Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[Loren Pechtel]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Affordable -- like it was in the old days. Putting yourself through school without a pile of loans was a viable path.

Things that are free tend to get abused.

Ah yes, the old days.

When everything was perfect and wonderful.

It's just a shame that they never existed.

Loren is right. For most middle class people, going to a public university was affordable on summer jobs and work study. I had two scholarships which I needed because my parents had very firm rules about no jobs during high school. I think I got maybe $300 total contribution from my parents. Zero student loans. My father refused to fill out student aid forms which required him disclosing his income. Family was middle class but just barely.

The people college was not affordable for were the people who needed to help support their family with the money they earned from summer/after school jobs.

The biggest reason that university was affordable for so many students was that states supported education much more substantially.

You are describing the sort of situation I am picturing. The sort of situation that let both of my parents put themselves through university.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's the 'abuse' of free school? People go, can't cut it, and flunk out?

I'm going to put this simply so even Loren can understand it:

I saw plenty of people at the university that were there because their parents would pay and they saw it as easier than a job.

Toni is describing the sort of situation I'm after.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The comment section is full of a lot of angry people who don't want anyone to have loan forgiveness. I find that surprising since most surveys claims there is over 50% support for student loan forgiveness. The article should be available for anyone to read for at least two weeks, according to WaPo's gifting rules.

Includes a bit of resentment from people who endured crippling student debt and don't like the thought of other people getting out easy.

The problem is people who suffered being responsible dislike seeing others get rewarded for irresponsibility.

So people paying student loans today are "irresponsible" but when you did it, it was a good investment? What a crock.

1) I wasn't referring to all student loans.

2) Look at the degree you're going to get--is it going to pay enough to pay your loans?

Anyway, what I actually had in mind when I wrote that was the standard student aid form--it looks at parental savings, not parental income in the years before they went to college.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Kids today are very likely to graduate with over $100K in student debt if they attend a state school and have parental help/part time jobs to help pay their living expenses. I can tell you for certain that working one or several low paid part time jobs in order to support yourself while you take classes does indeed take time away from one's ability to focus on what should be your main job: going to school. To do so for 4 or more years and then to still graduate with $100K+ debt is an unfair burden that forces graduates to delay things like marriage, families, home ownership. This is not a choice we had to make when we were young. We merely had to be willing to endure being poor for about 6 years after undergrad years--so for at least 10 years.

I don’t know why the public universities are not pressured to lower costs. (Oh, wait, yes I do. University employees make large $$$ donations to Dem causes so they cannot be criticized.). Andrew Yang floated the idea of requiring universities to charge a low credit hour if they wanted fed money. We should do that. We already do it with Medicare.

They're not pressured to because the costs haven't gone up unreasonably in the first place. What we are actually seeing is the government funding being cut and cut, tuition goes up to compensate. Put it back where it was!

 

[Metaphor]

The comment section is full of a lot of angry people who don't want anyone to have loan forgiveness. I find that surprising since most surveys claims there is over 50% support for student loan forgiveness. The article should be available for anyone to read for at least two weeks, according to WaPo's gifting rules.

Includes a bit of resentment from people who endured crippling student debt and don't like the thought of other people getting out easy.

The problem is people who suffered being responsible dislike seeing others get rewarded for irresponsibility.

So people paying student loans today are "irresponsible" but when you did it, it was a good investment? What a crock.

Wut? Isn’t it about folks who were responsible and paid back their loans resenting that their taxes will be used to write off the loans of others? Is the government going to refund our payments with interest? Or are we just suckers for being responsible?

It’s like people who were children before there were vaccinations available to prevent measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, polio and more resenting kids today who can be vaccinated against these diseases.

It's nothing like that. If both Billy and Bonita incurred student debt from attending university 2000-2003, then they can both have their education paid for by the government, if that's your plan. If you are going to give Bonita a free ride because she was irresponsible and didn't pay it back, you can give Billy the same ride by refunding him his payments.

If Billy and Bonita both went to university and incurred debt from 2000-2003, they may or may not have incurred the same amount of debt, they may or may not have gone into fields that paid the same, they may or may not have had other experience, life events, etc. Billy may have married a gainfully employed spouse and with two incomes, it’s easier to pay off the debt. Or maybe he inherited a lot of money. Bonita may be single and helping to support her recently widowed father.

In either case, bilby is right: the cost of those loans is a sunk cost.

It was wrong to expect 18 year olds to go into debt in order to obtain an education. It was wrong if they were 25.

