It’s fine with me if the tax payer pays for their bad decisions too. Everyone makes a bad decision sooner or later.
Which is?
So why would he choose to promote and enact the Inflation Reduction Act, and then a couple of weeks later unilaterally declare a policy that effectively cancels the planned deficit decrease?
It wouldn’t have anything to do with mid-term elections in a few short months, would it?
That’s a very good question.
? You seem to be suggesting that there’s no reason to pass the Inflation Reduction Act if another policy interferes with the projected deficit-reduction part of it. Like I said, I don’t agree with that at all.
Are you asking whether Biden is trying to take actions that will please and benefit the voters in order to encourage them to vote for his party in the midterms? Sure, why wouldn’t he?
ISTM that that’s how appealing to the voters is supposed to work for politicians. Rather than the unending Trumpian hippopotamus-fecal-tsunami of irresponsible lies, malevolence, and egomania whose chief appeal for its cultists lay in its encouragement of paranoid xenophobia and violence.
Within a few weeks, he undercut one of his own arguments in favor of the Act, i.e., deficit reduction. So now the Act won’t actually meaningfully cut inflation, according to the CBO, and now deficit reduction is also gone. This was a good, well-thought-out plan, how?
Is it really good public policy for the government to subsidize poor decision making? Not that it hasn’t been going on for decades, but is it wise policy?
Oh, I’m not saying that there isn’t some self-interference in the combination of the two measures. I just think that we’re still likely to end up better off with both measures than we would be with only one, or neither.
As I asked mbh back in post #23 (and AFAICT got no answer), does that mean you also support removing bankruptcy provisions for people whose businesses go under?
If not, then why single out the student loan debt of college grads as deserving of punitive poverty, if the debts of failed business owners are entitled to relief?
And btw, can I just point out how kinda gross it is that when Mr.E describes his wife’s student debt predicament as caused by a combination of “poor decisions made in youth” and “bad luck” in the form of “several health crises”, both you and Magiver choose to completely ignore the “bad luck” aspect and lecture him as though the only factor involved was “poor decision making”?
Mr.E has been too gracious to call either of you out on that behavior, but it is not making your arguments look any more well-thought-out or well-intentioned.
He specifically said “poor decisions made in youth”, and that’s what I was remarking upon. Maybe it doesn’t apply to you, personally, but the vast majority of us have made our own poor decisions.
But I fail to see how tax cuts, debt forgiveness, and/or government subsidies are the answer to that problem.
Which he then immediately followed up, as you can read for yourself in his post #55 that I even thoughtfully linked to for you, with “and bad luck” (emphasis added).
Yes, that’s my point. You decided to remark upon the “poor decisions” aspect of this financial predicament and completely ignore the “bad luck” aspect of it, to strengthen your implied condemnation of people struggling with student loan debt as mere feckless freeloaders. Yeah, nice.
And I repeat (and gee, I don’t know why it seems to be so hard to get an answer to this question in this thread): Does that mean that you are in favor of removing bankruptcy provisions for those whose “poor decisions” and other mishaps cause their business ventures to fail?
It’s more nuanced than you are trying to make it.
Bankruptcy protection should be an absolute last resort. If MySpace goes out of business, tough luck. If a large part of the national/global banking system is distressed to the point of breaking, maybe government intervention is necessary.
Inability to pay student loans is in the former category.
I think this program is fine. As money-shuffling goes, it’s a better reason than any other number of arbitrary subsidies the government undertakes.
I do, however, roll my eyes way back in my head at the suggestion that limiting it to those who makes under $125k means that the money is going to go to those poor suffering people who need it most.
Yes, you can point to individuals who live on the edge at that income level, but by in large $10k of debt forgiveness to someone who makes $125k annually is going to be a nice bonus; it is not going to get them out from the dire financial straits that they supposedly live in due to their college loans.
You are moving three blocks from the top grouping to the next grouping. In the grand scheme of things, in a world containing $308 trillion in debt and one quadrillion dollars of nominal derivatives, this isn’t that big a deal.
Cc: @RitterSport
Chart courtesy of Visual Capitalist:
The idea that this will be inflationary is silly. At the worst, the US will sell t-bills to finance buying $300 billion of household debt, but it’s not like this shit is done in a vacuum by shit flinging monkeys. It will be done in a manner which will be measured, pre-announced, and just another part of the multi-trillion dollar daily global slush machine.
Which category does the $183,000 PPP loan that Marjorie Taylor Greene got forgiven for fall under?
I thought that most people here were against so called “what-aboutism”.
That’s not an answer.
As much as I dislike MTG, PPP loans were a completely different sort of thing, with a very specific (and liberal) mechanism for forgiveness built into them: if the business used at least 60% of the loan funds to cover their payrolls within a certain time frame, they could be forgiven.
PPP loans were essentially money that the government provided to businesses to ensure that employees would get paid during the pandemic; if the businesses used the money for that purpose, they didn’t have to reimburse the government for the loan.
Who here can speak for MtG?
It’s not that she got the loan. There was a catastrophe and few of us here are in a position to argue the depth of her need one way or another.
It’s just difficult to take seriously the arguments of people who said nothing about PPP forgiveness/socialism for 2 years but are absolutely freaking out about this.
“Hey kids, if you are just starting college you are an idiot if you don’t take out as much student loan money as you can get away with.”
That’s the behaviour this incentivizes. It will encourage young peoole to take on more debt than they need. Between the time value of money while you are in school and not accruing interest, the potential for payment holidays and then debt forgiveness, this is a sound investment.
The increased pool of student loan money will drive up tuition.
The only way student loan forgiveness wouldn’t do this is if you coupled it with the announcement that the government was getting out of the student loan biz entirely, and in the future students will have to go to their local banks and negotiate their own loans.