Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well bear in mind, all of those loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. You can’t do that (certainly not as easily) with student loans. Or in the case of loans on personal residences, which are typically non-recourse loans, the lender can’t recover more than the value of the collateral (the house) even if the borrower owes more than the value of the collateral. Student loans are a different animal.
The lenders repossess the car and foreclose on the house.
With student loan forgiveness, college educated people are asking for their student loans to be erased while they maintain and have the sole benefit and extra earning power of their degrees. Not cool.
Anyone smart enough to be accepted into college can figure out how to pay their own 10K student loan. They took the loan out, they can pay for it.
So are we in agreement that it makes more sense to utilize funds to help Ukraine maintain its independence as opposed to reducing the balances of student loans of US students? The OP was making the case it was a better use of the funds to prioritize the later over the former.
So a couple of things….many people who “pay for their own school” are being subsidized by taxpayers. Every state run University that I am aware of gets some funding from their respective state governments. If one wants people to pay for their own college, then they should be advocating for abolishing subsidies to state universities. Second, based on the number of people who ***** about student loans, I’m sure some number of those people are getting their own federal subsidies, but I don’t hear them talking about giving those up. The most significant one that comes to mind is not requiring taxpayers to pay income tax on the share of medical insurance premiums paid for by their employer. If the employer gave them cash in lieu of this benefit, they would have to pay income tax on it. Similarly, why should all tax payers have to subsidize those who put money into 401Ks or IRAs? If you want to save for retirement, why should other taxpayers have to help bear that cost? The short answer is “we” have decided that encouraging people to save is a good idea. Encouraging people to secure private medical insurance is a good idea. Just as encouraging people to pursue a college education is a good idea.
Once again, subsidies to state universities, 401Ks, IRAs, private medical insurance, and Ukraine don't have anything to do with borrowing money for student loans. Please try to stick with the subject.
It would be a winning issue for Republicans and, by emphasizing this is only for US Citizens, would be completely consistent with a populist America-first agenda that is inevitably the GOP's only future.
Wrong on both counts. It is a losing issue, and redistribution of wealth in a completely illogical and unfair manner is not consistent with any benevolent agenda.
Well bear in mind, all of those loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. You can’t do that (certainly not as easily) with student loans. Or in the case of loans on personal residences, which are typically non-recourse loans, the lender can’t recover more than the value of the collateral (the house) even if the borrower owes more than the value of the collateral. Student loans are a different animal.
That's a good point. Let's work on changing the bankruptcy law, then.
only US students???? Scenario... repubs support only US students. Media.....repubs are zenophobic and evil, hate immigrants and non white people.
student loans transferred to taxpayers! taxpayers need to take out an ad stating they are not responsible for poor financial decisions made by students seeking higher knowledge.
the financial burden the students accepted, must be considered tuition in higher education's financial scheme to fleece taxpayers with the blessing of the democrats..
Headline corrected..... Taxpayer bail out students who made poor decisions based on poorly structured loans promoted by the government to aid universities favorable to democrats.
The plan does back flips to avoid solving the root of the problem. Paying student debt w/o severely restructuring the loan process will ensure continuation of the problem democrats pretend to solve with taxpayer cash.
The democrats have a winning plan, rely on profoundly stupid people as demonstrated in AZ, PA, NY, GA.
So a couple of things….many people who “pay for their own school” are being subsidized by taxpayers. Every state run University that I am aware of gets some funding from their respective state governments. If one wants people to pay for their own college, then they should be advocating for abolishing subsidies to state universities. Second, based on the number of people who ***** about student loans, I’m sure some number of those people are getting their own federal subsidies, but I don’t hear them talking about giving those up. The most significant one that comes to mind is not requiring taxpayers to pay income tax on the share of medical insurance premiums paid for by their employer. If the employer gave them cash in lieu of this benefit, they would have to pay income tax on it. Similarly, why should all tax payers have to subsidize those who put money into 401Ks or IRAs? If you want to save for retirement, why should other taxpayers have to help bear that cost? The short answer is “we” have decided that encouraging people to save is a good idea. Encouraging people to secure private medical insurance is a good idea. Just as encouraging people to pursue a college education is a good idea.
I might even be open to an additional tax benefit for student loan borrowers (who do already get to write off any interest paid on student loans). Providing it goes through the proper channels and process of creating law that all the other tax benefit programs have gone through. Let's say a $500-1000 fully refundable credit each year, limited to certain income level. We'll let you keep a little bit more of your money. If you choose to apply it to your student loans or a new flat screen TV that's on you. But you still are responsible for paying off the money you borrowed.
I'm still not a huge fan of the idea, but at least it's more in line with the other subsidized tax programs. And would go through the proper channels to become law. Certainly a better option than allowing the president to wipe out $10-20k for each person with a stroke of the pen. Bypassing the lawmaking process and overstepping their power.
One other point I would make is there's a big difference IMO between utilizing a tax benefit that exists. And taking out a loan, agreeing to all the terms as they were presented, then deciding you don't want to pay it back and shouldn't have to anymore.
Last edited by simplechamp; 12-07-2022 at 09:36 AM..
Hear me out. Normally I'd be opposed to handouts. However, let's get real, we're giving endless handouts to FOREIGNERS, for example hundreds of billions to Ukraine and untold billions to illegal aliens all in just one year. Add on other forms of foreign aid and the UN budget. How about instead of subsidizing foreigners we instead embrace diverting some of that money to relieve US Citizens of their education debt.
It would be a winning issue for Republicans and, by emphasizing this is only for US Citizens, would be completely consistent with a populist America-first agenda that is inevitably the GOP's only future. Stop it with the handouts to foreigners.
Of course, the republicans are too milquetoast to realize this.
No, having taxpayers pay for student loan debt encourages people to work less (since they won’t need to earn as much to repay their debt), encourages colleges to keep offering useless programs for high tuition, is a handout to upper-income people, etc. it’s a terrible idea.
For handouts to illegal aliens: the Bible requires that we treat them the same as our own.
For Ukraine: this is a low cost way of avoiding a global disaster: the destruction of a friendly democracy by an evil dictator, which could set the world back to the age of the law of the jungle, and result in growth of hostile dictators. Support of Ukraine is definitely a key national interest.
And even if handouts to illegal aliens and support of Ukraine were not ok, two wrongs wouldn’t make a right.
Well bear in mind, all of those loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. You can’t do that (certainly not as easily) with student loans. Or in the case of loans on personal residences, which are typically non-recourse loans, the lender can’t recover more than the value of the collateral (the house) even if the borrower owes more than the value of the collateral. Student loans are a different animal.
Sort of, i do think student loans should be able to be discharged in Bankruptcy. But not until they are no longer "guaranteed". Any other type of loan you have to qualify. You can walk in with a 500 credit score with a decade of defaults decide to go to school(for a degree in basketweaving) and get a 100k in loans, thats nonsense,
I'd say 3.5 GPA in a STEM or education curriculum from an accredited institution, proven to turn out good graduates.
I think 3.5 is high but maybe that’s a good start. See how it works with good students first.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
