Should Wall Street pay off student debt

[Belsnickel]

(07-01-2019, 08:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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? 

How many of those roughly 6000 were on scholarship, though? Since getting your butter bars doesn't require being on the scholarship path, what is that percentage? How many of those officers would need to be replaced? Especially in the reserves? The surface level analysis of this you lay out is a little roughshod. There is a lot more information needed in order to really dig into whether that would create an issue or not.

(07-01-2019, 08:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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)

For the prestigious private schools, they really do a lot to keep their student debt figures down. They often have large endowments and provide a lot of money to their students that doesn't have to be repaid. My wife, for example, went to a private school and incurred less debt than she would have had she gone to one of the public schools she was also accepted to. The reason is because the private school had more money in scholarships to provide to her.

This, of course, isn't a blanket truism, but it is a very common occurrence. I still think it is a good thing to be done at this point to forgive student debt. There should be a comprehensive policy alongside it, though, regarding higher education funding so that the wiping of the slate is a starting point.

[*bfine32*]

(07-02-2019, 08:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: How many of those roughly 6000 were on scholarship, though? Since getting your butter bars doesn't require being on the scholarship path, what is that percentage? How many of those officers would need to be replaced? Especially in the reserves? The surface level analysis of this you lay out is a little roughshod. There is a lot more information needed in order to really dig into whether that would create an issue or not.


For the prestigious private schools, they really do a lot to keep their student debt figures down. They often have large endowments and provide a lot of money to their students that doesn't have to be repaid. My wife, for example, went to a private school and incurred less debt than she would have had she gone to one of the public schools she was also accepted to. The reason is because the private school had more money in scholarships to provide to her.

This, of course, isn't a blanket truism, but it is a very common occurrence. I still think it is a good thing to be done at this point to forgive student debt. There should be a comprehensive policy alongside it, though, regarding higher education funding so that the wiping of the slate is a starting point.

About 1/2 received Scholarship benefits and many of those that don't make a commitment to the Reserves to augment their finances while participating as a Cadet. 

All of this plus numerous other "issues" such as those Enlisted that paid into Montgomery GI Bill, those that receive scholarship benefits of Post 9-11, those that Enlisted for student debt payback, the uneven playing field it puts those that couldn't go to college because of financial situations, the family that saved their whole lives to put a kid through school, the kid who practiced hours while others played video games to earn a scholarship, the kid who worked full time to put him/herself through school are just a few reasons I follow more along the mentality of someone like Amy Klobeshar instead of Bernie Sander. It's just not realistic; but it sounds great if you owe around 40,000 for school

[Aquapod770]

(07-01-2019, 11:02 PM)Dill Wrote: 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 so glad you asked this. 

1) Lets look at scenario. Lets say you build chairs for a living. Would you rather build 10 chairs and sell them for $10 a piece because that's what your customers can afford, or would you rather build one chair and sell it for $100 because the federal government lends your customers and extra $90 for chair-related expenses? It may not be the only cause for the skyrocketing cost of higher education, but federal student loans are a big reason why. 

2) The federal government holds a vast majority of student loan debt. As of 2018 student loan debt from private sources made up about 7.63% of total outstanding student loans. This helps explain why federal loans have been a driving force behind college costs. In fact, interest rates for federal student loans are quite low. Usually 4-7% range. They're often higher in the private sector because they carry higher risk. You can't reposes someones diploma if they default on their loans. 

Unfortunately there really isn't an easy solution to the problem. We have kind of backed ourselves into a corner here. The government is pretty good at creating problems in which the solution is almost always more government. 

[Devils Advocate]

(07-02-2019, 02:09 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: I am so glad you asked this. 

1) Lets look at scenario. Lets say you build chairs for a living. Would you rather build 10 chairs and sell them for $10 a piece because that's what your customers can afford, or would you rather build one chair and sell it for $100 because the federal government lends your customers and extra $90 for chair-related expenses? It may not be the only cause for the skyrocketing cost of higher education, but federal student loans are a big reason why. 

2) The federal government holds a vast majority of student loan debt. As of 2018 student loan debt from private sources made up about 7.63% of total outstanding student loans. This helps explain why federal loans have been a driving force behind college costs. In fact, interest rates for federal student loans are quite low. Usually 4-7% range. They're often higher in the private sector because they carry higher risk. You can't reposes someones diploma if they default on their loans. 

Unfortunately there really isn't an easy solution to the problem. We have kind of backed ourselves into a corner here. The government is pretty good at creating problems in which the solution is almost always more government. 

Yep

[Dill]

(07-02-2019, 02:09 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: I am so glad you asked this. 

1) Lets look at scenario. Lets say you build chairs for a living. Would you rather build 10 chairs and sell them for $10 a piece because that's what your customers can afford, or would you rather build one chair and sell it for $100 because the federal government lends your customers and extra $90 for chair-related expenses? It may not be the only cause for the skyrocketing cost of higher education, but federal student loans are a big reason why. 

2) The federal government holds a vast majority of student loan debt. As of 2018 student loan debt from private sources made up about 7.63% of total outstanding student loans. This helps explain why federal loans have been a driving force behind college costs. In fact, interest rates for federal student loans are quite low. Usually 4-7% range. They're often higher in the private sector because they carry higher risk. You can't reposes someones diploma if they default on their loans. 

Unfortunately there really isn't an easy solution to the problem. We have kind of backed ourselves into a corner here. The government is pretty good at creating problems in which the solution is almost always more government. 

Regarding #1, I have heard Tom Shilue, Rush and other conservative pundits make this claim, framing rising tuition as a government created problem. (It's called "the Bennett hypothesis" first articulated by Reagan's secretary of ed. back in '87.) Like you, they make the same analogy to a for-profit business, as if college administrators looking for a profit respond to a market of increasing money supply. And (they say) that's why tuition rises at private schools as well. On their view, freely flowing government money and irresponsible students are the problem, not Republican legislatures shifting previously socialized costs back on students.

If you and they are correct, and I am wrong that state disinvestment is the primary driver of tuition cost in private universities, then you should be able to find data which support your claim in the form of longtitudinal correlation between tuition increases and loan availability.  Conversely, you should not find a correlation between state defunding and tuition increases.  Do you agree that is how we each would establish our claims? Have you checked this out?

(I add that the dynamic is very different for for-profit schools, which do respond directly to money supply, and to which accrue the lion's share of loan defaults; also, I am not claiming that ready availability loans could play no role in rising tuition--just that it is not THE primary driver, or even secondary.)

Regarding #2, until 2010, most student loans were made  by private lenders, just guaranteed by the gov. Predatory lending has driven the shift from private lending to federal (the afore-mentioned default rate at for-profit institutions being one reason for the shift). Since many of those previous loans are still outstanding, I am curious as to where you got the ascription of 7.63% of outstanding loans to private lenders. From the US Dept of Ed. website? 

In any case, the vast majority of students still don't borrow at all. 

The central problem for all, borrower or non-borrower, is still too high and rising tuition. It is the cause of other problems like high student debt, and to get control of that you have to get control of rising tuition. And you do that by shifting costs back to the state--i.e. socializing the cost.

[Dill]

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

Whence comes the notion that that people who earn a college degree have "done nothing"?  And not just officers earn a college degree for/while serving.

I should add that blanket debt forgiveness is not the only possible option here. You yourself are willing to experiment at the JC level. I am willing to support partial forgiveness and other options, like total forgiveness for those whose degrees/work take them into public service. The public already pays for military to take college courses. And military students have to pay the money back if they fail a class.

(07-02-2019, 10:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: About 1/2 received Scholarship benefits and many of those that don't make a commitment to the Reserves to augment their finances while participating as a Cadet. 

All of this plus numerous other "issues" such as those Enlisted that paid into Montgomery GI Bill, those that receive scholarship benefits of Post 9-11, those that Enlisted for student debt payback, the uneven playing field it puts those that couldn't go to college because of financial situations, the family that saved their whole lives to put a kid through school, the kid who practiced hours while others played video games to earn a scholarship, the kid who worked full time to put him/herself through school are just a few reasons I follow more along the mentality of someone like Amy Klobeshar instead of Bernie Sander. It's just not realistic; but it sounds great if you owe around 40,000 for school

Sounds like your big beef is with lack of "fairness" and "uneven playing fields" and the like--problems of our capitalist economy that public institutions and loan programs were designed to address.  Thanks to states socializing the cost of higher ed, poor and middle-class children could get the sort of education formerly available only to children of the wealthy class, who did not have to work or take out loans.

But in your version of this unfair world, it is kids who play video games all day who get scholarships ? ?
To maintain "fairness," you would keep the burden on working parents and students that is already there?

(Except for your JC proposal )

[*bfine32*]

(07-02-2019, 06:00 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. Whence comes the notion that that people who earn a college degree have "done nothing"?  And not just officers earn a college degree for/while serving.

2. I should add that blanket debt forgiveness is not the only possible option here. You yourself are willing to experiment at the JC level. I am willing to support partial forgiveness and other options, like total forgiveness for those whose degrees/work take them into public service. The public already pays for military to take college courses. And military students have to pay the money back if they fail a class.


3. Sounds like your big beef is with lack of "fairness" and "uneven playing fields" and the like--problems of our capitalist economy that public institutions and loan programs were designed to address.  Thanks to states socializing the cost of higher ed, poor and middle-class children could get the sort of education formerly available only to children of the wealthy class, who did not have to work or take out loans.

4. But in your version of this unfair world, it is kids who play video games all day who get scholarships ? ?
5. To maintain "fairness," you would keep the burden on working parents and students that is already there?

(Except for your JC proposal )

1. "Done nothing" as in to pay for their higher education. Of course they had to wake up, go to class, and get a passing grade. I just hope the Cadet out running PT didn't wake them up too early

2. I've said we could look at paying the interest of College Loans or allowing them to easily be included in bankruptcy. 

3. It's revisionist thinking and it rewards those that chose to take out debt to pay for their education while doing absolutely nothing for those that were fiscally responsible or sacrificed.

4. I literally have no idea what you're trying to sat here.

5. Of course I would. Just like I wouldn't ask the government to pay off my mortgage. 

[Dill]

(07-02-2019, 07:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. "Done nothing" as in to pay for their higher education. Of course they had to wake up, go to class, and get a passing grade. I just hope the Cadet out running PT didn't wake them up too early

2. I've said we could look at paying the interest of College Loans or allowing them to easily be included in bankruptcy. 

3. It's revisionist thinking and it rewards those that chose to take out debt to pay for their education while doing absolutely nothing for those that were fiscally responsible or sacrificed.

4. I literally have no idea what you're trying to sat here.

5. Of course I would. Just like I wouldn't ask the government to pay off my mortgage. 

3. Don't understand what is "revisionist" about restating the rationale for public universities. They were created to make college affordable for working and middle class students. They did that by socializing costs. California went whole hog in the early 20th century and made tuition wholly free for residents. City College did the same thing in NYC. No need for loans at all. Since Reagan's attack on the "socialist" CA system back in '67, we have seen the steady rollback of state support in all states. That's why you are now talking about students submerged in loan debt who are "not fiscally responsible."  

4. I had no idea what you were trying to say. Why would kids who played video games all day get scholarships, while those who worked would not? Colleges, especially the big name private ones, don't just let anyone in. Spots goes to those who spent their HS years studying and achieving good grades. Or to wealthy students who don't need to work or earn scholarships.

5. But you don't mind if government pays for JC? You are willing to consider some forms of government forgiveness.  Do you support funding for public schools k-12, even if you wouldn't ask the government to pay your mortgage?

[*bfine32*]

(07-02-2019, 07:29 PM)Dill Wrote: 3. Don't understand what is "revisionist" about restating the rationale for public universities. They were created to make college affordable for working and middle class students. They did that by socializing costs. California went whole hog at one point and made tuition wholly free for residents. City College did the same thing in NYC. No need for loans at all. Since Reagan's attack on the CA system, we have seen the steady rollback of state support in all states. That's why you are now talking about students who are "not fiscally responsible."  

4. I had no idea what you were trying to say. Why would kids who played video games all day get scholarships, while those who worked would not?

5. But you don't mind if government pays for JC? You are willing to consider some forms of government forgiveness.  Do you support funding for public schools k-12, even if you wouldn't ask the government to pay your mortgage?

