So any chance the Dems bust the filibuster?

Not the case here FYI

No. They don't have the votes. McConnell is holding up the power sharing set up in the Senate just on the threat of the possibility, and Schumer can't even get that approved. Honestly, the Dems suck at this. Schumer is going to have to get his party in line and push through at least the committee assignments. They constantly legislate like they have no power.

I don't understand the people that say that Medicare for All is going to limit their medical choice. Do you really think ANYBODY doctor-wise is going to opt-out? And if they do, they might as well shut down or retire. And if the complaint is that the really popular doctors are going to become harder to see, isn't that really just the "market" deciding who the best doctors are? Is that really Medicare limiting your choice?

I don't get the arguments against.

People that currently work in the insurance industry are still going to be needed either in their current roles or in government positions most likely, though I'll be very surprised if large scale "government-run" healthcare is implemented in my lifetime.

McConnell is basically daring them to. Which he'd only do if he was confident that they would not actually do it.

McConnell wants them to recommit to the filibuster, which probably isn't going to happen. He basically wants the Dems on record saying they support it, so he can use it against them in case Manchin and Synema get fed up enough to vote to shelve it (right now both have said they won't overturn the filibuster)

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

This is overblown, I have worked for a Government Healthcare contractor for nearly half of my 30 years in the industry and there is never an issue getting adequate coverage. We even have a robust network here in places like Scottsdale, which does not have a high Medicaid member base.

If the current model is kept if/when it happens, there will likely still be room for individual payers to negotiate contracts that very from the standard CMS rates, which applies to about 30% or our current network, particularly behavioral health.

So the fear of not having good/enough providers is greatly overstated.

Not commenting on the broader discussion but specifically on the quote above.

I'm about 20 miles north of Atlanta and honestly, haven't had this problem. I've gone to seen specialists for X (not life threatening) pre-Covid and we're talking 3-4 weeks at most.

I'll also add that my wife has gone to see specialists X, Y, Z pre-Covid and also during Covid and same experience.

FWIW, below article is for "doctors" but there are different tabs for "specialists".

How long will you wait to see a doctor? - CNNMoney

I've definitely seen a difference since Covid. Had to reschedule a simple annual physical with a non-doctor and it's 3 months out. Eye doctor was 12 weeks minimum when THEY had to reschedule due to a Covid issue. What was supposed to be a 6 week follow-up ended up being 4 months.

Dems are probably going to have to change senate rules just to get their majority in place. McConnell is holding everything hostage and refusing to sign off on the new senate rules unless Dems agree to take the filibuster off the table, which would be an absolutely stupid thing to do.

Until this is resolved we have a GOP majority on most committees and the GOP is effectively in majority control as the minority.

The story of modern America.

Absolutely nailed it.

..and they're practically not even governing any more. The modern GOP's sole purpose seems to be to make sure that any progress that could take place in 10 years takes 20 instead.

The GOP in NH is hard at work eliminating same-day voter registration. They'll be a ton of voter restrictions over the next two years.

Is there an explanation on how that works? The Democrats have the majority. Don't they get to set the rules and the Republicans have to hope they like the rules that are laid out? Is it related to the 50-50 status of the Senate? Or does this kind of negotiation happen every couple of years but we never hear about it?

Does the whole "waiving $10K+ of student debt" feel like vote buying to anyone else? It does nothing to solve the long term issue and feels fundamentally regressive.

And before any tries the bullshit argument of "well since other people died of cancer I guess we can't cure it in the future", try this: let's make college free going forward and tell those with loans that they still have to pay them. They should have no issue with it, since while it sucks for them, it will be better for those coming behind them. I'm sure they won't complain about it being unfair.

Dems and Mitch are trying to use the precedent set by Bush's first term on how to operate under a 50/50 split as they set the rules for the new Senate session. I'm not sure if these rules are voted on annually, biannually, or only in the event of a change in majority. Everyone is OK with using previous precedent,though, except Mitch insists on also adding the part about keeping the filibuster in place as part of those rules. The rules can be filibustered as well so Mitch is basically using this to cling to senate majority through the confirmations.

Dems options here are to wait out Mitch, which doesn't make sense because his goal is to drag this out and keep Biden's administration from getting off the ground with senate majority support or they eliminate the filibuster from the start and force the rules through that way. At which point mitch is guarantees to cry about not following democratic norms.

Thanks Atocep.

So, can they do away with the filibuster then bring it back if they lose the Senate in 2022? Or suspend it for a year or 2? At this point, make some moves in your favor.

So by that logic, anything the Dems do to improve the lives of the poor can be denigrated as vote buying.

Cool logic

That's not what I meant at all. Obviously any policy has winners and losers. But to me at least this feels different than tax rate changes or medical plans. Its basically "hey, here is $10k off your student loans regardless of whether or not you need it or not." And it doesn't actually fix any problem. We are back in the same situation before Biden's term is over.

Also its probably not helping much of the poor since they aren't the ones with student loans in the first place. It would help the poor to make college free going forward. Then the poor could go to college.

It definitely is vote buying and to appease the progressive base (who I believe wanted a much larger number). Rough swag on cost


I do think it's unfair, I'm paying for my kids college but (assume) I won't get that debt relief (now that I think about it, I should have signed up for loans last year). Same for those with non-Federal debt (but not sure if those are eligible).

But overall, I'm okay with it.

I would much prefer if we waived the student debt but asked people to pay back with community service (e.g. volunteer for habitat for humanity etc.). Biden said something similar last year but don't think this is part of the $10,000 proposal now.

And I would also like to put pressure on the universities/colleges to help pay part of the debt as they directly benefited from it. Heck, ask colleges with big endowments to cough up % to help pay for it.

I don't see how student loan forgiveness is any more vote buying than big tax cuts (tax cuts are even sold that way - you'll be able to keep X amount more).

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Arguably the $10,000 would be better used to send out to other needy folks.

E.g. additional +$1,000 for 10 months for 42M unemployed etc

It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. People have noted that the increase in 20somethings moving back in with their parents (which has been a thing which has been mocked by many) is likely due to those young adults having so much in loans that taking out a mortgage for a new home is simply off the table. (Home ownership rates for 20-34 year olds has gone from 44% in 1960 to 34% in 2017 - while they have stayed the same for 35-64 at 67% and gone up for 65+ from 67% to 78%)

And a lot of those folks are going to spend on different industries than those who are below the poverty line might.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Student loan debt is an issue this country will have to deal with at some point. At the rate we're going it will cripple an entire generation and continue to get worse for future generations. It can be argued whether now is the right time or not and that's definitely a valid conversation to have, but we need to do something.

Let's start by putting restrictions on the loans so we're not giving them to people who aren't likely to pay it back.

I quoted all of the words in your post that I agree with.

Start with the banks.

This country in a nutshell. If a college graduate can't pay back their debt, they are put in a lifetime of financial peril which destroys their chance of every obtaining credit and brings calls from the public to regulate them. When JP Morgan can't pay back their debt, we print a fuckton of money and hand it to them.

Anytime student loan forgiveness comes up the people who really piss me off are the ones who are like "I paid mine back, why should I be punished..."

Like, nothing would make me happier than my niece who is currently studying at Rutgers to have no debt, and my kids to have none, and for me to not have to put 2K a month aside so my kids don't have debt.

How many talented doctors, scientists, etc...have we lost because the prospect of crushing debt kept them from going into that field.

People are such assholes.

Just kill the filibuster. The GOP only gets to act in control as the minority because the Democrats allow it.

JP Morgan paid back the money.

I hope that’s not directed at me as I’ve said make college free. But I see NO plans for that. Only this $10k debt forgiveness that does nothing to solve the problem. And before you bring this up yes we can do both, but I see no plans to do anything about the cost of college.

not at all

A lot of people could pay back their debt if you printed a ton of money for them at next to zero interest rate.

Also many banks didn't pay it back.

Bailout Tracker | ProPublica

Interesting read. If true that $10,000 will help the most needy and clear their debt, and assuming those that have higher balances can ultimately take care of themselves ... I'm good with spending the approx. $420B and wiping needy's slate clean (and somehow getting some money back from higher ed institutions).

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/expe...rgiveness.html

Banks used other government loans to pay back these government loans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...dT1R_blog.html

Again, easy to pay back loans if you have unlimited access to capital and the government backs all your risk.

I was unable to find any info specific to TARP 2.0 and any profit/loss but here's is a Nov 2020 list of what is owed per bank and the profit/loss. The WP article said TARP 2.0 was $30B program which is relatively small compared to profits in the article.

If you have a better article detailing that we "lost" money in loaning money to banks, provide the source. Otherwise, I'll conclude this is a pretty good and official count.

Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

Not a bad result with stabilizing the financial system at the height of a crisis and coming out with a nice tidy profit.

I knew about the multiple pens but didn't know the brand, type.


You too can feel Presidential for $70

https://www.amazon.com/Cross-Selecti.../dp/B00000IRGK

Is it paying it back of it is done with our own money?

If we gave every graduate unlimited access to cheap credit markets, they too would pay back their student loans. Especially if you bail them out of every bad investment they make.

Also banks can file bankruptcy which puts pressure on creditors, student loans can't be discharged thanks to our President.

oh yeah the stupid sharpie....and you know why the sharpie was used....so it would show up in pictures taken of him when he held it up. I am SOSOSOSO GLAD that we don't have that stupid insipid holding up every document for the camera and a group of zealots around him applauding every single one. So refreshing...just sign it and get the shit done. yay move on!

regarding the multiple pens...

I guess there's a civilization of pens living in a far away place. And these pens traveled millions of miles to be the pens of their destined executive order!

And pictures of these pens are on display on banners through their pen land! See that pen? it ended slavery.
See this one? It made farting illegal in movie theatres.

WTH are you even arguing now?

That before we shit on people struggling with student loans, maybe direct that vitriol toward banks and investment firms that have gotten trillions in aid.

JP Morgan should be out of business.

Why should JP Morgan be out of business? Because they paid back loans they didn't need in the first place?

JP Morgan had almost $10 trillion in derivatives that would have bankrupted them had the feds not fully guaranteed the payment obligations. Shit, the sweetheart deal they got from the Fed to buy Bear Stearns was out of self preservation because they had so much exposure.

They paid back TARP but did they pay back all the toxic assets Bear Stearns had wiped off the book by the Fed before their sale to JP Morgan?

This discussion is obviously eroding, going into tangents, and not be productive ... so I'll leave it to you both to discuss the more metaphysical aspect of it.

I joined the conversation here and wanted to rebut the implication that banks "have not (aren't) likely to pay it back".


To conclude my points (unless there is a link that shows otherwise)

1) I have provided links that shows TARP "profit and loss". Some banks that used TARP have not yet paid back their loans but as a whole, the TARP "bailout" (but more like a loan) has turned a nice profit (e.g. loaned and paid back with interest)

2) re: TARP 2.0, I've not been able to find a source detailing the "profit/loss". But per the WaPo article, it's funds were a relatively small $30B so irrelevant

3) I will also say TARP was necessary at the point in time. It prevented the freeze to the credit system, collapse of the trust of the US system etc. and without the Fed acting the way it did, a fair-to-good chance the financial system would have crashed resulting in a bigger mess worldwide

Tom Cotton busted for lying about his military career. He was ranger qualified (graduated ranger school), but never served in a ranger battalion. He's spent his political career telling everyone he was a ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan though.

These are things that used to matter to GOP voters but I don't see it making much of a difference at this point.

I live on the south end of Atlanta. It often takes two-three months to see specialist. Heck, my wife and daughter both work for different eye doctors and they are both filled up three months in advanced. There are large portions of south Georgia that there are no specialist with one hour driving distance and long wait times. That largely comes from high uninsured population.
edit: Notice that article is only listing major metro areas that will have a higher concentration of doctors. How about the outer suburbs or rural areas?

Democratic norms? You know the 60 vote filibuster is only 20 years old? They used to have to actually filibuster to stop votes. The 60 vote super-majority is a very recent add on to the Senate, and is an abject failure. It needs to go.