What mind?
http://proctorgrade6.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/0/8/26089950/2610888_orig.jpg
it was pretty clear to me that SS was talking about incentives and upward pricing pressure. From that standpoint, the GI Bill is a perfectly cromulent analogy.
We’re back at an old conversation: it’s okay when people of modest means are falling behind because they’re subject to the significant upward (inflationary) pricing pressure of the affluent.
It’s just not okay when their own economic improvements threaten to do an incremental bit of the same thing.
It’s the minimum wage conversation all over again.
It better be a helluva wand to reach all the way down here from where you live.
Oh, yes.
What is inflationary about a loan with fixed payments?
So perhaps it should be ‘politicians’, rather than one party or the other?
Now that you point it out, it would be. 
First, I never said anything about freeloaders. And you iust displayed how the left ignores incentives - they attack incentive arguments as if they are normative judgements against individual people. I point out that fundamental economic principles show that you get more of something if you lower the cost, and you turn it into me railing against ‘freeloaders’. I guess that’s easier than grappling with the fact that many problems do not have easy solutions and fixing them along one dimension can make them worse on another.
As for the GI bill, it was never free. The ‘price’ for it was military service. And it was applied to a select group of veterans (about 8 million) and was temporary so it didn’t affect long-term price planning by colleges.
A better analogy would be student loans, and their pernicious effect on tuition:
Here’s a cite from that well known right wing group, the Harvard Policy Review:
https://harvardpolitics.com/the-policy-trap/
Now imagine the effect on tuition of making college ‘free’, or reducing the costs of student loans through forgiveness.
The net effect has been to force most students to take student loans, because the mere existence of a generous loan program has driven tuition beyond the ability of people to self-finance while working part time.
You know the GI Bil still exists, right? It paid for 3 years of college, plus housing allowance, and book allowance. That was from 2011 to 2014. And I am WAY too young to have served in WW2.
Here is a list of require,tons for thePost 9/11 GI Bill.
- You served at least 90 days on active duty (either all at once or with breaks in service) on or after September 11, 2001, or
- You received a Purple Heart on or after September 11, 2001, and were honorably discharged after any amount of service, or
- You served for at least 30 continuous days (all at once, without a break in service) on or after September 11, 2001, and were honorably discharged with a service-connected disability, or
- You’re a dependent child using benefits transferred by a qualifying Veteran or service member
Sure. But fewer people today take advantage of it than the 8 million WWII vets, and because you have to serve to qualify it is not ‘free’. It’s totally different than giving free college to everyone, or than student loan forgiveness for everyone.
Read the Harvard article above.
To nitpick: I think that that image depicts a squid, which, while similar to octupi, are less noted for intelligence.
Not that our very own octopus is particularly well endowed with intelligence.
Hey… chop 'em up, bread them, cook them in virgin until they are almost crisp, serve over linguini with a spicy red sauce and a dash of parmesan cheese… who’s to know? 
JFC, develop some reading comprehension. For the third time… my objection is based on the unfairness of canceling outstanding loan debt but NOT REIMBURSING THE STUDENTS WHO REPAID THEIR LOANS OR PAID THEIR WAY. You want the 2015 student who repaid his loans or found a way through without debt to now ALSO pay for the 2015 student who borrowed more money than they want to pay back. That’s your solution – free college for only those students who can’t/won’t pay their bills. Not a single person screaming for loan cancellation has ever mentioned what this means for the group that repaid loans. How fucking self-absorbed are you.
Reimburse the kids who paid their way and I have no objection to canceling the loans. Because now you’re provided free college for everyone – like they’re proposing for 2025… catching on yet?
Now let’s take a minute to talk about being ‘triggered’. I can practically see your mouth foaming through the keyboard, in response to my rather mild original post. Are you really that upset that others don’t see the world the way you do? That can’t be healthy, seek help.
Just out of curiosity, how far into the past does your proposal’s reimbursement policy reach? I borrowed a few thousand bucks back in the mid-70s that I wouldn’t mind using on a new gas grill in time for cookout season 2022.
If you are going to pick at IQ you might at least want to not make ignorant mistakes with plurals.
Both “octopuses” and “octopi” are commonly accepted plurals of octopus.
Well, how far into the past are they going to go with loan forgiveness – reimbursement should be the same.
I know people who actually made a profit during college in the 70s, federal aid was amazing during that period.
And octupi?
Well, only one is right. And it’s not the inaccurate Latinificated form.
Also octopodes