Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Biggest Fears of a Biden Presidency


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Even though I am not a Trump "guy" I do have concerns.

1) The student loan forgiveness.   I just don't see that being a good idea.  I also think it will create quite a problem for those who have paid them off, and in many cases suffered to do so.   I'm also concerned that the loan forgiveness will target only black colleges / universities.

2) Very large tax increases.   Now we all know Biden will eliminate Trump's tax breaks, which then doesn't qualify as a tax cut, but what else will be taxed? What other increases will we have to endure

3) Massive increases in illegal immigration and the drain on the system to support it.  Biden has already said he wants to find a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants here.   What a path to citizenship means hasn't been defined to my knowledge by his administration, but we will see.   I'm 100% ok with immigrants having a legal path to citizenship and being contributing members of society, however I fear they could be a huge drain on our welfare system.

4) I'm worried about him dying in office, or a significant diminishing of his mental capacities.  Not because of Kamala, but more because I think it makes us look weak.  

 

None of this could happen, but these are a few of mine.

Regarding #2, I recall reading someplace that the Trump tax breaks for people earning less than 100K are set to expire in 2021 but the corporate tax breaks were permanent 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 416
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Even though I am not a Trump "guy" I do have concerns. 1) The student loan forgiveness.   I just don't see that being a good idea.  I also think it will create quite a problem for those who have

LOL Let's have a serious conversation about concerns people have about Biden as POTUS. "Why, here's a great chance to remind everyone I think Donald Trump is awful.  There aren't enough thre

There were tons of ridiculous Hunter Biden stories in the social media sphere last summer. Should news outlets cover them all, even though they couldn’t verify any of the facts?  We are witnessin

1 hour ago, gianmarco said:

I'm on the fence on this and could see it either way.  I think education expenses are out of control.  That's the major issue.  But wiping away debt for those that decided to incur those expenses without means isn't necessarily the right way either.  I don't think it's bad, but I think there's other areas where it could help more. 

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to it if there's a reasonable plan in place for it.

Make the student debt held by lenders dischargeable in bankruptcy, but give the option for a 0% interest non-dischargeable government student loan to reduce costs.  Offer the same 0% non-dischargeable student loan to people attending public higher education institutions.  I'm sure there are some pitfalls here as I just thought this up in 5 minutes. 

One of my biggest issues with student loans is that I feel they are the biggest driver in the increased cost to attend college.  I can see why people don't want to eliminate student loan debt, but I don't think anyone would disagree that the current state of student loans as well as the cost to attend college are huge ####### problems.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

1. Him dying or becoming ill though that was a worry with Trump, Bernie, etc. At least Harris is young and energetic but she’s really inexperienced 

2. Failure to balance COVID and the economy 

3. Blowing up the deficit even further on social programs. I’m not against all social programs and we probably do need relief bills for those impacted by COVID but I worry we could get the wrong ones or ones that are half baked as he tries to please too many parts of his base that have very different beliefs. Plus of course the battles with the GOP Senate could leave us with Frankenstein spending that nobody is happy with and just nukes the debt even more.

4. The environment is too polarizing and he’s just not able to bring any ounce of unity to the country and we find ourselves in the same or worse spot on 4 years. 

5. He is torn apart by the far left in his party, the strong right in the Senate and moderates who supported him and with who he probably most aligns with. 

To bring this back to the original topic and not student loans... this is a solid list that I'm struggling to add to.  

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Cars for one...but for the most part "credit" is the target of this group...and it's the exact same problem, but there's an out for poor credit decisions.

An 18 year old without a cosigner, without a credit history  can get a $50K car loan with reasonable interest rates?

ETA- Not to mention with limited job prospects because they are going to college.

ETA2 - And I get that you want to make college loans just like any other similar loan, just that when you do this no one is getting a college loan without a credit history, a job, and/or a cosigner.   Maybe that is good policy in terms of driving down the growth of college costs or ending the problems of student debt but it is horrible policy in a vacuum for providing opportunity to the 60% or so of jobs that require more than a high school degree.  Sure there are other means to address those issues which could be part of a comprehensive plan, but in a vacuum of a standalone change this would be terrible.

