Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[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

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?

Billy’s tax money doesn’t pay any part of Bonita’s debt. Her debt is forgiven. No one pays it back.

If I loan you and bilby each $100 on the promise that you’ll each pay me back the $100 plus $5 interest and bilby pays me back but you lost your job and I say that’s ok, metaphor, you don’t have to pay me back, bilby’s loan repayment does not cover your loan debt. I erased it because you needed the break.

If bilby lost his job and couldn’t pay me back and I insisted he do so even if he couldn’t afford it, then I would be unfair towards bilby.

That would help no one.

 

[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?

Billy’s tax money doesn’t pay any part of Bonita’s debt. Her debt is forgiven. No one pays it back.

You don't understand how accounting works.

Somebody paid for Bonita's education. It wasn't Bonita. It was Billy and every other taxpayer.

If I loan you and bilby each $100 on the promise that you’ll each pay me back the $100 plus $5 interest and bilby pays me back but you lost your job and I say that’s ok, metaphor, you don’t have to pay me back, bilby’s loan repayment does not cover your loan debt. I erased it because you needed the break.

That's fine for you. But it isn't fine if you are financing your loans from my taxes.

 

[southernhybrid]

might help one develop intellectually, but won't qualify you for a good job

The idea that higher education should qualify you for a good job is both very recent, and very wrong.

There's nothing about obtaining a degree that prevents anyone from going on to become a plumber, electrician or bus driver; Vocational education isn't an alternative to a liberal arts (or engineering, science or medical) degree - it's an excellent idea to have more than one of these.

Specialisation is a good thing for many people, but it shouldn't be mandatory, nor even a societal expectation; One of the key evolutionary advantages of Homo Sapiens is generalisation - the ability to learn how to thrive in a bewildering variety of different environments and circumstances.

Many people are happy with having a single career that they pursue to the point of excellence, but while that can be a path to great success, it can also be a recipe for disaster - just ask any Yorkshire coal miner.

You are absolutely right that society needs both Liberal Arts graduates and carpenters; But I am not sure why you seem to believe that these should not or could not be the same person.

Of course they could be the same person. But, seriously! How many people can afford to spend the time and money pursuing a four year degree for intellectual purposes and then go on to become a carpenter or plumber? How many people would even want to do that?

And sure, there are people who change careers several times. My husband started out as an industrial engineer, then worked as a business analyst, and project manager, when so many corporations moved off shore. He finally ended his career as a manufacturing engineer as that was always his first choice when it came to work. His parents pushed him to study premed, which led him to drop out of college for a year or so. That's what I'm talking about. Young people being pushed into areas of study or work that they aren't interested in.

It's been a long, long time since I studied liberal arts in college, but from what I remember, the majority of students were bored to death in most of my classes and were only there so they could get a job. But, even back in the 1960s, it wasn't easy to get a decent job with a degree in liberal arts, unless you had a teaching certificate or had a connection to someone who could get you in the door.

I learned a lot more from reading books than I ever did studying liberal arts in college. But, if others enjoy studying liberal arts and don't really care if they end up working in retail, that's fine with me. I just don't like to see people disappointed and in debt because they had the mistaken idea that their degree in English would help them with their career goals.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

And?

 

[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

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?

Billy’s tax money doesn’t pay any part of Bonita’s debt. Her debt is forgiven. No one pays it back.

You don't understand how accounting works.

Somebody paid for Bonita's education. It wasn't Bonita. It was Billy and every other taxpayer.

If I loan you and bilby each $100 on the promise that you’ll each pay me back the $100 plus $5 interest and bilby pays me back but you lost your job and I say that’s ok, metaphor, you don’t have to pay me back, bilby’s loan repayment does not cover your loan debt. I erased it because you needed the break.

That's fine for you. But it isn't fine if you are financing your loans from my taxes.

Tax payers also paid for Billy's education. They paid up front, in one way or another. Billy repaid a portion of the cost of his education because he was able to do so. Bonita also pays taxes, albeit probably less than Billy, who pays taxes. Billy paid himself back.

Banks write off bad loans all the time.

We (the US government, which in the US, means we the people) bailed out all kinds of industries in the past, most recently on a large scale, during the last economic crisis. They received many, many, many times what Bonita did in terms of bail out.

 

[bigfield]

If federal loans are being forgiven, that means the federal government has either less money to spend, or needs to tax taxpayers more to get to the same amount.

Or the federal government needs to issue bonds to compensate for spending more money.

And, these bonds don't have interest rates and the principal does not need to be paid back?

Why tax people at all if we can just issue bonds?

I was just pointing out that there is in fact another way to forgive loans without having less money to spend on other things.

You don't need to believe it's the correct course of action.

Bonds = increase the federal debt = increase the interest paid on the federal debt = less money to spend on other things.

Those are future costs, affecting future federal budgets. It doesn't reduce the amount of money government has to spend.

Forgiving students loans also increases the amount of money that people are able to spend in the economy, and this translates into future revenues that offset the costs of issuing bonds.

In fact, the government doesn't even need to print bonds. They can just forgive the debts and wait to see what effect that has on inflation.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If federal loans are being forgiven, that means the federal government has either less money to spend, or needs to tax taxpayers more to get to the same amount.

Or the federal government needs to issue bonds to compensate for spending more money.

And, these bonds don't have interest rates and the principal does not need to be paid back?

Why tax people at all if we can just issue bonds?

I was just pointing out that there is in fact another way to forgive loans without having less money to spend on other things.

You don't need to believe it's the correct course of action.

Bonds = increase the federal debt = increase the interest paid on the federal debt = less money to spend on other things.

Those are future costs, affecting future federal budgets. It doesn't reduce the amount of money government has to spend.

Forgiving students loans also increases the amount of money that people are able to spend in the economy, and this translates into future revenues that offset the costs of issuing bonds.

In fact, the government doesn't even need to print bonds. They can just forgive the debts and wait to see what effect that has on inflation.

Any federal debt forgiveness immediately increases the federal debt. Federal debt is the result of current income - expenses. When expenses are greater, debt goes up. When calculating federal income (which is mostly taxes); debt repayment is assumed to be income. So, if it's forgiven, it's an immediate decrease to federal income.

 

[Toni]

If federal loans are being forgiven, that means the federal government has either less money to spend, or needs to tax taxpayers more to get to the same amount.

Or the federal government needs to issue bonds to compensate for spending more money.

And, these bonds don't have interest rates and the principal does not need to be paid back?

Why tax people at all if we can just issue bonds?

I was just pointing out that there is in fact another way to forgive loans without having less money to spend on other things.

You don't need to believe it's the correct course of action.

Bonds = increase the federal debt = increase the interest paid on the federal debt = less money to spend on other things.

Those are future costs, affecting future federal budgets. It doesn't reduce the amount of money government has to spend.

Forgiving students loans also increases the amount of money that people are able to spend in the economy, and this translates into future revenues that offset the costs of issuing bonds.

In fact, the government doesn't even need to print bonds. They can just forgive the debts and wait to see what effect that has on inflation.

Any federal debt forgiveness immediately increases the federal debt. Federal debt is the result of current income - expenses. When expenses are greater, debt goes up. When calculating federal income (which is mostly taxes); debt repayment is assumed to be income. So, if it's forgiven, it's an immediate decrease to federal income.

Which may be offset by increased spending by those currently carrying student debt, thus stimulating the economy and increasing revenue to the government. I’m not an economist so I don’t know the extent which the income expected from student loan payments would be offset by the stimulated economy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If federal loans are being forgiven, that means the federal government has either less money to spend, or needs to tax taxpayers more to get to the same amount.

Or the federal government needs to issue bonds to compensate for spending more money.

And, these bonds don't have interest rates and the principal does not need to be paid back?

Why tax people at all if we can just issue bonds?

I was just pointing out that there is in fact another way to forgive loans without having less money to spend on other things.

You don't need to believe it's the correct course of action.

Bonds = increase the federal debt = increase the interest paid on the federal debt = less money to spend on other things.

Those are future costs, affecting future federal budgets. It doesn't reduce the amount of money government has to spend.

Forgiving students loans also increases the amount of money that people are able to spend in the economy, and this translates into future revenues that offset the costs of issuing bonds.

In fact, the government doesn't even need to print bonds. They can just forgive the debts and wait to see what effect that has on inflation.

Any federal debt forgiveness immediately increases the federal debt. Federal debt is the result of current income - expenses. When expenses are greater, debt goes up. When calculating federal income (which is mostly taxes); debt repayment is assumed to be income. So, if it's forgiven, it's an immediate decrease to federal income.

Which may be offset by increased spending by those currently carrying student debt, thus stimulating the economy and increasing revenue to the government. I’m not an economist so I don’t know the extent which the income expected from student loan payments would be offset by the stimulated economy.

Toni: I don't disagree with you at all. I'm also not an economist. I know that republicans also often tout tax cuts (which increase debt as well) as long term stimulants to the economy. I would assume that these stimulants would take longer to affect the economy (and hence tax receipts) than the immediate increase in debt from 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!

How is anyone harmed by forgiving student debt?

The debt doesn't just disappear. It's going to be paid by the taxpayers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

But that means you don't have the income you expected. You can't spend as much on other things as you intended. You're pulling the standard leftist handwave of pretending something sufficiently dispersed ceases to exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I loan you and bilby each $100 on the promise that you’ll each pay me back the $100 plus $5 interest and bilby pays me back but you lost your job and I say that’s ok, metaphor, you don’t have to pay me back, bilby’s loan repayment does not cover your loan debt. I erased it because you needed the break.

If bilby lost his job and couldn’t pay me back and I insisted he do so even if he couldn’t afford it, then I would be unfair towards bilby.

That would help no one.

And now you are out $105 that you can't spend on something else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those are future costs, affecting future federal budgets. It doesn't reduce the amount of money government has to spend.

Forgiving students loans also increases the amount of money that people are able to spend in the economy, and this translates into future revenues that offset the costs of issuing bonds.

In fact, the government doesn't even need to print bonds. They can just forgive the debts and wait to see what effect that has on inflation.

You're trying to handwave it away. That doesn't make it go away.

 

[bilby]

might help one develop intellectually, but won't qualify you for a good job

The idea that higher education should qualify you for a good job is both very recent, and very wrong.

There's nothing about obtaining a degree that prevents anyone from going on to become a plumber, electrician or bus driver; Vocational education isn't an alternative to a liberal arts (or engineering, science or medical) degree - it's an excellent idea to have more than one of these.

Specialisation is a good thing for many people, but it shouldn't be mandatory, nor even a societal expectation; One of the key evolutionary advantages of Homo Sapiens is generalisation - the ability to learn how to thrive in a bewildering variety of different environments and circumstances.

Many people are happy with having a single career that they pursue to the point of excellence, but while that can be a path to great success, it can also be a recipe for disaster - just ask any Yorkshire coal miner.

You are absolutely right that society needs both Liberal Arts graduates and carpenters; But I am not sure why you seem to believe that these should not or could not be the same person.

Of course they could be the same person. But, seriously! How many people can afford to spend the time and money pursuing a four year degree for intellectual purposes and then go on to become a carpenter or plumber? How many people would even want to do that?

And sure, there are people who change careers several times. My husband started out as an industrial engineer, then worked as a business analyst, and project manager, when so many corporations moved off shore. He finally ended his career as a manufacturing engineer as that was always his first choice when it came to work. His parents pushed him to study premed, which led him to drop out of college for a year or so. That's what I'm talking about. Young people being pushed into areas of study or work that they aren't interested in.

It's been a long, long time since I studied liberal arts in college, but from what I remember, the majority of students were bored to death in most of my classes and were only there so they could get a job. But, even back in the 1960s, it wasn't easy to get a decent job with a degree in liberal arts, unless you had a teaching certificate or had a connection to someone who could get you in the door.

I learned a lot more from reading books than I ever did studying liberal arts in college. But, if others enjoy studying liberal arts and don't really care if they end up working in retail, that's fine with me. I just don't like to see people disappointed and in debt because they had the mistaken idea that their degree in English would help them with their career goals.

I understand that most people don't have multiple careers, and that those that do usually have new careers that build on or somehow relate to their old ones; But it doesn't have to be like that.

I went to university (because it was expected of me), and studied Molecular Biology (because it was the new and exciting field of the time); Then I spent a few years doing casual labouring, including some long stints of unemployment, before emigrating to Australia, where I worked at a pharmaceutical company for fifteen years, starting as a forklift driver in goods inwards, and then as production planner, master production planner, exports coordinator, and finally demand planning manager.

Then I worked for Cognos as a technical support specialist, and they were bought by IBM, so I was a Software Engineer at IBM for a decade.

