HawkShack.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio ... cellation/

President Biden is set to announce $10k in student loan forgiveness for individuals making less than $125k and couples making less than $250k. Pell Grant recipients can qualify for up to $20k in relief. Also, the student loan repayment pause has been extended through the end of the year.

I've been against student loan forgiveness from the the get-go (save what President Biden has done for borrowers duped by the Harvards on the Highway like ITT Tech and U. of Phoenix and such). It's a blanket "solution" that ignores the real problem. It does zero to address the cost of higher education and sets a precedent for future borrowers to expect some relief down the road. This just comes across as a do-something-now to fulfill a campaign promise as to not lose voters.

There are better ways to go about this, though a blanket policy like this is far easier to implement. I think it should have been means tested. Find out who really needs the help. I have a young engineer that was just touting this. He's recently married to a soon to be attorney, and he makes right around $60k annually. They are not the type of situation that needs this. They'll be able to pay off their debt within a reasonable amount of time. He knows this, but he certainly doesn't mind taking it. I also would have preferred to see some kind of government match; something like dollar-for-dollar on every monthly payment a borrower makes.

This is the kind of policy that turns me off what the left is doing.

What loan forgiveness does is free up capital that can be spent elsewhere and can be a boost to the economy.
$10,000 isn't that much for people with a 6 figure debt, but for many it can help. The problem is the cost of an education.

Yes, those are the obvious benefits. Still doesn't make it a good policy. With means testing, the people who can adequately handle their debt will still participate in the economy.

The cost of education is part of the problem which I stated was an issue that is not addressed with this policy. The cost wouldn't be so high if there wasn't so much demand along with easily accessible loans. Loans are given out of just about any area of study irrespective of the earning potential. I feel like this country has seen what happens when copious amounts of money is loaned to high-risk borrowers. Oh yeah, the housing crisis of 2007-2008.

I'm ok with student loan forgiveness. American education system is a badly set up system charging students tons of money for remedial classes that have nothing to do with their specialty because some liberal jackasses at the Department of Education have decided we need a "well rounded" education rather than a focused education and harder standards for K1 through K12 so they charge American students money to teach them what they should have already learned in the public education system. I think the entire American education system needs to be rebuilt for the modern economy.

You say that, but I had very few electives in my civil engineering degree. The core education classes weren't 100% applicable to my major, I don't know if I'd dump English Composition, Calculus I-IV, Chemistry I-II, and Physics I-II. Those constituted my first two years. I then had to fill in with 2 humanities, 2 social sciences, and 1 arts class. The rest were engineering classes.

Granted, my experience doesn't cover everything. Unless you took A.P. courses in high school, there would need to be a method for students to demonstrate competency in the core education classes to drop them from their curriculum. I've seen too many people in my profession that don't know how to write properly or work through problems logically, so I'm wary of dropping core education classes with not strings attached. I found the off-major electives interesting, but, yes, unnecessary to my chosen occupation. I also saved them for my senior year, so they were cake by then.

I'm not wholesale against forgiveness; I'm against this implementation.

Aseahawkfan wrote:... harder standards for K1 through K12 so they charge American students money to teach them what they should have already learned in the public education system. I think the entire American education system needs to be rebuilt for the modern economy.

Wanted to hit this separately. Yes, K1-K12 is incredibly easy for the most part unless a student deliberately seeks to challenge themselves. Our baseline is incredibly low. So much that it means we don't need all these kids going to college. They won't magically become better students and better problem solvers because they moved into a university setting. It's too late by then.

Ironically, I was going to start a thread about this topic.

I have two main objections to this proposal. The first is economic. It's inflationary at a time when we should be restricting the supply of money to bring prices down. All it does is encourage people to spend more money, usually on things that they don't really need. We need to be tightening the supply of money, which is essentially what the Fed has been doing by raising interest rates. This highlights one of the big reasons why I will never be a reliable voter for the Dems. All they know how to do is spend.

The second objection I have is one of fairness. My daughter went to 5 years of college followed by 3 years of nursing school. Ever since the day she was born, we saved money for her education. In addition, she was very disciplined with her expenses, drove a 20 year old car, worked as a care giver during the summers, saved her money for college. Her grandma used to buy savings bonds for her on her birthday, Christmas, Valentine's Day, etc. After finally getting a full-time job after 8 years of schooling, she had a minimal amount of debt and has since paid it all off.

One of the reasons she chose to go to the college she did (EWU) was due to financial considerations. Had she known that the government was going to bail her out of her debt, she might have chosen to go to a more expensive school with a better reputation and that looked better on a resume.

So please explain how this is fair to her and to me?

This is an unnecessary bill meant to do nothing but stroke voters into supporting them. As many good jobs that are available in this economy, especially to those that have attended college, paying off a low interest student loan isn't that big of a deal. You're not talking about people living below the poverty line. What's the cutoff, $125K? That's outrageous!

Joe Biden is the bestest ever!!…….

RiverDog wrote:Ironically, I was going to start a thread about this topic.

