Yes, it would help those who didn't get the degree but took out college loans. MOST of those helped though would be graduates. This measure completely leaves out anyone who didn't even attempt college. It's elitist. I am ALSO elitist, but I don't make sweeping decisions that spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that only help the higher earners in our society.
It would mostly help people in the middle class. Rich people are either long out of college or have had their college paid for by their rich parents. I can see why the optics are the way they are, but it's not actually an elitist policy. I get why it would feel crappy to be in the middle class without a degree and see your peers get some of their loans forgiven, but I don't think it's really a benefit to the actual elites in our society.
You're just making things up. It would disproportionately benefit the rich.
A white student is suing Howard University for racial discrimination. He alleged the school created a “hostile education environment" before expelling him
It would mostly help people in the middle class. Rich people are either long out of college or have had their college paid for by their rich parents. I can see why the optics are the way they are, but it's not actually an elitist policy. I get why it would feel crappy to be in the middle class without a degree and see your peers get some of their loans forgiven, but I don't think it's really a benefit to the actual elites in our society.
You're just making things up. It would disproportionately benefit the rich.
But that's not exactly what we're talking about, at least I believe. We're talking about the executive order that intended to chop 10k off of everybody's loans. This article is talking about the pausing payments and interest, which absolutely benefitted those with super high loan numbers like doctors and lawyers. The 10k policy wouldn't help these doctors and lawyers disproportionately. If they have 250k in loans, they'd now have 240k in loans.
But that's not exactly what we're talking about, at least I believe. We're talking about the executive order that intended to chop 10k off of everybody's loans. This article is talking about the pausing payments and interest, which absolutely benefitted those with super high loan numbers like doctors and lawyers. The 10k policy wouldn't help these doctors and lawyers disproportionately. If they have 250k in loans, they'd now have 240k in loans.
Any help at all for people who don't need it is absurd.
But that's not exactly what we're talking about, at least I believe. We're talking about the executive order that intended to chop 10k off of everybody's loans. This article is talking about the pausing payments and interest, which absolutely benefitted those with super high loan numbers like doctors and lawyers. The 10k policy wouldn't help these doctors and lawyers disproportionately. If they have 250k in loans, they'd now have 240k in loans.
Any help at all for people who don't need it is absurd.
You don't even want to help the people that need it so idk how we'd find common ground on loan forgiveness of all things, but I'd be fine with having some sort of wage and/or wealth cutoff for the forgiveness. And for the record, I paid off mine already so I'm not advocating for my own benefit. Like I said, I have a few friends without degrees who are in debt, and a few friends and coworkers making decent but middle incomes (50k-65k) with 10k-20k in loans who would greatly benefit from some loan forgiveness, but I would get how someone working in a factory with no degree making $18 and hour would be like, wtf this isn't fair
Any help at all for people who don't need it is absurd.
You don't even want to help the people that need it so idk how we'd find common ground on loan forgiveness of all things, but I'd be fine with having some sort of wage and/or wealth cutoff for the forgiveness. And for the record, I paid off mine already so I'm not advocating for my own benefit. Like I said, I have a few friends without degrees who are in debt, and a few friends and coworkers making decent but middle incomes (50k-65k) with 10k-20k in loans who would greatly benefit from some loan forgiveness, but I would get how someone working in a factory with no degree making $18 and hour would be like, wtf this isn't fair
I don't support any government program that makes the problem it's supposed to be fixing worse.
If we're giving away magic money in what universe is it fair to give a doctor $10,000 and tell a waitress tough luck?
Again, proving your unique level of as*****. Most of the Trumper morans limit their tells of being morans to "hoax" and "MSM" and the like. But adult is oh-so-clever and adds "stolen valor."
God you're a f***** a-hole. And you show up every day to a place where most people think the same about you. Masochistic loser, beyond belief.
Tell us adult, what was your supposed service? I'd like to see what you fabricate.
I don't disagree with that. Refusal to protect a woman's right to have autonomy over her own body is a huge government over reach.
As far as student loans, I believe removing interest costs from loans, not erasing them, would be a fairer approach. Students who made decisions to work more during school, or went to less expensive colleges or had their parents sacrifice to pay more tuition wouldn't feel like they got the short end of the stick for making responsible decisions.
Pro-life advocates think the baby has rights.
It is wildly dishonest to pretend that the debate is simply about women's rights.
The pro-life movement is a woman's movement.
Choice never results in a baby being killed.
If you think removing a woman's right to chose is supporting the woman's movement, how about letting women decide if it supports their rights having someone else make decisions for her regarding personal autonomy.
It's probably been asked before, but I wonder what the average number of replies to a potentially good topic on this website it takes before the conversation starts to go to hell?
3.7? 4.2? Something like that?
I think there is, in fact, a very precise answer to the question as to how many posts there are on a potentially good topic before the conversation starts to go to hell.
The conversation starts to go to hell after precisely one post from our toddler, TAITR.
You're right, that is much easier - and more accurate - math.
Yes, it would help those who didn't get the degree but took out college loans. MOST of those helped though would be graduates. This measure completely leaves out anyone who didn't even attempt college. It's elitist. I am ALSO elitist, but I don't make sweeping decisions that spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that only help the higher earners in our society.
It would mostly help people in the middle class. Rich people are either long out of college or have had their college paid for by their rich parents. I can see why the optics are the way they are, but it's not actually an elitist policy. I get why it would feel crappy to be in the middle class without a degree and see your peers get some of their loans forgiven, but I don't think it's really a benefit to the actual elites in our society.
Middle class as a LOW end, AND middle class with a greater potential to move to upper middle class or upper class than someone who didn't go to college. We'll just have to disagree, brother. My view is that anytime you financially help a group of people (college graduates in this case) who are a group who does better than the non-college graduate group, that is elitist. Besides, that was just one of the many reasons I am against this loan forgiveness.
Ah a guy from heavily subsidized red America chimes in with his views on self-sufficiency. Thanks!
1. You have no idea where I'm from.
2. Intelligent people understand that California is more successful than a place like Oklahoma because of geography not politics.
California was still the highest earning state when it was deep red.
The south was still the poorest when it was deep blue.
No, no, no adult, it doesn't work that way. YOU make up "facts," WE make up facts. If agip says you're from bumf*** Redville, you are. Additionally, you almost certainly ARE.
It's probably been asked before, but I wonder what the average number of replies to a potentially good topic on this website it takes before the conversation starts to go to hell?
3.7? 4.2? Something like that?
The conversation starts to go to hell after precisely one post from our toddler, TAITR.
Calling TAITR a toddler is generous. Toddlers have the ability to learn.
Again, proving your unique level of as*****. Most of the Trumper morans limit their tells of being morans to "hoax" and "MSM" and the like. But adult is oh-so-clever and adds "stolen valor."
God you're a f***** a-hole. And you show up every day to a place where most people think the same about you. Masochistic loser, beyond belief.
Tell us adult, what was your supposed service? I'd like to see what you fabricate.
Why does this make you so angry? I guessed the ship you were on. What other detail did I get wrong about your service?
The fact that you went apoplectic rather than simply clarifying makes me think you're just mad that you got called out for doing it and getting embarrassed.
I was in the Army for 11 years. I'll tell the same story every time because it's actually true.
2. Intelligent people understand that California is more successful than a place like Oklahoma because of geography not politics.
California was still the highest earning state when it was deep red.
The south was still the poorest when it was deep blue.
No, no, no adult, it doesn't work that way. YOU make up "facts," WE make up facts. If agip says you're from bumf*** Redville, you are. Additionally, you almost certainly ARE.
Awaiting your fabricated valor, as well, AW.
Or, maybe not. Maybe you live in an urban setting full of metrosexual libs CLEARLY doing better in this world/life than you are - driving their Teslas and living in better places than you, and such - and this fuels your supreme bitterness and anger.
2. Intelligent people understand that California is more successful than a place like Oklahoma because of geography not politics.
California was still the highest earning state when it was deep red.
The south was still the poorest when it was deep blue.
No, no, no adult, it doesn't work that way. YOU make up "facts," WE make up facts. If agip says you're from bumf*** Redville, you are. Additionally, you almost certainly ARE.
Awaiting your fabricated valor, as well, AW.
Facts that hurt your feelings aren't "made up".
Name some facts I've "made up".
You do a lot of whining and insulting but I've never seen you make a decent point on any subject in the time I've been here.
You don't even want to help the people that need it so idk how we'd find common ground on loan forgiveness of all things, but I'd be fine with having some sort of wage and/or wealth cutoff for the forgiveness. And for the record, I paid off mine already so I'm not advocating for my own benefit. Like I said, I have a few friends without degrees who are in debt, and a few friends and coworkers making decent but middle incomes (50k-65k) with 10k-20k in loans who would greatly benefit from some loan forgiveness, but I would get how someone working in a factory with no degree making $18 and hour would be like, wtf this isn't fair
I don't support any government program that makes the problem it's supposed to be fixing worse.
If we're giving away magic money in what universe is it fair to give a doctor $10,000 and tell a waitress tough luck?
Never thought I would ever agree with the moron in the room. Does that make me a moron???
It is wildly dishonest to pretend that the debate is simply about women's rights.
The pro-life movement is a woman's movement.
Choice never results in a baby being killed.
If you think removing a woman's right to chose is supporting the woman's movement, how about letting women decide if it supports their rights having someone else make decisions for her regarding personal autonomy.
I'm pro-choice because it's none of my business. Abortion has zero impact on my vote.
Pro-life people believe abortion is killing a baby.
The MAJORITY of Americans believe abortion after the 1st trimester is killing a baby so they oppose it.
NEW YORK (AP) — A solid majority of Americans believe most abortions should be legal in the first three months of a woman’s pregnancy, but most say the procedure should usually be illegal in the second and third trimesters, a...
No, no, no adult, it doesn't work that way. YOU make up "facts," WE make up facts. If agip says you're from bumf*** Redville, you are. Additionally, you almost certainly ARE.
Awaiting your fabricated valor, as well, AW.
Or, maybe not. Maybe you live in an urban setting full of metrosexual libs CLEARLY doing better in this world/life than you are - driving their Teslas and living in better places than you, and such - and this fuels your supreme bitterness and anger.
I could go either way.
Going both ways is the only thing about your Navy career I believe.
