PA-SN 2022 megathread: Shrek vs. The Wizard of Oz

[OSR stands with Israel]

Just saw an Oz ad during the Eagles' game (RIP Carson Wentz) pelting Fetterman for his support of student loan forgiveness.  

During one scene, the ad showed a steel worker with a hard hat wiping his brow and decrying that hard-working tax payers would have to pay off the student loans of "gender studies" majors and "bartenders with blue hair".  

I have mixed feelings about student loan forgiveness, but the ad's message that only blue-collar workers pay their taxes was equal parts laughable and enraging.  

I don't think thats the message though of the ad. Rather that people who made the right financial choices and did not go into debt for useless degrees should not have to pay to forgive the loans of people who did go into debt for those types of degrees.

[Senator Incitatus]

Oz ran an ad during the ad of today's Eagles-Commies game hitting Fetterman on his support for total student loan forgiveness. He appealed to the sociocultural concerns of industrial trade union workers who shouldn't fun the "gender studies majors of liberal snowflakes". While this may rile up support among >65 voters I'm skeptical as anecdotally most union employees tend to have college enrolled kids. Oz doesn't seem to understand a lot of those blue-collar folks want their kids to move up into the professional class.

It's worth noting that student loan forgiveness most helps those who (a) went to (private) schools with higher tuitions and (b) pursued less profitable degrees, two factors I would say anecdotally weigh heavily against being the children of "blue-collar folks [who] want their kids to move up into the professional class." Many people who benefit from the policy will nonetheless be against it because it more strongly benefits an out-group. Your skepticism is warranted but should not be overextended.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Oz ran an ad during the ad of today's Eagles-Commies game hitting Fetterman on his support for total student loan forgiveness. He appealed to the sociocultural concerns of industrial trade union workers who shouldn't fun the "gender studies majors of liberal snowflakes". While this may rile up support among >65 voters I'm skeptical as anecdotally most union employees tend to have college enrolled kids. Oz doesn't seem to understand a lot of those blue-collar folks want their kids to move up into the professional class.

It's worth noting that student loan forgiveness most helps those who (a) went to (private) schools with higher tuitions and (b) pursued less profitable degrees, two factors I would say anecdotally weigh heavily against being the children of "blue-collar folks [who] want their kids to move up into the professional class." Many people who benefit from the policy will nonetheless be against it because it more strongly benefits an out-group. Your skepticism is warranted but should not be overextended.

On a proportional basis, $10K of forgiverness is more help to those who went to less expensive schools, which is much more likely to be public schools.  If you've got $20K debt, it wipes away half the debt.  If you've got $100K debt, it only wipes away 10% of it.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Just saw an Oz ad during the Eagles' game (RIP Carson Wentz) pelting Fetterman for his support of student loan forgiveness.  

During one scene, the ad showed a steel worker with a hard hat wiping his brow and decrying that hard-working tax payers would have to pay off the student loans of "gender studies" majors and "bartenders with blue hair".  

I have mixed feelings about student loan forgiveness, but the ad's message that only blue-collar workers pay their taxes was equal parts laughable and enraging.  

I don't think thats the message though of the ad. Rather that people who made the right financial choices and did not go into debt for useless degrees should not have to pay to forgive the loans of people who did go into debt for those types of degrees.

I doubt most people saw it that way.

Not to mention, plenty of blue collar workers have kids who took on debt to go to college.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Just saw an Oz ad during the Eagles' game (RIP Carson Wentz) pelting Fetterman for his support of student loan forgiveness.  

During one scene, the ad showed a steel worker with a hard hat wiping his brow and decrying that hard-working tax payers would have to pay off the student loans of "gender studies" majors and "bartenders with blue hair".  

I have mixed feelings about student loan forgiveness, but the ad's message that only blue-collar workers pay their taxes was equal parts laughable and enraging.  

Seems like a really good message to me? The point is that the tax dollars of people who don't have a college education (generally lower to middle class) is going to people who do have a college eduction (generally middle to upper class). I don't think the message is aimed towards you, as you are someone with many years of higher education.

[GALeftist]

Just saw an Oz ad during the Eagles' game (RIP Carson Wentz) pelting Fetterman for his support of student loan forgiveness.  

During one scene, the ad showed a steel worker with a hard hat wiping his brow and decrying that hard-working tax payers would have to pay off the student loans of "gender studies" majors and "bartenders with blue hair".  

I have mixed feelings about student loan forgiveness, but the ad's message that only blue-collar workers pay their taxes was equal parts laughable and enraging.  

Seems like a really good message to me? The point is that the tax dollars of people who don't have a college education (generally lower to middle class) is going to people who do have a college eduction (generally middle to upper class). I don't think the message is aimed towards you, as you are someone with many years of higher education.

In that sense, the tax dollars of everyone go to everyone else, no? Like Jeff Bezos uses the same roads that my taxes pay for. This seems like a silly way to view taxes. It is still true that lower income people are paying a lower net percentage of taxes and it's also true that student debt forgiveness is coming disproportionately from taxes on college grads.

[Senator Incitatus]

So I just noticed that Oz has not led in a single poll post-primary. 

A question to my Atlas research peeps: can anybody think of a candidate (for a statewide or federal seat) who has won despite never leading in a single poll (assuming more than one or two polls). 

Following up on this, in addition to the possibility of a "never-polled-a-lead" upset, things are still relatively early. Some Senators who won despite not leading in any pre-October polls. Recently, Todd Young and Ron Johnson both pulled off come-from-behind wins, which I think is more likely for Oz than a true day-of upset.

[Senator Incitatus]

Oz ran an ad during the ad of today's Eagles-Commies game hitting Fetterman on his support for total student loan forgiveness. He appealed to the sociocultural concerns of industrial trade union workers who shouldn't fun the "gender studies majors of liberal snowflakes". While this may rile up support among >65 voters I'm skeptical as anecdotally most union employees tend to have college enrolled kids. Oz doesn't seem to understand a lot of those blue-collar folks want their kids to move up into the professional class.

It's worth noting that student loan forgiveness most helps those who (a) went to (private) schools with higher tuitions and (b) pursued less profitable degrees, two factors I would say anecdotally weigh heavily against being the children of "blue-collar folks [who] want their kids to move up into the professional class." Many people who benefit from the policy will nonetheless be against it because it more strongly benefits an out-group. Your skepticism is warranted but should not be overextended.

On a proportional basis, $10K of forgiverness is more help to those who went to less expensive schools, which is much more likely to be public schools.  If you've got $20K debt, it wipes away half the debt.  If you've got $100K debt, it only wipes away 10% of it.

Again-anecdotally, the people most concerned with improving their professional status on a thin margin are more likely opt for state schools or graduate with zero debt or close to it. That subgroup do not benefit and may feel punished by debt forgiveness.

It's all marginal and I'm not arguing that this group makes up a majority of persuadable voters, but there is definitely a persuadable class of voters out there worth pursuing. Oz made a good play; I continue to see his campaign as well-run despite his personal, irreversible flaws.

[sting in the rafters]

It's worth noting that student loan forgiveness most helps those who (a) went to (private) schools with higher tuitions and (b) pursued less profitable degrees, two factors I would say anecdotally weigh heavily against being the children of "blue-collar folks [who] want their kids to move up into the professional class." Many people who benefit from the policy will nonetheless be against it because it more strongly benefits an out-group. Your skepticism is warranted but should not be overextended.

You're correct on who holds the most debt on aggregate and who benefits on total student loan forgiveness and I definitely agree this is something Fetterman needs to address before going back on the offensive. That said, Fetterman  [url=http://https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2010/09/wrought-from-ruins] can emphasize his own work as Braddock's mayor to assure Terrible Towel-waving lunch pail carpenters and retirees fellows that his student loan proposals are only one facet of his economic programme:

In 2001, feeling alienated from the dot-com revolution, Fetterman came to town to establish and run a county-sponsored program for school dropouts, which he set up from scratch. (He’d created and run a computer lab for young people in Pittsburgh in the 1990s.) The job suited his energy and resourcefulness, and he quickly built relationships with the 16- to 24-year-old crowd—helping them earn GEDs, get jobs, or find volunteer work, even mediating for them with families, social-service agencies, and the police.  Four years later they helped vote him into office.
....

IN BRADDOCK, Fetterman has managed to fuse what he likes best about these disciplines into a political role as social entrepreneur and “micro-philanthropist.” “Making significant improvements in and beating back what many would say is the inevitable decline and implosion of a post-industrial community—isn’t this why you go to a public-policy school?” he asks. “Don’t people in these jurisdictions deserve to live in an improving set of circumstances? It’s never going to be equal, but that doesn’t mean that people can’t be safe, have opportunities for their children—and not have to watch 90 percent of their town get carted off to the landfill.”

So far, he has integrated the arts, the green economy, robust kids’ programs, and private and public capital in rehabilitating about half a dozen decrepit downtown buildings that he has bought and fixed up, primarily through his all-volunteer nonprofit 501(c)(3), Braddock Redux. He and a core group of supporters turned an old convent across from the Thomson plant into a barebones hostel for visitors. The adjacent former Catholic school is now the Unsmoked gallery, which has showcased artists from Pittsburgh and New York City and offers studios upstairs that rent for $100 a month. “What else would it be used for?” he explains. “The arts are good for any community and our art openings and events bring in all kinds of people who wouldn’t otherwise take an interest in what’s going on here.”

....

In his mind, it does not take much to improve people’s lives in little ways on a daily basis, while working on the more intractable problems, like bringing in employers. “We’re not ready to bring in Adobe Systems or Google, we are not at that level,” he says, “but there are things we can all agree on that are fundamental and doable now: opening playgrounds that are staffed for children; running a summer-jobs program that gives kids meaningful jobs.” He notes that KaBoom (a national nonprofit that creates play spaces where there are none) is installing a new playground this fall, down the hill from the youth center and his house, thanks to a matching grant offer from KaBoom. (He is paying $5,000 and the local Heritage Community Initiative is paying $2,500.) “I’m looking to do the most advanced things that are relatable to this community. Even though people thought it was strange to grow organic vegetables by the steel mill, it’s not such a radical concept that people are going to reject it.”

[sting in the rafters]

Nope.  Didn't see any. 

I'm assuming there were no Fetterman ads then during the game. Fetterman/Ds really need to step the ad game up. Not having an ad play during todays game is a total sin.

Sorry for double posting but I did see a couple Fetterman jawns during the 2nd quarter and just now at the Chargers-Jags halftime bringing out women who've had abortions and hitting Oz for calling it murder. Good psychographic marketing on-paper but only time will tell how much it resonates.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I really hate a lot of the criticism that the student loan plan is getting because so much of it is based on assumptions. I went off on this in another thread a few weeks back and really don't want to repeat myself by addressing every aspect of the argument, but is it really realistic to expect college students to have their whole life figured out before taking on loans for what they may want to study in school? And isn't it also possible that blue collar workers might have gone to college for some time or even graduated before taking on the job they did, even possibly taking on some student debt of their own? I get why the "blue-haired" urban-dwelling millennial with a non-technical degree and "lowly" job is built up as the straw-man they are in order to get the right people feeling resentful, but it's so presumptuous and kind of offensive to any of the large swathes of people of all demographics, backgrounds, and occupations who have incurred student debt (like Penn Quaker Girl).

In a rational country the debate on student loans and higher education would be based on why students have to take on debt in the first place, the price of tuition, society's job market necessitating a college degree as the equivalent of a high school diploma for generation's past, and what to do about all that. But we obviously do not live in a rational country that can have good faith debates like that and instead make the bandage that is the Biden proposal out to be some sort of inconvenience to "real, responsible Americans."

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Just saw an Oz ad during the Eagles' game (RIP Carson Wentz) pelting Fetterman for his support of student loan forgiveness.  

During one scene, the ad showed a steel worker with a hard hat wiping his brow and decrying that hard-working tax payers would have to pay off the student loans of "gender studies" majors and "bartenders with blue hair".  

I have mixed feelings about student loan forgiveness, but the ad's message that only blue-collar workers pay their taxes was equal parts laughable and enraging.  

Seems like a really good message to me? The point is that the tax dollars of people who don't have a college education (generally lower to middle class) is going to people who do have a college eduction (generally middle to upper class). I don't think the message is aimed towards you, as you are someone with many years of higher education.

In that sense, the tax dollars of everyone go to everyone else, no? Like Jeff Bezos uses the same roads that my taxes pay for. This seems like a silly way to view taxes. It is still true that lower income people are paying a lower net percentage of taxes and it's also true that student debt forgiveness is coming disproportionately from taxes on college grads.

Infrastructure is an important expenditure by the government because it is the most efficient way of pooling enough resources to fund massive projects that might not be initially profitable.


Bailing out people for student loan debt that they choose to pick up is incredibly stupid. They should pay their damn loans. Why should people who choose not to go to college be on the hook for other people's choices?

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I really hate a lot of the criticism that the student loan plan is getting because so much of it is based on assumptions. I went off on this in another thread a few weeks back and really don't want to repeat myself by addressing every aspect of the argument, but is it really realistic to expect college students to have their whole life figured out before taking on loans for what they may want to study in school? And isn't it also possible that blue collar workers might have gone to college for some time or even graduated before taking on the job they did, even possibly taking on some student debt of their own? I get why the "blue-haired" urban-dwelling millennial with a non-technical degree and "lowly" job is built up as the straw-man they are in order to get the right people feeling resentful, but it's so presumptuous and kind of offensive to any of the large swathes of people of all demographics, backgrounds, and occupations who have incurred student debt (like Penn Quaker Girl).

