Schumer wants Biden to use EXECUTIVE ORDER to cancel $50,000 of student debt!!!

Dark Soul said:
It does increase demand, but does nothing to increase supply. Therefore cost of the goods consumed rises. Inflation stifles economic growth. Next.
Click to expand...

No more than it would if those earning it got to keep what they earned and spent it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
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.
Click to expand...

$90 from a person with wealth to a person who spends 100% of their income is economic stimulus. The $100 in the wealthier taxpayer's hands would not be infused in the economy. It would disproportionately (as compared to low-income people) sit in a savings account, sit offshore, or go into a retirement account.

Moreover, you're dismissing the $10 bureaucratic fee as if wages for a federal government employee aren't also benefitting the economy by allowing that employee to pay for food, rent, expenses, etc. (average administrative fed employees are not rich, and spend almost all that they make).

I don't need you to try and lay out simple-minded examples that have no economic depth. Smarter people than you or me have already solved for "X", and you're wrong.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never said government is a sustainable economic booster over the long term, but unless we make systemic change to put more money in the hands of the middle and working class, we'll ALWAYS have massive unemployment and poverty during every recession. That's why wealth redistribution, and a remake of our tax code, is necessary to put more money in the hands of the working classes permanently. Forgiving student loans for low-income people will allow them to invest in businesses and use that money for other means that CAN stimulate the economy sustainably.

There's no excuse for a country as wealthy as ours to have breadlines after people are out of work for less than a month. That's a result of crony capitalism and 40 years of trickle-down theory. Look at the wealth inequality and how it has shifted over the decades. Bezos has VASTLY increased his net worth while tens of millions in the U.S. beg for food and fight eviction.

That's not a just economy, and more to the point it's not sustainable economy (to borrow a phrase).

Massive wealth and income inequality isn't good for anyone. Except billionaires. And fuck them. Our government owes them NOTHING.
 
As with all govt giveaway programs there will be massive fraud. 50 million non-whites who can't even read will claim they have $80,000 in student loan debt.
 
A simpler fix would be to end making student debt undischargable in bankruptcy court. A cap on the amount would be reasonable, say $10,000 or $20,000. So, someone with lots of student debt and no way to pay it off could declare bankruptcy and discharge some or all of there student loan debt. Sure, it ruins their credit but that's their problem. That makes this the person who ran up that debt responsible as it should be. Why forgive the debt? There's no reason to.
 
Dark Soul said:
It does increase demand, but does nothing to increase supply. Therefore cost of the goods consumed rises. Inflation stifles economic growth. Next.
Click to expand...

Nope. It increases demand and companies and suppliers expand and hire to keep up. Demand is what creates employment.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
A simpler fix would be to end making student debt undischargable in bankruptcy court. A cap on the amount would be reasonable, say $10,000 or $20,000. So, someone with lots of student debt and no way to pay it off could declare bankruptcy and discharge some or all of there student loan debt. Sure, it ruins their credit but that's their problem. That makes this the person who ran up that debt responsible as it should be. Why forgive the debt? There's no reason to.
Click to expand...

Bankruptcy is also a type of bailout and there should be very severe penalties for it. A bad credit rating is not enough.
 
Promoting and making education more accessible as an investment on educating individuals who would become professionals as productive assets of occupations in society with a return on that investment at serving the best interests of society and the economy. Yet as a typical tRump kisser and a sucker, consider what your fake president tRump and his goons' approach to education is when it comes to destroying education in America: Why Trump is trying to reduce the status of the Department of Education

Trump’s proposals is to merge the Department of Education with the Department of Labor. What motivates Trump to reduce the status of the federal Department of Education?

Assistant Professor of Public Service, Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service - New York University
Republicans have opposed the Department of Education’s existence since its establishment in 1979. Recently, Republican voters’ backlash against the Common Core State Standards has reignited the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the federal government’s role in education. In the 2016 presidential election, then-candidate Trump campaigned to terminate Common Core and the Department of Education to restore local control in education. Even though this proposal is unlikely to become law, Trump is motivated to demote the Department of Education in order to advance his campaign promises and engage in “position taking” with Republican voters on a salient policy issue before the midterm election this November.

In October 1979, President Carter signed the Department of Education Reorganization Act, which established the Department of Education as a separate, Cabinet-level agency. Republicans opposed the enactment of this law because of their opposition to the federal government’s role in education and, generally, the growth of the federal government. President Reagan and Republican legislators introduced legislation to re-merge or abolish the Department of Education with no success. Over time, Democratic and Republican administrations, especially the George W. Bush administration, expanded the Department of Education’s influence in education."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brow...ce-the-status-of-the-department-of-education/
 
Nordberg said:
Nope. It increases demand and companies and suppliers expand and hire to keep up. Demand is what creates employment.
Click to expand...

Peter pays GovCo, GovCo takes its cut, then GovCo gives to Paul. Paul finds it advantageous not to produce. Peter finds ways to avoid the tax. You've created no wealth. The money eventually runs out and the whole mess collapses. Since the transactions are not voluntary, freedom is lost.

Yet when you remove GovCo obstacles to manufacturing and technology, SUPPLY goes up, cost of goods goes down and companies profit. With that profit they expand and need workers to do that. Wealth is created when something of little value is transformed into something of greater value. Peter becomes rich and hires workers to build him a new house. Paul has a job now and buys Peter's old house. Each transaction is voluntary. GovCo doesn't do anything except collect taxes on each transaction.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
This is the sort of Abuse of Power, the two trannies Aunt Barry and Big Mike used so much. Using EOs to write laws even though the constitution says "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.". What do we tell the people who paid their debt?
Click to expand...
How many EOs did Donnie write in comparison?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
A simpler fix would be to end making student debt undischargable in bankruptcy court. A cap on the amount would be reasonable, say $10,000 or $20,000. So, someone with lots of student debt and no way to pay it off could declare bankruptcy and discharge some or all of there student loan debt. Sure, it ruins their credit but that's their problem. That makes this the person who ran up that debt responsible as it should be. Why forgive the debt? There's no reason to.
Click to expand...

No disagreement here. I defaulted on my loan, had to pay it back anyway, and my credit rating was shitty for ten years after that.

The solution to this problem, long term, is easy. Don't loan money for degrees that have a history of shitty returns; loan to degrees that build or protect wealth to the overall economy. Loan to engineers, technical and manufacturing degrees, nurses and doctors; don't loan to lesbian-dance-theory majors.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
How many EOs did Donnie write in comparison?
Click to expand...

Hey stupid. How many times must we explain this.??? THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH EXECUTIVE ORDERS. !!!! They are an essential tool for any president. EOs let a president explain how he is going to enforce a law written by congress. But aunt barry and big mike used EOs to write laws.
 
Dark Soul said:
The solution to this problem, long term, is easy. Don't loan money for degrees that have a history of shitty returns; loan to degrees that build or protect wealth to the overall economy. Loan to engineers, technical and manufacturing degrees, nurses and doctors; don't loan to lesbian-dance-theory majors.
Click to expand...

Thing is only white and asian men have skills or interest in STEM. That's why colleges have all these mickey mouse courses. They are the only thing blacks and women can do.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
A simpler fix would be to end making student debt undischargable in bankruptcy court. A cap on the amount would be reasonable, say $10,000 or $20,000. So, someone with lots of student debt and no way to pay it off could declare bankruptcy and discharge some or all of there student loan debt. Sure, it ruins their credit but that's their problem. That makes this the person who ran up that debt responsible as it should be. Why forgive the debt? There's no reason to.
Click to expand...

Letting it be discharged in BK would be a great first step, yes. Are you saying there should be a cap on what's discharged in BK? I don't agree with that at all.

Even tax debts can be discharged in BK. Creating this separate giveaway to private, federally-backed student-loan lenders while simultaneously taking hits on old tax liabilities in bankruptcy court is absurd. But that's crony capitalism for you.
 
gemini104104 said:
Promoting and making education more accessible as an investment on educating individuals who would become professionals as productive assets of occupations in society with a return on that investment at serving the best interests of society and the economy. Yet as a typical tRump kisser and a sucker, consider what your fake president tRump and his goons' approach to education is when it comes to destroying education in America: Why Trump is trying to reduce the status of the Department of Education

Trump’s proposals is to merge the Department of Education with the Department of Labor. What motivates Trump to reduce the status of the federal Department of Education?

Assistant Professor of Public Service, Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service - New York University
Republicans have opposed the Department of Education’s existence since its establishment in 1979. Recently, Republican voters’ backlash against the Common Core State Standards has reignited the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the federal government’s role in education. In the 2016 presidential election, then-candidate Trump campaigned to terminate Common Core and the Department of Education to restore local control in education. Even though this proposal is unlikely to become law, Trump is motivated to demote the Department of Education in order to advance his campaign promises and engage in “position taking” with Republican voters on a salient policy issue before the midterm election this November.

In October 1979, President Carter signed the Department of Education Reorganization Act, which established the Department of Education as a separate, Cabinet-level agency. Republicans opposed the enactment of this law because of their opposition to the federal government’s role in education and, generally, the growth of the federal government. President Reagan and Republican legislators introduced legislation to re-merge or abolish the Department of Education with no success. Over time, Democratic and Republican administrations, especially the George W. Bush administration, expanded the Department of Education’s influence in education."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brow...ce-the-status-of-the-department-of-education/
Click to expand...

It's authoritarianism 101. You ever notice how when we talk about student-loan forgiveness, the Right immediately throws a fit about "feminism studies" or some course of college study that they dislike? It's because the Right are thought police. They want to keep people in low-skill jobs. Dumb, unhealthy, and compliant.

If the Right allows for a nation of college-educated critical thinkers, they're fucked. Their party will never win again. Ever.
 
Jerome said:
It's authoritarianism 101. You ever notice how when we talk about student-loan forgiveness, the Right immediately throws a fit about "feminism studies" or some course of college study that they dislike? It's because the Right are thought police. They want to keep people in low-skill jobs. Dumb, unhealthy, and compliant.

If the Right allows for a nation of college-educated critical thinkers, they're fucked. Their party will never win again. Ever.
Click to expand...

Eh, my state New York spends a ton on education, but yet homeless shelters here often become full & then homeless have to go elsewhere to sleep.

Kind of disheartening, really & truly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top