• 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!

Elizabeth Warren releases sweeping student debt cancellation and free college plan

Napoleon said:
I think it’s less degrees without practical application than over saturating the job market with college graduates. A bachelors is becoming the new high school diploma and its worth less to employers as a matter of salary than it used to be because applicants with those credentials are a dime a dozen.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What makes one BA degree different from the next?
 
tres borrachos said:
I disagree with her plan for many reasons. One is, what about all the people who had to pay off student loans in the past? I'm lucky - my parents had enough money to pay for my schooling, but that is hardly the case with others. Two, the US government does not have an unlimited pool of funds to do this, and yes, the schools do expect to be paid. Third, the means tested is really not the right way to attack it.

I think the costs of higher education need reforming, but this isn't the way to do it. What is? I don't know. Luckily I don't have to give a solution.

If our lawmakers want to add value, they can look at root cause analyses of the costs and find better ways to address them.

Her salary as a law professor was very high. Maybe that's one way it can come down, right?
Click to expand...

Arguing that we shouldn't do this because its unfair to people who paid off student debt in the past is a little like arguing against child labor laws because its unfair to the children who worked in the past.

As far as costs, we would simply be returning for a former policy of better funding colleges and keeping tuition down. Government-guaranteed, privately funded student loans led to reduced funding for education and tuition hikes.
 
Last edited:
Finch said:
To me this is Freedom....Right now I would not have the job I have today with out my education, making a modest living. However, I did not come from a wealthy family nor did my parents have the means to save for my education. (My mom ran into medical issues) I did choose to stay at a local college instead of attending the college of my choice to save money however when I graduated I was still knee deep in debt.(graduated less than 10 years ago)...I am the norm, it was rare to meet a class mate who had parents that paid for their college education and I would say 90 percent of us come from Middle class families. If we were to graduated without this "ball and chain" I would guarantee consumer spending in this country would sky rocket....Same goes for health care....if my middle class family in which I grew up in didnt have such a financial burden to pay for my mom's medical issues we definitely would have been a lot better off financially. And this is why I lean the way I do politically...I'm not asking for "free" stuff, I'm asking that we invest and take care of our people...Consumer spending, which 68% of our economy right now, would sky rocket... isnt that what we want?
Click to expand...

You'd have to consider how much less discretionary income every would have if people like Warren or Bernie get to implement their tax plan.
 
Acadia said:
Exactly. What makes one BA degree different from the next?
Click to expand...
End results should make the students employable, otherwise the education is meaningless.
 
Finch said:
To me this is Freedom....Right now I would not have the job I have today with out my education, making a modest living. However, I did not come from a wealthy family nor did my parents have the means to save for my education. (My mom ran into medical issues) I did choose to stay at a local college instead of attending the college of my choice to save money however when I graduated I was still knee deep in debt.(graduated less than 10 years ago)...I am the norm, it was rare to meet a class mate who had parents that paid for their college education and I would say 90 percent of us come from Middle class families. If we were to graduated without this "ball and chain" I would guarantee consumer spending in this country would sky rocket....Same goes for health care....if my middle class family in which I grew up in didnt have such a financial burden to pay for my mom's medical issues we definitely would have been a lot better off financially. And this is why I lean the way I do politically...I'm not asking for "free" stuff, I'm asking that we invest and take care of our people...Consumer spending, which 68% of our economy right now, would sky rocket... isnt that what we want?
Click to expand...
You know Finch, I can relate because my kids and their friends have been going through this very system. I could do this, if:

1] It's applied evenly to everyone - not means tested
2] It's part of a comprehensive plan to address the underlying issue of costs.

Nobody wants to see you guys starting out in life with a school loan that precludes you getting a mortgage. And that's exactly what's happening, meaning for some time your money's going to get thrown-away on rent, rather than your owning a piece property that will allow you to build equity into the future.
 
Rexedgar said:
Who is credited with “ ....a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage?”



I like : “Free beer tomorrow.”
Click to expand...

How about "Support me and my future generations for life"....Oh wait?
 
