Did Republicans Kill Warren's Loan Bill Because They Hate Poor Kids?

Elizabeth WarrenCredit: Tim Pierce / Wikimedia CommonsRepublicans blocked Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) student loan bailout bill yesterday, and Democrats have already jumped on it as a campaign issue. That was probably the left's plan all along, given that the bill would have raised taxes on the rich and never had any chance of passing the House of Representatives.

"We have the broad support from the American people and that is going to play very well for us as we move towards November—and that's the bottom line here," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.).

Others echoed his comments, according to Politico:

"With this vote, we show the American people who we work for in the United States Senate: billionaires or students," Warren said on the Senate floor on Wednesday.

And "instead of fighting for working families and college affordability, some members of Congress are fighting to keep their millionaire constituents from paying their fair share of taxes," National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel said in response to the Senate's action.

Even President Obama seized on the Republicans-don't-care-about-poor-kids rhetoric:

"We want a Republican Party that can function and with which we can negotiate and compromise and help move the country forward," he said. "But unfortunately, that's not what we're seeing in Washington right now from the Republicans ... How could we not want to invest in these kids? ... Why wouldn't we want to make sure that college was affordable and that they weren't burdened with $30,000 or $50,000 or $70,000 worth of debt? Why wouldn't we want to create an economic environment in which in their first job, if they're working full-time, they're not living in poverty, and that they can save a little bit and they're getting a fair wage?"

Never mind that Republicans did work with Obama last summer on student loans, approving a bipartisan deal that indexed loan interest rates to Treasury bonds rather than the whims of Congress. The major thorn in the president's side back then was actually Warren, who didn't want to accept anything short of substantial debt forgiveness for student borrowers.

The trillion dollars of loan debt collectively held by students and graduates is an undeniably tricky problem. But wiping away that debt is a bad fix. Such a solution punishes taxpayers for the bad judgements of borrowers, encourages more reckless borrowing, and sends universities the message that they can raise tuition even higher.

Still, expect to see lots of Democrats campaigning on the notion that Warren's debt deal would solve all of millennials' financial problems if only those mean Republicans would back off.

Reality is of course a little more complicated. In a recent column, Bloomberg View's Megan McArdle explained why student loan debt is actually a problem of the privileged:

It's good to remember, as we discuss these plans, that people with college degrees are the best-off people in the U.S. They are a cognitive elite with substantially more earning power than almost anyone else, unless that someone else can throw a mean fastball, dunk or get their body fat down to less than 4 percent by the time their feature film is ready to shoot. It’s hard to see why we would take money from other people and give it to this group.

People with lots of student loan debt and low earnings are, of course, a particularly visible group to journalists, who cluster in expensive cities and know a lot of expensively educated people. It's not surprising that a huge number of articles get written about this problem. But it's still disproportionately a problem of the affluent. And the government already spends quite a lot of money on benefits for the affluent.

If we wanted a program to help the majority of the population, we'd offer loan guarantees to help poor people get access to reliable cars so that they could have a better shot at getting -- and keeping -- a well-paying job. I know you're thinking that sounds crazy, but if you spend any time listening to the problems of working-class people -- many of whom lacked the opportunity, the interest or the academic ability to get through college -- you'll get an earful about the problems of driving a beater that constantly breaks down. A small amount of capital could make a much bigger difference in their lives than extra student loan relief for middle-class college kids would.

I say "extra" because we already have a very generous income-based repayment system for student loans. The IBR program allows you to hold your loan payments to no more than 15 percent of your discretionary income and stretch out the payment term to 25 years, after which any remaining debt is forgiven. To be sure, you have to have a partial financial hardship to qualify -- but the "financial hardship" is that . . . your payments on the standard plan would be more than 15 percent of your discretionary income. As someone whose initial loan payments were closer to 50 percent of her discretionary income, I can testify that that’s a pretty sweet deal.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    How

  • From the Tundra||

    "You mean squaw who squall all the time like angry mag pie--her talk too loud, talk too much, make headache "

    Tonto had her number a long time ago.

  • ||

    Paleface Party make heap trouble for little squaw.

  • Hyperion||

    White squaw wait many moons for heap big wampum. Paleface speak with forked tongue, take wampum away.

  • Kure'i||

    To her credit, in the alternative, she was willing to accept a handful of beads.

  • Mainer2||

    Hi-how-are-ya...Hi-how-are-ya

  • Rich||

    How ya doin' How ya doin'

  • datcv||

    How is it that Republicans don't use these same idiotic tactics?

    -Full bailout for students but also bans abortion!

    -Full bailout for students, but caps the salaries of college presidents, teachers, and administrators (I would love to see the handwringing this brings on).

    -Full bailout for students but ends federally subsidized student loans forever, and allows students to discard debt during bankruptcy.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Personally, I'm inclined to say go along with it with the proviso that, in the event college costs (note, I said costs, not prices) have risen by more than the CPI in five years, an automatic 90% wealth and income tax on all high-level executive branch employees and consultants from January 20, 2008 through December 31, 2012 will go into effect.

  • datcv||

    Nice!

  • UnCivilServant||

    I'm currently planning to increase the rate of repayment on my student loans as I've paid off another smaller debt. I've gotten below $25K total debt, and the student loan is the primary thing holding down my credit score. (Thank you unspecified credit card issuing company for the free credit monitoring and simulation).

    Holding a huge debt for 20-25 years and paying less than what is needed to drive down the principal will have utterly ruinous effects on your credit rating. The knock-on effects of that damage impact a whole mess of other things in your life.

  • John||

    As of 2012, us colleges and universities held $417 billion in endowments. Since colleges are the ones who benefited from all of this money, how about we enact a confiscatory tax of say 50% of that money and use that to cover forgiving the most deserving 20% of that trillion dollars?

    This is between the universities and the students and the banks. Some combination of those three parties need to clean up this mess.

    http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=73

  • ||

    I'd love to see this floated just to watch the usual "tax the rich" suspects shit a ton of bricks when you lump the universities in with "the rich". Their hypocrisy is boundless.

  • John||

    Me too. I love throwing it in Progs' faces. How can we let Harvard sit there with $28 billion dollars in the bank when grad students are on food stamps and an entire generation is facing poverty due to student loans?

    They just turn red and start mumbling. It kind of short circuits their little minds.

  • GILMORE||

    It would be like watching baby spiders eat their mother.

  • Pope Jimbo||

  • Kure'i||

    "MEAN AND GREEDY LIBERTARIANS SEEK TO SLASH EDUCATION FUNDS. KOCH BROS UNAVAILABLE FOR COMMENT."

  • Mainer2||

    Ah, but I'll bet they are non-profit universities, and therefore not motivated by filthy lucre.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    In which case, they'd have no objection to ponying up.

  • Mainer2||

    The car is in paint.
    Viper Green.
    It's looking great.

  • John||

    I saw that. Every time I try to respond Reason eats my comment. When will it be done? How far are you from Boston? I will be visiting my in laws with my car in a couple of weeks. We should meet in the middle for a drink.

  • grrizzly||

    I'd be happy to join you guys for a drink too, if you're around Boston.

  • Mainer2||

    The car won't be done until late summer. (The guy doing the work is an artist, the flip side being that time takes on a different meaning.)

    I'm about 1 hour north of the city. I don't know the suburbs of boston, so I have no suggestion on where to meet.

  • ||

    Newburyport would be a good town to meet. Easy to find off I95, and lots of good eateries with decks overlooking the river. Probably closer to Mainer than for someone driving out of the city.

  • grrizzly||

    Always liked Newburyport, but it's indeed good 55 minutes driving from Boston.

  • C. Anacreon||

    The car is in paint.
    Viper Green.
    It's looking great.

    At first I thought you were trying to write a haiku. With a little effort, you could make this post into one, you're almost there.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    The car is in paint
    Viper Green summer blossoms
    It's all looking great

  • GILMORE||

    I think the score system has something to do with a) seasonal references, b) plant life (preferably something blossoming), and c) vague allusions to mortality

    You'd be a perfect 10 if you'd gone with

    The car is in paint
    Viper Green summer blossoms
    Mid-life crisis? Yes.

  • Mainer2||

    The car is in paint
    Viper Green summer blossoms
    Mid-life crisis? Yes

    WINNER

  • ||

    The first two lines need to be topical, and the last line needs to be unrelated yet related.

    GILMORE sucking dicks
    Delicious, delicious dicks
    Storm clouds, the ocean

  • ||

    At the waters edge,
    Epi sucks succulent dick
    Crash, the waves o'ertake him.

  • GILMORE||

    The car is in paint
    Viper green, venom dripping
    Buy American

  • C. Anacreon||

    I LOL'd at 'Buy American'. Good one.

  • ||

    The car is in paint
    Viper green is looking great
    Mother bird in nest

  • C. Anacreon||

    Geez you guys, my secretary is wondering what I keep laughing about. I'm supposed to be serious at work today. "Mother bird in nest".

  • Mainer2||

    Porsche is in paint
    Original Viper Green
    Will look great spinning

  • GILMORE||

  • Mainer2||

    Magnus. He's a legend.
    See the green car at 2:00 minute mark.
    Except mine has the Fuch's alloys.
    Actually upgraded to 16 inch Fuch's which, according to the seller, came off Martina Navritalova's 84 Carrera.
    Which is way better than having Jon Voights Plymouth Aries.

  • Brett L||

    Yeah. I think the right solution is to:
    a) allow these to be be dismissed in bankruptcy conditionally -- say, that student loans cannot be your primary debt-load within five years of the last loan taken
    b) stop the Federal guarantee
    c) allow lenders to seek relief from universities when students default

    I assume that (c) would take the form of flat settlements where everyone would take a haircut but few would lose their ass.

  • Jordan||

    a) allow these to be be dismissed in bankruptcy conditionally -- say, that student loans cannot be your primary debt-load within five years of the last loan taken

    Why treat them differently than any other debt? Let lenders assess the risk and act accordingly.

  • Brett L||

    Because people will say it disproportionately affects poor people. If you ain't got shit, you'd be a fool not to declare bankruptcy the day after graduation*.

    *Unless you work in an industry where having a clean credit check is an employment necessity.

  • sarcasmic||

    Those damn rich aren't paying their fair share! I mean, they're still rich! If they paid their fair share then they wouldn't be rich, right?

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    ..."to keep their millionaire constituents from paying their fair share of taxes."

    I don't understand how there are so many middle and upper class adults who have gotten a raise and see what actually happens to their take home pay in a new tax bracket and think "Yeah, we should raise taxes on those fuckers!" Sadists AND Masochists.

  • Rasilio||

    Because none of them think of themselves as being "the rich"

    They don't want their own taxes to go up, they want taxes on the guys starting just above them to go up.

    You don't really start paying big bucks on your taxes till you go over ~$80k - $110k (Depending on how many kids you have) But only 27% of Americans have an income above 80K so only somewhere around 20% of taxpayers are really feeling the pinch, then you throw in the group above them who never had to work for it to begin with (Mommy and Daddy were rich, if they worked before Princeton it was purely for the experience and not because they needed the money to live on then they graduated into a $100k a year job) and you have a very small number of the total population who has ever felt that pain.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Elizabeth Warren is why I prep.

  • ||

    Worried she'll give you the HIV?

  • Brett L||

    I thought it was HIV and the AIDS. Am I behind?

  • ||

    It depends on how you're pronouncing it.

    No definite article for aitch-aye-vee, deffo definite article for hiv-rhymes-with-shiv.

  • Monkey's Uncle||

    I'll bet Fauxcohontas goes on the warpath now.

  • John||

    Lets not forget Fauxchontas made a half a million dollar a year salary from a university that has a $28 billion dollar endowment and sets the top end of the tuition scale at nearly $60,000 a year.

    If she was so concerned about the poor students, whey didn't she offer to take a pay cut in the name of lower tuition? Wasn't $250,000 a year enough for her?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The woman has no shame.

    Much like Barack Obama exploiting bigotry against Muslims to deflect criticism away from himself and his administration over Benghazi, Elizabeth Warren will exploit anyone--anyone--in her sick quest for power.

    She'll exploit Native Americans. She'll exploit poor students.

    Elizabeth Warren doesn't give a shit.

  • Almanian!||

    No one NEEDS more than [whatever amount I arbitrarily determine] in pay!

    Me think White Running Derp speak with fork tongue.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm still on a little 250, which I ride everywhere.

    I'm waiting for this to hit the stores after the summer.

    http://www.cycleworld.com/2014.....fications/

    I was gonna go for an FZ-09, but held back over the ride by wire issues and the suspension.

    Weren't you the one asking me about that the other day?

  • Doctor Whom||

    There are good rich people (like Fauxcohontas and Bill Maher), who deserve their riches because they are pure of heart, and bad rich people, who are undertaxed if they have any assets nicer than a 2011 Hyundai Elantra.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Did Republicans Kill Warren's Loan Bill Because They Hate Poor Kids?"

    No, they did it because they hate Native Americans like Granny Cheekbones.

    Why is Elizabeth Warren still refusing to meet with the Cherokee?

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2.....book-tour/

  • Invisible Finger||

    Such a solution punishes taxpayers for the bad judgements of borrowers,

    And the bad judgments of lenders.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Why is tuition so incredibly expensive? I don't mean what pressures drove up the rates--most of us know that all too well--but what is the current justification for charging as much as a small house for a four-year degree? A business degree from a decent state university costs many times as much as when I got one in the late 80s, yet it has no more value. Really, arguably less value.

  • UnCivilServant||

    There's no justification, it's just "because we can get away with it"

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    I'm just hoping the bubble bursts before my kids become college-aged.

  • Almanian!||

    I have two who just left college and my son's a sophomore next year. ugh...

  • Brett L||

    So the wealth transfer from you to the State is nearly complete?

  • Almanian!||

    Oh, hardly - cause I'm a [not-quite] one percenter. So Uncle Sugar and the State of Michigan continue to confiscate an assload of my money before it ever gets in my wallet.

    I plan - off the top - to lose 40% of money bonus to the gummint every year. I stop and think about that - forty fucking percent. Off the TOP. Before any sales taxes, fees, etc. I may pay for whatever.

    But - yeah - I'm "not paying enough".

    FUCK YOU, CONGRESSTARDS AND PROGGIE THIEFS!!

  • ||

    I'm sure Tony will tell you all about how you're a big ol' meanie for not wanting to give the government more of the income they LET you have.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Elizabeth Warren (and Barack Obama) understand how moral hazard played a role in the housing bubble, but somehow none of that has anything to do with student loans.

    It's not clear if they have any idea what their policies do to the economy or the country, but what is clear is that even if they do know? They don't give a shit.

    They don't care if what they do hurts the country or the poor--just so long as they're the ones in charge.

  • R C Dean||

    Elizabeth Warren (and Barack Obama) understand

    I see no basis for that assertion.

  • Cis Shitlord||

    I keep going back and forth on the stupid-vs.-evil question for both of these people. Most of their actions would be explained by either.

  • Brett L||

    "Nobody is the villain of their own story"

  • UnCivilServant||

    I am.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    It can be both.

    Stupid and evil are not mutually exclusive.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    On Warren, I' going with just plain evil. With stupid, you'd get an occasional error on the side of good.

  • Kure'i||

    99% of their supporters have never heard of moral hazard, and so it's irrelevant politically. And since when does any sort of reasoned argument trump "HELP TEH STRUGGLING PEOPLES! RICH I$ GREEDY!"

  • Brett L||

    These diversity programs aren't going to administer themselves!

  • Almanian!||

    Because, "Fuck you", that's why.

    Any other questions?

    #NoFuckYOuCutSpending

  • Invisible Finger||

    If we wanted a program to help the majority of the population, we'd offer loan guarantees to help poor people get access to reliable cars so that they could have a better shot at getting -- and keeping -- a well-paying job. I

    Another stupid idea.

    The reason poor people have to drive distances to jobs is because the Democrats, who these stupid people voted for, taxed the bejeesus out of their employers which forced the companies to relocate to suburban areas where the local governments weren't so greedy.

    The people who make and support idiotic policy deserve no sympathy and no remedies other than undoing their idiotic policies.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Let's not forget cash for clunkers.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Obama Administration actively destroyed cheap cars in an attempt to jumpstart sales for government and UAW owned GM and Chrysler.

    All those cheap cars would have gone to the working poor.

  • Rich||

    That's ridiculous, Ken. The working poor can't afford to maintain a cheap car!

  • sarcasmic||

    At the time I was warning that the price of used cars would go up, and was totally poo pooed. Then the price of used cars went up. Suddenly all the lefties I knew wouldn't talk about the subject.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Another really stupid idea actually.

    I would say cars a big reason why a lot of people never get ahead. Dropping thousands of dollars on something that depreciates rapidly in value is a very bad idea.

  • Cis Shitlord||

    Why? The utility value of a car is pretty high, especially if you buy used and cheap. Which, admittedly, was a lot easier prior to C4C.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    I'm not saying cars are worthless, just that similar to college education, most people think they *deserve* a shiny new SUV every few years, so they can ride solo to and from work.

    And then they wonder why they have no wealth.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I don't get that mentality.

    As long as my car can still get me to and from work, I'm not going to replace it. I like not having a car payment.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Some people tie the car they drive into their self worth. They see their neighbor driving a Lexus and they need one. Their driver gets a Corvette as a mid-life crisis car, and they have to follow. Of course, they don't pay attention to the $650/month bill that they're racking up for each car, but hey, they have a beautiful car at the expense of their future security!!! Isn't that what social security is for???

