The Joe Biden Presidency II : He's too old...or something like that!

Not really; because there are legitimate policy concerns involved.

There is a whole chunk of the economy firing on no cylinders because those debts are becoming essentially unpayable. Getting those wheels turning again would be a big benefit to almost everybody-- maybe even the holders of that debt. Rising tide lifts boats, a gathering storm may sink them. We bailed out the S and L miscalculators, no reason we shouldn't do so for college debtors, certainly not just because they aren't corporations...

 

Not explaining how it was either of those, doesn't make it one. I'm waiting for one of you to take the initiative to prove your assertions. I'll go back to the Trump thread now where you are all doing a fine job trolling. See you there.

 

I've always been mixed on this and see it as a political loser. I took out student loans, used that money to buy a motorcycle and a nice stereo with some big speakers. Granted it was the mid 80's, things were different, but the principles were the same. I borrowed the money fully aware that I was on the hook for paying it back, which I did. 10 years' worth of $120/month payments which I never grumbled or complained about - because I borrowed the money, knowing I would be responsible for paying it back once I finished grad school.

So, I don't know where this idea came from. Debt has always been a problem, so maybe tighten up the lending terms or do more to warn people ahead of time. But I never expected anyone to come along and relieve me of the obligation I'd willingly signed up for.

 

Again, for, (hopefully), the last time, I am NOT talking about Trump voters... I'm talking about people who do NOT vote.

 

There's a difference of scale though that is staggering. We are talking about forgiving debts that will not and cannot be paid for the most part, debts that move the issue from a moral one to a functional problem for society as a whole. The proper comparison is not to our virtue in paying back what we borrowed, but to the S&L bailout in Reagan's time. Just because those were artificial persons with old white men representing their interests does not make that bailout more moral than this one.

The problem is not that their incautious commitment is going to cost them, but that it is costing us already and is likely to continue to do so almost ad infinitum. I don't care if you or I never asked others to pay debts for us, I don't care if it is "a political loser," I care about how to pay this debt as quickly and cheaply as possible, since it appears we will pay the price one way or another. This is the consequence of Reagan's actions in blowing up an effective college finance system forcing its replacement with a sort of semi-privatized monstrosity. We mostly all predicted then that this was the inevitable outcome, and here it is.

Republicans get elected and break things, and then Democrats get elected and figure out some way to pay for it, and then Republicans complain that it wasn't the right way so that they can get elected again and break more things.

I didn't perhaps realize it at the time, but Reagan's action back then was probably what started me on the journey from liberal Republican to reregistering Democrat...

 

By that logic though, shouldn't we forgive credit card debt, car loans...home loans? We all stand to lose if there's an adverse economic impact from the great national debt burden. Student loan forgiveness just tells kids right out of school "no worries, you got hoodwinked, you shouldn't really have to honor your commitments." Not a great precedent when they will most likely always be carrying debt and will need to be disciplined about how they handle it. Just like most of us.

 

I have no interest in wasting my time trying to convince you of a well-known fact you have no interest in believing anyway. Your desire to be intentionally ignorant is really something though.

 

It sounds very similar to this Thatcher policy over here which was described at the time as, 'very popular'...

New council housing in England may be removed from right to buy scheme
Angela Rayner says restrictions may be placed on sale of new social housing to prevent loss of stock

Ministers may stop new council houses in England from being sold under the right to buy scheme, Angela Rayner has indicated.

The deputy prime minister said the government would introduce restrictions on new social housing “so we aren’t losing that stock”.

Since it was launched by Margaret Thatcher in 1980, the right to buy scheme has allowed tenants living in council houses to buy them, often at a significant discount.​

That policy has decimated the UK's social housing stock and to the detriment of everyone, (apart from private landlords who don't vote labour anyway), but particularly the tax payer...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...gland-right-to-buy-thatcher-labour-leadership

...

The last month has also seen two big policy reports about right to buy, making very similar suggestions. The latest, from the New Economics Foundation, is brimming with shocking findings: 40% of homes sold under the policy are now being let on the private market – in Brighton, the proportion is 86%. Worse still, discounts – which, in 2014, were increased to a maximum of 70% – enshrine one of right to buy’s worst aspects: the fact that it often means councils losing money on houses they build. Unless this changes, Burnham says, trying to solve the housing crisis is like trying to fill a bath but with the plug out. He’s right, but his comrades in Westminster still seem to be putting their fingers in their ears: “It’s an incoming government that would determine the rules around right to buy,” says the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves. “We have no plans to reform that.”​

That was written before the election but, as it turns out, (and as I'd hoped), labour DID have plans to change it with this new development of restricting the so-called 'right to buy'.

So, in the same way that student loans were sold off to private interests, the UK council housing stock was sold off, albeit indirectly. Also, similar to your experience, a lot of people on the left, (including me), said at the time it was a stupid idea that would cause enormous long term harm to the society... and people didn't listen.

It wasn't just the policy of selling off council houses, it was the WAY it was done which was designed to stop new council homes being built as then people were thought more likely to vote tory.

The actions of people like the infamous Shirley Porter, were just the tip of the iceberg...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homes_for_votes_scandal

The homes for votes scandal was a gerrymandering controversy involving the Conservative-led Westminster City Council in London. Having narrowly maintained their control of the council in the 1986 local elections, Conservative councillors initiated a programme of selling off council homes in eight marginal wards, in the belief that owner-occupiers were more likely to vote Conservative than council tenants. Hostels in the marginal wards were closed, with some homeless people moved into condemned accommodation.​

The whole policy was corrupt to the core.

 

Just to be clear I generally agree with your point here... that people shouldn't vote solely because someone promises them something or fawns over their concerns.

But can I just gently point out that is NOT what I was suggesting.

To take your analogy further, what I'M talking about is choosing NOT to go on a date with someone who promised you they'd be considerate and nice to you last time and actually spent the whole time abusing you and chatting up anyone who happened to be there.

Again, to be clear, that doesn't mean you'd necessarily go out with someone else. It just means you'd choose to stay home and watch TV or whatever, rather than dating anyone which is the equivalent of not voting for any of the candidates.

Like I said... 19% voter turnout in a poor area around here... 19%!

 

Well, even though I was technically replying to you, I may have digressed a bit.

 

Maybe it will "tell" them that, maybe they are now educated enough that it won't. But it probably would be easier to convince them to be cautious about debt if we were not all losing ground to the total of debt. we are already going to have to disabuse them of the 1001 things Trump has lied to them about, and that process will only cost effort and patience not money.

I'm telling you, one way or another you are going to wind up paying somebody else's unpaid student loan just the same as the rest of us, just the same as I had to pay for the S&L bailout.

The allies imposed reparations for WWI on Germany at the Versailles Treaty. Doing so was wasted effort, because the money simply wasn't there. Neither is this money for the most part, and it does not matter what forgiveness "tells" people. The main thing is the impact on the functional parts of the economy, not the character of the debtors.

 

In 2009, my alma mater's board voted to give a $100k raise to the president of said alma mater. In 2009. When the GFC was going on and Michigan was one of the hardest hit states. Meanwhile, the school decided to freeze faculty pay and raise tuition.

There's a matter of admin bloat that I wouldn't be surprised as to why college costs have become so astronomical.

As for the forgiving of student debt, I don't think it's right that companies can get a bailout when they screw up. Constantly. Or if you're the airlines boasting about being rich in 2019 only to be screaming for a bailout in 2020. If we're going to do this sort of thing, I think it's fair that something like student loan debt can be forgiven from time to time.

 

I'm not in favor of company bailouts either, as a rule.

I get that it's easier to fall in a debt hole these days, and I know these banks can behave in predatory ways, but it's up to me to educate myself about the risks of borrowing, the importance of a building a good credit history and not borrowing more than I'm prepared to pay back.

 

Anyone trying to compare anything regarding college in the 80s to this millennium, unless it's to point out how absurd things have gotten (seriously....Ronnie broke everything), is not paying attention at all.

Not only has college gotten stupidly more expensive, but the social programs to help alleviate that are mostly gone. And wages for college degrees have not kept up with price (part of a bigger economy issue....wages are horribly below where they should be). And there have been two whole generations who've been told by those same 80s college grads (and earlier) that college is the only way to advance in life and live comfortable, while also making it harder to get said degree and comfortable life.

Obama should have jailed the lot of them after 08 crash, put the companies on a repayment plan with a bunch of interest and used that interest to 0 student debt. Public and private (as much as he could anyway). That would've been an ideal world.

 

This is the discussion that I couldn't find earlier...



It's actually a more nuanced and intelligent than that other guy suggested.

 

Again, this is not about what is "right" or whether people are educated properly or not. We're past that. It is about fixing a societal problem in the cheapest and most efficient manner. The S&L bailout turned into a massive boondoggle-- but something had to be done, and it did fix the problem. And the problem did have to be fixed. At a certain blurry point it becomes necessary to take a "whatever works" attitude, and stop trying to defend a hill that is already overrun.

It happened, whatcha gonna do about it? Saying "they should shut up and pay" is stupid-- they don't have the money and they are not going to have the money. Structurally it is not the students but the lenders who are "really" being bailed out. All possible solutions are distasteful at this point. "It should never have happened," to quote the incoming President-- so hold our collective noses, fix it, and move on.

Focus on who's to blame if you must, but not till after it is fixed.

 

"That should never have happened."

Now what do you want to do about it? What that will work, that is?

 

There were also some policy issues, that still remain. The first is the "college for all" approach pushed by some progressives - that everyone is able to, and should, get a college degree. This is simply not true and we need to offer alternatives - union and tradecrafts being obvious ones.

The other is skill inflation, where simple entry-level jobs require a college degree or 5+ years of experience. This is classic in local and federal government jobs. You don't need a college degree (or shouldn't) to get an entry-level job. But because high school continues to churn out people unprepared for the workforce, a Bachelor's is now required and it shouldn't be.

 

I'm pretty sure that Maryland eliminated this requirement for many state jobs. It's one of the few things Hogan got right.

 

I thought they still exist.

 

Right. It isn't all that hard to see the pathology. But are the remains to be buried or cremated? Leaving them out to rot and draw vultures doesn't seem practical...