Should Government Forgive Home Loans?

[Revoltingest]

That being said, the question that I feel should be asked is why is college education so expensive.

Because applicants are climbing over each
other for the opportunity to pay any price.

About it being free....
At U of Mich, Indians pay no tuition.
When I attended, many minorities paid
no tuition. One black student told me
that she knew of no black students who
paid tuition.
I had one term of grad school covered
by Gleason Gear.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

This is news to me.

Yes. To legitimately class yourself as a college, you must meet certain government-set standards. To legitimately class yourself as a university, you must meet certain other, government-set standards. Bodies of education at all levels, are regularly inspected against applicable standards and if they do not meet them, their “qualifications” they issue are formally invalid.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. To legitimately class yourself as a college, you must meet certain government-set standards. To legitimately class yourself as a university, you must meet certain other, government-set standards. Bodies of education at all levels, are regularly inspected against applicable standards and if they do not meet them, their “qualifications” they issue are formally invalid.

Humbly,
Hermit

Source?

 

[wellwisher]

To those who believe government should forgive
student loans, I ask about loans for home owners.
Answer & reasons please.

There is a tax deduction for home mortgages, which helps to supplement home loans. This was capped by President Trump, since over priced cities; mostly Democrat, where housing was very expensive: NYC, San Francisco, etc., were getting larger federal mortgages rebates, at the expense of more affordable housing states. The cap allowed the affordable states not to have to supplement the least affordable states; shared federal taxes were rewarding overpriced housing greed.

If the tax payer, via the government, was to forgive home mortgage loans, does the tax payer own the house? Can they then charge you rent, so this is seen as an investment, and not just an extra hardship on them? The Left seems to have this trophy wife mentality, where all is free, simply by looking pretty, while having no skills besides spending the hard work of others.

Something for free is not a good way to give people incentive to be self sufficient. Why work, to provide taxes, to bail out others, when you could stay home and live for free, like them. Who is left to work? Do we just print more money?

The way I look at this is, either you work as hard as needed to have all the things you want, or you learn to live without and enjoy your free time. I never wanted to work all the time, to have all the shiny things. So I learned to be satisfied with less and have more time to enjoy the simple things of life; sunset.

Some people want it all; house, boat, vacation home, they but do not want to work for it. That is not practical, since someone else has to work, twice as hard, to support a new dependent that they did not ask for; forced income slavery. To free all the forced income tax slaves, more people need to be self sufficient, so slavery taxes can be lowered for all. This allows more free time and still have things.

The definition of a slave is someone who is forced to work and is not compensated. Since slavery is illegal what can everyone on the dole do as compensation to their income slaves, so this is not income slavery? Maybe someone can weed my garden and another can wash my car. That is called trade and not income slavery. I do not want a trophy wife, but a teammate.

 

[Kenny]

Because applicants are climbing over each
other for the opportunity to pay any price.

About it being free....
At U of Mich, Indians pay no tuition.
When I attended, many minorities paid
no tuition. One black student told me
that she knew of no black students who
paid tuition.
I had one term of grad school covered
by Gleason Gear.

But if college happens to be Government supported... should there be a price cap?

 

[Kenny]

Because applicants are climbing over each
other for the opportunity to pay any price.

About it being free....
At U of Mich, Indians pay no tuition.
When I attended, many minorities paid
no tuition. One black student told me
that she knew of no black students who
paid tuition.
I had one term of grad school covered
by Gleason Gear.

But if college happens to be Government supported... should there be a price cap?

 

[Revoltingest]

But if college happens to be Government supported... should there be a price cap?

Double posting me, eh.

I see financial education as the primary solution,
ie, high schoolers must learn about money,
borrowing, lending, saving, investing, etc.
If they make better decisions, the market
will respond.

 

[Alien826]

I don't see homeless. There's no signs of addicts.
Same in Hong Kong or Taipei.

Not like your San Fran or L.A.

Failure of will aka moral weakness has allowed
that disaster to fester and grow.

Pointing fingers is as I mentioned, no substitute
for resolute action.

If you treat addicts as criminals and consider their situation to be their own fault, then I suppose punishment thinly disguised as "treatment" seems appropriate.

Simply not allocating enough resources, as in the USA, will certainly result in what you observe.

I'm wondering what you mean by "moral weakness"though? Who is weak? The addicts for being addicted, or the authorities for not punishing them enough? That's a serious question.

 

[Alien826]

Therefore absolutely nothing is free

It depends on how you define it. If you define "free" to mean something that is given to someone that doesn't involve any cost to anyone else, then no, nothing is free. Even breathing involves an expenditure of muscular effort. Something can be free to a particular person at a particular time though. and that's what is typically meant in these examples, like free education or health care.

It's convenient to those who subscribe to the Protestant Work Ethic that says that everything anyone receives must be directly "deserved" by paying for it in some way to consider "free" to be "bad". There are other ways of looking at it though. Sure, it makes sense that if a group of people are engaged on some enterprise and all have an equal opportunity to contribute then all should contribute if they want to share in the rewards. But what about those that contribute in some other way, or at a different time, or have a limited, or no, ability to contribute? Must the rewards always be directly related to the contribution?

 

[Kenny]

Double posting me, eh.

I see financial education as the primary solution,
ie, high schoolers must learn about money,
borrowing, lending, saving, investing, etc.
If they make better decisions, the market
will respond.

Well said! By and large, this is not being taught! They have opted for less important things.

 

[Audie]

If you treat addicts as criminals and consider their situation to be their own fault, then I suppose punishment thinly disguised as "treatment" seems appropriate.

Simply not allocating enough resources, as in the USA, will certainly result in what you observe.

I'm wondering what you mean by "moral weakness"though? Who is weak? The addicts for being addicted, or the authorities for not punishing them enough? That's a serious question.

Drug dealers deserve harsh punishment.
Addicts are sick and need help.

The moral weakness is in doing neither.

 

[Revoltingest]

Drug dealers deserve harsh punishment.
Addicts are sick and need help.

That wouldn't work so well here.

 

[Audie]

That wouldn't work so well here.

Of course.
It's hard, costs money, and
requires a egg or two to get broken

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course.
It's hard, costs money, and
requires a egg or two to get broken

And tweaking the Constitution.
And a change in culture.
Very unlikely.

 

[Wu Wei]

It depends on how you define it. If you define "free" to mean something that is given to someone that doesn't involve any cost to anyone else, then no, nothing is free. Even breathing involves an expenditure of muscular effort. Something can be free to a particular person at a particular time though. and that's what is typically meant in these examples, like free education or health care.

It's convenient to those who subscribe to the Protestant Work Ethic that says that everything anyone receives must be directly "deserved" by paying for it in some way to consider "free" to be "bad". There are other ways of looking at it though. Sure, it makes sense that if a group of people are engaged on some enterprise and all have an equal opportunity to contribute then all should contribute if they want to share in the rewards. But what about those that contribute in some other way, or at a different time, or have a limited, or no, ability to contribute? Must the rewards always be directly related to the contribution?

Don't tell me, tell @Revoltingest, it was what he was describing

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't tell me, tell @Revoltingest, it was what he was describing

Don't sic him on me!

 

[Wu Wei]

Don't sic him on me!

it was your incessant, insipid, rambling that created my post in hope you would give up, quit and go away

 

[Revoltingest]

it was your incessant, insipid, rambling that created my post in hope you would give up, quit and go away

Your posts only inspire me to respond.

 

[Wu Wei]

Your posts only inspire me to respond.

I said it before and I'll say it again..... do you have an off switch

 

[Revoltingest]

I said it before and I'll say it again..... do you have an off switch

I will some day.
But you'll miss me when leave spend eternity arguing with Satan.