this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
1678 points (98.2% liked)

Comic Strips

19635 readers
1605 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Therobohour@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I cant believe how many time I have to say "just because I was hungry yesterday doesn't mean you sould starve tomorrow." That line was fundamental in my upbringing, it's so simple and do correct and now,no one understands this very basic concept for children

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I think there are three problems with loan forgiveness:

  1. We can't just keep bailing people out. If you're going to forgive loans, you need to actually address the root cause first.
  2. Why do the people who did the right thing by paying back the loans get shafted? They made sure they could pay back their loans and made sacrifices to do so, and now youre letting people unprepared for the loans leap frog them?
  • It's almost like "too big to fail" but for people.
[–] Therobohour@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Well

  1. The us bails out people and companies all the time,to the tune of billions. And they learn nothing. So maybe instead of blaming poor people who want an education ( which is free in a lot of countries) maybe stop handing out free money to Wall Street. 2.what the hell are you talking about,did you not see the post? No one if leap froging anyone. If you payed back the loan you where conned,blame the load company.
    I'm.really sorry you feel the way you do but it's not like that,you've been lied too. Like I said " just because I went hungry yesterday doesn't mean you should starve tomorrow"

Also,I don't think you understand what "too big to fail means".

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It’s almost like “too big to fail” but for people.

How? "Too big to fail" is bad because companies have multiple other methods of dealing with debt, like selling assets and declaring bankruptcy. Student loans can't be discharged via bankruptcy, and most people with loans don't have enough assets to cover their loans.

My loans were discharged under Biden, but that's because the government fucked me over on the PSLF and changed their mind after I'd done the time doing palliative care for developmentally disabled adults.

You want to talk about sacrifice? I did a decade of dealing with literal feces because I was providing care to autistic people that had developed dementia, and I was only getting a couple bucks more than minimum wage. The payoff was supposed to be student loan forgiveness, but the fucking government went back on their word, and now Biden's the bad guy for doing what was originally promised? C'mon.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Too big to fail means that the failure of a business or industry would take the country down with it. The college industry (as it's more an industry than anything else) has effectively become "too big to fail". But what's so insidious about it is that rather than all these schools carrying the debt, they've literally pushed it onto the students.

Forgiving student loans without a plan is a bailout for colleges and only accelerates the broken system.

As for screwing people over with changes to forgiveness plans (or making them too rigid in structure) is an example of something that needs to be fixed because it's clearly not working.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Bingo.

I agree with incentive structures... like forgive debt for people who become teachers or other lower wage professions who are doing a public good. but general bail outs are just horrible policy. but some art grad who has spent 10 years struggling and can't hold down steady employment and has a massive debt load... the responsibility is on them to pay that shit back. if they want to become a teacher and then qualify for the program... great, if they want to continue to be unproductive than it's BS that my taxes should be subsidizing them.

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I would say that I'm okay with having some rules and not just giving people carte blanche to blow through however many hundreds of thousands of dollars they can get in student loans.

But at the same time, I feel like there should be some checks and balances.

We should make debt forgiveness an attainable thing for everyone. I feel like that's not really a controversial statement.

Your art student, who maybe racked up $100k, they've been paying on it for ten years. Interest has caused it to become $115k.

Like, something is not right, right?

If you pay on a debt for ten years, the balance should go down, right?

I would say, carte blanche forgiveness for anyone, regardless of who they are or what has happened, if they make 10 years of the given payments. Not even 10 years successively, like 120 payments, the debt is paid.

That should be structured so that people are being told, "once you graduate college you will be paying $XXX per month for ten full years to pay this off."

For the people who are college educated, but unfortunately, for whatever reason, could not get a job that enabled them to pay the full amount of their student loans back, well, you know, that sucks for America.

But that is going to be the smaller portion of the total.

They're still going to make 120 payments.

They are still going to be financially burdened with paying for their education for a decade.

If you look ahead to the outcomes for the country, do that for 20 years, then the generation 20 years from now will be well-educated and aware of the risks of getting a college degree that maybe sounds fun but pays bupkis.

In the meantime we would have more people motivated and working hard to make those 120 payments.

We would ultimately recoup the grand majority of that trillion dollars within the next 10 years.

And after that 10 years has passed from the day that that law was signed into place, you would have 90 million employed people with a track history of paying 120 payments and a trillion dollars worth of debt.

Now those 90,000,000 people are free of the burden of their student loans and looking to buy houses and having better income and buying cars and revitalizing the economy with their extra spare cash to burn.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think the real answer is to find ways to make state schools free (or with set affordable loan programs). That would provide massive pressure for private schools to lower there prices and hopefully have a deflationary effect.

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, and private schools shouldn't have a problem with that because that would make their education elite tier by default.

Like I know a couple of law firms and some of them will not hire if you didn't graduate from one of the big four or from the top college in the state.

And if they have two applicants, and one graduated from the top college and the state, and the other graduated from one of the big four, like Yale, they're going to take the top four and I know that this is a very much a law specific thing that's fairly common, but I feel like a lot of other high paying jobs would be like that also.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why do the people who did the right thing by paying back the loans get shafted?

This is literally the guy in the OP. For a closer comparison, this is like saying "you're freeing all slaves? What about people like me who bought their own freedom? We made so many sacrifices to do it and now we're just being shafted?!"

A good thing happening to me is not a bad thing happening to you and vice versa.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's such a cheap shot at my point.

  1. People chose to take out these loans, this isn't like cancer or slavery.
  2. Someone has to pay for the loans. When forgiven that means every tax payer is taking on that burden. So yes a good thing happening to you can be a bad thing for other people.
  3. Most importantly, forgiving current loans doesn't prevent more people from falling into the same pitfalls. Meaning you're just perpetuating the problem

My point is don't forgive loans if you haven't fixed the problem because all your doing then is perpetuating the broken system and burdening everyone with student debt.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 1 day ago

People chose to take out these loans, this isn't like cancer or slavery.

So what? Would someone who chose to have unprotected sex not deserve to have their AIDS cured? It's completely messed up that it's even necessary to take on backbreaking debt to get higher education—to many people their only shot at social mobility. It's technically a choice, yes, but the fact that anyone even needs to make that choice is a travesty. Telling someone "take on tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands after interests) of dollars or lock yourself out of most social mobility" is messed up no matter what they choose, but partial justice is better than total injustice.

Someone has to pay for the loans. When forgiven that means every tax payer is taking on that burden. So yes a good thing happening to you can be a bad thing for other people.

That's how society works. You want others to help you you have to help them. This is no difference than child tax credits, food stamps or the myriad of other programs the government runs with the taxes of people who won't necessarily benefit from them.

Most importantly, forgiving current loans doesn't prevent more people from falling into the same pitfalls. Meaning you're just perpetuating the problem

Forgiving current debt and preventing future debt are completely unrelated positions. Current debt needs to be forgiven and future debt needs to be prevented, but there's no reason to lock one of these behind the other. The problem is being perpetuated either way, just with more human suffering on one side.

[–] limelight79@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I cant believe how many time I have to say "just because I was hungry yesterday doesn't mean you sound stave tomorrow." That line was fundamental in my upbringing, it's so simple and do correct and now,no one understands this very basic concept for children

What does "sound stave" mean?

[–] Therobohour@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

"Should starve" I don't know what happened there

[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 days ago

I might be wrong here, but it looks like autocorrect got them and it’s supposed to be ‘should starve’.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago