Executive Order to forgive $50,000 in student debt

[Lesh]

If I recall, 10 years was the payback on those.

You recall wrong. My kid graduated in 2006. The loan won't be repaid for another 8 years...at 6%. It's Federally guarantee and can't be wiped out by bankruptcy.. That's a scam if I ever heard one

 

[justinacolmena]

Congratulations US Taxpayer, looks like you will get to pick up the $50,000 tab of irresponsible college students and families who took on more debt than they could handle because they felt entitled to go to private elite colleges 3 time zones away and concentrate their studies in useless majors that have no demand in the job market. These students and families who feel entitled to this have the audacity to say they have been “enslaved” or victimized by student debt.

Back to the original question, are the students -- in exchange for debt forgiveness -- going to give up their degrees from those bankrupt diploma mills or financially exigent educational institutions and agree that they have no bona fide academic accomplishments to their name, and are no longer qualified for anything but unskilled labor?

 

[JoeB131]

It all worked before Clinton and the GOP overturned Glass Steagall.

Obama, Dodd and Frank created a bill to institutionalize "To Big to Fail" as opposed to simply reinstating G/S.

Did it? Did you forget the 1990 Saving and Loan Crisis, that happened even though Glass Seagel was in place?

Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One third of S&L's failed in that time period. The problem wasn't regulations, it was lax enforcement. Same with the 2008 crisis.

I remember when my mortgage got sold to another company because the guy who ran the place that gave me my initial mortgage had bought himself a huge yacht with the proceeds of his S&L.

I love the child-like view of economics of Bernie Bros.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, disability is a government program I paid into my entire working life. Kids don't pay into a government program for college loans they don't want to pay back stupid.

So what you are arguing is we should give you money even though you've outlived your usefulness to the one Percent,

But we shouldn't invest in these kids who have futures of productivity.

Does this make sense to you in your mindset.

Good thing you have liberalism to save you from... yourself.

 

[pknopp]

It all worked before Clinton and the GOP overturned Glass Steagall.

Obama, Dodd and Frank created a bill to institutionalize "To Big to Fail" as opposed to simply reinstating G/S.

Did it? Did you forget the 1990 Saving and Loan Crisis, that happened even though Glass Seagel was in place?

Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One third of S&L's failed in that time period. The problem wasn't regulations, it was lax enforcement. Same with the 2008 crisis.

I remember when my mortgage got sold to another company because the guy who ran the place that gave me my initial mortgage had bought himself a huge yacht with the proceeds of his S&L.

I love the child-like view of economics of Bernie Bros.

The S&L thing did not crash the economy did it? Why is that?

Also, we prosecuted those (largely) involved in that unlike the 2008 debacle. Why was that?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If I recall, 10 years was the payback on those.

You recall wrong. My kid graduated in 2006. The loan won't be repaid for another 8 years...at 6%. It's Federally guarantee and can't be wiped out by bankruptcy.. That's a scam if I ever heard one

The normal term is 10 years. The only exceptions are consolidation loans. Your 'kid' is obviously lacking in intelligence like someone else we all know.

Now, kiss my ass you dumb cock holster!

 

[Cecilie1200]

the business isn't getting the education; the student is.

The business is teh one profiting on the education of the student. The education being the toil of the student. The business should be obligated to pay for that toil in addition to the actural education. Yes, business should pay a salary to the student while they are in school.

The business pays for the part of the student's education that it uses by way of the salary they pay him as an employee.

Immoral horse shit.
For example,
the military pays the soldier and pays to train the soldier. Why not business?

Business has more an obligation to so this as they PROFIT on the worker.

To also allow the non working investor class to profit on student loans while not have to pay to train their employees is positively an immoral system.

Put 18 year old's in debt while they train to make a profit for the non working investor class? And then profiting on those loans also? What can be more immoral?

No, dumbass, THE STUDENT is profiting from the education more than anyone. THEY are the ones getting better-paying jobs - assuming they've spent their college time learning something useful - and THEY are the ones taking that education with them wherever they go.

The business, on the other hand, is RENTING the use of that student's education, and that student can pick up and take that education to their competitors whenever they like. So you tell me how the business "has more of an obligation" to an education they can't really control and keep for themselves. The student OWNS that education; the business does not.

Trying to make a moral argument for "someone else should give me whatever I want, with no obligation on my part" only demonstrates that you wouldn't recognize an actual moral if it crawled up your pants leg.

You mention the military in one of your posts. First of all, the military trains the soldier because they tend to require specialized skills that aren't readily available in and don't necessarily translate to the civilian world. Also, you might notice, the military requires you to work for them, non-negotiable, for a period of time in exchange for that training. Choosing to take your skills and pick up and leave before that time is up is actually a criminal offense. Are you suggesting that private businesses should be allowed to operate the same way?

Are 18-year-olds adults, or aren't they? You think it's perfectly fine to give them the responsibilities of voting for the leader of the free world, marrying, buying property, joining the military and risking their lives - one assumes - but when it comes to understanding debt before they take it on, they're suddenly dribbling babies who can't be trusted to feed themselves properly.

 

[pknopp]

the business isn't getting the education; the student is.

The business is teh one profiting on the education of the student. The education being the toil of the student. The business should be obligated to pay for that toil in addition to the actural education. Yes, business should pay a salary to the student while they are in school.

The business pays for the part of the student's education that it uses by way of the salary they pay him as an employee.

Immoral horse shit.
For example,
the military pays the soldier and pays to train the soldier. Why not business?

Business has more an obligation to so this as they PROFIT on the worker.

To also allow the non working investor class to profit on student loans while not have to pay to train their employees is positively an immoral system.

Put 18 year old's in debt while they train to make a profit for the non working investor class? And then profiting on those loans also? What can be more immoral?

No, dumbass, THE STUDENT is profiting from the education more than anyone. THEY are the ones getting better-paying jobs - assuming they've spent their college time learning something useful - and THEY are the ones taking that education with them wherever they go.

The business, on the other hand, is RENTING the use of that student's education, and that student can pick up and take that education to their competitors whenever they like. So you tell me how the business "has more of an obligation" to an education they can't really control and keep for themselves. The student OWNS that education; the business does not.

Businesses can create an agreement where the student gets educated and then agree's to work for that company for X years. I know Pharmacies used to take advantage of this quite a bit (I have no idea if they still do).

Trying to make a moral argument for "someone else should give me whatever I want, with no obligation on my part" only demonstrates that you wouldn't recognize an actual moral if it crawled up your pants leg.

Are 18-year-olds adults, or aren't they? You think it's perfectly fine to give them the responsibilities of voting for the leader of the free world, marrying, buying property, joining the military and risking their lives - one assumes - but when it comes to understanding debt before they take it on, they're suddenly dribbling babies who can't be trusted to feel themselves properly.

We "give" billions to the markets every year. Do they not understand that profits were not supposed to be guaranteed year after year?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Immoral horse shit.
For example,
the military pays the soldier and pays to train the soldier. Why not business?

How would you force business to do this? Because after all, force is the only way they would do it.

I am glad you ask this because it acknowledges that you agree that this is their rightful cost.

How to accomplish this? Simple, whatever educational requirements a business has should be collected as a tax.
So if a company requires an MBA, a company must pay a tax amount comparable to that cost.

How about if we just keep the government out of it altogether? Abolish government funding of education. Then businesses will have to pay to educate their workers. The worker is the one who receives the education, not the business.

You need to think of the education as a capital investment. Just as business needs to buy software for it's computer hardware, it needs to buy software (education) for it's hardware (employees).

Education may be a capital investment, but it's YOUR investment as a student, because it's YOUR capital. The vast majority of people these days have multiple employers throughout their lives. All of those employers benefit from the education of the employee, so which one of them has the "responsibility" of paying for the education for all of them to use?

Human beings are not software; they are not hardware. My employer purchases inanimate equipment and supplies, and those objects become their property forever. I, on the other hand, still belong to me. What is in my head belongs to me. They rent my services, which I can easily take to their competitors whenever I feel like it. You are suggesting that humans be treated like property when it comes to paying for things you want to be given without obligation on your part, but I doubt you are willing to carry that analogy out to its conclusion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am glad you ask this because it acknowledges that you agree that this is their rightful cost.

How to accomplish this? Simple, whatever educational requirements a business has should be collected as a tax.
So if a company requires an MBA, a company must pay a tax amount comparable to that cost.

Okay. So you and I are trying for the same job. I have a college education in which to do the job immediately. You apply for the job and the employer would have to fund your education first. Who do you think would get that job, you or me?

Why should a business fund your education when you can go get a better job the minute you complete your studies?

He doesn't seem to be aware that tuition reimbursement programs ALWAYS contain a clause specifying that the employee MUST work for the company for X amount of time after the education in order to pay it off. If they leave before that time is up, they have to pay it back, because the company has not used those skills sufficiently to pay back their investment. Also, you have to already BE an employee for a certain amount of time first; they aren't going to hire you off the street and then send you to school.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am glad you ask this because it acknowledges that you agree that this is their rightful cost.

How to accomplish this? Simple, whatever educational requirements a business has should be collected as a tax.
So if a company requires an MBA, a company must pay a tax amount comparable to that cost.

Okay. So you and I are trying for the same job. I have a college education in which to do the job immediately. You apply for the job and the employer would have to fund your education first. Who do you think would get that job, you or me?

Why should a business fund your education when you can go get a better job the minute you complete your studies?

Many do, my former employer would pay tuition and books for any employee without a post graduate degree. They also would fund post-grad degrees if they benefited the company. Not all companies do this, but there are a few.

And I'm guessing they also required the employee to remain in their employ for a certain amount of time to justify the cost to the company. They didn't just let them get the degree and then prance off to their competitors.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He doesn't seem to be aware that tuition reimbursement programs ALWAYS contain a clause specifying that the employee MUST work for the company for X amount of time after the education in order to pay it off. If they leave before that time is up, they have to pay it back, because the company has not used those skills sufficiently to pay back their investment. Also, you have to already BE an employee for a certain amount of time first; they aren't going to hire you off the street and then send you to school.

Yep, that's what my employer did for his employees that have been with him for years. We had tractor-trailer drivers and straight truck drivers which are two different licenses. He always had one or two straight truck drivers with a Class A (tractor-trailer) license as a backup for when one of us were off for illness or vacation.

The straight truck driver had to get his temps. An experienced driver took him out on weekends to teach him how to drive a T/T. When our experienced driver felt he drove good enough to pass the test, they both went out to get him his written and road test complete. When he passed, we always had him as backup. They would advance to full time T/T job when one became available. The guy that took my job when I left was our backup.

My employer also realized that with a Class A, that straight truck driver could find a better paying job driving T/T full-time somewhere else. So he made them sign a three year contract in order to be trained and get his Class A license.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Businesses can create an agreement where the student gets educated and then agree's to work for that company for X years. I know Pharmacies used to take advantage of this quite a bit (I have no idea if they still do).

But they are still able to do the job until that education is complete. That doesn't apply to most industries. If a company needs an engineer, they can't pay for all the education for that person to become an engineer and then start working. They needed an engineer that can start immediately.

 

[pknopp]

Businesses can create an agreement where the student gets educated and then agree's to work for that company for X years. I know Pharmacies used to take advantage of this quite a bit (I have no idea if they still do).

But they are still able to do the job until that education is complete. That doesn't apply to most industries. If a company needs an engineer, they can't pay for all the education for that person to become an engineer and then start working. They needed an engineer that can start immediately.

There is all kinds of work done in an office setting not actually done by the engineer. Both the engineer and the pharmacist student would be spending most of their time in class.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what you are arguing is we should give you money even though you've outlived your usefulness to the one Percent,

But we shouldn't invest in these kids who have futures of productivity.

Does this make sense to you in your mindset.

Good thing you have liberalism to save you from... yourself.

Yes, that's the way it works in our society. You work all your life and then get back what you paid into the government in the end if you live long enough. If you don't, you paid all that money for nothing. Yep, socialism. It's not an optional program. When you work, you are mandated to be part of it.

While I don't want to be repetitive, it makes no sense for a taxpayer to fund the education of a doctor, and when that taxpayer needs that doctor they paid to educate, gets charged $200.00 for a 20 minute office visit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is all kinds of work done in an office setting not actually done by the engineer. Both the engineer and the pharmacist student would be spending most of their time in class.

But most jobs are not like that. If a drug store needs a pharmacist, they don't have six years to wait for one. They need one right now. I don't know anything about that line of work, but I'm assuming that somebody that isn't a pharmacist won't be able to do at least some of the work a pharmacist does while still being profitable to the drug store.

 

[pknopp]

There is all kinds of work done in an office setting not actually done by the engineer. Both the engineer and the pharmacist student would be spending most of their time in class.

But most jobs are not like that. If a drug store needs a pharmacist, they don't have six years to wait for one. They need one right now. I don't know anything about that line of work, but I'm assuming that somebody that isn't a pharmacist won't be able to do at least some of the work a pharmacist does while still being profitable to the drug store.

They are perfectly capable of planning for the future.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He doesn't seem to be aware that tuition reimbursement programs ALWAYS contain a clause specifying that the employee MUST work for the company for X amount of time after the education in order to pay it off. If they leave before that time is up, they have to pay it back, because the company has not used those skills sufficiently to pay back their investment. Also, you have to already BE an employee for a certain amount of time first; they aren't going to hire you off the street and then send you to school.

Yep, that's what my employer did for his employees that have been with him for years. We had tractor-trailer drivers and straight truck drivers which are two different licenses. He always had one or two straight truck drivers with a Class A (tractor-trailer) license as a backup for when one of us were off for illness or vacation.

The straight truck driver had to get his temps. An experienced driver took him out on weekends to teach him how to drive a T/T. When our experienced driver felt he drove good enough to pass the test, they both went out to get him his written and road test complete. When he passed, we always had him as backup. They would advance to full time T/T job when one became available. The guy that took my job when I left was our backup.

My employer also realized that with a Class A, that straight truck driver could find a better paying job driving T/T full-time somewhere else. So he made them sign a three year contract in order to be trained and get his Class A license.

The year that I spent as a truck driver, I got my CDL training through my prospective employer. I had to sign a contract agreeing that I would work for them for a certain amount of time to pay off the cost of training me. It's not the first time I've availed myself of employer-paid training, although it's the only time it was ever done as a new hire. Because of that, I also had to accept getting paid less per mile than a new hire who already had a CDL and experience.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cursive is useless. I have not used it since high school and I am 60 years old.

I still write checks for tax deductible items so I have a paper trail. My bank sends back photo copies of the canceled checks. Then I can categorize them, do the math, and present the results to my tax preparer. The more work I can do on taxes myself, the less she charges.

If I get audited, I don't have to show the IRS all my bank statements with selected deductions. I can give them photo copies of the checks of questionable payments only showing who I sent money to and why.

But as I said earlier, if somebody had to fill out a police report, I'd love to see one written by a person that doesn't know cursive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what you are arguing is we should give you money even though you've outlived your usefulness to the one Percent,

But we shouldn't invest in these kids who have futures of productivity.

Does this make sense to you in your mindset.

Good thing you have liberalism to save you from... yourself.

Yes, that's the way it works in our society. You work all your life and then get back what you paid into the government in the end if you live long enough. If you don't, you paid all that money for nothing. Yep, socialism. It's not an optional program. When you work, you are mandated to be part of it.

While I don't want to be repetitive, it makes no sense for a taxpayer to fund the education of a doctor, and when that taxpayer needs that doctor they paid to educate, gets charged $200.00 for a 20 minute office visit.

Twenty minutes? Damn, aren't YOU the optimist.