Socialism fails every time

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Venezuela: A Humanitarian Crisis The Left Couldn’t Care Less About

Issues & Insights, by The Editorial Board

 

Original Article

 

Try to imagine this scenario. A once-wealthy nation spirals downward over the course of several years into a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.

 

Or just wait eight years or so.

[Cinga]

26 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Or just wait eight years or so.

Yeah, but it's all Trump's fault! All he had to do was pour Trillions into the country and it would have stabilized itself.... for a couple more years.....  

[DC Tom]

Just now, Cinga said:

Yeah, but it's all Trump's fault! All he had to do was pour Trillions into the country and it would have stabilized itself.... for a couple more years.....  

 

"Because of the failed policies of the Bush administration."

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 6/5/2019 at 1:24 AM, Doc Brown said:

Making it easier to discharge student loans when filing for bankruptcy is a good first step for those truly struggling.  The ambiguity of the Brunner test is a joke.  

There is a time and place for bankruptcy protection. People fall on hard times, become ill, lose a spouse and find themselves in a very precarious spot. 

 

On the other hand, for the vast majority of students who bypassed the countless options that community college, state institutions, online learning, trade schools etc offer, I'd simply say suck it up and pay your debt.  It's on you. It was on you when you chose Penn State, or Tulane, or SUNY Stoney Brook, it was on you when you chose to go away to school, it was always on you.

 

If you didn't know that, lacked the ability to forecast, or a parent or loved one failed to do the simple math that boild down to $52,000 × 4 = $208,000, well, life is about evolving and growing in spite of obstacles in your path. 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There is a time and place for bankruptcy protection. People fall on hard times, become ill, lose a spouse and find themselves in a very precarious spot. 

 

On the other hand, for the vast majority of students who bypassed the countless options that community college, state institutions, online learning, trade schools etc offer, I'd simply say suck it up and pay your debt.  It's on you. It was on you when you chose Penn State, or Tulane, or SUNY Stoney Brook, it was on you when you chose to go away to school, it was always on you.

 

If you didn't know that, lacked the ability to forecast, or a parent or loved one failed to do the simple math that boild down to $52,000 × 4 = $208,000, well, life is about evolving and growing in spite of obstacles in your path. 

 

 

High tuition and easy to get loans benefit the schools and their employees. With few exceptions those are the only people/entities that easy money benefits. The public in general pays for bankruptcies. So those that propose bankruptcy to ease the burden of student loans is only asking the rest of us, who may not have even gone to college, to subsidize the students and university staff.

[LikeIGiveADarn]

5 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There is a time and place for bankruptcy protection. People fall on hard times, become ill, lose a spouse and find themselves in a very precarious spot. 

 

On the other hand, for the vast majority of students who bypassed the countless options that community college, state institutions, online learning, trade schools etc offer, I'd simply say suck it up and pay your debt.  It's on you. It was on you when you chose Penn State, or Tulane, or SUNY Stoney Brook, it was on you when you chose to go away to school, it was always on you.

 

If you didn't know that, lacked the ability to forecast, or a parent or loved one failed to do the simple math that boild down to $52,000 × 4 = $208,000, well, life is about evolving and growing in spite of obstacles in your path. 

 

 

 

You don't think that the drive by colleges, government officials, and teachers to push teenagers to go to college from the time they are 12 with basically zero financial literacy courses throughout their K-12 education would at least be considered predatory behavior?

[Doc Brown]

12 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There is a time and place for bankruptcy protection. People fall on hard times, become ill, lose a spouse and find themselves in a very precarious spot. 

 

On the other hand, for the vast majority of students who bypassed the countless options that community college, state institutions, online learning, trade schools etc offer, I'd simply say suck it up and pay your debt.  It's on you. It was on you when you chose Penn State, or Tulane, or SUNY Stoney Brook, it was on you when you chose to go away to school, it was always on you.

 

If you didn't know that, lacked the ability to forecast, or a parent or loved one failed to do the simple math that boild down to $52,000 × 4 = $208,000, well, life is about evolving and growing in spite of obstacles in your path. 

Let me be more clear as I hold the view that everybody has a right to a high school education.  They don't have the right to a college education.  The government getting involved in higher education is how we're in this mess to begin with.  They created a racket by providing subsidized loans so almost anyone can get into college including those that aren't cut out for it.  They changed the bankruptcy laws making it nearly impossible to discharge those loans in bankruptcy like people do with credit card and mortgage debt.  The result is these subsidized loans are handed out like crazy and they destroyed the supply and demand mechanism most businesses are subject to allowing colleges to jack up the price of college tuition at a rate that far exceeds inflation.  

 

In an ideal world the government would get out of the college loan business completely.  Colleges who rely on these government backed student loans will be forced to lower their cost as far less students would apply.  Banks who give out college loans would have to be extremely selective in who they give them out to making high school gpa and SAT/ACT scores more relevant.  High schools would be incentivized to invest more in BOCES like programs for students who don't have the aptitude to complete a college degree and maybe start telling the truth that college is not for everyone.  Use some of the money we would have spent for free college and put it into more into BOCES programs along with transitional services in high schools.

 

If given a binary choice between Warren's plan of just eliminating most student debt or changing bankruptcy laws to make it easier to discharge student debt I'd choose the latter.  At least these students would feel some pain that comes along with bankruptcy instead of just getting off scot free.  Banks would also be more selective in handing out student loans if they know they can be discharged easily through bankruptcy.  It's a good first step.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Doc Brown

[Joe Miner]

7 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Let me be more clear as I hold the view that everybody has a right to a high school education.  They don't have the right to a college education.  The government getting involved in higher education is how we're in this mess to begin with.  They created a racket by providing subsidized loans so almost anyone can get into college including those that aren't cut out for it.  They changed the bankruptcy laws making it nearly impossible to discharge those loans in bankruptcy like people do with credit card and mortgage debt.  The result is these subsidized loans are handed out like crazy and they destroyed the supply and demand mechanism most businesses are subject to allowing colleges to jack up the price of college tuition at a rate that far exceeds inflation.  

 

In an ideal world the government would get out of the college loan business completely.  Colleges who rely on these government backed student loans will be forced to lower their cost as far less students would apply.  Banks who give out college loans would have to be extremely selective in who they give them out to making high school gpa and SAT/ACT scores more relevant.  High schools would be incentivized to invest more in BOCES like programs for students who don't have the aptitude to complete a college degree and maybe start telling the truth that college is not for everyone.  Use some of the money we would have spent for free college and put it into more into BOCES programs along with transitional services in high schools.

 

If given a binary choice between Warren's plan of just eliminating most student debt or changing bankruptcy laws to make it easier to discharge student debt I'd choose the latter.  At least these students would feel some pain that comes along with bankruptcy instead of just getting off scot free.  Banks would also be more selective in handing out student loans if they know they can be discharged easily through bankruptcy.  It's a good first step.

 

HS education isn't a right.  Education is mandated up to a point.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 hours ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

... would at least be considered predatory behavior?

I think it's parental/custodial malpractice to advise/support a child willing to pursue a $500 per hour education with a projected $15-25 per hour outcome.  I think when nature takes its course, as it invariably does, it should not become someone elses fiscal responsibility to solve a problem that was likely 100% avoidable. 

 

14 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Let me be more clear as I hold the view that everybody has a right to a high school education.  They don't have the right to a college education.  The government getting involved in higher education is how we're in this mess to begin with.  They created a racket by providing subsidized loans so almost anyone can get into college including those that aren't cut out for it.  They changed the bankruptcy laws making it nearly impossible to discharge those loans in bankruptcy like people do with credit card and mortgage debt.  The result is these subsidized loans are handed out like crazy and they destroyed the supply and demand mechanism most businesses are subject to allowing colleges to jack up the price of college tuition at a rate that far exceeds inflation.  

 

In an ideal world the government would get out of the college loan business completely.  Colleges who rely on these government backed student loans will be forced to lower their cost as far less students would apply.  Banks who give out college loans would have to be extremely selective in who they give them out to making high school gpa and SAT/ACT scores more relevant.  High schools would be incentivized to invest more in BOCES like programs for students who don't have the aptitude to complete a college degree and maybe start telling the truth that college is not for everyone.  Use some of the money we would have spent for free college and put it into more into BOCES programs along with transitional services in high schools.

 

If given a binary choice between Warren's plan of just eliminating most student debt or changing bankruptcy laws to make it easier to discharge student debt I'd choose the latter.  At least these students would feel some pain that comes along with bankruptcy instead of just getting off scot free.  Banks would also be more selective in handing out student loans if they know they can be discharged easily through bankruptcy.  It's a good first step.

I don't disagree with the fundamental premise of your post. Government should not be in the loan business, but it is. People should not generally be in the "make dumb choices" business,   but they are. 

 

The Warren plan simply finds the convenient boogieman to transfer blame from the bad decision maker (the student) to "ultra millionaires", gradually working backwards until you phase out any debt relief for families deemed too wealthy to need assistance.  

 

As for ability to discharge the debt through bankruptcy, I recognize the govt has its finger on the scale, but then again, it usually does.  If we are going this way, why not this alternative...the govt applies a tax on the endowments at universities...private and public...across the country and pays off the debt?  Hell, Harvard has $37 billion, Yale has $25 billion, and SUNY Buffalo nearly $800 million. According to many liberals, these institutions are complicit in the problem, should they feel no pinch? What about setting the vig at 20%? 

 

I agree that financial institutions should generally make sound financial decisions and underwriting loans should be based on much more stringent guidelines. However, these institutions follow the rules and guidelines set forth by a notoriously fickle government.  "Everyone should have the ability to go to college and we're here to help" has morphed into "Holy Cow we offered to help and what the $#@@ just happened" to "You're a victim of THE WEALTHY if you followed the path we created to help you and you didn't do the math before taking the money!" to "The only way you cannot be victimized if we make everything--tuition, room and board, meal plan, transportation, all of it free". 

 

I'm certain I will be disappointed in the eventual resolution but as far as I'm concerned, bancruptcy in extreme cases,  other than that, honor your debt. Then again, when I got sideways on my credit cards a decade plus ago, I didn't feel like it was a Mastercard problem. When my children attended college, it was my honor to help them through it.  Just perspective, I guess. 

 

Btw..if, in your plan, we took a good hard look at creating similar competition. W/ the public school system by allowing folks to use a large percentage of their school tax dollars to apply to the cost of private school, I might be willing to support that. Increased competition likely drives down cost, yes? 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Doc Brown]

11 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think it's parental/custodial malpractice to advise/support a child willing to pursue a $500 per hour education with a projected $15-25 per hour outcome.  I think when nature takes its course, as it invariably does, it should not become someone elses fiscal responsibility to solve a problem that was likely 100% avoidable. 

 

I don't disagree with the fundamental premise of your post. Government should not be in the loan business, but it is. People should not generally be in the "make dumb choices" business,   but they are. 

 

The Warren plan simply finds the convenient boogieman to transfer blame from the bad decision maker (the student) to "ultra millionaires", gradually working backwards until you phase out any debt relief for families deemed too wealthy to need assistance.  

 

As for ability to discharge the debt through bankruptcy, I recognize the govt has its finger on the scale, but then again, it usually does.  If we are going this way, why not this alternative...the govt applies a tax on the endowments at universities...private and public...across the country and pays off the debt?  Hell, Harvard has $37 billion, Yale has $25 billion, and SUNY Buffalo nearly $800 million. According to many liberals, these institutions are complicit in the problem, should they feel no pinch? What about setting the vig at 20%? 

 

I agree that financial institutions should generally make sound financial decisions and underwriting loans should be based on much more stringent guidelines. However, these institutions follow the rules and guidelines set forth by a notoriously fickle government.  "Everyone should have the ability to go to college and we're here to help" has morphed into "Holy Cow we offered to help and what the $#@@ just happened" to "You're a victim of THE WEALTHY if you followed the path we created to help you and you didn't do the math before taking the money!" to "The only way you cannot be victimized if we make everything--tuition, room and board, meal plan, transportation, all of it free". 

 

I'm certain I will be disappointed in the eventual resolution but as far as I'm concerned, bancruptcy in extreme cases,  other than that, honor your debt. Then again, when I got sideways on my credit cards a decade plus ago, I didn't feel like it was a Mastercard problem. When my children attended college, it was my honor to help them through it.  Just perspective, I guess. 

 

Btw..if, in your plan, we took a good hard look at creating similar competition. W/ the public school system by allowing folks to use a large percentage of their school tax dollars to apply to the cost of private school, I might be willing to support that. Increased competition likely drives down cost, yes? 

Because then you're back in the same spot where the person that can't pay back their loans don't suffer from the decision whatsoever and it wouldn't restore risk to the lender.  There's a case to be made for making colleges partially responsible for defaulted loans as it may lead colleges to offer smarter decisions on who they accept and what programs they offer.  That would be more sensible than a tax on endowments that would punish all institutions. 

 

The problem I have with your last paragraph is you'd lessen the quality of public schools even more for students of poor families.

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Doc Brown

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Because then you're back in the same spot where the person that can't pay back their loans don't suffer from the decision whatsoever and it wouldn't restore risk to the lender.  There's a case to be made for making colleges partially responsible for defaulted loans as it may lead colleges to offer smarter decisions on who they accept and what programs they offer.  That would be more sensible than a tax on endowments that would punish all institutions. 

 

The problem I have with your last paragraph is you'd lessen the quality of public schools even more for students of poor families.

 

So to be clear, you're not advocating bancruptcy protection for a majority of those with college debt, just the reaonably small percentage that, after consideration of realistic belt-tightening measures, and considering the assets of all parties to the transaction (student, families and co-signers), their unique personal situation (illness, disability etc) and potential refinancing options simply must default as a last resort?  We may be in agreement.

 

What I hear talked about is much broader than that, and the mantra seems to be people were victimzed by everyone in the mix except themselves. Bancruptcy is a necessary social safety net, but someone/some organization always pays the price for it. 

 

I don't understand your perspective on an endowment tax, especially as it relates to the problem we are discussing. If indeed there is a national crisis and the institutions are a big part of the problem, it seems logical to make them part of the solution. I'm not sure how that happens otherwise--raise tuition? Another fee? There is a boatload of money out there to help solve a problem largely created by the institution. 

 

As for public schools and choice, the system is broken and generally speaking the tail wags the dog.  The cost is high, by most accounts the results poor, yet year in and year out we are told "it's not enough, we need more, it's for the children." Yet, an incredibly high percentage of the money flowing through goes to administrative costs, benefits that provide financial security to the very few.  I agree with you on the problems faced by the poor, or in struggling school districts but part of the problem is inefficiency.  The harsh reality is while the administrator in Clarence might well be concerned about the quality of education on the East Side, they likely are not so concerned that they would support sharing of resources that directly impacted them. The only answer then is "Someone has to do more, but it should not be me.". In a sense, it's the ultimate capitalist conundrum. The system is closed, choices are few, and the coat high. I don't see how choice and competition would hurt the average consumer, up to and including govt intervention in those impoverished areas.  

 

Anyway, as I said before, you'll likely be happier than I with the resolution. Too many people stand to benefit with the waving of the magic wand absolving the debt, and too few people will be hurt by the eventual decision to muster much of a fight.

 

Peace out. 

[Doc Brown]

15 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

So to be clear, you're not advocating bancruptcy protection for a majority of those with college debt, just the reaonably small percentage that, after consideration of realistic belt-tightening measures, and considering the assets of all parties to the transaction (student, families and co-signers), their unique personal situation (illness, disability etc) and potential refinancing options simply must default as a last resort?  We may be in agreement.

 

What I hear talked about is much broader than that, and the mantra seems to be people were victimzed by everyone in the mix except themselves. Bancruptcy is a necessary social safety net, but someone/some organization always pays the price for it. 

 

I don't understand your perspective on an endowment tax, especially as it relates to the problem we are discussing. If indeed there is a national crisis and the institutions are a big part of the problem, it seems logical to make them part of the solution. I'm not sure how that happens otherwise--raise tuition? Another fee? There is a boatload of money out there to help solve a problem largely created by the institution. 

 

As for public schools and choice, the system is broken and generally speaking the tail wags the dog.  The cost is high, by most accounts the results poor, yet year in and year out we are told "it's not enough, we need more, it's for the children." Yet, an incredibly high percentage of the money flowing through goes to administrative costs, benefits that provide financial security to the very few.  I agree with you on the problems faced by the poor, or in struggling school districts but part of the problem is inefficiency.  The harsh reality is while the administrator in Clarence might well be concerned about the quality of education on the East Side, they likely are not so concerned that they would support sharing of resources that directly impacted them. The only answer then is "Someone has to do more, but it should not be me.". In a sense, it's the ultimate capitalist conundrum. The system is closed, choices are few, and the coat high. I don't see how choice and competition would hurt the average consumer, up to and including govt intervention in those impoverished areas.  

 

Anyway, as I said before, you'll likely be happier than I with the resolution. Too many people stand to benefit with the waving of the magic wand absolving the debt, and too few people will be hurt by the eventual decision to muster much of a fight.

 

Peace out. 

I'm only talking about a small amount of people when it comes to loosening bankruptcy laws to make them similar to credit card and mortgage bankruptcy.  Combine that and repayment options already put in place and it will help ease the crises.  I get the frustration by people who made sound decisions to get through college (I consider myself one of them) in making it easier for these people in trouble to repay their loans.  

 

My problem with the 20% tax on endowments you mentioned is it punishes the colleges that do a good job of producing students who use their degree for high paying jobs and have a low dropout rate.  Partly due to endowments.  One proposal being floated I've seen is to have colleges actually cosign on the student loans for students entering their college and they'd be partially responsible for the debt if they default.  It makes sense as if you go into business with somebody you should both reap the rewards if it succeeds and face the consequences if it  fails.  It would force colleges to focus on flagging underachieving students and provide them with support.

 

I agree that pumping more money into public schools isn't the answer.  I think rethinking the courses we offer and the transitional services we provide in the later years need to be reexamined as reasons I've mentioned above.  I need to see more data that government funded charter schools actually improve educational outcomes as the data is mixed.  If not all they're doing is taking money away from public schools.  In my experience they do a terrible job at accommodating student's with disabilities. 

 

 

 

[US Egg]

Just cut through the nonsense...it's that Democrats/Liberals fail this country every time.

[Tiberius]

57 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

Just cut through the nonsense...it's that Democrats/Liberals fail this country every time.

Half the children in the country are on free or reduced lunch at school, and this in a time of full employment. 

 

 

[B-Man]

SLOW LEARNERS ON THE LEFT

 

Some days—actually most days now that I think about it—the left hands you an easy win. Take the case of Book Culture, a four-location independent bookseller in New York City. Book Culture enjoys a reputation as a progressive bookstore, a certified outlet for all the literary needs of the wokerati. Trouble is, Book Culture is about to go under.

Why? I’ll let them explain it:

“Our four stores are in danger of closing soon and we need financial assistance or investment on an interim basis to help us find our footing. This is true in spite of the fact that business has been good and we are widely supported and appreciated,” [owner Chris Doeblin] wrote. “In the last 30 months the payroll costs for Book Culture have risen by 50% and it has been difficult to adapt quickly enough. We have now made the structural changes to our company and the cuts that will allow us to move ahead profitably once we find the financial resources we need.”

Now, why might their payroll costs have risen by 50 percent? What could possible explain this. It’s a complete mystery. Oh, wait. . .

Doeblin blamed payroll cost increases on the city’s minimum wage raise, which he says increased hourly wages for his employees “from $10 to $15.25 since December 2016” and forced him to initiate layoffs and reorganizing.

But but but—I was told minimum wage hikes would have no effect on businesses! You mean mandated higher payroll costs might make some businesses unviable? And how could a progressive outfit like Book Culture have had a clear conscience about paying a miserable $10 an hour before the mandate?

 

What remedy does Book Culture propose? A free labor market perhaps? Silly me. Of course you know the answer: government subsidies.

Doeblin explained to Gothamist what he believes the business needs to survive, and his larger ambitions to try to help other small businesses stay alive in an ever-changing city: “I think we need at least $500K in a term loan but I hope to find $750K to a $1M,” he said. “I would like the city to immediately [guarantee] such a loan and then embark on a serious plan to improve the odds of small business in New York. I would like to be on that panel too, because there is a lack of creative optimistic thinking and action.”

 

 

Here’s a serious plan: turn a profit, or close up.

 

 

 

.

Edited June 25, 2019 by B-Man

[row_33]

On 6/20/2019 at 8:00 AM, I am the egg man said:

Just cut through the nonsense...it's that Democrats/Liberals fail this country every time.

 

conservative ideals take a severe beating when they get power and try to apply it to real life

 

 

[3rdnlng]

[B-Man]

Democrats point to Nordic nations as models of socialism. Here’s how they actually work.

Washington Post, by Charles Lane

 

Original Article

 

 

 

.

[Golden Goat]

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

..how about the already socialistic IRS provision for Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)?.......you'd choke if I told you what I pay the Feds now...and then AMT says I should be able to "contribute more" so I get whacked for $5 grand more so they can p$$s it away....WTF?........