Student Loans

869 Views | 23 Replies | Last: 7 mo ago by Florda_mike
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

So you want to help those who don't save any money and the ones that do the right thing get screwed?
That question/concern is the primary reason people vote GOP,
CObear
How long do you want to ignore this user?

It is super frustrating and I have sacrificed quite a bit to prepare to fund education for my boys (ages 10,7, 4). However, I would rather be prepared than not. Sometimes you are the bug and sometimes you are the windshield in these situations...

However, rarely do I hear about (from politicians) the ridiculous inflation in education combined with something they are actually going to do about it! Our beloved Baylor is culprit in this as well. According to The Chronicle Of Higher Education, Baylor has averaged a 7.86% increase in tuition from 1998-2018 (although only about 4.0% the last two years). That is crazy and is similar to national averages.

There is legit frustrations on both sides of this issue and changes need to take place on all sides. Would I appreciate a tax deduction on 529 plans (federally)? Of course! Do the schools need to be held to a CPI or something similar? Yes, though that is more complicated. Should we subsidize folks under a certain income? Probably, as much as I don't like it.
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Federal student loans drove the rise in college costs. People assume loans and then don't understand why they should be repaid. Basic ethics.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-father-asks-elizabeth-warren-if-hes-going-to-get-his-money-back-after-paying-for-daughters-education
57Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When my kids were in elementary school, a new Montessori school open in my city. We went to the grand opening welcome house. One of the first things that came up was cost. They had three levels based on parental income: Nothing, Standard, and Twice Standard. We left right after that part of the presentation.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
57Bear said:

When my kids were in elementary school, a new Montessori school open in my city. We went to the grand opening welcome house. One of the first things that came up was cost. They had three levels based on parental income: Nothing, Standard, and Twice Standard. We left right after that part of the presentation.


Diversity was its strength?
What makes the offended right?
Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:


Quote:

So you want to help those who don't save any money and the ones that do the right thing get screwed?
That question/concern is the primary reason people vote GOP,
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/24/student-loan-official-resigns-calling-for-massive-debt-cancellation.html

How about this plan? Head guy from the student loan office resigned recently and called for a $50,000 cancellation and an equal tax credit to be paid indefinitely until the full $50k is used by the borrowers that paid their loans off. I'd say a more realistic amount is $10k. It will have to be addressed eventually, and will take a bipartisan effort. This problem will not go away on it's own, and will become a crisis in the next recession.

The obvious answer to me is to lower the interest rates to treasury levels, so students can at least put a bigger dent in the principal amount due. As someone who graduated with $38,000 (and paid off), I am very much interested in this issue. The current method of deducted interest isn't helpful enough, and it's application is dependent on income level.

Absolutely everyone I know that had student loans from other countries had either a treasury interest rate or paid no interest at all. That is called an investment in your country's future. Australia, all of the EU, the UK, and even Thailand recognizes this.

I would vote GOP if this issue were addressed. This along with healthcare, which I commend Trump for at least trying to open the window on publishing hospital prices publicly.
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
57Bear said:

When my kids were in elementary school, a new Montessori school open in my city. We went to the grand opening welcome house. One of the first things that came up was cost. They had three levels based on parental income: Nothing, Standard, and Twice Standard. We left right after that part of the presentation.


"To each according to their needs; from each according to their abilities"
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Student loan "forgiveness" isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about student loan "Transfer". This father did an excellent job of highlighting that.

Wiping off debt contractually agreed to creates moral hazard, extraordinarily deep divides between those benefiting and those who saved to pay and sets a precedent for the next sweeping fiscal disaster.

This would be incredibly immoral.
Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

Student loan "forgiveness" isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about student loan "Transfer". This father did an excellent job of highlighting that.

Wiping off debt contractually agreed to creates moral hazard, extraordinarily deep divides between those benefiting and those who saved to pay and sets a precedent for the next sweeping fiscal disaster.

This would be incredibly immoral.
Wish this point came up during the last recession and bank bailout. If businesses are now people, as Citizen's United has deemed, then that situation and solution was incredibly immoral.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

Bearitto said:

Student loan "forgiveness" isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about student loan "Transfer". This father did an excellent job of highlighting that.

Wiping off debt contractually agreed to creates moral hazard, extraordinarily deep divides between those benefiting and those who saved to pay and sets a precedent for the next sweeping fiscal disaster.

This would be incredibly immoral.
Wish this point came up during the last recession and bank bailout. If businesses are now people, as Citizen's United has deemed, then that situation and solution was incredibly immoral.


If you were paying attention during the bailout, you saw a plurality of people on the right and many on the left (those not in politics) oppose the bailouts precisely because of "moral hazard". I considered citing that previously but I'm posting on my phone.

Citizens United is absolutely irrelevant to this topic. It's an incredible leap to try and bring it up as if it did. Let that go. The left lost that case. Trying to shoehorn it in where it doesn't belong is silly.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I thought Liz was just going to tax all the billionaires 90% (her ultra tax plan) and cover all of this.
midgett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

Bearitto said:

Student loan "forgiveness" isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about student loan "Transfer". This father did an excellent job of highlighting that.

Wiping off debt contractually agreed to creates moral hazard, extraordinarily deep divides between those benefiting and those who saved to pay and sets a precedent for the next sweeping fiscal disaster.

This would be incredibly immoral.
Wish this point came up during the last recession and bank bailout. If businesses are now people, as Citizen's United has deemed, then that situation and solution was incredibly immoral.


Agree loan rates should be based on a Treasury rate. Often, it's non-government entities administering the loans and they want some juice.