Although her plan would help wipe out our youngest daughters College debt, I still am not fond of her plan. We need to address the high costs and the profit margin of many colleges. Even knowing our daughter is saddled with over $600 a month student loan payments, it appears there is very little in her plan to address the overall issue.
 
Finch said:
To me this is Freedom....Right now I would not have the job I have today with out my education, making a modest living. However, I did not come from a wealthy family nor did my parents have the means to save for my education. (My mom ran into medical issues) I did choose to stay at a local college instead of attending the college of my choice to save money however when I graduated I was still knee deep in debt.(graduated less than 10 years ago)...I am the norm, it was rare to meet a class mate who had parents that paid for their college education and I would say 90 percent of us come from Middle class families. If we were to graduated without this "ball and chain" I would guarantee consumer spending in this country would sky rocket....Same goes for health care....if my middle class family in which I grew up in didnt have such a financial burden to pay for my mom's medical issues we definitely would have been a lot better off financially. And this is why I lean the way I do politically...I'm not asking for "free" stuff, I'm asking that we invest and take care of our people...Consumer spending, which 68% of our economy right now, would sky rocket... isnt that what we want?
Click to expand...

oooh so the people before paid their debt, but now its too hard?

of course we want consumers spenders, but not at the cost of raising the debt another 2 trillion overnight

i didnt sign on a co-signor for your loan....why saddle me, or my progeny with the debt?

if we want to start a program....ok, lets talk....but forgiveness of loans is out in my books

you signed on the dotted line....no one forced you to....now you have to pay it back
 
Napoleon said:
I think it’s less degrees without practical application than over saturating the job market with college graduates. A bachelors is becoming the new high school diploma and its worth less to employers as a matter of salary than it used to be because applicants with those credentials are a dime a dozen.
Click to expand...

I agree with your statement of less degrees without practical application . This has been happening for years.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, I see it similar to illegal-immigration in a way. If we give amnesty, we also need to close-off the border to stop it from occurring again.

I could go for the debt forgiveness, if we adequately address the reason it occurs, so it doesn't happen again.

My biggest fear here, is free & easy money artificially escalating education costs. And forgiveness could have that effect, if it's not done as part of a comprehensive plan which addresses the underlying issue.
Click to expand...

That’s a tough one. The reason student loan debt ballooned from $150 billion to $1.5 trillion over the last 9 years is that the Federal government decided that the ability of high school graduates to attend college should not be dependent on the financial success and credit worthiness of their parents. But now, based on Warren’s figures, we’ve basically issued hundreds of billions of dollars in subprime loans that will ultimately financially destroy the people they’re targeted to help.

So either we return to a system where the poor and lower middle class have little-to-no shot at a college education, we change the way we do student lending to reflect the economic realities of college graduates and stop impacting credit scores, or college education becomes the entitlement our tax payer funded lending practices imply it is anyway.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
This is just a practical thing to do. Student loan debt has increased by a factor of 10 since the Federal government took over lending from the private sector in 2010. It currently amounts to $1.5 trillion with 40% of these loans expected to be in default within 4 years. So you can forgive a debt that is not likely to ever be collected anyway or ruin the credit scores/worthiness of ~22 million borrowers when they default on their loans. The later would be terrible for the economy.
Click to expand...
If the program were part of a comprehensive solution to address the spiraling costs, and it were applied equitably rather than means tested, I might be able to hop aboard.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The way to address the issue is eliminate all federal aid to universities and all federal requirements. Tution will fall like a rock, the angry communist professors who teach affirmative action studies and administrators who’s only job is to find fake discrimination so they can “solve it” (ie get more federal money for affirmative action studies) will be put in the unemployment line, and quality will improve.

Federal requirements and funding is what causes high prices.

And also, why do we need to “do something” about student debt? If you have student debt you voluntarily promised to pay back a loan to get education. It’s simply not my problem as someone who went to college on my own dime while working a working class job that these other people chose to take loans and then drink and party. I can’t have the benefits they got why do I need to shoulder the cost?
Click to expand...
I think you're harsher than I am here on a few aspects, but I somewhat agree with the general thrust of your post.

I think the whole system needs a comprehensive reform, and as part of that I could get onboard with some form of forgiveness.

Remember, you may not want to develop the next generation of the internet, 5G, artificial intelligence, of a multitude of other important things to allow America to be globally competitive in the future. But there are some young people that do want to be part of these things, and we need them and need to help them. They are our future, after all.
 
Napoleon said:
That’s a tough one. The reason student loan debt ballooned from $150 billion to $1.5 trillion over the last 9 years is that the Federal government decided that the ability of high school graduates to attend college should not be dependent on the financial success and credit worthiness of their parents. But now, based on Warren’s figures, we’ve basically issued hundreds of billions of dollars in subprime loans that will ultimately financially destroy the people they’re targeted to help.

So either we return to a system where the poor and lower middle class have little-to-no shot at a college education, we change the way we do student lending to reflect the economic realities of college graduates and stop impacting credit scores, or college education becomes the entitlement our tax payer funded lending practices imply it is anyway.
Click to expand...
That last paragraph in particular, is really excellent.

I don't know now, but I'm going to try to examine how Germany & England have such low costs.

Actually, I think I do know in part how Germany & england do it; both countries do not automatically open-up higher education to all, instead you have to test into the universities, and Germany in particular has excellent trade apprenticeships for those that can't get in.
 
Chomsky said:
That last paragraph in particular, is really excellent.

I don't know now, but I'm going to try to examine how Germany & England have such low costs.

Actually, I think I do know in part how Germany & england do it; both countries do not automatically open-up higher education to all, instead you have to test into the universities, and Germany in particular has excellent trade apprenticeships for those that can't get in.
Click to expand...

Many US politicians do not understand that college is not for everyone. There is nothing wrong with having a career in the trades. Some good money can be had if your good at it.
 
Chomsky said:
That last paragraph in particular, is really excellent.

I don't know now, but I'm going to try to examine how Germany & England have such low costs.

Actually, I think I do know in part how Germany & england do it; both countries do not automatically open-up higher education to all, instead you have to test into the universities, and Germany in particular has excellent trade apprenticeships for those that can't get in.
Click to expand...

I think you’re onto something there. My generation was raised to believe that the only path to success is a college education. It’s the biggest lie ever sold and we have a massive debt bubble to prove it. Americans have really lost sight of the value of trade schools and apprenticeships.
 
i support debt free access to post secondary education. as for Warren's plan, i'd have to study it more to see if i support it.
 
Napoleon said:
That’s a tough one. The reason student loan debt ballooned from $150 billion to $1.5 trillion over the last 9 years is that the Federal government decided that the ability of high school graduates to attend college should not be dependent on the financial success and credit worthiness of their parents. But now, based on Warren’s figures, we’ve basically issued hundreds of billions of dollars in subprime loans that will ultimately financially destroy the people they’re targeted to help.

So either we return to a system where the poor and lower middle class have little-to-no shot at a college education, we change the way we do student lending to reflect the economic realities of college graduates and stop impacting credit scores, or college education becomes the entitlement our tax payer funded lending practices imply it is anyway.
Click to expand...

Your last sentence is not true. Money acts as an IQ test, people who have the intelligence sufficient for college will find a way in, they’ll either be able to borrow money from private lenders, or get help from their churches, unions, employers, etc or make connections with people who can help them. General Gavin, The famed commander of the 82nd Airborne in WW2 got to West Point by studying while literally sitting on the crapper in his Coast Artillery unit’s Latrine (the only building with lights on after retreat) he never finished high school.

But with the new system the emphasis is on dumbing down college to increase the number of students far above what is truly needed.

What do you need college for in most cases? I have read more non fiction books then any student will ever be assigned, I am an international traveler and learn about other people and cultures that way. You quickly learn that college is not right for everyone and you can get more benefit at lower cost doing other things.
 
Chomsky said:
That last paragraph in particular, is really excellent.

I don't know now, but I'm going to try to examine how Germany & England have such low costs. Actually, I think I do know in part how Germany & england do it; both countries do not automatically open-up higher education to all, instead you have to test into the universities, and Germany in particular has excellent trade apprenticeships for those that can't get in.
Click to expand...

It's more of the latter than the former. Both countries offer many, many different choices for post-secondary or tertiary education, which peels off a significant number of students who want to go to University. It's the United States that funnels everyone along the same High School path and then sets the high-bar for testing/applying to University. (Ex., this recent college applications scandal.)

The UK typically has more or less the same route for kids up until the age of 16, which is when they take their GCSEs. Then they are given the choice of pursuing a further education degree, a vocational education or apprenticeship, or prepping for their A-levels which qualifies them for applying for Universities. I think there's been a recently implemented rule which is that 16-18s need to pursue some type of post-secondary education.

Germany splits off kids into 5 different types of secondary schools at the age of 10. I believe the majority of German kids - like 70% - get into apprenticeship or vocational routes. Whereas the traditional route to University is via a Gymnasium and taking your Abitur, but I think that's becoming a whole lot less common.
 
Napoleon said:
That’s a tough one. The reason student loan debt ballooned from $150 billion to $1.5 trillion over the last 9 years is that the Federal government decided that the ability of high school graduates to attend college should not be dependent on the financial success and credit worthiness of their parents. But now, based on Warren’s figures, we’ve basically issued hundreds of billions of dollars in subprime loans that will ultimately financially destroy the people they’re targeted to help.

So either we return to a system where the poor and lower middle class have little-to-no shot at a college education, we change the way we do student lending to reflect the economic realities of college graduates and stop impacting credit scores, or college education becomes the entitlement our tax payer funded lending practices imply it is anyway.
Click to expand...

That's a little bit too simplified. The problem is that we've tried to take to cost factor out of it entirely... making the key factors other things, including prestige names. Students are able to get loans on the basis of the price of the program... with no relationship to their eventual ability to repay. That's led to the double whammy of students willing to take on more debt than they should.... and inflation in the price charged by schools (supply and demand!). It might make sense for a medical student to take on a large about of loans, or an engineer to go to MIT, knowing she'll likely get a higher paying career. It makes no sense for a sociology or literature student to go to a prestige school and carry that kind of debt - yet if you wanted to go to a $40K a year school for that, you could.

I also share your concerns about paying off loans for past students. Many took on more debt than they should have.... but many also didn't. It's not fair to the people who worked through school, limited their expenses, or paid off their debt, to simply pay off the debts of those who didn't. People need to take responsibility for their actions.

If we're going to do a change, I'd rather it be an equitable grant going forward. A strict cap on a grant, with the option to defer all or part of the first two years at a junior college. And a strict limit on any loans that would roughly cover an average state school tuition. Anything above that should be a private loan, allowing the market to balance out the risk, and be on the hook for any losses. If you want to go to Columbia to major in political science, you'd better have parents that foot the bill - because you aren't getting a federal loan to cover the $54K tuition.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Your last sentence is not true. Money acts as an IQ test, people who have the intelligence sufficient for college will find a way in, they’ll either be able to borrow money from private lenders, or get help from their churches, unions, employers, etc or make connections with people who can help them. General Gavin, The famed commander of the 82nd Airborne in WW2 got to West Point by studying while literally sitting on the crapper in his Coast Artillery unit’s Latrine (the only building with lights on after retreat) he never finished high school.

But with the new system the emphasis is on dumbing down college to increase the number of students far above what is truly needed.

What do you need college for in most cases? I have read more non fiction books then any student will ever be assigned, I am an international traveler and learn about other people and cultures that way. You quickly learn that college is not right for everyone and you can get more benefit at lower cost doing other things.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the first part. The federal takeover and increase in student debt happened precisely because those things weren’t happening and high school graduates with low to middle income backgrounds were priced out and they couldn’t get a loan when private sector standards applied. Academic admission requirements haven’t changed, but now pretty much anyone who wants a loan can get one.

As for the second part - yeah, if you’re just curious and want to know things then there are better options than going up to your eyeballs in debt. But if you plan to do something with your life that requires proof that you know those things then you need a degree. If it were up to me, I would probably limit federal student lending to STEM majors and trade schools.
 
