Warren Student Loan Forgiveness Plan

[Shodan]

@Airbeck

Anything else you’ve said outside of those words of the actual question are spin.

You are quite correct that what is said, apart from the actual question is spin. Unfortunately, you offered the cite as proof that

I know the GOP does not agree with this. “I love the poorly educated!” and all that.

It’s ok to just own that your party does not want American citizens to be educated.

Since the actual question did not ask “do you love the poorly educated?” nor “do you want American citizens to be educated?”, you are engaged, not very convincingly, in spin.

I would ask that you not try to put words in my mouth or tell me what I would say in your imagination.

This from the poster who claimed

you guys think college and education are bad things.

If you want to be taken seriously, argue seriously. Explain, for example, why it shows that we hate our children because we don’t want to increase the deficit with Warren’s hair-brained schemes. Or else just give us more “fuck the deficit because art is good” and “I’m not saying this is a good idea but if you criticize it you want children to suffer” or some other non-serious misrepresentations.

Regards,
Shodan

[HurricaneDitka]

@Airbeck

… I don’t trust the government to decide what knowledge I’m allowed to access or acquire.

No one at all is suggesting that the government should get to decide “what knowledge [you are] allowed to access or acquire”. They’re suggesting the government should be more judicious in which knowledge acquisition they should finance.

[Airbeck]

@XT

If you have us, collectively pay for it, then you ARE trusting the government to decide…unless, again, we just basically go with anything anyone wants to study, here is some money. The thing is, I don’t agree that every subject anyone would want to study is a benefit to society. Personally, I think mainly the engineering, science and the tech related stuff are beneficial, but that’s just me. But I think there are things that most in this thread WOULD agree are bullshit that society shouldn’t pay for. If an individual wants to study that shit, well, it’s their dime. But who decides what is or isn’t beneficial, or what the limits are? You? Me? Our politicians? It’s an issue and one I think you and others are glossing over in these types of discussions.

I don’t know if college should be ‘free’. That seems…wrong to me. I don’t know if the education would be as valued if it was a gift anyone could get anytime. By the same token, I agree with some of your point…an educated society is a better society. I think it should be, at best, a combination of our collective society chipping in some dough for part of an education (which would need to be defined wrt what we, collectively, want to pay for) and part of it should come from the person who wants that education…that way, everyone has some skin in the game, so to speak. The details are irrelevant at this point, but I don’t think that the US collectively taking on $1.4 trillion is something to take lightly, and, frankly, it doesn’t solve anything unless there are plans to rectify the core issues, as all it would do is give a loan now to folks who have already taken the classes…it won’t do shit to folks taking future classes. Saying we’d just pay for that too means we are talking about taking on half a trillion dollars or more additional spending every year, which doesn’t seem…optimal…either.

The problem is not everybody has aptitude in engineering, science and the tech related stuff. What about people that are good at stuff in different areas? We pay for the tech kids, but fuck the arts kids? Where do you think Art Teachers come from? Ideally people would be able to pursue the knowledge that they are interested in and have a talent for and then society would benefit from those talents.

When I was in college 20 years ago studying computer science, there were a lot of students in my classes that were clearly only there because everyone said you gotta go into computers, that’s where all the jobs are! But they had no real interest in the subject, had no desire to figure out how to solve the problems we were assigned to us, and I doubt had much ability to code when or if they graduated.

Chasing the degrees du jour is not the best plan either, because that changes. The degree that looks the most promising can completely go the other direction before you graduate. For me the dot com bubble burst in my senior year. I ended up with a great tech career eventually, but a lot of those kids that were only there for the jobs being promised were sorry when there weren’t any then and they now had a degree in something they weren’t even interested in.

[Airbeck]

@HurricaneDitka

No one at all is suggesting that the government should get to decide “what knowledge [you are] allowed to access or acquire”. They’re suggesting the government should be more judicious in which knowledge acquisition they should finance.

So they only want to decide what knowledge poor people are allowed to access or acquire?

[Urbanredneck]

Free college. Free healthcare.

Where will they find all that money?

[Airbeck]

@Shodan

You are quite correct that what is said, apart from the actual question is spin. Unfortunately, you offered the cite as proof that Since the actual question did not ask “do you love the poorly educated?” nor “do you want American citizens to be educated?”, you are engaged, not very convincingly, in spin. This from the poster who claimed

If you want to be taken seriously, argue seriously. Explain, for example, why it shows that we hate our children because we don’t want to increase the deficit with Warren’s hair-brained schemes. Or else just give us more “fuck the deficit because art is good” and “I’m not saying this is a good idea but if you criticize it you want children to suffer” or some other non-serious misrepresentations.

Regards,
Shodan

I cited and quoted a poll. Your spin tried to make the results seem opposite of what the very simple question asked.

It’s really rich coming from you to argue seriously. Especially when you try to twist the things I say that way.

I think I’m done with you. This is not going to be a productive use of time.

[Airbeck]

@Urbanredneck

Free college. Free healthcare.

Where will they find all that money?

Why don’t you ask the countries that actually offer these things where they get the money to do it.

Or just continue to wonder. Up to you.

[XT]

@Airbeck

The problem is not everybody has aptitude in engineering, science and the tech related stuff. What about people that are good at stuff in different areas? We pay for the tech kids, but fuck the arts kids? Where do you think Art Teachers come from? Ideally people would be able to pursue the knowledge that they are interested in and have a talent for and then society would benefit from those talents.

When I was in college 20 years ago studying computer science, there were a lot of students in my classes that were clearly only there because everyone said you gotta go into computers, that’s where all the jobs are! But they had no real interest in the subject, had no desire to figure out how to solve the problems we were assigned to us, and I doubt had much ability to code when or if they graduated.

Chasing the degrees du jour is not the best plan either, because that changes. The degree that looks the most promising can completely go the other direction before you graduate. For me the dot com bubble burst in my senior year. I ended up with a great tech career eventually, but a lot of those kids that were only there for the jobs being promised were sorry when there weren’t any then and they now had a degree in something they weren’t even interested in.

Again, if you want to take basket weaving or acupuncture or whatever, you can do that…no one is stopping you. But why should society pay for it? It’s when you are putting society on the hook to pay for it that it’s really an issue. Do you want to pay for someone to get a theology degree? How about a degree in climate science skepticism or anti-vax studies? Yeah, those aren’t real things, but if we pay for anything for anyone then people are going to take things that many will find objectionable.

I agree that chasing degrees that are useful today might not be useful tomorrow, but that brings up another can of worms when you are asking society to be on the hook for this stuff or paying off the loans on people who have gone after degrees that aren’t really applicable. What, exactly, are you proposing we pay for? Everything? Anything? No limits? If not, then I’m unsure why you are arguing as you are. If you are good with anything and everything, well…that is going to be a tough sell I think, if we are talking about ‘free’ education (which might not even be constrained to just degrees…why not certifications and other studies? Where do you draw the line?).

As for loan forgiveness, I’d rather see the efforts go into fixing the system first, THEN talk about loan forgiveness afterwards, when we have a clear idea what the system should be doing (and, more importantly, shouldn’t be doing that it’s doing today and that is causing the issues).

[HurricaneDitka]

@Airbeck

So they only want to decide what knowledge poor people are allowed to access or acquire?

Not at all. You are erroneously equating “access or acquire” with finance / subsidize / pay for.

For an analogy: I want you free to purchase whatever home you like. I don’t want the government to finance whatever extravagant purchase you may settle on.

[Airbeck]

You guys do know that there are countries that do this now, right? You make it seem like this is some crazy impossible idea, yet it actually exists right now. Why don’t you ask them how horrible it is for every citizen to be able to pursue the education they want.

https://www.independent.co.uk/student/study-abroad/free-university-education-courses-study-abroad-brexit-erasmus-students-germany-copenhagen-france-a7457576.html

[DrDeth]

@Airbeck

Why don’t you ask the countries that actually offer these things where they get the money to do it.

Or just continue to wonder. Up to you.

In general, they have higher taxes and a lower military budget.

[Ruken]

@steronz

The high cost of college has nothing to do with it? 65% of the country wouldn’t get a 4 year degree if it were affordable?

College costs have been steadily increasing since long before 2010. The number of high school students has been flat since 2006 and is expected (by ED’s NCES) to remain so. The rate of enrollment is also expected to stay flat, although I don’t know how NCES predicts this. This is despite rising tuition.

While I’m sure people forgo college due to cost, 65% of the county not getting a 4 year degree is also consistent with 65% of the country not being “college ready”. We already have some large percentage of students requiring remedial classes.

You mentioned Ohio State. Ohio has about the same number of students graduating from high school per year now as it did a decade ago. And that number is expected to decrease. Yet, per OSU’s Enrollment Services office (oesar.osu.edu), they had 36k undergrads enrolled at the Columbus campus in 2000. Now it’s 47k. These data do not support your conclusions about their tuition practices.

[begbert2]

@Ludovic

Of all the things that aren’t blatantly ridiculous, student loan forgiveness is one of the worse things I can think of to spend our money on, ranking behind most reparations, which I am not even in favor of. It would be an additional several trillion over the long haul coming out of nowhere. Healthcare and even a UBI would be a better use of our tax money (I say healthcare because while actually a net saver, it would look like it cost money because taxes would have to go up a little bit even if the country as a whole saves money.) With regards to the HBCU, I wonder if that money wouldn’t be better spend on underperforming high and primary schools, to make underprivileged children better prepared for college.

That said we could use more subsidies for state and local colleges and trade schools.

Is student loan forgiveness actually an expenditure? (Presuming that the person who is owed the money does the forgiving.) It’s money that doesn’t really exist anymore - the student doesn’t have it; the government doesn’t have it. It’s just a promise that the student will eventually pay the government something later; if the government shrugs and forgets about it then that doesn’t change anybody’s balances now.

[bump]

@begbert2

Is student loan forgiveness actually an expenditure? (Presuming that the person who is owed the money does the forgiving.) It’s money that doesn’t really exist anymore - the student doesn’t have it; the government doesn’t have it. It’s just a promise that the student will eventually pay the government something later; if the government shrugs and forgets about it then that doesn’t change anybody’s balances now.

Of course it is. Student loans are typically actually originated by private banks, subject to certain Federal guidelines and requirements. They’re guaranteed by the government, so the banks aren’t on the hook if the student defaults.

But if the Federal government has to pay all the banks off for all the loans they have outstanding- it’s as if all the people with loans simultaneously defaulted, leaving the Federal government holding the bag. Minus the negative hits to everyone’s personal credit of course.

[DrDeth]

@begbert2

Is student loan forgiveness actually an expenditure? (Presuming that the person who is owed the money does the forgiving.) It’s money that doesn’t really exist anymore - the student doesn’t have it; the government doesn’t have it. It’s just a promise that the student will eventually pay the government something later; if the government shrugs and forgets about it then that doesn’t change anybody’s balances now.

Yes. It is a Account receivable, money expected to come in. It changes the amount expected to come in, and also when it is paid, the amount received.

And of course, even Student Loan forgiveness was a thing, why shoudl anyone even try to pay off their student loans? Why not just enroll , take out 50000 in loans, drop out, spend the and have the loan forgiven?

It’s really a not well thought out idea.

However, what is driving the current student loan problem is two things:

1. Loans made for bogus diploma mills “colleges”. The GOp doesnt want to crack down on these because by and large they are making Republicans a lot of money.

2. The fact that they changed the Chapter 7 laws to exclude student loans.

Can Student Loans Now Be Discharged In Bankruptcy?

*Were Student Loans Ever Dischargeable In Bankruptcy?

Yes. Prior to 1976, you could discharge your student loans in bankruptcy.

Congress then changed the law: student loans were dischargeable if they had been in repayment for five years. Subsequently, that period was extended to seven years.

In 1998, Congress removed dischargeablility except if a debtor could show that paying back the student loans would create an undue hardship. In 2005, Congress extended this protection to private student loans.*

So all Congress has to do is change the law back to student loans would dischargeable if they had been in repayment for five (or seven) years.

Thus borrowers who were truly insolvent can get their student loan discharged, just like any other debt.

We dont need a mass student loan forgiveness program. We just have to let the bankruptcy courts work like they are supposed to without Congress meddling in them to serve special interests. Just Repeal the bad Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. That’s all they have to do.

[HurricaneDitka]

@begbert2

Is student loan forgiveness actually an expenditure? (Presuming that the person who is owed the money does the forgiving.) It’s money that doesn’t really exist anymore - the student doesn’t have it; the government doesn’t have it. It’s just a promise that the student will eventually pay the government something later; if the government shrugs and forgets about it then that doesn’t change anybody’s balances now.

I don’t know about “actually” an expenditure, but it’s not uncommon for the federal government to treat foregoing future receipts as an expenditure. For example, the Joint Committee on Taxation’s “Estimates Of Federal Tax Expenditures For Fiscal Years 2017 - 2021” says:

Tax expenditures are defined under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the “Budget Act”) as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” Thus, tax expenditures include any reductions in income tax liabilities that result from special tax provisions or regulations that provide tax benefits to particular taxpayers.

If foregoing the revenue the federal government would have received had they not allowed so many people to deduct so much of the SALT expenses for so long is properly viewed as a tax “expenditure”, I have a hard time seeing how the federal government potentially foregoing all the student loan repayment and interest revenue that’s supposed to be coming their way is properly viewed as anything but an “expenditure”.

[slalexan]

@Ruken

Hell we have a poster in this thread who admitted to taking out tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get an out-of-state chemical engineering degree instead of opting for cheaper options. If people respond to rising prices by just accepting them and borrowing more, then there’s no pressure to stem the rise.

Ouch. Thanks for that.

The reasons I went to this specific college was that they gave me what I felt were the best options for college. I had family there and would not have to pay for housing. I would have support there even though I was away from my immediate family. The colleges “close” to my family weren’t close enough to live with them without a car of my own and I wouldn’t have been able to major in Chemical Engineering. Even though I was out-of-state, the admissions assured me that I could get in-state tuition (saving many tens of thousands) if I did a few things.

I understand what you are saying about the market and the fact that there isn’t any pressure to stem the rise in cost. However, I dislike the implication that I was stupid in “just” accepting their higher costs. Once you start college, you are very much incentivized to finish, lest you be left with nothing.

[HurricaneDitka]

@bump

Of course it is. Student loans are typically actually originated by private banks, subject to certain Federal guidelines and requirements. They’re guaranteed by the government, so the banks aren’t on the hook if the student defaults.

But if the Federal government has to pay all the banks off for all the loans they have outstanding- it’s as if all the people with loans simultaneously defaulted, leaving the Federal government holding the bag. Minus the negative hits to everyone’s personal credit of course.

That’s the way it used to work. Since ObamaCare, the federal government is loaning the money themselves. Banks aren’t involved in the process really at all anymore (which came as a bit of a surprise to Maxine Waters too, I think, so don’t feel bad)

[DrDeth]

@HurricaneDitka

That’s the way it used to work. Since ObamaCare, the federal government is loaning the money themselves. Banks aren’t involved in the process really at all anymore (which came as a bit of a surprise to Maxine Waters too, I think, so don’t feel bad)

Private student loans still exist.

Private Student Loans for College | Discover

[UCBearcats]

How about helping the job market and increased pay for those who graduate? The average middle class person has virtually stagnant pay over the last several decades. The 1% is getting all of the wealth created during that time. If wages increased, then repayment would not be an issue.