Continuing that wrong helps no one.

Education is a public good which benefits everyone.

All of this may be an argument to make tertiary education free from now on (though it should not be free). But none of it is an argument to give Bonita a free ride but not Billy. Billy and Bonita both entered into debt knowing they had an obligation to repay it.

It’s a terrible argument that one must be unfair to Bonita because we were unfair to Billy.

It harms Bonita without helping Billy.

First, I do not agree it is unfair to hold people to debts they volunteered to enter into.

Second, why not help Billy? Why can't you refund all the money Billy spent? Why is Bonita more worthy of help? How does helping Billy harm Bonita?

 

[Toni]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

 

[Metaphor]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

If nobody is harmed by giving away taxpayer money, why not forgive everyone's mortgage too?

 

[Toni]

Kids today are very likely to graduate with over $100K in student debt if they attend a state school and have parental help/part time jobs to help pay their living expenses. I can tell you for certain that working one or several low paid part time jobs in order to support yourself while you take classes does indeed take time away from one's ability to focus on what should be your main job: going to school. To do so for 4 or more years and then to still graduate with $100K+ debt is an unfair burden that forces graduates to delay things like marriage, families, home ownership. This is not a choice we had to make when we were young. We merely had to be willing to endure being poor for about 6 years after undergrad years--so for at least 10 years.

I don’t know why the public universities are not pressured to lower costs. (Oh, wait, yes I do. University employees make large $$$ donations to Dem causes so they cannot be criticized.). Andrew Yang floated the idea of requiring universities to charge a low credit hour if they wanted fed money. We should do that. We already do it with Medicare.

They're not pressured to because the costs haven't gone up unreasonably in the first place. What we are actually seeing is the government funding being cut and cut, tuition goes up to compensate. Put it back where it was!

Loren, the costs have gone up unreasonably because the state has cut its funding for higher ed as you write! I absolutely agree that government funding needs to be restored to the levels of support it previously provided. That would go a long way to helping prevent overburdening students with debt in the future.

But we need to help the ones who are overburdened now, too.

 

[Toni]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

If nobody is harmed by giving away taxpayer money, why not forgive everyone's mortgage too?

The government does not hold mortgage debt. They cannot forgive debt they do not hold.

 

[Toni]

The comment section is full of a lot of angry people who don't want anyone to have loan forgiveness. I find that surprising since most surveys claims there is over 50% support for student loan forgiveness. The article should be available for anyone to read for at least two weeks, according to WaPo's gifting rules.

Includes a bit of resentment from people who endured crippling student debt and don't like the thought of other people getting out easy.

The problem is people who suffered being responsible dislike seeing others get rewarded for irresponsibility.

So people paying student loans today are "irresponsible" but when you did it, it was a good investment? What a crock.

Wut? Isn’t it about folks who were responsible and paid back their loans resenting that their taxes will be used to write off the loans of others? Is the government going to refund our payments with interest? Or are we just suckers for being responsible?

It’s like people who were children before there were vaccinations available to prevent measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, polio and more resenting kids today who can be vaccinated against these diseases.

It's nothing like that. If both Billy and Bonita incurred student debt from attending university 2000-2003, then they can both have their education paid for by the government, if that's your plan. If you are going to give Bonita a free ride because she was irresponsible and didn't pay it back, you can give Billy the same ride by refunding him his payments.

If Billy and Bonita both went to university and incurred debt from 2000-2003, they may or may not have incurred the same amount of debt, they may or may not have gone into fields that paid the same, they may or may not have had other experience, life events, etc. Billy may have married a gainfully employed spouse and with two incomes, it’s easier to pay off the debt. Or maybe he inherited a lot of money. Bonita may be single and helping to support her recently widowed father.

In either case, bilby is right: the cost of those loans is a sunk cost.

It was wrong to expect 18 year olds to go into debt in order to obtain an education. It was wrong if they were 25.

Continuing that wrong helps no one.

Education is a public good which benefits everyone.

All of this may be an argument to make tertiary education free from now on (though it should not be free). But none of it is an argument to give Bonita a free ride but not Billy. Billy and Bonita both entered into debt knowing they had an obligation to repay it.

It’s a terrible argument that one must be unfair to Bonita because we were unfair to Billy.

It harms Bonita without helping Billy.

First, I do not agree it is unfair to hold people to debts they volunteered to enter into.

Second, why not help Billy? Why can't you refund all the money Billy spent? Why is Bonita more worthy of help? How does helping Billy harm Bonita?

I’ve already addressed relief fir Billy.

 

[Metaphor]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

If nobody is harmed by giving away taxpayer money, why not forgive everyone's mortgage too?

The government does not hold mortgage debt. They cannot forgive debt they do not hold.

Sure they can. They can simply pay off people's mortgages.

But, your question is, frankly speaking, utterly ridiculous. If giving people huge sums of money doesn't harm anybody, why doesn't the government do it for every citizen, every year?

 

[Toni]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

If nobody is harmed by giving away taxpayer money, why not forgive everyone's mortgage too?

The government does not hold mortgage debt. They cannot forgive debt they do not hold.

Sure they can. They can simply pay off people's mortgages.

But, your question is, frankly speaking, utterly ridiculous. If giving people huge sums of money doesn't harm anybody, why doesn't the government do it for every citizen, every year?

There is a difference between

telling someone they don’t have to pay you the money you loaned them when they were 18-21 years old and had no means of paying back the loan. Furthermore, this loan cannot be discharged through bankruptcy or in most cases, other financial hardship. This debt prevents borrowers from being able to obtain mortgages or to engage in otherwise normal and ordinary adult relationships such as marriage and parenthood. It keeps borrowers trapped in the rental market where they cannot built equity to help themselves financially.

AND

Paying off the debt of someone who is in every way fully an adult, abs who obtained the loan from a lender who is not you and who insisted that the borrower provide evidence that they were credit worthy and had sufficient income to repay the debt. In addition, the borrower has an asset they can sell to repay the debt, if any debt remains abs to pocket any money in excess of the amount remaining in the mortgage. Should the borrower default on the loan, the lender assumes ownership and can recoup its losses by selling the home. The borrower takes a hit to their credit but this can be overcome in about 7 years.

 

[bilby]

Look at the degree you're going to get--is it going to pay enough to pay your loans?

Why is this the goal?

Should Vincent van Gogh have decided not to attend the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp, on the grounds that he would never make a decent living from his artwork?

Would the world be a better place if he had "responsibly" trained as a plumber instead of as a painter?

Wealth is a popular goal. But it's not everybody's goal, and nor should it be.

Most people who focus on nothing else but gaining wealth turn out to be total arseholes - and they still often fail to become truly rich.

For the love of money is the root of all of evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. - 1Timothy 6:10

 

[Metaphor]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

If nobody is harmed by giving away taxpayer money, why not forgive everyone's mortgage too?

The government does not hold mortgage debt. They cannot forgive debt they do not hold.

Sure they can. They can simply pay off people's mortgages.

But, your question is, frankly speaking, utterly ridiculous. If giving people huge sums of money doesn't harm anybody, why doesn't the government do it for every citizen, every year?

There is a difference between

telling someone they don’t have to pay you the money you loaned them when they were 18-21 years old and had no means of paying back the loan.

Of course they had means. The loan was used to build their own human capital.

Furthermore, this loan cannot be discharged through bankruptcy or in most cases, other financial hardship. This debt prevents borrowers from being able to obtain mortgages or to engage in otherwise normal and ordinary adult relationships such as marriage and parenthood. It keeps borrowers trapped in the rental market where they cannot built equity to help themselves financially.

It, of course, does no such thing. "Ordinary adult relationships". WHAT?

Why doesn't Billy get his payments refunded? Why give Bonita the free ride but not Billy?

AND

Paying off the debt of someone who is in every way fully an adult, abs who obtained the loan from a lender who is not you and who insisted that the borrower provide evidence that they were credit worthy and had sufficient income to repay the debt. In addition, the borrower has an asset they can sell to repay the debt, if any debt remains abs to pocket any money in excess of the amount remaining in the mortgage. Should the borrower default on the loan, the lender assumes ownership and can recoup its losses by selling the home. The borrower takes a hit to their credit but this can be overcome in about 7 years.

You didn't answer my question at all.

Forgiving government debt is not a free act. You asked who it harms. It harms every tax payer and citizen and also harms the moral fabric of society.

And you are not even consistent. You want to forgive Bonita's loan but not Billy's, even though they both entered into the loan at the same age at the same time. You want to reward irresponsibility and bad degree choices.

 

[Toni]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

If nobody is harmed by giving away taxpayer money, why not forgive everyone's mortgage too?

The government does not hold mortgage debt. They cannot forgive debt they do not hold.

Sure they can. They can simply pay off people's mortgages.

But, your question is, frankly speaking, utterly ridiculous. If giving people huge sums of money doesn't harm anybody, why doesn't the government do it for every citizen, every year?

Making a loan is a sunk cost.
Forgiving the loan means you will not get income from that cost.

Giving banks a bunch of money because people paid too much for homes they cannot afford or don’t want to pay for is a NEW cost.

1. We already give banks and big business plenty of money. The bank took the risk. The bank needs to be responsible for the risk.

2. In the not distant past, we subsidized home ownership by making mortgage interest tax deductible. I’m not opposed to that in principal but the net effect would be to increase the price of homes and the amount that people are willing to borrow. Given that the cost of homes, whether rent or purchase price is increasing very dramatically in many places, making home ownership and rent increasingly unaffordable, I can see downsides to doing this again. I’m not an economist nor a tax expert nor a mortgage lender and it’s late. I’ll let better informed minds tackle that.

 

[Toni]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

If nobody is harmed by giving away taxpayer money, why not forgive everyone's mortgage too?

The government does not hold mortgage debt. They cannot forgive debt they do not hold.

Sure they can. They can simply pay off people's mortgages.

But, your question is, frankly speaking, utterly ridiculous. If giving people huge sums of money doesn't harm anybody, why doesn't the government do it for every citizen, every year?

There is a difference between

telling someone they don’t have to pay you the money you loaned them when they were 18-21 years old and had no means of paying back the loan.

Of course they had means. The loan was used to build their own human capital.

Furthermore, this loan cannot be discharged through bankruptcy or in most cases, other financial hardship. This debt prevents borrowers from being able to obtain mortgages or to engage in otherwise normal and ordinary adult relationships such as marriage and parenthood. It keeps borrowers trapped in the rental market where they cannot built equity to help themselves financially.

It, of course, does no such thing. "Ordinary adult relationships". WHAT?

Why doesn't Billy get his payments refunded? Why give Bonita the free ride but not Billy?

AND

Paying off the debt of someone who is in every way fully an adult, abs who obtained the loan from a lender who is not you and who insisted that the borrower provide evidence that they were credit worthy and had sufficient income to repay the debt. In addition, the borrower has an asset they can sell to repay the debt, if any debt remains abs to pocket any money in excess of the amount remaining in the mortgage. Should the borrower default on the loan, the lender assumes ownership and can recoup its losses by selling the home. The borrower takes a hit to their credit but this can be overcome in about 7 years.

You didn't answer my question at all.

Forgiving government debt is not a free act. You asked who it harms. It harms every tax payer and citizen and also harms the moral fabric of society.

And you are not even consistent. You want to forgive Bonita's loan but not Billy's, even though they both entered into the loan at the same age at the same time. You want to reward irresponsibility and bad degree choices.

I think it is immoral to hold someone responsible for a debt they entered into when they were in most respects still a minor and are unable to repay. THAT harms everyone and harms the moral fabric of society.

We subsidize rent and food and health care directly for people who are unable to afford those things themselves. We do not buy groceries for Bill Gates because he doesn’t need that help.

Treating everyone equally is not the sane thing as treating everyone identically.

 

[Metaphor]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

If nobody is harmed by giving away taxpayer money, why not forgive everyone's mortgage too?

The government does not hold mortgage debt. They cannot forgive debt they do not hold.

Sure they can. They can simply pay off people's mortgages.

But, your question is, frankly speaking, utterly ridiculous. If giving people huge sums of money doesn't harm anybody, why doesn't the government do it for every citizen, every year?

Making a loan is a sunk cost.
Forgiving the loan means you will not get income from that cost.

Giving banks a bunch of money because people paid too much for homes they cannot afford or don’t want to pay for is a NEW cost.

1. We already give banks and big business plenty of money. The bank took the risk. The bank needs to be responsible for the risk

2. In the not distant past, we subsidized home ownership by making mortgage interest tax deductible. I’m not opposed to that in principal but the net effect would be to increase the price of homes and the amount that people are willing to borrow. Given that the cost of homes, whether rent or purchase price is increasing very dramatically in many places, making home ownership and rent increasingly unaffordable, I can see downsides to doing this again. I’m not an economist nor a tax expert nor a mortgage lender and it’s late. I’ll let better informed minds tackle that.

Explain to me why Bonita gets a free ride but Billy should not. I'll wait.

 

[Metaphor]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

If nobody is harmed by giving away taxpayer money, why not forgive everyone's mortgage too?

The government does not hold mortgage debt. They cannot forgive debt they do not hold.

Sure they can. They can simply pay off people's mortgages.

But, your question is, frankly speaking, utterly ridiculous. If giving people huge sums of money doesn't harm anybody, why doesn't the government do it for every citizen, every year?

There is a difference between

telling someone they don’t have to pay you the money you loaned them when they were 18-21 years old and had no means of paying back the loan.

Of course they had means. The loan was used to build their own human capital.

Furthermore, this loan cannot be discharged through bankruptcy or in most cases, other financial hardship. This debt prevents borrowers from being able to obtain mortgages or to engage in otherwise normal and ordinary adult relationships such as marriage and parenthood. It keeps borrowers trapped in the rental market where they cannot built equity to help themselves financially.

It, of course, does no such thing. "Ordinary adult relationships". WHAT?

Why doesn't Billy get his payments refunded? Why give Bonita the free ride but not Billy?

AND

Paying off the debt of someone who is in every way fully an adult, abs who obtained the loan from a lender who is not you and who insisted that the borrower provide evidence that they were credit worthy and had sufficient income to repay the debt. In addition, the borrower has an asset they can sell to repay the debt, if any debt remains abs to pocket any money in excess of the amount remaining in the mortgage. Should the borrower default on the loan, the lender assumes ownership and can recoup its losses by selling the home. The borrower takes a hit to their credit but this can be overcome in about 7 years.

You didn't answer my question at all.

Forgiving government debt is not a free act. You asked who it harms. It harms every tax payer and citizen and also harms the moral fabric of society.

And you are not even consistent. You want to forgive Bonita's loan but not Billy's, even though they both entered into the loan at the same age at the same time. You want to reward irresponsibility and bad degree choices.

I think it is immoral to hold someone responsible for a debt they entered into when they were in most respects still a minor

They're not.

and are unable to repay.

Nobody entering a student debt can repay it at the time they enter the debt. That isn't the point. They are building human capital with that debt.

THAT harms everyone and harms the moral fabric of society.

No. Letting people out of loans they committed to because you personally feel sorry for them, using other people's money, harms the moral fabric of society.

We subsidize rent and food and health care directly for people who are unable to afford those things themselves. We do not buy groceries for Bill Gates because he doesn’t need that help.

Treating everyone equally is not the sane thing as treating everyone identically.

Why don't you treat Bonita and Billy equally?

Why does Bonita get her education paid for but Billy doesn't, plus Billy's tax money goes to pay off Bonita's debt?

 

[Toni]

Person A lives moderately, pays their bills, saves.

Person B lives lavishly, doesn't save, gets help.

It happens over and over, the people who live moderately do not like being asked to help those who weren't as careful.

Then they should stop trying to impose their lifestyle on others, and start living a little.

Needless sacrifice isn't noble, it's stupid. And complaining when others choose not to be stupid, because you suffered and therefore they should too, is being a selfish cunt.

Society is about people helping each other. If you opt out, that's your stupid choice - but not an excuse to insist that others should do the same.

You have it backwards--they keep being asked to bail out the ones who lived irresponsibility. Live with the consequences of your irresponsibility, don't ask us to bail you out!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

If nobody is harmed by giving away taxpayer money, why not forgive everyone's mortgage too?

The government does not hold mortgage debt. They cannot forgive debt they do not hold.

Sure they can. They can simply pay off people's mortgages.

But, your question is, frankly speaking, utterly ridiculous. If giving people huge sums of money doesn't harm anybody, why doesn't the government do it for every citizen, every year?

Making a loan is a sunk cost.
Forgiving the loan means you will not get income from that cost.

Giving banks a bunch of money because people paid too much for homes they cannot afford or don’t want to pay for is a NEW cost.

1. We already give banks and big business plenty of money. The bank took the risk. The bank needs to be responsible for the risk

2. In the not distant past, we subsidized home ownership by making mortgage interest tax deductible. I’m not opposed to that in principal but the net effect would be to increase the price of homes and the amount that people are willing to borrow. Given that the cost of homes, whether rent or purchase price is increasing very dramatically in many places, making home ownership and rent increasingly unaffordable, I can see downsides to doing this again. I’m not an economist nor a tax expert nor a mortgage lender and it’s late. I’ll let better informed minds tackle that.

Explain to me why Bonita gets a free ride but Billy should not. I'll wait.

I’ve explained it to you.

I cannot understand it for you.