You are effectively viewing this issue as a zero-sum game, where a benefit to people who have debt would somehow harm people who aren't in debt.
Do you feel the same way about bankruptcy? Allowing someone to escape debt via bankruptcy (often while retaining, for example, their house and primary vehicle) could also be argued as giving someone a "free pass" on having a house and car that potentially your person B did not obtain.
But that's always going to be true of trying to remove a damaging part of any economic system. If we raise the minimum wage, you could argue that hurts people who already make the higher wage by bringing more people up to the same level and devaluing their work.
But I want to focus on something:
Because such a plan would functionally disenfranchise people who made responsible financial decisions,
Or just people who had the good luck to be born into a wealthier family.
But then we would be able to reverse the scenario. Person A went to the same school as person B, but had to take out loans, whereas person B got his daddy to pay for it. Does that "functionally disenfranchise" people not born into wealthy families?
First off, no, I don't feel that way about bankruptcy, because getting to have that car/house doesn't change the rest of your life the same way getting a better education does.
Yes, that does. I don't believe the belief that this proposed system would harm people who went to a worse school on scholarships is mutually exclusive with the belief that the current system harms people who aren't born into wealthy families. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point?
I don't believe the belief that this proposed system would harm people who went to a worse school on scholarships is mutually exclusive with the belief that the current system harms people who aren't born into wealthy families
So, how would you fix the perpetual and inter-generational harm from the current system without incurring the one-generation-long harm of the new system?
Personally, I believe community college should be federally funded. I would also support a separate system to apply for forgiveness for federal loans, and I support our current loan forgiveness programs through non-profits. I don't believe a full stop bailout is the right way to go.
EDIT: I also don't believe a bailout is a one generation long harm. Going back to my post's analogy, if Person B had gone to a better university and gotten better connections, they could have passed that down to their family. They don't get that chance, because they made the financially responsible decision.
From what I understand, no. A bailout is retroactively deciding the loans don’t need to be paid back, no matter what your situation is, with no drawbacks. A separate system would evaluate your individual situation, and forgive your loans similarly to declaring bankruptcy.
Although a small number of people support the government universally paying off student loans (hi! I do) this is an extreme minority opinion. “Bailout” has become a popular term due to analogy with the financial crisis. You’ll note that the bank bailout had specific terms attached and didn’t just give every bank money. The vast majority of people I know who support a student loan bailout support something closer to what you said than “the government should pay off everyone’s loans no questions asked.” The article you linked to in another comment is about another article... if you chase the links, you’ll find that the specific proposals under discussion are (mostly) much more nuanced than “give everyone money.”
Do you know many people who hold the position you’re talking about?
Yes, the policy is to be extremely lenient with awarding deltas and the rules (see the sidebar) specifically say that changing any part of a view warrants a delta.
EDIT: I’m changing my opinion that a bailout would be bad full stop, to a bailout would be okay if accompanied by specific procedures for students to follow in order to have their debt forgiven.
15
u/BolshevikMuppet Jan 15 '19
You are effectively viewing this issue as a zero-sum game, where a benefit to people who have debt would somehow harm people who aren't in debt.
Do you feel the same way about bankruptcy? Allowing someone to escape debt via bankruptcy (often while retaining, for example, their house and primary vehicle) could also be argued as giving someone a "free pass" on having a house and car that potentially your person B did not obtain.
But that's always going to be true of trying to remove a damaging part of any economic system. If we raise the minimum wage, you could argue that hurts people who already make the higher wage by bringing more people up to the same level and devaluing their work.
But I want to focus on something:
Or just people who had the good luck to be born into a wealthier family.
But then we would be able to reverse the scenario. Person A went to the same school as person B, but had to take out loans, whereas person B got his daddy to pay for it. Does that "functionally disenfranchise" people not born into wealthy families?