I've seen the (but what about corporations) deflecting comment so many times it's become something that just annoys me. Absolute bullshit angle, in my eyes.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

It has often times been stated in a manner that comes off as folks questioning (or blatantly against) student loan debt forgiveness are somehow perfectly fine with billion dollar bailouts or tax breaks for corporations.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

My questions posed in the original post remain.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Since replying to one post in the thread wasn't proper; I will answer the question as I understand it.

The money has already been spent, the loan was paid out to the colleges years past. The government guaranteed the money interest free until the borrower left school (graduated or dropped out). Burden then shifts for repayment with interest.

So wiping out the money isn't spending new dollars; it is wiping it off the books of an accounts payable item back to the government; then put back into the budget to new loans or some other spending agenda.

So at this point; its lost revenue/incoming verses new spending.

Circles back to my opinion, wipe the interest away, lengthen the repayment out, withhold % of refunds, etc. Anything but wipe it off the books. I currently have one son paying his loan back, cutting the interest would do wonders in benefit. We were researching it the other night, one of the articles we read that covers basic nuts and bolts of the bill.

https://usafacts.org/articles/who-would-benefit-if-10000-of-student-loans-were-canceled/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ND-Education-Childcare&gclid=EAIaIQobChMImeTCv5Hv-QIVo2pvBB188QE7EAAYASAAEgK0sfD_BwE 

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 

Forgive my ignorance here, but does that mean the government is just saying we're not gonna collect the money then? Meaning, we're not gonna get raised taxes to forgive the student loan debt? That would also mean that we (tax payers) basically already paid the money, right?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

That's one of the major problems. People see loan forgiveness, and think "FREE MONEY!" They either think that it just materializes out of no where, or don't care WHO ends up having to pay for it. Once again, it's the HOORAY FOR ME, AND F#@K YOU approach.
And sadly, a lot of people aren't smart enough to realize that the tax payers will be the one paying for it. As has been stated several times here already, FREE is not FREE. It WILL end up being paid for, and by us. Just kicking the can down the road.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 

Generally speaking, yes, there are benefits to the government investing in education. A better-educated workforce means more highly skilled work stays in the country, which means better products are invented and produced, we're more competitive in the global market, wages for the working class go up, GDP increases, and society as a whole is better off. Education spending is one of the most effective and efficient uses of government money over the long term.

Now, whether student loan forgiveness is the most efficient way to go about investing in secondary education is certainly debatable. Personally, I would rather see programs that provide free or low-cost secondary education going forward, whether that be free community college, state college, or significantly expanding programs that provide financial aid to lower-income individuals so they can afford to get an education. The fact of the matter is the costs of secondary education in this country are extremely high compared to most developed nations, many of which offer completely free secondary education to those who want it.

Free or low-cost secondary education tends to give the working class much more social mobility. When you can, at any time in life, go back and get a degree, train at a technical school and learn a new skill, it empowers people to better themselves (which in turns helps the wheels of the economy turn). Someone below the poverty line who is already working two or three jobs doesn't have the luxury of time or the money required to get educated and improve their circumstances, which is a real catch-22 sort of problem that keeps them stuck at the bottom of the ladder.

Another thing to keep in mind is that progress toward universal secondary education or similar programs will always be "unfair" to some people. In the same sense that the cost of education for people looking to go to college is much higher these days than it was 20, 30, 50 years ago. That is also unfair. So by lowering the cost of education (in whatever form) fairness is being restored more than anything.

Yes, I realize "free" education means society as a whole pays for it in taxes. The thing I don't understand is why we seem to collectively agree that it's a good use of our tax money to provide education up to the age of 18, but after that, spending a solitary cent is beyond the pale. Especially these days when a bachelor's and even in some cases a master's degree is required for many jobs that Boomers were able to get with a high school diploma.

Investing in secondary education is just as beneficial to society as investing in K-12.

Originally Posted by: earthquake 

Since replying to one post in the thread wasn't proper; I will answer the question as I understand it.

The money has already been spent, the loan was paid out to the colleges years past. The government guaranteed the money interest free until the borrower left school (graduated or dropped out). Burden then shifts for repayment with interest.

So wiping out the money isn't spending new dollars; it is wiping it off the books of an accounts payable item back to the government; then put back into the budget to new loans or some other spending agenda.

So at this point; its lost revenue/incoming verses new spending.

Circles back to my opinion, wipe the interest away, lengthen the repayment out, withhold % of refunds, etc. Anything but wipe it off the books. I currently have one son paying his loan back, cutting the interest would do wonders in benefit. We were researching it the other night, one of the articles we read that covers basic nuts and bolts of the bill.

https://usafacts.org/articles/who-would-benefit-if-10000-of-student-loans-were-canceled/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ND-Education-Childcare&gclid=EAIaIQobChMImeTCv5Hv-QIVo2pvBB188QE7EAAYASAAEgK0sfD_BwE 

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 

Just wanted to point out it is an illegal executive order he is trying to do, a bill has to pass thru congress which by law should have to do.

Originally Posted by: dhazer