Biden throws cold water on major student loan forgiveness

[DaleCooper]

But you could say that about many government programs - why should I have to contribute towards $90,000 for my Marine former roommate to go to an art school that shut down? Blanket payment of tuition to veterans resulted in many irresponsible decisions like that. But you know what? It also helps a lot of people, too. A lot of people going into fields that would help others and contribute to society but don't necessarily pay the best. Like teaching and social work, two of the most vital professions we have.

Such a program doesn't retroactively address a non-universal symptom without even attempting to address the problem. That's my issue with blanket student loan forgiveness. It is an extremely unfair policy the way it's presented by certain types on the left. Again, I point towards that question that Warren faced and didn't answer. Are people that made sacrifices to avoid or pay student debt just dummies for not going all out and having their debt forgiven later? Hell, if the universal loan forgiveness went into effect, I'll wish I would've gone to Northwestern and lived in expensive dorms rather than attending school in Nebraska with financial aid. Again, that's a question they'll have to answer.

By the way, I am in favor of debt forgiveness plans for teachers (and as Santander pointed out, these exist), as well as nurses and other jobs related to public service.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This and immigration are the only issues I’ve disapproved of Biden’s job performance on. I went to college to be a teacher. A state school. I finished in the traditional 4 years. But I still came out with $30,000 in debt.

Student debt forgiveness may not be perfect policy, but it can be good policy; especially for public school teachers like me who’re required to obtain college degrees that are unnecessarily expensive in order to join a job field that is severely underpaid.

But you could say that about many government programs - why should I have to contribute towards $90,000 for my Marine former roommate to go to an art school that shut down? Blanket payment of tuition to veterans resulted in many irresponsible decisions like that. But you know what? It also helps a lot of people, too. A lot of people going into fields that would help others and contribute to society but don't necessarily pay the best. Like teaching and social work, two of the most vital professions we have.

Such a program doesn't retroactively address a non-universal symptom without even attempting to address the problem. That's my issue with blanket student loan forgiveness. It is an extremely unfair policy the way it's presented by certain types on the left. Again, I point towards that question that Warren faced and didn't answer. Are people that made sacrifices to avoid or pay student debt just dummies for not going all out and having their debt forgiven later? Hell, if the universal loan forgiveness went into effect, I'll wish I would've gone to Northwestern and lived in expensive dorms rather than attending school in Nebraska with financial aid. Again, that's a question they'll have to answer.

By the way, I am in favor of debt forgiveness plans for teachers (and as Santander pointed out, these exist), as well as nurses and other jobs related to public service.

https://studentaid.gov/pslf

[Ancestral Republican]

But you could say that about many government programs - why should I have to contribute towards $90,000 for my Marine former roommate to go to an art school that shut down? Blanket payment of tuition to veterans resulted in many irresponsible decisions like that. But you know what? It also helps a lot of people, too. A lot of people going into fields that would help others and contribute to society but don't necessarily pay the best. Like teaching and social work, two of the most vital professions we have.

Such a program doesn't retroactively address a non-universal symptom without even attempting to address the problem. That's my issue with blanket student loan forgiveness. It is an extremely unfair policy the way it's presented by certain types on the left. Again, I point towards that question that Warren faced and didn't answer. Are people that made sacrifices to avoid or pay student debt just dummies for not going all out and having their debt forgiven later? Hell, if the universal loan forgiveness went into effect, I'll wish I would've gone to Northwestern and lived in expensive dorms rather than attending school in Nebraska with financial aid. Again, that's a question they'll have to answer.

By the way, I am in favor of debt forgiveness plans for teachers (and as Santander pointed out, these exist), as well as nurses and other jobs related to public service.

Nobody's advocating for student loan forgiveness without fixing the problems that led to it, which seems to be what everyone here thinks is going to happen. The point is it's a generational crisis of an absurd magnitude that needs to be fixed. No, not everyone has student loan debt, but refusing to solve a problem because it doesn't affect everyone has never before been a standard we applied to public policy. And to be clear, this IS a problem - we are already gearing up to be a generation that owns no property and has no wealth because of the accumulation of debt previous generations didn't have to worry about (even if their choices weren't so smart.) That's why the Chinese and development companies are loading up on housing stock in metropolitan areas across America, they see a future of renters who will never be able to buy.

And it's not like everybody has affordable local options like you either. Pennsylvania's "affordable" state system costs 15k a year before room and board thanks to years of state budget cuts. Community college is cheaper but again has seen big price increases over the years.  You can make smart choices and still get screwed.

[Santander]

That's why the Chinese and development companies are loading up on housing stock in metropolitan areas across America, they see a future of renters who will never be able to buy.

Off-topic, but Chinese investors buy real estate all over the world, and the US (along with frontier markets in Southeast Asia) is just one of the best markets for it. Chinese investors, for various reasons (not sophisticated enough to understand other asset classes, risk aversion, cultural conditioning, etc., all partly because of China's corrupt and stunted capital markets), don't want to buy anything but property. They won't even buy REITs or invest in real estate PEs and would rather buy overpriced property. Rental yields in the US are also generally higher than in Europe, where rent controls and high prices hurt yields, and the US has a lot more to choose from. EB-5 giving green cards to any old corrupt Chinese millionaire helps, too.

Encouraging home ownership isn't even really a good thing. The German and Austrian governments don't do this, and they're doing better than the vast majority of developed countries.

[Ancestral Republican]

That's why the Chinese and development companies are loading up on housing stock in metropolitan areas across America, they see a future of renters who will never be able to buy.

Off-topic, but Chinese investors buy real estate all over the world, and the US (along with frontier markets in Southeast Asia) is just one of the best markets for it. Chinese investors, for various reasons (not sophisticated enough to understand other asset classes, risk aversion, cultural conditioning, etc., all partly because of China's corrupt and stunted capital markets), don't want to buy anything but property. They won't even buy REITs or invest in real estate PEs and would rather buy overpriced property. Rental yields in the US are also generally higher than in Europe, where rent controls and high prices hurt yields, and the US has a lot more to choose from. EB-5 giving green cards to any old corrupt Chinese millionaire helps, too.

Encouraging home ownership isn't even really a good thing. The German and Austrian governments don't do this, and they're doing better than the vast majority of developed countries.

I agree with you, actually. It's just a shame to see the country be a nation of renters with China as the landlords. And it's also fairly indicative of the true health of the economy that home ownership is out of bounds for most, even if it's not the path I would follow.

[GoTfan]

Sad to see so many Democrats leaning into anti-intellectualism.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am in Grad school and take out loans, Loan forgiveness actually hurt your chances of taking out more Student Loans because more jobs want you to have a Grad school degree, College is helpful but Nursing Doctors and Lawyers and Debt consolidation is replacing unskilled labor

There aren't many data entry clerks working in law offices or Hospitals any longer

[Big Abraham]

Sad to see so many Democrats leaning into anti-intellectualism.

I'm not one to rise to the occasion to defend Democrats, but opposing the present-day incarnation of the American university system is not, in any meaningful way, "anti-intellectual."

[TarHeelDem]

I have a lot of sympathy for those that are trapped beneath mountains of student debt due to bad college decisions. There are countless of what amount to support groups online for people that studied music, theater, or art history and now have no job prospects greater than what they could've gotten out of high school and are paying off what is essentially a mortgage. That said, these problems are often the result of bad decisions. College is an investment, and like any investment, it can be good or bad. Forgiving their debt in a blanket sense is not only a regressive tax that is unfair to those that didn't go to college at all, but it's unfair to those that made responsible decisions and made it out of college with degrees that got them into professional careers or made decisions and sacrifices that enabled them to come out of college with minimal debt.

Again, I have great sympathy for a lot of these people. Schools and society set these easily-influenced young kids up to fail by lying to them about their potential job prospects when they select a major and pressuring them into living on campus all four years or attend college out of state when that is completely unnecessary. But that is what needs to change. We need to reform the system before we start throwing money at the people that fell prey to it. Warren was presented with a very important question during a rally back in the primaries, and it was basically along the lines of, "If you forgive all student debt, then was I just an idiot for being financially responsible and going to community college?" It's a question that proponents of student debt abolition need to answer if they want to be taken seriously.

Training in an artistic field during college is not an inherently bad decision. Society needs theatre artists, musicians, art historians, etc. and there are plenty of people who are both talented at and passionate about those professions.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

This and immigration are the only issues I’ve disapproved of Biden’s job performance on. I went to college to be a teacher. A state school. I finished in the traditional 4 years. But I still came out with $30,000 in debt.

Student debt forgiveness may not be perfect policy, but it can be good policy; especially for public school teachers like me who’re required to obtain college degrees that are unnecessarily expensive in order to join a job field that is severely underpaid.

Teachers already have partial loan forgiveness, albeit weighted perhaps unfairly in favor of high school science and math teachers. The problem with teachers is the master's degree pay premium in some jurisdictions that has spawned a cottage industry of schools offering fast and cheap master's degrees of questionable value for student learning. Instead of incentivizing teachers to go out and spend $20k on wallpaper, they should just take that money and give experienced teachers a raise.

I’ll have a Master’s degree at the end of this summer that I’ll have earned for almost free from UGA by working for the school. It’ll only boost me about $4-5K annually. My friend got a Master’s in Accountancy from UGA at the same time and when he starts his job this July he’ll make a solid $12k more than me. I firmly believe that blanket loan forgiveness should be paired with reform to the entire system, but that can’t be achieved as easily as the forgiveness part arguably** can.

I’m aware of the PSLF program for teachers, but very few people have been able to even get the forgiveness part due to how insane the rules are and DeVos’ transparent attempts to block payouts. Reform needs to happen. But at the moment, with bare majorities in Congress, I believe that doing something is better than doing nothing. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.





**there is some debate on what authority Biden has to do this by executive order.

[7,052,770]

I would definitely support a federal law that forgives student loan debt for public school teachers at the rate of $X per year teaching, no strings or hoops.

I really am too ignorant to say what the fair and practical value of X is, but maybe something that would wipe out typical debt in 5 years or so?

[YE]

Read the entire article.

The tweet is clickbait in a sense because Biden says nothing on the matter other than that quote.

[Chips]

Hope this works out for the best!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I would definitely support a federal law that forgives student loan debt for public school teachers at the rate of $X per year teaching, no strings or hoops.

I really am too ignorant to say what the fair and practical value of X is, but maybe something that would wipe out typical debt in 5 years or so?

The problem with that is there's an already existing program that does a portion of forgiveness for teachers after 5 years, but only if they work in qualifying low-income school districts. You could up it from the current forgiveness amount of $5000 or $17,500 (based on the teacher qualifications) to all of it in 5 years, but unless that qualifier remained it would hamper recruiting teachers for such districts.

Perhaps the program could be expanded to allow all teachers to be eligible for the $5k/$17.5k forgiveness but those teaching in said school districts for a full forgiveness after five years.

[DaleCooper]

I have a lot of sympathy for those that are trapped beneath mountains of student debt due to bad college decisions. There are countless of what amount to support groups online for people that studied music, theater, or art history and now have no job prospects greater than what they could've gotten out of high school and are paying off what is essentially a mortgage. That said, these problems are often the result of bad decisions. College is an investment, and like any investment, it can be good or bad. Forgiving their debt in a blanket sense is not only a regressive tax that is unfair to those that didn't go to college at all, but it's unfair to those that made responsible decisions and made it out of college with degrees that got them into professional careers or made decisions and sacrifices that enabled them to come out of college with minimal debt.

Again, I have great sympathy for a lot of these people. Schools and society set these easily-influenced young kids up to fail by lying to them about their potential job prospects when they select a major and pressuring them into living on campus all four years or attend college out of state when that is completely unnecessary. But that is what needs to change. We need to reform the system before we start throwing money at the people that fell prey to it. Warren was presented with a very important question during a rally back in the primaries, and it was basically along the lines of, "If you forgive all student debt, then was I just an idiot for being financially responsible and going to community college?" It's a question that proponents of student debt abolition need to answer if they want to be taken seriously.

Training in an artistic field during college is not an inherently bad decision. Society needs theatre artists, musicians, art historians, etc. and there are plenty of people who are both talented at and passionate about those professions.

I agree with you on the value of the arts, but here's the thing these students need to hear: This life is hard, and if you want to live comfortably and support your future family if you choose to have one, then you can't afford to waste money or time trying to turn your dreams into a career. This is the lie that results in so many young people starting out their adulthood with tens of thousands in debt. I'm sorry to be so blunt but it just won't happen for at least 99% of people. I'm glad I learned that lesson as a young man, but even then I wish I knew it before I started college. It would've saved me so much hassle if I would've initially gone into a field of study that would actually be an asset for me instead of having to do it later.

[EastwoodS]

He doesn’t even know what he saying, folks. And if he says anything remotely progressive, he’s probably been heavily drugged and told what to say, when he finally comes to, it’s a different story. Also, Biden has no intention to pass anything progressive; he probably knows nothing is going to get passed with that “trifecta”

[EastwoodS]

This is kind of a cycle of the Biden Administration we’ve already seen. Says something very progressive> Houses passes it,> senate says “ F that”> legislation goes to the graveyard> Biden retracts whatever progressive stance he had later.

[Former President tack50]

Encouraging home ownership isn't even really a good thing.[/b] The German and Austrian governments don't do this, and they're doing better than the vast majority of developed countries.

How is encouraging home ownership somehow a bad thing? It allows people to (once they pay their mortgage) finally not have to worry about rent or anything like that.

An economy of homeowners is certainly better than an economy of renters and indeed there is a reason why encouraging homeownership is generally a popular policy. There is a popular sentence from various authoritarian leaders (I've usually seen it attributed to either Franco, Perón or Pinochet) that says "I want a country of homeowners, not a country of proletarians". And while I won't condone those regimes I will say that homeownership is a good thing.

Certainly I would like to own a house some day instead of having to rent forever. And I bet so do most Americans. (how to make housing affordable is a whole other story)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Let's face it, most student loans is money that isn't paid back, it goes on your credit report, unless you are buying a car or a House which most people do after they inherit money it doesn't affect you, it's a Civil Lawsuit not a Criminal one and they can do nothing to you if you don't pay it back

Most student loans offer you forberances until you start working again anyways or make a substantial salary

Student loan forgiveness will deter people from working just like extended Unemployment does, that's why Politicians don't want to wipe out debt

You have to change the bankruptcy laws, Biden supported Bankruptcy reform and so did Hillary which took out student loans in first place

That's why if you have large student loans, banks won't give you a credit card

[Ancestral Republican]

Let's face it, most student loans is money that isn't paid back, it goes on your credit report, unless you are buying a car or a House which most people do after they inherit money it doesn't affect you, it's a Civil Lawsuit not a Criminal one and they can do nothing to you if you don't pay it back

What? They can absolutely garnish your social security and paychecks for life if you don't pay them back.

[Santander]

Encouraging home ownership isn't even really a good thing.[/b] The German and Austrian governments don't do this, and they're doing better than the vast majority of developed countries.

How is encouraging home ownership somehow a bad thing? It allows people to (once they pay their mortgage) finally not have to worry about rent or anything like that.

An economy of homeowners is certainly better than an economy of renters and indeed there is a reason why encouraging homeownership is generally a popular policy. There is a popular sentence from various authoritarian leaders (I've usually seen it attributed to either Franco, Perón or Pinochet) that says "I want a country of homeowners, not a country of proletarians". And while I won't condone those regimes I will say that homeownership is a good thing.

Certainly I would like to own a house some day instead of having to rent forever. And I bet so do most Americans. (how to make housing affordable is a whole other story)

Well, Germany and Austria, as mentioned, don't really encourage home ownership, and their economies are doing much better than, say, Spain, which has much higher home ownership. Appalachia has above average home ownership too, and it actually serves as an obstacle to mobility and poverty reduction. The local economies have completely collapsed, but people feel they cannot leave because it's impossible to find a buyer for their house, and even if they just abandoned their house and started renting somewhere, they'd still be liable for taxes and other expenses. The government should generally be ambivalent on home ownership and focus on ensuring adequate housing and infrastructure.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Let's face it, most student loans is money that isn't paid back, it goes on your credit report, unless you are buying a car or a House which most people do after they inherit money it doesn't affect you, it's a Civil Lawsuit not a Criminal one and they can do nothing to you if you don't pay it back

What? They can absolutely garnish your social security and paychecks for life if you don't pay them back.

To be quite blunt: You're an idiot if it gets to that point. If you can't afford to pay it at that time there's a gazillion options and you have literally almost a year to implement them. Garnishment doesn't start until after default, which happens at 360 days past due. Someone could request a forbearance at 359 days past due and avoid that. Now it's true that forbearance time is limited, (36 months), but there are loopholes and ways around that, for one even a single month of forbearance gives a clean slate so that person in the example above could just take one month of forbearance after 359 days and get a clean slate. Also you can request forb that doesn't count toward that time to do things like apply for Income Driven Repayment, you can only do that once a year, but as you can see that's really all you have to do. And if someone simply can't pay because they're fully unemployed or at poverty level wages, then applying for IDR as mentioned above likely will give them a zero payment plan anyway which runs for a whole year. Also the aforementioned 36 month limit can be reset by consolidation of the loan, something you can do even if you have only one, so it's at least a 72 month limit in reality.

Most student loan defaults and garnishments are on people who don't want to pay the loans, not people who can't, or are just too lazy to do the like ten minutes of research to learn this.

[Ancestral Republican]

Let's face it, most student loans is money that isn't paid back, it goes on your credit report, unless you are buying a car or a House which most people do after they inherit money it doesn't affect you, it's a Civil Lawsuit not a Criminal one and they can do nothing to you if you don't pay it back

What? They can absolutely garnish your social security and paychecks for life if you don't pay them back.

To be quite blunt: You're an idiot if it gets to that point. If you can't afford to pay it at that time there's a gazillion options and you have literally almost a year to implement them. Garnishment doesn't start until after default, which happens at 360 days past due. Someone could request a forbearance at 359 days past due and avoid that. Now it's true that forbearance time is limited, (36 months), but there are loopholes and ways around that, for one even a single month of forbearance gives a clean slate so that person in the example above could just take one month of forbearance after 359 days and get a clean slate. Also you can request forb that doesn't count toward that time to do things like apply for Income Driven Repayment, you can only do that once a year, but as you can see that's really all you have to do. And if someone simply can't pay because they're fully unemployed or at poverty level wages, then applying for IDR as mentioned above likely will give them a zero payment plan anyway which runs for a whole year. Also the aforementioned 36 month limit can be reset by consolidation of the loan, something you can do even if you have only one, so it's at least a 72 month limit in reality.

Most student loan defaults and garnishments are on people who don't want to pay the loans, not people who can't, or are just too lazy to do the like ten minutes of research to learn this.

Understood, but the comment I was replying to implied nothing would happen to you if you don't pay them, which is obviously not true.

And it's quite sad that we have a country where education is set up in a way that all of those scenarios are a possibility and reality.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The real problem with student loans frankly are Parent Plus loans. They do not qualify for the above Income Driven Repayment plans (well technically they do after consolidation, but only a rather sh!tty one in comparison to the ones borrowers can get), they have higher interest rates, and they always accrue interest even when the student is in school. The last part is true for a majority but not all of student loans, (students can take up to a certain limit of "subsidized" loans that don't accrue interest in school, but that doesn't exist for Parent Plus loans.) However I think the biggest problem is more one of age. A college grad with $50k in debt might seem like they're in a rough spot but they also can take a 25-year plan to pay it off (at least, there's plenty of loopholes to extend that), and if they spend 25 years on an IDR plan without paying it off the rest is discharged. So a 22-year old grad can be free of student loan debt at 47, pretty late but still well before retirement. Another factor is inflation, the equivalent of $50k in 1996 was per an inflation calculator about $29k, a still sizable but not as forboding amount today just like $50k will be in 25 years. But for Parent Plus loans the people taking them out are already middle aged and might even be on the cusp of retirement already (people do have kids in their 40s after all, and add 22 to that.)

That being said, the problems with Parent Plus loans are only so bad because often the parents are idiots. They often assume that they are merely "cosigning" for the loan which is simply not true and student loans rarely require cosigners, that the loan is "technically" in their name but really belongs to the student, something that legally makes zero sense, a loan can not "technically" belong to someone but be someone else's legal responsibility to pay, or perhaps strangest of all that they're the one who takes out the loan but upon finishing school or some other date the loan is transferred to the student, not only would such a loan be blatantly illegal in the United States there's zero indication this is what happens and anyone who believes this is just signing up for a five figure loan based on an assumption they pulled out of their ass. There's also why Parent Plus loans are taken out as they're rarely necessary, common assumptions is the student wouldn't qualify for a student loan because "they wouldn't pass a credit check", (credit is not a factor in giving out student loans) or simply assuming it's the "better" thing to because "teenagers shouldn't take out loans" or whatever, a statement that is quite defensible and makes sense but completely ignores the many ways in which student loans differ from other loans and provide more options, and quite frankly becomes moot if you actually expect your kid to pay off the loan in your name anyway.

The only way I see to avoid this is to require some sort of education program for parents taking out Parent Plus loans, which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea or unfeasible, all of the above could be communicated easily in a one hour seminar.

[Santander]

It's also a big problem when students don't graduate, or graduate with questionable degrees. Maybe not so much if they attended community college or a cheap 4-year school, but most people with a student loan crisis attended for-profit schools or non-profit schools with borderline predatory practices. Of course, most of these schools couldn't have turned into the monsters they are without the gravy train from DoD tuition assistance and GI Bill, which is another issue.

Another problem is students taking on Grad Plus loans to attend very substandard professional programs in business or worse, law, and end up unemployed or even unemployable. Hell, it's no coincidence that the worst-ranked medicine programs often have the highest tuitions, and some of them even have the audacity to state missions related to underrepresented minorities.

The saddest thing is, there are highly respected institutions like Purdue and the University of Arizona that are buying for-profit schools and using them as cash cows. At least in the past, universities looking to cash in had the decency to hide behind the veneer of executive education or ostensibly non-profit business models.