Originally Posted by Pliskin101 This ^

Yet another detailed nuanced post from our new resident shit poster.

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 Nah....I don't feel like it but feel free to knock yourself out. For the next part see my last post.

So I take it that there's nothing defensible about your post because you don't have the knowledge to back it up. Typical.

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 Sorry I forgot to address the above gem. Yuck-yuck-yuck Does Marx's Kapital and Communist Manifesto SPECIFICALLY say something about the United States Government paying off outstanding student loans? You seem to think it does so feel free AGAIN to knock yourself out. Yuck-yuck-yuck

The Constitution doesn't specifically say anything about the internet either, but provides theory and framework for it's regulation...not that you've shown that your intellect is capable of reasoning out their relationships.

Thanks for making this forum your toilet though. I'll make you're treated in kind.

Originally Posted by Msut77 So when companies were putting poison in baby formula you were blaming the parents for not having labs in their own homes testing everything before they fed it to their infant?

No, I do not think that poor financial/investment advice is the same as a lie by the maker of baby formula about if they put poison into the formula. Since you equated the two, do you think they are the same?

So a job is investment, life is an investment etc...

Both could be, yes.

I am not changing the topic, you are pretending basically everyone just floats in their invisible bubble of self responsibility and not that say both parties have looked to education for self improvement since forever. It so happens it is failing people.

If the system is failing it needs to change. I do not believe that the government paying off people's school loans is the change it needs. I honestly don't really understand what you mean by "you are pretending basically everyone just floats in their invisible bubble of self responsibility". I am for personal responsibility yes. I would think that everyone would be. JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." He was a democrat.

I feel a lot of things should happen, people can agree that college is overpriced and not worth the "return" but without for example the german vocational training system there is relatively little to do concerning that. It appears it really just going to be more people fighting for less professional positions, but that still doesn't mean " everyone who doesn't find a spot when the music stops".

People can get deferment or forbearance, they are not screwed. They may not find a job in their chosen field, but they still have their education. Why should the government pay off the loans when someone "doesn't find a spot"? This is the question I asked at the start of this discussion.

If I could possibly convey more contempt I would.

Then we disagree and I will respect your opinion.

Originally Posted by mykevermin It describes *everything* the government does, therefore it describes *nothing* of value because it can not be used selectively without being used inaccurately.

Everything the government does has an economic influence. Until you accept that fact, you can not move further.

Saying that "it describes everything the government does" is not the same thing as saying that "everything the government does has an economic influence".

I don't think this argument on the preceding pages is about the meaning of "redistribution of wealth" so much as it is about the difference in the above 2 quotes.

Originally Posted by dohdough Like I keep repeating, I'm not that dogmatic. Increasing grants and reducing the amount owed on loans to outright discharge isn't unrealistic when we already have a framework in place with FAFSA. Even beyond discharging debt, there are greater concerns that arise from loans putting people underwater. Higher education is a business and students have become commodities. It's only a matter of time until the education bubble explodes just like the housing bubble did and I've been saying this for several years. Schools are in the business of teaching, but schools also need funding. Funding comes from private banks and their only interest is in selling as many loans as possible. Cut funding to education while allowing wage stagnation and you're creating a perfect storm for predatory lending. This isn't conjecture; this is what history tells us.

Do you honestly think college budgets are stretched to the limits? That prices aren't inflated at all? How about book prices?

You are right, colleges are treating students like commodities except it isn't the business aspect that is causing it. (I know, I know it sounds backwards but hear me out.) It is all the free money floating around that colleges are taking advantage of.

This is why you are seeing all these private online colleges sprout up with bachelor degree programs that won't be worth much but cost a hell of a lot. People figured out that there is a lot of funding out there for college students, and that these students 1. don't realize what they are getting into when they take out these large amounts of loans, and 2. Think they are getting a career if they only get this damned piece of paper.

It is starting to become a scam, and I do not think the government footing the bill (or the rest of the bill) will fix ANY aspect of it.

Originally Posted by dohdough Yeah, but I didn't think it was relevant considering that the outlet is more important than the author because Freakonomics isn't exactly a conservative source. I found the citation cynical.

The guys from freakonomics crew seem to care more about being contrarian and getting eyeballs then everything else.

The first "point" maddening because this guy probably knew he was bullshitting. First of there is the fallacy of "We shouldn't help x group because y group is worst off. Also, pointing that traditionally people with degrees (which isn't necessarily the same as people with student loans) are better off ignores the fact that isn't the case for many now.

Like I said, I stopped reading after that.

