3 ms·

No one once in this topic has said "exclusively due to immoral choices".

• overthemoon 7y ago
  You framed it as people who don't deserve a break--for reasons related to values like prudence and thrift--getting a break anyway. Fine. If some people did act virtuously but are still in tons of debt, in what way do they not deserve a break? Why bring up the Goofus and Gallant scenario at all? The question isn't whether people deserve loan forgiveness, it's a question of what's good for society as a whole.
  • collidge 7y ago
    "You framed it as people who don't deserve a break". I'm quite sure you can't find a quote where I did this. But anyway, you're focusing on this from a different point of view from the people you're arguing against. It's important to take note that there are (at least) 3 groups of people with interest in this conversation: people who've paid off their debt, people who have not paid off their debt because they've been unable to, and people who've not paid off their debt because they did not want to. Those who've paid their debt are pointing out that it's unfair to retroactively support those who did not make the same frugal choices. (This is sort of what you're arguing against) Those who are in debt because they are hard up for reasons beyond their control are arguing for paying off debt for anyone who has it. I understand your interest at stake in saying we should forgive the debt. But you're being disingenuous if you ignore the point of the first group of people. Instead of hashing out what's fair, let's give tax progressively and give a stimulus to everyone. This has the same benefit to those in debt, but avoids both the unfairness we're talking about and requires less government expense in paying accountants to determine who should get the benefit (because everyone gets it automatically).