Seeing student loan relief take effect almost immediately after I paid off the balance of my student loans is a bit frustrating. $10,000 in after tax income is life changing for many, including me, and so don't want to advocate for blocking relief that many may desperately need, but what about those of us that bit the proverbial bullet and actually managed to pay off their student loans in full?
There was no magic trick to repayment, my partner and I just agreed to camping trips instead of flights to tropical destinations, meals at home instead of in restaurants, and a cap on the size of our family.
I am not a troll, nor am I looking to spur a debate on the validity or wisdom of student loan relief, I am as jaded as any other attorney and understand that life is not fair, but just highlighting that overall something seems to be lacking here for those of us that repaid in full.
Absolutely agree. Like in my case, my mother died of cancer a few years ago. How fair would it be to her if suddenly these doctors and/or politicians released the cure for cancer? Everyone else should have to suffer like she did.
$10,000.00 is not really a life changing amount of money. How, exactly would your *life* be changed by an extra $10,000.00? In five years, the $10,000.00 will be essentially inconsequential to the quality and condition of your life.
I refinanced by loans with a private lender to obtain a lower interest rate. I don't get any forgiveness, either. It's bad policy, it isn't fair, but it's also something I have no control over. I can control how I budget, how I work to make more money, etc. I am grateful that I was able to refinance out of the federal loan, grateful to be employed, grateful for a home and what I have. I rob myself of appreciating those things if I choose to get upset about not qualifying for loan forgiveness.
I know this isn't you (so please don't take it this way), but even as someone who has been left out of the forgiveness, I am tired of listening to people engage in self adulation on this topic. It seems like the people who want to block this because they paid off their loans are intent on making the rest of us listen to them brag about how hard they work, how frugal they are, how forward looking they are. They don't appreciate the extent to which they are not really that special and how obnoxious they sound. This is especially true when coupled with anecdotal stories about classmates who partied, etc. Most Americans work really hard, bud. Most Americans sacrifice for their families and/or the future. Your virtue isn't universal, but it also isn't unique. We're all trying to do the same thing, and frankly, we're not impressed.
@12:16 – I could not disagree with you more. it is self-adulation to pay bills on time? it is virtue signaling to provide for families, work hard and live responsibly? your perspective is very concerning for me. if working hard, living as responsibly as one can, and living independent of government hand outs is obnoxious – this country has a big problem. if you paid your student loans – you should feel proud and accomplished. anyone who qualifies for this forgiveness, yet chooses not to accept the government handout deserves a medal.
12:16 here. Go re-read my comment again. Where did I criticize honoring financial commitments? Please tell. My criticism is of people who make us all listen to their stories about how they scrimped and saved and paid off their loans, as though they just completed the Bataan Death March, as the basis to deny others loan forgiveness. It's called modesty. I do not go around bragging about how I budget or how hard I work as the basis to deny loan forgiveness. The stories are always told with such a sanctimonious air, with such an elevated sense of self importance and exceptionalism. If you paid off your loans, you did the right thing. But you don't deserve a medal from the rest of us who have listen to your self-authored hagiography and beatification as the preamble to your hot political take. Spare us.
I'm definitely on the fence. I don't think it's good to just hand out loan forgiveness. I think it incentivizes schools to continue to jack up tuition and incentivizes people to take out high student loans. I think that's a bad thing. Secondarily, I worry that this is not great for inflation to essentially hand out this loan forgiveness, although in fairness the government is always spending gobs of money on shit, so maybe this is a drop in the bucket.
On the other hand, lots of people could really use student loan forgiveness, for many reasons (including the fact that schools are too expensive and often predatory, and the fact that people take on debt they shouldn't).
@12:16/ 12:38 = it's me again (12:31). I read your comment correctly. I understand and understood. You don't want to listen to any more discussion/bragging/commentary etc. about paying off debt and the like. Now go re-read my comment again knowing there is no confusion. You are clearly annoyed not with the sound of a persons voice, their tone or inflection – you're annoyed with what they are saying. My comment exactly – its alarming that this "bragging" is annoying to you (and likely others). In a world where people are praised for proper pronoun usage – I don't find any fault with someone who is proud of their financial responsibility. I did not say that it wasn't your right to be annoyed. I didn't say you aren't entitled to be annoyed. I said – it is concerning to me.
"You are clearly annoyed not with the sound of a persons voice, their tone or inflection – you're annoyed with what they are saying."
No, that is not it at all. A person who is actually virtuous doesn't need to announce it to anyone. It is self-evident. "I am/was virtuous as to my loan, therefore everyone should be virtuous just like me" is a terrible argument for many reasons. It is immodest. It makes assumptions, often unfair, about those who have not paid their loans. It reframes the discussion away from what is good policy to one of relative morality (ie, "I am virtuous for paying off my loans, and those who have not are not."). It's a garbage statement that serves as the foundation of a garbage argument.
This focus on whether a borrower is virtuous frames the policy discussion at the micro level by explaining defaulting student loans and ballooning aggregate student loan balances as matters of individual virtue. When, in reality, student debt explodes in this country because of moral hazard. Universities can essentially print money because they have no skin in the game. But let's pretend its all just a question of individual virtue. Tell me more about how hard you worked and how much you sacrificed as if your story were unique and you deserve some kind of commendation from the King.
To 11:36: If you made payments during the pandemic pause, you might still be able to get some relief in the form of a refund. Go to the student aid dot gov website and look for "refunds for past payments" under the debt relief info. (Captcha or whatever won't let me post the link.)
These comments are interesting and it appears that everyone who has posted is emotionally attached to this student loan issue. For some reason, I am not emotional about the issue, on either side. I was able to pay off my student loans of over $100,000, in about ten years. I know my kid has about $5,000 in student loans and is excited about the possibility that they will be forgiven, and I am happy for him. I understand how it seems unfair to us who had to pay off our loans, but I cannot seem to get angry about the possibility that some people may get some relief. I guess there must something wrong with me.
If a borrower has paid sums equal to or greater than the principal of their government-backed loans, I feel they have honored their commitment to the Dept. of Education. I find it absurd to vilify them as a lazy moocher for wanting some semblance of relief from all of the interest and late penalties that may have accrued during the course of their repayment—for reasons that may not be within their control [e.g., forbearance due to unemployment, illness, etc.]. It can easily become a vicious cycle of never-ending payments (like a payday or title loan), with no hope of ever climbing out, that only serves to enrich the lenders and third-party loan servicing companies like SoFi (who then get to buy naming rights for NFL stadiums). It's unfortunate that many hard-working Americans are forced into years (if not decades) of residual payment obligations without the ability to discharge those punitive amounts via BK like most other types of debt.
I agree with 12:13's very clever wording. Suffering of those in the past does not mean we should not find a solution for those of the present and future. My problem with the loan forgiveness is that it does nothing to ensure affordable higher education for future students. One time forgiveness seems more like a bribe for votes of the young.
This whole discussion reminds of a conversation I had with a biglaw female partner a while back who was complaining about the entitlement of female associates "these days" to expect maternity leave when women of her generation "had" to return to work 3 days after popping a watermelon out of their vajayjays. We were at an event to welcome new female attorneys to the firm.
I agree with 10:10. the mentality of "i suffered, thus you should too" or alternatively, "what about me?" (complaining about not getting credit for paying off loans), that mentality needs to go. I paid off my loans about 6 years ago. I budgeted, took minimal loans during school and suffered early on to avoid indebtedness. do i feel some sort of way regarding the loan forgiveness now? a little…i wish there was something for us who did pay off our loans. Does that make me not support the program? of course not. I am keenly aware that not everyone could have taken the path i took, and without loans would not have achieved the education they acquired. While we are all bitching about loans and such, we should really focus our ire at the cost of schooling (this includes public institutions). There is no reason why public institutions should cost so much, outside adjusting for the price of inflation.
i do believe that the costs of tuition are high due to unnecessary things that colleges want to have, like expensive sports programs (and coaches), as well as brand new facilities like a swimming pool and gym or whatnot. Had this money spent been reinvested in educational programs and not extracurricular things, the costs wouldnt be so high.
Like all things, our educational costs are complex and have many variables, and there is no one size fits all fix for the high learning institutions. But theres a lot to say about when our universities cost far more and teach much less than many of the free or low cost universities in other countries that are ranked equally or higher than their US counterparts. I have been to University in Europe, and i can assure you their focus is not on sports or swimming pools.
I am uncertain how forgiveness operates as a "bribe" to voters, when almost any policy benefits an interest group and that benefit can be reduced to a monetary value. If the concern is that the "bribe" is too obvious, then I still don't see the argument. A few months ago, one of Big Pharma's chief lobbyists openly threatened that Hill democrats would "pay a price" for voting in favor of $35-a-month insulin price cap – a drug whose inventor sold the patent to a research university for $1 because he felt profiting from a life-saving medicine was unethical. If we're comfortable living in a world where comments like that can be made without any serious reprisal, then I have no problem with a similarly transactional exchange like student loan forgiveness that benefits a great number of ordinary people. And yes, I paid back my undergraduate student loans years ago.
I'm not upset about the loan forgiveness. I also sympathize with those who already paid off their loans (as did I). I don't think the issue is all these people getting forgiveness say they "can't" pay off their loans. Why not? Why not chip away at it little by little? Why not refinance for a lower rate? I think the gripe is the falsehood of being "unable" to pay them off. Spending $10/day on avocado toast and Starbucks does matter, and my guess is those complaining about their inability to pay could with even minimal effort. The larger issue for me is the babying by our government. Even with all that said, my belief is the forgiveness is just one step towards free college for all, another aspect of this I don't support. But for those who genuinely benefitted from $10k forgiveness, I don't fault them for taking it and am genuinely happy for them, especially if that amount did in fact make an impact in your life.
One could say the same for Big Pharma. Could the industry produce life-saving insulin and sell it at $35 per month? Yes they could, because the rest of the developed world does. They just don't want to. Instead, their lobbied-for tax breaks and anticompetitive drug pricing structure provides them excess revenue which permits them to advertise drugs to us on television, a practice that pretty much the only developed country in the world forbids. In that respect, their use of taxpayer subsidies for television advertising is best seen as the corporate equivalent of avocado toast.
I've long believed that if individuals voted more like corporations act, we would have a more rational and predictable electorate. Seen in that light, why should young people feel any obligation (moral or otherwise) to relinquish their minor luxuries in order to get what they want, when the most successful business enterprises in the world refuse to give up their own avocado toast? All that matters is whether they have the political will to pass their preferred policies. And they clearly have it.
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2022 6:47 pm
Student loan relief aka the Vote Buying Program doesn't eliminate student debt. It just transfers the debt to the taxpayers. The banks still get all their money.
Kind of like everything the government does transfers to tax payers. For example PPP, Covid relief check, Medicare, Trump tax plan, Ukraine relief, farmer subsidies and highways, etc…
I paid off my loans too. So what. I will likely never get social security as it will be broke by then or they will keep extending the starting age. 😫
Oh a state union that only exists because of Sisolak is mad that their new bargaining power didn't change pay statutes and create money last year? He is in trouble! Lombardo would not have supported state employee labor unions. Cops.
A perfect slice of non-news: "Telles to remain in custody without bail."
Was there actually any serious doubt about the outcome of such hearing?
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2022 9:01 pm
Ugh. There is a candidate for Dept A (who will remain nameless) who favors in-person court appearances. This is costly for litigants so the candidate (judge) can do a "sniff test." I agree that trials should be in person, but run of the mill hearings? No. That's luddite thinking.
Lud·dite
/ˈlədˌīt/
noun
plural noun: Luddites
1. DEROGATORY
a person opposed to new technology or ways of working. "a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
2. HISTORICAL
a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).
Origin:
early 19th century: perhaps named after Ned Lud, a participant in the destruction of machinery, + -ite
She says remote hearings can be beneficial, especially for hearing from children.
“I really believe that the adults should be in court,” she says, “unless they have a medical condition or something that precludes them from being able to be there. There’s still nothing like the best evidence of having the parties there before to judge so that the judge can assess body language and everything in person.”
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2022 11:11 pm
2:48-The above referenced article from the Nevada Current(which you can click at the top) tells you that and more–such as very few of these half-dozen candidates are campaigning or raising or spending any money.
The only one who is reasonably campaigning and raising and spending any money is Mari Parlade, so I assume she has a shot.
Kris Brewer, although she does not appear to be actively campaigning or raising any money, also may have a shot simply because she is first on the ballot, has a simple Anglo-sounding name, and I believe ran a couple times, so there may be some residual name-recognition
Lynn Hughes also may have a shot because, although he is another candidate raising no money and not really campaigning, he almost got elected in 2020.
