Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Plan Is An Illegal Scheme To Buy Back Young Votes

[RocksInMyHead]

Why not decide who is the most needy in our society and pay them off rather than violate orders of the Supreme Court and pay off those with student loans?

We do that already - it's called welfare. Food stamps, housing assistance, TANF, Medicaid, etc. I'd be all for increasing funding to those programs though.

Why pay off the loans of attorneys and Congressional staff who will make a lot of money in the future? A lot of people are suffering under Bidenomics, struggling to pay for groceries and rent.

The people who are currently eligible for relief (and those who the latest plan targets) are generally not people who stand to make a lot of money in the future. So far, relief has been granted to those who were already enrolled in debt forgiveness programs (generally extended to public employees in exchange for a certain number of years of service) that were not functioning as intended, and those who were defrauded by their schools. The latest plan extends that to forgive a certain amount of interest (not principle) for all borrowers, covering people who are eligible for existing debt forgiveness programs but haven't enrolled, forgiving remaining balance on people who have been making payments for over 20 years, forgiving balance for borrowers experiencing financial hardship, and forgiving balances for those who went to schools that have since closed or lost accreditation (aka "low financial value" degrees).

The only measure that targets all borrowers is the interest forgiveness.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I might buy that argument if the education actually benefited society for the cost. However it's pretty hard to swallow that when the kid graduates with a degree he can't actually get a job for so now we are coughing up money for things that aren't actually doing anything. Just another example of foolish waste.

I thought people who went to college got taught critical thinking skills. Going to college on my dime only to waste it, Well That doesn't sound like good critical thinking to me.

The value provided by the education is a separate topic. I was specifically referring to the value provided by alleviating the debt that student borrowers have already accrued and are making payments on. Read the rest of the post that you quoted.

 

[Always in His Presence]

There are two ways to justify it:

Perhaps - let's look -

The first is that it just takes a minimum amount of food, shelter, health care, transportation, etc. to enable the worker to provide the labor required by their job. In a functioning market without certain distortions, wages would meet or exceed that threshold. The power imbalance in most labor situations (especially at the low end) distorts that market and often drives wages below the threshold. A minimum wage seeks to prevent that. If you don't understand why $20/hr is appropriate in California, then perhaps you fail to appreciate from your perch in Oklahoma just how expensive it is to live there.

I'm torn between laughing and weeping over the statement.

The mass exodus from California is continuing because people are fed up with the cost of living and the repressive taxes. Think about this for just a second. The State that creates some of the greatest wealth and has perhaps the most progressive social structure in programs to help the poor and drug addicts etc. is also loosing citizens by the thousands. Why? Should not that combination of billions and billions of dollars and social programs make it one of the most desirable places to live?

Is it possible the government supports the rise to 40,000 a year minimum wage, at least partially, for the increase in tax revenues. This move will increase the cost of production system wide - wages are part of production costs - raise the wages - production costs go up. Oh, look again - things cost more there is more tax revenue received at sale.

Now - they are taxing people on their possessions and if you move out - they tax you on moving out. How people cannot see that makes me weep.

The second was it's justified is by recognizing the fact that the job requires a person to do it. We're not talking about widgets. We're talking about people, and like it or not, our society attaches a great deal of dignity and pride to the ability to provide for one's self.

That is why so many LEGAL immigrants come to experience the American Dream. They might start in entry level minimum wage jobs, but many times they work their way out into better and better levels. The pride you speak of is when you accomplish goals.

And grinding the lowest wages possible out of workers is demeaning.

I never found it demeaning working at McDonald's going through High School and then through four years of college. I showed up on time - did more than what was asked for and guess what?! I wasn't minimum wage after high school - still at McDonald's but not at the bottom of the pay scale. When I graduated with my Bachelors they offered me a store. I moved to a different job so I could go after my Masters -

Your side might try to restrict its comments to "the job" being worth a certain amount (though, as recent threads have illustrated, many don't even bother with that), but in doing so, you're still dehumanizing those workers.

Your side might try to drive small minority owned business out of existence by making operating costs so high they cant succeed, but there are other states that do not - those are the ones people from California are leaving for.

Think about it for just a min.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Real simple you took out the loan you pay for it. NOW if someone has paid for say twenty years, has never ONCE defaulted then I can see forgiving the remaining balance as you have done your time (they already have programs like that for the record.)

 

[Always in His Presence]

The government cannot forgive loans that it did not make.

The government doesn't make the loans - they guarantee the loans. The loans are made through companies like Credible Private Student Loans: Compare Top Lenders | April 2024

It is you and I who pay that loan ck through our taxes.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The government doesn't make the loans - they guarantee the loans. The loans are made through companies like Credible Private Student Loans: Compare Top Lenders | April 2024

It is you and I who pay that loan ck through our taxes.

There are both public and private student loans. That site specifically refers to private loans, which are not included in any student loan forgiveness programs.

These are the ones that are covered: https://studentaid.gov/help-center/answers/article/stafford-loan

 

[rambot]

Perhaps - let's look -

I'm torn between laughing and weeping over the statement.

But that doesn't make it incorrect.

The mass exodus from California is continuing because people are fed up with the cost of living and the repressive taxes. Think about this for just a second. The State that creates some of the greatest wealth and has perhaps the most progressive social structure in programs to help the poor and drug addicts etc. is also loosing citizens by the thousands. Why? Should not that combination of billions and billions of dollars and social programs make it one of the most desirable places to live?

But you understand how increasing wages would help reduce spending on "social programs"?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Perhaps - let's look -

I'm torn between laughing and weeping over the statement.

The mass exodus from California is continuing because people are fed up with the cost of living and the repressive taxes. Think about this for just a second. The State that creates some of the greatest wealth and has perhaps the most progressive social structure in programs to help the poor and drug addicts etc. is also loosing citizens by the thousands. Why? Should not that combination of billions and billions of dollars and social programs make it one of the most desirable places to live?

California is one of the most desirable places to live. That's part of why housing costs are so high. The other part is that housing supply is limited. What's happening is that the wealthy who want to live there are pricing the folks who cannot afford to, who then leave for places where housing is cheaper.

I never found it demeaning working at McDonald's going through High School and then through four years of college. I showed up on time - did more than what was asked for and guess what?! I wasn't minimum wage after high school - still at McDonald's but not at the bottom of the pay scale. When I graduated with my Bachelors they offered me a store. I moved to a different job so I could go after my Masters -

Most kids haven't been around long enough to find certain things demeaning. It's once you get a bit older that you start to realize what's up.

Your side might try to drive small minority owned business out of existence by making operating costs so high they cant succeed, but there are other states that do not - those are the ones people from California are leaving for.

Plenty of small businesses are doing fine in California. Either way, the law that raises the minimum wage to $20/hr only applies to restaurants with at least 60 locations nationwide. That's not a "small business." One could consider the local franchisee a small business, but if his costs are so onerous that you're concerned he'll go under, perhaps you could lobby the national chain to cut back on his franchise fees.

 

[rambot]

Most kids haven't been around long enough to find certain things demeaning. It's once you get a bit older that you start to realize what's up.

To be fair though, it's only demeaning because "some people" have a tendency to look down on that work and view it ONLY as a "stepping stone".


But, working in a behaviour classroom I'm quite aware that we need workplaces for people with lower intellect, disabilities, or belonging on a spectrum because holding down a fast foot job is BARELY within their capability for some of them.

Do they have to be trapped in repressive poverty their whole due to things outside of their control?

 

[iluvatar5150]

To be fair though, it's only demeaning because "some people" have a tendency to look down on that work and view it ONLY as a "stepping stone".

I was thinking about it from the perspective of someone in the role who tried to do their best, and who wanted to use it as an opportunity to do better, grow, etc, only to realize that their managers didn't give two hoots about their development and would just grind them and squeeze out of them whatever they could. That kind of dynamic exists all over the place, but you can kind of overlook it if you're at least being paid reasonably well.

 

[rambot]

I was thinking about it from the perspective of someone in the role who tried to do their best, and who wanted to use it as an opportunity to do better, grow, etc, only to realize that their managers didn't give two hoots about their development and would just grind them and squeeze out of them whatever they could. That kind of dynamic exists all over the place, but you can kind of overlook it if you're at least being paid reasonably well.

Fair point. Some pretty awful retail stories out there.

 

[Always in His Presence]

But that doesn't make it incorrect.

But you understand how increasing wages would help reduce spending on "social programs"?

It does? Please show how much spending decreased after the raised the wages to 16 an hour

 

[rambot]

It does? Please show how much spending decreased after the raised the wages to 16 an hour

Given that the change occurred only 6 months ago, I believe we wouldn't be able to find that data. You're welcome to discredit my argument by finding that data if you like.


Sorry, I thought "logical deductions" count when discussing economics.
I mean some folks still think "Trickle down" works.


Not specific to California but there is this:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/irel.12110

A study in Germany found that about 1/2 of the working poor getting state support was able to leave the program when they introduced minimum wages but that it did have a negative affect on "marginal employment" (not sure what that means and not enough time to investigate).

 

[Always in His Presence]

Given that the change occurred only 6 months ago, I believe we wouldn't be able to find that data. You're welcome to discredit my argument by finding that data if you like.

You made the assertion - I thought it was verifiable - thanks for your opinion

Sorry, I thought "logical deductions" count when discussing economics.
I mean some folks still think "Trickle down" works.

The ONLY person bringing in 'trickle down' anything is you.

If it is not related to California - it is not germane to the subject - that is why this fails as a source.

Not specific to California but there is this:

 

[rambot]

You made the assertion - I thought it was verifiable - thanks for your opinion

That's what discussion boards are mostly. It gets a bit pedantic if everything need to be verified but....fair enough.

The ONLY person bringing in 'trickle down' anything is you.

Yes. But I'm FAAAR from the only one using "logical deductions" and claiming them as presumed fact.

If it is not related to California - it is not germane to the subject - that is why this fails as a source.

I could not use it as a source to support the "California context". All I was able to provide was the abstract to a study that said that increasing minimum wage has the affect of reducing expenditures on entitlement programs.

And given that this thread is about Biden and loan forgiveness, none of what we've been talking about with Californai is "germane to the subject".

 

[rjs330]

Really? Then what did you mean when you wrote this a few weeks ago:


And then, a little later, you said this:




And then/url]:
No, that isn't what you said. That's only part of what you said. The other part of what you said put the people who are stuck there as being unmotivated and having made poor choices.
How many of these folks actually do move up into bigger and better things? How long do people typically get stuck there?
What are you talking about?

Just another piece of evidence that you are not actually hearing. You hear want you want to here. I didn't say anything different. It's important that you grasp the difference. Let me try and break it down for you.

1. Minimum wage jobs are usually for the young, or those just entering the work force perhaps some are just looking for a few bucks to help. The people who do those jobs are not necessarily lazy or unmotivated. The motivated ones work and then move on to bigger and better things not wanting to remain at that level of job and income.
2. Those who perpetually work those jobs usually don't stay at one minimum wage job their whole life, but skip from place to place, most likely with periods of unemployment etc. I know those people. Unmotivated, unwise and often lazy, not going to work, skipping work cause they don't feel like going, just showing up when they feel like it, calling in sick all the time etc. Those are ones im referencing.
3. The PERPETUALLY POOR are the unwise foolish people who don't make good decisions. There is absolutely no reason to be perpetually poor in the US unless you have some sort of disability, or illness that prevents you from working. There are also those jobs that people do in service that don't pay much but they are doing good work like pastors who work in small churches as an example. But other than that there isn't any reason to be perpetually poor.

I know plenty of those folks too. I know a dude who's in his fifties who has practically nothing. Why? Cause he was one of those kinds of people, lazy, foolish, couldn't hold down a job because he was too busy smoking dope.

