Bernie Sanders Proposes Forgiving the Student Debt of 45 Million Americans (cnbc.com) 1514
Sen. Bernie Sanders announced a plan on Monday to erase the country's $1.6 trillion outstanding student loan tab, intensifying the higher education policy debate in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. From a report: The Democratic presidential candidate's legislation -- dubbed "The College for All Act" -- will release all 45 million Americans from their student debt and be paid for with a new tax on Wall Street transactions. The proposal goes further than fellow Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren's plan, which caps student debt forgiveness at $50,000 and offers no relief to borrowers who earn more than $250,000. Outstanding education debt in the U.S. has eclipsed credit card and auto debt. Today the average college graduate leaves school $30,000 in the red, up from $10,000 in the 1990s, and 28% of student loan borrowers are in delinquency or default. Sanders' plan would make two- and four-year public colleges and universities tuition- and debt-free. Trade schools and apprenticeship programs would be tuition-free, as well.
Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
All those idiots who racked up a $50,000 debt so they could pursue a career in media studies? Why should they get a free ride?
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
I can appreciate the problems that these kids are facing, but how about instead of eliminating the debt, how about capping interest. I'd honestly be fine if it were 0% but would prefer it to be tied to inflation. But no matter what, they should at the minimum have to repay the principal.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. Zero interest is OK by me.
We could maybe even reward those who are managing to make the debt go down all by themselves (every dollar you pay off, the government pays one off too).
I disagree (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it worth it? Well, you get your money's worth every time you drive across a bridge that doesn't collapse, post anything to the Internet or go to the doctor.
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
"society wants workers." Society is not a living being, it does not have wants. It sure as hell does not have the right to steal from me to pay for the slackers at a party school.
Most of the learning that comes about in higher education does not need a school. It's a scam, and having taxes pay for college is a double scam.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.marketwatch.com/gr... [marketwatch.com]
Fun fact: In the past universities were heavily subsidized by the tax payers, much more so than today. So, claiming you "worked hard and put yourself through college all on your own" really isn't that true of a statement, you just weren't aware of federal dollars that were subsidizing your education.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Fun fact: Maybe the Obama administration shouldn't have nationalized student loans, causing the massive spike in tuition costs.
Whenever something becomes nationalized, the feeding frenzy begins until clamps are put into place. That's exactly what happened. Look at any university in the US and see the explosion of useless degrees and "reconstruction" projects on buildings that didn't require it.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
Fun fact: Maybe the Obama administration shouldn't have nationalized student loans, causing the massive spike in tuition costs.
That's wasn't the cause though
Betsy DeVos Is Wrong About The 'Government Takeover' Of Student Loans [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Just to clarify: The massive increase in student loans is a big part of the problem and the linked article doesn't say otherwise. The article merely states that it was not solely Obama's specific changes that caused it.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
That's wasn't the cause though
That was the cause though. The US government holds 99.1% of all student loan debt today, it's held roughly that same amount since 2008 when the Obama administration took over student loans. The only .9% that isn't held by the government are held by two banks who were still operating student loan programs into mid-2008 or so because those people had gotten loans prior to the take over and opted NOT to transfer their loan to the federal government. I realize that's hard to understand and all, but even Maxine Walters got the surprise of her life when she was grilling all those banking execs a few months back asking them "what they were doing about the student loan debt" and was bluntly told that "we haven't offered them in a decade or more."
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
Fun Fact: That's not what caused tuition to spike (Score:4, Interesting)
As for your assertion that nationalizing doesn't work, our entire transportation network would beg to differ. Privatization [youtube.com] of universal services doesn't seem to work so well though. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
(Disclaimer: I am tenured at a public state university/)
Fun fact: Maybe the Obama administration shouldn't have nationalized student loans, causing the massive spike in tuition costs.
Actually that's not why tuition cost are rising. The cost of tuition has been rising sharply since before Obama was elected. The main driver of tuition cost is that state governments have been pulling back their financial support to universities.
Look at any university in the US and see the explosion of useless degrees and "reconstruction" projects on buildings that didn't require it.
Actually the number of students enrolled in art and humanities degree (which I guess are the ones you call useless) are not rising. The number of degrees may have increased, but the fraction of student has not. Students are mostly going to STEM majors or business majors.
While universities are usually not for profit, business logic still applies to them. These reconstruction projects are typically motivated by business logic. Since universities are in competition with one an other, they need to attract students to survive. And it turns out that students (and parents) don't really make decisions based on academics because there is only so many classrooms and libraries you can show them. They make decisions on other criteria such as how nice the building look, how many gyms there are. This actually drives donation money. So mostly these (re) construction are bringing new revenue that help pay for TA support or teaching faculty.
I agree with you that I would rather see less money go to "cosmetic" aspects and more money do to "academics", but in a competitive university market where students chose where they go, and their tuition dollar is a primary source of revenue for the university, this will not change.
This was mostly a Republican idea that having universities compete would lead to higher quality education. In practice the quality of education has dropped because legislatures have been tracking bad metrics to allocate funds such as how many student do you enroll, and how many do you graduate. So universities have responded by deploy marketing efforts to get more enrollment, and retention departments that make sure student graduate without even considering if the university actually educate them well.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
I completely agree with you. My anecdotal experience (having helped multiple kids with their college considerations) is that their expectation was to go attend an all-inclusive resort for four years. They were all about the quality of the dorms, the number of high-end workout facilities, the food, and access to recreational activities. Every college tour I attended stressed these amenities and many had zero time talking about academic activities. Not one was focused on getting kids to witness actual classroom activities, research, or academic discussions. My thoughts: "I'm not paying for a four year trip to "Sandals." No worries from the kids' end though, because "It's really easy to get loans to pay for the cost difference." Alas, paying off these loans was so far off for these kids that they saw them essentially as free money.
It reminds me quite a bit of what happened the last time loans had the appearance of free money to folk...right before the housing crash. You know, back when anyone could get a loan, pay interest only for 5 years and then sell their home for at least $200k in profit (just before the real interest rates kicked in or the balloon payment came due) so they could move on to a bigger and better house that they couldn't really afford. Back when developers were going more and more extravagant because they couldn't sell a house to a young family of three unless it had granite counters, a three car garage, 3000+ square feet of living space, and all the other luxuries. It worked so well until it didn't.
Of course, the big difference is that the people who couldn't afford the home loans just short sold their homes or walked away from them. Student loans are much tougher since they aren't just wiped away...ever. Both situations led to excess, however, and will be costing this country countless amounts for many years to come.
It's time to really work on making college education affordable again, but it won't happen if 17yo kids are effectively deciding where the money is spent (I was no better at 17). As you said, that probably comes from restoring public funding (with rigorous controls) rather than setting schools up to compete on who has the coolest bowling alley/arcade/bar in the student union buildings.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Even without knowing when you went to college, I bet it's hard to equate when you went to school and paid for your tuition vs the kind of prices students have to put up with these days.
The GP's point was that you do not "have to" get a degree in a field with few job prospects capable of paying off the debt of such a high tuition.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Donations-to-Colleges-Up-6-in/242441 [philanthropy.com]
With that type of money donated to colleges privately along with government subsidies, grants, and research money. Not forgetting what they make off their athletic departments. The fucking colleges can afford to not charge the amounts they are. This is the colleges fault, not the governments. Shit, not even blaming this on the students. Colleges themselves are causing this debt problem. Nobody else
Re:No actually they can't (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
The value proposition of many colleges/universities is out of whack, and so that skews the numbers. But if you are willing to approach it objectively, it's still very doable if you can avoid the allure of an "elite" college (whatever that really means in practical terms).
I worked a part-time job all through high school and made sure I got good grades, so between cash on hand and a few not-huge scholarships, I was in a good starting spot even though my parents couldn't afford to help me at all. I chose a good-but-not-elite college, worked part time during school and full-time (and over-time) in the summer, and finished school with no debt.
That was in the 90's, so a little later than the website you linked to. But I have two kids who followed pretty much the same recipe and are so far putting themselves through college without any debt and no major help from me (I've occasionally taken them grocery shopping to get a semester started - a few things like that). And I know many, many people who either did the same or who ended school with minor (under $10k) student debt that they paid off relatively quickly.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Informative)
This is objectively false (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
When I went to school, the bank would have laughed in my face were I to ask for a loan of ANY amount with no job, no credit history and no collateral.
The ONLY reason these kids are getting these loans is because they're not dis-chargeable via bankruptcy. If they could be eliminated via the bankruptcy route, the banks wouldn't issue the loans and one of two things would happen:
1) Only the rich could afford to go to college
2) Universities would be forced to lower their prices to that which can be afforded by the masses.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.cbpp.org/research/... [cbpp.org]
I should have said State and Federal dollars rather than just federal. And it has more to do with the percent of college costs that state and federal dollars cover than it does the amount of money allocated, because the amount of money allocated has actually gone up relative to the far past (though it's still down significantly compared to the pre-2008 recession numbers), the problem is that it hasn't kept pace with actual college costs the same way that the minimum wage has not kept pace. So tax dollars that would have covered the majority of the cost in the past, now only cover the minority of the cost, leaving the rest up to the student.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even without knowing when you went to college, I bet it's hard to equate when you went to school and paid for your tuition vs the kind of prices students have to put up with these days.
...and who is it that's demanding 5-star dorms with plasma TVs and multi-million dollar sports installations?
a) The STEM students?
or
b) The gender studies millennials?
Speaking of the "multi-million dollar sports installations". I'm still amazed there is no national health coverage, because it's "socialism", but "socialized-sports" is never even criticized.
Why is socialized-sports more important than health-care?
Re: (Score:3)
All those banks who received BILLIONS of taxpayer money.
FTFY.
Because we also get to forgive (Score:4, Insightful)
There really aren't all that many people getting useless degrees. Even fewer if you take out for profit schools that prey on the vulnerable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those people are paying off their debt just fine. Most of them likely pay it off quick. A student debt cancellation would disproportionately help shit degrees.
Re:Because we also get to forgive (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me speak from personal experience. I just had two children graduate from the University of California. Yay them!
One child was accepted at University of Southern California. We would have loved to have her attend but at twice the tuition, it wasn't worth it. And we would have been paying full freight, we wouldn't get any financial aid. For those who are counting, that's around $65k/year. And she would have needed loans to pull that off, we couldn't pay out of pocket. So instead, with our full approval, she decided to attend a UC instead at half the price. I'm pretty sure USC would have been a better choice in absolute terms, just not twice as good.
The other child probably could have attended an Ivy, MIT, CalTech, or other elite school. She chose to not even apply for essentially the same reason: we would pay full tuition and it just wouldn't be worth it. So she made the same prudent and mature decision, attend a UC at a much more reasonable price rather than try to get the absolute best education possible.
How is it fair to tell either of my kids "So yeah, you made a cost-conscious decision and now you're going to pay extra taxes to bail out those who did not."?
Re:Because we also get to forgive (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it fair to tell either of my kids "So yeah, you made a cost-conscious decision and now you're going to pay extra taxes to bail out those who did not."?
Where, exactly, during their education were they told life was fair? 'Cause they should have learned at least some of the massive number of times it was not fair. Getting a degree from a UC instead of USC isn't exactly up there with the Trail of Tears.....
Re:Because we also get to forgive (Score:4, Insightful)
I read your comment and wanted to reply. I am 40 years old and 22 years ago I made a similar decision to your kids. Actually, maybe even worse, because I chose not to attend school at all because i felt like the burden of loans was far too great and I chose to not go.
My life has worked out. Undoubtedly, my access to opportunity has been strained, but this was my choice and things are OK. I am happy with where I am at.
So, thinking about it, i have two choices. I can either choose to support loan forgiveness and free college tuition for all, or I can choose to be resentful and not support it. There are many reasons I can choose to be resentful, but none of them are good or support good outcomes. Plus, I have kids now of my own that I want to be able to go to college and not face the same decision I did when I was younger.
So, I am resentful that I was faced with a burdensome choice and chose to avoid debt, but that's had both negative and positive outcomes. I did not have debt! but i didn't make connections, get a degree, or have easy access to opportunity. Will I let that resentment color my support of loan forgiveness or tuition free college? i cant, just cant. for selfish reasons, for my kids, but also for the kids of everyone in the future. i really would like to see open opportunity for anyone who wants it without the financial burdens.
its a complicated issue though surely.
Re:Because we also get to forgive (Score:5, Insightful)
attend a UC instead at half the price
Which is still over $30k per year.
From an outside (non-US) perspective, that is the whole insanity right there. You guys consider that a bargain? Here in Europe, $30k can put you through college completely, not one year, and I'm talking completely, not just tuition fees. Might be a bit higher depending on your rent, but you get what I'm talking about.
It is an insanity to not put taxpayer dollars into education when we live in a world where power depends more on brains than on steel.
Re:Because we also get to forgive (Score:5, Interesting)
How fair is it to see a problem and refuse to fix it?
Serously? It's perfectly fair if I didn't cause the problem. I honestly don't see how "fair" figures into it. "Compassionate" is something else. It might not be compassionate to avoid helping but fairness is a non-sequitur.
So here's how I look at it. Some student decided to enroll in an optional college program. They borrowed money. They knew how much it would be. They knew the interest rate. They had (or could have found) adults who could give them guidance and perspective. They voluntarily signed the loan documents. And now they're unhappy with the outcome. Just from that starting point, I am having trouble seeing a problem which needs me to intervene. I think the problem will correct itself as the next class of students hears the stories and thinks a little more carefully about what loans to take out.
Pile on that the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" aspect of this. I believe the median graduate with a bachelor's degree has something like $20k in debt. Median undergraduate dropouts have much less, something like $10k. These are not big numbers. If you buy a used car instead of a new one, that just about covers it. It's only when you look at professional program graduates (law, medicine, business) that you find people with $100,000 debt and that's no big deal. Yeah, it's stressful for them but if they applied themselves, they've got very lucrative careers ahead of them. They can make the loan payments. So I still just don't see a problem which needs solving, certainly not one which involves forcibly taking money from hundreds of millions of uninvolved bystanders.
Re:Because we also get to forgive (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell me with a straight face we needed 371,694 business majors, 92,554 comm/journalism majors, 42,795 English majors, 18,427 foreign language/literature majors, 43,661 liberal arts majors, 10,157 philosphy/religious studies majors, 117,440 psychology majors, 161,230 social sociences/history majors, or 92,979 visual/performing arts majors.
Yes those are broad categories and yes we do have jobs that benefit from or even require degrees in those categories (e.g., there were 85 library science degrees awarded in that period, which sounds a lot closer to the mark). However, we don't need anywhere near that many people with those particular degrees. But if you add all of those categories up together you get about 950,000 degrees, which accounts for almost half of all degrees awarded in the 2015-2016 period.
And yes, I've clearly left off the STEM degrees, but even if as a category that's in demand, there are plenty of disciplines within that broad area that still award degrees in excess of jobs available. The degree isn't necessarily useless in and of itself (though there are some guilty of that) but it's the simple fact that the degree is useless to the person who obtained it because it will not help them advance their career and it will only leave them saddled with debt that they cannot discharge.
And this is just degrees awarded. This doesn't count the large population that goes to college for a few years before ultimately dropping out. They just get shackled with the debt without the benefit of the useless degree.
Yeah, actually. (Score:3)
I know more unemployed/underemployed engineers than I do media studies majors.
Everyone should get a "Free Ride".
Doesn't matter what type of degree (usually) (Score:3)
All those idiots who racked up a $50,000 debt so they could pursue a career in media studies? Why should they get a free ride?
So what if they did pursue such a degree? Most jobs don't really give a shit what the degree is in - just that you have a degree of some description and that it provides some evidence that you have a functioning brain. Most people I know have jobs that are not particularly relevant to their degree. My sister has a degree in civil engineering and has never worked a day as an engineer of any description. But she's educated and can prove it and THAT is what matters in quite a lot of cases. One of my closes
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this bill going to also give them a REFUND for all the money they paid off?
Also, what time frame does this cover? Is it retroactive for all the folks that have been struggling, and paying all this time...for decades?
Doesn't quite seem fair for those folks.
I mean, if it ends up being free for some, to be fair it has to be free for all, right?
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
And...what about all the many students (and their families) that have over this time, worked hard and sacrificed to PAY their loans?
A historical example would be the assumption of the war debt of the 13 original colonies by the US. Some states had already repaid some or all of their own debt, some had not. Hamilton got through the assumption bill [wikipedia.org], and all remaining state war bonds and scrip were paid in full by the federal government. Maybe not fair, but generally considered an important step in making the US a reliable economic partner, and hence pragmatically a net good.
Of course, Hamilton told his cronies in time, so they bought outstanding bonds at cents on the dollar...
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's unfair the same way making vaccines is unfair to those who got sick before.
My loans are nearly all paid off, and by the time 2021 rolls around they will be. I'd support this measure because making shit better for people after is us what we're supposed to be doing, not needlessly making them struggle so we can grouch about it.
Re: Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Where a knee surgery costs tax payer 1000$ instead of costing individual 200000$
Where having a accident does not mean instant bankrupcy?
Re: Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
Where a knee surgery costs tax payer 1000$ instead of costing individual 200000$. Where having a accident does not mean instant bankrupcy?
It's practically free then and there, but over a lifetime you're likely to pay 50-60% as much in taxes as Americans do in health insurance. It's a flat tax on income so even healthy young people in low income jobs are paying quite a lot into the system, most of us have a huge surplus when young and start eating away at that as we get older and develop health issues. So for that "free" $200k surgery we've probably paid $100-120k in taxes it's not magically 1% of the cost. What's the other 40-50%? Overhead with claims and lawyers and hospitals overcharging and many decisions made based on economic incentives rather than medical need.
A big lie is that your future healthcare costs are predictable, a friend of mine lost his dad to a sudden heart attack. Cost: One death certificate. Someone in my family has been racking up considerable healthcare charges for the last eight years now, probably wiping out all the taxes he's paid in his life and then some. As long as you make it roughly to retirement age that the vast majority does it's not really about whether you die at 65 or 95, it's whether you die quick and quiet or slow in a drawn out battle with the doctors to save/prolong your life. Which means we're all in the same risk pool, whether you're fit or obese might give you more years and a higher quality of life but it doesn't mean a cheaper death.
Re: Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
The healthcare tax in the UK, called National Insurance, is based on income. Younger people in low paying jobs pay less, or even nothing at all.
The UK's health service, the NHS, does in fact pay a lot less for treatments and medicines than private hospitals do. The US really wants that to stop because insurance companies over there use the NHS price as a benchmark to drive down the prices they pay too.
Re: Nope (Score:5, Informative)
What seems to work the best is the combination of private and state options, where you can go to a private university, or private clinic, or private dentist (I certainly do), but if you're in a tough situation (as I was right after attending state university), you have a "free" option to fall back to.
The problem in medicine is the psychology, the moment you can walk up to someone and say: pay this, or that, or you _die_, you get 200$ epi-pens - same ones you buy in europe for 5$.
People will literally pay all the money they don't even have to save the life of theirs, or their family. At the same time people who are to poor (at that moment), to get help will suffer needlessly, and skip a prevention which is always much cheaper then curing disease that already spread.
Re: Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
"you have a 'free' option to fall back to"
My understanding is that in country like France, this is reversed. The public colleges are free, supported by the government, and permit only the best and brightest through rigorous testing. It's private colleges that provide the "fallback" if you can't test into the upper tier, and are considered less prestigious all-around.
Re: Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
US education was never "free/nearly free", so your entire comment is bullshit just based on that fact alone. What US education WAS at one point is reasonably priced. Then government got involved and start subsidizing it, which predictably made it more expensive. Now youre begging for more of the same because you seem to think that the best way to treat cyanide poisoning is with more cyanide.
Re: Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
And...what about all the many students (and their families) that have over this time, worked hard and sacrificed to PAY their loans?
Is this bill going to also give them a REFUND for all the money they paid off?
Also, what time frame does this cover? Is it retroactive for all the folks that have been struggling, and paying all this time...for decades?
Doesn't quite seem fair for those folks.
I mean, if it ends up being free for some, to be fair it has to be free for all, right?
College shouldn't be so expensive. Going to college shouldn't be only for people in a certain wealth-class; that's not good for the country, we need the best and brightest going to college even if they're not rich, and don't have the means to go without racking up debt.
That said, I don't believe in retro-actively giving everyone a refund on their loans. I worked full time through college to keep what I owed at a minimum, and I went to the school that offered the most scholarships to keep what I owed to a minimum. I sacrificed to stay financially responsible. Forgiving everyone's student loans is a huge slap in the face to people who were being financially responsible.
I'm all for creating measures to ensure anyone can afford going to college in the future- but I shouldn't be forced to pay taxes to support someone who picked the most expensive school they could get into when I was responsible in my choices and what I could afford.
Stop rewarding people for making bad decisions.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
College shouldn't be so expensive. Going to college shouldn't be only for people in a certain wealth-class; that's not good for the country, we need the best and brightest going to college even if they're not rich, and don't have the means to go without racking up debt.
You make great points there but I think you and I see different ways to correct for this.
Personally, I think one thing that should be changed is we should stop obsessing so much about "4 year degrees". Yes there should be expected credit requirements for bachelor's degrees but we shouldn't be so set on them as 4 year goals. This makes people feel that if they can't get them done in 4 years that they aren't worth doing at all, which leaves a lot of people to see work and school as mutually exclusive. I myself took about 6 years for my undergrad so I could work at the same time (and graduate without debt) and I turned out just fine.
I worked full time through college to keep what I owed at a minimum, and I went to the school that offered the most scholarships to keep what I owed to a minimum. I sacrificed to stay financially responsible.
The problem though is that there are few schools where that is even possible any more. Education is really, really, expensive now. It hasn't been that long in years since I finished my undergrad but tuition has gone up dramatically since then, as have all other college associated costs. And while there are some programs with minimal costs beyond tuition, I was not in one of those. Similarly there are programs that can be handled well online, mine was not one of those either. Some programs need the hands-on lab work to really teach the material.
but I shouldn't be forced to pay taxes to support someone who picked the most expensive school they could get into when I was responsible in my choices and what I could afford.
I would say in response that the spread in college costs should not be as extreme as it is (say between a state college and an ivy league). However the more expensive schools often have better graduation rates, and with that often goes better loan repayment rates. Hence it could be a wash in terms of debt forgiveness.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Social investment is not the same thing as welfare. Education is needed to drive the economy going forward.
It is actually a form of welfare when a mediocre student whose family can afford to pay their way is allowed to take a spot from a better student whose family can't afford to pay their way. It hurts the country and hurts the economy. Our nation can't afford this kind of charity for the wealthy.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that depends on what people study, doesn't it?
No, no it doesn't. Just because you don't value something doesn't mean it doesn't have value. And just because something doesn't have a direct monetary value doesn't mean it doesn't have value either.
As someone with two science degrees it blows my mind that I keep having to defend majors like art and women's studies. Yet everyone who always trots majors out as worthless are just so mind-blowingly short-sighted that I can't really help myself.
There is real value in understanding other people and cultures and comparing against your own. If you want to market to different ones, engage with them, enrage them, whatever. If you want to market your product to women, actually understanding them is really goddamn helpful. If you want to provide therapy to transgender individuals, understanding how people view gender is pretty critical.
I just don't get why so many people want to shit on things outside of STEM majors. Humanity got to where it is today learning for the sake of learning. If something doesn't appeal to you, don't learn it. But understand that it is both important to others and potentially critically important for some people.
"Spend anything you want to go anywhere you want, and the taxpayers will cover it" is unsustainable.
Nice strawman. Nobody is proposing that you can retire to the University of Hawaii and just take courses for the rest of your life.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
... making up shit, and then colouring it in with crayons. Which, intellectually speaking, is what most gender studies programs actually amount to.
I think it speaks volumes to the biases inherent in /. that this kind of thinking is modified as insightful. It also shows that the level of understanding of gender studies programs here on /. is little more than a high-level caricature.
their worth is, unsurprisingly, priced accordingly in the free marketplace of society (priced at sub-zero values,
Yes, their direct, economic worth is priced low, but that is a long ways from proving that these ideas are without value.
Do fields like gender studies lead directly towards goods and services flowing in the world? No, but the same criticism could be leveled at advanced mathematics or physics research on stellar evolution, yet those are often lauded as worthwhile.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a question: if someone invented a cure for cancer,
What an asinine analogy. People who have died from cancer cannot be made whole by any modern cure. People who have taken responsibility for themselves and paid back the loans they freely chose to take out can be made whole by refunding the money they struggled to pay back.
There is one reason for this proposal by Sanders: buying votes. Free stuff for a lot of people. No responsibility for their actions. Of course people who owe student loans will choose to vote for the free money, especially since it will all be paid for by the uberrich who participate in Wall Street. (They forget, or simply choose to ignore, that a very very large number of middle income people have assets in Wall Street, especially retirement funds. They, too, probably have assets in mutual funds or stock funds, but they'll be too stupid to recognize the danger they create by getting their free ride for a debt they chose to take on.)
The chickens will come home to roost when the generation who thinks everyone else should pay for their college has children who think everyone else should pay for their food, clothing, housing, medical care, college, and vacations for "mental health", too.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, his parent probably got education for next to nothing. Hell, when I started college I worked part time pay for college and still have a few buck left over, and has no debt.
My electronics degree cost me $6,000. And that's everything. Side note: I never used it professionally, I became a software engineer.
Then education expenses went bonkers and suddenly people are going on about fair.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if for some reason you expect to make 6 figure income on your first job out of college.
For most, your college degree is only important getting your FIRST job.
After that, it is resume work experience and to a good degree, networking within your job and job mark
Re:Nope (Score:4, Informative)
Yep, 100% accurate. I spent years recruiting and interviewing, and after you've been in the workforce for a couple of years doing real work, your choice of college (and to some degree, whether or not you even went to college at all) means almost nothing from a hiring standpoint.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. How much do all those who actually worked late nights for their tuition, paid their own way, managed to avoid debt receive under this scheme? They're the people who should be rewarded, not the losers who sat around on their butts for a couple of years taking advantage of all the facilities of the five-star campuses.
Re: (Score:3)
Media studies? Philosopy? There's a long list of them.
PS: I'm not sure gender studies should be a requirement for HR. HR people should know the tech they're using and know how to interview people accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
https://datausa.io/profile/cip... [datausa.io]
https://datausa.io/profile/cip... [datausa.io]
etc.
There's a search box at top right. Knock yourself out
Here's part of an email I got from him (Score:5, Insightful)
During the last 45 years there have been a lot of campaign promises made by candidates, a lot of political party platforms, a lot of great speeches and a lot of important pieces of legislation passed.
But, at the end of all of that, we have to ask ourselves some very simple questions that are too rarely asked.
Why, despite huge increases in technology and worker productivity, is the average American worker today â" in real, inflation-accounted-for dollars â" earning no more than he or she did in 1974?
Why are half of our people living paycheck to paycheck, with no money in the bank and scared to death that their car might break down or that a family member could end up in the hospital?
Why, in the last 30 years, has there been a massive transfer of wealth from the working families of this country to the very rich â" with the top 1% seeing its wealth increase by $21 trillion â" while the bottom half saw a $900 billion decline in its wealth?
Why, for the first time in the modern history of our country, is the younger generation experiencing a lower standard of living than their parents with more debt, lower wages and less home ownership?
Why, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, do we have more people incarcerated than any other nation?
Why are we the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all, while we pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs?
Why will 500,000 Americans sleep out on the streets tonight while millions of others are paying 40 or 50 percent of their limited incomes for housing?
Why is there a gap in life expectancy of 15 years between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest, with life expectancy in our country actually in decline?
Why do we have more wealth and income inequality than any other major nation with the disparity between the rich and poor growing wider? Three individuals now own more wealth than the bottom half of America, the top one percent owns more wealth than the bottom 92 percent and 49 percent of all new income goes to the top one percent.
And here is the reason why.
Unfettered capitalism works extraordinarily well for the very rich and powerful special interests, while it is a disaster for ordinary Americans. While the billionaire class becomes richer, tens of millions of Americans are unable to afford the basic necessities of life â" decent food, shelter, housing and education â" and many are going deeper and deeper into debt.
Re:Here's part of an email I got from him (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfettered capitalism works extraordinarily well for the very rich and powerful special interests, while it is a disaster for ordinary Americans. While the billionaire class becomes richer, tens of millions of Americans are unable to afford the basic necessities of life â" decent food, shelter, housing and education â" and many are going deeper and deeper into debt.
There has not been "Unfettered capitalism" in the US for over 200 years.
Re:Here's part of an email I got from him (Score:5, Informative)
The last 25 years the economic system has been becoming more and more libertarians.. and people are ending up where the also do the more libertarian a system is: few wealthy, the rest poor.
Also, in over 100 years, not 200. We had a complete unfettered capitalist system for a while, and it lead to people being treated like trash, robber barons stealing homes, and most people being the victim of rent seekers.
Re: Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I'm a life long liberal and I see nothing but race baiting, outrage politics, wacko open borders stuff (which was never a position of the Democratic party) and completely insane, ill thought-out reparations madness.
The Democrats are lost. But the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the DNC who (shockingly) lost the American non urban working class and allowed a foolish drift to the infantile shrieking side of the party.
I'm hoping for 2024. But that's looking like a stretch at this point.
Re: Nope (Score:5, Informative)
You could have just said, "whaddabout Trump" and saved yourself a lot of typing, dipshit.
Because I try to not engage in whataboutism. We have gone from a day where a president gets impeached because of a consensual blowjob from an adult, to one that tells others to grab a woma'n's vagina, who fucks Hookers and porn Stars then pays them money to be quiet, who uses thed presidency to enrich himself.
This is not whataboutism, this is plain telling that Joe Bidenm's silly hugeness, doesn't even register next to the Republicans party's complete lack of morals. No whataboutism, sinply telling you that the Republican party has abandoned the moral high ground, so you can hardly play moral high ground.
This is the position of the Republican party, and if you are a Republican, you approve of it.
Re: Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
The proper answer is "none of your fucking business".
It's okay to dislike Trump.
The reality of it is, he's an asshole.
But demonizing people who may or may not have voted for him based on POLICY isn't the way either.
You don't vote for a public official because they're "Nice".
You vote based on whether their policy agrees with the direction you want the country to go.
And simply because you support ONE of their policies doesn't mean you support them all.
This absolute incivility with people who may only MILDLY disagree with you is toxic.
And if this shit keeps up, people like you are going to push the country into a civil war.
And, considering who actually owns most of the weapons in private hands, you WON'T emerge as the winner in such a conflict.
reverse socialism (Score:3)
Paying rich universities with money taken from tax payers.
Public Universities aren't rich (Score:4, Insightful)
For anyone wondering if Public Universities are a racket this is easily disproved if you've got kids in college. There were 400 qualified kids (GPA 3.8+) applying to my kid's nursing program and 200 slots. They did interviews, looked at extra curricular activities and special programs, etc, etc to decide who got a slot.
What they did not do is jack up the price until they had only 200 applications. Which is what you do in a for profit business when demand exceeds supply. If they were just soaking up loan money that's exactly what they'd do.
Now, the private, for profit Universities are another matter entirely. But those only exist because our corrupt, pro-corporate government is letting them. Obama had passed rules requiring high levels of job placement, but Trump cancelled those rules and they roared right back to life.
Re:reverse socialism (Score:5, Insightful)
I dare say for the majority of accounts, it comes from regular normal people's retirement accounts (401K's, IRA's, etc) and investments for their later years and a hedge against inflation on their savings.
This will hit the common man trying to be responsible and save for their golden years.
Free Shit Army on the march! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like the Democrat primaries are going to devolve into a game show. Who can give away the most in cash and prizes? Reparations for Slavery! Reparations for women being undercompensated all these generations! College loan forgiveness! Reparations for homosexuals! (Yes, these are all real proposals, and the silly season is just beginning.)
I don't think this plays as well to mainstream America as the candidates seem to think. Yes, the Free Shit Army will always have volunteers, but most people actually want to earn their way through life, they just don't want to have to struggle to find a decent job.
Re:Free Shit Army on the march! (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think this plays as well to mainstream America as the candidates seem to think
They don't need to play well to mainstream America, they need to play well to the DNC voters. After they win the nomination, they can pivot towards the center.
Is pivoting possible anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
After they win the nomination, they can pivot towards the center.
Pivoting used to be possible because the media wouldn't cover outrageous claims made in the primaries.
Now pivots are essentially impossible, because after the primaries everyone has tons of video material of you saying whatever.
After the primaries you can only go harder in the direction you were on before, or you look absurd and weak. That is partly why Trump won, he didn't pivot - he just went More Turmp.
Whoever wins the DNC nomination (Warren) will have to go Hard Left, Full Speed.
Re:Free Shit Army on the march! (Score:5, Informative)
Socialism is an economic system, and totalitarianism is a political system. Apples and oranges. Decades ago they tended to happen together, but various countries have separated them so that you have places like Singapore which are totalitarianistic capitalists, and places like Sweden which is (mostly) a socialist democracy.
Upgrade your slogans.
Re: (Score:3)
"Totalitarianism" is rather unpopular. So you call it "Communism" instead. But that lie stopped working. So now you call it "Socialism" instead. It doesn't matter what it's called, government control of the economy is how you get totalitarianism. "Just vote for us to tax the rich, and tax corporations, and nationalize some key industries, and fix bad pricing, and fix bad wages it's all to benefit you!" A lie. Told by totalitarians. And believed by fools.
Re:Free Shit Army on the march! (Score:5, Funny)
Well currently there are half a dozen Democratic candidates polling well ahead of Trump
Oh good. I'm sure it's as much a shoe-in as Hillary was then. You have nothing to worry about.
Re:Free Shit Army on the march! (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny thing, having more educated Americans makes all of America more competitive in the global marketplace and improves every American's lot.
Would you rather see a continued need to hire non-Americans due to lack of an educated workforce?
The tuition bubble needs to pop. Government givaways will just keep the horribly distorted market going.
There's just no reason for a state university to cost more today (inflation adjusted) than in the early 80s before runaway tuition began. This is not a sustainable price for tuition, and we should do nothing to prop it up.
Free Death (Score:3)
What if that makes us uncompetitive against countries who actively invest in the future? Your saying is a nice ideal, but sometimes nice ideals flop in practice. (Same with IT fads.)
Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
We squandered $7 trillion on homicide sprees in Iraq and Afghanistan between 9/11/2001 and present day. Why not invest a mere 25% of that number in actual Americans?
Though this is really a Band-Aid solution. The US needs a robust and cheap state university system nationwide, and public schools need to stop being stigmatized vs private universities. That's part of the joy of living in states like NY, NJ, MD, CA, MI, etc -- they have functional public university systems that offer opportunity to all without major debt accumulation.
Guess I'll go somewhere else (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Was hoping /. might get a good discussion going on the topic of expensive college tuition and student debt but I guess that was too much to ask for.
What kind of discussion are you looking for here? The pros and cons of nationalizing the university system? An in-depth discussion of the reasons for the increase in tuition costs? [wikipedia.org]
An answer to the question of whether this promise will actually get votes for Bernie, whether he succeeds in implementing it or not?
Bernie promising your money for votes (Score:3, Insightful)
There should be some law against giving potential voters something financial in return for votes in their favor. It reeks of bribery.
Re:Bernie promising your money for votes (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of like Trump, and every republican since Reagan, promising tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations?
At least this benefits >30% of the population and not just the 1%
And then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, you forgive debts that total trillions of dollars...
Then what?
I mean, are you just saying everyone who goes to college going forward will have debts forgiven after?
Well then, I guess college can cost a million dollars a year - who cares, since you don't have to pay it?
Well the thing is someone does have to pay it. Someone has to give the colleges very real money and forgiveness means the taxpayers give all of the kids free money to party with.
A more realistic plan is to say there can be some level of debt forgiveness for people with outstanding student debt who need help. But in exchange we end federal taxpayer support for student loans, and colleges have to readjust tuition to be what people can realistically afford, not to make use of what the government is willing to hand out.
It would be very interesting to see what support would be like for such a system where a ton of students with crushing debt would benefit, at the expense of a transition period with people about to enter school not getting as easy access to student loans.
We Need Comprehensive Student Loan Reform (Score:5, Insightful)
Schools need to be on the hook, at least partially, for the success of their students. One of the reasons school has become so expensive is the "free" money from the federal government. If schools were responsible for 20-30% payback of defaulted loans from their endowments, we'd see a vastly different landscape. Both in the seriousness in the way they treat students and the in the quality of the education.
Students also need to have some kind of consequence for defaulting. Rescinding the diploma to any "forgiven" loan is one step. It doesn't address students who took loans and didn't finish but it would be something serious enough for people to consider before taking the forgiveness instead of paying back the money owed.
Like any amnesty... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the amnesty for illegal immigrants, back in the (iirc) 80's? Many of us said "fine, but first secure the borders, because otherwise this is a huge incentive for more of the same". And here we are.
Federal involvement in personal loans was a stupid idea. Want to get out of this mess? Forgive all those loans? Fine, but first, end all federal loan involvement.
Otherwise this would just be a huge incentive for even dumber loans, because people would count on the being forgiven.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It takes a multi-disciplined approach to reduce illegal immigration. Focusing on just the border is a mistake. We should also be auditing business hiring and payroll practices because most illegals come here to work. However, businesses legally bribe Congress to keep that from happening because cheap labor
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Like having a 401k? Like Social Security? Like Medicare when you're 65 and nobody'll insure you?
Then we need to get money into the hands of consumers so they can spend it. Right now it's just interest going to the top. Money in consumers hands fuels the engine of the economy and the engine is starved. You over 40s with your "I got mine" attitudes are gonna lose it. Your retirement savings will be eaten alive by rising medical, housing and food costs. Governments will turn to you to fill their coffers because the young'uns don't have anything. They'll find ways to cut your benefits and tax you.
No man is an island. We've forgotten that.
wait wait wait (Score:3)
Is this retroactive? Why isn't he offering to reimburse me for my student tuition? Am I being penalized because I skimped and saved and paid mine off?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you're not being penalized. Just because someone else gets something doesn't mean you're losing something. This would be paid for by Wall Street taxes.
What about everyone who didn't rack up debt? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was already screwed over by the housing crisis bailout. I saved a 30% down payment, bought within my means, made sure what I bought wasn't horribly overpriced, and made all my mortgage payments on time. Consequently I didn't qualify for any of the relief programs. But I still had to pay for them with my taxes. Now you want to screw me over for being responsible about how I paid for college too? Because forgiveness of debt doesn't mean nobody has to repay the debt. It means someone else has to repay the debt - in this case, all the taxpayers.
Re:What about everyone who didn't rack up debt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, should a bunch of people that were 18 years old at the time spend the rest of their lives in indentured servitude because of aggressive college recruiters and loan programs that suckered them so deeply into debt that they can never hope to dig their way out? Especially when the bright future salaries they were promised have no chance of materializing?
Do you know how many of them just up and commit suicide as the crushing debt they're under makes it impossible for them to build a future? That's debt that'll never be recovered.
Re:What about everyone who didn't rack up debt? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say we forgive all the debt.
Now they can take all the money they were paying toward their student loans and... save it? Spend it? Buy a house and start making loan payments again that they can't afford because real estate prices where the jobs are have gotten insane?
The problem isn't the debt. It's the jobs (both where they are and what they pay). Forgiving the one type of debt is a one time mulligan, but it opens the doors to the next group of salespeople to exploit them.
Face it, it's a bailout... but it's not a bailout of student debtors. It's a bailout of all the real estate agents and financial management companies who have been bitching that the student loan companies got there first.
In the end, the people who are getting the short end of the stick will still get screwed, because they'll still be last in line for all the things they couldn't afford after their current debt payments get cancelled out.
It's the same thing that happened when people families started going two income. The first ones that did it had a huge advantage over everybody else. Once everybody did it, there was no advantage and in fact... you had to go two income to afford what used to be affordable on one income alone.
You'll know that this was all a scam by the financial services industry when they bribe congress to make mortgages (like student loans) no longer dischargeable in bankruptcy...
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are responsible, and paid off your debts, or even did not take too much to pay for a lavish party life, you don't get any benefits. In fact the money you invest in US companies will now be taxed to pay off the debt of your slacker friends...
Nice way to bring moral hazard into the equation. Previously for-profit colleges and predatory loan officers had known that these loans would not be discharged by bankruptcy, i.e.: paid even when they were bad. Now the government is letting the students know they would not be on the hook for the loan anyways.
Why not fix the root cause, and now pay extravagant fees for not-so-useful education. Everyone has the right to study whatever they want. However if they want to take on a $100k loan for an "education" with zero job prospects, let them do it on their own dime, now the public's.
What about reparations? (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Seeing the reaction to this brings to mind what we'd probably see if anyone ever proposed just cutting the whole work-earn-consume-repeat cycle off and implementing a basic income as of I'm about midway through my working career and have been lucky enough to be able to put some money away for retirement. I would imagine most of my peers in this situation would be wary of having their retirement money "stolen" or "made worthless." -- there's a huge perceived sunk cost and people don't want to give up what they have. Same goes for loan forgiveness...someone who's paid on their loans for years is going to be upset that they "wasted" all those payments now that student debt is forgiven.
However, we have never faced anything like we have now. It was always the case that more education guaranteed you a better job which allowed you to consume more and have a better life. Recently, this correlation is not absolute. People going into school and investing tons of money aren't just the sterotypical people paying $300K+ for a law degree they can't get a BigLaw associate position with, or a completely impractical course of study with no market outside academia...due to companies offshoring and outsourcing entry level jobs, and academic institutions cutting back faculty positions, there's less of a market for ALL educated individuals. STEM people are having the same problems liberal arts people are...there's no work that will allow them to pay back their loans and the loans are an anchor preventing them from doing anything previous generations did (moving away from home, buying a house, having kids, etc.)
Now, it's possible that most knowledge work as we know it will be replaced in a few decades, and everyone, educated or not, will be unable to sell their labor on the labor market or have trouble doing so for a rate that provides a good return on investment. The only thing that will potentially help you is, surprisingly, more education. A bachelors' degree is going to be the new high school diploma, which means that we need to ensure that everyone can get to at least that level without being indentured to your loan servicer forever.
I'd be for this simply because it would be a much bigger economic stimulus than just giving wealthy people another tax cut. You would directly place those loan payments students were making into their pockets again and they could save or spend it immediately. Giving it to the wealthy as a giveaway is just going to make them hoard it offshore somewhere...the luxury home and yacht markets aren't that busy, but injecting that money back into the community would improve the most lives.
Better alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Buy out the debt and then have the outstanding loans converted to 0%, and the government can start collecting. Those who can show a real hardship can ask to extend the payments out longer. Since it is 0%, the extension won't cause extra hardship. Failure to pay after this point will trigger a witholding from paychecks/taxes/whatever the government feels like doing.
2. All future student debt will be treated the same as any unsecured debt. Let bankruptcy courts sort out who can or can't pay, and on what terms. Banks will now have to take a long hard look at who to loan to, just like they do any OTHER loan. Duh.
Not gonna happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone with any snap at all knows this is just Bernie trying to win over the young and inexperienced crowd vote.
The reason this won't happen is because the VAST majority of voting Americans worked their asses off to pay their debts. Maybe they joined the military because they knew they couldn't afford college on their own. Maybe they did without things they really wanted because they understand how debt works. They've spent a lifetime saving and setting money aside for a shot at retirement.
Politicians ( with something to lose, like their cushy job ) won't touch this with a 100ft pole because they know the backlash from the above group would be the size of a Tidal Wave and it would get them voted from office in a hurry.
The same is true for all the promises the candidates are making. Slavery Reparations, Debt Forgiveness, Illegal Immigrant Amnesty, Gun Control, etc. etc.
Empty promises fueled by modern day issues all designed for the sole purpose of gaining your vote.
Bribing us with our own money (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, some will fall for it. #2020Bribery
Re:No paying! (Score:4, Insightful)
It shouldn't be paid or annulled. The people responsible for taking on the debt should pay it. We must live by the rule of law, and contracts need to be enforced.
Going forward, we should find ways to reduce costs - higher ed inflation vastly outpaces other inflation. Yang wants to reduce admin costs at colleges. And his version UBI, which would help people pay for it.
Education is a public good (Score:3)
The people responsible for taking on the debt should pay it.
Education is a public good [wikipedia.org] and should be treated as such. We all benefit from other people being well educated. Just because we made a bad policy in the past doesn't mean we need to be martyrs to it going forward.
We must live by the rule of law, and contracts need to be enforced.
Nobody is proposing anarchy or elimination of contractrs here. Bernie isn't proposing to just eliminate the debt with no compensation to the debt holders. He's proposing a tax to pay off the accumulated debt and to make tuition basically free going forward. When I was of the age to be going to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The facts are that Bernie doesnt give a fuck about anyone but himself. The man literally never had a job outside of government. Literally never supported anyone else. Literally never has been a responsible person.
Re: (Score:3)