American Politics / Current Events Thread

[Tulpa | 3,508]

Am I the only one that knows how to use the quote selection function?

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

7 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Am I the only one that knows how to use the quote selection function?

Probably

I thought my way (the in-line email response way) worked in a pinch

[Tulpa | 3,508]

If you highlight a selection from a post and hover for a second, the quote selection button will pop up. Hitting that will drop the selection into the quick reply box.

8 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Probably

It leaves a little space to put your own rebuttals.

3 hours ago, Californication said:

And this was a non-issue in prior generations.

You can do multiple people and your own stuff, too. You can even bold and underline stuff.

5 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Biden is basically a moderate. 

The only times it won't work is when you quote stuff from different pages or when you edit posts.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Tulpa

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

Neat, thanks for the tip.

[avatar! | 1,812]

My family received threatening anti-Semitic propaganda in the mail, and I worry that Trump-endorsed hate speech is here to stay

https://www.insider.com/opinion-anti-semitic-hate-mail-2021-2

Sigh... crazy far-right pieces of shite in this country

 

 

[Tulpa | 3,508]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/02/22/business/dominion-voting-systems-sues-mypillow-ceo/index.html

MyPillow and CEO Mike Lindell hit with $1.3 billion lawsuit

 

I should note that Dominion has hired Clare Locke, the number one defamation law firm in the country to handle their cases and that the founding partner, Thomas Clare, is handling it personally.

Lindell can't keep his big fat mouth shut. I would say if you want a MyPillow brand pillow, get one now. They probably won't be in business after this.

 

[Californication | 1,477]

@arch_8ngel,

For the messaging part, it is hard to say. 

If people understood who the beneficiaries are and can see the bump in the economy as a whole when the policy is implemented I think it would sell. Not to mention if someone has a sister, brother, nephew, etc. that is financially unburdened they may be able to relate. This should have been sold the same way the unemployment plus up was sold. I am sure that people complain when others benefit, but I feel like the complaints regarding unemployment plus up & extensions have been relatively minor because people understand the multiple crises Americans are facing and the conservative messaging campaign largely failed.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

48 minutes ago, Californication said:

@arch_8ngel,

For the messaging part, it is hard to say. 

If people understood who the beneficiaries are and can see the bump in the economy as a whole when the policy is implemented I think it would sell. Not to mention if someone has a sister, brother, nephew, etc. that is financially unburdened they may be able to relate. This should have been sold the same way the unemployment plus up was sold. I am sure that people complain when others benefit, but I feel like the complaints regarding unemployment plus up & extensions have been relatively minor because people understand the multiple crises Americans are facing and the conservative messaging campaign largely failed.

A key difference is that the increased unemployment is a clearly temporary measure with mostly collective support from people who don't need it YET, but fear that they MIGHT -- through no direct fault of the individual.

A massive student loan payoff wouldn't function similarly and without major structural reforms to college cost incentives, it offers no particular hope of future benefit to those that don't need it today.

It is a big payoff that to people who chose not to go to college because they didn't want to take on big loans is going to look like bad decisions being rewarded while they get nothing.

 

There is a clear difference in the level of personal responsibility associated with someone becoming unemployed during a pandemic that completely shut down certain sectors of the economy and someone that took out $50k in student loans with a promise to repay under loan terms that they agreed to at the time they signed the contract.

 

A lot of the practical concerns about the "student loan crisis" could be effectively solved by freezing or eliminating interest, providing better provisions for forbearance without penalties, and providing a better mechanism for phased debt cancellation.

But even the $50k payoff is a band-aid without structural reforms, since it just shifts the debt burden to future generations as well as doing nothing to improve cost structure that new and upcoming students will have to navigate.

 

 

And there is no amount of messaging that is going to make a conservative talk-radio listener with a G.E.D. happy about "liberal college kids" getting a $50k payday.

Edited February 23, 2021 by arch_8ngel

[Californication | 1,477]

1 hour ago, arch_8ngel said:

A key difference is that the increased unemployment is a clearly temporary measure with mostly collective support from people who don't need it YET, but fear that they MIGHT -- through no direct fault of the individual.

A massive student loan payoff wouldn't function similarly and without major structural reforms to college cost incentives, it offers no particular hope of future benefit to those that don't need it today.

It is a big payoff that to people who chose not to go to college because they didn't want to take on big loans is going to look like bad decisions being rewarded while they get nothing.

 

There is a clear difference in the level of personal responsibility associated with someone becoming unemployed during a pandemic that completely shut down certain sectors of the economy and someone that took out $50k in student loans with a promise to repay under loan terms that they agreed to at the time they signed the contract.

 

A lot of the practical concerns about the "student loan crisis" could be effectively solved by freezing or eliminating interest, providing better provisions for forbearance without penalties, and providing a better mechanism for phased debt cancellation.

But even the $50k payoff is a band-aid without structural reforms, since it just shifts the debt burden to future generations as well as doing nothing to improve cost structure that new and upcoming students will have to navigate.

 

 

And there is no amount of messaging that is going to make a conservative talk-radio listener with a G.E.D. happy about "liberal college kids" getting a $50k payday.

A lot of good points. Again, I disagree with the personal responsibility argument that is a hammer the conservatives use when they feel like it. They bailed out the banks that gave the students the loans - where was the personal responsibilty there? Does anyone feel the people in Texas should eat 10K, 15K utility bills because they used electricity for two days - or is that their personal responsibility? Should these people that are unemployed because they are service workers who can't work from home not get extended unemployment because it's their personal responsibility. 

I mean that side of the argument falls apart pretty quick.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

A lot of good points. Again, I disagree with the personal responsibility argument that is a hammer the conservatives use when they feel like it. They bailed out the banks that gave the students the loans - where was the personal responsibilty there? Does anyone feel the people in Texas should eat 10K, 15K utility bills because they used electricity for two days - or is that their personal responsibility? Should these people that are unemployed because they are service workers who can't work from home not get extended unemployment because it's their personal responsibility. 

I mean that side of the argument falls apart pretty quick.

If you want to talk about something falling apart pretty quickly, you should draw fewer false equivalencies between life threatening disasters (recent Texas weather), systemic risks of economic collapse (structural unemployment during a pandemic) -- and people choosing to take loans with terms that they agreed to with an agreement to repay.

There is a fairly clear limit to how much "personal responsibility" you can bear for needing to use electricity during a life-threatening event, or how much "personal responsibility" you can bear for entire sectors of the economy shutting down overnight (an emergency fund can only be so large, in practical terms).

 

But you can't blame external forces for choosing to pay the price of admission at the school a borrower chose to attend.  

You CAN very reasonably say that DURING THE PANDEMIC, external forces exist that alleviate PRESENT personal responsibility to repay existing loans -- in the form of eliminated interest and deferred payments.  That is a completely reasonable and practical analog to extended unemployment benefits, for instance.

It is MUCH LESS REASONABLE to claim that willing borrowers deserve a $50k handout.

Even the $10k being discussed is a significant boon to borrowers who should  have had no expectation of such a bonus in the first place.

There are a lot of ways that existing student loan debts can be significantly restructured to provide relief to borrowers that don't amount to a one-time massive bailout.

 

 

EDIT: also, citing examples like bank bailouts doesn't really provide a strong case for why student loan debt elimination is prudent or justified.  Something that was done to benefit some other group in the past, in a way you disagree with, doesn't justify doing some other bailout that benefits you directly today.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by arch_8ngel

[Californication | 1,477]

57 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

 

EDIT: also, citing examples like bank bailouts doesn't really provide a strong case for why student loan debt elimination is prudent or justified.  Something that was done to benefit some other group in the past, in a way you disagree with, doesn't justify doing some other bailout that benefits you directly today.

I actually think that is one of the stronger points. It is a regular liberal dem/conservative mind-set that it is okay to write-off/back stop corporate losses but not assist everyday people. This is why the 2008 recovery was so slow and why the current recovery will be slow. It is a false naratiive that it is more beneficial to the economy to back stop corporation over people and it is confounding to me that people think corporations deserve more help than people when so many large corporations don't even pay taxes.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

17 minutes ago, Californication said:

I actually think that is one of the stronger points. It is a regular liberal dem/conservative mind-set that it is okay to write-off/back stop corporate losses but not assist everyday people. This is why the 2008 recovery was so slow and why the current recovery will be slow. It is a false naratiive that it is more beneficial to the economy to back stop corporation over people and it is confounding to me that people think corporations deserve more help than people when so many large corporations don't even pay taxes.

Shoring up individuals is potentially better for the economy/recovery than doing the same for corporations.

That isn't my issue with the point you were trying to make.

My issue is that you present it almost in a "two wrongs making a right" sort of fashion.

So bringing up past less-than-optimal actions as a justification for this action is just not a particularly strong position to take.

 

And helping individuals to boost a recovery does not necessitate a $50,000 handout for a subset of people that chose to take out loans that they promised to repay, when there are considerably less controversial ways to provide them with assistance.

Edited February 23, 2021 by arch_8ngel

[Link | 2,713]

On 2/23/2021 at 1:38 PM, arch_8ngel said:

My issue is that you present it almost in a "two wrongs making a right" sort of fashion.

I don’t see that specific point that way. Bad loans that big, rich, powerful financial institutions made to unqualified mortgage holders who were only trying to secure their personal home security — in a random, widespread, gamble to gain more riches and power and which all evidence indicated was a bad risk —absolutely do not deserve a bailout more than bad loans requested by literally uneducated people who were trying to improve their personal station in life in our vicious system. The home lenders who would be comfortable no matter what got an utterly undeserved bailout. The education borrowers who sought to escape their precipice should not be denied the same. 

But I do completely agree with you that 1) a one-time payment doesn’t address the systemic issue. The whole education financing setup needs a complete overhaul. 

and 2) @Californicationdid bring in too many other topics to win this point in debate class. On the morals I think he is correct.

[Link | 2,713]

February 24, 2021 (Wednesday)

At 4:42 p.m., exactly a year ago, then-President Trump tweeted: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!

 

I wonder, but don’t especially care, what somebody thinks of this... 

ok, the HTML feature doesn’t work quite how I expected it to  

Edited February 25, 2021 by Link

[avatar! | 1,812]

Hell hath no fury...

https://www.businessinsider.com/ex-girlfriend-tips-off-fbi-about-alleged-us-capitol-rioter-2021-2

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

7 hours ago, Link said:

I don’t see that specific point that way. Bad loans that big, rich, powerful financial institutions made to unqualified mortgage holders who were only trying to secure their personal home security — in a random, widespread, gamble to gain more riches and power and which all evidence indicated was a bad risk —absolutely do not deserve a bailout more than bad loans requested by literally uneducated people who were trying to improve their personal station in life in our vicious system. The home lenders who would be comfortable no matter what got an utterly undeserved bailout. The education borrowers who sought to escape their precipice should not be denied the same. 

But I do completely agree with you that 1) a one-time payment doesn’t address the systemic issue. The whole education financing setup needs a complete overhaul. 

and 2) @Californicationdid bring in too many other topics to win this point in debate class. On the morals I think he is correct.

 

The question isn't whether student loan holders are "more deserving" than the banks/lenders were back during the GFC.

And the past bail-outs of ANY type are the definition of "sunk cost".  They fundamentally have no bearing on whether a different/new bailout TODAY is a good idea.

 

What matters is in the present circumstances:

1) is this type of bailout going to be widely perceived as "FAIR" to the taxpayers that are backstopping it (and to future generations of taxpayers that will also be paying for it)

2) is this type of bailout NECESSARRY in the form presented, or are there potentially comparably effective means of achieving the same short-term goals (i.e. you can EASILY get the same short-term bump by suspending/eliminating interest and letting borrowers pause payments without wiping out the debt itself)

3) is this a band-aid, or are there meaningful structural improvements that will go along with this to prevent the same problem from existing in 5 or 10 years time.

 

 

Absolutely NONE of what matters TODAY is whether the bank bailouts of the GFC were a good idea, or not.

 

EDIT: and no "on morals", I don't think that Californication is "correct".  There IS a clear "moral" justification for the government knocking down interest on the debt and eliminating penalties associated with gaps in payment.  There IS NOT a clear "moral" justification for wiping out principal that borrowers actually spent to their own benefit with an agreement to repay.

Edited February 25, 2021 by arch_8ngel

[avatar! | 1,812]

 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by avatar!

[Tulpa | 3,508]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-tax-returns-have-been-turned-over-to-manhattan-district-attorney/ar-BB1e1aAl?li=BBnb7Kz

Welp, Trump's tax returns are with the Manhattan District Attorney.

I'm actually curious as to whether he has the wealth he claims he has, or if it's just another smoke and mirrors job.

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

Here I am having paid a large portion of my federal loans and refinanced at a low rate through a private lending company. No bailout for me.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

3 hours ago, Tulpa said:

 

I'm actually curious as to whether he has the wealth he claims he has, or if it's just another smoke and mirrors job.

Tax returns won't tell you that, though.

[Link | 2,713]

48 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

Here I am having paid a large portion of my federal loans and refinanced at a low rate through a private lending company. No bailout for me.

You still owe money, though? Would you turn down forgiveness? 

Idk. I’m in the favorable position of not having student loans. @arch_8ngel I do agree that fixing the system is the most important, and it would be wrong to wipe out debt without doing so, but not vice versa.

[Tulpa | 3,508]

40 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Tax returns won't tell you that, though.

No, but I suspect the investigation will shine a bit more light on him.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

2 minutes ago, Link said:

Idk. I’m in the favorable position of not having student loans. @arch_8ngel I do agree that fixing the system is the most important, and it would be wrong to wipe out debt without doing so, but not vice versa.

My point is this -- you can achieve the short-term stimulus of personal cashflow by simply freezing or eliminating the interest and penalties that have accrued and then giving people indefinite forbearance while they sort out the systemic fixes.

At that point, the cashflow improves (for the moment) 1:1 with total debt relief, and it wouldn't be accruing interest either.

 

Give people financial breathing room without dumping gasoline onto the fire of the culture war.

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

39 minutes ago, Link said:

You still owe money, though? Would you turn down forgiveness? 

Idk. I’m in the favorable position of not having student loans. @arch_8ngel I do agree that fixing the system is the most important, and it would be wrong to wipe out debt without doing so, but not vice versa.

Not at all. I would take any or all of a loan forgiveness in a minute. My student loans are all private though. It's highly unlikely I would receive any from any government bill. Plus, it would be super unfair to the lending company that refinanced me at an excellent rate(VSAC 2.7% back in 2007).

I agree with the point where it would suck and feel unfair to have entered a trade for the purpose of avoiding student debt just to watch your peers get their debt forgiven with the stroke of a pen. I like @arch_8ngels idea of easing the debt burden without making it seem like you are doing people who are in student debt trouble a favor. Unless you forgive 50k of student debt and cut me and everyone else a check for the same amount. 

[MrWunderful | 2,927]