Jump to content


Photo

2020 Demolition Derby


  • Please log in to reply
254 replies to this topic

#241 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,798 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 30 June 2019 - 1810 PM

 

 

 

 

I will say, what little I've heard from the group, that I'm a fan of Andrew Yang's solution to the whole issue of college expense/Fed loans as outlined in this thread a few months back.

 

You're a fan of financing the debt of the most educated on the backs of the least educated?  

 

 

Not sure what you're talking about.  Don't recall anything like that in that vid.  For shits and giggles I watched the clip embedded in that thread again and didn't see anything that would warrant your question.  Did you bother to watch that clip or read any of the posts in that thread?

 

In fact I did.  At the same time I concentrated on his plan to excise the debt from the educated, I ignored the rest of what he said, though it is worthy of further discussion, it has absolutely nothing to do with his 10x10 plan wherein student loans would be paid back, regardless of debt load, of 10% of earnings over 10 years, regardless of earnings.  In other words if a student incurs $300,000 of debt, then can manipulate their earnings to show an annual earning of $50k, they would only have to pay 5k per year or $50k in total.  Who will be paying the other $250k owed on the debt?  Answer, the least educated, the least able.

Here's a novel concept, have the people that accrued the debt pay the debt.  This leftist mentality of giving away other people's money has got to stop, and make no mistake, there are plenty of Leftists dressed up to look like elephants.  I certainly am not exempting them from judgement.  That said, I'm well aware that I'm part of a shrinking minority, that the daily call for greater government paternity is ever more being answered.

 

 

Bravo, you watched the clip but didn't read the thread.  You took a 15s sound bite out of a 10m video that had nothing to do with what I was discussing several months back and then asked me if that's what I support.  /sigh...

 

You then go on to construe a hypothetical of the worst possible scenario to talk about something else.  Pro hijack.  If we're going to talk about that let's at least have an honest discussion.  It takes a couple seconds of googling to see average college debt is ~$39k.  Average income for new grads is harder to come by.  If you have the 'right' degree ~$50k starting off seems reasonable.  I know a recent book I read said a decade after graduation the average salary for grads was in the 30s, though.  This one is up in the air.

 

There are already options for those with student debt to not pay it off.  How many end up taking advantage of or abuse this I don't know.  It'd be interesting to see the figures on how many get off and with how much they end up not paying and compare that to Yang's plan (if we can even call it a plan... I didn't see anything on his campaign website about this 10x10 thing).

 

What he's right about, and certainly not the first to touch on it, is the impact all this debt has on young Americans at a point in their lives where they're historically more likely to start new businesses (he had a quote that new business creation is at record lows) and start new families (the repercussions of which are touched on in this thread).  Regardless of the letter behind his name his thoughts on how to address the system going forward so future graduates don't have the same burden are solid.


Edited by Skywalkre, 30 June 2019 - 1812 PM.

  • 0

#242 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,528 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 June 2019 - 1842 PM

This won't be popular, but I back the idea of forgiving outstanding student loan debt as a one time measure.    Frankly I think the Republicans should jump on that, along with legalization of marijuana (along with associated regulation and taxation).   

I get the whole "you made your bed, you lay in it" argument, and normally I would agree.   But you're not teaching a teenager a lesson in responsibility by encouraging them to fall victim to damn near predatory subprime lending and then saddling them as a young adult with more debt than they can ever realistically hope to repay.   The mentality of the adults in high school were that if you didn't go to college, you'd be a failure at life -- so get in the door even if you're not sure what you want to do yet because you can "always change your major later".  Followed immediately by universities raising tuition every single year for "administrative" overhead without any appreciable gain in quality of education.   It was a racket, they damn well knew it, and so I'm not going to get mad at the young adult when everyone along the lines made money off their ignorance and lack of experience.

Corporations got a pass on their unsustainable business practices and were bailed out (which I disagreed with), but student loan debt holders don't have billions, lawyers, or lobbyists.  Between the two, I would have thrown a bone to the student loan debt holders simply because corporations knew what they were doing and did it on purpose to maximize shareholder profit without regard to the health of the US economy as a whole.

The fact is, the US Government is never see a lot of that money again anyway.  It was a mistake to allow it to happen. But it did.  It can either be a learning experience for the debt holders, or we can just say they deserve it and should have known better and there will be no mercy -- the latter may make us feel better in some smug way, but the former is more likely to allow those people another chance to be productive members of society.  Since you can't bankruptcy out of student loan debt, there's no road to redemption for the punishment of not knowing what you wanted to do, and finding yourself in year 3 in a university that's doubled tuition every year and having to take loans you don't want to finish up.   It's not like they won't turn right around and put that money back into the economy anyway.


While we're on the subject, since when has the Government NOT hemorrhaged taxpayer money in any possible avenue you can think of? They're in a unique position to forgive debt and call it sunk costs (an "investment" into our future) without taking a hit to their S&P rating.  Banks will just write it off on their taxes anyway.


 


  • 0

#243 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 30 June 2019 - 1844 PM

408FKWW.jpg


  • 0

#244 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,518 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 30 June 2019 - 1854 PM

Bravo, you watched the clip but didn't read the thread.  You took a 15s sound bite out of a 10m video that had nothing to do with what I was discussing several months back and then asked me if that's what I support.  /sigh...

 

 

 

Indeed, sigh.  I read the entire thread, short as it was.  But only the first post, the video, specifically addressed what Andrew Yang said about debt forgiveness.  I don't care how much you write, how much you rationalize, you're still trying to piss on my boots and talk about rain.  So yes of course I took a hypothetical of $300,000 because if you use the average debt of $39K there is nothing to talk about.  Worst case, $39K can be paid back in 60 months just like an auto loan.  But that isn't the debt that we're discussing, is it?  That isn't the debt that had Rogan going on about a 50 year old ophthalmologist still trying to pay off his student loans.  Is it?  Speaking of which, the only ophthalmologist that should be paying off student loans at age 50 are quacks.  I note that Yang didn't bother pointing out Rogan's obvious appeal to emotion.  But then why should he, that's all he's got, that's all you have.


  • 0

#245 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,518 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 30 June 2019 - 1855 PM

While we're on the subject, since when has the Government NOT hemorrhaged taxpayer money in any possible avenue you can think of? They're in a unique position to forgive debt and call it sunk costs (an "investment" into our future) without taking a hit to their S&P rating.  Banks will just write it off on their taxes anyway.

That's nice.  I put three kids through college, will the government* be paying me back, or will people merely laugh and mock me for being so stupid as to pay off my debt?

 

*That is to say fucking idiot tax payers that don't mind giving away their money to the government so that they can distribute most of that money to cronies, and the rest to buy more votes.


Edited by DKTanker, 30 June 2019 - 1857 PM.

  • 0

#246 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,237 posts

Posted 30 June 2019 - 1855 PM

Bigger issue WRT college in the US is that our society has turned it into a gatekeeping thing for the more interesting/higher paying jobs, and turned going to a "better" college as some kind of an even-more-gatekeeping thing as well. So of course college tuition is going to become more and more expensive, it's basically a necessity for somebody who wants a middle-class or higher life. 

 

The irony is that most college degrees don't teach you anything all that vocational, since going to college wasn't historically designed to be vocational -- it was designed to give gentleman-types an education in history, the Classics, etc. I went to a college that's perceived as being really f*cking good, but basically everybody I know who graduated from it (including me) picked up their vocational skills afterward. (Which is also why all those "Liberal Arts degrees are creating unemployable graduates" spiels are completely wrong -- no, most of those grads fart around for a while and then learn Python or something, because they're intelligent people who don't want to starve).


  • 0

#247 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,528 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 June 2019 - 1859 PM

Keep in mind that forgiving student loan debt doesn't necessarily mean setting everything to zero.  It could simply be a reassessment of what that person can afford to pay a month with their current job then go ahead and turn that into a 60 month plan -- say it's $300/month for 60 months ($18,000) so your $250,000 debt gets reduced to $18,000.    Banks write the rest off on their taxes (they pay near zero anyway so it's like deducting after maximum deductions) without a credit hit to the lender, and so everything that comes in will be treated as interest to the Federal Government -- and it's a WAG but they may end up getting more revenue going that route with a lot more people paying and a lot less people simply defaulting and ruining their credit.

Then you get someone who has a chance again to become a productive member of society, maybe start a business or a family.  I get that it's a slap in the face to those who paid off their debts, and are paying off their debts -- I guess you can say screw you stranger out of spite to those who want to but can't realistically do so, and you're right to be mad, but you should be mad at the entire situation.  Lenders, schools, the Government.


Edited by Burncycle360, 30 June 2019 - 1905 PM.

  • 0

#248 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,518 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 30 June 2019 - 1940 PM

Keep in mind that forgiving student loan debt doesn't necessarily mean setting everything to zero.  It could simply be a reassessment of what that person can afford to pay a month with their current job then go ahead and turn that into a 60 month plan -- say it's $300/month for 60 months ($18,000) so your $250,000 debt gets reduced to $18,000.    Banks write the rest off on their taxes (they pay near zero anyway so it's like deducting after maximum deductions) without a credit hit to the lender, and so everything that comes in will be treated as interest to the Federal Government -- and it's a WAG but they may end up getting more revenue going that route with a lot more people paying and a lot less people simply defaulting and ruining their credit.

Then you get someone who has a chance again to become a productive member of society, maybe start a business or a family.  I get that it's a slap in the face to those who paid off their debts, and are paying off their debts -- I guess you can say screw you stranger out of spite to those who want to but can't realistically do so, and you're right to be mad, but you should be mad at the entire situation.  Lenders, schools, the Government.

So the plan is for people to roll up as much student debt as possible knowing that the debt will be forgiven by the Federal Government and that the banks will simply write off the debt?  Why get the banks involved, why not just forgive the debt and have the government write it off?  That's essentially what the US Federal Government is doing now for the trillions and trillions of dollars debt it has accumulated over the years and continues to accrue year after year.


  • 0

#249 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,528 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 June 2019 - 2029 PM

No, I'm not suggesting it be a recurrent thing, or that it would even apply to those currently in school.  I wouldn't even call it a first resort -- but the higher education is damn near a racket and aggressive lending along with practices by the institutions constitute a failed paradigm if we're finding ourselves in a society overwhelmed with young adults who are straddled with so much debt that they can't reasonably be expected to pay that back before they're in their 40 if ever.  You're not wrong that it was their choice, and generally I'm not a fan of bailouts either, but ignorance and naivety at that age shouldn't be a life sentence either... and what's more beneficial for the economy, giving them a second chance or letting them rot out of spite and never seeing most of that money anyway?   Educational reform is needed regardless of whether or not a bailout is part of that, and nobody has really gone into detail about what a bailout might constitute.

Unfortunately, it's not unusual for the taxpayer eats sunk costs on failed initiatives, and this would be no different, yet I'm not seeing the same outrage on the other things.  Two wrongs don't make a right of course, but this is one of the few cases where forgiving debt can pay dividends in 2nd order economic effects, never mind the advantages of taking a big ole bite out of the near-left voting pool.  Moderates on the left aren't happy with the radicalization with the party either, and the left knows they need everyone they can to show up, even as far as pushing for illegals and sub 18 year olds to be able to vote. 
 


Edited by Burncycle360, 30 June 2019 - 2035 PM.

  • 0

#250 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0636 AM

EChLUbD.jpg​


  • 0

#251 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,474 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0659 AM

:D


  • 0

#252 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,942 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 July 2019 - 1626 PM

A week after the great Mueller Show and not a word about it during the Dem debate. Must have been a huge victory for the Dems.

 

Critics slam CNN Democratic debate for ignoring Mueller, mock network’s ‘over-the-top’ coverage
Brian Flood By Brian Flood | Fox News

 

The first installment of CNN’s two-night Democratic primary debate was slammed by critics before it even began. Then it concluded without a single mention of CNN’s longstanding narrative that blew up during former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony.

 

Mueller's testimony before two House committees last week was largely considered a “disaster” for Democrats and opponents of President Trump who hoped he would provide a path to impeachment. However, Mueller was oddly never mentioned throughout CNN’s debate and Russia was essentially an afterthought at the first gathering of 2020 hopefuls since the testimony.

 

“CNN flounders now, they’ve no idea what the best anti-Trump message is, given the total meltdown of the Russia narrative, post-Mueller,” a CNN employee told Fox News on the condition of anonymity. “My internal read is honestly that they’re in despair. They so believed in a Mueller smoking gun. I think they’re slowly realizing that Trump wins again, and they almost can’t fathom that outcome.”

 

Conservative strategist Chris Barron told Fox News that CNN’s decision not to ask about the Mueller probe “speaks volumes about how little political currency Mueller or the Russia hoax has even among Democratic partisans” at this point.

 

“It is fascinating that Mueller, who Democrats have spent two years making the centerpiece of their efforts to undermine the President, was conspicuously missing from last night’s debate,” Barron said.

 

While Mueller was ignored by CNN’s moderators, the words racist or racism were uttered 15 times, the word “border” was mentioned 29 times, climate change was discussed 28 times and health care-related phrases were spoken 112 times.

 

CNN’s pro-Trump contributor Steve Cortes took notice and criticized his own network on Twitter.

 

“After two years of breathless media coverage of Russia and its supposed influence on 2016, not a single word last night in #DemDebate about Mueller. Even those radicals on stage realize Americans care about jobs, immigration, healthcare... rather than a few Russian media trolls,” Cortes tweeted.

 

Cornell Law School professor and media critic William A. Jacobson thinks that campaign consultants who prepped the candidates “obviously told their candidates to stay away from collusion and impeachment because they are losing electoral issues,” but that doesn’t explain why CNN’s moderators didn’t ask about it.

 

"After almost three years of non-stop Russia-collusion conspiracy theories by CNN and other liberal media, and threats by Democrats to impeach Trump by several of the Democratic presidential candidates, those topics were ignored during the CNN Democratic first debate,” Jacobson said. “That is a sign of how badly the Mueller Report and testimony hurt Democrats.”

 

CNN’s decision to bypass Mueller inquiries was hardly the only thing that critics took issue with during the debate.

 

CNN was criticized earlier this month when it announced that far-left opinion host Don Lemon would moderate alongside journalists Dana Bash and Jake Tapper, as debate moderators are typically straight-news anchors. Lemon offers his personal anti-Trump views on a nightly basis, so allowing him to grill 2020 hopefuls on a debate stage raised eyebrows across the media landscape.

 

The criticism of Lemon didn’t end when the debate began. “Don taking more partisan shots at Trump than the literal Democrats on the stage,” Fox News contributor Guy Benson tweeted.

 

Social media strategist Caleb Hull called it a “joke” when Lemon asked a candidate about Trump’s bigotry.

 

Daily Caller media critic-turned-White House correspondent Amber Athey thought CNN could have done a better job.

 

“The moderators were too strict on time limits, so even though the debate was policy-focused, it felt very surface-level. I also think good moderators would have exploited the tension between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and instead the way the questions were framed allowed them to team up against the moderates,” Athey told Fox News. “In today’s Democratic Party, it’s pretty obvious who is going to win that fight.”

 

CNN was also widely lampooned for dedicating an hour of primetime coverage to an elaborate, NBA-lottery style event to determine which night specific candidates would take the stage.

 

The liberal network’s debate draw was even criticized by the New York Times, as the paper’s chief television critic James Poniewozik asked, “Is it any surprise that CNN, the home of saturation coverage and interminable countdown clocks, would try to wring more airtime out of the debates?”

 

The highly-publicized stunt ended up drawing fewer viewers than regular programming on Fox News and MSNBC.

Once the big day arrived, CNN was ridiculed again. This time for the network’s “over-the-top” coverage of its own event.

 

“This is like the Olympics for them, but the sport is Trump name-calling,” political satirist Tim Young told Fox News. “They have 2 nights of piles of people calling him racist, misogynist… I can only imagine the anchors are welling up with tears of joy.”

 

Mediaite, a media industry watchdog site, published a roundup of insiders who “brutally mocked” CNN’s elaborate, “dramatic movie-trailer-style” intro to the debate. The article featured an assortment of media personalities on both sides of the aisle poking fun at CNN.

 

The Daily Beast’s top editor said, “If you want to stick your face into sharp objects, this CNN debate intro is here for you,” while a reporter from "The Week" noted that the "montage from CNN was the single dumbest thing I have ever seen."

 

NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck told Fox News that the event is an example of why CNN’s reputation has diminished since President Trump took office.

 

“CNN's over-the-top coverage has shown how unserious they are about fostering sober, substantive coverage of what could very well be the most important election of our lifetimes,” Houck said. “CNN has brought everything that people across the political spectrum have come to despise… countdown clocks, massive panels, 'College Gameday'-like sets, snarky chyrons, self-righteous 'Reliable Sources' newsletters about their supposed greatness, and refusing to look inward about why their ratings are so pitiful to name a few.”

 

For the first of two debates, CNN averaged just under 8.5 million viewers, according to early Nielsen data. That's far better than the ratings-challenged network usually fares, but also well below the combined 18.1 million viewers who tuned in to NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo for the first round of Democratic debates in June.

 

https://www.foxnews....-debate-mueller

 

 


  • 0

#253 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 01 August 2019 - 0423 AM

Does anybody but journalists watch these TV debates?  :huh:​ 


  • 0

#254 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,763 posts
  • Interests:WW2 Armor (mostly US)

Posted 01 August 2019 - 0931 AM

no, but keep in mind that the media isn't interested in people seeing raw data. The media needs to convert to soundbites and twist outcomes to fit their needs.

Even the debate format is set up to generate "one liners"


  • 0

#255 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,798 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 02 August 2019 - 1530 PM

Does anybody but journalists watch these TV debates?  :huh:​ 

 

Lots of folks watched the first one as pointed out here a few posts earlier in this thread.  The second night set a record for a D debate and the first night almost beat the record as well.  Ratings for this last debate were about half of what the last one got.

 

Some quick googlefu seems to show this last one did about as well as the worst ones from the '16 campaign.  So it begs the question - does the initial high viewership of these debates mean that D wave, that helped them during the midterms, is still going strong?


Edited by Skywalkre, 02 August 2019 - 1709 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users