I'm sure some people like yourself will hold that opinion. I got more analogies. What if the federal government decides to invest an additional 10 billion dollars in cancer research that finds a cure for certain types of cancers that saves thousands of current lives. How is that fair to the cancer patients who died just a mere few years before who couldn't take advantage of the new treatment because our politicans decided to invest 10 billion dollars in new research after their death. How is it fair to previous cancer victims? Students shouldn't be in massive debt because they pursued education that positively effects the economy as it increases the pool of skilled workers. If our society decided that this is the proper course of action, it doesn't magically make it "unfair" to the previous groups of people that couldn't benefit from society's new outlook on education just like it isn't "unfair" to slaves who died as slaves because society decided slavery is wrong after their enslavement and death.
Awesome. More dumb analogies. Slavery - you can’t undo the bondage those folks suffered. You can reimburse people who paid their student loans. People who died of cancer - you can’t bring people back to life. You can reimburse people who paid their student loans.
You're absolutely right they shouldn't be in massive debt. However you are dismissing key points. 1) Its a contract. Cancer isnt. Slavery isnt. Im not sure why this is being thrown into the mix. Its comparing apples to something that has nothing to do with this convo. While we are at it, why dont we give everyone a billion dollars. Nobody will have to work. And it will solve climate change. 2) Again its a contract. Why are we letting, what essentially amounts to children, sign crippling contracts. They are not being educated properly in high school. The ones who are intelligent enough to understand the burden of this contract most often are the ones getting scholarships or find other ways around. 3) Why are children allowed to go into massive debt for degrees that have no value? That is about as ignorant as going to school to be an NBA player. Again, like so many problems, nobody wants to tackle the real issues and instead go all 'free free free' on it.
Dont think this is addressing the problem .... the article mentions something in the last paragraph that's all but paramount to the discussion. I think , you are a prime example of the institutional problem we have created here - with your expectations of being able to live quite well post graduation and the struggle to actually do that .... feeling like you've been sold a bill of goods that doesn't fit the description. And to some degree you have been .... Upward mobility doesn't coincide with that degree you worked for and now have to pay off. Then you stop and think - where would I be without that degree and debt - Odds are you wouldn't be making your current salary .... What's happened here is your degree has been cheapened by the sheer volume of people who are able to go to college in your generation .... because government "made it affordable" (not really , they just guaranteed the loans) prices continue to increase and so does the burden of debt. Now there are more people with these degree's than there are jobs in those fields. 30 years ago you'd have come out of school and done well , found life comfortable - just isn't the case today. Those schools - outside of state schools - are "For Profit Institutions" .... They are about the bottom line and are going to squeeze every last drop of juice out of that lemon that they can and the government "making it affordable" really isn't helping the situation. Are they really making it affordable when you are spending a third of your life repaying the debt. Sure , a lot more people are able to experience college ... but at what cost ? Businesses aren't helping the situation either when they require X years of college for .... answering the phones or other mindless tasks. Why jobs like cops and firefighters require college is beyond me - just seems silly , especially when they are put though rigorous training prior to being put on the job. And think about this - what job doesn't require some OTJT ? Who the hell walks onto a job day one and knows everything there is to know and how a particular company may operate differently than another .... That degree probably didn't reduce the amount of time spent learning the job. Yeah , you've been sold a bill of goods that doesn't fit the description and the gubmint is complicit. They've created a society captive to paying these "for profit schools" to exploit them. How do you fix it ? .... that's a tough question. How you get companies to not require college for the majority of jobs when they require it for mopping the floor is .... going to be hard to reverse. I think you start with some subsidies or tax breaks / credits for hiring people without college degrees .... reduce the demand on the employee to have that degree to get into "quality jobs." Think about it - how many of the people in any company could be replaced by someone without that 4 years of college and never miss a beat ?
I think there is still a chance that Sanders will pick Warren for VP despite her stunt which seems to have not helped her and perhaps even hurt her. Sanders is a more mature policy driven individual and is really more interested in advancing progressive causes than he is personally being president. There are reports that the Sanders camp has researched and found out that Warren could be both VP and say Secretary of the Treasury.
Am I supposed to think that the top professor in her field in the country, in the top university in the world making $200,000 a year is an outrage? Especially living in one of the most expensive states?
How so? 1/5 of all Americans voting age or older owe student loan debt. 1/3 of Americans that owe student loan debt owe at least $50,000. Americans over 55 with outstanding student loan debt have seen their numbers sky rocket over the last decade. That is an enormous number of voters with a strong interest in loan forgiveness. That is 45 million Americans. Only 135 million Americans voted in the 2016 election.
I think Trump should campaign on free housing for everyone, the more exuberant the better since he is in real estate. What ya think?
That's your opinion. That video has gone viral and has brought an extremely difficult question, about one of her policies that before she hadn't been forced to address, to the fore. She has subsequently been asked followed up question and been forced to give nonanswers and look ridiculous. Especially given her markedly poor behavior in the aforementioned video. I can't see how that's a good thing for her. Laughing in the guys face and acting condescending and dismissive. Given the sacrifices and hardships so many have endured and continue to endure related to the cost of education, It's disturbingly inappropriate. When asked if she was "saying tough luck" to those people, she said "No," but went into a story about how she was given a shot to go to college even though her family "had no money." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elizab...ter-angry-dad-confronts-her-on-student-loans/ So, she says "no" but then doesn't answer the question and goes off on some anecdotal story about her life. So, she really is saying, "tough luck" for those people. I don't think that plays well.
Because, like I mentioned in the previous post, Bernie and Warren have been able to skate by on this issue without being forced to address the more uncomfortable realities of their position. Those uncomfortable realities have now been blown wide open and at least so far, she has had to field questions about them. Now, I think it's a thing that's not going to go away. In fact we may even see a debate question regarding those left behind in her student loan cancellation plan. It seems as if your post makes a number of massive assumptions here about how people with student loan debt feel about their debt and public policy related to that debt. Just because you have student loan debt, doesn't mean you're in favor of government forgiveness. There are also massive amounts of people like the Iowa dad who have a very different feeling about student loan forgiveness. Those people, obviously, are motivated too. It's a contentious issue and that contention was never brought to the fore before the Iowa dad video and now I think it will be. Bernie and Warren are gonna be hit with hard questions about it moving forward at some point and I don't think the answer of, "sucks to suck if you did the right thing and paid your loans making you massively poorer over the course of your life compared to the folks who didn't" is going to go over very well. There is very much a fairness question at play here and people, generally, have a good nose for fairness.
The fairness argument has been around forever and depending on your political persuasion has been used by both parties. Indeed Sanders and Warren both are running on “fairness” on income inequality. Donald Trump is running on “fairness” with his desire to deport Mexicans and limit immigration. Ask yourself, how many people who had their college education paid for by a relative or paid a relatives college were ever going to vote for Warren or Sanders anyway. Will everyone with student loans vote for Sanders or Warren? Of course not, but a lot of them will. A lot of seniors still are paying student loans. When someone tells you they will push for $50,000 a year of student loan forgiven, that is a really strong incentive for loan holders to support Warren/Sanders. It also will likely motivate non voters that have loans to support Warren/Sanders and vote. The fairness complaint on this is interesting. There are changes to the law all the time that suddenly financially benefit a group or punish other people. When the Earned Income Tax credit was passed, where people in droves angry? Same with the GI Bill and other laws. I do believe it will upset people but not many people that would ever vote for Sanders/Warren. As far as the costs, that has been my concern from day one and it is why I do not anticipate voting for Sanders. I will say this, with what Trump got away with; just wait for Sanders if he is elected. Trump has kicked the door down on executive power. It goes both ways.... Many Democrats will be happy to see Sanders make changes that would not have been even attempted pre Trump. Republicans will be aghast and fail to realize what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
1. I don't think those other questions regarding fairness are apt analogies for this issue and I'm not interested in going down a massive "fairness" rabbit hole with it. 2. I think this is somewhat disingenuous because it does not mention all the folks who took out loans who paid them back themselves. Those people will be an exceptionally large part of the electorate themselves. Many will favor loan forgiveness but many will also feel they've been cheated for doing the right thing to a degree. I think moderates, folks in places like Iowa will definitely reflect on the issue now regarding the fairness to those folks who sacrificed so much and Warren and Bernie are dismissive of them and offer them 0. That guys anger was real and not unjustified. He isn't alone. 3. These are suppositions. We don't know how motivating it will be for supporters of loan forgiveness vs. non-supporters. I could just as easily argue this is a regressive policy many people will find grossly unfair and will oppose it vehemently. 4. I don't think your analogies, like any of the analogies commonly floated, cancer, slavery.. etc... are on point. 5. I think answering questions like the one posited by the Iowa dad are very much questions they don't want to have to answer and yes, I think moderates can be won and lost with such questions. 6. I find it interesting that most Bernie/Warren supporters and certainly the ones in here, have no problem with the cost of essentially anything to the tune's of 10's of trillions but when I posit a question about helping those who will be massively poorer over the course of their life out because they did the right thing and paid their debts they suddenly lose their voice with regards to cost. 7. Sure, both parties regularly make hypocrites of themselves. When one side has the Presidency, the other will complain about the limits of that office. Dems complaining about Trumps executive power now will be hypocrites when they won't say anything about it if/when a Democrat is elected and Republicans will be hypocrites when they complain about a Democratic President's use of executive powers. To say one party is more at fault then the others is biased and incorrect IMO.
We will have to disagree. There is nothing special or unique about student loans. I never said he is alone. There will be people that claim it isn't fair and most of them were never going to vote for Sanders or Warren anyway. So their opinion on the issue doesn't mean much from a political stand point. Also all those people that are upset, will be out numbered by the 45,000,000 people hoping their loans are forgiven. Sure, you could say that but it wouldn't make much sense. People that are paying hundreds of dollars (if not thousands of dollars) each month for decades are going to be really damn motivated to support someone that will get rid of their loan obligations. You are entitled to your opinion. Of course they don't want to answer the question. There are lots of questions candidates do not want to answer. The President doesn't want to answer questions about the Ukraine and a host of other topics. Sanders doesn't want to answer how the hell he will pay for everything he is proposing. He has dodged the question for a decade and thus far it hasn't destroyed his appeal. It is the central reason I do not support him. Okay? How is that unique. That is politics. There are lots of things that are not fair in public discourse and there is no real response. To be clear I am not a Sanders supporter. There is no way he can afford what he is proposing. However, what he is saying in many ways is no different that the current President making absurd promises about job growth and other topics. If I were to play devils advocate and were a Sanders supporter, I would likely try to argue that erasing the student loan issue would result in economic growth that would benefit everyone and accordingly is the greater good..... it is a simplistic approach but whatever. No, the testing and the expansion of executive powers has been extreme. Both Bush and Obama really stretched the powers but not like Trump has. Some people are fine with that, and others are not......... everyone just has to realize that the rules of the game have changed... and more extreme candidates that get themselves in a position to be elected are going to have an easier time causing tangible change.
When it comes to cancelling student debt you can cite a $1.4 billion figure or whatever. Truth is a lot of it will never be paid back. I saw a figure that 30% is already not being paid on. More and more folks are having their social securitychecks garnished to pay back their student loans. Sorry to inform you, conservatives, but the law only permits 15% to be garnished and it might not be doing much more than paying interest. Maybe you can have your boy Trump bump it up to 50% to teach these seniors a lesson and build up their moral fiber.
If you're so interested in spending $1.7 trillion to get rid of current student loans make it $5 trillion to reimburse those who paid theirs back. What's wrong with that?
