Not a fair comparison at all. Polio can’t resurrect the dead and fix its past mistakes. The government can. I paid the predatory rate for years before getting smart about it. It kept me from generating wealth and drove me deeper into debt due to the lack of free cash flow. The government made its money back on my loan and was just profiting off of me for years to come. Not a fair system. When they said the loans would turn on again the first time, I pulled the trigger on a lower interest private loan. The damage was already done though. They owe me a check if everyone else gets money wiped away.
Well maybe you weren’t as smart as you think you were. Seems like the smart play would have been a defer all those payments until right now. That’s what the smart people are doing.
You made your own mistakes deal with them
That isn’t really a winning move either honestly. At least I dropped my interest rate 5%. The problem is that any scenario trying to provide relief is heavy-handed and doesn’t consider all circumstances. Just because I am in a better place now doesn’t negate the damage that was done by not being able to pay much of my principal for many years due to the predatory 8% interest rate. They do need to make it up to people who realized that turning the loans back on and only helping some people was going to screw over the rest. I found some relief, but it was after being swindled by my government for almost 10 years and still having just about the full amount of my loan left to pay off. They sell you on the idea that higher education will land you a job that can pay the loans off in no time, but that really wasn’t the case. I’ve finally gotten to a good salary, but had to endure unnecessary financial constraints. Definitely not having kids. Can’t afford that for sure. If we are going to provide welfare, better not pick and choose poorly. I’d argue that providing me with more free cash flow is better than someone with a low income job. We shouldn’t subsidize lack of motivation or irresponsible procreation by people that can’t afford it. The idea that someone without a job can have kids and get welfare for it and I can’t get that same benefit due to my salary so can’t have kids is sickening. I’d be more interested in UBI for all than fucking over people by playing favorites with taxpayer money. I am not a charity.
I was about to respond to the points you were making in your prior paragraph, but you saved me a lot of time.
I’d argue that providing me with more free cash flow is better than someone with a low income job.
There it is. How surprising in your careful analysis its your specific circumstances that should benefit over those that have less than you, possibly living in poverty or those that have more than you.
We shouldn’t subsidize lack of motivation or irresponsible procreation by people that can’t afford it.
Ohhh, you need to be careful with this line of thinking. You’re defining that higher income is the one metric for determining whether someone is worthy to receive benefits. By your own measure, as you listed here:
I’ve finally gotten to a good salary, but had to endure unnecessary financial constraints.
…and…
Definitely not having kids. Can’t afford that for sure.
… you took on irresponsible debt that made you poor, and you can’t afford kids. By your measure you’d be irresponsible in procreating. By your own measures we should be giving money to people that are less irresponsible more motivated to receive benefits. Your logic argues that benefits would be wasted on you because of your past choices and income. Now, I don’t buy into any of that.
I believe in quite a few areas of spending that benefits both everyone, and specific groups in certain circumstances which we are able to target with laws or regulation to affect positive change. That includes benefits you likely qualify for, but not to the exclusion of everyone else just because you don’t benefit.
