Sean O’Brien

[UNCatTech]

At the risk of derailing the thread, I've been saying on these boards for years that student loan forgiveness is a terrible policy. Not defund the police terrible, but still pretty bad. Most people in the country didn't go to college and of those that did a decent percentage didn't take on debt and of those that did another percentage paid theirs off and doesn't like the idea of it getting forgiven after they sacrificed and repaid it.

It also never came with any kind of solution to the college affordability issue, so forgiving debt without that just means we'll be back in the same place in another decade. Democrats also never explained why college debt should be different than mortgage debt or credit card debt, which is more ubiquitous as well. There are lots of other reasons it makes no sense, but I'll stop there.

You know plenty of good policies neglect those who have already passed that area of life.

What little student loan debt i had I paid off years ago. When I went back to school I didn't incur any additional debt.

You know my company recently implemented a policy for paternity leave. This wasn't policy when I had my children, so i didn't recieve the 8 weeks off per child. But I support the policy because it is good policy.

It doesn't matter if I missed out.

 

[UNCatTech]

This is an important point to make. Part of it is on me because the emphasis of the conversations I try to lead are on the economic side of things. This doesn’t mean it’s all one or the other. We all know there are voters who are driven by misogyny and racism. That doesn’t mean everyone who voted for Trump was driven by those things.

I just simply cannot accept the notion that there were so many people voting off pure racism and sexism that the election was impossible for the Democrats to win. If you believe that is what happened, as I’ve said before, then there is no point to politics.

It only took a small number in the right places to chance the outcome. Not everyone.

 

[lawtig02]

Everyone i heard talk about it had a first person answer; no one paid my loans off or what about us not fortunate enough to go to college.

They also believed the advertising that it was money for rich doctors and lawyers.

I was against it at first, until I read more.
First economist equate this to tax cuts from an economic stand point.
Second it wasn't unlimited, there is a cap.
Third, the loan companies actively work to make more money and extend these loans.
Finally reading of people who's total payments paid in were 1.5 to 2 times the original loan value. Yet due to administrative cost during hard times, deferment, etc., they still owed a significant percentage of the original loan, i changed my position.


This goes back to voters not being willing to put the time into understanding what is actually happening since it's easier to believe the advertising starting that lawyers and doctors were getting hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I hear you, and like I said, I’m not opposed to some form of forgiveness from a policy perspective. I just don’t think it can realistically be sold politically. How do you convince the person who has made sacrifices to pay off her own loans to support it? Or the people who never took out loans? Or even the doctors and lawyers who are not getting relief, if they’re not already inclined to a reasonable amount of altruism?

I get that it’s a huge benefit for some people. I get that the lenders are not sympathetic. I get that higher ed in this country is way too expensive. I just don’t think forgiveness will EVER be a salable issue for the Dems.

 

[4thgenheel]

Right. Look at Mexico. All these machismo men that people are talking about just elected a woman president and she what, an 80% approval rating? She also just dog walked Trump.

She is popular because her party implemented policies that affected people’s immediate, material circumstances. This is how you cut through the noise.

yep, i almost mentioned sheinbaum/mexico specifically.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Dems championed Obamacare. Pubs want to destroy it and make health care more expensive and more privatized. Do voters care? No.

Dems built and championed the CFPB to protect ordinary Americans from predatory corporations screwing them over. Pubs attack it and likely will now dismantle it under Trump. Do voters care? No.

Dems passed Dodd-Frank after the financial crisis to protect ordinary Americans from greedy risk-taking by financial institutions. Pubs are dismantling the regulations. Do voters care? No.

Dems champion student loan reform and relief, something that benefits tens of millions of working class Americans. Pubs oppose it at every turn. Do voters care? No.

Dems argue for raising taxes for the rich and corporations. Pubs lower the taxes of rich guys and accelerate growing income inequality. They have been saying tax cuts for the rich will trickle down for decades; but after decades of tax cuts the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. Do voters care? No.

Dems champion unions and fight for them. Pubs pass right-to-work laws that destroy unions everywhere and cater to union-busting billionaires. Do voters care? No. (Heck, the union members themselves don't even care.)


How do you look at all this and conclude that the ideal strategy for Dems is to lean into economic populism? Voters don't reward Dems for economic policies aimed at making the lives of the working class better. The working class either doesn't see that these help them or doesn't care. They consistently react to social and cultural messaging more than economic messaging. MAGA as a movement is far more about cultural dissatisfaction than economic dissatisfaction; the low-propensity voters they turned out care more about being able to joke about minorities without being cancelled and beign able to say stupid things without some academic nerd telling them they're wrong. It has been a wildly successful political movement, one that's about to lead us all off a cliff. Maybe once we hit the bottom, an economic populist message will still work.

