Law Dems blocking Senate relief bill bc it doesn't cancel $10k of student debt

[mkess101]

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.

I would fundamentally disagree that most policies benefit some and hurt others. If only economically you probably have a bit more of a point, but even then that's too much a blanket generalization imo. And when you look at it holistically and not purely through the economic prism, it's certainly untrue. Especially in times of crisis, "fairness" shouldn't even be on the radar is the point I'm making. "Can this help stop our ship from sinking?" "How does it compare to other ideas/policy when it comes to saving our ship from sinking vis a vis the cost vs effectiveness?" Those are the ONLY questions worth asking in a dire situation.

Home ownership rates I believe have increased in the U.S. over the past 4 years, haven't they? I could be wrong but I thought I saw something saying that year over year since 2015 or 2016 they've trended up every year. I'd assume they're still lower than the peak around '05 or '06 or whatever, but that's understandable given what happened.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I would fundamentally disagree that most policies benefit some and hurt others. If only economically you probably have a bit more of a point, but even then that's too much a blanket generalization imo. And when you look at it holistically and not purely through the economic prism, it's certainly untrue. Especially in times of crisis, "fairness" shouldn't even be on the radar is the point I'm making. "Can this help stop our ship from sinking?" "How does it compare to other ideas/policy when it comes to saving our ship from sinking vis a vis the cost vs effectiveness?" Those are the ONLY questions worth asking in a dire situation.

Home ownership rates I believe have increased in the U.S. over the past 4 years, haven't they? I could be wrong but I thought I saw something saying that year over year since 2015 or 2016 they've trended up every year. I'd assume they're still lower than the peak around '05 or '06 or whatever, but that's understandable given what happened.

You sound like a utilitarian; what matters is maximizing happiness, the proxy of which you probably hold to be economic growth or something like that. But utilitarianism is an ethical theory.

If you don't think the US has a housing crisis that goes beyond renting, you have some reading to do. Start here https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...ord-to-buy-a-home-in-71-of-country/ar-BBYoQHx

 

[mkess101]

You sound like a utilitarian; what matters is maximizing happiness, the proxy of which you probably hold to be economic growth or something like that. But utilitarianism is an ethical theory.

If you don't think the US has a housing crisis that goes beyond renting, you have some reading to do. Start here https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...ord-to-buy-a-home-in-71-of-country/ar-BBYoQHx

I don't really like labels. I try to take things as they come, assess, and then give an opinion. And that's all it is, my opinion. Doesn't mean more or less than yours or anyone else's.

As for homeownership, IDK. I looked it up and I was right. Homeownership is on the rise (or was up until now LOL, I'm guessing it's gonna drop hard again with the economic impact of this virus).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184902/homeownership-rate-in-the-us-since-2003/

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I don't really like labels. I try to take things as they come, assess, and then give an opinion. And that's all it is, my opinion. Doesn't mean more or less than yours or anyone else's.

As for homeownership, IDK. I looked it up and I was right. Homeownership is on the rise (or was up until now LOL, I'm guessing it's gonna drop hard again with the economic impact of this virus).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184902/homeownership-rate-in-the-us-since-2003/

Whether you like labels or not is irrelevant. You're advocating utilitarianism. Saying you "try to take things as they come" is hot air.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

@mkess101 btw your link shows home ownership numbers going back to 2007, the year the GFC stsrted. GTFO with your "I was right". https://www.prb.org/u-s-homeownership-rates-fall-among-young-adults-african-americans

edit: on my phone didn't realize the chart expands

 

[mkess101]

Whether you like labels or not is irrelevant. You're advocating utilitarianism. Saying you "try to take things as they come" is hot air.

Nah. I have different views on different things, my guess is plenty of them wouldn't fit in that utilitarianist basket. Different situations and circumstances call for different approaches. You can believe it's "hot air" but it really doesn't concern me whether someone tries to label me based on discussion about one specific topic. You have every right to believe what you want, and I have a right to shrug and dismiss it.

No comment on the fact that home ownership has risen the previous 4 years in the U.S.?

 

[mkess101]

@mkess101 btw your link shows home ownership numbers going back to 2007, the year the GFC stsrted. GTFO with your "I was right". https://www.prb.org/u-s-homeownership-rates-fall-among-young-adults-african-americans/

WTF are you talking about, it goes back to 1990. Are you serious?

 

[mkess101]

@mkess101 btw your link shows home ownership numbers going back to 2007, the year the GFC stsrted. GTFO with your "I was right". https://www.prb.org/u-s-homeownership-rates-fall-among-young-adults-african-americans/

You are posting articles cherry picking certain demographics, I posted a chart showing total homeownership rates from 1990-2019 (which you then bizarrely claimed started in 2007).

I don't know if I need to say much more, honestly.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Nah. I have different views on different things, my guess is plenty of them wouldn't fit in that utilitarianist basket. Different situations and circumstances call for different approaches. You can believe it's "hot air" but it really doesn't concern me whether someone tries to label me based on discussion about one specific topic. You have every right to believe what you want, and I have a right to shrug and dismiss it.

No comment on the fact that home ownership has risen the previous 4 years in the U.S.?

I believe it's hot air because that's what it is. Most policies benefit some and hurt others. Should the government have universal healthcare where basically everyone pays the same for coverage? That increases healthcare spending for those without expensive needs and decreases spending for people with expensive need. Should the government increase tariffs? That increases income for people in certain industries and decreases income for people in others (those that rely heavily on exports to countries that retaliate with tariffs of their own). Should the government allow parents to send their kids to charter schools? That benefits parents who don't want to send their kids to public schools and otherwise would have had to spend out of pocket to send their kids to private schools but takes money away from public schools. Should the government raise the cap on income that gets taxed for SS? That would increase what members of the middle class get over their lifetime (assuming they had a decent number of years to live retired) but decrease what those making income in ranges that previously weren't taxed for SS make over their lifetime. I could go on and on. The issues I raised aren't some obscure issues.

A 4 year trend is nothing.

WTF are you talking about, it goes back to 1990. Are you serious?

I was viewing it on my phone before. My mistake. Here's the long term trend.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

You are posting articles cherry picking certain demographics, I posted a chart showing total homeownership rates from 1990-2019 (which you then bizarrely claimed started in 2007).

I don't know if I need to say much more, honestly.

You're accusing me of cherrypicking but you you post a chart that starts when the country was in a recession?

Go back to before the recession. There's a downward trend for all except old folks.

 

[mkess101]

I believe it's hot air because that's what it is. Most policies benefit some and hurt others. Should the government have universal healthcare where basically everyone pays the same for coverage? That increases healthcare spending for those without expensive needs and decreases spending for people with expensive need. Should the government increase tariffs? That increases income for people in certain industries and decreases income for people in others (those that rely heavily on exports to countries that retaliate with tariffs of their own). Should the government allow parents to send their kids to charter schools? That benefits parents who don't want to send their kids to public schools and otherwise would have had to spend out of pocket to send their kids to private schools but takes money away from public schools. Should the government raise the cap on income that gets taxed for SS? That would increase what members of the middle class get over their lifetime (assuming they had a decent number of years to live retired) but decrease what those making income in ranges that previously weren't taxed for SS make over their lifetime. I could go on and on. The issues I raised aren't some obscure issues.

A 4 year trend is nothing.



I was viewing it on my phone before. My mistake. Here's the long term trend.
https://www.prb.org/u-s-homeownership-rates-fall-among-young-adults-african-americans/

Governmental policy is quite a bit more complicated than what you're asserting. Asking generic questions like "Should the government increase tarrifs?" lends nothing to the discussion. Increase them from what? Increase them how much? For what period of time? What external factors would be taken into account? I just randomly picked one of your examples, I could do the same with all of them but...that's pointless. "Hot air" is making general blanket statements about complex issues and thinking because you've dug your heels in that it's more valid than someone who tries to look at it in a more dynamic way.

A 4 year trend isn't nothing, it's exactly that, a trend. Homeownership on the rise doesn't scream "crisis" in people being able to buy homes. Your "long term trend" also ignores a lot of societal changes that have nothing to do with whether people can afford homes or not. People live longer now. The average life arc looks different. They wait longer to buy homes, and then they don't stay in them until they die. They downsize and rent condos or nice apartments. Looking at 1965 isn't very relevant when cultural norms look nothing like they did back then.

 

[mkess101]

You're accusing me of cherrypicking but you you post a chart that starts when the country was in a recession?

Go back to before the recession. There's a downward trend for all except old folks.

I just posted, but cultural norms are quite different the farther back you go. We can argue all night about what time frame is the most valid, probably pointless though.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Governmental policy is quite a bit more complicated than what you're asserting. Asking generic questions like "Should the government increase tarrifs?" lends nothing to the discussion. Increase them from what? Increase them how much? For what period of time? What external factors would be taken into account? I just randomly picked one of your examples, I could do the same with all of them but...that's pointless. "Hot air" is making general blanket statements about complex issues and thinking because you've dug your heels in that it's more valid than someone who tries to look at it in a more dynamic way.

A 4 year trend isn't nothing, it's exactly that, a trend. Homeownership on the rise doesn't scream "crisis" in people being able to buy homes. Your "long term trend" also ignores a lot of societal changes that have nothing to do with whether people can afford homes or not. People live longer now. The average life arc looks different. They wait longer to buy homes, and then they don't stay in them until they die. They downsize and rent condos or nice apartments. Looking at 1965 isn't very relevant when cultural norms look nothing like they did back then.

I just posted, but cultural norms are quite different the farther back you go. We can argue all night about what time frame is the most valid, probably pointless though.

Government policy is more complicated than what I am asserting? What do you think I'm asserting? I said most policies hurt some people and benefit others (at least economically), and used multiple issues to illustrate this. You're just handwaving with your set of questions on tariffs.

Your hot air is denying that you're a utilitarian while you repeatedly try to undermine fairness as a consideration for policy (going so far as to call it "whining") and saying that instead of being a utilitarian (or supporting/opposing policy based on fairness) you "try to take things as they come". That's meaningless. Why don't you lay your cards on the table and say what you think is the purpose of the government? Is it to maximize growth? Do you or don't you support the government cancelling student debt, and what is the telos of your support or opposition?

The main reason home ownership rates have been falling for all but old folks is simple: the prices of homes have been going up faster than wages.

 

[Cocrehamster]

almost like if delta hadn’t had spent 13 billion on stock buybacks since the last bailout that would not be an instant emergency and the industry wouldn’t be holding a gun to our heads saying pay up again or we lay everyone off.

If they paid the cash out to shareholders through more dividends instead of buybacks would you still be upset?

 

[xcvbn]

@Falsedawn and just like that Pelosi steps the fuck up puts forth her own bill with all the bells and whistles and the senate GOP begs Schumer to help them avoid a house vote on her bill

We had the leverage all along it just took someone with a pair to step up. I still think House Dems should demand more of Pelosi’s offering to be included but what an improvement

 

[milkmandanl]

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.

they do have savings to tide them thru an emergency....just not one like this...no one traveling for fear and certainty of spreading a highly contagious global disease...what’s so hard for you in comprehending that NO ONE was prepared for the magnitude of this?

Yes, that was a Delta plane/pilot that accidentally dumped fuel...and Delta did their part in cleaning up that mess. how does that have anything to do with the current situation? If I’m not mistaken Delta leads the airline industry in reducing carbon foot print.

I’m in full agreement about no stock buyback or dividends until loan is repaid...

 

[mkess101]

Government policy is more complicated than what I am asserting? What do you think I'm asserting? I said most policies hurt some people and benefit others (at least economically), and used multiple issues to illustrate this. You're just handwaving with your set of questions on tariffs.

Your hot air is denying that you're a utilitarian while you repeatedly try to undermine fairness as a consideration for policy (going so far as to call it "whining") and saying that instead of being a utilitarian (or supporting/opposing policy based on fairness) you "try to take things as they come". That's meaningless. Why don't you lay your cards on the table and say what you think is the purpose of the government? Is it to maximize growth? Do you or don't you support the government cancelling student debt, and what is the telos of your support or opposition?

The main reason home ownership rates have been falling for all but old folks is simple: the prices of homes have been going up faster than wages.

Yes, it's more complicated than asking a bunch of open ended questions with no context. And as I mentioned earlier, saying "at least economically" as a throwaway line is ridiculous. There are obviously a myriad of other factors aside from purely "What economic impact will this have on group x". You "used multiple issues" to illustrate it...again with open ended questions. "Hey, should we raise taxes?" Well...shit...I don't know? What is your tax rate currently? What functions is the government required to perform? What are the economic ramifications for individuals? For businesses? What does the balance sheet look like now? What are your projections?

You think asking ridiculously oversimplified questions "illustrates" how government policy should be set?

And...here you are (again) making assertions about me that you've pulled from the ether. We are talking about one specific part of one specific bill. Never have I said fairness can NEVER be used as one of many considerations when setting government policy. Not one time. I said that in a crisis like we have now, that's not what an entire thread of posters should be whining about. It shouldn't be a consideration when you're desperate and trying to stop the vehicle from careening over the edge of the cliff. I honestly don't know if canceling any student debt is a good idea. I tend to lean towards "no", but I don't know enough about the potential economic impact it may have over the next couple years.

There a bunch of reasons that home ownership rates are lower now than they were decades ago. Pinning it on one thing is just ludicrous. Younger people have flocked to bigger cities to start their careers more than they did back then would be one reason. Big city living generally doesn't lend itself to buying a home. That's just one other reason. There are plenty more. I do find it interesting that you so opposed HARP if home ownership rates actually matter to you. Without HARP, a tidal wave of foreclosures would have ensued. Home ownership rates would have plummeted as those people lost their houses. Some of those houses would have been snapped up at cheaper prices, yes, but a ton would have sat empty. Is your assertion (I'm not saying you'd be right or wrong) that eventually those houses would have been bought up and home ownership rates would have come back up? And because you think home prices were (are still I guess?) too high, having the market crash even lower and more people be underwater would just have been the market "sorting itself out"?

IDK man, I guess we can go back and forth nonstop but it seems like we just see the world a bit differently. Which is fine, I admire that you think about it and have strong views, and I likely don't disagree on many of them. The tone is getting too combative though (equally my fault as yours) so maybe let's move on? I don't wish you any ill will at all, everyone just isn't going to agree on everything.

 

[eternaldarkness]

Money is a representation of a trade commodity...

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

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.

I said it wouldn't work and you just ignored me and focused on the fairness argument.

The Democrats are claiming it's the only way. That's why they held up the entire stimulus package over it.

Of course, they were just being dishonest liars as usual and were actually just trying to leverage a pandemic to get a 'win' for their side because they are also garbage people as well as a dog shit political party.

Hope this helps.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Yes, it's more complicated than asking a bunch of open ended questions with no context. And as I mentioned earlier, saying "at least economically" as a throwaway line is ridiculous. There are obviously a myriad of other factors aside from purely "What economic impact will this have on group x". You "used multiple issues" to illustrate it...again with open ended questions. "Hey, should we raise taxes?" Well...shit...I don't know? What is your tax rate currently? What functions is the government required to perform? What are the economic ramifications for individuals? For businesses? What does the balance sheet look like now? What are your projections?

You think asking ridiculously oversimplified questions "illustrates" how government policy should be set?

And...here you are (again) making assertions about me that you've pulled from the ether. We are talking about one specific part of one specific bill. Never have I said fairness can NEVER be used as one of many considerations when setting government policy. Not one time. I said that in a crisis like we have now, that's not what an entire thread of posters should be whining about. It shouldn't be a consideration when you're desperate and trying to stop the vehicle from careening over the edge of the cliff. I honestly don't know if canceling any student debt is a good idea. I tend to lean towards "no", but I don't know enough about the potential economic impact it may have over the next couple years.

There a bunch of reasons that home ownership rates are lower now than they were decades ago. Pinning it on one thing is just ludicrous. Younger people have flocked to bigger cities to start their careers more than they did back then would be one reason. Big city living generally doesn't lend itself to buying a home. That's just one other reason. There are plenty more. I do find it interesting that you so opposed HARP if home ownership rates actually matter to you. Without HARP, a tidal wave of foreclosures would have ensued. Home ownership rates would have plummeted as those people lost their houses. Some of those houses would have been snapped up at cheaper prices, yes, but a ton would have sat empty. Is your assertion (I'm not saying you'd be right or wrong) that eventually those houses would have been bought up and home ownership rates would have come back up? And because you think home prices were (are still I guess?) too high, having the market crash even lower and more people be underwater would just have been the market "sorting itself out"?

IDK man, I guess we can go back and forth nonstop but it seems like we just see the world a bit differently. Which is fine, I admire that you think about it and have strong views, and I likely don't disagree on many of them. The tone is getting too combative though (equally my fault as yours) so maybe let's move on? I don't wish you any ill will at all, everyone just isn't going to agree on everything.

You're handwaving again with your questions. That policies tend to have winners and losers is a corollary of scarcity. Qualifying this premise with the condition "at least economically" is not a ridiculous "throwaway line" because the ethical thing to do virtually always economically harms some parties. If someone gets less money because he's contributing to a fair arrangement that replaces an unfair arrangement, he's harmed economically but he's not unethically harmed.

You say you don't know if cancelling student debt is a good idea, but you've eluded saying what you think makes something good policy. What makes a policy "good" in your view? Again, is it maximizing growth? What if the government killing old folks en masse would increase growth -- easing strain on the medical system, reducing the spread of the virus, and halting scarce resources from going to a population who was not producing value? Here are your words:

Whatever they can possibly do to avoid a full on depression is fine by me.

When you are staring down a depression though, my view is that you keep all options open that could possibly help stop it from happening Whether they are fair or not.

Again, my only point is that when you're staring down the barrel of economic ruin, keep all options open. Choose the best ones of course, but don't dismiss things out of hand because they "aren't fair".

But don't dismiss ideas out of "fairness" right now.

Now, I'm guessing you're going to say, "I don't support that!" To which I'll reply: Oh, suddenly fairness matters. So much for your bluster from your high horse about people whining about fairness and that instead they should support policy based on ... something you've yet to disclose.

There's not a huge difference in urban vs suburban home prices. Certainly not enough to explain declining home ownership based on younger people flocking to the cities when taking into consideration that home prices have gone up much faster than wages.