4 ms·

How is this any different than any president in the future just telling people "If you vote for me, I'll forgive your auto loans, your home loans.... credit car

by johng 4y ago

How is this any different than any president in the future just telling people "If you vote for me, I'll forgive your auto loans, your home loans.... credit card loans. Any type of loans. Just let me buy your vote?"

CmdrLoskene 4y ago
Because the government doesn't underwrite auto loans and home loans, guaranteeing a return to the originators.
- lockhouse 4y ago
  The executive branch still lacks the Constitutional authority to do this, despite how you feel about the merits of student loan forgiveness.
  - jenkstom 4y ago
    Cool... can we get that "too big to fail" bank bailout back then?
    - slaymaker1907 4y ago
      Also, the PPP loan forgiveness which was already a program with rampant fraud.
dataflow 4y ago
The difference is Congress has passed a statute explicitly saying "the Secretary of Education may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Act as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications authorized by paragraph," but no such statute for auto loans or credit cards.
- junofan 4y ago
  Congress has to act explicitly on stuff with major political or economic significance. The courts are a check on agency power. The Secretary of Education can’t do literally whatever he feels like no matter what the law says.
  - dataflow 4y ago
    I mean, that's an argument you can make about the loan forgiveness question, but it's a non-sequitur insofar as the "how are student loans any different from credit card loans" question this thread was concerned with.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lapcat 4y ago
Every President buys votes. "I'll lower your taxes." "I'll provide tax incentives for such and such." "I'll provide subsidies for such and such." "I'll raise spending on such and such." Indeed, almost every politician sells their votes to campaign contributors.
throwntoday 4y ago
I think we should recognize that these loans were predatory by virtue of your average 18-year old being too stupid to understand the consequences of their decision or too hopeful about their future. The universities were complicit, in that they charged exorbitant amounts of money, ever increasing, for an education that would never pay for itself. They were the adults in the room, and neglected their duty to prepare the next generation. As a society we should agree that paying for education is absurd, since society benefits as much as the individual. Cancel student debt, make university free, and get rid of bullshit colleges that offer no promise of a bright future.
- dudul 4y ago
  A lot of comments talk about these kids who had no idea and were too stupid to understand things. I'm confused, should we revise the voting age and a few other things then? Sounds like 18 year old kids are just too dumb.
- a_puppy 4y ago
  > The universities were complicit, in that they charged exorbitant amounts of money... Get rid of bullshit colleges that offer no promise of a bright future. That's a great idea, but student loan forgiveness doesn't do that! It does nothing to hold the universities accountable. On the contrary, it enables universities to keep doing what they're currently doing! My view is that _someone_ needs to hold universities accountable: - Under the current system, students are theoretically holding universities accountable. When students choose a university, they (in theory) consider how valuable the education is to them personally, and balance that against how much they would have to pay. This is a decision that each student makes personally, and they personally pay the costs and personally receive the benefits. - But if we don't think students are able to make that decision, then someone else (e.g. the government) needs to hold universities accountable instead. For example, the government might put a cap on how much money universities can charge students, or put restrictions on universities offering degrees in fields that society considers less valuable. The problem with the student loan forgiveness plan is that _nobody_ is holding the universities accountable. Students have no incentive to consider the cost of tuition, if the taxpayer will ultimately foot the bill; but taxpayers won't get any say in whether the degree is worth it or not. > As a society we should agree that paying for education is absurd Right now, a lot of the benefits of education go to the student, in the form of higher salaries and higher social status. As long as that continues to be the case, I think it's only fair that students should be expected to pay for it.

by johng 4y ago

CmdrLoskene 4y ago

Because the government doesn't underwrite auto loans and home loans, guaranteeing a return to the originators.

lockhouse 4y ago
The executive branch still lacks the Constitutional authority to do this, despite how you feel about the merits of student loan forgiveness.
- jenkstom 4y ago
  Cool... can we get that "too big to fail" bank bailout back then?
  - slaymaker1907 4y ago
    Also, the PPP loan forgiveness which was already a program with rampant fraud.

dataflow 4y ago

The difference is Congress has passed a statute explicitly saying "the Secretary of Education may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Act as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications authorized by paragraph," but no such statute for auto loans or credit cards.

junofan 4y ago
Congress has to act explicitly on stuff with major political or economic significance. The courts are a check on agency power. The Secretary of Education can’t do literally whatever he feels like no matter what the law says.
- dataflow 4y ago
  I mean, that's an argument you can make about the loan forgiveness question, but it's a non-sequitur insofar as the "how are student loans any different from credit card loans" question this thread was concerned with.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lapcat 4y ago

Every President buys votes. "I'll lower your taxes." "I'll provide tax incentives for such and such." "I'll provide subsidies for such and such." "I'll raise spending on such and such." Indeed, almost every politician sells their votes to campaign contributors.

throwntoday 4y ago

I think we should recognize that these loans were predatory by virtue of your average 18-year old being too stupid to understand the consequences of their decision or too hopeful about their future. The universities were complicit, in that they charged exorbitant amounts of money, ever increasing, for an education that would never pay for itself. They were the adults in the room, and neglected their duty to prepare the next generation. As a society we should agree that paying for education is absurd, since society benefits as much as the individual. Cancel student debt, make university free, and get rid of bullshit colleges that offer no promise of a bright future.

dudul 4y ago
A lot of comments talk about these kids who had no idea and were too stupid to understand things. I'm confused, should we revise the voting age and a few other things then? Sounds like 18 year old kids are just too dumb.
a_puppy 4y ago
> The universities were complicit, in that they charged exorbitant amounts of money... Get rid of bullshit colleges that offer no promise of a bright future. That's a great idea, but student loan forgiveness doesn't do that! It does nothing to hold the universities accountable. On the contrary, it enables universities to keep doing what they're currently doing! My view is that _someone_ needs to hold universities accountable: - Under the current system, students are theoretically holding universities accountable. When students choose a university, they (in theory) consider how valuable the education is to them personally, and balance that against how much they would have to pay. This is a decision that each student makes personally, and they personally pay the costs and personally receive the benefits. - But if we don't think students are able to make that decision, then someone else (e.g. the government) needs to hold universities accountable instead. For example, the government might put a cap on how much money universities can charge students, or put restrictions on universities offering degrees in fields that society considers less valuable. The problem with the student loan forgiveness plan is that _nobody_ is holding the universities accountable. Students have no incentive to consider the cost of tuition, if the taxpayer will ultimately foot the bill; but taxpayers won't get any say in whether the degree is worth it or not. > As a society we should agree that paying for education is absurd Right now, a lot of the benefits of education go to the student, in the form of higher salaries and higher social status. As long as that continues to be the case, I think it's only fair that students should be expected to pay for it.