US Politics

College tuition fees are a problem. This is not the solution. I would have no problem if this money was given to those with poorer backgrounds but that sort of check is not going into this. There is no check for underprivileged..

There is a check based on income though, so those who most need relief will be eligible. This is not the perfect solution, but it is something, and a whole lot more then any administration has ever done.

If my debt had been reduced by $10k, and I only had $40k, I would have been able to have just a few dollars more a month when I was teaching. Dollars I could use for food instead of hoarding lunch leftovers every day, dollars I could have used to afford internet in my apartment. I made $25k a year, in Los Angeles. I had no cell phone, a busted ass car, and shared an apartment. I “stole” food from my school. Counting coaching hours I was on campus from 6am to 7pm every weekday and 6 hours on Saturdays. I did not have a poor background, it was quintessentially middle class. Helping others, even insufficiently, is better than nothing I am glad to both pay towards it and would pay more now that I can.
 
If they put the graft and time they wouldn't be taking years off after college partying it up and not understanding basic money management. Those that did are getting punished for it.

What you don't understand is this $300 billion doesn't grow on trees. It will cause inflation and it will cause pain to thousands of families.

This is nothing but a stupid band aid for Biden to boost votes for upcoming election. Spinning it as a crutch for those in need is disingenuous
How do people take years off after finishing their education when they're, say, $100k in debt? Do they not have rent to pay?
 
I don't understand why they can't just set a cap on tuition fees, would that be too Commie? There doesn't seem to be much point forgiving old debt whilst accruing new, ever more unaffordable debt.
 
I don't understand why they can't just set a cap on tuition fees, would that be too Commie? There doesn't seem to be much point forgiving old debt whilst accruing new, ever more unaffordable debt.

They are proposing a cap on repayments though - at 5% of discretionary income (income 225% above the federal poverty level). So a single person household only starts paying back above $30k, a 2 person household above $41k etc and then only at 5% of what they earn above that level - basically like an income tax. Together with the existing 20 year sunset provision (10 years if you took out less than $12k) this essentially caps the size of an individuals loan responsibility based on their income over a set period. To the individual, then, the size of their loan is capped not just by what they took out, but also by what they can afford to repay inside the given window.

My worry would be that this leads to loan inflation as colleges just up their fees, students are encouraged to borrow more etc and that the bill to the nation balloons as a consequence.
 
They are proposing a cap on repayments though - at 5% of discretionary income (income 225% above the federal poverty level). So a single person household only starts paying back above $30k, a 2 person household above $41k etc and then only at 5% of what they earn above that level - basically like an income tax. Together with the existing 20 year sunset provision (10 years if you took out less than $12k) this essentially caps the size of an individuals loan responsibility based on their income over a set period. To the individual, then, the size of their loan is capped not just by what they took out, but also by what they can afford to repay inside the given window.

My worry would be that this leads to loan inflation as colleges just up their fees, students are encouraged to borrow more etc and that the bill to the nation balloons as a consequence.

Exactly, if the college's up their fees and the government is still liable then you haven't really achieved anything, the taxpayer is still paying one way or another. There just can't be a justification for making people pay 50k+ a year can there? I don't believe lecturers get paid so much as all that.
 
I don't understand why they can't just set a cap on tuition fees, would that be too Commie? There doesn't seem to be much point forgiving old debt whilst accruing new, ever more unaffordable debt.

The Canadian system seems to have it right.
 
The Canadian system seems to have it right.

Quality of university education in America is the best in the world and capping might see that compromised.

Though tuition fees are a problem in terms of net spending power American grads are in a much better position than others. The problem is the the odd ones out and some of them have themselves to blame.

I firmly believe anyone who has more than say $50k in loans have themselves to blame
 
Quality of university education in America is the best in the world and capping might see that compromised.

Though tuition fees are a problem in terms of net spending power American grads are in a much better position than others. The problem is the the odd ones out and some of them have themselves to blame.

I firmly believe anyone who has more than say $50k in loans have themselves to blame

To be clear then, it is your position that the wealth of one's parents should dictate opportunity. Average tuition has risen almost 200% from 1980 to 2020, with the average yearly fees around $30K. That would make it virtually impossible for someone who is not being subsidized heavily by mom and dad to make it out under $50K. I would ask that you look at what your tuition/room/board was when you went to college and look now. Has it changed? If so what is the change?
 
There is a check based on income though, so those who most need relief will be eligible. This is not the perfect solution, but it is something, and a whole lot more then any administration has ever done.

If my debt had been reduced by $10k, and I only had $40k, I would have been able to have just a few dollars more a month when I was teaching. Dollars I could use for food instead of hoarding lunch leftovers every day, dollars I could have used to afford internet in my apartment. I made $25k a year, in Los Angeles. I had no cell phone, a busted ass car, and shared an apartment. I “stole” food from my school. Counting coaching hours I was on campus from 6am to 7pm every weekday and 6 hours on Saturdays. I did not have a poor background, it was quintessentially middle class. Helping others, even insufficiently, is better than nothing I am glad to both pay towards it and would pay more now that I can.

It's not this plan will help no one at all but helping a very small percentage of people at the cost of many others is not really the way a government should work.

This is not like taxing rich for social services or free medical care, no. It is loans students took voluntarily and you cannot tell me there aren't a good chunk of irresponsible students who took on loans they can't pay off or dont try and seek out jobs.

In your case, I'm not sure what you were doing to earn 25k in LA. That's lower than minimum wage.

If you were in academia or social work I would 100% back a plan where social workers teachers (think this does happen?) and vital research students have their loans forgiven.

Still, 25k in LA is not survivable on its own regardless of loan so you were played a very tough hand and yes I know you aren't the only case of this but the stats don't back this up as a common case.

I'm far off what most people think on here so I'll stop posting about this now.

Just wish people knew it's not as simple as hating on social services.

If Biden tomorrow announced free university by taxing middle class workers such as myself I would gladly accept, despite not benefiting of it.

If there were subsidies with us bearing the cost through tax I would support it.

This just feels like a temporary fix to appease a voting group for the upcoming election. It will cause inflation and make a lot of basic necessities unaffordable for millions of actually poor Americans.
 
To be clear then, it is your position that the wealth of one's parents should dictate opportunity. Average tuition has risen almost 200% from 1980 to 2020, with the average yearly fees around $30K. That would make it virtually impossible for someone who is not being subsidized heavily by mom and dad to make it out under $50K. I would ask that you look at what your tuition/room/board was when you went to college and look now. Has it changed? If so what is the change?

It's not my position and the cost is a problem. I'm not sure a cap is a solution.

Btw the wealth of a parent does dictate if there kid goes to a good school but you might be surprised to know socioeconomic factors from a younger age have a much bigger impact on that than school fees.

I'm talking about where their house is located, crime around the area, what highschool they went to and so on.

I was a student of low income parents and took on some loans and received some pell grants and I know many others did. Not saying that's a perfect system but I would love to see more grants given out as part of fixing the problem.

There is a problem but I don't like some of the proposed solutions such as capping or a one time fee and then comparisons to countries that have a much weaker education system to us especially at the university level.
 
It's not this plan will help no one at all but helping a very small percentage of people at the cost of many others is not really the way a government should work.

This is not like taxing rich for social services or free medical care, no. It is loans students took voluntarily and you cannot tell me there aren't a good chunk of irresponsible students who took on loans they can't pay off or dont try and seek out jobs.

In your case, I'm not sure what you were doing to earn 25k in LA. That's lower than minimum wage.

If you were in academia or social work I would 100% back a plan where social workers teachers (think this does happen?) and vital research students have their loans forgiven.

Still, 25k in LA is not survivable on its own regardless of loan so you were played a very tough hand and yes I know you aren't the only case of this but the stats don't back this up as a common case.

I'm far off what most people think on here so I'll stop posting about this now.

Just wish people knew it's not as simple as hating on social services.

If Biden tomorrow announced free university by taxing middle class workers such as myself I would gladly accept, despite not benefiting of it.

If there were subsidies with us bearing the cost through tax I would support it.

This just feels like a temporary fix to appease a voting group for the upcoming election. It will cause inflation and make a lot of basic necessities unaffordable for millions of actually poor Americans.

I was teaching in a private catholic high school. Most of the science and math teachers were like me, young and straight out of college and desperate for a paycheck while we worked on our teaching credentials (not me) or figured out our next steps (definitely me, ended up in grad school). My friend, a math teach, lived with her parents. I shared a house with 4 people for a year and then lucked into a "rent controlled" (old lady took pity on young teachers in the area and knocked the rent down to $1000 a month per person) apartment for a year. Public school teachers were not much better off, starting in the mid $30's, so this was not unique to my situation. Being a new teacher, especially if you needed to work to pay for your teaching credential (which would lead to higher pay) was/is brutal.

I don't disagree that this is a band aid, and a shitty one at that, solution. I agree with both of your proposed solutions and would also gladly pay more in taxes to support them. Unfortunately I think we are in the minority, and definitely out of line with the selfish assholes who have bought our politicians. So it comes down to doing less than the bare minimum or doing nothing, and my stance is that this option, while crappy, is far, far more than anyone has ever done before. Even if it helps a small percentage of people it is still something worthwhile.
 
Quality of university education in America is the best in the world and capping might see that compromised.

Though tuition fees are a problem in terms of net spending power American grads are in a much better position than others. The problem is the the odd ones out and some of them have themselves to blame.

I firmly believe anyone who has more than say $50k in loans have themselves to blame

Why would you blame the individual seeking an education for happening to live in a nation where educational costs are exorbitant and inflation is outpacing wages ?
 
It's not my position and the cost is a problem. I'm not sure a cap is a solution.

Btw the wealth of a parent does dictate if there kid goes to a good school but you might be surprised to know socioeconomic factors from a younger age have a much bigger impact on that than school fees.

I'm talking about where their house is located, crime around the area, what highschool they went to and so on.

I was a student of low income parents and took on some loans and received some pell grants and I know many others did. Not saying that's a perfect system but I would love to see more grants given out as part of fixing the problem.

There is a problem but I don't like some of the proposed solutions such as capping or a one time fee and then comparisons to countries that have a much weaker education system to us especially at the university level.

Absolutely agree with the factors you mentioned as being huge influences in where one goes to school, which is why eliminating the cost of the school as a barrier is something that can help on the backend. I would also love to see more grants available but something definitely needs to be done about fees. The costs of attending college are already absurd and are increasing at rates far outstripping expected income. On top of that you have Universities being run as businesses, even public schools. Back when I lived in Bama there was a huge issue with Univ of Alabama marketing hard for out of state students as the fees they paid were significantly higher (3X). Taking a look at the current deographics it is far worse now with almost 60% of students being out of state.
 
[
Why would you blame the individual seeking an education for happening to live in a nation where educational costs are exorbitant and inflation is outpacing wages ?

Baring something like med school, how does one rack up a $100k in loans, going to their in-state institution?
 
Not really true. Most flagship state schools beat out European or Canadian schools in rank and research

It also depends on what you want to study. In Alabama for example, UoA sucks balls in the STEM fields. You are better off going to UAB for biological sciences, UAH for engineering, or Auburn for general STEM. Still though, if you are looking for a specialized program you may need to look out of state.
 
Not really true. Most flagship state schools beat out European or Canadian schools in rank and research

How many of these flagship schools are available in every state ? Also, I'd love to know how many public US schools measure up with McGill and U of Toronto
 
Yep. FSU has gone from $39 a credit hour when I went there to $275 an hour now. This is for instate students.

In no universe has FSU’s quality of education increased sevenfold in the past 30 years, but they are charging like it has.

Easy credit fuels crazy prices
 
It also depends on what you want to study. In Alabama for example, UoA sucks balls in the STEM fields. You are better off going to UAB for biological sciences, UAH for engineering, or Auburn for general STEM. Still though, if you are looking for a specialized program you may need to look out of state.

Yeah there is a possibility but in most cases you will recoup that money and pay off the loan.

How many of these flagship schools are available in every state ? Also, I'd love to know how many public US schools measure up with McGill and U of Toronto

Flagship just means the best of that state.

First of McGill is like the 3rd best school of Canada. If you are talking accessibility, I am pretty sure not every Canadian gets to go to McGill. That said, it's ranked anywhere from 80-50 in the world rankings. There are at least 20-30 public US schools either ranked much higher or comparable to McGill. If you we speaking "measure up" as in the vicinity of a school like McGill then there's even more. Then for each normal Canadian University you have dozens or more better public schools. The standard of American University education has no close second in the world.
 
Yeah there is a possibility but in most cases you will recoup that money and pay off the loan.



Flagship just means the best of that state.

First of McGill is like the 3rd best school of Canada. If you are talking accessibility, I am pretty sure not every Canadian gets to go to McGill. That said, it's ranked anywhere from 80-50 in the world rankings. There are at least 20-30 public US schools either ranked much higher or comparable to McGill. If you we speaking "measure up" as in the vicinity of a school like McGill then there's even more. Then for each normal Canadian University you have dozens or more better public schools. The standard of American University education has no close second in the world.

Even so, the cost of in state tuition for flagship universites is still well outside your idea of "more than $50K is their fault". Here are some examples (In state costs, per year all in (tuition, room/board, books, fees):

1. UCLA - $41K
2. Michigan - $33K
3. UF - $22K
4. UVA - $18K
5. UNC - $25K
6. U TX - $22K

Some of those costs can come down for low income families based on tiered tuition costs, but even so you are looking at $70K+ for 4 years of tuition for in state residents. This is just for school expenses and does not include any costs outside of that (gas, travel, social activities, etc.), so the likely costs is $10K+ more. All of this is to say that being able to get through 4 years of college, even staying in state, is an obscenely expensive exercise for a teenager with limited income.
 
If they put the graft and time they wouldn't be taking years off after college partying it up and not understanding basic money management. Those that did are getting punished for it.

What you don't understand is this $300 billion doesn't grow on trees. It will cause inflation and it will cause pain to thousands of families.

This is nothing but a stupid band aid for Biden to boost votes for upcoming election. Spinning it as a crutch for those in need is disingenuous


First, you are not getting punished for a damn thing. You paid off student loans? Good for you. But, it's excessively selfish for you to whine about student debt forgiveness that is, overall, a massive benefit for the economy. Cause pain to thousands of families? Prove that claim.

Second and most important, tax cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy have harmed the economy magnitudes more than student debt forgiveness ever could. Student debt forgiveness does a lot of good things for the economy net. It frees up billions of dollars to be spent directly into the economy as opposed to going to a select few entities and benefitting mostly the leisure class (IE investor class). This will fuel regular businesses, most likely lead to increased job opportunities, and essentially provide a bottom-up economic stimulus that is desperately needed after the last two years.

The only issue is, it should be higher. It should be 20-25K really but 10K is far better than nothing.

It should be structured like a bankruptcy, lenders get 5 cents to 40 cents on the dollar from taxpayers. That wouldn't have a net negative effect on the overall economy but a substantial net positive effect.

There does need to be some reform of tuition and fees (especially the textbook racket) in higher education and maybe this well-deserved loan forgiveness can help spur that conversation.

Oh and if you want to talk fairness, let's talk about tax reform for the leisure class actually pays their fair share in taxes to fecking begin with. Anger should not be directed at students for student loans but for the cnuts that pay half as much percentage in taxes for their unearned income than salary workers who actually contribute to the economy have to pay. It's fecking absurd that rich cnuts like Trump and Romney pay less percentage in taxes than most of the people who work salaried or hourly jobs. Increase the unearned tax maximum to 20-30% and you can pay off all student loans and more besides.
 
Last edited:
Even so, the cost of in state tuition for flagship universites is still well outside your idea of "more than $50K is their fault". Here are some examples (In state costs, per year all in (tuition, room/board, books, fees):

1. UCLA - $41K
2. Michigan - $33K
3. UF - $22K
4. UVA - $18K
5. UNC - $25K
6. U TX - $22K

Some of those costs can come down for low income families based on tiered tuition costs, but even so you are looking at $70K+ for 4 years of tuition for in state residents. This is just for school expenses and does not include any costs outside of that (gas, travel, social activities, etc.), so the likely costs is $10K+ more. All of this is to say that being able to get through 4 years of college, even staying in state, is an obscenely expensive exercise for a teenager with limited income.

That number is not accurate for UC. Tuition + room and board for the UCs (including UCLA, Berkeley, UCSD) comes out to less than 40K.

Current estimates are around 34K (although there are ways to make that cheaper and under 30K such as living with roommates, getting used textbooks/many teachers make textbooks available for free to borrow at the library,etc)
https://www.ucla.edu/admission/tuition-and-cost
 
That number is not accurate for UC. Tuition + room and board for the UCs (including UCLA, Berkeley, UCSD) comes out to less than 40K.

Current estimates are around 34K (although there are ways to make that cheaper and under 30K such as living with roommates, getting used textbooks/many teachers make textbooks available for free to borrow at the library,etc)
https://www.ucla.edu/admission/tuition-and-cost
Apologies, I meant to write UC System as the system put out an average number of estimated costs. I see it included transportation as well.

Tuition & cost of attendance | UC Admissions (universityofcalifornia.edu)

04j2m8p.png
 
First, you are not getting punished for a damn thing. You paid off student loans? Good for you. But, it's excessively selfish for you to whine about student debt forgiveness that is, overall, a massive benefit for the economy. Cause pain to thousands of families? Prove that claim.

Second and most important, tax cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy have harmed the economy magnitudes more than student debt forgiveness ever could. Student debt forgiveness does a lot of good things for the economy net. It frees up billions of dollars to be spent directly into the economy as opposed to going to a select few entities and benefitting mostly the leisure class (IE investor class). This will fuel regular businesses, most likely lead to increased job opportunities, and essentially provide a bottom-up economic stimulus that is desperately needed after the last two years.

The only issue is, it should be higher. It should be 20-25K really but 10K is far better than nothing.

It should be structured like a bankruptcy, lenders get 10 cents to 50 cents on the dollar from taxpayers. That wouldn't have an effect on the overall economy. There does need to be some reform of tuition and fees (especially the text book racket) in higher education and maybe this well deserved loan forgiveness can help spur that conversation.

Oh and if you want to talk fairness, let's talk about tax reform for the leisure class actually pays their fair share in taxes to fecking begin with. Anger should not be directed at students for student loans but for the cnuts that pay half as much percentage in taxes for their unearned income than salary workers who actually contribute to the economy have to pay. It's fecking absurd that rich cnuts like Trump and Romney pay less percentage in taxes than most of the people who work salaried or hourly jobs. Increase the unearned tax maximum to 20-30% and you can pay off all student loans and more besides.

It is not a "massive benefit to the economy" it is nothing but added inflation and showing colleges that there are no repercussions to their predator practices.

