Student debt

[HuffyCane]

The article makes a lot of presumptions and he clearly lacks a basic understanding of how modern universities operate and engage in decision making. But bomb throwing sometimes has its place. It doesn’t here.

He’d like to reduce admin levels by 90%, ok. Let’s talk about that. Who are we cutting? Can you get down to a 90% reduction and not impact IT operations? Food service? Landscaping? Those functions, using the metric proposed, measure one to one with the folks being paid $150,000 a year to organize pajama parties in the dorm. I get it he wants to fire the party planners. That’s not a lot of fat. Harvard employs more than 100 people in fundraising alone. ALL of them raise millions for the school and far beyond their overhead costs. We cutting those folks? You keep them and you are getting close to 10% quick. Food service, janitorial services, a lot of those workers go back decades and are multigenerational. Most made minimum wage, both at Harvard and TU until recently. You letting the lunch lady go?

Let’s say we can get down to 50% just for the sake of discussion. How do we cut further without cutting into the legal department’s and risk managements litigation defense complex? Office of Violence Prevention, Student Health Center, 24/7 sworn police, DEI, the list is endless. Most of these functions have a substantive purpose but they are also closely tied with an organizational foundation upon which a legal defense is built when a school like Harvard with billions in the bank must defend itself, often from its own students, but also others looking for a deep pocket and free lunch. It is also closely tied with messaging and communications. Shall we discuss Mizzou’s admissions numbers the last five years, near bankruptcy, state bail out due in part to their failure to properly fund DEI and then bungling the messaging once that became an issue on campus? The school will take decades to recover.

The lion’s share of admin functions boils down to raising money, providing services necessary to remain competitive in the admission/tuition game, staff a program after a major gift, and critical services necessary to defend lawsuits.

Raise money, Raise Tuition, Defend The Endowment. There’s a lot of people who take a look at billion dollar companies and say you need to fund those functions (revenue production and finance) fully before you add an obscure low demand product on the production side like overpaying for someone to teach ancient Portuguese dialects or whatever that nobody will buy and is a net loss.

This guy probably has an unspoken ax to grind with DEI programs. The reality is that prospective students demand them and you can’t effectively recruit without them, roughly a third or more of your students will require or request or participate in their services, and you could go bankrupt overnight without them.

For the curious, TU has a 50/50 balance on faculty to staff roughly. About 700 on each side. That won’t be going up soon and is dramatically lower in some functions than our peers.

Universities aren’t just a business. They are semi autonomous almost living beings. And like kids and governments, they can bankrupt you. But you need them and you find a way to pay for it.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The article makes a lot of presumptions and he clearly lacks a basic understanding of how modern universities operate and engage in decision making. But bomb throwing sometimes has its place. It doesn’t here.

He’d like to reduce admin levels by 90%, ok. Let’s talk about that. Who are we cutting? Can you get down to a 90% reduction and not impact IT operations? Food service? Landscaping? Those functions, using the metric proposed, measure one to one with the folks being paid $150,000 a year to organize pajama parties in the dorm. I get it he wants to fire the party planners. That’s not a lot of fat. Harvard employs more than 100 people in fundraising alone. ALL of them raise millions for the school and far beyond their overhead costs. We cutting those folks? You keep them and you are getting close to 10% quick. Food service, janitorial services, a lot of those workers go back decades and are multigenerational. Most made minimum wage, both at Harvard and TU until recently. You letting the lunch lady go?

Let’s say we can get down to 50% just for the sake of discussion. How do we cut further without cutting into the legal department’s and risk managements litigation defense complex? Office of Violence Prevention, Student Health Center, 24/7 sworn police, DEI, the list is endless. Most of these functions have a substantive purpose but they are also closely tied with an organizational foundation upon which a legal defense is built when a school like Harvard with billions in the bank must defend itself, often from its own students, but also others looking for a deep pocket and free lunch. It is also closely tied with messaging and communications. Shall we discuss Mizzou’s admissions numbers the last five years, near bankruptcy, state bail out and their failure to properly fund DEI and then bungling the messaging once that became an issue on campus? The school will take decades to recover.

The lion’s share of admin functions boils down to raising money, providing services necessary to remain competitive in the admission/tuition game, staff a program after a major gift, and critical services necessary to defend lawsuits.

Raise money, Raise Tuition, Defend The Endowment. There’s a lot of people who take a look at billion dollar companies and say you need to fund those functions (revenue production and finance) fully before you add an obscure low demand product on the production side like overpaying for someone to teach ancient Portuguese dialects or whatever that nobody will buy and is a net loss.

This guy probably has an unspoken ax to grind with DEI programs. The reality is that prospective students demand them and you can’t effectively recruit without them, roughly a third or more of your students will require or request or participate in their services, and you could go bankrupt overnight without them.

For the curious, TU has a 50/50 balance on faculty to staff roughly. About 700 on each side. That won’t be going up soon and is dramatically lower in some functions than our peers.

Universities aren’t just a business. They are semi autonomous almost living beings. And like kids and governments, they can bankrupt you. But you need them and you find a way to pay for it.

So you think the majority of administrative costs are justifiable and necessary? By the way, I was thinking more along the lines of a cut of 10-25% of administrative expenditures, not 50-90%

 

[lawpoke87]

90% is obviously too high. My question…if Admin costs are reasonable and have been in place for decades then why has the cost of attendance increased at the rate we’ve seen over the last 20 plus years?

 

[aTUfan]

ways to cut student debt:
1. get a scholorship
2. work and save for college.
3. go to community college.
4. dont buy a car with your loan

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Speaking of education, some students are gonna be upset if they've gotta take it again.

 

[HuffyCane]

So you think the majority of administrative costs are justifiable and necessary? By the way, I was thinking more along the lines of a cut of 10-25% of administrative expenditures, not 50-90%

Can’t speak for Harvard, but TU is lean. Too lean and could use strategic investment in certain functions to increase non-tuition revenue, improve undergraduate retention, reinvigorate the law school, and re-acquire a competitive market share of international students.

An admissions counselor making $50,000 who is assigned to process interest from students abroad makes no sense if they are passive and only 5 apply a year and the net tuition after cost of attendance is less than $50,000 total. A Dean of World Outreach and International Programs that gets paid $250,000 as a former high level diplomat that goes out and inks deals with foreign governments that nets millions for the school makes a lot of sense. But if you ask guys like the one that wrote the article which function should be cut, he will say there are too many deans.

Don’t get me wrong. I spend a lot of time over on the pay board talking about shared governance between admin, faculty, and trustees. Trustees perform an invaluable function contributing to an atmosphere of internal accountability while fostering community ties. Guys like this one are a good example of why trustees should never run a university and when their voices become oversized or they venture into roles they have no business performing, there is a loss of alignment and devastating damage can be done.

You wanna cut 25% of admin? How much of that is athletics? Cause that’s counted as admin on many campuses.

 

[HuffyCane]

90% is obviously too high. My question…if Admin costs are reasonable and have been in place for decades then why has the cost of attendance increased at the rate we’ve seen over the last 20 plus years?

They haven’t always been in place for decades. The IT department didn’t exist in 1990 or was a stand alone computer lab with a few low cost personal computers and a printer. Now it’s a 24/7 operation with Wi-Fi, network, help desk, and on some campus a repair shop. Any school with a brain must fund a robust cybersecurity framework that is around the clock protecting the network but also training and messaging staff and students on worldwide threats. One idiot faculty member on study abroad on the wrong public Wi-Fi with their phone can cause multimillion dollars worth of damage, loss of reputation and student privacy lawsuits stretching out decades. And that’s before we talk avoit the state and non state actors affiliated with competitors and adversaries like Russia and China who try to exploit universities networks around the clock.

In 1997, the health clinic on a college campus is where you went if you had a sore throat or the flu and wanted to see a nurse. Now it’s not only an urgent care center with doctors, but a mental health clinic, sexual health outreach effort, rape crisis response unit, Asperbergers/Autism accommodation facility, etc. And kids will go elsewhere if you don’t have it.

There are multiple reasons for the increased costs: unfunded faculty pensions, over promised employee benefits, poor management, government money interfering with the market, outright greed and graft on fearful and vulnerable and self obsessed parents, etc. But mainly it’s spending to remain competitive and pay off the constituencies that keep you in business and power as an administrator. If you’ve got $2 billion in the back and everyone knows it, then the students expect a palace resort and the faculty expect top dollar, both cause runaway costs. If kids won’t pay it and the school can’t raise it and the market is down, you turn to government to make up the costs. Depending on the party in power and economic/national security needs, that’s been either grants, giveaways and pork or loans or tuition hikes or tax free savings plans.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Can’t speak for Harvard, but TU is lean. Too lean and could use strategic investment in certain functions to increase non-tuition revenue, improve undergraduate retention, reinvigorate the law school, and re-acquire a competitive market share of international students.

An admissions counselor making $50,000 who is assigned to process interest from students abroad makes no sense if they are passive and only 5 apply a year and the net tuition after cost of attendance is less than $50,000 total. A Dean of World Outreach and International Programs that gets paid $250,000 as a former high level diplomat that goes out and inks deals with foreign governments that nets millions for the school makes a lot of sense. But if you ask guys like the one that wrote the article which function should be cut, he will say there are too many deans.

Don’t get me wrong. I spend a lot of time over on the pay board talking about shared governance between admin, faculty, and trustees. Trustees perform an invaluable function contributing to an atmosphere of internal accountability while fostering community ties. Guys like this one are a good example of why trustees should never run a university and when their voices become oversized or they venture into roles they have no business performing, there is a loss of alignment and devastating damage can be done.

You wanna cut 25% of admin? How much of that is athletics? Cause that’s counted as admin on many campuses.

That 10-25% is variable at different universities, second it should be tied to overall cost of the university, and third I would say it should that % should be tied to studies that I haven't had the chance to read. Overall, I'd have to see a study on universities across the nation to say where the base percentage(to move up and down on in small increments) would be.

Maybe 10% would be to low to start out at, maybe 25% would be too high. Maybe not. I'd just have to read the studies to know that. But that lesser range would be where I'd start at before reading the studies.(not 50-90%)

So do you think TU just needs to rearrange some of its administrative costs, or raise them.

 

[HuffyCane]

That 10-25% is variable at different universities, second it should be tied to overall cost of the university, and third I would say it should that % should be tied to studies that I haven't had the chance to read. Overall, I'd have to see a study on universities across the nation to say where the base percentage(to move up and down on in small increments) would be.

Maybe 10% would be to low to start out at, maybe 25% would be too high. Maybe not. I'd just have to read the studies to know that. But that lesser range would be where I'd start at before reading the studies.(not 50-90%)

So do you think TU just needs to rearrange some of its administrative costs, or raise them.

TU needs to let the Carson team reallocate administrative resources to reduce waste, produce revenue, and create a synergetic effect. They have been doing that and the effects, in some ways, are starting to net results.

Cutting for cuttings sake makes no sense. This isn’t corporate America. There’s no short term stock price to goose. And cutting in the wrong areas can devastate production from your primary unrestricted income source - tuition paid beyond cost of education.

You got to bolster areas that are net generators like fundraising, then cap programs that are revenue spenders but without effecting consumer perceptions. It’s a tightrope.

TU could and should spend about 10% to 15% more on certain areas that net income, remove leadership and reorganize other areas that are net losers, and look for low cost off campus local alternatives for certain services. Carson is doing a lot of this while keeping staffing the same.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

That 10-25% is variable at different universities, second it should be tied to overall cost of the university, and third I would say it should that % should be tied to studies that I haven't had the chance to read. Overall, I'd have to see a study on universities across the nation to say where the base percentage(to move up and down on in small increments) would be.

Maybe 10% would be to low to start out at, maybe 25% would be too high. Maybe not. I'd just have to read the studies to know that. But that lesser range would be where I'd start at before reading the studies.(not 50-90%)

So do you think TU just needs to rearrange some of its administrative costs, or raise them.

@HuffyCane

cont...
I say variable at different universities because you don't want to force our universities to the mean. We don't want to go from having a small percentage of really good universities, to an almost all encompassing group of average universities. That would be criminal to force all universities to the mean. That would mean placing schools in categories.

