CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
If you graduate with a boatload of debt and no job prospects, does capitalism work for you
Hello:
When the government passes laws that makes their friends in the banking industry RICH, it's NOT capitalism. It's CRONY capitalism, which is WORSE than socialism.
I can't argue that crony capitalism doesn't work because countries who practice it have increasing living standards, wages, growing economies etc etc.
Clearly it's unfair and it would be best to get the government out of the way, however it is by far a better option than socialism. Pretty much every option out there is better than socialism. Possibly even fascism is better than socialism, but maybe not for me as I'm an ethnic.
If you graduate with a boatload of debt and no prospects, capitalism is working fine. Capitalism isn’t broken just because you’ve made a bad investment.
This is, however, a separate matter from crony capitalism, which is merely another example of government meddling in an otherwise free market. The proper response is not to call for more government meddling.
If you graduate with a boatload of debt and no prospects, capitalism is working fine.
No, it obviously isn't, you blathering nincompoop. It is working the opposite of "fine".
Capitalism isn’t broken just because you’ve made a bad investment.
What an utterly atrocious distortion of the facts. No mention at all about why you may have made this "bad investment", which is obviously because society has convinced you it is a "good investment". What you are Amarel is a thief. You think it is perfectly OK to rob someone and then deny all responsibility on the grounds that the someone you robbed made a "bad investment" in terms of which street they decided to walk down or who they decided to trust. When society fucks you in the ass, then no, it is not your fault for having a nice looking ass.
What an utterly atrocious distortion of the facts. No mention at all about why you may have made this "bad investment", which is obviously because society has convinced you it is a "good investment".
You mean your Marxist professors living on the government dole convinced you.
No, it obviously isn't, you blathering nincompoop. It is working the opposite of "fine".
This isn’t an argument. And yes it is fine.
Your choice to go into debt for a worthless degree is literally no one’s fault but your own. If you are underwater for a bad investment, then capitalism is working perfectly well as your situation incentivizes other people to invest more wisely. People like me.
No mention at all about why you may have made this "bad investment", which is obviously because society has convinced you it is a "good investment".
If you follow the advice of “society”, you're bound to make bad decisions. If that’s what you do, then it’s entirely your own fault. It’s not societies fault, it’s not the markets fault, it’s yours.
What you are Amarel is a thief.
Lol. I am the guy who saw your foolishness as I also went into debt. Seeing the results of your bad investment, I decided to invest more wisely. I didn’t do it so that my success and property could be coveted by worthless, greedy little leeches like you, but it’s a nice perk.
If you graduate with a boatload of debt and no prospects, capitalism is working fine. Capitalism isn’t broken just because you’ve made a bad investment.
My thoughts exactly. You can't blame society for peoples unwise choices, or lack of ability to understand the "chess board" and play a good game. Everyone has choices to make--do you want "stuff" or "time", because money will often buy you one or the other, unless one is very wealthy and can afford both.
I could give you a number of strategies off the top of my head that would have someone retired by 40, or could work only half/part of the year and take the rest off, or 2 years on one year off, etc. etc. etc.
You can't blame society for peoples unwise choices
You are absolutely retarded. People don't randomly decide to go to university for no reason. They do it because they are advised to do so by teachers, parents, friends and society itself. If you see an advertisement for something, and decide to buy it, then you can't absolve the advertiser of all responsibility if you later discover you don't like it. Granted, it's still early, but that's literally the most stupid thing I've heard today. If everybody thought the same way then there would be no such thing as crime, because it would be automatically assumed to be the victim's fault when they walk into a bad area and get robbed.
You pay a college to teach you knowledge to get a Degree.
For example:
If you got a Degree in Computer Science. Then learn there is no jobs that require or even want people who have a Computer Science Degree, then that is your fault.
But if you got a Degree in Computer Science. But you learn that people who went to other colleges learned way more and you actually don't know things you should know with a Computer Science Degree. Then you have something to complain about.
You cannot complain that you received what you paid for.
If you see an advertisement for something, and decide to buy it, then you can't absolve the advertiser of all responsibility if you later discover you don't like it.
Oh, but see you can. It's called America, where the only important things are money and power. Things are never your fault if you have money and power. You can show somebody a video image of a sexy, bikini-clad woman drinking a cola, and it then becomes the customer's fault that your cola tastes like shit, because they made an "unwise choice" to buy it.
People don't randomly decide to go to university for no reason. They do it because they are advised to do so by teachers, parents, friends and society itself. If you see an advertisement for something, and decide to buy it, then you can't absolve the advertiser of all responsibility if you later discover you don't like it.
I agree--however, that is a problem of poor parenting, teaching, guidance, etc. etc. Also, these are still very correctable mistakes as the person becomes older and more developed. The solution has to dig at the roots of the issue.