3. Looking to ways to reduce cost moving forward would be proactive, looking to forgive debt already incurred is revisionist. 

4. I'm saying many kids sacrificed many hours to earn scholarships be they athletic, band, academic, ect.. while other did not. Are you going to give the kids that spent hours to earn scholarships their time back?

5. I don't "mind" if the government pays for Public state colleges moving forward and of course I support paying for public K-12. Not sure I see the relevance to College debt forgiveness. 

[Dill]

(07-02-2019, 08:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. Looking to ways to reduce cost moving forward would be proactive, looking to forgive debt already incurred is revisionist. 

4. I'm saying many kids sacrificed many hours to earn scholarships be they athletic, band, academic, ect.. while other did not. Are you going to give the kids that spent hours to earn scholarships their time back?

5. I don't "mind" if the government pays for Public state colleges moving forward and of course I support paying for public K-12. Not sure I see the relevance to College debt forgiveness. 

5. I didn't see the relevance of your original reference to the government paying your mortgage; if you support public k-12 then you establish that education (to which your analogy should equally apply) is a different category.

4. And I don't see kids who don't "sacrifice" getting much in the way of scholarships. What does earning scholarships have to do with loans and rising tuition? Why should forgiving loans lead to giving scholarship time back?  No idea really what you are talking about here. The time spent earning scholarships is generally time spent increasing knowledge and skill--exactly what you are supposed to be doing in school. Somehow you see that time as analogous money lent? Returnable or forgiven?

3. Looking to forgive debt now--even partial forgiveness--would be to restore an older status quo. No idea how the term "revision" could apply here.

To repeat--we are in this quandry because, contrary to founding intent, a political faction, in order to cut its own tax burden, has shifted more and more cost of public higher ed onto students.

[*bfine32*]

(07-02-2019, 08:13 PM)Dill Wrote: 5. I didn't see the relevance of your original reference to the government paying your mortgage; if you support public k-12 then you establish that education (to which your analogy should equally apply) is a different category.

4. And I don't see kids who don't "sacrifice" getting much in the way of scholarships. What does earning scholarships have to do with loans and rising tuition? Why should forgiving loans lead to giving scholarship time back?  No idea really what you are talking about here. The time spent earning scholarships is generally time spent increasing knowledge and skill--exactly what you are supposed to be doing in school. Somehow you see that time as analogous money lent? Returnable or forgiven?

3. Looking to forgive debt now--even partial forgiveness--would be to restore an older status quo. No idea how the term "revision" could apply here.

To repeat--we are in this quandry because, contrary to founding intent, a political faction, in order to cut its own tax burden, has shifted more and more cost of public higher ed onto students.

5. The mortgage is a debt I freely incurred much like student debt (aka the relevance). Nothing to do with K-12 public education. 

4. I do not know how much more simple I can make it. Kids spent time to earn scholarships so they wouldn't incur college debt. 

3. There is no "status quo" you still "cheat" those that chose to avoid the debt. Continuing to point to the cost of the debt does nothing  change that dynamic.

She above point of how much college costs does not change the dynamic of how paying off the debt disadvantages those that chose not to incur the debt.

WTS, I'll just leave it as we disagree on the option of the government repaying freely incurred debt. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-02-2019, 07:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. "Done nothing" as in to pay for their higher education. Of course they had to wake up, go to class, and get a passing grade. I just hope the Cadet out running PT didn't wake them up too early

2. I've said we could look at paying the interest of College Loans or allowing them to easily be included in bankruptcy. 

3. It's revisionist thinking and it rewards those that chose to take out debt to pay for their education while doing absolutely nothing for those that were fiscally responsible or sacrificed.

4. I literally have no idea what you're trying to sat here.

5. Of course I would. Just like I wouldn't ask the government to pay off my mortgage. 

Taking out a loan to pay for education doesn't make someone "fiscally irresponsible." It also doesn't mean they haven't sacrificed.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-02-2019, 08:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. Looking to ways to reduce cost moving forward would be proactive, looking to forgive debt already incurred is revisionist. 

4. I'm saying many kids sacrificed many hours to earn scholarships be they athletic, band, academic, ect.. while other did not. Are you going to give the kids that spent hours to earn scholarships their time back?

5. I don't "mind" if the government pays for Public state colleges moving forward and of course I support paying for public K-12. Not sure I see the relevance to College debt forgiveness. 

Why don't you "mind" paying for public K-12 schools and how do you pay for them?

[*bfine32*]

(07-02-2019, 11:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Taking out a loan to pay for education doesn't make someone "fiscally irresponsible."  It also doesn't mean they haven't sacrificed.

Absolutely, so why would anyone advocate measures that would allow them not to be responsible and sacrifice for their debt? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-02-2019, 09:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 5. The mortgage is a debt I freely incurred much like student debt (aka the relevance). Nothing to do with K-12 public education. 

4. I do not know how much more simple I can make it. Kids spent time to earn scholarships so they wouldn't incur college debt. 

3. There is no "status quo" you still "cheat" those that chose to avoid the debt. Continuing to point to the cost of the debt does nothing  change that dynamic.

She above point of how much college costs does not change the dynamic of how paying off the debt disadvantages those that chose not to incur the debt.

WTS, I'll just leave it as we disagree on the option of the government repaying freely incurred debt. 

You took out a loan to pay for a house? That's fiscally irresponsible and you obviously sacrificed nothing compared to everyone who didn't incur that debt.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2019, 12:02 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You took out a loan to pay for a house? That's fiscally irresponsible and you obviously sacrificed nothing compared to everyone who didn't incur that debt.

Nah, it would be fiscally irresponsible of me to take out a subprime loan and expect someone else to assume the debt I'm responsible for. Putting 20% down, agreeing to repay the loan, and doing so makes me responsible. 

But you are correct. I didn't sacrifice as much as some that paid cash for their home. I just don't expect/advocate the government to pay off my debt.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-02-2019, 11:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Absolutely,

It's good to see you're willing to concede your previous points were wrong.

Quote:so why would anyone advocate measures that would allow them not to be responsible and sacrifice for their debt? 

Would allowing a soldier to opt out of his military commitment he incurred for an ROTC scholarship make him less responsible? No. Would debt forgiveness for college loans make a civilian less responsible? No.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2019, 12:18 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1. It's good to see you're willing to concede your previous points were wrong.


2. Would allowing a soldier to opt out of his military commitment he incurred for an ROTC scholarship make him less responsible? No. Would debt forgiveness for college loans make a civilian less responsible?  No.

1. When someone quotes part of a post instead of all of it that's when you realize they have no legitimate response and you're just playing chess with a pigeon

2. I'm unsure why you asked the questions then answered them.

But my answer to each is yes. 

responsible
 adjective

re·spon·si·ble | \ ri-ˈspän(t)-sə-bəl [url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsible?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=r&file=respon06][/url] \
Definition of responsible



2a: able to answer for one's conduct and obligations 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-03-2019, 12:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, it would be fiscally irresponsible of me to take out a subprime loan and expect someone else to assume the debt I'm responsible for. Putting 20% down, agreeing to repay the loan, and doing so makes me responsible. 

But you are correct. I didn't sacrifice as much as some that paid cash for their home. I just don't expect/advocate the government to pay off my debt.  

People aren't taking out student loans expecting others to assume their debt. That's just some BS scenario you invented to fabricate a BS argument. They took out student loans expecting to pay for college and then pay back the loans later. Just like you and your mortgage.

If they are fiscally irresponsible for doing the same thing you did then you are fiscally irresponsible, also.

If you aren't fiscally irresponsible for taking out a loan, then neither are they.

I doubt Paris Hilton sacrificed more than you to pay cash for a home, so maybe you can stop peddling stereotypes?

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2019, 12:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: People aren't taking out student loans expecting others to assume their debt. That's just some BS scenario you invented to fabricate a BS argument. They took out student loans expecting to pay for college and then pay back the loans later. Just like you and your mortgage.

If they are fiscally irresponsible for doing the same thing you did then you are fiscally irresponsible, also.

If you aren't fiscally irresponsible for taking out a loan, then neither are they.

I doubt Paris Hilton sacrificed more than you to pay cash for a home, so maybe you can stop peddling stereotypes?

Let's try this:

Do you think student debt should be forgiven?