14 ms·

Well, more proof that demagoguery works as usual.

bayindirh 6y ago
In my uneducated guess, it can be a sense of immediacy too. They can feel the college debt, but not the mass surveillance. People think that they have nothing to worry if they do nothing wrong, which is not correct obviously. So the issue of surveillance is very hard to understand at once. On the other hand, they can see their college debt and feel their effects first hand. A prioritization similar to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
- leppr 6y ago
  This prioritization of issues (where for a rational actor, economics will most often be at the top), is why democratic republic systems don't allow democracy to permeate less "important" issues. Citizens don't get to vote on how much surveillance they want, they chose from 2 big bundles of unrelated positions, with surveillance-related positions buried within. The 2 parties might both have unpopular opinions on surveillance, the issue is comparatively not pressing enough to have any influence on their candidacy.
  - bayindirh 6y ago
    So, can we say that we hit the scalability limits of indirect democracy?
    - leppr 6y ago
      I think it can be satisfactory under certain conditions. City-scale works because people can vote with their feet (the binary Keynesian beauty contest has an escape hatch), diversity is somewhat limited, and there is somewhat more accountability (the mayor lives in the same city, walks the same streets as its inhabitants). But it's certainly not democratic at the scale of a country-continent such as the USA. Their citizens don't have the freedom to vote with their feet (even less than other countries due to the unique tax on citizenship that follows them around the world), and city/countryside people have opposing opinions on many important issues.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  College-debt cancellation is currently being discussed on a shallow level, so it’s easier to discuss. Mass surveillance needs some in-depth thought that requires a principled approach to simple questions like ‘if you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?’. Most people can’t make it past that one point, so it’s an intellectually stunted topic at the moment. If we sat here and said we will cancel college debt, refund everyone that actually paid for college their money, refund those who paid their college loans, then refund everyone that went to college ever with an inflation-adjusted amount, then we come to the core of the issue of the price of education, and what is fair when you give amnesty to one group of college goers but not others. The true debate is about fairness, and on a technical level, what is affordable, and lastly who bears responsibility of giving and taking loans. Anyone truly ready to discuss this in-depth? Or do we just want to say the rent is too damn high?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    The whole purpose of student loans is to allow politicians to simultaneously claim low taxes AND assistance to students. Politician A says they will help students by funding higher education and lowering tuition, but will have to implement higher taxes than politician B who says they will help students by enabling students to borrow unlimited amounts of money from the federal government. Politician B will win the election every time, because voters want lower taxes more than helping those below them in the socioeconomic order. Higher education facilities will raise prices because people that work at those facilities like more money than less money. The customers have infinite amounts of money due to being able to borrow as much as they want, and don’t have fully formed brains nor the requisite education or guidance to be able to calculate return on investment to make an informed decision.
    - frockington1 6y ago
      And the free money encourages people to go to college who probably should not. It's a predatory loan disguised as a handout to the poor. Nothing sets people up for a lifetime of failure quicker than $120k private school soft science degree
phobosanomaly 6y ago
People are buried in enough crippling debt that keeps them from leading a life that has enough breathing room to pontificate about the implications of a the government reading their web-browsing history. If you're worried about paying rent, and whether you have enough in the bank to replace the bald tires on your '97 Civic, are you really going to riot in the streets over the government collecting some data that they will never use against a tiny cog in the machine such as yourself?
- randomchars 6y ago
  As someone living in an ex-soviet controlled state, I find it very offensive that you think the state won't ever use the data against a little cog. They do. We even have a museum about the terror commited against the everyday tiny little cogs.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    I'm sorry that you're offended. I'm talking about the United States in 2020, not the former Soviet Bloc. Our threat vector is local police, not the state surveillance apparatus. Don't know if you happened to catch it on the news, but we burned down a bunch of stuff, and millions of us marched in the streets over it this past summer.
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      > but we burned down a bunch of stuff, and millions of us marched in the streets over it this past summer. Sounds more like you are the threat vector, with the whole burning things down thing and stuff.
      - phobosanomaly 6y ago
        Ah, well, fair enough. It's 'we' as in 'we' rowdy Americans getting out and exercising the First Amendment, with a minority of protestors committing some property crimes along the way. A common sentiment among those who committed those property crimes was 'no one listened to us before we started burning buildings,' and in this sense I have a sympathy for their claims. I don't believe that the 2020 protests will ultimately be found to have been on the wrong side of history. My grandfather, as an old old man, still referred to MLK as the 'bane of the south.' In his time, the civil unrest of the Civil Rights movement was an unforgivable disruption to the lives of ordinary white folks, and...well, we all know 50 years later that this was such a trivial complaint in the face of the great progress made in healing a society still dealing with the ripple effects of a most monstrous institution, which our nation firmly embraced without hesitation upon its founding. We are still grappling with the fact that when my father was a boy African Americans had to enter through the 'colored' entrance, and the song 'Strange Fruit' was disturbingly still relevant. Remember Emmett Till was lynched in 1955. That's not that long ago. The wounds are still raw. The vast majority of protestors were peaceful, and the point of the protests was that law enforcement should no longer be able to commit violence with impunity against those without a voice. Many, including myself, have expressed sorrow at the damage done to small businesses over the course of the civil actions. But, it's good to see a robust and healthy willingness of the citizenry to turn out in order to oppose just the kind of targeting of the little guy that our friend from the former Soviet Bloc is concerned about.