I have two main objections to this proposal. The first is economic. It's inflationary at a time when we should be restricting the supply of money to bring prices down. All it does is encourage people to spend more money, usually on things that they don't really need. We need to be tightening the supply of money, which is essentially what the Fed has been doing by raising interest rates. This highlights one of the big reasons why I will never be a reliable voter for the Dems. All they know how to do is spend.

The second objection I have is one of fairness. My daughter went to 5 years of college followed by 3 years of nursing school. Ever since the day she was born, we saved money for her education. In addition, she was very disciplined with her expenses, drove a 20 year old car, worked as a care giver during the summers, saved her money for college. Her grandma used to buy savings bonds for her on her birthday, Christmas, Valentine's Day, etc. After finally getting a full-time job after 8 years of schooling, she had a minimal amount of debt and has since paid it all off.

One of the reasons she chose to go to the college she did (EWU) was due to financial considerations. Had she known that the government was going to bail her out of her debt, she might have chosen to go to a more expensive school with a better reputation and that looked better on a resume.

So please explain how this is fair to her and to me?

This is an unnecessary bill meant to do nothing but stroke voters into supporting them. As many good jobs that are available in this economy, especially to those that have attended college, paying off a low interest student loan isn't that big of a deal. You're not talking about people living below the poverty line. What's the cutoff, $125K? That's outrageous!

The inflation aspect is real. A poster on Reddit stated this hurts no one. Well, $230 billion is a dent and will contribute to inflation. I'd say inflation hurts everybody. I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't offset any economic advantage gained by freeing up some borrowers. Many won't be out of debt.

While I agree with you, the fairness angle doesn't get as far as it should. It blows my mind how being 18 gives someone a pass to make an very bad financial decision. Like you and your daughter, I sought to minimize the financial impact of college and grad school. I still couldn't avoid debt, but was able to pay it off in a little over a year, so I relate to the fairness angle tremendously. The primary objection I see is "just because you paid yours back doesn't mean everyone else should struggle like you did." It's a the life's unfair argument. Well, if life is unfair, then so sorry you were treated unfairly by higher education and lenders. Cuts both ways.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:The primary objection I see is "just because you paid yours back doesn't mean everyone else should struggle like you did." It's a the life's unfair argument. Well, if life is unfair, then so sorry you were treated unfairly by higher education and lenders. Cuts both ways.

If they would have set the threshold lower, say down to $60K per year, I would be more amicable. But $125K is absurd, well over twice the median of what a single person makes and nearly 5 times what the poverty level is. It's completely unnecessary and unjustified. It's nothing more than a handout to the upper middle class college grads, the Dem's primary constituency.

Here's a good example. My nephew got his MD a year ago and owes $360,000 in student loans. He's doing his residency, for how long, I don't know. I also don't know how much he is making, but since the average salary for a doctor doing their residency is $63,000, it's likely substantially less than $125K.

So how do you feel giving an MD, who is over their lifetime going to make many times more than what they borrowed to finance their education, a $10,000 government freebie courtesy of the taxpayer?

I agree. The young man bristled when I said he didn't need it. To his credit, I realize I'm passing judgement on his finances without knowing any concrete details, but somebody right out of a state school making $60k per year with no children should be able to handle their student loan debt barring extenuating circumstances.

And even "better", the $10k forgiveness isn't considered taxable.

The Biden administration keeps piling up victory after victory. Joe should easily win the White House in 2024 with, in excess of 100,000,000 votes……..

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:You say that, but I had very few electives in my civil engineering degree. The core education classes weren't 100% applicable to my major, I don't know if I'd dump English Composition, Calculus I-IV, Chemistry I-II, and Physics I-II. Those constituted my first two years. I then had to fill in with 2 humanities, 2 social sciences, and 1 arts class. The rest were engineering classes.

Granted, my experience doesn't cover everything. Unless you took A.P. courses in high school, there would need to be a method for students to demonstrate competency in the core education classes to drop them from their curriculum. I've seen too many people in my profession that don't know how to write properly or work through problems logically, so I'm wary of dropping core education classes with not strings attached. I found the off-major electives interesting, but, yes, unnecessary to my chosen occupation. I also saved them for my senior year, so they were cake by then.

I'm not wholesale against forgiveness; I'm against this implementation.

1. You should be able to write at a competent enough level after 12 years of education not to need additional English schooling other than that as part of your regular curriculum to learn your professional jargon. The fact that you as a tax payer have to invest the amount of money we do in K1 through K12 only to have students with 12 years of education graduate without competence in math, English, science, and many other subjects requiring them to spend additional money and time completing remedial studies post-K1 through K12 means we have a poorly run K1 through 12 program in America.

2. Ages for High School graduation worldwide vary greatly and many of the students from nations kicking our ass in STEM schooling graduate at age 16 or sooner with greater competence in mathematics and science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-leaving_age

3. I have several buddies who make way more money with trade school or no school that focused on learning the skills necessary for their job. One is a Network Engineer who doesn't have a degree in anything and spent a few quarters in Community College that makes 200k plus a year. Another went to drafting school for 2 years with a very focused education making 40 plus dollars an hour. I know tons of electricians, plumbers, network techs, and even coders who never attended much college who focused on learning employable skills making excellent money.