 

[HuffyCane]

@HuffyCane

cont...
I say variable at different universities because you don't want to force our universities to the mean. We don't want to go from having a small percentage of really good universities, to an almost all encompassing group of average universities. That would be criminal to force all universities to the mean. That would mean placing schools in categories.

The spending has to fit the mission of the school. Having a Dean of International Students at Central Texas Community College makes no sense and should be cut if the only reason it exists is because the President wants it to become Central Texas University so they can move up to a better gig.

 

[drboobay]

Sales is the life blood of most organizations and for universities I presume that equates to fund raisers and student recruiters. Of course they also need an attractive product or service to sell (or at least one that APPEARS attractive)!

 

[astonmartin708]

They haven’t always been in place for decades. The IT department didn’t exist in 1990 or was a stand alone computer lab with a few low cost personal computers and a printer. Now it’s a 24/7 operation with Wi-Fi, network, help desk, and on some campus a repair shop. Any school with a brain must fund a robust cybersecurity framework that is around the clock protecting the network but also training and messaging staff and students on worldwide threats. One idiot faculty member on study abroad on the wrong public Wi-Fi with their phone can cause multimillion dollars worth of damage, loss of reputation and student privacy lawsuits stretching out decades. And that’s before we talk avoit the state and non state actors affiliated with competitors and adversaries like Russia and China who try to exploit universities networks around the clock.

In 1997, the health clinic on a college campus is where you went if you had a sore throat or the flu and wanted to see a nurse. Now it’s not only an urgent care center with doctors, but a mental health clinic, sexual health outreach effort, rape crisis response unit, Asperbergers/Autism accommodation facility, etc. And kids will go elsewhere if you don’t have it.

There are multiple reasons for the increased costs: unfunded faculty pensions, over promised employee benefits, poor management, government money interfering with the market, outright greed and graft on fearful and vulnerable and self obsessed parents, etc. But mainly it’s spending to remain competitive and pay off the constituencies that keep you in business and power as an administrator. If you’ve got $2 billion in the back and everyone knows it, then the students expect a palace resort and the faculty expect top dollar, both cause runaway costs. If kids won’t pay it and the school can’t raise it and the market is down, you turn to government to make up the costs. Depending on the party in power and economic/national security needs, that’s been either grants, giveaways and pork or loans or tuition hikes or tax free savings plans.

No one, and I mean no one, was choosing their school for the rape counseling services on campus… if anything, the fact that such a thing might be needed makes the university look worse. Probably not something you want to advertise in the pamphlets lol.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The spending has to fit the mission of the school. Having a Dean of International Students at Central Texas Community College makes no sense and should be cut if the only reason it exists is because the President wants it to become Central Texas University so they can move up to a better gig.

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.

That 10-25% is variable at different universities, second it should be tied to overall cost of the university, and third I would say it should that % should be tied to studies that I haven't had the chance to read. Overall, I'd have to see a study on universities across the nation to say where the base percentage(to move up and down on in small increments) would be.

Maybe 10% would be to low to start out at, maybe 25% would be too high. Maybe not. I'd just have to read the studies to know that. But that lesser range would be where I'd start at before reading the studies.(not 50-90%)

So do you think TU just needs to rearrange some of its administrative costs, or raise them.

@HuffyCane

cont...
I say variable at different universities because you don't want to force our universities to the mean. We don't want to go from having a small percentage of really good universities, to an almost all encompassing group of average universities. That would be criminal to force all universities to the mean. That would mean placing schools in categories.

I don't think you quite understood that my post was referring to my former posts above. In my first above quoted post I proposed a system. In a system like I proposed, I was referring to how much federal & state aid would be allotted to individual universities as a reward or penalty for the university, that would be given to their students that year.(maybe take that ratio every 5 years, and reallot aid awards) That would be based on how much the ratio of total cost was to the administrative costs.

