This comic is based on pretty childish thinking. Repaying student loans isn’t a cure. It’s making everyone else pay the price (either through inflation, through rising education costs, or through direct tax later).
Second, cancer isn’t a choice–student loans are.
More accurately would be: I’m going to be so upset if I have to suffer even a little again to help everyone else make up for their bad decisions.
Imagine being this brainwashed. You know where higher education is free? Pretty much the entire civilized world. Guess whether 'murican taxes compare favorably or unfavorably against that?
“Free” is such a ridiculous statement. No, higher education isn’t free anywhere. It’s funded by the people, but it’s ridiculously expensive. Maybe not as expensive as certain American universities, but still a decent chunk more than any student will make doing odd jobs while studying.
The point of not charging people for education is that those people will end up making lore money, so they will contribute more tax in the future, allowing more people to get even better education down the line. It’s a price people in many countries are willing to pay because it benefits the country as a whole.
But don’t be mistaken. You still pay your college fees. They come back at you in the form of decades of tax rates. American income tax is low compared to many countries with education of equivalent quality, and Americans don’t even have things like VAT/sales tax in many places.
I’ll gladly fund higher education through taxes for the rest of my life, but this notion that something is free because the government is paying for it needs to die. That money doesn’t come into existence out of nowhere. Even if the government would print money to pay for this stuff, the inflation that would produce would have a very similar effect to what handling this stuff through taxes would do.
This is also why I disagree with the current loan repayment schemes proposed and enacted by the current American government. The loans aren’t the main problem, the scammy tuition fees are. Making the government responsible for the loans will solve the immediate cash flow problem of current students, but will only exacerbate the problem if the forgiveness program isn’t accompanied by a legally mandated maximum tuition fee that’s one or two orders of magnitude lower than what they currently are.
Perhaps there’s something to be said for distributing the cost of the scam to everyone, as the problem is a result of decades of public policy, but it’s unfair to the people who made the responsible choice of picking a smaller, cheaper, slightly inferior college so they wouldn’t be stuck with unpayable debt.
It should also be noted that in many places where education is typically free, private education is still a thing. People with wealth pay almost American amounts of tuition for prestigious education out of reach of the common person, because the state not being willing to pay their ridiculous fees doesn’t mean that there is no private education. If America was to follow the European model, nothing would change for the people seeking out Ivy League colleges, you would mostly see the benefits in free community colleges.
You’d also still see a massive gap between the rich and the poor, as free tuition doesn’t imply free food or shelter, either; in many countries there’s a modest fee the government will pay out, but unless you want to live under a bridge subsisting of ramen noodles, you’ll still need a small loan or a side job to get by. Rich kids with rich parents will have more time to study, get better grades, and have more opportunities.
Your egocentrism is showing, USAian. I don’t even know where to begin dismantling your bullshit from how awefully absurd it is.
tuition for prestigious education out of reach of the common person
“Prestigious private education”? Are you joking? The people who take private higher education are effectively ridiculed, not to mention how private schools/colleges are always lacking – e.g. back in the day, when I compared my curriculum (actually prestigious public university) with all relevent private alternatives, they’d always be one year or more behind, which also means they’d finish their course with a huge gap in knowledge.
in many countries there’s a modest fee the government will pay out
Here in Brazil you can get upwards of two minimum wages. How is it that Brazil can afford this, but apparently the US couldn’t? Besides that, yes, you may need a side job – that’s what non-abusive internship/trainee positions are for. You work a few hours per day at a relevant position to your minor/major to get cash and relevant experience.
They come back at you in the form of decades of tax rates.
Except those decades of taxes ALSO pay for my healthcare (excellent, btw), bicycle infrastructure, to maintain parks, to protect local fauna and flora, for libraries, etc etc
I’m not even American. And I am in favour of completely revamping the American education system, for the good of the students there.
“Prestigious private education”? Are you joking? No. There are private education institutes all over the world. The places where real power concentrates, where the old royalty gathers. Not the best in terms of scientific endeavours, but that’s not what those places are about anyway. It’s all about making connections.
How is it that Brazil can afford this, but apparently the US couldn’t? Double minimum wage in the USA is barely enough to cover rent in the cities, because the USA has a minimum wage of $7.50 per hour. The yearly spending (18.1 million students * ($7.50 * 4.25 weeks * 40 hours * 2) * 12) would add $553 billion to the $159 billion that’s already spent on education. For college kids that stay within their state, that may cover costs, but if you live in bumfuck nowhere and want to do something other than agricultural tech (or whatever your local college is actually good at), you’re quickly paying 85% of the $30k you’re receiving in tuition fees alone. Factor in an average monthly rent (ranging from $914-$1817 per month) and you quickly need a second full-time minimum wage job just to cover your expenses, let alone get any studying done.
You work a few hours per day at a relevant position to your minor/major to get cash and relevant experience. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but how feasible that is completely depends on your field of study. Plenty of jobs in computer programming, not a whole lot of side jobs in philosophy. For many jobs you also need some kind of certification, you can’t be a part-time lawyer without passing the bar exam, which is gonna be tough if you’ve just started your education. Also, not every student has the ability to stay on top of homework and keep a job, i.e. because they need to take care of family.
Except those decades of taxes ALSO pay for my healthcare (excellent, btw), bicycle infrastructure, to maintain parks, to protect local fauna and flora, for libraries, etc etc I never said taxes were exclusively used for education. Education spend comes down to a sliver of tax expenditure compared to healthcare spend, for sure, even in the USA with the rather lacking Medicaid they have over there.
I’m just sick of the idea some people have that just because the government pays for it, you’re not ending up paying that money back anyway. This is how you get the types of boomers that refuse to pay taxes to fund education, because they got theirs for free back when the system wasn’t quite so broken. Nothing is free, education is simply a worthwhile investment.
The loans themselves aren’t close to the root of the problem. The entire system is fucked up. Huge loans with compound interest are handed out to kids studying subjects that have no chance of ever making enough to pay their loans back. The responsibility for these loans has shifted from (semi) government to private banking. Parents and grandparents get involved and fall into debt, too, because people don’t seem to know how different types of interest work and take out loans they can’t afford. The $42k-10k of debt that college tuition will take would be negligible if it weren’t for the way interest and late fees are applied.
The USA won’t fix their problems by making loans disappear a few times per decade. They need to fix the system that caused the problem, and then forgive loans. Forgiving loans is a cheap measure that works for the short term with terrible results down the line, in exactly the same way the gradual changes to the student loan system has led to the current fucked-up state of American education.
First, your formatting is completely broken.
Second:
The places where real power concentrates, where the old royalty gathers. Not the best in terms of scientific endeavours, but that’s not what those places are about anyway. It’s all about making connections.
I.E. completely irrelevant. Got it.
Double minimum wage in the USA is barely enough to cover rent in the cities
The fix seems pretty obvious, eh?
would add $553 billion
I.E., even ignoring the fact that not all students would require this monetary assistance, less than the budget for the 'murican war machine. Seems fine to me.
you’re quickly paying 85% of the $30k you’re receiving in tuition fees alone
??? Why would they be paying the tuition fees with free public education available?
First, your formatting is completely broken.
I think I fixed it. Hope Lemmy gets a WYSIWYG editor one of these days.
I.E. completely irrelevant. Got it.
Depends on your country and the career you’re aiming for. Private educational facilities specialising in finance and econometry tend to educate their students much better.
The fix seems pretty obvious, eh?
Yes, just convince half of the USA to vote differently, and for the left-wing party to actually become left-wing rather than just making empty promises. Can’t be that hard, both parts only have been trying to do that for the last 300 years!
I.E., even ignoring the fact that not all students would require this monetary assistance, less than the budget for the 'murican war machine. Seems fine to me.
The 'murican war machine is what’s preventing Russia’s invasion into Europe right now. It also provided education and possibilities to countless Afghan women before some idiot decided to undo the work they’ve been doing in one fell swoop. It’s got its upsides.
Also, the people being paid those $750 billion dollars will need to find new jobs. I guess they can try to become professors?
??? Why would they be paying the tuition fees with free public education available?
Fair enough, I suppose; I was influenced by the way this works in my country. Just add the amount that they don’t have to pay to the billions I calculated before if the state funds the educational facilities directly. Quick napkin math leads me to about $283 billion dollars on top of your study grants.
I went to a top university in Norway. My tuition was about $80 per year. All in all various student discounts on everything from haircuts to car repairs to housing, my tuition was effectively negative. I spent a good chunk on books, but rarely used them, and honestly could have saved the money. Considering everyone gets a scholarship from the government for the first 7 years (would have been converted to a loan if I didn’t pass enough credits worth of classes), I effectively got paid to study. I still had student loans, because they were interest free while I was a student and cheaper than a mortgage after. I spent some on food and housing, and saved the rest. Like most Norwegians I was not in a hurry to pay it down. Student debt is generally low priority for Norwegians to pay down due to the cheap interest.
Besides your ad hominem attacks you changed the whole point of the discussion. “Free” is not the same as asking everyone to pay for anyone’s college education.
Usual 'murican take. Do you use roads? Do you use clean water? I would ask about public transit, but you’re a 'murican, so I already know the answer to that is “no”.
Everyone already pays for the State to exist. Civilized countries use that money to benefit all citizens through free higher education, free healthcare, free public transportation, etc. The US uses that money to kill children in the middle east and to bail out huge corporations.
It’s a false assumption that because that is the way things are that it is the way things ought to be, and that they couldn’t be arrived any other (much less any better way).
This is a pretty typical response to any limitations on government–“but who will build the roads?”
There are two basic problems
1st: Your unwritten implication is that if government does these basic things then it must necessarily assert even bigger economic control–such as higher education–which is a false deduction.
2nd: You imply that only the government can do these things or that government does it best. Also a false deduction. Practical experience says otherwise.
Practical experience with what, shoveling bullshit around and expecting people to believe your nonsense? Get the fuck outta here with your corporate bootlicking.
I’m all for student loan forgiveness and all that. I think education should be socialised for anyone till any level.
That being said, this meme is an example of false equivalency. Where is the money for student loan forgiveness coming from? From taxes. Taxes that these ppl (who also had to pay for student loans) have to pay. Hence, effectively, these guys paid their own loans off and are contributing to pay others’ loans as well. That’s their grime from what I understand.
Morally, I believe that they’re wrong. I’m just pointing out the false equivalency generated here.
I spent five figures paying mine off two years ago.
Still 100% support my tax dollars paying for people’s college. In fact, I’d love that instead of the nine wars my tax dollars are paying for instead.
The problem is colleges just will keep charging more because they know people will just keep getting them knowing the gov will cover it eventually. The fix isn’t to have the gov. Cover some loans, it should be to stop letting colleges be run like a private sector.
colleges are charging more, and as a result, fewer students are attending.
College will once again be only for the wealthy.
But plenty of people have discovered college is not necessary to thrive in life anyway.
John Oliver covered this topic, and according to him, that’s not the case at all.
There’s sadly no big conspiracy to keep people uneducated. Only basic greed. Simple problem with a simple solution (this is rarely the case) but corporate America will never admit it.
College will once again be only for the wealthy.
you make it sound like that isn’t the point. welcome to the new cast system
cast
Did you mean caste?
Jokes on you, they already keep charging more.
I bet if the government is footing the bill they will demand lower tuition. And unlike lowly poor people, the government is someone they will have to listen to.
You aren’t wrong with your point. But both should be true.
Medicare kinda works that way.
Should we call it Educare or Educaid?
Biducation
I’d settle for interest free loans tbh…
And then do it for personal homes, too.
I’d settle for universal housing. And universal education. And universal healthcare.
I don’t understand why you need all of that. Let’s say we agree, next you’ll say people deserve clean water and steer the world away from climate disaster and genocide. You <insert group name> want it all!
next you’ll say people deserve clean water and steer the world away from climate disaster and genocide.
First falls both under housing and healthcare(utility and preventive healthcare + hygene), genocide is opposite of healthcare and we are already in climate disaster.
Hey don’t bring common sense to this conversation, this is the Internet
The Australian model is also interesting. After your degree you pay a certain percentage of your income to your university for a decade or so. But only if you earn more than the average person.
This means a university gets more money when their students gets good job.
Other points about the Australian system:
- The cost of the university course is subsidised by the government. The government pays the majority of the cost, usually around 70-80%. For example, a Bachelor of Computer Science degree at the university I went to (Swinburne) is currently AU$9k/year (~US$5.8k) subsidised vs AU$39k/year (~US$25.4k) full price.
- The loans for the amount you have to pay are through the government and are interest free. They’re indexed for inflation once per year, but this is a much lower increase compared to interest from a bank loan.
- You only have to pay it off once you earn over $51k/year, like you said. Repayments start at 1% of income and are paid as part of your income tax return.
- They used to have a program where if you paid $500 or more of the loan upfront, you’d get a 10% discount (so e.g. if you paid $500, it’d reduce your loan balance by $550).
Note that this system only applies to citizens and permanent residents. International students still have to pay the full price. Having said that, Australian universities frequently advertise at college fairs in the USA, as even at the full price plus flights plus accomodation, studying in Australia can still end up cheaper than the USA, and Americans love Australia 🙂
This is all I care about. I was forced to refinance into private loans because the interest rates on the federal loans were fucking stupid. All I want is the loans to be more reasonable.
I saw my wife’s student loans last night. She took out 37,000 dollars in 2008. She’s been paying her monthly amount for over 10 years, and she now only owes 43,000 dollars.
Cancel student debt. Most of us have already paid for college more than once.
Edit: also worth noting that up until now, only about 30% of PSLF applications are approved, and something like 37 (that’s total, not percent) of loans are fulfilled using IDR plans.
Cancel student debt.
Same, but I want to be reimbursed. I don’t know how people who want their debt forgiven now don’t support me being reimbursed for mine. They seriously set my life back.
Believe me, I get it. I would definitely love to have that $16,000 back.
I’d like for it to be that way too, but I think it’s unlikely. On a macro level though, it’s just more important to eliminate debt for the indebted, I think.
Only SIXTEEN THOUSAND?? When you said five figures, you had us thinking $99,999.
I’m on year three of six, paying back $63,000 by way of the IRS garnishing 100% of my disability benefits and tax refunds 🥺
Yep, only 16k. It hurt to drop that much all at once, but with the way the loans are structured and so little goes to pay down the principal, I think it was worth it in the end.
I’m sorry to hear about your situation. Capitalism fucking sucks.
You paid $16k all in one big payment? Wowza look at Mr Moneybags here 🤑
I was very lucky.
In March 2020 lots of oil stocks were dropping down to pennies. I bought a bunch on the cheap and it appreciated to a good price when the world reopened. Sold it all to pay off the debt. Sadly still working on my credit cards.
Smart man! Nice leveraging oil stock prices
Tanks don’t teach, don’t heal, don’t feed and don’t pay pensions.
Which nine are you counting, out of interest?
This also needs to go into the cancer he beat is dramaticly easier to overcome than cancer in the future.
“What do you mean? Just get a part time job. I waited tables and paid my way through college.”
“How much was your tuition?”
“$500 a semester. Why? How much is yours?”
“$19,000 a semester”
Guaranteed student loans, that you had to be approved for, were a terrible idea to begin with.
US student finance is for sure broken. I really hate comparing biological ills to social, though. Nobody graduates high school and says “I’m going to go sign up for cancer”. Nobody says “well, if I knew cancer was going to be cured, I would have got it instead of being a plumber!” This metaphor is breaking down rapidly.
Nobody graduates high school and says “I’m going to go sign up for cancer”.
Maybe not in a literal sense, but there are plenty of people who apply for jobs which pose inherent danger to health, including increased risks of cancers, because they need the money.
No one signs up for college to take on all that student debt just because they enjoy it, it’s seen as an investment in better job prospects to have a degree similar to how more dangerous jobs pay more. You’ve got physical danger and financial danger to consider based on your choice. Sometimes both.
More like, “we’ve invented a cute for cancer, but only people who have cancer right now can get it. People in the future are fucked again.”
Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn’t solve the problem. It’s pulling up the ladder.
I’m on board, as long as we forcefully agree that cancelling the loans is a good thing - it’s just NOT ENOUGH
Exactly , rather than only forgiving existing loans that should make education free and also forgive existing loans , and perhaps give people who have already paid off their loan some kind of stimulus check as a kind of recognition that their struggle was just as hard as everyone else’s and they deserve a break too.
What about those of us that didn’t go outright because we couldn’t afford it nor get the loans?
… I’d still be more than happy if education was made free, but there are A LOT of people the system has fucked and Democrats barely even want to glance at the lowest hanging fruit.
Isn’t the lowest hanging fruit exactly what they’re targeting, i.e. the people who currently have loans, and the higher hanging fruit all the other circumstances people are mentioning here like already paid off their loans or future student who will get loans or in your case people who forewent becoming a student due to the loans?
Yew, my point is they are ONLY targeting the lowest hanging fruit.
I bring it up NOT to just poopoo on Democrats, but to offer perspective. An inflatable life raft should NEVER be viewed as a fully functioning, sea-worthy vessel, and inflatable rafts is all Democrats ever offer, let alone fight for.
Yes, that’s better than the sabotaged canoe Republicans offer, but again, it’s about perspective. Some people are not OK with celebrating a dingy like it’s a ship.
Again. No one who is for student loan forgiveness is outright against assistance for low wage earners. They are not linked. If its who gets the bite at the apple first than do every thing you can to remove the GOP from power.
“They are not linked”, exactly, they’re choosing to leave some people behind.
They are not chosing anything. They are politically cornered.
Keep buying the excuses while you’re given crumbs. It really makes it look like you understand just how little you’re being offered…
It isn’t an excuse. It’s plain as day that the Republicans will do nothing on both matters and they keep getting elected.
Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn’t solve the problem. It’s pulling up the ladder.
You’re 100% correct. But be careful, these folks don’t take kindly to shining a light on their hypocrisy. They signed their names to a legally-binding contract, spent the money, but now don’t like paying it back under the terms they agreed to.
College tuition is far too high. But without fixing the root cause, tuition loan forgiveness does nothing for everyone before and after, and it actually makes the whole problem worse.
Blaming the people taking the loans is kind of absurd, for many it’s their only option if they want to continue their education. It’s not like they’re taking out loans they don’t need and burning the money.
“Legally-binding contract” is meaningless too, would you make the same argument against people who signed away their lives before slavery was abolished? Just because it’s legal now doesn’t mean it always will be, or that it must be enforced indefinitely.
