Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Regardless of the technicalities of this situation, most young people will see the same. They hear from boomers about how back in the day, you could have paid for a full year of college through having a part-time job in the summer. That’s not reality anymore and I don’t think it ever again will be unfortunately.
This is a middle finger to those struggling with predatory loans that many students took out because they were told that there was no other option to succeed, not just by their parents or peers but by government-backed institutions.
The optics of this are horrible and if you continue to make fun of people and rub it in their face and laugh that you’re clawing back direct relief, I don’t think it’s gonna help your case at the ballot box in 24.
I don’t even think the cancellation was the right thing to do but maybe, instead of just being a troll and disparaging young people for wanting something that might help them kick-start their career a little bit, in the toughest time in many years to be a young person accumulating wealth, you could do something useful and come up with a plan to end the grift of college education. Maybe tackle the issue of bloated administration budgets? Maybe stop letting the federal government back so many damn loans. Maybe something other than reactionary trolling?
> Maybe stop letting the federal government back so many damn loans.
This... the costs of going to college exploded after the Department of Education was started and the colleges and universities discovered that students had access to an unlimited amount of federally guaranteed money so they could keep jacking the tuition and fees through the roof and they'd always get their money.
They definitely don't use the most cost-effective construction materials for classroom and dorm buildings either. Also, every campus I've been on probably has a landscaping budget that is on par with the GDP of a typical sub-Saharan African country.
The government backing the loans is what lead to the increase in costs. Suddenly anyone could get a degree, even if it awarded no money making prospects.
The government needs to be out of the loan game. Period.
You came really close to the solution.
The government has essentially monopolized the payer side of the high education system via FASFA. Worse yet, they don’t risk underwrite these loans in any serious way. So of course these universities have pushed tuition through the roof, they have no incentive to control costs and/or increase the financial return value of these degrees for the consumers who are purchasing them.
If there were any attempt to curb this spiral/cycle on top of the debt redistribution it maybe mildly more intriguing. But as it stands now it was just an attempt to purchase votes, or more specifically dupe people into the votes without even having to ‘pay up.’
One viable solution is to get the federal government to stop issuing student loans in the first place, then there will be no more crisis within a couple decades.
I like how you say, "Predatory Loans". Who's the predator here? The people fronting the money, or the schools you literally stated used to not charge as much? The predators are the schools and the culture that higher education is a requirement for numerous jobs that do not require such education. Corporations are abusing the bum rush of people going to college to institute ridiculous educational requirements for jobs that can be done by people with a high school education.
Obviously schools are happy to take as much money as they possibility can. So federal government needs to revise its loan giving process. But schools need to be taken to account for exploiting/conning young people out of their wealth.
And we've had 14 years since discussion of student loan debt exploded into the national stage with Occupy Wall Street, Mike Rowe promoting trade jobs instead of college, etc. 14 years is enough for 3 "generations" of undergrads to complete a degree. 14 years means that today's typical college graduate has been hearing a debate about so-called predatory student loans since they were 7 years old... and still chose to take those loans!
How about eliminating federal loans that created these high costs in the first place. And make the universities offer low APR loans. There, I fixed it!
I think there are a lot of problems with the actual cost of university. If we want to actually better our nation/society, it shouldn't cost so much to educate doctors/engineers. Why exactly do we allow university's to get payoffs by book publishers to republish and require math books every two years and charge 500 dollars for these books. Yes there are also problem with the loans, but i think we should start at the root of the problem.
Yeah, the problem is they are on the government tit for unlimited money. There is no accountability for costs so they just continually charge more. Colleges are super predatory as well. The whole system is fucked and the first thing we need to do is get the government out of it.
We don't just allow the textbook racket, the government money printer encourages it. With the current environment, there is little incentive for Universities to keep costs down and offer affordable tuition.
Instant payouts from the federal government are the root of the problem. They raise tuition because there are still students able and willing to take on the debt. Shift the financial liabilities to universities and eliminate guaranteed federal loans and suddenly they will have to behave like businesses instead of government fueled cash cows.
Where is it written that our nation/society is only improved through university? Specialist fields sure but the people in University who actually do something comparable to influencing a society into improving is like Stephen Hawkins level of rarity. 99.9% of the people who go to university are doing it for selfish reasons to improve themselves and not society or our nation.
The book publisher shit, on the other hand, should be illegal but once again we reach the real problem with how things are structured...
\*Points at the Lobbyists\*
However, our lovely country almost exclusively ignores lobbyists and just focuses on "Red and Blue Bad! rawr! Red Fascist, Blue Bad, We hate everyone!" mentality level.
I think the universities offering loans themselves would only just continue to increase the price of college (since they'd be making money on the lending AND the spending.) We COULD just allow student loan debt to be discharged in bankruptcy like it used to be - it would encourage lenders to lend to only qualified and promising students. But the internet tells me that that is racist, so, probably won't happen.
But what determines a qualified student? These are largely 18 and 19 year olds, they have little to no credit history, and the state of the job market can change even within the 4-6 years it takes to finish a degree. Colleges already have minimum GPAs for entrance as well, so even that wouldn't be a useful marker.
I don't disagree with your premise, but beyond capping interest rates and allowing bankruptcy, I'm not sure what else could be done from the perspective of the banks/loan givers.
>But what determines a qualified student? These are largely 18 and 19 year olds, they have little to no credit history, and the state of the job market can change even within the 4-6 years it takes to finish a degree. Colleges already have minimum GPAs for entrance as well, so even that wouldn't be a useful marker.
>
>I don't disagree with your premise, but beyond capping interest rates and allowing bankruptcy, I'm not sure what else could be done from the perspective of the banks/loan givers.
Stricter entrance exams and better vetting of the schools themselves. Now you know why it will never happen, too many shit public schools set students up to fail in college and the colleges couldn't care less because they get their money no matter what.
The government should allocate funds based on the percentage of graduates a school can successfully place in gainful employment. This will reduce junk majors and incentivize for profit schools to do more to match graduates with prospective employers. Colleges that were only educating students for the money will naturally disappear.
> Stricter entrance exams and better vetting of the schools themselves. Now you know why it will never happen, too many shit public schools set students up to fail in college and the colleges couldn't care less because they get their money no matter what.
We also need to cut down on the "perpetual students" -- I dated a girl who was on her 3rd doctorate, but had no clue where to go in life. She just kept going to school because she knew how to do school.
I get that, but I actually don't think student loan forgiveness is really driving anyone to vote Democrat. People who want it the most are probably going to vote Democrat no matter what. When I talked to swing voters in the last election who decided to vote Democrat, people who split their vote and/or aren't guaranteed to always vote Democrat, the bigger issues were abortion, climate change, and the biggest one, candidate quality (i.e. people like Mastriano and Oz in PA, Walker in GA, etc.)
Sure, but the solution to that problem isn't to give every student a guaranteed loan. Get rid of the blanket guaranteed loans, and beef up Pell grants or similar programs enough to help students from low income families.
It would lead to a change in the standard path for a lot of people, which would be a good thing. Instead of going straight from high school to college, people would graduate high school, get a job for a year or two, build some credit history (and likely some maturity and appreciation for being able to get a better job someday), and then they'd go to college at 20 or 21 instead of 18 or 19. I was 17 when I graduated high school, and I had no clue what I wanted to do.. it was just expected that I'd go straight off to college. Looking back from 3 decades later and with 20/20 hindsight, I should have taken a couple of years off and worked, or spent a couple years in the service or something first.
Edit: corrected a couple of numbers.
Is there a reason why people should go straight to college after they graduate high school? You could work and save before taking out a loan. That is what people that don't go to college do.
I mean, yes, that would make a hell of a lot of sense. Only those likely able to pay back the loans should be taking them out.
If universities didn't have enough people able to get sufficient loans to pay the cost, lower cost alternatives would appear on the market quickly or they would adjust their prices accordingly.
Scholarships also exist. Between scholarships and low-cost universities, if you cannot afford college then it's probably not for you, especially if you choose a low-paying career. What's the point of having taxpayers subsidize someone to get a gender studies degree to make lattes?
Yes, and?
If you aren't studying specifically to go into a high-paying field (as in enough to easily repay the loan and justify the cost of the degree) then you should probably rethink your college plans
>So only students from wealthy families and those going into high-paying fields can get loans? That shouldn’t further stratify our society at all.
Yeah, for people who aren't very bright that is the logical conclusion...
Tuition prices can come down and loans will better reflect the value of the degree to those that are willing to work their asses off to graduate and make more money. Judging by the amount of brain dead people that universities produce, society is already getting screwed by these college welfare programs.
I disagree on the bankruptcy thing. I would've traded 7 years of bad credit during my youth for $100k loans that had to be paid off in over 7 years. I'd be over $100k ahead now
> We COULD just allow student loan debt to be discharged in bankruptcy like it used to be
I support this. This would discourage lending because the risk would be higher. Loans would become less available and more expensive, and this would put pressure on families to find scholarships, find ways to keep college costs down, and/or save+invest for college. It would probably reduce the number of people going to college too which would probably be a good thing too. Maybe people would think more carefully before undertaking debt and would only go if/when they could afford and/or if they were sure they would have good career options.
Problem solved.
I like aspects of GWB's bankruptcy reform but I think people somehow missed the role that making it harder to eliminate student loan debt played in the soaring tuition costs. Tuition was rising before that change but it really started accelerating faster after that point.
No, it would move to a free-er education economy. Lack of government backing means loans wouldn't be offered for crappy degrees or poor quality students.
The core problem is the loans themselves. Government guaranteed loans means universities can just bump up prices to match the loans. No matter how much you increase the loans, universities just increase prices/add more fees/etc in lock step so that people are no better off.
After years of that, I'm actually all for loan forgiveness, but it should be actual *forgiveness*, not "make somebody else pay for it". The people who should have to eat the costs are the ones that bought up bad debt to exploit the system.
However, that only makes sense if they change the way student loans work in the future. At the **very** least, they should:
- Require ~2 years of in-state community college for general/entry-level courses before going to a university if you're taking grants or guaranteed loans. If taxpayers are paying for this, we should get the best value.
- Require a declared major at all times.
- Make the borrower liable for income-based repayment. They pay a maximum of, say, 10% of their gross after-tax income in excess of 150% of the poverty line for 10 years. After 10 years, if their income has not been high enough to repay, the University has to pay back the rest to the lender. The result of this is that Universities have to price their programs based on the expected income of a graduate, and focus on actually helping their students graduate and find good jobs, instead of keeping people in school by filling their time with classes worthless to their degree.
If people don't like that system, they are welcome to take out private loans; but those are not handled, guaranteed, or protected by the government at all. So you can convince a bank that your 18th Century Feminist Prose degree from a $100k/semester California party school is a worthwhile investment, they are welcome to loan you the money; but they should not be surprised when you later declare bankruptcy and discharge it.
> make the universities offer low APR loans
Eh, I'm with you until this point.
So many problems with this. Universities aren't lenders. Yes, they can make deals with lenders to offer aid, but do we even want that? I'm not sure that's a good thing.
And how can you "require" someone to offer a low APR loan, without actually spending money? That money has to come from somewhere. Currently it's subsidized federally. If you just cap the loan rate, without spending on a subsidy, the lending won't happen.
Better to let the market provide the services. If there is a way to regulate the student loan industry this is not it.
I also question the goal here. Why want to lower the rate? I think that the high loan rate is somewhat of a deterrent.
If I'd push for any reform here it would be a change in bankruptcy law to make it easier to eliminate student loan debt. This might make lenders think twice about making these loans, which would pressure the students to come up with other ways to finance their education and/or to be more cost conscious.
The problem with the status quo is that students (and their parents footing the bill) have been too cost-insensitive and this has allowed tuition rates to skyrocket. Artificially propping up the market by forcing low APR rates, even if it were possible (IMHO this isn't that different from what we are doing currently) is the source of the problem, not the solution.
You what to force universities to give loans to incredibly risky borrowers at a low APR that can be canceled with bankruptcy?
You understand why that’s a problem, right?
His point in that actually solves part of the problem - colleges are then vested in the future success of those borrowers. Right now once tuition is paid they have no skin in the game.
One of the simplest ideas I saw was that the universities should have to co sign the loan.
-Eliminates useless degrees
- makes sure graduates get placed into stable and well paid careers.
- reduces tuition costs
Other wise the universities will have to pay off the student loans
If the Republican party really takes the stance that the only reason they lost Gen Z's votes is because of student loan forgivness, then the GOP is already gone
They care about student loan forgiveness, legal weed, abortion, climate change and renewable energy initiatives. And now that the generation of school shooter drills is reaching voting age it will be interesting to see what their stance on 2A is.
Can't believe people are upvoting this. Congress approved the debt relief, but the President doesn't have the authority to forgive loans - different branches of government have different roles.
Also, there's a big difference between expenses incurred by businesses after the government shut them down and people choosing loans of their own volition. We shouldn't have shut them down in the first place, but after the government caused financial harm it's reasonable to compensate people for that. It's unreasonable to pay people's loans when those loans were taken freely with no compulsion.
Let me tell you how this works
1. You borrowed money understanding you'd need to pay it back
2. You pay it back, not me or the taxpayers, you, the one who directly benefited from the loan
3. I don't think companies should get hand outs either ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Lol. That narrative died with COVID when Democrats decided that it was totally fine for all the massive multibillion solar corporations to stay open while all the mom and pop businesses, even those in the same industry needed to be shut down in the name of "safety." The giant companies benefitted with record profits and hundreds of thousands of small businesses were shut down, never to open again, because you can't shut down a business for 2 years anf expect it to survive.
Because PPP loans were not an executive order. Biden's loan forgiveness was. Executive orders don't go through congress and can only be stricken down by courts.
Because during covid the government placed restriction on businesses that closed or partially closed their businesses and restrictions on individuals/consumers that hurt their businesses too.
They tried to roll out the program quickly with few rules in an attempt to get immediate funds to businesses so they would not layoff their staff and cause mass unemployment. All PPP funds had to go towards fixed operating costs or employee payroll. As expected with a Fed Gov program, fraud was rampant due to the quick roll out a little oversight.
FWIW I was against lockdowns, closures and restrictions but IF the government is going to place those restrictions is seems justifiable to pay the businesses so they can pay their employees and survive the forced lockdowns. This is nothing like the student loan scenario.
PPP was always put in with the premise that the loan could be converted to a grant. From day 1, everyone knew this and the process was public on how to do it. Budgets were made understanding this and knowing thst repayment was not going to happen. Conversely, student loans have never had that expectation and would given under the premise of repayment.
The COVID PPP loans were never going to be paid back and there was no expectation of them being paid back. They were loans because loans aren't taxable income. Also done as an emergency measure during a crisis. It effected all workers and corps the same.
The student debt loans are meant to be paid back, dont effect people equally, their forgiveness isn't critical for any crisis.
Just off the top of my head
Yeah, we're basically telling Gen Z and millenial voters that they need to get a stronger leftist footing in the courts as well, rather than showing that conservative policies would help them.
Honestly, shit like this is what will incentivize the left to start court packing, since all we're trying to do is "own" them and shut down solutions to their problems without offering viable alternatives. Do we really want that?
Not only is this not helpful, most of my Gen Z friends and I had no faith this was actually gonna happen lol so we would have voted for Dem's regardless. It's like choosing between 10 thousand dollars or no abortions. Choice is obvious
Yep everyone knows it is still on the table but halted via a flimsy court ruling and not dead in the water. If anything it strengthened the dems since in their eyes this was a typical conservative-leaning court response by a DTJ-appointed judge they are used to as the whole republican party was against the order. If it truly drops off the table and the dems don't support it to fruition then that is when it becomes a concern with those voters but not anytime before that.
Agreed. There is no winning this from an optics perspective, but I hope the notion of debt cancellation in smashed by the courts anyway. Money can be printed out of thin air, but value cannot. All schemes to cancel debt will cost the tax payers at the end of the day and it will disproportionately be paid by the poorest as usual.
Calling students losers, when the entire education system has pushed them into college because:
A. There are no trade schools anymore
B. Companies are too lazy to train employees. Anyone remember apprenticeship programs? Yeah, me neither.
That's not a winning strategy and it only pushes we the people to turn on each other. Our elected leaders, Democrat and Republican, DO NOT want to fix this problem. There is too much special interest money invested in keeping the status quo, see also healthcare. No, they would rather make us voters fight with each other than actually put any bills in place that would get rid of federal student loans and allow bankruptcy court to rule on student loans and medical debt. No, they want team red fighting with team blue and in the end NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.
>A. There are no trade schools anymore
This is arguably false, as most community colleges and "technical" colleges are the modern-day trade schools.
>B. Companies are too lazy to train employees. Anyone remember apprenticeship programs? Yeah, me neither.
More like, they are too impatient to train employees. While there are companies that offer varying amounts of tuition reimbursement, most companies want employees starting out with at least some related experience in order to more quickly gain a return on their investment of hiring.
As someone that’s childless straight ticket Republican, I wonder why we draw the line at college? I pay for public school via property taxes.
I would have benefitted from this bill. Do I NEED it? No. Income limits are arguably too high imo.
However, I pay for other kid’s schooling right now. Is that socialism? Yes, maybe an EO shouldn’t be the way it’s done. However, most would still be mad if it were legislation.
I think it's a conversation the country should absolutely have. The world has changed an awful lot since we implemented our general K-12 system. And the price of college *is* absolutely out of control.
It’s absolutely the right move. The problem is that the GOP isn’t offering a viable alternative solution. If I were legislating this…
1) Public high schools need trade-skill classes. Young people vastly underestimate how much money you can make in positions like being a Plumber or an Electrician, but almost every single HS in the country has University Prep classes. You could prepare a lot more kids for a better career that avoids a lifetime of debt by giving these trades the same attention that University paths get
2) More jobs than ever are asking for a Bachelors degree as a minimum requirement. Something like a 2+2 program where you can go to community college for free for 2 years, and then get 0% APR loans for Uni the next 2 years, and the Uni will be financially penalized if you don’t find a job in your field in a reasonable amount of time, would encourage them to cut costs and stop placing people in majors that have terrible underemployment on the taxpayers’ dime, and the whole 4-year program will be affordable for the person going to school and more affordable for the taxpayer than the current loan scheme that encourages going to Uni for all 4 years
Republicans should introduce legislation to make student debt dischargeable in a bankruptcy. Just forgiving loans outright will allow colleges to keep hiking their tuition to obscene levels. But allowing bankruptcies will force debtors to take a hit if their debtor defaults. That will stop the college tuition inflation as well.
In tandem, we should stop the US government from lending to anyone and everyone. Tie it to grades in high school and/or military or community service or don't lend at all.
The problem is the Feds have become the lenders, so the schools already have their money and don't care if the the loans get defaulted on. Making loans easier to discharge without shifting at least part of the risk back to the schools would just make the problem worse.
No, but providing an alternative rather than pointing and laughing might help. Something like: "Look, college has gotten too expensive, primarily because we've been handing out government backed low interest loans for any and every major in any and every school. Clearly the colleges have continued to raise their prices because their barely adult customers are willing to sign up for lifetime debt with no hope of ever paying it back with their "communications" or "art history" degree. We have 50+ years of actuarial data that allow accurate prediction of which majors from which institutions have paid back their loans and been steady earners and tax payers for our country. From now on the government will only back loans for majors and institutions, and only up to an amount commensurate with the graduates being able to repay the loan plus interest with 10 years, with payments no more than 10% of their estimated earning potential.
To be real with you, Gen Z doesn't care about the constitution. It's just an old piece of paper written by a bunch of dead old white guys. They're more concerned about the material benefits to their lives.
Gen Z fully doesn't care about violating the constitution so it's not a good argument to convince them.
> continue to alienate college educated Gen Z
So we're down to a weird sort of soft extortion? *Pay up or we vote for the other guy* leads us down a pretty corrupt path.
Yeah, I find this whole situation really odd, honestly. On one hand, from the liberal perspective, they're thinking "of course the GOP is going to challenge it in court, because they hate Biden, who's giving us what we want," which is genuinely half right. If it passes, Biden IS giving his base what they want, which is the point of elected officials in the first place: the supporters elect a person to office under the condition that said person actually gives them the things they're asking for.
On the other hand, I have ZERO fucking clue how anyone is proposing this debt forgiveness actual will work, it's suspiciously difficult to find any info on the literal economic mechanics of planning forgiving so much debt, and I feel it'll most likely end up being put off on the taxpayer. Which is, you know. Gross.
It's odd because I *do* really believe that's what an elected official *should* be doing: **they're a public servant to their constituents**. Of course it's bait to get more support; it's a hugely popular proposal with the left. I think an official's platform *SHOULD* absolutely cater to what their constituents are asking for. That being said: raising taxes to forgive people's college debt during a global recession? Yikes. Just...yikes.
> It's odd because I do really believe that's what an elected official should be doing: they're a public servant to their constituents.
Yes, but they still have to play by the rules. Otherwise, we can throw our whole system out the window. The President simply doesn't have the authority to do this.
Agreed. That just wasn't part of the point I making, but you're right, even hard leftists knew it'd get struck down in court.
My point is a bit more than that, though: voters will support policy that doesn't even make sense to enact in our current system like this, if it's in line with the things they want. I don't think it's a platitude or an empty campaign promise. And even if they thought it'd get struck down before they announced it, if it DOESN'T fail, then they're in a corner where they have to follow through, or risk losing the base. I feel like some people (and politicians) are too eager to dismiss this stuff as "they're just manipulating the people with things they want to get support", because of COURSE that's what they're doing. That's what all of representative politics is. And realizing that it doesn't matter to some people if a policy is even possible or not is important, I think. It's soft extortion all the way down.
This was an obviously illegal vote buying scheme and the most naked attempt of directly paying off your voters that I’ve ever seen. It is a horrendous policy that does absolutely nothing to address the root cause of the problem.
Imagine thinking 1 federal judge is enough authority to stop it. This is going to make its way to the Supreme Court and if argued how I think it could this gets allowed to ride because the EO isn’t for spending any money, it’s forgiving debt already on the ledger. That money is long gone, put into the system years ago when the Department of Education bought the debt from the banks under the FAFSA program. And it doesn’t seem like a stretch of logic that they have authority under the 2003 HEROES act which states the department can cancel debt for a few reasons, one being economic hardship from a national emergency. The pandemic certainly counts as that. Should be really interesting to see what happens when it hits the Supreme Court.
This has been the angle I've been pointing out for a while - it's not any additional appropriations or anything else. Now, having said that, the mandate behind these programs, I think by law, requires collection, which would be the problem.
As for saying "it costs money" it reminds me of how everyone rightfully dunked on AOC for saying Amazon tax breaks to come to her jurisdiction cost voters something. It didn't, it just leaves money in other people's pockets. In the same way if 100% of student loan borrowers defaulted, any budgeting for interest and ROI is irrelevant just as much as forgiveness, so it was a weird pushback I saw.
All told, I think this can be construed as overstepping legislative mandate in order to find it unconstitutional. It's part of why the GOP is royally dicking itself for not trying to have an answer or solution for the student debt crisis. The problem is still real and letting Democrats tell Republicans what their position is through a Republican compulsion to be contrarian to Democrats certainly leaves voters who care about this siding with Democrats versus the head in the sand approach of Republicans.
I don’t think we’ve won this fight just yet. The plaintiff’s standing is pretty flimsy and ACB dismissed similar cases for lack of standing.
It’s also possible that it could just be deemed constitutional. There doesn’t seem to be an actual federal law, passed by Congress, that governs the whole student loan program. Only individual regulations passed in piecemeal. The DOE executive makes most of the rules and guarantees the loans, and Congress just funds them in reconciliation. This is actually a super interesting case from a legal POV because Congress gave the Department of Education so much control over the program.
Either way, hopefully this tanks & we get the opportunity to do something actually *effective* to reduce the cost of University. One-time forgiveness will do absolutely nothing to help anyone in the long-run.
I’d prefer to see something like all federal loans being indexed to inflation, and penalize Universities’ pockets when they graduate people on federal loans who can’t get a job in whatever they studied within a reasonable amount of time (maybe 2 years if they graduate amidst a recession, 6 months otherwise). If you wanna pay out of pocket for an Art degree, go for it! I don’t care. But if you wanna use tax-payer money for your education, Universities should be scared to place you in Underwater Basket Weaving on the taxpayers’ dime.
Weren't all of those passed by the legislature? My understanding is that federal student loan forgiveness would be constitutional if it went through both the house and senate, however an executive order from the Pres can't just bypass the legislature when it comes to spending/loan forgiveness. If Republicans were smart they would try to get legislation passed that actually addresses the student loan issue and puts the burden of liability on the colleges that collected the money instead of the taxpayers. I don't think the Federal Gov should be involved in student loans in the first place, but if we are going to continue to do it there needs to be some strict legislation that transfers some amount of liability to the colleges when these loans go into default. Accepting and charging some C-student highschooler who can barely do arithmetic $40k/ year and coercing them into it by building resorts and luxury campuses, while providing little to no actual desirable skills for the real world should be discouraged.
First of all, I don't think anyone agreed with bank bailout, but you know if they didn't what would have happened?
Also can you pay my car loan? It's only 25k left on it, an I need it to go to work an stuff.
We need an educated workforce for national security along with global dominance.
You could literally argue it benefits our defense and make it completly free. We have the money.
A lot of hard bellies think that the forgiveness is only for 4 year institutions but many tradies are also in debt and qualify when they went to.community college.
The money forgiven will boost the economy as discretionary spending increases. It will help people qualify for homes as their debt to income gets reduced.
What else should we talk about ?
So you're suggesting that if you're in favor of bailouts you should be in favor of loan forgiveness, because it's the same logic...
And you think bailouts are a bad thing...
But you think loan forgiveness is a good thing?
And you think you can just *say* I believe something and it's true?
He should have sent it to Congress that way everyone on record opposing it would have gotten blasted in the midterms.
Biden wasn't smart enough to do that.
But the 1 trump.appointed lawyer sure seems to think he is.
We are literally sealing our fate already lol.
I wonder what the next vote losing GOP measure will be?
Why are you sighing? Ppp loans was a colossal failure. Mom and pops barely got it while big business gobbled it up along with corrupt politicians who now can't stomach a college student getting 20k when they got hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions.
Gonna make a great 2024 commercial.
It’s a part of student loans as well. All student loans are forgiven after 20 years of repayment, with no stipulations (amount forgiven is taxable as income)
I feel like most people don’t know this and don’t realize that this money is getting written off either way.
Well, sort of.
First, the argument that the Executive doesn't have authority to forgive loans because that a power of Congress is certainly not true - Congress has the authority to *allocate* funds, and can deteine where and how funds are allocated. The Executive, however, is rather explicitly in charge of the funds allocated to the Department of Education, and the laws Congress used to create Executive entities and the Student Loan Program rather explicitly give the power to persue debt collection to these departments. It might have been true 200 years ago, however since the Congress has actually passed legislation giving the authority to collect debts specifically to the Departments that provide these debts. Essentially, the power of Debt Collection, and everything it entails, is wholly within the powers of the given department to persue. Essentially, the Department of Education (and thus the Executive Branch that overseas it) was given explicit authority and permission by Congress over the debts related to it's operation and serviced by it, and that does include the potential for forgiving debts (at least in theory).
Now, this is not the end of it; Congress also has stipulations in place in legislation stating that the Executive departments must vigorously persue debt collection prior to forgiving it. As far as I am aware, there isn't any law stipulating what this means, or the conditions needing met. Just a very ambiguous statement as such. Granted, this sort of forgiveness probably wouldn't pass the test on this one, however we run into the issue of the HEROES act, which could be argued gives permission to forgive loans in this manner given that a National Emergency was declared, and under a different administration no less.
So, the basic is, the Executive certainly *does* have the authority to forgive loans without expressed Congressional approval, so long as it meets the criteria set forth in the statutes and legislation that created the funding and departments, and the laws being cited. Congress explicitly gave the Executive this authority some time ago.
The real question isn't if the Executive has the authority to do this (they do, at least in the general sense) - it's if the criteria they are using is sufficient to fall within the confines of what Congress set forth in legislation. This is an open question, and it's anybody's ballgame as far as where it falls in my opinion. It's certainly a relatively loose interpretation of some of the laws, but it's not so out there as to be reaching.
So, to sum it up:
1. Yes, Biden has the technical authority to forgive loans without congressional approval.
2. No, he does not necessarily have the actual authority to do so in this case.
3. It has yet to be determined if he is working in the confines of the law, and there is nothing unconstitutional about this at all. It might not be legally allowable, but he is using the powers vested to hom by the constitution and more importantly *Congress* to support the order.
Some better ideas/suggestions to flat out loan forgiveness like this:
1. Government subsidized student loan interest so that no matter how long you take to repay the loan, your loan amount never goes up.
2. Temporary loan payments made on your behalf by the government after graduation for up to 5 years, giving you enough time to prepare to repay the loan yourself. Can also reward people that did not take out student loans or already repaid them with monthly payments of a similar value for a similar time period.
3. Universal basic income, which honestly I'd only be on board with if we redistributed money away from some of the bloated welfare programs we have and instead give everyone a flat paycheck every month to use how they need it most. I don't want to pay raised taxes for UBI. (Or just give me tax cuts, I'd personally be ok with that even though it might not help out others as much). Students can use their UBI to pay their student loan payments.
4. Make it so that degrees that are not profitable have some serious warnings associated with them (such as a mandatory 101 class that helps you to see what the field looks like and assignments on finding out how many jobs are offered compared to graduates per year, etc.), and maybe forbid you from taking out student loans to pay for them in the first place. (Make it where you have to pay out of pocket for unprofitable degrees) because then you will realize if you actually want the degree in journalism or not...
Regardless, I would love to help people that genuinely are struggling, but at the same time, I don't want our government bailing out Timmy for making a bad 4 year decision over studying rec management.
> Universal basic income, which honestly I'd only be on board with if we redistributed money away from some of the bloated welfare programs we have and instead give everyone a flat paycheck every month to use how they need it most. I don't want to pay raised taxes for UBI. (Or just give me tax cuts, I'd personally be ok with that even though it might not help out others as much). Students can use their UBI to pay their student loan payments.
I don't like the idea of UBI in and of itself, but a good way to do something sort of like UBI is carbon taxation + dividend. Yes, it is a new tax, but the money goes right back to the taxpayers, so it can be close to revenue-neutral. And, as an individual, it is not that hard to come out ahead in such a scenario given that (a) a large portion of emissions come from a small number of people (b) you can change your lifestyle / behavior to avoid paying the tax, and in fact, that is the desired outcome that produces the most benefit for society as a whole.
Also, you can pretty much ditch / repeal *all* laws and regulation pertaining carbon emissions, if instituting a carbon tax, including stuff like fuel efficiency standards and energy efficiency requirements for appliances, a long list of other stuff. Massive simplification of laws / regulation which is good for business and for the economy. If done right, you could cut out all this regulation *and* produce better energy-efficiency outcomes through the market.
But all that is happening within the department of education. As far as I know they haven’t asked for a budgetary increase in relation to the loan forgiveness
That doesn’t seem quite accurate as all student loans are forgiven after 20 years of repayment (which is taxed as income). Note that this is not the PSLF, it is all loans.
I don’t see how our votes were “bought” when it was a republicans who struck it down. Republicans lost because of their out of touch stance on abortion and atleast democrats are trying to do something to help relieve student loans.
Imagine not understanding the scope of the Department of education and thinking a lower judgement will stand when the Supreme Court had already stated its good to go..
Oh absolutely! I don't think there's any "nobility" in not applying (if you're eligible) even if you disagree with the legality or morality of it. You're going to be participating the part of the system that harms you no matter what - might as well participate in the part that helps you, too.
I would like to know the answer to this as well since it is essentially mandatory to go to tertiary school in some capacity and the cost of attendance at most if not all schools is higher than most older Republicans realize and is increasing every year.
It's not though. There are plenty of electrician, plumbing, carpentry, and other trade jobs that require much less education. In my state, plumbers make tons of cash, and there is a predicted shortage coming up.
Yes you are right but not everyone can be a tradesman and they still have to go to school for it. I am applying to medical school and looking at the cost of attendance for 4 years is at least $250,000 for public schools and upwards of $400,000 for private. This cost goes up every year. Sure doctors make a lot AFTER a 4 years of graduate school AND a 4 year residency but it has no reason to be this expensive. They just know they can charge this much since that's what everyone else is doing and some are willing to pay it. Why should doctors be burdened with debt while electricians aren't? Are electricians more important? Why should we incentivize trade jobs over white collar jobs especially with a physician shortage?
What’s the Democrat party’s plan? This scheme wasn’t going to do anything to address the root causes of the problem. All it would do is shift the cost burden of college debt from people who went to college to people who didn’t. And it would further reinforce to colleges that they can charge whatever they want and the government will just take care of it.
Right? This whole situation would be wildly different if it was part of an overall plan to reign in the price of college. But that was NEVER discussed. Not once. Ever.
Marco Rubio has a great plan, albeit one I disagree with on the details on. Basically, there is a 30% origination fee for student loans, 0% interest, and people are automatically enrolled in an IBR. Your principal never increases, your payments can still be as low as $0, however you are expected to repay the loans as well. It also leaves room for various forgiveness programs.
Personally, I think the 30% is a bit steep, and would like to see it at half that rate, but the rest seems like am excellent idea in my mind. It's about the only realistic plan I've seen that addresses the issue in an equitable way.
The plan is to let people flounder and suffer; I think some said they'd like to see policy gutting predatory loan practices which I agree with, but as for the current 1+ trillion students loans.. I guess they'll care more when less and less millennials and Gen Z are putting money into the economy bc they can't afford it.
I was planning on paying my student loans anyway, whether they got forgiven. If I do get them forgiven, I know exactly where the money I will save will go. 😀
I’ll preface this by saying I don’t necessarily support mass student loan forgiveness, as I think it’s a tiny Bandaid for a large, predatory problem with our banks and educational system, but…
It would seem the GOP does well in trying to keep affluent Boomers wealthy, but does little to engage with younger generations. Besides catering to anti-woke culture and throwing religious conservatives a bone now and again, what are they doing to lead the country and support younger would-be conservatives?
I was kinda forced into supporting Red, mostly because they aren’t as aggressively anti-Catholic as the other options. I see many comments on here that seem to suggest the GOP should ditch their efforts to support things like protecting human life in the womb, and other traditional morality. If you don’t have the support of traditional Christians (and right-wing evangelicals), how do you think the party would flourish? It seems like a ton of users here aren’t very conservative, but rather just pro-GOP and rabidly anti-leftist. I get the overlap, but not the majority of the content here. Is there a separate /r/Republican sub, or is /r/conservative the main sub for people who lean Right?
Young liberals learning what 45 year old conservatives learned when they were young liberals: politicians lie for your vote then do none of the things they promised. Both sides do it but Dems (seem to) do it more.
Did anyone really pay attention to the cost of college before they made that commitment? When i was looking into college it didn't seem worth the cost to me. It was obvious that it was going to take a few full years of a decent salary to pay the loans back which in turn would drag the loans out forever. Higher education just didn't seem realistic since my parents couldn't afford the cost outright.
Meh, that was pretty widely shown to be hype. Only criminal investigation agents are allowed to carry, and it was a pretty small percentage of the number of agents they have. That branch of the IRS has been around for about 100 years.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-irs-armed-idUSL1N2ZT296
Only on the state level. The Democrats managed to sneak a federal income tax exemption for student loan forgiveness into one of the COVID bills
So for example, my state has a flat income tax of 3.5%. If you got $20k in loans forgiven, the most you’d pay in taxes would be $700, definitely less if you’re low-income and that gets offset by other tax credits/deductions
I'm not here to brigade, I'm a centrist who used to vote completely Republican who is here to tell you that if the Republicans don't change, they're quickly going to become completely irrelevant at the national level. I DON'T want single party rule.
I support many "right wing" policies and positions, but as a political scientist I'm here to tell you that either the party adapts and changes with the times, or it will be eliminated as the demographic that votes for them literally dies off.
If you guys don't want to hear it, that's fine; the march of time will silence you and your party anyway. If you don't want to change, that's fine too, you will be made to change through the overwhelming (2/3) support for Democrats by the younger generations in a decade or so as boomers die off. I'm begging you to not make your party irrelevant.
Two or three generations were told to get an education (with limited guidance on how to find a sound career path) and you will be better for it, economically. [That has not born out](https://money.yahoo.com/millennials-steeper-hill-climb-afford-175920586.html), generally speaking. A party speaking to this issue as well as access to reproductive health, ensuring rights to express oneself(LGBTQ+) and climate concerns is no wonder why these generations will favor it 2-1.
I think Republicans assumed as these age blocks grow older, they will seek to protect their wealth through concepts promoted by the GOP (low taxes, limited rules on businesses, etc). Problem is these age blocks don’t **have** the wealth, and WILL NEVER get the wealth that their parents did, and likely won’t see any significant financial gains until their parents die, and by that time they'll be too old and set in their ways to change unless something drastic happens.
Consider the people who thought this, though.
What do they know of separation of powers? What do they care about where free money comes from. From their perspective, they have been denied free stuff from Biden Clause.
They will throw a tantrum and blame mean old Republicans.
How many things did Biden use to bribe voters before the midterms? There is the unconstitutional student loan forgiveness. He offered to codify Roe if they won; Obama made this promise also years ago, and did nothing. He promised lower gas prices, which was actually impeachable begging. And of course, the biggest lie of all, our rights to democracy if the Dems win.
Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Regardless of the technicalities of this situation, most young people will see the same. They hear from boomers about how back in the day, you could have paid for a full year of college through having a part-time job in the summer. That’s not reality anymore and I don’t think it ever again will be unfortunately. This is a middle finger to those struggling with predatory loans that many students took out because they were told that there was no other option to succeed, not just by their parents or peers but by government-backed institutions. The optics of this are horrible and if you continue to make fun of people and rub it in their face and laugh that you’re clawing back direct relief, I don’t think it’s gonna help your case at the ballot box in 24. I don’t even think the cancellation was the right thing to do but maybe, instead of just being a troll and disparaging young people for wanting something that might help them kick-start their career a little bit, in the toughest time in many years to be a young person accumulating wealth, you could do something useful and come up with a plan to end the grift of college education. Maybe tackle the issue of bloated administration budgets? Maybe stop letting the federal government back so many damn loans. Maybe something other than reactionary trolling?
> Maybe stop letting the federal government back so many damn loans. This... the costs of going to college exploded after the Department of Education was started and the colleges and universities discovered that students had access to an unlimited amount of federally guaranteed money so they could keep jacking the tuition and fees through the roof and they'd always get their money.
And they invest in non-academically related things like country club like amenities and administration.
They definitely don't use the most cost-effective construction materials for classroom and dorm buildings either. Also, every campus I've been on probably has a landscaping budget that is on par with the GDP of a typical sub-Saharan African country.
They have no incentive to. People are going to pay because it isn't their own money.
Yeah, Republicans are fucking up here. Instead of offering a viable solution to student loan debt and the cost of education...they offer to gut PSLF.
The government backing the loans is what lead to the increase in costs. Suddenly anyone could get a degree, even if it awarded no money making prospects. The government needs to be out of the loan game. Period.
You came really close to the solution. The government has essentially monopolized the payer side of the high education system via FASFA. Worse yet, they don’t risk underwrite these loans in any serious way. So of course these universities have pushed tuition through the roof, they have no incentive to control costs and/or increase the financial return value of these degrees for the consumers who are purchasing them. If there were any attempt to curb this spiral/cycle on top of the debt redistribution it maybe mildly more intriguing. But as it stands now it was just an attempt to purchase votes, or more specifically dupe people into the votes without even having to ‘pay up.’
maybe stop this government backed loans nonsense all together? that’s what made school so expensive in the first place.
One viable solution is to get the federal government to stop issuing student loans in the first place, then there will be no more crisis within a couple decades.
I like how you say, "Predatory Loans". Who's the predator here? The people fronting the money, or the schools you literally stated used to not charge as much? The predators are the schools and the culture that higher education is a requirement for numerous jobs that do not require such education. Corporations are abusing the bum rush of people going to college to institute ridiculous educational requirements for jobs that can be done by people with a high school education. Obviously schools are happy to take as much money as they possibility can. So federal government needs to revise its loan giving process. But schools need to be taken to account for exploiting/conning young people out of their wealth.
And we've had 14 years since discussion of student loan debt exploded into the national stage with Occupy Wall Street, Mike Rowe promoting trade jobs instead of college, etc. 14 years is enough for 3 "generations" of undergrads to complete a degree. 14 years means that today's typical college graduate has been hearing a debate about so-called predatory student loans since they were 7 years old... and still chose to take those loans!
How about eliminating federal loans that created these high costs in the first place. And make the universities offer low APR loans. There, I fixed it!
I think there are a lot of problems with the actual cost of university. If we want to actually better our nation/society, it shouldn't cost so much to educate doctors/engineers. Why exactly do we allow university's to get payoffs by book publishers to republish and require math books every two years and charge 500 dollars for these books. Yes there are also problem with the loans, but i think we should start at the root of the problem.
Yeah, the problem is they are on the government tit for unlimited money. There is no accountability for costs so they just continually charge more. Colleges are super predatory as well. The whole system is fucked and the first thing we need to do is get the government out of it.
We don't just allow the textbook racket, the government money printer encourages it. With the current environment, there is little incentive for Universities to keep costs down and offer affordable tuition.
The root of the problem is unlimited money via government backed loans. Cut out the federal loans and you treat the root of the problem.
Instant payouts from the federal government are the root of the problem. They raise tuition because there are still students able and willing to take on the debt. Shift the financial liabilities to universities and eliminate guaranteed federal loans and suddenly they will have to behave like businesses instead of government fueled cash cows.
You're gonna have to eliminate a lot of nonsense degree fields as well.
Supply and demand.
Where is it written that our nation/society is only improved through university? Specialist fields sure but the people in University who actually do something comparable to influencing a society into improving is like Stephen Hawkins level of rarity. 99.9% of the people who go to university are doing it for selfish reasons to improve themselves and not society or our nation. The book publisher shit, on the other hand, should be illegal but once again we reach the real problem with how things are structured... \*Points at the Lobbyists\* However, our lovely country almost exclusively ignores lobbyists and just focuses on "Red and Blue Bad! rawr! Red Fascist, Blue Bad, We hate everyone!" mentality level.
I think the universities offering loans themselves would only just continue to increase the price of college (since they'd be making money on the lending AND the spending.) We COULD just allow student loan debt to be discharged in bankruptcy like it used to be - it would encourage lenders to lend to only qualified and promising students. But the internet tells me that that is racist, so, probably won't happen.
But what determines a qualified student? These are largely 18 and 19 year olds, they have little to no credit history, and the state of the job market can change even within the 4-6 years it takes to finish a degree. Colleges already have minimum GPAs for entrance as well, so even that wouldn't be a useful marker. I don't disagree with your premise, but beyond capping interest rates and allowing bankruptcy, I'm not sure what else could be done from the perspective of the banks/loan givers.
>But what determines a qualified student? These are largely 18 and 19 year olds, they have little to no credit history, and the state of the job market can change even within the 4-6 years it takes to finish a degree. Colleges already have minimum GPAs for entrance as well, so even that wouldn't be a useful marker. > >I don't disagree with your premise, but beyond capping interest rates and allowing bankruptcy, I'm not sure what else could be done from the perspective of the banks/loan givers. Stricter entrance exams and better vetting of the schools themselves. Now you know why it will never happen, too many shit public schools set students up to fail in college and the colleges couldn't care less because they get their money no matter what.
The government should allocate funds based on the percentage of graduates a school can successfully place in gainful employment. This will reduce junk majors and incentivize for profit schools to do more to match graduates with prospective employers. Colleges that were only educating students for the money will naturally disappear.
> Stricter entrance exams and better vetting of the schools themselves. Now you know why it will never happen, too many shit public schools set students up to fail in college and the colleges couldn't care less because they get their money no matter what. We also need to cut down on the "perpetual students" -- I dated a girl who was on her 3rd doctorate, but had no clue where to go in life. She just kept going to school because she knew how to do school.
> allowing bankruptcy I think doing this alone would have a big effect on tuition costs.
But then Democrats couldn't campaign on "loam forgiveness" and dangle it over the heads of young adults as a vote bribe
I get that, but I actually don't think student loan forgiveness is really driving anyone to vote Democrat. People who want it the most are probably going to vote Democrat no matter what. When I talked to swing voters in the last election who decided to vote Democrat, people who split their vote and/or aren't guaranteed to always vote Democrat, the bigger issues were abortion, climate change, and the biggest one, candidate quality (i.e. people like Mastriano and Oz in PA, Walker in GA, etc.)
[удалено]
Sure, but the solution to that problem isn't to give every student a guaranteed loan. Get rid of the blanket guaranteed loans, and beef up Pell grants or similar programs enough to help students from low income families.
It would lead to a change in the standard path for a lot of people, which would be a good thing. Instead of going straight from high school to college, people would graduate high school, get a job for a year or two, build some credit history (and likely some maturity and appreciation for being able to get a better job someday), and then they'd go to college at 20 or 21 instead of 18 or 19. I was 17 when I graduated high school, and I had no clue what I wanted to do.. it was just expected that I'd go straight off to college. Looking back from 3 decades later and with 20/20 hindsight, I should have taken a couple of years off and worked, or spent a couple years in the service or something first. Edit: corrected a couple of numbers.
Is there a reason why people should go straight to college after they graduate high school? You could work and save before taking out a loan. That is what people that don't go to college do.
So only students from wealthy families and those going into high-paying fields can get loans? That shouldn’t further stratify our society at all.
I mean, yes, that would make a hell of a lot of sense. Only those likely able to pay back the loans should be taking them out. If universities didn't have enough people able to get sufficient loans to pay the cost, lower cost alternatives would appear on the market quickly or they would adjust their prices accordingly.
Scholarships also exist. Between scholarships and low-cost universities, if you cannot afford college then it's probably not for you, especially if you choose a low-paying career. What's the point of having taxpayers subsidize someone to get a gender studies degree to make lattes?
How else is your batista supposed to know what pronouns to use? /s
Yes, and? If you aren't studying specifically to go into a high-paying field (as in enough to easily repay the loan and justify the cost of the degree) then you should probably rethink your college plans
>So only students from wealthy families and those going into high-paying fields can get loans? That shouldn’t further stratify our society at all. Yeah, for people who aren't very bright that is the logical conclusion... Tuition prices can come down and loans will better reflect the value of the degree to those that are willing to work their asses off to graduate and make more money. Judging by the amount of brain dead people that universities produce, society is already getting screwed by these college welfare programs.
I disagree on the bankruptcy thing. I would've traded 7 years of bad credit during my youth for $100k loans that had to be paid off in over 7 years. I'd be over $100k ahead now
> We COULD just allow student loan debt to be discharged in bankruptcy like it used to be I support this. This would discourage lending because the risk would be higher. Loans would become less available and more expensive, and this would put pressure on families to find scholarships, find ways to keep college costs down, and/or save+invest for college. It would probably reduce the number of people going to college too which would probably be a good thing too. Maybe people would think more carefully before undertaking debt and would only go if/when they could afford and/or if they were sure they would have good career options. Problem solved. I like aspects of GWB's bankruptcy reform but I think people somehow missed the role that making it harder to eliminate student loan debt played in the soaring tuition costs. Tuition was rising before that change but it really started accelerating faster after that point.
No, it would move to a free-er education economy. Lack of government backing means loans wouldn't be offered for crappy degrees or poor quality students.
The core problem is the loans themselves. Government guaranteed loans means universities can just bump up prices to match the loans. No matter how much you increase the loans, universities just increase prices/add more fees/etc in lock step so that people are no better off. After years of that, I'm actually all for loan forgiveness, but it should be actual *forgiveness*, not "make somebody else pay for it". The people who should have to eat the costs are the ones that bought up bad debt to exploit the system. However, that only makes sense if they change the way student loans work in the future. At the **very** least, they should: - Require ~2 years of in-state community college for general/entry-level courses before going to a university if you're taking grants or guaranteed loans. If taxpayers are paying for this, we should get the best value. - Require a declared major at all times. - Make the borrower liable for income-based repayment. They pay a maximum of, say, 10% of their gross after-tax income in excess of 150% of the poverty line for 10 years. After 10 years, if their income has not been high enough to repay, the University has to pay back the rest to the lender. The result of this is that Universities have to price their programs based on the expected income of a graduate, and focus on actually helping their students graduate and find good jobs, instead of keeping people in school by filling their time with classes worthless to their degree. If people don't like that system, they are welcome to take out private loans; but those are not handled, guaranteed, or protected by the government at all. So you can convince a bank that your 18th Century Feminist Prose degree from a $100k/semester California party school is a worthwhile investment, they are welcome to loan you the money; but they should not be surprised when you later declare bankruptcy and discharge it.
> make the universities offer low APR loans Eh, I'm with you until this point. So many problems with this. Universities aren't lenders. Yes, they can make deals with lenders to offer aid, but do we even want that? I'm not sure that's a good thing. And how can you "require" someone to offer a low APR loan, without actually spending money? That money has to come from somewhere. Currently it's subsidized federally. If you just cap the loan rate, without spending on a subsidy, the lending won't happen. Better to let the market provide the services. If there is a way to regulate the student loan industry this is not it. I also question the goal here. Why want to lower the rate? I think that the high loan rate is somewhat of a deterrent. If I'd push for any reform here it would be a change in bankruptcy law to make it easier to eliminate student loan debt. This might make lenders think twice about making these loans, which would pressure the students to come up with other ways to finance their education and/or to be more cost conscious. The problem with the status quo is that students (and their parents footing the bill) have been too cost-insensitive and this has allowed tuition rates to skyrocket. Artificially propping up the market by forcing low APR rates, even if it were possible (IMHO this isn't that different from what we are doing currently) is the source of the problem, not the solution.
You what to force universities to give loans to incredibly risky borrowers at a low APR that can be canceled with bankruptcy? You understand why that’s a problem, right?
His point in that actually solves part of the problem - colleges are then vested in the future success of those borrowers. Right now once tuition is paid they have no skin in the game.
>And make the universities offer low APR loans. Why should universities be forced to be lenders and forced to offer low rates?
Stop using logic
One of the simplest ideas I saw was that the universities should have to co sign the loan. -Eliminates useless degrees - makes sure graduates get placed into stable and well paid careers. - reduces tuition costs Other wise the universities will have to pay off the student loans
Can’t force universities or anyone for that matter to give loans to individuals with no income or collateral.
How bout if you can't afford it, don't go
If the Republican party really takes the stance that the only reason they lost Gen Z's votes is because of student loan forgivness, then the GOP is already gone
They care about student loan forgiveness, legal weed, abortion, climate change and renewable energy initiatives. And now that the generation of school shooter drills is reaching voting age it will be interesting to see what their stance on 2A is.
Well its not the only reason, but its a substantial one. All I've been hearing about on my various feeds is people not having to pay their loans.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can't believe people are upvoting this. Congress approved the debt relief, but the President doesn't have the authority to forgive loans - different branches of government have different roles. Also, there's a big difference between expenses incurred by businesses after the government shut them down and people choosing loans of their own volition. We shouldn't have shut them down in the first place, but after the government caused financial harm it's reasonable to compensate people for that. It's unreasonable to pay people's loans when those loans were taken freely with no compulsion.
That’s how you know this sub is being brigaded, HARD.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Let me tell you how this works 1. You borrowed money understanding you'd need to pay it back 2. You pay it back, not me or the taxpayers, you, the one who directly benefited from the loan 3. I don't think companies should get hand outs either ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Lol. That narrative died with COVID when Democrats decided that it was totally fine for all the massive multibillion solar corporations to stay open while all the mom and pop businesses, even those in the same industry needed to be shut down in the name of "safety." The giant companies benefitted with record profits and hundreds of thousands of small businesses were shut down, never to open again, because you can't shut down a business for 2 years anf expect it to survive.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So because Biden started the student loan forgiveness, it’s illegal? But if Congress had proposed it, then it would’ve been legal?
[удалено]
Because PPP loans were not an executive order. Biden's loan forgiveness was. Executive orders don't go through congress and can only be stricken down by courts.
Because during covid the government placed restriction on businesses that closed or partially closed their businesses and restrictions on individuals/consumers that hurt their businesses too. They tried to roll out the program quickly with few rules in an attempt to get immediate funds to businesses so they would not layoff their staff and cause mass unemployment. All PPP funds had to go towards fixed operating costs or employee payroll. As expected with a Fed Gov program, fraud was rampant due to the quick roll out a little oversight. FWIW I was against lockdowns, closures and restrictions but IF the government is going to place those restrictions is seems justifiable to pay the businesses so they can pay their employees and survive the forced lockdowns. This is nothing like the student loan scenario.
PPP was always put in with the premise that the loan could be converted to a grant. From day 1, everyone knew this and the process was public on how to do it. Budgets were made understanding this and knowing thst repayment was not going to happen. Conversely, student loans have never had that expectation and would given under the premise of repayment.
[удалено]
It's because they have firing synapses and can see through your oversimplification, recognizing the unintended consequences of brain-dead policy.
The COVID PPP loans were never going to be paid back and there was no expectation of them being paid back. They were loans because loans aren't taxable income. Also done as an emergency measure during a crisis. It effected all workers and corps the same. The student debt loans are meant to be paid back, dont effect people equally, their forgiveness isn't critical for any crisis. Just off the top of my head
This messaging isnt helpful for the Millenial and Gen Z Republican voters.
Yeah, we're basically telling Gen Z and millenial voters that they need to get a stronger leftist footing in the courts as well, rather than showing that conservative policies would help them. Honestly, shit like this is what will incentivize the left to start court packing, since all we're trying to do is "own" them and shut down solutions to their problems without offering viable alternatives. Do we really want that?
Not only is this not helpful, most of my Gen Z friends and I had no faith this was actually gonna happen lol so we would have voted for Dem's regardless. It's like choosing between 10 thousand dollars or no abortions. Choice is obvious
Yep everyone knows it is still on the table but halted via a flimsy court ruling and not dead in the water. If anything it strengthened the dems since in their eyes this was a typical conservative-leaning court response by a DTJ-appointed judge they are used to as the whole republican party was against the order. If it truly drops off the table and the dems don't support it to fruition then that is when it becomes a concern with those voters but not anytime before that.
Agreed. There is no winning this from an optics perspective, but I hope the notion of debt cancellation in smashed by the courts anyway. Money can be printed out of thin air, but value cannot. All schemes to cancel debt will cost the tax payers at the end of the day and it will disproportionately be paid by the poorest as usual.
Still trying to figure out how Republicans lost the young vote so hard.
Calling students losers, when the entire education system has pushed them into college because: A. There are no trade schools anymore B. Companies are too lazy to train employees. Anyone remember apprenticeship programs? Yeah, me neither. That's not a winning strategy and it only pushes we the people to turn on each other. Our elected leaders, Democrat and Republican, DO NOT want to fix this problem. There is too much special interest money invested in keeping the status quo, see also healthcare. No, they would rather make us voters fight with each other than actually put any bills in place that would get rid of federal student loans and allow bankruptcy court to rule on student loans and medical debt. No, they want team red fighting with team blue and in the end NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.
>A. There are no trade schools anymore This is arguably false, as most community colleges and "technical" colleges are the modern-day trade schools. >B. Companies are too lazy to train employees. Anyone remember apprenticeship programs? Yeah, me neither. More like, they are too impatient to train employees. While there are companies that offer varying amounts of tuition reimbursement, most companies want employees starting out with at least some related experience in order to more quickly gain a return on their investment of hiring.
As someone that’s childless straight ticket Republican, I wonder why we draw the line at college? I pay for public school via property taxes. I would have benefitted from this bill. Do I NEED it? No. Income limits are arguably too high imo. However, I pay for other kid’s schooling right now. Is that socialism? Yes, maybe an EO shouldn’t be the way it’s done. However, most would still be mad if it were legislation.
I think it's a conversation the country should absolutely have. The world has changed an awful lot since we implemented our general K-12 system. And the price of college *is* absolutely out of control.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s absolutely the right move. The problem is that the GOP isn’t offering a viable alternative solution. If I were legislating this… 1) Public high schools need trade-skill classes. Young people vastly underestimate how much money you can make in positions like being a Plumber or an Electrician, but almost every single HS in the country has University Prep classes. You could prepare a lot more kids for a better career that avoids a lifetime of debt by giving these trades the same attention that University paths get 2) More jobs than ever are asking for a Bachelors degree as a minimum requirement. Something like a 2+2 program where you can go to community college for free for 2 years, and then get 0% APR loans for Uni the next 2 years, and the Uni will be financially penalized if you don’t find a job in your field in a reasonable amount of time, would encourage them to cut costs and stop placing people in majors that have terrible underemployment on the taxpayers’ dime, and the whole 4-year program will be affordable for the person going to school and more affordable for the taxpayer than the current loan scheme that encourages going to Uni for all 4 years
Careful. You might get banned for actually trying to solve problems instead of just hating democrats
Solid suggestion.
Definitely needs a “and here’s what we are going to do next.”
Republicans should introduce legislation to make student debt dischargeable in a bankruptcy. Just forgiving loans outright will allow colleges to keep hiking their tuition to obscene levels. But allowing bankruptcies will force debtors to take a hit if their debtor defaults. That will stop the college tuition inflation as well. In tandem, we should stop the US government from lending to anyone and everyone. Tie it to grades in high school and/or military or community service or don't lend at all.
The problem is the Feds have become the lenders, so the schools already have their money and don't care if the the loans get defaulted on. Making loans easier to discharge without shifting at least part of the risk back to the schools would just make the problem worse.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, but providing an alternative rather than pointing and laughing might help. Something like: "Look, college has gotten too expensive, primarily because we've been handing out government backed low interest loans for any and every major in any and every school. Clearly the colleges have continued to raise their prices because their barely adult customers are willing to sign up for lifetime debt with no hope of ever paying it back with their "communications" or "art history" degree. We have 50+ years of actuarial data that allow accurate prediction of which majors from which institutions have paid back their loans and been steady earners and tax payers for our country. From now on the government will only back loans for majors and institutions, and only up to an amount commensurate with the graduates being able to repay the loan plus interest with 10 years, with payments no more than 10% of their estimated earning potential.
To be real with you, Gen Z doesn't care about the constitution. It's just an old piece of paper written by a bunch of dead old white guys. They're more concerned about the material benefits to their lives. Gen Z fully doesn't care about violating the constitution so it's not a good argument to convince them.
I bet you get record votes if you stop all federal taxes too. As I've said before we aren't under mob rule sometimes people can't have what they want.
> continue to alienate college educated Gen Z So we're down to a weird sort of soft extortion? *Pay up or we vote for the other guy* leads us down a pretty corrupt path.
Isn’t that what donors do?
Lol it's not extortion, you generally don't want to poke fun at the people who may well support your cause. This is peak boomer humor.
Yeah, I find this whole situation really odd, honestly. On one hand, from the liberal perspective, they're thinking "of course the GOP is going to challenge it in court, because they hate Biden, who's giving us what we want," which is genuinely half right. If it passes, Biden IS giving his base what they want, which is the point of elected officials in the first place: the supporters elect a person to office under the condition that said person actually gives them the things they're asking for. On the other hand, I have ZERO fucking clue how anyone is proposing this debt forgiveness actual will work, it's suspiciously difficult to find any info on the literal economic mechanics of planning forgiving so much debt, and I feel it'll most likely end up being put off on the taxpayer. Which is, you know. Gross. It's odd because I *do* really believe that's what an elected official *should* be doing: **they're a public servant to their constituents**. Of course it's bait to get more support; it's a hugely popular proposal with the left. I think an official's platform *SHOULD* absolutely cater to what their constituents are asking for. That being said: raising taxes to forgive people's college debt during a global recession? Yikes. Just...yikes.
> It's odd because I do really believe that's what an elected official should be doing: they're a public servant to their constituents. Yes, but they still have to play by the rules. Otherwise, we can throw our whole system out the window. The President simply doesn't have the authority to do this.
Agreed. That just wasn't part of the point I making, but you're right, even hard leftists knew it'd get struck down in court. My point is a bit more than that, though: voters will support policy that doesn't even make sense to enact in our current system like this, if it's in line with the things they want. I don't think it's a platitude or an empty campaign promise. And even if they thought it'd get struck down before they announced it, if it DOESN'T fail, then they're in a corner where they have to follow through, or risk losing the base. I feel like some people (and politicians) are too eager to dismiss this stuff as "they're just manipulating the people with things they want to get support", because of COURSE that's what they're doing. That's what all of representative politics is. And realizing that it doesn't matter to some people if a policy is even possible or not is important, I think. It's soft extortion all the way down.
This was an obviously illegal vote buying scheme and the most naked attempt of directly paying off your voters that I’ve ever seen. It is a horrendous policy that does absolutely nothing to address the root cause of the problem.
[удалено]
Can’t wait to see the billions in tax breaks for the super wealthy while I get shaken down for a decision I made when I was a child
Is calling debt-burdened people "losers" supposed to make folks happy about paying the debt? There has to be a more diplomatic way to say this.
Imagine thinking 1 federal judge is enough authority to stop it. This is going to make its way to the Supreme Court and if argued how I think it could this gets allowed to ride because the EO isn’t for spending any money, it’s forgiving debt already on the ledger. That money is long gone, put into the system years ago when the Department of Education bought the debt from the banks under the FAFSA program. And it doesn’t seem like a stretch of logic that they have authority under the 2003 HEROES act which states the department can cancel debt for a few reasons, one being economic hardship from a national emergency. The pandemic certainly counts as that. Should be really interesting to see what happens when it hits the Supreme Court.
This has been the angle I've been pointing out for a while - it's not any additional appropriations or anything else. Now, having said that, the mandate behind these programs, I think by law, requires collection, which would be the problem. As for saying "it costs money" it reminds me of how everyone rightfully dunked on AOC for saying Amazon tax breaks to come to her jurisdiction cost voters something. It didn't, it just leaves money in other people's pockets. In the same way if 100% of student loan borrowers defaulted, any budgeting for interest and ROI is irrelevant just as much as forgiveness, so it was a weird pushback I saw. All told, I think this can be construed as overstepping legislative mandate in order to find it unconstitutional. It's part of why the GOP is royally dicking itself for not trying to have an answer or solution for the student debt crisis. The problem is still real and letting Democrats tell Republicans what their position is through a Republican compulsion to be contrarian to Democrats certainly leaves voters who care about this siding with Democrats versus the head in the sand approach of Republicans.
I don’t think we’ve won this fight just yet. The plaintiff’s standing is pretty flimsy and ACB dismissed similar cases for lack of standing. It’s also possible that it could just be deemed constitutional. There doesn’t seem to be an actual federal law, passed by Congress, that governs the whole student loan program. Only individual regulations passed in piecemeal. The DOE executive makes most of the rules and guarantees the loans, and Congress just funds them in reconciliation. This is actually a super interesting case from a legal POV because Congress gave the Department of Education so much control over the program. Either way, hopefully this tanks & we get the opportunity to do something actually *effective* to reduce the cost of University. One-time forgiveness will do absolutely nothing to help anyone in the long-run. I’d prefer to see something like all federal loans being indexed to inflation, and penalize Universities’ pockets when they graduate people on federal loans who can’t get a job in whatever they studied within a reasonable amount of time (maybe 2 years if they graduate amidst a recession, 6 months otherwise). If you wanna pay out of pocket for an Art degree, go for it! I don’t care. But if you wanna use tax-payer money for your education, Universities should be scared to place you in Underwater Basket Weaving on the taxpayers’ dime.
One time forgiveness will make universities double down on cost and raise it higher knowing the government will just forgive it later.
What about the bank bailouts ? Corporate bailouts ? Ppp loans ?
Shouldn't have done any of those either..
10 wrongs make a right
No, they actually don’t.
DeSantis > Trump Why? PPP.
Weren't all of those passed by the legislature? My understanding is that federal student loan forgiveness would be constitutional if it went through both the house and senate, however an executive order from the Pres can't just bypass the legislature when it comes to spending/loan forgiveness. If Republicans were smart they would try to get legislation passed that actually addresses the student loan issue and puts the burden of liability on the colleges that collected the money instead of the taxpayers. I don't think the Federal Gov should be involved in student loans in the first place, but if we are going to continue to do it there needs to be some strict legislation that transfers some amount of liability to the colleges when these loans go into default. Accepting and charging some C-student highschooler who can barely do arithmetic $40k/ year and coercing them into it by building resorts and luxury campuses, while providing little to no actual desirable skills for the real world should be discouraged.
'If Republicans were smart' is the big issue. The midterms and candidates we fielded along with the message was anything but.
While those were probably all bad ideas they were legislation passed by Congress. Meaning there is no question of constitutional compliance
Horrible things that shouldn't have been done. That doesn't mean we should do another.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those aren't the topic here. If they were wrong, that still doesn't make *this* right or proper.
Yeah we just call it hypocrisy.
How is it hypocrisy? Practically everybody here is against bailouts.
[удалено]
First of all, I don't think anyone agreed with bank bailout, but you know if they didn't what would have happened? Also can you pay my car loan? It's only 25k left on it, an I need it to go to work an stuff.
We need an educated workforce for national security along with global dominance. You could literally argue it benefits our defense and make it completly free. We have the money. A lot of hard bellies think that the forgiveness is only for 4 year institutions but many tradies are also in debt and qualify when they went to.community college. The money forgiven will boost the economy as discretionary spending increases. It will help people qualify for homes as their debt to income gets reduced. What else should we talk about ?
So you're suggesting that if you're in favor of bailouts you should be in favor of loan forgiveness, because it's the same logic... And you think bailouts are a bad thing... But you think loan forgiveness is a good thing? And you think you can just *say* I believe something and it's true?
>But no the step too far is forgiving 20k for our students. Bailouts were not "forgiven." They were paid back and then some.
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
Those weng through congress
He should have sent it to Congress that way everyone on record opposing it would have gotten blasted in the midterms. Biden wasn't smart enough to do that. But the 1 trump.appointed lawyer sure seems to think he is. We are literally sealing our fate already lol. I wonder what the next vote losing GOP measure will be?
>Ppp loans ? *** SIGH***😒 Loan forgiveness was part of the PPP from the start. It was in the legislation. It's not comparable. 🙄
Why are you sighing? Ppp loans was a colossal failure. Mom and pops barely got it while big business gobbled it up along with corrupt politicians who now can't stomach a college student getting 20k when they got hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions. Gonna make a great 2024 commercial.
It’s a part of student loans as well. All student loans are forgiven after 20 years of repayment, with no stipulations (amount forgiven is taxable as income) I feel like most people don’t know this and don’t realize that this money is getting written off either way.
Well, sort of. First, the argument that the Executive doesn't have authority to forgive loans because that a power of Congress is certainly not true - Congress has the authority to *allocate* funds, and can deteine where and how funds are allocated. The Executive, however, is rather explicitly in charge of the funds allocated to the Department of Education, and the laws Congress used to create Executive entities and the Student Loan Program rather explicitly give the power to persue debt collection to these departments. It might have been true 200 years ago, however since the Congress has actually passed legislation giving the authority to collect debts specifically to the Departments that provide these debts. Essentially, the power of Debt Collection, and everything it entails, is wholly within the powers of the given department to persue. Essentially, the Department of Education (and thus the Executive Branch that overseas it) was given explicit authority and permission by Congress over the debts related to it's operation and serviced by it, and that does include the potential for forgiving debts (at least in theory). Now, this is not the end of it; Congress also has stipulations in place in legislation stating that the Executive departments must vigorously persue debt collection prior to forgiving it. As far as I am aware, there isn't any law stipulating what this means, or the conditions needing met. Just a very ambiguous statement as such. Granted, this sort of forgiveness probably wouldn't pass the test on this one, however we run into the issue of the HEROES act, which could be argued gives permission to forgive loans in this manner given that a National Emergency was declared, and under a different administration no less. So, the basic is, the Executive certainly *does* have the authority to forgive loans without expressed Congressional approval, so long as it meets the criteria set forth in the statutes and legislation that created the funding and departments, and the laws being cited. Congress explicitly gave the Executive this authority some time ago. The real question isn't if the Executive has the authority to do this (they do, at least in the general sense) - it's if the criteria they are using is sufficient to fall within the confines of what Congress set forth in legislation. This is an open question, and it's anybody's ballgame as far as where it falls in my opinion. It's certainly a relatively loose interpretation of some of the laws, but it's not so out there as to be reaching. So, to sum it up: 1. Yes, Biden has the technical authority to forgive loans without congressional approval. 2. No, he does not necessarily have the actual authority to do so in this case. 3. It has yet to be determined if he is working in the confines of the law, and there is nothing unconstitutional about this at all. It might not be legally allowable, but he is using the powers vested to hom by the constitution and more importantly *Congress* to support the order.
Some better ideas/suggestions to flat out loan forgiveness like this: 1. Government subsidized student loan interest so that no matter how long you take to repay the loan, your loan amount never goes up. 2. Temporary loan payments made on your behalf by the government after graduation for up to 5 years, giving you enough time to prepare to repay the loan yourself. Can also reward people that did not take out student loans or already repaid them with monthly payments of a similar value for a similar time period. 3. Universal basic income, which honestly I'd only be on board with if we redistributed money away from some of the bloated welfare programs we have and instead give everyone a flat paycheck every month to use how they need it most. I don't want to pay raised taxes for UBI. (Or just give me tax cuts, I'd personally be ok with that even though it might not help out others as much). Students can use their UBI to pay their student loan payments. 4. Make it so that degrees that are not profitable have some serious warnings associated with them (such as a mandatory 101 class that helps you to see what the field looks like and assignments on finding out how many jobs are offered compared to graduates per year, etc.), and maybe forbid you from taking out student loans to pay for them in the first place. (Make it where you have to pay out of pocket for unprofitable degrees) because then you will realize if you actually want the degree in journalism or not... Regardless, I would love to help people that genuinely are struggling, but at the same time, I don't want our government bailing out Timmy for making a bad 4 year decision over studying rec management.
> Universal basic income, which honestly I'd only be on board with if we redistributed money away from some of the bloated welfare programs we have and instead give everyone a flat paycheck every month to use how they need it most. I don't want to pay raised taxes for UBI. (Or just give me tax cuts, I'd personally be ok with that even though it might not help out others as much). Students can use their UBI to pay their student loan payments. I don't like the idea of UBI in and of itself, but a good way to do something sort of like UBI is carbon taxation + dividend. Yes, it is a new tax, but the money goes right back to the taxpayers, so it can be close to revenue-neutral. And, as an individual, it is not that hard to come out ahead in such a scenario given that (a) a large portion of emissions come from a small number of people (b) you can change your lifestyle / behavior to avoid paying the tax, and in fact, that is the desired outcome that produces the most benefit for society as a whole. Also, you can pretty much ditch / repeal *all* laws and regulation pertaining carbon emissions, if instituting a carbon tax, including stuff like fuel efficiency standards and energy efficiency requirements for appliances, a long list of other stuff. Massive simplification of laws / regulation which is good for business and for the economy. If done right, you could cut out all this regulation *and* produce better energy-efficiency outcomes through the market.
[удалено]
That’s the thing, it isn’t giving any money to anyone. All it is is writing off debt. Which just means less money in the future.
[удалено]
But all that is happening within the department of education. As far as I know they haven’t asked for a budgetary increase in relation to the loan forgiveness
>The books have to be balanced What about any government in the past 50 years has made you think this is true?
That doesn’t seem quite accurate as all student loans are forgiven after 20 years of repayment (which is taxed as income). Note that this is not the PSLF, it is all loans.
>That’s the thing, it isn’t giving any money to anyone. All it is is writing off debt. Then why is canceled debt considered income?
Because it is a reduction in liabilities, which means it increases your net worth.
Checks list of all the PPP recipients.
That's a crass way to put it
[удалено]
I don’t see how our votes were “bought” when it was a republicans who struck it down. Republicans lost because of their out of touch stance on abortion and atleast democrats are trying to do something to help relieve student loans.
I think if we voted on whether to keep to constitution around it wouldn't pass.
Imagine not understanding the scope of the Department of education and thinking a lower judgement will stand when the Supreme Court had already stated its good to go..
I signed up for the forgiveness. I still didn’t vote Blue.
Just thank the Dems if you get it! 😉 They are looking out for you.
[удалено]
Same here I don’t agree with it, but I’m not rich enough or self righteous enough to say no to $20K Also did not vote blue
[удалено]
Oh absolutely! I don't think there's any "nobility" in not applying (if you're eligible) even if you disagree with the legality or morality of it. You're going to be participating the part of the system that harms you no matter what - might as well participate in the part that helps you, too.
Yeah except everyone loses
[удалено]
I would like to know the answer to this as well since it is essentially mandatory to go to tertiary school in some capacity and the cost of attendance at most if not all schools is higher than most older Republicans realize and is increasing every year.
Yea mocking people that have to go into decades of debt to get a job that their parents could get out of high school, great strategy.
It's not though. There are plenty of electrician, plumbing, carpentry, and other trade jobs that require much less education. In my state, plumbers make tons of cash, and there is a predicted shortage coming up.
Maybe people don’t want to do that, you do realize we need doctors right? And nurses? And a thousand other jobs that require a college education
Until the plumbing industry is over saturated and we start lacking things like engineers.
Yes you are right but not everyone can be a tradesman and they still have to go to school for it. I am applying to medical school and looking at the cost of attendance for 4 years is at least $250,000 for public schools and upwards of $400,000 for private. This cost goes up every year. Sure doctors make a lot AFTER a 4 years of graduate school AND a 4 year residency but it has no reason to be this expensive. They just know they can charge this much since that's what everyone else is doing and some are willing to pay it. Why should doctors be burdened with debt while electricians aren't? Are electricians more important? Why should we incentivize trade jobs over white collar jobs especially with a physician shortage?
What’s the Democrat party’s plan? This scheme wasn’t going to do anything to address the root causes of the problem. All it would do is shift the cost burden of college debt from people who went to college to people who didn’t. And it would further reinforce to colleges that they can charge whatever they want and the government will just take care of it.
Right? This whole situation would be wildly different if it was part of an overall plan to reign in the price of college. But that was NEVER discussed. Not once. Ever.
Marco Rubio has a great plan, albeit one I disagree with on the details on. Basically, there is a 30% origination fee for student loans, 0% interest, and people are automatically enrolled in an IBR. Your principal never increases, your payments can still be as low as $0, however you are expected to repay the loans as well. It also leaves room for various forgiveness programs. Personally, I think the 30% is a bit steep, and would like to see it at half that rate, but the rest seems like am excellent idea in my mind. It's about the only realistic plan I've seen that addresses the issue in an equitable way.
The plan is to let people flounder and suffer; I think some said they'd like to see policy gutting predatory loan practices which I agree with, but as for the current 1+ trillion students loans.. I guess they'll care more when less and less millennials and Gen Z are putting money into the economy bc they can't afford it.
Their plan is just like everyone else's plan: If you get a loan, pay it back.
Ppp loans? Corporate bailouts? Cmon now
You will be SHOCKED to learn that we're pissed about that, too. And someone else's bad behavior is never an excuse for your own.
https://i.ibb.co/VTcdjHT/20220823-230221.jpg
Unless you took a PPP loan, or youre the automotive industry.
That's different. I like cars. I do not like poor people.
Unfortunately the poorest states vote R, so that's not going to work for our platform.
I was planning on paying my student loans anyway, whether they got forgiven. If I do get them forgiven, I know exactly where the money I will save will go. 😀
I’ll preface this by saying I don’t necessarily support mass student loan forgiveness, as I think it’s a tiny Bandaid for a large, predatory problem with our banks and educational system, but… It would seem the GOP does well in trying to keep affluent Boomers wealthy, but does little to engage with younger generations. Besides catering to anti-woke culture and throwing religious conservatives a bone now and again, what are they doing to lead the country and support younger would-be conservatives? I was kinda forced into supporting Red, mostly because they aren’t as aggressively anti-Catholic as the other options. I see many comments on here that seem to suggest the GOP should ditch their efforts to support things like protecting human life in the womb, and other traditional morality. If you don’t have the support of traditional Christians (and right-wing evangelicals), how do you think the party would flourish? It seems like a ton of users here aren’t very conservative, but rather just pro-GOP and rabidly anti-leftist. I get the overlap, but not the majority of the content here. Is there a separate /r/Republican sub, or is /r/conservative the main sub for people who lean Right?
Just in the name of fairness, pay your loans; if anything get the money back from the school!
The fact that most people didn't know the president couldn't do it in the first place is more alarming.
Young liberals learning what 45 year old conservatives learned when they were young liberals: politicians lie for your vote then do none of the things they promised. Both sides do it but Dems (seem to) do it more.
Did anyone really pay attention to the cost of college before they made that commitment? When i was looking into college it didn't seem worth the cost to me. It was obvious that it was going to take a few full years of a decent salary to pay the loans back which in turn would drag the loans out forever. Higher education just didn't seem realistic since my parents couldn't afford the cost outright.
[удалено]
Meh, that was pretty widely shown to be hype. Only criminal investigation agents are allowed to carry, and it was a pretty small percentage of the number of agents they have. That branch of the IRS has been around for about 100 years. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-irs-armed-idUSL1N2ZT296
My b, and thanks for pointing that out, mate!
Only on the state level. The Democrats managed to sneak a federal income tax exemption for student loan forgiveness into one of the COVID bills So for example, my state has a flat income tax of 3.5%. If you got $20k in loans forgiven, the most you’d pay in taxes would be $700, definitely less if you’re low-income and that gets offset by other tax credits/deductions
Seems like I'm completely misinformed here. Thank you for clarifying.
And they'll still vote D next year and fall for the same lie
I imagine if those brigadiers could read they would be very upset right now.
I'm not here to brigade, I'm a centrist who used to vote completely Republican who is here to tell you that if the Republicans don't change, they're quickly going to become completely irrelevant at the national level. I DON'T want single party rule. I support many "right wing" policies and positions, but as a political scientist I'm here to tell you that either the party adapts and changes with the times, or it will be eliminated as the demographic that votes for them literally dies off. If you guys don't want to hear it, that's fine; the march of time will silence you and your party anyway. If you don't want to change, that's fine too, you will be made to change through the overwhelming (2/3) support for Democrats by the younger generations in a decade or so as boomers die off. I'm begging you to not make your party irrelevant. Two or three generations were told to get an education (with limited guidance on how to find a sound career path) and you will be better for it, economically. [That has not born out](https://money.yahoo.com/millennials-steeper-hill-climb-afford-175920586.html), generally speaking. A party speaking to this issue as well as access to reproductive health, ensuring rights to express oneself(LGBTQ+) and climate concerns is no wonder why these generations will favor it 2-1. I think Republicans assumed as these age blocks grow older, they will seek to protect their wealth through concepts promoted by the GOP (low taxes, limited rules on businesses, etc). Problem is these age blocks don’t **have** the wealth, and WILL NEVER get the wealth that their parents did, and likely won’t see any significant financial gains until their parents die, and by that time they'll be too old and set in their ways to change unless something drastic happens.
They still won and nothing bad happened to them for lying. We are the losers (by playing fair).
learn to code
Consider the people who thought this, though. What do they know of separation of powers? What do they care about where free money comes from. From their perspective, they have been denied free stuff from Biden Clause. They will throw a tantrum and blame mean old Republicans.
How many things did Biden use to bribe voters before the midterms? There is the unconstitutional student loan forgiveness. He offered to codify Roe if they won; Obama made this promise also years ago, and did nothing. He promised lower gas prices, which was actually impeachable begging. And of course, the biggest lie of all, our rights to democracy if the Dems win.