Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I believe through general taxation the fabric of a civilised society should be built, maintained and enhanced - so that means infrastructure, health service, education, emergency services, pensions, water & sewerage.... We should all contribute what we can to the society that we have, wish to maintain and wish to have. It's not about "somebody else" - such a selfish attitude.
It's Calvinist theology. They consider poverty a sin, whereas they think all wealthy people will go to Heaven.
Dude, that post makes a lot of sense. Good job.
Sure, the basics are ALREADY paid for! I find it selfish for >you< to volunteer that "others" pay for things that individuals should be responsible for themselves! You volunteer that someone else fund your virtue signaling!
Not that I'm a Calvinists but I never heard of such a thing. Where is the source for that?
Thats true, they availability of loans and irresponsibility of barrowing is being exploited by colleges to raise tuition and fund huge building programs.
Just read Max Weber...or this: The Myth of the Protestant Work Ethic
Since when has virtue become a negative that we should avoid "signaling"? You seem to imagine that the nation's wealth shouldn't be used to serve the nation. That only individual wealth should be used to serve the individuals that got hold of it. I disagree. Economics is systemic. No one gets anything outside that system. And yet when some people get hold of some wealth, they immediate want to keep it all for themselves. To serve themselves exclusively. As if the rest of society had nothing to do with their getting hold of it.
It wasn't the government that caused this. It was capitalism turning greed into a virtue, and using that lie to destroy unity, and economic parity, and prosperity for all just so a few greedy pricks could live and behave like untouchable kings.
No, in some cases it's not, but I just think there should be some criteria to be able to go. Maybe I am wrong and the colleges wouldn't be inundated with people.
That's a perspective, not a fact.
Much of education, especially college level,
Not everyone has that incentive. The
That's your solution to everything.
This same argument can be made about mortgages. Do you support forgiving mortgage debt?
I dont see any moral distinction
Another feature of fools is thinking
Universities have lots of money.
They need to be paid either by the US citizen or the person that took out the loan.I could be wrong here as I don't fully understand the complexities of the student loan system, but if student loans are anything like sub-prime mortgages, the point of the loan is not that a student should repay them. Having students in a lifetime of debt creates other commercial opportunities for those who have control of the loans. Banks and/or other financial institutions could repackage the debt, turn them in to derivatives and securities and sell it on in financial markets at an increased value to make a profit.
This of course doesn't change the fundamental value of the original debt, so it feeds into unsustainable speculation that will eventually lead to a crash. And having an entire generation perpetually in debt is an effective method of social control, as it's the same thing the west does to third world countries. The idea of student's "investing" in their future is just marketing spin to sell a bad idea to the general public, the same as promising the "american dream" of borrowing a mortgage so anyone can own your own home.
...but when the financial system realises the game is up and that student loans are practically worthless because there is an entire generation that can't afford to repay them, the banks will start screaming they are "too big to fail" and will ask the government to write off the loans anyway in a bailout package that will cost the tax payer billions or even trillions of dollars.
This is not "radical left wing" thinking. It's the difference between whether the government would rather wait for a global financial crisis to help the banks later, or help the students now. As the tax payer, you are screwed either way because the system is corrupt and broken by design and the government will take your money no matter what you do.
And before that happens, the loans get written off anyway.
Am I wrong? Anyone more informed than me is welcome to jump in...
After a quick google search, it looks (regrettably) like I'm in the right area:
I do think that entire issue needs reworked and overhauled. Houses are a necessity and treating them as investments has not worked out well.
OK, so your major was something else.That's nit actually the case.
