By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Biden vs Trump 2024 Political Platforms, Policies and Issues

Chrkeller said:
The_Yoda said:

I'm curious since we are drawing parallels, what are your thoughts on Legal vs Illegal immigration?  This question is for either of you and does tie into administrative policy differences between the two candidates.

Trump for me is just a no.  After Jan 6th he has to be a no, regardless of his policies.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of supporting illegal immigration.  It isn't fair to those who went through the system nor do we have the policies and infrastructure to support people who are coming over.  Perhaps if we raised taxes and built integration systems better my opinion would change.  

At this point he is just a criminal... And he needs to be locked up.
...Just like he demanded of Hillary.

It's great when narcissists fall on their own sword.

Unfortunately his support base will always support him, doesn't matter what he does.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Biggerboat1 said:
zorg1000 said:

Didn’t mean to ignore it, the conversation moved a lot by the time I saw your quote. Yes, room and board can make up a huge chunk of costs but room and board is a necessity for many students so it shouldn’t be outright disregarded. Not everybody lives close enough to a university or has access to reliable transportation in order to commute or has the money to rent a place close to campus, some people have abusive parents or get kicked out of the house when they turn 18, etc.

The problem is that you are generalizing an issue with a lot of nuance. Sure, a lot of people with student debt is a result of poor decisions but multiple users have provided a ton of examples of why some people may have student debt but you insist on acting like they are all lazy, idiots with a useless degree.

It’s very reminiscent of the abortion debate when people will say shit like, “if you didn’t want a baby then you should have kept your legs closed!” and ignore all the other various reasons that people get abortions.

I know you support universal healthcare, that’s why I brought it up. I’m saying that your argument of “I paid my student debt so others should too!” is the equivalent of elderly people saying “I had to wait until I was 65 to get Medicare so others should too!” in opposition to universal healthcare. It’s a fuck you, got mine mentality, I struggled to get where I am and you should too.

I also think it makes you a hypocrite. You don’t want to pay for other people’s education because they made poor decisions and believe in personal responsibility but you are fine with paying for people’s healthcare, many of which made poor decisions. Why are you ok with paying for the healthcare of a person who smoked for 40 years and now has lung cancer or the morbidly obese person who has diabetes or the alcoholic who got in a car wreck or the drug addict who overdosed or the idiot who injured themselves doing something reckless or that Covid denying, antivaxxer who is on a breathing machine. Why should our hard earned tax dollars go towards these people who need healthcare as a direct result of poor life decisions, shouldn’t we only have to take care of the people who live a healthy lifestyle?

To summarize, I think you’re a hypocrite and have a case of fuck you, got mine.

I feel you're being tad harsh here. I think there are a number of issued with this policy, if I'm understanding it correctly. Firstly it's treating a symptom rather than addressing the underlying cause. Is this gonna have to happen every decade to bail out the next generation? Why will their situation be any different than the current crop of debt-saddled graduates?

There's also a fairness component to this. It's not like your example above where an entitlement is given to people who's date of birth falls after a specific date. This forgiveness will treat people of the same age, studying the same courses at the same colleges, from the same backgrounds, differently based on whether they've been proactive in paying off their debt or not. Those who've endeavored to repay their debt will get nothing, whereas their contemporaries who've made it less of a priority will be let off the hook. In some instances this will be because some have made more money than others, but let's be honest, it's also because some people are more fiscally responsible than others.

It also potentially sets up a weird incentive structure going forward. Are future graduates gonna rush to repay their debts when they know there's a chance that it'll be done for them if they just wait it out...?

I live in Scotland and our fees get paid by the government. The loan that we take out for rent & living costs are repayable only when your income hits a certain threshold (27K per annum atm).  I think it's the case that whatever doesn't get repaid after 30 years is forgiven. This seems like a much better setup as obviously nobody is going to keep their salary under 27K just so they can dodge their loan in 3 decades time. But it also assists those who haven't been able to generate a decent income for whatever reason.

Bottom line, I think the US needs to address the route causes here rather than this measure, which yes, will help some vulnerable people, but will also reward others who've not been motivated or responsible enough to repay their debt when they could have, so I can see where chrkeller is coming from with some of his points tbh.

I briefly mentioned in one of my earlier responses that while I support student debt forgiveness, it is just a band-aid that doesn’t fix the underlying issues with the system and we will be in the same situation before long if those issues aren’t addressed.

