Octopus Overlords

em2nought wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 12:30 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 2:00 am It also cheeses off just about everyone who hates to see someone else get ahead.

It also cheeses off just about everyone who hates to see someone else "unfairly" get ahead. Fixed that for you.

When this happens I hope they just give the money to the debtor without and other stipulations, and we'll see if they choose to pay off their loan or not.

But you're perfectly fine when Trump and his cronies give an even bigger break to corporations, right?

screw the common people who work hard to send their kids to college to get ahead! I want the rich CEOs to get all the breaks! That is the Trump way!

Sinema held the line for an even narrower group — the VC deal managers who get carried interests.

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:46 pmIt's also proposing:

The Department is also proposing a rule to create a new income-driven repayment plan that will substantially reduce future monthly payments for lower- and middle-income borrowers. The proposed rule would protect more income from loan payments. It would cut in half—from 10% to 5% of discretionary income—the amount that borrowers have to pay each month on their undergraduate loans, while borrowers with both undergraduate and graduate loans will pay a weighted average rate. It would also raise the amount of income that is considered nondiscretionary income and therefore protected from repayment. The rule would also forgive loan balances after 10 years of payments, instead of the current 20 years under many income-driven repayment plans, for borrowers with original loan balances of $12,000 or less. Additionally, the proposed rule would fully cover the borrower’s unpaid monthly interest, so that—unlike with current income-driven repayment plans—a borrower’s loan balance will not grow so long as they are making their required monthly payments.

.

The $10k/$20k handouts are getting 95% of the press coverage (because free money wheee!), but your bolded line is the big deal IMO. We still have a broken system, but loans ballooning while people made required payments is/was a major part of the problem. Simply ensuring that folks making their payments don't see their balances increase seems like a huge step.

Which in context is a baby step across the Grand Canyon, but it's something.

*sigh*



You do you, Indiana.

Jesus that's grim.

Best take I've seen so far is noting that the airwaves are full of Boomers complaining about how it's not fair that people get debt forgiveness. So for the generations raised by Boomers and having been constantly told while we were growing that life isn't fair, enjoy the same advice.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 3:21 pmBest take I've seen so far is noting that the airwaves are full of Boomers complaining about how it's not fair that people get debt forgiveness. So for the generations raised by Boomers and having been constantly told while we were growing that life isn't fair, enjoy the same advice.

If we ever cure cancer, the angst from the had-cancer-and-beat-it folks will be unbearable.

That's a pretty shitty analogy/joke.

As a cancer survivor (so far!) and someone who has paid off my own student loan debt, I'm cool with it. I haven't been elected to represent all cancer survivors/student loan debt payers, though.

… yet.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 3:40 pm As a cancer survivor (so far!) and someone who has paid off my own student loan debt, I'm cool with it. I haven't been elected to represent all cancer survivors/student loan debt payers, though.

I'd vote for you.

I kind of think these memes are inaccurate in a real way. The more accurate picture would continue to the right and add another set with even more people down the tracks with more people and then another bigger group of people. Rinse. Repeat.

I love trolley problems like hepcat loves Pastepot Pete. Well maybe not quite that much.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:31 pm I kind of think these memes are inaccurate in a real way. The more accurate picture would continue to the right and add another set with even more people down the tracks with more people and then another bigger group of people. Rinse. Repeat.

No need to make it byzantine. It gets the point across as is.

Zaxxon wrote:The $10k/$20k handouts are getting 95% of the press coverage (because free money wheee!), but your bolded line is the big deal IMO. We still have a broken system, but loans ballooning while people made required payments is/was a major part of the problem.

Amen.

My sister-in-law qualified for $10,000 in relief. After that's applied, she'll owe the exact amount she borrowed 8 years ago.

This is from someone who not only never missed a payment, but is actively using her degree in her career of choice. So any arguments that all these loans are coming from "worthless degrees" or people who don't want to pay their debt or some other claim is bullshit.

I certainly agree with the concept that we need to reform the costs of higher education, but given that I'd like to go back to making state colleges nearly free I'm at the other end of the spectrum. The amount of angst coming from people who are happy to see tax breaks so that multi millionaires can afford another yacht is striking. I can't fathom it.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:47 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:31 pm I kind of think these memes are inaccurate in a real way. The more accurate picture would continue to the right and add another set with even more people down the tracks with more people and then another bigger group of people. Rinse. Repeat.

No need to make it byzantine. It gets the point across as is.

If the point is to mislead then sure it does that. It heavily implies there is no cost to take the clear track and that's simply not true. I have no problem helping folks but there are costs and pretending there aren't is unserious behavior.

It's just snark.

Speaking of which.

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene had $183,504 in PPP loans forgiven.

Congressman Vern Buchanan had over $2.3 million in PPP loans forgiven.

Congressman Markwayne Mullin had over $1.4 million in PPP loans forgiven

Congressman Mike Kelly had $987,237 in PPP loans forgiven.

Congressman Matt Gaetz had $482,321 in PPP loans forgiven.

The idea that Marjorie Taylor Greene is in the "educated" demographic should chill you to your core.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:41 pm I love trolley problems like hepcat loves Pastepot Pete. Well maybe not quite that much.

It’s three words. Paste Pot Pete. Come on, man.

Ego requiem meam causa.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:49 pm The idea that Marjorie Taylor Greene is in the "educated" demographic should chill you to your core.

Well, they couldn't very well tap Boebert.

I want to know why I,a white male am getting screwed again just because I didn't go to college. The president wants to give relief to students only. If you want to help Americans you should help them all.
It's like when I was in the service and married guys got extra money and didn't have live in the barracks. Not to mention I had to work weekends and holidays because I was "single".
I know those others are having a hard time of it but they chose to put themselves in this position.
<sigh>

You weren’t told you had to go to college, and sold a loan that made you dependent to the bank.

But it’s not like you’re paying the taxes to cover the bill. Manchin insisted on additional taxes in the Inflation Reduction Act, so this was effectively prepaid.

dbt1949 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 12:34 am I want to know why I,a white male am getting screwed again just because I didn't go to college. The president wants to give relief to students only. If you want to help Americans you should help them all.
It's like when I was in the service and married guys got extra money and didn't have live in the barracks. Not to mention I had to work weekends and holidays because I was "single".
I know those others are having a hard time of it but they chose to put themselves in this position.
<sigh>

I'm not sure where I come out on all this, dbt, and I don't think you being a white male has a lot to do with it, but I hear you and get where you're coming from.

It's got to be a bitter pill for those who didn't/couldn't go to college to see their tax dollars going to subsidize those that did.

I came from a town in rural PA where many of my classmates did not take out loans to go to college. They took out loans to buy a car to get them to and from their jobs out of high school. Some of them ended up doing well. Some, not so well. I'm guessing none of them are all that keen to be financing the college loans of others.

When we were young college was a value-add. People with a high school education could get by just fine and college kids got rich. Also, college was comparatively cheap. I was able to pay my own way by working my tail off and scraping together various government and private aid and I didn't have to borrow anything. Nowadays college is semi-mandatory for a middle class life and almost nobody can pay their own way anymore.

We decided ages ago that 12 years of schooling would be free. That's no longer enough to make it in the modern economy. It's pretty obvious that we should make at least 14 years of schooling free. Biden made a lot of debt go away, so hooray for that, but debt shouldn't be necessary in the first place, and we can't address that because -- well, you know why.

Kurth wrote:It's got to be a bitter pill for those who didn't/couldn't go to college to see their tax dollars going to subsidize those that did.

This sounds an awful lot like all the old people I’ve had to listen to over the years complain about their taxes going to K-12 education even though they don’t have kids.

As someone who finished paying off his student loans this year, I guess I’m supposed to be all jealous that some people got help when I didn’t. But… I just don’t care.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 1:42 am

dbt1949 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 12:34 am I want to know why I,a white male am getting screwed again just because I didn't go to college. The president wants to give relief to students only. If you want to help Americans you should help them all.
It's like when I was in the service and married guys got extra money and didn't have live in the barracks. Not to mention I had to work weekends and holidays because I was "single".
I know those others are having a hard time of it but they chose to put themselves in this position.
<sigh>

I'm not sure where I come out on all this, dbt, and I don't think you being a white male has a lot to do with it, but I hear you and get where you're coming from.

I'd like to understand how someone like dbt1949 is being screwed. What has been taken away? I'm curious because I hear this and it doesn't make much sense to me.

It's got to be a bitter pill for those who didn't/couldn't go to college to see their tax dollars going to subsidize those that did.

I'm sure they think that true. Unfortunately, this is statistically speaking not true. There are moneyed interests spinning this as a narrative but it's relatively easy to deconstruct the argument (I'll explain this below).

I came from a town in rural PA where many of my classmates did not take out loans to go to college. They took out loans to buy a car to get them to and from their jobs out of high school. Some of them ended up doing well. Some, not so well. I'm guessing none of them are all that keen to be financing the college loans of others.

I think this 'it's regressive' plank is the weakest argument of them all. Firstly, they probably aren't financing it. Most unskilled labor is paying minimal income tax and won't ever be paying for this. The burden will fall squarely on *wealthier* people. I suspect that's why the elite whining is so loud.

The financial impact is relatively small. Everyone throws big numbers around ($200-300B). This is very small compared to safety net outlays. Medicaid/medicare alone are about half that *PER MONTH*. Any American could easily look at their paycheck and realize that ~10% of their pay are paying the boomer's current retirement costs (and people in need with respect to medicaid). But it's more accurate to say it more like ~15% of their pay if you realistically include the employer side of Social Security. Every check. What your buddies from back in PA could wonder about is why they are right now supporting people who arguably lived their lives in the most prosperous time in world history and pulled the ladder up behind them.

That said, I still think this was bad policy but that's mostly looking at root causes. The government partially created this problem in the first place. Education policy pumped so, so much money into schools. And the schools and banks have settled into a groove where they capture something that is calculated at perhaps as much as 60% of future earnings of some students divided between tuition and interest*. Sixty percent?! There is no world where that's apparent to anyone who signs on the dotted line at 18. They are told the opposite. Despite people bemoaning personal responsibility it is too complex for them to figure out. The entire story about upward mobility through education that American society pushes brought many of them into something akin to a fraud. The whole situation is plain old messed up. And we just kicked the can down the road and incentivized the schools and bank to raise prices even more. It's a total mess.

* this number comes from a WaPo op ed I posted above. They reference a recent analysis available here. The actual range is 20-60% with the high end at for profit and 2-year schools. Essentially there is an entire segment of education that "sells" people (often of color) shitty reverse mortgages leveraged on their future labor. It's outrageous the government allowed this but worse they enabled it.

My issue is that most of these loans are by choice. All these people (with outlandish debt) decided to go to a private school or grad school. Undergraduate state schools simply aren't that more expensive (and if so, just recently) than an SUV.

I'm still ok with the way it's being done, and I'm ok with free state university education (with caveats... I think community/military service should be required.)

But we need to stop pretending that university is this crazy horrible burden, when it's not. University of Texas or University of Houston costs less than 60k, and you can probably do it for significantly less. I mean nobody's pretending that cars are this horrible drain on economic America.

Going to Baylor is a burden and I have no sympathy for someone who racks up $120k worth of debt going there.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 8:34 amGoing to Baylor is a burden and I have no sympathy for someone who racks up $120k worth of debt going there.

It's not like all debt is getting wiped out. It's either $10k or $20k. In your example, that Baylor student is still paying at least $100k back whereas someone who went to a more affordable school might have most or all of their loans forgiven.

dbt1949 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 12:34 am I want to know why I,a white male am getting screwed again just because I didn't go to college. The president wants to give relief to students only. If you want to help Americans you should help them all.
It's like when I was in the service and married guys got extra money and didn't have live in the barracks. Not to mention I had to work weekends and holidays because I was "single".
I know those others are having a hard time of it but they chose to put themselves in this position.
<sigh>

I didn't realize Civil War pensions were federally taxed.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 7:09 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:47 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:31 pm I kind of think these memes are inaccurate in a real way. The more accurate picture would continue to the right and add another set with even more people down the tracks with more people and then another bigger group of people. Rinse. Repeat.

No need to make it byzantine. It gets the point across as is.

If the point is to mislead then sure it does that. It heavily implies there is no cost to take the clear track and that's simply not true. I have no problem helping folks but there are costs and pretending there aren't is unserious behavior.

You complain all the time about the Dems not know how to message, yet when presented with a clear image that demonstrates a point - not the whole point certainly, but the main thrust of an argument - you complain that it lacks all the shades of grey in the true situation.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 8:47 am

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 7:09 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:47 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:31 pm I kind of think these memes are inaccurate in a real way. The more accurate picture would continue to the right and add another set with even more people down the tracks with more people and then another bigger group of people. Rinse. Repeat.

No need to make it byzantine. It gets the point across as is.

If the point is to mislead then sure it does that. It heavily implies there is no cost to take the clear track and that's simply not true. I have no problem helping folks but there are costs and pretending there aren't is unserious behavior.

You complain all the time about the Dems not know how to message, yet when presented with a clear image that demonstrates a point - not the whole point certainly, but the main thrust of an argument - you complain that it lacks all the shades of grey in the true situation.

I'm not seeing it as shades of grey. I see it as completely misleading. I feel like I should and do criticize disinformation equally.

Edit: So my stance would be I wish the Democrats could message while not misleading people like the other side does. Maybe there is no way to do that in this current environment though.

dbt1949 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 12:34 am I want to know why I,a white male am getting screwed again just because I didn't go to college. The president wants to give relief to students only. If you want to help Americans you should help them all.
It's like when I was in the service and married guys got extra money and didn't have live in the barracks. Not to mention I had to work weekends and holidays because I was "single".
I know those others are having a hard time of it but they chose to put themselves in this position.
<sigh>

The married people? Yeah, they definitely chose to put themselves in a hard position.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 8:34 am My issue is that most of these loans are by choice. All these people (with outlandish debt) decided to go to a private school or grad school. Undergraduate state schools simply aren't that more expensive (and if so, just recently) than an SUV.

I'm still ok with the way it's being done, and I'm ok with free state university education (with caveats... I think community/military service should be required.)

But we need to stop pretending that university is this crazy horrible burden, when it's not. University of Texas or University of Houston costs less than 60k, and you can probably do it for significantly less. I mean nobody's pretending that cars are this horrible drain on economic America.

Going to Baylor is a burden and I have no sympathy for someone who racks up $120k worth of debt going there.

I have sympathy but I also see an out (currently. The future may change, much how expenses are more difficult to manage than when I went to school). My millennial sister finished undergrad without debt. Her son went into the military and should graduate debt free while also not "living at home". Again, it's been about decisions for them and decisions can mitigate debt for those with tougher decisions to make. Going to community college and transferring. Commuting instead of "getting the college experience", etc... That said, I do have objections to way college loans are done and the way universities are on a treadmill of administrative expense/funding increasing, making education less affordable by making it more "attractive" to wealth.

Note my state still has residential in state tuition rates for now that already come out of my taxes and I'm OK with that. I can't speak to what other states do.

I also looked at the cost of cars and housing vs university debt wage differentials and fail to understand how college debt puts so many underwater. Debt sucks, which is why you should try to avoid it but in the scheme of things the bump a university education gets you salary should easily counteract the additional monthly expense. Especially in an economy where unemployment is next to nothing.

I'm old an out of touch.

Military service also comes with VA medical and the GI Bill.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 10:30 am I'm old an out of touch.

I am also old and out of touch, but I interact with college-age students frequently. I also am currently the steward for a 16.5 year old and I can tell you that from an early age teachers (K-12) have been *hammering* that college is the answer. Everything is focused on getting <18 year olds into colleges and when you express less than fervent desire to attend, the system doesn't know how to respond other than to push harder (which, incidentally isn't helpful).

My point with all this is that more and more I interact with college-aged people that are only in college as a means to an end (employment). And for some of them, that will be enough to get through the 4 year process, but it's not a guarantee. What is more disturbing is that in the last ~10 years the number of students that have told me that their undergraduate degree is worthless (in the job market) and that they need to immediately earn a Masters degree has grown exponentially. Meaning, instead of 4 years of college debt, they've now added 2 more - and many (most?) have zero work experience. So they're graduating with a Masters degree at the age of 23/24 and have little to no practical experience and some absurd level of debt - because they've been told it's the only way to get ahead.

And while I won't dispute having a college degree seems to work out better for those that have one than do not (in the long run and across populations), saddling someone with insane debt before they secure employment seems like a ridiculous burden to expect generations of people to just "deal with".

So I guess I agree with the crowd that suggests the amount of debt and overall cost of earning a degree need to be addressed. But i think we also need to get away from the idea that every graduating high school senior needs to immediately head off to college - especially to try and earn a 4 year degree.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 10:55 am I am also old and out of touch, but I interact with college-age students frequently. I also am currently the steward for a 16.5 year old and I can tell you that from an early age teachers (K-12) have been *hammering* that college is the answer. Everything is focused on getting <18 year olds into colleges and when you express less than fervent desire to attend, the system doesn't know how to respond other than to push harder (which, incidentally isn't helpful).

While I absolutely and vehemently disagree with education doing this, it was no different than when I was in school. College prep started around 4th grade and it was largely the only path. Fortunately for my community, our district was reasonably affluent (even if my family was not) and had some 40,000+ students, so vocational education was still available on a limited basis beginning in the 8th grade and a few very lucky and dedicated individuals could use the resources to truly benefit. Vocation was not central to any education unless the student really pushed and college prep was still pushed on vocational students.

I only imagine less wealthy districts pushed college prep even harder, making remedial education to get a signed paper and get ground into meat the only other option.

My point with all this is that more and more I interact with college-aged people that are only in college as a means to an end (employment). And for some of them, that will be enough to get through the 4 year process, but it's not a guarantee. What is more disturbing is that in the last ~10 years the number of students that have told me that their undergraduate degree is worthless (in the job market) and that they need to immediately earn a Masters degree has grown exponentially. Meaning, instead of 4 years of college debt, they've now added 2 more - and many (most?) have zero work experience. So they're graduating with a Masters degree at the age of 23/24 and have little to no practical experience and some absurd level of debt - because they've been told it's the only way to get ahead.

Question: How much of that is because they can't get the job the want/believe they deserve? My old company was having a hard time filling positions for well paid, well benefited work without the need to fill all the niches. OtOH, unless you were a reason the company was going to get new business for years to come, they were going to work you death. Also they had been experimenting with taking on HS and College kids part time in work shares to give people relevant experience. When I quit they had hired in two of those kid full time... And then proceeded to work them to death... But for really good pay and benefits...

Also, if you are 24 with zero work experience, don't you have to question your choices and expectations, irrespective of what they told you?

But i think we also need to get away from the idea that every graduating high school senior needs to immediately head off to college - especially to try and earn a 4 year degree.

I have believed this and encouraged it in my own little way since I was in high school. It doesn't mean I'm right, but in all of my evolving opinions and perceptions over the last 35 years, this one hasn't changed.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 8:47 am

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 7:09 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:47 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:31 pm I kind of think these memes are inaccurate in a real way. The more accurate picture would continue to the right and add another set with even more people down the tracks with more people and then another bigger group of people. Rinse. Repeat.

No need to make it byzantine. It gets the point across as is.

If the point is to mislead then sure it does that. It heavily implies there is no cost to take the clear track and that's simply not true. I have no problem helping folks but there are costs and pretending there aren't is unserious behavior.

You complain all the time about the Dems not know how to message, yet when presented with a clear image that demonstrates a point - not the whole point certainly, but the main thrust of an argument - you complain that it lacks all the shades of grey in the true situation.

Actually, the original trolley dilemma would be a more accurate, and just as clear, image.

The real case is not "this way saves everyone and that way doesn't." Buts that's what the updated image shows.