mehrdadn 6y ago
It might work, but I'm not sure this is proof of that. Say you're currently in $30k college debt. You're basically being asked to pay $30k to protect your privacy. Would you pay that? Is it irrational to reject it?
- randomchars 6y ago
  I've got student loans myself, quite a lot. However when I asked for them I made sure that the profession I choose is profitable enough that I will be able to repay them. I'd never ask other people to repay it for me, not would I ask my government. I'm an adult and take responsibility for my actions.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    I'd wonder if the same government that's willing/able to spy on me are also willing/able to influence relative success of certain industries or even specific success of certain companies. How much of my career decision would truly be mine if several of my possibilities say "poverty subsistence" or "early death" and I have to accept that or toss those possibilities out?
  - officeplant 6y ago
    And I did well enough in school to get scholarships and avoid college debt. Congrats we both beat the system currently destroying thousands of students. That doesn't mean we should avoid fixing it.
    - HexagonalKitten 6y ago
      "Fixes" that are moral hazards often don't fix anything. The schools wasted everyone's time and money, from inflated rates to useless courses. If anyone should eat the debt, it's them.
upbeat_general 6y ago
I don’t think you fully understand what having large student loans can mean for a person. Sure not everyone has 100k+ in loans but either way it’s not irrational to be concerned about immediate financial issues as opposed to mass surveillance. Not everyone has a stem degree as a result of their loans and plenty of people with degrees struggle to make ends meet
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Is there a mechanism for insolvency for debts this large in the US? I believe I would have skipped higher education if such debt would have been the result. I imagine these policies came from a time where a degree was sure to net you a well paid job. Seems unfitting for todays time especially since the logistical problems of education are irrelevant with modern communication infrastructure.
  - _trampeltier 6y ago
    No, there is no insolvency for student debt. In some states you even lose your driving licence if you don't pay.
    - vonmoltke 6y ago
      That's not true. It's hard, but not impossible as many people think: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/797330613/myth-busted-turns-out-bankruptcy-can-wipe-out-student-loan-debt-after-all https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/797330613/myth-busted-turns-o...
  - Lammy 6y ago
    It's been a progression to nondischargeability over a few decades. - 1978: Student debt first made nondischargeable, for loans less than five years old at time of filing: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg2549.pdf#page=43 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-9... § 523. Exceptions to discharge (a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— (8) to a governmental unit, or a nonprofit institution of higher education, for an educational loan, unless— (A) such loan first became due before five years before the date of the filing of the petition; or (B) excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph will impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor's dependents; or - 1990: nondischargeability waiting period was later extended to seven years: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg4789.pdf#page=176 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-... § 3621. Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is amended— (1) by striking "for an educational" and all that follows through "unless", and inserting the following: "for an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution, or for an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship or stipend, unless"; end (2) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows: "(A) such loan, benefit, scholarship, or stipend overpayment first became due more than 7 years (exclusive of any applicable suspension of the repayment period) before the date of the filing of the petition; or". - 1998: waiting period removed completely, making government-insured student loans nondischargeable: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ244/pdf/PLAW-105publ244.pdf#page=257 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ244/pdf/PLAW... § 971. NONDISCHARGEABILITY OF CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS PROVIDED TO OBTAIN HIGHER EDUCATION. (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by striking "unless—" and all that follows through "(B) excepting such debt" and inserting "unless excepting such debt". - 2005: Nondischargeability expanded to include private student loans as well: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ8/pdf/PLAW-109publ8.pdf#page=37 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ8/pdf/PLAW-1... § 220. NONDISCHARGEABILITY OF CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS AND LOANS. Section 523(a) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following: "(8) unless excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor's dependents, for— "(A)(i) an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution; or "(ii) an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend; or "(B) any other educational loan that is a qualified education loan, as defined in section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, incurred by a debtor who is an individual;". - …and, because I was curious what counts as "qualified": https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title26/pdf/USCODE-2009-title26.pdf#page=820 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title26/pdf/... (1) Qualified education loan The term "qualified education loan" means any indebtedness incurred by the taxpayer solely to pay qualified higher education expenses— (A) which are incurred on behalf of the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent of the taxpayer as of the time the indebtedness was incurred, (B) which are paid or incurred within a reasonable period of time before or after the indebtedness is incurred, and (C) which are attributable to education furnished during a period during which the recipient was an eligible student. Such term includes indebtedness used to refinance indebtedness which qualifies as a qualified education loan. The term "qualified education loan" shall not include any indebtedness owed to a person who is related (within the meaning of section 267(b) or 707(b)(1)) to the taxpayer or to any person by reason of a loan under any qualified employer plan (as de-fined in section 72(p)(4)) or under any contract referred to in section 72(p)(5).

