Bernie and the Economy

[rob mafia]

I'm not really interested in CC debt. That's strictly between the consumer and the private corporation. But the mortgage interest deduction which is between us, the taxpayer, and the consumer. The same with the business interest deduction.

I do disagree with the claims of responsible vs. irresponsible since most people are paying their college debt, that shouldn't be categorized as irresponsible, even if you disagree with debt forgiveness. But I do want to focus my questions on mortgage interest and business interest deductions.

Your comment was about rewarding people for taking on debt. And that's exactly what those interest deductions do. They reward people for taking on debt, at a cost to the general public. I happen to very much dislike the mortgage interest deduction for that very reason and because it's not debt that's taken on for a valid government purpose, it's for personal enrichment.

Hence why I find myself supporting student loan forgiveness, if we're paying for people to personally enrich themselves with all of these deductions, I can't draw a hard line distinction between students and people who just wanted a bigger house.

so you skipped almost everything i said and then misread the rest?

i'm NOT in favor of the deductions. i JUST said that.

this is blatant hypocrisy. you JUST said you're against rewarding people for taking debt and then said you support that very thing. and they're BOTH personal enrichment.

 

[panamaican]

so you skipped almost everything i said and then misread the rest?

i'm NOT in favor of the deductions. i JUST said that.

this is blatant hypocrisy. you JUST said you're against rewarding people for taking debt and then said you support that very thing. and they're BOTH personal enrichment.

No, I didn't skip any of it, I responded with my opinion, I didn't argue with yours. And there's no hypocrisy - I explained the position. I dislike the mortgage interest deduction for the reasons stated but if we're going to do this thing with handing out money to people for personal enrichment that I disagree with then there's no reason to exclude students, who path of personal enrichment benefits society at large fiscally.

I don't want to do X but if we're going to do X then we should do it properly.

 

[rob mafia]

I don't want to do X but if we're going to do X then we should do it properly.

...so you're against student loan forgiveness, then? you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your keyboard.

 

[panamaican]

...so you're against student loan forgiveness, then? you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your keyboard.

I'm against mortgage interest deductions. I'm in favor of bankruptcy laws that let people discharge their debt.

Student loans happen to fall in a weird place where they have the characteristics of both but none of the government protections, which to me doesn't make sense. It's personal enrichment but it's not easily discharged. I think the carve out doesn't make sense. And if you're not going to treat them the same as other types of debt then I don't see why their discharge should take the form taken by other types of debt either.

So, as long as debt forgiveness is a thing and as long as the government foots the bill for debt then I think it should also apply to student loans. I'm for balanced and reasonable debt law, instead of piecemeal picking and choosing.

 

[rob mafia]

I'm against mortgage interest deductions. I'm in favor of bankruptcy laws that let people discharge their debt.

Student loans happen to fall in a weird place where they have the characteristics of both but none of the government protections, which to me doesn't make sense. It's personal enrichment but it's not easily discharged. I think the carve out doesn't make sense. And if you're not going to treat them the same as other types of debt then I don't see why their discharge should take the form taken by other types of debt either.

So, as long as debt forgiveness is a thing and as long as the government foots the bill for debt then I think it should also apply to student loans. I'm for balanced and reasonable debt law, instead of piecemeal picking and choosing.

you didn't answer. you said that something you claimed to be against should also apply to student loans.

you argued yourself into a corner.

 

[blaseblah]

I suppose lowering the military budget is out of the question?

 

[panamaican]

you didn't answer. you said that something you claimed to be against should also apply to student loans.

you argued yourself into a corner.

I answered directly with explanation. I care about student loan forgiveness as it applies to the economy and to debt law. Hence my answer about if I support student loan forgiveness is based on those 2 things. If we eliminated debt bankruptcy or other types of debt benefits then my opinion on student loan forgiveness would change to ensure consistency across the law.

It's not a moral issue for me, as it appears to be for you. It's a consistency issue. You have a moral issue about student loan forgiveness, I don't. I want it treated in a fashion consistent with how we treat other debt, I don't think that's part of your calculations. So, if you're looking a simplistic answer from me that's about the rights/wrongs of student debt forgiveness, it doesn't exist because my position is based on more than just student loans.

 

[rob mafia]

I answered directly with explanation. I care about student loan forgiveness as it applies to the economy and to debt law. Hence my answer about if I support student loan forgiveness is based on those 2 things. If we eliminated debt bankruptcy or other types of debt benefits then my opinion on student loan forgiveness would change to ensure consistency across the law.

It's not a moral issue for me, as it appears to be for you. It's a consistency issue. You have a moral issue about student loan forgiveness, I don't. I want it treated in a fashion consistent with how we treat other debt, I don't think that's part of your calculations. So, if you're looking a simplistic answer from me that's about the rights/wrongs of student debt forgiveness, it doesn't exist because my position is based on more than just student loans.

...so you're evading it, then? it was a simple question. but like i said, you argued yourself into a corner...

strange that you're aware that you argued yourself into a corner, but don't seem to see the problem with that (il)logic.

 

[Raptac]

I suppose lowering the military budget is out of the question?

Over 2.5 million are employed by the military.

 

[blaseblah]

Over 2.5 million are employed by the military.

You think the military budget is all spent on personnel?

 

[Pseudo Sane]

They sure haven’t helped. I doubt you would trust any sources I post, but if you agree to read them I will post them.

Bernie has been a senator in Vermont for thirty years and somehow Vermont has not turned into the Soviet Union. No Gulags in Vermont. Oh and Bernie voted against all the Stalinist style surveillance bills that George Bush introduced, unlike Trump who has expanded the powers of the state in order to attack and crush whistleblowers who point out corruption.

Post your sources. I'll happily read them.

If we don't at least occasionally pretend to have a good faith discussion, why even Sherdog?

 

[MikeMcMann]

@Trotsky

...
Trickle down works for tax cuts but not for social benefits, it doesn't make any sense. It's still money out of the public coffer. The only difference seems to be that when lower middle class and low class people benefit, we become much more concerned about things than if only the rich are benefiting.
...

I think it comes down to the idea of it being ok to tax masses of people relatively, what seems like smaller amounts of money to pay for gov't services versus taxing few what seems like large amounts of money.

Thus if you tax 300 million citizens $100ea and generate $30 Billion in tax receipts and spread that around for services people generally see that as ok.

Once you start giving the masses of middle and lower class that $100 ea BACK, then the question becomes 'why take it in the first place'? It seems less impactful. But if you redistribute it in other ways (bridges, Hospitals, and even to Billionaires) it seems more impactful. One org or a few people getting giant cheques, seems meaningful to some.

 

[rob mafia]

They sure haven’t helped. I doubt you would trust any sources I post, but if you agree to read them I will post them.

Bernie has been a senator in Vermont for thirty years and somehow Vermont has not turned into the Soviet Union. No Gulags in Vermont. Oh and Bernie voted against all the Stalinist style surveillance bills that George Bush introduced, unlike Trump who has expanded the powers of the state in order to attack and crush whistleblowers who point out corruption.

and that senator didn't call for gun bans, forced communism, and registering minorities/gays/etc in business - all stances of his current platform.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/gun-safety/

 

[Raptac]

You think the military budget is all spent on personnel?

And when it's spent on RnD there isn't a person working on it ?

So you'd willingly cut the budget in half and voila over a million people lost their jobs ?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I want it treated in a fashion consistent with how we treat other debt,

Student loan cancellation wouldn't be. When people file for bankruptcy their credit score takes a huge hit and often they lose assets. Even when people get to keep most of their assets (Chapter 13) they have to meet the obligations of a 3 - 5 year repayment plan, which they fail to two thirds of the time. What significant costs would fall upon the shoulders of people whose student debt got cancelled?

 

[cleetus]

Plumbers will pick up that tab? What's being floated is a tax on the top 1% of income earners. Even under more graduated and expansive funding proposals, the vast majority of revenue would be generated by persons making well into six figures and very little, if any, would be derived from persons making under $50k. So either you're woefully misinformed or you're being dishonest about the funding of these programs and initiatives.

And yet you were okay with the Republican tax cuts that shifted the revenue burden onto middle income earners and reduced the tax burden of the rich to the lowest in 80 years. And I'm sure you were fine with the gutting of public unions, the attempt of the AHCA to increase healthcare prices and throw millions off of coverage, and stuff like that. Just wtf.

There's just too much stupid and erroneous in this to even bother trying to correct.

 

[Trotsky]

There's just too much stupid and erroneous in this to even bother trying to correct.

Okay, we all accept that you could totally disagree intelligently but just choose not to.

 

[panamaican]

Student loan cancellation wouldn't be. When people file for bankruptcy their credit score takes a huge hit and often they lose assets. Even when people get to keep most of their assets (Chapter 13) they have to meet the obligations of a 3 - 5 year repayment plan, which they fail to two thirds of the time. What significant costs would fall upon the shoulders of people whose student debt got cancelled?

There wouldn't be. I think student debt cancellation is a good idea specifically because we're not treating student loan debt like regular debt. The point of debt forgiveness is to give the debtor a fresh start. Asking them to be punished like normal debt holders when they've been denied the normal debt relief doesn't make sense, if you want them "punished" like normal debtors then you should have treated them like normal debtors from the beginning.

Appropriate market regulation on the lender side, consumer protections on the borrowers side, etc.

These borrowers weren't given any of that, when they take time to look for a job - the unpaid interest capitalizes, plus they were stripped of the same easy access to debt relief mechanisms that other debtors. They should receive additional punishment on top of that - why? Are we sadists and nobody told me?

 

[Octavian]

I think we need to be careful with single payer and what it would do to the pharma and biotech industries. Surely though, there are also ways to improve the way we price.

As for student debt, I’m in the fence. One time forgiveness? What does that even mean? Would the bond holders get paid by the government?

 

[panamaican]

@Trotsky



I think it comes down to the idea of it being ok to tax masses of people relatively, what seems like smaller amounts of money to pay for gov't services versus taxing few what seems like large amounts of money.

Thus if you tax 300 million citizens $100ea and generate $30 Billion in tax receipts and spread that around for services people generally see that as ok.

Once you start giving the masses of middle and lower class that $100 ea BACK, then the question becomes 'why take it in the first place'? It seems less impactful. But if you redistribute it in other ways (bridges, Hospitals, and even to Billionaires) it seems more impactful. One org or a few people getting giant cheques, seems meaningful to some.

Still doesn't make sense. The issue that people are making isn't about the taxing. It's about who is benefiting. If you taxed the lower classes $100 each to pay for something that only the rich used, people just nod their heads. When you tax the upper classes the same $100 for something that the lower classes primarily benefit from, they complain.

When people talk about debt forgiveness or M4A, no one give's anyone back money, you're simply redistributing it in another way.

The only consistency in what raises pitchforks or gets acceptance is the economic class of the perceived beneficiaries. Not the actual beneficiaries but the perceived. It's the same shit-tastic perspective that will send their kids to public schools paid for by the collective , then colleges underwritten by collective money, and then claim that adding 4 more years of education is what will drive us into communism.

The same idiocy that says "We lead the world in research...thanks to generous public funding." and then raise their eyes in shock at the idea that public funding could pay for medicals bills, not just medical research. Meanwhile the research is capitalized, privatized and sold back to them at exorbitant prices. So they end up paying for it 2x - they pay once for the research and once again when they need the drugs or medical equipment or federally subsidized MD.

It's idiotically short-sighted but completely reliable so long as you frame the 4 more years of education as a giveaway to the poor or re-frame the double payment on medicine as evil welfare. It makes zero sense to me. It's "capitalism" so long as we have to pay twice for the things we've already paid for with socialized money. A game of cards.