Don't Cancel Student Debt
Making their monthly payments is a major drag for millions in their 20s and 30s, but federal forgiveness is the stupidest way to address this problem.
For many of the 43 million Americans weighed down by student loan debt, making their monthly payments is a major drag on their lives. About a third of undergraduates going for a bachelor's degree are either dropping out or taking more than six years to graduate, which means that lots of people carrying student debt don't even have a degree. Others are finding that what they learned in college doesn't even help them get a job.
Federal student loan debt hit $1.6 trillion last year. This is a major problem for people in their 20s and 30s. But the federal government simply wiping their debt clean is just about the stupidest way to address it.
Forgiving student loan debt altogether, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) promised on his 2020 presidential campaign trail, would mean printing more than a trillion dollars, thus driving up inflation and bringing the federal government even closer to insolvency. While President Joe Biden hasn't proposed going this far, he has said he wants to forgive $10,000 per borrower. In the meantime, he's been using his executive authority to whittle away at the debt load, including a recent $85 billion expansion of loan forgiveness programs.
What Biden is doing is kind of like if you had a clogged sink that's flooding your apartment, but instead of turning off the faucet or clearing the drain, you grabbed a coffee mug and just dumped the water onto the floor. And while your house keeps flooding, you tell yourself that maybe you just need a bigger cup.
Loan forgiveness programs are incredibly unfair. One-time cancellation not only screws over taxpayers and those who've already worked for years to successfully pay off their loans, but it also leaves out the generation of college students about to graduate into thousands of dollars in debt.
Biden has suggested expanding a program that forgives the loans of people who work in public service. While this may sound like a noble idea, the beneficiaries include some extremely high-paid professionals working at nonprofit hospitals, like cardiologists who make $400,000 a year on average. Public service workers often have the best job security, health care, and pension benefits among middle-class workers, making them strange candidates for debt forgiveness.
Why should students worry about staggering loan balances if the government is just going to cancel the debt anyway? It only discourages them from taking a more prudent path, like attending affordable community colleges before enrolling in a four-year university or going to a trade school that arms students with practical skills that lead to high-paying, in-demand jobs.
If colleges notice that high tuition is scaring off would-be students, they'd have to lower their prices.
The way to fix an overflowing sink is to turn off the faucet or unclog the drain—in other words, you go to the root of the problem. We shouldn't focus our efforts on the debt that results from expensive college but on the expensive college itself.
There's substantial empirical evidence showing that cheap federal loans are actually a major cause of the rise in college tuition, which has outpaced the growing cost of even medical care and housing. This theory was famously argued in a 1987 New York Times op-ed by then-Secretary of Education William Bennet, who wrote that "increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase."
When you give people more money to pay for something, prices tend to go up. And forgiving debt makes the problem worse. Students won't care as much if college administrators overcharge for their services because they'll probably never have to pay it back anyway.
There are several ways we can incentivize colleges to reduce their prices and encourage students to take educational paths that maximize a return on their investment.
For starters, we need to reduce the size of the federal student loan program over time, so that schools can no longer take for granted that applicants will be able to pay for tuition no matter what.
The best way to forgive loan debt is through personal bankruptcy, but student loans are currently the only kind of debt that cannot be discharged this way. Bankruptcy is a system that ensures that only those in dire straits get debt forgiveness, while at the same time forcing them to bear a penalty because it makes future creditors wary of loaning to them.
Simply forgiving federal student debt, on the other hand, means forcing taxpayers to bail people out for their bad decisions while rewarding the very institutions that have been ripping students off in the first place.
*CORRECTION: The original version of this video had a mislabeled chart: $516 million was mislabeled $5.16 million. We've corrected the mistake by blurring out the figure in the YouTube editor.
Written by Emma Camp; edited by Danielle Thompson; sound by Ian Keyser
Photo Credits: Chris Fitzgerald / Candidate Photos/Newscom/Newscom; KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom; JOHN ANGELILLO/UPI/Newscom; CNP/AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom; Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call/Newscom
Music Credits: "Game Over" by 2050 via Artlist; "Dusk till Dawn" by Mintz via Artlist; "Center of Gravity" by Phutureprimitive via Artlist; "The Dutchman" by Mintz via Artlist
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Joe, Brandon
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
Reading this article:>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Republican ratfucking has become remarkably efficient. In the 90s they had to concoct extremely complex conspiracy theories and dig and dig until they found some real thing that happened they can blow up into a scandal.
Obama was easy, I suppose. Just be racist. Just do racism. Easy.
But now it's just pure pristine "I hate Biden." You don't know why. You were just told to feel that way. You couldn't articulate a reason if you wanted to.
They have you programmed like dogs.
Fuck Joe Brandon, Tony.
They have you programmed like dogs.
Woof, the projection in this statement could reach across the solar system.
I without a doubt have made $18,000 inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather
extra cash on-line.... https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Other than the fact that Biden has dementia and his party's policies have increased everyone's psychological stress, screwed up the economy, and lowered everyone's standard of living for no discernible gain, I have no idea why people are so brainwashed against Biden.
Jesus. You are an idiot.
Tony's the fat one on the left.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SamBrinton-810x500.jpg
I honestly can't tell the difference between sarc and Tony anymore.
Hey puppet. What is Bidens approval..among democrats.
Sure it's the Republicans who are guess are 80% of the pop that says the country on the wrong track.
You need some serious help
There is no help for the left. They are based on emotions and have no reasoning skills. Ask them about the economy, math, science, geography, etc., and they no nothing! Ask about LGBTQ, climate change, CRT, white privilege, and other ‘woke’ issues, and they get really emotional and apoplectic, but STILL without a rational thought. And you wonder why our country is falling apart? The leftists want big spending, high taxes, and so-called equality through socialism. This shows how dumb they are. Someone has to produce for the government to tax and spend. If we keep giving those who don’t produce, don’t care, or just don’t want to work, where will the money come from? And even Biden is seeing that we cannot do that! He’s building the wall! Hey geniuses, economics is simple. There is a limited of hood for a limited amount of people! That’s why capitalism works! We trade for needs and wants, not just giving and giving!
Tony, it looks like you're the programmed one. You are coming here and producing a ton of "GOP bad" posts. You may not have noticed but this is NOT a GOP forum. This is NOT Sean Hannity fan club or TRump fan club. We are libertarians. The main concern of libertarians is protecting our seriously eroded freedoms. Two of the main things that eroded our freedoms are "war on drugs" and Patriot act, both concocted by GOP presidents. Trump in particular was increasing public debt, starting senseless trade wars with Canada and EU and playing politics with subsidies. Trump was a bad predident and I will not vote for him if he runs. Actually, I will not vote at all, because I live in blue state (NJ) and it is highly unlikely that my vote can change anything.
As for Biden administration and canceling student debt, Biden has been a total and unmitigated disaster in every way imaginable. I am eager to have money taken away from me to pay the student debt of AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, all making $173,000 per year, with various other perks. So yes, let's go Brandon!
"going to a trade school that arms students with practical skills"
Many student loan defaulters THOUGHT they were doing that but ended up with a worthless certificate from a for-profit diploma mill.
Anyone stupid enough to think a degree in gender studies would get them any job, let alone a high-paying one, is too stupid to learn any kind of job skill, even asking if you want fries with that.
That's not what I'm talking about. I mean the for-profit, fly-by-night "schools" that pretend to prepare students for trades like nursing, IT, driving, HVAC, etc. It's a sleazy industry that exists only because of the student loan program.
That literally was disproven many times. It was one of obamas favorite talking points going after those evil profits, but those schools typically get the same group of people that go to community Collage, when compared to community Collage they had higher graduation, and employment rates, and for a lower cost per student.
Which predatory trade school did you work for?
Who is forcing adults to sign up for schools?
Are you pretending that gender studies departments are not predators?
Right now I'm talking about trade schools.
The 3 best techs I work with went to a trade school that Obama shut down.
You hate them because they show that the gov is incompetent and corrupt at all levels
"the gov is incompetent and corrupt at all levels"
I agree.
None, unlike you I am literate
College, not collage.
OK, we get the picture.
community Collage
It's great when people join in on a collective art project.
If you're going to measure fraud by the useful degrees produced, you damn well better include gender studies and all that other crap. A school which can't go bankrupt because taxpayers pick up the tab is not a success in the business sense.
There's a reason for-profit schools never popped up for gender studies.
But, but, but, liberal arts degrees and Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, and Yale University.
Oh, wait. It's all about who you know and who you blow. Isn't it?
Yes, a few such schools exist. And they are prosecutable under existing law. They are also quite rare. Not entirely non-existent but about as rare as the voter fraud cases.
In other words, there are not "many" student loan holders who defaulted because of that reason and the existence of that tiny minority is not a valid justification for the sweeping social redistribution policy proposed above.
Someone with a degree in Gender Studies would learn how to critically think and thus, would realize that your response does not have anything to do with the original comment.
Those diploma mills were established precisely due to market demand, thanks to the cultural promotion of "get a college degree or you're screwed" and the democratizing of college education the last 60 years. "A degree program that fits your lifestyle!" There wasn't any difference between Trump University and ITT Tech, except that ITT managed to sucker tens of thousands of people in to sinking money in to their programs for decades.
Now we have too many "elites" with degrees and not enough "elite" jobs to employ them, along with a lot of people who spent thousands to get a worthless piece of paper, all thanks to the dumb promotion of "college or bust."
Funny how there was no "for profit college" student debt crisis until Obama started pulling the accreditation from those colleges for daring to compete with the public sector (and quasi-public sector) "non profit" universities with giant endowments.
ITT managed to train people in useful and marketable skills, and was worth the investment for lots of students.
I have alot of great tecs that went to itt
How about Control Data Institute? (I’m just remembering commercials from my childhood)
My father felt passed over for promotions during his 30+ years at Pacific Bell because he lacked a college degree. Thus, he was adamant that I get one.
The whole world I grew up in in the 1970s was focused that way.
When I graduated from a U.C. in 1979 with a B.S. in Business Management and couldn't find a decent job paying more than minimum wage, I took minimum wage jobs to survive.
My father still bought into that BS and accused me of being a lazy no good kid. It was a rough time for both of us.
Mike Rowe for president!
My father felt passed over for promotions during his 30+ years at Pacific Bell because he lacked a college degree. Thus, he was adamant that I get one.
^
Both of my parents faced nothing but slammed doors due to not having degrees, and made sure both my brother and I went even though they both deeply resent college-educated people and are mistrustful of the education system generally speaking.
But it's akin to generals always fighting the last war - my grandfather was always pissed at my dad for not joining a union and not staying in the same job for 40 years, because for my grandfather that's how you did things.
I have my doubts about whether college is going to be that important in the future.
I've interviewed several students from ITT Tech with degrees in Machine Design and CADD, who knew how to draw pretty pictures, and nothing else. One of the questions I asked was "Where would you find information on a 6-32 thread?" None of them got it right. There's several correct answers, Machinery's Handbook, a drafting textbook and several websites. I could understand if they just had a degree in CADD, but, these people had a Machine Design degree. When I changed jobs a while back, the Company I went to had several people from ITT Tech and a few other schools. It took a year to get them up to where they should have been.
Damn buddy, you ARE as stupid as you sound. If your definition of "predator", "fraud", "scam", etc only applies to for-profit businesses, then OF COURSE you will only find it in for-profit businesses. How dumb are you to think that we are as dumb as you?
Hey, dumbfuck. Here's a clue: "non-profit" colleges are just as money-oriented as those evil for-profit businesses. Have you seen the size of their endowments? Have you noticed how they keep growing? Have you noticed that their deans and other "executives" make just as much pay?
Their idiotic useless degrees are their own version of predation. Subsidize anything, you get more of it; ask the British Raj who subsidized cobra
farminghunting, and the French Indochina bureaucrats who subsidized ratfarminghunting. Same result: you get more fraud.(My first paragraph question is just rhetorical; I know how dumb you are)
Look at Yale, more admins and employees than students. No legit business model can sustain having more employees than customers
You think the students are the customers?
That's your first mistake.
Most universities at the level of Ivies live off of donations, endowments, and research -- usually paid for by governmental and corporate interests. The students are an inconvenience, but one they have to deal with to generate another generation of academics, donors, and researchers.
This isn't universally true, but an awful lot of the prestige of prestigious universities isn't the education, it's that you are there with a future senator, a future CEO, a future hedge fund manager, etc. You can learn the same things you learn at Yale literally anywhere, but you won't be there with someone who may be powerful and connected in 15 years. At less prestigious universities you're still chasing a degree, but even state schools are very often heavily research focused and the students are, oddly, pretty secondary.
Academia is, in some ways, a bad place to train people for jobs. At least in its traditional form. It's origins are to train people to become academics, and professional certification just sort of grew out of that from when it was rare to get a college degree. That's how you can call it a bachelors degree in gender studies, or in engineering, even though they're massively different in difficulty and practicality and not at all equal.
But, fundamentally, students are mostly a pain in a university's ass as much as anything. Which is just one of the problems with universities.
I remember in my undergrad that I had a new advising professor every single year. The reason was because the professors were not focused enough on research rather than teaching. They didn't want teachers, they wanted researchers. Students be damned.
I studied at a community college and a UC school. UC schools are, in fact, prestigious, but for general academics I had a hell of a lot better teachers and classes at the community college.
I don't care where you study, you get out of it what you put into it, but I'll tell you, when there are over 200 people in a Calculus class and 400 people in a Chemistry lecture... yeah, that shit is ridiculous. These are public universities, taxpayer subsidized, and they don't give a shit about the students.
Math is math. The University of California, or even Harvard, doesn't know anything more about basic Calc or Statistics than what a genuinely good teacher at a quality local junior college does.
Academia is, in some ways, a bad place to train people for jobs. At least in its traditional form. It's origins are to train people to become academics
Exactly this - historically, the University as an institution has been pretty much the exact opposite of a job training program, and if you talk to your average academic in private, you'll find that they have a very snotty attitude about the idea that they're there in any way to turn out employees.
Universities were founded in order to produce theologians whose function was literally to turn theology to the service of state power. The development of the 'professional school' side is merely a survival adaptation.
Unfortunately, you are absolutely spot-on.
I worked in government and I worked with non-profits as well. A close friend owned an audit firm that specialized in government and non-profits. He would tell you, and I agree, that the only difference between a so called non-profit and a for profit company is how the non-profit spends their revenues so as to remain non-profit. Often, it's in the excessive compensation they pay to their employees at all levels.
Several times I have pointed out the obvious and best solution to this: make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy. Then, the courts can decide case-by-case if a student loan debtor is capable of paying back the loan, instead of granting forgiveness to both the well-off able to pay their debt AND those who will not be able to pay and are crushed by their debt.
I agree with you once government stops guaranteeing loans.
But as of now doing that would just become a government subsidy to party for x number of years for up to 150k
Sure if the school pays.
That control only becomes viable if you start giving lenders a say in the degree being sought. In other words, I'll give you a student loan for an engineering degree because there's a reasonable chance you'll be able to pay me back but I have to be allowed to refuse your loan request for a gender studies degree based on actuarial tables about expected future bankruptcies.
While that's maybe a workable social policy, that inserts lenders into course choices a bit more than I'm entirely comfortable with. It also raises all sorts of questions that we currently get to ignore about changing your educational path during college. I'd much rather see us address the real root cause - the same root cause the article describes - government-driven inflation of higher education costs.
What?!? Why does it make you uncomfortable for a lender to want to look under the hood to see if your degree program is worth taking a risk on? It's their money; why is it any of your business to tell them how to invest it?
This!
make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy. Then, the courts can decide case-by-case if a student loan debtor is capable of paying back the loan, instead of granting forgiveness to both the well-off able to pay their debt AND those who will not be able to pay and are crushed by their debt.
This is never brought up as a serious option. The downside is it requires the borrower to take some personal responsibility. And I guess that'd unacceptable.
Perhaps a better plan:
No loans for freshman year. Parents, friends, organizations, a job, scholarships, etc. pays for your first year. If you do well, and like college, then
banks may lend you money thereafter and take all the risk of you defaulting. One bank may want to loan only to STEM majors, another to finance majors, still others to Art History and Public Service. In any case, the bank takes the risk, not the taxpayers.
As long as our society fetishizes college education, this is going to be a problem.
What needs to happen is that talisman-like view of college degrees needs to be destroyed. Formally eliminating degree requirements for jobs should be the top priority here; it won't resolve this dumb cultural belief that a degree is required to have a nice life, but it will be an important step in at least nerfing it.
Society does not fetishize college degrees; government does.
Stop conflating society and government. If you cannot see the difference, you are a statist.
Society does not fetishize college degrees; government does.
The fuck society doesn't fetishize college degrees. The explosion of student loan debt wouldn't have happened otherwise.
The government is not forcing HR departments in private sector businesses to use college degrees as an elimination factor for employment; they do that all on their own without any government coercion whatsoever.
True. But the immediate urgent need is to STOP the highway robbery. Trillions of dollars in taxpayer money is being deposited directly into the wealthy coffers of academia as we speak, in order to continue funding their insane marxist culture war upon society.
Yes, I'd eliminate the federal student loan program entirely if I could. It's another turd from the sewer of the Great Society that never should have been enacted.
But it's not going away for that reason short of society collapse. So the path forward is to disincentivize college degrees as an employment requirement, even if that means passing a law that says, "Any business that takes a resume listing the applicant's degree will be fined into oblivion."
A law degree should not be a requirement to be a lawyer, for example, when they already have to take a bar exam as a professional entry requirement. Entry-level positions in other fields should be treated like apprenticeships; requiring a degree and "a minimum 2 years of experience" for positions like this is self-defeating and disincentivizes young people from learning the value of work. Businesses need to get back to providing OJT rather than assuming that a degree makes one qualified to perform the job.
Nah. The path forward is to have the government just stop giving trillions of dollars to schools.
Good luck making that happen short of total collapse at this point.
Why should it be so hard to go back to the higher education system of a few decades ago, namely a free market system?
"It's over man, might as well embrace communism."
Many college degree will earn you more money. The problem is pushing degrees that don't do this. One of the driving forces was requiring a college degree for jobs that did not require them before. Businesses started using the possession of a college degree as a cheap and easy filtering for job candidates regardless of whether that degree was worthwhile. Public school teachers and other government jobs started requiring a college degree. Many of these degrees don't really teach you anything you need to know for the job that you wouldn't learn otherwise and are just time wasted.
Many college degree will earn you more money. The problem is pushing degrees that don't do this.
The fact that student loan forgiveness across the board is being pushed is elegant proof that college no longer worth the return on investment. When you have doctors and lawyers crying to have their loans forgiven, the fact that having a degree will earn someone more money isn't really relevant anymore.
Remember elementary education, and journalism are two (or were two) of the top 5 majors for athletes looking to get drafted to the pros
Yeah, I have a collection of NFL draft prospect cards from the early 90s that listed their majors, and it's laughable how many of these guys majored in "communications."
And how many ever completed that degree? Whether they went pro or not.
The degree requirement for jobs is the result of lazy HR staff and recruiters. They can just whittle down the number of applicants they have do deal with from the get go.
Lazy bastards!
So, overturn Griggs v. Duke Power?
Colleges have billions in reserves at this point. Make them the loan guarantors.
Or they can be the lenders.
Banks haven't done student loans since 2010.
https://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Feds-take-over-student-loan-program-from-banks-3193888.php
Those are taxpayer dollars that Bai-dung wants to use as vote bribes.
Especially since "federal forgiveness" means taxpayers will foot the bill instead of the borrowers, effectively turning a loan to high paid professionals to be into a handout, courtesy of the average income US taxpayers.
It's as much of a bailout to the lenders as it is to the borrowers, considering the default rate on student loans.
I'm pretty sure that's why they aren't even pressing to get the payments restarted. More than that, mine (for instance) has made it nearly impossible to voluntarily restart payments during the moratorium / interest rate freeze.
What default rate? Student loans are forever. Not even bankruptcy can get rid of them.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2020/12/07/7-of-borrowers-are-on-track-to-never-repay-their-student-loans-according-to-a-new-report/
That doesn't contradict what I said, imbecile. The people in your precious article still owe the money. The loans aren't discharged. They're just not paying.
An honest person would admit that, which means you will not.
What Is a Default?
Default is the failure to make required interest or principal repayments on a debt, whether that debt is a loan or a security.
Seriously. How fucking stupid are you?
The people still owe the money. Seriously. How dishonest are you?
Wow. This is beyond retarded.
Article discusses people who will NEVER pay off their loans. They default on them when they die.
God damn man. Way to prove how fucking ignorant you are on every fucking topic.
Wow dude, you've dragged the goalposts into the cemetery. Literally.
What?
You: what is the default rate?
Me: 7% estimates
You: nuh uh. Thats not a default
Me: default is not repaying the loan
You: im a retard.
Me: no they will never repay the loan. They will default.
You: goalposts shift!
What a fucking retard.
Why do you want Trump to forcibly round up non-criminals and put the in concentration camps for being homeless? You never explained that one either.
So you realize you're an ignorant moron and retreat to this terrible attempt to save face lol.
God damn man. Just take the L. You should be used to it by now.
Sure buddy. You never said you don't want the National Guard to exterminate the homeless. That means you do.
Pathetic as usual buddy lol.
Stop lying. You didn't say you don't want Trump to round up the homeless in rail cars and then gas them. That means you do. Show ten citations proving you didn't. You can't. That means you are promoting the idea.
Do you get one or two jeff attaboys each time you make a fool of yourself so he doesn't have to?
Run away with your tail between your legs, puppy. Run.
Why? Because you dont know the definition for default? Lol. You literally asked what default rate you fucking idiot.
Run puppy, run!
Why, because once again you've proven yourself economically ignorant?
It is amazing how delusional you are day in and day out.
Whoof!
It took you 2 days last time to admit you were ignorant about 2022 Q1 GDP. How long until you admit you are ignorant about what a default is?
It took you 2 days last time to admit you were ignorant about 2022 Q1 GDP.
Having incorrect information is a personal defect. /JesseAz
You defended your incorrect information for 2 days as not your fault and called those who gave you correct information trolls for those 2 days. And you also lied about how you were wrong claiming google despite not one link about 2022 q1 saying it was positive
It is in fact a personal defect. Just like you're claiming a goal post shift because I actually know the definition of a default just above.
You defended your incorrect information for 2 days as not your fault and called those who gave you correct information trolls for those 2 days. And you also lied about how you were wrong claiming google despite not one link about 2022 q1 saying it was positive
Um no. That's you making stuff up again.
If you didn't have so much personal animosity and hatred at me for being mean to Trump, I bet we'd agree on a lot of things.
But you can't. You've got the maturity of a teenage girl.
So sad. So very sad.
By the way, where is the proof that you sent your stimulus checks back? You said you'd never accept the money and anyone who did hates American and Trump and apple pie. So where's the proof?
You want the thread from yesterday buddy?
And comparing people keeping more of their tax money to those reneging on loans they chose to sign shows youre just a fucking locust.
I buy the government a nice car every year. You bragged about defaulting on your loan with government forgiveness.
Bullshit. If you had any principles you would have sent those checks back. But you didn't. Even though you said you did. So you're an unprincipled liar and a thief. And a child molester. You never said you're not so that means you are.
I buy the government a nice car every year.
No you don't. You get the EIC every year because you make less money than I pay in child support. Prove me wrong. You can't. That means I'm right.
Lol. This is just sad.
Only someone on welfare would say something like that. How long have you been on food stamps?
Damn Sarc, you're starting to trail off into looney land. Maybe time to ease up a bit.
It should be legal for me to kill them as if they were mugging me on payday
These days the "lender" is almost always the federal government. Not many students borrow from private lenders.
The lender is always the federal gov, Obama pushed out the private lenders
Only if taxes are raised, and then only if some politician says that those taxes are raised specifically in response to this policy. But since it's just federal debt forgiveness, is it even an outlay? Ultimately it's just ones and zeroes.
Tax rates do not automatically rise in response to new government spending. They are entirely separate policies, and they're only connected rhetorically.
You're right Tony. Federal Income Tax rates are separate from Federal spending. Not just new spending.
And thus, we have the situation we are in.
Go figure.
This is, at first look, a subsidy for students. What it really is is a subsidy for college teachers and administrators, who are reliably Democrat and who spread the dogma so well.
Both the colleges and the party do so well in the partnership.
No government involvement in student loans. No backing. No subsidizing. Same rules as any other loan.
'My behavior was unacceptable': Will Smith posts agonizing hand-wringing apology to Chris Rock AND wife Jada for THAT Oscars slap - but reveals his former friend is 'not ready to talk'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11062209/Will-Smith-FINALLY-apologizes-Oscars-slap.html
Do fuck off.
That's not gonna solve any problems that Biden has caused. We can do without you.
I paid my loans off. You can pay yours.
I actually can't.
I have the money and I want to, but they aren't taking payments.
Often overlooked in these discussions is that "student loan forgiveness" was already written into law a long time ago. This was done in 2007 under Bush and even before that in the 90s.
The forgiveness of massive student loan balances is already a done deal. It's part of the contract that debtors entered into.
I agree, it's very very dumb. All government student loans should be ended immediately.
You know what else is a real drag? Paying for food/rent/gas/smokes/hookers/weird furry porn. Why not just have Uncle Sam cut everyone a check for all that shit? It would make life a lot easier and none of us would have to work.
Other people must continue work so they can pay for my bad decisions and my needs.
You pay for your weird furry porn?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaa! Nobody pays for that shit! I bet you still use AOL! Haaaa ha ha ha ha!
Isn't this where you brag about how you'll gladly take the payoff of your student loans again while claiming you are principled?
Next you're going to say you sent back your stimulus checks, right?
Keeping some of my taxes i pay every year isnt even the same neighborhood.
You aren't principled.
You never paid taxes.
You have never earned enough money to pay taxes. You've got the Earned Income Tax Credit every year you've filed. Don't lie.
This is just sad. Lol.
I want to see proof that you sent back those checks. You said you did. Don't tell me you didn't say you sent the checks back. That would be back peddling. Where's the proof?
Pedaling. Like with pedals. Not peddling, like in selling. Jeez, you guys.
Well spoke! This is getting tired.
I miss chumby...
Is this supposed to be like the text form of one of those awkward nervous laughs that actually only highlights how much the comment applies to you?
Nope. But that is a very revealing statement about yourself.
no u
Oh yeah? Well I'm rubber and you're glue! Beat that one!
Yep! Those are all human rights and EVERY HUMAN is entitled to them by birth.
the payback doesn't matter. (D) got it's washed money ... fed --> school --> election fortification or whatever the flavor of the day is
It's kind of funny to me how Bernie bros have become just another narrow-minded interest group looking for a cash handout. They're doing their old standard of threatening to hand the country over to Republicans unless they get their payout.
I don't have very strong feelings about this. Any policy that increases the progressivity of the economy is probably good. But people with college debt probably shouldn't be in line ahead of, oh, poor people.
But the touch of bile in my throat on this subject is because I worked my ass off as a youth to get scholarships to college, and it feels like all that would be erased if the lesser students all got retroactive payments regardless of how dedicated they were to their education.
Of course higher education is too expensive, but that's something to be dealt with systematically. The policy the bros are asking for is all but indistinguishable from a stick-up.
The problem with student loans is that lots of kids filled out the paperwork, went to college, didn't finish for whatever reason, and now they're trying to make the loan payments while wearing a Walmart vest.
So instead of addressing the root of the problem, encouraging clueless high school graduates to take on debt, the solution is to forgive the loans.
The deep injustice to me is the fact that my generation was forced to find work in an economy of metastasizing Reaganomics. A great recession and a pandemic later, on top of no pensions or unions, and we're told we're too entitled and lazy. There are a lot of millennials in those Amazon warehouses who are too tired to be part of the Twitter conversation.
Your blame is misplaced. The Boomers robbed their children and grandchildren. Now they're dying. But their debt remains, and we're paying it.
They did what they were incentivized to do. There were schemers and liars behind our economic conditions, not to mention the condition of the planet. Those are who I blame, not that blame is all that useful.
More of the same is not how you fix things.
Make me emperor and I'll fix things. My imagination goes much further than Bernie bros. I'd be a post-communist or something if I thought that daydreaming about utopia were equivalent to having serious economic policy positions that apply to the real world.
I'm constantly surprised by the world. I don't really believe in blame or retribution. Yet here we sit, in a world created by oil and finance magnates. Heads have rolled for much less.
Yet here we sit, in a world created by oil and finance magnates.
Why is that bad? Oil (energy) and finance (capital) are why society is so rich. Jealousy and envy only tear things down.
Because burning oil is destroying the biosphere. It's psychotic to say that the best possible world is one in which we have modern technological civilization for 200 years and then burn out and go extinct. If that's really our choice, then it wouldn't be remotely difficult to conclude that we'd have been better off remaining hunter-gatherers. The good news is there is no physical reason we can't transform into a post-oil technological age. The only thing stopping that is all the money that is made by a small group of people organizing their business model around the status quo.
Implying that any critic of misdeeds in the financial sector is just envious is embarrassing slavishness. After 2008 there is no economist who believes that finance has been working just great the whole time. You can believe in retaining finance without believing that everything that sector always does is good. You know that right?
Your reasoning seems to be "He's got more stuff than me. What crime did he commit? How can government force make it even?"
My reasoning is "He's got more stuff than me. What did he do right? Is it income or debt? What can I do differently? Is his wife tired of him? Apparently so or she wouldn't be riding me!"
That's because you struggle to approach the world in a way that isn't framed as a narrative with heroes and villains. Thus you project that framing on me. I said a couple times I don't put much stock in blame.
Of course I put even less in the notion of earning, but you must agree that there are some methods of making money that are unethical or maybe even some that cause market failures. Again, it's Panglossian to say that our current set of economic policies and incentives leaves no room for improvement.
I make all sorts of compromises because of the incentive structure in place. I drive a gas car. I invest in corporations that bust unions. I'm a politically educated person, so if economic incentives mold my behavior in this way, what hope is there for the masses?
It's fine to say that we should have the initiative to navigate the world as we find it, but there's no reason we can't also talk about making that world better and retooling its incentives for better social outcomes.
you struggle to approach the world in a way that isn't framed as a narrative with heroes and villains
It isn't a struggle. I simply accept that people, even the ones I disagree with, generally have good intentions.
but you must agree that there are some methods of making money that are unethical or maybe even some that cause market failures.
I certainly do. That's generally when force is involved.
Not what you call force.
You think that someone having something you want and you not being able to afford to buy it means the person with the item is committing an act of force against you by not giving it to you, and that you stealing that item or having others steal it for you isn't force.
It makes my head hurt.
Isn't the whole point that your head hurts?
The error is in applying the behavioral norms our brains can handle, those applied to individuals in our sphere of interaction, when a more systemic perspective is more helpful. We're talking about imaginary people, after all. They can all individually be doing good and be responding to cooperative and helpful incentives, and there can still be a market failure because nobody was paying attention to the large-scale consequences of all those individual actions. Hence the very purpose of a government.
None of this is remotely controversial or even that interesting.
... and there can still be a market failure because nobody was paying attention to the large-scale consequences of all those individual actions. Hence the very purpose of a government.
No. That is not the purpose of government. If you want to know what I think the purpose of government is, consult Bastiat.
Bastiat was wrong about the function of government and many other things. Sorry.
No dude, he nailed it with logic and reason.
You realize that if society remained primitive low-tech hunter-gatherers, you'd probably would have never been born..?
Whom, not who.
Your low economic prospects are caused by the low value of your skills and abilities, not Reaganomics.
Average philosophy major salary: $60k
That's not Ronald Regan's fault. That's "I chose an expensive degree to study something that should be learned for fun as a hobby"'s fault.
Yeah, it's not an accident that philosophers tended to die completely fucking destitute, if they didn't manage to acquire patronage from a wealthy noble or merchant. They weren't actually doing anything productive.
Did Keynes die destitute?
I'd say judging your worth as a human being by how economically productive you are (as determined by HR departments) is a limited and dismal perspective, but I also know that the great thing about owning a big boat is how distracting it can be from such concerns.
I'd say judging your worth as a human being by how economically productive you are (as determined by HR departments) is a limited and dismal perspective
Is it really? Obviously, it's not absolute. Lawyers and artists, exist, for example. But take a step back and ask, on the whole, what is money, really, but the worth that society as a whole places on something (be it a good or activity)? Society likes being able to log into a website, click on a product, and have it delivered to their door. Thus, Jeff Bezos is a billionaire, because lots and lots of people find his company tremendously valuable. Walmart stores provide a service that many people (especially the poor) like: cheap stuff. ExxonMobile digs up millions of gallons of gasoline that people want so that they can drive cars around. When someone provides a good or service that people want more than an alternative, it's more desirable and thus the provider can charge more money.
So really, on the whole, the economic activity (profit) generated by some activity is a fairly reliable measurement of how valuable the activity is, not according to the HR department, but according to the customers (i.e. the people). Jeff Bezos's giant yacht isn't built off the backs of exploiting people in warehouses, it's built off the wallets of people who like cloud computing services (and packages quickly delivered to their door). You can, of course, argue that society's valuation is incorrect, that Mr. Bezos is a monster or whatever, and that all right thinking people should use Azure or order items off of eBay or whatever competing service (feel free to start a better one yourself, if it's really that much better then people will pay you and the less socially valuable organization will die out and the more valuable one will thrive).
The devil is in all those qualifying adjectives you used. Obviously resources can be misallocated. We don't look to economic outcomes to find our values. We have values, then we design economies around them. I realize that's heresy to the more sociopathic approach of libertarianism.
It's not that Bezos is evil or owes none of his wealth to his own value to others, it's that nobody could possibly be so valuable to be that wealthy. His level of wealth is prima facie a misallocation. Just look at the equation. Bezos did whatever to create this successful company (although one that didn't have a profit for 14 years). Fine. He should be so comfortable that he basically never has to worry about his own comfort.
If he's worth fifteen thousand times the amount of wealth that is required to do that, then we've misallocated something somewhere, because that wealth could be feeding starving children. Again, our values come first. Starving children come before Jeff Bezos wanting to go to space. I don't need a market outcome to tell me that. And if it tells me the opposite, it's the market that's broken.
Way to hit a home run on every retarded progressive platitude in just a couple of comments.
Bezos being rich doesn't make you poorer or make more children starve. How idiotic are you to come to that conclusion? Based on your post, any resource you use is a net drain on the world economy and makes more children die.
Jeff Bezos has done more to efficiently allocate resources to create abundance to increase the average wealth in the country of just about anyone in history. Oil has brought more people out of poverty than anything else in history. But all you can focus on is your jealousy of others and some inane idea that you could allocate resources better than the marketplace and happily kill anyone who disagreed with you. Hmm, I wonder if we've ever seen that tried before and then noticed the mass murders that follow it.
Do you want to sound like anything other that a useless jackass? Start a small business doing anything, hire employees, pay them, pay taxes, and try to make a profit. Do that for all of one year and you realized what an idiot you currently are. Really you are pathetic.
So the market as it's currently structured is a perfect market? The best of all possible markets?
You've foreclosed on any corrections whatsoever to the status quo by appealing to Jeff Bezos's virtue, which you've measured in dollars, making the whole thing rather circular.
If someone made a trillion dollars trafficking children, would you be praising their entrepreneurship? Reread what I said about values. Jeff Bezos shooting himself to space uses resources. Those resources could have been used for something useful. He's too rich. He could be the most virtuous human who ever lived and that would be patently obvious to anyone but the most servile of ideologues who obey the ridiculous dogma that every dollar is exactly where it should be.
If he's worth fifteen thousand times the amount of wealth that is required to do that, then we've misallocated something somewhere, because that wealth could be feeding starving children.
The average yearly income in the Congo is $785 USD. Every single minimum wage pleb in the US is earning over 18 times that (assuming $7.25 an hour for 2000 hours). By your own argument, it's a dreadful misallocation to pay those people so much, and the vast VAST majority of their money should be confiscated to buy food for starving children in Africa.
It just sounds less monstrous when you want to do it to one person (Bezos), but really, it's just a matter of scale, but it's economic murder all the same.
That is a nonsense comparison, however, because the average person in Congo is a subsistence farmer. Those people are *not* paying cash for all the food they eat, out of that meager net income.
Actually, economic murder isn't a thing, though I applaud you for putting together two words I've never seen put together before.
Actually, yes, a perfectly simple ethical system would find it intolerable for anyone to be as rich as Jeff Bezos while anyone in the world starved. It's you who must jump through increasingly complicated rhetorical hoops to justify his keeping all that wealth (and the power that comes with it).
You just can't bring yourself to say that the market ever gets it wrong, because you don't have political beliefs, you have a religion.
Zero-sum thinking. Divide the small pie by force vs. make more pie. If you can't make pie, don't have kids.
So you are useless
I'd say judging your worth as a human being by how economically productive you are (as determined by HR departments)
Dying broke in a fucking ditch, or sponging off of others so one can mentally masturbate all day, is hardly a worthy existence.
I'm not an average philosophy major. I could sit here and rationalize my choices, but I've spent my whole life watching dumb people make money, have fulfilling relationships, and be generally happy, all without even a moment's concern about ethics or quantum mechanics. I wouldn't be a good philosophy major if I let my rationalizations of my own choices cloud my judgment in that way.
However, the benefit to my approach is that once you learn critical thinking, you can make things like math and business into a hobby. The other way around doesn't quite work.
Nothing personal Tony, as much as I disagree with you I think mean well like the child that releases the herd of angry cattle and causes people to be trampled to death I don't blame you.
But right here you're just plain wrong. Whatever you've learned or been taught about logic and reasoning is bunk.
Someone did you a disservice.
Start with set theory, or Venn diagrams. Start somewhere. But what you think you know about logical thinking is brown and smelly.
It's always so delightful when someone, who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about, comes around and declares that the most profound questions of existence can be reduced to a Venn diagram.
I don't go around to physicians and engineers and tell them their job is easy, even if it does look like glorified Legos from a distance.
It's always so delightful when someone, who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about, comes around and declares that the most profound questions of existence can be reduced to a Venn diagram.
That's quite the strawman. Did you enlist JesseAz in the creation of that one?
I don't go around to physicians and engineers and tell them their job is easy, even if it does look like glorified Legos from a distance.
Neither do I. But the principles they work on aren't hard to understand. And when I ask them for an explanation of what and why I'm able to understand the answer.
From what you're saying all these people who you think are smarter than you wear tall hats with stars and moons on them, and when they make a declaration you bow to their infinite wisdom.
The principles they work from are easy to understand because they are doing rote physical tasks with specific physical goals.
The first lesson in philosophy is that we're all idiots who know nothing. Only the smartest people ever figure out how stupid they are.
No wonder you believe that no student of science or logic has anything to offer.
Science and logic are great. They are a couple of my favorite branches of philosophy.
Then why do you reject them?
Sarc, what are you smoking? I'm among the 1% here who defends science and logic against a bunch of mouth-foaming dogmatists who can't handle facts that weren't spoonfed to them by a pundit.
The correction to science that philosophy is good for is in a sense quite technical and of no interest to almost anyone. Keep going science. Well done! No endeavor is better tuned to providing use for human beings.
No Tony. You follow scientism, not science. Science is wrong all the time. It acknowledges errors and works to fix them.
Logic is a means of arriving at conclusions from premises, not the other way around.
What you call science and logic works backwards while treating criticism as blasphemy.
"Science is wrong all the time."
Importantly, the incentives in science are precisely to prove established doctrine wrong. That's what gets you fame and glory. It's the opposite of dogma in that way, and why it's so useful.
We understand that this is no easy task, and proving the scientific consensus wrong isn't equivalent to going to some blog you found that confirms what you want to believe.
You are perilously close to defining science as literally the opposite of science and then accusing me of misapplied faith.
“I don’t like to rationalize my decisions, but my poverty is only due to my good thinking and integrity!”
Whatever you need to tell yourself while you avoid rationzalizations…
Tell it to Socrates. I happen to enjoy having money, as a hobby. I spend loads of time on it.
So, the best solution is to provide debt forgiveness based on stupidity?
What next, we shift needs based social welfare programs to low IQ preferences?
In practice, that's how it works out.
But the touch of bile in my throat on this subject is because I worked my ass off as a youth to get scholarships to college
Wait until you get a job and get that feeling about everything from housing to cars to healthcare. There's hope for you yet!
I probably would believe that the correct economic policy is whatever benefits me personally in the short term, if I were a little bit dumber.
We do have to keep in mind a major insight of modern economic theory, that other people prospering means I prosper too, since they'll be able to buy my products, and their dirty children don't litter my sidewalk asking for charity.
What does this have to do with economic policy. It's pure fairness: You should pay for the things you buy. Nothing is free. Someone pays for it, in the end. When that person isn't you, you're riding on their dime and trust me, when a lot of people start riding on your dimes you get really particular about how much riding they do, what kind of seat they should be sitting in, and whether they really need to ride at all. That's not selfishness, that's common sense.
And we pay for many things collectively. It's you who must explain why we draw up the ladder after property rights and national defense, not I who must defend doing exactly the same thing for healthcare and education. It follows obviously.
Because rent seeking is for losers.
It's you who must explain why we draw up the ladder after property rights and national defense
Explain what? What ladder? Property rights? What are you talking about, how are those costs socialized? National defense, obviously, but the rest of that makes no sense. Elaborate, please.
Property rights necessarily entail taxpayer-funded services. Legal documents and courts, police, and jails to enforce them.
And I don't know if you support having armed forces, but if you do, you are no government minimalist. The US Armed Forces, for example, is the largest socialist organization ever to exist. They even get free healthcare.
So, we = I and, just as obviously, 2=1.
That's not modern economic theory. That's the socialist's - and others - view of "fairness".
Somehow, it never quite works out that way.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." What a catchy slogan!
Softlee softlee catchee monkey.
"We?" paleface?
So... is it "I" or "we" who appointed Tony as spokesperson-for-the-proper-initiation-of-deadly-force?
The Bernie bros sole wish is for the gov to pay for everything they want
Yeah, I wouldn't even call them "socialists," since even socialism assumes that there's a productive workforce in place to pay for all the social welfare programs. They're emotionally stunted marxists who actually believe that they deserve an upper-class lifestyle for merely existing.
But the touch of bile in my throat on this subject is because I worked my ass off as a youth to get scholarships to college, and it feels like all that would be erased if the lesser students all got retroactive payments regardless of how dedicated they were to their education.
So you're capable of recognizing moral hazard when you're the one feeling the sting of it. I guess I'll take a dub where I can.
Now try to imagine someone who waited in the legal immigration line for 7 years while a dude who snuck across the border jumps the line ahead of you.
I absolutely recognize that normal, simple humans will throw absolute fits over even a small perceived unfairness in a policy, even if long-term they'd be better off. You do have to include human cognitive limitations in your political calculations. I've always said that.
Someone with a more holistic perspective might understand that how our society treats undocumented immigrants and how it treats by-the-books immigrants is an anti-freedom disgrace.
Eliminate policies that give out candy at seemingly random metrics and you won't have to worry about it. But that's not what you advocate for.
Undocumented immigrants are mostly refugees from U.S. government exportation of economy-wrecking asset-forfeiture prohibitionism the Libertarian Party has worked to repeal for half a century. Meanwhile Tony has done exactly what to stop the destruction of other people's economies? Whine? Vote looter?
This "progressivity" you speak of, does it require the initiation of harmful or deadly force to take from others that which they value?
First, the program should not exist.
Second, if it is going to exist, the first thing to do is put all schools under the same disclosure of enrollment to graduation to job to income disclosures as the "for profit" schools. Equal protection and all that jazz. See how many kids want to cough up for a degree that earns peanuts.
Third, only allow loans for the third and fourth years. By paying their own way the first two years the applicants demonstrate ability and capability. If they want a graduate degree, they can pay for it with the earnings of the bachelors degree.
Lastly, make the schools the guarantor, with the payments a percentage of the salary for the first number of years working. If the degree doesn't get the student a good enough job, the school sucks it up, not the taxpayer.
College debt is a good first lesson in fiscal responsibility.
-good debt is that which will improve your life by investing in something permanent, like education
-don't forget to complete that education. but even if you don't, some college, on average, improves lifetime earnings over no college.
-choose a major wisely, and borrow according to the value of that career path. Some degrees, like early childhood development have very little added earning potential. If the job can be done by any adult who can reliably show up to work, then it will pay commensurately poorly.
Better to choose a degree in something bloody challenging, then if you want to coast, do so after college.
Do life in this order: graduation, career, marriage, family.
Any other order is destined to work out poorly. Kids first, and single parenting is a sure path to low life achievement.
Them's the breaks if you do it that way.
but even if you don't, some college, on average, improves lifetime earnings over no college.
The only reason that's been indicative is because the people who do go to college tend to be status-strivers that are already driven to succeed from the beginning. Coorelation doesn't equate to causation here.
Fine. Forgive a portion of student loan debt.
Do it military style. Eight year contract to do work as they are told, semesters with grades below C average = no payment, must pass physical fitness tests and drug tests.
Not a reply to gasman. I hate this comment section. I fat finger stuff all the time.
Yep. During my working years, I encountered many people who had majored in social work, often going on to get an MSW. All they did was complain about how unfair life was that they didn't get paid more. They felt society owed them more because their work was so crucial to society.
Ditto for teachers.
Ditto for attorneys who, once the started practicing law and didn't rise the LA Law image within three years, left the practice of law.
See how that works?
cancel student debt right after the feds stop guaranteeing loans and Elizabeth Warren introduces legislation to go after the price gouging universities
Way to put the U.S. into even bigger inflation. Warren's policies are bound to fail.
But aren't community colleges sOcIaLiSm?!?
Being taxpayer supported and all.
Why isn't the fReE mArKeT creating colleges that gain a competitive edge by lowering tuition? There's certainly plenty of competition, plenty of choice.
Also, isn't a handout functionally the same as a tax cut? In the first case, you pay taxes then get the money back. In the second, you never pay the tax. It's all the same to your bank account.
Thus handouts are LiBeRtArIaN!!! Your problem with Bernie Sanders is he wants to give handouts to The Poor's instead of Jeff Bezos and his penis rocket.
Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich. That ain't libertarian.
Cancel the debt.
“If your free market is so good, why isn’t it overcoming all the government intervention in the market, huh? Tell me that!”
“ Also, isn't a handout functionally the same as a tax cut? In the first case, you pay taxes then get the money back. In the second, you never pay the tax. It's all the same to your bank account.”
By all means, consider cutting taxes as an alternative to handouts, and then you’ll quickly discover why you prefer one and not the other. It just requires thinking about one step ahead.
Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich. That ain't libertarian.
Found the deadbeat.
I mean, Jesus fuck--most of this debt is held by the upper middle class, not poor people. The bourgeoisie. And every single one of them took it on WILLINGLY, because they were told from birth that they needed a degree to join the elite, to be happy.
Don't get pissed at capitalism, get pissed at the people in the educational-industrial complex who sold you a bladder of hot air. If I could pay off my student loans in ten years, with a fucking humanities degree, no less, you can too. It requires something called discipline, which your shitty generation is admittedly extremely poor at when it comes to living in the real world. But maybe it's time you guys finally stopped acting like Peter Pan.
The missing concept for my generation is delayed gratification more specifically. You are still on target with this comment though.
So in other-words it was a, "Get your *FREE* checks here" program.
And anyone wonders why inflation is off the charts....
You can only STEAL so much; before there's nothing left to STEAL and some SERIOUS lethal poverty starts to materialize.
GUNS do not make human resources Leftard Criminals!!!!!!!!!!
The student loan crisis is a mess, but it was not created by students. The reason college is so expensive is because lenders pushed for this system and government backed it up because they did not want to fund financial aid. Once these funds were available, colleges just kept charging more amd more. Now, the only way to pay for college for most people is to take out a loan.
If the government sets up a booth outside McDonalds and hand out vouchers good for "One Meal Deal, up to $10", what will the cost of each Meal Deal at McDonald rise to?
When I was in UT engineering college tuition was under $400 a semester.
You want your Adult Responsibilities in the form of paying your own bills [a portion of which is ~your~ student loans] taken care of by somebody else, in this case the taxpayers, then you need to give up your Adult Privileges, starting with your Full Franchise.
You get your obligation for your Student Loans canceled if you agree to give up your right to vote for the full term that your loans would have run under the terms of the Loan Documents you agreed to.
If you can't agree to that then I can't agree to my tax dollars being used to pay your legitimate debts.
In the case of all other debts, we recognize that people can become unable to pay them, and we provide a second chance for them through bankruptcy. Only student loans have been granted eternal life, regardless of the debtor's ability to pay. Let's just make them equal by making student loans dischargable under bankruptcy. Those seeking that relief will not be asking anything we don't give other debtors.
On the day that a student, loaded down with debt, walks out of that college, they have no job, thus no means of being able to repay the loan, and can claim bankruptcy, immediately.
Allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy is saying none of those loans ever have to be paid off, except by the students, who foolishly get a paying job, before they graduate.
Not being able to discharge the loan is the other side of the fact that these students are being given what amounts to a signature loan, one with zero security provided to the lender, and a very large one at that, at an interest rate that no non-student could get, with the same lack of security.
And the government providing that security means that everyone else has to pay for what the student gains, unless the student pays all that money back.
Student loans are basically giving an unemployed person a low interest credit card with no limit. Not being able to discharge in bankruptcy is the price they pay.
"On the day that a student, loaded down with debt, walks out of that college, they have no job, thus no means of being able to repay the loan, and can claim bankruptcy, immediately."
Bullshit.
It's not though. If people weren't subsidized into college most of them wouldn't have the ability or assets to go in the first place. We all know most of them can't pay it back, part of the kayfabe is that this problem is taken care of by not allowing student loan debt to be discharged (in bankruptcy). A classic case of kicking the can down the road.
My point is that a judge is not going to grant a bankruptcy the day a graduate walks off the campus.
Also, things like car loans and mortgages have collateral. A student loan is not secured by anything--like a credit card. But credit cards carry high interest rates to cover the deadbeats who cannot/won't pay. Student loans aren't allowed to do that.
That's because they owe that money to the government. The government is usually not willing to let people off the hook. Try owing $50K in taxes...
The average student loan is hardly more than a car loan in size, with $28,950 owed per borrower on average, and with far better terms than any car note. A majority owe less than $50K.
PAY OFF YOUR DEBTS YOURSELF YOU MOOCHES!
Let judges in bankruptcy court determine who is able to pay off student debts and who isn't, just as we do for all other debtors. Nothing good is accomplished by hounding debtors into the grave over debts they cannot repay. That's why we have bankruptcy.
I'd let them be discharged in bankruptcy, if the contract (i.e., the government you're borrowing the money from) allows it. OTOH, unsecured student loans that are subject to bankruptcy will cost WAY more than the current crop of student loans.
When private lenders (credit card companies) are faced with a bankruptcy by a client, they can pass the costs on to their other customers in the form of higher fees and interest rates. You can choose to not be their client based on those rates, and thus not have to pay for their losses. When the government allows borrowers to slide, the government just takes more money from everyone to make up for their losses. You have no choice.
mooch. that's the word i use
interesting idea, and one i applaud, as long as we all agree that if you do that the number of loans granted will go to ZERO in 3 seconds. complete cessation. that said i say you have a great GREAT idea...let the lenders underwrite the kids and require the schools and parents to co-sign. let all the stake holders have some risk. whaddaya say vern?
After WWII, America was flush with cash. We built the interstate highway system and bankrolled teh GI Bill, basically paying student tuition for all the vets.
I don't think America maintaining its economic advantages for over half a century is unrelated to this head start, but I do wonder whether the budget cuts to public aid to higher education is responsible for the plethora of H1B visas at our tech firms and large number of immigrants in our hospitals and clinics.
We import skilled brains from other countries that pay for those skills. That works for us. Until the money back home starts to get closer to what America offers. When they stay home, we'll realize we ate our seed corn.
