PDA

View Full Version : Make a real difference in the economy - Forgive Student Loans



resolve
24th April 10, 05:53 PM
Ok this is how it works.

You graduated high school. Congratulations! You can either 1) join the workforce right away (socially frowned upon), 2) go to a tech school for comparitively little money and join the workforce as a skilled laborer right off the bat (earning shit-tons but confined to a specialized field), 3) go to college, get an aa degree, ba/bs/bfa, or keep going to college and get an ma/mfa/ms/md/phd and depending on your choice of school/specialty end up with anywhere from 40k to 250k in student loan debt once you graduate.

Those that chose to enter the workforce right away will have a 4 year experience lead over you in most entry-level positions. Those that went to tech school will have a 3 year experience lead and have qualified special traning. Those that stuck with their AA degrees usually get stuck in dead-end secretarial type jobs or are confined to lower level positions in companies of their field speciality (from personal experience). The college grads usually take 6 months to a year to find a position within their field if they didn't go to school for one of the few "hot" careers (doctor, lawyer, engineer, nursing) and even then they might be one of the unlucky few to not find a job and usually those degree paths require even more money.

For those unlucky few who didn't have their parents or a scholarship/grant to pay for their schooling, the college grads will be saddled with debt. This debt will most likely run $200-600 a month and take up 20% of their income even if they get a job in their field.

Think about the effect forgiving the debt of millions of hard-working, accomplished americans would do if suddenly they had that 20% of their income back to spend money and invest with.

There are people in their 50s and 60s who have steadily been paying off their student loans and still owe around $50k.

Most college graduates end up in a worse financial situation than those that did not go to college. At least for the majority of their working lives. It is the rare few who are able to even use their degrees to their full advantage and earn what someone with higher education should earn.

Read some of the stories on this petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Real-Economic-Stimulus-Forgive-Student-Loans

bob
24th April 10, 05:59 PM
Think about the effect forgiving the debt of millions of hard-working, accomplished americans

Have you really thought about it?

Kiko
24th April 10, 06:01 PM
Fine... I want my $10K back for paying it faithfully when I was supposed to.

HappyOldGuy
24th April 10, 06:01 PM
Most college graduates end up in a worse financial situation than those that did not go to college. At least for the majority of their working lives.

Horseshit.

I'm all about more aid and less loans for students. Give me a couple of drinks and I can even get turned on by free tuition for all. But college pays off better than any other investment you could make.

Cullion
24th April 10, 06:03 PM
Yes, because your government totally has that spare money to throw around right now.

bob
24th April 10, 06:04 PM
If you're looking for genuine alternatives, consider the HECS system


In 1989, the Hawke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hawke) Labor Government set up the Higher Education Contributions Scheme (HECS)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education_fees_in_Australia#cite_note-2), which was developed by economist and lecturer at the Australian National University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_National_University), Bruce Chapman (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Chapman_%28Australian_econom ist%29&action=edit&redlink=1) and championed by Education Minister John Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dawkins) (see Dawkins Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins_Revolution)). Under the original HECS, a $1,800 fee was charged all university students, and the Commonwealth paid the balance. A student could defer payment of this HECS amount (in which case it was called a HECS debt) and repay the debt through the tax system, when the student's income reached a certain level. As part of the reforms, Colleges of Advanced Education entered the University sector by various means.
In 1996, the new Howard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard) Coalition Government, while otherwise retaining the HECS system, created a three-tier HECS fee structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education_fees_in_Australia#Commonwealth_ supported_students). Fees were charged on the basis of the perceived value of courses. Courses considered to have most likelihood of generating higher income for students in the future (eg. Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) and Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine)) were the most expensive and those least likely to generate higher income (eg. Nursing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing) and Arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts)) were the least expensive. At the same time, HECS charges increased by an average of 40%. Universities were permitted to create full-fee places on which they could charge full up-front fees to students who missed out on a HECS place.

jvjim
24th April 10, 06:22 PM
Hey shut up assholes, there's a product I'm working on that more or less requires people having to go into debt for college.

Robot Jesus
24th April 10, 06:31 PM
what does this do to help retired people, will never pass.

resolve
24th April 10, 07:33 PM
There are a bunch of people who cannot retire now because they are still paying off their student loans. They are age range 50-60ish.

resolve
24th April 10, 07:37 PM
Horseshit.

I'm all about more aid and less loans for students. Give me a couple of drinks and I can even get turned on by free tuition for all. But college pays off better than any other investment you could make.


Depends entirely on 2 factors:

The major you get into.
What jobs are available for that major when you graduate.

Sure there are lots of people who get into business or end up with some weird job somewhere with a completely unrelated degree; but they are usually the exception and not the rule.

resolve
24th April 10, 07:45 PM
Yes, because your government totally has that spare money to throw around right now.


You're right, but I'm sure just with the misappropriated bailout funds that have "disappeared off the books" or gone to industries that didn't even need a bailout to begin with (hey guess what made the local news this weekend, the missouri higher education loan authority, MOHELA, got a shit ton of bailout money and they were in the black to begin with) could be reappropriated into areas like this that would really make an economic difference.

Idealistic as heck? Yes!
Should it be done? Yes!
How could it be accomplished? I have no idea, and this is probs why I fail politics :-/

jubei33
24th April 10, 07:52 PM
or you can cut costs and pay it off.


Most college graduates end up in a worse financial situation than those that did not go to college. At least for the majority of their working lives. It is the rare few who are able to even use their degrees to their full advantage and earn what someone with higher education should earn.

define rare few? I doubt I'm in a rare few category, but I am not using my degree(s) to their full advantage. Before I left though, I worked in environmental chemistry. Most of the people I kept in touch with are working in chemistry in various ways, though some not in their specialization.

I mean if your chosen field is one with low demand then what do you want done about it?

Kein Haar
24th April 10, 08:02 PM
The interest is a tax write off.

resolve
24th April 10, 08:04 PM
Would you, or would you not, have alot more cash on hand if your loans were forgiven?

Kein Haar
24th April 10, 08:05 PM
I went to a cheap-ass school...which was no accident.

I'd have an extra $134.00 per month to throw around, yes.

Straight ballin'.

Cullion
24th April 10, 08:10 PM
Why should only people who ran up debts at college get this money? Why not people who are in debt for a new pickup truck too?

Kein Haar
24th April 10, 08:13 PM
Cuz it's not eco friendly.

Sometimes ur srsly dum.

jvjim
24th April 10, 08:34 PM
Cuz it's not eco friendly.



Not the way I went to college.

Cullion
24th April 10, 09:01 PM
What about people who bought nice houses closer to work. They didn't have as far to commute. Why can't they have some money?

FickleFingerOfFate
24th April 10, 09:07 PM
There are a bunch of people who cannot retire now because they are still paying off their student loans. They are age range 50-60ish.

Yes, they're called fiscally irresponsible.

Truculent Sheep
24th April 10, 10:02 PM
Several questions leap to mind:

i. Do so many people need a university education?
ii. Are Degrees becoming both obligatory and devalued as more people do them?
iii. What are Universities actually for, anyway?
iv. If most people end up doing Business or Law degrees, what does that bode for the US in the mid to long term?
v. Is it time to say farewell and fuck off to the humanities?
vi. Cui bono?
vii. Is it really a good idea for so many young people to start their working lives with mountains of debt?
viii. What can be done to stop the cost of tuition, room & board etc. skyrocketing even further?
ix. How much should society as a whole pay for education at any level?
x. What is education itself actually for, anyway?

I spent the last 7 years paying off 11k+ for an MA that turned out to be pretty useless jobwise. Was I had, just unlucky or needing to be grateful for the personal benefits (if any) that I gained - as in, through education for education's sake?

Cullion
24th April 10, 10:10 PM
Several questions leap to mind:

i. Do so many people need a university education? No.

ii. Are Degrees becoming both obligatory and devalued as more people do them? Yes.

iii. What are Universities actually for, anyway? Providing rigorous academic training (in subjects where that's the most appropriate form of training) and conducting blue skies research.

iv. If most people end up doing Business or Law degrees, what does that bode for the US in the mid to long term? They'll all end up as middle managers that borrow money from Asia so they can sue each other.

v. Is it time to say farewell and fuck off to the humanities? I hope note.

vi. Cui bono? The proud parents who get to say 'look at my little snowflakes qualifications', and the people who benefit from getting generations of the young used to being in debt from the moment they leave home.

vii. Is it really a good idea for so many young people to start their working lives with mountains of debt? No, it's an awful idea.

viii. What can be done to stop the cost of tuition, room & board etc. skyrocketing even further? Stop inflating the money supply.

ix. How much should society as a whole pay for education at any level?
Dunno yet.

x. What is education itself actually for, anyway? Erm, see iii) I think.




I spent the last 7 years paying off 11k+ for an MA that turned out to be pretty useless jobwise. Was I had, just unlucky or needing to be grateful for the personal benefits (if any) that I gained - as in, through education for education's sake?

I don't know, it's a subjective judgement. Lots of people spend much more than that a new car they get bored of within a couple of years, and they're borrowing at commercial rates.

You did something that cost you 11k <shrugs>, only you can tell if it was worth it.

Truculent Sheep
24th April 10, 10:13 PM
I was trying to get people debating by giving a personal example. I already know the answer - I just want other people to think about it.

Also:

iii. Does most of that research actually mean anything? We read about all the exciting stuff but the research publication treadmill churns out much, much more of little note. (That's another thread.)

v. My own view is that as Degrees become ever more like financial investments and ever less what goes on at the traditional academy, then by definition a lot of 'financially unviable' subjects will wither on the vine. It's already happening to English Literature (http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-decline-of-the-english-department/).

x. iii isn't the answer. Rather, let me rephrase the question - what are our educational systems for? Economics? Social Engineering? Transmission of culture? Cultivating individuals or society as a whole? Keeping young people off the unemployment statistics and the street? And so on.

viii. Note that while the cost of living has gone up threefold since 1978, the cost of University (in the US system, which is where the UK equivalent is going) has increased x8. Once the top-up fees cap is removed, expect it to skyrocket.

resolve
24th April 10, 11:43 PM
Why should only people who ran up debts at college get this money? Why not people who are in debt for a new pickup truck too?


You're playing games again. The point is not to give bailouts to people in general, a la communist handouts, but to take the problem that is at hand (the bailout which is already going to extremely hideously wasteful ends) and redirecting the funds that ARE ALREADY GOING OUT into areas where they will do the most good.

Get it now C?

The cost of a 4 Year University Education is projected to increase to a total of $200,000 in the short order of just a few more years. While this redirection of funds won't solve the root of the problem of how Universities in America are financed and how a degree is required for many many jobs it will do the most good now by putting the funds where they will REALLY HELP PEOPLE, in my opinion.

WarPhalange
25th April 10, 12:00 AM
Horseshit.

I'm all about more aid and less loans for students. Give me a couple of drinks and I can even get turned on by free tuition for all. But college pays off better than any other investment you could make.

I concur. I have $30k in loans right now... and it really doesn't seem like that big a deal. By the time I'm out of grad school, that might get bumped to $40k or so, but I expect to get hired for at least $70k/year to start by then. I can live on $20k/year now, so I could easily pay the loan off in three or even two years.

Law students? Med students? Business students? Those guys are fucked. But so what? That's why they charge up the ass for their services.

jvjim
25th April 10, 12:48 AM
Who wants to know how I go to law school for free (at least right now) and will pay $150?

WarPhalange
25th April 10, 01:32 AM
Is it the same reason as why everybody calls you a cocksucker?

jkdbuck76
25th April 10, 02:25 AM
Forgive loans? Doesn't the guhment make money off the student loans?

Just pay off your student loan with a credit card, then file bankruptcy. I'm sure the bankruptcy judge will love that.

Cullion
25th April 10, 02:36 AM
You're playing games again.

If by 'playing games' you mean 'pointing out where resolve isn't making sense', then yes.



and redirecting the funds that ARE ALREADY GOING OUT into areas where they will do the most good.

That's nonsense. You're simply talking about increasing the disposable income of an arbitrary sector of the populatioon. ANY IDIOT CAN GET INTO DEBT studying liberal arts at bumfuckville college.



The cost of a 4 Year University Education is projected to increase to a total of $200,000 in the short order of just a few more years. While this redirection of funds won't solve the root of the problem of how Universities in America are financed and how a degree is required for many many jobs it will do the most good now by putting the funds where they will REALLY HELP PEOPLE, in my opinion.

Why should they REALLY HELP just people who ran up debts going to college ?

jvjim
25th April 10, 03:50 AM
I think resolve's argument is this: why bailout millionaire assholes when you could bail out people who'd, proportionally, be better off with the money.

Moral hazard is still moral hazard though, so it's a pretty stupid idea. HOWEVER, it's AT MOST no more stupid than bailing out the banks or GM.

bob
25th April 10, 05:23 AM
What about a government scheme to post bail for underprivileged felons?

Cullion
25th April 10, 09:13 AM
I think resolve's argument is this: why bailout millionaire assholes when you could bail out people who'd, proportionally, be better off with the money.

Moral hazard is still moral hazard though, so it's a pretty stupid idea. HOWEVER, it's AT MOST no more stupid than bailing out the banks or GM.

I agree with that, but the banks have already got the money. Resolve is essentially saying 'lets throw even more money around. I vote for people like me, just because'.

Ajamil
25th April 10, 09:37 AM
Millionaire assholes at least have a track record of using the money to help the economy (well - short term). What have the student loan people done so far?

Craigypooh
25th April 10, 09:51 AM
Who wants to know how I go to law school for free (at least right now) and will pay $150?

Is it by getting people to pay $150 to find out how you go to law school for free?

Cullion
25th April 10, 09:53 AM
Millionaire assholes at least have a track record of using the money to help the economy (well - short term).

What do you mean by 'the economy' ?

Ajamil
25th April 10, 10:03 AM
Investing their money in attempts to maximize their returns.

Cullion
25th April 10, 10:09 AM
Investing their money in attempts to maximize their returns.

The people who were bailed out are people who failed catastrophically at that, and most of what they did was simply a form of usury. Let them die.

FickleFingerOfFate
25th April 10, 10:12 AM
HOWEVER, it's AT MOST no more stupid than bailing out the banks or GM.
Au contraire, GM has paid it's cash debt back, and the analysts report that the IPO, and resulting equity sale by the government, is ahead of schedule.

Resolve is looking for charity directed toward people who, by incurring the very debt he would like 'forgiven', would be at the upper echelon of the earners in their fields.


oUIP9NGsH9o

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
25th April 10, 11:50 AM
I owe 25k and rising seeing as I havent paid any of it back and they keep slapping interest on....bastards!

FickleFingerOfFate
25th April 10, 11:56 AM
I owe 25k and rising seeing as I havent paid any of it back and they keep slapping interest on....bastards!


Get a job, Hippie!

Ajamil
25th April 10, 12:02 PM
The people who were bailed out are people who failed catastrophically at that, and most of what they did was simply a form of usury. Let them die.Is this directed then at the specific people, the specific companies, or investors in general?

If we consider that we're at the point where the money - maybe not has to be given out but almost certainly will be, where would you prefer the money to go? Grant foundations so the govt. itself becomes the investor?

Cullion
25th April 10, 12:07 PM
Is this directed then at the specific people, the specific companies, or investors in general?

Specific companies.



If we consider that we're at the point where the money - maybe not has to be given out but almost certainly will be, where would you prefer the money to go? Grant foundations so the govt. itself becomes the investor?

If you're forced to make every decision on the basis of 'well, they're giving out public money we can't afford anyway' you're doomed. Utterly doomed. At some point the spending has to be reigned in. There's no source of free money. You always have to pay the piper in the end.

That said, you might as well plough all the stimulus money into extra disposable income for the broad populace without favouritism. Ultimately the credit markets are in the state they're in because of long chains of financial instruments ultimately resting on debts which working joes (and out of work joes) are struggling to pay back.

Fuck it, if we're going to pretend it's free money just send everybody in the US a check for $10000 the next time Wall street asks for more. It'll cost about the same and there will be less moral hazard because you won't specifically be rewarding already wealthy people for screwing up. A smaller proportion of the money will disappear out of the US into the shadow banking system too.

You'll probably have more of a positive impact on unemployment and home foreclosures too.

Ajamil
25th April 10, 12:10 PM
I consider the money set up for bail-outs already spent because I think it will get spent and sent out before any attempt to rein it in would take effect.

Cullion
25th April 10, 12:21 PM
As I said, if your plan is to argue from a position of powerlessness, then give up now.

If you insist on throwing vast amounts of public money around, you're better off spreading it out evenly.

jvjim
25th April 10, 12:56 PM
Just to clear up some misconceptions: it doesn't matter if GM paid the money back. It's a business, not the American government's spendthrift little bro.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
25th April 10, 01:44 PM
One day hehehehehe. In fact when my PhD ends next year, I will end up with a job where I will be earning over the threshold to start repayments....bastards!

Arhetton
25th April 10, 08:42 PM
I do not feel that my loans should be forgiven. They are however, not crippling such as the amounts you Americans seem to have to pay.

Harpy
26th April 10, 05:40 AM
HECS and the new FEE-HELP have been very good to me. Doing my 3rd uni degree and only $6k in debt. Employer withholds the repayment (% dependent on income bracket), no interest as such and freedom to study as I please.
Awesome.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
26th April 10, 06:54 AM
I dont see it as a matter of 'forgiving'. I actually think they owe me for all the years I worked in the public sector for less than minimum wage......bastards!!!

tom.f
26th April 10, 09:45 AM
Kill everyone who wants their debt forgiven and then forvive their debt. Use their bodies for spare parts or amusing "lifelike" statues.

resolve
26th April 10, 10:50 AM
Cullionz, you are right. However it doesn't change facts that money is going to be misapproriated. I'm trying, finally, to see a little less idealistic here and make the most out of a bad situation. I'd rather see the money go where it can actually effect the economy. Hell, that "$10,000 to each citizen" you mentioned would change my life. I could pay off all my debts (except student loans) and invest in some market funds and still have a little left over to live off of.

Where my point is, and I guess I did a horrible job of getting it across, is money has yet to still go out and will most likely be misappropriated. I'd rather see those funds go to people in a way that would really change.

I also don't get the point of "bailing out" companies that are in the black to begin with and those companies in turn, immediately raise interest rates on their loan holders. I just got a letter from Mohela that my interest rate has gone up, again; of course, right after they got their bailout money. I haven't even started repaying yet (have one year left in Uni). I've paid off 2 years of college through working part time and full time while taking full time classes. It finally broke me when I started taking my upper level studio classes and I'm required to be in studio hours for 5-8 hours a day (on top of my regular class hours). I just couldn't hold a full time job anymore and can barely work more than once or twice per week part time and maintain my sanity. I will still be around $35,000-40,000 in debt when I graduate.

Cullion
26th April 10, 01:13 PM
The companies that were bailed out weren't really in the black. Basically the US govt. effectively suspended the usual accountancy standards by which they would normally be considered bankrupt.

tom.f
26th April 10, 01:48 PM
The companies that were bailed out weren't really in the black. Basically the US govt. effectively suspended the usual accountancy standards by which they would normally be considered bankrupt.

The thinking at that time was that the firms being bailed out would be so gratefull they would work their asses off to help restart the struggling economy and get people back to work. Instead the thought of all of that free money inspired them to lavish huge rewards upon themselves for taking part in such a wonderful failure.

Cullion
26th April 10, 01:52 PM
Well it's an understandable mistake, there's a great deal of economic research indicating that giving for-profit organisations free public money converts them into charities. Just like increasing unemployment benefits tends to motivate people to get a job.

tom.f
26th April 10, 02:21 PM
Well it's an understandable mistake, there's a great deal of economic research indicating that giving for-profit organisations free public money converts them into charities. Just like increasing unemployment benefits tends to motivate people to get a job.

I suppose that the guy in pain thinks pain killers are a good idea while the people who aren't hurting think pain killers are for pussies. (except for people who just take pain killers for fun, they're out there too I guess)

I actually know some people who are good workers and want to work.(construction guys). One of them lived off of his savings and did not ask or receive unemployment benefits. (fortunately he just recently started back to work) None of these guys want a handout but they do want to feed their families. The unemployment benefits they recieved were barely enough to make ends meet and in no way influenced these guys to give up looking for work. Unfortunately I also know two guys who have made it their goal to work as little as they can and get by on as much assistance as they can get. I don't know the answer to bailouts but it seems that it works out better for some than it does for others.

Cullion
27th April 10, 06:28 AM
I know there are lots of good, proud people out there, but statistically speaking, what would you expect the effect on the unemployment rate to be of increasing unemployment benefits ?

Cullion
27th April 10, 06:30 AM
Au contraire, GM has paid it's cash debt back, and the analysts report that the IPO, and resulting equity sale by the government, is ahead of schedule.

GM has 'repaid' the cash by moving money from TARP funds. It's simply shifting public money around, and it's still bleeding money like a stuck pig. Anybody who invests in that IPO is a retard.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20100427/NEWS/4270383/1020

Ajamil
27th April 10, 09:28 AM
I applied for unemployment yesterday. Apparently even if I'm working they'll pay the difference if I make less at my current job than my old (I doubt this is the case, but hey - NoB's money looked inviting). Is it wrong that I spent about five seconds wondering if I could get away with declaring my cats as dependents?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th April 10, 10:09 AM
No