More like, "we've invented a cure for cancer, but only people who have cancer right now can get it. People in the future are fucked once again and won't get the cure."
Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn't solve the problem. It's pulling up the ladder.
So we should just not let the people currently sick have the cure? 🤔
Even in your analogy, curing any cancer today, even if it doesn't extend to future sufferers, is an improvement over curing no one. Because fuck cancer, and fuck student loans.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Imagine if researchers said: We're working on a cure for cancer, and in the process we've generated a bunch of unobtanium. We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure. Obviously, if we use it all up now, we'll be back to square one and have to start generating it again before we can work on a long-term cure. Which would you pick?
"Unobtanium" is political will. If we just do a round of bailouts for current loan-holders instead of addressing the root cause of spiraling education costs, we're just kicking the can down the road. The pressure will be off, a whole generation of 20- and 30-somethings will lose interest in the issue, and it'll fall off the political radar for another few decades, by which time GenZ+ will be well and truly fucked, since educational costs are only going up and up.
The absolute worst way to address rising education costs is to encourage a bunch of students to take ridiculously large loans and then wipe them off the books. That means: 1) schools can raise prices to the roof because they know students have access to mountains of cash from loans, and 2) students won't hesitate to take the loans because they'll probably just be forgiven eventually. Probably. Maybe. Or maybe it'll be a millstone around their neck for the rest of their lives...but hey, what choice do they have, that's just what school costs (because governments make sure students have all the money they need for a bidding war to get in).
So it amounts to just transferring huge piles of taxpayer money directly to overpriced schools and predatory banks, with no plan to stem the flow. It's like trying to help your drug-addicted friend recover with a one-time gift of a brick of heroin. They'll feel great for a while, and they'll love you for it while it lasts, but it's only going to make the problem much worse in the long run.
"Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure."
Get out of here with that bullshit.
•
Why not contribute something yourself, or address the arguments they're making instead of dismissing them out of hand?
The argument is bad and probably in bad faith. If I can paraphrase it in a few lines and demonstrate how ridiculous it is, it's not deserving of a response.
You don't have to attend every argument you're invited to.
Why on earth do you think I'm arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are? Do you know what arguing in bad faith means?
“Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”
If the US poured it's full resources into saving John Doe from Birmingham Alabama, who has cancer, they could probably do it. Of course, then those resources (cash, equipment, researchers & doctors) couldn't be used to help other people, or to perform research towards an eventual cure for everybody. It would be a bad use of resources, right?
You don't let John Doe die because you want his death to motivate researchers. But you only have a certain amount of resources, and you have to allocate them in a way that makes sense, and pouring everything into a temporary solution that only affect this one dude (or one batch of student loan recipients) at the cost of a long-term, permanent solution to the root causes of the issue is just...a bad idea.
Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are?
I think your real beliefs and agenda are that you don't want student loan forgiveness for anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Maybe you're bitter because you didn't go to school or maybe because you did and already paid off your debt. Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, or maybe you're just a troll. I don't really care. It doesn't matter, because the argument is reprehensible regardless of your motives:
We should let John Doe in Alabama die because it's too expensive to save him.
You decided that the financial expense of saving a life is worth condemning a patient to death just like you decided that the imaginary, hypothetical political cost of a change in policy is worth consigning multiple generations to lifelong debt.
You should be ashamed of yourself. But whether you are or not, I'm not interested in debating with you.
We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure.
How is this what's happening? Who said it's a one-time-only thing? Who said they can't also research permanently available cure? Wouldn't proving that removing the debt is a huge boon to everyone cause people to invest more in the idea of a cure?
Sure, once it becomes clear that students being debt-free on graduation is a benefit to society, I'm sure voters will scramble to wipe out student debt! That's why baby boomers, who graduated with very little debt, are such staunch opponents of heavy student loans! /s
Once the pressure is off millennials and gen z, you'll be able to watch the issue drop right out of public discourse. The focus will shift to housing costs, or health care, or some other topic that directly affects them. That's just how politics works, especially in the US, where the constant gridlock in congress means that things only get done in a crisis. If you think we young people are just better than the boomers, and we wouldn't forget to go back and fix the root causes even though we're not immediately affected anymore...you're in for disappointment.
