What is going on with student loans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Tons of places did this same scam and then closed down or sold (read cashed out) the building and property. A massive scam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Vets couldn't/shouldn't have closed - dying pets wouldn't save lives.

[Anonymous]

As of next year, I will have made on time payments in full for the last twenty years. I don’t qualify for forgiveness. I did the extended repayment plan. I am thrilled others are getting some level of forgiveness. For those angry that they paid theirs off, why didn’t you do the extended repayment? You had that option.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is $10k student loan forgiveness or $20k for Pell Grant recipients a giveaway to the wealthy? Are you claiming more rich people have student loans than poor people? Rich families take out Pell Grants while rich? Your argument makes no sense at all including redistribution unless you are speaking in Libertarian metaphorical terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As of next year, I will have made on time payments in full for the last twenty years. I don’t qualify for forgiveness. I did the extended repayment plan. I am thrilled others are getting some level of forgiveness. For those angry that they paid theirs off, why didn’t you do the extended repayment? You had that option.

In order to be angry about having paid off a $10k student loan because it was such a struggle that you are now angry, well you would have to be quite old. Not sure what decade it was where you could work the counter at 7-11 to pay full tuition but must have been the 70's. I'm guessing these are just boomers angry at anyone receiving relief not from a church.

Otherwise I guess some rich people who paid off $100k are now angry about $10k in forgiveness? Most likely these are liberal arts grads unable to understand they saved more than that in interest savings so probably not a surprise they are incoherently upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is $10k student loan forgiveness or $20k for Pell Grant recipients a giveaway to the wealthy? Are you claiming more rich people have student loans than poor people? Rich families take out Pell Grants while rich? Your argument makes no sense at all including redistribution unless you are speaking in Libertarian metaphorical terms.

Purdue University President Mitch Daniels told CNBC on Wednesday that he believes student loan forgiveness will worsen the inequities it was designed to remedy, calling it "the most regressive policy idea we've seen."

"It's a gift to the wealthy," Daniels, the former governor of Indiana, told CNBC's Squawk Box. "Doctors and lawyers are the two categories who would benefit the most. Only 5% even of the most modest suggestion would go to the bottom quintile."

Daniels appeared to be citing a study from the University of Chicago published last year, which found student-debt cancellation ranging from $10,000 to full forgiveness would redistribute income upward, as nearly half of all the student debt belongs to individuals pursuing careers in high-income fields.

The University of Chicago study, which has also been referenced by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, found that only 5% of the debt relief would benefit individuals in the lowest-earning tier.

https://www.businessinsider.com/purdue-university-president-student-loan-forgiveness-gift-to-the-wealthy-2022-5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is $10k student loan forgiveness or $20k for Pell Grant recipients a giveaway to the wealthy? Are you claiming more rich people have student loans than poor people? Rich families take out Pell Grants while rich? Your argument makes no sense at all including redistribution unless you are speaking in Libertarian metaphorical terms.

Purdue University President Mitch Daniels told CNBC on Wednesday that he believes student loan forgiveness will worsen the inequities it was designed to remedy, calling it "the most regressive policy idea we've seen."

"It's a gift to the wealthy," Daniels, the former governor of Indiana, told CNBC's Squawk Box. "Doctors and lawyers are the two categories who would benefit the most. Only 5% even of the most modest suggestion would go to the bottom quintile."

Daniels appeared to be citing a study from the University of Chicago published last year, which found student-debt cancellation ranging from $10,000 to full forgiveness would redistribute income upward, as nearly half of all the student debt belongs to individuals pursuing careers in high-income fields.

The University of Chicago study, which has also been referenced by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, found that only 5% of the debt relief would benefit individuals in the lowest-earning tier.

https://www.businessinsider.com/purdue-university-president-student-loan-forgiveness-gift-to-the-wealthy-2022-5

So the forgiveness is a flat $10k which benefits the majority of individual student loan holders, which are definitely not doctors. Not to mention having $10k off your undergrad $30k loan is vastly more beneficial to the poor/Middle class than $10k off a rich doctor's six figure loans. I'm not sure why you are citing a strawman article about total loan forgiveness when it's only $10k per individual or $20k for poor Pell Grant recipients. There is no upward adjustment based on amount of loans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is $10k student loan forgiveness or $20k for Pell Grant recipients a giveaway to the wealthy? Are you claiming more rich people have student loans than poor people? Rich families take out Pell Grants while rich? Your argument makes no sense at all including redistribution unless you are speaking in Libertarian metaphorical terms.

Purdue University President Mitch Daniels told CNBC on Wednesday that he believes student loan forgiveness will worsen the inequities it was designed to remedy, calling it "the most regressive policy idea we've seen."

"It's a gift to the wealthy," Daniels, the former governor of Indiana, told CNBC's Squawk Box. "Doctors and lawyers are the two categories who would benefit the most. Only 5% even of the most modest suggestion would go to the bottom quintile."

Daniels appeared to be citing a study from the University of Chicago published last year, which found student-debt cancellation ranging from $10,000 to full forgiveness would redistribute income upward, as nearly half of all the student debt belongs to individuals pursuing careers in high-income fields.

The University of Chicago study, which has also been referenced by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, found that only 5% of the debt relief would benefit individuals in the lowest-earning tier.

https://www.businessinsider.com/purdue-university-president-student-loan-forgiveness-gift-to-the-wealthy-2022-5

He didn’t read the study. That’s not at all what it says. The UChicago study is about the stimulus effect during the pandemic. The study says it wouldn’t be much of an economic stimulus because a lot of the debt forgiveness goes to people who aren’t paying now anyway because they are in school, in forbearance, or in default. So that means it wouldn’t have an inflationary effect. The study also says partial forgiveness wouldn’t do much for people with large debts because their payments are based on a percentage of their income and they would have to keep paying that. Mitch Daniels is still the lying jackass he has always been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is $10k student loan forgiveness or $20k for Pell Grant recipients a giveaway to the wealthy? Are you claiming more rich people have student loans than poor people? Rich families take out Pell Grants while rich? Your argument makes no sense at all including redistribution unless you are speaking in Libertarian metaphorical terms.

Purdue University President Mitch Daniels told CNBC on Wednesday that he believes student loan forgiveness will worsen the inequities it was designed to remedy, calling it "the most regressive policy idea we've seen."

"It's a gift to the wealthy," Daniels, the former governor of Indiana, told CNBC's Squawk Box. "Doctors and lawyers are the two categories who would benefit the most. Only 5% even of the most modest suggestion would go to the bottom quintile."

Daniels appeared to be citing a study from the University of Chicago published last year, which found student-debt cancellation ranging from $10,000 to full forgiveness would redistribute income upward, as nearly half of all the student debt belongs to individuals pursuing careers in high-income fields.

The University of Chicago study, which has also been referenced by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, found that only 5% of the debt relief would benefit individuals in the lowest-earning tier.

https://www.businessinsider.com/purdue-university-president-student-loan-forgiveness-gift-to-the-wealthy-2022-5

He didn’t read the study. That’s not at all what it says. The UChicago study is about the stimulus effect during the pandemic. The study says it wouldn’t be much of an economic stimulus because a lot of the debt forgiveness goes to people who aren’t paying now anyway because they are in school, in forbearance, or in default. So that means it wouldn’t have an inflationary effect. The study also says partial forgiveness wouldn’t do much for people with large debts because their payments are based on a percentage of their income and they would have to keep paying that. Mitch Daniels is still the lying jackass he has always been.

Mitch Daniels happens to be the president of a university that hasn't raised tuition costs in over 10 years.
But, do go off...........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is $10k student loan forgiveness or $20k for Pell Grant recipients a giveaway to the wealthy? Are you claiming more rich people have student loans than poor people? Rich families take out Pell Grants while rich? Your argument makes no sense at all including redistribution unless you are speaking in Libertarian metaphorical terms.

Purdue University President Mitch Daniels told CNBC on Wednesday that he believes student loan forgiveness will worsen the inequities it was designed to remedy, calling it "the most regressive policy idea we've seen."

"It's a gift to the wealthy," Daniels, the former governor of Indiana, told CNBC's Squawk Box. "Doctors and lawyers are the two categories who would benefit the most. Only 5% even of the most modest suggestion would go to the bottom quintile."

Daniels appeared to be citing a study from the University of Chicago published last year, which found student-debt cancellation ranging from $10,000 to full forgiveness would redistribute income upward, as nearly half of all the student debt belongs to individuals pursuing careers in high-income fields.

The University of Chicago study, which has also been referenced by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, found that only 5% of the debt relief would benefit individuals in the lowest-earning tier.

https://www.businessinsider.com/purdue-university-president-student-loan-forgiveness-gift-to-the-wealthy-2022-5

He didn’t read the study. That’s not at all what it says. The UChicago study is about the stimulus effect during the pandemic. The study says it wouldn’t be much of an economic stimulus because a lot of the debt forgiveness goes to people who aren’t paying now anyway because they are in school, in forbearance, or in default. So that means it wouldn’t have an inflationary effect. The study also says partial forgiveness wouldn’t do much for people with large debts because their payments are based on a percentage of their income and they would have to keep paying that. Mitch Daniels is still the lying jackass he has always been.

Mitch Daniels happens to be the president of a university that hasn't raised tuition costs in over 10 years.
But, do go off...........

Is that why he can’t read very well?

[Anonymous]

Since Biden just said the pandemic is over, does he still have the authority to do this?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/19/politics/biden-covid-pandemic-over-what-matters/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since Biden just said the pandemic is over, does he still have the authority to do this?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/19/politics/biden-covid-pandemic-over-what-matters/index.html

He didn't have the authority to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since Biden just said the pandemic is over, does he still have the authority to do this?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/19/politics/biden-covid-pandemic-over-what-matters/index.html

He didn't have the authority to begin with.

This.

But it's a brilliant move to now make the judiciary and the GOP the "bad guys" for trying to revert the illegal move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since Biden just said the pandemic is over, does he still have the authority to do this?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/19/politics/biden-covid-pandemic-over-what-matters/index.html

He didn't have the authority to begin with.

This.

But it's a brilliant move to now make the judiciary and the GOP the "bad guys" for trying to revert the illegal move.

So what you are saying, is Biden really doesn’t care how it impacts the people who need loan forgiveness, so long as he can own the GOP? Compassionate.