Executive Order to forgive $50,000 in student debt

[bripat9643]

I am glad you ask this because it acknowledges that you agree that this is their rightful cost.

How to accomplish this? Simple, whatever educational requirements a business has should be collected as a tax.
So if a company requires an MBA, a company must pay a tax amount comparable to that cost.

Okay. So you and I are trying for the same job. I have a college education in which to do the job immediately. You apply for the job and the employer would have to fund your education first. Who do you think would get that job, you or me?

Why should a business fund your education when you can go get a better job the minute you complete your studies?

Many do, my former employer would pay tuition and books for any employee without a post graduate degree. They also would fund post-grad degrees if they benefited the company. Not all companies do this, but there are a few.

And I'm guessing they also required the employee to remain in their employ for a certain amount of time to justify the cost to the company. They didn't just let them get the degree and then prance off to their competitors.

There were NO strings attached to undergrad degrees, post grad degrees had some requirements, chief among them, the degree had to advance them in their chosen field in the company. There were no length of employment requirements. I have worked for a few larger companies and a couple of smaller ones that provided this benefit.

So they were willing to pay out the money for you to get a degree, and then have you immediately jump ship to their competitors before the ink was dry on the diploma? I'm really dubious about that.

Be dubious all you want. There are numerous companies that do it. I worked for my last employer for 33 years, but I attended school during my time with other smaller companies for sometimes less than two years.

Oh, I plan to be incredibly dubious, unless and until you provide something other than your word for it.

I don't normally do research for those disbelievers who are too lazy to do their own, but I'll make an exception this time-- 25+ Companies with Tuition Reimbursement Programs SMH.

Newsflash, Mensa Boy: you still haven't "done research". What you did was find a link that "proved"companies offer tuition assistance programs - which only a shitbrained moron would think I ever disputed - and then triumphantly declared that it "proved" the point I did dispute - that companies offer tuition assistance without expecting any commitment in return.

Congratulations. You have now achieved thinking and debating like a leftist. If you still have any pretensions of actually being a person, with a functioning cerebral cortex, you should be very ashamed of your existence at this point.

If you can stop wagging your head mindlessly back and forth a moment, let me show you how research and proof are ACTUALLY done (always assuming you haven't pussied out and run away because I talked mean to you).

From your list:

AT&T - program does not apply to courses that begin before you have been employed for six months (page 2); if you quit two years or less after you receive the tuition assistance, you have to repay the funds (page 10).

https://www.cwa3207.org/forms/ATT%20TAP.pdf#:~:text=The%20AT%26T%20Non-Management%20Tuition%20Assistance%20Plan%20provides%20reimbursement,the%20responsibility%20of%20the%20AT%26T%20Tuition%20Assistance%20Center

.

BP - only covers approved courses which benefit BP (page 2); if you quit within a certain time period after completing the course, you repay the funds (page 6).

https://hr.bpglobal.com/LifeBenefits/getfile/a9f5a2f9-538b-43ea-a47b-f83239c04b1a/JAS_08-28-06_educational_assistance.aspx

Now, those are just the first two which made their entire tuition program available online, and already they prove ME right, rather than you. Shall I go on, or would you like to apologize in abject humiliation?

Anytime someone in a debate forum makes a claim and then tells you to produce the evidence to support it, you know you're talking to a brain damaged moron.

 

[Concerned American]

I am glad you ask this because it acknowledges that you agree that this is their rightful cost.

How to accomplish this? Simple, whatever educational requirements a business has should be collected as a tax.
So if a company requires an MBA, a company must pay a tax amount comparable to that cost.

Okay. So you and I are trying for the same job. I have a college education in which to do the job immediately. You apply for the job and the employer would have to fund your education first. Who do you think would get that job, you or me?

Why should a business fund your education when you can go get a better job the minute you complete your studies?

Many do, my former employer would pay tuition and books for any employee without a post graduate degree. They also would fund post-grad degrees if they benefited the company. Not all companies do this, but there are a few.

And I'm guessing they also required the employee to remain in their employ for a certain amount of time to justify the cost to the company. They didn't just let them get the degree and then prance off to their competitors.

There were NO strings attached to undergrad degrees, post grad degrees had some requirements, chief among them, the degree had to advance them in their chosen field in the company. There were no length of employment requirements. I have worked for a few larger companies and a couple of smaller ones that provided this benefit.

So they were willing to pay out the money for you to get a degree, and then have you immediately jump ship to their competitors before the ink was dry on the diploma? I'm really dubious about that.

Be dubious all you want. There are numerous companies that do it. I worked for my last employer for 33 years, but I attended school during my time with other smaller companies for sometimes less than two years.

Oh, I plan to be incredibly dubious, unless and until you provide something other than your word for it.

I don't normally do research for those disbelievers who are too lazy to do their own, but I'll make an exception this time-- 25+ Companies with Tuition Reimbursement Programs SMH.

Newsflash, Mensa Boy: you still haven't "done research". What you did was find a link that "proved"companies offer tuition assistance programs - which only a shitbrained moron would think I ever disputed - and then triumphantly declared that it "proved" the point I did dispute - that companies offer tuition assistance without expecting any commitment in return.

Congratulations. You have now achieved thinking and debating like a leftist. If you still have any pretensions of actually being a person, with a functioning cerebral cortex, you should be very ashamed of your existence at this point.

If you can stop wagging your head mindlessly back and forth a moment, let me show you how research and proof are ACTUALLY done (always assuming you haven't pussied out and run away because I talked mean to you).

From your list:

AT&T - program does not apply to courses that begin before you have been employed for six months (page 2); if you quit two years or less after you receive the tuition assistance, you have to repay the funds (page 10).

https://www.cwa3207.org/forms/ATT%20TAP.pdf#:~:text=The%20AT%26T%20Non-Management%20Tuition%20Assistance%20Plan%20provides%20reimbursement,the%20responsibility%20of%20the%20AT%26T%20Tuition%20Assistance%20Center

.

BP - only covers approved courses which benefit BP (page 2); if you quit within a certain time period after completing the course, you repay the funds (page 6).

https://hr.bpglobal.com/LifeBenefits/getfile/a9f5a2f9-538b-43ea-a47b-f83239c04b1a/JAS_08-28-06_educational_assistance.aspx

Now, those are just the first two which made their entire tuition program available online, and already they prove ME right, rather than you. Shall I go on, or would you like to apologize in abject humiliation?

I tried to maintain a semblance of civility with your ignorant ass. Of course, they do not pay for education you received before you were employed there. Use some common sense you useless piece of skin around a kunt. sp

"I tried to be nice, and you just REFUSED to agree with me. So now I'm going to piss and whine and wait for it to be hugely important to you, because I'm SURE it is!"

Hold your breath while you wait.

No one said anything about education before you were employed there, you fucking moron, and that isn't even a GOOD attempt at dodging away from the fact that you made an ass of yourself. Too bad for you that I'm not in the mood to let you get away with it today.

From the post thread:

You said this - There were NO strings attached to undergrad degrees, post grad degrees had some requirements, chief among them, the degree had to advance them in their chosen field in the company. There were no length of employment requirements. I have worked for a few larger companies and a couple of smaller ones that provided this benefit.

I responded - So they were willing to pay out the money for you to get a degree, and then have you immediately jump ship to their competitors before the ink was dry on the diploma? I'm really dubious about that.

You then proceeded to "prove" me wrong by posting a list of companies with tuition reimbursements . . . which do NOT allow you to get your education paid for and then immediately leave to work somewhere else, nor do they offer the programs with no strings attached.

I demonstrated that, in fact, your "no strings attached" was wrong WITH YOUR OWN LIST . . . and now you're coming back and trying to pretend that someone, somewhere, claimed that they paid for education prior to employment.

As far as I'm concerned, you just admitted to the whole world that A) yo Tu're a fucking moron, if not a liar, and B) you're a tiny-dicked chickenshit who can't admit when he's just had his ass kicked.

I'm done with you. You may crawl back and attempt to be worthy of more of my attention at a later date, but for this conversation, you have failed and are beneath my notice. Begone.

Tsk Tsk Tsk, moronic bitch is triggered. Oh my, whatever shall I do. I really don't care how long you hang out in your basement world of denial. I worked for the company and I know how my education was paid for. You can go on all of the little rants you want, it still will not change the facts. Carry on little girl, go get you pussy swabbed.

 

[Concerned American]

I am glad you ask this because it acknowledges that you agree that this is their rightful cost.

How to accomplish this? Simple, whatever educational requirements a business has should be collected as a tax.
So if a company requires an MBA, a company must pay a tax amount comparable to that cost.

Okay. So you and I are trying for the same job. I have a college education in which to do the job immediately. You apply for the job and the employer would have to fund your education first. Who do you think would get that job, you or me?

Why should a business fund your education when you can go get a better job the minute you complete your studies?

Many do, my former employer would pay tuition and books for any employee without a post graduate degree. They also would fund post-grad degrees if they benefited the company. Not all companies do this, but there are a few.

And I'm guessing they also required the employee to remain in their employ for a certain amount of time to justify the cost to the company. They didn't just let them get the degree and then prance off to their competitors.

There were NO strings attached to undergrad degrees, post grad degrees had some requirements, chief among them, the degree had to advance them in their chosen field in the company. There were no length of employment requirements. I have worked for a few larger companies and a couple of smaller ones that provided this benefit.

So they were willing to pay out the money for you to get a degree, and then have you immediately jump ship to their competitors before the ink was dry on the diploma? I'm really dubious about that.

Be dubious all you want. There are numerous companies that do it. I worked for my last employer for 33 years, but I attended school during my time with other smaller companies for sometimes less than two years.

Oh, I plan to be incredibly dubious, unless and until you provide something other than your word for it.

I don't normally do research for those disbelievers who are too lazy to do their own, but I'll make an exception this time-- 25+ Companies with Tuition Reimbursement Programs SMH.

Newsflash, Mensa Boy: you still haven't "done research". What you did was find a link that "proved"companies offer tuition assistance programs - which only a shitbrained moron would think I ever disputed - and then triumphantly declared that it "proved" the point I did dispute - that companies offer tuition assistance without expecting any commitment in return.

Congratulations. You have now achieved thinking and debating like a leftist. If you still have any pretensions of actually being a person, with a functioning cerebral cortex, you should be very ashamed of your existence at this point.

If you can stop wagging your head mindlessly back and forth a moment, let me show you how research and proof are ACTUALLY done (always assuming you haven't pussied out and run away because I talked mean to you).

From your list:

AT&T - program does not apply to courses that begin before you have been employed for six months (page 2); if you quit two years or less after you receive the tuition assistance, you have to repay the funds (page 10).

https://www.cwa3207.org/forms/ATT%20TAP.pdf#:~:text=The%20AT%26T%20Non-Management%20Tuition%20Assistance%20Plan%20provides%20reimbursement,the%20responsibility%20of%20the%20AT%26T%20Tuition%20Assistance%20Center

.

BP - only covers approved courses which benefit BP (page 2); if you quit within a certain time period after completing the course, you repay the funds (page 6).

https://hr.bpglobal.com/LifeBenefits/getfile/a9f5a2f9-538b-43ea-a47b-f83239c04b1a/JAS_08-28-06_educational_assistance.aspx

Now, those are just the first two which made their entire tuition program available online, and already they prove ME right, rather than you. Shall I go on, or would you like to apologize in abject humiliation?

Anytime someone in a debate forum makes a claim and then tells you to produce the evidence to support it, you know you're talking to a brain damaged moron.

Your feeble attempts to make a valid point failed again. Enjoy your life, might get those teeth fixed though.

 

[noonereal]

I am glad you ask this because it acknowledges that you agree that this is their rightful cost.

How to accomplish this? Simple, whatever educational requirements a business has should be collected as a tax.
So if a company requires an MBA, a company must pay a tax amount comparable to that cost.

Okay. So you and I are trying for the same job. I have a college education in which to do the job immediately. You apply for the job and the employer would have to fund your education first. Who do you think would get that job, you or me?

Why should a business fund your education when you can go get a better job the minute you complete your studies?

Many do, my former employer would pay tuition and books for any employee without a post graduate degree. They also would fund post-grad degrees if they benefited the company. Not all companies do this, but there are a few.

And I'm guessing they also required the employee to remain in their employ for a certain amount of time to justify the cost to the company. They didn't just let them get the degree and then prance off to their competitors.

There were NO strings attached to undergrad degrees, post grad degrees had some requirements, chief among them, the degree had to advance them in their chosen field in the company. There were no length of employment requirements. I have worked for a few larger companies and a couple of smaller ones that provided this benefit.

So they were willing to pay out the money for you to get a degree, and then have you immediately jump ship to their competitors before the ink was dry on the diploma? I'm really dubious about that.

Be dubious all you want. There are numerous companies that do it. I worked for my last employer for 33 years, but I attended school during my time with other smaller companies for sometimes less than two years.

Oh, I plan to be incredibly dubious, unless and until you provide something other than your word for it.

I don't normally do research for those disbelievers who are too lazy to do their own, but I'll make an exception this time-- 25+ Companies with Tuition Reimbursement Programs SMH.

Newsflash, Mensa Boy: you still haven't "done research". What you did was find a link that "proved"companies offer tuition assistance programs - which only a shitbrained moron would think I ever disputed - and then triumphantly declared that it "proved" the point I did dispute - that companies offer tuition assistance without expecting any commitment in return.

Congratulations. You have now achieved thinking and debating like a leftist. If you still have any pretensions of actually being a person, with a functioning cerebral cortex, you should be very ashamed of your existence at this point.

If you can stop wagging your head mindlessly back and forth a moment, let me show you how research and proof are ACTUALLY done (always assuming you haven't pussied out and run away because I talked mean to you).

From your list:

AT&T - program does not apply to courses that begin before you have been employed for six months (page 2); if you quit two years or less after you receive the tuition assistance, you have to repay the funds (page 10).

https://www.cwa3207.org/forms/ATT%20TAP.pdf#:~:text=The%20AT%26T%20Non-Management%20Tuition%20Assistance%20Plan%20provides%20reimbursement,the%20responsibility%20of%20the%20AT%26T%20Tuition%20Assistance%20Center

.

BP - only covers approved courses which benefit BP (page 2); if you quit within a certain time period after completing the course, you repay the funds (page 6).

https://hr.bpglobal.com/LifeBenefits/getfile/a9f5a2f9-538b-43ea-a47b-f83239c04b1a/JAS_08-28-06_educational_assistance.aspx

Now, those are just the first two which made their entire tuition program available online, and already they prove ME right, rather than you. Shall I go on, or would you like to apologize in abject humiliation?

I tried to maintain a semblance of civility with your ignorant ass. Of course, they do not pay for education you received before you were employed there. Use some common sense you useless piece of skin around a kunt. sp

"I tried to be nice, and you just REFUSED to agree with me. So now I'm going to piss and whine and wait for it to be hugely important to you, because I'm SURE it is!"

Hold your breath while you wait.

No one said anything about education before you were employed there, you fucking moron, and that isn't even a GOOD attempt at dodging away from the fact that you made an ass of yourself. Too bad for you that I'm not in the mood to let you get away with it today.

From the post thread:

You said this - There were NO strings attached to undergrad degrees, post grad degrees had some requirements, chief among them, the degree had to advance them in their chosen field in the company. There were no length of employment requirements. I have worked for a few larger companies and a couple of smaller ones that provided this benefit.

