Republicans propose and pass blatantly unconstitutional stuff that there base wants right before elections all the time, then gets mad when courts overturn it right after the election. I’m glad Biden finally got rid of the “legal high ground” concept and started to do some of these “the worst they can say is no” measures.
Not every piece of legislation needs to benefit you. It’s okay if others benefit and you don’t get hurt in the process.
That’s not the only reason to oppose this.
All Bidens solution does is take money from the tax payers to pay off the predatory lenders.
It means the people fighting against it are only fighting against it because they don’t get anything from it and that maybe they need to stop and consider that not every piece of legislation needs to benefit them and them only.
I think it is down right greedy for those who will typically be the highest wage earners to get loan relief for the loans that will make them wealthy. Why not apply that to business loans as well?
It is particularly paid by those that will have lower wages so how can you say it hurts none?
It’s funny how we can print and print money for decades, we can “invest” in private industries, give them loans with favorable interest rates, billions in grants, look the other way with regards to regulations, not block anti-competitive practices, but the second we try to help actual people directly everybody loses their shit.
Want to help the economy? That $10,000 (or $20,000) for Pell grant recipients might allow someone to save $300 more a month towards a house, a car, or spend it on goods and services. After 3 years, that’s money back in the economy rather than back to bank that have gotten plenty of help in the best.
Hurt is a strong word but other people would be paying for that benefit.
It’s not hard to imagine someone who decided to miss out on college and take the career penalty of lacking a 4 year degree just to avoid debt feeling like it’s a bit unfair to have to help pay for other peoples degrees. People who made the decision to take on the debt.
Maybe it’s would be a societal good overall but it’s not like there isn’t another valid side to the debate. Personally I think that money could be better targeted towards those in poverty whether they have student debt or not.
I have a hard time seeing how this program is not unfair (not American so might be missing something).
My understanding is that there are 2 programs. One that helps reduce loans by 1k a year, and another one that forgives loans with less than 12k left after 10 years.
The first one seems to be ok as a measure for new students taking out loans because then it would work as a tool to encourage higher education. But as a blanket help it seems unfair as the benefitting people already made their choice and got (or are getting) their education. For the special case of people who are struggling financially I think a program that is specific to them and helps them relative to their struggle would be more appropriate, and it would surprise me if it doesn’t already exist.
As for the second program it seems to just be a gift to people who have already made their choice and completed their education, and is not fair at all to people who have consciously chosen to not pursue this because they couldn’t afford the debt. If someone is financially struggling see my previous point about more appropriate tools to help them, otherwise if they’re not struggling then what is the point of this?
Furthermore the second program also seems to be a one-off? I’m not sure here so please correct me if I’m wrong. If that is the case then it doesn’t even encourage people to pursue higher education.
Why does it need to be fair? By that logic, we should never change a ton of things, such as tax codes, simply because they’re not retroactive (“how dare the government offer a rebate on solar panels after I’ve already paid full price!”). There isn’t really a good way to make something like student loan forgiveness retroactive and to try and do so would make it excessively expensive.
Why should we hold back on doing a good thing just because it doesn’t help 100% of people ever?
I do agree with you about the core of what you’re saying, that in the end it’s a good thing to help people. For sure. But when talking about public funds you have to keep in mind priorities. In this case I can see how this doesn’t seem like a priority to some people, money is not unlimited and these funds could be used for something else. I would personally be more on board if this program targeted students who are about to get loans, I just think it would have more value to society in general than helping someone who is 10 years into their loan and not struggling financially.
Now as I said I’m not an expert on US public finance so if you tell me that these funds couldn’t be used somewhere else anyway and would be wasted in less important projects then sure I’d revise my opinion.
Its seems as though the sentiment among the high middle class and up is:
-
College is important to advance in our societal hierarchy. It is not absolutely necessary but generally you are rewarded for having a higher education in more prestegious institutions.
-
People can afford college because they have been saving up generational wealth. Naturally, increasing costs of living shouldnt be an issue.
-
College should be about merit not affirmative action. Giving spots for less fortunate makes us less competitive as a nation.
If you cant see how the issues in these statements affect lower classes then i believe you are part of the problem.
I doubt it.
