Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[southernhybrid]

The bankruptcy thing is what bothers me the most. It's cruel that some older adults who live on SS are having some of their SS entitlement taken to pay off loans that they made, hoping to be better off financially. It's even more disturbing that some of these loans were made to take courses at schools that were a scam. People make mistakes all the time, and people who have been manipulated by some of these very expensive schools shouldn't be punished for their mistakes. Most older adults have enough difficulty maintaining their living expenses, but forcing them to pay off student loans is an outrage, imo.

No: SS is NOT being used to pay off student loans.

Seriously. I read that some people have had part of their SS payments used to pay off student loans. It may have been misinformation, but I'll have to check that out too be sure. Regardless, the point remains that some people are required to pay off these loans into old age, and it's cvery difficult to have them resolved through bankruptcy.

While I certainly have sympathy for those who are burdened with school loans and I'm not against helping these people out, I do think that we may be exaggerating this burden, when we live in a nation where lots of working people can't even afford housing, food or medical care. So, while this is important, there are certainly more important priorities when it comes to helping people. Sadly, most conservatives don't give a fuck about those people either. Just sayin'.

 

[Toni]

The bankruptcy thing is what bothers me the most. It's cruel that some older adults who live on SS are having some of their SS entitlement taken to pay off loans that they made, hoping to be better off financially. It's even more disturbing that some of these loans were made to take courses at schools that were a scam. People make mistakes all the time, and people who have been manipulated by some of these very expensive schools shouldn't be punished for their mistakes. Most older adults have enough difficulty maintaining their living expenses, but forcing them to pay off student loans is an outrage, imo.

No: SS is NOT being used to pay off student loans.

Seriously. I read that some people have had part of their SS payments used to pay off student loans. It may have been misinformation, but I'll have to check that out too be sure. Regardless, the point remains that some people are required to pay off these loans into old age, and it's cvery difficult to have them resolved through bankruptcy.

While I certainly have sympathy for those who are burdened with school loans and I'm not against helping these people out, I do think that we may be exaggerating this burden, when we live in a nation where lots of working people can't even afford housing, food or medical care. So, while this is important, there are certainly more important priorities when it comes to helping people. Sadly, most conservatives don't give a fuck about those people either. Just sayin'.

Ah, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I seriously doubt that anyone on SS today or in the past is paying off student loans.

I don't think we are exaggerating this burden at all. I have one offspring who has to pay off student loans for law school. That offspring is working as a public defender, which is a) a poorly paid, over-worked position with an enormous case load and b) must stay in that job for 10 years if they are to get student loan forgiveness. Now, doing this job is exactly what they said they wanted to do when they decided to go to law school. They had interned enough as an undergrad to see up close and personal just how unjust our society is towards people who had nothing, including a decent family to help raise them. I think they way the put it once was that "None of those people was ever a virgin. They were born screwed." This, btw, was always my most cynical child from adolescence onward. But I know their case load and it is brutal. And in fact, it's one of the things that is truly wrong with our justice system: An inadequate number of public defenders and who work under an enormous burden of cases. Many, perhaps most of which are related to drug charges.

Young adults today who graduate with a lot of student debt are facing enormous housing costs plus enormous costs to paying off student debt. Have you purchased a vehicle lately? Even getting a decent (not fancy: in decent shape) used car is quite expensive. In my small town, good luck finding anything better than an efficiency for under $1000 --or even a place with several room mates in a bad student rental.

Young people ARE foregoing marriage and having children because of the very high costs of housing, child care, student loans. Former co-workers told me what they had to pay per child for daycare. It was at least their entire salary: both parents need to work well paying jobs. Hearing from friends from different parts of the country, this is simply how it is, unless you have family members living nearby who are willing to look after your kids for less. In fact, this is what motivated my best friend and her husband to move to a different city: their daughter's second child turned out to be twins and the cost of daycare for 2 infants plus one toddler was more than the parents, both well paid professionals could reasonably afford. I shudder to think how anyone who begins their career as a teacher could ever afford to have their own kids.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Haw! Child care costs. The only expense that I know exists that makes me feel like I'm an economic failure because I couldn't remotely afford child care for just one child. Cost of child care isn't expensive... it is an atrocity! Wanna have both parents working... they both need to be making a healthy amount of money!

 

[ZiprHead]

The bankruptcy thing is what bothers me the most. It's cruel that some older adults who live on SS are having some of their SS entitlement taken to pay off loans that they made, hoping to be better off financially. It's even more disturbing that some of these loans were made to take courses at schools that were a scam. People make mistakes all the time, and people who have been manipulated by some of these very expensive schools shouldn't be punished for their mistakes. Most older adults have enough difficulty maintaining their living expenses, but forcing them to pay off student loans is an outrage, imo.

No: SS is NOT being used to pay off student loans.

Seriously. I read that some people have had part of their SS payments used to pay off student loans. It may have been misinformation, but I'll have to check that out too be sure. Regardless, the point remains that some people are required to pay off these loans into old age, and it's cvery difficult to have them resolved through bankruptcy.

While I certainly have sympathy for those who are burdened with school loans and I'm not against helping these people out, I do think that we may be exaggerating this burden, when we live in a nation where lots of working people can't even afford housing, food or medical care. So, while this is important, there are certainly more important priorities when it comes to helping people. Sadly, most conservatives don't give a fuck about those people either. Just sayin'.

If a parent or grandparent cosigned on the loan, yes, SS can be used to pay for the loan.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.lendingtree.com/student/social-security-garnished-student-loans/

Beware: The government can take up to 15% of your Social Security income if you default on federal student loans. And although private lenders can’t garnish your Social Security benefits, they can sue if you fall behind on payments.

There is more in the link, but I was sure I had read that SS can be garnished to pay off student loans, as long as it leaves you with at least 750 a month. I find that far more appalling compared to a young person having to pay off a student loan over the course of many years. But, as I've said several times, the fact it's so hard to get these loans forgiven due to bankruptcy, as well as making poor people pay for them well into old age is what bothers me the most. Most people who depend on SS alone, can barely get by, taking 15% of their SS entitlement to help pay off a student loan is outrageous, imo. I wish the loan forgiveness plan was based more on helping those in the lowest income levels. But, if SCOTUS overturn's Biden's plan, it's all pretty moot. I doubt the Republicans are willing to help anyone with these loans, regardless of their income.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The comment section is full of a lot of angry people who don't want anyone to have loan forgiveness. I find that surprising since most surveys claims there is over 50% support for student loan forgiveness. The article should be available for anyone to read for at least two weeks, according to WaPo's gifting rules.

Includes a bit of resentment from people who endured crippling student debt and don't like the thought of other people getting out easy.

The problem is people who suffered being responsible dislike seeing others get rewarded for irresponsibility.

That makes as much sense as begrudging children the measles vaccine because you suffered the disease as a child. And is less mature.

No. Your example is completely off target.

The problem is that this policy favors irresponsiblity to the detriment of those who are responsible.

Did you ever consider that your degree would not be nearly so valuable if everyone followed the same academic path you followed? There would be an over abundance of computer scientists. You’d be bussing tables to make ends meet.

Lots of people had a much rougher time than you or I did, for reasons that were not their fault.

What does society gain from not providing basic necessities to its people—except an out of touch arrogant ruling class and it’s enablers and hangers on?

The issue is those who chose a path of irresponsibility. Not those forced into it.

Those of us who live below our means very much dislike being repeatedly asked to bail out those who live above their means. Why should responsibility be punished?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not against the Biden loan forgiveness, but I have a few friends who never went to college, who always vote for the Democrats, who are very resentful that some people might get loan forgiveness, if Biden's plan survives. I would prefer that loan forgiveness be given first to those who need it the most, who were victims of scams and who are having a difficult time finding jobs in their chosen career fields. If nothing else, the idea that when one declares bankruptcy, their student loans don't apply is wrong, imo. Why should student loans be considered any differently than any other debt? Maybe it would have been better if Biden had simply attempted to change that ruling, for starters.

I favor cancelling the loans of the students who were scammed. They're victims.

The reason they aren't dischargeable is that if they were you would see a rash of strategic bankruptcies. A newly graduated student would have a huge debt, no income, no assets--chapter 7 time. The whole system would fall apart if that were allowed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So? Those people can fuck right off.

The progressive distain for personal responsibility shines on.

Yup. Accountability can only be fair or reasonable in a system that also makes equal opportunity a paramount virtue. In a country where some people can laugh off the cost of college education as a minor expense while for others it is the second greatest financial risk they will ever have the opportunity to take, "responsibility" is just a word. True responsibility is measured by how you use the things you have, not how much you have.

No. What you are missing is that there are a fair number of people that no matter how much they make they spend whatever they make. They don't work on paying down debt, they don't put money aside for problems. And then they scream when the inevitable bill comes along they can't afford.

We see it with condo associations, also--people don't want to pay the monthly costs associated with keeping the reserves at proper levels, and then scream when the entirely predictable special assessment comes along that should have been paid for by those reserves that weren't being kept.

 

[Toni]

The comment section is full of a lot of angry people who don't want anyone to have loan forgiveness. I find that surprising since most surveys claims there is over 50% support for student loan forgiveness. The article should be available for anyone to read for at least two weeks, according to WaPo's gifting rules.

Includes a bit of resentment from people who endured crippling student debt and don't like the thought of other people getting out easy.

The problem is people who suffered being responsible dislike seeing others get rewarded for irresponsibility.

That makes as much sense as begrudging children the measles vaccine because you suffered the disease as a child. And is less mature.

No. Your example is completely off target.

The problem is that this policy favors irresponsiblity to the detriment of those who are responsible.

Did you ever consider that your degree would not be nearly so valuable if everyone followed the same academic path you followed? There would be an over abundance of computer scientists. You’d be bussing tables to make ends meet.

Lots of people had a much rougher time than you or I did, for reasons that were not their fault.

What does society gain from not providing basic necessities to its people—except an out of touch arrogant ruling class and it’s enablers and hangers on?

The issue is those who chose a path of irresponsibility. Not those forced into it.

Those of us who live below our means very much dislike being repeatedly asked to bail out those who live above their means. Why should responsibility be punished?

So, your main point is that anyone who makes different decisions than you did is irresponsible. Got it.

The fact that you live below your means is only virtuous because you *can* afford to live below your means. Because you chose a career path which, at the time you chose it, allowed you to earn a better than average income. Oh, and you married a physician. And don’t have children. Pretty easy to live below your means in such circumstances.

Of course, if everyone chose your career path, your line of work would not likely pay nearly so well as it does.

A lot of people live below their means and still manage to feel some compassion and recognize the justice in relieving GENERATIONS of people from the burden of predatory loans assumed when they were not old enough to legally consume alcoholic beverages. Some of us even paid for all or most of our own kids’ college education and STILL think that student loan forgiveness is fair and necessary and just and the right thing to do.

Maybe they ought to start requiring people who pursue degrees in computer science to also take course work/volunteer with people living in poverty or some other type of work in order to help them develop their compassion and ability to feel some empathy for other people.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not against the Biden loan forgiveness, but I have a few friends who never went to college, who always vote for the Democrats, who are very resentful that some people might get loan forgiveness, if Biden's plan survives. I would prefer that loan forgiveness be given first to those who need it the most, who were victims of scams and who are having a difficult time finding jobs in their chosen career fields. If nothing else, the idea that when one declares bankruptcy, their student loans don't apply is wrong, imo. Why should student loans be considered any differently than any other debt? Maybe it would have been better if Biden had simply attempted to change that ruling, for starters.

