Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[Gospel]

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice. Not to mention (of late) they hold more bonds as a whole than the federal reserve (another private entity). This make believe money effects us whether in public or private hands. The whole monitory system is a circus where some of us benefit the most. Can't talk about public debt as if private debt isn't intertwined with it. It's one big bowl of the ugliest soup you can imagine. Too bad im from the hood and couldn't afford an education else I'd give you a theory of everything level analysis of this bullshit we call an economy.

 

[Toni]

You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)

Well, we won't know unless it happens, right?

And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

And a quasi-point: The Cultural Revolution stripped away wealth--but there's still a considerable relationship between pre-Revolution wealth and how the next generation fared. It's not as clear because educational advantages could persist.

Your point is what, exactly? Poland (without any links, context or anything other than a single sentence--excuse me: incomplete sentence. Kansas, again with out any data, context, etc. Simply your say so.

I suppose you mean China when you talk about the Cultural Revolution? Again, your point is so unclear and unformed that it is not possible to address it.

Your 'data points' are not data. Their relevance is undetermined.

However, we DO know that in the US, higher levels of education correlates with significantly higher earnings. This effect is actually smaller in the years right after entering the workforce but escalates throughout the working careers of people.

People with college degrees usually outearn people without college degrees by a significant amount, regardless of what that degree is in.

These are all cases that have been discussed on here before and were not discredited.

What I'm talking about is that we have seen that trying to pump up schooling for the disadvantaged doesn't improve outcomes.

This isn’t just a different goal post, it’s another discussion altogether and one totally unrelated to forgiving student debt.

For some suggestions at addressing educational disparities preK-12, Jimmy Higgins’ post #216 is a good place to start.

 

[Trausti]

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.

Who eats the loss? Kinda shitty to put that on responsible borrowers and tax payers.

 

[Gospel]

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.

Who eats the loss? Kinda shitty to put that on responsible borrowers and tax payers.

We eat the loss on infrastructure that some in the private sector use loopholes to pay next to nothing for.

 

[Gospel]

We eat the loss when the tax break receiving job creators don't create enough jobs and people get unemployment payments.

 

[laughing dog]

The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle. If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

 

[Trausti]

We eat the loss when the tax break receiving job creators don't create enough jobs and people get unemployment payments.

Employers pay into the unemployment fund.

 

[Gospel]

We eat the loss when the tax break receiving job creators don't create enough jobs and people get unemployment payments.

Employers pay into the unemployment fund.

And then Employer bills the consumer (AKA Tax Payer) to cover the expense and there is absolutely nothing the government can do about that.

 

[Trausti]

We eat the loss when the tax break receiving job creators don't create enough jobs and people get unemployment payments.

Employers pay into the unemployment fund.

And then Employer bills the consumer (AKA Tax Payer) to cover the expense and there is absolutely nothing the government can do about that.

Hang on, are saying that increased corporate taxation is simply passed onto to the public/consumer?

 

[Canard DuJour]

If the govt "deficit" spends a dollar, then both GDP and govt debt increase by a dollar, regardless of subsequent multiplier effects. The nominal stock of govt debt (almost) always increases while the debt-to-GDP ratio goes up and down all the time. There's no reason to think future tax payers necessarily get less as a consequence of the former - unless you confuse that with household finances.

By this logic we simply abolish taxes and fund the government with debt.

I'm sure you know what happens when you do that.

Yeah, you'd devalue the currency. So by this logic we should, in fact, not abolish taxes.

Not because the govt needs your money, but because it needs you to need its money.

Why is it somehow ok when it's "good" spending?

Who says that? The multiplier effect doesn't care whether you're building the Interstate Highway System or the Wehrmacht.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Good question. I'll let J.K. Galbraith explain it:

“To put things crudely, there are two ways to get the increase in total spending that we call “economic growth.” One way is for government to spend. The other is for banks to lend. Leaving aside short-term adjustments like increased net exports or financial innovation, that’s basically all there is. Governments and banks are the two entities with the power to create something from nothing. If total spending power is to grow, one or the other of these two great financial motors –public deficits or private loans– has to be in action.

For ordinary people, public budget deficits, despite their bad reputation, are much better than private loans. Deficits put money in private pockets. Private households get more cash. They own that cash free and clear, and they can spend it as they like. If they wish, they can also convert it into interest-earning government bonds or they can repay their debts. This is called an increase in “net financial wealth.” Ordinary people benefit, but there is nothing in it for banks.

And this, in the simplest terms, explains the deficit phobia of Wall Street, the corporate media and the right-wing economists. Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth. When a bank makes a loan, cash balances in private hands also go up. But now the cash is not owned free and clear. There is a contractual obligation to pay interest and to repay principal. If the enterprise defaults, there may be an asset left over –a house or factory or company– that will then become the property of the bank. It’s easy to see why bankers love private credit but hate public deficits.”

 

[Gospel]

We eat the loss when the tax break receiving job creators don't create enough jobs and people get unemployment payments.

Employers pay into the unemployment fund.

And then Employer bills the consumer (AKA Tax Payer) to cover the expense and there is absolutely nothing the government can do about that.

Hang on, are saying that increased corporate taxation is simply passed onto to the public/consumer?

Did I not call it a circus?

 

[Gospel]

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Good question. I'll let J.K. Galbraith explain it:

“To put things crudely, there are two ways to get the increase in total spending that we call “economic growth.” One way is for government to spend. The other is for banks to lend. Leaving aside short-term adjustments like increased net exports or financial innovation, that’s basically all there is. Governments and banks are the two entities with the power to create something from nothing. If total spending power is to grow, one or the other of these two great financial motors –public deficits or private loans– has to be in action.

For ordinary people, public budget deficits, despite their bad reputation, are much better than private loans. Deficits put money in private pockets. Private households get more cash. They own that cash free and clear, and they can spend it as they like. If they wish, they can also convert it into interest-earning government bonds or they can repay their debts. This is called an increase in “net financial wealth.” Ordinary people benefit, but there is nothing in it for banks.

And this, in the simplest terms, explains the deficit phobia of Wall Street, the corporate media and the right-wing economists. Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth. When a bank makes a loan, cash balances in private hands also go up. But now the cash is not owned free and clear. There is a contractual obligation to pay interest and to repay principal. If the enterprise defaults, there may be an asset left over –a house or factory or company– that will then become the property of the bank. It’s easy to see why bankers love private credit but hate public deficits.”

Now that is the circus I'm talking about! The Federal Reserve (Being a special Disney District for the Federal Government) acts as a public entity when it buys bonds so said federal government can operate (including giving loans).

The same Federal Reserve acts as a private entity and pulls money out of its ass to give to private banks with interest. They say other taxpayers will have to cover the costs of forgiven loans as if the government didn't sell bonds that EVERYBODY has to pay for. All this while the private side is in the same circus ring thus I wonder why it doesn't get as much scrutiny.

 

[Gospel]

Maybe some day really brilliant people will get together and come up with a more.efficent monitary system. What we have no works but has it's flaws since the dumb white men that came up with it didn't think about everything.

 

[Metaphor]

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

 

[Metaphor]

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.

Who eats the loss? Kinda shitty to put that on responsible borrowers and tax payers.

Yes, I spoke too hastily with respect to non-natural persons and the interaction with multiple parties.

 

[Gospel]

So yeah, how are government bonds backed anyway? Ya know that stuff the private sector is heavily invested in for profit. I thought the good ole USA sells bonds to fund its operation. What backs those bonds? What does the USA use to back those bonds? What does the private sector do with the profits from the government bonds they hold? I really want to understand this circus created by a bunch of European intellectuals.

Doesn't the government get all it's money from the Federal reserve selling bonds? Ya know, that loan money that Biden is half ass forgiving while the bonds remain secured.

Who pays the bonds?

I'm not even considering the hocus-pocus called the federal reserve and what they do with the Bonds they purchase when they're allegedly a non profit organization.


Does it all just go poof?

 

[laughing dog]

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.

 

[Metaphor]

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.

"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief

 

[Gospel]

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.

"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief

Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?