How Much Student Debt Should be Canceled?

[Kaleredar]

Ok, and what good does me having to pay back my mortgage serve?

What’s it to you if a student has to pay off a loan or not just because you have to pay off a mortgage?

While I could go into the innumerable differences between a predatory loan agency lending a child money with absolutely no guarantee of them being able to pay it back in a timely manner versus a bank lending a home mortgage that requires proof of steady income and a credit rating assessment, suffice to say, they are not the same thing, and the financial prospects of a college freshmen are nowhere near as concrete as that of a steadily employed homeowner.

- - - Updated - - -

They payback the loan rather then rob the tax payer for one... while I think allowing someone into a university with less then a 85% average is fully they took out the loan they pay it back.

Taxpayers should be paying for it, just like in pretty much every other western country.

Because guess what those students do with that money they didn’t have to dump into a loan agency? Spend it in the actual economy.

[Elegiac]

No, I just don't like the logic being used.

Things like, "But they took the money when they were young!" and "What good does paying it back do?" aren't reasons to go around spending taxpayer dollars to pay off debts. If that's the threshold, then I have some debts that I'd like paid off.

We can have a discussion about usury or why college should be free (or less expensive) or whatever. But this kind of logic for giving people taxpayer money to cover debts that they willingly and knowingly chose to take on and got the intended value out of rings hollow. Hell, give that money to people who suffered unexpected debts for things our of their control first if we're doing it at all.

And honestly, I think most anyone with problems of their own grows weary of hearing about plans to take taxpayer money to totally change other peoples lives. Especially when all the while they know they'll never receive that same kind of help because they don't have the "right kind of debt" or they're not the "right kind of person".

We get that y’all like to make a fetish out of your immediate self-interest, I’m not sure why you think this is novel information.

Dress it up as verbosely as you want, but it is at the end at the day and admission that the chief opposition to college debt forgiveness is entirely a function of “but how does it benefit me” - just be frank with it and stop pretending y’all are speaking from place of social concern. Lol.

[Elegiac]

There's more of that weird logic.

"What's it to you if we use taxpayer dollars to pay off someone's debt?"

Ok, fine, but whose debts? I know student loan debt is this big political topic right now, but I'd choose, "People who made a choice to take out a loan to gain value and advantage out of it." last, if we're being honest.

“Gaining value” is an interesting way of saying “meeting the minimum expected standard given this is the 21st century and not the 1970s, Boomer”.

[Elegiac]

Yeah, no shit. You're asking taxpayers to pay off billions in other peoples debts, but you apparently think it's weird or a "fetish" for them to question why, or have any thought of self-interest in the matter, or ask who might need that assistance more.

It's a fetish when those questions have been answered repeatedly and keep getting countered with the same bad faith talking points that invariably boil down to being upset your sibling gets a lollipop after their shot when you didn't even need a shot in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, "boomer". So clever. Gosh.

I guess I should retort with, "but avocado toast!" since you're dragging things down to that level.

I mean sure, if you want to - I could pull out all the objective ways Boomer lifestyle habits are destructive to society and the planet in a way that even the minority of millennials that eat avocado toast don't manage and how that ties into the continual deflection of blame, responsibility, and debt onto younger generations by the Boomer cohort.

Doesn't really detract from the point that you're still trying to pretend tertiary education is a luxury, which is a Boomer opinion.

[Elegiac]

And see, this just doesn't work because we're talking about a group of people who are asking for other people's money to pay off debts that they willingly and knowingly took on.

"Other people's money", implying people who would benefit from college debt forgiveness don't work or pay taxes.

And again, still pretending that tertiary education is a luxury with this 'willingly and knowingly' nonsense. Rofl.

[Elegiac]

It's not like they got cancer and went broke and needed help or something. So no, this kind of comeback falls flat when the starting point is one group asking for something from others. You can't go around attacking other people for thinking of their self-interest when the starting point of the discussion is inherently an issue of lobbying for ones self-interest at the cost of others.

I can if I do what I do with discussions regarding race and ignore the "no u" rebuttal for the puerile nonsense it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I'm sorry, are we making those concepts mutually exclusive now?

Yep, because as with the "if you don't like exploitative employment just quit" talking point it likes to pretend all people are perfectly rational islands.

Which is far, far more fantastical than any notion of collective financial burden, lol.

[Elegiac]

So is student loan debt more or less a luxury than housing debt? Is it taken on with more or less intent and forethought than medical debt?

Or are you simply proclaiming that your self-interest (or that of the people you're lobbying for) is simply more important than other people whose self-interest you're so quick to deride?

Is your best rebuttal seriously "well you aren't in favor of free healthcare or housing so you're clearly just selfish", lol? About that...

I'll tell you what I've told others: healthcare, justice, and education should never be in private hands or be subject to profit motives because they correlate directly to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness respectively.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't have to be either-or. I'm all for removing barriers to people going to college, honestly.

And on a scale of "Amazon" to "Homeless Joe", I'm certainly more in favor of giving debt forgiveness to the lower end of that scale than the higher end.

I like how the best argument in favor of means testing for this sort of shit is "we don't want to accidentally help too many people".

[Elegiac]

No, that's not what I said at all.

I mean yeah, it was; your rebuttal to "tertiary education isn't a luxury" is "well what about healthcare and housing, are those also not luxuries?" and some weird-ass viewpoint to the effect of even the illusion of choice means that something is a luxury.

Superficial policy agreement doesn't translate to fundamental ideological agreement, especially when you repeatedly let your right wing hang out in threads.

- - - Updated - - -

On the contrary, I simply would prefer we look at programs of this size aimed at people with a broader array of problems. Not limited to people who have simply had a larger political backing for their cause up to now.

Exactly who are you worried is going to be left out of universal tertiary education.

Or is this some nonsense about how because an entirely unrelated issue is not getting aid it means we can't do this particular thing because reasons, like y'all say about every issue from healthcare to climate change?

[Kaleredar]

There's more of that weird logic.

"What's it to you if we use taxpayer dollars to pay off someone's debt?"

Ok, fine, but whose debts? I know student loan debt is this big political topic right now, but I'd choose, "People who made a choice to take out a loan to gain value and advantage out of it." last, if we're being honest.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, no shit. You're asking taxpayers to pay off billions in other peoples debts, but you apparently think it's weird or a "fetish" for them to question why, or have any thought of self-interest in the matter, or ask who might need that assistance more.

(Also kinda weird to attack "self-interest" when we're talking about people lobbying to have their debts forgiven, but ok.)

Because letting young people start off their lives able to invest in building their futures without an oppressive cloud of debt hanging over their heads for years, if not decades, is an absolute good for both them and society as a whole.

[Elegiac]

Because letting young people start off their lives able to invest in building their futures without an oppressive cloud of debt hanging over their heads for years, if not decades, is an absolute good for both them and society.

No, but you see it would be unfair because they willingly and knowingly made the decision to do what society has been screaming at them to do since they started Kindergarten and if we address that it would upset people suffering from an entirely unrelated social problem who aren't getting aid even though there's more than enough money to do both.

Also I keep dogwhistling about "certain people" and thinking it's subtle. /s

[Kaleredar]

Then why would you disagree with other forms of debt being relieved? Why not simply say, "Yes, I also agree that serious medical debt should be forgiven for the same reason."

Who says I don’t?

But this thread isn’t about that, now is it?

[Omega10]

On the contrary, I simply would prefer we look at programs of this size aimed at people with a broader array of problems. Not limited to people who have simply had a larger political backing for their cause up to now.

The reason that student debt cancellation became such an issue is that it is about the only real stimulus that Biden can pass without having to go through Congress. So basically the program was selected because it was the only one that could possibly be passed.

When you have a choice of A or nothing, A gains quite a bit in popularity.

As it turns out, you will win a complete and total victory on this issue. Well except for the fact that this stimulus is just being eliminated, not that anything else will replace it.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/b...173246655.html

Title: 'I’m going to get in trouble for saying this': President-elect Biden disputes Democratic debt cancellation plan

Excerpts:

"I’m going to get in trouble for saying this," Biden told a meeting of news columnists on Wednesday, raising the Democratic argument that "the president may have the executive power to forgive up to $50,000 in student debt. Well, I think that’s pretty questionable. I’m unsure of that. I’d be unlikely to do that.”

Ok this part Theo already posted. But "Unlikely" does not mean "No".

However, the rest of the article is much less promising.

“It’s a balancing act, but I’m optimistic that we can get a lot of the things that I’d like to do done,” Biden said on Wednesday. “I’ve spent most of my career arguing against the imperial presidency. We got three equal branches of government. I’m confident that there are a number of areas that are of such consequence that they go beyond the partisan boundaries.”

He really said that

Right now, Trump and McConnell have set up a tag team situation where, as it stands now:

There will be no $600 stimulus check.
There will be no $2,000 stimulus check.

Heck, the government might even shut down for a while.

Even if the $600 stimulus finally is passed, and that is not a guarantee, the amount of stuff that got added to it is beyond belief.

McConnell has made it clear, quite clear, that he is playing complete and total hardball. The republican ads in Georgia are VERY clear: ABSOLUTELY NO SOCIALISM. That can certainly be construed to mean no stimulus checks for non-millionaires. Republicans have a history of going all in on being obstructionist. And Biden was Vice President when a lot of this was happening. He was there.

But the worst is yet to come.

Earlier this week, while introducing his nominee for Education Secretary, Miguel Cardona, Biden declared support for forgiving $10,000 in student debt across the board — through legislation passed by Congress.

First of all, he chose the lowest amount that has been talked about as a starting point. And second of all he is giving McConnell veto power over this.

So it looks like you WILL win this battle. No student debt cancellation. Maybe not any stimulus of any sort whatsoever. The Biden team has recently sent out multiple press releases about all the things that they will not be able to do, and now student debt cancellation is just one more thing to add to the list.

[Theodarzna]

Ok this part Theo already posted. But "Unlikely" does not mean "No".

However, the rest of the article is much less promising.

Combine with his statement to his donors that "Nothing will fundamentally change", his long history of austerity cheer-leading and and the fact that in the case of student debt, he is the architect of the crisis in the first place. In your guts, seeing that "unlikely" as anything other than a nice way of saying "Yeah, no chance in hell" is being optimistic to an almost ludicrous degree.

[Collegeguy]

None but if I'm going to cancel other people's debt i'd make it universal and not exclusive to college graduates. I'm not exactly sure why a college graduate would need $10k taken off of their student loan but a person who only has a high school diploma wouldn't need $10k taken off of their car loan or mortgage.

You can go into bankruptcy to get rid of those debts. You lose the car or house, but you can't lose education.

[Shadowferal]

Because letting young people start off their lives able to invest in building their futures without an oppressive cloud of debt hanging over their heads for years, if not decades, is an absolute good for both them and society as a whole.

If those young people can sign a contract, enlist in the military with all that such implies, drink alcoholic beverages, vote... then they damn well can show responsibility.

Stop treating them like children. They're adults. And they need to be treated as if they've the maturity to responsibly handle their own problems.

[Kaleredar]

If those young people can sign a contract, enlist in the military with all that such implies, drink alcoholic beverages, vote... then they damn well can show responsibility.

Stop treating them like children. They're adults. And they need to be treated as if they've the maturity to responsibly handle their own problems.

Legally, some people graduate from high school at 17 meaning yes, they are actually children. Also, drinking age in the United States is over 18 in the plurality of states.

Simple fact of the matter is, the economic stability of today’s economy and the wages newly graduated students can expect to make in most fields is not reliable or conducive to paying off student debt in a timely or unobtrusive manner.

Like I said. These debts provide a benefit for no one, save for the loan agency. Their cancellation benefits far more people.

They have no reason to exist, and “teaching young people the value of money” is boomerism trash reasoning I don’t find particularly compelling.

[Daelak]

They payback the loan rather then rob the tax payer for one... while I think allowing someone into a university with less then a 85% average is fully they took out the loan they pay it back.

The conservative brain trust thinks keeping the loans in service costs less than the immediate stimulus it would provide.

You don't understand macroeconomics.

- - - Updated - - -

If those young people can sign a contract, enlist in the military with all that such implies, drink alcoholic beverages, vote... then they damn well can show responsibility.

Stop treating them like children. They're adults. And they need to be treated as if they've the maturity to responsibly handle their own problems.

Stop patronizing and doling out who you think is deserving. The faster these young people get out from under the yoke of educational debt, the faster your wages and retirement portfolios will rise.

[Krakan]

"Other people's money", implying people who would benefit from college debt forgiveness don't work or pay taxes.

And again, still pretending that tertiary education is a luxury with this 'willingly and knowingly' nonsense. Rofl.

If they worked they would be paying off their loan...

I don't understand why the notion of paying back a loan you took out is seen with such venom... they made a choice to invest in themselves and to be brutally frank a student loan repayment system is extraordinary lax.

[Blur4stuff]

The loans are too much. College costs too much. It's a big fucking scheme to saddle as many people as possible with decades of debt so a relative few can become richer.

The entire system is a scam and has nothing to do with creating a better educated populace. They just want you to be in debt to them for as long as possible. That's the #1 goal.

[Krakan]

The loans are too much. College costs too much. It's a big fucking scheme to saddle as many people as possible with decades of debt so a relative few can become richer.

The entire system is a scam and has nothing to do with creating a better educated populace. They just want you to be in debt to them for as long as possible. That's the #1 goal.

A college isn't really for scholars but to learn a trade. University is more what you are aiming at. To be honest I never really understood why higher education is so valued. Unless you have the mind to become a doctor, engineer, scientists or process the ability to become something like an actuary it's pointless to attend.

I never really understood why people without the aptitude for higher education flock to it study worthless topic ( in term of monetary gain) then are somehow shocked they are no more employable then a high school graduate.