I can understand the fairness aspect to a small extent, like of course it sucks if you recently paid off your loans and then shortly after that a bunch of people get theirs forgiven but at the same time I’m not for people suffering because others had to. I’ve never had student debt and this doesn’t benefit me in any way but I still support student debt relief because I think helping out my fellow Americans is good policy.

Overall I agree with you that we need to fix the problem at the source, Biden wanted to offer 2 years of tuition free community college which wouldn’t solve the issue entirely but I believe would have been a step in the right direction. This would incentivize more people to attend community college instead of jumping straight into a 4 year university so they would in theory only be getting loans for 2 years rather than 4. This could also potentially cause universities to lower tuition in an attempt to stay competitive.

On top of that, like you mentioned, having people start to repay those loans only after a certain income threshold is met is a good idea. Also, making federal loans interest-free or at the very least extremely low like 1% as the government should view these loans as an investment in its people that will better be able to contribute to and expand the economy rather than a source of future revenue and profit.





When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Biggerboat1 said:
zorg1000 said:

Didn’t mean to ignore it, the conversation moved a lot by the time I saw your quote. Yes, room and board can make up a huge chunk of costs but room and board is a necessity for many students so it shouldn’t be outright disregarded. Not everybody lives close enough to a university or has access to reliable transportation in order to commute or has the money to rent a place close to campus, some people have abusive parents or get kicked out of the house when they turn 18, etc.

The problem is that you are generalizing an issue with a lot of nuance. Sure, a lot of people with student debt is a result of poor decisions but multiple users have provided a ton of examples of why some people may have student debt but you insist on acting like they are all lazy, idiots with a useless degree.

It’s very reminiscent of the abortion debate when people will say shit like, “if you didn’t want a baby then you should have kept your legs closed!” and ignore all the other various reasons that people get abortions.

I know you support universal healthcare, that’s why I brought it up. I’m saying that your argument of “I paid my student debt so others should too!” is the equivalent of elderly people saying “I had to wait until I was 65 to get Medicare so others should too!” in opposition to universal healthcare. It’s a fuck you, got mine mentality, I struggled to get where I am and you should too.

I also think it makes you a hypocrite. You don’t want to pay for other people’s education because they made poor decisions and believe in personal responsibility but you are fine with paying for people’s healthcare, many of which made poor decisions. Why are you ok with paying for the healthcare of a person who smoked for 40 years and now has lung cancer or the morbidly obese person who has diabetes or the alcoholic who got in a car wreck or the drug addict who overdosed or the idiot who injured themselves doing something reckless or that Covid denying, antivaxxer who is on a breathing machine. Why should our hard earned tax dollars go towards these people who need healthcare as a direct result of poor life decisions, shouldn’t we only have to take care of the people who live a healthy lifestyle?

To summarize, I think you’re a hypocrite and have a case of fuck you, got mine.

I feel you're being tad harsh here. I think there are a number of issued with this policy, if I'm understanding it correctly. Firstly it's treating a symptom rather than addressing the underlying cause. Is this gonna have to happen every decade to bail out the next generation? Why will their situation be any different than the current crop of debt-saddled graduates?

There's also a fairness component to this. It's not like your example above where an entitlement is given to people who's date of birth falls after a specific date. This forgiveness will treat people of the same age, studying the same courses at the same colleges, from the same backgrounds, differently based on whether they've been proactive in paying off their debt or not. Those who've endeavored to repay their debt will get nothing, whereas their contemporaries who've made it less of a priority will be let off the hook. In some instances this will be because some have made more money than others, but let's be honest, it's also because some people are more fiscally responsible than others.

It also potentially sets up a weird incentive structure going forward. Are future graduates gonna rush to repay their debts when they know there's a chance that it'll be done for them if they just wait it out...?

I live in Scotland and our fees get paid by the government. The loan that we take out for rent & living costs are repayable only when your income hits a certain threshold (27K per annum atm).  I think it's the case that whatever doesn't get repaid after 30 years is forgiven. This seems like a much better setup as obviously nobody is going to keep their salary under 27K just so they can dodge their loan in 3 decades time. But it also assists those who haven't been able to generate a decent income for whatever reason.

Bottom line, I think the US needs to address the route causes here rather than this measure, which yes, will help some vulnerable people, but will also reward others who've not been motivated or responsible enough to repay their debt when they could have, so I can see where chrkeller is coming from with some of his points tbh.

Thank you.



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

zorg1000 said:
Biggerboat1 said:

I feel you're being tad harsh here. I think there are a number of issued with this policy, if I'm understanding it correctly. Firstly it's treating a symptom rather than addressing the underlying cause. Is this gonna have to happen every decade to bail out the next generation? Why will their situation be any different than the current crop of debt-saddled graduates?

There's also a fairness component to this. It's not like your example above where an entitlement is given to people who's date of birth falls after a specific date. This forgiveness will treat people of the same age, studying the same courses at the same colleges, from the same backgrounds, differently based on whether they've been proactive in paying off their debt or not. Those who've endeavored to repay their debt will get nothing, whereas their contemporaries who've made it less of a priority will be let off the hook. In some instances this will be because some have made more money than others, but let's be honest, it's also because some people are more fiscally responsible than others.

It also potentially sets up a weird incentive structure going forward. Are future graduates gonna rush to repay their debts when they know there's a chance that it'll be done for them if they just wait it out...?

I live in Scotland and our fees get paid by the government. The loan that we take out for rent & living costs are repayable only when your income hits a certain threshold (27K per annum atm).  I think it's the case that whatever doesn't get repaid after 30 years is forgiven. This seems like a much better setup as obviously nobody is going to keep their salary under 27K just so they can dodge their loan in 3 decades time. But it also assists those who haven't been able to generate a decent income for whatever reason.

Bottom line, I think the US needs to address the route causes here rather than this measure, which yes, will help some vulnerable people, but will also reward others who've not been motivated or responsible enough to repay their debt when they could have, so I can see where chrkeller is coming from with some of his points tbh.

I briefly mentioned in one of my earlier responses that while I support student debt forgiveness, it is just a band-aid that doesn’t fix the underlying issues with the system and we will be in the same situation before long if those issues aren’t addressed.

I can understand the fairness aspect to a small extent, like of course it sucks if you recently paid off your loans and then shortly after that a bunch of people get theirs forgiven but at the same time I’m not for people suffering because others had to. I’ve never had student debt and this doesn’t benefit me in any way but I still support student debt relief because I think helping out my fellow Americans is good policy.

Overall I agree with you that we need to fix the problem at the source, Biden wanted to offer 2 years of tuition free community college which wouldn’t solve the issue entirely but I believe would have been a step in the right direction. This would incentivize more people to attend community college instead of jumping straight into a 4 year university so they would in theory only be getting loans for 2 years rather than 4. This could also potentially cause universities to lower tuition in an attempt to stay competitive.

On top of that, like you mentioned, having people start to repay those loans only after a certain income threshold is met is a good idea. Also, making federal loans interest-free or at the very least extremely low like 1% as the government should view these loans as an investment in its people that will better be able to contribute to and expand the economy rather than a source of future revenue and profit.

I think we agree in large part. It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of debtors who feasibly could have paid off their loans, based on their income, vs those who stood no chance, but doubt that info will be forthcoming.

Just thought that the language being used towards chrkeller was a bit spicy. Everybody draws their lines in a different place, for him nationalized healthcare would be welcome, but not higher education, especially as he points out when there are other systematic problems in the existing system that could be addressed first.

It's just a bit reductive to say that unless you think government should fund either none or all sectors that you're a hypocrite...

Anyway, chrkeller is more than capable of defending himself, it just concerns me when discussions on the left/center-left descend so quickly into ad homs.



Biggerboat1 said:
zorg1000 said:

I briefly mentioned in one of my earlier responses that while I support student debt forgiveness, it is just a band-aid that doesn’t fix the underlying issues with the system and we will be in the same situation before long if those issues aren’t addressed.

I can understand the fairness aspect to a small extent, like of course it sucks if you recently paid off your loans and then shortly after that a bunch of people get theirs forgiven but at the same time I’m not for people suffering because others had to. I’ve never had student debt and this doesn’t benefit me in any way but I still support student debt relief because I think helping out my fellow Americans is good policy.

Overall I agree with you that we need to fix the problem at the source, Biden wanted to offer 2 years of tuition free community college which wouldn’t solve the issue entirely but I believe would have been a step in the right direction. This would incentivize more people to attend community college instead of jumping straight into a 4 year university so they would in theory only be getting loans for 2 years rather than 4. This could also potentially cause universities to lower tuition in an attempt to stay competitive.

On top of that, like you mentioned, having people start to repay those loans only after a certain income threshold is met is a good idea. Also, making federal loans interest-free or at the very least extremely low like 1% as the government should view these loans as an investment in its people that will better be able to contribute to and expand the economy rather than a source of future revenue and profit.

I think we agree in large part. It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of debtors who feasibly could have paid off their loans, based on their income, vs those who stood no chance, but doubt that info will be forthcoming.

Just thought that the language being used towards chrkeller was a bit spicy. Everybody draws their lines in a different place, for him nationalized healthcare would be welcome, but not higher education, especially as he points out when there are other systematic problems in the existing system that could be addressed first.

It's just a bit reductive to say that unless you think government should fund either none or all sectors that you're a hypocrite...

Anyway, chrkeller is more than capable of defending himself, it just concerns me when discussions on the left/center-left descend so quickly into ad homs.

You pretty much nailed it in your previous post.  Debt forgiveness doesn't address nor fix:

1) what we are going to do with future college debt 

2) doesn't highlight alt paths outside college 

3) encourages people to avoid thinking about their education decisions and encourages people to not pay their loans

4) doesn't address for profit "colleges" which is the biggest issue with some articles at a 70% default rate given the "degree" is worthless 

Either way, I moved to the UK recently, I like their system of payback, the US should consider it.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Around the Network
Biggerboat1 said:
zorg1000 said:

I briefly mentioned in one of my earlier responses that while I support student debt forgiveness, it is just a band-aid that doesn’t fix the underlying issues with the system and we will be in the same situation before long if those issues aren’t addressed.

I can understand the fairness aspect to a small extent, like of course it sucks if you recently paid off your loans and then shortly after that a bunch of people get theirs forgiven but at the same time I’m not for people suffering because others had to. I’ve never had student debt and this doesn’t benefit me in any way but I still support student debt relief because I think helping out my fellow Americans is good policy.

Overall I agree with you that we need to fix the problem at the source, Biden wanted to offer 2 years of tuition free community college which wouldn’t solve the issue entirely but I believe would have been a step in the right direction. This would incentivize more people to attend community college instead of jumping straight into a 4 year university so they would in theory only be getting loans for 2 years rather than 4. This could also potentially cause universities to lower tuition in an attempt to stay competitive.

On top of that, like you mentioned, having people start to repay those loans only after a certain income threshold is met is a good idea. Also, making federal loans interest-free or at the very least extremely low like 1% as the government should view these loans as an investment in its people that will better be able to contribute to and expand the economy rather than a source of future revenue and profit.

I think we agree in large part. It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of debtors who feasibly could have paid off their loans, based on their income, vs those who stood no chance, but doubt that info will be forthcoming.

Just thought that the language being used towards chrkeller was a bit spicy. Everybody draws their lines in a different place, for him nationalized healthcare would be welcome, but not higher education, especially as he points out when there are other systematic problems in the existing system that could be addressed first.

It's just a bit reductive to say that unless you think government should fund either none or all sectors that you're a hypocrite...

Anyway, chrkeller is more than capable of defending himself, it just concerns me when discussions on the left/center-left descend so quickly into ad homs.

I don’t think he’s a hypocrite for supporting healthcare but not higher education, it’s the reasoning of “I don’t want to pay for other people’s mistakes” that I feel is hypocritical.

I also don’t like the framing that we see too often that people with student debt are dead beat, morons who got a degree in a stupid, low paying field.

Even for the ones who did make poor decisions, most people are 17/18/19 years old when they sign up for these loans. I think someone has to be a pretty big asshole for having the view that people should have decades of debt because of mistakes they made as teenagers, an age group notorious for making poor decisions. They are legally not responsible enough to drink, smoke or rent a car but take on loads of debt without any proof of ability to repay? Go right ahead!



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Biggerboat1 said:

I feel you're being tad harsh here. I think there are a number of issued with this policy, if I'm understanding it correctly. Firstly it's treating a symptom rather than addressing the underlying cause. Is this gonna have to happen every decade to bail out the next generation? Why will their situation be any different than the current crop of debt-saddled graduates?

There's also a fairness component to this. It's not like your example above where an entitlement is given to people who's date of birth falls after a specific date. This forgiveness will treat people of the same age, studying the same courses at the same colleges, from the same backgrounds, differently based on whether they've been proactive in paying off their debt or not. Those who've endeavored to repay their debt will get nothing, whereas their contemporaries who've made it less of a priority will be let off the hook. In some instances this will be because some have made more money than others, but let's be honest, it's also because some people are more fiscally responsible than others.

It also potentially sets up a weird incentive structure going forward. Are future graduates gonna rush to repay their debts when they know there's a chance that it'll be done for them if they just wait it out...?

I live in Scotland and our fees get paid by the government. The loan that we take out for rent & living costs are repayable only when your income hits a certain threshold (27K per annum atm).  I think it's the case that whatever doesn't get repaid after 30 years is forgiven. This seems like a much better setup as obviously nobody is going to keep their salary under 27K just so they can dodge their loan in 3 decades time. But it also assists those who haven't been able to generate a decent income for whatever reason.

Bottom line, I think the US needs to address the route causes here rather than this measure, which yes, will help some vulnerable people, but will also reward others who've not been motivated or responsible enough to repay their debt when they could have, so I can see where chrkeller is coming from with some of his points tbh.

Talking about how it is a symptom is largely irrelevant. I don't see many people who are pro-loan forgiveness arguing against larger scale systemic fixes, but just because a symptom has causes, doesn't mean we shouldn't treat those symptoms. Seems like just deflection to me. It isn't an argument against loan forgiveness, it is just a different conversation. 

The fairness component I also feel is nonsense. The entire point of society is progression. That means that people in the future won't have to suffer the same way as people in the past. It sucks that some people had to suffer under student loans, but that isn't a justification for making others suffer. 

Also worth noting that Biden has made progress in fixing the system as a whole such as implementing 20 year auto forgiveness (which is where a lot of this loan forgiveness is coming from), preventing interest from accruing beyond the initial principle (which is where a lot of the other loan forgiveness is coming from) and just making the current system work a lot better, like allowing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to actually work as intended for the first time.



Interesting graph below.  Almost like worthless degrees from for profit "universities" is in fact the problem. Hmm....



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Chrkeller said:

Interesting graph below.  Almost like worthless degrees from for profit "universities" is in fact the problem. Hmm....

There's not "1 problem". There are several.

Even in your graph, nonprofit private universities are on the bottom, whereas public two year anniversaries are almost as bad (in this measure) as private for profit. 



zorg1000 said:
Biggerboat1 said:

I think we agree in large part. It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of debtors who feasibly could have paid off their loans, based on their income, vs those who stood no chance, but doubt that info will be forthcoming.

Just thought that the language being used towards chrkeller was a bit spicy. Everybody draws their lines in a different place, for him nationalized healthcare would be welcome, but not higher education, especially as he points out when there are other systematic problems in the existing system that could be addressed first.

It's just a bit reductive to say that unless you think government should fund either none or all sectors that you're a hypocrite...

Anyway, chrkeller is more than capable of defending himself, it just concerns me when discussions on the left/center-left descend so quickly into ad homs.

I don’t think he’s a hypocrite for supporting healthcare but not higher education, it’s the reasoning of “I don’t want to pay for other people’s mistakes” that I feel is hypocritical.

I also don’t like the framing that we see too often that people with student debt are dead beat, morons who got a degree in a stupid, low paying field.

Even for the ones who did make poor decisions, most people are 17/18/19 years old when they sign up for these loans. I think someone has to be a pretty big asshole for having the view that people should have decades of debt because of mistakes they made as teenagers, an age group notorious for making poor decisions. They are legally not responsible enough to drink, smoke or rent a car but take on loads of debt without any proof of ability to repay? Go right ahead!

You can apply that principle to a whole host of situations people find themselves in. Should 17/18/19 YOs be forgiven for all the financial mistakes they've made? All debt forgiven across the board? All let out of prison for crimes they've committed? Should they be compensated for choosing the wrong careers, bad purchases, bad investments? 

The human brain doesn't fully mature until it's mid-twenties, so should the above be extended to those individuals too?

Everybody will have a different opinion on these & other similar scenarios, some will say yes to all, some no, but the vast majority will fall somewhere in-between, to varying degrees.

My main point is that I find it an ever-more common position for people on the left (where I'd broadly place my views incidentally) to say that whoever sits to the right of their particular views is by definition a bad person/selfish/greedy etc. This mentality will only derail the conversation into ad homs & honestly, who has ever changed their outlook & been won over by being told that effectively, they're a piece of shit? Shaming isn't gonna win hearts & minds.

This approach is also counterproductive to the person engaging in it as there will almost always be someone with positions to the left of theirs, who can then turn the tables & define them as a POS.

I fear that more and more people are being pushed to the right, when in actuality their positions start off in a more moderate place, but they're just tired of being talked down to and scolded.

Btw, I don't have an axe to grind with you here, I lurk more than I post and I find your overall contribution to the community a positive one.