I think this is a good read and good topic for discussion.  Please keep comments civil and rational.  Thanks! 

Very good article, thanks.  There is little discussion on the root of the problem, decades of outrageous tuition inflation.

the root cause also has to include a change in 1996 that made education loans non dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Hence, complicated by the privatization of Sallie Mae and the switch to compound interest by the remaining lenders who are just wolves in sheepskins.

Allowing bankruptcy and limiting compound interest would fix things going forward but 

does nothing for the 45 million people stuck since 1996 with these financial anchors

and we have had some really bad recessions not to mention Covid during the last 20 years.

See how some folks make stuff up and then act like today's kids are lazy and want someone else to pay their debts?  

See how some folks make stuff up

Who is making stuff up Tessy?

Loan forgiveness is both irresponsible and irrational.    The smarter approach would be to provide legislation that makes it easier for kids with proven attitude and aptitude to get more help securing higher education.   Retroactive 'grants' like this should never be taken.  It is always best to make the rule first and then execute the rule.

That said, I am not a fan of any government program because I have very little faith that our government has the means and will to ensure money goes to the intended parties and that the money is used effectively (as opposed to being wasted).

Thus, in general, I am in favor of the government spending its time trying to make existing funding more effective and not pass any new spending legislation.   At least until they demonstrate that they are responsible stewards for our tax dollars (and the borrowed tax dollars from our great-grandchildren).

Loan forgiveness is both irresponsible and irrational.

Indeed.  My daughter graduated from Cal Poly in 2020 and was the only one of our kids to actually qualify via the FAFSA for Federal Student Loans.  They were a combination of a lower rate unsubsidized Stafford Loan and then a much larger Parent Plus Loan with a higher rate.  Due to Covid forbearance she/we were never required to make any payments after she graduated, and from the start of the forbearance no interest accrued.  She got a couple great jobs, including her current job at a big law firm in San Diego, and before the forbearance even ended (still hasn't ended actually) she/we had the loans paid off.

A month or two after we had them paid off came the news that the Biden administration was likely to move forward with some sort of order regarding student loan forgiveness.  My daughter calls me and says, "Shit Dad we could have had a good chunk of my loans paid by the Government like some of my professors had talked about".  And I asked her, "Why should taxpayers who you don't know have to pay for YOUR choice of college education, or pay off student loans to which YOU chose to agree?"  Crickets....  Not only are the colleges encouraging this out of control student debt, but they are actively teaching the students that they are "entitled" to loan forgiveness.  Let that sink in for a bit.

First of all, I was totally lucky. Both of my girls got a full ride at a private university, which came from their hard work at school. That being said, some of that was crazy grants, like because they were identical twins. But at the end of the day, we were only on the hook for the parental share.

Also, planning is everything if you can save. If your kids have any savings, the school will take that first, and apply it towards any non-merit-based scholarship given, which is messed up. 529 accounts might be tax deferred, but you have to be careful who owns them, and frankly, there are better instruments to put money in for savings. 

So I say this from a very unemotional standpoint, but I am against loan forgiveness. My kids, who went on to further education might have differing opinions.

My SIL was in the Coast Guard, had his undergraduate education paid for, and part of his master's. But he went on to get a Ph.D. and has about 80K in debt. My daughter did her master's at a state school, and so that didn't cost a fortune. But the SIL's 80K is being paid by him and he expected to pay for it, so he's fine with it, too.

My other daughter got 80K in debt with her master's, and feel that this bailout is a good thing. She's pissed at us that both my hubby and I don't think it's a good thing. We tried to explain to her that when you take on debt it's your responsibility to pay it. Also, this incentives universities to up the tuition, which has outpaced inflation. 

I don't agree with the premise set forth by podcast, that this debt forgiveness weakens the dollar, but it is more debt added to the government, and after the debacle of the PPP monies, it is not something I feel the government can handle. Maybe addressing the root cause for the runaway tuition is a better way to address this.

I think that's great that your girls got a full ride.

My nephew who is in Medical school at Brown University was also fortunate to get a full ride.

We tried to explain to her that when you take on debt it's your responsibility to pay it.

And that is tough to teach someone you love when her friends, college professors, and even the POTUS are teaching her the opposite.  

I think it is possible that if the general attitude towards debt leans toward making it someone else's responsibility, then that slippery slope could indeed lead to the devaluation of the dollar.  But that is just an opinion as the investment advisor who penned this article makes clear.

Maybe addressing the root cause for the runaway tuition is a better way to address this.

Indeed.  Here in California though, the cost of room and board is a bigger problem than the actual tuition.  More often than not those costs constitute a larger percentage of the student loan burden than the tuition.

Thank you for commenting Perrie!

"This executive order doesn't even attempt to fix the core issue of runaway inflation in college tuition. In fact, it will likely make tuition inflation even worse by throwing more taxpayer money at colleges and lead to endless "forgiveness" in the future"

It's very apparent that the current administration continues to curry favor and mine for votes.

This executive order doesn't even attempt to fix the core issue of runaway inflation in college tuition

Please illuminate for us, what is the "core" cause of runaway tuition?

Easy:

• Increasing financial aid supports it
• States have lowered support
• Huge increase in administrators and support staff
• Student amenities that rival resorts packages.
• Dorm costs much different than my college days

Colleges have no incentive to lower their costs as they know the government will guarantee all student loans and banks are more than willing to continue to give out larger and larger loans for the same reason.  When the potential of losing money is lessened by government guarantees it's easy to continue to extend that risk.  After all, the only loser in the equation is the tax payer, not the bank or college.

We know that the cost to attend college has exceeded the rate of inflation for many years.

Core causes?  I don't think so.  The colleges set the tuition rates, how would government address that other than telling colleges what they can charge?

You've hit most of the core points.  Good article HERE offering more detail on rising tuition and costs of attending college.  Do not underestimate the significant burden of out of control administrative costs, this extends even down to the community college level.

My oldest son did what was recommended in the aforementioned article and got all of his general ed completed at Mesa Community College in San Diego.  Near the end of his first year there we went down to visit and saw a huge palatial building being erected on campus taking out much of the student parking lot and I said to my son, "Bet you can't wait to go to classes in that building".  And he says nah that's an administrative building only, no classes in there.  Couple years later he transferred to San Diego State but had saved up enough money working and going to Mesa, to pay most of his tuition without using additional loans.  Looking around that campus and many other state and UC campuses you see the swollen administrative staff and buildings and the resort like amenities you mentioned above.  Even my alma mater Cal Poly - San Luis Obispo now has twice as many buildings as when I went there and the cost to attend has probably increased by a factor of 10.  My daughter graduated from there a few years ago at the peak of the pandemic.

Core causes?  I don't think so.

What do you think the core causes are?

Correct, they are incentivized to add more bells and whistles.

Huge increase in administrators and support staff

Here is a Forbes article from 2017 that discusses that issue specifically::

Bureaucrats And Buildings: The Case For Why College Is So Expensive

In 2013 and 2014 alone, the Department of Education  released rules and directives  on 10 new sets of issues, ranging from proposed rules on teacher preparation programs to Net Price Calculator requirements to specific regulations for FAFSA verification. Complying with all these rules requires additional staff and additional money. The resources required are not insignificant: a  Vanderbilt study of 13 colleges and universities  found that regulatory compliance comprises 3 to 11% of schools’ nonhospital operating expenses, taking up 4 to 15% of faculty and staff’s time.

And all the while, concerns remain about whether increasing administrative spending detracts from the fundamental mission of higher education – giving students the knowledge they need to prepare them for the world beyond.

“The two big cost drivers are bureaucrats and buildings – obviously neither of those are directly going to the classroom experience,” Zywicki says, referring to gyms and 4-star kitchens. “They’ve actually looked at the classroom experience as a place where they end up conserving money.”

In the last 6 years it has only gotten worse, and not only at the monetary expense of of the students, but at the expense of the quality of their education as well.

Education lending for a non dischargeable debt is at an all time high because practically anyone is eligible regardless of age.

Mr Trump, SVB, Michael Jackson, MC Hammer, 50 cent, Kim Bassinger and Nicholas Cage all share one thing with Abe Lincon and Walt Disney;

they were allowed to declare bankruptcy at some point.

But no student debt can be discharged in bankruptcy.  The 1996 law needs to be revised and these kids need some kind of relief from the compound interest nightmare that keeps them from getting on top of the loan balance.

We should all be equally able to walk away from our credit card, auto, mortgage, student, business, etc debt.

Exactly.

Maybe we can reduce college expenses at law schools by not bothering to teach about contracts since they are apparently meaningless.

But no student debt can be discharged in bankruptcy. 

Actually, if one were to refinance their student loans, it is possible that the second loan could be discharged in bankruptcy. Both my sons discovered that when they went to consolidate/refi their ridiculously high interest rate private student loans (because the Fed Government wouldn't allow them to get Federal loans, or even a lower rate on a private student loans when they were applying) before they/we actually paid them off.  Read up on the FAFSA and you'll get an idea of what fun we had putting our kids through college in the last 10-12 years. Every year was different, every loan was different, every school was different.  Zero consistency year to year so we could financially plan. If we want to give the kids some relief, we need to start by fixing that shit.

I had an interesting discussion about this with an administrator at UC Santa Barbara when my second son was transferring from Santa Barbara City College to UCSB. We were talking about how the Federal Government has basically seized control of all student lending (not just Federal loans), including controlling the interest rates, who qualifies and for what rate, and of course the non-dischargeable debt issue you mentioned.  She claimed that prior to the Federal involvement people were taking out student loans and using it to buy cars and motorcycles and then defaulting on the debt at a fairly significant rate.  Banks lost money and in comes the Federal Government to save the day.

It all comes down to personal responsibility, accountability, and risk.  The banks didn't like the risk so they had the Federal Government shift it back to the irresponsible consumer.  Nevermind that it impacted ALL the consumers, not just the irresponsible ones. 

