One additional item of note is that Texas refuses to do tuition reciprocity. Minnesota has tuition reciprocity with all of the surrounding states so kids here get in state tuition in four other states. We also have tuition reciprocity with Manitoba in Canada so kids here can get even cheaper tuition there (its only about 3000 USD a year to go to the University of Manitoba).
I mean, if you paid off everyone's house mortgage, that would be economic stimulus too. Paying off student debt is a wealth transfer to a specific group who may be very well compensated in the future. Is it in our interest to transfer $200,000 to a person with a M.D. or a J.D. who has a big future earnings potential? There are a lot of more worthy causes. You could use that money to benefit the homeless, or other groups in society, or investing in infrastructure, etc.
I honestly believe it's immoral for a society to burden someone in massive debt for pursing an education since as a society we want people to be educated. I'm assuming you are against any form of bailout or stimulus as a bailout for consumers is much more effective. Homeownership is definitely also another issue. The average value of a new home adjusted right after WW2 is nearly 3 times smaller than it is today. I actually do believe in some sort of reprrations for homeownership for the black community due to what happened to them right after ww2 were they were denied these cheap mortgage opportunities.
Is immoral really what you feel, there? People make a choice to take out student loans. It's really immoral to ask them to pay back the loans they asked for? Again, these education choices are made at the individual level because the person thinks they are going to benefit in the long term based on going to school. Look at the 25-year-old who's gone to law school and has $200k in loans, versus the 25-year-old who did not go to college and works a retail job. If you have one six-figure check to give out, why is it the former and not the latter? Isn't the latter going to be at least as likely to make use of the money and stimulate the economy in doing so? It's not that I'm against stimulus or bailouts. It's that I think it should be targeted specifically at those groups that have been affected by the coronavirus - for example those who have lost their jobs, or lost their business. Paying off loans is not specifically targeted at those groups. It's a different group (I'm guessing you are included) that would like their own bailout, not specifically tied to the worldwide pandemic. Frankly it's an interesting conversation for another day when we have dealt with this issue, but there are actually people (and industries) suffering from the virus who need help now.
All student loan forgiveness is income based. If you are a lawyer I assume your making over 6 figures or are on your way soon. The student loan forgiveness is mainly for lower income people main g less than 80k. So no, we aren't forgiving student loans of people who can easily repay their loans with high income. To me it's not just the right thing to do, it's the pragamtic thing to do. Right now we are at historic rates for adults over 25 living with their parents and we have the lowest new homeownership rate for people under 40. More and more Americans are going to live a life of being renters gaining no equity. The American dream is near dead if these trends continue. We've been conditioned to accept corporate bailouts and corporate subsidies but the moment we discuss bailouts for the regular citizen we suddenly b**** about fairness. It shows how well our media system had conditioned is to believe this way. How about we have gdp growth for the first time in decades based in increased spending by consumers based in increased disposable income rather than increasing spending by the consumer by racking up consumer debt for a change?
Same old issue with this topic. It's going to leave out a whole class of people who are equally or more deserving then those who will benefit. Those who were too young to get cheap tuition but too old to benefit from forgiveness. Those folks who had the misfortune of being born in the middle ground are just totally forgotten and left behind. They will be substantially poorer over the course of their lifetime then those who came before and those who will come after because of it. Do something for them too. They deserve the economic benefits just as much, if not more then the current borrowers.
Of course. We have to tackle the cost of higher education for future students and resolve the current debt. It's a two sided front.
That fails to address the people I referenced though. That's the problem. Nobody ever proposes anything to help the people I referenced.
As a society there will always be people like this when a new proggesive policy is inplented. Should I feel offended that I served and almost had my leg blown off for free college and others might have their college debt forgiven? Honestly there isn't a bone in my body that is jelous so I assume anyone else who have these feelings have character flaws they personally need to overcome. I want progress. We can't have progress if every time a new proggesive idea is passed we have to worry about the people who didn't benefit from it because we didn't impliment it earlier.
But we can address those people. It's an allocation of resources. You are arbitrarily deciding to use them all for some and not for others. It's not good enough to say, "well sorry you were born between 1980-1995, you're just ****ed." and Johnny born in 1998 is going to be way better off then you.
You have a very populist argument about helping the "regular citizen" but you still haven't acknowledged that this program doesn't, in fact, do that. It's targeted to a specific group - those with a college education and resulting student loan. There are lots of folks who don't have either, but nonetheless need help. This isn't a discussion of "corporate bailouts" versus "regular citizen bailouts" - this is a bailout for a specific interest group, young people with college loans. (And there are lots of lawyers who make less than 80k for the first several years of their practice.) If you really wanted to just bailout the everyday person, why not just give *everyone* a check, or *everyone who makes below X dollars* a check? The student loan thing happens to benefit you, so you're in favor. If it was more broadly targeted, your share would probably be lower.
Young people with college loans is one of the largest reasons why homeownership rates for people under 40 are at record lows and why we have record rates of people over 25 having to live with their parents. And it isn't populism. It's basic understanding of economics and how money travels. A person struggling pay check to paycheck has more avenues to spend any added money into the economy as now instead of being able to afford 1 day a week of eating out, they might be able to afford 2. The wealthier one is the more likely they are going to save the money because there is a threshold where you have enough wealth were any increase in said wealth isn't going to change your spending habits and lifestyle. We can walk and chew gum. Just because middle class people burdened by college debt are going to recieve a bailout doesn't mean the poor aren't going to recieve help. We need to tackle the cost of healthcare and housing also.
Why is student loan debt forgiveness the only way we help people. Those people will see benefits of proggesive polices through tackling cost of housing and healthcare. They already paid their student loan debt. Are you stating we should give them a refund for the debt they paid? Like I said, we haven't done that with many other social programs and bailouts where we don't push them out because a group of people are past the time to benefit from it and will feel jealous.
I very well might be but I would appreciate it if you didn't insult my intelligence and assumed I couldn't handle an explication of your counter argument.
No. I got paid to go to school with the GI Bill and BAH stipends. I don't have any student loan debt.
Bingo. It's easy to quantify it too. The records are all there. Give all those who paid federal student loans back their money. Why should Johnny born in 1998 get all that free money and not Marge born in 1991? I'm all ears to a good reason to why we shouldn't do that or why Marge isn't just as deserving. Simply stating, "we haven't done that before" is not a good reason to not do it here. Explain why we shouldn't do that here.
