Bailing out the Former Student

When I first heard about the idea of student loan forgiveness, I was excited. Who wouldn't want 10, 20 or 100 thousand dollars of debt magically wiped away. Ten years later and still without a degree, I am paying money for something with no intrinsic value. But whose fault is it? It isn't the University's fault that I didn't take school seriously back then. It isn't the banks fault. No one forced me to sign the paperwork, nor did they force me to take out the maximum amount each semester. I could have worked full time like I do now, but I didn't want to lose out on the "college experience." I knew full well what I was getting in to.  So why should the government pay to bail me out?  

Why should you pay bail me out?

The reality is that if a bail out occurs, it isn't the government that is paying to erase our debt, it is us - the tax payers. I don't believe I should have to pay for someone else's Harvard education. I made a choice to keep my education costs in check by going to community college for the first two years. Every person with debt made their choices to get there. Those people with more debt than they will ever be able to pay, often made poor choices to accumulate that debt. Why should I pay for their decision making?  

Does the government think that forgiving the debt will boost the economy? For those that truly cannot pay on their student loans, it would not make a difference since the loan would have been deferred. In order to boost the economy at all, the bail out would have to go to those that could afford to pay the loan. That way the money they were paying is now disposable income. But what is the sense in that? We are paying taxes so that other people can not pay back what they borrowed, in order to let them shop more? 

I understand why politicians would get behind something like this. At first glance it is a likable idea; a great publicity win. Then the hard facts start to crack the pretty façade. There is nothing pretty about our government incurring an additional trillion dollars of debt. Even less so in cases where the debtor can truly afford to pay. It is time that we stand up to politicians that think we only need a hand out for their vote, and look to those that understand the implications of what they are suggesting. They should be as careful with the government's money as they are with their own, because at the end of the day, it is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-hansen-clarke/student-loan-forgiveness_b_1454241.html

I wish I could say that I agreed with my peer that the United States was ready for gay marriage, but I think that we have a long way to go for true equality in this nation. In her article, "Same Sex Marriage," she makes great points about the sanctity of marriage - or the lack of it for those in the public eye, but leaves out so much more on the challenges we face to get to where we need to be. I agree that it is fear that prevents us from moving forward to a more equal nation, but that fear is deep in the hearts of many, especially in the south. However, the biggest problem that we face, is that the definition of marriage is a reserved power in the Constitution. This means that the states will individually have to decide to alter their definition of marriage, and that the US Government does not have the power to make this change.  These are the same states that invented Jim Crowe laws, and that were integrated by threat of force only 50 years ago. I want to say that equality will win out, but I am far too much of a realist to think that forcing someone to question their narrow-minded or religious beliefs will be easy or painless. I support gay marriage, but I also see the long road ahead that we must walk to get there.