Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[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.

It's only "needlessly obvious" if the costs are actually acknowledged by the other side.

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.

I don't agree that taxpayers as a group are getting a net benefit.

Whether or not taxpayers as a group would be harmed from Biden's policy for student loan forgiveness is ultimately an empirical question.

It's an empirical question in terms of income or wealth - taxpayers qua taxpayers. But there are non-economic aspects too.

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.

It may or may not generate a net economic benefit to taxpayers, especially in the current economic climate of the US. The case has not been made. But I sincerely doubt it would, and even if it would, a targeted gift of $10,000 would make the economic benefits to taxpayers greater.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, some people don't understand the math of "people become more educated" + "they're not paying for it" = "they are helped and not harmed".

Then again, I don't expect much more from someone who can't immediately understand "no cop, no stop".

 

[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.

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?

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. The citizens are already paying for the university.

 

[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.

It's only "needlessly obvious" if the costs are actually acknowledged by the other side.

I don't see anyone dismissing the issue of actual costs. I do see posters dismissing the issue of potential benefits or the potential net benefits to be positive.

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.

I don't agree that taxpayers as a group are getting a net benefit.

Whether they do or not is an empirical question.

Whether or not taxpayers as a group would be harmed from Biden's policy for student loan forgiveness is ultimately an empirical question.

It's an empirical question in terms of income or wealth - taxpayers qua taxpayers. But there are non-economic aspects too.

And those non-economic aspects have benefits and costs as well.

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.

It may or may not generate a net economic benefit to taxpayers, especially in the current economic climate of the US. The case has not been made.

Actually it has been made.

But I sincerely doubt it would, and even if it would, a targeted gift of $10,000 would make the economic benefits to taxpayers greater.

It is possible. It is also possible that the net benefits to taxpayers would be lower. It is also an empirical question.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Canard DuJour]

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

While it is a basically immortal household but the same economics are at work.

An immortal household with access to unlimited cash that it can print at will.

So the economics at work are the same apart from being completely different in most important respects.

There are times it's worth borrowing--to obtain an appreciating/value producing asset or in dire circumstances. Other borrowing is no better for the government than it is for the household.

Governments don't have any financial constraints on their spending. They can spend as many dollars as they like, without earning, borrowing, begging or stealing them from anywhere or anyone.

Governments spend on whatever they want, and then later on, if they feel it is warranted, they recoup some of the money they spent, either as taxes, or as loans (typically bond sales).

They are in EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE position to a household, where one must first obtain money, by some means (earning, borrowing, begging, theft...) and only then are able to spend anything.

This is no minor distinction.

A government that spends without doing much of anything to obtain at least some money in return from the economy will run into all kinds of problems, for sure.

But a household that does the same is a physical impossibility. Because households cannot create money from nothing, and governments can.

Exactly.


And that opposite position is evident in sectoral balance accounting :

Govt and private sector balances are always mirror images (± external balance). Not by coincidence or theory, but necessarily. When Vickrey, Galbraith et al say govt deficits put money in private pockets, they mean in a direct accounting sense.

If anything should be "obvious", it's that govt taxing less than it spends does not necessarily hurt tax payers. But people confuse that with a household budget deficit whereby that household subsequently has less to spend. A fallacy of composition. The private sector (households and firms) are, by that analogy, in the position of the recipients of a given household's deficit spending.

Nor is that contingent on a positive multiplier effect - though there's often that as well. It'd only hurt tax payers if there were a consistent negative multiplier, and there's no evidence of that.

(and anyone who thinks that's the same as the idea that tax cuts for the rich mean more tax revenues hasn't understood it)

 

[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.

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.

 

[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...

 

[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.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[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.