Obama Tackles College Loan Relief

[Seth]

Making higher education available to the poor is the way to end poverty, not by supporting them with free room and board. Let them get an education and become self-supporting. Win-win. Them and the taxpayers.

That's what free public primary education through high school is for. Most people DON'T NEED a college degree because most people work in jobs that don't require a college degree.

Those who do wish to work in jobs that require a college degree should pay for their own college degree because it's beneficial to their economic advancement. If they can induce someone to loan them the money, fine. They should make the investment in their economic future and then they should repay the loan they took out by working hard.

Now, I LOVE Tyrannical's idea of putting the burden for collecting defaulted student loans on the school that issued the degree. Setting things up so that money would be taken by the government FROM a university for every student loan that's defaulted on would put the impetus to a) carefully select students for their potential for actually putting the education to good use, and b) provide an actually economically useful and beneficial education, because if the university fails to do so, it takes it in the economic shorts.

This, by the way, would put most of the commercial "for profit" colleges, like DeVry University and its ilk, out of business almost instantly, which would reduce the number of student loans markedly right away, since that's where most of the public money is going right now anyway.

[hadespussercats]

Coito, I've been paying my loans back for over a decade, and my husband has been paying his for six. We're slugging it out, as you said. We're hardly slackers.

But a debt cap would make our lives easier. I don't see how it's different from a belated Pell grant. Or are you against those, too?

[MattShizzle]

Vast majority of halfway decent jobs nowadays DO require a 4 year degree, unless you have a particular skill (which usually also requires some sort of non-college training that isn't free.) Another good idea would be cutting out the middleman and having the government issue the loans - with NO interest.

[MrJonno]

Could always have that everytime someone employs a graduare the employer pays the university a fee

[Seth]

Coito, I've been paying my loans back for over a decade, and my husband has been paying his for six. We're slugging it out, as you said. We're hardly slackers.

But a debt cap would make our lives easier. I don't see how it's different from a belated Pell grant. Or are you against those, too?

It's different because you're now asking to reneg on your signed agreement with the taxpayers, and it's not in our best interests to allow you to do so. If you can get a PRIVATE post-degree grant to pay off your loans, fine by me because PRIVATE grants are charity from people who value education and they come out of their own pockets, not those of the taxpayers.

I'm actually fine with a post-graduation forgiveness of certain student loans for those students who don't need it because they have made proper use of both the education they were given and their opportunity to enhance both their own economic status and the economy of the nation by being consistently and fruitfully employed in productive jobs commensurate with their degree where they EXCEL in those jobs beyond the mere minimum requirements.

Such a record of work would prove that the investment the public might make by forgiving a student loan is worthwhile to society because the debtor has gone above and beyond in exercising the knowledge and skill that would be granted to them retroactively gratis by the People.

Thus, someone like, for example, Steve Jobs, who formally attended college for only one semester, demonstrates the kind of motivation and work ethic I mean. If Jobs had gone to college using student loans, I would be very happy to forgive his debt retroactively, in a lump-sum payment with interest, say 20 years after graduation, for having usefully applied the education to substantially enhance society. Of course Jobs is actually an example of how useless many college degrees actually are, but the point remains. If you can prove, over time, that the value you provide for society far outweighs the cost of educating you, you should be rewarded for this effort by having your college paid for after the fact.

This would induce students to work hard and do well so that they can eventually justify the public investment in their education, and would be a worthy expenditure of public money.

[Seth]

Vast majority of halfway decent jobs nowadays DO require a 4 year degree, unless you have a particular skill (which usually also requires some sort of non-college training that isn't free.) Another good idea would be cutting out the middleman and having the government issue the loans - with NO interest.

Depends on what you mean by "halfway decent jobs." Just because you want a higher salary that's offered to college graduates doesn't mean you're qualified or entitled to it, even if you are a college graduate.

Other than the retroactive forgiveness (with interest) I mention above, I have no interest whatsoever in giving anyone a free ride and a no-interest loan that they can reneg on by simply not paying on it. The act of failing to pay off your college loan on time alone is sufficient justification NOT to forgive the loan and to assess penalties for failing to do so. After all, the loans are loans, and they are given on the presumption that by giving someone public money to get a better education, they will make proper use of that education and become tax-paying citizens and members of the productive class, not members of the dependent class. If you're going to live in the dependent class and expect your student loan debt to be forgiven, then you don't deserve to have your student debt forgiven, and you do deserve to live your live in penury and eternal obligation to society, who paid for the expensive education that you wasted.