One of the biggest turnoffs from attending school for them? Being forced to retake English and things like history or some science course that isn't applicable to their profession and having to spend money and time on it.

I myself only bothered to finish a 2 year Community College transfer degree in preparation for business school. I went why am I doing this? Most of this is unnecessary, time consuming, and costly, and most of the skills I needed to succeed I learned in basic accounting classes. I learned everything else at a self-taught pace which was much faster and cheaper than attending classes and my success was determined by my ability to make money investing rather than meeting some criteria to do a repetitious job that utilized a small percentage of what I learned. Why do it? It's like when I went to High School, dropped out at 16 to work, then attended a self-paced High School completion program and finished the final two years in six months while working full time with better grades than when I had attended class.

School should not be a one-sized fits all program. If you're taking Civil Engineering as you did, you should likely require more schooling than a person taking an English degree to teach English. Yet both degrees take 4 years for an undergraduate, maybe 5 if it ends in a Masters degree. It should be focused, not time wasting with filler courses that discourage people from completing their degrees or cost them extra money in student loans or the tax payer extra money in student aid for useless classes that don't apply to the degree or affect employability.

If you want to attend some side classes for personal reasons, go for it on your own dime. Degrees or training for employment should be tightly designed to teach employable skills in a very focused manner that limits the amount of time and money investment required.

We should be able to design a much more efficient, competitive education system that doesn't have so much redundancy, low standards, and require a time and money investment that is discouraging, inefficient, and ineffective given the number of nations producing much higher performing STEM students worldwide that are beating out American students in key areas of employability. Our education system is non-competitive at the moment unless you are going to a very high performing public school, a private school system, or being home schooled by competent parents.

To sum it up, 10,000 dollars forgiven given the amount of money students are forced to waste with unnecessary classes as well as having to take remedial courses because K1 through 12 does such a poor job of preparing students makes me shrug and say, "At least someone is getting back some of the wasted money from all the years of a bad K1 through 12 system and tons of wasted dollars on a badly run education system."

Again, agree K-12 is an issue. Mine prepared me well for college. I had a hard ass for an English teacher in 12th grade. She set high standards and even required all written assignments be completed in script/cursive. I still write personally in cursive to this day. Ultimately, I felt like a lot of my peers were looking for the quickest way out of high school; path of least resistance so to speak.

I'm also catching myself in a contradiction. I'm advocating for keep the core education classes to help students have proper writing and problem solving skills, yet some still come out with neither. I also reminded of one course I took that had an associated lab. The lab reports being turned in were so awful in regards to format, grammar, and structure that the professor required everyone to go to a writing tutor. It really is too late to correct those educational deficiencies in college. If they don't have those skills by the end of high school, then they certainly aren't acceptable candidates for focused educational studies for specific occupations.

I can get with a lot of what you are saying. It would mean a complete societal change in the way K-12 education is administered. I think it would also mean you would have to limit those who go to college based on their ability if an abbreviated or focused curriculum is desired.

I don't so much have an issue with the 10k as I do the implementation. To throw it out there as a blanket solution with a high income ceiling with no means testing and non-taxable is a bad call.

Aseahawkfan wrote:1. You should be able to write at a competent enough level after 12 years of education not to need additional English schooling other than that as part of your regular curriculum to learn your professional jargon. The fact that you as a tax payer have to invest the amount of money we do in K1 through K12 only to have students with 12 years of education graduate without competence in math, English, science, and many other subjects requiring them to spend additional money and time completing remedial studies post-K1 through K12 means we have a poorly run K1 through 12 program in America.

I only partially agree with this. I don't mind public support of the university system, even the private schools. I want them to be accessible to as many people as possible, not just those with parents that can afford to pay for it. That's one of the things that has kept minorities in the lower class and in poverty, that they did not have access to higher education. And I don't mind giving out scholarships and grants based on income. But loan forgiveness is a completely different monster as it changes the rules of the game after you graduate or leave school. It's inherently unfair.

Aseahawkfan wrote:2. Ages for High School graduation worldwide vary greatly and many of the students from nations kicking our ass in STEM schooling graduate at age 16 or sooner with greater competence in mathematics and science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-leaving_age

Agreed, but I don't see what that has to do about the OP, ie loan forgiveness.

Aseahawkfan wrote:3. I have several buddies who make way more money with trade school or no school that focused on learning the skills necessary for their job. One is a Network Engineer who doesn't have a degree in anything and spent a few quarters in Community College that makes 200k plus a year. Another went to drafting school for 2 years with a very focused education making 40 plus dollars an hour. I know tons of electricians, plumbers, network techs, and even coders who never attended much college who focused on learning employable skills making excellent money.

One of the biggest turnoffs from attending school for them? Being forced to retake English and things like history or some science course that isn't applicable to their profession and having to spend money and time on it.

I myself only bothered to finish a 2 year Community College transfer degree in preparation for business school. I went why am I doing this? Most of this is unnecessary, time consuming, and costly, and most of the skills I needed to succeed I learned in basic accounting classes. I learned everything else at a self-taught pace which was much faster and cheaper than attending classes and my success was determined by my ability to make money investing rather than meeting some criteria to do a repetitious job that utilized a small percentage of what I learned. Why do it? It's like when I went to High School, dropped out at 16 to work, then attended a self-paced High School completion program and finished the final two years in six months while working full time with better grades than when I had attended class.

School should not be a one-sized fits all program. If you're taking Civil Engineering as you did, you should likely require more schooling than a person taking an English degree to teach English. Yet both degrees take 4 years for an undergraduate, maybe 5 if it ends in a Masters degree. It should be focused, not time wasting with filler courses that discourage people from completing their degrees or cost them extra money in student loans or the tax payer extra money in student aid for useless classes that don't apply to the degree or affect employability.

To sum it up, 10,000 dollars forgiven given the amount of money students are forced to waste with unnecessary classes as well as having to take remedial courses because K1 through 12 does such a poor job of preparing students makes me shrug and say, "At least someone is getting back some of the wasted money from all the years of a bad K1 through 12 system and tons of wasted dollars on a badly run education system."

It depends on your goals and objectives. I, too, had to take nearly two years of core classes in order to graduate from a 4 year liberal arts college with a degree in business administration. However, I took A LOT of what I learned in some of those core classes, such as an English composition class that went beyond high school English classes, that essentially taught me how to write reports, with me to my job as a line supervisor while there were some business dept classes, like a full year of statistics, that were next to useless. Many employers want that 4 year degree for management positions as it indicates that they have a well rounded education and at least have an overall concept of a range of different subjects.

But back to the OP.

According to the Federal Reserve, in 2020 the average student loan repayment premium was $393/month.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student- ... n-payment/

If you're pulling down $125K and can't afford to make a $400/month payment, something is wrong.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I don't so much have an issue with the 10k as I do the implementation. To throw it out there as a blanket solution with a high income ceiling with no means testing and non-taxable is a bad call.

That's the other thing. To someone making $100k plus, $10k is peanuts. It's not enough money to make a difference in the type of housing they qualify for. All it's going to do is give some above average wage earners a little more spending money to be used in buying a new car or boat, something that they don't really need. It's a complete waste of taxpayer money.

RiverDog wrote:Agreed, but I don't see what that has to do about the OP, ie loan forgiveness.

For me it shows that we are requiring students to go to school too long as it is and wasting a bunch of money on schooling both in K1 to 12 and college where people are being forced to pay for redundant skills.

Financially that means providing 10k in student loan forgiveness is paying back money to students for failing to provide a quality education system that doesn't require them to pay money for redundant classes after their parents and possibly them already paid a great deal in taxes into an education system that failed to prepare them well for college.

It depends on your goals and objectives. I, too, had to take nearly two years of core classes in order to graduate from a 4 year liberal arts college with a degree in business administration. However, I took A LOT of what I learned in some of those core classes, such as an English composition class that went beyond high school English classes, that essentially taught me how to write reports, with me to my job as a line supervisor while there were some business dept classes, like a full year of statistics, that were next to useless. Many employers want that 4 year degree for management positions as it indicates that they have a well rounded education and at least have an overall concept of a range of different subjects

So you paid for a degree you likely barely used that got you in the door of a job that barely required you to use any of the skills required of the degree. The company would likely have been fine employing someone without a degree who they trained to do the job internally. Why shouldn't you get some of the money back if it did not provide you with a use? They should send you back some of the cash you paid, but it probably wouldn't be much anyway as education when you were young was a hell of a lot cheaper than it is now. My dad told me he was paying something like 40 bucks a quarter for his schooling.

Statistics may not be useful for your job, it's highly useful for reading scientific information. Normally statistics are employed for studies such as those you were citing the last few years. It allows you to read the studies and understand the underlying methodology of the statistical analysis. I found statistics class to be more useful than quite a few other math classes.

To me student loan forgiveness is like a tax credit for the idiocy of our education system. I have no issue with it. I don't believe it will have a dramatic effect on the economy one way or the other. It will be a non-factor economically, while providing Biden and the Democrats with more votes politically which they can have as far as I'm concerned as long as the Republicans continue to rally around the narcissistic idiot.

This is a non-issue for me.

RiverDog wrote:That's the other thing. To someone making $100k plus, $10k is peanuts. It's not enough money to make a difference in the type of housing they qualify for. All it's going to do is give some above average wage earners a little more spending money to be used in buying a new car or boat, something that they don't really need. It's a complete waste of taxpayer money.

It's going to help a lot of people who make a whole lot less than that. Though it is a drop in the bucket for the insane loans some of these folks took out. Some people have 50 thousand plus in loans easy, especially if they obtained some crap unsubsidized school or out of state tuition.

RiverDog wrote:That's the other thing. To someone making $100k plus, $10k is peanuts. It's not enough money to make a difference in the type of housing they qualify for. All it's going to do is give some above average wage earners a little more spending money to be used in buying a new car or boat, something that they don't really need. It's a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It's going to help a lot of people who make a whole lot less than that. Though it is a drop in the bucket for the insane loans some of these folks took out. Some people have 50 thousand plus in loans easy, especially if the obtained some crap unsubsidized school or out of state tuition.

