• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to Announce Student Loan Relief Plan

What free stuff?

Someone else has to pay for the education that they do not pay for now. After 10%. and 20 years, you no longer owe. Who's going to pick up that tab ?
 
Someone else has to pay for the education that they do not pay for now. After 10%. and 20 years, you no longer owe. Who's going to pick up that tab ?
I'm still waiting for the free part. You've only shown a discount.
 
There is a difference between profiting from school loans, and providing this service at cost. The latter is what we should strive for. No one should have to pay for anyone's anything, but everyone should not be made into a profit cow from such services as education and college.
 
I'm still waiting for the free part. You've only shown a discount.

Then you apparently lack the intellect to know the difference between debt forgiven, ie. paid for by someone else, and a "discount".

Libs. :roll:
 
Expecting someone else to pay for your car, your house, your kids, your education .... yeah, it irre****ingsponsible.

I hear no one calling for any of that.
 
It's a blatant bribe for votes. That should outrage anyone.

So is Rick Perry's non-flat tax proposal. Are you outraged about that?

Think of it this way: they'll get to keep more of what they earn. I thought the GOP was all about that.
 
Expecting someone else to pay for your car, your house, your kids, your education .... yeah, it irre****ingsponsible.

Your car and your house provide little or no benefit to anyone other than you. Your education and your kids (if they are well-educated themselves) do, and so it's not inappropriate for government to assist people with those things. If we went back to a society where only the rich could afford an education, there would be much less social mobility because the children of poor parents would never have the opportunity to use their abilities to become better off. Besides, no one benefits from a poorly educated society; it hurts the economy, which affects the pocketbooks of those at the top of the income ladder too.
 
Your car and your house provide little or no benefit to anyone other than you. Your education and your kids (if they are well-educated themselves) do, and so it's not inappropriate for government to assist people with those things. If we went back to a society where only the rich could afford an education, there would be much less social mobility because the children of poor parents would never have the opportunity to use their abilities to become better off. Besides, no one benefits from a poorly educated society; it hurts the economy, which affects the pocketbooks of those at the top of the income ladder too.

Oh ! So you get an education so that you can go out and help other folks !! You make babies so as to help society !! And what the heck ! If you got all kinds of loans to get all such degrees, and then weren't really all the help you thought to society, cause you can't find anyone to pay you for your societal talents, then since you meant to help society all along, let them pay for the education you got but couldn't put to good enough use !!

Typical liberal clap-trap. This ain't about the poorly educated. Its about the educated not paying their bills.
 
Someone else has to pay for the education that they do not pay for now. After 10%. and 20 years, you no longer owe. Who's going to pick up that tab ?

In most cases, no one. Because, most people will have paid off their principle. The cuts will come in interest.

Further, if people consolidate with Direct Loan, the government no longer has to pay to subsidize private companies doing student lending - so there are efficiency savings that can be applied as well.

Finally, you have to be in good standing to take part in the program. SO if someone is currently in default, they could potentially get back in good standing (if they have income - I know several people who went into default when they were out of work, and simply didn't know how to get back into good standing when they had enough money) to take advantage of the savings; thus increasing revenues.

This will likely cost the taxpayer little if anything. And if the money leftover in people's pockets is spent and it helps even slightly spark the economy, then the increase in the tax revenues could offset those costs.

Of course, these are some of the same arguments that Republicans say would happen with tax breaks - but when Obama does it; those arguments automatically become specious to the right-wing mind.
 
Conservatives just bristle at the thought that someone might get something that they won't.
 
In most cases, no one. Because, most people will have paid off their principle. The cuts will come in interest.

Further, if people consolidate with Direct Loan, the government no longer has to pay to subsidize private companies doing student lending - so there are efficiency savings that can be applied as well.

Finally, you have to be in good standing to take part in the program. SO if someone is currently in default, they could potentially get back in good standing (if they have income - I know several people who went into default when they were out of work, and simply didn't know how to get back into good standing when they had enough money) to take advantage of the savings; thus increasing revenues.

This will likely cost the taxpayer little if anything. And if the money leftover in people's pockets is spent and it helps even slightly spark the economy, then the increase in the tax revenues could offset those costs.

Of course, these are some of the same arguments that Republicans say would happen with tax breaks - but when Obama does it; those arguments automatically become specious to the right-wing mind.

You have waaaaay too many baseless assumptions there. While I have no problem with the consolidatin, there is now way to analyze the lowering of the eligible income for payment from 15% to 10%, and then the reduction in obligation from 25 to 20 years, and not see that it means taxpayers will have to foot more of the bill.

Interest is the cost of borrowing someone else's money. Your analogy about prinipal, such that $10 now is somehow no different from $10 ten years from now is folly.
 
