Sign in to follow this  
calscuf

Canceling Student Loan Debt

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I would suggest that we address the problem of stupid car loans to begin with. This is where government regulation has a place, to protect citizens from predator lenders and themselves. 

So how do you propose the government regulate car loans?  If the government tried to intervene I guarantee people would be up in arms when the government says they aren't allowed to get a certain loan.  People only want government involvement when playing the victim card. 

It's been a while but I seem to remember that when it came to contracts as long as you weren't under duress, inebriated or mentally disabled adults are legally allowed to make a contract or agreement.  Nothing has changed as far as humans evolution that has changed this to my knowledge.  I think the biggest issue is too many people can't think 5 minutes ahead let alone a year or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lou said:

Should they be forgiven?

I haven't really thought about it, but they're not in the same category. Student loans are federally held while car loans, I believe, are private. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Angelsjunky said:

I haven't really thought about it, but they're not in the same category. Student loans are federally held while car loans, I believe, are private. 

Actually, student loans are private.  They are just guaranteed by the Fed.  And it's not that the Feds are guaranteeing them as in they will pay them off.  They are guaranteeing that they will be paid back.  As shown in student loans not being able to be part of bankruptcies.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, we can go on and on and around and around about all this. I don't expect to convince anyone of my perspective, which I realize is a tiny minority that I don't feel is represented in the political market-place (the closest I see out there among candidates would be Bernie and Tulsi, with flavorings of Williamson, Yang, and Gravel - but none of them really represent my view or what I am saying). 

I also don't expect to be convinced by the same old conventional arguments that are mostly variations on the Horatio Alger myth, which I've heard a thousand times before, and to me are just more of the same old stuff that hasn't solved anything. Yes, we have to take personal responsibility, but that isn't a 100% fix-all and is easier said than done. Plus, there are deeper, structural and ideological complexities that make it very, very difficult.

The bottom line is that we have a huge problem on multiple levels: more and more Americans are struggling to make ends meet, with a correlating symptom of increasing wealth inequality. To me there's something deeply wrong with a society in which three people have more financial wealth than half the population. One of the factors is student loan debt. There are other factors and deeper causes. To address student loan debt doesn't all solve the deeper problems, but at least it provides relief for a huge segment of the population and it also sends a message that we recognize that we need to do things differently.

Further problems: social and racial tensions, perpetual war, escalating tension with nuclear powers, and perhaps the biggest one of all: impending climate catastrophe that may make everything else a luxury to debate about.

So agian, we've got big problems, some of which are likely catastrophic if we don't change the way we approach them. The old ways don't work, haven't worked. We need to try fresh ideas, and my underlying view is that we need a shift in the way we think, in our consciousness, towards one that is based more on collaboration and recognizing that we're all on the great big ship called Planet Earth together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Sounds like the solution is to get the government out of the student loan business.  If private lenders and colleges were the only game in town I'd bet that the average size of loans given out and cost of college would both decrease. 

They would both increase.  Interest rates would increase with no guarantee, like credit cards.  People wouldn't be able to afford to go to college.  With less people attending, you have to increase tuition to make up for the shortfall in revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

They would both increase.  Interest rates would increase with no guarantee, like credit cards.  People wouldn't be able to afford to go to college.  With less people attending, you have to increase tuition to make up for the shortfall in revenue.

So then costs would just keep going up until colleges cease to exist?  Sorry but I don't buy it.  I looked up my alma mater and they've got multiple projects costing over 30M each in the last few years that wrapped up or are wrapping up.  I have no doubt that renovations are needed but they're adding on and making upgrades.  Colleges have reaped the benefits of raising rates because of guaranteed loans and the belief that everyone has to go to college which has led to more and more people applying even though college might not be the best option for some of them.  I'm sure if we digged even just a bit into how schools spend money there's sizeable cuts that can be made.  If the UC's and state schools get too expensive maybe more people start off at a JC, figure out what they really want to do before transferring or realize college isn't for them all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

They would both increase.  Interest rates would increase with no guarantee, like credit cards.  People wouldn't be able to afford to go to college.  With less people attending, you have to increase tuition to make up for the shortfall in revenue.

What business acts like that? People aren’t consuming a product so the vendor raises prices? That’s not how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

I get to differ, at least that most didn't really know or couldn't conceptualize or really understand it, in the same way all of us did things in our teens and 20s that we had no idea at the time would have long-lasting repurcussions. Do you remember how stupid and naive you were at 18-21 years old? Our brains aren't even fully developed.

But I'm not going to argue that point further, because in my mind it doesn't really matter. People make mistakes. I've made ton of them; I'm guessing you have as well. In other words, whether or not people knew what they were doing doesn't matter, in my mind, as to whether their loans should be forgiven.

Student loan forgiveness is an imperfect partial solution to a much larger problem. But I think it is going in the right direction. 

so all of these 18-21 year olds with crippling college loan debt were living on their own and didn't have any parental guidance? did the financial aid people all look like snidely whiplash as they forced these naive pogs to sign at gunpoint?

you're whole premise is flawed. even at age 18 people understand what a loan is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

So then costs would just keep going up until colleges cease to exist?  Sorry but I don't buy it.  I looked up my alma mater and they've got multiple projects costing over 30M each in the last few years that wrapped up or are wrapping up.  I have no doubt that renovations are needed but they're adding on and making upgrades.  Colleges have reaped the benefits of raising rates because of guaranteed loans and the belief that everyone has to go to college which has led to more and more people applying even though college might not be the best option for some of them. 

I don't know about your college.  But mine has done million dollar renovations also.  I think one was a $100 million renovation that added new buildings to replace old ones and add other things.  Those were not passed on to tuition fees but was done through donations from alma mater.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

What business acts like that? People aren’t consuming a product so the vendor raises prices? That’s not how it works.

That's because colleges and universities aren't businesses.  They are for the most part non profits.  In the short term, they could probably get away with lower student attendance and dip into reserves.  In the long run though, they will have to make up for that revenue shortfall either in decreased services or increased rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

I don't know about your college.  But mine has done million dollar renovations also.  I think one was a $100 million renovation that added new buildings to replace old ones and add other things.  Those were not passed on to tuition fees but was done through donations from alma mater.  

I bet it’s UCI!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

That's because colleges and universities aren't businesses.  They are for the most part non profits.  In the short term, they could probably get away with lower student attendance and dip into reserves.  In the long run though, they will have to make up for that revenue shortfall either in decreased services or increased rates.

Non profits can still turn profits if they're from related activities, i.e. schools providing education.  Setting that aside a non profit is generally going to try to spend as much of the money they have coming in as possible if not this year then future years on long term projects as they earmark funds for those projects.  Non profit donors don't want to give money and watch it not get used and some will stay involved to ensure the funds are used as intended.  Even when it comes to different departments at a school if they're smart they're going to spend every penny of their budget.  Those that don't will likely get their budget cut the next year while another departments makes the case for what they didn't spend the prior year.   

As far as increasing rates as Lhalo pointed out when demand drops you don't raise the price.  Schools will lower rates and costs until they find a happy medium between the two.  Meanwhile other entities like for profit colleges, trade schools, cheaper schools, etc. will meet the demand from the students who were priced out.  The same exact thing happens in the private sector or you don't survive.  As long as there's demand there will always be supply. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways back to AJ.  

AJ, try this:  Work your ass off.  Accumulate some self-earned wealth.  Re-evaluate the issue when someone wants to take your self-earned wealth because they didn’t work as hard as you/were a victim/are naturally disadvantaged/are an artist.

Not saying you won’t be willing to give some, many of us are.  Just saying your 100% socialism (shit your ideals are practically communism), might get adjusted a bit.  

You aren’t going to agree with me because you haven’t been in this situation.  Keep all your anti-capitalism, greedy white man arguments aside until you understand what you are asking of the people who are the givers, rather than receivers in your ideal world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, calscuf, I've heard it all before. You're pretty much presenting the standard right-leaning conservative logic, the myth of the self-made man that so many Americans--especially men--are so indoctrinated in. This view is pretty run of the mill and I find it to be woefully inadequate--or at least very partial--to the task at hand. It grew out of a very different context, even made more sense during that time, but we live in a different world (I would also argue that it was always partial, but far moreso today).

And again, I'm not saying that the bootstraps thing doesn't have value, but it is only partially true and not enough. There are numerous other factors. Most conservatives suffer from overly simplistic thinking in this regard, in a similar way that most liberals don't understand that it isn't "just society." It is both. Both the individual and their personal responsibility, and numerous societal factors. And pof course personal experience.

You also don't seem to understand what I'm saying if you think I'm "100% socialism, practically communism." My guess is you don't see a difference between Bernie's "democratic socialism" and Venezuela or Stalinist Russia. But yes, I am saying more socialism than we currently have. Absolutely.

As a side note, you have no idea what my experience is - how much I make, whether I have self-earned wealth, how hard I've worked, etc etc. That's all beside the point, anyways. You might also not understand that not everyone with money shares your views, that it isn't so simply as "poor people = socialists, rich people = capitalists." And the contrary is true, of course. A lot of poor folks are right-wing, which is why you have so many poor rednecks voting for Trump and against their own interests. It is sad, really.

Some people with money actually lean socialist. One of the common factors I've heard from actually self-made wealthy people is how grateful they are for the help they've received along the way. Some people with money may even care about poor people, and tons of people who are middle class and above don't mind paying taxes for social services. I certainly don't. What I do mind is paying taxes for endless war, or paying taxes when corporations and the uber-rich find loopholes to get out of paying taxes.

But all of this is so secondary and, I think, points to the underlying problem: our societal fixation and focus on financial wealth. We need to get out of this wealth and profit paradigm. Real wealth is not financial, but our system is geared towards that myopic view. Real wealth is health, wellbeing, relationships, enjoyment of life, feeling a sense of meaning, creativity, love, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Real wealth is health, wellbeing, relationships, enjoyment of life, feeling a sense of meaning, creativity, love, etc.

They can accumulate this without borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to go to college. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Again, calscuf, I've heard it all before. You're pretty much presenting the standard right-leaning conservative logic, the myth of the self-made man that so many Americans--especially men--are so indoctrinated in. This view is pretty run of the mill and I find it to be woefully inadequate--or at least very partial--to the task at hand. It grew out of a very different context, even made more sense during that time, but we live in a different world (I would also argue that it was always partial, but far moreso today).

And again, I'm not saying that the bootstraps thing doesn't have value, but it is only partially true and not enough. There are numerous other factors. Most conservatives suffer from overly simplistic thinking in this regard, in a similar way that most liberals don't understand that it isn't "just society." It is both. Both the individual and their personal responsibility, and numerous societal factors. And pof course personal experience.

You also don't seem to understand what I'm saying if you think I'm "100% socialism, practically communism." My guess is you don't see a difference between Bernie's "democratic socialism" and Venezuela or Stalinist Russia. But yes, I am saying more socialism than we currently have. Absolutely.

As a side note, you have no idea what my experience is - how much I make, whether I have self-earned wealth, how hard I've worked, etc etc. That's all beside the point, anyways. You might also not understand that not everyone with money shares your views, that it isn't so simply as "poor people = socialists, rich people = capitalists." And the contrary is true, of course. A lot of poor folks are right-wing, which is why you have so many poor rednecks voting for Trump and against their own interests. It is sad, really.

Some people with money actually lean socialist. One of the common factors I've heard from actually self-made wealthy people is how grateful they are for the help they've received along the way. Some people with money may even care about poor people, and tons of people who are middle class and above don't mind paying taxes for social services. I certainly don't. What I do mind is paying taxes for endless war, or paying taxes when corporations and the uber-rich find loopholes to get out of paying taxes.

But all of this is so secondary and, I think, points to the underlying problem: our societal fixation and focus on financial wealth. We need to get out of this wealth and profit paradigm. Real wealth is not financial, but our system is geared towards that myopic view. Real wealth is health, wellbeing, relationships, enjoyment of life, feeling a sense of meaning, creativity, love, etc.

I didn’t read all this.  I have work to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

As far as increasing rates as Lhalo pointed out when demand drops you don't raise the price.  Schools will lower rates and costs until they find a happy medium between the two.  Meanwhile other entities like for profit colleges, trade schools, cheaper schools, etc. will meet the demand from the students who were priced out.  The same exact thing happens in the private sector or you don't survive but as long as there's demand there will always be supply and more competitors is better for the consumer. 

Here is the problem.  If you get rid of guaranteed student loans, there may not be a happy medium between the two. 

Just think of the general terms of guaranteed student loans.  Low interest rates (4 points ish).  Grace period of payback till a few years after you graduate.  Con is non bankruptciable.  

Getting rid of guarantee would mean it's unsecured debt.  Interest rates upwards of 20%+.  Repayment period and interest could start immediately.  Pro is at least you can go to bankruptcy and screw yourself for 10 years, right in the prime of your life.

Again, just looking at the original questions canceling student loan debt, and getting rid of guaranteed student loans.  They are just two retarded options.  Getting rid of  guaranteed student loans is above.  

Canceling student loan debt is not just waving the magic hand and making it disappear.  Student loans are only guaranteed by the government.  They reside in companies and are guaranteed by the government.  So options.  Canceling student loan debt means one of two things.  The government pays back the loans, which means everyone pays.  Or the government defaults and doesn't pay back the loans.  Which would just be catastrophic for the entire world.  

Also, found this interesting tidbit on Wikipedia that I didn't know about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_States

Quote

The schools with the highest amount of student loan debt are University of Phoenix, Walden University, Nova Southeastern University, Capella University, and Strayer University. [9] Except for Nova Southeastern, they are all proprietary (profit-making) universities.

The default rate for borrowers who didn't complete their degree is three times as high as the rate for those who did. [2]:1 Student loan defaults are disproportionately concentrated in the for-profit college sector.[10] 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Sorry to everyone else if that sounded douchy smug.  I don’t know how else to get through to this f*cking guy.

Well, part of the reason you're not "getting through to this Facking guy" is because you're saying "It is as simple as A," and I'm saying, "No, A is partially true, but you have to include B, C, D, E, etc."

So I'm agreeing with what you're saying...to an extent. But I'm saying there is more, and you're saying "Nope, it is just A."

Who knows, maybe you're right. Maybe it is as simple as you say. But that is not the case from my perspective; you are negating, ignoring, and/or not understanding a much more complex picture in which A is a significant factor, but there are numerous other factors at play.

In other words, your view--what you're trying "get through to me" doesn't include anything that my view doesn't include, except for the "only" part, or the "it is as simple as this" part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

But that is not the case from my perspective; you are negating, ignoring, and/or not understanding a much more complex picture in which A is a significant factor, but there are numerous other factors at play.

I’m not negating what you are saying, I’m just not reading it thoroughly.

Honestly AJ it’s like arguing with a 18 year old freshmen girl at UC Santa Cruz.  That bitch doesn’t know shit about the world, but she definitely knows more than me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this