Elizabeth Warren releases sweeping student debt cancellation and free college plan

Chomsky said:

I fully agree with what you did here, and greatly respect it. But I wonder if you did this awhile ago? Because today it would be very hard for a kid to pay-as-they-go through a university (given the tuition rates).

Click to expand...

What I would like to know is why is education so expensive?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

RAMOSS said:

The concern about the student loans i the past is like saying 'What about all those poor people who died of measles before, so why worry about a vaccine now'.

Click to expand...

Not really, but I get your point. Nobody died.

tres borrachos said:

Not really, but I get your point. Nobody died.

Click to expand...

The point is that it's important to go forward with people who have problems now.. unfair the the ones that struggled with debt,,,.. yep.. but it's better to move forward and correct the issue going on now.

RAMOSS said:

The point is that it's important to go forward with people who have problems now.. unfair the the ones that struggled with debt,,,.. yep.. but it's better to move forward and correct the issue going on now.

Click to expand...

I understood your point. I just happen not to agree with it in this case. I don't support Warren's plan. I think college needs reforming. Just not this.

tres borrachos said:

I understood your point. I just happen not to agree with it in this case. I don't support Warren's plan. I think college needs reforming. Just not this.

Click to expand...

I am just disagreeing that the reason it's 'bad' is it doesn't fix the past is no reason not to go forward. No plan will be perfect, and I would be happy if someone proposed a different plan going forward. It's at least bringing something to the table.

RAMOSS said:

I am just disagreeing that the reason it's 'bad' is it doesn't fix the past is no reason not to go forward. No plan will be perfect, and I would be happy if someone proposed a different plan going forward. It's at least bringing something to the table.

Click to expand...

It was one of 3 reasons I listed as being bad. Again, I get your point. I just don't agree with it.

I will hand it to her that she's the only one so far to bring real plans. They may not be good ones, but she's thinking it through and not talking in platitudes.

Chomsky said:

I fully agree with what you did here, and greatly respect it. But I wonder if you did this awhile ago? Because today it would be very hard for a kid to pay-as-they-go through a university (given the tuition rates).

Click to expand...

It was long ago in the 70's.
Between the parents, the kid and scholarships continued education for the most part can be had. Expensive but doable. Start saving the day the kid is born. Have the kid work when old enough and save for continued education.

What I see at times is kids working and spending money on stuff. Parents living at the top of their means, instead of paring a back. Got to have all the latest phones, internet, expensive car(s), expensive homes. Kids not taking advantage of community colleges. Then wanting to go to out of State schools instead of instate. Parents wanting their kids to go to private or top tiered universities.

Colleges need to cut their costs. It is getting ridicules on what some want for tuition , room and board.

SLC said:

I had a pretty similar experience. My roommate did as well. His parents [poor] gave him $50.00 and an old Ford Falcon car and that is it. We both roofed houses during school and in the hot Texas summers to pay for school. I worked as a resident assistant in the dorm and he works as a janitor vacuuming and cleaning bathrooms. No one paid off out student loans and we kept borrowing to a minimum.

Click to expand...

As someone who also worked his way through school, but still ending-up with loans, I respect what you did. But my suspicion is that this was awhile ago, because at today's university tuition rates I doubt many kids could find work that would allow them to do this today.

JustHanging said:

Sorry, my apologies.

Click to expand...

And if the Republicans were pandering for votes by promising to pay off peoples debts, I would be blasting them the same. Saying Mexico will pay for a wall is nowhere near the same thing. Not to mention, Trump was obviously boasting. Democrats are serious.

Chomsky said:

As someone who also worked his way through school, but still ending-up with loans, I respect what you did. But my suspicion is that this was awhile ago, because at today's university tuition rates I doubt many kids could find work that would allow them to do this today.

Click to expand...

For what occupation? Why does someone need to go to a university?

mike2810 said:

It was long ago in the 70's.
Between the parents, the kid and scholarships continued education for the most part can be had. Expensive but doable. Start saving the day the kid is born. Have the kid work when old enough and save for continued education.

What I see at times is kids working and spending money on stuff. Parents living at the top of their means, instead of paring a back. Got to have all the latest phones, internet, expensive car(s), expensive homes. Kids not taking advantage of community colleges. Then wanting to go to out of State schools instead of instate. Parents wanting their kids to go to private or top tiered universities.

Colleges need to cut their costs. It is getting ridicules on what some want for tuition , room and board.

Click to expand...

Yes it is expensive and doable, but very rare....Middle class Americans are being priced out. I graduated less than 10 years ago, I would say a hand full of graduates walked away with their degree with 15k or less debt...most common amount of debt was in the 30k-45k (this is with students working and parents helping)...If students didnt work and parents couldn't help a graduate walked away with 65k debt easy, probably more. I personally knew one person that walked away with no debt.

One thing I don't understand, with Warren's tuition reimbursement strategy, is why aren't the universities expected to pay? The universities are the one's who made all the money, equal to all the debt? If this had been Big Oil or Big Pharmacy, placing millions of students in debt, they would be on trial.

The Big and Rich university system, should help pay off the debt. Warren does not implicate Big U, since they are part of a Democrat tax payer money laundering scam, that benefits Democrats. Liberalism and Progressivism, dominates the Big U system and they have been enriched, at the expense of naive students. If Warren can get the tax payers, to foot the tab, Big U, will money launder some of this, back to Warren.

This student debt problem should actually come under the Consumer Protection Act. The universities are well aware that a basket weaving major in College, although interesting, will make it hard for a student to find a job, in their major, that can help them manage their huge future student debt. The university knowingly sells them a money pit investment. They did not warn them this may become a money pit!

If this situation was a used car salesman, selling a junk car, at twice its value, to a young shopper, a Consumer Protection advocate would require he get his money back from the merchant. The advocate would not say, maybe we can get the tax payer to refund you, even if they gained nothing by this sale. Warren is running another patented Democrats scam, on the tax payer, in favor of the used car lot called Big U.

Approaching this by going after Big U, will be the best long term fix, since it will force tuition to come down, based on the earning power of each major they offer. This is a fair used car lot. If you choose IT or Engineering as your major, this would still command larger tuition, since the payoff is large enough to manage the debt.

But majors like feminists studies or dead languages, which have very few good paying jobs, will be much cheaper. Used car price; tuition, will be based on a fair market schema, in the future. This will make future student debt fair.

wellwisher said:

One thing I don't understand, with Warren's tuition reimbursement strategy, is why aren't the universities expected to pay? The universities are the one's who made all the money, equal to all the debt? If this had been Big Oil or Big Pharmacy, placing millions of students in debt, they would be on trial.

The Big and Rich university system, should help pay off the debt. Warren does not implicate Big U, since they are part of a Democrat tax payer money laundering scam, that benefits Democrats. Liberalism and Progressivism, dominates the Big U system and they have been enriched, at the expense of naive students. If Warren can get the tax payers, to foot the tab, Big U, will money launder some of this, back to Warren.

This student debt problem should actually come under the Consumer Protection Act. The universities are well aware that a basket weaving major in College, although interesting, will make it hard for a student to find a job, in their major, that can help them manage their huge future student debt. The university knowingly sells them a money pit investment. They did not warn them this may become a money pit!

If this situation was a used car salesman, selling a junk car, at twice its value, to a young shopper, a Consumer Protection advocate would require he get his money back from the merchant. The advocate would not say, maybe we can get the tax payer to refund you, even if they gained nothing by this sale. Warren is running another patented Democrats scam, on the tax payer, in favor of the used car lot called Big U.

Approaching this by going after Big U, will be the best long term fix, since it will force tuition to come down, based on the earning power of each major they offer. This is a fair used car lot. If you choose IT or Engineering as your major, this would still command larger tuition, since the payoff is large enough to manage the debt.

But majors like feminists studies or dead languages, which have very few good paying jobs, will be much cheaper. Used car price; tuition, will be based on a fair market schema, in the future. This will make future student debt fair.

Click to expand...

Using your example, No one forced the student (young adult) to major in "basket weaving" or any other worthless degree. The student made a choice. A poor one, but a choice.

Maybe the education system should get back to the basics and quit teaching the "feel good" subjects.

mike2810 said:

It was long ago in the 70's.
Between the parents, the kid and scholarships continued education for the most part can be had. Expensive but doable. Start saving the day the kid is born. Have the kid work when old enough and save for continued education.

Click to expand...

All great ideas, but not always doable for everyone; and not every kid is born into fortuitous circumstance.

What I see at times is kids working and spending money on stuff. Parents living at the top of their means, instead of paring a back. Got to have all the latest phones, internet, expensive car(s), expensive homes. Kids not taking advantage of community colleges. Then wanting to go to out of State schools instead of instate. Parents wanting their kids to go to private or top tiered universities.

Click to expand...

I've recently been down this road with my kids. I think you're somewhat stereotyping poor financial behavior, as well as underestimating the costs of a good university education, along with the overestimating the earnings of part-time kid's jobs (in today's environment).

A part-time job today will not even pay 1/2 of a state university's in-residence tuition, much less room & board, or to "live in cheap apartments" as you say in your post. And, it pays even a lessor amount of a good private school.

With all respect, if it's been awhile since you've been in this game, I suggest you research current tuition and other costs, paying special consideration to the associated fees and other mandatory costs. The tuition numbers by themselves do not tell the whole story; the add-on fees can get ridiculous. Also keep in mind that schools now require heath insurance, and will roll that into the costs if the parents don't have a policy that extends to their kids. Finally, compare the costs you find with a kid's typical & reasonable part-time after-tax earnings. The gap will be large.

Here's the deal: Over the decades since the 50/60's/70's, wages for unskilled jobs & part-time jobs has greatly decreased in relation to the costs of housing & education. The ratio has changed by magnitudes! And I honestly see no way for kids to easily & regularly do what we did in the 60's & 70's. The numbers just aren't there, anymore.

If you seriously want to discuss numbers, I'd be happy to share our recent numbers with you, as well as share some of the techniques our & our kids' friend's families used that worked (2 + 2 programs, niche sports, academic achievement, etc.).

Colleges need to cut their costs. It is getting ridicules on what some want for tuition , room and board.

Click to expand...

110% agree! :thumbs:

I believe grants & easy loans are driving the tuition escalation (in part), but the more in-demand institutions are in a free-market environment; many line-up to to gladly pay, due to the perceived value of the pay-off. So I'm not sure what can be done to regulate a free-market product.

trouble13 said:

What I would like to know is why is education so expensive?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Easy loans & grants, uneducated consumers buying a complex product, and it being a somewhat inelastic product as nearly everyone believes they need to have it. Also, parental motivation in avoiding guilt if they don't provide it (further bolstering inelasticity).

That's my take on it, and unfortunately the perception is often reality. Education is indeed the "great equalizer" when done well; but it's a financial albatross & boondoggle when done poorly!

jonny5 said:

For what occupation? Why does someone need to go to a university?

Click to expand...

Law, medicine, engineering, accounting, etc., etc.

Chomsky said:

Easy loans & grants, uneducated consumers buying a complex product, and it being a somewhat inelastic product as nearly everyone believes they need to have it. Also, parental motivation in avoiding guilt if they don't provide it (further bolstering inelasticity).

That's my take on it, and unfortunately the perception is often reality. Education is indeed the "great equalizer" when done well; but it's a financial albatross & boondoggle when done poorly!

Click to expand...

See now youe unpeeling the layers of this onion. Democrsts seem to think the solution is to subdidize the boondoggle with taxpayer funding.

Im not opposed to public funding being invested in schools if it means lower costs to the students but it seems to result in schools getting more money. That imo is the issue.

One avenue i think worth exploring is using technology. 1 professor can teach thousands of students in a single session online. Books, housing, travel costs can be reduced using online courses. I think its something worth looking into

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

See now youe unpeeling the layers of this onion. Democrsts seem to think the solution is to subdidize the boondoggle with taxpayer funding.

