Cancel student debt

[GGGG]

And if you are an individual who takes advantage of those laws, it ruins your credit for seven years.  What is being proposed is basically saying "never mind".

I do think that allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy is something worth considering.

That's pretty much where I lean as well.  I don't think that a massive cancellation is a good idea without a fundamental rethinking of how higher education is funded in the US.  But that's not gonna happen.

[Tugg Speedman]

What are you basing this on? Cause it sure sounds like something you're making up?
Clearly you're making some assumption that a poetry degree costs less than an engineering degree, and that gap is not filled by the additional tuition and fees engineering students pay (which, as I pointed out, is a $5,000 at one public school ... I'll find other examples if you wish).

Could you please provide some actual evidence that poetry students are subsidizing engineering students?

This is where I assume you are going to make the most basic of all economics mistakes ... thinking it is all about relative costs (how much it costs to run an engineering department versus a music department).  It is never about costs. It is about the relative opportunity a degree affords one. 

Georgetown tackled this exact subject

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/whats-it-worth-the-economic-value-of-college-majors/

They find that college degrees have a wide variety of income potential.  That is how tuition should be set.  And yes, engineering and computer science will be multiples of poetry or music, not 20% like U of I does.

Forgetful, once the "value" of a degree is set, then you "force" the costs to fit in that constraint.

[Tugg Speedman]

"Confiscates" 

Again, it's no different than bankruptcy law.

Huge difference ...

Bankruptcy law is set.  The lender understands this is a possibility going into the loan.

Cancellation is changing the rules after the fact.

Also in bankruptcy, the lender gets the opportunity to take the assets or tell you how to manage them.  Cancellation allows you to walk without consequences.

[🏀]

Huge difference ...

Bankruptcy law is set.  The lender understands this is a possibility going into the loan.

Cancellation is changing the rules after the fact.

Also in bankruptcy, the lender gets the opportunity to take the assets or tell you how to manage them.  Cancellation allows you to walk without consequences.

While agree there's a big difference, if those want to get out of student debt, allow a bankrupt option. Credit penalties apply, assets can be liquidated and cosigners are called to the floor as well.

With that, start cancelling student loan debt. However, writing off debt with no regard to the credit establishment is quite possibly the worst, most unamerican idealism ever.

[GGGG]

While agree there's a big difference, if those want to get out of student debt, allow a bankrupt option. Credit penalties apply, assets can be liquidated and cosigners are called to the floor as well.

With that, start cancelling student loan debt. However, writing off debt with no regard to the credit establishment is quite possibly the worst, most unamerican idealism ever.

I think the point is that the federal government would cover the private debt and write off its own debt.

[Hards Alumni]

ya see, this is what i mean about trying to voice opposition opinion-

   first off, we can do without the vitriolic tone.  yes, i am probably guilty of it from time to time as well, but as i've said before, i treat others as they treat me

   secondly, i know for a fact, i would be called out on this as well-the statement you make is opinion, unless you have something to back it up.  if it is your opinion-fine.  i understand many feel the same as you and i'm not going to try to change yours or anyone else's opinion-peace hards
    judging by how the dems have embraced some really left wing groups and this is where our media drops the ball- the media will vaguely if at all point these relationships out because they are in the same club

In other countries Communism and Democratic Socialism are actual political parties.  In the USA those words are used to describe 'the looney left' and are considered extreme.  Simple ideas like our current ACA bill were REPUBLICAN IDEAS IN THE 70s... and now they're considered far left wing?  That is the type of total insanity that I'm talking about.  We don't have a viable left in the USA because they get berated and mocked as crazy people.

MEANWHILE, we have an actual white supremacist running for a seat in congress.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/08/583993705/a-white-supremacist-may-be-the-only-republican-running-for-a-seat-in-congress


We have a president who sure does display a ton of far-right politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

A few quick thoughts

1. I don't buy the argument that it's "not fair" to those who paid their student loans. Sure it's not fair, but the article is making an economic argument not a moral one. Not doing something that would be good for the economy because others already paid their student loans seems like a sunk cost fallacy to me. And I say this as someone who worked three jobs at Marquette and spent most of my income on paying back my student loan debt as fast as possible. I was fortunate that my parents paid for most of tuition but still had loans to pay off after I graduated.

