That’s what I have been saying all along, especially when people talk about total loan forgiveness, which has also been discussed.
I’m sitting on five figure student loan debt for signing up for online classes just to get a Bachelor’s Degree because that’s what all the job ads said was required back when I was laid off during the Great Recession.
There’s no way you can convince me that those piddling little courses were worth over forty grand. But I was convinced that without a Bachelor’s Degree on my resume, I wouldn’t even score an interview. And I was desperate, jobless with a sick mom and no responses in three months of searching.
So if you resent me for getting this break which only lessens my burden, and doesn’t eliminate it, allow me to invite you to kiss my ass.
I like to think I earned my degree as cheaply as was feasibly. I took every course I could at the local community college (paid out of pocket) and finished off the rest at an in-state public university, one of only a few in the state offering my degree. I applied for several scholarships and grants and worked part-time throughout (full-time during the summer). I still ended up with five-figure debt.
Given the field I landed in (civil engineering), I suspect I would’ve had no problem paying off the loans eventually, but having $20k wiped out (I did get a Pell grant) is very welcome news to me.
Great news! You’re not going to pay higher taxes as a result of this program. I assume you’re on board now.
It’s not paid for, by a reduction in other government expenses. Which means all taxpayers are going to pay.
Agree. I always wondered why the colleges themselves do not lend directly, thereby entering the equation (and sharing some of the risk) with the student. I would think colleges would have more flexibility in terms of forgiveness, or having students work-off debt as they go, and the college would also have some skin in the game. As it is now, colleges have a free ride regarding the risk - if the graduate can’t get a job, no worry - the college still got paid.
Whip dee friggin ding dong. That’s not what @mbh was concerned about.
How does that work? The government (the lender) is going to reduce someone’s college debt by $10K/$20K, so they are not going to collect that amount, but will collect on the rest. How does that translate to higher taxes, or even dipping into taxpayer funds? If anything, ISTM it just lowers revenue, by a tiny amount, and seems like something we can afford, given the good it will do.
The government is going to spend some $300,000,000,000 in paying off those loans. Where does the money come from?
Some of my coworkers earning less than $30,000 a year but having a loan payment of $500/month or more. Not everyone qualifies for the programs already in place.
The government paid the schools and was expecting to get the money back from the student. If the student doesn’t pay back the loan then the money has to come from some other source, likely taxes.
I mean, this is a drop in the bucket compared to the Trump tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts, but it will increase the deficit, holding all else equal. And, that increase will (eventually) have to get paid back.
One may be able to make the case that a less indebted graduate could be more productive and so this will return more than it costs (that’s what all the tax cut lovers say, even though there’s no real evidence to that effect). I don’t have any studies that say that a $10k reduction in debt for some borrowers will have that multiplier effect, though.
That’s unfortunate. Still, it seems like expanding the existing programs to catch the edge cases might have been the better approach. Any idea why they didn’t qualify?
My understanding is that Biden did what he could do without needing congress’s help. There are definitely better ways to handle education in this country, costs, debts, overall burdens, but the Executive Branch can only do so much with a useless congress.
This was something he could do. He couldn’t get rid of the interest payments or do other interesting things.
Just one year ago, Speaker Pelosi said that the President couldn’t do that without Congress. What’s changed?
I saw some more information, and apparently the distinction is that only a Pell Grant recipient’s undergraduate loans would be eligible for the full $20,000. Graduate loans are capped at $10,000 regardless. So if a Pell Grant recipient got their bachelor’s degree debt-free but took out loans for their graduate studies, they can only get the $10,000.
If you take out a loan, you should pay it back.
I guess she was wrong? I’m not sure what to tell you.
I imagine there will be lawsuits that will claim the same things and the judiciary will be the judge of whether he has that power.
What if the loan is forgiven? Should you pay it back then? Seems like a bad move in that case.
This sounds very familiar. President Obama said he couldn’t do DACA by executive order, then he did anyway.
Should, yes. But our society has bankruptcy courts to relieve overly burdensome debt. Who are not allowed to discharge student loans. Until that loophole is closed, I see little reason for the holder of the student debts to not forgive them in some cases.