Not every piece of legislation needs to benefit you. It’s okay if others benefit and you don’t get hurt in the process.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
1 points (66.7% liked)
politics
19072 readers
4465 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
What solution do you propose?
Reep what you sow and pay your fucking loan back at the agreed terms at the time of signing.
Personal responsibility is a bitch. Only irresponsible people want loan forgiveness.
What does this even mean lol
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.
Ok, ok, let's just give everyone enough to pay off the largest student loan debt.
I am fighting against it because it only supports those that will become some of the wealthiest sector in the country at the cost to a segment that will be in the lower end of wealth. It is simply greed.
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.
He should propose that those who took out student loans should pay them back. That is what really should happen.
The problem is that the president literally does not have this power. Nancy Pelosi even admitted this. It was a blatantly unconstitutional power grab that he knew would be shut down in the courts but did it anyway since he needed something to run on going into the midterms.
Lol. Funny that you are being downvoted because you are absolutely correct.
I guess the deadbeats don't care - they just want their free money from the taxpayers.
You call us deadbeats but what about the insane predatory nature of the loans in the first place? Most of us were forced, manipulated, or scared into taking out loans at 18. Most of us also didnt have the education in the first place to understand what the loans all meant, either. "Go to college or you'll be working the mcdonalds drive-thru at 35" kind of stuff. The brain doesn't stop developing until like 27, so regardless of what society has decided, 18 year olds are still very much children.
We were tricked/manipulated/sometimes outright lied to, and now 3/4 of the $400 payment goes to interest.
I want to pay back what I borrowed, but at 2/3+ just going to interest, the principal never goes down. For many its still more than they borrowed years and years ago. That's what's criminal.