The Biden administration announced Friday that 804,000 borrowers will have their student debt wiped away, totaling $39 billion worth of debt, in the coming weeks due to fixes that more accurately count qualified monthly payments under existing income-driven repayment plans.
I was about to respond to the points you were making in your prior paragraph, but you saved me a lot of time.
I’d argue that providing me with more free cash flow is better than someone with a low income job.
There it is. How surprising in your careful analysis its your specific circumstances that should benefit over those that have less than you, possibly living in poverty or those that have more than you.
We shouldn’t subsidize lack of motivation or irresponsible procreation by people that can’t afford it.
Ohhh, you need to be careful with this line of thinking. You’re defining that higher income is the one metric for determining whether someone is worthy to receive benefits. By your own measure, as you listed here:
I’ve finally gotten to a good salary, but had to endure unnecessary financial constraints.
…and…
Definitely not having kids. Can’t afford that for sure.
… you took on irresponsible debt that made you poor, and you can’t afford kids. By your measure you’d be irresponsible in procreating. By your own measures we should be giving money to people that are less irresponsible more motivated to receive benefits. Your logic argues that benefits would be wasted on you because of your past choices and income. Now, I don’t buy into any of that.
I believe in quite a few areas of spending that benefits both everyone, and specific groups in certain circumstances which we are able to target with laws or regulation to affect positive change. That includes benefits you likely qualify for, but not to the exclusion of everyone else just because you don’t benefit.
The government loan was predatory. Was too young to understand the implications of the decision and had no baseline data to judge other than some examples that they provided as to what the salary expectations of someone coming out of the school would be and how long it would take to pay off the loan based upon that. Lo and behold, the government examples were totally unreasonable. The whole thing was a scam by the government in cahoots with higher institutions. Universities are extremely expensive because they know the government will fund the loans. I would have rather the government said no to me than offering a loan that was the equivalent of taking on 100k in credit card debt. People that say that the government protects you by taking their loans are full of it. The government makes sure their loans supersede bankruptcy. You are right that everyone’s circumstances are different. I do feel that certain people are less deserving in the same way you feel that I am. The only thing that would be fair is to treat everyone equally. Fiscal liberals want equity over equality and that’s kind of annoying because it creates classes of people. If we go that route, expect there to be criticism that some classes are not as worthy. I don’t agree with that, but if you are not going to treat everyone equally, then let’s have fun deciding who is worthy enough of my tax money. In my opinion people who pop out babies with no remorse shouldn’t get handouts.
I was about to respond to the points you were making in your prior paragraph, but you saved me a lot of time.
There it is. How surprising in your careful analysis its your specific circumstances that should benefit over those that have less than you, possibly living in poverty or those that have more than you.
Ohhh, you need to be careful with this line of thinking. You’re defining that higher income is the one metric for determining whether someone is worthy to receive benefits. By your own measure, as you listed here:
…and…
… you took on irresponsible debt that made you poor, and you can’t afford kids. By your measure you’d be irresponsible in procreating. By your own measures we should be giving money to people that are less irresponsible more motivated to receive benefits. Your logic argues that benefits would be wasted on you because of your past choices and income. Now, I don’t buy into any of that.
I believe in quite a few areas of spending that benefits both everyone, and specific groups in certain circumstances which we are able to target with laws or regulation to affect positive change. That includes benefits you likely qualify for, but not to the exclusion of everyone else just because you don’t benefit.
The government loan was predatory. Was too young to understand the implications of the decision and had no baseline data to judge other than some examples that they provided as to what the salary expectations of someone coming out of the school would be and how long it would take to pay off the loan based upon that. Lo and behold, the government examples were totally unreasonable. The whole thing was a scam by the government in cahoots with higher institutions. Universities are extremely expensive because they know the government will fund the loans. I would have rather the government said no to me than offering a loan that was the equivalent of taking on 100k in credit card debt. People that say that the government protects you by taking their loans are full of it. The government makes sure their loans supersede bankruptcy. You are right that everyone’s circumstances are different. I do feel that certain people are less deserving in the same way you feel that I am. The only thing that would be fair is to treat everyone equally. Fiscal liberals want equity over equality and that’s kind of annoying because it creates classes of people. If we go that route, expect there to be criticism that some classes are not as worthy. I don’t agree with that, but if you are not going to treat everyone equally, then let’s have fun deciding who is worthy enough of my tax money. In my opinion people who pop out babies with no remorse shouldn’t get handouts.