The Gov shouldn’t get involved in eliminating useless degrees, but they also shouldn’t make it so easy for people to get those degrees financed when the ROI isn’t there…
Biden ran on it as part of his campaign. The people voted for him. None of us know why each person voted for Biden, but this wasn't some bait and switch. The man ran on debt forgiveness. This is from eight months before the election:
Yes we get he ran on debt forgiveness. That doesn’t mean he gets to do everything he wants, and that doesn’t mean everybody that voted for him supports debt forgiveness. I voted for him and I adamantly opposed the plan. Biden proposed this as kind of a gimmick - I seriously doubt when the law was passed decades ago his was what was intended. The supreme Ct rejected on a logical principle but what sounds like a legal gimmick. I suspect there is a compromise to be had on this issue if the parties wanted to explore it, but they won’t.
Did those students agree to pay interest? Also, since magic was outlawed by the Magna Carta, what happens to the unpaid interest? Unicorns and Leprechauns are prohibited from paying that off. Who is left?
First, the free market can take them back, and if it needs a nudge, then maybe this one time I personally would be ok with the big guy putting his thumb on the scale. Second, the market needs to eliminate the useless degrees. It is done quite easily, as in the example: Son”: “dad, I want to go to college and get a degree in women’s studies”. Father: “not a chance.” problem solved! Check in tomorrow for my recipe for pulled pork quesadillas.
Doesn't matter. You voted for him knowing he supported it. That's democracy. You voted for him for your reasons. Others voted for him for theirs. 1. It is irrelevant if Congress "intended" it when the law was passed. They authorized exactly what he did in the plain text of the statute. Trying to guess at what each member of Congress thought at the time of passage is a fool's errand. That's why we look to the text of the statute. 2. There was nothing logical about the principle. Their "principle" is: "Ignore the text of the statute because Congress couldn't have meant what it said. Since we believe that, Congress must have used more specific language to authorize it. But we won't tell Congress when it is required to use specific language because we want to be able to invoke this so-called doctrine when it is politically convenient for us." Keep in mind that Republican SCOTUS allowed Trump to build his wall when he tried to use basically the same "loophole" people are decrying now. This is purely politics. It used to be that once judges determined that the statute authorized what the executive did, that was the end of the analysis. The rest was left to the political process. Now, the Republicans in robes get to decide whether what the President is doing is a big deal, and based on that subjective judgment, they get to then ignore what Congress said.
Said it before, student loan borrowers should have the same opportunity to wipe out their debts through bankruptcy as a certain real estate developer. How the Bankruptcy Laws Helped Donald Trump Stay Rich For some reason the critics including a number of posters to this board who attack student loan borrowers who have difficulty repaying their debt as irresponsible have no problem with the guy referenced in the link. Student loan borrowers should have same opportunity to declare bankruptcy as any other individual or corporate borrower provided that there are safeguards to prevent recent graduates who may have a large amount of debt, very little in current assets but significant earning potential from gaming the system the reason that the bankruptcy laws were amended to making it extremely difficult for virtually all student loan borrowers to discharge debt through bankruptcy.
No, I understand what they are doing and how. I see what the individual justices are receiving, you simply don't care. You don't give a shit about ethics as long as they're deciding cases the way you want.
I started school at U of Arizona 1991. My family today makes about the same yearly salary adjusted for inflation as my parents did back then. Which is about 2.25X. My daughter is starting UA this fall, staying in the same dorm as I did. Total cost for tuition, room, and board is about 15X. Thankfully, my daughter had good grades and got a scholarship that reduced the cost closer to 10X. Still, anyone who think they can work their way through college today like they did 30 or 40 years ago need to rethink their position. My parents were able to pay for my school without loans. We can't pay for my kid without them.
The issue is that the loans were not guaranteed, the rates would be much higher. Debts that are subject to bankruptcy are generally free market loans where default rate risk is factored into the interest rate. For some inexplicable reason banks continued to loan Trump money in spite of his default history. The implied agreement with student loan guarantees is that the government gives you a much lower and more affordable interest rate, in exchange for you giving up your right to bankruptcy. If you had government student loans eligible for bankruptcy, most likely after graduation many would just declare bankruptcy. I’m not opposed to some sort of merit and needs based discharge process, but it would have to be a part of reforms that limit govt guarantees of student debt and also a degree of risk sharing from the educational institute in question.
States funded a much higher percent of public college decades ago than they do now. Arizona has among the lowest state funding. Two Decades of Change in Federal and State Higher Education Funding
Uf in state is about $200. When I went in 98 it was about $100. I made $5.25 an hr at UAA. Current minimum is 11 I think. Not much out of line.
I agree with Cron, but somebody on this message board needs to speak the honest truth and be the a-hole, and that a-hole today is me. If we’re going to talk about the problems with higher education, I think people have to admit some hard truths. First, not every high school graduate has the skill set to succeed in college. Bluntly, some kids are just stupid, and others are just lazy. These kids should never go to college. Second, not every high school graduate is financially able to attend college upon graduation. For these kids, they should learn a trade, work a year or two, then attend night school, or take some online classes (cheap) to see if that is a path they want to pursue. Third, some kids are pushed into college by peer/teacher/parent pressure, but the reality is they don’t want to go. These are the kids who fail and/or change majors 8 times, and upon graduation become baristas or go to graduate school at FSU. The solution IMO is not a one size fits all. The government needs to get out of higher education because everything they touch gets FUBAR. I believe every student in 10th grade should be required to take a class, for the entire year, called “the economics of life”. This class will discuss how to manage money, get a job, etc; cost/benefit analysis of college vs a trade; have guest speakers with degrees and those with skill trades. Guest speaker for college admissions. You get the gist. The purpose is to give the kids the tools to make an educated decision. Kids need to know College is not the only road to success.