One of the biggest scams is college books. They are worth $300/400 brand new, they change a line or two and then you have to buy a new one each year. They are worthless the next year. That's a scam. Then there are colleges slapping on fees on students in sneaky ways to increase the cost. That's a scam.

How will it cause pain? Inflation is wrecking families right now. Middle class can't afford a regular grocery trip like they used to be able to, forget about poor people. Inflation is not some magic number in the sky that only impacts stock brokers. It makes life miserable for those living paycheck to paycheck to just get by. Especially blue collar workers who specifically didn't go to college to get more practical vocational degrees like welding, plumbing etc. You're making them pay for other peoples bad decisions.

Your assumption about what this loan break would do is just that. The impact will be miniscule. Do you genuinely believe it will offset $300 billion dollars? Someones loan goes down from $90k to $80k and now they're going to spin the wheels of economy that much more? And, if we're talking about someone who had manageable loans, they would be back to spending soon anyway. It sounds good, but its not true.

We don't need $300 billion on an election-campaign bandaid to "spur the conversation". There is no sugar coating this. I am not sure I understand your point about Trump and Romney either. Someone else posted something similar above like "oh so you're okay with the defense spending???" Obviously I am not and obviously the issue of wealth distribution and the lopsided taxation we have going on is garbage. But how does two wrongs make a right? If the response to an issue is "well what about Trump" then clearly that issue has a problem.

I voted Biden and unfortunately will have to keep voting Biden but I'm not going to shy away from calling this for what it is. If you guys think this is some sort of step for reform then in my opinion, you've misread it.


Even so, the cost of in state tuition for flagship universites is still well outside your idea of "more than $50K is their fault". Here are some examples (In state costs, per year all in (tuition, room/board, books, fees):

1. UCLA - $41K
2. Michigan - $33K
3. UF - $22K
4. UVA - $18K
5. UNC - $25K
6. U TX - $22K

Some of those costs can come down for low income families based on tiered tuition costs, but even so you are looking at $70K+ for 4 years of tuition for in state residents. This is just for school expenses and does not include any costs outside of that (gas, travel, social activities, etc.), so the likely costs is $10K+ more. All of this is to say that being able to get through 4 years of college, even staying in state, is an obscenely expensive exercise for a teenager with limited income.

That does include travel and personal expenses. Here's the 25k for UNC

https://studentaid.unc.edu/current/costs/

With financial aid, it is rare that a loan of more than 50k that you cannot pay off was your own voluntary situation. You are underestimating how much financial aid helps.

Being a kid of rich parents, not getting any financial aid and taking out an $80k loan for a humanities degree is not your own voluntary decision.
 
Yeah there is a possibility but in most cases you will recoup that money and pay off the loan.



Flagship just means the best of that state.

First of McGill is like the 3rd best school of Canada. If you are talking accessibility, I am pretty sure not every Canadian gets to go to McGill. That said, it's ranked anywhere from 80-50 in the world rankings. There are at least 20-30 public US schools either ranked much higher or comparable to McGill. If you we speaking "measure up" as in the vicinity of a school like McGill then there's even more. Then for each normal Canadian University you have dozens or more better public schools. The standard of American University education has no close second in the world.

What rankings are you looking at? In 2022 McGill is ranked 44th by the THE. Only 5 US public schools ranked ahead of it and three of them are in California: Ann Arbor, University of Washington, UCLA, UC Berkley, UC San Diego. In terms of research alone the list ranks 7 public schools ahead of it - again 3 of which are in California.
 
This thread contains too many unwarranted generalizations about higher education in the US. There is so much variety within the country - in quality, cost, availability, access, financial aid opportunities, etc. Moreover, many of these factors vary according to whether you are talking about undergraduate or post-graduate degrees.

Depending on where you live, there are excellent, affordable, public sector, undergraduate education choices. As an example, the 40 million people in California have the community college and CSU systems. (I would add the UC's but the tuition fees are much higher than CSU.) They don't need to go to Stanford or CalTech or USC to get a good education. Students can complete a good quality degree relatively cheaply by doing freshman and sophomore years at their local community college then transferring to a nearby CSU campus for junior and senior years. And if you live outside California you can move to the state and after a year you will be paying in-state tuition rates.

Admittedly, not all the states have such a system in place.
 
What rankings are you looking at? In 2022 McGill is ranked 44th by the THE. Only 5 US public schools ranked ahead of it and three of them are in California: Ann Arbor, University of Washington, UCLA, UC Berkley, UC San Diego. In terms of research alone the list ranks 7 public schools ahead of it - again 3 of which are in California.

I google McGill ranking and it was 77 but I've seen it as a top 50 University as well. But of the top of my head, that figure of 7 public schools sounds wrong. I can think of one not on the list, UNC, ranked higher as well and then a lot more in the top 70 or 100 range (which frankly are not that different than each other)
 
This thread contains too many unwarranted generalizations about higher education in the US. There is so much variety within the country - in quality, cost, availability, access, financial aid opportunities, etc. Moreover, many of these factors vary according to whether you are talking about undergraduate or post-graduate degrees.

Depending on where you live, there are excellent, affordable, public sector, undergraduate education choices. As an example, the 40 million people in California have the community college and CSU systems. (I would add the UC's but the tuition fees are much higher than CSU.) They don't need to go to Stanford or CalTech or USC to get a good education. Students can complete a good quality degree relatively cheaply by doing freshman and sophomore years at their local community college then transferring to a nearby CSU campus for junior and senior years. And if you live outside California you can move to the state and after a year you will be paying in-state tuition rates.

Admittedly, not all the states have such a system in place.

That's what I did for my own education and transferred to my own state school. I'm not saying everyone should have to do that, but is it really that difficult? When I opted to go to community college so many of my peers ridiculed me. Missing out on that first few "college years" and what not. You have to break through peer pressure and just not care, which is what I did. I saved thousands and actually enjoyed my first few years in community college.

Those same peers who partied it up in college going for the usual "fun" degrees are now getting a $10k bonus for no reason.
 
I google McGill ranking and it was 77 but I've seen it as a top 50 University as well. But of the top of my head, that figure of 7 public schools sounds wrong. I can think of one not on the list, UNC, ranked higher as well and then a lot more in the top 70 or 100 range (which frankly are not that different than each other)

I'm sure there's loads of different lists. I just went down the Times Ed one until I got to Mcgill and counted along the way. Hardly scientific. For what it's worth UNC comes in at 52nd on the list with a research figure of 63.4 (Mcgill's is 70.9).
 
That's what I did for my own education and transferred to my own state school. I'm not saying everyone should have to do that, but is it really that difficult? When I opted to go to community college so many of my peers ridiculed me. Missing out on that first few "college years" and what not. You have to break through peer pressure and just not care, which is what I did. I saved thousands and actually enjoyed my first few years in community college.

Those same peers who partied it up in college going for the usual "fun" degrees are now getting a $10k bonus for no reason.

More power to you. The conventional wisdom seems to be that the prestige of your college only counts in getting your first job. After that it's about your work experience and achievements.
.
 
First, you are not getting punished for a damn thing. You paid off student loans? Good for you. But, it's excessively selfish for you to whine about student debt forgiveness that is, overall, a massive benefit for the economy. Cause pain to thousands of families? Prove that claim.

Second and most important, tax cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy have harmed the economy magnitudes more than student debt forgiveness ever could. Student debt forgiveness does a lot of good things for the economy net. It frees up billions of dollars to be spent directly into the economy as opposed to going to a select few entities and benefitting mostly the leisure class (IE investor class). This will fuel regular businesses, most likely lead to increased job opportunities, and essentially provide a bottom-up economic stimulus that is desperately needed after the last two years.

The only issue is, it should be higher. It should be 20-25K really but 10K is far better than nothing.

It should be structured like a bankruptcy, lenders get 5 cents to 40 cents on the dollar from taxpayers. That wouldn't have a net negative effect on the overall economy but a substantial net positive effect.

There does need to be some reform of tuition and fees (especially the textbook racket) in higher education and maybe this well-deserved loan forgiveness can help spur that conversation.

Oh and if you want to talk fairness, let's talk about tax reform for the leisure class actually pays their fair share in taxes to fecking begin with. Anger should not be directed at students for student loans but for the cnuts that pay half as much percentage in taxes for their unearned income than salary workers who actually contribute to the economy have to pay. It's fecking absurd that rich cnuts like Trump and Romney pay less percentage in taxes than most of the people who work salaried or hourly jobs. Increase the unearned tax maximum to 20-30% and you can pay off all student loans and more besides.

Very sensible answer

1) Debt forgiveness will mean taxpayers would have to assume the liability. I think net-net will be positive for the economy, but there may be some pain in higher inflation + higher taxes in the short term
2) True
3) Absolutely - I wonder if $10k is enough. If you have $200k in debt, $10k in relief is nothing. If you have $20k in debt, $10k is huge. I want to see the data on outstanding debt and be better informed on the topic.
I also want to address the fairness argument (i.e. I paid student loans, you didn't = moral hazard). More importantly, if a recent grad gets debt forgiveness but someone entering a university next year doesn't get the benefit... it just feels arbitrary and wrong.

Overall, I'd say this is a smart move politically, even if it's just kicking the can down the road and doesn't really help solve the underlying issue with tuition costs. The obscene thing is that you have to "afford" humanities degrees. It would be so easy to offer them in an inexpensive way, it's not like they require labs worth tens of million of dollars, you just need a room, some chairs, and a guy/gal who has read lots of books.
 
