Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.

How were you harmed when Trump gave the rich a tax cut that cost the approximate equivalent of the cost of student loan forgiveness?

You think I support that abomination?!?!

 

[Toni]

So? You’re upset that some students had parents who were well enough off to provide tuition for their kids to give them the best start in life— You think that’s a bad thing?

Do you also think vaccinations are ineffective if they don’t hurt? Medicine doesn’t work unless it tastes bad?

You are correct that many 18 year olds are not as motivated as they could be to get the most out of (fill in the blank, including youth!). They are 18. Still kids. Not very mature. It’s a biology thing.

You want to punish everyone because…they didn’t suffer as much as you did?

That’s pretty messed up.

They weren't there to learn. Whatever degrees they earned, if they earned any, wouldn't be worth much in the market.

So you are both a mind reader and....omniscient? Do you prefer Tarot or crystal balls for your readings?

So talented! I had no idea!

 

[Jarhyn]

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?

They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.

By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.

Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.

Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?

No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.

My god—you need to stop harming yourself by posting in this forum immediately! Think of all the time and energy you have given up in order to get whatever gain you feel you derive from your participation here! Don’t forget to quit your job! Think of all the hours and hours you give up for a few measly dollars! Please stop harming yourself!!!

Of course that paragraph w as entirely facetious. No one wants you to quit posting or to quit your job. But everything we do is a trade off. We give up time in order to go to and perform our jobs, shop for food and other necessities, prepare meals, clean up after, etc. We benefit from all of those things, as well. I’m about to go outside and do some yard work which I will pay for with sore muscles and stiff joints and sun exposure. I’m ‘harming’ myself in your parlance. I’m also benefitting from the exercise, fresh air, flowers and vegetables I will enjoy and eventually when I sell my home, the value of the property will increase because of my labors. I see it as a net benefit because, despite some expected stiffness and soreness ( harms) and loss of time I could spend conversing with you here ( another harm), I find it worthwhile and enjoyable.

Everything is a trade off. Even breathing.

Society benefits from having a well educated population. Society should bear those costs.

I understand there are tradeoffs to everything. You are discounting to zero the things given up on the other side of the equation when debts owed to the US are needlessly forgiven.

Needlessly?

Yes.

What is needless is for the government to loan its citizens money at any interest rate >0% in order to procure an education at a public university.

You object to loaning the money at all. You want it to be free.

The citizens are already paying for the university.

Citizens are partly paying for public universities. They're not completely paying, otherwise there wouldn't be any loans at all.

You are very fond of telling other people what they think and want. You actually are quite wrong in..well, every case I can bring to mind.

There is nothing wrong with lending money interest free. I borrowed money to purchase an automobile and get this: the 6 year loan is interest free. Actually, that's what I did for the previous car as well.

Of course I do not want universities to be free of cost. Tax payers should be footing a much higher portion of the cost. I am arguing that students are expected to take on a much heavier burden of debt in order to obtain an education that will allow them to pursue the careers they want compared with the level of debt one would incur from student loans taken out by people of my generation when loans were very modest and so was the cost of a university education. I paid almost my entire way through two scholarships, the rest coming from money I earned and a modest amount from my parents. My husband paid almost his entire way (including out of state tuition which is more $) by money he earned working summer jobs, and relying on very modest student loans. Because we worried less about amassing enough cash to pay for the next semester or next year, we could focus on our studies, which is the reason we were at university in the first place.

I am arguing that student loans be forgiven AND that we return to a state where taxpayers carried the bulk of the burden of higher education. After all, everyone benefits from a better educated population.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing taxpayers carry the full burden of education, but zero interest loans amid major improvements in state funding of tuition would take a decent enough bite out of the problem so as to at least guarantee it's not a "debt treadmill".

I would prefer to see l, at the very least, certain courses actually be "free of charge", particularly the core "liberal arts" segment of a 2 year degree. This, at the very least, so that they learn things like English, literature, some math or at least some statistics, at least one philosophy course...

Not to quibble but math and statistics are not generally considered liberal arts.

I agree that state universities should be fully funded by the government but I see a few problems: I’m concerned that the overall quality would be difficult to maintain with funding that would rely on the whims of legislators. Medicaid does not pay the entire cost of providing treatment to patients ts and increasingly, neither does Medicare, making it necessary for some practices to limit the number of Medicaid and Medicare patients they will see: they have to because otherwise they would go broke.

I also am concerned that under full government funding there might be a push fir full giver me t control. Academic freedom is too important, too integral to higher education.

Thirdly, I am concerned, under the financial and control issues above that there will be an even larger gap, perceived or in reality, in the quality of public and private universities. The gap between the haves and the have nots will increase, which is bad for democracy and bad for humanity.