In my uneducated guess, it can be a sense of immediacy too. They can feel the college debt, but not the mass surveillance. People think that they have nothing to worry if they do nothing wrong, which is not correct obviously. So the issue of surveillance is very hard to understand at once. On the other hand, they can see their college debt and feel their effects first hand. A prioritization similar to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

leppr 6y ago
This prioritization of issues (where for a rational actor, economics will most often be at the top), is why democratic republic systems don't allow democracy to permeate less "important" issues. Citizens don't get to vote on how much surveillance they want, they chose from 2 big bundles of unrelated positions, with surveillance-related positions buried within. The 2 parties might both have unpopular opinions on surveillance, the issue is comparatively not pressing enough to have any influence on their candidacy.
- bayindirh 6y ago
  So, can we say that we hit the scalability limits of indirect democracy?
  - leppr 6y ago
    I think it can be satisfactory under certain conditions. City-scale works because people can vote with their feet (the binary Keynesian beauty contest has an escape hatch), diversity is somewhat limited, and there is somewhat more accountability (the mayor lives in the same city, walks the same streets as its inhabitants). But it's certainly not democratic at the scale of a country-continent such as the USA. Their citizens don't have the freedom to vote with their feet (even less than other countries due to the unique tax on citizenship that follows them around the world), and city/countryside people have opposing opinions on many important issues.
runawaybottle 6y ago
College-debt cancellation is currently being discussed on a shallow level, so it’s easier to discuss. Mass surveillance needs some in-depth thought that requires a principled approach to simple questions like ‘if you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?’. Most people can’t make it past that one point, so it’s an intellectually stunted topic at the moment. If we sat here and said we will cancel college debt, refund everyone that actually paid for college their money, refund those who paid their college loans, then refund everyone that went to college ever with an inflation-adjusted amount, then we come to the core of the issue of the price of education, and what is fair when you give amnesty to one group of college goers but not others. The true debate is about fairness, and on a technical level, what is affordable, and lastly who bears responsibility of giving and taking loans. Anyone truly ready to discuss this in-depth? Or do we just want to say the rent is too damn high?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The whole purpose of student loans is to allow politicians to simultaneously claim low taxes AND assistance to students. Politician A says they will help students by funding higher education and lowering tuition, but will have to implement higher taxes than politician B who says they will help students by enabling students to borrow unlimited amounts of money from the federal government. Politician B will win the election every time, because voters want lower taxes more than helping those below them in the socioeconomic order. Higher education facilities will raise prices because people that work at those facilities like more money than less money. The customers have infinite amounts of money due to being able to borrow as much as they want, and don’t have fully formed brains nor the requisite education or guidance to be able to calculate return on investment to make an informed decision.
  - frockington1 6y ago
    And the free money encourages people to go to college who probably should not. It's a predatory loan disguised as a handout to the poor. Nothing sets people up for a lifetime of failure quicker than $120k private school soft science degree