If the goal is to help young people graduate with less debt, randomly forgiving large loans has got to be the worst possible approach. That only encourages educational costs to rise, and encourages students to take on ridiculous debts, and thus ends up transferring taxpayer money directly to schools and banks--and the more outrageous the loans and charges of those schools & banks, the more taxpayer money they get. That is legitimately a crazy way to solve the problem! As I said, it's like giving a drug addict a bunch of heroin. Surely these businesses won't want even more money, right?
So what do you do instead? Well, just off the top of my head: cap student loans. That's what Canada does. I applied for a student loan when I went to school there, and I didn't get to pick an amount. Based on where I was living and the school I was planning to go to, the government just said: "Okay, here's $N". It wasn't that much, something like $6k per term (in the late 00's).
Since students in that case won't have access to arbitrary bags of cash, schools that actually want students will have to, you know, lower prices and compete. So my tuition was something like $4-5k per year, not $20k or $80k. I graduated with something like $50k in debt, which I paid off in a few years.
That would be a reasonable first step. Do that first, while you've got the political support, and then forgive student loans. Don't do that first!
What I don't get, is that what moderates keep saying...
You know, the people that constantly shit on progressives and claim we don't want anything unless it's everything.
Isn't the whole moderate mission to take what we can get now and keep working for more? I'm not saying that's what they actually do, that's just their excuse for not fighting for more.
So shouldn't the ones pushing for loan forgiveness now and fixing the underlying issue later be the moderates?
Instead they say if we can't 100% fix the problem in perpetuity, we can't do anything.
Exactly. Arguing that you're against helping people now because it doesn't go far enough is ridiculous. Help people now. Then continue helping people. Don't let perfect be the enemy of progress.
Those unrealistic idealists are so frustrating to argue with. Is this a great first step? YES! Can we do more? Also YES.
Take the win, and use that momentum to drive mode change. Trying to go from 0 to 100 in one step is just not realistic.
Take the win, and use that momentum to drive mode change.
There's a difference between a start and means testing tho...
Those same moderates like to use means testing to erode away support for more, and to get the people who don't make the cut to vote against it.
It's how moderates have been opposing universal healthcare for over 80 years.
Social Security was supposed to be a temporary compromise to help the neediest while the government worked out the wrinkles for universal healthcare that was for everyone.
It's because moderates are what conservatives claim to be. They are pro-status quo and keeping change as show as possible (as opposed to conservatives that just want hierarchical power structures that let them exercise power over others, no matter what changes are required).
•
Well observed. Conservatives in the US are reactionary but those described as moderates are basically NIMBYs standing in the way of those who want to tear down what's left of the country.
Could also be "but we might give the cure to people who have cancer in the future, but nobody knows if the government will allow it"
So the people who could get relief should abstain because the door is shut on any legislation as long as the GOP are in power?
Awfully compassionate of you.
No. That's mighty presumptive of you. Play the game as the rules are. I'm suggesting loan forgiveness is a half-measure and it never should have been offered by politicians without solving the problem of unaffordable education. Otherwise, this isn't a solution, it's just a band-aid on a gaping still-bleeding wound that needs stitches. It doesn't solve the problem, but it does create inequity.
Cute analogy but here's one for you. It's not a bandaid it's a tourniquet for a massive wound prior to needing full amputation.
Politics isn't a zero sum game. You need to cash in on the political goodwill before it evaporates.
The relief isn't being offered on the other side. The same side giving relief wants to legislate. Both actions are working towards a common goal.
Because it completely ignores the fact that it does solve the problem for a lot of people, and they don't want to do it because it doesn't help everyone.
We could do both, but you asked why it was being down voted. The down voted text says that politicians never should have offered loan forgiveness. They explicitly said we shouldn't do both.
I mean, i still agree. I rather have them put the same energy first in fixing the actual problem. And then the bandaid solution
Lol you really couldn't help yourself. Just one reply and you reveal that you're actually just a selfish piece of shit. Maybe just shut up while you're ahead next time. You're a garbage person but people don't have to know on the Internet if you don't make it so abundantly clear.
•
No YOU are the piece of shit. Why can't we debate without unwarranted ad hominems any more? This place is supposed to be better than reddit, but that asks that its users be better. Your post is an indictment - take a look in the mirror before being so vile on the fediverse.
You know adults can usually communicate their point without resorting to insulting those who have different opinions. You don't seem to have a point, just insults.
I'm on board, as long as we forcefully agree that cancelling the loans is a good thing - it's just NOT ENOUGH
Exactly , rather than only forgiving existing loans that should make education free and also forgive existing loans , and perhaps give people who have already paid off their loan some kind of stimulus check as a kind of recognition that their struggle was just as hard as everyone else's and they deserve a break too.
What about those of us that didn't go outright because we couldn't afford it nor get the loans?
... I'd still be more than happy if education was made free, but there are A LOT of people the system has fucked and Democrats barely even want to glance at the lowest hanging fruit.
Isn't the lowest hanging fruit exactly what they're targeting, i.e. the people who currently have loans, and the higher hanging fruit all the other circumstances people are mentioning here like already paid off their loans or future student who will get loans or in your case people who forewent becoming a student due to the loans?
Yew, my point is they are ONLY targeting the lowest hanging fruit.
I bring it up NOT to just poopoo on Democrats, but to offer perspective. An inflatable life raft should NEVER be viewed as a fully functioning, sea-worthy vessel, and inflatable rafts is all Democrats ever offer, let alone fight for.
Yes, that's better than the sabotaged canoe Republicans offer, but again, it's about perspective. Some people are not OK with celebrating a dingy like it's a ship.
Again. No one who is for student loan forgiveness is outright against assistance for low wage earners. They are not linked. If its who gets the bite at the apple first than do every thing you can to remove the GOP from power.
Declare that future student loans are also automatically forgiven. You take a student loan tomorrow? You don't have to pay it back. This, of course, will mean that no one will want to give student loans - which will force the tuition down.
At that point why not just cut out the lenders entirely and make college free/publicly funded for all students like they do in Germany? An educated population yields many returns for a society and it will pay for itself with the boost to our economy it would provide.
I thought the U.S. government already took all the loans. So wouldn't the lender be the U.S. government, and the interest goes to paying for the companies managing the loans I would assume. My interest rate on some of my loans went from 2.4% to 4.8% if I remember correctly (was sometime between 2008-2012 time period). I don't believe students can go to a bank and get private student loans unless there is some loopholes. That said, cancelling student loan debt would simply mean not paying themselves back. Student loans are tax deductible as well, so when you pay them it would essentially come out of your taxes income, so if you could magically pay 10k off one year, it should come off your highest taxes income bracket. I still owe some, but I'd be fine with at least making it free college for AS/AA and 0% interest on student loans past that for all new takers. If they could make it free for BS/BA I'm still fine with being stuck with mine so long as we can figure out how to fix it for the future generations.
Interesting wonder why they confiscated all of those back then. I looked it up and 7.2% are private and the other 92.8% are owned by the federal government. I didn't think those existed anymore. Mine were all through JP Morgan when I went to college and those all got taken by the government.
Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn't solve the problem. It's pulling up the ladder.
You're 100% correct. But be careful, these folks don't take kindly to shining a light on their hypocrisy. They signed their names to a legally-binding contract, spent the money, but now don't like paying it back under the terms they agreed to.
College tuition is far too high. But without fixing the root cause, tuition loan forgiveness does nothing for everyone before and after, and it actually makes the whole problem worse.
Blaming the people taking the loans is kind of absurd, for many it's their only option if they want to continue their education. It's not like they're taking out loans they don't need and burning the money.
"Legally-binding contract" is meaningless too, would you make the same argument against people who signed away their lives before slavery was abolished? Just because it's legal now doesn't mean it always will be, or that it must be enforced indefinitely.
You're absolutely right that reducing tuition is the right move. Tuition is free where I am and some of the costs I see elsewhere are crazy. However, the options are not necessarily mutually exclusive; you can reduce tuition and help people that have already been shafted by the existing system.
Especially cause a lot of 'legally binding' stuff isn't even actually legally binding. For a recent example look at non competes, a lot of judges don't even enforce them cause they're ridiculous and they actually just made them illegal for the little people.
Also, given the age and social pressure of the people taking student loans it's not that straightforward to just say it's their own fault
Could you walk me through what you see as these folks' hypocrisy? I don't get it.
Is somebody arguing that loan forgiveness should be a one time thing and no one after them should get it?
I spent five figures paying mine off two years ago.
Still 100% support my tax dollars paying for people's college. In fact, I'd love that instead of the nine wars my tax dollars are paying for instead.
I don't understand why you need all of that. Let's say we agree, next you'll say people deserve clean water and steer the world away from climate disaster and genocide. You <insert group name> want it all!
•
next you'll say people deserve clean water and steer the world away from climate disaster and genocide.
First falls both under housing and healthcare(utility and preventive healthcare + hygene), genocide is opposite of healthcare and we are already in climate disaster.
The Australian model is also interesting. After your degree you pay a certain percentage of your income to your university for a decade or so. But only if you earn more than the average person.
This means a university gets more money when their students gets good job.
•
Other points about the Australian system:
- The cost of the university course is subsidised by the government. The government pays the majority of the cost, usually around 70-80%. For example, a Bachelor of Computer Science degree at the university I went to (Swinburne) is currently AU$9k/year (~US$5.8k) subsidised vs AU$39k/year (~US$25.4k) full price.
- The loans for the amount you have to pay are through the government and are interest free. They're indexed for inflation once per year, but this is a much lower increase compared to interest from a bank loan.
- You only have to pay it off once you earn over $51k/year, like you said. Repayments start at 1% of income and are paid as part of your income tax return.
- They used to have a program where if you paid $500 or more of the loan upfront, you'd get a 10% discount (so e.g. if you paid $500, it'd reduce your loan balance by $550).
Note that this system only applies to citizens and permanent residents. International students still have to pay the full price. Having said that, Australian universities frequently advertise at college fairs in the USA, as even at the full price plus flights plus accomodation, studying in Australia can still end up cheaper than the USA, and Americans love Australia 🙂
This is all I care about. I was forced to refinance into private loans because the interest rates on the federal loans were fucking stupid. All I want is the loans to be more reasonable.
I saw my wife's student loans last night. She took out 37,000 dollars in 2008. She's been paying her monthly amount for over 10 years, and she now only owes 43,000 dollars.
Cancel student debt. Most of us have already paid for college more than once.
Edit: also worth noting that up until now, only about 30% of PSLF applications are approved, and something like 37 (that's total, not percent) of loans are fulfilled using IDR plans.
Cancel student debt.
The problem is colleges just will keep charging more because they know people will just keep getting them knowing the gov will cover it eventually. The fix isn't to have the gov. Cover some loans, it should be to stop letting colleges be run like a private sector.
•
Jokes on you, they already keep charging more.
I bet if the government is footing the bill they will demand lower tuition. And unlike lowly poor people, the government is someone they will have to listen to.
You aren't wrong with your point. But both should be true.
colleges are charging more, and as a result, fewer students are attending.
College will once again be only for the wealthy.
But plenty of people have discovered college is not necessary to thrive in life anyway.
John Oliver covered this topic, and according to him, that's not the case at all.
There's sadly no big conspiracy to keep people uneducated. Only basic greed. Simple problem with a simple solution (this is rarely the case) but corporate America will never admit it.
•
College will once again be only for the wealthy.
you make it sound like that isn't the point. welcome to the new cast system
Same, but I want to be reimbursed. I don’t know how people who want their debt forgiven now don’t support me being reimbursed for mine. They seriously set my life back.
Believe me, I get it. I would definitely love to have that $16,000 back.
I'd like for it to be that way too, but I think it's unlikely. On a macro level though, it's just more important to eliminate debt for the indebted, I think.
Only SIXTEEN THOUSAND?? When you said five figures, you had us thinking $99,999.
I'm on year three of six, paying back $63,000 by way of the IRS garnishing 100% of my disability benefits and tax refunds 🥺
Yep, only 16k. It hurt to drop that much all at once, but with the way the loans are structured and so little goes to pay down the principal, I think it was worth it in the end.
I'm sorry to hear about your situation. Capitalism fucking sucks.
I was very lucky.
In March 2020 lots of oil stocks were dropping down to pennies. I bought a bunch on the cheap and it appreciated to a good price when the world reopened. Sold it all to pay off the debt. Sadly still working on my credit cards.
I actually beat cancer. If they suddenly find a cure for cancer now I am going to be so fucking happy! This comment is about student loans...and fuck cancer.
Congratulations! I also hope they find a cure for cancer and I would be so happy if they did. I've never been diagnosed with it so I have no bearing on this conversation. Fuck cancer.
This comment is also about student loans. (Which I've had and paid and still hope they grant loan forgiveness, tyvm).
From the school of “I suffered through [x], so therefore everyone else should suffer, too, even if they don’t need to.”
There’s always going to be a cutoff point where someone has it harder or easier than those that came before. That’s just life. As long as the change wasn’t malicious, just feel good (or whatever is appropriate) for those that benefit from it.
I work in a highly contract-controlled industry, and when things improve there’s always a segment of the group that might be close to retirement or something and gets all pissed that they didn’t won’t realize the benefits of a change that will apply mostly to those that will have longer under the change. They’re the same ones that bitch that new employees didn’t suffer under whatever crappy work rules that might have existed before, too.
So yeah…people that paid off their loans, or guys that I work with that paid for some/all of their kid’s college, bitch about people catching a break on their loans. STFU and be happy that someone else caught a break.
Making things better for the next generation should always be the goal not the exception
I'm glad I was taught not to begrudge and feel envy of other. I learned later in life that there are some insecure tw@ts who'd like to drag others down.
This also needs to go into the cancer he beat is dramaticly easier to overcome than cancer in the future.
“What do you mean? Just get a part time job. I waited tables and paid my way through college.”
“How much was your tuition?”
“$500 a semester. Why? How much is yours?”
“$19,000 a semester”
I have to wonder if my generation [Millenial] had any effect on university enrollments yet. My kids aren’t quite the age to talk about education plans as I had kiddos later in life @30yo (40 now). I’ll be strongly discouraging uni unless it’s completely unavoidable to what they want to do.
I'm approaching 40 and have three kids from 10yo to 1yo, and I'm still going to encourage them going to college, but in a way that makes sense for them. My wife and I both work at a community college, and there's no way our kids are going to go to a 4-year right out of high school (unless they get a full scholarship for something and already know exactly what they want to do).
Too many students don't know what they want to study, don't value the education, and drive themselves into too much debt. While I highly value the education and skills gained in a bachelor's program, there's no need to be going into debt at a university to take first- and second-year courses when community colleges are effectively free (in CA, anyway)
Ship 'em off to Germany and get a free college education. I know a few people that have gone there for grad school for that reason. I wish I had known that was an option...I might still be there, honestly.
I mean the numbers still say that a bachelor's degree doubles or triples your lifetime earnings over a high school diploma. Moreover, an educated society benefits everyone. College is still the right move at every scale. What we need to do is make it a more equitable system.
Maybe. Depends on how functional you are overall. Turns out I can pass college courses, but not keep a job so well.
I’m really good at getting high paying jobs, but my executive function is terrible. I can’t keep the jobs.
People with good executive function tend to not be aware of it as a factor. For them “getting that job” is the big uncertain hurdle on their path to success.
Not once in my upbringing all the way through college graduation did anyone talk about keeping jobs. It was all about getting the job. I’ve gotten some pretty amazing jobs … and lost them.
Have you tried a job that works on a more cyclic nature? I struggle with executive function, too, and I tried grad school and I could pass the classes and do the work, but I couldn't finish my dissertation for my PhD program. I eventually realized I did better on an academic schedule and now I teach college classes, so I get to work on the same 12-week quarter system where I did well as a student.
Yeah crossing my fingers there’s some fixes in the works along side any debt forgiveness, but with this political environment and some folks attitude of “F you, I got mine “, I’m doubtful.
I guess apprenticeships aren't that common yet in the US, but in many countries you can learn a profession not only at uni. In that case the high school diploma isn't the last/highest diploma one would get.
Same, I'm going to push my kid to do everything they can local. Because even though I don't regret the experiences I had at university, it was a massive waste of money for me.
Yeah I look back fondly on the experiences, the conversations, the environment. But it was worse than a waste of time for me. It was, financially, the worst way I could have spent my first years out of high school.
Yeah I’d definitely rather have them go to one of the community colleges or maybe a more technical school depending on what they want to do. I just want to prevent them from having to live with what might be debt I deal with for the rest of my life. No big University unless they manage a full ride or something, lol. Mean from my mistakes.
Similar boat. Were lucky we were able to move to Europe so my kid has access through the Erasmus network to any college in Europe really. It's a different world over here.
I’ve joked with my wife about sending the kids to Germany as IIRC they have a really good system that is friendly to international students there. But this is me trying to remember stuff from 15-20 years ago lol
I wouldn’t be surprised if that were true. My coworker and I both got a certification last year. I received a promotion shortly after that, but he didn’t get his until much later. He was thinking it might have to do with me having a bachelor’s while he only has an associates degree. I hope that wasn’t it, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Some corpo stooge having to be convinced the technically senior co-worker with tons of tribal knowledge is fit for a step-up promo….sheesh.
I generally encourage kids to just go live a normal life for a few years before college. That way they’re going for something specific they really want to do, and they have an experiential sense of what the dollar amounts mean.
I’m pretty resentful that I had tens of thousands of loans offered to me, far beyond anything my credit would warrant, when I was a teenager, who had been propagandized to go to college for the past ten years of my life.
I feel tricked. Perhaps not on purpose, but I feel like I was tricked.
Are you me? Though i don’t necessarily blame my parents, they just thought that they were encouraging me to do the right thing for my future. I can’t say that my degree was entirely useless but I’d like to think i could have gotten to spot similar to where i am now without the 100k in student loans.
Yeah…I agree. I will say I hope I can at least mitigate the debt issue as much as I can because I won’t be able to help pay, and I’m sure by the time my oldest is ready I’ll make too much for him to qualify for much aid. Maybe community college first or a trade school depending on what their interested in.
Hi I'm a fucking idiot, how can you beat cancer if there is no cure for it yet?
I thought there was a cure but I guess not a very good one since some people don't make it
Edit: Thank you for the answers, that really cleared it up for me, and I understand cancer a bit better now.
•
A "cure" in this situation means an essentially guaranteed method of treatment. Cancers vary greatly, with some being benign, some being very treatable, and some being extremely deadly (at least with current technology).
Indeed. Beat it, but at what cost.
My mum beat cancer. She lost parts of her body in the process and chemo changed her physically (her hair and nails never came back the same). It took three years of regular testing to finally be given the "you're officially cancer free" verdict. Three tense years.
All that said she's incredibly lucky not only to have beat it but not to have to live with additional medication due to it. I know somebody who lost a lot more and while is alive now needs a lifetime of medication to "put in" what the partial removed organs no longer produce.
Cancer, as far as I'm aware, goes into remission and isn't cured. Remission is when there isn't any detectable signs of a cancer mass or growth in your body. So imaging doesn't pick up any tumors, your blood work doesn't indicate any hormonal changes, and biopsies come back negative.
A cure would be like say there is no cancer and it won't come back. Remission is more like we have no evidence of cancer and x% of maintain that state for x years.
Fun fact: your body is constantly making cancerous cells, but you have the ability to detect and destroy them before they get out of hand. Keep that immune system strong.
Right now, the main option to "beat" cancer is to poison yourself until enough of the cancerous cells die, along with killing the normal healthy cells. Even then, that only works for certain types of cancer, and that's only if it is treated early enough.
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/cancer-survival-rates
A cure would ideally work safely against all types and stages.
•
That's very simplistic, there's loads of cancer treatments, what you're describing is a kind of broad brush chemotherapy, but there's lots of more targeted versions, then loads of different pills and potions, immunotherapies, radiotherapies and the good old "cut the thing out" method.
Cancer treatment is the best funded area of medicine and there's loooads of advances going on all the time.
There are some treatments for some cancers with varying success rates. A cure would be a treatment for all cancers that always works.
I don't get it
Edit:
Ok thanks I get it now.
People with student loans are mad there are loan forgiveness programs.
I finally paid off my student loans!
If they suddenly forgive student loans given to people now, I'm gonna be so mad.
"I paid off all of my student loans myself, it's not fair for the government just forgive loans from other people!"
In the US it’s common for people to say that they shouldn't cancel student loan debts because it would be unfair to people who have already paid theirs back.
People who have paid off their student loans are allegedly opposed to the government forgiving student loans for people that are financially burdened by them.
I worked my ass off to pay off my student loans, and I wish it upon no one. It didn't teach me shit except fuck capitalism. School should be socialized and free. And fuck cancer!
I'm still paying off loans and will be for the next 8 years. I'm ineligible for forgiveness now because I consolidated with a private lender. I hope everyone gets their debt wiped, even if I can't. Education should be free to begin with.
A common “reason” for why student loans shouldn’t be paid off by the government is that it would be unfair to everyone who has already paid off their student loans.
People with student loans are mad
They're generally not. But a few well-situated op-ed writers working for newspapers with a vested interest in the private loan industry have expressed a great deal of outrage.
The person in this comic is acting like someone who paid off their student loans and now doesn't want others to get loan forgiveness
I spent five figures paying mine off two years ago.
Still 100% support my tax dollars paying for people's college. In fact, I'd love that instead of the nine wars my tax dollars are paying for instead.
I can honestly say that I don't remember anyone claiming tobacco is too big to fail.
Banks, auto industry, certain other farming segments yes...but tobacco seems like just special interest arguments.
In this analogy tabacco is the pervayor of cancer. Likened to how banks make predatory student loans. When ever we have to bail out the banks or corporations we are told, "they are too big to fail."
As if an educated population is less important than the financial institutions that they uphold.
Where does the forgiveness come from? After paying for my education I now pay a bunch of taxes, I assume that's what is paying for their education? So the cartoon should say, I just fought and beat cancer and now I need to go work on a cute. "They" cutting cancer is not the same.
I'm all for student loan forgiveness and all that. I think education should be socialised for anyone till any level.
That being said, this meme is an example of false equivalency. Where is the money for student loan forgiveness coming from? From taxes. Taxes that these ppl (who also had to pay for student loans) have to pay. Hence, effectively, these guys paid their own loans off and are contributing to pay others' loans as well. That's their grime from what I understand.
Morally, I believe that they're wrong. I'm just pointing out the false equivalency generated here.
IDK. Some cringe-lord wants free stuff and wants your taxes to pay for it. Something about cancer.
Guaranteed student loans, that you had to be approved for, were a terrible idea to begin with.
This comic is based on pretty childish thinking. Repaying student loans isn't a cure. It's making everyone else pay the price (either through inflation, through rising education costs, or through direct tax later).
Second, cancer isn't a choice--student loans are.
More accurately would be: I'm going to be so upset if I have to suffer even a little again to help everyone else make up for their bad decisions.
•
Imagine being this brainwashed. You know where higher education is free? Pretty much the entire civilized world. Guess whether 'murican taxes compare favorably or unfavorably against that?
I went to a top university in Norway. My tuition was about $80 per year. All in all various student discounts on everything from haircuts to car repairs to housing, my tuition was effectively negative. I spent a good chunk on books, but rarely used them, and honestly could have saved the money. Considering everyone gets a scholarship from the government for the first 7 years (would have been converted to a loan if I didn't pass enough credits worth of classes), I effectively got paid to study. I still had student loans, because they were interest free while I was a student and cheaper than a mortgage after. I spent some on food and housing, and saved the rest. Like most Norwegians I was not in a hurry to pay it down. Student debt is generally low priority for Norwegians to pay down due to the cheap interest.
•
Your egocentrism is showing, USAian. I don't even know where to begin dismantling your bullshit from how awefully absurd it is.
tuition for prestigious education out of reach of the common person
"Prestigious private education"? Are you joking? The people who take private higher education are effectively ridiculed, not to mention how private schools/colleges are always lacking – e.g. back in the day, when I compared my curriculum (actually prestigious public university) with all relevent private alternatives, they'd always be one year or more behind, which also means they'd finish their course with a huge gap in knowledge.
in many countries there’s a modest fee the government will pay out
Here in Brazil you can get upwards of two minimum wages. How is it that Brazil can afford this, but apparently the US couldn't? Besides that, yes, you may need a side job – that's what non-abusive internship/trainee positions are for. You work a few hours per day at a relevant position to your minor/major to get cash and relevant experience.
They come back at you in the form of decades of tax rates.
Except those decades of taxes ALSO pay for my healthcare (excellent, btw), bicycle infrastructure, to maintain parks, to protect local fauna and flora, for libraries, etc etc
•
First, your formatting is completely broken.
Second:
The places where real power concentrates, where the old royalty gathers. Not the best in terms of scientific endeavours, but that’s not what those places are about anyway. It’s all about making connections.
I.E. completely irrelevant. Got it.
Double minimum wage in the USA is barely enough to cover rent in the cities
The fix seems pretty obvious, eh?
would add $553 billion
I.E., even ignoring the fact that not all students would require this monetary assistance, less than the budget for the 'murican war machine. Seems fine to me.
you’re quickly paying 85% of the $30k you’re receiving in tuition fees alone
???? Why would they be paying the tuition fees with free public education available?
Besides your ad hominem attacks you changed the whole point of the discussion. "Free" is not the same as asking everyone to pay for anyone's college education.
•
Usual 'murican take. Do you use roads? Do you use clean water? I would ask about public transit, but you're a 'murican, so I already know the answer to that is "no".
Everyone already pays for the State to exist. Civilized countries use that money to benefit all citizens through free higher education, free healthcare, free public transportation, etc. The US uses that money to kill children in the middle east and to bail out huge corporations.
It's a false assumption that because that is the way things are that it is the way things ought to be, and that they couldn't be arrived any other (much less any better way).
This is a pretty typical response to any limitations on government--"but who will build the roads?"
There are two basic problems
1st: Your unwritten implication is that if government does these basic things then it must necessarily assert even bigger economic control--such as higher education--which is a false deduction.
2nd: You imply that only the government can do these things or that government does it best. Also a false deduction. Practical experience says otherwise.
•
Practical experience with what, shoveling bullshit around and expecting people to believe your nonsense? Get the fuck outta here with your corporate bootlicking.
US student finance is for sure broken. I really hate comparing biological ills to social, though. Nobody graduates high school and says "I'm going to go sign up for cancer". Nobody says "well, if I knew cancer was going to be cured, I would have got it instead of being a plumber!" This metaphor is breaking down rapidly.
Nobody graduates high school and says "I'm going to go sign up for cancer".
Maybe not in a literal sense, but there are plenty of people who apply for jobs which pose inherent danger to health, including increased risks of cancers, because they need the money.
No one signs up for college to take on all that student debt just because they enjoy it, it's seen as an investment in better job prospects to have a degree despite the financial risk of debt. This is at least somewhat similar to how more dangerous jobs pay more, because you take on a risk. You've got physical danger and financial danger to consider based on your choice. Sometimes both.
You might be taking it too literally. It's a joke because the take is bad, on purpose. The entire point is people unironically have this position on student loans when it's obviously fucking stupid to have that opinion on anything.