I read his post as the opposite. I read it as he'd like it to be fair and the same for everyone.ÂAmerica summed up in one post. Screw everybody else what can I get out of it. Â
 I read his post as the opposite. I read it as he'd like it to be fair and the same for everyone.ÂAmerica summed up in one post. Screw everybody else what can I get out of it. Â
What does “it” represent in “he’d like it to be fair and the same for everyone”? I read his post as the opposite. I read it as he'd like it to be fair and the same for everyone.Â
Damn ####### right it's un-American. I couldn't afford going to Northwestern Law because of finances (a top ten school at the time). I had spent my professional life and many man hours prepping for the LSAT to score and have my resume the way it was, and I had to go to UCONN, which sucks comparatively to N'Western, frankly. I chose the state tuition and grants. And I pieced it together when I could have easily been making 100-150,000 dollars a year right away in Chicago but couldn't have $200,000 in loans hanging over my head.
You read correct. I read his post as the opposite. I read it as he'd like it to be fair and the same for everyone.Â
Many of those young people are choosing colleges they can't afford and getting better degrees out of it. Those that made a more responsible decision have less to write-off but also don't have as nice of a degree. Forgiving student loans is bunk, IMO. ÂThey are meaningfully different in that 18-25 year olds with no established credit history are receiving them with their still undeveloped prefrontal cortex. What other large loans exist for this target audience?
Lots of stuff is unfair that ultimately benefits the greater good. It’s childish to expect everything in this country to be 1 for 1.Ârockaction said:Damn ####### right it's un-American. I couldn't afford going to Northwestern Law because of finances (a top ten school at the time). I had spent my professional life and many man hours prepping for the LSAT to score and have my resume the way it was, and I had to go to UCONN, which sucks comparatively to N'Western, frankly. I chose the state tuition and grants. And I pieced it together when I could have easily been making 100-150,000 dollars a year right away in Chicago but couldn't have $200,000 in loans hanging over my head.
Or so I thought. Let's just have debt forgiveness for everyone who put off paying for another day, according to some. By executive order, no less, which basically means by fiat. It's ridiculous.
It’s the same issue with affirmative action, the ACA, and our national response to a pandemic. What’s in it for me?  Don’t tell me about addressing broad societal issues, I want to know why my neighbor is getting something I’m not getting. ÂLots of stuff is unfair that ultimately benefits the greater good. It’s childish to expect everything in this country to be 1 for 1.Â
Lots of stuff is unfair that ultimately benefits the greater good. It’s childish to expect everything in this country to be 1 for 1.Â
It's not selfish; it's an issue of fairness that the left should understand if it weren't so busy tripping over itself to hand taxpayer money out to some aggrieved class of people.It’s the same issue with affirmative action, the ACA, and our national response to a pandemic. What’s in it for me?  Don’t tell me about addressing broad societal issues, I want to know why my neighbor is getting something I’m not getting. Â
You miss those corporate tax cuts last year then or what?  Are you kidding me?It's not selfish; it's an issue of fairness that the left should understand if it weren't so busy tripping over itself to hand taxpayer money out to some aggrieved class of people.
How is the transfer middle class to middle class? It’s currently middle class to a corporation like Chase.ÂAnd it's also potentially bad policy. It's another middle class transfer to the middle class which only loses in efficiency what it lacks in the nobility of its goal; namely to benefit a class already benefited by so much.
It's nothing like affirmative action, too. I just re-read that. That's so ridiculous that it beggars belief.
Yeah, I didn't agree with those, either. It would seem that given our deficit and debt spending situation that taxes should have remained constant or have risen. We can't have so many unfunded programs. Colloquially put, because I don't completely understand currency and manipulation, it's like we've been just printing money that's backed by nothing. It's fiat currency. The only thing it has going for it is confidence in its value. As the unfunded mandates increase, so does the uncertainty that we're good for our debts. That's never a good thing and I don't care how many derivative traders one gets to say otherwise.You miss those corporate tax cuts last year then or what?Â
Yet they have no problem with gigantic corporate tax cuts or huge corporate tax holes. This country loves schlepping up to billionaires but looks down on their fellow common man getting any free shake because  it’s not fair ÂIt’s the same issue with affirmative action, the ACA, and our national response to a pandemic. What’s in it for me?  Don’t tell me about addressing broad societal issues, I want to know why my neighbor is getting something I’m not getting. Â
Education transfers, according to Stieglitz who I think broke this theory in economics, is that most wealth transfers that happen in our society are not rich to poor, or poor to rich, or middle to upper or anything like that, but especially education transfers are middle class transfers of wealth. Why is this bad? It's inefficient, first and foremost. Secondly, it puts a valuation on a societal goal that not everybody wants or should even strive for.How is the transfer middle class to middle class? It’s currently middle class to a corporation like Chase.Â
OK Bernie.Yet they have no problem with gigantic corporate tax cuts or huge corporate tax holes. This country loves schlepping up to billionaires but looks down on their fellow common man getting any free shake because  it’s not fair Â
I’m hardly Bernie but there are certainly things that can be done in this country to help people out further. The fact we do so much for multi-billionaires and look down on our fellow middle class members is pathetic to me.ÂOK Bernie.
(Not necessarily. I don't care for the super rich and the disgusting displays of wealth in times of inequality.)
I don't have any special reverence for billionaires. I don't know a lot of people who do. Those people are sort of suckers in a way.I’m hardly Bernie but there are certainly things that can be done in this country to help people out further. The fact we do so much for multi-billionaires and look down on our fellow middle class members is pathetic to me.Â
I just want to see some sensible changes - let's start with term limits.GroveDiesel said:Correct, I think it just starts an arms race to pack the courts.
Frankly, I think the Supreme Court is way less political than either side makes it out to be anyway.Â
There’s nothing wrong with being selfish. It drives almost everything we do. The point for me, particularly relating to tax policy, is the confusion when you ignore a trillion dollar tax cut that directly benefits a very few of the most wealthy, while crying bloody murder when the guy across the street gets a small break because that’s unfair.ÂIt's not selfish; it's an issue of fairness that the left should understand if it weren't so busy tripping over itself to hand taxpayer money out to some aggrieved class of people.
I disagree. I'm driven by nothing but the purest of altruism.There’s nothing wrong with being selfish. It drives almost everything we do. The point for me, particularly relating to tax policy, is the confusion when you ignore a trillion dollar tax cut that directly benefits a very few of the most wealthy, while crying bloody murder when the guy across the street gets a small break because that’s unfair.Â
My reply had little to do with forgiving the loans. It is about how college loans need to be fundamentally different from other loans if they are part of a policy goal of creating a path for those where the only impediment to going to college is money. I've acknowledged that this goal could probably be achieved in other ways. I'm guessing that there are a few who disagree that this is a worthy goal at all - at least as far as the government involvement is concerned. But none of those things are part of my point.  That point being few are giving to be offering these loans otherwise, and those that are offered are going to be at paycheck loan interest rates.Ramblin Wreck said:Many of those young people are choosing colleges they can't afford and getting better degrees out of it. Those that made a more responsible decision have less to write-off but also don't have as nice of a degree. Forgiving student loans is bunk, IMO. Â
I’m against the education loan forgiveness 100% but am not against an interest free solution.  I get it.  Student loans can be crippling.  But, you can’t hand out free money when the money isn’t free it has to come from somewhere. ÂExtend free public education to include college. Allow interest free pausing of student loans for extended periods of time (maybe permanently). Implement a BIG.
WALA.
Full disclosure, the argument that I paid my loans, I'm personally still paying them, so why should anyone get theirs forgiven, is truly a non starter for me personally. I don't personally consider it a valid argument worthy of my time. But I understand that bias in me and so i try to specifically stay away from that part of this argument.ÂI disagree. I'm driven by nothing but the purest of altruism.
Seriously, though, nobody said that most folks were ignoring the trillion dollar tax cut. It wasn't a very popular tax cut, all things considered. It was almost cronyism, all things considered. The Republicans lined the pockets of the people who paid for them to be there. But disagreeing with a bailout for students isn't mutually exclusive from having concerns regarding other areas of the economy that aren't necessarily right wing.Â
I'm all for very low interest student loans and very much for lowering the price of public education.My reply had little to do with forgiving the loans. It is about how college loans need to be fundamentally different from other loans if they are part of a policy goal of creating a path for those where the only impediment to going to college is money. I've acknowledged that this goal could probably be achieved in other ways. I'm guessing that there are a few who disagree that this is a worthy goal at all - at least as far as the government involvement is concerned. But none of those things are part of my point.  That point being few are giving to be offering these loans otherwise, and those that are offered are going to be at paycheck loan interest rates.
I get it.  I’m not in favor of student loan debt “cancellation” as noted earlier. It’s just so obvious that something like this will never fly because of our inherent selfishness and obsession with what the other guy is getting.  Immigrants and minorities are stealing MY job that is MINE because I earned it. Someone else is getting healthcare that I’m paying for because they don’t have a job. I’m paying welfare and unemployment to lazy people who just sit home all day and steal my money. Conservatives are so much better at packaging their corporate welfare than liberals are at packaging theirs.ÂI disagree. I'm driven by nothing but the purest of altruism.
Seriously, though, nobody said that most folks were ignoring the trillion dollar tax cut. It wasn't a very popular tax cut, all things considered. It was almost cronyism, all things considered. The Republicans lined the pockets of the people who paid for them to be there. But disagreeing with a bailout for students isn't mutually exclusive from having concerns regarding other areas of the economy that aren't necessarily right wing.Â
Totally free college is a simplistic statement. Yes, we need engineers, lawyers, doctors, etc.Extend free public education to include college. Allow interest free pausing of student loans for extended periods of time (maybe permanently). Implement a BIG.
WALA.
For this to work, the government would also have to stop guaranteeing the loans and stop owning the loans. As others have mentioned, the downside is that this would almost certainly have a negative effect on those with lower income being able to get loans for college.ÂMake them dischargeable and you actually solve the policy problem behind them and free up people suffering under them in the way you free them from medical bills and consumer debt.Â
What about that argument is invalid? If validity means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises then I can easily show how it's valid. If soundness is what you're striving for, then that's another matter. But there's nothing invalid about holding a standard of fairness and accountability for loans taken out on or before "xx" date.Full disclosure, the argument that I paid my loans, I'm personally still paying them, so why should anyone get theirs forgiven, is truly a non starter for me personally. I don't personally consider it a valid argument worthy of my time. But I understand that bias in me and so i try to specifically stay away from that part of this argument.
Yep - I thought about putting more behind free College but decided to leave it on its own.  I don’t have all the details but just like public school we should have some level of free college available to everyone.Totally free college is a simplistic statement. Yes, we need engineers, lawyers, doctors, etc.
What we really need are skilled laborers, electricians, plumbers, highly trained technical workers where a degree isn't necessary, and things like that. Free or almost no cost training for vocational industries would be much more beneficial long term to our stability as a nation then making sure everyone has a chance to take History of Cinema to fill out that general liberal arts education.Â
I disagree on the government having to stop. ÂFor this to work, the government would also have to stop guaranteeing the loans and stop owning the loans. As others have mentioned, the downside is that this would almost certainly have a negative effect on those with lower income being able to get loans for college.Â
Of course, I’m one that believes that well over 50% of college degrees are a tremendous waste of time and money and that 4 years or less of on the job experience would be much more valuable to both individuals and companies in the long run.
I'm not going to speak for @Yankee23Fanbut to me whether or not a policy is "fair" ultimately is irrelevant. There is no such thing as a policy change that doesn't create undeserved winners and losers of no fault of their own. While mitigating the damage to losers is a worthy goal, ultimately policy that ultimately create more benefits than it costs, create more winners than losers, etc. If forgiving college loans is the "fuel to jumpstart a roaring economy" which rises the tides for most everyone then the fact that I went to lesser schools, worked 60 hour weeks for 3 of my 4 years, long ago paid of my loans is not a consideration.What about that argument is invalid? If validity means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises then I can easily show how it's valid. If soundness is what you're striving for, then that's another matter. But there's nothing invalid about holding a standard of fairness and accountability for loans taken out on or before "xx" date.Full disclosure, the argument that I paid my loans, I'm personally still paying them, so why should anyone get theirs forgiven, is truly a non starter for me personally. I don't personally consider it a valid argument worthy of my time. But I understand that bias in me and so i try to specifically stay away from that part of this argument.
If we move towards a policy of future forgiveness and don't apply it retroactively, then there's a much better case to be made for it. But there's an inherent unfairness about somebody that has worked or invested in a path of life only to see similarly situated people able to shirk understood responsibility and get away with it. If that sounds like plaintive whining, perhaps it would do us good to remember Florence King's dictum of how morals and ethics happen: somebody says "that's not nice" or "that's not fair" and we civilize ourselves according to that edict.
And it truly isn't a fair system when you get some people making huge sacrifices while others at the same situation and time don't have to fulfill their obligations.
I'd be happy to go back and forth in a specific thread. But, making it too simplistic.... because I suffered everyone should, isn't an argument I find worthy at all for anything. It falls into the " this is the way its always been done, " school of thought that i would physically beat out of people and institutions of i could be given immunity from the crime.ÂWhat about that argument is invalid? If validity means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises then I can easily show how it's valid. If soundness is what you're striving for, then that's another matter. But there's nothing invalid about holding a standard of fairness and accountability for loans taken out on or before "xx" date.
If we move towards a policy of future forgiveness and don't apply it retroactively, then there's a much better case to be made for it. But there's an inherent unfairness about somebody that has worked or invested in a path of life only to see similarly situated people able to shirk understood responsibility and get away with it. If that sounds like plaintive whining, perhaps it would do us good to remember Florence King's dictum of how morals and ethics happen: somebody says "that's not nice" or "that's not fair" and we civilize ourselves according to that edict.
And it truly isn't a fair system when you get some people making huge sacrifices while others at the same situation and time don't have to fulfill their obligations.
I allow that future forgiveness wouldn't be the worst thing ever necessarily. Allowing for changes in the system doesn't sound much like a "because I suffered..." line of argument. I don't agree with forgiveness arguments because I don't believe in another government program funding one's educational whims with another's labor. That said, you indicated it's a non-starter for you so I won't beat it to death.I'd be happy to go back and forth in a specific thread. But, making it too simplistic.... because I suffered everyone should, isn't an argument I find worthy at all for anything. It falls into the " this is the way its always been done, " school of thought that i would physically beat out of people and institutions of i could be given immunity from the crime.Â
Oh I get the educational whims part, I do. ÂI allow that future forgiveness wouldn't be the worst thing ever necessarily. Allowing for changes in the system doesn't sound much like a "because I suffered..." line of argument. I don't agree with forgiveness arguments because I don't believe in another government program funding one's educational whims with another's labor. That said, you indicated it's a non-starter for you so I won't beat it to death.
I don't think, "Because it sucked for you," is a good reason to have it continue to suck for future folks.Summer Wheat said:I wanted to go to a nice 4 year university but could not afford it. I went to a community college, then transferred and commuted to a university. Payed my own way for everything. Took me a little longer but I graduated without any debt.  Have friends who attended schools they could not afford, partied, got so-so jobs, are in debt and now they will get forgiveness?? That would piss me off.
