Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand

[Cecilie1200]

As long as people repay the loan, they can waste it however they like. Just don't whine at me afterward that you graduated college and can't find a job.

The problem is that a lot of these deadbeats aren't repaying their loans. Its tough for the government to really muscle these people around and get the money back. That's why I would suggest subbing out the loans to shylocks who are better at that kind of thing.

Seems to me government has an easier time muscling them than most people, since the government doesn't have to go through nearly the hassle that private lenders do. If nothing else, they can and will simply take any and all tax refunds and apply them to a defaulted loan. And they sure as shit can track you down more easily than a private lender can.

I can think of a lot of reasons to object to federal student loans, if I'm so inclined, but repayment rates aren't really among them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not sure online education works as well, or more importantly whether employers value it. I know there are very prestigious post-grad programs that make some use of it, but there it's really about letting people continue their careers as they further their qualifications

One problem for online was there is no proctoring for testing, or making sure kids don't cheat. Obviously teachers can be bribed, but it shouldn't be too hard or expensive to have monitored test taking at local places like community colleges. And social media just continues to increase people's ability to do real face time.

With brick and mortar, I know a teacher, a counselor and a couple of nurses who did their first two years living at home and working for three four years, and then matriculated to get their degrees, and their loans are being forgiven for their working in low income areas.

In most places, I don't thing the issue is really a lack of affordable education. What I know occurs is some students have no intention of either graduating or paying back loans, and they view it as better than working.

It depends entirely on the online program and the course of study.

I am currently studying for a medical coding certification through an online program. It is very highly rated in the field, and endorsed by both the AAPC and AHIMA. Proctoring tests isn't an issue with them, because all that really counts is how well you pass the certification exam, which is taken in person and proctored by either the AAPC or AHIMA, depending on which certification you want.

If I can pass the cert exam with a high score, then obviously I'm well-educated in my field, and the name of the school is irrelevant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes we should

By those who profit off of those skills

Well then if it's the employers responsibility to pay for your personal education to better yourself, shouldn't they be paying for your home as well? After all, it's to the employers advantage their workers have a place to live. And how about your auto payments? It's to the employers advantage their employees are well fed too.

I'm so glad I wasn't born a Democrat. I would never want to go through life believing that I should be coddled by everybody else to get by in life.

The employer is not making a profit off that house.

The employer makes a profit with the machines he uses to create the product, should he pay for the education of the engineers that designed it? He makes a profit off the electricity he uses to make the product, should he pay for the education of the people who created the electric grid?

The Seflfish Are Criminally Anti-Social. Also, They Deprive Themselves Because of Their Jealousy of the Talented.

You're too stupid to understand a sequence of logic. The manufacturer of the machines your fatcat idol buys should pay for the tuition and living expenses of the engineers he freeloads off; he himself should pay for his own employees' educational preparation. Same with the electric company's bosses, or we should pull the plug on all these parasites.

Therefore, the reason you oppose paying students is that you realize that only the smartest would be allowed to go to college and you obviously aren't smart enough. You love this bullying economic system because it puts inferior people like you and the other education sadists on this thread in superior positions.

An employer is not responsible (nor should be) for educating his workers. That's up to the individual. Employers simply offer jobs and people who have the skills the employer needs apply and take them. They are usually paid higher wages than those without an advanced education, and that's all the employer owes.

Now I'm trying to have a discussion with you like an adult; something you seem to lack the capability of. Keep up the insults and I won't respond to your posts any longer.

Weeeeellll, yes and no.

If the employer wants a current employee to further his/her education to benefit the business, then the employer IS responsible for it. And usually, they'll see it as a good investment, responsible or no. That's why so many companies offer tuition reimbursement as a benefit.

That being said, the primary benefit from and responsibility for an individual's education is always that individual. If you fiind someone who is willing to contribute financially to your education, you're getting a good deal; you're not actually owed that.

 

[bendog]

As long as people repay the loan, they can waste it however they like. Just don't whine at me afterward that you graduated college and can't find a job.

The problem is that a lot of these deadbeats aren't repaying their loans. Its tough for the government to really muscle these people around and get the money back. That's why I would suggest subbing out the loans to shylocks who are better at that kind of thing.

Seems to me government has an easier time muscling them than most people, since the government doesn't have to go through nearly the hassle that private lenders do. If nothing else, they can and will simply take any and all tax refunds and apply them to a defaulted loan. And they sure as shit can track you down more easily than a private lender can.

I can think of a lot of reasons to object to federal student loans, if I'm so inclined, but repayment rates aren't really among them.

