Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Liz Warren just proposed forgiving $50,000 in student debt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with these ideas is it is just a band aid. What needs to change is how much colleges are over charging students. Yet no one spends anytime lobbying for that.

And PP, I agree. Those that have paid off their loans should get equal treatment, but that is just not how we seem to be running things right now.

Capitalism?

Mostly it has to do with states providing less in support dollars. Before 2000, college was cheaper. Before 1990, even cheaper. But just for the student. The boomers got state tax cuts (years after they got their cheap college) and those tax cuts had to come from somewhere.

As an example, 1990 article but it applies to most states.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1990/03/29/cuts-in-state-funding-to-force-rise-in-va-college-tuitions/e680b786-2296-4447-982a-0c6a1a9ca686/

TY! And for the PP whining about people with past loans also getting relief - I am one of those people with past loans. In fact, grew up blue collar and went to college in the 1980s when college aid offices thought NOTHING about loading loans on poor kids and providing grants for the middle class kids because they didn't want the latter to have debt when starting out as young adults. Mine and many friends' 1980s undergraduate debt - adjusted for inflation - ranges from 30-75K dollars. I would love even a fraction of that, but I would not stand in the way of any person receiving assistance. Life is not fair - I would rather some folks receive some relief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You punish every responsible borrower who paid off their own loans. Someone explain to me how this isn't the ultimate moral hazard. Why not include a 10-year look-back period with phased deductions for student debt already paid off in the past?

Where do you draw the line? Why 10 years? What about the people who paid there's off 10 years and 6 months ago? 11 years? 20 years? Do you see how stupid that is?

You have to draw the line somewhere and 10 years would take the sting out of it for a lot of people.

Or we could just draw the line at now, and not waste money paying people who clearly were able to make it work. And those people could suck it up and think about the country as a whole, and not just themselves.

So you'd penalize black and minority kids who worked while in school, went to cheaper schools and community colleges on purpose, and sacrificed luxuries to pay off their loans, while forgiving debt from a bunch of middle class white kids who went to liberal arts colleges they couldn't afford and partied while paying the minimum interest payments?

Those are the stories that will come out and that's pretty disgusting.

This is not penalizing anyone who doesn't have debt. You dont have debt! No one is taking anything from you, they're simply giving to someone else. You sound like a petulant child whining about fairness.

[Anonymous]

If you paid your loans you don't need loan relief. I don't have children, so I dont get a tax deduction or childcare benefits. Should I be stomping around about how it's not fair, and that someone should pay me something for these benefits I don't need?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you paid your loans you don't need loan relief. I don't have children, so I dont get a tax deduction or childcare benefits. Should I be stomping around about how it's not fair, and that someone should pay me something for these benefits I don't need?

A lot of minorities actually don't pursue 4 year schools because they are afraid of the debt and they know their families can't help them. They opt for the cheapest options available instead. While mostly white and asian middle class kids attend the 4 year schools and take on debt but feel more confident in their safety nets. While this proposal sounds very positive, it may actually be regressive and borderline racist. I would want to dig carefully into the matriculation and debt data on this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you paid your loans you don't need loan relief. I don't have children, so I dont get a tax deduction or childcare benefits. Should I be stomping around about how it's not fair, and that someone should pay me something for these benefits I don't need?

A lot of minorities actually don't pursue 4 year schools because they are afraid of the debt and they know their families can't help them. They opt for the cheapest options available instead. While mostly white and asian middle class kids attend the 4 year schools and take on debt but feel more confident in their safety nets. While this proposal sounds very positive, it may actually be regressive and borderline racist. I would want to dig carefully into the matriculation and debt data on this one.

The actual data doesn't support your claims (https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/82896/2000876-Racial-and-Ethnic-Differences-in-Family-Student-Loan-Debt.pdf) A higher percentage of Blacks borrow for college than whites and they have higher average debt amounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this going to retroactively also include the good folks who paid off their loans on their own?

How far back should we go? Do Boomers get their 1967 college tuition back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you paid your loans you don't need loan relief. I don't have children, so I dont get a tax deduction or childcare benefits. Should I be stomping around about how it's not fair, and that someone should pay me something for these benefits I don't need?

A lot of minorities actually don't pursue 4 year schools because they are afraid of the debt and they know their families can't help them. They opt for the cheapest options available instead. While mostly white and asian middle class kids attend the 4 year schools and take on debt but feel more confident in their safety nets. While this proposal sounds very positive, it may actually be regressive and borderline racist. I would want to dig carefully into the matriculation and debt data on this one.

Then wouldn't something like this be helpful moving forward? Since when are policies expected to change the past?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with these ideas is it is just a band aid. What needs to change is how much colleges are over charging students. Yet no one spends anytime lobbying for that.

And PP, I agree. Those that have paid off their loans should get equal treatment, but that is just not how we seem to be running things right now.

Capitalism?

Now colleges can raise prices $50,000 dollars.

[Anonymous]

GOP will say no. This would essentially be a tax increase on the rich. GOP thrives off debt slaves.

[Anonymous]

Debts are rich people’s assets. Rich are NEVER going to free the poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this going to retroactively also include the good folks who paid off their loans on their own?

How far back should we go? Do Boomers get their 1967 college tuition back?

Sure. They can have their $257.98 back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if it were healthcare debt that that would be the better gift. Wipe all that clean.

I agree with this.

I don't agree with forgiving student loan debt as that wasnt a necessary expense, but no one should go broke trying to stay alive and healthy. That would be a good band aid until our citizens get universal healthare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since Republicans are all about pulling yourself up by the bootstraps I assume they will decline any such aid on principle.

Does not require GOP party support — Democrats are asking Trump to sign an executive order. Trump seems to understand the value of $1,200 checks with his name on them, isn’t this the same idea?

Doubtful that people in red states are going to be super excited to hear about the loans taken out for liberal colleges will be paid off to the benefit of the snooty know it alls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's a lot of money. Is there any analysis showing the cost/benefit of this type of policy?

More votes and power to the Dems. Priceless.

Next handout for votes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you paid your loans you don't need loan relief. I don't have children, so I dont get a tax deduction or childcare benefits. Should I be stomping around about how it's not fair, and that someone should pay me something for these benefits I don't need?

A lot of minorities actually don't pursue 4 year schools because they are afraid of the debt and they know their families can't help them. They opt for the cheapest options available instead. While mostly white and asian middle class kids attend the 4 year schools and take on debt but feel more confident in their safety nets. While this proposal sounds very positive, it may actually be regressive and borderline racist. I would want to dig carefully into the matriculation and debt data on this one.

The actual data doesn't support your claims (https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/82896/2000876-Racial-and-Ethnic-Differences-in-Family-Student-Loan-Debt.pdf) A higher percentage of Blacks borrow for college than whites and they have higher average debt amounts.

You could be misreading the data. I'm say that many minority kids don't pursue higher education at all because the prospect of debt (and not having any safety net) scares them off entirely.