$10k Student Loan Forgiveness

[c_hawkbob]

I never said it fixed the problem, only that it was nevertheless the right thing to do.

Now absolutely address the actual problem! Make community and State colleges tuition free again.

[RiverDog]

I never said it fixed the problem, only that it was nevertheless the right thing to do.

Now absolutely address the actual problem! Make community and State colleges tuition free again.

I disagree that it's the right thing to give a family making a quarter million dollars a year in AGI a $10K handout.

Make community and state colleges tuition free again? Not in our day, at least not in this state.

[Aseahawkfan]

I disagree that it's the right thing to give a family making a quarter million dollars a year in AGI a $10K handout.

Make community and state colleges tuition free again? Not in our day, at least not in this state.

I don't see the point in making Community and State College free until they greatly improve the K1 to K12 system. Just more money flushed down the proverbial sewer until they make the school system with standards that are built around expecting kids to be proficient in basic skills that doesn't require remedial education in college. This allowing kids who are terrible at school to keep attending while not demonstrating proficiency is garbage. Some kids don't need to go to school and should be pushed into trade school or the like. They have no interest and no proficiency in education and shouldn't be forced into it to be employable while dropping the education standards to maintain the idea that a bachelor degree is the only path to employability.

The education system needs a serious rework from the ground up.

[c_hawkbob]

Right, don't do anything because you can't do everything.

[RiverDog]

Right, don't do anything because you can't do everything.

No, don't do anything if you're doing the wrong thing. None of those people that are paying on student loans is going to starve if they don't get $10k. As a matter of fact, when the pandemic broke out, they waived payments and accrual of interest on federal loans through December of this year in the pandemic legislation. No one that has taken out a federal loan has had to pay a dime for almost three years, since March of 2020. This issue is way, way overblown.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/24/pause-o ... ember.html

It wouldn't take anything for Biden to lower that threshold to $60K/$120K and at least partially mollify people like myself. A $10K handout to a married couple making $.25 million a year is absurd, and nothing you or anyone else can say will change that fact.

[Aseahawkfan]

Focus on K1 to K12 first because then you can better set up your college system based on the K1 to K12 skills learned. You have to build the foundation well first before the college level education can be well-constructed.

If you have a large group of students being pushed through the K1 to K12 system where they are graduating and requiring remedial training in college, then you are wasting tons of time and money and discouraging young people from pursuing higher education in a less desperate state.

A lot of these folks want to obtain college degrees because they've been told to do so to improve their life almost like a self-help guru. When they go to school they find themselves unprepared and taking remedial courses for English and Math just to obtain a basic degree. That's a lousy situation to send them to. You get these people graduating with degrees that don't apply to their job like getting a history and sociology degree, then ending up doing metrics for an insurance company. It's not a great way to set up the education system.

Americans should be studying other successful education systems from the nations we recruit from for STEM and them implementing such systems here. Because right now our university level education is supplementing foreign school systems with our taxpayer dollars while we underprepare American students to compete with foreign students because our K1 to K12 system so badly prepares students for college.

I tell you Big Tech looks very different from mainstream America in the highest paying positions in the company. You see see way more Indian, Chinese, and Jewish folk in the high paying jobs in accounting, programming, and the like. You see quite a few Russians as well. They are usually far more educated in math, science, and business than Americans going for psychology and philosophy degrees or trying to figure out what they want to do. A major reason is the STEM focus in K1 through K12. The Chinese and Indian government do not invest in K1 to K12 to focus on prom, football, and weekend partying while just getting by in regular school. They expect their students to graduate with competence in competitive college skills in high earning fields.

America is doing a crap job of preparing students in important skills in the modern economy.

[RiverDog]

Focus on K1 to K12 first because then you can better set up your college system based on the K1 to K12 skills learned. You have to build the foundation well first before the college level education can be well-constructed.

If you have a large group of students being pushed through the K1 to K12 system where they are graduating and requiring remedial training in college, then you are wasting tons of time and money and discouraging young people from pursuing higher education in a less desperate state.

A lot of these folks want to obtain college degrees because they've been told to do so to improve their life almost like a self-help guru. When they go to school they find themselves unprepared and taking remedial courses for English and Math just to obtain a basic degree. That's a lousy situation to send them to. You get these people graduating with degrees that don't apply to their job like getting a history and sociology degree, then ending up doing metrics for an insurance company. It's not a great way to set up the education system.

Americans should be studying other successful education systems from the nations we recruit from for STEM and them implementing such systems here. Because right now our university level education is supplementing foreign school systems with our taxpayer dollars while we underprepare American students to compete with foreign students because our K1 to K12 system so badly prepares students for college.

I tell you Big Tech looks very different from mainstream America in the highest paying positions in the company. You see see way more Indian, Chinese, and Jewish folk in the high paying jobs in accounting, programming, and the like. You see quite a few Russians as well. They are usually far more educated in math, science, and business than Americans going for psychology and philosophy degrees or trying to figure out what they want to do. A major reason is the STEM focus in K1 through K12. The Chinese and Indian government do not invest in K1 to K12 to focus on prom, football, and weekend partying while just getting by in regular school. They expect their students to graduate with competence in competitive college skills in high earning fields.

America is doing a crap job of preparing students in important skills in the modern economy.

I agree with much, if not all, of this reasoning and it is deserving of its own thread. But except in a very general sense, it doesn't have much to do with the OP. But then again, neither have about 3 out of 4 of the current posts.

[c_hawkbob]

The problem with focusing on K-12 first, while failing to address college tuition is that you're throwing away the current generation as not worth saving.

And Riv, I will never agree with you about how this was wrong because the target range wasn't poor and destitute enough. Ever. Especially not while it's no problem to put so much more than that giving to the rich without hearing near as much from you about it.

[Hawktawk]

The problem with focusing on K-12 first, while failing to address college tuition is that you're throwing away the current generation as not worth saving.

And Riv, I will never agree with you about how this was wrong because the target range wasn't poor and destitute enough. Ever. Especially not while it's no problem to put so much more than that giving to the rich without hearing near as much from you about it.

Once again Bob I completely agree . Whining about a pittance of crumbs swept off the table in light of the trillions handed to ultra wealthy individuals and corporations is ridiculous . Whether perfectly administrated or targeted ( nothing is) it’s a step in the right direction .

[RiverDog]

The problem with focusing on K-12 first, while failing to address college tuition is that you're throwing away the current generation as not worth saving.

And Riv, I will never agree with you about how this was wrong because the target range wasn't poor and destitute enough. Ever. Especially not while it's no problem to put so much more than that giving to the rich without hearing near as much from you about it.

First of all, I'm not going to sit still while the Dems/libs run barefoot through the treasury, blindly throwing my hard-earned tax money helter skelter at their perception of societies' problems without any regard for the 'target range.'

And secondly, what is it that leads you to believe that I never objected to giving money to the rich? Please, give me an example. Your lumping me in with your preconceived idea of the typical conservative. I'll give you an example. I was against Trump's/R's 2017 tax cut in part because it reduced the upper tax brackets (from 37% to 34%?) Does that sound to you like a person that doesn't object to giving money to the rich?

[Aseahawkfan]

The problem with focusing on K-12 first, while failing to address college tuition is that you're throwing away the current generation as not worth saving.

And Riv, I will never agree with you about how this was wrong because the target range wasn't poor and destitute enough. Ever. Especially not while it's no problem to put so much more than that giving to the rich without hearing near as much from you about it.

The current generation don't exactly need to be saved. You can back fix their tuition issues with more loan forgiveness once you set up better for the future. The current and coming generations are stuck with what we have. Hell, I don't expect any changes to anything for quite a while. Even free community college and state education won't change that much. There are a bunch of people getting unemployable degrees and not taking trade school seriously. We'll have a bunch of people with degrees they don't use and money and more importantly time wasted obtaining them.

Even if we make tuition free or what not, we still need to focus that money on a productive, employable education, not just a do what you want for four years until you figure it out ending up with an unemployable degree. If the taxpayer is going to pay for tuition, the taxpayer should be paying for degrees we absolutely need and not just random trips through the education system that set people on a path to where they have to return to obtain an employable degree.

Making education free at the moment I would support if the focus were on specific degrees like teachers, science degrees, trade school, and focusing programs on national education needs. I don't fee like playing for philosophy or psychology degrees. Pay for that out of pocket unless it is a specialty we need or that is employable.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

The problem with focusing on K-12 first, while failing to address college tuition is that you're throwing away the current generation as not worth saving.

And Riv, I will never agree with you about how this was wrong because the target range wasn't poor and destitute enough. Ever. Especially not while it's no problem to put so much more than that giving to the rich without hearing near as much from you about it.

They are still failing to address college tuition with this. I’m surprised you would be gung-ho about a poor effort that was done shoddily and quickly for political reasons. Comes across as you only care that the left did it.

Tell me why someone with $30k in debt making $60k/yr should receive the same amount of help as someone making $60k in debt making $30k/yr. This is the same ineptness displayed when they just sent Covid relief checks irrespective of who really needed it. It’s weak dude. Really weak.

And the big problem I saw with the interest holiday that started on March 2020 was that a number of loan holders refused to pay anything on the hopes that they wouldn’t waste their money if the debt ended up being forgiven. Flat out boneheaded move when they could have been retiring principal only for 2 1/2 years. The interest pause alone was a huge gift that some just didn’t have sense to take advantage of.

[Aseahawkfan]

Mack,

I don't know how you justify much of this like tax cuts for the wealthy by Trump or business bailouts for mismanaged businesses or any of it. Even I received a COVID stimulus check I think the first two times and I definitely did not need one. I think I put it in my investment account during my usual deposits.

How do you stop this type of behavior by your government? Republicans are giving money away using different tools. People keep voting them in. Trump was in support of all the COVID stimulus, hell he put his name on them as a political tool like he gave them to him himself.

How do you recommend stopping this irresponsible economic behavior by the government by both parties?

I could literally show multiple examples of bad economic policy by both Republicans and Democrats. So how do we stop irresponsible spending when both political parties are spending our tax dollars like it's not their money?

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I don’t like a lot of that stuff. I’m sure I’ve done my griping about those at one time or another. My wife and I never stopped working and received those Covid checks too. Ended up giving half to my sister who is in the service industry and couldn’t work.

I don’t know how to fix it. Either side will jump at the chance to make a move like this for votes. Seems the political machine is too far gone to get any real change in operation.

[RiverDog]

The current generation don't exactly need to be saved. You can back fix their tuition issues with more loan forgiveness once you set up better for the future. The current and coming generations are stuck with what we have. Hell, I don't expect any changes to anything for quite a while. Even free community college and state education won't change that much. There are a bunch of people getting unemployable degrees and not taking trade school seriously. We'll have a bunch of people with degrees they don't use and money and more importantly time wasted obtaining them.

Even if we make tuition free or what not, we still need to focus that money on a productive, employable education, not just a do what you want for four years until you figure it out ending up with an unemployable degree. If the taxpayer is going to pay for tuition, the taxpayer should be paying for degrees we absolutely need and not just random trips through the education system that set people on a path to where they have to return to obtain an employable degree.

Making education free at the moment I would support if the focus were on specific degrees like teachers, science degrees, trade school, and focusing programs on national education needs. I don't fee like playing for philosophy or psychology degrees. Pay for that out of pocket unless it is a specialty we need or that is employable.

The only time/place I've ever heard of free tuition was back in the 70's when California did not charge tuition for in state residents to their community colleges. To my knowledge, no state ever had zero tuition for a 4 year liberal arts college.

I completely disagree with free secondary education or zero tuition. Heavily subsidized depending on need to make it affordable and accessible, yes, perhaps a rebate if they graduate. work/study grants, ect. But there has to be a buy-in, however small, for the individual, some sort of penalty for them if they decide to give it up. Otherwise, people will enroll without the slightest intention of getting a degree or obtaining a job skill. Having those types of people in school is a poison to the entire system, compromising the quality of learning for students there for legitimate purposes. Teachers in elementary and secondary education complain about it, that they have kids that have no intention of learning disrupting their classes, and I personally witnessed this phenomenon myself when I was in college. That's one of the advantages of attending an expensive private school, that you're surrounded by fellow students that are completely dedicated to achieving their educational goals.

Especially given our current labor crisis, we do need to address the needs of our educational system and the students that attend them. As a society, we need to be as efficient as possible in utilizing the skills of those potential workers that we do have, that we squeeze every ounce of potential out of them as we can. But this loan forgiveness does none of that.

[c_hawkbob]

I’m surprised you would be gung-ho about a poor effort that was done shoddily and quickly for political reasons. Comes across as you only care that the left did it.

Nonsense. First I'm not "gung ho" for it, I'm just glad to see my tax dollars going in the right direction for once. Second, it's not a left or right thing, call labor v corporate if you like that better but I'm not happy about a thing just because the left did it. Back in the 70's I considered myself a left leaning Republican, and quite frankly my political views have not changed a great deal since then (though my eyes have opened considerably). At least not nearly so much as what people consider to be "left and right" has changed. I have voted (in presidential elections) as far right as Libertarian and as far left as Green. Labels matter much less to me now than substance, though to your point I have registered as a Democrat since moving to Kentucky, where the right is extremely distasteful to me.

[RiverDog]

Mack,

I don't know how you justify much of this like tax cuts for the wealthy by Trump or business bailouts for mismanaged businesses or any of it. Even I received a COVID stimulus check I think the first two times and I definitely did not need one. I think I put it in my investment account during my usual deposits.

How do you stop this type of behavior by your government? Republicans are giving money away using different tools. People keep voting them in. Trump was in support of all the COVID stimulus, hell he put his name on them as a political tool like he gave them to him himself.

How do you recommend stopping this irresponsible economic behavior by the government by both parties?

I could literally show multiple examples of bad economic policy by both Republicans and Democrats. So how do we stop irresponsible spending when both political parties are spending our tax dollars like it's not their money?

We donated ours to charity. As part of the Covid relief bill, they allowed a $600 tax deduction straight off of income vs. an itemized deduction, so we gave to a couple of local organizations that are active in the homeless issue, ie Union Gospel Misson, Second Harvest, etc.

I was for the first Covid check. There were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people suddenly out of work, and a lot of them live from paycheck to paycheck. It was critical for us to get them money immediately. It had to be untargeted as the way government works, it would have taken them many months to figure out who needed it and who didn't. But by July of 2020, everyone that wanted to work was back to work, perhaps not in the same job that they had, but there was plenty of work available. We had liberalized unemployment benefits to such an extent that it was difficult for my ex employer to get people back once their plants re-started. It was a huge cluster phuck, and I was thankful that I was retired. The 3 subsequent checks were entirely unnecessary and contributed to the inflation that we're having to deal with today.

I was also against the Trump tax cuts. I view tax cuts as a weapon to be used to stimulate the economy during a recession, and I would have rather kept that dagger in its sheath. The economy was doing just fine at the time. I also did not like the idea of reducing the upper brackets. The top bracket got a higher percentage reduction (39.6% to 37%) than did the bracket I was in (14% to 12%). It was 100% a political act meant to grease wheels. Trump and the R's needed a victory to take home to their base just like Biden and his clan need a victory to take home to theirs with this loan forgiveness initiative.

[RiverDog]

And the big problem I saw with the interest holiday that started on March 2020 was that a number of loan holders refused to pay anything on the hopes that they wouldn’t waste their money if the debt ended up being forgiven. Flat out boneheaded move when they could have been retiring principal only for 2 1/2 years. The interest pause alone was a huge gift that some just didn’t have sense to take advantage of.

The interest holiday on federal student loans is something that until just recently I didn't realize that we had done, but you're right, as anyone that has ever put extra money towards the principal on a house payment could tell you, that was a huge break to those that had 6 figure debt, especially when you consider that it will have lasted at least 34 months, assuming that they don't extend the holiday even further, by the time they resume charging interest.

There's lots of other things that we could do with that half trillion dollars that Biden is giving away that would benefit not only students, but society in general. We could use it to finance low or zero interest student loans based on need and target it to those occupations and trades that are currently in high demand, like health care workers, truck drivers, electricians, teachers, et al, use it to steer more people to those areas of the economy that have the most dire labor demands, essentially killing two birds with one stone. I'd be all for such a proposal, and the Democrats, with their majority in the House and Senate, should have no problem getting something like it passed into law as even Senators like Manchin and Siena would likely support it. But this notion of free college or this loan forgiveness is absurd.

[Aseahawkfan]

The interest holiday on federal student loans is something that until just recently I didn't realize that we had done, but you're right, as anyone that has ever put extra money towards the principal on a house payment could tell you, that was a huge break to those that had 6 figure debt, especially when you consider that it will have lasted at least 34 months, assuming that they don't extend the holiday even further, by the time they resume charging interest.

There's lots of other things that we could do with that half trillion dollars that Biden is giving away that would benefit not only students, but society in general. We could use it to finance low or zero interest student loans based on need and target it to those occupations and trades that are currently in high demand, like health care workers, truck drivers, electricians, teachers, et al, use it to steer more people to those areas of the economy that have the most dire labor demands, essentially killing two birds with one stone. I'd be all for such a proposal, and the Democrats, with their majority in the House and Senate, should have no problem getting something like it passed into law as even Senators like Manchin and Siena would likely support it. But this notion of free college or this loan forgiveness is absurd.

How would we even get control of government at this point to enforce some form of fiscal responsibility? Do you even see sufficient political support among the American people to get control of their government and force their representatives to govern responsibly?

[Aseahawkfan]

We donated ours to charity. As part of the Covid relief bill, they allowed a $600 tax deduction straight off of income vs. an itemized deduction, so we gave to a couple of local organizations that are active in the homeless issue, ie Union Gospel Misson, Second Harvest, etc.

I was for the first Covid check. There were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people suddenly out of work, and a lot of them live from paycheck to paycheck. It was critical for us to get them money immediately. It had to be untargeted as the way government works, it would have taken them many months to figure out who needed it and who didn't. But by July of 2020, everyone that wanted to work was back to work, perhaps not in the same job that they had, but there was plenty of work available. We had liberalized unemployment benefits to such an extent that it was difficult for my ex employer to get people back once their plants re-started. It was a huge cluster phuck, and I was thankful that I was retired. The 3 subsequent checks were entirely unnecessary and contributed to the inflation that we're having to deal with today.

I was also against the Trump tax cuts. I view tax cuts as a weapon to be used to stimulate the economy during a recession, and I would have rather kept that dagger in its sheath. The economy was doing just fine at the time. I also did not like the idea of reducing the upper brackets. The top bracket got a higher percentage reduction (39.6% to 37%) than did the bracket I was in (14% to 12%). It was 100% a political act meant to grease wheels. Trump and the R's needed a victory to take home to their base just like Biden and his clan need a victory to take home to theirs with this loan forgiveness initiative.

A lot of people don't seem to get that the stimulus checks they sent were nothing. Not even close to what caused inflation as it currently stands. There were three stimulus checks between 600 to 1200 dollars. Those were quickly spent and even if saved would not have amounted to this level of inflation at all. I don't even know why people continue to focus on the three stimulus checks that would have passed completely unnoticed had that been the only government stimulus.

What caused this inflation was a combination of the following:

1. Enhanced unemployment: During the initial shut down period, a huge number of unemployed people started receiving enhanced unemployment which was equal to unemployment plus 600 dollars a week. Yes, you hear that right. A week. We had people at my job who wanted to get laid off because they would have gotten paid more on unemployment than they would have working. This is the main culprit that drove up savings and spending and such. All these folks getting enhanced unemployment suddenly got a big raise, especially if they were already working a relatively low wage job. That 600 a week was a 15 dollar an hour raise.

https://www.dol.gov/coronavirus/unemployment-insurance#:~:text=The%20new%20law%20creates%20the,)%2C%20PEUC%2C%20PUA%2C%20Extended

This was in addition to the 65% or so you get paid by unemployment.

That means you would have made 10,000 extra dollars in a 16 weeks or 4 months. And this extra unemployment went on for over a year.

2. Child Tax Credit: Extra stimulus given early in child tax credits. I believe this was taken out of the end of year tax credit, but I'm not absolutely sure.

3. PPP Loans and Loan forgiveness: There were immense, low interest loans given out haphazardly during the pandemic. Some of these loans were forgiven.

https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/data-interactive-tools/data-stories/how-many-paycheck-protection-program-loans-have-been-forgiven#:~:text=More%20than%2011.8%20million%20Paycheck,dollar%20amount%20forgiven%20was%20%2495%2C700.

4.1 million PPP loans were forgiven at an average of 95,700 dollars. That is 392.4 billion dollars the government forgave.

The stimulus checks were nothing compared to the unemployment, PPC loans, early child tax credits, on top of The Fed buying up company bonds and lowering the interest rate to zero making borrowing money cheap so you make a far better return borrowing than spending earned cash.

There is this weird idea the stimulus checks were the primary driver of our current inflation and they are not even close to the primary driver. If all the government had done was send those stimulus checks three times, we would be absolutely fine right now as far as inflation goes. Those stimulus checks were nothing compared to the enhanced unemployment that people were getting with nothing to spend it on with everything shut down just filling up savings accounts.

Then couple that with rent and mortgage deferral, no student loan payments, and not having to pay power or phone bills without the companies being able to turn them off and you have a financial stimulus that is unequaled in American history that led to pent up demand like we've never seen before.

The amount of debt the government built up was not based on those single shot stimulus checks, but on the overall measures taken. It was a lot of debt for a whole lot of stimulus.

In your case Riverdog, imagine you got laid off. You are receiving unemployment benefits equal to 65% of your pay plus 600 dollars per week. You don't have to pay your mortgage or power bill. And you get an occasional 600 to 1200 dollar check three times. And if you have a kid, you get your child tax credit money sent to you monthly. And you can't go anywhere or buy anything because everything is shut down. What would your bank account look like at the end of that situation? That's what happened during the pandemic. That's why we're in the state we're in now.

[mykc14]

Great discussion throughout this thread. I have been following it, but haven't had time to engage, actually still don't but I am going to anyways. First of all, like most I agree that college tuition needs to be addressed, they are out of hand. Whatever we decide to do from a tax payer perspective in terms of college tuition it needs to be an investment. People who decide to go to college need to be motivated by the idea that they are getting a college degree that will allow them to make enough money to provide for their family and live the life they want to live without incurring bad debt. This, obviously will help the economy, allow them to pay more money back in taxes, and lessen the amount of people needing government aid. Financial college aid works for a society because it does these things on the most basic level. Does free college and relieving college debt do these things? I don't know. I do know that public school is free for everybody and that the education model in the United States is broken, why would free college be any different? If it created a job ready population that would be paying for the next generations college then I would be all for it, but my worry is that it will just turn into a continuation of HS for too many people. Even now, with college prices ridiculously high we have over 40% of college graduates who aren't even using their degree- why would that change? As far as paying back college debt now, I am against it. It will stimulate the economy in the short term, but like you guys have talked about will not lead to investing or long-term wealth accumulation.

[RiverDog]

Great discussion throughout this thread. I have been following it, but haven't had time to engage, actually still don't but I am going to anyways. First of all, like most I agree that college tuition needs to be addressed, they are out of hand. Whatever we decide to do from a tax payer perspective in terms of college tuition it needs to be an investment. People who decide to go to college need to be motivated by the idea that they are getting a college degree that will allow them to make enough money to provide for their family and live the life they want to live without incurring bad debt. This, obviously will help the economy, allow them to pay more money back in taxes, and lessen the amount of people needing government aid. Financial college aid works for a society because it does these things on the most basic level. Does free college and relieving college debt do these things? I don't know. I do know that public school is free for everybody and that the education model in the United States is broken, why would free college be any different? If it created a job ready population that would be paying for the next generations college then I would be all for it, but my worry is that it will just turn into a continuation of HS for too many people. Even now, with college prices ridiculously high we have over 40% of college graduates who aren't even using their degree- why would that change? As far as paying back college debt now, I am against it. It will stimulate the economy in the short term, but like you guys have talked about will not lead to investing or long-term wealth accumulation.

Hey, Mykc! I'm glad you chimed in. As an educator, you have a unique perspective from the rest of us here as you have had an opportunity to see our educational system close up.

My 50th high school reunion is next year, so my experience may no longer be applicable, but one of the biggest differences between high school and college that I noticed was that you didn't have the class clowns and screw offs in college. Even the athletes, for the most part, were serious students as we were NAIA and did not offer athletic scholarships, so they all had some skin in the game. If we were to make college free, it will be just like you said, a continuation of high school. The C and D students, instead of having to go out and get jobs, join the military, or whatever, will take their acts to college and compromise the learning environment for everyone.

As far as college tuition goes, I like the idea of subsidizing the expenses of college and trade schools in those areas of our economy that are the most desperate for workers. How many in here really want to be subsidizing lawyer's tuition? I also like the idea of giving some sort of tuition rebates to those that complete their degree and/or obtain work within their field of study. Finish what you start. This idea of giving no strings attached handouts is absurd.

[RiverDog]

Hold on, sports fans. Student loan forgiveness has been put on hold:

The Biden administration has stopped accepting applications for federal student loan forgiveness after a court struck down its plan on Thursday evening.

"In this country, we are not ruled by an all-powerful executive with a pen and a phone," wrote Judge Mark Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in his 26-page decision. Pittman, who was appointed in 2019 by former President Donald Trump, sided with the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy group.

The group had called Biden's plan "irrational, arbitrary and unfair," and accused the president of overreaching his authority. The complaint argued that the White House ignored federal procedures by not seeking public comment on its program.

The Biden administration said the Justice Department has already appealed the decision.

"We believe strongly that the Biden-Harris Student Debt Relief Plan is lawful and necessary to give borrowers and working families breathing room as they recover from the pandemic and to ensure they succeed when repayment restarts," Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement. "Amidst efforts to block our debt relief program, we are not standing down."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/bi ... r-AA140lbW

[Aseahawkfan]

Hold on, sports fans. Student loan forgiveness has been put on hold:

The Biden administration has stopped accepting applications for federal student loan forgiveness after a court struck down its plan on Thursday evening.

"In this country, we are not ruled by an all-powerful executive with a pen and a phone," wrote Judge Mark Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in his 26-page decision. Pittman, who was appointed in 2019 by former President Donald Trump, sided with the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy group.

The group had called Biden's plan "irrational, arbitrary and unfair," and accused the president of overreaching his authority. The complaint argued that the White House ignored federal procedures by not seeking public comment on its program.

The Biden administration said the Justice Department has already appealed the decision.

"We believe strongly that the Biden-Harris Student Debt Relief Plan is lawful and necessary to give borrowers and working families breathing room as they recover from the pandemic and to ensure they succeed when repayment restarts," Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement. "Amidst efforts to block our debt relief program, we are not standing down."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/bi ... r-AA140lbW

We will see if it conveniently gets blocked after midterms are over or it can get done. Could have been a Democrat PR move they never intended to follow through on to garner votes and now they can conveniently blame someone else for blocking.

[RiverDog]

Hold on, sports fans. Student loan forgiveness has been put on hold:

The Biden administration has stopped accepting applications for federal student loan forgiveness after a court struck down its plan on Thursday evening.

"In this country, we are not ruled by an all-powerful executive with a pen and a phone," wrote Judge Mark Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in his 26-page decision. Pittman, who was appointed in 2019 by former President Donald Trump, sided with the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy group.

The group had called Biden's plan "irrational, arbitrary and unfair," and accused the president of overreaching his authority. The complaint argued that the White House ignored federal procedures by not seeking public comment on its program.

The Biden administration said the Justice Department has already appealed the decision.

"We believe strongly that the Biden-Harris Student Debt Relief Plan is lawful and necessary to give borrowers and working families breathing room as they recover from the pandemic and to ensure they succeed when repayment restarts," Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement. "Amidst efforts to block our debt relief program, we are not standing down."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/bi ... r-AA140lbW

We will see if it conveniently gets blocked after midterms are over or it can get done. Could have been a Democrat PR move they never intended to follow through on to garner votes and now they can conveniently blame someone else for blocking.

Congress has nothing to do with it. Biden has done it through executive order. Personally, I think it's BS as the Legislative Branch has always been the ones that control the purse strings, but Presidents can get around it. Trump did something similar when he circumvented Congress by diverting part of the defense budget to build his border wall.

But we'll see where all this ends up. The ruling looks pretty shaky from what I've read.

Ironically, I was visiting the other day with my nephew, who owes over $350k in federal student loans and is an MD currently doing his residency. Doctors only make about $70k/year when they're doing their residency, so he easily qualifies under Biden's rules. When I asked him if he applied for debt relief, he just laughed, said that he had applied but said that it was a drop in the bucket, that it would barely make a dent in what he owes, and wouldn't change his spending habits as it would only marginally affect his repayment schedule. Total waste of money, at least in his case. He'll be filthy rich in a few years.

[RiverDog]

The issue has landed at the foot of the Supreme Court, who are hearing oral arguments on Biden's plan, which has been put on hold. It's a pretty complicated legal issue that's difficult for a layman like me to follow that involves concepts like the issue of standing, that according to Forbes requires:

To have standing to bring a case in federal court, a party must be able to show that it would incur a concrete, cognizable injury sufficiently related to the challenged law or policy. An alleged injury that is too vague or speculative wouldn’t be enough.

One of the things that caught my eye during the hearing was a question raised by Chief Justice John Roberts. To paraphrase him, he asked what the difference was between forgiving a college loan incurred by a doctor that has a successful private practice and a high school graduate who took out a federal loan to start a small business. Why would we forgive the college grad's loan but not the high school grad's?

One of the differences is politics. Young college graduates vote heavily Democratic, and a non college grad that's a small businessmen tends to vote Republican. That's one of the problems when you start making arbitrary decisions as to who deserves a break and who doesn't. It's reminiscent of when they used to have draft deferments for college students back in the 60's, a time of which I remember well. Back then, whites were much more likely to be attending college than blacks, rich were more likely to be attending than poor, and so on. A policy of allowing college students to avoid the draft yet subject non attendees was inherently biased based on several factors.

For me, the issue is clear, that this student loan forgiveness is both morally and legally wrong.

A decision is expected in June, but conventional wisdom is that the conservative court is leaning towards blocking the program. But Biden does have options if the high court rejects his plan.

Forbes has a good discussion on the issues before the court, and it's worth a read if it's a subject that interests you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky ... f2542519b8

[Aseahawkfan]

The issue has landed at the foot of the Supreme Court, who are hearing oral arguments on Biden's plan, which has been put on hold. It's a pretty complicated legal issue that's difficult for a layman like me to follow that involves concepts like the issue of standing, that according to Forbes requires:

To have standing to bring a case in federal court, a party must be able to show that it would incur a concrete, cognizable injury sufficiently related to the challenged law or policy. An alleged injury that is too vague or speculative wouldn’t be enough.

One of the things that caught my eye during the hearing was a question raised by Chief Justice John Roberts. To paraphrase him, he asked what the difference was between forgiving a college loan incurred by a doctor that has a successful private practice and a high school graduate who took out a federal loan to start a small business. Why would we forgive the college grad's loan but not the high school grad's?

One of the differences is politics. Young college graduates vote heavily Democratic, and a non college grad that's a small businessmen tends to vote Republican. That's one of the problems when you start making arbitrary decisions as to who deserves a break and who doesn't. It's reminiscent of when they used to have draft deferments for college students back in the 60's, a time of which I remember well. Back then, whites were much more likely to be attending college than blacks, rich were more likely to be attending than poor, and so on. A policy of allowing college students to avoid the draft yet subject non attendees was inherently biased based on several factors.

For me, the issue is clear, that this student loan forgiveness is both morally and legally wrong.

A decision is expected in June, but conventional wisdom is that the conservative court is leaning towards blocking the program. But Biden does have options if the high court rejects his plan.

Forbes has a good discussion on the issues before the court, and it's worth a read if it's a subject that interests you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky ... f2542519b8

I don't know how you claim something is morally wrong when lending itself is considered morally wrong by religion, the moral foundation for the ideas of morality. I would say money and moneylending isn't particularly moral to start with much less trying to measure the morality of the price of education to start with to learn a skill to survive in the world and thus forcing people to pay unchecked fees for what is being sold as a survival need. So not real sure how you justify the moral "wrongness" of loan forgiveness.

Legally? Well, legality is all made up to start with. I think jailing people for smoking a weed like marijuana is morally wrong, but legally it is the law of the land. Legality and morality do not often meet together. There is plenty that is legal or illegal, but not what one might consider right.

It's a specious basis for an argument.

Like I said in the post just above, the Democrats may have never intended to follow through on loan forgiveness. Just a low cost PR move for votes they knew would be opposed. Most likely they want the money paid back, but as long as they can keep voters on the string believing they might get some loan forgiveness it helps them.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I don't know how you claim something is morally wrong when lending itself is considered morally wrong by religion, the moral foundation for the ideas of morality. I would say money and moneylending isn't particularly moral to start with much less trying to measure the morality of the price of education to start with to learn a skill to survive in the world and thus forcing people to pay unchecked fees for what is being sold as a survival need. So not real sure how you justify the moral "wrongness" of loan forgiveness.

Legally? Well, legality is all made up to start with. I think jailing people for smoking a weed like marijuana is morally wrong, but legally it is the law of the land. Legality and morality do not often meet together. There is plenty that is legal or illegal, but not what one might consider right.

It's a specious basis for an argument.

Like I said in the post just above, the Democrats may have never intended to follow through on loan forgiveness. Just a low cost PR move for votes they knew would be opposed. Most likely they want the money paid back, but as long as they can keep voters on the string believing they might get some loan forgiveness it helps them.

I can't speak for all religions, but Judeo-Christian faith specifically mentions not being usurious; i.e. charge interest. Specifically, charging interest to a fellow believer. I would expect most if not all religions would expect one to find a way to pay what they owe; either with currency, goods, and/or services.

As for morality, loaning money may or may not be right; it would depend on how the money is lent. Transparency and sound advising keep it in the light; when both sides understand the agreement made, they both benefit. Perhaps that's not morally right; it's just not wrong. Knowingly taking advantage of someone's ignorance to get them to sign onerous terms is very much morally wrong. That would be my major gripe with most loan officer types I've dealt with. The approach is typically if the borrower isn't willing to do the leg work to know what's what then it's not their job to help them out.

Looking at higher education and lending, it does get blurry. Student loans work for some, provided they go into a field of study that makes the debt worth it. A substantial number don't (why we are in this mess) and colleges do not, as far as I know, advise students not to take out loans for a degree that will essentially be worthless. That's the morally wrong side of the equation along with ever increasing tuition and fees due to the accessibility of loans. So, the question becomes if they fail in what I would consider their moral obligation to make sure students are making a financially sound decision, then are the students morally obligated to pay back these loans? That seems to be the argument being made for loan forgiveness. It's a rigged game so why should they have to pay it back? They didn't get value for their money. They also made a willful but perhaps ill-informed decision to take out loans in the first place. The answer to me is that some of them need some help, but something has to be paid back, and the system needs to be regulated to eliminate this problem.

In short; lending isn't necessarily morally right, but it can definitely be morally wrong. Paying back what you owe is morally right, but not entirely so if it was the product of a dishonest agreement.

And your last statement about the political nature of it is spot on.

[RiverDog]

Perhaps moral was a poor choice of words. Maybe ethics would be more appropriate.

The point that I think escaped the attention of both of you is that the government, or more specifically, Biden and the Democrats, are being incredibly biased in who they are choosing to forgive loans to. If some immigrant without so much as a GED and working at a minimum wage or entry level job takes out a loan to buy a taco wagon and start a restaurant business, what makes him/her any different than the college graduate that has made a business decision to get an education he/she can turn into a 6-figure job? He's forgiving loans given to people that now have family incomes of up to $250,000/year. That's absurd!

They need to take that money that they're forgiving and use it to subsidize the cost of higher education. All this is doing is throwing money away, especially given in this economy when we should be limiting the supply of money to control inflation. $10k is a drop in the bucket to people like my nephew who owes $360,000.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

That point hasn't entirely escaped me. I you read my previous posts on this topic, I'm not completely against loan forgiveness; I'm just against this one. It's a blanket shot, that, like Asea said, is meant to get votes. This should have been targeted via means testing. There are still plenty of student debt holders who can pay what they owe. And there are plenty who are way in over their heads that need the help. I'm an ardent supporter of paying what you owe, but this problem is here. Either we formulate a reasonable plan to help or just write them off to fend for themselves. Both are actually an option.

Your and Justice Robert's point regarding forgiving only higher education debt is right on and is echoed by many forgiveness detractors who want to know the same thing. Why just this debt? I completely agree with you about the similarities of this to arbitrary decisions about who gets a break.

I don't know about subsidizing higher education. We had a problem in this country 15 years ago when we gave out loans to people who were bad credit risks. That was the housing crisis. Lenders lowered standards and gave out more loans. In the same vein, higher education doesn't do a thing to assess the creditworthiness of student borrowers. The answer wasn't subsidizing the mortgage market; the answer was to maintain high standards for issuing mortgages. We should be doing the same with student loans. Suffice to say, some people should not be going in the first place. A 'C' student out of high school majoring in *Fill in the blank* Studies shouldn't be given a loan, or perhaps approved for one semester to see how they do. A prevalent notion is that students just have to get into a college and the rest will fall into place; as if they'll suddenly become good students. And colleges are all to happy to accept as many students as possible irrespective of how much debt students have to take on. Higher education is an ugly, bloated financial beast that doesn't want to see its trough get smaller. Needs to happen, but I'm skeptical for that reason.

In short, they need to fix the problem at the source (cost of higher education) and find some reasonable, targeted means to help those who need it most.

[RiverDog]

I don't know about subsidizing higher education. We had a problem in this country 15 years ago when we gave out loans to people who were bad credit risks. That was the housing crisis. Lenders lowered standards and gave out more loans. In the same vein, higher education doesn't do a thing to assess the creditworthiness of student borrowers. The answer wasn't subsidizing the mortgage market; the answer was to maintain high standards for issuing mortgages. We should be doing the same with student loans. Suffice to say, some people should not be going in the first place. A 'C' student out of high school majoring in *Fill in the blank* Studies shouldn't be given a loan, or perhaps approved for one semester to see how they do. A prevalent notion is that students just have to get into a college and the rest will fall into place; as if they'll suddenly become good students. And colleges are all to happy to accept as many students as possible irrespective of how much debt students have to take on. Higher education is an ugly, bloated financial beast that doesn't want to see its trough get smaller. Needs to happen, but I'm skeptical for that reason.

In short, they need to fix the problem at the source (cost of higher education) and find some reasonable, targeted means to help those who need it most.

You're absolutely correct about this loan forgiveness plan being so political in nature. However, I'm reluctant to forgive any loan except for extraordinary circumstances, like a disability or some type of family emergency. Any loan forgiveness is heading down a slippery slope.

They don't necessarily need to fix it by just issuing more loans. They can increase their subsidies for tuition and bring down the cost for everyone. I'm not for free tuition as is the stance of many liberals as that's going to compromise the quality of education, but tuition costs have gotten out of whack. They can also award more scholarships based on a demonstrated ability and cater it to the occupational needs of the country.

For example, we have a severe shortage of truck drivers in this country. Why not subsidize these truck driving schools and the students that attend them? Why not start teaching truck driving skills to high schoolers? Same with electricians, nurses, and other occupations that don't require an expensive diploma. The country needs more people in the professional skills trades, and that's where the emphasis should be.

Another thing they can do is fund more night schools, so people can take classes while working at a full time job or tending to a family.

There are tons of things out there in the educational field that are more worthy of our precious tax dollars than throwing it at people earning 6 digit salaries.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I didn’t advocate giving more loans. My comparison was to the lax lending standards that led to the mortgage crisis. We are doing the exact same thing with student loans. There’s zero effort being made to make sure students are good credit risks. Like mortgages, we should only be issuing student loans to sound borrowers. More lending scrutiny would likely mean less loans; not more.

Subsidies would need to be equally selective. I’m concerned they would continue to contribute to the rising cost of education. I think it does make a lot of sense to provide them for needed occupations, like trucking that you mentioned. They do this if a sort with education; loans are forgiven contingent on teaching in under served areas.

I agree there are better alternatives for this sort of aid. Optimally, the source of the cost will have to be addressed too.

[RiverDog]

I didn’t advocate giving more loans. My comparison was to the lax lending standards that led to the mortgage crisis. We are doing the exact same thing with student loans. There’s zero effort being made to make sure students are good credit risks. Like mortgages, we should only be issuing student loans to sound borrowers. More lending scrutiny would likely mean less loans; not more.

Subsidies would need to be equally selective. I’m concerned they would continue to contribute to the rising cost of education. I think it does make a lot of sense to provide them for needed occupations, like trucking that you mentioned. They do this if a sort with education; loans are forgiven contingent on teaching in under served areas.

I agree there are better alternatives for this sort of aid. Optimally, the source of the cost will have to be addressed too.

I agree that lax lending standards is a huge problem. I've seen it destroy marriages and lives. But that's another subject entirely.

Thinking outside the box a little, there are some things that might help encourage people to save for their kid's education. I would like to see employers, as part of a benefit package, set up an educational account for an employee's son or daughter and contribute to it, similar to what they do with a 401k where the company matches what an employee contributes, say kick in $1 for every $4 the employee contributes. The government could encourage this by giving companies that participate a tax break. There'd have to be a lot of strings attached that addresses situations like if the beneficiary decides not to go to college, but it shouldn't be any more complicated to figure out than they have with early 401K withdrawals.

It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS deals with this issue. The interesting thing here is that Kavanaugh might be one of the Biden Administration's friends on this issue as he's given some indications that he might side with them.

[Aseahawkfan]

I wouldn't care if the assistance was more targeted.

I've already made the economic argument it is not much one way or the other. 10,000 in the current times is a drop in the bucket compared to the price of housing, cars, and prices in general right now including the cost of borrowing.

Until I see the Dems make a real effort to push it through, if it dies in the Supreme Court then I won't be surprised. I'm sure the Dems will just do like they usually do: blame the Trump appointed judges and the right.

Follow the current Dem playbook to rally their base, same as the right wing does. Nothing real gets done for the American people as a whole. Just more made up bickering to get both sides to call each other names and pretend they're smarter than the other side so they don't talk or bother to work together to get anything real done.

[RiverDog]

I wouldn't care if the assistance was more targeted.

I've already made the economic argument it is not much one way or the other. 10,000 in the current times is a drop in the bucket compared to the price of housing, cars, and prices in general right now including the cost of borrowing.

