HorrorMovieFans.com

Jason wrote:Antifa, because they actually exist and in large numbers.

Yikes, wrong answer.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Antifa, because they actually exist and in large numbers.

Yikes, wrong answer.

Holy fuck.

OMgosh

Pretty much.

Bernie Sanders recently promised to cancel all 1.3 trillion(?) in student loan debt if he's elected president...

Disingenuous hack. The real answer is either going to be
1) raise the tax rate
2) Inflate the currency

What is the currency manipulation in aid of?

Also cancelling the 1.6tn would only cost $300m and can easily be managed through a few changes and amendments. It’s really not that controversial and not hard to do. Plus it’s already false to claim it’s $1.6tn

showa58taro wrote:What is the currency manipulation in aid of?

I'm saying there is no way of paying off the student debt unless he does one of the two options I suggested. And he knows it, which is why he's a disingenuous phony.

What I will never understand is the demand of taxpayers paying for student loan debt. How about not charging 6-figures for a basic education? Maybe that's the problem?

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What is the currency manipulation in aid of?

I'm saying there is no way of paying off the student debt unless he does one of the two options I suggested. And he knows it, which is why he's a disingenuous phony.

But you are understanding that you don't need cash to pay off student loan debt, I assume? You'd need a significant fraction less than the total book value to remove it from the DoE accounts, and you'd need a fairly modest cash sum (I'd estimate £150bn) to reimburse the sold loans portions back as a result of policy changes, but all of this is already taken into account in the liabilities included in Treasury estimates. Especially given they trippled their rate of subsidization last year (the last year available anyway) and have seen a steady decline. So all you're really talking is trying to fund that 150bn in cash terms from treasury, whilst removing a toxic asset and then addressing the issue going forward (which would be to create free tuition generally) which is exactly the plan.

It also means you can stop using shoddy modelling, as an aside.

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What is the currency manipulation in aid of?

I'm saying there is no way of paying off the student debt unless he does one of the two options I suggested. And he knows it, which is why he's a disingenuous phony.

But you are understanding that you don't need cash to pay off student loan debt, I assume? You'd need a significant fraction less than the total book value to remove it from the DoE accounts, and you'd need a fairly modest cash sum (I'd estimate £150bn) to reimburse the sold loans portions back as a result of policy changes, but all of this is already taken into account in the liabilities included in Treasury estimates. Especially given they trippled their rate of subsidization last year (the last year available anyway) and have seen a steady decline. So all you're really talking is trying to fund that 150bn in cash terms from treasury, whilst removing a toxic asset and then addressing the issue going forward (which would be to create free tuition generally) which is exactly the plan.

It also means you can stop using shoddy modelling, as an aside.

You guys are really close to agreeing on this one.

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What is the currency manipulation in aid of?

I'm saying there is no way of paying off the student debt unless he does one of the two options I suggested. And he knows it, which is why he's a disingenuous phony.

But you are understanding that you don't need cash to pay off student loan debt, I assume? You'd need a significant fraction less than the total book value to remove it from the DoE accounts, and you'd need a fairly modest cash sum (I'd estimate £150bn) to reimburse the sold loans portions back as a result of policy changes, but all of this is already taken into account in the liabilities included in Treasury estimates. Especially given they trippled their rate of subsidization last year (the last year available anyway) and have seen a steady decline. So all you're really talking is trying to fund that 150bn in cash terms from treasury, whilst removing a toxic asset and then addressing the issue going forward (which would be to create free tuition generally) which is exactly the plan.

It also means you can stop using shoddy modelling, as an aside.

You guys are really close to agreeing on this one.

I still think he’s opposed and I’m for writing it off, unless I misread him. Luckily I’m an expert in the field.

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What is the currency manipulation in aid of?

I'm saying there is no way of paying off the student debt unless he does one of the two options I suggested. And he knows it, which is why he's a disingenuous phony.

But you are understanding that you don't need cash to pay off student loan debt, I assume? You'd need a significant fraction less than the total book value to remove it from the DoE accounts, and you'd need a fairly modest cash sum (I'd estimate £150bn) to reimburse the sold loans portions back as a result of policy changes, but all of this is already taken into account in the liabilities included in Treasury estimates. Especially given they trippled their rate of subsidization last year (the last year available anyway) and have seen a steady decline. So all you're really talking is trying to fund that 150bn in cash terms from treasury, whilst removing a toxic asset and then addressing the issue going forward (which would be to create free tuition generally) which is exactly the plan.

It also means you can stop using shoddy modelling, as an aside.

You guys are really close to agreeing on this one.

I still think he’s opposed and I’m for writing it off, unless I misread him. Luckily I’m an expert in the field.

I'm just being a smart ass. I love that banter, Jason raving hack he's gonna fuck up our currency, and you get to switch gears with your spidey sense tingling.

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What is the currency manipulation in aid of?

I'm saying there is no way of paying off the student debt unless he does one of the two options I suggested. And he knows it, which is why he's a disingenuous phony.

But you are understanding that you don't need cash to pay off student loan debt, I assume? You'd need a significant fraction less than the total book value to remove it from the DoE accounts, and you'd need a fairly modest cash sum (I'd estimate £150bn) to reimburse the sold loans portions back as a result of policy changes, but all of this is already taken into account in the liabilities included in Treasury estimates. Especially given they trippled their rate of subsidization last year (the last year available anyway) and have seen a steady decline. So all you're really talking is trying to fund that 150bn in cash terms from treasury, whilst removing a toxic asset and then addressing the issue going forward (which would be to create free tuition generally) which is exactly the plan.

It also means you can stop using shoddy modelling, as an aside.

This isn't shoddy modelling. I'm just using what Bernie's giving me. "Wall street is gonna pay for it!" Sure, Bernie. Everyone knows that under your guise, the taxpayers in student debt will get direct subsidies to offset their higher tax rate. The payroll tax will rise but only be offset by subsidies and it's going to come from people in higher classes than below the lower-middle-class. This screws over about 95% of people with student loan debt because we have a phony fraud disguising it as muh-free-shit!

showa58taro wrote:Luckily I’m an expert in the field.

Stop manipulating your expertise to project partisan bias, expert.

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What is the currency manipulation in aid of?

I'm saying there is no way of paying off the student debt unless he does one of the two options I suggested. And he knows it, which is why he's a disingenuous phony.

But you are understanding that you don't need cash to pay off student loan debt, I assume? You'd need a significant fraction less than the total book value to remove it from the DoE accounts, and you'd need a fairly modest cash sum (I'd estimate £150bn) to reimburse the sold loans portions back as a result of policy changes, but all of this is already taken into account in the liabilities included in Treasury estimates. Especially given they trippled their rate of subsidization last year (the last year available anyway) and have seen a steady decline. So all you're really talking is trying to fund that 150bn in cash terms from treasury, whilst removing a toxic asset and then addressing the issue going forward (which would be to create free tuition generally) which is exactly the plan.

It also means you can stop using shoddy modelling, as an aside.

This isn't shoddy modelling. I'm just using what Bernie's giving me. "Wall street is gonna pay for it!" Sure, Bernie. Everyone knows that under your guise, the taxpayers in student debt will get direct subsidies to offset their higher tax rate. The payroll tax will rise but only be offset by subsidies and it's going to come from people in higher classes than below the lower-middle-class. This screws over about 95% of people with student loan debt because we have a phony fraud disguising it as muh-free-shit!

It's always shoddy modelling. My point is that "pay for it" is a meaningless phrase as there is nothing to "pay for" in this context. The government is basically renouncing its claim to cash it had already accounted for as largely lost (40% of students defaulted, and a large number of repayments decreased as a more lenient payment plan was put into place, but this in turn meant that insufficient costs are collecting to pay off the principal) which is why it is only a drag on the economy and represents an uncollectible (and therefore largely impaired) asset for the US Treasury. In that regard, the best and most sensible policy is to pay off the 15-20% sold loans in principle based on the modelled forecast of returns purchased after factoring in the risk premium the market would have bought them at, and then literally just hitting the delete key on the remnant 80-85% of the loan book value. The biggest impact for the government is a slight shortfall in repayment receipts not in arrears, which I'm guessing is what Bernie intends to offset through his current expected tax on financial service transactions/trades. Which would probably be his way to make it palateable to those who think that Democrats have to fund everything they want with equal income/expenses rather than just taking the receipt shortfall and modelling the expected economic benefit which will likely increase receipts elsewhere.

That would also allow you to avoid subsidies which would not be productive in this context.

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Luckily I’m an expert in the field.

Stop manipulating your expertise to project partisan bias, expert.

There's literally no bias in how the loan book works.

The idea of whether it is "fair" could be partisan, as could compensatory plans (or lack thereof) but the rest is basic IFRS 9 accounting.

showa58taro wrote:It's always shoddy modelling. My point is that "pay for it" is a meaningless phrase as there is nothing to "pay for" in this context. The government is basically renouncing its claim to cash it had already accounted for as largely lost (40% of students defaulted, and a large number of repayments decreased as a more lenient payment plan was put into place, but this in turn meant that insufficient costs are collecting to pay off the principal) which is why it is only a drag on the economy and represents an uncollectible (and therefore largely impaired) asset for the US Treasury. In that regard, the best and most sensible policy is to pay off the 15-20% sold loans in principle based on the modelled forecast of returns purchased after factoring in the risk premium the market would have bought them at, and then literally just hitting the delete key on the remnant 80-85% of the loan book value. The biggest impact for the government is a slight shortfall in repayment receipts not in arrears, which I'm guessing is what Bernie intends to offset through his current expected tax on financial service transactions/trades. Which would probably be his way to make it palateable to those who think that Democrats have to fund everything they want with equal income/expenses rather than just taking the receipt shortfall and modelling the expected economic benefit which will likely increase receipts elsewhere.

That would also allow you to avoid subsidies which would not be productive in this context.

What you doesn't seem to understand (or perhaps you're just ignoring your expertise in this regard) is that our economy is not structured properly to deal with Euro-socialism. The less convolution and the less government involved, the better. At a bare minimum, the states should handle it in which it will be far more efficient. Even the private marketplace can partially compensate for it, as well. What you've proposed is the equivalent to asking "Why can't we all just get along" when the Japanese bombs Pearl Harbor or when a terrorist flies planes into buildings. It is way more complicated than that, and you of all people (the expert), should know this. Did you know that we are the military guarantor through our Navy, alone? We already have to pay inordinate sums to our military even if we're not at war. There's no alternative because if we stop doing that, other nations will rise up and our profits will go down and we'll go into a tailspin. The curse of hegemony, essentially. It just will not work in the way that you suggest, Seb. I'm sorry.

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's always shoddy modelling. My point is that "pay for it" is a meaningless phrase as there is nothing to "pay for" in this context. The government is basically renouncing its claim to cash it had already accounted for as largely lost (40% of students defaulted, and a large number of repayments decreased as a more lenient payment plan was put into place, but this in turn meant that insufficient costs are collecting to pay off the principal) which is why it is only a drag on the economy and represents an uncollectible (and therefore largely impaired) asset for the US Treasury. In that regard, the best and most sensible policy is to pay off the 15-20% sold loans in principle based on the modelled forecast of returns purchased after factoring in the risk premium the market would have bought them at, and then literally just hitting the delete key on the remnant 80-85% of the loan book value. The biggest impact for the government is a slight shortfall in repayment receipts not in arrears, which I'm guessing is what Bernie intends to offset through his current expected tax on financial service transactions/trades. Which would probably be his way to make it palateable to those who think that Democrats have to fund everything they want with equal income/expenses rather than just taking the receipt shortfall and modelling the expected economic benefit which will likely increase receipts elsewhere.

That would also allow you to avoid subsidies which would not be productive in this context.

What you doesn't seem to understand (or perhaps you're just ignoring your expertise in this regard) is that our economy is not structured properly to deal with Euro-socialism. The less convolution and the less government involved, the better. At a bare minimum, the states should handle it in which it will be far more efficient. Even the private marketplace can partially compensate for it, as well. What you've proposed is the equivalent to asking "Why can't we all just get along" when the Japanese bombs Pearl Harbor or when a terrorist flies planes into buildings. It is way more complicated than that, and you of all people (the expert), should know this. Did you know that we are the military guarantor through our Navy, alone? We already have to pay inordinate sums to our military even if we're not at war. There's no alternative because if we stop doing that, other nations will rise up and our profits will go down and we'll go into a tailspin. The curse of hegemony, essentially. It just will not work in the way that you suggest, Seb. I'm sorry.

Writing off the loan balance and removing the government from everyone's paycheck is less government involvement. Currently the government owns $1.6tn in debt from 45m US tax payers. Removing that basically frees up money for the economy and removes a burden on 45m americans, and minimizes government involvement.

There's nothing whatsoever about this that is "more complicated" than what I laid out. Your objection seems to be "I don't want that" which is fine, that's your call. But there's nothing about the rest of your post that is coherent to the discussion at hand. I mean "our profits" here being the US government? Or yours? or the military? I can't even follow the coherent logic here.

The basic and clear fact is that for a small amount of money a lot of people's lives can be better and it is not even a controversial thing to do as you own the loans in most cases and have them already accounted for. Trump already did it for disabled veterans through a basic executive order, forgiving a bunch of debt. It is not hard to do and it does not have a major fiscal impact. It has an ideological impact for Republicans, but you're not aruging on ideology, you're arguing on perceived complexity. And believe me, there is plenty of complexity in deriving your student loan balance and subsidy each year, but the actual principles of loan forgiveness are not that hard, and you (and others) are overstating the fiscal impact, because you perceive it to be "a cost" and that money is needed to finance this, which is exactly the opposite of how this works.

in truth the only real argument here is one of justice as fairness insofar as you'd argue this advantages those who haven't paid off the loans over those that have paid all or part o theirs off as they'll be less well off than those who are now forgiven their debt. But you're not going down that route either, it seems. Instead you're talking about Pearl Harbour...

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Jason wrote:Antifa, because they actually exist and in large numbers.

Ummmm..... Charlottesville? I live in KKK cuntry. We have elected officials who sympathize with KKK and white supremacists. But hey .....nothing to see here. Lmao

I don't know. The left cries wolf all the time and never has an answer for anything other than with violence. See: video I posted...

The guy who ran into the crowd in Charlottesville killed a girl man. And before y'all stick up for that guy, he pleaded guilty and admitted that he did it on purpose. Call out antifa all ya want. But let's not pick and choose our outrage just because "those people" vote for "the side I vote for". It's division at its finest. You don't think white supremacists are a problem. Good grief man! You know better bro!