This is merely a sample size of one, but speaking as a person who lived under student debt, maintained perfect credit while never missing a payment even when poor most of his adult life, and didn't pay it off till middle age- I wouldn't resent my fellow Americans getting debt relief even though many were less responsible than I was. The proposed program for student loan forgiveness isn't fair to all parties. But sometimes a good, pragmatic solution to a huge complex problem isn't perfectly fair. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I agree that it doesn't address or disincentivize ballooning costs, I wish I knew how. I'm curious if some of the fiscally conservative posters here believe that predatory lending exists at all, and if it does, what should be done about it? Excellent post here. Major here did the best job of making the argument against loan forgiveness, and he did it without sarcasm or snark, which made it hit much harder. Some of y'all should take note.
I think that the interest in student loans should be frozen and those that make under a certain amount should be able to petition to have a portion written off. Eliminating all student loans isn’t proper. There should be some cost and sacrifice for going to college. The problem is that in a lot of cases those loans will never be paid. It would be better to have some level of forgiveness for those that can prove long term low wages post college. We don’t want those folks giving up either.
Agreed. But some people don't benefit from it. It seems like too many people go because they believe it is expected or it pushes off the real world for x additional years. Attending and doing poorly seems like a bad investment. Making it free to do so would just exacerbate this.
Are you talking about in terms for qualifying for aid up front or for loan forgiveness? Or both? Edit: Sorry. Just realized you might be talking about admission?
Except the rich person's burden isn't equal to graduates starting out. Also, rich people tend to save their tax breaks more than others. I think the real solution is finding a way to reduce the cost of higher education from the beginning.
They are not required to better yourself. That is definitely accurate. But I believe that for the vast majority of people who have attended college and earned a degree, they are better for it.
That might be good as well. As I said, I think the real solution is having the taxpayers provide more funding to reduce the high cost of college education in the first place. The taxpayer is still paying. If nobody got their debts forgiven but we drastically reduced the cost of the education, I would be very happy about that.
Each University used to have 1 administrator for every 50 students. Now they have 50 administrators for every 1 student. (FAKE NUMBERS). Admin costs at Universities has gotten out of control and is the biggest reason education costs so much.
a lot of the administrative burden at universities now has to do with compliance, mostly federal but some state and local as well. that and the enormous growth in student services and the need for such services to stay competitive with other institutions for admissions.
Absolutely. Or finding more ways to help people work off their debt (like the public service thing we have now). But what you absolutely can't do is arbitrarily reward some people and not others. All that will do is divide the country. The person who worked 40 jobs to pay his way through college or the person who chose trade school or picked a state school instead of a high-end private school so as to not have a debt burden are going to resent the others. And rightfully so. It's unfair and divisive and will push young people to the GOP by making the Dem party into its stereotype. I like Elizabeth Warren in general from a policy perspective because she straddles the line between solutions that are both progressive and capitalist really well. But this seems like pure pandering to try to jumpstart a flailing campaign - she identified a big problem, but the solution is very much a Bernie-type "just promise free things to lots of people" proposal.
So? $675 for an party case expert isn't very much..... right now we retain some experts in the range of $2,000-$3,000 an hour and that is door to door.
Good for her. She even charged below her percieved value as she was one of the top bankruptcy lawyers in the country.
It does address it by incentivizing higher costs. The reason college is expensive in the first place is because government made so much capital available, creating a severe principal/agent problem. Throwing money at it makes it worse. No problem.
good piece on Warren's chances for catching up to Sanders in the Democratic race. Excerpt: Although Joe Biden continues to have a double-digit lead in the polls, the race between Sanders and Warren has tightened, and what is impressive is where Warren’s support is coming from. In a recent Quinnipiac poll, Warren not only led Sanders by a margin of 30 percent to 22 percent among “very liberal” Democrats; she was also ahead, 15 percent to 8 percent, among Democrats paying “a lot of attention” to the race. In contrast, Sanders had a big lead, 28 percent to 5 percent, among Democrats paying little or no attention. As Nate Silver points out: The advantage among high-information voters may be particularly important because of the continuing importance of caucuses among the states voting first and therefore having inordinate influence on which candidates survive the early elimination rounds. Caucuses give an advantage to a candidate who enjoys strong support among activists and others who pay a lot of attention to politics. The Democrats have eliminated most caucuses for 2020 in favor of primaries, but the two states that still have definite plans to run caucuses are Iowa and Nevada. Warren’s poll numbers may be rising as the early brouhaha about her onetime claim of Native American heritage fades away, while news coverage and those high-information voters focus more on her steady barrage of impressive policy proposals. Although Sanders and Warren overlap in many of their positions, there is an important difference between them. David Dayen, the Prospect’s incoming executive editor, describes the substantive difference between the two this way: “Warren wants to organize markets to benefit workers and consumers, while Sanders wants to overhaul those markets, taking the private sector out of it.” The difference shows up in the legislation they are supporting as well as the language they use to describe themselves. While Sanders calls himself a socialist, Warren describes herself as a capitalist who believes in rules, as she did in a CNBC interview last July: This framing is one of several reasons that Warren may be able to broaden her support and overtake Sanders. Three other factors seem to me important. more at the link https://prospect.org/article/can-warren-overtake-sanders
Person A makes more money per hour than the angry voters, but Person A says that most people deserve to make more, too. They also say there are deliberate, structural barriers at the top, created over the last 30 years, that prevent them from making more money: communism! Boo her! Person B makes more money than the angry voters, but says that maybe they'll trickle a few dollars down to the voters if only they give them another round of tax cuts and laws that weaken the majority's ability to catch up economically: *eagles soar and freedom reigns*
