Marco Rubio endorses slavery

[fromderinside]

I see, so you are arguing for a system where someone else pays for your education and in exchange you pay them a proportion of your income for the rest of your life.

Don't you see, if you voluntarily enter a transaction to pay some percentage of your income for your own education that's slavery.

But if you are forced to pay some percentage of your income for someone else's education that's freedom!

laughing dog has it right a contract is indentured servitude.

With respect to transactions the difference is that everyone is forced to pay for someone else's education while only you are forced to pay someone else for your education.

One is a compact and the other is a contract.

One can only be changed by law which then can only be changed by a majority decision of USSC. The other can be changed by a judge's interpretation of your contract which can be overruled as last resort by the USSC majority.

 

[untermensche]

I see, so you are arguing for a system where someone else pays for your education and in exchange you pay them a proportion of your income for the rest of your life.

Don't you see, if you voluntarily enter a transaction to pay some percentage of your income for your own education that's slavery.

But if you are forced to pay some percentage of your income for someone else's education that's freedom!

I was forced to pay for the brilliant invasion of Iraq and the rise of ISIS as a result.

Being forced to pay so people can be educated is nothing to cry about after that.

 

[dismal]

Don't you see, if you voluntarily enter a transaction to pay some percentage of your income for your own education that's slavery.

But if you are forced to pay some percentage of your income for someone else's education that's freedom!

I was forced to pay for the brilliant invasion of Iraq and the rise of ISIS as a result.

Being forced to pay so people can be educated is nothing to cry about after that.

Well, it's slavery.

And slavery is bad.

 

[untermensche]

I was forced to pay for the brilliant invasion of Iraq and the rise of ISIS as a result.

Being forced to pay so people can be educated is nothing to cry about after that.

Well, it's slavery.

And slavery is bad.

The cost of higher education is a form of servitude.

That is the servitude people who want to live in a decent society care about.

Of course those only capable of thinking about themselves have different ideas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, it reduces the burden of student loans.

It does have only flaw, though. Rather than x% of income it should be x% of (income - some base figure, say $20k.)

It does absolutely nothing about the insane cost of higher education in the US.

It is just a way to pretend to have a solution when all you have is a scheme to make investors more money off the oppressive costs of higher education.

Did anyone claim it reduced the cost of higher education?? You're moving the goalposts.

 

[untermensche]

It does absolutely nothing about the insane cost of higher education in the US.

It is just a way to pretend to have a solution when all you have is a scheme to make investors more money off the oppressive costs of higher education.

Did anyone claim it reduced the cost of higher education?? You're moving the goalposts.

The problem is the insane cost of higher education.

That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

That is not something Rubio or any Republican will address.

 

[bilby]

Rubio must be an Australian.

In Australia, there is no such thing as a grace period, deferment, or forbearance. Instead, there is a minimum threshold income at which student-loan repayment is expected to commence. Currently, that threshold income is around $45,000 per year and as soon as the borrower meets that threshold, whether it is while the student is still in school or even years after graduation, repayments begin. The monthly payment amount is not based on the size or term of the loan, but instead on the borrower’s level of income, with students at the threshold level paying 4-percent of their earnings in loan payments and those earning higher wages paying no more than 8 percent of their earnings. Unlike in our Income Based Repayment program, interest does not capitalize and the total amount due does not increase just because a longer repayment term is in order (unless the economy is so strong that CPI increases dramatically over that period of time, in which case one would assume that wages would maintain a similar rate of growth).

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/does-australia-have-the-answer/41015

Really? I would have thought he would be opposed to the idea that this scheme should be entirely run by the government with no private involvement whatsoever.

 

[Axulus]

The key question behind this is how beholden universities should be to corporations. If they become the main funding source for unversities, then they are going to be the ones who have the most influence over what is taught at those universities. Conversations such as "Your professor's research into lead poisoning could adversely affect the profits from my lead mining business. Shit-can his studies or I'll take the cash from the fifty students I finance each year to another institution" would be something that adminstrators would need to worry about.

Except you forget competition. There will be dozens of other companies vying for the profit who don't give a shit about the lead mining business.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it reduces the burden of student loans.

It does have only flaw, though. Rather than x% of income it should be x% of (income - some base figure, say $20k.)

It does absolutely nothing about the insane cost of higher education in the US.

It is just a way to pretend to have a solution when all you have is a scheme to make investors more money off the oppressive costs of higher education.

It's almost as of we need to remove the profit from universities in the US. Oh wait...crap!

 

[untermensche]

It's almost as of we need to remove the profit from universities in the US. Oh wait...crap!

What is Germany doing now in terms of higher education?

 

[laughing dog]

Except you forget competition. There will be dozens of other companies vying for the profit who don't give a shit about the lead mining business.

And why would the profit-motive induce other companies to spend research on investigating the causes or effects of lead poisoning? That is basic research which does not lend itself to profitability.

 

[Bronzeage]

Except you forget competition. There will be dozens of other companies vying for the profit who don't give a shit about the lead mining business.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it reduces the burden of student loans.

It does have only flaw, though. Rather than x% of income it should be x% of (income - some base figure, say $20k.)

It does absolutely nothing about the insane cost of higher education in the US.

It is just a way to pretend to have a solution when all you have is a scheme to make investors more money off the oppressive costs of higher education.

It's almost as of we need to remove the profit from universities in the US. Oh wait...crap!

What does a nation profit from a well educated and diverse professional class? Is it in our best interest to limit education to the families whose accumulated wealth allows them to pay all costs of a university degree?

It would seem to be a truism that a student cannot pay for his/her education, because they have never actually worked and earned money. Someone else is paying from their personal surplus. How many generations of "for profit" education would be required to return us to a feudal system?

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, it's slavery.

And slavery is bad.

The cost of higher education is a form of servitude.

Only if you squint very hard.

That is the servitude people who want to live in a decent society care about.

So, we shouldn't be concerned about the actual slavery that occurs when people treat other people as property?

Of course those only capable of thinking about themselves have different ideas.

Well, so long as your being careful to not poison the well, or anything.

Or, should I rather say, only people who are incapable of rational thought think that obtaining a loan is selling oneself into slavery.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did anyone claim it reduced the cost of higher education?? You're moving the goalposts.

The problem is the insane cost of higher education.

That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

That is not something Rubio or any Republican will address.

I repeat, you're moving the goalposts.

 

[Axulus]

Except you forget competition. There will be dozens of other companies vying for the profit who don't give a shit about the lead mining business.

And why would the profit-motive induce other companies to spend research on investigating the causes or effects of lead poisoning? That is basic research which does not lend itself to profitability.

I never said it would , although companies that provide lead free products while competitors have lead would have a vested profit motive in such research. I'm not claiming it would be an optimal allocation to such research.

 

[ronburgundy]

Let's pause and reflect for a moment about how taxes paid to government could possibly be different than paying a set percentage of your wages to a private entity.

Okay, lets. With the latter you only pay if you agree to an exchange where you directly receive something of high value to you. With taxes you are forced to pay under threat, regardless of whether you get anything of value in return, which often you do not.

I am all for public funding for higher education (with constraints and performance requirements), but the idea that the proposal is anything resembling "slavery" or at all worse than student loans, or "free" education in exchange for lifelong taxation (whether you want that education or not) is hyperbolic dogma.

 

[laughing dog]

I am all for public funding for higher education (with constraints and performance requirements), but the idea that the proposal is anything resembling "slavery" or at all worse than student loans, or "free" education in exchange for lifelong taxation (whether you want that education or not) is hyperbolic dogma.

Of course the proposal may be worse than student loans. Students can repay their loans early (or get them reduced/forgiven in same cases) and do not have the risk of paying more than set amount in the contract.

- - - Updated - - -

And why would the profit-motive induce other companies to spend research on investigating the causes or effects of lead poisoning? That is basic research which does not lend itself to profitability.

I never said it would , although companies that provide lead free products while competitors have lead would have a vested profit motive in such research. I'm not claiming it would be an optimal allocation to such research.

Then what would be the purpose of asking about competition vying for profit if they cannot make any?

 

[untermensche]

The problem is the insane cost of higher education.

That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

That is not something Rubio or any Republican will address.

I repeat, you're moving the goalposts.

No, Rubio is not addressing the real problem. The problem is not getting loans. The problem is the insane rise in costs.

 

[untermensche]

The cost of higher education is a form of servitude.

Only if you squint very hard.

Or perhaps some are squinting so hard they can't even see their nose.

To get an education many are forced to go into huge debt. Debt the size of a home mortgage. A mortgage they must pay off in 10 years.

How is this different from indentured servitude? Many were not forced to go into indentured servitude, but still those with eyes saw the immorality of the system.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I repeat, you're moving the goalposts.

No, Rubio is not addressing the real problem. The problem is not getting loans. The problem is the insane rise in costs.

Nobody said the problem was getting loans. The issue is paying loans--and his proposal automatically scales your payments to your income. Other than changing it to (x - constant)% instead of x% I like it.

Fixing the cost is a separate issue that I suspect will become moot in not too long--I think we will end up seeing a system of college-by-internet for most material and that will greatly drop the costs.

- - - Updated - - -

Only if you squint very hard.

Or perhaps some are squinting so hard they can't even see their nose.

To get an education many are forced to go into huge debt. Debt the size of a home mortgage. A mortgage they must pay off in 10 years.

How is this different from indentured servitude? Many were not forced to go into indentured servitude, but still those with eyes saw the immorality of the system.

Nobody is forced to go to an elite school. State U won't give you a debt load anything like that.

 

[ronburgundy]

Of course the proposal may be worse than student loans. Students can repay their loans early (or get them reduced/forgiven in same cases) and do not have the risk of paying more than set amount in the contract.

Virtually never are student loans reduced or forgiven. The loan must be paid in full no matter how poor or unemployed the person is. In contrast, the proposal means that the amount repaid is automatically reduced and even eliminated if the person is poor or unemployed. Only students doing well after college can afford to pay off their loans early, and only those whose education landed them a well paying job and thus could comfortably afford to pay more would wind up paying more under the proposal loan than they would have via a typical student loan. IOW, the proposal is far superior for every student that winds up in financial/employment hardships after graduation, and only more costly to those that can easily afford that extra cost and are the most benefiting from the education provided. The end result would be the rich subsidizing the education of those that for any reason don't do so well despite their college education. Anyone honestly concerned by the harmful impacts of student loan debt and/or income inequality would favor some version of this proposal, unless they were blinded by a anti-corporate dogma.