Should Wall Street pay off student debt

[*Nately120*]

(06-28-2019, 01:38 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Plus once you get that degree, you don't need to buy Starbucks coffee every day, and get a new iPhone every 6-12 months. It's amazing how many people cry about their student debts, but still went somewhere expensive for Spring Break, managed to get a brand new Macbook Pro for $2k, or somehow found the money to go out drinking at bars every weekend.

I agree with this in theory, but our culture is very consumer-oriented and for all people think people with student loan debt shouldn't spend money there is a lot of complaining that millennials are "killing" industries with their refusal to spend like their parents did.  I'm just saying if only people who are completely free of debt are the ones spending money, one may assume our economy would suffer.

As I've said before, I lived on the lean after grad school and no one applauded living off of oatmeal and peanut butter and living in a single room.  Everyone was on my arse about getting a house, getting married, having kids I can't afford, having a wedding I didn't want, and getting a diamond engagement ring and a new car and blah blah blah.  Lordy, it's like I wasn't even a real person.

This is America, land of spend spend spend and money money money.  Our president is Donald Trump, for pete's sake!  I mean, part of me groans when I see someone who is clearly white trash buying a bunch of scratch off tickets, but the rational part of me knows that the hope of winning "a bunch of money" is worth more to that person than the tangible benefits the money wasted could provide.  Bet your bottom dollar, and all that.

(06-28-2019, 02:53 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Sorry, I forgot to address the bit about not sure how to go about fixing it at the very end. Obviously I am not an expert and I don't know it would work for certain, but I have to imagine that if we stopped using mandatory education as a funneling system to colleges pockets, and instead were more realistic with children's abilities and goals, we could start giving better alternatives like more apprenticeship programs, more internships, and more trade schools as an alternative to college.

If there isn't a huge glut of unnecessary college degree holders out there, then businesses wouldn't have the option of making entry level middle-skill jobs require them. Meanwhile then less people would be in college debt.

My best guess, at least.

In a perfect world the free-market would fix itself without our interference.  If college is a giant waste of money and trade school is faster and leads to instant 6-figure employment the tide will turn on its own...well, until the new diploma mill is the trade certification.

[Aquapod770]

Is college an investment that pays for itself in the long run?

Yes: there is no case for having tax payers cover college graduates debts.

No: Tax payers shouldn't be on the hook for someones bad investments.

[Dill]

(06-28-2019, 11:45 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Is college an investment that pays for itself in the long run?

Yes: there is no case for having tax payers cover college graduates debts.

No: Tax payers shouldn't be on the hook for someones bad investments.

Pays for itself for whom, exactly? The student? Eventual employers? The US government? US society as a whole?

Just curious Aqua. What do you think of the Morrill Land Grand Acts of 1862 and 1890?

Why would the federal gov. give away hundreds of thousands of acres of taxpayer-owned land to states for the sole purpose of establishing state universities? I can't find any record of the legislators debating this matter arguing that it would help students "get jobs," though could certainly argue that was a by product of the act. The southern states were against it, and the first act didn't pass until they seceded from the union. 

Also, do you think that investment paid off, and if so for whom?  

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=33&page=transcript

The answer to that question should establish a baseline for assessing taxpayer investment in higher ed. in the current era.

[Dill]

(06-28-2019, 11:11 PM)Nately120 Wrote: This is America, land of spend spend spend and money money money.  Our president is Donald Trump, for pete's sake!  I mean, part of me groans when I see someone who is clearly white trash buying a bunch of scratch off tickets, but the rational part of me knows that the hope of winning "a bunch of money" is worth more to that person than the tangible benefits the money wasted could provide.  Bet your bottom dollar, and all that.

Speaking of Trump, I notice that pollsters often break down voters into demographic groups based upon education level. Sometimes "type" as well, like liberal arts or engineering.

Could it be that one uses a college degree when assessing candidates and VOTING?
And not just for presidential elections.

Perhaps for other life decisions as well that may not relate to work, like health, child rearing? We don't use our basic grade school skills of reading and writing and arithmetic "just for work." Perhaps it is the same with higher order college skills/knowledge as well?

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/education-gap-explains-american-politics/575113/

Marist poll in October of this year found that 55 percent of non-college-educated white voters approved of the job Trump was doing, compared with just 39 percent of college-educated white voters. When Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh squeaked through a Senate confirmation hearing with a sexual assault allegation in tow, 54 percent of non-college-educated white voters supported him, compared with 38 percent who had gone to college. ...

Every year, on its American Values Survey, the Public Religion Research Institute asks Americans whether they “think American culture and way of life has mostly changed for the better, or has it mostly changed for the worse,” since the 1950s. Fifty percent of Americans say that it’s gotten better in this year’s poll, and 47 percent say that it has gotten worse.

But for white voters, the answer to that question is split by education level. Fifty-eight percent of college-educated whites this year say that America has gotten better since 1950, while 57 percent of non-college-educated whites say that it’s gotten worse.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I blame those pesky kids for to cost of gas in addition to the cost of an education. If society didn't fill their heads with the idea they need a car and if they didn't keep filling up their tanks then I wouldn't have to spend so much on a gallon of gas!

I went to PA school when I was in my early 30s. If Uncle Sugar hadn't paid for it I couldn't have afford to go. I earn more than triple what I did before PA school which means Uncle Sugar gets more in tax revenue from me thanks to the investment in my education. Which also means there is one less family getting food stamps. Plus my increased income allows me spend more to support business and the economy. I won't bore you with quality of life since who gives a shit about that.

For the cost of the drone shot down by Iran we could send 1,500 people to college on a full ride for 4 years. That's more people than my home town.

Some people can't see beyond the tip of their own nose.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

What these kids need is a placenta. Then Republicans might care.

[Aquapod770]

(06-29-2019, 11:38 AM)Dill Wrote: Pays for itself for whom, exactly? The student? Eventual employers? The US government? US society as a whole?

Just curious Aqua. What do you think of the Morrill Land Grand Acts of 1862 and 1890?

Why would the federal gov. give away hundreds of thousands of acres of taxpayer-owned land to states for the sole purpose of establishing state universities? I can't find any record of the legislators debating this matter arguing that it would help students "get jobs," though could certainly argue that was a by product of the act. The southern states were against it, and the first act didn't pass until they seceded from the union. 

Also, do you think that investment paid off, and if so for whom?  

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=33&page=transcript

The answer to that question should establish a baseline for assessing taxpayer investment in higher ed. in the current era.

For all of those. In that order. The student reaps the most reward, then the employer, then the government, then society as a whole. So you agree it's a good investment and passing off debt to other taxpayers who didn't go to college is a dumb idea. 

(06-29-2019, 01:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I blame those pesky kids for to cost of gas in addition to the cost of an education. If society didn't fill their heads with the idea they need a car and if they didn't keep filling up their tanks then I wouldn't have to spend so much on a gallon of gas!

I went to PA school when I was in my early 30s. If Uncle Sugar hadn't paid for it I couldn't have afford to go. I earn more than triple what I did before PA school which means Uncle Sugar gets more in tax revenue from me thanks to the investment in my education. Which also means there is one less family getting food stamps. Plus my increased income allows me spend more to support business and the economy. I won't bore you with quality of life since who gives a shit about that.

For the cost of the drone shot down by Iran we could send 1,500 people to college on a full ride for 4 years.  That's more people than my home town.

Some people can't see beyond the tip of their own nose.

Thanks for proving student loans should (and can be paid back) by the people who took them out because college is a good investment 

[Au165]

(07-01-2019, 11:21 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Thanks for proving student loans should (and can be paid back) by the people who took them out because college is a good investment 

I think some investments were bad and some were good, similar to how investing goes in other walks. Where I am at is, I don't want to forgive the bad investments already made but I am open to preventing them in the future. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-01-2019, 11:29 AM)Au165 Wrote: I think some investments were bad and some were good, similar to how investing goes in other walks. Where I am at is, I don't want to forgive the bad investments already made but I am open to preventing them in the future. 

This is exactly where I'm at. I would love to see free tuition to Community Colleges at a minimum, Public In-State Colleges at the most; however, it is unfair to every kids that joined the working force right out of school to pay off debt for those that financed school.

What do you tell the kid without the College education who chose to go straight into supporting him/herself and his/her family? 

[Belsnickel]

(07-01-2019, 03:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is exactly where I'm at. I would love to see free tuition to Community Colleges at a minimum, Public In-State Colleges at the most; however, it is unfair to every kids that joined the working force right out of school to pay off debt for those that financed school.

What do you tell the kid without the College education who chose to go straight into supporting him/herself and his/her family? 

That they are already paying for residents of their state to make public education more affordable and it is still out of reach for many. Implementing policies like this can make it so someone doesn't have to make that sacrifice in the future, and that includes their children. It also includes them, because they could now take this opportunity to further their education if they so choose.

[*bfine32*]

(07-01-2019, 03:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That they are already paying for residents of their state to make public education more affordable and it is still out of reach for many. Implementing policies like this can make it so someone doesn't have to make that sacrifice in the future, and that includes their children. It also includes them, because they could now take this opportunity to further their education if they so choose.

Exactly why I said I agree with free tuition moving forward. I just can't get on board with rewarding folks that knowingly took on the debt with the assumption that it would pay off in the long run or they simply didn't want to enter the workforce. Meanwhile you now have working men and women playing on an uneven field. 

Should we pay off that car the man/woman had to purchase to get to work?

[*bfine32*]

I have a relevant question and would like the input from some in favor of college debt forgiveness.

To accept a ROTC Scholarship a young man/woman must commit to 8 years in the service of his/her country. Would you suggest the commitment be forgiven if college debt forgiveness is passed?

