Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[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.