Why such a lack of compassion on student debt?

[CoffeeTiger 5,102]

 

This is a good article that covers how I feel about the issue of student loan debt. The 2 most common arguments I see Conservatives always give for their opposition to student loan relief is 

1) (this usually comes from older Conservatives) "I was able to work my own way through college at the local grocery store. Why aren't young people these days willing to do hard work to earn their education instead of expecting things for free or for other people to bail them out?"

I think part of it is just natrual that they are using their own lived experience without really thinking about how drastically things are different than when they went to college in the 1970's and 1980's. Adjusted for inflation, college is 400-500% more expensive today than it was when they were in college and new college graduates typically aren't making anywhere even close to 400% more money when they graduate. Collège is vastly more expensive and the reward for graduating is not as big as it used to be. They don't realize that THEY are the ones who lucked out and were fortunate to be able to get an education that was relatively affordable for their time period. 

2) Like the article mentioned, "Why should I pay for debt relief for these irresponsible people that took out loans they couldn't afford; or "It's not fair that I had to pay off my loans while other people might get off without having to" 

And I think this article is a very good response to these issues.  

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/05/student-debt-loan-forgiveness-lack-of-compassion/

Why can’t we let good things happen to other people?

Last month, President Biden hinted that he was prepared to cancel at least some federal student loan debt once the pandemic-era repayment moratorium expires Aug. 31.

Republicans in particular immediately lashed out. Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) suggested that loan forgiveness was a “bribe” to boost Biden’s poll numbers. Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance called it a “massive windfall to the rich.” Fox News host Laura Ingraham suggested that loan forgiveness was an insult to hard-working Americans. “My mom worked as a waitress until she was 73 to help pay for our college, even helped with loan repayment,” she tweeted, insinuating that others should buckle down and do the same.

 

Days later, the president clarified the limits of his plans. Biden reassured reporters that the amount forgiven would be lower than the $50,000 demanded by the progressive wing of his party. Staff members made clear that they were discussing a potential income cap and other eligibility criteria for loan relief — no doubt to address these, by now, predictable objections.

According to recent polling, 64 percent of registered voters favor some kind of student loan forgiveness. Yet still, a whiff of resentment lingers in the air: “What about me?” Some people have already paid off their loans. Others never had any to begin with. Why should they support a policy that wouldn’t benefit them?

 

Biden would win no favors by doing so, but he could give an obvious reply: “Well, what about you?” The zero-sum mind-set may be instinctual. But the more we indulge it, the worse our country becomes.

 

From masking (Why should I cover my face to protect someone else?) to child-care funding (Why should I have to pay for kids I don’t have?) to, now, student loan relief, Americans have displayed a growing unwillingness to consider the needs of their fellow citizens: either to slightly inconvenience themselves for another’s sake, or to simply let good things happen for others without demanding something for themselves.

According to Romney and Vance, apparently, it would be better that $1.6 trillion in debt continue to dog the steps of 45 million people rather than to see a single so-called elite catch a break. I struggled, so you must struggle, too, Ingraham seethes — never seeming to consider that it is tragic, in fact, that her mother had to work into old age to pay off her daughter’s debt.

It is understandable that some who have already paid back their student loans might feel aggrieved that they’ve missed their window for liberation. Regret and envy are normal human emotions. And yet, good luck is always a little random. Why does it rain on me and not you? Why did your lottery ticket win, and not mine? Positive quirks of timing and chance benefit some, not all. It doesn’t mean we should eliminate them or make suffering the baseline. We should be attempting to raise our collective well-being, not lower it.

For any number of reasons — dog-eat-dog capitalism, an emphasis on radically personal definitions of freedom, a lack of imagination when it comes to the possibility of change — it has become easy to forget that we live in a society. Ideally, in a country of shared intention, we would attempt to move together toward a place of collective betterment. We should expect that our fellow citizens will make claims on us, and that we will make claims on them.

Admittedly, giving to other people while not visibly getting something back can be a hard practice — even for the most charitable among us, and even when the giving appears to flow downward instead of up. Using taxpayer dollars to relieve the debt of a small, seemingly advantaged portion of society (only 13 percent of Americans carry federal student loan debt) is a lot to ask of non-college-going taxpayers, who have their own concerns that have been ignored for years.

In which case: To make policies like this more palatable, those advocating for debt cancellation must advocate for the needs of others in turn. At the very least, that means vocal support for funding other educational options, whether vocational schools or community college (a proposal for free community college was tabled during the shrinking of the Build Back Better package).