So, Palade is the only one actually running some semblance of a campaign. It's quite surprising that all the others are raising no money, making no efforts, and seem, somewhat oddly, proud of that fact.
In fact, a couple candidates in this race, and one speaks openly of this fact in the article, are intentionally raising and spending no money, as they believe it creates an appearance of impropriety as those attorneys(who donate money) will appear before the judge once elected.
That's an attempt at striking a noble chord with the electorate, and it seems in every election at least one judicial candidate offers that approach. Problem is the public does not reward the candidate who removed money from his/her candidacy, simply because the public is never exposed to the candidate's name because they don't campaign.
There are judicial races where candidates spend hundred of thousands and lose. This seat may be here for the taking if anyone spends just $10,000. or $20,000., yet only one candidate sees fit to spend even that relatively minimal amount.
Is it safe to assume that if a candidate is not willing to expend any funds or time, and makes little or no effort to get elected, that if they happen to win it they will not value it and will bring the same lackluster(or non-existent) work ethic to the
bench?
Last year Brewer commented "Let's Go Brandon" (since removed) on Facebook effectively saying F-you to the U.S. President. I don't care your politics, but this demonstrates that she does not have the gravitas to be a judge. Say it privately all you want but don't share your crude thoughts in public.
4:11-Although you have provided a lengthy analysis, what it all boils down to is it is a shame that someone has to win this race.
Family Law attorneys are dissatisfied, in general, with the choices in this race, and, yes, it is alarming that almost none of the candidates are making any effort, unlike these very aggressive and expensive RJC and Justice Court races.
That being said, Family Law attorneys may be right about this race being pretty slim pickings, but it does not appear there was any meaningful effort to recruit strong Family Court practitioners to run, and then support such candidates financially
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2022 11:21 pm
4:11, well it's an assumption and an opinion on your part that they are making no real campaign efforts on account that they are raising and spending very little. Some candidates work very hard yet spend very little.
But, granted, it's usually quite difficult to be successful in a county-wide race without spending quite a bit.
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2022 11:25 pm
4:21- 4:11 here. You are correct and I miss-spoke. Some of them are presumably spending some real time campaigning–attending events, appearing for endorsement interviews, seeking an inexpensive internet presence, etc.
My point was really just that(as you say)usually viability in a county-wide race is largely determined by being fairly well-financed.
But not always. There have been incumbents who spend over $2000,000., and are defeated by someone who spends like just a tenth of that amount.
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2022 11:29 pm
4:11, since you put emphasis on name-recognition from prior races(which is reasonable) then you should probably add that Robert Kurth may have a good chance, as he has run quite a bit since 2000.
It also helps that Robert Kurth never takes down his signs after his unsuccessful runs for JP. His signs in the northwest remained up for like a year after the election was over back in 2018.
Guest
Anonymous
October 19, 2022 10:16 pm
Robert Kurth was my neighbor and I know he has been running for various offices for years. I don't think he has ever won. I am curious as to why. I don't know him personally so I have very little to offer as to an opinion. I have to agree with the fact Mari Parlade seems to be the only one actively campaigning.
"She’s won endorsements from the Juvenile Justice Probation Officers’ Association. Clark County Juvenile Justice Supervisors’ Association, Asian Chamber of Commerce, Hispanics in Politics, Southern Nevada Building Trades Union, the Latin Chamber of Commerce, and others."
Is there any of the others running who have received any type of endorsement?
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2022 2:07 pm
So Telles is defending himself against a murder charge, Patsy Brown was pulled over with a red cup and is defending herself against a DUI, Rita Reid is said to been unable to deal with Telles but seems the one with the most experience with the office, and Tabatha Aldabbagh who seems to have no trace online. Anyone know anything about her?
Seeing student loan relief take effect almost immediately after I paid off the balance of my student loans is a bit frustrating. $10,000 in after tax income is life changing for many, including me, and so don't want to advocate for blocking relief that many may desperately need, but what about those of us that bit the proverbial bullet and actually managed to pay off their student loans in full?
There was no magic trick to repayment, my partner and I just agreed to camping trips instead of flights to tropical destinations, meals at home instead of in restaurants, and a cap on the size of our family.
I am not a troll, nor am I looking to spur a debate on the validity or wisdom of student loan relief, I am as jaded as any other attorney and understand that life is not fair, but just highlighting that overall something seems to be lacking here for those of us that repaid in full.
My advice: channel Reinhold Niebuhr as much as you possibly can. May god grant you the serenity to accept the things you cannot change. Move onward.
Absolutely agree. Like in my case, my mother died of cancer a few years ago. How fair would it be to her if suddenly these doctors and/or politicians released the cure for cancer? Everyone else should have to suffer like she did.
$10,000.00 is not really a life changing amount of money. How, exactly would your *life* be changed by an extra $10,000.00? In five years, the $10,000.00 will be essentially inconsequential to the quality and condition of your life.
I refinanced by loans with a private lender to obtain a lower interest rate. I don't get any forgiveness, either. It's bad policy, it isn't fair, but it's also something I have no control over. I can control how I budget, how I work to make more money, etc. I am grateful that I was able to refinance out of the federal loan, grateful to be employed, grateful for a home and what I have. I rob myself of appreciating those things if I choose to get upset about not qualifying for loan forgiveness.
I know this isn't you (so please don't take it this way), but even as someone who has been left out of the forgiveness, I am tired of listening to people engage in self adulation on this topic. It seems like the people who want to block this because they paid off their loans are intent on making the rest of us listen to them brag about how hard they work, how frugal they are, how forward looking they are. They don't appreciate the extent to which they are not really that special and how obnoxious they sound. This is especially true when coupled with anecdotal stories about classmates who partied, etc. Most Americans work really hard, bud. Most Americans sacrifice for their families and/or the future. Your virtue isn't universal, but it also isn't unique. We're all trying to do the same thing, and frankly, we're not impressed.
@12:16 – I could not disagree with you more. it is self-adulation to pay bills on time? it is virtue signaling to provide for families, work hard and live responsibly? your perspective is very concerning for me. if working hard, living as responsibly as one can, and living independent of government hand outs is obnoxious – this country has a big problem. if you paid your student loans – you should feel proud and accomplished. anyone who qualifies for this forgiveness, yet chooses not to accept the government handout deserves a medal.
12:31,
12:16 here. Go re-read my comment again. Where did I criticize honoring financial commitments? Please tell. My criticism is of people who make us all listen to their stories about how they scrimped and saved and paid off their loans, as though they just completed the Bataan Death March, as the basis to deny others loan forgiveness. It's called modesty. I do not go around bragging about how I budget or how hard I work as the basis to deny loan forgiveness. The stories are always told with such a sanctimonious air, with such an elevated sense of self importance and exceptionalism. If you paid off your loans, you did the right thing. But you don't deserve a medal from the rest of us who have listen to your self-authored hagiography and beatification as the preamble to your hot political take. Spare us.
I'm definitely on the fence. I don't think it's good to just hand out loan forgiveness. I think it incentivizes schools to continue to jack up tuition and incentivizes people to take out high student loans. I think that's a bad thing. Secondarily, I worry that this is not great for inflation to essentially hand out this loan forgiveness, although in fairness the government is always spending gobs of money on shit, so maybe this is a drop in the bucket.
On the other hand, lots of people could really use student loan forgiveness, for many reasons (including the fact that schools are too expensive and often predatory, and the fact that people take on debt they shouldn't).
@12:16/ 12:38 = it's me again (12:31). I read your comment correctly. I understand and understood. You don't want to listen to any more discussion/bragging/commentary etc. about paying off debt and the like. Now go re-read my comment again knowing there is no confusion. You are clearly annoyed not with the sound of a persons voice, their tone or inflection – you're annoyed with what they are saying. My comment exactly – its alarming that this "bragging" is annoying to you (and likely others). In a world where people are praised for proper pronoun usage – I don't find any fault with someone who is proud of their financial responsibility. I did not say that it wasn't your right to be annoyed. I didn't say you aren't entitled to be annoyed. I said – it is concerning to me.
Wow. How big of a pussy is LawDawg or whoever removed my post which wasn't even controversial? It clearly just stated actual facts.
1:07 honest question, why not just say coward? Why bring in female genitalia?
"You are clearly annoyed not with the sound of a persons voice, their tone or inflection – you're annoyed with what they are saying."
No, that is not it at all. A person who is actually virtuous doesn't need to announce it to anyone. It is self-evident. "I am/was virtuous as to my loan, therefore everyone should be virtuous just like me" is a terrible argument for many reasons. It is immodest. It makes assumptions, often unfair, about those who have not paid their loans. It reframes the discussion away from what is good policy to one of relative morality (ie, "I am virtuous for paying off my loans, and those who have not are not."). It's a garbage statement that serves as the foundation of a garbage argument.
This focus on whether a borrower is virtuous frames the policy discussion at the micro level by explaining defaulting student loans and ballooning aggregate student loan balances as matters of individual virtue. When, in reality, student debt explodes in this country because of moral hazard. Universities can essentially print money because they have no skin in the game. But let's pretend its all just a question of individual virtue. Tell me more about how hard you worked and how much you sacrificed as if your story were unique and you deserve some kind of commendation from the King.
To 11:36: If you made payments during the pandemic pause, you might still be able to get some relief in the form of a refund. Go to the student aid dot gov website and look for "refunds for past payments" under the debt relief info. (Captcha or whatever won't let me post the link.)
https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/debt-relief-info
@ 1:46 I didn't remove shit, you troglodyte.
These comments are interesting and it appears that everyone who has posted is emotionally attached to this student loan issue. For some reason, I am not emotional about the issue, on either side. I was able to pay off my student loans of over $100,000, in about ten years. I know my kid has about $5,000 in student loans and is excited about the possibility that they will be forgiven, and I am happy for him. I understand how it seems unfair to us who had to pay off our loans, but I cannot seem to get angry about the possibility that some people may get some relief. I guess there must something wrong with me.
If a borrower has paid sums equal to or greater than the principal of their government-backed loans, I feel they have honored their commitment to the Dept. of Education. I find it absurd to vilify them as a lazy moocher for wanting some semblance of relief from all of the interest and late penalties that may have accrued during the course of their repayment—for reasons that may not be within their control [e.g., forbearance due to unemployment, illness, etc.]. It can easily become a vicious cycle of never-ending payments (like a payday or title loan), with no hope of ever climbing out, that only serves to enrich the lenders and third-party loan servicing companies like SoFi (who then get to buy naming rights for NFL stadiums). It's unfortunate that many hard-working Americans are forced into years (if not decades) of residual payment obligations without the ability to discharge those punitive amounts via BK like most other types of debt.
I agree with 12:13's very clever wording. Suffering of those in the past does not mean we should not find a solution for those of the present and future. My problem with the loan forgiveness is that it does nothing to ensure affordable higher education for future students. One time forgiveness seems more like a bribe for votes of the young.
This whole discussion reminds of a conversation I had with a biglaw female partner a while back who was complaining about the entitlement of female associates "these days" to expect maternity leave when women of her generation "had" to return to work 3 days after popping a watermelon out of their vajayjays. We were at an event to welcome new female attorneys to the firm.
I suffered; therefore, you should too.
I agree with 10:10. the mentality of "i suffered, thus you should too" or alternatively, "what about me?" (complaining about not getting credit for paying off loans), that mentality needs to go. I paid off my loans about 6 years ago. I budgeted, took minimal loans during school and suffered early on to avoid indebtedness. do i feel some sort of way regarding the loan forgiveness now? a little…i wish there was something for us who did pay off our loans. Does that make me not support the program? of course not. I am keenly aware that not everyone could have taken the path i took, and without loans would not have achieved the education they acquired. While we are all bitching about loans and such, we should really focus our ire at the cost of schooling (this includes public institutions). There is no reason why public institutions should cost so much, outside adjusting for the price of inflation.
i do believe that the costs of tuition are high due to unnecessary things that colleges want to have, like expensive sports programs (and coaches), as well as brand new facilities like a swimming pool and gym or whatnot. Had this money spent been reinvested in educational programs and not extracurricular things, the costs wouldnt be so high.
Like all things, our educational costs are complex and have many variables, and there is no one size fits all fix for the high learning institutions. But theres a lot to say about when our universities cost far more and teach much less than many of the free or low cost universities in other countries that are ranked equally or higher than their US counterparts. I have been to University in Europe, and i can assure you their focus is not on sports or swimming pools.
I am uncertain how forgiveness operates as a "bribe" to voters, when almost any policy benefits an interest group and that benefit can be reduced to a monetary value. If the concern is that the "bribe" is too obvious, then I still don't see the argument. A few months ago, one of Big Pharma's chief lobbyists openly threatened that Hill democrats would "pay a price" for voting in favor of $35-a-month insulin price cap – a drug whose inventor sold the patent to a research university for $1 because he felt profiting from a life-saving medicine was unethical. If we're comfortable living in a world where comments like that can be made without any serious reprisal, then I have no problem with a similarly transactional exchange like student loan forgiveness that benefits a great number of ordinary people. And yes, I paid back my undergraduate student loans years ago.
I'm not upset about the loan forgiveness. I also sympathize with those who already paid off their loans (as did I). I don't think the issue is all these people getting forgiveness say they "can't" pay off their loans. Why not? Why not chip away at it little by little? Why not refinance for a lower rate? I think the gripe is the falsehood of being "unable" to pay them off. Spending $10/day on avocado toast and Starbucks does matter, and my guess is those complaining about their inability to pay could with even minimal effort. The larger issue for me is the babying by our government. Even with all that said, my belief is the forgiveness is just one step towards free college for all, another aspect of this I don't support. But for those who genuinely benefitted from $10k forgiveness, I don't fault them for taking it and am genuinely happy for them, especially if that amount did in fact make an impact in your life.
One could say the same for Big Pharma. Could the industry produce life-saving insulin and sell it at $35 per month? Yes they could, because the rest of the developed world does. They just don't want to. Instead, their lobbied-for tax breaks and anticompetitive drug pricing structure provides them excess revenue which permits them to advertise drugs to us on television, a practice that pretty much the only developed country in the world forbids. In that respect, their use of taxpayer subsidies for television advertising is best seen as the corporate equivalent of avocado toast.
I've long believed that if individuals voted more like corporations act, we would have a more rational and predictable electorate. Seen in that light, why should young people feel any obligation (moral or otherwise) to relinquish their minor luxuries in order to get what they want, when the most successful business enterprises in the world refuse to give up their own avocado toast? All that matters is whether they have the political will to pass their preferred policies. And they clearly have it.
Student loan relief aka the Vote Buying Program doesn't eliminate student debt. It just transfers the debt to the taxpayers. The banks still get all their money.
Kind of like everything the government does transfers to tax payers. For example PPP, Covid relief check, Medicare, Trump tax plan, Ukraine relief, farmer subsidies and highways, etc…
I paid off my loans too. So what. I will likely never get social security as it will be broke by then or they will keep extending the starting age. 😫
Sisolak is in trouble https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-police-union-declares-no-confidence-in-sisolak
Oh a state union that only exists because of Sisolak is mad that their new bargaining power didn't change pay statutes and create money last year? He is in trouble! Lombardo would not have supported state employee labor unions. Cops.
The Police Union made up of cops is declaring no confidence in the non-cop in the race? Quelle surprise.
I don't know IP, or estate law, but I was under the impression that an estate cannot sue for defamation?
https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2022/10/18/mother-of-george-floyds-daughter-files-250m-lawsuit-against-kanye-west-for-comments-on-his-death/
A perfect slice of non-news: "Telles to remain in custody without bail."
Was there actually any serious doubt about the outcome of such hearing?
Ugh. There is a candidate for Dept A (who will remain nameless) who favors in-person court appearances. This is costly for litigants so the candidate (judge) can do a "sniff test." I agree that trials should be in person, but run of the mill hearings? No. That's luddite thinking.
Tell us!!! Name the names!!!
Lud·dite
/ˈlədˌīt/
noun
plural noun: Luddites
1. DEROGATORY
a person opposed to new technology or ways of working. "a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
2. HISTORICAL
a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).
Origin:
early 19th century: perhaps named after Ned Lud, a participant in the destruction of machinery, + -ite
Don't take away yet another reason to cry about being a victim from this poor snowflake.
Mari Parlade:
She says remote hearings can be beneficial, especially for hearing from children.
“I really believe that the adults should be in court,” she says, “unless they have a medical condition or something that precludes them from being able to be there. There’s still nothing like the best evidence of having the parties there before to judge so that the judge can assess body language and everything in person.”
