Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[Toni]

Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.

And some debts ought be forgiven, in certain circumstances. Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void.

No, they don't recognise that. All kinds of deals are made asymmetrically. They're still valid.

Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.

Like cutting their genitals off?

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.

If you think being given money to build your personal capital is analogous to 'snaring' human beings you are out of touch and out of your mind.

Wait wait wait: you are opposed to GIVING money to ‘build your personal capital.’ I think what you are talking about here is borrowing capital and paying to back, with interest, even if it takes you the rest of your life. You think that is fine and dandy and the way it should be for all Americans whose parents are not rich enough to pay for it outright.

It’s different in Australia, tho.

As it should be.

 

[Metaphor]

Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.

And some debts ought be forgiven, in certain circumstances. Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void.

No, they don't recognise that. All kinds of deals are made asymmetrically. They're still valid.

Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.

Like cutting their genitals off?

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.

If you think being given money to build your personal capital is analogous to 'snaring' human beings you are out of touch and out of your mind.

Wait wait wait: you are opposed to GIVING money to ‘build your personal capital.’

No, I am not opposed to it, as long as that was the understanding at the time.

If an Australian government got elected on the promise they would eliminate university course fees, and then they did it, I would have no problem with the government doing what it promised and giving away money.

But above I should have written 'loaning' money, not 'giving', which is the case with student debts in America.

I think what you are talking about here is borrowing capital and paying to back, with interest, even if it takes you the rest of your life. You think that is fine and dandy and the way it should be for all Americans whose parents are not rich enough to pay for it outright.

Yes, I am for people keeping their promises.

However, I do find a general personal bankruptcy not wiping out student debt to be problematic, and I think that should be changed. That's only a thing in Canada and the US, as far as I know.

It’s different in Australia, tho.

As it should be.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)

Well, we won't know unless it happens, right?

And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

M'gosh. You saying turning around a systemically racist system takes more than money... but rather lots of time, lots of money, and lots of effort to rip through the social inertia?

Just throwing money doesn't work... and not giving it lots of time doesn't work either. Especially when we are still poisoning the brains of inner city youth with lead. Add to that, the issues of the drug war being waged (whether intentionally or not) at people who aren't quite as pale, and then there are those additional social issues that have needlessly perpetuated certain conditions.

In other words, reversing systemically induced race based poverty isn't as simple just throwing in money.

And note that I've long called for abolishing the drug war. Of the recreational drugs the only ones I think should be highly restricted are the ones used for date rape. The other stuff should all either be outright legal (although I would highly restrict advertising for it) or available to addicts by prescription.

And I do agree with anti-lead efforts. Flint was an abomination that should have resulted in plenty of jail time being handed out.

Address causes. The schools are a symptom, not a cause.

The schools are (hopefully more were than are) part of the issue. There are a lot of other issues, as you have conceded. But regarding Flint, I'm not talking about corrosive water letting lead leach into the water, I'm talking about dust from lead paints being inhaled and how those children in poor housing are being poisoned by it.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Mr. Biden handily won the presidency. One of his campaign promises was to cancel or forgive up to $10,000 in student debt. If one accepts the precepts of democracy, the majority of taxpayers did not object to that promise. If Mr. Biden fulfills his promise, it suggests the forgiveness is voluntary on the part of the public. Of course, one is free to reject the rules by which we live, but then one is posturing about some utopian ideal, not the actual world.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.

And some debts ought be forgiven, in certain circumstances. Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void.

No, they don't recognise that. All kinds of deals are made asymmetrically. They're still valid.

Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.

Like cutting their genitals off?

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.

If you think being given money to build your personal capital is analogous to 'snaring' human beings you are out of touch and out of your mind.

Wait wait wait: you are opposed to GIVING money to ‘build your personal capital.’ I think what you are talking about here is borrowing capital and paying to back, with interest, even if it takes you the rest of your life. You think that is fine and dandy and the way it should be for all Americans whose parents are not rich enough to pay for it outright.

It’s different in Australia, tho.

As it should be.

No true Scotsman: "Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven."

"Compelling" in this is "something Metaphor, subjectively, likes".

Assertion Fallacy: "No, they don't recognise that [promises made asymmetrically are null and void]."

Several people recognized that here, in this very thread, so they clearly do recognize it.

Then, it's also recognized in the fact that children cannot unilaterally engage in contracts.

It's also recognized that contracts made under duress (another asymmetry) or between people of differing power dynamics (boss/employee) can be void owing to an asymmetry...

There are all sorts of different, identified asymmetries which void contracts owing to the asymmetry.

This is merely the formal identification of yet another "voiding asymmetry".

"Like cutting their genitals off?"

Honestly what is it with Metaphor and cutting off genitals?

It must be something they think about a lot.

But yes, given time and careful review, even that ought be allowed.

This is a situation where careful review is simply impossible as the resulting power structure creates a situation analogous to indenturement. And of children with no practical experience, no less. It's way more impactful than drinking alcohol, which we restrict to the age of 21.

Being GIVEN resources to build up "personal capital" is not snaring someone.

It is only snaring someone when you put those resources on a hook, attached to a line, designed to give you financial power over them.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

 

[Toni]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

In that case, you should be happy with the proposed student loan forgiveness program which has excellent reasoning behind it.

 

[Metaphor]

Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.

And some debts ought be forgiven, in certain circumstances. Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void.

No, they don't recognise that. All kinds of deals are made asymmetrically. They're still valid.

Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.

Like cutting their genitals off?

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.

If you think being given money to build your personal capital is analogous to 'snaring' human beings you are out of touch and out of your mind.

Wait wait wait: you are opposed to GIVING money to ‘build your personal capital.’ I think what you are talking about here is borrowing capital and paying to back, with interest, even if it takes you the rest of your life. You think that is fine and dandy and the way it should be for all Americans whose parents are not rich enough to pay for it outright.

It’s different in Australia, tho.

As it should be.

No true Scotsman: "Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven."

"Compelling" in this is "something Metaphor, subjectively, likes".

Assertion Fallacy: "No, they don't recognise that [promises made asymmetrically are null and void]."

Incredible. Not only does Jarhyn not have the courtesy to respond to my post directly, he accuses my rejection of his own "assertion fallacy" as an "assertion fallacy".

Several people recognized that here, in this very thread, so they clearly do recognize it.

This thread is not "people in general".

Then, it's also recognized in the fact that children cannot unilaterally engage in contracts.

18 year olds are not children. If you think they are, you should raise the age of consent.

It's also recognized that contracts made under duress (another asymmetry) or between people of differing power dynamics (boss/employee) can be void owing to an asymmetry...

They can be, they are not generally held to be so. Asserting that all student loans are too 'asymmetrical' to be held valid is begging the question.

There are all sorts of different, identified asymmetries which void contracts owing to the asymmetry.

This is merely the formal identification of yet another "voiding asymmetry".

"Like cutting their genitals off?"

Honestly what is it with Metaphor and cutting off genitals?

I want to see a stop to people doing it to children.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

In that case, you should be happy with the proposed student loan forgiveness program which has excellent reasoning behind it.

It hasn't anything of the kind.

 

[Jarhyn]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

They have FAR more experience with things like "the effects of hormones on themselves and their peers". Even then I would discourage an 18 year old from anything so drastic as cutting their house and family off.

It's a far more damaging action than say, tossing your genitals away at 18. At least they have some years of experience regarding genitals at that point. Debt and finance though? That's just a gaping fucking pungie pit.

At least you can take some drugs to reverse the effects of the gonads, and you can still rub some part of yourself to get off, if that's even your thing, and then adopt someone from... Well, if you didn't hear a lot more mother's in certain states are going to be using safe harbors...

But having a secure financial future? With those loans, you can kiss that goodbye.

I would sincerely much rather lose my testicles to a teenage decision than lose my hope of ever being able to afford a house or children.

 

[Trausti]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

 

[Toni]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

Yes, predatory lenders should definitely be on the hook for their unfair predatory lending practices.

