I was told there would be snacks.
On some days there are, but it’s normally around 3:00 at the bottom of the escalators.
In the US, with the student loans covered by Biden’s announcement, the government IS the lender. There is no bank involved in the federal student loans program, and private loans held by banks are not included in this forgiveness program. (Which also means that when students can’t repay the student loan, the taxpayer is the one bearing the loss in that case as well.)
[The feds used to guarantee student loans offered through various banks, but that ended in 2010. Now there are two basic types of student loans: direct from the feds, or completely separate from the feds and not affected by federal repayment moratoriums, forgiveness programs, or etc.)
She wrote an editorial in a UK paper to sway our government??
The Guardian is widely read outside of the UK…even in the US. I don’t know why she picked the Guardian or why they even decided to run it.
Click-bait, no doubt.
And in case anyone here does not know, in the United States, student loans generally cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
I’m not talking about the recent executive order on the forgiveness of the $10,000. You’re the first to bring it up.
As of 2022, 92.7% of all student loan debt in the US was federal. (cite) If you are talking about student debt in the US, you’re mostly talking about the federal government as the lender, with no bank or other lending institution involved.
Well I’m sure that @Odesio will be happy to learn that her wanting to hold lenders accountable as well, rests squarely on the shoulders of the Federal government.
From my perspective, the Federal government’s desire to make higher education more accessible has been poorly executed through the student loan program. All that did was increase demand, thus driving tuition costs through the roof. What would have resulted in a better outcome would have been to take those billions of dollars and make grants to public universities across the country to expand their capacity, hire more educators etc. and tuition would have come down, due to the increased supply, making education more affordable for everyone.
Twenty years later: The Federal Government never should have given grants to colleges. All they did was fix up their football stadiums, increase their administration, and give out raises to the professors. If they wanted to encourage students to go to colleges they should have made it more affordable my using loans and grants directly to the student.
I don’t know about the OP.
What seems really obvious to me is that the solution to the USA’s bizarre student debt problem doesn’t begin with just forgiving student debt at random. That doesn’t solve the problem at all, because student debt will continue to be accumulated, and within a few years the problem will be the same. The solution is to make it so tertiary education doesn’t cost as much as a house.
It is absolutely, totally certain that’s what will happen and just as many people will be in debt problems as the result of tuition within five years.
Public universities in the US are controlled by state governments (or county/city/other local), and subsidized by state/local tax dollars. What mechanisms would you want to see to persuade or compel the states to accept those grants, and having accepted them, not used them to replace other tax funding, leaving the tuition bills to increase on pretty much the same trajectory?
Grants can be made with conditions. You’re clueless with regards to how the higher education system works.
@RickJay I agree with you. Loaning out money to everyone that applies to college isn’t how you do that. Nor can the Federal govt. establish tuition pricing at universities across the country. It has to be done through incentives.
Money is fungible. But, thanks for calling me clueless.
Economics aren’t fungible and how behavior is driven, look at the current inflationary environment we’re in.
This seems super off-topic. As the OP, do you want to morph this into a discussion of economics and inflation?
Also, please explain what “economics aren’t fungible” means in the context of my statement or our broader conversation.
You claim that by making loans and grants directly to students will make it more affordable. No, it will make it inflationary, like it has. Yes $$$ are fungible, but who you give to will have drastic different economic outcomes.
My “money is fungible” comment was about giving money to schools – if you give it to them on the condition that they use it to pay teachers in order to keep tuition down, then the schools will take tuition money and use it to build a better football stadium.
Making loans and grants to students definitely and for sure made it more affordable. I’m sure it also drove prices up, but middle and lower income students couldn’t have afforded to go at all if it weren’t for loans and grants.