So am I going to get a nice check for doing things the right way?
I voted for Biden so while we are at it why not forgive my home mortgage?
Without liberal arts, I wouldn’t immediately think, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”Oh I get the educational whims part, I do. Â
Void of the loan piece though.... as a nation we are better the more educated the people are.... across all fields to be educated in, even i guess those liberal arts folks.Â
I don’t think he’s saying it sucked for him.  He made responsible choices and got a degree without debt, while others are struggling because they didn’t.  Want to fix long term student loan debt?  Stop encouraging everyone to go to college and get meaningless diplomas.  Start encouraging trade schools.  Cap tuition at state schools, particularly ridiculous out of state tuition charges.  Maybe encourage less people to run up debt, and encourage those that do to incur less debt.I don't think, "Because it sucked for you," is a good reason to have it continue to suck for future folks.
Or increase class sizes and lower tuition. I think the one silver lining to this entire pandemic is most people have finally figured out that there is no longer a need to attend college classes in person and even if there was, it's a wildly overpriced experience in most cases.ÂOK. But then you have to accept big losses in the program, raise interest rates, and/or deny lots more people in the first place. Â
There would be other consequences but I'll leave it at this for now.
This is the part I tend to disagree with. I get the unfairness part and there’s no good argument to be made about that. It IS fundamentally unfair.ÂAnd it's also potentially bad policy. It's another middle class transfer to the middle class which only loses in efficiency what it lacks in the nobility of its goal; namely to benefit a class already benefited by so much.
It's nothing like affirmative action, too. I just re-read that. That's so ridiculous that it beggars belief.
Compare that to a bail-out for people swimming in medical debt.  Same effect, right?  Or no, because they can’t afford houses?This is the part I tend to disagree with. I get the unfairness part and there’s no good argument to be made about that. It IS fundamentally unfair.Â
Â
But as to this part I take the opposite view: I think it’s potentially good policy. I look at it in the form of a domestic Marshall Plan; I think it will give these folks money to spend on the economy. My assumption is that they will eagerly do what their parents did, and grandparents: buy homes. Actually, as I’ve suggested previously, we could help that along by, instead of relieving the debt, allow them to transfer it to a home purchase. Â
I think it would lead to an economic boom of gigantic proportions.Â
Mine went up.  Both individually and corporately. ÂYou miss those corporate tax cuts last year then or what?  Are you kidding me?
Sure. Until everyone realizes that if we just wait long enough and say we can't pay our bills, the government will take care of it.Lots of stuff is unfair that ultimately benefits the greater good. It’s childish to expect everything in this country to be 1 for 1.Â
Sure. ÂThis is the part I tend to disagree with. I get the unfairness part and there’s no good argument to be made about that. It IS fundamentally unfair.Â
Â
But as to this part I take the opposite view: I think it’s potentially good policy. I look at it in the form of a domestic Marshall Plan; I think it will give these folks money to spend on the economy. My assumption is that they will eagerly do what their parents did, and grandparents: buy homes. Actually, as I’ve suggested previously, we could help that along by, instead of relieving the debt, allow them to transfer it to a home purchase. Â
I think it would lead to an economic boom of gigantic proportions.Â
Edit: Someone pointed out I misunderstood what you were saying. Redacted.ÂLove love love that the Republican position is nah we aren’t gonna help the middle class out with some tax cuts and also here’s a trillion dollars in corporate tax cuts. Maybe it’ll trickle down.Â
You two aren’t talking about the same thing, and I don’t think Cap actually knows where the tax cuts went.  It was only to the top, not to the average business.  Most small businesses got screwed.  Corporate tax cuts doesn’t mean every corporation."some tax cuts" = 50,000 a person (as long as you haven't already paid off your debt)?
I mean FFS. Â
I’d be ok with doing both and then making college (some level) and healthcare free.Compare that to a bail-out for people swimming in medical debt.  Same effect, right?  Or no, because they can’t afford houses?