They went to war.

If anyone with a student loan wants to serve in the military or teach in an inner city (or any service like that), no one would oppose helping them pay for their loans. These students aren't doing that service, they just want a freebie.

How in Gods name can you not see that difference?

Why is that unlikely?

"FYI the Army gets paid via the taxpayers"

Yes, Einstein, and they are also serving the taxpayer, so it's reasonable that they'd be funded by the taxpayer. That's not what this program is, this loan forgiveness gives a windfall to everyone with a loan with no requirement that they do anything of public service.

How do you not see that?

iti

of course jim hiding being wording to justify his position shocking

Jim where is the mechanism for people who took out PPP loans that insured that money actually went to employees as required by law


Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) borrowers may be eligible for loan forgiveness if the funds were used
for eligible payroll costs, payments on business mortgage interest payments, rent, or utilities during either
the 8- or 24-week period after disbursement. A borrower can apply for forgiveness once it has used all
loan proceeds for which the borrower is requesting forgiveness. Borrowers can apply for forgiveness
any time up to the maturity date of the loan. If borrowers do not apply for forgiveness within 10
months after the last day of the covered period, then PPP loan payments are no longer deferred and
borrowers will begin making loan payments to their PPP lender.


Republicans love their Business socialism but help for the avg american is bad Socialism

you just hate it for the sake of hating it like i said you love socialism when its benefits corporations .. but when it benefits everyday americans not so much

but you want your school voucher and no issues for other to pay for your children's religious schooling :faga:

WDMSO, is it just me who says it's stupid?

Please tell me what I see here, that's wrong...

This forgiveness punishes people who either paid their loans off already, or chose not to take out loans. It rewards those who chose to take out the loans, who now won't have to fulfill that obligation.

It generally will transfer money from poorer Americans (those who didn't go to college) to wealthier Americans (family income cap of $250k and that's taxable income, so after deductions).

It does nothing to get at the actual root of the problem (college cists) and probably makes it worse, as it gives colleges an unimaginable incentive to increase tuition again, since the feds are picking up part of the tab.

Stupid. And a lot of people agree with me.

But it puts money in your pocket, so we shouldn't complain.

Finally, this robs borrowers of the sense of accomplishment one derives from being self sufficient. We are further crippling these kids.

isn't this whataboutism?...

"you just hate it for the sake of hating it"

No, I hate it because it punishes those who did the right thing (or had nothing whatsoever to do with those loans because they didn't go to college), it rewards people who did absolutely nothing to deserve it, it's perfectly regressive in that it will take from the poor and give to the wealthy, and it will make college more expensive, less expensive.

"no issues for other to pay for your children's religious schooling"

No, I want MY MONEY, not anyone elses money, to be able to help fund my kids schooling.

Do you understand the difference between my money, and someone else's money?

Youre either lying to try to make your point, or you really have no grasp of this stuff.

YOU are the one who supports taking other peoples money to fund your kids education, because that's exactly what this stupidity is.

Not when democrats do it, only when I do it...

Those college kids all planned to pay back those loans as soon as the millionaire tax breaks trickled down to them, I don’t understand the rush to forgive loans it would get to them haha.

No, I want MY MONEY, not anyone elses money, to be able to help fund my kids schooling.

to bad that's not how taxes work :jump:

you brought up school choice, not me. i agree that’s not a tax. But you brought it up, not me, and you lied saying i want others to pay for my kids to go to private school.

Tigger alkyl have a problem with letting others decide things for themselves, and for fulfilling obligations we agree to take on,,don’t you.

jim those who are getting the relife . Most never asked for it .. not sure why you can't accept that ... and if it never happened would still be paying their loans and many are still paying their loans because they have more that 10k left to pay . but lets ignore that part

Also jim your taxes over 10 years don't even cover 1 of your childrens cost in a public school never mind 3 children

just like what i posted you'll want a tax refund because your house never had a fire or you feel you shouldn't have to pay taxes once you kids are out of school

So in a nutshell you want other taxpayers to subsidize your school choice.. you can't say that's not True . be we all know how it works

"Most never asked for it .. not sure why you can't accept that "

When did I say that everyone asked for it? I'm criticizing Biden for doing it, and I'm criticizing those like you who say it's sound policy.

I agree most people are just quietly paying off their loans, they didn't ask for this, and they'd be stupid to turn it down.

