I stand for things, screw the haters

 So, recently I wrote an article explaining my stance on Forward's pitch against voting solely around ranked choice voting. I got mixed reception. On the positive end, someone told me "at least someone has a brain", but then on the more negative end, I've been told that I'm being divisive. This is obviously more addressed at the negative end of things. 

Here's the thing. I actually stand for things. I have ideals, convictions, things I want to see implemented in society. And I am here to advocate for them. If we're on the same page, cool. If we're not, well, don't be surprised if I don't consider you a political ally. But something that's been annoying me with both Forward and the Democrats, is how they seem to value "civility" and "compromise", and working with people who very obviously aren't on the same page as me. And how I'm divisive and condescending toward people I don't agree with. 

And I'm just here to say that I. DONT. CARE. 

Seriously. While I do have an issue with people who are excessively purity testy, or people who will scream as people violate their sacred cows of ideology and policy, even slightly, at the other end of the spectrum are the people who seem to have no standards at all. Sorry, I have no intention of making nice with centrist democrats, or republicans fleeing from Trump's mess, and who wish to water down the platforms I like. I literally left the democrats because I didn't wanna deal with this BS, and now I gotta deal with it in Forward? 

I admit, polarization is an issue in society. But, for me, it's mostly because we're polarized around the wrong issues, in the wrong ways. We're obsessed with identity issues, with the left being morally correct but completely insufferable and divisive about how they go about it, and the right being morally incorrect, but able to actually win over supporters because the left has gone crazy in their own way. 

On the flip side, on economics, there's this insufferable culture of compromise and meeting the right half way, while the right plays for keeps and dominates the overton window.

In order to fix American society, the left needs to tone down the social issues, while largely keeping the same substance (being center left instead of far left, which is more of a rhetorical shift than a policy shift), while it needs to be bolder on economics. My attitude on economics is much like FDR's, who said "the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred." 

We need to be for what we are for with no craps given. I don't care if I piss off and alienate people, I welcome their hatred, just like FDR did. We need a leader with balls, who stands for what they stand for, is willing to fight for it, and doesn't make compromise a virtue in and of itself.

This does not mean never compromise. But the democrats start out compromising, then compromise more, then more, and then you get something like the inflation reduction act where you get almost nothing. Play your hand, push things as far as you can, if you have to settle, so be it, but dont just do this weird circlejerk of compromise.

I feel like forward is falling into that trap too. Like, this whole "we have to make nice with the republicans" thing. Why? They literally dont stand for anything andrew yang did in 2020 except RCV. We have nothing in common with them ideologically. They are obstacles to us getting nice things. Why should I be buddy buddy with these people? Sorry, not a "humanity first" sentiment, but that's where I differ from Andrew yang. I'm not SO NICE I'll let people walk over me because I'm afraid I might alienate them. I'd rather be straightforward about what I am and what I'm about, and if people don't like that, tough. I ain't for everyone, and not everyone is for me. 

That's not to say we should be overly purity testy. I have issues with the other extreme too. Can we differ on exact policy at times? Sure. As long as we have the same overall ethos, that's fine. You're never gonna agree with someone completely. But work with someone i agree with less than 50% of the time? unlikely. You see, it's a balance. You wanna stand in your power and be for what you are for, but you also need SOME flexibility. If people differ slightly in methods or policy, fine, if you're getting 70-80% there, that's a huge improvement.

Remember what I said, pick your battles. Lay out your top priorities, and be purity testy as heck on them, but then be more flexible the less important the issue is. Ultimately political coalitions are full of people who have slightly different ideologies and goals, but who can all walk away with something they like. That's what I want.

Honestly, forward 1.0 was great for me. UBI and human centered capitalism as a centerpiece but then was a bit more flexible on other policy. Cultural issues deemphasized. Maybe a bit more center left in practice. Ya know? 

The point is, you need to stick to some goals and standards, and you shouldn't be surprised when people like me get pissed when we feel abandoned. Yang's movement was built around UBI, and me, being a huge UBI supporter, supported his movement. But if he no longer pushes for it, well, that arrangement is off. I care about my ideals. I care about my policies. I will vote for the candidate who conforms most to what I want. I don't care if you're democrat, green, forwardist, or, dare I say it, republican (although let's face it, we'll NEVER see a republican under this current alignment be for things I like, but hypothetically I could back one who was serious about UBI, for example). I will take progress however I can get it and will push things most in the direction I want to go. Talking me down or talking me out of it is just likely to make me hostile or tune you out. I don't wanna hear excuses, I wanna hear "sure, I support UBI too, let's get it done." 

Discussing Mary Trump's book

 So, I read the book "Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man" by Mary Trump, who is Donald Trump's niece. Given she's a clinical psychologist with the inside scoop on the Trump family, I figured it might be good to see an inside look at how Donald ticked.

In that sense, I found the book...underwhelming. Essentially, the book comes off more as an autobiography with some extra emphasis on Donald. It was more a focus on the internal family dynamics of the Trump family, and how they enabled his worse impulses to make him have the volatile and incompetent attitude that he had. 

The story starts back in the 1940s, when the Trump children were born, and much of the book is actually about Donald's father, Fred Trump. Fred was, much like Donald later was, into real estate, and had a multi million dollar empire spanning New York City. He was kind of the stereotypical capitalist landlord, always pinching pennies, and doing the bare minimum for his residents. He had five children, although the story primarily focuses on two of them: Freddy Trump (Fred Trump Jr) and Donald Trump. Freddy was actually the oldest male child, and and Fred tried to groom him into the heir of the Trump franchise. But...he never stacked up to what Fred wanted. He has passions outside of real estate and making money, and was quite frankly more honest of a person than Fred accepted. Fred himself was a sociopath. He ruled over his family with an iron fist, was not a caring person at all, and threatened to disinherit any person in his family who didn't toe the family line. It's weird, for me, money is freedom, and having a lot of it gives you a lot of freedom, but Fred so tightly controlled it that he held it over all of his family members. Basically do what you're told and know your place or you're out. 

As Freddy got older, he started distancing himself from the family, wanting to be financially independent of them, and tried his hand being a commercial pilot, which incensed his father, who saw him as a glorified bus driver in the sky. Freddy got older, he developed an alcoholism habit, potentially as a way of coping with the stresses of his family, which imploded his airline career. He tried to go back to real estate, and his father put him in a no win situation in which his venture was destined to fail, simply due to the systemic hurdles necessary to succeed. After that, he just fell apart. His alcoholism drove him deeper and deeper into a hole, his family didn't take care of him and he didn't care, and his marriage failed as well. Mary is his daughter, and remembers some of the stuff, but her father died when she was still relatively young, from heart issues related to his alcoholism.

As for Donald, well...he kind of read the room early on, and decided to be the anti Freddy. Whatever Freddy was, he did the opposite, trying to curry his father's favor. He was actually a little sociopath and was extremely aggressive and bullied his siblings relentlessly, trying to establish himself at the top of the hierarchy and gain favor with his father. He was so aggressive and so bad they actually sent him to a military boarding school in order to straighten him out, and while this worked externally, it didn't work internally. 

As things fell through for Freddy, Donald jumped in to fill the gap. He would be that perfect son for his father who was sociopathic and into real estate, etc., and his father enabled him. He was never really a successful businessman, but he put a good face on the front of the Trump brand, and his father could use him to expand his empire. I remember always hearing from my mom during the 2016 election cycle that Trump would always be on top of the world, he would go bankrupt one week and the next he'd be living golden again. Yeah, because as this book points out, his dad bailed him out many times over the course of his life. He wasnt a good business person. He actually sucked at it and cost his family money. He built too many casinos in Atlantic city to the point they were in competition with each other and couldnt make a profit as a result. And his father tried pumping money into them too. Which resulted in quite a few fines back in the day. 

And then as Fred got older he developed dementia, and Donald manipulated him to change the will. Other siblings stepped in and stopped him, but still, when he finally died, Freddy's entire line of the family was disinherited, including the author. It actually led to a lot of nasty legal battles within the family, and broke relations between the author and them since. And while they were later repaired somewhat, well, writing this book probably broke them again. The family only cared about money. They had little to no love for each other. They didn't seem to know what love was. They were always trying to screw each other it seems, and as a result, Freddy, being the black sheep of the family, had their line basically disinherited from the rest of it. 

And while Mary herself turned out relatively well adjusted, all things considered, Donald was always the family at its worst. He inherited Fred's worst characteristics, without having any of the business sense. THe dude was never as successful as he was propped up to be. He was just propped up. He was terrible at making deals. Word is after he inherited his father's empire he sold it for far less than market value and pocketed the money. He was also regularly in trouble with the banks due to his poor business ventures, and through all of this, he was always enabled. Despite failing constantly, he always failed upward and was always rewarded for his efforts whether he succeeded or not.

And then we voted to give this guy the nuclear codes. Mary pointed out that all of Donald's malignant behavior and poor leadership is due to lifelong behavioral patterns. The dude never failed, couldn't admit to ever failing, because that's what Freddy would do, and he had to be the opposite of his brother. Freddy was an honest decent person who admitted to his failures, and his father hated him for it, but Donald's mentality of always being a winner even when you lose stayed with him over the course of his life. And the dude just CAN'T handle being a loser. SO he double, triples down, he refuses to admit he was wrong, and he digs himself deeper into a hole, just like he did with COVID. 

While I found the book to be an interesting expose into Donald Trump's mindset, I didn't quite expect it to be as family history heavy. I guess it makes sense since family history influences behavioral patterns, but I thought the book would be based more on him and his behavior.

And while Mary did make a sequel to this book called The Reckoning, it seems to be more into her own political views, which, based on my quick research, sound cringe. She's a full on Hillary supporting SJW who acts like the biggest problem with society in general is white supremacy and that racism is the original sin we must atone for and blah blah blah.

And for me, that's kind of cringe. Like I get it, systemic racism is real, but this weird postmodernist religion some on the left fall into makes me cringe hard. I think theres way more to politics than mere identity politics, and that we need a more broad approach to politics in general than that offers. We're never going to unite the nation if we keep promoting such a divisive approach to politics in general. 

Anyway, the book was okay. I don't really have a ton to say about it. I mean, anyone who has been paying attention can tell that boy ain't all right. And while this goes into the whole mess that is his origin story, I mean, I feel like this could be summarized significantly. Even more so than I posted above. Basically, dad was a sociopath, raised him to be a sociopath, dude never had to take responsibility for his actions and was actively discouraged from doing so, and he was always bailed out by dear old dad when he failed, leading to a general motion of failing upward. And then we gave the dude nuclear codes despite him not being the person with the right leadership skills or temperament for the job. There's your summary.

Debunking the idea that pro lifers typically allow exceptions for the mother's health and stuff like that

 So, I recently had a discussion about abortion with my pro life friend that started fairly light hearted, but then quickly descended into a conversation about whether pro lifers actually allow exceptions for the mother's health. A lot of my own perspective is based on the idea that...they don't, but he insisted they did, so I'm going to explain why this current crop of GOP politicians often do not allow exceptions for abortion when it should occur.

For reference, when I was pro life as a fundamentalist Christian, I always would have allowed exceptions. For me, while "elective abortion" seemed immoral to me, I would have allowed abortion for reasons like rape, incest, birth defects, and a threat to the mother's health. And I was pretty pro life until 2011. 

But then in 2011, the tea party took over, and enacted all sorts of abortion bans. And I found them terrifying. I remember horror stories like people with stillborn fetuses being forced to carry them to term. And the article I just linked pointed out mentioned that "the “Protect Life Act,”.... would have allowed medical providers to refuse to perform abortions even when women had life-threatening medical crises." This was an act passed by the house that failed to get implemented into law, but yeah, they tried it. And again, while many of these are difficult to find on google these days, I remember tons of horror stories coming out of the states where these laws were passed on the state level that led to people who should be able to have abortions, not being able to get them. 

Honestly, this is where I first cracked on the issue and became pro choice. I was still Christian at the time, but in 2011, there were a lot of changes I made to my worldview as the tea party republicans took over state legislatures and the house of representatives. At the time, I justified my pro choice positions under right libertarian pretenses. I was in my edgy late teens/early 20s libertarian phase, and I basically said that government doesn't do anything right, and that includes abortion regulations. Because the government seems unable to properly regulate the issue, it doesn't deserve to regulate it at all. This caused me to justify an extremely pro choice position. I was still reluctant of and against abortion in my own personal life, but I honestly believed government had lost its right to regulate it. 

Then the next year my Christian worldview collapsed entirely, and I was left with a very liberal secular humanist worldview. Rethinking the abortion issue, I developed my largely current views on the issue, where I am okay with abortion until around 24 weeks, on the basis of viability and the level of consciousness/ability to feel pain of the fetus itself. Before 24 weeks or so, I considered it perfectly moral. Between 24-28 weeks, I considered that the moral grey area. After 28 weeks, I considered it very immoral.

However, given my research into the issue, and how most people who seek late term abortions do so for medical reasons, and how they're a very small minority (less than 1% of all abortions), I decided that I for keeping it legal beyond that. Again, the tea party put me off. They completely showed their ineptitude at governing the issue properly, so it actually made me more radical in the defense of abortion rights. In an ideal world, I'm actually not opposed to third trimester restrictions. I actually think abortion that late is problematic and at that point the fetus is equivalent of a premature baby. BUT...because the right basically went too far with restricting it, I considered that to be the greater evil. 

And I think that's why some liberals are okay with abortion until birth and are absolutists on it. It's about protecting access for those who do deserve it. It's better for people to have the right and to misuse it than for the right to be unjustly infringed upon. The latter leads to cruelty toward the born, and could even cause grievous injury or death. And because I quite frankly value the lives of fully sentient born persons over semi sentient late term fetuses, it's not a particularly difficult decision for me to make.

But back on hand, with the fall of Roe v Wade, the right is back to restricting abortion rights again. And once again the horror stories are coming out of various states involved. In Ohio, a 10 year old rape victim with an incest baby was denied an abortion, and had to travel to neighboring Indiana to get one. In Idaho, state officials refused to add exceptions for the right of the mother. In Louisiana, a woman was refused an abortion despite carrying a skullless fetus. I mean, the list goes on and on. I'm pretty sure for every story I share, there are many many more that go untold here. But it seems pretty obvious that the GOP really doesn't care about women in this case. They never did. Remember back in 2012 during the last slew of abortion laws I told you about? Todd Akin at the time said that in cases of "legitimate rape", the "body shuts that whole thing down." And more recently a Michigan GOP candidate said that rape babies are "blessings." Like, really, there's just no limit to how low the GOP can go in defending things like being forced to have rape babies, or babies with birth defects or otherwise threaten the mother's health. 

I'm sorry, but to go back to my original stance as an ex pro lifer, I was NEVER this extreme. EVER. I always accepted exceptions should exist, and even back then when forced with this kind of insanity, I decided I'd rather be pro choice than restrict abortion for those who need it. Again, if you can't govern the issue properly, you shouldn't be able to govern at all. 

And now, I'm just literally as pro choice as I can get. In part because of shifts in my philosophical convictions, but also in part because of insanity like this.

I'm sorry, but the modern pro life movement is INSANE, and if you still support them in this modern era, you are enabling this insanity. And I just find that extremely unethical. No, they don't allow exceptions for the mother's health. No, they don't allow exceptions for rape either. That's a huge part of the problem, they don't allow exceptions. 

Honestly, you could probably get me to support reasonable third trimester restrictions if they allowed for the right exceptions. The problem is, the modern GOP don't do that. They wanna ban abortion down to single cell embryos, and not allow any exceptions for it. it's insane. So, I'm forced into a position of defending pro choice until birth. The more extreme they get, the more extreme I get.

Discussing the fed's actions on the economy

 So, Kyle Kulinski recently covered a story about how the fed is intentionally trying to cause a recession to get the inflation under control, and how this is a terrible idea. Considering how this story really touches on some things that are right up my alley in terms of my own political philosophy, I decided to comment on it too. 

Basically, the federal reserve is trying to "bring the pain" by increasing interest rates in an effort to raise the unemployment rate and reduce inflation. And Kyle kind of touches on how sociopathic this is.

As we've discussed before, this bout of inflation is NOT normal. Most inflation can be attributed to the phillips curve. There's an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation, where higher inflation means lower unemployment, and vice versa. But...sometimes inflation violates this principle. This happened in the 1970s, and was one of the reasons we did away with New Deal era Keynesianism, because that philosophy heavily depended on the phillips curve in order to function and with that not working in the unique situation of the 1970s, neoliberals used the crisis to replace Keynesianism with their ideology. Well, this time around, we're in ANOTHER bout of inflation that violates the general principle of the Phillips curve. While most inflation is caused by abnormally low unemployment, abnormally high worker bargaining power, and a wage price spiral in which higher wages means higher prices means higher wages means higher prices, this isn't true right now. The phillips curve doesn't necessarily apply.

We've discussed inflation previously on this blog. And it seems to be, based on my research, mostly due to supply chain shortages and corporate price gouging. The video also mentioned the war in ukraine, which is also true, especially for our abnormally high oil prices. This is a lot like what happened in the 1970s. In the 70s, the inflation was largely driven by OPEC restricting the oil market and driving up prices. Nowadays, the War in Ukraine, sanctions against russia, and shifting demand for oil away from Russian sources toward other sources are straining the supply of oil, which causes significant inflation throughout the economy as our entire economy is run on fossil fuels (another reason to abandon the stuff ASAP in favor of green energy).

But, for some reason, the fed keeps pushing this dangerous narrative that worker bargaining power is the problem and we need to bring workers to heel. This is, kind of messed up. And even Kyle kind of touched on something that I've known about for a while, and want to highlight. He pointed out that it seems like for capitalism to function there needs to be an underclass, a group of people without jobs being screwed over by the system in order to bring price stability for all.

And you know what? HE'S RIGHT. I've been saying this since 2016 on this blog, and since 2014ish in general. Literally one of my first posts on here was about how our economy is a giant game of musical chairs. It doesn't work if everyone has a chair. The economy functions optimally when most people have a chair (job), but a handful of people don't. But then we keep bully and shaming people into taking jobs, many of which are exploitative, and shaming them when they can't find one, or have the dignity to not accept bad ones. Our economy functions basically by the force of poverty and desperation driving people into bad jobs they can't live on. 

When the fed talks about bringing on the pain and raising interest rates, here's what they're doing. They're slowing down job creation. They're reducing the number of jobs available, by making it harder to borrow money in order to fund new business ventures. They might even be driving some businesses to bankrupctcy. This causes an economic crisis, and that causes mass layoffs and unemployment, driving the economy into a recession. And then, finally, demand will meet supply in the economy again.

We have major supply issues due to the complexities of the global economy. We shut everything down with covid, and then reopened it, then got into a war in ukraine with rippling economic consequences, and businesses decided to exploit the situation by driving prices even higher to pad out their incomes. What the fed is doing will ensure that the demand will meet the new supply, but in doing so, it will make workers POORER. People will be laid off, demand will plummet, jobs will be more scarce, we'll be back to the great recession with half the people being laid off and the rest being told to work twice as hard and that they're lucky to have a job. Basically, we'll go back to wage slavery and a return to the old normal. 

I'm not saying our current inflation is good. Quite frankly, it isn't, and it is excessive. But given it isn't primarily labor forces driving it, this solution seems unnecessarily cruel. And I just want to point out, this is why we've had stagnating living standards since the 1970s and 1980s. Because the fed is so inflation conscious that they'd rather keep the economy under the boot of austerity, where worker bargaining power doesn't exist, people are enslaved, and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. All in the name of "price stability." 

Honestly, understanding that this is how the economy works, is a HUGE reason I'm for basic income. I understand that there will never be a society in which everyone can have a job, let alone one that is fulfilling and pays well. Kyle is right, our system is designed to require an underclass to function. For all the talk of full employment, and jobs programs and guarantees, it will never happen. Because if we had an ecoonomy full of jobs paying $15+ an hour and no one was unemployed, it would lead to massive inflation in the rest of the economy. 

Even in the 1960s the so called golden age of capitalism, where in 1968, we achieved the most income equality we've ever had, we had a strong middle class, and the left looks back at that era like the good old days before the trend started reversing itself, things weren't perfect. In 1969, a presidential commission on poverty under Richard Nixon basically came out and said that despite all of these gains, this is the best we can do under normal means, in order to truly solve poverty under capitalism, we need to implement a UBI. 

Yeah.

And now you wonder why my politics are like they are. This is why I tend to transcend the normal left wing line on jobs and unions and labor and socialism. None of that is the solution. If everyone has a job, you get a wage price spiral. if everyone doesn't have a job, you ensure that people don't have their needs met. You can't have a society without poverty under capitalism....unless you implement a UBI. 

I admit, even a UBI wouldn't be perfect. But, we could guarantee a society where there is no poverty. And while some might use the situation to not work, well, we cant guarantee work for everyone anyway, so who cares? Why keep up this facade that we all have to work when this is fundamentally not true? Our society literally relies on people not working to function. it is our selfishness, our rugged individualism, the idea that we all have to earn our own way, that is central to why poverty exists. If we had a system where a percentage of everyone's income was contributed to a common pool and redistributed back to everyone equally, we would see a net transfer from the top 25% to the bottom 75% mathematically. Under my own UBI, anyone under $80k would benefit, anyone over would pay (this being individual income, for household income the threshold would be much higher). 

From there, we then let the fed handle interest rates to ensure the same goal of as close to full employment as we can get, without causing a massive inflationary crisis. We figure out how many people want jobs after they get a UBI, and we set the interest rates to ensure that the unemployment rate stays at the same 4-8% it always does. It should be noted, with a UBI, worker bargaining power would increase, as people could withdraw from the labor force entirely if they desired, but I see that as a feature, not a bug. No one should be a slave to the economy. We need to ask ourselves, for whom does the economy work? Do we work for it, or does it work for us? Being a human centered capitalist, or humanist capitalist, the answer should be obvious, it works for us. If we are mere slaves to capital, as we are under the current iteration of the system, in which we are reduced to a number, and forced to work unpleasant jobs for bad pay or face starvation, then society is fundamentally unjust. A human centered economy requires that it works for us, and that means we should get a UBI, and we should get the ability to say no to the economy as we desire. Honestly, human centered capitalism, taken to its logical ends, should really lead to a discussion about the nature of work in our society and its involuntaryness. And we should change our culture around it to accomodate a new kind of freedom under left wing principles. And that being the freedom to say no.

You might wonder if this freedom to say no contradicts what I said about the economy requiring an underclass and people not being able to find jobs. But to drive that point home and make it clearer, I don't think it does. Rather, I acknowledge the reality of the situation, I support the implementation of a basic income. Again, we give people their freedom, and then modify the interest rates to achieve the proper amount of job creation to ensure we hit the unemployment targets we always do. The difference here is, that everyone will be taken care of, employment will be more voluntary, and workers would not be exploited. We would merely be distributing jobs among actually willing participants. And this in itself would remove a lot of mistreatment that exists in the modern workplace. Bosses would no longer be able to push people around, or rely on their desperation to stay. Rather, they would have to treat them well. And while pay would effectively be capped at the same sustainable amounts it always is, having a UBI on top of that would be a massive game changer as no one would be poor, and people who work jobs would always have a living wage between their UBI and their wages

Basically, I'm saying that UBI would remove poverty and coercion from the economy, and then we could use the fed to set interest rates to spur the right amount of job creation around people who are actually willing to still participate in the economy. And while involuntary unemployment would still exist, the stakes would be lower for the unemployed, and employers would still have to treat workers fairly to keep them working.

And that's how my idea of the economy would actually work, and be a superior model to what exists now. Beats having a system in which we have to choose between runaway inflation and a system full of crushing poverty, wage slavery, and their needs not being met. 

Explaining why "you" are not paying for other peoples' student loans to be forgiven

 So, it's a common right wing talking point these days. You, the epitome of the struggling working class American, making $30k a year in a dead end job, are paying for peoples' student loans when you yourself didn't go to college. It doesn't seem fair, does it?

Well, here's the thing, you're really not. Did your taxes suddenly go up? Are you paying more every month to ensure that my loans, or other peoples' loans, are forgiven? Not really. 

The fact is, Biden just....forgave the loans. And if it comes from anywhere, it's just added to the budget deficit. It's true that in an ideal student loan forgiveness plan, like say, Bernie's, taxes would go up, but he would pay for it with a financial transactions tax on wall street. And while that's not an ideal way to pay for it in my opinion, mainly because the mechanism isn't known to produce a lot of revenue, he could still probably pull it off. 

Biden on the other hand just forgave them via executive fiat. And that just leads to it becoming part of the national debt. And that could lead to inflation. How much inflation? Eh, like 0.15%? So not much compared to inflation overall. Around 1.5% of existing inflation given the rate is near 10%. 

As I said, virtually any idea that helps people leads to some level of inflation. People merely having money to spend causes inflation. The problem is excessive inflation. And while inflation is excessive, this doesn't really move the needle in a significant way either way. You would literally need to pump trillions into the economy to make a significant difference. And even then, we just had that "inflation reduction act" which was basically a glorified climate bill combined with some minor deficit reduction paid for by corporate taxes, so, we can honestly say that this cancels THAT out. 

So basically, if we wanna look at it that way, the money for this is coming from corporate profits. 

The point is, some car mechanic making $30k a year and who likes Trump for some reason isn't gonna be paying for this. At least not in any noticeable or measurable way. I mean 0.15% of 110% (total consumer price index vs last year) is literally 0.00014% of one's entire budget. So if you make $30k a year, you might be paying a grand total of $4.09 in added inflation over the course of the year. That's 7.9 cents a week. Basically a nonissue. 

And while paying anything might be bad out of principle, again, anything good contributes SOME level of inflation to the economy. Merely giving people money to spend causes inflation. And this does give some people money to spend. So yeah. Anything has SOME tradeoff, it's really whether it's worth it for the whole population. And the amount of good that this does for people deep in debt is worth it far more than a couple dollars over the course of a year of expenses does for your typical wage earner.

And that's only because we're not really paying for it via taxes unless we simply just counteracted the reduced inflation from the inflation reduction act. Which, as I said previously, isn't really going to reduce much inflation. So you save $4 and then you lose $4 and it evens out. 

That's basically my best analysis of this. 

Explaining why voting for ranked choice voting in a single issue way is a mistake

 So...a large faction of the Yang gang has gotten rather...sycophantic if you ask me, and are largely defending Yang's Forward Party merger. They seem relatively unconcerned with the removal of UBI as a key part of the platform and basically say "well you can't pass UBI in the two party system anyway, so you might as well just vote for Forward to break the two party duopoly." And I'm going to say...no, that's not convincing to me. While it's true that UBI isn't really on the table given the current parties in the two party duopoly, I feel like dropping UBI to focus on RCV is a massive tactical error, and I'm going to explain why.

What is our goal?

I think laying out our ultimate goal is important here. And my ultimate goal is my platform. UBI, Medicare for all (whether through single payer or adequate public option), free college/student loan forgiveness, climate change legislation, and housing are my top five priorities. RCV and other such reforms are #6. And for me, it doesn't really matter if we break the two party duopoly, or if we just cause a party realignment. I'll take whatever approach gets me to my goals.

If anything, I'd prefer to work within the democrats if possible. I feel like the democrats have a good platform in a lot of ways, and their coalition, while having some problems leading to the current structural issues, really just needs a good realignment in order to fix.

As you guys can tell by my isidewith, I actually agree with the democrats on paper like 80-90% of the time, and the GOP 10-20% of the time. This makes me lean VERY heavily to the left. Perhaps I'm not as extreme as them on every issue, and perhaps on others I'm MORE extreme than them, but that's kind of the thing. I actually think the party has a good base to work with, it just needs some modification.

The fact is, the democratic party is far too moderate on economic issues. They have too many suburban centrists in their party, and these suburbanites are basically fiscal conservatives who are relatively wealthy and don't want nice things. Whereas, my ideal economic platform would be soaking these guys for taxes. The Biden administration promised not to raise taxes for anyone under $400k. Which....greatly limits our ability to raise revenue for the large universal programs I support. My plans would raise taxes on people who make below, say, $80k individually or $160k for a couple, as I understand that how much money people actually make in this country is often A LOT lower than that. The median household income last I looked is only $69k, and individual income is only like $43k. That means that's the 50% mark. 50% are richer and 50% are poorer. My ideas would help say, the bottom 75%, but raise taxes on the top 25%. But it just to happens the democrats are trying to cater to that same top 25% and win them over through moderate combined with cultural issues.

Speaking of which, that's the other side of the coin of the democrats, the democrats are too extreme culturally. In order to overcompensate for their lack of economic message, they've gone all in with postmodernism and identity politics, in order to woo over voters based on their identity. While the conservatives tend to rally working class whites into a tizzy over a loss of living standards, immigration, and taxes, the democrats tend to play up identity issues to win people over. They focus excessively on racism and sexism, and have a culture about them that is extremely insufferable and alienating to most Americans. While issues of systemic racism and sexism are something to consider, and we should definitely lean left on cultural issues, I feel like the more secular humanist framing would actually be more effective with most people...granted we don't explicitly bash religion as a whole like new atheists often do. 

Essentially, if the left argued for separation of church and state, and giving people freedom and liberty, we could win over people on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and transgenderism without being extremely over the top jerks about it. The democrats tend to be locked into a cycle in which their current demographic makeup makes them impotent and ineffective on dealing with most issues that need to be addressed. Their hands are tied on economic issues, due to their centrist wing running the show, and their overcompensation with social issues is extremely alienating to most people. The fact is, we need a new version of the left that is more effective at dealing with the economic issues, while being more culturally moderate, while still delivering the goods.

Enter Yang/Human Centered Capitalism

And this is where I start bringing Yang into this. There's a reason I like and champion Yang so much on here. It's because he gets it. He understands the problems, as I generally understand the problems. You can kind of see the link lately between the War on Normal People and the message within, and my politics. I live in the rust belt, in an area without many jobs. I understand that our problems are systemic, and I advocate for solutions based on what I think would best fix the problems.

I understand that jobs aren't the answer for many of us. There aren't enough of them, they don't pay well, and they're often degrading. While normal lefties try to make jobs work for Americans, and while I do feel like there is some value in doing so, I understand that the jobs situation is just too dire to fix. There's nothing positive about the good old American job right now for many of us. We live in areas where pay is low, work is precarious, and all the traditional band aids, while they help, won't solve the problem. We need a universal basic income, and we need it now. 

I understand that healthcare is broken, costs are unaffordable, and despite the ACA, millions still lack insurance. I understand that the way to bring costs down and to guarantee access is to bring health insurance to all Americans directly, through either a public option or single payer. I ideally like single payer, but I can compromise on it given the public option is good. 

I understand that the education system is broken, and is churning out millions of graduates who then can't get good jobs in their field, and often end up struggling and suffering under the post industrial hellscape I painted above. And how we need to ensure college is free for all Americans like K-12, and that we need to forgive student debt, as millions of college grads are deep in debt with no hope of ever realistically paying it off.

Basically, I understand that the American dream isn't working for people, so I propose fixes I think would do the most good to people, while liberating them from the tyrannies of the system. I believe that these ideas would improve the living standards of millions of Americans, give them more freedom and bargaining power they need, and ensure a basic standard of living for all Americans, regardless of their economic situations otherwise. 

And Yang, while not perfect on this front, is one of the best people to push the ball forward, as he agrees with at least the first two priorities on paper, with weaker agreement on the third (and the third is least important). 

And Yang...on social issues, he represents the same kind of cultural centrism I've been advocating for. We looked at his 2020 platform. It wasn't bad. He was more progressive on abortion than most candidates. He was pro gay marriage, etc. And his policies would disproportionately help the underprivileged. 

But...the democrats weren't buying it. And now we're going to look at why.

A closer look at the democrats' structural problems

We have witnessed multiple primaries by now, and I think it's fair to say a certain pattern emerges. Generally speaking, I like to separate the democratic party into three major factions. You got the centrists, who are generally older, financially well off, and want the status quo. They're culturally left but fiscally conservative, wanting basically the status quo, with some tweaks along the way to help those they deem deserving of help. You got POC, who primarily vote based on identity issues. While concerned with economic justice, it seems to play a back seat to their loyalty to the democratic party's establishment wing, and their own identity based priorities. And then finally, you got progressive. These guys want change, and often support many of our key priorities, but also tend to be quite dogmatic. After all, these guys have risen to prominence in the democratic party not due to Andrew Yang and Human Centered Capitalism, but due to Bernie Sanders and his brand of Democratic Socialism. I try to be allied with these guys, but they are very purity testy and are way too willing to engage in friendly fire against the Yang gang to ensure their purity. Still, while we don't see eye to eye on every issue, I feel like the infighting between us and these guys is a bit excessive and mean spirited. it just doesn't need to happen to the extent it does, even if there are some points of difference between us (like UBI vs Green New Deal). 

In your typical democratic primary, this is what happens. The centrist wing panders hard to the POC wing of the party, pushing identity politics and postmodernism and claiming that progressives and the like aren't good for black people and stuff like that or whatever, and they end up with a dominating coalition that the progressives can't overcome. This leads to the pattern of pushing moderate candidates who are extremely culturally left, while candidates with more bold economic visions but who may be more moderate socially (like myself, or Yang, or even Bernie) end up losing. 

This leads to the democrats pushing people like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Shontel Brown, or Eric Adams over candidates like Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, Nina Turner, or Maya Wiley. 

And given the hostility of the progressive wing toward Yang and UBI, a lot of us who fall more on that side of things just don't fit well within the democrats at all. And it's starting to be clear that the only way to really solve the democratic party's issues is by approaching them from the outside. We can't win within the democratic party. The democrats have an iron grip on how primaries play out, and then they rely on bullying the dissenters into supporting them or else. As long as we play by the democratic party's rules, we won't get change. 

So what is to be done here?

My own approach to this issue is to split the democratic coalition, and even parts of the republican coalition. And with that, we need a third party. But, my goal of third parties is essentially to raise awareness of issues which are being neglected by the two party system. That's what they're good at. In the 1840s and 1850s, the main third parties were abolitionist parties, unhappy with how the two party duopoly handled the slavery issue. The two parties were too busy pushing incremental steps and compromises that just left people feeling alienated, and this eventually led to a civil war that forced the issue. In the 1880s onward to the 1930s, a lot of third parties focused on things like workers issues. While the two parties once again quibbled over minor details and weird issues like the coinage of silver, third parties were pushing for things like the minimum wage and a 40 hour work week. And eventually in the 1930s, those parties had their day. It's also worth noting in the early 20th century there was a third party movement around prohibition of alcohol, and this eventually made it into the mainstream as well, although the policy itself was a failure and it was later repealed. In the 1960s, George Wallace pushed for a third party around racism and segregation and opposition to Johnson's civil rights legislation and effectively split the democratic party, leading to a coalition of working class whites which were absorbed into the GOP. 

And that leads to the problems we have now. Those coalition that formed, in the 1970s and 1980s on the GOP side, and 1990s on the democratic side, are now getting old and failing to address the issues we need addressed any more. So we need another realignment. But, the democrats have gone all in with a strategy of economic centrism and cultural leftism, which helps polarize the country around social issues that don't do much to help people, and the republicans have gone all in with economic populism and cultural conservatism, to the point of bordering on fascism.

If these trends continue, nothing good will come out of them. The democratic party will continue to lose elections as the economic centrist platform does nothing to improve peoples' lives, and the cultural leftism is alienating to wide swaths of the population. But at the same time, the GOP is gaining support. While before 2016 they seemed like they were dying as their coalition aged, Donald Trump's populism has brought new energy into the party, while Hillary's centrism killed the energy that was growing during the Obama era toward a more progressive platform. 

And this is not good. Ultimately, for us to have a GOOD outcome, we need to move left on economics, while deemphasizing cultural issues somewhat. Don't get me wrong, I'm still left on most cultural issues, but I'm center left. I'm a libertarian who focuses on the idea that Americans should be able to do what they want without interference. And I feel like the culture war is winnable for the left on these terms, but the shrill self righteousness and bullying of the postmodernists is alienating. 

The fact is, the democrats are alienating and lack the ability to push for positive change at the moment. Because, again, on economic issues they're hamstrung, and on social issues they're alienating. Meanwhile the GOP is generally better on culture war issues, and despite their own positions being unpopular, unless they do something stupid like repeal abortion rights (cough), they can run on the left being a bunch of people with a stick up you know where and win that way. And because the democrats don't really stand out on economics, many people will focus on the cultural issues where there is a difference.

The fact is, if the libs aren't going to stand for something positive, the masses will vote against them based on the idea of spiting them. "Owning the libs" is what drives the right to the polls. nothing about their platform is popular, I'd argue the right doesnt have much of a positive platform at this point. But because the democrats dont either, people swing to the republicans because at least they can spite those insufferable liberals in the process. 

Enter Forward

When Forward appeared on the scene, I was iffy on it, but I'm going to be honest. I loved the concept. Yang's core platform, UBI and human centered capitalism (but no healthcare, sadly) made it into the core of the platform. And then on top of that, Yang focused on political reform. He himself studied the issues, and you can see how his biggest solutions would actually solve the democratic party's biggest problems. Ranked choice voting would make it where people would be able to walk away from a hostile democratic party that does nothing for them on the issues. And open primaries could solve the demographic issues with the primaries I mentioned earlier. So, combining Yang's normal UBI/human centered capitalist advocacy with his calls for political reform seemed good to me.

And while his centrist framing seemed weird, after researching and decoding what he meant, it seemed clear he was trying to depolarize Americans, particularly on those culture war issues people were riled up about. So Yang's forward party, at least in its original form, seemed to be just what the doctor ordered, and I quickly latched onto its overall ethos. 

I admit, I didn't really think that RCV would take off or go anywhere, but it was a nice thought. Ultimately, what I wanted was for forward to grow enough where it could form a coalition between disaffected dems and some working class republicans who were attracted to the human centered capitalist message, especially in absence of alienating postmodernist rhetoric. The core hope for me, was for forward to gain enough steam to be able to be able to take its mandate to the two parties. If forward started getting, say, 5%, 10%, or even 15% of the vote, the two parties wouldn't be able to ignore it, and would have to shift to absorb its coalition. 

And ultimately, I hoped that the democrats would be able to bring some working class economic populist trumpers into their coalition, and the more stuffy suburbanites would screw off to the GOP where they belong. 

And this would effectively break gridlock. The suburbanites would be a moderating influence on the GOP, allowing the crazies to be diluted, and the party to focus on economic conservatism and social moderation, and the democratic party to also be socially moderate (but more left) while pushing a human centered capitalist framework, which would appeal to everyone from the left and the progressives, to the center right trumpers who came in. 

If we did that, we could get the conversation away from these BS cultural issues and toward actual substances, in which the democrats would start winning like FDR did. 

But then Forward cratered...

And then Forward ended up merging with the Serve America Movement and Renew America Movements, two movements created by ex Trumper Republicans who left the republican party because it got a little too crazy. These guys are CONSERVATIVES. Die hard conservatives. The types of people who we call moderate now by virtue of them not being Trumpers, but who stand for everything the republicans stand for, fiscal and economic conservatism. And now THESE guys are merging with US in FORWARD. 

And that's bad. Because that's exactly the fate I've been trying to save the democrats from. You see, the democrats are trending toward winning over these people. Heck, they're what basically stopped the left from being able to have nice things in the first place. We had freaking JOHN KASICH speak at the DNC back in 2020. And now forward is FULL of these same guys. 

And suddenly, UBI, human centered capitalism, and all ideas of note other than the ranked choice voting stuff are GONE. I feel like the movement has been compromised, like it sold its soul to make a deal with the devil. And while ranked choice voting will help, don't get me wrong, RCV was always a long shot for me. I don't think it can realistically happen nationwide. And if it does, well, then forward would shift its advocacy elsewhere. And much like the democrats, the party would focus on its stakeholders and ignore progressives who want nice things. We will never get UBI back, because demographically, the original yang gang coalition will be outnumbered by all of these other movements. 

Quite frankly, I felt like I finally found my "tribe" so to speak, and then the rug was pulled out from under me. And now forward barely stands for anything. And it just has enlightened centrist takes on every issue, and blah blah blah.

And honestly, even if it did succeed, I don't think UBI would change things much.

Ranked Choice Voting is nice, but won't get us to UBI in itself

I want to bring attention back to the NYC mayoral primary Yang took part in. He got FOURTH. And RCV, as good as it is as a voting method, would ultimately, default to the same overall duopoly anyway. 

Think about it. Say there are 6 parties. 3 on each side. A libertarian party, a constitution party, and a nationalist party on the GOP side, and a centrist party, a progressive party, and a postmodernist party on the democratic side.

How do you think people will vote?

Ultimately a lot of people won't get their first choice, they'll get their second and third choice. Say I vote for a human centered capitalist party, now MUCH smaller because not many people are attracted to it over other movements, the progressive party, and then the centrist party. How would things turn out? Well, the HCC party would get like 2% of the vote, and then would be eliminated, my vote transferred to the progressive party. And then because the postmodernists back the centrists, the progressives would lose to the centrists. And my third choice (the centrists) would get my vote.

Meanwhile on the republican side similar things happen. Libertarians and nationalists vote for the constitution party, and then the constitution party wins. And then the centrists and constitution go at it, and ultimately one of those win.

It's the same crap as if we had a primary season, and then went to FPTP in the general. Ultimately, only two parties would actually be viable. We might get our say, and be able to vote for who we want as a first choice, but then they lose, our backup options win, and we get the same boring centrism we always do. 

And while I guess there is more room for us to leave if our ideas aren't considered, ultimately, the situation would mirror the two party system, with people not backing the moderate options as a backup only when they're really pissed off and the system isnt working. Ultimately, whomever wins would represent a coalition, same as they do now, and some elements of the coalition may be ignored. Just as they are now. 

I mean, it's not a path to UBI.

If I was gonna push for UBI...I'd just...push for UBI. Im just as well off using a movement like forward to push for UBI within the two party system as I would be in this new arrangement. Because ultimately, the parties that win will have to govern in a big tent coalition sort of way or lose their voters. It's just that its a little more easy to walk away in these other systems. But still, does walking away have more leverage within a more open system? I'm not sure that it does. Currently walking away hurts both groups involved. It hurts the person walking away in that it actually leads to vote splitting causing us to not get what we want and for the opposite party to win, but it also leads to the party we are closer to but not quite serving our needs losing, which should motivate it to cater to us better next time. 

Honestly, I don't think RCV would really get rid of the underlying political coalition problem that plagues the system. it would just allow us to more ineffectively protest vote, as doing so would carry less political risk for both sides. People wouldnt actually be walking away from the party they're protesting as they would still be one's second or third choice, and as the party of choice inevitably loses, their votes would get transferred to the party they're protesting anyway. It would allow us to make more symbolic protests, but also take away the meaning from them to some extent.

Regardless, I do still support ranked choice voting and open primaries. I just don't think that they're going to solve our issues or allow us to get UBI more easily. I have no illusions to that fact. Ranked choice voting would allow us to more easily protest larger parties we don't like, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be forced to listen to us either. 

Forward vs Democrats

That said am I really going to prioritize ranked choice voting as a way to own the duopoly? Probably not. It's a nice thing to have, but it's not going to trump my actual priorities and policy preferences on OTHER issues. 

And if Forward takes on a conservative culture much different than my own, not just on my top priorities, but also on the culture war issues I still lean at least nominally left on, i have ZERO reason to support this movement.

Quite frankly, I'll get my progress where I can get it. And Forward isn't it. The democrats, despite their flaws, are doing SOME things I like. The inflation reduction act might be a horridly watered down climate plan, but it is still a climate plan. And Biden's student debt forgiveness plan does positively impact my life, despite the fact that it don't go anywhere near far enough. 

What does forward offer me other than promises of a better life in some distant future where RCV is passed? None. It just doesn't stand for anything. 

As such, I just don't feel like I can support it.

Now, that doesn't mean I won't support individual forwardists. Obviously, I will be reviewing the candidates individually insofar as my purity tests go and making decisions based on that.

But let's look at how that would work, say I expanded my 200 point test I've been tweaking to be 250, and include a housing program and ranked choice voting (priorities #5 and #6). If you're a conservative forwardist, you will get 25 points out of a total of 250. 

But, as we've analyzed, even a weak democrat like Buttigieg can get like 50. Biden can get like 70. And that's not even including their housing programs since that was under my 200 point 4 issue test. 

So....RCV isn't going to matter much to me.

Don't get me wrong. If Yang runs on the 2024 ticket on UBI, medicare for all, RCV, and a few other things, he could easily get like 150-200 on that metric. And I would vote for him. But honestly, being for RCV only isn't going to get you a lot of support from me. And if you're a conservative who is say, pro life, or authoritarian on LGBT issues or something, your forward support would likely be cancelled out by your regressiveness. You dont need to be a full on SJW to get my support on social issues, mind you. I hate SJWs for a reason. But if you're like a fundamentalist christian or one of those weird fascist types running as forward....uh....yeah, no, sorry. No support from me. The fact is, I'm not gonna vote for someone I disagree with 90% of the time just because RCV is in their platform. Other issues matter more.

That said, sorry, but you can't just have a single issue party around ranked choice voting and expect my support. I care about more issues than that. And I'd vote for a duopoly candidate over a forwardist conservative. Sorry, I just would. If Forward candidates want my attention, they need to run on more than JUST RCV.

Is forgiving student loan debt inflationary?

 So, a lot of people, particularly on the right, are claiming that the student debt forgiveness will be inflationary. And I decided to actually comment on this. 

Will it? Eh, technically. But...let me put it this way. ANY idea that helps the working class and gives them money is going to be somewhat inflationary. A minimum wage increase would be inflationary. UBI would be somewhat inflationary. Simply giving poor and middle class money to spend, is inflationary. It's too much money chasing too little goods.

The real question is, how inflationary is it? And is it worth it? Everything in economics is a tradeoff. The alternative to inflation is poverty, unemployment, and wage slavery. If you have people have money and be taken care of, inflation increases by default. But....let's be honest, current inflation is abnormal. it's the result of economic shocks, and is mostly driven by supply chain issues and corporate greed rather than people having too much money. It's not an issue with demand as much as it's an issue with supply, when it's not just people trying to exploit the situation out of greed. We discussed this. This is not a normal inflationary shock. It isn't a problem of wage price spirals and the working class having too much bargaining power, and high wages driving prices up. That's what people normally think with inflation.

Nor is this just printing money and giving it to people. I mean, rather, it's the equivalent of a slight tax decrease. Think of student loans like a tax. If you're on IBR, you're gonna be paying like 10-15% of your income above say, $18k. And if you only had $10-20k in debt, well, your payments probably werent that high in the first place. I mean, on a standard 10 year plan, $10k would probably amount to around $100-125 a month? $20k maybe $200-250? And if you're on IBR, you paid that OR LESS. So how much does this actually save you a year? $1200-3000? This is another minor stimulus check for people. And only for those it actually wiped the debt out for (20 million people). Keep in mind this only wiped out $300B of the $1.7 trillion in debt. Most debt is held by the people in the deep end of the student debt pool, having massive totals and punishing payments every month. We're talking $500-1000 a month or even more. And this really doesnt touch THAT.

So how much money is really being added to the economy here? Or in MMT terms not being removed from it as this is essentially a tax? Not much. Will it help some people? Sure. Will it be absolutely earth shattering? No. Will it MEANINGFULLY contribute to inflation? Probably not. The effect of this is arguably going to be marginal.

Right wingers love using the specter of inflation to crap on anything good for average people. Because anything good for average people TECHNICALLY contributes to inflation. As I said, if you have a minimum wage increase, it's inflationary. UBI? Inflationary. Those middle class tax cuts republicans like giving people? Technically inflationary. And I don't see republicans screaming the trump tax cuts are why inflation is high. Technically those were arguably as inflationary as forgiving student loan debt. Because allowing people to keep more of their money is inflationary. 

So let's ignore right wing crocodile tears about inflation. The real question is whether policies like this cause RUNAWAY inflation. And the answer is no. To cause runaway inflation you need to dump tons of money into the economy. Funding a UBI without taxes (helicopter money) would be inflationary. As would raising the minimum wage to like $30 an hour or something that the economy cant sustain. Wage price spirals happen, and too much money chasing too few goods happens. But being too hawkish on inflation is bad too. If you wanna know why the living standards of the bottom 80% have stagnated since the 1970s, it's because right wing policy is too counter inflationary. If you try too hard to counter inflation, you get austerity, and people suffer that way. No inflation is actually bad. But too much is bad too. I'd say you wanna aim for around 3% a year. The fed aims for 2%. Right now we're at 10%. Anything more than 4-5% or so is bad IMO. You wanna keep it below 4%.

Now, just to address the other right wing claim on student debt, that suddenly next semester colleges will raise their prices by $10k. No, that's ridiculous. First of all this was a one time forgiveness of past debts and doesnt forgive future debt. Second of all, most people paying student debt payments are out of school so schools cant just turn around and raise prices on them. This concern is just ridiculous. People really make up such bad faith arguments about inflation. It's like the "if you have UBI landlords will increase rent by $1000 a month". It makes sense intuitively but reality is far more complex and a lot of these arguments are made in bad faith, essentially to argue that nothing should ever be done to help people, ever. What these analyses often ignore is that even if some minor inflation occurs the overall benefit to people will greatly exceed inflation. Still, there ARE limits to how much we can help people. I argue only for a $14k or so UBI funded with taxes for a reason. Because I dont believe we can just print out and give people $30k a year or something. Same with the minimum wage. Some progressives want $30 an hour or something. I argue for $15-18 given a 5 year phase in. The logic being helping people a bit is good, but helping them too much evntually WILL be inflationary, where the tradeoffs arent worth it.

Like just to put things in context, helping people a little generally provides more positive benefits than drawbacks. Helping them in excess will be inflationary to a point that is does more harm than good. The goal of progressives is to help people as much as we reasonably can, while still erring mostly on the side of not being overly inflationary.

Is biden's really minor student debt forgiveness package going to cause SOME inflation? Perhaps. Will it cause noticeable inflation or make the current crisis worse? Almost definitely not, and the idea that it would seems to be made in bad faith.This is a good plan. It just doesn't go far enough in my opinion.

Discussing the problems on taxing and means testing based on correlations

 So, there's a common thread that leads into my distaste for certain policies and ideologies I've discussed recently. And one thing that unites these things is that the philosophy underlying these things is one that has what I consider a screwed up theory of justice.

When crafting a policy, you want a policy that is actually fair to everyone, and ideally, helps people in line with their means. I'm not necessarily talking about means testing mind you. If anything, means testing is the problem. I'm talking about how sometimes policies don't help those who should be helped, and hurt those who shouldn't be hurt.

Think about the student debt thing, and my own situation. As I see it, Biden's plan helps some people, but leaves others high and dry. Biden primarily helped people who I'm not saying didn't need help, but didn't need help THE MOST. He removed 10-20k of student debt for people, while leaving those who have much more debt, like me, high and dry. The logic? Well if you have an advanced degree, you should be able to pay for your loans. Excuse me, but what if I LITERALLY CAN'T FIND A JOB THAT ALIGNS WITH THE INCOME LEVEL I "SHOULD" HAVE?! Seriously. A huge reason I have the attitude toward work and jobs I do is because the system failed me. I never had decent opportunities out of school. I needed experience to get a job and a job to get experience. "Opportunities" paid too little, for too much work, and were very far away, often 50+ miles away. The only actual jobs available to me were the minimum wage jobs I literally took on all of this student debt to avoid in the first place.

But, neoliberals are insufferable on the subject. "Oh what do you mean you can't get a job in your field, what's wrong with you?!" A lot of things, really, but that's besides the point. The point is, they have this weird just world fallacy that having an education means you can get a job with enough income to pay back the debt. And that's just untrue. Even if I did work a job at say McDonalds making $9 an hour for 25 hours a week, which is standard these days, I'd make like $11000 a year. My IBR payments would be $0. If I worked full time and made say, $18,000 a year, I'd be making payments of like $40 a month? Over 25 years I'd pay off $12000 of my debt, it wouldnt even cover a fraction of the interest.

The reason the student loan crisis is a student loan crisis is because people who go to college aren't getting the jobs they're "supposed" to. College is supposed to be a pathway to a better life, but the market is saturated with college grads, and many of us end up underemployed and full of debt. The reason I prioritized this issue, beyond my own personal stake in it, is because I KNOW this is a crisis that impacts millions of people. I've talked to people and shared my misery with people in similat situations. And I know that this is a widespread SYSTEMIC issue. While college is CORRELATED with higher income, correlations aren't perfect. To put things in statistic terms, since my student debt did pay for education on things like stats and research methods, correlations can be strong, or they can be weak. We generally measure strength on a scale between 0, meaning there's NO correlation AT ALL and two variables are unrelated, and 1, meaning a PERFECT correlation between the two. Many correlations looked at in social sciences vary, and often aren't 0 or 1. You might have a correlation of 0.45 or something which is perhaps a bit weaker, or something like 0.83 which is quite strong.

But the weaker the correlation it is, the more exceptions to the rule exist. And while ON AVERAGE, YES, college is BY AND FAR an investment that increases earnings potential, there are a lot of people who simply don't benefit from their degree. In a lot of ways, income potential and college is arguably linked to its exclusivity. It used to be that only the rich could afford college, which controlled the number of college graduates available in the job market, and given the relative number of job listings per graduate, it ensured that tons of people could get jobs with their degrees, leading to higher earning potential.

But what did adding student loans do? it increased the pool of these graduates, but the job openings weren't always there for them, so this led to decreased income potential and a lot more variability in how well people benefit from college. In short, it helps some people, but not others. It's kind of based on luck. And of course, location.

Location really shouldn't be understated. Heck, this is another reason I like Yang. Because Yang talked about this in his war on normal people, and how the recipe for success is very cookie cutter, you go to certain schools, major in certain things, and move to certain cities to get jobs. More prestegious schools are better than community schools. Majors in business or something like that are something than majors in womens' studies, for example (to pick on a major people like to pick on). And of course, living in a big city means more success than living in a smaller town. 

Heck, Andrew Yang looked at this formula and concluded that large swaths of Americans are so screwed on their economic prospects, that the only way we can hope to provide for everyone is through programs like UBI. And that's...also what guides my thinking, and why I'm such a Yang fan boy despite his obvious flaws. Because his analysis of the issues and his solution is dead on here. 

But, I also still believe education should be an inherent right of all Americans, and support equality of opportunity, and I believe debt should be forgiven.

But...going back to the neoliberals in the democratic party, they seem to miss the plot. In a lot of ways, the neolibs are stuck in their professional class bubbles that they are just like "what do you mean you can't find a job? I go down the street and there's tons of jobs", as they tweet from their offices in NYC and silicon valley. Yeah, if you live in certain locales, and have a certain skillset with a certain educational background, you can end up on easy street. But if you live...where I live, well, let's just say, you're screwed. Because the nearest cities with any job potentials are 50+ miles away, they're still precarious and don't pay well, and yeah.

Of course, you could say I should have made better life choices, but at that point, I'm just gonna tell you that you should join the republican party with that attitude. Because that's what their standard line is toward people. 

Of course, its not ONLY neolibs going on about student loans who miss the plot like this. Let's take out another familiar punching bag, to harp on, that of the georgists. 

Georgism is an ideology based around the teachings of Henry George pushing for the land value tax, with many of his followers advocating for all other taxes being repealed and replaced with one massive land tax. This land tax, according to them, would solve the problems of the housing market by encouraging economic efficiency because the land value tax is unavoidable, unlike taxes on income from labor or consumption, and it would increase housing as landlords would be forced to build densely in order to house the most people. 

But...these guys often forget how the world is. And how a majority of Americans are homeowners. While their LVT would replace taxes like the income tax, payroll tax, and consumption tax, it really makes a lot of assumptions with how it taxes people. Essentially, it makes an assumption that your income will be able to pay the taxes. And well, if you can't....sucks to be you I guess.

This is actually one of the reasons I so viscerally hate these guys. I support taxes on income. As I see it, if you tax based on income, you tax on ability to pay. If you get more income, you pay more. if you get less income, you pay less. That's fair. And in line with my indepentarian mindset of liberating people from coercion, the way to minimize your tax burden is to simply opt out of society and live off of your UBI. Participation is voluntary, but if you participate, you'll pay taxes. ANd most would find the tradeoff worth it.

But a land tax is coercive. It basically taxes you based on your home ownership, or more accurately the land ownership under your house. And it basically thinks, rather than buying land and owning it, all land should be rented from the government in effect. So, rather than have a system of private landlords, you have a system where the government is the ultimate landlord. And it doesn't matter what your income level is, your tax is the same whether you make $0 a year or millions. 

But this leads to...you guessed it, coercion, and injustice. If you happen to live in a house with land that is valauble, you're screwed. ANd as I've shown mathematically before, even if you live in an average or below average home value wise, with a UBI, that UBI would be undermined. It wouldn't work as an anti poverty program. it would just be a tax refund where you might, maybe, come ahead a few thousand, but not enough to live in. Basically, a LVT funded UBI isn't really a UBI at all as far as my conception of what a UBI is. It's based on an entirely different system of justice that I find unjust, and one that coerces you to get a certain income or be thrown out of your home.

And you know what, when I mention this to georgists...they don't care. THeir literal attitude is "well your tax burden won't be that high" (without even knowing what it is, as you guys know, I calculate it and I beg to differ), followed by simply being okay with forcing people out of their homes to meet their crazy standards of justice.

While their system might work for those who are privileged enough to have an income to afford the taxes, many don't fit in that box, and many will suffer under their ideas. Not just people like me, but also people like seniors on social security, the disabled, etc. They don't consider this. And quite frankly, they don't seem to care. Which is why I show such visceral distaste for these groups. 

Honestly? Any philosophical system based on social justice should have a little bit of Rawls' veil of ignorance guiding its thinking. THe idea that society should try to benefit even the least advantaged person. Karl Widerquist's indepentarian theory is based on the same idea. And this is why I can afford to also be so lax on postmodernism and their idea of privilege in my eyes. As I see it, my policies benefit everyone, but they benefit the least advantaged most. UBI benefits everyone. Medicare for all benefits everyone. Free college and student debt forgiveness benefits everyone. Even the least advantaged person (citizen) in society would get these basics in my ideal world, and the cost of the programs will be borne in line with your ability to pay. If you are poor, you'll pay little in taxes, if any, toward these things. If you're rich, you'll pay a lot. And this is why I like income taxes or alternatively, a payroll tax deducted automatically (saves on paperwork and hassle). ANd given my ideas on top of the existing tax system, I estimate that people at the bottom will be paying 30-40% marginal tax rates, while the rich would pay around 70%. That's fair. The poor would be paying less than Friedman (or Howie Hawkins) NIT plan, keeping 60-70 cents of every dollar earned, but that would drop to 30 among the richest.

That seems fair. And with that, you have a system where everyone is taken care of, with a UBI above the poverty level, and healthcare and education for all. That's the philosophy behind my ideas. 

Honestly, this seems much better than weird band aid fixes, means tests that exclude certain people who arguably need help, and weird ideas like land taxes completely divorced from income.

Honestly, I feel like too many people keep pushing vague correlations that might be true on the macro level, but ignore the micro situations many people who defy the norm end up dealing with. Something might sound great on paper, but then you kind of gotta own up to whatever flaws and faults your plans cause that harm others.

Perhaps my own ideas might be offputting to some too, but I generally would say that most people would get their money's worth from my system. Even if you pay 35% on the low end, around 45-55% in the middle, and 70% at the high end, keep in mind, you're getting a UBI that refunds you of much of that tax burden to the point that most people not in the top 25% of income earners would be net beneficiaries of my ideas. And while the top 25% would be net payers, well, doesn't it make sense that the most highly privileged people end up footing the bill for the rest of us? Seems fair to me. And honestly, this scale of tax burden isn't much different than a European country with generous safety nets. So it works. 

Honestly, I think this is a lot better than having systems based on vague correlations and then just telling the outliers they're screwed. 

The more I think about this student debt forgiveness plan, the more pissed off I get

 I mean, it really is them doing something without them solving the problem.

Let me explain the issues with student debt as I see it. 

Many people in my generation were told that they had to go to college to get a decent job. We had it ingrained to us from a young age that college was the path to prosperity, and if we didn't go to college, we would end up working at McDonalds.

Then we graduated into an economy with no jobs. Over half the people with college degees don't even work in their field of study. Many live paycheck to paycheck. A fourth of us make less than $30k a year and 1/7 of us are in poverty. And those statistics seem pretty close to the national average. Poverty rate is generally speaking 10-15%, with a good half of us living paycheck to paycheck. 

Yet, many of us are treated with the assumption that we can handle the debt. That we have incomes that can match the debt. So many of these political calculations I see neoliberals make tend to talk in vague correlations and averages, not accounting for everyone. So we got people saying people with college degrees are privileged and that student debt forgiveness is a giveaway to the rich and blah blah blah. And we should help the poor.

Paramount in this bizzaro world mentality of justice of the typical neolib is this idea that all government help should help "the noble poor". You know, the poor people who through no fault of their own are poor, and who cant get out of their position, so not everyone else. They screech at the idea of forgiving say, Jeff Bezos student loans. "why should we bail out doctors and lawyers? if we forgive loans at all we should only care about the poor." 

And these are the kinds of people who are influencing Biden and the democrats. So Biden and the democrats are trying to keep two groups happy. The progressive wing who wants student debt forgiveness, ideally all of it, and the neoliberal killjoys who only want those they deem worthy of help.

And that's how we got this mess of a plan. They forgive $10k of everyone's debt. Okay. Well, average debt is $30k according to them so people wiith high debt are a minority. And they all have jobs according to them. They dont need help. They have "earning potential" (my butt). If we forgive $10k we can wipe off student debt for some people and not have to help everyone. Oh, and let's means test it to income. 

And then with the pell grants they took off $20k. Why did they do that? Well, because according to them, POC are overrepresented among pell grant recipients (remember what we read last night with the justification?). So they get to target the "underprivileged" with this (admittedly, I had a pell grant once so I should get $20k now taken off, I'm attacking the principle here, keep in mind I'm in the "forgive all of it" camp, I just think that this approach to forgiveness breeds resentment). 

So Biden just helped all of the people at the kiddie pool end of the student debt crisis who had paid down most of their debt already or didnt have much in the first place. It allowed him to take a significant chunk of the pressure off of current borrowers where for enough of them this would be life changing, while leaving those in the deep end high and dry.

As for the deep end, he hd some fixes too. He made IBR payments lower. Cool, I guess, but that wasn't the problem. IBR has always been fair to me. Basically, you get your payments based on your income, with you paying 10-15% (depending on the age of your plan) of your income over 138% of the poverty line I think for 20-25 years. Now it's 5% for 10-25 years. Okay, so that lowers payments. You dont have a $200 loan payment on a $40k salary. But that was never the problem for me. 

The problem was IBR had some significant structural flaws. While eventually forgiven the amount forgiven becomes taxable income. And if theres 6-8% interest rates on loans, you can see your loans triple over the lifespan of the loan, if youre on IBR and not paying.

While Biden removed additional interest, he didn't solve the tax bomb problem. He solved it for people who have our loans forgiven before 2025, but many of us millennials arent up for forgiveness until the 2030s some time. 

So if you already have a high loan total and dont have an income to match it, you're up a creek. These are the people who need help most. The ones who have so much debt there isnt any hope of paying it off through IBR. Because lets face it, if you're on IBR, and youre making $0 payments or something very low, you're not gonna meaningfully dent it. It's just gonna sit there and while it no longer accumulates interest, it's still a problem. And before people suggest I pay it, I mean, then you're basically handing over your paycheck to the government. if 10-15% of your income was oppressive according to these people, imagine working for say, $1250 a month at minimum wage, and giving half of your paycheck to loan payments. 

This is the problem with means testing. The democrats were so obsessed with forgiving someone's loans who DIDN'T "deserve" it that they made this complex and half baked system of student loan forgiveness that helped some but left others hanging. Honestly, I dont care if student loan forgiveness isn't "progressive" in the sense that it helps primarily "the poor". I dont care if you forgive some doctor's loans while forgiving mine. You should FORGIVE ALL OF IT. 

I hate this philosophy of the democrats of needing to means test people, ensure they're worthy, and give them limited help. It's dumb. And it's alienating. A lesser man would turn conservative over this, because I know this is how my parents used to think. "I work so hard and I need help why dont democrats help me?" Because youre not "worthy" according to their twisted mindset. You have to prove your worthiness to them and if you arent their target audience, well, you're screwed.

While I appreciate what Biden's done, it's maddening to see him devise such a half baked plan that has so many holes and structural flaws with it. It really was politically calculated to ensure that it would help enough people that people would praise him about it, while deterring criticism (already getting downvotes on forums for speaking my mind), while not actually solving the worst of the problem.

So yeah, Bare Minimum Biden I guess. 

So did I underestimate how progressive Biden's student forgiveness plan is? A deeper analysis

 So, I shot my mouth off earlier today about Biden's student debt forgiveness plan without understanding off of the details, and apparently it is a bit more complex than just $10k in student loan forgiveness, so now I'm going to go over it in more detail. Plan here.

 Today, President Biden is announcing a three-part plan to provide more breathing room to America’s working families as they continue to recover from the strains associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. This plan offers targeted debt relief as part of a comprehensive effort to address the burden of growing college costs and make the student loan system more manageable for working families. The President is announcing that the Department of Education will:   

Provide targeted debt relief to address the financial harms of the pandemic, fulfilling the President’s campaign commitment. The Department of Education will provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the Department of Education, and up to $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients. Borrowers are eligible for this relief if their individual income is less than $125,000 ($250,000 for married couples). No high-income individual or high-income household – in the top 5% of incomes – will benefit from this action. To ensure a smooth transition to repayment and prevent unnecessary defaults, the pause on federal student loan repayment will be extended one final time through December 31, 2022. Borrowers should expect to resume payment in January 2023.

Ok, so pell grant recipients do get a bit more than I thought. Up to $20k. Still, given some people (including myself) have much larger student debt totals, this is still a drop in the bucket.  

Make the student loan system more manageable for current and future borrowers by:

 Cutting monthly payments in half for undergraduate loans. The Department of Education is proposing a new income-driven repayment plan that protects more low-income borrowers from making any payments and caps monthly payments for undergraduate loans at 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income—half of the rate that borrowers must pay now under most existing plans. This means that the average annual student loan payment will be lowered by more than $1,000 for both current and future borrowers. 

Eh, I don't really think that the IBR amount itself matters much. I think of it like a tax. You're taxed based on your income. Reducing how much you pay helps, but honestly, as I said, I kind of find IBR itself to be fair, and I wouldn't mind keeping it in some form if FULL forgiveness is off of the table. What's more important is to deal with things like interest and the tax bomb when the loans are forgiven. 

Fixing the broken Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program by proposing a rule that borrowers who have worked at a nonprofit, in the military, or in federal, state, tribal, or local government, receive appropriate credit toward loan forgiveness. These improvements will build on temporary changes the Department of Education has already made to PSLF, under which more than 175,000 public servants have already had more than $10 billion in loan forgiveness approved.

 I mean, this doesn't really sway me either way, PSLF has always existed since I've had loans at least, and I'm not really sure how much this helps.

Protect future students and taxpayers by reducing the cost of college and holding schools accountable when they hike up prices. The President championed the largest increase to Pell Grants in over a decade and one of the largest one-time influxes to colleges and universities. To further reduce the cost of college, the President will continue to fight to double the maximum Pell Grant and make community college free. Meanwhile, colleges have an obligation to keep prices reasonable and ensure borrowers get value for their investments, not debt they cannot afford. This Administration has already taken key steps to strengthen accountability, including in areas where the previous Administration weakened rules. The Department of Education is announcing new efforts to ensure student borrowers get value for their college costs.

 I mean, why not just fight to make all public college free? I don't understand why democrats try so hard to focus on these band aid type plans.

Provide Targeted Debt Relief, Fulfilling the President’s Campaign Commitment

To address the financial harms of the pandemic for low- and middle-income borrowers and avoid defaults as loan repayment restarts next year, the Department of Education will provide up to $20,000 in loan relief to borrowers with loans held by the Department of Education whose individual income is less than $125,000 ($250,000 for married couples) and who received a Pell Grant. Nearly every Pell Grant recipient came from a family that made less than $60,000 a year, and Pell Grant recipients typically experience more challenges repaying their debt than other borrowers. Borrowers who meet those income standards but did not receive a Pell Grant in college can receive up to $10,000 in loan relief.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I did get a pell grant one year so I like the extra help, but again, it's still too moderate, for one. Many people have totals way higher than this and we're just screwed. And for two, I mean, I just don't like the idea of focusing so much on means testing this stuff. Why means test it? Why separate the worthy from the unworthy? Everything Biden is doing here is just means testing and half measures. I don't understand why centrist dems are so willing to fragment their policies and make them worse just to fit this weird concept of justice of theirs. Especially when just blanket forgiving all of it is on the table.

The Pell Grant program is one of America’s most effective financial aid programs—but its value has been eroded over time. Pell Grant recipients are more than 60% of the borrower population. The Department of Education estimates that roughly 27 million borrowers will be eligible to receive up to $20,000 in relief, helping these borrowers meet their economic potential and avoid economic harm from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Current students with loans are eligible for this debt relief. Borrowers who are dependent students will be eligible for relief based on parental income, rather than their own income.

Again this is all well and good, but pell grants have always been a bit if a joke. They only provide like a few hundred dollars in aid. I mean, considering the cost of college, that's a drop in the bucket. 

If all borrowers claim the relief they are entitled to, these actions will:

• Provide relief to up to 43 million borrowers, including cancelling the full remaining balance for roughly 20 million borrowers.

I mean, sure, but what about the other 23 million, of which I am part of, for full transparency's sake? 

This is gonna eliminate like 1/3 of my loans, but that's about it. A lot of people, especially those who made the unfortunate decision to go to grad school like me, have much higher totals, and that's where I'm looking at this. This might help people well on their way, but people with the high debt totals are the ones who need the most help. They're SCREWED. I mean, as I said, focusing on stuff like interest and IBR tax bomb, if we're doing half measures, is more important for stuff like us. because that $10-20k will be added back onto us in a few years. And by the time we end up being "forgiven", we'll be responsible for taxes on the forgiven amount. Which given the interest rates, means OTHER troubles. 

It's messed up.

Target relief dollars to low- and middle-income borrowers. The Department of Education estimates that, among borrowers who are no longer in school, nearly 90% of relief dollars will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year. No individual making more than $125,000 or household making more than $250,000 – the top 5% of incomes in the United States – will receive relief.

I mean, sure. But idk why focus on the "progressiveness" of it. And I say this as someone without much of an income. And while someone with a higher income like $125k+ SHOULD be able to pay it off, as quite frankly, they're privileged as crap, some of those guys ahve debt totals that make mine look tiny. Especially the law school and med school crowd. I've heard of horror stories with people like $300k in debt and crap. 

Ya know? I mean, I think forgiving all of it is better. Accounts for everyone in their situation. All of this means testing helps some people while leaving others high and dry.

Help borrowers of all ages. The Department of Education estimates that, among borrowers who are eligible for relief, 21% are 25 years and under and 44% are ages 26-39. More than a third are borrowers age 40 and up, including 5% of borrowers who are senior citizens.

Idk how seniors still have student loans given IBR is a thing, but yeah. A lot of us are older.

Advance racial equity. By targeting relief to borrowers with the highest economic need, the Administration’s actions are likely to help narrow the racial wealth gap. Black students are more likely to have to borrow for school and more likely to take out larger loans. Black borrowers are twice as likely to have received Pell Grants compared to their white peers. Other borrowers of color are also more likely than their peers to receive Pell Grants. That is why an Urban Institute study found that debt forgiveness programs targeting those who received Pell Grants while in college will advance racial equity.

Ugh, is that why they did the pell grant thing? Granted im a white guy who had a pell grant so I'm grateful they did more for it, and they actually did do it in a colorblind way but again, trying to push this based on race just alienates me somewhat.

Why so much means testing? Like really. I think just helping everyone is better. 

 The Department of Education will work quickly and efficiently to set up a simple application process for borrowers to claim relief. The application will be available no later than when the pause on federal student loan repayments terminates at the end of the year. Nearly 8 million borrowers may be eligible to receive relief automatically because their relevant income data is already available to the Department.  

Ok so I get the impression people on IBR get it immediately. That's good. Less paperwork is good.

Thanks to the American Rescue Plan, this debt relief will not be treated as taxable income for the federal income tax purposes.

 Yeah it's good they're not tax bombing this.

To help ensure a smooth transition back to repayment, the Department of Education is extending the student loan pause a final time through December 31, 2022. No one with federally-held loans has had to pay a single dollar in loan payments since President Biden took office.

 Yeah, and Biden should just forgive all of it.

Make the Student Loan System More Manageable for Current and Future Borrowers

Fixing Existing Loan Repayment to Lower Monthly Payments

The Administration is reforming student loan repayment plans so both current and future low- and middle-income borrowers will have smaller and more manageable monthly payments.

The Department of Education has the authority to create income-driven repayment plans, which cap what borrowers pay each month based on a percentage of their discretionary income. Most of these plans cancel a borrower’s remaining debt once they make 20 years of monthly payments. But the existing versions of these plans are too complex and too limited. As a result, millions of borrowers who might benefit from them do not sign up, and the millions who do sign up are still often left with unmanageable monthly payments.

 I mean, I kind of found the process fair. But yeah, it should've been default. But I kind of found the payment levels fair. Like that isn't the concern. The concern is if you dont make enough of an income where you're actually paying it off, interest just accrues, meaning by the time they get forgiven, BOOM tax bomb. And then you end up having to pay taxes on an amount comparable to the principal you couldn't afford to pay off to begin with! Which just leaves you screwed another way. 

To address these concerns and follow through on Congress’ original vision for income-driven repayment, the Department of Education is proposing a rule to do the following:
For undergraduate loans, cut in half the amount that borrowers have to pay each month from 10% to 5% of discretionary income.

 Again, kind of feel this is unnecessary. 

Raise the amount of income that is considered non-discretionary income and therefore is protected from repayment, guaranteeing that no borrower earning under 225% of the federal poverty level—about the annual equivalent of a $15 minimum wage for a single borrower—will have to make a monthly payment.

 Cool, but then it just sits there growing interest at 8% a year because you're not paying it down. And did I mention tax bomb?

Forgive loan balances after 10 years of payments, instead of 20 years, for borrowers with original loan balances of $12,000 or less. The Department of Education estimates that this reform will allow nearly all community college borrowers to be debt-free within 10 years.

 This is kind of cool. But still, seems means testy. Everything he's doing is like "oh, gotta help the poor borrowers", "gotta help the community college people", "gotta help the black community", and it's like...ugh. JUST. HELP. EVERYONE. Like so many arbitrary rules and stipulations aimed at some groups but not at others. As I said, I feel like this plan does help some people, it forgives loans for almost half of borrowers outright, but if you're someone with a lot of debt, you're STILL up a creek, and they kind of assume you are just rich enough and have an income to be able to pay it off. Which isn't always true.

Cover the borrower’s unpaid monthly interest, so that unlike other existing income-driven repayment plans, no borrower’s loan balance will grow as long as they make their monthly payments—even when that monthly payment is $0 because their income is low.

 Okay, now THIS is huge. As I said this is a good half of the problem. If you aren't part of that group that is getting bailed out since they only went to undergrad and are now under $20k, you're basically screwed since not only do your loans remain, but you end up with interest. Like I'm on IBR. As I said, if you dont pay loans down on IBR due to low or lack of income, they just sit there accruing interest. So...yeah this actually does solve a significant portion of the problem.

These reforms would simplify loan repayment and deliver significant savings to low- and middle-income borrowers. For example:

 A typical single construction worker (making $38,000 a year) with a construction management credential would pay only $31 a month, compared to the $147 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of nearly $1,400.

 I dont really think $147 a month is unjust for someone making $38k a year, but lowering it is nice. And if they get rid of interest, yeah that helps. Still, that remaining total isn't going away....

A typical single public school teacher with an undergraduate degree (making $44,000 a year) would pay only $56 a month on their loans, compared to the $197 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of nearly $1,700.

 Again, to me the amount they pay isn't the issue. It's a nice change, but the problem is that that amount isn't going away. 

A typical nurse (making $77,000 a year) who is married with two kids would pay only $61 a month on their undergraduate loans, compared to the $295 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of more than $2,800.

 Uh, is paying $295 a month or something like $3600 a year really bad for someone making $77k? Like again, appreciate the gesture, but to me, the big problem is the remaining principle, and the interest. Of course he's solving the interest, but what of people who have large loan totals but don't actually pay it down because they're on IBR? Are they gonna be up a creek due to the tax bomb in 20 years?

For each of these borrowers, their balances would not grow as long as they are making their monthly payments, and their remaining debt would be forgiven after they make the required number of qualifying payments.

 Forgiven is good. But the tax bomb is bad. What about the tax bomb, Joe?

Further, the Department of Education will make it easier for borrowers who enroll in this new plan to stay enrolled. Starting in the summer of 2023, borrowers will be able to allow the Department of Education to automatically pull their income information year after year, avoiding the hassle of needing to recertify their income annually.

 Ah, modern and effective governance, I like this.

Ensuring Public Servants Receive Credit Toward Loan Forgiveness

Borrowers working in public service are entitled to earn credit toward debt relief under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. But because of complex eligibility restrictions, historic implementation failures, and poor counseling given to borrowers, many borrowers have not received the credit they deserve for their public service.

The Department of Education has announced time-limited changes to PSLF that provide an easier path to forgiveness of all outstanding debt for eligible federal student loan borrowers who have served at a non-profit, in the military, or in federal, state, Tribal, or local government for at least 10 years, including non-consecutively. Those who have served less than 10 years may now more easily get credit for their service to date toward eventual forgiveness. These changes allow eligible borrowers to gain additional credit toward forgiveness, even if they had been told previously that they had the wrong loan type.

The Department of Education also has proposed regulatory changes to ensure more effective implementation of the PSLF program moving forward. Specifically, the Department of Education has proposed allowing more payments to qualify for PSLF including partial, lump sum, and late payments, and allowing certain kinds of deferments and forbearances, such as those for Peace Corps and AmeriCorps service, National Guard duty, and military service, to count toward PSLF. The Department of Education also proposed to ensure the rules work better for non-tenured instructors whose colleges need to calculate their full-time employment.

To ensure borrowers are aware of the temporary changes, the White House has launched four PSLF Days of Action dedicated to borrowers in specific sectors: government employees, educators, healthcare workers and first responders, and non-profit employees. You can find out other information about the temporary changes on PSLF.gov. You must apply to PSLF before the temporary changes end on October 31, 2022.

 I mean I guess this is nice, but I just didn't really think it was that important. I mean, were there really that many holes there? I'm not familiar with the problems with PSLF.

Protecting Borrowers and Taxpayers from Steep Increases in College Costs

While providing this relief to low- and middle-income borrowers, the President is focused on keeping college costs under control. Under this Administration, students have had more money in their pockets to pay for college. The President signed the largest increase to the maximum Pell Grant in over a decade and provided nearly $40 billion to colleges and universities through the American Rescue Plan, much of which was used for emergency student financial aid, allowing students to breathe a little easier.

 Pell grants are a drop in the bucket, man. This is kind of weak.

Additionally, the Department of Education has already taken significant steps to strengthen accountability, so that students are not left with mountains of debt with little payoff. The agency has re-established the enforcement unit in the Office of Federal Student Aid and it is holding accreditors’ feet to the fire. In fact, the Department just withdrew authorization for the accreditor that oversaw schools responsible for some of the worst for-profit scandals. The agency will also propose a rule to hold career programs accountable for leaving their graduates with mountains of debt they cannot repay, a rule the previous Administration repealed.

Building off of these efforts, the Department of Education is announcing new actions to hold accountable colleges that have contributed to the student debt crisis. These include publishing an annual watch list of the programs with the worst debt levels in the country, so that students registering for the next academic year can steer clear of programs with poor outcomes. They also include requesting institutional improvement plans from the worst actors that outline how the colleges with the most concerning debt outcomes intend to bring down debt levels.

 I mean this is nice I guess. Still...

More information on claiming relief will be available to borrowers in the coming weeks.

Borrowers can sign up to be notified when this information is available at StudentAid.gov/debtrelief.

 Discussion

 Okay, so, final opinion on all of this? Eh, it's better than I first thought. It's not JUST taking off $10k and acting like that solves the problem. There is a lot of reform there, it actually does help somewhat, but it really doesn't go far enough.

Here's my story with this. I'm a dude who went to college, and then grad school, in the social sciences. I ended up accruing a decent amount of student debt, perhaps a bit more than the average borrower, but not apocalpytic levels like some law and med school degree people have. 

However, I was unable to get a job in my field after college. It turns out majoring in social sciences and not being anywhere near a major city is a terrible idea. There are few to no jobs. Most "opportunities" out of school were volunteer, or worked you insane levels for little pay. I remember one opening for a political campaign wanted me to work 100 hours a week for like $24k a year. It was ridiculous. I knew my degree wouldn't be high paying. But I kind of figured I'd be able to get a decent job in my field out of school, maybe with my local government. But, the opportunities weren't there, and many jobs required insane amounts of experience to even be considered. You need experience to get a job, you need a job to get experience. It's a joke. The whole system is a joke. Many opportunities weren't even near me. I'd have to commute like 1-2 hours a day each way to a city in a different part of the state just to get a job. And I didn't have a car, or an income for one. 

It was ridiculous. So...I ended up going on IBR. And that just means that while I don't have to make payments due to my income being low, the interest keeps accruing. And accruing. And accruing. And again, while one day they'll eventually be forgiven, well, then I have to deal with the IRS for another sum I can't pay, yay...

A lot of Biden's plan just...doesn't resonate with me. It comes off as very populist to me in the sense that it appears to help a lot of people, while not really doing a lot at all. It forgives just enough to say it does something where you come off looking like an entitled jerk if you dare suggest it didn't go far enough, and it's means tested to death. it's gonna be a lot like the ACA where it helped some people, and the democrats will be able to say "we forgave 20 million borrowers of all of their loans", while people like me are high and dry. And of course, the gaslighting will come in. I should be grateful I got something. I took out the loans, I should pay them back, you have an advanced degree, why aren't you making good money? Blah blah blah. I can hear it all now. 

This is why my parents were conservative. This kind of mentality the democrats have. The democrats have this plan to forgive SOME people their debt, but if you're not the intended target, well, you're considered rich or well to do or not worthy for some reason. And you dont get help, or dont get helped enough. 

There was WAY too much means testing with this plan. It was intended primarily to help people in certain situations, but not others. And if you don't fit the profile of the person they're trying to forgive, you aren't helped.

Like me. I mean, I get a sizeable chunk of my loans removed, but the vast majority remains. Honestly, the interest will be gone but the principle will remain. And while no more interest will accrue, eh....it still leaves me screwed.

And then there's the whole IBR thing. Like...they focus so much on lowering payments. Which is nice, but they seemed to forget about the looming tax bomb. Yall realize that after 20-25 years or whatever, you're on the hook for taxes for whatever is left, right? Granted, without interest accruing that total will be A LOT smaller than it otherwise would be, especially given how progressive tax rates are in this country. But still, we are talking being on the hook for thousands in taxes. At least it won't be tens of thousands any more for most of us, but yeah. 

Still, it helps. I'd say the $10-20k does help somewhat. The changes to IBR help somewhat, the interest thing is HUGE. Like, that's the big game changer. But honestly, I still think this should've gone further. Ideally, I support wiping all student debt and making college free. But barring that, I'd at least like to see the tax bomb gone on top of this. I mean that's the big thing. I mean, yall realize, for those of us with loans left, that we WILL have to pay taxes on the forgiven amount right?

I mean, just to do a little math on that based on income tax brackets as they exist:

$10,000- $1,001

$25,000- $2,801

$50,000- $6,749

$75,000- $12,248

$100,000- $18,021

You get the idea. So yeah if you happen to have a high student loan balance, but don't have an income to actually pay it off under IBR, yeah....you still have a weight hanging over you.

You see why I'm not particularly thrilled by this?

It does just enough to make enough people happy so enough people will turn into insufferable sycophants about how much this helped people...while leaving others high and dry.

Like, this is what I find infuriating about democrats and their policies. It's simple. There's a problem. Solve it. Just do it in a blanket fashion. But then they only wanna help you if you meet certain conditons and make under a certain income threshold, and qualified for certain help in the past, and they only really fix the problem somewhat, while leaving the rest of it fester.

They do this with healthcare too. The ACA did this too. It helped some, while not helping others.

Really. I just don't understand why the democrats can't just take the approach of "let's just fix this problem completely without preconditions". I swear this kind of stuff is so divisive and maddening. because the people left not fully helped are like "hey still a problem here" and then the rest of society treats you as unworthy, tells you you should be grateful for what was done, and tells you you don't deserve help.

And even worse, it actually just divides people. Im already hearing some people grumbling and acting like Biden shouldnt have done anything because THEY weren't helped either, either having paid off loans already, never had loans, or are like me and are still left with a high balance they can't pay off. 

And that just drives some people to become conservative. 

It's dumb. While I do appreciate the help given, this plan does feel kind of half baked, and should've done so much more. Oh well, at least now my debt won't balloon to 6 figures under IBR now.