Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[Jarhyn]

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.

I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.

 

[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.

I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.

Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.

Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.

My point is, I guess, that it's strange Loren, Trausti, Metaphor, et Al. rather than going "so we need to forgive loans AND make college freely accessible" instead goes "so let's not forgive the loans."

 

[Gospel]

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.

I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.

Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.

My point is, I guess, that it's strange Loren, Trausti, Metaphor, et Al. rather than going "so we need to forgive loans AND make college freely accessible" instead goes "so let's not forgive the loans."

Yeah, that does seem a little odd. It's almost as if they don't know what happens when the student can't pay the federal loan. The Feds garnish their payments as well as garnish tax returns. now considering the cost of living is high that's homelessness for many of them resulting in the loan not getting paid back anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

While it is a basically immortal household but the same economics are at work.

There are times it's worth borrowing--to obtain an appreciating/value producing asset or in dire circumstances. Other borrowing is no better for the government than it is for the household.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

They're harmed, they're just benefited more than they are harmed.

 

[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.

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

So you're not willing to address it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.

Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.

My point is, I guess, that it's strange Loren, Trausti, Metaphor, et Al. rather than going "so we need to forgive loans AND make college freely accessible" instead goes "so let's not forgive the loans."

Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.

 

[bilby]

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.

While it is a basically immortal household but the same economics are at work.

An immortal household with access to unlimited cash that it can print at will.

So the economics at work are the same apart from being completely different in most important respects.

There are times it's worth borrowing--to obtain an appreciating/value producing asset or in dire circumstances. Other borrowing is no better for the government than it is for the household.

Governments don't have any financial constraints on their spending. They can spend as many dollars as they like, without earning, borrowing, begging or stealing them from anywhere or anyone.

Governments spend on whatever they want, and then later on, if they feel it is warranted, they recoup some of the money they spent, either as taxes, or as loans (typically bond sales).

They are in EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE position to a household, where one must first obtain money, by some means (earning, borrowing, begging, theft...) and only then are able to spend anything.

This is no minor distinction.

A government that spends without doing much of anything to obtain at least some money in return from the economy will run into all kinds of problems, for sure.

But a household that does the same is a physical impossibility. Because households cannot create money from nothing, and governments can.

 

[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.

So you're not willing to address it.

I think it is such a minor issue that you are using as a distraction. Or to use a familiar phrase,you are letting the perfect get in the way of the good.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.

Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.

My point is, I guess, that it's strange Loren, Trausti, Metaphor, et Al. rather than going "so we need to forgive loans AND make college freely accessible" instead goes "so let's not forgive the loans."

Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.

Abuse of what? Learning?

I like free education. It invites a more generally livable world.

 

[Gospel]

Doxxing myself.

 

[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.

I have been banging on about the need for subsidy of periodic education for almost a decade.

Me, too only much longer. Only because I am much older than you.

My point is, I guess, that it's strange Loren, Trausti, Metaphor, et Al. rather than going "so we need to forgive loans AND make college freely accessible" instead goes "so let's not forgive the loans."

Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.

What? Are you afraid someone might learn too much??

Everything abs anything can be abused. I’m concerned about loss of academic freedom and rigor.

I personally think it should all be income based, with generous grants to help or outright provide housing, and cover fees and books. I know that will be abused as well—some families will surely find ways around any rule—declaring the student to be emancipated, etc. that stuff happened decades ago when I first went to college. Some families will be uncooperative about providing documentation of family income.

There will always be those who try and succeed at getting around rules. We cannot let striving for perfection get in the way of genuinely doing good.

There is a lot at stake. Since the Reagan administration, there has been a concerted effort to dumb down America. With the cost of undergrad education, fewer and fewer US students are going to grad school because of the cost and the lack of support enjoyed by earlier grades stations who had assistantships to help pay their way.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

It's true that the debtors will have a net benefit, as anyone would from being gifted $10,000.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.

Abuse of what? Learning?

I like free education. It invites a more generally livable world.

I saw too many students at the university who were there because their parents were paying and they saw it as easier than getting a job.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

It doesn't make that suggestion at all. "No problems"? You've had "no problems" with every single campaign promise of every president you've ever voted for, and your having voted for them is blanket endorsement of all their campaign promises? Really?

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.

Any giveaway of money could spur economic activity. A random lottery giving $10k to select adults would be more ethical, frankly, then forgiving the debts of debtors for no good reason.

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.

It isn't based on economics at all, excepting that bad debts don't benefit the person who loaned the money.

Your response simply confirms my accurate description of your position.

I don't doubt that is exactly as you perceive it.

 

[Toni]

Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.

Abuse of what? Learning?

I like free education. It invites a more generally livable world.

I saw too many students at the university who were there because their parents were paying and they saw it as easier than getting a job.

So? You’re upset that some students had parents who were well enough off to provide tuition for their kids to give them the best start in life— You think that’s a bad thing?

Do you also think vaccinations are ineffective if they don’t hurt? Medicine doesn’t work unless it tastes bad?

You are correct that many 18 year olds are not as motivated as they could be to get the most out of (fill in the blank, including youth!). They are 18. Still kids. Not very mature. It’s a biology thing.

You want to punish everyone because…they didn’t suffer as much as you did?

That’s pretty messed up.

 

[laughing dog]

Metaphor had

It doesn't make that suggestion at all.

Of course it does. Do you have even the slightest evidence that Biden voters did not approve of that promise? If not, on what empirical basis do you make your claim that those taxpayers are harmed?

"No problems"? You've had "no problems" with every single campaign promise of every president you've ever voted for, and your having voted for them is blanket endorsement of all their campaign promises? Really?

For some reason, you feel that straw man is relevant.

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.

Any giveaway of money could spur economic activity.

I can understand why the economically illiterate would think that response is relevant.

A random lottery giving $10k to select adults would be more ethical, frankly, then forgiving the debts of debtors for no good reason.

I can understand why the economically illiterate and morally challenged would think that response is relevant.

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.

It isn't based on economics at all, excepting that bad debts don't benefit the person who loaned the money.

Of course it is. I explicated it a number of times. Apparently, not only do you lack economic literacy but basic literacy as well.

 

[laughing dog]

Objection: While I do not favor making college freely accessible I do favor making it affordable. I dislike free, it invites abuse.

Abuse of what? Learning?

I like free education. It invites a more generally livable world.

I saw too many students at the university who were there because their parents were paying and they saw it as easier than getting a job.

In what world is the choice of going to school over working because school is viewed as easier is a valid reason to think that makes freely accessible education bad?

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor had

It doesn't make that suggestion at all.

Of course it does. Do you have even the slightest evidence that Biden voters did not approve of that promise?

I do know that I personally have never approved of every single policy from a leader, or even known all their policies, and so to imply I approve all of them is ludicrous. In fact, for single issue voters, they might approve only one policy.

If not, on what empirical basis do you make your claim that those taxpayers are harmed?

Some taxpayers did not vote for Biden.

"No problems"? You've had "no problems" with every single campaign promise of every president you've ever voted for, and your having voted for them is blanket endorsement of all their campaign promises? Really?

For some reason, you feel that straw man is relevant.

You don't know what a straw man is. The above is not a caricature of your position. It's a question.

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.

Any giveaway of money could spur economic activity.

I can understand why the economically illiterate would think that response is relevant.

No, you can't understand. You are claiming that if it 'spurs economic activity' tax payers won't necessarily be (net) harmed. But many giveaways of money could do that. In fact, a targeted giveaway would do it better for no more cost.

A random lottery giving $10k to select adults would be more ethical, frankly, then forgiving the debts of debtors for no good reason.

I can understand why the economically illiterate and morally challenged would think that response is relevant.

Don't be so hard on yourself.