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dickies said:
2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

1. Him dying or becoming ill though that was a worry with Trump, Bernie, etc. At least Harris is young and energetic but she’s really inexperienced 

2. Failure to balance COVID and the economy 

3. Blowing up the deficit even further on social programs. I’m not against all social programs and we probably do need relief bills for those impacted by COVID but I worry we could get the wrong ones or ones that are half baked as he tries to please too many parts of his base that have very different beliefs. Plus of course the battles with the GOP Senate could leave us with Frankenstein spending that nobody is happy with and just nukes the debt even more.

4. The environment is too polarizing and he’s just not able to bring any ounce of unity to the country and we find ourselves in the same or worse spot on 4 years. 

5. He is torn apart by the far left in his party, the strong right in the Senate and moderates who supported him and with who he probably most aligns with. 

To bring this back to the original topic and not student loans... this is a solid list that I'm struggling to add to. 

I agree, and would add:

6. Ramping up foreign military operations and/or starting new wars.

7. Ramping up Wall Street handouts and gifts to the banking industry in the guise of COVID relief or other programs.

I have no illusions that Biden's team will do anything meaningful to help the working class or protect the environment. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If student loans were like other loans some people would be prevented from continuing their education.  In particular, wealthier people with good credit and parents that can co-sign would get sufficient loans at good terms and would be able to get all the education they wanted.  By contrast, kids from underprivileged backgrounds with no parental financial support would be deemed too risky and would not be able to obtain a loan or, if they did, it would have punitive terms.  They would be shut out of many opportunities due to their economic status.  That strikes a lot of people as poor public policy.

Aren't there other ways to address this issue without giving bankers massive government handouts via guaranteed non-dischargeable loans?  What about grants, or direct funding of universities?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Aren't there other ways to address this issue without giving bankers massive government handouts via guaranteed non-dischargeable loans?  What about grants, or direct funding of universities?

Yes, I was a fan of Bernie's plan to make all public universities tuition free.  That strikes me as far superior to our current system.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Even though I am not a Trump "guy" I do have concerns.

1) The student loan forgiveness.   I just don't see that being a good idea.  I also think it will create quite a problem for those who have paid them off, and in many cases suffered to do so.   I'm also concerned that the loan forgiveness will target only black colleges / universities.

2) Very large tax increases.   Now we all know Biden will eliminate Trump's tax breaks, which then doesn't qualify as a tax cut, but what else will be taxed? What other increases will we have to endure

3) Massive increases in illegal immigration and the drain on the system to support it.  Biden has already said he wants to find a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants here.   What a path to citizenship means hasn't been defined to my knowledge by his administration, but we will see.   I'm 100% ok with immigrants having a legal path to citizenship and being contributing members of society, however I fear they could be a huge drain on our welfare system.

4) I'm worried about him dying in office, or a significant diminishing of his mental capacities.  Not because of Kamala, but more because I think it makes us look weak.  

 

None of this could happen, but these are a few of mine.

I agree with 1, 2, and 4 fwiw. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Yes, I was a fan of Bernie's plan to make all public universities tuition free.  That strikes me as far superior to our current system.

The price of going to college seems like a big problem and a big cause of the massive student loan debt.   Sure, you can go to community college or small state schools but there is a difference between those schools and some of the other high priced universities.   Control the costs.  Control student loans.  Maybe Covid will help young people see that they can attend local schools and be successful.   That success may change the opinion of this supposed necessity to attend prestigious schools and end up $100k in the whole upon graduation.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope whatever we do, it's not this way by Executive Order. From the article I linked to earlier.

Quote

 

Some Democrats Call for Student Loan Forgiveness by Executive Order. 

Just a few months ago democrats decried President Trump’s use of executive action to extend stimulus relief to millions of Americans. With Biden set to take office in January, however, the tables have turned. Now some are urging Biden to forgive billions if not more than a trillion dollars of student loans with the stroke of a pen.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants Biden to forgive up to $50,000 in student loans per borrower. Schumer has called for not only canceling this debt, but also eliminating the tax liability that results from loan forgiveness. He believes Biden has the authority to cancel student loans with an executive order under the Higher Education Act.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is also calling on Biden to forgive up to $50,000 in student loans. Before the election, she introduced a resolution along with Sen. Schumer calling on the next president to forgive up to $50,000 in student loan debt. She claims that forgiving student loans would be the “single biggest stimulus we could add to the economy.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) has also joined the calls to cancel student loans. She has said that Congress is not needed to forgive student loans, and that all that’s required is to “push” Biden to do it.

