Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[Jarhyn]

Yes, something you can take a cheap pill to counteract the effects of, and adopt to resolve the legacy effects of, after almost a decade of experience and observation as to the effects of it in direct exposure is more of a measured decision than it could ever be to enter into a nondischargeable debt that will assuredly prevent you from ever affording a home or (adopting) children.

Plenty of people with student debt have bought houses and had children. Next.

And fewer people (a vanishing minority, in fact) have buyers remorse for losing their genitals after almost a decade of consultation, than losing their financial security after a 10 minute spiel in an admissions office.

Non. Student loans don't eliminate your 'financial security'.

Define ‘plenty.’

Yes, some students we’re able to pursue university educations without incurring enormous student debt. Unfortunately too many are overburdened.

Just like plenty of people have won the lottery, plenty of people have survived jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and plenty of people walk away from a game of Russian roulette.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, something you can take a cheap pill to counteract the effects of, and adopt to resolve the legacy effects of, after almost a decade of experience and observation as to the effects of it in direct exposure is more of a measured decision than it could ever be to enter into a nondischargeable debt that will assuredly prevent you from ever affording a home or (adopting) children.

Plenty of people with student debt have bought houses and had children. Next.

And fewer people (a vanishing minority, in fact) have buyers remorse for losing their genitals after almost a decade of consultation, than losing their financial security after a 10 minute spiel in an admissions office.

Non. Student loans don't eliminate your 'financial security'.

Define ‘plenty.’

More than a single person doing it is sufficient to answer Jarhyn's lunatic claim that university debt 'assuredly prevents you' from affording a home or children.

In fact, the claim is complete nonsense and the exact opposite of the truth. People with a degree are more likely to be homeowners than people without.

Yes, some students we’re able to pursue university educations without incurring enormous student debt. Unfortunately too many are overburdened.

'Enormous', 'too many', and 'overburdened' are subjective claims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your moral arguments have faulty economic reasoning as premises as well as ridiculous moral premises.

For example,
1) you have yet to explain why it is immoral for a lender to voluntarily forgive a loan,
2) you have made the faulty assumption that taxpayers are necessarily harmed by the forgiving of a gov't loan,
are just 2 of your handwaved assertions.

You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?

You still haven't addressed my point of strategic bankruptcy.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Too many people just know the govt is a big household that spends income called tax or borrows money like they do. I mean it's just obvious like that the Sun goes around the Earth.

 

[Gospel]

You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

People whose loans were forgiven aren't taxpayers anymore? Where do I sign up?

 

[laughing dog]

Your moral arguments have faulty economic reasoning as premises as well as ridiculous moral premises.

For example,
1) you have yet to explain why it is immoral for a lender to voluntarily forgive a loan,
2) you have made the faulty assumption that taxpayers are necessarily harmed by the forgiving of a gov't loan,
are just 2 of your handwaved assertions.

You're the one that is handwaiving here. It should be obvious the taxpayers are harmed, the only question is by how much.

Another example of economic illiteracy. Whether taxpayers end up footing the bill is an empirical question, not an abtract hand-waved conclusion.

 

[laughing dog]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?

You still haven't addressed my point of strategic bankruptcy.

"Strategic" bankruptcy is a minor issue used to promote draconian anti-bankruptcy provisions of law.

 

[laughing dog]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

Should the universities and predatory lenders be on the hook for that and not the public? Why more bailouts?

How about the bizarre situation that in the USA bankruptcy does not eliminate student debt?

Firstly, no debt owed to the government - from taxes, fines, or loan repayments - can be discharged in bankruptcy.

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

Secondly, how would that solve the issue of universities exploiting students?

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

 

[Trausti]

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

No. It is true. You can’t discharge taxes, fines, or any government debt in chapters 7 or 13.

 

[Trausti]

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

So we just let the problem go on?

 

[laughing dog]

Metaphor had

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

You have "explicated" your economically illiterate reason. I guess that counts as a rationale. But is certainly not a good reason. In fact, it barely qualifies as "reason".

Your characterisation of my moral arguments as economic arguments are mischaracterisations.

Your moral arguments have faulty economic reasoning as premises as well as ridiculous moral premises.

For example,
1) you have yet to explain why it is immoral for a lender to voluntarily forgive a loan,

I've explained a dozen times. If a lender forgives a loan with her own money, that's her business. If a lender forgives a loan for no good reason with her own money, that's still her business although she is modelling a bad example about people being obligated to keep promises.

But that is economically illiterate since it ignores the potential effect on the reduction of tax liabilities on the part of the lender.

But a lender forgiving loans using other people's money (the taxpayers at the time the loan was taken out by the student) is not the same.

That is driven by the your economic illiteracy.

I made no economic arguments.

Your arguments rely on economically illiterate premises.

2) you have made the faulty assumption that taxpayers are necessarily harmed by the forgiving of a gov't loan,
are just 2 of your handwaved assertions.

Taxpayers are harmed because they were promised (by the government at the time the loans were taken out) that this was not a gift to students but a loan. Taxpayers paid for the debt and now the person who controls the debt has decided it's okay to not be repaid.

That is a combination of economic and political illiteracy. The person controlling the debt made this promise and was elected by the taxpayers. Which suggests they have no problems with the promise. Furthermore, if the forgiveness of the loans sufficiently spurs economic activity more than the activity that would have occurred with repayment, then taxpayers are better off.

That is not an economic argument. You can blather all you like about 'economic illiteracy' but you lack basic literacy.

Whatever you wish to call your position, it is based on naive and/or fundamentally bonehead economics. Your response simply confirms my accurate description of your position.

 

[laughing dog]

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

No. It is true. You can’t discharge taxes, fines, or any government debt in chapters 7 or 13.

Not according to SBA loans can be discharged in bankruptcy or SBA loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy or a myriad of other sites.

 

[laughing dog]

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

So we just let the problem go on?

Assuming there is such a problem (which you have failed to substantiate), why treat those loans any differently than loans to exploited business or individuals?

 

[Trausti]

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

No. It is true. You can’t discharge taxes, fines, or any government debt in chapters 7 or 13.

Not according to SBA loans can be discharged in bankruptcy or SBA loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy or a myriad of other sites.

The SBA is not the lender.

 

[Trausti]

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

So we just let the problem go on?

Assuming there is such a problem (which you have failed to substantiate), why treat those loans any differently than loans to exploited business or individuals?

You don’t see a problem, really? What incentive is there for universities to be more efficient and not exploit easy access to student loans if taxpayers are made to just eat it?

 

[ZiprHead]

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

No. It is true. You can’t discharge taxes, fines, or any government debt in chapters 7 or 13.

Not according to SBA loans can be discharged in bankruptcy or SBA loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy or a myriad of other sites.

The SBA is not the lender.

Sallie Mae, Bank Of America, and U.S. Bank plus many others are private student loan lenders.

 

[Toni]

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

So we just let the problem go on?

Student loan forgiveness does eliminate one problem: a heavy drag on students with significant student debt. But here you touch on something that I don’t think has been touched on before: we cannot continue funding higher education by lending 18 year olds tens of thousands of dollars each year in order to pay for their schooling.

We really do need to recommit to public funding of education, at least at the levels it was supported in the 1960’s-1970’s. In the 1970’s states provided 65% of the funding fir state universities. Today, states provide less than half of that level of funding. At the same time, the necessity of holding a university degree in order to have financial stability has increased.

Student loan forgiveness does need to happen—now. But so does a commitment on the part of states to fund state colleges and universities. Forgiving student loans is a bandaid—a temporary fix of a much larger and more complex problem.

 

[laughing dog]

Assuming there is exploitation of students by universities, it doesn't. But it would permit students to discharge their debts.

So we just let the problem go on?

Assuming there is such a problem (which you have failed to substantiate), why treat those loans any differently than loans to exploited business or individuals?

You don’t see a problem, really?

The problem I see unsubstantiated "university efficiency" obsession.

 

[laughing dog]

That is simply untrue. And the SBA can forgive loans.

No. It is true. You can’t discharge taxes, fines, or any government debt in chapters 7 or 13.

Not according to SBA loans can be discharged in bankruptcy or SBA loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy or a myriad of other sites.

The SBA is not the lender.

The SBA can forgive loans. Moreover, despite your assurances, there are plenty of sites that describe that gov't loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. For example Gov't loans can be discharged in bankruptcy