Discussion in 'The War Room' started by sabretruth, Mar 23, 2020.
Congressmen take some stinky shits.
Why do you have a problem with teenage girls?
No offense, but I doubt you're that influential. When you hold court on the internet talking about how you're not going to profiteer, how many people are going to verify that you're not going to profiteer? BTW you never answered my question. I said, "So the choices you're making to not capitalize right now are pragmatic, not ethical?" Which is it: Are you not capitalizing for ethical or pragmatic reasons?
Regarding your question, your question is self-defeating to your argument. If people with student debt are those who most need money right now then they (at least the majority) wouldn't use their money to buy stocks that wouldn't give them a good ROI for "a few years" (your words). And thus cancelling student debt would not do what you claim you want it to do.
Turns out they don't need a bailout.
Again, I'm playing devil's advocate. I have no idea how influential I am or am not. Probably not all that much ha ha. But again, it's not just me. Ideas get shared, they grow, and they become a big deal. To answer your question though: Probably some of both? Ethics and pragmatism aren't mutually exclusive. Long term and short term benefits can be at odds too, and nobody has a crystal ball.
You've been very good at not being a shithead or getting personal or being immature during this discussion, and for that I need to say that I appreciate it and it has made it pretty enjoyable. But I need to be honest too in saying that it seems like you are either purposefully ignoring something I've said numerous times, or have somehow subconsciously not registered it. The question isn't self defeating to "MY argument", because (again, as I keep saying) I'm not advocating one way or the other on student debt forgiveness. In fact, in a recent post I said I may well agree with you that it's not a good idea. My whole point (again, repeated ad nauseum) was about WHY someone would take a stand against it. The "it's not fair" argument holds little to no water during a crisis in my eyes. You need to look at what benefits society the most. Cancelling student loan debt may not be that at all. My initial post that you replied to was only to stress that IF you did it, you'd need to do it in a way that frees the money up immediately and not at the end of the loan payments, most of which are years from now when the crisis is over (or better be anyway LOL).
Giving $6B to their employees over the last 5 years is better than any business in the US....that’s in addition to the stock buybacks...so, yeah, they did stock buy backs like most successful publicly traded companies do...and they gave $6B back to their employees...tell me how many companies have done that in the last 10,15,20...years?
So they took the last bailout and down the road spent less than half of what they spent on buybacks on workers so some executives could get bonuses for hitting a stock price. And because of that spending they now they have nothing to tide them through an emergency because they spent $13 billion on buybacks and you are upset we aren’t in a flat out sprint to throw more billions their way without serious restrictions and things in return. Delta might not be the worst offender in the industry but they aren’t a godsend to taxpayers either.
And asking for them to not pollute as much in return for constantly being bailed out, you know the company that dumped 15k gallons of jet fuel on school children in LA...that’s the issue here for you guys? Lol.
Regarding the first part, thank you for acquiescing to my hunch that what you say will have no discernable impact on the economy. Don't take it personally, the same goes for me too. So we can drop the bologna about pragmatism. Virtually no one is keeping track of if your rhetotic matches your financial behavior, and if there are a handful of people who are, them noticing that you're profiteering and deciding to follow suit would not crater the economy.
Regarding your second part, you seem to be asking about a non-existent problem. There's no evidence that privileging people who have student debt is the only way to prevent the apocalypse in our current situation. Arguing about fairness in a made-up situation whose variables we don't know is mental masturbation.
I brought up fairness only because it was the predominant thing being voiced! Not " Hey...this just isn't the best way to spur the economy."
And nobody said or even hinted (that I know of- I damn sure didn't) that it would be the "only way". In fact it might not even be beneficial at all in doing it. But looking at every option costs little. If it's a bad idea...so be it. But not because it's unfair, but because it won't work.
Sorry I'd go a little more in depth but I'm on my phone now and I hate posting from it.
Well since it's completely implausible that the government giving people with student debt a windfall is necessary to prevent a new Great Depression, of course people are going to raise fairness objections. What other objections should people be raising under these circumstances?
Yeah tough issue. I understand the 1.2 thousand relief check needs to go to those who need it most, but some of the hardest hit areas such as NYC have such higher costs of living that those who will need this won’t meet the low income requirements.
C'mon, don't skew it with hyperbole ha ha. The question isn't whether it alone would prevent a Great Depression, the question is whether it (combined with other measures) would help spur the economy enough to lessen the pain and make it worth doing. And again (and again and again and again) the answer may well be "No". But THAT is what the objection should have been all along. Instead it was a bunch of whining that someone might get something free from the government that others don't. Which, newsflash, happens every day as it is.
If there wouldn't be anything nealy as bad as the Great Depression if the government doesn't give economic privileges to people with student debt, then there's no need to leave fairness out of the discussion.
You say people get "free" things from the government that others don't every day, but the nature of those things tends to be very different from a windfall for making an investment in oneself that one didn't pay off.
Your first statement is bizarre. Even if it was a small help in avoiding a prolonged deep global recession (vs depression) it would have value. IF it did, along with other measures. Your benchmark is that it would need to stave off something on par with the Great Depression to hold any value? That's ridiculous. You measure the actual cost of doing it vs what benefits you think may come of it. You make the best decision you can. You seem to be drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, and then using them as a springboard to letting people scream "It's not fair!"
Your second statement...the "nature" of free things is that they are...free. HARP allowed millions of people who were seemingly irresponsible when they bought their homes (a large % that had nothing at all to do with predatory lending) to refinance to lower rates if they couldn't afford their payments. Not really fair to people who bought cheaper homes that weren't as nice because they could afford them. Many of them didn't meet HARP requirements based on income vs their payment, while the irresponsible people got lower rates (and lower payments) for their larger, nicer homes. Hardly seems fair, does it? But...they (the government) didn't think allowing a landslide of foreclosures was a good idea for the nation.
It's not going to have student debt cancellation in it, correct? I would hope that would = veto and tell the people why.
lol so the stimulus package is up to 6 trillion now?
2 trillion in direct assistance, and 4 trillion in federal reserve loans.
If it's only a "small help", and it's unfair, then it shouldn't become policy. In the long term it's impact will do more harm than good for the responsible people who paid for their educations and the people who didn't go to college, who are projected to make hundreds of thousands of dollars less than college graduates over their lifetimes.
The money that'd go to a windfall for people who made investments in themselves that they didn't pay for could be distributed to all non-rich Americans evenly.
Damn right HARP was unfair and bad policy. If you've been following the news the last couple years you know America has a housing crisis. The fact that the government has bad policies in the past is not a good reason to have bad policy in the present!
So just remove the first sentence you typed, and start with "In the long term it's impact..." and you're there. No whining about it being unfair, just simply arguing that it's bad policy because it does more harm than good. That's all I was saying man.
What housing crisis in the last 2 years? The crisis has been with the ability for renters to find affordable apartments to rent, not with homeowners. I'm not sure what would have happened without HARP honestly. It may have been bad policy, or we may have seen the original housing crash of 2008 put us in a depression with the flood of foreclosures that would have mounded on top of the ones that already happened.
But it's unfairness is one of the main reasons why it's bad policy. Most policies benefit some people and hurt others, at least economically. Whether or not we should support them almost always comes down to questions of fairness/justice.
You're badly mistaken that the housing crisis isn't "with" Americans' ability to buy homes.