[MattShizzle]

Maybe if you want to DISCOURAGE people from seeking higher education, especially in less well-paying degrees. Where my dad works he sees most of the new, younger people coming in can't even do basic math and can barely read or write. That's a HS education nowadays. At the very least they need to get rid of the thing where bankruptcy doesn't erase student loan debt. If someone got their degree and still can't get a decent job, it's not their fault, they were just a victim of an inherently unfair system (Capitalism) just like the vast majority of the poor. Success is almost completely a matter of luck. Anything unfair should also be illegal.

[PsychoSerenity]

I'm actually fine with a post-graduation forgiveness of certain student loans for those students who don't need it because they have made proper use of both the education they were given and their opportunity to enhance both their own economic status and the economy of the nation by being consistently and fruitfully employed in productive jobs commensurate with their degree where they EXCEL in those jobs beyond the mere minimum requirements.

Such a record of work would prove that the investment the public might make by forgiving a student loan is worthwhile to society because the debtor has gone above and beyond in exercising the knowledge and skill that would be granted to them retroactively gratis by the People.

Thus, someone like, for example, Steve Jobs, who formally attended college for only one semester, demonstrates the kind of motivation and work ethic I mean. If Jobs had gone to college using student loans, I would be very happy to forgive his debt retroactively, in a lump-sum payment with interest, say 20 years after graduation, for having usefully applied the education to substantially enhance society. Of course Jobs is actually an example of how useless many college degrees actually are, but the point remains. If you can prove, over time, that the value you provide for society far outweighs the cost of educating you, you should be rewarded for this effort by having your college paid for after the fact.

This would induce students to work hard and do well so that they can eventually justify the public investment in their education, and would be a worthy expenditure of public money.

So becoming rich and successful in itself simply isn't enough to encourage people to work hard and become rich and successful, and you want to give those that do, MORE money to reward them for doing so?

You are actually insane!

[Seth]

I'm actually fine with a post-graduation forgiveness of certain student loans for those students who don't need it because they have made proper use of both the education they were given and their opportunity to enhance both their own economic status and the economy of the nation by being consistently and fruitfully employed in productive jobs commensurate with their degree where they EXCEL in those jobs beyond the mere minimum requirements.

Such a record of work would prove that the investment the public might make by forgiving a student loan is worthwhile to society because the debtor has gone above and beyond in exercising the knowledge and skill that would be granted to them retroactively gratis by the People.

Thus, someone like, for example, Steve Jobs, who formally attended college for only one semester, demonstrates the kind of motivation and work ethic I mean. If Jobs had gone to college using student loans, I would be very happy to forgive his debt retroactively, in a lump-sum payment with interest, say 20 years after graduation, for having usefully applied the education to substantially enhance society. Of course Jobs is actually an example of how useless many college degrees actually are, but the point remains. If you can prove, over time, that the value you provide for society far outweighs the cost of educating you, you should be rewarded for this effort by having your college paid for after the fact.

This would induce students to work hard and do well so that they can eventually justify the public investment in their education, and would be a worthy expenditure of public money.

So becoming rich and successful in itself simply isn't enough to encourage people to work hard and become rich and successful, and you want to give those that do, MORE money to reward them for doing so?

It's about encouraging everyone else who uses public money to get a degree to view those who excel as an example in their lives, so they too will excel and reap the additional reward of having the costs of their education paid by the public by being of extra-ordinary value to society.

You are actually insane!

Personal attack noted and reported.

Also, it's the dependent-class entitlement-mentality proletarian drones who are insane in thinking that they are deserving of the investment of the public in an advanced education that they do not make use of. Use it or lose it.

[Schneibster]

Libertardians always want to give more to those who have plenty taken from those who don't have enough. It's the basic flaw in their fauxlosophy. They don't understand economics.

[Seth]

Maybe if you want to DISCOURAGE people from seeking higher education, especially in less well-paying degrees.

We should do so. Higher education should be reserved for those who can and will use it properly.

Where my dad works he sees most of the new, younger people coming in can't even do basic math and can barely read or write. That's a HS education nowadays.

And, as it turns out, that's enough education for the vast majority of people, which is why that's what they get.

At the very least they need to get rid of the thing where bankruptcy doesn't erase student loan debt. If someone got their degree and still can't get a decent job, it's not their fault,

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe they got a useless degree because they could in a discipline where there is little or no market for that field, or one where there is an overabundance of qualified college graduates (take law for example...there are way, way too many lawyers, and recent law school graduates in the US have a very hard time making a living as lawyers) but they took the degree not out of a rational analysis of their interests and the job potentials for graduates in their field of interest but rather they took it because it would be "fun" to have such a degree.

In such cases it is exactly and precisely "their fault" and they are owed nothing by society for making bad career choice decisions. A college degree is not, and never has been a guarantee of a well-paid position in one's field of study. Under the best of circumstances, one's employability is dependent upon one's demonstrated skills and abilities, not on one's credentials.

If you take public money to get an education, you are obligating yourself to pay that debt back NO MATTER WHAT. It's perfectly justifiable that bankruptcy not eliminate that debt, because it's a debt owed to society that you need to fulfill however you can do so. If you don't like that condition on the loan of public money for your education THEN DON'T TAKE THE MONEY!

Nobody's compelled to sign a student loan document, and the terms and conditions are right there for you to read and understand, one of which is that it's a debt not dischargable through bankruptcy.

they were just a victim of an inherently unfair system (Capitalism) just like the vast majority of the poor.

Let's see, first they slack their way through high school and emerge unable to write a cogent sentence or do basic math, then they go to college on the public's dime and party their way to a liberal arts degree that is of absolutely no use to society whatsoever, then they whine because nobody will employ an illiterate, incompetent adult who thinks he's entitled to a good job just because he has a piece of paper that says "college degree" on it and you call them "victims of an inherently unfair system? Cry me a river.

Success is almost completely a matter of luck. Anything unfair should also be illegal.

Great, that means that Socialism is illegal because it's not fair to the productive class.

Go Capitalism! (which is the fairest of all known social systems)

[Seth]

Libertardians always want to give more to those who have plenty taken from those who don't have enough. It's the basic flaw in their fauxlosophy. They don't understand economics.

Moronic and juvenile restatement of the Socialist Zero-sum Fallacy, propagandistic exclamation of gross ignorance of Libertarianism, and unworthy of further dissection.

[MattShizzle]

Capitalism! (which is the fairest of all known social systems)

This is equivalent to saying being kicked in the balls by a steel tipped boot is the most pleasurable of all feelings or that shit is the best tasting thing you can eat. The fairest of all systems would be one where nobody has any more than anyone else.

[hadespussercats]

Coito, I've been paying my loans back for over a decade, and my husband has been paying his for six. We're slugging it out, as you said. We're hardly slackers.

But a debt cap would make our lives easier. I don't see how it's different from a belated Pell grant. Or are you against those, too?

It's different because you're now asking to reneg on your signed agreement with the taxpayers, and it's not in our best interests to allow you to do so. If you can get a PRIVATE post-degree grant to pay off your loans, fine by me because PRIVATE grants are charity from people who value education and they come out of their own pockets, not those of the taxpayers.

...
This would induce students to work hard and do well so that they can eventually justify the public investment in their education, and would be a worthy expenditure of public money.

Seth, we're both taxpayers-- plenty of people who went to college are taxpayers. This proposal would affect a wide swath of the populace-- not just us. We wouldn't be special cases. We'd still be paying taxes if the proposal were to pass. And I'm not asking to reneg on anything. Obama is proposing a governmental action-- none of the people affected would have reneged on anything.

And the public already does invest in education-- why is this seen as a special case?

[Seth]

Capitalism! (which is the fairest of all known social systems)

This is equivalent to saying being kicked in the balls by a steel tipped boot is the most pleasurable of all feelings or that shit is the best tasting thing you can eat. The fairest of all systems would be one where nobody has any more than anyone else.

No it wouldn't because it would deny reward to those who work harder than others. Lazy slobs who suck at the public teat do not deserve the same rewards that hard-working members of the productive class enjoy as a result of their dedication to excellence, they deserve to live in penury and deprivation.

"Fair" is when people get to enjoy the full fruits of their labor without thieves, layabouts and greedy people taking what the productive class have created and earned for their own selfish purposes.

Just because you want what someone else has doesn't mean you are morally or ethically entitled to have it.