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

[mkess101]

6+

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:






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.

I made the mistake of assuming we both understood there were limitations on everything. You've jumped the shark and now have started talking about mass murder as it pertains to "fairness". There's not really much more to say. I say "Do whatever it takes to avoid economic ruin" and you have essentially replied "You advocate taking flamethrowers to every old folk's home and senior living complex, you barbarian!"

This conversation has more than run its course when the dialogue veers off the tracks like that. Have a good day man.

 

[mkess101]

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.

Tell us how you really feel about the Dems ha ha...

 

[Deleted member 159002]

6+


I made the mistake of assuming we both understood there were limitations on everything. You've jumped the shark and now have started talking about mass murder as it pertains to "fairness". There's not really much more to say. I say "Do whatever it takes to avoid economic ruin" and you have essentially replied "You advocate taking flamethrowers to every old folk's home and senior living complex, you barbarian!"

This conversation has more than run its course when the dialogue veers off the tracks like that. Have a good day man.

So you agree that fairness matters and acts as a restraint on us when deliberating how to pursue economic growth. Good.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

So the Dems didn't block the bill over this?

Good to know

 

[milkmandanl]

Both parties passed the bill...

 

[mkess101]

So you agree that fairness matters and acts as a restraint on us when deliberating how to pursue economic growth. Good.

Can it be one of many considerations? Sure. Should it have 3 of every 4 posts whining about it as though it's the ONLY consideration? LMAO hell no. I guess we've found some minor common ground...or something.

 

[Sketch]

So the Dems didn't block the bill over this?

Good to know

Well they initially did and would have loved to.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Well they initially did and would have loved to.

Apparently not

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Can it be one of many considerations? Sure. Should it have 3 of every 4 posts whining about it as though it's the ONLY consideration? LMAO hell no. I guess we've found some minor common ground...or something.

You've repeatedly eluded saying what you think the purpose of government is. Let me ask again: What do you think is the purpose of government? That you now claim to oppose the government killing infected old folks contradicts the principle you've avowed in this thread -- that "all" options should be on the table for economic growth and that raising objections to a policy that could get in the way of achieving that goal based on fairness is childish. Is the purpose of government to maximize growth? If so, then this would preclude fairness as the litmus test for policy at all times, not just during a national crisis. If not, what is the government's purpose?

You deny being a utilitarian, correct? So where do you draw the line for when fairness matters?

You youself have said you don't think cancelling student debt is necessary to 'save' (however you're defining it) from "cratering". So why have you spent pages criticizing people for "whining" about how they oppose it?

 

[lfd0311]

Funny pair of sentences. Someone who thinks NPR (!) is left-wing propaganda calling something else insane.

Because that's most of what NPR is anymore, don't let facts interfere with your narrative, Jack.

 

[HereticBD]

Because that's most of what NPR is anymore, don't let facts interfere with your narrative, Jack.

Can you imagine being so delusional that you call CNN pro-Trump, and then still think your opinion on media bias has any value whatsoever?

 

[Confucamus]

Can you imagine being so delusional that you call CNN pro-Trump, and then still think your opinion on media bias has any value whatsoever?

Okay, I usually scroll by the worst of alt Left rhetoric, but I really need to see the reasoning behind this claim. That is patently insane.

 

[HereticBD]

Okay, I usually scroll by the worst of alt Left rhetoric, but I really need to see the reasoning behind this claim. That is patently insane.

According to Jackie, it's because they hired Cory Lewandowski as a contributor. That apparently outweighed their 24/7 shilling for Hillary Clinton.

His opinion was so crazy that it actually inspired a thread with a poll. The poll didn't exactly go Jackie's way, and he had a meltdown over it. I'll try to find that thread. It was something else.

 

[mkess101]

You've repeatedly eluded saying what you think the purpose of government is. Let me ask again: What do you think is the purpose of government? That you now claim to oppose the government killing infected old folks contradicts the principle you've avowed in this thread -- that "all" options should be on the table for economic growth and that raising objections to a policy that could get in the way of achieving that goal based on fairness is childish. Is the purpose of government to maximize growth? If so, then this would preclude fairness as the litmus test for policy at all times, not just during a national crisis. If not, what is the government's purpose?

You deny being a utilitarian, correct? So where do you draw the line for when fairness matters?

You youself have said you don't think cancelling student debt is necessary to 'save' (however you're defining it) from "cratering". So why have you spent pages criticizing people for "whining" about how they oppose it?

You seriously want to go back to arguing in circles? I haven't opposed anyone saying they are against the cancellation of student debt. Not once. I've said their kneejerk first reaction of "It's not fair" is what I object to. It tends to show me that some people, even in a time of crisis, can only think of themselves and not what could **potentially** help the country. Again, to reiterate, that's not at all an endorsement of the policy itself but instead my reaction to the reaction of posters here in regards to that provision. That's an extremely important distinction, yet one you continually fail to acknowledge.

I've only spent pages arguing with you, not going after and criticizing the reactions of others here, you realize that right? I made a comment and you replied and it started a back and forth. With much of society shut down, finding the time to reply to is not difficult. Had you not replied in the first place, I would not only not have spent "pages" on this topic, I'd have not even brought it up again.

Again, I did not think I needed to add "within reason" when discussing "all options". That you've fixated on that speaks volumes.

I don't specifically deny being a utilitarian, I deny any label you try to attach to me. And honestly I don't give a fuck if your reply is "Well it doesn't matter if you deny it, that's what you are." Nope. Sorry, the world has nuance whether you want to see it or not.

 

[Krixes]

My wife still has student debt from getting her CPA. We're going to pay it off ourselves, just like everybody else. Making it intrest free would be nice but we assumed the responsibility of paying back the loan when we took it on.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

You seriously want to go back to arguing in circles? I haven't opposed anyone saying they are against the cancellation of student debt. Not once. I've said their kneejerk first reaction of "It's not fair" is what I object to. It tends to show me that some people, even in a time of crisis, can only think of themselves and not what could **potentially** help the country. Again, to reiterate, that's not at all an endorsement of the policy itself but instead my reaction to the reaction of posters here in regards to that provision. That's an extremely important distinction, yet one you continually fail to acknowledge.

I've only spent pages arguing with you, not going after and criticizing the reactions of others here, you realize that right? I made a comment and you replied and it started a back and forth. With much of society shut down, finding the time to reply to is not difficult. Had you not replied in the first place, I would not only not have spent "pages" on this topic, I'd have not even brought it up again.

Again, I did not think I needed to add "within reason" when discussing "all options". That you've fixated on that speaks volumes.

I don't specifically deny being a utilitarian, I deny any label you try to attach to me. And honestly I don't give a fuck if your reply is "Well it doesn't matter if you deny it, that's what you are." Nope. Sorry, the world has nuance whether you want to see it or not.

More handwaving. Here are the questions I asked in the post you're replying to:

What do you think is the purpose of government?
Is the purpose of government to maximize growth?
where do you draw the line for when fairness matters?

You didn't answer any of them.

Regarding my last question, So why have you spent pages criticizing people for "whining" about how they oppose it? you somewhat addressed it but your response is disingenuous. You say, I've said their kneejerk first reaction of "It's not fair" is what I object to. It tends to show me that some people, even in a time of crisis, can only think of themselves and not what could **potentially** help the country. You do realize that the people who object to student debt cancellation are part of the country, right? The country is just an abstraction. Helping "the country" can only be done insofar as individual members of the country are helped. You seem to think maximizing economic growth is synonymous with "help[ing] the country", but when I press you on the implications of this (if killing old folks would increase growth, should the government do it?) you protest. So you're meandering between saying "all options" should be on the table to increase the country's wealth and objecting to means that could do that based on notions of fairness.

How am I supposed to know what "within reason" means to you? It's not like you've said what you think the purpose of government is. For me and many other people, cancelling student debt to increase growth is outside the bounds of reason. Obviously that's not the case for you. Why would I project other principles I hold onto you?

You don't deny being a utilitarian but you won't concede that you are one? What if someone accused you of being a communist? Would you say, "I don't specifically deny being a communist, I deny any label you try to attach to me"?

 

[mkess101]

More handwaving. Here are the questions I asked in the post you're replying to:

What do you think is the purpose of government?
Is the purpose of government to maximize growth?
where do you draw the line for when fairness matters?

You didn't answer any of them.

Regarding my last question, So why have you spent pages criticizing people for "whining" about how they oppose it? you somewhat addressed it but your response is disingenuous. You say, I've said their kneejerk first reaction of "It's not fair" is what I object to. It tends to show me that some people, even in a time of crisis, can only think of themselves and not what could **potentially** help the country. You do realize that the people who object to student debt cancellation are part of the country, right? The country is just an abstraction. Helping "the country" can only be done insofar as individual members of the country are helped. You seem to think maximizing economic growth is synonymous with "help[ing] the country", but when I press you on the implications of this (if killing old folks would increase growth, should the government do it?) you protest. So you're meandering between saying "all options" should be on the table to increase the country's wealth and objecting to means that could do that based on notions of fairness.

How am I supposed to know what "within reason" means to you? It's not like you've said what you think the purpose of government is. For me and many other people, cancelling student debt to increase growth is outside the bounds of reason. Obviously that's not the case for you. Why would I project other principles I hold onto you?

You don't deny being a utilitarian but you won't concede that you are one? What if someone accused you of being a communist? Would you say, "I don't specifically deny being a communist, I deny any label you try to attach to me"?

Your questions are lucicrous. "What is the purpose of government?" As if it has a sole purpose. Government serves a ton of purposes, and the importance of each one (and thus the tactics and strategies used to serve those purposes) changes based on what's needed at a given time.

Do you seriously think I'm going to take the bait to let you try to dictate the terms of this discussion?

What I will do is tackle two of your clumsy questions at once: "Where do you draw the line where fairness matters?" and "How am I supposed to know what 'within reason' means to you?"

Here's the answer (did not think I'd be teaching 4th grade civics here...but oh well): You said "The country is an abstraction". Hmm. Last I checked we have defined borders. We have a form of government where we (yes, including the people in this thread whining about fairness!) elect leaders who then write laws to determine the answers to these questions. Of course you and I may differ (and probably do most of the time) on where that line for "fairness" is. Just like you may differ from your mom or your brother or any other random person. But collectively, we elect these leaders based on (among other things) where we want these "lines drawn" and in doing so decide as a country what laws should be enacted. That's how this country works. And you (and others) have every right to scream as loudly as you can "It's not fair" about this or any other issue. And then vote to reflect that view. And others can do the same. And I can come on a forum and say it's disappointing to hear all the "Me first, it's not fair!" attitudes. And you can in turn try to convince me why I'm wrong.

If you simply believe the country is an "abstraction" there's no point arguing with you. You don't believe in our form of government and how the answers to your own questions are decided. You don't recognize us as a sovereign nation with laws that decide the very things you're pressing me for answers on.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Your questions are lucicrous. "What is the purpose of government?" As if it has a sole purpose. Government serves a ton of purposes, and the importance of each one (and thus the tactics and strategies used to serve those purposes) changes based on what's needed at a given time.

Do you seriously think I'm going to take the bait to let you try to dictate the terms of this discussion?

What I will do is tackle two of your clumsy questions at once: "Where do you draw the line where fairness matters?" and "How am I supposed to know what 'within reason' means to you?"

Here's the answer (did not think I'd be teaching 4th grade civics here...but oh well): You said "The country is an abstraction". Hmm. Last I checked we have defined borders. We have a form of government where we (yes, including the people in this thread whining about fairness!) elect leaders who then write laws to determine the answers to these questions. Of course you and I may differ (and probably do most of the time) on where that line for "fairness" is. Just like you may differ from your mom or your brother or any other random person. But collectively, we elect these leaders based on (among other things) where we want these "lines drawn" and in doing so decide as a country what laws should be enacted. That's how this country works. And you (and others) have every right to scream as loudly as you can "It's not fair" about this or any other issue. And then vote to reflect that view. And others can do the same. And I can come on a forum and say it's disappointing to hear all the "Me first, it's not fair!" attitudes. And you can in turn try to convince me why I'm wrong.

If you simply believe the country is an "abstraction" there's no point arguing with you. You don't believe in our form of government and how the answers to your own questions are decided. You don't recognize us as a sovereign nation with laws that decide the very things you're pressing me for answers on.

Questions about the purpose of government are not ludicrous. On the contrary, they're fundamental to meaningful political discourse. Otherwise all we have are ad hoc rationalizations of policies built on presuppositions and our individual self-interests.

It's sad that you perceive being asking to articulate your principles as something negative. Would you prefer that people just go along with you when you say a position is wrong, even though they don't know why? That would certainly be easier for you.

You didn't answer either of my questions that you said you were about to answer. You gave a descriptive account of lawmaking. My questions are prescriptive.

Whether or not the US (a country) has borders has nothing to do with whether or not it's an abstraction. You talked about "help[ing] the country". But help for the country is only realized in the lives of individual countrymen. It's not like there's a concrete entity known as the USA that can suffer injustice. Only its people can.

 

[blaseblah]

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.

Now that we have the bill it's pretty clear that's not what they held it up over. And the bill we have now is significantly better than the one McConnell wanted to pass. So thanks Dems.

 

[mkess101]

Questions about the purpose of government are not ludicrous. On the contrary, they're fundamental to meaningful political discourse. Otherwise all we have are ad hoc rationalizations of policies built on presuppositions and our individual self-interests.

It's sad that you perceive being asking to articulate your principles as something negative. Would you prefer that people just go along with you when you say a position is wrong, even though they don't know why? That would certainly be easier for you.

You didn't answer either of my questions that you said you were about to answer. You gave a descriptive account of lawmaking. My questions are prescriptive.

Whether or not the US (a country) has borders has nothing to do with whether or not it's an abstraction. You talked about "help[ing] the country". But help for the country is only realized in the lives of individual countrymen. It's not like there's a concrete entity known as the USA that can suffer injustice. Only its people can.

I answered the questions fine, you just didn't want to hear those answers.

You asked what is the purpose (singular) of government. That is a ludicrous question, which I explained is due to the fact that government serves a huge multitude of purposes. You seem to be purposefully ignoring what I'm actually saying.

It's not negative at all to articulate ones principles, nor did I ever say it was. You're confusing me not being willing to admit that government has a singular purpose with me not taking a principled stance. Or you're trying to slip that false pretext through without me noticing. Either way, it's ridiculous.

The country is not an abstraction. We are made up of citizens, yes. And collectively as citizens we indirectly determine what we deem to be these "injustices". If you suffer what you deem to be an injustice, you have recourse as a citizen within the rules we've collectively set as a group. You can vote for leaders who agree with your stance, etc. Others may well disagree, and within the confines of this country, the fact that you think you may have suffered an injustice becomes irrelevant. We don't all make our own rules for ourselves.

How about this: If you are so adamant that government serves one singular, sole purpose then why don't you tell me what YOU believe that purpose to be?