Post: #26

You cannot spend decades indoctrinating a populace with the notion that college (regardless of what you learn there) is absolutely essential and always beneficial, that even less practical college majors (ex: philosophy) are hugely more valuable than no degree at all, and that everyone has a right to own a home (regardless of whether or not you must finance it) and then turn around and blame this same populace for following said logic (and getting into financial trouble).

Going to an expensive liberal arts college (or even many state schools) without a practical degree is an unwise, debt-producing move. We know this now. Several members up-thread have expressed the notion that those who have succumbed to this situation should not be helped, since the wisdom (or lack thereof) in their move is "common knowledge", and its their fault.
The dangers of the academic-debt complex were NOT common knowledge to most for the majority of the past two decades. Common sense in fact often counseled quite the opposite conclusion (debt is ok, college is for everyone), and that was not the fault of the average joe. It was (and still is) entirely possible to act in good faith (and in what appeared to be good prudence) and still end up a victim of this system. Good people get in trouble-not everyone who could use the help from this bill is a lazy, good-for-nothing in search of a quick free ride.

To use this variant of the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" philosophy against this policy is ignorant at best, and downright callous at worst.

The fact that so few are willing to use this same argument against banks is also telling.

Post: #27

Hey the government already has a pretty good student loan forgiveness plan going: http://www.military.com/Resources/Resour...--,00.html

I wonder why so many struggling Bard and Amherst graduates don't take advantage???

Aloha!

Post: #28

(03-11-2012 11:21 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  You cannot spend decades indoctrinating a populace with the notion that college (regardless of what you learn there) is absolutely essential and always beneficial, that even less practical college majors (ex: philosophy) are hugely more valuable than no degree at all, and that everyone has a right to own a home (regardless of whether or not you must finance it) and then turn around and blame this same populace for following said logic (and getting into financial trouble).

Going to an expensive liberal arts college (or even many state schools) without a practical degree is an unwise, debt-producing move. We know this now. Several members up-thread have expressed the notion that those who have succumbed to this situation should not be helped, since the wisdom (or lack thereof) in their move is "common knowledge", and its their fault.
The dangers of the academic-debt complex were NOT common knowledge to most for the majority of the past two decades. Common sense in fact often counseled quite the opposite conclusion (debt is ok, college is for everyone), and that was not the fault of the average joe. It was (and still is) entirely possible to act in good faith (and in what appeared to be good prudence) and still end up a victim of this system. Good people get in trouble-not everyone who could use the help from this bill is a lazy, good-for-nothing in search of a quick free ride.

To use this variant of the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" philosophy against this policy is ignorant at best, and downright callous at worst.

The fact that so few are willing to use this same argument against banks is also telling.

And....I'm done.

Post: #29

(03-11-2012 01:35 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  You guys gotta stop hating on the Arts and Letters. If you have motherfuckers studying Biology and Engineering only, you have a bunch of chess-playing nerds with no ability to talk smoothly and write well. The mark of an advanced, healthy society is patronizing the arts. Look at goddamn Renaissance Europe. A society that just focuses on trades is a second-rate, client state--providing specialized services.

This dude didn't major in Computer Science, that's for sure:

Good post.

+1. Oh wait.

Post: #30

(03-11-2012 11:21 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Good people get in trouble-not everyone who could use the help from this bill is a lazy, good-for-nothing in search of a quick free ride.

To use this variant of the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" philosophy against this policy is ignorant at best, and downright callous at worst.

The fact that so few are willing to use this same argument against banks is also telling.

Athlone, say the politicians pass this bill with the intent of helping those "good people" who got in trouble. How do you define a good person? Where do you draw the limit? At what point does the person NOT receiving any help have the right to expect help...when can that person legitimately ask the question "why don't I get my debt forgiven?"

You're viewing this situation philosophically. Good people need help too. Got it.
The reality is that politicians by and large are not good and when given the power to forgive debt, or spend money, they will do it. Because the people want it. Because people want something for nothing. So I agree with you in theory, but in practice, I think we've seen the past few years that it does not work. Social programs rapidly expand because people want something for nothing...and they come to expect it. It becomes an entitlement. Politicians can't draw the line. When they do they erase it and move it forward to include more people..every election cycle.

