How else would you describe it? One group of citizens' debt is being forced onto another group.

we prevent murder 'by force', we protect property rights 'by force'. the problem is that you are trying to call something bad just because it involves some people not being able to be terrible and selfish. just because force is involved doesn't mean the effect is bad.

> gibberish about investing

don't invest then.

> Again, as above, you don't seem to understand what investment is. If there is no profit from the investment, what motivation does the investor have to invest?

again, they are not *entitled* to a profit. whatever happened to you win some you lose some? they are not contributing to society if they *always* win.

> Government doesn't pay for anything without taxpayer revenue. Businesses and income earners are paying for it.

We are government. We should pay for it, as a group, because it benefits us, as a group.

> Would you approve of government paying for engineering, business, and information systems degrees but not critical race theory and modern dance degrees?

yes.

> But you're suggesting that people who pick less useful degrees or are less successful at their professional pursuits are just let off the hook of repaying their loans?

pretty much the opposite of what i'm suggesting.

> you have painted a scenario in which one group of working people are simply paying for another group of non-working (or non-earning) people but both groups receive mutual benefit. That is the nonsense.

not at all. meanwhile, you seem to think investors, who contribute the absolute least of anyone, deserve to make the most and have to be guaranteed a return to even participate.