Debt-free College (Warren's plan) - Split from: U.S. Democratic Primary

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s still the right thing to do. 

This needs to be proven.

Why is it the right thing to do?

[iNow]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Why is it the right thing to do?

By what metric are you defining right? Economic? Moral? Innovation? Health? Trade? Commerce? Religious? Other?

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm all in for making things a level playing field.

But take Bob and John. Both took their loans out at the same time, etc. Bob pays his off, John does not. Government eventually pays Johns debt.

40 years later, the money that John saved from not paying his student debt has been sitting in the stock market.

$70,000 initial investment for 10 years after college, he's got a little over $2 million dollars sitting in his retirement fund.

Bob? He paid his debt. He doesn't have a retirement fund, because he spent those valuable 10 years after college paying his student loans. But Bob shouldn't feel cheated. He should feel happy for John while he's scratching a living off of social security, while John is traveling the world doing who knows what.

 

(Obviously, this is implying both John and Bob make smart financial decisions with the exception of John paying the minimum on his student loans. Also obviously, this is an extreme example. But I think it helps serve the point I'm trying to make.)

 

Would you feel cheated if we both took a mortgage out, you paid yours off, and then later the government paid off mine since I didn't pay mine off yet?

 

Whose plan would cancel all of John’s debt? Are you criticizing an actual plan, or is this more like the “welfare queen” criticism, of an outlier case, but offered up as typical?

[Phi for All]

29 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Would you feel cheated if we both took a mortgage out, you paid yours off, and then later the government paid off mine since I didn't pay mine off yet?

Probably, if it went down exactly as you put it. But if it was part of a program that was attempting to specifically address the predatory nature of the loans in your state as opposed to mine, probably not. It's easy to find private ownership models where public or state involvement is either undesirable or actively detrimental.

Personally, I feel the same way about education and a public ownership model. Educating the public should be a publicly funded investment in ourselves, so the focus in schools is where it should be, and not on turning a profit for private actors. If we truly want to spread knowledge to our people, we should be leery of how a focus on profit skews that.

[Raider5678]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

As iNow pointed out, you wouldn't resent someone who got better medical treatment than you did because of advancements in knowledge. 

This analogy is flawed, in a subtle but important way. You're presuming 2 people go to get medical treatment at different times. Sure. If that's the case, then that's fine. Things change.

 

This is 2 people going to the same hospital, at the same time, with the same condition. Except one person get's expert level treatment, the other person get's told to fix it themselves. Why? Because person #1 walked into the hospital and put his left foot through the door first. Person #2 put his right foot through the door first.

 

If a hospital did that, I don't think iNow nor you would argue with "At least some people get expert level treatment, even though not everyone does. Let's not give up the good in the pursuit of the perfect." It's clear why it's unfair. 

 

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If we truly want to spread knowledge to our people, we should be leery of how a focus on profit skews that.

Profit skews it separately. Colleges make you pay per credit. Then they say you need 120 credits. Many of those credits totally unrelated to the major you're looking for. For a "Well rounded education.". I call bull. Well rounded pocket book, obviously.

Either way, off topic. Just wanted to mention that.

 

 

Edit: This post seems to come off a little more aggressive then I thought it would, looking back at it. My apologies.

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Raider5678

[Phi for All]

23 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

This analogy is flawed. You're presuming 2 people go to get medical treatment at different times. Sure. If that's the case, then that's fine. Things change.

 

This is 2 people going to the same hospital, at the same time, with the same condition. Except one person get's expert level treatment, the other person get's told to fix it themselves. Why? Because person #1 walked into the hospital and put his left foot through the door first. Person #2 put his right foot through the door first.

Aren't we still talking about forgiving the debt for the person who didn't pay their loan off? Wouldn't that have happened at a different time than the person who paid it off?

23 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Profit skews it separately. Colleges make you pay per credit. Then they say you need 120 credits. Many of those credits totally unrelated to the major you're looking for. For a "Well rounded education.". I call bull. Well rounded pocket book, obviously.

I'm not sure how you're separating it. All those things are because of marketing. Ditto lugging around $200 textbooks in this day and age. If education were publicly funded, you could change the focus back to learning.

23 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Either way, off topic. Just wanted to mention that.

I had hoped to make a point about how taxes for publicly funded K-16 education could take a previous college loan payment into account, and give the guy who paid his loan off a bit of a break. I sense you don't like all this socialist talk.

[Raider5678]

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Aren't we still talking about forgiving the debt for the person who didn't pay their loan off? Wouldn't that have happened at a different time than the person who paid it off?

 

Them taking the loan happened at the same time. The analogy was a bit off, let me rephrase it a little. Take #2

Imagine two people. They walk into a hospital(Take student loans) at the same time, with the same condition(Student debt). Person A goes to one reception desk(Pays minimum payment on loan), Person B goes to another reception desk(Pays loan off as fast as they could.). They get their treatment. Except, Person A get's the best treatment they have to offer and is cured(Debt forgiven), while Person B gets some pain medication and has to wait it out(Pays debt them self).

Going in, both desks should have been the same. Nothing was inherently wrong with going to either desk. But why does Patient A get cured and Patient B does not?

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not sure how you're separating it. All those things are because of marketing. Ditto lugging around $200 textbooks in this day and age. If education were publicly funded, you could change the focus back to learning.

 

I meant in addition to, rather then separately. My bad. I.E. "Profit skews it like this too."

Edited January 28, 2020 by Raider5678

[iNow]

At some point, no matter what analogies we use, we either choose to accept that it’s unfair to some people and choose to move forward anyway (while seeking ways to minimize that inequity), or we throw our hands up and do nothing because it won’t be perceived as perfect by all people. 

I know which side of that equation I’m on. I’m on the side of educating our people and improving our world. 

Edited January 28, 2020 by iNow

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

At some point, no matter what analogies we use, we either choose to accept that it’s unfair to some people and choose to move forward anyway (while seeking ways to minimize that inequity), or we throw our hands up and do nothing because it won’t be perceived as perfect by all people. 

I know which aide of that equation I’m on. I’m on the side of educating our people and improving our world. 

Minimizing the inequity is expanding college education from K-12 to K-16. That's fair enough. It benefits all future people equally, and equally doesn't benefit people in the past. The medical advancement analogy works here.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Raider5678

[MigL]

58 minutes ago, iNow said:

At some point, no matter what analogies we use, we either choose to accept that it’s unfair to some people and choose to move forward anyway (while seeking ways to minimize that inequity), or we throw our hands up and do nothing because it won’t be perceived as perfect by all people. 

I'm not that familiar with The American education system, INow.
Phi has mentioned a few other problems other than spiraling costs.

But the system as it stands, is unfair to some people, burdening them with excessive debt.
The 'solution' being considered, mostly shifts the unfairness around to another group of people.
That is why I said it is the wrong vehicle. The money could be better spent subsidizing the education system, making it more affordable going forward.
And it wouldn't create any resentment among voters, like the gentleman who posed the question to E Warren ( I really should pull up a link, but it was all over the news or Google searches ), and cause those people to vote a jackass into the Presidency again out of spite.
 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

By what metric are you defining right? Economic? Moral? Innovation? Health? Trade? Commerce? Religious? Other?

How about 'fair'.

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

 I said it is the wrong vehicle. The money could be better spent subsidizing the education system, making it more affordable going forward.
And it wouldn't create any resentment among voters, like the gentleman who posed the question to E Warren

She’s proposing both. Debt forgiveness now and debt free moving forward. Walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time. 

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

She’s proposing both. Debt forgiveness now and debt free moving forward. Walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time. 

Point being?

We're against the first one. 

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

How about 'fair'.

You said yourself, “the system as it stands, is unfair to some people, burdening them with excessive debt.”

If I’m asked to defend this proposal based on an idea of fairness, I’d compare the numbers of:

* Those kids who are hard working, smart, and talented, but who can’t ever go to college at all bc of the financial burden / they were born to the wrong parents or in the wrong zip code

* Those who’ve graduated and can’t start a family, buy a house, or start a business because of their portion of the over $1.7 trillion with a T dollars in student loan debt being carried by graduates in the US

* Those who were fortunate enough to go to school and pay off their own student loans within the past ~3 years who would feel this plan was unfair to them

No matter how you slice it, either of those first two groups (and especially both in aggregate) are going to be several orders of magnitude larger than the third. 
 

Did you know that there are people who’ve been paying their student loans for 20 years who somehow owe more today than they did when they graduated? It’s disgusting. 

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Point being?

Point being I was directly responding to MigL who said he’d rather see this money spent on making future education debt free. Well,  Warren is planning for that, too. She’s doing both things. 

He was suggesting a false choice, and implying that she wasn’t also advocating for the very thing you both support. 

Edited January 28, 2020 by iNow

[MigL]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

She’s proposing both. Debt forgiveness now and debt free moving forward

I was not aware of that.
What would be the timeline for 'debt free moving forward' ?
If one impacts the implementation of the other, I would rather see the 'debt free' than the 'debt forgiveness'.
The people who have the current debt , have already gotten an education, it is simply a money issue now.
But 'debt free' going forward means more people, unburdened by the prospect of large debt, can afford to get an education.

Edited January 28, 2020 by MigL

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

* Those kids who are hard working, smart, and talented, but who can’t ever go to college at all bc of the financial burden / they were born to the wrong parents or in the wrong zip code

This is a red herring though.

Again, neither MigL nor I are against free education.

Debt forgiveness does not affect these people.

[iNow]

It’s not a red herring. It’s one of the points I’d use I’d ask to argue on the topic of fairness. Feel free to ignore it. Point 2 is strong enough on its own by that metric. 

