Taking out massive loans to go party at a private school for 4 years and graduate with a worthless BA is more selfish and irresponsible than running up a credit card bill buying designer clothes or taking out a loan to gamble.
It's insane that stealing money from working people to pay off the debts of those cretins is even considered.
Get a degree in accounting, engineering, nursing, physical therapy, materials/industrial, business, graphic design, marketing, IT, law, medicine, etc from the public university in your state and you'll be able to pay off your debt in a couple years. Go to some $60,000 a year private school that's a 4-year long party at a country club where you graduate with a degree in meta-analysis of mongolian poetry, you're gonna have a bad time.
Spoken like someone who had no idea what public university costs, and also no idea what most proposed student loan forgiveness plans look like.
some sane person wrote:
Taking out massive loans to go party at a private school for 4 years and graduate with a worthless BA is more selfish and irresponsible than running up a credit card bill buying designer clothes or taking out a loan to gamble.
It's insane that stealing money from working people to pay off the debts of those cretins is even considered.
Get a degree in accounting, engineering, nursing, physical therapy, materials/industrial, business, graphic design, marketing, IT, law, medicine, etc from the public university in your state and you'll be able to pay off your debt in a couple years. Go to some $60,000 a year private school that's a 4-year long party at a country club where you graduate with a degree in meta-analysis of mongolian poetry, you're gonna have a bad time.
The only problem is a business BA/BS is worthless nowadays like that Mongolian poetry degree. You need an MBA. And a MBA from anon top 10 school is also worthless like that Mongolian poetry degree. So tack on additional $160k of student loan debt. Then medicine is even crazier. Anyways, I got a business bachelors degree from a top 25 school. Then a MBA from about a 35th-40th ranked school. I’m 32 years old working an entry level job making $70k and I can’t get any management level job. The irony is I help friends with their work because I’m a finance master and they make 2x-3x the money I make. Life isn’t always easy.
Keep paying your debt, peasants.
Covid parties over.
I work in IT and can barely afford my loans on top of everything else. Having a degree in IT these days is not going to make you rich which is what you need to be in order to afford a family, house, cars, and these insane costs of education.
I would say sure, lets not forgive the loans. But on the condition we stop the handouts completely. My issue is the hypocrisy. We wont forgive student loans but give constant handouts to various industries and people at the highest income levels.
Too many people trying to live outside of their means. Younger generation wants to live in the big city where cost of living is crazy high, but don't have the income to afford it and then want to begrudge anyone they perceive as successful.
It's really not that hard to figure this stuff out, its just too many folks in the younger generation want to have it all immediately because that's what the social media influencer portrays.
kma wrote:
Spoken like someone who had no idea what public university costs, and also no idea what most proposed student loan forgiveness plans look like.
Says the Bidenette/Clintonette sheep who is clueless on the proposed plan. They are NOT going to be forgiving student loans, you're a full blown ignoramus if you believe that. Gosh there are some really dumb people on this site.
in95 wrote:
Too many people trying to live outside of their means. Younger generation wants to live in the big city where cost of living is crazy high, but don't have the income to afford it and then want to begrudge anyone they perceive as successful.
It's really not that hard to figure this stuff out, its just too many folks in the younger generation want to have it all immediately because that's what the social media influencer portrays.
I don't live in a big city, dont live in a high cost of living area, dont live outside my means and I dont begrudge anyone really aside from the government. Handing out loans/subsidies/forgiveness to those at the highest income and to large corporations but refusing to help every day people. Yeah, I begrudge them for that.
Don't need to have it all. Would just like to be able to retire like my neighbors across the street with their pensions who never had to go into insane amount of debt to get ahead. Thats all.
I agree with you regarding hypocrisy of forgiveness of certain debts compared to others. There definitely needs to be a reckoning with student loans in general, but forgiving the debt isn't going to help in the long term.
I disagree with the premise in your previous post that you need to be "rich" to be able to afford a family, house, car, etc. Although, I guess it depends on what you consider "rich".
We can barely pass bills to stop children from starving so it's no surprise that student loan forgiveness isn't possible with this congress.
So the government should increase university prices even more by forgiving loans. Liberals are in favor of the most irrational policies
Make the working class pay off the loans of the white collar wealthy coastal elites. Dems have morphed into the party of the elites.
The right thing would be to stop printing blank checks to schools that continue to jack up tuition costs for higher than inflation.
I paid 40K a year for med school tuition 15 years ago...and that was expensive back then. My school charges 75K a year now. Because they can.
in95 wrote:
I agree with you regarding hypocrisy of forgiveness of certain debts compared to others. There definitely needs to be a reckoning with student loans in general, but forgiving the debt isn't going to help in the long term.
I disagree with the premise in your previous post that you need to be "rich" to be able to afford a family, house, car, etc. Although, I guess it depends on what you consider "rich".
You dont think you need to be rich to have a mortgage on a decent house, a car payment or 2, all costs associated with having kids plus 80-100k (average for a 4 year degree) in student loans, while also having enough left over to invest for the future? Maybe it does depend on your idea of what rich is. I grew up dirt poor so to me I feel like I SHOULD be rich making what I make, but I'm certainly not and have no hope of ever being able to fully retire. I will likely end up starting my own business and needing to keep it going until I die. At least thats my plan right now.
brandon bowen wrote:
https://twitter.com/DefiantLs/status/1470482989658296322?s=20Hilarious!!!
Government canceling student loan debt is a high inefficient idea. If that were to become a formal policy, think how unfair it would be to those who recently paid off their student loans. Due to family money &/or family real estate assets, many who choose to go to private schools get very little in direct financial aid. Many love their private school so much they choose to double major, two B.A. majors with little correlation to high future wages. Basically you would be asking someone who chose to attend UMN or NC State, majored in accounting or nursing, something practical to pay for someone's double major in philosophy and art history at a beautiful private college. Extremely inefficient. By Christmas of the year I graduated from college, I 100% paid off my student loans. I chose to attend an inexpensive public university. I could have chosen to attend an expensive private college. It is more efficient to make the first two years of all public schools, JUCO, trade schools and public universities tuition free than to cancel student loan debt.
runnER/DR wrote:
Make the working class pay off the loans of the white collar wealthy coastal elites. Dems have morphed into the party of the elites.
The right thing would be to stop printing blank checks to schools that continue to jack up tuition costs for higher than inflation.
I paid 40K a year for med school tuition 15 years ago...and that was expensive back then. My school charges 75K a year now. Because they can.
My son's tuition is just over $60,000 at U of M.
Yeah, I agree with those silly democrats, I think when his loans are due that they should just be forgiven. Not!
runnER/DR wrote:
The right thing would be to stop printing blank checks to schools that continue to jack up tuition costs for higher than inflation.
This is the crux of the problem. You're giving teenagers unlimited funds and the schools have figured out that they can charge whatever they want and people will still pay it.
I'd be OK with some type of student loan forgiveness program if it addresses the root of the problem. I propose that there be a debt ceiling at all schools, you can only have x.xx% of tuition coming from loans. Forgiven loans should be tracked by school. Schools with lots of loans being forgiven would have their debt ceiling reduced.
Steiner Math wrote:
runnER/DR wrote:
The right thing would be to stop printing blank checks to schools that continue to jack up tuition costs for higher than inflation.
This is the crux of the problem. You're giving teenagers unlimited funds and the schools have figured out that they can charge whatever they want and people will still pay it.
I'd be OK with some type of student loan forgiveness program if it addresses the root of the problem. I propose that there be a debt ceiling at all schools, you can only have x.xx% of tuition coming from loans. Forgiven loans should be tracked by school. Schools with lots of loans being forgiven would have their debt ceiling reduced.
What you stated is still very inefficient. The entire student loan process is a subsidy to private colleges and private universities. Public schools should be tuition free, at least for first two years. Private schools, some have close to 1 billion in endowment. Some private schools do not need to charge tuition. Government subsidizing private schools is very inefficient. Your idea does not improve inefficiencies.
applied economics wrote:
Steiner Math wrote:
This is the crux of the problem. You're giving teenagers unlimited funds and the schools have figured out that they can charge whatever they want and people will still pay it.
I'd be OK with some type of student loan forgiveness program if it addresses the root of the problem. I propose that there be a debt ceiling at all schools, you can only have x.xx% of tuition coming from loans. Forgiven loans should be tracked by school. Schools with lots of loans being forgiven would have their debt ceiling reduced.
What you stated is still very inefficient. The entire student loan process is a subsidy to private colleges and private universities. Public schools should be tuition free, at least for first two years. Private schools, some have close to 1 billion in endowment. Some private schools do not need to charge tuition. Government subsidizing private schools is very inefficient. Your idea does not improve inefficiencies.
Your solution is to make all public colleges free (who pays and what is the incentive to check the spiraling costs). And no more loans to private colleges, so only the very rich need apply?
There is a big flaw in my proposal, it would incentivize schools to prioritize applicants that can afford to pay without taking loans at the expense of the poor of the working class. I don't know how to get around that.
I was having this discussion with one of my staff a couple weeks ago. His assertion is that no one in his age group can afford a home (he's 29, I think). I'm 50.
I bought my first home at age 29 in 2000, and paid $95k for it. Interest rates were higher back then, 7.5%. A quick look at the calculator shows that as about $664 per month on a fixed-rate loan, not factoring in taxes, etc.
I sold that house years ago but it recently sold for $170,000 to the second or third person to own it since I lived there. $170k loan at today's rates of 2.5% is $672.
So 21 years later that house is costing someone basically the same principal/interest that I paid. And factoring in inflation, it's actually cheaper to own that home today than it was 21 years ago. Younger buyers are lucky that interest rates have been low for many years. It hasn't always been that way.
The problem appears to be that many people don't want a 1200 square foot starter home with two beds and one bath. They want their first home to be 3-4 beds and 2-3 baths and north of 2,000 square feet. Yes, that home is more than $170k...