It’s also worth pointing out to the people saying “It’s not fair for those that paid it back themselves” that actually it is.
If a person paid back the debt themselves, their credit rating will be far higher than a person who had their debt waived. They’ll be able to borrow more (for buying a house for example).
So in a way, the people that paid it off, get a leg-up in the credit war.
The people that get it waived will now not have to stress as much about finances or even possible bankruptcy.
There are wins whichever way you look at it. (Note: I’m not American, but I try to follow world politics closely)
2 Likes
The “moral hazard” argument that you hear conservatives bring up from time to time, is that if things are too cushy and comfortable, it will mean people will stop working so hard to make things better, and they will lose the moral discipline demanded by lack and hardship. Basically that if things get too easy, people will get lazy about improving the human condition.
It’s actually an argument against all Republicanism. It’s an argument for the inheritance tax. It’s an argument for higher taxes on the wealthy. It’s an argument against Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s whole careers. It’s the argument that any comfort makes you soft, because it makes you less hungry.
But people on the Right are only taught to use this warning when poorer people might achieve some incremental improvement in their lives, like healthcare support or a minimum wage that lessens the chance of complete ruination. This ignores that the lives of most poor people will still remain back-breakingly difficult, and that there’s no danger that poor people will forget they have to struggle, even if they get a slightly better wage or cheaper education.
In this specific case, “free tuition” is not going to make people “give up” on working hard to get into college. They’ll still work hard and compete, but on their education instead of a third dead-end mindless job.
15 Likes
A decade off. My accounting started in 1970, not 1959, and inflation during the '60s was a bit higher than lately. The difference whacks almost exactly 25% off of the 2019 value of that $14k to $10.5k. That certainly looks a lot less free, but remember that most of it then was living expenses. Not all that long ago paid to put my kids through university I can say with confidence that tuition alone at UA has gone up to 10x, not 6x, that $1600.
Note that this is indeed in large part a matter of policy. After retirement I’ve gone back to study and my semester registration is less than half at NMT than my daughter’s at UA ten-plus years ago.
4 Likes
Ten and a half thousand dollars a year, containing tuition, books, and living expenses is certainly not free, but it sounds relatively affordable, and certainly better than what a lot of people are paying for their educations in the US right now!
2 Likes
Yes, when I see a conservative bring this term up I know it’s going to be applied only to the “undeserving” poor, usually those who aren’t white. It’s a highfalutin’ form of concern driving trollies.
In this case it also assumes that the only reason someone might go to college is so that he’ll get a financial ROI on his college tuition. For a “free”-market fundie, everything in life must be reduced to a financial transaction.
13 Likes
It’s “Safer conditions are bad, because it stops people from taking care of their safety.”
That sounds reasonable to some people on the surface. That is, until you realize that a world with no seat-belts, car insurance, quality standards, or safety nets wouldn’t actually be the safer one.
14 Likes
Divorced from politics it’s a well-known and useful concept in traditional, non-behavioural economics. But of course we have a problem in this country with everything in life being forced into that theoretical mold when it serves the purposes of the ownership class.
7 Likes
Ah, ok. So this goes back to the idea that money motivates the rich but makes the poor lazy. Or, in this case, the ability to achieve an education will ruin the poor. After al, if they get an education, not only will they not be poor anymore, they will be competing directly with the wealthy for the jobs that require that education. What a nightmare! (/s)
13 Likes
It is a useful term where it applies. It definitely describes the behavior of the editor of the Washington Examiner when he courts the support of neo-fascists and racists, because that is the exact type of situation where he’s engaging in a risky enterprise more easily because he knows he’s only putting other people at risk of loss.
Exactly. If people have easier lives then they won’t work to get easier lives, and that’s why they absolutely shouldn’t have easier lives.
There’s a spectrum between “People tend to need a little skin in the game” and “People can’t be trusted to work for anything in this life unless it’s a Battle Royale fight risking their actual deaths on a daily basis.”
8 Likes
Potentially losing thousands of dollars that you’ve saved through your hard work isn’t an “inconvenience.” People who care about the balance in their 529 accounts aren’t the uber-wealthy. And forgiving the debt of an arbitrary pool of current student debt-holders who already have many advantages in our society is hardly “actual equality for everyone.”
1 Like
Why would the government waiving debt affect your credit? Your credit score would be based on whether you had been paying on time, which the majority of student loan borrowers are. Even if this was true (that your credit took a hit from Warren’s free money handout plan), the amount you can borrow for a home is based on your income not your credit score; your credit score determines whether you can get the loan at all and has a tiny impact on the rate you’ll pay. So no, people who worked hard to clear their college debts get totally screwed under this plan.
1 Like
What about parents of children preparing to go to college? How many votes are in the Gen X/older Millennial age range?
10 Likes
Except that’s not what’s going to happen IF Warren’s plan actually ever comes to fruition, as posted SEVERAL times over already… which means that concern is unfounded.
Don’t go getting all pissy because some people’s comments inadvertently reveal their apathy for others.
11 Likes
That’s a pretty tough nose if you kept it to the grindstone for all that time and never lost any skin 
4 Likes
How would you lose that money? Would it disappear from the account? Would you no longer be able to use it for your kid? Would you not be able to use it for another purpose if i wasn’t needed for your kid? Would it disappear if your kid got a loan jubilee?
I mean - as someone without kids - shouldn’t I be upset you don’t pay taxes on that account?
14 Likes
Aquiline, even.
2 Likes
Isn’t that an awesome catch-22? If we improve the human condition too much, nobody will work to improve the human condition. Which needs to be improved. Ipso facto, we need to improve the human condition for ME, but you guys need to suffer so you’ll work harder to keep improving things… for me.
I’m starting to really see the madness in the method.
It’s not like utter despair is a worse state of mind than laziness caused by things getting too easy. /s
I think the point @david_aked is making is, at the minimum, by having the debt waived they wouldn’t have the chance to build a credit history of paying back the loan fully and on time, so they start at a disadvantage with their credit score; it’s not that they will take a credit hit.
At least not until they try to get a car loan without a sufficient credit history, like my youngest daughter did, and the dealership – knowing she wouldn’t qualify – shotgunned her application to every possible lender, causing her already weak credit to take a major hit.
7 Likes
A lot of this (very roughly) feels like:
“I want to give people eight dollars for education. If you give me two dollars, I’ll give you a ten at the same time.”
“But two dollars is a lot of money, and it took me a long time to save it. Let’s talk about how I can keep my important two dollars instead of whatever you were talking about.”
9 Likes
The other fucked up part is that what we’re talking about with free tuition is an opportunity…to work hard. When the opportunity to work hard and achieve is itself viewed as a gift, you know things are twisted. I disagree deeply with Republicans wanting to cut welfare payments, but that at least has some internal logic. Free college still has a semblance of meritocracy in the application process (current news items notwithstanding) and dumps you out the other end with nothing but more work to do, albeit perhaps at a better-paying job, or a more fulfilling one. Why anyone should think that “your parents should be rich” should be one of the qualifiers for whether you “get” to go to college is, well, you know, the same kind of person who thinks inheritance taxes are evil, I guess.
13 Likes
You’re wrong there: Republicans don’t want to cut welfare.
There are two components to Republican ideology: racial feudalism and wallpaper.
12 Likes
