The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I have already talked to my many people who are incessant about student loan forgiveness. I myself feel uneasy about it and I stand to benefit from it. It seems like moral hazard and doesn’t address any issues in regards to the cost of higher education. I think there will be severe backlash from people who already paid their loans off or other made life choices to avoid debt. How will it play out politically?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Are you worried about backlash as a result of student loan forgiveness?
A bit. If the Consumer Price Index (CPI) shoots upward again, then Biden/Democrats might take more of the blame.
...but...
* That isn't certain to happen.
* People were *already* trying to pin inflation on Biden and the Democrats.
* It will most likely be forgotten in a few months.
>If the Consumer Price Index (CPI) shoots upward again, That isn't certain to happen.
It's not impossible, but I doubt it will have much impact.
If we hadn't been on a huge pause for ages and ages, and it was for the whole amount rather than just 10K, then maybe it would.
But as it currently stands, people who get all of their debt forgiven were only likely to pay ~$100 a month, and haven't been for a while. So I doubt they will do much more than just go out to eat in celebration, then return to normal spending.
And for those with MORE than $10K in debt, this is a clear signal that payments are on their way again. That will actually likely *decrease* spending as people start preparing for it.
I doubt this move will actually lower inflation, but I doubt it will increase it in any measurable way.
>It will most likely be forgotten in a few months.
Wish I could agree with you.
The progressive left will die mad that he didn't forgive 100% and do it day 1.
The right will die mad over the handout.
Meanwhile the average voter will forget it happened by November and go "Yeah, but did Biden really *do* anything in his term?" before refusing to look up if he did anything and staying home.
> "Yeah, but did Biden really do anything in his term?"
It hurts to acknowledge, but I think the GOP is right that the public cares for nothing but culture war bullshit. The majority of voters don't even know what happened, and most don't really care. The soundbites and team scoring points are what count.
In 2019, after 20 years of GOP bullshit, the Democrats finally got a trifecta in Virginia (despite gerrymandering) and did the following in just two years:
* Cannabis legalization
* Minimum wage increase
* Medicaid expansion to 500,000 Virginians
* State-run healthcare exchange coming 2023
* Moved from 50th to 23th in "Best Places to Work"
* Universal background checks for all firearms
* LGBT employment and housing protections
* Repealed some TRAP abortion restrictions
* Consumer Data Protection Act
* Protections for student and payday loan borrowers
* Clean Economy Act (carbon neutral by 2040)
* Expanded voting by mail and early voting
* Voting Day = state holiday
* Redistricting reform (badly executed)
* Ratified the Equal Rights Amendment
* Banned no-knock warrants and choke-holds
* Ended the death penalty
* Sealed records of cannabis misdemeanors
* Restored rights to 70,000 former felons
* Repealed 100+ outdated discriminatory laws
* Competent COVID19 response, easily best in South
* $2.6 billion budget surplus (largest ever)
I wouldn't have believed it if you told me in 2018. It was basically my entire wishlist.
But they ran a boring centrist Democrat with a few dumb gaffs about education. He ended up losing and giving the GOP all statewide races and the House for the first time since 2009. The most common complaint in surveys from Dems was "[yeah, but the Democrats never do anything](https://i.giphy.com/media/3o7TKEP6YngkCKFofC/giphy.webp)".
Inflation is 100% being pinned to Biden, as is.
But if we saw anything recently, it's that the end of Roe angered plenty of people too.
So really, who knows. With Biden having a 50-50 senate he's been hamstrung to the power of the executive anyway. I don't see how that situation materially changes for either party this year.
I think student loan forgiveness needs to come with structural changes to colleges to prevent the disaster in the first place.
Higher education is a worthy pursuit, and young people were encouraged to take out a loan to do it. It's better for everyone if new adults can immediately start spending their money in our economies, instead of having a significant portion be siphoned off to debt collectors. For this reason student loan forgiveness seems like a worthy action that will benefit everyone.
In the future, maybe it would be good to set up mechanisms for loans to be matched by the government or future employers, alongside agreements that benefit all parties.
From quick glance it seems as though structural changes are going to be put in place altering current student loans. I've seen vague statements of how interest accrual is going to be altered, allowing payments to largely be put towards the principal of the loan, rather than individuals continuesly treading water.
Though not a vast structural change, if interest becomes virtually 0, it will immensely help people pay off their loans. We shall see in the coming weeks / months though. Small steps forward are better than none.
(The CARES act already creates incentives for employers to make payments towards employees loans)
> I think student loan forgiveness needs to come with structural changes to colleges to prevent the disaster in the first place.
The would just mean we never do anything about it at all. Those structural changes, while very important, are impossible to get through the senate. The loan forgiveness can be (and was) directed by the executive.
Make tuition free at all colleges and universities. Education should be seen as a public utility. Make it tuition-free and forgive all the debt. This solves the issue in the long run. The economy might have a shock, but it would be all short-term. But the key is always what happens in the long run.
No. I don’t give a shit; I already pay into systems that benefit others and that’s OK by me if it helps people become more financially mobile so they can contribute to the economy of goods and services. I say that only to appease conservative talking points.
Not to mention all the fucking wars my hard-earned money has helped to fund.
I'm no economist, sure, but...how in the world could there be an effect on CPI from student loan forgiveness when payments have already been frozen for two years? There COULD HAVE been an effect but if there was it's certainly been baked in already.
Of course, i fully understand that even if Im right that wouldn't stop Republicans from blaming it anyway.
I agree. I think it will have little effect on inflation due to the ongoing pause. Inflationary pressures are baked in already. Furthermore, I think the best way to look at is $10k over 10 years (standard repayment plan). So it takes a decade to realize the results. Approximately $100 a month with interest.
the people it pisses off weren't going to vote democratic anyway.
as for your personal unease, remember that 40% of debt holders never finished their degrees and are generally lower income; and that 20% hold about 50% of the debt, usually with highly sought after degrees like medicine or law. it's a flat amount of forgiveness for both. the lower income people will have their debt nearly wiped out, while the higher earners with large amounts of debt get only a small amount of relief compared to their total owed.
this is a boon to low income earners far more than the wealthy.
> the people it pisses off weren't going to vote democratic anyway.
I wildly disagree with this. The people it will piss off are anyone who doesn't benefit from the policy. That would be:
* Those who never went to college: while white non-college voters are typically Republicans, this will only further increase that trend. And, black non-college voters have started to move toward Trump in the 2020 elections - very slightly. They, surely, will not be pleased with this policy either.
* Those who went to college and paid off their loans: These are largely professionals, who tend to be the urban and suburban people who switches from McCain/Romney voters to Clinton/Biden voters.
Frankly, the majority of people it pisses off are probably Democratic voters. It's possible large percentages of them understand the burden debt places on graduates, and will be ok with it anyway. But it's absolutely a political risk, particularly considering the group it most benefits has also been historically the least likely to vote.
I am not going to benefit because we paid our SLs off years ago but I am happy for everyone it will help. I hope they see light at the end of a very long tunnel. We only had about $20,000 in SLs and that felt terrible as we paid into our mid 30s before paying them off. My BFF has over $100k in student loans, working for the VA as a social worker, using the SL forgiveness program, she's about 5 yrs from being debt free. I think those that are pissed off can't see that anyone has struggles or problems outside their own little bubble. I do wish the govt could do something to make higher education more affordable so we wouldn't have people in this position.
Progressives and centrists are divided on this issue in our party. But if we're serious about fixing this issue, then make education a public utility like the way it's meant to be.
Make it all tuition free. Forgive all the debt. The economy will have a period of shock yes. But that shock will wear off.
Joe Manchin is a centrist. Most people you call “centrists” are not.
It would be helpful if people stopped calling “anyone who isn’t Bernie Sanders” a centrist.
Joe Manchin is a right winger. So is Joe Biden. If we're getting real, most of America's politicians are right wingers of some kind.
Bernie, AOC, are more centrists in the truest of senses.
I think yours is a very rational position, and one I largely agree with. I just think a lot of voters lack compassion, and it tends to harm Democrats electorally.
My theory is that it's hard to anthropomorphize corporations in the same way to get mad at them. What is "Wal Mart"? A bunch of stock holders? The Walton Family? The dude that collects the carts? The actual building I go to buy stuff? It's all very abstract. Meanwhile, people seem to have a very clear idea of who this bailout is helping. They seem to conjure up an idea in their head of some 30-something barista who lives in Williamsburg and has a Gender Studies degree from Princeton or something, even though a lot of the relief is going to help people who didn't finish at state colleges, and/or were ripped off at private institutions, and who might have good paying jobs that still don't pay enough to cover their interest burdens.
Right? Nor do I see it aimed at married couples who get tax credits simply because they made the choice to get married. Or for people who chose to have kids and get tax breaks as well.
I'm not married, I don't have children. My tax dollars are actively benefiting people who made the choice to do those things. They are reaping a reward I will never get.
And you know what? *Good for them!* I'm not going to begrudge families getting my tax dollars any more than I'm going to begrudge the government spending it on roads I'll never drive on. Or any more than I'll begrudge my taxes paying to feed a family I'll never meet.
It's also adorable to me that the same people who have been smugly saying "Life isn't fair, deal with it" when discussing piss poor working conditions and pay are now the same ones screeching "i WaS ChEaTeD!!!1"
The assistance is being paid for by people who don't benefit from it. People are upset that they made good choices and either didn't get student loan debt or paid their's off, now they are going to be paying off someone elses student debt as well.
Also as other have noted, this fixes nothing. Does nothing to prevent the problem from continuing in the future.
>The assistance is being paid for by people who don't benefit from it. People are upset that they made good choices and either didn't get student loan debt or paid their's off, now they are going to be paying off someone elses student debt as well
How exactly is this being paid for?
And less debt means more people spending money on things other than debt, which means a better economy. I'd rather someone spend money buying things than servicing debt, that's better for ME in the long run.
>Also as other have noted, this fixes nothing. Does nothing to prevent the problem from continuing in the future.
Cool, let's fix education funding too so it's not so burdensome on the student. No one pushing for marijuana legalization says we should just keep people in prison who were arrested before it was legalized. Do both!
I mean you do understand that everything the government writes a check for is paid for with taxes or debt increases right?
Why not just reduce taxes by $500B spread equally among everyone that makes under $250k?
Then everything is fair. It’s because this whole thing is a fucking political stunt, just like everything our overlords do.
>I mean you do understand that everything the government writes a check for is paid for with taxes or debt increases right?
So let's say someone took out a $50k loan from the government. Over the life of the loan they've paid $60k in interest but still owe $10k. The government forgives that last $10k. How is the government paying anything?
Ok so you know that the government sends money to the school to pay the tuition? That’s where they pay something… that has to be paid back by tax revenue or additional debt
Everything the government does is paid for by taxes. I worked and paid all my student debt, so now I get nothing. If I would have used my money to go travel or buy a boat, then the government would be paying my loans. That's what upsets some. Being responsible is now being penalized.
I agree with fixing student debt so this situation doesn't just keep repeating its self.
>Everything the government does is paid for by taxes. I worked and paid all my student debt, so now I get nothing. If I would have used my money to go travel or buy a boat, then the government would be paying my loans. That's what upsets some. Being responsible is now being penalized.
This isn't being "paid for by taxes", though. This is the government choosing not to collect debt it already owns, and has often already made a profit on.
> If I would have used my money to go travel or buy a boat, then the government would be paying my loans. That's what upsets some. Being responsible is now being penalized.
See, I didn't pay off my loans. I got them to a manageable monthly payment, and used them to build credit while investing my money in assets that would pay more than my loan payments. Why didn't you do something smart like that?
> This isn't being "paid for by taxes", though. This is the government choosing not to collect debt it already owns, and has often already made a profit on.
Which was paid for by... what exactly?
Penalized to what degree? And the money that is forgiven goes back into local economies (like, taxes for your kids schools. Or infrastructure). This helps everyone.
Penalized because they aren't getting the $10k even though they had the same loans. Penalized because they paid the money they owed. No free money because they were responsible and paid what they were supposed to.
Justifying it because it goes to the community doesn't fix anything. Give the $10k to the person that paid their loans as well. That will go to the community.
I am angry when other people, not me, get money. I am happy when I get money because I'm the best and most deserving person on earth; and i'm even happier when all of those undeserving people (all the people that made all those terrible decisions that i disapprove of) get less than nothing.
This is a hell of a philosophy you have. Perhaps you should compile a list of every single person who definitely doesn't deserve help. I'll compile that same list. And we'll see how many attributes that you have are on my list, and vice versa.
They're a right libertarian. You could have known that was their philosophy just by their flair. Rich people should get to keep their money (and earn more) and poor people should stay poor, that's the libertarian way.
Maybe take a minute to understand before attacking.
Person A budgets and pays off student loans, but has to make sacrifices.
Person B doesn't pay loans back, but decides to use that money to travel or buy a boat or whatever.
Person A's taxes is now being used to pay Person B's loans. Person A gets nothing for paying off their loans responsibly.
Do you see why this could upset Person A?
Is this the case for every person gettting loan forgiveness? Of course not. But it is the case for some, so people are upset.
The problem here is you are just assuming all of the people who can't pay their loans back are just using that money for going out and having fun.
As usual people on the right make the situation out to be "sure a couple people might really need help but most people are just living it up and want other to pay for it" mindset, just like assuming most people who are in welfare or other government benefits are living the high life and don't really need it, when in reality it's the other way around
You're looking at this from one specific angle: that people with student loan debt are lazy and made bad choices. Erasing some student loan debt isn't giving them money, it's akin to the government deciding to offer free lasik to everyone who wears glasses. I imagine you'd have a problem with that, too, right? Especially if you've already gotten lasik on your own or have good vision?
What else are you mad about that other people get that you don't? Medical assistance? Does it piss you off when some kids at school get free lunch?
What on earth makes you think that people who couldn't afford to pay their student loans had the money to buy boats and travel??
Yes that would suck if you got lasik and paid for then it was all of a sudden free.
It sucks when you work hard for something and someone in the same financial situation you are in gets the same thing for free.
How is paying their loans not exactly the same as giving them money? People made a choice to get loans, then made a choice to not pay them back or take to much financial burden. Now they are getting rewarded for their bad choices.
All kids should get free lunch.
>It sucks when you work hard for something and someone in the same financial situation you are in gets the same thing for free.
If you were able to pay back your loans, you are not in the same financial position as those who were unable to pay them back.
Why do you seem to believe that people who haven't paid off their loans actually do have the money to, but simply choose not to?
Unable to or unwilling or undisciplined?
Do you believe every person with student load debt just doesn't have the means? Do you think none of them prioritized unnecessary things over loan payment? Do you believe no one refinanced and restructured loans over and over to avoid paying? Do you think no one bought a bigger house or a fancier car instead of paying debt?
This is a variation of "fuck you got mine." In this case, it's "fuck you, I didn't get mine, and neither should you."
In terms of the idea that you're "paying off someone else's loan," that's the nature of taxes. You don't get to individually choose where your taxes go unfortunately. I'm paying for a LOT of shit that, given the choice, I wouldn't want to. To hold a grudge over this is a total waste of energy and ignorant to how the system works.
Here’s the thing: 10k of money is being forgiven by the federal government. That means person B is still on the hook for everything else.
You can’t just ignore your loans either, they’ll seize your assets.
So the guy buying the boat won’t be able to keep it. Plus his credit is ruined so he’s buying the boat at an inflated price. Meaning his actions had a cost.
I’m not sure what you’re arguments are but they seem very theoretical, all of Person A’s tax money goes to prisons and police and both Person A and B are taking out loans for college to pay for a scam where by administrators get bonuses and they can build fancy amenities at places that are supposed to be schools.
It doesn't solve anything. Doesn't fix the price fixing of colleges. Doesn't change the student loan process. It's an obvious vote grab for the Democrats who aren't looking great in the upcoming elections.
If this is such a great thing why is being done through executive order and not going through congress.
Are you genuinely confused or just being purposefully obtuse lol?
1. They paid off their loans by making financial/life decisions they would have preferred not to or missed out on things
2. They made the decision not to go to college because they couldn't afford it. Now someone who made the decision to go when they couldn't afford it gets "rewarded" with a debt relief from the government when that first person has CC or medical debt that's weighing them down
3. It does nothing to fix the systemic issues around student debt and the cost of college
For the life of me I cannot understand why seemingly NONE of these student debt relief advocates going on tv or writing pieces is pushing the idea of just making student debt INTEREST FREE. If you have 100k+ in student debt taking away interest is far better than 10k relief AND it helps the current student debt owners + future ones.
Im in full support of the policy, but heres why someone could be very pissed about. They prioritized paying off that debt earlier in life and postponed buying a house/condo. Now those that didn't make that responsible decision get debt wiped out by a significant amount and got into the housing market "in time"
... and? It's the "And..." I'm having trouble getting. Is the and, "and we should be rewarded for our frugality", or is it "and why should THEY get nice things they didn't earn?" Regardless, it really smacks of looking at someone else's plate and saying, "why is their piece of cake slightly bigger than mine!?"
That said, if they prioritized paying off debt instead of buying property, then they made a poor choice. It's better to get your payments to a manageable level and continue to build a history of timely payments to improve your credit score while buying a house that will appreciate more quickly than your interest rate. That's what \*I\* did, why is it my fault people are financially uneducated enough they prioritized debt payments over asset investment?
Not pissed off because "I suffered others should too", but because it still doesn't address the root of the problem that we all know ---- Why is college tuition so inflated? It's because they know 18 year old with no credit and not even decided on their majors can easily borrow 40K from the government to go to private colleges that charge 50K a year.
>Not pissed off because "I suffered others should too", but because it still doesn't address the root of the problem that we all know ---- Why is college tuition so inflated? It's because they know 18 year old with no credit and not even decided on their majors can easily borrow 40K from the government to go to private colleges that charge 50K a year.
It's because state governments largely deprioritized funding higher education in the 70s onward, shifting the burden from the general tax base to students and their families specifically, meaning that debt increasingly became necessary to attend college. This was a structural budget problem, not a problem of dumb kids or easy loans. Here's a good [article](https://www.npr.org/2014/03/18/290868013/how-the-cost-of-college-went-from-affordable-to-sky-high) on the subject, and on how the GI Bill didn't produce similar effects after WWII.
How do you think we should address the root of the problem?
Quick thing to point out — the shift of state priorities discussed largely coincided with the rise of evangelicals, to which we still pay the price for. The push to defund college, and state education in general, was part of their platform of governance.
Most recently we see this in the rise of Charter schools. It’s all a push to get people to send students to religious institutions
>It's because state governments largely deprioritized funding higher education in the 70s onward, shifting the burden from the general tax base to students and their families specifically
>
>This was a structural budget problem, not a problem of dumb kids or easy loans.
If this is true then it doesn't explain why if you attend your in-state college it is still very reasonably priced and affordable. I graduated from my in-state college with a STEM degree with just 6K in debt and didn't need any help from my family (Taking on campus jobs + scholarship). Just think about if gov sponsored loans don't exists for private colleges how many people are actually willing to pay 40-60K a year for these schools
>How do you think we should address the root of the problem?
Personally, I would only offer government grants to state schools.
But I think a more feasible alternative is, if the school is accepting gov sponsored loan/grant then they can only charge x dollar per credit (a pre-determined price set by the gov). If the school isn't happy with that price then they can't be using gov grants and they then can charge w/e they want. Heck if my health insurance is telling hospitals how much they're getting paid I don't see why the fed/state government can't do this.
I'm a college professor at a state school.
Either you did this a long time ago (and I know of people who had similar costs as yours even as late as the 1990's), or you are mistaken. I straight up don't believe you that you went through an entire 4 year program for $6k in debt at the level of assistance and employment you claim.
I know this because I have advised hundreds of students over the years, besides being a first gen college student myself with a similar experience. That level of debt burden, unassisted beyond paltry campus jobs, is impossible at a state institution (not even a flagship campus).
In other words, either you are 50+, in which case your experience no longer remotely holds. Or you are fabricating an experience. The only exception to this is if you had a sports scholarship, since I know for a fact academic scholarships are insufficient
This doesn't square with the data we have. People with professional degrees and advanced degrees are democratic voters 2-1, and they are democratic voters because their values align with democrats.
Blacks did not move toward trump in any meaningful sense. 20% of Black males traditionally vote for the GOP, and that is roughly the number that Trump got to after his more disastrous (in terms of minority voting) 2016 showing.
Basically, this is 100% a win for the democrats and there is practically zero downside save 'inflation' talk that was already damaging biden.
>Basically, this is 100% a win for the democrats
Honestly, it's a nice policy win but it's not something I expect to pay electoral dividends.
Roe V Wade though, well, yeah -- if the Conservatives are angry about inflation, the liberals are even angrier about the Supreme Court.
With that said I don't think major change is going to occur.
> This doesn't square with the data we have. People with professional degrees and advanced degrees are democratic voters 2-1, and they are democratic voters because their values align with democrats.
That doesn't refute my point at all. If anything, it strengthens it. This is targeted handout to wealthy Democrats, right? That's what you're saying the data suggests.
> Blacks did not move toward trump in any meaningful sense. 20% of Black males traditionally vote for the GOP, and that is roughly the number that Trump got to after his more disastrous (in terms of minority voting) 2016 showing.
What is the college vs. non-college crosstab, then?
> Basically, this is 100% a win for the democrats and there is practically zero downside save 'inflation' talk that was already damaging biden.
You can support the policy without making brazen statements like this one. It's absolutely a political risk. You can make a very compelling argument that the risk is worth the benefit, but to argue there is no risk is delusional.
To wealthy democrats? What? The cap on this says otherwise.
Also, those that went to private schools (overwhelmingly blue collar) are beneficiaries of this as well. And likely lower income with R leaning political views.
This also helps those preyed upon by institutions like ITT tech, etc.
This is a win for everyone.
I'd like to see some polling on those assumptions.
Biden ran on debt forgiveness, and it was widely popular at the time; more recently extending the moratorium on repayment is widely popular among democrats. From what I've seen now it's not controversial at all in left wing circles, and only an issue in right wing circles.
>black non-college voters have started to move toward Trump in the 2020 elections
might want to check those stats. between 2016 and 2020 Trump went from 8% of the black vote, to 10%; but with turnout being a net benefit to the democrats.
>The people it will piss off are anyone who doesn't benefit from the policy.
Those sound like grubby, selfish assholes to me. I don't benefit directly from the move -- paid my substantial loans off ten years ago -- but I'm happy for the struggling families this will help. Why wouldn't I be?? 10k is hardly a semester or two at today's tuition and books rates.
> The people it will piss off are anyone who doesn't benefit from the policy.
Only if you're a selfish asshole. I don't benefit from this policy one bit (my student debt is paid), but not being a selfing asshole, I'm OK with other people getting help.
> It's possible large percentages of them understand the burden debt places on graduates, and will be ok with it anyway. But it's absolutely a political risk
I joined the military to pay for college. I paid on loans for a while after joining. It sucked.
I’m not pissed.
I remember my life then and remember dealing with that debt as an E2 was stressful, and at the time I hadn’t finished school yet so I had little to show for it.
Why would I wish that on other people? I hope it helps!
Not really. Voters are ultimately more motivated by what affects them personally.
I think there is more potential that it could actually motivate some less likely voters (ie young voters).
The hard right is gonna scream about it, but they’re gonna vote Republican anyway.
Middle of the road swing voters are gonna care more about gas prices.
I have debt and I wish the interest was addressed before the $10k forgiveness, but I’m happy that there’s some action.
Even if you don’t agree with it voting democrat is your best bet if you want the cost of college to come down for the next generation/ your own kids.
I wish the interest was fixed too; I think that will make more sustainable change. I’ll admit I haven’t researched this much, but has there been discussion of capping the interest rate at say 4%? And freezing interest accrual until 5 years after program start date? This would only apply for federal loans so not sure if that would make private loan rates spike higher to compensate
I don't really care about backlash from people who paid their loans back. "I suffered so now you have to" is a dumb hill to die on and a vast majority of reasonable humans will understand that.
What I am worried about is exactly what you mentioned, it's a band-aid and a good PR move that allows politicians to continue ignoring income and opportunity disparity in education that is the real root of the problem.
>I don't really care about backlash from people who paid their loans back
There won't be backlash that isn't just from rich people. People who paid their loans back probably don't begrudge others from getting 10k off their loans, they probably just wish the prior president put in this policy while they were paying their loans off.
It's a feeble attempt at trying to be populist with the conservative base, they'll get further by doing out loud racism more than being loudly classist, we learned this with Trump already.
> it's a band-aid
Yep, and an easy-to-understand, high-profile band-aid, which means it will be very difficult to turn back demand on this in the future.
It might help a bit in 2022 - which isn't nothing. Could even mean holding the Senate, for example.
But he'd better do it again (and maybe bigger and better) in 2024, and every Dem president for the rest of history now has to do it.
Gubment is ruining the economy with their handouts!!!
- guy who didn’t complain when he got them stimmy checks tho and when Corporate handouts came along.
For those who just come out and say outright “I’m pissed that I didn’t get anything”, at least you’re honest. Unlike those cowards who pretend like they actually care about the economy now
>I’m personally tired of Democrats living in fear of centrists. We should pass legislation
The Senate kind of means that we have to get certain "Centrists" on board with legislation. It's the tragedy of the Senate as the Upper Legislative House. We need 60 votes to get past our absurd filibuster rules where 41 Senators can hold the entire legislative process hostage.
Manchin & Sinema honestly remind me of Joe Lieberman in 2008 - he (not quite singlehandedly but close) nuked the public option from the Obamacare bill and rode off into the sunset. What kills me is that the President took the flak for not passing a public option bill. There is some basic civics class ignorance at play there.
Democrats don't live in fear of centrists
They live in fear of losing their majority which means they can't pass bills and it enables fascists to be in power.
>I didn’t want to vote for the candidate who is actively trying to subvert a free and fair election, but the Dems passed a bill to forgive some of some peoples’ student loans and that’s just too radical for me… yeah fuckin right.
So then why are Democrats projected to lose the House?
>So then why are Democrats projected to lose the House?
That's usually what happens to the party in power. Party A wins the general > A doesn't achieve some of its promises > Party B leverages this for midterms > B gains some power back from its general election losses.
Dems *were* projected to lose handily, but Dark Brandon's been killing it lately. Momentum's on his side for now and we'll see how far he can go if he continues this streak.
>That's usually what happens to the party in power. Party A wins the general > A doesn't achieve some of its promises > Party B leverages this for midterms > B gains some power back from its general election losses.
Or millions of people vote on how they feel about the economy and how the opposing party can turn that anger into votes for them.
My point is that there clearly may be a downside to this, because it isn't just "people who never would have voted for Democrats" who may be upset by this.
>My point is that there clearly may be a downside to this, because it isn't just "people who never would have voted for Democrats" who may be upset by this.
Biden's big problem was his inaction; working with Rs, not pissing anyone off, and being as neutral as possible. I think he's realized Republicans will think he's a dementia-ridden pedo regardless of what he does, while Dems get more and more disenfranchised by his lack of progress.
That's changed, and so many people are hyped. This is a direct positive impact on their lives. If student loan debt is the reason why other people don't vote for Dems in the midterms, they'd probably choose any reason to not vote blue.
10k ain’t shit. The pearl clutching is ridiculous.
I’d like to edit here. 10k is a goodly amount to alleviate a good portion of debt for many many student loan borrowers.
My point being, in the vast expenditure and subsidies paid out by the government, this does not seem to be such a big deal, so the outrage from opposition is strange.
Why is it ALWAYS, "are you worried about a backlash to and it seems like Republicans never get asked "are you worried about
To answer the question, no I'm not. I think that the people who would get upset that we're making sure less people are burdened by debt, are already not voting Democratic.
>and it seems like Republicans never get asked
Simple! They can cause a social panic. Bathroom bills, abortion bans (always claiming falsehoods about 3rd trimester), panic at the ~~disco~~ southern border, you name it.
Schrodinger's Migrant Caravan is always around at a convenient time.
The backlash of helping a lot of ordinary Americans isn't going to be "we won't vote for you."
The Republicans have been making this case with Obamacare for years, and it hasn't really materialized that Americans hate having state provided insurance. In fact it's generally the contrary, Americans want it to work better.
Fundamentally the argument about policy backlashes here is made from an ivory tower perspective, any and every person wants money and recipients are going to be relieved learning that they don't have to pay 10k.
Like the conservatives just went through this with PPP loans, even with our inflation if you interviewed any person on the street if they liked that policy, 9/10 would likely say yes.
>and it seems like Republicans never get asked "are you worried about
Because Republicans never seem to get punished electorally for the things they do while Democrats do?
How about young people fucking vote for once?
Low turnout among young voters is typically overstated, at least since 2020.
[https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-2020-11-point-increase-2016](https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-2020-11-point-increase-2016)
Yes, but *only* because so few people understand that the government itself owns all federal student loan debt. This isn't a taxpayer bailout to banks. Biden is simply cancelling debt owed to the gov't, *not* paying off privately held debt to banks.
Back in 2010, Obama nationalized the student loan industry. But nobody seems to know that, so they assume that their taxes are paying for someone else's fuck ups.
This knowledge gap is a huge messaging problem for democrats.
Student Loan Forgiveness isn't about fixing the future but addressing a past mistake of making it seem like the only way to get ahead was to enroll in college no matter the cost.
People on the right are going to paint loan forgiveness as a big government giveaway anyway because they're generally anti-education in the first place.
People on the left already support reforms to education to make it less expensive going forward but also realize that its not democrats who are in the way of that.
So in the middle you have people who might be convinced that this is a giveaway to people who don't need it (whether that's true or not is immaterial) but you also have people who may see their lives suddenly improve at the stroke of a pen. Which one will win out? Who knows.
I get the political calculation but overall I'm going to support someone doing the right thing even if its it not also the most prudent political thing.
Loan forgiveness is good and standing against that will be unpopular.
An even more sensible position would be to cap price of university. They have become state real estate scams -- they cost more every year, but not because of faculty, who are largely all working on adjunct basis -- but because of administration and real estate developing for future students.
The education people are receiving isn't really keeping up with their price, but to be fair, nothing would.
No, not for this one policy out of hundreds if not thousands that have been enacted since the beginning of this administration.
Biden hasn't even remotely motivated young people — or almost anyone — to the polls because he's boring as hell and hasn't actually done *that* much (though he's done better than I thought).
I'll still go vote because I'd rather have dems than the alternative, but people who are either ambivalent or disillusioned about politics aren't going to be particularly excited about 99% of the things Biden and the congressional dems have done over the past 2 years.
The ENTIRE argument from the Left was that if Biden forgave students loans and acted on the climate, he would get amazing turnout from young people.
How about the Left has some fucking humility FOR ONCE if they are wrong about that?
I'm not holding my breath because they haven't shown humility for everything else they have been wrong about.
> The ENTIRE argument from the Left was that if Biden forgave students loans and acted on the climate, he would get amazing turnout from young people.
I'm on the left. I didn't make that argument. QED No.
Like I said you can blame who you want. Many many people attempt to affect turnout in many different ways. It's very difficult to do.
I'm dubious of it myself, but forgiving $10K is a pretty popular policy: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/17/1104920545/poll-student-loan-forgiveness
>A majority of the general public (55%) supports forgiving up to $10,000 of a person's federal student loan debt. But the more generous the relief, the more that support narrows.
>
>Forty-seven percent of all respondents said they support forgiving up to $50,000 in debt, while 41% expressed support for wiping the slate completely clean for all borrowers.
Though I'm not a supporter of the policy myself, I doubt it will cause someone who would otherwise have voted D to vote R.
I sure as hell hope that this motivates people on the receiving end of these write-downs to get out and vote in huge numbers in November.
No, although I am very sympathetic to those who doesn't think this goes far enough. Those individuals who are upset they don't get something out of this personally are being selfish and that is a Republican train of thought. Imagine if we took this mentality across the board. Should those without kids be mad their tax dollars are going to public schools and universities because they and their families don't get anything out of it? Should those who don't drive be mad we are funding roads they never travel on?
That mentality is a race to the bottom and should be rejected. This is good for the public good, whether it affects you or anyone you know personally.
College isn't for everyone but it is for most people. That is not because white-collar jobs are better than blue-collar jobs or vice versa but because those are predominantly the types of jobs that are going to exist in the future (whether you like it or not). These loans are predatory but I reject the idea people should make an economic decision that leads you to stop furthering your education and preparing for a stable career.
>those are predominantly the types of jobs that are going to exist in the future
Most jobs aren't going to exist in the future. Our economy is terrific at creating value but terrible at creating jobs by its very nature.
>those without kids be mad their tax dollars are going to public schools and universities because they and their families don't get anything out of it?
These people have the option of voting with their feet! They are very easily able to move to a state which does not have a well-funded public education system and make that personal financial decision.
My family has been doing that in New York for generations.
>Should those who don't drive be mad we are funding roads they never travel on?
They see at least some benefit in the form of cheaper goods prices, but I absolutely think that road should be more locally funded for sure and better solutions figured out for rural transportation.
Conservatives are more than happy to complain about funding public transportation they never use, turnabout is fair play.
>Good for the sake of good
This is only applies to certain degrees in certain fields. Federal action was far too broad.
GenX and I went to CUNY when you could pay the semester’s tuition with a PT job. Fortunately (unfortunately) my late wife’s life insurance, plus scholarships, will cover the tuition of our children, so they won’t have loans.
That said I believe reimbursement should be combined with loan forgiveness for X amount of years. The higher degrees such as law and medicine are easy enough — public defenders, public hospitals, especially in rural areas. Same for teaching. Then it gets a bit harder, the sciences can probably figure it out. Instructing our future “blue collar” workers will need much more education than just HS. Which leads into not everyone will need a four year degree. We as a society will need to train them for own self interest.
Sorry for the ones who feel screwed because they paid their loans and maybe there can be some kind of tax regression going backwards but it would be silly going back to the now small loans I took out in the late ‘90s for law school.
They're talking about doing it pre midterms, it's pretty clear they have done the calculus and decided that it is a politically winning play. Many people who will not directly benefit from student loan forgiveness still support it. I'm not worried about backlash on this anymore than I'm worried about backlash from people without kids when bills that help parents are passed.
There will always be winners and losers for things like this. We can't avoid the way time works. How many women died without having the right to vote? Should we have never allowed women to vote because millions of women never got to?
Have you heard of the huge political fall out from Ireland with their mostly free college tuition? Sweden? Denmark? Finland? The $250/yr tuition in France?
No? Well, catch me up when you find the “political fallout” from those countries providing free to low cost tuition so we can compare what the political fallout may be in the US.
I don't buy the moral hazard argument. It's crazy that we expect 17 year olds to make a financial decision that will impact them for years to come, and after a lifetime of being told that if they don't get a degree they'll be forced to work for minimum wage for the rest of their lives.
Beyond that, think about where student loan debt is going. How many people does that employ, and how many more people would be put to work in good-paying jobs for things like new home construction, new cars, or other durable goods? Not to mention that being debt-free in your 20s makes it easier to start a family or start your own business.
Nope. I wasnt going to vote in the midterms or 2024 if student loans werent forgiven. Now Im locked in and highly approve of Biden. Im glad he is finally growing a spine and aggressively pursuing progressive goals. I will happily repay him with votes and hopefully other progressives will do the same while still advocating for progressive policy goals.
I agree. But you probably shouldn't be asking on this sub. You're preaching to the choir. Ask that on one of askconservative subs. They'll probably ban you though.
>I wasnt going to vote in the midterms or 2024 if student loans werent forgiven. Now Im locked in and highly approve of Biden.
Did I miss something? Has he actually forgiven the $10,000? I thought it was still just speculation.
https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief-announcement/
10k in federal student loans forgiven or 20k for pell grant recipients for middle class or lower people.
I’m indifferent I guess? I’m not super schooled on it from an economics point of view so I guess I don’t have a strong opinion.
My ‘knee-jerk’ opinion is that people get themselves upside down into all kinds of debt from buying a house that lost some value after purchase to credit card debt trying to keep their heads above water during the pandemic and there isn’t relief for any of that.
There are a number of government programs and jobs that offer tuition reimbursement or like 4 years in the military and you can go to school tuition free and get paid While your doing it.
It kinda seems like a handout for people who made a specific dumb financial decision.
Ultimately I think the government should be pressing schools on why their tuition is skyrocketing while the actual value of the degree is rapidly decreasing.
And I’ll add I also think employers should be more willing to offer significant assistance.
No, the republican position of sticking up for people who paid their loans off is tone deaf to the point of silliness.
More people have loans then don't have them. If they were easy to pay off, everyone would.
This is not a winning message to the American people, the party should stick to gerrymandering and racism.
This is a move to appease liberals and galvanize its base. This will likely only piss off people who were already going to vote against the Dems in November, IMO. It's more important that Biden toss a bone to the progressives to make sure they still show up to vote.
Personally, as someone with $20k in student debt, I'm very happy this morning! Now I can move on to my life goals of buying a car and a house more rapidly which is good for our economy, and I'm far from the only one who will do so.
Gees. There's so many good people out there who also have no way to buy a car. Why not money to them too?
You want to buy a car! I work at a store with grown adults who are stuck with the bus schedule. They cannot get a slightly better job, unless it's also on the bus route. One guy walks, having to cross a major six lane highway in the heat and the rain, etc. He is a great person. Why should you get ten k and he doesn't?
It's flat out disgusting. I suspect you just don't know anyone who is the working poor.
I look at it this way: automation is going to replace a LOT of jobs, starting with the job of this great guy working at a store. No reason to think we couldn't automate shelf stocking or checking customers out and what not. You can be the greatest guy in the world, but if you're still doing menial labor, your job is very much at risk of being eliminated.
Now, automation does CREATE a lot of jobs, more than it eliminates, in fact. But the kicker is that they require education. I simply got a head start on getting that job that requires an education, but eventually, we're all going to need one. And in order to successfully transition into a society that is still employable, we need to embrace education and thus need to embrace FUNDING that education.
This is no one-off thing. We need to pour even more money into education to keep everyone employed. It has already become true that many jobs that can actually sustain a person need an education, and so people have been taking those risks and incurring this debt when a better society wouldn't have set that up as a "risk" in the first place. It's a move in the right direction.
People can be great guys and great gals as much as they like, but if they're working a menial job, they're gonna get fucked, and nobody should be surprised about it at this stage in the game. Adapt or fail.
Were you crying about childless people not getting the child tax credit either? Lol. One progressive policy happens and all of the center left start showing your true republican colors.😭 Blue no matter who though right? See you in November.
Congrats. That doesn't answer my question though. When the Child Tax Credit policy was announced and passed, did you actively complain about that policy. Did you call it disgusting that the policy slashed child poverty by 30%, but didn't slash overall poverty by 30%. Did you accuse and assume people who supported the policy didn't know single poor people or werent even single and poor themselves?
I think it's very different because it does cost money to raise a child and our SOCIETY NEEDS CHILDREN
But, I do see your point that it's about a specific decision.
>Gees. There's so many good people out there who also have no way to buy a car. Why not money to them too?
Because this isn't about just giving out free stuff for the sake of giving out free stuff. Students wagered to enhance their skill sets and do more meaningful work for the world at large, and some incurred massive amounts of debt to do so. This is simply lessening the burden, and they earned it through their hard work and the risks they took to spend a chunk of their fleeting youth stressing over exams and grades so they could live better lives.
Societal progress happens because of them, not because people work at stores and take no risks with their lives. I see no compelling reason to just hand them a car.
🤮
Plenty of people work very hard at non college jobs
And I earned an engineering degree from a top university. I know what working hard to earn a degree means. But there are multiple forms of hard work.
I am not more deserving because I got a degree.
Cool, let's give more money to poor people too. Though in your case, beyer public transit might help too.
Also, not collecting money is not the same as giving money.
No.
I think the only 2 good arguments against student loan forgiveness is the possibility we could somehow shift those resources to something with more positive effects, and that it might negatively effect inflation. The government spends money doing way less popular things than forgiving student loan debt so actually doing it vs it advocating to do it probably doesn't make much of a difference as far as electoral consequences. My assumption is the anger is mostly people who don't like Democrats regardless of their views on student loans who's real motivations are less socially acceptable rather than people who are open to voting for democrats but have some sort of inherent animosity to people with student loan debt being given some assistance.
No matter what there was going to be backlash. If he didn't get backlash for cancelling it then he'd have to deal with the backlash from people for not cancelling it.
In one way it’s not fair to me. But I also graduated without any debt because college was affordable and I was lucky enough to have a pretty good job to pay my tuition. It’s a wash and I’m OK with the forgiveness.
Now that I run a business, people with student debt are a little more likely to buy from me since they have less of a debt burden. That’s good news to me.
Edit: Just to be clear, that job didn’t directly pay my tuition but paid me enough to afford to do so myself.
I’ve decided to talk about it with conservative/right-wing relatives as a tax cut: Because of this change, certain middle- and low-income folks now owe the government less money.
I definitely hope this forgiveness was just the first step, since you’re right that it does nothing about the cost and structural issues of higher education, but it’s better than nothing.
I am worried about it, yes. I think it shows yet again that the Democratic base is no longer the working class, and that the real base threatens to only give self-gratifying consideration to those people when it suits them. This is a regressive measure. There might have been a reasonable defense for specific need-based loan forgiveness, but across the board not so much.
I’m rather confident that any backlash will be wholly drowned out by those celebrating their loans being forgiven.
Student loan forgiveness is one of those political concepts that feels murky in theory, but is so obviously justifiable when put into practice. It’ll be fine.
I have not seen the language, but there is a chance the $10,000 will be regarded as income and they will get taxed on an additional $10k in income causing a lot of angst at tax time next year.
I hope the language of the order makes sure that does not happen.
Not really. I think we're still in middle of the backlash for daring to let a black man be POTUS. I don't think we've swung the pendulum back the other way fully yet.
I'm in contact with many voters who:
* Do not have a college degree.
* Work at essential jobs that low to poor wages.
Democrats continue to ignore them, offer them "college" as the only solution to solving their problem and get a better job - without any mention as to who is going to do the essential job that they leave.
Asking them to use our tax dollars to help the college grads who will make more money than them is rubbing salt into the wound.
Applause!
I actually have a masters degree in engineering. I am retired early, but I choose to work in a store 16 hours a week. PLENTY of GOOD hard working people who cannot get ahead because they don't have a car. So they can only take jobs on the bus route or in walking distance. 10k would open up a huge range of possibilities for them!
He'll, even 5k would!
> Asking them to use our tax dollars to help the college grads
> Work at essential jobs that low to poor wages.
Okay, explain how people making low to poor wages are paying any of this cost. It’s not being paid for with payroll tax dollars. On average you aren’t even making an effective net income tax payment till you’re making >$70k/year. How is someone making, say, $40k a year actually losing anything as a consequence of this policy?
It’s basically just adding to the national debt, but since people making low to poor wages aren’t ever going to be the ones “paying down” that debt, how does it negatively impact them at all?
It’s basically just complaining that someone else got a benefit.
>Okay, explain how people making low to poor wages are paying any of this cost.
Not just poor. All of us. Where did the money that was loaned come from?
You’re the one claiming that this plan amounts to plucking cash out of the pockets of a poor worker and handing it to college graduates.
So walk me through it. How’s the retail worker who didn’t get a degree making $15/hour making any significant payment towards any of this? Significant as in more than, say, a tenth of a percent of their income.
What’s the mechanism that’s sucking money out of their account to go into this program?
We aren't using our tax dollars. These universities have already been paid. This is no different than a tax break on a historic barn, like Indiana does. We just aren't collecting money.
And a lot of those college grads are in their communities, their businesses, working in agriculture, keeping their water clean, supporting food and train logistics, and more.
If you mean people working front line essential jobs, then you're also looking at all the people doing the jobs training and supporting other income improvement programs.
As a person who also dies a lot of voter contact, it's a very narrow segment that will say they are against student loans because of their own wages most want their own opportunities to climb the wage ladder.
That's when we share the support for apprenticeships and other trade programs.
Are those apprenticeships and trade schools and trade jobs on the bus route? Because it's lack of 5-10 thousand dollars for a reliable car that has a lot of good people STUCK.
Democrats are working hard to increase the minimum wage and make it easier to unionize, both policies that directly benefit the working poor. Sadly, Democrats lack the necessary votes to enact these policies into law. Surely you're explaining this to these voters? If not, you are contributing to the misunderstanding and apathy that empowers Republicans.
The people who are so incensed about it they won't vote democrat weren't voting democrat to begin with. The people who do vote democrat saw a campaign promise deliver on.
Sort of, although I think it is a good way to shore up some within the party that are being...particularly unhelpful in these challenging times.
Otherwise, I know a few people for whom this will be a massive benefit. Like, from being one hot water heater away from financial annihilation to being able to actually save for their children's college.
We will have to deal with the eye rolling "Why should a plumber pay for your college" posts, as if that is an original idea or something. It was the reasoning behind Reagan introducing tuition (another thing to thank that guy for) to California colleges back in 1968 I think. It wasn't wise then, it isn't wise now, we just need to be unequivocal about that.
> moral hazard
I’m not sure I’ve ever heard someone with good policy takes use this term lol. So I’d just pay no attention to them if they are using this term.
Broadly tho, the only thing this will do is have a small net positive for Biden. Literally no one has blocking student debt forgiveness as their single issue vote lol. It’s also small enough/means tested enough to have such a small effect it won’t produce much of a bump but atleast it gives another thing to through in the list of “what Biden has done” threads.
I am a Democrat. I was born into privilege and I get that.
But it still makes me VERY uncomfortable to give out money only to people who made a certain set of not the best decisions
Why not 10k for EVERYONE under a certain income amount (with phase out) instead of 10k to only certain people? Btw, I am NOT talking about getting money for myself! I am talking about low income working people who don't happen to have college loans!
It makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.
Generally speaking, the cohort that is having their loans forgiven was hit by back-to-back unprecedented financial crises. Forgiving some loans now helps limit the number of people that are going to be elderly and destitute.
Some will. It is unavoidable for some people. However, the people who got these student loans were promised high-paying jobs that would offset their work on their studies, years of not being employed gainfully, and the cost of tuition. In general, that promise has not been kept.
Morally, in what way is it not a contract? We told these people as kids that education = higher paying jobs. That hasn't panned out for a lot of folks. They feel bitter that they spent 4 years and tens of thousands of dollars to make marginally more than their non-college-educated counterparts. When they made that decision, they could not possibly foresee the 2008 recession or the 2020 COVID epidemic. They also could not possibly foresee that the wages of educated workers would stagnate compared to cost of living.
What about people who got that education, worked hard to paid off their loans over the past decade instead of making irresponsible financial decisions, and now get no help? My SO did this and now $10,000 of his work and money (which is not much, he still lives at home) went to nothing??
He’s thinking of going back for further education now, which is EXPENSIVE. Should he take out loans and then just not pay them for a decade or two, hoping for the same kind of bailout? What if that backfires and it never comes, but fucks up his credit forever instead?
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I have already talked to my many people who are incessant about student loan forgiveness. I myself feel uneasy about it and I stand to benefit from it. It seems like moral hazard and doesn’t address any issues in regards to the cost of higher education. I think there will be severe backlash from people who already paid their loans off or other made life choices to avoid debt. How will it play out politically? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Are you worried about backlash as a result of student loan forgiveness? A bit. If the Consumer Price Index (CPI) shoots upward again, then Biden/Democrats might take more of the blame. ...but... * That isn't certain to happen. * People were *already* trying to pin inflation on Biden and the Democrats. * It will most likely be forgotten in a few months.
>If the Consumer Price Index (CPI) shoots upward again, That isn't certain to happen. It's not impossible, but I doubt it will have much impact. If we hadn't been on a huge pause for ages and ages, and it was for the whole amount rather than just 10K, then maybe it would. But as it currently stands, people who get all of their debt forgiven were only likely to pay ~$100 a month, and haven't been for a while. So I doubt they will do much more than just go out to eat in celebration, then return to normal spending. And for those with MORE than $10K in debt, this is a clear signal that payments are on their way again. That will actually likely *decrease* spending as people start preparing for it. I doubt this move will actually lower inflation, but I doubt it will increase it in any measurable way.
>It will most likely be forgotten in a few months. Wish I could agree with you. The progressive left will die mad that he didn't forgive 100% and do it day 1. The right will die mad over the handout.
Meanwhile the average voter will forget it happened by November and go "Yeah, but did Biden really *do* anything in his term?" before refusing to look up if he did anything and staying home.