I know community college teachers who are depressed because of the high % of students who simply want the loans to default upon because they don't care about a credit rating or education.

I guess, and it's a guess, that these people do qualify for some refund on taxes withheld or an EITC. And damn straight that nailing this sucker should have been DeVoss's #1 job.

 

[mikegriffith1]

IOW, you want to make a college degree about as worthless as a public high school diploma now is. That's what will happen if you make college "free."

Why don't liberals ever call for federal controls on these exorbitant college tuition rates and unearned six--digit "faculty" salaries? You wanna control education costs, you could start there.

Before the federal government got so heavily involved, a college degree meant something, and college tuition rates were a fraction of what they are now (adjusted for inflation).

 

[Cecilie1200]

As long as people repay the loan, they can waste it however they like. Just don't whine at me afterward that you graduated college and can't find a job.

The problem is that a lot of these deadbeats aren't repaying their loans. Its tough for the government to really muscle these people around and get the money back. That's why I would suggest subbing out the loans to shylocks who are better at that kind of thing.

Seems to me government has an easier time muscling them than most people, since the government doesn't have to go through nearly the hassle that private lenders do. If nothing else, they can and will simply take any and all tax refunds and apply them to a defaulted loan. And they sure as shit can track you down more easily than a private lender can.

I can think of a lot of reasons to object to federal student loans, if I'm so inclined, but repayment rates aren't really among them.

I know community college teachers who are depressed because of the high % of students who simply want the loans to default upon because they don't care about a credit rating or education.

I guess, and it's a guess, that these people do qualify for some refund on taxes withheld or an EITC. And damn straight that nailing this sucker should have been DeVoss's #1 job.

I knew someone who let her student loan go into default, and she was shocked and outraged when she was notified that her entire refund - from federal AND state - was being withheld to apply to that loan.

To which I said, "Duuuhh."

They can and will also have Social Security track down wherever you're working, and garnish your wages. Pretty sure they don't have to sue and get a judgement against you first, either, the way a bank would. It's damned near impossible to hide from the federal government. One way or another, they will find you and they will find SOMETHING of value to take to pay back that loan.

 

[Andylusion]

I have no use for free college. But why not have 2 year assoc degrees where kids can live at home and get reduced tuition with no housing and a sliding income scale. And then let them work off debt by working as teachers for little. The Trump approach seems to be deregulate for for-profit universities to suck up all the debt they can create ..... Trump U.

Well deregulating, is how you get more options in the market. As for Trump U, it's obvious that in a free-market situation, education that is trash, will fail out of the market.

Government has been one of the largest obstacles to getting more options in the market. One of the big ones, was a requirement that to be accredited you had to have a large library of books. So even online universities had to have a physical library, even if all the books in the world were available online.

Deregulation works. Bad schools will fail, and close, as students move towards schools that have good reputations for education.

Show proof for your assertion that deregulation of college education produces a better/cheaper product, or die.

I think every other aspect of the entire deregulated economy shows this.

No government regulation made Chic-fil-a a national top seller. It was motivation to provide a better product, with better service, for a profit motive. This is why garbage brands died out. Chi-Chi's doens't exist anymore for a reason.

Saying that the normal capitalist free-market effects won't work on education, is ridiculous. It's like saying we can borrow non-stop, and never go bankrupt... because we're the US. Of course it's crashed every other country that has tried that... but we're the US.

That is proof. The entire rest of the free-market capitalist economy, is my proof.

 

[BluesLegend]

Debt free you say? Not $1 of debt will be added to the national debt? Who decides which kids get to attend Harvard for free vs which kids are stuck at Greenville community college?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IOW, you want to make a college degree about as worthless as a public high school diploma now is. That's what will happen if you make college "free."

Why don't liberals ever call for federal controls on these exorbitant college tuition rates and unearned six--digit "faculty" salaries? You wanna control education costs, you could start there.

Before the federal government got so heavily involved, a college degree meant something, and college tuition rates were a fraction of what they are now (adjusted for inflation).

They don't care what college tuition costs, nor do they care what the administration makes. But a company CEO? That's something that needs a price ceiling. Government needs to control how much they are allowed to make.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well then if it's the employers responsibility to pay for your personal education to better yourself, shouldn't they be paying for your home as well? After all, it's to the employers advantage their workers have a place to live. And how about your auto payments? It's to the employers advantage their employees are well fed too.

I'm so glad I wasn't born a Democrat. I would never want to go through life believing that I should be coddled by everybody else to get by in life.

The employer is not making a profit off that house.