If they admitted them to the school, they would be required to keep that commitment, if the student decided to attend the university. That way the school wouldn't be able to pick and choose students based on how little aid they were given. This way the awards would be based on the financial situation of the students, but when the schools allotment ran out, they wouldn't be able to give anymore students aid. That way they couldn't offer them lesser aid in order to see how many students would pay the remainder. School scholarships would have to be offered first, with a guarantee of the $ amount, before the financial aid was awarded. Such that the school would be required to cut or increase enrollment, based on how good or bad their total cost/administrative cost ratio was.

When I said variable, I was stipulating that there would be different categories of regulations for different types of schools,(better ratios allowed for the school) such that we didn't force our better schools to homogenize themselves down to an average school. This is the point I was making above, the school would be the ones deciding what cuts to make. This would just be there as a protective measure to ensure that we didn't lose quality in our better schools. The government would just be using this as a tool to cut excessive overall costs of going to school.

 

[HuffyCane]

Sales is the life blood of most organizations and for universities I presume that equates to fund raisers and student recruiters. Of course they also need an attractive product or service to sell (or at least one that APPEARS attractive)!

It’s less about sales as it is leveraging the perceived value provided to customers. You have to give the same experience/value to students whether they are paying full price, getting aid, or been granted a tuition discount. For private schools, nearly all of them will eventually go under unless some people are asked to pay more so others can go for free. And that’s really the rub isn’t it. People aren’t dumb, the ones paying know they are being told to pay extra to essentially put their kid through school and part of another kid. In good times, if the value is there, parents are ok with that. Some even welcome it as a bit of a status enhancer. When times are tough, like now, during a time when parents have begun to question the value of a degree in the marketplace and the value of a university experience when kids are increasingly boomeranging back home and resemble nothing like the child that left, then you aren’t selling the school, you are selling the idea that your credential has a tangible/intangible value sufficiently high to overcome the subjective concerns of each parent who is writing a check. It has little to do with selling the school or recruiting talent. It’s closer to marketing ROI. The remainder of the recruiting pool is largely making their decision based upon external factors beyond your control so any “sales” to them is deemphasized. That’s the idea anyway, at least amongst the people who actually watch how the bills are paid.

 

[aTUfan]

you chose to go to a college and incure a large debt so why do i have to pay for it.
i paid for my children's college and now contributing to my grandkids. its your turn to return the favor. send your money to me at kissmyaxx.com

 

[aTUfan]

all student debt forgiven by biden should count as income and be taxed

 

[Gmoney4WW]

all student debt forgiven by biden should count as income and be taxed

Yeah tax all of it in one year, and require them to pay it all up front. You are such a toad.

 

[aTUfan]

Yeah tax all of it in one year, and require them to pay it all up front. You are such a toad.

its income if you dont pay it back.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

its income if you dont pay it back.

Not achieved during one year. Students who can't pay back their loan certainly can't afford that kind of tax burden during one year.

Why do you think it was forgiven, because their income could barely handle a low interest loan payment spread out over decades.

 

[aTUfan]

Not achieved during one year. Students who can't pay back their loan certainly can't afford that kind of tax burden during one year.

Why do you think it was forgiven, because their income could barely handle a low interest loan payment spread out over decades.

loan forgiveness makes it income. maybe you get 3 - 5 years to psy the taxes, but it aint free.

 

[lawpoke87]

Constitutionality of the loan forgiveness order being heard by the Supremes today via oral arguments. I fully expect Biden’s action to be struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[aTUfan]

even if it is Constitutional, why am I on the hook for for your debt???????????

 

[TU_BLA]

Constitutionality of the loan forgiveness order being heard by the Supremes today via oral arguments. I fully expect Biden’s action to be struck down as unconstitutional.

Why unConstitutional? And isn't POTUS afforded an opportunity to act in times of great emergency...and it could be argued that COVID created that great emergency.

I don't benefit from the loan forgiveness, wish I did. Most borrowers who consolidated with a private lending firm do not either since the loan in question is no longer in the federal system. And I think the majority of states opposing it do so not because they stand to lose money, but because they stand to lose politically. They have no true interest in the matter other than the probability it may convert hundreds of thousands of voters (which it will anyway and Dems should hammer them on this).

For TuFan (or grumpy old man, I remember you from the old SNL skits where everything pisses you off that might benefit others), you won't pay a dime towards anyone student loans but go ahead and believe the Nazi GOP talking heads. If you're so worried about having to pick up others slack then I suggest you write to your Congressman to make sure the 0% tax club of millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. Maybe also have them take a look at Joel Osteen and others of his ilk who are grifting America out of billions of dollars and not paying a dime of tax because they shelter their grift under "church". And by the way, the people donating to their church are not donating enough to claim it as deductible anymore because of the Trump tax cuts...which are expiring for the middle class.

 

[URedskin54]

Telling everyone he wasn’t allowed to do it before he did it probably wasn’t the smartest idea

 

[lawpoke87]

Why unConstitutional? And isn't POTUS afforded an opportunity to act in times of great emergency...and it could be argued that COVID created that great emergency.

I don't benefit from the loan forgiveness, wish I did. Most borrowers who consolidated with a private lending firm do not either since the loan in question is no longer in the federal system. And I think the majority of states opposing it do so not because they stand to lose money, but because they stand to lose politically. They have no true interest in the matter other than the probability it may convert hundreds of thousands of voters (which it will anyway and Dems should hammer them on this).

For TuFan (or grumpy old man, I remember you from the old SNL skits where everything pisses you off that might benefit others), you won't pay a dime towards anyone student loans but go ahead and believe the Nazi GOP talking heads. If you're so worried about having to pick up others slack then I suggest you write to your Congressman to make sure the 0% tax club of millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. Maybe also have them take a look at Joel Osteen and others of his ilk who are grifting America out of billions of dollars and not paying a dime of tax because they shelter their grift under "church". And by the way, the people donating to their church are not donating enough to claim it as deductible anymore because of the Trump tax cuts...which are expiring for the middle class.

I don’t believe the President has the authority to unilaterally spend $400B via an EO. Spending initiatives of this size are required to be appropriated by Congress imo. I also believe Biden knew the EO was unconstitutional when he signed it but did so for political reasons.

We will know soon enough if my interpretation is correct.

 

[aTUfan]

Why unConstitutional? And isn't POTUS afforded an opportunity to act in times of great emergency...and it could be argued that COVID created that great emergency.

I don't benefit from the loan forgiveness, wish I did. Most borrowers who consolidated with a private lending firm do not either since the loan in question is no longer in the federal system. And I think the majority of states opposing it do so not because they stand to lose money, but because they stand to lose politically. They have no true interest in the matter other than the probability it may convert hundreds of thousands of voters (which it will anyway and Dems should hammer them on this).

For TuFan (or grumpy old man, I remember you from the old SNL skits where everything pisses you off that might benefit others), you won't pay a dime towards anyone student loans but go ahead and believe the Nazi GOP talking heads. If you're so worried about having to pick up others slack then I suggest you write to your Congressman to make sure the 0% tax club of millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. Maybe also have them take a look at Joel Osteen and others of his ilk who are grifting America out of billions of dollars and not paying a dime of tax because they shelter their grift under "church". And by the way, the people donating to their church are not donating enough to claim it as deductible anymore because of the Trump tax cuts...which are expiring for the middle class.

whew! I hope you feel better after that rant.

 

[aTUfan]

I don’t believe the President has the authority to unilaterally spend $500M via an EO. Spending initiatives of this size are required to be appropriated by Congress imo. I also believe Biden knew the EO was unconstitutional when he signed it but did so for political reasons.

We will know soon enough if my interpretation is correct.

too much gov in our lives, if he wants to send relief to people, help the people in east palistine, or norman

 

[TU_BLA]

I don’t believe the President has the authority to unilaterally spend $500M via an EO. Spending initiatives of this size are required to be appropriated by Congress imo. I also believe Biden knew the EO was unconstitutional when he signed it but did so for political reasons.

We will know soon enough if my interpretation is correct.

He's not spending anything. It's all fake $$$ anyway at that level, just pushing numbers around to different ledger sheets. The only real money involved is what the borrowers pay per month. This is why the GOP narrative of people who didn't take out student loans having to pay for those who did is a BS line.

 

[lawpoke87]

He's not spending anything. It's all fake $$$ anyway at that level, just pushing numbers around to different ledger sheets. The only real money involved is what the borrowers pay per month. This is why the GOP narrative of people who didn't take out student loans having to pay for those who did is a BS line.

CBO disagrees. Says cost approx $400B. A President can’t unilaterally spend or cost (use whatever word you want) the federal treasury almost half a trillion dollars through an EO. Not requiring Americans to repay their debt to the US is the same principle as not requiring Americans to pay their tax obligations. Both cost the treasury revenue and is a cost. At the end of the day, the idea one person can forgive that kind of revenue is a very bad precedent going forward. This should go through Congress

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1125272287/student-loan-forgiveness-cost-billion

 

[TU_BLA]

Not requiring Americans to repay their debt to the US is the same principle as not requiring Americans to pay their tax obligations.

Yet, Republicans are not OK with one and perfectly fine with Trump and his buddies not paying taxes. The hypocrisy is real.

 

[lawpoke87]

Yet, Republicans are not OK with one and perfectly fine with Trump and his buddies not paying taxes. The hypocrisy is real.

I don’t view this issue as a partisan topic. This isn’t about taxes or even loan forgiveness. This is about the authority of the President to cost the US Treasury $400B without going through Congress. The constitutional precedent set by the Supremes in this case will be significant and lasting. Those looking at it as merely a loan forgiveness case are being far to short sighted

 

[URedskin54]

Yet, Republicans are not OK with one and perfectly fine with Trump and his buddies not paying taxes. The hypocrisy is real.

I’m not a republican and didn’t vote for Trump, but I also don’t want student loans forgiven. Now what?

 

[TU_BLA]

I’m not a republican and didn’t vote for Trump, but I also don’t want student loans forgiven. Now what?

We can discuss. People have all sorts of reasons why. I've worked in higher ed for 20+ years and had to work closely with students and admissions and financial aid in that time. I know when I was an undergrad, most of my financial aid came in the forms of grants, both merit and need based and very little in the form of student loans because the model on tuition, fees, room & board, etc. was different when I was an undergrad. That shifted in the late 90s, early 2000s when it moved towards being more loan driven because schools saw it as a way to secure more actual cash vs the aforementioned fake moving money around on a ledger sheet which most of the merit and need based grants from the school were based in (basically they were discount programs) and not backed by cash at many places. This, and the promise of a good paying job coming out of college pushed students to choose schools beyond their means and taking high dollar loans out. And it's not the loan premiums that keep people under, it's the interest, even the somewhat lower than prime rates students tend to get. This student loan system is not very different than the home mortgage loan system that went bust under W and had to be bailed out (you know the same grift the current Governor of OK is still involved in). The problem here is these loans didn't have the same type of collateral securing them so defaulting on them only resulted in a bad credit score for the borrower.
Personally if they waived the interest on the loans so the students can actually pay down the principal, that might get borrowers back to a point where they can spend on other items to stimulate the economy. The lack of vision for lawmakers opposing it who always talk about stimulating business and the economy, etc. and wanting people to start small businesses and promoting entrepreneurship and not understanding that these student loan amounts plus the interest keep people from buying homes, taking the jump into starting a business, etc. is hypocritical, IMO. And let's be honest...the EO did not write off the totality of an individual's federally backed student loans, just a portion.

 

[lawpoke87]

As far as the student loan forgiveness, my issue with the substance of the EO is it does nothing to fix or even address the problem. It’s a $400B bandaid which benefits a group of people at a specific point in time. Ten years from now we’re going to have millions of more Americans with the exact same problem? What do we do about them? Another $400B? Will this group now take on unreasonable debt in anticipation the rest of us will pay a portion of said debt off down the road? It’s bad policy imo. If we’re going to grant loan forgiveness we must do it constitutionally through Congress and incorporate measures to help students going forward. Tying interest payments to the Fed funds rate would be one I would like to see considered. There are many others related to the cost of education.

If the Supremes do find a President can spend $400B in a single EO can we imagine what the financial future of this country could look like with an unhinged President set on enacting huge expenditures? It would prove very difficult to stop him/her.

 

[TU_BLA]

As far as the student loan forgiveness, my issue with the substance of the EO is it does nothing to fix or even address the problem. It’s a $400B bandaid which benefits a group of people at a specific point in time. Ten years from now we’re going to have millions of more Americans with the exact same problem? What do we do about them? Another $400B? Will this group now take on unreasonable debt in anticipation the rest of us will pay a portion of said debt off down the road? It’s bad policy imo. If we’re going to grant loan forgiveness we must do it constitutionally through Congress and incorporate measures to help students going forward. Tying interest payments to the Fed funds rate would be one I would like to see considered. There are many others related to the cost of education.

If the Supremes do find a President can spend $400B in a single EO can we imagine what the financial future of this country could look like with an unhinged President set on enacting huge expenditures? It would prove very difficult to stop him/her.

I think we agree on part of it. A lot of the problems lie within the schools themselves and the unchecked hiring of individuals to essentially VP level roles at 6 figures. It used to be you had 3-4 VP level roles at an institution. A provost (VP of academics essentially), an AD (VP over athletics), a CFO, A VP over student life (admissions, housing, plus others), and that was about it. Other high level roles fell under one of those areas. But as schools offered more and more services, you started seeing VPs for Institutional Advancement, VP for Enrollment Mgmt (separate from student life), VP for IT (CIO). And as student loan money became more and more prevalent, schools kept adding high level admin for every little thing. Asst VP of Student Wellness, Asst VP of Spiritual Formation (real job at ORU), Asst. VP of Campus Services...and on and on and on. It was sort of the arms race in higher ed to see who could have the most support staff and someone for every single real life situation that could possibly occur and cause a student to leave a school.

But you're right, there needs to be reform to the student loan process and amounts. A cap on the max amount maybe. Force schools to do more with what they have and take a hard look at whether or not some of the fat in terms of positions needs to be trimmed. And it doesn't help that at state institutions, state legislatures have been cutting back the state appropriations for the last 20 years (not relevant for TU) meaning the only way to make up the loss of $ on hand for those schools is to offer more student loans as part of the aid package. Without meaningful reform to the way student loans are handed out then this is just a momentary band aid...that when you pull it off in 5 years, you've still got a gushing problem.

 

[astonmartin708]

CBO disagrees. Says cost approx $400B. A President can’t unilaterally spend or cost (use whatever word you want) the federal treasury almost half a trillion dollars through an EO. Not requiring Americans to repay their debt to the US is the same principle as not requiring Americans to pay their tax obligations. Both cost the treasury revenue and is a cost. At the end of the day, the idea one person can forgive that kind of revenue is a very bad precedent going forward. This should go through Congress

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1125272287/student-loan-forgiveness-cost-billion

Tell that to Thomas Jefferson.

 

[astonmartin708]

As far as the student loan forgiveness, my issue with the substance of the EO is it does nothing to fix or even address the problem. It’s a $400B bandaid which benefits a group of people at a specific point in time. Ten years from now we’re going to have millions of more Americans with the exact same problem? What do we do about them? Another $400B? Will this group now take on unreasonable debt in anticipation the rest of us will pay a portion of said debt off down the road? It’s bad policy imo. If we’re going to grant loan forgiveness we must do it constitutionally through Congress and incorporate measures to help students going forward. Tying interest payments to the Fed funds rate would be one I would like to see considered. There are many others related to the cost of education.

If the Supremes do find a President can spend $400B in a single EO can we imagine what the financial future of this country could look like with an unhinged President set on enacting huge expenditures? It would prove very difficult to stop him/her.

There should not be interest on federal student loans. The federal government should not profit twice from a program (once from having an educated work force and once from interest)

 

[lawpoke87]

There should not be interest on federal student loans. The federal government should not profit twice from a program (once from having an educated work force and once from interest)

Agree. Why I tried to tie the interest rate to the actual amount the money is costing the US to service. Suppose we could tie it to the a certain T Bill. I also would not be opposed to interest free loans. Even with current interest rates being charged I doubt the program shows a significant profit. Just guessing here based on default rates. Haven’t researched it.

 

[lawpoke87]

Tell that to Thomas Jefferson.

TJ also believed in slavery so …….