forgive student loans

Order Description

essay analysis

This paper is 2-3 pages long in MLA format. What you are required to do is analyze ONE of the essays that are in Part 5 in the book. You have to decide whether you are in agreement or disagreement with the author of the essay, so take a position and explain, basically, why you agree or disagree. It doesn’t matter if you pick an essay you agree with or one you disagree with, as long as you have good rationale for doing so. Most important: do not just talk about what you think of the issue. Constantly refer back to the article even if you have personal examples or a brief story. Always be in a dialogue with the essay, respond directly to what the author says.

How to write it: read the essay carefully and decide whether you mostly agree or mostly disagree (you don’t have to be 100% on one side). Your thesis will be stating what side you are on, and the rest of the paper will take the essay apart and discuss its supporting points and give reasons why you agree or disagree with those supporting points. You can give examples of your own, hypothetical scenarios, imagine what it would be like to be in similar situations, and explain if you think your position would benefit most people, not just people of your own background (in other words you can’t say “I disagree because I was not raised that way”). Make sure you always try to answer this question: why is it better (for a majority of people, not just a type of people) to take this position instead of the opposite? Why and how does what the author says apply or not to all of us? Or why doesn’t it?

Structure of the paper:

Introduction: name the essay title and the author, his or her main point, and your main agreement or disagreement. After the first time you mention the author, only refer to him or her by the last name.

Body paragraphs: discuss in each paragraph one point that the author makes. Give a short quotation to show what he/she says, and cite the quote properly by giving page number after quote. If you were to have multiple sources, not just the one article, you would give author’s last name in parenthesis, with the page number, but in this case you don’t need the name. Make sure you introduce or embed the quote in your own sentences, such as: Joseph thinks that “many wives can share one husband” (33). Make sure you explain what you think the quote means and what you think of it. You don’t have to discuss all the supporting points made in the essay, but at least discuss three. Give reasons why you agree or disagree.

Conclusion: put things in perspective, draw a conclusion. No quotes or details in the conclusion. After the last paragraph, include Work Cited, where you write: Author’s last name, first name. “Title of essay” (in quotation marks).Title of the Book. City of publication: publishing house, year of publication. Pages where the essay is (e.g. 33-40). Print.

title of the book is “current issues and eduring questions 10th edition sylvan barnet, hugo bedau
page numbers on my book are 469-470
page 470 starts twos senteces before “politics”

this is the topic i choose “forgive student loans? worst idea ever”

Let’s look at this through five separate lenses:
Distribution: If we are going to give money away, why on earth would we give it to college grads? This is the one group who we know typically have high incomes, and who have enjoyed income growth over the past four decades. The group who has been hurt over the past few decades is high school dropouts.
Macroeconomics: This is the worst macro policy I’ve ever heard of. If you want stimulus, you get more bang-for-your-buck if you give extra dollars to folks who are most likely to spend each dollar. Imagine what would happen if you forgave $50,000 in debt. How much of that would get spent in the next month or year? Probably just a couple of grand (if that). Much of it would go into the bank. But give $1,000 to each of 50 poor people, and nearly all of it will get spent, yielding a larger stimulus. Moreover, it’s not likely that college grads are the ones who are liquidity-constrained. Most of ‘em could spend more if they wanted to; after all, they are the folks who could get a credit card or a car loan fairly easily. It’s the hand-to-mouth consumers—those who can’t get easy access to credit—who are most likely to raise their spending if they get the extra dollars.
Education Policy: Perhaps folks think that forgiving educational loans will lead more people to get an education. No, it won’t. This is a proposal to forgive the debt of folks who already have an education. Want to increase access to education? Make loans more widely available, or subsidize those who are yet to choose whether to go to school. But this proposal is just a lump-sum transfer that won’t increase education attainment. So why transfer to these folks?
Political Economy: This is a bunch of kids who don’t want to pay their loans back. And worse: Do this once, and what will happen in the next recession? More lobbying for free money, rather than doing something socially constructive. Moreover, if these guys succeed, others will try, too. And we’ll just get more spending in the least socially productive part of our economy—the lobbying industry.
Politics: Notice the political rhetoric? Give free money to us, rather than “corporations, millionaires and billionaires.” Opportunity cost is one of the key principles of economics. And that principle says to compare your choice with the next best alternative. Instead, they’re comparing it with the worst alternative. So my question for the proponents: Why give money to college grads rather than the 15% of the population in poverty?
Conclusion: Worst. Idea. Ever.
And I bet that the proponents can’t find a single economist to support this idiotic idea.
justin wolfers sept 19,2011

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