More like, “we’ve invented a cure for cancer, but only people who have cancer right now can get it. People in the future are fucked once again and won’t get the cure.”
Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn’t solve the problem. It’s pulling up the ladder.
So we should just not let the people currently sick have the cure? 🤔
Even in your analogy, curing any cancer today, even if it doesn’t extend to future sufferers, is an improvement over curing no one. Because fuck cancer, and fuck student loans.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Imagine if researchers said: We’re working on a cure for cancer, and in the process we’ve generated a bunch of unobtanium. We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure. Obviously, if we use it all up now, we’ll be back to square one and have to start generating it again before we can work on a long-term cure. Which would you pick?
“Unobtanium” is political will. If we just do a round of bailouts for current loan-holders instead of addressing the root cause of spiraling education costs, we’re just kicking the can down the road. The pressure will be off, a whole generation of 20- and 30-somethings will lose interest in the issue, and it’ll fall off the political radar for another few decades, by which time GenZ+ will be well and truly fucked, since educational costs are only going up and up.
The absolute worst way to address rising education costs is to encourage a bunch of students to take ridiculously large loans and then wipe them off the books. That means: 1) schools can raise prices to the roof because they know students have access to mountains of cash from loans, and 2) students won’t hesitate to take the loans because they’ll probably just be forgiven eventually. Probably. Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be a millstone around their neck for the rest of their lives…but hey, what choice do they have, that’s just what school costs (because governments make sure students have all the money they need for a bidding war to get in).
So it amounts to just transferring huge piles of taxpayer money directly to overpriced schools and predatory banks, with no plan to stem the flow. It’s like trying to help your drug-addicted friend recover with a one-time gift of a brick of heroin. They’ll feel great for a while, and they’ll love you for it while it lasts, but it’s only going to make the problem much worse in the long run.
We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure.
How is this what’s happening? Who said it’s a one-time-only thing? Who said they can’t also research permanently available cure? Wouldn’t proving that removing the debt is a huge boon to everyone cause people to invest more in the idea of a cure?
Sure, once it becomes clear that students being debt-free on graduation is a benefit to society, I’m sure voters will scramble to wipe out student debt! That’s why baby boomers, who graduated with very little debt, are such staunch opponents of heavy student loans! /s
Once the pressure is off millennials and gen z, you’ll be able to watch the issue drop right out of public discourse. The focus will shift to housing costs, or health care, or some other topic that directly affects them. That’s just how politics works, especially in the US, where the constant gridlock in congress means that things only get done in a crisis. If you think we young people are just better than the boomers, and we wouldn’t forget to go back and fix the root causes even though we’re not immediately affected anymore…you’re in for disappointment.
If the goal is to help young people graduate with less debt, randomly forgiving large loans has got to be the worst possible approach. That only encourages educational costs to rise, and encourages students to take on ridiculous debts, and thus ends up transferring taxpayer money directly to schools and banks–and the more outrageous the loans and charges of those schools & banks, the more taxpayer money they get. That is legitimately a crazy way to solve the problem! As I said, it’s like giving a drug addict a bunch of heroin. Surely these businesses won’t want even more money, right?
So what do you do instead? Well, just off the top of my head: cap student loans. That’s what Canada does. I applied for a student loan when I went to school there, and I didn’t get to pick an amount. Based on where I was living and the school I was planning to go to, the government just said: “Okay, here’s $N”. It wasn’t that much, something like $6k per term (in the late 00’s).
Since students in that case won’t have access to arbitrary bags of cash, schools that actually want students will have to, you know, lower prices and compete. So my tuition was something like $4-5k per year, not $20k or $80k. I graduated with something like $50k in debt, which I paid off in a few years.
That would be a reasonable first step. Do that first, while you’ve got the political support, and then forgive student loans. Don’t do that first!
“Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”
Get out of here with that bullshit.
Why not contribute something yourself, or address the arguments they’re making instead of dismissing them out of hand?
The argument is bad and probably in bad faith. If I can paraphrase it in a few lines and demonstrate how ridiculous it is, it’s not deserving of a response.
You don’t have to attend every argument you’re invited to.
Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are? Do you know what arguing in bad faith means?
“Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”
If the US poured it’s full resources into saving John Doe from Birmingham Alabama, who has cancer, they could probably do it. Of course, then those resources (cash, equipment, researchers & doctors) couldn’t be used to help other people, or to perform research towards an eventual cure for everybody. It would be a bad use of resources, right?
You don’t let John Doe die because you want his death to motivate researchers. But you only have a certain amount of resources, and you have to allocate them in a way that makes sense, and pouring everything into a temporary solution that only affect this one dude (or one batch of student loan recipients) at the cost of a long-term, permanent solution to the root causes of the issue is just…a bad idea.
Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are?
I think your real beliefs and agenda are that you don’t want student loan forgiveness for anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Maybe you’re bitter because you didn’t go to school or maybe because you did and already paid off your debt. Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, or maybe you’re just a troll. I don’t really care. It doesn’t matter, because the argument is reprehensible regardless of your motives:
We should let John Doe in Alabama die because it’s too expensive to save him.
You decided that the financial expense of saving a life is worth condemning a patient to death just like you decided that the imaginary, hypothetical political cost of a change in policy is worth consigning multiple generations to lifelong debt.
You should be ashamed of yourself. But whether you are or not, I’m not interested in debating with you.
So the people who could get relief should abstain because the door is shut on any legislation as long as the GOP are in power?
Awfully compassionate of you.
No. That’s mighty presumptive of you. Play the game as the rules are. I’m suggesting loan forgiveness is a half-measure and it never should have been offered by politicians without solving the problem of unaffordable education. Otherwise, this isn’t a solution, it’s just a band-aid on a gaping still-bleeding wound that needs stitches. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does create inequity.
Lol you really couldn’t help yourself. Just one reply and you reveal that you’re actually just a selfish piece of shit. Maybe just shut up while you’re ahead next time. You’re a garbage person but people don’t have to know on the Internet if you don’t make it so abundantly clear.
You know adults can usually communicate their point without resorting to insulting those who have different opinions. You don’t seem to have a point, just insults.
How is this down voted. You’re speaking facts lol. It’s a shitty bandaid solution
Because a half measure is better than no measure
Why not do both
We could do both, but you asked why it was being down voted. The down voted text says that politicians never should have offered loan forgiveness. They explicitly said we shouldn’t do both.
Because it completely ignores the fact that it does solve the problem for a lot of people, and they don’t want to do it because it doesn’t help everyone.
We should still do good things even if we can’t do all the good things.
Exactly , rather than only forgiving existing loans that should make education free and also forgive existing loans , and perhaps give people who have already paid off their loan some kind of stimulus check as a kind of recognition that their struggle was just as hard as everyone else’s and they deserve a break too.
What about those of us that didn’t go outright because we couldn’t afford it nor get the loans?
… I’d still be more than happy if education was made free, but there are A LOT of people the system has fucked and Democrats barely even want to glance at the lowest hanging fruit.
Isn’t the lowest hanging fruit exactly what they’re targeting, i.e. the people who currently have loans, and the higher hanging fruit all the other circumstances people are mentioning here like already paid off their loans or future student who will get loans or in your case people who forewent becoming a student due to the loans?
Again. No one who is for student loan forgiveness is outright against assistance for low wage earners. They are not linked. If its who gets the bite at the apple first than do every thing you can to remove the GOP from power.
“They are not linked”, exactly, they’re choosing to leave some people behind.
They are not chosing anything. They are politically cornered.
Declare that future student loans are also automatically forgiven. You take a student loan tomorrow? You don’t have to pay it back. This, of course, will mean that no one will want to give student loans - which will force the tuition down.
At that point why not just cut out the lenders entirely and make college free/publicly funded for all students like they do in Germany? An educated population yields many returns for a society and it will pay for itself with the boost to our economy it would provide.
I thought the U.S. government already took all the loans. So wouldn’t the lender be the U.S. government, and the interest goes to paying for the companies managing the loans I would assume. My interest rate on some of my loans went from 2.4% to 4.8% if I remember correctly (was sometime between 2008-2012 time period). I don’t believe students can go to a bank and get private student loans unless there is some loopholes. That said, cancelling student loan debt would simply mean not paying themselves back. Student loans are tax deductible as well, so when you pay them it would essentially come out of your taxes income, so if you could magically pay 10k off one year, it should come off your highest taxes income bracket. I still owe some, but I’d be fine with at least making it free college for AS/AA and 0% interest on student loans past that for all new takers. If they could make it free for BS/BA I’m still fine with being stuck with mine so long as we can figure out how to fix it for the future generations.
What I don’t get, is that what moderates keep saying…
You know, the people that constantly shit on progressives and claim we don’t want anything unless it’s everything.
Isn’t the whole moderate mission to take what we can get now and keep working for more? I’m not saying that’s what they actually do, that’s just their excuse for not fighting for more.
So shouldn’t the ones pushing for loan forgiveness now and fixing the underlying issue later be the moderates?
Instead they say if we can’t 100% fix the problem in perpetuity, we can’t do anything.
It’s because moderates are what conservatives claim to be. They are pro-status quo and keeping change as show as possible (as opposed to conservatives that just want hierarchical power structures that let them exercise power over others, no matter what changes are required).
Exactly. Arguing that you’re against helping people now because it doesn’t go far enough is ridiculous. Help people now. Then continue helping people. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of progress.
Those unrealistic idealists are so frustrating to argue with. Is this a great first step? YES! Can we do more? Also YES.
Take the win, and use that momentum to drive mode change. Trying to go from 0 to 100 in one step is just not realistic.
Take the win, and use that momentum to drive mode change.
There’s a difference between a start and means testing tho…
Those same moderates like to use means testing to erode away support for more, and to get the people who don’t make the cut to vote against it.
It’s how moderates have been opposing universal healthcare for over 80 years.
Social Security was supposed to be a temporary compromise to help the neediest while the government worked out the wrinkles for universal healthcare that was for everyone.
Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn’t solve the problem. It’s pulling up the ladder.
You’re 100% correct. But be careful, these folks don’t take kindly to shining a light on their hypocrisy. They signed their names to a legally-binding contract, spent the money, but now don’t like paying it back under the terms they agreed to.
College tuition is far too high. But without fixing the root cause, tuition loan forgiveness does nothing for everyone before and after, and it actually makes the whole problem worse.
Blaming the people taking the loans is kind of absurd, for many it’s their only option if they want to continue their education. It’s not like they’re taking out loans they don’t need and burning the money.
“Legally-binding contract” is meaningless too, would you make the same argument against people who signed away their lives before slavery was abolished? Just because it’s legal now doesn’t mean it always will be, or that it must be enforced indefinitely.
You’re absolutely right that reducing tuition is the right move. Tuition is free where I am and some of the costs I see elsewhere are crazy. However, the options are not necessarily mutually exclusive; you can reduce tuition and help people that have already been shafted by the existing system.
No one (BESIDES THE GOP) is against fixing it through legislation. That is a strawman.
Could you walk me through what you see as these folks’ hypocrisy? I don’t get it.
Is somebody arguing that loan forgiveness should be a one time thing and no one after them should get it?
I spent five figures paying mine off two years ago.
Still 100% support my tax dollars paying for people’s college. In fact, I’d love that instead of the nine wars my tax dollars are paying for instead.
From the school of “I suffered through [x], so therefore everyone else should suffer, too, even if they don’t need to.”
There’s always going to be a cutoff point where someone has it harder or easier than those that came before. That’s just life. As long as the change wasn’t malicious, just feel good (or whatever is appropriate) for those that benefit from it.
I work in a highly contract-controlled industry, and when things improve there’s always a segment of the group that might be close to retirement or something and gets all pissed that they didn’t won’t realize the benefits of a change that will apply mostly to those that will have longer under the change. They’re the same ones that bitch that new employees didn’t suffer under whatever crappy work rules that might have existed before, too.
So yeah…people that paid off their loans, or guys that I work with that paid for some/all of their kid’s college, bitch about people catching a break on their loans. STFU and be happy that someone else caught a break.
Beating cancer builds character!
Can someone tell me what this comic is about?
IDK. Some cringe-lord wants free stuff and wants your taxes to pay for it. Something about cancer.
This also needs to go into the cancer he beat is dramaticly easier to overcome than cancer in the future.
“What do you mean? Just get a part time job. I waited tables and paid my way through college.”
“How much was your tuition?”
“$500 a semester. Why? How much is yours?”
“$19,000 a semester”
This comic is based on pretty childish thinking. Repaying student loans isn’t a cure. It’s making everyone else pay the price (either through inflation, through rising education costs, or through direct tax later).
Second, cancer isn’t a choice–student loans are.
More accurately would be: I’m going to be so upset if I have to suffer even a little again to help everyone else make up for their bad decisions.
Where does the forgiveness come from? After paying for my education I now pay a bunch of taxes, I assume that’s what is paying for their education? So the cartoon should say, I just fought and beat cancer and now I need to go work on a cute. “They” cutting cancer is not the same.