In the mean time, in the interest of "fairness" rather than meritocracy (grades, test scores and aptitude) the Federal and State Governments decided to control not only who gets grants and free rides to the universities, but also the entire student loan market including qualification and interest rates based on needs or other quotas.  There is no longer for example any lower cost tuition advantage to going to a State or UC school here in California based on CA residency, and CA kids with 4.5 GPAs and high test scores coming out of high school are routinely turned away from the best state schools due to quotas and huge increases in subsidized foreign students.  All of this has led to much higher costs of education, administration, and where we are now in the student loan debt quagmire.  Middle income families can no longer afford tuitions and high housing costs without student loans.  So choices are limited, but somehow better choices need to be made.  All of this in the last 20-25 years.  We need to study what has happened and fix it so there aren't generations of kids who need "relief" going forward.

Sorry - I'm rambling now.  End of a long day!

Core causes?  I don't think so.  The colleges set the tuition rates, how would government address that other than telling colleges what they can charge?

It's definitely a core cause.

Schools charge what they do because the customers have easy access to financing.

If you cap student loans at $100k lifetime, you will be amazed at how quickly education costs fall into that zone.

Mr Trump, SVB, Michael Jackson, MC Hammer, 50 cent, Kim Bassinger and Nicholas Cage all share one thing with Abe Lincon and Walt Disney; they were allowed to declare bankruptcy at some point.

Honestly, I think that the bankruptcy laws need to be rewritten. 

But no student debt can be discharged in bankruptcy.  The 1996 law needs to be revised and these kids need some kind of relief from the compound interest nightmare that keeps them from getting on top of the loan balance.

I totally agree. The compound interest is outrageous and without guidance, these kids get these loans without understanding what they have gotten into.

No one is saying that except you.

What logic are you using that allows student debt to be forgiven but not medical debt, or failed business debt, etc. 

There is no logic involved. It's called magical thinking.

You are deflecting, That's not the topic.

An analogy and logic aren't a deflection.

I've noticed that this is one of your favorite terms by the frequency that you use it here.  It's past time that you learn the meaning of deflection.  The term "deflection" is a psychological defense mechanism  that involves redirecting or “deflecting” blame for one’s own mistake onto someone else in an attempt to preserve one’s own self-image. The  is aware that they’re truly the one that is wrong.

My good deed of the day.

I know what deflecting means and that's what you're usually guilty of.

I use it a lot because it's done a lot by certain members of NT.

I don’t use deflection as a defense mechanism.  Tomorrow I’ll teach you what projection really means.  We can build your word power day by day.

Hilarious that you think I go to you or any other CONservative to learn anything.

Do you just lurk around waiting for me to post?  

Get a life.

I go to you or any other CONservative to learn anything.

Well it’s obvious that you’ve been misusing the term deflection. I didn’t try to deflect blame in 3.1.15

Tomorrow we can cover the definition of projection and include some examples.

Get a life.

You don’t think that I’m alive?  Is this just another canned phrase that you frequently regurgitate?

All of that is not the reason that people today are having difficulty paying off their debt from student loans.  See Split Personality's comment at 1.1.1. for the truth and not your made up shit.

I see you must have the last word.  So typical.

I'm surprised you're not lurking now.

At church?

lol

Always deflecting.  I know that's all you have.

It's clinical with the PD&D.

I haven't been misusing any of my words/terms - Projection, Deflection, or Denial or using them excessively - I've just been calling it out when I see it which is all the time with certain members.

You frequently misuse them.  I’ve never blamed you for something that I did.  I’ve not knowingly attributed to you, mistakes I’ve made.

Now projection would occur if I unconsciously take what unacceptable impulses or thoughts to me and project or attribute them to you.

I guess you never took Psych 101.

No, I do not frequently misuse them.

How would you know if someone is projecting?

But no student debt can be discharged in bankruptcy.

Hey SP -  found an interesting article HERE .  Apparently legal consensus is already moving in a direction to reverse that. 

An appeals court ruled that private student loans can be discharged through bankruptcy like other consumer debts, opening the door for more borrowers to obtain relief from educational debt.

There is also Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act (H.R. 138) being introduced in Congress as we speak.

I'm not exactly clear on how that will help educate or discourage people from falling into the student loan burden hole.  It might just increase the number of bankruptcies and defaults on student loans.

Technically correct, once a loan is privatized because of bundling or being resold in the marketplace like a subpar mortgage, the Fed no longer guarantees the loan(s).

I got stuck with one that someone said I cosigned for ...

When I called, the lender was gracious enough to accept back payment and sell the loan to Wells Fargo after a credit check.  They in short order sold it to FirstMark at a fixed interest rate.

FirstMark reminds me monthly that this isn't a Fed backed loan that can be forgiven by the government.

FirstMark reminds me monthly that this isn't a Fed backed loan that can be forgiven by the government.

Well of course, wouldn't want you to forget...

They've been buying votes since Tammany Hall.

I paid for my own education. I did it by attending schools I could afford and took the money out of my own savings. I get nothing from this loan forgiveness crap except a tax bill to pay for someone else’s education. Forgive me if I’m not a fan.

C,mon T, your taxes won't change based on this government giveaway.

Did they change when the last Administration gave $953 BILLION in PPP "loans" that didn't have to be repaid to small and medium businesses and Mega Churches that really didn't need it.

If they don't spend it on this it will be hypersonic missiles to nowhere/S

Exactly, we just at borrow the money needed to cover the deficit.

Exactly. There are so many worthwhile things we could spend money on, but we piss it away on other crap.

C,mon T, your taxes won't change based on this government giveaway.

Exactly, we will just borrow the money by issuing Treasury bonds and securities.

Forgive me if I’m not a fan.

You are not alone and they lied to us.    

There is free lunch or in this case free college .....

This is a insult to the parents who saved, sacrificed and worked extra to be able to send their children to college and to all  students who worked to pay all or some of the costs.  

It is really insulting to those who worked and paid their loans back

When the previous Administration gave away a trillion dollars that did not have to be repaid by small and medium businesses who was insulted?

No one was insulted until they saw who took advantage of the program, like Mega Churches, and not much was done about it.

We give away millions every year disguised as "tax returns" and you haven't seem to be worried about it.

I thought the topic was college loan debt and Democrats pushing to erase millions of dollars in debt owed to the Treasury?

revious Administration gave away a trillion dollars that di

That was legislation passed unanimously by Nancy Pelosi's House, and required a significant percentage be paid in wages.

but sure,  bipartisan legislation to avoid massive layoffs and destruction of the economy because the government closed businesses is the exact same thing as the President unilaterally altering loans that were voluntarily entered to.  

I believe someone is comparing apples to oranges.

Why has the DoJ sat on their hands?

They haven't. They have caught many of the scum and repossessed a record number of Lamborghinis.

These thieves and scammers weren't all that bright...

I thought the topic was college loan debt 

there you go again,,,thinking

and Democrats pushing to erase millions of dollars

is it strictly Democrats? Are you saying none of the 45 million loan holders are non Democrats?

in debt owed to the Treasury?

And there is the rub.  The $$ is owed to lenders that have zero risk.

The loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy since 1996 yet are still guaranteed by the Treasury.

That's what is broken and needs to be fixed.

The issue isn't the forgiveness itself. It's the limited buying power on these loans borne by 25 to 30 million people who would otherwise be buying new cars and homes and furniture and strollers, stimulating the economy

there you go again,,,thinking

Ah, taunting now.

is it strictly Democrats? Are you saying none of the 45 million loan holders are non Democrats?

Are you for real? Did I say that the loan holders were all Democrats--or even anything freaking remotely CLOSE to that?  Democratic POLITICIANS are pushing this crap. As far as I am aware, loan holders can't discharge debts on their own, as that would just be monumentally STUPID.

And there is the rub.  The $$ is owed to lenders that have zero risk.

I dare say that money owed to the Treasuy and never paid back does affect us all in America in some way.

If there is zero risk, that means all the loans get paid back.

The issue isn't the forgiveness itself.

Millions of people who worked hard to put themselves or their kids through school and worked hard to repay their legal debts would tend to disagree with that.  gee, I bet some of them would be highly pissed, knowing that they sacrificed and did without so they could have a better overall life and pay their debts just so they can see someone who has never paid a penny back get a new car or house.

As far as I am aware, loan holders can't discharge debts on their own, as that would just be monumentally STUPID.

Maybe you should investigate that a little but further.

Debt forgiveness, especially if guaranteed by the Feds, Treasury, etc., happens all the time and the IRS treats it as income.

Millions of people who worked hard to put themselves or their kids through school and worked hard to repay their legal debts would tend to disagree with that.  gee, I bet some of them would be highly pissed, knowing that they sacrificed and did without so they could have a better overall life and pay their debts just so they can see someone who has never paid a penny back get a new car or house

And people who had their money in SVB are probably pissed too.  Hundreds of thousands of hard working people like Donald Trump have declared bankruptcy and resurrected themselves including Abraham Lincoln. 

Why can't students since 1996?

It's a mistake that needs to be corrected. All solutions are welcome.

Why can't students since 1996?

I recall something being passed into law about then.

True yet people get all up in arms on student loan debt forgiveness.  I don't get it.

They're defending the indefensible as usual, but we cannot help our own kids and not have them saddled with debt for the majority of their lives after their education.  What the hell are you thinking?

Forgiving loans transfers hundreds of billions of dollars from debtors to the federal government and then, the taxpayers.

One can also argue it penalizes families or individuals who scrimped and saved to pay for college, as well as most Americans who don't go to college.

Some of these debtors come from upper income families and they will get good jobs with good incomes.

It’s an expensive Band-Aid that cover ups the real problem, tuition infection.

For years, the cost of college education has risen much faster than inflation, which is why we have so much student debt.

but we cannot help our own kids

Why can’t you?

For years, the cost of college education has risen much faster than inflation, which is why we have so much student debt.

And forgiving loans will just make college costs rise even faster.

exasperating the high cost problem even further.

[deleted]

The loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy since 1996

Actually SP, I believe the 1996 law was amended in 2005 and made applicable to all Federal and private student loans.  See info HERE . 

There was a documentary on this last week, the bankruptcy judge they interviewed would not accept the fact that the cancer, the healthcare costs and his inability work, let alone to pay back the student loans was "undue hardship".  They granted him bankruptcy without affecting the Federally backed student laws because of the 1996 amendment to the Omnibus Bill.

CMTSU

Didn't accept those circumstances as an "undue hardship"??  What the hell???!!!

I forgot about those who went in the military for the educational befits 

I forgot about those who went in the military for the educational befits 

Another subsection that will get royally screwed.

My best friend out of high school joined the Army Medical Corps and they covered his Medical education in exchange for 8 years service including I believe one or two tours in Iraq.  That sort of choice is still available to kids out of high school and if you ask guys like my friend, it is an excellent choice.

As did two of my children, who owe very little now and don't feel screwed at all.

Their sister however is burdened with about 40K which just never seems to go away...

I forgot about those who went in the military for the educational befits 

Another subsection that will get royally screwed.

They don't get screwed, since there is a limit to those benefits, but I am still against the forgiveness. That being said, those 529 accounts are not all that they are cracked up to be.

VA’s 529 worked well for my daughter, she will have her Master degree with no debt.

I think they are getting screwed. They had to volunteer for service to get the same benefits others will get for doing absolutely nothing.

This is an area where I heartily disagree with you Perrie.  Though I respect your opinion, I disagree.

My SIL would be the first to say he didn't get screwed. The amount he got out of his service is way more than this forgiveness. That being said, please note that I am NOT in favor of it. 

This is an area where I heartily disagree with you Perrie.  Though I respect your opinion, I disagree.

That's OK. 

And while I am discussing this, I would like to point out something that a lot of indies here say. I know I am NOT taking the liberal view on this... neither is Tig. I am socially liberal, but a fiscal conservative for the most part.

I am socially liberal, but a fiscal conservative ...

... and in your little shop of tasty 'horrors' a libertarian monarchist.

I am talking about the 529 that most people get. As for the VA, there is a cap to what you get, but for the most part, it pays to serve.

529's on the whole are not all that they are cracked up to be. It depends on who owns them and there are better instruments to save.

How dare you call me a libertarian monarchist, LOL. 

No, I am not a libertarian, since in theory, they would like to believe what I believe, but in practice, they are conservatives.

They don't get screwed,

Sure they do.    Many sign up for just that reason.    The GI bill.    It’s a perk.    Now it’s much lesser so if they go through with loan forgiveness and I would submit that it’s just one more reason the services are missing their recruiting quotas.

They are not forced to volunteer.

Why make shit up?

They are not forced to volunteer.

Well, think about it for ONE second. Would they get the benefits had they not joined the service?

Why make shit up?

Great question. Why DID you?

Here is my post where you claimed I said they were forced:

I think they are getting screwed. They had to volunteer for service to get the same benefits others will get for doing absolutely nothing.

Now you may look directly at my post and just QUOTE me directly AND accurately. Unless you made shit up..............................

They are not forced to volunteer.

No one said they were, you just made that shit up.

They had to volunteer for service

No, they did not. 

to get the same benefits others will get

Not at all true, in the military, it's a possibility, not a guarantee.

for doing absolutely nothing.

How presumptuous of you.

A: it hasn't happened yet.

B: The people with the non dischargeable debt apparently went to class and did the work.

They are caught in a conundrum quietly created by Congress through no fault of their own.

No one is suggesting complete amnesty, they are seeking a merciful hand up to tens of millions of younger people caught in a trap.

A partial discharge possibly combined with Jack's or Freewill's suggestions of fixed long term loans at a reasonable interest rate seems reasonable.

As reasonable as paying farmers not to grow crops?

Right now education lending is a bankers wet dream.  No credit checks, non dischargeable loans guaranteed by the Fed with compounding interest.

There ought to be a law against it.

Busting myths about bankruptcy and private student loans Section 523(a)(8) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code makes student loans exempt from discharge absent undue hardship .

I think that most of these changes first took place in the late 70's when Carter was president.

caught through no fault of their own? no one forced them to take out loans or to take jobs which don't pay them enough to cover their debts.

this isn't about farmers, try sticking to the topic.

The law in 1976 put a condition in place that student loans could not be discharged until 5 years after the repayment period had begun.

The anonymous amendment to the 1996 Omnibus Bill reduced that to zero.

Since Congress never defined "undue hardship" and the Dept of Education has to approve any discharges through bankruptcy, only 0.04% of all cases submitted have been approved since 1976.

The Dept of Education has steadfastly believed that, despite the findings of it's own studies and others like Harvard, there is no nationwide conspiracy by teenagers to manipulate the DOE into providing them with a free education by declaring bankruptcy to avoid future repayment. 

The same attitude was prevalent throughout Congress, the same body which has quite a few survivors of bankruptcy serving, even a past POTUS or 2 or 3...

Those 529 accounts...are they the ones parents/grandparents can set up when a child is young for their education later?

The bankruptcy laws have no bearing really on people failing to pay back their own legal debts they willingly signed on to.

bankruptcy laws, as much as some want to complain about them, have absolutely nothing to do with people failing to pay their debts.

Exactly, I know I can be a jerk and go over the top when expressing my opinion - I don't think total amnesty is the way to go either - but give 'em a break!!!!!!!!

A lot of good suggestions from Jack and Freewill about the low interest rates and longer terms, agreed.

Thanks SP, good info.

This is one area where I heartily disagree with you.  I respect your opinion but I do not see this as an insult in any way, shape or form.  Most parents want their children to be better off and not be saddled by debt for the rest of their lives.

I don't see it as an insult to myself or my daughter since we both paid off our student debt. She paid hers off in about 5 years after graduating college (we threw a party). Took me a lot longer. I think my kids were teenagers when I finally paid it all off (we threw a party).

I don't have a problem with some of it forgiven...but for people who went and got a tangible education like nurses, engineers, teachers, ect. I have to ask philosophy and art history majors what they think they are going to do with that BA degree? Yes, I'm judgmental here, but really....you have to make a living

I don't have a problem with some of it forgiven...but for people who went and got a tangible education like nurses, engineers, teachers, ect. I have to ask philosophy and art history majors what they think they are going to do with that BA degree? Yes, I'm judgmental here, but really....you have to make a living

Bravo!

I don't have a problem with some of it forgiven...but for people who went and got a tangible education like nurses, engineers, teachers, ect. I have to ask philosophy and art history majors what they think they are going to do with that BA degree? Yes, I'm judgmental here, but really....you have to make a living

Bravo!

Was receiving those loans contingent on what area of study they would pertain to?  The idea that people who do a 'tangible' job now should receive loan forgiveness but someone who got a degree in "art history" should not is not what was required at the time of the loan. 

Is the world not enriched by "art history" ? 

I have to ask philosophy and art history majors what they think they are going to do with that BA degree? 

Teach? Curate collections at museums? Can nothing be learned from art history? 

What good is philosophy? Why do we teach it? Why do we worry about what dead old men thought?

Perhaps it trains the mind to view things from different perspectives? 

You could have said the same things once about chemistry or geology.  

And why have music colleges? 

Nobody needs that stuff... /s

people who borrow money should learn that they need to be in a lucrative enough field to pay back what they borrowed.

“…You could have said the same things once about chemistry or geology.”

Indeed.

When we discount the importance of the arts in defining our history and in understanding our culture, we ignore the importance of those contributions. 

When we discount the importance of the arts in defining our history and in understanding our culture, we ignore the importance of those contributions.

Great things, but it doesn't mean we should all pay for it by giving college educations out for free.

Oh, yeah, add English while you are at it. And literature.

I'm judgemental because I'm practical. My daughter had thought becoming a music composer. I'm glad that phase didn't last long because she went to school and got her BSN. She now has a great job.

I know that art and philosophy is important but it seems impractical. Curate at a museum? Yeah....I don't think those jobs come along every day. One could teach I suppose but I don't teaching jobs in Art History are a dime a dozen, either.

I studied science so I like the "hard" stuff. The stuff that gets you jobs

I'm all for teaching English and literature. And I took a class in Theater when I was in college because I needed an "art" class. Glad I did. It was fun

I studied science so I like the "hard" stuff. The stuff that gets you jobs

LOL, me too I have had an advanced degree in ''lashing and unlashing a vessel'' with a minor  in ''ducking the hook''....All kidding aside my daughter received a BA in ''Asian Humanities'' with a language specialty in Chinese (Mandarin). So I'm saying to myself, self is this going to get her a job and pay her bills? Little did I know how extensive the BA in Asian Humanities is. She went on to an advanced degree in linguistics and then lo and behold she had multiple job offers. Moved to Australia and received a Ph.D. and has acted as an interpreter for the Australian government and multiple businesses. She taught English in China for two years (Buzz knows about this) and is in constant demand from businesses in Australia for her language ability. 

When I was still working and she visited here I would take her to some of my international customers. We went to a fairly formal dinner in LA with a very large Chinese client and were a bit shocked. First, she is 6' 1'' with raven hair and green eyes to match a beautiful bronze skin color and then she spoke to them in perfect Mandarin and knows the culture and history as well as they did they were incredulous. To say that she had them in the palm of her had would be an understatement. 

The bottom line is the degree that she received was something I never thought she would ever actually make money at.

I was wrong with a capital W.

Asian Humanities and learned how to speak Mandarin? Yeah...that's a job looking for her. Sounds like she's done well

I studied science so I like the "hard" stuff. The stuff that gets you jobs

Consider the fact that getting your degree, especially one with an "A" in it, does not mean that you will necessarily get a job in your major field. What it does attest to is your ability to think and process data from a multitude of sources.  People think differently. Some are very mathematical, get turned on to physics, etc. Some are artistically inclined. 

