Congress has much to answer for in multiple areas, but it is still not advisable to let the Executive Branch spend huge amounts of money without legislative authority. There should be open debate on the issue before it is decided. I wonder why this particular group of students is being prioritized over others who have paid off their debts. Would we perhaps get more bang for our buck defraying the cost of junior college or instate tuition at public universities? That might represent an ongoing investment in those keen on pursuing a college education.
This is actually in response to the podcast with Stephanie Slade, which I am just getting caught up on. I found it interesting that she described pro-life libertarianism as being based on libertarian beliefs about the limited role of the state: to protect an individual's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She used the "i" word several times, which struck me. It seems to me that the paradox of the fetus is that it is an entity that has human life but is not an individual. And whether you decide to condition personhood, which legally confers some constellation of rights and obligations (e.g., not to have your health endangered or life extinguished; not to threaten the health or life of your host), on the basis of being alive vs. being an individual doesn't seem to me as cut and dried as she presented it, even within the context of her own libertarian beliefs.
Being a bit of a cynic, I have to wonder how many other Southern states still have FEWER book titles in their libraries and classrooms than Texas's now superlatively depleted list.
I was fortunate enough to attend college and grad school back when there were still these things called "Scholarships" for high-performing students, without which I would never have been able to attend. A nation that expects its citizens to fund their own education entirely at their own expense will never produce the best and brightest and will and ensure multi-generational inequality - which seems to be the goal of many of our wealthiest who fear their own dim darlings having to compete with smarter poorer kids. I don't know if executive loan forgiveness is constitutional or not, but I do know a very bright and hard-working young couple expecting their 1st child that anticipate receiving a $20,000 break that will change their lives for the better - and I couldn't be more happy for them.
I saw Wes Moore do an interview, and he is almost a carbon copy of Obama in his delivery. Every gesture, verbal pause & emphasis is identical to Obama.
Charlie… What you & your pinned WP article headline neglected to mention about the cost of the student loan forgiveness is that this cost is over 30 years! And almost always forgotten is the fact that low and middle income earners will get the biggest benefit from this. When’s the last time this segment of Americans got any benefits from Congress or an Executive Order?
I’m very tempted to shoot you a meme concerning the pearl clutching about forgiving up to $10M of student debt ($20M for those with Pell Grants), but instead I’ll just quote it:
“If you have a problem with the student debt cancellation, just pretend it’s a big tax cut for corporations & the 1% that you never got, but mysteriously never complained about.”
Charlie, I am so hoping that you are right about Mastriano. A friend of mine drove from Ohio to New York about 10 days ago and in the rural areas it's wall-to-wall Mastriano signs.
On student loan partial debt cancellation, meh. My read is that Biden is throwing progressives a pre-midterm bone, knowing there’s a very, very good chance the plan won’t hold up in court. But the purpose will have been served.
Putin's only real hope here is that depriving western Europe of gas will causes a fracture in the western alliance due to cold and hardship. . If the EU holds, and NATO holds, come spring, Putin's days are about over.
I think / hope that backfires. I don't see any of the major players knuckling under, and undergoing hardship imposed by a foreign power doesn't have a serious track record of producing submission. The UK and Germany both proved that point in WWII with massive amounts of bombing not significantly reducing citizen resolve.
My main hope is that the governments of Europe resolve to never let themselves be in this position again. It is an increasingly interconnected world, and complete energy independence might not be completely feasible for all nations, but being in the position they are currently in with regard to Russia is damn near criminal negligence.
Liberals have a classism problem, and nowhere does it show up more than the student debt relief bill that is going to drop (at least) $400B on less than 40% of the country who went to college and earn as high as $125k/year in personal income. We're essentially injecting inflationary spending into the economy at a time when we're trying to reverse inflation just so that the kids in this country who were gifted enough to attend college and then earn good money afterwards can get a fucking bailout--right after they got done telling us how bailing out the top earners in the country was wrong in 2008 and 2011. The hypocrisy of post-college liberals is so so sweet.
The voters of this nation survive on the economy, not on democracy. When decadent post-college liberals enforce wealth inequality in this country through wealth-mating (oh sorry, "assortative mating" according to the NBER), then the economy gets more difficult to survive in for everyone else who didn't get to wealth-mate at the highest levels of household income. When the economy gets more difficult to survive in because of the wealth inequality wealth-mating fosters at scale and excess assets that the wealthy scoop up to make themselves richer at everyone else's expense, well, then eventually the working class stops giving a fuck about having a fair democracy since the rich stopped giving a fuck about having a fair economy or a fair meritocracy.
