view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
What percentage of people with student loans actually can afford it though? If your argument is that all of us are too rich to get hand outs, what are you casing that off of?
My argument is two fold.
The loan that were taken were a choice. It's all in black and white what the loan consists of. If you choose to take one, it's your responsibility alone to repay. If your degree is in underwater basket weaving ..still your responsibility.
It is statistically proven that educated people earn more than uneducated. Because of this, as their income grows, they can afford to pay back the loans they choose to take.
If someone opted to take out a loan they can't pay back that is their poor judgement, and not the responsibility of society to care for them. They literally signed a document of their own free will. It's the same for everyone, educated and uneducated alike.
It's odd to me, when a landlord takes out a loan to buy another property, hypothetical future income is not barring him from having those loans written off, and nothing in your history here that I can find suggests you believe landlords should be put into the same situation as student loan repayers.
If people with student loans were as rich as your claim, the fiscal policy would already be set up to benefit them, but the fact that your argument hinges on denying them the very benefits you allow rich people to have in our system I think pretty effectively shows you don't actually believe this, are merely just a reactionary.
Your argument is that they are both too rich to deserve forgiveness, but also only have themselves to blame for being too poor to pay back their loan.
I guess I would say that only a reactionary would argue the complete truth of both at once. Ironically, if the people in debt were the truly rich as you 50% claim to believe, they would have gotten their way, and you likely would have supported it.