Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

AbusesToilets · 18-02-2021 2:21am

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to point out that non stem degrees are valuable and beneficial. To abandon the arts is to abandon a piece of culture and knowledge. You'll also find plenty of knowledgeable people come from arts backgrounds such as history, economics, English or whatever else. You might not necessarily end up working in that field but the degrees tend to be pretty focused on critical thinking which is useful in plenty of fields.

You say university shouldn't be profit focused but you basically just treated academia focused degrees as worthless...

I'm from an arts background fyi and work in a stem field, it's worked to my advantage.

In relation to debt and it being covered, I'd favour forgiveness of some kind for everyone tbh. Means testing for existing debt sounds challenging tbh.

My statement wasn't intended to be disparaging towards Arts degrees. As Gbear alluded to, the problem comes from students accruing massive debt in pursuit of degrees that are of little value when set against prospective employment. That's not a beneficial outcome for anyone, bar the accounts of the Universities.

The problem with saying people who attend the Ivy league colleges and such not being deserving of loan forgiveness, is that graduates are also filling positions in highly demanding fields. There's no downside to freeing people from debt burdens. It creates energy in economy and greatly improves mobility in society. Taking a begrudging view based on appearances of privilege is a very small minded view to hold.

Roanmore · 18-02-2021 2:50pm

Not sure if this is the right place to put this but as the Texas blackouts have been discussed here it's probably the best place.

Anyway, Ted Cruz is trending. He flew to Cancun for Spring Break whilst people are freezing to death. Not a good look.
You might say there is nothing he can do about it but other politicians are helping out at warm up shelters, phone lines, etc.
Not sure what his majority was the last time but between this and his roles in The Big Lie surely they can't elect him again?

Water John · 18-02-2021 2:58pm

MadYaker wrote: »

My cousin (a son of working class irish imigrants) went to Harvard and his parents re-mortgaged their house that they'd bought over there to pay for it. Not everyone who goes to Harvard is a millionaire but I agree with the essence of your point, if they're going to do it it should be means tested.

Really wrong that any family should have to remortgage for an education.

Tell me how · 18-02-2021 6:39pm

Water John wrote: »

Really wrong that any family should have to remortgage for an education.

The topic of education, it's funding and the notoriety of the institution is nearly worthy of a thread all on its own.

Education is by and large something undertaken so as to enable someone to get a job. The market place, given what it is, has evolved so that often people with the same job are on different rates of pay. And there is evidence that those with qualifications from particular institutes, are more likely to be considered for the roles with the higher amount of pay.

Say, if you want to be a lawyer, you need an undergraduate degree, a lawyers degree (JD) and pass various tests and the bar exam outside of this.

But, if you are a Harvard qualified JD rather than University of Arkansas JD, then it seems you will likely be applying for less well paying roles. Or have less expectation of being considered for these roles might be more accurate to say.

So, given the difference in opportunities as a consequence of education, is it unreasonable to expect to have to pay more for that education?
If you were looking at a potential salary difference of 100K a year 5 years after qualifying, might that not justify pushing the boat out to get that higher cost place in one particular college?

I can understand why it is like this, but I am not sure I agree with it (pretty sure I don't in fact). I think this has created a class based segregated access to education which then continues in to employment and opportunities thereafter and thus the cycle repeats. But, how do you change it in a system in which places at such schools are granted in the manner in which they are.

The higher education does not automatically bestow higher values on an individual. Ted Cruz is Harvard educated and flew to Mexico for vacation yesterday while Texas is in a state of emergency. Before he left, he wrote to Biden asking for federal support while previously he voted against Federal support for other states after climate catastrophes.

18-02-2021 8:41pm

Water John wrote: »

Really wrong that any family should have to remortgage for an education.

Creeping into a few countries. A degree in the U.K. for example cost nearly 40,000 sterling, and not just for the likes of Oxford.
Following U.S. style policies in relation to health care, education etc is something that the Tories seem hell bent on doing and it's going to mess up peoples lives even more over there in the future.
It's something to be wary of happening here under FG/FF.

Gbear · 18-02-2021 10:06pm

AOC coming sticking to her guns on student loan forgiveness.

Seems a decent point on the face of it.

I would have thought that generally speaking those with the lowest level of inter-generational wealth - working class families, minority communities, etc, would be the ones that would gain the greatest benefit from getting a debt writeoff, and would likely pump the most back into the economy.

Most of the criticisms I've seen about this policy seem to revolve around an issue of moral hazard. I'm not sure I've seen much in the way of economic arguments against it being an effective stimulus for the middle class.

For all the talk of it being perceived as a stiumulus for elites who don't need it, I don't think I've seen a breakdown of who would benefit and by how much.

Water John · 18-02-2021 10:11pm

Moral hazard only applies to little people. It doesn't apply to things like the Financial Markets, banks and their elites.

whysobecause · 19-02-2021 5:21pm

Thanks to Biden, I found out that Blacks and Hispanics aren't smart.

"A lot of people don't know how to register. Not everybody in the community, in the Hispanic and African American community, particularly in rural areas that are distant and/or inner city districts know how to use, know how to get online to determine how to get in line for that COVID vaccination at the Walgreens or at the particular store."

https://twitter.com/CaliforniaPanda/status/1361864216509091840

Tell me how · 19-02-2021 6:00pm

whysobecause wrote: »

Thanks to Biden, I found out that Blacks and Hispanics aren't smart.

"A lot of people don't know how to register. Not everybody in the community, in the Hispanic and African American community, particularly in rural areas that are distant and/or inner city districts know how to use, know how to get online to determine how to get in line for that COVID vaccination at the Walgreens or at the particular store."

https://twitter.com/CaliforniaPanda/status/1361864216509091840

Nowhere in the text of the tweet you quoted does he say this.
I know more about your level of intelligence than I do that of the Hispanic and Black people as a consequence of your post.

Manic Moran · 19-02-2021 6:02pm

Gbear wrote: »

Most of the criticisms I've seen about this policy seem to revolve around an issue of moral hazard. I'm not sure I've seen much in the way of economic arguments against it being an effective stimulus for the middle class.

Then issue a stimulus to the middle class, not the students-who-have-not-yet-paid-off-their-loan class. It's how the current stimulus cheques are working, they peter out in value the higher on the income scale you are.

I agree it's a moral hazard thing, and I submit that people are often conflating two entirely different issues.

1) Should education be re-worked so that people don't need to go hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get said education? (Either by regulating the cost, or by providing government financial assistance)

2) Should those who have already borrowed for their education, and not yet paid it back, be relieved of their obligations to do so?

I believe you will find much less resistance to (1), and it's a long-term fix which applies equally to every class of person than to (2) which applies only to a subsection of otherwise equally situated people. However, much of the argument I'm seeing online revolves around (1) when attempting to justify (2).

TomOnBoard · 19-02-2021 6:06pm

Water John wrote: »

Moral hazard only applies to little people. It doesn't apply to things like the Financial Markets, banks and their elites.

Just like Socialism really.

If the little people seek/get help from the Government when they need it, that's Socialism...
If the elites/Wall St seek/get help from the Government when they need it, that's Capitalism...

Sooo many 'isms'... So little humanity...

Professor Moriarty · 19-02-2021 7:29pm

whysobecause wrote: »

Thanks to Biden, I found out that Blacks and Hispanics aren't smart.

"A lot of people don't know how to register. Not everybody in the community, in the Hispanic and African American community, particularly in rural areas that are distant and/or inner city districts know how to use, know how to get online to determine how to get in line for that COVID vaccination at the Walgreens or at the particular store."

https://twitter.com/CaliforniaPanda/status/1361864216509091840

If you actually believe that...Wow. If you're a troll and knowingly put that up...Wow. If you don't know what you're posting because you're that stupid...Wow.

Gbear · 19-02-2021 7:48pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Then issue a stimulus to the middle class, not the students-who-have-not-yet-paid-off-their-loan class. It's how the current stimulus cheques are working, they peter out in value the higher on the income scale you are.

From a budgetary point of view, is paying direct stimulus the same as paying owed debt?

If you had to pay 250k student debt at 5% APR (just using big round numbers), that's equivalent to the bones of 1500 quid a month for 30 years. You'd pay nearly the same amount again as the principle in interest.

I don't know that making a commitment to pay people in x group 1500 quid a month for 30 years, to spend on what they like, including student loans, would cost the same as cancelling the debt, either through writing it off if it's owed to government, or taking on additional debt to pay off the principle to the banks.

If nothing else, it'd be the difference in interest rates for the students vs government debt, which I assume is much cheaper.

If there is a moral case to be made for preventing future students from getting into debt in a predatory third level education system, then there's a moral case for bailing out those who've already been caught up in it. The contention is that those who've gone into astronomical debt have been wronged (at least in some cases), and not that they've incidentally taken on massive debt.

If there is an issue about means testing, that's a maths problem. The cost benefit would depend heavily on whether the savings made were worth the number of people who might be excluded who shouldn't be.

Tell me how · 19-02-2021 8:24pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Then issue a stimulus to the middle class, not the students-who-have-not-yet-paid-off-their-loan class. It's how the current stimulus cheques are working, they peter out in value the higher on the income scale you are.

I agree it's a moral hazard thing, and I submit that people are often conflating two entirely different issues.

1) Should education be re-worked so that people don't need to go hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get said education? (Either by regulating the cost, or by providing government financial assistance)

2) Should those who have already borrowed for their education, and not yet paid it back, be relieved of their obligations to do so?

I believe you will find much less resistance to (1), and it's a long-term fix which applies equally to every class of person than to (2) which applies only to a subsection of otherwise equally situated people. However, much of the argument I'm seeing online revolves around (1) when attempting to justify (2).

I think resolving 1 isn't necessarily a straightforward thing. Education in the US (Certainly at the University level) is a business. Big business. And many of the institutes aren't overly concerned with taking on a more benevolent role. Take Yale University for example, It's the 4th largest property owner in New Haven, but only pays property tax on 3% of it.
They'll be fine if someone doesn't have to pay so much to go to college, but someone is gonna have to pay it. This is further evidenced with none of the universities waiving their fees this and last semester even though all classes were online.

Overcoming issue 2 with a one of solution would be problematic for those who paid off their loans previously, and opens the question as to what will happen in future.

Maybe legislation to cap interest rates at a tracker above inflation with some sort of interest freeze or government contribution until the student has graduated would be a more realistic path forward with existing loans restructured to this effect but even as I type that I can see certain stakeholders having an issue with it.

Manic Moran · 19-02-2021 10:19pm

Gbear wrote: »

If there is a moral case to be made for preventing future students from getting into debt in a predatory third level education system, then there's a moral case for bailing out those who've already been caught up in it. The contention is that those who've gone into astronomical debt have been wronged (at least in some cases), and not that they've incidentally taken on massive debt.

Is it?

My wife has student debt, she knew exactly what she was getting in for when she signed the paperwork. How was she 'wronged'? It's not as if they went "Surprise! It's actually twice the principal and we are going to charge interest!"

Some people looked at the cost of university and joined the military for the college benefits. Some decided to go to a trade school instead of college. Some decided to go for the student debt. Who was 'wronged' by the system? Much though I wouldn't mind if $50k were wiped from my wife's balance, how is it equitable?

Then there are classmates who worked their assess off or make life sacrifices to pay off their debts early compared to others who took out the same loan on the same terms. Why should any of the above be placed in an inferior position because they took different routes? This is where I'm going with the moral problem.

It's like saying that because there's an affordability crisis, the government is going to pay off a quarter million on your mortgage. The person next to you who bought the identical house at the same cost on the same terms at the same date but paid it off at double the rate is going to be extremely pissed off if you get, in effect, a free gift of a ton of cash and he doesn't. So is the person across the street who looked at the numbers and decided he was going to rent and save the difference instead of take out a mortgage in the first place, and then realises that his landlord has just had his mortgage paid off. That's why I'm saying that such relief should be applied equally to everyone regardless of if they currently have an outstanding student debt. The student debt was a choice.

This isn't anything to do with 'class' splits. This concept attacks people of originally equal social or financial status differently depending on the decisions that they made with their money, all of which, at the time, would have made perfect sense. If my wife can get debt relief, I want mortgage relief. I'm paying a hell of a lot more on the mortgage than she is on student debt, I suspect that's typical for most. Or at least the car payment.

MadYaker · 20-02-2021 1:17am

MadYaker wrote: »

My cousin (a son of working class irish imigrants) went to Harvard and his parents re-mortgaged their house that they'd bought over there to pay for it. Not everyone who goes to Harvard is a millionaire but I agree with the essence of your point, if they're going to do it it should be means tested.

Water John wrote: »

Really wrong that any family should have to remortgage for an education.

The cheeky bollix could have gone to a cheaper college!

AbusesToilets · 21-02-2021 7:25pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Then issue a stimulus to the middle class, not the students-who-have-not-yet-paid-off-their-loan class. It's how the current stimulus cheques are working, they peter out in value the higher on the income scale you are.

I agree it's a moral hazard thing, and I submit that people are often conflating two entirely different issues.

1) Should education be re-worked so that people don't need to go hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get said education? (Either by regulating the cost, or by providing government financial assistance)

2) Should those who have already borrowed for their education, and not yet paid it back, be relieved of their obligations to do so?

I believe you will find much less resistance to (1), and it's a long-term fix which applies equally to every class of person than to (2) which applies only to a subsection of otherwise equally situated people. However, much of the argument I'm seeing online revolves around (1) when attempting to justify (2).

We can clearly see the negative effects of exorbitant debt on those who've been to school in the last 20 odd years. It directly impacts social mobility, economic creativity and opportunity. If the Government can argue that the financial sector needs bailing out, to the tune of billions of dollars, then I fail to see how it can argue against a similar effort for the common citizen.

This is an entirely new situation that wasn't present for those going through University before the 90s/ 00s. The longer this goes unaddressed, the worse it's going to weigh down society. The education industry needs to be reworked, and student debts needs to be forgiven. They aren't mutually exclusive actions.

rosser44 · 22-02-2021 2:13pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If you actually believe that...Wow. If you're a troll and knowingly put that up...Wow. If you don't know what you're posting because you're that stupid...Wow.

Its rinse and repeat from the trump supporters - post doctored or outright false videos/links, get challenged and have their points refuted, then they slink off into the shadows for a day or 2 before they come back and the cycle starts again. :rolleyes:

Water John · 22-02-2021 3:52pm

Biden/Harris and their partners doing a ceremony today for the 500,000 Covid dead.

Itssoeasy · 22-02-2021 3:56pm

Water John wrote: »

Biden/Harris and their partners doing a ceremony today for the 500,000 Covid dead.

Not a surprise. It shouldn’t be a shock when people in power do the things their citizens expect of them in times of need. It’s just the past four years the United States had the political equivalent of a sandwich in a school bag over the summer as their leader. I saw that joe Biden visiting former senator Bob dole which again shouldn’t be shocking but as I said lots of things are because of the previous four years.

Brian? · 22-02-2021 7:34pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

We can clearly see the negative effects of exorbitant debt on those who've been to school in the last 20 odd years. It directly impacts social mobility, economic creativity and opportunity. If the Government can argue that the financial sector needs bailing out, to the tune of billions of dollars, then I fail to see how it can argue against a similar effort for the common citizen.

This is an entirely new situation that wasn't present for those going through University before the 90s/ 00s. The longer this goes unaddressed, the worse it's going to weigh down society. The education industry needs to be reworked, and student debts needs to be forgiven. They aren't mutually exclusive actions.

You are correct. However, it won't win you any votes. It's not a priority for reelection so it won't be done.

The GOP use any sort of social program, which debt forgiveness is, as a stick to beat the Dems with. They cry socialism over every penny spent on normal people.

AbusesToilets · 22-02-2021 8:36pm

Brian? wrote: »

You are correct. However, it won't win you any votes. It's not a priority for reelection so it won't be done.

The GOP use any sort of social program, which debt forgiveness is, as a stick to beat the Dems with. They cry socialism over every penny spent on normal people.

It infuriates me how the Dems fall for that schict over and over. They are always balk at following through on their ideals.

Brian? · 22-02-2021 10:25pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It infuriates me how the Dems fall for that schict over and over. They are always balk at following through on their ideals.

But they aren't really the ideals of the Democrats. Neither party in the US is really a cohesive political party the way they are in Europe. They're more of a coalition who are broadly aligned.

What gets you elected in Idaho or California are completely different things.

pixelburp · 22-02-2021 10:40pm

Brian? wrote: »

But they aren't really the ideals of the Democrats. Neither party in the US is really a cohesive political party the way they are in Europe. They're more of a coalition who are broadly aligned.

What gets you elected in Idaho or California are completely different things.

Agreed. No party that contains Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Munchin and Pelosi all within its ranks can claim to have a unified, singular vision or policy. There's leagues between all four; well, AOC and Sanders at least possess ideological similarity, and are only present in the democrats at all because they're a necessary evil and the least worst option to align themselves to. Heck for a good while IIRC, Sanders wasn't even a Democrat anyway. Say what you will about the Republicans but there isn't anywhere near the same amount of differing opinions and competing ideologies within its core ranks.

L1011 · 22-02-2021 10:43pm

Sanders is not a Democrat now. He was only in briefly during each presidential run.

Tell me how · 23-02-2021 12:48am

L1011 wrote: »

Sanders is not a Democrat now. He was only in briefly during each presidential run.

As long as he is registered as such and in Congress having gotten there on a Democratic ticket, he is.

That aside, why should he have to find a new identity instead of those within his own party who would be on a different wavelength to him?

BonnieSituation · 23-02-2021 12:59am

Tell me how wrote: »

As long as he is registered as such and in Congress having gotten there on a Democratic ticket, he is.

That aside, why should he have to find a new identity instead of those within his own party who would be on a different wavelength to him?

He's neither though. He's an independent who Caucauses with the Dems in the senate.

When running for president of he has joined the party for that period to get the nomination.

Professor Moriarty · 23-02-2021 1:00am

pixelburp wrote: »

Agreed. No party that contains Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Munchin and Pelosi all within its ranks can claim to have a unified, singular vision or policy. There's leagues between all four; well, AOC and Sanders at least possess ideological similarity, and are only present in the democrats at all because they're a necessary evil and the least worst option to align themselves to. Heck for a good while IIRC, Sanders wasn't even a Democrat anyway. Say what you will about the Republicans but there isn't anywhere near the same amount of differing opinions and competing ideologies within its core ranks.

Munchin?

BonnieSituation · 23-02-2021 1:02am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Munchin?

Manchin

Thankfully Mnuchin has been removed from our tellyboxes

Brian? · 23-02-2021 1:09am

Tell me how wrote: »

As long as he is registered as such and in Congress having gotten there on a Democratic ticket, he is.

That aside, why should he have to find a new identity instead of those within his own party who would be on a different wavelength to him?

He never ran as a Democrat, he ran for the Democratic nomination for presidency. Weird, but there you go. He’s a registered independent

Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Comments