I'm not doing your research for you. Look up Predatory Student Lending.I don't understand. I might not be very familiar with the US system, but if you take out a loan, why should you not be obligated to pay it back?
What part of "our taxes should have gone to pay for their education in the first place" do you not understand?I don't understand. I might not be very familiar with the US system, but if you take out a loan, why should you not be obligated to pay it back?
“BlackThis happened solely because Trump got to put his cronies in the supreme court.
We have already had this exact same conversation. When we answered your question with several sourced and researched responses, you replied:if you take out a loan, why should you not be obligated to pay it back?
…which felt dismissive at best, as if you were replying to each of us with nothing more than a poop emoji.<aintnobodygoingtohavetimeforthis.GIF>
Authorities say NJ homeowner cut down 32 of neighbor's trees to improve his view, figuring the $1000-per-tree fine for doing so would end up being less than the increase to his property's value.So long as the penalty for a crime is a fine, it means it's only illegal for poor people.
See, the reason he won't retain any of this is because you first have to agree that all of this is bad. Tommi has shown that he is in favor of financial caste systems.Especially since, at his instigation, we had this exact same conversation already.
You can't get higher education without a loan in most cases.
You can't not be poor without that higher education (because of networking and gatekeeping, not what it actually teaches you)
So if you don't want to be in poverty you have to take the loan. Or be an amazing football player.
The loans have high interest rates, and the cost of that higher education is inflated because "you can just get a loan."
The people who are griping about "you took a loan pay it back" are the boomers who think it still costs $90/semester for books and tuition.
It costs $100,000-$200,000 to get a 4 year university degree (more if you actually take longer than 4 years, which many do), on top of living expenses.
Interest rates on student loans are generally 6-8% (or up to 35% if you REALLY get taken - loan giant Navient even got in hot water for letting their "subprime" education loans go as high as 50-92% interest) and compound daily.
Most students take 20+ years to pay off their student loans, paying back many times over their initial principal. And they're the lucky ones... some never get out of debt, and their principal keeps going up.
The entire country is now basically a company store. "Well if you can't afford it you shouldn't have bought it" there is no alternative to buying it. It's a racket. It's indentured servitude with extra steps. You have to get the rich to loan you the money to pay the rich to let you get a degree that will enable you to work for the rich, making them richer, while you pay the rich back $1,000+/mo from what the rich pay you.
I fear that the only reason it seems that way is BECAUSE of Affirmative Action, and I'd like to be proven wrong, but when we're talking $$$...humanity doesn't have a great track record.But I'd think that enough higher education has shifted sufficiently to the left that they would be able to shape entrance qualifications such that actual people with social, economical, or other barriers they've had to overcome would get preferential treatment without resorting to skin color, specifically.
You would think that, but, as @GasBandit already mentions above, it is nigh-impossible to attend whatever higher education you might have been accepted to without first securing a loan, and guess who has trouble securing loans? That's right! It's those darker tonedI'd think that enough higher education has shifted sufficiently to the left that they would be able to shape entrance qualifications such that actual people with social, economical, or other barriers they've had to overcome would get preferential treatment without resorting to skin color, specifically.
How long do you think it will take for people to challenge whatever affirmative action replacement colleges come up with? And how many colleges aren’t going to bother?So, I'm am in favor of me black (and other underprivileged) students getting into (good) colleges and universities, and I do understand that, in the USA (and yes, also elsewhere, but that's our of scope here) there's been a history of using merit-based to keep out black (and etc) people.
But I fail to see why the left seems to think the abolishment of race-based affirmative action is the biggest deal of the three big verdicts today.
Again, I agree that if a person gets a, whatever, 3.0 GPA despite working a job after hours, coming from a one-parent household, with no support group, they deserve to get access in favor of a person who got the same GPA with the help of a tutors, a whole support system, money, and all the benefits that come with that. And yes, in most cases that first person will be more likely to be black and the second to be white.
I'm not against affirmative action to help ensure social mobility through education and opportunity. But I'd think that enough higher education has shifted sufficiently to the left that they would be able to shape entrance qualifications such that actual people with social, economical, or other barriers they've had to overcome would get preferential treatment without resorting to skin color, specifically.
Again, I know, "merit based" has been abused in the past and will no doubt be abused again to keep darker toned purple out, and that's bad. That doesn't mean literal color based selection is the best solution, though, and the ruling, as far as I can tell, really is quite limited in that regard.
I'm sorry if I made you feel that way.…which felt dismissive at best, as if you were replying to each of us with nothing more than a poop emoji.
Your commentary definitely appears to come from a more privileged perspective, one not shared by the rest of us, and you have not been shy about sharing it. For it to be constructive, however, you would need to engage in a dialogue, an exchange of ideas, but you have historically exited every discussion once the word count grows too large. We see you rarely, and so we have no context as to whether this is merely due to demands on your time, or whether you actively avoid “tough” conversations. People who are passionate about their ideals tend to WANT to stay and talk about them, you see, and so your previous (and current!) peremptory exits make you “read” as…well, less than genuine.it seems my commentary is not considered particularly constructive. I'll take this elsewhere.
See, this is where you make your mistake.But I'd think that enough higher education has shifted sufficiently to the left that they would be able to shape entrance qualifications such that actual people with social, economical, or other barriers they've had to overcome would get preferential treatment without resorting to skin color, specifically.
You came in to repeat a point you attempted and failed to defend months ago. You repeating the exact same point indicates a complete and total lack of respect for people who tried to have a conversation with you previously.I'm sorry if I made you feel that way.
At any rate, it seems my commentary is not considered particularly constructive. I'll take this elsewhere.
I don't understand. When you asked this question before and we took the time to answer it, why should you not be obligated to read it?I don't understand. I might not be very familiar with the US system, but if you take out a loan, why should you not be obligated to pay it back?
I don't want to keep piling on Tommi, but I also don't not want to keep piling on, so...I don't understand. When you asked this question before and we took the time to answer it, why should you not be obligated to read it?
Full disclosure? I think TommiR’s lack of understanding comes purely from a lack of desire to understand.I really think his lack of understanding for this topic comes from a combination of his political views with a lack of deeper understanding of this very specifically American problem.
I think you all are being harsh. I really think that the system is so uniquely ameri-broken that it’s hard to fathom.Full disclosure? I think TommiR’s lack of understanding comes purely from a lack of desire to understand.
There, I said it.
—Patrick
Oh, there is no answer, but piling on at least feels better.I think you all are being harsh. I really think that the system is so uniquely ameri-broken that it’s hard to fathom.
I don’t think piling on is the answer.
You misunderstand. I am specifically NOT piling on. Yes, I believe there is some ignorance, perhaps some kind of culturally ingrained (“But we’ve always done it this way!”) ignorance. but I am not automatically assuming it is willful ignorance other than a defensive reaction to having to explore uncomfortable subjects/ideas. I WANT to have these discussions. But I can’t, because the other party keeps disengaging the moment we really start.I don’t think piling on is the answer.
He already had the reality explained to him. And he still just parroted the exact same thing he said the last time.I think you all are being harsh. I really think that the system is so uniquely ameri-broken that it’s hard to fathom.
Judging from his latest reaction neither is talking to him one on one.I don’t think piling on is the answer.