|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Show nested quote +On February 19 2021 16:06 dp wrote:On February 19 2021 15:46 Zambrah wrote:
So almost half of college debt is owned by people in the bottom 60% of income, thats still a massive chunk of people who would benefit from student debt relief.
Thats the problem with the hyper-means-tested budget-austerity policy, it ignores tons of people in legitimate need because it believes that its preferable to let people suffer than to benefit some people who won't strictly require that help. Is letting people fall through the cracks really a worth making sure some other people who might not need help dont get it? I disagree vehemently. The premise is that there is an overwhelming burden due to these loans, huge %'s defaulting etc. But reality is that a large portion of the total loan amount is from graduates with professional degrees. They earn significantly more over their careers, don't default and make out on this investment. "It's hard on people" is not some kind of policy angle that should be entertained. Someone with a bachelors degree earns a median income double someone with a high school diploma. Triple of those that don't have one. I still have not seen a study that refutes that old one pointing out college educated workers will earn a million dollars more than their undereducated competition in the job market over the course of their careers. There is simply no justification to alleviate debt from the high earning individuals. There are loan forgiveness programs, loan repayment plans that allow payments to not exceed 10-15% of disposable income, down to 0$ for those that don't earn enough. Having debt hanging over you that will be forgiven at some point if you file paper work once a year and make minimal payments is not some societal ill that should be taking center stage. On February 19 2021 15:46 Zambrah wrote:I'd also like to look at those numbers if you have any sources for them, I have a hard time imagining that 66% of defaults are coming from people who have less than 10,000 dollars in debt. I'll check tomorrow if you want since it's late and I took the numbers off an old convo I had with someone. To give the other numbers i had in that, if you forgive those with 20k of debt, you would help 56.2% of borrowers, 214.1 billion total cost and that range covers 84% of all defaults. That's over half of all borrowers, nearly all defaulters and at a cost, what 1.4-1.5 trillion dollars less than total college debt relief?
"It's hard on people" is absolutely something that has to be considered when making policy. Thats the kind of logic that says we should just keep everything open and do nothing about the corona virus. The corona virus is an example of the kind of hardship that society would often decide the government has a responsibility to act on for the good of the populace.
Police brutality is also hard on black people, so if we remove "its hard on people" as a policy angle then by that logic we should just keep letting police do as they are do non-white people? There are plenty of other examples, but society has absolutely decided that hardship is a worthwhile policy angle on a multitude of fronts.
I'd also like to say that "earn significantly more" doesn't really mean a lot given the state of the real economy in the US. If wages had kept up with inflation the minimum wage in this country would be over 20 dollars an hour. Student loans are just an additional straw on the camel's extremely overburdened back. Wages in the US are shit, the younger generations are notably poorer than the Reagan and pre-Reagan generations, wealth has concentrated upwards in a serious way, and student debt cancellation is only one of many facets that can help address the miserable state of the US real economy.
"high earning individuals" just doesn't mean much when the vast majority of Americans make a historically small amount of money.
If I had to summarize this point, I guess its that terms like "earn significantly more" and "median income double someone with a high school diploma" aren't easy disqualifiers of the idea of student debt cancellation because they're contextualized in a very mediocre real economy.
While I may agree that student debt isn't a societal ill that necessarily needs to take center stage, the massive income inequality in the US absolutely is a societal ill that needs to take center stage, and student debt cancellation would free up a lot of the younger generations ability to engage in things like the housing market and make the US economy just a little bit more equitable. Its not some perfect stand alone solution obviously, but as one part of a patchwork of things to do it has plenty of merit in alleviating financial strain on an already very overburdened American populace.
We likely wouldn't even be talking about this if either political party could be trusted to do the kind of major wealth redistributive change required to actually meaningfully impact wealth inequality in America, so we're really grasping at whatever straws are within arms reach, it just so happens student debt cancellation is something Biden has the power to potentially do.
|
On February 19 2021 14:40 dp wrote:
10k in student loan forgiveness is the maximum that should even be considered at all. This whole 50k or total debt forgiveness is nonsense. "It will be a great for the economy!" Sure, instead lets give 1.6 trillion but only to non college educated earners instead. Im sure the economy will boom from that too. And would probably make more sense.
I prefer the idea of doing both more or less (include trade schools, regionally/inflation adjusted minimum wage/UBI, etc). There's been at least that much wealth transferred to the top 1% relatively recently and taxing the beneficiaries in the highest earning/wealth brackets more (the people that don't need the help), sounds better to me than not helping millions of desperate people until you can exclude affluent people from benefiting too.
But to avoid getting carried away, I think it's fair to start with the expectation Biden cancel the $10k he says he wants to cancel and letting Republicans fight that in court and congress if they want. It's something he could have done already and every day he waits is a self-inflicted wound.
Having failed to deliver on the "immediate" part of the "$2000 checks" it's the least he could do imo.
EDIT: Maybe Kwark or someone could offer insight as to whether the moratorium on (required) payments and interest has any potential cost for the gov/benefit for affluent people. For instance: + Show Spoiler +an affluent person pays less because they didn't/don't stop paying when the interest is/was paused.
|
On February 19 2021 16:04 Salazarz wrote:
I'm not American so maybe that's why, but I don't understand how is student loan forgiveness a serious topic to discuss at all. I do believe that education should be free or close to free, and that the way things are in America right now are massively messed up on that front. But at the same time, college graduates do earn a lot more on average than non-graduates do; graduate jobs are, for the most part, more desirable than non-graduate ones, it's a status symbol, it's a big life experience, etc. All of the people who went to college to date have done so knowing the price of it. They might not have understood the price very well, but at the very least they were aware of it. Then there are millions of people who had not gone to college, some of them because they didn't want to, but a large percentage of them because they didn't have the means to do so. Deleting the student debts, and especially deleting the student debts without at the same time massively reforming the higher education system, is a huge fuck you to everyone who hasn't gone to college, and a slightly smaller (but still very sizable) fuck you to those who did go to college but has already paid off their loans. And what about all the people who might have been saving up for college up until now because they didn't want to get into debt? 'Hey guys, had you just gone to college without a care about the loans you'd incur, we'd have waved them away now and you'd have studied for free. But that doesn't mean you can go study for free now, no sir, that was a limited time offer and you've missed it!'
As someone who has paid for 2 undergrad degrees and a masters out of pocket in the UK (which is better, but not massively so in that regard than the US), I'd absolutely go out and protest against this sort of thing.
This amounts to 'something shitty was done to me so I believe everyone else should also have to go through this shitty thing'.
|
It's the same as the arguments against universal non-divided healthcare, "I paid into the system so everyone should need to do so".
That being said the change that is required is obviously that colleges need to be free since the ones that are already studying likely have some means to do so, while the ones that aren't might be stopped by the fact that it isn't free. Student loan forgiveness itself is something I'd regard more as a cleanup step after that that mostly catches the guys that fell for the loan sharks or stopped studying and therefore have the debts but no way to earn more money.
The whole discussion is pretty mindboggling tbh, the only somewhat serious argument for college fees is that students need some kind of financial pressure so they don't just twiddle their thumbs, which is a very minor argument in comparison to all the power an economy looses for every potential grad that doesn't start because he can't afford to. To boot you loose a bunch of researchers that could actually advance your nation.
Then again paying off student loans while not fixing that the next generation will just accumulate the same debt is perfectly in line with my impression of US inner politics, which is that they "solve" problems by throwing money at it instead of fixing the underlying issue, which would be less flashy (and tbf likely get reversed in 4-8 years). In this regard I'm very happy to live in Europe where inner politics actually bring change.
|
Northern Ireland25497 Posts
On February 19 2021 18:28 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2021 16:04 Salazarz wrote:
I'm not American so maybe that's why, but I don't understand how is student loan forgiveness a serious topic to discuss at all. I do believe that education should be free or close to free, and that the way things are in America right now are massively messed up on that front. But at the same time, college graduates do earn a lot more on average than non-graduates do; graduate jobs are, for the most part, more desirable than non-graduate ones, it's a status symbol, it's a big life experience, etc. All of the people who went to college to date have done so knowing the price of it. They might not have understood the price very well, but at the very least they were aware of it. Then there are millions of people who had not gone to college, some of them because they didn't want to, but a large percentage of them because they didn't have the means to do so. Deleting the student debts, and especially deleting the student debts without at the same time massively reforming the higher education system, is a huge fuck you to everyone who hasn't gone to college, and a slightly smaller (but still very sizable) fuck you to those who did go to college but has already paid off their loans. And what about all the people who might have been saving up for college up until now because they didn't want to get into debt? 'Hey guys, had you just gone to college without a care about the loans you'd incur, we'd have waved them away now and you'd have studied for free. But that doesn't mean you can go study for free now, no sir, that was a limited time offer and you've missed it!'
As someone who has paid for 2 undergrad degrees and a masters out of pocket in the UK (which is better, but not massively so in that regard than the US), I'd absolutely go out and protest against this sort of thing. This amounts to 'something shitty was done to me so I believe everyone else should also have to go through this shitty thing'.
I’m not so sure, in general I find that attitude does hamper progress in all sorts of areas, in this one perhaps not.
Without other reforms you’ll be handing cash to the people who took the college route and did get that commensurate earning boost, it’ll help those who are saddled with debt who didn’t get that earning boost, and those who didn’t go the college route remain as before, some of whom may have wanted to go to college but eschewed it due to said debt. The next generation of students are still going in to the same system, out of a global pandemic and all the uncertainty there, potentially saddled with the same kind of debt as those who came before but in a period of profound economic uncertainty.
Student debt is much more of a hot button issue in the States, aside from other factors as the cost of tuition is unfathomably insane.
We live in the high water mark in human history for ease of access and reproduction of information and fees are ever-rising counter to that. Throwing money to alleviate debt without looking at how and why it’s being accrued is just pissing money away.
This is absolutely not to say I don’t favour some kind of help in this area, but not if it skips out other reforms. With the exception of slashing the interest rates on these loans, which are pretty damn predatory.
|
On February 19 2021 16:06 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2021 15:46 Zambrah wrote:
So almost half of college debt is owned by people in the bottom 60% of income, thats still a massive chunk of people who would benefit from student debt relief.
Thats the problem with the hyper-means-tested budget-austerity policy, it ignores tons of people in legitimate need because it believes that its preferable to let people suffer than to benefit some people who won't strictly require that help. Is letting people fall through the cracks really a worth making sure some other people who might not need help dont get it? I disagree vehemently. The premise is that there is an overwhelming burden due to these loans, huge %'s defaulting etc. But reality is that a large portion of the total loan amount is from graduates with professional degrees. They earn significantly more over their careers, don't default and make out on this investment. "It's hard on people" is not some kind of policy angle that should be entertained. Someone with a bachelors degree earns a median income double someone with a high school diploma. Triple of those that don't have one. I still have not seen a study that refutes that old one pointing out college educated workers will earn a million dollars more than their undereducated competition in the job market over the course of their careers. There is simply no justification to alleviate debt from the high earning individuals. There are loan forgiveness programs, loan repayment plans that allow payments to not exceed 10-15% of disposable income, down to 0$ for those that don't earn enough. Having debt hanging over you that will be forgiven at some point if you file paper work once a year and make minimal payments is not some societal ill that should be taking center stage. Show nested quote +On February 19 2021 15:46 Zambrah wrote:I'd also like to look at those numbers if you have any sources for them, I have a hard time imagining that 66% of defaults are coming from people who have less than 10,000 dollars in debt. I'll check tomorrow if you want since it's late and I took the numbers off an old convo I had with someone. To give the other numbers i had in that, if you forgive those with 20k of debt, you would help 56.2% of borrowers, 214.1 billion total cost and that range covers 84% of all defaults. That's over half of all borrowers, nearly all defaulters and at a cost, what 1.4-1.5 trillion dollars less than total college debt relief?
It is very telling that you know a ton of people would need loan forgiveness but it’s the undeserving folks that make you want to scrap the whole thing.
|
On February 19 2021 18:28 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2021 16:04 Salazarz wrote:
I'm not American so maybe that's why, but I don't understand how is student loan forgiveness a serious topic to discuss at all. I do believe that education should be free or close to free, and that the way things are in America right now are massively messed up on that front. But at the same time, college graduates do earn a lot more on average than non-graduates do; graduate jobs are, for the most part, more desirable than non-graduate ones, it's a status symbol, it's a big life experience, etc. All of the people who went to college to date have done so knowing the price of it. They might not have understood the price very well, but at the very least they were aware of it. Then there are millions of people who had not gone to college, some of them because they didn't want to, but a large percentage of them because they didn't have the means to do so. Deleting the student debts, and especially deleting the student debts without at the same time massively reforming the higher education system, is a huge fuck you to everyone who hasn't gone to college, and a slightly smaller (but still very sizable) fuck you to those who did go to college but has already paid off their loans. And what about all the people who might have been saving up for college up until now because they didn't want to get into debt? 'Hey guys, had you just gone to college without a care about the loans you'd incur, we'd have waved them away now and you'd have studied for free. But that doesn't mean you can go study for free now, no sir, that was a limited time offer and you've missed it!'
As someone who has paid for 2 undergrad degrees and a masters out of pocket in the UK (which is better, but not massively so in that regard than the US), I'd absolutely go out and protest against this sort of thing. This amounts to 'something shitty was done to me so I believe everyone else should also have to go through this shitty thing'.
Thank you very much for your reductionist strawman that contributes nothing to the conversation.
On February 19 2021 20:04 Archeon wrote:
It's the same as the arguments against universal non-divided healthcare, "I paid into the system so everyone should need to do so".
That being said the change that is required is obviously that colleges need to be free since the ones that are already studying likely have some means to do so, while the ones that aren't might be stopped by the fact that it isn't free. Student loan forgiveness itself is something I'd regard more as a cleanup step after that that mostly catches the guys that fell for the loan sharks or stopped studying and therefore have the debts but no way to earn more money.
The whole discussion is pretty mindboggling tbh, the only somewhat serious argument for college fees is that students need some kind of financial pressure so they don't just twiddle their thumbs, which is a very minor argument in comparison to all the power an economy looses for every potential grad that doesn't start because he can't afford to. To boot you loose a bunch of researchers that could actually advance your nation.
Then again paying off student loans while not fixing that the next generation will just accumulate the same debt is perfectly in line with my impression of US inner politics, which is that they "solve" problems by throwing money at it instead of fixing the underlying issue, which would be less flashy (and tbf likely get reversed in 4-8 years). In this regard I'm very happy to live in Europe where inner politics actually bring change.
The problem here isn't in the loan forgiveness itself. It's just that simply writing off the existing loans without doing anything else to address the issue doesn't actually fix the problem, it just kicks the can further down the road for the next generation to deal with. You're leaving future college graduates with the very same loans on their shoulders, and the consequences of the trillions of debt you simply disappeared to deal with. And if the argument here is that student loans don't actually contribute anything to the budget / economy because of this or that reason... wouldn't it make sense to get rid of them entirely, then? By keeping the existing tuition & loans system intact, you're acknowledging that there is very real money involved in it, and that is money that future students will be paying one way or the other. So don't tell me how this silly loan forgiveness that benefits a completely arbitrary group of people many of which don't even particularly 'need' it while leaving countless future students to face the very same problem you're supposedly solving is just me wishing suffering I have experienced myself upon others. If I was using the same bad faith strawman arguments, I could just say you're only calling for loan forgiveness right here and now because you don't want to pay off your own student debts and don't give a shit about the impact it would have on future students. How's that for a hot take?
A simple enough 'bandaid' that would be both cheaper and much more effective in the long run would be a loan deferral system like the one most European countries that don't have completely free education offer -- make it so that student loans only need to be paid off after the graduate has a salary of X or more. That way folks who can't get a proper job aren't driven to bankruptcy and suicide by their debt, and folks who are actually benefiting from their education pay their dues. I don't see how a blanket loan forgiveness is 'better.'
|
We definitely need to overhaul our entire approach to post-secondary education in the United States. That includes at least three criteria:
1. Forgiving current student loan debt in some capacity, whether it's 50% or 75% or 100% of the remaining costs for everyone;
2. Creating a proactive plan for future students so that they don't fall into the same trap, such as capping tuition costs based on socioeconomic status, which would proportionately, and significantly, reduce loans/debt (if unable to make college tuition actually free for everyone in the future);
3. Continuing to encourage high school graduates to consider university, but also advertise reasonable alternatives that some young adults may prefer, such as trade/vocational schools.
|
|
|
On February 19 2021 22:53 JimmiC wrote:
Politically this is only popular with those who have loans, which makes up a small % of the voting pool. How many of the people who are super invested in this as an issue here do not themselves have loans? You can see this playout when you look at Sanders popularity. He kills it with university educated white people who find themselves in or just below the shrinking middle class, and he does not do nearly as well as the very poor. To the very poor this looks like the rich getting richer, because to them people who are drowning in debt from their schooling, car, house, credit cards getting star bucks clothes and so on are rich because they were able to get the credit to get those things in the first place.
I'm super invested in this, as an issue, despite not having any loans, because I'm an educator and I've taught at both the high school and college levels in the United States... and I want to make sure all my students have a variety of opportunities for success.
Also, I'm a little skeptical of your claim that the only people who care about this issue are people who currently have loans. I know that plenty of young families would at least like the option to have their kids go to college, if that ends up being the best post-secondary decision for them, and a huge reason why that opportunity might not exist is due to cost. If a college education (and college diploma) make you more attractive in the job market, and potentially earn you more money, then college is one path towards upwards mobility out of a very poor life. Drowning in student debt ensures that you can't leave the vicious cycle of poverty, even with good intentions, but the removal of a significant financial burden can definitely open doors for many people who otherwise wouldn't have access.
There are other ways to help the people who have student loans and do need it, that also helps those who need help and don't have student loans.
I agree with you, but not every piece of legislation has to help 100% of people, all the time. Forgiving student loans and creating a game plan for the future of American education doesn't mean we don't care about helping other people in other ways too.
|
First off, we explicitly addressed this "addresses the symptom not the cause" argument about two pages back. Everyone knows this, but the problem is that you can't get education cost reform through the Senate with a 50/50 split. Forgiving student debt is still a meaningful change because it helps millions of people and these people aren't likely to re-accumulate that same debt. It would be an incredible boost to the economy, particularly the generation that is just hitting what should be its peak spending power phase of life (e.g. buying new homes, having children, buying cars, etc. etc. etc.).
Second, these arguments against it are very reminiscent of 1) "If I had to pay it they should to" (people have been explaining why this is a bad argument for a long time) and 2) arguments against pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Third, arguments like this
All the people who sacrificed "stuff" to pay off their loans (which is going to be everyone who has paid of their loans) will be mad that people who made bad choices are getting bailed out and they are getting punished for being responsible. It won't matter that there is lots of people who do need this, because there are lots who don't who will get it and that will be the focus of people who did not get it.
Are straight out of conservative playbooks. Arguing that some people that don't deserve it will benefit and therefore we shouldn't do it at all is a foundational concept in conservative thought. As Zambrah said, I think it's much more ethically sound (and economically important) to help the countless people that really need it instead of worrying so much about a few people "not deserving it" that you don't help people at all.
It's important to remember that "don't need it" is also an improper framing device to look at this with. Almost everyone who receives student loan forgiveness will benefit from it. It will benefit the economy in huge ways because even if you forgive debt for people making more money, it will still allow them to spend more money and help the economy. The only group of people that won't receive a stimulus from forgiveness are those that still have debt but already make a truckload of money (i.e. high six figure incomes). This is an extremely small minority of the debt-saddled population and people here are definitely overstating how many people have student debt and "don't need it".
The practical problems of who "doesn't need it" are also difficult. Do you base that threshold purely off of income? If so, why not just build an income threshold into a debt forgiveness plan instead of saying it's "bad policy" wholesale? Then of course you run into the problem if prospective future earnings. I may be starting medical school soon, but I currently make less than median yearly earnings in the U.S. Should I not have my debt forgiven because my prospective future career is a 6 figure salary? Is it acceptable to assume that the people currently in school for a higher earning salary shouldn't get any debt relief, especially when these students finishing school and getting a job isn't guaranteed? What about the fact that many of these "high earners" don't actually earn a ton of money after all? Once they hit the job market, many lawyers make absolute trash money, most primary care physicians also make a terrible income relative to their debt load.
Ideas of "the average degree holder earns a bunch of money" fails to realize that this is heavily skewed by the outliers. The average lawyer isn't a high flying corporate lawyer that makes a ton of money. The average physician, particularly a primary care physician, is absolutely swimming in debt that completely dwarfs their income for an incredibly long time (not to mention making maybe $50,000 a year for several years after school while in residency). Many, many, many college degree holders either have a difficult time finding a job or are forced to take a job that isn't in their field and doesn't even require a college degree. Even STEM and computer fields are becoming over-saturated in a lot of areas of the country.
|
On February 19 2021 23:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2021 22:53 JimmiC wrote:
Politically this is only popular with those who have loans, which makes up a small % of the voting pool. How many of the people who are super invested in this as an issue here do not themselves have loans? You can see this playout when you look at Sanders popularity. He kills it with university educated white people who find themselves in or just below the shrinking middle class, and he does not do nearly as well as the very poor. To the very poor this looks like the rich getting richer, because to them people who are drowning in debt from their schooling, car, house, credit cards getting star bucks clothes and so on are rich because they were able to get the credit to get those things in the first place.
I'm super invested in this, as an issue, despite not having any loans, because I'm an educator and I've taught at both the high school and college levels in the United States... and I want to make sure all my students have a variety of opportunities for success. Also, I'm a little skeptical of your claim that the only people who care about this issue are people who currently have loans. I know that plenty of young families would at least like the option to have their kids go to college, if that ends up being the best post-secondary decision for them, and a huge reason why that opportunity might not exist is due to cost. If a college education (and college diploma) make you more attractive in the job market, and potentially earn you more money, then college is one path towards upwards mobility out of a very poor life. Drowning in student debt ensures that you can't leave the vicious cycle of poverty, even with good intentions, but the removal of a significant financial burden can definitely open doors for many people who otherwise wouldn't have access. Show nested quote +There are other ways to help the people who have student loans and do need it, that also helps those who need help and don't have student loans. I agree with you, but not every piece of legislation has to help 100% of people, all the time. Forgiving student loans and creating a game plan for the future of American education doesn't mean we don't care about helping other people in other ways too.
How does forgiving the existing student debt and calling it a day in any way helpful for the future students? The main problem people like me or JimmiC have with this idea isn't that forgiving loans is bad, it's that forgiving loans is an incredibly expensive measure that does nothing at all to actually address the issue; it just gets the folks who have debt right here and now off the hook. It's like sitting in a house on fire and instead of actually putting the fire out, you're just cranking the AC up and saying that did it.
|
|
|
On February 19 2021 23:34 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2021 23:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2021 22:53 JimmiC wrote:
Politically this is only popular with those who have loans, which makes up a small % of the voting pool. How many of the people who are super invested in this as an issue here do not themselves have loans? You can see this playout when you look at Sanders popularity. He kills it with university educated white people who find themselves in or just below the shrinking middle class, and he does not do nearly as well as the very poor. To the very poor this looks like the rich getting richer, because to them people who are drowning in debt from their schooling, car, house, credit cards getting star bucks clothes and so on are rich because they were able to get the credit to get those things in the first place.
I'm super invested in this, as an issue, despite not having any loans, because I'm an educator and I've taught at both the high school and college levels in the United States... and I want to make sure all my students have a variety of opportunities for success. Also, I'm a little skeptical of your claim that the only people who care about this issue are people who currently have loans. I know that plenty of young families would at least like the option to have their kids go to college, if that ends up being the best post-secondary decision for them, and a huge reason why that opportunity might not exist is due to cost. If a college education (and college diploma) make you more attractive in the job market, and potentially earn you more money, then college is one path towards upwards mobility out of a very poor life. Drowning in student debt ensures that you can't leave the vicious cycle of poverty, even with good intentions, but the removal of a significant financial burden can definitely open doors for many people who otherwise wouldn't have access. There are other ways to help the people who have student loans and do need it, that also helps those who need help and don't have student loans. I agree with you, but not every piece of legislation has to help 100% of people, all the time. Forgiving student loans and creating a game plan for the future of American education doesn't mean we don't care about helping other people in other ways too. How does forgiving the existing student debt and calling it a day in any way helpful for the future students? The main problem people like me or JimmiC have with this idea isn't that forgiving loans is bad, it's that forgiving loans is an incredibly expensive measure that does nothing at all to actually address the issue; it just gets the folks who have debt right here and now off the hook. It's like sitting in a house on fire and instead of actually putting the fire out, you're just cranking the AC up and saying that did it.
This is a poor analogy and has already been addressed.
Forgiving student loan debt is important because it removed a financial burden from a generation that did not want that burden (and were conditioned to take it by the Boomer generation that never had that burden either) and will most likely not re-accumulate that same debt. This is the same generation that should be at the prime of their major life expenditures (house, kids, cars, kids education, etc.) and therefore this stimulus would be an incredible boost to the economy.
Yes, it doesn't fix the costs that created that debt, but throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "we can't fix every single part of this problem, therefore we should fix nothing" is absolutely ridiculous.
This is a multi-faceted issue and just because you couldn't get college education cost reform through Congress at the moment doesn't mean you shouldn't try to tackle other parts of this issue.
|
"incredibly expensive measure" assumes that writing off booked loans and spending money are the same thing for purposes of government expenditures, which is far from a settled issue. And as Stratos_speAr points out, the poor analogies being made here entirely ignore the palpably beneficial impact forgiveness would have for the millions of borrowers who are actively suffering from a following cloud of student loan debt, debt that the worst off will never be able to repay prior to the 20-25 year forgiveness horizon that also triggers a taxable income event for those regarded as solvent at the time of forgiveness. In that respect, mass forgiveness now merely speeds up a process already in effect.
|
|
|
On February 19 2021 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
We definitely need to overhaul our entire approach to post-secondary education in the United States. That includes at least three criteria:
1. Forgiving current student loan debt in some capacity, whether it's 50% or 75% or 100% of the remaining costs for everyone;
2. Creating a proactive plan for future students so that they don't fall into the same trap, such as capping tuition costs based on socioeconomic status, which would proportionately, and significantly, reduce loans/debt (if unable to make college tuition actually free for everyone in the future);
3. Continuing to encourage high school graduates to consider university, but also advertise reasonable alternatives that some young adults may prefer, such as trade/vocational schools.
I think we need to overhaul a lot in the US. The primary focus regarding the student debt thing is that Biden can do it himself. Seems advisable instead of adding it to the stack of critical policy that absolutely can't be done through the executive and Congress has neglected for decades. Immigration, healthcare, climate, racial wealth inequity, minimum wage, just to name some.
I believe Congress should pass comprehensive legislation dealing with deep and persistent problems regarding all of those issues, but that's not the congress any of us has known in (at least) our adult lives as far as I can tell.
I suppose the real question is whether Democrats/their supporters would tolerate Biden letting the pause on payments/interest expire without cancelling at least some debt/congress passing something better than an indefinite pause?
I'm a little skeptical of your claim that the only people who care about this issue are people who currently have loans.
Canceling at least some debt is more popular with people that are in debt (I don't think this surprises anyone, but they certainly aren't the only ones). There's several polls showing this:
The poll found that 84% of Black respondents support a full or partial cancellation of student loan debt — with two thirds (67%) indicating they “strongly support” eliminating student loan debt. Black women show the highest support for eliminating student loan debt, with 90% in support of partial cancellation, and half supporting complete cancellation.
Numerous studies conducted by consumer rights groups and civil rights organizations have found that student loan debt disproportionately impacts communities of color, and Black Americans in particular. www.forbes.com
More than half of voters support canceling $50,000 of debt without the service requirement, even more when you means test for people making less than $125,000 a year.
www.filesforprogress.org
|
On February 19 2021 23:34 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2021 23:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2021 22:53 JimmiC wrote:
Politically this is only popular with those who have loans, which makes up a small % of the voting pool. How many of the people who are super invested in this as an issue here do not themselves have loans? You can see this playout when you look at Sanders popularity. He kills it with university educated white people who find themselves in or just below the shrinking middle class, and he does not do nearly as well as the very poor. To the very poor this looks like the rich getting richer, because to them people who are drowning in debt from their schooling, car, house, credit cards getting star bucks clothes and so on are rich because they were able to get the credit to get those things in the first place.
I'm super invested in this, as an issue, despite not having any loans, because I'm an educator and I've taught at both the high school and college levels in the United States... and I want to make sure all my students have a variety of opportunities for success. Also, I'm a little skeptical of your claim that the only people who care about this issue are people who currently have loans. I know that plenty of young families would at least like the option to have their kids go to college, if that ends up being the best post-secondary decision for them, and a huge reason why that opportunity might not exist is due to cost. If a college education (and college diploma) make you more attractive in the job market, and potentially earn you more money, then college is one path towards upwards mobility out of a very poor life. Drowning in student debt ensures that you can't leave the vicious cycle of poverty, even with good intentions, but the removal of a significant financial burden can definitely open doors for many people who otherwise wouldn't have access. There are other ways to help the people who have student loans and do need it, that also helps those who need help and don't have student loans. I agree with you, but not every piece of legislation has to help 100% of people, all the time. Forgiving student loans and creating a game plan for the future of American education doesn't mean we don't care about helping other people in other ways too. How does forgiving the existing student debt and calling it a day in any way helpful for the future students? The main problem people like me or JimmiC have with this idea isn't that forgiving loans is bad, it's that forgiving loans is an incredibly expensive measure that does nothing at all to actually address the issue; it just gets the folks who have debt right here and now off the hook. It's like sitting in a house on fire and instead of actually putting the fire out, you're just cranking the AC up and saying that did it.
It doesn't, and I already addressed that in my previous post. No one is saying that forgiving student debt solves the entire problem with American education and its post-secondary costs. Here is my post again:
"On February 19 2021 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
We definitely need to overhaul our entire approach to post-secondary education in the United States. That includes at least three criteria:
1. Forgiving current student loan debt in some capacity, whether it's 50% or 75% or 100% of the remaining costs for everyone;
2. Creating a proactive plan for future students so that they don't fall into the same trap, such as capping tuition costs based on socioeconomic status, which would proportionately, and significantly, reduce loans/debt (if unable to make college tuition actually free for everyone in the future);
3. Continuing to encourage high school graduates to consider university, but also advertise reasonable alternatives that some young adults may prefer, such as trade/vocational schools."
Having a discussion about that first criterion doesn't mean we reject the importance of the second and third criteria.
On February 19 2021 23:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2021 23:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2021 22:53 JimmiC wrote:
Politically this is only popular with those who have loans, which makes up a small % of the voting pool. How many of the people who are super invested in this as an issue here do not themselves have loans? You can see this playout when you look at Sanders popularity. He kills it with university educated white people who find themselves in or just below the shrinking middle class, and he does not do nearly as well as the very poor. To the very poor this looks like the rich getting richer, because to them people who are drowning in debt from their schooling, car, house, credit cards getting star bucks clothes and so on are rich because they were able to get the credit to get those things in the first place.
I'm super invested in this, as an issue, despite not having any loans, because I'm an educator and I've taught at both the high school and college levels in the United States... and I want to make sure all my students have a variety of opportunities for success. Also, I'm a little skeptical of your claim that the only people who care about this issue are people who currently have loans. I know that plenty of young families would at least like the option to have their kids go to college, if that ends up being the best post-secondary decision for them, and a huge reason why that opportunity might not exist is due to cost. If a college education (and college diploma) make you more attractive in the job market, and potentially earn you more money, then college is one path towards upwards mobility out of a very poor life. Drowning in student debt ensures that you can't leave the vicious cycle of poverty, even with good intentions, but the removal of a significant financial burden can definitely open doors for many people who otherwise wouldn't have access. There are other ways to help the people who have student loans and do need it, that also helps those who need help and don't have student loans. I agree with you, but not every piece of legislation has to help 100% of people, all the time. Forgiving student loans and creating a game plan for the future of American education doesn't mean we don't care about helping other people in other ways too. Only and all type words were dumb and wrong of me to write. I should have said many and most. I would suggest you would be more unique than one of the many because education is your vocation and likely passion. But parents who want kids to have a education (which I would fall into) don't care about current loan forgiveness it in no way helps their kids get a education. If they are like you and put great value on education sure, but having kids anywhere but university this is not a hot button. I'm not saying you don't care and I have read your posts about fixing the system as well. I don't believe it will happen if loans are forgiven because there will be no motivation or pressure for what 10 years? It is kicking the can down the road. I would also like to point out no where did I say that people who want this don't care, are selfish or any of that kind of thing yet anytime I disagree with this as policy it is made out as if I have. BTW, I would be completely supportive of 0% loans and payment delays while a more complete solution was worked on. This way if it does not get done by next election it can be and issue there, and you are forcing the Republicans (and dems who like the current system) to either fix it, or be the bad guys that turn back on the payments and interest. It also keeps the larger issue front and center while an actual solution to the root cause of the problem is worked on.
I would actually be pretty interested in seeing some data on the support of something like student loan forgiveness, because I don't think it's as unpopular as you suggest. I did a quick Google search, and I found an article that gave this information:
"Overall, 73% of Americans surveyed were in support of forgiving $10,000 in student loan debt. Even 53% of individuals who never had student loans still supported this.
Overall, 63% of Americans surveyed were in support of the larger $50,000 in student loan forgiveness. This proposal still had a slim majority of 51% of individuals who've never had student loans support it.
60% of Americans surveyed were in support of total elimination of student loan debt. For those who never had student loans, only 44% supported this proposal."
https://thecollegeinvestor.com/35236/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-survey/
This data tells me that support for student loan forgiveness is not at all restricted to just people being immediately or directly affected by student loans. I'm not the only person who cares about affordable education for our neighbors 
I also don't agree with you that forgiving student loan debt "kicks the can down the road" in terms of proactive, meaningful solutions for future students. I don't think that providing one part of the overall financial solution means we can't also work to provide the other parts of the overall financial solution.
I don't know how likely it is for any of these ideas (forgiving student debt, lowering future tuitions, etc.) to pass Congress, due to Republicans and perhaps even moderate Democrats, but I think that's a separate issue than at least noting that *both* forgiving student debt *and* lowering future tuitions are great steps in the right direction in this larger conversation of American education.
|
How is a one-off student debt write off a superior measure to freezing student debt repayments for anyone earning less than X salary permanently?
|
There are few things that a country have higher return long term on than investing into education for their citizens. Why it is so crazy costly in the US is a thing I'll never understand and is what I consider one of the big reasons for your decline in living standards the last decades.
When you also have extremely high interest rates on student loans which you cannot declare yourself bankrupt on (which means a lot less risk for the lenders, why were the interest rate so high again?), it is probably one of the most idiotic policies there is.
Just set the interest rate close to 1%, reduce x ratio of it and make universities affordable enough for poor families to not having to seek financial support. In almost any other (we all know you aren't part of the fun club UK) western country, this would be a nobrainer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