I would go so far as to say government accreditation can and should be hinged on at least the provision of certain information "free to students" regardless of institution, regardless of whether the institution is "public" or "private".

That information, specifically, is the basic English, science, math, and philosophy courses that  any 4 year degree requires.

In this way, there are then two offerings: the free, public "don't be ignorant" courses, and the government 0% loan courses that are "be skillful in some particular thing" courses.

I would note that public universities already must meet public accreditation requirements and most seek additional accreditation.

If this means more utilization of education infrastructure, thats a good thing.

So? You’re upset that some students had parents who were well enough off to provide tuition for their kids to give them the best start in life— You think that’s a bad thing?

Do you also think vaccinations are ineffective if they don’t hurt? Medicine doesn’t work unless it tastes bad?

You are correct that many 18 year olds are not as motivated as they could be to get the most out of (fill in the blank, including youth!). They are 18. Still kids. Not very mature. It’s a biology thing.

You want to punish everyone because…they didn’t suffer as much as you did?

That’s pretty messed up.

They weren't there to learn. Whatever degrees they earned, if they earned any, wouldn't be worth much in the market.

So you are both a mind reader and....omniscient? Do you prefer Tarot or crystal balls for your readings?

So talented! I had no idea!

I mean, I have actual omniscience with respect to the goings-on of a (simulated) universe and even I can't tell most days when someone is in the library to be scholarly and when they're in the library to steal one of the books, so whatever Loren has going on, it's one hell of a trick.

 

[ZiprHead]

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?

They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.

How were you harmed when Trump gave the rich a tax cut that cost the approximate equivalent of the cost of student loan forgiveness?

You think I support that abomination?!?!

I said nothing about whether you supported it or not. I'm just using it as an example of a similar amount of money. How were you hurt when that money was spent?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How were you harmed when Trump gave the rich a tax cut that cost the approximate equivalent of the cost of student loan forgiveness?

You think I support that abomination?!?!

I said nothing about whether you supported it or not. I'm just using it as an example of a similar amount of money. How were you hurt when that money was spent?

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

 

[ZiprHead]

How were you harmed when Trump gave the rich a tax cut that cost the approximate equivalent of the cost of student loan forgiveness?

You think I support that abomination?!?!

I said nothing about whether you supported it or not. I'm just using it as an example of a similar amount of money. How were you hurt when that money was spent?

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

So it was three years ago. Which is it, higher taes of cut services?

 

[laughing dog]

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?

They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.

By this standard, you are harmed by breathing oxygen.

Non. Net positive effects (if that's what happens) does not mean you did not have negative effects.

Protectionist tariffs harm everybody overall, but a smaller, specialised group of people have a net benefit from them. But even that smaller, specialised group is harmed by the tariffs that benefit different, specialised groups.

Needing to get up early to go to my job to earn money to pay my bills involved a couple of negatives. The positive (pay, benefits) outweighed the negative (getting up early, commuting, the job itself). Are you saying it was wrong for me to go to work to earn money to pay my bills? Should I have stayed home instead, collecting welfare?

No, I'm saying just because you personally had a net benefit doesn't everyone had a net benefit and it doesn't mean you didn't give up something (get harmed) to get it.

My god—you need to stop harming yourself by posting in this forum immediately! Think of all the time and energy you have given up in order to get whatever gain you feel you derive from your participation here! Don’t forget to quit your job! Think of all the hours and hours you give up for a few measly dollars! Please stop harming yourself!!!

Of course that paragraph w as entirely facetious. No one wants you to quit posting or to quit your job. But everything we do is a trade off. We give up time in order to go to and perform our jobs, shop for food and other necessities, prepare meals, clean up after, etc. We benefit from all of those things, as well. I’m about to go outside and do some yard work which I will pay for with sore muscles and stiff joints and sun exposure. I’m ‘harming’ myself in your parlance. I’m also benefitting from the exercise, fresh air, flowers and vegetables I will enjoy and eventually when I sell my home, the value of the property will increase because of my labors. I see it as a net benefit because, despite some expected stiffness and soreness ( harms) and loss of time I could spend conversing with you here ( another harm), I find it worthwhile and enjoyable.

Everything is a trade off. Even breathing.

Society benefits from having a well educated population. Society should bear those costs.

I understand there are tradeoffs to everything. You are discounting to zero the things given up on the other side of the equation when debts owed to the US are needlessly forgiven.

No one would can actually read with comprehension would make

How were you harmed when Trump gave the rich a tax cut that cost the approximate equivalent of the cost of student loan forgiveness?

You think I support that abomination?!?!

I said nothing about whether you supported it or not. I'm just using it as an example of a similar amount of money. How were you hurt when that money was spent?

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.

 

[Trausti]

Woah.

 

[Toni]

Woah.

More than one person at a time can be dramatically wrong about an issue.

 

[Gospel]

Woah.

That's what I've been sayin. The value of the degree should be influenced by the market. If the market needs 10 burger flippers the degree should be valued more then than when trying to get the same degree when the market has 15 burger flippers and the need is still 10. Like no shit dude!!! The demand is low so pay will reduce as workers compete for the position. Meanwhile, the folks that decide the cost of education don't care about all that, they just look at their own costs and for-profit margins. No wonder folks are struggling to pay off student loans. They'd (the schools) rather continue growth rather than let the market do its job.

And of course, the students who accept those loans are just as fucking out of their minds as the lenders and the schools are.

 

[laughing dog]

Woah.

That's what I've been sayin. The value of the degree should be influenced by the market. If the market needs 10 burger flippers the degree should be valued more then than when trying to get the same degree when the market has 15 burger flippers and the need is still 10. Like no shit dude!!! The demand is low so pay will reduce as workers compete for the position. Meanwhile, the folks that decide the cost of education don't care about all that, they just look at their own costs and for-profit margins. No wonder folks are struggling to pay off student loans. They'd (the schools) rather continue growth rather than let the market do its job.

And of course, the students who accept those loans are just as fucking out of their minds as the lenders and the schools are.

Both you and Fox are defining the "value" of a degree as its market value which ignores the value of the education in making the person a more knowledgable human being who is better able to to understand the world around them, make good decisions, and to better participate in civic life.

 

[Gospel]

Woah.

That's what I've been sayin. The value of the degree should be influenced by the market. If the market needs 10 burger flippers the degree should be valued more then than when trying to get the same degree when the market has 15 burger flippers and the need is still 10. Like no shit dude!!! The demand is low so pay will reduce as workers compete for the position. Meanwhile, the folks that decide the cost of education don't care about all that, they just look at their own costs and for-profit margins. No wonder folks are struggling to pay off student loans. They'd (the schools) rather continue growth rather than let the market do its job.

And of course, the students who accept those loans are just as fucking out of their minds as the lenders and the schools are.

Both you and Fox are defining the "value" of a degree as its market value which ignores the value of the education in making the person a more knowledgable human being who is better able to to understand the world around them, make good decisions, and to better participate in civic life.

I personally know some homeless and uneducated people who understand the world around them, make good decisions and are better participates in civic life than many well-educated people.

 

[Worldtraveller]

"I'm against making anything free because it can be abused" is the dumbest hot take argument against, well, just about everything.

EVERYTHING, free or not, can be abused. You would prevent (and I'll be generous here) 95% of people from getting any benefit at all because 5% of the people getting this benefit might not deserve it?

That "reasoning" could be used to elinimate pretty much every public service that exists.

 

[Politesse]

I think we should eliminate paid labor, you know how unscrupulous employees take advantage of it to cheat their bosses.

 

[laughing dog]

Woah.

That's what I've been sayin. The value of the degree should be influenced by the market. If the market needs 10 burger flippers the degree should be valued more then than when trying to get the same degree when the market has 15 burger flippers and the need is still 10. Like no shit dude!!! The demand is low so pay will reduce as workers compete for the position. Meanwhile, the folks that decide the cost of education don't care about all that, they just look at their own costs and for-profit margins. No wonder folks are struggling to pay off student loans. They'd (the schools) rather continue growth rather than let the market do its job.

And of course, the students who accept those loans are just as fucking out of their minds as the lenders and the schools are.

Both you and Fox are defining the "value" of a degree as its market value which ignores the value of the education in making the person a more knowledgable human being who is better able to to understand the world around them, make good decisions, and to better participate in civic life.

I personally know some homeless and uneducated people who understand the world around them, make good decisions and are better participates in civic life than many well-educated people.

Do you think if they were more educated that it would make them more knowledgable and improve their understanding of the world around them, make good decisions and be even better participants in civic life?

 

[Gospel]

Woah.

That's what I've been sayin. The value of the degree should be influenced by the market. If the market needs 10 burger flippers the degree should be valued more then than when trying to get the same degree when the market has 15 burger flippers and the need is still 10. Like no shit dude!!! The demand is low so pay will reduce as workers compete for the position. Meanwhile, the folks that decide the cost of education don't care about all that, they just look at their own costs and for-profit margins. No wonder folks are struggling to pay off student loans. They'd (the schools) rather continue growth rather than let the market do its job.

And of course, the students who accept those loans are just as fucking out of their minds as the lenders and the schools are.

Both you and Fox are defining the "value" of a degree as its market value which ignores the value of the education in making the person a more knowledgable human being who is better able to to understand the world around them, make good decisions, and to better participate in civic life.

I personally know some homeless and uneducated people who understand the world around them, make good decisions and are better participates in civic life than many well-educated people.

Do you think if they were more educated that it would make them more knowledgable and improve their understanding of the world around them, make good decisions and be even better participants in civic life?

I think they'd be doing exactly the same thing they are doing now. Which is helping the community while being the same wholesome people I've come to know them to be. Whether or not they'd be more or less helpful depends on many things but considering that there are plenty of well-educated assholes that are less civically productive & participate selfishly, I'm inclined to think you're giving schools too much credit.

 

[laughing dog]

Woah.

That's what I've been sayin. The value of the degree should be influenced by the market. If the market needs 10 burger flippers the degree should be valued more then than when trying to get the same degree when the market has 15 burger flippers and the need is still 10. Like no shit dude!!! The demand is low so pay will reduce as workers compete for the position. Meanwhile, the folks that decide the cost of education don't care about all that, they just look at their own costs and for-profit margins. No wonder folks are struggling to pay off student loans. They'd (the schools) rather continue growth rather than let the market do its job.

And of course, the students who accept those loans are just as fucking out of their minds as the lenders and the schools are.

Both you and Fox are defining the "value" of a degree as its market value which ignores the value of the education in making the person a more knowledgable human being who is better able to to understand the world around them, make good decisions, and to better participate in civic life.

I personally know some homeless and uneducated people who understand the world around them, make good decisions and are better participates in civic life than many well-educated people.

Do you think if they were more educated that it would make them more knowledgable and improve their understanding of the world around them, make good decisions and be even better participants in civic life?

I think they'd be doing exactly the same thing they are doing now. Which is helping the community while being the same wholesome people I've come to know them to be. Whether or not they'd be more or less helpful depends on many things but considering that there are plenty of well-educated assholes that are less civically productive & participate selfishly, I'm inclined to think you're giving schools too much credit.

The question you should be asking yourself is whether those well-educated assholes are less assholish than if they were not educated or more assholish?

I did not claim education made people good - I am claiming it improves them as a general rule. At least that is the goal of education.

 

[Gospel]

Woah.

That's what I've been sayin. The value of the degree should be influenced by the market. If the market needs 10 burger flippers the degree should be valued more then than when trying to get the same degree when the market has 15 burger flippers and the need is still 10. Like no shit dude!!! The demand is low so pay will reduce as workers compete for the position. Meanwhile, the folks that decide the cost of education don't care about all that, they just look at their own costs and for-profit margins. No wonder folks are struggling to pay off student loans. They'd (the schools) rather continue growth rather than let the market do its job.

And of course, the students who accept those loans are just as fucking out of their minds as the lenders and the schools are.

Both you and Fox are defining the "value" of a degree as its market value which ignores the value of the education in making the person a more knowledgable human being who is better able to to understand the world around them, make good decisions, and to better participate in civic life.

I personally know some homeless and uneducated people who understand the world around them, make good decisions and are better participates in civic life than many well-educated people.

Do you think if they were more educated that it would make them more knowledgable and improve their understanding of the world around them, make good decisions and be even better participants in civic life?

I think they'd be doing exactly the same thing they are doing now. Which is helping the community while being the same wholesome people I've come to know them to be. Whether or not they'd be more or less helpful depends on many things but considering that there are plenty of well-educated assholes that are less civically productive & participate selfishly, I'm inclined to think you're giving schools too much credit.

The question you should be asking yourself is whether those well-educated assholes are less assholish than if they were not educated or more assholish?

I did not claim education made people good - I am claiming it improves them as a general rule. At least that is the goal of education.

I hardly see the difference between the well-educated and the uneducated because It's not what you know, it's what you do with what you know. So yeah, I also don't claim that education makes people good or bad. Education has its advantages and disadvantages depending on who is being educated. It's a roll of the dice that the schools have no control over. What they do have control over is their pricing. I'm not saying that the markets should be the ONLY factor on their books I'm saying it should be added.

 

[Toni]

A couple of my kids obtained university degrees and opted, of their own free will, not to pursue careers directly related to their fields. Neither they, their father or I view that education or those degrees as a waste of money. The bulk of which came from parental pockets. Both are gainfully employed and self sufficient. For one, in particular, I think he’s perhaps making a mistake about his career path but he is a fully functioning, intelligent adult capable of making his own decisions and living with the consequences. He’s well aware that if he changed his career path a little, he could earn a lot more. I find it both frustrating and also admirable that he is choosing to follow his own path which is more to his liking rather than a path that would pay more but doesn’t interest him. I respect that he’s not motivated purely by money.

 

[Trausti]

What they do have control over is their pricing.

There’s no good reason for public universities to be unaffordable. The states can and should set a reasonable tuition rate for their schools. The public universities may have to get rid of some of the administrative fat they’ve put on in last few decades. Oh, well.

 

[bilby]

"I'm against making anything free because it can be abused" is the dumbest hot take argument against, well, just about everything.

EVERYTHING, free or not, can be abused. You would prevent (and I'll be generous here) 95% of people from getting any benefit at all because 5% of the people getting this benefit might not deserve it?

That "reasoning" could be used to elinimate pretty much every public service that exists.

What do you mean, "could be"? It is being used for exactly that purpose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.

I don't support that Laffer curve garbage. I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"I'm against making anything free because it can be abused" is the dumbest hot take argument against, well, just about everything.

EVERYTHING, free or not, can be abused. You would prevent (and I'll be generous here) 95% of people from getting any benefit at all because 5% of the people getting this benefit might not deserve it?

That "reasoning" could be used to elinimate pretty much every public service that exists.

No.

Note that I was specifically objecting to free, not to affordable.

I do believe college should be made affordable. We have seriously cut back funding for post-secondary education and that's a bad thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What they do have control over is their pricing.

There’s no good reason for public universities to be unaffordable. The states can and should set a reasonable tuition rate for their schools. The public universities may have to get rid of some of the administrative fat they’ve put on in last few decades. Oh, well.

You keep obsessing about the administrative fat--while ignoring that the primary driver of the increased tuition is reduced government funding.

 

[laughing dog]

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.

I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.

The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.

I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.

Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.

 

[Trausti]

What they do have control over is their pricing.

There’s no good reason for public universities to be unaffordable. The states can and should set a reasonable tuition rate for their schools. The public universities may have to get rid of some of the administrative fat they’ve put on in last few decades. Oh, well.

You keep obsessing about the administrative fat--while ignoring that the primary driver of the increased tuition is reduced government funding.

You’ll have to forgive me noticing that university administration has double or so in the last couple decades and armies of diversocrats hired.

 

[Worldtraveller]

"I'm against making anything free because it can be abused" is the dumbest hot take argument against, well, just about everything.

EVERYTHING, free or not, can be abused. You would prevent (and I'll be generous here) 95% of people from getting any benefit at all because 5% of the people getting this benefit might not deserve it?

That "reasoning" could be used to elinimate pretty much every public service that exists.

No.

Note that I was specifically objecting to free, not to affordable.

I do believe college should be made affordable. We have seriously cut back funding for post-secondary education and that's a bad thing.

But if you make it affordable, some people will abuse it.

As usual, you completely missed the point (of your own post even).

 

[Toni]

"I'm against making anything free because it can be abused" is the dumbest hot take argument against, well, just about everything.

EVERYTHING, free or not, can be abused. You would prevent (and I'll be generous here) 95% of people from getting any benefit at all because 5% of the people getting this benefit might not deserve it?

That "reasoning" could be used to elinimate pretty much every public service that exists.

No.

Note that I was specifically objecting to free, not to affordable.

I do believe college should be made affordable. We have seriously cut back funding for post-secondary education and that's a bad thing.

But if you make it affordable, some people will abuse it.

As usual, you completely missed the point (of your own post even).

Some people will abuse anything, no matter the price. Some people will encounter unanticipated difficulties during their post secondary education that will derail their education/life, etc. This is not abuse but more under the category of shit happens.

Everything is subject to misuse and abuse by some.

We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The corallary to that, and the worst part of Loren's objection (that he consistently brings up, regardless of the actual topic, and with no evidence) is that these systems and programs and services are always abused in some way by some small portion of the populace.

Loren would just restrict it so that onlyy the rich could abuse them....

 

[Gospel]

The corallary to that, and the worst part of Loren's objection (that he consistently brings up, regardless of the actual topic, and with no evidence) is that these systems and programs and services are always abused in some way by some small portion of the populace.

Loren would just restrict it so that onlyy the rich could abuse them....

The bloated cost to students is the current system being abused. The school suffers no loss when a student fails or doesn't put the education to use for any reason. They've got their money from lenders (dusting hands-off) and lenders have to get their money from the student whether that lender is public or private. Colleges aren't in any shortage of students since the system is set up to feed them clients, annually. What a racket.

 

[laughing dog]

The corallary to that, and the worst part of Loren's objection (that he consistently brings up, regardless of the actual topic, and with no evidence) is that these systems and programs and services are always abused in some way by some small portion of the populace.

Loren would just restrict it so that onlyy the rich could abuse them....

The bloated cost to students is the current system being abused. The school suffers no loss when a student fails or doesn't put the education to use for any reason. They've got their money from lenders (dusting hands-off) and lenders have to get their money from the student whether that lender is public or private. Colleges aren't in any shortage of students since the system is set up to feed them clients, annually. What a racket.

I beg your pardon, but for the US universities and colleges as a group, there is a growing shortage of in-person students. Between lower birth rates and more difficult immigration, most institutions of higher learning (not the elites) are scrambling for students.