Im not opposed to public funding being invested in schools if it means lower costs to the students but it seems to result in schools getting more money. That imo is the issue.

One avenue i think worth exploring is using technology. 1 professor can teach thousands of students in a single session online. Books, housing, travel costs can be reduced using online courses. I think its something worth looking into

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I still really like the idea of publicly funded Community College. Let the trade-oriented kids learn a way to make a buck, and let the college-bound kids only have to deal with the expenses of their junior & senior years at the university.

Chomsky said:

Law, medicine, engineering, accounting, etc., etc.

Click to expand...

That accounts for a small number of people who end up very wealthy. Are we really talking about doctors who start at 150k a year? Engineers can go to a tech school. All of them can start at a community college. Some of the most common degree seekers are arts and business. These dont really require four year degrees.

If anything this is not a problem with cost, but rather that students are forced to waste 2 years on liberal arts for many degrees, and that degrees are pointless in most jobs.

Chomsky said:

I still really like the idea of publicly funded Community College. Let the trade-oriented kids learn a way to make a buck, and let the college-bound kids only have to deal with the expenses of their junior & senior years at the university.

Click to expand...

Whey even have the first 2 years? Why not skip right to the 2 actual years of focused education? Does someone in accounting really need to take history, liberal studies, natural science?

jonny5 said:

That accounts for a small number of people who end up very wealthy. Are we really talking about doctors who start at 150k a year? Engineers can go to a tech school.

Click to expand...

Well - when I was growing-up in relatively modest circumstances quite awhile ago, those above were the traditional paths for kids that went to college, and it also included accounting, nursing, and maybe one or two others.

The point is, we didn't have a lot of money to blow if there wasn't going to be a pay-off when we graduated. So the idea of taking something like art or philosophy, was off the table. I see education as a return-on-investment; and if you don't have a trust fund or family business waiting for you, you better pick a profitable profession.

In fact, law (and accounting) were among the most popular career paths of the guys I grew-up with, and like I said we were essentially the sons of immigrants, our families barely getting by financially while establishing a foothold in America.

As to engineering, sorry the tech-school route is not going to do it. With rare exception, an un-degreed engineer's résumé won't get past the H.R. Dept of most major corporations. There are exceptions, but they are few & far between. The deck is greatly, I mean GREATLY, stacked against an un-degreed engineer. And without the degree, you'll never get your P.E. - at least in my state.

I will concede that there's a slight bit more educational leeway with software engineers, but not with hardware guys, and definitely not with civil engineers where a P.E. is virtually mandatory.

Business degrees vary, as there's a lot of bull**** schools & bull**** degrees. When I'm talking "business degree", I'm generally referring to an M.B.A. from a good school, with accounting perhaps being an exception (bachelor's gets you a C.P.A. in my state).

But there are a few strong undergrad business degrees, and I've known a couple kids that have gotten into solid investment banking paths with only a finance undergrad; but they were from solid schools & programs, and were at the very top of their classes - 3.85+ G.P.A. Actually, I posted about one of these undergrad wonder-kids quite a few months back.

All of them can start at a community college. Some of the most common degree seekers are arts and business. These dont really require four year degrees.

If anything this is not a problem with cost, but rather that students are forced to waste 2 years on liberal arts for many degrees, and that degrees are pointless in most jobs.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right here, in that 2 + 2 programs are extremely valuable and are great paths to a four year degree.

Though there are also intangibles for the right kids in good four year undergrad programs, in terms of networking, internships, and the association with the institution's professionals and thier associations. But unless you've got the cash for these intangibles, the 2 + 2 is just fine. It's always the graduate degree that really counts anyway, and that's the way to go for most of the more lucrative professions (including engineering if you want to remain on a technical path).

tl;dr

I think part of the reason for the disconnect in our way of valuing higher education, is you seem to be associating it with majors that have a poor return-on-investment, and perhaps using institutions that are not optimal to launch solid career paths. Unless you've got money to burn or just want the joys of a liberal education (which is fine), then you have to approach education as a business decision. Pick a profession that will produce the economic reward you desire, and go to a good school; become an "educated professional", not a "college graduate"!

