Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I won't defend the other PP's ideas, but I think the response to this is that the question should be, "Why should the government subsidize theology and other liberal arts degrees?" (The subsidy here is in the guarantee of the loan.) I support government investment in the hard sciences, but generally not in the liberal arts.

Why? This seems an indefensible bias. The country needs liberal arts majors as much as it needs hard science majors. Many of us English majors end up in technical writing, teaching, drafting tests, journalism, or other communication jobs. Similar fields could be outlined for other so called soft majors.

Anonymous wrote:Enginners can end up as under or unemployed as lib arters

Anonymous wrote:AND their degrees generally take longer to achieve, thus costing more.

Anonymous wrote:
Under the new version of Pay As You Earn, borrowers would pay 10 percent of “discretionary income,” defined as total income above 150% of the federal
poverty level (about $16,000 for an individual). After 20 years, the loan is forgiven.
***
This allows current politicians to claim to be helping students, while forcing future politicians to figure out how to pay for it. Needless to say, that is not a healthy way to make policy. If current politicians want to help borrowers, they should be the ones sacrificing other priorities to do so.

These look like very good points. Anyone have a good counter? .

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am currently earning 6 figures on a theology major. I don't see why I should pay a higher interest rate than some underemployed IT major just because you think you know who is going to be successful in life. You really have a problem with bitterness.

I moved this from the metathread.

I won't defend the other PP's ideas, but I think the response to this is that the question should be, "Why should the government subsidize theology and other liberal arts degrees?" (The subsidy here is in the guarantee of the loan.) I support government investment in the hard sciences, but generally not in the liberal arts.

Anonymous wrote:Under the new version of Pay As You Earn, borrowers would pay 10 percent of “discretionary income,” defined as total income above 150% of the federal
poverty level (about $16,000 for an individual). After 20 years, the loan is forgiven.

Assuming that a successful college graduate would earn, on average, $80,000 per year over the course of the 20-year obligation period, the repayment burden under the new plan will total somewhere around $4,500 per year, or $90,000 for the life of the loan. A less successful graduate who earns say $50,000 per year, on average over the 20-year obligation period, would have a repayment burden of just $1,500 per year, or just $30,000 over the life of the loan.

For students anticipating an average income, Pay As You Earn provides an incentive to borrow heavily: If you’re only going to repay $30,000 to $90,000, why not borrow $200,000? Frugality will be for suckers.

Colleges and universities will have no incentive to control costs. Why not build that new rock-climbing wall or performing arts center? Students will enjoy it and taxpayers will pay for it.

Students have racked up $1 trillion in debt in an era when they thought they’d have to pay it back. Imagine how much they’ll borrow now that they won’t have to pay the full amount.

In a way, Obama is turning higher education in to a third-party payer system (not too dissimilar from our current health care system – which is also characterized by outsized cost increases).

Income-based repayment (IBR) is a “disaster” that could cost billions of dollars in the future. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates costs and revenues for a 10-year window: Since IBR’s costs kick in 10 to 20 years in the future, it’s being treated as free.

This allows current politicians to claim to be helping students, while forcing future politicians to figure out how to pay for it. Needless to say, that is not a healthy way to make policy. If current politicians want to help borrowers, they should be the ones sacrificing other priorities to do so.

Anonymous wrote:Am currently earning 6 figures on a theology major. I don't see why I should pay a higher interest rate than some underemployed IT major just because you think you know who is going to be successful in life. You really have a problem with bitterness.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the new version of Pay As You Earn, borrowers would pay 10 percent of “discretionary income,” defined as total income above 150% of the federal
poverty level (about $16,000 for an individual). After 20 years, the loan is forgiven.
***
This allows current politicians to claim to be helping students, while forcing future politicians to figure out how to pay for it. Needless to say, that is not a healthy way to make policy. If current politicians want to help borrowers, they should be the ones sacrificing other priorities to do so.

These look like very good points. Anyone have a good counter?

I like that Harkin quote. We have to break out of this ridiculous liberal arts BA system. You pay $700 a month for 20 years for the certification your ability to sit in a chair for several hours a day and to write a handful of essays per year. Students get few practical skills, employers get little useful information, and in exchange colleges get lots of money. I look at the signs of those 99%ers writing about their loans and their ridiculous degrees and I waver between contempt and deep sympathy.

Anonymous wrote:Under the new version of Pay As You Earn, borrowers would pay 10 percent of “discretionary income,” defined as total income above 150% of the federal
poverty level (about $16,000 for an individual). After 20 years, the loan is forgiven.
***
This allows current politicians to claim to be helping students, while forcing future politicians to figure out how to pay for it. Needless to say, that is not a healthy way to make policy. If current politicians want to help borrowers, they should be the ones sacrificing other priorities to do so.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone is excusing the banks. However, some dude that bought a McMansion he couldn't afford in the first place, nah. For each single poor down-on-his luck guy--- there are a half-dozen educated people that got greedy and wanted it all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:What exactly do you think Obama is offering in terms of "relief". It's really not much and I can't understand why anyone would be outraged by it.

American conservativism is based on greed, jealousy, and resentment. There's no rationality to it. Rather than a political philosophy it's become a fig-leaf for excusing the worst of our human vices. Want to give billions to bankers? That's a-ok! They're the hard-working winners of the world. Want to reduce unemployed people's mortgage rates? OUTRAGE!!

It would be funny if it weren't so disgusting. Remember, they're the values voters, though.

I don't think anyone is excusing the banks. However, some dude that bought a McMansion he couldn't afford in the first place, nah. For each single poor down-on-his luck guy--- there are a half-dozen educated people that got greedy and wanted it all. There were those of us offered very big loans in the early/mid 2000s that did our own math, went the conservative route and managed to still be able to pay our mortgage even with job loss. I had a guy bragging at work back in the day that he got qualified for a 1.5 million dollar house. He was a GS-14 like me. I distinctly recall saying "just because you Qualify doesn't mean you can afford it. Now you want me to bail his ass out too? Check what was in the driveways of many of those foreclosed Phoenix, Ftlauderdale houses.... Sure wasn't a 10-year old paid off Honda. Values. Old-fashioned. Don't buy what you can't afford. Work hard and save. Don't take the easy route. Personal responsibility. "they just were lucky". That's lazy talk, son.

Dude, you spend a lot of time feeling sorry for yourself. Instead of feeling relieved (and proud) that you were too smart to fall into this trap, you end up just looking for some way to feel sorry for yourself about the situation. I am grateful every day that I'm not in that guy's situation. Stop looking for opportunities for self-pity!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:What exactly do you think Obama is offering in terms of "relief". It's really not much and I can't understand why anyone would be outraged by it.

American conservativism is based on greed, jealousy, and resentment. There's no rationality to it. Rather than a political philosophy it's become a fig-leaf for excusing the worst of our human vices. Want to give billions to bankers? That's a-ok! They're the hard-working winners of the world. Want to reduce unemployed people's mortgage rates? OUTRAGE!!

It would be funny if it weren't so disgusting. Remember, they're the values voters, though.

I don't think anyone is excusing the banks. However, some dude that bought a McMansion he couldn't afford in the first place, nah. For each single poor down-on-his luck guy--- there are a half-dozen educated people that got greedy and wanted it all. There were those of us offered very big loans in the early/mid 2000s that did our own math, went the conservative route and managed to still be able to pay our mortgage even with job loss. I had a guy bragging at work back in the day that he got qualified for a 1.5 million dollar house. He was a GS-14 like me. I distinctly recall saying "just because you Qualify doesn't mean you can afford it. Now you want me to bail his ass out too? Check what was in the driveways of many of those foreclosed Phoenix, Ftlauderdale houses.... Sure wasn't a 10-year old paid off Honda. Values. Old-fashioned. Don't buy what you can't afford. Work hard and save. Don't take the easy route. Personal responsibility. "they just were lucky". That's lazy talk, son.

Anonymous wrote:Under the new version of Pay As You Earn, borrowers would pay 10 percent of “discretionary income,” defined as total income above 150% of the federal
poverty level (about $16,000 for an individual). After 20 years, the loan is forgiven.

Assuming that a successful college graduate would earn, on average, $80,000 per year over the course of the 20-year obligation period, the repayment burden under the new plan will total somewhere around $4,500 per year, or $90,000 for the life of the loan. A less successful graduate who earns say $50,000 per year, on average over the 20-year obligation period, would have a repayment burden of just $1,500 per year, or just $30,000 over the life of the loan.

For students anticipating an average income, Pay As You Earn provides an incentive to borrow heavily: If you’re only going to repay $30,000 to $90,000, why not borrow $200,000? Frugality will be for suckers.

Colleges and universities will have no incentive to control costs. Why not build that new rock-climbing wall or performing arts center? Students will enjoy it and taxpayers will pay for it.

And, like OP, for those saving it will be that much more expensive as a result. You, fuckers, should be outraged..but still have blinders on like you did in the housing fiasco!

Students have racked up $1 trillion in debt in an era when they thought they’d have to pay it back. Imagine how much they’ll borrow now that they won’t have to pay the full amount.

In a way, Obama is turning higher education in to a third-party payer system (not too dissimilar from our current health care system – which is also characterized by outsized cost increases).

Income-based repayment (IBR) is a “disaster” that could cost billions of dollars in the future. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates costs and revenues for a 10-year window: Since IBR’s costs kick in 10 to 20 years in the future, it’s being treated as free.

This allows current politicians to claim to be helping students, while forcing future politicians to figure out how to pay for it. Needless to say, that is not a healthy way to make policy. If current politicians want to help borrowers, they should be the ones sacrificing other priorities to do so.