What many people who comment on higher education fail to appreciate is that there are economies of scale in higher education - up to a certain point for any institution depending on its physical facilities and staff, per unit cost per student fall as the number of student increases.

The blathering about "administrative bloat" is usually driven by ideology and ignorance. For public institutions, public financing has drastically fallen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.

I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.

The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.

I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.

Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.

Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.

 

[Gospel]

The corallary to that, and the worst part of Loren's objection (that he consistently brings up, regardless of the actual topic, and with no evidence) is that these systems and programs and services are always abused in some way by some small portion of the populace.

Loren would just restrict it so that onlyy the rich could abuse them....

The bloated cost to students is the current system being abused. The school suffers no loss when a student fails or doesn't put the education to use for any reason. They've got their money from lenders (dusting hands-off) and lenders have to get their money from the student whether that lender is public or private. Colleges aren't in any shortage of students since the system is set up to feed them clients, annually. What a racket.

I beg your pardon, but for the US universities and colleges as a group, there is a growing shortage of in-person students. Between lower birth rates and more difficult immigration, most institutions of higher learning (not the elites) are scrambling for students.

What many people who comment on higher education fail to appreciate is that there are economies of scale in higher education - up to a certain point for any institution depending on its physical facilities and staff, per unit cost per student fall as the number of student increases.

The blathering about "administrative bloat" is usually driven by ideology and ignorance. For public institutions, public financing has drastically fallen.

I'm confused. Maybe it's satire? It's a multi-billion dollar industry, right? Right?

 

[Toni]

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.

I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.

The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.

I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.

Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.

Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.

Loren, you can take anything any way you like but anybody with even a passing familiarity with economics understands that you are mistaken, You're too married to your ideology to actually understand what someone typed.

 

[laughing dog]

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.

I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.

The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.

I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.

Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.

Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.

They are not non-replies. The Laffer curve is a short-run argument was not applied to longer run economic growth, so whether one accepts the Laffer curve or not is simply irrelevant to my point.

Observing that whether or not a policy results in a net benefit is an empirical question means one is not taking a "side", so your response is based on a failure of reasoning.

 

[laughing dog]

The corallary to that, and the worst part of Loren's objection (that he consistently brings up, regardless of the actual topic, and with no evidence) is that these systems and programs and services are always abused in some way by some small portion of the populace.

Loren would just restrict it so that onlyy the rich could abuse them....

The bloated cost to students is the current system being abused. The school suffers no loss when a student fails or doesn't put the education to use for any reason. They've got their money from lenders (dusting hands-off) and lenders have to get their money from the student whether that lender is public or private. Colleges aren't in any shortage of students since the system is set up to feed them clients, annually. What a racket.

I beg your pardon, but for the US universities and colleges as a group, there is a growing shortage of in-person students. Between lower birth rates and more difficult immigration, most institutions of higher learning (not the elites) are scrambling for students.

What many people who comment on higher education fail to appreciate is that there are economies of scale in higher education - up to a certain point for any institution depending on its physical facilities and staff, per unit cost per student fall as the number of student increases.

The blathering about "administrative bloat" is usually driven by ideology and ignorance. For public institutions, public financing has drastically fallen.

I'm confused. Maybe it's satire? It's a multi-billion dollar industry, right? Right?

Yes, but the notion that the unsubstantiated "administrative bloat" is sufficiently large that its elimination would result in noticeable or appreciable reduction in tuition is rather whimsical.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.

I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.

The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.

I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.

Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.

Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.

Loren, you can take anything any way you like but anybody with even a passing familiarity with economics understands that you are mistaken, You're too married to your ideology to actually understand what someone typed.

All I see is a string of non-responses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.

I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.

The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.

I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.

Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.

Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.

They are not non-replies. The Laffer curve is a short-run argument was not applied to longer run economic growth, so whether one accepts the Laffer curve or not is simply irrelevant to my point.

Observing that whether or not a policy results in a net benefit is an empirical question means one is not taking a "side", so your response is based on a failure of reasoning.

I'm saying you're using the same argument, with the same lack of support.

They take it on faith that tax rates are above the point of maximum tax revenue. You take it on faith that government services are below the point of maximum tax revenue. Both sides argue by showing benefits to be obtained, neither side looks at costs.

 

[Jarhyn]

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.

I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.

The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.

I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.

Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.

Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.

They are not non-replies. The Laffer curve is a short-run argument was not applied to longer run economic growth, so whether one accepts the Laffer curve or not is simply irrelevant to my point.

Observing that whether or not a policy results in a net benefit is an empirical question means one is not taking a "side", so your response is based on a failure of reasoning.

I'm saying you're using the same argument, with the same lack of support.

They take it on faith that tax rates are above the point of maximum tax revenue. You take it on faith that government services are below the point of maximum tax revenue. Both sides argue by showing benefits to be obtained, neither side looks at costs.

The cost is higher national "debt". It is a "debt" as discussed to the void, and the entry point of money into that ratio.

We don't owe it to anyone but ourselves to make the quantity of our imaginary resources (dollars) the match of the worth of our material resources (useful work and estate).

Education itself is a resource, material in the moment, a collection of ideas written of and on the material of our minds and useful as templates for accomplishing cool shit.

It may in fact stand to invest part of our imagination of value, our money, into education.

As I have said, an educated society is its own reward.

 

[bilby]

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.

I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.

The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.

I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.

Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.

Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.

Loren, you can take anything any way you like but anybody with even a passing familiarity with economics understands that you are mistaken, You're too married to your ideology to actually understand what someone typed.

All I see is a string of non-responses.

That's what she just said.

You do have the option to try harder, but nobody can force you to do so.

 

[laughing dog]

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.

You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.

I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.

The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.

I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.

Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.

Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.

They are not non-replies. The Laffer curve is a short-run argument was not applied to longer run economic growth, so whether one accepts the Laffer curve or not is simply irrelevant to my point.

Observing that whether or not a policy results in a net benefit is an empirical question means one is not taking a "side", so your response is based on a failure of reasoning.

I'm saying you're using the same argument, with the same lack of support.

They take it on faith that tax rates are above the point of maximum tax revenue. You take it on faith that government services are below the point of maximum tax revenue. Both sides argue by showing benefits to be obtained, neither side looks at costs.

Your response is pure babble. The Laffer curve is simply the observation that is starting at a zero tax rate and increasing tax rates, tax revenue will rise up to a maximum and then decline. Conservative ideologues grabbed that idea to argue that tax rates could be lowered and raise revenue. However, there was no empirical to demonstrate whether current tax rates were on the "high" side (i.e. lowering them would raise revenue) or the "low" side (i.e. lowering them would reduce revenue).

There is no way anyone with even a modicum of reading comprehension should conclude that the observation "it is an empirical question" means I am taking anything on faith because requiring empirical data is the fucking opposite of faith.

Finally, only the economically illiterate or the deeply obtuse would conclude that anyone who refers to "net benefits" is ignoring costs because net benefits = benefits - costs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your response is pure babble. The Laffer curve is simply the observation that is starting at a zero tax rate and increasing tax rates, tax revenue will rise up to a maximum and then decline. Conservative ideologues grabbed that idea to argue that tax rates could be lowered and raise revenue. However, there was no empirical to demonstrate whether current tax rates were on the "high" side (i.e. lowering them would raise revenue) or the "low" side (i.e. lowering them would reduce revenue).

There is no way anyone with even a modicum of reading comprehension should conclude that the observation "it is an empirical question" means I am taking anything on faith because requiring empirical data is the fucking opposite of faith.

Finally, only the economically illiterate or the deeply obtuse would conclude that anyone who refers to "net benefits" is ignoring costs because net benefits = benefits - costs.

You're doing the same thing the other way around--taking it on faith that spending is on the low side.

 

[laughing dog]

You're doing the same thing the other way around--taking it on faith that spending is on the low side.

Please produce my comment(s) that prompted your response. If you cannot find it, that it is a hint you are vastly mistaken.

 

[ZiprHead]

Key Biden voters demand he cancel $50,000 in student debt at NAACP protest

Black demonstrators gathered outside the White House to urge the president to make student loan debt cancellation a legacy of his administration.

www.newsweek.com

Black voters, a key group for President Joe Biden, demonstrated outside the White House on Thursday morning as part of an NAACP effort demanding that Biden cancel $50,000 in student loan debt—a figure five times larger than what the president may be considering.

 

[atrib]

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.

Really, now? You don't realize there are degrees with very poor job prospects because there's so little demand for the skill? Such basically worthless degrees are a fair chunk of the student loan problem.

Asimov wrote a story called Profession (in the book Nine Tomorrows) that is staged in the far future where humans have the ability to educate people almost instantaneously by downloading information directly to their brains. Children show up at their local education center twice, once for Reading Day, where they are programmed to read, and then again on Profession Day where they are taught a skill. There is a huge demand among youngsters to get programmed with the most lucrative subjects that will give them well-paying jobs in the off-world colonies. And then we discover what the cost of this convenience (of getting educated instantly) is. Its a good read, and very relevant to the argument you are trying to make here, and you should check it out if you can. Its also an excellent story.

Education is not about creating programmed robots to run our factories and stores, or produce things, it is much, much bigger than that. Education is about teaching people how to think and solve problems, along with a foundation in the fundamentals of some aspect of reality that they find interesting. Education is about liberating the mind and giving it the wings to fly. You are so focused on making sure that every dollar is paid back and nobody gets a "free ride" that you fail to see the bigger picture.

 

[atrib]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money

Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

and how it balances directly and not if you disregard the benefits realized not merely for the student borrower but for society in general—because of the services provided directly by the ability of the student to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, whatever —and benefit in the increase in taxes the student borrower will pay as they earn more money than without a degree.

You are very confused. You are counting the value of the education as a benefit in favour of forgiving the debt. But the value of the education has already been realised when the person got it.

Wrong. The value of the education appears when the person receiving the education goes on to do things that are beneficial to the community he or she is part of, like inventing a cure for a disease, or developing technology that makes our lives better, or designing a new road that provides access to an isolated rural community, or writing a book that entertains millions, or becoming a teacher or stay home mom/dad who teaches their children how to be good citizens of the planet. Education is the fertilizer that allows people to achieve their potential towards making the world a better place.

Forgiving debt does not cause the value of the education to appear.

Harder to quantify directly but real nonetheless is the benefit to society of having a more educated population. One of the most concrete benefits in recent times is the differences in voter behavior depending on level of education. Another is differences in behavior with regards to mask wearing and vaccination.

Again, you are confused. If you want to talk about the value of education and why society should make it free to end users, you can have that conversation, but I am talking about the forgiveness of debts with taxpayer money.

See above. The role of government is to better the lives of the community, and education is a big part of accomplishing that goal. You cannot talk about debt forgiveness without the broader context of the value of education. And we shouldn't be engaging in the practice of forcing young people to remain in debt for decades simply because that is how it has been done in the past. "We should continue to punish people by making them stay in debt because that is how we have always done it" is a piss-poor argument. And downright stupid.

 

[Toni]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money

Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

and how it balances directly and not if you disregard the benefits realized not merely for the student borrower but for society in general—because of the services provided directly by the ability of the student to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, whatever —and benefit in the increase in taxes the student borrower will pay as they earn more money than without a degree.

You are very confused. You are counting the value of the education as a benefit in favour of forgiving the debt. But the value of the education has already been realised when the person got it.

Wrong. The value of the education appears when the person receiving the education goes on to do things that are beneficial to the community he or she is part of, like inventing a cure for a disease, or developing technology that makes our lives better, or designing a new road that provides access to an isolated rural community, or writing a book that entertains millions, or becoming a teacher or stay home mom/dad who teaches their children how to be good citizens of the planet. Education is the fertilizer that allows people to achieve their potential towards making the world a better place.

Forgiving debt does not cause the value of the education to appear.

Harder to quantify directly but real nonetheless is the benefit to society of having a more educated population. One of the most concrete benefits in recent times is the differences in voter behavior depending on level of education. Another is differences in behavior with regards to mask wearing and vaccination.

Again, you are confused. If you want to talk about the value of education and why society should make it free to end users, you can have that conversation, but I am talking about the forgiveness of debts with taxpayer money.

See above. The role of government is to better the lives of the community, and education is a big part of accomplishing that goal. You cannot talk about debt forgiveness without the broader context of the value of education. And we shouldn't be engaging in the practice of forcing young people to remain in debt for decades simply because that is how it has been done in the past. "We should continue to punish people by making them stay in debt because that is how we have always done it" is a piss-poor argument. And downright stupid.

I would like this post X1000 if I could.

 

[TSwizzle]

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

What utter male bovine excrement. IF, the government "forgives debt" it's down to the gobby extremists that are screaming about it and it's a political decision, nothing to do with society. The only "benefit" society gets from the assholes that borrowed $100K+ to goof off in college for a four year degree in gender studies and liberal art is we get plenty Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas.

 

[bilby]

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

What utter male bovine excrement. IF, the government "forgives debt" it's down to the gobby extremists that are screaming about it and it's a political decision, nothing to do with society. The only "benefit" society gets from the assholes that borrowed $100K+ to goof off in college for a four year degree in gender studies and liberal art is we get plenty Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas.

This is your brain on FoxNews.

Remember, kids: Not even once!

 

[Jarhyn]

Loren, I'm going to be frank with you: if I could go back to school and pick up more STEM without a deadline of social viability, I would go back and I might never leave.

The result of this would be... Gosh. I don't even know how far I could take that!

Some day I hope to have the power to create technology that is, in fact, art.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.

What utter male bovine excrement. IF, the government "forgives debt" it's down to the gobby extremists that are screaming about it and it's a political decision, nothing to do with society. The only "benefit" society gets from the assholes that borrowed $100K+ to goof off in college for a four year degree in gender studies and liberal art is we get plenty Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas.

This is your brain on FoxNews.

Remember, kids: Not even once!

Ugh... Occasionally I expose the cut and it's almost always something toxic...

Personally, I prefer my Starbucks baristas and my Uber drivers at the very least to be kind enough to call me by my preferred pronouns, and to not ask me whether chemtrails are real.