|
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 |
On February 20 2021 00:27 Neneu wrote:
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.
They used to be paid for by state and federal taxes. People demanded tax cuts in the 80s and 90s and they came from education. This is especially true for states, many of which have balanced budget proscriptions : they can't run at a deficit ever.
At the same time or shortly after these cuts access to federal student loans were greatly expanded under Clinton. College has always been expensive, but it used to be funded by taxes. Now it's funded by federal loans directly paid for by the former students that are undischargable and with stupidly high interest rates. So it's basically... insanely high taxes with extra steps that were carefully targeted away from the loudest and whiniest generation in history.
Additionally, administrative costs ballooned by I think 245%? It's probably mostly but not entirely bloat. This was partially funded by the shift from public funding to loan funding : if publicly funded, there are definite strings attached to how they can use the money. Instead we have colleges advertising their gourmet chefs to incoming freshman and beyond-CEO level pay for presidents.
I would much prefer the former model, as it has demonstrated a massively lower level of grift and excess spending than the current one has.
I've pointed this out several times and people continually object, but it's simply politically not feasible to give an effective tax rate triple or quadruple everyone else's to the LARGEST voting group (for me, student loans would be an effective additional 30% marginal tax). Forgiveness isn't the best way to do it, but it may be the only way anytime soon.
This problem is already almost at critical mass and it will only get worse as tuition increases every year - the people who have paid off their student loan debt currently generally paid less than new students due to this. Since loans are going to have been stopped for almost 1 1/2 years straight, it will be almost impossible to turn them back on.
|
|
|
|
|
Our current scenario is basically debt forgiveness or nothing atm though, thats basically the only reason we're talking about it and not the most robust form of complete higher education reform we absolutely need.
Democrats in Congress are unwilling to do what it takes to pass that despite their majority (what fantastic allies Sinema, Manchin, Feinstein, etc. make) the only way Democrats will ever get anything done in Congress at this rate is by either getting a completely partisan majority or to remove the filibuster (which Manchin has said he won't let happen), so at the moment Democrats have basically chosen to hamstring a lot of their congressional power.
Unfortunately the best option basically is off the table right now (unless we let republicans in on it and lets be honest theres no way thats ever going to turn out well, lol) right now its not technically debt forgiveness or nothing, but given the commitment by the blue Republicans to be shitty we're basically having to look at out-of-Congress solutions to student loans right now.
Basically Biden can EO it away which definitely isnt the best solution, but it is a solution that Democrats have no excuse to avoid given they don't need 55+ votes in the Senate to do it.
Im sure DPB and the rest of us advocating for debt forgiveness wish we were in a situation where Congress had a real chance to pass real reforms but given Manchin and his ilk we're not in that situation (not that we should stop trashing Manchin and doing anything/everything we can to also try and get to a situation where we can reform higher education Congressionally at the same time) so we're really just looking to who we know has the power to do something to actually help right now, in this case its the president and... thats Joe Biden... Sigh...
|
On February 20 2021 02:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2021 01:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2021 01:37 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2021 01:09 dp wrote:On February 19 2021 16:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[Snip]..sounds better to me than not helping millions of desperate people until you can exclude affluent people from benefiting too.
I get your argument. But look at your wording. There. Is. No. Desperation. Not being able to buy a house because of past loans or bad credit is not a national emergency. No one, at all, would be forced to starve to pay back student loans. If your financial situation is bad, you can literally have your required payments dropped to 0$ a month, for as long as your income stays there, until they are eventually forgiven. If you think that is suffering, I really feel like the conversation wouldn't amount to much. Student loan forgiveness often takes 20-25 years. That's not feasible. Student loan debt is something like $1.6 trillion in this country, and it's absolutely hamstringing millions of people into not being able to progress in their lives for at least a decade. GH is spot on in that there is plenty of desperation when it comes to student loans and interest, and you're simply incorrect when you say that no one is starving because of their loans. People can't afford to pay rent (let alone own their own property) or afford other necessities because of their eternal student debt. It's actually a big deal for a lot of people. True, but a small % of the over all poor and a small % of those with student loans. Sure, but why do we need to wait until people are literally starving to death, because they can't afford their student loans, to help them out? Why can't we make society more comfortable for people who are middle class or lower-middle class, before they become completely impoverished? You don't, but why not do something better for more people? Why are you creating a scenario where the only option is debt forgiveness or nothing? You have not argued any of my points over the last pages only this strawman you have created.
I'm not the one saying that it's either debt forgiveness or nothing; I already noted that it would need to be part of a multi-faceted solution. I don't see how you could think that I'm creating that scenario, when I've consistently been pushing for additional things and not just student loan forgiveness. You keep saying "why not do better for more people", but I don't know what you're looking for here. What's your alternative to what I said, which is "Forgiving current student loan debt in some capacity, whether it's 50% or 75% or 100% of the remaining costs for everyone + 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) + 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 that's pretty comprehensive, but of course we could find ways to do even more. What are your alternatives to all this though? What plan do you have, that will help even more people than all of this? If you don't want to forgive student loans or lower the future costs of tuition, then what do you want?
You say I haven't argued against any of your points...
One of your first points (to me) was that student loan forgiveness wasn't a particularly popular idea, which GH and I both disproved by citing polls. You did mention that you would prefer having 0% interest loans, but that does even less to help people; you can't propose that alternative while simultaneously arguing that we need to come up with a plan that casts as large of a net as possible in helping people. 0% interest isn't as significant as forgiving student loan debt, for the past and present college students, so I assume you have other ideas than just this. Your Wharton article provided some interesting context about who benefits the most when it comes to student loan forgiveness, but it's not an argument against why student loan forgiveness will help people. (Obviously, people who take out larger loans would benefit more in a hypothetical scenario where everyone's loans were forgiven.)
Yay!
|
On February 20 2021 02:35 Zambrah wrote:
Our current scenario is basically debt forgiveness or nothing atm though, thats basically the only reason we're talking about it and not the most robust form of complete higher education reform we absolutely need.
Democrats in Congress are unwilling to do what it takes to pass that despite their majority (what fantastic allies Sinema, Manchin, Feinstein, etc. make) the only way Democrats will ever get anything done in Congress at this rate is by either getting a completely partisan majority or to remove the filibuster (which Manchin has said he won't let happen), so at the moment Democrats have basically chosen to hamstring a lot of their congressional power.
Unfortunately the best option basically is off the table right now (unless we let republicans in on it and lets be honest theres no way thats ever going to turn out well, lol) right now its not technically debt forgiveness or nothing, but given the commitment by the blue Republicans to be shitty we're basically having to look at out-of-Congress solutions to student loans right now.
Basically Biden can EO it away which definitely isnt the best solution, but it is a solution that Democrats have no excuse to avoid given they don't need 55+ votes in the Senate to do it.
Im sure DPB and the rest of us advocating for debt forgiveness wish we were in a situation where Congress had a real chance to pass real reforms but given Manchin and his ilk we're not in that situation (not that we should stop trashing Manchin and doing anything/everything we can to also try and get to a situation where we can reform higher education Congressionally at the same time) so we're really just looking to who we know has the power to do something to actually help right now, in this case its the president and... thats Joe Biden... Sigh...
Yep. We can definitely brainstorm a bunch of idealistic things that we ought to do, that would be beneficial for past, present, and future students, such as forgiving student loans and lowering tuition costs, but there's also the realistic side to all this: which of these things could actually be accomplished (or start to be accomplished) right now, with a Biden administration. If student loan forgiveness is one of those things, then that's awesome; I'd rather not look back in 2024 and realize that literally no progress has been made to address the costs of American education.
|
God I am always loathe to have to mention the realism of politics, lol. Especially since I believe the realism of it is only ever really limited by the acts of protest people are willing to make (unpopular opinion: protesting at Josh Hawley's residence was a good thing), but yeah at the moment despite my relative positivity with certain congressman (Schumers saying the right things more aggressively than I ever thought he would) I don't see America doing what it takes to move Manchin and his cohort of blue Republicans to get in line where they belong and do as they're told.
Unfortunately any real change through Congress is being hamstrung by Democrats this time.
I don't think we shouldnt still be talking about and pushing for the stuff Congress needs to get off his fat lazy ass and do, I very much believe in the shotgun approach to solutions since odds are out of any shotgun blast in US politics only one thing is going to slip through.
|
On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Student loan forgiveness often takes 20-25 years. That's not feasible. Student loan debt is something like $1.6 trillion in this country, and it's absolutely hamstringing millions of people into not being able to progress in their lives for at least a decade. GH is spot on in that there is plenty of desperation when it comes to student loans and interest, and you're simply incorrect when you say that no one is starving because of their loans. People can't afford to pay rent (let alone own their own property) or afford other necessities because of their eternal student debt. It's actually a big deal for a lot of people.
Explain why it is not feasible. Really, I want to know exactly why paying anywhere from 15% of disposable income or 0$ for those that can't afford it for 20 years is not feasible.
You know what else could help millions of people progress in their lives? An extra 50 thousand dollars. Know how we could help people afford necessities like food? Well, 1.6 trillion can go a long way. It cost less than that to run SNAP for the last 20 years.
|
On February 20 2021 03:36 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Student loan forgiveness often takes 20-25 years. That's not feasible. Student loan debt is something like $1.6 trillion in this country, and it's absolutely hamstringing millions of people into not being able to progress in their lives for at least a decade. GH is spot on in that there is plenty of desperation when it comes to student loans and interest, and you're simply incorrect when you say that no one is starving because of their loans. People can't afford to pay rent (let alone own their own property) or afford other necessities because of their eternal student debt. It's actually a big deal for a lot of people. Explain why it is not feasible. Really, I want to know exactly why paying anywhere from 15% of disposable income or 0$ for those that can't afford it for 20 years is not feasible. You know what else could help millions of people progress in their lives? An extra 50 thousand dollars. Know how we could help people afford necessities like food? Well, 1.6 trillion can go a long way. It cost less than that to run SNAP for the last 20 years.
lol where are you getting this 15% of disposable income from? Is that what you are assuming people are paying?
|
On February 20 2021 03:36 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Student loan forgiveness often takes 20-25 years. That's not feasible. Student loan debt is something like $1.6 trillion in this country, and it's absolutely hamstringing millions of people into not being able to progress in their lives for at least a decade. GH is spot on in that there is plenty of desperation when it comes to student loans and interest, and you're simply incorrect when you say that no one is starving because of their loans. People can't afford to pay rent (let alone own their own property) or afford other necessities because of their eternal student debt. It's actually a big deal for a lot of people. Explain why it is not feasible. Really, I want to know exactly why paying anywhere from 15% of disposable income or 0$ for those that can't afford it for 20 years is not feasible.
Because that 15% could be used towards necessities, it could also be put towards stimulating the economy, it could lead to lifting millions of people up out of poverty, the increase of college costs significantly outpaces the growth of income/wages, defaulting on the loans can destroy one's credit, and asking a 17/18-year-old to make the most significant financial decision of their life raises a few ethical objections as well.
You know what else could help millions of people progress in their lives? An extra 50 thousand dollars. Know how we could help people afford necessities like food? Well, 1.6 trillion can go a long way. It cost less than that to run SNAP for the last 20 years.
That's kind of the point though, right? If someone is $50,000 in debt from student loans, then forgiving their debt would be pretty much equivalent, in practice, to giving them $50,000... which could then be used on food. I don't think it needs to be said that funding SNAP *and* forgiving student debt are both helpful things for many people.
|
On February 20 2021 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2021 03:36 dp wrote:On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Student loan forgiveness often takes 20-25 years. That's not feasible. Student loan debt is something like $1.6 trillion in this country, and it's absolutely hamstringing millions of people into not being able to progress in their lives for at least a decade. GH is spot on in that there is plenty of desperation when it comes to student loans and interest, and you're simply incorrect when you say that no one is starving because of their loans. People can't afford to pay rent (let alone own their own property) or afford other necessities because of their eternal student debt. It's actually a big deal for a lot of people. Explain why it is not feasible. Really, I want to know exactly why paying anywhere from 15% of disposable income or 0$ for those that can't afford it for 20 years is not feasible. You know what else could help millions of people progress in their lives? An extra 50 thousand dollars. Know how we could help people afford necessities like food? Well, 1.6 trillion can go a long way. It cost less than that to run SNAP for the last 20 years. lol where are you getting this 15% of disposable income from? Is that what you are assuming people are paying?
15% of disposable income is supposed to be the maximum amount that can be asked of you to repay your loans: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/30-cppa
Although, to be clear, "disposable income" is simply defined as your net paycheck after taxes/deductions... it's not the same as the colloquial use of the term "disposable income", which is often times used to mean "the extra money left over for luxuries/savings, after you've paid off your necessities". On the contrary, the "15% of disposable income" supercedes necessities too, such as rent, utilities, food, and clothing.
|
|
|
On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Because that 15% could be used towards necessities, it could also be put towards stimulating the economy, it could lead to lifting millions of people up out of poverty, the increase of college costs significantly outpaces the growth of income/wages, defaulting on the loans can destroy one's credit, and asking a 17/18-year-old to make the most significant financial decision of their life raises a few ethical objections as well.
Show me a study that college education is no longer worth the investment. I also see no push to stop 18 year old's from voting, or signing any other contracts. There is a push for the allowance of children much younger than 18 to make decisions that would have a more permanent impact on their lives. This is just an appeal to save people from bad decisions, after the fact. If by 18 you can't understand what a loan is, than you shouldn't be taking one out to go to college. It is not a difficult concept, and saying immaturity or willful ignorance is some kind of defense is not reasonable.
On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's kind of the point though, right? If someone is $50,000 in debt from student loans, then forgiving their debt would be pretty much equivalent, in practice, to giving them $50,000... which could then be used on food. I don't think it needs to be said that funding SNAP *and* forgiving student debt are both helpful things for many people.
Yes, but the group of people that are receiving the 50k couldn't be a worse segment to choose. SNAP recipient households are a comparably sized group. If Dems are going to attempt to help people, which group do you think would benefit most from this influx of cash?
|
On February 20 2021 01:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2021 01:10 BisuDagger wrote:On February 20 2021 00:08 JimmiC wrote:On February 19 2021 23:32 Stratos_speAr wrote: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". I mean yes that has been discussed back and forth every time this topic comes up because it is the major reason to be against this policy other than that you don't think it is a problem to begin with. I speak about it in more detail in my last post but spending your political capital to have this sued and held up in the courts is bad for the dems. I believe that suspending payments during the covid (maybe longer) and 0 % interest are positive policy for those with the loans without the political head aches of forgiveness and up the chances of an actual solution rather than just pushing the problem down a few years. Your also completely missing my point and being insulting when you say that I am saying that because not all need it nothing should be done. I'm saying that we should do something different that helps everyone (or at least more) that need it. Yes people being given large sums of money will all be helped, I know I could sure use it would put me way ahead from where I am now, but there are many people who need it more than me (and likely more that need it less but that is neither her nor there). But why just the students with existing loans? Why not everyone? I'd be way more behind everyone getting 50k than people with student loans getting 50k. What makes the student loan "special" compared to all the other reasons that people are hurting? Why is this the hill to die on, it affects a fairly small portion of the people in need. According to the below almost half of the US is in some kind of poverty (46.9%) over 75%!! of that group would be completely not impacted at all by this (23.7% no high school, 11.5% high school). Another 16% of that group (7.8% overall) would be marginally impacted as it is a fair presumption that some of this group would have little or no debt left. And those directly benefiting would make up only 8% (3.9% total) of the group. Is it bad to help 8-16% of the poor, no that is good, is it the best? Far from it. That money could be used to help a lot poor and not arbitrarily because they attended school, and since college people make way more on average it could be argued that many of that 8-16% are in the "better off" group of the poor. https://www.statista.com/statistics/233162/us-poverty-rate-by-education/I think a lot of people really into this issue are wearing blinders to how large the poverty problem is and what % college educated people make of it. I get it because I bet this thread leans heavily to college educated people and therefor most of our social groups and so on are made up of people similar to us. But the reality is a program like this is going to pull a few out of poverty and accelerate many others into middle class. That is not a bad thing, it is just not the best thing. Edit: this is why public post secondary makes so much sense for society. It makes keeping the costs reasonable for everyone, matter to everyone because everyone is paying for it. It also opens up the opportunity for education to many of those who currently do not have that option. I think a lot of people are forgetting that to many many of the poor people see those who get to go to college are already very privileged compared to them. And while they may be in a similar boat currently financially because of that debt, they are also in a better position because they can earn more and have a much better chance of getting out of their current situation. Someone with no education has no hope at landing that 60k, 80k 100k whatever job. Since it is clear there is burnout on parts of this discussion: How about actually applying the liberal views on wealth redistribution towards Universities that pay outrageous amounts of money towards their sports programs and coaches. Nick Saban earns $9.3 million dollars annually. How come more liberals aren't attacking the top 1% earners at University and demanding that Universities stop delivering large payouts to a small group of individuals and instead redistribute large amounts earned by the athletic department profits towards student scholarship programs? I'm certain if liberals got loud enough, they could at least make this a leading conversation. "Attend a game and X% goes towards helping our young adults get through college." I think an idea like that could be useful, the argument is always about how much money the teams bring in for the schools. The only issue I have really is with your framing, most liberals and other leftists do have issues with how much coaches are paid, do think the money should be more disturbed (liberals are the reasons that football and basketball programs have to pay for other athletics and scholarships). It is liberals that want to do away with profit in universities and so on. It is not liberals blocking change, debt forgiveness is just what they think they can do without it getting blocked by the reps. I don't think they should settle for what I belive is a very suboptimal solution.
Did not want it? And by that you mean signed for it, used it and then don't want to pay? Who know who else are at the prime major life expenditures? Every other person, which is the majority of their peers, that didn't go to college. They will/do earn less, have exactly the same costs otherwise and same potential life goals. Somehow the progressive outlook is to help which group?..
Both of these arguments are short-sighted.
We do all realize that these are the same progressives that are pushing for universal healthcare, almost completely eliminating college costs, significantly improving welfare programs across the board, and a host of other things to help the poor, right?
In what world are progressives advocating for helping the middle class and not the poor? It is entirely possible to have different policy proposals to address different issues. "But the poor are worse off!" Is a particularly disingenuous argument against this.
Also the idea that a bunch of teenagers willfully consent to the current postsecondary education paradigm when they are conditioned during their entire childhood to pursue it by their parents (i.e. the Boomers) and had absolutely zero say in the design and implementation of that system is quite suspect.
Explain why it is not feasible. Really, I want to know exactly why paying anywhere from 15% of disposable income or 0$ for those that can't afford it for 20 years is not feasible.
You know what else could help millions of people progress in their lives? An extra 50 thousand dollars. Know how we could help people afford necessities like food? Well, 1.6 trillion can go a long way. It cost less than that to run SNAP for the last 20 years.
Your posts show an astounding lack of understanding of what the tuition debt-straddled population actually is and is going through.
You seem to have this bizarre idea that everyone in this group earns a comfortable salary and that student debt payments are inconveniences that simply don't allow these people to have more spending money. Putting aside the fact that the vast majority of college graduates don't hold professional graduate level education (e.g. physician and lawyer), it's also important to note that the average primary care physician earns ~$170k per year, which is less than their average student debt load (now north of $200k). The average lawyer in my state makes ~$80k per year when they hold nearly $150k in debt on average. Law school graduates are also unemployed at far higher rates than even the general population.
As several of us have pointed out and cited, your mental picture of what this group looks like is flat-out wrong. Student debt payments are keeping people from doing everything from affording necessities to owning a home instead of renting to having children to a host of other necessary expenditures. Thinking that it should be fine to pay 15% of your disposable income for 25 years is naïve when, in reality, that 15% is a lot more when added onto the absurd cost of healthcare in this country and the housing crisis that results in rent costing far, far more than the 30% rule of thumb.
Also, as I mentioned before, this doesn't even address the problem that around 40% of college graduates are under-employed.
|
On February 20 2021 04:35 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Because that 15% could be used towards necessities, it could also be put towards stimulating the economy, it could lead to lifting millions of people up out of poverty, the increase of college costs significantly outpaces the growth of income/wages, defaulting on the loans can destroy one's credit, and asking a 17/18-year-old to make the most significant financial decision of their life raises a few ethical objections as well. Show me a study that college education is no longer worth the investment.
? Show me where I said that college education is no longer worth the investment.
I also see no push to stop 18 year old's from voting, or signing any other contracts.
Why would we want to prevent 18-year-olds from voting I'm not interested in red herrings, so let's please stay focused on the financial consequences of student loans.
There is a push for the allowance of children much younger than 18 to make decisions that would have a more permanent impact on their lives. This is just an appeal to save people from bad decisions, after the fact. If by 18 you can't understand what a loan is, than you shouldn't be taking one out to go to college. It is not a difficult concept, and saying immaturity or willful ignorance is some kind of defense is not reasonable.
I believe you have it backwards. Personal finance courses, in high school, have traditionally not been required for high school graduation. Plenty of schools never even had them. There's essentially no reason why a high school senior would know the ramifications and fine print surrounding student loans and debt, unless they were privately taught it by an adult outside of the school setting (and, fittingly, those adults would be disproportionately college-educated... hence the vicious cycle of poverty). Fortunately, personal finance courses are starting to become more common nowadays in high school, but their existence is not a panacea.
Show nested quote +On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's kind of the point though, right? If someone is $50,000 in debt from student loans, then forgiving their debt would be pretty much equivalent, in practice, to giving them $50,000... which could then be used on food. I don't think it needs to be said that funding SNAP *and* forgiving student debt are both helpful things for many people. Yes, but the group of people that are receiving the 50k couldn't be a worse segment to choose. SNAP recipient households are a comparably sized group. If Dems are going to attempt to help people, which group do you think would benefit most from this influx of cash?
Couldn't be a worse segment? Really? You can't think of any people who would be less deserving of money than people who went into debt to pursue a better life for themselves and their families? And, again, please stop making it sound like helping one group of people means we can't also continue to help other groups of people. Nobody is proposing the cancellation of SNAP just to fund student loan forgiveness.
|
|
|
On February 20 2021 04:35 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Because that 15% could be used towards necessities, it could also be put towards stimulating the economy, it could lead to lifting millions of people up out of poverty, the increase of college costs significantly outpaces the growth of income/wages, defaulting on the loans can destroy one's credit, and asking a 17/18-year-old to make the most significant financial decision of their life raises a few ethical objections as well. Show me a study that college education is no longer worth the investment. I also see no push to stop 18 year old's from voting, or signing any other contracts. There is a push for the allowance of children much younger than 18 to make decisions that would have a more permanent impact on their lives. This is just an appeal to save people from bad decisions, after the fact. If by 18 you can't understand what a loan is, than you shouldn't be taking one out to go to college. It is not a difficult concept, and saying immaturity or willful ignorance is some kind of defense is not reasonable. Show nested quote +On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's kind of the point though, right? If someone is $50,000 in debt from student loans, then forgiving their debt would be pretty much equivalent, in practice, to giving them $50,000... which could then be used on food. I don't think it needs to be said that funding SNAP *and* forgiving student debt are both helpful things for many people. Yes, but the group of people that are receiving the 50k couldn't be a worse segment to choose. SNAP recipient households are a comparably sized group. If Dems are going to attempt to help people, which group do you think would benefit most from this influx of cash?
Something being technically worth it does not mean it is a good system that has no room for improvement. I'd say water would be "worth it" up to basically my entire income because I literally die otherwise. We strive to make good things easy and cheap to the best of our ability. The other mistake you are making is pretending helping different groups is zero sum. It isn't. We can help the people who need it the most and also people beyond that. We can use it as a form of stimulus since money going to businesses is much better for the economy than going to banks. That isn't a bad thing.
|
On February 20 2021 04:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2021 02:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2021 02:15 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2021 01:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2021 01:37 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2021 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2021 01:09 dp wrote:On February 19 2021 16:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[Snip]..sounds better to me than not helping millions of desperate people until you can exclude affluent people from benefiting too.
I get your argument. But look at your wording. There. Is. No. Desperation. Not being able to buy a house because of past loans or bad credit is not a national emergency. No one, at all, would be forced to starve to pay back student loans. If your financial situation is bad, you can literally have your required payments dropped to 0$ a month, for as long as your income stays there, until they are eventually forgiven. If you think that is suffering, I really feel like the conversation wouldn't amount to much. Student loan forgiveness often takes 20-25 years. That's not feasible. Student loan debt is something like $1.6 trillion in this country, and it's absolutely hamstringing millions of people into not being able to progress in their lives for at least a decade. GH is spot on in that there is plenty of desperation when it comes to student loans and interest, and you're simply incorrect when you say that no one is starving because of their loans. People can't afford to pay rent (let alone own their own property) or afford other necessities because of their eternal student debt. It's actually a big deal for a lot of people. True, but a small % of the over all poor and a small % of those with student loans. Sure, but why do we need to wait until people are literally starving to death, because they can't afford their student loans, to help them out? Why can't we make society more comfortable for people who are middle class or lower-middle class, before they become completely impoverished? You don't, but why not do something better for more people? Why are you creating a scenario where the only option is debt forgiveness or nothing? You have not argued any of my points over the last pages only this strawman you have created. I'm not the one saying that it's either debt forgiveness or nothing; I already noted that it would need to be part of a multi-faceted solution. I don't see how you could think that I'm creating that scenario, when I've consistently been pushing for additional things and not just student loan forgiveness. You keep saying "why not do better for more people", but I don't know what you're looking for here. What's your alternative to what I said, which is "Forgiving current student loan debt in some capacity, whether it's 50% or 75% or 100% of the remaining costs for everyone + 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) + 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 that's pretty comprehensive, but of course we could find ways to do even more. What are your alternatives to all this though? What plan do you have, that will help even more people than all of this? If you don't want to forgive student loans or lower the future costs of tuition, then what do you want? You say I haven't argued against any of your points... One of your first points (to me) was that student loan forgiveness wasn't a particularly popular idea, which GH and I both disproved by citing polls. You did mention that you would prefer having 0% interest loans, but that does even less to help people; you can't propose that alternative while simultaneously arguing that we need to come up with a plan that casts as large of a net as possible in helping people. 0% interest isn't as significant as forgiving student loan debt, for the past and present college students, so I assume you have other ideas than just this. Your Wharton article provided some interesting context about who benefits the most when it comes to student loan forgiveness, but it's not an argument against why student loan forgiveness will help people. (Obviously, people who take out larger loans would benefit more in a hypothetical scenario where everyone's loans were forgiven.) Yay! You and him actually did not disprove that. As I pointed out your source was pretty questionable and the one GH used when I looked inside and quoted it I explained why it also did not say that it is super popular. It is popular to do something about debt forgiveness, it is much less popular to do full debt forgiveness. I really couldn't find any great data to say if it is or is not. To do so you would also need more questions on the survey then were asked, even a simple on a scale of 1-10 how important is this issue would add a lot of context. The Warton article provided some different solutions to debt forgiveness that are tied to income which I think would be far more beneficial to society and more bang for the buck. They also talk about rules around how much private can charge and so which I know you would already be on board with. On top of that I think if that money was allocated to other programs for the poor, it would benefit the students who are in that situation due to student loans, whereas loan forgiveness only hurts those with student debt. Seeing that college educated people make up such a small % of the poor I only feel more strongly about this now than I did before today. Those programs could be existing like food stamps, things around affordable housing, or a whole other host of social programs that have shown to be a lot more effective then stimulus checks or student debt forgiveness. I align with many of your thoughts on how to improve the system, but I don't think it is possible while keeping so much profit available and allowed within post secondary (both for the schools and those who work and run them). And I don't believe debt forgiveness in anyways brings us closer to any of that but rather pushes us further away. If their was unlimited money to spend I would be on board, I don't believe that is the case.
Yes, the Wharton article proposes finding equitable ways to forgive student loans, and points out that those methods exist, which is exactly what I've been saying since my first post. It's agreeing with those of us who are arguing that forgiving student loans is helpful when done correctly, and certainly doesn't say that we should be throwing the idea out altogether, in favor of something else entirely (which is the position that you and dp have taken). You're suggesting that, instead of having any sort of student loan forgiveness, we put more money into programs for the poor. That would certainly help the poor out, and I'd happily vote for giving more aid to the poor. However, we also want to help other people besides the poor, right?
I'll try an analogy with something else we both care about which is the environment. There is huge popularity and drive around ending single use plastics. Straws became enemy number 1 largely because of a disturbing video of a sea turtle with one stuck in its nose. A huge amount of money and effort was spent trying to get people to use other kinds of straws, banning them in some places and so on. Was this bad? No, not really, but did it impact the ocean plastics or oil consumption? Not at all. There are so many other things that could be focused on such as composting that would make a way bigger impact to the environment.
Same with plastic bags, by simply charging 10 cents per bag you can reduce use by over 90%! Plastic bags are not terrible, they are just terrible when there is way to many. In very humid places paper does not work because it tears and the cost to the environment of spoiled and lost food is far higher than a plastic bag. Also, many people reuse their grocery bags as garbage bags, it is not better if people are now buy more garbage bags since they have less grocery bags. The other is many of the reusable bags are actually worse than the single use, I've done the math on some of them where it would take 100 uses or more to make it a win for the environment and there is no way they last that long, also some are made with mixed materials making those bags near impossible to recycle when they reach their end date (there are some very good ones as well). So well top of mind might be "banning plastic bags is good for the environment" that is only true if there is the right rules and regulations around the replacement.
And that is what I'm saying here, if it is just done in the ham-fisted everyone gets all their debt up 50K forgiven it won't be nearly as good for society or those in need as a more targeted, more well thought out approach would be.
Would you not be very disappointed if this lead to a larger wealth gap? If this does not make education more accessible to those who it is not right now? I sure would be.
I appreciate your attempt at trying to find a useful analogy. If the primary purpose of the analogy is to point out that the situation involving the financial costs of American education is extremely complex and requires a lot more than simply forgiving student loan debt, then yeah, I've been saying that all along. I understand that only targeting a small piece of a problem (i.e., the plastic straws) won't solve the issue, but keep in mind that the more comprehensive environmental analogy would be: If we could snap our fingers and immediately make all litter/plastic disappear, right now, should we do it? And a lot of us are saying "Of course! And then we can focus on moving forwards and decreasing future waste too", but some others are saying "No, we shouldn't eliminate all current litter/plastic, because then we won't be motivated to fix anything in the future, and what about the fact that the people who make more waste would be helped more than the people who make less waste?" And to that, I would repeat the same mantra: I'm fine with additionally putting forth other legislation to make our future better, but that doesn't mean we should completely ignore our past/present situation and those who are suffering right now.
Also, I don't understand why you would worry that eliminating debt would lead to making education less accessible. The whole point of making college more affordable is, tautologically, so that more people can afford to go to college.
|
|
|
That's not really Biden's fault, and he's said as much publicly before anyways. The 15$ minimum wage comes down to if the senate can get it done. If it can, Biden would sign it, but it depends on a few different factors. (Does it fit reconciliation? Will Manchin, really, Sinema, back it?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
