[DarknessFalls]

This administration does not really care about the rule of law. It cares to some degree about public perception. The timing of this ruling is about revoking birthright citizenship, which is a huge Constitutional trampling. There were opportunities four years ago for the SC to step in and they refused to intercede. For example, why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgive student loan debt and a Federal Judge in Texas deemed it "unlawful"?

Now we get to see Americans have their legitimacy removed so they can be sent to "Alligator Alcatraz", the new prison being built just for them in the Everglades.

[codeguro]

>why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgive student loan debt and a Federal Judge in Texas deemed it "unlawful"?

Because it is unlawful. Student loan forgiveness is not an entitlement. College isn’t an entitlement. These are the facts. Moreover, college is a privilege, and it’s a choice, and at its core it is an investment into your future. Having the government forgive it implies the taxpayer will pay for it. That means that essentially people who chose _not_ to go to college, by their own choice or due to their own circumstances, now have to pay for the investments of the people who chose to go. College educated people tend to make much more money too, so in essence you’ll literally be taking money from the less privileged and giving it to the more/rich. And this would be done by force. In what way would that be lawful? Why would others have to pay for your personal investments? You took out a loan, you pay it off. Leave everyone else out of it.

[DarknessFalls]

I noticed that you didn't address the question of whether birthright citizenship is an entitlement, because it's kind of hard to argue with the Constitution on that point.

Secondly, something that is lawful does not need to be an entitlement. If a president can declare an air strike, costing hundreds of millions of dollars -- which I may not consent to as a taxpayer -- then he can forgive loans. The argument that the federal judge in Texas made regarding student loan forgiveness not applying to everyone could be made to PPP loan forgiveness for businesses. (I have a business but didn't receive free money.)

[goosedragons]

Are you against public school in general? Should the childless be forced to pay? Are you against public roads? Should the car-less be forced to pay? Are you against firefighters? Should those not currently involved in a fire be forced to pay?

I guarantee somebody else has paid for something they haven't used that you have. We're a society. Part of that is sharing costs. Big reason so much is so fucked up right now is because we're doing a bad job of it.

[Whoppertime]

I am against rich people putting their kids in private school on credit then having that debt "forgiven" and paid for by people who sent their kids to public school. I am sure those kids are getting a benefit from private education. That doesn't mean I should bail them out and pay their bill

[codeguro]

Firstly, I don't think you're engaging in good faith. I won't humor shotgun questions like yours. They're not even on topic. If you want to talk about these topics, then we do them separately and one at a time. Those are my terms. Secondly, just because I participate in a society doesn't mean I agree with how it's run or that I don't see room for improvement. That argument boils down to a Mr Gotcha comic.

Here's a good start. Don't have people who don't make the choice to take out loans be forced to pay off those loans. I don't think it's unreasonable that you bear the costs of your _personal_ investments for your _personal_ future. Whether or not society as a whole benefits from it is besides the point. They are _personal_ investments at their core, and they can be paid off with your higher future income. Borrow against your future, not mine. Society's part is contributing to your higher income through business at each individuals' personal discretion. Don't make the mistake thinking anybody owes you anything more. You're not entitle to a higher income even if you went to college. When you made a bad investment, you pay for it. I'm not paying for your lesbian dance theory degree, and neither is the plumber making a living without some degree.

[goosedragons]

I have zero student loans FYI. Never had any either. Nor do I have a lesbian dance theory degree. I have been lucky not to need them. I don't think you're engaging in good faith.

My questions are related to get you to realize there are things you probably use every day funded through taxes, that there are members of society that don't use those things or benefit from them but still pay for them.

People shouldn't be bound to debt because the second they legally turn 18 they get roped into financial matters they absolutely don't have the experience to fully comprehend. Nor are they fortune tellers that can tell if the in demand degree they are starting now will be still be in 4 years. Other debt can be discharged through bankruptcy. Yet, not student loans. Why are other bad investments treated differently?

Not everyone graduates high school either, yet we bare the costs of the personal investments of everyone that does. Education is both personal and an investment in society.

[codeguro]

People spending money that is not theirs on services they themselves will not receive will care about neither the quality nor the cost of those services. But this at its core is exactly what the government bureaucrats do. If you listened at all to great economists like Milton Friedman then it’d be obvious to you why government spending inevitably leads to lower quality and more expensive services than those provided by a free market through the private sector. Moreover, this spending is done by force, meaning the government is violating your individual autonomy (and the autonomy of every individual they tax to fund this program) by removing your right to decide how you spend your money on services you need. We as a society don’t generally view force as a legitimating factor. We view consent as a legitimating factor, and these goods and services are just that; goods and services. And, like every other good and service, the free market is a solution to provide more variety of them at a variety of costs including ones affordable to you. There is a reason people choose to bring their kids to private school and many people who would otherwise choose to do so cannot because their income is taxed to fund public schooling.

The lesbian dance theory degree example is obviously an analogy to illustrate a bad investment and get you to understand the outrage of having to pay for someone else’s personal (bad) investments. 18 year olds are legally adults in the US and as adults they have the right to make decisions about their futures. But their inexperience does not absolve them of their responsibilities. And it’s not like they have to get a degree fresh out of high school either. They can choose to wait and watch the real world for a few years until they decide what they want to do with their lives. Stop infantilizing them.

If you’re asking me my opinion on discharging debts, I disagree with the concept in principle for the same reason as the original occupy wall street protesters. Businesses that fail, even if they are big, should not be bailed out at the taxpayers expense. Bad investments should fail; that is the risk you wager when you agreed to play that game. You don’t get to turn around and privatize the gains and socialize the losses. We live in a society.

[leoqa]

I agree with this take. People tend to frame college loans as predatory but the majority of the forgiveness was federal loans.

There are already amnesty programs for teachers, social workers, etc. The solution to bail out individuals for their investments is not good policy.

[DarknessFalls]

Federal loans are serviced by unscrupulous middle men like Nelnet. Before I understood a thing about federal interest rates and that, at the time, they were quite high historically, they convinced me to "lock in" the interest rate with loan consolidation. Seemed smart, but they were acting in bad faith and not long after, we had the market collapse of 2007.

By the time my loans were discharged, I had fully paid the principal and was treading water on interest. Because I paid the minimums, the interest itself had risen to above the cost of the original loans based on those high interest rates I consolidated with. I would call it predatory, and as far as I'm concerned, my debt between me and the Federal government is paid for by me. Nelnet be damned.

[buttercraft]

> college is a privilege

We, as a society, need doctors, lawyers, scientists, and engineers. College is a requirement for that.

[codeguro]

Becoming a doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer is a personal choice, and a personal investment. You don’t get to socialize the costs and privatize the gains for your personal benefit in the name of “society”. If you need to take out a loan, borrow against your future, not everyone else’s. You’ll be making more money later so it’s not like you can’t afford it anyways.

[boroboro4]

However you can't protect yourself against all kind of things happening, like pandemic affecting your ability to work.

In cases of emergencies government can and often does intervene (see housing crisis, airlines during covid etc). Why wouldn't government offset something like this in case of student loans during emergencies?

In the end this was a statue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_Relief_Opport...) Biden was using for loan forgiveness. According to current Supreme Court (at least when Trump is a president) court shouldn't be deciding (in a lot of cases) over executive when its assessment of a situation is correct. However the court did it with Biden.

You're framing it like it's black and white and it's obvious loan forgiveness is wrong/illegal. Nah, it's not obvious, we did have an emergency and it might have needed exceptional solutions to it (in this case with student loans).

[codeguro]

> In cases of emergencies government can and often does intervene (see housing crisis, airlines during covid etc). Why wouldn't government offset something like this in case of student loans during emergencies?

Because it is unconstitutional, and because it is unlawful. It is during times of emergencies that individual liberties are under the greatest threat and so it is during those times they need the strongest protections.

I find it funny you cite the housing crisis and covid as paragons because the government intervention to each of those were horrible and people in general would be much better off in the long run if the government never intervened. Maybe you don't like the idea that the government can be a threat, but I assure you that governments can and do go rogue. Never forget that the constitution was written as a document to put limits on the government. There is an important reason for framing it exactly like that. It puts into focus the very real dangers of having a centralized power encroaching in on every aspect of your life. With every piece it seizes, it also seizes a piece of your individual autonomy.