Originally Posted by megma42 No, I do not think that poor financial/investment advice is the same as a lie by the maker of baby formula about if they put poison into the formula. Since you equated the two, do you think they are the same?

I think using your "logic" a comparison could be made.

Both could be, yes.

You do realize you have just admitted you have no idea what you are arguing correct?

If the system is failing it needs to change.

Before I go any further, do you have a college degree/student loan debt; do you work?

Originally Posted by megma42 Saying that "it describes everything the government does" is not the same thing as saying that "everything the government does has an economic influence". I don't think this argument on the preceding pages is about the meaning of "redistribution of wealth" so much as it is about the difference in the above 2 quotes.

Don't be silly (or, perhaps, so literal). You've taken a very simple argument and are parsing it out into something easy to refute (e.g., war isn't always done for economic reasons) instead of wrangling with what my actual point is. I had a good 7-10 posts yesterday describing my argument, so it's dishonest to whittle it down to 6 words and say "hey, this point is stupid."

You insult yourself in the process by suggesting you weren't smart enough to understand what I was saying. And you insult me by thinking I'd believe that.

Originally Posted by mykevermin Don't be silly (or, perhaps, so literal). You've taken a very simple argument and are parsing it out into something easy to refute (e.g., war isn't always done for economic reasons) instead of wrangling with what my actual point is. I had a good 7-10 posts yesterday describing my argument, so it's dishonest to whittle it down to 6 words and say "hey, this point is stupid." You insult yourself in the process by suggesting you weren't smart enough to understand what I was saying. And you insult me by thinking I'd believe that.

Kind of how you whittle someones argument down to the term income redistribution and simply put your fingers in your ears and go "im not listening! stupidhead"

Originally Posted by Msut77 You do realize you have just admitted you have no idea what you are arguing correct?

No, know what I am arguing. I believe that you invest time and money when you go to college with the expectation of getting a job that would be better than you could have gotten without a degree. You do not think that college is an investment even though it fits the definition. You neglect to see that the current state of affairs helps to show that it was indeed an investment that was vulnerable to market ups and down and not the "sure thing" that people believed it was.

As to a job or you life being an investment I think that it is a matter of your personal viewpoint. If you put extra time or effort into a job and you are expecting to get promoted or get a raise then you are making an investment since you are expecting a worthwhile result or profit. If you are a member of a religion and you believe in an afterlife that is dependent on the actions you take during this life, then yes your life is an investment.

Before I go any further, do you have a college degree/student loan debt; do you work?

Explain to me how this is relevant to the discussion at hand other than for personal attack and I will certainly tell you.

Sigh....are you guys even debating anything at this point? Seems like the 2 new guys have spent the last couple pages debating what the actual point to debate is.

Myke is a veteran debater here, you are going to have to pick a topic and be far more direct if you want to debate him on anything, he is not what I call a "gamefaqs" debater in which he will spend pages talking about what things we should be talking about.

Originally Posted by megma42 No, know what I am arguing. I believe that you invest time and money when you go to college with the expectation of getting a job that would be better than you could have gotten without a degree. You do not think that college is an investment even though it fits the definition. You neglect to see that the current state of affairs helps to show that it was indeed an investment that was vulnerable to market ups and down and not the "sure thing" that people believed it was. As to a job or you life being an investment I think that it is a matter of your personal viewpoint. If you put extra time or effort into a job and you are expecting to get promoted or get a raise then you are making an investment since you are expecting a worthwhile result or profit. If you are a member of a religion and you believe in an afterlife that is dependent on the actions you take during this life, then yes your life is an investment.

Apparently you do not know what you are arguing. You have such a broad definition for the word "investment" you have made it meaningless. I was pointing out that higher education has been viewed as a social good by practically everyone for decades. You are talking about basically locking everyone who wasn't born rich out of higher education.

Explain to me how this is relevant to the discussion at hand other than for personal attack and I will certainly tell you.

With the amount of garbage you blithely assert, you seem to have zero experience with some of the topics we have talked about.

Originally Posted by megma42 No, know what I am arguing. I believe that you invest time and money when you go to college with the expectation of getting a job that would be better than you could have gotten without a degree. You do not think that college is an investment even though it fits the definition. You neglect to see that the current state of affairs helps to show that it was indeed an investment that was vulnerable to market ups and down and not the "sure thing" that people believed it was. As to a job or you life being an investment I think that it is a matter of your personal viewpoint. If you put extra time or effort into a job and you are expecting to get promoted or get a raise then you are making an investment since you are expecting a worthwhile result or profit. If you are a member of a religion and you believe in an afterlife that is dependent on the actions you take during this life, then yes your life is an investment. Explain to me how this is relevant to the discussion at hand other than for personal attack and I will certainly tell you.

The problem with this point of view is that it puts all the blame on the "investor" which just so happens to be a fairly vulnerable fresh out of high school 18 year old kids. This is just like predatory credit card companies when it was legal for them to invade high schools and get kids to sign up for 6 or 7 credit cards.

You cant blame one side without recognizing that the other side is doing their best to influence the market in their favor. You tell every single kid from the time they are 5 that they are worthless without a college degree...you then set up a stigma that downgrades any non traditional school such as online or trade schools. Then you have this new fanged slave labor that companies seem to die for in terms of the "moderen internship" which companies are trying to get up to 30% of their workforce to be unpaid interns.

This also doesnt take into account how many schools have been found to lie cheat and steal their way into graduation numbers that are flat out wrong. They will say that they have a 98% placement rate...but then you find that they are counting people not working in the field but at Kmart, counting unpaid interns, counting people who are making vastly under what they promote as the starting wage.


You cant just throw your hands up and say...people (kids remember most of these "people" are 18 right out of high school) should be smarter while not recognizing the many problems that both sides are presenting. Thats a very head in the sand way to go about it.

Originally Posted by Soodmeg The problem with this point of view is that it puts all the blame on the "investor" which just so happens to be a fairly vulnerable fresh out of high school 18 year old kids. This is just like predatory credit card companies when it was legal for them to invade high schools and get kids to sign up for 6 or 7 credit cards. You cant blame one side without recognizing that the other side is doing their best to influence the market in their favor. You tell every single kid from the time they are 5 that they are worthless without a college degree...you then set up a stigma that downgrades any non traditional school such as online or trade schools. Then you have this new fanged slave labor that companies seem to die for in terms of the "moderen internship" which companies are trying to get up to 30% of their workforce to be unpaid interns. This also doesnt take into account how many schools have been found to lie cheat and steal their way into graduation numbers that are flat out wrong. They will say that they have a 98% placement rate...but then you find that they are counting people not working in the field but at Kmart, counting unpaid interns, counting people who are making vastly under what they promote as the starting wage. You cant just throw your hands up and say...people (kids remember most of these "people" are 18 right out of high school) should be smarter while not recognizing the many problems that both sides are presenting. Thats a very head in the sand way to go about it.

Yes but any amount of funding from the government will not change any of those problems, which is what I am arguing.

Not to mention the gigantic "keeping the people down" argument you get when you attempt to go against the grain and say that college degrees arent necessarily required to make a decent living.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

These arguments are always funny. It always boils down to "Sure, the ____system is broken, but this won't change anything". Then we either propose something to actually fix it, or there likely has already been an attempt, but it's derided as socialism or some other thing with a negative connotation.

Originally Posted by Clak These arguments are always funny. It always boils down to "Sure, the ____system is broken, but this won't change anything". Then we either propose something to actually fix it, or there likely has already been an attempt, but it's derided as socialism or some other thing with a negative connotation.

As dumb as they are this is intentional. Rhen they pretend we are just mean.

Firstly sorry lr the typos jn this post posting from my iphone and the auto correct is brutal, take too long to fix stuff

I don't know if I agree with the 5 bedroom house statement. I personally know a bunch of engineers who can barely afford 1 bed room apartments because their studen Loans basically a house payment. I think there are far more people who have the make the chpice between student loan and food, has, water, etc etc. I will personal say that I put off paying mine for about 8 years until I stared earning enough to pay them.

But this also brings up the the old spitting your face by cutting off your nose. Not that I am saying that we should forgive student loans but to reject any idea because it might go to some over privilege dumbass seems crazy. It's te same thig as the Welfare case in which everyone is scared to death of the few people tht take advantage of the system so they will let a million others die.

You cant really pick individual cases when it comes to the government. The best they can do is paint a broad stroke and hope it covers as many people as they can. There is too many people to do it any other way.

The problem with politics is the vast amounts of personal vedettas people have. I don't mind helping people as long as they are not Jews, poor, college educated religious etc etc. like I said in America you have a million different people with a million different backgrounds. You have to understand that it's not just YOUR money it's everyone's collective money. Some o that money was given from the very people you are trying to exclude which makes no sense.

Again I am not saying we should bail them out though.

When you consider many of the things which our government does actually subsidize, I don't think government subsidized education is a horrible thing. If you want to rabble rabble about the government spending your money, then complain about some of the more ridiculous expenditures.

I'm not hearing any other ideas except the government handing out money.

Originally Posted by Pliskin101 I agree that denying a program, bill, plan or what have you because of some bad apples ("some over privilege dumbass") is not a valid reason. That is why I tried (albeit poorly as I was more talking about my frustration/emotion) to add to my post with saying that there "are" hardship stories and that this ("some over privilege dumbass") is not the reason I would deny it.

Actually, that's exactly what you've been arguing. Changing your loaded language doesn't change that. Using the term "handout" doesn't change the nature of you not liking it because it's going to people that you don't deem worthy of help.

I am of the thought that this is more of a handout and in the long run "not the best way" to get the most good or change for the money it would cost. Also I am of the opinion that the following reason is also flawed reasoning...."because the government has other wasteful handouts/programs etc that makes this wasteful one okay". That really has no place in deciding if this is right either. Other wrongs does not make this wrong right by default.

No one is arguing the point "we have so many other wasteful programs, so why not have another one/it's ok" as the reason why it would be a good policy to implement. People are saying that because you're making vague and stupid arguments like "handouts" and "2 wrongs don't make a right." Helping people that you don't want helped because of MAH TAXES is the entire crux of your superficial argument.

I am not excluding "this" group over a frustration I exclude this "handout" as it is wasteful with no impact on changing the problem/s over the long-term and it minimizes the amount of people ( keep in mind I am talking about the education system) that could benefit from something other than a handout.

Lemme get this straight. What you're saying is that it's not like students shouldn't get financial assistance, but that you just don't think they should get financial assistance because less people would be able to benefit from higher education, and that money can be used for something other than subsidizing anything else.

Do you really think there's anything of value in that tripe you post?

Trust me I understand it is not JUST MY money but I do have a say to a certain extent what it is used for. As does every citizen.

Yeah, you're not saying that you want to certain people over, just that people should be ed over because you think helping people, as in anyone, that you don't want to be helped are over-privileged moochers, even the ones that aren't.

Your entire argument boils down to YOU; Got MINE.

Originally Posted by Knoell I'm not hearing any other ideas except the government handing out money.

Are seriously going back to this stupid mothering argument again?

Originally Posted by Soodmeg The problem with this point of view is that it puts all the blame on the "investor" which just so happens to be a fairly vulnerable fresh out of high school 18 year old kids. This is just like predatory credit card companies when it was legal for them to invade high schools and get kids to sign up for 6 or 7 credit cards.

I agree with some of what you say. The federal loans have a low interest rate, deferment programs, and the amounts are limited based on how long you have been in college. I think that this is good, it shows responsibility on the part of the government and helps people get a higher education.

As for predatory credit card company practices, I do not agree with them. This does not, however, take the responsibility off of the investor. Yes the kids are about 18 and don't have the best self control or decision making, but they are full legal adults in most U.S. localities. This means that they have the ability by law to perform acts as an adult even if they are not ready to do so. Earlier in this thread I suggested that the practice of giving the loan applicant a math lesson in regard to how much money they will need to make to pay back a loan or changing the standards for giving out loans, but neither of these proposals met with any agreement.

I would be for changing some of the loan practices by private firms if the fees or interest rates are exorbitant. I am still not for erasing debt by having the government pay it off.

This also doesnt take into account how many schools have been found to lie cheat and steal their way into graduation numbers that are flat out wrong. They will say that they have a 98% placement rate...but then you find that they are counting people not working in the field but at Kmart, counting unpaid interns, counting people who are making vastly under what they promote as the starting wage.

When something like this happens, I would like it if the university was sued for false advertising and then the specific institution could help pay off the loans, not the government. I don't think this is the problem the majority of the time, but I don't know much about this practice, so I could be wrong

You cant just throw your hands up and say...people (kids remember most of these "people" are 18 right out of high school) should be smarter while not recognizing the many problems that both sides are presenting. Thats a very head in the sand way to go about it.

They are not kids at 18, they are legally classified as adults. I would also be in favor of raising the age of an adult to 21 or 25 if I thought it would work, but don't think this would solve the problem either. Yes, some people did not/do not understand that college is an investment that may not pay off, but I don't think that this is because the universities were the only ones telling them this. It was a falsehood likely espoused by their parents/grandparents and is probably still a common misconception, so I don't believe that the universities should be held responsible for a common belief that is incorrect.

I believe that the reason this misconception started is that it seemed true for so many years because the economy allowed it and because not as many people were going to college, but now the supply in many areas is excessive and the demand has decreased.

What I do not agree with multiple people on this thread about is thinking that the government should not pay off the loans. The only reason I have read is some version of because the circumstances are bad or it is not their fault. I disagree with these reasons and if there are not other reasons, then I will be happily be done with the discussion. If there is another reason, I would like to hear it.

Thank you Soodmeg for your input.