5 ms·

But who pays? The fools who bought the loans, or the public who mostly paid theirs (if they ever took any to begin with)? I suspect that everyone will pay, desp

But who pays? The fools who bought the loans, or the public who mostly paid theirs (if they ever took any to begin with)? I suspect that everyone will pay, despite a minority of people benefiting, that hardly seems just. I don't think it's predatory, I think the lendee is a fool being led by the blind; but does that make it right for it to suddenly be everyone else's burden? People make dumb decisions that affect only them all the time; when is it suddenly my business to subsidize people's personal mistakes? Are they even mistakes at all, if the debt is forgiven without prejudice? I don't want to live in a world where taking a loan you have no intention of paying is not a mistake. Also, AFAIK a huge majority of student loans are held directly by the Federal government (which is the other reason I fear "forgiveness" is on the horizon); assuming you don't mean to call the Federal government a "predatory bank".

oldjokes 7y ago
We could slice 10% (maybe less) off the military budget and pay for college for everyone, forever. This "who pays" nonsense is just that: nonsense. I'm sure the Navy would find a way to make do with a mere nine aircraft carriers. If you're worried about freeloaders getting welfare they don't deserve then slashing the insanely corrupt grifting that goes on every day in DHS/Defense should be your top priority.
- drocer88 7y ago
  Perhaps we could cut back on entitlements , too. That would bring bigger savings and help with the governmental fiscal responsibility thing. Lower debt would let people keep more of their money to spend on making their lives better.
  - tehjoker 7y ago
    The point is to make life easier for people, not harder.
  - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
    Fun thing about "personal fiscal responsibility" is that almost everyone preaching about it when talking about entitlements have either never been poor in their lives or are grifters looking for acceptance from those who have never been poor in their lives.
  - yardie 7y ago
    Entitlements are exactly that. You, the taxpayer, paid for them, you are entitled to use them. How about we cut the things we pay for but aren't entitled to use, like the military.
- zeveb 7y ago
  > We could slice 10% (maybe less) off the military budget and pay for college for everyone, forever. According to Wikipedia, 'the approved 2019 Department of Defense budget is $686.1 billion.' In the 2015–2016 academic year, colleges and universities spent $559 billion (https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=75 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=75). So 10% of the military budget would pay for a little over 12% of collegiate spending.
  - servercobra 7y ago
    That $559 billion is including all the money the government (states, mostly?) already gives to schools that they then spend. GP was talking about (I assume) covering tuition, which is estimated between $50 billion and $75 billion from the articles [0] I can find. That lines up with ~10% of the military budget. [0] one example: https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/07/28/487794394/hillary-s-free-tuition-promise-what-would-it-cost-how-would-it-work https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/07/28/487794394/hillary...
  - cr0sh 7y ago
    > In the 2015–2016 academic year, colleges and universities spent $559 billion Talking out my nether regions here - but is that broken out in any way? Basically - I'm wondering how much of that spending is on actual academics vs non-academic activities?
isbjorn16 7y ago
> taking a loan you have no intention of paying I'm not sure what sort of people you've run into, but I've never met a single person who ever took any loan out with no intention of paying on it. The problem is "intention" and "ability" aren't inextricably linked. My brother has defaulted on his loan; he agonizes over it every single day. He has every intention of paying, but he's left with 32$ a month after rent, the cheapest, most basic of utilities, rice, beans, and the occasional leafy green, and health insurance. His apartment was 43 degrees during the winter because he couldn't afford to heat it. 32$ isn't going to pay down his debt, and there's nothing he can currently do to change that. I'm certain he'd LOVE to. There's nothing he wants more than to keep his current standard of living, but make enough money to pay his debt off (edit: and do note that his current standard of living _sucks_). I find it a bit disconcerting that your mind immediately goes toward intention and doesn't even seem to consider ability. I'm certain there are those who take out loans with no intention to pay on them, but much like the welfare queen propaganda of the 90's, it seems like that specific problem is blown entirely out of proportion of the reality.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  You're making a counterpoint to something I did not say. I'm saying that taking the loan is no longer ever a mistake, because you can expect that you will never need to pay, if you wait long enough: hence "where taking a loan you have no intention of paying is not a mistake". > the cheapest, most basic of utilities, rice, beans, and the occasional leafy green, and health insurance I'm sorry to hear that, I suspect that I'll need to be housing my brothers some time in the next decade too, so I can feel that. Is there some problem with SNAP and Medicaid that's preventing him from taking them? Is housing just so costly where he lives that he's insolvent despite not being below the "poverty plus" lines for those programs?
  - isbjorn16 7y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong - I think I now see the disconnect we (or better put, I) had and I'm sorry I didn't see it before. If there's no financial or legal penalties for discharging the loan debt due to bankruptcy, people may be more apt to go that route, disrupting the entire lending system. If that's right, and I read the rest of your comment in that context, you're basically lamenting the fact that there's no outrageous material downsides for people being taken by duplicitous lenders and education institutions. And if that's also what you meant, then I agree; that's certainly a problem that would need to be solved as well if blanket debt forgiveness were to occur. That seems to be just as untenable a situation as the one we have now - and by my view, the situation we have now is wildly untenable and is going to hobble our entire country and economy for decades to come if we don't change _something_. I'm going to stop riffing on "and if"s, though - that's just doubling down on the same mistake I made earlier. My apologies!
MagicPropmaker 7y ago
I was very careful not to take on student debt. I personally chose a low-cost college and took as many first and second year required courses at a community college. I would be very angry if I had to bail out people who lived on The Farm, or in an Animal House frathouse for 6 years.

oldjokes 7y ago

We could slice 10% (maybe less) off the military budget and pay for college for everyone, forever. This "who pays" nonsense is just that: nonsense. I'm sure the Navy would find a way to make do with a mere nine aircraft carriers. If you're worried about freeloaders getting welfare they don't deserve then slashing the insanely corrupt grifting that goes on every day in DHS/Defense should be your top priority.

drocer88 7y ago
Perhaps we could cut back on entitlements , too. That would bring bigger savings and help with the governmental fiscal responsibility thing. Lower debt would let people keep more of their money to spend on making their lives better.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  The point is to make life easier for people, not harder.
- MisterBastahrd 7y ago
  Fun thing about "personal fiscal responsibility" is that almost everyone preaching about it when talking about entitlements have either never been poor in their lives or are grifters looking for acceptance from those who have never been poor in their lives.
- yardie 7y ago
  Entitlements are exactly that. You, the taxpayer, paid for them, you are entitled to use them. How about we cut the things we pay for but aren't entitled to use, like the military.
zeveb 7y ago
> We could slice 10% (maybe less) off the military budget and pay for college for everyone, forever. According to Wikipedia, 'the approved 2019 Department of Defense budget is $686.1 billion.' In the 2015–2016 academic year, colleges and universities spent $559 billion (https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=75 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=75). So 10% of the military budget would pay for a little over 12% of collegiate spending.
- servercobra 7y ago
  That $559 billion is including all the money the government (states, mostly?) already gives to schools that they then spend. GP was talking about (I assume) covering tuition, which is estimated between $50 billion and $75 billion from the articles [0] I can find. That lines up with ~10% of the military budget. [0] one example: https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/07/28/487794394/hillary-s-free-tuition-promise-what-would-it-cost-how-would-it-work https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/07/28/487794394/hillary...
- cr0sh 7y ago
  > In the 2015–2016 academic year, colleges and universities spent $559 billion Talking out my nether regions here - but is that broken out in any way? Basically - I'm wondering how much of that spending is on actual academics vs non-academic activities?

isbjorn16 7y ago

> taking a loan you have no intention of paying I'm not sure what sort of people you've run into, but I've never met a single person who ever took any loan out with no intention of paying on it. The problem is "intention" and "ability" aren't inextricably linked. My brother has defaulted on his loan; he agonizes over it every single day. He has every intention of paying, but he's left with 32$ a month after rent, the cheapest, most basic of utilities, rice, beans, and the occasional leafy green, and health insurance. His apartment was 43 degrees during the winter because he couldn't afford to heat it. 32$ isn't going to pay down his debt, and there's nothing he can currently do to change that. I'm certain he'd LOVE to. There's nothing he wants more than to keep his current standard of living, but make enough money to pay his debt off (edit: and do note that his current standard of living _sucks_). I find it a bit disconcerting that your mind immediately goes toward intention and doesn't even seem to consider ability. I'm certain there are those who take out loans with no intention to pay on them, but much like the welfare queen propaganda of the 90's, it seems like that specific problem is blown entirely out of proportion of the reality.

microcolonel 7y ago
You're making a counterpoint to something I did not say. I'm saying that taking the loan is no longer ever a mistake, because you can expect that you will never need to pay, if you wait long enough: hence "where taking a loan you have no intention of paying is not a mistake". > the cheapest, most basic of utilities, rice, beans, and the occasional leafy green, and health insurance I'm sorry to hear that, I suspect that I'll need to be housing my brothers some time in the next decade too, so I can feel that. Is there some problem with SNAP and Medicaid that's preventing him from taking them? Is housing just so costly where he lives that he's insolvent despite not being below the "poverty plus" lines for those programs?
- isbjorn16 7y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong - I think I now see the disconnect we (or better put, I) had and I'm sorry I didn't see it before. If there's no financial or legal penalties for discharging the loan debt due to bankruptcy, people may be more apt to go that route, disrupting the entire lending system. If that's right, and I read the rest of your comment in that context, you're basically lamenting the fact that there's no outrageous material downsides for people being taken by duplicitous lenders and education institutions. And if that's also what you meant, then I agree; that's certainly a problem that would need to be solved as well if blanket debt forgiveness were to occur. That seems to be just as untenable a situation as the one we have now - and by my view, the situation we have now is wildly untenable and is going to hobble our entire country and economy for decades to come if we don't change _something_. I'm going to stop riffing on "and if"s, though - that's just doubling down on the same mistake I made earlier. My apologies!

MagicPropmaker 7y ago

I was very careful not to take on student debt. I personally chose a low-cost college and took as many first and second year required courses at a community college. I would be very angry if I had to bail out people who lived on The Farm, or in an Animal House frathouse for 6 years.