I typically don’t downvote but here you are just factually wrong. “to get rid of student loan debt” would mean to abolish and pass legislation that actually ended all student loan debt in present and future. A feeble attempt at a ‘one-time only’ debt relief with no further policies or plans to eliminate all future educational costs is just a puppet show. I personally would’ve benefited from the debt relief, but would’ve preferred them addressing the rising costs and accessibility of higher education (the root of the problem).
Instead we got a repeal of AA and a move that would’ve benefited loan companies with a side effect that could possibly make getting future loans for under-privileged individuals that much harder (or more dangerous if loan companies decided to give out increasingly worse contracts if they believe the government will step in and pay the horrendous bills). There are better metrics to compare the parties with, “equal rights” is not one of them as they won’t ever exist while class disparity is so rampant.
Equal rights isn’t a new developing issue, here’s a quote from over 60 years ago,
> The assistant director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Hyman Bookbinder, in a frank statement on December 29, 1966, declared that the long-range costs of adequately implementing programs to fight poverty, ignorance and slums will reach one trillion dollars. He was not awed or dismayed by this prospect but instead pointed out that the growth of the gross national product during the same period makes this expenditure comfortably possible. It is, he said, as simple as this: “The poor can stop being poor if the rich are willing to become even richer at a slower rate.” Furthermore, he predicted that unless a “substantial sacrifice is made by the American people,” the nation can expect further deterioration of the cities, increased antagonisms between races and continued disorders in the streets. He asserted that people are not informed enough to give adequate support to anti-poverty programs, and he leveled a share of the blame at the government because it “must do more to get people to understand the size of the problem.” (source, bold by me)
Equal rights “advocates” love to posture and hand-wave historical figures like Dr. King, who rightly pointed out the next step to real equality in his book titled, “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?”.
> One of the central themes of the book’s messages is that of hope. King reflects upon the Civil Rights Movement. He discusses the question of what African-Americans should do with their new freedoms found in laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He concludes that all Americans must unite in order to fight poverty and create an equality of opportunity. King emphasizes that he is neither a Marxist nor a doctrinaire socialist; he instead advocates for a united social movement that would act within both the Republican and Democratic parties. (synopsis from wiki)
It goes “on and on” like this because it’s all a show, the steps and problems have been laid bare for decades in the U.S. with no meaningful impact for the causes and class disparity is only getting worse. If the democrats in charge actually passed legislation that addressed inequality, then they wouldn’t have anything to dangle in front of the donkey.
edit: If you’re gonna give a downvote (probably who I was replying to), don’t be a coward and at least bring some conversation to the table with your viewpoints. I’m just gonna have to assume your feelings were hurt and that’s the only recourse you have if not.
I typically don’t downvote but here you are just factually wrong. “to get rid of student loan debt” would mean to abolish and pass legislation that actually ended all student loan debt in present and future. A feeble attempt at a ‘one-time only’ debt relief with no further policies or plans to eliminate all future educational costs is just a puppet show. I personally would’ve benefited from the debt relief, but would’ve preferred them addressing the rising costs and accessibility of higher education (the root of the problem).
Instead we got a repeal of AA and a move that would’ve benefited loan companies with a side effect that could possibly make getting future loans for under-privileged individuals that much harder (or more dangerous if loan companies decided to give out increasingly worse contracts if they believe the government will step in and pay the horrendous bills). There are better metrics to compare the parties with, “equal rights” is not one of them as they won’t ever exist while class disparity is so rampant.
Equal rights isn’t a new developing issue, here’s a quote from over 60 years ago,
> The assistant director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Hyman Bookbinder, in a frank statement on December 29, 1966, declared that the long-range costs of adequately implementing programs to fight poverty, ignorance and slums will reach one trillion dollars. He was not awed or dismayed by this prospect but instead pointed out that the growth of the gross national product during the same period makes this expenditure comfortably possible. It is, he said, as simple as this: “The poor can stop being poor if the rich are willing to become even richer at a slower rate.” Furthermore, he predicted that unless a “substantial sacrifice is made by the American people,” the nation can expect further deterioration of the cities, increased antagonisms between races and continued disorders in the streets. He asserted that people are not informed enough to give adequate support to anti-poverty programs, and he leveled a share of the blame at the government because it “must do more to get people to understand the size of the problem.” (source, bold by me)
Equal rights “advocates” love to posture and hand-wave historical figures like Dr. King, who rightly pointed out the next step to real equality in his book titled, “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?”.
> One of the central themes of the book’s messages is that of hope. King reflects upon the Civil Rights Movement. He discusses the question of what African-Americans should do with their new freedoms found in laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He concludes that all Americans must unite in order to fight poverty and create an equality of opportunity. King emphasizes that he is neither a Marxist nor a doctrinaire socialist; he instead advocates for a united social movement that would act within both the Republican and Democratic parties. (synopsis from wiki)
It goes “on and on” like this because it’s all a show, the steps and problems have been laid bare for decades in the U.S. with no meaningful impact for the causes and class disparity is only getting worse. If the democrats in charge actually passed legislation that addressed inequality, then they wouldn’t have anything to dangle in front of the donkey.
edit: If you’re gonna give a downvote (probably who I was replying to), don’t be a coward and at least bring some conversation to the table with your viewpoints. I’m just gonna have to assume your feelings were hurt and that’s the only recourse you have if not.
This gets at it beautifully. The point is that Dems show a good effort but don’t actually create meaningful change. It’s theater.