4 ms·

The impression I’ve had is that he is against broad forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. It’s been a political minefield in that he doesn’t wan

The impression I’ve had is that he is against broad forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. It’s been a political minefield in that he doesn’t want to piss off his base. It appears my impression is wrong but I do believe he wants repayments to start again. Note though that the $10,000 forgiveness is less than what he campaigned on. We should not confuse, in general, new program initiatives as an indication that this is what the politician proposing the initiative wants. Sometimes proposals have to be made to appease the base.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> The impression I’ve had is that he is against broad forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. Okay, but what is the basis for this impression? > Note though that the $10,000 forgiveness is less than what he campaigned on. The $10,000-$20,000 foregiveness plan (with an income cap) is less universal the “at least” $10,000 he called on Congress to provide all borrowers during the campaign, as President-elect after the campaign, and sought (but was rebuffed on) as President in the stimulus bill. It's what he thought he could justify as executive action under HEROES (and even that turned out to be wrong), not what he wanted. > We should not confuse, in general, new program initiatives as an indication that this is what the politician proposing the initiative wants. Absent specific, articulable, evidence-based reasons to believe otherwise, we certainly should take them as exactly that, especially when they keep coming back with different approaches when rebuffed. > Sometimes proposals have to be made to appease the base. Yes, but the claim that any particular proposal is merely a sop to the base should be backed by evidence; the fact that it is sometimes true does not, by itself, support ascribing that basis to any particular policy proposal.
- synetic 3y ago
  I agreed that I was wrong. I think you missed that part. Absent specific, articulable, evidence-based reasons to believe otherwise, we certainly should take them as exactly that, especially when they keep coming back with different approaches when rebuffed. No. This is way too impractical. You yourself don’t follow this criteria. I suggest you read up on hunches, gut feelings, and things like that. Give you an example. It was always clear that Republican politicians, as a whole, didn’t want to get rid of Obamacare because Obamacare was a Republican plan all along. They blustered and said they’d get rid of it but when they had control of both houses and the Presidency they didn’t get rid of it. I can’t point to a specific thing that gave me the impression they would not actually get rid of it but I was certain they wouldn’t follow through. People, especially politicians, can’t be taken at their word just because one doesn’t have specific, articulable, evidence based reasons. If you really operate in real life this way then you are a dupe.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > No. This is way too impractical. You yourself don’t follow this criteria. Yes, I do. > I suggest you read up on hunches, gut feelings, and things like that. They are very good aids in deciding when to expend more effort looking for facts, they aren’t on their own a great basis for conclusions and even less for public arguments for those conclusions. > It was always clear that Republican politicians, as a whole, didn’t want to get rid of Obamacare because Obamacare was a Republican plan all along. See, that's a specific, articulable reason for the belief that it was an insincere desire. (A bad one, IMO, and one which is counterindicated not only by specific other evidence regarding the mechanics by which they sought to destroy it, but also by the fact that it wasn’t a Republican plan, and by the specific times and contexts similar, but different, plans had been embraced by Republicans, and by the plans Republicans, and the industry from whom the similar plans once embraced by Republicans had gotten the plans in the first place, had moved on to in the interim, but that's a whole different argument.) > People, especially politicians, can’t be taken at their word Substantive policy actions are different than mere words.
    - synetic 3y ago
      Your understanding of how people ought to make conclusions and operate in the world is deeply flawed. No one, including you, has the time and means to find the level of specificity you seem to require in order to decide what their impressions are in terms of the motives of other people. Republicans during Obama’s Presidency many times passed legislation to dismantle the ACA. They did so knowing he would veto the bills. He did so. When they gained both houses of Congress and the Presidency they didn’t dismantle it. The ACA is still around. They have no replacement idea for it because it’s already their idea. We won’t agree on anything. You consider minor differences between Romneycare and what the Heritage Foundation proposed on the 90s to what was implemented by the ACA sufficient to conclude that the ACA wasn’t a Republican idea. It’s like saying a car’s color isn’t red because it’s ruby red and not perfectly, exactly red. This isn’t how reasoned discourse is done. No amount of nitpicking will dissuade an objective person from thinking that Obamacare is close enough to Romneycare to qualify for the label of a Republican idea. I’ve noticed over the years that you engage in this tactic quite often. Someone talks at a general level and your response is to nitpick at the fine details. It’s as if you don’t understand how language is used in everyday conversation. You are like the people who say the Soviet Union wasn’t communist because they never implemented true communism. They ignore how the word was used in normal colloquially. While it was never truly communist it is correct to say that it was a communist nation. Substantive policy actions are different than mere words. This is naivety in the extreme. Republicans passed legislation to allow 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia. Obama signed it. Then McConnel blamed Obama for signing it. Political grandstanding happens. I’ve been on this site since the beginning. I create a new account periodically. We gone back and forth several times. I will never respond to you again.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> The impression I’ve had is that he is against broad forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. Okay, but what is the basis for this impression? > Note though that the $10,000 forgiveness is less than what he campaigned on. The $10,000-$20,000 foregiveness plan (with an income cap) is less universal the “at least” $10,000 he called on Congress to provide all borrowers during the campaign, as President-elect after the campaign, and sought (but was rebuffed on) as President in the stimulus bill. It's what he thought he could justify as executive action under HEROES (and even that turned out to be wrong), not what he wanted. > We should not confuse, in general, new program initiatives as an indication that this is what the politician proposing the initiative wants. Absent specific, articulable, evidence-based reasons to believe otherwise, we certainly should take them as exactly that, especially when they keep coming back with different approaches when rebuffed. > Sometimes proposals have to be made to appease the base. Yes, but the claim that any particular proposal is merely a sop to the base should be backed by evidence; the fact that it is sometimes true does not, by itself, support ascribing that basis to any particular policy proposal.

synetic 3y ago
I agreed that I was wrong. I think you missed that part. Absent specific, articulable, evidence-based reasons to believe otherwise, we certainly should take them as exactly that, especially when they keep coming back with different approaches when rebuffed. No. This is way too impractical. You yourself don’t follow this criteria. I suggest you read up on hunches, gut feelings, and things like that. Give you an example. It was always clear that Republican politicians, as a whole, didn’t want to get rid of Obamacare because Obamacare was a Republican plan all along. They blustered and said they’d get rid of it but when they had control of both houses and the Presidency they didn’t get rid of it. I can’t point to a specific thing that gave me the impression they would not actually get rid of it but I was certain they wouldn’t follow through. People, especially politicians, can’t be taken at their word just because one doesn’t have specific, articulable, evidence based reasons. If you really operate in real life this way then you are a dupe.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > No. This is way too impractical. You yourself don’t follow this criteria. Yes, I do. > I suggest you read up on hunches, gut feelings, and things like that. They are very good aids in deciding when to expend more effort looking for facts, they aren’t on their own a great basis for conclusions and even less for public arguments for those conclusions. > It was always clear that Republican politicians, as a whole, didn’t want to get rid of Obamacare because Obamacare was a Republican plan all along. See, that's a specific, articulable reason for the belief that it was an insincere desire. (A bad one, IMO, and one which is counterindicated not only by specific other evidence regarding the mechanics by which they sought to destroy it, but also by the fact that it wasn’t a Republican plan, and by the specific times and contexts similar, but different, plans had been embraced by Republicans, and by the plans Republicans, and the industry from whom the similar plans once embraced by Republicans had gotten the plans in the first place, had moved on to in the interim, but that's a whole different argument.) > People, especially politicians, can’t be taken at their word Substantive policy actions are different than mere words.
  - synetic 3y ago
    Your understanding of how people ought to make conclusions and operate in the world is deeply flawed. No one, including you, has the time and means to find the level of specificity you seem to require in order to decide what their impressions are in terms of the motives of other people. Republicans during Obama’s Presidency many times passed legislation to dismantle the ACA. They did so knowing he would veto the bills. He did so. When they gained both houses of Congress and the Presidency they didn’t dismantle it. The ACA is still around. They have no replacement idea for it because it’s already their idea. We won’t agree on anything. You consider minor differences between Romneycare and what the Heritage Foundation proposed on the 90s to what was implemented by the ACA sufficient to conclude that the ACA wasn’t a Republican idea. It’s like saying a car’s color isn’t red because it’s ruby red and not perfectly, exactly red. This isn’t how reasoned discourse is done. No amount of nitpicking will dissuade an objective person from thinking that Obamacare is close enough to Romneycare to qualify for the label of a Republican idea. I’ve noticed over the years that you engage in this tactic quite often. Someone talks at a general level and your response is to nitpick at the fine details. It’s as if you don’t understand how language is used in everyday conversation. You are like the people who say the Soviet Union wasn’t communist because they never implemented true communism. They ignore how the word was used in normal colloquially. While it was never truly communist it is correct to say that it was a communist nation. Substantive policy actions are different than mere words. This is naivety in the extreme. Republicans passed legislation to allow 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia. Obama signed it. Then McConnel blamed Obama for signing it. Political grandstanding happens. I’ve been on this site since the beginning. I create a new account periodically. We gone back and forth several times. I will never respond to you again.