    I'm still driving my college car. I got it for a steal ($2400 for a car with 55k miles on it) and I'm going to drive it into the ground.

  • JW||

    I'll admit that my most recent car was for comfort and wanting something nicer than what I had. It replaced a 9 year old car that was getting rough at the edges and I was looking at about $2500 in maintenance and repairs coming up.

    So, I traded it in for a 2013 model.

  • JW||

    Oh, and the new one was a CPO, with a 7 year bumper-to-bumper warranty.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Nothing wrong with trading an old junker when the time is right. However, the average new car buyer is trading in a 2-4 year old car in perfectly good shape for a new car with 5-7 years worth of payments, only to trade that car in before they pay it off.

    I plan on going new or late model for both my and my wife's next cars.

  • 110 Lean||

    @UnCivilServant

    My philosophy as well. I make good money and have six-figures in savings. I could pay cash for a new BMW or Mercedes, but prefer to dive my 20-year-old F150 4x4 because it runs just fine.

  • JW||

    most people think they *deserve* a shiny new SUV every few years, so they can ride solo to and from work.

    I've bought 4 cars in the past 27 years, the longest stint was 11 years for my '92 Honda Accord. And I've driven solo to work in most of them.

    And nope, I'm not poor, but I can't afford to buy a new cars every 5 years. Not when I'm frantically saving for the kids college and trying to avoid getting fucked when I finally retire.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm in this camp. Drive the car into the ground, then replace with a gently used car. I'm close to needing a new one, probably another Accord.

    My son is driving my old Accord, which will turn 20 next year.

  • ||

    In Megan's defense, she was just saying that it would be a better use of congresses time and our money, not that it was necessarily a good idea.

    Oh who am I kidding, of course she thinks its a good idea.

  • GILMORE||

    Does it have to be the ONLY reason?

  • Cis Shitlord||

    "We have the broad support from the American people and that is going to play very well for us as we move towards November—and that's the bottom line here,"

    And Bitchtits vaults back into the front of the race for the most loathsome congresscritter.

  • Cis Shitlord||

    Sort of OT: Obama not all bad:

    http://freebeacon.com/culture/.....es-majors/

  • Almanian!||

    Heh. Of course, as a graduate of a private liberal arts college, I ditched math and science in college (my best subjects in HS) for Psych. And have done very well.

    BUT - I was gonna do well whatever I did. Cause I always do well. I'm lucky/gifted/whatever.

    I've steered my kids to "you'd better do something that's gonna make you money, cause I ain't paying back your student loans."

    I think liberal arts is an important field of study - but it sure isn't collegiate "voc ed" like a pre-med or pre-law or pre-vet curriculum that leads to a particular job field. Me - I got into bidness and management, never looked back. But was gonna do that whether I majored in Art History or Engineering - cause I have the skeeelz.

    If you don't...I urge caution :)

  • Cis Shitlord||

    BUT - I was gonna do well whatever I did. Cause I always do well. I'm lucky/gifted/whatever.

    PRIVILEGED!!

  • NoVAHockey||

    "“A great liberal arts, humanities education is still critically important” in order to learn to “work with people and communicate clearly and effectively.”"

    So the point of studying liberal arts is to communicate effectively.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Funny, my grades in Liberal Arts classes correlated exactly with how much my work confirmed the professor's biases. My only high-graded paper in College English was utter bullshit, and din't actually communicate anything.

  • JW||

    If you're going to get a liberals arts degree, spend as little on it as possible, because it's worth less than the paper the diploma is printed on.

    All it is, is a proxy for prospective employers.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That proxy really helps, especially in this economy

  • Rich||

    "instead of fighting for working families and college affordability, some members of Congress are fighting to keep their millionaire constituents from paying"

    Serious question: Why do proggies insist on using the expression "fight for/to" instead of "legislate/work toward", "lobby for", "convince others to support", or something less violent?

  • R C Dean||

    Because in their cold, black, angry heart of hearts, they want their enemies beaten, thrown into camps, and either converted to good little proggies or exterminated, would be my guess.

  • Rich||

    Well, that is a goal worth fighting for!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I find it interesting that a lot of the same people who talk about progs hypothetically supporting rounding up people and putting them in camps also tend to be for stricter immigration control and enforcement, which currently involved actually rounding up people and putting them in camps

  • Bardas Phocas||

    To demonstrate the violence inherent in the system.

  • NoVAHockey||

    everything is moral equivalent of war.

