I haven't had student loans since the early 2000s and I'm fine with forgiving them or at least reducing interest rates to something very low.
I lived in an active hurricane zone for most of my life, fwiw, and half my family just got screwed in 2022.
They've all variously moved away and come back. Hurricanes are a price you pay for coastal views. If I could put a beach in the landlocked state I live in now, it would probably generate incredible value.
I haven't taken a position on loan forgiveness, I've only taken a position on people blaming others for their own choices.
But I do live in a wild place, and a fire is a possibility. I pay for insurance to cover that, so I believe I'm footing my own bill as far as my own personal involvement. I wouldn't expect to receive a dime from anyone else; I never did during a hurricane.
You did, though, indirectly. Federal funds were used in lieu of state funds (your taxes). In essence, I paid for some of your cleanup. I agree that you didn't receive a personal check from the federal government, but you did benefit from their action.
Even your insurance is done with this method -- you pay an insurance premium which is far less than what would be paid out in the event that your house burned to the ground. If we're using the same insurance company, my premiums go toward that as well.
I walked into your trap, you got me--my region received hurricane funds. So now we should pay Chad's student loan back even though Chad said he'd do that himself? Huh?
On the other hand, we have a lot of people, about 20% of borrowers, who are in default and in dire financial situations. They will likely end up homeless or destitute, which has obvious negative impact to the community. For these people, forgiveness would be life changing. If you look into the program, it wasn't going to forgive 100% of the loans, but rather a smaller amount and it was income limited.
Does it really hurt you because someone else is helped? I certainly didn't feel hurt when my tax dollars went toward your hurricane damage.
I'm saying this as someone who saved for my children's education, and started doing so years before they were born.
I still don't think that absolves people of the responsibility they put upon themselves. You're totally ignoring that part of the argument, and it's really my only argument.
And clearly we need to pick and choose where to spend our money; we can't aid every cause. That doesn't make everyone a hypocrite. I don't think you've even made a case that I am one; your alternative idea of "federal assistance to the state of Florida" doesn't really compare well to "helping individuals repay loans they directly benefit from"; it's not at all the same class of spending.
Anyway no, people who are against this very specific form of federal aid are not hypocrites if they support some other very specific form of federal aid. That is not a logical conclusion.
I find it funny that we tolerate fabricating billions of dollars to bail out banks with TARP, wipe out billions (trillions?) of dollars in tax revenue with the TCJA, but draw the line when it comes to actually helping the little guy.
I'm even okay with being more strict with the income requirements so that those who are truly struggling can contribute more to society. Would you accept debt forgiveness for those currently in default? Keep in mind that declaring bankruptcy is not a viable option for these people as student loans are not discharged in that case.
I would consistently vote against giving tax money to private entities, given the chance (but look at our options here--we're just voting which private entities to give it to). I'm sure I'm in favor of giving private entities money in some cases, but my core belief is in personal responsibility (to a point you might find extreme), and so most of my positions can be deduced from that.
That being said, I would totally be all about a program to loan students the money with no interest. I think that solves really all the problems. It's not hard to get out from under it. It's very clear what you're signing up for, even as a young adult. It's not victimizing young people and their poor decision-making.
I'd even be totally okay forgiving the previous terms of the existing loans, and eliminating the interest. But to have other people pay for your expensive, optional education that will (hopefully) greatly benefit your life? At everyone else's expense? No, I'm never going to vote for that, no. We already give most people a very expensive primary school education, and just looking around, I would say most of that education is squandered & forgotten.
I don't vote with my heart. People struggling is not a big motivator for me in the voting box (but it certainly is in my personal life). I want them to do better, but I think the struggling is an important part of that process. It certainly was for me. I would encourage people to really dwell in that struggle; I consider it a fundamental, pivotal part of my human experience.
> I'd even be totally okay forgiving the previous terms of the existing loans, and eliminating the interest.
Hey, we agree on something!
While you were in a position to make a certain career decision due to the field you wanted to go into (tech), other field require schooling. For example medicine doesn't have on the job training that allows one to be a nurse, radiology tech, respiratory tech, dr, surgeon and so forth. Do you want there to be even less of those people?
What about accountants? What about engineers? Should they just "teach themselves". The idea was that all these roles are publicly beneficial and we used to recognize that.
The "Policy" of student loans was a government decision and directly created this problem and it is what needs to change to solve it.
The people struggling to repay their loans are those that have degrees with little or no economic value.
The main criticism from blue-collared voters on student loan forgiveness is the moral hazard of allowing students to take out loans for degrees with virtually no economic value. Of course, this criticism was completely ignored by the college educated elite whom refuse to entertain the idea a degree needs to have a measurable ROI. There are many other factors that play into this, but this is the crux of the matter.
Also the moral hazard argument is a red herring to rage bait the blue collar segment of the population and disregards the breadth of actual majors of student loan holders. And secondly it still does nothing to address the actual government policy decision that gave rise to this problem. The policy of student loan (public and individual student risk) vs direct public funding (public and institutional risk).
The number of students enrolling in a program and the amount of debt taken out by those students doesn't matter if there is a positive return on investment and the debt is repaid.
The blue-collared voter views the moral hazard as the end of the conversation. Attempting to diminish or dismiss this as a red herring is counterproductive and doesn't accomplish what you want.
It's akin to trying to convince a friend to rob a bank with you. The friend doesn't need to hear the hifalutin plan to know it's stupid and wrong, but you're getting upset that your friend doesn't want to sit down and hear it for three hours.
I think it's silly to view this in a way that generates ill feelings for folks who pursued education. The blame falls on the government, lenders and schools. They should bear the cost of any forgiveness.
The two paths were hard forks. It was a big decision.
I'm still "paying" the price in the form of reduced wages, surely.
Student loans weren't a great option, so I didn't take them. Why does everyone else take them, and then pass the blame and responsibility to the government?