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

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Jesus, imagine thinking you're being punished for having to pay for what you owe lol

Just imagine a country where people have to get punished and go in debt $100,000 just to get job training to go out and make their country a better place while in the rest of the sane world people go to college without debt, study, learn, graduate, get their better job, and improve their country without levels of crushing debt and the stress that comes with it.

Then imagine a moran named 'headkicktoleg' defending it because hes been spammed with propaganda his whole life about how people in his country need to be punished!!

LOLLLL

 

[panamaican]

Not exactly true. You must simply prove that repayment will cause undue hardship. It is called the Bruenner test. So, while the bar is higher than a basic CH. 7 filing it is not all that uncommon.

https://www.studentloanborrowerassistance.org/bankruptcy/

I'm aware but the barrier there is sufficiently high that I'm comfortable using that as the conversation point.

 

[ElKarlo]

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?

But your way doesn't address it at all. Colleges need to be audited. They need to justify their costs and I think after that we can proceed. Just saying F it, it's free is just simply piling that burden on the govt, instead if making colleges act responsibly

 

[HomeCheese]

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?

Fair enough, certainly there are lots of tax breaks and other programs I would like to see eliminated. I someone has student loan debt and is on permanent disability of their like is a train wreck then sure forgive their debt.

Some people go to private schools for 4 years and build up tons of debt rather than go to a JC then public university which is much more cost effective. Tax payers should not have to pay for a fancy private school degree when many of their states partially subsidize public universities already.

 

[DrDune]

We should stop trying to removing cancer, because it's not fair to people who already had it.

What a terrible analogy.

 

[original doom]

Then they shouldn't do it

they are too young to understand the long term issues, especially the 18 year olds. im not neccesarily siding with them and like you said people who do pay their debt off will be getting screwed over going by warrens plans.

but these students allowed themselves to be swindled. theres a show on youtube where these students who have outrageous debt call up this dude hoping to get some pointers on how to reduce debt and alleviate some stress. i cant fathom how they even thought they could pay all of this off.

 

[MilesAbove]

Fiscal responsibility BTFO!


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.

I always like when y'all have to resort to strawmen because finding the focus of an analogy would be.... I mean, it'd just be awful.

The likeness of the two scenarios is focused on "fixing something doesn't make those affected prior victims". In this scope, the analogy stands.

We charge more for better cancer treatment. People actually go into quite a lot of debt for this as well, but let's not go down this endless rabbit hole of whether monetary systems are inherently good or bad etc.. etc..

Using the vaguery of "business loan" was a nice way to avoid having to create an actual analogy. But let's do some down-the-line thought and I would say that curtailing and possibly forgiving certain predatory business-loan exercises would be a very good thing.

Now, I know urrybuddy and his chew-spittin daddy wants to pretend the entire system would collapse if we were to allow people to avoid debt and inject that money back into the market.... but it just wouldn't. And given that we let wall street and farmers off the hook every 17 years or so, how about we give them steady-workin folk a chance?

Anyway 1AM. Time for slumber.

What a terrible analogy.

Probably the best argument I've ever seen. Someone give him a medal.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

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?

What "it" are you talking about? People chose to take out large loans to go to expensive universities. That's an investment. The payoff is getting an education that stands out to prospective employers flipping through stacks of resumes. These people made a high risk, high reward investment. Other people (like me) chose to go to cheap public universities because we didn't want to graduate tens of thousands of dollars in debt. We chose a lower risk, lower reward investment. The people who took out loans to go to BU, NYU, etc will have a more lucrative education line on their resumes for the rest of their lives than those of us who chose to get our degrees from cheap public universities, so they should bear the cost of their investment.

Regarding government backed mortgages, people who get FHA loans end up paying more in interest and they have to pay for mortgage insurance. In addition, there are government restrictions on what homes they can buy. People who file for bankruptcy (as I already stated) are not treated as favorably as people with prudent spending history by financial institutions and certain employers. So with government backed mortgages and bankruptcy, it's not like the government is eliminating advantages held by people who have spent prudently and people who have gotten traditional mortgages.

Regarding grants, the government should only issue grants to businesses performing a vital function that would not be feasible without a government grant. Going to an expensive university so that one can have a resume that stands out against his or her competition to people making hiring decisions doesn't fall in that ballpark.

Being a student (or former student) doesn't make them "worse." It's not that going to an expensive university makes someone a bad person. The problem is making an investment to have better job prospects than people who want the same kinds of jobs, and then wanting the government to give them a clean slate when it comes to their liabilities (their debt) but not their assets (their educations).

 

[Deleted member 159002]

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.

It sounds like there's a horned dilemma here. If the people who took out loans to go to expensive private universities didn't go for an economic ROI, then their debts shouldn't be written off because they deemed their financial wellbeing less important than the non-economic benefit they'd receive from their education. On the other hand, if the people who went to expensive private universities did so for an economic ROI, then they shouldn't have their debts canceled because writing off the debts of people who wanted to get economically ahead of those who went to schools with lower ROI isn't fair to the latter people.

 

[Seano]

Just imagine a country where people have to get punished and go in debt $100,000 just to get job training to go out and make their country a better place while in the rest of the sane world people go to college without debt, study, learn, graduate, get their better job, and improve their country without levels of crushing debt and the stress that comes with it.

Then imagine a moran named 'headkicktoleg' defending it because hes been spammed with propaganda his whole life about how people in his country need to be punished!!

LOLLLL

Paying your bills is a result of propaganda?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It sounds like there's a horned dilemma here. If the people who took out loans to go to expensive private universities didn't go for an economic ROI, then their debts shouldn't be written off because they deemed their financial wellbeing less important than the non-economic benefit they'd receive from their education. On the other hand, if the people who went to expensive private universities did so for an economic ROI, then they shouldn't have their debts canceled because writing off the debts of people who wanted to get economically ahead of those who went to schools with lower ROI isn't fair to the latter people.

3 horned, what about people who paid their student loans off? Do they get a rebate equal to the cost of their loan? I know lots of gumps on here over look that group but why should capable people be punished for being suckers?

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

I'm calling it now.

"Canceling student is racist because more white people go to college than people of color."

You can never be woke enough

 

[Zazen]

Comparing cancer to college is just sick, our health care system absolutely needs to take priority. College isn't the way of the future. I can't tell you how many people include myself that work in completely different fields that don't even require a degree.

 

[nhbbear]

Sounds great. But I doubt it would help me one bit. My wife makes 90k per year and has 50k college loan debt. No way would that help us. We would somehow be “too rich” to help, even though the payments almost cripple us each month. Especially while I am on medical retirement and not getting paid yet.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Paying your bills is a result of propaganda?

Your attitude towards people who want to better themselves is the result of propaganda spammed at you by the establishment but you're the biggest self-admitted cuck on here so you will never understand.

 

[SleepyBoy]

I'd like to vote for her, but she's not giving me anytime for free.....yet

Seems like a terrible deal to give away something for free when others get so much for theirs.

As a democrat I'm holding out for a better deal from one of the other candidates because i see they're giving away tons of free shit too.

 

[Seb345]

I honestly don't think she can cancel all the loans. I feel like the taxes will sky-rocket since there is really no way for that crazy amount of debt to just vanish. I feel like what they really need to do is create a reasonable system where kids don't leave school with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Or at least teach those same kids how to navigate the taxes and the debt payments. I mean I am using a service that allows me to consolidate all my payments into one single payment so I don't have to worry about that the whole month but just pay once and am free, for the rest of the month. I find it really helps reduce debt.

 

[panamaican]

But your way doesn't address it at all. Colleges need to be audited. They need to justify their costs and I think after that we can proceed. Just saying F it, it's free is just simply piling that burden on the govt, instead if making colleges act responsibly

It doesn't address it because it's a different problem. 2 different problems. Why would the solution for one problem solve a different problem?

Student debt is a problem for the current students post-graduation. Addressing the future cost of college doesn't address current student debt post-graduation. It might affect future debt but does nothing about current debt. 2 different problems - they require 2 different solutions.

 

[panamaican]

Fair enough, certainly there are lots of tax breaks and other programs I would like to see eliminated. I someone has student loan debt and is on permanent disability of their like is a train wreck then sure forgive their debt.

Some people go to private schools for 4 years and build up tons of debt rather than go to a JC then public university which is much more cost effective. Tax payers should not have to pay for a fancy private school degree when many of their states partially subsidize public universities already.

But, again, I still see it as a weird distinction. Whether you buy a Bentley or a 10 year old Honda, you can still discharge the debt. Whether you buy a 1100 sq. ft. house or a 5000 sq. ft. house, the government still backs your mortgage and still steps in to help prevent foreclosures (and I really, really hate the mortgage interest deduction because it encourages people to buy houses they shouldn't buy).

My opinion, so not fact in any sort of way, is that I think there's been this developed simmering anger at the idea of education. And it's manifesting itself in a sort of punitive approach to those who are pursuing education that relies on soft skills and against those who aim for high end educations. From my perspective, it's completely incompatible with the "pull yourself up" mindset that we're supposed to be fostering.

Try harder to succeed, pull yourself up through hard work, etc. But if you try to succeed in a field or at a school that we don't approve of then fuck you, die. Obviously that's a bit of an exaggeration but it does reflect my general point. We should want kids trying to be successful, to be aiming for higher education and better opportunities in ALL fields. And we should be understanding that sometimes that effort doesn't pan out. Saddling kids with crippling debt for the error of trying to elevate their opportunities, whether it's choosing a field that suits their skills or picking the college that they think will give them the most job opportunities after graduation, just strikes me as a poor way to prepare our country for the future.

 

[HomeCheese]

But, again, I still see it as a weird distinction. Whether you buy a Bentley or a 10 year old Honda, you can still discharge the debt. Whether you buy a 1100 sq. ft. house or a 5000 sq. ft. house, the government still backs your mortgage and still steps in to help prevent foreclosures (and I really, really hate the mortgage interest deduction because it encourages people to buy houses they shouldn't buy).

My opinion, so not fact in any sort of way, is that I think there's been this developed simmering anger at the idea of education. And it's manifesting itself in a sort of punitive approach to those who are pursuing education that relies on soft skills and against those who aim for high end educations. From my perspective, it's completely incompatible with the "pull yourself up" mindset that we're supposed to be fostering.

Try harder to succeed, pull yourself up through hard work, etc. But if you try to succeed in a field or at a school that we don't approve of then fuck you, die. Obviously that's a bit of an exaggeration but it does reflect my general point. We should want kids trying to be successful, to be aiming for higher education and better opportunities in ALL fields. And we should be understanding that sometimes that effort doesn't pan out. Saddling kids with crippling debt for the error of trying to elevate their opportunities, whether it's choosing a field that suits their skills or picking the college that they think will give them the most job opportunities after graduation, just strikes me as a poor way to prepare our country for the future.

There many cost effective options for higher education so I don't feel like we should be underwriting people who choose to attend an expensive option.

I am all for better bankruptcy laws that are more fair to the average joe. Their are some distinctions with student debt and consumer debt. With the gently you default on they come and take it, they foreclose on your house of you don't pay. They can't take back your education.

I will be honest and say that part of the reason I am against it is that I made personal sacrifices to pay for my own kids schools. Also, they chose public schools partially because of cost. I have daughters, I would have loved to send them to some tiny private school in the middle of nowhere. You know, in an ultra safe community and environment.

Further, society already partially subsidized public universities and JC's. I just don't see why society would also pay for a kid to go to a private school. I also believe there are so many other problems in out society I would fix before I would address student debt. It's way down the list of priorities.

 

[panamaican]

There many cost effective options for higher education so I don't feel like we should be underwriting people who choose to attend an expensive option.

I am all for better bankruptcy laws that are more fair to the average joe. Their are some distinctions with student debt and consumer debt. With the gently you default on they come and take it, they foreclose on your house of you don't pay. They can't take back your education.

I will be honest and say that part of the reason I am against it is that I made personal sacrifices to pay for my own kids schools. Also, they chose public schools partially because of cost. I have daughters, I would have loved to send them to some tiny private school in the middle of nowhere. You know, in an ultra safe community and environment.

Further, society already partially subsidized public universities and JC's. I just don't see why society would also pay for a kid to go to a private school. I also believe there are so many other problems in out society I would fix before I would address student debt. It's way down the list of priorities.

I recognize the personal element there, @Zankou's argument included a similar reference, and since my parents paid for my schooling, I've certainly lived that side of the conversation.

But I don't think that's sufficient to justify the impact of what is out of control student loan debt. You make reference to partially subsidized universities and JCs but that funding has been dramatically decreased over the years. And it's a decrease on a per capita basis, not just an absolute dollar basis. It is part of the reason that public school costs have increased. Over the decades we've gradually shifted more and more of the funding away from the states and the fed into the private loan market.

I don't know when your kids went to school but, whenever it was, the state picked up more of the cost for their education than it does for kids graduating nowadays. It could reasonably be suggested that you had to make less of a sacrifice for your kids education than parents today. And that your daughters benefited from the increased public funding levels of yesteryear compared to the children of today and tomorrow.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding

Students today are being asked to self-finance more of their education than students a decade ago, regardless of where they choose to go. And they're forced to finance that increased burden with more debt. Hence when we, graduates and/or parents or yesteryear, compare our experiences to the modern student, we're not making an apples to oranges comparison. The government paid more of our education bill up front via funding, making our loan responsibilities smaller.