Veterans suffer? A small price to pay for the $400 billion student loan handout?

The most loyal vote is the one that is purchased.

And, I mean, constitutionally, this is probably the way to go. If the 14th amendment stands, a president can spend as much as he wants, and by law be required to borrow in order to pay the bills.

One has to wonder how Trump will expolit this new paradigm in his second term.

"We are so very happy that you got yours. Not everyone is so lucky in life."

Lucky...

Yeah.

"The tax cuts are working as indented."

I think it's a matter of perspective.

If you think that government is obligated to cater to and care for the lowest common denominator, then it makes sense you think that the US is a horrible place.

But you could always move to Cooba. They tend to ensure that the lowest common denominator is the only denominator.

"An immediate red flag that someone is full of ---- is they claim they've done it all themselves in purpose."

Winning the lottery is luck.

Making good life choices and taking advantage of the opportunities that are available to everyone is not.

"If you don't like getting fleeced and living at the whims of rich people's wants and desires, move to Cuba! Freedom! Murica!'"

If you feel like you're getting fleeced, then move to somewhere where you don't feel like you are getting fleeced.

I suspect that your position is rooted in the concept of income inequality, which in the US really is a rich people problem. Rich people bitching about richer people.

And I'm sure that there are many Malians who would happily trade places with someone from the US if the USan is really that concerned about the country's gini coefficient.

"YOu think ignorant citizens are good, in a country where the citizens choose the leaders?"

You seem to think that people who attend trade schools are ignorant.

They are almost certainly smarter than you.

What do you do for a living again?

"If Senior Citizens will face serious consequences by default, there is no way the GOP will allow it. Conservative white geriatric villages are the heart of their base. All those people live off the government ---."

It depends.

debt ceiling negotiations are a two-way street. Biden has stated, as I understand it, that repubs should raise the debt ceiling with no strings attached. In other words, allow him to keep spending on his own pet projects and vote buying schemes without concern for debt.

I read that as Biden asking for a blank check for future expenditures. Such as the student loan forgiveness plan. It would seem to me that this would be something very easy to rescind, as it has a very high price tag, and it's not really something that benefits the majority of USans.

"The illusion is that they're opportunities available to everyone."

Can you maybe provide a list of some of those illusions?

Furthermore, you seem to be implying that lack of opportunity is the root cause of societal ills. Where does bad decision making fall into your calculus.

And I'd caveat my question by stating that what may be a bad decision in the eyes of one person, maybe most people, may not be perceived as a bad decision by the person making it.

"Wealth inequality is a result of the imbalanced policies that have built up over the decades."

Wealth inequality is the result of individuals making financial decision and life choices with financial ramifications in their own best interest.

You limit income inequality by limiting individual freedom.

Furthermore, there are no fiscally neutral policies that can unilaterally increase the value of one's labor. Maybe one. War. Physical destruction of the competition.

"Jesus Christ, dude. You seem to think government started in 2020."

So...here's the litmus test. If Trump were in office, would you think it OK for him to demand a debt limit increase with no strings attached? Would you support a debt limit increase while still allowing him to spend hundreds of billions on pet projects? Maybe a really fancy border wall with a moat to accompany it?

"Yes stupid. Teaching someone how to work a stamping machine creates a more ignorant person than teaching them history and economics, which would inform them about how trickle down economics has never worked, or how to recognize a fascist uprising in its early stages."

That doesn't sound like education. That sounds like re-education.

You never fail to underwhelm.

And when was the last time you stepped foot in an econ class?

"Well then you're stupid. Student loan forgiveness does not require the issuance of public debt."

Really?

Whose money is being given away?

"Not that republicans care, they will gladly blow up the world's economy if it means a better chance at biden losing reelection"

I'm not sure how you pin this solely on the republicans.

It is Biden who has demanded a debt limit increase with no strings attached.

Would you support the same if it was Trump demanding it?

"Trump and Republicans didn't wait until the debt ceiling was up to pass their ludicrous tax giveaway to billionaires."

Didn't they cut taxes for everyone who pays taxes?

According to H&R Block, the Trump tax cuts produced an average reduction of $1200 per household.

"They should go without a paycheck permanently."

Except they wouldn't, all other things being equal. They would simply go find jobs elsewhere in the private sector.

But all other things would not be equal in the event of a default, and in fact those who relied on labor income would probably be the safest. The US financial system would take a massive hit, almost certainly losing it's place as the global economic leader. The Euro would replace the dollar as the global currency of choice when it came to trade. And if you were relying on investments for any sort of income, you'd better be hoping that you're not too old to be a greeter at Wal-Mart.

On the other hand, the commies would be super happy about all of it.

"#131 Do you really not understand that student loan forgiveness is not something that the US needs to issue bonds to accomplish? I concede you might actually be this dumb."

Do you concede that it is $400 million in taxpayer dollars that could be used for something useful? Which would translate into $400 billion less in new debt issuance?

"That's kinda the big picture, isn't it?"

I meant the commies in Russia and China...but point taken.

"How much government assistance should someone whose lot in life is a result of "bad decision making" receive as opposed to someone with a lack of opportunity?"

That's a tricky question.

Are you saying that someone who grew up in a prepper family in Alaska or some other isolated area should receive government funding that would not be made available to others?

I mean, I would literally define opportunity as a condition where you are not inherently deprived of something that is freely available to someone else in the same or similar circumstances.

"I'm also curious what "cuts" to services a bad decision maker should receive. Should they and their children starve because dad has a gambling problem?"

In a fair world? No. In a fair world they would be made wards of the state allowed and encouraged to reach their full potential. Dad would die in a ------- gutter.

But it's not a fair world, parents still own their children, even if those children suffer because of it.

I've often said that the best thing you could do for kids who have grown up in generational poverty is remove them from their parents. I think most would quickly begin to excel at all levels. But that would mean acknowledging that some people are, no kindding, failures. That's an anathema to progressive thought, which states that people don't fail, it is society that fails. It's capitalism, or racism, or social injustice, or whatever.

But never the people themselves.

"No dumbass, i don't concede any of that. The money has already been spent."

No, it has been loaned. Which is why this is 'student loan forgiveness.'

It will have been 'spent' when the obligation to repay that $400 billion is forgiven.

It's sorta like saying that my car loan needn't be repaid because the bank has already 'spent' that money.

"You're also not the sole determiner of what "useful" means, and thank god for that."

100%.

Maybe the taxpayers will support having $400 billion of their tax dollars given out as handouts. But I don't really think so.

I think it will be popular amongst the progressives and those who spent a lot majoring in fields that were not really marketable in the workplace. I'm not sure that the people whoh paid off their student loans as required will be as supportive, not those people who are paying for someone else's college, even while they did not attend college themselves.

But what I think is immaterial. We shall see.

"My position on government assistance is that it should be income-based, scaled by locality, and not dependent on whether recipients have made a "bad" decision."

I'm not sure what that means. We have all made bad decisions. Routinely. Poverty results from the inability to ever make a good decision that counters the bad ones.

It seems to me you might be saying that assistance should be made available, even when it becomes clear that the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on the individual is going to force a change in their behavior.

In other words, you never write someone off. You just keep giving them the taxpayer dollars required to sustain or subsidize their lifestyle.

"Do you have evidence that wards of the state reaching their full potential? Genuinely curious."

No evidence...I don't know that it has ever been tried. What I know beyond any shadow of a doubt is that putting kids in an evironment where that was the goal would be far better than one where the parents did not care.

"Does merely becoming eligible for public assistance merit the destruction of a family unit?"

Definitely not. Scores of familes require temporary assistance. Some maybe permanent assistance. The litmus test would be whether or not the assistance was required because of decisions they made, or decisions that were beyond their control.

"I take it you're not a christian. Or even a moral person for that matter."

Not Christian. Not Muslim. Not anything.

Morality is relative. What you consider moral, I suspect I would consider immoral. And vice versa

"It's usually a very complicated combination of more than one of those things."

It's not that complicated. Are you familiar with Malcom Gladwell?

"This discussion also concedes that reducing benefits to people based on their own "bad decisions" is even a net benefit to society, which i do not at all concede."

Don't get me wrong, if taxpayers want to give their money to people who make bad decisions, that's on them.

You're a lawyer. Assuming you haven't completely screwed it away, you have some walkin' around money you could spare for those who need it.

"Jesus Christ what an absolute load of crap."

OK doc, show me where I'm wrong.

"So you dont know how loans work? The lender already gave the money to the school. The money is out the door. Reducing or eliminating the balance due does not require the issuance of government bonds no matter how badly you twist yourself into a pretzel here."

You're absolutely correct. The money has already been paid to the colleges. Under the terms of the agreement, those loans would have been repaid by the recipients to the taxpayers. Now those loans won't be repaid, costing the taxpayers $400 billion.

And like I said, maybe taxpayers won't care. Our discrete opinions are immaterial. It really boils down to how the voters see this as a whole.

"With the exception of the top 0.1%, higher earners will enjoy larger tax breaks as a proportion of their income:"

You may not have read the article. Your prediction is true once the tax cuts expire and the tax rates return to previous levels.

Furthermore:

According to a December 2017 analysis released by the Tax Policy Center (TPC), the law was expected to raise the after-tax income of 80.4% of households in 2018, but that cut was not distributed evenly or progressively. The analysis revealed that the tax break would hit 93.7% of taxpayers in the highest-earning quintile, and only 53.9% of those in the lowest quintile. Even so, on average, every quintile was expected to receive a tax break.

...and I'm not sure how you cut taxes for the lowest quintile when they pay little to nothing to start with.

"Your theory does not include any input from the financial system under which the decisions and choices are being made. IoW it is an immature and stupid opinion."

Cool.

Like what?

"Think of all all those people who chose to be born poor, in their own best interest."

Think of all those born poor who chose not to remain that way.

"Have you asked a grown-up for help? You need to do that."

I haven't.

Can you point me towards a grown up I can ask?

Do you know anyone who fits that description?

"LOL, you are stupid, aren't you. Let's start with taxes."

Lets do that.

Ready? Go!

"We're voting on it? When?"

Mmm. Let's call it sometime in November, 2024.

"correct, the poor pay very little of the luxury boat tax, but pay a good deal in gas taxes, tolls, user fees, HOA fees, gas, water, sewer and cable/internet fees, sales tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax, etc. etc. etc."

They pay more than someone at a different income level.

"Give us an example of a choice someone made so they wouldn't remain that way."

Sure. Pretty much any college student.

Take me, for instance. I was making less than $1 a month while I was in college. I was in college to make sure that, upon graduation, I would be making more than $1k per month.

See? Choices.

"I am curious how the individual's decisions impact these systematic issues."

This is a softball.

The reason a person is poor is because the value of their labor is low, or because they choose not to exchange their labor for a wage or salary.

There is very little you can do from a policy perspective to increase the labor value of an individual. That's something they must do for themselves.

"And please also explain how wealthy and middle class experiences with those factors is the same as a poor persons."

I feel like I already did. Most college students are poor. In some cases very likely spending far more than they are earning. But it's a temporary state, which is likely to lead to much higher incomes upon graduation.

"Even accepting your description of the situation as accurate, it still doesn't have anything to do with raising the debt limit"

Except that it does. A no-strings attached deal to raise the debt ceiling would be giving the president a blank check to pursue whatever pet projects he or she felt were worthwhile, since they could just borrow to cover any differences.

So I'll ask you again. If it was Trump in office, and he had set aside $400 billion to build a really fancy border wall, would your opinion still be the same? That Trump's government should be allowed to raise the debt ceiling with no strings attached?

The bottom line is that US taxpayers are now not going to get back the $400 billion they were due. And you seem to think that this is OK now, and will always be OK.