Debt forgiveness is a totally backward idea

[Hawkeye10]

Well, yes and no. As they say, "it depends".

Money is a force, but there are plenty of others.

Being a Primo Mild Molder is king now, I know....Because the Modern Morons Suck.

People were once better.

 

[Slavister]

No.

No one is "hurt" by debt forgiveness, other than in terms of the Federal budget. You guys are just upset that *someone else* is recieving a benefit that doesn't apply to you - even though statistically, it does.

That's just silly. By that logic you should be fine with any of these proposals:
- let's give $1Million to everyone who has credit card debt
- let's give $1Million to everyone who went to prison, upon their release
- let's give $1Million to everyone with a car loan
- let's give $1Million to everyone who never had a summer job
- let's give $1Million to every student who never had any scholarships
- let's give $1Million to every student whose parents never paid a cent toward their post-secondary education

Then I fail to see a difference between your first proposal and the proposed debt forgiveness. If you pay back those former students, then didn't you by definition forgive thier debt?

Ok, I'll try to paraphrase the OP then. There are many different (complementary) ways to pay for education. Some people work during summers. Some people study hard, then compete for and get scholarships. Some people's [grand]parents choose to pay for their children with their retirement money. Some people take out loans and choose to pay them off as fast as possible. Some people choose to take out loans and pay them as slow as possible. Randomly picking and rewarding just the last group is wrong. Difference in my proposal is we pay for tuition that people incurred NO MATTER HOW they chose to pay for it.

For the second....if you said tomorrow that in 2025, every education was going to be free, it still means anyone who paid for an education up to tomorrow ends up eating it comparatively. Sure, anyone who hasn't started before tomorrow could indeed choose to wait until 2025 to get that education free, but those that started on Friday of last week get boned just the same.

Everyone would be in the same boat. The rules of the games would not change going backward. And more importantly, we clearly are not going to reward debt-takers over others. If it makes it easier for you, make it 10 years or gradual decrease or whatever. Point is make laws that lets people plan as they wish. If someone who started on Friday of last week wants to delay their education for 5-10 years, they can quit school and wait, but my guess most people won't, nor should they.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

That's just silly. By that logic you should be fine with any of these proposals:
- let's give $1Million to everyone who has credit card debt
- let's give $1Million to everyone who went to prison, upon their release
- let's give $1Million to everyone with a car loan
- let's give $1Million to everyone who never had a summer job
- let's give $1Million to every student who never had any scholarships
- let's give $1Million to every student whose parents never paid a cent toward their post-secondary education
.

It's quite annoying when you quote multiple posters in a single post. It tends to imply that you are using the inherent difficulty in responding to your advantage.

Make me an argument as to why any of those examples should get debt forgiveness, and I'll consider it.

You're looking at all of this from the wrong perspective. Debt forgiveness doesn't "give" anyone money.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I have classmates in law school who, at 25 years old, will enter the economy at a net worth of negative half a million dollars.

Being a BigLaw associate is one of the best-paying jobs one can get immediately out of school - way better than a MD's residency.

Some of my friends will start work in August, making $200k a year - and they'll still be debt 20 years from now.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Here is the problem with your complaint about someones choice of degree.

There are many thousands of people who got degrees in fields that some here are advocating might be eligible for forgivness (STEM) that can't find work now. The problem isn't the degree itself, its the requirement that business has placed on having a degree in the first place and then not wanting to pay someone who jumped through the hoop that they imposed a wage that can cover living and paying back the loan required to get said degree.

People should do a better job of understanding how much their degree at some schools will cost compared to what they will earn. Pick a more affordable school.

 

[CriticalThought]

Debt forgiveness for schooling is a totally backward idea that says
- if you worked summer jobs to pay off some of your tuition, you wasted your time
- if you worked hard to get scholarships, you wasted your time
- if you are a [grand]parent who helped out your kid to pay for school, you wasted your money
- if you are a [grand]parent who diligently contributed to 529 plan to use for school, you wasted your money
- if you finished school and thought as responsible person you should pay off your school debt asap, you were wrong
- we encourage people to take on debt over and above those that believe in paying off their bills

Fair proposals include
- pay back tuition to former students, no matter whether it's paid off or not
- don't pay back anything; just make public schools free starting year 20XX

The problem is this is increasingly becoming an anchor on the economy and it has to be addressed somehow and soon. I haven't heard any alternative ideas. Even Trump is pushing a form of forgiveness after 15 years of payments, but with a big tax bomb at the end that may be even more crippling. If you have better ideas then let's hear them.

 

[Slavister]

It's quite annoying when you quote multiple posters in a single post. It tends to imply that you are using the inherent difficulty in responding to your advantage.

I try to be very clear who am I responding to, with relevant quotes preceding my responses.

Make me an argument as to why any of those examples should get debt forgiveness, and I'll consider it.

First, those are not "debt forgiveness" examples. They are just other examples that you apparently would not have any issues with based on your logic of 'no one is "hurt" ... other than in terms of the Federal budget'.

As for the argument "why" - it's the same argument as for the debt forgiveness - let's help those that are suffering and in need, but pick that group quite randomly without any regard for fairness.

You're looking at all of this from the wrong perspective. Debt forgiveness doesn't "give" anyone money.

Oh boy. I don't know what to even say here. What do you think it is if not giving them money?

When loan company is asking me for my debt to be repaid, I am pretty sure they want money, but maybe I should hire you as my lawyer to explain to them otherwise.

 

[Slavister]

... I haven't heard any alternative ideas. ... If you have better ideas then let's here them.

Easy. Even though you quoted my OP, I don't think you read it to the end. I make 2 proposals there that actually make much more sense.

If you want a bit more details, read this reply to another poster.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The problem is this is increasingly becoming an anchor on the economy and it has to be addressed somehow and soon. I haven't heard any alternative ideas. Even Trump is pushing a form of forgiveness after 15 years of payments, but with a big tax bomb at the end that may be even more crippling. If you have better ideas then let's hear them.

Here is what did in the global economic system that is currently circling the drain and is impossible to save.....everyone understood that the debt on the books could never be repaid..... yet everyone pretended otherwise.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I try to be very clear who am I responding to, with relevant quotes preceding my responses.

Of course. But it takes a lot of extra work to combine responses to multiple posters. One can only guess there was a reason you decided to do so.

First, those are not "debt forgiveness" examples. They are just other examples that you apparently would not have any issues with based on your logic of 'no one is "hurt" ... other than in terms of the Federal budget'.

You are correct. The examples you provided were not debt forgiveness proposals.

That is why they are irrelevant to this discussion.

As for the argument "why" - it's the same argument as for the debt forgiveness - let's help those that are suffering and in need, but pick that group quite randomly without any regard for fairness.

There's nothing "random" about it. That's the point.

Oh boy. I don't know what to even say here. What do you think it is if not giving them money?

When loan company is asking me for my debt to be repaid, I am pretty sure they want money, but maybe I should hire you as my lawyer to explain to them otherwise.

When a loan company is asking you for your debt to be repaid, if you weren't an idiot in preparing your documents, you could declare bankruptcy and make all of that debt vanish.

*Except* for student loans.

 

[CriticalThought]

Easy. Even though you quoted my OP, I don't think you read it to the end. I make 2 proposals there that actually make much more sense.

If you want a bit more details, read this reply to another poster.

No, your proposals don't address the problem. We have $1.5 trillion in student loan debt today. Right now. Making college free tomorrow will not solve that issue and that debt is already causing some significant issues. People are putting off having kids and buying homes. The Baby Boomers have tens of millions of houses that will be hitting the market with nobody to buy them over the next 20 years. The ripple effect will likely be very, very bad.

 

[Slavister]

Of course. But it takes a lot of extra work to combine responses to multiple posters. One can only guess there was a reason you decided to do so.

It takes less work for me, not more. As I scan through a thread, I just use multi-reply feature when I want to reply to multiple posts on the thread. That way I don't have to come back to where I was and look for the next post to reply after each one.

Guess it's just a different way of doing things.

You are correct. The examples you provided were not debt forgiveness proposals. That is why they are irrelevant to this discussion.

They are very relevant because they illustrate the flaws in your reasoning.

Then again, you were the one who started conversation on this thread with me by bringing up **slavery** as the reason why OP was wrong. :lamo

There's nothing "random" about it. That's the point.

If not "random", then it's genuinely dumb and bad. Rewarding debt-takers over other people who had paid for tuition by either working more or relying on [grand]parents retirement money or simply paying off their debts faster is just wrong.

When a loan company is asking you for your debt to be repaid, if you weren't an idiot in preparing your documents, you could declare bankruptcy and make all of that debt vanish. *Except* for student loans.

You cannot declare bankruptcy unless you have no more (non-protected) assets. So, first you have to go broke before using that option. I guess for student loans, it's easy to be "broke" and too many students would be declaring bankruptcy.

In any case, you are just trying to deflect. Your statement was "Debt forgiveness doesn't "give" anyone money."... which simply is crazy. :lamo

No, your proposals don't address the problem. We have $1.5 trillion in student loan debt today. Right now. Making college free tomorrow will not solve that issue.

First, proposal #1 would in fact solve that issue. Read it again.

Proposal #2 would not solve current debt issue but it's not clear to me whether it's truly insurmountable, even today. Furthermore, we have even more debt in the form of mortgage debt. Why don't we cancel that one? And Credit Card debt is not too too far behind student loan debt. Nor is auto-loan debt. Addressing one kind of debt, and in the totally backward manner (see OP), is just a wrong policy.

 

[CriticalThought]

It takes less work for me, not more. As I scan through a thread, I just use multi-reply feature when I want to reply to multiple posts on the thread. That way I don't have to come back to where I was and look for the next post to reply after each one.

Guess it's just a different way of doing things.



They are very relevant because they illustrate the flaws in your reasoning.

Then again, you were the one who started conversation on this thread with me by bringing up **slavery** as the reason why OP was wrong. :lamo



If not "random", then it's genuinely dumb and bad. Rewarding debt-takers over other people who had paid for tuition by either working more or using [grand]parents retirement money or simply paying off their debts faster is just wrong.



You cannot declare bankruptcy unless you have no more (non-protected) assets. So, first you have to go broke before using that option. I guess for student loans, it's easy to be "broke" and too many students would be declaring bankruptcy.

In any case, you are just trying to deflect. Your statement was "Debt forgiveness doesn't "give" anyone money."... which simply is crazy. :lamo



First, proposal #1 would in fact solve that issue. Read it again.

Proposal #2 would not solve current debt issue but it's not clear to me whether it's truly insurmountable, even today. Furthermore, we have even more debt in the form of mortgage debt. Why don't we cancel that one? And Credit Card debt is not too too far behind student loan debt. Nor is auto-loan debt. Addressing one kind of debt, and in the totally backward manner (see OP), is just a wrong policy.

You can declare bankruptcy from any other form of debt but student loan debt for starters. There is no real relief from student loan debt.

 

[Greenbeard]

I have classmates in law school who, at 25 years old, will enter the economy at a net worth of negative half a million dollars.

Being a BigLaw associate is one of the best-paying jobs one can get immediately out of school - way better than a MD's residency.

Some of my friends will start work in August, making $200k a year - and they'll still be debt 20 years from now.

Presumably in making that financial calculation they deemed this to be worth it.

 

[Slavister]

You can declare bankruptcy from any other form of debt but student loan debt for starters. There is no real relief from student loan debt.

Once again, proposal #1 is fair and addresses your concern.

As to proposal #2, my point was that it's not necessarily a problem. Are you suggesting that other forms of debt are not a problem because they can be eliminated through bankruptcy? Ok, fine - make it available bankruptcy, but only after 10 years. Otherwise, it's too easy for all students to immiately discharge all loans via bankruptcy - often, students have no real assets upon graduation anyway.

 

[Aberration]

Employers practically require a college degree yet nearly half of wage earners make less than living wages for the area they live in. Both a college ed needs to be made more affordable and COL wages need to be the minimum instead of giving it away to those who don't need or use it, the rich and large corps, being done through the Trump tax handout/redistribution of revenue.

Almost half of all Americans work in low-wage jobs - CBS News

Nine out of 10 new jobs are going to those with a college degree - MarketWatch

Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements Through 2020

If you got job that requires a degree you are probably not one of the people whining about paying for the loan.

 

[Aberration]

No, your proposals don't address the problem. We have $1.5 trillion in student loan debt today. Right now. Making college free tomorrow will not solve that issue and that debt is already causing some significant issues. People are putting off having kids and buying homes. The Baby Boomers have tens of millions of houses that will be hitting the market with nobody to buy them over the next 20 years. The ripple effect will likely be very, very bad.

What happens to the price of things when they don’t sell? [emoji848]

 

[bullseyelqcs]

What happens to the price of things when they don’t sell? [emoji848]

It goes down...which is great for those that already have money. If you are already broke when it happens, which was the premise of the post you replied to, the price coming down doesn't do you any good. Not to mention the dent to the economy that hundreds of thousands of houses going into foreclosure would have, or did you forget the last time that **** happened already?

 

[Aberration]

I have classmates in law school who, at 25 years old, will enter the economy at a net worth of negative half a million dollars.

Being a BigLaw associate is one of the best-paying jobs one can get immediately out of school - way better than a MD's residency.

Some of my friends will start work in August, making $200k a year - and they'll still be debt 20 years from now.

It took me 20 years to pay off my 2 year electronics degree from ITT. Best decision I ever made. I would gladly do it again. Probably go the community college route instead.

 

[Aberration]

It goes down...which is great for those that already have money. If you are already broke when it happens, which was the premise of the post you replied to, the price coming down doesn't do you any good. Not to mention the dent to the economy that hundreds of thousands of houses going into foreclosure would have, or did you forget the last time that **** happened already?

No where was this supposed premise even implied in what I responded to.

Prices coming down don’t make things more affordable? Huh. That’s some new economics. Which school teaches this?

The last time it happened I barely noticed. [emoji2369]

 

[digitusmedius]

Your mistake didn’t unsettle anything.

Take a closer look at my avatar .

Why don't you show us an enlargement of your avatar? As it is, we can't read anything but two words, "PASSED," on it.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Why don't you show us an enlargement of your avatar? As it is, we can't read anything but two words, "PASSED," on it.

There’s no “we”. It’s just you. The same you who has yet to acknowledge his uninformed knee jerk initial post.

 

[digitusmedius]

There’s no “we”. It’s just you. The same you who has yet to acknowledge his uninformed knee jerk initial post.

So you won't give us an enlarged picture of your avatar so we can read everything on it. Alright then. That confirms everything we already suspected. Let us know if you change your mind.

 

[digitusmedius]

It took me 20 years to pay off my 2 year electronics degree from ITT. Best decision I ever made. I would gladly do it again. Probably go the community college route instead.

So you must have been one of the many who got ripped off by that "school":
ITT Technical Institute - Wikipedia

 

[mike2810]

Let's go through that BS turd by turd:
- if you worked summer jobs to pay off some of your tuition, you wasted your time
The days of being able to make enough money working part-time and Summers to pay tuition disappeared at least a couple of decades ago. There are no victims in this category.
- if you worked hard to get scholarships, you wasted your time
No "you" didn't. You wouldn't have had any debt.
- if you are a [grand]parent who helped out your kid to pay for school, you wasted your money
It cost me a pile to get my kids through college and it wasn't wasted. I wouldn't have minded it not costing that much so I'd have more to leave them, though.
- if you are a [grand]parent who diligently contributed to 529 plan to use for school, you wasted your money
See above
- if you finished school and thought as responsible person you should pay off your school debt asap, you were wrong
Who thinks that other than BSers like you?
- we encourage people to take on debt over and above those that believe in paying off their bills
Encourage, my ass. For too many people it's the only way to finance university education for most people today.

Final note: It's always amusing and enlightening to see rightwingers like this one grunt and strain to come up with what must seem to them as "brilliant" points which are based on and made up of the just the usual, stale but pure rightwing BS.

Do you agree that the US today borrows about $0.40 of every dollar it spends?

While Sanders and others have talked about how to pay for the new programs , such as eliminating student debt, they say nothing about how to reduce the US debt.

Taxing the "rich" will not pay for everything. Even Sanders said anything over $29K will see a 4% increase in federal taxes. Are we to ignore the debt the US has? Yes, I know Trump has ran the debt up further. Bottom line, the US can't afford the spending it is doing now. Yet, Sanders wants to add more programs.

Maybe if higher education didn't pay the salaries they do and some of the resort style dorms it would not cost so much to go there.:mrgreen: