Message from @Putz

Discord ID: 589588083431964684


2019-06-15 17:59:00 UTC  

Guam is a us territory

2019-06-15 17:59:10 UTC  

It's like old Hawaii there's a couple industries that dominate and then basically dictate everything

2019-06-15 18:00:21 UTC  

Well so are Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Wake Islands, etc.

2019-06-15 18:01:26 UTC  

Anyhow this is way off the origional debate plantation. How do we know when a debate is over in this silly channel :p

2019-06-15 18:04:50 UTC  

As for the freeze, i would propose no freeze, let the loan issuer and the loan taker negotiate the terms of the loan. This would allow other market ideas such as income based repayment into the marketplace

2019-06-15 18:07:35 UTC  

As for the freeze I don't care about the freeze, only that there are other debt based products that freeze interest rates for a certain period of time. I think the best solution for the current bubble is to establish a federal private organization and have them begin putting the debt on secondary markets, maybe collateralize it. Sure, there'll be fire at the disco, and panic at the taco bell, but at least the bubble can be slowly deflated rather than burst at once.

2019-06-15 18:10:30 UTC  

Also @Putz here if you want to use medical price data for debates: https://www.healthcostinstitute.org/blog/entry/hmi-2019-service-prices

2019-06-15 18:14:08 UTC  

```Administrative costs, meanwhile, accounted for 8 percent of total national health expenditures in the U.S. For the other countries, they ranged from 1 percent to 3 percent. ```

2019-06-15 18:43:53 UTC  

@Putz without a freeze there will be people paying interest for the rest of their lives unless they're bailed out.

We're going to get to a point where people are going to need a means to escape from the hole thats been dug. It's either freeze interest, which is largely going to not burdain tax payers, or some other program is going to be voted on that uses tax dollars to pay off their loans.

2019-06-15 18:44:14 UTC  

Without doing something, then socialist policies WILL be put into place. It's inevitable.

2019-06-15 18:52:27 UTC  

And also there is something unethical about dooming people to be perpetually in debt for the rest of their lives because they made a mistake when they're less than 22

2019-06-15 18:54:32 UTC  

@DJ_Anuz

1) freezing the interest is a socialist policy. Your just picking which policy to implement
2) freezing interest is a burdain to the tax payer. Money has alternative uses. If you do an ROI on rhat money im confident interest free loans will not score well

2019-06-15 18:56:30 UTC  

The average school debt from borrowers (i.e. the amount is inflated because it doesnt include non borrowers) is 37k. It shouldn't take a lifetime to pay off 37k

2019-06-15 18:57:51 UTC  

And if your argument is a person should not be held accountable for a decision they make at 22. Then your real argument shouldn't be about a freeze, it should be to raise the age of emancipation

2019-06-15 18:59:20 UTC  

1: freezing interest after 10 years is not socialism. There is no redistribution of resources.
2: freezing interest after 10 years is not a burdain on the tax payer. It doesn't touch tax dollars. It might cause lenders to hike up interest rates, but that doesn't affect tax payers.

The average school debt is 37k because you have a generation of older people that went to school when costs were cheaper.

The average millennial has upwards of 50k.

You're strawmanning if freezing interest after ten years is not holding students accountable. You still have to pay off the loan, and your still paying over an extra 50 percent of the loan in interest.

2019-06-15 19:04:30 UTC  

It is not a strawman it is fact. The debate was on student debt not student debt for people in a certain age group.

So your now wantseperate policies based on age group, but not government backed, just federal government regulated, with no cap on interest rates or fees but a freeze on interest accrual after 10 years?

Do i have that right? I want to make sure i understand your debate platform

2019-06-15 19:30:28 UTC  

The solutions are easy

Stop the bleed, can't heal the wound until bleedin stops
1) no more federal backed loans, loans should be subject to market forces
2) parents need to take ownership of their kids education. If the schools aren't preparing kids to make education decisions then they need to get involved in the PTA, etc to get the right types of education in the schools, and if the school aren't providing the education get the education outside of the school
3) corporations and industries need to push for educational standards from higher education. This can be dome through industry certification programs and placing certification requirements on job postings

Heal the wounds
1) government will have to continue to own existing loans unless they can be sold at reasonable prices
2) government can continue offering payoff options. Not that there are already several options on the books such as the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program and College Loan Repayment Programs (CLRP)

2019-06-15 19:44:11 UTC  

None of those actually help people that already have debt except for the CLRP, but that's limited in scope and without an expansion of "free college for all" won't solve the problem that's knocking at our door.
You can't sell existing student loans unless you bring back indentured servitude.

Most millennials I know that have student loan debt have parents that are still paying off their loans so I don't see how putting the blame on their parents solves anything.

2019-06-15 20:20:32 UTC  

So you continue to not clearly define your position.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program does help with existing debt

When i say sell existing loans, i'm talking about the government selling them to private institutions

What is the problem knocking at our door? You haven't clearly defined you position, what problem you hope to resolve, or why your idea is superior to any other.

Millenials with parenta who have student debt supports why parents should be involved in educating kids about student debt not an excuse for why they can't. They know first hand the long term impact of the decision take out loans for education

2019-06-15 22:07:45 UTC  

How the hell have I not defined my position? It seems like you're the only one that doesn't understand it.

The public service loan forgiveness program isn't expansive enough to cover everything.

Private institutions buying student loans wouldn't even make a difference. Why would lending agencies buy loans that have 0 liability protection (you can't for lose education).

The problem knocking at our door is an entire generation of students who will be saddled with debt perpetually that they have no chance of paying off in their lifetime.

Regardless of what parents should teach their kids, the reality is that as a societal whole children and parents have been taught for the past 50 years that to succeed you need to go to college. Putting all the blame on individuals when the problem stems from collective effort is like blaming an individual for being a cannibal, if they grew up in a society of cannibals.

You have yet to prove why freezing interest after 10 years would be a bad thing other than it would make it impossible for the lending agencies to perpetually recieve interest payments for the life span of most millennials. Which imo is retarded since even with 50% profit margins they can still keep an extremely valuable business model, (and that's not even factoring in that they could raise interest rates.)

2019-06-15 22:52:33 UTC  

Okay so the problem you want to fix is that people will not pay off their loans before they die?

I already proved why freezing interest after 10 years is a bad thing.

1) it removes any incentive once the 10 year mark is hit, to pay off before the 30 year mark

2) all loans will have to be front loaded with fees and interest to offset the interest frozen years 10-30. This increases the costs on those who pay off the loan before year 10.

3) it is a socialist program because if it was profitable free markets would do it. They aren't because the model is not valuable.

4) a 50% profit on a 30 year loan is an APR of 1.36%. This does not include administrative costs or any offsets for relative risk. Why would an investor accept a 1.36% APR?

2019-06-15 22:55:59 UTC  

Your positioned is not defined because you haven't illustrated who should create the freeze. Government or business or what level of government. You say that government should not back the loans so i would assume that means you want it run by business so you would have to convince them that the rate of return justifies your solution or via government regulation (again what level of government). Which still leads to the issue of what business would enter into the business model if the rate of return is this bad. Instead of complying with the regulation, they would simply not participate.

2019-06-15 23:06:46 UTC  

So freeze interest at 10 years and jack it way up at 30 years lol

2019-06-15 23:08:19 UTC  

I get the problem DJ wants to fix and i think it needs to be fixed. I don't have any clue what the right answer is but I'm not really sure if freezing interest at 10 years will fix the problem.

2019-06-15 23:17:37 UTC  

Here are alternatives:

1) a credit freeze until the debt is paid off

2) take the money from other entitlements, i.e. no access to other government programs until debt is repaid

3) take out debt payment directly from paychecks (that's how NZ does it)

4) treat it like all other debts, what the system was designed for

Im not buying that people cannot pay a 36k loan back in their lifetime as a fact. I think the paying back may interfer with other life goals such as family creation, owning a home, starting a business, etc.

It is morally objectionable to move the burden of higher education from people with high earning potential to people with low earning potential and people who did not place the same burden on society (those who paid for school themselves or through other programs like the military)

2019-06-15 23:19:14 UTC  

i'm into all 5 options at least a little until i really see how they'll perform

2019-06-15 23:19:18 UTC  

i'm into the idea of them

2019-06-15 23:56:22 UTC  

The freeze makes no sense i can see no reason for it rather than reducing the cost of the loan. Then why not just recommend reducing the APR to 1.36% so it doesn't come with reverse incentive of no advantage of paying off before year 30 after you've reached year 10.

2019-06-15 23:56:47 UTC  

@Putz 1: Freezing interest does nothing to disincentevize paying off your loan once it's frozen as you HAVE to make the minimum payments to pay it off by year thirty otherwise 2) in your second response comes into play.

2: All loans would have to be front loaded. That would be the whole point. It would naturally reduce the number of people that take out loans for education which is retarded.

3: Socialism isn't anything that wasn't brought up by the free market.

4: a 50% profit is what would occur on loans with an APR of 5% right now. The whole idea is that interest rates for student loans would rise to discourage people getting loans in the first place.

"You say that government should not back the loans so i would assume that means you want it run by business so you would have to convince them that the rate of return justifies your solution or via government regulation"

Yeah, I think that businesses should have free reign to offer whatever loans they want. The problem is that right now the government backs student loans so you can't declare bankruptcy and liquidate your assets. Remove that and people will stop offering 100k loans because they're a bad investment.

2019-06-15 23:56:48 UTC  

🆙 | **DJ_Anuz leveled up!**

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/586033832277442590/589604251853127694/levelUp.png

2019-06-15 23:58:19 UTC  

Conversly with a 1.36% APR or effectively a 1.36% APR with the freeze what insentive is there to prioritize paying off a student loan over higher interest debts like home morgage, credit card, or car loan

2019-06-15 23:59:28 UTC  

Socialism is when society shares the cost of your burden

2019-06-16 00:00:20 UTC  

If you want to front load the cost of student loans, why not just reduce the payback period to 10 years?

2019-06-16 00:00:21 UTC  

As far as your response to youtube goes:

1) That solution would make multiple generations ineligible to purchase anything they don't have the cash for.

2) That already happens if you don't pay off your minimum balance for 270 days

3) Again, this happens already, but that doesn't solve the issue of perpetual debt due to interest

4) You can't just wave a magic wand like that for existing loans.

2019-06-16 00:00:35 UTC  

No one could fucking do that man.

2019-06-16 00:00:47 UTC  

You can't pay off 100k in ten years.

2019-06-16 00:01:21 UTC  

In an ideal world student loans would be treated like any other loan, and no one would back them so the only people that go to school are the ones that can afford it with cash

2019-06-16 00:01:43 UTC  

I paid off my 400k house in 6.5 years. So yes you i can pay off 100k in ten years, try again

2019-06-16 00:01:55 UTC  

Not everyone makes over 100k a year dude.

2019-06-16 00:02:04 UTC  

"I did it, so why can't anyone else?"

2019-06-16 00:02:22 UTC  

Fuck that's narcisicistic man.