You’re absolutely right that reducing tuition is the right move. Tuition is free where I am and some of the costs I see elsewhere are crazy. However, the options are not necessarily mutually exclusive; you can reduce tuition and help people that have already been shafted by the existing system.
Especially cause a lot of ‘legally binding’ stuff isn’t even actually legally binding. For a recent example look at non competes, a lot of judges don’t even enforce them cause they’re ridiculous and they actually just made them illegal for the little people.
Also, given the age and social pressure of the people taking student loans it’s not that straightforward to just say it’s their own fault
Could you walk me through what you see as these folks’ hypocrisy? I don’t get it.
Is somebody arguing that loan forgiveness should be a one time thing and no one after them should get it?
As an outside observer of American politics, it sure seems to me that the current loan forgiveness implementations are rather short sighted ones. Nobody seems to even attempt to reduce the ridiculous education prices, it all seems to come down to bulk payments.
I’m all for loan forgiveness up to a certain point (I myself have student loans I’d like to see forgiven, despite tuition “only” being €2k a year) but what is happening right now seems rather short-sighted and smells of political bribery.
If educational facilities can expect the current attempts at American loan forgiveness to continue, they can double or triple their tuition fees, make billions, and have the American ta payer (which still includes the people taking out the loans! None of this shit is free!) fund their scam.
No one is against fixing it through legislation. That is a strawman.
Unfair terms they didn’t fully understand and were pressured to accept.
Don’t get distracted. That argument is already fraught. They straight up lead their argument with a fallacy.
What I don’t get, is that what moderates keep saying…
You know, the people that constantly shit on progressives and claim we don’t want anything unless it’s everything.
Isn’t the whole moderate mission to take what we can get now and keep working for more? I’m not saying that’s what they actually do, that’s just their excuse for not fighting for more.
So shouldn’t the ones pushing for loan forgiveness now and fixing the underlying issue later be the moderates?
Instead they say if we can’t 100% fix the problem in perpetuity, we can’t do anything.
It’s because moderates are what conservatives claim to be. They are pro-status quo and keeping change as show as possible (as opposed to conservatives that just want hierarchical power structures that let them exercise power over others, no matter what changes are required).
Well observed. Conservatives in the US are reactionary but those described as moderates are basically NIMBYs standing in the way of those who want to tear down what’s left of the country.
Exactly. Arguing that you’re against helping people now because it doesn’t go far enough is ridiculous. Help people now. Then continue helping people. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of progress.
Those unrealistic idealists are so frustrating to argue with. Is this a great first step? YES! Can we do more? Also YES.
Take the win, and use that momentum to drive mode change. Trying to go from 0 to 100 in one step is just not realistic.
Take the win, and use that momentum to drive mode change.
There’s a difference between a start and means testing tho…
Those same moderates like to use means testing to erode away support for more, and to get the people who don’t make the cut to vote against it.
It’s how moderates have been opposing universal healthcare for over 80 years.
Social Security was supposed to be a temporary compromise to help the neediest while the government worked out the wrinkles for universal healthcare that was for everyone.
Could also be “but we might give the cure to people who have cancer in the future, but nobody knows if the government will allow it”
So we should just not let the people currently sick have the cure? 🤔
Even in your analogy, curing any cancer today, even if it doesn’t extend to future sufferers, is an improvement over curing no one. Because fuck cancer, and fuck student loans.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Imagine if researchers said: We’re working on a cure for cancer, and in the process we’ve generated a bunch of unobtanium. We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure. Obviously, if we use it all up now, we’ll be back to square one and have to start generating it again before we can work on a long-term cure. Which would you pick?
“Unobtanium” is political will. If we just do a round of bailouts for current loan-holders instead of addressing the root cause of spiraling education costs, we’re just kicking the can down the road. The pressure will be off, a whole generation of 20- and 30-somethings will lose interest in the issue, and it’ll fall off the political radar for another few decades, by which time GenZ+ will be well and truly fucked, since educational costs are only going up and up.
The absolute worst way to address rising education costs is to encourage a bunch of students to take ridiculously large loans and then wipe them off the books. That means: 1) schools can raise prices to the roof because they know students have access to mountains of cash from loans, and 2) students won’t hesitate to take the loans because they’ll probably just be forgiven eventually. Probably. Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be a millstone around their neck for the rest of their lives…but hey, what choice do they have, that’s just what school costs (because governments make sure students have all the money they need for a bidding war to get in).
So it amounts to just transferring huge piles of taxpayer money directly to overpriced schools and predatory banks, with no plan to stem the flow. It’s like trying to help your drug-addicted friend recover with a one-time gift of a brick of heroin. They’ll feel great for a while, and they’ll love you for it while it lasts, but it’s only going to make the problem much worse in the long run.
“Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”
Get out of here with that bullshit.
Why not contribute something yourself, or address the arguments they’re making instead of dismissing them out of hand?
The argument is bad and probably in bad faith. If I can paraphrase it in a few lines and demonstrate how ridiculous it is, it’s not deserving of a response.
You don’t have to attend every argument you’re invited to.
Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are? Do you know what arguing in bad faith means?
“Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”
If the US poured it’s full resources into saving John Doe from Birmingham Alabama, who has cancer, they could probably do it. Of course, then those resources (cash, equipment, researchers & doctors) couldn’t be used to help other people, or to perform research towards an eventual cure for everybody. It would be a bad use of resources, right?
You don’t let John Doe die because you want his death to motivate researchers. But you only have a certain amount of resources, and you have to allocate them in a way that makes sense, and pouring everything into a temporary solution that only affect this one dude (or one batch of student loan recipients) at the cost of a long-term, permanent solution to the root causes of the issue is just…a bad idea.
Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are?
I think your real beliefs and agenda are that you don’t want student loan forgiveness for anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Maybe you’re bitter because you didn’t go to school or maybe because you did and already paid off your debt. Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, or maybe you’re just a troll. I don’t really care. It doesn’t matter, because the argument is reprehensible regardless of your motives:
We should let John Doe in Alabama die because it’s too expensive to save him.
You decided that the financial expense of saving a life is worth condemning a patient to death just like you decided that the imaginary, hypothetical political cost of a change in policy is worth consigning multiple generations to lifelong debt.
You should be ashamed of yourself. But whether you are or not, I’m not interested in debating with you.
We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure.
How is this what’s happening? Who said it’s a one-time-only thing? Who said they can’t also research permanently available cure? Wouldn’t proving that removing the debt is a huge boon to everyone cause people to invest more in the idea of a cure?
Sure, once it becomes clear that students being debt-free on graduation is a benefit to society, I’m sure voters will scramble to wipe out student debt! That’s why baby boomers, who graduated with very little debt, are such staunch opponents of heavy student loans! /s
Once the pressure is off millennials and gen z, you’ll be able to watch the issue drop right out of public discourse. The focus will shift to housing costs, or health care, or some other topic that directly affects them. That’s just how politics works, especially in the US, where the constant gridlock in congress means that things only get done in a crisis. If you think we young people are just better than the boomers, and we wouldn’t forget to go back and fix the root causes even though we’re not immediately affected anymore…you’re in for disappointment.
If the goal is to help young people graduate with less debt, randomly forgiving large loans has got to be the worst possible approach. That only encourages educational costs to rise, and encourages students to take on ridiculous debts, and thus ends up transferring taxpayer money directly to schools and banks–and the more outrageous the loans and charges of those schools & banks, the more taxpayer money they get. That is legitimately a crazy way to solve the problem! As I said, it’s like giving a drug addict a bunch of heroin. Surely these businesses won’t want even more money, right?
So what do you do instead? Well, just off the top of my head: cap student loans. That’s what Canada does. I applied for a student loan when I went to school there, and I didn’t get to pick an amount. Based on where I was living and the school I was planning to go to, the government just said: “Okay, here’s $N”. It wasn’t that much, something like $6k per term (in the late 00’s).
Since students in that case won’t have access to arbitrary bags of cash, schools that actually want students will have to, you know, lower prices and compete. So my tuition was something like $4-5k per year, not $20k or $80k. I graduated with something like $50k in debt, which I paid off in a few years.
That would be a reasonable first step. Do that first, while you’ve got the political support, and then forgive student loans. Don’t do that first!
So the people who could get relief should abstain because the door is shut on any legislation as long as the GOP are in power?
Awfully compassionate of you.
No. That’s mighty presumptive of you. Play the game as the rules are. I’m suggesting loan forgiveness is a half-measure and it never should have been offered by politicians without solving the problem of unaffordable education. Otherwise, this isn’t a solution, it’s just a band-aid on a gaping still-bleeding wound that needs stitches. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does create inequity.
But if the rules of the game suck, perhaps the rules need to be changed, no?
Lol you really couldn’t help yourself. Just one reply and you reveal that you’re actually just a selfish piece of shit. Maybe just shut up while you’re ahead next time. You’re a garbage person but people don’t have to know on the Internet if you don’t make it so abundantly clear.
He’s right though
You know adults can usually communicate their point without resorting to insulting those who have different opinions. You don’t seem to have a point, just insults.
No YOU are the piece of shit. Why can’t we debate without unwarranted ad hominems any more? This place is supposed to be better than reddit, but that asks that its users be better. Your post is an indictment - take a look in the mirror before being so vile on the fediverse.
How is this down voted. You’re speaking facts lol. It’s a shitty bandaid solution
Because it completely ignores the fact that it does solve the problem for a lot of people, and they don’t want to do it because it doesn’t help everyone.
Because a half measure is better than no measure
Why not do both
We could do both, but you asked why it was being down voted. The down voted text says that politicians never should have offered loan forgiveness. They explicitly said we shouldn’t do both.
I mean, i still agree. I rather have them put the same energy first in fixing the actual problem. And then the bandaid solution
Cute analogy but here’s one for you. It’s not a bandaid it’s a tourniquet for a massive wound prior to needing full amputation.
Politics isn’t a zero sum game. You need to cash in on the political goodwill before it evaporates.
The relief isn’t being offered on the other side. The same side giving relief wants to legislate. Both actions are working towards a common goal.
Declare that future student loans are also automatically forgiven. You take a student loan tomorrow? You don’t have to pay it back. This, of course, will mean that no one will want to give student loans - which will force the tuition down.
At that point why not just cut out the lenders entirely and make college free/publicly funded for all students like they do in Germany? An educated population yields many returns for a society and it will pay for itself with the boost to our economy it would provide.
I thought the U.S. government already took all the loans. So wouldn’t the lender be the U.S. government, and the interest goes to paying for the companies managing the loans I would assume. My interest rate on some of my loans went from 2.4% to 4.8% if I remember correctly (was sometime between 2008-2012 time period). I don’t believe students can go to a bank and get private student loans unless there is some loopholes. That said, cancelling student loan debt would simply mean not paying themselves back. Student loans are tax deductible as well, so when you pay them it would essentially come out of your taxes income, so if you could magically pay 10k off one year, it should come off your highest taxes income bracket. I still owe some, but I’d be fine with at least making it free college for AS/AA and 0% interest on student loans past that for all new takers. If they could make it free for BS/BA I’m still fine with being stuck with mine so long as we can figure out how to fix it for the future generations.
We should still do good things even if we can’t do all the good things.
I have to wonder if my generation [Millenial] had any effect on university enrollments yet. My kids aren’t quite the age to talk about education plans as I had kiddos later in life @30yo (40 now). I’ll be strongly discouraging uni unless it’s completely unavoidable to what they want to do.
I generally encourage kids to just go live a normal life for a few years before college. That way they’re going for something specific they really want to do, and they have an experiential sense of what the dollar amounts mean.
I’m pretty resentful that I had tens of thousands of loans offered to me, far beyond anything my credit would warrant, when I was a teenager, who had been propagandized to go to college for the past ten years of my life.
I feel tricked. Perhaps not on purpose, but I feel like I was tricked.
Similar boat. Were lucky we were able to move to Europe so my kid has access through the Erasmus network to any college in Europe really. It’s a different world over here.
I’m approaching 40 and have three kids from 10yo to 1yo, and I’m still going to encourage them going to college, but in a way that makes sense for them. My wife and I both work at a community college, and there’s no way our kids are going to go to a 4-year right out of high school (unless they get a full scholarship for something and already know exactly what they want to do).
Too many students don’t know what they want to study, don’t value the education, and drive themselves into too much debt. While I highly value the education and skills gained in a bachelor’s program, there’s no need to be going into debt at a university to take first- and second-year courses when community colleges are effectively free (in CA, anyway)
Ship 'em off to Germany and get a free college education. I know a few people that have gone there for grad school for that reason. I wish I had known that was an option…I might still be there, honestly.
Same, I’m going to push my kid to do everything they can local. Because even though I don’t regret the experiences I had at university, it was a massive waste of money for me.
Yeah I look back fondly on the experiences, the conversations, the environment. But it was worse than a waste of time for me. It was, financially, the worst way I could have spent my first years out of high school.
Yeah I’d definitely rather have them go to one of the community colleges or maybe a more technical school depending on what they want to do. I just want to prevent them from having to live with what might be debt I deal with for the rest of my life. No big University unless they manage a full ride or something, lol. Mean from my mistakes.
This… is sad. Both discouraging and why you discourage.
Yeah…I agree. I will say I hope I can at least mitigate the debt issue as much as I can because I won’t be able to help pay, and I’m sure by the time my oldest is ready I’ll make too much for him to qualify for much aid. Maybe community college first or a trade school depending on what their interested in.
I mean the numbers still say that a bachelor’s degree doubles or triples your lifetime earnings over a high school diploma. Moreover, an educated society benefits everyone. College is still the right move at every scale. What we need to do is make it a more equitable system.
I guess apprenticeships aren’t that common yet in the US, but in many countries you can learn a profession not only at uni. In that case the high school diploma isn’t the last/highest diploma one would get.
Yeah crossing my fingers there’s some fixes in the works along side any debt forgiveness, but with this political environment and some folks attitude of “F you, I got mine “, I’m doubtful.
Maybe. Depends on how functional you are overall. Turns out I can pass college courses, but not keep a job so well.
I’m really good at getting high paying jobs, but my executive function is terrible. I can’t keep the jobs.
People with good executive function tend to not be aware of it as a factor. For them “getting that job” is the big uncertain hurdle on their path to success.
Not once in my upbringing all the way through college graduation did anyone talk about keeping jobs. It was all about getting the job. I’ve gotten some pretty amazing jobs … and lost them.
From the school of “I suffered through [x], so therefore everyone else should suffer, too, even if they don’t need to.”
There’s always going to be a cutoff point where someone has it harder or easier than those that came before. That’s just life. As long as the change wasn’t malicious, just feel good (or whatever is appropriate) for those that benefit from it.
I work in a highly contract-controlled industry, and when things improve there’s always a segment of the group that might be close to retirement or something and gets all pissed that they didn’t won’t realize the benefits of a change that will apply mostly to those that will have longer under the change. They’re the same ones that bitch that new employees didn’t suffer under whatever crappy work rules that might have existed before, too.
So yeah…people that paid off their loans, or guys that I work with that paid for some/all of their kid’s college, bitch about people catching a break on their loans. STFU and be happy that someone else caught a break.
I’m glad I was taught not to begrudge and feel envy of other. I learned later in life that there are some insecure tw@ts who’d like to drag others down.
Making things better for the next generation should always be the goal not the exception
I hope they find a cure because even if you beat cancer, it can still come back.
But the post is about student loans.
It’s never too late to go back to school.
No thanks. I don’t want more debt.
No sir, this is a Wendy’s
No, this is Patrick.
Hi I’m a fucking idiot, how can you beat cancer if there is no cure for it yet?
I thought there was a cure but I guess not a very good one since some people don’t make it
Did you know that you can cure your meat and beat it?
Maybe not in that order.
Thank you for the giggle, SatansMaggotyCumFart
A “cure” in this situation means an essentially guaranteed method of treatment. Cancers vary greatly, with some being benign, some being very treatable, and some being extremely deadly (at least with current technology).
Indeed. Beat it, but at what cost.
My mum beat cancer. She lost parts of her body in the process and chemo changed her physically (her hair and nails never came back the same). It took three years of regular testing to finally be given the “you’re officially cancer free” verdict. Three tense years.
All that said she’s incredibly lucky not only to have beat it but not to have to live with additional medication due to it. I know somebody who lost a lot more and while is alive now needs a lifetime of medication to “put in” what the partial removed organs no longer produce.
He beat it with his fists.
You can cure pregnancy with a fist but not cancer
There are some treatments for some cancers with varying success rates. A cure would be a treatment for all cancers that always works.
Right now, the main option to “beat” cancer is to poison yourself until enough of the cancerous cells die, along with killing the normal healthy cells. Even then, that only works for certain types of cancer, and that’s only if it is treated early enough.
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/cancer-survival-rates
A cure would ideally work safely against all types and stages.
Cancer, as far as I’m aware, goes into remission and isn’t cured. Remission is when there isn’t any detectable signs of a cancer mass or growth in your body. So imaging doesn’t pick up any tumors, your blood work doesn’t indicate any hormonal changes, and biopsies come back negative.
A cure would be like say there is no cancer and it won’t come back. Remission is more like we have no evidence of cancer and x% of maintain that state for x years.
Fun fact: your body is constantly making cancerous cells, but you have the ability to detect and destroy them before they get out of hand. Keep that immune system strong.
I spent five figures paying mine off two years ago.
Still 100% support my tax dollars paying for people’s college. In fact, I’d love that instead of the nine wars my tax dollars are paying for instead.
Fuck y’all. I chose to not going to college and went with a lower paying career field as a trade off for lower earning potential. Using the tax dollars I’ve paid over the years to help eliminate the negative trade off everyone else chose to take on when they went to college is crap.
don’t worry, your taxes aren’t going into the education system! they’re all being funneled into the military anyway
Why didn’t you go to public university?
Because it would still be $60,000 plus interest, plus the other costs associated with going to college.
If just going to public university and paying that is no big deal, then i guess no one needs their college debt wiped, since everyone had that same option.
Cool story man. Let’s all do the same thing. Let’s hope we never need a doctor or a civil engineer
Those jobs pay in reflection of college and it’s debts. Time and costs in exchange for six figure salaries.
Where does the forgiveness come from? After paying for my education I now pay a bunch of taxes, I assume that’s what is paying for their education? So the cartoon should say, I just fought and beat cancer and now I need to go work on a cute. “They” cutting cancer is not the same.