Post: #31

(03-12-2012 12:58 AM)Kona Wrote:  Hey the government already has a pretty good student loan forgiveness plan going: http://www.military.com/Resources/Resour...--,00.html

I wonder why so many struggling Bard and Amherst graduates don't take advantage???

Aloha!

As a student at a similar school, I can say that there are some students here who do.

The fact is, however, that not everybody is cut out to be a soldier.

Post: #32

(03-12-2012 04:26 PM)Smitty Wrote:  Athlone, say the politicians pass this bill with the intent of helping those "good people" who got in trouble. How do you define a good person? Where do you draw the limit? At what point does the person NOT receiving any help have the right to expect help...when can that person legitimately ask the question "why don't I get my debt forgiven?"

I'd agree with you if the bill called for immediate forgiveness. It doesn't.

As it stands, all this bill does is ensure that people are able to get a second chance should they find themselves in a difficult position after having made a good faith effort ("10% of discretionary income for a decade") to meet their debts.
I see nothing wrong with this.

Quote:The reality is that politicians by and large are not good and when given the power to forgive debt, or spend money, they will do it. Because the people want it. Because people want something for nothing.

The bill has conditions-it isn't "something for nothing".

Quote:So I agree with you in theory, but in practice, I think we've seen the past few years that it does not work. Social programs rapidly expand because people want something for nothing...and they come to expect it. It becomes an entitlement. Politicians can't draw the line. When they do they erase it and move it forward to include more people..every election cycle.

The alternative (which you seem to prefer) is to leave millions of otherwise productive Americans under the boot of insurmountable debt which will enslave them for the rest of their lives, a reality they were never rightfully prepared for.
These people were dealt a very difficult hand given recent economic circumstances (and rapidly inflating costs of education). They need help.
Getting them back on their feet (while also hopefully educating more people about the costs of education so few people continue to end up like them) can help everyone.

Leaving them alone as eternal economic non-factors (debt-slaves) does nobody any good, save for maybe the banks (who are apparently above reproach around here).

Post: #33

How would you define 10% of discretionary income? Whats discretionary? Is that after rent, food, cable, etc? What you just end up doing is opening up the system to abuse. Why live in a small apartment when you can live in a big one, feast on steak and lobster, drive a BMW, have an Iphone, have no money left over to pay your student loans, yet claim that every expense you rang up over the last 10 years was non-discretionary - rent, car payment, communications, food, when in reality you could have driven a piece of crap car, a basement apartment, etc and actually paid off your debt yourself instead of sticking the tab w/someone else. Anyone could pay off their own student loans w/in 4 years if they packed up their shit and went to work in a North Dakota oil field, lived in free housing, and paid off their balance w/the proceeds, but no one 'wants' to do that or its not 'fair.'

Post: #34

I don't know, Athlone. I just don't buy it that so many people need help with their student loans. I can understand the single parent family in which the figurehead loses his/her job and needs to make ends meet until he/she can find new employment. But I lived in DC for a long time and I can tell you that my friends used to bitch about not being able to afford their student loan payment, but they sure could afford happy hours and partying on the weekends.

You paint the picture of these desperate young professionals who are so sincerely looking for work and drowning in a sea of debt that is not their fault. I don't buy it. Again, I agree with you that some people legitimately need help, but I just don't think college grads are at the top of the list. Most of these people are capable of working two jobs to make ends meet but they choose not to.

BTW, your repeated comments about banks being above reproach fall on deaf ears with me because I agree. I think the government should have stayed far and clear of the banks. The banks should have failed...and failed hard.

Post: #35

In the case of a student at the school that Athlone attends (Ivy), there is the chance of landing a Wall Street job which can erase the student loan debt in about 6 months. Those Wall Street jobs are not even attainable for state school students.

Post: #36

(03-12-2012 08:05 PM)UrbanNerd Wrote:  In the case of a student at the school that Athlone attends (Ivy), there is the chance of landing a Wall Street job which can erase the student loan debt in about 6 months. Those Wall Street jobs are not even attainable for state school students.

yep. risk/reward. gotta pay to play.

Post: #37

Guys defending the student loan system have no understanding how the student loan system works.

Here's a primer:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/...scheme.jpg

Here's what someone with balls would do: Wall Street, fuck you. We're forgiving the loans, and no one is paying you shit.

So sue us.

This would be a "wealth redistribution" that the 'tards rail against.

Yet we have a choice: Excuse student loans, redistributing wealth to the mass of Americans who ere lied to; or make people continue paying money to Wall Street.

So the wealth is going to be redistributed one way or another. It will either flow from the poor to the super rich, or the other way around.

Post: #38

See, Wall Street may be greedy but they sure aint stupid. Once the govt stops guaranteeing loans or 1 loan goes bad and Wall St loses a nickle the student loan gravy train will be cut off and no one will be able to borrow money again for college. Once that happens they same people who tried to weasel their way out of their student loan obligations will bitch, whine, and complain about how the banks wont lend them money to get an education and its all the banks fault and the banks are holding them back.

You know what else is funny? I knew a bunch of people in college taking Student loan money, and every single one of them managed to find the time and money to go get hammered Thur, Fri, and Saturday, yet none of them had jobs. Imagine that.

Post: #39

Mike, paying back a loan is not considered a redistribution of wealth.

Post: #40

(03-12-2012 08:25 PM)Smitty Wrote:  Paying back a loan is not considered a redistribution of wealth.

You didn't even read that chart, did you?

Wall Street did not make those loans.

Because of the way loans are guaranteed, taxpayers made those loans.

Yet instead of we the taxpayers recouping a profit, the profits go straight to Wall Street.

That, good man, is the definition of redistribution of wealth.

Post: #41

(03-12-2012 08:23 PM)Brian Wrote:  See, Wall Street may be greedy but they sure aint stupid. Once the govt stops guaranteeing loans or 1 loan goes bad and Wall St loses a nickle the student loan gravy train will be cut off and no one will be able to borrow money again for college.

Yep. Then the bubble bursts.

We have an actual free market in education.

Why do so-called "free market Republicans" oppose this?

Post: #42

(03-12-2012 08:27 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 08:25 PM)Smitty Wrote:  Paying back a loan is not considered a redistribution of wealth.

You didn't even read that chart, did you?

Wall Street did not make those loans.

Because of the way loans are guaranteed, taxpayers made those loans.

Yet instead of we the taxpayers recouping a profit, the profits go straight to Wall Street.

That, good man, is the definition of redistribution of wealth.

The final note in your chart says Obama reformed student loans to cut out the middle man (i.e. banks) and send the profits back into the government, and thus the taxpayers.

Doesn't sound like redistribution to me.

Post: #43

I think the Student Loan bubble needs to burst and take the overpaid teachers salaries down with it but I dont agree with a lot of what you're saying. I looked at the chart you showed and there isnt a Wall St bank on there. Sallie Mae isnt a Wall St bank. I also looked at the bottom where it said you options are basically: Save, Aid (apply for it), Work, Be Frugal, or Wait (until you know what you want to do) OR "Fight." So basically you have a lot of spoiled, entitled people who feel like they 'deserve' a 'free' education and who dont want to Save, get Aid, Work, Be Frugal or Wait and would rather Fight then have to be responsible.

Post: #44

(03-12-2012 08:36 PM)Brian Wrote:  I think the Student Loan bubble needs to burst and take the overpaid teachers salaries down with it but I dont agree with a lot of what you're saying. I looked at the chart you showed and there isnt a Wall St bank on there. Sallie Mae isnt a Wall St bank. I also looked at the bottom where it said you options are basically: Save, Aid (apply for it), Work, Be Frugal, or Wait (until you know what you want to do) OR "Fight." So basically you have a lot of spoiled, entitled people who feel like they 'deserve' a 'free' education and who dont want to Save, get Aid, Work, Be Frugal or Wait and would rather Fight then have to be responsible.

Education costs would decrease without the free taxpayer money.

I worked my way through college.

It used to be possible.

Because of free money, it's impossible.

Take away the free money, and people will be able to fund their educations.

Post: #45

(03-12-2012 08:36 PM)Smitty Wrote:  The final note in your chart says Obama reformed student loans to cut out the middle man (i.e. banks) and send the profits back into the government, and thus the taxpayers.

Doesn't sound like redistribution to me.

That was a recent change.

It was watered down in the end.

But if you wanna say that post-2011 student loans are wealth redistribution, I'm on board.

Let's just cancel the ones that are wealth redistribution.

Consensus.

Post: #46

I halfway agree with you. Take away free money and the system will quickly fix itself.