Should student loan debt be canceled?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

My first college was two dollars a credit hour...

...and yet you failed miserably.

 

[Dekster]

I got this from Yahoo News and it presents an important question.

It mentions that students – or graduates – are in debt to the tune of $1.25 TRILLION! And that lots of Dimocrap candidates want to see it “forgiven.”

It would only help 42 million people, a mere 14?% of Americans.

My take is simple. Why should you go to college if you’re not ready to pay your way?

My granddaughter is going to college, studying civil engineering. She is receiving scholarships because she busted her butt in high school, earning straight As. And she’s working part-time to help pay for her school costs.

Is she less important than those parasites who sit around doing nothing to get degrees in art appreciation or minority theme studies?

And then comes this:

"It is complicated and potentially fraught and has many specifics that will have to be more thoroughly vetted, and some groups will benefit more than others, but as a statement of values, it is clear. It is a vision that says higher education should be accessible to people regardless of race, class, or place of origin." — John Warner, Inside Higher Ed

Why? Where in our constitution does it say there is a right to higher education?

"This pander will not only be incredibly costly, but it will be a slap in the face to those who have already struggled to pay off their student loans without government assistance." — Philip Klein, Washington Examiner

Muck, much more @ Should student loan debt be canceled?

I am for it because all the money people are flooding into student loan payments should be used to increase discretionary spending. The system is a drag on the economy. We could shorten degree programs by a year like europeans do, and provide free or nominal cost education and cut out all the outrageousness

 

[Moonglow]

My first college was two dollars a credit hour...

...and yet you failed miserably.

Nope not yet.

 

[Andylusion]

They had Doctors that would go through all college to the tune of At Least 100,000 dollars, correct? Then declare Bankruptcy. Not that it was any hardship on them. That's why the law changes to say there isn't forgiveness on student loans. That's why I voted "only critical degrees" . Its hilarious. Its on top now of your poll.

That doesn't make sense. You can't bankrupt a student loan. What you are saying is, the dumb doctor, borrowed a ton of money, other than the student loan. Well... yeah if you borrow tons of money, you end up bankrupt, with or without a student loan.

My take is, the government shouldn't be involved in education. If the government was not involved in education, then it would not cost $100,000 to go to medical school. The government being involved, is why it costs so much to go to school.

You know what you need to get educated on something? A teacher, and a room. If government was not involved, the cost of education would fall.

As for the cost of student loans.... students make terrible choices on where to be educated, and on what course of study to be educated. Part of the reason they make such terrible choices, is because they don't pay the price. They get student loans, rack up tons of debt, and they don't feel it. They don't have to work, and don't pay a bill.

If they had to work for every dollar they needed to pay for their education, they would be wiser on where they went, and more diligent on what they studied.

 

[Andylusion]

I got this from Yahoo News and it presents an important question.

It mentions that students – or graduates – are in debt to the tune of $1.25 TRILLION! And that lots of Dimocrap candidates want to see it “forgiven.”

It would only help 42 million people, a mere 14?% of Americans.

My take is simple. Why should you go to college if you’re not ready to pay your way?

My granddaughter is going to college, studying civil engineering. She is receiving scholarships because she busted her butt in high school, earning straight As. And she’s working part-time to help pay for her school costs.

Is she less important than those parasites who sit around doing nothing to get degrees in art appreciation or minority theme studies?

And then comes this:

"It is complicated and potentially fraught and has many specifics that will have to be more thoroughly vetted, and some groups will benefit more than others, but as a statement of values, it is clear. It is a vision that says higher education should be accessible to people regardless of race, class, or place of origin." — John Warner, Inside Higher Ed

Why? Where in our constitution does it say there is a right to higher education?

"This pander will not only be incredibly costly, but it will be a slap in the face to those who have already struggled to pay off their student loans without government assistance." — Philip Klein, Washington Examiner

Muck, much more @ Should student loan debt be canceled?

I am for it because all the money people are flooding into student loan payments should be used to increase discretionary spending. The system is a drag on the economy. We could shorten degree programs by a year like europeans do, and provide free or nominal cost education and cut out all the outrageousness

Do tell how much discretionary spending they could do, when we double their taxes, to pay for all those student loans?

This is the problem with all socialism. You look at the direct cost, and pretend that if government pays that cost, that you don't. Yeah, you won't get a loan payment bill. That's true. But that doesn't magically make the bill go away. You just lose the same amount of money, if not more in taxes.

Don't play this game, where the magic money tree in washington pays the bills. You are going to pay it. Either you will pay it directly, or you'll pay by having less money in your pay check.

And here's the kicker... the cost you'll have to pay through the government, will nearly always be higher, than you paying it yourself. Why? Because how many millions more are going to go to the most expensive schools they can, because government is paying for it? So the government will need more of your money, than it would cost if you were just paying for yourself.

And how many people earn a super expensive degree, and then come out working at Burger King? Tons. Happens all the time. Right now, they pay for their stupidity. But if government is paying for it.... you think the government is going to get the money back for a $100,000 degree, from a whooper flopper guy? No, they are going to get the money from you, who is working hard. The person earning money, is the person who is going to pay for all those people who wasted millions of dollars to flip over burgers.

Terrible idea. Absolutely horrible. Why do you think the UK is moving to make students pay more for their education?
Because free education doesn't work.

 

[Dekster]

I got this from Yahoo News and it presents an important question.

It mentions that students – or graduates – are in debt to the tune of $1.25 TRILLION! And that lots of Dimocrap candidates want to see it “forgiven.”

It would only help 42 million people, a mere 14?% of Americans.

My take is simple. Why should you go to college if you’re not ready to pay your way?

My granddaughter is going to college, studying civil engineering. She is receiving scholarships because she busted her butt in high school, earning straight As. And she’s working part-time to help pay for her school costs.

Is she less important than those parasites who sit around doing nothing to get degrees in art appreciation or minority theme studies?

And then comes this:

"It is complicated and potentially fraught and has many specifics that will have to be more thoroughly vetted, and some groups will benefit more than others, but as a statement of values, it is clear. It is a vision that says higher education should be accessible to people regardless of race, class, or place of origin." — John Warner, Inside Higher Ed

Why? Where in our constitution does it say there is a right to higher education?

"This pander will not only be incredibly costly, but it will be a slap in the face to those who have already struggled to pay off their student loans without government assistance." — Philip Klein, Washington Examiner

Muck, much more @ Should student loan debt be canceled?

I am for it because all the money people are flooding into student loan payments should be used to increase discretionary spending. The system is a drag on the economy. We could shorten degree programs by a year like europeans do, and provide free or nominal cost education and cut out all the outrageousness

Do tell how much discretionary spending they could do, when we double their taxes, to pay for all those student loans?

This is the problem with all socialism. You look at the direct cost, and pretend that if government pays that cost, that you don't. Yeah, you won't get a loan payment bill. That's true. But that doesn't magically make the bill go away. You just lose the same amount of money, if not more in taxes.

Don't play this game, where the magic money tree in washington pays the bills. You are going to pay it. Either you will pay it directly, or you'll pay by having less money in your pay check.

And here's the kicker... the cost you'll have to pay through the government, will nearly always be higher, than you paying it yourself. Why? Because how many millions more are going to go to the most expensive schools they can, because government is paying for it? So the government will need more of your money, than it would cost if you were just paying for yourself.

And how many people earn a super expensive degree, and then come out working at Burger King? Tons. Happens all the time. Right now, they pay for their stupidity. But if government is paying for it.... you think the government is going to get the money back for a $100,000 degree, from a whooper flopper guy? No, they are going to get the money from you, who is working hard. The person earning money, is the person who is going to pay for all those people who wasted millions of dollars to flip over burgers.

Terrible idea. Absolutely horrible. Why do you think the UK is moving to make students pay more for their education?
Because free education doesn't work.

As for existing loans, they have already been made and paid for. You would not have to double anybody's taxes. The funds were already raised. You would just cancel the debt. As for the cost of free or low cost college, the government would simply need to change the model. Allowable tuition could be capped. Cost of instruction could be lowered. The process could be streamlined. Existing high school classrooms could be used for instruction for people who attend in the evening and work in the day. High school students in many places can already amass a lot of college credits just through dual enrollment programs. Allowing students to matriculate in place would further greatly push down the cost of a college degree because they would not have to do the travel, room & board, etc.

 

[Andylusion]

I got this from Yahoo News and it presents an important question.

It mentions that students – or graduates – are in debt to the tune of $1.25 TRILLION! And that lots of Dimocrap candidates want to see it “forgiven.”

It would only help 42 million people, a mere 14?% of Americans.

My take is simple. Why should you go to college if you’re not ready to pay your way?

My granddaughter is going to college, studying civil engineering. She is receiving scholarships because she busted her butt in high school, earning straight As. And she’s working part-time to help pay for her school costs.

Is she less important than those parasites who sit around doing nothing to get degrees in art appreciation or minority theme studies?

And then comes this:

"It is complicated and potentially fraught and has many specifics that will have to be more thoroughly vetted, and some groups will benefit more than others, but as a statement of values, it is clear. It is a vision that says higher education should be accessible to people regardless of race, class, or place of origin." — John Warner, Inside Higher Ed

Why? Where in our constitution does it say there is a right to higher education?

"This pander will not only be incredibly costly, but it will be a slap in the face to those who have already struggled to pay off their student loans without government assistance." — Philip Klein, Washington Examiner

Muck, much more @ Should student loan debt be canceled?

I am for it because all the money people are flooding into student loan payments should be used to increase discretionary spending. The system is a drag on the economy. We could shorten degree programs by a year like europeans do, and provide free or nominal cost education and cut out all the outrageousness

Do tell how much discretionary spending they could do, when we double their taxes, to pay for all those student loans?

This is the problem with all socialism. You look at the direct cost, and pretend that if government pays that cost, that you don't. Yeah, you won't get a loan payment bill. That's true. But that doesn't magically make the bill go away. You just lose the same amount of money, if not more in taxes.

Don't play this game, where the magic money tree in washington pays the bills. You are going to pay it. Either you will pay it directly, or you'll pay by having less money in your pay check.

And here's the kicker... the cost you'll have to pay through the government, will nearly always be higher, than you paying it yourself. Why? Because how many millions more are going to go to the most expensive schools they can, because government is paying for it? So the government will need more of your money, than it would cost if you were just paying for yourself.

And how many people earn a super expensive degree, and then come out working at Burger King? Tons. Happens all the time. Right now, they pay for their stupidity. But if government is paying for it.... you think the government is going to get the money back for a $100,000 degree, from a whooper flopper guy? No, they are going to get the money from you, who is working hard. The person earning money, is the person who is going to pay for all those people who wasted millions of dollars to flip over burgers.

Terrible idea. Absolutely horrible. Why do you think the UK is moving to make students pay more for their education?
Because free education doesn't work.

As for existing loans, they have already been made and paid for. You would not have to double anybody's taxes. The funds were already raised. You would just cancel the debt. As for the cost of free or low cost college, the government would simply need to change the model. Allowable tuition could be capped. Cost of instruction could be lowered. The process could be streamlined. Existing high school classrooms could be used for instruction for people who attend in the evening and work in the day. High school students in many places can already amass a lot of college credits just through dual enrollment programs. Allowing students to matriculate in place would further greatly push down the cost of a college degree because they would not have to do the travel, room & board, etc.

Which means the tax payers have to foot the bill.

The whole reason we don't raise taxes right now to pay those student loans, is because the students are paying those loans back. If you cancel the debt, that doesn't magically make the debt disappear.

We would have to pay it, with taxes. This is one of the most baffling conversations I have with people on the left wing, and a few on the right wing, about government debt. It doesn't just "go away".... someone has to pay it. If not the students paying back student loans, then the government has to tax someone to pay it.

And by the way, most student loans are not paid for up front. They go through a financial institution. That financial institution for me, was "Great Lakes Student Loan Services". That institution paid several thousand in loans, which I paid back while working full time in college.

If the government had "forgiven" my student loan, the government would have been required to pay that institution back in full, plus interest on the loan.

You do that across the country with every student, that means the Federal Government will have to pay back $1.5 Trillion in loans that are guaranteed by the student loan laws. Who pays that? The tax payers. You... me... everyone who works.

Cost of instruction could be lowered.

Yeah, sure they can. Just like they lower health care costs.....

Right? Because once you make them employees of the government, they strike constantly for higher wages.

No, I don't buy that idea. It's never worked before, and I have no reason to believe it will now.

Allowable tuition could be capped.

