What is going on with student loans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some are fighting it just for the sake of fighting but I saw it looks like this may sit in courts for a long time. Has anyone else heard the same?

Biden gets a win for announcing this whole thing. Courts will prevent it from happening. Biden gets the win, GOP becomes the bad guy for challenging in the courts. This rallies the D base. Biden won't lose most independents once this gets overturned.

-Hill Staffer

I see your point, but not sure about it. Several immigrant friends, mosty apolitical, are livid about the stupidity of all this.

I think a lot of people are ticked about this and it cuts across demographic groups.

No one was ticked about the PPP giveaways to millionaires, and let’s be clear, that’s what they were. For all the job postings, there were relatively few people being hired to fill them. Not many paychecks being protected by that. But $10k to someone who could never get more than a pittance for a relatively expensive degree is some sort of fundamental failure.

Crabs in a barrel mentality’s

[Anonymous]

Good piece. Mitch Daniels gets it.

The colorful Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes once likened George Romney’s run for the presidency to “a duck trying to [make love to] a football.” I wish he had been around to put a label on the federal student-loan program. In the sad catalog of its failures, the federal government has set a new standard. President Biden’s debt-cancellation announcement represents the final confession of failure for a venture flawed in concept, botched in execution, and draped with duplicity.

The scheme’s flaws have been well chronicled. It’s regressive, rewarding the well-to-do at the expense of the less fortunate. It’s grossly unfair to those who repaid what they borrowed or never went to college. It’s grotesquely expensive, adding hundreds of billions to a federal debt that already threatens our safety-net programs and national security. Like so much of what government does, it’s iatrogenic, inflating college costs as schools continue to pocket the subsidies Uncle Sam showers on them. And it’s profanely contemptuous of the Constitution, which authorizes only Congress to spend money.

When the federal government took over the loan program in 2010, President Obama claimed it would turn a profit of $68 billion and that “we are finally undertaking meaningful reform in our higher education system.” Credit where due: a dead loss of hundreds of billions of dollars and tuition costs that continued to soar can fairly be described as “meaningful.”

There are, and long have been, better ways. Colleges should always have been at some risk for any non-repayments by graduates. One can view such defaults as a breach of warranty, as degrees could be thought to imply that their bearers were prepared to be productive citizens, with the market value and personal character to live up to their freely chosen obligations.

Of course, much of this unpaid debt would never have been accrued if colleges hadn’t raised their prices at the highest rates of any category in the economy. Thanks to the subsidy gusher, that was easy to do. But it wasn’t right or necessary.

I have been asked countless times about Purdue’s record of holding tuition and fees flat since 2012 while lowering room, board and book costs. It is less expensive to attend our university, in nominal dollars and for all students, in-state or out, than it was a decade ago.

I’d like to claim that this was a triumph of managerial brilliance, but I can’t. We simply asked ourselves each year, “Can we solve the equation for zero?”—meaning what would it take to avoid a fee increase? Placing top priority on containing student costs has driven lower ratios of administrators to faculty, less gold-plating on new buildings, modernized and consumer-driven health plans, and other simple changes. Meanwhile, not coincidentally, enrollment and revenues have surged.

Ten years on, more than 60% of our students graduate debt-free. Debt per student has been cut in half, to just over $3,000. Had Purdue raised tuition at the national average, students’ families would have sent us more than $1 billion more than they have.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-loans-and-the-national-debt-higher-education-graduates-college-university-reform-government-biden-relief-cancellation-11662061187

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good piece. Mitch Daniels gets it.

The colorful Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes once likened George Romney’s run for the presidency to “a duck trying to [make love to] a football.” I wish he had been around to put a label on the federal student-loan program. In the sad catalog of its failures, the federal government has set a new standard. President Biden’s debt-cancellation announcement represents the final confession of failure for a venture flawed in concept, botched in execution, and draped with duplicity.

The scheme’s flaws have been well chronicled. It’s regressive, rewarding the well-to-do at the expense of the less fortunate. It’s grossly unfair to those who repaid what they borrowed or never went to college. It’s grotesquely expensive, adding hundreds of billions to a federal debt that already threatens our safety-net programs and national security. Like so much of what government does, it’s iatrogenic, inflating college costs as schools continue to pocket the subsidies Uncle Sam showers on them. And it’s profanely contemptuous of the Constitution, which authorizes only Congress to spend money.

When the federal government took over the loan program in 2010, President Obama claimed it would turn a profit of $68 billion and that “we are finally undertaking meaningful reform in our higher education system.” Credit where due: a dead loss of hundreds of billions of dollars and tuition costs that continued to soar can fairly be described as “meaningful.”

There are, and long have been, better ways. Colleges should always have been at some risk for any non-repayments by graduates. One can view such defaults as a breach of warranty, as degrees could be thought to imply that their bearers were prepared to be productive citizens, with the market value and personal character to live up to their freely chosen obligations.

Of course, much of this unpaid debt would never have been accrued if colleges hadn’t raised their prices at the highest rates of any category in the economy. Thanks to the subsidy gusher, that was easy to do. But it wasn’t right or necessary.

I have been asked countless times about Purdue’s record of holding tuition and fees flat since 2012 while lowering room, board and book costs. It is less expensive to attend our university, in nominal dollars and for all students, in-state or out, than it was a decade ago.

I’d like to claim that this was a triumph of managerial brilliance, but I can’t. We simply asked ourselves each year, “Can we solve the equation for zero?”—meaning what would it take to avoid a fee increase? Placing top priority on containing student costs has driven lower ratios of administrators to faculty, less gold-plating on new buildings, modernized and consumer-driven health plans, and other simple changes. Meanwhile, not coincidentally, enrollment and revenues have surged.

Ten years on, more than 60% of our students graduate debt-free. Debt per student has been cut in half, to just over $3,000. Had Purdue raised tuition at the national average, students’ families would have sent us more than $1 billion more than they have.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-loans-and-the-national-debt-higher-education-graduates-college-university-reform-government-biden-relief-cancellation-11662061187

This is genius. And for all those putting forth whataboutisms about PPP, it's entirely different situation. Voters won't view them as equivalent and D's will pay in 2022/2024.

[Anonymous]

Biden’s Income-Driven Repayment plan would turn student loans into untargeted grants

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/bidens-income-driven-repayment-plan-would-turn-student-loans-into-untargeted-grants/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece. Mitch Daniels gets it.

The colorful Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes once likened George Romney’s run for the presidency to “a duck trying to [make love to] a football.” I wish he had been around to put a label on the federal student-loan program. In the sad catalog of its failures, the federal government has set a new standard. President Biden’s debt-cancellation announcement represents the final confession of failure for a venture flawed in concept, botched in execution, and draped with duplicity.

The scheme’s flaws have been well chronicled. It’s regressive, rewarding the well-to-do at the expense of the less fortunate. It’s grossly unfair to those who repaid what they borrowed or never went to college. It’s grotesquely expensive, adding hundreds of billions to a federal debt that already threatens our safety-net programs and national security. Like so much of what government does, it’s iatrogenic, inflating college costs as schools continue to pocket the subsidies Uncle Sam showers on them. And it’s profanely contemptuous of the Constitution, which authorizes only Congress to spend money.

When the federal government took over the loan program in 2010, President Obama claimed it would turn a profit of $68 billion and that “we are finally undertaking meaningful reform in our higher education system.” Credit where due: a dead loss of hundreds of billions of dollars and tuition costs that continued to soar can fairly be described as “meaningful.”

There are, and long have been, better ways. Colleges should always have been at some risk for any non-repayments by graduates. One can view such defaults as a breach of warranty, as degrees could be thought to imply that their bearers were prepared to be productive citizens, with the market value and personal character to live up to their freely chosen obligations.

Of course, much of this unpaid debt would never have been accrued if colleges hadn’t raised their prices at the highest rates of any category in the economy. Thanks to the subsidy gusher, that was easy to do. But it wasn’t right or necessary.

I have been asked countless times about Purdue’s record of holding tuition and fees flat since 2012 while lowering room, board and book costs. It is less expensive to attend our university, in nominal dollars and for all students, in-state or out, than it was a decade ago.

I’d like to claim that this was a triumph of managerial brilliance, but I can’t. We simply asked ourselves each year, “Can we solve the equation for zero?”—meaning what would it take to avoid a fee increase? Placing top priority on containing student costs has driven lower ratios of administrators to faculty, less gold-plating on new buildings, modernized and consumer-driven health plans, and other simple changes. Meanwhile, not coincidentally, enrollment and revenues have surged.

