• DarkGamer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    More like, “we’ve invented a cure for cancer, but only people who have cancer right now can get it. People in the future are fucked once again and won’t get the cure.”

    Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn’t solve the problem. It’s pulling up the ladder.

    • Xhieron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      So we should just not let the people currently sick have the cure? 🤔

      Even in your analogy, curing any cancer today, even if it doesn’t extend to future sufferers, is an improvement over curing no one. Because fuck cancer, and fuck student loans.

      Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      • yiliu@informis.land
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Imagine if researchers said: We’re working on a cure for cancer, and in the process we’ve generated a bunch of unobtanium. We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure. Obviously, if we use it all up now, we’ll be back to square one and have to start generating it again before we can work on a long-term cure. Which would you pick?

        “Unobtanium” is political will. If we just do a round of bailouts for current loan-holders instead of addressing the root cause of spiraling education costs, we’re just kicking the can down the road. The pressure will be off, a whole generation of 20- and 30-somethings will lose interest in the issue, and it’ll fall off the political radar for another few decades, by which time GenZ+ will be well and truly fucked, since educational costs are only going up and up.

        The absolute worst way to address rising education costs is to encourage a bunch of students to take ridiculously large loans and then wipe them off the books. That means: 1) schools can raise prices to the roof because they know students have access to mountains of cash from loans, and 2) students won’t hesitate to take the loans because they’ll probably just be forgiven eventually. Probably. Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be a millstone around their neck for the rest of their lives…but hey, what choice do they have, that’s just what school costs (because governments make sure students have all the money they need for a bidding war to get in).

        So it amounts to just transferring huge piles of taxpayer money directly to overpriced schools and predatory banks, with no plan to stem the flow. It’s like trying to help your drug-addicted friend recover with a one-time gift of a brick of heroin. They’ll feel great for a while, and they’ll love you for it while it lasts, but it’s only going to make the problem much worse in the long run.

        • Xhieron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          “Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”

          Get out of here with that bullshit.

          • Welt@lazysoci.al
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Why not contribute something yourself, or address the arguments they’re making instead of dismissing them out of hand?

            • Xhieron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              The argument is bad and probably in bad faith. If I can paraphrase it in a few lines and demonstrate how ridiculous it is, it’s not deserving of a response.

              You don’t have to attend every argument you’re invited to.

              • yiliu@informis.land
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are? Do you know what arguing in bad faith means?

                “Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”

                If the US poured it’s full resources into saving John Doe from Birmingham Alabama, who has cancer, they could probably do it. Of course, then those resources (cash, equipment, researchers & doctors) couldn’t be used to help other people, or to perform research towards an eventual cure for everybody. It would be a bad use of resources, right?

                You don’t let John Doe die because you want his death to motivate researchers. But you only have a certain amount of resources, and you have to allocate them in a way that makes sense, and pouring everything into a temporary solution that only affect this one dude (or one batch of student loan recipients) at the cost of a long-term, permanent solution to the root causes of the issue is just…a bad idea.

                • Xhieron@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are?

                  I think your real beliefs and agenda are that you don’t want student loan forgiveness for anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Maybe you’re bitter because you didn’t go to school or maybe because you did and already paid off your debt. Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, or maybe you’re just a troll. I don’t really care. It doesn’t matter, because the argument is reprehensible regardless of your motives:

                  We should let John Doe in Alabama die because it’s too expensive to save him.

                  You decided that the financial expense of saving a life is worth condemning a patient to death just like you decided that the imaginary, hypothetical political cost of a change in policy is worth consigning multiple generations to lifelong debt.

                  You should be ashamed of yourself. But whether you are or not, I’m not interested in debating with you.

        • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure.

          How is this what’s happening? Who said it’s a one-time-only thing? Who said they can’t also research permanently available cure? Wouldn’t proving that removing the debt is a huge boon to everyone cause people to invest more in the idea of a cure?

    • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      So the people who could get relief should abstain because the door is shut on any legislation as long as the GOP are in power?

      Awfully compassionate of you.

      • DarkGamer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        No. That’s mighty presumptive of you. Play the game as the rules are. I’m suggesting loan forgiveness is a half-measure and it never should have been offered by politicians without solving the problem of unaffordable education. Otherwise, this isn’t a solution, it’s just a band-aid on a gaping still-bleeding wound that needs stitches. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does create inequity.

        • catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Lol you really couldn’t help yourself. Just one reply and you reveal that you’re actually just a selfish piece of shit. Maybe just shut up while you’re ahead next time. You’re a garbage person but people don’t have to know on the Internet if you don’t make it so abundantly clear.

          • DarkGamer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You know adults can usually communicate their point without resorting to insulting those who have different opinions. You don’t seem to have a point, just insults.

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Declare that future student loans are also automatically forgiven. You take a student loan tomorrow? You don’t have to pay it back. This, of course, will mean that no one will want to give student loans - which will force the tuition down.

      • DarkGamer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        At that point why not just cut out the lenders entirely and make college free/publicly funded for all students like they do in Germany? An educated population yields many returns for a society and it will pay for itself with the boost to our economy it would provide.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I thought the U.S. government already took all the loans. So wouldn’t the lender be the U.S. government, and the interest goes to paying for the companies managing the loans I would assume. My interest rate on some of my loans went from 2.4% to 4.8% if I remember correctly (was sometime between 2008-2012 time period). I don’t believe students can go to a bank and get private student loans unless there is some loopholes. That said, cancelling student loan debt would simply mean not paying themselves back. Student loans are tax deductible as well, so when you pay them it would essentially come out of your taxes income, so if you could magically pay 10k off one year, it should come off your highest taxes income bracket. I still owe some, but I’d be fine with at least making it free college for AS/AA and 0% interest on student loans past that for all new takers. If they could make it free for BS/BA I’m still fine with being stuck with mine so long as we can figure out how to fix it for the future generations.

    • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m on board, as long as we forcefully agree that cancelling the loans is a good thing - it’s just NOT ENOUGH

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I actually beat cancer. If they suddenly find a cure for cancer now I am going to be so fucking happy! This comment is about student loans…and fuck cancer.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I spent five figures paying mine off two years ago.

    Still 100% support my tax dollars paying for people’s college. In fact, I’d love that instead of the nine wars my tax dollars are paying for instead.

    • shimdidly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      IDK. Some cringe-lord wants free stuff and wants your taxes to pay for it. Something about cancer.