Why are these assholes so against helping people? These fuckers are nothing but greedy sociopaths.
conservatives view social hierarchy as a necessity which must be enforced. if you’re at the bottom, you deserve to be there, and if you’re there, you suffer because you deserve it, and because you’re at the bottom, you deserve to suffer. cruelty is the point, and without it, there can’t be the joy of their success.
anything else, to them, is profane and must be fought/destroyed. anyone who tries to climb above their position must be punished.
relevant videos:
A Conservative is someone who can’t enjoy their dinner without knowing someone else is hungry
I’m stealing that.
heh
The only thing baffling about any of this is that somehow, millions of ordinary, working/middle-class Americans believe that this system benefits them more than the alternative.
it’s not baffling at all. the American dream is literally everyone is a millionaire or will be one day. conservatives are the only ones buying into that dream still so they’re trying to live like a millionaire now so that when the money finally shows up they’ve done their part to help their new millionaire friends along the way.
The problem is they don’t understand that the likelihood of them becoming even moderately wealthy is pretty slim and they’re too blind to see that voting to hurt the poor is voting to hurt themselves in their current situation.
When I was growing up, at least the way I was taught (and I was only born in 1977), the American Dream was a steady paycheck, a house and a car. Did that change at some point or was I taught something other than what people actually believed?
As someone also born in '77 I generally heard the same things and the same sentiment. Though I think that might have more to do with family and the general class you grew up in. Because it isn’t Universal unfortunately. Nor can capitalism deliver on it.
I’ve never heard of that version of The American Dream before.
Nah, they’re just pissed and want to believe they’ve been wronged by some “other”. Ironically, they’re 100% correct, but have identified the wrong “other”. Baffling, indeed.
But voting another way will result in my children being accosted by drag queens who will turn them gay / trans and my freedoms will be co-opted by shitty beer companies who don’t believe in Christ. Then my enemies will take my guns and my elderly parents will be shipped off to a commie gulag and murdered to make room for more whatever whatever whatever… I ran out of tropes. Hopefully, you don’t need me to punctuate that this is sarcasm.
These are the things that they think about obsessively. They aren’t thinking about how to make the world a better place. They’re thinking about the things they hate and fear.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/agzNANfNlTs
https://piped.video/E4CI2vk3ugk
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I’ve always regarded that episode of the playbook as especially astute.
the whole “Playbook” is pretty great, bit this one is excellent for explaining exactly why conservatives see things the way they do
Which is quite a high bar, considering the overall quality of the whole series!
Thank you for the links. They were very enlightening.
here’s the whole playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Christian in name only.
That’s the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
This is just Christianity.
I’m not a Christian, but no. And screw your upvoters.
Edit: Just in case you need an explanation (though if you did, you probably wouldn’t accept it anyway), a person who says they’re a Christian but doesn’t read/learn, understand, or follow any Christian principles except incidentally is not a Christian. It’s like a person saying they’re a pacifist, but they go out beating up and killing homeless people at night. That doesn’t make pacifists assholes, that makes the person a liar. Your brain cells barely need to function for you to understand this principle, so stop with the religiophobic bullshit.
“I’m not getting debt relief, so why should they” is their only argument. They’re just greedy.
And many of them got covid bailouts and never had to pay a penny back and do not think even for a moment that their actions are hypocritical
And we literally have congress critters that lived on
welfaredebt relief programs and want to tell others to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.I don’t need student debt relief, it won’t affect me. But I am extremely for it - it’s called wanting a better life for your fellow human being.
Compassion - it’s not a difficult concept if you’re not a narcissistic a$$hole.
And as an added bonus, the money currently going to banks would actually get better distributed to businesses (both big and small) and act as a net gain to our economy. But screw that - we don’t want some bank stocks to dip and affect some wealthy pension plans! /s
My family is financially secure and has no student debt. I, too, am for student debt relief, in part because it benefits me directly. When my neighbor has an extra $100 in his pocket to spend at the local shop, that benefits me, too. “Conservatives” (just what in the fuck do they conserve?) are too stupid to see this.
I was blessed with my parents saving a lot and saving early for my college, and I fully support student debt relief. I honestly don’t understand how it’s possible for someone to be lucky, see the vast majority of people to be unlucky, and not want all of them to be helped out.
Because in their mind they are not lucky, they worked for it. And the others just didn’t work hard enough.
I hadn’t ever considered it, but my desire for student debt relief also won’t affect me. I’ve been harping on this thing that I want for the last couple of years. I never stopped for a second to consider that I’m not in that group. I just want a better life for my fellow humans. Thanks for bringing that to my front of mind.
These people are truly assholes.
They’re just
greedyasscunts.
If people can organize instead of work overtime…
Good point.
Along with the usual “the cruelty is the point” responses, I’d like to remind people that this is a direct strategy championed by Mitch McConnell, who has been championing this strategy long before Biden came along.
First, McConnell believes that the GOP should not have any policy positions on anything at all. If you have a policy position, that position is subject to criticism. Rather than champion policies that he fully admits would be unpopular with the voters, McConnell believes in simply pointing to the Democrat policies, pointing out the flaws in those policies, and just making vague promises that the GOP can do better without actually defining how. Ever seen the meme of the guy tapping his own head while saying something profoundly stupid? That’s exactly what this is. Picture McConnell doing that while saying “Can’t be criticized for your terrible ideas if you just don’t have any ideas at all!”
The other part, also championed by McConnell and others, is that no matter what it is, if it originally was a Democrat idea, then a Republican must be against it at all costs. Not only must they be against it, they must treat every Democrat policy as a threat to American society as we know it. Take a look at Romneycare in Massachusetts. A healthcare bill created by a Republican that was considered widely successful and basically the cornerstone to Obamacare. But the second a Democrat suggesting nationalizing the program, it was suddenly the worst program in the world that would collapse our healthcare system and lead to death panels.
And sad to say, but it’s been a very effective strategy for them. It’s easy for the GOP to get their voters to blame Democrats for problems because deflecting blame is easy, and people are always looking for someone to blame for whatever problems they have in life. People tend not to do their own research or critical thinking and often just prefer to be “told” what the “right” answer is, especially if what they’re told jives with their own personal worldview. If voters want to believe that Democrats are the root of all evil, and their elected leaders are saying that Democrats are the root of all evil, it’s not much of a stretch to get them to believe that anything or any ideas associated with Democrats are also evil and must be eradicated.
It’s all about maintaining political power through obstruction. Doesn’t matter how bad your own policies are just as long as you continue to make sure voters believe that the alternative is even worse.
This is extremely well said. Thanks for taking the time.
When you view life as a zero sum game it turns you into a real selfish cunt.
They’ve become so focused on political “points” and afraid of the other “team” scoring a “point” that they’re willing to do anything, regardless of the optics.
Because they don’t stop and look at the bigger picture - it’s just political capital they can push around or dangle as a carrot in front of voters for future elections.
Because either they got theirs and fuck everyone else. Or, they never got theirs and fuck everyone who might get theirs.
Because Ronnie RayGun said it is dangerous for government to help people. Totally cool for government to help those poor billionaires though.
Totally cool for government to help those poor billionaires though.
Well, Elorn bought Twatter and can’t afford to pay rent (or severance, or server fees, or lawyers), so it seems right that he should get a handout. How’s the guy even gonna pay for his next lunch?!
Meanwhile, my grandmother can’t afford insulin. That bitch better figure it out!
Wilholt’s law, “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Aka, “you’re not hurting the right people”
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
― John Kenneth Galbraith
Sounds like libertarianism TBH.
Two sides of the same coin these days.
Conservatives seem to mostly be libertarians that have realised they can use single-issue voter, crazy church shit to get themselves elected.
They’re libertarians when it comes to them being able to do whatever they want, and they’re fascists when it comes to things they don’t want to do. Has actually nothing to do with political philosophy, it’s just naked short-term self interest. (They don’t even care if something will be bad for them in a few years.)
*Wilhoit’s. I remember because I used to have a neighbor named Wilhoit.
Because the corporations that own the private colleges and universities that overcharge on tuition also are the ones that hand out student loans.
They stand to lose billions of dollars in predatory profit if they can’t collect interest on student loans.
If only there were some loopholes to close and a way to take a little cash from assets that never ever get sold…
Yeah I see a lot of “cruelty is the point” comments here, which might not be entirely false, but if they sue it mostly means someone is pissed off about losing revenue.
The cruelty isn’t the only point behind every conservative position, but it’s the only point of enough of them to make me suspect it’s part of the motivation for all of them.
It’s never the point. That’s just lazy reasoning.
Really? Not for anti-trans laws, anti-immigrant laws, and laws that specifically target medically necessary abortions? Of course it’s the point. If looking at the laws they vote for isn’t good enough, all you have to do is talk to a few conservatives to figure out they’re hateful, cruel people.
You may see them as hateful and cruel people, but that’s not how they see themselves. They would have to see themselves as cruel for cruelty to be the point. The fact that you think it’s the point means that you’re unwilling or unable to actually understand their point of view.
You may disagree with it, but it’s not about “cruelty”, and pretending it is just shows your personal limitations.
If course they don’t see themselves as hateful. But they have no qualms about using cruelty to enforce their idea of the proper social order. If you want to be very literal, the cruelty is the means to an end and not an end in itself, but when they use cruelty as a first resort to enforce rules to designed to keep undesirable people in their place, I see it as a distinction without a difference.
Because it hurts college-educated people. Culture war.
Simple answer I think is GOP don’t want anyone in their base to think any form of government assistance is good and will always label it as hand outs. More government assistance/social safety nets means their capitalist overlords gets to maintain and build their control over citizens and money will flow to them instead. Also “liberals bad!”
deleted by creator
They get mad about feeding starving kids too
Imagine there is a group that does everything in it’s power to block every positive change there could be.
Imagine further that the same group also does everything in it’s power to change every positive thing into a negative.
Now imagine that >48% of people vote for that group.
And finally imagine you in a place like that.
Honestly, unimaginable.
That’s why it drives me nuts when people get a cynical and say both parties are the same or that your vote doesn’t matter. Pay attention to how the different parties vote!
“both parties” is just code for right wing asshole trying to skew the vote
Enlightened centrists are the worst. At least you know what you’re getting with republicans.
You know what you’re getting with centrists, too: snobby Republicans.
Centrists are a different breed though. They’ll agree with you until the part about actually doing something to fix a problem. At that stage, suddenly “now isn’t the right time”, “we can’t afford it”, and “we should focus on incremental change”. Fuck centrists.
Both parties are horrible but one party is much horrible-er. I think you can guess the one
It’s absolutely true that they are not identical. Although they are far too similar. Only really differentiating on the subject of social democracy. Where the Democrats at least pay lip service to it. Which is a big plus for the Democrats. Whereas Republicans openly show disdain for it.
Other than that they are both far right wing economic parties. Who have both actively attacked labor. Although in the Democrats defense they are often just eager to go along with what Republicans are doing. And don’t actually take the initiative on their own.
If it wasn’t for the Democrats loose Pro social democracy stands I wouldn’t vote for them there’s very little you can point to and recent history that they have accomplished that’s been truly good. Outside of civil rights same-sex marriage Etc. They seriously need to stop waiting the better part of a century before fighting for things to people need.
They just want to hurt people. Imagine voting to keep people indebted. That’s them.
“He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
A real actual person said that. They walk among us.
Another Big Brain douchesupporter said “I never thought I’d want a dictator in my life, but if we’re going to have one I want it to be Trump!”
If a tried really hard to be charitable I’d guess Faux “News” was telling her the left wants to vote for a dictator so she wants her dictator, but I don’t think that was the context…
Just republican shit.
It’s so sad, people who were hurt growing up and then rationalize it as that’s the way the world is supposed to be. Too hard for some people to admit their parents made some mistakes.
Yep. 😂 🤣
And finally imagine you in a place like that.
You don’t even have to imagine. That’s the reality of the United States in 2023 and has been for a long time.
(I think that was the joke)
*its
These greedy motherfuckers don’t want anyone to be helped unless they profit somehow.
I think it’d be more accurate these authoritarian motherfuckers don’t want anyone to be anything other than their slaves.
Cato Institute was cited in the article, and, being a fervent right-wing think tank hater, they don’t talk about profit. Instead, they’ll argue for some shit like short term limited duration insurance because they’re less regulated than other health insurance plans. This falls in line with their “De-regulate Everything” argumentative scheme. In other words, it’s perfectly a-okay if companies can rip people off without federal oversight.
But for programs that in any way help other people…well…they’re unconstitutional or an abuse of executive power.
It’s interesting (except not at all, because they’re all hypocrites) how they haven’t said anything against DeSantis’s use of executive power in Florida. Somehow, everything he does is constitutional and within the reach of executive power.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/live/iaDALkajqO0?feature=share&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Trillion dollar budget for the military industrial complex? Money well spent! A single dime spent to help taxpayers? Socialism!
The majority of the federal budget goes to welfare and entitlements. I’m on the “no standing army” side of things, but it doesn’t help to propagate incorrect information.
Edit: this is absurd. There’s no opinion here: the comment I replied to is factually wrong. You can’t dislike facts until they’re not true.
you failed to engage with their actual argument, which was that military spending is absurdly high but always univocally supported by everyone in the establishment and increased with every new budget, but that it’s an uphill fight to get anything new for people who actually need help.
To be fair, I engaged with that portion by pointing out I don’t actually believe in standing armies. So defense spending should be close to zero. But, yeah, everyone wants their pork and defense spending is free money to them.
You don’t believe in standing armies? I’m sorry but you’re either 5 years old or incredibly naive.
I mean you don’t do it overnight. There’s nothing naive about having principled goals.
It’s a ridiculous goal. Armies aren’t just for waging wars against other people. Emergencies arise where it’s absolutely CRUCIAL you have well trained, organized soldiers ready to respond.
A trained, voluntary militia is the only way to have ethical defense that can’t be abused. Maybe we don’t get there, but having the goal be more militia vs standing army can be worked out.
The world won’t always be the same and we should plan for more liberty oriented and equitable outcomes instead of dismissing them out of hand because we don’t think they’re pragmatic today.
I think you’re getting down voted for two reasons.
-
OP’s comment didn’t state anything factual. It was rude to accuse him of attempting to “propagate incorrect information.”
-
You’re lumping together two very different types of spending and it feels like you’re making a disingenuous argument. The vast majority of spending you’re talking about is Social Security/Medicare which has received near constant increases. Welfare programs on the other hand have been under attack since the 90s. I can say that Social Security, Medicare, and the FAA together make up almost half the budget but it doesn’t make a good argument for cutting the FAA.
All that said, I do think you make a good point that there’s other programs to look at. Maybe we can cut the military budget while also looking at saving money on Medicare.
I didn’t call it a lie because I don’t think it’s an issue of will or intent, so I didn’t mean it to be insulting. I see where you’re coming from otherwise, but this isn’t a comment made from nowhere. This is a common talking point people try to use and I genuinely think it reinforces the trope.
I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all. Whether it’s for a single mother or a pensioner it’s certainly not being used for useless bases or bombs.
I don’t believe we can solve problems if we don’t understand them and our lack of understanding is disastrous when it comes to voting.
-
I think you just misinterpreted the OP’s statement. Conservatives also don’t want welfare and entitlement spending and try to cut those back all the time. OP’s statement is a characterization of conservative opinions on spending. Conservatives don’t support spending on student debt relief, welfare, or entitlements. They do support military spending. That’s not factually incorrect. And, it is irrelevant how much of the budget those categories represent because conservatives didn’t choose those levels and don’t support them.
I mean it’s entirely possible it’s just me drawing in context for no good reason.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
By far, the biggest category of discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and military. In most years, this accounts for more than half of the discretionary budget. In 2020, because some discretionary spending passed through supplemental appropriations went to pandemic programs, the share of the discretionary budget that went to the military was smaller – even though the amount that went to the military was just as high as in previous years.
Most “welfare” falls under discretionary. Medicare, medicaid, and social security (also “welfare”) fall under mandatory spending. Social security and medicare make up the largest categories. This organization explains how “welfare” spending increased in recent years due to pandemic spending on things like stimulus checks and increased unemployment.
The bottom line thoughis that people pay into it for years so that it’s available when it’s their turn to need it. If they never do, then great. It can help someone else, god forbid.
I didn’t realize that if you promised to spend money it didn’t count. I’ll be sure to keep my rent out of my financial planning.
Welfare to soldiers and their families. What’s your point?
Look at the budget. Most of our federal spending goes back to citizens. Welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security. My point is what they said is a lie and it’s an easy lie to fact check.
How should we expect to win arguments against military spending when the first line out of our mouths is a lie?
This is demonstrably not true
Demonstrate away my friend.
the majority doesn’t go anywhere near welfare wtf are you on about: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
National defense is the fifth on that chart by percent. Everything above it is entitlement spending. Looks like income security is where welfare falls - it’s a little over half. The other half is other forms of payouts to peeps.
Entitlements are not welfare. Period. Welfare is hardly a drop in the overall bucket. Entitlements are money that people are owed because they paid in. As in they are entitled to that. Welfare is paying for poor people to be able to survive.
You are purposely mixing the 2 because you fall for the serious propaganda on the “right” that somehow social security should be ended. If they end it they owe us that money back.
And are and.
Entitlements and welfare. Say it with me this time.
We don’t see eye to eye on it, but there’s no reason to insult people that disagree with you. I’m looking at wasting money on bombs vs spending it on american citizens
If our SS money went in to a retirement plan that mirrors congress’ investments we’d all retire very comfortably, but somehow we’re not good enough for that.
I mean people like you are actual dumbasses…
What do you think happens if they ended entitlements??? Where do you think all of that money goes? INTO THE ECONOMY… if we end entitlements we’d see the largest depression ever in the US.
Our economy is what it is BECAUSE of them. You think if the government just spent 0 money we’d somehow be better off? Even though literally every other major economic powerhouse hase entitlements and welfare lol.
It’s just pure propagandized stupidity.
When the US government stops spending the entire world will spiral into a depression and the US would take longer to come out of it. We’d be ruined economically for the remainder of your life.
But yeah go on with your stupid fucking take.
Sending weapons to Ukraine is also a huge economic boost with the added benefit of securing yet another eventual base and massive political power in that region while destabilizing an aggressive dictatorship shit hole.
Fucking pittance in the grand scheme of things and amazingly smart move by our current leaders. If you think they’d actually spend it on our citizens that’s the other funny part. The republican talking points are on and on about “look what we could do with this money” while they themselves want to further take from citizens and give to billion dollar organizations.
Oh but they are too busy trying to install a theocracy to give a fuck about helping citizens anwyay. Mostly republican states that still have not legalized weed because they rather throw people in jail than get a major boost to tax revenue that could go to actual communities in need.
Republican states with the worst education by far and shittiest teacher pay.
Republican states with the worst health care and highest infant mortality…
etc…
But yeah for sure we’d have magically taken that money and put it to good use instead of defending an ally while boosting the shit out of our economy with said defense lol.
Stop listening to pod casts… You want to know why the government needs to spend that money follow the federal reserve and modern monetary theory. Economically we are still a leader in the entire world with not even close to the highest population. How do you think we keep that going? By cutting off entitlements, welfare, and allowing Russia to expand it’s territory and influence?
Fucking brain dead fucking take.
You just decide what people are saying based on your own assumptions and ideology then make Gish look like a galloping noob. I’m not bothering with that.
Treat people better and sort yourself out instead of spewing bile from nowhere. You can do better.
Removed by mod
Bootlickers need their own bat-signal. I propose we post something about equal treatment.
Sounds good, I’ll keep voting for the party that hates US citizens
-Fucking dipshits who think they’re doing anything other than volunteer work for billionaires
It’s not volunteer work if they’re getting paid by said billionaires taps head
Like any of them do it for money (those that vote straight R)
The “I got mine, fuck you” crowd really hates progress.
The student loan interest rates are exuberant, while I support the nullification of times past, I’d also like to see the core issue being taken care of
I think you mean “exorbitant” ;)
I thought exuberant meant a lot of/obsessive amounts
That’s a contextual issue. It’s not often applied to a value but rather a feeling - that’s why I suggested “exorbitant”.
Exuberant is also considered a positive attribute, so contextually it was confusing.
edit: Not to be rude - I’m an American and the Dutch constantly correct me here - but instead of “obsessive” (to be obsessed with), you might consider “excessive” - much closer to “a lot of” but more “too much of”. ✌️
Exorbitant meaning “eye-popping”, as in making your eyes pop out of their sockets, which is why it’s used in these contexts.
The first uses of “exorbitant” in English was “wandering or deviating from the normal or ordinary course.” That sense is now archaic, but it provides a hint as to the origins of “exorbitant”: the word derives from Late Latin exorbitans, the present participle of the verb exorbitare, meaning “to deviate.”
“Exorbitare” in turn was formed by combining the prefix ex-, meaning “out of,” with the noun orbita, meaning "track of a wheel or “rut.” (“Orbita” itself traces back to “orbis,” the Latin word for “disk” or “hoop.”) In the 15th century “exorbitant” came to refer to something which fell outside of the normal or intended scope of the law.
Eventually, it developed an extended sense as a synonym of “excessive.”
Yes, let’s do both.
Here’s one thing I don’t understand: does loan cancellation consist of the government paying off the loan, or is it a legal nullification of somebody’s loan? If it’s the former, I get economic concerns. If it’s the latter, then I really don’t see arguments against loan cancellation as very credible.
It’s cancellation of the loans. They’re government loans being forgiven, not private loans paid back by the government.
Yeah, I’d like to focus on stopping the bleeding before mopping up blood. I don’t know what the message is here for future generations.
Just. Zero. The. Interest.
I know so many people that have no issues paying what they borrowed, but at this point, they’ve already paid back the initial amount and still owe more than they initially borrowed and it’s fucking ridiculous.
That’s how my loan is. It’s an absurdly unfair loan. Preditory. And the government is who I got it from. Makes no sense. When I was 18 I thought the government were trustworthy. Maybe not fully but I never thought they would do something like this to their own children.
What makes the loan predatory?
Well, I graduated college 15 years ago and I owed around 30k. I started paying the year after and paid about $250 a month ever since. My balance is now 40k. Does that sound fair? After paying on time straight for 15 years I paid -10k. I know it’s from the interest but how much fucking interest should the government be making on this loan that they encouraged me to take? I also pay higher taxes than I would if I didn’t go to college and have as high a salary so they are making a bunch of profit from me. I’m just over here trying to make a good life for my family.
Does that sound fair? Harsh, but fair, yes. That’s how compound interest works. When someone takes decades to pay off a loan, it’s normal for the amount of interest to exceed the initial borrowing amount. Calculating payments on compound interest loans is high school math.
If you pay higher taxes, it’s because you make more money. If you make more money it means the deal you made was a success – your investment in higher education enabled you to get a higher paying job.
There’s nothing about that that sounds predatory to me. Unpleasant? Sure. But, life is often unpleasant.
As for what the government should charge in interest, who knows. That’s a question for politicians and voters to answer. Many countries around the world want their population to be educated, and as a result higher education is public, not private. It’s also not for profit and is paid for in taxes paid by the entire population. Apparently the majority of US voters don’t want that kind of system.
Would you rather be in the situation where you chose not to go to university and instead went directly into the workforce? You’d have 4 more extra years of earning from the time you didn’t go to college / university, and you wouldn’t have loans to pay off. But, you’d probably be making less money. I’m sure there are some people who looked at the student loans and realized just how much they’d be paying and for how long, and decided the deal wasn’t worth it, that college / university wasn’t for them. But, imagine how one of those people would feel today when they see the possibility that people who did make that deal might just have the loans cancelled so they get the education that enables higher wages, but without having to meet their obligations to pay back that loan?
Well considering the generations before me didn’t have to take out the same kind of loans to get an education it does seem unfair. My parents told me to follow in their footsteps not knowing that the path had changed so drastically. The information given to students isn’t sufficient for them to understand the cost of these loans. I understand how loans work but the interest is too high on these loans to be fair. The government shouldn’t be changing any interest in my view because having an educated population is what we want. And going forward I would like to see them do the same for anyone going to college.
Just because you say that’s how compound interest works doesn’t change the fact that it’s an unfair amount of interest. The interest rate is severely times higher than my mortgage and I can never get away from it. I was told that was the right choice if I wanted to get a job but I could have this same job without a degree.
If it’s unfair, then I can see how you’d want to change the rules for future borrowers… but what seems unfair to me is changing the rules for past borrowers, especially once they’ve received the benefit of the loan.
If the loans are so unfair, why is the solution to cancel existing loans? Why not just prevent that injustice in the future? If the interest rates are so unfair that it has to affect existing contracts, what about compensating people who have fully paid off their loans? Should they be given some money back? If not, why not? If so, how far back would that go? And how much should they be given?
If someone can prove they were eligible to go to college / university but chose not to go because they knew these interest rates were unfair, should they be compensated? After all, you’re saying that in hindsight they were right to avoid these unfair contracts. But, if the people who went get the benefit of the degree at with a loan that turns out to be fair (because the outstanding balance is canceled, say), then it’s unfair to the people who made the smart choice with the information they had available at the time.
It seems to me that the only fair thing to do is to change the rules going forward. The people who agreed to an unfair deal in the past would have to live with their bad decisions.
