ADVERTISEMENT

Student debt

lawpoke87 said:
It’s not a coincidence this was done 2 months before the election :). “Free” stuff usually equates to votes.
Click to expand...
That’s the spin from the contras but I got curious why this is such a thing still for the progressives and Biden hasn’t retreated in the face of the larger than typical media uproar paid for by the banking lobby (yes you are being manipulated, even if you agree with what you are being told to be outraged about).

The story I got from the folks I used to work with who are still working this issue say it has nothing to do with the actual issue. There’s the typical resistance to big government Dems setting up programs to enrich their friends, sure, but it’s deeper than that.

If Biden can’t get stuff done, the margin of victory is going to be people who are pissed off about that. So he needs hides on the wall. This is one of them.

Apparently amongst independents in swing states, the reliable focus group data (not BS online polls or trolling grandma with robocalls) but where they give everyone an iPad or whatever for an afternoon of answering questions they have no idea are related in a strictly controlled environment to avoid spill over or bias, those independents, true free lances and not partisans who are just registered NPA, the data shows in 2024 that Biden won’t be judged on his age, he will be judged by whether he can get things done at his age, particularly by older more likely to vote independents in swing states. IOW, they aren’t buying votes. People are mostly going to do what they want regardless if they get free money. They are throwing money at whatever to create the appearance they got something done. Which a cynic will tell you that’s how the student loan crisis got started in the first place. Throw money to look like you’ve solved a problem and enrich your friends doing it. It also explains the half measure that doesn’t really make any one happy or prevent the problem from getting worse later.

The second thing they told me, which surprised me, is that the focus data shows most of the people with this issue high on their list are mostly already heavy dem and have loans. There’s lots of Republicans with student loans who won’t vote for their own relief, Marco Rubio being a good example. People have made up their minds on their personal situation. They have loans and they want it, they had loans paid them and don’t want it, never had loans and don’t care, and the nobody should get anything free crowd.

But apparently there’s a significant number of independents who consistently vote in swing states, folks over 60 who always go to the polls, who had their kids at 20, were empty nest in a paid off house at 40, and they’ve retired in the last few years on that equity. Their kids are 40, still have loans, no kid and no house. They are scared to death for their kids and want a solution to make it better for them. Those people see the system as broken because at least in their eyes the university system was under funded and the kids borrowed to make up the gap because politicians were too gutless to raise taxes to pay for it. In their eyes, government created the problem and government should solve. These people of course neglect to recognize that twenty years ago it is them that demanded students pay more than their fair share rather than taxes being raised to alleviate the tuition burden.

So if votes are being bought here, it’s not the idiot dance major working at Starbucks and trying to live in Manhattan next to stock brokers twice her age. It’s her grandma on Long Island and back in PA. And if so, if that’s really the data, the Republicans need to course correct on this issue quickly after the midterms. You stay on the rage through the midterms to get blue collar turn out but after that you’d better have solutions cause grandma is gonna make Uncle Sam pay for her vote. Or the Republicans pay in 2024 for arguing we should do nothing for what grandmas see as an obvious problem that is only going to get worse.
 
Last edited:
astonmartin708 said:
No, but tax cuts are a choice, to who they're going to. So the rich get a bunch and everyone else gets next to nothing.
Click to expand...
The $2T that Trump borrowed from the Chinese so give almost entirely to the wealthy is a good example. Another inflationary pressure.
 
astonmartin708 said:
No, but tax cuts are a choice, to who they're going to. So the rich get a bunch and everyone else gets next to nothing.
Click to expand...
Like those college grads who haven’t paid off their student loans opposed to the rest of the population? I’m not necessarily against a loan forgiveness program btw. I’m against a loan forgiveness program which does next to nothing to fix the ongoing problem. I also believe the Admin creating more inflationary pressure while the Fed is steering us into a recession to fight the same is bad policy. Will cause more pain for everyone except those who received the handout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane and drboobay
lawpoke87 said:
Like those college grads who haven’t paid off their student loans opposed to the rest of the population? I’m not necessarily against a loan forgiveness program btw. I’m against a loan forgiveness program which does next to nothing to fix the ongoing problem. I also believe the Admin creating more inflationary pressure while the Fed is steering us into a recession to fight the same is bad policy. Will cause more pain for everyone except those who received the handout.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that something needs to be done to treat the illness not the symptoms. I think the inflationary pressure is something we've already seen baked into our current economy. People haven't been paying for more than a year now. If anything they will have a slight bit less (than they have recently) when the repayments start again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
aTUfan said:
tax cuts let people keep more of the money they EARNED
Loan forgiveness lets people keep OTHER peoples Money; money they did NOT earn
Click to expand...
Technically, both amounts ultimately belong to the government to be used as the government sees fit (based upon our voting decisions).

If the government wants to lessen the amount of money it collects based on debts (like the tax debt you owe at the end of a paycheck, or the debt that I might owe at the end of loan increment) that is the government's decision. Both amounts were things that people EARNED, both amounts were things that they OWED for utilizing services the government provided. Whether that service be a student loan or a road that the government borrowed to fund which won't be paid off for another 40 years.
 
Last edited:
astonmartin708 said:
Technically, both amounts ultimately belong to the government to be used as the government sees fit (based upon our voting decisions).

If the government wants to lessen the amount of money it collects based on debts (like the tax debt you owe at the end of a paycheck, or the debt that I might owe at the end of loan increment) that is the government's decision. Both amounts were things that people EARNED, both amounts were things that they OWED for utilizing services the government provided. Whether that service be a student loan or a road that the government borrowed to fund which won't be paid off for another 40 years.
Click to expand...
Yes but a question is whether the President has authority to fo this on his own accord. I guess his position is that Covid emergency authority allows it. Perhaps a court will end up sorting it out.
 
astonmartin708 said:
Technically, both amounts ultimately belong to the government to be used as the government sees fit (based upon our voting decisions).

If the government wants to lessen the amount of money it collects based on debts (like the tax debt you owe at the end of a paycheck, or the debt that I might owe at the end of loan increment) that is the government's decision. Both amounts were things that people EARNED, both amounts were things that they OWED for utilizing services the government provided. Whether that service be a student loan or a road that the government borrowed to fund which won't be paid off for another 40 years.
Click to expand...
i know how you EARN money that is taxed.
How do you EARN money for a loan?
 
astonmartin708 said:
Technically, both amounts ultimately belong to the government to be used as the government sees fit (based upon our voting decisions).
Click to expand...
The wealth of the nation does not belong to the government. The government does not create wealth. It redistributes it based on the party in power's needs to maintain control.
To believe that the government owns the wealth is to believe that the government owns its citizens. Do you honestly believe that the govt owns the people?
 
lawpoke87 said:
Like those college grads who haven’t paid off their student loans opposed to the rest of the population? I’m not necessarily against a loan forgiveness program btw. I’m against a loan forgiveness program which does next to nothing to fix the ongoing problem. I also believe the Admin creating more inflationary pressure while the Fed is steering us into a recession to fight the same is bad policy. Will cause more pain for everyone except those who received the handout.
Click to expand...
So how do you suggest that state governments tackle the temptation to ignore obvious cost increases due to inflation and other overhead costs going up? That's really how this started right? Pushing the excess costs on to students in the form of loans. They aren't going to vote to increase general revenue through additional taxation and there's an expanding gap in costs that can't be covered by increasing tuition or adding costs/fees. How can you be for education and also for controlling costs/budgets? People have to get re-elected here. Telling the middle class you are going to raise taxes so you dont have to raise tuition isn't going to get you re-elected or more importantly, your friends re-elected. Going to war with university administrations in public and your donor buddies on the Regents isn't an option. Neither is finding an effective administrator to cut costs. They do. University presidents and leadership advance through expanding budgets. Pre-paid college plans are effective, but not everyone can take advantage of them or chooses to do so.
 
lawpoke87 said:
The reasons for rapidly rising college costs are many. Here’s a quick read from Forbes on the topic

www.forbes.com

A New Study Investigates Why College Tuition Is So Expensive

Over the past two decades, published college tuition has increased in price more than any other good or service besides hospital care.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
Identifying the problem and potential solutions isn't the issue. There are dozens or more people full time working the issue inside the federal government. Some of them got their job with the help of the same people who had that Forbes article written.

The issue is how do you make it politically palatable to the ruling class of your party and state legislatures? And if you do solve the problem, how to do you satisfy the hundreds of people who have made millions fighting about it for the last twenty years? What's the spin. How do you give people free stuff to fix a broken system without the bankers at risk of losing billions in interest payments spending millions to make sure the effort to solve the problem capsizes?

Being a policy drafter is easy. So is lobbying, issue advocacy, legislative process, and journalism. Or sitting at home talking to the TV and saying the problem is obvious. The value added in executive branch government is effective communicators with the skills to manage policy implementation that reaches consensus agreed measured goals and the ability to retain senior staff to do it.

So what's your message to the American people about how to control college costs without raising taxes, causing inflation, or locking out some students who can't afford it?
 
you chose to go to college.
you chose to get a loan to pay for it.
i choose that you pay it back
 
Last edited:
lawpoke87 said:
The reasons for rapidly rising college costs are many. Here’s a quick read from Forbes on the topic

www.forbes.com

A New Study Investigates Why College Tuition Is So Expensive

Over the past two decades, published college tuition has increased in price more than any other good or service besides hospital care.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
Biden today vowed to tackle the issue of rising college prices. Could just be lip service, but at least the federal gov has now acknowledge that the outstanding problem remains.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05 and lawpoke87
there are private colleges. there are state colleges. are there any federal colleges? if not, its not his function.

why doesnt he witk on a problem that is his function; the BORDER.
 
aTUfan said:
there are private colleges. there are state colleges. are there any federal colleges? if not, its not his function.

why doesnt he witk on a problem that is his function; the BORDER.
Click to expand...
Stupid.

There is federal aid. It his function. Part of funding is federal, grants & loans. That's what he is looking at, funding. You just focus on crap that makes sense only in your head.
 
Last edited:
aTUfan said:
According to the constitution, congress has the debit card, not the president.
Click to expand...
You didn’t seem to have a problem when the President was using the debit card to build a ‘big beautiful wall‘ without Congress’ approval.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: watu05
astonmartin708 said:
Biden today vowed to tackle the issue of rising college prices. Could just be lip service, but at least the federal gov has now acknowledge that the outstanding problem remains.
Click to expand...
Admittedly one driver for the tuition increases was the easy availability of student loans which fed the collective egos of universities to build and expand facilities and raise tuitions. Academic salaries…not so much. The really bad actors were the for—profit universities which depended on gaming the system particularly with vets.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: astonmartin708
aTUfan said:
According to the constitution, congress has the debit card, not the president.
Click to expand...
Like no president has ever brought up an issue, supported an issue, pushed an issue, or been involved with some of the language of a bill brought before congress. That is part of his job. Quit while you are behind. If that wasn't part of his job, then you wouldn't get to bitch about Obama Care,(and all other bill's with a presidents name affixed to it) it would only be known by it's official name of the Affordable Care Act.
 
watu05 said:
Admittedly one driver for the tuition increases was the easy availability of student loans which fed the collective egos of universities to build and expand facilities and raise tuitions. Academic salaries…not so much. The really bad actors were the for—profit universities which depended on gaming the system particularly with vets.
Click to expand...
Slow down cowboy. One of the many reasons for profit universities went into the veterans education space is because the leadership of the nation’s best universities refused to be associated with the US military due to concerns that their faculty would push back - often on both political grounds and concerns about academic reputation for having a substantial part of the student body as adult learners. Many of those schools also refused to change their academic requirements, work with accreditation authorities, or modify their lesson plans to meet the unique requirements of students all over the world working each day on our military bases. There’s external costs in that so they government made ample aid available to people trying to help educate our men and women continue their education which was disrupted when they had to go fight two war and armed conflicts in more than 20 other countries. They had to make that aid available because they needed the service now and most of the people involved were unwilling to step up so they had to offer a market competitive solution to make a for profit solution viable because the non profit solution was too pious in the faculty lounge or college message board chat. The fact that many of those schools collapsed when that aid ran out is a symptom of the original problem not the problem itself. And it allowed several not for profit schools many with religious affiliation the financial bail out they needed to avoid receivership or closure. Don’t lose sight of what the problem here is: academic administration, particularly elite universities wanted/wants a gravy train on their terms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noble cane
astonmartin708 said:
You didn’t seem to have a problem when the President was using the debit card to build a ‘big beautiful wall‘ without Congress’ approval.
Click to expand...
that money had been aproved just was being spent.

national security vs socialism. one is civered in the constitution the other isnt
 
Last edited:
HuffyCane said:
Slow down cowboy. One of the many reasons for profit universities went into the veterans education space is because the leadership of the nation’s best universities refused to be associated with the US military due to concerns that their faculty would push back - often on both political grounds and concerns about academic reputation for having a substantial part of the student body as adult learners. Many of those schools also refused to change their academic requirements, work with accreditation authorities, or modify their lesson plans to meet the unique requirements of students all over the world working each day on our military bases. There’s external costs in that so they government made ample aid available to people trying to help educate our men and women continue their education which was disrupted when they had to go fight two war and armed conflicts in more than 20 other countries. They had to make that aid available because they needed the service now and most of the people involved were unwilling to step up so they had to offer a market competitive solution to make a for profit solution viable because the non profit solution was too pious in the faculty lounge or college message board chat. The fact that many of those schools collapsed when that aid ran out is a symptom of the original problem not the problem itself. And it allowed several not for profit schools many with religious affiliation the financial bail out they needed to avoid receivership or closure. Don’t lose sight of what the problem here is: academic administration, particularly elite universities wanted/wants a gravy train on their terms.
Click to expand...
This is mostly hooey. Colleges had been happily taking the government's money for GI's for as long as the GI bill has been around.

The rise of for profit colleges was driven by a combination of support by Republicans in Congress who favored privatization of the economy in multiple sectors as well as the rise of the internet which allowed remote organizations to function.


A Hospitable Climate​

Beginning in the 1970s, an ideological shift occurred. Neoliberalism favored private-sector and marketplace over governmental solutions to various social and economic problems. The Reagan administration embraced this new ideology, appointing a commission that eventually issued a report in 1988 urging that privatization efforts move ahead swiftly as “one of the most important developments in American political and economic life.” Although the report did not specifically mention higher education, for-profits undoubtedly received a boost.

The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 provided an opportunity to put neoliberal ideals into practice. Congressional supporters, led by John Boehner, then chair of the House Education Committee, argued that for-profits provided job-oriented education in tune with the needs of both industry and students. They attempted to roll back reforms, most notably the 85–15 rule, which was modified to 90–10. The ultimate goal was to move toward a single definition of higher education with no distinction between for-profit and nonprofit institutions. Although the Republicans were unable to push through the single-definition standard, their support laid the foundation for a major industry shift and financial windfall.

During the 1990s, the structure of the industry began to change. In the past, the typical for-profit was privately held with enrollments ranging from several hundred to a few thousand. In the early 1990s, the publicly traded “supersystem college” with thousands of students in multiple locations began to emerge. In 1990, there was only one publicly traded for-profit; by the end of the decade, that number had climbed to forty, with stock offerings raising more than $4.8 billion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
When I was serving, there was a myriad of nearly free courses offered by universities, such as the University of MD. As a vet, I had zero problem using the GI bill for grad school at an academic university. Yes, during the VN war, a few universities cancelled ROTC but they made accommodations with neighboring schools or eventually reversed their positions.

Blaming non-profit academic institutions for the predatory practices and fraud by pro-profit universities such as ITT, Corinthian, and Trump University ( which alone paid a $25M settlement for fraud claims) is fantasy. Many of the biggest for-profits started, went public and grew rich because, as Willy Sutton would have put it, 'that's were the money is'.

During the 2008 financial crisis, one of the few groups hiring young sales people were Corinthian and Phoenix Universities. They sicced the sales guys on pending and new vets who had access to the GI Bill and were worried about finding jobs in the private sector. The son of one my friends took one of those jobs and left shortly afterwards in disgust.

The same process is going on in our healthcare system as private equity groups are buying and consolidating dental practices, hospitals, PT practices, clinic chains, etc. and cutting services, reducing staff and raising rates. The Wall Street Journal recently described the fraud resulting from insurance companies gaming Medicare Advantage Plans. The US spends twice what other countries do on health care, so that too is where the money is.
 
Last edited:
Pretending this stuff doesn't happen will not get it fixed nor save taxpayer money.

www.propublica.org

How Rich Investors, Not Doctors, Profit From Marking Up ER Bills

TeamHealth, a medical staffing firm owned by private-equity giant Blackstone, charges multiples more than the cost of ER care. All the money left over after covering costs goes to the company, not the doctors who treated the patients.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org

www.propublica.org

Investors Extracted $400 Million From a Hospital Chain That Sometimes Couldn’t Pay for Medical Supplies or Gas for Ambulances

Prospect Medical, which mostly serves low-income patients, has suffered a litany of problems: broken elevators, dirty surgical gear, bedbugs and more. Its owners, including Leonard Green & Partners and Prospect’s CEO, have cashed in.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org
 
Why has there been such a huge increase in student debt in the last two decades? Because states and local goverments stopped funding university education. In 2015 tuitions accounted for 25 percent of school revenue, up from 17 percent in 2003. State funding, meanwhile, plummeted from 32 percent to 23 percent during the same period. That’s a far cry from the 1970s, when state governments supplied public colleges with nearly 75 percent of their funding, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

Those who worked their way through college after WW2 through the 70s did so because the government heavily subized college education. Since Reagan the trend has been to ‘Self reliance’ and student debt.
 
Last edited:
watu05 said:
Why has there been such a huge increase in student debt in the last two decades? Because states and local goverments stopped funding university education. In 2015 tuitions accounted for 25 percent of school revenue, up from 17 percent in 2003. State funding, meanwhile, plummeted from 32 percent to 23 percent during the same period. That’s a far cry from the 1970s, when state governments supplied public colleges with nearly 75 percent of their funding, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

Those who worked their way through college after WW2 through the 70s did so because the government heavily subized college education. Since Reagan the trend has been to ‘Self reliance’ and student debt.
Click to expand...
The percent of funded revenue has dropped because cost of attendance of our universities has skyrocketed. Please look at those figures in terms of real dollars not inflated college costs. Laying the blame of student debt and not mentioning cost of attendance is disingenuous and show a basic lack of understanding of the issue. Would I like to see more government funding? Yes….on the conditions our colleges take steps to curb cost of attendance.

Take a look at the following article on some of the reasons why colleges have increased what they charge at a rate far exceeding inflation. Plentiful revenue from federal loans are the other. Taxpayers are funding these increases via direct funding (grants, etc) or through abundant federal student loans. Colleges are bloated with administrators and professors who either don’t teach or have very limited teaching responsibilities. Students (and taxpayers) are paying for all these positions.

quillette.com

Bloated College Administration Is Making Education Unaffordable

Our campuses are stuffed with non-academic office workers. If elected to Harvard’s Board of Overseers, I‘ll propose firing most of them.
quillette.com quillette.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
lawpoke87 said:
The percent of funded revenue has dropped because cost of attendance of our universities has skyrocketed. Please look at those figures in terms of real dollars not inflated college costs. Laying the blame of student debt and not mentioning cost of attendance is disingenuous and show a basic lack of understanding of the issue. Would I like to see more government funding? Yes….on the conditions our colleges take steps to curb cost of attendance.

Take a look at the following article on some of the reasons why colleges have increased what they charge at a rate far exceeding inflation. Plentiful revenue from federal loans are the other. Taxpayers are funding these increases via direct funding (grants, etc) or through abundant federal student loans. Colleges are bloated with administrators and professors who either don’t teach or have very limited teaching responsibilities. Students (and taxpayers) are paying for all these positions.

quillette.com

Bloated College Administration Is Making Education Unaffordable

Our campuses are stuffed with non-academic office workers. If elected to Harvard’s Board of Overseers, I‘ll propose firing most of them.
quillette.com quillette.com
Click to expand...
The government needs to limit the cost to %'s of overall cost, to the ratio of administrative costs. The way they can do that is to base how much federal and state aid the university is eligible for, that their students can get. Put variable figures to individual universities, based on that ratio. That will make a lot of universities pay more attention to this issue in their budget.

@HuffyCane wouldn't mind your opinion on this, and how feasible it would be for the government to put something this into action.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lawpoke87
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chris Harmon

🏈 News/Notes The extra COVID year and the Super Senior

Replies
0
Views
403
Hurricane Alley
Chris Harmon
Chris Harmon
Chris Harmon

College sports are out of control

Replies
1
Views
736
Hurricane Alley
TUMU
T
Chris Harmon

AAC Basketball Recruiting

Replies
58
Views
4K
Hurricane Alley
astonmartin708
astonmartin708
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back