We'll need at least eight years to grow our own medical and technical base again. Maybe far more if Congress flinches at the budget needed. Maybe never if they convince themselves the free market has a solution for 18 year old high school graduates facing medical school tuition after telling them to go to community college.
Education is essentially a form of "dumping" highly skilled humans in our market, which cost more to make than they're selling them for, (forgive the unsavory idea of humans being a product) and we just accept the selling of these underpriced goods, wrecking our home markets. Do we get the WTO involved? Stop subsidizing doctors and sending them over here! Will that work? Will it solve our problem? What would be the consequences?
I don't forgive you.
I got an email from the Daily Kos:
"The Biden administration can make things right, and they are currently considering the best path forward for student debt cancellation. Canceling at least $50k in student loans would cancel all federal debt for the majority of student loan borrowers. The Biden administration must extend the student loan repayment pause until his administration announces a policy plan to implement immediate student debt cancellation of over 50k per borrower."
The key takeaway for me is that the majority of all student loan borrowers have debt less than $50K.
But those are the people we're supposed to cry about and pony up taxpayer dollars for? That's basically a car note, with far better terms. And how many of them would immediately turn around and borrow another $50K, to buy, say, a car?
You borrowed the money, You pay it off. Like millions of other people have already managed to do, on a lot less that a $15/hour "living wage".
Whether it makes you happy or not, the reality is that some student loan debtors will never be able to pay them off. Let them discharge the debt through bankruptcy. It's the fair solution.
"And how many of them would immediately turn around and borrow another $50K, to buy, say, a car?"
If we allowed them to discharge the debt through bankruptcy, NONE would be able to do that, because they wouldn't have the credit after a recent bankruptcy.
Many students took out student loans to buy cars and go on big spring break vacations and live in nice off-campus housing, and other non-education consumption spending.
These students would be rewarded if we forgave their loans.
When I was working through college, students bushwhacked by mystical prohibitionists over a handful of hemp roots or peyote buttons had to pay Big Brothers' Keepers $10 a month for their monthly interrogations. Now it is ten times a much, and the G. Waffen Bush asset-forfeiture Crash robbed many of job and investment opportunities. So before anyone whines about what the kids "owe" the looter Kleptocracy that robs, shoots and impoverishes them, show me repeal and expungement. Then we'll talk.
One take I haven't really seen on this issue is the people like me. I went to college for a few years at a community college and worked part time to pay for it. I joined the workforce right after the great recession and was working besides guys with full degrees at entry level retail. Since it's obviously a scam to go to college or to support the immoral oligarchy that benefits the most from this social gatekeeping apparatus, I stopped going. Then I built enough capital to buy a house, because you can learn economics online for free. I've paid taxes for a few years now, and funnily enough no one has anything to say about giving a nice $50,000 or more "loan" to me to pay my debt. Why aren't mortgages considered just like this? Why not have mortgage forgiveness? Fannie and Freddie basically own them all anyway, so it's a very analogous situation as far as I can see.
Not that I actually desire this! I would really rather everyone just vote libertarian.
Give it time
This is a long-arc kickback cycle of parasitism.
The Democrats promote federal student loans to left-leaning students.
Those students take on the huge student loans, which feeds into the leftist-run university system, who indoctrinate the students to vote Democrat.
The universities' administrators give giant campaign donations to Democrat politicians, who keep promoting federal student loans.
The Democrat politicians also promise student loan forgiveness so they can buy the votes of the left-leaning students, who are simultaneously being fed to the university parasites.
I wasn't aware that student loans were available only to left-leaning students.
Net effects.
Citing sources is too much important for any form of academic writing and it decides sometimes your grading. It elaborate to instructor that you are a good researcher and citation enhances
the credibility of your paper or academic work. Whenever you face too many challenges with citation, use a citation generator. Get Homework Help guide for students how to make referencing in writing tasks.
Visit: https://www.tutorsglobe.com/
Biden using government money to buy votes because his policies are so destructive.
Well to those considering this a good deal, realize you can pay now and be done, or go with Biden's program and pay the rest of your life for that load=n forgiveness. Don't be fooled.
There are many of us who did what we were told and "got a degree". Unfortunately, even "good" degrees from "good" universities turned out to be useless in 2000.
I am 55. Between a business degree in 2000 that was worthless in a downturn, to finding out I am Autistic, I have been unable to find anyone to hire me for more than #15/hr.
Which means that, using the Fed's own rules, my "income based repayment" has never been able to pay even the interest. My $36k student loans, locked in at 8.25% by law, now are over $125k - not because I haven't worked, but because the work I have been able to get can't pay it. (and if you think that simultaneously working one job working at a landfill and another running a septic sucker isn't work...)
I've done the math. There is no way for me to EVER pay off my student loans in the current economy and people's unwillingness to hire old white males with (high functioning) autism.
At some point my IBR will close and my $250,000+ "debt" will be 'forgiven' - and I will be handed a 1099 for over $50k in taxes.
Which I won't be able to pay.
I've been trying to be able to make enough to pay off my student loans for 22 years (in 2022). I have been legally insolvent for all of it. But I can't claim bankruptcy because a bunch of dirtbag lawyers and doctors abused the bankruptcy laws in the 70s.
I don't want 'forgiveness'. I want adversarial bankruptcy that can't be used immediately after graduation.
Either way, at this point, whether by "forgiveness", bankruptcy, or death, my worthless student loans WILL be absorbed by the Fed.
And there is nothing I can do about it.
i'll solve this shit right now.
1. make the schools that are fleecing the dopes backstop the kids that are overpaying for school and accordingly overborrowing. as it is it's the LEAST financially savvy part of the population is being offered loans they do not understand. make the schools co-sign...we'll see how long they keep up the tuition gouging and how long they keep peddling the "studies" courses.
2. make the families co-sign. those who know the kid best should put their ass in the air with the kids (and the school) and the scrutiny that follows MIGHT help the kids make better choices about both the school they attend and the majors they select. also the wisdom of electing to stay in school for grad level coursework (with the attendant MORE debt) instead of getting busy making the world a better place by contributing to the economy.
3. require ALL students to work summers. no year round classes for those taking loans unless it is the LAST 3-6 credits prior to graduation. they need to feed the kitty...once they pay a semester or two they'll open their eyes to reality.
4. no more private spendy colleges for loan takers. IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT DON'T GO. take a couple of years off and stack some cash. you'll be fine graduating at 24 as at 22. calif state colleges have a YEARLY tuition of $5,742 for in-state students. other states have equally good schools for prices you can afford.
if you cannot earn that much working summer and through the year you need to ask why.
Anyone with $100,000 of debt and no real degree gets a smack to the back of the head and a life of debt. sorry, i paid for my degree, and my kids, don't expect me to pay for yours too you mooch.
anyone with $150,000 is a doctor or a dumbass.
Lowering tuition will be hard at many schools. Much of the increase is due to rising pay which needs to compete with the private sector. Crazily, in many state schools professors make the same or less than surrounding k12 teachers. There certainly is room for cuts here and there but on the whole state schools are not a bad deal. One problem is that the media does not pick up on this and thinks universities are all ivy league full of wealthy professors and administrators. At most small to mid-sized state schools they are just bigger high schools with fancier labs.
That being said, this piece was a good one. I know the Reason crowd will disagree but we do need Humanities students. They are not all woke liberals but average people trying to apply critical thinking to society's problems. It has to be done otherwise who else will do it? The Catholic church? The Koch brother affiliated think tanks? The Ivy leagues seeded with funds from Billionaires? The truth is that state schools are the heart of our University system and they need to be fed not destroyed because of culture war distractions.