The employer makes a profit with the machines he uses to create the product, should he pay for the education of the engineers that designed it? He makes a profit off the electricity he uses to make the product, should he pay for the education of the people who created the electric grid?

The Seflfish Are Criminally Anti-Social. Also, They Deprive Themselves Because of Their Jealousy of the Talented.

You're too stupid to understand a sequence of logic. The manufacturer of the machines your fatcat idol buys should pay for the tuition and living expenses of the engineers he freeloads off; he himself should pay for his own employees' educational preparation. Same with the electric company's bosses, or we should pull the plug on all these parasites.

Therefore, the reason you oppose paying students is that you realize that only the smartest would be allowed to go to college and you obviously aren't smart enough. You love this bullying economic system because it puts inferior people like you and the other education sadists on this thread in superior positions.

An employer is not responsible (nor should be) for educating his workers. That's up to the individual. Employers simply offer jobs and people who have the skills the employer needs apply and take them. They are usually paid higher wages than those without an advanced education, and that's all the employer owes.

Now I'm trying to have a discussion with you like an adult; something you seem to lack the capability of. Keep up the insults and I won't respond to your posts any longer.

Weeeeellll, yes and no.

If the employer wants a current employee to further his/her education to benefit the business, then the employer IS responsible for it. And usually, they'll see it as a good investment, responsible or no. That's why so many companies offer tuition reimbursement as a benefit.

That being said, the primary benefit from and responsibility for an individual's education is always that individual. If you fiind someone who is willing to contribute financially to your education, you're getting a good deal; you're not actually owed that.

There are few companies that actually offer that. Amazon does, because they opened up two new major outlets here and I read that's what they offer in the newspaper.

But let's face it, employees quit their jobs and move on just like employers sell their companies and move out. Loyalty is very rare anymore with good reason. If an employer is giving you tuition or educational benefits, it's indirectly coming out of your pay just like vacation, holidays, and all the other perks a company might offer.

 

[initforme]

Yes there are bad employers out there...upwards of 1/3 are places workers should get out of.

 

[Flopper]

Those are the few and far minority. And if an employer is going to pay such a pittance that one can't afford a house they are lucky to find a good employee.

If you think your ability to afford what you want is your employer's responsibility instead of yours, you are lucky to find anyone to employ you at all, and you will NEVER find anyone who considers you "good".

IMHO, education as well as health insurance should be the responsibility of the employee, not the employer because it is the employee who benefits most. Job turnover is far to fast to expect employers to provide such benefits. Remunerations should be in the form of wages, not retirement, healthcare, or education.

 

[Flopper]

I thin

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

Bingo.


The problem with all of this "free college" bullshit, is that it will encourage people to go to school and continue to take useless courses like Lesbian Studies and French Poetry.

IMHO, I think that the government should only be loaning money to students taking useful courses of study where they will have jobs in afterwards. Mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and urology are what 3 of my nephews took up and are not having any problem with debt.

If someone is taking something stupid, they should be referred to local shylocks for financing.

I think you will find a lot of disagreement as to what is a useful course. A counselor dealing with problems of homosexuals might find a course in "Lesbian Studies" very useful just as a person in the publishing business might well find a course in "French Poetry" useful. So do you want the government deciding what education would be useful for you in your particular job or the one the you trying to get.

 

[Flopper]

As long as people repay the loan, they can waste it however they like. Just don't whine at me afterward that you graduated college and can't find a job.

The problem is that a lot of these deadbeats aren't repaying their loans. Its tough for the government to really muscle these people around and get the money back. That's why I would suggest subbing out the loans to shylocks who are better at that kind of thing.

Seems to me government has an easier time muscling them than most people, since the government doesn't have to go through nearly the hassle that private lenders do. If nothing else, they can and will simply take any and all tax refunds and apply them to a defaulted loan. And they sure as shit can track you down more easily than a private lender can.

I can think of a lot of reasons to object to federal student loans, if I'm so inclined, but repayment rates aren't really among them.

And don't forget wage garnishments which can be done without court order up to 15% of pay. Bankruptcy is no protection because student loans are not forgiven.

Student should always accept federal subsidize loans above other loan types because the interest rate is almost always lower, Interest does not accrue until months after leaving school and payment can be delayed for various reason. Other types of loans accrue interest from the day money is drawn. However, subsidize loans are granted based on need.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Those are the few and far minority. And if an employer is going to pay such a pittance that one can't afford a house they are lucky to find a good employee.

If you think your ability to afford what you want is your employer's responsibility instead of yours, you are lucky to find anyone to employ you at all, and you will NEVER find anyone who considers you "good".

IMHO, education as well as health insurance should be the responsibility of the employee, not the employer because it is the employee who benefits most. Job turnover is far to fast to expect employers to provide such benefits. Remunerations should be in the form of wages, not retirement, healthcare, or education.

Currently it's not the responsibility, but a benefit the way it should stay. It was RightWinger who started the employer responsibility debate in this topic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As long as people repay the loan, they can waste it however they like. Just don't whine at me afterward that you graduated college and can't find a job.

The problem is that a lot of these deadbeats aren't repaying their loans. Its tough for the government to really muscle these people around and get the money back. That's why I would suggest subbing out the loans to shylocks who are better at that kind of thing.

Seems to me government has an easier time muscling them than most people, since the government doesn't have to go through nearly the hassle that private lenders do. If nothing else, they can and will simply take any and all tax refunds and apply them to a defaulted loan. And they sure as shit can track you down more easily than a private lender can.

I can think of a lot of reasons to object to federal student loans, if I'm so inclined, but repayment rates aren't really among them.

And don't forget wage garnishments which can be done without court order up to 15% of pay. Bankruptcy is no protection because student loans are not forgiven.

Student should always accept federal subsidize loans above other loan types because the interest rate is almost always lower, Interest does not accrue until months after leaving school and payment can be delayed for various reason. Other types of loans accrue interest from the day money is drawn. However, subsidize loans are granted based on need.

Okay, but doesn't it still cost taxpayers money by losing that interest? I mean, if applied that money to our national debt, it would reduce the interest money we owe.

 

[Flopper]

Those are the few and far minority. And if an employer is going to pay such a pittance that one can't afford a house they are lucky to find a good employee.

If you think your ability to afford what you want is your employer's responsibility instead of yours, you are lucky to find anyone to employ you at all, and you will NEVER find anyone who considers you "good".

IMHO, education as well as health insurance should be the responsibility of the employee, not the employer because it is the employee who benefits most. Job turnover is far to fast to expect employers to provide such benefits. Remunerations should be in the form of wages, not retirement, healthcare, or education.

Currently it's not the responsibility, but a benefit the way it should stay. It was RightWinger who started the employer responsibility debate in this topic.

I used the wrong word. It is not the responsibility of employers to provide these benefits. The completion for employees, improving employee retention and good public relations has driven benefit plans for years. However much of the reason for the plans have disappeared with high job turnover becoming part of the business plan and abandoning healthcare prexisting conditions.

The problem is benefits are not transferable. If an employee leaves during the benefit year, he or she will have two healthcare deductibles, one at the old employer and one at the new employer which may cost the employee thousands of dollars. Plus, the employee will be faced with a change in healthcare providers and a plan that may not be unsuitable. The employee runs into a similar problems with retirement plans. The plans that the employer picks may not meet the needs of employee. In order for the employee to benefit from the employer contribution, he or she must remain with the employer typically 5 or 10 years. Also many employers require that employees have 1 or 2 service before jointing the plan. In businesses where turnover is very high, employees may never have an opportunity to join the retirement plan and if they do they may never become vested.

The other problem I have with benefit plans is they are an expense to the business which should mean an expenditure that has a positive effect on revenue or costs. Before pre-existing conditions were outlawed employers used their healthcare plan to reduce turnover because employees feared a change would mean the lose of insurance but that is not the case today.

Most employees today have had jobs in which they were never vested in the retirements system and will get no benefits from employer contributions.

Rather than offer the employee a set of employee benefits selected by the employer which may or may not be of any benefit to the employee, why not allow the employee a wage supplement to their pay so they can purchase there own benefits. Then the employee will be able to choose the benefits that best fits his or her needs and they will be transportable between jobs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Those are the few and far minority. And if an employer is going to pay such a pittance that one can't afford a house they are lucky to find a good employee.

If you think your ability to afford what you want is your employer's responsibility instead of yours, you are lucky to find anyone to employ you at all, and you will NEVER find anyone who considers you "good".

IMHO, education as well as health insurance should be the responsibility of the employee, not the employer because it is the employee who benefits most. Job turnover is far to fast to expect employers to provide such benefits. Remunerations should be in the form of wages, not retirement, healthcare, or education.

Currently it's not the responsibility, but a benefit the way it should stay. It was RightWinger who started the employer responsibility debate in this topic.

I used the wrong word. It is not the responsibility of employers to provide these benefits. The completion for employees, improving employee retention and good public relations has driven benefit plans for years. However much of the reason for the plans have disappeared with high job turnover becoming part of the business plan and abandoning healthcare prexisting conditions.

