No, it isn’t. Not in this kind of brazenly opportunistic and dramatically unfair way, at least. You can make your flimsy argument for every dollar of tax money spent, but that doesn’t make it a good argument.
Shrugging your shoulders and declaring that it’s more of the same and therefore justified is a silly position to hold.
I’m not saying it’s justified, just that we have crossed that line of government handouts a long time ago. How do you tell an American, who went to college because the government said he needed to (and it does tell young people that), took out loans to pay for his education, is now working and being a productive citizen, that some Somalian is getting our (and his) tax dollars and for what? This American has to struggle to pay off his loans while some foreigner, who probably hates this country, is getting money to go buy a new AK-47, goat or wife.
Because this foundation of your reasoning can apply to anyone in any circumstances endlessly.
Calling it reasoning is being generous, because the entire argument can be summed up with the image of a toddler saying “gimme”.
It needs to stop. There is no reasonable justification for this policy, and many others like it.
Kudos for prioritizing their goals appropriately.
For the record, I’m not against asking for help. Everyone can always start their own individual Go Fund Me pages to ask the expanse of social media for direct assistance with loan repayment, or any other source of financial hardship.
If the idea is popular, I’m sure the donations will begin flowing steadily in very short order.
It already does.
Or a CEO, banker, or any politician (especially from a red state).
One is the fact that the government created the problem in the first place.
But who will be the first to say, “we don’t want any more government money,”?
You can argue like this in circles forever, I know that. That was the point of the repetitiveness of my original post.
It is a shit policy. Period.
Here’s a handout of other people’s money I wholly endorse and I’ll encourage everyone here to donate to. These young women haven’t done a single thing to earn this six figure sum, yet over 1,500 people in my community saw fit to voluntarily give.
Fundraiser by Donna Varney : Support for Troy and Dulsie’s daughters (gofundme.com)
I completely support people starting Go Fund Me pages and similar calls for community help on their own or on the behalf of others who may not want to ask for help on their own. Give generously to people and causes you support.
If only I had thought of this idea before mailing those stupid checks, I’m sure the generous people in my community and social media circles would have gladly chipped in to pay for my failed foray into college education. Maybe they’ll even fuel my dreams to finish college and become an Ancient Astronaut Theorist.
Only one way to find out!
What do you feel about subsidizing people who go into fields that help the economy? Stem seems to do this. I find the idea of supporting people who produce more value on average what they earn to be justifiable. I think that is on of the reasons why public college is subsidized. It seems like a zero sum game from certain perspectives, but it may not be.
That all depends on what you define as “help”.
There are some easily-agreed upon people we can absolutely use more of that will produce broad benefit. Doctors, engineers, critical industry specialists and general workers, lawyers, critical race theorists focused on advancing their personal vision of social progress, plumbers, good mechanics, people who are good at arguing on twitter, the list is endless.
Wait, we don’t agree that all of those are needed and will help the economy?
Okay, well we can all agree that engineers, doctors, logistics specialists, production planners, ERP software specialists and financial analysts in the banking industry are critical to the future of our country.
Let’s use public money to incentivize more people to pursue these paths.
It might work, but such a policy would certainly raise deep and serious concerns about perpetuating systemic racism and white supremacy by subsidizing pursuits that favor white people’s career interests over other groups. In case you think I’m exaggerating, let us note that Dr. Suess, an American icon responsible for bringing incalculable good into the world, has just been deemed problematic and the Biden Handler administration has officially towed the line.
In other words, sensible policies that most people agree upon are highly, highly unlikely to be advanced during this election cycle. What’s actually on the table is shamelessly handing out cash to the generally most advantaged Americans for the most cynical of political motivations.
Shit policy, in simple terms.
Is it accurate then to say you could support some form of loan repayment? Others may not agree, and it may not pass congress, but it sounds like you would support something if it was structured properly.
I don’t necessarily support the current bill, but that doesn’t mean I can’t support the concept with conditions. I would say subsidizing trades further could be seen as an investment, not a handout. Same goes for stem and numerous other things. May not be popular, but I can justify it.
No, it isn’t. Not under any framework being discussed.
Show me a sensible education incentive policy being advanced and a discussion can flow from there.
Here’s the thing, our individual tax dollars go to things that we might not benefit from; that’s just reality. If we only paid taxes for things that we believe are valuable or provide us, on an individual basis, with some tangible benefit, then how would we function as a society? I don’t live in Florida so if a hurricane hits, it’s not my problem those people chose to live somewhere that is vulnerable to hurricanes. Why should my tax dollars that go to the federal government pay to fix the damages in a state where I don’t live? If I don’t have kids, why should my taxes go to pay for schools?
OK, let’s just help students who become medical doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc., with college because they provide a benefit to society. Are we going to have a nation where everyone is an MD or engineer? If that were to happen, I think we would suddenly rethink the value others provide.
What about cops and firemen? Some of them have college degrees. Teachers? Writers? Artists? Wait, writers? A writer on a television show not only helps to produce a product for our consumption but he is an integral part of an industry that provides jobs to many people from cameramen to caterers. Also, one thing that gets talked about, especially from the right (including Trump) is how western civilization has produced great works of art and literature that have advanced us as a culture, in comparison to places like the Middle East. Trump even mentioned how we create operas. Operas. How many people go to the opera? Yet, it is seen as a sign of our civilization’s greatness. The point being, even things that have a purely cultural value still have value. Why should I pay for someone to learn about poetry if I hate poetry? Because it’s part of the foundations of civilization and defines us in spite of me being an uncultured philistine. Philosophy? I think, when we look around at how most people cannot put together a logical argument or set aside feelings, that we need it to be taught more which would mean we need people to study it. But how would we quantify the benefit?
The point is, value is subjective and how someone perceives or measures it, does not mean it should be the final word. But living in a society means compromise and not always thinking about yourself.
I haven’t actually read the bill. I am just fairly confident that I wouldn’t agree with something in it. I think most all college degrees benefit society. What I would agree to and what twojar would agree to are separate.
One can make the argument for things like funding sports stadiums too. Some people always get pissed. Say they shouldn’t be taxed because they don’t even like football or whatever. Well they are getting some stuff others don’t care for that they like as well. Maybe public parks, or transit.
Personally, I want to live in an area that values: education, parks, transit, art, etc…
I just bring up the justification about individuals providing value to the economy / society to those completely against it. I think this argument is pretty good against those who think of these type of things as handouts.
To me, there is a big difference in agreeing to subsidize education that will be available to everyone compared to paying off loans to people who took them out and failed to live up to their commitments.
I just can’t see where you draw the line on paying off other people’s debts. I benefit if my doctor can make it to the office. Should we help pay off his BMW? I benefit if my teacher is well rested and can focus. Should I pay off her Tempurpedic bed?
So the car and the bed don’t on average help the economy / society in any way that is comparable to the medicine degree. The BMW more likely hurts society on average.
I get your point though. I think if we are to view something like loan repayment as an investment and not a handout, then a bill that contains it should have provisions for funding future students. It is kinda like saying, we as a society were free loading off of you and the benefits you brought to society though educating yourself, so we are going to help you pay off the debt you got, and we are going to fund future students as we know they help more than just themselves when they are educated.
Nail on the head here. I don’t drive on that road so why should I pay for it to be paved? My house hasn’t caught on fire so why do I need to fund firefighters? We could do this for forever. Arguing it is bad policy or we shouldn’t do it is fine. Arguing on the means that someone doesn’t “get” something out of it…well that ship sailed forever ago.
Personally I’m more annoyed by stuff that helps a smaller amount of people than larger anyways or those who don’t need it. We gave tax cuts to some of the richest people in the country. We had secret service stay (at higher rates) in businesses owned by the President. Funneled millions of dollars to businesses owned by the President. And many people didn’t blink an eye and don’t care. But money to poor people…
That’s the kind of stuff that annoys me far more than something like this but to each their own. It’s like we have a group of people in this country who never give a shit if things are helping the wealthiest people in the country. But bring up anything that may help poor people and they flip their shit about fairness or laziness.
Why are they failing? And people forget the government is complicit in this issue. It is telling people to go to college. It is not allowing them to use bankruptcy protections to forgo their debt, unlike other loans. The government is responsible for college not only being overly expensive but overpriced.
He doesn’t need a BMW to be your doctor, just a medical degree.
If she didn’t have college debt, she could buy her own bed.
Because trickle down…
No one is forced to go to college.
He needs transportation to get to the office. Should we buy him a car?
Maybe she took out a mortgage she couldn’t afford either. Maybe she has an Amazon addiction. What difference does the reason make if I could benefit from her getting a good night’s sleep?
They should have to demonstrate how destitute they are on an individual cases by case basis. Then, any parents should be targeted first for collection. Then and only then might there be an avenue for forgiveness.
If isn’t for critical economic roles, we shouldn’t be loaning it in the first place.