No one wants to talk about the debate?

[Markthebroker]

Simply, but not helpful... except to you.. but that's okay.. you take risk, you get rewarded.

Fantastic. You win this round.

Get your checkbook out for the rise in taxes. I'll start shopping for what kind of dirtbike and vacation I'll buy with the extra money. Thanks again.

 

[Travis Price]

Fantastic. You win this round.

Get your checkbook out for the rise in taxes. I'll start shopping for what kind of dirtbike and vacation I'll buy with the extra money. Thanks again.

Lol.. Taxes are going to rise no matter what...

The current load of interest payments with the CURRENT REVENUE is 20.3% and expected to increase to 22.9% by 2034 (lol, that's an undershoot)

We've had 16 years of deficit spending initiated by both parties since the GFC and exacerbated in 2020/2021.

The global economy died in 2008, we just put it on life support with debasement. It's to kick the can down the road until the Boomers are no longer on the books.

I mean, you can't have the second largest living generation completely destitute and unable to work due to health.

They had to save the system. Since it's already dead, there's no reason to pretend like we're trying to be fiscally responsible anymore.

It's impossible, and not politically advantageous, to pay back the debt we owe. We can only try to manage interest payments.

PS: I'll always support programs for the middle class over Corporate and upper class tax cuts, non-diplomatic defense spending, broken PPP loans, and other spending.

I'm a firm believer that the government, if it's going to spend, should spend on programs that help citizens and it should be within an approved budget. Especially if they're going to tax you anyway.

However, we're already in a debt spiral. So, there's no real reason to keep a budget.

But ymmv.. and that's cool.

 

[Markthebroker]

Lol.. Taxes are going to rise no matter what...

The current load of interest payments with the CURRENT REVENUE is 20.3% and expected to increase to 22.9% by 2034 (lol, that's an undershoot)

We've had 16 years of deficit spending initiated by both parties since the GFC and exacerbated in 2020/2021.

The global economy died in 2008, we just put it on life support with debasement. It's to kick the can down the road until the Boomers are no longer on the books.

I mean, you can't have the second largest living generation completely destitute and unable to work due to health.

They had to save the system. Since it's already dead, there's no reason to pretend like we're trying to be fiscally responsible anymore.

It's impossible, and not politically advantageous, to pay back the debt we owe. We can only try to manage interest payments.

PS: I'll always support programs for the middle class over Corporate and upper class tax cuts, non-diplomatic defense spending, broken PPP loans, and other spending.

I'm a firm believer that the government, if it's going to spend, should spend on programs that help citizens and it should be within an approved budget. Especially if they're going to tax you anyway.

However, we're already in a debt spiral. So, there's no real reason to keep a budget.

But ymmv.. and that's cool.

I hear you. I'm already pretty financially well off, but the program you support paid for by taxpayers, will make me more money. For the dirt bike, I'm trying to decide between a Beta or a KTM, and the vacation will definitely be to Japan, but I'm trying to decide what time of year. What are your thoughts?

 

[Travis Price]

I hear you. I'm already pretty financially well off, but the program you support paid for by taxpayers, will make me more money. For the dirt bike, I'm trying to decide between a Beta or a KTM, and the vacation will definitely be to Japan, but I'm trying to decide what time of year. What are your thoughts?

I don't know anything about dirtbikes...

Japan? I don't have any insights there either.

My niece want to go for NintendoWorld...

But I know there are a lot of weirdos there...

 

[Markthebroker]

I don't know anything about dirtbikes...

Japan? I don't have any insights there either.

My niece want to go for NintendoWorld...

But I know there are a lot of weirdos there...
View attachment 14817

Jesus, dude. I mean we all have our own preferences, but come on man. Is that real? Is that even legal?

 

[whatyouwantfinally]

I fundamentally disagree with Mark. Not about debt being your responsibility, if it was just that simple.

Unfortunately, like most things, there's an incredible amount of fundamental nuance to the situation that supports an environment where predatory actors are taking advantage of unsophisticated and vulnerable borrowers.

It's like the Reverse Mortgage scam and elderly people. Can you say reasonably that those products aren't marketed to people in a way where what they're sold isn't what they got?

Imo, I would say no, and we need to take consideration for that...

Because guess what, people that can pay will always be on the hook for people that can't pay. Either directly, or in increased costs when a crisis inevitable occurs.

College debt is legit an issue because they're sometimes government subsidized loans AND they're a systemic, cascading risk. The government is on the hook for defaults. Can they go after you even in bankruptcy, sure?

Will their be tremendous losses that EVERYONE will pay for regardless, and probably more than just closing the debt? Absolutely.

Forgiving collgege debt isn't because it's some liberal handout to people, for me. It's a purely selfish idea that the cure to mitigate losses and revamp the system is less costly, and economically effiencent that the 100% will happen outcome to the economy when those loans eventually default... because there's no real way for borrowers to resolve them in the coming crisis.

They're serfdom 3.0

Imo, I would rather take less loss, the political win, and a recoverable economy issue than the cascading global debt crises that will kill and injure 10's to 100's of millions of people, regardless of political leanings. Mostly lower and middle class.. who already get ***ed in our economic system by debasement.

But, ya know.. we just want to cancel Billy's student loans because it wins elections... but ymmv...

I would love to hear an argument against what I'm saying on the macro level, an not on the micro level of "people should just pay what they owe."

And I mean that in good faith. I'd love to understand the counterpoint on a large scale.

There's a much, much simpler and more reasonable solution to college debt. Make it dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Taking the fairness argument out of it (which is disqualifying in itself), wiping it all is obviously inflationary. This will harm the poor without degrees the most, while they're also the group least likely to be able to navigate whatever downturn you're predicting.

With bankruptcy, you're only wiping it for people who really can't pay. Way less inflationary unless millions of these debt holders/grads go bankrupt, in which case we're basically done for anyway.

And to me at least, it largely addresses the fairness argument. A huge bump for the highest-earning demo at the expense of the opposite is too much for most to stomach. The idea of the wealthy married couple who just made interest payments because they were less than the returns on their portfolios turns faces red. That's not really the case when you're thinking about someone in bankruptcy.

 

[Travis Price]

There's a much, much simpler and more reasonable solution to college debt. Make it dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Taking the fairness argument out of it (which is disqualifying in itself), wiping it all is obviously inflationary. This will harm the poor without degrees the most, while they're also the group least likely to be able to navigate whatever downturn you're predicting.

With bankruptcy, you're only wiping it for people who really can't pay. Way less inflationary unless millions of these debt holders/grads go bankrupt, in which case we're basically done for anyway.

And to me at least, it largely addresses the fairness argument. A huge bump for the highest-earning demo at the expense of the opposite is too much for most to stomach. The idea of the wealthy married couple who just made interest payments because they were less than the returns on their portfolios turns faces red. That's not really the case when you're thinking about someone in bankruptcy.

I don't necessarily agree with this...

I mean you can make the argument for easing discharge in bankruptcy requirements. I think that's a reasonable point...

I wouldn't push the "fair" argument. We don't live in a "fair" system. It's certainly not an argument when you're comparing systemic failure vs "being fair."

It would increase consumer spending and improve the economy... Inflation isn't a bad thing IF it's due to increased consumer spending...

Why? Because wages rise to keep up.. poorer families rise with costs because demand for labor would rise. This is called Built-In inflation.

Your argument about people buying assets vs discharging in bankruptcy isn't a good one. Please understand, any stress on the system would crash asset prices at a time where household savings would fall.

So, it's still systemic.. regardless of if you're poor or bought assets.

Please understand, the entire global economy is on life support and will blow up in a way worse that 2008, because 2008 was papered over and kicked down the road. It's not a matter of if it occurs, it's when.. and when is sooner than later.

I paid off my, and my wife's, student loans. So if anyone has a "it's not fair" argument, it would be me...

If you understand the position the macro global economy is actually in, built-in inflation is an exponentially smaller issue than systemic collapse.

However, opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and most of them stink.

 

[Allen Trent]

I would challenge this thinking, personally.

The underwriting requirements are still the same. The banks job is still to manage risk. A 25k downpayment could reasonably reduce the barrier in terms of debt to income ratio for people, eliminate PMI, reduce interest rates, and build in equity for new homebuyers who participate.

Furthmore, it can allow buyers to have sellers contribute more to closing costs. If you put 10% down, you can ask sellers to contribute up to 6% of closing, 25% can contribute up to 9%.

Less down reduces to 3% in closing assistance from sellers.


Also, this is a policy, it's not a law. Congress would still have to approve it.

It doesn't encourage taking more house than you can afford. It encourages a reduction in admin and interest costs for risk...