So why is the $125k threshold set so high? I wouldn't mind so much if it was going to people that "make a whole lot less than that", but that's not what they're doing. Nearly 5 times the poverty level.

It's absurd. Flat ass freebie courtesy of the taxpayers. That's why you want to keep Democrats away from the purse strings. It's causing me to consider voting for a Trumpian candidate like DeSantis.

RiverDog wrote:So why is the $125k threshold set so high? I wouldn't mind so much if it was going to people that "make a whole lot less than that", but that's not what they're doing. Nearly 5 times the poverty level.

It's absurd. Flat ass freebie courtesy of the taxpayers. That's why you want to keep Democrats away from the purse strings. It's causing me to consider voting for a Trumpian candidate like DeSantis.

I don't know if you noticed, but tax payers have been giving freebies to everyone from poor people to rich people to middle class people for a hell of a lot of years. It ain't stopping any time soon. The b**** ass Republicans are just as culpable with their corporate welfare and wealthy tax breaks.

If you can't see the American people piloting the airplane known as America stopped a long time ago and we're now run by special interests who all get their breaks, then you're willfully ignoring what's been going on for quite a while now. Just hope you get tossed a few because it seems to be occurring round robin depending on who the government randomly feels like making happy while they're either giving breaks to the super wealthy or trying to make pissed off people forget they're pissed off.

What are you going to do anyway? Vote for Trump or his supporters to stop it? We'll see if you get any alternate options to vote for any time soon that want to govern responsibly and more importantly...sanely.

RiverDog wrote:So why is the $125k threshold set so high? I wouldn't mind so much if it was going to people that "make a whole lot less than that", but that's not what they're doing. Nearly 5 times the poverty level.

It's absurd. Flat ass freebie courtesy of the taxpayers. That's why you want to keep Democrats away from the purse strings. It's causing me to consider voting for a Trumpian candidate like DeSantis.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't know if you noticed, but tax payers have been giving freebies to everyone from poor people to rich people to middle class people for a hell of a lot of years. It ain't stopping any time soon. The b**** ass Republicans are just as culpable with their corporate welfare and wealthy tax breaks.

If you can't see the American people piloting the airplane known as America stopped a long time ago and we're now run by special interests who all get their breaks, then you're willfully ignoring what's been going on for quite a while now. Just hope you get tossed a few because it seems to be occurring round robin depending on who the government randomly feels like making happy while they're either giving breaks to the super wealthy or trying to make pissed off people forget they're pissed off.

There aren't many freebies of the type you're talking about on the scale of this proposal, nor are they being targeted to people making over the median income. We seem to have created a generation of people that think there's no consequences to the government taking garbage sacks of money, throwing it up in the air, and making it rain.

I'm surprised that you are not as upset with this proposal as you appear to be. I always had you pegged as someone that does realize there's consequences to unrestrained government spending.

Aseahawkfan wrote:What are you going to do anyway? Vote for Trump or his supporters to stop it? We'll see if you get any alternate options to vote for any time soon that want to govern responsibly and more importantly...sanely.

I won't be voting for Trump under any circumstances. What I said was that I'm a little more open to Trump's brown nosers like DeSantis than I was a month ago.

Where was all this outrage when the banks were bailed out? or the Auto industry or Airlines? or the trillions in tax reductions for the already rich?

Y'all are programmed to believe any money going anywhere that doesn't directly benefit Wall Street is bad for the country.

c_hawkbob wrote:Where was all this outrage when the banks were bailed out? or the Auto industry or Airlines? or the trillions in tax reductions for the already rich?

Y'all are programmed to believe any money going anywhere that doesn't directly benefit Wall Street is bad for the country.

Ahh, changing the subject.

How do you know that I was for bailing out Wall Street, the airlines, or those already rich? And how is it that my nephew, who is doing his residency as an MD and will benefit from this handout, doesn't count in your assessment because he isn't already rich? Do you think that without this $10K that he's going to go broke?

Not changing the subject at all, to my mind the subject is tax monies spent either helping working Americans or helping Wall Street to prop up a falsely measured economy. I didn't say what specifically you were for or against, I asked where all the outrage expressed in this thread is when the money goes to the already rich, but makes the economy look better by Wall Street standards.

c_hawkbob wrote:Not changing the subject at all, to my mind the subject is tax monies spent either helping working Americans or helping Wall Street to prop up a falsely measured economy. I didn't say what specifically you were for or against, I asked where all the outrage expressed in this thread is when the money goes to the already rich, but makes the economy look better by Wall Street standards.

Well, the topic isn't a Wall Street or airlines bailout, it's the student loan forgiveness. If you want to start a thread about other government handouts, then go for it and perhaps I'll express my outrage.

And you didn't explain why you're making a distinction between someone that barring some sort of divine intervention is going to be filthy rich, as in my MD nephew doing his residency and making $60-70k/year and eligible for a $10k handout, from someone that is already rich. Do you honestly think that someone making $125k needs assistance?

The economy does not need any more money infused into it. It's the infusion of money, specifically the economic stimulus payments that both R's as well as D's supported, that is one of the major causes of rates of inflation that we haven't seen for 40 years. These student loan handouts are going to do nothing but increase demand and keep prices high. Not necessarily you, but for the life of me, I don't understand what's so difficult about understanding basic economic principles such as price being a function of supply and demand.

First, quit telling me that I have to remain on the subject as you define it. I've heard you many times explain to people that these types of conversations expand, take tangents and expand to encompass closely related subjects. It's the nature of any forum.

Second, when you say "the economy" doesn't need an infusion of money your talking completely macro as if the economy were a single unit in and of itself, and I don't accept your definition of "the economy" anyway. Not until you start taking into account things like percentages of people living and working below the poverty line and kids with food insecurities. The economy is a whole lot more than just inflation, recession, the markets and interest rates.

c_hawkbob wrote:First, quit telling me that I have to remain on the subject as you define it. I've heard you many times explain to people that these types of conversations expand, take tangents and expand to encompass closely related subjects. It's the nature of any forum.

I'm not telling you to do anything. I'm simply saying that if you wish me to comment on an unrelated subject, then start a new thread. Besides, even if I were to accept your premise, two wrongs don't make a right. Giving some other an entity a free handout doesn't justify giving it to another.

c_hawkbob wrote:Second, when you say "the economy" doesn't need an infusion of money your talking completely macro as if the economy were a single unit in and of itself, and I don't accept your definition of "the economy" anyway. Not until you start taking into account things like percentages of people living and working below the poverty line and kids with food insecurities. The economy is a whole lot more than just inflation, recession, the markets and interest rates.

OK, let's talk about micro economics. You mentioned people living and working below the poverty line, which is about $27K a year. How does giving a $10k student loan forgiveness help those folks? I don't have a reference handy, but I'd be willing to bet that nearly all those that have taken out student loans are making way more than $27K.

And as far as food insecurities goes, one of the sectors hit hardest by inflation is groceries, and therefore, the poor and elderly who devote a larger percentage of their income to that necessity. It is essential that we get prices under control, and infusing money into the economy is going to do the exact opposite.

Why should the “higher educated” class also be burdened with mortgages, car, boat, RV, etc. payments? Let the middle pay. C’mon Joe, do it!……

I think Bob's right.
It's about taxpayer money and how it's spent or accumulated.
The trillion dollar tax cut by Trump went mostly to billionaires - something like $750 Billion while the remaining 350 Million people shared $250 Billion.
Where was the outrage then? The total tax cuts to business and high income earners was close to 2 Trillion dollars.
And now you're complaining that it's not fair that some money goes to people that might just need the help?

For years we've heard that the best way for people to get ahead was to get a University degree so the masses did that and went into debt doing so.
At the same time taxes were cut and subsidies to colleges were cut so it cost more to attend. The end result is a lot of debt accumulation by students as they graduated.

c_hawkbob wrote:Where was all this outrage when the banks were bailed out? or the Auto industry or Airlines? or the trillions in tax reductions for the already rich?

Y'all are programmed to believe any money going anywhere that doesn't directly benefit Wall Street is bad for the country.

Seeing this argument a lot. I wasn't happy with those bailouts anymore than I'm happy with student loan forgiveness.

As I've stated already, I'm not totally against some kind of forgiveness. I am against the blanket approach. It is being done the way it is to push something out very quickly and to as many people as possible prior to mid terms.

A much better approach would have been some kind of means testing. That would require that student loan holders apply and provide extensive financial information to qualify. Case in point, the young man I mentioned before that works with me. He comes from an upper-middle class background, received Louisiana TOPS (a fairly generous state scholarship program that lasts 8 semesters), and his parents paid the difference for those 8 semesters. He didn't finish in 8 semesters so he took out loans for the balance of his degree. He's currently making around $60k per year and holding $14k in student loans with no children. Unless he has a major financial obligation due to unforeseen circumstances, his $14k in loans is cake for him to pay off. He's not an appropriate candidate for this.

And like the stimulus payments, this will have inflationary consequences that will likely more than offset the economic gains. Those, too, should have only gone to people who were out of work due to the pandemic. My wife and I worked full time (we're both civil engineers) that whole time. We were among those who absolutely didn't need it.

NorthHawk wrote:I think Bob's right.
It's about taxpayer money and how it's spent or accumulated.
The trillion dollar tax cut by Trump went mostly to billionaires - something like $750 Billion while the remaining 350 Million people shared $250 Billion.
Where was the outrage then? The total tax cuts to business and high income earners was close to 2 Trillion dollars.
And now you're complaining that it's not fair that some money goes to people that might just need the help?

For years we've heard that the best way for people to get ahead was to get a University degree so the masses did that and went into debt doing so.
At the same time taxes were cut and subsidies to colleges were cut so it cost more to attend. The end result is a lot of debt accumulation by students as they graduated.

I don't think anyone is not outraged by that. It's a poor argument; one can be outraged by both.

And it will go to people who need help; it will also go to people who can handle paying their debt. It's the same blanket approach taken with the Covid stimulus payments. Biden has had two years to put something together that would be more palatable. It is entirely possible had a more measured approach been taken (e.g. means testing), he wouldn't be resorting to a blanket approach forced through by executive order.

And higher education is a monster of this country's creation for the reason you mentioned. Cost soared because demand soared and loans were readily available. People didn't do the math on what they were majoring in versus what it would pay versus what it would cost to get it. They also couldn't seem to do the simple math on what it would take to pay off projected debt in a reasonable time frame (like $25k at $500/mo. would take 50 months to pay off and that's without interest). This is the same kind of blind decision making that got us in trouble with the housing market collapse. People were not paying attention to the decisions they were making.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:The inflation aspect is real. A poster on Reddit stated this hurts no one. Well, $230 billion is a dent and will contribute to inflation. I'd say inflation hurts everybody. I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't offset any economic advantage gained by freeing up some borrowers. Many won't be out of debt.

While I agree with you, the fairness angle doesn't get as far as it should. It blows my mind how being 18 gives someone a pass to make an very bad financial decision. Like you and your daughter, I sought to minimize the financial impact of college and grad school. I still couldn't avoid debt, but was able to pay it off in a little over a year, so I relate to the fairness angle tremendously. The primary objection I see is "just because you paid yours back doesn't mean everyone else should struggle like you did." It's a the life's unfair argument. Well, if life is unfair, then so sorry you were treated unfairly by higher education and lenders. Cuts both ways.

Inflation helps the government. Their tax revenues rise substantially and the cost of their debt is reduced by inflation as it is borrowed money at much cheaper rate. Long-term inflation hurts electability as wages rarely rise as much as inflation and fixed income citizens are hurt by inflation badly, but inflation is actually beneficial to a lot of companies, the government, and property owners.

The problems with inflation start to occur when it starts to cause a recession that causes a rise in unemployment. So far employment has stayed absolutely strong through this mild recession.

I would not at all be surprised if behind the scenes the government was fine with this level of inflation in the short-term as long as employment remains strong as this inflation is allowing the government to inflate their way out of their debt problem from all the money printing and borrowing during the COVID pandemic.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I don't think anyone is not outraged by that. It's a poor argument; one can be outraged by both.

And it will go to people who need help; it will also go to people who can handle paying their debt. It's the same blanket approach taken with the Covid stimulus payments. Biden has had two years to put something together that would be more palatable. It is entirely possible had a more measured approach been taken (e.g. means testing), he wouldn't be resorting to a blanket approach forced through by executive order.

And higher education is a monster of this country's creation for the reason you mentioned. Cost soared because demand soared and loans were readily available. People didn't do the math on what they were majoring in versus what it would pay versus what it would cost to get it. They also couldn't seem to do the simple math on what it would take to pay off projected debt in a reasonable time frame (like $25k at $500/mo. would take 50 months to pay off and that's without interest). This is the same kind of blind decision making that got us in trouble with the housing market collapse. People were not paying attention to the decisions they were making.

Education costs did soar due to massively increased demand. I think prior to the 1970s this was a trade driven economy where you learned some trade that did not require a college degree. Often you could find a quality job learning a trade without a High School diploma. Then the government started pushing higher education very hard and increased demand substantially. Though it was a slow process, the increased demands and costs of education increased immensely to the extreme point they are now. Which is why I think a return to a more streamlined, efficient, and cost effective education system for both the government and student would be far more effective a system than this liberalized 4 years for everyone system we have now. A lot of students are waking up to this reality that four year degrees in psychology or philosophy to be that cool hip 60s and 70s talking guru doesn't pay very well and there are far too many with liberal arts degrees who lacked a specialized skill to be employed in their field.

RiverDog wrote:There aren't many freebies of the type you're talking about on the scale of this proposal, nor are they being targeted to people making over the median income. We seem to have created a generation of people that think there's no consequences to the government taking garbage sacks of money, throwing it up in the air, and making it rain.

I'm surprised that you are not as upset with this proposal as you appear to be. I always had you pegged as someone that does realize there's consequences to unrestrained government spending.

I stopped getting upset a while back when I read that we gave 1.7 billion dollars in tax payer paid foreign aid along with military support such as copters and weapons to Tunisia, the same country where a citizen set themselves on fire because the man we supported in power outlawed the selling of fruit on the street without paying his Inspectors that were often family or related tribal members to start the Arab Spring.

I also stopped respecting the Republican Party as a whole when George Bush Jr. allowed the Swift Boat Veterans to impugn John Kerry's military record when the man put his life on the line in Vietnam because he believed in fighting for his nation.

And let's just say Trump is just another example of ridiculous politics.

I don't need to list all the hypocrisy of the Dems as well. It's obvious and on display as well.

Let's just say I became very disenchanted with both of these lying political parties the more I dig into what they do and how they handle our money.

So if some people who borrowed a bunch of cash hoping to make better lives for themselves have 10,000 dollars of that debt forgiven so they don't have to pay for an education they are told to get to make a living don't have to pay it back after watching us give billions to scum and bailout millionaires and billionaires with our tax dollars under the guise of foreign relations and too big to fail, hard for me to get mad, eh?

Not sure why you are bothering either. So what if some people who could probably pay it back get 10,000 forgiven along with a lot of people who can't afford it.

At least it is going to someone who actually might need it and not some billionaires or dictatorial scum who torture their own people.

As far as this BS two wrongs don't make a right, we have way more than two wrongs....way, way, way, way, way more. And this is what I consider an extremely minor "wrong" that might help a lot of people who really could use the help growing up in a time of high inflation, stupid crazy politics that are ruining this nation, and a bunch of scummy leadership who don't care about them much at all with a Republican Party supporting a fricking narcissistic piece of garbage whose only interest is himself.

The amount of money we give in subsidies, foreign aid, and the like that don't need it by both of these political parties is staggering and has been going on for decades. I don't care much if it goes to some students this time.

I won't be voting for Trump under any circumstances. What I said was that I'm a little more open to Trump's brown nosers like DeSantis than I was a month ago.

We'll see who they put up. This isn't likely to make me to mad. Good to see some students get some relief in time of American political stupidity. Too many politicians sitting on the sidelines while Americans navigate a very different labor world than you grew up in.

RiverDog wrote:OK, let's talk about micro economics. You mentioned people living and working below the poverty line, which is about $27K a year. How does giving a $10k student loan forgiveness help those folks? I don't have a reference handy, but I'd be willing to bet that nearly all those that have taken out student loans are making way more than $27K.

And as far as food insecurities goes, one of the sectors hit hardest by inflation is groceries, and therefore, the poor and elderly who devote a larger percentage of their income to that necessity. It is essential that we get prices under control, and infusing money into the economy is going to do the exact opposite.

Inflation is desirable for the government right now even though they will not tell you this outright. They are raking in record tax revenues and all that debt they took out the past two years is looking a whole lot easier to pay for.

We'll see in about three months how this all affects the House and Senate. That will be the most interesting part.

I would probably be more outraged if I hadn't seen so much government scumbaggery over the last thirty plus years. I never took an ounce of student aid or any federal loan. I worked a crap job at 7-11 and paid my school by quarter out of my pocket while working full time and living with a room mate. Not a bit of help from the government or parents or any family. I never would have taken out any loans as I don't enjoy having debt. But I can't get too mad as modern Americans have been taught to be consumers and use debt for just about everything. Hard to blame the people when the economy is badly set up for them to have to use debt for everything from a house to a car to an education general daily purchases and our entire fiat currency system and economy is built on encouraging people to use debt.

c_hawkbob wrote:Where was all this outrage when the banks were bailed out? or the Auto industry or Airlines? or the trillions in tax reductions for the already rich?

Y'all are programmed to believe any money going anywhere that doesn't directly benefit Wall Street is bad for the country.

This right here ^^^^^^^^or how about trillions from the federal reserve to protect the high risk high reward stock market ? It actually began as a plan to stabilize repo rates for stock buybacks as the massive tax cut for corporations had been used for that purpose and wiped out the funds and caused rates to fluctuate wildly . Of course during the pandemic it was a further fleecing of the taxpayer to protect this high risk high reward program while ol Ht with no skin in the game sat and watched . I do not want to hear one god damn word about student loans from anyone who supported any of this other welfare fir the rich .

c_hawkbob wrote:Where was all this outrage when the banks were bailed out? or the Auto industry or Airlines? or the trillions in tax reductions for the already rich?

Y'all are programmed to believe any money going anywhere that doesn't directly benefit Wall Street is bad for the country.

As someone said, 'for those outraged by this loan forgiveness program, just pretend instead it's another tax cut going to billionaires, which you also will never see'.

Hawktawk wrote:This right here ^^^^^^^^or how about trillions from the federal reserve to protect the high risk high reward stock market ? It actually began as a plan to stabilize repo rates for stock buybacks as the massive tax cut for corporations had been used for that purpose and wiped out the funds and caused rates to fluctuate wildly . Of course during the pandemic it was a further fleecing of the taxpayer to protect this high risk high reward program while ol Ht with no skin in the game sat and watched . I do not want to hear one god damn word about student loans from anyone who supported any of this other welfare fir the rich .

The pandemic was one of the few times where the rich, middle class, and poor benefitted relatively equally. The retail investor, aka people like you, benefitted immensely from the stock market during the pandemic. They drove the stock market for a while sitting at home flush with cash. Young males drove up the crypto currency market. If not for the terrible deaths and sickness, it was a good few years for practically everyone economically, which is part of why we're in this high inflation situation now: the pandemic ended with people in such good financial shape that the pent up demand led to immense buying pressure in the economy.

curmudgeon wrote:Why should the “higher educated” class also be burdened with mortgages, car, boat, RV, etc. payments? Let the middle pay. C’mon Joe, do it!……

Why not think about why everything is so expensive at this point that you need debt for a car, a house, an education, and so many other things related to daily life. Any chance the system is set up to encourage people to take out life crushing debt and with inflation just getting worse? Was it like this when you were young? It wasn't quite as bad when I was young. It definitely wasn't this way when my dad was young. Credit and debt wasn't something standard Americans wanted or needed way back when.