Where else is the money coming from if not the tax payer?
Comment on Biden to defy Supreme Court in second attempt at sweeping student loan handout
Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca 8 months agoI don’t think this is an actual explanation of anything.
If anybody has any suggestions on where I can read up on this I’d be grateful. I think most news articles I have read are very scare on details and I’m interested in more in-depth than “debt bad, Biden good” or conversely “Biden bad, system fine”
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 8 months ago
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 8 months ago
cato.org/…/top-five-reasons-federal-student-debt-…
Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
The Cato Institute, formerly the Koch Foundation? Thanks but I was hoping for something with less of a “let’s exploit the working class” slant to it.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Here is Forbes.
forbes.com/…/5-reasons-why-student-loan-forgivene…
Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
Ok let’s look at this.
Is this a serious objection? Because I can remember a string of republican administrations back to Reagan that were very much in favor of tax cuts that disproportionately benefited wealthier Americans. Of course unfair benefits to wealthier Americans go back much farther than that, but I can only remember back to Reagan, and the destruction of the manufacturing sector in America and mass unemployment of Reganomics. I feel like this could be the beginning of when college diplomas started to become more expensive, and less valuable.
Looking at the broader picture: it is the whole system that has always disproportionately benefitted wealthier Americans. So this objection reads like: hey it’s not fair if he does what we have all been doing for the last 248 years! So really it’s those inherently unjust systemic power structures that should be dismantled, but democrats aren’t interested in that. Democrats collaborate with those inherently unjust power structures all the time, so fair criticism there, comrade.
I haven’t read the text of the Higher Education Act of 1965 but supposedly it “empowers the secretary of education to “compromise, waive, or release federal student loans”. So far I haven’t seen any legal analysis on that, just people saying “he can’t do that” without any justification for the claim, as in this article.
Now here is some logic I truly don’t understand: This is bad for america because it helps rich people and it’s not legal and going to wreck the economy and cause the price of bread to rise to ten million dollars a loaf, and also, it ought to be much bigger and broader in scope. What?
Included in this section:
Civil servants and the permanently disabled? Are these the wealthy people getting the disproportionate benefits? So it seems like theses arguments contradict themselves.
I don’t really see any compelling evidence this will significantly increase inflation. Lots of doom talk about it but I don’t see it having a huge effect on the American economy either way. Yes I know you can find an economist who will predict a big jump in inflation and you can also find an equal number that say it won’t, or that " there’s too many moving parts" to make a reliable prediction.
To be clear: I don’t think it will have a big negative effect, and in reading and thinking about it I have come to believe it won’t have a much of a positive effect on America as a whole. It will certainly benefit the possibly 40% of people with student debt that didn’t get a degree.
Ok? So? Did someone claim it would? H.R.7836 if passed into law won’t lower the price that hardworking Americans are paying for basketballs, yet somehow this bill still got introduced.
Or is the objection really that student debt relief doesn’t address the deeper problem that a 4 year degree is largely unaffordable for most Americans, and for many that do go into debt and get their degrees they often can’t find jobs in their chosen field, but are still saddled with burdensome debt. So this is a position I can get behind, however it seem to be an admission that the current system is not fine. I already addressed this in section 1.
If people are incentivized to apply for student loans and those that qualify actually get degrees and increase their income and find they have to pay back their loans afterall… this will somehow destroy democracy? I’m not clear on that.
I’m kidding of course. Graduates are having an increasingly difficult time finding jobs. What is the practical difference tho, between getting a loan you think you won’t have to pay back, and getting a loan for a degree you are tricked into thinking will pay for itself, but doesn’t?
Ok, but what message does it send to be in debt for a degree that doesn’t seem to benefit you? Here is another recent Forbes article: forbes.com/…/why-is-it-so-hard-for-recent-college…
It gives such advice as securing internships and engaging in volunteer work. When you have monthly payments to make? Seems like it’s easier to get a job working for free when you’re not in debt for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It also advises “Enrolling in professional development courses,” -even though you’re in debt you need to spend more on classes because the last 4 years of classes weren’t actually enough. What’s the message there? It might as well advise you to ask your dad to check if any of his friends at the country-club are hiring.
Where does “personal responsibility” come in when “the importance of getting a good education” actually means being taken advantage of in a market so saturated with deplomas it’s not a good ROE?
At any rate, argument #5 has nothing to do with whether student debt relief is a good or bad idea, because it doesn’t meaningfully address the consequences of the policy. “It sends the wrong message” is moralizing nonsense without pointing to a practical effect.
As usual, I have written too long of a post that no-one will read.
TLDR:
My conclusion: despite dire predictions, student loan relief is probably not going to have much effect one way or the other. It is largely a performance for the purpose of getting votes. (I can hear several of you loudly saying “DUH!”) This is something that both democrats and republicans are guilty of, as a normal part of American campaign politics. God bless America.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Facts are facts. We tend to lean on conservative sources here