We're watching this country burn down economically and politically because the richest and most blessed Americans are the greediest pieces of shit, and they're going to drive democracy into the ground by building widespread resentment against the world those richest and most blessed Americans built. They just couldn't slow themselves the fuck down and think about the fact that their wealth is power, and that with greater power comes greater responsibility to *society*--not just never-ending "best life" decadence for you and your family. We reap what we sow here folks. We're reaping it as we speak. We may lose democracy in this country as a result of the richest Americans gorging themselves on wealth and not giving a fuck what happens to everyone else.
Setting aside the equities of the partial student-debt cancellation (and whether it will survive; it likely won’t, much to my kids’ chagrin), it’s unlikely to be inflationary in any way. Borrowers aren’t currently servicing their debt and haven’t done so for years. That money is already being spent in the economy. It’s baked in. Also, it’s a tiny amount on an annual basis relative to the economy.
1) Postponing the debt payments itself was inflationary (rich kids spending more money on goods rather than their self-earned debt). This in turn produced more money chasing too few goods in the economy because that rich kid money was chasing more goods instead of paying down self-earned debts.
2) By waiving the repayments of a lot of those loans, we have extended the inflationary policy of letting rich kids chase too few goods with their money rather than using their money to pay off self-earned debts.
If the rich kids aren't paying down their debts, they're going to boozy brunch on Sundays and taking on bigger car payments and buying bigger homes. That's inflationary spending propped up by debt-waiving. That's the government sponsoring inflationary spending and fostering more wealth inequality because the rich kids made enough noise about their debt.
“Postponing the debt payments itself was inflationary …” Exactly. Or, more accurately at the time Trump started us on that path, anti-deflationary. As I said, it’s really baked in.
The biggest beneficiaries are Pell grant recipients, who are slated to get $20k in relief instead of $10k.
In any event, I see it as all for show before the midterms. Biden himself acknowledged long ago that he lacks legislative authority to cancel any portion of student debt. I tell my kids not to get excited.
Genius: Biden creating unrealistic expectations for his hopeful base while making any claim that liberals care about wealth inequality basically muted with this kind of fake policy that probably won't end up passing muster.
In other words, all of this hypocrisy is for nothing more than temporary base excitement yes?
I wouldn’t call it “excitement” since a lot of 20- and 30-somethings were hoping for much more debt cancellation. I’d say it’s an additional inducement to show up and vote, at least. Then the debt cancellation will most likely be cancelled sooner or later in court, but at least there will be more anti-MAGA Republicans in office as a result of the charade.
I’d say overall Biden’s amusingly-named “Inflation Reduction Act” has a good chance of helping blue collar workers. I actually do think he cares about that more than most politicians …
Again, if you can't see the downsides of the government working at odds with the federal reserve by dumping inflationary spending on top of rate hikes, then maybe you're in a household that makes too much money to feel the real impacts of this inflation and the rate hikes in response.
Rich people spending money comfortably is what keeps prices pegged high during inflation. Essentially, the rich can take the price hikes while the working class suffers and has to slash their budgets. If we are paying off the debt of the richest Americans, do you think that *constricts* or *increases* their ability to spend at a time when we drastically need to cut spending to cool inflation?
The government *needs* to do inflationary spending to keep Ukraine in this fight at the tune of $63B+/year. The government *needed* to spend on emergency CV relief between 2020-2022. Those are all additions to inflation in an over-heated economy where too much money is chasing too few goods. The government did *not* need to spend money on rich kids who went to college so that they have more money in their budget to spend and in turn throw more gasoline on the inflationary economic fire.
I made the huge mistake 15 years ago of agreeing to co-sign a college loan at a state university for my sister's youngest child (she has 4, and begged me to agree) not realizing that showed up on MY credit score. Despite his monthly payments (and they aren't high), he STILL owes more than $10,000 on just that loan. By my count, he's already paid twice as much as the loan was originally for, and he still has at least 8 years to go. God knows how much he actually has in debt. Due to health reasons, he didn't finish college, and he works in a big box store. Maybe, just maybe, that $10,000 loan forgiveness will give him a little breathing space. He's not getting a $10,000 freebie per year. It's not the rich kids getting the break, it's folks like my nephew. And me when/if that debt falls off my credit score.
As for that inflation everyone's screaming about - I'm a 70-yr-old woman on a fixed income, so inflation matters. Most of it is big companies taking advantage of the rest of us. Even before prices for gas rose, the oil companies were having their best profits ever. And the rest of the inflated prices were other companies getting in on the gouge. BTW, inflation has been kept artificially low for years, something that's been forgotten.
I support bailing out kids like that. I DO NOT support bailing out kids who make over $75k annually as individuals, and I definitely DO NOT support bailing out households making over $150k annually. Go ahead and defend that if you want to, but know that you're defending rich kids who are NOT like your nephew if they're making that kind of income after the debt they took on to get a better taste of life.
The problem is, of course, that it is far easier to do stuff like the student loan forgiveness than it is to address the structural and cultural issues that are actually generating the problems--as I am sure that you are well aware.