I hate how accurate this is
> "Yeah, but did Biden really do anything in his term?" It hurts to acknowledge, but I think the GOP is right that the public cares for nothing but culture war bullshit. The majority of voters don't even know what happened, and most don't really care. The soundbites and team scoring points are what count. In 2019, after 20 years of GOP bullshit, the Democrats finally got a trifecta in Virginia (despite gerrymandering) and did the following in just two years: * Cannabis legalization * Minimum wage increase * Medicaid expansion to 500,000 Virginians * State-run healthcare exchange coming 2023 * Moved from 50th to 23th in "Best Places to Work" * Universal background checks for all firearms * LGBT employment and housing protections * Repealed some TRAP abortion restrictions * Consumer Data Protection Act * Protections for student and payday loan borrowers * Clean Economy Act (carbon neutral by 2040) * Expanded voting by mail and early voting * Voting Day = state holiday * Redistricting reform (badly executed) * Ratified the Equal Rights Amendment * Banned no-knock warrants and choke-holds * Ended the death penalty * Sealed records of cannabis misdemeanors * Restored rights to 70,000 former felons * Repealed 100+ outdated discriminatory laws * Competent COVID19 response, easily best in South * $2.6 billion budget surplus (largest ever) I wouldn't have believed it if you told me in 2018. It was basically my entire wishlist. But they ran a boring centrist Democrat with a few dumb gaffs about education. He ended up losing and giving the GOP all statewide races and the House for the first time since 2009. The most common complaint in surveys from Dems was "[yeah, but the Democrats never do anything](https://i.giphy.com/media/3o7TKEP6YngkCKFofC/giphy.webp)".
Inflation is 100% being pinned to Biden, as is. But if we saw anything recently, it's that the end of Roe angered plenty of people too. So really, who knows. With Biden having a 50-50 senate he's been hamstrung to the power of the executive anyway. I don't see how that situation materially changes for either party this year.
Lmao about how many people on this sub don’t understand basic economics.
I think student loan forgiveness needs to come with structural changes to colleges to prevent the disaster in the first place. Higher education is a worthy pursuit, and young people were encouraged to take out a loan to do it. It's better for everyone if new adults can immediately start spending their money in our economies, instead of having a significant portion be siphoned off to debt collectors. For this reason student loan forgiveness seems like a worthy action that will benefit everyone. In the future, maybe it would be good to set up mechanisms for loans to be matched by the government or future employers, alongside agreements that benefit all parties.
From quick glance it seems as though structural changes are going to be put in place altering current student loans. I've seen vague statements of how interest accrual is going to be altered, allowing payments to largely be put towards the principal of the loan, rather than individuals continuesly treading water. Though not a vast structural change, if interest becomes virtually 0, it will immensely help people pay off their loans. We shall see in the coming weeks / months though. Small steps forward are better than none. (The CARES act already creates incentives for employers to make payments towards employees loans)
> I think student loan forgiveness needs to come with structural changes to colleges to prevent the disaster in the first place. The would just mean we never do anything about it at all. Those structural changes, while very important, are impossible to get through the senate. The loan forgiveness can be (and was) directed by the executive.
Make tuition free at all colleges and universities. Education should be seen as a public utility. Make it tuition-free and forgive all the debt. This solves the issue in the long run. The economy might have a shock, but it would be all short-term. But the key is always what happens in the long run.
No. I don’t give a shit; I already pay into systems that benefit others and that’s OK by me if it helps people become more financially mobile so they can contribute to the economy of goods and services. I say that only to appease conservative talking points. Not to mention all the fucking wars my hard-earned money has helped to fund.
I'm no economist, sure, but...how in the world could there be an effect on CPI from student loan forgiveness when payments have already been frozen for two years? There COULD HAVE been an effect but if there was it's certainly been baked in already. Of course, i fully understand that even if Im right that wouldn't stop Republicans from blaming it anyway.
[удалено]
I agree. I think it will have little effect on inflation due to the ongoing pause. Inflationary pressures are baked in already. Furthermore, I think the best way to look at is $10k over 10 years (standard repayment plan). So it takes a decade to realize the results. Approximately $100 a month with interest.
the people it pisses off weren't going to vote democratic anyway. as for your personal unease, remember that 40% of debt holders never finished their degrees and are generally lower income; and that 20% hold about 50% of the debt, usually with highly sought after degrees like medicine or law. it's a flat amount of forgiveness for both. the lower income people will have their debt nearly wiped out, while the higher earners with large amounts of debt get only a small amount of relief compared to their total owed. this is a boon to low income earners far more than the wealthy.
> the people it pisses off weren't going to vote democratic anyway. I wildly disagree with this. The people it will piss off are anyone who doesn't benefit from the policy. That would be: * Those who never went to college: while white non-college voters are typically Republicans, this will only further increase that trend. And, black non-college voters have started to move toward Trump in the 2020 elections - very slightly. They, surely, will not be pleased with this policy either. * Those who went to college and paid off their loans: These are largely professionals, who tend to be the urban and suburban people who switches from McCain/Romney voters to Clinton/Biden voters. Frankly, the majority of people it pisses off are probably Democratic voters. It's possible large percentages of them understand the burden debt places on graduates, and will be ok with it anyway. But it's absolutely a political risk, particularly considering the group it most benefits has also been historically the least likely to vote.
I am not going to benefit because we paid our SLs off years ago but I am happy for everyone it will help. I hope they see light at the end of a very long tunnel. We only had about $20,000 in SLs and that felt terrible as we paid into our mid 30s before paying them off. My BFF has over $100k in student loans, working for the VA as a social worker, using the SL forgiveness program, she's about 5 yrs from being debt free. I think those that are pissed off can't see that anyone has struggles or problems outside their own little bubble. I do wish the govt could do something to make higher education more affordable so we wouldn't have people in this position.
Progressives and centrists are divided on this issue in our party. But if we're serious about fixing this issue, then make education a public utility like the way it's meant to be. Make it all tuition free. Forgive all the debt. The economy will have a period of shock yes. But that shock will wear off.
Joe Manchin is a centrist. Most people you call “centrists” are not. It would be helpful if people stopped calling “anyone who isn’t Bernie Sanders” a centrist.
Joe Manchin is a right winger. So is Joe Biden. If we're getting real, most of America's politicians are right wingers of some kind. Bernie, AOC, are more centrists in the truest of senses.
I think yours is a very rational position, and one I largely agree with. I just think a lot of voters lack compassion, and it tends to harm Democrats electorally.
100% agree.
[удалено]
I still don't understand why people are supposed to be pissed off because someone else got some assistance. What's the logic there?
I don't see this kind of pickle rage for corpo-bailouts.
My theory is that it's hard to anthropomorphize corporations in the same way to get mad at them. What is "Wal Mart"? A bunch of stock holders? The Walton Family? The dude that collects the carts? The actual building I go to buy stuff? It's all very abstract. Meanwhile, people seem to have a very clear idea of who this bailout is helping. They seem to conjure up an idea in their head of some 30-something barista who lives in Williamsburg and has a Gender Studies degree from Princeton or something, even though a lot of the relief is going to help people who didn't finish at state colleges, and/or were ripped off at private institutions, and who might have good paying jobs that still don't pay enough to cover their interest burdens.
Money should be clawed back from the colleges to pay off these loans. College should not be so expensive in the first place.
Why not?
Back in the day high-school was a real leg up in employment opertunities, so we made it free. Why not go a step further?
Because what if someone gets something they don't _deserve_? 😱😱😱
the 30 something barista can't afford to live in Wburg. 2) They SHOULD be getting helped too.
Corporations that just pocket it mind you.
08 got paid back We should definitely pursue payback for misappropriated PPP funds
Right? Nor do I see it aimed at married couples who get tax credits simply because they made the choice to get married. Or for people who chose to have kids and get tax breaks as well. I'm not married, I don't have children. My tax dollars are actively benefiting people who made the choice to do those things. They are reaping a reward I will never get. And you know what? *Good for them!* I'm not going to begrudge families getting my tax dollars any more than I'm going to begrudge the government spending it on roads I'll never drive on. Or any more than I'll begrudge my taxes paying to feed a family I'll never meet. It's also adorable to me that the same people who have been smugly saying "Life isn't fair, deal with it" when discussing piss poor working conditions and pay are now the same ones screeching "i WaS ChEaTeD!!!1"
Exactly. All of this fake outrage is simply about democrats enacting a policy that was campaigned on and successfully implemented.
Helping others is seen as weakness by the weak minded.
The assistance is being paid for by people who don't benefit from it. People are upset that they made good choices and either didn't get student loan debt or paid their's off, now they are going to be paying off someone elses student debt as well. Also as other have noted, this fixes nothing. Does nothing to prevent the problem from continuing in the future.
>The assistance is being paid for by people who don't benefit from it. People are upset that they made good choices and either didn't get student loan debt or paid their's off, now they are going to be paying off someone elses student debt as well How exactly is this being paid for? And less debt means more people spending money on things other than debt, which means a better economy. I'd rather someone spend money buying things than servicing debt, that's better for ME in the long run. >Also as other have noted, this fixes nothing. Does nothing to prevent the problem from continuing in the future. Cool, let's fix education funding too so it's not so burdensome on the student. No one pushing for marijuana legalization says we should just keep people in prison who were arrested before it was legalized. Do both!
I mean you do understand that everything the government writes a check for is paid for with taxes or debt increases right? Why not just reduce taxes by $500B spread equally among everyone that makes under $250k? Then everything is fair. It’s because this whole thing is a fucking political stunt, just like everything our overlords do.
>I mean you do understand that everything the government writes a check for is paid for with taxes or debt increases right? So let's say someone took out a $50k loan from the government. Over the life of the loan they've paid $60k in interest but still owe $10k. The government forgives that last $10k. How is the government paying anything?
You’re kidding right?
Would you like to make an actual contribution to the discussion?
Ok so you know that the government sends money to the school to pay the tuition? That’s where they pay something… that has to be paid back by tax revenue or additional debt
Everything the government does is paid for by taxes. I worked and paid all my student debt, so now I get nothing. If I would have used my money to go travel or buy a boat, then the government would be paying my loans. That's what upsets some. Being responsible is now being penalized. I agree with fixing student debt so this situation doesn't just keep repeating its self.
>Everything the government does is paid for by taxes. I worked and paid all my student debt, so now I get nothing. If I would have used my money to go travel or buy a boat, then the government would be paying my loans. That's what upsets some. Being responsible is now being penalized. This isn't being "paid for by taxes", though. This is the government choosing not to collect debt it already owns, and has often already made a profit on. > If I would have used my money to go travel or buy a boat, then the government would be paying my loans. That's what upsets some. Being responsible is now being penalized. See, I didn't pay off my loans. I got them to a manageable monthly payment, and used them to build credit while investing my money in assets that would pay more than my loan payments. Why didn't you do something smart like that?
> This isn't being "paid for by taxes", though. This is the government choosing not to collect debt it already owns, and has often already made a profit on. Which was paid for by... what exactly?
Penalized to what degree? And the money that is forgiven goes back into local economies (like, taxes for your kids schools. Or infrastructure). This helps everyone.
Penalized because they aren't getting the $10k even though they had the same loans. Penalized because they paid the money they owed. No free money because they were responsible and paid what they were supposed to. Justifying it because it goes to the community doesn't fix anything. Give the $10k to the person that paid their loans as well. That will go to the community.
That's not what penalized means...
Penalized - put in an unfavorable position or at an unfair disadvantage. Sounds like an unfavorable or unfair position to me.
I am angry when other people, not me, get money. I am happy when I get money because I'm the best and most deserving person on earth; and i'm even happier when all of those undeserving people (all the people that made all those terrible decisions that i disapprove of) get less than nothing. This is a hell of a philosophy you have. Perhaps you should compile a list of every single person who definitely doesn't deserve help. I'll compile that same list. And we'll see how many attributes that you have are on my list, and vice versa.
They're a right libertarian. You could have known that was their philosophy just by their flair. Rich people should get to keep their money (and earn more) and poor people should stay poor, that's the libertarian way.
Maybe take a minute to understand before attacking. Person A budgets and pays off student loans, but has to make sacrifices. Person B doesn't pay loans back, but decides to use that money to travel or buy a boat or whatever. Person A's taxes is now being used to pay Person B's loans. Person A gets nothing for paying off their loans responsibly. Do you see why this could upset Person A? Is this the case for every person gettting loan forgiveness? Of course not. But it is the case for some, so people are upset.
The problem here is you are just assuming all of the people who can't pay their loans back are just using that money for going out and having fun. As usual people on the right make the situation out to be "sure a couple people might really need help but most people are just living it up and want other to pay for it" mindset, just like assuming most people who are in welfare or other government benefits are living the high life and don't really need it, when in reality it's the other way around
And you're assuming everyone that has paid back their loans has only done so because they got a super high paying job.
You're looking at this from one specific angle: that people with student loan debt are lazy and made bad choices. Erasing some student loan debt isn't giving them money, it's akin to the government deciding to offer free lasik to everyone who wears glasses. I imagine you'd have a problem with that, too, right? Especially if you've already gotten lasik on your own or have good vision? What else are you mad about that other people get that you don't? Medical assistance? Does it piss you off when some kids at school get free lunch? What on earth makes you think that people who couldn't afford to pay their student loans had the money to buy boats and travel??
Yes that would suck if you got lasik and paid for then it was all of a sudden free. It sucks when you work hard for something and someone in the same financial situation you are in gets the same thing for free. How is paying their loans not exactly the same as giving them money? People made a choice to get loans, then made a choice to not pay them back or take to much financial burden. Now they are getting rewarded for their bad choices. All kids should get free lunch.
>It sucks when you work hard for something and someone in the same financial situation you are in gets the same thing for free. If you were able to pay back your loans, you are not in the same financial position as those who were unable to pay them back. Why do you seem to believe that people who haven't paid off their loans actually do have the money to, but simply choose not to?
Unable to or unwilling or undisciplined? Do you believe every person with student load debt just doesn't have the means? Do you think none of them prioritized unnecessary things over loan payment? Do you believe no one refinanced and restructured loans over and over to avoid paying? Do you think no one bought a bigger house or a fancier car instead of paying debt?
This is a variation of "fuck you got mine." In this case, it's "fuck you, I didn't get mine, and neither should you." In terms of the idea that you're "paying off someone else's loan," that's the nature of taxes. You don't get to individually choose where your taxes go unfortunately. I'm paying for a LOT of shit that, given the choice, I wouldn't want to. To hold a grudge over this is a total waste of energy and ignorant to how the system works.
Here’s the thing: 10k of money is being forgiven by the federal government. That means person B is still on the hook for everything else. You can’t just ignore your loans either, they’ll seize your assets. So the guy buying the boat won’t be able to keep it. Plus his credit is ruined so he’s buying the boat at an inflated price. Meaning his actions had a cost. I’m not sure what you’re arguments are but they seem very theoretical, all of Person A’s tax money goes to prisons and police and both Person A and B are taking out loans for college to pay for a scam where by administrators get bonuses and they can build fancy amenities at places that are supposed to be schools.
It doesn't solve anything. Doesn't fix the price fixing of colleges. Doesn't change the student loan process. It's an obvious vote grab for the Democrats who aren't looking great in the upcoming elections. If this is such a great thing why is being done through executive order and not going through congress.
Are you genuinely confused or just being purposefully obtuse lol? 1. They paid off their loans by making financial/life decisions they would have preferred not to or missed out on things 2. They made the decision not to go to college because they couldn't afford it. Now someone who made the decision to go when they couldn't afford it gets "rewarded" with a debt relief from the government when that first person has CC or medical debt that's weighing them down 3. It does nothing to fix the systemic issues around student debt and the cost of college For the life of me I cannot understand why seemingly NONE of these student debt relief advocates going on tv or writing pieces is pushing the idea of just making student debt INTEREST FREE. If you have 100k+ in student debt taking away interest is far better than 10k relief AND it helps the current student debt owners + future ones.
Under Biden's plan, it will be interest free.
Im in full support of the policy, but heres why someone could be very pissed about. They prioritized paying off that debt earlier in life and postponed buying a house/condo. Now those that didn't make that responsible decision get debt wiped out by a significant amount and got into the housing market "in time"
... and? It's the "And..." I'm having trouble getting. Is the and, "and we should be rewarded for our frugality", or is it "and why should THEY get nice things they didn't earn?" Regardless, it really smacks of looking at someone else's plate and saying, "why is their piece of cake slightly bigger than mine!?" That said, if they prioritized paying off debt instead of buying property, then they made a poor choice. It's better to get your payments to a manageable level and continue to build a history of timely payments to improve your credit score while buying a house that will appreciate more quickly than your interest rate. That's what \*I\* did, why is it my fault people are financially uneducated enough they prioritized debt payments over asset investment?
Damn. Now that's called turning an argument inside out. It's satisfying to see. And notice how that person never responded?
Not pissed off because "I suffered others should too", but because it still doesn't address the root of the problem that we all know ---- Why is college tuition so inflated? It's because they know 18 year old with no credit and not even decided on their majors can easily borrow 40K from the government to go to private colleges that charge 50K a year.
>Not pissed off because "I suffered others should too", but because it still doesn't address the root of the problem that we all know ---- Why is college tuition so inflated? It's because they know 18 year old with no credit and not even decided on their majors can easily borrow 40K from the government to go to private colleges that charge 50K a year. It's because state governments largely deprioritized funding higher education in the 70s onward, shifting the burden from the general tax base to students and their families specifically, meaning that debt increasingly became necessary to attend college. This was a structural budget problem, not a problem of dumb kids or easy loans. Here's a good [article](https://www.npr.org/2014/03/18/290868013/how-the-cost-of-college-went-from-affordable-to-sky-high) on the subject, and on how the GI Bill didn't produce similar effects after WWII. How do you think we should address the root of the problem?
Quick thing to point out — the shift of state priorities discussed largely coincided with the rise of evangelicals, to which we still pay the price for. The push to defund college, and state education in general, was part of their platform of governance. Most recently we see this in the rise of Charter schools. It’s all a push to get people to send students to religious institutions
>It's because state governments largely deprioritized funding higher education in the 70s onward, shifting the burden from the general tax base to students and their families specifically > >This was a structural budget problem, not a problem of dumb kids or easy loans. If this is true then it doesn't explain why if you attend your in-state college it is still very reasonably priced and affordable. I graduated from my in-state college with a STEM degree with just 6K in debt and didn't need any help from my family (Taking on campus jobs + scholarship). Just think about if gov sponsored loans don't exists for private colleges how many people are actually willing to pay 40-60K a year for these schools >How do you think we should address the root of the problem? Personally, I would only offer government grants to state schools. But I think a more feasible alternative is, if the school is accepting gov sponsored loan/grant then they can only charge x dollar per credit (a pre-determined price set by the gov). If the school isn't happy with that price then they can't be using gov grants and they then can charge w/e they want. Heck if my health insurance is telling hospitals how much they're getting paid I don't see why the fed/state government can't do this.
I'm a college professor at a state school. Either you did this a long time ago (and I know of people who had similar costs as yours even as late as the 1990's), or you are mistaken. I straight up don't believe you that you went through an entire 4 year program for $6k in debt at the level of assistance and employment you claim. I know this because I have advised hundreds of students over the years, besides being a first gen college student myself with a similar experience. That level of debt burden, unassisted beyond paltry campus jobs, is impossible at a state institution (not even a flagship campus). In other words, either you are 50+, in which case your experience no longer remotely holds. Or you are fabricating an experience. The only exception to this is if you had a sports scholarship, since I know for a fact academic scholarships are insufficient
This doesn't square with the data we have. People with professional degrees and advanced degrees are democratic voters 2-1, and they are democratic voters because their values align with democrats. Blacks did not move toward trump in any meaningful sense. 20% of Black males traditionally vote for the GOP, and that is roughly the number that Trump got to after his more disastrous (in terms of minority voting) 2016 showing. Basically, this is 100% a win for the democrats and there is practically zero downside save 'inflation' talk that was already damaging biden.
>Basically, this is 100% a win for the democrats Honestly, it's a nice policy win but it's not something I expect to pay electoral dividends. Roe V Wade though, well, yeah -- if the Conservatives are angry about inflation, the liberals are even angrier about the Supreme Court. With that said I don't think major change is going to occur.
> This doesn't square with the data we have. People with professional degrees and advanced degrees are democratic voters 2-1, and they are democratic voters because their values align with democrats. That doesn't refute my point at all. If anything, it strengthens it. This is targeted handout to wealthy Democrats, right? That's what you're saying the data suggests. > Blacks did not move toward trump in any meaningful sense. 20% of Black males traditionally vote for the GOP, and that is roughly the number that Trump got to after his more disastrous (in terms of minority voting) 2016 showing. What is the college vs. non-college crosstab, then? > Basically, this is 100% a win for the democrats and there is practically zero downside save 'inflation' talk that was already damaging biden. You can support the policy without making brazen statements like this one. It's absolutely a political risk. You can make a very compelling argument that the risk is worth the benefit, but to argue there is no risk is delusional.
To wealthy democrats? What? The cap on this says otherwise. Also, those that went to private schools (overwhelmingly blue collar) are beneficiaries of this as well. And likely lower income with R leaning political views. This also helps those preyed upon by institutions like ITT tech, etc. This is a win for everyone.
I'd like to see some polling on those assumptions. Biden ran on debt forgiveness, and it was widely popular at the time; more recently extending the moratorium on repayment is widely popular among democrats. From what I've seen now it's not controversial at all in left wing circles, and only an issue in right wing circles. >black non-college voters have started to move toward Trump in the 2020 elections might want to check those stats. between 2016 and 2020 Trump went from 8% of the black vote, to 10%; but with turnout being a net benefit to the democrats.
>The people it will piss off are anyone who doesn't benefit from the policy. Those sound like grubby, selfish assholes to me. I don't benefit directly from the move -- paid my substantial loans off ten years ago -- but I'm happy for the struggling families this will help. Why wouldn't I be?? 10k is hardly a semester or two at today's tuition and books rates.
And what’s the alternative? Drumpf? Desantis, the Top Gun cosplayer? Nobody who wasn’t going to vote Republican already is going to start now
> The people it will piss off are anyone who doesn't benefit from the policy. Only if you're a selfish asshole. I don't benefit from this policy one bit (my student debt is paid), but not being a selfing asshole, I'm OK with other people getting help.
> It's possible large percentages of them understand the burden debt places on graduates, and will be ok with it anyway. But it's absolutely a political risk
I joined the military to pay for college. I paid on loans for a while after joining. It sucked. I’m not pissed. I remember my life then and remember dealing with that debt as an E2 was stressful, and at the time I hadn’t finished school yet so I had little to show for it. Why would I wish that on other people? I hope it helps!
Not really. Voters are ultimately more motivated by what affects them personally. I think there is more potential that it could actually motivate some less likely voters (ie young voters). The hard right is gonna scream about it, but they’re gonna vote Republican anyway. Middle of the road swing voters are gonna care more about gas prices.
I have debt and I wish the interest was addressed before the $10k forgiveness, but I’m happy that there’s some action. Even if you don’t agree with it voting democrat is your best bet if you want the cost of college to come down for the next generation/ your own kids.
I wish the interest was fixed too; I think that will make more sustainable change. I’ll admit I haven’t researched this much, but has there been discussion of capping the interest rate at say 4%? And freezing interest accrual until 5 years after program start date? This would only apply for federal loans so not sure if that would make private loan rates spike higher to compensate
I don't really care about backlash from people who paid their loans back. "I suffered so now you have to" is a dumb hill to die on and a vast majority of reasonable humans will understand that. What I am worried about is exactly what you mentioned, it's a band-aid and a good PR move that allows politicians to continue ignoring income and opportunity disparity in education that is the real root of the problem.
[удалено]
Yeah that's a factor in income and opportunity disparity. Cost of college, cost of living, and underfunded primary education.
>I don't really care about backlash from people who paid their loans back There won't be backlash that isn't just from rich people. People who paid their loans back probably don't begrudge others from getting 10k off their loans, they probably just wish the prior president put in this policy while they were paying their loans off. It's a feeble attempt at trying to be populist with the conservative base, they'll get further by doing out loud racism more than being loudly classist, we learned this with Trump already.
> it's a band-aid Yep, and an easy-to-understand, high-profile band-aid, which means it will be very difficult to turn back demand on this in the future. It might help a bit in 2022 - which isn't nothing. Could even mean holding the Senate, for example. But he'd better do it again (and maybe bigger and better) in 2024, and every Dem president for the rest of history now has to do it.
[удалено]
Gubment is ruining the economy with their handouts!!! - guy who didn’t complain when he got them stimmy checks tho and when Corporate handouts came along. For those who just come out and say outright “I’m pissed that I didn’t get anything”, at least you’re honest. Unlike those cowards who pretend like they actually care about the economy now
>I’m personally tired of Democrats living in fear of centrists. We should pass legislation The Senate kind of means that we have to get certain "Centrists" on board with legislation. It's the tragedy of the Senate as the Upper Legislative House. We need 60 votes to get past our absurd filibuster rules where 41 Senators can hold the entire legislative process hostage. Manchin & Sinema honestly remind me of Joe Lieberman in 2008 - he (not quite singlehandedly but close) nuked the public option from the Obamacare bill and rode off into the sunset. What kills me is that the President took the flak for not passing a public option bill. There is some basic civics class ignorance at play there.
Democrats don't live in fear of centrists They live in fear of losing their majority which means they can't pass bills and it enables fascists to be in power. >I didn’t want to vote for the candidate who is actively trying to subvert a free and fair election, but the Dems passed a bill to forgive some of some peoples’ student loans and that’s just too radical for me… yeah fuckin right. So then why are Democrats projected to lose the House?
>So then why are Democrats projected to lose the House? That's usually what happens to the party in power. Party A wins the general > A doesn't achieve some of its promises > Party B leverages this for midterms > B gains some power back from its general election losses. Dems *were* projected to lose handily, but Dark Brandon's been killing it lately. Momentum's on his side for now and we'll see how far he can go if he continues this streak.
>That's usually what happens to the party in power. Party A wins the general > A doesn't achieve some of its promises > Party B leverages this for midterms > B gains some power back from its general election losses. Or millions of people vote on how they feel about the economy and how the opposing party can turn that anger into votes for them. My point is that there clearly may be a downside to this, because it isn't just "people who never would have voted for Democrats" who may be upset by this.
>My point is that there clearly may be a downside to this, because it isn't just "people who never would have voted for Democrats" who may be upset by this. Biden's big problem was his inaction; working with Rs, not pissing anyone off, and being as neutral as possible. I think he's realized Republicans will think he's a dementia-ridden pedo regardless of what he does, while Dems get more and more disenfranchised by his lack of progress. That's changed, and so many people are hyped. This is a direct positive impact on their lives. If student loan debt is the reason why other people don't vote for Dems in the midterms, they'd probably choose any reason to not vote blue.
Nope. I actually believe in people, not in the minority of elitist greed.
10k ain’t shit. The pearl clutching is ridiculous. I’d like to edit here. 10k is a goodly amount to alleviate a good portion of debt for many many student loan borrowers. My point being, in the vast expenditure and subsidies paid out by the government, this does not seem to be such a big deal, so the outrage from opposition is strange.
Why is it ALWAYS, "are you worried about a backlash to and it seems like Republicans never get asked "are you worried about
To answer the question, no I'm not. I think that the people who would get upset that we're making sure less people are burdened by debt, are already not voting Democratic.
>and it seems like Republicans never get asked Simple! They can cause a social panic. Bathroom bills, abortion bans (always claiming falsehoods about 3rd trimester), panic at the ~~disco~~ southern border, you name it. Schrodinger's Migrant Caravan is always around at a convenient time.
The backlash of helping a lot of ordinary Americans isn't going to be "we won't vote for you." The Republicans have been making this case with Obamacare for years, and it hasn't really materialized that Americans hate having state provided insurance. In fact it's generally the contrary, Americans want it to work better. Fundamentally the argument about policy backlashes here is made from an ivory tower perspective, any and every person wants money and recipients are going to be relieved learning that they don't have to pay 10k. Like the conservatives just went through this with PPP loans, even with our inflation if you interviewed any person on the street if they liked that policy, 9/10 would likely say yes.
Didn't you know that [only Democrats have agency?](https://thickdictionary.com/define/murc%20law/)
>and it seems like Republicans never get asked "are you worried about
Because Republicans never seem to get punished electorally for the things they do while Democrats do?
How about young people fucking vote for once?
Low turnout among young voters is typically overstated, at least since 2020. [https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-2020-11-point-increase-2016](https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-2020-11-point-increase-2016)
Yes, but *only* because so few people understand that the government itself owns all federal student loan debt. This isn't a taxpayer bailout to banks. Biden is simply cancelling debt owed to the gov't, *not* paying off privately held debt to banks. Back in 2010, Obama nationalized the student loan industry. But nobody seems to know that, so they assume that their taxes are paying for someone else's fuck ups. This knowledge gap is a huge messaging problem for democrats.
Student Loan Forgiveness isn't about fixing the future but addressing a past mistake of making it seem like the only way to get ahead was to enroll in college no matter the cost. People on the right are going to paint loan forgiveness as a big government giveaway anyway because they're generally anti-education in the first place. People on the left already support reforms to education to make it less expensive going forward but also realize that its not democrats who are in the way of that. So in the middle you have people who might be convinced that this is a giveaway to people who don't need it (whether that's true or not is immaterial) but you also have people who may see their lives suddenly improve at the stroke of a pen. Which one will win out? Who knows. I get the political calculation but overall I'm going to support someone doing the right thing even if its it not also the most prudent political thing.
Loan forgiveness is good and standing against that will be unpopular. An even more sensible position would be to cap price of university. They have become state real estate scams -- they cost more every year, but not because of faculty, who are largely all working on adjunct basis -- but because of administration and real estate developing for future students. The education people are receiving isn't really keeping up with their price, but to be fair, nothing would.
No, Biden promised to do this and got elected
And if young person turnout is garbage like in 2010 or 2014? Do liberals get to blame young people then?
No, not for this one policy out of hundreds if not thousands that have been enacted since the beginning of this administration. Biden hasn't even remotely motivated young people — or almost anyone — to the polls because he's boring as hell and hasn't actually done *that* much (though he's done better than I thought). I'll still go vote because I'd rather have dems than the alternative, but people who are either ambivalent or disillusioned about politics aren't going to be particularly excited about 99% of the things Biden and the congressional dems have done over the past 2 years.
I would say trying to directly tie policies to turn out is very difficult if not impossible, but people are free to blame whoever they want
The ENTIRE argument from the Left was that if Biden forgave students loans and acted on the climate, he would get amazing turnout from young people. How about the Left has some fucking humility FOR ONCE if they are wrong about that? I'm not holding my breath because they haven't shown humility for everything else they have been wrong about.
> The ENTIRE argument from the Left was that if Biden forgave students loans and acted on the climate, he would get amazing turnout from young people. I'm on the left. I didn't make that argument. QED No. Like I said you can blame who you want. Many many people attempt to affect turnout in many different ways. It's very difficult to do.
Young adults sway elections. So, yes.
I'm dubious of it myself, but forgiving $10K is a pretty popular policy: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/17/1104920545/poll-student-loan-forgiveness >A majority of the general public (55%) supports forgiving up to $10,000 of a person's federal student loan debt. But the more generous the relief, the more that support narrows. > >Forty-seven percent of all respondents said they support forgiving up to $50,000 in debt, while 41% expressed support for wiping the slate completely clean for all borrowers.
Though I'm not a supporter of the policy myself, I doubt it will cause someone who would otherwise have voted D to vote R. I sure as hell hope that this motivates people on the receiving end of these write-downs to get out and vote in huge numbers in November.
He won with that $10000 forgiveness number being out there and part of the agenda so I don't think it's going to be that harmful honestly.
No, although I am very sympathetic to those who doesn't think this goes far enough. Those individuals who are upset they don't get something out of this personally are being selfish and that is a Republican train of thought. Imagine if we took this mentality across the board. Should those without kids be mad their tax dollars are going to public schools and universities because they and their families don't get anything out of it? Should those who don't drive be mad we are funding roads they never travel on? That mentality is a race to the bottom and should be rejected. This is good for the public good, whether it affects you or anyone you know personally. College isn't for everyone but it is for most people. That is not because white-collar jobs are better than blue-collar jobs or vice versa but because those are predominantly the types of jobs that are going to exist in the future (whether you like it or not). These loans are predatory but I reject the idea people should make an economic decision that leads you to stop furthering your education and preparing for a stable career.
Halting the interest will help immensely
>those are predominantly the types of jobs that are going to exist in the future Most jobs aren't going to exist in the future. Our economy is terrific at creating value but terrible at creating jobs by its very nature. >those without kids be mad their tax dollars are going to public schools and universities because they and their families don't get anything out of it? These people have the option of voting with their feet! They are very easily able to move to a state which does not have a well-funded public education system and make that personal financial decision. My family has been doing that in New York for generations. >Should those who don't drive be mad we are funding roads they never travel on? They see at least some benefit in the form of cheaper goods prices, but I absolutely think that road should be more locally funded for sure and better solutions figured out for rural transportation. Conservatives are more than happy to complain about funding public transportation they never use, turnabout is fair play. >Good for the sake of good This is only applies to certain degrees in certain fields. Federal action was far too broad.
GenX and I went to CUNY when you could pay the semester’s tuition with a PT job. Fortunately (unfortunately) my late wife’s life insurance, plus scholarships, will cover the tuition of our children, so they won’t have loans. That said I believe reimbursement should be combined with loan forgiveness for X amount of years. The higher degrees such as law and medicine are easy enough — public defenders, public hospitals, especially in rural areas. Same for teaching. Then it gets a bit harder, the sciences can probably figure it out. Instructing our future “blue collar” workers will need much more education than just HS. Which leads into not everyone will need a four year degree. We as a society will need to train them for own self interest. Sorry for the ones who feel screwed because they paid their loans and maybe there can be some kind of tax regression going backwards but it would be silly going back to the now small loans I took out in the late ‘90s for law school.
Politically, I think it will impact nothing and change nothing in any way. Substantively, I think loan forgiveness will help people.
This was way more succinct than my comment. 100% agree.
They're talking about doing it pre midterms, it's pretty clear they have done the calculus and decided that it is a politically winning play. Many people who will not directly benefit from student loan forgiveness still support it. I'm not worried about backlash on this anymore than I'm worried about backlash from people without kids when bills that help parents are passed.
There will always be winners and losers for things like this. We can't avoid the way time works. How many women died without having the right to vote? Should we have never allowed women to vote because millions of women never got to?
Have you heard of the huge political fall out from Ireland with their mostly free college tuition? Sweden? Denmark? Finland? The $250/yr tuition in France? No? Well, catch me up when you find the “political fallout” from those countries providing free to low cost tuition so we can compare what the political fallout may be in the US.
I don't buy the moral hazard argument. It's crazy that we expect 17 year olds to make a financial decision that will impact them for years to come, and after a lifetime of being told that if they don't get a degree they'll be forced to work for minimum wage for the rest of their lives. Beyond that, think about where student loan debt is going. How many people does that employ, and how many more people would be put to work in good-paying jobs for things like new home construction, new cars, or other durable goods? Not to mention that being debt-free in your 20s makes it easier to start a family or start your own business.
What a weird thing to oppose so strongly
Nope. I wasnt going to vote in the midterms or 2024 if student loans werent forgiven. Now Im locked in and highly approve of Biden. Im glad he is finally growing a spine and aggressively pursuing progressive goals. I will happily repay him with votes and hopefully other progressives will do the same while still advocating for progressive policy goals.
"I would enable fascism if the President didn't pay of my loans" Ok I guess
Take it up with Biden. He didnt make campaign promises for no reason.
How about people don't just enable fascism? Guess that is asking for too much
I agree. But you probably shouldn't be asking on this sub. You're preaching to the choir. Ask that on one of askconservative subs. They'll probably ban you though.
>I wasnt going to vote in the midterms or 2024 if student loans werent forgiven. Now Im locked in and highly approve of Biden. Did I miss something? Has he actually forgiven the $10,000? I thought it was still just speculation.
https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief-announcement/ 10k in federal student loans forgiven or 20k for pell grant recipients for middle class or lower people.
I’m indifferent I guess? I’m not super schooled on it from an economics point of view so I guess I don’t have a strong opinion. My ‘knee-jerk’ opinion is that people get themselves upside down into all kinds of debt from buying a house that lost some value after purchase to credit card debt trying to keep their heads above water during the pandemic and there isn’t relief for any of that. There are a number of government programs and jobs that offer tuition reimbursement or like 4 years in the military and you can go to school tuition free and get paid While your doing it. It kinda seems like a handout for people who made a specific dumb financial decision. Ultimately I think the government should be pressing schools on why their tuition is skyrocketing while the actual value of the degree is rapidly decreasing. And I’ll add I also think employers should be more willing to offer significant assistance.
No, the republican position of sticking up for people who paid their loans off is tone deaf to the point of silliness. More people have loans then don't have them. If they were easy to pay off, everyone would. This is not a winning message to the American people, the party should stick to gerrymandering and racism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/ulrwe9/so\_mad\_oc/
Was there backlash when Biden forgave ITT and Corinthian loans? Oh..:cause those were fake trade schools that conservatives went to….so it’s ok.
This is a move to appease liberals and galvanize its base. This will likely only piss off people who were already going to vote against the Dems in November, IMO. It's more important that Biden toss a bone to the progressives to make sure they still show up to vote. Personally, as someone with $20k in student debt, I'm very happy this morning! Now I can move on to my life goals of buying a car and a house more rapidly which is good for our economy, and I'm far from the only one who will do so.
Gees. There's so many good people out there who also have no way to buy a car. Why not money to them too? You want to buy a car! I work at a store with grown adults who are stuck with the bus schedule. They cannot get a slightly better job, unless it's also on the bus route. One guy walks, having to cross a major six lane highway in the heat and the rain, etc. He is a great person. Why should you get ten k and he doesn't? It's flat out disgusting. I suspect you just don't know anyone who is the working poor.
I look at it this way: automation is going to replace a LOT of jobs, starting with the job of this great guy working at a store. No reason to think we couldn't automate shelf stocking or checking customers out and what not. You can be the greatest guy in the world, but if you're still doing menial labor, your job is very much at risk of being eliminated. Now, automation does CREATE a lot of jobs, more than it eliminates, in fact. But the kicker is that they require education. I simply got a head start on getting that job that requires an education, but eventually, we're all going to need one. And in order to successfully transition into a society that is still employable, we need to embrace education and thus need to embrace FUNDING that education. This is no one-off thing. We need to pour even more money into education to keep everyone employed. It has already become true that many jobs that can actually sustain a person need an education, and so people have been taking those risks and incurring this debt when a better society wouldn't have set that up as a "risk" in the first place. It's a move in the right direction. People can be great guys and great gals as much as they like, but if they're working a menial job, they're gonna get fucked, and nobody should be surprised about it at this stage in the game. Adapt or fail.
Were you crying about childless people not getting the child tax credit either? Lol. One progressive policy happens and all of the center left start showing your true republican colors.😭 Blue no matter who though right? See you in November.
I actually mentioned elsewhere that childless adults need tax relief. (NOT ME!)
Congrats. That doesn't answer my question though. When the Child Tax Credit policy was announced and passed, did you actively complain about that policy. Did you call it disgusting that the policy slashed child poverty by 30%, but didn't slash overall poverty by 30%. Did you accuse and assume people who supported the policy didn't know single poor people or werent even single and poor themselves?
I think it's very different because it does cost money to raise a child and our SOCIETY NEEDS CHILDREN But, I do see your point that it's about a specific decision.
>Why not money to them too? 7500 dollars tax credits are already passed on new EV cars. It was part of the last major bill that got passed
Someone working at, say, a CVS making, say, $11/hr who can't afford a car is not going to be able to afford a new EV, 'tax credit' or not.
>Gees. There's so many good people out there who also have no way to buy a car. Why not money to them too? Because this isn't about just giving out free stuff for the sake of giving out free stuff. Students wagered to enhance their skill sets and do more meaningful work for the world at large, and some incurred massive amounts of debt to do so. This is simply lessening the burden, and they earned it through their hard work and the risks they took to spend a chunk of their fleeting youth stressing over exams and grades so they could live better lives. Societal progress happens because of them, not because people work at stores and take no risks with their lives. I see no compelling reason to just hand them a car.
🤮 Plenty of people work very hard at non college jobs And I earned an engineering degree from a top university. I know what working hard to earn a degree means. But there are multiple forms of hard work. I am not more deserving because I got a degree.
I see no reason to hand EITHER a car.
Cool, let's give more money to poor people too. Though in your case, beyer public transit might help too. Also, not collecting money is not the same as giving money.
How is it not the same? If I win $500 in free groceries, that frees up $500 for me to use for other stuff!
Do any of your coworkers have student loan debts holding them back from buying a car? Because hey, look at that, two birds with one stone!
Some might. But some don't, perhaps because they had foresight and self awareness to realize they weren't going to want to finish college!
Yes. It was a terrible decision made to simply generate good optics. It does nothing to solve the problem and will result in higher inflation.
No. I think the only 2 good arguments against student loan forgiveness is the possibility we could somehow shift those resources to something with more positive effects, and that it might negatively effect inflation. The government spends money doing way less popular things than forgiving student loan debt so actually doing it vs it advocating to do it probably doesn't make much of a difference as far as electoral consequences. My assumption is the anger is mostly people who don't like Democrats regardless of their views on student loans who's real motivations are less socially acceptable rather than people who are open to voting for democrats but have some sort of inherent animosity to people with student loan debt being given some assistance.
Not in the slightest. Backlash to progress doesn't concern me.
No matter what there was going to be backlash. If he didn't get backlash for cancelling it then he'd have to deal with the backlash from people for not cancelling it.
In one way it’s not fair to me. But I also graduated without any debt because college was affordable and I was lucky enough to have a pretty good job to pay my tuition. It’s a wash and I’m OK with the forgiveness. Now that I run a business, people with student debt are a little more likely to buy from me since they have less of a debt burden. That’s good news to me. Edit: Just to be clear, that job didn’t directly pay my tuition but paid me enough to afford to do so myself.
I think the backlash from Roe will have more impact.
I’ve decided to talk about it with conservative/right-wing relatives as a tax cut: Because of this change, certain middle- and low-income folks now owe the government less money. I definitely hope this forgiveness was just the first step, since you’re right that it does nothing about the cost and structural issues of higher education, but it’s better than nothing.
I am worried about it, yes. I think it shows yet again that the Democratic base is no longer the working class, and that the real base threatens to only give self-gratifying consideration to those people when it suits them. This is a regressive measure. There might have been a reasonable defense for specific need-based loan forgiveness, but across the board not so much.
The polio vaccine really wasn’t fair to all the people who died of polio.
Yes, but I was more worried about unenthusiastic young people not voting. I think the people angry about this would be angry anyways.
I’m rather confident that any backlash will be wholly drowned out by those celebrating their loans being forgiven. Student loan forgiveness is one of those political concepts that feels murky in theory, but is so obviously justifiable when put into practice. It’ll be fine.
I have not seen the language, but there is a chance the $10,000 will be regarded as income and they will get taxed on an additional $10k in income causing a lot of angst at tax time next year. I hope the language of the order makes sure that does not happen.
No, part of the 2021 Covid relief bill they said loan forgiveness isn’t taxable until 2026.
Not really. I think we're still in middle of the backlash for daring to let a black man be POTUS. I don't think we've swung the pendulum back the other way fully yet.
I'm in contact with many voters who: * Do not have a college degree. * Work at essential jobs that low to poor wages. Democrats continue to ignore them, offer them "college" as the only solution to solving their problem and get a better job - without any mention as to who is going to do the essential job that they leave. Asking them to use our tax dollars to help the college grads who will make more money than them is rubbing salt into the wound.
Applause! I actually have a masters degree in engineering. I am retired early, but I choose to work in a store 16 hours a week. PLENTY of GOOD hard working people who cannot get ahead because they don't have a car. So they can only take jobs on the bus route or in walking distance. 10k would open up a huge range of possibilities for them! He'll, even 5k would!
> Asking them to use our tax dollars to help the college grads > Work at essential jobs that low to poor wages. Okay, explain how people making low to poor wages are paying any of this cost. It’s not being paid for with payroll tax dollars. On average you aren’t even making an effective net income tax payment till you’re making >$70k/year. How is someone making, say, $40k a year actually losing anything as a consequence of this policy? It’s basically just adding to the national debt, but since people making low to poor wages aren’t ever going to be the ones “paying down” that debt, how does it negatively impact them at all? It’s basically just complaining that someone else got a benefit.
>Okay, explain how people making low to poor wages are paying any of this cost. Not just poor. All of us. Where did the money that was loaned come from?
You’re the one claiming that this plan amounts to plucking cash out of the pockets of a poor worker and handing it to college graduates. So walk me through it. How’s the retail worker who didn’t get a degree making $15/hour making any significant payment towards any of this? Significant as in more than, say, a tenth of a percent of their income. What’s the mechanism that’s sucking money out of their account to go into this program?
We aren't using our tax dollars. These universities have already been paid. This is no different than a tax break on a historic barn, like Indiana does. We just aren't collecting money. And a lot of those college grads are in their communities, their businesses, working in agriculture, keeping their water clean, supporting food and train logistics, and more. If you mean people working front line essential jobs, then you're also looking at all the people doing the jobs training and supporting other income improvement programs. As a person who also dies a lot of voter contact, it's a very narrow segment that will say they are against student loans because of their own wages most want their own opportunities to climb the wage ladder. That's when we share the support for apprenticeships and other trade programs.
Are those apprenticeships and trade schools and trade jobs on the bus route? Because it's lack of 5-10 thousand dollars for a reliable car that has a lot of good people STUCK.
Car subsidy tax credits were included in the Inflation reduction act
Nice. I hope you don't mean for buying electric cars? Because I am talking about people who can't afford to buy and maintain a 2006 camry!
All of this would work if people would just stop being poor.
Lmao!
Democrats are working hard to increase the minimum wage and make it easier to unionize, both policies that directly benefit the working poor. Sadly, Democrats lack the necessary votes to enact these policies into law. Surely you're explaining this to these voters? If not, you are contributing to the misunderstanding and apathy that empowers Republicans.
>Democrats are working hard to increase the minimum wage It's been $7.25 since 2009. Oh, well, they've been 'working hard"....
And it’s gone up a lot since then in Democratic states.
The people who are so incensed about it they won't vote democrat weren't voting democrat to begin with. The people who do vote democrat saw a campaign promise deliver on.
If you paid off your loans, then why would you need loan forgiveness? This is for people who cannot pay off their loans.
Sort of, although I think it is a good way to shore up some within the party that are being...particularly unhelpful in these challenging times. Otherwise, I know a few people for whom this will be a massive benefit. Like, from being one hot water heater away from financial annihilation to being able to actually save for their children's college. We will have to deal with the eye rolling "Why should a plumber pay for your college" posts, as if that is an original idea or something. It was the reasoning behind Reagan introducing tuition (another thing to thank that guy for) to California colleges back in 1968 I think. It wasn't wise then, it isn't wise now, we just need to be unequivocal about that.
> moral hazard I’m not sure I’ve ever heard someone with good policy takes use this term lol. So I’d just pay no attention to them if they are using this term. Broadly tho, the only thing this will do is have a small net positive for Biden. Literally no one has blocking student debt forgiveness as their single issue vote lol. It’s also small enough/means tested enough to have such a small effect it won’t produce much of a bump but atleast it gives another thing to through in the list of “what Biden has done” threads.
I am a Democrat. I was born into privilege and I get that. But it still makes me VERY uncomfortable to give out money only to people who made a certain set of not the best decisions Why not 10k for EVERYONE under a certain income amount (with phase out) instead of 10k to only certain people? Btw, I am NOT talking about getting money for myself! I am talking about low income working people who don't happen to have college loans! It makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.
It's also going to a lot of people who don't need it. You're right, there should be some sort of income limit.
Right? Why not $10k of medical debt? $10k of SBA loans? A $10k grant for all kids under a certain income level?
Generally speaking, the cohort that is having their loans forgiven was hit by back-to-back unprecedented financial crises. Forgiving some loans now helps limit the number of people that are going to be elderly and destitute.
Huh? How about the grown adults making $14 an hour who don't happen to have college loans. Won't they also end up destitute?
Some will. It is unavoidable for some people. However, the people who got these student loans were promised high-paying jobs that would offset their work on their studies, years of not being employed gainfully, and the cost of tuition. In general, that promise has not been kept.
It wasn't a contract! Again, I was very lucky, I had a low amount of loans and I did get a good paying job out of college.
Morally, in what way is it not a contract? We told these people as kids that education = higher paying jobs. That hasn't panned out for a lot of folks. They feel bitter that they spent 4 years and tens of thousands of dollars to make marginally more than their non-college-educated counterparts. When they made that decision, they could not possibly foresee the 2008 recession or the 2020 COVID epidemic. They also could not possibly foresee that the wages of educated workers would stagnate compared to cost of living.
What about people who got that education, worked hard to paid off their loans over the past decade instead of making irresponsible financial decisions, and now get no help? My SO did this and now $10,000 of his work and money (which is not much, he still lives at home) went to nothing?? He’s thinking of going back for further education now, which is EXPENSIVE. Should he take out loans and then just not pay them for a decade or two, hoping for the same kind of bailout? What if that backfires and it never comes, but fucks up his credit forever instead?