The problem is benefits are not transferable. If an employee leaves during the benefit year, he or she will have two healthcare deductibles, one at the old employer and one at the new employer which may cost the employee thousands of dollars. Plus, the employee will be faced with a change in healthcare providers and a plan that may not be unsuitable. The employee runs into a similar problems with retirement plans. The plans that the employer picks may not meet the needs of employee. In order for the employee to benefit from the employer contribution, he or she must remain with the employer typically 5 or 10 years. Also many employers require that employees have 1 or 2 service before jointing the plan. In businesses where turnover is very high, employees may never have an opportunity to join the retirement plan and if they do they may never become vested.

The other problem I have with benefit plans is they are an expense to the business which should mean an expenditure that has a positive effect on revenue or costs. Before pre-existing conditions were outlawed employers used their healthcare plan to reduce turnover because employees feared a change would mean the lose of insurance but that is not the case today.

Most employees today have had jobs in which they were never vested in the retirements system and will get no benefits from employer contributions.

Rather than offer the employee a set of employee benefits selected by the employer which may or may not be of any benefit to the employee, why not allow the employee a wage supplement to their pay so they can purchase there own benefits. Then the employee will be able to choose the benefits that best fits his or her needs and they will be transportable between jobs.

I'll explain that right now.

When Commie Care went into effect, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Not only did Commie Care drastically increase his premiums, it spelled disaster for upcoming years.

So my employer decided to give us that money instead, and have to suffer Commie Care plans. Because the plan did not allow employers to just hand over that money, the only other option was a pay increase (a raise if you will).

In order to give us that money via hourly wage increase, it upped his contributions for SS matching deductions, Medicare deductions, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation insurance increases.

One dollar per hour equals (on average) 200 dollars per month. However he was paying 350 per month for each of our plans. The other 150 dollars got eaten up by all of his costs associated with that pay increase.

In short, we got virtually nothing. The 200 bucks we made in pay increase was only a third of most Commie Care plans that reflected similar insurance coverage we had under his group plan.

 

[Flopper]

I'm not sure online education works as well, or more importantly whether employers value it. I know there are very prestigious post-grad programs that make some use of it, but there it's really about letting people continue their careers as they further their qualifications

One problem for online was there is no proctoring for testing, or making sure kids don't cheat. Obviously teachers can be bribed, but it shouldn't be too hard or expensive to have monitored test taking at local places like community colleges. And social media just continues to increase people's ability to do real face time.

With brick and mortar, I know a teacher, a counselor and a couple of nurses who did their first two years living at home and working for three four years, and then matriculated to get their degrees, and their loans are being forgiven for their working in low income areas.

In most places, I don't thing the issue is really a lack of affordable education. What I know occurs is some students have no intention of either graduating or paying back loans, and they view it as better than working.

Whether an online course is a good choice depends both on the student the course. and the teacher. Some students benefit greatly from the classroom. They learn more from the interactions with the teacher and the class. Other student hate it and do better in an online setting. Also some course lend themselves better to a particular mode of instruction. Also the teacher makes a huge difference. An excellent teacher can inspire and poor teacher can turn the class off. In my experience online classes work best if there's a teacher available to answer questions an conduct online discussions.

Western Governors University is a 100% online university offering a number of degrees in Teaching, Business, IT, Health and Nursing. They are fully accredited 4 year university offering bachelors and masters degrees as well as certifications. They currently have an enrollment of 91,000 students and 100,000 people have degrees from WGU. The average student age is 37. Costs are a lot less than other universities but it's not cheap, about $15,000 for a bachelors degree. There are a number of other online universities.
I've taken a lot of online course and generally like them. However, they are not for everyone. You really have to be a self starter because there is a lot of work and no one is going to be monitor your progress..

 

[Flopper]

IOW, you want to make a college degree about as worthless as a public high school diploma now is. That's what will happen if you make college "free."

Why don't liberals ever call for federal controls on these exorbitant college tuition rates and unearned six--digit "faculty" salaries? You wanna control education costs, you could start there.

Before the federal government got so heavily involved, a college degree meant something, and college tuition rates were a fraction of what they are now (adjusted for inflation).

There is certainly a correlation between the increases in federal student financial aid an increases in college cost. However, correlation is not the same as cause and effect. Increases in federal student financial aid has generally followed the increases in college costs. I have no doubt that federal financial aid to students has contributed to cost increase. However, there are many other factors that have also increased college cost.