[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #488 Meer inhoud graag

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:36 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Snap ik, maar vindt overspel simpelweg niet zo schokkend. Trump die dictators prijst, lak heeft aan de rechtsstaat en de pers continu onder vuur neemt, vind ik veel kwalijker.

quote:

This lawsuit has been entertaining to watch, but we can't forget that at the heart of this matter could lie a felony

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:37 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Tussen die twee kwesties zit nog wel een verschil.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:37 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Avenatti On Attack: Trump Deposition In Stormy Daniels Case Looms On The Horizon

Goed artikel waarom Trump en Cohen nerveus zouden moeten zijn.

quote:

One of the most important — but least known — achievements of the Obama administration was the expansion of the income-driven repayment program for federal student loans. The program aims to make student loan payments affordable for everyone, regardless of their income. But Republicans, in their endless quest to undo everything Mr. Obama did, are now trying to dismantle the program under the guise of reform, citing misleading claims of high costs and low effectiveness. In fact, the program’s costs are low, and the student loan system as a whole is financially self-sustaining. More important, we should be increasing investment in higher education and support for students, not the reverse.

Before 2010, private lenders made most student loans. But during the financial crisis student lending seized up, and in response Congress effectively nationalized the program. Today, the federal Department of Education makes about 90 percent of all student loans (including loans to parents and graduate students). The old system included big government subsidies to private lenders. Congress and the Obama administration directed that money to income-driven repayment and Pell Grants instead. Today, all borrowers — even those with the old, pre-crisis loans — can limit their monthly payments to 10 percent of discretionary income. After 20 to 25 years (or 10 for those who qualify for public service loan forgiveness), any unpaid balances are forgiven.

Higher education remains a good investment for most students, but many still face crushing student loan payments along the way, especially recent grads and those with high debt but low-paying careers, like public interest lawyers and rural medical workers. The 6.5 million borrowers who are in the income-driven repayment program now represent $352 billion in debt — about one-quarter of all borrowers and one-half of all debt in repayment. Keeping loan payments at an affordable level allows these borrowers to invest in their careers, families, homes and savings.

The Republican attack on these repayment plans is based in part on the claim that the benefits are too generous and too expensive. For example, Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, the chairman of the Senate committee considering reforms to the program, says it is now “standard” for students to expect their debt to be forgiven. This view is backed even by some left-leaning organizations concerned about costs. A New America Foundation report called the program a “windfall.” One from the Brookings Institution said that the program was “sinking under its own weight.” Yet another from the Urban Institute said that “the current IDR system is likely to impose high costs on taxpayers.”

Emboldened, Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, sponsored the Prosper Act, which has passed out of committee in the House. Under the bill, new borrowers would pay 50 percent more per month and would no longer have their loans forgiven after 20 to 25 years of repayment. The bill would also drastically cut the amount that can be borrowed for graduate school.

Income-driven repayment does have a price tag, of course. Estimates vary, but the Department of Education puts the cost for all loans outstanding at about $36 billion. Even though this may sound like a lot of money, $36 billion is pretty low in context. For one thing, it’s a tiny piece of the $1.3 trillion in loans outstanding. For another, the cost of the program is nearly the same as one year of Pell Grants, the other major federal program for low-income students, but it covers 25 years’ worth of loans. And most of this cost is just lost interest — the government anticipates that it will still get back more than it lends to these borrowers.

Even with this cost, the student loan program could still net as much as $50 billion for taxpayers. It has long been a profit center. The profit used to be sucked up by banks, but today it belongs to the federal government, and it is appropriate to reinvest some of this money in higher education rather than kick it all back to the Treasury. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Prosper Act’s changes to student loans would pad the government’s profit by another $40 billion over the next 10 years. That’s money coming directly out of borrowers’ pockets — to what end?

Even if income-driven repayment did erase the loan program’s profit margin, would that be such a bad thing? Taxpayers have always subsidized higher education, recognizing that it produces enormous gains for the economy and for society as a whole. The prospect of high debt is a financial (and psychological) barrier for many students, and some insurance for those who may end up with lower incomes is a worthy goal. To call that insurance a “loss” is to imply that taxpayers are entitled to profit off the backs of struggling borrowers.

Income-driven repayment is not without flaws. The various plans are too cumbersome and confusing, and the system of loan servicing does not work well and has led to some predatory practices. But these problems are bureaucratic, not financial. Cutting back on student loan relief because of hysteria about nonexistent losses is pound-foolish. The Department of Education is a lender, but it is not a bank; its purpose — and the purpose of the student loan program — is to further education and support students, not to turn a profit.

EDITORS’ PICKS

50 Years Later, Remembering King, and the Battles That Outlived Him

Inside a Private Prison: Blood, Suicide and Poorly Paid Guards

When Bail Feels Less Like Freedom, More Like Extortion
The Prosper Act would make higher education more expensive for many students, especially graduate students, while increasing profit margins for the government and private lenders. That is precisely the opposite of what our country needs now. Reinvesting the loan program’s profits in relief for struggling borrowers pays both financial and social dividends. We should be embracing and expanding income-driven repayment plans, not backing away based on the fear of costs that have yet to appear.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:45 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou zeggen de mensen die tot voor kort de leningen uitgaven. Maar goed, wie ben ik.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:42 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Nee, Clinton loog onder ede, Trump vooralsnog niet.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:49 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Waarom dacht je dat?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:52 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Goed verhaal weer klappernoot.

quote:

The new U.S. normal of $1 trillion or more annual federal budget deficits will officially begin this week when the Congressional Budget Office releases its economic and budget outlook report showing that the deficit will be at least that high every year Donald Trump is president.

Although there have been private sector projections for months (including my post from last October) that the government's red ink will hit and exceed a trillion dollars for years to come, this will be the first report by Congress's official budget watchdog since last year's big tax cut and this year's spending deal were enacted that will show the deficit rising precipitously and staying at that very high level through the next 10 years.

The official CBO projections are likely to be lower than the budget deficits that actually occur. CBO's report is based on current law and makes no political judgements about what Congress and the president will do in the future. That means the deficit projections will be based on the presumption that the tax cuts enacted last year that currently phase out will in fact end. That means the CBO forecast will assume that future revenues will be higher and the deficit lower compared to what is likely to occur.

For the record (and before the trolls come out to play), there were indeed four consecutive trillion dollar federal deficits during the Obama administration from fiscal 2009-2012. Those deficits were primarily caused by the Great Recession and were temporary. By contrast, the trillion dollar Trump deficits are permanent changes to the federal budget outlook caused by enacted reductions in revenues and increases in spending.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Property mogul spoke against retrofitting of sprinklers in Trump Tower as unnecessary and expensive

The 50th-floor apartment in Trump Tower where a man was killed in a fire on Saturday did not have sprinklers – the requirement of which Donald Trump fought against in the 1990s.

Todd Brassner, 67, died at a hospital on Saturday after a fire ripped through his apartment in the high-rise, which opened in 1983 at a time when building codes did not require the residential section to have sprinklers.

Subsequent updates to the codes required commercial skyscrapers to install sprinklers retroactively, but owners of older residential high-rises are not required to install them unless the building undergoes major renovations.

Some fire safety advocates pushed for a requirement that older apartment buildings be retrofitted with sprinklers when the city passed a law requiring them in new residential high-rises in 1999, but officials in the administration of then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani said that would be too expensive.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:26 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Volgens Reuters/Ipsos verliezen de Republikeinen momenteel veel steun van oude, blanke mannen.

https://www.reuters.com/a(...)-party-idUSKBN1HG1I6

Goed, het zijn vooral hoog opgeleide blanke mannen die twijfelen, maar toch wel een zorgwekkende ontwikkeling voor de Republikeinen.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:32 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ik denk beide.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:31 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Dat kun je wel zeggen. Maar waar komt dit door? Trump? of toch onmacht van het republikeinse congres en senaat, die al bijna anderhalf jaar politiek aan het sukkelen zijn? Ik denk het laatste.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:39 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Trump heeft bitter weinig gedaan voor een groot deel van de republikeinse achterban. Dat hebben ze nu wel door. Zelfs Obama als democratische president heeft meer voor die groep gedaan dan Trump. Het is natuurlijk wel de grootste kiezersdeel van de GOP, en die tellen echt wel mee. En dan heb ik het nog niet eens over de swingstates

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:41 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Ik vermoed omdat de Republikeinen als partij in de afgelopen jaren steeds radicaler zijn geworden. Op die manier jagen ze een hoop mensen die dichter bij het centrum zitten van zich weg. De Democraten zijn weliswaar op hun beurt linkser geworden, maar een stuk minder radicaal dan dat de Republikeinen rechts zijn geworden.

Er doen nu veel meer Democraten aan verkiezingen door het hele land mee in november. In Tennessee bijvoorbeeld doet voor het eerst in jaren in (bijna) elke lokale race een Democratische kandidaat mee. Dat zullen waarschijnlijk gematigde mensen zijn, die veel van dit soort twijfelende Republikeinen zullen aanspreken. Ik ben benieuwd.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:43 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Vraag het me af, hangt wel af van over welke achterban je het dan hebt. Die is natuurlijk erg breed. De gemiddelde conservatieve christen zal beleidsmatig redelijk tevreden zijn. Net als de gun-loving redneck, de corporate donor class, de mijnwerkers, etcetera. Voor een hele hoop mensen heeft Trump wel geleverd. Die groep is alleen te smal, en Trump (met name zijn gedrag) te omstreden.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:53 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Trump mag dan op korte termijn hebben "geleverd". Maar de realiteit van zijn beleid merk je pas op lange termijn. En de lokale politici kunnen de visie van deze president niet verkopen aan de achterban. Er zijn veel vragen, die niet bevredigend beantwoord worden, want die politici bluffen niet, maar moeten met de feiten op tafel komen.