  • Invisible Handjob||

    For every prog issue there has to be an "oppressor" that they need to "fight" to protect the "oppressed". Every issue gets shoehorned into this heuristic so they can make simplistic white hat vs black hat pronouncements.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course not. Spenders like Warren are going to leave debt and interest payments to today's children, so the question of do you hate children should be aimed at her and them

  • Invisible Finger||

    She only hates the children of rich people who are not pure of heart like herself.

  • ||

    You're in college right?

    She's doing it because she loves you Bo. Why won't you accept Her into your heart?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I'm eventually going to be asked to pay the bill for their drunken sailors weekend

  • ||

    I might chip in for that.

  • Homple||

    Is the random on and off of the comment system a rerun of B.F. Skinner's variable reinforcement experiments on rats and pigeons? Are H&R commenters the new rats and pigeons?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are never going to get the cheese with that attitude

  • Rich||

    Rat on!

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    I'd also like to blame shitty parenting for the student debt crisis.

    Letting your snowflake growup thinking that it is their right to spend $120,000 on whatever the fuck they want, at the school with the best cafeteria and swimming pool means you are a terrible parent.

  • Rhywun||

    "With this vote, we show the American people who we work for in the United States Senate: billionaires or students," Warren said on the Senate floor on Wednesday.

    Um... you work for EVERYONE, you mendacious idiot. That includes the people you're robbing to pay other people.

  • JW||

    That includes the people you're robbing to pay other people.

    She's just signalling to the people she's really working for: the ones who have already bought her off.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It's Neuro-Linguistic Programming hour!

    "We want a Republican Party that can function and with which we can negotiate and compromise and help move the country forward

    Refusal to accede to Barry's wishes is a sign of dysfunction. It also means you are holding the country back. Only the TEAM Blue knows how to move the country forward.

    How could we not want to invest in these kids?

    Investment in college students (who are not kids) means raising taxes and extending the life of student loans, albeit at a lower interest rate?

    Why wouldn't we want to make sure that college was affordable and that they weren't burdened with $30,000 or $50,000 or $70,000 worth of debt?

    Lowering interest rates on student loans does nothing to effect the principal of the loan (i.e. cost of credit hours, books, housing, meal plans, you know, that stuff the university charges you exorbitant amounts for).

    Advice for TEAM Red: The perfect counterstroke to Indian Lizzie's nonsense would be to introduce a bill that forgives all student loans currently held by the government. If TEAM Blue doesn't support it, they obviously don't want to invest in the kids.

    Like Paulie Krugnuts said, we just owe it to ourselves, right?

  • ||

    What's so fucking rich about all of this, and really every time they bring it up, is that the "rich" pay 50% of the fucking income taxes the government collects every year. Anyone with half a brain can find the information on the governments own website. How in sciences name is that not their "fair share"?

  • KWebb||

    I love this topic. Nothing gets progs to admit they don't give a shit about the poor faster than wanting to give money to college graduates.

  • Sevo||

    ..."Democrats have already jumped on it as a campaign issue."...

    Team blue campaign theme:
    FREE SHIT! FREE SHIT! FREE SHIT! FREE SHIT! FREE SHIT! FREE SHIT! FREE SHIT! FREE SHIT! FREE SHIT! FREE SHIT!

  • WDATPDIM?!||

    And this is coming from a woman who, with her husband, got rich on the inflated salaries that easy student loan money made possible. Of course she cares about poor students -- without them, there'd be no way to funnel the money from the lender of last resort into her pockets.

  • C. Anacreon||

    The interesting thing about all this is that the Dems appear to be putting all their energy into the two main causes that could be discerned from the Occupy Wall Street movement -- raising the minimum wage and forgiving college debt.

    Really, Dems? You've got huge unemployment in the country, a massive deficit, ticking time bombs of entitlements and a crap healthcare reform staring everyone in the face, and you choose as your main goals things that even the trustafarians stopped demonstrating about over a year ago? Are you really going to ride to power on more handouts for people who already vote for you, by taking more away from the undecided voters?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The Democrats see their problem in a midterm as not getting out the base and groups that vote for them in Presidential elections but that don't vote in midterms much. They hope abortion and gay marriage will help with independents

  • Kure'i||

    Warren's top 5 political contributors, according to opensecrets.com:

    EMILY's List: $507,095
    Moveon.org: $448,517
    Harvard University: $312,300
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $76,700
    Boston University: $73,000

    So whose side are you on, Elizabeth? The University Admins, or Soros?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement