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

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Reminds me of this post that made the rounds a while ago

Lots of posters in the latter category ITT.

Its funny how so many of the right-wingers love to say 'life isnt fair' when you talk about helping impoverished people. Yet here, when someone talks about changing the system to not only help impoverished people, but the right kind who have ambition and drive and want to contribute to society, their response is "we cant do that, thats not fair to me!! I bought into this sham system, we cant change it now!!!!"

 

[nhbbear]

Again, I would love for my wife to not have student loans, but this almost seems like socialism to me

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Its funny how so many of the right-wingers love to say 'life isnt fair' when you talk about helping impoverished people. Yet here, when someone talks about changing the system to not only help impoverished people, but the right kind who have ambition and drive and want to contribute to society, their response is "we cant do that, thats not fair to me!! I bought into this sham system, we cant change it now!!!!"

Its like how conservatives defund arts programs and wonder why Hollywood is full of liberals

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Again, I would love for my wife to not have student loans, but this almost seems like socialism to me

No more socialist than having a police force.

 

[surrealworlds]

I have a couple grand still owed but I would honestly rather pay it back myself.

This doesnt seem well thought out. What happens to the loan companies and their employees? I mean you are literally putting them out of business overnight at no fault of their own.

What happens in the future when noone can get a school loan? Do taxpayers then have to foot the bill? All colleges paid by taxes? That doesnt seem to be a great idea. Public high schools are not the best example of education.

So many more problems but these seem to be the most glaring.

If they can figure out all the math and how it will be paid for though I'm good with "free" education as long as the education itself is improved no degraded.

 

[panamaican]

I have a couple grand still owed but I would honestly rather pay it back myself.

This doesnt seem well thought out. What happens to the loan companies and their employees? I mean you are literally putting them out of business overnight at no fault of their own.

What happens in the future when noone can get a school loan? Do taxpayers then have to foot the bill? All colleges paid by taxes? That doesnt seem to be a great idea. Public high schools are not the best example of education.

So many more problems but these seem to be the most glaring.

If they can figure out all the math and how it will be paid for though I'm good with "free" education as long as the education itself is improved no degraded.

Separate from the loan issue is this. We spend enough government money on higher education that if we redirected all of it to public schools, we could make public colleges free.

In 2016, the U.S. subsidized the cost of college, public and private, to the tune of $91B. The tuition and fees cost of public universities? $79B.

Now, some of that is tax breaks and such but it's still money out of the federal coffers that is currently being used to offset the cost of a college education. There are different issues in play around whether or not we want to do this or how we'd ensure that access to "free" college is equitable (a real issue given the lack of equity in the public high school space). However, strictly on the dollars and cents? It's feasible.

 

[surrealworlds]

Those numbers are extremely misleading unless I'm misunderstanding that link.

If I'm looking at it right they are basing estimates of future cost based on the revenue(i.e. current/historical costs) of public colleges.

That is a good starting point but that number would explode if you said tomorrow if everyone could get a degree at no cost out of pocket.

Added administrative costs, teacher costs and enrollment explosion would probably double that number.

Separate from the loan issue is this. We spend enough government money on higher education that if we redirected all of it to public schools, we could make public colleges free.

In 2016, the U.S. subsidized the cost of college, public and private, to the tune of $91B. The tuition and fees cost of public universities? $79B.

Now, some of that is tax breaks and such but it's still money out of the federal coffers that is currently being used to offset the cost of a college education. There are different issues in play around whether or not we want to do this or how we'd ensure that access to "free" college is equitable (a real issue given the lack of equity in the public high school space). However, strictly on the dollars and cents? It's feasible.

 

[panamaican]

Those numbers are extremely misleading unless I'm misunderstanding that link.

If I'm looking at it right they are basing estimates of future cost based on the revenue(i.e. current/historical costs) of public colleges.

That is a good starting point but that number would explode if you said tomorrow if everyone could get a degree at no cost out of pocket.

Added administrative costs, teacher costs and enrollment explosion would probably double that number.

You're probably misunderstanding the link.

The 2 relevant numbers, cost of public universities and the amount of money spent by the government, are not future estimates. They're the actual expenditures and costs from the recent past.

Now, you can argue that future costs are going to go up and that would be true. But even then, you'd be starting with a $12B surplus and the value of the federal expenditures are going to go up as well. So, it's very unlikely that the costs would suddenly double while everything else is going to remain static. It's a hard thing to accept because everyone under the sun keeps claiming that it would be too expensive and that any conversation about it is unfeasible. But it's not. The reality is that we, the tax payer, are already spending enough of our tax dollars to pay for public universities.

We just don't realize it because it's fragmented across the entire public and private system instead of consolidated in the most efficient manner.

And once people are freed from the misconception that we couldn't afford it then an honest conversation can start about if.

 

[surrealworlds]

Nah, I understood it. You are saying the same thing I said but framing it like it's a good thing.
Those numbers dont make sense and dont take into account the increase in enrollment if it was "free" for everyone.
I agree free education is a good idea but this article does nothing to justify the expense of it.

You're probably misunderstanding the link.

The 2 relevant numbers, cost of public universities and the amount of money spent by the government, are not future estimates. They're the actual expenditures and costs from the recent past.

Now, you can argue that future costs are going to go up and that would be true. But even then, you'd be starting with a $12B surplus and the value of the federal expenditures are going to go up as well. So, it's very unlikely that the costs would suddenly double while everything else is going to remain static. It's a hard thing to accept because everyone under the sun keeps claiming that it would be too expensive and that any conversation about it is unfeasible. But it's not. The reality is that we, the tax payer, are already spending enough of our tax dollars to pay for public universities.

We just don't realize it because it's fragmented across the entire public and private system instead of consolidated in the most efficient manner.

And once people are freed from the misconception that we couldn't afford it then an honest conversation can start about if.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Nah, I understood it. You are saying the same thing I said but framing it like it's a good thing.
Those numbers dont make sense and dont take into account the increase in enrollment if it was "free" for everyone.
I agree free education is a good idea but this article does nothing to justify the expense of it.

Making it free doesn't mean you have to let in everyone who applies. Right now the universities have the incentive to be liberal in their acceptance because whether its student loans, grants, or out of pocket money they get paid at the end of the day.

But would that remain the same if public university was free? I think it could have the effect of making the universities more selective since the student isn't giving them money either way and they will likely want to accept only students who they think will pass.

 

[panamaican]

Nah, I understood it. You are saying the same thing I said but framing it like it's a good thing.
Those numbers dont make sense and dont take into account the increase in enrollment if it was "free" for everyone.
I agree free education is a good idea but this article does nothing to justify the expense of it.

No, you didn't understand it. Those numbers make sense because they already occurred. They are facts. Increases in enrollment aren't facts, they're speculation. The cost of tuition in 2016 has to "make sense" because it actually happened. It doesn't "make sense" to argue about it like it's a matter of opinion.

The amount of money that the federal government expended towards college education also already happened. It is also a fact. So, a cost of $79B is a fact. Expenditures of $91B is also a fact. How do facts not make sense?

The speculative argument that there will be an increase in enrollment has nothing to do with what was spent nor does it have anything to do with the cost in 2016. You can't understand what was written if you're arguing that the facts "don't make sense" purely because they don't take into account something that didn't happened. It's like making $100k/year, spending $88k a year and then someone saying that your income and your expense figures don't make sense because, in 5 years, the cost of houses will be higher than today.

As for the enrollment situation, again, I don't think you understand what is being written. The government's current cost is mostly on a per student basis allocated across the entire system. Whether you go with "free" college or the existing system, the government is still going to be handing out money per student. So an increase in college enrollment raises the government's expenditures no matter what.

Let's take Pell Grants for a moment. That's per student. So if more students apply for college and qualify for Pell Grants, the government's expenditures are going up. Doesn't matter about "free" education. If the government is giving tax breaks to college savings plans and more people use the plans, the government's costs are going to go up directly in line with the number of additional students.

Increased enrollment isn't a thing and, even if it was, it doesn't stop an increase in costs on the govt's side, regardless of if the situation is "free college" or the existing system.

 

[My Spot]

Georgia figured this out decades ago. Your tuition and fees are covered as long as you maintain a certain GPA and it's funded by the lottery.

 

[surrealworlds]

Making it free doesn't mean you have to let in everyone who applies. Right now the universities have the incentive to be liberal in their acceptance because whether its student loans, grants, or out of pocket money they get paid at the end of the day.

But would that remain the same if public university was free? I think it could have the effect of making the universities more selective since the student isn't giving them money either way and they will likely want to accept only students who they think will pass.

Ok, this where that "free" word confuses people.
It's not free, its paid for by taxpayers.
So...
1) the money incentive of schools to gain more students is still there, it's just in the form of a budget process instead of student tuition. Just look at the way public high schools are funded and how they move entire student bodies around based on that funding.
2) Everyone would be paying in the form of taxes so to imply some people shouldnt be allowed to go because noone is paying is false. If anything everyone has a claim because they are already contributing to the school. Of course every school should have enrollment requirements but that has nothing to do with the cost of tuition.

Eliminating the tuition barrier and exchanging it with other barriers defeats the purpose.

 

[surrealworlds]

Yes numbers are facts but context matters. Condescending tones are not conducive to discussion.
If you want to just look at it in the most elementary way and say we spent 71 billion on public college and 91 billion on college subsidizes; and we could SAVE 20 billion by making all those people go to public college!


I mean, those are numbers and yes those are facts about what we are spending now. But it completely ignores reality.

1)Like I said previously if you eliminate the financial barrier to college, enrollment will go up drastically. Saying it was going to go up anyways is completely ignoring the point and degree of increase you would see.

2) A huge portion of that 91 billion (per your article about 41 billion) went to subsidize military education and low income students. So now if you are in the military and want to study at a private University instead of a state college fuck you. And if you are a low income student that qualified for Harvard but need some help paying for it? Too bad.

Numbers are facts, yes but context is everything. It's why statistics and polls are abused so much, people like small bits of information that are easily processed and then regurgitate it like it's the holy grail.

No, you didn't understand it. Those numbers make sense because they already occurred. They are facts. Increases in enrollment aren't facts, they're speculation. The cost of tuition in 2016 has to "make sense" because it actually happened. It doesn't "make sense" to argue about it like it's a matter of opinion.

The amount of money that the federal government expended towards college education also already happened. It is also a fact. So, a cost of $79B is a fact. Expenditures of $91B is also a fact. How do facts not make sense?

The speculative argument that there will be an increase in enrollment has nothing to do with what was spent nor does it have anything to do with the cost in 2016. You can't understand what was written if you're arguing that the facts "don't make sense" purely because they don't take into account something that didn't happened. It's like making $100k/year, spending $88k a year and then someone saying that your income and your expense figures don't make sense because, in 5 years, the cost of houses will be higher than today.

As for the enrollment situation, again, I don't think you understand what is being written. The government's current cost is mostly on a per student basis allocated across the entire system. Whether you go with "free" college or the existing system, the government is still going to be handing out money per student. So an increase in college enrollment raises the government's expenditures no matter what.

Let's take Pell Grants for a moment. That's per student. So if more students apply for college and qualify for Pell Grants, the government's expenditures are going up. Doesn't matter about "free" education. If the government is giving tax breaks to college savings plans and more people use the plans, the government's costs are going to go up directly in line with the number of additional students.

Increased enrollment isn't a thing and, even if it was, it doesn't stop an increase in costs on the govt's side, regardless of if the situation is "free college" or the existing system.

 

[ocfightfan]

No. All the women's studies students must pay up. They chose a bullshit major and cannot be let off the hook.

 

[PHATV]

• 
  U.S.
  The Independent
  Elizabeth Warren clashes with Iowa father who calls her student loan policy unfair
  Elizabeth Warren was confronted at a campaign event in Iowa by an angry father who took issue with her plan to forgive student loan debts.Arguing that those who paid for college tuition themselves would be “screwed” by her proposal, he confronted the

 

[Deleted member 159002]

• 
  U.S.
  The Independent
  Elizabeth Warren clashes with Iowa father who calls her student loan policy unfair
  Elizabeth Warren was confronted at a campaign event in Iowa by an angry father who took issue with her plan to forgive student loan debts.Arguing that those who paid for college tuition themselves would be “screwed” by her proposal, he confronted the

While I don't think Warren and people who support canceling student debt are "laughing" at people who paid for their (or their kids') education, his sentiment is correct.

 

[PHATV]

While I don't think Warren and people who support canceling student debt are "laughing" at people who paid for their (or their kids') education, his sentiment is correct.

She was laughing in their faces in the video. That's what he meant. Called her out on it. She's scum.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

She was laughing in their faces in the video. That's what he meant. Called her out on it. She's scum.

Really? I find that hard to believe.

 

[PHATV]

Really? I find that hard to believe.

Which part? Scum is my opinion, but she laughs in their face in the video. That's why the man makes the comment.