More power to you. The conventional wisdom seems to be that the prestige of your college only counts in getting your first job. After that it's about your work experience and achievements.
.

Right, and even that if you have a STEM degree I'd agree the prestige hardly matters. Get your foot in the door anywhere and then make some moves.
 
It is not a "massive benefit to the economy" it is nothing but added inflation and showing colleges that there are no repercussions to their predator practices.

One of the biggest scams is college books. They are worth $300/400 brand new, they change a line or two and then you have to buy a new one each year. They are worthless the next year. That's a scam. Then there are colleges slapping on fees on students in sneaky ways to increase the cost. That's a scam.

How will it cause pain? Inflation is wrecking families right now. Middle class can't afford a regular grocery trip like they used to be able to, forget about poor people. Inflation is not some magic number in the sky that only impacts stock brokers. It makes life miserable for those living paycheck to paycheck to just get by. Especially blue collar workers who specifically didn't go to college to get more practical vocational degrees like welding, plumbing etc. You're making them pay for other peoples bad decisions.

Your assumption about what this loan break would do is just that. The impact will be miniscule. Do you genuinely believe it will offset $300 billion dollars? Someones loan goes down from $90k to $80k and now they're going to spin the wheels of economy that much more? And, if we're talking about someone who had manageable loans, they would be back to spending soon anyway. It sounds good, but its not true.

We don't need $300 billion on an election-campaign bandaid to "spur the conversation". There is no sugar coating this. I am not sure I understand your point about Trump and Romney either. Someone else posted something similar above like "oh so you're okay with the defense spending???" Obviously I am not and obviously the issue of wealth distribution and the lopsided taxation we have going on is garbage. But how does two wrongs make a right? If the response to an issue is "well what about Trump" then clearly that issue has a problem.

I voted Biden and unfortunately will have to keep voting Biden but I'm not going to shy away from calling this for what it is. If you guys think this is some sort of step for reform then in my opinion, you've misread it.

There is no reliable evidence that student debt forgiveness would have a meaningful effect on inflation. The entire argument that you are making is flawed at best and disingenuous at worst. As we saw this year, inflation was driven by rising costs from global supply chain instability that have downstream effects on the economy. Forgiving college debt will not logically have any noticeable impact on that type of inflation.

Let's look at the numbers. In the past 1-2 years, inflation went from around 1.9 to 2.3% to 8.5% (or 9.1% on some estimates). Estimates from economists on student debt forgiveness say it might increase inflation 0.1 to 0.2% which is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme and basically lower than the natural fluctuation in yearly inflation between 2012 and 2020. In other words, 0.1 to 0.2% is meaningless. Not a single average person would ever notice the statistically difference between 9.1% and 9.0% inflation or between 1.9% and 2.1%.

And the argument from the people even talking about increased inflation is flawed to begin with because as we saw this year, it wasn't driven by demand from the poor and middle class suddenly having some more money to spend but by the global supply chain which has been exposed over the last 2-3 years because it overly focused on perceived and shallow "efficiency" instead of stability. To try to take the circumstances that massively increased inflation in the last year and then slap student loan forgiveness on top of that, demonize it, and claim that suddenly families are going to suffer more is just disingenuous and not based on economic reality. It's far-right scare tactics that you've fallen victim to instead of looking at the actual economic reality.

You just made the argument earlier in the thread that you believed most/average student debt is around 30K and now you are pivoting to talk about reducing 90K to 80K. You can't claim that it won't have an impact on the economy but will magically increase inflation (which is basically what your posts amount to).

Reducing student debt from 30K to 20K absolutely will have a measurable positive impact in the mid and long-term because it will reduce monthly payments from something unmanageable to something manageable. Personally, I'd prefer 20K-30K debt forgiveness which would eliminate the majority of student loan debt outright and that would definitely have a better effect on the economy but 10K is without a doubt better than nothing. It's not something that instantly makes the economy better but it's something that sets the stage for a more stable next 10 years.

Will student debt forgiveness, all by itself, suddenly make everything great? Of course not. But, it's absolutely a piece of the puzzle to reverse the horrifying trend of increasing wealth inequality and addressing the massive systemic flaws in our system that favors the top 10% of wealth while being a huge detriment to the bottom 90%. We obviously need more reforms but the fact this isn't perfect is not a valid reason to oppose it.

And this emotional appeal you are making that tries to force this divide and turn "blue-collar workers" against college graduates is disgusting right-wing propaganda. Trying to rile up "blue-collar workers" and get them angry at those damn liberal college grads. It's a fairly common tactic that Trump played like the Devil's fiddle and it's disgusting because none of it is based on reality. If we excused 20-30k in student loans, it would overall be a net benefit for blue-collar workers over the next decade because there would be more money available in the next 10 years to spend on things that help blue-collar jobs instead of just enriching large financial institutions and their wealthy beneficiaries which don't actually benefit non-college grad workers.
 
More power to you. The conventional wisdom seems to be that the prestige of your college only counts in getting your first job. After that it's about your work experience and achievements.
.

I would disagree only in that the connections you make in college can go a long way to job potential and higher prestige colleges. For STEM, at least in my experience on the biology side, it is vital to go to an institution that offers undergraduate research and intern opportunities, and, more importantly, connected faculty. Those connections can be crucial for both graduate school entry and job entry into the biotech space where who you know is often more crucial than what you know.
 
There is no reliable evidence that student debt forgiveness would have a meaningful effect on inflation. The entire argument that you are making is flawed at best and disingenuous at worst. As we saw this year, inflation was driven by rising costs from global supply chain instability that have downstream effects on the economy. Forgiving college debt will not logically have any noticeable impact on that type of inflation.

I thought it was driven by the trillions of dollar the Fed was printing

SxePW7k.png


0cVCkpi.png
 
There is no reliable evidence that student debt forgiveness would have a meaningful effect on inflation. The entire argument that you are making is flawed at best and disingenuous at worst. As we saw this year, inflation was driven by rising costs from global supply chain instability that have downstream effects on the economy. Forgiving college debt will not logically have any noticeable impact on that type of inflation.

Let's look at the numbers. In the past 1-2 years, inflation went from around 1.9 to 2.3% to 8.5% (or 9.1% on some estimates). Estimates from economists on student debt forgiveness say it might increase inflation 0.1 to 0.2% which is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme and basically lower than the natural fluctuation in yearly inflation between 2012 and 2020. In other words, 0.1 to 0.2% is meaningless. Not a single average person would ever notice the statistically difference between 9.1% and 9.0% inflation or between 1.9% and 2.1%.

And the argument from the people even talking about increased inflation is flawed to begin with because as we saw this year, it wasn't driven by demand from the poor and middle class suddenly having some more money to spend but by the global supply chain which has been exposed over the last 2-3 years because it overly focused on perceived and shallow "efficiency" instead of stability. To try to take the circumstances that massively increased inflation in the last year and then slap student loan forgiveness on top of that, demonize it, and claim that suddenly families are going to suffer more is just disingenuous and not based on economic reality. It's far-right scare tactics that you've fallen victim to instead of looking at the actual economic reality.

You just made the argument earlier in the thread that you believed most/average student debt is around 30K and now you are pivoting to talk about reducing 90K to 80K. You can't claim that it won't have an impact on the economy but will magically increase inflation (which is basically what your posts amount to).

Reducing student debt from 30K to 20K absolutely will have a measurable positive impact in the mid and long-term because it will reduce monthly payments from something unmanageable to something manageable. Personally, I'd prefer 20K-30K debt forgiveness which would eliminate the majority of student loan debt outright and that would definitely have a better effect on the economy but 10K is without a doubt better than nothing. It's not something that instantly makes the economy better but it's something that sets the stage for a more stable next 10 years.

Will student debt forgiveness, all by itself, suddenly make everything great? Of course not. But, it's absolutely a piece of the puzzle to reverse the horrifying trend of increasing wealth inequality and addressing the massive systemic flaws in our system that favors the top 10% of wealth while being a huge detriment to the bottom 90%. We obviously need more reforms but the fact this isn't perfect is not a valid reason to oppose it.

And this emotional appeal you are making that tries to force this divide and turn "blue-collar workers" against college graduates is disgusting right-wing propaganda. Trying to rile up "blue-collar workers" and get them angry at those damn liberal college grads. It's a fairly common tactic that Trump played like the Devil's fiddle and it's disgusting because none of it is based on reality. If we excused 20-30k in student loans, it would overall be a net benefit for blue-collar workers over the next decade because there would be more money available in the next 10 years to spend on things that help blue-collar jobs instead of just enriching large financial institutions and their wealthy beneficiaries which don't actually benefit non-college grad workers.

I don't think this exchange is going anywhere. You think I'm being disingenuous by talking about inflation caused by this so anything I say will be see as carrying some agenda by you.

Besides, it's not just me saying this. Liberal leaning economists as far as I have seen almost unanimously agree on the inflation it will bring. Anyway, you also think my whole "blue-collar worker" talk is "disgusting right wing propaganda" so, again, I don't see how anything I say will have any value to you if you think I have these sinister motives.
 
I would disagree only in that the connections you make in college can go a long way to job potential and higher prestige colleges. For STEM, at least in my experience on the biology side, it is vital to go to an institution that offers undergraduate research and intern opportunities, and, more importantly, connected faculty. Those connections can be crucial for both graduate school entry and job entry into the biotech space where who you know is often more crucial than what you know.

Yes, this is very true. Many state universities have good local connections and can offer all of these things even if they don't have doctoral programs.