phobosanomaly 6y ago

People are buried in enough crippling debt that keeps them from leading a life that has enough breathing room to pontificate about the implications of a the government reading their web-browsing history. If you're worried about paying rent, and whether you have enough in the bank to replace the bald tires on your '97 Civic, are you really going to riot in the streets over the government collecting some data that they will never use against a tiny cog in the machine such as yourself?

randomchars 6y ago
As someone living in an ex-soviet controlled state, I find it very offensive that you think the state won't ever use the data against a little cog. They do. We even have a museum about the terror commited against the everyday tiny little cogs.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  I'm sorry that you're offended. I'm talking about the United States in 2020, not the former Soviet Bloc. Our threat vector is local police, not the state surveillance apparatus. Don't know if you happened to catch it on the news, but we burned down a bunch of stuff, and millions of us marched in the streets over it this past summer.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    > but we burned down a bunch of stuff, and millions of us marched in the streets over it this past summer. Sounds more like you are the threat vector, with the whole burning things down thing and stuff.
    - phobosanomaly 6y ago
      Ah, well, fair enough. It's 'we' as in 'we' rowdy Americans getting out and exercising the First Amendment, with a minority of protestors committing some property crimes along the way. A common sentiment among those who committed those property crimes was 'no one listened to us before we started burning buildings,' and in this sense I have a sympathy for their claims. I don't believe that the 2020 protests will ultimately be found to have been on the wrong side of history. My grandfather, as an old old man, still referred to MLK as the 'bane of the south.' In his time, the civil unrest of the Civil Rights movement was an unforgivable disruption to the lives of ordinary white folks, and...well, we all know 50 years later that this was such a trivial complaint in the face of the great progress made in healing a society still dealing with the ripple effects of a most monstrous institution, which our nation firmly embraced without hesitation upon its founding. We are still grappling with the fact that when my father was a boy African Americans had to enter through the 'colored' entrance, and the song 'Strange Fruit' was disturbingly still relevant. Remember Emmett Till was lynched in 1955. That's not that long ago. The wounds are still raw. The vast majority of protestors were peaceful, and the point of the protests was that law enforcement should no longer be able to commit violence with impunity against those without a voice. Many, including myself, have expressed sorrow at the damage done to small businesses over the course of the civil actions. But, it's good to see a robust and healthy willingness of the citizenry to turn out in order to oppose just the kind of targeting of the little guy that our friend from the former Soviet Bloc is concerned about.

mehrdadn 6y ago

It might work, but I'm not sure this is proof of that. Say you're currently in $30k college debt. You're basically being asked to pay $30k to protect your privacy. Would you pay that? Is it irrational to reject it?

randomchars 6y ago
I've got student loans myself, quite a lot. However when I asked for them I made sure that the profession I choose is profitable enough that I will be able to repay them. I'd never ask other people to repay it for me, not would I ask my government. I'm an adult and take responsibility for my actions.
- Lammy 6y ago
  I'd wonder if the same government that's willing/able to spy on me are also willing/able to influence relative success of certain industries or even specific success of certain companies. How much of my career decision would truly be mine if several of my possibilities say "poverty subsistence" or "early death" and I have to accept that or toss those possibilities out?
- officeplant 6y ago
  And I did well enough in school to get scholarships and avoid college debt. Congrats we both beat the system currently destroying thousands of students. That doesn't mean we should avoid fixing it.
  - HexagonalKitten 6y ago
    "Fixes" that are moral hazards often don't fix anything. The schools wasted everyone's time and money, from inflated rates to useless courses. If anyone should eat the debt, it's them.

