1. The reason that Elizabeth Warren is out there is that the relief is going to be less than 50K - perhaps a lot less.
2. People who have paid off their loans, are less likely to have endured the cost of todays fees.
3. The way you have phrased it suggests it is a contest between the diligent, and those who would shirk responsibility. The problem that argument is there is another burden - the cost to society of graduates forced to seek the highest paying jobs, rather than following their vocation, or giving something back in public service, or to their communities, or to private enterprises who exercise more social responsibility than a hedge fund. This is an invisible cost to the individual and the public, but it is real. Every teacher who decides to do something else, because it pays more - represents a loss to everyone.
4. There is going to be some assistance for child care. Does that mean parents will come back and say - I paid for all my kids child care. Why should why should there be free ride? No of course they won't. The underlying objection is why should ppl get a free ride to earn big bucks? And then we are back at 3.
5. So my question is - supposing the package reduces the debt burden to something like the levels of 15 years ago - would that be less offensive?
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read