Elections Warren makes bold claim to begin canceling student loan debt on day 1

[MilesAbove]

As someone who has paid off his debt, I cannot imagine being such a dumb pos as to want others to have to do so as well. If they have more money to spend, and spend it, it is good for all of us. It will help my business, it will help your business, it will help their business. It would hurt loan companies.... and fuck those predatory institutions.

If you just give people $50K with no strings attached to pay for college, colleges will just raise their tuition by $50K..

Incorrect. Their rates will go up either way. They will not just suddenly take on $50k on average. That's not how things work.

 

[superpunch]

As someone who has paid off his debt, I cannot imagine being such a dumb pos as to want others to have to do so as well. If they have more money to spend, and spend it, it is good for all of us. It will help my business, it will help your business, it will help their business. It would hurt loan companies.... and fuck those predatory institutions.

If it's just to benefit the economy, why not give that $50K to other people? Why not just give that $50K to you or a working class person? The college educated person is just going to use that $50K to pay debt. The working class person is going to use that $50K to buy real things in the economy. Give it to the working class, not the 30%.

I just feel so bad for the blue collar and working class people I used to work with that didn't go to college for financial reasons. I'd be so pissed if I was them. They have their own debts anyways on other shit. They get shit on by being $900K poorer throughout life; and now the government is literally taking their cash paying off the rich peoples', the 30%'s, debts on top of it. I mean, they're just boned.

 

[SleepyBoy]

Why can't these people make enough money to pay off their student loans in a reasonable time?

Surely the schools were upfront and honest with realistic job prospects and expected wages from earned degrees. They wouldn't just take tens of thousands of dollars and not care at all if their product was successful or not. Leveraging youngsters dreams against themselves, this is the ufc method.

 

[MilesAbove]

If it's just to benefit the economy, why not give that $50K to other people?

Because you'd be printing more money and it wouldn't fix the underlying problem.

Why not just give that $50K to you or a working class person? The college educated person is just going to use that $50K to pay debt. The working class person is going to use that $50K to buy real things in the economy. Give it to the working class, not the 30%.

Because it would be printing money and wouldn't fix the underlying problem.

I just feel so bad for the blue collar and working class people I used to work with that didn't go to college for financial reasons.

Why? Why aren't you feeling bad for people prayed upon by a predatory system, who have skills and are utilizing those skills but under the shackles of a predatory system? It doesn't hurt the blue-collar worker to remove the debt. In fact it helps them as disposable spending increases and the demand for their services are improved.

I'd be so pissed if I was them.

Why? Their industries will improve under a more demand-heavy market fueled by disposable income unlocked from under the debt burden.

They have their own debts anyways on other shit. They get shit on by being $900K poorer throughout life; and now the government is literally taking their cash paying off the rich peoples', the 30%'s, debts on top of it. I mean, they're just boned.

They're not just boned. The economic improvements will improve their industry. Revenue will rise. Wages will rise if they have a strong market. Incentives will be added for the boom in industry work being met.

We always talk about trickle-down economics and the follies/successes. Take the poison out of the soil and watch harvest-economics work.

 

[superpunch]

Because you'd be printing more money and it wouldn't fix the underlying problem.



Because it would be printing money and wouldn't fix the underlying problem.


Why? Why aren't you feeling bad for people prayed upon by a predatory system, who have skills and are utilizing those skills but under the shackles of a predatory system? It doesn't hurt the blue-collar worker to remove the debt. In fact it helps them as disposable spending increases and the demand for their services are improved.


Why? Their industries will improve under a more demand-heavy market fueled by disposable income unlocked from under the debt burden.


They're not just boned. The economic improvements will improve their industry. Revenue will rise. Wages will rise if they have a strong market. Incentives will be added for the boom in industry work being met.

We always talk about trickle-down economics and the follies/successes. Take the poison out of the soil and watch harvest-economics work.

The college graduate class, or the 33% as I like to call them. The 33% will make $900000 more over their lifetimes than the 66%!!!! In exchange for that $50K credit now, how about they exchange that $900000 advantage over their lifetimes via something small and fair like a 2% wealth tax a year?? The 66% has just $1,000 in savings. A very small 2% wealth tax on the 33% for their fair share could help them so much. If you're going to give the 33% so much stuff, you NEED to do something from them to the 66% with that $900K more they'll be making. Fair is fair!!!

 

[MilesAbove]

The college graduate class, or the 33% as I like to call them. The 33% will make $900000 more over their lifetimes than the 66%!!!!

Estimated on an average. Ask any teacher how much they make compared to a welder. But let's move on to your tax idea. Because as a dirty "socialist" I love taxes.

In exchange for that $50K credit now, how about they exchange that $900000 advantage over their lifetimes via something small and fair like a 2% wealth tax a year??

I would be all for that, provided that any blue collar worker is also paying that same tax over whatever the minimum to be considered so darn blue collar.

The 66% has just $1,000 in savings. A very small 2% wealth tax on the 33% for their fair share could help them so much. If you're going to give the 33% so much stuff, you NEED to do something from them to the 66% with that $900K more they'll be making. Fair is fair!!!

I'm not sure the affinity for exclamation points, but perhaps it's like my overuse of ellipses. Anyway, the 66% are going to have an increase in clientele for both their direct business and their industry. That's the trade. This mythical 33% you conjured is the driving force of above-survival industry (Goods and services that are provided through skilled workers beyond entry-level direct-service positions).

I'm not sure why macro economics is lost on so many, but there is a stranglehold on booming industry of a middle class, and it is debt brought on by a predatory lending system. A system that is underregulated and highly unethical.

And do not think the predatory debts of the mythical 66 are lost on me here. Predatory lending on them should be investigated, and in many cases forgiven. The problem we inevitably run into is that if we simply say that across the board debt-lending (especially predatory) is illegal.... we then have to take a real hard look at how fundamentally flawed our monetary system is in total. That will cause a severe decay in society. So the easiest and smartest way to deal with it is: Unburden those who are saddled with ridiculous school debt. Investigate predatory lending for vehicles and housing (because those are both happening again, despite 2008) and prosecute/disband the companies propelling that system.

 

[SleepyBoy]

Because you'd be printing more money and it wouldn't fix the underlying problem.



Because it would be printing money and wouldn't fix the underlying problem.


Why? Why aren't you feeling bad for people prayed upon by a predatory system, who have skills and are utilizing those skills but under the shackles of a predatory system? It doesn't hurt the blue-collar worker to remove the debt. In fact it helps them as disposable spending increases and the demand for their services are improved.


Why? Their industries will improve under a more demand-heavy market fueled by disposable income unlocked from under the debt burden.


They're not just boned. The economic improvements will improve their industry. Revenue will rise. Wages will rise if they have a strong market. Incentives will be added for the boom in industry work being met.

We always talk about trickle-down economics and the follies/successes. Take the poison out of the soil and watch harvest-economics work.

Which lending industry do you consider perfectly acceptable? Credit cards, mortgages, pay day loans, car loans..etc are all 100% fair and acceptable? Or do they have some predatory lending aspects too?

 

[MilesAbove]

Which lending industry do you consider perfectly acceptable? Credit cards, mortgages, pay day loans, car loans..etc are all 100% fair and acceptable? Or do they have some predatory lending aspects too?

Lending, at it's core and when we utilized properly, is to saddle short-term risk onto the lender to recoup a marginal, but worthwhile, % ROI in the long term. It is, at it's core, a perfect melding of capitalist and socialist ideology melded into one core idea. I, the lender, share my capital to provide you with opportunity to wield said capital in exchange for a longterm marginal ROI. When done over and over again, the lender's finances are expanded to continue an upward trajectory of higher lending at reasonable returns.

What we have now is, across the board, perverted hyper-capitalistic cash grabs. The lending companies fought to remove oversight for ethical lending, and instead seek out the weakest, under-informed, and most desperate sections of society, while seeking absurd ROI % while betting on failure rather than reasonable and ethical expansion through capable repayment.

It is a fraudulent and callus system of predators taking money with no thought of the macro-impact of an infesting system. They will continue to corrode the country from the bottom up, for nothing more than higher quarters, rather than healthy and sustained growth of themselves and our society.

Lending should be based on the likelihood of repayment. Economists and proper Ethicists should be helping to define the limits and standards that are laid upon these systems. And if it sounds like I'm on a soapbox, it's because I was setting up to be in the financial sector before I switched to Philosophy (and specifically analytical philosophy of normative claims within Ethics). I don't pretend I can stand with economists and debate the finer points of this matter. But I can say I can follow the jargon and lingo enough to know rot from soil. We are planting in rot.

Removing student debt doesn't fix everything. But my gawd it doesn't hurt the "66%". People paid by insurance companies want the "66%" to turn on the "33%" so they can keep swindling. Divide and conquer.

 

[SleepyBoy]

Lending, at it's core and when we utilized properly, is to saddle short-term risk onto the lender to recoup a marginal, but worthwhile, % ROI in the long term. It is, at it's core, a perfect melding of capitalist and socialist ideology melded into one core idea. I, the lender, share my capital to provide you with opportunity to wield said capital in exchange for a longterm marginal ROI. When done over and over again, the lender's finances are expanded to continue an upward trajectory of higher lending at reasonable returns.

What we have now is, across the board, perverted hyper-capitalistic cash grabs. The lending companies fought to remove oversight for ethical lending, and instead seek out the weakest, under-informed, and most desperate sections of society, while seeking absurd ROI % while betting on failure rather than reasonable and ethical expansion through capable repayment.

It is a fraudulent and callus system of predators taking money with no thought of the macro-impact of an infesting system. They will continue to corrode the country from the bottom up, for nothing more than higher quarters, rather than healthy and sustained growth of themselves and our society.

Lending should be based on the likelihood of repayment. Economists and proper Ethicists should be helping to define the limits and standards that are laid upon these systems. And if it sounds like I'm on a soapbox, it's because I was setting up to be in the financial sector before I switched to Philosophy (and specifically analytical philosophy of normative claims within Ethics). I don't pretend I can stand with economists and debate the finer points of this matter. But I can say I can follow the jargon and lingo enough to know rot from soil. We are planting in rot.

Removing student debt doesn't fix everything. But my gawd it doesn't hurt the "66%". People paid by insurance companies want the "66%" to turn on the "33%" so they can keep swindling. Divide and conquer.

Oh i agree, I'll stand on that soap box with you

But the working class feels like we're always splitting the bill for someone else's DIRECT benefit. Whether it's subsidized housing for some, hanythinguge corporate breaks for others, this for them and that for those..it would be nice if someone could throw us a bone meant directly for us, and not more of "by directly helping everyone but you, you'll benefit too". ... Which is true, but why can't we have anything just for the working class?

 

[SleepyBoy]

Also it can feel like buying votes with other people's money. That's the perception to some, fair or unfair...

 

[MilesAbove]

Oh i agree, I'll stand on that soap box with you

But the working class feels like we're always splitting the bill for someone else's DIRECT benefit. Whether it's subsidized housing for some, hanythinguge corporate breaks for others, this for them and that for those..it would be nice if someone could throw us a bone meant directly for us, and not more of "by directly helping everyone but you, you'll benefit too". ... Which is true, but why can't we have anything just for the working class?

But they are as directly hurt by the lack of spending as much as they will be directly benefiting from the increased spending.

Look, I'm a guy who paid his debts. Not just school debts. Credit cards, car payments, etc... and I don't want a single person paying the predatory spending, especially to Universities.

 

[SleepyBoy]

But they are as directly hurt by the lack of spending as much as they will be directly benefiting from the increased spending.

Look, I'm a guy who paid his debts. Not just school debts. Credit cards, car payments, etc... and I don't want a single person paying the predatory spending, especially to Universities.

I get it, but why can't they get a bone? Something specifically for them?
Everyone else seems to get something, are they worth less than others?

It's like when we spent trillions on quantitative easing for the banks and told the masses that they indirectly benefited, so it's all good to give the 2big2fails massive free money

 

[SleepyBoy]

Also
If it is true that there is a national crisis regarding student debt, i don't understand how universities are not at least partially at fault, if not totally at fault.
There is no mechanism to hold them accountable at all for creating a national crisis. They're the ones that created this crisis, but according to them it's everyone else's fault but them. Great lessons they're passing on to their students.

 

[Kandyland]

Lol imagine if Lincoln had been like "we cannot free the slaves because it will not be fair to all the people who weren't freed before"

This is one of the dumbest and most ridiculous comparisons ever. Holy fuck dude, you should think before you speak.

 

[PHATV]

Also
If it is true that there is a national crisis regarding student debt, i don't understand how universities are not at least partially at fault, if not totally at fault.
There is no mechanism to hold them accountable at all for creating a national crisis. They're the ones that created this crisis, but according to them it's everyone else's fault but them. Great lessons they're passing on to their students.

They are the ones who created most of this issue. I'm not young, but it costs 5 X what it cost in the early '90s to go to school. More than 5 X, I guess. Meanwhile, the salaries and pensions are as juicy as can be for the employees.
It was literally $5500-$6000 per year to attend a state school (I have the paperwork) including tuition, housing, books and the meal card where you can eat. $25,000 total and four years later, you had your degree. You also had to study/learn or you would flunk out (or choose an easier major). Plenty did.

 

[MilesAbove]

This is one of the dumbest and most ridiculous comparisons ever. Holy fuck dude, you should think before you speak.

How is it you guys always set up strawmans like you don't know the word?

His implication is that it's stupid to say we shouldn't stop a shitty thing because others were affected by a shitty thing prior. Stop setting up your own dumb arguments to shut down simply because you can't make coherent arguments for your own positions.