[Devils Advocate]

Bring it on Bernie!!!

We bailed out Wall Street; they can bail us out.

It’s not like they won’t get it back ten fold through the shot to the economy this would produce.

Socialism?

America’s only been a democracy for maybe 40 years and even then TPTB have circumvented it for the most part.

[Belsnickel]

(07-01-2019, 04:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have a relevant question and would like the input from some in favor of college debt forgiveness.

To accept a ROTC Scholarship a young man/woman must commit to 8 years in the service of his/her country. Would you suggest the commitment be forgiven if college debt forgiveness is passed?

I held off on replying to this right away because I wanted to seriously consider it. I am of the opinion that, yes, the government should provide the option to "buy out" the contract of any person currently in the service under one of those commitments at the time of the debt forgiveness. This should be done because there is zero doubt that there are those that took that route to avoid the debt burden. I doubt it would be a high percentage that take it, but it should be offered. Any commitments at the time of the forgiveness should be waived (or the offer made, or whatever).

But, I am someone who is in favor of a civil service requirement in our society. Not necessarily military, but some sort of public service. That gets into a whole different complication, though.

[*bfine32*]

(07-01-2019, 08:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I held off on replying to this right away because I wanted to seriously consider it. I am of the opinion that, yes, the government should provide the option to "buy out" the contract of any person currently in the service under one of those commitments at the time of the debt forgiveness. This should be done because there is zero doubt that there are those that took that route to avoid the debt burden. I doubt it would be a high percentage that take it, but it should be offered. Any commitments at the time of the forgiveness should be waived (or the offer made, or whatever).

But, I am someone who is in favor of a civil service requirement in our society. Not necessarily military, but some sort of public service. That gets into a whole different complication, though.

I think those that are in the Reserves would take the deal more than those on Active Duty, but consider the ROTC Commissions +/- 6000 ROTC Cadets per year and multiply that by the 8 year Commitment, you are hypothetically talking about 48,000 Officers. Let's go l,ow and say 10% took the deal What is your plan to fill the void of 4800 Commissioned Officers? 

As I've said: I just cannot grasp the "fairness" of college debt forgiveness. If I were financially irresponsible and charged up huge debt at a prestigious Private school and you were fiscally responsible and incurred little debt at a state school . How is it fair that both debts large and small are forgiven. And I have the benefit of listing a much more prestigious college on my resume. 

I could maybe get behind us paying the interest on the loan or it to be discharged in the cases of bankruptcy (I get it's currently possible but not routine)

[Dill]

(07-01-2019, 11:21 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: For all of those. In that order. The student reaps the most reward, then the employer, then the government, then society as a whole. So you agree it's a good investment and passing off debt to other taxpayers who didn't go to college is a dumb idea. 

Thanks for proving student loans should (and can be paid back) by the people who took them out because college is a good investment 

If society, the government and employers are all rewarded when students earn college degrees, why would I agree the cost of a student's education should be borne only by one stakeholder, the student--especially when the employer appears to have more say than ever in what students learn? When tertiary education is viewed as job training, then why shouldn't the real end user, the employer, be paying most or all of the cost?   (You didn't answer my question about the Morrill Act.)

Since this thread is about debt, though, there are two prior questions: 1) why has the cost of college risen out of proportion to inflation? and 2) why have banks and others who profit from lending been able to fix high interest rates and other conditions on student loans--including their exemption from bankruptcy laws? That can't be explained by reference to student character.

I am wondering if big business is reaping the rewards of the increasing vocationalization of education--namely an inability to imagine policies and solutions outside the vantage point of business.

[Dill]

(07-01-2019, 04:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have a relevant question and would like the input from some in favor of college debt forgiveness.

To accept a ROTC Scholarship a young man/woman must commit to 8 years in the service of his/her country. Would you suggest the commitment be forgiven if college debt forgiveness is passed?

No.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-01-2019, 11:21 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: For all of those. In that order. The student reaps the most reward, then the employer, then the government, then society as a whole. So you agree it's a good investment and passing off debt to other taxpayers who didn't go to college is a dumb idea. 


Thanks for proving student loans should (and can be paid back) by the people who took them out because college is a good investment 

Can you get student loans to cover child support payments?

[*bfine32*]

(07-01-2019, 11:04 PM)Dill Wrote: No.

But those that did nothing should have their debt forgiven? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-02-2019, 12:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But those that did nothing should have their debt forgiven? 

Four to five years of that eight year commitment for a ROTC scholarship is spent on the IRR. Which means they are basically a civilian doing "nothing" if you consider working a civilian job is doing "nothing." Because if you believe that then 99% of the US population is doing "nothing." So let's stop pretending they will be doing something all eight of those years.

That IRR commitment is no different than a 18 y/o civilian thinking they're enlisting for 3 or 4 years right out of high school and later learning that they really made an 8 year commitment because of the IRR their recruiter didn't mention.