- cross-posted to:
- lemmydirectory@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or # to comment.
Was it also sponsored by the “I want my kids to have a better life than me” crew who then complains about kids having it too easy these days?
I want them to have it better and easier. But an easier life, not just an easy childhood that doesn’t prepare them for their inevitable crushing adulthood.
I want the opposite tbh, kids just don’t appreciate it. Send them to the mines first, and then give them an easy adulthood.
As a Gen-X, if I was a kid these days I’d be pissed too. It seems as much grief as they’re given by adults, they understand early on they’ve been given the worst hand.
Our gen made such a big deal about being cynical, yet life ended up being SO MUCH WORSE than even we imagined. Although it does show we were right to be cynical.
Ya, m gut tells me teenagers are much more aware of just how bad it is because of their generation’s social media. I was pretty unaware at that age. I think there was a bit of a shift in societal values and the youth reflect it more as well.
It has also steadily been getting worse and we keep telling them they are the ones who are going to get seriously shafted compared to the rest of us. That probably doesn’t help.
I wasn’t really aware of it as a kid either, but I don’t think I ever really heard about climate change stuff until Inconvenient Truth came out. It just wasn:t something that was talked about, because we weren’t really feeling the effects.
I’m amazed (in a bad way) at how far we’ve fallen in 25 years, and I fear for the life my child will have as an adult.
Honestly, I think we underestimate how much of an impact telling them that is. Realism isn’t bad, but kids’ only real point of reference is their past experience and what adults tell them. So if we set them up to think it’ll be terrible compared to us, while we complain that everything is bad, they’re gonna assume that’s truly awful to have to be told about it.
Note: not to say things are going great.
And what a righteous 15 years of uneducated adulthood it’ll be before they die of black lung.
yeah but think of all the pituitary glands we could harvest
The ones that survive will have it good. It’s like in the movie 300 when they send their kids into the forest. The mines is how you separate the wheat from the chaff
Chaff is responsible for all the faults in society. We need a wheats only country.
University years aren’t really “childhood”, but if their childhood at the grade school level was better that would both make it happier and prepare them better for adulthood. And college.
What a better way to achieve this, than putting education behind a paywall!
The goverment paying off student loans is like bucketing water out of your boat and ignoring the hole. Like sure, its gonna keep some people afloat for a little longer but the issue hasn’t really been addressed, the problem is still there and the cycle remains a perpetual shit storm. The cost of education is preposterous, the people taking these loans dont have jobs to support paying it back, and most of them are too young to have the experience informing them of what a monumental undertaking paying it back will be. If they tried to get the same loan for a house or business they would be denied. There are so many issues to tackle but paying off the loans rewards the groups who created the problem in the first place. It incentivizes them to continue the foul play and prey upon vulnerable youth. Without some systematic reform accompanying the loan payoffs to ensure this doesn’t continue we will end up in the same situation over and over again.
While I fully agree the issue is the underlying problem… that is some All Lives Matter shit.
Because basically anyone who brings that up as an excuse to not wipe the slate clean are in that same “We need to think really hard about how we do this and not do anything for another 30 years”. Same as most “Banning guns won’t stop gun violence” people. It is a bad faith argument that boils down to insisting that the perfect MUST be the enemy of the good.
Im not saying we shouldn’t pay off the loans or delay doing so. I’m saying that alone will not solve the problem. We must do both. I never hear discussion on that second part. Ignoring it is foolish.
And yes, the snails pace at which reform would occur is infuriating. It shouldn’t take 30 years because some asshats will continue to argue in the nature of “how dare we hurt these businesses?!” while people continue to suffer. It sucks that it likely will, but if we dont start now it will never happen instead of eventually.
My brother is a big fan of law and governance, and he said that American society was set up so that laws move at a snail’s pace.
The shit that the current turd in chief is doing by writing hundreds of executive orders to constantly shake things up and make people constantly have to keep adapting to changes until they don’t know from one day to the next what the laws are going to be are what they originally attempted to prevent by making it so slow and arduous to change the laws.
Dampnut issuing executive orders like they’re leftover wads of tissue on the toilet paper he has to wipe his gigantic, flabby ass with is destabilizing the country and also making it so that stupid people think that good laws can be made quickly.
The foul swine in a bad orange toupee is causing multiple levels of damage to the country, and one of the side effects of that is making it so that it feels like we can solve something like a $1 trillion student loan debt crisis by signing a couple of sheets of paper.
What a good law would be would be something more like making it so that the interest on student loans can no longer accrue interest, or reducing the interest on student loans to something reasonable, like 1% over the federal interest rates.
It could do things like allowing student loans to be discharged through bankruptcy, or by setting a maximum on how much can be paid off over the life of the loan before it is automatically forgiven, no matter how long that takes.
Right now, the issue with student loans are manifold.
Some of them are things like the interest accruing interest, which means that people can take out a loan for $60,000 or $70,000, pay back $120,000 over 15 years, and owe over $100,000 still on the student loans.
Some of the other issues are things like people taking out loans for careers that are interesting but that leave them bankrupt or like does not provide them income. I know somebody who went to a Mormon college in Utah and got her master’s degree in fucking pottery and ceramics.
Her student loans were like $90,000 so that she can make pots at home because there are no fucking jobs in America for potters.
Five years of education, and after student loans, well in excess of a hundred thousand dollars, and what she’s doing is the thing she was doing while she was going to college, which is working as a jewelry artist for a small jewelry firm, which is something she did not need the degree for, and that her degree does not apply to.
So there should be some limits or some hard rules on what colleges can charge based off of how well what you are learning gives you the ability to pay back the cost of the education.
I’m not smart enough to figure out what those are, but I am smart enough to say that it is a problem to charge someone six figures of their total lifetime income for something that they are passionate about, but that is ultimately incapable of paying back the original cost, and that also saps the happiness out of their life.
Same as most “Banning guns won’t stop gun violence” people.
This one doesn’t fit your argument. It might affect gun violence, but you’re ignoring the fact that people have access to a ton of ways of killing others.
The main driver of violent crime is poverty and income inequality. The solution is to tax the rich, give everyone fair wages, provide universal healthcare, properly fund schools, etc. All things that are already part of the core liberals stance, and none of those involve introducing unpopular legislation that stomps all over constitutional rights.
But heaven forbid we talk about actually fixing the root causes of violent crime. No, some people just want to ban guns to own the conservatives, and get mad when anyone pokes holes in the plan.
Being pro-gun control is the liberal equivalent of being “pro-life”.
Not really. You can have a huge range of levels of control and regulation on guns. You can’t really have anything between life and not life.
2nd Amendment is pretty clear: shall not be infringed
Also pretty clear that it was specifically for a “well-armed and regulated militia”
Don’t get me wrong, I own guns, I like guns, I believe that guns can be owned safely, and I also believe that there should be more controls on who owns guns and what kinds of guns they own under which circumstances.
I feel like hunting equipment and 22s and stuff like that, semi-automatic handguns, perfectly fine for home ownership, home defense, etc…
But sniper rifles and machine guns and rocket launchers and everything above that basic home gun ownership tier should be placed in a sort of library-type militia system where people can join that militia, be trained in its proper and effective use, and be like a volunteer reserve national guard-type thing.
Kind of like we have volunteer fire departments where tax payers and donations provide them with the tools, but they go through the training so that they can back up the actual paid fire department.
Of course, we should have a gun-owner license.
A licensing system where you have to attend a basic safety course, possibly register for some sort of gun-owner insurance to pay for possible injuries to other people through negligent gun ownership usage, things like that would massively increase the safety factor of guns and massively increase the number of people that are qualified to use a gun in case of emergency and have the training needed to do so effectively.
Further, it’s not beyond the pale to make it that our weapons should be registered so that if they’re used in committing a crime, the weapon itself can help identify the criminal that committed a crime with the weapon, even if they stole the weapon from you to commit the crime.
I’m all for gun ownership. I just want more responsibility, more accountability, and more maturity about it.
It’s not really cool that any 18-year-old can pop down to a local Walmart and get enough ammunition to blow away a supermarket full of children.
Also pretty clear that it was specifically for a “well-armed and regulated militia”
Except that’s not the case. Here is the full text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If you go through writings from that era you’ll notice that while the vocabulary changes (I’ll get to that), the grammar is virtually identical to modern English.
If you reread the amendment with that in mind, you’ll notice that the first clause doesn’t actually say anything actionable. It’s just an explanation. Isolating the second clause of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” doesn’t change the meaning of what’s being said.
Now, why did the Framers decide to include an explanation into the 2nd Amendment, but not the others? That’s hard to say. But I can at least expand on the context of the first clause.
Remembered how I said that vocabulary has changed? That’s unfortunately what happened with the first clause a bit At the time, the term “regulated” actually referred to being trained and equipped.
The term “militia” has also been distorted over time in common vernacular. What most people commonly think of as a “militia” like the National Guard is more precisely called an “organized militia”. In contrast, an “unorganized militia” refers to all able-bodied men of military age, at the time considered to be ages 16-45. Basically anyone that could be drafted in war.
This is important when you consider US military doctrine up until WWII. In times of peace, the US Army kept a small corp of professional officers, with the intent to draft men into the Army as needed whenever war is declared. Then once war was over, all the drafted men were sent back and the Army was shrunk back down.
This doctrine present a major logistics problem: when war breaks out, you need a lot of fighting men in a short amount of time. To alleviate this problem, you want the draftees (aka the unorganized militia) to already have much of the skills and equipment needed to fight, with one of these critical skills being marksmanship. Hence why the Framers found it necessary to national defense for the populous to be able to have their own weapons.
To change gears, there’s another argument I want to make: gutting and/or removing one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights sets a dangerous precedent. While the 21st amendment exists to nullify the 18th, we’ve never done that to any of the original 10 amendments. If the 2nd is abolished, why why not abolish the 4th, or the 5th, or even the 1st? That’s a dangerous precedent.
And while there’s the stereotypical argument of “you can’t take on jets and tanks with AR15’s”, the US lost Vietnam and Afghanistan, and arguably Iraq too. And that’s with the coffers and supply lines protected by an entire ocean. While a civil war would be horrifying, having that proverbial nuclear button pressures the government into somewhat caring what the populous thinks.
Further, it’s not beyond the pale to make it that our weapons should be registered so that if they’re used in committing a crime
Unfortunately, with the particular “administration” in charge at the moment I wouldn’t feel comfortable with them having a list of who has weapons. That’d make it easier for them to go after potential armed resistance early, allowing them to go full authoritarian.
Honestly, it’s in our best bet to stop pushing for gun control. That’d get rid of one of the big reasons that more moderate conservatives don’t vote for Democrats. Especially since we could instead put that effort into education, healthcare, labor rights, etc. which would do a much better job of reducing violent crime while making everyone’s lives better. There’s only so much political capital that a candidate and party can have, and it’s best spent where it would do the most good.
I’m not in favor of abolishing any rights accorded to the people by the Constitution.
If anything, I feel like we should have more rights and that the government itself should have fewer rights.
That being said, I also believe that we should open the doors and allow more people to have guns, but we should also attach educational requirements, location requirements, insurance requirements, and third-party checks on who has what gun when because, as you know the unbelievable spate of school shootings has shown, irresponsible gun ownership is one of the primary causes of death in what should be the richest and safest country in the world.
Implementing these checks would not infringe upon the rights of gun owners, it would expand them, it would allow bump stocks, silencers, fully automatic machine guns, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, grenades themselves, landmines, tanks, surface-to-air missiles…
I literally could not give the first fuck over who has what weaponry as long as there is a reasonable, sane, and balanced check on how that weaponry can be used, and who has oversight on it.
The bigger issue is that we have irresponsible gun ownership and because of one clause in the Bill of Rights and how it is interpreted, these continued escalations of murders and travesties are happening so often that a school shooting is barely even front page news at this point.
That is incredibly terrifying, and sad.
We should do something about it because we are a sane society, and one of the best things that we can do about it is to institute licensing, registration, insurance, education, and taking weaponry above the level of self-defense and placing them in places where people can responsibly monitor their access, where they can actually be used and enjoyed for what they are, but they are not casually lying around unguarded by negligent parents and made available to disgruntled teenagers.
I think the comic strip in the OP was already a sufficient example of a bad faith argument but thanks for adding another one, I guess?
Ah, yes, more snarky comments that don’t actually address any points. Congrats on being a stereotypical pro-gun control pundit.
It’s pretty clear that you aren’t worth bothering with
At no point does the comment say your government shouldn’t pay off loans. It sounds more like they want the perfect and the good.
The OP is a comic about people being opposed to student loans for the most stupid and selfish of reasons.
Screen Shatter proceeds to, at best, make a non sequitor about why student loan forgiveness is actually not a good thing. I then point out that while there are many arguments in favor of focusing on the root cause (that I agree should be the goal), people who bring that up in response to “should we forgive student loans” are almost always arguing in bad faith.
Think less in terms of reading completely unrelated twitter posts and more about an actual conversation and why someone would say X in response to Y. Because Context. It’s a B.
In conversations I find it’s best to operate with a positive view of the person I’m talking to. Rather than assuming intent, I go with what they’ve said and hope for the best until I know otherwise.
You assumed Screen_Shatter disagreed with loan forgiveness, even though they didn’t say that in their comment. Happily, the Screen_Shatter replied to you, and they agreed with it! It turns out you have something in common! Just because they have other ideas doesn’t mean they disagree on this one.
Assuming Screen_Shatter disagreed was a mistake and it made the conversation less pleasant. Just like telling someone:
Think less in terms of reading completely unrelated twitter posts and …
Lemmy is a small community. Assume the best about folks on here and help make it more welcoming. Hopefully it’ll grow.
Yeah. I prefer to operate under the assumption that people are at least trying to have a conversation. Rather than just walking around spewing non sequitors. If someone feels they were misinterpreted, they can reply and clarify… rather than get angry that people interpreted what they wrote rather than what they were thinking. That is, again, how you have a conversation.
Lemmy is a small community.
STRONG disagree. Lemmy is a small (for the modern internet) userbase. Not a community. A community is one where you regularly get to know others and… communicate. Lemmy, like basically all modern social media, is people shouting into a void. Hell, Lemmy is on the worse end of that since so many of us came from reddit where all that matters is looking for keywords and writing the right canned/meme response to get the most updoots.
Think about it this way: How often have you actually interacted with someone and thought “I want to get to know that person better” or even “Hey, it is so and so. I wonder how the event they were talking about went?”. I personally have a few new internet friends from Mastodon funny enough. But Lemmy? We reddit up in here.
And… you know a great way to never make those connections? By assuming nobody is communicating or responding to anyone else and considering every comment to be made in a void.
I’ll also refrain from pointing out the difference between clarifying intent and doubling down or how often chuds have used this very same “assume the best of everyone” to spread hate over the decades of the modern internet.
Way too many jobs require degrees to apply as well. Yeah, if you’re a doctor, scientist, engineer, or other specialist that really does require advanced education, you need that level of education.
But I’m hiring a new permit tech to process contractor registrations, take permit payments, and answer the phone. It’s ludicrous that the city wants them to have a degree in “Public Administration, Fiance, Construction Science, or a related field.”
The solution, as always, is a land value tax and UBI. Don’t need to fret over needing an education to live comfortably if you can already afford and place to live and food.
That mindset sure is a great way to make sure nothing ever gets better for anyone.
Congratulations.
For me, I do kind of think that if someone paid and then forgiveness happened, they ought to be at least partially compensated if they have any history of being low income. They could have put their loan payments into something else but they didn’t so they’d kind of end up screwed over by their slavishly responsible bill paying.
That said: its stupid to not want broad student loan forgiveness because the student loan crisis is literally damaging the economy. Its hurting everyone, even people who already paid their loans off.
Id be ok if there was some kind of reimbursement, but I wouldn’t stop student loan reform from happening if it didn’t include reimbursement.
I like that idea. Phase in tax credits based on the student loans you have paid in the last X years, with higher weight given to more recent payments.
To be clear, even though I’ve just about finished paying mine off, I’d vote for full forgiveness in a heartbeat with or without that provision, but I think it would make it much more pallatable for a large chunk of the population.
I totally agree with this. If someone is opposed to student loan forgiveness because they had to pay theirs off, that person sucks. But if that person thinks maybe they should get a portion of their payments back too, and not as part of opposition, then I am sympathetic.
if that person thinks maybe they should get a portion of their payments back too
I think every one of them assumes they will never get a cent of that money back. They do live in America, after all, the land of “fuck you; got mine.”
Change the legislation to give every living person back every cent they ever paid towards student loans, and many opinions would change.
The Republican party would still be completely against it though, so we’d still have millions of boot lickers out there arguing to hurt their own financial situation in order to please their superiors.
Don’t take out a loan that you cannot afford.
How do you know what loan you can afford before you have any income? How do you expect a 17 year old who’s never lived on their own and only financial experience is maybe a part time job to be able to comprehend money on the scale of 10s of thousands of dollars?
Sure you can try to be smart and look at the BLS data to get an estimate of your income after college, but a ton of minutae gets lost when doing so, such as what you’ll make early on in that position vs after 20 years in that position, regional pay differences, etc. that also assumes you’ll graduate and get a job like you researched in your field but maybe you picked a field that’s about to collapse for reasons outside of your control, maybe the field you picked is already saturated with talent, or is experiencing some other significant shift.
I worked with one person who had gone to university to be a biologist just to graduate right after a significant number of university research positions were closed and laid off, leaving him fighting with folks who have 20+ years of experience for a handful of job openings
Student loans are the one type of loan you can’t simply perform a debt to income calculation to determine if you can afford the loan. There’s a million and one things that can happen between when you accept the loan and when you start paying on it that can greatly impact the affordability. The risk of course grows with the cost of education, but so does the potential reward.
You don’t need to cure cancer, you need to be able to prevent it in the first place.
Ofc this is following the metaphor, for actual cancer you need both.
For student loans you need to fix the system, higher education in Europe is free, but it really isn’t, you pay for your education over your lifetime by earning more money with your higher education and thus paying more in taxes and social security.
Ofc it’s not a perfect system, but much better than having young idiots be purposely exposed to predatory lending.
I paid off my student loans at the beginning of this month. it took me 16 years and like $65,000, right? If someone else comes in behind me, goes through the same shit that I went through, and then gets their loan forgiven or paid off in a couple of years?
Then I’m happy for them. Good for them, their life is gonna be so much easier without that burden over their head, and happier people means I get to live in a happier society, which means that I get to be happier too.
I mean I sold 4 years of my life to the military to not have to take loans out, so I get the gut reaction
The main cause of the student loan issue is the commodification of education. Everyone wanted to go to college and at first it was optional but then as more people did it it became a requirement, then they realized they can charge more and more for education that is worse and worse because a good chunk of people dont actually want to learn / be there. They’re just there for the paper that’ll let them get jobs and not be unemployed, or even just to say that they went.
I look around and people are playing damn Pokémon Showdown in class, there was that one scandal of an influencer girl who was the daughter of someone important that bought her admission to Stanford(?) and would stream literally about how she didn’t care about education she just wanted the college experience.
Hot take: Not everyone should be going to college, High School should just prepare people better. Even if we forgive all loans right now it doesn’t fix the issue. Instead of your problem it will just be your kids’ problem
While I agree in theory, I’m not really sure there’s much that can be done in practice. The genie is out of the bottle here: jobs want the paper, so people get the paper, leading to jobs expecting people to have the paper. An employer is unlikely to deliberately “lower their standards” (in their view) if the pool of potential employees with a degree is large enough for their needs already. Since you can’t legislate that employers are not allowed to require a degree, and you can’t expect people to not get a degree and sacrifice their own potential future to break that cycle, we’re kind of at an impasse.
That’s why the only way forward that anyone’s figured out so far is government funded higher education.
Edit:typos
I agree, but there is things we can move towards, but some are more… radical solutions.
I think the Swiss do something where after a certain point in the education pipeline (Age 16?) they decide either university or vocational school.
I think the ratio is 20-80.
If the decision is made for you (via being evaluated by the institutions in charge of the students) it definitely would be filled with bribes and scandals where the rich try to subvert it.
But if that wasn’t a problem I think it would definitely help university degrees “matter” again and it would be more feasible to make free for those who pursue it.
Again this requires a whole restructuring-- and would not see results for atleast a generation-- and red-lining would potentially have very visible effects on this depending on how its done.
Trades are a good option, but how long before plumbing drones are crawling through the sewers?
how long before plumbing drones are crawling through the sewers
That would be lit
What makes you think they aren’t already?
What happened to all that student loan vote-for-me-again (or so it felt for a European, IMO) relief stuff in the end?
It’s next to the Epstein’s files.
I cant believe how many time I have to say “just because I was hungry yesterday doesn’t mean you sould starve tomorrow.” That line was fundamental in my upbringing, it’s so simple and do correct and now,no one understands this very basic concept for children
I think there are three problems with loan forgiveness:
- We can’t just keep bailing people out. If you’re going to forgive loans, you need to actually address the root cause first.
- Why do the people who did the right thing by paying back the loans get shafted? They made sure they could pay back their loans and made sacrifices to do so, and now youre letting people unprepared for the loans leap frog them?
