# Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

#### Trausti

##### Deleted
Having your loan forgiven is not breaching any agreement. The lender forgives the loan. This is not the same thing as the borrower skipping out on the loan.
Uh, and what of all those who were responsible and paid? Just fuck ‘em?

#### southernhybrid

##### Contributor
Ah yes, the myth of the condescending college professor.

Offering people access to the careers and degrees they want to pursue does not prevent anyone from choosing a diferent path. We are not killing plumbing by making it possible to study history. The reasons why a younger generation is not choosing technical trades has nothing to do with liberal arts degrees being more available to them, and in fact, most trade school certificates are substantially cheaper to earn than full degrees, so if that were a real problem we would already be implementing the solution. We aren't killing plumbers. We're just making it possible for people to study history. If you have options, you can do either of those things, or neither. You can even do both at once, in a civilized society. Nothing about the job of an electrician or plumber is inhibited by holding a history degree, and it might even be useful information at times (the construction of our civil infrastructure occurred during history, as it turns out). But if you don't have options, you'll do the only thing you can, whether or not it is something you either want to do or have any aptitude for.
You totally misunderstood my post, which had nothing to do with condescending college teachers. I was referring to Americans in general, especially those who are highly educated. And, young people are often told by their parents or others that they need at least a 4 year degree to be successful. I've read that "trades",a s you call them, are highly respected in Europe, compared to the US. See what you did there. You referred to these "professions" as trades. I refer to them as professions, as in a professional licensed plumber. And, I never said that all Americans looked down on these folks, but I believe one reason why a lot of people who work in skilled professions, ( doesn't that sound better than trades ) are leaving the Democratic Party is because they feel as if they aren't appreciated. That may not be a rational reason to become a Republican, but Republicans have done a good job of pretending they care about these folks.

Still, I regret that you felt like my comment was directed at people like you. It wasn't meant to be perceived that way. I just think that we need to emphasize to young people that there are plenty of career choices available to them, with or without a four year degree. But, let's be honest, a four year degree in a liberal arts subject has little value in the job market these days. It's fine if one plans to obtain a graduate degree in an area that has lots of potential employment options, but whether it's fair or not, a BA in a liberal arts subject isn't going to get you a job, with few exceptions. If one wants to pursue a four year degree these days, with the hope of having a career, one needs to consider areas like IT, engineering, nursing, teaching in a public school etc. Having a 4 year degree in a liberal arts subject isn't going to get you a good job with few exceptions. You might end up in retail or car sales or real estate, if you like sales, but even working in HR, usually requires a degree in HR. I just hate to see people waste their time and money on degrees that won't help them establish a career.

Btw, my college teachers weren't at all condescending. That was the furthest thing from my mind when I wrote that post. Perhaps you were being a bit overly sensitive, not condescending.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
Having your loan forgiven is not breaching any agreement. The lender forgives the loan. This is not the same thing as the borrower skipping out on the loan.
Uh, and what of all those who were responsible and paid? Just fuck ‘em?
Uh, no.

EVERYONE benefits from having a well educated population. EVERYONE.

EVERYONE benefits from people being able to afford stable housing, marriage, children if they choose. The economy benefits. Society benefits.

Sometimes I purchase something and then it goes on sale: others purchase the same thing for a fraction of what I paid. Good for them.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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.
That analogy doesn’t work at all.
How so?
People took out loans. Some paid them back, as agreed. Others did not. So those who breached the agreement would be rewarded while those who were responsible are out the money they repaid. What suckers.
That's just the sunk cost fallacy.

That someone in the past wasted their money on something is not a justification for continued waste of money by people today.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
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.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
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.
That analogy doesn’t work at all.
How so?
People took out loans. Some paid them back, as agreed. Others did not. So those who breached the agreement would be rewarded while those who were responsible are out the money they repaid. What suckers.
That's just the sunk cost fallacy.

That someone in the past wasted their money on something is not a justification for continued waste of money by people today.
No, it's not.

So paying for education is a waste of money? If so, then why are you wanting to forgive education loans, if education is a waste of money?

#### Toni

##### Contributor
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.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
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.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
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.

Note: I have no problem if the cost of student loans already paid is mitigated by
Tax relief—means tested.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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 ##### Super Moderator Staff member 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 ##### Super Moderator Staff member 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 ##### Super Moderator Staff member 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 ##### Adult human male Warning Level 3 Warning Level 2 Warning Level 1 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 ##### Contributor 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 ##### Adult human male Warning Level 3 Warning Level 2 Warning Level 1 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 ##### Contributor 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

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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?

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
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

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
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

##### Contributor
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.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
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 ##### Adult human male Warning Level 3 Warning Level 2 Warning Level 1 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

##### Contributor
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

##### Veteran Member
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

##### Contributor
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 ##### the baby-eater 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 ##### Contributor 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 ##### Contributor 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 ##### Contributor 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 ##### Super Moderator Staff member 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 ##### Super Moderator Staff member 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 ##### Super Moderator Staff member 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 ##### Super Moderator Staff member 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 ##### Fair dinkum thinkum 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. Last edited: #### Toni ##### Contributor 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

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Lux Aeterna
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

##### Contributor
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.