Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
203 Posts
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [9] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Other people getting stuff you didn’t rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: US_Politics [+] [View All]
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DiamondSylph wrote:
I should have my last bit of debt for grad school paid off in 2020. If all I get is a "well, good on you," I'm OK with that.


I'm down to about 12K in loans myself post-law school and mine will be gone in 2021, most likely, and if the kidz behind me get their loans forgiven, I won't pretend to not be annoyed that I didn't get some forgiveness a few years earlier, but on balance, if they don't have to deal with the horrific stress I've dealt with at times as a result of those loans, then more fuckin power to them
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Very legal & very cool
United States
Lincoln
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems like the most politically feasible way to help alleviate the current crisis of outstanding student debt would be to re-instate the bankruptcy protections for student debt that the GOP stripped away during their Bush-era "reforms".

That way, people in dire financial straits can try to start anew, with some strings attached, while those that can afford to pay their debts do so. You know, the whole damn point of bankruptcy laws.

I find it insane that student debt, which is literally an investment in yourself and your future, can't be discharged in bankruptcy, while credit card debt, which is frequently put towards what we might charitably call "unproductive uses", can be.

It makes no sense at all, unless you're a student lender.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derry Salewski
United States
Augusta
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
I'm only happy when it rains...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think that many people would be opposed to a literal, fucking, magic wand.

But like . . . you're writing a sci fi story now.

So just guessing at what would happen, then yelling at actual people because of straw wizards . . .

weird ass thread.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's weird because it sets up this new inequity. Student debt is largely due to dishonest lending, admissions, and guidwnce processes. However saying 'these people don't get screwed' leaves this other class of people who still did get screwed but managed to dig themselves out before timeframe X at a significant economic disadvantage due to... working hard and planning? That's kind of a shit lesson to teach. Interest free debt might be a good help to people trying to pull themselves out, coupled with better financi prpgrams for the future.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
toku42 wrote:
It seems like the most politically feasible way to help alleviate the current crisis of outstanding student debt would be to re-instate the bankruptcy protections for student debt that the GOP stripped away during their Bush-era "reforms".

That way, people in dire financial straits can try to start anew, with some strings attached, while those that can afford to pay their debts do so. You know, the whole damn point of bankruptcy laws.

I find it insane that student debt, which is literally an investment in yourself and your future, can't be discharged in bankruptcy, while credit card debt, which is frequently put towards what we might charitably call "unproductive uses", can be.

It makes no sense at all, unless you're a student lender.


I don't disagree with you, but you should understand why the bankruptcy exception for student loan debt was put in place originally. Students, including medical students and law school students, were taking on large amounts of educational debt with the intention of declaring bankruptcy immediately upon graduation, or even before graduation, before their income increased based upon their professional degree.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Pustilnik
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EMBison wrote:
MikePustilnik wrote:

And what about the students who chose to go to less expensive colleges, or worked during their studies, just so they would have lower debt when they graduated? Is it fair to them that the students who chose to go into more debt will get their debts forgiven, at taxpayer expense?

This is exactly what I was talking about. Not picking on you; this is a very normal and ingrained attitude. But if you think about it, it’s monstrous


It is a very human way to think. A lot of people who worked hard to pay off their own debt would feel jealously or resentment if a magic wand forgave the debts of a student who took out the maximum loans and made little effort to pay for his own costs. I think the word "monstrous" is too strong here.

Here is a related commercial about a bank treating customers differently. Don't you have sympathy for the first girl here?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
As I said, that's how we as people doing research are told it's supposed to work.


There's a danger that using research as an income stream causes you to divert into short term research at the expense of longer term research.

Don't get me wrong, I used to work where we were consumers of university research, and being able to tap into expertise to apply to if not today's problems then at least a few years' time problems was invaluable. And visiting a small museum they have I read about how when the University of Sheffield started they looked for areas to research based on local industry need and, to their surprise, identified glass as under-researched and went into it seriously and became a world-class centre on the subject. Hats off to them.

But the short-termism can be real, and needs guarding against. Here that's the job of various research councils. But they still have the danger of awarding funds based on applications that have to answer questions like what the research will achieve. Some forms of research the answer to that should be "haven't a clue, that's the point". But that is not a good answer if you want the funding.
2 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
scifiantihero wrote:
I don't think that many people would be opposed to a literal, fucking, magic wand.

But like . . . you're writing a sci fi story now.

So just guessing at what would happen, then yelling at actual people because of straw wizards . . .

weird ass thread.


It's not a strawman though.



From the article:

Quote:
Aside from the cost, which, like her child care proposal, she claims would be covered by her ultramillionaires tax, the plan would be tremendously unfair to those who have been struggling for years to pay off their student loans.

