who benefits wrote:
First of all, I am far from nuts. Very, very few could approach the education level I have obtained, including definitely you.
The latter portion of your statement makes sense, but this is no way to start an online post, especially when your objective is to make people think you're sane and smart (which you probably are).
IDK why people ever confuse tweeting for action.
#WeaponsOfMassDistraction
It really isn't that hard... wrote:
Look, I get that tuition costs have been going up to ridiculously high levels, and that interest rates on student loans have increased.
BUT
If you signed on the dotted line to get a loan to pay for your education, you entered into a legal contract. Therefore, you must pay the money back - just like a mortgage or car loan.
This has NOTHING to do with college being a "requirement" now. That's a red herring. Same with the argument that you were sold a lie. No, you weren't.
What's criminal to me is that we have new adults (18-20 year olds) who are signing up to a future financial obligation with little to no financial education. How in the world does that happen? If the schools aren't doing it, why the heck aren't the parents doing it? I know that I've provided my kids with the financial tools to understand future financial obligations versus average income levels of their potential career choices. It isn't that hard to do, and you have an obligation to your children to ensure that they know enough to understand simple math and an understanding of how interest works.
So, now we have people blaming the government or the universities for their own stupidity or negligence.
Just pay the tab, man.
What Bernie (and others) are doing is pandering to the young vote by throwing money at them. Not quite literally, but close enough for government work.
I 95% agree with that. My son, who will be a junior, scores well above average in test scores and makes good grades. I have counseled him that unless he is going into a high-value STEM field to skip college altogether and go into a skilled trade (electrician, pipe fitter, welder, etc.).
Where I disagree is the government involvement. This problem really escalated in the 80s when government starting ramping up student loans. Of course when students are flush with cash the universities are going to raise their rates. It's just like anything else that govt interference artificially inflates the price of...stocks, housing, crops...the govt handing out free and subsidized money to knuckle draggers increased demand and the market (colleges) responded accordingly.
On top of the high price, there is also the indoctrination that has be undone too.
NO bail out, no reduction in loans. The government does not exist to safeguard you from the consequences of your personal, bad decisions. Learn to code, I guess.
So your links are for an article on amazon (a millennial favorite) totally unrelated to college costs, something that shows incomes have cyclically gone up and down relative to inflation but in general have trended up (adjusted for inflation), and an NCES site that links to no particular article or study. Very helpful. Your error is that you are comparing inflation adjusted income dollars with non-inflation adjusted student debt numbers. Here is a link that shows debt load for each graduating class:
https://www.financialsamurai.com/average-student-loan-debt-is-at-a-record-high-no-big-deal/
But, while student debt has gone up, so has the average starting salary for college graduates. As long as there is inflation, each new year will set a record for student debt (this is basic math you should have learned in elementary, the fact that you are a college student and can't comprehend this is somewhat troubling). At the same time, it is likely that every year will also set a record for the average starting salary for college grads as well. With 2% inflation, raw numbers will double about every thirty five years, so if you are comparing numbers from the late 80s with today, all of those numbers should have almost doubled.
I was a broke college student once (never had a car until I was 23 and when I did, I paid $1800 cash for a beat up Toyota Camry), just have faith that if you work hard, live frugally and focus on advancing your career for your first 5-10 years out of college, you will be just fine down the road. On the other hand if you get passing grades in a soft major (or drop out), party a lot, splurge on a lot of unnecessary things in your 20s and 30s then you will need to work a lot more to get by later on in life. Being poor is a great experience as it teaches you what things in life are necessities and what things are luxuries. Most of the people I know with financial issues drive cars they can't afford, have toys they can't afford (designer pets, boats, ATVs, campers, etc.) and live in houses they can't afford (sometimes they can turn them for a profit, but sometimes they are the ones that get foreclosed on when the market goes south because they are in an ARM or other non-traditional loan because they couldn't save the 20% required for a traditional loan).
Racket wrote:
One of the biggest scams ever pulled off is the one where Republicans and big businesses managed to convince the average American that bailing out and giving massive tax breaks to multi-billion dollar companies is a "necessary evil" but even the smallest whiff of help from the government for the average middle-class American is a total moral crisis and will surely set a bad precedent
There's a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies, which still incentivize everyone to succeed, and student loan cancellation, which gives the biggest reward to the worst offenders. Democrats don't understand this difference.
who benefits wrote:
First of all, I am far from nuts. Very, very few could approach the education level I have obtained, including definitely you. Lots of background in law and economics, and successful because I have acutely observed (as a poor person who succeeded) the antics of groups who don't look out for formerly poor people like me (i.e., elites, many of whom are in government and academia). You can call people like me nuts, but trusting these big Government and big Academia institutions doesn't make a lick of sense to me. You can at times get what you need from these institutions, but at the end of the day, you can't let them burn you. And burning is exactly what happens all too often to trusting students. And we are talking about people who are 18 making decisions which negatively impact them for decades. And it is not nuts to look at the rent seeking behavior of the academic industrial complex - they are by and large fine with this system. But it is an untenable one.
The problem didn't start with the Obama administration. But his administration made this awful system an entirely Government run enterprise. So it is relevant and matters. This is not nuts, especially since it made one of the worst features of the student loan program - non-dischargeability in any kind of proceeding - embedded deeply within a government bureaucracy. By the way, I agreed with the Obama administration's actions against for profit colleges - most of them (not all) are a rip-off, manipulating and crushing in many cases marginal students. But the Obama administration didn't go for enough - the traditional eco-system has far too many rip-off institutions. I recall a few years back the President of Boise State lobbying in DC to apply anti-trust sanctions against the NCAA football BCS system. His school then had a four year graduation rate of 4.7 percent (it has improved). And people borrow to attend institutions with these kind of results, and these kind of priorities? Again, questioning this is hardly nuts, and likely reflects an emotional pattern of thinking with very little regard for middle class people and ordinary consumer welfare.
When I graduated from my fancy and completely over-credentialed law school (trading futures to pay for the tuition), tuition was $12,000 a year. Inflation adjusted, it should be today around $23,000. But it is not - it is over $45,000 a year - and that excludes living expenses in a very expensive city. It is a great example, because my alumni connections confirm that the education is no different today from when I attended - but of course tuition has grown greatly in excess of inflation. The school can do so because 60 plus percent of the class takes out outrageous loans using students living the dream as conduits, ironically as law students taking on debt with the worst terms in the civilized world. Now, law students are not easy people to feel sorry for, but numerous people are entering into absolutely stupid financial arrangements because of federal loan policies. And the beneficiaries - who at this school are all SJW's - have no qualms about receiving the benefits of this arrangement. Keep all of this mind when relieving loan debt - you will have many Skadden Arps associates jumping for joy - hardly the group I think of when considering social justice.
"Including definitely you." There's where I stopped reading.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/farm-aid-package.htmlUndecided Pennsylvania Voter wrote:
Racket wrote:
One of the biggest scams ever pulled off is the one where Republicans and big businesses managed to convince the average American that bailing out and giving massive tax breaks to multi-billion dollar companies is a "necessary evil" but even the smallest whiff of help from the government for the average middle-class American is a total moral crisis and will surely set a bad precedent
There's a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies, which still incentivize everyone to succeed, and student loan cancellation, which gives the biggest reward to the worst offenders. Democrats don't understand this difference.
Is that right?
More false equivalencies from the leftist. Pretty sure we need farming to be sustainable for the folks who grow our food so they can, you know, grow our food.
Paying off the individual debt for a bunch of people who simply want to renege on the contracts they knowingly signed on to with tax payer money is a different manner. American society will be just fine with Billy Beta having to paying off the entirety of his student loan debt.
Ciro wrote:
So the standards you are applying to teenagers, do you also apply that standard to farmers who cannot turn a profit without government handouts?
So, you're saying the two situations are identical? Or what? As others have noted, subsidies are different than personal loan forgiveness - which I will add - is a legal contract. That's my primary point.
While they're teenagers, they are also adults. Again - my point is that they are signing as adults. No one is holding a gun to their head. It's not my fault (or the government's fault) that they can't do math or figure out interest rates. It's their own fault or the fault of their helicopter parents.
Again, don't make this more complicated than it is. And don't try to equate it to other complex financial issues. Because - as my nickname suggests - It REALLY isn't that hard. They have signed their name to an agreement, that requires them to pay back a loan that they can use for their education. How is that hard to comprehend? They got money to pay for services (education) that they need to repay in the future.
Better make good use of those purchased services to ensure a good future living so you can pay off your debts. Again - simple.
Frankly, if I were loaning money to 18 year olds, I'd educate them on financial basics, along with potential starting salaries for various careers; and then only loan based on what I'd determine would be a good investment - in other words, a career that actually pays good money so you can get your loan repaid with interest. Why would I take the risk on someone graduating with a History degree and 100k in loans? That makes no sense, the chances of them landing a job that pays well is slim.
But that would cause emotional strife for the left to do that, because what we need is more people coming out of college with a liberal arts degree, making slightly more than minimum wage, and claiming how unfair it is they have to pay back their loan. [sarcasm]
If the government ends up forgiving the loans in the 21st century, I want reparations for the loans I paid back in the 20th. And while we're at it, I want all the Social Security "contributions" I've made sent back to me so I can invest those funds myself.
ThillyThally wrote:
More false equivalencies from the leftist. Pretty sure we need farming to be sustainable for the folks who grow our food so they can, you know, grow our food.
Paying off the individual debt for a bunch of people who simply want to renege on the contracts they knowingly signed on to with tax payer money is a different manner. American society will be just fine with Billy Beta having to paying off the entirety of his student loan debt.
I’ll make it simple for you, I was addressing the posters opening statements.
>”There is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies”
The posters closing statement indicated that Dems don’t know the difference. Clearly my example shows that Republicans are okay with certain subsidies. It’s not that complicated mate.
Absolutely am not saying they are identical. Just pondering if subsidies are ever acceptable and if so which ones.
ThillyThally wrote:
More false equivalencies from the leftist. Pretty sure we need farming to be sustainable for the folks who grow our food so they can, you know, grow our food.
Paying off the individual debt for a bunch of people who simply want to renege on the contracts they knowingly signed on to with tax payer money is a different manner. American society will be just fine with Billy Beta having to paying off the entirety of his student loan debt.
Lots of people don’t pay off their loans. Beta Donald.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-still-owes-lenders-including-deutsche-bank-as-much-as-480-million-2018-05-16https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/Ciro wrote:
Absolutely am not saying they are identical. Just pondering if subsidies are ever acceptable and if so which ones.
You seem to imply Republicans are ok with subsidies and because you keep pointing that out at the exclusion of saying anything about the Democrats; let's not forget the Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933,35,38) was championed by FDR himself; which is the foundation on which all of the subsidies given to farmers started.
Forgiveness of loans is primarily a Democrat/Left Leaning stance; and from what I saw in some poll (no idea if it was valid), was that the voting public does NOT want to forgive student loans (like 75%-25%).
I'm very concerned that if the Democrats stick with a few of their current planks, they won't be able to win the election. And this is one of those planks that will come back to bite them if they keep harping on it.
Drop the attitude and quit moving the goal posts. Your Leftist schtick of drawing false equivalencies doesn’t wear well.
Just checking... wrote:
Ciro wrote:
Absolutely am not saying they are identical. Just pondering if subsidies are ever acceptable and if so which ones.
You seem to imply Republicans are ok with subsidies and because you keep pointing that out at the exclusion of saying anything about the Democrats; let's not forget the Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933,35,38) was championed by FDR himself; which is the foundation on which all of the subsidies given to farmers started.
Forgiveness of loans is primarily a Democrat/Left Leaning stance; and from what I saw in some poll (no idea if it was valid), was that the voting public does NOT want to forgive student loans (like 75%-25%).
I'm very concerned that if the Democrats stick with a few of their current planks, they won't be able to win the election. And this is one of those planks that will come back to bite them if they keep harping on it.
I was referring currently to Trumps farming subsidies, FDR was well before my time. I do however take your point.
I don’t think student loans will been forgiven but I do think a honest looks at the fees, relative salaries and interest rates should be addressed.
I not saying I agree with Sanders fully, I’m simply pointing out that certain subsidies and unpaid loans are acceptable to many conservatives.
joedirt wrote:
So your links are for an article on amazon (a millennial favorite) totally unrelated to college costs, something that shows incomes have cyclically gone up and down relative to inflation but in general have trended up (adjusted for inflation), and an NCES site that links to no particular article or study. Very helpful. Your error is that you are comparing inflation adjusted income dollars with non-inflation adjusted student debt numbers. Here is a link that shows debt load for each graduating class:
https://www.financialsamurai.com/average-student-loan-debt-is-at-a-record-high-no-big-deal/But, while student debt has gone up, so has the average starting salary for college graduates. As long as there is inflation, each new year will set a record for student debt (this is basic math you should have learned in elementary, the fact that you are a college student and can't comprehend this is somewhat troubling). At the same time, it is likely that every year will also set a record for the average starting salary for college grads as well. With 2% inflation, raw numbers will double about every thirty five years, so if you are comparing numbers from the late 80s with today, all of those numbers should have almost doubled.
I was a broke college student once (never had a car until I was 23 and when I did, I paid $1800 cash for a beat up Toyota Camry), just have faith that if you work hard, live frugally and focus on advancing your career for your first 5-10 years out of college, you will be just fine down the road. On the other hand if you get passing grades in a soft major (or drop out), party a lot, splurge on a lot of unnecessary things in your 20s and 30s then you will need to work a lot more to get by later on in life. Being poor is a great experience as it teaches you what things in life are necessities and what things are luxuries. Most of the people I know with financial issues drive cars they can't afford, have toys they can't afford (designer pets, boats, ATVs, campers, etc.) and live in houses they can't afford (sometimes they can turn them for a profit, but sometimes they are the ones that get foreclosed on when the market goes south because they are in an ARM or other non-traditional loan because they couldn't save the 20% required for a traditional loan).
16k in 2000 dollars is 22k in 2016 dollars. What was your point again?
Your words...
“Paying off the individual debt for a bunch of people who simply want to renege on the contracts they knowingly signed on to with tax payer money is a different manner”
Sometimes conservatives and Republicans support loan forgiveness and/or subsidies.
Ciro wrote:
Your words...
“Paying off the individual debt for a bunch of people who simply want to renege on the contracts they knowingly signed on to with tax payer money is a different manner”
https://www.capitalpress.com/archives/bill-would-forgive-school-loans-for-farmers-ranchers/article_5af33120-5dd0-51c0-89ca-725366e9f445.htmlSometimes conservatives and Republicans support loan forgiveness and/or subsidies.
Republicans throw money like candy to their voting block, no matter what. College tends to make people smart enough not to be Republicans, though, so ...
Ciro wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/farm-aid-package.htmlUndecided Pennsylvania Voter wrote:
There's a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies, which still incentivize everyone to succeed, and student loan cancellation, which gives the biggest reward to the worst offenders. Democrats don't understand this difference.
Is that right?
Yes. It's reasonable relief for tariffs that are temporarily enacted for negotiation purposes.
Ciro wrote:
I’ll make it simple for you, I was addressing the posters opening statements.
>”There is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies”
The posters closing statement indicated that Dems don’t know the difference. Clearly my example shows that Republicans are okay with certain subsidies. It’s not that complicated mate.
I said there's a big difference between
1) tax breaks and subsidies (okay in many circumstances), and
2) cancelling all loans (stupid)
You read it wrong.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!