If you pay attention to the words I use you will see I refer to those who are perpetually in those positions. I know those who were there until their 30s or 40s who finally figured it out and decided the life they were living and the decisions they were making were the cause of their situation so they decided to change. They went in to bigger and better things.

I really hope that helps.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Just another piece of evidence that you are not actually hearing. You hear want you want to here. I didn't say anything different. It's important that you grasp the difference. Let me try and break it down for you.

1. Minimum wage jobs are usually for the young, or those just entering the work force perhaps some are just looking for a few bucks to help. The people who do those jobs are not necessarily lazy or unmotivated. The motivated ones work and then move on to bigger and better things not wanting to remain at that level of job and income.
2. Those who perpetually work those jobs usually don't stay at one minimum wage job their whole life, but skip from place to place, most likely with periods of unemployment etc. I know those people. Unmotivated, unwise and often lazy, not going to work, skipping work cause they don't feel like going, just showing up when they feel like it, calling in sick all the time etc. Those are ones im referencing.
3. The PERPETUALLY POOR are the unwise foolish people who don't make good decisions. There is absolutely no reason to be perpetually poor in the US unless you have some sort of disability, or illness that prevents you from working. There are also those jobs that people do in service that don't pay much but they are doing good work like pastors who work in small churches as an example. But other than that there isn't any reason to be perpetually poor.

I know plenty of those folks too. I know a dude who's in his fifties who has practically nothing. Why? Cause he was one of those kinds of people, lazy, foolish, couldn't hold down a job because he was too busy smoking dope.

I know all of this. That's why I wrote, "The other part of what you said put the people who are stuck there as being unmotivated and having made poor choices."

I bolded and underlined the important bit in case you missed it last time.

And that still does nothing to rebut your earlier contention that "Absolutely no one here has said minimum wage workers are lazy and unmotivated." The fact is that you did say that. You didn't say that about all of them. But you said that about some percentage of them.

Please explain to me again how it's we liberals who are looking down at these folks and not people espousing your attitudes.

If you pay attention to the words I use

lol, really?

I paid enough attention to be able to recite them back to you.

 

[rjs330]

The value provided by the education is a separate topic. I was specifically referring to the value provided by alleviating the debt that student borrowers have already accrued and are making payments on. Read the rest of the post that you quoted.

Oh I read the rest of it. And the fact that you recognize the lack value of the education vs the cost is important. Because if the value they received vs the cost were equal they would be earning enough money to do those things you mentioned. The fact that they earned a worthless and useless degree while paying boatloads of money for it is the problem.

Some how people have been convinced they need this education to do well. When it turns out they have been fed a bunch of malarkey when they get out with debt and discover their degree isn't one they can make a decent living on. Then they just whine that they shouldn't have to pay it back.

Well perhaps they shouldn't have been lied to about the value of a college education. If you learned real critical thinking skills you might have realized that the return on your investment was going to be a net loss.

We'd have a lot fewer kids going if they were taught that. The colleges could focus on educating the kids on jobs that were actually going to benefit them and society, like being a doctor or an engineer.

 

[rjs330]

I know all of this. That's why I wrote, "The other part of what you said put the people who are stuck there as being unmotivated and having made poor choices."

I bolded and underlined the important bit in case you missed it last time.

And that still does nothing to rebut your earlier contention that "Absolutely no one here has said minimum wage workers are lazy and unmotivated." The fact is that you did say that. You didn't say that about all of them. But you said that about some percentage of them.

Please explain to me again how it's we liberals who are looking down at these folks and not people espousing your attitudes.



lol, really?

I paid enough attention to be able to recite them back to you.

You not listening again. I chose words carefully. Words like stuck, perpetual etc. I've even gone on to point it out and what it means. And you still want to take things out of context and ignore the qualifiers.

Let me ask you a question. Are there perpetually poor people who are there because they make poor choices, are unwise or lazy? Yes or no.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Oh I read the rest of it.

Then I suggest reading it again, because you appear to have missed the point.