any cons in suspended student loans debt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not support debt forgiveness. I’d be pissed.
Maybe we need to recognize that 100% college participation goal is not justified or appropriate. What college graduates are going to want to drive a bus, or pick strawberries, or work in a meat processing plant?

My point is that the people who drive the bus, pick the strawberries, and process meat are important too. We need to make things suck less for people who work manual jobs or in the service industry, or in the trades, instead of college being the only “way out” of a hard life.

Our system needs to stop incentivizing the production of white collar workers because we are not that special. I am one of them - a fed paper pusher of sorts. I am paid well. Of all of the white collar positions I have held, the thing I am doing now is the most meaningful. But a lot of white collar work does not provide as great a benefit to society as the salaries would suggest.

I paid off my undergrad loans. I could not afford grad school and had to work up the ladder to get where I am. I do not wish to subsidize those who pursued advanced degrees and got a leg up, when I had to work very hard to get where I am.

If someone doesn’t go to college, it should be because they didn’t want to go and/or because they were not meritorious enough. It should not be because they couldn’t afford to.

Sorry, it drives me insane the cop-out mentality of “not everyone should go to college” that you hear from wealthy white right-wing folks who have degrees themselves and sent their own kids to college full pay. When all of Tucker Carlson kids went to boarding school, Harvard, and UVa, your argument holds no water. Practice what you preach.

They're right.

Some of the biggest losers of the increasing emphasis on college degrees are working class blacks, so this isn't exactly a racial issue, no matter how much you want to turn it into one.

The more people go to college, the less valued a college degree is while simultaneously being more required for no reason. And demanding people take on debts for something that serves as an effective barrier to progress is hardly helpful.

I don’t think they should have to take debts on to do it; it should be highly funded via taxes. They got their cushy air-conditioned desk job that requires a degree and think *those* people’s kids should have to go be plumbers instead of having to compete for white collar jobs with them. They’re hypocrites who’d never send their own kids to trade school. You’ve been duped. Do you seriously think Tucker Swanson Carlson is a champion of the working class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not support debt forgiveness. I’d be pissed.
Maybe we need to recognize that 100% college participation goal is not justified or appropriate. What college graduates are going to want to drive a bus, or pick strawberries, or work in a meat processing plant?

My point is that the people who drive the bus, pick the strawberries, and process meat are important too. We need to make things suck less for people who work manual jobs or in the service industry, or in the trades, instead of college being the only “way out” of a hard life.

Our system needs to stop incentivizing the production of white collar workers because we are not that special. I am one of them - a fed paper pusher of sorts. I am paid well. Of all of the white collar positions I have held, the thing I am doing now is the most meaningful. But a lot of white collar work does not provide as great a benefit to society as the salaries would suggest.

I paid off my undergrad loans. I could not afford grad school and had to work up the ladder to get where I am. I do not wish to subsidize those who pursued advanced degrees and got a leg up, when I had to work very hard to get where I am.

If someone doesn’t go to college, it should be because they didn’t want to go and/or because they were not meritorious enough. It should not be because they couldn’t afford to.

Sorry, it drives me insane the cop-out mentality of “not everyone should go to college” that you hear from wealthy white right-wing folks who have degrees themselves and sent their own kids to college full pay. When all of Tucker Carlson kids went to boarding school, Harvard, and UVa, your argument holds no water. Practice what you preach.

They're right.

Some of the biggest losers of the increasing emphasis on college degrees are working class blacks, so this isn't exactly a racial issue, no matter how much you want to turn it into one.

The more people go to college, the less valued a college degree is while simultaneously being more required for no reason. And demanding people take on debts for something that serves as an effective barrier to progress is hardly helpful.

I don’t think they should have to take debts on to do it; it should be highly funded via taxes. They got their cushy air-conditioned desk job that requires a degree and think *those* people’s kids should have to go be plumbers instead of having to compete for white collar jobs with them. They’re hypocrites who’d never send their own kids to trade school. You’ve been duped. Do you seriously think Tucker Swanson Carlson is a champion of the working class?

He does seem more sympathetic to the working classes than most of the modern Democratic leadership. There's no denying that the working classes of America have steadily switched allegiance to the Republicans. First the whites did, and now the Hispanics are flocking to the Republicans in large numbers, and now even some black male voters are changing to the Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not support debt forgiveness. I’d be pissed.
Maybe we need to recognize that 100% college participation goal is not justified or appropriate. What college graduates are going to want to drive a bus, or pick strawberries, or work in a meat processing plant?

My point is that the people who drive the bus, pick the strawberries, and process meat are important too. We need to make things suck less for people who work manual jobs or in the service industry, or in the trades, instead of college being the only “way out” of a hard life.

Our system needs to stop incentivizing the production of white collar workers because we are not that special. I am one of them - a fed paper pusher of sorts. I am paid well. Of all of the white collar positions I have held, the thing I am doing now is the most meaningful. But a lot of white collar work does not provide as great a benefit to society as the salaries would suggest.

I paid off my undergrad loans. I could not afford grad school and had to work up the ladder to get where I am. I do not wish to subsidize those who pursued advanced degrees and got a leg up, when I had to work very hard to get where I am.

If someone doesn’t go to college, it should be because they didn’t want to go and/or because they were not meritorious enough. It should not be because they couldn’t afford to.

Sorry, it drives me insane the cop-out mentality of “not everyone should go to college” that you hear from wealthy white right-wing folks who have degrees themselves and sent their own kids to college full pay. When all of Tucker Carlson kids went to boarding school, Harvard, and UVa, your argument holds no water. Practice what you preach.

They're right.

Some of the biggest losers of the increasing emphasis on college degrees are working class blacks, so this isn't exactly a racial issue, no matter how much you want to turn it into one.

The more people go to college, the less valued a college degree is while simultaneously being more required for no reason. And demanding people take on debts for something that serves as an effective barrier to progress is hardly helpful.

And all this goes back to Reagan and the loss of blue collar well-paid jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not support debt forgiveness. I’d be pissed.
Maybe we need to recognize that 100% college participation goal is not justified or appropriate. What college graduates are going to want to drive a bus, or pick strawberries, or work in a meat processing plant?

My point is that the people who drive the bus, pick the strawberries, and process meat are important too. We need to make things suck less for people who work manual jobs or in the service industry, or in the trades, instead of college being the only “way out” of a hard life.

Our system needs to stop incentivizing the production of white collar workers because we are not that special. I am one of them - a fed paper pusher of sorts. I am paid well. Of all of the white collar positions I have held, the thing I am doing now is the most meaningful. But a lot of white collar work does not provide as great a benefit to society as the salaries would suggest.

I paid off my undergrad loans. I could not afford grad school and had to work up the ladder to get where I am. I do not wish to subsidize those who pursued advanced degrees and got a leg up, when I had to work very hard to get where I am.

If someone doesn’t go to college, it should be because they didn’t want to go and/or because they were not meritorious enough. It should not be because they couldn’t afford to.

Sorry, it drives me insane the cop-out mentality of “not everyone should go to college” that you hear from wealthy white right-wing folks who have degrees themselves and sent their own kids to college full pay. When all of Tucker Carlson kids went to boarding school, Harvard, and UVa, your argument holds no water. Practice what you preach.

They're right.

Some of the biggest losers of the increasing emphasis on college degrees are working class blacks, so this isn't exactly a racial issue, no matter how much you want to turn it into one.

The more people go to college, the less valued a college degree is while simultaneously being more required for no reason. And demanding people take on debts for something that serves as an effective barrier to progress is hardly helpful.

And all this goes back to Reagan and the loss of blue collar well-paid jobs.

That started before Reagan and there were bigger factors at play like globalization and automation.

[Anonymous]

I am 100% against ANY forgiveness UNTIL we solve the issue going forward. There is absolutely no point in wiping the slate clean just to find ourselves back in the same exact spot in a few years. Its like paying off the credit card debt of someone but not cutting up their credit cards.

I personally think the government should stop back stopping the loans. The lenders should have to qualify borrowers based upon their own criteria and if the person doesn't qualify then they don't. They can improve their credit score and try again later, just like buying a house or a car. The reason we are in this situation is that lenders will give a loan to anyone because the federal government is insuring the loan. Hogwash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am 100% against ANY forgiveness UNTIL we solve the issue going forward. There is absolutely no point in wiping the slate clean just to find ourselves back in the same exact spot in a few years. Its like paying off the credit card debt of someone but not cutting up their credit cards.

I personally think the government should stop back stopping the loans. The lenders should have to qualify borrowers based upon their own criteria and if the person doesn't qualify then they don't. They can improve their credit score and try again later, just like buying a house or a car. The reason we are in this situation is that lenders will give a loan to anyone because the federal government is insuring the loan. Hogwash.

Again, the loans that any student can get without a co-signer or credit check only go up to $27k total, spread over 4 years. Those aren’t really causing any issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 100% against ANY forgiveness UNTIL we solve the issue going forward. There is absolutely no point in wiping the slate clean just to find ourselves back in the same exact spot in a few years. Its like paying off the credit card debt of someone but not cutting up their credit cards.

I personally think the government should stop back stopping the loans. The lenders should have to qualify borrowers based upon their own criteria and if the person doesn't qualify then they don't. They can improve their credit score and try again later, just like buying a house or a car. The reason we are in this situation is that lenders will give a loan to anyone because the federal government is insuring the loan. Hogwash.

Again, the loans that any student can get without a co-signer or credit check only go up to $27k total, spread over 4 years. Those aren’t really causing any issues.

Is the federal loan max for undergrad studies $27k or $31k?

[Anonymous]

I'd probably wipe out all of the undergraduate debt, which includes millions of working class kids who went to 2-year community colleges. And nobody rich takes out federal loans for 4-year universities. Over half of the kids with student loans from undergrad never even completed a degree. Many of them entered college at age 18 but actually testing at a primary or middle school level of competence; in many cases they were preyed on.

I have zero and I mean zero sympathy for anyone in their 20s who had a bachelor's degree and signed up for six-figures of grad school debt. They all knew better, they all had options. and they weren't some dumbass gullible teenager getting exploited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 100% against ANY forgiveness UNTIL we solve the issue going forward. There is absolutely no point in wiping the slate clean just to find ourselves back in the same exact spot in a few years. Its like paying off the credit card debt of someone but not cutting up their credit cards.

I personally think the government should stop back stopping the loans. The lenders should have to qualify borrowers based upon their own criteria and if the person doesn't qualify then they don't. They can improve their credit score and try again later, just like buying a house or a car. The reason we are in this situation is that lenders will give a loan to anyone because the federal government is insuring the loan. Hogwash.

Again, the loans that any student can get without a co-signer or credit check only go up to $27k total, spread over 4 years. Those aren’t really causing any issues.

They let poor parents making poverty wages with no hope of repaying the loans co-sign the private loans.

And even $27k is way too much to borrow if you don’t graduate or pick a stupid major without good income potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 100% against ANY forgiveness UNTIL we solve the issue going forward. There is absolutely no point in wiping the slate clean just to find ourselves back in the same exact spot in a few years. Its like paying off the credit card debt of someone but not cutting up their credit cards.

I personally think the government should stop back stopping the loans. The lenders should have to qualify borrowers based upon their own criteria and if the person doesn't qualify then they don't. They can improve their credit score and try again later, just like buying a house or a car. The reason we are in this situation is that lenders will give a loan to anyone because the federal government is insuring the loan. Hogwash.

Again, the loans that any student can get without a co-signer or credit check only go up to $27k total, spread over 4 years. Those aren’t really causing any issues.

They let poor parents making poverty wages with no hope of repaying the loans co-sign the private loans.

And even $27k is way too much to borrow if you don’t graduate or pick a stupid major without good income potential.

If you don't graduate you will not end up taking out $27k--you can only take out certain amounts per school year. The data is clear that those who do graduate and who do not take out more than $27k have no issues paying it back. If they did, they could go on IBR since it's a federal loan. I don't support ending that program if it means reducing college access, because it works fine now. It's a low monthly payment even on a five-year payback plan.

The interesting thing is that you can default without garnishment on private loans, but not on federal loans (stafford or parent plus). However, if you can't pay your private loans you're effed. With federal loans there is IBR, PSLF, REPAYE, etc so you should not be defaulting, but if you do, they will garnish your wages. You can declare bankruptcy in some circumstances on private loans currently.

I wish there were a way to outlaw private & parent plus loans altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 100% against ANY forgiveness UNTIL we solve the issue going forward. There is absolutely no point in wiping the slate clean just to find ourselves back in the same exact spot in a few years. Its like paying off the credit card debt of someone but not cutting up their credit cards.

I personally think the government should stop back stopping the loans. The lenders should have to qualify borrowers based upon their own criteria and if the person doesn't qualify then they don't. They can improve their credit score and try again later, just like buying a house or a car. The reason we are in this situation is that lenders will give a loan to anyone because the federal government is insuring the loan. Hogwash.

Again, the loans that any student can get without a co-signer or credit check only go up to $27k total, spread over 4 years. Those aren’t really causing any issues.

Is the federal loan max for undergrad studies $27k or $31k?

I believe it is $27k for dependent undergraduates (anyone who is under 24, childless, unmarried, and not in the military). It is higher for independent undergraduates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not support debt forgiveness. I’d be pissed.
Maybe we need to recognize that 100% college participation goal is not justified or appropriate. What college graduates are going to want to drive a bus, or pick strawberries, or work in a meat processing plant?

My point is that the people who drive the bus, pick the strawberries, and process meat are important too. We need to make things suck less for people who work manual jobs or in the service industry, or in the trades, instead of college being the only “way out” of a hard life.

Our system needs to stop incentivizing the production of white collar workers because we are not that special. I am one of them - a fed paper pusher of sorts. I am paid well. Of all of the white collar positions I have held, the thing I am doing now is the most meaningful. But a lot of white collar work does not provide as great a benefit to society as the salaries would suggest.

I paid off my undergrad loans. I could not afford grad school and had to work up the ladder to get where I am. I do not wish to subsidize those who pursued advanced degrees and got a leg up, when I had to work very hard to get where I am.

If someone doesn’t go to college, it should be because they didn’t want to go and/or because they were not meritorious enough. It should not be because they couldn’t afford to.

Sorry, it drives me insane the cop-out mentality of “not everyone should go to college” that you hear from wealthy white right-wing folks who have degrees themselves and sent their own kids to college full pay. When all of Tucker Carlson kids went to boarding school, Harvard, and UVa, your argument holds no water. Practice what you preach.

They're right.

Some of the biggest losers of the increasing emphasis on college degrees are working class blacks, so this isn't exactly a racial issue, no matter how much you want to turn it into one.

The more people go to college, the less valued a college degree is while simultaneously being more required for no reason. And demanding people take on debts for something that serves as an effective barrier to progress is hardly helpful.

I don’t think they should have to take debts on to do it; it should be highly funded via taxes. They got their cushy air-conditioned desk job that requires a degree and think *those* people’s kids should have to go be plumbers instead of having to compete for white collar jobs with them. They’re hypocrites who’d never send their own kids to trade school. You’ve been duped. Do you seriously think Tucker Swanson Carlson is a champion of the working class?

If you are insulting plumbers, and it sounds like you are, then you are part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Maybe people should have to take IQ tests before being allowed to sign contracts. Because it seems like "I was too dumb to understand what I signed" is trying to be passed off as a valid excuse for defaulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not support debt forgiveness. I’d be pissed.
Maybe we need to recognize that 100% college participation goal is not justified or appropriate. What college graduates are going to want to drive a bus, or pick strawberries, or work in a meat processing plant?

My point is that the people who drive the bus, pick the strawberries, and process meat are important too. We need to make things suck less for people who work manual jobs or in the service industry, or in the trades, instead of college being the only “way out” of a hard life.

Our system needs to stop incentivizing the production of white collar workers because we are not that special. I am one of them - a fed paper pusher of sorts. I am paid well. Of all of the white collar positions I have held, the thing I am doing now is the most meaningful. But a lot of white collar work does not provide as great a benefit to society as the salaries would suggest.

I paid off my undergrad loans. I could not afford grad school and had to work up the ladder to get where I am. I do not wish to subsidize those who pursued advanced degrees and got a leg up, when I had to work very hard to get where I am.

If someone doesn’t go to college, it should be because they didn’t want to go and/or because they were not meritorious enough. It should not be because they couldn’t afford to.

Sorry, it drives me insane the cop-out mentality of “not everyone should go to college” that you hear from wealthy white right-wing folks who have degrees themselves and sent their own kids to college full pay. When all of Tucker Carlson kids went to boarding school, Harvard, and UVa, your argument holds no water. Practice what you preach.

They're right.

Some of the biggest losers of the increasing emphasis on college degrees are working class blacks, so this isn't exactly a racial issue, no matter how much you want to turn it into one.

The more people go to college, the less valued a college degree is while simultaneously being more required for no reason. And demanding people take on debts for something that serves as an effective barrier to progress is hardly helpful.

I don’t think they should have to take debts on to do it; it should be highly funded via taxes. They got their cushy air-conditioned desk job that requires a degree and think *those* people’s kids should have to go be plumbers instead of having to compete for white collar jobs with them. They’re hypocrites who’d never send their own kids to trade school. You’ve been duped. Do you seriously think Tucker Swanson Carlson is a champion of the working class?

If you are insulting plumbers, and it sounds like you are, then you are part of the problem.

Let's be honest. Would you rather be a plumber vs. a white-collar desk job in air-conditioning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe people should have to take IQ tests before being allowed to sign contracts. Because it seems like "I was too dumb to understand what I signed" is trying to be passed off as a valid excuse for defaulting.

The parents are the ones doing the defaulting. Parents enter into ''agreements'' with their kids for Parent Plus Loans that even though it technically belongs to both the parent and the kid, the kid is usually the one expected to pay.

Maybe, I don't know, schools shouldn't have a COA that is the yearly equivalent of the yearly median income in some municipalities.