In a rational country the debate on student loans and higher education would be based on why students have to take on debt in the first place, the price of tuition, society's job market necessitating a college degree as the equivalent of a high school diploma for generation's past, and what to do about all that. But we obviously do not live in a rational country that can have good faith debates like that and instead make the bandage that is the Biden proposal out to be some sort of inconvenience to "real, responsible Americans."

Student loans being so readily available without any sort of underwriting or questions is part of why college tuition is so expensive, and bailing out the poorly structured system is just going to continue to make the college inflation problem worse and worse.

This is the same problem with most of the democratic parties policies today, and it is why we are seeing such persistent inflation despite the Federal Reserve's constant 0.75 rate hikes. It's honestly baffling seeing how poorly the democratic party's handling of the economy is; I'm generally more liberal on the economics side but it doesn't take a genius to see why dumping so much money into the economy doesn't make a lick of a sense.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I really hate a lot of the criticism that the student loan plan is getting because so much of it is based on assumptions. I went off on this in another thread a few weeks back and really don't want to repeat myself by addressing every aspect of the argument, but is it really realistic to expect college students to have their whole life figured out before taking on loans for what they may want to study in school? And isn't it also possible that blue collar workers might have gone to college for some time or even graduated before taking on the job they did, even possibly taking on some student debt of their own? I get why the "blue-haired" urban-dwelling millennial with a non-technical degree and "lowly" job is built up as the straw-man they are in order to get the right people feeling resentful, but it's so presumptuous and kind of offensive to any of the large swathes of people of all demographics, backgrounds, and occupations who have incurred student debt (like Penn Quaker Girl).

In a rational country the debate on student loans and higher education would be based on why students have to take on debt in the first place, the price of tuition, society's job market necessitating a college degree as the equivalent of a high school diploma for generation's past, and what to do about all that. But we obviously do not live in a rational country that can have good faith debates like that and instead make the bandage that is the Biden proposal out to be some sort of inconvenience to "real, responsible Americans."

Student loans being so readily available without any sort of underwriting or questions is part of why college tuition is so expensive, and bailing out the poorly structured system is just going to continue to make the college inflation problem worse and worse.

This is the same problem with most of the democratic parties policies today, and it is why we are seeing such persistent inflation despite the Federal Reserve's constant 0.75 rate hikes. It's honestly baffling seeing how poorly the democratic party's handling of the economy is; I'm generally more liberal on the economics side but it doesn't take a genius to see why dumping so much money into the economy doesn't make a lick of a sense.

Okay, so how do we make college more affordable so loans aren't as necessary? And wouldn't having loans partially forgiven give people the ability to spend more money on others things instead, thus stimulating the economy more and benefiting society as a whole?

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

I really hate a lot of the criticism that the student loan plan is getting because so much of it is based on assumptions. I went off on this in another thread a few weeks back and really don't want to repeat myself by addressing every aspect of the argument, but is it really realistic to expect college students to have their whole life figured out before taking on loans for what they may want to study in school? And isn't it also possible that blue collar workers might have gone to college for some time or even graduated before taking on the job they did, even possibly taking on some student debt of their own? I get why the "blue-haired" urban-dwelling millennial with a non-technical degree and "lowly" job is built up as the straw-man they are in order to get the right people feeling resentful, but it's so presumptuous and kind of offensive to any of the large swathes of people of all demographics, backgrounds, and occupations who have incurred student debt (like Penn Quaker Girl).

In a rational country the debate on student loans and higher education would be based on why students have to take on debt in the first place, the price of tuition, society's job market necessitating a college degree as the equivalent of a high school diploma for generation's past, and what to do about all that. But we obviously do not live in a rational country that can have good faith debates like that and instead make the bandage that is the Biden proposal out to be some sort of inconvenience to "real, responsible Americans."

Student loans being so readily available without any sort of underwriting or questions is part of why college tuition is so expensive, and bailing out the poorly structured system is just going to continue to make the college inflation problem worse and worse.

This is the same problem with most of the democratic parties policies today, and it is why we are seeing such persistent inflation despite the Federal Reserve's constant 0.75 rate hikes. It's honestly baffling seeing how poorly the democratic party's handling of the economy is; I'm generally more liberal on the economics side but it doesn't take a genius to see why dumping so much money into the economy doesn't make a lick of a sense.

Okay, so how do we make college more affordable so loans aren't as necessary? And wouldn't having loans partially forgiven give people the ability to spend more money on others things instead, thus stimulating the economy more and benefiting society as a whole?

College and education is a libtard indoctrination program, so obviously right wingers will be better off dying in poverty to own the libs.

[wbrocks67]

Nope.  Didn't see any. 

I'm assuming there were no Fetterman ads then during the game. Fetterman/Ds really need to step the ad game up. Not having an ad play during todays game is a total sin.

Sorry for double posting but I did see a couple Fetterman jawns during the 2nd quarter and just now at the Chargers-Jags halftime bringing out women who've had abortions and hitting Oz for calling it murder. Good psychographic marketing on-paper but only time will tell how much it resonates.

Glad to hear.

[Ferguson97]

Just saw an Oz ad during the Eagles' game (RIP Carson Wentz) pelting Fetterman for his support of student loan forgiveness.  

During one scene, the ad showed a steel worker with a hard hat wiping his brow and decrying that hard-working tax payers would have to pay off the student loans of "gender studies" majors and "bartenders with blue hair".  

I have mixed feelings about student loan forgiveness, but the ad's message that only blue-collar workers pay their taxes was equal parts laughable and enraging.  

Seems like a really good message to me? The point is that the tax dollars of people who don't have a college education (generally lower to middle class) is going to people who do have a college eduction (generally middle to upper class). I don't think the message is aimed towards you, as you are someone with many years of higher education.

How does the message appeal to anyone who isn't already voting Republican?

The derogatory usage of "gender studies major" and "bartender with blue hair" is obviously meant to appeal to Republicans and Republicans alone.

If you're the kind of person who gets triggered by "gender studies" and women with dyed hair, you're already voting Republican.

[GALeftist]

Infrastructure is an important expenditure by the government because it is the most efficient way of pooling enough resources to fund massive projects that might not be initially profitable.


Bailing out people for student loan debt that they choose to pick up is incredibly stupid. They should pay their damn loans. Why should people who choose not to go to college be on the hook for other people's choices?

Why should I be on the hook for people who wouldn't be able to afford privatized infrastructure to free ride off my tax dollars? Simple, it's because government should decide policy based on what produces the best outcome, not based off what appeases some random person's frankly arbitrary idea of justice.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1574222815481548801

[wbrocks67]

If you're being reduced to calling your competitor "pro murderer" then idk what is really going on with your campaign, and you shouldn't be taken seriously

https://twitter.com/DrOz/status/1574392332652351489

[Sir Mohamed]

If you're being reduced to calling your competitor "pro murderer" then idk what is really going on with your campaign, and you shouldn't be taken seriously

https://twitter.com/DrOz/status/1574392332652351489

What do you expect from someone who calls himself a "doctor" and then mocks his political rival for having a stroke. This is the GOP we're dealing with today.

[UncleSam]

If you're being reduced to calling your competitor "pro murderer" then idk what is really going on with your campaign, and you shouldn't be taken seriously

https://twitter.com/DrOz/status/1574392332652351489

I am shocked - SHOCKED, I say - that you think Dr. Oz should not be taken seriously. A searing indictment of his campaign and truly a death knell for Republicans nationwide.

[wbrocks67]

If you're being reduced to calling your competitor "pro murderer" then idk what is really going on with your campaign, and you shouldn't be taken seriously

https://twitter.com/DrOz/status/1574392332652351489

I am shocked - SHOCKED, I say - that you think Dr. Oz should not be taken seriously. A searing indictment of his campaign and truly a death knell for Republicans nationwide.

....okay? If you think this is a good campaign strategy, feel free to defend it and/or him.

[Senator Incitatus]

https://twitter.com/Sultan4Oz/status/1573840927961088004

Only mildly surprised that no one has posted this (or perhaps I missed), but as a pretty strong critic of dual citizenship—for private individuals, let alone public servants—I have to admit softened me up on the man. Smart of him to attack his biggest issue head on and undercut the dogwhistle campaign against him.

I think the election would be Tilt D if held today but also that the momentum is in Oz's favor. He continues to run a strong campaign against a weak opponent but could still very well lose due to factors out of his control (his heritage, religion, and Doug Mastriano).

[Ferguson97]

Only mildly surprised that no one has posted this (or perhaps I missed), but as a pretty strong critic of dual citizenship (for private individuals, let alone public servants) I have to admit softened me up on the man. Smart of him to attack his biggest issue head on and undercut the dogwhistle campaign against him.

I think the election would be Tilt D if held today but also that the momentum is in Oz's favor. He continues to run a strong campaign against a weak opponent but could still very well lose due to factors out of his control (his citizenship, religion, and Doug Mastriano).