The problem isn't that the government is in the student loan business. It's that the government guarantees colleges against default. Therefore, colleges have no real skin in the game. They can continue to raise prices.

If the government would remove the guarantee, it would slow the rise. They'd need to do something to reduce default risk. There are other issues that could arise but at least the college is having to be more responsible.

A few years ago, a friend asked a regent - I won't mention his name - why tuition had gone up 6% that year. He casually replied Baylor raises it 6% every year.

It has nothing to do with forecasts and costs and putting students first. Just raise it 6% and spend the additional revenue. 6% per year doubles in 12 years. We had some real idiots on the board under Starr.
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

...We had some real idiots on the board under Starr.
And we didn't have any real idiots under any other president? Not sure this is really something you can blame Uncle Ken for. I don't think Starr chose regents did he?
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

Quote:

...We had some real idiots on the board under Starr.
And we didn't have any real idiots under any other president? Not sure this is really something you can blame Uncle Ken for. I don't think Starr chose regents did he?



Is "Starr's Baylor" the same sort of ignorant incantation that "Trump's America" is?
CHP Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
midgett said:

Buddha Bear said:

Bearitto said:

Student loan "forgiveness" isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about student loan "Transfer". This father did an excellent job of highlighting that.

Wiping off debt contractually agreed to creates moral hazard, extraordinarily deep divides between those benefiting and those who saved to pay and sets a precedent for the next sweeping fiscal disaster.

This would be incredibly immoral.
Wish this point came up during the last recession and bank bailout. If businesses are now people, as Citizen's United has deemed, then that situation and solution was incredibly immoral.


Agree loan rates should be based on a Treasury rate. Often, it's non-government entities administering the loans and they want some juice.

The problem isn't that the government is in the student loan business. It's that the government guarantees colleges against default. Therefore, colleges have no real skin in the game. They can continue to raise prices.

If the government would remove the guarantee, it would slow the rise. They'd need to do something to reduce default risk. There are other issues that could arise but at least the college is having to be more responsible.

A few years ago, a friend asked a regent - I won't mention his name - why tuition had gone up 6% that year. He casually replied Baylor raises it 6% every year.

It has nothing to do with forecasts and costs and putting students first. Just raise it 6% and spend the additional revenue. 6% per year doubles in 12 years. We had some real idiots on the board under Starr.
Paragraph 1: O.K. With Treasury rate. It cost $ for entities to administer - Paragraph 2: So true - Paragraph 3: So True - Paragraph 4: Some regents are rubber stampers. I want to say more but I'll leave it at that. - Paragraph 5: First two sentences O.K. Last sentence. You made your point but remember it cost long green to maintain The Green and Gold. Like, facilities maintenance, salaries, health care, etc. Oh, the cost of success. Finally, my wife and I sacrificed putting our two rugrats through Baylor and Vanderbilt Universities. Stayed in same home for approx. 40 years and set aside monies for school. No gov. dollars. Ate lots of S.O.S. Retired debt free. I view college as an investment. You get the picture. If one's choice is to borrow for an education honor the agreement! Otherwise, how about Junior College? Finally, my choice turned out great. I now ask them for money and threaten to move into their basement. We'll, isn't turn about fair play?
midgett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

Quote:

...We had some real idiots on the board under Starr.
And we didn't have any real idiots under any other president? Not sure this is really something you can blame Uncle Ken for. I don't think Starr chose regents did he?



Yes. This regent happened to serve under Starr. Not necessarily an indictment of Starr - though I'd happily rip him a new one - just that we had a lot of "yes men & women" on the board with some dominant agenda driven regents. Bad combination as we saw with Title 9 ball being dropped
57Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
midgett said:

Malbec said:

Quote:

...We had some real idiots on the board under Starr.
And we didn't have any real idiots under any other president? Not sure this is really something you can blame Uncle Ken for. I don't think Starr chose regents did he?



Yes. This regent happened to serve under Starr. Not necessarily an indictment of Starr - though I'd happily rip him a new one - just that we had a lot of "yes men & women" on the board with some dominant agenda driven regents. Bad combination as we saw with Title 9 ball being dropped
serve under someone or something: to carry out one's responsibility under the direction or in the employment of someone.

Do you think that the "dominant agenda driven regents" are gone?
BUMBA1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It goes even deeper than what he argued....if dems propose paying for student loan debt cancellation via an increase in capital gains tax or a an additional tax for stock or mutual fund purchases....folks in his (and my) position will be paying a premium on the debt they already paid.

I fully funded my loans personally (through loans, scholarships, grants and employment) and paid them back. I guarantee you my loan amount is higher than 99% of ALL borrowers. I still sacrificed and paid it back. I shouldn't have to pay others as well who didn't sacrifice to do the same.
57Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I know a young lady who chose to major in pharmacy. She financed her education. After graduation she worked two jobs and paid off her loans in three years.

Some majors yield better income after graduation than others do.
Guy Noir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:

Federal student loans drove the rise in college costs. People assume loans and then don't understand why they should be repaid. Basic ethics.
I agree. I am a strong believer in getting the Federal Government out of the Loan business. All the Federal Insured loans have enabled the rapid increase of tuition.
Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guy Noir said:

Kyle said:

Federal student loans drove the rise in college costs. People assume loans and then don't understand why they should be repaid. Basic ethics.
I agree. I am a strong believer in getting the Federal Government out of the Loan business. All the Federal Insured loans have enabled the rapid increase of tuition.


Yes, and I believe Fed insured loans just allowed for higher salaries or more money to liberalize the teaching of our youth. Money grab bag for politicians goes unmentioned and obvious. Fed student loan program is criminal

Saul Alinsky 101
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.