I majored in Geology. I have been everything from a nurse's aide to an electrician to a circuit board designer. Life is all about "you" and what "you" decide to do with it. Same with education.

Yeah, I go over the top like I said above and can be a jerk about expressing my opinion sometimes but I don't think total amnesty is the way to go either, maybe discharge a portion of the debt (like SP said) and then payoff over low interest/longer term loans like Freewill and Jack suggested - great ideas.  Give 'em a break!

I never thought about the BA in art history and what have you . . . and making a living . . . I hear ya!  lol

I apologize to you here also freewill for being a jerk and being over the top with my comments about not wanting better for your kids - that really wasn't meant to include you - I was being over the top, again - and a bit of a jerk.

I'll do better.

Those who took the money should have been aware of the terms.  

The loans were supposed to help them get better jobs, make more money and buy more stuff.

Did they use the education the loans were to pay for to get better jobs and make enough money to pay back what they borrowed? 

Those who took the money should have been aware of the terms.  

If not, it is their own fault, as I am positive the terms were fully disclosed when they signed their loan papers.

The loans were supposed to help them get better jobs, make more money and buy more stuff.

Yep, and it seems out of place to make someone else have to end up paying for them to go to college.

Did they use the education the loans were to pay for to get better jobs and make enough money to pay back what they borrowed? 

Maybe gender studies and basket weaving aren't lucrative careers?

Those who took the money should have been aware of the terms.  

They were 17, 18, 19 years old who knew nothing of long term loans with compound interest, certainly unaware that after 1996 these specific loans could not be discharged in bankruptcy.

The loans were supposed to help them get better jobs, make more money and buy more stuff.

Yes, the great fraud.

Did they use the education the loans were to pay for to get better jobs and make enough money to pay back what they borrowed?

It's insulting to suggest that the students somehow failed when this country was rocked by several recessions and pandemics and had record unemployment for so long.

They were 17, 18, 19 years old who knew nothing of long term loans with compound interest, certainly unaware that after 1996 these specific loans could not be discharged in bankruptcy.

The borrowers should have informed themselves better.

If you are mature enough to sign a contract then you should be mature enough to research stuff before obligating yourself. Whether they knew it couldn't be discharged in bankruptcy is irrelevant--almost like you think that was a plan they had.

Yes, the great fraud.

What fraud? Stats show college degreed people earn significantly more in a lifetime than those without degrees.

It's insulting to suggest that the students somehow failed when this country was rocked by several recessions and pandemics and had record unemployment for so long.

Pandemic is over, companies are hiring, earnings are up, and they haven't had to pay anything during the pandemic.

Perhaps 18 is too young to take a loan, maybe 21 would be better. 

Perhaps 18 is too young to take a loan, maybe 21 would be better

The reality is that no loans are taken by an 18 year-old alone.  Parents have to be involved, including a lengthy FAFSA application process that dictates the type and size of the loans the family qualifies for.  There are many variables at play and the result of the FAFSA application seemed almost unpredictable from year to year when my kids went through it, and it also depended on the school(s) applied for.  Most middle or upper middle income families will not qualify for Federal loans at all, private loans at a rate dictated by the government is all that is available.  Many who do qualify for Federal loans will find that they can only qualify for say a small unsubsidized Stafford loan at a fairly high interest rate, accompanied by a much larger "Parent Plus" loan at an even higher rate. Parent Plus meaning the parents alone take on the repayment obligation. Some Unsubsidized Federal loans and all private loans will require a co-signer, so it isn't only the student on the hook for a student loan that can't be discharged in bankruptcy.  Don't let anyone fool you about that reality. 

Thank you, SP.  I respect chargers' opinion but I think this is outright foolish and downnright silly IMHO.

What the what?

Three or more years after they're already in college?????

I guess you think you're being cute.

Three or more years after they're already in college?????

Where is a law that says you have to start college at 18?????

How foolish.  What are you talking about?  They may indeed make more money but how can they buy 'more stuff' when they are paying off debt - is their interest/how much interest on that debt?

They obviously cannot make the kind of money to 'buy more stuff' and pay off all that debt.  I agree with student loan forgiveness or why not forgive the majority of the debt but not all and the student pays the remainder, just a thought.

They should use some of the money from the better job that college should have helped them get before they started spending big time.  

Yep, just one more case of no personal accountability.    Take out the loan but don’t pay it back.     In fact, ask people who never went to college to pay for it.

There aren’t words to describe how much this disgusts me.

The very simple solution to the student loan issue is to convert the loans to 30 or 40 year terms.

Payments become manageable, and people can pay off their loans when they get established and have more money.

Many of the loans are pretty high interest though, so a lower rate would need to be negotiated as well.  There were/are quite a few organizations (Earnest, Sofi, LendKey, etc.) offering consolidation/refi loans that actually do offer longer terms and lower rates.  Both my sons used Earnest I believe before they were able to pay their loans off completely. 

I've wondered how many of these kids accumulate thousands or tens of thousands of dollars of debt and never graduate from college.

Or how many really have no business being in college and could do well in a trade without being buried in debt for decades. 

There is some ways to cut those costs if you decide that you must go to college. Spend the first two years in a junior college to help cut the costs when you have to transfer to a four-year college. Attend a college out of the US. Canada has some fine schools as does Europe. 

There have been articles on companies dropping their bachelor's degree requirements for employment in some positions. Some are Fortune 500 companies.

I've wondered how many of these kids accumulate thousands or tens of thousands of dollars of debt and never graduate from college.

The numbers will shock you.  Here is a report on the debt accumulated by college dropouts from just mid-2014 to mid-2016 and it is astounding.

The U.S. Department of Education’s  College Scorecard  tracks the number of students who dropped out with debt for each college and university in the nation. My figures show a total of 3.9 million undergraduates with federal student loan debt dropped out during fiscal years 2015 and 2016 (from mid-2014 through mid-2016) . I found that more than 900,000 of these students dropped out of for-profit universities. That’s 23 percent of all the indebted dropouts, even though only 10 percent of all undergraduate students attend for-profit schools. Many more indebted dropouts, almost 2.5 million of them, had attended public institutions, such as two-year community colleges and four-year state schools. But the public sector’s share of dropouts exactly matches its share of the student population: 64 percent. As a whole, private nonprofit colleges seem to be doing a better job, accounting for 13 percent of the dropouts while educating a quarter of all U.S. undergraduates. However, the size of the debts of dropouts is the largest at private nonprofit colleges, with each person owing almost $10,000 on average.

A very sad situation indeed.  And that is JUST Federal student loan debt mind you.  Better choices need to be made by students and parents early before these students incur such debt, perhaps with the help of placement counselors in high school or entry counselors at the colleges. Some resources are available, but sometimes hard to find.  Many students and their parents are not well enough informed before such decisions are made. And it isn't just the students on the hook mind you.  Some unsubsidized Federal loans and all private student loans require parents to co-sign, and the bulk of middle income Federal loans, if one can qualify for them at all, are what they call Parent Plus loans, and the obligation/responsibility for repayment doesn't even include the student's name, just the parents.  Been there, done that.

Spend the first two years in a junior college to help cut the costs when you have to transfer to a four-year college.

Yep - That is what my two boys did.

Wow, those stats are shocking. In debt with little to show for it. 

I was lucky, my daughter got a full-ride scholarship to UCLA. My son decided he didn't want to go to college, which IMO was a good choice for him since he really wasn't a college type. 

Thanks for the link.

It’s great to see your kids make the best choices for themselves.  Congratulations Kavika.

I passed on a free ride to rutgers, because I hated school, I was in love, and I wanted to work with my hands. I didn't become an office rat until I was 50 and I hated every minute of it.

Thanks, Drinker.

a full-ride scholarship to UCLA

I had the same thing, a California State Scholarship, although they did require us to also take out a small loan.  As I recall, it was only $3,500.  That paid for books.

I don't remember if she had to take out a loan but I don't think so. I would not have let her do that and would have tried to pay it myself if there was one.

It was a requirement when I got the scholarship.  Of course, that was a long time before your daughter got her scholarship.  The loan was low interest, and my parents didn't really have the money to help out very much, so it was OK.

At the job fairs I volunteer for I push the trades equality with college education.    It’s sad how hard kids are programmed today that the HAVE TO go to college.    Few consider the trades seriously.

Its an academia industrial complex starting in middle school ......

From everything that I've read and much of what I experienced before I retired students today look at the trades as not worthy of their time. Sad, since many of those same kids do not belong in college. 

Granted many of the trades require physical work but they also require a skill that one can acquire that will give them a comfortable living for the rest of their lives. 

Priorities that are ass backward seem to be prevalent. 

Yep, many teachers/administrators don’t like my presence there because I offer kids options other than college.    It’s pretty messed up.

Trades are wonderful. People will bless you if you can fix their dishwasher, toilet, car, or house. Just who do they think builds all of this infrastructure?

Couldn’t agree more.  I taught ROTC at a university that had a large number of 1st generation college students.  Of them, many had poor writing skills and study habits.  I saw them accumulate debt and believed them might end up selling shoes at a mall.

My best friend’s son, decided college wasn’t for him and he became a high voltage electrician in Colorado.  He and his family are living well in a nice house.

Exactly, Thomas. 

how many really have no business being in college and could do well in a trade without being buried in debt for decades. 

Yes!

Much has been made of this student debt relief program: How it is somehow unfair to certain individuals; How people who run up massive student debts will somehow have them wiped away. The unfairness thing I personally think is mostly sour grapes, like someone walking into a store wanting a refund because the washer/dryer that they bought a week ago just went on sale. As for the $1000 that he, his daughter, and the common taxpayer has to pay, I am not really sure where he pulled that number from.

