|
Pick posted:Right, but see above: many student loans aren't actually held by the government. I can't see how an executive order could cancel student loans that are held by Sallie Mae, for example. I don't know the proportionality's here, but if I recall that's quite a large percentage of them. Most loans are held by the government, and serviced by Sallie Mae or similar firms. Not held directly by SM. There are some private loans out the but the vast majority is government loans.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Right, but that's for the direct loans, correct? She certainly didn't say that it would be possible to do that for them all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Most loans are held by the government, and serviced by Sallie Mae or similar firms. Not held directly by SM. There are some private loans out the but the vast majority is government loans. They're guaranteed by the government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Pick posted:Right, but see above: many student loans aren't actually held by the government. I can't see how an executive order could cancel student loans that are held by Sallie Mae, for example. I don't know the proportionality's here, but if I recall that's quite a large percentage of them. The lion's share of student loans, and every FAFSA loan issued after 2009, are held by the federal government. They're "managed" by 6 outside companies. I get that doesn't really help the people who have loans dating from before that, but it would be a huge first step.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Seriously, though. "Are you gonna fix the errors that everyone found in the reported results?" "We're focused on reporting the final results"
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:The lion's share of student loans, and every FAFSA loan issued after 2009, are held by the federal government. They're "managed" by 6 outside companies. Gotcha. Just curious on the proportions and where they're held and which ones could be directly affected. I do recall that Donald Trump was able to do that for quite a few veterans, but they had obviously an internal program.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Seriously, though. Yeah, even I’m surprised at how blatant they’re being about this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
Pick posted:They're guaranteed by the government. No, most are held by the government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
Pick posted:But that would still only be for the direct federal loans, correct? Pick posted:I ask this because, for example, Sallie Mae is not a government organization, so I'm trying to figure out what the mechanism is for an executive order there. $1.5 trillion is held directly by the federal government, that's almost all of it I believe. But you are correct, forgiving private loans would require an act of congress, of course anyone with private loans also has federal loans (because you don't take out private loans with their horrible terms until you've maxed out your federal loans) so for almost everyone you're still forgiving most of their debt
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah, even I’m surprised at how blatant they’re being about this. Why? Plenty enough people eat this poo poo up and there are enough sycophants around to give them a boost regardless of how obviously bullshit it is. A sucker is born every minute and that's why the Democratic Party gave up on abortion rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
You seem to have very strong opinions about protest voting in the thread where talk of protest voting is prohibited, how strange that you've never posted about it in the actual protest voting thread. I wonder why that is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:$1.5 trillion is held directly by the federal government, that's almost all of it I believe. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/081216/who-actually-owns-student-loan-debt.asp This ended up having my answer, so it's a large chunk of it but not all, definitely basically everything from 2010 onward. I didn't realize that was part of the ACA, very interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Why? Plenty enough people eat this poo poo up and there are enough sycophants around to give them a boost regardless of how obviously bullshit it is. Like it takes almost no effort to come up with a lie. They’re not actually ruthless enough to be open but still too stupid to actually cover anything up. I’m just surprised at the how incompetent it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
Pick posted:They're guaranteed by the government. If your loans are guaranteed by the government, then Uncle Sam is the actually owner of your debt. Private student loans are not backed by the government and are obtained through banks and the like, almost always with the assistance of a co-signer who has assets and a credit history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
Gyges posted:If your loans are guaranteed by the government, then Uncle Sam is the actually owner of your debt. Private student loans are not backed by the government and are obtained through banks and the like, almost always with the assistance of a co-signer who has assets and a credit history. Those distinctions can be important with respect to what avenues the executive branch has to exert control over them. However, I found the answer to my question in the link above.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
Please someone just pour him a cup of warm milk and put him to bed. This is abuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
I wonder how much the Biden Campaign is spending on hard candies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/1225902065723039744?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
Pick posted:You said the first thing he would do is cancel student debt by executive order, but does the president actually have the power to do that? I think there is some debate over whether the executive can outright cancel *all* of the loans (owing to the particular structure and ownership of some of that debt and the terse but not totally clear language of the NDEA), but the executive certainly has broad abilities to de facto cancel the debt by making it difficult/impossible to collect, making it easier to discharge, and putting pressure on the private holders of that debt. TL;DR yes
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
I don't get all the depression, it looks like they're getting similar-sized bumps from the collapse in other candidates, which is Bad For Pete since he started out behind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't get all the depression, it looks like they're getting similar-sized bumps from the collapse in other candidates, which is Bad For Pete since he started out behind. if bernie gets 50% of the notWarren losers in general we're sitting pretty, that's a good poll for us as far as that goes
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:14
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:if bernie gets 50% of the notWarren losers in general we're sitting pretty, that's a good poll for us as far as that goes I really do wonder if Warren drops out after NH. As it stands, I think after NH everyone but Bernie, Butt, Biden, and MAYBE Warren are out within the week. I think Biden attempts to hold on till South Carolina no matter what happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
I have a few people on the hook telling me they are interested in reading why I think Pete is bad? What's the best articles for this? I love the Nathan J Robinson write up: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete But am afraid it's a little complicated and arcane, and doesn't live up to how mad they've seen me get about him
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't get all the depression, it looks like they're getting similar-sized bumps from the collapse in other candidates, which is Bad For Pete since he started out behind. reminder that this was the thread's 'best case scenario' outcome, going into iowa, before we got distracted by a lovely app, the (obviously anticipated) establishment thumb, and some silly conspiracy theory stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Tulsi 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Bernie is getting his bump now along with Pete and we are going to loving win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
I think at this point Yang needs to drop out and endorse Bernie. If he doesn't, he's hurting his signature issue more than if he stays in. As a hanger-on candidate goes, the boost should be significant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
It really is loving insane that the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY starts with two of the whitest states in the god drat union.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I think at this point Yang needs to drop out and endorse Bernie. If he doesn't, he's hurting his signature issue more than if he stays in. Yang, attack the rat
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
this is good, if biden collapses further he's just handing bernie an easy victory in nevada and SC, two states that pete can't win
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Disappointed but not surprised that Bernie/AOC's climate plan includes big subsidies to auto industry. I get the political logic behind it, he needs to win Michigan in both the primary and general. But the absolute last thing we should be doing right now in terms of reducing emissions is further subsidizing cars, yes including electric cars. That money would be better spent subsidizing dense walk-able housing development or investing in public transit. Like I said, I get why he did it. He is a politician who needs to make political compromises to pass his agenda. It might even be the right call. Still sucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:I have a few people on the hook telling me they are interested in reading why I think Pete is bad? What's the best articles for this? I love the Nathan J Robinson write up: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete This is the article that pretty much sealed the deal for me back in April that Pete's a dangerous narcissist. Nathan J Robinson also just posted a follow-up article minutes ago: https://twitter.com/NathanJRobinson/status/1225902487368015873
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:Disappointed but not surprised that Bernie/AOC's climate plan includes big subsidies to auto industry. I get the political logic behind it, he needs to win Michigan in both the primary and general. But the absolute last thing we should be doing right now in terms of reducing emissions is further subsidizing cars, yes including electric cars. That money would be better spent subsidizing dense walk-able housing development or investing in public transit. In the near term, there is no feasible alternative to having a personal vehicle for most of the country. Subsidizing electric car research, development, and manufacture is a reality as well as a good way to invest in employment opportunities. Pie in the sky? Ya, great to shoot for a carless world. It's not realistic in the short/middle term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:It really is loving insane that the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY starts with two of the whitest states in the god drat union. People say candidates like Sanders would be flattened in South Carolina if the election started there, but that's just wrong imo. If the election started in SC, every campaign would have spent the entire last year there with voters instead of mostly in Iowa and NH. Name recognition and national ad buy would be so much less of a factor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
lol biden lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
Are there any polls with second choice preference for southern black voters? Asking for a friend named Joe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:lol biden lmao i love this poll, if it holds any where near true for the final result bernie will sweep 50 states
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:Are there any polls with second choice preference for southern black voters? Asking for a friend named Joe. i don't believe there are any explicitly doing this, but i do remember a few polls of black americans nationwide in which sanders was viewed overwhelmingly positively, so i would have to imagine he'd be second choice. i mean gently caress, it sure wouldn't be warren or buttigieg, in any case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
I understand that these things are much more difficult to institute an actual governmental level, but why do the primaries not use ranked voting? Doesn't that seem like something at the party should actually want to do? And it's not like they need anybody else's permission to do so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Darko posted:Identity voting doesn't work that way with black people. Hillary polled over Obama for a while in the south with black people. I agree. But if Pete starts looking like a winner I suspect his numbers will increase across the board. Whether it works out for him or not is an open question but he’ll absolutely pick a running mate to compensate for where he’s looking weakest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:32
|
|
