Not every piece of legislation needs to benefit you. It’s okay if others benefit and you don’t get hurt in the process.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
6 points (87.5% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2052 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That’s not the only reason to oppose this.
All Bidens solution does is take money from the tax payers to pay off the predatory lenders.
Predatory lenders? Biden’s plan largely targeted federal loans. That shit was pretty regulated and had very low interest rates. A pay day loan it was not.
Very low interest rates, yet nobody can pay them off.
Well, consider that we also live in a world where American school districts, in major metro areas, are literally opening up low income housing dorms for teachers, so teachers can afford to subsist on a teacher’s salary.
Low interest doesn’t mean much when you can’t even pay your rent with a job that requires a college education.
What solution do you propose?
Cut off the interest and have borrowers pay back the initial loan.
Predatory lenders get shafted for being pieces of shit. Students get a huge break. The rest of the country doesn’t feel taken advantage of.
But that’ll never happen because profits > people.
Reep what you sow and pay your fucking loan back at the agreed terms at the time of signing.
Personal responsibility is a bitch. Only irresponsible people want loan forgiveness.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Who owns the debt for federal student loans?
I'll wait while you learn the answer is, "Department of Education."
Is the Department of Education a predatory lender?
I'm not super familiar with how it's suppose to work, but do they even need "taxpayer's money?" Couldn't they just decide the debt is paid (or like remove $10,000) and then call it a day?
You're right. The debt is owned by the Dept. of Education. Forgiving a loan is just as easy as it sounds. They just.. change some ledger somewhere and subtract $x from what Bob Student owes.
There's no money transferred. The only real cost is the loss of interest payments in the future, but those are interest payments made by the student to the servicer (private organization that handles the day-to-day operations, like, collecting payments, sending statements, etc.).
But that potential revenue happens in the future. If the future revenue is less than expected, it's exactly the same situation you see if say, Congress were to lower taxes. The revenue we expect to get in the future is now lower than thought it would be.
It's the exact opposite of spending.
What does this even mean lol
It means the people fighting against it are only fighting against it because they don't get anything from it and that maybe they need to stop and consider that not every piece of legislation needs to benefit them and them only.
Ok, ok, let's just give everyone enough to pay off the largest student loan debt.
I am fighting against it because it only supports those that will become some of the wealthiest sector in the country at the cost to a segment that will be in the lower end of wealth. It is simply greed.
I think it is down right greedy for those who will typically be the highest wage earners to get loan relief for the loans that will make them wealthy. Why not apply that to business loans as well?
It is particularly paid by those that will have lower wages so how can you say it hurts none?
It’s funny how we can print and print money for decades, we can “invest” in private industries, give them loans with favorable interest rates, billions in grants, look the other way with regards to regulations, not block anti-competitive practices, but the second we try to help actual people directly everybody loses their shit.
Want to help the economy? That $10,000 (or $20,000) for Pell grant recipients might allow someone to save $300 more a month towards a house, a car, or spend it on goods and services. After 3 years, that’s money back in the economy rather than back to bank that have gotten plenty of help in the best.
But we can not print money for decades as inflation is now showing. And if you want to help the economy, why not give money to the poor instead of to people that will become some of the highest earners?
What does our debt have to do with this inflation? Over half of inflation was caused by an increase in corporate profits. Most of the rest were supply chain issues and wage increases.
You also had to be earning less than $125k/year today to get the forgiveness. The highest wage earners were never eligible.
If they are the highest wage earners, they should also be the highest taxpayers. If we fixed both issues, they would be the ones paying for student loan relief themselves.
It's never been a guarantee that a college degree will put someone in the highest class of wage earners, especially for anyone who's gone to school basically since the turn of the millennium. College tuition and fees have been rising far beyond inflation and wage growth throughout the 21st century so far, without corresponding increase in starting wages for college grads to meet that rise, and with that increase in tuition and fees, more and more students have needed larger and larger loans to pay that cost. Especially for those who went to college in the 2000s, 17-18 year olds could not have predicted that the economy would go to crap (the Great Recession) by the time they graduated, or that new grads would be most hurt by it as companies handed the jobs that would normally go to those new grads to experienced workers who had been laid off, preventing those new grads from gaining the valuable experience and connections that could get them into their industries. Since then the relative value of a college degree has only continued to drop, as those companies continue to shift to valuing experience over education in their hiring practices. New college students and grads can see that now and make better decisions, but back in the 2000s, when those loans that are out there now were taken out, could you really blame a high school kid for not being an expert economist or HR pro enough to figure that would happen? Too many people think of late millennial-Gen Z people when they think of student debt burden, but the largest portion of it is actually held by late Gen X-early Millennials who are paying for the education they got in the 2000s and essentially got shafted on those opportunities they were sold on when they went to the school everyone told them they HAD to go to. (Full disclosure, I am one of those early Millennials.) Biden made a dumb decision by trying to use a law aimed at mitigating COVID economic effects to solve a problem mainly caused by the Great Recession, but it's still a problem that needs to be solved to essentially prevent an American Lost Generation from forming.
Nothing is guaranteed but there is no question that people with post secondary educations on average will make significantly more money then their peers without over their lifetime. Multiple times more then the size of these loans. I am not crying when they got to pay them back.
This is money that you are investing to make yourself more money latter in life. No different than a business taking out a loan to expand their services. It is simply greed on the part of those that get this but have lower wages earners on the hook for it in either higher taxes or less money in social programs. Tell me one thing that I said that is not correct.
Over a LIFETIME, sure, they will make more. But especially in that past 20 years I've been mentioning, they start out with that debt holding them back, and it's been more difficult for an increasing amount of people over time, due to the economic difficulties and the rising balance and interest of those loans due to exponentially ballooning costs of that education plus inflation, to both pay that debt back and establish a career and stable life that makes that increased earning possible. Most of that increased earning comes later in life for many, and payment on those loans can only be deferred so far. Millions of borrowers are putting off auto and home purchases and even marriage and starting families because their student debt is causing them to not afford such life milestones, because even jobs that require degrees do not pay enough early in one's career to afford it; the increased earning is back-loaded, and really I would not be surprised if it's also weighted heavily towards those who were already wealthy and could afford to not have to take out loans for their education, even for advanced degrees that will add on even more to their income. Further, with the value of a degree dropping due to employers focusing on experience over education and the increasing labor market with degrees, that income gap is also likely to drop pretty fast, and that drop I'm value is also likely to hit the grads from lower-income backgrounds who had to take out large amounts of loans much more than the wealthy who likely already had the right connections to get around experience requirements on top of not having to go into debt for their degree. They're not the ones benefiting from this policy; it's the ones who struggle despite their degrees, who are possibly hampered economically even more than the folks who didn't go to college at least during the vital years when they should be able to establish themselves, who would be the main people who benefit.
Hurt is a strong word but other people would be paying for that benefit.
It's not hard to imagine someone who decided to miss out on college and take the career penalty of lacking a 4 year degree just to avoid debt feeling like it's a bit unfair to have to help pay for other peoples degrees. People who made the decision to take on the debt.
Maybe it's would be a societal good overall but it's not like there isn't another valid side to the debate. Personally I think that money could be better targeted towards those in poverty whether they have student debt or not.
I went that route and I still want debt relief for those who went through university
load more comments
(3 replies)
Republicans propose and pass blatantly unconstitutional stuff that there base wants right before elections all the time, then gets mad when courts overturn it right after the election. I'm glad Biden finally got rid of the "legal high ground" concept and started to do some of these "the worst they can say is no" measures.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Its seems as though the sentiment among the high middle class and up is:
-
College is important to advance in our societal hierarchy. It is not absolutely necessary but generally you are rewarded for having a higher education in more prestegious institutions.
-
People can afford college because they have been saving up generational wealth. Naturally, increasing costs of living shouldnt be an issue.
-
College should be about merit not affirmative action. Giving spots for less fortunate makes us less competitive as a nation.
If you cant see how the issues in these statements affect lower classes then i believe you are part of the problem.
Wohoo I'm part of the problem! Let's go!
Please explain your position more thoroughly for the class so we can examine you in more detail.
what part did you not understand?
Yay you are finally part of something! MOM GET THE CAMERA
The problem is that everything is now legislated through the courts which is now how this system was designed.
This was not stopping legislation but instead executive action not backed up by legislation. Wouldn't the next logical step be to actually pass a law?
It is stopping legislation, the Heroes Act specifically. Congress acted to give the Executive branch this power, the Executive branch acted well within that scope, and SCOTUS struck it down by ignoring the plain text of the statute.
They'll just rule against the law, too. That said, the next step is another executive order ("taking into account the ruling, here's a new EA") and a law.
Congress does have the power to write into their laws that they are not eligible for judicial review… but that would give the game away if they actually used that power, they wouldn’t be able to hand-wring and say ‘oh we want to but we can’t because the Supreme Court, etc…’
Dems like to set up their lore progressive bills to fail, but it’s never their fault that way they can fund raise on all the ‘hard work they’re doing for the people’ and they just ‘need to beat the mean-bad-not-good republicans so you should definitely VOTE for the dems every time!’
At least the republicans don’t really hide that they aren’t out to help regular Americans? They all suck equally when they’re owned by corporate lobbyists so whatever I guess 🤷🏻♀️
I dunno about not eligible for judicial review, but the rest of this is dead on.
I doubt it.
I have a hard time seeing how this program is not unfair (not American so might be missing something).
My understanding is that there are 2 programs. One that helps reduce loans by 1k a year, and another one that forgives loans with less than 12k left after 10 years.
The first one seems to be ok as a measure for new students taking out loans because then it would work as a tool to encourage higher education. But as a blanket help it seems unfair as the benefitting people already made their choice and got (or are getting) their education. For the special case of people who are struggling financially I think a program that is specific to them and helps them relative to their struggle would be more appropriate, and it would surprise me if it doesn’t already exist.
As for the second program it seems to just be a gift to people who have already made their choice and completed their education, and is not fair at all to people who have consciously chosen to not pursue this because they couldn’t afford the debt. If someone is financially struggling see my previous point about more appropriate tools to help them, otherwise if they’re not struggling then what is the point of this?
Furthermore the second program also seems to be a one-off? I’m not sure here so please correct me if I’m wrong. If that is the case then it doesn’t even encourage people to pursue higher education.
The student loan problem (and general debt problem) in the US is such a huge issue that any long term thinking politician would want to take drastic measured to reduce it, whether it's fair or not. The US put a lot of effort putting it's population into debt with each side of the political aisle having two very different mindsets:
1: Giving people money now will help them leverage themselves out of poverty. Their good investments will help them repay the loan and then make more than they previously could have.
2: Putting people in debt will make them unable to retaliate against anything that would inhibit their ability to make money to pay off debt (as in, no striking or protesting or anything like that because were all too financially insecure to get away with it). Those who do act out due to poverty can go to prison and be cheap labor there instead.
Not only was the second mindset more correct, the ultra wealthy also won out because, as people defaulted on their debt and markets collapsed, the ultra wealthy with extra liquid cash during recessions scooped up all the cheapened assets.
However, with a financial crisis based around student debt, there's no asset to even scoop up. You can't just take peoples degrees as they refuse to pay their student loans. This ones going to cause a global recession (because the global currency is realistically the dollar) for no real gain for even the ultra wealthy. People will have no money to spend on their products and there will be no assets to scoop. Anyone thinking ahead at all would really want to prevent this one from occurring no matter what.
We own a home because of the student loan pause. They sure as hell can take that. There is plenty left for the rich to scoop up. The student loan pause allowed me and many others to move forward in life.
Sure, they can try to come after your assets. My point is:
-
Having student loan debt doesnt guarantee you have assets like having a home loan does. You have a home. Many with student loans do not.
-
Because the debt is not linked to an asset, the failure of people to pay back student loans en masse will not inherently lower the demand and thus value of an asset.
-
Cheap homes have already been taken by cooperations. people with student loans selling their house probably won't degrade the housing market. Something else will probably tho cos that's also a shit show right now.
Why does it need to be fair? By that logic, we should never change a ton of things, such as tax codes, simply because they're not retroactive ("how dare the government offer a rebate on solar panels after I've already paid full price!"). There isn't really a good way to make something like student loan forgiveness retroactive and to try and do so would make it excessively expensive.
Why should we hold back on doing a good thing just because it doesn't help 100% of people ever?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›