Elections Warren makes bold claim to begin canceling student loan debt on day 1

[PolishHeadlock2]

So it's actually a worse drag on the economy

Sorry, meant you can declare bankruptcy on them.

You can't on student loans

 

[superpunch]

You can declare bankruptcy on those debts

All these people are going to get like $50,000 of student loan debt discharged without bankruptcy. No damage to their credit ratings. So, why not pass legislation to allow discharging all debt without bankruptcy? Why just college graduates; why not the less privileged working class too?

IMO this is giving free shit away to a selected identity group is a good way to buy groups of primary voters. But unless you extend the free shit to everyone, it's going to lose the general elections in a landslide.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

All these people are going to get like $50,000 of student loan debt discharged without bankruptcy. No damage to their credit ratings. So, why not pass legislation to allow discharging all debt without bankruptcy? Why just college graduates; why not the less privileged working class too?

IMO this is giving free shit away to a selected identity group is a good way to buy groups of primary voters. But unless you extend the free shit to everyone, it's going to lose the general elections in a landslide.

She also wants Universal free college that would be available to everyone

 

[Zazen]

I hate this crap, I really do. Why is it my fault that some moron paid tens of thousands of dollars for a liberal arts degree?

Make being a doctor free or being a teacher, incentivize pathways for careers that society truly needs. I don't want idiots using up tax money to study gender studies.

It is a win win, we save money and we have less sjw freaks around.

 

[superpunch]

She also wants Universal free college that would be available to everyone

I can get behind that. Free college for everyone. But we're talking about student loan debt.

You're going to cancel all student loan debt for a group of people that make $900,000 more over their lifetimes than the working class. The working class still has to discharge their debts bankruptcy and damage their credit ratings.

If the college graduate class gets $50,000 of free loan forgiveness with no damage to their credit ratings right now, wouldn't it be fair to transfer some of that $900,000 wealth advantage to the working class over time? Maybe a very small 2% wealth tax per year on college graduates and transfer that wealth to the working class?

A very small 2% wealth tax on the rich 30% to help the less privileged 70%. That seems fair to me.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

I can get behind that. Free college for everyone. But we're talking about student loan debt.

You're going to cancel all student loan debt for a group of people that make $900,000 more over their lifetimes than the working class. The working class still has to discharge their debts bankruptcy and damage their credit ratings.

If the college graduate class gets $50,000 of free loan forgiveness with no damage to their credit ratings right now, wouldn't it be fair to transfer some of that $900,000 wealth advantage to the working class over time? Maybe a very small 2% wealth tax per year on college graduates and transfer that wealth to the working class?

A very small 2% wealth tax on the rich 30% to help the less privileged 70%. That seems fair to me.

The forgiveness is based on income

 

[lilelvis]

No, cancelling is more accurate. If you dissolve the lender's interest and refuse to enforce their collections through the courts, no one pays for it. It's not like she would be bailing them out and having taxpayers pay for it.



Honestly have no idea. I've seen lawyer friends on social media describe the broad authority of the president on this subject, but I haven't read up on it personally.

How would those institutions recover their losses?

The population will pay, one way or another...

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It's not just people who got "useless" degrees that took out tens of thousands of dollars in loans to go to private universities. It's also people who wanted useful degrees and the most eyecatching resumes to get ahead of the competition in the job market. The idea that there are two people who earned degrees in the same field, except one went to NYU or Boston University and the other went to FIU or SUNY Stony Brook, and the former guy should now be unburdened by student debt is ridiculous.

Not just the school, but the degree itself. If the degree choice doesn't produce economic return in connection to the cost of the school, why should we offset it. The person went to the private school choice did so in the hopes of obtaining a better job (or in many or most cases, just wanted to go to a big party school) if their choices resulted in a job that didn't provide an ROI to pay off the debt in reasonable time, then that's on them.

 

[MilesAbove]

I hate this crap, I really do. Why is it my fault that some moron paid tens of thousands of dollars for a liberal arts degree?

It's not your fault and you won't pay for it.

Make being a doctor free or being a teacher, incentivize pathways for careers that society truly needs. I don't want idiots using up tax money to study gender studies.