I don't support her plan 100%.
However I do believe something needs to be done.
Teachers that got their degrees prior to 2000 got them at local colleges for 10k or under today its 50k no room and board.
Same with nurses and ultrasound techs, physical therapists and about 100 other worthwhile degrees.

One thing I can say about Warren every dollar she plans on spending she's showing where the money is coming from.
Actually the plans she has right now has money left over.
She is very policy driven....which in today's tribal nastiness she doesn't stand a chance.
 
dcsports said:
That's a little bit too simplified. The problem is that we've tried to take to cost factor out of it entirely... making the key factors other things, including prestige names. Students are able to get loans on the basis of the price of the program... with no relationship to their eventual ability to repay. That's led to the double whammy of students willing to take on more debt than they should.... and inflation in the price charged by schools (supply and demand!). It might make sense for a medical student to take on a large about of loans, or an engineer to go to MIT, knowing she'll likely get a higher paying career. It makes no sense for a sociology or literature student to go to a prestige school and carry that kind of debt - yet if you wanted to go to a $40K a year school for that, you could.

I also share your concerns about paying off loans for past students. Many took on more debt than they should have.... but many also didn't. It's not fair to the people who worked through school, limited their expenses, or paid off their debt, to simply pay off the debts of those who didn't. People need to take responsibility for their actions.

If we're going to do a change, I'd rather it be an equitable grant going forward. A strict cap on a grant, with the option to defer all or part of the first two years at a junior college. And a strict limit on any loans that would roughly cover an average state school tuition. Anything above that should be a private loan, allowing the market to balance out the risk, and be on the hook for any losses. If you want to go to Columbia to major in political science, you'd better have parents that foot the bill - because you aren't getting a federal loan to cover the $54K tuition.
Click to expand...

I agree with some of that in the sense that we shouldn’t be lending to pay for non-STEM fields, but I think we need to set aside this idea of “fairness” and just accept debt forgiveness as an unavoidable outcome of the folly of this subprime lending spree. I wouldn’t price people out of the Ivy League if they meet the academic standards but there is an element of student lending I would get rid of.

The way it works today, for those who don’t know, is that the loan goes to the school and tuition, fees, housing, and a textbook stipend are deducted from the amount provided. The total amount of the loan is often in excess of those costs and the remainder is dispersed to the student. That hast to stop and the residual should be returned.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Source: (CNN) Elizabeth Warren releases sweeping student debt cancellation and free college plan

I think most of us agree something needs to be done to make higher education more affordable. But I'm torn on this plan.

Firstly - it helps those currently in debt, while doing nothing for those of us that already paid-off our loans through the years. Secondly - it will be a means-tested benefit, which I despise; I believe in giving benefits equitably. And thirdly - I see nothing in the plan to addresses the cost of tuition, but rather the plan calls for even more grants! And again, those grants are means-tested!

So I don't think I particularly care for this plan, even if it would help quite a few kids I know. I think I very much prefer offering a public community college option, to save the kids two year's of university tuition. I really worry that it's the loans and grants that drive tuition escalation, at least in part.

But yes, sadly this issue very much needs to be addressed. You won't find many that promote education more, than me. And it's currently not working as well in America, as in some of our peer nations like England & Germany.
Click to expand...

Warren is one of the worst candidates of my lifetime. Right up there with Palin. Obviously not as stupid but just as awful.
 
Middle_Ground said:
I don't support her plan 100%.
However I do believe something needs to be done.
Teachers that got their degrees prior to 2000 got them at local colleges for 10k or under today its 50k no room and board.
Same with nurses and ultrasound techs, physical therapists and about 100 other worthwhile degrees.

One thing I can say about Warren every dollar she plans on spending she's showing where the money is coming from.
Actually the plans she has right now has money left over.
She is very policy driven....which in today's tribal nastiness she doesn't stand a chance.
Click to expand...

Not really. She invented a tax to fund miscellaneous programs she wants, but it's not going to pass, and if it did, wouldn't be enough. Even with this proposal, she says that states would have to 'share' in the cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom