What is your opinion on student loan forgiveness?

[Stockmann]

Doesn't debt forgiveness basically reward those with the right birth years at the expense of the rest? I don't see it doing anything to cut down on costs and so future students are basically being thrown to the wolves (should've chosen their date of birth wisely). It also punishes the financially prudent - those who borrowed as little as possible, paid it off as fast as possible and chose financially viable careers.

[downer]

Doesn't debt forgiveness basically reward those with the right birth years at the expense of the rest? I don't see it doing anything to cut down on costs and so future students are basically being thrown to the wolves (should've chosen their date of birth wisely). It also punishes the financially prudent - those who borrowed as little as possible, paid it off as fast as possible and chose financially viable careers.

"Thrown to the wolves," and "punishes" seems like histrionic language. Any government handout (or debt forgiveness) helps some rather than others and there's some arbitrariness involved. I too think it makes more sense to help current and future students than past students who should have known that they were signing up for. I guess the main reason Biden went with debt forgiveness is that he could (though it may be reversed by the legal process, way down the line).

Given current US politics and the anti-democratic forces running the GOP, it is not as if there is any reasonable viable alternative to the Dems. I hope the blatant vote-buying is successful and the Dems triumph this November.

[mahagonny]

Doesn't debt forgiveness basically reward those with the right birth years at the expense of the rest? I don't see it doing anything to cut down on costs and so future students are basically being thrown to the wolves (should've chosen their date of birth wisely). It also punishes the financially prudent - those who borrowed as little as possible, paid it off as fast as possible and chose financially viable careers.

"Thrown to the wolves," and "punishes" seems like histrionic language. Any government handout (or debt forgiveness) helps some rather than others and there's some arbitrariness involved. I too think it makes more sense to help current and future students than past students who should have known that they were signing up for. I guess the main reason Biden went with debt forgiveness is that he could (though it may be reversed by the legal process, way down the line).

Given current US politics and the anti-democratic forces running the GOP, it is not as if there is any reasonable viable alternative to the Dems. I hope the blatant vote-buying is successful and the Dems triumph this November.

The viable alternative, had it begun years ago when it was needed, would have been to get serious about pressuring colleges and unis to keep their tuition and fees at a reasonable level.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Quote from: mahagonny on Today at 01:03:30 PM
There is some question wither it is legal though.

It will certainly be challenged in the courts.

Which will likely be another opportunity to encourage people to hate the Supreme Court for doing their job. That's the new brand of patriotism from the more radical democrats. Seems to me the Supreme Court should not appreciate being put in the position where they need to reign in the POTUS. I wouldn't if I were them.

Certainly the SC has been put in this position where it is left to make policy decisions because Congress is too dysfunctional to do so or too disinterested in doing so. 

On the other hand, the SC is far to the right of the median voter, so it is no wonder people in general don't agree with their rulings. And let's not act like conservatives don't throw a fit when the courts rule in a way that they don't like.

[mahagonny]

On the other hand, the SC is far to the right of the median voter, so it is no wonder people in general don't agree with their rulings.

As long as we continue voter suppression by aborting future voters it may stay that way.

[marshwiggle]

I hope the blatant vote-buying is successful and the Dems triumph this November.

Do you really want to have it confirmed that voters are short-sighted and easily misled? Whatever party does it, it's bad for democracy. The best society would be one where voters don't fall for it, whoever is behind it.

[dismalist]

I hope the blatant vote-buying is successful and the Dems triumph this November.

Do you really want to have it confirmed that voters are short-sighted and easily misled? Whatever party does it, it's bad for democracy. The best society would be one where voters don't fall for it, whoever is behind it.

I disagree, Marsh. I'm with H.L. Mencken's famous belief that "democracy is the conviction that people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." :-)

[ciao_yall]

I personally think it's a great idea.

A high school diploma is not worth what it was 50 years ago. Why? Because science and technology have advanced so far that a student with high school diploma back in the day was employable as, say, a car mechanic. But now? Look at the mechanical difference between cars from 1970 and 2020 and tell me a kid with biceps and a wrench can still fix the same car.

So why discourage people from pursuing advanced education which makes them better citizens... as well as taxpayers?

With that logic, why not stop education at the 8th grade and make people take out loans for a high school diploma?

[Anon1787]

And don't forget the fine print:

The Income Driven Repayment [IDR] system gets amended such that
--"discretionary" income is redefined from 150 percent of the federal poverty line to 225 percent of the federal poverty line;
--For undergraduate debt, reduced the IDR rate from 10 percent of income beyond the threshold above in to 5 percent of income beyond the threshold above.
--Interest not capitalized, i.e not owed. [Sure, you work for a wage now, you'll get paid next year, without interest.]

And carryover:

--remaining balance forgiven after 20 years.

Christ, man, borrow to the eyeballs! Pay a small income contingent fee for education, and the rest is free.

This is already debt forgiveness, but of much more future debt, on account it pays to borrow no matter what tuition is, and therefore, tuition will go up one hell of a lot.

This is madness.

That's a repayment of only 5% above $31K/year. If I were attending college, I'd be living it up.

So the $500 billion giveaway will make inflation somewhat worse, will increase tuition (and that component of inflation) and future loan debt, and will erase the deficit reduction in the Inflation Reduction Act (making it a bit more likely that the Fed will lose a game of chicken with a spendthrift government). Fantastic!

Which will likely be another opportunity to encourage people to hate the Supreme Court for doing their job. That's the new brand of patriotism from the more radical democrats. Seems to me the Supreme Court should not appreciate being put in the position where they need to reign in the POTUS. I wouldn't if I were them.

Congress should be the first branch to object to this sort of power grab by the president, but prefers to behave like cheer-leading parliamentary backbenchers and generally evade responsibility. Only divided government produces a temporary (politically expedient) check. Constantly expecting the courts (which aren't designed to reflect the views of the median voter) to intervene just makes them seem and actually become more like the political branches.

[mahagonny]

Which will likely be another opportunity to encourage people to hate the Supreme Court for doing their job. That's the new brand of patriotism from the more radical democrats. Seems to me the Supreme Court should not appreciate being put in the position where they need to reign in the POTUS. I wouldn't if I were them.

Congress should be the first branch to object to this sort of power grab by the president, but prefers to behave like cheer-leading parliamentary backbenchers and generally evade responsibility. Only divided government produces a temporary (politically expedient) check. Constantly expecting the courts (which aren't designed to reflect the views of the median voter) to intervene just makes them seem and actually become more like the political branches.

Actually...how far off is the Supreme Court from the center, even if that were the right question (which it's not)? Most American favor some restriction on abortion, which makes them different from Biden and most democrats. Some repubs have been slow to clarify where they on abortion in the last several months, leaving them open to being called extremists. Doesn't mean they are.

ETA: Biden unlike Trump was trained in law (though not a great student) so he should know whether what he did was legal or not. But most of what I have from him over the years strongly suggests to me he wouldn't care.

[marshwiggle]

I personally think it's a great idea.

A high school diploma is not worth what it was 50 years ago. Why? Because science and technology have advanced so far that a student with high school diploma back in the day was employable as, say, a car mechanic. But now? Look at the mechanical difference between cars from 1970 and 2020 and tell me a kid with biceps and a wrench can still fix the same car.

Becoming a mechanic doesn't require a university degree. How much loan forgiveness is on account of vocational programs?

So why discourage people from pursuing advanced education which makes them better citizens... as well as taxpayers?

With that logic, why not stop education at the 8th grade and make people take out loans for a high school diploma?

On the other hand, why shouldn't guitar lessons, swimming lessons, art classes, and anything else people can take be free since those all in some way make people "better citizens"?

[dismalist]

I have a different reducto ad absurdum:

If high school is worthless [and on average it is a worthless joke], why force kids to attend? Why should anybody have to pay anything at all?

[Anon1787]

Actually...how far off is the Supreme Court from the center, even if that were the right question (which it's not)? Most American favor some restriction on abortion, which makes them different from Biden and most democrats. Some repubs have been slow to clarify where they on abortion in the last several months, leaving them open to being called extremists. Doesn't mean they are.

I don't know how far off the Supreme Court is from the center, but by its very nature I suspect that it deviates significantly depending on the issue. Take criminal due process, which are most of the rights listed in the BoR. Accused criminals aren't popular, so I suspect that even this "conservative" Court is to the left of (or more civil libertarian than) the median voter. On abortion, the Court is more "conservative" than the median voter not because it wants to impose the strictest pro-life position but because it wants to leave the decision to the states and the elected branches like most other western democracies.

I personally think it's a great idea.

A high school diploma is not worth what it was 50 years ago. Why? Because science and technology have advanced so far that a student with high school diploma back in the day was employable as, say, a car mechanic. But now? Look at the mechanical difference between cars from 1970 and 2020 and tell me a kid with biceps and a wrench can still fix the same car.

So why discourage people from pursuing advanced education which makes them better citizens... as well as taxpayers?

With that logic, why not stop education at the 8th grade and make people take out loans for a high school diploma?

A high school diploma isn't worth as much today as 50 years ago in large part because standards have declined (inflation of all varieties is bad). Most people are not capable of doing college level work, and most of those who are capable earn a wage premium (which gives them a strong personal incentive to get the education unlike other "public goods"). So why tax everyone to give big subsidies to a capable and relatively comfortable minority?

[Sun_Worshiper]

Which will likely be another opportunity to encourage people to hate the Supreme Court for doing their job. That's the new brand of patriotism from the more radical democrats. Seems to me the Supreme Court should not appreciate being put in the position where they need to reign in the POTUS. I wouldn't if I were them.

Congress should be the first branch to object to this sort of power grab by the president, but prefers to behave like cheer-leading parliamentary backbenchers and generally evade responsibility. Only divided government produces a temporary (politically expedient) check. Constantly expecting the courts (which aren't designed to reflect the views of the median voter) to intervene just makes them seem and actually become more like the political branches.

Actually...how far off is the Supreme Court from the center, even if that were the right question (which it's not)? Most American favor some restriction on abortion, which makes them different from Biden and most democrats. Some repubs have been slow to clarify where they on abortion in the last several months, leaving them open to being called extremists. Doesn't mean they are.

ETA: Biden unlike Trump was trained in law (though not a great student) so he should know whether what he did was legal or not. But most of what I have from him over the years strongly suggests to me he wouldn't care.

On the bolded, as is usually the case with these things, there is a large amount of research on the subject that you can look to if you actually want to know the answer (e.g. here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2120284119).

And, as for your ETA, there is no "legal or not" when it comes to these sorts of things. Biden Admin designed the policy in a way that would give it the greatest chance of making it through the courts. Judges will decide if it passes their thresholds.

[mahagonny]

And, as for your ETA, there is no "legal or not" when it comes to these sorts of things. Biden Admin designed the policy in a way that would give it the greatest chance of making it through the courts. Judges will decide if it passes their thresholds.

Right, so he has chosen a route that gives the clear appearance of a confrontational effort, rather than one built from deliberation and consensus. This from the guy who pledged to unite the nation. Fortunately for me and I suppose you too, we weren't foolish enough to believe him.