil was another potential but with their current president that would be a less positive thing.

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

See above.

I use the "please think of the children" line as much as anybody, but I have no idea how that relates to Russia still being a major power in terms of IR.

[sologdin]

what use are these picayune qualitative distinctions outside of cynical international relations theory?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, sologdin said:

what use are these picayune qualitative distinctions outside of cynical international relations theory?

None.