Student Loan "Relief"

[jtr1962]

FWIW, my younger relatives tell me, the state universities in MS are about 20k/year between tuition, books, housing, food, utilities. Subtract the ~7k/year a student can make working the breaks flipping burgers, and you've got 13k * 4 = 52k debt @ graduation. And this is assuming no scholarships/etc.

The amount you actually clear working is far less than $7K based on my experience. Back in the early 1980s a typical summer job might pay about $4 an hour. That's $160 a week. I was in a double carfare zone (those have since been eliminated with the advent of the MetroCard) so I paid $3 a day, $15 a week to go to work. I had about $30 in taxes taken out, so overall I cleared maybe $115 a week. I ended up spending some of this money on stuff I needed. At best I could work about 12 weeks in the summer. School ended in May. I wanted a few weeks to myself before starting the next semester. In the end if I managed to put aside $1,000 in the summer working it was a lot. Forget working during school breaks. Those weren't that long, nobody would hire you for just a week or two, I really needed the time to do reports, and I really needed to just plain rest up given that I often put in 15 hour days when school was in session. $1,000 back then is equivalent to maybe $3,000 now. Even if I had worked during breaks, figure another $250 I might clear. Big deal. Not worth running myself ragged for it.

In the end after working one summer I concluded working summers was a waste of my time given how little it would decrease what I owed upon graduation. I opted to just enjoy my summers off, and start the next school year more refreshed. If working summers could have resulted in graduating with no loans, I would have certainly thought differently but that wasn't the case.

 

[jtr1962]

Be careful what you wish for. Others might well be forced to pay for your getting it.

You just described how civilization works. I don't have children but I supported the enhanced child tax credits. I didn't benefit from the enhanced unemployment insurance but I supported it. I don't benefit from part of my real estate taxes going to schools, as I have no children, but I support it. I don't benefit from dependent exemptions for children but I support it. Student loan cancellation is actually one of the few times I would be a beneficiary of a government program. The only other time I recall was the pandemic stimulus payments.

We all pay for programs only others benefit from. That's the nature of society.

Since you started this, perhaps you can explain to the rest of us the thought process behind your stance? I sincerely do not understand. I, and others that aren't staunch conservatives might benefit from elucidation. Because, as it stands, I have only what I can ascertain from the stingy, mean-spirited, simplistic comments that have been left here (and elsewhere). I truly do not get this way of thinking. To me it seems, "if I don't benefit, then you shouldn't either", which is rather juvenile and short-sighted.

That's pretty much it as far I can tell after having discussions about this in a number of places. It's either "I paid off my loans, so can you" or "Why should I pay for something I'm not getting". The latter isn't even technically accurate. Nobody has talked about raising taxes to cover cancelled student loans. In fact, if a loan is in default the government already paid off the lender long ago, perhaps decades ago. Cancelling a loan simply means zeroing out the balance on a computer. No new money is actually needed from taxpayers. Moreover, the vast majority of loans which would have been cancelled were never going to be repaid anyway. Many haven't had any payments in years. The people who took them out simply are no longer able to pay. So you can't even argue that cancelling these loans will result in the government missing out on payments. Indeed, by stopping (futile) collection proceedings on them the government is arguably saving money.

 

[M@elstrom]

Only because of a concerted effort by Republicans and illiterate Trump judges.

Just because you don't agree with their ruling hardly makes them illiterate, in fact many have clearly articulated (for example) that the Roe v Wade ruling far exceeded the defensible interpretation of what constitutes privacy under the Constitution.

jz6342:
As conservative as I am I feel there are two things Americans shouldn't have worry about - healthcare and education

That is a Socialist viewpoint, not a Conservative one 😉

 

[ArchaeoCat]

Just because you don't agree with their ruling hardly makes them illiterate, in fact many have clearly articulated (for example) that the Roe v Wade ruling far exceeded the Courts interpretation of what constitutes privacy under the Constitution.

Whether I like it or not is beside the point. Without getting too deep in the weeds with you, I said what I did because they are not in fact reading the law, the constitution, or precedent at all. They are making it up as they go along. Gorsuch, as an example, sees his role as that of an umpire. They are all compromised: Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, Thomas. The previous President rammed through as many ultra-right wing allies he could with no consideration of how qualified they actually were. Don't trust me? Look at impartial reviews of their confirmation hearings.

As an aside, how can McConnell sit there and say with a straight face that Garland was too close to the election but Coney Barrett wasn't. Purely political. Bald faced hypocrites.

Enough said about that or this will become uncivil.

 

[Lips]

Rachel Maddow says lets get that Ponzi Scheme as big as we can till it explodes!
.
.
.

.
.
.

 

[M@elstrom]

Whether I like it or not is beside the point. Without getting too deep in the weeds with you, I said what I did because they are not in fact reading the law, the constitution, or precedent at all. They are making it up as they go along.

Reading the dissenting opinions on Roe v Wade could very much say the same thing...

Enough said about that or this will become uncivil.

I don't subscribe to identity Politics nor ad hominem rebuttals...

 

[ArchaeoCat]

Just because you don't agree with their ruling hardly makes them illiterate, in fact many have clearly articulated (for example) that the Roe v Wade ruling far exceeded the Courts interpretation of what constitutes privacy under the Constitution.

Whether I like it or not is beside the point. Without getting too deep in the weeds with you, I said what I did because they are not in fact reading the law, the constitution, or precedent at all. They are making it up as they go along. Gorsuch, as an example, sees his role as that of an umpire. They are all compromised: Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, Thomas. The previous President rammed through as many ultra-right wing Allie's he could with no consideration of how qualified they actually were. Don't trust me? Look at impartial reviews of their confirmation hearings.

As an aside, how can McConnell sit there and say with a straight face that Garland was too close to the election but Coney Barrett wasn't. Purely political. Bald faced hypocrites.

Enough said about that or this will become uncivil

Reading the dissenting opinions on Roe v Wade could very much say the same thing...




I don't subscribe to identity Politics nor ad hominem rebuttals...

Not an ad hominem attack, but an observation, it appears that civil discourse is impossible with you on this subject because you are living in a fantasy world. If you think that the Supreme Court as it stands is just business as usual and all is proper and above board, then there is a healthy dose of delusion at play. The Supreme Court is making bad decisions, not based on precedent or the Constitution, and purely to push forward an ultra-right wing agenda. Look at their past judgements. Listen to what they've said at speaking engagements, etc. Look at the circumstances of their confirmation hearings. If the shoe were on the other foot….

 

[ScottsoSmith]

I thought we were supposed to discuss flashlights, not politics

 

[Lips]

Look at all that GREEN today! Turning public money into private money; that's what it's all about!!!

What did Dianne Feinstein say, oh yeh, "The dogma lives loudly in you"

 

[bykfixer]

Only because of a concerted effort by Republicans and illiterate Trump judges.

Why the name calling?

 

[turbodog]

The amount you actually clear working is far less than $7K based on my experience. Back in the early 1980s a typical summer job might pay about $4 an hour. ...

You're too intelligent to make such poor arguments. Let's keep the numbers in *this* millennia please. Using 1985 as a starting point, $4 is equivalent to $14-15 at the historical 3.5% inflation per year.

. I wanted a few weeks to myself before starting the next semester....

I like you. If we were neighbors I think we'd be friends. But not everyone has such a "
can't do" attitude.

If it's a toss up between giving up a few extra weeks here and there and a significant head start on debt mgmt... I'm going with the latter.

There's always working while in school also. Find a cushy job like reshelving books in the library.

Forget working during school breaks. Those weren't that long, nobody would hire you for just a week or two,...

Yeah, they will, especially now. So again, let's stay in this century.

 

[turbodog]

... No new money is actually needed from taxpayers. ...

Sorry, that's not how money works. When the debt is written off, money has to be 'created' to do so. This all adds to inflation, and comes out of everyone's pocket.

 

[turbodog]

I thought we were supposed to discuss flashlights, not politics

Yes. This is FAR more suited for the UG forum.

 

[jtr1962]

I like you. If we were neighbors I think we'd be friends. But not everyone has such a "
can't do" attitude.

I agree on the first point. On the second, it's more that I tend to weigh effort versus reward. My rationale was why work at a menial job to save a little debt, versus paying off the debt by working 1/3 the hours at a job I'd be enjoying much more. Of course, it didn't actually pan out that way but that was the reasoning behind it.

I hardly have a "can't do" attitude. When I really want to do something, I'm relentless. You can see it with some of my projects. It's just that lots of things really aren't important enough to me to pour a lot of effort into. I might try, but if they don't work out well, I don't bother.

If it's a toss up between giving up a few extra weeks here and there and a significant head start on debt mgmt... I'm going with the latter.

Thing is it really wouldn't have been much help, plus I'd be giving up my summers. I really needed the time off.

On the other hand, had working summers meant graduating debt free it would have been another story.

There's always working while in school also. Find a cushy job like reshelving books in the library.

I tried that my first semester. My grades suffered horribly and I felt tired all the time. Between my courses and studying I was putting in at least 12 hours a day not including work. Plus the job paid so little the amount I made was virtually inconsequential. It was basically pocket money that got mostly spent on snacks.

The way I got somewhat of a head start on my debt was by commuting to school starting during the second half of my sophomore year. That saved me about $3,000 a year that otherwise would have went towards room and board. It was also better for me personally. I had two hours each way on the train to study in peace. I like trains so there was also that. I never really liked sleep away college or dorm life anyway. Just wasn't for me. My grades improved quite a bit, plus I felt a lot more focused.

Yeah, they will, especially now. So again, let's stay in this century.

Granted, that's true now with businesses desperate for anyone. Back then it was hard to even get a summer job. Employers just didn't want to train someone who would only be there a few months. Only reason I was able to work one summer was because one of my neighbors who owned a plaque factory needed help.

 

[M@elstrom]

Not an ad hominem attack, but an observation, it appears that civil discourse is impossible with you on this subject because you are living in a fantasy world. If you think that the Supreme Court as it stands is just business as usual and all is proper and above board, then there is a healthy dose of delusion at play. The Supreme Court is making bad decisions

So not only are the current Supreme Court Justices illiterate... but I am delusional because I agree with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr's assertion that Roe's "reasoning was exceptionally weak." OR with Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said the court made a mistake by going too far, too fast in its first ruling on the constitutionality of abortion?

That my friend (along with angry emoticons) is the embodiment of ad hominem 🤣

 

[yearnslow]

I don't know much about the USA's student loan system, but in the UK, student loans were legislated and implemented
By people who had got their degrees etc for free, when the system was wanting to actually produce educated people.
This left a bad taste generally.
The problem was the spiralling costs of higher education, which were cut to the point where universities were cash strapped.
The student loan system was primarily implemented in the UK to appease these universities, and of course allowed them to attract more foreign paying students to lighten the load.
The standard of state education in the UK, in my opinion, has dropped like a stone over the last 30 years.
I myself received a state education, but when I listen to my nieces and nephews, who have also had a state education, it is nowhere near as thorough. I think the phrase 'dumbed down' is quite apt.

 

[M@elstrom]

The student loan system was primarily implemented in the UK to appease these universities, and of course allowed them to attract more foreign paying students to lighten the load.

We have a Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) here to permit more students to afford to go to University, I believe the currently indexed at around 7% of CPI (much better than a fixed interest rate), some Students however on graduation move overseas to avoid paying the debt, is that a similar phenomenon in the UK?

The standard of state education in the UK, in my opinion, has dropped like a stone over the last 30 years.
I myself received a state education, but when I listen to my nieces and nephews, who have also had a state education, it is nowhere near as thorough. I think the phrase 'dumbed down' is quite apt.

Focus on curriculum has certainly shifted over the last 30 years at "seemingly" the expense of the basic foundationals of reading, writing and arithmetic, there are significantly broader subjects to cover but throwing out the baby with the bath water is counter productive.

 

[ArchaeoCat]

Why the name calling?

(Despite a nagging little voice in the back of my mind saying, "don't respond", I shall one last time. So go ahead and get your last word ready.) Name calling? Merely apt descriptors. Firstly, it's the work of Republicans that got us here. Secondly, the three that Mr. Trump pushed into the position have demonstrated an inability to actually read precedent. With very few exceptions do their opinions meet muster of serious legal experts.

Of the many things that conservatives, Republicans, Trump-worshipers get wrong is this almost religious zeal that they are on the right side of history. But if history were actually studied (banning books won't help), it doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to see that this group of individuals is on the wrong side of history. Without taking the time and effort to teach what would be a multi-semester class on the intricacies (of which I would be wasting my time because no one in the cult would listen anyway), I can say that one of the main issues is that the movement has been long in the making. There is a romantic worship of an imagined past that never actually existed, "the good old days". It's Jim Crow coming back with a vengeance. It's a more than passing admiration of Herr Adolf and Co., a close study of Bernays. Misinformation turned into an art form. It's anti-intellectualism as a religion. It isn't liberal vs. conservative. It's progressive vs. regressive. The current party isn't trying to take us back to the 1950s, it's trying to take us back to the 1850s. As I asked the OP and received no response (because clearly their post was to create a flame war for their amusement), what is it that the so called Republican Party and its voters so terrified of? I think I can sum it up in one word, "change". Is change for the better guaranteed? No, of course not. But repeating the way that didn't work the first couple of hundred of years didn't work, what makes the modern GOP think that tweaking a few details is going to make it work in the 21st century? You know the saying about repeating the same action, expecting different results, right? And if we aren't even working with the same facts, then how can we even have a civil discourse? That has not really happened in modern history before. Sure different politicians could argue the merits of one another's stances. But never before did they not agree to facts. So until we can agree to facts, this, like many other discussions (online and in Congress) are pointless.

Well, this is where I get off of this merry-go-round of willful ignorance. Because those that refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes (paraphrasing). I maintain that you and other "regressives" are wrong-headed, and could (if desired) give countless modern examples of how more progressive policies are not only workable, but beneficial to all. But I would be wasting my time. They would just pull the lever with the R next to it for spite in the next election. This gives me very little hope for a good future for my daughter. And it frankly saddens me greatly that on the eave of our 247th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence , so many are actively trying to push our country backwards, apparently fearing change. Jefferson and company were the antithesis to this. They were doing something that had never before been attempted and was doomed to fail, for all they knew. My ancestors had been here in the New World for nearly 200 years by that point. I shudder to think how they would react to the current animosity between Americans.

With that, I wish you all a Happy Independence Day, for we are all Americans, despite party affiliation (of which I have none, for the record (Washington warned against them for this very reason)). There are some of us that still remember that. I hope we all reflect on that on Tuesday.

Good night to all

P.S. I forgot to say that it is my sincere hope that there will be a boycott of repayments. If enough Americans do not repay, it will send a very clear message to servicers and to politicians that this legislation from the bench will not be tolerated. It would only work if enough people do it though. Boycotting or striking is a long existing form of peaceful protest. Even Mahatma Gandhi advocated for it. Besides, millions of Americans won't have the option of repaying anyway.

 

[pnwoutdoors]

So, you would have the entire education system propped up by charity of scholarships and grants? Not tenable.

Nope.

Communities' K-12 paid for by those communities makes complete sense. Same as passing the hat (via property and state tax) to pay for local roads, for example. Everybody in the community benefits some; and some benefit accrues to the world because of a general rise in knowledge of people.

But, become an adult, then you're much more on your own. And should be. So, some assistance might make sense, but then so do scholarships, work/study opportunities, etc. A fully-paid-for, "free" education at every level sounds good on paper, but ...

Academia yields benefits beyond the immediately tangible. Some times, we don't see "pay offs" for generations to come.

Exactly the point.

For K-12, it's part of raising children.

For post-K12, it's adults making their own choices, making their own way in their lives. Tax breaks, scholarships, work/study, OJT ... these make sense. But "free" and fully paid-for education for all is a tougher argument.

You keep repeating this "Be careful what you wish for.

False. Didn't repeat it, sorry. Said it once only.

We spend $900 billion a year on defence, more than the next ten countries (that includes China and Russia) combined. Yet we can't forgive student loan debt?!

Congress has authority to do such things. Let the people decide. (Well, their supposed "representatives.") Raising funds and erasure of raised funds surely doesn't seem an authorized role of the Executive. If the people want elimination of the Congress-approved return on the funding it authorized, then let Congress make the approval. As it should be.

 

[yearnslow]

We have a Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) here to permit more students to afford to go to University, I believe the currently indexed at around 7% of CPI (much better than a fixed interest rate), some Students however on graduation move overseas to avoid paying the debt, is that a similar phenomenon in the UK?

I really can't say if it has created an 'exodus'?

Focus on curriculum has certainly shifted over the last 30 years at "seemingly" the expense of the basic foundationals of reading, writing and arithmetic, there are significantly broader subjects to cover but throwing out the baby with the bath water is counter productive.

Personally, I would consider arithmetic, writing and reading, along with a basic knowledge of geography and history, more preferable
too 'Gender identity' education for 4 year olds. But I'm obviously a bigot.