Bernie Tweeting #CancelStudentDebt

College is criminally overpriced because administrators have little or no oversight to rein in their own spending on non-classroom, non-research employees and services, much of it administration, unneeded buildings, and staff (not including professors and adjuncts), and state and federal gov't spending on the essentials of education and research have lagged since 1980. A university degree is still very valuable. The unemployment rate for graduates is about 2.7%. For those with a graduate degree it is even less.

Bernie has the right idea and more importantly his free college idea is not only what used to be the norm in this country but is still more or less the norm elsewhere. It would pay for itself many, many times over and the total sticker price for free college is a drop in the bucket compared to military spending.

Democrats embrace this issue at their great peril. The American public will never support a party at the national level that seriously proposes gifting college attendees 1+ trillion dollars in free money in this way. Never ever. Reparations for slavery will happen first, which is to say that neither will ever, ever, ever happen.

I'm not rich wrote:

Wolf's Bane wrote:

The problem is everyone seems to think Bernie is going to raise taxes on them to pay for his social programs. The reality is Bernie would be voted in along with a democratic congress and the 1%er's would be footing the bill. There shouldn't be billionaires in a country with people in poverty.

You don't have to be a billionaire to be a "1%er." Plenty of working professionals are in the top 1% in earned income.

1% are in the top 1%, so there are definitely not plenty of working professionals in the top 1%.

Rather than venting anger why don’t you read the article.

Again, sometimes Republicans are okay with forgiving loans.

Undecided Pennsylvania Voter wrote:

Ciro wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/farm-aid-package.html

Is that right?

Yes. It's reasonable relief for tariffs that are temporarily enacted for negotiation purposes.

Farming subsidies have not been temporary by any means. Trumps handout is just the latest in a long line.

I’m not even suggesting they are wrong, I’m just saying the outrage is selective.

Moranasaurus wrote:

I'm not rich wrote:

You don't have to be a billionaire to be a "1%er." Plenty of working professionals are in the top 1% in earned income.

1% are in the top 1%, so there are definitely not plenty of working professionals in the top 1%.

More than 3.2 million people are in the top 1%. That leaves ample room for there to be plenty of working professionals within that group.

GoodByeLeft wrote:

Democrats embrace this issue at their great peril. The American public will never support a party at the national level that seriously proposes gifting college attendees 1+ trillion dollars in free money in this way. Never ever. Reparations for slavery will happen first, which is to say that neither will ever, ever, ever happen.

You may be right, because of the way the debate is framed. Why don't people ask why do those who attended college when it was cheap/free get a free pass? Why shouldn't windfall taxes be imposed on them now?

Cancelling $1tr student debt is not the same as giving $1tr. It would be if all student loans repaid, but a significant amount will not be repaid.

For example, assume two people each owe me $100,000. The first person will pay me $100,000 but the second will make no repayments. It would cost me $100,000 to cancel the $200,000 debt. If a person has no means to repay or is able to choose not to repay, it doesn't matter whether I cancel the debt or not. I incurred the cost (loss) when I made the loan.

It would cost hundreds of billions to cancel student debt. It would have other impacts which are arguably negative or positive, depending on perspectives on college and its uses.

yes, plenty wrote:

Moranasaurus wrote:

1% are in the top 1%, so there are definitely not plenty of working professionals in the top 1%.

More than 3.2 million people are in the top 1%. That leaves ample room for there to be plenty of working professionals within that group.

Plenty means a lot. If 1% of a population is in a group, that means 99% is not. Clearly 1% is not a lot.

The actual number of people in the top 1% is not relevant.

yes, plenty wrote:

Moranasaurus wrote:

1% are in the top 1%, so there are definitely not plenty of working professionals in the top 1%.

More than 3.2 million people are in the top 1%. That leaves ample room for there to be plenty of working professionals within that group.

You fail at logic and statistics. You said top 1% in earned income, so you should only be considering income earners or at least potential income earners, not the whole population.

There are many in the top 1% who aren't either billionaires or working professionals. They are millionaires/entrepreneurs/executives.

The working professionals in the top 1% wouldn't be affected to the same extent, as they would only marginally be in the top 1%.

Ciro wrote:

Undecided Pennsylvania Voter wrote:

Yes. It's reasonable relief for tariffs that are temporarily enacted for negotiation purposes.

Farming subsidies have not been temporary by any means. Trumps handout is just the latest in a long line.

I’m not even suggesting they are wrong, I’m just saying the outrage is selective.

Yes, the outrage is selective because people with functioning brains are able to discern among different situations. What's your point?

Undecided Pennsylvania Voter wrote:

Ciro wrote:

Farming subsidies have not been temporary by any means. Trumps handout is just the latest in a long line.

I’m not even suggesting they are wrong, I’m just saying the outrage is selective.

Yes, the outrage is selective because people with functioning brains are able to discern among different situations. What's your point?

I was addressing another poster’s (Thilly Thally) point: “paying off the individual debt for a bunch of people who simply want to renege on the contracts they knowingly signed on to”

Picture this. Your parents are poor so you go to community college for two years and then pay your own way at a state school and get your degree. It took you 6 years. You get a desk jockey job and you hate your boss. He’s an entitled prick who went to law school but ended up working at a bank just like you because he’s really too dumb and that’s the best he could do.

Bernie then forgives your bosses loans and he runs out and buys a Tesla. Poor people end up paying off their bosses loans. Fairness.

Don't cancel the debt. That's ridiculous.

But it is unconscionable that education loans are the only class of loans that you can't rid of through bankruptcy.

If you're down and out and considering a move as drastic as bankruptcy

-- possibly because of some scheme that convinced you to take out too much debt for education --

you should be able to do so without the loan servicers continuing to garnish your paycheck after the fact.

pretty much agree with you wrote:

Don't cancel the debt. That's ridiculous.

But it is unconscionable that education loans are the only class of loans that you can't rid of through bankruptcy.

If you're down and out and considering a move as drastic as bankruptcy

-- possibly because of some scheme that convinced you to take out too much debt for education --

you should be able to do so without the loan servicers continuing to garnish your paycheck after the fact.

Charge-off rates for student loans are over 40%. Those are amounts owed that are never collected. If bankruptcy discharge was an option then that percentage would be even higher, in which case the interest rate charged on these loans would be even higher (making responsible borrowers foot the bill) or no lender would be willing to make loans

There’s a reason, of course wrote:

pretty much agree with you wrote:

Don't cancel the debt. That's ridiculous.

But it is unconscionable that education loans are the only class of loans that you can't rid of through bankruptcy.

If you're down and out and considering a move as drastic as bankruptcy

-- possibly because of some scheme that convinced you to take out too much debt for education --

you should be able to do so without the loan servicers continuing to garnish your paycheck after the fact.

Charge-off rates for student loans are over 40%. Those are amounts owed that are never collected. If bankruptcy discharge was an option then that percentage would be even higher, in which case the interest rate charged on these loans would be even higher (making responsible borrowers foot the bill) or no lender would be willing to make loans

85% of the loans are serviced by the government and people with the most amount of debt are actually paying it off (probably because they're doctors/lawyers/etc).

The danger in making them discharged in bankruptcy is that you could see massive waves of defaults and bankruptcy filings which could create a significant consumer credit crunch

The $16k I took out in loans for my public state school education in 1998 is worth $24,453.71 in 2018 dollars. Average public college undergrad debt for the class of 2018:

66% of graduates from public colleges had loans (average debt of $25,550)

How is $25,500 a crisis when I took out the equivalent of $24,454 for my education twenty one years ago (a 4.1% difference)?

https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=16000&year=1998

https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/

Considering that you should be able to pay off 4 years of college with 6 months of work, I would call it a bargain. Compare it to the cost of no degree. The average college graduate makes $59,124 per year compared to $35,256 per year for your average high school graduate (you will catch up to them in lifetime earnings after your 7th year out of college in spite of your loans and their 4 year head start, over your 42 year working career you will accumulate $835k in additional wealth than your non-college graduate peer, all for your $25,500 investment).

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Bernie has the right idea and more importantly his free college idea is not only what used to be the norm in this country but is still more or less the norm elsewhere. It would pay for itself many, many times over and the total sticker price for free college is a drop in the bucket compared to military spending.

College was tuition free at state land grant schools because the revenue from the land grants was sufficient to pay for the small number of students that were going to college at that time. With much higher percentages of high school students attending college than in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, state schools had to start charging tuition (the revenue from the land grants still makes state colleges more affordable than private institutions, but not free). That being said, scholarships and grants will still usually cover most of the cost of tuition at these schools. If you look at student loan amounts at public institutions, most of what those are covering is room and board expenses ($25,500 in loans is $6,375 a year, which is less than room and board). The idea that a single generation should benefit from student loan forgiveness is absurd and is basically an old man trying to pander to young voters. If Bernie wants to forgive student loans, then he should write every person that took out student loans a check for the debt they incurred. College is an investment. People who attend college benefit from it. They need to pay for it.

tarckstar wrote:

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 ...

Really....that's where you are. You are suggesting that nearly 50% of the population is just stupid.

THIS is why the divisiveness exists - comments like that from the left that states that they are more educated than everyone else and thus more qualified to have an opinion and elect a president. Which, is an elitist position - the exact same type of position that the left claims the right to be in due to money.

Just stop it. It isn't right from either side.