Old Trapper
Verified User
That could be true if you were not a pathological liar like your master. However, it is your fault that you cannot comprehend the written word.
Schumer wants Biden to use EXECUTIVE ORDER to cancel $50,000 of student debt!!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
That could be true if you were not a pathological liar like your master. However, it is your fault that you cannot comprehend the written word.
Old Trapper
Verified User
Depends on where you are at, and the time of the year, you ignorant ass:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/AO/sunrise.html
Not gonna happen; empty virtue signaling.
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
We'll see. After dems so blatantly stole the election, they might just have biden cancel all this student debt. For sure our useless press will support them in this.
Forgiving student loan debt will be a direct stimulus to the economy. Students will have the option of buying homes, cars, saving for retirement, etc. Rather than socking all this money away in the hands of a few rich bankers, injecting it into the consumer economy helps us all.
No one who got student loans "made bad economic decisions". They were 17/18 years old, and they were advised by everyone that student-loan debt is "good".... they were also borrowing against inflated tuition that has VASTLY outpaced inflation (much less wages).
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Wrong. That's like Nasty Pussy trying to tell us that unemployment checks or welfare checks are a stimulus to the economy. Forgiving student loans means either the loan holder takes a loss writing it off (eg., using it as a loss and writing it off on taxes) or somebody else (taxpayers) pay the bill. Either way, it's a giant hit on the economy and there's no guarantee that those who's loans are forgiven will be employed any time soon or that even if they are employed, will be making sufficient earnings to offset that loss.
17 year old's cannot get student loans. They have to be at least 18 because that makes them adults and able to enter into a contract. A 17 year-old would have to have an adult co-signer and only an idiot would co-sign a student loan.
If they were stupid enough to sign for a student loan far in excess of the worth of the education they received, that's their problem and nobody else's. Why should everyone else suddenly have to pay for their stupid decision?
Oh I see, you don't recognize basic economic principles, or facts.
Nevermind. Continue day-drinking.
You forgot that they agreed to pay them back. No one forced them to take it. Just another example of a left winger failing to encourage personal responsibility.
Lefties, all about choices, nothing about accountability.
Oh I see, you don't recognize basic economic principles, or facts.
Nevermind. Continue day-drinking.
I see you ignore the concept of personal responsibility.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Oh I see, you don't recognize basic economic principles, or facts.
Nevermind. Continue day-drinking.
Show me where I'm wrong.
Let's take a simple example: Productive persons are taxed $100. The government takes that $100 and spends some part of it on administration and bureaucracy, let's say $10. They then take the other $90 and give it to someone as welfare. That person spends the $90. There is no value added to that money. The $10 was for all intents a loss. The economy grows when people add value to stuff through work. Paying someone not to work adds no value thus it has no effect on economic growth.
If you try to claim that the welfare recipient is spending that $90, well the taxpayer that got fleeced $100 could have spent that money just the same way to the same effect. Thus, wealth redistribution doesn't add to the economy.
Even the fucking Brookings Institution agrees that food stamps (and other forms of welfare) are an excellent economic stimulus:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...ty-is-economic-security-is-economic-stimulus/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...ty-is-economic-security-is-economic-stimulus/
[/FONT]
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
That says nothing about it being a economic stimulus. It claims to stabilize the economy by wealth redistribution.
Secondly, if you read that entire article, and I did, it doesn't explain anywhere in it how it is a stimulus to the economy.
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/...ion-wealth-does-not-stimulate-economic-growth
It's the same logic as thinking that government spending is an economic booster.
https://www.heritage.org/budget-and...t-spending-does-not-stimulate-economic-growth
While it can be in the short term, it isn't sustainable. The money has to come from somewhere and if that somewhere is borrowing, printing more fiat money, or taxation it becomes a drain on the economy. The easiest proof of that is the most wrecked, most unstable economies in Europe are places like Greece, Spain, or Portugal where unemployment is high and welfare benefits generous.
So, while increased government spending in the near short term can have a positive effect on the economy, long term sustained such spending, like perpetual welfare, is a net drag on it. It isn't sustainable and that's the problem. You can't spend your way out of debt.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
They need to award all the blm types who help fill out all those blank ballots.
Whatever they claim doesn't justify someone getting for doing nothing but be a lazy fucker what another person earned.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Great. Tell us in your own fucking words how giving tax dollars to those who didn't earn it creates economic growth.
It doesn't nor do claims of doing it justify giving a freeloader someone else's money.
The thing is that Big Money owns both parties.
And Big Money likes money...
I've heard the argument before. They say it increases demand. What they can't explain is how a person not earning it spending a dollar can cause more growth than the person earning it spending that same dollar. Does it magically create more growth when freeloaders spend the same amount.