 

[Toni]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

In that case, you should be happy with the proposed student loan forgiveness program which has excellent reasoning behind it.

It hasn't anything of the kind.

Of course it does. Your judgement is certainly not well informed or impartial.

 

[laughing dog]

Metaphor had

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

You have "explicated" your economically illiterate reason. I guess that counts as a rationale. But is certainly not a good reason. In fact, it barely qualifies as "reason".

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor had

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

You have "explicated" your economically illiterate reason. I guess that counts as a rationale. But is certainly not a good reason. In fact, it barely qualifies as "reason".

Your characterisation of my moral arguments as economic arguments are mischaracterisations.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

In that case, you should be happy with the proposed student loan forgiveness program which has excellent reasoning behind it.

It hasn't anything of the kind.

Of course it does. Your judgement is certainly not well informed or impartial.

I strongly suspect you think you are both well informed and "impartial."

 

[Metaphor]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

They have FAR more experience with things like "the effects of hormones on themselves and their peers". Even then I would discourage an 18 year old from anything so drastic as cutting their house and family off.

It's a far more damaging action than say, tossing your genitals away at 18.

Jarhyn, this is such a demented and deranged statement it's difficult to know where to begin. But I'll begin with this: most people would say it is more damaging to cut your genitals off than to get into debt for an undergraduate degree.

 

[laughing dog]

Metaphor had

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

You have "explicated" your economically illiterate reason. I guess that counts as a rationale. But is certainly not a good reason. In fact, it barely qualifies as "reason".

Your characterisation of my moral arguments as economic arguments are mischaracterisations.

Your moral arguments have faulty economic reasoning as premises as well as ridiculous moral premises.

For example,
1) you have yet to explain why it is immoral for a lender to voluntarily forgive a loan,
2) you have made the faulty assumption that taxpayers are necessarily harmed by the forgiving of a gov't loan,
are just 2 of your handwaved assertions.

 

[laughing dog]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, something you can take a cheap pill to counteract the effects of, and adopt to resolve the legacy effects of, after almost a decade of experience and observation as to the effects of it in direct exposure is more of a measured decision than it could ever be to enter into a nondischargeable debt that will assuredly prevent you from ever affording a home or (adopting) children.

And fewer people (a vanishing minority, in fact) have buyers remorse for losing their genitals after almost a decade of consultation, than losing their financial security after a 10 minute spiel in an admissions office.

 

[Toni]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

In that case, you should be happy with the proposed student loan forgiveness program which has excellent reasoning behind it.

It hasn't anything of the kind.

Of course it does. Your judgement is certainly not well informed or impartial.

I strongly suspect you think you are both well informed and "impartial."

What do you think is my bias?

 

[Toni]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

In that case, you should be happy with the proposed student loan forgiveness program which has excellent reasoning behind it.

It hasn't anything of the kind.

Of course it does. Your judgement is certainly not well informed or impartial.

I strongly suspect you think you are both well informed and "impartial."

I have a decent grasp of lending practices in the US, funding for higher ed in the US and a fairly decent grasp of the economics involved, including both personal finance and public finance.

Your reasoning so far seems to boil down to ‘S Notfair.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor had

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

You have "explicated" your economically illiterate reason. I guess that counts as a rationale. But is certainly not a good reason. In fact, it barely qualifies as "reason".

Your characterisation of my moral arguments as economic arguments are mischaracterisations.

Your moral arguments have faulty economic reasoning as premises as well as ridiculous moral premises.

For example,
1) you have yet to explain why it is immoral for a lender to voluntarily forgive a loan,

I've explained a dozen times. If a lender forgives a loan with her own money, that's her business. If a lender forgives a loan for no good reason with her own money, that's still her business although she is modelling a bad example about people being obligated to keep promises.

But a lender forgiving loans using other people's money (the taxpayers at the time the loan was taken out by the student) is not the same.

I made no economic arguments.

2) you have made the faulty assumption that taxpayers are necessarily harmed by the forgiving of a gov't loan,
are just 2 of your handwaved assertions.

Taxpayers are harmed because they were promised (by the government at the time the loans were taken out) that this was not a gift to students but a loan. Taxpayers paid for the debt and now the person who controls the debt has decided it's okay to not be repaid.

That is not an economic argument. You can blather all you like about 'economic illiteracy' but you lack basic literacy.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

In that case, you should be happy with the proposed student loan forgiveness program which has excellent reasoning behind it.

It hasn't anything of the kind.

Of course it does. Your judgement is certainly not well informed or impartial.

I strongly suspect you think you are both well informed and "impartial."

I have a decent grasp of lending practices in the US, funding for higher ed in the US and a fairly decent grasp of the economics involved, including both personal finance and public finance.

Your reasoning so far seems to boil down to ‘S Notfair.

Oh yes, I absolutely trust your self-assessment of how well informed you are.

But I am curious to why you think I am not "impartial", but you are. It seems to me since I am not an American taxpayer nor do I have any debt that the US government could forgive, nor did I participate in tertiary education in America, I am far better placed to call myself 'impartial' - or at least disinterested.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, something you can take a cheap pill to counteract the effects of, and adopt to resolve the legacy effects of, after almost a decade of experience and observation as to the effects of it in direct exposure is more of a measured decision than it could ever be to enter into a nondischargeable debt that will assuredly prevent you from ever affording a home or (adopting) children.

Plenty of people with student debt have bought houses and had children. Next.

And fewer people (a vanishing minority, in fact) have buyers remorse for losing their genitals after almost a decade of consultation, than losing their financial security after a 10 minute spiel in an admissions office.

Non. Student loans don't eliminate your 'financial security'.

 

[Metaphor]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?

For my part, I find it strange and wrong that student debts in the USA and Canada are not dischargeable by bankruptcy.

Amending that seems a far fairer thing to do than blanket forgiveness of (X amount of) debt whether the forgiveness was needed or not.

 

[Trausti]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?

Firstly, no debt owed to the government - from taxes, fines, or loan repayments - can be discharged in bankruptcy. Secondly, how would that solve the issue of universities exploiting students?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note that I've long called for abolishing the drug war. Of the recreational drugs the only ones I think should be highly restricted are the ones used for date rape. The other stuff should all either be outright legal (although I would highly restrict advertising for it) or available to addicts by prescription.

And I do agree with anti-lead efforts. Flint was an abomination that should have resulted in plenty of jail time being handed out.

Address causes. The schools are a symptom, not a cause.

The schools are (hopefully more were than are) part of the issue. There are a lot of other issues, as you have conceded. But regarding Flint, I'm not talking about corrosive water letting lead leach into the water, I'm talking about dust from lead paints being inhaled and how those children in poor housing are being poisoned by it.

And society should be dealing with those old lead paint houses.

 

[Toni]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?

For my part, I find it strange and wrong that student debts in the USA and Canada are not dischargeable by bankruptcy.

Amending that seems a far fairer thing to do than blanket forgiveness of (X amount of) debt whether the forgiveness was needed or not.

It is a serious wrong. But eliminating that provision does not eliminate the grave harm done to students who became indebted when they lacked the appropriate and requisite experience and judgement t to inform such decisions.

 

[Toni]

Yes, something you can take a cheap pill to counteract the effects of, and adopt to resolve the legacy effects of, after almost a decade of experience and observation as to the effects of it in direct exposure is more of a measured decision than it could ever be to enter into a nondischargeable debt that will assuredly prevent you from ever affording a home or (adopting) children.

Plenty of people with student debt have bought houses and had children. Next.

And fewer people (a vanishing minority, in fact) have buyers remorse for losing their genitals after almost a decade of consultation, than losing their financial security after a 10 minute spiel in an admissions office.

Non. Student loans don't eliminate your 'financial security'.

Define ‘plenty.’

Yes, some students we’re able to pursue university educations without incurring enormous student debt. Unfortunately too many are overburdened.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, something you can take a cheap pill to counteract the effects of, and adopt to resolve the legacy effects of, after almost a decade of experience and observation as to the effects of it in direct exposure is more of a measured decision than it could ever be to enter into a nondischargeable debt that will assuredly prevent you from ever affording a home or (adopting) children.

Plenty of people with student debt have bought houses and had children. Next.

And fewer people (a vanishing minority, in fact) have buyers remorse for losing their genitals after almost a decade of consultation, than losing their financial security after a 10 minute spiel in an admissions office.

Non. Student loans don't eliminate your 'financial security'.

Define ‘plenty.’

Yes, some students we’re able to pursue university educations without incurring enormous student debt. Unfortunately too many are overburdened.

Just like plenty of people have won the lottery, plenty of people have survived jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and plenty of people walk away from a game of Russian roulette.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, something you can take a cheap pill to counteract the effects of, and adopt to resolve the legacy effects of, after almost a decade of experience and observation as to the effects of it in direct exposure is more of a measured decision than it could ever be to enter into a nondischargeable debt that will assuredly prevent you from ever affording a home or (adopting) children.

Plenty of people with student debt have bought houses and had children. Next.

And fewer people (a vanishing minority, in fact) have buyers remorse for losing their genitals after almost a decade of consultation, than losing their financial security after a 10 minute spiel in an admissions office.

Non. Student loans don't eliminate your 'financial security'.

Define ‘plenty.’

More than a single person doing it is sufficient to answer Jarhyn's lunatic claim that university debt 'assuredly prevents you' from affording a home or children.

In fact, the claim is complete nonsense and the exact opposite of the truth. People with a degree are more likely to be homeowners than people without.

Yes, some students we’re able to pursue university educations without incurring enormous student debt. Unfortunately too many are overburdened.

'Enormous', 'too many', and 'overburdened' are subjective claims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your moral arguments have faulty economic reasoning as premises as well as ridiculous moral premises.

For example,
1) you have yet to explain why it is immoral for a lender to voluntarily forgive a loan,
2) you have made the faulty assumption that taxpayers are necessarily harmed by the forgiving of a gov't loan,
are just 2 of your handwaved assertions.

You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?

You still haven't addressed my point of strategic bankruptcy.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Too many people just know the govt is a big household that spends income called tax or borrows money like they do. I mean it's just obvious like that the Sun goes around the Earth.

 

[Gospel]

You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?

 

[laughing dog]

Your moral arguments have faulty economic reasoning as premises as well as ridiculous moral premises.

For example,
1) you have yet to explain why it is immoral for a lender to voluntarily forgive a loan,
2) you have made the faulty assumption that taxpayers are necessarily harmed by the forgiving of a gov't loan,
are just 2 of your handwaved assertions.

You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

Another example of economic illiteracy. Whether taxpayers end up footing the bill is an empirical question, not an abtract hand-waved conclusion.

 

[laughing dog]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?

You still haven't addressed my point of strategic bankruptcy.

"Strategic" bankruptcy is a minor issue used to promote draconian anti-bankruptcy provisions of law.

 

[laughing dog]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?

Firstly, no debt owed to the government - from taxes, fines, or loan repayments - can be discharged in bankruptcy.

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

Secondly, how would that solve the issue of universities exploiting students?

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

 

[Trausti]

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

No. It is true. You can’t discharge taxes, fines, or any government debt in chapters 7 or 13.

 

[Trausti]

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

So we just let the problem go on?

 

[laughing dog]

Metaphor had

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

You have "explicated" your economically illiterate reason. I guess that counts as a rationale. But is certainly not a good reason. In fact, it barely qualifies as "reason".

Your characterisation of my moral arguments as economic arguments are mischaracterisations.

Your moral arguments have faulty economic reasoning as premises as well as ridiculous moral premises.

For example,
1) you have yet to explain why it is immoral for a lender to voluntarily forgive a loan,

I've explained a dozen times. If a lender forgives a loan with her own money, that's her business. If a lender forgives a loan for no good reason with her own money, that's still her business although she is modelling a bad example about people being obligated to keep promises.

But that is economically illiterate since it ignores the potential effect on the reduction of tax liabilities on the part of the lender.

But a lender forgiving loans using other people's money (the taxpayers at the time the loan was taken out by the student) is not the same.

That is driven by the your economic illiteracy.

I made no economic arguments.

Your arguments rely on economically illiterate premises.

2) you have made the faulty assumption that taxpayers are necessarily harmed by the forgiving of a gov't loan,
are just 2 of your handwaved assertions.

Taxpayers are harmed because they were promised (by the government at the time the loans were taken out) that this was not a gift to students but a loan. Taxpayers paid for the debt and now the person who controls the debt has decided it's okay to not be repaid.

That is a combination of economic and political illiteracy. The person controlling the debt made this promise and was elected by the taxpayers. Which suggests they have no problems with the promise. Furthermore, if the forgiveness of the loans sufficiently spurs economic activity more than the activity that would have occurred with repayment, then taxpayers are better off.

That is not an economic argument. You can blather all you like about 'economic illiteracy' but you lack basic literacy.

Whatever you wish to call your position, it is based on naive and/or fundamentally bonehead economics. Your response simply confirms my accurate description of your position.

 

[laughing dog]

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

No. It is true. You can’t discharge taxes, fines, or any government debt in chapters 7 or 13.

Not according to SBA loans can be discharged in bankruptcy or SBA loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy or a myriad of other sites.

 

[laughing dog]

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

So we just let the problem go on?

Assuming there is such a problem (which you have failed to substantiate), why treat those loans any differently than loans to exploited business or individuals?

 

[Trausti]

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

No. It is true. You can’t discharge taxes, fines, or any government debt in chapters 7 or 13.

Not according to SBA loans can be discharged in bankruptcy or SBA loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy or a myriad of other sites.

The SBA is not the lender.

 

[Trausti]

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

So we just let the problem go on?

Assuming there is such a problem (which you have failed to substantiate), why treat those loans any differently than loans to exploited business or individuals?

You don’t see a problem, really? What incentive is there for universities to be more efficient and not exploit easy access to student loans if taxpayers are made to just eat it?

 

[ZiprHead]

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

No. It is true. You can’t discharge taxes, fines, or any government debt in chapters 7 or 13.

Not according to SBA loans can be discharged in bankruptcy or SBA loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy or a myriad of other sites.

The SBA is not the lender.

Sallie Mae, Bank Of America, and U.S. Bank plus many others are private student loan lenders.

 

[Toni]

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

So we just let the problem go on?

Student loan forgiveness does eliminate one problem: a heavy drag on students with significant student debt. But here you touch on something that I don’t think has been touched on before: we cannot continue funding higher education by lending 18 year olds tens of thousands of dollars each year in order to pay for their schooling.

We really do need to recommit to public funding of education, at least at the levels it was supported in the 1960’s-1970’s. In the 1970’s states provided 65% of the funding fir state universities. Today, states provide less than half of that level of funding. At the same time, the necessity of holding a university degree in order to have financial stability has increased.

Student loan forgiveness does need to happen—now. But so does a commitment on the part of states to fund state colleges and universities. Forgiving student loans is a bandaid—a temporary fix of a much larger and more complex problem.

 

[laughing dog]

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

So we just let the problem go on?

Assuming there is such a problem (which you have failed to substantiate), why treat those loans any differently than loans to exploited business or individuals?

You don’t see a problem, really?

The problem I see unsubstantiated "university efficiency" obsession.

 

[laughing dog]

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

No. It is true. You can’t discharge taxes, fines, or any government debt in chapters 7 or 13.

Not according to SBA loans can be discharged in bankruptcy or SBA loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy or a myriad of other sites.

The SBA is not the lender.

The SBA can forgive loans. Moreover, despite your assurances, there are plenty of sites that describe that gov't loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. For example Gov't loans can be discharged in bankruptcy