Post Left Wing looniness here

Horn6721 said:
Yes to reform!!! YES
But why forgive anyone who has a loan now? That screws everyone else who paid theirs off. It is just to buy votes. I would guess there are more people who paid off loans than who still have them

Bubba?
How is a tax cut in any way analogous to forgiving student loans?
Click to expand...
They are both utilization of public resources.
 
Horn6721 said:
But why forgive anyone who has a loan now? That screws everyone else who paid theirs off. It is just to buy votes. I would guess there are more people who paid off loans than who still have them
Click to expand...

If a mail truck slams into your car and wrecks it, the government is going to pay for the damage even though it screws a bunch of people who didn't rear end your car. The reason why is that the government committed a wrong and damaged you.

Well, the government committed a massive wrong with the student loan and tuition problem and damaged a lot of people. It's not a "market failure." It's a screw-up entirely created by the government.

If you want to be fairer to people who paid off their loans, I wouldn't mind reimbursing them at least to a point. Just because you were able to afford something doesn't mean you didn't get screwed. Again, if the mail truck destroys Bill Gates's car, it's still going to pay him even though he can afford not to be paid. It's about the misconduct causing damage - not the financial status of the victim of the misconduct.

I also wouldn't forgive all debt. I'd determine what portion of the tuition was likely be caused by the crappy policy rather than normal market forces and forgive that. It's not a handout. It's compensatory damages.

Finally, you don't have to generally rob the taxpayer to finance the loan forgiveness program. Personally, I'd levy a tax on the institutions that benefited from the bad policy, which were the universities. I could be talked into taxing other institutions as well, but they're the most obvious.

And again, all of this is would be conditional on major reforms by the education and higher education systems.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that the government is partially responsible, in the end the student and their parents signed the loans. Nobody forced them to like the mail truck ran into them.

I have a niece I dearly love. She was top of her class in high school. She chose a degree that pays $65,000 and really only requires four years of school. She decided to get a masters and then a doctorate in the field even though she had no intention of using the post graduate degrees. Now she complains about her loans and wants them forgiven. That’s on her.
 
Monahorns said:
Yes. That is a minimum. The problem is how much better are the options? Or are they worse?
Click to expand...

Monahorns said:
My continued frustration is the replacements not doing what they said they would do.
Click to expand...

But in the end, I still blame us. True reformers need to step up and run. I think Trustees Bone and Weston are decent. We need more like them and fewer like the others.

Monahorns said:
The Republican brand doesn't stand for conservative, small government, traditional morality anymore, if it ever did. Republicans most commonly support what Democrats pushed 5-10 years ago. I will still vote for Republicans, but this issue is why I am no longer a Republican. My frustration at their defense or promotion of the progressive, liberal agenda forced me to the libertarianism.
Click to expand...

I'd have to look at this on an issue-by-issue basis. I understand the frustration, but I also understand that sometimes fighting on an issue causes more harm than help. For example, I'd like to be see Social Security repealed entirely. However, I know that's political suicide, and if Republicans ran on doing that, we'd never have a Republican elected nationally again. So I don't expect them to try to repeal it, even though not doing so is caving in to a point. However, I do expect them to advocate for reform, which I think is possible though difficult. The point is that I don't want to make perfection the enemy of the good.
 
theiioftx said:
While I agree that the government is partially responsible, in the end the student and their parents signed the loans. Nobody forced them to like the mail truck ran into them.

I have a niece I dearly love. She was top of her class in high school. She chose a degree that pays $65,000 and really only requires four years of school. She decided to get a masters and then a doctorate in the field even though she had no intention of using the post graduate degrees. Now she complains about her loans and wants them forgiven. That’s on her.
Click to expand...

But to what extent is it on her? Maybe she shouldn't have gotten a doctorate, but does that mean the government and her school should get to it screw her as hard as they want? Buyer beware isn't the law and isn't the standard. If you cheat people, they're supposed to be able to make it right even if it turns out that in retrospect they shouldn't have made the transaction at all.

What I would do with your niece is determine what portion of her debt is caused by the normal inflation in higher education since the bad policy began. That part I'd make her pay back. The part that is attributable to the racket, I'd forgive and then impose a surcharge to her university for that amount.
 
I like your compassion for those who were fooled into those loans. How about people who buy cars, houses and boats they cannot afford? At some point, it’s on the individual who made the choice to borrow money.
 
theiioftx said:
I like your compassion for those who were fooled into those loans. How about people who buy cars, houses and boats they cannot afford? At some point, it’s on the individual who made the choice to borrow money.
Click to expand...

Again, it isn't about what they can afford. If your niece won the lottery tomorrow, I'd still say she got fleeced. It's about the racket between the government and universities to artificially inflate the price to her detriment. That's the big difference between this and people buying other things they can't afford. You do know that if a private business did something similar, they could get sued, right? They wouldn't be able to say, "hey nobody made you buy it" and get off.
 
bystander said:
How would that look?

My mother would be F'd without it.
Click to expand...

That's a long story. Now that people are dependent on Social Security, you can't just cut them off. You would need a transition of some kind. Long term, I'd still require people to save for retirement, but I'd make it belong to them instead of the government. For the truly poor elderly, I'd have a government welfare program for them. However, if we had a private retirement system, you'd have very few poor elderly. Most would be pretty wealthy.
 
Mr. Deez said:
That's a long story. Now that people are dependent on Social Security, you can't just cut them off. You would need a transition of some kind. Long term, I'd still require people to save for retirement, but I'd make it belong to them instead of the government. For the truly poor elderly, I'd have a government welfare program for them. However, if we had a private retirement system, you'd have very few poor elderly. Most would be pretty wealthy.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is this: who manages the money? In theory, it's a safety net that is guaranteed. Being able to manage implies you could blow it. Do we want a legion of risk takers who are destitute in the end?
 
Mr. Deez said:
The big difference is that illegal immigrants are wrongdoers. They've broken the law and aren't US citizens. They aren't entitled to anything.

Student loan debtors are our kids. They are American citizens, and not only are they not breaking the law, they're doing exactly what the system we've created told them to do.
Click to expand...

You're right that's a big difference. It's why I said similar (not equal). Forgiving either does noting to prevent the next round from doing the same behavior. What's worse is we've created an environment for American citizens to do what's legal (yet unintelligent) and expect to be bailed out as long as enough others are doing the same behavior. Banks and automobile manufacturers get bailed out each recession, airlines get bailed out each time there's a scary incident, homeowners get bailed out when there's a enough bad loans, students want to get bailed out now. Who's next to the list? Bail out Apple and Google because we can't have foreigners buy our two main cell phone operating system vendors?
 
Wow on this one. An elementary school hires a black man as a DJ. A fellow black man and white woman on the school district’s Equity and Inclusion Committee thought he was a guy in blackface!! When corrected, the complaining black man said, "After sending an email to the principal to express my concern, all I received was that the DJ was a ‘Black man.’ The PTA president responded that; I would like to set the record straight. The **** PTA hired a black man to be our DJ. Please share with me how this is culturally unaware? I know no apology will undo this image, so I will not be offering one. Let me be clear, a Black man, apparently in Black face, is an entirely different discussion than a White person. However, I did not state that the person was White."

Yea, I bet he thought he was a black guy in blackface. :rolleyes1:

‘I Did Not State the Person Was White’: One Scottsdale Diversity Expert Struggles to Face the Truth, Another Apologizes After They Wrongly Accuse An African-American DJ of Wearing Blackface
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
Ok, I'm not judging individual librarians. Mrs. Deez has worked with several, and they're generally decent people. However, it's the same with teachers. Most are solidly left, and they bully and intimidate into silence anyone who doesn't agree with them.

And the library association is clearly run by the worst - much like teacher groups and unions are.
Click to expand...
 
Ban, math books. How is that even possible? Hint:

278646243_10227636251673394_1990024571980100007_n.jpg
 
From my limited reading on this subject this is what I see. The two incendiary questions are not in any Florida textbook. However, why are we merging math with history. I have no problem teaching people about algebra and M. Angelou. But together? That's like chicken and waffles....check that. That's like pickles and a butterscotch ice cream. They don't mix. In this lesson if you knew the history, you wouldn't have to know the math. Damn, I'm almost in line with the mb's of the world on this one.
 
guy4321 said:
You're right that's a big difference. It's why I said similar (not equal).
Click to expand...

A big difference means that it's not similar.

guy4321 said:
Forgiving either does noting to prevent the next round from doing the same behavior.
Click to expand...

You're right. It doesn't. What prevents the next round is the massive reordering of the education system, and like I said, that would have to be a condition of any loan forgiveness.

guy4321 said:
What's worse is we've created an environment for American citizens to do what's legal (yet unintelligent) and expect to be bailed out as long as enough others are doing the same behavior. Banks and automobile manufacturers get bailed out each recession, airlines get bailed out each time there's a scary incident, homeowners get bailed out when there's a enough bad loans, students want to get bailed out now. Who's next to the list? Bail out Apple and Google because we can't have foreigners buy our two main cell phone operating system vendors?
Click to expand...

Again, you're glossing over the distinction with student loans. What was done to student loans wasn't done to airlines and banks. They aren't victims of anything. In fact, they've been getting government goodies for decades. They are far more like the universities that have screwed people than the students.
 
bystander said:
I think the problem is this: who manages the money?
Click to expand...

The money would be managed the way other retirement and pension funds are managed. I wouldn't let the individual just do whatever he or she wanted with it.

bystander said:
In theory, it's a safety net that is guaranteed. Being able to manage implies you could blow it. Do we want a legion of risk takers who are destitute in the end?
Click to expand...

No, we wouldn't want a legion of destitute risk takers in the end. The overwhelming majority of people wouldn't be destitute. If they invested what they now pay into Social Security, they'd have a 401k (or something similar) with a crapload of money in it. For those who truly had nothing, I'd create a welfare program for them that would cost a tiny fraction of what Social Security costs.

Keep in mind that there's no financial upside to Social Security, and there's nothing safe or risk-averse about it. There's no growth, and the principle is lost. I can't imagine a crummier return than that. Your mom isn't getting back the money she paid in or any growth on that money. That money is long gone. She only gets benefits, because the government can rip them off of current taxpayers.
 
Mr. Deez said:
A big difference means that it's not similar.
Click to expand...

Nah. A big difference in two similar things is how you easily tell them a part. My wife and I are very similar. Both born in the same year, college educated, under 6 feet tall, like to watch football, conservative, native English speakers, etc.

But we have a big difference. I'm a guy. She's a gal.
 
guy4321 said:
Nah. A big difference in two similar things is how you easily tell them a part. My wife and I are very similar. Both born in the same year, college educated, under 6 feet tall, like to watch football, conservative, native English speakers, etc.

But we have a big difference. I'm a guy. She's a gal.
Click to expand...

Ok, it's a more consequential difference than that. One group broke the law. The other group didn't. That distinction is enough to justify the death penalty in some situations, so it's pretty important.
 
Mr. Deez said:
But in the end, I still blame us. True reformers need to step up and run. I think Trustees Bone and Weston are decent. We need more like them and fewer like the others.
Click to expand...

That is where we differ. I don't blame voters, but I do agree reform is needed. Bone and Weston have proven they are honest and thoughtful trustees. They have stood against the powers that be and are getting attacked for it.

Mr. Deez said:
I'd have to look at this on an issue-by-issue basis. I understand the frustration, but I also understand that sometimes fighting on an issue causes more harm than help. For example, I'd like to be see Social Security repealed entirely. However, I know that's political suicide, and if Republicans ran on doing that, we'd never have a Republican elected nationally again. So I don't expect them to try to repeal it, even though not doing so is caving in to a point. However, I do expect them to advocate for reform, which I think is possible though difficult. The point is that I don't want to make perfection the enemy of the good.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It is candidate-by-candidate and issue-by-issue. There are many issues that should be worked on before Social Security for the reasons you give. Show that reducing government interventions can work. Show that conservatives can be trusted to increase freedom and prosperity on other issues. Then maybe something like Social Security can be addressed.

My frustration is around an unwillingness to work on things that Republican voters and conservatives want and will elect candidates to do. Republicans aren't reliably working on those issues with the level of power they have been given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top