Sen. Warren proposes to cancel student loan debt

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
No, what I'm stating is that with anything in life - be it insurance pools, healthcare pools, banking loans, etc... You have a POOL of risk. You want a DIVERSIFIED pool.

People with higher risk, pay higher APR. People with lower risk pay lower APR. Regardless, you want an overall well rounded pool to hedge your bets. Our federal loans program is basically asking for the most riskiest pool - BUT DISMISMISSING the least riskiest. That makes ZERO sense.

There will be no such we’ll rounded pool, everyone will pay an astronomical APR. maybe some will pay a slightly less astronomical one but there is simply no way a lender will give someone with no income, no credit, and no assets tens of thousands in unsecured loans without an insane rate. They can pledge any major they want, it won’t matter, haha.

Face facts: There are plenty of middle-class and upper-middle class families where the parents are stupid as shit - they don't save for their kids college fund, but for some reason the parent's stupid decisions should be a determining factor as to what loans the federal government will give them? That makes zero sense.

If there’s one factor in all of this that does make sense it is this one. A student should not be judged on the finances of their parents. Again, that’s how you get incompetents like Jared Kushner.

See my other post related to drinking. You guys really need some consistency. 18 is acceptable to understand the complications of sex, pregnancy, having a baby, etc...

I’m entirely consistent. You can give a baby up for adoption, for example. As for child support there’s no public policy reason to allow someone to void it.

If you can explain to me how our current system of lifelong debt supports superior outcomes I’m excited to hear it. I doubt you can.

21 is acceptable for drinking (and driving). But not understanding paying debt isn't acceptable for 18? If so what is appropriate age? At a certain point, you need to fucking understand that stupidity isn't an excuse. You can't just keep citing that. You don't cite that with drinking and driving do you? So why would a loan be any different?

Lifelong punishment for a DUI is also not something I support. Any other ideas?
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
That's fine, but then what is the alternative? The answer is ending the federal guarantee.

Oh no! Not everyone can go to college then. The horror!

At the same time, tuition costs would drop FUCKING FAST.

If you go back and read the thread you would see that I don’t support student loans as a way to finance education, period.

We should return to the tried and true ways of publicly funded universities.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
I mean the point to stopping the student loan stupidity isn’t that having loans makes people sad or that it isn’t just (although it is both of those things). It’s that this is a fundamentally dumb way to finance education.

It saddles people with massive, undischargeable debts, it encourages scams like for-profit universities, it doesn’t align public education spending with societal needs, it encourages university over-spending (although not as much as some think), and it represents yet another generational abrogation of responsibility by the baby boomers. They were comfortable with their parents largely paying for their college. When it was their turn, they declined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt and dank69

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
While we're at it, let's cancel car loans, home mortgages, etc, just make everything people can't afford, FREE. And unicorns for everyone.

No, the worst thing possible is to encourage slackers to go to school who aren't going to generate enough value in society to pay back the debt accumulated doing so, then everyone else has to pay for it.

The current problem is not lack of people getting a higher education, it's that those who do, are not learning the skills society needs and shouldn't have gone through higher education at all if they couldn't afford to do so.
No no, the real problem is that we allow people to get student loans in the first place. What we need to do is prevent anyone whose parents can't afford to pay for it from getting a higher education. That'll keep those slackers in their place where they belong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

dasherHampton

Platinum Member
Jan 19, 2018
2,693
566
136
Such a bad way to go about it.

Why not reduce the amount of the borrower's payment to a level they can handle but require them to continue making those payment?

If you owe $30,000 and can't handle your $400 monthly payment you get it reduced to $150 through a subsidy but are required to continue making that payment. That will at least sustain a certain amount of cash influx for this program.

College shouldn't be free. Community colleges and trade schools? Imo those should be free or almost free.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Such a bad way to go about it.

Why not reduce the amount of the borrower's payment to a level they can handle but require them to continue making those payment?

If you owe $30,000 and can't handle your $400 monthly payment you get it reduced to $150 through a subsidy but are required to continue making that payment. That will at least sustain a certain amount of cash influx for this program.

College shouldn't be free. Community colleges and trade schools? Imo those should be free or almost free.

They already do this. It's called an IBR or income-based repayment plan.
 

dasherHampton

Platinum Member
Jan 19, 2018
2,693
566
136
They already do this. It's called an IBR or income-based repayment plan.

My understanding has always been that it's hard to get into those programs and they tunnel you into very narrow fields.

I paid off my loans and it cause pretty severe financial hardship for a number of years.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,963
3,951
136
I mean, at what point can everyone agree that there have to be repercussions for your actions?

Most seem to agree that at 21 you are responsible for drinking and driving, so 18 isn't okay, but 21 is?

All good capitalists know repercussions are for the poor. Giant tax cuts and bailouts are for the billionaire oligarchs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
All good capitalists know repercussions are for the poor. Giant tax cuts and bailouts are for the billionaire oligarchs.
So just don't give the poor a chance to succeed? My wife definitely wouldn't be in favor of that.

I agree that at the end of the day we need to say more often: "Sorry, you're too stupid for advanced education". But I don't think the rest of the liberal party would be too much in favor of that...
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,963
3,951
136
So just don't give the poor a chance to succeed? My wife definitely wouldn't be in favor of that.

I agree that at the end of the day we need to say more often: "Sorry, you're too stupid for advanced education". But I don't think the rest of the liberal party would be too much in favor of that...

Many evil socialist European countries do this. You get a free higher education commensurate with the aptitude you demonstrated in primary/secondary school. Germany in particular does this really well.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
Many evil socialist European countries do this. You get a free higher education commensurate with the aptitude you demonstrated in primary/secondary school. Germany in particular does this really well.

:p

Let me make this more clear: I am in 100% complete agreeance with you.

Goodluck getting a party of entitled retards to agree with you.


EDIT: I'm also in agreeance with those European countries that have that advanced education paid in full. Simply boils down to our country making an investment in their qualified citizens that will EASILY pay for itself over time. The CLEAR difference is those colleges tell people more often "Sorry, you're too stupid for advanced education. Go look at trade skills" The sad part is our country is too pussy to say that. You might hurt some fee-fee's from cucks like Victorian Retard as he continues to make pointless hashtag posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: highland145
Dec 10, 2005
29,617
15,178
136
I would only be okay with cancelling out someone's student debt if they obtain a degree that is useful, like a STEM degree.
The world would be a pretty boring place if everyone held that myopic view of education. Speaking as a multi-degree STEM holder, a STEM major isn't the be-all-end-all of education or degrees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uclaLabrat

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
:p

Let me make this more clear: I am in 100% complete agreeance with you.

Goodluck getting a party of entitled retards to agree with you.


EDIT: I'm also in agreeance with those European countries that have that advanced education paid in full. Simply boils down to our country making an investment in their qualified citizens that will EASILY pay for itself over time. The CLEAR difference is those colleges tell people more often "Sorry, you're too stupid for advanced education. Go look at trade skills" The sad part is our country is too pussy to say that. You might hurt some fee-fee's from cucks like Victorian Retard as he continues to make pointless hashtag posts.

I don't recall ever seeing a post from anyone here, including Victorian Grey, that people should get free college education that they don't merit for academically.
Could you provide an example of that? Yaknow, in the spirit of accountability and repercussions for anonymous posters on the internet.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,612
3,834
126
There is not a lot of info on the details that I can find but as a general rule I approach any blanket reform to higher ed with caution. Mainly because the cost\financing\etc issues are vastly different when you are comparing a small liberal arts school with a community college with a large public school with a large public research school. And this seems like one of those reforms that is just a visible bandaid without addressing the underlying cause.

Personally I would rather them look at how public universities are funded (state and federal $), consequences for rapid tuition growth, the growth of endowments, clearer paths to loan forgiveness in certain situations and simplifying the cost of compliance
 
  • Like
Reactions: highland145
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
I don't recall ever seeing a post from anyone here, including Victorian Grey, that people should get free college education that they don't merit for academically.
Could you provide an example of that? Yaknow, in the spirit of accountability and repercussions for anonymous posters on the internet.

Good luck.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Many evil socialist European countries do this. You get a free higher education commensurate with the aptitude you demonstrated in primary/secondary school. Germany in particular does this really well.
Unable to argue against your point, someone instead determined to pile on the straw, because there are no repercussions for anonymous posters on social media. Which is also why every 'conservative' poster always claims to be an economic genius, while at the same time failing to understand any economic principle more complex than cash based accounting.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,616
33,335
136
:p

Let me make this more clear: I am in 100% complete agreeance with you.

Goodluck getting a party of entitled retards to agree with you.


EDIT: I'm also in agreeance with those European countries that have that advanced education paid in full. Simply boils down to our country making an investment in their qualified citizens that will EASILY pay for itself over time. The CLEAR difference is those colleges tell people more often "Sorry, you're too stupid for advanced education. Go look at trade skills" The sad part is our country is too pussy to say that. You might hurt some fee-fee's from cucks like Victorian Retard as he continues to make pointless hashtag posts.
Which liberal specifically told you there should not be an aptitude test for free college?
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
There is not a lot of info on the details that I can find but as a general rule I approach any blanket reform to higher ed with caution. Mainly because the cost\financing\etc issues are vastly different when you are comparing a small liberal arts school with a community college with a large public school with a large public research school. And this seems like one of those reforms that is just a visible bandaid without addressing the underlying cause.

Personally I would rather them look at how public universities are funded (state and federal $), consequences for rapid tuition growth, the growth of endowments, clearer paths to loan forgiveness in certain situations and simplifying the cost of compliance

Like most issues (health care comes to mind), we could make fairly small changes that would have large ramifications (in a positive way, like price controls in health care) that wouldn't necessitate fundamentally changing the entire system. The issue is, because of the political situation, there's effectively little to no traction for those small changes, so things just keep festering worse while those markets resort to worse things justifying their actions because of the problems. And in some regards, people are so sick of the inherent corruption of these private markets (propped up by public spending) that they'd rather just go "let's just go to public" while the opposing side is 100x100x100x100x100x100% against that (and is actively trying to move things the entirely private), thus providing us the political situation for nothing being done while everything just compounds on itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

nOOky

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2004
3,315
2,414
136
Not a fan of free college of any kind, unless you meet the requirements. Financial help should be weighted on a number of factors, your grades, your financial needs, your chosen field, etc. Seems that should be easy enough to calculate, and of course there will be exceptions.

I probably have a different view since I busted my butt to get through school by working and did it all myself. It's a lot harder for kids today to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: highland145
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
Say what you will about Warren, but just her proposal for ideas to consider is leading to actual legitimate discussion the likes of which...I'm trying to recall ever happening in my lifetime with regards to politics (hell her one plan to break up megacorps that she specifically mentioned Google and Amazon, even the people that were pretty opposed to it were willing to discuss her specific ideas and reasoning, like I said, legit discussion).

On top of that she's like the opposite of Bernie Sanders where she has actual plans out when she says this stuff so you can discuss specifics, whereas a lot of Bernie's stuff was just the general idea with little behind it other than the will, and so he ended up being like a good version of Turmp in that it made for feel good ideas but there was little actually backing them up. (Which he has changed and has been pushing people to figure out the plans, and Warren has reaped the benefits of a lot of the analysis that has come about due to ideas that Sanders pushed - to be fair though to her, he didn't originate a lot of if any of the ideas himself, so its been general sentiment but I think he's helped galvanize them a lot. But, importantly, they've been building the ideas into actual planned out policy.)

Which, those things has led to the right not being able to blanket shit on them (like they've tried doing and even now with AOC who is getting hammered for her vague proposals that make for easy attack by right wing idiots; I'm not trying to criticize her, as they're ideas that she's openly said they'd look at how to implement, with some of this stuff being new territory like how do we deal with climate change and not just try to diminish our emissions impact). Few right wingers even attempted to address Warrens proposals and fewer still seemed to find a way to boil it down to some talking point to slander her with (probably because its hard to go "fuck her, she just said pretty much the stuff I've been saying but she found legitimate means whereas I'm just spewing bile because I'm mad that Google made me stop posting racist shit on YouTube!" without looking like a complete moron such that even other complete morons would see how stupid you are).

And another surprising turn. Not only has it clearly thrown off their usual tactics with regards to liberal/progressive ideas, its thrown them off so much that they're not even going to their fallback (in this case it'd be saying something about Pocahontas or something?). Its like they're blind to her beyond Turmp chortling like a dipshit about her (which in a debate, she could just keep mentioning the many many many many many instances of corruption and other stuff, almost certainly sending Turmp into a rage and making a fool of himself, as he'll probably only be able to just keep doing his elementary school level Pocahontas insult). My best guess is that they feel like Turmp vanquished her or something and so don't see her as a threat. I'm not sure if she is, but her ideas and how she's supporting them will be for Republicans.

If she keeps it up, I guess we might see what a Democrat that has "actual plans" up against the soundbite FUD and xenophobia of Republicans. At minimum it should provide a blueprint for any and all Democrats to build off of and work together (as many of them has proposed similar ideas, just usually not with as much specifics; I think that will change big time with these primaries). My only real concern is that them getting into the nitty gritty details might actually turn off the majority of potential voters (as they definitely prefer the rah-rah, and probably frankly even value looks and other superficialities even though they claim they don't). Hopefully they don't get into a long drawn out primary and quickly unify after it and work together so that they can work on charming people (as a unit, I think that's what people want, that's what they voted for Obama, and hell even Turmp, for, they thought they would both bring in a sea change and we'd stop seeing these same old political assholes we've been seeing for 2-3, sometimes 4 decades already; I think the group of Democrats could be that, as there's definitely fresh faces but some that have been around - but not constantly in our faces or if they were often there not irritatingly so - like Warren and Sanders and some others).
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
I guess I don't understand why anyone would think the 'everyone under X amount' gets a refund is a good idea. Anyone with some smarts could work around that and make free bank on not owing for school and play the system based on timing. I'm sorry but if you go in knowing what you are going to owe, that is your own fault. There is no guarantee you are going to be making top end money just out of school. Most people still have to work their way up and those that don't - probably aren't going broke at college. If you go put yourself in debt up to your ears for college, that's on you.

Tell you what - let's do this a bit differently. If they want loan forgiveness, make them join the military. Consider it a G.I. Bill.
 
Last edited: