Student Loan Forgiveness is a Farce

Jump to Last Post 1-13 of 13 discussions (77 posts)
  1. Springboard profile image82
    Springboardposted 2 months ago

    I am so sick and tired of the push by the Biden administration to force student loan forgiveness on the American taxpayers, many of whom did not go to college and now must pay the debts.

    I think we're ALL being duped. The kids, the taxpayers, and the ones who are getting off Scott free are the colleges who are selling a bill of goods and not being held to account for it.

    While I am against taxpayers paying the debts of anyone for any reason, IF I were to be onboard with any plan, it would be to pay the debts of our seniors, saddled with medical bills, who have already paid their contribution to society.

    What say you?

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Absolutely! That's a truly compassionate thought. I too would prefer taking care of our seniors, especially those burdened by medical expenses after a lifetime of contribution. Count me in for any plan that supports such a worthy endeavor! 

      There's been considerable debate surrounding President Biden's proposal to forgive student loan debt. While the idea may seem appealing to some at first glance, there are several reasons why it might not be the most prudent course of action. Firstly, forgiving student loans could set a precedent that undermines personal responsibility.  I argue that individuals willingly took on these debts and should be accountable for repaying them. I do not want to pay for anyone's loans, period. I venture to say the majority of taxpayers feel the same.

      Moreover, blanket forgiveness may disproportionately benefit higher-income earners who took out these larger loans for advanced degrees, while doing little to address the systemic issues plaguing lower-income individuals.  Critics also raise concerns about the economic implications, fearing that the cost of widespread loan forgiveness could burden taxpayers and detract from other pressing national priorities.
      Taxpayers are footing the bill for what seems like a blatant political maneuver aimed at garnering votes. Personally, I see this as another misstep by Biden. His unchecked spending and this transparent scheme are bound to irk a lot of people. Hey, I think this will truely help get Trump elected.

      1. Springboard profile image82
        Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Very well said on all points. And you're right. It's a vote grab. While it may not be the same thing, one could suggest it is misappropriately using federal funds during a campaign to incentivize voters at the poll. Something that would be illegal if campaign funds were used to do the same. Whether it's buying someone lunch or paying off their student debt, it's buying votes.

        Beyond that, the big question for me are the colleges and how much they should be held to account? If they sold a product that did not deliver the promise of higher pay and the salaries are not commensurate with the cost of the degrees, that seems like false advertising to me.

        I admit that may be a bit of a semantic argument, considering I also understand the financial ineptitude of many Americans who regardless of their income become cash strapped through ignorance.

        It is still a question that should be asked.

        Either way, it is wrong to ask taxpayers to flip the bill—the personal responsibility argument notwithstanding. So much spending by the government is frivolous in my opinion already. I don't mind paying taxes to protect the nation and keep the government running. But it's all this other stuff money is being spent on that I do not support, that no American should support, that really gets my blood boiling. Because they just keep spending it and asking for more and more money that I receive no personal benefit as an American from.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I hold a negative opinion of Biden, believing he often generates issues he struggles to resolve. His track record supports this view, evident in his handling of issues like the border crisis, economic challenges, and ineffective foreign policies. This latest scheme aligns with his leftist agenda and seems to follow the same pattern of ill-conceived proposals.

          When it comes to colleges, they are indeed a fundamental part of the issue, and the situation is intricate, with roots extending from the grassroots level. Yet, ponder this: if Biden opts to pay off student loans, how might colleges perceive this? From my perspective, they might interpret it as validation to persist as part of the problem, with the assurance of government backing. 

          Let's not overlook those currently attending college or preparing to start in the fall. Shouldn't they question the necessity of acquiring loans? Will they seek government assistance to alleviate their debt burden? One notable aspect of this issue is the potential for widespread unease among Americans, not just regarding President Biden's proposal to use taxpayer money to cancel others' loans, but also concerning the prospect of contributing to their own children's college expenses, while others got loan relief from Joe...  Many will perceive this as a political maneuver, as you rightly pointed out.
           
          Ultimately, this could potentially emerge as a significant political misstep, prompting disillusionment and disengagement from an administration known for its excessive spending and flawed ideologies.  I have my fingers crossed.

          1. Springboard profile image82
            Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            "When it comes to colleges, they are indeed a fundamental part of the issue, and the situation is intricate, with roots extending from the grassroots level. Yet, ponder this: if Biden opts to pay off student loans, how might colleges perceive this? From my perspective, they might interpret it as validation to persist as part of the problem, with the assurance of government backing."

            I think this is part of the problem overall. Colleges have really ramped up tuitions over the past few decades the more money has become more "readily available" through loans and other things. I think student loan forgiveness is just one more way to justify raising costs again. Wherever there is money floating around, there will be hands to grab at whatever they can get.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Absolutely agreed. The skyrocketing costs of college tuition over the past few decades have most certainly contributed significantly to the current student debt crisis. It's alarming how readily available loans and other financial aid have fueled this trend. The cycle seems to perpetuate itself: as more financial aid becomes accessible, colleges hike up tuition, leading to even greater debt burdens for students. It's a concerning loop that needs serious attention and reform.

            2. Nathanville profile image93
              Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              This forum is proving educational for me; and on reading the posts I’ve learnt one new ‘American phrase’ e.g. ‘Student loan forgiveness’; on asking Google I think I sort of understand what ‘student loan forgiveness’ means, but I would be grateful if anyone can clarify in simple terms?

              Also, from reading this forum I get the distinct impression that American universities are ‘profit making organisations’, and thus profit motivated – Have I understood right?

              In the UK, although universities are not government owned, they are financed by the UK Government, and are not allowed to make a profit e.g. any money they make is ploughed back into R&D (Research & Development) etc.

              I also gather in America that it’s the universities who set how much the universities fees are – Have I understood correctly?

              In England, Wales and Northern Ireland universities fees are set by the UK Government, which is currently £9,250 ($11,500) per year.  In Scotland universities are free for all UK & EU citizens, except the English, who have to pay the $11,500 set by the UK Government e.g. the Scottish (socialist) government, who believes that  education should be free to all, never ratified the UK law when tuition fees were introduced by the UK Government in 1998.

              Another apparent difference between the UK & USA, if I’ve understood what’s been said in this forum, is the ‘student loan crisis’ in America; although I’m still trying to get it around my head whether the crisis is because the American tax payer is bailing out students who don’t pay back the loan, or whether it’s because students are being burdened with huge debts that they struggle to repay – or a mixture of both?

              In the UK it’s not an issue because only university students who financially benefit from getting their university degree have to pay anything back, and even then the system is set up in such a way to ensure the repayments are not crippling (see the two examples below). 

              Students who don’t earn above the national average wage after getting their university degree never pay a penny (cent) back – And any student loan debt outstanding after 30 years is automatically written off anyway.

              Examples of Student Loan Repayments in UK:
              In the UK the wages threshold at which you start paying a student loan back is $34,000 per year; and you only pay back just 9% of what you earn above that threshold, and nothing below it.

              Example One:
              In the UK if on leaving university with a degree a student never earns more than $34,000 per year then he/she will never pay a penny (cent) back, and the debt will be written off after 30 years.

              Example Two
              In the UK if on leaving university with a degree a student earns $35,000 per year then he/she will pay just $79 a year off his/her student loan.

              Example Three
              In the UK if on leaving university with a degree a student earns $43,657 per year then he/she will pay just $865 a year off his/her student loan.

              These articles explains in more detail:

              UK Rules on Student loan repayments for student loans taken out between 2012 & 2022:
              https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/stude … s-changes/

              UK Rules on Student loan repayments for student loans taken out from 2023 onwards:
              https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/stude … nd-plan-5/

    2. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      It is all about politics. It's simply vote buying and it's wrong. The reality that both sides do it doesn't make this effort right.

      That thought doesn't have anything to do with the value of the degree, they are a free-market product with a voluntary choice—buy or don't buy.

      Life can be tough on new career entrants in all sectors, so why should the student loan borrowers be favored over the new tradesmen who borrowed for the equipment to start their careers?

      GA

      1. Springboard profile image82
        Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        I agree and disagree on the buy or don't buy argument since college is essentially a business. They send out "counselors," and encourage students in high schools to apply with the promise that "this is the only way to have a financial edge."

        We all know, as we are older and wiser, that isn't true. Most college degreed jobs pay LESS than non-college degree jobs these days. But that's not what students are being told.

        If I sell someone a Cadillac Escalade and it is discovered what I actually sold was a Chevy Avalanche with a Cadillac grill thrown onto it, someone's going to be calling me out just as much as if I turned back the odometer.

        Whether or not it is a voluntary choice—buy or don't buy—the product still cannot be sold on the premise of lies. McDonald's cannot advertise a 100% all-beef burger and then make it with 10% chicken.

        Like I said before, it is a complicated issue since I think there's blame that can be passed along to multiple people. The colleges for selling a lie, parents and students being uninformed about the realities, and lack of financial planning and management skills on behalf of those who take on the loans and join the workforce with their degrees.

        Aside from that point, I agree with pretty much everything else you said here.

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I don't see your disagreement. The point was a degree is a product in the marketplace. The reasons for the choice (your recruiters and counselors example) don't change the act of the choice.

          The argument about colleges' 'presentations' and degree value is for the buyer to decide. As you said, colleges are businesses in a marketplace. And everyone involved is culpable, from the lenders to the kids and parents (as you noted).

          GA

          1. Springboard profile image82
            Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            I guess then, we actually do agree. lol

    3. abwilliams profile image67
      abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this
    4. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
      TheShadowSpecterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Giving Joe Biden a book full of blank checks to pay off the entire student loan debt is a scary thought any way you think of it.  He simply doesn't know how to handle the student loan debt crisis, because he's not thinking rationally.  I say that he not be permitted to make any decision on that, even if the Supreme Court has to step in to stop it.  Donald Trump would know how to handle the student loan debt crisis as our future president because of his corporate know-how.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. might know how to handle it as our future president because of his background experience in government.  But Joe Biden doesn't have the wherewithal to make wise decisions about it.  He'd only put our nation further into debt.  The People's Republic of China would own all of us in that event.  At the end of the day, we simply don' t want another four years of Joe Biden.

      1. Springboard profile image82
        Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        We agree.

  2. Nathanville profile image93
    Nathanvilleposted 2 months ago

    I’ll not comment on the American ‘Student Loans’ system as the rules and attitudes are different in the UK.

    However, the question of poverty of senior citizens mentioned in posts in this forum did catch my interest; so I did a bit of digging around on the web, and found some interesting data, and a related article to that data, that might be worth a browse?  Links below:

    https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/d76 … 76e4fad-en

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/05/whether … -used.html

    In summary, according to the OECD, the average for developed counties is that about 14.1% of senior citizens over the age of 65 live in relative income poverty.

    The UK at 15.5% is near the average, but much worse than most European countries; While the USA at 23.1% is one of the worst nations in the developed world!

    From reading the documents, and from past discussions in these forums, a fundamental difference between the USA & UK for income for senior citizens is that:-

    •    In the USA income for senior citizens comes from ‘Social Security’, voluntary works schemes (where they exist) and savings.

    •    In the UK income for senior citizens comes from ‘State Pension’ and ‘Work Pensions (which have been compulsory in the UK since 2012)’ e.g. no need for savings (as a safety net in the UK there is always ‘social security’ (welfare benefits) for pensioners living in poverty). N.B. in the UK State Pension is not Social Security.

    •    Plus of course, in the UK healthcare is free for all, at the point of use (NHS); so our senior citizens are not “burdened by medical expenses” anyway.

    I don’t know what the answer is for the USA, as regards senior citizen poverty; but in the UK State Pension is protected by the ‘triple lock’, which helps to reduce poverty for the elderly:-

    The Pension Triple Lock:  https://youtu.be/G8EIzGq5qCk

    1. Springboard profile image82
      Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      The biggest issue regarding poverty in the USA, I think, is lack of understanding of finances, and not fully participating in the economy. But that also stems from lack of education on the subject. Social Security, for example, is something that many here see as a pension, even though it has never been considered one. It was never intended nor designed to be the sole source of income for seniors, but rather to be a supplement to other pensions and savings.

      As you mentioned, of course.

      But many people simply don't understand that, even though every year they receive a statement of benefits that outlines exactly how much they will receive in benefits when they decide to collect.

      As for the healthcare system, free for all is a system I don't personally support as I see any free system only being worth having based on those who already advanced the technology offered for a profit. If you remove the profit incentive, you slow down the innovation and technological advancements that make any healthcare worth having IMO.

      The bottom line is, it's complicated.

      1. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Yep, as you concluded – it’s complicated.

        Yes, education is important; your comments prompted me to check what is in the ‘National Curriculum’ these days in the UK; and financial literacy education became part of the National Curriculum at Key State 3 & 4 in September 2014, as part of citizenship and maths education e.g. all school children in the UK are now taught finances from the age of 11.  When I was at school (a long time ago) the economy was taught in UK schools from age 14.

        Even politics is taught in UK schools these days from the age of 11, to a point that a UK Youth Parliament, for children from the age of 11 to 18, was formed in 1998, and since 2009 UK Governments have given consent for the UK Youth Parliament to sit in Parliament (Westminster) once a year to debate and vote on their issues – one of the leading campaigns by the UK Youth Parliament being to lower the voting age to 16; which as a result of their efforts, the voting age was lowered to 16 in Scotland in 2015, and in Wales in 2020.

        Short extract (just 6 minutes) of one such UK Youth Parliament’s being held in the House of Commons (Parliament): https://youtu.be/u894bXZoyZs

        The problem in the UK isn’t so much that there isn’t the education, it’s more that some kids are just not that interested in learning; and they (unless they change their minds later in life, and go to college or university) are the ones who tend to end up being relatively poor, and more ignorant of what’s what.

        In recent months I had a lengthy discussion with Americans on these forums about your State Pension in America actually being Social Security; whereas in the UK it’s a separate thing.

        In the UK the State Pension was introduced in Jan 1909, and from 1948 has been financed through a special ‘Income Tax’ called NI (National Insurance).

        In the UK Social Security (Welfare Benefits) is separate to the State Pension e.g. in the UK in Feb 2023 there were 12.6 million people receiving State Pension, of which 8.7 million also got Social Security (Welfare Benefits).

        As an American, what may shock you is that the welfare state is a big part of British family life e.g. 64% of all families in the UK receive some kind of welfare benefits (Social Security), as explained in more detail in this old British newspaper article: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 … acts-myths

        As regards the special ‘Income Tax’ in the UK, which I mentioned above, called NI (National Insurance):  Introduced by Labour (socialist government) in 1948, NI is a regressive tax on wages in that those earning enough to pay taxes pay a flat rate 10% NI, while the top 5% wage earners only pay 2% NI tax.

        The purpose of the National Insurance (NI) tax on wages is that it specifically pays for the State Pension and the NHS (National Health Service).

        Well actually, although the NHS (National Health Service) in the UK, including the Ambulance Service and Hospitals are State Owned and all its employees including ambulance drivers, doctors and nurses and ancillary staff are all government employees –

        Innovation has always been and remains a cornerstone of the NHS. 

        In the UK the NHS has a close partnership with universities e.g. they do R&D (research and development) jointly, such that in spite of not being profit motivated the NHS has been at the forefront of research and development in pioneering procedures such as intra-ocular lens implants and total hip replacements, to critical technologies like computerised tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

        In fact, it was the NHS who (for no cost to the British parents) produced the world’s first 'test-tube baby', Louise Brown, born on 25th July 1978 in Oldham, northwest England - IVF (like everything else) is free on the NHS.

        Test tube baby Louise Brown and the birth of IVF: https://youtu.be/0ergLN41d7c

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    From the Annie E. Casey Foundation: " Mak­ing the Case, an Aspen Insti­tute pub­li­ca­tion fund­ed by the Annie E. Casey Foun­da­tion, cites a find­ing from the Bureau of Labor Sta­tis­tics, which states that the price of tuition and fees increased by 63% between 2006 and 2016. Var­i­ous fac­tors have con­tributed to this increase:
    The cost of the ser­vices that col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties pro­vide has risen.
    The cost of employ­ing fac­ul­ty and staff has grown.
    Sup­port from states and local­i­ties has decreased — par­tic­u­lar­ly affect­ing pub­lic col­leges and universities.
    Stu­dents have eas­i­er access to edu­ca­tion loans. Fill­ing out a Free Appli­ca­tion for Stu­dent Aid (FAF­SA) is as sim­ple as going online and answer­ing a few ques­tions. Under­grad­u­ate and grad­u­ate stu­dents and their par­ents may apply for four types of direct loans. Often, no cred­it check is required. Under­grad­u­ate stu­dents may bor­row up to $12,500 per year, while grad­u­ate stu­dents may bor­row up to $20,500 per year. Appli­cants may accept all or part of a loan.
    State fund­ing for high­er edu­ca­tion has declined. Accord­ing to The Pew Char­i­ta­ble Trusts, ​“Over the past two decades and par­tic­u­lar­ly since the Great Reces­sion, spend­ing across lev­els of gov­ern­ment con­verged as state invest­ments declined, par­tic­u­lar­ly in gen­er­al-pur­pose sup­port for insti­tu­tions, and fed­er­al ones grew.”
    Col­lege degrees are los­ing val­ue. Debt aris­ing from a post­sec­ondary edu­ca­tion has typ­i­cal­ly been con­sid­ered a nec­es­sary step for increas­ing life­time income. His­tor­i­cal­ly, indi­vid­u­als with a bachelor’s degree or high­er earn hun­dreds of thou­sands of dol­lars more over their life­times than high school grad­u­ates. In recent years, hav­ing a col­lege degree has not guar­an­teed a well-pay­ing job — espe­cial­ly for Black female bor­row­ers who face both struc­tur­al racism and sex­ism. With an increas­ing num­ber of col­lege grads hav­ing to accept low­er-than-expect­ed paid work or being unem­ployed alto­geth­er, a col­lege degree doesn’t car­ry the val­ue it once did.
    Low-per­form­ing and fraud­u­lent schools can access fed­er­al loan pro­grams. A large num­ber of for-prof­it col­leges mis­rep­re­sent­ed stu­dents’ employ­ment prospects, includ­ing guar­an­tees they would find a job, encour­ag­ing them to take on fed­er­al stu­dent loans they like­ly wouldn’t be able to pay back."

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    I  would also add that the entire nation benefits from an educated work force.

    Springboard: Nice to hear from a new voice.

    1. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      a note about your "reply button" travails . . .

      My screens, desktop and mobile, look like this in the forums:

      Any place before the last post of the page:

      https://hubstatic.com/16992669_f1024.jpg
      Note the 3 choices at bottom, left. the "reply" choice quotes the post I am replying to with my response.



      ..


      The last post/bottom of the page:

      https://hubstatic.com/16992670_f1024.jpg
      the bottom left reply does as explained, but the bottom right "Post a Reply" button just adds my comment as a new comment not tied to any other post (does not quote a specific post)

      As mentioned, I didn't choose this view, it was the default. Are your screen views different?

      GA

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        GA: Thanks for taking the time to help me with this problem. Did this reply show up right after your post?

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, my comment was quoted in your reply. It worked.

          You should be able to see it too after submitting your reply and doing a screen refresh.

          GA

    2. Springboard profile image82
      Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Glad to be here. Thank you.

    3. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I believe if you can't comprehend the concept that you take out a loan, you pay it back.

      I would hope such a concept it taught in college today.

      Too many colleges are no longer institutions of higher learning but have morphed into liberal indoctrination centers.

      1. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
        TheShadowSpecterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        What I've noticed happening through the years is that both the public sector and private sector have devised programs within their institutions in which they agree to pay back a new hire's entire student loan debt provided that he or she agrees to work for them for at least three years.  Of course, these usually are for jobs that are difficult to fill.  A new hire could even end up getting stuck with a difficult boss for a substantial period of time in that event, but that's part of the trade-off they'd have to make to get their entire student loan paid.

        It would be better if our elected officials would encourage companies in the private sector to offer these program benefits to new hires so that the money to pay off a number of these student loans will be coming out of the pockets of rich corporate moguls rather than taxpayers.  And these rich corporate moguls will want to be taking that money out of their own pockets if they know that it's going to benefit their companies in the long run.

        When I was going into college, a lot of kids were enlisting in the military to take advantage of the G.I. Bill or the ROTC so that the military would pay for their college education.  Taxpayers had no problem with that, because it contributed to our national security.

        I would be okay with Federal government agencies offering these kinds of benefits to new hires so long as those agencies are ones that serve the purpose of national security (e.g. the Department of Homeland Security, National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, etc.).  If it keeps Russian soldiers or Iranian soldiers or any kind of terrorists off of American soil, then I'm all for it.

        On the other hand, I would not favor other Federal government agencies like the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, and the likes offering these benefits to new hires on the taxpayers' dime.  They wouldn't really be bringing anything to the table then.

        I'm all for student loan foregiveness, but not the kind that Joe Biden is trying to bring to fruition.  Either the money for it has to come from the private sector on a voluntary basis or it has to be a trade-off with the Federal government that benefits national security in some way.  Otherwise, it's all going to spiral out of control if Joe Biden is allowed to offer it on a silver platter with no strings attached to it.

        1. Readmikenow profile image94
          Readmikenowposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          "Either the money for it has to come from the private sector on a voluntary basis or it has to be a trade-off with the Federal government that benefits national security in some way."

          I agree with you.  I think that makes perfect sense.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            I agree as well, within limits.  Paying a computer expert a quarter million to cancel school debt, plus salary, for a years work in cyber crime would not be a part of those limits.

            1. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
              TheShadowSpecterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

              But as I stated before, normally these private companies or Federal government agencies have a stipulation in those same programs that the new hire has to work for them for at least three years or they won't qualify for it.  That amount of time could be lengthened to five or seven years for new hires going to work for Federal government agencies that protect our national security, depending on how the Congress feels about it.  It could also be stipulated that the new hire's entire student loan does not get paid off in full until after they have worked the minimum number of years in the agreement.

              On the other hand, private companies should be able to set the number of years in the program for however long they want, because then the money would not be coming out of the taxpayers' pockets at all but rather out of the coffers of the private companies who definitely have the money to spend on such new hire programs.  Of course, it would likely be the Fortune 500 companies that would participate in something of this nature rather than the small business, and it would be completely optional on their part to do so.  In other words, this money would not be coming out of the taxpayers' pockets but rather out of the pockets of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and whichever other corporate mogul decides to offer these programs to new hires, and it would be completely voluntary on the part of these corporate moguls.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                The point was that government would set up the programs to "pay" employees far, far more than the job is worth when the extra loan payments are taken into account.  That I would not agree with, and even a 3 year requirement is too little as it could easily translate into a $60,000 per year increase in salary, or over half again what anyone else is making.

                Of course, if the private sector wishes to do this then all is kosher, for it is not at the taxpayers dime.

                1. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
                  TheShadowSpecterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Exactly.  Of course, if one were to take advantage of the G.I. Bill or the ROTC by enlisting in one of the armed forces of the United States, then the military would pick up the entire costs of their college education in exchange for them serving our country and protecting our national security.  The way I see it is that if they're putting their lives on the line in dangerous combats, then I think it's a fair trade-off.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I agree - it is a fair trade off, particularly considering the poor pay we offer enlisted people.

                    But the way I see it is that the GI bill is a part of their compensation, and is a fair exchange (emphasis on the word "fair").  But there is nothing "fair" about paying a federal employee the going wage...plus a quarter million dollars spread over 3 or 5 years.  In addition, the GI bill is limited in how much can be taken; at this point loans are not.  Students simply take whatever they wish to, and now want someone else to pay it back for them.

  5. Credence2 profile image76
    Credence2posted 2 months ago

    Seems like I remember the "too big to fail" bailouts of corporate America in times of its distress during the first decade. Giving alms to the great gods of capitalism is never seen as a burden. I don't necessarily support the premise of the "big shot" handouts as always being something different.

    Yes, I know that most  of them would eventually pay, but who knew at the time that trillions were doled out.

    1. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      By comparing the loan forgiveness to the big bailouts you seem to be saying the loan forgiveness is wrong but that's okay because the other side does it too.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image76
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        What is good for the goose is good for the gander, why should the big shots be the only ones excused?

    2. Springboard profile image82
      Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I am not saying I have ever been an advocate for corporate bailouts any more than bailouts of any kind, but sometimes there are larger economic impacts that are of concern when entire industries are jeopardized that could compromise jobs and other associated industries.

      Say you let GM fail. You have to accept that it's not just GM that fails. It's every other business that operates in and around GM that fails along with them.

      If you don't try to bailout the businesses, you will ultimately have to bail out the tens of millions of people who may be out of work—furthering the economic impact.

      Truly, there is no economic impact if a few college students go bankrupt.

      When you think of a business, you have to look beyond just the business itself and think about all the other businesses and jobs that exist BECAUSE of them.

      GM might employ 163k people. But it might support 10 million jobs from suppliers to truck drivers to salespeople and dealerships, loan officers, mechanics and the list goes on.

    3. DrMark1961 profile image94
      DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Two wrongs do not make a right. The bailouts were wrong so that justifies student loan bailouts?

      1. Credence2 profile image76
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        It is always that old nursery rhyme that seems hold whenever the right get something to its advantage and want to criticize the Left for acquiring the same thing for its constituency.

        Much like the theft of a Supreme Court appointment from the Obama administration, by Republicans. So there can be no peace, just getting even at this point.

        Don't do the wrong in the first place, if you don't want consequences, I say.

        Welcome back, you have been away for awhile.

        1. Springboard profile image82
          Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Let's be real about this, though. The student loan forgiveness thing has nothing to do with taking care of their constituency. It has to do with buying their votes. That underlies a huge difference between bailouts and student loan forgiveness.

          1. Credence2 profile image76
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Aren't we always "buying votes"? it just depends on what constituency benefits before we want to acknowledge something is out of hand. It is the difference between 6 and half a dozen. There are positive benefits related to forgiveness of loans as there was for the bailouts.

            I do criticize Biden for offering such an idea in a flinty capitalistic economy always skewed toward the whims of the wealthy and well heeled. He is  fully aware that such a program would not pass the muster of the courts, it could be well seen as a political maneuver.

  6. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    When I hear -  excessive spending - referring to Democrats I wonder why fiscal conservatives don't realize that by increasing taxes you could also reduce debt? I also wonder what they would cut? I'll bet it wouldn't be anything that benefits them. I also wonder if they've taken a look at what administrations have blown up the national debt?

    USAFacts.com

    The national debt has grown by $25.73 trillion since 1993. The largest single-term increases took place under President Donald Trump, largely in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and President Barack Obama’s first term during the Great Recession.

    Under President Bill Clinton, the national debt began at approximately $4.23 trillion[1] and grew to $5.73 trillion, a 35.5% increase.
    Under President George W. Bush, the national debt grew from $5.73 to $10.63 trillion, a 85.5% increase.
    Under President Barack Obama, the national debt grew from $10.63 to $19.96 trillion, a 87.8% increase.
    Under President Donald Trump, the national debt grew from $19.96 to $27.77 trillion, a 39.1% increase.
    As of March 1, 2023, the national debt has grown from $27.77 trillion to $31.46 trillion under President Joe Biden, a 13.3% increase.

    1. Springboard profile image82
      Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I don't believe increasing taxes EVER amounts to any increases in actual revenue to the government because it takes money out of the real economy that could better be used to invest in things that produce MORE economic growth and thus, more tax revenue because people are essentially making more money.

      You don't reduce the debt by taxing more. You reduce the debt by encouraging economic activity that supports more dollars being collected, not percentages collected.

      Spending IS an issue and certainly needs to be addressed. But the less you tax people, the more the government receives in taxes. It's been proven over and over and over again.

      You cannot promote growth by siphoning off the very thing that makes it happen.

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        What happens when the people making the money avoid paying taxes? (I'm seriously asking because I'm intrigued by your answer to my post.)

        1. Springboard profile image82
          Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          The word "avoid," is often misused in my opinion. There is no fraud occurring. People are simply following the tax laws, written by our lawmakers. Yeah, they are "loopholes," to an extent. But it's not against the law to use them where they happen to be available. In fact, the loopholes ARE the law, as written in the tax code.

          If people want to close the loopholes, it's on the Congress to do that, and up to the People to pass the blame on them. Not the rich who simply follow the laws.

          It makes you wonder, sometimes, why people rally with their elected officials when they pound the podium and accuse the rich of not paying their fare share, when the ones pounding their fists are the ones who wrote the tax laws the rich and the businesses are following. Seems like they should stop pounding the podium and actually get to work to close the loopholes they hate that they created.

          I also think many people are a bit confused about the real contribution the rich and their businesses already make to the entire tax base. They make things we buy, from which taxes are collected on. They employ people who provide taxes. They grow their companies and investors make money from which more taxes are collected from.

          Every single thing a business creates in terms of revenue, provides revenue (and an enormous amount) to the government. And every dollar we take from the businesses themselves is less money to go to John Q. Public in terms of what benefits are received FROM all the other taxes that may not be collected through a reduction in economic activity in the real economy that is stifled by the tax charged to the business.

          Regardless, when it comes to taxes in general as it applies to businesses, adding taxes to them is not a tax on the business essentially. It's a tax on us. Because businesses will retain their margins regardless of what adds cost to running their business. Taxes are a cost of doing business. The taxes are passed along to the consumer no matter the amount. We pay every cent of it because businesses will simply add the cost of the tax into the price of the goods they sell.

          An example of this is when I was a landlord. My property tax could be raised. Sure. But essentially I did not pay a penny in taxes on my properties. The taxes charged to me were charged to my renters and paid by them. My desired ROI was 8%. That 8% did not become reduced by higher taxes. I simply raised the price of my rent to maintain my 8% and my renters paid the difference.

      2. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        "Including interest costs, extending all the tax breaks could add another $3.8 trillion to the national debt through 2033, according to an analysis last year by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget." Associated Press

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Gotta go with Springboard here.  Increase taxes, and our politicians will spend it.  Decrease taxes and they will keep right on spending.  Whatever we do, our politicians are constitutionally unable to spend only what they are given or what is prudent; they WILL spend more.  The only question is how MUCH more, and the answer is 'all they can possibly get away with'.

          1. Springboard profile image82
            Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            And unfortunately, a lot of the things the government spends on is frivolous with no real benefit to the taxpayers who pay for it all.

        2. Springboard profile image82
          Springboardposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I think these studies are misleading because again, higher taxes do not cause tax revenue to increase overall. The best way to reduce the debt, besides curbing spending, is to encourage a robust economy that provides for a larger economic base to collect taxes from.

  7. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 2 months ago

    How many of us have worked hard to pay for our children's education and now are expected to pay for the education of other people's children?

    If this is the case, I want the money that I paid to a college returned to me.

    That only seems fair.

    1. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      When I worked my way through college in the 1970s, an 18 to 22 - year old could find a job that paid enough to cover the costs of a 4-year degree. When my three children went to college in the late 1990s - early 2000s, the cost of college was far beyond the existence of jobs that a teenager could get.

      So, how did the federal college loans organizations respond? They raised interest rates on those loans. Then those young people graduated into an economy in a financial crisis like none seen since the Great Depression.

      "Research suggests that it (loan forgiveness) could help consumers from less privileged backgrounds build wealth and address racial disparities by benefiting those with the biggest loan balances, typically Black and Latinx consumers." Forbes

      It took our family 10 years to pay off our children's college educations. When I graduated in 1976 it took me one year to pay off my $3,000 of debt.

      Don't worry. We're not talking about bailing out the auto industry or banking industries. These are young people who will more than be a good return on our investment in them.

      Yeah, I sound like a bleeding heart. Grateful to be one after receiving an excellent higher education in America.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        It sounds to me like someone studied the wrong major in college.  If you have a four year degree and can't find a job to pay your bills, you studied the wrong things in college.

        Part of the learning experience is being responsible.  You take out a loan and you pay it back.

        It's the same as taking out a car loan, home loan, business loan, etc.

        What is next?  Too many young people are burdened with a home loan they can't pay because they had a major in college that didn't provide them with a good job.  We forgave their student loan, why not pay off their home loan as well?  How about their credit cards?  When does it stop?

        Sorry, you take out a loan, you pay it back. I don't care how long it takes. Meeting your obligations requires maturity.

        To me it is so simple.  It's called being a responsible adult.  Paying for your child's education is not easy, but it can be done.  I took out student loans and paid them all back.  My wife had student loans for her degrees and we paid them all back.

        That is how the real world works.  You are responsible for when you borrow money.

        1. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
          Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I wasn't referring to a job after college. I was referring to a job to pay your way while you are in college.

          You are responsible when you borrow money. But you do not have control over tuition and interest hikes or a college's intention to keep students in school absolutely as long as possible.

      2. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        I think I recall analyses that noted the majority of beneficiaries of student loan forgiveness programs are white upper-middle-class students and families, not poor minority ones.

        I think that's correct but I didn't ask Google for confirmation.

        GA

    2. abwilliams profile image67
      abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      We had to work through high school and college wasn't even on the radar of my Parents, if you wanted to attend, you applied yourself to earn a scholarship. (ha) Otherwise, you paid your way; which meant no hand-outs, no loans, no co-signing for loans, etc.
      That's what I did, I worked a full-time job and paid for night classes.
      Kids, don't take out loans! Work and pay your way or wait until you have the money saved to pay for classes and be able to focus totally on your education.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        When does it stop?

        Forgive student loans, then forgive home loans, then forgive car loans, then forgive business loans.

        Nobody has to pay back anything any more.

        Is this what they want?

        1. abwilliams profile image67
          abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, what better way to build loyalty into a Nation of serfs? Destroy independence, self-reliance, the entrepreneurial spirit, the American dream....destroying a free market economy and a Republic, all in one fell swoop.

  8. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    "Research suggests that it (loan forgiveness) could help consumers from less privileged backgrounds build wealth and address racial disparities by benefiting those with the biggest loan balances, typically Black and Latinx consumers." Forbes

    1. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Today's Associated Press:

      "The broadest forgiveness category would help borrowers who owe more than they originally borrowed because of runaway interest. It would eliminate up to $20,000 in interest for anyone in that situation, while those with annual incomes below $120,000 and enrolled in income-driven repayment plans would get all their interest erased with no maximum limit. It would be done automatically.

      Another category would cancel loans for people who have been paying back their undergraduate student loans for at least 20 years, and those who have been paying graduate loans at last 25 years."

      1. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        The Forbes quote tempted me to ask about the statistics.  Now I'm stuck with a handful of 'yeah, buts . . .'

        A Politafacts article gave me what I needed without worrying about their numbers.

        I have the response any smart married man would offer. The six most important words that many fathers have passed to their sons on their wedding day:  "Yes dear, [ma'am in this case] you're right, I'm wrong."

        I was wrong, but, I also found a few 'yeah buts' that I think are arguably legitimate and mitigate how wrong I was. Maybe not so much, but still wrong. ;-)

        That was for Forbes, your AP quote raises more questions about the details. I thought the deal was for ten or twenty thousand per, the AP details make it sound like it is a lot more than that.

        But I'm not looking. The details of who benefits don't change the concept of the act. There is no legitimacy to the act of the government arbitrarily doing this. Even if the beneficiaries were only poor blacks and poor whites the act would still be wrong.

        Wait a bit before you read that as a pig-headed closed mind. Consider the government's action as if you were blind to who the beneficiaries would be. Is the act just as legitimate if the beneficiaries were only rich folks

        GA

  9. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    " Is the act just as legitimate if the beneficiaries were only rich folks"

    It doesn't matter if they are rich or poor. If they have been paying for X number of years but because of every-rising interest and tuition rates, their loans are forgiven at that point. It's nowhere near free. They've already been paying for years.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I paid for my loan for 30 years!  That was the term of the contract and I fulfilled it.  No one, including strangers at the orders of the President, paid it for me.

      Why are they any different?  Why do they get to have strangers forced to pay their bills, but I didn't?  Why was I forced to pay my entire bill (every loan I took out in 60 years) but now I must pay theirs, too?

      Because they were too stupid to limit their borrowing to what they could afford?

    2. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I believe they should be paying until their student loan is paid off.

      That is how loans are supposed to work.

      You would think college educated people would grasp such a concept.

    3. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Another has already commented on that rationalization: what about forgiving their mortgages for the same reasons?

      If those rationalizations work for student loans, then why not include their mortgages too? That's not an absurd question, both are burdensome debts that were acquired voluntarily.

      GA

  10. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    Many are paying a great deal more than they originally borrowed because of ever-increasing interest rates. That is the issue. No one is having their entire loan forgiven.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      The total bill on my mortgage was approximately 3X what I borrowed.  That's how long term loans work.  If you get a variable interest rate loan, you can expect that rate to vary.  That's how that works, too (no, interest rates are not "ever-increasing").

    2. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Oh yest they are. I have a doctor friend who had her student loan forgiven.  Between she and her husband they have quite a nice income.  Now, they will have an even better one.  Trust me, paying their student loan was not a hardship at all.

  11. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    I imagine a doctor has been paying on her loans for quite some time.

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      And they have the financial ability to keep paying them until they are paid off.

      I really think loans are loans and need to be paid back by the borrower.

  12. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 2 months ago

    Typical biden and the democrats.  Laws are for other people to obey.

    "Defying the Supreme Court on student loans, Biden sets a dangerous precedent

    Until now, presidents have accepted that the court’s right to settle questions of law is final.

    Ever since the Supreme Court ruled last year that President Biden had no authority to unilaterally write off $430 billion in student loans, he and his aides have been crowing that they intended to do it anyway.

    Within hours of the court’s decision, Biden truculently told reporters that the court was wrong. He declared he would “stop at nothing to find other ways” to get what he wanted. Soon the administration began generating fresh schemes to cancel student debt — or, more accurately, to transfer that debt to taxpayers. In February, announcing his intention to relieve an additional 153,000 borrowers of the obligation to pay back what they owe, Biden again stressed that he would not comply with the court’s mandate. “The Supreme Court blocked it, but that didn’t stop me,” he boasted on Feb. 21.

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/14/ … an-relief/

  13. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    Question: When you take out a loan are you locked in to your interest rate? Many less than scrupulous student loans are variable making the loan harder and harder to pay back. This step is an effort to right that wrong in the marketplace.

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, lets defy the Supreme Court.  It will pay dividends to lawlessness long into the future. 

      Why do we have a Supreme Court if individuals like biden ignore its rulings?

    2. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Sometimes.  Most of the time.  There are, though, variable rate mortgages still available if you want to play that game.

      No, forcing me to pay for a student's poorly chosen loans is not "righting the wrong in the marketplace".

      1. Ken Burgess profile image74
        Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        We are in the middle of systemic collapse... and we have leadership in DC that is in total denial of this reality (along with most reality... they don't know what a woman is for cripes sakes.)

        Leadership that is adding 1 Trillion dollars of debt every 100 days.

        A few months ago we had 33 Trillion in debt... today that number is 35 Trillion.

        This is why inflation is going back up despite the increase in interest rates.

        This government (Biden & Co.) is paying other nation's entire budgets while our own economy tanks.

        While we fly in millions of migrants to put on social services, spending hundreds of billions on people who are not citizens.

        We have a completely corrupt, criminal, and insane group of people in control of America today... and until that is addressed, there is only one direction things are going to continue to go.

        Especially in loony tunes States like NY and CA that are even more corrupt and delusional than those running things in DC.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          "We have a completely corrupt, criminal, and insane group of people in control of America today"

          On the whole, I would disagree with this.  Those people know exactly what they are doing, and exactly what they hope it will gain them.  That they don't care about the man in the street, or the long term viability of the country, does not make them insane.

          But yes, they are criminal in both the legal and ethical sense of the word and about as corrupt as it is possible to be.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)