The "massive debt relief" as I understand it is up to $10,000 dollars per individual, which is a good amount, but not that massive if you have $60,000 or more in high-interest student debt. 

I know that my ex-wife had student debt of up to $80,000 after four years of bouncing around trying to figure out what she was doing. (Not my fault, I swear.) Those loans I would classify as predatory. She had zero problems getting them for school and for housing, though she had nothing for income to speak of and her degree (which she finally received after returning to a state school) was to be in graphic design. She signed up for the loan and they gave her the money, I believe precisely because there was little recourse to absolve the loan. 

Now you can say that she didn't need those loans and that she should have stayed in the state college, but life happens and such, so if you get into debt, it can be a long, hard hill to climb to get out of debt. Sometimes, you cannot do it at all. She declared bankruptcy but she couldn't get rid of the debt and it seemed never to grow smaller. I had suggested that she refinance and then declare bankruptcy, but for some reason, she did not do that. I am not sure exactly why. I don't know what her student loan status is now because it has been years since we spoke. But I bet it is still there somewhat and, given the pay scale of her region and the jobs local to it, I can bet that $10,000 in debt relief would be life-changing.

How much is the preponderance of student loan amounts? That is, how much does the median borrower owe? What is the breakdown for the amounts owed? 

So, what do I think or what is my opinion on the student loan forgiveness program proposed by Biden, et.al.? Meh. I think that it is a good thought, but I think that it needs to be implemented in a different way, with congress weighing in. It is really too bad that nothing can get out of congress. Wait, did I just say that? Usually, I think that it is a good thing that nothing gets out of that quagmire. Occasionally, though, there are some things that would be beneficial to the country that will never survive the bickering of the partisan nonsense that is politics today. Which is why we have had so much being done by executive order. The cycle seems never-ending.

Those loans I would classify as predatory.

The universities are predatory.  They charge as much as you can borrow.

The universities are predatory.  They charge as much as you can borrow.

There is some truth to that.  The results of the FAFSA essentially dictate the type of loans you qualify for, the amount suggested for the university you wish to attend, and it dictates the interest rate for any Federal loans or range of rates for private lenders who then must send the loan monies to the school, not to you.

The rest of the money YOU borrowed, above and beyond the tuition, is then sent to you later by the school, often times too late to pay the first months rent and cleaning deposit for your housing.  
If you live in on campus housing the school takes out those costs before sending you the balance of what YOU borrowed so that you can buy food, books and supplies. And they take their sweet ass time which they did several times to my kids every quarter or semester.

As I stated before, middle or upper middle income folks will typically not be offered Federal loans and instead be given suggestions for private loans with variable or fixed rates typically in a higher range than students with less family means.  If you can get Federal loans they will be a combination of a small unsubsidized Stafford loan at a mediocre rate and then a larger Parent Plus loan at an even higher rate.  My boys were allowed only private loans, my oldest son at 11% his first year, 9% the next.  My second son’s private loans were in the upper 7 and lower 8% range.  My daughter several years later was able to get Fed loans at I think 4 - 5% on the Stafford and our Parent Plus loans ranged 7-8%.

The principle borrowed is typically dictated by the school but the Fed government controls the interest rate that does the most damage over time.

The universities are predatory.  They charge as much as you can borrow.

The rather odd implication of student debt relief is that education now increases poverty.  

Lmao!

Sounds to me like the system that governs the granting and maintenance of loans needs to be fixed. 

Sounds to me like the system that governs the granting and maintenance of loans needs to be fixed. 

Agree 100%.

We are giving colleges an enormous financial incentive to gouge students.  

As I stated before, middle or upper middle income folks will typically not be offered Federal loans and instead be given suggestions for private loans

That was not my experience with my kids.

The FAFSA process assigns each family an "expected family contribution" (EFC).  Families are eligible for government loans on the difference between the EFC and the net cost of the school in question after scholarships and other grants.

So if you're going to a state school or less expensive private school, the EFC may exceed the remaining cost, in which case you don't qualify for govt loans.  But if the college is very expensive, you probably will qualify.... which is why it is in the best interests of the schools to raise tuition as high as they can get away with.

So if you're going to a state school or less expensive private school, the EFC may exceed the remaining cost, in which case you don't qualify for govt loans.  But if the college is very expensive, you probably will qualify.... which is why it is in the best interests of the schools to raise tuition as high as they can get away with.

Interesting observation, thanks Jack.  My experience was that my two boys did not qualify for Federal Loans at any point, whereas my daughter who is considerably younger did.  Although what she qualified for was a small unsubsidized Stafford Loan and then a much larger Parent Plus loan which of course was signed by us, not her. And she elected to go right from high school to a 4 year State University whereas my sons started in community colleges and then transferred to the State or UC system later.  It made for interesting and continually changing financial planning on the part of our kids and us to figure out the financing.  I had saved quite a bit for my kids college funds from the time they were born but it certainly turned out to be much more expensive than we had projected early on.

In reading all the comments from you and others on the type, interest rate, co-signer, etc it sounds like a giant con game with the students being the ''marks''. It is a no-lose deal for the lender with high-interest rates, and you can't have the loan discharged. The lender/university has nothing to lose and everything to gain (financially). That is one hell of a deal for them. So the higher the admission and yearly costs the better off the school is. 

Come into my web said the spider to the fly.

My daughter got out of all her student loans in a unique way before all of the current forgiveness. She was attending a online college about ten years ago majoring in criminal justice when all of a sudden the school went belly up and closed up shop with no warning resulting in her not having to repay the thousands in student loans owed. 

I don't know if there cannot be heaven without hell.  But I'm pretty certain that inflation without deflation will wreck an economy.

Everyone is dancing around the central problem of not only student debt but any debt: interest.  Falling behind on repaying debt means the borrower begins paying interest on uncollected interest.  The debt doesn't grow because the borrower borrowed more money.  The lender increases the debt because the lender didn't collect interest.  Seems clear that the problem with student debt is being caused by lenders collecting interest.

Fixing the problem of student debt would seem to require capping interest rates and, in cases of financial distress, imposing a moratorium on collection of interest.  Controlling the amount of interest collected should avoid debt growing to an unmanageable size.  Especially since interest is the only mechanism that allows a debt to grow.  Maybe lenders need to be allowed a pound of flesh but they don't need ten pounds.  Lenders are not blameless in the problem of student debt.

Student debt is rather unique because there isn't any collateral involved.  Student debt has more in common with business investments than with consumer loans.  One possible way to fix the problem with student debt is to back that debt with bonds rather than loans.  A bond only pays the buyer/lender a fixed amount; there isn't interest that can balloon the debt.  A $100k bond with a $3k yield cannot become larger than $100k.  In that situation the student would only obtain $97k but would never have to repay more than $100k.  A 20 year bond for $100k means the students debt payment would be $417 per month for 20 years.  There wouldn't be any uncertainty.

I know college costs have gone way up and the type of summer jobs I had are gone. Summers I worked in a Union factory at a hard dirty job that paid very well,  While going to school I worked a gas station and Truck Stop. I had help form my parents.  I lived good, but watched my money, passed my classes and had fun when I had time, I had a Roadrunner, an old truck and a motorcycle.  I graduated with money in the bank and a job at the big old factory.. 

Things have changed a lot

When I was growing up. I cut neighbors' grass and shoveled their snow.  In high school I worked at a restaurant.  In college, I worked summers and my last year at a bar.

Now, in my neighborhood, the only kids that shovel snow or cut their own grass are military officer kids.

Same here DotW.  I mowed lawns, had a paper route, collected bottles and cans for the recycle money, fixed fences, washed cars, fixed mowers, edgers and rebuilt bicycles, basically anything I could as a kid to save up money.  My Mom who raised me and my siblings alone even made us business cards for our car washing business using Amway products, and business was booming!

I saved up enough to buy my first car on the day I turned 16.  A ‘68 Cougar XR7, loved that car!

Worked at a veterinary clinic early in high school, managed a pizza place, rebuilt engines and worked the summers in late high-school and through college for an electrical contractor as an apprentice.  In college worked at a couple of breakfast places flipping pancakes and also for the micro electronics department at Cal Poly repairing computers all over campus including the old Gandalf mainframe at the time.  I had a full ride scholarship for my first year and then put myself through college by working and taking just a small student loan that I was able to pay back in less than 5 years.

I never really looked at any of it as a burden.  It was a means to an end. Even when I was young I enjoyed the feeling of accomplishment, the taking of responsibility and being accountable for my successes and failures.  I credit my parents for instilling such a work ethic in me and my siblings and I have tried to pass that on to my kids who also worked their way through college and took pride in getting good grades.  I think that mindset is important and necessary for success, not just individual success but community success as well.

To me, it's quite interesting to read what NT members did to get through college. Never having attended college I don't have those experiences. I had many very different experiences but not those particular ones. So I say, ''good on you'' for making your way using some of your own sweat to obtain your goal.

Things are different than from when you were growing up which must have been decades ago.

What makes you think that these people don't have the same work ethic as you?????  It's not the same now as when you all were growing up decades ago.

Like the law that split personality has pointed out regarding student loan debt that was instituted in 1996, decades after what you did all did to get through college and pay off your debt?

Some act like everything is exactly the same as when you all were growing up.

Some live in a time that no longer exists and don't seem to want their kids to have it better than you might have and not spend their lives paying off student loans.

As for myself, I attended college after I retired from the Military using the GI Bill while working a regular job as a x-ray technician and a medical lab assistant and phlebotomist. The majority of my classmates were half my age, right out of high school, and horrified at the idea of having to work while going to school. The majority were utilizing grants or mommy and daddy were paying for their schooling. As I was old enough to be their father, they did not know how to take me.

I bet some of those kids thought that you were the ''undercover boss''...

Yes, I pointed out several of those differences.  I started cutting grass and shoveling snow in the mid-sixties.

So just like I said, decades ago, things are different now.   What differences you pointed out now, decades later, are what YOU observed, allegedly.

I started cutting grass and shoveling snow in the mid-sixties.

O.M.G.

You mean you WORKED?????

Say it ain't so!

That seems to be part of the problem today.

People going to expensive colleges and racking up thousands in debt, just to get jobs that pay little. Sounds pretty damn dumb to me.

Nice to see you made a friend here.

Allegedly?

It costs a lot to get get triggered and woke these days.

What makes you think that these people don't have the same work ethic as you?????

What makes you think I think that?

 It's not the same now as when you all were growing up decades ago.

No shit.  What in your mind is different, and how do you think they became different?  Once you figure that out, perhaps some ideas for solutions will come to mind?

Some act like everything is exactly the same as when you all were growing up.

Like who?  Who here has even hinted at that?

Some live in a time that no longer exists and don't seem to want their kids to have it better than you might have and not spend their lives paying off student loans.

Are you fucking kidding me with that shit Tessy?  Don't you dare assume/claim that those with a differing opinion from you on this subject and the potential solutions for it don't care about our kids or their future.  We all care about the future of our children and want to get to the bottom of what has happened and fix it so that other's needn't suffer or require "relief".  Such comments from you are not helpful.

“It costs a lot to get get triggered and woke these days.”

It costs nothing to simply accept our differences. 

Well, today's generation is the ME ME ME generation who think everything should be handed to them on a silver platter by their rich Uncle Sam without having to have done anything to earn it. 

Why so hostile?  Chill!

Isn't it obvious?

Why so hostile?  Chill!

ME so hostile?  That is really fresh coming from you Tessy given your commenting record.  Suggesting that people don't want their kids to have it better than they did, or somehow enjoy watching them saddled with debt, is pretty darn hostile. Do you happen to own a mirror by chance?  Perhaps you should consult it from time to time. 

Perhaps she is unconsciously projecting.

Weren't you just talking about your anger issues and short temper?

No...

Whatever!  Chill!  Right to the insults.  Typical.  

My mistake, it was TG replying to you.

Right to the insults.  Typical.

OMG! The irony.... LOL!!!! 

I'm very chill      .  See!

Does saying "whatever" typically work for you in debates or casual conversation?  Just curious. 

PD&D

Maybe she meant "whatsoever" but got the two similar words mixed up.

why dont you take a break from obsessing about tessylo?  it might rejuvenate your trains of thought. 

Have you ever written the same to those that frequently reply to Texan?

i think people should address the topics

Well I'm flattered that you see me as an authority, but honestly how much authority do you feel a NewsTalkers mod has?   Hint - about as much authority as an unpaid babysitter.

i think people should address the topics

Agreed - Thanks John and I apologize for my part in the drift away from the topics.

I agree.  Do you see room for logical extensions and analogies? 

phlebotomist.

Call it what you really were...a vampire! LOL!

I don't think they're all like that.

But things are different today than they were back in the early 80's. For one....NO INTERNET!!!! Sometimes when I was between jobs I had a hard time finding one. But I always found work waiting tables or tending bar.

Well, that is what I introduced myself as to my patients. In a largely Spanish speaking small rural border town, I would have people on the street call out to me "El vampiro!"

LOL!

I apologized above for my jerk remarks above.   But it was in a comment to Trout Giggles.

You may truly chill now

Sorry, I was deflecting!

lol

No worries Tessy.  It's all good.  Overall I think this has been a pretty good discussion and I really appreciate hearing all of the different opinions and experiences that people have had.

I was lucky.    

Had the opportunity to start in the trades very young and was making good money as a Journeyman plumber/pipefitter by 19.    So between working summers/breaks, Pell grants, sports tuition scholarships and loans, I made it work.

I also made it a point to pay off my loans ahead of schedule.    All of this was done with a great sense of personal pride and accomplishment.

My how things have changed ......

My son got out of his student loans about 5 years ago when he passed away. His student loan creditors came after me for the money harassing me almost daily and telling me they would ruin my credit. I finally told them to take me to court and when the judge laughed it out court I would counter sue them to the hilt. I stopped hearing from them after that.

I never had a student loan and get calls about reducing student loans

my stepson had to get me to cosign his loan. he never missed a single payment,doubled up when he could and paid it all off.

I get those calls too even though there is no debt.

A good debt collector is a problem solver within the framework of the law, you had an unscrupulous, bad one illegally misleading and trying to take advantage of a grieving parent.

So sorry to hear about your son Ed-NavDoc.  My condolences.

Some people are assholes, others are flaming assholes!

So sorry about your son. Those creditors are despicable

Yes things have changed a lot since when some folks here were 'growing up' so why do you think people should be saddled with debt for the rest of their lives?

Because if you accept the debt, you accept the responsibility of having to pay it back.   Otherwise don’t take on the debt.

Not that complex of a concept to grasp.    Not in the least.

Because they bought something they could not pay for.  Government Forgiving their debt does not make it disappear it gets transferred to someone else.

Because they bought something they could not pay for.  Government Forgiving their debt does not make it disappear it gets transferred to someone else.

Maybe the money fairy will come rain some more money on us?

WTF are these people thinking?

Because if you accept the debt, you accept the responsibility of having to pay it back.  

Oh, no, not in today's world!

Don't you know that anyone with money is supposed to be paying the ones without money way?  After all--they are entitled to a lifestyle they would like other people to pay for them to become accustomed to.

Government Forgiving their debt does not make it disappear it gets transferred to someone else.

Not only that, how does forgiveness teach the one who improperly managed their debt, or those who might be considering a similar path, to avoid such a trap in the future?  Shouldn't the focus be on teaching people about the trap before they fall into the pit rather than encouraging them to jump in again with both feet?

why do you think people should be saddled with debt for the rest of their lives?

Why do you think I (a tax payer) should help people pay for things because they spent above their ability to pay back?

I think that having the weight of the debt anchor around your neck might give them some appreciation for the trap. 

Waiting tables was lucrative...so was tending bar. I always had money when I was in college

Waiting tables was lucrative...so was tending bar. I always had money when I was in college

Right?  My oldest son did the same thing.  Server and then bartender at the main restaurant in the San Diego Zoo.  He makes enough in tips in a single weekend to pay his monthly rent.  I could not believe the money he made and continues to make with that job.  He is a hard worker and was recently recognized by the top brass at the zoo and offered a raise and other opportunities.  Pretty proud of that kid!

One of the problems with student debt is there is no collateral to back it up. Probably why it can not be gotten rid of in bankruptcy. 

Not completely true.    As I recall my parents had to co-sign so I could get the lower interest student loan.    Default would have been on them.    

Maybe that’s changed today.    Wouldn’t surprise if it had ...

Maybe that’s changed today.

It has not. Co-signers are still required (or they were in the last 12-13 years when my kids were attending college) for some Federal Loans, particularly Parent Plus loans, and ALL private student loans.  Especially if you seek the lower end of the interest rate range that is dictated by the Government via the FAFSA review process.

I'm going back and forth over this any more.  I disagree.  

I'm going back and forth over this any more.

It's out of control, round and round, upside down and down upside

I thought that was over under sideways down.

One of the problems with student debt is there is no collateral to back it up. Probably why it can not be gotten rid of in bankruptcy. 

I swear, with all the grousing about not being able to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy, one would think maybe those folks were planning all along to renig on their legal debts?

Why do so many today think that everyone else has to be responsible for THEIR choices and PAY for those choices????

This article personifies one of the biggest problems with many liberals these days.    They actually expect others, to pay debts they accrued.  They seem to think that is perfectly acceptable.    

Unbelievable really.

Interestingly we see little on this one from those here who claim to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative.    A mutually exclusive feat much of the time.  Just like this situation.

Interestingly we see little on this one from those here who claim to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative.  

How do you measure "little"?   Both Perrie and I would accept a summary of socially liberal and fiscally conservative and both she and I have opined on this.  

I do not know who you have in mind, and I have to wonder about your sampling methods, but I would expect socially liberal / fiscally conservative mindsets to hold the position that it is in the best interest of our nation to ensure those with the attitude and aptitude for higher education have the opportunity to pursue it and then contribute to the nation.   But that handing out money (as in loan forgiveness) (especially retroactively) is unfair, counter-productive, and just plain dumb.

My bad, I missed that you had responded but said responses help make my point.    That claiming to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal is not intrinsically possible much of the time.

Being against college loan forgiveness breaks the social liberalism claim.   Being for it breaks the fiscally conservative claim.

This college loan forgiveness is no small thing in either regard and outs the hypocrisy of the claim.    I go round and around with a couple of my liberal friends regularly who claim the same thing.    They try to pick and choose based on their own special interests.    Most own businesses and are selfishly fiscally conservative on social issues that help their business and socially liberal on issues that don’t.

Like I said, fiscally conservative and socially liberal are mutually exclusive much of  the time.

Being against college loan forgiveness breaks the social liberalism claim.   Being for it breaks the fiscally conservative claim.

Yet again you claim you are 'right' even when shown to be dead wrong.

Here is how to resolve your inability to hold social liberalism and fiscal conservatism together.

Don't think in coarse grain / binary terms.   Political ideology is not black or white ... it is many shades of gray.   One can be socially liberal categorically and not agree with everything you might place in that category.   It is not as if a socially liberal (or fiscally conservative) individual has a book of rules that must be strictly followed.

This is the problem with doing one's thinking in terms of labels rather than details.   It forces one to think in terms of stereotypes and it almost certainly will cause one to presume wrong about the positions of others.

