5 ms·

It's hard to imagine a worse policy. It penalizes responsible behavior while doing nothing at all to address the root causes. Are we stopping making more of t

It's hard to imagine a worse policy. It penalizes responsible behavior while doing nothing at all to address the root causes. Are we stopping making more of these loans? Of course not!

malicka 3y ago
Of course root causes should be addressed (chiefly, I believe that tuition should be gratis for public universities), but in the meantime I think this is a perfectly fine policy. It achieves three goals: • Gets people talking about higher education payments. • Eases the financial burden of higher education for some. It should be all, but this is still objectively better than none, provisionally. • Provides good publicity for the political party more inclined to do anything about the root causes (Democrats).
- moralestapia 3y ago
  >Provides good publicity for the political party more inclined to do anything about the root causes (Democrats). This is not only illegal but morally wrong, though.
  - malicka 3y ago
    I disagree — enacting a policy people like and find useful is inherently good publicity. If your city mayors’ initiatives improve your local library, this will make people who visit the library like the mayor more. This doesn’t make improving the library immoral or unethical.
    - moralestapia 3y ago
      No problem with having good publicity as a consequence of, but as a root cause is what makes it morally incorrect since the political party per se shouldn't be an end in itself. Your words, not mine.
- unholythree 3y ago
  I think this will go over poorly in some parts of the democratic coalition. I don’t know that blue collar workers including blacks and hispanics will care for this much, or that centrist suburbanites will like it either. Continuing to loose support in the first group or slowing/receding support in the second could be a serious problem.
Cody-99 3y ago
>It penalizes responsible behavior No it doesn't. That is a ridiculous thing to say. The people who received the cancellation have been paying on their loans for either 10, 20, or 25 years (depending on the degree type).
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  Of course it does. The responsible thing is to only go to a college that you can afford.
  - Cody-99 3y ago
    So only the wealthy get to receive higher education. Good one! I know this is HN but this take goes beyond the typical level of unhinged. Honestly it seems like straight up trolling. Someone who received public loans to attend university and who spent 10, 20, or 25 years paying them off at which point the rest was cancelled isn't really irresponsible.
    - drak0n1c 3y ago
      The original mission of aid has been overrun to the point of being self-defeating. Higher ed is an inflated, bloated mess with a steep opportunity cost measured in time, money, and mindset. There are drawbacks to the narrow white-collar expectations and self-sabotaging ideologies (ie degrowth, critical theory). Why not a sensible in-between? Aid should be merit-based. Both statistically and in my experience growing up at average and poor public schools <5% of the population is gifted and talented at the level where going to college would be a value gain for both them and society. Giving ~50% of youth a perverse incentive towards higher ed is obviously turning out to be destructive for both them and the institutions.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - baggy_trough 3y ago
      If you think that stating that you should not go to a college that you can't afford is "beyond the typical level of unhinged," you must be from a very sheltered corner of the internet. It strikes me as a very common sense and mainstream opinion indeed.

It's hard to imagine a worse policy. It penalizes responsible behavior while doing nothing at all to address the root causes. Are we stopping making more of these loans? Of course not!

malicka 3y ago

Of course root causes should be addressed (chiefly, I believe that tuition should be gratis for public universities), but in the meantime I think this is a perfectly fine policy. It achieves three goals: • Gets people talking about higher education payments. • Eases the financial burden of higher education for some. It should be all, but this is still objectively better than none, provisionally. • Provides good publicity for the political party more inclined to do anything about the root causes (Democrats).

moralestapia 3y ago
>Provides good publicity for the political party more inclined to do anything about the root causes (Democrats). This is not only illegal but morally wrong, though.
- malicka 3y ago
  I disagree — enacting a policy people like and find useful is inherently good publicity. If your city mayors’ initiatives improve your local library, this will make people who visit the library like the mayor more. This doesn’t make improving the library immoral or unethical.
  - moralestapia 3y ago
    No problem with having good publicity as a consequence of, but as a root cause is what makes it morally incorrect since the political party per se shouldn't be an end in itself. Your words, not mine.
unholythree 3y ago
I think this will go over poorly in some parts of the democratic coalition. I don’t know that blue collar workers including blacks and hispanics will care for this much, or that centrist suburbanites will like it either. Continuing to loose support in the first group or slowing/receding support in the second could be a serious problem.

Cody-99 3y ago

>It penalizes responsible behavior No it doesn't. That is a ridiculous thing to say. The people who received the cancellation have been paying on their loans for either 10, 20, or 25 years (depending on the degree type).

baggy_trough 3y ago
Of course it does. The responsible thing is to only go to a college that you can afford.
- Cody-99 3y ago
  So only the wealthy get to receive higher education. Good one! I know this is HN but this take goes beyond the typical level of unhinged. Honestly it seems like straight up trolling. Someone who received public loans to attend university and who spent 10, 20, or 25 years paying them off at which point the rest was cancelled isn't really irresponsible.
  - drak0n1c 3y ago
    The original mission of aid has been overrun to the point of being self-defeating. Higher ed is an inflated, bloated mess with a steep opportunity cost measured in time, money, and mindset. There are drawbacks to the narrow white-collar expectations and self-sabotaging ideologies (ie degrowth, critical theory). Why not a sensible in-between? Aid should be merit-based. Both statistically and in my experience growing up at average and poor public schools <5% of the population is gifted and talented at the level where going to college would be a value gain for both them and society. Giving ~50% of youth a perverse incentive towards higher ed is obviously turning out to be destructive for both them and the institutions.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - baggy_trough 3y ago
    If you think that stating that you should not go to a college that you can't afford is "beyond the typical level of unhinged," you must be from a very sheltered corner of the internet. It strikes me as a very common sense and mainstream opinion indeed.