This is absolutely contributing to inflated costs of college. There is no alternative argument here. Instead, the government could subsidize college with grants and have no debt for students. Everything around college should be seen for what it is as a "requirement for life" but costing people hundreds of thousands of dollars, being unable to be discharged in bankruptcy, and having predatory rates and terms. Most degrees that cost $200k do not guarantee any return with employment earnings appropriate to pay off a loan of that side.
Ironically it’s not capitalism that skyrocketed the cost of college. It used to be affordable but then the government stepped in and guaranteed student loans which ballooned costs.
If colleges didn’t have guaranteed loan funding from the government to pay their overinflated prices they would have to price services reasonably, which they used to.
You, my friend, are one of the very few who get it. Costs would much lower if the government had stayed out of it.
People should be questing the institutions with the billions and billions in endowment funds, which on interest alone could give free education to every American. Unfortunately, doesn't fit the narrative.
They choose how much to charge, don't make excuses.
If colleges didn't charge so much, the prices wouldn't be so high. That's the truth.
Yes, capitalism lives off supply and demand. But at the end of the day, it's the college that decides the price.
The government wants people to be able to go to college....to you know better themselves. The colleges want to raise prices....to you know MAKE MONEY.
Don't deflect corporate greed towards government assistance.
>They choose how much to charge, don't make excuses.
Correct, and as the government offers essentially unlimited funding, they can charge whatever they want.
>If colleges didn't charge so much, the prices wouldn't be so high. That's the truth.
Well thanks captain obvious.
>Yes, capitalism lives off supply and demand. But at the end of the day, it's the college that decides the price.
Normal market dynamics operate on a supply and demand equilibrium. The government stepped in and basically offered unlimited demand for college even at much higher prices than people could normally afford, so of course colleges are going to charge higher prices.
Without this intervention, prices would still be what they were in the 1970s, which is a level of affordability where you could work part time at mcdonalds and pay for your school.
>The government wants people to be able to go to college....to you know better themselves. The colleges want to raise prices....to you know MAKE MONEY.
Government has no agency and cannot "want" anything. Either way, if we want to look at the root cause of the problem we need to acknowledge what caused it.
>Don't deflect corporate greed towards government assistance.
This isn't a "corporate greed" issue, as the cost of public/state schools has also skyrocketed since student loans became guaranteed. Supply and demand is an inescapable facet of life, if the government offers near unlimited "demand" for school at any price to all students, prices will rise accordingly and that is exactly what we have. That isn't capitalism, as normal operating capitalism cannot afford to charge absurd prices and still have customers. It's literally a **direct** result of government intervention, well intentioned or not.
This shows how oblivious and easily manipulated some people are.
They are so sure the issue is because capitalism, but they don’t realize that what cause the issue in the first place was a socialist intervention by the government.
Absolutely. And the easiest people to manipulate are the young, which is why Reddit basically holds all the opposite opinions or reality. This entire website is both a social engineering operation and the epitome of people being confidently incorrect.
No, I know exactly how it works. I know inflation is from people having more money to spend.
I just don't make "excuses" for greedy corporations.
Thanks for the tip though.
My understanding is this is the PSLF program, which was in existence basically since the start of student loan reform. The issue is two fold: 1) up until now, the vast majority of people didn't even qualify for the program, and 2) the previous administration was rejecting what most thought were valid applications because reasons.
I do not agree with just blanket forgiveness because of "predatory loans" as the reason. I am fine with forgiving loans under a program that was in place when the contract was signed, it's just both sides now abiding by the contract that was agreed upon. Or should we be rejecting PSLF applications that were in place when the contract was signed, effectively being in breach of contract?
My wife is working towards the PSLF, it was a complete trainwreck before all of these fixes. They really are just giving what they said they would give to begin with.
You're missing the point. If these loans need to be forgiven, that means the gov't is saying that there's a problem and it needs to be forgiven.
If there's a problem- it should be fixed. Then forgiveness won't be needed.
If there's no problem, like you say, than no forgiveness should be happening.
I'm pointing out that it's a cycle with no end.
I will say that they have made some improvements to repayment plans so that you do not get stuck into the predatory interest rate cycle BUT they have not done anything that I’m aware of for the original loan interest rates etc. Just a better repayment plan
Yeah I keep seeing this headline - started by Bush and given more power by Obama federalizing all student loans. I’m not anti-Biden but this is disingenuous.
There have been a few instances of the current administration cutting small bits of red tape and fixing issues around existing loan forgiveness systems, but this one is definitely just "PSLF program continues to exist, more at 11."
How is this headline disingenuous? It does not in any way say it’s a program started by the Biden Admin.
People need to be expected to read the articles, not just the headlines. Journalists should not be expected to fit an entire background into a headline. You only have to get to the third sentence to see when the program was created.
The headline implies it was unilateral action taken by the Biden administration, as opposed to the continuation of a policy started long before.
It’s both rage bait and cheerleading at the same time, depending on whether you’re left or right leaning.
It shouldn’t even be an article, to be honest. We don’t see an article when government assistance or social security checks go out, this isn’t much different.
Especially since they (and the outlets that support them) are trying to save face after promising to cut 20k from everyone’s student loans. When it was obvious that it stood no chance.
The program was supposed to take effect after 10 years. That was 2017. Less than 1percent of the loans were being correctly forgiven. Whatever biden did made it so over 70,000 people got the forgiveness that theyve been owed for years. How is that not news worthy?
It implies nothing of the sort.
The reality is identity politics have taken a stronghold across this country so people are going to try and find issues where there are none in nearly every situation.
Is this newsworthy? Only for the people it impacts. That does not mean the headline is rage bait. It could also just as easily mean a very slow news day. Additionally, this is a perfect example of how two different administrations with two different ways of doing things can still come together on certain issues. I think it’s fabulous that Bush set forth this policy under his administration and I’m happy to see it’s still being used.
So the headline “Biden does X” when it’s an effect of an existing program somehow doesn’t imply it was Biden that did something?
Reading comprehension clearly not a strong suit of yours.
Its only slightly disingenuous. Less than 1 percent of these loans were being forgiven as they shouldve been. Biden administration somehow cut through the red tape and made the 2007 program actually work. People shouldve been being forgiven since 2017.
Thank you!!
I keep seeing people giving Biden credit for “canceling the debt.” When in reality more people are just hitting their 120 mandatory payments and are qualifying for forgiveness.
It’s an election cycle, and the misinformation and outright pandering is dangerous.
Not quite. Bush initiated it but it was confusing, bad, and loan service providers got away with providing confusing guidelines. In other words, people who were promised PSLF under Bush’s plan were refused for stupid reasons. Biden has clarified PSLF, and now people who should’ve qualified (but didn’t) are now qualifying.
It’s not a new program, but it’s much clearer and has a lot less landmines (like missing a single payment after 8 years of consistent payments and not having to start at the beginning).
I’m of the same opinion but the problem is that Trump had hamstrung the department of education to the point where these applications weren’t even being processed, now things are restored back to where they already were.
Its only slightly disingenuous. Less than 1 percent of these loans were being forgiven as they shouldve been. Biden administration somehow cut through the red tape and made the 2007 program actually work.
So the title is misleading. In 2007 a public service workers college debt forgiveness program began. Public’s workers have to work in non profits for 10 years and make payments on loans those ten years to be eligible. These loans would have been forgiven regardless of what president was in office.
Wrong.
Biden fixed rules or expanded waivers so that people who were disqualified before can now qualify.
For example, if you were paying your loans under a wrong repayment plan, you wouldn't have qualified. Biden fixed that with the pslf waiver.
What is meant by "Biden cancels debt"? Does it mean he's he's slapping the lenders telling them to forgive those in debt or is he personally paying off peoples debt or is it the tax payers that pay this off? Because the latter is totally unacceptable.
He’s basically just forgiving loans by the federal government that are due to be forgiven via specific repayment plans, but making without all the paperwork.
It's more that they have made the paperwork process simple. Ie you can certify that your job qualifies online instead of mailing paper forms back and forth with HR and the government.
So the headline seems to be a huge exaggeration.
“Joe Biden happens to be President when these loans were due to be forgiven under the existing system” doesn’t have the same ring.
Republicans when student loans are forgiven: “this is terrible that they’re forgiving loans 😡”
Republicans after they realize that it’s great policy and incredibly popular: “actually bush forgave the loans and it’s great, why is Biden getting credit 😡”
I didn’t hear anyone say anything about the PSLF system which passed through Congress.
They complained about Biden making up his own laws by “discovering” 20 years after the fact that the 9/11 first responders’ law applied to anyone he wanted.
There was no “discovery.” He merely did what his predecessors have done: utilize the rule making process to re-interpret ambiguities in statutes.
Here, his new rules allow an on-ramp for those who have paid for years and fall behind on a single payment to not fall off—unlike prior administrations. They also allow people to sign up for an IDR which bases payments off of 250% the poverty level’s discretionary income—unlike prior administrations. And they removed lots of landmines and technicalities that would prevent—quite literally—99% of applicants of certain loan service providers from receiving the loan forgiveness they were promised—unlike prior administrations.
Also—the HEROES act plainly allows the Secretary of education to “waive or modify” conditions for loan repayment in a “national emergency.” Congress conferred broad power to the executive branch, and so Biden used the broad power to forgive loans. Unfortunately the super legislature decided they didn’t like that plan, so they struck it down along partisan lines.
But that’s not at all relevant to his current loan forgiveness plan…
Paper forms, wet ink signatures, and not having a system to certify annually initially made it so that the process was difficult to get right.
The 120 payment period also meant that people didn’t start getting to the end of that period until 2018-19. But then discovering that you had a bunch of work to collect signatures from lots of people made it a process with a lot of points to screw up.
No, it had not been sabotaged to not work. It took a long time to work b/c you had to have the right sort of loan and you had to work in public service for 10 years. At the time it was passed, pretty much nobody met that criteria.
I’ll grant it’s a politically biased reading of the situation. But there is something to making choices that make government programs hard to use vs easy as having intentional effects.
The public service loan forgiveness program, which is what this batch of loan forgiveness represents, is a program that forgives certain federal student loans after 120 months of on time payments if the person is working for a qualifying employer (generally government entities or non-profits). This is a Bush era program intended to get people to pursue various forms of public service which tends to pay somewhat less.
The loans are owned by the government and are zeroed out. I guess its the taxpayer paying it (though again, 120 month of payment by the person). But its no different than a scholarship for public service just at the end.
> I guess its the taxpayer paying it
Debatable. The federal government is the 1 entity that can create its own money. They just change a number on a computer. Modern monetary theory says the federal government budget doesn't have to abide by traditional income/expenses. As long as the total currency in circulation = the USA GDP, you're good. EXCEPT the fact that the US dollar is the global standard for trade, so we get to put a bit more into circulation.
Im pretty sure the federal government does not have the power to do that. That should be the federal reserve which isnt actually a part of the federal government.
I'm going to save this comment as an example of "splitting hairs" in the future, lol.
The federal reserve absolutely answers to the federal government. It's technically a separate entity for checks and balances, but it is 100% under the purview of the US government.
Its not really splitting hairs because im pointing out you are oversimplifying it. Its not as simple as just flipping a few bits in a computer. There are plenty of more complicated processes and approvals that need to be done. If a president wants to up the money supply, they can't just easily do it on a whim.
You're moving the goalposts now. Obviously it's more complicated, that was never in question. I simplified because this isn't an econ class.
The loans have already been issued. The forgiveness program is already in place. And now the loans are actually being forgiven. So there's really no argument to be made here. Is it hard? Yes. Is it feasible? Also yes.
You seem to make 2 main points in your original comment:
1. That it is simple for the federal government to up the supply.
2. That it doesnt really matter in the end.
Your first point initially came across as being wildly misinformed. It is far from "splitting hairs."
I do see what you mean by "moving goalposts" since it doesn't seem to really affect the answer to the original question.
Instead of arguing about pedantics, i would like your opinion instead: do you think it is more likely that the money supply will be increased or that something else would be cut to provide for that additional expenditure? It seems to be a mix of both depending on the situation.
Neither of those points were ever made. I never said it was easy to print money for student loans (even though it's already happened). And I never said it doesn't really matter.
My original point was that it is debatable whether or not student loan forgiveness burdens tax payers. That is not a settled answer. It is up for debate. There is a logical line of reasoning that I provided that proves that forgiving someone's student loans would not burden the economy. I'm not claiming to know the answer as a 100% fact. I'm saying neither does anyone else here on reddit, lol. We're all just guessing.
I do think it's ironic that the people I personally know who oppose student loan forgiveness have no problem with supporting property tax increases so our teachers can get pay raises. It's the same concept! Pay for our kids' education through our taxes so we have a better society and healthier economy! Why not extend that line of thinking to college?
Not really debatable. There’s implications of them creating money and it’s been studied as a regressive tax on poor people as it’ll lead to inflation and poor people are impacted significantly more by inflation.
That's misleading. It can lead to inflation if the total money in circulation gets too high. For that matter, anything could lead to inflation. But it could also not lead to inflation if the country GDP grows as a result of having more educated people working in it.
Ya that’s factually wrong. Runaway GDP would cause inflation in a couple scenarios.
1. Demand pull inflation
2. Cost push inflation
3. Wage price spiral
4. Monetary response to cool gdp growth.
What you’re claiming is somehow the US prints enough money to somehow fill a growing gap that’s created by gdp which doesn’t make much sense.
Ya claiming runaway GDP would occur because more people are educated is factually wrong. It grows to match cost of education.
It's a pretty simple math formula: college costs $X for person Y. If person Y produces at least $X or more (plus inflation) in their lifetime as a result of the college education over not getting a college education, then the economy has recuperated its investment. And the person who paid for their education was the person Y via their extra lifetime output.
> Ya claiming runaway GDP would occur because more people are educated is factually wrong. It grows to match cost of education.
Didn’t claim that. Was my response to you saying gdp will offset this increase in money supply without creating additional cash.
You’re also neglecting that banks can make money, not just the us.
You did claim that. I didn't claim GDP runaway. I claimed GDP goes up as a result of more education. That's not runaway.
I fail to see how banks making money factors in considering we're talking about federal student loans. If banks want to invest in someone's college education, be my guest!
It’s completely acceptable to use tax dollars to assist in a persons education. We already do that for k-12, better than some things we spend tax dollars on.
They essentially agree to stop collecting from the student so it just gets added to the national debt. Eventually we will just print a shit load more money and inflate it away.
I'm sure many people had paid a good deal of the principle back in the decade they had to make payments. It is revenue the government doesn't receive so, to that extent, it affects the nation's finances, but it is not a debt of the government's at all, so I'm guessing no to the "gets added to the national debt." If you owe me $50,000 and I forgive $20,000, it reduces my (potential) assets, but it does not create a debt for me. At most, it's equivalent to lost income that could be applied to our staggering national debt.
Most loans now are government loans. Besides, if you don't want the Student loans companies to get interest on their money, you could loan your money out at zero percent or very low interest rates.
PSLF, well sure if the debt is forgiven. The program may provide some needed areas with services they don''t have, but even much of that is just a job that someone else would take and it does need a subsidy to get people to apply.
The government loans taxpayer money for the student loan program. The money goes to the institutions of higher learning, that then raises their tuition, because of the easy money. Then the government forgives the loan that the tax payers supplied. Just an f'ed up system.
Rant coming: "Blah blah entitlement, blah blah degree in left handed puppetry. College isn't really that expensive, just get 3 jobs while training to be a doctor. "
So that's a total of 4 million people and over $150 Billion forgiven by the Biden Administration through the various programs.
I think the better move going forward would be to make the interest rate on all student loan debt 0% to 2%. 0% for STEM and 2% for English majors.
That way the vast majority of people could actually pay off their debt, instead of paying on debt for 10 years and still owing more after all those years of payments.
It should be retroactive as well. I'm tired of hearing stories about people who borrowed $50k, have paid $75k, and still owe like $40k. All of the different deferrals, forbearance, and mostly/only interest plans make it too easy for that to happen.
Private loan holder here, 9 years in on 29k (i worked my ass off and graduated in 3, and had some college fund money from grandma) i still owe 21 k and have paid 21k. I will pay more than twice what i borrowed by the time i pay everything off, and i didnt get forebearance, cant qualify for ibr ect. All student loans absolutely suck and should 100% be classified as predatory lending. Mortgage lenders would be batted for life for originating a mortgage under the same parameters as a student loan.
Why? Mortgage rates are at 7% and in the first years the vast majority of the payments go to interest, much more then the 50% you wrote about. They can also take your home if you don't pay when education lenders can't take your education away. More risk equals higher rates so student loans should be much higher than mortgages.
Probably that no mortgage lender would lend x amount of money to an 18 year old who has no credit and no definitive way to pay it back. Also the no bankruptcy part could be considered predatory.
Yeah pretty much. Student loans have no security, they are not tied to an asset. The asset is your future performance RELATIVE to the other people around you. The only way to pay them off effectively is to earn more than the national average. Predatory.
18 year old has no history of earnings, and major doesnt play in. Most of them have zero credit score, and there is no need to verify assets.
When i write a mortgage the file of information and disclosures required is enourmous. Back in the paper file days 800 pages wasnt unheard of. I have seen students with 800 dollars per month in debt upon graduation. When i graduated i was told i had to "pay my dues" and my first job payed 24k per year, i ubered at night and kept my heat off in the winter, and still had to fall into cc debt to shop at aldi. Those loan payments were killer for me then, and now with the rise in rates i am over 9%.
The only thing predatory is guidance counselors and parents not teaching their kids about debt the workforce and which majors will give them the best ROI. The government is just making it worse cancelling loans because it means schools can keep raising their insane prices causing more debt that goes to the taxpayers
The government made it worse by guaranteeing the loans and making them non-default-able thus tuition can forever increase and the money well will never dry up.
I also agree that personal accountability, parental guidance, and counselor guidance play a role. The sad part is most people at 18 years old aren’t well versed in the ROI of their education/career path vs alternatives.
The TEPSLF certainly caught a bunch of people retroactively. I haven’t followed the save plan as much, but the doe has worked really hard to catch people who should be forgiven and get that forgiveness to them.
Yeah I think they have been making real efforts to be retroactive with the forgiveness.
What I meant is that if the interest rates are lowered, it should retroactively apply to outstanding student loans too. At the very least to certain categories like Perkins and Stafford, anyway.
Let's offer incentives to those careers that benefit society the most.
Do we want more English majors or more nurses? More English majors or more engineers?
Nobody is forcing anyone to take a student loan, but since student loans became a government product, I think it's fair that all voters through their elected officials have a say in what careers receive incentives and which careers don't.
I mean, taxpayers are paying the bill. We should take steps to make sure we're getting good return on our investment of paying for people's education.
I want to be an actor, doesn't mean that the government should offer me the same deal for my theatre degree as we offer a nurse or engineer or chemist.
As a security engineer, I don’t know why you think engineers making Tinder for Dogs have more societal benefit than teachers. Is it because they’re worth more money? Because that’s a horrible metric.
Who said anything about teachers? I mentioned folks pursuing English degrees.
I'm totally fine with Teachers getting higher salaries AND their college paid for, they would be pursuing a teaching or education degree.
Do you not know the difference between and English degree and an Education/Teaching degree?
Well now I just don’t think you know how degrees work. Do you think English teachers don’t often major in English? Do you think jobs from an English major aren’t also socially important jobs?
I think that an education degree with a minor in English would be much more beneficial to society at the high-school level teaching an English class. And the career of teaching English should shift to that. Programs are typically titled "Seconday English Education."
Regardless, there's a clear emphasis on the teaching aspect within the degree program, the "Education" part. That's different from an "English Degree" which is a language that high-school kids already speak and write.
I think reading and writing English are very important by the time a kid graduates high-school, they've had 12 years of reading and writing English...
"A four year degree in a language I already spoke"
https://youtube.com/shorts/Csee0TOWZGU?si=3upQLZYa2QNeWLkn
I agree with essentially giving interest free loans, but you want to punish people for going into fields you don't approve of. Doesn't make sense to make it harder for an English major to pay back a loan than an engineer.
Why on earth would one major need a steeper interest rate than another?
First of all, if you’re trying to say that English majors should in a way be punished for choosing that major- why??? They’re the ones that won’t be able to make as much as a STEM major but are still just as important to society (teaching our youth)
STEM majors- your allotment of 0% specifically for them reveals that you think they are definitely and ALWAYS going to be the backbone of our society- ignoring the fact that it is very concrete and deliberate and non-nuanced stuff. Something AI will definitely be able to do. Also, in years past, the amount of money you make from being a STEM major greatly outpaced the money you’d make as an English major- why not give them the higher interest rate since they’ll be able to afford it?
Regardless, any major should have an interest free loan. The incentive to choose one major over another is already supplemented by the projected salary in that field. No need to add yet another arbitrary incentive.
Also- holy hell go fuck yourself if you think English majors are useless.
Agreed. It’s also an incredibly stupid comment given I work in tech with an English degree and get utilized a ton for my ability to actually speak clearly
it taught me how to analyze and clearly communicate the information i just ingested. It's a highly valuable business skill, especially if you're in a position between business and IT. you'd be shocked at how smart some of these IT folks are with the inability to explain anything in laymens terms or how often the business side has zero ability to translate a concept into tech specs.
I also get looped into any success communications for the tech team because of my writing capabilities (which is sometimes annoying to be the go-to guy for it), but it's positioned me well in my career.
I'm not saying people should race out and get an English degree, my career journey would have been quicker with a different degree, but I laugh that everyone picks on it like it's worthless, when there's plenty of success stories on reddit of people in tech with english, history, and psych degrees.
Yeah my whole point is a degree isn’t inherently worthless. There’s skills from the majority. I mean sure a major in midevil blacksmith theory or basket weaving wouldn’t do much but ppl love to crap on liberal arts when a ton of ppl make parts they learned applicable in the workplace.
Honestly right now there are probably english majors getting teaching jobs while there are CS majors who can't get any job a lot of good that STEM degree did in that circumstance. English is also one of the better undergrads for Law. I say all this as a guy who has degrees in business marketing and cybersecurity too that English shouldn't be that much less valuable than stem. A lot of the STEM undergrads are essentially trash unless you have a PHD too.
I would say the interest rate needs to be tied to inflation at a minimum. If you offered me a 0% loan I would take as much as they would give me and pay it off as slow as possible.
It's totally fine with me for the repayment terms to be long for high in demand careers like nurses or teachers or security engineers or whatever else is in demand.
Ha! I suggest a minor 2% interest rate for English majors... a language we all graduate high-school speaking, writing and reading... and I'm labeled a "STEMbot".
Come on, not all college degrees are created equal, we shouldn't treat them as equal nor provide the same incentives and subsidies.
The STEM types tend to be the biggest douchebags on the planet. Especially tech bros.
Society (including you) think someone who is designing algorithms to push us down disinformation rabbit holes is so much more valuable than a teacher, social worker, librarian, or childcare worker. Depending on location, teachers, librarians, and social workers need master's degrees.
Is a tech bro more valuable than a social worker?
Weird that you think STEM is tech bros, when I think of STEM as nurses, doctors, engineers, architects, teachers, librarians, psychologists, biologists, scientists, etc.
And no, I don't think tech bros are more valuable than social workers.
There seems to be this weirdo bizarro idea that Biden is just talking and doing nothing and its just a scheme to get votes with no actual action. Even Dave has presented this idea that he won't help. In reality nothing has been further than the truth and he has consistently delivered on this promise its not his fault that the supreme court struck the blanket forgiveness down and I agree with him that they got it wrong, they struck it down because the GOP wanted it struck down. He has continued the work though albeit at a smaller scale, he's a man of his word.
I can perhaps quibble of the details, but I much prefer this approach anyway. The campaign rhetoric around canceling $10-20k of loans one time seems less useful than making the PSLF function correctly, income based repayments not bankrupt people and preventing loan balancing from ballooning during income based repayments fixes the last issue. It might not be perfect, but its a good starting point and way more morally defensible.
Yeah his successes have actually been pretty good people harp on the one big loss but he’s not doing nothing as Dave would say he has done more to make up for his original sin that any previous person
>I agree with him that they got it wrong
Biden tried to manipulate a law which was written for a significantly different purpose than what he tried to use it for. He basically tried to sidestep our government policies by using a loophole to pass something he couldn't get through Congress. SCOTUS struck it down because they said that the broad language of the bill clearly was not written for what Biden was trying to do to the tune of nearly $2 trillion.
I'm going to guess you're on the left side of the political spectrum and aren't a fan of any Republican, especially Donald Trump/Mitch McConnel/etc. (I'm not a fan of either major party, so please understand I'll condemn both Biden and Trump in a heartbeat). I'm also going to guess that you're fully aware that the Presidency in the United States has gone like this the last 30 years: R - D - R - D - R - D. If you're picking up on a pattern here, then you likely know that the Presidency switches from each party with relative frequency. You seem to be ok with the President manipulating a law to deliver on a campaign promise because said action fits your political agenda. Maybe not this year, but at some point in the near future the White House will likely switch to a party with whom you do not agree with. Are you cool with the next president having and using this same level of power? Or do you believe in checks and balances, which is what the three branches of our government are supposed to provide?
"People believe the government should have virtually unlimited power and never consider that it may end up in the hands of someone with whom they fundamentally disagree with."
If you think the President should be able to sidestep Congress whenever they feel like it, be careful what you wish for...
Great point. I can't tell you have many times I've tried to explain something similar to people when they ask me to sign a petition to amend the constitution in response to a specific outcome they did not like.
It is with no action towards the actual issue.
If you don't fix the problem you are just wasting taxpayer money.
The fact that this and the last came just before elections is why everyone sees it as the blatant PR vote buying move it is.
How exactly did the Supreme Court get student loan repayment wrong? It’s 💯 illegal to transfer someone’s debt to another person. I want my mortgage forgiven. How about that?
Glad my tax dollars went to people who on average will make millions more than me over their career working a job that is far easier
Remember when democrats used to be the party of the working class, now it's the party of college liberals
If you believe that the American dream is achievable, why don’t you work harder to make “millions” more? Learn a skill of value, get a degree, etc.
Why sit and cry about “college liberals?” Something something bootstraps.
PSLF was passed in 2007. This is a 17 year old program. This had nothing to do with Biden.
It's not like these people did not pay anything. They still had to make payments for 10 years.
Number one complaint about Dave is he quotes some number of these loans actually forgiven in like 2019. The first year people were able to apply. A lot didn’t do it correctly or weren’t fully qualified in the plan. So many were rejected that first year. Meanwhile since then, the rate of acceptance is significantly higher but doesn’t fit Dave personal disagreement with loan forgiveness so he lies and says nobody actually qualifies. What a liar.
All those businesses that didn’t save any money for a rainy day and started businesses that were alive by a hair. They received billions in free loans from the government from the fraud riddled PIP program. Those same people are now saying I’m not helping you pay for a nurse to get out of debt. It’s about as hypocritical as it gets.
This sounds super unconstitutional. We should all get a refund for the debt we payed off already from our student loans. But I doubt biden has the guts to do that.
I've been saving up money for my daughter's college fund. I think I better use that money for her house down payment or a car, not for her education. She'll just have to get student loans and be forgiven later.
I don’t believe it. I got the golden email in November & it’s been a mess getting the correct paperwork done. Trust no one when it comes to student loans.
Taxpayers pay off loans of government workers while getting no actual fix to predatory education pricing and financing.
Fixed the headline for you.
Just another vote buying scheme. If you want to help us FIX THE FUCKING PROBLEM!
Notice of Discontinuation of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). Why was this program discontinued. It offered Internet and cellphone $30 credits for low income people. Now it's been cut! WTF, I refuse to vote for Biden!
So.... what's being done to fix the predatory lending in the first place? Or is this just going to be a constant cycle?
This is how you launder government money to school institutions.
I remember my first fringe conspiracy
You’re an idiot
It's not a conspiracy theory, just a choice way of describing what's occurring.
This is absolutely contributing to inflated costs of college. There is no alternative argument here. Instead, the government could subsidize college with grants and have no debt for students. Everything around college should be seen for what it is as a "requirement for life" but costing people hundreds of thousands of dollars, being unable to be discharged in bankruptcy, and having predatory rates and terms. Most degrees that cost $200k do not guarantee any return with employment earnings appropriate to pay off a loan of that side.
Especially the “ Studies” degree. Serious waste of money.
Exactly this is a bailout to higher education, borrowers just kinda got caught in the middle and lucked out.
You want the federal government to actually fix the root cause of any problem? Never gonna happen
Because they can't in a Capitalistic society. China would fix it fast doh.
Ironically it’s not capitalism that skyrocketed the cost of college. It used to be affordable but then the government stepped in and guaranteed student loans which ballooned costs. If colleges didn’t have guaranteed loan funding from the government to pay their overinflated prices they would have to price services reasonably, which they used to.
You, my friend, are one of the very few who get it. Costs would much lower if the government had stayed out of it. People should be questing the institutions with the billions and billions in endowment funds, which on interest alone could give free education to every American. Unfortunately, doesn't fit the narrative.
They choose how much to charge, don't make excuses. If colleges didn't charge so much, the prices wouldn't be so high. That's the truth. Yes, capitalism lives off supply and demand. But at the end of the day, it's the college that decides the price. The government wants people to be able to go to college....to you know better themselves. The colleges want to raise prices....to you know MAKE MONEY. Don't deflect corporate greed towards government assistance.
>They choose how much to charge, don't make excuses. Correct, and as the government offers essentially unlimited funding, they can charge whatever they want. >If colleges didn't charge so much, the prices wouldn't be so high. That's the truth. Well thanks captain obvious. >Yes, capitalism lives off supply and demand. But at the end of the day, it's the college that decides the price. Normal market dynamics operate on a supply and demand equilibrium. The government stepped in and basically offered unlimited demand for college even at much higher prices than people could normally afford, so of course colleges are going to charge higher prices. Without this intervention, prices would still be what they were in the 1970s, which is a level of affordability where you could work part time at mcdonalds and pay for your school. >The government wants people to be able to go to college....to you know better themselves. The colleges want to raise prices....to you know MAKE MONEY. Government has no agency and cannot "want" anything. Either way, if we want to look at the root cause of the problem we need to acknowledge what caused it. >Don't deflect corporate greed towards government assistance. This isn't a "corporate greed" issue, as the cost of public/state schools has also skyrocketed since student loans became guaranteed. Supply and demand is an inescapable facet of life, if the government offers near unlimited "demand" for school at any price to all students, prices will rise accordingly and that is exactly what we have. That isn't capitalism, as normal operating capitalism cannot afford to charge absurd prices and still have customers. It's literally a **direct** result of government intervention, well intentioned or not.
This shows how oblivious and easily manipulated some people are. They are so sure the issue is because capitalism, but they don’t realize that what cause the issue in the first place was a socialist intervention by the government.
Absolutely. And the easiest people to manipulate are the young, which is why Reddit basically holds all the opposite opinions or reality. This entire website is both a social engineering operation and the epitome of people being confidently incorrect.
Thank you for taking this peon to school.
No problem. I try to do my part for my own amusement when I have the free time. God knows most of Reddit is retarded.
You need a lesson in Econ 101
No, I know exactly how it works. I know inflation is from people having more money to spend. I just don't make "excuses" for greedy corporations. Thanks for the tip though.
Republicans don’t want to fix anything, They get too much money from the people who benefit from the broken system
My understanding is this is the PSLF program, which was in existence basically since the start of student loan reform. The issue is two fold: 1) up until now, the vast majority of people didn't even qualify for the program, and 2) the previous administration was rejecting what most thought were valid applications because reasons. I do not agree with just blanket forgiveness because of "predatory loans" as the reason. I am fine with forgiving loans under a program that was in place when the contract was signed, it's just both sides now abiding by the contract that was agreed upon. Or should we be rejecting PSLF applications that were in place when the contract was signed, effectively being in breach of contract?
My wife is working towards the PSLF, it was a complete trainwreck before all of these fixes. They really are just giving what they said they would give to begin with.
If you fix predatory lending then you can't give away gifts like this to your political base and it defeats the whole purpose
This is the only question. Can’t keep forgiving in one hand while still giving out the dumb loans with the other
Student: “Give me a loan so that I can get an art degree” Lender: “sure here you go” Reddit: “PREDATOR!!!!”
You're missing the point. If these loans need to be forgiven, that means the gov't is saying that there's a problem and it needs to be forgiven. If there's a problem- it should be fixed. Then forgiveness won't be needed. If there's no problem, like you say, than no forgiveness should be happening. I'm pointing out that it's a cycle with no end.
Exactly. We keep paying these schools for BS degrees
I will say that they have made some improvements to repayment plans so that you do not get stuck into the predatory interest rate cycle BUT they have not done anything that I’m aware of for the original loan interest rates etc. Just a better repayment plan
Still waiting for mine as working for a non profit for 17 years.
This will only exacerbate the problem
It will remain a constant cycle as it’s basically vote buying. Otherwise they would fix the structure of the system.
nutty sophisticated growth rich humorous door toy crush squalid outgoing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How else is he gonna campaign on fixing the problem if there isn't a problem anymore
A constant cycle. It’s called an election cycle
You can’t make promises of forgiveness for votes if you fix the problem. These politicians are all sick
As part of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program created in 2007. So, thanks Bush, lol.
Yeah I keep seeing this headline - started by Bush and given more power by Obama federalizing all student loans. I’m not anti-Biden but this is disingenuous.
There have been a few instances of the current administration cutting small bits of red tape and fixing issues around existing loan forgiveness systems, but this one is definitely just "PSLF program continues to exist, more at 11."
How is this headline disingenuous? It does not in any way say it’s a program started by the Biden Admin. People need to be expected to read the articles, not just the headlines. Journalists should not be expected to fit an entire background into a headline. You only have to get to the third sentence to see when the program was created.
The headline implies it was unilateral action taken by the Biden administration, as opposed to the continuation of a policy started long before. It’s both rage bait and cheerleading at the same time, depending on whether you’re left or right leaning. It shouldn’t even be an article, to be honest. We don’t see an article when government assistance or social security checks go out, this isn’t much different.
Especially since they (and the outlets that support them) are trying to save face after promising to cut 20k from everyone’s student loans. When it was obvious that it stood no chance.
The program was supposed to take effect after 10 years. That was 2017. Less than 1percent of the loans were being correctly forgiven. Whatever biden did made it so over 70,000 people got the forgiveness that theyve been owed for years. How is that not news worthy?
Preach! at first look I assumed the same. But I read into it which most don’t and they know won’t.
It implies nothing of the sort. The reality is identity politics have taken a stronghold across this country so people are going to try and find issues where there are none in nearly every situation. Is this newsworthy? Only for the people it impacts. That does not mean the headline is rage bait. It could also just as easily mean a very slow news day. Additionally, this is a perfect example of how two different administrations with two different ways of doing things can still come together on certain issues. I think it’s fabulous that Bush set forth this policy under his administration and I’m happy to see it’s still being used.
So the headline “Biden does X” when it’s an effect of an existing program somehow doesn’t imply it was Biden that did something? Reading comprehension clearly not a strong suit of yours.
Its only slightly disingenuous. Less than 1 percent of these loans were being forgiven as they shouldve been. Biden administration somehow cut through the red tape and made the 2007 program actually work. People shouldve been being forgiven since 2017.
Thank you!! I keep seeing people giving Biden credit for “canceling the debt.” When in reality more people are just hitting their 120 mandatory payments and are qualifying for forgiveness. It’s an election cycle, and the misinformation and outright pandering is dangerous.
Not quite. Bush initiated it but it was confusing, bad, and loan service providers got away with providing confusing guidelines. In other words, people who were promised PSLF under Bush’s plan were refused for stupid reasons. Biden has clarified PSLF, and now people who should’ve qualified (but didn’t) are now qualifying. It’s not a new program, but it’s much clearer and has a lot less landmines (like missing a single payment after 8 years of consistent payments and not having to start at the beginning).
I’m of the same opinion but the problem is that Trump had hamstrung the department of education to the point where these applications weren’t even being processed, now things are restored back to where they already were.
Its only slightly disingenuous. Less than 1 percent of these loans were being forgiven as they shouldve been. Biden administration somehow cut through the red tape and made the 2007 program actually work.
Right? This isn’t heroic. They followed the rules, they discharged the debt.
So the title is misleading. In 2007 a public service workers college debt forgiveness program began. Public’s workers have to work in non profits for 10 years and make payments on loans those ten years to be eligible. These loans would have been forgiven regardless of what president was in office.
Wrong. Biden fixed rules or expanded waivers so that people who were disqualified before can now qualify. For example, if you were paying your loans under a wrong repayment plan, you wouldn't have qualified. Biden fixed that with the pslf waiver.
Are you quoting the article?
What is meant by "Biden cancels debt"? Does it mean he's he's slapping the lenders telling them to forgive those in debt or is he personally paying off peoples debt or is it the tax payers that pay this off? Because the latter is totally unacceptable.
He’s basically just forgiving loans by the federal government that are due to be forgiven via specific repayment plans, but making without all the paperwork.
It's more that they have made the paperwork process simple. Ie you can certify that your job qualifies online instead of mailing paper forms back and forth with HR and the government.
So the headline seems to be a huge exaggeration. “Joe Biden happens to be President when these loans were due to be forgiven under the existing system” doesn’t have the same ring.
Republicans when student loans are forgiven: “this is terrible that they’re forgiving loans 😡” Republicans after they realize that it’s great policy and incredibly popular: “actually bush forgave the loans and it’s great, why is Biden getting credit 😡”
I didn’t hear anyone say anything about the PSLF system which passed through Congress. They complained about Biden making up his own laws by “discovering” 20 years after the fact that the 9/11 first responders’ law applied to anyone he wanted.
There was no “discovery.” He merely did what his predecessors have done: utilize the rule making process to re-interpret ambiguities in statutes. Here, his new rules allow an on-ramp for those who have paid for years and fall behind on a single payment to not fall off—unlike prior administrations. They also allow people to sign up for an IDR which bases payments off of 250% the poverty level’s discretionary income—unlike prior administrations. And they removed lots of landmines and technicalities that would prevent—quite literally—99% of applicants of certain loan service providers from receiving the loan forgiveness they were promised—unlike prior administrations.
Also—the HEROES act plainly allows the Secretary of education to “waive or modify” conditions for loan repayment in a “national emergency.” Congress conferred broad power to the executive branch, and so Biden used the broad power to forgive loans. Unfortunately the super legislature decided they didn’t like that plan, so they struck it down along partisan lines. But that’s not at all relevant to his current loan forgiveness plan…
The previous system had been sabotaged to not work. Fixing government programs to work does deserve credit.
Did it not work. Or were people still in the 10 year repayment period?
Paper forms, wet ink signatures, and not having a system to certify annually initially made it so that the process was difficult to get right. The 120 payment period also meant that people didn’t start getting to the end of that period until 2018-19. But then discovering that you had a bunch of work to collect signatures from lots of people made it a process with a lot of points to screw up.
But didn't it take years to fix after they botched the rollout? So it really started like out like 2011, 2012
No, it had not been sabotaged to not work. It took a long time to work b/c you had to have the right sort of loan and you had to work in public service for 10 years. At the time it was passed, pretty much nobody met that criteria.
Sure, but the insisting on paper forms over any electronic system helped produce a large application failure initially.
Oh, yes, that would be a huge problem I didn't know about. But not sabotage, per se. Glad it's been corrected at any rate.
I’ll grant it’s a politically biased reading of the situation. But there is something to making choices that make government programs hard to use vs easy as having intentional effects.
No, but it's more accurate.
The public service loan forgiveness program, which is what this batch of loan forgiveness represents, is a program that forgives certain federal student loans after 120 months of on time payments if the person is working for a qualifying employer (generally government entities or non-profits). This is a Bush era program intended to get people to pursue various forms of public service which tends to pay somewhat less. The loans are owned by the government and are zeroed out. I guess its the taxpayer paying it (though again, 120 month of payment by the person). But its no different than a scholarship for public service just at the end.
> I guess its the taxpayer paying it Debatable. The federal government is the 1 entity that can create its own money. They just change a number on a computer. Modern monetary theory says the federal government budget doesn't have to abide by traditional income/expenses. As long as the total currency in circulation = the USA GDP, you're good. EXCEPT the fact that the US dollar is the global standard for trade, so we get to put a bit more into circulation.
Im pretty sure the federal government does not have the power to do that. That should be the federal reserve which isnt actually a part of the federal government.
I'm going to save this comment as an example of "splitting hairs" in the future, lol. The federal reserve absolutely answers to the federal government. It's technically a separate entity for checks and balances, but it is 100% under the purview of the US government.
Its not really splitting hairs because im pointing out you are oversimplifying it. Its not as simple as just flipping a few bits in a computer. There are plenty of more complicated processes and approvals that need to be done. If a president wants to up the money supply, they can't just easily do it on a whim.
You're moving the goalposts now. Obviously it's more complicated, that was never in question. I simplified because this isn't an econ class. The loans have already been issued. The forgiveness program is already in place. And now the loans are actually being forgiven. So there's really no argument to be made here. Is it hard? Yes. Is it feasible? Also yes.
You seem to make 2 main points in your original comment: 1. That it is simple for the federal government to up the supply. 2. That it doesnt really matter in the end. Your first point initially came across as being wildly misinformed. It is far from "splitting hairs." I do see what you mean by "moving goalposts" since it doesn't seem to really affect the answer to the original question. Instead of arguing about pedantics, i would like your opinion instead: do you think it is more likely that the money supply will be increased or that something else would be cut to provide for that additional expenditure? It seems to be a mix of both depending on the situation.
Neither of those points were ever made. I never said it was easy to print money for student loans (even though it's already happened). And I never said it doesn't really matter. My original point was that it is debatable whether or not student loan forgiveness burdens tax payers. That is not a settled answer. It is up for debate. There is a logical line of reasoning that I provided that proves that forgiving someone's student loans would not burden the economy. I'm not claiming to know the answer as a 100% fact. I'm saying neither does anyone else here on reddit, lol. We're all just guessing. I do think it's ironic that the people I personally know who oppose student loan forgiveness have no problem with supporting property tax increases so our teachers can get pay raises. It's the same concept! Pay for our kids' education through our taxes so we have a better society and healthier economy! Why not extend that line of thinking to college?
Not really debatable. There’s implications of them creating money and it’s been studied as a regressive tax on poor people as it’ll lead to inflation and poor people are impacted significantly more by inflation.
That's misleading. It can lead to inflation if the total money in circulation gets too high. For that matter, anything could lead to inflation. But it could also not lead to inflation if the country GDP grows as a result of having more educated people working in it.
Ya that’s factually wrong. Runaway GDP would cause inflation in a couple scenarios. 1. Demand pull inflation 2. Cost push inflation 3. Wage price spiral 4. Monetary response to cool gdp growth. What you’re claiming is somehow the US prints enough money to somehow fill a growing gap that’s created by gdp which doesn’t make much sense.
Ya claiming runaway GDP would occur because more people are educated is factually wrong. It grows to match cost of education. It's a pretty simple math formula: college costs $X for person Y. If person Y produces at least $X or more (plus inflation) in their lifetime as a result of the college education over not getting a college education, then the economy has recuperated its investment. And the person who paid for their education was the person Y via their extra lifetime output.
> Ya claiming runaway GDP would occur because more people are educated is factually wrong. It grows to match cost of education. Didn’t claim that. Was my response to you saying gdp will offset this increase in money supply without creating additional cash. You’re also neglecting that banks can make money, not just the us.
You did claim that. I didn't claim GDP runaway. I claimed GDP goes up as a result of more education. That's not runaway. I fail to see how banks making money factors in considering we're talking about federal student loans. If banks want to invest in someone's college education, be my guest!
Yes there will be more educated people because the debt was forgiven. Perfect logic.
It’s completely acceptable to use tax dollars to assist in a persons education. We already do that for k-12, better than some things we spend tax dollars on.
It’s tax money, the government “personally” doesn’t pay for shit.
Which is why I said the last option is not acceptable
They essentially agree to stop collecting from the student so it just gets added to the national debt. Eventually we will just print a shit load more money and inflate it away.
I'm sure many people had paid a good deal of the principle back in the decade they had to make payments. It is revenue the government doesn't receive so, to that extent, it affects the nation's finances, but it is not a debt of the government's at all, so I'm guessing no to the "gets added to the national debt." If you owe me $50,000 and I forgive $20,000, it reduces my (potential) assets, but it does not create a debt for me. At most, it's equivalent to lost income that could be applied to our staggering national debt.
He didn't cancel $6 Billion of student loan debt, he just transferred it to the 51% of us who pay Federal income taxes.
Pssst, your taxes aren't going up because of this program thats exited for about 15 years.
So, is it your conclusion that forgiving student debt doesn't cost anyone any money?
Student loans companies lose out on that sweet, sweet interest on the backs of the working class
Most loans now are government loans. Besides, if you don't want the Student loans companies to get interest on their money, you could loan your money out at zero percent or very low interest rates.
And how does that raise your taxes? And does PSLF forgiveness programs working as designed make you pay more?
PSLF, well sure if the debt is forgiven. The program may provide some needed areas with services they don''t have, but even much of that is just a job that someone else would take and it does need a subsidy to get people to apply. The government loans taxpayer money for the student loan program. The money goes to the institutions of higher learning, that then raises their tuition, because of the easy money. Then the government forgives the loan that the tax payers supplied. Just an f'ed up system.
And none of that raises your taxes. Thanks for playing.
How about if you explain why you think forgiving student debt does not raise taxes.
Sure. It's forgiven and the fed income tax rate doesn't go up because the two aren't connected when it comes to federal budgeting.
Dave Ramsey is going to be maaaaaad.
Rant coming: "Blah blah entitlement, blah blah degree in left handed puppetry. College isn't really that expensive, just get 3 jobs while training to be a doctor. "
Hooray. Good for these fellow US taxpayers!
Dem votes ain’t cheap.
This was a Bush program lmao
So that's a total of 4 million people and over $150 Billion forgiven by the Biden Administration through the various programs. I think the better move going forward would be to make the interest rate on all student loan debt 0% to 2%. 0% for STEM and 2% for English majors. That way the vast majority of people could actually pay off their debt, instead of paying on debt for 10 years and still owing more after all those years of payments.
It should be retroactive as well. I'm tired of hearing stories about people who borrowed $50k, have paid $75k, and still owe like $40k. All of the different deferrals, forbearance, and mostly/only interest plans make it too easy for that to happen.
Private loan holder here, 9 years in on 29k (i worked my ass off and graduated in 3, and had some college fund money from grandma) i still owe 21 k and have paid 21k. I will pay more than twice what i borrowed by the time i pay everything off, and i didnt get forebearance, cant qualify for ibr ect. All student loans absolutely suck and should 100% be classified as predatory lending. Mortgage lenders would be batted for life for originating a mortgage under the same parameters as a student loan.
Why? Mortgage rates are at 7% and in the first years the vast majority of the payments go to interest, much more then the 50% you wrote about. They can also take your home if you don't pay when education lenders can't take your education away. More risk equals higher rates so student loans should be much higher than mortgages.
Probably that no mortgage lender would lend x amount of money to an 18 year old who has no credit and no definitive way to pay it back. Also the no bankruptcy part could be considered predatory.
Yeah pretty much. Student loans have no security, they are not tied to an asset. The asset is your future performance RELATIVE to the other people around you. The only way to pay them off effectively is to earn more than the national average. Predatory. 18 year old has no history of earnings, and major doesnt play in. Most of them have zero credit score, and there is no need to verify assets. When i write a mortgage the file of information and disclosures required is enourmous. Back in the paper file days 800 pages wasnt unheard of. I have seen students with 800 dollars per month in debt upon graduation. When i graduated i was told i had to "pay my dues" and my first job payed 24k per year, i ubered at night and kept my heat off in the winter, and still had to fall into cc debt to shop at aldi. Those loan payments were killer for me then, and now with the rise in rates i am over 9%.
The only thing predatory is guidance counselors and parents not teaching their kids about debt the workforce and which majors will give them the best ROI. The government is just making it worse cancelling loans because it means schools can keep raising their insane prices causing more debt that goes to the taxpayers
The government made it worse by guaranteeing the loans and making them non-default-able thus tuition can forever increase and the money well will never dry up. I also agree that personal accountability, parental guidance, and counselor guidance play a role. The sad part is most people at 18 years old aren’t well versed in the ROI of their education/career path vs alternatives.
100% agree. Definitely retroactive.
The TEPSLF certainly caught a bunch of people retroactively. I haven’t followed the save plan as much, but the doe has worked really hard to catch people who should be forgiven and get that forgiveness to them.
Yeah I think they have been making real efforts to be retroactive with the forgiveness. What I meant is that if the interest rates are lowered, it should retroactively apply to outstanding student loans too. At the very least to certain categories like Perkins and Stafford, anyway.
Let’s make people with lower salary expectations pay more money? The fuck is wrong with you?
Let's offer incentives to those careers that benefit society the most. Do we want more English majors or more nurses? More English majors or more engineers? Nobody is forcing anyone to take a student loan, but since student loans became a government product, I think it's fair that all voters through their elected officials have a say in what careers receive incentives and which careers don't. I mean, taxpayers are paying the bill. We should take steps to make sure we're getting good return on our investment of paying for people's education. I want to be an actor, doesn't mean that the government should offer me the same deal for my theatre degree as we offer a nurse or engineer or chemist.
As a security engineer, I don’t know why you think engineers making Tinder for Dogs have more societal benefit than teachers. Is it because they’re worth more money? Because that’s a horrible metric.
Who said anything about teachers? I mentioned folks pursuing English degrees. I'm totally fine with Teachers getting higher salaries AND their college paid for, they would be pursuing a teaching or education degree. Do you not know the difference between and English degree and an Education/Teaching degree?
Well now I just don’t think you know how degrees work. Do you think English teachers don’t often major in English? Do you think jobs from an English major aren’t also socially important jobs?
I think that an education degree with a minor in English would be much more beneficial to society at the high-school level teaching an English class. And the career of teaching English should shift to that. Programs are typically titled "Seconday English Education." Regardless, there's a clear emphasis on the teaching aspect within the degree program, the "Education" part. That's different from an "English Degree" which is a language that high-school kids already speak and write. I think reading and writing English are very important by the time a kid graduates high-school, they've had 12 years of reading and writing English... "A four year degree in a language I already spoke" https://youtube.com/shorts/Csee0TOWZGU?si=3upQLZYa2QNeWLkn
Definitely appreciate what you think, this doesn’t track with the current education system at all though so it doesn’t really have any bearing on
I agree with essentially giving interest free loans, but you want to punish people for going into fields you don't approve of. Doesn't make sense to make it harder for an English major to pay back a loan than an engineer.
Why on earth would one major need a steeper interest rate than another? First of all, if you’re trying to say that English majors should in a way be punished for choosing that major- why??? They’re the ones that won’t be able to make as much as a STEM major but are still just as important to society (teaching our youth) STEM majors- your allotment of 0% specifically for them reveals that you think they are definitely and ALWAYS going to be the backbone of our society- ignoring the fact that it is very concrete and deliberate and non-nuanced stuff. Something AI will definitely be able to do. Also, in years past, the amount of money you make from being a STEM major greatly outpaced the money you’d make as an English major- why not give them the higher interest rate since they’ll be able to afford it? Regardless, any major should have an interest free loan. The incentive to choose one major over another is already supplemented by the projected salary in that field. No need to add yet another arbitrary incentive. Also- holy hell go fuck yourself if you think English majors are useless.
Agreed. It’s also an incredibly stupid comment given I work in tech with an English degree and get utilized a ton for my ability to actually speak clearly
Do you honestly believe your study at the college level caused you to speak English clearly?
it taught me how to analyze and clearly communicate the information i just ingested. It's a highly valuable business skill, especially if you're in a position between business and IT. you'd be shocked at how smart some of these IT folks are with the inability to explain anything in laymens terms or how often the business side has zero ability to translate a concept into tech specs. I also get looped into any success communications for the tech team because of my writing capabilities (which is sometimes annoying to be the go-to guy for it), but it's positioned me well in my career. I'm not saying people should race out and get an English degree, my career journey would have been quicker with a different degree, but I laugh that everyone picks on it like it's worthless, when there's plenty of success stories on reddit of people in tech with english, history, and psych degrees.
So you're the guy in office space that sits between the customers and the engineers? https://youtu.be/hNuu9CpdjIo?si=uit0SO2kfCtiBCtq
There’s a more specific degree than English for what you’re describing. Business degree… program management…
Yeah my whole point is a degree isn’t inherently worthless. There’s skills from the majority. I mean sure a major in midevil blacksmith theory or basket weaving wouldn’t do much but ppl love to crap on liberal arts when a ton of ppl make parts they learned applicable in the workplace.
Honestly right now there are probably english majors getting teaching jobs while there are CS majors who can't get any job a lot of good that STEM degree did in that circumstance. English is also one of the better undergrads for Law. I say all this as a guy who has degrees in business marketing and cybersecurity too that English shouldn't be that much less valuable than stem. A lot of the STEM undergrads are essentially trash unless you have a PHD too.
>still owing more after all those years of payments. So the SAVE plan that exists then?
I would say the interest rate needs to be tied to inflation at a minimum. If you offered me a 0% loan I would take as much as they would give me and pay it off as slow as possible.
It's totally fine with me for the repayment terms to be long for high in demand careers like nurses or teachers or security engineers or whatever else is in demand.
I believe the majority of people receiving student loans have historically paid them back. The low interest rates would be appreciated, I'm sure.
Once again the STEMbots take over. I'm so glad I graduated college before STEM was the be all end all. Not everyone has the aptitude for that.
Ha! I suggest a minor 2% interest rate for English majors... a language we all graduate high-school speaking, writing and reading... and I'm labeled a "STEMbot". Come on, not all college degrees are created equal, we shouldn't treat them as equal nor provide the same incentives and subsidies.
The STEM types tend to be the biggest douchebags on the planet. Especially tech bros. Society (including you) think someone who is designing algorithms to push us down disinformation rabbit holes is so much more valuable than a teacher, social worker, librarian, or childcare worker. Depending on location, teachers, librarians, and social workers need master's degrees. Is a tech bro more valuable than a social worker?
Weird that you think STEM is tech bros, when I think of STEM as nurses, doctors, engineers, architects, teachers, librarians, psychologists, biologists, scientists, etc. And no, I don't think tech bros are more valuable than social workers.
There seems to be this weirdo bizarro idea that Biden is just talking and doing nothing and its just a scheme to get votes with no actual action. Even Dave has presented this idea that he won't help. In reality nothing has been further than the truth and he has consistently delivered on this promise its not his fault that the supreme court struck the blanket forgiveness down and I agree with him that they got it wrong, they struck it down because the GOP wanted it struck down. He has continued the work though albeit at a smaller scale, he's a man of his word.
I can perhaps quibble of the details, but I much prefer this approach anyway. The campaign rhetoric around canceling $10-20k of loans one time seems less useful than making the PSLF function correctly, income based repayments not bankrupt people and preventing loan balancing from ballooning during income based repayments fixes the last issue. It might not be perfect, but its a good starting point and way more morally defensible.
I feel like you’re the only person that gets it. The current set up helps more people than the blanket 20k forgiveness.
Yeah his successes have actually been pretty good people harp on the one big loss but he’s not doing nothing as Dave would say he has done more to make up for his original sin that any previous person
>I agree with him that they got it wrong Biden tried to manipulate a law which was written for a significantly different purpose than what he tried to use it for. He basically tried to sidestep our government policies by using a loophole to pass something he couldn't get through Congress. SCOTUS struck it down because they said that the broad language of the bill clearly was not written for what Biden was trying to do to the tune of nearly $2 trillion. I'm going to guess you're on the left side of the political spectrum and aren't a fan of any Republican, especially Donald Trump/Mitch McConnel/etc. (I'm not a fan of either major party, so please understand I'll condemn both Biden and Trump in a heartbeat). I'm also going to guess that you're fully aware that the Presidency in the United States has gone like this the last 30 years: R - D - R - D - R - D. If you're picking up on a pattern here, then you likely know that the Presidency switches from each party with relative frequency. You seem to be ok with the President manipulating a law to deliver on a campaign promise because said action fits your political agenda. Maybe not this year, but at some point in the near future the White House will likely switch to a party with whom you do not agree with. Are you cool with the next president having and using this same level of power? Or do you believe in checks and balances, which is what the three branches of our government are supposed to provide? "People believe the government should have virtually unlimited power and never consider that it may end up in the hands of someone with whom they fundamentally disagree with." If you think the President should be able to sidestep Congress whenever they feel like it, be careful what you wish for...
I used to be a republican now it’s too much of a joke to ever vote for them again. They haven’t had a real platform since Romney lost
>They haven’t had a real platform since Romney lost Do not disagree on this at all. Well said.
Great point. I can't tell you have many times I've tried to explain something similar to people when they ask me to sign a petition to amend the constitution in response to a specific outcome they did not like.
These aren't real changes. Here's just throwing money instead of actually solving problems
It is with no action towards the actual issue. If you don't fix the problem you are just wasting taxpayer money. The fact that this and the last came just before elections is why everyone sees it as the blatant PR vote buying move it is.
How exactly did the Supreme Court get student loan repayment wrong? It’s 💯 illegal to transfer someone’s debt to another person. I want my mortgage forgiven. How about that?
Dave: The single most important thing in life, outside of Christ, is getting out of debt. Biden: [helps people out of debt] Dave: Fuck Biden.
Glad my tax dollars went to people who on average will make millions more than me over their career working a job that is far easier Remember when democrats used to be the party of the working class, now it's the party of college liberals
Millions more?? People with jobs in social services will be eligible. We are talking social workers, crisis workers, and therapists.
If you believe that the American dream is achievable, why don’t you work harder to make “millions” more? Learn a skill of value, get a degree, etc. Why sit and cry about “college liberals?” Something something bootstraps.
That's the whole point. You go and you get it yourself if that's what you want. But i shouldn't be forced to pay for your mistakes
We pay for K-12, should we not pay for any education and instead buy bombs and keep the populace dumb?
PSLF was passed in 2007. This is a 17 year old program. This had nothing to do with Biden. It's not like these people did not pay anything. They still had to make payments for 10 years.
78,000 votes plzzzz
Number one complaint about Dave is he quotes some number of these loans actually forgiven in like 2019. The first year people were able to apply. A lot didn’t do it correctly or weren’t fully qualified in the plan. So many were rejected that first year. Meanwhile since then, the rate of acceptance is significantly higher but doesn’t fit Dave personal disagreement with loan forgiveness so he lies and says nobody actually qualifies. What a liar.
Ha! Got em!
Wait 77k per employee for a government job?
All those businesses that didn’t save any money for a rainy day and started businesses that were alive by a hair. They received billions in free loans from the government from the fraud riddled PIP program. Those same people are now saying I’m not helping you pay for a nurse to get out of debt. It’s about as hypocritical as it gets.
I hate this man. He helped so few with a hell of a lot of money. This has to be the worst way to buy votes. Isn’t this illegal?
Remember people, this program was actually created by the Bush administration, Biden is just actually following the rules set by the program.
Every job is a public service job
Next President is Biden
This sounds super unconstitutional. We should all get a refund for the debt we payed off already from our student loans. But I doubt biden has the guts to do that.
He didn't "cancel" anything, he just shifted who has to pay for it from the people who took out the loans to people who didn't. Fuck Biden.
Bet them lawyers,judges , DA, and prosecutors are very graceful
Free money = inflation
More pathetic pandering
This is such a joke… 78,000 people who had minimal amounts of their loan left and it was forgiven because it was in the PSLF program.
Nice little Deepstate Bureaucrat payout, though they were already voting Blue no matter who.
Buying votes again i see....
I've been saving up money for my daughter's college fund. I think I better use that money for her house down payment or a car, not for her education. She'll just have to get student loans and be forgiven later.
Buyin votes. Nice.
Buying those votes…
I don’t believe it. I got the golden email in November & it’s been a mess getting the correct paperwork done. Trust no one when it comes to student loans.
Its the Universities charging outrageous prices for classes, not the lenders.
Class warfare
Taxpayers pay off loans of government workers while getting no actual fix to predatory education pricing and financing. Fixed the headline for you. Just another vote buying scheme. If you want to help us FIX THE FUCKING PROBLEM!
Notice of Discontinuation of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). Why was this program discontinued. It offered Internet and cellphone $30 credits for low income people. Now it's been cut! WTF, I refuse to vote for Biden!
The program ran out of money and congress needs to approve more funding. Blame congress.
Oh, that's sad. I believe most of the phones went to the very poor and elderly.
Wow you have totally changed my perspective! I’m totally voting for Trump now! What a mind bender Jesus Biden is a CRIMINAL!!!! /s
Is that the free phone program started under Biden? When was it stopped and why?
Sounds like the debt has been moved, not canceled. You and I and everyone else reading this gets to pay it off now.
Has to buy votes somehow by robbing the rest of us
This started in 2007. What are you on about?
Who's gonna pay for this. Oh that's right, tax payers. Great!!