Well, the Democrats have effectively given loans to those who often place career over family, the demographic that got college loans and did not pay them back. If they could not pay them back, maybe that MA in gender studies was a waste, and of questionable value to our society (at least not valuable enough to make enough to pay the loan back).
I'm not for government handouts of any kind, not for those who have not earned them, and parenthood (while heavily subsidized in some demographics) is one area that should be clear of government supervision. Parents did just fine raising kids for centuries without government interference, but as we have seen time and again, if government funds it, they want to run it, first 'supervision', and eventually micromanagement. That means hosts of government employees, often operating on theory and not practical experience, waving their LSW certs and getting in families' faces.
Nope, don't need it, don't want it. but it does open up to discussion why we are funding Welfare to the tune of 1.19 trillion dollars (FY 2022) when parents not sucking at the teat get to pay off college loans.
Now, in all fairness, I don't have any data on whose loans got paid off, how much their daddies make, what demographics, whether they are single or childless, what they majored in, nor their political leanings, and can only speculate that they majored in one of the adaptive radiation of social sciences feeding wokeism, that they voted Democrat, and that their parents were of means sufficient to get them into institutions that have ridiculously high tuition for the modern equivalent of degrees in underwater basketweaving. I'd be open to recanting my speculation in the face of hard data.
If we are going to raise the question of government subsidies, how about we start there, and include the unaccountable billions being spent on the however many millions of fresh illegal aliens present in our country, getting a better deal than combat veterans?
At least JD has opened the topic, now let's discuss it all.
So JD opened up the topic of spending less money by proposing to spend
more?
Hey, I'm all for the federal government spending less money. There just doesn't seem to be a candidate in this race proposing to do that. In fact, the ones who have been bringing that up here the most are precisely those who have been most critical of Trump/Vance. Except that whenever we bring it up, Trump supporters tell us to forget about it, that the days of small government conservatism are gone, and that we should just accept that there are other issues more important around which we should rally.