But you are denying its stupid policy. And you can't defend that, which is why you are claiming I said something I never came close to saying.

"Also jim your taxes over 10 years don't even cover 1 of your childrens cost in a public school"

What in Gods name are you talking about? My annual property taxes to my town are about $8500 for my house, another $2k for my cars and camper. I also pay a ton of state income tax, of which a good chunk goes from my state to my town.

My 2 younger kids go to a K-8 catholic school that costs about $5,500 a year.

How can you just make stuff up, out of thin air?

What I have asked for, is that A PORTION of what I pay to my town (not all of it) gets returned to me if I put my kids in Catholic school. It's my money. They're my kids. Let some of my money (not all of it) go with my kids, to fund a vastly superior education at about one-third the cost of the crappy public education.

You're humiliating yourself with demonstrable falsehoods.

I'm asking for a portion of my money back, that's all. Student loan forgiveness wants other peoples money. That's a very big difference.

"you'll want a tax refund because your house never had a fire or you feel you shouldn't have to pay taxes once you kids are out of school "

Again, you're stupidly wrong. I'll happily fund fire, police, and schools once my kids are out. Even when my kids are grown, I still have a vested interest in having good schools in my community.

Once again, you're claiming that I said things which I have never come close to saying. Even you know that you can't respond to what I'm saying, so you pretend I said stupid things which I'd never, ever say.

Is there any way you can try to stop claiming I''m saying things I never said, and instead respond to what I'm actually saying?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/STfLO...nMciZv/200.gif
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're proving my point.

When businesses took PPP funds, they were not set up as loans. The business owner agreed to spend the money on payroll and agreed to hire the employees back. If they did that, the feds agreed to waive repayment. So both parties did what they agreed to do.

That's not even close to what's happening here. These borrowers signed a contract to repay the loan. That was the agreement. They're changing the terms after the fact.

Apples and oranges.

And I don't like business socialism, I didn't like the covid bailouts or PPP. But another big difference, is that business owners didn't choose to lose their business income. That was forced upon them (unnecessarily as it turns out) by state governments. Business owners did not choose to be shut down, it was forced on them.

Your daughter chose to take out a loan. No one forced her.

My wife got a masters degree in data analytics, we looked at student loans, decided to take put a home equity loan instead. Took 3 years to pay it off, made the last payment a few weeks ago. I guess we were suckers for doing what we said we'd do.

Guessing you missed black soldier’s weren’t allowed to use the benefit


You keep blaming students! There not driving the bus. Then claim that’s not what you’re doing

But insisting “Your daughter chose to take out a loan. No one forced her.”

You should learn division seeing you think your taxes are not divided among many local and state needs. And in no way cover your children education not to mention 3 no matter how you try to twist the math

i just said 5 minutes ago, i blame biden and advocates for this bill, not people who were paying their loans.

you lie like Trump, you know that? You lie constantly, every single
time you’re on the losing side of a debate. as you are here with this indefensible stupidity. BecUse you can’t just admit it makes no sense.

I also just said i’m fine with my taxes going to things i don’t hope
to ever use. I could not have been more clear. Then you say i don’t get that my taxes are spread around.

You aren’t capable of being honest for three consecutive sentences

Some of my tax dollars are used to educate my kids. I ask for some ( not all ) of that back. i know that may not cover tuition at catholic school, but every little bit helps.

I also know that if public school faced competition, they improve very quickly.

Yes wayne, i insist that no one forced your daughter to take student loans. Am i wrong, or am I correct?

I don't blame your daughter for the implementation of this policy. I use her as an example of why it's stupid policy, because it retroactively changes the terms of her agreement, and she didn't do anything to deserve it.

Why not hold universities accountable? Why not force them to have some skin in this game.

Wayne, what would you say to someone who would have gone to college but didn't want the debt, so they joined the military instead? What do you say to people who made a different choice for that exact reason? "ha ha, too bad you sucker"?

I made the same choice never considered myself a sucker

I joined to server my country not avoid debt

I’m waiting for someone to make the argument for universal government insurance, after all competition is good.

And by the way Jim, it’s likely that all of your taxes and some paid by others go to fund your childrens education and associated costs.
We do that in this country because we believe that it’s important to do the following:
Develop a productive workforce.
Create an informed citizenry.
Provide for social mobility.

Taxes are like insurance it goes into one big pot. Some of use use more then we put in others never use it..

But you always have some who want theirs back .. crying about fairness ..

Wouldn’t want to be on sinking ship with that crowd . You have 2 choices everyone in the life boats or we are all going down with the ship

Equity dictates that there really are only 2 choices :huh:

catholic schools are way cheaper and far superior

i’d like to offer that benefit to people
who can’t afford it. you’d deny it to them and force them to stay in failing sh*thole schools

I’m pretty comfortable on my side of that argument. you want those people to stay right where they are. i want to get creative to help them out of poverty.

You care more about politics than helping them.

have fun make that wrong.

social mobility, eh?

Is social mobility helped, or is it hindered, if more children are in good schools, and fewer children are in lousy schools?’

My town spends $15k to educate each kid. If you give me $2k of that to help me pay for catholic school, the town keeps the other $13k and now has one fewer kid to spend it on. so more spent per kid. That’s good for the kids who stay in public school.

It’s win win. Except for teachers unions, which is the only key reason democrats oppose it.

So if 10 out of 2,000 students leave a public school what will get cut?

will a teacher get laid off?
will the heat be lowered?
will the bus routes be changed?

The costs are still the same. There will be 24.2 kids in a class instead of 24.4 - that is it.

All is it does is subsidize you sending your kids to private schools. Most people can't afford the $15K it costs to send their kid to private school regardless of a subside.

Why don't the Catholic HSs take kids with handicaps and educate them instead of leaving them for the public HS?

paul, public schools will give up revenue but what you conveniently left out, is there’s would be fewer kids.

if crappy teachers in crappy schools get laid off, boo boo. better to keep flushing money down the toilet forever?

I showed you the fixed costs will be the same. 500 kids at a high school in hartford aren't going to go to Xavier bc they get a $2K subsidy.

So federal aid to education no longer is per student?

It’s not a winner, in the long term it will decimate public education.

You rant about about student loan forgiveness and then want the rest of us to pay for special education for your kids.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the private schools will start providing free lunches for all those poor kids from the Hartford schools who will need help paying for lunch since their $ will go to pay private school tuition.

I posted about Indiana school vouchers

Whites enrolled increased black enrollment decreased

And the majority of peoples kids getting vouchers never stepped foot in a public school


the average tuition at private elementary schools is $7,630, while the average for Catholic elementaries is $4,840. The same is true of high schools, where the average tuition is $16,040 and the average Catholic high school cost is $11,240.

Yep low income and middle income family’s have 50 k to send 3 kids to high school x 4 years

School choice is a scam by republicans. Using school choice for minority’s as their straw man .

Statistics. Don’t back up their claims
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul I concede school choice isn’t good for public teachers. Is the point of education to help teachers, or to help children?

variable costs won’t be the same. salary and benefits are by far the biggest line item of any school budget ( part of the problem). you can let teachers go. that drastically lowers costs.

The only downside is to public teachers. And if the schools would
just improve a bit families wouldnt want to leave anyway.

do you consider teacher salary and benefits to be a fixed cost or a variable
cost? if that’s a variable cost, which it really is, the fixed costs are quite low in a typical education budget.

Both the fix and variable cost will be basically the same as you're never going to get a lot of people being able to afford private schools. With or without a subsidy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well if not many people are participating, you’re also not losing much revenue. you can’t have it both ways paul, you can’t say that the schools will suffer from a meaningful loss of revenue and also claim that costs don’t change and that not many people will participate.

when school choice is offered,,there’s usually a ton of demand in cities with lousy schools

paul, you’ve talked a lot about the impact to the public school. and to be fair, that’s part of the discussion. Another part, is the benefit to the kids who participate. I haven’t seen you comment in that part of this. what do you suppose the effect is, of taking poor but eager students out of godawful public schools, and putting them in small private schools?

Parents want school choice. Public teachers, their unions, and politicians who take big $$ from the unions, don’t want it.

So who do schools exist to serve? The students and their families, or the teachers?

If you take a few students out and it benefits them but you're removing Revenue from the remainder it hurts more people than it is helping. You currently have teachers spending their own money for supplies because the schools are under funded.


You haven't commented on how a subsidy would benefit you because it will. And you haven't answered why the private schools don't accept handicapped students
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Parents want school choice

Some do Jim some … And the majority who want school choice have the money to send their kids to private schools or religious schools. They just want the state city or town to subside them

But keep thinking it’s about unions and politics

I guess no kids from public schools ever get into Harvard or MIT on their merit or being taught by good teachers …

To bad all those hard working plumbers and electricians cooks and Walmart workers who the Republicans claim are getting screwed by Biden giving their kids 10k in debt relief. 99.9 % of them graduated from public schools ..

Schools and teachers don’t fail kids in school parents fail them at home. thinking education isn’t their responsibility…. You have Ron and other politicians who have lied and convinced theses gullible parents that their smarter than the teachers . And suggesting their villains .

Where to begin...

"the majority who want school choice have the money to send their kids to private schools or religious schools. They just want the state city or town to subside them"

That's a very pro-left, self serving statement. Please support it. Please back that up with data, or admit you made it up because it serves your agenda...

"I guess no kids from public schools ever get into Harvard or MIT on their merit or being taught by good teachers … "

As always, you respond to something I never came close to saying. I never said public schools send zero kids to the Ivy League. Please respond to what I'm saying. Why do you constantly respond to radical nonsense that no one ever even came CLOSE to saying?

"all those hard working plumbers and electricians cooks and Walmart workers who the Republicans claim are getting screwed by Biden giving their kids 10k in debt relief. 99.9 % of them graduated from public schools"

That's probably true, I'd agree most who enter the trades are graduates of public school. But most arent graduating from disgusting, failing, inner city public schools. Not all public schools are failing sh*tholes, but some are, and we all know which ones they are, and that's where parents who are doing the right thing, should be offered a choice.

"keep thinking it’s about unions and politics"

So it's just a coincidence that the democrat position on this issue is to protect teachers unions from a tiny speck of competition, and that teachers unions give huge money to democrats. That's just a coincidence? Or do you deny that teachers unions give money to democrats?

"Schools and teachers don’t fail kids in school parents fail them at home. thinking education isn’t their responsibility"

I agree! Most educational success (not all, but most) is determined in the home. But if you agree with that, why do you support democrats who mock traditional family values, and give all their effort and money to teachers, instead of to programs that support strong families?

In addition , there are some schools that are so bad, that even good parents have a tough time getting a good outcome for their kids. These are the places where there should be choice.

You guys keep whining about subsidizing education. But with poor people, you're already subsidizing their public school education. If there's an opportunity to subsidize better schools at a lower cost, why would you rather that your money go to worse schools that are more expensive? We're subsidizing their e3ducation either way. Why not provide then with the best possible opportunities?

You are paying for their schooling already. Why not have your money provide them with the best schooling available, especially if its cheaper?

Politics. That's why. Why else would you choose to keep those kids in stinky schools that are more expensive than the good schools?

It is not politics. It is the recognition that the private schools don't have to deal with the "problems" of the public schools and will cherry pick the "good" students. The ones whose parents want their kids to learn and will assist the kids and the schools in trying to be successful, will get their kids to school every day, on time, with clean clothing, the ones who can somewhat afford lunches, are not handicapped (and those extra costs associated w/them), who will ask about their homework and make sure the kids does it, will not automatically take the kid's side when the kid is disciplined, will make sure the kids don't bring guns to school, etc. etc. These are the kids that are frequently in the private schools. The public schools can't pick and choose and are "stuck" with the "bad" kids.

So it is easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop and leave the "dregs" to the private schools and then claim the private schools do a better job.

You did a good job explaining why private schools are better (clearly, they can refuse to accept troublemakers). What you failed to do, is explain why it isn't then a good idea to get the conscientious students out of Hartford schools, and into good private schools. Sounds like you concede private schools are better places for kids who actually want to learn, yet you'd deny that opportunity to the poor students in Hartford who are trying to get an education. Why? Why say "no" to them? If it's not politics (acting on behalf of teachers and the union), why deny letting them go to a better and cheaper school? I don't get it.


"easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop"

OK, I went to Notre Dame High in West Haven. It wasn't Miss Porters, or Avon Old Farms, Paul. We didn't only have the "cream of the crop". I concede we didn't have a lot of kids with deadbeat parents, but we had plenty of poor kids, plenty of C students. Those teachers I had, didn't have it "easy". They worked their butts off. And they all had second jobs in the summer to pay the bills.