Please. Every time teachers try to get marginal raises they have to march in the streets for a month. The same people that try to stop them from getting paid properly would try to block their free college. Medical courses are insanely expensive to coordinate and facilitate, and that's part of the cost.

But all of this misses the point. Mots people are coerced into careers with the promise there is an industry, when there is not. 18-22yr olds arent' given the tools to understand what debt will do to them. Honestly, you shouldn't be allowed to take out such a loan..... I mean, you aren't trusted with a rented car at that age. Think about it.

It is a win win, we save money and we have less sjw freaks around.

Arts and Humanities is ~26% of defaults for those who were born between 1980-1986. Business was the second most defaults at ~23%. Vocational is ~19%. It's a pretty even spread, and I don't think you should be surprised by that.... but good luck with the fantasy that it's arts/humanity dragging the system.

 

[Renard]

It would be unfair to wipe out student debt because a lot of people made major life decisions considering that debt in mind. For instance a brilliant kid decides against going to medical school because the cost is astronomical and the attrition rate is high. Or someone chose a trade school instead of university because they didn't feel comfortable with the debt or placement rate. It would be shitty for them to have people who took the riskier decision have their slate wiped clean post-hoc.

That being said, there's a big issue with university costs in the US. Not only do most western countries have cheap education, some of them (like Denmark) actually pay students to go to college. They end up with a very educated workforce, which is important because human expertise is the only element of differentiation between first-world and third-world economies. There are unskilled workers working for under 3$/h all over the world, you don't want to try competing with them on that front. Nobody in the west should be an unskilled worker, those jobs are also all getting replaced in the upcoming decades.

 

[MilesAbove]

It would be unfair to wipe out student debt because a lot of people made major life decisions considering that debt in mind.

Incorrect. Fixing a problem isn't an afront to those who were previously affected by it.

Curing cancer doesn't make previous cancer survivors angry.

For instance a brilliant kid decides against going to medical school because the cost is astronomical and the attrition rate is high. Or someone chose a trade school instead of university because they didn't feel comfortable with the debt or placement rate. It would be shitty for them to have people who took the riskier decision have their slate wiped clean post-hoc.

Are both of these people assholes? Because only an asshole would want the next brilliant kid or qualified tradesman to miss out on a quality education they desire.

That being said, there's a big issue with university costs in the US. Not only do most western countries have cheap education, some of them (like Denmark) actually pay students to go to college. They end up with a very educated workforce, which is important because human expertise is the only element of differentiation between first-world and third-world economies. There are unskilled workers working for under 3$/h all over the world, you don't want to try competing with them on that front. Nobody in the west should be an unskilled worker, those jobs are also all getting replaced in the upcoming decades.

....... k...... yeah. So you're arguing against fixing the problem, but then saying "but also let's fix the problem". You don't want the people suffering now to be relieved, but you do want future people to spared the burden?

Serious question: How is forgiveness unfair, but making them watch the next generation of students not be burdened with debt fair?

 

[Renard]

Serious question: How is forgiveness unfair, but making them watch the next generation of students not be burdened with debt fair?

What's the problem, I thought "curing cancer didn't make the cancer survivors angry"?

 

[HomeCheese]

Incorrect. Fixing a problem isn't an afront to those who were previously affected by it.

Curing cancer doesn't make previous cancer survivors angry.



Are both of these people assholes? Because only an asshole would want the next brilliant kid or qualified tradesman to miss out on a quality education they desire.



....... k...... yeah. So you're arguing against fixing the problem, but then saying "but also let's fix the problem". You don't want the people suffering now to be relieved, but you do want future people to spared the burden?

Serious question: How is forgiveness unfair, but making them watch the next generation of students not be burdened with debt fair?

I understand wanting to wipe out people's student loan debt, we all know people that owe a lot. On the other hand, you probably understand how doing this feels to many people like subsidizing poor decisions and/or lifestyle choices. In fact, who better to pay off their debt that a university grad? I could see easing the debt for folks who never graduated or that wound up going on disability or something similar. Like if their life is a train wreck. But other wise no.

Like others in the thread, I made major sacrifices to sock away enough to get my kids through school debt free. I would have liked to send them to fancy private schools but they went for public schools partially because of cost.

The scenarios that bug me: A guys decides on attending Syracuse University for 4 years instead of a public school, gets in deep debt. Gets a job for a nonprofit and makes barely enough to pay his student loan interest. He made a lifestyle choice to work for a non profit, how is it fair that my tax dollars go to pay for his choice?

There are plenty low cost options to get a university degree. For example, in California you could attend JC then transfer to a UC school. I believe the full cost of tuition would be under 40K for degrees from places like Cal and UCLA.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Curing cancer doesn't make previous cancer survivors angry.

You're the second person to make this asinine analogy. People don't take out tens of thousands of dollars in loans to get cancer so that they can have lasting economic advantages over people who don't.

 

[nostradumbass]

Fiscal responsibility BTFO!

Incorrect. Fixing a problem isn't an afront to those who were previously affected by it.

Curing cancer doesn't make previous cancer survivors angry.

Curing cancer?



What a completely ridiculous comparison. Money is fungible and cancer is not a voluntary transaction. If you charge breast cancer patients double and use it to pay for testicular cancer patients' treatment to not charge them, then yes, that certainly is an affront to the breast cancer patients.

Even if we're using the lame argument that they're took out these party loans to "better themselves and help society", you could use that exact argument for business loans, so let's cancel that shit too. At least those actually provide jobs and additional market competition for a good or service.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

on day 1 of my presidency, i, Fox, declare all of you fuckers replying in this thread shall get a blowjob from all victoria secret models.

see how easy it is to promise shit i will never have to make happen?

 

[panamaican]

Well the whole BK thing is kind of BS. On the other, hand it would be easy to go into student debt and declare BK just after graduating. After a period of time it should be okay maybe.

The reason why I am against it is that I paid my kids college so they didn't have to take loans. It's not fair to people who were responsible on the amount of debt they took on. There are plenty of cost effective options for education. Plus, many physicians are 100k to 300k in debt but they make from 200k-500k so I sure as heck don't want to forgive their debt. Further, paying off people's student loan debt also feels to me like subsidizing people's poor decisions and lackadaisical lifestyle.

There are lots of drags on the economy I would address first that would help everybody and not just the student debt peeps.

Let's say I can support that perspective...then why let anyone discharge any debt? Why give farmers tax breaks for what is a poor business decision? Why government backed mortgages? Why government subsidies for otherwise unsustainable industries and businesses?

The government gives lots of people a "re-do" for what turns out to be a bad decision after the fact. As I said in my first post - why should students be the one group prevented from any sort of assistance?

 

[panamaican]

I already answered this in reply to another poster. Declaring bankruptcy does not give people a clean slate. Those who declare bankruptcy will have their credit scores lowered more than 100 points, which affects how they're treated by financial institutions and they'll become ineligible for certain jobs. So even though declaring bankruptcy ameliorates things for those who made bad economic chooices, these people will still have to live with negative consequences for years. Those who lived prudently thus have an economic advantage over them. If student debt is cancelled however, there's no real advantage for people who made lower risk, lower reward investments in their education.

So, it's not about the system, it's about solidifying an advantage over someone you don't know and will never meet?

How far do you extend this particular ideology? For example - do you disagree with the government backing mortgages since it eliminates some advantage when it comes to buying a nice house? Why let people even file bankruptcy at all? Or government business grants since it gives some businesses an advantage over other businesses that don't get grants?

What makes students specifically worse than all these other examples of competitive interference?

 

[panamaican]

Because it doesn't address the crux of the issue colleges are employing more and more money teachers and then hiking prices. It's a self serving industry and canceling the debts is justifying their actions. It's basically too big to fail but with education instead if bankers

How does punishing the students address the problem? Per your post, the students would actually be the victims here, wouldn't they?

That's like saying "Prisons are mistreating inmates therefore we won't look at sentencing reform." Why punish the victims of one type of bad act so that you can protest a different bad act?

 

[panamaican]

Aren't credit card debt, auto debt, etc. also a drag on the economy?

Yes but they are dischargeable. So their negative impact can be mitigated to some extent.