I favor cancelling the loans of the students who were scammed. They're victims.

The reason they aren't dischargeable is that if they were you would see a rash of strategic bankruptcies. A newly graduated student would have a huge debt, no income, no assets--chapter 7 time. The whole system would fall apart if that were allowed.

The system was not falling down before student debt was dischargeable, so your concern seems a bit reactionary.

If my recollection is accurate, there were anecdotes about lawyers and doctors declaring bankruptcy to discharge their law and medical school debt.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not against the Biden loan forgiveness, but I have a few friends who never went to college, who always vote for the Democrats, who are very resentful that some people might get loan forgiveness, if Biden's plan survives. I would prefer that loan forgiveness be given first to those who need it the most, who were victims of scams and who are having a difficult time finding jobs in their chosen career fields. If nothing else, the idea that when one declares bankruptcy, their student loans don't apply is wrong, imo. Why should student loans be considered any differently than any other debt? Maybe it would have been better if Biden had simply attempted to change that ruling, for starters.

I favor cancelling the loans of the students who were scammed. They're victims.

The reason they aren't dischargeable is that if they were you would see a rash of strategic bankruptcies. A newly graduated student would have a huge debt, no income, no assets--chapter 7 time. The whole system would fall apart if that were allowed.

As I understand it, the student loans are made more difficult to discharge than other kinds of loans. Do you have an explanation for why that is? Are people who fund their education through loans more likely to be irresponsible than others? The people being forgiven their loans now are not newly graduated. The difficulty of discharging the loans is not tailored to just newly minted graduates. The excessive burden on the person with the loan obligation lasts a lifetime.

 

[Rhea]

Those of us who live below our means very much dislike being repeatedly asked to bail out those who live above their means. Why should responsibility be punished?

Those of us who live below our means ARE FINE WITH helping society. Being capable of living responsibly is a privilege that we did not entirely earn Through rugged individualism. And some payback to society is a small debt to shoulder.


And even though I would personally prefer that we create a trade education system first, I am FINE with legislation that helps our people who are paying higher prices for school that got there because of decreased federal funding and egregious interest rates.

A lot of people live below their means and still manage to feel some compassion and recognize the justice in relieving GENERATIONS of people from the burden of predatory loans assumed when they were not old enough to legally consume alcoholic beverages. Some of us even paid for all or most of our own kids’ college education and STILL think that student loan forgiveness is fair and necessary and just and the right thing to do.

Indeed. I paid for my own college, and I lived below my means to pay for my kids’ college, and I retain empathy for others who did not have the head start that I had or that I gave my kids.


I would like to target those who went to public schools first - and index the help to start with, “society will help cover the cost of a public school education.” But my empathy keeps my mind and ears open for what is next.



And from a coldly pragmatic standpoint, failing to bail out people who have made mistakes that put them in dire circumstances would put me in the position of having to live among people in dire circumstances. I prefer safety over righteousness.

 

[Politesse]

So? Those people can fuck right off.

The progressive distain for personal responsibility shines on.

Yup. Accountability can only be fair or reasonable in a system that also makes equal opportunity a paramount virtue. In a country where some people can laugh off the cost of college education as a minor expense while for others it is the second greatest financial risk they will ever have the opportunity to take, "responsibility" is just a word. True responsibility is measured by how you use the things you have, not how much you have.

No. What you are missing is that there are a fair number of people that no matter how much they make they spend whatever they make. They don't work on paying down debt, they don't put money aside for problems. And then they scream when the inevitable bill comes along they can't afford.

We see it with condo associations, also--people don't want to pay the monthly costs associated with keeping the reserves at proper levels, and then scream when the entirely predictable special assessment comes along that should have been paid for by those reserves that weren't being kept.

If all I'm missing is a bunch of nonsense, I reckon I'm not missing much. Wealth inequality in this nation is a lot steeper than keeping a slightly bigger piggy bank could fix -- especially if a college degree is something you'd like to pursue during your lifetime.

 

[Copernicus]

Back in the 1970s, there was apparently a lot of concern that those of us with government-backed student loans would use bankruptcy as an excuse to get out from under the debt burden. (I had such a (NDEA) loan from the 1960s, but I had half of the debt forgiven by spending years in teaching jobs and consequently had repayment deferred. I paid off my debt easily, despite my low salary.) However, the government very sensibly addressed the hysteria over students gaming the system with early bankruptcy by delaying debt discharge through bankruptcy for five years. In subsequent administrations, the delay was lengthened. Under George H.W. Bush, it was totally eliminated, making it a lifetime burden. There never was any factual support for the hysteria, as bankruptcy only affected about 1% of the loans in the early days. Nowadays, large numbers of seniors who have financial difficulty repaying their loans find that they do not qualify for discharge under bankruptcy.

For a brief history of the evolution of the bankruptcy discharge issue, see:

History of Student Loans: Bankruptcy Discharge​

 

[lpetrich]

Looking at that kind of outrage, I think that one could turn right-wingers against government military and police forces by saying that self-protectors should not have to finance the protection of people too lazy to protect themselves.

 

[Copernicus]

Looking at that kind of outrage, I think that one could turn right-wingers against government military and police forces by saying that self-protectors should not have to finance the protection of people too lazy to protect themselves.

You would expect that kind of argument from at least a few dyed-in-the-wool libertarians, but they seem to usually argue that that is the one government extravagance that they can't do without, even though they also seem to want to arm themselves against the military and police that they vote vast sums of money to build up. It's also hard to find Democrats who won't vote for more military and security spending, but they, at least, aren't treating gun ownership as a sacred right to be valued above all others.

 

[lpetrich]

In fairness to right-wingers, they sometimes make that argument about Europe, that the US should not be paying big sums of money to defend Europeans who will not contribute enough to their self-defense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, your main point is that anyone who makes different decisions than you did is irresponsible. Got it.

The main point is they expect to avoid the consequences of their choices.

The fact that you live below your means is only virtuous because you *can* afford to live below your means. Because you chose a career path which, at the time you chose it, allowed you to earn a better than average income. Oh, and you married a physician. And don’t have children. Pretty easy to live below your means in such circumstances.

Of course, if everyone chose your career path, your line of work would not likely pay nearly so well as it does.

We've known plenty of people who make more and still basically live paycheck to paycheck. Overspending played a role in the death of her former boss.

A lot of people live below their means and still manage to feel some compassion and recognize the justice in relieving GENERATIONS of people from the burden of predatory loans assumed when they were not old enough to legally consume alcoholic beverages. Some of us even paid for all or most of our own kids’ college education and STILL think that student loan forgiveness is fair and necessary and just and the right thing to do.

Someone who got a decent degree will be in a better position even with having to make loan payments.

I do support forgiveness for those who were scammed, but going forward I would like to see money going to making community college and the local university more affordable. That will actually get more people in college than whatever is done for those who have finished their schooling.

I also support tying student loan payments to income--cap required payments at some % of AGI above the poverty line--based on the student's return even if somebody else signed for them.

Maybe they ought to start requiring people who pursue degrees in computer science to also take course work/volunteer with people living in poverty or some other type of work in order to help them develop their compassion and ability to feel some empathy for other people.

You can have empathy without feeling the need to bail them out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not against the Biden loan forgiveness, but I have a few friends who never went to college, who always vote for the Democrats, who are very resentful that some people might get loan forgiveness, if Biden's plan survives. I would prefer that loan forgiveness be given first to those who need it the most, who were victims of scams and who are having a difficult time finding jobs in their chosen career fields. If nothing else, the idea that when one declares bankruptcy, their student loans don't apply is wrong, imo. Why should student loans be considered any differently than any other debt? Maybe it would have been better if Biden had simply attempted to change that ruling, for starters.