It's true, some people may simply earn too little to make a dent in student loans no matter how hard they work and no matter how much they reduce their expenses. But that doesn't tell the whole story.

There are those who may have taken higher-paying jobs they didn't necessarily want to pay off loans. And there are those who have cut expenses to the bare bones to pay off loans while watching their friends with similar salaries eat out and travel and deprioritize paying off loans. Those who were more responsible will feel justifiably enraged at the idea that those who may have been more profligate will now get a bailout from the government.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
Because if there's one area where my justifiable rage at inequity is focused, it's certainly not on people being forgiven for their student loans.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BJ
United States
Sunnyvale
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
Isn't being mad about other people getting stuff you didn't one of the primary planks of the Democratic Party platform?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam E
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
the_bj wrote:
Isn't being mad about other people getting stuff you didn't one of the primary planks of the Democratic Party platform?


Depending how you frame it, it's also one of the primary criticisms of the Democratic Party (often framed as a moral hazard, but sometimes just a whippersnappers style argument).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Hunnicutt
United States
Arden
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
the_bj wrote:
Isn't being mad about other people getting stuff you didn't one of the primary planks of the Democratic Party platform?


Not that I know of.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doremus Jessup
msg tools
Avatar
mb
To be fair. There is no "magic wand" to finance this. Sen Warren is upfront about the financing

Quote:
Warren proposed a tax on the ultra wealthy to pay for the plan.

The cost would be covered by her “Ultra-Millionaire Tax,” she explained, which is an annual 2% tax on American households’ net worth that’s more than $50 million in wealth and an additional 1% tax those who have on $1 billion.

The tax plan would affect “the 75,000 wealthiest families in America and raises $2.75 trillion in revenue over ten years."


https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/warren-student-loans-...

Also I heard a political analysis of the move on NPR where they were talking about Warren trying to position herself to the LEFT of Sanders with this detailed plan. Interesting in how the political ground seems to have shifted.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Parsons
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
the_bj wrote:
Isn't being mad about other people getting stuff you didn't one of the primary planks of the Democratic Party platform?


Actually, it appears that it is.

Angry that LGBTQ people aren't getting equal rights of the law like other people are getting. Democrats.

Angry that black people aren't getting the same benefit of the doubt from our justice system that other people are getting. Democrats.

Angry that common people aren't getting the same tax breaks where they don't have to pay any taxes like extremely rich people and large corporations. Democrats.

Angry that Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court aren't getting the same hearings that other people are getting. Democrats.

Angry that our entire country isn't getting the same functioning health system that provides them the best chance of a healthy life that other people in the world are getting. Democrats.

Angry that other religions aren't getting the same treatment by our government as other Christian people are getting. Democrats.

Angry that immigrants trying to come into our country and find a better life for their families aren't getting the same basic respect and non-cagelike treatment that other humans are getting. Democrats.

21 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Poole
msg tools
Avatar
Sue_G wrote:
the_bj wrote:
Isn't being mad about other people getting stuff you didn't one of the primary planks of the Democratic Party platform?


That's funny.

I thought that was the primary plank of the Republican party. Except it's basically being mad that the government is stealing from you to give to those other people that you're mad at.


The other primary plank of the Republican party is getting mad that other people are getting the same things you got that they previously did not get.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Before I went to college, most federal financial aid was in the form of grants. By the time I got to college, most federal aid was in the form of loans. When I took out the loans, they were tax deductible. By the time I graduated, they were no longer tax deductible. Before my kids went to college, your children's tuition was tax deductible, but by the time my kids went to college, there was an income limit on the tax deduction.

I am a late baby boomer (b. 1960). I am confident whatever changes are made will benefit older baby boomers, until I become eligible, and then the rules will change again.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There are so many of us in the hump of the Baby Boomer demographic that they can't afford to give us what they gave the people in the left tail. No politician can fight demographics for very long.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My main concern is not at all a lump sum to pay for debt, no matter how high it might be today: It's that we shouldn't be paying for something in the long run without mechanisms that make the people that pay be able to push prices down.

This is the real problem of the loan system in the first place: The price of higher education keeps going up far faster than inflation, and there are no indicators saying that the product today is that much better than it used to be: Lots of pretty campuses, lots of administrators, not better education.

We can't write blank checks to people and not expect them to inflate the price. Squeeze future prices, make education more cost efficient, and then sure, let's make public universities free, no problem, including taking away the loans for people that were stuck with modern, stupid prices. Unfortunately the part about paying for everything is the part that sells, and no candidate is going to talk about the thing that makes it sustainable. You can't be ok with increases in education cost and then complain about increases in healthcare costs.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EMBison wrote:
MikePustilnik wrote:

And what about the students who chose to go to less expensive colleges, or worked during their studies, just so they would have lower debt when they graduated? Is it fair to them that the students who chose to go into more debt will get their debts forgiven, at taxpayer expense?