Robo, no-income, no sign subprime loans where banks just handed as much money as they could to as many people as they could (because they could package and sell CBO's with shit in them for big profits) was the issue with the GFC.

It similar to the commercial real estate issue here, which will play out... and China's RE issue, which is already in crisis and could blow up global trade.

However, the repeal of parts of Dodd-Frank under R's and Trump; along with deregulation of reserve and stress test requirements for banks, will inevitably cause systemic issues.

The Fed really ***ed banks when they jacked up interest rates, immediately after signaling they wouldnt.

Most banks are insolvent on paper now... because they have bonds that are underwater and they cant offload without huge discounts.

So, when their are inevitable stresses, globally, happen.. more banks will collapse... which causes equities to crash, which causes unemployment to increase.

If you have long term savings, my OPINION is to get it out of cash, banks, and equities. Metals, bitcoin, and other scarce assets that you can custody yourself would be my suggestion.

However, a fixed rate mortgage (when rate cuts bring us down to near zero to refi government debts) is probably the safest place you can be in the US.

'26 is going to be wild af, no matter who becomes President. They'll get blamed for things that are outside of the US's control... because the global crisis has been brewing since 2021, due to 2020 behaviors both inside and outside of the US

Would agree with you about the banks still controlling the underwriting process.........................however, the 2008 crisis was predicted 10 years prior when the Clinton Administration ordered Fannie Mae to lower lending standards. See NY times article from 1999 predicting what would happen in a less then hot economy. (i dont think the NY times was a conservative paper in 1999 when they wrote this article)

[EXTERNAL LINK] - Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (Published 1999)

Not saying the entire 2008 crisis was from that 1 decision, but it shows a government or political party can incentivize bad behavior that results in catastrophe.

Just like Trumps "no tax on overtime" sounds great to get votes, but it will lower tax revenues & a ton of self employed people with S corps, etc will end up paying themselves "overtime" to avoid the income taxes they would on regular income or on dividends from the business.

It is all political pandering on both sides to try to get votes for something that wont get enacted into law unless 1 party controls all 3 branches. Heck, the Democrats held all 3 branches not too long ago & forgot to push through pet projects when they had complete control

I want to vote for a 3rd party as both nominees are clowns

 

[whatyouwantfinally]

I don't necessarily agree with this...

I mean you can make the argument for easing discharge in bankruptcy requirements. I think that's a reasonable point...

I wouldn't push the "fair" argument. We don't live in a "fair" system. It's certainly not an argument when you're comparing systemic failure vs "being fair."

That doesn't mean people can't see a handout to the highest-earning demographic and think it's unfair. It is unfair.

It would increase consumer spending and improve the economy... Inflation isn't a bad thing IF it's due to increased consumer spending...

Trickle down economics? No matter how you slice it, you're benefiting the people you give the $ to more than the people you're not.

Why? Because wages rise to keep up.. poorer families rise with costs because demand for labor would rise. This is called Built-In inflation.

Then why not give the money to the people with instead of the people with more, if you think it all balances out anyway?

It doesn't balance out.

Your argument about people buying assets vs discharging in bankruptcy isn't a good one. Please understand, any stress on the system would crash asset prices at a time where household savings would fall.

I'm not saying it's one or the other, may fault if I wasn't clear.

I'm saying a lot of wealthy people intentionally haven't paid off the balance of their loans because their interest payments are less than they make investing the $ instead. These people aren't going to default and could pay off their loans many times over, it's just beneficial for them not to. They wouldn't be filling bankruptcy.

So, it's still systemic.. regardless of if you're poor or bought assets.

Please understand, the entire global economy is on life support and will blow up in a way worse that 2008, because 2008 was papered over and kicked down the road. It's not a matter of if it occurs, it's when.. and when is sooner than later.

I'm not as confident it'll be that bad in the short-term, but I'm with you in general here.

I paid off my, and my wife's, student loans. So if anyone has a "it's not fair" argument, it would be me...

If you understand the position the macro global economy is actually in, built-in inflation is an exponentially smaller issue than systemic collapse.

If we just want to inject a couple trillion into the economy to stimulate it (which I'd say is a super terrible idea at the moment, but I'll go with it) I still don't see how it's better to give it to the people who have more than those with less.

 

[WinoBlues]

I want to vote for a 3rd party as both nominees are clowns

This.

Just look at The Party working so hard to keep JFK out. Now the attacks on Stein.

Attack on Democracy.