2. The article seems sounds in terms of the economy, but I don't think it properly takes into account the affect it would have on higher education. I think colleges and universities would suffer in the long run and it could create future problems.

3. Student loan debt is a huge problem. Arguably one of the largest facing Americans today. It needs to be addressed. The solution however won't be as simple as "cancel all student loan debt." It also won't be as simple as "cut university employee salaries by 30%". It's somewhere in the middle and will require cuts from both "sides." I think there is room for some student loan forgiveness as well as some restructuring by colleges and universities to lower the cost of tuition.

4. The real long term solution to this problem is education. 17 and 18 year olds are expected to pick colleges, decide majors, and sign loans without a true understanding of the debt they are taking on and what it will take to pay it back. Theoretically, the parents should be guiding them but the parents are often lacking the understanding as well. I was fortunate enough to have two parents who went to college and took out student loans to help me understand what I was signing up for. My wife? She was the first in her family to go to college. They had no idea what the implications were when she decided to go to a small liberal arts college that no one had ever heard of. High schools need to offer education on student loans in home ec and economic classes (and require them). Or at very least have college advisers who are trained on student loans. I know my high school didn't have anything like that.

[Pakuni]

this is the best you can come up with?  you know i would absolutely be pummeled for trying to make the parallel argument-nice one

Sometimes I think you could just string together random words from a dictionary and make more coherent posts.

[Pakuni]

This is where I assume you are going to make the most basic of all economics mistakes ... thinking it is all about relative costs (how much it costs to run an engineering department versus a music department).  It is never about costs. It is about the relative opportunity a degree affords one. 

Georgetown tackled this exact subject

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/whats-it-worth-the-economic-value-of-college-majors/

They find that college degrees have a wide variety of income potential.  That is how tuition should be set.  And yes, engineering and computer science will be multiples of poetry or music, not 20% like U of I does.

Forgetful, once the "value" of a degree is set, then you "force" the costs to fit in that constraint.

\

This is some elite level goalpost shifting.
You started this by (wrongly) claiming that poetry majors were subsidizing the tuition of engineering majors. Forgetful and I showed this not to be the case, and rather than actually support your claim, you've "pivoted" to making this about future earnings potential.
That's all well and good, but what does future earnings potential have to do with who's paying for the tuition today? Nothing, of course. You just can't ever admit you're wrong.

Though I'd be curious how you set the "value" of a degree. Some engineers make seven figures in Silicon Valley. Some make $60,000 working at the municipal sewage plant. Some fine arts majors work behind a coffee counter. Others makes $30 million a year in Hollywood or earn six figures a week by creating a Broadway hit. Some business majors become assistant managers at Kroger. Others become CEOs at Fortune 100 companies. Some law school grads become underpaid public defenders. Others become multimillionaires by suing tobacco companies.

[forgetful]

This is where I assume you are going to make the most basic of all economics mistakes ... thinking it is all about relative costs (how much it costs to run an engineering department versus a music department).  It is never about costs. It is about the relative opportunity a degree affords one. 

Georgetown tackled this exact subject

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/whats-it-worth-the-economic-value-of-college-majors/

They find that college degrees have a wide variety of income potential.  That is how tuition should be set.  And yes, engineering and computer science will be multiples of poetry or music, not 20% like U of I does.

Forgetful, once the "value" of a degree is set, then you "force" the costs to fit in that constraint.

Ok, now set the value.  Do you use immediate employment values or long term earnings? 

Long-term liberal arts majors make the same or more than professional or pre-professional degrees.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/good-news-liberal-arts-majors-your-peers-probably-wont-outearn-you-forever-1473645902

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/01/22/see-how-liberal-arts-grads-really-fare-report-examines-long-term-data

And I cannot provide numbers for MU.  I don't have those numbers.  I do have numbers for other Universities, but I am not permitted to disclose them.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I've told you this many times.  You do not understand anything about the education industry.  You repeatedly state false information, make false assumptions, and not surprisingly, come up with false conclusions.  I've tried to correct you in the past, but you refuse to actually listen.

Surprise!

[TSmith34, Inc.]

"Republicans more conservative. The middle is gone. "

  not taking any positions here, but just my take-

        i wish this were true, but today's republicans may not even meet the standards of the old kennedy democrats.  i call today's republicans, democrat-lite.  the middle is long and strong=the independents

In your view today's Repubs are to the LEFT of Kennedy?

And you wonder why you are laughed at.

[Lennys Tap]

While agree there's a big difference, if those want to get out of student debt, allow a bankrupt option. Credit penalties apply, assets can be liquidated and cosigners are called to the floor as well.

With that, start cancelling student loan debt. However, writing off debt with no regard to the credit establishment is quite possibly the worst, most unamerican idealism ever.

+1. This should be obvious to anyone who gives it a scintilla of thought. Distressing that it's not.

[Tugg Speedman]

Ok, now set the value.  Do you use immediate employment values or long term earnings? 

Long-term liberal arts majors make the same or more than professional or pre-professional degrees.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/good-news-liberal-arts-majors-your-peers-probably-wont-outearn-you-forever-1473645902

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/01/22/see-how-liberal-arts-grads-really-fare-report-examines-long-term-data

And I cannot provide numbers for MU.  I don't have those numbers.  I do have numbers for other Universities, but I am not permitted to disclose them.

Read the link, it answers your questions

And I love the “I would like to tell you but I would have to kill you” answer.

But it does not matter, how much STEM makes for a school irrelevant to this discussion, you ignorance to economics is why you think it matters.  What matters is the readings potential of a major, not how much it costs to pay professors and heat the buildings.

[Tugg Speedman]

\

This is some elite level goalpost shifting.
You started this by (wrongly) claiming that poetry majors were subsidizing the tuition of engineering majors. Forgetful and I showed this not to be the case, and rather than actually support your claim, you've "pivoted" to making this about future earnings potential.
That's all well and good, but what does future earnings potential have to do with who's paying for the tuition today? Nothing, of course. You just can't ever admit you're wrong.

Though I'd be curious how you set the "value" of a degree. Some engineers make seven figures in Silicon Valley. Some make $60,000 working at the municipal sewage plant. Some fine arts majors work behind a coffee counter. Others makes $30 million a year in Hollywood or earn six figures a week by creating a Broadway hit. Some business majors become assistant managers at Kroger. Others become CEOs at Fortune 100 companies. Some law school grads become underpaid public defenders. Others become multimillionaires by suing tobacco companies.

You use goal shifting when you lose an argument.

The link answers all your question if you would bother reading it.  It breaks down majors hundreds of ways and assigns value to them.  That value is not reflected in how schools set tuition.  So yes, it exactly shows that some majors have less earnings capabilities than others.  So yes poetry is overcharged for tuition while engineers are undercharged.  Hence, poetry majors are subsidizing engineers.

[forgetful]

Read the link, it answers your questions

And I love the “I would like to tell you but I would have to kill you” answer.

But it does not matter, how much STEM makes for a school irrelevant to this discussion, you ignorance to economics is why you think it matters.  What matters is the readings potential of a major, not how much it costs to pay professors and heat the buildings.

Well, you could decide to believe people that actually work in a field, and have seen the numbers, or continue to spout uninformed nonsense.  Don't worry, I know which one you like to pick. 

Now, for your other tidbit.  You assume I don't know economics, you are wrong.  You also assume that the people making decisions in academia do not know economics, you are wrong.  Universities have been being run by economists for quite some time. 

Now, your idea on earnings potential.  There are so many reasons that will not work. 

For instance, How do you deal with people changing majors?  What about students who enroll as undecided? 

There are ways around these issues (and others), but dealing with them (right now), would increase costs more than they would affect profits.  Meaning it would lead to a net increase in tuition across the board. 
 

[jesmu84]

A few quick thoughts

1. I don't buy the argument that it's "not fair" to those who paid their student loans. Sure it's not fair, but the article is making an economic argument not a moral one. Not doing something that would be good for the economy because others already paid their student loans seems like a sunk cost fallacy to me. And I say this as someone who worked three jobs at Marquette and spent most of my income on paying back my student loan debt as fast as possible. I was fortunate that my parents paid for most of tuition but still had loans to pay off after I graduated.

2. The article seems sounds in terms of the economy, but I don't think it properly takes into account the affect it would have on higher education. I think colleges and universities would suffer in the long run and it could create future problems.

3. Student loan debt is a huge problem. Arguably one of the largest facing Americans today. It needs to be addressed. The solution however won't be as simple as "cancel all student loan debt." It also won't be as simple as "cut university employee salaries by 30%". It's somewhere in the middle and will require cuts from both "sides." I think there is room for some student loan forgiveness as well as some restructuring by colleges and universities to lower the cost of tuition.

4. The real long term solution to this problem is education. 17 and 18 year olds are expected to pick colleges, decide majors, and sign loans without a true understanding of the debt they are taking on and what it will take to pay it back. Theoretically, the parents should be guiding them but the parents are often lacking the understanding as well. I was fortunate enough to have two parents who went to college and took out student loans to help me understand what I was signing up for. My wife? She was the first in her family to go to college. They had no idea what the implications were when she decided to go to a small liberal arts college that no one had ever heard of. High schools need to offer education on student loans in home ec and economic classes (and require them). Or at very least have college advisers who are trained on student loans. I know my high school didn't have anything like that.

Kids (if you want to term them that) have to go from asking permission to use the bathroom to making (for some) the biggest decision of their lives. Bananas

[Babybluejeans]

I am not pretending to be anything.  I am a registered Democrat and have voted Democrat for president in every election.  The Democrat party today is not centrist, at least not by historical norms.  The GOP is definitely not centrist as they move further right.  In the 70's and 80's the parties were more closely aligned than they are today.  That is when I began voting.  The primaries and special interest groups are pulling the most extreme of each party to the forefront and moderates cannot win.  Watch some videos of Schumer on immigration from less than 6 years ago vs today, they are two totally different people with completely different messages.  Watch some videos of Republican Senators and Reps and it is the same thing. They pander to their extremes now because that is where the energy and voters are.

The other person is correct, Reagan would not survive a GOP primary.  Nixon and Ike could not either.  On our side, Mondale, Carter and Kennedy couldn't either.   Mondale's father could, but not Mondale who abandoned the New Deal.   That leaves us oldies either in a party that is dramatically different than when we joined, or the choice to leave and become an independent.

False equivalence, commonly invoked by modern conservatives as justification for their hard move to the right. But you're a dem... lolz.

[GooooMarquette]

Kids (if you want to term them that) have to go from asking permission to use the bathroom to making (for some) the biggest decision of their lives. Bananas

Yep.  That's where responsible parents need to step in and give advice, whether it's wanted or not.  At the very least when they're looking at different schools and majors, run a few numbers, talk to them about the difference between $30,000 of debt and $100,000 in terms of the monthly bite out of their paychecks, etc.  And talk about frugal living habits, like actually using that stove in their apartment instead of getting fast food every day.  We had some difficult talks with our daughters, and while they didn't like it at the time, they both thanked us later.

I loved the slogan the U of Minnesota financial aid office used when my daughter started school there:  "Live like a student now, so you won't have to live like a student later."

[Hards Alumni]

False equivalence, commonly invoked by modern conservatives as justification for their hard move to the right. But you're a dem... lolz.

He's clearly Chicos.  Dude is fit for a straight jacket.  Even pretending to be a Democrat to try to move people to the right.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

He's clearly Chicos.  Dude is fit for a straight jacket.  Even pretending to be a Democrat to try to move people to the right.

What?  You don't buy the "I'm part of the Democrat party, and the Democrat party is just too crazy lefty for me" shtick?

[Babybluejeans]

He's clearly Chicos.  Dude is fit for a straight jacket.  Even pretending to be a Democrat to try to move people to the right.

Ah, didn't realize that but makes sense. I guess it's an improvement from the time(s) he pretended to be black.

[Pakuni]

Ah, didn't realize that but makes sense. I guess it's an improvement from the time(s) he pretended to be black.

Nothing will ever top the time he pretended to be two guys who kind of knew one another (and may or may not have held a beer summit).

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Congrats to Chicos' kid for getting into MU.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Nothing will ever top the time he pretended to be two guys who kind of knew one another (and may or may not have held a beer summit).

give him time