upbeat_general 6y ago

I don’t think you fully understand what having large student loans can mean for a person. Sure not everyone has 100k+ in loans but either way it’s not irrational to be concerned about immediate financial issues as opposed to mass surveillance. Not everyone has a stem degree as a result of their loans and plenty of people with degrees struggle to make ends meet

raxxorrax 6y ago
Is there a mechanism for insolvency for debts this large in the US? I believe I would have skipped higher education if such debt would have been the result. I imagine these policies came from a time where a degree was sure to net you a well paid job. Seems unfitting for todays time especially since the logistical problems of education are irrelevant with modern communication infrastructure.
- _trampeltier 6y ago
  No, there is no insolvency for student debt. In some states you even lose your driving licence if you don't pay.
  - vonmoltke 6y ago
    That's not true. It's hard, but not impossible as many people think: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/797330613/myth-busted-turns-out-bankruptcy-can-wipe-out-student-loan-debt-after-all https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/797330613/myth-busted-turns-o...
- Lammy 6y ago
  It's been a progression to nondischargeability over a few decades. - 1978: Student debt first made nondischargeable, for loans less than five years old at time of filing: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg2549.pdf#page=43 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-9... § 523. Exceptions to discharge (a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— (8) to a governmental unit, or a nonprofit institution of higher education, for an educational loan, unless— (A) such loan first became due before five years before the date of the filing of the petition; or (B) excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph will impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor's dependents; or - 1990: nondischargeability waiting period was later extended to seven years: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg4789.pdf#page=176 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-... § 3621. Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is amended— (1) by striking "for an educational" and all that follows through "unless", and inserting the following: "for an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution, or for an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship or stipend, unless"; end (2) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows: "(A) such loan, benefit, scholarship, or stipend overpayment first became due more than 7 years (exclusive of any applicable suspension of the repayment period) before the date of the filing of the petition; or". - 1998: waiting period removed completely, making government-insured student loans nondischargeable: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ244/pdf/PLAW-105publ244.pdf#page=257 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ244/pdf/PLAW... § 971. NONDISCHARGEABILITY OF CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS PROVIDED TO OBTAIN HIGHER EDUCATION. (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by striking "unless—" and all that follows through "(B) excepting such debt" and inserting "unless excepting such debt". - 2005: Nondischargeability expanded to include private student loans as well: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ8/pdf/PLAW-109publ8.pdf#page=37 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ8/pdf/PLAW-1... § 220. NONDISCHARGEABILITY OF CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS AND LOANS. Section 523(a) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following: "(8) unless excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor's dependents, for— "(A)(i) an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution; or "(ii) an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend; or "(B) any other educational loan that is a qualified education loan, as defined in section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, incurred by a debtor who is an individual;". - …and, because I was curious what counts as "qualified": https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title26/pdf/USCODE-2009-title26.pdf#page=820 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title26/pdf/... (1) Qualified education loan The term "qualified education loan" means any indebtedness incurred by the taxpayer solely to pay qualified higher education expenses— (A) which are incurred on behalf of the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent of the taxpayer as of the time the indebtedness was incurred, (B) which are paid or incurred within a reasonable period of time before or after the indebtedness is incurred, and (C) which are attributable to education furnished during a period during which the recipient was an eligible student. Such term includes indebtedness used to refinance indebtedness which qualifies as a qualified education loan. The term "qualified education loan" shall not include any indebtedness owed to a person who is related (within the meaning of section 267(b) or 707(b)(1)) to the taxpayer or to any person by reason of a loan under any qualified employer plan (as de-fined in section 72(p)(4)) or under any contract referred to in section 72(p)(5).