Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Forget the smirk (I didn't think there was a smirk, I think it was her smile face because the cameras are always on), her dismissal of a very valid concern to one of her cornerstone agenda items is the real story. "Of course not", she does't care about his struggles as long as she gets votes based on other people's struggles.
I'll look at the video later but if she said what she supposedly said I'm going to have to side with the Trump supporters on this one. Let's try being fair to everyone or none at all.
I don't see the part where she doesn't care about his struggles. "Of course not" was because the guy already knew the answer to his question before he asked it. Is it your impression that this guy was presenting a point of view that Warren had not previously considered?
It doesn’t matter if she smirked or not. The guy is right, and she doesn’t have a simple answer to his question......because he’s right.
Can you come up with a general rule that explains why this particular bill is objectionable but other laws that only benefit a subset of people are OK?
Virtually every law. But as one example I’ll say the mortgage interest deduction because it seems sorts analogous. “I did the right thing and paid off my whole house, why does that guy get to deduct from his taxes just because he spent money on other stuff instead?”
Not a fan. Never have been. Massive handout to middle class and upper class homeowners.
But what about recent home purchasers who factored in the mortgage interest deduction when they made the decision to stop renting and buy. They’re now screwed.
Agree on the first comment. I wouldn’t have supported the mortgage interest deduction way back in the day when it was proposed - but now it’s too late. People count on it today. That’s why we can’t change it now - because it would screw the people who “played by the previous rules.” Which actually goes against fatguy’s point. It’s in favor of the status quo.
Someone is always counting on the status quo. We shouldn’t abandon societal progress because some folks will be hurt by rule changes. Slave owners were counting on that labor. Was the Emancipation Proclamation a mistake because folks who played by the previous rules were losers?
I don’t disagree. Progress is great.
I mean if you're middle class and the status quo is the difference in thousands of dollars--that's a pretty big deal.
I don't think people who voluntarily take out student loans, which average about $30K, are in any way similar to slaves.
It's the retroactive aspect of this that rubs people the wrong way. For full disclosure, I've always thought the home mortgage interest deduction was preposterous, but I benefited from it for a number of years. Since then, I've bought a new home with cash. None of that should really matter, but I'll put it out there in case it does for some folks.
Sure, I understand the arguments why it might not be good policy. But @stlrams seemed to be questioning how this could help her politically. And it seems to me that a lot of voters might like having their student loans wiped out or at least lessened.
'A lot of' or 'enough to win election.' There is a rather substantial and meaningful difference between the two.
It's hard to isolate one particular policy and say that's the thing that won or lost an election. I think overall, my guess is that student loan forgiveness is a positive politically, particularly in the Democratic primaries. Warren seems to have been fading in the polls lately so unless something changes it probably isn't enough to win an election.
The counter argument is that for everyone that likes having their student wiped clean there are more people that feel alienated because they saved or paid off their student debt. Who doesn’t like not paying for something or getting it for free?
A lot of people aren’t living responsibly.
Right, I am speculating that the group I described is bigger and will feel more positive about the policy than your group feels negative about it. I haven't seen any data on this though, so I'm really just guessing.
My bias may be effecting how I've been viewing this issue, but there seems to be quite a bit of support for student loan reduction. Depending on how it's structured I am somewhere between 'may' and 'probably will' support it. Elimination though? It's a bridge too far for me - and I assume most everyone right of me too.
I work in higher ed - and sure it's just one small private college, but the difference in performance when evaluating those that don't pay anything vs. those that do...I mean, I expected a correlation, but not nearly as strong as what the data suggests.
So I saved $200 every month for college starting the day my kids were born has to pay for my neighbor who lives in 500k house, drives a bmw and is in debt to their eyeballs and who sent their kid to 65k year college and now works at Kmart? Hmm that seems fair?
I view a lot of other things about the way our country works as much more unfair than what you are describing. It's hard for me to get too worked up about someone that managed to graduate from college debt-free. That person is better off than most.
I'm aware of the details, both in her plan and the supporting data - I think suggesting a number anywhere near $50K is ridiculous. If you accumulated that much debt that you cannot pay then it's because of your poor decisions. College has gotten too expensive, but average in-state tuition is about $10K...right now. Not 5, 10, 20 years ago - right now. The majority of people can fund their education for less than $50K without applying any funding towards their education until post-grad.
Isn't that just for tuition? Wouldn't a full time student need more than that for things like housing and food?
Of course. And if you can't/won't pay for any tuition until after you graduate then that should heavily influence where you decide to go to school - both for living purposes and the cost of the school's you're deciding between.
But in that scenario we're stating that being out of college is time zero. But in actuality starting college is.
I think the fairness to the parents matter because parents are often involved in paying for college. Many parents save/invest years in advance. Most kids show up at 18, and while legally they're adults--they're anything but in terms of maturity. My mom had to take out an extra partial loan to cover my expenses the first year. I went to a medium sized public college. And still, my parents had to be involved in the loans and the entire process.
For starters, any kid whose family doesn't have any money will be eligible for potentially tens of thousands in federal/state grants that a kid from the middle class-up can't get.