The inability and unwillingness top address those structural issues are what are going to destroy us. It will evidence itself as a failure of democracy and a fall to authoritarianism, but that is the symptom, not the cause.
The cause is simply those with power and wealth seizing or maintaining their advantages while narrowly serving their own self-interest, often without much actual thought involved.
Both aspects are important to keep in mind. $15B out of a $5.8T budget and a $21B+ economy. $15*30=$450B. Beyond that would be to put it in context with other expenditures.
More importantly to me is that this is a fairly low cost (for gov programs) salve to a symptom of a much larger structural problem. We need to come together as a country and come up with a re-engineered structure for post high school education / training of all sorts.
I’m old enough to remember when the neocons were all in on executive power. Spend trillions of dollars to invade another country because we don’t like the guy in charge? CHECK!
Spend a fraction of that amount to release millions of Americans from indentured servitude to a predatory student loan system? TYRANNY!
This is my now almost weekly reminder that the one tide that is historically proven to lift all boats is education (not trickle-down economics, despite the GOP’s long-suffering devotion to that turd of a theory). The student loans people took out to get a college education were invested in local communities (restaurants, clothing stores, mechanic shops, etc.)… and the spillover effects of having more dentists, and doctors and even (gasp!) philosophy majors in a community are also well documented.
But, HEAVEN FORBID we try to do anything about the crushing debt these folks took on to give those benefits to their communities! SOCIALISM!!! Why, if we let these folks off the hook it might even incentivize more people to get educated! An educated populace? National disaster! I mean, just look at the dystopian wastelands of Canada, Sweden, Norway and every other country that provides a free university education to citizens. What would happen to us if we emulated their happier citizens and better healthcare systems?! Better the vagaries of the free market and for-profit lending in education, I say!
Gimme a break… Charlie, we agree on a lot, but you’re dead wrong on student loans. (And this is coming from a guy who gets no direct benefit out of the program.)
Only we're not spending money to increase education, we're spending money to bail kids who are already high-income out of their education bills. A lot of those kids attended college in the first place because they came from households of economic privilege to begin with. What's next? Bail out all the doctors and attorneys because they have grad school debt?
Please don't assume attorneys clear the $125,000 threshold. I have been an attorney since 1987 and know the legal job market in and out. The number of attorneys making $125,000 straight out of law school might be 1 out of 25. The number making more than $125,000 after 20 years might be 5 out of 25. Many attorneys make $40,000 to $50,000 with very little in the way of benefits. And that is if they're lucky to get a job. The most sought after legal jobs today are public sector jobs b/c their pay has gone up much more than the private sector. Plus, you get benefits in the public sector you will never get as a private law firm attorney. People need to stop putting lawyers in the same class as doctors when it comes to compensation.
Yea, that limit is *$125k/year for individuals and $250k/year for households*. That upper limit is very much "high-income," do you disagree?
And how many households with college debt regardless of income threshold *aren't* going to take advantage of this rich kid bailout ya figure? What's your ballpark guesstimate on that one?
There are millions of folks who do not make $125,000 as an individual or $250,000 per year that will benefit correct? Would you support this effort if it was say $60,000 individual and $120,000 for a family? In your opinion, is there a category of income that would be more acceptable?? Again the " rich kid bailout" you state seems Iike a pre conceived notion you will cling too.
Please take a look at the chart here, specifically where it says "Household Income Per Earner" and the corresponding quintile values per average household in that quintile. Then when you're done looking at those numbers you can tell me this isn't a rich kid bailout with caps set at $125k/individual and $250k/household if you still feel that way.
YES!!! I would 1000% support a bailout of people at lower income brackets who actually need it rather than people who live decadently and are whining about bills that they voluntarily took on that they 1000% can afford to pay back. Why is this so hard of a position for people to get?
How about just NOT spending the money on post-college rich kids so that they turn out in November at the expense of more inflation and more government-funded wealth inequality?
Just to put it in a bit of context, I guess I would count as a rich kid, which meant that I didn't have any student loans at all, because my parents just wrote checks for the bill. I'm assuming that is the case for most rich kids. I had a roommate whose parents were trying to find out if they could pay his tuition, room, and board with a credit card so they could get the miles. I am going to guess that most of the rich kids are going to vote R in November because lower taxes are going to benefit them much more in the long run than a singe $10,000 payment. Personally, I'm happy to see people who are struggling to pay off their student debt get some relief.
Where on earth are you getting the idea that it's rich kids getting a freebie? The people getting the most benefit will be the lower income/middle income folks. If they're rich, $10,000 is nothing.
If they're rich and $10k is nothing, then just don't give it to the fucking rich kids! Stop bailing out people who can afford the debt they hold! And stop defending this kind of thing! You're only making your indifference to the working class stick out worse. Stop bootlicking the rich kids!
