Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[Jarhyn]

Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.

Abuse of what? Learning?

I like free education. It invites a more generally livable world.

I saw too many students at the university who were there because their parents were paying and they saw it as easier than getting a job.

Of course it's easier than getting a job. One of the principle benefits in fact of expanded education is delayed entry into the workforce and reduced supply of workers.

If, in addition to unproductive unemployment, people were given education, then they might be able to find employment after.

If, after a period of perhaps unsuccessfully or minimally successful employment, people seek education, they might be able to find more successful employment in a different field or to vacate a role better filled by other folks.

Of course, it IS easier than getting a job. It's one of the carrots to get people in through the door, in fact, which is part of the snare that traps, and hopefully kills the shit out of a great deal of lurking idiocy and ignorance.

 

[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?

 

[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?

It's true that the debtors will have a net benefit, as anyone would from being gifted $10,000.

Just to note that in the US that 10 grand would be considered taxable income.

 

[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?

It's true that the debtors will have a net benefit, as anyone would from being gifted $10,000.

Just to note that in the US that 10 grand would be considered taxable income.

Not to mention it's not money being gifted. They never saw that money. They were gifted education, and by the federal government's securities, no less.

It makes sense to gift our populace with education, especially on the security of the public trust.

 

[laughing dog]

Metaphor had

I do know that I personally have never approved of every single policy from a leader, or even known all their policies, and so to imply I approve all of them is ludicrous. In fact, for single issue voters, they might approve only one policy.

Cool story bro. If you think it is irrelevant, it indicates your disdain for democratic principles.

If not, on what empirical basis do you make your claim that those taxpayers are harmed?

Some taxpayers did not vote for Biden.

True, but life in a democratic society means some people do not always get their way.
But that does not mean that taxpayers as a group are worse off. If your argument is that there will some taxpayers who are harmed, well, that is an abstract standard that is impossible to meet in a democracy.

"No problems"? You've had "no problems" with every single campaign promise of every president you've ever voted for, and your having voted for them is blanket endorsement of all their campaign promises? Really?

For some reason, you feel that straw man is relevant.

You don't know what a straw man is. The above is not a caricature of your position. It's a question.

I was being kind. Either your question is based on a straw man premise or plain stupidity. I choose the former, but I guess you prefer the latter explanation.

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.

Any giveaway of money could spur economic activity.

I can understand why the economically illiterate would think that response is relevant.

No, you can't understand. You are claiming that if it 'spurs economic activity' tax payers won't necessarily be (net) harmed. But many giveaways of money could do that. In fact, a targeted giveaway would do it better for no more cost.

Your response is evidence of incompetent reasoning. My point is that that whether or not the forgiveness harms taxpayers is an empirical question. Your response is that there might be a better policy. Whether there would be a better policy is not relevant to the issue that this particular policy may not harm taxpayers.

 

[bilby]

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.

 

[BH]

My degree is in History and I also took some grad courses in History and in Education. I taught a littlexwhile and did not like it and got out of it. In my opinion my History did and does help me with my job now, running a mid sized retail store. However, I understand why people think it wouldnt help much. its assumed by non majors all you did was learn dates and rote facts like in high school, totally different from classes at university level. you get into the background how and why things happened.You have to touch somewhat on basic economics, psychology ect. I ran a front end for a grocery store for a while after getting my bachelors degree. The company had us take some management training classes that included a two day math course in basic business math. There was one man, one woman, and myself that had degrees in different fields. we did the entire 50 page booklet in an hour or two. Everyone else it took the full two days, and then had to go back a third day. it was basic stuff

I think all degrees will help you to a point to a large extent at any job, however , they wont help as much in a specialized field needing a specialized degree. Also, people who never studied your subject or have no degree may make assumptions that you couldnt do something because your degree is in x and not y or you couldnt be any better than someone without the degree

I've learned to just be quiet in real life about stuff like this. All it does is end up offending someone or making someone bitter.

 

[Toni]

I’m glad you shared this here.

 

[Metaphor]

Your response is evidence of incompetent reasoning. My point is that that whether or not the forgiveness harms taxpayers is an empirical question.

It's an empirical question only for the aspects of harm that are measurable empirically.

Your response is that there might be a better policy. Whether there would be a better policy is not relevant to the issue that this particular policy may not harm taxpayers.

It depends on your definition of 'harm'. I am harmed by a less efficient policy compared to a more efficient policy.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

 

[Toni]

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?

 

[laughing dog]

Your response is evidence of incompetent reasoning. My point is that that whether or not the forgiveness harms taxpayers is an empirical question.

It's an empirical question only for the aspects of harm that are measurable empirically.

And for benefits as well.

Your response is that there might be a better policy. Whether there would be a better policy is not relevant to the issue that this particular policy may not harm taxpayers.

It depends on your definition of 'harm'. I am harmed by a less efficient policy compared to a more efficient policy.

Sure Jan, but I am not going to play your Cheshire cat pedantry games.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your response is evidence of incompetent reasoning. My point is that that whether or not the forgiveness harms taxpayers is an empirical question.

It's an empirical question only for the aspects of harm that are measurable empirically.

And for benefits as well.

Your response is that there might be a better policy. Whether there would be a better policy is not relevant to the issue that this particular policy may not harm taxpayers.

It depends on your definition of 'harm'. I am harmed by a less efficient policy compared to a more efficient policy.

Sure Jan, but I am not going to play your Cheshire cat pedantry games.

Not to mention the fact that Metaphor is ONLY helped by the US offering student loan forgiveness.

The loan organizations are out no money, only US taxpayers.

Metaphor benefits from more people in the world being educated and free.

Metaphor does not pay US taxes so foots none of the bill.

The only possible 'harm' Metaphor might receive from this is the 'harm' Metaphor receives when those who write for his propaganda spigot tells him 'he has been harmed.'

 

[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.

Your argument is incredibly pathetic. The term "net benefit" means to anyone remotely familiar with economics, that the benefits exceed the costs (or "harm"). Reminding readers someone who may enjoy a net benefit is still harmed is pointing out the needlessly obvious.
Furthermore, the entire discussion in this thread is about taxpayers as a group. No one with an ounce of sense or intellectual integrity would claim that the phrase "taxpayers are harmed" or "taxpayers benefit" means every single taxpayer. That would be fucking delusional.

Whether or not taxpayers as a group would be harmed from Biden's policy for student loan forgiveness is ultimately an empirical question. People may differ about their assessments on the relative benefits and costs from such a policy, but it is by no means clear that such a policy would necessarily generate a net benefit to taxpayers as a whole or a net cost to taxpayers as a whole.

 

[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.

Your argument is incredibly pathetic. The term "net benefit" means to anyone remotely familiar with economics, that the benefits exceed the costs (or "harm"). Reminding readers someone who may enjoy a net benefit is still harmed is pointing out the needlessly obvious.
Furthermore, the entire discussion in this thread is about taxpayers as a group. No one with an ounce of sense or intellectual integrity would claim that the phrase "taxpayers are harmed" or "taxpayers benefit" means every single taxpayer. That would be fucking delusional.

Whether or not taxpayers as a group would be harmed from Biden's policy for student loan forgiveness is ultimately an empirical question. People may differ about their assessments on the relative benefits and costs from such a policy, but it is by no means clear that such a policy would necessarily generate a net benefit to taxpayers as a whole or a net cost to taxpayers as a whole.

I will object to this, on account of the fact that an educated population benefits every single person.

Usually the benefit is orders of magnitude more than the cost.

And Metaphor cannot speak one whit to the cost of this loan forgiveness because he is not the one paying the cost. His opinion on it does not matter at all.

 

[Toni]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

Your response is evidence of incompetent reasoning. My point is that that whether or not the forgiveness harms taxpayers is an empirical question.

It's an empirical question only for the aspects of harm that are measurable empirically.

And for benefits as well.

Your response is that there might be a better policy. Whether there would be a better policy is not relevant to the issue that this particular policy may not harm taxpayers.

It depends on your definition of 'harm'. I am harmed by a less efficient policy compared to a more efficient policy.

Sure Jan, but I am not going to play your Cheshire cat pedantry games.

Not to mention the fact that Metaphor is ONLY helped by the US offering student loan forgiveness.

False. I am not helped by bad decisions made by governments, even when they are in other countries.

The loan organizations are out no money, only US taxpayers.

Metaphor benefits from more people in the world being educated and free.

Irrelevant. They were already educated. Not forgiving part of their loan does not suddenly disappear their education.

Metaphor does not pay US taxes so foots none of the bill.

A pay a little bit, from investment income.

The only possible 'harm' Metaphor might receive from this is the 'harm' Metaphor receives when those who write for his propaganda spigot tells him 'he has been harmed.'

Why should I judge "harm" by only the harm that accrues to me personally?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Your argument is incredibly pathetic. The term "net benefit" means to anyone remotely familiar with economics, that the benefits exceed the costs (or "harm"). Reminding readers someone who may enjoy a net benefit is still harmed is pointing out the needlessly obvious.
Furthermore, the entire discussion in this thread is about taxpayers as a group. No one with an ounce of sense or intellectual integrity would claim that the phrase "taxpayers are harmed" or "taxpayers benefit" means every single taxpayer. That would be fucking delusional.

Whether or not taxpayers as a group would be harmed from Biden's policy for student loan forgiveness is ultimately an empirical question. People may differ about their assessments on the relative benefits and costs from such a policy, but it is by no means clear that such a policy would necessarily generate a net benefit to taxpayers as a whole or a net cost to taxpayers as a whole.

I will object to this, on account of the fact that an educated population benefits every single person.

Usually the benefit is orders of magnitude more than the cost.

And Metaphor cannot speak one whit to the cost of this loan forgiveness because he is not the one paying the cost. His opinion on it does not matter at all.

What a strange moral system you have.