Oh ! So you get an education so that you can go out and help other folks !! You make babies so as to help society !!

Those things do improve the economy, yes. GDP is a measure of productivity per person, times the number of people.

And what the heck ! If you got all kinds of loans to get all such degrees, and then weren't really all the help you thought to society, cause you can't find anyone to pay you for your societal talents, then since you meant to help society all along, let them pay for the education you got but couldn't put to good enough use !!

It's more an issue of encouraging people to get educated in the first place. If there is no safety net to help people with student loans, then fewer people will get educated. We need to reform the way that we handle student loans in this country, so that the government picks up less of the tab up front, but there is more of a social safety net. What I would suggest is that 1) The government continue to offer subsidized and unsubsidized student loans...but limit the amount to maybe 150% the cost of public universities. This would help private schools control their costs, 2) The government offers a new kind of loan where instead of paying a fixed dollar amount you pay a percentage of your future income, 3) States change the way that their public universities handle tuition; instead of charging a flat fee it should be related to the subject. There is no reason that an Art History degree should cost as much as an Engineering degree, since it provides much less value.
 
Last edited:
Those things do improve the economy, yes. GDP is a measure of productivity per person, times the number of people.



It's more an issue of encouraging people to get educated in the first place. If there is no safety net to help people with student loans, then fewer people will get educated. We need to reform the way that we handle student loans in this country, so that the government picks up less of the tab up front, but there is more of a social safety net. What I would suggest is that 1) The government continue to offer subsidized and unsubsidized student loans...but limit the amount to maybe 150% the cost of public universities. This would help private schools control their costs, 2) The government offers a new kind of loan where instead of paying a fixed dollar amount you pay a percentage of your future income, 3) States change the way that their public universities handle tuition; instead of charging a flat fee it should be related to the subject. There is no reason that an Art History degree should cost as much as an Engineering degree, since it provides much less value.

I am not going to disagree with any of that, but it is also a far cry from what Obama is doing here.

1) Obama has just created greater moral hazard in the seeking of student loans, as the borrower (student) now knows they may not be liable for full repayment, and so can spend more in pursuit of whatever education they want. Not unlike what started the housing bubble; and

2) This hazard will only fuel further inflation in the college education market.

This is just more liberal nanny-state stupidity that will increase public debt.

Might I add that a better reform would be the often discussed but never enacted social services program, not unlike the GI Bill, where you serve your country in a non-military but essential role in return for educational assistance.
 
This is not intended to help CURRENT debt. This is to make sure kids keep going to college, and keep getting into NEW debt. Obama doesn't care about current debt, as that is good. It is the goal to keep people in debt, as it ensures that we continue to pay our income tax.
 
Individuals borrowing thousands more than they can pay back.

Nope...the banks made them borrow too much. Didn't you get the memo? Banks are the root of all that is evil, people should never be made to satisfy their obligations if by doing so they are inconvenienced.
 
Change "Conservatives with "Liberals"

Change "won't" with "earned"

Yes, we all know that all Liberals sit on their butts and wait for that welfare check. Not a single one works for a living.
 
You Star doesn't read what others say, just interjects her own theory. Got it!

Mr.V will always make his political opponents into bad people, who do bad things.
 
Expecting someone else to pay for your car, your house, your kids, your education .... yeah, it irre****ingsponsible.

As pointed out, no one is really calling for that. but we do in fact have a serious problem with debt occured for education. Like with the housing crisis we can ignroe it and wait for the crash, or we can show some foresight and plan on how to address the problem. Obama isn't doing that here, but based on reactions, i assume some would rather wait for the crash. Am I incorrect?
 
As pointed out, no one is really calling for that. but we do in fact have a serious problem with debt occured for education. Like with the housing crisis we can ignroe it and wait for the crash, or we can show some foresight and plan on how to address the problem. Obama isn't doing that here, but based on reactions, i assume some would rather wait for the crash. Am I incorrect?

As I noted in an above post, this only makes it worse. It creates a moral hazard, and fuels education inflation.

Here's an example. You got $250K in loans to get your dream degree but which you are unlikely to ever make much money. But why you worry !! They can only compel you to pay 10% of what you earn clear of the poverty line, and then only for 20 years. So now that you have your dream degree, you can also opt for your la-la job !! Which in many scenarios, won't pay back half the loan.

Obama has chosen to address this by making it worse. This is exaclty what happened starting in 1997 with housing and sub-primes. Government sponsored moral hazards that created inflation and bad loans.
 
Is it necessarily a poor decision to limit maximum payments to 10% of income while still holding people accountable for those payments until the debt is fulfilled?
 
Back
Top Bottom