You're against a particular kind of loan forgiveness, where it's assumed the schools are made whole. As you note, there's another kind of loan forgiveness where the obligations simply evaporate.
While I agree that I see no reason to forgive these loans as opposed to any other education loans, I just wanted to point out that the taxpayers would not be suffering twice in this case because the only "suffering" that the taxpayers endure is if loans are not paid back. If they are, the taxpayers get their money back plus interest (still in the hands of the government, but it's not "lost").
While I generally agree with you, this forgiveness seems to target victims of fraud rather than student loans in general. It could be argued that the government should have never allowed a loan to be taken out for a fraudulent school (if they had done due diligence)
Yes loan forgiveness is not ideal but its a makeshift solution to a really bad situation government has created by federally backing student loans and making them non-dischargable in bankruptcy. IMO the ideal solution is to remove the non-dischargebility condition and let the market take its course but that needs congress to act & pass law, loan forgiveness does not!
IMO the subtle reason why republicans hate it is because loan forgiveness effectively signals (to borrowers) that no need to pay this loan, just wait around for a Dem president to show up defer/cancel etc it. which is a step towards discharging the loan in 'special circumstances'.
The basic economics politicians dont seem to get about education cost is that if you dont increase supply and just increase demand pool by making loan cheaper/federally backed all you will get is price inflation & thats been happening at rate way outpacing inflation.
Loan forgiveness is not a workable solution, it rewards one generation of students at the expense of the older folk who have paid and the younger folk who are not in college yet.
So why not both? Reset loans and don't let the current system continue? Your argument is a weird one. It literally hurts no one to forgive the loans but a lot of people don't want to see and i think that's because those people who don't have student loans feel like they're losing an advantage.
Yes! And if they stopped issuing these loans, tuitions will drop quickly. Im against loan forgiveness, but if they’re going to do it that also need to stop backing these loans.
I mean, waiving student loans is exactly the authority you've quoted there. Forgiveness is simply a synonym for fully exercising that provision in this case.
Yeah, I think this was executed wrongly (allowing the schools who originated the debt to profit and escape unaccountable).
I was specifically responding to the 'generally' aspect of the comment, where I think 'generally' debt forgiveness can be a very useful concept, and good for society.
Governments don't seem to mind inflating their currency sometimes which is (if denominated in their own) essentially forgiving themselves of debt ;)
I'm against loan forgiveness. I went to an inexpensive local college, took the public bus to class, lived with my parents (I realize I was "privileged" enough to be able to do this), worked 25 hours/week while going to school, and took as many classes as possible at a low-cost community college that could be applied for credit to my 4-year degree.
I graduated with no debt.
I don't think others should also suffer. That's why, I want the government to stop backing student loans, and make new non-government loans like any other loan, including bk discharge.
Tuitions would drop rapidly, and nobody "in perpetuity" will have to suffer.
Most people who are against forgiveness are also against continuing to write new loans!
Yeah, I feel like making the loans forgivable is the correct solution. It should be the lenders on the hook, not the schools. And if lenders offer fewer loans because they don't see it as cost effective, the schools will be pressured to provide a cheaper and/or better service in response.
I have tried to explain how student loan forgiveness would actually work to deaf ears.
There is no universe where a multi billion dollar bank is going to let billions of dollars of loans evaporate. They have all the connections in government and the all the right people out to dinner to prevent that.
Instead, the banks will get their bad loans paid off by the taxpayer. This further incentivizes them to embark on worthless loans as they know there can feel a nearly infinite stream of money into their pockets.
The best solution is education: nobody should take out a 70k loan for a job that could only pay 30k. The second is default: lenders should feel the sting of making bad loans and_should not_ be rewarded for bad behavior and taking advantage of kids.
Student loan forgiveness and universal education are distinct issues. I oppose the former (even though I would benefit from it to the tune of $30K) but not the latter.
I oppose student loan forgiveness because it punishes people who were responsible and rewards people who were irresponsible. Moreover, it disproportionately rewards the upper classes who are more likely to have more debt--it's regressive. If we decide we want to help people who are burdened, let's mail checks based on need (whether their need is a result of student loan debt or not) and those of us who are doing fine can pay those checks with our taxes. Student loan forgiveness is just welfare for the upper classes (me included!).
Every student loan forgiveness proposal I see suggests that taxpayers foot the bill and the counterargument is why should those who did not attend and/or those who paid off have to foot the bill.
I agree with that counterargument and will never vote for forgiveness.
However, send put a proposal in front of me that seizes assets from the universities selling these degrees that apparently can never pay for themselves and sell off their assets to pay down student loan debt? You'll get my vote.
I'm completely against forgiving student loans. I want to solve the problem, which means no more Government backed student loans. (I'm all for the Government building more low-cost public Universities, though.)
But if they are going to forgive them, certainly the students who prided themselves on being the best and the brightest should have known better! Therefore, anyone in the top 10% of SAT scores or at the top 100 schools should not be eligible for discharge. If you're smart enough to get into Chicago or Harvard, you're smart enough to know how loans work.
reply