1. I certainly hope you all have this same level of energy when people file for Bankruptcy (y'know-- not paying their debts and all)
2. I certainly hope you all have this same level of energy for those who took advantage of the PPP loans and their forgiveness.
- Grace Preston
- 08-24-2022, 05:07 PM
- Lucas McCain
- 08-24-2022, 05:45 PM
Excellent way to show young adults to welch out of commitments. Originally Posted by winn dixieYeah, maybe that's why Trump got his ass kicked in the last election. He is kind of the poster boy for that except you have to add a lot more zeroes in his case when it comes to knowing how to "welch out of commitments".
Hopefully this partial loan forgiveness from Biden will help out some of the suckers who wasted their time and money while attending Trump University and then had to go get degrees from a real university that wasn't a scam.
- WTF
- 08-24-2022, 05:52 PM
Excellent way to show young adults to welch out of commitments. Originally Posted by winn dixieI can't remember any of you crying about Trumps huge farm subsidies!
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/20...rom%20%251%24s
Direct farm aid has climbed each year of Trump’s presidency, from $11.5 billion in 2017 to more than $32 billion this year — an all-time high, with potentially far more funding still to come in 2020, amounting to about two-thirds of the cost of the entire Department of Housing and Urban Development and more than the Agriculture Department’s $24 billion discretionary budget, according to a POLITICO analysis. But lawmakers have taken a largely hands-off approach, letting the department decide who gets the money and how much.
The massive payments have been a political boon to Trump in farm country
- Jacuzzme
- 08-24-2022, 06:02 PM
Neither of those are valid comparisons, especially concerning PPP. The government forced businesses to close their doors, kids (stupidly) take loans of their own free will.
The entire premise of lending teenagers hundreds of thousands of dollars is patently ridiculous. They’ve got no assets, no savings, and no job most of the time. This is exactly the person any sane bank would not lend money to, and why colleges can charge astronomical fees.
We’ve got far to many kids going to college and far too few tradesmen. I know plumbers who make more than doctors and who were actually paid while doing their apprenticeship. I also know about 20 kids who paid a shit-ton in tuition and are broke as fuck, living with three roommates because they majored in something stupid with no hope of getting a good job. Psyche is a popular, useless major. A hundred grand to study something that <20% of kids will get a job in the field of study, they end up working as a student aids in a special needs school for $30k.
This is all really the fault of bad and nonexistent parents. A kid who wants to borrow six figures to get into a field where there’s no hope of earning a decent should be immediately knocked upside the head and advised to be a turret lathe operator, or a landscaper, or a painter, or whatever else they can be with minimal or no investment. And don’t give me this ‘but muh kid is 18 and can make his own decisions”. I don’t know about you guys, but I was dumb as a brick at 18. If you can’t still guide your kids at that age, you’re not doing parenting right.
The entire premise of lending teenagers hundreds of thousands of dollars is patently ridiculous. They’ve got no assets, no savings, and no job most of the time. This is exactly the person any sane bank would not lend money to, and why colleges can charge astronomical fees.
We’ve got far to many kids going to college and far too few tradesmen. I know plumbers who make more than doctors and who were actually paid while doing their apprenticeship. I also know about 20 kids who paid a shit-ton in tuition and are broke as fuck, living with three roommates because they majored in something stupid with no hope of getting a good job. Psyche is a popular, useless major. A hundred grand to study something that <20% of kids will get a job in the field of study, they end up working as a student aids in a special needs school for $30k.
This is all really the fault of bad and nonexistent parents. A kid who wants to borrow six figures to get into a field where there’s no hope of earning a decent should be immediately knocked upside the head and advised to be a turret lathe operator, or a landscaper, or a painter, or whatever else they can be with minimal or no investment. And don’t give me this ‘but muh kid is 18 and can make his own decisions”. I don’t know about you guys, but I was dumb as a brick at 18. If you can’t still guide your kids at that age, you’re not doing parenting right.
- winn dixie
- 08-24-2022, 06:03 PM
- Yssup Rider
- 08-24-2022, 06:08 PM
1. I certainly hope you all have this same level of energy when people file for Bankruptcy (y'know-- not paying their debts and all)How perfectly put!
2. I certainly hope you all have this same level of energy for those who took advantage of the PPP loans and their forgiveness. Originally Posted by Grace Preston
Thanks Grace, and mega dittos.
- Grace Preston
- 08-24-2022, 06:14 PM
Neither of those are valid comparisons, especially concerning PPP. The government forced businesses to close their doors, kids (stupidly) take loans of their own free will.
The entire premise of lending teenagers hundreds of thousands of dollars is patently ridiculous. They’ve got no assets, no savings, and no job most of the time. This is exactly the person any sane bank would not lend money to, and why colleges can charge astronomical fees.
We’ve got far to many kids going to college and far too few tradesmen. I know plumbers who make more than doctors and who were actually paid while doing their apprenticeship. I also know about 20 kids who paid a shit-ton in tuition and are broke as fuck, living with three roommates because they majored in something stupid with no hope of getting a good job. Psyche is a popular, useless major. A hundred grand to study something that <20% of kids will get a job in the field of study, they end up working as a student aids in a special needs school for $30k.
This is all really the fault of bad and nonexistent parents. A kid who wants to borrow six figures to get into a field where there’s no hope of earning a decent should be immediately knocked upside the head and advised to be a turret lathe operator, or a landscaper, or a painter, or whatever else they can be with minimal or no investment. And don’t give me this ‘but muh kid is 18 and can make his own decisions”. I don’t know about you guys, but I was dumb as a brick at 18. If you can’t still guide your kids at that age, you’re not doing parenting right. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme
My oldest tried 3 years in a row to get into an electrician apprenticeship program and never got in-- finally gave up and went to truck driving school. These apprenticeship programs are great, but space is extremely limited in a lot of areas. He knows others who have tried for 5 years plus....
- Jacuzzme
- 08-24-2022, 08:16 PM
A union apprenticeship isn’t the only way to become an electrician, lots of places you’ve gotta know someone or be a legacy guy to get in. They’re the best imo, but you can also work under a master for however long and take certification tests. If there’s a will there’s a way.
- HedonistForever
- 08-24-2022, 09:49 PM
Here's an idea, how about we let Universities with over 1 billion in endowment money, pick up the tab? You know, like Biden and his "nobody making under $400,000 will pay any new taxes", we'll just stick it to the rich.
Hell not even the CBO believed that whopper, but I guess we are just numb to the lies coming from this administration.
The news says that as many as 43 million could benefit. So let's see, that's almost 300 million that don't share in this largess and just might be pissed enough to cancel the votes Biden gets from this and give their vote to the more fiscally restrained Republican.
Hell not even the CBO believed that whopper, but I guess we are just numb to the lies coming from this administration.
The news says that as many as 43 million could benefit. So let's see, that's almost 300 million that don't share in this largess and just might be pissed enough to cancel the votes Biden gets from this and give their vote to the more fiscally restrained Republican.
- Jackie S
- 08-24-2022, 10:02 PM
I’m sure all of the people who took out loans and paid them back in full appreciate this move.
- Lucas McCain
- 08-24-2022, 10:39 PM
I am almost sure that I have taken out more student loans than probably anyone in this forum and I have no problem with this partial loan forgiveness "move" whatsoever. And yes, I have paid back every red cent of the well over six figures that I borrowed in federal and private loans... it was the best bet I ever made because I bet on myself. But I won't lie, I was scared shitless while accumulating all of that debt just in case I didn't make it.
- lustylad
- 08-24-2022, 11:11 PM
This guy is a financial consultant. He intelligently laid out some of the reasons why student loan "forgiveness" is a staggeringly bad policy idea 3 months ago.
Of course, when it comes to public policy, the Biden administration is allergic to anything intelligent.
Anyone remember how those sneaky liars in the Obama administration nationalized the entire student loan business 12 years ago and claimed this would help pay for Obamacare?
I knew then it was a big lie. I also knew it would be just a matter of time before dim-retard assholes began writing off and forgiving the mountain of student debt (now totaling $1.7 trillion, or TWICE the amount of US credit card debt currently outstanding) as another corrupt tool for buying votes.
Student Loan Relief Should Come in Bankruptcy Court
Blanket debt forgiveness would be a massive and unfair transfer of wealth with perverse consequences.
By Richard J. Shinder
May 10, 2022 6:09 pm ET
The Biden administration is reportedly considering expanding its efforts at targeted student debt forgiveness into a broader policy whereby “at least” $10,000 (some have advocated for up to $50,000) in student loans per borrower, possibly subject to an annual income cap, would be eligible for cancellation.
There is a rough consensus that rising levels of student-loan debt are a problem, and proponents of debt relief note the aggregate amount outstanding has increased by roughly two-thirds over the past 10 years to a total of some $1.7 trillion. Largely overlooked in the debate are changes made to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in 2005, which materially increased the difficulty of discharging student loans in bankruptcy.
The “undue hardship” standards that apply to the cancelation of student loan indebtedness create a high hurdle for discharge, as borrowers must meet various tests adopted by the courts. The difficulty in satisfying these requirements, along with the costs associated with filing for bankruptcy, results in little student debt being relieved in this manner.
As a financial professional, I am well-acquainted with the legal regime governing the resolution of financial obligations that can’t be serviced. I believe that to the extent borrower and lender cannot achieve a mutually acceptable agreement, such disputes should be adjudicated through the federal bankruptcy courts created for that purpose.
Unfortunately, the 2005 changes to the Bankruptcy Code, combined with the 2010 federalization of the student-loan market, have placed what is fundamentally a commercial matter—the repayment of financial obligations—squarely within the ambit of public policy. Initially as guarantor and now as lender to student borrowers, the federal government has a direct seat at the table. Having largely prohibited the resolution of student loans in bankruptcy subjects its ultimate disposition to political caprice. As a policy matter, the president and Congress would do well to take account of several considerations:
• The implications of loan forgiveness for current borrowers. Universal debt relief without borrower-specific qualifications would represent a massive wealth transfer in an era of record federal deficits and scarce public resources. What is the rationale for blanket relief when the vast majority of this debt is being serviced as contractually required? Traditionally, when the government targets federal resources at individuals, it is to advance a policy imperative or create incentives for desired behavior. No one can credibly assert that student-debt forgiveness encourages financial responsibility or other normative behavior the way, say, the mortgage-interest deduction promotes homeownership.
Another justification is that students were encouraged to borrow money under false pretenses. But targeted relief for loans incurred in connection with for-profit “diploma mills” already exists and is largely uncontroversial. In the case of proposed comprehensive student debt extinguishment, who perpetrated the alleged fraud—the federal government, the private lenders active in the previous federally guaranteed student-loan market, colleges and universities, some other villain or a combination of these? Collectivizing the cost of the “student loan crisis” suggests a systemic market or policy failure, not discrete instances of individuals failing to meet their financial obligations. If this really took place, the public deserves a clear accounting of it.
Even if you support such a policy and are comfortable making student-debt forgiveness a priority over other federal spending, it should be applied fairly. What of those who have already paid back their loans? There is also the prospect of rewarding failure and subsidizing moral hazard. Each borrower prioritizes student-loan repayment against other spending and makes other trade-offs in the pursuit of an education and career. Blanket forgiveness takes no account of these decisions.
• The message to institutions of higher education. Colleges and universities have increased their costs to match the abundant federal resources made available to students, including student loans. A late 2021 report based on data from the College Board suggests that the cost of a college education has risen at about 4.6 times the rate of inflation over the past 50 years.
As state-level support for higher education has receded, the federal government’s role has grown. Institutions have become more reliant on tuition payments from students, and federal aid in the form of grants and loans has driven student demand, resulting in considerable cost inflation. Indiscriminate loan forgiveness, by making higher education “free,” exacerbates these factors and removes any incentive for institutions to manage their costs.
• The impact on future students. Will all future federal support come in the form of grants and not loans? Or will there be an expectation that new loans will be canceled in some future “jubilee” year? Leaving aside the budgetary and inflationary impacts of a policy of serial loan forgiveness or replacement of loans with grants, any generationally consistent or “fair” treatment of future students would suggest that higher education will become effectively free.
The notion of free college for all isn’t a new one in progressive circles, and student-loan forgiveness is perhaps a step along this path. But is it one we want to take when the value of a college degree increasingly is questioned?
Comprehensive student debt forgiveness is bad public policy. A legal regime—the federal bankruptcy system—already exists for those who truly need debt relief, with rules and consequences that are well-established. Rather than advance yet another inflationary, budget-busting policy initiative, the Biden administration would be better off proposing that the student-loan provisions of the Bankruptcy Code be amended, and reform student lending to circumscribe the outsize role of the federal government in financing higher education.
Mr. Shinder is founder and managing partner of Theatine Partners, a financial consultancy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/student...es-11652214825
Of course, when it comes to public policy, the Biden administration is allergic to anything intelligent.
Anyone remember how those sneaky liars in the Obama administration nationalized the entire student loan business 12 years ago and claimed this would help pay for Obamacare?
I knew then it was a big lie. I also knew it would be just a matter of time before dim-retard assholes began writing off and forgiving the mountain of student debt (now totaling $1.7 trillion, or TWICE the amount of US credit card debt currently outstanding) as another corrupt tool for buying votes.
Student Loan Relief Should Come in Bankruptcy Court
Blanket debt forgiveness would be a massive and unfair transfer of wealth with perverse consequences.
By Richard J. Shinder
May 10, 2022 6:09 pm ET
The Biden administration is reportedly considering expanding its efforts at targeted student debt forgiveness into a broader policy whereby “at least” $10,000 (some have advocated for up to $50,000) in student loans per borrower, possibly subject to an annual income cap, would be eligible for cancellation.
There is a rough consensus that rising levels of student-loan debt are a problem, and proponents of debt relief note the aggregate amount outstanding has increased by roughly two-thirds over the past 10 years to a total of some $1.7 trillion. Largely overlooked in the debate are changes made to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in 2005, which materially increased the difficulty of discharging student loans in bankruptcy.
The “undue hardship” standards that apply to the cancelation of student loan indebtedness create a high hurdle for discharge, as borrowers must meet various tests adopted by the courts. The difficulty in satisfying these requirements, along with the costs associated with filing for bankruptcy, results in little student debt being relieved in this manner.
As a financial professional, I am well-acquainted with the legal regime governing the resolution of financial obligations that can’t be serviced. I believe that to the extent borrower and lender cannot achieve a mutually acceptable agreement, such disputes should be adjudicated through the federal bankruptcy courts created for that purpose.
Unfortunately, the 2005 changes to the Bankruptcy Code, combined with the 2010 federalization of the student-loan market, have placed what is fundamentally a commercial matter—the repayment of financial obligations—squarely within the ambit of public policy. Initially as guarantor and now as lender to student borrowers, the federal government has a direct seat at the table. Having largely prohibited the resolution of student loans in bankruptcy subjects its ultimate disposition to political caprice. As a policy matter, the president and Congress would do well to take account of several considerations:
• The implications of loan forgiveness for current borrowers. Universal debt relief without borrower-specific qualifications would represent a massive wealth transfer in an era of record federal deficits and scarce public resources. What is the rationale for blanket relief when the vast majority of this debt is being serviced as contractually required? Traditionally, when the government targets federal resources at individuals, it is to advance a policy imperative or create incentives for desired behavior. No one can credibly assert that student-debt forgiveness encourages financial responsibility or other normative behavior the way, say, the mortgage-interest deduction promotes homeownership.
Another justification is that students were encouraged to borrow money under false pretenses. But targeted relief for loans incurred in connection with for-profit “diploma mills” already exists and is largely uncontroversial. In the case of proposed comprehensive student debt extinguishment, who perpetrated the alleged fraud—the federal government, the private lenders active in the previous federally guaranteed student-loan market, colleges and universities, some other villain or a combination of these? Collectivizing the cost of the “student loan crisis” suggests a systemic market or policy failure, not discrete instances of individuals failing to meet their financial obligations. If this really took place, the public deserves a clear accounting of it.
Even if you support such a policy and are comfortable making student-debt forgiveness a priority over other federal spending, it should be applied fairly. What of those who have already paid back their loans? There is also the prospect of rewarding failure and subsidizing moral hazard. Each borrower prioritizes student-loan repayment against other spending and makes other trade-offs in the pursuit of an education and career. Blanket forgiveness takes no account of these decisions.
• The message to institutions of higher education. Colleges and universities have increased their costs to match the abundant federal resources made available to students, including student loans. A late 2021 report based on data from the College Board suggests that the cost of a college education has risen at about 4.6 times the rate of inflation over the past 50 years.
As state-level support for higher education has receded, the federal government’s role has grown. Institutions have become more reliant on tuition payments from students, and federal aid in the form of grants and loans has driven student demand, resulting in considerable cost inflation. Indiscriminate loan forgiveness, by making higher education “free,” exacerbates these factors and removes any incentive for institutions to manage their costs.
• The impact on future students. Will all future federal support come in the form of grants and not loans? Or will there be an expectation that new loans will be canceled in some future “jubilee” year? Leaving aside the budgetary and inflationary impacts of a policy of serial loan forgiveness or replacement of loans with grants, any generationally consistent or “fair” treatment of future students would suggest that higher education will become effectively free.
The notion of free college for all isn’t a new one in progressive circles, and student-loan forgiveness is perhaps a step along this path. But is it one we want to take when the value of a college degree increasingly is questioned?
Comprehensive student debt forgiveness is bad public policy. A legal regime—the federal bankruptcy system—already exists for those who truly need debt relief, with rules and consequences that are well-established. Rather than advance yet another inflationary, budget-busting policy initiative, the Biden administration would be better off proposing that the student-loan provisions of the Bankruptcy Code be amended, and reform student lending to circumscribe the outsize role of the federal government in financing higher education.
Mr. Shinder is founder and managing partner of Theatine Partners, a financial consultancy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/student...es-11652214825
- lustylad
- 08-24-2022, 11:35 PM
Here's an idea, how about we let Universities with over 1 billion in endowment money, pick up the tab? Originally Posted by HedonistForeverExcellent idea!
Since they were by far the main beneficiary of out-of-control student loan programs over the past 5 decades, it's only fair to ask them to pick up at least part of the tab if we are going to start "forgiving" the debt.
Heck, I would even be ok with letting colleges/universities decide which of their graduates should qualify for loan forgiveness, and for how much. My only requirement is that out of every dollar forgiven, they should have to pay back 50 cents to the US Treasury.
- LayingPipe
- 08-25-2022, 02:46 AM
The debt forgiveness should be for tuition only except borrowers spend money on IPhones , Tattoos and Spring Break.
Only 27% of college graduates use their degree to find a job so it's a bad investment for taxpayers now stuck with the bill
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...o-their-major/
There is no loan forgiveness it is transferred from the people who owe it to the people who don't
Only 27% of college graduates use their degree to find a job so it's a bad investment for taxpayers now stuck with the bill
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...o-their-major/
There is no loan forgiveness it is transferred from the people who owe it to the people who don't
- ICU 812
- 08-25-2022, 05:39 AM
ICU, How did you ever graduate from college? Now that it is time to pay off the money you owe, do so! The government should not ever pay off student loans. You borrowed it, you pay it. Many of us pay our debts, what is the matter with you? Originally Posted by JRLawrenceI graduated college in 1973. All my debts were paid off in the previous century.