Okay, let’s cut to the chase and dispense with the moral posturing. Party one’s model for electoral success is to use the government to move resources from the constituency of party two and give it to their constituency for their votes. Party two’s constituency objects and will vote for party two on the basis of keeping their own resources. I use 1,2 to designate either one of our present two parties because they are, more often than not, interchangeable.
‘”Look, we build a future going forward by making it better,” Warren said.’
That’s the sort of logic and rhetoric that gets you tenure at Harvard Law School, apparently. And good for that CBS guy for calling her on it.
Also in response to Fenster662, Senator Warren’s proposal is more than taking from Group 2 to offer a benefit to Group 1. We do that all the time with Entitlement Programs.
The difficulty with the proposal is that it is an amnesty with all of the questions of fairness and equal treatment that entails. It seems the Senator has not given this question much thought, even through President Carter’s draft amnesty was highly controversial and the sentiments stirred by failed attempts at a second immigration amnesty is why Mr. Trump is president.
Plus, as amnesties become more common, it becomes easier and smarter for people to assume they will happen and act accordingly.
If it looks like there’s always, eventually going to be an amnesty for people who, for example, fail to register and pay their vehicle taxes, or property taxes, then it at that point only chumps are the ones doing following the law. And do that enough, and eventually the chumps smarten up.
Exactly. It’s why the Socialist/Communist system is doomed to fail. The “from each” clause fails when no one is going to provide an ability. Why be a chump? This has been known for decades and we see it played out over and over again. Socialist politics are by that definition insane.
Government radically altering the nature of American society makes a powerful underlying statement: you’re a chump if you play by the rules. You’re a knucklehead if you live your life responsibly. You’re a dolt if you’re self-reliant.
This is classic “moral hazard” territory. You greatly lower the costs for bad behavior, you get more of it. But let’s keep in mind that many of these problems exist in the first place because this isn’t the first time. Student loans, for example, wouldn’t be this bad for the irresponsible sliver who got too many of them, if lenders weren’t lending.
We’re already encouraging bad behavior. This is now the thrashing stage where the same tools that created the problem in the first place are now used to make the problem worse and to encourage more people to become part of the mess.
In the student loan case, I think a partial economic haircut for all sides would be appropriate, where student loans are reverted to normal loan status as in bankruptcy combined with a revocation of government guarantee of payment on existing loans after a few years, and the government getting out of the student loan business altogether at that time.
We’ll probably see a wave of bankruptcies from the heaviest borrowers, bankruptcies from the worst lenders, bankruptcies from the worst colleges, and a bit of a reduction in the number of college students in the future. But I think we’ll also see a drop in the cost of education as subsidized student loans (guarantees are substantial subsidies) are no longer around to prop things up.
Of course, not digging the hole deeper would make too much sense, right?
Agreed. If we allow bankruptcy law to work as intended without getting Bidenized.
The same will be true of free healthcare. Why try to take care of myself when it costs nothing to see the doc? In due course, in order to control costs the government will not only dictate your doctor but what you are allowed to eat and drink, based on genetic screening are allowed to have children and whether or not according to the death panel you “deserve” that life saving procedure. Oh and by the way we have to ban supplemental insurance eventually because that is an unfair advantage the rich have over the poor. This leads nowhere good. So much for making the future better.
I didn’t go to college because I couldn’t pay for it, and didn’t want to go into debt. Soooo… what form will my reparations take?
Okay, let’s cut to the chase and dispense with the moral posturing. Party one’s model for electoral success is to use the government to move resources from the constituency of party two and give it to their constituency for their votes. Party two’s constituency objects and will vote for party two on the basis of keeping their own resources. I use 1,2 to designate either one of our present two parties because they are, more often than not, interchangeable.
‘”Look, we build a future going forward by making it better,” Warren said.’
That’s the sort of logic and rhetoric that gets you tenure at Harvard Law School, apparently. And good for that CBS guy for calling her on it.
Also in response to Fenster662, Senator Warren’s proposal is more than taking from Group 2 to offer a benefit to Group 1. We do that all the time with Entitlement Programs.
The difficulty with the proposal is that it is an amnesty with all of the questions of fairness and equal treatment that entails. It seems the Senator has not given this question much thought, even through President Carter’s draft amnesty was highly controversial and the sentiments stirred by failed attempts at a second immigration amnesty is why Mr. Trump is president.
Plus, as amnesties become more common, it becomes easier and smarter for people to assume they will happen and act accordingly.
If it looks like there’s always, eventually going to be an amnesty for people who, for example, fail to register and pay their vehicle taxes, or property taxes, then it at that point only chumps are the ones doing following the law. And do that enough, and eventually the chumps smarten up.
Exactly. It’s why the Socialist/Communist system is doomed to fail. The “from each” clause fails when no one is going to provide an ability. Why be a chump? This has been known for decades and we see it played out over and over again. Socialist politics are by that definition insane.
Government radically altering the nature of American society makes a powerful underlying statement: you’re a chump if you play by the rules. You’re a knucklehead if you live your life responsibly. You’re a dolt if you’re self-reliant.
This is classic “moral hazard” territory. You greatly lower the costs for bad behavior, you get more of it. But let’s keep in mind that many of these problems exist in the first place because this isn’t the first time. Student loans, for example, wouldn’t be this bad for the irresponsible sliver who got too many of them, if lenders weren’t lending.
We’re already encouraging bad behavior. This is now the thrashing stage where the same tools that created the problem in the first place are now used to make the problem worse and to encourage more people to become part of the mess.
In the student loan case, I think a partial economic haircut for all sides would be appropriate, where student loans are reverted to normal loan status as in bankruptcy combined with a revocation of government guarantee of payment on existing loans after a few years, and the government getting out of the student loan business altogether at that time.
We’ll probably see a wave of bankruptcies from the heaviest borrowers, bankruptcies from the worst lenders, bankruptcies from the worst colleges, and a bit of a reduction in the number of college students in the future. But I think we’ll also see a drop in the cost of education as subsidized student loans (guarantees are substantial subsidies) are no longer around to prop things up.
Of course, not digging the hole deeper would make too much sense, right?
Agreed. If we allow bankruptcy law to work as intended without getting Bidenized.
The same will be true of free healthcare. Why try to take care of myself when it costs nothing to see the doc? In due course, in order to control costs the government will not only dictate your doctor but what you are allowed to eat and drink, based on genetic screening are allowed to have children and whether or not according to the death panel you “deserve” that life saving procedure. Oh and by the way we have to ban supplemental insurance eventually because that is an unfair advantage the rich have over the poor. This leads nowhere good. So much for making the future better.
I didn’t go to college because I couldn’t pay for it, and didn’t want to go into debt. Soooo… what form will my reparations take?
A higher withholding rate?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tax-increases-to-come-11580075160
Hopefully not paywalled.