[Raider5678]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Did you know that there are people who’ve been paying their student loans for 20 years who somehow owe more today than they did when they graduated? It’s disgusting. 

 

That "somehow" is because they haven't been paying their student loans for the entire 20 years...... They skipped a portion of it.

Just now, iNow said:

It’s not a red herring. It’s one of the points I’d use I’d ask to argue on the topic of fairness. Feel free to ignore it. Point 2 is strong enough on its own by that metric. 

The topic of fairness regarding debt forgiveness? How does this directly relate to that?

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

If one impacts the implementation of the other

We have no way of knowing this. This question places us firmly in crystal ball territory. 

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

That "somehow" is because they haven't been paying their student loans for the entire 20 years...... They skipped a portion of it.

Wrong. It’s because lobbyists have prevented them from being able to refinance so often they can only afford to pay interest. My point had nothing to do with missed payments. 

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The topic of fairness regarding debt forgiveness? How does this directly relate to that?

As I said. Since you dislike point 1 so much, just focus on point 2

[Raider5678]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

* Those who’ve graduated and can’t start a family, buy a house, or start a business because of their portion of the over $1.7 trillion with a T dollars in student loan debt being carried by graduates in the US

Earlier, you said you didn't care how people who don't get their debt forgiven feel. It doesn't matter to you.

Likewise however, I don't feel obligated to pay off the debt that these people signed up for.

 

 

I do feel obligated however, that if we're paying one group of people's debt, we should repay those who already paid their debt. That is fair. Because believe it or not, to most of us $70,000 is a lot of money.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Raider5678

[iNow]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Earlier, you said you didn't care how people who don't get their debt forgiven feel.

I don’t, but they obviously need to be placated to at least stop standing in opposition to this idea 

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't feel obligated to pay off the debt that these people signed up for.

And I don’t feel obligated to pay for wars or tax cuts for billionaires, or for President Trumps golf trips, but we don’t get to choose which individual programs receive our tax dollars. 

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

And I don’t feel obligated to pay for wars or tax cuts for billionaires, or for President Trumps golf trips, but we don’t get to choose which individual programs receive our tax dollars. 

I'm assuming you have a point here, but I don't see it.

Why does this make debt forgiveness a good idea?

 

 

BTW, only about 4% of the savings for the loan forgiveness plan would actually help the bottom 20% who need it the most. 96% of the loan repayment would go to people who are having no issues paying their loans at the moment.^[1]

(This next statement is sarcasm about the general state of politics, and is not aimed at you iNow.(unless you were aware of these statistics already))

But don't let statistics and math get in the way of a good election promise.

 

 

 

Additionally, let's not forget what happens if, as all too often happens in politics, Warren only delivers on half of her promise. That half being debt forgiveness.

College tuition would sky rocket, because the incentive to take more student debt in exchange for a better college degree would be massive. Younger students would say "Well. My parents got lucky and got their debt forgiven, maybe I will too." and will be willing to take larger loans. Colleges, in exchange, would raise their tuition dramatically to meet that new demand. And now we're all worse off, except those that got their debt forgiven. A one time benefit bill. In my mind, equivalent to an unspoken bribe, that wrecks everybody else's future for the selfishness of those currently here.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Raider5678

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Why does this make debt forgiveness a good idea?

I was commenting on your mention that you don’t want your tax dollars going toward this. I was reminding you we don’t get to pick and choose how our taxes get spent, and that our taxes go toward stuff we dislike all of the time and every day. 

As for it being a good idea, it also helps address the extreme wealth inequality in our country, and also racial disparities in wealth and opportunity. 

I get it, though. You’re not a fan. I’ve given lots of reasons why this is a good idea. If they don’t resonate with you, no worries, but hopefully you won’t argue to kill the idea merely bc I personally wasn't able to strike the chord you needed me to strike to change your mind. 

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

I was not aware of that.

Yeah. I thought that was the case. IMO, it really changes the calculus on this one. A quick overview here from when she announced this last April:

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/22/18509196/elizabeth-warren-debt-free-college

Edited January 28, 2020 by iNow

[MigL]

If she was trying to 'one-up' B Sanders' education platform, it doesn't seem to be working.
J Biden is still leading but stagnant.
B Sanders is climbing and close behind. 
E warren is 10 % behind the lead, and falling.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/democratic-polls.html

She might get more bang for the buck if she proposed the 'debt free' option first, then, if additional funds are available, she could tackle some sort of debt reduction/forgiveness.

( oops, now I've gone back to the Democratic Primary; my bad )

[Raider5678]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

 but hopefully you won’t argue to kill the idea merely bc I personally wasn't able to strike the chord you needed me to strike to change your mind. 

 

No, but I will argue to kill the idea because I believe it'll cause more harm then good.

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No, but I will argue to kill the idea because I believe it'll cause more harm then good.

*than

This serves as yet another example of how important availability of education is and how our current system is badly failing even the most talented among us.