War Room Lounge v190: Resolution Impossible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lead said:
My original guess about what the confusion was is federal vs private loans. I forget if you are US or Canadian but our student loans come from the government now for the most part so I don’t think there’s the cash issue that you may have been thinking of with a private loan. Even in those events, I think the government would still possibly be able to pay it over the remaining life of the loan instead of the person it was “forgiven” for so the costs would still be over the course of A decade or so. I think Jack agreed there’s a cost, he just thinks it’s manageable.
Click to expand...

From what I'm reading, there are federal government loans vs. private loans. I can't find any actual source that says the private loans are paid for by the federal government, but I can see the differences in that fed loans have better benefits. I don't understand why there would be any actual difference (or why anyone would apply via private loans) if it's all paid for from the said exact source. In that case, why is there even a fed vs private loan situation?

And yes, it can be paid off over time, but that's when I said the government would most likely raise revenue elsewhere. So if we need to raise taxes, then single payer/universal health care would need to also be an issue. Also in that scenario, I'm assuming it's only retroactive and not forward? Meaning, if we forgive all student loans today, then anyone getting a student loan tomorrow would be still paying? I'm not exactly sure of all the details in that proposal.
 
HereticBD said:
But that's COVID related. I wouldn't rule out a temporary reprieve under extreme circumstances. I'm asking if you believe it will be a move made, regardless. If you believe that, then draw it up.
Click to expand...

I see it as a stimulus measure. One that everyone agrees is less than ideal but is actually doable without Congress. I think Republicans would oppose it and might be motivated to do something to prevent it (meaning a stimulus package that was better-designed). So I'm not sure if it'll happen. But conditional on another attempt by Congressional Republicans to tank the economy because the president is a Democrat, it'll happen.
 
@Quipling Kirkland finding a way to eek out some good press while Jones Day gets hammered.

125994146_10219012720211506_2608970799941350544_o.jpg
 
Jack V Savage said:
I see it as a stimulus measure. One that everyone agrees is less than ideal but is actually doable without Congress. I think Republicans would oppose it and might be motivated to do something to prevent it (meaning a stimulus package that was better-designed). So I'm not sure if it'll happen. But conditional on another attempt by Congressional Republicans to tank the economy because the president is a Democrat, it'll happen.
Click to expand...

In other words, that's a "no" for now?
 
Jack V Savage said:
So you want it to happen?
Click to expand...
I want it to happen without losing money or raising taxes.* That's the puzzle.

*The reason for the taxes is that I forsee us raising taxes regardless of what happens in the future. But I'd like for it to pay for a more immediate policy, like health care, than past student loans that people already agreed to.
 
The Diplomat said:
I want it to happen without losing money or raising taxes.* That's the puzzle.

*The reason for the taxes is that I forsee us raising taxes regardless of what happens in the future. But I'd like for it to pay for a more immediate policy, like health care, than past student loans that people already agreed to.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to happen for it to happen without losing money since by definition the policy involves losing money. Your tax increase theory is stupid, and you should feel bad for proposing it. The whole point is higher deficits and more money in people's hands.
 
Trotsky said:
You want to wipe out a trillion dollars in government revenue but do so without lowering government revenue or raising taxes?

You're right that that is quite the puzzle.
Click to expand...
Indeed ;)

If we wipe out $1.5 trillion over night, then like @Jack V Savage says, it'll be paid for over time but the govt still takes a loss. There is no way to recover that loss unless we raise it elsewhere. So okay, 100% loss on 1.5 trillion. Doesn't seem like much compared to our GDP, but that is quite a penny for people who already knew what they were signing up for.

And if the actual policy is only retroactive, and not 100% forever, then I personally only see a short boost to the economy - those students with debt would be able to circulate their money back into the economy, but at the same time, that money was supposed to go back to the feds anyways. As student loans continue forward for future students, I actually don't see a rational reason to do it other than to just feel good for a short period. It seems like a lot of money to spend/lose without any verifiable outcome, and then it just happens again.

Jack V Savage said:
It's impossible to happen for it to happen without losing money since by definition the policy involves losing money. Your tax increase theory is stupid, and you should feel bad for proposing it. The whole point is higher deficits and more money in people's hands.
Click to expand...
Which is what I addressed in this post.
 
Last edited:
The Diplomat said:
From what I'm reading, there are federal government loans vs. private loans. I can't find any actual source that says the private loans are paid for by the federal government, but I can see the differences in that fed loans have better benefits. I don't understand why there would be any actual difference (or why anyone would apply via private loans) if it's all paid for from the said exact source. In that case, why is there even a fed vs private loan situation?

And yes, it can be paid off over time, but that's when I said the government would most likely raise revenue elsewhere. So if we need to raise taxes, then single payer/universal health care would need to also be an issue. Also in that scenario, I'm assuming it's only retroactive and not forward? Meaning, if we forgive all student loans today, then anyone getting a student loan tomorrow would be still paying? I'm not exactly sure of all the details in that proposal.
Click to expand...

It didn’t use to be this way so you’ve seen federal loans pretty much take over entirely because they are more favorable. The private amount is next to nothing compared to the 1.5 trillion.

Where did single payer/ UHC come into this?

I think Warren had a Bill which had 50k and had some formulas to it like earning to debt and a ceiling for higher earners. There’s a lot of ways it can be looked at and not seem fair in terms of timing of the loans like you mentioned or those who paid them sooner, those who didn’t do college vs those who did, etc. I know they sure as hell should at least make it target poorer folks then just a blanket 50k though if they moved forward with it. I’m not a fan of it though but I’ll wait and see how it’s calculated if it does happen.
 
Jack V Savage said:
It's impossible to happen for it to happen without losing money since by definition the policy involves losing money. Your tax increase theory is stupid, and you should feel bad for proposing it. The whole point is higher deficits and more money in people's hands.
Click to expand...
Read my latest post. In this case, it doesn't make sense at all.
 
Lead said:
It didn’t use to be this way so you’ve seen federal loans pretty much take over entirely because they are more favorable. The private amount is next to nothing compared to the 1.5 trillion.

Where did single payer/ UHC come into this?

I think Warren had a Bill which had 50k and had some formulas to it like earning to debt and a ceiling for higher earners. There’s a lot of ways it can be looked at and not seem fair in terms of timing of the loans like you mentioned or those who paid them sooner, those who didn’t do college vs those who did, etc. I know they sure as hell should at least make it target poorer folks then just a blanket 50k though if they moved forward with it. I’m not a fan of it though but I’ll wait and see how it’s calculated if it does happen.
Click to expand...
Okay, so if it's supposed to be a total loss that the government can manage over time, then any chances of increasing health care through taxation would be a harder road, no?

As of right now, the government is already losing money during the covid pandemic. To lose more money (1.5$ trillion) over night, I just feel like we'd be pushing any other progressive policy much further from grasp. Namely, health care that doesn't put the average citizen into life long debt.
 
Last edited:
The Diplomat said:
Okay, so if it's supposed to be a total loss that the government can manage over time, then any chances of increasing health care through taxation would be a harder road, no?
Click to expand...

Different proposals are always somewhat in competition with each other when you have a budget, yes. Biden isn’t on board with single payer.
 
AgonyandIrony said:
I love massive dogs. Although my friend had a Great Dane that got a case of explosive runs in his crate and fucking blasted the entire wall. I walked in, saw a wall covered in poop and was like "yah... I'm out bruh." And closed the door hearing him shout his grievances to the Lord lmao.

Are you on the subreddit Animals being derps? It gives me life l.
Click to expand...
Hahahahahha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,860
Messages
58,322,207
Members
176,000
Latest member
Markooz86

Share this page

Back
Top