2:48-The above referenced article from the Nevada Current(which you can click at the top) tells you that and more–such as very few of these half-dozen candidates are campaigning or raising or spending any money.
The only one who is reasonably campaigning and raising and spending any money is Mari Parlade, so I assume she has a shot.
Kris Brewer, although she does not appear to be actively campaigning or raising any money, also may have a shot simply because she is first on the ballot, has a simple Anglo-sounding name, and I believe ran a couple times, so there may be some residual name-recognition
Lynn Hughes also may have a shot because, although he is another candidate raising no money and not really campaigning, he almost got elected in 2020.
So, Palade is the only one actually running some semblance of a campaign. It's quite surprising that all the others are raising no money, making no efforts, and seem, somewhat oddly, proud of that fact.
In fact, a couple candidates in this race, and one speaks openly of this fact in the article, are intentionally raising and spending no money, as they believe it creates an appearance of impropriety as those attorneys(who donate money) will appear before the judge once elected.
That's an attempt at striking a noble chord with the electorate, and it seems in every election at least one judicial candidate offers that approach. Problem is the public does not reward the candidate who removed money from his/her candidacy, simply because the public is never exposed to the candidate's name because they don't campaign.
There are judicial races where candidates spend hundred of thousands and lose. This seat may be here for the taking if anyone spends just $10,000. or $20,000., yet only one candidate sees fit to spend even that relatively minimal amount.
Is it safe to assume that if a candidate is not willing to expend any funds or time, and makes little or no effort to get elected, that if they happen to win it they will not value it and will bring the same lackluster(or non-existent) work ethic to the
bench?
Or is that an unfair comparison?
Last year Brewer commented "Let's Go Brandon" (since removed) on Facebook effectively saying F-you to the U.S. President. I don't care your politics, but this demonstrates that she does not have the gravitas to be a judge. Say it privately all you want but don't share your crude thoughts in public.
Damn. Thanks. Brewer just got my vote.
4:11-Although you have provided a lengthy analysis, what it all boils down to is it is a shame that someone has to win this race.
Family Law attorneys are dissatisfied, in general, with the choices in this race, and, yes, it is alarming that almost none of the candidates are making any effort, unlike these very aggressive and expensive RJC and Justice Court races.
That being said, Family Law attorneys may be right about this race being pretty slim pickings, but it does not appear there was any meaningful effort to recruit strong Family Court practitioners to run, and then support such candidates financially
4:11, well it's an assumption and an opinion on your part that they are making no real campaign efforts on account that they are raising and spending very little. Some candidates work very hard yet spend very little.
But, granted, it's usually quite difficult to be successful in a county-wide race without spending quite a bit.
4:21- 4:11 here. You are correct and I miss-spoke. Some of them are presumably spending some real time campaigning–attending events, appearing for endorsement interviews, seeking an inexpensive internet presence, etc.
My point was really just that(as you say)usually viability in a county-wide race is largely determined by being fairly well-financed.
But not always. There have been incumbents who spend over $2000,000., and are defeated by someone who spends like just a tenth of that amount.
4:11, since you put emphasis on name-recognition from prior races(which is reasonable) then you should probably add that Robert Kurth may have a good chance, as he has run quite a bit since 2000.
It also helps that Robert Kurth never takes down his signs after his unsuccessful runs for JP. His signs in the northwest remained up for like a year after the election was over back in 2018.
Robert Kurth was my neighbor and I know he has been running for various offices for years. I don't think he has ever won. I am curious as to why. I don't know him personally so I have very little to offer as to an opinion. I have to agree with the fact Mari Parlade seems to be the only one actively campaigning.
"She’s won endorsements from the Juvenile Justice Probation Officers’ Association. Clark County Juvenile Justice Supervisors’ Association, Asian Chamber of Commerce, Hispanics in Politics, Southern Nevada Building Trades Union, the Latin Chamber of Commerce, and others."
Is there any of the others running who have received any type of endorsement?
So Telles is defending himself against a murder charge, Patsy Brown was pulled over with a red cup and is defending herself against a DUI, Rita Reid is said to been unable to deal with Telles but seems the one with the most experience with the office, and Tabatha Aldabbagh who seems to have no trace online. Anyone know anything about her?