# Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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.
They want people to have the education necessary to be productive workers, but not the education necessary to be effective troublemakers.

#### Metaphor

##### Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Spending four years obtaining a degree in Medieval Church Architecture, and then becoming a plumber or a truck driver, harms nobody.
It would harm nobody if the cost to provide the degree was nothing.

But that isn't the cost.

#### Metaphor

##### Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
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.
You didn't address Loren's question at all.

You failing to get paid back means you don't have the money you would have had. Your assertion that government forgiving debt harms nobody is wrong.

#### 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?
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.
So, the taxpayers aren't harmed by not getting their money back?

You might feel that way when you are loaning out your own money, but I am certainly harmed when I loan out money and I am not paid back.

#### Metaphor

##### Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
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.
So what?

What you do with your own money is your business. You can give away your entire wealth if you want.

#### 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.
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.
Right, but a decrease to federal income doesn't necessarily mean, as Loren put it, "less money to spend on other things." The government can still spend what they need to, and there are several ways to manage the effects of that spending.

#### 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?
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.
So, the taxpayers aren't harmed by not getting their money back?

You might feel that way when you are loaning out your own money, but I am certainly harmed when I loan out money and I am not paid back.
Which, with respect to US student loans, does not affect you.

#### 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.
So what?

What you do with your own money is your business. You can give away your entire wealth if you want.
Yes, I can.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
Spending four years obtaining a degree in Medieval Church Architecture, and then becoming a plumber or a truck driver, harms nobody.
It would harm nobody if the cost to provide the degree was nothing.

But that isn't the cost.
Beyond a minimum enrollment in a particular class, every student enrolled past that break even point helps subsidize other programs and other parts of the university.

Also not the point.

The cost of ignorance is enormous and negatively affects every portion of society.

#### 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?
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.
So, the taxpayers aren't harmed by not getting their money back?

You might feel that way when you are loaning out your own money, but I am certainly harmed when I loan out money and I am not paid back.
Which, with respect to US student loans, does not affect you.
Sure it would, even if indirectly.

But, whether the US partially forgives or entirely forgives select student loans, you are misleading people to say it harms nobody. It harms the US taxpayer and it harms the moral fabric of US society.

#### Metaphor

##### Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Spending four years obtaining a degree in Medieval Church Architecture, and then becoming a plumber or a truck driver, harms nobody.
It would harm nobody if the cost to provide the degree was nothing.

But that isn't the cost.
Beyond a minimum enrollment in a particular class, every student enrolled past that break even point helps subsidize other programs and other parts of the university.

I have no idea what you think this sentence has to do with anything. It costs money to provide degrees. If it did not, this entire thread would be pointless.
Also not the point.

The cost of ignorance is enormous and negatively affects every portion of society.
This sentence has even less to do with anything than your previous sentence.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
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.
Right, but a decrease to federal income doesn't necessarily mean, as Loren put it, "less money to spend on other things." The government can still spend what they need to, and there are several ways to manage the effects of that spending.
Trump's tax cut for the rich cost us far more than this plan and had no redeeming qualities for the state of the nation. Getting hundreds of thousands of people out of crushing debt will have huge implications.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
Spending four years obtaining a degree in Medieval Church Architecture, and then becoming a plumber or a truck driver, harms nobody.
It would harm nobody if the cost to provide the degree was nothing.

But that isn't the cost.
Beyond a minimum enrollment in a particular class, every student enrolled past that break even point helps subsidize other programs and other parts of the university.

I have no idea what you think this sentence has to do with anything. It costs money to provide degrees. If it did not, this entire thread would be pointless.
Also not the point.

The cost of ignorance is enormous and negatively affects every portion of society.
This sentence has even less to do with anything than your previous sentence.
I'm sorry that you do not understand the business side of running a university.

#### 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?
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.
So, the taxpayers aren't harmed by not getting their money back?

You might feel that way when you are loaning out your own money, but I am certainly harmed when I loan out money and I am not paid back.
Which, with respect to US student loans, does not affect you.
Sure it would, even if indirectly.

But, whether the US partially forgives or entirely forgives select student loans, you are misleading people to say it harms nobody. It harms the US taxpayer and it harms the moral fabric of US society.
I think it helps mend the moral fabric of US society. I think forgiving student loans is a net gain for the US economy and the US as a nation.

Your feefees to the contrary.

#### 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.
There is tremendous pressure on universities to keep costs down. I don’t know about other states but in my state, any increase in tuition must be approved by state legislators. Building projects and larger maintenance projects also are subject to state bonding and compete with all sorts of other bonding projects throughout the state.

Your opinion that universities have state legislators in their pocket is predicated on the assumption that state legislative bodies are dominated by the Democratic Party. This is obviously untrue.

You also opine that the states should force universities to lower the tuition like Medicare. As I mentioned before, at least in my state, any change in tuition requires legislative approval.

The other fact that you seem ignorant of is the fact that many medical providers are forced to limit the number of Medicare patients they see because Medicare reimbursements do not cover the cost of care.

#### 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.
No, it was already paid by the taxpayers. They're just no longer anticipating getting their money back.
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.

#### 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.
Currency issuing governments don't need income in order to spend. It's the other way about.
It's going to show up as increased interest payments then.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Right, but a decrease to federal income doesn't necessarily mean, as Loren put it, "less money to spend on other things." The government can still spend what they need to, and there are several ways to manage the effects of that spending.
The standard leftist delusion that there is always enough money to do anything they feel should be done.

#### 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.
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.
Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.

#### Metaphor

##### Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

#### Worldtraveller

##### Veteran Member
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.

Wow.

You're old!

#### Metaphor

##### Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.
Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.
Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.
Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.
Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.
You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.
Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.
Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.
The claim I am addressing is "But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits."

This isn't true, if the value of the education to the economy causes more benefits and/or lower taxes for future taxpayers.

I am not moving any goalposts; If my rebuttal of your explicit claim is off topic, then your claim was the goalpost move.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.

#### Metaphor

##### Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.
No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.

In Australia, university debts (that arise from course fees) are paid back through the taxation system and are income-contingent, like a tax.

But they are not a tax.

Neither are they a tax in America, whether they repayments are income-contingent or not.

Therefore, for bilby to say:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.
Is fucking nuts. We don't demand any such thing, no matter how you falsely analogise an income-contingent debt being re-paid through the taxation infrastructure, and a debt to the government. Repaying a debt to the government is not paying "extra taxes".

Indeed, in Australia, it's already subsidised debt. Some course fees are almost completely covered by the government, and for courses that are not, they fees are heavily subsidised and the debt (the remainder of the fee) is not subject to interest but annual CPI adjustment only (to ensure the debt is not inflated away to nothing).

#### Metaphor

##### Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.
Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.
Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.
You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.
First, your sentence is an assertion without evidence.

Second, even if it were true, so what? The proposition does not somehow justify forgiveness of debts.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.
Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.
Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.
You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.
First, your sentence is an assertion without evidence.

Second, even if it were true, so what? The proposition does not somehow justify forgiveness of debts.
Cool story bro.

#### Metaphor

##### Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.
Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.
Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.
You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.
First, your sentence is an assertion without evidence.

Second, even if it were true, so what? The proposition does not somehow justify forgiveness of debts.
Cool story bro.
Cheers luv

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.
No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.
This is an indication you still have not read my response with a modicum of understanding. Because if you had, you'd understand that the phrase "argument rests on the implicit premise that " means your response is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, bilby's argument is that debt-forgiveness has the same effects as a tax cut (not that it is identical to a tax cut) for the borrowers. He is correct on that point.
In Australia, university debts...
The discussion is about the policy in the USA about debts in the USA. Hence your comments about Australia is truly pointless.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
Calling it 7 days rather than a week doesn't change the situation.

It's going to come out of taxpayer's pockets.
No, nothing is going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The money was spent, in the past. It came out of the taxpayers' pockets then. It's a sunk cost.

Loan repayments to the federal government are themselves a form of taxation. Forgiveness is a tax cut.
It's going to come out of future taxpayers pockets.
No, it really isn't. It came out of past taxpayers pockets. It's done.

Forgiveness of the repayments is just a tax cut, targeted at former students whose career earnings haven't been as high as was originally anticipated. And it cuts their currently elevated tax rate back to the same rate that others with the same income currently pay.

It costs nobody anything that they haven't already paid at the time those former students were studying.
And when the taxpayer paid the cost for the student, it was with the student's promise to pay the amount back.

The whole point of income taxation is that everyone with the same income pays the same tax, regardless of what government services they might have accessed in the past. We don't charge people additional income tax because they commute more than average on interstate highways, or because they claimed SNAP benefits at some time in the past, or because they live in a place that was struck by a natural disaster and received federal assistance. We just look at income, and tax a percentage of that.

Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That's just nuts.
"Nuts" is characterising loan repayments as a tax. It is not one.
Not to anyone who is even remotely economically literate. bilby is correct in that when the gov't forgives a loan repayment has the same economic impact on the borrower as a tax cut. The loan payment has the same immediate economic impact on the borrower as a tax payment.

In essence, bilby's argument rests on the implicit premise that any fees government-funded education should be income-based not service expense based.

bilby said:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.

That characterisation is false and nuts. It ignores everything about how student debts are incurred.
I bold-faced and italicized the part of my response you clearly did not understand. If you did, you'd know your response is nuts.
No, your bolded and italicised part is irrelevant.

In Australia, university debts (that arise from course fees) are paid back through the taxation system and are income-contingent, like a tax.

But they are not a tax.

Neither are they a tax in America, whether they repayments are income-contingent or not.

Therefore, for bilby to say:
Unless they got educated at government expense, in which case we bizarrely demand that they pay extra taxes that other people with identical incomes do not.
Is fucking nuts. We don't demand any such thing, no matter how you falsely analogise an income-contingent debt being re-paid through the taxation infrastructure, and a debt to the government. Repaying a debt to the government is not paying "extra taxes".

Indeed, in Australia, it's already subsidised debt. Some course fees are almost completely covered by the government, and for courses that are not, they fees are heavily subsidised and the debt (the remainder of the fee) is not subject to interest but annual CPI adjustment only (to ensure the debt is not inflated away to nothing).
I think it is fantastic that Australia heavily subsidizes university education. I would be far less in favor of the government putting pressure on students to choose subjects according to the rate of subsidation rather than according to store ts’ interests and talents. But that’s me. I am sure Australia has a system that works for them.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.
Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.
Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.
You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.
Which doesn't address the point. You're still trying to move the goalposts.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.
Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.
Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.
The claim I am addressing is "But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits."

This isn't true, if the value of the education to the economy causes more benefits and/or lower taxes for future taxpayers.

I am not moving any goalposts; If my rebuttal of your explicit claim is off topic, then your claim was the goalpost move.
Insisting it's only 7 days doesn't make it not a week. You're still doing the same misdirection.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
But the future taxpayer will either pay more tax or get less benefits.
Only if we assume that educating people has no positive impact on economic growth, and that taxing educated people at a higher rate than others on the same income has no negative impact on economic growth.

Neither seems like a very reasonable assumption.
Goalposts!!!

The issue was loan forgiveness, not the value of education in the first place.
You're so married to your position that you aren't able to see: The value to society of having a well education populace > value of the student loans.
First, your sentence is an assertion without evidence.

Second, even if it were true, so what? The proposition does not somehow justify forgiveness of debts.
Cool story bro.
A complete non-response. You're conceding?

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I think it is fantastic that Australia heavily subsidizes university education. I would be far less in favor of the government putting pressure on students to choose subjects according to the rate of subsidation rather than according to store ts’ interests and talents. But that’s me. I am sure Australia has a system that works for them.
If the state is going to subsidize education it should aim to do so in fields of value. We get too many people with degrees where the only real job prospects are teaching the material.

#### Jason Harvestdancer

##### Contributor
I already paid back my student loans over a decade ago. I want the "forgiveness" as well. They can write me a check.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
I think it is fantastic that Australia heavily subsidizes university education. I would be far less in favor of the government putting pressure on students to choose subjects according to the rate of subsidation rather than according to store ts’ interests and talents. But that’s me. I am sure Australia has a system that works for them.
If the state is going to subsidize education it should aim to do so in fields of value. We get too many people with degrees where the only real job prospects are teaching the material.
Why should the state decide what is ‘useful?’

Truthfully, I have gotten jobs twice, largely on the basis of coursework my father deemed, like you probably would, useless and a waste of time and money.

No one was more surprised that those classes helped me get a job. Frankly I really needed those jobs. And I enjoyed those jobs as much as any job I ever held. I did not take those courses to help me get a job but because—get this: I was interested and thought they’d be fun. They were.

And so what if I never turned a dime in those classes. They broadened my understanding of the world around me and helped me more deeply appreciate the world, humanity and my life. I’m a better person because I took those courses.

The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
I think it is fantastic that Australia heavily subsidizes university education. I would be far less in favor of the government putting pressure on students to choose subjects according to the rate of subsidation rather than according to store ts’ interests and talents. But that’s me. I am sure Australia has a system that works for them.
If the state is going to subsidize education it should aim to do so in fields of value. We get too many people with degrees where the only real job prospects are teaching the material.
Or getting a job at McDonald's again? The fact is, we still need service industry and I would rather they went and got a "useless" degree and at least some classes in subjects that aren't otherwise merely vapid, I would rather that than they get no education at all.

"Mutually compatible self actualization" is the most useful filter of goals.

Education enables self-actualization, and much more so when the education is not the education we are told to want but the education we actually DO want, for ourselves.

So long as we do it in a mutually compatible way, that should be the only expected purpose.

As we do it, we will inevitably see the effects of the liberal arts requirements of 4 year programs, and the raising of all ships on those waters.

If we want to force an agenda through education, do it by adding things to the liberal arts/general education requirements, not by deciding for them what they will learn and do.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I think it is fantastic that Australia heavily subsidizes university education. I would be far less in favor of the government putting pressure on students to choose subjects according to the rate of subsidation rather than according to store ts’ interests and talents. But that’s me. I am sure Australia has a system that works for them.
If the state is going to subsidize education it should aim to do so in fields of value. We get too many people with degrees where the only real job prospects are teaching the material.
Why should the state decide what is ‘useful?’

Compare the number of positions asking for a certain degree with the number of people who want that degree. The state should provide more funding for degrees where the ratio of ask to want is higher.

The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.
Note that I'm talking degrees, not specific classes.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
I think it is fantastic that Australia heavily subsidizes university education. I would be far less in favor of the government putting pressure on students to choose subjects according to the rate of subsidation rather than according to store ts’ interests and talents. But that’s me. I am sure Australia has a system that works for them.
If the state is going to subsidize education it should aim to do so in fields of value. We get too many people with degrees where the only real job prospects are teaching the material.
Why should the state decide what is ‘useful?’

Compare the number of positions asking for a certain degree with the number of people who want that degree. The state should provide more funding for degrees where the ratio of ask to want is higher.

The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.
Note that I'm talking degrees, not specific classes.
The government is t really a good predictor of where the economy will be in 4 or 10 years. Think of all the kinds of jobs there are now that didn’t exist 15 years ago.

Unless you are going into a very specific field, your major doesn’t matter much. Sure, it does if you want to be an accountant or a nurse or a teacher. Beyond that? Not so much.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
I think it is fantastic that Australia heavily subsidizes university education. I would be far less in favor of the government putting pressure on students to choose subjects according to the rate of subsidation rather than according to store ts’ interests and talents. But that’s me. I am sure Australia has a system that works for them.
If the state is going to subsidize education it should aim to do so in fields of value. We get too many people with degrees where the only real job prospects are teaching the material.
Why should the state decide what is ‘useful?’

Compare the number of positions asking for a certain degree with the number of people who want that degree. The state should provide more funding for degrees where the ratio of ask to want is higher.
Really? You think one of the roles of gov't is to manage the supply of labor in order to push compensation down?
The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.
Note that I'm talking degrees, not specific classes.
FFS, the same comment is true for degrees.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
I think it is fantastic that Australia heavily subsidizes university education. I would be far less in favor of the government putting pressure on students to choose subjects according to the rate of subsidation rather than according to store ts’ interests and talents. But that’s me. I am sure Australia has a system that works for them.
If the state is going to subsidize education it should aim to do so in fields of value. We get too many people with degrees where the only real job prospects are teaching the material.
Why should the state decide what is ‘useful?’

Compare the number of positions asking for a certain degree with the number of people who want that degree. The state should provide more funding for degrees where the ratio of ask to want is higher.

The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.
Note that I'm talking degrees, not specific classes.
Education should not be regarded solely as a means to obtain employment.

And employees should not be valued only for knowledge that is directly related to the work tasks they are paid to perform.

Employees are not interchangeable machines; If you are employing them to be, then you are doing it wrong - you should have bought (or commissioned the design and building of) a machine instead of employing humans to do the task.

Humans are valuable for their ability to bring apparently irrelevant information into a situation and demonstrate that it is, surprisingly, relevant.

#### Ford

##### Contributor
Republicans: "look, if we give rich people a break on the taxes that they owe, all that money will go into the economy and make everything better. A trillion dollar tax cut? That would be the best boost ever!"

Also Republicans: "look, if we give middle class people a break on student loans that they owe, all that money will go nowhere and the economy will tank. A trillion dollars in debt forgiveness? That's crazy talk!"

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
I think it is fantastic that Australia heavily subsidizes university education. I would be far less in favor of the government putting pressure on students to choose subjects according to the rate of subsidation rather than according to store ts’ interests and talents. But that’s me. I am sure Australia has a system that works for them.
If the state is going to subsidize education it should aim to do so in fields of value. We get too many people with degrees where the only real job prospects are teaching the material.
Why should the state decide what is ‘useful?’

Compare the number of positions asking for a certain degree with the number of people who want that degree. The state should provide more funding for degrees where the ratio of ask to want is higher.

The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.
Note that I'm talking degrees, not specific classes.
Education should not be regarded solely as a means to obtain employment.

And employees should not be valued only for knowledge that is directly related to the work tasks they are paid to perform.

Employees are not interchangeable machines; If you are employing them to be, then you are doing it wrong - you should have bought (or commissioned the design and building of) a machine instead of employing humans to do the task.

Humans are valuable for their ability to bring apparently irrelevant information into a situation and demonstrate that it is, surprisingly, relevant.
The fact is, if I didn't have apparently irrelevant knowledge about fluid dynamics from my "physics for non-physics-majors" class, I wouldn't have been able to present solutions and mechanisms that I remembered surrounding precipitation of dissolved gasses and provoking/preventing nucleation events.

Apparently even "the engineers" didn't understand it in truly intuitive ways like "hot soda fizzes more".