4 ms·

Unfortunately no politician will have the guts to do this. This is why people are skeptical of the federal government getting involved in just about anything.

Unfortunately no politician will have the guts to do this. This is why people are skeptical of the federal government getting involved in just about anything. They passed this program to help students afford school, and it’s done the opposite. It was also passed as a revenue neutral program of loans that would be repaid, now they’re increasingly being forgiven or put into forbearance. Now to fix it, someone will have to feel significant pain, most likely both the educators and low-income students.

greedo 5y ago
People are skeptical of the federal government getting involved because of decades of propaganda and underfunding. Bad roads? Well, Congress and the states won't raise the fuel tax. Bad education? Congress lets loans go to shite diploma mills that have owners who make big campaign contributions. Just look at how underfunded (intentionally) the IRS is. How audits are primarily focused on the bottom 50% of earners, while the top 50% skate. The Federal government does a great job at many things, when given clear legislation, and funding. Unfortunately, Reagan did a great job with his BS about "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
- ch4s3 5y ago
  > Bad roads? Well, Congress and the states won't raise the fuel tax. We overbuilt infrastructure based on Government accounting practices that don't adhere to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP or US GAAP). Representatives get elected based on promises of new roads and highways, not on successful stewardship of what we have. People realize this misaligned incentive, that isn't propaganda. > Bad education? Congress lets loans go to shite diploma mills For profit schools account for 10% of students[1] and 15% of loans[2]. They're a problem in several ways but not the root cause. > Just look at how underfunded (intentionally) the IRS is. How audits are primarily focused on the bottom 50% of earners, while the top 50% skate. I agree that the IRS wrongly targets working class people, but the rest of this is wrong. The tax to GDP ratio in the US has been constant for decades, and we have the most progressive tax code in the OECD[3]. The US obtains more of its revenue from income taxes than any other OECD nation by a factor of 2 in percentage terms. We have no VAT which is regressive, and almost every other OECD nation has one. Americans distrust government for a lot of historical reasons. We are the 2nd largest democracy that was a former European colony, and our founders fought a revolution against a remote and disconnected government. Most large waves or immigrants to the US were fleeing some sort of government oppression. We also should remember that some 14% of the population was officially discriminated against by the government in living memory. The war on drugs also give people plenty of reasons to be suspicious about the government. We're an individualistic society that is multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-cultural and people practice a range of religions it should come as no surprise that people are wary of Washington. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/01/12/the-for-profit-college-system-is-broken-and-the-biden-administration-needs-to-fix-it/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/01/12/the-fo... [2] https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr811.pdf https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff... [3] https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-states.pd...
  - greedo 5y ago
    1. Govt Reps get elected for a lot of things. Maintaining our roads, bridges and infrastructure are always buzzwords during elections. 2. Your link to Brookings just reinforces the issue. For profit schools account for 10% of students, borrow more often compared to public school students, and borrow more money. The Fed link shows that these students default more; they also are higher in pure dollar terms when it comes to Pell grants and Stafford loans. There's no good defense for profit schools. 3. Our tax to GDP has been constant for decades. Wow. I guess that wouldn't coincide with the Republican and Grover Norquist's efforts to "drown the baby in the bath tub?" A tax code can be "progressive" in theory while in practice it's regressive since the wealthy can shelter so much of their income. By underfunding the IRS, we're leaving money on the table. That's what the rich want, and since they largely control Congress, that's what they get. 4. If you look at trust in government, it was in the mid 70% range up until 1960. So obviously all the people in 1950 were so scarred by how poorly the British Parliament treated us in the 1700s. The drop in trust dropped during the Vietnam War when both parties continually lied to the American people, and since then has hovered in the 30% range for 40 years. But it's pretty clear that one party has had a platform for over 40 years to diminish the accomplishments of the Federal Government (except the Military), to starve it of funds, to politicize it's agencies. The other party sees the Government as a solution to many problems that are simply too large for individuals to solve.
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      > Govt Reps get elected for a lot of things. Maintaining our roads, bridges and infrastructure are always buzzwords during elections. You're arguing against conventional political wisdom wrt the US, so I think the onus is on you to provide a better argument than sometimes the conventional wisdom is wrong. > Your link to Brookings just reinforces the issue. For profit schools account for 10% of students, borrow more often compared to public school students, and borrow more money. The Fed link shows that these students default more; they also are higher in pure dollar terms when it comes to Pell grants and Stafford loans. There's no good defense for profit schools. Your original comment was that loans to for profit colleges were the cause of bad education. I'm pointing out that they account for a tiny fraction of all degrees. You aren't making an argument here that shows the margins driving overall outcomes. The loan amounts aren't really relevant to the quality, or at least you aren't making that argument. I actually don't think the federal government should be in the lending game for education. It's too indirect and creates perverse incentives. > Our tax to GDP has been constant for decades. Wow. I guess that wouldn't coincide with the Republican and Grover Norquist's efforts to "drown the baby in the bath tub?" Yes, federal receipts as a percentage of GDP have vacillated between 14% and 19% since 1944 averaging around 17%. Grover Norquist's Tax Reform Act in '85 was followed by a 5 year uptick in federal tax receipts. Countries that capture more tax as a percentage of GDP do so through VAT. > A tax code can be "progressive" in theory while in practice it's regressive since the wealthy can shelter so much of their income The top 50% of earners pay 97% of federal income taxes in the US, which is the vast majority of federal revenue. That is definitionally a progressive tax scheme, in fact the most progressive globally by any measure. To argue otherwise is to deny basic confirmable facts. If your argument is about the 400 wealthiest families in America, then that's something else entirely, but it doesn't make the tax regime regressive. > If you look at trust in government, it was in the mid 70% range up until 1960 You're looking at a measure that only starts after WWII, and probably in those early years excluded racial minorities. > So obviously all the people in 1950 were so scarred by how poorly the British Parliament treated us in the 1700s. This isn't an argument, it's jus reductio ad absurdum and misrepresents my argument about the cultural and historical roots of skepticism of government. > The drop in trust dropped during the Vietnam War when both parties continually lied to the American people, and since then has hovered in the 30% range for 40 years Can you blame anyone for being upset about Vietnam, Watergate, and the Cuban Missile Crisis? > But it's pretty clear that one party has had a platform for over 40 years to diminish the accomplishments of the Federal Government (except the Military), to starve it of funds, to politicize it's agencies. I think it's pretty clear that both political parties have been behind some rotten shit since Vietnam. Both parties were in favor of the drug war, needless foreign adventurism, the bungling of trade liberalization, and a raft of other stupid things. I would argue that both parties see government as a cudgel to bludgeon their adversaries with, and not as a tool with witch to achieve social good. As far as I can tell they're both obsessed with fighting culture war battles and have very little interest in the practical concerns of governance.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> no politician will have the guts to do this There is a grand bargain to be made. For example: forgive the first $10k of every student loan and offer every taxpayer who paid off their loans a refundable tax credit for the same. In the same stroke, make 10% of loans granted in the year following enactment dischargeable in bankruptcy, limit federal guarantees to 90% of the loan value and reduce subsidies by 10%. That goes to 20% (80%) the next year, 30% (70%) the next, et cetera. You aren't changing the terms of an extant contract. Lenders and schools have time to adapt. The program pays for itself and then some.

greedo 5y ago

People are skeptical of the federal government getting involved because of decades of propaganda and underfunding. Bad roads? Well, Congress and the states won't raise the fuel tax. Bad education? Congress lets loans go to shite diploma mills that have owners who make big campaign contributions. Just look at how underfunded (intentionally) the IRS is. How audits are primarily focused on the bottom 50% of earners, while the top 50% skate. The Federal government does a great job at many things, when given clear legislation, and funding. Unfortunately, Reagan did a great job with his BS about "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

ch4s3 5y ago
> Bad roads? Well, Congress and the states won't raise the fuel tax. We overbuilt infrastructure based on Government accounting practices that don't adhere to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP or US GAAP). Representatives get elected based on promises of new roads and highways, not on successful stewardship of what we have. People realize this misaligned incentive, that isn't propaganda. > Bad education? Congress lets loans go to shite diploma mills For profit schools account for 10% of students[1] and 15% of loans[2]. They're a problem in several ways but not the root cause. > Just look at how underfunded (intentionally) the IRS is. How audits are primarily focused on the bottom 50% of earners, while the top 50% skate. I agree that the IRS wrongly targets working class people, but the rest of this is wrong. The tax to GDP ratio in the US has been constant for decades, and we have the most progressive tax code in the OECD[3]. The US obtains more of its revenue from income taxes than any other OECD nation by a factor of 2 in percentage terms. We have no VAT which is regressive, and almost every other OECD nation has one. Americans distrust government for a lot of historical reasons. We are the 2nd largest democracy that was a former European colony, and our founders fought a revolution against a remote and disconnected government. Most large waves or immigrants to the US were fleeing some sort of government oppression. We also should remember that some 14% of the population was officially discriminated against by the government in living memory. The war on drugs also give people plenty of reasons to be suspicious about the government. We're an individualistic society that is multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-cultural and people practice a range of religions it should come as no surprise that people are wary of Washington. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/01/12/the-for-profit-college-system-is-broken-and-the-biden-administration-needs-to-fix-it/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/01/12/the-fo... [2] https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr811.pdf https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff... [3] https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-states.pd...
- greedo 5y ago
  1. Govt Reps get elected for a lot of things. Maintaining our roads, bridges and infrastructure are always buzzwords during elections. 2. Your link to Brookings just reinforces the issue. For profit schools account for 10% of students, borrow more often compared to public school students, and borrow more money. The Fed link shows that these students default more; they also are higher in pure dollar terms when it comes to Pell grants and Stafford loans. There's no good defense for profit schools. 3. Our tax to GDP has been constant for decades. Wow. I guess that wouldn't coincide with the Republican and Grover Norquist's efforts to "drown the baby in the bath tub?" A tax code can be "progressive" in theory while in practice it's regressive since the wealthy can shelter so much of their income. By underfunding the IRS, we're leaving money on the table. That's what the rich want, and since they largely control Congress, that's what they get. 4. If you look at trust in government, it was in the mid 70% range up until 1960. So obviously all the people in 1950 were so scarred by how poorly the British Parliament treated us in the 1700s. The drop in trust dropped during the Vietnam War when both parties continually lied to the American people, and since then has hovered in the 30% range for 40 years. But it's pretty clear that one party has had a platform for over 40 years to diminish the accomplishments of the Federal Government (except the Military), to starve it of funds, to politicize it's agencies. The other party sees the Government as a solution to many problems that are simply too large for individuals to solve.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    > Govt Reps get elected for a lot of things. Maintaining our roads, bridges and infrastructure are always buzzwords during elections. You're arguing against conventional political wisdom wrt the US, so I think the onus is on you to provide a better argument than sometimes the conventional wisdom is wrong. > Your link to Brookings just reinforces the issue. For profit schools account for 10% of students, borrow more often compared to public school students, and borrow more money. The Fed link shows that these students default more; they also are higher in pure dollar terms when it comes to Pell grants and Stafford loans. There's no good defense for profit schools. Your original comment was that loans to for profit colleges were the cause of bad education. I'm pointing out that they account for a tiny fraction of all degrees. You aren't making an argument here that shows the margins driving overall outcomes. The loan amounts aren't really relevant to the quality, or at least you aren't making that argument. I actually don't think the federal government should be in the lending game for education. It's too indirect and creates perverse incentives. > Our tax to GDP has been constant for decades. Wow. I guess that wouldn't coincide with the Republican and Grover Norquist's efforts to "drown the baby in the bath tub?" Yes, federal receipts as a percentage of GDP have vacillated between 14% and 19% since 1944 averaging around 17%. Grover Norquist's Tax Reform Act in '85 was followed by a 5 year uptick in federal tax receipts. Countries that capture more tax as a percentage of GDP do so through VAT. > A tax code can be "progressive" in theory while in practice it's regressive since the wealthy can shelter so much of their income The top 50% of earners pay 97% of federal income taxes in the US, which is the vast majority of federal revenue. That is definitionally a progressive tax scheme, in fact the most progressive globally by any measure. To argue otherwise is to deny basic confirmable facts. If your argument is about the 400 wealthiest families in America, then that's something else entirely, but it doesn't make the tax regime regressive. > If you look at trust in government, it was in the mid 70% range up until 1960 You're looking at a measure that only starts after WWII, and probably in those early years excluded racial minorities. > So obviously all the people in 1950 were so scarred by how poorly the British Parliament treated us in the 1700s. This isn't an argument, it's jus reductio ad absurdum and misrepresents my argument about the cultural and historical roots of skepticism of government. > The drop in trust dropped during the Vietnam War when both parties continually lied to the American people, and since then has hovered in the 30% range for 40 years Can you blame anyone for being upset about Vietnam, Watergate, and the Cuban Missile Crisis? > But it's pretty clear that one party has had a platform for over 40 years to diminish the accomplishments of the Federal Government (except the Military), to starve it of funds, to politicize it's agencies. I think it's pretty clear that both political parties have been behind some rotten shit since Vietnam. Both parties were in favor of the drug war, needless foreign adventurism, the bungling of trade liberalization, and a raft of other stupid things. I would argue that both parties see government as a cudgel to bludgeon their adversaries with, and not as a tool with witch to achieve social good. As far as I can tell they're both obsessed with fighting culture war battles and have very little interest in the practical concerns of governance.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> no politician will have the guts to do this There is a grand bargain to be made. For example: forgive the first $10k of every student loan and offer every taxpayer who paid off their loans a refundable tax credit for the same. In the same stroke, make 10% of loans granted in the year following enactment dischargeable in bankruptcy, limit federal guarantees to 90% of the loan value and reduce subsidies by 10%. That goes to 20% (80%) the next year, 30% (70%) the next, et cetera. You aren't changing the terms of an extant contract. Lenders and schools have time to adapt. The program pays for itself and then some.