The 2024 Elections in the US, mostly for the POTUS

[jusplay4fun]

I disagree with the dopey “I paid my $20K for my college 30 years ago, so these people should pay too.”

Historical parity is actually a fairly logical argument. Giving people in 2022 more opportunities and favours than their ancestors had is basically discrimination against those ancestors on the basis of nothing other than their age, and age discrimination is illegal.

In the case of student loans, historically citizens didn't go to college and therefore had student loan debts of $0, so historical parity demands the immediate and full forgiveness of all student loan debt. There is also a compelling case for overturning bans on things like abortion (recently overturned) and corporal punishment of your wife (tbc), among others.

Ralf's arguments are silly, nonsensical, and illogical. Nothing new.

[GaryDenton]

I am in favor of politicians keeping campaign promises they ran on. He ran on $10,000 loan forgiveness.
Way to go Joe!
Also, the way this is structured is great.

Biden’s program will cancel $10,000 in student loan debt (and $20,000 for Pell grant recipients); the plan applies to borrowers making less than $125,000 a year ($250,000 for couples).

It won’t apply to the highest end of the income scale, and it won’t wipe out all the debt of those with more modest incomes, but it will lighten their burden, which has been compounded by escalating costs of college education.

As with any issue involving billions of dollars and the question of fairness (many worked hard, sacrificed and paid off student loans), forgiving student loans is polarizing. There are critics to the left of Biden who believe the amount forgiven is too small and this action doesn’t address the root causes of rising college costs. And there are critics on the right who see this as a giveaway.

But the true frustration over Biden’s student loan forgiveness program crosses ideological and party lines and is voiced by people who see it as unfair that 43 million people are being given the kind of break that hasn’t been available to previous generations who paid back their loans.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it “a slap in the face to every family who sacrificed to save for college,” a statement that appears to assume that those benefiting from loan forgiveness aren’t from families who sacrificed to save for college.

But as Time correspondent Charlotte Alter wrote, “when McConnell graduated from the University of Louisville in 1964, annual tuition cost $330 (or roughly $2,500 when adjusted for inflation); today, it costs more than $12,000, a 380% increase.”

As the cost of attending four-year public and private colleges has increased over the last 30 years, federal support has lagged. Pell grants, which are awarded to undergraduate students with exceptional financial need, used to cover almost 80 percent of the cost of a four-year degree, but now, they only cover about one-third of the cost.

Undergraduates with loans, according to the Department of Education, graduate with almost $25,000 in debt.

Directing anger at and casting judgment on borrowers whose loans will be forgiven is wrong. We should be far more concerned about the barriers many face to higher education, how vocational schools can be made more accessible, and how to address the root causes of rising tuition costs.

While we understand why people might fret that the student loan forgiveness program will encourage a get-something-for-nothing attitude, the concern strikes us as off target given how many people have struggled with paying back student loans. In the end, the more accessible education is, the better off we are as a society.

Because someone is eligible for student loan forgiveness doesn’t mean that person didn’t study any harder, didn’t work jobs to support themselves or didn’t sacrifice as much as someone who already has off their loans.

Nor does it mean they will glide through life because they no longer must pay $10,000 to $20,000 in loans. They will spend that money on the necessities of life and put money back into the economy.

Also, it’s best if those whose Paycheck Protection Program loans were forgiven, many Republican politicians, not be so resistant about student loan forgiveness. The same goes for those who have benefited from or celebrated corporate tax cuts.

- https://www.expressnews.com/opinion/edi ... 405542.php

[GaryDenton]

Not given as much publicity but important for these often high interest loans:

Biden has also proposed a new rule that would reform the income-driven repayment system. If you sign up for one of these plans, there’s a cap on the amount you’ll pay each month based on a percentage of your discretionary, or disposable, income — and Biden is reducing this cap to 5% down from 10%–15% for undergraduate loans (for graduate debt, it will be capped at 10%). Any outstanding debt will also be forgiven automatically after 20 years of payments or 10 years if your balance is $12,000 or less.

For people with low incomes, they're also going to raise the amount of income that gets considered nondiscretionary (and thus protected from repayment) in order to guarantee that no borrower earning less than 225% of the federal poverty level (roughly the annual equivalent of a $15 minimum wage) has to make repayments.

Also, your loan balance won’t grow as long you continue to make monthly repayments because this new plan will cover any unpaid monthly interest. If your income is too low to make repayments (as described above), this will still apply to you.

These new rules are going to take about a year to implement, so they should be in effect next summer.

I had to pay back a large amount of student loans and I love this plan for newer graduates.

[GaryDenton]

And, from earlier in the thread - Trump won't be able to run from prison and I am almost positive Hillary will not run again.
I doubt Joe will be the Democratic nominee.

[mookiemcgee]

And, from earlier in the thread - Trump won't be able to run from prison and I am almost positive Hillary will not run again.
I doubt Joe will be the Democratic nominee.

@saxi - can you confirm there are any laws preventing Trump from running for POTUS while in prison?

Who are we kidding, laws don't matter to this guy, he's running.

[jusplay4fun]

Not given as much publicity but important for these often high interest loans:

Biden has also proposed a new rule that would reform the income-driven repayment system. If you sign up for one of these plans, there’s a cap on the amount you’ll pay each month based on a percentage of your discretionary, or disposable, income — and Biden is reducing this cap to 5% down from 10%–15% for undergraduate loans (for graduate debt, it will be capped at 10%). Any outstanding debt will also be forgiven automatically after 20 years of payments or 10 years if your balance is $12,000 or less.

For people with low incomes, they're also going to raise the amount of income that gets considered nondiscretionary (and thus protected from repayment) in order to guarantee that no borrower earning less than 225% of the federal poverty level (roughly the annual equivalent of a $15 minimum wage) has to make repayments.

Also, your loan balance won’t grow as long you continue to make monthly repayments because this new plan will cover any unpaid monthly interest. If your income is too low to make repayments (as described above), this will still apply to you.

These new rules are going to take about a year to implement, so they should be in effect next summer.

I had to pay back a large amount of student loans and I love this plan for newer graduates.

It is difficult to separate you opinion, Gary, from those you quote. Your first cited source blocks me from reading the source itself.

There are good point made in most of your 3 posts. I think arguments can be made for both sides of the argument. I am not totally convinced that this matter of college loan forgiveness is needed. As I said earlier, it benefits those who are well of and going to be even
more well off by impacting costs to those less well off financially. This is not fair, equitable, nor a progressive way to spend money. AND: The larger question of controlling the cost of college does not lend itself to a simple solution; I doubt there is one.

[Doc_Brown]

There are four major problems with the Government paying off the loans completely apart from whether or not it is unfair to others that did work hard to pay them off (note: the loans will be paid, they're not being forgiven, they're just shifted from the person that originally contracted to pay off the loan onto the US taxpayers):
1. This is an additional influx of cash into society at a time when we're already experiencing extremely high inflation. I fully acknowledge there are multiple views on how big an impact this will be since the effect of reducing loans by $10K will largely be spread out over the remaining life of the loan as opposed to an immediate infusion. Still, this is *at best* going to cause a minor increase in inflation and has the potential to be significant.
2. A majority (56%) of student debt is held by people with graduate degrees. These are overwhelmingly from the middle and upper middle class. People with no college degree are largely from the lower to lower middle class. As a result, this program will take money from the lower classes and give it to the upper classes. It is a regressive tax.
3. It will exacerbate the fundamental problem of massive inflation in higher education costs. This program incentives higher education costs. Colleges and Universities will happily soak up the extra money and raise their prices further. The loans are backed by the US Government, so the educational institutions face zero risk at continuing to raise their costs. And a Government attempt to place ceilings on educational spending will turn out just as well as price ceilings do in any other part of the economy (read: not well! See rent controls in NYC for an example).
4. The US taxpayers just incurred a $500B debt burden not via legislative action but by an executive order. We've never before seen such an overreach in that power. Virtually everyone in Congress (including Speaker Pelosi) agreed until recently that there was no way this could be done via executive order and could only happen through the legislative process. And lest you want to handwave this away, note that every presidency (especially when there is a party change) tends to take what the previous administration did just a bit further (see presidential executive orders as well as the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees in the senate) and consider what a President Trump or Desantis might do given this precedent in how executive orders may be used.

[jimboston]

It might not even hold up in the courts and it shouldn’t.

Congress is supposed to “control the purse” not the Executive Branch. This plan is absolutely an overreach of executive power.

Democrats who want this done by EO are hypocrites… they would scream (have screamed) bloody murder when Republican Presidents over-reach.

[mookiemcgee]

There are four major problems with the Government paying off the loans completely apart from whether or not it is unfair to others that did work hard to pay them off (note: the loans will be paid, they're not being forgiven, they're just shifted from the person that originally contracted to pay off the loan onto the US taxpayers):
1. This is an additional influx of cash into society at a time when we're already experiencing extremely high inflation. I fully acknowledge there are multiple views on how big an impact this will be since the effect of reducing loans by $10K will largely be spread out over the remaining life of the loan as opposed to an immediate infusion. Still, this is *at best* going to cause a minor increase in inflation and has the potential to be significant.
2. A majority (56%) of student debt is held by people with graduate degrees. These are overwhelmingly from the middle and upper middle class. People with no college degree are largely from the lower to lower middle class. As a result, this program will take money from the lower classes and give it to the upper classes. It is a regressive tax.
3. It will exacerbate the fundamental problem of massive inflation in higher education costs. This program incentives higher education costs. Colleges and Universities will happily soak up the extra money and raise their prices further. The loans are backed by the US Government, so the educational institutions face zero risk at continuing to raise their costs. And a Government attempt to place ceilings on educational spending will turn out just as well as price ceilings do in any other part of the economy (read: not well! See rent controls in NYC for an example).
4. The US taxpayers just incurred a $500B debt burden not via legislative action but by an executive order. We've never before seen such an overreach in that power. Virtually everyone in Congress (including Speaker Pelosi) agreed until recently that there was no way this could be done via executive order and could only happen through the legislative process. And lest you want to handwave this away, note that every presidency (especially when there is a party change) tends to take what the previous administration did just a bit further (see presidential executive orders as well as the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees in the senate) and consider what a President Trump or Desantis might do given this precedent in how executive orders may be used.

1. I really think this contribution to short term inflation (which is what the Fed is worried about) is grossly overblown. As you pointed out it's vested over a decade and 'people' don't get checks to spend. Money is transfered from Gov't to banks. And these loans have been basically frozen for two years so it makes no material change in the daily spending habits of loan recipients daily lives. I honestly think 'delaying the timeline' again for the pandemic payment freeze another 5 months has a worse affect on short term inflation that all of the canceled debt will.

2. Forgiving debt is not a tax, and calling it regressive when the only people excluded is high income people is disingenuous. I'm guessing you're suggesting that 'USA' taking on 300-500b in debt obligation is a tax, and metriculates down to being a tax on all americans but if thats regressive than your criticism is really of the income tax system.

3. I agree with basically everything here.

4. You can argue the scale is larger, but Trump just did this (granted for a much much smaller amount of money) with money for the wall in 2017. neither party seems to have any interest in limiting executive power. Doubtful this new supreme court will do anything to limit executive power either when these cases make their way there. Sad tbh.

[jusplay4fun]

There are four major problems with the Government paying off the loans completely apart from whether or not it is unfair to others that did work hard to pay them off (note: the loans will be paid, they're not being forgiven, they're just shifted from the person that originally contracted to pay off the loan onto the US taxpayers):
1. This is an additional influx of cash into society at a time when we're already experiencing extremely high inflation. I fully acknowledge there are multiple views on how big an impact this will be since the effect of reducing loans by $10K will largely be spread out over the remaining life of the loan as opposed to an immediate infusion. Still, this is *at best* going to cause a minor increase in inflation and has the potential to be significant.
2. A majority (56%) of student debt is held by people with graduate degrees. These are overwhelmingly from the middle and upper middle class. People with no college degree are largely from the lower to lower middle class. As a result, this program will take money from the lower classes and give it to the upper classes. It is a regressive tax.
3. It will exacerbate the fundamental problem of massive inflation in higher education costs. This program incentives higher education costs. Colleges and Universities will happily soak up the extra money and raise their prices further. The loans are backed by the US Government, so the educational institutions face zero risk at continuing to raise their costs. And a Government attempt to place ceilings on educational spending will turn out just as well as price ceilings do in any other part of the economy (read: not well! See rent controls in NYC for an example).
4. The US taxpayers just incurred a $500B debt burden not via legislative action but by an executive order. We've never before seen such an overreach in that power. Virtually everyone in Congress (including Speaker Pelosi) agreed until recently that there was no way this could be done via executive order and could only happen through the legislative process. And lest you want to handwave this away, note that every presidency (especially when there is a party change) tends to take what the previous administration did just a bit further (see presidential executive orders as well as the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees in the senate) and consider what a President Trump or Desantis might do given this precedent in how executive orders may be used.

1. I really think this contribution to short term inflation (which is what the Fed is worried about) is grossly overblown. As you pointed out it's vested over a decade and 'people' don't get checks to spend. Money is transfered from Gov't to banks. And these loans have been basically frozen for two years so it makes no material change in the daily spending habits of loan recipients daily lives. I honestly think 'delaying the timeline' again for the pandemic payment freeze another 5 months has a worse affect on short term inflation that all of the canceled debt will.

2. Forgiving debt is not a tax, and calling it regressive when the only people excluded is high income people is disingenuous. I'm guessing you're suggesting that 'USA' taking on 300-500b in debt obligation is a tax, and metriculates down to being a tax on all americans but if thats regressive than your criticism is really of the income tax system.

3. I agree with basically everything here.

4. You can argue the scale is larger, but Trump just did this (granted for a much much smaller amount of money) with money for the wall in 2017. neither party seems to have any interest in limiting executive power. Doubtful this new supreme court will do anything to limit executive power either when these cases make their way there. Sad tbh.

Many of those who have college debt have been interviewed and now they plan to buy homes or other large expenses. Creating Demand without increasing supply = INFLATION. I have seen estimates from $300 Billion to another $1 Trillion. That is HUGE, through the entire range of such NEW spending. Because the loans were NOT due does not change spending THAT much; forgiveness of up to $10k (or $20K for some) is significant to those having the debts. If I get a few hundred EXTRA to spend in one month, I may buy a steak instead of hamburger. Extra $10,000? I may buy a new CAR..!

If I get a few hundred EXTRA to spend in one month because the loan repayment is pushed into the future, I know I have to pay it back. FORGIVENESS is a different matter in regards to SPENDING. How the forgiveness is DONE does not matter to me, the one who will buy a a house or a car with this extra money.

Regressive or Progressive here refers to taxes, YES. BUT the mere fact that many of those whose TAX money goes to subsidize COLLEGE even MORE means that those with a college degree earned due to these loans (that now become essentially GRANTS) are EVEN BETTER off financially. As I said, this is a NET flow of money from less educated (and LIKELY to earn less) to those who likely earn MORE and will earn more OVER a lifetime. IS THAT FAIR??? Is that equitable?

For those parents trying to find a way to save money for their children's college, I suggest they invest in a 529 Plan, as I did, for my children.

Forgetting a debt may NOT be a tax, but this action does impact fiscal policy and ADDS to the national debt (AND Interest payment on that debt, as I argued before). BUT HEY, what is another Trillion Dollars???? We just print it..!! RIGHT?? AND because it was done during COVID shut down does NOT justify the action as a prima facia argument. There is a different rational for PPP under the CARES Act.

The price tag for President Joe Biden’s debt forgiveness plan is estimated at a little more than $300 billion.

While it will provide direct financial benefits for some people who now owe money on federal student loans, it comes with another cost: higher inflation.

U.S. inflation is already rising at just below the fastest annual pace in 40 years, prompting the Federal Reserve to aggressively hike interest rates to reduce it, even at the risk of recession. Biden’s plan will make the central bank’s job tougher.

The upward pressure on inflation will result from increased spending by those who see their student debts reduced, as well as from the continuing moratorium on federal loan repayments. This higher demand for consumer goods -- relative to a world without debt relief or a repayment moratorium -- has the effect of driving up prices for current goods and services

[mookiemcgee]

Many of those who have college debt have been interviewed and now they plan to buy homes or other large expenses. Creating Demand without increasing supply = INFLATION. I have seen estimates from $300 Billion to another $1 Trillion. That is HUGE, through the entire range of such NEW spending. Because the loans were NOT due does not change spending THAT much; forgiveness of up to $10k (or $20K for some) is significant to those having the debts. If I get a few hundred EXTRA to spend in one month, I may buy a steak instead of hamburger. Extra $10,000? I may buy a new CAR..!

Many who have debt have been interviewed and now that 10k has been forgiven they are buying a house on a less than $125,000 year income when housing prices are at all time highs everywhere? Sorry, but 10k in debt forgivness over 10 years does not materially change things in terms of short term inflation. These people would have bought homes regardless because they could afford to buy homes. 10k over 10 years is $83/month. These people are buying homes because now they have saved $83/month in debt payments? Are they buying vans down by the river to live in? Even those have $500/month payments right now JP.

Regressive or Progressive here refers to taxes, YES. BUT the mere fact that many of those whose TAX money goes to subsidize COLLEGE even MORE means that those with a college degree earned due to these loans (that now become essentially GRANTS) are EVEN BETTER off financially. As I said, this is a NET flow of money from less educated (and LIKELY to earn less) to those who likely earn MORE and will earn more OVER a lifetime. IS THAT FAIR??? Is that equitable?

"IS THAT FAIR??? Is that equitable?" - Who's the socialist now JP?

If a poor person borrowed 15k for junior college and has it forgiven, but a graduate student with 200k in debt has 10k forgiven... that hurts the poorest the most? You arguement is based on the idea that larger borrowers who go for higher education are dis-proportionally advantaged. when its a flat 10k this just doesn't play out this way. If you are saying that any debt relief is a disadvantage to people who just didn't attend college at all... well that's true but so are tax cuts for anyone who isn't very poor and uneducated.

The 'this is regressive' arguments I'm hearing also miss the other details of the actions, which are geared at making it as progressive as possible:
Pelle grant recipients receive twice benefits, 93% of Pgrants go to kids raised in families who earn less than $60K/year


90% of relief dollars will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year.




It doesn't seem regressive to me.

For those parents trying to find a way to save money for their children's college, I suggest they invest in a 529 Plan, as I did, for my children.

Forgetting a debt may NOT be a tax, but this action does impact fiscal policy and ADDS to the national debt (AND Interest payment on that debt, as I argued before). BUT HEY, what is another Trillion Dollars???? We just print it..!! RIGHT?? AND because it was done during COVID shut down does NOT justify the action as a prima facia argument. There is a different rational for PPP under the CARES Act.

The plan that just passed with almost no republican support had a 300b surplus, the debt relief was designed to be neutral on spending and offset by this surplus. We can argue about if a president should be able to unilaterally do this, again I think he SHOULDN'T... but this act doesn't result in 'printing' any new money or 'borrowing' any new money.

[jimboston]

It doesn't seem regressive to me.

Not for nothing but all your references are from the White House.

You don’t think they;re spinning the statistics to offer the most positive presentation?

[mookiemcgee]

It doesn't seem regressive to me.

Not for nothing but all your references are from the White House.

You don’t think they;re spinning the statistics to offer the most positive presentation?

The first is a direct statistic for 2019-2020 pulled from Dept of Education. Are you suggesting the Dept of Education under Trump was fudging the numbers?

The second is an estimate also based on dept of education numbers around student loan debt. Where do you want them to pull numbers from, Qanon websites on the darkweb?

I'm not here saying everything on the whitehouse website is without bias, I think most of the stuff suggesting anything in here helps keep colleges from increasing their tuition is entirely bogus, but calling this a 'regressive tax' is just wrong.

Seems like maybe y'all just don't want to like it, so it doesn't matter what the action actually says. You'll just scream inflation without looking at the details.

This is a progressive program, targeted at helping low/middle class people and contributed minimally to inflation. It also should not have come to be without the authorization of congress and wouldn't be necessary at all had they allowed student loans to be bankrupt-able. When you dig into the actual minutia of the action, and drown out the background screams of outrage it's quite difficult to come to any other conclusions. Can you imagine the outrage at the Bernie Sanders version of something like this?

[jimboston]

It doesn't seem regressive to me.

Not for nothing but all your references are from the White House.

You don’t think they;re spinning the statistics to offer the most positive presentation?

The first is a direct statistic for 2019-2020 pulled from Dept of Education. Are you suggesting the Dept of Education under Trump was fudging the numbers?

The second is an estimate also based on dept of education numbers around student loan debt. Where do you want them to pull numbers from, Qanon websites on the darkweb?

I'm not here saying everything on the whitehouse website is without bias, I think most of the stuff suggesting anything in here helps keep colleges from increasing their tuition is entirely bogus, but calling this a 'regressive tax' is just wrong.

Seems like maybe y'all just don't want to like it, so it doesn't matter what the action actually says. You'll just scream inflation without looking at the details.

This is a progressive program, targeted at helping low/middle class people and contributed minimally to inflation. It also should not have come to be without the authorization of congress and wouldn't be necessary at all had they allowed student loans to be bankrupt-able. When you dig into the actual minutia of the action, and drown out the background screams of outrage it's quite difficult to come to any other conclusions. Can you imagine the outrage at the Bernie Sanders version of something like this?

Actually, I never screamed inflation… just pointing out your sources are biased.

I don’t like the current plan because …

1) It is a bandaid for one generation (the current generation that still has debt.)… and it doesn’t solve the underlying problem.
(So kids 5-10 years will have the same problem.)

2) It is being done by Executive fiat, and NOT by Congress. Since Congress is supposed to “control the purse” I don’t know how this is legal. What ever happened to the Constitution and Separation of Powers?

[mookiemcgee]

Yeah that's fine Jim. Wasn't specifically calling you out when i wrote that, and we all seem to basically agree with the rest of what you wrote.

Very doubtful this Supreme Court will do much to limit executive power, but I guess we can hope.

[saxitoxin]

4. You can argue the scale is larger, but Trump just did this (granted for a much much smaller amount of money) with money for the wall in 2017.

And both a district court and the 9th Circuit blocked it, leaving Trump with only the $1.3 billion Congress allocated and not the $5 billion he tried to pilfer from the DOD under the guise of an emergency. Which is why this will also be enjoined.

But that's what Biden wants. He knows it's transparently illegal and is hoping - praying - someone will file suit and the courts will block it. It's why he waited until the last possible minute, despite having a legal memo sitting on his desk for the last 12 months. It gives him a giant carrot going into the Midterms: "See, I'm serious about cancelling student debt and committed to my campaign promise. But the courts won't let me by myself. That's why you need to vote Democrat in November, so Congress will authorize it."

It's a crass, disgusting game he's playing with millions of peoples' emotions all for the sake of keeping himself and his courtiers in power. He is a truly wicked and vile old man who not only puts party before country, but himself before party.

[mookiemcgee]

He is a truly wicked and vile old man who not only puts party before country, but himself before party.

isn't this usually something you view favorably in a candidate? Is Saxi team Biden 2024?

[jusplay4fun]

4. You can argue the scale is larger, but Trump just did this (granted for a much much smaller amount of money) with money for the wall in 2017.

And both a district court and the 9th Circuit blocked it, leaving Trump with only the $1.3 billion Congress allocated and not the $5 billion he tried to pilfer from the DOD under the guise of an emergency. Which is why this will also be enjoined.

But that's what Biden wants. He knows it's transparently illegal and is hoping - praying - someone will file suit and the courts will block it. It's why he waited until the last possible minute, despite having a legal memo sitting on his desk for the last 12 months. It gives him a giant carrot going into the Midterms: "See, I'm serious about cancelling student debt and committed to my campaign promise. But the courts won't let me by myself. That's why you need to vote Democrat in November, so Congress will authorize it."

It's a crass, disgusting game he's playing with millions of peoples' emotions all for the sake of keeping himself and his courtiers in power. He is a truly wicked and vile old man who not only puts party before country, but himself before party.

This is Politics and the bad and unpleasant state of Politics is MUCH worse and more vitriolic than ever.

There are those saying we will have a civil war in the USA within 10 years. I seriously doubt such DOOMSDAY predictions. How much hate do you personally see on the streets, in the stores, at places you eat? Do you see big groups sporting MAGA and BLM signs, shirts, clothing, or wearing or carrying such SIGNS of the two sides? NO, but I see a few extremists on both sides in public. The bad discourse and extremists views on Twitter and social media and on some "news" SHOWS is not what all or many Americans believe. I doubt the majority of Americans are on the combinations of the 2 extremists sides (20 +15 < 50%).

Sadly, some politicians embrace some extremists or extremist views to keep themselves in Office. Politics is all about 1) ME ME ME, 2) Keeping ME IN OFFICE, and 3) keeping my opponent from winning my seat, 4) Keeping the other sides OUT of power; 5) what is takes for #1-4.

To me, after the midterm elections in November 2022 (in a few months), the next big question is whether Trump is the nominee of the Republican Party. As I have stated already, I do not think Trump can be re-elected, despite the die-hard supporters he has that is not close to 50% of the electorate. It does not matter how many rallies he has or how many attend his rallies. He has angered too many of those moderates who are the key swing voter block in most elections.

The Democrats will try to use anti-Trump rhetoric, Gun Restrictions, Abortion, the slight reduction in gasoline prices, and college loan forgiveness as their road to victory in November 2022 and 2024. Green energy is not high on the list of concerns for most voters. How many feel about the future and how badly inflation impacts their lives (and possibly Crime) will be a HUGE Factor in the elections of 2022.

[jusplay4fun]

It doesn't seem regressive to me.

Not for nothing but all your references are from the White House.

You don’t think they;re spinning the statistics to offer the most positive presentation?

I agree with JimB here; they're White House references on all of those stats and slide cited in that post by Mookie.

[jimboston]

Very doubtful this Supreme Court will do much to limit executive power, but I guess we can hope.

I think the Court is so biased now that it may strike this down… not because it has a problem with Executive overreach, but be with has a problem with this specific policy and the man putting it forward.

[mookiemcgee]

It doesn't seem regressive to me.

Not for nothing but all your references are from the White House.

You don’t think they;re spinning the statistics to offer the most positive presentation?

I agree with JimB here; they're White House references on all of those stats and slide cited in that post by Mookie.

So one is biased if they use information from the department of education, and put into simple image charts by people who wrote the executive action...

If you don't like the figures i posted, POST COUNTER FIGURES FROM ANOTHER ORGANIZATION. Do you have any sources that say the money is going anywhere different, or you just don't want to agree because the info came from the same people WHO WROTE THE EXEC ACTION that you fundamentally don't agree with. It's important to distinguish facts from opinion...

fact: student loan data is compiled by the dept of education for research purposes.

Please share you alternate authorities on the subject.

[mookiemcgee]

Very doubtful this Supreme Court will do much to limit executive power, but I guess we can hope.

I think the Court is so biased now that it may strike this down… not because it has a problem with Executive overreach, but be with has a problem with this specific policy and the man putting it forward.

I guess we will find out. It's not as clear cut as some of the courts other... leanings and will be interesting to watch.

[jusplay4fun]

Mookie said:

"IS THAT FAIR??? Is that equitable?" - Who's the socialist now JP?

It seems that Mookie did not grasp that I was being facetious.

[jusplay4fun]

There are four major problems with the Government paying off the loans completely apart from whether or not it is unfair to others that did work hard to pay them off (note: the loans will be paid, they're not being forgiven, they're just shifted from the person that originally contracted to pay off the loan onto the US taxpayers):
1. This is an additional influx of cash into society at a time when we're already experiencing extremely high inflation. I fully acknowledge there are multiple views on how big an impact this will be since the effect of reducing loans by $10K will largely be spread out over the remaining life of the loan as opposed to an immediate infusion. Still, this is *at best* going to cause a minor increase in inflation and has the potential to be significant.
2. A majority (56%) of student debt is held by people with graduate degrees. These are overwhelmingly from the middle and upper middle class. People with no college degree are largely from the lower to lower middle class. As a result, this program will take money from the lower classes and give it to the upper classes. It is a regressive tax.
3. It will exacerbate the fundamental problem of massive inflation in higher education costs. This program incentives higher education costs. Colleges and Universities will happily soak up the extra money and raise their prices further. The loans are backed by the US Government, so the educational institutions face zero risk at continuing to raise their costs. And a Government attempt to place ceilings on educational spending will turn out just as well as price ceilings do in any other part of the economy (read: not well! See rent controls in NYC for an example).
4. The US taxpayers just incurred a $500B debt burden not via legislative action but by an executive order. We've never before seen such an overreach in that power. Virtually everyone in Congress (including Speaker Pelosi) agreed until recently that there was no way this could be done via executive order and could only happen through the legislative process. And lest you want to handwave this away, note that every presidency (especially when there is a party change) tends to take what the previous administration did just a bit further (see presidential executive orders as well as the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees in the senate) and consider what a President Trump or Desantis might do given this precedent in how executive orders may be used.

I think that Doc_Brown makes many (4 major) points here (above). I agree with his 4 main points.

Now, on the post below, I am not sure I totally agree with Doc_Brown. I know that I may sound ambivalent, but SOME assistance for some disadvantage student is GOOD for the nation, imo. However, I think that the loan forgiveness has gone TOO FAR to assist SOME students. We are now encouraging bad behavior and encouraging some to get what are basically degrees that are not economically sensible. This reminds me of the Reagan-House Democrats deal that partially "fixed" the immigration issue. By granting Amnesty for SOME 3 million illegal aliens living in the USA at that time, in the 1980's, and making them legal US citizens, the NET impact is to encourage MORE ILLEGAL immigration into the USA that is going on NOW.

Re: The 2024 Elections in the US, mostly for the POTUS
Postby Doc_Brown on Sun Aug 28, 2022 3:30 pm

In addition to allowing student loans to be bankrupted, the Federal government should be completely out of the student loan business. If student loans were handled via private banks the same way any other unsecured loans were handled, there would be a clear risk/reward analysis during the application process. No private bank would ever agree to a $300,000 loan to someone getting a degree with an average starting salary of $30,000, yet the Federal government is perfectly happy to do so. This will snowball into economic pressures to lower the cost of such degrees and (as the number of people graduating with those degrees declines) higher salaries in the longer term.

So the quotes below tie in the immigration issue:

President Ronald Reagan did not make immigration a major focus of his administration. However, he came to support the package of reforms sponsored by Simpson and Mazzoli and signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act into law in November 1986.[1] Upon signing the act at a ceremony held beside the newly-refurbished Statue of Liberty, Reagan said, "The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans."[2]

Provisions
The act required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status and made it illegal to hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants knowingly. The act also legalized certain seasonal agricultural undocumented migrants and undocumented migrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt. Candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of any crime, had been in the country before January 1, 1982, and possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history and government and the English language.[3]

The law established financial and other penalties for those employing undocumented migrants, under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce undocumented migration. Regulations promulgated under the Act introduced the I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

HISTORY
A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants
July 4, 20102:12 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered

As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty -- a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism.

In his renewed push for an immigration overhaul this week, President Obama called for Republican support for a bill to address the growing population of illegal immigrants in the country. This time, however, Republicans know better than to tread near the politically toxic A-word.

Part of this aversion is due to what is widely seen as the failure of Reagan's 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. However, one of the lead authors of the bill says that unlike most immigration reform efforts of the past 20 years, amnesty wasn't the pitfall.

"We used the word 'legalization,' " former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson tells NPR's Guy Raz. "And everybody fell asleep lightly for a while, and we were able to do legalization."

The law granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, yet was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage.

Simpson says the amnesty provision actually saved the act from being a total loss. "It's not perfect, but 2.9 million people came forward. If you can bring one person out of an exploited relationship, that's good enough for me."

Reagan And Amnesty

Nowadays, conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh often invoke the former president as a champion of the conservative agenda. Sean Hannity of Fox News even has a regular segment called "What Would Reagan Do?"

Simpson, however, sees a different person in the president he called a "dear friend."

Reagan "knew that it was not right for people to be abused," Simpson says. "Anybody who's here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights."

Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, agrees. "It was in Ronald Reagan's bones -- it was part of his understanding of America -- that the country was fundamentally open to those who wanted to join us here."

Reagan said as much himself in a televised debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

I will put these quotes also in my immigration thread and encourage discussion there.