But that give-or-take is constant, and good. In an Instagram story over the weekend, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) spelled out what should be a basic civic understanding but has somehow gotten lost. “Not every program has to be for everybody,” she wrote. “People with apartments pay for first time homeowner benefits. Young people pay for Medicare for our seniors. People who take public transit pay for car infrastructure.”

She continued: “We can do good things and reject the scarcity mindset that says doing something good for someone else comes at the cost of something for ourselves.”

We could at least try.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Same selfishness and lack of empathy that drives a whole bunch of bad ideas. 

For whatever reason, a lot of humans' sense of self-preservation extends to denial of resources to other humans, even when it's not their own resources they're denying them. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

6 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

This is a good article that covers how I feel about the issue of student loan debt. The 2 most common arguments I see Conservatives always give for their opposition to student loan relief is 

1) (this usually comes from older Conservatives) "I was able to work my own way through college at the local grocery store. Why aren't young people these days willing to do hard work to earn their education instead of expecting things for free or for other people to bail them out?"

I think part of it is just natrual that they are using their own lived experience without really thinking about how drastically things are different than when they went to college in the 1970's and 1980's. Adjusted for inflation, college is 400-500% more expensive today than it was when they were in college and new college graduates typically aren't making anywhere even close to 400% more money when they graduate. Collège is vastly more expensive and the reward for graduating is not as big as it used to be. They don't realize that THEY are the ones who lucked out and were fortunate to be able to get an education that was relatively affordable for their time period. 

2) Like the article mentioned, "Why should I pay for debt relief for these irresponsible people that took out loans they couldn't afford; or "It's not fair that I had to pay off my loans while other people might get off without having to" 

And I think this article is a very good response to these issues.  

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/05/student-debt-loan-forgiveness-lack-of-compassion/

Why can’t we let good things happen to other people?

Last month, President Biden hinted that he was prepared to cancel at least some federal student loan debt once the pandemic-era repayment moratorium expires Aug. 31.

Republicans in particular immediately lashed out. Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) suggested that loan forgiveness was a “bribe” to boost Biden’s poll numbers. Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance called it a “massive windfall to the rich.” Fox News host Laura Ingraham suggested that loan forgiveness was an insult to hard-working Americans. “My mom worked as a waitress until she was 73 to help pay for our college, even helped with loan repayment,” she tweeted, insinuating that others should buckle down and do the same.

 

Days later, the president clarified the limits of his plans. Biden reassured reporters that the amount forgiven would be lower than the $50,000 demanded by the progressive wing of his party. Staff members made clear that they were discussing a potential income cap and other eligibility criteria for loan relief — no doubt to address these, by now, predictable objections.

According to recent polling, 64 percent of registered voters favor some kind of student loan forgiveness. Yet still, a whiff of resentment lingers in the air: “What about me?” Some people have already paid off their loans. Others never had any to begin with. Why should they support a policy that wouldn’t benefit them?

 

Biden would win no favors by doing so, but he could give an obvious reply: “Well, what about you?” The zero-sum mind-set may be instinctual. But the more we indulge it, the worse our country becomes.

 

From masking (Why should I cover my face to protect someone else?) to child-care funding (Why should I have to pay for kids I don’t have?) to, now, student loan relief, Americans have displayed a growing unwillingness to consider the needs of their fellow citizens: either to slightly inconvenience themselves for another’s sake, or to simply let good things happen for others without demanding something for themselves.

According to Romney and Vance, apparently, it would be better that $1.6 trillion in debt continue to dog the steps of 45 million people rather than to see a single so-called elite catch a break. I struggled, so you must struggle, too, Ingraham seethes — never seeming to consider that it is tragic, in fact, that her mother had to work into old age to pay off her daughter’s debt.

It is understandable that some who have already paid back their student loans might feel aggrieved that they’ve missed their window for liberation. Regret and envy are normal human emotions. And yet, good luck is always a little random. Why does it rain on me and not you? Why did your lottery ticket win, and not mine? Positive quirks of timing and chance benefit some, not all. It doesn’t mean we should eliminate them or make suffering the baseline. We should be attempting to raise our collective well-being, not lower it.

For any number of reasons — dog-eat-dog capitalism, an emphasis on radically personal definitions of freedom, a lack of imagination when it comes to the possibility of change — it has become easy to forget that we live in a society. Ideally, in a country of shared intention, we would attempt to move together toward a place of collective betterment. We should expect that our fellow citizens will make claims on us, and that we will make claims on them.

Admittedly, giving to other people while not visibly getting something back can be a hard practice — even for the most charitable among us, and even when the giving appears to flow downward instead of up. Using taxpayer dollars to relieve the debt of a small, seemingly advantaged portion of society (only 13 percent of Americans carry federal student loan debt) is a lot to ask of non-college-going taxpayers, who have their own concerns that have been ignored for years.

In which case: To make policies like this more palatable, those advocating for debt cancellation must advocate for the needs of others in turn. At the very least, that means vocal support for funding other educational options, whether vocational schools or community college (a proposal for free community college was tabled during the shrinking of the Build Back Better package).

But that give-or-take is constant, and good. In an Instagram story over the weekend, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) spelled out what should be a basic civic understanding but has somehow gotten lost. “Not every program has to be for everybody,” she wrote. “People with apartments pay for first time homeowner benefits. Young people pay for Medicare for our seniors. People who take public transit pay for car infrastructure.”

She continued: “We can do good things and reject the scarcity mindset that says doing something good for someone else comes at the cost of something for ourselves.”

We could at least try.

A thoughtful, more narrowly target release of debt (based on public service, income level) might be better received. A wholesale cancellation of debt includes those who chose the most expensive schools and may be in very high paying jobs, buying/leasing high end cars, etc. Many Americans who lacked a great opportunity to go to college are drowning in debt with less appealing financial prospects.

College has gotten way too expensive and older folks talking about how they worked their way thru college often fail to grasp the sea change that has occurred. Still, there are those who worked thru community college and then state schools and kept debt to a minimum while others threw caution to the wind and racked up huge debts. We shouldn’t govern by slogans. It’s like giving Covid relief to everyone, when clearly some needed even more help and others none at all.

[CoffeeTiger 5,102]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

A thoughtful, more narrowly target release of debt (based on public service, income level) might be better received. A wholesale cancellation of debt includes those who chose the most expensive schools and may be in very high paying jobs, buying/leasing high end cars, etc. Many Americans who lacked a great opportunity to go to college are drowning in debt with less appealing financial prospects.

College has gotten way too expensive and older folks talking about how they worked their way thru college often fail to grasp the sea change that has occurred. Still, there are those who worked thru community college and then state schools and kept debt to a minimum while others threw caution to the wind and racked up huge debts. We shouldn’t govern by slogans. It’s like giving Covid relief to everyone, when clearly some needed even more help and others none at all.

I think that's what Biden will be trying to do. 

Forgiving less than $50,000 and capping the income to less than 100-150,000/year . That would give a lot of relief to regular, lower income graduates while not letting the "elites" that went to top school and have the best jobs off the hook for their expenses. 

I don't think those nuances will matter much to most conservatives though. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Too bad it's not a conservative selling it as trickle up economics. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Yeah, I don't really get the thing where you envy or despise those who don't have to go through the same terrible experiences you did.  I would seem that my primary impulse would be to try and help people who come after me to NOT go through unfair, burdensome crap like I did.

My only critique would be that simply cancelling debt doesn't solve the main problem - the fact that college is so expensive now in the first place.  I know things rise over time with inflation and such.  My parents bought a 4 bedroom house in a good neighborhood in the mid 70s for $35,000.  To get an equivalent house in the same city today, which has not experienced any sort of real estate "boom" like say, Nashville, you'd need to spend close around $180,000 or so.  I get it.  But college tuition has increased exponentially.  It hasn't tracked with inflation over the same time period.  So we can cancel a bunch of debt and help a lot of people in a snapshot in time, but how does that get college to be more affordable going forward?  And in fact, would it possibly make it even worse, as at least part of the rise in cost is attributed to the availability of free money in the form of student loans regardless of any of the traditional markers lenders have used on other kinds of debt to gauge ability to repay it?

[AU9377 4,926]

There is an undercurrent that despises higher education.  They feel threatened by it and get some perverse enjoyment in seeing others fail.  I believe some of that extends to the debt discussion.

[CoffeeTiger 5,102]

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, I don't really get the thing where you envy or despise those who don't have to go through the same terrible experiences you did.  I would seem that my primary impulse would be to try and help people who come after me to NOT go through unfair, burdensome crap like I did.

My only critique would be that simply cancelling debt doesn't solve the main problem - the fact that college is so expensive now in the first place.  I know things rise over time with inflation and such.  My parents bought a 4 bedroom house in a good neighborhood in the mid 70s for $35,000.  To get an equivalent house in the same city today, which has not experienced any sort of real estate "boom" like say, Nashville, you'd need to spend close around $180,000 or so.  I get it.  But college tuition has increased exponentially.  It hasn't tracked with inflation over the same time period.  So we can cancel a bunch of debt and help a lot of people in a snapshot in time, but how does that get college to be more affordable going forward?  And in fact, would it possibly make it even worse, as at least part of the rise in cost is attributed to the availability of free money in the form of student loans regardless of any of the traditional markers lenders have used on other kinds of debt to gauge ability to repay it?

 

You're right. debt relief right now is only a temporary, political solution that doesn't do anything to fix the reason the problem started in the first place. 

 

But with the congress and divided political reality we have now, no big changes to the system have a chance of even getting off the ground, so unfortunately, small temporary fixes are about all we can hope for at the moment, and as we see, even that is a hard sell. 

 

[Cardin Drake 1,825]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, I don't really get the thing where you envy or despise those who don't have to go through the same terrible experiences you did.  I would seem that my primary impulse would be to try and help people who come after me to NOT go through unfair, burdensome crap like I did.

My only critique would be that simply cancelling debt doesn't solve the main problem - the fact that college is so expensive now in the first place.  I know things rise over time with inflation and such.  My parents bought a 4 bedroom house in a good neighborhood in the mid 70s for $35,000.  To get an equivalent house in the same city today, which has not experienced any sort of real estate "boom" like say, Nashville, you'd need to spend close around $180,000 or so.  I get it.  But college tuition has increased exponentially.  It hasn't tracked with inflation over the same time period.  So we can cancel a bunch of debt and help a lot of people in a snapshot in time, but how does that get college to be more affordable going forward?  And in fact, would it possibly make it even worse, as at least part of the rise in cost is attributed to the availability of free money in the form of student loans regardless of any of the traditional markers lenders have used on other kinds of debt to gauge ability to repay it?

Bingo.

There are multiple problems with just forgiving student debt, but the biggest one is that it does nothing to address the underlying problem.  Most of my friends won't bring up the subject to me, because they know I am liable to go on a 15 minute rant about what we are doing to young people with student loan debt. Some easy common sense reforms are political non-starters to the left however, and will never happen.

1) Limit the amount you can borrow to the cost of a state school education, OR have the private institution guarantee the loan repayment for the portion of the tuition in excess of the public school tuition. If you think your gender studies degree will enable your graduates to repay 300K in debt, then fine go for it, YOU guarantee the loan.

2) Limit loan increases for public school tuition to the rate of inflation OR the public school can guarantee the excess.

3) Monitor loan repayment and for those institutions granting degrees where their graduates are way below average in repaying, make the institution guarantee part of the loan.

Second, there are things we can and should do short of out right forgiveness:

1) Favorable interest rates to borrowers who are current on their loans, even if they have fallen behind in the past.

2) Quit letting 3rd parties charge huge collection penalties to those who fall behind.  Nothing is more sickening than a kid who probably shouldn't have been going to college in the first place racking up 30K in debt before he drops out, then winding up with 75K in debt and climbing because he can't repay it on his bartender's salary.

3) Allow limited use of bankruptcy to discharge student loan debt. This right never should have been taken away in the first place.

Finally, there are the legal and moral issues.  Where did the President get the right to alter existing contracts? Is credit card debt next? Why not just forgive all home loans? That would be popular too.  What does this say to parents who scrapped and saved to put their kids through college?  Are they just suckers?  Are they getting a refund so they can buy a new car like John down the street who bought himself a new car and let his kids borrow money to go college.

FIX THE DAMN PROBLEMS, CONGRESS. Do your freaking job.

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Cardin Drake

[homersapien 11,367]

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Too bad it's not a conservative selling it as trickle up economics. 

I also think that a large part of tuition increases is from the prevalence and size of college loans. They helped a lot of people,  but it's also been a financial windfall for colleges.

My wife had a (mere) $10,000 loan when we started out in 1974, but it wasn't all that difficult to pay off.

Edited May 6, 2022 by homersapien

[CoffeeTiger 5,102]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I also think that a large part of tuition increases is from the prevalence and size of college loans. They helped a lot of people,  but it's also been a financial windfall for colleges.

My wife had a (mere) $10,000 load when we started out in 1974, but it wasn't all that difficult to pay off.

 

Greed and mismanagement from Colleges are a part of the problem, but another issue is that State governments have drastically reduced funding for college/Universities because they saw that Universities could basically fund themselves through tuition. Increasing state and federal funding to colleges would have to go along with any attempt to require colleges to reduce their costs. 

[Cardin Drake 1,825]

51 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Greed and mismanagement from Colleges are a part of the problem, but another issue is that State governments have drastically reduced funding for college/Universities because they saw that Universities could basically fund themselves through tuition. Increasing state and federal funding to colleges would have to go along with any attempt to require colleges to reduce their costs. 

I couldn't agree more.  It infuriates me that the prevailing thought in the 50's - 70's was that a quality low cost state education was a benefit to all, and the states helped fund the colleges.  Now it's " let's pay the administrators a fortune and let the kids pay for it with borrowed money."  We have left the world a worse place for our children and it's shameful.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Cardin Drake

[icanthearyou 4,462]

It may be conspiratorial but, I think there is an agenda to wreck, then privatize, all public education.  For some, the concept of education should be wholly replaced with the concept of training.  Truly educated people are too capable of critical thinking.

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

1) Limit to $20k on the first try. 
2) Limit to public school debt only. 
3) Limit income to $100k at most. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

22 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

1) Limit to $20k on the first try. 
2) Limit to public school debt only. 
3) Limit income to $100k at most. 

I agree but, I would up the income level.  $100K is not what it once was.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

24 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I agree but, I would up the income level.  $100K is not what it once was.

Same.  I'd probably go with $200k and a sliding scale decreasing up to $250k.  That or I'd index it in some way to account for where someone lives.  $150k for instance is a lot different living in Iowa or Alabama compared to $150k living in Connecticut or California.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Guys, it was on the first attempt. If it works out well, then go back and up the amounts

 

[GoAU 1,600]

Perhaps we should also consider ways to reduce the cost of the education rather than just giving away more money and plunging our nation further and further into debt.  
 

1) Have the institutions “forgive” the money as well - don’t just dump the burden entirely on the lenders or the tax payers   Let the universities foot some of the bill  

2) Cap / limit professor incomes.  Many of the professors are openly leftist, let them enjoy what they advocate for.  
 

3) Eliminate the “fluff” non value added classes.  There is quite a bit of irrelevance injected into the curriculum.  
 

4) For those benefitting from “forgiveness” how about community service as a way of repaying their obligations?  
 

Once again, we want to rush in and reward people for making poor decisions or not understanding the ramifications of their own decisions.  And before I get accused of being heartless to the poor kids - I have 2 that finished college, one currently in college and 3 to go.   And make “too much money” to qualify for any sort of aid or assistance, so we pay for it ourselves, they take loans, and have jobs.  
 

Quite a bit of this in tounge in cheek, but students need to put this liberal arts degrees to use.   Instead of forgiving debt and giving away money, why not teach kids how to earn it?

[DKW 86 7,419]

I have personal issues with all this. Got a couple we are close to. They take at least 2 vacations a year. They have saved ZERO for their three kids. They teach Ramsey's FPU.

They have been planning all along to let their kids borrow it all and then either declare bankruptcy or let the govt pay off most or all of it. They went to Samford. Their kids will be 100%c Private Christian Schools.

[GoAU 1,600]

There are a lot of people unfortunately that would end up being rewarded for insanely poor choices if this happens.  

[CoffeeTiger 5,102]

On 5/6/2022 at 6:29 PM, DKW 86 said:

I have personal issues with all this. Got a couple we are close to. They take at least 2 vacations a year. They have saved ZERO for their three kids. They teach Ramsey's FPU.

They have been planning all along to let their kids borrow it all and then either declare bankruptcy or let the govt pay off most or all of it. They went to Samford. Their kids will be 100%c Private Christian Schools.

 

Hope you're friends are aware that student loans are very hard to discharge in Bankruptcy...they aren't like "normal" debt. 

 

As for Ramsey, it doesn't surprise me that one of his FPU teachers have a bad handle on their own finances. 

Dave Ramsey is good for people who have a lot of debt and a good income, but need to get their life together to pay it off as soon as possible. IMO, if you don't have a lot of debt and/or don't have a decent job/income then Dave Ramsey's programs and advise wont do much for you and may in fact be harmful to many. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Education is an investment in our society.  There are dividends.  Funding public education is investing, not welfare.

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

On 5/6/2022 at 1:22 PM, homersapien said:

My wife had a (mere) $10,000 loan when we started out in 1974, but it wasn't all that difficult to pay off.

Doable in the 70s and early 80s. I could borrow enough to pay books, tuition and live very well working part time with the University. The degree I received cost 3900% more per semester for one of my sons in 2013. Kids having to borrow today are really “behind the eight ball”. I paid off only $8000 with ease.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 5/6/2022 at 7:19 PM, GoAU said:

..... Quite a bit of this in tounge in cheek, but students need to put this liberal arts degrees to use.   Instead of forgiving debt and giving away money, why not teach kids how to earn it?

Reminds me of the t-shirt:

"Liberal Arts Graduate,  Will Think for Money."

[johnnyAU 3,630]

On 5/6/2022 at 10:21 AM, TitanTiger said:

But college tuition has increased exponentially.  It hasn't tracked with inflation over the same time period.

No kidding. It's almost unbelievable the change in just a couple of decades. I'll have both kids in college in a few months.  The panic is starting to set in.