I favor cancelling the loans of the students who were scammed. They're victims.

The reason they aren't dischargeable is that if they were you would see a rash of strategic bankruptcies. A newly graduated student would have a huge debt, no income, no assets--chapter 7 time. The whole system would fall apart if that were allowed.

As I understand it, the student loans are made more difficult to discharge than other kinds of loans. Do you have an explanation for why that is? Are people who fund their education through loans more likely to be irresponsible than others? The people being forgiven their loans now are not newly graduated. The difficulty of discharging the loans is not tailored to just newly minted graduates. The excessive burden on the person with the loan obligation lasts a lifetime.

Did you not see the word "strategic"??

I'm not saying they're more irresponsible or anything. I'm saying that at the time someone graduates they typically have little or no income, little or no assets and a big debt. That makes a pre-planned Chapter 7 look very tempting. It's like in the housing collapse we saw a wave of strategic foreclosures in non-recourse states. Borrowers decided it was worth trashing their credit in exchange for getting rid of a house that was way, way underwater. (And lenders came to recognize that one big thing on an otherwise-good credit report generally did not represent that big a credit risk.)

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not against the Biden loan forgiveness, but I have a few friends who never went to college, who always vote for the Democrats, who are very resentful that some people might get loan forgiveness, if Biden's plan survives. I would prefer that loan forgiveness be given first to those who need it the most, who were victims of scams and who are having a difficult time finding jobs in their chosen career fields. If nothing else, the idea that when one declares bankruptcy, their student loans don't apply is wrong, imo. Why should student loans be considered any differently than any other debt? Maybe it would have been better if Biden had simply attempted to change that ruling, for starters.

I favor cancelling the loans of the students who were scammed. They're victims.

The reason they aren't dischargeable is that if they were you would see a rash of strategic bankruptcies. A newly graduated student would have a huge debt, no income, no assets--chapter 7 time. The whole system would fall apart if that were allowed.

As I understand it, the student loans are made more difficult to discharge than other kinds of loans. Do you have an explanation for why that is? Are people who fund their education through loans more likely to be irresponsible than others? The people being forgiven their loans now are not newly graduated. The difficulty of discharging the loans is not tailored to just newly minted graduates. The excessive burden on the person with the loan obligation lasts a lifetime.

Did you not see the word "strategic"??

Yes, I did. That was a concern back in the 1960s and 1970s, when I had such a loan and had to manage repaying it. The remedy back then was to put a moratorium on bankruptcy discharge for five years after graduation. I addressed this in a later post on the history of the discharge issue. It wasn't until the HW Bush administration that the discharge restriction was made permanent, when the issue was no longer about strategic bankruptcies but keeping the unfair leash that banks had on this particular group of borrowers in place for the rest of their lives. I'm sure it helped those legislators with raising donations for their campaigns, because banks like to reward politicians who do them favors.

I'm not saying they're more irresponsible or anything. I'm saying that at the time someone graduates they typically have little or no income, little or no assets and a big debt. That makes a pre-planned Chapter 7 look very tempting. It's like in the housing collapse we saw a wave of strategic foreclosures in non-recourse states. Borrowers decided it was worth trashing their credit in exchange for getting rid of a house that was way, way underwater. (And lenders came to recognize that one big thing on an otherwise-good credit report generally did not represent that big a credit risk.)

Did you not read my subsequent post on the history of the discharge issue? Strategic bankruptcies are real and especially useful to very rich people who can afford the lawyers to drag out claims in bankruptcy courts. They simply don't explain why the extra discharge burden remains in place long after the "time someone graduates" and they "typically have little or no income, little or no assets and a big debt". It is currently hitting a lot of aging people who are gainfully employed and even retired. Your argument does not apply anymore.