Ten years on, more than 60% of our students graduate debt-free. Debt per student has been cut in half, to just over $3,000. Had Purdue raised tuition at the national average, students’ families would have sent us more than $1 billion more than they have.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-loans-and-the-national-debt-higher-education-graduates-college-university-reform-government-biden-relief-cancellation-11662061187

This is genius. And for all those putting forth whataboutisms about PPP, it's entirely different situation. Voters won't view them as equivalent and D's will pay in 2022/2024.

“It’s ‘entirely different,’” says he. Lol, kitten. No, it’s just to point out the cosmic hypocrisy of Republicans. Flat out millionaire handouts are good but helping people actually get a leg up? Bad bad bad.

And once again you are calling genius a right wing mentality that whines about a problem yet supporting the party that blocks any and all solutions at all points of the problem. Yes, college costs are out of control. Gooper solution? Shame people for getting degrees, shame people for working jobs out of their degree field to feed themselves, do nothing about the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden’s Income-Driven Repayment plan would turn student loans into untargeted grants

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/bidens-income-driven-repayment-plan-would-turn-student-loans-into-untargeted-grants/

Income Based Repayment (IBR) has been a thing for over a decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece. Mitch Daniels gets it.

The colorful Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes once likened George Romney’s run for the presidency to “a duck trying to [make love to] a football.” I wish he had been around to put a label on the federal student-loan program. In the sad catalog of its failures, the federal government has set a new standard. President Biden’s debt-cancellation announcement represents the final confession of failure for a venture flawed in concept, botched in execution, and draped with duplicity.

The scheme’s flaws have been well chronicled. It’s regressive, rewarding the well-to-do at the expense of the less fortunate. It’s grossly unfair to those who repaid what they borrowed or never went to college. It’s grotesquely expensive, adding hundreds of billions to a federal debt that already threatens our safety-net programs and national security. Like so much of what government does, it’s iatrogenic, inflating college costs as schools continue to pocket the subsidies Uncle Sam showers on them. And it’s profanely contemptuous of the Constitution, which authorizes only Congress to spend money.

When the federal government took over the loan program in 2010, President Obama claimed it would turn a profit of $68 billion and that “we are finally undertaking meaningful reform in our higher education system.” Credit where due: a dead loss of hundreds of billions of dollars and tuition costs that continued to soar can fairly be described as “meaningful.”

There are, and long have been, better ways. Colleges should always have been at some risk for any non-repayments by graduates. One can view such defaults as a breach of warranty, as degrees could be thought to imply that their bearers were prepared to be productive citizens, with the market value and personal character to live up to their freely chosen obligations.

Of course, much of this unpaid debt would never have been accrued if colleges hadn’t raised their prices at the highest rates of any category in the economy. Thanks to the subsidy gusher, that was easy to do. But it wasn’t right or necessary.

I have been asked countless times about Purdue’s record of holding tuition and fees flat since 2012 while lowering room, board and book costs. It is less expensive to attend our university, in nominal dollars and for all students, in-state or out, than it was a decade ago.

I’d like to claim that this was a triumph of managerial brilliance, but I can’t. We simply asked ourselves each year, “Can we solve the equation for zero?”—meaning what would it take to avoid a fee increase? Placing top priority on containing student costs has driven lower ratios of administrators to faculty, less gold-plating on new buildings, modernized and consumer-driven health plans, and other simple changes. Meanwhile, not coincidentally, enrollment and revenues have surged.

Ten years on, more than 60% of our students graduate debt-free. Debt per student has been cut in half, to just over $3,000. Had Purdue raised tuition at the national average, students’ families would have sent us more than $1 billion more than they have.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-loans-and-the-national-debt-higher-education-graduates-college-university-reform-government-biden-relief-cancellation-11662061187

This is genius. And for all those putting forth whataboutisms about PPP, it's entirely different situation. Voters won't view them as equivalent and D's will pay in 2022/2024.

How’s that going to work when the policy has solid majority support?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece. Mitch Daniels gets it.

The colorful Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes once likened George Romney’s run for the presidency to “a duck trying to [make love to] a football.” I wish he had been around to put a label on the federal student-loan program. In the sad catalog of its failures, the federal government has set a new standard. President Biden’s debt-cancellation announcement represents the final confession of failure for a venture flawed in concept, botched in execution, and draped with duplicity.

The scheme’s flaws have been well chronicled. It’s regressive, rewarding the well-to-do at the expense of the less fortunate. It’s grossly unfair to those who repaid what they borrowed or never went to college. It’s grotesquely expensive, adding hundreds of billions to a federal debt that already threatens our safety-net programs and national security. Like so much of what government does, it’s iatrogenic, inflating college costs as schools continue to pocket the subsidies Uncle Sam showers on them. And it’s profanely contemptuous of the Constitution, which authorizes only Congress to spend money.

When the federal government took over the loan program in 2010, President Obama claimed it would turn a profit of $68 billion and that “we are finally undertaking meaningful reform in our higher education system.” Credit where due: a dead loss of hundreds of billions of dollars and tuition costs that continued to soar can fairly be described as “meaningful.”

There are, and long have been, better ways. Colleges should always have been at some risk for any non-repayments by graduates. One can view such defaults as a breach of warranty, as degrees could be thought to imply that their bearers were prepared to be productive citizens, with the market value and personal character to live up to their freely chosen obligations.

Of course, much of this unpaid debt would never have been accrued if colleges hadn’t raised their prices at the highest rates of any category in the economy. Thanks to the subsidy gusher, that was easy to do. But it wasn’t right or necessary.

I have been asked countless times about Purdue’s record of holding tuition and fees flat since 2012 while lowering room, board and book costs. It is less expensive to attend our university, in nominal dollars and for all students, in-state or out, than it was a decade ago.

I’d like to claim that this was a triumph of managerial brilliance, but I can’t. We simply asked ourselves each year, “Can we solve the equation for zero?”—meaning what would it take to avoid a fee increase? Placing top priority on containing student costs has driven lower ratios of administrators to faculty, less gold-plating on new buildings, modernized and consumer-driven health plans, and other simple changes. Meanwhile, not coincidentally, enrollment and revenues have surged.

Ten years on, more than 60% of our students graduate debt-free. Debt per student has been cut in half, to just over $3,000. Had Purdue raised tuition at the national average, students’ families would have sent us more than $1 billion more than they have.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-loans-and-the-national-debt-higher-education-graduates-college-university-reform-government-biden-relief-cancellation-11662061187

This is genius. And for all those putting forth whataboutisms about PPP, it's entirely different situation. Voters won't view them as equivalent and D's will pay in 2022/2024.

“It’s ‘entirely different,’” says he. Lol, kitten. No, it’s just to point out the cosmic hypocrisy of Republicans. Flat out millionaire handouts are good but helping people actually get a leg up? Bad bad bad.

And once again you are calling genius a right wing mentality that whines about a problem yet supporting the party that blocks any and all solutions at all points of the problem. Yes, college costs are out of control. Gooper solution? Shame people for getting degrees, shame people for working jobs out of their degree field to feed themselves, do nothing about the problem.

Solutions? You want solutions?

You think Biden's "solution" of redistributing the debt is going to lower college costs? LOL. Nope. If anything, costs will increase.

This is one of the biggest give-aways to the wealthy. It is pure insanity.

How *anyone* can possibly justify redistributing this debt from people who signed up for it to those that have nothing to do with it is a mystery.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece. Mitch Daniels gets it.

The colorful Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes once likened George Romney’s run for the presidency to “a duck trying to [make love to] a football.” I wish he had been around to put a label on the federal student-loan program. In the sad catalog of its failures, the federal government has set a new standard. President Biden’s debt-cancellation announcement represents the final confession of failure for a venture flawed in concept, botched in execution, and draped with duplicity.

The scheme’s flaws have been well chronicled. It’s regressive, rewarding the well-to-do at the expense of the less fortunate. It’s grossly unfair to those who repaid what they borrowed or never went to college. It’s grotesquely expensive, adding hundreds of billions to a federal debt that already threatens our safety-net programs and national security. Like so much of what government does, it’s iatrogenic, inflating college costs as schools continue to pocket the subsidies Uncle Sam showers on them. And it’s profanely contemptuous of the Constitution, which authorizes only Congress to spend money.

When the federal government took over the loan program in 2010, President Obama claimed it would turn a profit of $68 billion and that “we are finally undertaking meaningful reform in our higher education system.” Credit where due: a dead loss of hundreds of billions of dollars and tuition costs that continued to soar can fairly be described as “meaningful.”

There are, and long have been, better ways. Colleges should always have been at some risk for any non-repayments by graduates. One can view such defaults as a breach of warranty, as degrees could be thought to imply that their bearers were prepared to be productive citizens, with the market value and personal character to live up to their freely chosen obligations.

Of course, much of this unpaid debt would never have been accrued if colleges hadn’t raised their prices at the highest rates of any category in the economy. Thanks to the subsidy gusher, that was easy to do. But it wasn’t right or necessary.

I have been asked countless times about Purdue’s record of holding tuition and fees flat since 2012 while lowering room, board and book costs. It is less expensive to attend our university, in nominal dollars and for all students, in-state or out, than it was a decade ago.

I’d like to claim that this was a triumph of managerial brilliance, but I can’t. We simply asked ourselves each year, “Can we solve the equation for zero?”—meaning what would it take to avoid a fee increase? Placing top priority on containing student costs has driven lower ratios of administrators to faculty, less gold-plating on new buildings, modernized and consumer-driven health plans, and other simple changes. Meanwhile, not coincidentally, enrollment and revenues have surged.

Ten years on, more than 60% of our students graduate debt-free. Debt per student has been cut in half, to just over $3,000. Had Purdue raised tuition at the national average, students’ families would have sent us more than $1 billion more than they have.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-loans-and-the-national-debt-higher-education-graduates-college-university-reform-government-biden-relief-cancellation-11662061187

This is genius. And for all those putting forth whataboutisms about PPP, it's entirely different situation. Voters won't view them as equivalent and D's will pay in 2022/2024.

"Entirely different" in that PPP was a far larger scam benefiting the rich? Just cut the pretense and say it: You hate poor people.

[Anonymous]

Search your posh neighborhood and see how many "side hustling" small businesses you didn't know existed stole $25k to 100k in PPP. 100% scams. Did anyone vet close down? Mine neither, he's a bonafide multi-millionaire. But he stole $300k in PPP anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Search your posh neighborhood and see how many "side hustling" small businesses you didn't know existed stole $25k to 100k in PPP. 100% scams. Did anyone's vet close down? Mine neither, he's a bonafide multi-millionaire. But he stole $300k in PPP anyways.

vet, as in veterinarian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Search your posh neighborhood and see how many "side hustling" small businesses you didn't know existed stole $25k to 100k in PPP. 100% scams. Did anyone's vet close down? Mine neither, he's a bonafide multi-millionaire. But he stole $300k in PPP anyways.

vet, as in veterinarian

My local small restaurant owner told me he received $160K in PPP I & II (forgiven), received about $80k grant from the State and received $190k in Federal RRF (grant) for a total of about $330k in grants. Also received about $280k in low interest EIDL loan he can pay back in 30 years. He will be dead before 30 years.

He said he made lot more money during the covid era (including all the grants) than he ever did 19 years prior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Search your posh neighborhood and see how many "side hustling" small businesses you didn't know existed stole $25k to 100k in PPP. 100% scams. Did anyone vet close down? Mine neither, he's a bonafide multi-millionaire. But he stole $300k in PPP anyways.

Maybe he didn't shut down because he was able to pay his staff through covid?
Obviously, you don't own a small business and are not aware of the restrictions that were put on business owners. The PPP loan saved many small businesses, including ours. Every penny and about a hundred thousand from our own pockets went to keep our employees whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Search your posh neighborhood and see how many "side hustling" small businesses you didn't know existed stole $25k to 100k in PPP. 100% scams. Did anyone vet close down? Mine neither, he's a bonafide multi-millionaire. But he stole $300k in PPP anyways.

Maybe he didn't shut down because he was able to pay his staff through covid?
Obviously, you don't own a small business and are not aware of the restrictions that were put on business owners. The PPP loan saved many small businesses, including ours. Every penny and about a hundred thousand from our own pockets went to keep our employees whole.

My vet never closed. He's got a line of cars and pets in the parking lot all day. They all rationalized taking it because it was available. "Why not?" So rich guys stole six figures from taxpayers but you have a hard-on when poor people get $10k for a year of remedial courses they had to take. Get a life.