When IBM gave me a large sack of cash to go away, I retrained as a truck driver, because I had finally worked out that you are allowed to earn money doing something you actually like doing. I love driving (but there's no money in it if you stick to light vehicles, because world+dog has a light vehicle licence), but the non-driving aspects of my first driving job were awful, and I quit after two years, and retrained again as a Bus Operator. I am currently enrolled in TAFE, studying for a Cert III in Driving Operations, while driving a bus full time for Brisbane City Council. My classmates are a third of my age. I have never been ao happy in my work (and the money is better than most of those previous jobs, once you add allowances, penalties and overtime).

The idea that you only have time for one (or two) careers in which you reach the top of your chosen speciality, in the 47 years between 18 and 65 years of age, is simply false. There's room in there for at least three major careers, and maybe twice that number. And that's assuming you want to really master each one before moving on.

For sure, it's not easy getting a new job for which you are barely (or recently) qualified. I have spent some big chunks of time unemployed, and even more underemployed. Changing careers in a society that's not configured for that is playing life on 'hard' mode. But I would be bored shitless if I had been in the same field for four decades.

It's not particularly important how many people might want to pursue a non-typical life; Their small numbers doesn't justify closing off that as an option. Freedom is all about giving people options, and the only options that should be made more difficult to choose than is absolutely necessary are those that cause harm to others.

Spending four years obtaining a degree in Medieval Church Architecture, and then becoming a plumber or a truck driver, harms nobody.

 

[Toni]

If I loan you and bilby each $100 on the promise that you’ll each pay me back the $100 plus $5 interest and bilby pays me back but you lost your job and I say that’s ok, metaphor, you don’t have to pay me back, bilby’s loan repayment does not cover your loan debt. I erased it because you needed the break.

If bilby lost his job and couldn’t pay me back and I insisted he do so even if he couldn’t afford it, then I would be unfair towards bilby.

That would help no one.

And now you are out $105 that you can't spend on something else.

I never lend money I cannot afford to lose.

 

[bilby]

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?

The debt doesn't just disappear. It's going to be paid by the taxpayers.

No, it was already paid by the taxpayers. They're just no longer anticipating getting their money back.

 

[bilby]

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

But that means you don't have the income you expected. You can't spend as much on other things as you intended. You're pulling the standard leftist handwave of pretending something sufficiently dispersed ceases to exist.

Currency issuing governments don't need income in order to spend. It's the other way about.

 

[Toni]

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

But that means you don't have the income you expected. You can't spend as much on other things as you intended. You're pulling the standard leftist handwave of pretending something sufficiently dispersed ceases to exist.

All lenders always risk that they will not be paid back. The risk is reflected in the interest charged. In my example, I was charging 5% interest which is higher than today’s mortgage rates or car loans.

Failure to repay a loan generally is reflected in a credit score.

You’re looking at education as a private good rather than a public good. And as job training rather than education. Society benefits from a well educated populace. Better educated people are better able to be informed on issues of the day. They tend to be happier and healthier people and, regardless of whether or not they work in the field in which they earned their degree, they tend to earn more money. They tend to make better choices in life. All of these things lead to a more stable, more productive society.

I see this as a good thing.

 

[Politesse]

You’re looking at education as a private good rather than a public good. And as job training rather than education. Society benefits from a well educated populace. Better educated people are better able to be informed on issues of the day. They tend to be happier and healthier people and, regardless of whether or not they work in the field in which they earned their degree, they tend to earn more money. They tend to make better choices in life. All of these things lead to a more stable, more productive society.

I see this as a good thing

Not if you are a Republican. How could their party possibly survive, let alone thrive, in a country where there are no barriers to education? So many of their party positions require scientific illiteracy to seem tenable, to the point of being wholly unaware of climatology, geology, epidemiology, and most of the social sciences.

 

[Toni]

You’re looking at education as a private good rather than a public good. And as job training rather than education. Society benefits from a well educated populace. Better educated people are better able to be informed on issues of the day. They tend to be happier and healthier people and, regardless of whether or not they work in the field in which they earned their degree, they tend to earn more money. They tend to make better choices in life. All of these things lead to a more stable, more productive society.

I see this as a good thing

Not if you are a Republican. How could their party possibly survive, let alone thrive, in a country where there are no barriers to education? So many of their party positions require scientific illiteracy to seem tenable, to the point of being wholly unaware of climatology, geology, epidemiology, and most of the social sciences.

Like I said.......
and I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans were ethical.