The constitution doesn’t say anything about backing student loans either, and yet here we are.
Sez who?
Seriously. Where is the Constitutional authority to this statement?
Take it up with Chessic_Sense: he’s the one who’s trying to claim that nobody in this thread is opposing the position that “the government spending its money to accomplish things that broadly benefit Americans” is “a major part of what government does”.
But you do in fact seem to be opposing that position, because you consider “the government spending its money to accomplish things that broadly benefit Americans” to be “wealth redistribution”. Which you apparently consider to be automatically bad.
When the Constitution was written, and for the next 150 yrs or so thereafter, how many government programs existed that effectively subsidized, even a little, an education at Yale, or any other university? I’m guessing zero.
The exact same number of government programs that effectively subsidized manned travel to the Moon.
Or railroads.
Or the Homestead Act. What’s the Constitutional authority for the US government to sell lands it didn’t control?
10% of this country was populated via an unconstitutional policy. What are the remedies, now that it’s done, to undo this damage to our legitimacy? Give the land back?
The space program, and all of the research behind it, led to tangible benefits for the country, and even the world.
People went to university well before the 1960’s, but the government was not in the loan forgiveness business then. What tangible benefit is there to letting people not live up to their commitments?
I don’t know . . . why don’t we ask the King of declaring bankruptcy a Mr Donald J Trump?
“Sell”? Ha ha ha! The government flat out gave you ownership of a homestead as long as you had lived and worked on it for five years. (And, with few exceptions, if you were white.)
What tangible benefit is there to letting people not live up to their tax commitments by enacting tax cuts? Like I said, it’s hilarious how Republicans are bleating that giving people a reduction in their student loan indebtedness is some kind of irresponsible “payout” or “bribe” or “letting people not live up to their commitments”, but giving people a reduction in their legally incurred taxation obligations is not.
And like I said, the “tangible benefit” that tax cuts and other forms of public financial relief, including student loan debt forgiveness, are supposed to produce is the generation of more economic growth (or avoidance of more economic contraction, depending on what’s going on at the moment).
Large-scale long-term, it’s not intended to be about what individual beneficiaries of a government program are considered to “need” or “deserve” or what we should “let” them get away with: it’s intended to be about making the national economy as a whole work better for everybody.
What?? Sure it was. Veterans Administration benefit debt, for example, including Education and Training debt under the various GI Bills, has had all kinds of debt waiver programs for recipients who can’t pay.
And those long-established debt waiver programs exist for exactly the same fundamental reason that the current student loan debt forgiveness program does: because it is more beneficial for the economy as a whole not to have large numbers of indebted people underperforming economically because they’re struggling with debt burdens that they can’t pay off.
If you opine otherwise, do please go down to the VA and tell all the veteran debt waiver applicants what a bunch of lazy irresponsible freeloaders you think they are. That’ll be fun.
Wait! That’s right! Free mortgages for everyone!
How many jobs at the time required a college education?
Even being a doctor or lawyer didn’t.
I saw some headlines that various GOPers are prepping lawsuits to block the forgiveness, but they’re still in my to-read pile so I don’t yet know what the argument is.
I read that too, various states talking heads are trying to find a litigant with legal standing. As state governments have no standing in the matter.
Just a matter of time before they look under the right rock or overpass and find a disgruntled party with a beef about it.
So, I just saw this commercial on TV. This is how it’s being spun: blue collar workers have to work extra hard to subsidize rich kids’ theater and business degrees.
I hope I don’t have to point out what’s wrong with this. But I’m afraid this is going to reinforce a lot of prejudices.
The people who decided to make that commercial don’t seem to be aware that a lot of blue collar workers have/had kids in college.
Over 37% of Americans 25 or older now have college degrees, and about 40% of today’s college students are first-generation college students, meaning that they are the first in their family to attend college. That’s a lot of blue-collar college parents out there.
Moreover, according to that study first-gen college students are apt to come from less wealthy backgrounds, so student loan debt is likely to hit them harder.
I don’t know which wealthy white Republicans decided to make that ad condescendingly assuming that the average blue-collar worker won’t be seeing any benefit to their families from the student loan debt forgiveness program, but I’m not convinced they really have their finger on the pulse of the nation there.
That’s a silly argument. A taxpayer’s commitment is to pay the then current tax according to the law. If
Congress enacts, and the President signs, a tax cut, that’s the taxpayers’ obligation. Likewise, if a Congress and President enact a tax increase, that’s the new commitment.
How, exactly, are people following the law “not living up to their tax commitments”???
As for the VA issue, surely you recognize there’s a non-negligible difference between a waiver program for those who served, and a blanket forgiveness for everyone by executive fiat.
Are you even listening to yourself? A borrower’s commitment is to repay their then current debt obligation according to the law. If the Administration legally enacts a debt forgiveness program, then that new amount is the borrower’s obligation.
You moved the goalposts there. In your previous post you were bitching that the government didn’t used to be “in the loan forgiveness business”, and I simply pointed out that actually, it was.
The legality of it is still to be determined. Same as with Obama and DACA, Biden at first said he couldn’t do it. When Congress didn’t go along with him, he did it anyway. That’s not how our system is supposed to work.
Well, that is yet another tangentially introduced side issue that doesn’t invalidate my basic point.
You said, and bolded, legally enacted. That assumes facts not in evidence.