I agree--however, that is a problem of poor parenting, teaching, guidance, etc. etc.
The real issue rests considerably deeper because you have to remember that parents and teachers are also influenced, both by society and their own experiences within it. If someone has had success then it stands to reason they will advise others who might be looking for guidance to do the same things, without really considering that the circumstances might be completely different.
The reality is that we live in a world where people compete to influence and persuade us every minute of every day, and many of those people cannot be trusted to give us good advice. Parents and teachers are supposed to be the people we can rely on to push us in the right direction when we are too young to fully understand the world ourselves. Hence, if they are the ones giving us bad advice it implies a problem with the actual functioning of society.
But in any case, the point I was trying to make is that nobody makes decisions in a vacuum, or indeed with foreknowledge of what the future holds. Hence, the ability of humans to make the "right" decisions is extremely limited, and often comes down to blind luck.
I agree with everything you said, until the last paragraph. People are most definitely vulnerable as they are growing up to ignorance, "snake oils salesmen", horrible advice, other peoples narrative that are pushed onto their heads, etc. etc. However, as one grows older, most particularly kicking in by the mid to late twenties, it is their responsibility to understand the situation, train, prepare, harden their mind, plan, and execute. The "noise" from the outside world is not going anywhere, certainly not in our current society (which is very far from ideal), so one has to learn to deal with it efficiently as time progress, or else they will be crippling themselves--and later their children, etc. etc.
The problem is that people in their mid to late twenties can't be expected to know anything or make the right decisions because throughout their whole lives they where saturated with propaganda and programmed with the values and attitudes of their up bringing, and taught to think like an idiot (everything being approached as a matter of opinion, highly subjective thought process etc.). Humans are highly subject to being conditioned and programmed by society, and when you are programmed to be a mindless consumer and to be a slave that thinks it's one of the freest people in the world (free people don't really exist in this world in the first place) then most people will simply be stupid such as society expects and encourages them to be.
I agree with what you said, except for the age range you specified. A 28 year old has a fully developed brain (in so far as it managed to develop, that is), and has some real life experience under their belt at that point. They should be able to get a moderate grip on things, plan & execute accordingly. This would not be available to a 18 year old
I agree with what you said, except for the age range you specified. A 28 year old has a fully developed brain (in so far as it managed to develop, that is), and has some real life experience under their belt at that point.
Wtf? You can't judge a person based on just their age. The 28 year old who left home at 16 to travel the world has as much "life experience" as the 28 year old who never left the nest? You can't make rash generalisations about people based on just their age. That's really rather silly, in fact.
You can most certainly provide a general assessment based on age. People who have been in the world notably longer and have been fully developed has had a greater opportunity to learn more about the world for themselves.
You can most certainly provide a general assessment based on age
But people aren't general. They are specific individuals with specific circumstances. Age has nothing to do with those circumstances. You might just as well claim that hair colour "most certainly provides a general assessment". You are talking nonsense.
At what age do you believe "personal ownership" kicks in? Does 35 sound fair enough?
Dude, I know 35 year olds who still live with their folks. Different people mature at different rates. I'm also not completely sure what you mean by "personal ownership". If you're talking about ownership of responsibility then if it isn't your fault it isn't your fault, regardless of your age. If you mean it literally as ownership of personal property then I believe you should be able to own things regardless of age, so again the difference is the same.
You do not think a 35 year old has a responsibility to establish independence before or upon reaching that age?
I do not think age is a determinant in deciding who is socially responsible, period. Where do autistic people feature in your rather Machiavellian analysis? Or those with depression? Schizophrenia? You are attempting to generalise and oversimplify something which is really quite complicated and specific to the individual involved.
It is not about who is socially responsible, rather at what point do we reasonably expect a person to become personally responsible, independent, etc.?
It is not about who is socially responsible, rather at what point do we reasonably expect a person to become personally responsible, independent, etc.?
But this is a contradiction of itself buddy. If you "reasonably expect a person to become socially responsible" by a specific age then you simultaneously are determining who should be socially responsible (i.e. those people above that age). If you refuse to acknowledge that there are many other factors involved other than age then I can't really help you. You seem to be relying upon it as the solitary determinant of a person's social responsibility.
Capitalism isn’t broken just because you’ve made a bad investment.
Hello x:
This isn't about the consumer.. It's about the banks, and the FRIENDS of the banks.. You can't make an informed decision, if the ONLY choices you have are BAD and WORSE.. Student loans are HIGH interest rate loans that CANNOT be discharged in bankruptcy..
Why can't THESE loans be discharged, but EVERY other loan can??? I smell CRONY CAPITALISM...
Cleary, the reason the banks offer loans is to make a profit. Now, having said that, the loans are actually a fantastic resource, if used wisely--much like a credit card. People basically take out a tremendous amount of money, waste it (rather than utilize it to their advantage), and then have no plan to pay it back. Also, even their pay-back plan is not though out at all--just like how most people use a credit card. One does not necessarily have to pay much interest at all on their student loans, depending upon the strategy they have devised before/during/after entering the agreement.
Really, the problem is that most people are playing a bad game of "checkers", while the banks are playing "chess". Now, a reasonably savvy person would relatively easily develop "chess" strategies to work their own "game" against them--which is exactly what people are able to do with credit, debt, equity, etc.
Now, a reasonably savvy person would relatively easily develop "chess" strategies to work their own "game" against them
Hello x:
I don't disagree. But, MOST people applying for these life altering student loans are kids.. Or, they're NOT savvy - even stupid.. So what? Should we NOT have some sort of consumer PROTECTION against savvy bankers?? Should we require banks to disclose their terms??? In PLAIN language??
I say we SHOULD.
I say that because every time your bank wants to change its terms with you, they send you this VERY long document written in teeny, tiny legalese along with your credit card statement.... They KNOW you won't read it, and to me, that means they're changing shit to benefit themselves and NOT you..
You know about that little slip of paper, don't you??
I don't disagree. But, MOST people applying for these life altering student loans are kids.. Or, they're NOT savvy - even stupid.. So what? Should we NOT have some sort of consumer PROTECTION against savvy bankers?? Should we require banks to disclose their terms??? In PLAIN language??
1)So where are these lib parents at? My kids could teach a class on credit cards, student loans, predatory lending, and the Stock Market.
2)Come now Con. Bankers don't charge kids obscene amounts for useless degrees. Liberal colleges and professors do that...
Kids could potentially benefit from having a highly restricted cap put on how much they are eligible to take out until age 24, for instance. Then, this would incentivize people to utilize Community College more (which is inexpensive) and/or work for several years before going to school when they are older and (hopefully) wiser, more informed, etc. etc. That is their responsibility to train. If you are 34, and still making such poor choices--that is their fault and their fault alone. It is very different than a 19 year old
As for "not savvy people", I do not think the rules of a chess match should be altered to cater to the needs of a poor player
If you are 34, and still making such poor choices--that is their fault and their fault alone. It is very different than a 19 year old.
It isn't about their "poor choices". As I've pointed out, bank loans are not presented to the public in a neutral, fact-friendly way, otherwise only truly desperate people would ever take them out in the first place. Loans are a product which the bank advertises. That is, a bank tries to persuade you to buy its product, and money is not a difficult product to sell because there are always people who need it. In fact, 34 year olds usually need money more than 19 year olds do because by that age people are supposed to be independent.
I think your blame game against people who are often genuine victims is short-sighted and cruel. One need look no further than the 2008 crisis for evidence of this. Many people who were already in debt to the banks lost their jobs because of an economic crisis which was completely out of their own control. It is effectively nonsensical to say that people should be held responsible for things out of their control simply because they are 34, or 44, or whichever age you want to stipulate.
The games banks (and credit card companies, etc.) play can also be used to the persons advantage. For instance, they will try and play a fishers "hook and bait" game with opening offers with cash rewards, travel points, etc. etc. that most people will not even meet the terms & conditions to qualify for. However, if you do read the "fine print", and have a bit of money in the bank to "play with", you can easily start to make hundreds to thousands of "free money" simply by strategically opening and closing accounts, shifting money around at proper times, etc. etc.--all on your laptop in less than 30 minutes.
Sadly, most people will never understand the little "loop holes"/strategies, even if you gave them an exact step by step of what to do--and the banks, etc. are very, very aware of that; which is why they are willing to do it. The same applies for the Credit Cards, mortgage, etc. etc. as is the case for Student Loans.
Cleary, the reason the banks offer loans is to make a profit. Now, having said that, the loans are actually a fantastic resource, if used wisely--much like a credit card
Since you have to pay back more than you borrowed, a bank loan actually makes you poorer than you were initially. The same applies to credit cards. Hence, mathematically, these things are the precise opposite of "fantastic resources". They are financial traps which force the people who take them out into servitude to the banks.
Consider--one could take out loans, go to Community College and not even work (or hardly work) so that they have plenty of time on their hands and a stress-free financial life for 2-3 years, and then when it is time to pay the money back they will have a degree that the income is so much greater than the amount borrowed you will not even "feel" the pay-back plan--just like an extra monthly utility bill or so. Honestly, it is a great resource if people use it well--which, more often than not, they do not.
Consider--one could take out loans, go to Community College and not even work (or hardly work) so that they have plenty of time on their hands and a stress-free financial life for 2-3 years, and then when it is time to pay the money back they will have a degree that the income is so much greater than the amount borrowed you will not even "feel" the pay-back plan--just like an extra monthly utility bill or so.
That is idealism. The entire point of the debate is that it doesn't always work that way, and it is not always (or even usually) the fault of the person who has borrowed money. Many people with degrees struggle to get jobs precisely because the student loan system has saturated society with university degrees, so they are now arguably not even worth the loan money it takes to acquire one in the first place. I used to know a guy with a PhD who worked as a cashier in a 24 hour garage because it was the only job he could find. It is a flawed argument to say that your income will always be higher with a degree, because that simply is not always the case.
There are 15+ degree (and certificate) programs at any standard community college that will most definitely lead to a solid job in the market post-graduation. Many people are going to get BA/BS (and more advanced degrees) in subjects that do not have any direct correlate in the market--which is where the financial issue comes in.
You can't make an informed decision, if the ONLY choices you have are BAD and WORSE..
You are correct to point this out and it is a fallacy which is ingrained into mainstream American culture simply because it has greatly assisted the rich in the control of democracy. Many Americans are of the belief that, provided you have two or more options, you have freedom of choice. But as you rightly explicated this is not entirely true if neither option is favourable to you. Even slaves had a choice using the modern American definition, since they could either kill themselves or continue to work. This is extending it into an ad absurdum for clarity, of course, but the general principle remains the same if you're asked to pick between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
You told me to explain something right before you banned me. It’s all the same since you wouldn’t understand the explanation anyway. You’re fairly stupid.
Incidentally, your particular handicap seems to be that you cannot see how one sentence connects to the very next sentence. After you attack one sentence on its own, then the next, the third almost inevitably appears to be off topic or nonsensical to you. This is why you attack so much as being irrelevant and provide attacks to sentences that are countered in the very next sentence.
Is it some kind of autism or dislexia? Or are you just hoping to attacks look good out of context? Probably the latter.
You told me to explain something right before you banned me. It’s all the same since you wouldn’t understand the explanation anyway. You’re fairly stupid.
If you cannot explain your reasoning in a clear and simple manner then that is not the fault of anybody except yourself, you pointless Jew imbecile. The purpose of communication is not to misrepresent what you have read or deflect from it entirely with no reasoning why. My purpose is debate, so I explain what I mean as clearly as a I possibly can. Your purpose is DEFLECTION and MISREPRESENTATION, which is why you purposefully make everything you write as convoluted and difficult to comprehend as you possibly can.
I get a little bit of satisfaction seeing a lot of downvotes and knowing that you wasted a little extra time because of me.
Which supports my point that you are a textbook narcissistic psychopath. When you have no idea what you are talking about you don't simply keep your mouth shut like a normal human being. You write 10,000 words of irrelevant, pompous nonsense and then blame the other person's "understanding" when he points it out.
Mhm. I remember that chapter on CreateDebate points.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You quote something and then make a comment which is entirely irrelevant to the quote. It's annoying. Stop it. If you don't have anything relevant to say in dispute then simply stfu. It's easy. Just practice.
I noticed your response, a plea for my supposed irrelevant responses to stop, was irrelevant to my response. You’ve always been the best hypocrite here. Though you have lost the title of internet-toughest. Ryan won that title when he seriously pretended to be more than pretending about his super serious internet toughness. I’m sure you’ll make a comeback though.
This isn't about the consumer.. It's about the banks, and the FRIENDS of the banks.. You can't make an informed decision, if the ONLY choices you have are BAD and WORSE.. Student loans are HIGH interest rate loans that CANNOT be discharged in bankruptcy..
Why can't THESE loans be discharged, but EVERY other loan can??? I smell CRONY CAPITALISM...
excon
So STUPOR STUPID you should be on the hook for free college because that is what you Socialist want !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HERE ARE THE SIX STEPS THAT BERNIE WILL TAKE TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE:
MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.
This is not a radical idea. Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America.
In fact, it’s what many of our colleges and universities used to do. The University of California system offered free tuition at its schools until the 1980s. In 1965, average tuition at a four-year public university was just $243 and many of the best colleges – including the City University of New York – did not charge any tuition at all. The Sanders plan would make tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout the country.
STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS.
Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. Sen. Sanders will fight to prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates.
SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES.
Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%.
ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY’S LOW INTEREST RATES.
It makes no sense that you can get an auto loan today with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today’s low interest rates.
ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE.
The Sanders plan would require public colleges and universities to meet 100% of the financial needs of the lowest-income students. Low-income students would be able to use federal, state and college financial aid to cover room and board, books and living expenses. And Sanders would more than triple the federal work study program to build valuable career experience that will help them after they graduate.
FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS.
The cost of this $75 billion a year plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country.
Now STUPOR STUPID why are Socialist wanting FREE COLLEGE ????????????