Originally posted by sh76 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-20125577/obama-to-outline-student-loan-relief-plan/?fb_comment_id=fbc_5006885752265_674079_5006886864265
I went to significantly "worse" schools (both college and law school) than I could have because of cost. I basically paid my own way through both with government loans but between college and law school, I racked up deb ...[text shortened]... water because I bargain hunted when I looked for a house? What do I get then, Mr. President?
As is usually the case, the responsible end up paying for the mistakes of the irresponsible.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn Since when was helping the poor equivalent to punishing the rich?
That wording distorts the argument. How about the notion of holding every individual responsible for their own results? Is it fair that the successful, the planner, the budget minded, end up paying the bills of those who didn't do any of those things?
Originally posted by finnegan Yes, "Quantitative Easing" ought to be restricted to the very wealthy and corporations who absorb the huge cash injections without social benefit. The idea of putting it into the pockets of people who are struggling is all wrong, because it is all their own fault for being suckered. Of course, it would enable them not only to survive the worst recession wi ...[text shortened]... ready lost secure jobs they loved etc. If the economy continues to dive, then who benefits?
I've always loved the usage, "the less fortunate". As if life results were totally some lottery we all are forced to gamble on. People learn probably more from experience than anything else. Take away pain, and people would routinely scold themselves under 140 degree hot water showering.
Originally posted by finnegan You assume that debt is a consequence of moral failure. It probably is, but on whose part? We have lived in a world where people gained immense wealth by persuading us to borrow, and where wages could be allowed to slide because people could borrow to survive.
People make the best decisions they can and the assumptions they make can easily prove over op ...[text shortened]... he deregulated financial sector has been a disaster and often in the hands of virtual criminals.
No one is forced by persuasion. There is not deregulated financial sector.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn Since when was helping the poor equivalent to punishing the rich?
I'm certainly not rich. I'm doing okay, don't get me wrong, but it's never clear month to month whether I'm going to make more or spend more on things like food and mortgage and utilities and stuff like that.
The point is, if the taxpayers are going to be subsidizing people, why shouldn't I get subsidized a little bit too? I don't desperately need the subsidy, but I could use it. When I read about all these bailout programs for underwater home buyers and people in debt, it makes me feel like a bit of a sucker for depriving myself in order to avoid going into that kind of debt.
Originally posted by no1marauder Neither you or sh76 seem to have read the actual measures taken.
I read the article. I understand that these aren't enormous subsidies, but they're costing taxpayers money and it's inequitable to use my taxpayer money to subsidize someone who intentionally and irresponsibly went into too much debt. Now, if the spending is necessary to give people basic human needs such as healthcare, okay. I'm not opposed to that. But using taxpayer money to let people reduce their student loans while not doing anything equivalent for the other taxpayers does not strike me as being very fair.
Originally posted by sh76 I read the article. I understand that these aren't enormous subsidies, but they're costing taxpayers money and it's inequitable to use my taxpayer money to subsidize someone who intentionally and irresponsibly went into too much debt. Now, if the spending is necessary to give people basic human needs such as healthcare, okay. I'm not opposed to that. But using ...[text shortened]... not doing anything equivalent for the other taxpayers does not strike me as being very fair.
As I said in my original reply to you, it is the responsible that always pay for the irresponsible. That is the basis of collectivist action. It's minor in this case, so you are supposed to ignore it, but later when it is health care which takes 20% of a free market economy into the realm of government we are to ignore that as well.
The question is when does this reverse motivation start to infect the incentives and the morals of the nation that accepts these notions? Why don't people just get what they want, and not worry about ever paying? Is it just life's lottery. Are people doing poorly just because they are "less fortunate". Were you just lucky to have found affordable education?
There is so much hogwash attached to these notions that we are supposed to just swallow.
Originally posted by sh76 I read the article. I understand that these aren't enormous subsidies, but they're costing taxpayers money and it's inequitable to use my taxpayer money to subsidize someone who intentionally and irresponsibly went into too much debt. Now, if the spending is necessary to give people basic human needs such as healthcare, okay. I'm not opposed to that. But using ...[text shortened]... not doing anything equivalent for the other taxpayers does not strike me as being very fair.
How exactly is it costing taxpayers money?
Aren't you being a bit of a hypocrite anyway? You certainly don't mind being subsidized by having your mortgage interest payments being deductible. Couldn't renters scream the same sentences you are?
EDIT: From the article you cited:
The White House said the changes will carry no additional costs to taxpayers.
Originally posted by normbenign As I said in my original reply to you, it is the responsible that always pay for the irresponsible. That is the basis of collectivist action. It's minor in this case, so you are supposed to ignore it, but later when it is health care which takes 20% of a free market economy into the realm of government we are to ignore that as well.
The question is ...[text shortened]...
There is so much hogwash attached to these notions that we are supposed to just swallow.
Originally posted by normbenign Well that's about as coherent as most of your arguments.
We've read this bile from you over and over and over and over again. We get it; you want a society where people can starve to death and die of treatable diseases rather than have those who have benefited from that society pay their equitable share. Even minor measures of the sort cited (which you were too lazy to even bother to look at before criticizing!) start the usual Randian propaganda.
It's ridiculous and tiresome and doesn't warrant a detailed response (your "arguments" such as they are have been met many times here).