I really appreciated the purity of Katie's rant about Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan. While I'm not personally upset about the fact that the plan doesn't benefit me, here are a few things about the plan that have been making me see red:
1. Biden wants to deny that the Democratic Party is a party of the elites WHILE handing out a regressive gift to his many college-educated voters right before the midterms AND insisting that, if you're one of the many people who don't vote for Democratic candidates because you don't think they do anything for you, you're just bigoted. Very few of the roughly 2/3 of American adults who don't hold a college degree are going to find this argument persuasive. Cue another nauseating round of the Democrats wondering why the supposedly bigoted working classes aren't enlightened enough to vote for them in greater numbers.
2. Despite the outrageous increases in college tuition relative to wages in the last several decades, college graduates still reap significant financial benefits from their degrees:
"In July, the unemployment rate for recent college graduates was a paltry 2.9 percent. The total lifetime wage premium for a college education is $900,000 for men and $630,000 for women—an amount that’s many multiples of average college debt.
"And while lifetime earnings vary by major, the stereotype of the impoverished art history graduate just isn’t true. A 2020 Brookings study showed that there was a significant lifetime wage gap 'for all 98 majors studied.'" (https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/is-there-a-christian-case-for-bidens)
There's no excuse for making a high-school-educated childcare giver pay for the education of the radiologist who sends his kids to her daycare. He'll be fine. So will his little brother who majored in art history and is now "settling" for an office job unrelated to his major that inexplicably requires a BA.
3. If you'll permit me a peevish addition about how this sort of policy may hurt me, as someone who pays my bills thanks to college students' tuition: Republicans, already inclined to see professors and higher-ed admin as liberal fat cats, are looking for more ways to retaliate against institutions of higher ed. The most powerful politician in my state was already campaigning on an anti-higher-ed plank before Biden announced his plan. The escalation of this particularly stupid culture war is likely to affect everyone who works at or attends public universities in states with red state legislatures. That's a lot of time and money we'll continue to spend fighting about funding, tenure, and First-Amendment rights.
He is motivating his base. If you want the moolah, get yourself to the polls to safeguard its delivery. It is not admirable but it is basic non-mysterious politics.
I'm aware! I just think it's a crass, classist way to buy votes. And I'm disgusted by Democratic rhetoric about being for "the poor and marginalized" when the party is in this and many other ways washing its hands of the working and lower middle classes.
Not everyone who has students loans has a college degree, however. Katie is right that those with the most education have the most debt, but it's also true that those who didn't finish college often have the least debt. These people really did get a bad deal, and small student loan forgiveness will help them out greatly. I don't understand how it's elitist to try and help this population.
Injecting moral hazard into college financing without doing anything about costs at the front end is likely to make college more expensive, not less, thus hurting less financially stable students the most. This plan is not the way to make college degrees attainable for those who would most benefit from them.
Personally, if we're throwing taxpayer dollars around, I would favor a massive infusion of cash into programs like the Pell Grants if it were contingent on tuition control by recipient colleges. I'm also intrigued by the idea of discharging student-loan debt through bankruptcy, although since Josh Barro says that would make interest rates skyrocket, I'd want to learn more before I'd endorse such a plan.
There are lots of ways to try to deal with college costs without buying off voters by means of a plan that will almost certainly inflate tuition.
Why do you think those with student debt who didn't finish college "really did get a bad deal"? I agree that they're stuck in a situation that's less than desirable but nobody forced them to take out student loans. How do you know they aren't just irresponsible? I'm not saying they are, but I honestly don't get your logic. I believe the colleges, which did (and still do) prey on young and sometimes foolish applicants while wildly inflating their tuition bills, should be forced to take the loss, not taxpayers.
It's both true that there's some predatory recruitment AND that professors can't make their students pass their classes. I've never personally wanted to flunk a student, but some of them have left me no choice. There's a new move in my state to help more students complete their degrees, and while I'm very much for that goal, I'm worried that it might put pressure on professors at certain institutions to pass everybody and thereby turn grades into a meaningless step toward a paper credential.
I want so badly to be sex-positive, but if someone describes himself as an "ethical boyslut," I am immediately going to make 1000 negative judgments about him.
I gotta say that every self described sex positive person I have encountered has been deeply annoying and sanctimonious. Like. FFS. Fuck who you want when you want how you want as long as in consensual. Be monogamous. Don't be. Be abstinent. Who. The Fuck. Cares? 3nd of story. People who pontificate about it scare me..
This is the language I've been looking for, well said. I, mostly, fall under the auspices of sex positivism but I don't want the foam finger or bumper sticker. Frankly, I'd prefer SP to be more, lady & street, freak & sheet. (me being the erm, "lady", in this scenario)
From my understanding sex positivity started out as a way for people to express their sexuality as they saw fit, as long as people are consenting. My problem is that it has evolved into if you do not have sex like me or you are not into sex, something is wrong with you. How about just ketting everyone alone?
And yes. The only people who need to know your feelings about sex are the people you have sex with
I didn't have my glasses on, so I first read it as PORNTIFICATE! Now I think I want to latch on to that word because I whole heartedly endorse everything you said. Who cares? Unless you are harming someone, it is simply not interesting.
One of the aspects of sex that seems to be lost in all the “positivity” right now is that sex is only sexy when you find someone attractive. Sexual info/display from someone whom you find profoundly unattractive is unpleasant, and can even be repulsive.
That used to be fairly well understood. I think a few too many people currently confuse sex positivity with running rampant over other people’s lack of sexual interest in them.
Tone also matters, and the entertainment value of the speaker/subject matter. I have zero sexual interest in the queens on Ru Paul's drag race but could watch Trinity's how to tuck advice for hours. The same material from a dour po-faced activist? Shudder.
I feel like this is more generally applied to women, no?? Are gay men who are not into trans men castigated? Lesbians are to an extent. And I get it if say you meet a dude and think he is cute and cool but back off when it turns out he is trans. But if you are straight up I am not into trans people, who cares?
I think the scenario you’ve outlined is an example of this, yes. But you can see it more extensively than the trans/attraction issue. For example, someone talking about their kinks or porn use with colleagues probably feels quite liberating to them, but for onlookers who don’t find them sexually interesting it just feels inappropriate at best.
It’s easy to respond to onlookers’ discomfort by accusing them of being sex negative prudes, but the harsh fact is they might be actually very interested hearing about kinks from the right person in the right circumstances. To me, that’s an example of boundary violation, and it used to be understood that letting it all hang out, ALL the time could be off-putting to a significant proportion of people (including, but not limited to, kids. Kids generally think all sex is scary and gross).
I think the same people who criticize lesbians for not being into trans women criticize gay men for the same thing, but gay men are just less likely to care? Gay dating is *incredibly* superficial and it's just way more acceptable to openly express physical preference. Like, if some activist calls out gay guys for not wanting to date men with vaginas, the response is just, "lmao ok."
But that criticism of gay men isn't nearly as aggressive, ubiquitous or as vicious. Men, whether they're straight or gay, are, as you've noted, very different than women and I'm not sure young women fully recognize or appreciate just HOW different they are.
sex is only sexy when you find someone attractive. Sexual info/display from someone whom you find profoundly unattractive is unpleasant, and can even be repulsive.
Great old SNL skit with Tom Brady and Fred Armisen about that very thing.
Ugh. That name manages to be gross, infantile, and oxymoronic at the same time. People who behave ethically don't usually have to declaim it so forcefully. I guess you can't get normies to be sex advice columnists, though.
I haven't listened to him for a few years, because it all gets pretty samey after a while, but I used to like him too. Disappointed that he has such nice things to say about this clown.
I think there should be such a thing as a “consent-cel” for people who have this Faustian belief that if you just talk someone into agreeing with something then it must be totally okay. “Well she agreed inch by inch with all these external pressures on her to prostitute herself on only fans for $80/mos so it’s totally fine!” That maybe works legally, but definitely not morally.
When people start piling up the “ethical” labels it makes me think of dictatorships with names like the peoples united republic of democracy.
100%. Also, "ethical", like intelligent, creative and pretty are value judgements that other people make about you, not things you get to credibly claim for yourself. If you need to run around telling people that your intelligent and creative, then your probably not. If you run around telling people that your ethical, then I am similarly suspicious. Also, I assume that his bar for being ethical just means that he doesn't out right rape people, and that doesn't bother to hide that he constantly cheats on all his partners. Add to that the worlds stupidest advice, and colour me deeply unimpressed.
That said, his advice column was the funniest thing I've read for ages, so points to him for humour, if unintentional. Someone should dob him in to libs of tik tock.
I suspect the "ethical" label is a reference to the "Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships & Other Adventures" by Janet W. Hardy. The book has been fairly popular at least in gay male circles. Saying so doesn't address whether it's a red flag or not, but it seems pretty likely that he is trying to tap into a shared language/perspective drawn from that book when describing himself that way.
I think Trace is engaging in purity politics by making this something that will cause him not to vote. The fact that this is a line in the sand given everything else that goes on with bullshit in the government seems weird. Ymmv
Also, using the Manhattan Institute is biased. It might be helpful to look at other sources that are not idealogically conservative. Like again there’s a real problem with the lack of state funding which has dramatically decreased and there’s a real issue with the interest rates. The Republicans don’t want to look at that issue about why state colleges are so expensive; they just wanna blame greedy leftist academics and not think that the state should have any responsibility like they always used to. Also Katy‘s whole thing about people shouldn’t have to go to college; sure that’s definitely the case but you know the problem with making it less accessible is that the people not going to college will just be people who don’t have money. I guess I feel strongly about it because I grew up in a poor family in the first generation household and boy, I believe in access and not in middle class people making decisions about what’s the best thing for the economy without checking.
I don't think it's a sensible line in the sand for everyone, but it's very clear that a big part of the purpose and timing of this move is to drive turnout for the midterms. I view it as a bribe that would, in an ideal world, backfire and decrease their support to a larger degree than I personally could ever sway, to discourage similar bribes in the future. Given that, paired with my uneasy alliance with the Democrats writ large (I have never been registered with either party and have more major substantive disagreements with the Democrats than Katie or Jesse) and an unusually significant personal stake/experience with this issue, I believe that inasmuch as my vote matters, the most realistic way it can have an impact towards pushing politics closer to what I hope to see is by staking it on this issue and making it clear that things like this do have a negative impact on left-leaning centrists. If it's seen as significant enough to drive turnout, it should be seen as significant enough to drive turnout away as well.
For people who are more aligned with the Democratic Party than I am, who don't have the same sort of stake I do in this issue, or who don't have a problem with the strategic thinking behind the timing of cancellation, etc, the calculation is different, and I don't think it makes sense for them to stake their votes on the issue in the same way. But I think people's public-facing decisions about voting behavior—as with their advocacy in general—should lean not necessarily on what is most important in a vacuum, but on where they personally may be able to make the most marginal difference. So far as I can tell, for me, that lands me here.
Ultimately, the marginal difference I make will be almost invisible regardless. But that's the logic in play for me.
Fwiw, the guy who has to sound off about everything agrees with you. I really don’t see either Democrats or Republicans as apocalyptically bad (my basic feeling about most politicians is that they’re at best ineffective) and the only way you have to punish the parties for letting the extreme elements take over is to migrate your vote to the other party when they pull bullshit. That’s the only weapon we have at hand to force them to behave.
I completely agree with your last point about not letting college be out of reach for poor students. (In my experience, sticker price can be a big barrier. Many prospective students don't realize that they can get tuition discounts based on having a lower household income, so they never apply to schools that would actually be well within their reach.)
It's common among left-of-center folks, including many of the college professors I know, to blame lack of state funding for the ballooning cost of college tuition. As you'll see from my long comment on Katie's rant, I'm definitely concerned about further state budget cuts, too. This excellent piece by Planet Money explains the bigger factor: Colleges are competing on amenities and other facilities like the lab described in the piece, and those things are massively expensive: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/02/14/277015271/duke-60-000-a-year-for-college-is-actually-a-discount
State universities are engaged in the same expensive competition, to varying degrees, in part because college rankings really matter for attracting both students and donations.
But you are discounting lack of state funding by talking about the budgets of private universities. I think amenities are a problem-- less wealthy schools can end up privatizing to keep up which can put schools in long term fiscal trouble. Still-- it doesn’t mean it’s the same driver of tuition.
Unfortunately, I can't control Planet Money's choice of spotlight in its story. :-) But let me try to put this another way: The public university where I did graduate school has gotten less than 15% of its budget from the state for years now, so >85% of its budget is paid for by other sources (tuition, major donations, etc.--college funding is very complicated). Funding-wise, it's *mostly* a private school with a state cushion tacked on. Meanwhile, tuition continues to rise dramatically. For out-of-state students, its sticker price is as high as a nice private college's. The reasons include competition for students and rankings via exactly the sorts of expenditures Duke, a 100% private institution, also makes.
This may be less readily apparent to those who haven't worked in institutions of higher ed, but those of us who've been fortunate enough to work at both public and private ones can see them engaging in similarly expensive competition that leads to tuition increase at both. State funding is less and less of a difference maker in the many states that have already slashed most of it.
The biggest difference in the financial health of most colleges is probably the relative size of the endowments. That's why Harvard can offer much lower tuition than the ritzy but non-Ivy liberal arts colleges. But another major factor is the push and pull between being able to do cool things (like offer scholarships to needy students, or fund summer internships) if you charge a lot for tuition and having trouble if you max out the number of applicants who are interested in paying sticker price.
Instead of propelling students into the middle class, many public institutions such as the University of Alabama are leaving them saddled with large loans.
I stopped mid episode to react to Katie thinking a daisy chain meant a flower necklace 🤣😂🤣 she gives Jesse so much shit about his perceived lack of sexual prowess and she thought of flower crowns. GIRL. 💀
What do you think I mean when I say, "I love genuine pearl necklaces so much that I really can't see myself dating someone AFAB," Katie?
I used to work with exclusively gay men plus 1 other straight woman and a lesbian. Ok. Exclusively was a bad choice of a word. Point being. I had no.idea what a pearl necklace was and they were very very amused at how red I turned when they told me.
I thought that was proof positive that Katie was stoned while recording. (Then again, is she ever _not_ stoned when recording the podcast? And, for the record, not a complaint at all.)
God yes. I don’t care how young you are and how rich and famous the guy is - if you know he is cheating on his wife when he starts asking for sexts, you know he is not a good dude.
I think the growing experimentation with polyamory has muddied the waters around that rule for quite a few people. Which is a shame, because “don’t be the side piece” is good advice for pretty much anyone with less than rock solid self esteem, ie a fairly broad swathe of young people.
People may allow themselves to think that the waters are muddied, but unless said wife has actually given you the go-ahead to have a relationship with her husband you should assume cheating over polyamory.
Thanks. I've listened to only half of it so far, but I think I'm sold on at least this point: Biden decided months ago that the pandemic emergency was over, and that therefore it was time to start reopening our borders, but he justifies student debt cancellation on the basis that we're still in an emergency. (Another indicator that the emergency is deemed over: the government has stopped providing free Covid tests.)
I've seen some folks speculate that this is intentional. The courts will throw it out, and then Biden can shake his fist at the courts and still get credit for trying.
And with how long it takes for things to wind their way through courts, this probably won't happen until after the election.
There is precedent with the "eviction moratorium" that Biden stated he knew was illegal and unconstitutional, but still went ahead and extended it (after it was declared unconstitutional by the SC).
The eviction moratorium continues in two California counties! We can't have doctors bother to wear masks, covid tests are no longer free, the new vaccines may not be free, and yet... some people are claiming they legitimately cannot pay rent 2.5+ years after this all started... because of COVID? This is why doing the loans this way is so disingenuous. One day Biden admin is bragging about how covid cases are down and unemployment is the lowest it's ever been...then the next they are on about how people can't pay their loans because of COVID? Who is stupid enough to believe this nonsense? I will vote for democrats because what other choice do I have, but I'll never donate again.
Yeah, at my work (DoD) they waffle from week to week regarding mandatory masking due to "number of cases in adjoining counties" (not hospitalizations). It's insanely stupid. Of course we have to wear them in the halls but rip them off as soon as we get to our respective work spaces.
It does piss me off that I have to wear one whenever I go UVA medical facilities. It's ridiculous getting on the treadmill for PT and having to wear a mask while working up a sweat (not as bad as when the gym on base was requiring it...but then that's why I joined a private 24 hr gym in town).
I would never vote Libertarian. I do believe in taxation and public services. Problem is, they are getting really fucking bad lately and I honestly wonder what I'm paying for most of the time. Closest party affiliation for me would be if Bernie had done his own offshoot that was 100% class based with none of the ID politics bullshit (I think he could have for a moment there, but things went sideways). I just want healthcare, social security, disability for protecting vulnerable people, and the extremely wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes. I don't think fucking over the little guy with stuff like student loan forgiveness is the way to go. You'd never know this on twitter, but most people in America don't even have a damn loan, because most don't even go to college.
I misinterpreted this comment at first and chuckled at the idea of Biden arguing that there's legal precedent for him being allowed to disregard the law.
I pretty much agree with everything Katie said about student loans but count me amongst those who would rather blocked and reported didn't engage in political rants. Because I can get political rants in literally every facet of my life right now. I'd just rather have the show be something different
BARPod tends to be at its best when it's making commentary on the commentary, rather than directly on a subject itself. I don't listen J&K to get their takes on Trump, student loans or most other subjects. Instead I listen to get their takes on other people commenting on a wide range of subjects.
I appreciated it. I think we are all bombarded by political rants, but this is in line with the elite/out-of-touch narrative that B&R touches on at times. I just wish she'd talked a bit more about the discourse on twitter about this. Just outrageous. Reminded me of how crazed/rude republicans were after Trump won. Like, you got what you want, just shut the fuck up ok? I don't have to "like" it.
I agree. I wasn’t a fan. I don’t agree with Katie on this, but I’d be fine hearing a well composed, well researched vent in opposition to my view. However, it wasn’t. I’m surprised this made it into a public episode. And more importantly, I want Mina’s World style drama from this pod— that’s *delicious.*
I like Katie. I think her intelligence really shines through in her jokes/sense of humor, but I certainly don’t think “student loan debt forgiveness might cost us fixing potholes and Flint’s water” was quite the high school forensics slam dunk she was going for.
Quick correction: Katie seemed to think that student loan forgiveness will prevent us from spending money on infrastructure, while Jesse thinks Republican obstruction will prevent us from spending money on infrastructure, and neither of them seems to remember that a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill actually passed last fall. It got a little lost in a progressive temper tantrum about how it passed without Build Back Better, but it happened! It got 19 Republican votes in the Senate! It was a pretty big victory for the Biden administration.
And Katie alluded to this, but it's worth noting: cancelling student debt could be done through reconciliation (with 50 votes). It seems like that wasn't even considered because they knew they couldn't even get all congressional Democrats to vote for it, which is why it happened through an executive order of dubious legality.
Okay, so infrastructure might not be the best example. But surely there's something else Biden could spend that $500bn on by presidential fiat? Something more progressive than a cash subsidy which primarily benefits upper-middle-class (except those who have been most financially responsible).
Personally, I will gladly take the combined $20,000 for my wife and my student loans while still being angry that this action failed to stop the root problem that college is too damn expensive. But worrying that it benefits some people and not others is the wrong thing to get angry about. Lots of programs are unfair. Here’s a bit about me: I went to an expensive private school in the 80s, I got some grants but I took out a lot of student loans and had them all paid off by my late 20s. Then at 40 I went back to school for a graduate degree (absolutely required for my career). In public service by the way. I picked the cheapest state school to get it, and 12 years later I haven't even managed to touch the principle. And despite declaring bankruptcy 5 years ago, all that debt remains. The situation has shifted dramatically over the past 20 years, and many people whining, "well I paid of my loans" don't realize it. Do I want credit for paying off my undergraduate loans, no. Do I want help paying off my current loans, yes. Fix the interest rate scams, reinstate the clause making loans dischargeable in bankruptcy (maybe with back credit) and the problem will be solved going forward. Most people with graduate degrees needed to get them, and this idea that people with advanced degrees are wealthy or that they are fluffy degrees is nonsense. For many occupations people without them won't even get interviewed. Stop acting like everyone can just drop out of college and start Microsoft (or a podcast) in their garage. The world just isn't like that.
If you're in public service, could some of that debt been forgiven?
You say you went back to grad school because it was "absolutely required" for your "career" but that you've since declared bankruptcy? Doesn't sound like such a great "career" choice.
Why didn't I think of that?! Well, now that I have a degree my salary is not bad, but before I did it was awful and I ran up a lot of debt. And guess what? My family had a lot of medical bills not covered by insurance and support for extended family and my wife was unable to work because of family obligations. It is not an uncommon story and I hope it never happens to you. And yes public service forgiveness might help shave a little bit off, but up until this year when they changed the rules you had to be making minimum monthly payments which I could not afford. As for my career choice (I assume you are some sort of tech bro or finance person) what would the world look like if everyone just pursued the highest paying jobs? First the world economy would pretty much collapse as it is now because no one wants to do the things that make the world go round.
There's a diet called "bivalvegan" or "ostrovegan" which is vegan + shellfish.
I've heard the case made that this provides you with all the nutrients a vegan diet is lacking. And has no real ethical implications because bivalves don't even have brains and are effectively non-sentient.
On Robinson: agree on his SPLC piece which was bang on. Everything else reads like typical champagne socialism. Just add "for other people" to every suggested solution. Notice how he lives in New Orleans, not in some planned suburb in the middle of nowhere? It's easy when your parents pay for you to run a magazine.
Full disclosure: I do not know if this would work but I’m an expert in related fields and I don’t see why it wouldn’t. I paid off my wife’s debt in 2020 and am going to do this.
You are allowed to ask for a return of any payments you made on your student loans starting March 2020 when COVID relief began.
If you paid off your loan in the last two years, ask for a refund of all payments up to a total of $10k. You need to do this very soon because it’s going to take them about two months to process.
Then when the relief goes active end of year, ask for relief of the debt.
I consider it a moral obligation not to allow other people to punish me for doing the right thing.
How would something like that affect your credit score?
I paid off the remaining 7k of my student loans in 2020 and my credit score really climbed. That's going to have made a huge difference when I apply for a mortgage next year.
It’s complicated but I believe not at all. Student loans aren’t in my direct line of expertise but if it is processed as true forgiveness not a settlement that can’t report. You will probably have to declare write off on income taxes though via 1099c but that’s all.
I'm not wild about the debt-forgiveness plan myself, but I respectfully disagree with Katie about the potentially negative effects this will have on Democratic prospects.
First of all, I don't think most Americans vote based on policy. I wish I knew what did motivate votes--my best guess is an idiosyncratic mixture of fears, hopes, biases, magical thinking, and a fundamental ignorance about how government works. I suspect that there are vanishingly few people who will vote based solely on this issue. Most who do were probably not voting for Democrats anyway.
Second, I have a suspicion that SCOTUS will eventually stomp down this proposal, whether or not it's actually unconstitutional, so Biden may never have to make good this promise. However, the courts won't rule until after November, and the Biden folks may be hoping this will drive turnout among young voters. I'm dubious--see previous paragraph--but if one DOES believe that, then this is a proposal that costs the government no money, but gets Democratic voters to the polls.
In the end, I think this won't affect the elections much, although of course in a close election, *anything* can make the difference. If I had to guess, I'd say the Dobbs decision is more determinative than anything Biden does about student loans.
Please don’t read any further if you don’t want to hear a moralistic “right wing” screed. My apologies for posting this in mixed company, but it seems relevant to the discussion just this once.
I can only speak for myself, but it will make a difference for me. I really loathe Trump and his ilk and was very open to voting Dem just to put the nail in that particular coffin but I’m not voting for this crap either. I’ll re-post the comment I left at Trace’s place below.
I felt the same way about the mortgage bailouts of the 2000’s. I lost 30,000$ on my house when we sold it in part because many “neighbors” just stopped paying their mortgages when they realized they were underwater on the value of their homes. It was very frustrating to keep paying and paying and paying while the arseholes next door lived rent free for two years until the bank was finally able to throw them out. Then we had to sell our house with foreclosures on both sides.
Fast forward to THIS new slap in the face, our “neighbors” are just thrilled about this newest don’t live with your bad decisions handout because BOTH of them will benefit. They spend money like water, have about 150,000$ worth of cars for two people, let us take care of their ill cat because they are too cheap to take her to the vet, and hinted to borrow money from us during covid. These are not people who’ve experienced some tragic accident or illness, they’re just spendy and like to buy the newest phones/cars/houses etc. My husband and I live very frugally, paid as we went through college, have two over ten year old cars, and bought a cheap enough house that we could pay half up front and pay the rest off in ten years. We’re really starting to feel like f***ing suckers.
But hey, we get to look forward to being millionaires in retirement because we’ve been so responsible and then getting “means tested” out of social security and medicare so we and our various horrible irresponsible friends and neighbors over the years can all wind up in exactly the same place we are. Yay.
I can’t even discuss it without blowing a discount gasket ;) I’d love to vote for anybody but the Trumpies who I find frankly appalling and equally thrilled to give away money during Covid- but I’m sure as he** not voting for this sh**! Thank you for writing about it so calmly and articulately. All I can do at this point is cuss and spit.
The US government bails out all sorts of special interest groups and we all just go along with it despite the fact that we all pay for it (farm subsidies for example). This relatively meager cancellation, which is means-tested and helps the lot of relatively lower-income pell grant recipients considerably, provokes anger that appears disproportionate to the size of the actual deal. This kind of 'bribe' seems rather tame and could considerably help some working class people that tried college but then dipped out and didn't get the degree. I honestly just think this is largely just Republicans not liking liberal college kids getting their gender studies diplomas or whatever.
There’s probably a fair amount of knee jerk “Biden = bad” reaction, but my objection to this debt cancellation policy is that it disproportionately benefits folks who - over the course of their lifetime - will make more money than average. I’m one of those people. I will absolutely benefit from this policy.
My kids are in private school - one college, one grad school. They’ve never needed loans. They earned scholarships & worked during school. We also started saving for them when they were born. College is expensive, but we were ready for it.
As of last month, the situation changed. Both kids are applying for federal student loans for 2022-23. Not because they need the money to pay for school, but because $10K is real money in your early 20’s. Neither of them is likely to earn a $125K salary in the next 5-10 years. My son will be a PhD student & my daughter will also attend grad school. Their first jobs are likely to be at relatively low salary. They will both qualify for debt forgiveness.
The ugly kicker to the story is that I am in the 1%. If the kids didn’t take out these loans, I would have paid that $20K myself. Biden might just as well be writing me a check.
I understand where Katie is coming from. There are better ways for the government to spend our money. It would be hard to argue that I need this bailout - but I’m not going to turn it down if it’s offered.
It's likely this program will never be implemented because it will be challenged in court. A few years ago Pelosi said that only Congress could "forgive" college loan debt.
I really appreciated the purity of Katie's rant about Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan. While I'm not personally upset about the fact that the plan doesn't benefit me, here are a few things about the plan that have been making me see red:
1. Biden wants to deny that the Democratic Party is a party of the elites WHILE handing out a regressive gift to his many college-educated voters right before the midterms AND insisting that, if you're one of the many people who don't vote for Democratic candidates because you don't think they do anything for you, you're just bigoted. Very few of the roughly 2/3 of American adults who don't hold a college degree are going to find this argument persuasive. Cue another nauseating round of the Democrats wondering why the supposedly bigoted working classes aren't enlightened enough to vote for them in greater numbers.
2. Despite the outrageous increases in college tuition relative to wages in the last several decades, college graduates still reap significant financial benefits from their degrees:
"In July, the unemployment rate for recent college graduates was a paltry 2.9 percent. The total lifetime wage premium for a college education is $900,000 for men and $630,000 for women—an amount that’s many multiples of average college debt.
"And while lifetime earnings vary by major, the stereotype of the impoverished art history graduate just isn’t true. A 2020 Brookings study showed that there was a significant lifetime wage gap 'for all 98 majors studied.'" (https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/is-there-a-christian-case-for-bidens)
There's no excuse for making a high-school-educated childcare giver pay for the education of the radiologist who sends his kids to her daycare. He'll be fine. So will his little brother who majored in art history and is now "settling" for an office job unrelated to his major that inexplicably requires a BA.
3. If you'll permit me a peevish addition about how this sort of policy may hurt me, as someone who pays my bills thanks to college students' tuition: Republicans, already inclined to see professors and higher-ed admin as liberal fat cats, are looking for more ways to retaliate against institutions of higher ed. The most powerful politician in my state was already campaigning on an anti-higher-ed plank before Biden announced his plan. The escalation of this particularly stupid culture war is likely to affect everyone who works at or attends public universities in states with red state legislatures. That's a lot of time and money we'll continue to spend fighting about funding, tenure, and First-Amendment rights.
He is motivating his base. If you want the moolah, get yourself to the polls to safeguard its delivery. It is not admirable but it is basic non-mysterious politics.
I'm aware! I just think it's a crass, classist way to buy votes. And I'm disgusted by Democratic rhetoric about being for "the poor and marginalized" when the party is in this and many other ways washing its hands of the working and lower middle classes.
Not everyone who has students loans has a college degree, however. Katie is right that those with the most education have the most debt, but it's also true that those who didn't finish college often have the least debt. These people really did get a bad deal, and small student loan forgiveness will help them out greatly. I don't understand how it's elitist to try and help this population.
Injecting moral hazard into college financing without doing anything about costs at the front end is likely to make college more expensive, not less, thus hurting less financially stable students the most. This plan is not the way to make college degrees attainable for those who would most benefit from them.
Personally, if we're throwing taxpayer dollars around, I would favor a massive infusion of cash into programs like the Pell Grants if it were contingent on tuition control by recipient colleges. I'm also intrigued by the idea of discharging student-loan debt through bankruptcy, although since Josh Barro says that would make interest rates skyrocket, I'd want to learn more before I'd endorse such a plan.
There are lots of ways to try to deal with college costs without buying off voters by means of a plan that will almost certainly inflate tuition.
That said, I think the current moment is one in which we should be very cautious about inflationary spending.
Why do you think those with student debt who didn't finish college "really did get a bad deal"? I agree that they're stuck in a situation that's less than desirable but nobody forced them to take out student loans. How do you know they aren't just irresponsible? I'm not saying they are, but I honestly don't get your logic. I believe the colleges, which did (and still do) prey on young and sometimes foolish applicants while wildly inflating their tuition bills, should be forced to take the loss, not taxpayers.
It's both true that there's some predatory recruitment AND that professors can't make their students pass their classes. I've never personally wanted to flunk a student, but some of them have left me no choice. There's a new move in my state to help more students complete their degrees, and while I'm very much for that goal, I'm worried that it might put pressure on professors at certain institutions to pass everybody and thereby turn grades into a meaningless step toward a paper credential.
I can't think of any red flag bigger than describing ones sexual history or intentions as "ethical." The Boyslut doth protest too much, methinks.
I want so badly to be sex-positive, but if someone describes himself as an "ethical boyslut," I am immediately going to make 1000 negative judgments about him.
I gotta say that every self described sex positive person I have encountered has been deeply annoying and sanctimonious. Like. FFS. Fuck who you want when you want how you want as long as in consensual. Be monogamous. Don't be. Be abstinent. Who. The Fuck. Cares? 3nd of story. People who pontificate about it scare me..
This is the language I've been looking for, well said. I, mostly, fall under the auspices of sex positivism but I don't want the foam finger or bumper sticker. Frankly, I'd prefer SP to be more, lady & street, freak & sheet. (me being the erm, "lady", in this scenario)
From my understanding sex positivity started out as a way for people to express their sexuality as they saw fit, as long as people are consenting. My problem is that it has evolved into if you do not have sex like me or you are not into sex, something is wrong with you. How about just ketting everyone alone?
And yes. The only people who need to know your feelings about sex are the people you have sex with
I didn't have my glasses on, so I first read it as PORNTIFICATE! Now I think I want to latch on to that word because I whole heartedly endorse everything you said. Who cares? Unless you are harming someone, it is simply not interesting.
I think you should trademark that!
One of the aspects of sex that seems to be lost in all the “positivity” right now is that sex is only sexy when you find someone attractive. Sexual info/display from someone whom you find profoundly unattractive is unpleasant, and can even be repulsive.
That used to be fairly well understood. I think a few too many people currently confuse sex positivity with running rampant over other people’s lack of sexual interest in them.
Tone also matters, and the entertainment value of the speaker/subject matter. I have zero sexual interest in the queens on Ru Paul's drag race but could watch Trinity's how to tuck advice for hours. The same material from a dour po-faced activist? Shudder.
I feel like this is more generally applied to women, no?? Are gay men who are not into trans men castigated? Lesbians are to an extent. And I get it if say you meet a dude and think he is cute and cool but back off when it turns out he is trans. But if you are straight up I am not into trans people, who cares?
I think the scenario you’ve outlined is an example of this, yes. But you can see it more extensively than the trans/attraction issue. For example, someone talking about their kinks or porn use with colleagues probably feels quite liberating to them, but for onlookers who don’t find them sexually interesting it just feels inappropriate at best.
It’s easy to respond to onlookers’ discomfort by accusing them of being sex negative prudes, but the harsh fact is they might be actually very interested hearing about kinks from the right person in the right circumstances. To me, that’s an example of boundary violation, and it used to be understood that letting it all hang out, ALL the time could be off-putting to a significant proportion of people (including, but not limited to, kids. Kids generally think all sex is scary and gross).
I think the same people who criticize lesbians for not being into trans women criticize gay men for the same thing, but gay men are just less likely to care? Gay dating is *incredibly* superficial and it's just way more acceptable to openly express physical preference. Like, if some activist calls out gay guys for not wanting to date men with vaginas, the response is just, "lmao ok."
But that criticism of gay men isn't nearly as aggressive, ubiquitous or as vicious. Men, whether they're straight or gay, are, as you've noted, very different than women and I'm not sure young women fully recognize or appreciate just HOW different they are.
sex is only sexy when you find someone attractive. Sexual info/display from someone whom you find profoundly unattractive is unpleasant, and can even be repulsive.
Great old SNL skit with Tom Brady and Fred Armisen about that very thing.
Ugh. That name manages to be gross, infantile, and oxymoronic at the same time. People who behave ethically don't usually have to declaim it so forcefully. I guess you can't get normies to be sex advice columnists, though.
Eh. I like Dan Savage though
I haven't listened to him for a few years, because it all gets pretty samey after a while, but I used to like him too. Disappointed that he has such nice things to say about this clown.
I think there should be such a thing as a “consent-cel” for people who have this Faustian belief that if you just talk someone into agreeing with something then it must be totally okay. “Well she agreed inch by inch with all these external pressures on her to prostitute herself on only fans for $80/mos so it’s totally fine!” That maybe works legally, but definitely not morally.
When people start piling up the “ethical” labels it makes me think of dictatorships with names like the peoples united republic of democracy.
100%. Also, "ethical", like intelligent, creative and pretty are value judgements that other people make about you, not things you get to credibly claim for yourself. If you need to run around telling people that your intelligent and creative, then your probably not. If you run around telling people that your ethical, then I am similarly suspicious. Also, I assume that his bar for being ethical just means that he doesn't out right rape people, and that doesn't bother to hide that he constantly cheats on all his partners. Add to that the worlds stupidest advice, and colour me deeply unimpressed.
That said, his advice column was the funniest thing I've read for ages, so points to him for humour, if unintentional. Someone should dob him in to libs of tik tock.
I suspect the "ethical" label is a reference to the "Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships & Other Adventures" by Janet W. Hardy. The book has been fairly popular at least in gay male circles. Saying so doesn't address whether it's a red flag or not, but it seems pretty likely that he is trying to tap into a shared language/perspective drawn from that book when describing himself that way.
I think Trace is engaging in purity politics by making this something that will cause him not to vote. The fact that this is a line in the sand given everything else that goes on with bullshit in the government seems weird. Ymmv
Also, using the Manhattan Institute is biased. It might be helpful to look at other sources that are not idealogically conservative. Like again there’s a real problem with the lack of state funding which has dramatically decreased and there’s a real issue with the interest rates. The Republicans don’t want to look at that issue about why state colleges are so expensive; they just wanna blame greedy leftist academics and not think that the state should have any responsibility like they always used to. Also Katy‘s whole thing about people shouldn’t have to go to college; sure that’s definitely the case but you know the problem with making it less accessible is that the people not going to college will just be people who don’t have money. I guess I feel strongly about it because I grew up in a poor family in the first generation household and boy, I believe in access and not in middle class people making decisions about what’s the best thing for the economy without checking.
I don't think it's a sensible line in the sand for everyone, but it's very clear that a big part of the purpose and timing of this move is to drive turnout for the midterms. I view it as a bribe that would, in an ideal world, backfire and decrease their support to a larger degree than I personally could ever sway, to discourage similar bribes in the future. Given that, paired with my uneasy alliance with the Democrats writ large (I have never been registered with either party and have more major substantive disagreements with the Democrats than Katie or Jesse) and an unusually significant personal stake/experience with this issue, I believe that inasmuch as my vote matters, the most realistic way it can have an impact towards pushing politics closer to what I hope to see is by staking it on this issue and making it clear that things like this do have a negative impact on left-leaning centrists. If it's seen as significant enough to drive turnout, it should be seen as significant enough to drive turnout away as well.
For people who are more aligned with the Democratic Party than I am, who don't have the same sort of stake I do in this issue, or who don't have a problem with the strategic thinking behind the timing of cancellation, etc, the calculation is different, and I don't think it makes sense for them to stake their votes on the issue in the same way. But I think people's public-facing decisions about voting behavior—as with their advocacy in general—should lean not necessarily on what is most important in a vacuum, but on where they personally may be able to make the most marginal difference. So far as I can tell, for me, that lands me here.
Ultimately, the marginal difference I make will be almost invisible regardless. But that's the logic in play for me.
Fwiw, the guy who has to sound off about everything agrees with you. I really don’t see either Democrats or Republicans as apocalyptically bad (my basic feeling about most politicians is that they’re at best ineffective) and the only way you have to punish the parties for letting the extreme elements take over is to migrate your vote to the other party when they pull bullshit. That’s the only weapon we have at hand to force them to behave.
Never let them find out you think the other side is human!
I completely agree with your last point about not letting college be out of reach for poor students. (In my experience, sticker price can be a big barrier. Many prospective students don't realize that they can get tuition discounts based on having a lower household income, so they never apply to schools that would actually be well within their reach.)
It's common among left-of-center folks, including many of the college professors I know, to blame lack of state funding for the ballooning cost of college tuition. As you'll see from my long comment on Katie's rant, I'm definitely concerned about further state budget cuts, too. This excellent piece by Planet Money explains the bigger factor: Colleges are competing on amenities and other facilities like the lab described in the piece, and those things are massively expensive: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/02/14/277015271/duke-60-000-a-year-for-college-is-actually-a-discount
But that’s Duke— a private R1 university which isn’t state funded. State universities, especially regional ones have been hit pretty hard.
State universities are engaged in the same expensive competition, to varying degrees, in part because college rankings really matter for attracting both students and donations.
But you are discounting lack of state funding by talking about the budgets of private universities. I think amenities are a problem-- less wealthy schools can end up privatizing to keep up which can put schools in long term fiscal trouble. Still-- it doesn’t mean it’s the same driver of tuition.
Unfortunately, I can't control Planet Money's choice of spotlight in its story. :-) But let me try to put this another way: The public university where I did graduate school has gotten less than 15% of its budget from the state for years now, so >85% of its budget is paid for by other sources (tuition, major donations, etc.--college funding is very complicated). Funding-wise, it's *mostly* a private school with a state cushion tacked on. Meanwhile, tuition continues to rise dramatically. For out-of-state students, its sticker price is as high as a nice private college's. The reasons include competition for students and rankings via exactly the sorts of expenditures Duke, a 100% private institution, also makes.
This may be less readily apparent to those who haven't worked in institutions of higher ed, but those of us who've been fortunate enough to work at both public and private ones can see them engaging in similarly expensive competition that leads to tuition increase at both. State funding is less and less of a difference maker in the many states that have already slashed most of it.
The biggest difference in the financial health of most colleges is probably the relative size of the endowments. That's why Harvard can offer much lower tuition than the ritzy but non-Ivy liberal arts colleges. But another major factor is the push and pull between being able to do cool things (like offer scholarships to needy students, or fund summer internships) if you charge a lot for tuition and having trouble if you max out the number of applicants who are interested in paying sticker price.
A CRIMSON TIDE OF DEBT
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/public-universities-debt/619546/
Not all of them! Some have turned into state sponsored versions of Trump University.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/public-universities-debt/619546/
A CRIMSON TIDE OF DEBT
Instead of propelling students into the middle class, many public institutions such as the University of Alabama are leaving them saddled with large loans.
Here another study https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding
It’s interesting to read how priorities in state funding was affected in 2008 by the Great Recession. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/10/two-decades-of-change-in-federal-and-state-higher-education-funding
I stopped mid episode to react to Katie thinking a daisy chain meant a flower necklace 🤣😂🤣 she gives Jesse so much shit about his perceived lack of sexual prowess and she thought of flower crowns. GIRL. 💀
What do you think I mean when I say, "I love genuine pearl necklaces so much that I really can't see myself dating someone AFAB," Katie?
My favorite part of the whole podcast is that Katie is secretly wholesome but can’t let anyone know.
That was a priceless LOL moment for me as well. Let's remember that this is a woman who used to work at the same newspaper as Dan Savage!
She clearly has never been a regular reader of Savage Love and listener of Savage Lovecast.
I used to work with exclusively gay men plus 1 other straight woman and a lesbian. Ok. Exclusively was a bad choice of a word. Point being. I had no.idea what a pearl necklace was and they were very very amused at how red I turned when they told me.
I had no idea either AND I was dumb enough to google it.
Lesson learned!
Next time add "urban dictionary" to your search for something salacious and it'll bring us the definition instead of pictures. You're welcome.
Thank you! Very smart :)
I thought that was proof positive that Katie was stoned while recording. (Then again, is she ever _not_ stoned when recording the podcast? And, for the record, not a complaint at all.)
OMG I died laughing at this whole segment!
Now, given Katie is a lesbian I wouldn't necessarily expect her to know what a pearl necklace is, but a daisy chain? C'monnnn!
Ladies and gentlemen of the world: I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you know someone is married, stay away! It rarely ends well.
God yes. I don’t care how young you are and how rich and famous the guy is - if you know he is cheating on his wife when he starts asking for sexts, you know he is not a good dude.
You really can say no!
I think the growing experimentation with polyamory has muddied the waters around that rule for quite a few people. Which is a shame, because “don’t be the side piece” is good advice for pretty much anyone with less than rock solid self esteem, ie a fairly broad swathe of young people.
People may allow themselves to think that the waters are muddied, but unless said wife has actually given you the go-ahead to have a relationship with her husband you should assume cheating over polyamory.
And what's in it for her? In the words of the great Raylon Givens,
"Men just need a place; women need a reason."
Katie's right to be mad about the student loan bailout, but I think both of you are failing to recognize just how unconstitutional this is - up to a trillion dollars added to the debt by the executive - not the Congress. Good debate here (Charlie CW Cooke from NRO) has been knocking it out of the park on this issue for a few weeks now: https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/podcasts//the-legality-of-the-biden-administrations-student-loan-forgiveness-plan
Thanks. I've listened to only half of it so far, but I think I'm sold on at least this point: Biden decided months ago that the pandemic emergency was over, and that therefore it was time to start reopening our borders, but he justifies student debt cancellation on the basis that we're still in an emergency. (Another indicator that the emergency is deemed over: the government has stopped providing free Covid tests.)
I've seen some folks speculate that this is intentional. The courts will throw it out, and then Biden can shake his fist at the courts and still get credit for trying.
And with how long it takes for things to wind their way through courts, this probably won't happen until after the election.
There is precedent with the "eviction moratorium" that Biden stated he knew was illegal and unconstitutional, but still went ahead and extended it (after it was declared unconstitutional by the SC).
The eviction moratorium continues in two California counties! We can't have doctors bother to wear masks, covid tests are no longer free, the new vaccines may not be free, and yet... some people are claiming they legitimately cannot pay rent 2.5+ years after this all started... because of COVID? This is why doing the loans this way is so disingenuous. One day Biden admin is bragging about how covid cases are down and unemployment is the lowest it's ever been...then the next they are on about how people can't pay their loans because of COVID? Who is stupid enough to believe this nonsense? I will vote for democrats because what other choice do I have, but I'll never donate again.
Yeah, at my work (DoD) they waffle from week to week regarding mandatory masking due to "number of cases in adjoining counties" (not hospitalizations). It's insanely stupid. Of course we have to wear them in the halls but rip them off as soon as we get to our respective work spaces.
It does piss me off that I have to wear one whenever I go UVA medical facilities. It's ridiculous getting on the treadmill for PT and having to wear a mask while working up a sweat (not as bad as when the gym on base was requiring it...but then that's why I joined a private 24 hr gym in town).
You can always vote Libertarian.
I would never vote Libertarian. I do believe in taxation and public services. Problem is, they are getting really fucking bad lately and I honestly wonder what I'm paying for most of the time. Closest party affiliation for me would be if Bernie had done his own offshoot that was 100% class based with none of the ID politics bullshit (I think he could have for a moment there, but things went sideways). I just want healthcare, social security, disability for protecting vulnerable people, and the extremely wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes. I don't think fucking over the little guy with stuff like student loan forgiveness is the way to go. You'd never know this on twitter, but most people in America don't even have a damn loan, because most don't even go to college.
I misinterpreted this comment at first and chuckled at the idea of Biden arguing that there's legal precedent for him being allowed to disregard the law.
“Most people are males or females”
-Jesse Singal
Fact check: all people are either male or female
Sop brilliant. I am serious. There is no ambigioty.
I pretty much agree with everything Katie said about student loans but count me amongst those who would rather blocked and reported didn't engage in political rants. Because I can get political rants in literally every facet of my life right now. I'd just rather have the show be something different
BARPod tends to be at its best when it's making commentary on the commentary, rather than directly on a subject itself. I don't listen J&K to get their takes on Trump, student loans or most other subjects. Instead I listen to get their takes on other people commenting on a wide range of subjects.
I appreciated it. I think we are all bombarded by political rants, but this is in line with the elite/out-of-touch narrative that B&R touches on at times. I just wish she'd talked a bit more about the discourse on twitter about this. Just outrageous. Reminded me of how crazed/rude republicans were after Trump won. Like, you got what you want, just shut the fuck up ok? I don't have to "like" it.
I agree. I wasn’t a fan. I don’t agree with Katie on this, but I’d be fine hearing a well composed, well researched vent in opposition to my view. However, it wasn’t. I’m surprised this made it into a public episode. And more importantly, I want Mina’s World style drama from this pod— that’s *delicious.*
I wasn't too bothered by it, but I wouldn't want much of that kind of rant. I agree, it's not what I come here for.
Listening to Katie discuss actual substantive policy is always painful.
I like Katie. I think her intelligence really shines through in her jokes/sense of humor, but I certainly don’t think “student loan debt forgiveness might cost us fixing potholes and Flint’s water” was quite the high school forensics slam dunk she was going for.
Quick correction: Katie seemed to think that student loan forgiveness will prevent us from spending money on infrastructure, while Jesse thinks Republican obstruction will prevent us from spending money on infrastructure, and neither of them seems to remember that a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill actually passed last fall. It got a little lost in a progressive temper tantrum about how it passed without Build Back Better, but it happened! It got 19 Republican votes in the Senate! It was a pretty big victory for the Biden administration.
And Katie alluded to this, but it's worth noting: cancelling student debt could be done through reconciliation (with 50 votes). It seems like that wasn't even considered because they knew they couldn't even get all congressional Democrats to vote for it, which is why it happened through an executive order of dubious legality.
TBF, Katie is MORE right than Jessie in the sense that dollars for one thing are potentially taken from another thing.
Okay, so infrastructure might not be the best example. But surely there's something else Biden could spend that $500bn on by presidential fiat? Something more progressive than a cash subsidy which primarily benefits upper-middle-class (except those who have been most financially responsible).
Personally, I will gladly take the combined $20,000 for my wife and my student loans while still being angry that this action failed to stop the root problem that college is too damn expensive. But worrying that it benefits some people and not others is the wrong thing to get angry about. Lots of programs are unfair. Here’s a bit about me: I went to an expensive private school in the 80s, I got some grants but I took out a lot of student loans and had them all paid off by my late 20s. Then at 40 I went back to school for a graduate degree (absolutely required for my career). In public service by the way. I picked the cheapest state school to get it, and 12 years later I haven't even managed to touch the principle. And despite declaring bankruptcy 5 years ago, all that debt remains. The situation has shifted dramatically over the past 20 years, and many people whining, "well I paid of my loans" don't realize it. Do I want credit for paying off my undergraduate loans, no. Do I want help paying off my current loans, yes. Fix the interest rate scams, reinstate the clause making loans dischargeable in bankruptcy (maybe with back credit) and the problem will be solved going forward. Most people with graduate degrees needed to get them, and this idea that people with advanced degrees are wealthy or that they are fluffy degrees is nonsense. For many occupations people without them won't even get interviewed. Stop acting like everyone can just drop out of college and start Microsoft (or a podcast) in their garage. The world just isn't like that.
So many questions come to mind:
If you're in public service, could some of that debt been forgiven?
You say you went back to grad school because it was "absolutely required" for your "career" but that you've since declared bankruptcy? Doesn't sound like such a great "career" choice.
Why didn't I think of that?! Well, now that I have a degree my salary is not bad, but before I did it was awful and I ran up a lot of debt. And guess what? My family had a lot of medical bills not covered by insurance and support for extended family and my wife was unable to work because of family obligations. It is not an uncommon story and I hope it never happens to you. And yes public service forgiveness might help shave a little bit off, but up until this year when they changed the rules you had to be making minimum monthly payments which I could not afford. As for my career choice (I assume you are some sort of tech bro or finance person) what would the world look like if everyone just pursued the highest paying jobs? First the world economy would pretty much collapse as it is now because no one wants to do the things that make the world go round.
I hate to inform Jesse that pescetarians are like the A in LGBTQIA+ -- they don’t exist
There's a diet called "bivalvegan" or "ostrovegan" which is vegan + shellfish.
I've heard the case made that this provides you with all the nutrients a vegan diet is lacking. And has no real ethical implications because bivalves don't even have brains and are effectively non-sentient.
So I guess Jesse can coin "bivalvegetarian".
No, sir, there is not! 😏
On Robinson: agree on his SPLC piece which was bang on. Everything else reads like typical champagne socialism. Just add "for other people" to every suggested solution. Notice how he lives in New Orleans, not in some planned suburb in the middle of nowhere? It's easy when your parents pay for you to run a magazine.
Full disclosure: I do not know if this would work but I’m an expert in related fields and I don’t see why it wouldn’t. I paid off my wife’s debt in 2020 and am going to do this.
You are allowed to ask for a return of any payments you made on your student loans starting March 2020 when COVID relief began.
If you paid off your loan in the last two years, ask for a refund of all payments up to a total of $10k. You need to do this very soon because it’s going to take them about two months to process.
Then when the relief goes active end of year, ask for relief of the debt.
I consider it a moral obligation not to allow other people to punish me for doing the right thing.
Keep in mind Biden’s giveaway on student loans might get caught up in the legal system and never actually happen. 🤞
True but then I will just repay it off with the same money.
How would something like that affect your credit score?
I paid off the remaining 7k of my student loans in 2020 and my credit score really climbed. That's going to have made a huge difference when I apply for a mortgage next year.
It’s complicated but I believe not at all. Student loans aren’t in my direct line of expertise but if it is processed as true forgiveness not a settlement that can’t report. You will probably have to declare write off on income taxes though via 1099c but that’s all.
I'm not wild about the debt-forgiveness plan myself, but I respectfully disagree with Katie about the potentially negative effects this will have on Democratic prospects.
First of all, I don't think most Americans vote based on policy. I wish I knew what did motivate votes--my best guess is an idiosyncratic mixture of fears, hopes, biases, magical thinking, and a fundamental ignorance about how government works. I suspect that there are vanishingly few people who will vote based solely on this issue. Most who do were probably not voting for Democrats anyway.
Second, I have a suspicion that SCOTUS will eventually stomp down this proposal, whether or not it's actually unconstitutional, so Biden may never have to make good this promise. However, the courts won't rule until after November, and the Biden folks may be hoping this will drive turnout among young voters. I'm dubious--see previous paragraph--but if one DOES believe that, then this is a proposal that costs the government no money, but gets Democratic voters to the polls.
In the end, I think this won't affect the elections much, although of course in a close election, *anything* can make the difference. If I had to guess, I'd say the Dobbs decision is more determinative than anything Biden does about student loans.
Please don’t read any further if you don’t want to hear a moralistic “right wing” screed. My apologies for posting this in mixed company, but it seems relevant to the discussion just this once.
I can only speak for myself, but it will make a difference for me. I really loathe Trump and his ilk and was very open to voting Dem just to put the nail in that particular coffin but I’m not voting for this crap either. I’ll re-post the comment I left at Trace’s place below.
I felt the same way about the mortgage bailouts of the 2000’s. I lost 30,000$ on my house when we sold it in part because many “neighbors” just stopped paying their mortgages when they realized they were underwater on the value of their homes. It was very frustrating to keep paying and paying and paying while the arseholes next door lived rent free for two years until the bank was finally able to throw them out. Then we had to sell our house with foreclosures on both sides.
Fast forward to THIS new slap in the face, our “neighbors” are just thrilled about this newest don’t live with your bad decisions handout because BOTH of them will benefit. They spend money like water, have about 150,000$ worth of cars for two people, let us take care of their ill cat because they are too cheap to take her to the vet, and hinted to borrow money from us during covid. These are not people who’ve experienced some tragic accident or illness, they’re just spendy and like to buy the newest phones/cars/houses etc. My husband and I live very frugally, paid as we went through college, have two over ten year old cars, and bought a cheap enough house that we could pay half up front and pay the rest off in ten years. We’re really starting to feel like f***ing suckers.
But hey, we get to look forward to being millionaires in retirement because we’ve been so responsible and then getting “means tested” out of social security and medicare so we and our various horrible irresponsible friends and neighbors over the years can all wind up in exactly the same place we are. Yay.
I can’t even discuss it without blowing a discount gasket ;) I’d love to vote for anybody but the Trumpies who I find frankly appalling and equally thrilled to give away money during Covid- but I’m sure as he** not voting for this sh**! Thank you for writing about it so calmly and articulately. All I can do at this point is cuss and spit.
The US government bails out all sorts of special interest groups and we all just go along with it despite the fact that we all pay for it (farm subsidies for example). This relatively meager cancellation, which is means-tested and helps the lot of relatively lower-income pell grant recipients considerably, provokes anger that appears disproportionate to the size of the actual deal. This kind of 'bribe' seems rather tame and could considerably help some working class people that tried college but then dipped out and didn't get the degree. I honestly just think this is largely just Republicans not liking liberal college kids getting their gender studies diplomas or whatever.
It's not just Republicans who are upset about this; Democrats are very split, which is why you didn't hear Biden tout it in his speech.
There’s probably a fair amount of knee jerk “Biden = bad” reaction, but my objection to this debt cancellation policy is that it disproportionately benefits folks who - over the course of their lifetime - will make more money than average. I’m one of those people. I will absolutely benefit from this policy.
My kids are in private school - one college, one grad school. They’ve never needed loans. They earned scholarships & worked during school. We also started saving for them when they were born. College is expensive, but we were ready for it.
As of last month, the situation changed. Both kids are applying for federal student loans for 2022-23. Not because they need the money to pay for school, but because $10K is real money in your early 20’s. Neither of them is likely to earn a $125K salary in the next 5-10 years. My son will be a PhD student & my daughter will also attend grad school. Their first jobs are likely to be at relatively low salary. They will both qualify for debt forgiveness.
The ugly kicker to the story is that I am in the 1%. If the kids didn’t take out these loans, I would have paid that $20K myself. Biden might just as well be writing me a check.
I understand where Katie is coming from. There are better ways for the government to spend our money. It would be hard to argue that I need this bailout - but I’m not going to turn it down if it’s offered.
It's likely this program will never be implemented because it will be challenged in court. A few years ago Pelosi said that only Congress could "forgive" college loan debt.
TL/DR - I’m in the 1%. Debt forgiveness will pay me $20K. It’s a regressive policy.