Price caps have never worked in the history of the world. Terrible idea. The only time prices have declined in any market, is when you have a free-market capitalist system. You are going the exact opposite direction, and that has never resulted in lower prices. Never. Not one time in all human history.

 

[Mike Dwight]

I still didn't Explain the current iteration of the law very well? You could have right now told yourself, I want to be a Doctor. How do I do that? I plan to take a loan for 80,000 in student loans for 8 years of college, and you can declare bankruptcy every 7 years chapter 11 or 13. Congratulations on being a debt free Medical Doctor that earns 80,000 a year already. That is the actual behavior in practice on the current universal student loan law that you can't leave behind any student debts. They quizzed you on it in college classes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Nobody here is addressing the fact that the reason college tuition is so expensive now as compared to earlier generations is because the government keeps subsidizing it with more and more loan money. They need to get out of the student loan business. Turn it back over to financial institutions to make the loans and you'll see the price of tuition drop.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I got this from Yahoo News and it presents an important question.

It mentions that students – or graduates – are in debt to the tune of $1.25 TRILLION! And that lots of Dimocrap candidates want to see it “forgiven.”

It would only help 42 million people, a mere 14?% of Americans.

My take is simple. Why should you go to college if you’re not ready to pay your way?

My granddaughter is going to college, studying civil engineering. She is receiving scholarships because she busted her butt in high school, earning straight As. And she’s working part-time to help pay for her school costs.

Is she less important than those parasites who sit around doing nothing to get degrees in art appreciation or minority theme studies?

And then comes this:

"It is complicated and potentially fraught and has many specifics that will have to be more thoroughly vetted, and some groups will benefit more than others, but as a statement of values, it is clear. It is a vision that says higher education should be accessible to people regardless of race, class, or place of origin." — John Warner, Inside Higher Ed

Why? Where in our constitution does it say there is a right to higher education?

"This pander will not only be incredibly costly, but it will be a slap in the face to those who have already struggled to pay off their student loans without government assistance." — Philip Klein, Washington Examiner

Muck, much more @ Should student loan debt be canceled?

I am for it because all the money people are flooding into student loan payments should be used to increase discretionary spending. The system is a drag on the economy. We could shorten degree programs by a year like europeans do, and provide free or nominal cost education and cut out all the outrageousness

Do tell how much discretionary spending they could do, when we double their taxes, to pay for all those student loans?

This is the problem with all socialism. You look at the direct cost, and pretend that if government pays that cost, that you don't. Yeah, you won't get a loan payment bill. That's true. But that doesn't magically make the bill go away. You just lose the same amount of money, if not more in taxes.

Don't play this game, where the magic money tree in washington pays the bills. You are going to pay it. Either you will pay it directly, or you'll pay by having less money in your pay check.

And here's the kicker... the cost you'll have to pay through the government, will nearly always be higher, than you paying it yourself. Why? Because how many millions more are going to go to the most expensive schools they can, because government is paying for it? So the government will need more of your money, than it would cost if you were just paying for yourself.

And how many people earn a super expensive degree, and then come out working at Burger King? Tons. Happens all the time. Right now, they pay for their stupidity. But if government is paying for it.... you think the government is going to get the money back for a $100,000 degree, from a whooper flopper guy? No, they are going to get the money from you, who is working hard. The person earning money, is the person who is going to pay for all those people who wasted millions of dollars to flip over burgers.

Terrible idea. Absolutely horrible. Why do you think the UK is moving to make students pay more for their education?
Because free education doesn't work.

As for existing loans, they have already been made and paid for. You would not have to double anybody's taxes. The funds were already raised. You would just cancel the debt. As for the cost of free or low cost college, the government would simply need to change the model. Allowable tuition could be capped. Cost of instruction could be lowered. The process could be streamlined. Existing high school classrooms could be used for instruction for people who attend in the evening and work in the day. High school students in many places can already amass a lot of college credits just through dual enrollment programs. Allowing students to matriculate in place would further greatly push down the cost of a college degree because they would not have to do the travel, room & board, etc.

You could have stopped after that first sentence because you have already proven yourself to be an idiot!

What about the income to the government from those loans being paid back? Would that funding source not have to be replaced? If you say 'no", it only confirms your lack of intelligence.