So, now consider the college loan forgiveness.   I am against it because:

• It is unfair and encourages people to expect government bailouts / handouts
• It is wasteful spending
• It is a political ploy that is not helping the nation
• It was done retroactively (rules should be set in advance and then executed)
• It does not target high aptitude good attitude students who will learn skills and apply them to the GDP

Social liberalism does not mean rubber-stamped approval of all government spending to benefit some or all members of the nation.   It means, in principle, that one holds that bigotry is harmful, that we can do a better job of providing healthcare, housing, education, nutrition, infrastructure, etc. as part of the social fabric of our society, etc.   The approval, per individual, of the above depends upon the specifics of each proposal.   I am, for example, in favor of ensuring those with the attitude and aptitude be encouraged / supported in the pursuit of higher education so as to not waste the potential of those minds.    I am NOT in favor of accomplishing this by, for example, having the government merely fund free higher education for all because a) I see no way to afford this and b) it is overkill and, as constructed, would be abused.   So my socially liberal principles say yes to helping the right people break down roadblocks to higher education while my fiscal conservative principles say no to government merely throwing money at a problem.     Like any other thinking adult, I can make a decision based on weighted factors that consider both the socially liberal and fiscally conservative principles.

In short, you are wrong to think strictly in coarse terms because doing so makes social liberalism and fiscal conservatism appear to be at odds (much of the time).   You need to recognize that thinking human beings operate at the issue / proposal level and what you would perceive as mutually exclusive at the coarse grain level is easily and routinely resolved when dealing with the specifics.

Another way to look at this.   As a former engineer you routinely had to navigate mutually exclusive constraints.   Somehow you managed to provide durability and functionality within budget and time constraints (for example) yet categorically those are at odds.   You should have no problem understanding how a human being can pick an optimal (or near optimal) course when faced with dozens (or more) competing constraints.

So, now consider the college loan forgiveness.   I am against it because:

• It is unfair and encourages people to expect government bailouts / handouts

A decidedly non liberal concept in these times.

• It is wasteful spending

See above

• It is a political ploy that is not helping the nation

• It was done retroactively (rules should be set in advance and then executed)

No disagreement there

• It does not target high aptitude good attitude students who will learn skills and apply them to the GDP

Again, a decidedly non liberal attitude.    Which supports equal opportunity for all.    Your biases allow you to rationalize that only “higher aptitude” students deserve government help.    

Very problematic for a “social liberal.”

It is no problem for a normal adult mind to draw a conclusion by weighting competing details.   We all do this routinely yet you seem to think that this is somehow a grand challenge to do with political ideology.

It is not.

Opinions do vary.  

Your second disrespectful snarky response noted by the way.    You should know by now that has no effect on me since I could care less what you think.

Have a nice day.

Thanks for spelling that out

Interestingly we see little on this one from those here who claim to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative.    A mutually exclusive feat much of the time.

With all due respect Sparty, I don't believe that is a fair characterization.  There are degrees just like with any other opinions/world views.  I consider myself socially liberal when it comes equal rights and opportunity, but then fiscally conservative, including on most issues involving government spending.  I agree with TiG and Perrie on this particular issue. 

The government by use of it's power has the ability to solve problems but also the ability to create bigger problems and set a bad example.  Deficit spending for example, a problem caused by both parties which neither want to solve as long as the spending meets their party goals, is a terrible example to set for the general public or businesses when it comes to managing credit. It is difficult to teach fiscal responsibility and accountability in the face of such bad examples, but it can be done.  Parents can help, and we can insist that our schools teach math and fiscal responsibility again.  I recall early in high school we had classes on managing bank accounts, savings, writing checks, loans and interest rates and how they work, guidelines for how to live within one's means, etc.  There is no reason why we can't go back to that again if we really want to solve these snowballing credit issues.

thenation

In 2022, a full-time worker needs to earn an hourly wage of $25.82 on average to afford a modest, two-bedroom rental home in the U.S. This Housing Wage for a two-bedroom home is $18.57 higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. In 11 states and the District of Columbia, the two-bedroom Housing Wage is more than $25.00 per hour. A full-time worker needs to earn an hourly wage of $21.25 on average in order to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home in the U.S.

Unfortunately, many people don’t earn $21.25 an hour, which is why they hold two or three jobs, or add Uber or Door Dash shifts to their other work. It’s hardest for minimum-wage workers. As the NLIHC observes, “ In no state   can a person working full-time at the prevailing federal, state, or county minimum wage afford a two-bedroom apartment at the [fair market rate].” Furthermore, “ in only 274 counties out of more than 3,000 nationwide can a full-time worker earning the minimum wage afford a one-bedroom rental home at the [fair market rate].”

For people living at or below the poverty line, the situation is even direr, which is why so many end up unhoused, whether couch-surfing among friends and family or pitching a tent on the street.

In the coming months, the situation is only expected to worsen now that pandemic-era eviction moratoriums and the $46.5 billion federal Emergency Rental Assistance Program are expiring.  According to the Pew Research Center , those programs prevented more than a million people from being evicted.

People have always experienced poverty, but in the United States, the poor have not always gone without housing. Yes, they lived in tenements or, if they were men down on their luck, in single-room occupancy hotels. And yes, the conditions were often horrible, but at least they spent their nights indoors.

Indeed, the routine presence of significant populations of the urban unhoused on this country’s city streets goes back only about four decades. When I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area in 1982, there was a community of about 400 people living in or near People’s Park in Berkeley. Known as the Berkeley Beggars, they were considered a complete oddity, a hangover of burnt-out hippies from the 1960s.

During President Ronald Reagan’s administration, however, a number of factors combined to create a semipermanent class of the unhoused in this country: High interest rates implemented by the Federal Reserve’s inflation fight drove up the cost of mortgages; a corruption scandal destroyed many savings & loan institutions from which middle-income people had long secured home mortgages; labor unions came under sustained attack, even   by the federal government ; and real wages (adjusted for inflation)   plateaued .

Declaring that government was the problem, not the solution, Reagan began a four-decade-long Republican quest to dismantle the New Deal social safety net implemented under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and supplemented under President Lyndon Johnson. Reagan savaged poverty-reduction programs like Food Stamps and Medicaid, while   throwing   more than 300,000 people with disabilities off Social Security. Democrat Bill Clinton   followed up , joining with Republicans to weaken Aid to Families with Dependent Children (“welfare”).

A decade earlier, scandal-ridden state asylums for the mentally ill began to be shut down all over the country. In the late 1960s, Reagan had led that effort in California when he was governor. While hundreds of thousands were freed from a form of incarceration, they also instantly lost their housing. (On a personal note, this is why, in 1990, my mother found herself living in unsupervised subsidized housing for a population of frail elderly and recently deinstitutionalized people with mental illnesses. This wasn’t a good combination.)

By the turn of the century, a permanent cohort of people without housing had come to seem a natural part of American life.

There is no single solution to the growing problem of unaffordable housing, but with political will and organizing action at the local, state, and federal levels it could be dealt with.  

After we do something about the housing crisis, then let's worry about the national debt or how to make students more willing and able to accept the edicts of the plutocracy/oligarchy. 

People who dont have enough money will go into debt.  Not to mention the people who do have enough money who go into debt. Without debt the economy of the United States would collapse so fast it would make heads spin. 

Exactly, inflation and housing costs suck.  What do you think the cost drivers are?

We have an economic system that requires poor people, and low wage people, to function properly. So since there will always be low wage workers ( the so called race to the bottom on wages) why dont we have a national policy of creating affordable housing for all the poor and low wage earners?  Why should people have to work three jobs in order to be able to afford a place to live? 

We dont extract from the 'financial class' the means to keep supporting the economic system AND let people afford housing and other necessities. Taxes should be the cost of doing business. 

After we do something about the housing crisis, then let's worry about the national debt or how to make students more willing and able to accept the edicts of the oligarchy. 

Is that ahead of saving Medicare, Social Security and governmental pension plans?

Without debt the economy of the United States would collapse so fast it would make heads spin. 

How much will more debt improve the economy?

After all, what's $31,460,000,000,000 in federal debt?  The good news is that we are only spending about a trillion more each year than we collect in taxes.  

Last month. the CBO projected that annual net interest costs would total $640 billion in 2023 and double over the upcoming decade, 739 billion in 2024 to $1.4 trillion in 2033 and summing to $10.5 trillion over that period.

There will always be low wage workers. Always. Capitalism requires that workers be paid as little as possible. We have had capitalism for a couple hundred years - has there ever been a time when there were no low wage workers? Of course not, and there never will be. Devise a tax on business that funds housing for the low wage earners. 

What are the housing cost drivers in Chicago?

Is the cost much higher than the IL average?  Is it much higher than the US national average?  If the Cook County population remains in decline, what accounts for these housing costs?

There are not nearly enough real fiscal conservatives in Congress to ever put a dent in the nationals debt.

People who don't think the debt is a problem are simply blind to facts.

As you pointed out, more and more money is going to just interest.

Eventually, at the present rates, we will be spending as much on interest as we do on defense.

Something will have to give eventually.

I consider myself socially liberal when it comes equal rights and opportunity, but then fiscally conservative

Freewill, I know a few “independents” who like to make that claim.    It is not reasonable on this one.    Sure one can convince themself that it is but it is not.    Not really.

College loan forgiveness is a hugely social issue.     To rationalize that you are against it negates the socially liberal clam.    I’m sure you and others here will disagree but that just speaks to the rationalization component of the claim.

It is not reasonable on this one.    Sure one can convince themself that it is but it is not.    Not really.

Why not?  Please be specific.

College loan forgiveness is a hugely social issue.

Why?  Because most Democrats / liberals support it and most Republicans / conservatives do not?  I submit that it is a hugely fiscal issue.  With a total debt level approaching $2 trillion and an executive order for forgiveness costing to the tune of $400 billion as projected by the CBO, I'd say that makes it a fiscal issue.

Let's compromise and say it is both.  Policies pushed by both Democrats and Republicans in the last 40 years have created the rapidly accelerating cost of tuition and room and board that forms the basis or need for ever growing student loans. During that time the Federal government has systematically seized control of the entire student loan industry and I think we can all see that it has become progressively worse as a result.

At the same time we have failed to encourage and teach fiscal responsibility and accountability in our schools at all levels while our Federal Government sets a terrible example by accruing what is now just north of $31 trillion in debt with no end in sight.  From a socially responsible standpoint I think it is time that we address the root causes of the accelerating cost of higher education, and this student loan issue and do everything in our power to educate folks to make better financial choices and not fall into unmanageable debt.  We can also be honest about the fact that this debt burden is not falling only on the fledgling college graduate, there are more financially established co-signers involved in most of these cases.

My contention is that forgiveness does not help to achieve the goal of correcting the root causes, at best it is a perpetual Band-Aid that won't stop the bleeding.  And it just further encourages people to make bad financial choices which hurts them even worse in the long run.  It is irresponsible in that regard.  It also transfers the responsibility for bad choices to others who did not make them, also not fiscally or socially responsible.

To rationalize that you are against it negates the socially liberal clam. 

I will need to disagree with that as I do not equate being socially liberal with strict allegiance to the dogma of the extremely progressive left.  Please feel free to call me a classical liberal if you really find it necessary to affix labels.  Anyway, that is my "rationalization" in a nutshell, and it is not dependent on party allegiance or labels, it is based on logic and reason.

Interestingly we see little on this one from those here who claim to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative.  

I don't know what commentary you have been reading, but I have been in direct conflict with how the liberals feel about this issue. And while I consider myself a social liberal, I am most definitely not fiscally, as demonstrated with my comments through this article.

I think that the problem is this:

 A mutually exclusive feat much of the time.  Just like this situation.

You seem to have made up your mind and somehow totally dismissed any comments by either Freewill (who posted this) and Tig, who has commented throughout, and not just the comments made by me.

This epitomizes the problem in politics today. People either see or don't see what suits them.

You seem to have made up your mind and somehow totally dismissed any comments by either Freewill (who posted this) and Tig, who has commented throughout, and not just the comments made by me.

Nope.    This is hardly the first time I’ve had this conversation.    

One of my best friends hypocritically claims to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal.    He picks and choses based on what works best for him and his.   Not necessarily what’s best socially.    Student loan forgiveness is a hugely social issue for a “social liberal” to not be supporting.

But, when it doesn’t directly affect him and his negatively, he is socially liberal, big time.    Big time.    His kids college loans are already paid off so he has no more horses in the race.     He says that makes no difference to him.    I’m not so sure of that.    I’ve seen it happen before.

Your friend makes choices and you are insisting that his choices fit neatly within a particular label and, worse, how you interpret that label.

That is silly.   I do not think: “hmmm, what should a socially liberal (or fiscally conservative) person do in this situation?”; I decide based on the details at hand.    When all is said and done, my aggregate decisions are accurately categorized as socially liberal / fiscally conservative.   But my decision-making process is not driven by some ideological playbook.

I doubt I am unique here.

You don’t know my friend in the least and yet act qualified to judge his actions

You are not.    Not in the least

I responded to what you told us of your friend.   I made no judgment of him.   You, however, certainly judged him.

You are deflecting … ignoring my point rather than offering a rebuttal.

Bullshit, your comments are judging his actions and mine without adequate information to properly do so.

Once again your ego is writing checks your intellect can’t cash

Address my point rather than deflect and go personal.

Sparty,

You are making your assumptions based on your friend. Not everyone is your friend. You can't draw conclusions from anecdotal evidence. 

And for the record, most people pick a side because that is what affects them or what they believe affects them.

I am a consistent fiscal conservative. I don't believe in massive government spending. I don't believe in driving up the national debt, etc. And if you had read my comments, this loan relief would help my SIL and daughter, and yet I am against it and they know it. So there goes your theory that I am only a fiscal conservative if it doesn't affect me because my kids affect me.

I don't believe in massive government spending.

Except for defense spending. Do you support cutting the military budget?  Or do I have you confused with someone else ? 

I support defense spending since defense is necessary. 

a lot of things are "necessary". 

We could do well enough with much less defense spending. And it would lower the debt a tiny amount. 

We can't be pigeon holed and I resent people who do exactly that

"Oh...you're a Democrat...you have to be for runaway gov't spending and loan forgiveness!"

Fuck that...not when you're talking about my taxes ever increasing

Fuck that

Indeed!  A lot of that pigeon-holing shit going around.  You see it here every day, and you hear it from the mouths of our "representatives" in Congress every day.  As long as we continue to do that as a means of setting each other up for blame or mass derision, the less cooperation and problem solving there will be, and the more our problems will grow.  Listening to people has become a lost art that has been supplanted by jumping to conclusions about them instead.  Fuck that indeed!

Great, you’ve chosen a few fiscally conservative positions.    Are you for smaller government including streamlining funding of social programs?    Are you for lower taxes that would require?     Do you believe in privatization, free trade and deregulation?      Do you fully support free market capitalism and a more limited role of the state in the economy?    Doubtful ....

I used one example of many I have observed over the years.    Few are truly fiscally conservative but many love to say they are.    Perhaps you are an exception to the rule but I have yet to find a real one.    I suspect I’m much more of a fiscal conservative than you are but I don’t call myself one because even I hold positions not consistent with the theory.    Like raising SS tax limit to a higher wage to help shore up SS after our Pol’s have robbed it blind.

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal remains an oxymoron IMO.

Some of those countries have the luxury of spending less because the US is there to protect them.    And I’m sure Russia and China are giving us their real spending numbers ..... oh yeah .....

Great, you’ve chosen a few fiscally conservative positions.

I would think that she listed some of her positions that correlate with what is commonly viewed as fiscally conservative.   I really doubt that Perrie chose positions from a list as suggested by your language.

Are you for smaller government including streamlining funding of social programs?    

I am for smaller / limited government but I would focus first on wasteful spending.   Basically that means eliminating redundant and pointless processes in government, killing programs that are replete with corruption, killing programs that are not meeting expectations, etc.   The idea is to first apply common business practices (basic process improvement / reengineering / automation) to make a more effective government.

Next, with respect to social programs (although this applies to other categories as well), I would reprioritize spending.   The principle is that tax dollars can go only so far ... they are not unlimited.   Thus, given limits, we need to ensure the most important programs have priority and that will cause some programs to be defunded.   (A program is not ipso facto 'good' simply because it is a social program.)  I would favor programs designed to evolve a modern national healthcare system which would be standardized and regulated by the federal government (alas, there is no better choice and this is what they are supposed to do) but would be implemented in the private sector.    Immediately we should see a common medical record exchange (nationally), common exchange of medical equipment (volume purchases, ability to sell older equipment to other medical organizations, etc.),  ... , along with everyone having a copay (to mitigate abuse of the system and better ensure care goes to those who need it), tiered plans where those of us with the means can pay for higher levels of care (thus providing a market for research and development), etc.     Much more to say but I am cutting this short because I think I made my point.

Are you for lower taxes that would require?    

Here again, while I do not want to pay more in taxes, I do not think our tax system is effective.   Far too complex and lop-sided (intentionally).   A progressive system still makes sense but it should be realigned so that the middle class is not continuing to bear the brunt.  One key point, though, is that I am not in favor of any tax increases right now because I do not want Congress to have its hands on any more money.   I have no faith in our current batch of spending fools.

Do you believe in privatization, free trade and deregulation?      

Yes.   But those are high level categories.   We need to talk about specifics to know if I would favor or disapprove of an action.    For example, deregulation in and of itself is neither bad nor good.   It depends on what is being deregulated, why and how.

Do you fully support free market capitalism and a more limited role of the state in the economy?   

In principle, absolutely.   But here again, free market capitalism is a vague term.  I am not in favor of an entirely laissez-faire approach.   I most definitely believe the workings of our economy need regulations, oversight, consumer protection, etc.

That said, the government should never be directing the marketplace.  They should ensure it is fair and safe (regulations, etc.) and let the dynamics of the individual transactions determine the course of the market.

Few are truly fiscally conservative but many love to say they are.  

Sounds like pure bullshit to me.   You think people claim to be fiscally conservative because it is 'cool' to do so?

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal remains an oxymoron 

I would say that you do not understand socially liberal fiscal conservatives and that you have no intent to try.   You have your position and will very likely stick to it in perpetuity regardless of information you are exposed to.   IMO.

If you are for any one social program then you are a far leftist!

pfffhhhhtttt....

pigeon holing

I understand it perfectly and more thoroughly that those who cherry-pick a couple stances and feel qualified to claim it.    

That’s cool.   I’m going start claiming that I’m a social liberal because a couple of my positions evidently qualify me to do so.

I understand it perfectly and more thoroughly that those ...

Of course you do.   You have the best understanding.   No one understands this better than you do.

I’m going start claiming that I’m a social liberal because a couple of my positions evidently qualify me to do so.

Further illustration that you do not understand how one can be fiscally conservative while socially liberal.

Criticize Trump and you are a "far far leftist".

Why can't some understand that's it's not an all or nothing thing? Is it because that requires a thought process?

I understand it perfectly and more thoroughly that those who cherry-pick a couple stances and feel qualified to claim it.    

I don't think you do. I certainly don't need you to define who I am, or what my stances are on any given subject. It's presumptuous and rude.

Of course you do.   You have the best understanding.   No one understands this better than you do.

Nice snark and excellent selective quoting.    You are really en fuego today.

I’m going start claiming that I’m a social liberal because a couple of my positions evidently qualify me to do so.

Further illustration that you do not understand how one can be fiscally conservative while socially liberal.

Nah, I just have an unbiased understanding the concept.    Especially the oxymoron part.   Unlike some here who really do believe they are never wrong.    And I’m not talking about mom.

I certainly don't need you to define who I am, or what my stances are on any given subject. It's presumptuous and rude.

Ditto

Some people are simply here to be contrary.   Others are so tied into partisan thinking that they cannot conceive of forming opinions regardless of party positions.   To them it seems impossible to simultaneously hold for responsible use of tax revenue if any of the spending deals with social programs.

It's presumptuous and rude.

and annoying