- It’s almost like “too big to fail” but for people.
It’s almost like “too big to fail” but for people.
How? “Too big to fail” is bad because companies have multiple other methods of dealing with debt, like selling assets and declaring bankruptcy. Student loans can’t be discharged via bankruptcy, and most people with loans don’t have enough assets to cover their loans.
My loans were discharged under Biden, but that’s because the government fucked me over on the PSLF and changed their mind after I’d done the time doing palliative care for developmentally disabled adults.
You want to talk about sacrifice? I did a decade of dealing with literal feces because I was providing care to autistic people that had developed dementia, and I was only getting a couple bucks more than minimum wage. The payoff was supposed to be student loan forgiveness, but the fucking government went back on their word, and now Biden’s the bad guy for doing what was originally promised? C’mon.
Too big to fail means that the failure of a business or industry would take the country down with it. The college industry (as it’s more an industry than anything else) has effectively become “too big to fail”. But what’s so insidious about it is that rather than all these schools carrying the debt, they’ve literally pushed it onto the students.
Forgiving student loans without a plan is a bailout for colleges and only accelerates the broken system.
As for screwing people over with changes to forgiveness plans (or making them too rigid in structure) is an example of something that needs to be fixed because it’s clearly not working.
Why do the people who did the right thing by paying back the loans get shafted?
This is literally the guy in the OP. For a closer comparison, this is like saying “you’re freeing all slaves? What about people like me who bought their own freedom? We made so many sacrifices to do it and now we’re just being shafted?!”
A good thing happening to me is not a bad thing happening to you and vice versa.
That’s such a cheap shot at my point.
- People chose to take out these loans, this isn’t like cancer or slavery.
- Someone has to pay for the loans. When forgiven that means every tax payer is taking on that burden. So yes a good thing happening to you can be a bad thing for other people.
- Most importantly, forgiving current loans doesn’t prevent more people from falling into the same pitfalls. Meaning you’re just perpetuating the problem
My point is don’t forgive loans if you haven’t fixed the problem because all your doing then is perpetuating the broken system and burdening everyone with student debt.
People chose to take out these loans, this isn’t like cancer or slavery.
So what? Would someone who chose to have unprotected sex not deserve to have their AIDS cured? It’s completely messed up that it’s even necessary to take on backbreaking debt to get higher education—to many people their only shot at social mobility. It’s technically a choice, yes, but the fact that anyone even needs to make that choice is a travesty. Telling someone “take on tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands after interests) of dollars or lock yourself out of most social mobility” is messed up no matter what they choose, but partial justice is better than total injustice.
Someone has to pay for the loans. When forgiven that means every tax payer is taking on that burden. So yes a good thing happening to you can be a bad thing for other people.
That’s how society works. You want others to help you you have to help them. This is no difference than child tax credits, food stamps or the myriad of other programs the government runs with the taxes of people who won’t necessarily benefit from them.
Most importantly, forgiving current loans doesn’t prevent more people from falling into the same pitfalls. Meaning you’re just perpetuating the problem
Forgiving current debt and preventing future debt are completely unrelated positions. Current debt needs to be forgiven and future debt needs to be prevented, but there’s no reason to lock one of these behind the other. The problem is being perpetuated either way, just with more human suffering on one side.
I cant believe how many time I have to say “just because I was hungry yesterday doesn’t mean you sound stave tomorrow.” That line was fundamental in my upbringing, it’s so simple and do correct and now,no one understands this very basic concept for children
What does “sound stave” mean?
“Should starve” I don’t know what happened there
I might be wrong here, but it looks like autocorrect got them and it’s supposed to be ‘should starve’.
deleted by creator
Dude.
Fuck cancer, AND fuck people that have that logic about school loans or anything else.
Totally! If I got cancer free and then a simple and quick cure for cancer came out, I’d obviously wish that that came out earlier, but one would have to be a royal asshole to with that others suffered and died because one had to suffer as well.
Don’t take out a loan that you cannot afford, that is on you.
This is som weird metaphor… So some people get voluntary “cancer” in hope theycan fight it and it will benefit them in the long run, and some don’t. While someone will have just the benefits and not the cancer while everyone chips in.
I get that in the long run highly educated people tend to pay more taxes. So makeing education affordable in is a net benefit for everyone. But this analogy is just weird…
I don’t know man, at the end of the day it is unfair, and making fun of that seems inappropriate.
Capitalism is cancer, prove me wrong.
Noo, cancer is when cells start to grow infinitely and therefore destroy the body. Capitalism is about economic infinite growth that destroys the planet and the people. Know the difference.
When the makers of a game don’t setup rules or enforce them, then the game can suck because of how unbalanced it can get.
The issue at the end of the day is with the game makers (politicians) not making the game fair and fun. Elements could be added to balance the game, such as cash being distributed each time you pass GO (a monthly Universal Basic Income[UBI]) and setting lower costs the on the property you want to rent. More properties could even be added to the board to help lower the cost of owning a property.
The game in theory could have some interesting elements, such as innovation and competition fueling creativity. But when the game makers totally removed themselves from a judging role, those interesting features completely disappeared due to the big players being allowed to swallow up all the competition.
The big players’ greed also fuels the game to be worse for everyone, including themselves. Incentives to create the lowest priced products sounds great on paper. However, when the greed from the big players has caused the majority of players to not be able to afford even their cheapest products, then suddenly those big players start cutting corners. More and more. Until they are providing their customers with actual garbage and they might even call it ‘food’ too!
Contrast this with if people were actually getting a base amount of money (thanks to UBI) and those same people could afford to not just have the worst/cheapest versions of everything. Suddenly, the scale can be flipped to be a race geared around providing the best and highest quality goods and services. Rules can be enforced to punish wasteful, unsustainable, and unethical business practices as well, since people aren’t dependent on everything being a race to the bottom.
Makes sense. It’s like, if you think about it, the last three rounds of Monopoly, when one person clearly has all of the property and everyone else is just playing and playing, waiting to eventually go bankrupt, is the worst part of the entire game, by far.
Plot twist, he actually beat up every single kid in the paediatric cancer ward at his local hospital.
False equivalent. People do not choose to have cancer, but some people chose poorly and took out loans they could not afford; that is on them.
What a horrible, uninformed and ignorant hot take.
wym? all humans are perfectly rational actors operating in a complete ideological, moral, economic, and social vacuum; therefore literally everything boils down to personal responsibility and natural consequence.
except for me of course.
Well obviously except for you. And me. Obviously.
But other than you and I, and my immediate close social circle, and maybe yours, EVERYONE ELSE in the world is completely solely responsible for every choice they make as an individual.
Especially when driving. Double especially when driving and in my way.
Is it? I went to a state college to take advantage of in state tuition, commuted because gas for my Geo Metro 2-seater was cheaper than a dorm room, etc to cut my costs down to where I wouldn’t need to put myself in debt and got a small scholarship/grant (that in turn came with an in-state work commitment that shaped my choices after graduation). Other people my age made other choices related to college that landed them in massive amounts of debt that I avoided.
If I had known that I could borrow as much as I wanted and expect someone else to pay it off instead of being stuck holding responsibility for my debts, I likely would have made different substantially less frugal and less restrictive choices.
Tell, you what, nix an equivalent amount of my debts, and we’ll call it a deal. You don’t mind paying off my mortgage, right? Just because you didn’t take out a mortgage doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be responsible for mine, right?
I honestly have no problem with that. I think housing is actually more critical than student loan forgiveness. A debt driven payment to every American under a certain income threshold would go a long way towards repairing the dwindling middle class, and 99% of that money would go towards big businesses anyway.
That said, your individual experience is based on your socioeconomic upbringing and yours alone. You had opportunities others did not, even if they don’t feel like opportunities to you. Student loans were sold on a lie to every American high school age child, that the money would work itself out after college. Something no reasonable adult could actually believe to be true but no high school age child had the worldly awareness to doubt.
You buy a house knowing what your monthly payments are going to be. You buy a house on credit you spent a decade or more building. Multiple people have to sign off on you being able to repay that debt and even those are thrown around like candy. Giving 100,000 dollars to a teenager with no credit history who’s probably never had a job is irresponsible and crazy. It should fall on the debtors to write that money off because they were crazy ignorant or stupid to expect it to be repaid in the first place.
To be clear, I don’t just want debt forgiveness. I want the college lending system rewritten entirely. I want debt forgiveness to those that need it even if that means my debts aren’t wiped out.
To be extra clear, I should not have been given that loan, 90% of the literal children signing for those loans should not be able to access them. But there is no other path to college for almost all of those kids, because college has become so unreasonably expensive.