Then why were the bailout caps set to individuals making under *$125k*???
If this weren't about bailing out rich kids, then the bailout caps would have been set much lower. Thank Biden for fucking that one up. Don't get mad at me for calling out the Biden admin for putting its stamp of endorsement on the government fostering wealth inequality.
If you think working class people should pay for rich parents to send their children to college, you're in for a blowback that will make that Florida hurricane look like a light breeze.
No, I think the rich should pay higher taxes, as they used, to pay for poorer/middle class kids go to college, like they used do to in the 19th and 20th centuries. We, as a country, used to value education for children via state colleges with NO tuition, GI Bills, etc. They knew the country needed more doctors, scientists, teacher, etc. Now many Rs are saying public schools should be eliminated.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
THAT is what socialism is.
State funded post secondary education is NOT that. Neither is universal health care, or social security.
One of the things that REALLY pisses me off is how the GoP has managed to shift the definition of socialism over the years and how many people unthinkingly buy into that shift to a greater or lesser degree.
You are so right. The people who run for office should be forced to pass a test in civics and political social theory, because if they believe the nonsense they are spouting they are clueless.
I get your point, but the highest paid state employee in my state works for a university. I fully grant that state schools aren't socialism under the current system, but if the education was provided for a state set price, how do we define a state run institution that is producing and distributing that education? How do we define current public schools for K-12 in this country?
I am willing to bet that that highest paid employee is a football coach. Which says something about our value systems. I could be wrong, but from I have seen the odds are in my favor.
Education is a public good. It is in the interest of the state to provide public goods at reasonable cost (including taxation as part of that reasonable cost). It is about as pragmatic as you get.
This is an expansive view of what governments should do, but it is based on what were once the values of the Whig (and then Republican) government.
There are a number of things that are public goods that the government provides--a court system, law enforcement, a military, interstate highways, dams, bridges, water/flood control.. and so on. This is (these days, it was not always so) seen as both right and proper.
Public schools are a public good... because it is cheaper on a per capita basis to provide it through taxation than for individual families to pay for it... and the benefits resound through the nation and national economy.
Public schools are not the only schools.
State universities are not the only universities.
If you REALLY want to get down to brass tacks, then EVERY state is a socialist state as all states (even pre-state societies) regulate. Although, to be SUPER precise, only democratic states (paying attention to the word community) qualify.
People tend to ignore that part as regulation is ubiquitous--and thus the definition collapses most cogently into the ownership of the means of production and distribution. Which we are, in most cases VERY far from.
Oh, I know it is a football coach. It's that way in almost all of the states with even remotely serious college football.
And yeah, it speaks very poorly to our value system. Hell, the fact that we've let athletics and education continue so entwined in this country is a problem in my book. One we have about zero chance of solving, but a problem nonetheless. And I say that as someone who devotes all of his fall Saturdays to college football (well, now that the kids don't have their own sports on Saturdays much).
I really doubt that the farmers in North Dakota, etc., who had free state schools cared that some 21st century pol would call free college socialism. They saw it as an investment in the future of their children and their state - something most current Rs are against.
Since I was about 9 when the whole "Contact With America" thing happened, I decided to look it up the other day. They had actual laws listed they were going to pass. About economic stuff. When was the last time the Republican party came forward with a law that didn't involve tax cuts or culture war BS during a campaign?
They've had those proposals to cut two regulations for every new one enacted. Another republican raised the stakes to three, but I haven't heard of anyone going all the way to four.
I am sure China and India can produce all the college grads our economy needs. College just turns decent Christian small town kids into Woke commies. Let's spend as much money subsidizing industrial jobs so our citizens can remain decent and let foreigners get pollted with a college education
Congress has much to answer for in multiple areas, but it is still not advisable to let the Executive Branch spend huge amounts of money without legislative authority. There should be open debate on the issue before it is decided. I wonder why this particular group of students is being prioritized over others who have paid off their debts. Would we perhaps get more bang for our buck defraying the cost of junior college or instate tuition at public universities? That might represent an ongoing investment in those keen on pursuing a college education.
This is actually in response to the podcast with Stephanie Slade, which I am just getting caught up on. I found it interesting that she described pro-life libertarianism as being based on libertarian beliefs about the limited role of the state: to protect an individual's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She used the "i" word several times, which struck me. It seems to me that the paradox of the fetus is that it is an entity that has human life but is not an individual. And whether you decide to condition personhood, which legally confers some constellation of rights and obligations (e.g., not to have your health endangered or life extinguished; not to threaten the health or life of your host), on the basis of being alive vs. being an individual doesn't seem to me as cut and dried as she presented it, even within the context of her own libertarian beliefs.
Being a bit of a cynic, I have to wonder how many other Southern states still have FEWER book titles in their libraries and classrooms than Texas's now superlatively depleted list.
I was fortunate enough to attend college and grad school back when there were still these things called "Scholarships" for high-performing students, without which I would never have been able to attend. A nation that expects its citizens to fund their own education entirely at their own expense will never produce the best and brightest and will and ensure multi-generational inequality - which seems to be the goal of many of our wealthiest who fear their own dim darlings having to compete with smarter poorer kids. I don't know if executive loan forgiveness is constitutional or not, but I do know a very bright and hard-working young couple expecting their 1st child that anticipate receiving a $20,000 break that will change their lives for the better - and I couldn't be more happy for them.
I saw Wes Moore do an interview, and he is almost a carbon copy of Obama in his delivery. Every gesture, verbal pause & emphasis is identical to Obama.
Charlie… What you & your pinned WP article headline neglected to mention about the cost of the student loan forgiveness is that this cost is over 30 years! And almost always forgotten is the fact that low and middle income earners will get the biggest benefit from this. When’s the last time this segment of Americans got any benefits from Congress or an Executive Order?
I’m very tempted to shoot you a meme concerning the pearl clutching about forgiving up to $10M of student debt ($20M for those with Pell Grants), but instead I’ll just quote it:
“If you have a problem with the student debt cancellation, just pretend it’s a big tax cut for corporations & the 1% that you never got, but mysteriously never complained about.”
Charlie, I am so hoping that you are right about Mastriano. A friend of mine drove from Ohio to New York about 10 days ago and in the rural areas it's wall-to-wall Mastriano signs.
There are Mastriano signs in my middle/upper-middle class neighborhood in one of the "collar counties" of Philadelphia. Very unsettling.
On student loan partial debt cancellation, meh. My read is that Biden is throwing progressives a pre-midterm bone, knowing there’s a very, very good chance the plan won’t hold up in court. But the purpose will have been served.
The Court already gave the power of the purse to Trump for his wall.
Putin's only real hope here is that depriving western Europe of gas will causes a fracture in the western alliance due to cold and hardship. . If the EU holds, and NATO holds, come spring, Putin's days are about over.
I think / hope that backfires. I don't see any of the major players knuckling under, and undergoing hardship imposed by a foreign power doesn't have a serious track record of producing submission. The UK and Germany both proved that point in WWII with massive amounts of bombing not significantly reducing citizen resolve.
My main hope is that the governments of Europe resolve to never let themselves be in this position again. It is an increasingly interconnected world, and complete energy independence might not be completely feasible for all nations, but being in the position they are currently in with regard to Russia is damn near criminal negligence.
Well, the asteroid *was* in no danger of hitting Earth, but something seems to have altered its trajectory... .
I would advise Ms. Pugacheva to avoid all open windows. And probably best to stick to ground floors of buildings.
Liberals have a classism problem, and nowhere does it show up more than the student debt relief bill that is going to drop (at least) $400B on less than 40% of the country who went to college and earn as high as $125k/year in personal income. We're essentially injecting inflationary spending into the economy at a time when we're trying to reverse inflation just so that the kids in this country who were gifted enough to attend college and then earn good money afterwards can get a fucking bailout--right after they got done telling us how bailing out the top earners in the country was wrong in 2008 and 2011. The hypocrisy of post-college liberals is so so sweet.
The voters of this nation survive on the economy, not on democracy. When decadent post-college liberals enforce wealth inequality in this country through wealth-mating (oh sorry, "assortative mating" according to the NBER), then the economy gets more difficult to survive in for everyone else who didn't get to wealth-mate at the highest levels of household income. When the economy gets more difficult to survive in because of the wealth inequality wealth-mating fosters at scale and excess assets that the wealthy scoop up to make themselves richer at everyone else's expense, well, then eventually the working class stops giving a fuck about having a fair democracy since the rich stopped giving a fuck about having a fair economy or a fair meritocracy.
We're watching this country burn down economically and politically because the richest and most blessed Americans are the greediest pieces of shit, and they're going to drive democracy into the ground by building widespread resentment against the world those richest and most blessed Americans built. They just couldn't slow themselves the fuck down and think about the fact that their wealth is power, and that with greater power comes greater responsibility to *society*--not just never-ending "best life" decadence for you and your family. We reap what we sow here folks. We're reaping it as we speak. We may lose democracy in this country as a result of the richest Americans gorging themselves on wealth and not giving a fuck what happens to everyone else.
Setting aside the equities of the partial student-debt cancellation (and whether it will survive; it likely won’t, much to my kids’ chagrin), it’s unlikely to be inflationary in any way. Borrowers aren’t currently servicing their debt and haven’t done so for years. That money is already being spent in the economy. It’s baked in. Also, it’s a tiny amount on an annual basis relative to the economy.
1) Postponing the debt payments itself was inflationary (rich kids spending more money on goods rather than their self-earned debt). This in turn produced more money chasing too few goods in the economy because that rich kid money was chasing more goods instead of paying down self-earned debts.
2) By waiving the repayments of a lot of those loans, we have extended the inflationary policy of letting rich kids chase too few goods with their money rather than using their money to pay off self-earned debts.
If the rich kids aren't paying down their debts, they're going to boozy brunch on Sundays and taking on bigger car payments and buying bigger homes. That's inflationary spending propped up by debt-waiving. That's the government sponsoring inflationary spending and fostering more wealth inequality because the rich kids made enough noise about their debt.
“Postponing the debt payments itself was inflationary …” Exactly. Or, more accurately at the time Trump started us on that path, anti-deflationary. As I said, it’s really baked in.
The biggest beneficiaries are Pell grant recipients, who are slated to get $20k in relief instead of $10k.
In any event, I see it as all for show before the midterms. Biden himself acknowledged long ago that he lacks legislative authority to cancel any portion of student debt. I tell my kids not to get excited.
Genius: Biden creating unrealistic expectations for his hopeful base while making any claim that liberals care about wealth inequality basically muted with this kind of fake policy that probably won't end up passing muster.
In other words, all of this hypocrisy is for nothing more than temporary base excitement yes?
I wouldn’t call it “excitement” since a lot of 20- and 30-somethings were hoping for much more debt cancellation. I’d say it’s an additional inducement to show up and vote, at least. Then the debt cancellation will most likely be cancelled sooner or later in court, but at least there will be more anti-MAGA Republicans in office as a result of the charade.
I’d say overall Biden’s amusingly-named “Inflation Reduction Act” has a good chance of helping blue collar workers. I actually do think he cares about that more than most politicians …
$15 billion PER YEAR. In a multi-trillion dollar economy, how much does that really come to?
Again, if you can't see the downsides of the government working at odds with the federal reserve by dumping inflationary spending on top of rate hikes, then maybe you're in a household that makes too much money to feel the real impacts of this inflation and the rate hikes in response.
Rich people spending money comfortably is what keeps prices pegged high during inflation. Essentially, the rich can take the price hikes while the working class suffers and has to slash their budgets. If we are paying off the debt of the richest Americans, do you think that *constricts* or *increases* their ability to spend at a time when we drastically need to cut spending to cool inflation?
The government *needs* to do inflationary spending to keep Ukraine in this fight at the tune of $63B+/year. The government *needed* to spend on emergency CV relief between 2020-2022. Those are all additions to inflation in an over-heated economy where too much money is chasing too few goods. The government did *not* need to spend money on rich kids who went to college so that they have more money in their budget to spend and in turn throw more gasoline on the inflationary economic fire.
I made the huge mistake 15 years ago of agreeing to co-sign a college loan at a state university for my sister's youngest child (she has 4, and begged me to agree) not realizing that showed up on MY credit score. Despite his monthly payments (and they aren't high), he STILL owes more than $10,000 on just that loan. By my count, he's already paid twice as much as the loan was originally for, and he still has at least 8 years to go. God knows how much he actually has in debt. Due to health reasons, he didn't finish college, and he works in a big box store. Maybe, just maybe, that $10,000 loan forgiveness will give him a little breathing space. He's not getting a $10,000 freebie per year. It's not the rich kids getting the break, it's folks like my nephew. And me when/if that debt falls off my credit score.
As for that inflation everyone's screaming about - I'm a 70-yr-old woman on a fixed income, so inflation matters. Most of it is big companies taking advantage of the rest of us. Even before prices for gas rose, the oil companies were having their best profits ever. And the rest of the inflated prices were other companies getting in on the gouge. BTW, inflation has been kept artificially low for years, something that's been forgotten.
I support bailing out kids like that. I DO NOT support bailing out kids who make over $75k annually as individuals, and I definitely DO NOT support bailing out households making over $150k annually. Go ahead and defend that if you want to, but know that you're defending rich kids who are NOT like your nephew if they're making that kind of income after the debt they took on to get a better taste of life.
The problem is, of course, that it is far easier to do stuff like the student loan forgiveness than it is to address the structural and cultural issues that are actually generating the problems--as I am sure that you are well aware.
The inability and unwillingness top address those structural issues are what are going to destroy us. It will evidence itself as a failure of democracy and a fall to authoritarianism, but that is the symptom, not the cause.
The cause is simply those with power and wealth seizing or maintaining their advantages while narrowly serving their own self-interest, often without much actual thought involved.
Basically.
Both aspects are important to keep in mind. $15B out of a $5.8T budget and a $21B+ economy. $15*30=$450B. Beyond that would be to put it in context with other expenditures.
More importantly to me is that this is a fairly low cost (for gov programs) salve to a symptom of a much larger structural problem. We need to come together as a country and come up with a re-engineered structure for post high school education / training of all sorts.
Amen.
I’m old enough to remember when the neocons were all in on executive power. Spend trillions of dollars to invade another country because we don’t like the guy in charge? CHECK!
Spend a fraction of that amount to release millions of Americans from indentured servitude to a predatory student loan system? TYRANNY!
This is my now almost weekly reminder that the one tide that is historically proven to lift all boats is education (not trickle-down economics, despite the GOP’s long-suffering devotion to that turd of a theory). The student loans people took out to get a college education were invested in local communities (restaurants, clothing stores, mechanic shops, etc.)… and the spillover effects of having more dentists, and doctors and even (gasp!) philosophy majors in a community are also well documented.
But, HEAVEN FORBID we try to do anything about the crushing debt these folks took on to give those benefits to their communities! SOCIALISM!!! Why, if we let these folks off the hook it might even incentivize more people to get educated! An educated populace? National disaster! I mean, just look at the dystopian wastelands of Canada, Sweden, Norway and every other country that provides a free university education to citizens. What would happen to us if we emulated their happier citizens and better healthcare systems?! Better the vagaries of the free market and for-profit lending in education, I say!
Gimme a break… Charlie, we agree on a lot, but you’re dead wrong on student loans. (And this is coming from a guy who gets no direct benefit out of the program.)
For the record, Canada doesn’t provide free university education. Many here wish it did.
Only we're not spending money to increase education, we're spending money to bail kids who are already high-income out of their education bills. A lot of those kids attended college in the first place because they came from households of economic privilege to begin with. What's next? Bail out all the doctors and attorneys because they have grad school debt?
Please don't assume attorneys clear the $125,000 threshold. I have been an attorney since 1987 and know the legal job market in and out. The number of attorneys making $125,000 straight out of law school might be 1 out of 25. The number making more than $125,000 after 20 years might be 5 out of 25. Many attorneys make $40,000 to $50,000 with very little in the way of benefits. And that is if they're lucky to get a job. The most sought after legal jobs today are public sector jobs b/c their pay has gone up much more than the private sector. Plus, you get benefits in the public sector you will never get as a private law firm attorney. People need to stop putting lawyers in the same class as doctors when it comes to compensation.
Now do doctors.
You assume it's "high income"...isn't there an income limit on who can take advantage? And, let's be clear, it's optional..not mandatory
Yea, that limit is *$125k/year for individuals and $250k/year for households*. That upper limit is very much "high-income," do you disagree?
And how many households with college debt regardless of income threshold *aren't* going to take advantage of this rich kid bailout ya figure? What's your ballpark guesstimate on that one?
There are millions of folks who do not make $125,000 as an individual or $250,000 per year that will benefit correct? Would you support this effort if it was say $60,000 individual and $120,000 for a family? In your opinion, is there a category of income that would be more acceptable?? Again the " rich kid bailout" you state seems Iike a pre conceived notion you will cling too.
Please take a look at the chart here, specifically where it says "Household Income Per Earner" and the corresponding quintile values per average household in that quintile. Then when you're done looking at those numbers you can tell me this isn't a rich kid bailout with caps set at $125k/individual and $250k/household if you still feel that way.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/explaining-us-income-inequality-by-household-demographics-2020-update/
I get your point. You don't object to the debt relief, it appears it's the income limits are too high...fair enough
YES!!! I would 1000% support a bailout of people at lower income brackets who actually need it rather than people who live decadently and are whining about bills that they voluntarily took on that they 1000% can afford to pay back. Why is this so hard of a position for people to get?
Is there someone specific you are thinking of who "live decadently" and are whiners?? Who are these people you are referring to?
The way the money is spread over the electorate, with only scant reference to need or the ability to pay, reminds me of free drinks on election day.
It reminds me how PPP loans were spread around our monied classes… and then forgiven by the federal government.
Socialism for me but not for thee though, right? ;)
The amount is capped as are income limitations. You want to audit each person who qualifies under both? Talk about costing billions!
How about just NOT spending the money on post-college rich kids so that they turn out in November at the expense of more inflation and more government-funded wealth inequality?
Just to put it in a bit of context, I guess I would count as a rich kid, which meant that I didn't have any student loans at all, because my parents just wrote checks for the bill. I'm assuming that is the case for most rich kids. I had a roommate whose parents were trying to find out if they could pay his tuition, room, and board with a credit card so they could get the miles. I am going to guess that most of the rich kids are going to vote R in November because lower taxes are going to benefit them much more in the long run than a singe $10,000 payment. Personally, I'm happy to see people who are struggling to pay off their student debt get some relief.
Where on earth are you getting the idea that it's rich kids getting a freebie? The people getting the most benefit will be the lower income/middle income folks. If they're rich, $10,000 is nothing.
That it's nothing (but a gesture) to the rich or well off is exactly why it's badly handled.
If they're rich and $10k is nothing, then just don't give it to the fucking rich kids! Stop bailing out people who can afford the debt they hold! And stop defending this kind of thing! You're only making your indifference to the working class stick out worse. Stop bootlicking the rich kids!
Then why were the bailout caps set to individuals making under *$125k*???
If this weren't about bailing out rich kids, then the bailout caps would have been set much lower. Thank Biden for fucking that one up. Don't get mad at me for calling out the Biden admin for putting its stamp of endorsement on the government fostering wealth inequality.
No, I would have set a universal repayment plan based on some percentage x of their IRS modified gross incomes.
Many (most?) states used to have FREE college education for their citizens - until the Rs sold a bill of goods that it was SOCIALISM.
If you think working class people should pay for rich parents to send their children to college, you're in for a blowback that will make that Florida hurricane look like a light breeze.
No, I think the rich should pay higher taxes, as they used, to pay for poorer/middle class kids go to college, like they used do to in the 19th and 20th centuries. We, as a country, used to value education for children via state colleges with NO tuition, GI Bills, etc. They knew the country needed more doctors, scientists, teacher, etc. Now many Rs are saying public schools should be eliminated.
Well, it is socialistic. Thing is, that isn't some absolute evil. There are things in our society that hyper capitalism isn't the best solution for.
Well, actually, it isn't socialistic.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
THAT is what socialism is.
State funded post secondary education is NOT that. Neither is universal health care, or social security.
One of the things that REALLY pisses me off is how the GoP has managed to shift the definition of socialism over the years and how many people unthinkingly buy into that shift to a greater or lesser degree.
You are so right. The people who run for office should be forced to pass a test in civics and political social theory, because if they believe the nonsense they are spouting they are clueless.
I get your point, but the highest paid state employee in my state works for a university. I fully grant that state schools aren't socialism under the current system, but if the education was provided for a state set price, how do we define a state run institution that is producing and distributing that education? How do we define current public schools for K-12 in this country?
I am willing to bet that that highest paid employee is a football coach. Which says something about our value systems. I could be wrong, but from I have seen the odds are in my favor.
Education is a public good. It is in the interest of the state to provide public goods at reasonable cost (including taxation as part of that reasonable cost). It is about as pragmatic as you get.
This is an expansive view of what governments should do, but it is based on what were once the values of the Whig (and then Republican) government.
There are a number of things that are public goods that the government provides--a court system, law enforcement, a military, interstate highways, dams, bridges, water/flood control.. and so on. This is (these days, it was not always so) seen as both right and proper.
Public schools are a public good... because it is cheaper on a per capita basis to provide it through taxation than for individual families to pay for it... and the benefits resound through the nation and national economy.
Public schools are not the only schools.
State universities are not the only universities.
If you REALLY want to get down to brass tacks, then EVERY state is a socialist state as all states (even pre-state societies) regulate. Although, to be SUPER precise, only democratic states (paying attention to the word community) qualify.
People tend to ignore that part as regulation is ubiquitous--and thus the definition collapses most cogently into the ownership of the means of production and distribution. Which we are, in most cases VERY far from.
Oh, I know it is a football coach. It's that way in almost all of the states with even remotely serious college football.
And yeah, it speaks very poorly to our value system. Hell, the fact that we've let athletics and education continue so entwined in this country is a problem in my book. One we have about zero chance of solving, but a problem nonetheless. And I say that as someone who devotes all of his fall Saturdays to college football (well, now that the kids don't have their own sports on Saturdays much).
I mean, it’s not even “socialistic” really unless the federal government is buying schools. It’s “welfare state-istic.”
I really doubt that the farmers in North Dakota, etc., who had free state schools cared that some 21st century pol would call free college socialism. They saw it as an investment in the future of their children and their state - something most current Rs are against.
Well comrade, you can see it in this very thread with that troll who just views college as a way of producing communists. ;)
Love it! Right on!
Since I was about 9 when the whole "Contact With America" thing happened, I decided to look it up the other day. They had actual laws listed they were going to pass. About economic stuff. When was the last time the Republican party came forward with a law that didn't involve tax cuts or culture war BS during a campaign?
They've had those proposals to cut two regulations for every new one enacted. Another republican raised the stakes to three, but I haven't heard of anyone going all the way to four.
That's not a bill, though. The CWA has actual draft legislation backing it up.
I think they were bills, but I agree with your point.
I am sure China and India can produce all the college grads our economy needs. College just turns decent Christian small town kids into Woke commies. Let's spend as much money subsidizing industrial jobs so our citizens can remain decent and let foreigners get pollted with a college education