Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Students and taxpayers deserve better re. student loans


Recommended Posts

Students and taxpayers deserve better re. student loans

The president’s long-awaited announcement to provide mass student loan forgiveness is politics at its worst. Wednesday, President Joe Biden caved to the demands of radicals within his own party and in doing so turned his back on the hardworking Americans he has long claimed to champion.

Despite repeated warnings from economists and top advisors in his own party about the harms of this inflationary, ill-targeted action, the president took at least $2,000 out of the pocket of every hard-working taxpayer to pay the debts other people willingly took.

The American people deserve better than this.

They deserve a government that serves all its citizens, not those who were simply fortunate enough to be alive and holding student loan debt at a time of political convenience.

*******************************************

Democrats are pushing socialism again, this time removing debts that everyone else will pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This latest student loan deal is the Biden's admin way of buying votes.  

I just can't support it since the schools that ripped  off their students got their money.

This deal will just lead to more overcharging for inferior services by colleges across the country.

Next we will see strikes for more pay by professors,  and other college staff,  especially private schools,  since they know that a 3rd party will pay the bills.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ElCid said:

You are soooo wrong.  How is it illegal?

Maybe not technically illegal. And they were clever in that I'm not sure who has standing to sue against it, but are you OK with a president - of any party - wielding the purse through executive order  when that is the purview of Congress?  What happens when a Republican is president and wants to spend half a trillion without consulting congress? Is it OK with you only because you like how it's being spent?

This is a naked vote buying scheme that solves nothing. The colleges that raise tuition at rates beyond the rate of inflation every year do not have to change their ways. In fact, now they can tell students that this has happened once and it could happen again, thus encouraging students to continue to borrow beyond their means with no concern about their degree correlating to any chance at future employment. 

It is unfair in more ways than just some are beneficiaries and others are not. There is a "musical chairs" kind of unfairness to the whole thing. If you haven't paid your debts at this particular time in history, you get the whole burden lifted. If you borrow next year, you get no benefit. If you finished paying last year you get no benefit. 

And the hand waving justification - Through the HEROES act because of the pandemic? So Biden erases student debt because there IS a pandemic, yet said that "remain in Mexico" for asylum seekers is not necessary because the pandemic is over??  So which is it? 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Marysara1 said:

Progs have had this on their wish list for a good while. I'm just wondering if he has any counsel at all on executive powers. This is going to bite him in the a$$ the minute a judge gets a look at it. 

And who in their right mind would listen to Kamala seriously on any topic?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LuckyDan said:

Progs have had this on their wish list for a good while. I'm just wondering if he has any counsel at all on executive powers. This is going to bite him in the a$$ the minute a judge gets a look at it. 

And who in their right mind would listen to Kamala seriously on any topic?

As if Trump didn't abuse executive powers.  So, until a judge rules he can't do it, Biden can do it.  I'm sure he listened to more people than just Harris before doing this.

Do you have any evidence that a judge would say he cannot do this?

As I said earlier though, the real problem is pushing people to go to college when they really shouldn't or can't get a job with what they major in.  Then add in the pure greed of the college industry for more money.

Incidentally, free community college is NOT the answer.  They have become nothing more than junior colleges preparing students to transfer to four year colleges.  With a few "trade" type programs offered.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ElCid said:

As if Trump didn't abuse executive powers.  So, until a judge rules he can't do it, Biden can do it.  I'm sure he listened to more people than just Harris before doing this.

Do you have any evidence that a judge would say he cannot do this?

As I said earlier though, the real problem is pushing people to go to college when they really shouldn't or can't get a job with what they major in.  Then add in the pure greed of the college industry for more money.

Incidentally, free community college is NOT the answer.  They have become nothing more than junior colleges preparing students to transfer to four year colleges.  With a few "trade" type programs offered.

Free community college is part of the solution. Even now, low cost community college is part of the solution.  New high school graduates  can go there, live at home, and transfer to a four year college, thus reducing total cost.  Working adults can go there and take classes at night with minimal disruption to their lives.

I have no idea what a judge would say, but as I mentioned in my previous post, Biden has made policy decisions prior to this based on his evaluation that the pandemic is over. Now he makes this decision months later based on there being a pandemic.  The problem in any lawsuit against this action is - Who has standing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

Free community college is part of the solution. Even now, low cost community college is part of the solution.  New high school graduates  can go there, live at home, and transfer to a four year college, thus reducing total cost.  Working adults can go there and take classes at night with minimal disruption to their lives.

 

Free community college is NOT part of the solution.  Better education in high school is a better answer.  If community colleges are "free" and offer courses transferable to four year colleges, then the taxpayers are subsidizing those students - even worse than giving them loans.

28% of "community colleges" now have dorms and the number is increasing.  50% have intercollegiate athletic teams - and somebody has to pay for the coaches, facilities and scholarships.

The whole problems with community colleges is they got away from their mission of teaching non-resident students courses that would enable them to get a JOB in 9 to 18 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Free community college is NOT part of the solution.  Better education in high school is a better answer.  If community colleges are "free" and offer courses transferable to four year colleges, then the taxpayers are subsidizing those students - even worse than giving them loans.

28% of "community colleges" now have dorms and the number is increasing.  50% have intercollegiate athletic teams - and somebody has to pay for the coaches, facilities and scholarships.

The whole problems with community colleges is they got away from their mission of teaching non-resident students courses that would enable them to get a JOB in 9 to 18 months.

I never heard of a community college with dorms. But I don't have any statistics handy either.  I can only say that the system of community colleges in Northern Virginia has served my family well. My youngest stepson went there for two years and was able to transfer to a state college and complete his civil engineering degree. That four year state college had completely online classes available  except for labs, and they offered those on Saturdays. 

It looked like his courses at community college mirrored the same classes I took in the first two years of college back in the 1970s - engineering physics, chemistry, calculus, and differential equations for example. I don't think those are taught to very many students in very many high schools. 

I took classes in C++ and computer networking at community college to help me in my job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of us would rather our tax dollars go to subsidize higher education than a lot of the other ways in which they are spent. 

Yes, there are a lot of "useless" degrees, but that also has the presumption that what your degree is in matters as much as simply having a degree. Outside of rigorous STEM-type jobs and law, most employers that want a job candidate with a degree will pay little to no attention what that degree is actually in. 

I get that some people want everyone to get degrees in nothing except for STEM, law, or MBA's, and we have a dire shortage of the first, but I'd rather have a more diverse world than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

A lot of us would rather our tax dollars go to subsidize higher education than a lot of the other ways in which they are spent. 

Yes, there are a lot of "useless" degrees, but that also has the presumption that what your degree is in matters as much as simply having a degree. Outside of rigorous STEM-type jobs and law, most employers that want a job candidate with a degree will pay little to no attention what that degree is actually in. 

I get that some people want everyone to get degrees in nothing except for STEM, law, or MBA's, and we have a dire shortage of the first, but I'd rather have a more diverse world than that. 

I have no problem with tax dollars going to higher education. It's how this was done that I have a problem with. I mention all of them in my post. The worst problem being that nothing was done to make sure this student debt problem doesn't continue in the future, with colleges having no incentive to reform. 

I've never heard of a job where they didn't care what kind of degree you had as long as you had one. But I admit I've been in STEM since I graduated from college in 1979.

As for a diverse world, I don't think we need to charge students 100K each for four years studying the liberal arts. They have college electives that are not so elective for that purpose.  The public library is sufficient if you want to study the liberal arts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is how do taxpayers pay for it.

5 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

I never heard of a community college with dorms. But I don't have any statistics handy either.  I can only say that the system of community colleges in Northern Virginia has served my family well. My youngest stepson went there for two years and was able to transfer to a state college and complete his civil engineering degree. That four year state college had completely online classes available  except for labs, and they offered those on Saturdays. 

It looked like his courses at community college mirrored the same classes I took in the first two years of college back in the 1970s - engineering physics, chemistry, calculus, and differential equations for example. I don't think those are taught to very many students in very many high schools. 

I took classes in C++ and computer networking at community college to help me in my job. 

 

4 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

A lot of us would rather our tax dollars go to subsidize higher education than a lot of the other ways in which they are spent. 

Yes, there are a lot of "useless" degrees, but that also has the presumption that what your degree is in matters as much as simply having a degree. Outside of rigorous STEM-type jobs and law, most employers that want a job candidate with a degree will pay little to no attention what that degree is actually in. 

I get that some people want everyone to get degrees in nothing except for STEM, law, or MBA's, and we have a dire shortage of the first, but I'd rather have a more diverse world than that. 

The question for both of these is that taxpayers are paying for community colleges and if we continue to expand them, the bills will get even higher.  So, anyone who goes to a community college is being subsidized by the taxpayers.  That's why you see so few, if any, private "community colleges."

Not advocating teaching advanced type courses in high school, but courses more focused on actual jobs out there which shouldn't require 2 or 4 years of college.  Same goes for community colleges focusing more on these types of jobs.

Unfortunately community colleges are run by college graduates, most with masters or PhD's so they want their institution to be more like the environment of a "real" college.  That costs a lot of money and taxpayers are on the hook for it.  In addition, to the rapidly expanding costs of regular four year colleges.

I value all education, but at some point the cost to taxpayers needs to be considered - seriously so.   The only thing that is increasing faster than higher education is medical.  So, we need to get as much bang for public dollars as possible.

Just having a degree does not mean what it did 40+ years ago.  Now employers want degrees in specific areas.  The days of employers believing that they could train a college graduate to do the job are gone.

In 1974 I got a job because I had a BA in history and an MEd in education even though there was absolutely no relationship to the job.  My supervisor had a BA in music.    10 years ago, the public universities began offering masters in the field and now most employees have to have a masters in the field.  In 1974, there was not even one course related to the field.

Case in point:  four year degrees just to become a police officer and then still have to go through police academy training.  Of course, the colleges refer to it as "criminal justice."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ElCid said:

The question is how do taxpayers pay for it.

 

The question for both of these is that taxpayers are paying for community colleges and if we continue to expand them, the bills will get even higher.  So, anyone who goes to a community college is being subsidized by the taxpayers.  That's why you see so few, if any, private "community colleges."

Not advocating teaching advanced type courses in high school, but courses more focused on actual jobs out there which shouldn't require 2 or 4 years of college.  Same goes for community colleges focusing more on these types of jobs.

Unfortunately community colleges are run by college graduates, most with masters or PhD's so they want their institution to be more like the environment of a "real" college.  That costs a lot of money and taxpayers are on the hook for it.  In addition, to the rapidly expanding costs of regular four year colleges.

I value all education, but at some point the cost to taxpayers needs to be considered - seriously so.   The only thing that is increasing faster than higher education is medical.  So, we need to get as much bang for public dollars as possible.

Just having a degree does not mean what it did 40+ years ago.  Now employers want degrees in specific areas.  The days of employers believing that they could train a college graduate to do the job are gone.

In 1974 I got a job because I had a BA in history and an MEd in education even though there was absolutely no relationship to the job.  My supervisor had a BA in music.    10 years ago, the public universities began offering masters in the field and now most employees have to have a masters in the field.  In 1974, there was not even one course related to the field.

Case in point:  four year degrees just to become a police officer and then still have to go through police academy training.  Of course, the colleges refer to it as "criminal justice."

Another example where a two year degree is required where thirty years ago  none was required - air traffic control. My brother in law could hack several months of FAA training. He could have never hacked sitting in a classroom for two years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An example of where tuition inflation is having an impact is on how thorough a degree is. When I graduated in 1979 with my B.S. in electrical engineering, 145 hours were required. That was if you had all of the science and math they wanted coming out of high school.  A couple of years ago I found a current catalog of that same school and they've whittled it down to 120 hours. Also no P.E. requirements because of the overhead of providing those classes and probably the potential liability as well.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Just having a degree does not mean what it did 40+ years ago.  Now employers want degrees in specific areas.  The days of employers believing that they could train a college graduate to do the job are gone.

Yeah, that's just not true. My point of reference is the younger people currently in the workforce, and the comments they've made on the subject recently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happened  to catch pea brain Newt Gingrich  on a local political talk show last night. He's peddling a new book, don't recall the

exact title but the theme  is basically Marxists Democrats  are ruining our great country. Of  course the subject of the recent

student  loan forgiveness came up. Bad idea according to the Neuter. Students from Yale and Harvard would get  a break while

Joe  Sixpuke would  get  screwed  over. Gingrich  was, as always, carefully analytic  and nuanced. This  guy was supposedly once  the

brain  power of the GOP.  He would have a problem being  the brain power of a dog  racing track. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

An example of where tuition inflation is having an impact is on how thorough a degree is. When I graduated in 1979 with my B.S. in electrical engineering, 145 hours were required. That was if you had all of the science and math they wanted coming out of high school.  A couple of years ago I found a current catalog of that same school and they've whittled it down to 120 hours. Also no P.E. requirements because of the overhead of providing those classes and probably the potential liability as well.  

Also, with the professionalization of college sports, coaches no longer have to teach PE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

Yeah, that's just not true. My point of reference is the younger people currently in the workforce, and the comments they've made on the subject recently.

Sorry to disagree, but I have seen a different perspective from the young people today and the jobs available to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Sorry to disagree, but I have seen a different perspective from the young people today and the jobs available to them.

And where are you speaking with these young people? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

And where are you speaking with these young people? 

Relatives, children of friends and so forth.  My own experiences when I was working as I noted above.  I began in 1974 with a BA in history and now they want a master's in the field.  And it was government service in the employment field.

Not saying they want be able to find jobs regardless of degree they have, but will they be good jobs, well-paying jobs compared to the way it used to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...