I'm a liberal, but I don't believe in the breakdown of structure. A lot of those rules are in place for a reason - I'd argue the difference lies more in response.

...you were banned from a social media site for saying someone should pay back a debt?Which one, I'll stay as far away as possible, that's crazy fr 😯

[–] MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm assuming he's referring to student loan forgiveness. I could see him getting banned from certain communities for saying he's against it.

[–] Disinfect056@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yeap that is correct. Creating irresponsable individuals (in my opinion you should be responsable for your acctions)

[–] Dabundis@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think two things make up the core of the student loan problem.

Kids in high school are surrounded by rhetoric from every adult they might trust near-constantly insinuating that if you don't go to college you'll never make anything of yourself (this has been better recently, with more and more high school graduates being made abundantly aware of non-college options available to them)
Student loans are designed to spiral into lifelong debt. This one is a bit more anecdotal for me but a good few of my high school friends have paid back well beyond the initial sum of their student loans, yet their remaining balance is greater than they started.

Now I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but those who frame the issue as purely one of personal responsibility (i.e. "you took out a loan pay it back") are at best being unhelpfully reductive and at worst gaslighting.

Set aside, just for a moment, the abstract moral aspect of this position, and consider the purely utilitarian side. If such a huge portion of an entire generation's earnings are being funneled up to banks that talked them into a maybe-not-so-necessary college education when they were 17, they're not exactly enabled to spend money in local commerce. Money spent in local commerce is pretty good if you want an economy to thrive, and if you ask me, student debt forgiveness would substantially contribute to that. If you disagree then you disagree, but framing that disagreement as a moral superiority is immature.

[–] Disinfect056@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

A 3rd thing you forgot to mention People will take a loan and study a carriers that dont pay enough for them to be able to pay back. Meaning people will not study the market when they ask for a loan. If you need such a big loan you better be sure that you are going to be anle to pay it back. How much money do people make right out if collage from the profession Im intented to study? Not enough? Then its nit a good invesment of time and money....

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

From a non-US standpoint I'd have to ask you why university costs money to attend in the first place. Shouldn't you instead give students money to cover living expenses etc. so that they can focus on their studies? So that everyone who might be able to graduate gets a go at it, regardless of their socio-economic background?

Universal education isn't exactly a new, radical position, Luther was advocating for a broad education for everyone back in the 1500s.

[–] Disinfect056@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I wish nobidy had to work and everything was "free", but as they say everybody has to " eat". Profesors, personal, etc... Not to take in to account the equipment needed to run the clases (labs etc...).

Nothing is "free"

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Nothing is “free”

Indeed not. Streets, for example, need building and maintenance... yet they are free to use. Why would you handle education any differently?

[–] Disinfect056@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Why stop at education? Why not housing, or food, or cars, or vacation? Why work at all?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why work? To fulfil your ambitions. To give to your fellow human beings.

It's really a funny thing: If you look at polls surrounding providing a universal basic income you see an overwhelming majority answer "I'd work about the same amount, maybe a bit less but not much" while the same majority also says "Most people would park themselves in front of the TV with a beer". The general attitude is "everyone is a lazy bum but me", see what capitalist realism has done to us. One of the worst innovations ever, conservatives really should rail against it given that it's new and harmful.

More into details: Education, housing, food, yes. Access to information and entertainment (internet), and healthcare. Cars, no, we should have proper public transport, vacation, depends: Do you want to spend money or visit balconia?

[–] Disinfect056@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hahahh so work so you feel good about yourself? Oh God....

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

I pity you.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

Housing, food, and transportation should indeed be decommodified. Vacation is a luxury, and doesn't need to be free at point of service.

People work because they still need to. Do you get paid to clean your room? Even then, you'd still get paid, but certain things should not be extorted by profit.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

Are you anti soup kitchen too lol

wait you probably hate the unhoused too

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah but from the perspective of a government paying for your citizens education reduces crime, increases revenue and helps your country stay on top from a technology point of view. It's a pretty safe investment that pays for itself. I graduated 5 years ago, university and college isnt free where i am but is subsidized (and also access to low interest gov't loans) I have already paid in taxes more than my education cost the government. If I work for another 20yrs that's easily a 4x on the initial investment.