Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
Democratic Primaries
In reply to the discussion: Sanders to propose canceling $1.6 trillion in US student debt [View all]FBaggins
(26,727 posts)89. The argument still suffers from the same issue
whenever a country starts a program like this, there is going to be a start date where the program takes effect no matter how you slice it.
True... but in this case that isn't really what is happening.
IF the program was "going forward college will be provided by the government" then it would fit that model and everyone would be treated equally. But this plan doesn't really have a start date where the change takes effect, because people who consumed the service five years ago but never paid for it now have a "start date" five years earlier than others.
Paying off people's student loans will release a huge burden from millions of people's lives
And add it to the national debt while other people pay it off. The debt doesn't go away.
The mindset of "I suffered so therefore so should you" is unhealthy and, in this case, unproductive.
Except that isn't the mindset at all. It's "I made wise decisions with money while you made foolish ones... yet you pay no price for that mistake". Actually... it's worse than that since the person who completed college without taking on debt is far more likely to have the investments that are getting taxed to pay for the plan. Which means that many of the people who made the "wise decisions with money" are not just watching others avoid the price for poor decisions... they're paying for them themselves.
It's much like the huge banks that made stupid decisions that should have put them out of business... only to have the government retroactively fix their problem. That would be bad enough on its own... but there were banks that didn't make those stupid decisions who would have benefited from the stupid banks going under... and they never got to reap the reward of their comparatively good behavior.
Moral hazard. Governments sometimes pick winners and losers because that's the nature of government policymaking. But picking them retroactively is unwise.
True... but in this case that isn't really what is happening.
IF the program was "going forward college will be provided by the government" then it would fit that model and everyone would be treated equally. But this plan doesn't really have a start date where the change takes effect, because people who consumed the service five years ago but never paid for it now have a "start date" five years earlier than others.
Paying off people's student loans will release a huge burden from millions of people's lives
And add it to the national debt while other people pay it off. The debt doesn't go away.
The mindset of "I suffered so therefore so should you" is unhealthy and, in this case, unproductive.
Except that isn't the mindset at all. It's "I made wise decisions with money while you made foolish ones... yet you pay no price for that mistake". Actually... it's worse than that since the person who completed college without taking on debt is far more likely to have the investments that are getting taxed to pay for the plan. Which means that many of the people who made the "wise decisions with money" are not just watching others avoid the price for poor decisions... they're paying for them themselves.
It's much like the huge banks that made stupid decisions that should have put them out of business... only to have the government retroactively fix their problem. That would be bad enough on its own... but there were banks that didn't make those stupid decisions who would have benefited from the stupid banks going under... and they never got to reap the reward of their comparatively good behavior.
Moral hazard. Governments sometimes pick winners and losers because that's the nature of government policymaking. But picking them retroactively is unwise.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
104 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bernie, gets it!! Why he's the "people's choice" and taking the country by storm!!
InAbLuEsTaTe
Jun 2019
#49
Many people are still living frugally, attending community college, and are sacrificing to pay
HerbChestnut
Jun 2019
#18
Yes. The math shows that we cannot raise TRILLIONS by taxing a small segment of the population
oldsoftie
Jun 2019
#72
Do you have any studies showing a change in stock trading behavior as a result of similar policy?
HerbChestnut
Jun 2019
#95
Well, you think post #97 is an extreme example (its not), so none of this is logical to you
oldsoftie
Jun 2019
#104
This piece hits on a key difference: Warren is shaping her policy to target assistance to those who
Cha
Jun 2019
#47
Life changing beyond belief!! Bernie gets it, which is why he keeps surging.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Jun 2019
#90
Bernie's camp has been hinting at this type of legislation since before he announced his campaign.
HerbChestnut
Jun 2019
#13
he can help pay for it by cancelling the equally expensive F35 program...and others nt
msongs
Jun 2019
#8
I paid off mine and I'd be thrilled if the younger gen doesn't have to struggle.
Nanjeanne
Jun 2019
#15
I agree. Some type of public service in lieu of loan repayment would not only relieve students
sop
Jun 2019
#21
Or cancel it for some people that MADE a choice to serve the public while paying off their debt.
Blue_true
Jun 2019
#22
And are not functioning. Something like 98% of eligible. Applicants are turned down. These are
emmaverybo
Jun 2019
#31
Warren would cancel 95% is the difference. Hers is income-driven so that if you have a huge
emmaverybo
Jun 2019
#37
While Sen. Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign has been in the middle of the pack in raising..
Cha
Jun 2019
#32
This piece hits on a key difference: Warren is shaping her policy to target assistance to those who
Cha
Jun 2019
#46
There are funding sources for this, but not sure if we can fund everything we want like
Hoyt
Jun 2019
#20
I am very skeptical that these wish lists can begin to be fulfilled even with a Dem senate. Another
emmaverybo
Jun 2019
#34
Agree. Rather than unfulfilled promises, I wish some candidate would tell truth, prioritize needs,
Hoyt
Jun 2019
#43
Why should someone who took a loan, with an agreement to pay it back, not be required to pay it back
still_one
Jun 2019
#77
That's the way I see it. Regardless of the magnitude, students entered into an agreement....
George II
Jun 2019
#81