Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
203 Posts
[1]  Prev «  2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6  Next »  [9] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Other people getting stuff you didn’t rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: US_Politics [+] [View All]
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wildwizzard wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
THIS is exactly why people get spun up ...

bad choice - (such as being peer pressured to take on immense debt before they could legally drink or rent a car) --- Not their fault

good choice - (such as being born into a family that could pay for their medical school)- AKA Not their hard work.

The presumption that the majority of people in difficulties are predominantly victims of circumstance and those not in difficulty are predominantly merely blessed by circumstances undercuts our entire USA work ethic that created our prosperous society in the first place in addition to flying in the face of objective reality.
You started this out by suggesting that the beneficiaries of this proposal were people who didn't work hard enough to deserve it. If you want to talk in sweeping generalizations then be prepared to be replied to in sweeping generalizations.


No actually what I started out saying was... there is no magic wand. Which is why people object.


Then I pointed out that often unwise choices lead to the situations that require bail outs. You can work really hard and still make unwise choices.

In fact it is one of my major bitches about our society, that we stopped teaching people about long term wisdom and actually encourage them to live foolishly because spending spending spending helps the economy in the short term. Our whole stock market has become tilted to mostly care about short term gains vs long term investment as well. But at some point long term planning matters. But this also is a bunny trail into another discussion.

Bailing out people from unwise choices over and over, without ever fixing why they are making unwise choices is unsustainable in the long run. This also is another discussion, but one which I did allude to earlier. Which is the people who make bad financial choices in one area often make them in lots of areas and need to be repeatly bailed out. We need to address this on a bigger picture scale as a society.


But in the NOW, when facing a crisis that is in many ways a product of lots of unwise practices, many sold to the inexperienced by the very people who should have known better, I am perfectly willing to look at a way to help those who fell into a trap out of it.

I would fully support a plan to stop all these loan from accruing interest (which is what is really killing them btw, not the principle in most cases) and letting them pay back just the principle they borrowed. This seems like a sensible compromise to me.

But I also understand that since there is no actual magic wand... why saying lets just pick up the bill entirely out of tax dollars, pay off the interest (which benefits the bankers - aka rich people) and the principle to the tune of up to 50K per person, doesn't seem like an equitable way to handle it, especially to the people who already made sacrifices to pay off their loans or avoided the loans in the first place.

The magic wand senerio tries to make people who are going to feel justifably cheated seem like hateful monsters for feeling that way. I objected to that crappy tactic and I still do.

If I had a magic wand... sure I would happily erase everybody's debt! And give everybody ponies that could fart rainbows and shit out turds of gold. But we don't actually have any magic wands.

So if we are going to play Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor... I think there are a lot of people poorer on average than the ones trying to pay off college debt. Many of whom never even got to dream of going to college in the first place. Lets toss some money their way to pay for trade training, or better day care so they can go to school themselves, or better schools for their kids to break the cycle of low education and poverty, or hell just some really good and FREE financial planning programs offered in their neighborhoods so they can learn how to make wiser choices with the money they earn... etc.


In short I don't object to a program to help people get out of college debt faster. I don't even object to using tax dollars to fund some amount of debt forgiveness. But like any other tax expendature, it isn't free and therefore what it can provide needs to be sensably balanced against what it actually costs, knowing that if we spend the money there, that is less money we have to spend elsewhere.

So this pie in the sky plan of Warren's is annoying on multiple levels.


6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SabreRedleg wrote:
"I didn't get this so you shouldn't" is a pretty common argument against things that are already completely publicly funded, too. Those who campaign against school bonds will usually use some variation of it. "We didn't have air conditioning when I was a kid; why do kids need it now?" etc

I think there is a fundamental difference between not wanting somebody to have something just because you didn't have it vs having a different standard of what are percieved as requirements vs luxuries.

I think if people actually pitched school bonds intelligently to older people they wouldn't object.

For example if you pointed out that in their day wood working, shop etc were taught, because those were teaching skills for later union and trade jobs. Then point out that now more people need computer literacy to enter the job market than than trade crafts, so we need computer labs... most would go ohhh OK I can see that. But if you just say we need a new 3 million dollar compter center at the middle school, they are going to think about their grand kids playing computer games at home and think what the heck do they need that at school for?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bippi wrote:
I'm mostly for this. I just wish that college worked a little more free-market. You don't NEED to go to Stanford, folks.

Of course not. Stamford and the rest of the Ivy League should be reserved for the children of the rich. Then they can be best qualified for all the well paid jobs, keeping them out of the reach of the hoi polloi.
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamie Hankins
United Kingdom
Southampton
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm tempted by the idea of a graduate tax paid directly by alumni to their awarding university.

With a graduate tax, you don't need to pay anything upfront to go to university and universities have a financial incentive to ensure that their graduates find themselves in well-paid careers after they've graduated (although I reject the idea that the value of a university education can be measured solely via income level in later life).

There would be a transition where universities would have to rely on public funding until they'd acquired enough alumni to generate significant funds, but once it's been in place for a couple of decades it could make for a very mutually rewarding university-alumni relationship.

The UK student loan system works in somewhat similar way; you don't pay anything up front, you make payments back in proportion to what you earn, and the debt is wiped clean after 30 years, but it suffers from bad PR due to having 'loan' in the title and the universities do not directly benefit from loan payments (even less so now that the UK government has started selling student debt).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Boardgame Aesthete
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MikePustilnik wrote:
Now let's talk about Warren's proposal for free public college tuition. I do think that public colleges do charge too much, and that public colleges do need to charge less. But the cost should not be zero. About 50% less seems right to me. The students should pay for at least some of their own education. I am okay the the taxpayers paying the rest. By requiring the students to pay something, we minimize clogging public universities with students who are there to party, and don't really care about learning at all. Such students do exist, and detract from the education of the students that really do take their studies seriously.

So, reduce public university tuition by half, yes. Reduce it to zero, no.


The problem is actually structural. We do have a free market (well, kind of), and the free market is responding to incentives.

1. A college degree is now essentially a prerequisite to move into the middle class.
2. Therefore, everyone is being told to go to college.
3. A lot of those people need financial assistance. Government programs that provide financial assistance for college therefore have to provide it to pretty much everyone. And private lenders will of course step in to fill in the gaps for profit.
4. Therefore everyone is taking out loans. Many are from a background that did not adequately prepare them to make wise cost-benefits analyses looking years into the future.
5. So, you have millions of young people with vast amounts of money being handed to them by the government and private lenders.
6. This incentivizes universities to raise their tuitions to soak up as much of that money as possible.
7. Leaving millions of young people graduating with more student debt than they can ever repay and no real way to discharge it.

Giving them debt relief may be part of the solution, but really, the problem needs to be addressed somewhere higher up the cause-and-effect chain. But that's more difficult than coming up with schemes to tax the rich.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Hunnicutt
United States
Arden
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Sue_G wrote:
I don't think people are saying it's inherently evil. That would be a huge overreach. And I don't think that anyone was saying that there are no situations where giving free stuff to people is a bad idea.

I believe the word "monstrous" was thrown out there earlier.

Sue_G wrote:
They're saying that if you take away the how to pay for it part, people would still be upset about it. And they are. People in this thread are getting super emotional about how they paid their way through college. They actually think that was such a character building experience that everyone should have to deal with it. And without taking away anything from those experiences, the privilege it shows is frankly stunning.


I suppose if there was a magic wand that could ONLY be used to give $55K of debt relief to student loans and not be used for anything else, then I'd have no issue with it. Congrats!

For the record, I never had a student loan. Nor did I work three jobs to pay for college. I, instead, entered into a Faustian deal with a corporation and was able to choose from a limited range of specialties. I wouldn't have benefited from this regardless. My stance wasn't that I was missing out. I feel that OP's framing of the question poisons the well, implying the ONLY reason to be against this is because someone else gets something you don't.

Warren's site claims the bailout would completely wipe out the student loan debt of 32,062,500 Americans. As someone with a mortgage, I don't see $50K as crippling debt. Especially when one entered into the deal willingly. When I first heard this I thought it smacked of straight up vote buying. I'm not comfortable with that. I would be more comfortable with that money going toward the costly implementation of free universities for future students who didn't willingly take on heavy loans.

edit: clarified student loan debt instead of just debt

edit again: checked my math. I think he number of recipients for this would be closer to 32,062,500 not 42,750,000 as I stated.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Boardgame Aesthete
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mr_Hunnicutt wrote:
I feel that OP's framing of the question poisons the well, implying the ONLY reason to be against this is because someone else gets something you don't.

I thought the OP was clearly calling out, specifically, the people writing op-eds and Tweets complaining that it's an injustice to all the people who didn't get loan forgiveness.

I don't think anyone is claiming that there are no reasonable arguments against Warren's particular plan. Just that "other people getting stuff you didn't" is not one of them. And that is an argument being made.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wight1984 wrote:
I'm tempted by the idea of a graduate tax paid directly by alumni to their awarding university.

If that's a progressive tax it would be the "make Harvard even richer" tax. If it's a recessive tax then that's doubling down on the current problematic situation.

Edit: I missed that you are from the UK. Substitute Oxford for Harvard.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamie Hankins
United Kingdom
Southampton
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
Wight1984 wrote:
I'm tempted by the idea of a graduate tax paid directly by alumni to their awarding university.

If that's a progressive tax it would be the "make Harvard even richer" tax. If it's a recessive tax then that's doubling down on the current problematic situation.

Edit: I missed that you are from the UK. Substitute Oxford for Harvard.

I think the issue there is ensuring equal access to the best universities rather than the method of funding. There's work already being done in the UK to make that happen with contextual offers and such (i.e. students who achieve good grades despite going to a badly performing school are considered above students who achieved the same grades but had access to better education).

If we can create a situation where equal access to higher education is a reality, then I don't have a problem with more prestigious universities being better funded; the more merit you demonstrate at school, the better funded the university you end up at.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doremus Jessup
msg tools
Avatar
mb
Couple of facts missing from the discussion so far is the other sections of the plan

Quote:
Make public two- and four-year institutions tuition-free and expand Pell Grant funding to go toward additional college costs like housing, transportation, food, and books.

Cut off for-profit colleges from receiving any federal funds (including federal student loans or military benefits). These schools tend to account for a huge number of defaults on their loan payments. A majority of students who attend for-profit colleges default within three to five years after they begin repaying what they owe.

Create a $50 billion fund for historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions, and add more money to it over time.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/22/18509196/elizabeth-warren-debt...

So that the plan addressing long term problems. Or at least starting to.

There is also the effect this will have on the economy. Thanks to the Marginal Propensity to Consume that is. This has shown that the there is more consumption (and thereby economic stimulus) from the Middle and Lower class then there would be from the Upper class given things like tax breaks or say, loan forgiveness. As a study showed

Quote:
According to Carroll and his co-authors, any fiscal stimulus targeted toward individuals in the bottom half of the wealth distribution would be 2 to 3 times more effective than just a blanket stimulus.

https://equitablegrowth.org/wealth-inequality-marginal-prope...

Given that, there seems to be more there than just "magic" or "free stuff". It addresses a problem, is tax revenue neutral, and has a stimulative effect on the economy.

Its not the be-all and end-all. But it looks like a damn good start




2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fake Mike wrote:
Okay, same question right back at you, except:

1) wand is only used to benefit white students
Or
2) wand is used to eliminate mortgage debt on jumbo ($650k+) mortgages only

do you seriously think these hypothetical make anything resembling a point
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mortego
United States
New Kensington
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In theory this is a great idea but since no one can decide how to best make it "fair" the same-old-same-old we're doing is working just fine for everyone...

#ripthebandaidoff
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Parker
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mightygodking wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
Okay, same question right back at you, except:

1) wand is only used to benefit white students
Or
2) wand is used to eliminate mortgage debt on jumbo ($650k+) mortgages only

do you seriously think these hypothetical make anything resembling a point
Yes.

The original post, when boiled down to its roots, makes a comment about the "righteous fury" emotional response innate in human beings. He says it's a negative emotion, and as evidence presents a strictly positive proposal that triggers this emotion in some people. He implies (and later indirectly states) that these people, therefore, are monsters.

I countered back with a pair of very similar, strictly positive proposals, tweaked slightly to trigger the same emotional response in almost everyone who reads them (including yourself if I'm reading your tone correctly).

My point there is that we're all human and have broadly the same emotional responses. The implicit argument is one of the classics, judge not lest ye be judged.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Parker
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
Sue_G wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
Okay, same question right back at you, except:

1) wand is only used to benefit white students
Or
2) wand is used to eliminate mortgage debt on jumbo ($650k+) mortgages only

do you seriously think these hypothetical make anything resembling a point
Yes.

The original post, when boiled down to its roots, makes a comment about the "righteous fury" emotional response innate in human beings. He says it's a negative emotion, and as evidence presents a strictly positive proposal that triggers this emotion in some people. He implies (and later indirectly states) that these people, therefore, are monsters.

I countered back with a pair of very similar, strictly positive proposals, tweaked slightly to trigger the same emotional response in almost everyone who reads them (including yourself if I'm reading your tone correctly).

My point there is that we're all human and have broadly the same emotional responses. The implicit argument is one of the classics, judge not lest ye be judged.

How do you think those hypos are at all similar?

The first is plain discrimination. And as I am white, any anger I would have would be on behalf of minority students, not myself. The OP isn’t about a discriminatory program and it’s highlighting people who are pissed they didn’t get that when they went to school. It’s a purely selfish reaction.
It’s the same emotion regardless of the cause - righteous fury is a reaction to a perceived unfairness. We all have it because it encourages fair treatment of others and allows for better social bonding.

You *assume* that people react based on jealousy, because you identify them as an “other”, presumably evil group. But what most actually say is something along the lines of “you shouldn’t give it to some people but not others”.



And for what it’s worth, the OP’s policy does indeed discriminate by both class and race, albeit not as directly as my examples.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doremus Jessup
msg tools
Avatar
mb
Fake Mike wrote:
Sue_G wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
Okay, same question right back at you, except:

1) wand is only used to benefit white students
Or
2) wand is used to eliminate mortgage debt on jumbo ($650k+) mortgages only

do you seriously think these hypothetical make anything resembling a point
Yes.

The original post, when boiled down to its roots, makes a comment about the "righteous fury" emotional response innate in human beings. He says it's a negative emotion, and as evidence presents a strictly positive proposal that triggers this emotion in some people. He implies (and later indirectly states) that these people, therefore, are monsters.

I countered back with a pair of very similar, strictly positive proposals, tweaked slightly to trigger the same emotional response in almost everyone who reads them (including yourself if I'm reading your tone correctly).

My point there is that we're all human and have broadly the same emotional responses. The implicit argument is one of the classics, judge not lest ye be judged.

How do you think those hypos are at all similar?

The first is plain discrimination. And as I am white, any anger I would have would be on behalf of minority students, not myself. The OP isn’t about a discriminatory program and it’s highlighting people who are pissed they didn’t get that when they went to school. It’s a purely selfish reaction.
It’s the same emotion regardless of the cause - righteous fury is a reaction to a perceived unfairness. We all have it because it encourages fair treatment of others and allows for better social bonding.

You *assume* that people react based on jealousy, because you identify them as an “other”, presumably evil group. But what most actually say is something along the lines of “you shouldn’t give it to some people but not others”.



And for what it’s worth, the OP’s policy does indeed discriminate by both class and race, albeit not as directly as my examples.

Unless you can show the program is discriminating using race or class as a determinant, then the "worth" of your statement is just about zero
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Poole
msg tools
Avatar
Meerkat wrote:
I already do that.

However I think that the taxes on the uber rich should be raised (And tax loopholes mostly only they get removed) and go into the general fund just like any other taxes. To then be bickered and dickered over like any other tax revenue.

1) We already need to be taxing rich people more because we are running an unsustanible deficit with the budget we currently have.

2) If a new program has enough merit to be funded than it should be funded out of the general tax pool. Not some stick it only to the people who aren't us targeted tax.

Caveat for #2: taxes tied in some way directly to the use or expense of a program, like gas taxes for roads or tax on waste disposal based on type of waste generated etc. make reasonable sense.

So I object to this never ending rah rah BS of lets start an expensive new program because we can make it revenue nuteral if only we tax rich people more. It is impracitcal poltical rabble rousing. We cannot tax them alone enough to possibly pay for Medicare for all, AND Free College for all, and loan forgiveness, and however many other new plans politicians can come up with that sound great of paper but would cost a lot to impliment.

Also BTW I think Warren's idea of taxing wealth would be a nightmare in terms of assessing wealth, cost a lot to impliment and have some potentially horrible consequenses on unintended not actually Uber weatlhy in terms of liquid assets people. Plus I think it is in many ways inherently wrong to tax people for not wasting money or to tax them repeatly for the same non land based items. So how to tax the Uber Rich more, well that is a different discussion. But Warren's idea is an awful one IMO.

See, it sounded like we totally agreed up until these last two paragraphs. You agree we need to tax the rich more, and you agree we need to do something about the student debt crisis, so why the continued handwringing over targeting the rich, or "people who aren't us"? People who ARE us, in this instance, being people who pay their fair share of taxes.

If you want all the money to go to the general budget, okay, fair. On the other hand, you're the one bringing free medicare for all into this. Nobody suggested that we could fund that by just upping the top bracket a few percentage points. That'll pretty obviously have to be a major overhaul of our entire medical and economical systems. And also, you're the one worried about taxing people for "not wasting money", which is...definitely not what anyone here is talking about. We want the wealthy to pay their fair share. Why can't we just leave it at that until the wealthy DO pay a fair share, or (more likely), we are all seven feet under and halfway to the heat death of the universe?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lola Granola
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doremus wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
Sue_G wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
Okay, same question right back at you, except:

1) wand is only used to benefit white students
Or
2) wand is used to eliminate mortgage debt on jumbo ($650k+) mortgages only

do you seriously think these hypothetical make anything resembling a point
Yes.

The original post, when boiled down to its roots, makes a comment about the "righteous fury" emotional response innate in human beings. He says it's a negative emotion, and as evidence presents a strictly positive proposal that triggers this emotion in some people. He implies (and later indirectly states) that these people, therefore, are monsters.

I countered back with a pair of very similar, strictly positive proposals, tweaked slightly to trigger the same emotional response in almost everyone who reads them (including yourself if I'm reading your tone correctly).

My point there is that we're all human and have broadly the same emotional responses. The implicit argument is one of the classics, judge not lest ye be judged.

How do you think those hypos are at all similar?

The first is plain discrimination. And as I am white, any anger I would have would be on behalf of minority students, not myself. The OP isn’t about a discriminatory program and it’s highlighting people who are pissed they didn’t get that when they went to school. It’s a purely selfish reaction.
It’s the same emotion regardless of the cause - righteous fury is a reaction to a perceived unfairness. We all have it because it encourages fair treatment of others and allows for better social bonding.

You *assume* that people react based on jealousy, because you identify them as an “other”, presumably evil group. But what most actually say is something along the lines of “you shouldn’t give it to some people but not others”.



And for what it’s worth, the OP’s policy does indeed discriminate by both class and race, albeit not as directly as my examples.

Unless you can show the program is discriminating using race or class as a determinant, then the "worth" of your statement is just about zero

What are the demographics of those who have up to $50k in student debt? How will the program help those who are already so disadvantaged that they cannot take on that debt? I think this is Mike's point (but I could be reading him wrong).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Cook
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Wight1984 wrote:
I'm tempted by the idea of a graduate tax paid directly by alumni to their awarding university.

With a graduate tax, you don't need to pay anything upfront to go to university and universities have a financial incentive to ensure that their graduates find themselves in well-paid careers after they've graduated (although I reject the idea that the value of a university education can be measured solely via income level in later life).

There would be a transition where universities would have to rely on public funding until they'd acquired enough alumni to generate significant funds, but once it's been in place for a couple of decades it could make for a very mutually rewarding university-alumni relationship.

The UK student loan system works in somewhat similar way; you don't pay anything up front, you make payments back in proportion to what you earn, and the debt is wiped clean after 30 years, but it suffers from bad PR due to having 'loan' in the title and the universities do not directly benefit from loan payments (even less so now that the UK government has started selling student debt).
But *its not fair* that people who work hard after college and earn more would have to pay more than lazy drunkards who choose to earn less /green text
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What is fair is people not liking folks who intentionally took on extra expenses and debt that they didn't need.

Judging who that is is extremely problematic, but it's something we need to consider in the context of debt forgiveness or free schools.

There's value in the balance of making school fully accessible and encouraging more frugal school habits.

... maybe we just cover up to a limit, then enforce public school tuitions to that limit?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doremus Jessup
msg tools
Avatar
mb
LolaGranola wrote:
Doremus wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
Sue_G wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
Okay, same question right back at you, except:

1) wand is only used to benefit white students
Or
2) wand is used to eliminate mortgage debt on jumbo ($650k+) mortgages only

do you seriously think these hypothetical make anything resembling a point
Yes.

The original post, when boiled down to its roots, makes a comment about the "righteous fury" emotional response innate in human beings. He says it's a negative emotion, and as evidence presents a strictly positive proposal that triggers this emotion in some people. He implies (and later indirectly states) that these people, therefore, are monsters.

I countered back with a pair of very similar, strictly positive proposals, tweaked slightly to trigger the same emotional response in almost everyone who reads them (including yourself if I'm reading your tone correctly).

My point there is that we're all human and have broadly the same emotional responses. The implicit argument is one of the classics, judge not lest ye be judged.

How do you think those hypos are at all similar?

The first is plain discrimination. And as I am white, any anger I would have would be on behalf of minority students, not myself. The OP isn’t about a discriminatory program and it’s highlighting people who are pissed they didn’t get that when they went to school. It’s a purely selfish reaction.
It’s the same emotion regardless of the cause - righteous fury is a reaction to a perceived unfairness. We all have it because it encourages fair treatment of others and allows for better social bonding.

You *assume* that people react based on jealousy, because you identify them as an “other”, presumably evil group. But what most actually say is something along the lines of “you shouldn’t give it to some people but not others”.



And for what it’s worth, the OP’s policy does indeed discriminate by both class and race, albeit not as directly as my examples.

Unless you can show the program is discriminating using race or class as a determinant, then the "worth" of your statement is just about zero

What are the demographics of those who have up to $50k in student debt? How will the program help those who are already so disadvantaged that they cannot take on that debt? I think this is Mike's point (but I could be reading him wrong).

Oddly enough that information to bolster his assertion is not included. What is out there however is the fact that there is a disparity in student loans that rather disproves said thesis

Quote:
Black-white disparity in student loan debt more than triples after graduation

=====

The moment they earn their bachelor’s degrees, black college graduates owe $7,400 more on average than their white peers ($23,400 versus $16,000, including non-borrowers in the averages). But over the next few years, the black-white debt gap more than triples to a whopping $25,000. Differences in interest accrual and graduate school borrowing lead to black graduates holding nearly $53,000 in student loan debt four years after graduation—almost twice as much as their white counterparts.

=====
A 2014 study by Goldrick-Rab, Kelchen, and Houle and a 2015 report by Demos show that black students borrow more than other students for the same degrees, and black borrowers are more likely than white borrowers to drop out without receiving a degree.[ii]

A creative 2016 analysis by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth matched data on student loan delinquencies by zip code with zip code demographics and finds that delinquencies are concentrated in black and Latino communities.[iii]

Two recently published studies (by Addo, Houle, and Simon and Grinstein-Weiss et al.) use national survey data to show that black students hold substantially more debt by age 25 compared to their white counterparts, and that disparities are evident even after controlling for family income and wealth, indicating that differences in postsecondary and labor market experiences contribute to the debt gap.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/black-white-disparity-in-...


Study: Student Loans Weigh the Heaviest on Black and Hispanic Students

Quote:
Black students borrow federal student loans at higher rates than other groups of students. An estimated 77.7% of black students borrow federal student loans to pay for a higher education. This figure is significantly higher than the national average for all students (60%) and for white students (57.5%).

Among class of 2012 graduates, Hispanic and black students graduated with higher amounts of student debt from private nonprofit colleges than white students. Black students also borrowed more at public colleges than white students.

Among black students who started school in 2003, 1 in 2 defaulted on student loans within the following 12 years. Black students also saw their starting balance grow by a median 113% in that time frame. The rates of default were lower for Hispanic (36.1%) and white (21.5%) students.


https://studentloanhero.com/featured/study-student-loans-wei...

So even if one wants to overlook his incendiary terms, the numbers available seem not to back him up
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Parker
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
Doremus wrote:
So even if one wants to overlook his incendiary terms, the numbers available seem not to back him up

What? I said it "discriminates based on race and class" and you said "here's some information showing it would disproportionately affect students of a different race". You're agreeing with me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lola Granola
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I guess I was reading him wrong.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Parker
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
LolaGranola wrote:
I guess I was reading him wrong.

No, you're fine too - the class angle goes the "bad" way (this wouldn't help people that had to drop out of high school to pay their living expenses, for example). The race angle goes the "good" way.

But the original question, about whether opposing something strictly good (consequence-free presents!) on the grounds of "fairness" is monstrous, is not as clear cut as the OP would have you believe.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MikePustilnik wrote:


And what about the students who chose to go to less expensive colleges, or worked during their studies, just so they would have lower debt when they graduated? Is it fair to them that the students who chose to go into more debt will get their debts forgiven, at taxpayer expense?


I know people actually think this way and it makes me despair for humanity. Both of you are getting your enormous debt covered. Why does it actually matter that someone else is getting a larger amount of debt covered than you? Why can't you be happy with the fact that you no longer have to pay your own debt?

People have an almost endless capacity to spite themselves if it seems like someone else might, just might, be getting a slightly better deal than they are. It's fucked up.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
MikePustilnik wrote:


And what about the students who chose to go to less expensive colleges, or worked during their studies, just so they would have lower debt when they graduated? Is it fair to them that the students who chose to go into more debt will get their debts forgiven, at taxpayer expense?


I know people actually think this way and it makes me despair for humanity. Both of you are getting your enormous debt covered. Why does it actually matter that someone else is getting a larger amount of debt covered than you? Why can't you be happy with the fact that you no longer have to pay your own debt?

People have an almost endless capacity to spite themselves if it seems like someone else might, just might, be getting a slightly better deal than they are. It's fucked up.

We kind of spoke to it. Part of the issue with the current system is that it encourages people to make very poor and very expensive financial decisions.

We legitimately don't want to reinforce that behavior, and so we need an equitable way to get people clear of the real predatory treatment and at the same time not encourage profligacy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6  Next »  [9] |