I don't see the problem.

Fuck the rich.

If by "successful", you mean "shot out the right cunt," then sure.

If by "successful", you mean "shot out the right cunt," then sure.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/04/20/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth-2/

http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-people-in-the-world-2015-4

ok verby

I see no problem in a revamping of how school debt is handled. There is a problem, and ignoring it causes extreme opinions like this. We are setting our economy up to where to succeed you need a degree. But the cost of that degree negates the success after getting it. In fact, someone without that debt may be in a better situation than those with a degree. It's a situation that is guaranteed to fail.

Its risk vs reward. Sure, you could learn a trade and get a job straight out of highschool, or you could get a degree and try to get a white collar job. 

I have student debt. Sure, its not astronomical because of scholarships. But I still have some.

I signed those loan papers. I know what I agreed to pay and so did all these people. Why sign something you agree to pay, if you aren't going to pay it back?

So say I was a billionaire who earned all my money. After some of it is taxed and taken from the government, I would be a "terrible person" for wanting to keep my own money?

Yes.

Quote from: PSU on November 13, 2015, 01:52:10 PM

So say I was a billionaire who earned all my money. After some of it is taxed and taken from the government, I would be a "terrible person" for wanting to keep my own money?

Yes.

LOL ok man. I guess I should feel guilty for keeping all of my 55k a year that I earn after taxes.

LOL ok man. I guess I should feel guilty for keeping all of my 55k a year that I earn after taxes.

Probably.

You're serious?

Granted, you have a kid, so chances are, you probably need all that money. But it's hard to say.

Generally, anything you don't absolutely need to live should be given away to people who actually need it.
It's just the right thing to do.

What would be right is if the people who "need" it, got off their asses and got a job. Or, if they have a job, then get educated and qualified to get a better job.

which requires money that they do not have

Walking to Mcdonalds/Burger King/Wendys and filling out a job application takes zero money.

say you don't want to support any of those establishments

because they're all, you know, evil and disgusting

either way, you act like getting a job that way is guaranteed--it isn't

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on November 13, 2015, 01:48:11 PM

I see no problem in a revamping of how school debt is handled. There is a problem, and ignoring it causes extreme opinions like this. We are setting our economy up to where to succeed you need a degree. But the cost of that degree negates the success after getting it. In fact, someone without that debt may be in a better situation than those with a degree. It's a situation that is guaranteed to fail.

Its risk vs reward. Sure, you could learn a trade and get a job straight out of highschool, or you could get a degree and try to get a white collar job. 

I have student debt. Sure, its not astronomical because of scholarships. But I still have some.

I signed those loan papers. I know what I agreed to pay and so did all these people. Why sign something you agree to pay, if you aren't going to pay it back?

Student loans are different. It's an investment in so much more than a home or car. Everyone benefits from a more educated population. Doubly so in the services economy the US has. Tying down people with debt just as they are starting out cripples everyone who would eventually rely on them.

Now, her proposal is ridiculous.  I don't think advanced education should be free. The US has too many people, and not having some vetting would devalue everyone's degree. But the system in place now is broken. Ignoring it only produces solutions like hers. Eventually this will be the majority's opinion and it will go free. It won't be tomorrow, but it will happen.

Follow the British model, limit how much universities can charge so the prices aren't extortionate and make it easier to pay it back.

Beggars can't be choosers

When what you're given is something unconscionably immoral, yes, they should be.

Something Meta kept citing was how students cannot file for bankruptcy, and that's supposed to be the root of the problem.

who the FUCK wants to file for bankruptcy
ever