We really need to value education more in this country. Especially if the money comes from the gates's and bloombergs and the rest of the zillionaire class that's done so well recently. This whiny, "but it's not FAIR" attitude is just a right wing trollish talking point.

Wouldn't it to be fair to say that at the very least "some" don't have too much trouble?

What is the benefit of giving them a windfall? Especially when other paid their way without borrowing. Or worse, were unable to go to college at all.

I know it gets complicated quickly but that is why I support far more targeted solutions. I am also far more inclined to make the investments in making the college more affordable in the first place because that is actually the root of the debt problem.

It happens all the time already to determine who is even eligible to get student loans. Not to mention whether students get direct aid or scholarships so that they don't even need loans.

There are already programs for student loan forgiveness but they are just under supported and stingy to the point they may as well not exist.

Not to mention it happens all the time throughout the government in Medicaid, Disability, WIC, SNAP, etc.

Determining who decides is not difficult. Determining what is fair is more challenging. Determining what can effectively be implemented and paid for is the hard part and why we are here right now.

That is a ridiculous insult to throw my way and simply shows you are not listening to what I am saying.

In fact, I am saying the exact opposite. I am saying why give a break to people who already "got theirs" and are well on their way to earning a good living. A targeted program can help the people in need without giving money to people who don't need it.

I have already stated elsewhere in this thread that I have a daughter going off to college. It is going to cost me a lot. If I was in it for myself, I would be all in for free college. I'm not because I don't need the help and I don't think it necessary or fair.

I will gladly continue to discuss the issue but your accusation of selfishness is unwarranted and unhelpful

a nasty one. You owe me an apology.

You also owe an apology to every other person you shat on here just because they don't back Warren and Sanders' debt forgiveness plans.

NONE of them said "let's not help people." That's complete BS.

Like me, they believe there are better ways to help people.

I'll take the hide.

nice to know.

You said the article you quoted is still relevant.

Please point me to any plan you support related to helping people with student loans or the high cost of a college education.

And the article cited in this thread isn't opposed to helping people who actually need help. It's opposed to a financial windfall for people who don't need the help.

See one of my earlier posts about the plan I think is best:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287443786

if there ever was one!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

but this is just as bad. Low cost college education plus debt reform and debt relief is not a right wing plan. I don’t like black and white thinking on either side of the aisle.

The worst is there will be limits no matter which democratic plan is enacted. With typical bad luck the “too many freebies” and the “everything should be free” camps will both be pissed and stay home in the midterms.

Like has happened 42 years of the past 52.

Both arguments piss me off.

I think this issue (along with "free" college) falls under one of my favorite sayings.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H.L Mencken

And I say that as a person with a daughter starting college in the fall. I would love for someone to make it free even though I can afford to pay. Despite the fact that it would be good for me, it is not a good policy for a host of reasons.

Changes are needed on both issues but they need to be much more targeted solutions.

In order to make debt relief seem "regressive", you have to make three specific accounting choices.

1) You have to consider only the benefit side of the equation, and not the revenue.
2) You have to measure absolute benefits/costs, not relative to income
3) You have to use income levels, not wealth levels, to measure progressiveness/regressiveness

And (1) and (2) are rarely done. If you look at Social Security, one half is regressive (the tax). Looking at that alone, you could say it's a regressive program, but it's obviously not. Why the double standard?

When people talk about taxes, a change that cuts taxes on people under 100K by 2%, and over 100K by 1% would be considered progressive. However, if you look at absolute dollars instead of relative to income, it's "regressive" because rich people would get more dollars. Why the double standard?

Finally, on point (3), usually this doesn't matter because people with higher wealth also have higher incomes. Also, for programs that are yearly benefits/costs, it makes sense to use income, because that's also a thing that happens annually. But here both are different. People with college debt have low wealth -- it's not rich people benefiting. Also, debt forgiveness isn't an income-supplementing annual benefit like SS or food stamps. It's a one-time benefit, essentially a wealth transfer (from the top to the bottom), not an income transfer, so it makes sense to use wealth rather than income. Or, at the very least, some combination.

OK, maybe someone might agree or disagree with one of those three points. But unless you make all three assumptions, then debt forgiveness is progressive.

A lot of people go back because they want something to do which is great if you can do it.

Let's make debt forgiveness and free college more progressive so the poor are helped the most.

Maybe if you make less than...fill in amount...you would pay very little, but if you make a very high income, you would pay the whole thing, perhaps with an option to refinance with a low interest rate.

The everything is free there are no responsibilities approach is a bad one IMO. We also need to stop selling the idea to every kid they should go to college. Sometimes it’s a bad personal finance decision, like when someone spends 250k to go to college to get a degree for a job that pays 30k a year.

For my graduate and undergraduate degrees. It took years of smart financial planning, sacrifices, and some element of fortuitous luck. Though I no longer carry this debt I am of the position that severe efforts are needed to combat the predatory system of the student loan industry by any means necessary. I'd rather have a so-called "regressive" act than the current system.

in fact higher education should be free, because having an educated population is at least as important to the success and security of the USA as are its roads, bridges, railroads, airports, etc. An educated population is critical infrastructure and it helps keep people from falling into poverty. You have to look at the big picture to appreciate that.

You might have a point. But bankruptcy laws have been changed in the past 30 years so that the likes of Trump to get out of debt, but not the average person.

not even attempting to pay off their loans, not even making payments and still are racking up their loan balances. In one case I've read about, she has $300K in debt, her husband has $600K in student loan debt. Almost a $million dollars already. Wow. I didn't know college cost that much now. How much does a college credit cost nowadays?

They have already said that they won't try and pay the debt back, despite in the beginning signing papers that they would pay back the loan proceeds (w/ extended payback terms as most student loans are). This could be construed as fraud (I hope not, for they'll get into trouble), but I suspect that there are quite a few students thinking that they'll be 'saved' by a bailout. What happens if there isn't a bailout? What happens if Congress simply throws its hands up in the air and cancels the entire program? Then no money will be available anymore. I am kind of thinking that this is in the possibility of happening...I don't know why, but I just get that feeling.

As to the two students racking up their loan balances? I feel like that they are passing the responsibility of paying this debt onto tax payers/others. In effect, making all of us pay off their massive loans. I have an issue w/ this manner of thinking. There are some parents and kids, who were lucky enough to be able to scrap by some savings in order to pay for school. Working four part time jobs, etc. in order to pay for college. And there are all kinds of stories like this, where people struggled w/ multiple jobs in order to go to school (parents included too). Will they even see any $ returned to them for their hard work and ethics, through any of the proposals? Probably not...none of the plans or proposals seem to include a payback clause.

I feel that some student's behavior in handling their college loans (promise to pay and then not) is going to demolish/damage a system which has enabled most students to procure loans for their college tuition (and go on to pay them off too).

I expect that if Congress does something with this whole process (by scrapping it, or putting in restrictions, etc.), money will dry up and students will no longer be able to procure loans easily. Then, where will the money come from then, for kids and others to go to college come from then?