I would be okay if it were set to a mandatory percentage, like 2%.
It’s federally backed so the risk to lenders is incredibly low. What right do they have to charge some of these new students 9 percent interest on a loan that the government is paying them to give?
Yep, cap education cost if you don’t want to make it free, have the federal government provide zero interest loans if states don’t want to do it, reap the reward of having a more educated population, including better salaries which means more taxes paid which compensates for the zero interest loans.
The real problem is that they don’t want a more educated population.
TL;DR They tried to stop it and FAILED.
deleted by creator
So debt relief when, then? I was smart enough not go to college because the job opportunities are the same regardless, but my dumbass brother could really use the help.
If you think your brother is a dumbass for simply going to college, you may be the dumbass in the family. If he is a dumbass for other reasons carry on.
Some people don’t want to work a job that they hate even if it pays well, so they go to school to specialize in something that they like. Not everybody wants to work a trade job, or be a salesman or whatever.
But yea debt relief would be nice. Anybody who wants to further their education shouldn’t have to go into debt to do it.
No, trust me. He’s a dumbass. Dude literally went to med school despite having no interest in the medical field whatsoever. Only thing he accomplished was a waste of time and money.
I mean if he actually got into med school then he must have some interest. Med school is hard as fuck to get into, you either have to be really fucking smart or super dedicated. So your brother clearly has something going for him.
Hell even if he failed out he still got in and that’s impressive. Maybe cut the guy some slack?
How many of these conservatives tried to cancel the Trump and Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? Fuck conservatives!!
Well right because those clearly trickle down as you can see by the constant record-breaking wealth inequality.
Just one more tax break for the rich bro, trust me bro, it’s gonna work this time bro, it’s gonna trickle down like craaaazy bro, the rich just need one more tax break bro, bro please bro, trust me it’s gonna trickle like huge bro
Stop voting for Republicans. They don’t want the government helping students and workers. All they have is hating on people who are woke. The Woke are minorities, LGBTQ, and non Christians.
Not even just Christians, anyone not their brand of “Christianity”, the brand that hates everyone, gets the woke label as well.
We should sue the government because of all the tax cuts for the rich if this is how conservatives feel the need to act
i should sue for all the ppp loans that were forgiven. how unfair is that. rich people got loans forgiven yet you or i cannot.
Most PPP loans didn’t even save any jobs
Went directly into the business owners pocket to buy swimming pools, boats & exotic cars.
I think the main issue is that the people who are sueing student loans, can afford to.
Using similar logic we should be able to use for that. It’s a load of bullshit. The government is constantly giving money directly to rich people, but God forbid we do the same thing for regular people.
This is legitimately a good idea. Does anyone know a lawyer that would take that case on?
Better call Saul!
There’s a lot of lawyers that still have student loans.
Aren’t they conveniently exempt from lawsuits?
Not anymore, if this is how the courts what to run things
So where are all of the conservative “if Biden actually wanted to cancel student loan debt he would just do it” people now
I just want to say I was surprised and so fucking happy when I got a notification that a payment did not go through for my student loan and logged into my loans website and seeing that the 7100 I had left was suddenly paid off.
They just need to make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. High earners who can afford their student loans will be dismissed like any bankruptcy court applicant who makes enough money to pay their debts, and the people who are actually struggling will get relief at the penalty of 7 years very bad credit.
Bankruptcy works for every other kind of debt, it was written into the Constitution by the founding fathers, and it’s the perfect system designed exactly for problems like the student loan crisis.I’d rather have both the forgiveness and the bankruptcy option.
Student loans are intentionally excluded from bankruptcy because law students used to declare bankruptcy immediately upon graduating.
They had tons of debt and no or very low income. The court usually discharged The debts.
It wasn’t limited to lawyers. It’s just that the law students knew how to file fos bankruptcy, since bankruptcy law was part of law school.
The banks lobbied Congress change the bankruptcy laws to prevent that from happening.
They could have limited the restriction to just recent law grads, but they didn’t. Sure seems deliberately shitty to me.
It always is.
Well sure, and the country did alright for 200+ years before this change. Since then, the student loan industry has become a monstrous disaster.
deleted by creator
These shitcunts are reveling in the idea of making people poor & miserable.
It was never a secret and yet the poor and miserable keep voting for them.
Except for the poor and miserable who are disenfranchised or gerrymandered or disqualified, of course.