I responded - So they were willing to pay out the money for you to get a degree, and then have you immediately jump ship to their competitors before the ink was dry on the diploma? I'm really dubious about that.

You then proceeded to "prove" me wrong by posting a list of companies with tuition reimbursements . . . which do NOT allow you to get your education paid for and then immediately leave to work somewhere else, nor do they offer the programs with no strings attached.

I demonstrated that, in fact, your "no strings attached" was wrong WITH YOUR OWN LIST . . . and now you're coming back and trying to pretend that someone, somewhere, claimed that they paid for education prior to employment.

As far as I'm concerned, you just admitted to the whole world that A) yo Tu're a fucking moron, if not a liar, and B) you're a tiny-dicked chickenshit who can't admit when he's just had his ass kicked.

I'm done with you. You may crawl back and attempt to be worthy of more of my attention at a later date, but for this conversation, you have failed and are beneath my notice. Begone.

Tsk Tsk Tsk, moronic bitch is triggered. Oh my, whatever shall I do. I really don't care how long you hang out in your basement world of denial. I worked for the company and I know how my education was paid for. You can go on all of the little rants you want, it still will not change the facts. Carry on little girl, go get you pussy swabbed.

Another dumb post.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am still not seeing the significance here. Most documents such as an police report require you to print. I have never seen one conducive to cursive.

I've filled out a few in my life, and I've always used handwriting. Never had a problem submitting them.

 

[gipper]

Yet no one seems to complain about the massive corporate welfare given to Wall Street and the MIC.

Let me inform you and others about "corporate welfare."
1. It is often used to incentivize hiring people out of work.
2. It is often used to keep money out of the hands of our enemies, such as Muslim oil states who hate us and are committing terror on a global basis.
3. It is often used to bring businesses into a state where they will generate hundreds of millions in sales tax and income.
You don't like "corporate welfare," vote out the politicians who enacted it. When it benefits a state or a group, they don't seem to complain.

1. Agreed it does incentivize the 1%.
2. We have no enemies who can harm the homeland. Stop believing propaganda from the MIC.
3. Corporate welfare can benefit workers if done right. Usually it benefits the 1%, who are donors to the two criminal gangs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do you prefer the non working investor class profit on the backs of our youth?

Listen, I know the answer, you don't but you should be able to follow along to my bias neutral breakdown of the system.

That's how businesses make money, by having labor do the work. It's that way today and always has been that way in this country. If you want to do a particular job, then it's up to you to get the education to do that job. A lot of jobs require experience. It's up to you to find a way to get that experience, not the employer being obligated for you to get experience.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They should teach that you pay interest on credit cards? I sure as hell never had a course like this and neither did you, if you are honest.

I did have a class like that. It was called Civics. They taught you about interest rates, how to write checks, how to balance a check book, compound interest, how house loans work and what you end up paying in interest by the time the loan is repaid, just a load of great information. Today it seems younger people were never taught things like that. They don't even manually deduct expenses when they spend money. I see them in the store use their debit card, and then throw the receipt in the garbage when they leave the checkout line. I keep my receipts, and when I get home, write down what I purchased and deduct it from my checking account. I usually use cash to buy most stuff, but if I didn't bring enough, I end up using my debit card.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I really think we need the
trumpist problem dealt with before anything else can be addressed.

I think you're going to be real disappointed. Trump was not just a President, Trump is a movement.

 

[noonereal]

Maybe you should realize it's 2021 not 1961?

Civics. They taught you about interest rates, how to write checks, how to balance a check book, compound interest, how house loans work

WTF has any of this to do with civics?

Today it seems younger people were never taught things like that.

I repeat, either were we. You learned it in the home. Parents actually taught kids stuff, just like today. That your family does not teach their kids is on you, them, not school or sociaty.

They don't even manually deduct expenses when they spend money.

Why on earth should anyone? It's 2021, I have all this info immediately available to me without doing anything manually.

They don't even manually deduct expenses when they spend money.

It would be wasting time if they did.

I see them in the store use their debit card, and then throw the receipt in the garbage when they leave the checkout line.

And why would you? I know I do the same.

I keep my receipts, and when I get home, write down what I purchased and deduct it from my checking account.

Honest, this is fuckin insane . Like I said earlier, it is 2021. You should join the rest of us.

I usually use cash to buy most stuff, but if I didn't bring enough, I end up using my debit card.

I stopped carrying cash 10 years ago. Why you haven't just means you have not adjusted to life in the new century.

Last century I always carried 10 $100 bills. Why on earth would I do that now? I wouldn't.

You realize, all you are saying in this post is that you have let time pass you by.

Peace brother, thank God I am not like you. I like living in 2021. It rocks!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I hate Ryder. The trucks are absolute shit, from the specs to the service. We have had 2 trucks with CEL on for months. One of those and another tractor doesn't power trailer ABS. Another is dripping DEF. Two of our rentals are totally used up...one with 450,000 miles (DEF leak, bad ABS) and one with 519,000 (CEL). The mileage isn't too bad for OTR, but these are city trucks (One has 30,000 engine hours.)

Whoever spec'd our three new tractors is an idiot. They are Freightliner M2s with 350HP Cummins L9 engines...and 5.38 gears, and Allison automatics...that start in second gear. (Wait, what?) Result: they're slow, noisy, and guzzle fuel (about the same mileage as our twin screw, with its 500HP 15-litre Cummins and 490,000 miles), because they're spinning 1900RPM at 65. With bigger engines, more power (410HP DD13, 400HP ISX12,, 375HP ISM), and physically larger, the Cascadias and our one International LT use less fuel.

That's what our was, Cascadia. I don't know much about automatic transmissions. In fact if I got in a tractor today with one, I'd probably be lost for a while. My employer offered to get me one, and I refused. I'm old school. I don't know how you get out of a snow covered inclined dock with those things. That and bob-tailing were my two biggest concerns. The drivers that used them told me there is good and bad with automatic transmissions. When bob-tailing, I skip gears and get that tractor going like a race car. I'd start off in 4th gear and go like hell. I didn't want to bob-tail staring off in first gear. The drivers that had the later models said they improved on that.

The only complaint I really had about Penske tractors is they had a 70mph governor on the transmission. I asked the mechanic one time if he could remove it, and he said it's company policy they all have them. He told me they do so to make the oil last longer. Staying under 70 doesn't break the oil down as much.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

WTF has any of this to do with civics?

Hey, I don't know. I'm just telling you what the class was called.

I repeat, either were we. You learned it in the home. Parents actually taught kids stuff, just like today. That your family does not teach their kids is on you, them, not school or sociaty.

Well what about the parents that don't? I believe high school is to prepare a kid for adult life in anyway they can. Nothing can be more important than finances. They don't know anything about it. That's how credit card companies reel them in. They get their first credit card and spend like they never have to pay it back. Then they get buried in debt for the next four or five years paying a ton of interest on crap they didn't need.

Look at this thread for instance. People with so much debt because they went to school. If people were taught finances, they'd get the calculator out to see where they will stand if or when they graduate, and weigh if it was worth it or not. You see, if I was younger and wanted to go to college, by understanding debt, interest, actual numbers, I would have never taken school loans out right out of high school. I probably would have lived with mom and pop for a few years, saved all my money, and go to college at 21. After graduation and getting into the field of work I studied for, I would be debt free or nearly debt free.

It would be wasting time if they did.

It doesn't waste my time. I know what I have in the bank the minute I get home. I can better plan my spending that way.

Honest, this is fuckin insane . Like I said earlier, it is 2021. You should join the rest of us.

I don't call being lazy joining 2021.

I stopped carrying cash 10 years ago. Why you haven't just means you have not adjusted to life in the new century.

Last century I always carried 10 $100 bills. Why on earth would I do that now? I wouldn't.

You realize, all you are saying in this post is that you have let time pass you by.

Peace brother, thank God I am not like you. I like living in 2021. It rocks!

When you pay with cards you expose your identity to strangers. They caught one guy working at a Burger King drive-thru window using his phone to take snapshots of credit cards. While it never happened to me, I understand identity theft can take a long time to clear up.

That's besides the fact most of my tenants pay me in cash, and instead of running to the bank to make deposits, I use the cash instead. In fact in late summer, I had a furnace replaced. The guy shit himself when I laid out $3,200 in cash. He said as long as he's been in business, nobody has every paid that way for a major purchase.

 

[Rambunctious]

If our government is going to forgive students of their debt shouldn't they do the same for other folks that have loans with uncle Sam?...aren't we suppose to be treated equally by our government in America?...how about SBA loan forgiveness and VA home loan forgiveness why are students being singled out?...I smell an unconstitutional act here...

 

[noonereal]

If our government is going to forgive students of their debt shouldn't they do the same for other folks that have loans with uncle Sam?...aren't we suppose to be treated equally by our government in America?...how about SBA loan forgiveness and VA home loan forgiveness why are students being singled out?...I smell an unconstitutional act here...

now mind you, I do not support forgiving student loans but this post of yours which conflates all loans as the same is inane.

You need to learn to debate and not run to a fallacy because you can't express yourself like an educated poster.

 

[noonereal]

Hey, I don't know. I'm just telling you what the class was called.

I think your memory is bad. Civic class does not teach personal banking.

Well what about the parents that don't? I believe high school is to prepare a kid for adult life in anyway they can. Nothing can be more important than finances. They don't know anything about it. That's how credit card companies reel them in. They get their first credit card and spend like they never have to pay it back. Then they get buried in debt for the next four or five years paying a ton of interest on crap they didn't need.

Look at this thread for instance. People with so much debt because they went to school. If people were taught finances, they'd get the calculator out to see where they will stand if or when they graduate, and weigh if it was worth it or not. You see, if I was younger and wanted to go to college, by understanding debt, interest, actual numbers, I would have never taken school loans out right out of high school. I probably would have lived with mom and pop for a few years, saved all my money, and go to college at 21. After graduation and getting into the field of work I studied for, I would be debt free or nearly debt free.

My kids were never confused about any of this.

It doesn't waste my time. I know what I have in the bank the minute I get home. I can better plan my spending that way.

Well, the kids you seem to feel superior to know their balance before they get home. It's called technology.

I don't call being lazy joining 2021.

Nothing lazy about it. That you perceive it as such just shows how stuck you are in yesteryear.
Technology frees our time to pursue more substantive pursuits. I have no desire stay put in utilitarian tasks when it's not needed.

When you pay with cards you expose your identity to strangers. They caught one guy working at a Burger King drive-thru window using his phone to take snapshots of credit cards. While it never happened to me, I understand identity theft can take a long time to clear up.

That's besides the fact most of my tenants pay me in cash, and instead of running to the bank to make deposits, I use the cash instead. In fact in late summer, I had a furnace replaced. The guy shit himself when I laid out $3,200 in cash. He said as long as he's been in business, nobody has every paid that way for a major purchase.

My cards have been lifted. You pay at a restaurant and someone grabs your number. Happens every day. It's decidedly no big deal. Literally, 99 out of 100 times your bank will alter you this has happened. The security algorithms are so sophisticated that banks use today that they find use way before you ever could.
You never skip a beat even if someone grabs your card number.
You sound like you simply don't understand how things work... like you are scared of the dark, what you don't understand.
Not for nothing, $3,200 in cash was a big thing for your guy? I always keep cash around for stuff like this and have never had anyone blink. Car repairs, electricians, plumbers... many times.
Heck, I paid $20,000 in cash for an engagement dinner for my daughter and no one blinked an eye.

Also, how did you get a furnace replaced for $3,200? No such deals like that around here available.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If our government is going to forgive students of their debt shouldn't they do the same for other folks that have loans with uncle Sam?...aren't we suppose to be treated equally by our government in America?...how about SBA loan forgiveness and VA home loan forgiveness why are students being singled out?...I smell an unconstitutional act here...

now mind you, I do not support forgiving student loans but this post of yours which conflates all loans as the same is inane.

You need to learn to debate and not run to a fallacy because you can't express yourself like an educated poster.

This is your idea of "how to debate", where you just declare his post inane and tell him he's not educated? Seems to me if you were half as good as your ego thinks you are, you might know enough to explain WHY his post is "inane" and "a fallacy".

YOU need to learn to debate and not run to condescending insults because you can't express yourself like an educated poster.

I'll even give you some guidelines, since I'm pretty sure you're new to this whole "logic and reason" concept.

In what way are federal student loans different from and more special than VA or SBA loans, and therefore more deserving of allowing their intelligent, sane adult borrowers to just blow off the repayment? Why is it not preferential treatment, and therefore a violation of equal treatment by the federal government, to pat some borrowers on the head and say, "Oh, poor thing. It's much too hard for you to have to pay the debts you knowingly incurred? We'll just eat that cost for you", while pointing at other borrowers and saying, "You! Pay up every cent, or else!"?

Take your time. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself on your first outing in the new territory of thinking.

 

[noonereal]

This is your idea of "how to debate",

No, it is teh universally accepted method of debate. Fallacy is unacceptable in debate and that is what you defaulted to.

you might know enough to explain WHY his post is "inane" and "a fallacy".

I did explain, read my post again. Maybe more slowly?

In what way are federal student loans different from and more special than VA or SBA loans, and therefore more deserving of allowing their intelligent, sane adult borrowers to just blow off the repayment?

I did not say student loans were "more special" or that they should be allowed to be blown off.
I guess if you can't follow the written word, I should not expect you to be able to logically reply.

You are not a bright person is what you have written here. Not that you understand at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is your idea of "how to debate",

No, it is teh universally accepted method of debate. Fallacy is unacceptable in debate and that is what you defaulted to.

you might know enough to explain WHY his post is "inane" and "a fallacy".

I did explain, read my post again. Maybe more slowly?

In what way are federal student loans different from and more special than VA or SBA loans, and therefore more deserving of allowing their intelligent, sane adult borrowers to just blow off the repayment?

I did not say student loans were "more special" or that they should be allowed to be blown off.
I guess if you can't follow the written word, I should not expect you to be able to logically reply.

You are not a bright person is what you have written here. Not that you understand at all.

"The problem can't be my post. It must be that you can't understand my brilliance. Anyone who disagrees with me is automatically too stupid for me to ever explain myself."

Your surrender is accepted. You may run away now, and try again later. Because I can keep humiliating you all day long, otherwise.

 

[noonereal]

This is your idea of "how to debate",

No, it is teh universally accepted method of debate. Fallacy is unacceptable in debate and that is what you defaulted to.

you might know enough to explain WHY his post is "inane" and "a fallacy".

I did explain, read my post again. Maybe more slowly?

In what way are federal student loans different from and more special than VA or SBA loans, and therefore more deserving of allowing their intelligent, sane adult borrowers to just blow off the repayment?

I did not say student loans were "more special" or that they should be allowed to be blown off.
I guess if you can't follow the written word, I should not expect you to be able to logically reply.

You are not a bright person is what you have written here. Not that you understand at all.

"The problem can't be my post. It must be that you can't understand my brilliance. Anyone who disagrees with me is automatically too stupid for me to ever explain myself."

Your surrender is accepted. You may run away now, and try again later. Because I can keep humiliating you all day long, otherwise.

You are a dumb fuck. My advise to you. heed this:
Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt

 

[JoeB131]

The S&L thing did not crash the economy did it? Why is that?

Also, we prosecuted those (largely) involved in that unlike the 2008 debacle. Why was that?

Actually, it DID Crash the economy, it's why we had the 1991 Recession.