Of course one issue we have run into is that Republicans will target certain groups for whom Democrats have historically fought, and tell them that the Democrats have promised them x but have not delivered. And some people within those groups will buy into that and vote Republican because they feel the Dems have let them down. But in doing so, they ignore the fact that, in addition to the fact that Dems don’t have a magic wand they can wave and change everything immediately, the Dems’ inability to deliver fully on x— which they have been fighting for— is due in significant part to the Republicans opposing x and obstructing Dems’ efforts to achieve x.

 

[Enigma94]

Everyone i heard talk about it had a first person answer; no one paid my loans off or what about us not fortunate enough to go to college.

They also believed the advertising that it was money for rich doctors and lawyers.

I was against it at first, until I read more.
First economist equate this to tax cuts from an economic stand point.
Second it wasn't unlimited, there is a cap.
Third, the loan companies actively work to make more money and extend these loans.
Finally reading of people who's total payments paid in were 1.5 to 2 times the original loan value. Yet due to administrative cost during hard times, deferment, etc., they still owed a significant percentage of the original loan, i changed my position.


This goes back to voters not being willing to put the time into understanding what is actually happening since it's easier to believe the advertising starting that lawyers and doctors were getting hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I actually went the other way. I was open to the idea until I learned more about it. On your points above:

- Yes it would be a stimulus to the economy, similar to any break that is given. This doesn't answer why college graduates are more deserving of it than others and it doesn't answer how we pay for it with a massive deficit and debt load. Many small business start-ups are funded using credit card debt. Why not support them with loan forgiveness to stimulate the economy?
- A cap is better than unlimited, but it still doesn't answer any of those questions.
- Yes the loan companies have been protected. I still don't see how that makes student loan forgiveness any better than mortgage loan or credit card forgiveness.
- There are all sorts of horror stories related to people taking on massive student debt and it ballooning on them, but the statistics belie these anecdotes. The average student debt amount is around $35k per year. The average payment is something like $400 per month. It's basically an expensive car payment. The average college graduate earns around $60k per year, so the payment is about 10% of their pay. Hardly a massive hardship, particularly when you realize that college grads way out earn their non-college graduate peers.
- You also haven't provided any reasonable solution to the college affordability problem. If we forgive a trillion dollars of debt, we'll be right back there in a decade without solving that problem, but with the additional burden of moral hazard as others will take on debt and expect it to be forgiven down the road.

None of this addresses the optics of it either. It's simply looked at as a giveaway to the highest earning cohort in the country. We don't have the money to do it and it's bad politics.

 

[superrific]

Because tons of people with student loans have been working hard to pay them off and don't have much interest in subsidizing those who cannot. It's not even that popular among Democrats -- Views toward student loan relief are tied to partisanship and experience with debt - AP-NORC

I wouldn't be opposed to some very limited form of student loan forgiveness as a purely economic/moral matter. But it's absolutely TERRIBLE politics, and of all the "good" things Dems should consider jettisoning to get back in the game, this one is at the top of the list.

We could, you know, make the loans dischargeable in bankruptcy like all other loans.

 

[superrific]

I just simply cannot accept the notion that there were so many people voting off pure racism and sexism that the election was impossible for the Democrats to win. If you believe that is what happened, as I’ve said before, then there is no point to politics.

I'm not sure you appreciate how many law school admissions essays have this exact theme. Especially at places like Yale "Law" School, which is something of a finishing school for political activists who sour on politics.

Yale is obscenely difficult to get into, but as a rural white guy from NC, you can compete on the JD Vance DEI track.

 

[Paine]

I'm not sure you appreciate how many law school admissions essays have this exact theme. Especially at places like Yale "Law" School, which is something of a finishing school for political activists who sour on politics.

Yale is obscenely difficult to get into, but as a rural white guy from NC, you can compete on the JD Vance DEI track.

Not sure what the point of this comment is.

 

[superrific]

Not sure what the point of this comment is.

There are several sub-points.

1. You're not alone.
2. Plenty of smart people come to that same depressing conclusion, that politics have no point. So they go to law school to do policy. And then depending on their cynicism and taste for material things, sometimes they go work on Wall St. See, e.g., Quiz Show
3. When a party is out in the cold, often its young activists find law school a better option than beating their heads against the wall. This is especially true for liberals, as we have less taste for huddling in dark rooms plotting the overthrow of democracy.

And perhaps other points as well. It's an open-ended observation subject to many interpretations. The bit about DEI was just a swipe at the VP.

 

[Paine]

There are several sub-points.

1. You're not alone.
2. Plenty of smart people come to that same depressing conclusion, that politics have no point. So they go to law school to do policy. And then depending on their cynicism and taste for material things, sometimes they go work on Wall St. See, e.g., Quiz Show
3. When a party is out in the cold, often its young activists find law school a better option than beating their heads against the wall. This is especially true for liberals, as we have less taste for huddling in dark rooms plotting the overthrow of democracy.

And perhaps other points as well. It's an open-ended observation subject to many interpretations. The bit about DEI was just a swipe at the VP.

Can’t say I haven’t thought about it, but I think law school would only make me more depressed.

 

[Huh?]

We could, you know, make the loans dischargeable in bankruptcy like all other loans.

Student loans are unique in that the borrow is usually insolvent at the time of the loan. The bankruptcy exception, as I understand it, is because student loans are granted without determination of ability to repay by an individual borrower.

Maybe there's a way to build in a way to discharge them after a certain period of time. That might force the lender to consider overall debt load and the earning power of the contemplated degree. Maybe it's ok that someone can't attend NYU undergrad and Columbia romance languages grad school on 100% loans.

 

[superrific]

Can’t say I haven’t thought about it, but I think law school would only make me more depressed.

Well every law school I've seen has plenty of students like you. You wouldn't have any trouble finding paisanos. That might not be true for Tier III law schools or below, but I would be utterly shocked if it wasn't true at UNC.

 

[Enigma94]

Student loans are unique in that the borrow is usually insolvent at the time of the loan. The bankruptcy exception, as I understand it, is because student loans are granted without determination of ability to repay by an individual borrower.

Maybe there's a way to build in a way to discharge them after a certain period of time. That might force the lender to consider overall debt load and the earning power of the contemplated degree. Maybe it's ok that someone can't attend NYU undergrad and Columbia romance languages grad school on 100% loans.

Right. I think making college loans dischargeable is worth exploring but it will definitely raise borrowing costs and potentially limit choices for those who do take on debt.

 

[superrific]

Student loans are unique in that the borrow is usually insolvent at the time of the loan. The bankruptcy exception, as I understand it, is because student loans are granted without determination of ability to repay by an individual borrower.

Maybe there's a way to build in a way to discharge them after a certain period of time. That might force the lender to consider overall debt load and the earning power of the contemplated degree. Maybe it's ok that someone can't attend NYU undergrad and Columbia romance languages grad school on 100% loans.

1. If by insolvent, you mean having assets less than liabilities, that is by no means unique. That's true of a lot of businesses, which is why they are taking out loans.

2. ASAIK, the bankruptcy exception was put into place because doctors would graduate med school, declare bankruptcy while they were doing their residencies (having resigned themselves to poverty for a few years), and then come out as new attending physicians with big salaries and no debt. Mercedes and BMW dealers everywhere loved this arrangement, but banks and policy makers, less so.

The first wave of gaming the system in this way occurred in the early 1970s, and the bankruptcy laws were reformed shortly thereafter. It wasn't only doctors but they were the most visible and persistent about it. My dad would have done it -- and has said so proudly -- except he got a mostly free ride as an MD/PhD. He also thinks student loan forgiveness is a bunch of bullshit for stupid kids. No, like most MAGAs, consistency is not his strong suit.

3. We should fund graduate education with something like equity, not debt. Debt is the worst way to do it. Professional school should come at the cost of 1% of lifetime earnings or something like that. You'd have to tweak the numbers but that's basically the most efficient way to do it. Alas, we live in America, where there is little appetite for efficiency.

 

[UNCatTech]

True, the dems cannot get anything done if they cannot get elected.

I guess it falls into cultural issues, but LBGTQ rights are very important to me. I have a gay daughter that's worried that her marriage may be nullified now. I know trans people that simply want to live their best lives, even if they cannot dominate sports. I know men that simply like to dress up, and because they choose to dress as a woman instead of a robot or a cartoon character, it becomes the abomination of drag instead of cosplay.

These things are important to me, as well as the economy for everyone. I hate reading stories about people suffering financially in such a rich country. I want better for everyone. Having a good work ethic and being willing to put in the effort in a job should be worth more than it seems to be in the US.

Maybe this is where this goes.

Where are the conservatives that said gay marriage wasn't a target.

House passes resolution calling on Supreme Court to overturn gay marriage ruling

North Dakota House lawmakers voted to support a resolution calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its ruling on gay marriage rights.

www.kfyrtv.com

 

[Zoo_View]

Can’t say I haven’t thought about it, but I think law school would only make me more depressed.

You might like law school.

Practicing law as an attorney might depress you.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

This is especially true for liberals, as we have less taste for huddling in dark rooms plotting the overthrow of democracy.

I’m starting to warm up to the idea.

 

[finesse]

It’s not “look what you made me do.” It’s that the average working person has become so disenchanted of the idea that one party or the other is for working people that they are willing to look anywhere, even to the Republicans. How is this anything but an indictment of Democratic Party policy towards labor?

Because it's the Republican Party catering to bigotry of some type. Show me a single policy toward labor by the Republican Party that is better than the approach of the Democrats. Don't be letting philosophy put blinders on you.

 

[finesse]

It’s a multi-legged stool. Dems have been trying to operate without the economic leg for too long, while leaning too heavily on the social leg. Again, this is not about abandoning social issues. This is about creating a firm economic foundation on which rights for social justice can be more easily fought.

That is also bullshit. The Democrats have been better for the economy for the last 75 years. That educated people like you believe differently is fairly good evidence that people want to believe in the party that caters to their prejudices. The Republicans let you hate any and everybody just as long as you bow down to your betters.