Stand alone, you're right, student loan forgiveness won't make a huge difference in overall inflation. But it all adds up. It's part of government spending and the increase in the supply of money we're pumping into the economy, like our support for the war in Ukraine, Biden's Build Back Better and Inflation Reduction acts. Add it all up and it makes a difference. That's what the Fed is doing by raising interest rates, to discourage people from buying and take the pressure off of prices. And $10K isn't a large enough amount to make a significant increase in the amount of additional monthly income the individual borrower can have available to spend, certainly not enough to make a big difference in whether or not they buy a house.

Until I see the Dems make a real effort to push it through, if it dies in the Supreme Court then I won't be surprised. I'm sure the Dems will just do like they usually do: blame the Trump appointed judges and the right.

Follow the current Dem playbook to rally their base, same as the right wing does. Nothing real gets done for the American people as a whole. Just more made up bickering to get both sides to call each other names and pretend they're smarter than the other side so they don't talk or bother to work together to get anything real done.

Agreed.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

The impact of that $10k is relative to the individual's circumstances. Debt to income ratio being the primary one. Knocking off $10k of $30k debt for someone making $60k is huge. Swap that to $60k debt and $30k income, and $10k forgiven is marginal improvement. I had $25k that I paid off in 18 months after graduation; knock that down to $15k, and I'm done in about half that time and working towards buying a house that much sooner.

But your other point, Asea, highlights a very unfortunate circumstance. It's another issue that is so polarized there's significant political gain to remain at odds over it. Instead of a bipartisan effort to address the whole tamale of the issue, we get both sides playing to their bases with it. It may have to go belly up before anything is done about it.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

And, yes, it is not lost on me that the people this would provide the most immediate relief (i.e. my example scenario) are the ones who can handle their debt anyway, which is exactly why I have a problem with the blanket approach.

[RiverDog]

The other thing, which it looks like SCOTUS is going to take into consideration, is the issue of fairness. I saved for my daughter's education at a point in my life when it wasn't that easy to put away money, her grandma, on Social Security, bought a $100 savings bond for her every birthday, Xmas, etc, she conserved on her spending by driving a 15 year old car, working when she could, and not going on expensive spring break vacations, graduated with less than $10k debt and paid it off in less than 2 years before she bought herself a new car. It's wholly unfair to those kids that did the right thing, conserved their money, and paid off their loans yet the party animals, including those that flunked out, get a freebie $10,000 gift from the taxpayer.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Fairness is an issue. Definitely unfair to all those who avoided getting in over their heads financially in life, college or not. The student borrowers who want it the most will tell the detractors, if it goes through, that life's not fair. That cuts every which way; if life isn't fair, then, sorry, you're stuck. The notion that they are a special class of downtrodden who were duped by higher education and society as a whole is nonsensical; I've seen statements comparing their plight to cancer patients who are deep in debt. Pretty sure cancer patients didn't sign on the dotted line for their malady; student loan borrowers choose to take out loans year after year.

The student borrower demographic is varied, though. Not all of them partied, but I certainly saw a lot who did. I also saw plenty only take 4 classes a semester and no summer school; they were on the 5-year or 6-year plan. Saw more than a few who flunked out after only a few semesters. Others were honest to goodness trying but just didn't have the grounding to make it or didn't pick a major worth studying. Doesn't help the unfairness issue, though.

I get where you're coming from. My college financial picture was scholarship or bust. 5 classes a semester with 1 or 2 labs and 3 classes one summer while working holidays and summers and then as a RA my last two years. Finished in 4 years though. Only debt was from grad school out of state. My sympathy for their plight only goes so far.

[RiverDog]

Fairness is an issue. Definitely unfair to all those who avoided getting in over their heads financially in life, college or not. The student borrowers who want it the most will tell the detractors, if it goes through, that life's not fair. That cuts every which way; if life isn't fair, then, sorry, you're stuck. The notion that they are a special class of downtrodden who were duped by higher education and society as a whole is nonsensical; I've seen statements comparing their plight to cancer patients who are deep in debt. Pretty sure cancer patients didn't sign on the dotted line for their malady; student loan borrowers choose to take out loans year after year.

The student borrower demographic is varied, though. Not all of them partied, but I certainly saw a lot who did. I also saw plenty only take 4 classes a semester and no summer school; they were on the 5-year or 6-year plan. Saw more than a few who flunked out after only a few semesters. Others were honest to goodness trying but just didn't have the grounding to make it or didn't pick a major worth studying. Doesn't help the unfairness issue, though.

I get where you're coming from. My college financial picture was scholarship or bust. 5 classes a semester with 1 or 2 labs and 3 classes one summer while working holidays and summers and then as a RA my last two years. Finished in 4 years though. Only debt was from grad school out of state. My sympathy for their plight only goes so far.

I fully understand that not all of those that went heavily into debt weren't just the party animals. As a matter of fact, I would venture to guess that the majority of them were legitimate students. But I'd also venture a guess that it's not an insignificant number that made bad decisions that contributed heavily to their debt.

As long as we're sharing personal stories, when I went to college back in the mid 70's, I paid for 100% of my education with my own funds with 0% from any scholarships, grants, or my parent's money even though they could have afforded to help. I did it by working summers from the time I was 13 years old right up until I got my diploma. When I was in college, I worked during Christmas and spring breaks. Occasionally, I'd work a Saturday and/or Sunday during the college school year.

But college wasn't nearly as expensive then as it is now. Quarterly tuition at what is now EWU was $169. Even when you factor in inflation, tuition is much higher now relative to what a person can earn in the summer. Nevertheless, it's an achievement that I'm still quite proud of. The first job I got out of college, the hiring manager was impressed enough with how I worked my way through college to where he hired me over several other candidates from better colleges and with higher GPA's.

The whole question of college funding has my family in a bit of a dilemma. My first grandchild (first one that I know of, that is) was born a few months ago and we just started a 529 savings account for him. There are two different kinds: A prepaid tuition account where you buy tuition credits at the current price of tuition, essentially a hedge against tuition increases, or a tax-free savings account similar to an IRA where you can invest it and not pay tax on the earnings. We chose the latter as there is uncertainty about what the government might do with regards to tuition. Suppose AOC gets her way and makes college and universities free? What happens to the pre-paid tuition account?

In any event, this is a subject that's near and dear to me, and I completely object to the way Biden and the Democrats are going about it. It represents more than any other subject why I'll never be a reliable vote for the Democratic party.