Can Biden Legally Cancel Student Loans with an Executive Order

If Biden follows this advice, student loan borrowers could wake up on January 21, 2021 with most if not all of their student loans forgiven. The question remains, however, whether such an executive order is legal.

At first glance this seems like an easy question to answer. Certainly our government of checks and balances doesn’t vest in one person the authority to spend a trillion dollars of taxpayer’s money. Even Alexander Hamilton would bristle at such an idea. Of course, he never met Senators Schumer or Warren.

They claim that the Higher Education Act of 1965 vests in the President the authority to do pretty much as he (or she) pleases when it comes to federal student loans. Citing a Harvard Law School study, they believe the President does indeed have the authority to cancel student debt:

“Congress has already granted the Secretary of Education the legal authority to broadly cancel student debt under section 432(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)), which grants the Secretary the authority to modify, ‘... compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.’ The Department of Education has reportedly used this authority to implement modest relief for federal student loan borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Others disagree. They argue that while the Higher Education Act does vest in the agency the power to modify debts in specific circumstances, it doesn’t give the President the blanket authority to wipe out student loans. What both sides do agree on, however, is that if Biden were to forgive student loans with an executive order, it would invite years of litigation.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not afraid of Biden installing massive tax hikes.  I’m more concerned about the realistic possibility of a few small tax hikes that hurt small, medium, and large businesses enough that it hurts the economy enough to start a downward spiral.    The economy is like dominos.   Once some jobs are lost, those folks spend less which impacts other businesses.   More jobs are lost and the dominos continue to fall.   The two years before Covid were pretty great with increased job numbers and increased pay.  Trump was an a hole but he had the economy going in the right direction.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another - 

Biden has a terrible record on criminal justice reform and the war on drugs. I suspect his thoughts on these have changed with the times, but I don't know that for sure.

So I have some concern he will suck in these areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, whoknew said:

Here's another - 

Biden has a terrible record on criminal justice reform and the war on drugs. I suspect his thoughts on these have changed with the times, but I don't know that for sure.

So I have some concern he will suck in these areas.

The war on drugs is a losing battle.  It’s also a no win situation.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Here's another - 

Biden has a terrible record on criminal justice reform and the war on drugs. I suspect his thoughts on these have changed with the times, but I don't know that for sure.

So I have some concern he will suck in these areas.

This is a very real possibility, but Biden -- a crusty old white guy -- was way ahead of Obama on gay marriage.  He's not quite as fossilized as people sometimes make it sound like.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If student loans were like other loans some people would be prevented from continuing their education.  In particular, wealthier people with good credit and parents that can co-sign would get sufficient loans at good terms and would be able to get all the education they wanted.  By contrast, kids from underprivileged backgrounds with no parental financial support would be deemed too risky and would not be able to obtain a loan or, if they did, it would have punitive terms.  They would be shut out of many opportunities due to their economic status.  That strikes a lot of people as poor public policy.

Correct....if you keep reading, I make a brief comment about this.....THIS issue is not unique to loans and it persists across all loans.  It's a symptom of a MUCH larger problem that will continue to exist regardless of the "patch" you put on loans.  THIS issue is taken care of by addressing issues around opportunity and "the system" we have that is much more systemic in nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

OK - Understood - it was just phrasing.  By far the most effective thing our government could do would be to remove the federal guarantee of student loan debt and amend the bankruptcy code to remove special treatment.  The notion of "debt cancellation" is just terrible optics, bad semantics (like "defund police").  It seems a much better use of tax dollars is to directly fund state universities and tech schools.  Let the private schools continue to cater to rich kids, while providing competent middle class and poor kids an opportunity to get a secondary education with out a 25 year debt handcuff.

 

 

Agreed :hifive:

Sorry for the confusion :bag: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DocHolliday said:
12 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Here's another - 

Biden has a terrible record on criminal justice reform and the war on drugs. I suspect his thoughts on these have changed with the times, but I don't know that for sure.

So I have some concern he will suck in these areas.

The war on drugs is a losing battle.  It’s also a no win situation.  

Yes, and sadly I don't really trust Kamala to be any better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. What do you think about wiping out past college debt for students?

I think my take is I don't see it that much different than if they'd borrowed money for something else. Maybe they wanted to skip college and instead open a lawn care business and borrowed $100,000 to get if off the ground and now the lawn care business has failed. Or they bought a Corvette and realize it's a bad investment. 

Seems to me the change should be in allowing young people to borrow that much money. Not just in erasing all the obligations. 

I also fully admit I'm human and I'd likely have a different selfish angle on this if I or my kids had a bunch of college debt. Free money is enticing. I get it. 

You probably know this already, but the average student who graduates with debt only owes about $30,000.  That's no big deal and isn't even close to "crisis" territory.

Folks with student loans tend to fall into one of several buckets.  Somebody who borrows ~$30K and graduates with an undergraduate degree in psychology or something isn't going to have any problem repaying that loan.  Similarly, somebody who borrows a boatload of money to pursue a professional graduate degree like an MBA or MD is probably going to be fine.  None of us should really be shedding any tears for freshly-credentialed cardiologists, for example.

There are really only two groups of people who -- as groups -- have a problem.  One is folks who borrow a significant amount of money for school but never finish their degree.  The problem in their case is that they have debt, but not the higher future income that allow for easy repayment.  The other group is people who got ripped off by for-profit schools, some of which are not far removed from deliberate scam operations designed to rip off the government via the student loan program.  I know a person who is walking around with over $100K in loans from Capella (the university, not our friendly FBG) for a graduate degree she earned in organizational behavior.  It's a low-value degree that many employers won't accept as an actual credential.  She's legitimately kind of screwed.

I'm extremely skeptical that we need blanket loan forgiveness for these two groups.    

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

He said it out loud first when he wasn't really supposed to.  I don't know if that makes him "way ahead" or just more willing to take political risks.

Well, either way is good.  I don't care whether Biden legitimately gets it or whether he's just adopting the position out of cold political expediency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yenrub said:

Regarding #2, I recall reading someplace that the Trump tax breaks for people earning less than 100K are set to expire in 2021 but the corporate tax breaks were permanent 

I would like to know if this is really true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rubiobot said:
1 hour ago, Yenrub said:

Regarding #2, I recall reading someplace that the Trump tax breaks for people earning less than 100K are set to expire in 2021 but the corporate tax breaks were permanent 

I would like to know if this is really true.

Most of the changes to the individual taxes expire in 2025 and start phasing out in 2021.   This is because to get the bill under reconciliation rules it had to add less that $1.5 trillion to the deficit over ten years and not add anything to the deficit beyond that ten year window.  (Or something really close to that.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Most of the changes to the individual taxes expire in 2025 and start phasing out in 2021.   This is because to get the bill under reconciliation rules it had to add less that $1.5 trillion to the deficit over ten years and not add anything to the deficit beyond that ten year window.  (Or something really close to that.)

Not to derail, but is there any procedural way to stop nonsense like this?  The GWB tax cuts and the ACA were packaged in the same patently dishonest way due to the reconciliation rules, and I'm sure there are other examples I'm not aware of.  It seems like the OMB should be allowed to score based on the obviously popular benefits NOT suddenly stopping at the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr_Zaius said:

Not to derail, but is there any procedural way to stop nonsense like this?  The GWB tax cuts and the ACA were packaged in the same patently dishonest way due to the reconciliation rules, and I'm sure there are other examples I'm not aware of.  It seems like the OMB should be allowed to score based on the obviously popular benefits NOT suddenly stopping at the end.

If the Senate got rid of the filibuster this would no longer be an issue.

  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:
9 minutes ago, Dr_Zaius said:

Not to derail, but is there any procedural way to stop nonsense like this?  The GWB tax cuts and the ACA were packaged in the same patently dishonest way due to the reconciliation rules, and I'm sure there are other examples I'm not aware of.  It seems like the OMB should be allowed to score based on the obviously popular benefits NOT suddenly stopping at the end.

If the Senate got rid of the filibuster this would no longer be an issue.

I was about to post that this belongs in the ending the filibuster conversation that existed in one of these threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have little worry that Biden will do something like forgiving student loans. He seems to listen to the competent expert advisors he surrounds himself with. I think it'd be hard to find a competent economic advisor to endorse something like that (though I suppose a competent political advisor may endorse it).

My main worry with Hillary would have been that she'd create a humongous backlash among the far-right-conspiracy-theorist crowd. (For that reason, I'm not entirely convinced that the country would be in a better position now if she'd won in 2016.) I think Biden is about the most anodyne candidate possible in that regard. The craziness should be muted as much as possible (with "as much as possible" being an unfortunately grave qualifier).

My main worry with Biden is his age. He seems to be in good physical health, but still. In terms of his mental clarity, he's no Pete Buttigieg, but he should be fine if he can maintain his present state. At his age, though, nothing is guaranteed.

Other than that, I think he's a very good fit for what ails our democracy right now.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dr_Zaius said:

Not to derail, but is there any procedural way to stop nonsense like this?  The GWB tax cuts and the ACA were packaged in the same patently dishonest way due to the reconciliation rules, and I'm sure there are other examples I'm not aware of.  It seems like the OMB should be allowed to score based on the obviously popular benefits NOT suddenly stopping at the end.

I don't think this is a derailment at all. This is a major issue that I...feared most would generally ignore until after it's too late. Looks like that's being proven right - and it absolutely should be included in a thread about 'fear.' Even though I won't hold the incoming administration accountable for it - and whatever they do to try and correct it will be graded on a curve. Fact is this administration overtly collaborated with a republican congress on a cash giveaway to corporations and the rich and okeydoked the rest of us. And we let them. Cause we're a nation full of fools.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Capella said:

Schumer has said student loan forgiveness could happen with an exec order. It should be one of Biden’s top priorities. It would make an enormous impact for tens of millions. 

I wanted to go to a nice 4 year university but could not afford it.  I went to a community college, then transferred and commuted to a university.  Payed my own way for everything.  Took me a little longer but I graduated without any debt.   Have friends who attended schools they could not afford, partied, got so-so jobs, are in debt and now they will get forgiveness??  That would piss me off.

So am I going to get a nice check for doing things the right way?

I voted for Biden so while we are at it why not forgive my home mortgage?

Edited by Summer Wheat
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I was about to post that this belongs in the ending the filibuster conversation that existed in one of these threads.

Not sure - I think it only tangentially relates to the filibuster.  I'd be fine with going back to original "real" filibuster rules where you either keep talking or the filibuster's over, but even aside from reconciliation specifically, the way those things were packaged dovetails with the way these things are always sold - it's all unicorns and rainbows from the party in power and the end of America from the party out of power.  If we need to debase common accounting practices on the road to ramming something through, can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs apparently.  

If we had a media that actually functioned, the tradeoffs would be put in front of the American people to make informed decisions, rather than them regurgitating misleading talking points and winking to the camera while they watch the rubes fall for the con.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

I wanted to go to a nice 4 year university but could not afford it.  I went to a community college, then transferred and commuted to a university.  Payed my own way for everything.  Took me a little longer but I graduated without any debt.   Have friends who attended schools they could not afford, partied, got so-so jobs, are in debt and now they will get forgiveness??  That would piss me off.

So am I going to get a nice check for doing things the right way?

I voted for Biden so while we are at it why not forgive my home mortgage?

I know there are a ton of people who'd love the free money of erasing loans. 

But I also know there are a ton of people that fit right in line with this post. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr_Zaius said:

Not sure - I think it only tangentially relates to the filibuster.  I'd be fine with going back to original "real" filibuster rules where you either keep talking or the filibuster's over, but even aside from reconciliation specifically, the way those things were packaged dovetails with the way these things are always sold - it's all unicorns and rainbows from the party in power and the end of America from the party out of power.  If we need to debase common accounting practices on the road to ramming something through, can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs apparently.  

If we had a media that actually functioned, the tradeoffs would be put in front of the American people to make informed decisions, rather than them regurgitating misleading talking points and winking to the camera while they watch the rubes fall for the con.

The passage of the ACA didn't really depend on the CBO scoring in the same way as the tax bills, but there was plenty of procedural nonsense involved that this technicality doesn't change your original point.  I also don't think it is really possible to "grade" those CBO and GAO analysis of the ACA because what was scored never actually saw the light of day.  But mostly I don't think that the CBO and GAO "debase common accounting practices".  I think they do the best job with the limited information they have making static projection in a very dynamic world.   If the CBO and GAO had "looked the other way" with the tax cuts then I think that the tax cuts would have been permanent.  So I don't think this is the problem.

Now if I assume that you wanted the Bush and/or Trump tax cuts to have been permanent from the get go then I think the elimination of the filibuster rules might have accomplished this as the GOP would have had the votes (I'd think).  I'm not so sure that the ACA ever gets done if not for the crisis of Scott Brown's election.   I could imagine that democrats would have kept on having hearings and discussions and such but never having enough of a consensus to pass anything.  So while I'm not certain either way, it could very well be that the filibuster rules and the lost of the super majority was the trigger that made 2010 different from other attempts.   Maybe!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I know there are a ton of people who'd love the free money of erasing loans. 

But I also know there are a ton of people that fit right in line with this post. 

Like many social programs...there is that balancing act.

If we went to government healthcare in many forms...would the same argument not happen..."I paid for X number of years...why should so and so now get it "free"?"  Im sure is a struggle to deal with and understand that much of what they do will come with complaints of unfairness from somewhere.

Its up to them then to sell the public on it...if they feel it is beneficial to us as a country.  Show us how...if there are studies or numbers...even better.  Market the idea in a way to minimize such complaints.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dr_Zaius said:

If we had a media that actually functioned, the tradeoffs would be put in front of the American people to make informed decisions, rather than them regurgitating misleading talking points and winking to the camera while they watch the rubes fall for the con.

I think the media gives the people what they want. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Dr_Zaius said:
1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I was about to post that this belongs in the ending the filibuster conversation that existed in one of these threads.

Not sure - I think it only tangentially relates to the filibuster.  I'd be fine with going back to original "real" filibuster rules where you either keep talking or the filibuster's over, but even aside from reconciliation specifically, the way those things were packaged dovetails with the way these things are always sold - it's all unicorns and rainbows from the party in power and the end of America from the party out of power.  If we need to debase common accounting practices on the road to ramming something through, can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs apparently.  

If we had a media that actually functioned, the tradeoffs would be put in front of the American people to make informed decisions, rather than them regurgitating misleading talking points and winking to the camera while they watch the rubes fall for the con.

The problem you originally described was 100% attributable to the filibuster.  The only reason that all this CBO scoring of reconciliation bills matters is because such bills can pass with a simple majority rather than 60 votes.  If every bill could pass with a simple majority we wouldn't need to do that stuff any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

The problem you originally described was 100% attributable to the filibuster.  The only reason that all this CBO scoring of reconciliation bills matters is because such bills can pass with a simple majority rather than 60 votes.  If every bill could pass with a simple majority we wouldn't need to do that stuff any more.

You're correct, but I was trying to shift to a broader argument by drawing a parallel between the scoring process and the way things generally get sold to the public. 

1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

The passage of the ACA didn't really depend on the CBO scoring in the same way as the tax bills, but there was plenty of procedural nonsense involved that this technicality doesn't change your original point.  I also don't think it is really possible to "grade" those CBO and GAO analysis of the ACA because what was scored never actually saw the light of day.  But mostly I don't think that the CBO and GAO "debase common accounting practices".  I think they do the best job with the limited information they have making static projection in a very dynamic world.   If the CBO and GAO had "looked the other way" with the tax cuts then I think that the tax cuts would have been permanent.  So I don't think this is the problem.

Now if I assume that you wanted the Bush and/or Trump tax cuts to have been permanent from the get go then I think the elimination of the filibuster rules might have accomplished this as the GOP would have had the votes (I'd think).  I'm not so sure that the ACA ever gets done if not for the crisis of Scott Brown's election.   I could imagine that democrats would have kept on having hearings and discussions and such but never having enough of a consensus to pass anything.  So while I'm not certain either way, it could very well be that the filibuster rules and the lost of the super majority was the trigger that made 2010 different from other attempts.   Maybe!  

I think the ACA still would have happened without reconciliation as the Democrats were all-in on getting something passed.  Now, whether the pound of flesh a Republican 60th vote would have demanded would have made the final thing substantially different, I have no idea.

You are correct, what I would like is for no funny business of sunsetting things that you have no intention of actually sunsetting, or having temporary revenues hide the net cost of a bill.  If the policy you're advocating for is so great, you should be able to admit its net fiscal cost without losing people's support.

1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I think the media gives the people what they want. 

Maybe.  Aren't news ratings tanking?  Some of it is probably cord-cutting, but most people I talk to express displeasure with their news choices.  Although how representative my circle is of the rest of the country, I have no idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dr_Zaius said:

Now, whether the pound of flesh a Republican 60th vote would have demanded would have made the final thing substantially different, I have no idea.

There wasn't a taker in 2010.  I've posted before that the most powerful person in the Senate in 2010 would have been the 60th  vote from a GOP member.  They could have had just about any bill contain whatever [semi reasonable to democrats] amendments they believed in enough to cast that "bipartisan" vote.  Now I'm not arguing one lone GOP senator really makes a bill bipartisan, just that the democrats were desperate on more than one occasion to make that claim in 2009 and 2010  no matter how weak the foundation for the claim.  But no one took the opportunity.     

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
Added the "semi reasonable.." part
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I know there are a ton of people who'd love the free money of erasing loans. 

But I also know there are a ton of people that fit right in line with this post. 

Everybody wants "free" money.   We all know nothing is really free.

Deciding who gets what is going to be as difficult as it gets and I assume there will be tons of fraud as well. 

Will all the people who gave up things like vacations, driving better cars, living in a nicer home, people who planned and saved get a rebate of some sort? 

Why not make whatever is owed interest free? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Summer Wheat said:

I wanted to go to a nice 4 year university but could not afford it.  I went to a community college, then transferred and commuted to a university.  Payed my own way for everything.  Took me a little longer but I graduated without any debt.   Have friends who attended schools they could not afford, partied, got so-so jobs, are in debt and now they will get forgiveness??  That would piss me off.

So am I going to get a nice check for doing things the right way?

I voted for Biden so while we are at it why not forgive my home mortgage

 

2 hours ago, Summer Wheat said:

I wanted to go to a nice 4 year university but could not afford it.  I went to a community college, then transferred and commuted to a university.  Payed my own way for everything.  Took me a little longer but I graduated without any debt.   Have friends who attended schools they could not afford, partied, got so-so jobs, are in debt and now they will get forgiveness??  That would piss me off.

So am I going to get a nice check for doing things the right way?

I voted for Biden so while we are at it why not forgive my home mortgage?

America summed up in one post. Screw everybody else what can I get out of it. 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 

Edited by Capella
Don’t know why it quoted you twice tho
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TripItUp said:

Small business devastation/economic recession

 

9 hours ago, MAC_32 said:

My understanding is this is already happening now. Please re-direct.

I'm not surprised I haven't received a response since I think sabotaging the economy is the republican strategy, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Capella said:

America summed up in one post. Screw everybody else what can I get out of it. 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 

No way. That's unfair to impute that to his argument. I personally paid $100,000 back in student loans and I don't expect the government to allow free riders, either. And much like the poster you're quoting, I had to sacrifice things to even get through school. I did it without incurring about $200,000 in debt. And then the market for legal jobs just tanked when I was graduating.

No way should people that financed educations they couldn't afford get relief when I've certainly worked my ### off to pay my fair share of a debt. That's ludicrous.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

There wasn't a taker in 2010.  I've posted before that the most powerful person in the Senate in 2010 would have been the 60th  vote from a GOP member.  They could have had just about any bill contain whatever [semi reasonable to democrats] amendments they believed in enough to cast that "bipartisan" vote.  Now I'm not arguing one lone GOP senator really makes a bill bipartisan, just that the democrats were desperate on more than one occasion to make that claim in 2009 and 2010  no matter how weak the foundation for the claim.  But no one took the opportunity.     

You're probably right.  I don't remember a huge push for a token R for bipartisan purposes until the Brown election forced this issue, at which point maybe the well had been poisoned by the rancorous debate.  But, I'll defer to your memory as it was a long time ago and the details of the timeline are getting fuzzy to me.  Party discipline being what it is these days I'm sure there would have been a huge price for said Republican - might have had to switch parties as they probably would have been stripped of committees and seniority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr_Zaius said:

You're probably right.  I don't remember a huge push for a token R for bipartisan purposes until the Brown election forced this issue, at which point maybe the well had been poisoned by the rancorous debate.  But, I'll defer to your memory as it was a long time ago and the details of the timeline are getting fuzzy to me.  Party discipline being what it is these days I'm sure there would have been a huge price for said Republican - might have had to switch parties as they probably would have been stripped of committees and seniority.

No takers in my recollection, either. The Scott Brown win in Massachusetts told everyone what even more liberal areas thought about the lie about keeping your doctor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rockaction said:

No way. That's unfair to impute that to his argument. I personally paid $100,000 back in student loans and I don't expect the government to allow free riders, either. And much like the poster you're quoting, I had to sacrifice things to even get through school. I did it without incurring about $200,000 in debt. And then the market for legal jobs just tanked when I was graduating.

No way should people that financed educations they couldn't afford get relief when I've certainly worked my ### off to pay my fair share of a debt. That's ludicrous.

Yeah, this would be my objection as well, and why giving a blanket gift of money to a certain subset seems inherently unfair.  I know several people personally who chose a less prestigious/desirable (in their eyes anyway) school for financial reasons.  And people who put off a nicer car or home to prioritize paying off student loans.  To me any sort of restitution needs to be universal, not tied to how fiscally irresponsible you were.

In my limited thinking on the subject, putting the accredited institution on the hook makes the most sense - if Ivy League State convinces Johnny to take out $150K of loans for their product, then they can make the government whole 15 years later when Johnny is destitute. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Summer Wheat said:

I wanted to go to a nice 4 year university but could not afford it.  I went to a community college, then transferred and commuted to a university.  Payed my own way for everything.  Took me a little longer but I graduated without any debt.   Have friends who attended schools they could not afford, partied, got so-so jobs, are in debt and now they will get forgiveness??  That would piss me off.

So am I going to get a nice check for doing things the right way?

I voted for Biden so while we are at it why not forgive my home mortgage?

I paid $400/mo for 9 years to repay my student loans. It taught me a good lesson. 

Edited by JAA
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dr_Zaius said:

 

4 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I was about to post that this belongs in the ending the filibuster conversation that existed in one of these threads.

Not sure - I think it only tangentially relates to the filibuster.  I'd be fine with going back to original "real" filibuster rules where you either keep talking or the filibuster's over, but even aside from reconciliation specifically, the way those things were packaged dovetails with the way these things are always sold - it's all unicorns and rainbows from the party in power and the end of America from the party out of power.  If we need to debase common accounting practices on the road to ramming something through, can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs apparently.  

If we had a media that actually functioned, the tradeoffs would be put in front of the American people to make informed decisions, rather than them regurgitating misleading talking points and winking to the camera while they watch the rubes fall for the con

 

I think the filibuster is critical to compromise

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I do hope whatever we do, it's not this way by Executive Order. From the article I linked to earlier.

 

Agreed. One of the best things long term for our nation would be to get away from the use of Executive Orders. The President’s role is not to create rules, regulations and programs, it’s to enact the ones that Congress passes.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, rockaction said:

No way. That's unfair to impute that to his argument. I personally paid $100,000 back in student loans and I don't expect the government to allow free riders, either. And much like the poster you're quoting, I had to sacrifice things to even get through school. I did it without incurring about $200,000 in debt. And then the market for legal jobs just tanked when I was graduating.

No way should people that financed educations they couldn't afford get relief when I've certainly worked my ### off to pay my fair share of a debt. That's ludicrous.

🇺🇸 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...