@quackquack saidThis is EASY to understand. What is the block in the way of the liberal mind? They simply cannot admit your logic. I go to a school, Neighbor goes to same school. I pay for mine, the government pays for his. Not one of these liberals can come forward and say, yes, it is quite obvious that this is really bad. For example, the parasite will have had the ability to stash some money away since he never gave any of his own money to the college. The honest standup guy used his money for college and has no savings. That means the parasite guy will get a Headstart when the two of them get out of college.
Your solution is completely illogical. Those who made sacrifices to pay themselves get no benefit but those who made a promise to repay the government will have their deal undone and get their money back. For the government to use public money to help some people but not those equally deserving is simply abhorant.
@averagejoe1 saidWhat bothers me most is the desire to give certain groups a bonus while others get nothing. If you paid tuition yourself, you are just as worthy of a government payback as if you take a loan. If you knew you could not afford it and went to a cheaper alternative, then you are excluded from a benefit because you tried to be financially prudent.
This is EASY to understand. What is the block in the way of the liberal mind? They simply cannot admit your logic. I go to a school, Neighbor goes to same school. I pay for mine, the government pays for his. Not one of these liberals can come forward and say, yes, it is quite obvious that this is really bad. For example, the parasite will have had the ability to stash som ...[text shortened]... o savings. That means the parasite guy will get a Headstart when the two of them get out of college.
The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers and it certainly shouldn't be undoing promises (like to pay back your loan) if it won't give the same benefit to all citizens.
@no1marauder saidSorry, guess I misunderstood. Maybe we can clarify this, if you will respond to the post I just posted above. I still think you are trying to say that the two subjects are ‘all square’ at graduation time? So tell me, the two go off to earn a living after college...... his neighbor has saved $20,000 in cash, since he had no college expense. That parasite guy invests in a business. The honest guy has NO money to get his start, so he works as a Fedex driver. Parasite guy is definitely going to get a headstart in life.
I said no such thing.
I will say that government would be better off forgiving the loans, or at least the bulk of them. That is because it would be tantamount to an economic stimulus payment to (mostly) young people who are consumers:
""Home sales could be, say, 300,000 higher annually if people were not saddled with large student debt." Yun says that would be "a bo ...[text shortened]... rcentage tax on stock and other financial transactions (which add little to the economy as a whole).
Can you apply your reasoning to this scenario? Your response may resolve all of the issues.
@vivify saidThe government could give them a tax deduction equal to their tuition payment or the government could send them a check directly (with interest) to treat them as they would if they took a loan. It would be shocking to treat those who paid tuition directly in a nonpreferential manner to those who paid via a loan.
No it isn't.
Student loans are largely held by the government; students who pay out of pocket are paying the school directly. The government can't make the schools refund legally provided services, but they can choose to forgive government debts.
But the real answer is the government doesnt need to continually redistribute and those who want to go to colleges can pay for it.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidNo, I'm not going to waste my time providing the same answer that many others have already provided to your complaints about taxation.
Sorry, guess I misunderstood. Maybe we can clarify this, if you will respond to the post I just posted above. I still think you are trying to say that the two subjects are ‘all square’ at graduation time? So tell me, the two go off to earn a living after college...... his neighbor has saved $20,000 in cash, since he had no college expense. That parasite guy invests in ...[text shortened]... .
Can you apply your reasoning to this scenario? Your response may resolve all of the issues.
A college education should be available to all not just those who's families have extra money. Calling people "parasites" because they don't come from the rich side of town is typical garbage from right wingers.
@quackquack saidNo, there's actually nothing "shocking" about society aiding those in need and not aiding those who aren't.
The government could give them a tax deduction equal to their tuition payment or the government could send them a check directly (with interest) to treat them as they would if they took a loan. It would be shocking to treat those who paid tuition directly in a nonpreferential manner to those who paid via a loan.
But the real answer is the government doesnt need to continually redistribute and those who want to go to colleges can pay for it.
@no1marauder saidMarx. Thankyou, you have answered.
No, there's actually nothing "shocking" about society aiding those in need and not aiding those who aren't.
@no1marauder saidWhat's shocking is that the list of things that you believe the government should pay for is expanding. A few years ago it was health care and now it's college loans. We need to stop finding new ways to expand government and redistribute.
No, there's actually nothing "shocking" about society aiding those in need and not aiding those who aren't.
@quackquack saidYou're on the right track, education shouldn't be something you have to pay for, rich or poor.
The government could give them a tax deduction equal to their tuition payment or the government could send them a check directly (with interest) to treat them as they would if they took a loan. It would be shocking to treat those who paid tuition directly in a nonpreferential manner to those who paid via a loan.
But the real answer is the government doesnt need to continually redistribute and those who want to go to colleges can pay for it.
When the UK dropped the student grant system in favour of student loans, it was a massive leap backwards. If an advanced, rich society doesn't invest in its' young people it merely creates problems for itself. Not everything is about jobs, or money, it's also about knowledge, creativity and building a better intellectual and technical base. Any society benefits from being better educated, it's the most important investment it can make.
@quackquack saidOur society is seeing the advantages of investing in social capital even if those with outmoded economic ideas based on unworkable theories from the 1700s don't.
What's shocking is that the list of things that you believe the government should pay for is expanding. A few years ago it was health care and now it's college loans. We need to stop finding new ways to expand government and redistribute.
@no1marauder saidNo, you are just looking for pretexts to take from those who earned their money and give them to others who you think are more likely to support your vision of the world. It wasn't about healthcare with Obama and it's not about student loans now. It's about denying the truth that citizens who earned their money should have the right to keep it and not be taxed oppressively.
Our society is seeing the advantages of investing in social capital even if those with outmoded economic ideas based on unworkable theories from the 1700s don't.
1 edit
@quackquack saidTaxes in the US are hardly "oppressive".
No, you are just looking for pretexts to take from those who earned their money and give them to others who you think are more likely to support your vision of the world. It wasn't about healthcare with Obama and it's not about student loans now. It's about denying the truth that citizens who earned their money should have the right to keep it and not be taxed oppressively.
No, though fanatics like you won't admit it, a healthier, better educated populace is to the benefit of all. A system, such as one based on laissez faire capitalism, which results in a relative few being overcompensated for activities with little or no social worth and underinvestment in such areas for the many is a poor one and was, and is, in need of fundamental reform.
@quackquack saidThe problem with your post is the "earned" part.
No, you are just looking for pretexts to take from those who earned their money and give them to others who you think are more likely to support your vision of the world. It wasn't about healthcare with Obama and it's not about student loans now. It's about denying the truth that citizens who earned their money should have the right to keep it and not be taxed oppressively.
Rich people rarely earn their wealth.