6 ms·

> Investing in Americans education is single handedly the best investment America can make as a country. Loan forgiveness is not an investment in education

oddtuple 3y ago
Yes, yes it is
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  Having loan forgiveness policy is an investment in education. One time loan forgiving of people who already gotten education is not. A thought upon budget allotment and condition for loan forgiveness every year is significantly better than spending it in one go for publicity.
  - oddtuple 3y ago
    Why not both?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > One time loan forgiving of people who already gotten education is not. The one time forgiveness was adopted roughly simultaneously with reforms to lending and, particularly, repayment programs designed to ameliorate the creation of the same debt problem, it wasn’t a policy adopted by itself in a vacuum.
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      I am not fully aware of the context and I couldn't even find it. Could you send some links for "reforms to lending and, particularly, repayment programs designed to ameliorate the creation of the same debt problem"?
- robomartin 3y ago
  >> Loan forgiveness is not an investment in education > Yes, yes it is No. It most definitely is not. It's paying off a bunch of loans that people freely agreed to accept in exchange for their chosen degree. It's the abdication of all responsibility. It's the creation of a society where commitments mean nothing. It is also rewarding behavior that isn't constructive and, devoid of consequences, is caustic. Plenty of us have taken-on these commitments and worked hard for decades making good on our agreement and paying off the loans. What entitles this generation to behave as children when they should behave as adults? How about we pay off half of everyone's mortgages then and call it an investment? I guarantee that would have far greater impact than the student loan bailout? And, BTW, after you pay off my mortgage, I get to keep living in my house forever. Because, well, if we pay off someone's student loan/s, they get to keep the degree and use it to make money. The whole thing is laughable. Want to fix student loans? Get government out of that business ASAP. The minute loans don't have that guarantee, the cost of education will drop precipitously. The other thing that is important is to remove non-degree coursework as graduation requirements. Someone going for an engineering degree has to spend about one full year on coursework having nothing to do with engineering. One way to look at this is that, in the US, 25% of your student loan is for shit that is not going to help get you hired. Or that 25% of your loan isn't for engineering coursework. Being that this is a requirement for graduation, this means that this unnecessary 25% of the cost of the degree is being imposed on every single student. That's wrong.
  - Freedom2 3y ago
    > It's the creation of a society where commitments mean nothing. What about accepting risks? Should those who used SVB have been bailed out?
    - robomartin 3y ago
      > Should those who used SVB have been bailed out? No. Absolutely and most definitely not.
      - Freedom2 3y ago
- glimshe 3y ago
  The courses were taken, the education was received. This would just transfer the cost of already provided services to the general taxpayer. It would make nobody more educated as a result.
  - oddtuple 3y ago
    How would it cost the taxpayer more? Can you explain? The money has already been spent, and it’s already being collected in the form of taxes on those individuals whom are now earning more thanks to education. Why would we need more taxes?
    - glimshe 3y ago
      That's why I said "general taxpayer". It would be paid by people other than the ones receiving the education. You might argue this is how things should be, but it's still not an "investment in education". If you are trying to argue that the increased tax levied on the particular indebted people with a better education adds up to the exact amount they owed, someone would have to prove that. Additionally, this additional tax from better education was never intended by Congress, when the tax rate was calculated, to go to paying anyone's previous education debt. So other services (arguably benefitting the entire population) would have to be preempted to pay for it. Either way, you'd have someone else paying for the debt.
      - oddtuple 3y ago
        Reposting so others don’t feed into this propaganda. The talking point that loan forgiveness would “raise taxes” is at best dubious. Here is one, of many studies that dispute it https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf
  - oddtuple 3y ago
    This is a common attitude, and an understandable one, but it’s very much at odds with the research. There are more studies and discussions, but this is one of them highlighting how this is a nothing burger https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf

oddtuple 3y ago

Yes, yes it is

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
Having loan forgiveness policy is an investment in education. One time loan forgiving of people who already gotten education is not. A thought upon budget allotment and condition for loan forgiveness every year is significantly better than spending it in one go for publicity.
- oddtuple 3y ago
  Why not both?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > One time loan forgiving of people who already gotten education is not. The one time forgiveness was adopted roughly simultaneously with reforms to lending and, particularly, repayment programs designed to ameliorate the creation of the same debt problem, it wasn’t a policy adopted by itself in a vacuum.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    I am not fully aware of the context and I couldn't even find it. Could you send some links for "reforms to lending and, particularly, repayment programs designed to ameliorate the creation of the same debt problem"?
robomartin 3y ago
>> Loan forgiveness is not an investment in education > Yes, yes it is No. It most definitely is not. It's paying off a bunch of loans that people freely agreed to accept in exchange for their chosen degree. It's the abdication of all responsibility. It's the creation of a society where commitments mean nothing. It is also rewarding behavior that isn't constructive and, devoid of consequences, is caustic. Plenty of us have taken-on these commitments and worked hard for decades making good on our agreement and paying off the loans. What entitles this generation to behave as children when they should behave as adults? How about we pay off half of everyone's mortgages then and call it an investment? I guarantee that would have far greater impact than the student loan bailout? And, BTW, after you pay off my mortgage, I get to keep living in my house forever. Because, well, if we pay off someone's student loan/s, they get to keep the degree and use it to make money. The whole thing is laughable. Want to fix student loans? Get government out of that business ASAP. The minute loans don't have that guarantee, the cost of education will drop precipitously. The other thing that is important is to remove non-degree coursework as graduation requirements. Someone going for an engineering degree has to spend about one full year on coursework having nothing to do with engineering. One way to look at this is that, in the US, 25% of your student loan is for shit that is not going to help get you hired. Or that 25% of your loan isn't for engineering coursework. Being that this is a requirement for graduation, this means that this unnecessary 25% of the cost of the degree is being imposed on every single student. That's wrong.
- Freedom2 3y ago
  > It's the creation of a society where commitments mean nothing. What about accepting risks? Should those who used SVB have been bailed out?
  - robomartin 3y ago
    > Should those who used SVB have been bailed out? No. Absolutely and most definitely not.
    - Freedom2 3y ago
glimshe 3y ago
The courses were taken, the education was received. This would just transfer the cost of already provided services to the general taxpayer. It would make nobody more educated as a result.
- oddtuple 3y ago
  How would it cost the taxpayer more? Can you explain? The money has already been spent, and it’s already being collected in the form of taxes on those individuals whom are now earning more thanks to education. Why would we need more taxes?
  - glimshe 3y ago
    That's why I said "general taxpayer". It would be paid by people other than the ones receiving the education. You might argue this is how things should be, but it's still not an "investment in education". If you are trying to argue that the increased tax levied on the particular indebted people with a better education adds up to the exact amount they owed, someone would have to prove that. Additionally, this additional tax from better education was never intended by Congress, when the tax rate was calculated, to go to paying anyone's previous education debt. So other services (arguably benefitting the entire population) would have to be preempted to pay for it. Either way, you'd have someone else paying for the debt.
    - oddtuple 3y ago
      Reposting so others don’t feed into this propaganda. The talking point that loan forgiveness would “raise taxes” is at best dubious. Here is one, of many studies that dispute it https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf
- oddtuple 3y ago
  This is a common attitude, and an understandable one, but it’s very much at odds with the research. There are more studies and discussions, but this is one of them highlighting how this is a nothing burger https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf