What is your opinion on student loan forgiveness?

[mahagonny]

And so, he figures he really can't lose politically, because either it will fly, or it will bring a new wave of the left's new love, Supreme-Court hatred, which is political capital for him and his crowd.

Which is why, sorry, I know you disagree, but I consider Biden to be about 98% political hack and about 2% statesman or any kind of leader, something we desperately need.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

He chose the route that the thought would pass through the courts. It may work, or perhaps not. The administration did not choose the route that Republicans would have wanted, which is no route at all, but on the other hand there have been several other bipartisan efforts (infrastructure, CHIPs act, reform to electoral count act seems likely in the coming months) on areas where compromise is possible. I guess your take is that the Democratic president should not do anything that Republicans oppose, because that would be confrontational - I assume you then think that Republican leaders should also not do anything along party lines.

And the Biden Administration has argued that policies are bipartisan when a large number of conservative citizens in the country, as opposed to lawmakers, are in favor of them. If you buy that argument, then early polling suggests that there is bipartisan support for this.

[Anon1787]

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).

A typical empirical study in the discipline whose only virtue is to pad their list of publications. E.g., a public opinion survey claims that a majority of people want discrimination against a group to be illegal. Researchers code based on whether the Court interpreting the law as it is written follow what majority public opinion wants and then draw ideological conclusions about the Court based on the alleged gap. If you want the law to reflect public opinion, elect judges or just get rid of them altogether.

[kaysixteen]

Random remarks:

1) WRT Canada, I knew tuition was lower there, but I did not know how much lower.  With figures as low as cited here, it would seem likely that most Canadian kids could reasonably work their way through school without loans, even if they did not have access to any parental financial support for tuition costs, whereas that is nigh onto impossible here nowadays?  (BTW, do the average Canadian parents still mostly financially support kids' college costs, something which used to be pretty normative here, but has largely become passe amongst many American groups, not just working class evangelicals from flyover country who hate collidg?)

2) WRT whether Biden's loan forgiveness plan will buy the Dems votes, taken as a whole, this fall, who thinks this is really the case?

3) Many Americans today who are practicing lucrative skilled trades got most of their prep education in state-financed free voke high schools, followed by paid apprenticeship or internship programs.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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).

A typical empirical study in the discipline whose only virtue is to pad their list of publications. E.g., a public opinion survey claims that a majority of people want discrimination against a group to be illegal. Researchers code based on whether the Court interpreting the law as it is written follow what majority public opinion wants and then draw ideological conclusions about the Court based on the alleged gap. If you want the law to reflect public opinion, elect judges or just get rid of them altogether.

I'm not saying this is the end all be all study, but rather encouraging Mahogany and anyone else who are asking "is the court really to the right of the median voter?" to look at empirical research instead of pontificating based on nothing. This is one study for example, but I'm sure there are many others. That said, the way you describe the approach used here makes it sound like a pretty legit way to assess the distance between the court and the public.

And I never said that courts should reflect public opinion. I simply made the point to Mahogany that the public is probably not happy with the SC because the court is ruling in a manner that is at odds with public opinion.

[Morden]

WRT Canada, I knew tuition was lower there, but I did not know how much lower.  With figures as low as cited here, it would seem likely that most Canadian kids could reasonably work their way through school without loans, even if they did not have access to any parental financial support for tuition costs, whereas that is nigh onto impossible here nowadays?  (BTW, do the average Canadian parents still mostly financially support kids' college costs, something which used to be pretty normative here, but has largely become passe amongst many American groups, not just working class evangelicals from flyover country who hate collidg?)

It seems like most students at my institution work during the school year to help pay for their costs (Back in the day, we could just work summers and mostly cover tuition & books, but times have changed). Of course working so much means that most don't take what we would consider a full course load, which adds time to degree and opportunity costs. I think a lot of my students also have student loans, but not the huge loans we hear about from the States. Many parents help finance their kids education, or the kids go to a local post-secondary and live at home.

[mahagonny]

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).

A typical empirical study in the discipline whose only virtue is to pad their list of publications. E.g., a public opinion survey claims that a majority of people want discrimination against a group to be illegal. Researchers code based on whether the Court interpreting the law as it is written follow what majority public opinion wants and then draw ideological conclusions about the Court based on the alleged gap. If you want the law to reflect public opinion, elect judges or just get rid of them altogether.

I'm not saying this is the end all be all study, but rather encouraging Mahogany and anyone else who are asking "is the court really to the right of the median voter?" to look at empirical research instead of pontificating based on nothing. This is one study for example, but I'm sure there are many others. That said, the way you describe the approach used here makes it sound like a pretty legit way to assess the distance between the court and the public.

And I never said that courts should reflect public opinion. I simply made the point to Mahogany that the public is probably not happy with the SC because the court is ruling in a manner that is at odds with public opinion.

That's what the study shows, I guess, but dead fetuses do not get to give their opinion or be part of the study. Even with the recent increase in suicides, it's clear that most Americans choose to remain living once the choice is theirs to make. If one is serious about committing suicide it's very easy to do. When all the votes are counted, the Supreme Court would have a lot of fans.
And if you can be unhappy with their ruling without tormenting individual judges and their families at their home or in a restaurant, or making excuses for people who do that, as the WH press secretary does, then you can claim you're merely unhappy with the ruling, as opposed to something closer to an anarchist.

And the Biden Administration has argued that policies are bipartisan when a large number of conservative citizens in the country, as opposed to lawmakers, are in favor of them. If you buy that argument, then early polling suggests that there is bipartisan support for this.

Do you have source for this? Not that I dispute it. I'm just curious. I could see many Americans favoring debt relief for college but then again, many of them believe they've been fleeced, and many conservatives believe that higher ed has become inhospitable to students who have their views.

I'm not saying this is the end all be all study, but rather encouraging Mahogany and anyone else who are asking "is the court really to the right of the median voter?" to look at empirical research instead of pontificating based on nothing.

If that's what being encouraged feels like, I'm glad you're not the person who taught me to ride a bicycle. (bolded)

[marshwiggle]

WRT Canada, I knew tuition was lower there, but I did not know how much lower.  With figures as low as cited here, it would seem likely that most Canadian kids could reasonably work their way through school without loans, even if they did not have access to any parental financial support for tuition costs, whereas that is nigh onto impossible here nowadays?  (BTW, do the average Canadian parents still mostly financially support kids' college costs, something which used to be pretty normative here, but has largely become passe amongst many American groups, not just working class evangelicals from flyover country who hate collidg?)

It seems like most students at my institution work during the school year to help pay for their costs (Back in the day, we could just work summers and mostly cover tuition & books, but times have changed). Of course working so much means that most don't take what we would consider a full course load, which adds time to degree and opportunity costs. I think a lot of my students also have student loans, but not the huge loans we hear about from the States. Many parents help finance their kids education, or the kids go to a local post-secondary and live at home.

Just to add:

As Para said, there isn't a great difference between institutions in quality, so people who go far away from home tend to do so because of specific program offerings, rather than because of a specific institution's "reputation". (There can be differences in reputation of specific programs, so some place may have a well-regarded Basketweaving program, but many or most of their other programs will be pretty ordinary.)

[Sun_Worshiper]

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).

A typical empirical study in the discipline whose only virtue is to pad their list of publications. E.g., a public opinion survey claims that a majority of people want discrimination against a group to be illegal. Researchers code based on whether the Court interpreting the law as it is written follow what majority public opinion wants and then draw ideological conclusions about the Court based on the alleged gap. If you want the law to reflect public opinion, elect judges or just get rid of them altogether.

I'm not saying this is the end all be all study, but rather encouraging Mahogany and anyone else who are asking "is the court really to the right of the median voter?" to look at empirical research instead of pontificating based on nothing. This is one study for example, but I'm sure there are many others. That said, the way you describe the approach used here makes it sound like a pretty legit way to assess the distance between the court and the public.

And I never said that courts should reflect public opinion. I simply made the point to Mahogany that the public is probably not happy with the SC because the court is ruling in a manner that is at odds with public opinion.

That's what the study shows, I guess, but dead fetuses do not get to give their opinion or be part of the study. Even with the recent increase in suicides, it's clear that most Americans choose to remain living once the choice is theirs to make. If one is serious about committing suicide it's very easy to do. When all the votes are counted, the Supreme Court would have a lot of fans.
And if you can be unhappy with their ruling without tormenting individual judges and their families at their home or in a restaurant, or making excuses for people who do that, as the WH press secretary does, then you can claim you're merely unhappy with the ruling, as opposed to something closer to an anarchist.

And the Biden Administration has argued that policies are bipartisan when a large number of conservative citizens in the country, as opposed to lawmakers, are in favor of them. If you buy that argument, then early polling suggests that there is bipartisan support for this.

Do you have source for this? Not that I dispute it. I'm just curious. I could see many Americans favoring debt relief for college but then again, many of them believe they've been fleeced, and many conservatives believe that higher ed has become inhospitable to students who have their views.

I'm not saying this is the end all be all study, but rather encouraging Mahogany and anyone else who are asking "is the court really to the right of the median voter?" to look at empirical research instead of pontificating based on nothing.

If that's what being encouraged feels like, I'm glad you're not the person who taught me to ride a bicycle. (bolded)

Sure, here is one poll: https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2022/8/dfp_sbpc_8_22_tabs.pdf, they did not poll people who are dead by suicide.

And on the bolded, you asked a question and I answered it by providing you with a study that gives you exactly the info you supposedly wanted. Sorry to have hurt your feelings by giving you the information you requested.

[apl68]

It's debt relief not a cash payment, so it obviously can't exceed the amount of federal debt (and it only applies to federal loans, not private), but other than that it is a flat amount, not tied to the overall amount. So yes, it will wipe out debt entirely for many who attended CCs or in state publics.

There is also a list of for profit institutions that have been deemed predatory for which all federal student loan debt is forgiven. This includes some big names in the scam education market, as well as obscure many trade schools. This will be a huge help to people who were tricked into going into debt for "degrees" that aren't worth the paper they were printed on.

The fact that many of the students who are receiving debt relief were essentially scammed into going into debt in the first place can't be emphasized enough.  Also, a lot of this debt was never realistically going to be paid off.  The people who incurred it didn't benefit as advertised in terms of improved earning potential.  Forgiving such debt is just a matter of writing down bad debt, and is reasonable on compassionate grounds.

[downer]

If there was a scam, shouldn't there be a class action law suit?

[dismalist]

If there was a scam, shouldn't there be a class action law suit?

Civil cases seek compensation. This cannot be achieved if the bad guy has no resources, has gone bankrupt.

A criminal case can punish the wrongdoer but that does the victim no good.

I would say this is indeed a case for the government to compensate because the government [State government, I suppose] messed up its oversight.

For the future, one could envision offering and purchasing insurance against these sorts of malfeasance.

[marshwiggle]

If there was a scam, shouldn't there be a class action law suit?

Civil cases seek compensation. This cannot be achieved if the bad guy has no resources, has gone bankrupt.

A criminal case can punish the wrongdoer but that does the victim no good.

I would say this is indeed a case for the government to compensate because the government [State government, I suppose] messed up its oversight.

For the future, one could envision offering and purchasing insurance against these sorts of malfeasance.

Who would offer it, and who should buy it? Should every student buy it just in case their institution goes belly up?

[dismalist]

If there was a scam, shouldn't there be a class action law suit?

Civil cases seek compensation. This cannot be achieved if the bad guy has no resources, has gone bankrupt.

A criminal case can punish the wrongdoer but that does the victim no good.

I would say this is indeed a case for the government to compensate because the government [State government, I suppose] messed up its oversight.

For the future, one could envision offering and purchasing insurance against these sorts of malfeasance.

Who would offer it, and who should buy it? Should every student buy it just in case their institution goes belly up?

Insurance companies would offer it, and they'd watch the edcuational institutions hawk-like, guaranteed! Various institutions would have different premia attached to them, another piece of information for students. Purchase could be voluntary, too.

Insurance is heavily regulated at the State level. States would have to let it happen.

[jimbogumbo]

Upthread marsh wiggle stated that being a mechanic does not require a degree. Actually noT quite accurate as far as the current expectations to be a diesel mechanic (an AS for most), and they are in short supply. Of course, that shortage will be alleviated when we have all the autonomous electric long haul semis. Wait, won't that mean a different need? Also for people who have likely need at least an AS?

Huh. Who knew?