This is exactly what I was talking about. Not picking on you; this is a very normal and ingrained attitude. But if you think about it, it’s monstrous



You know what makes it not monstrous? The fact that there is NO MAGIC WAND. Somebody has to eat that loss someplace.

If there was a magic wand I would be fine with erasing the debts even though it still would not be "fair" nor "just", but because we all need grace at times.

But the magic wand line is just about making other people who are thinking pratically and factoring in fairness into that equation seem like they are somehow vindictive and mean.

I grew up poor (By USA standards) and I didn't get my Chemical Engineering degree until I was over 30... working my ass off to do so, but I did manage to do it with zero student loans. Hell I never even got a Pell grant. I did get some merit based scholarships that covered tuition but not books or living expenses. One semester when I couldn't afford my books... I had to do all my reading and homework in the library until about 4 weeks in when another student from a more wealthy background decided to buy me some of the books I most needed. I took a bag lunch and sometimes went hungry because I couldn't afford to eat on campus.

While at this same time, many of my classmates had more free time, disposable income and fun than I, because they were taking loans while I was working 30 hours a week or more while carrying a full time class load.

Plus then I had to take 3 years off between my AA degree and going back for my BS to work full time to earn money to go back to finish.

Know what else... I actually studied harder than they did too... in general. Graduated knowing more actual engineering than most of them and was more successful in my actual career later because I knew how to do things under extreme pressure and with limited resources.

See there are life lessons about self denial and self discipline one does have to learn at some point to actually accomplish things.

Even so... I still would not begrudge anybody a magic wand solution.

If there were a magic wand that could make me so physically fit I could run a 4 minute mile... without diet, exercise and training for years... I would certainly want to get to use it. But I would also understand that getting to use it means I was getting a benefit that was and is denied most other people. I would understand I was getting GRACE not justice or fairness, and that it is certainly not something I should feel entitled too.

And THERE I think is the real rub that really gets everybody's political dander up.

Elizabeth Warren's plan is not only NOT based on some magic wand (You really can only Tax the Uber Rich so much before they stop being the Uber Rich - If we tap them for this we cannot tap them for all the other things people want to tap them for) it is also part of a larger social message saying that expecting them to pay off these loans is somehow UNFAIR and UNJUST. Which is a whole different thing than arguing for a need to do debt forgiveness. Aka... you screwed up and now need help is a different proposition from you were screwed over and now deserve for that to be corrected.

See if we were all screwed over... than there needs to be a way to recompense all the people who don't have huge loan debt still but who also got higher educations under the same system. That "Magic Wand" which pays off 50K of debt should also give people like me a check for 50K to put in the bank. Right? But that is not even being floated as part of the magic wand pie in the sky. Because there isn't a magic wand.



I think that there would be a lot less potential for objection and resentment if what Warren and others were offering up was a bit less pie in the sky and more genuinely reasonable solutions to a real crisis.

For example... literally taking over the student debt and stopping the interest accumulation. Letting the former students finish payng off their loan principle directly to the Government over time, instead of to banks.

All the current loan holders get Treasury Bonds in the amount of the principle owed. They are paid off... the Government has taken on some more debt but not that much in the grand scheme of things and the crushing burden of repayment on the students is significantly lessened.

What is wrong with a plan like that?

It doesn't address what needs to happen next to keep today and tomorrow's students from ending up in the same situation, so that still needs addressing, but it fixes the crisis for today in a way that is actually almost fair. (Still unfair to the people who took on the debt and paid it off including all the interest... but nothing is perfect).



3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Boardgame Aesthete
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The point of the "magic wand" in the example was to isolate the actual principle being argued over. (Of course that never works.) Not to argue about the fact that magic wands are nonexistent and silly.

The intent was to make possible the question: "If it causes you no harm, why would you be against this?"

You need a "magic wand" to wave away secondary effects like increased taxes or taking away money from other needs - which of course are real considerations in an actual scenario. But what people (including me) have observed is that a lot of the people reacting angrily to any suggestion of offering debt relief seem less angered by economic arguments than they are by the idea that someone else might get something they didn't.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Al Ross
United States
Charlotte
NC
flag msg tools
badge
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:


Elizabeth Warren's plan is not only NOT based on some magic wand (You really can only Tax the Uber Rich so much before they stop being the Uber Rich - If we tap them for this we cannot tap them for all the other things people want to tap them for)



You know what? We did in the 50s, and what did it get us?

Infrastructure.

Middle class prosperity.

Less social and monetary space between white collar and blue collar workers.

Around a decade of no war.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
"We can't tax the mega-rich to pay for X, because if we do that then we can't tax them to pay for Y or Z" is an argument that I see primarily floated by people who don't want mega-rich taxes to pay for any of X, Y, or Z.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AmadanNaBriona wrote:
The point of the "magic wand" in the example was to isolate the actual principle being argued over. (Of course that never works.) Not to argue about the fact that magic wands are nonexistent and silly.

The intent was to make possible the question: "If it causes you no harm, why would you be against this?"

You need a "magic wand" to wave away secondary effects like increased taxes or taking away money from other needs - which of course are real considerations in an actual scenario. But what people (including me) have observed is that a lot of the people reacting angrily to any suggestion of offering debt relief seem less angered by economic arguments than they are by the idea that someone else might get something they didn't.


I understand the point of the hypothetical.

Here is the crux of the conflict... there are people in the world who tend to consistantly make wiser life choices, espeically in terms of economics - which means they make sacrifices UP FRONT to get a hard earned goals later on. Yet they are also consistenty then painted by some others as mean or stingy or monsters for not being thrilled about having to always bail out the people who didn't, and often still don't, make those wiser choices.

It isn't that we angered by the idea of addressing the crisis... it is that we become angered by the ideas that don't acknowledge these are bail outs while the underlying issues that caused the need for the bail outs are still not being acknowledged or corrected.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
Meerkat wrote:
AmadanNaBriona wrote:
The point of the "magic wand" in the example was to isolate the actual principle being argued over. (Of course that never works.) Not to argue about the fact that magic wands are nonexistent and silly.

The intent was to make possible the question: "If it causes you no harm, why would you be against this?"

You need a "magic wand" to wave away secondary effects like increased taxes or taking away money from other needs - which of course are real considerations in an actual scenario. But what people (including me) have observed is that a lot of the people reacting angrily to any suggestion of offering debt relief seem less angered by economic arguments than they are by the idea that someone else might get something they didn't.


I understand the point of the hypothetical.

Here is the crux of the conflict... there are people in the world who tend to consistantly make wiser life choices, espeically in terms of economics - which means they make sacrifices UP FRONT to get a hard earned goals later on. Yet they are also consistenty then painted by some others as mean or stingy or monsters for not being thrilled about having to always bail out the people who didn't, and often still don't, make those wiser choices.

It isn't that we angered by the idea of addressing the crisis... it is that we become angered by the ideas that don't acknowledge these are bail outs while the underlying issues that caused the need for the bail outs are still not being acknowledged or corrected.


The framing of that conflict is on bad foundations, though. In this scenario--both in the hypothetical and in the one proposed by Warren--it is not the hard-working folks who rolled up their sleeves to pay for their own college tuition who are being called upon to bail out people who made poor life choices.

Instead, it's families with $50 million or more who are being taxed to pay for the tuitions of everyone. This includes people who made "bad choices" (such as being peer pressured to take on immense debt before they could legally drink or rent a car) as well as people who made "good choices" (such as being born into a family that could pay for their medical school).

This enables the "bad choice" people to enter the work force without crushing debt and start contributing to the economy right away, and it enables the "good choice" people to do something else with the wealth and effort that they would have put toward college tuition.

At no point in this scenario do "bad choice" and "good choice" people come into conflict with each other.
12 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mystery McMysteryface
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MikePustilnik wrote:
I was reading about her proposal just today.

Of course if there were no negative consequences, then it would be fine. But you are talking about magic, not reality.

Should the creditors end up losing their money?
Should the taxpayers have to pay for this?
Or just add to the public debt?
Or maybe just print the money?
All of these have negative consequences.

And what about the students who chose to go to less expensive colleges, or worked during their studies, just so they would have lower debt when they graduated? Is it fair to them that the students who chose to go into more debt will get their debts forgiven, at taxpayer expense?


Yes, this. And, it is unfair to those of us who sacrificed our "college experience" by attending a local, public university, working full-time and studying part-time, paying in full, without loans or financial aid.

The only way I can see this being a "yes" is if it is done on a case by case basis (like Government Assistance programs SHOULD be run). Once you create a blanket policy, you open up the possibility of unfairness (by rewarding some, not all folks' bad behavior/irresponsibility), and the propensity for fraud and abuse.

I know not all with debt are irresponsible, because stuff happens. But, should be case by case to ensure proper usage of funds. Someone who went to college, didn't work, lived the college party lifestyle, and basically spent their funds on other things instead of their studies.

I am also against taxpayer money paying for this, especially since I paid for my university studies and do not feel I should be taxed to pay for others. I could have used that money to help me pay for my studies.

//rant off
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [9] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.