Chomsky said:

I think part of the reason for the disconnect in our way of valuing higher education, is you seem to be associating it with majors that have a poor return-on-investment, and perhaps using institutions that are not optimal to launch solid career paths. Unless you've got money to burn or just want the joys of a liberal education (which is fine), then you have to approach education as a business decision. Pick a profession that will produce the economic reward you desire, and go to a good school; become an "educated professional", not a "college graduate"!

Click to expand...

There is no disconnect. I agree. "college graduate" is a concept that has met its end. So we need to do the opposite of what Warren is proposing, and stuff brainwashing people into thinking that they have to go to college, and thus have to finance it.

With no response from either of us for several days, I assume you were enjoying your weekend as much as mine!

jonny5 said:

Whey even have the first 2 years? Why not skip right to the 2 actual years of focused education? Does someone in accounting really need to take history, liberal studies, natural science?

Click to expand...

I have no probs with that, in those professions where it's feasible. Engineering is one where it won't work (there are others), because there are next to no liberal or non-technical classes in an engineering program; actually, there's been a push for many years to make undergrad engineering 5 years like architecture, because of the depth and breadth of the required classes. The only real non-math/non-science class I remember was Technical Writing! And it was a requirement! :mrgreen:

But as to other professions, in my state nurses can technically do a two-year A.S. degree to become a R.N. Though due to the immense prerequisites in math, computer use, and the basic sciences - just to get accepted into the two-year program - students still take around 3-1/2 to 4 years or more from start-to-finish. The kids do indeed save money at Community College prices, I will admit. But for the time involved, why not get a B.S. which is stronger and more desirable to employers, and allows one access to where the real money in nursing is, which is in Master's degree specialization and APN?

But anyway, I have no problem with these two year technical programs. To each, their own. I'd like to publicly fund those two years, as I proposed in my earlier post. But in general if you want to advance, you're still going to have to do the work and expense of getting a bachelor's anyway. My advice would be to do the hard work and effort right out of High School, and get it right when you're young, rather than play catch-up all the way through middle-life.

jonny5 said:

There is no disconnect. I agree. "college graduate" is a concept that has met its end. So we need to do the opposite of what Warren is proposing, and stuff brainwashing people into thinking that they have to go to college, and thus have to finance it.

Click to expand...

Maybe you're right, in the bolded. Sorry if I implied otherwise.

I can't speak to Warren "brainwashing", but there is a real need for trade programs and technical two-year degrees - without a doubt! And, I'm all for them.

And as stated in an earlier post, I'd make available two-years of publicly funded Community College available to every American. Let the trade-bound kids earn a profitable skill, let the college-bound kids get a two-year headstart on their degree at 1/2 the cost, and let those middle-aged displaced or uneducated/untrained workers get a second chance at better contributing to society and joining the middle (or better!) working classes.

Chomsky said:

With no response from either of us for several days, I assume you were enjoying your weekend as much as mine!

I have no probs with that, in those professions where it's feasible. Engineering is one where it won't work (there are others), because there are next to no liberal or non-technical classes in an engineering program; actually, there's been a push for many years to make undergrad engineering 5 years like architecture, because of the depth and breadth of the required classes. The only real non-math/non-science class I remember was Technical Writing! And it was a requirement! :mrgreen:

But as to other professions, in my state nurses can technically do a two-year A.S. degree to become a R.N. Though due to the immense prerequisites in math, computer use, and the basic sciences - just to get accepted into the two-year program - students still take around 3-1/2 to 4 years or more from start-to-finish. The kids do indeed save money at Community College prices, I will admit. But for the time involved, why not get a B.S. which is stronger and more desirable to employers, and allows one access to where the real money in nursing is, which is in Master's degree specialization and APN?

But anyway, I have no problem with these two year technical programs. To each, their own. I'd like to publicly fund those two years, as I proposed in my earlier post. But in general if you want to advance, you're still going to have to do the work and expense of getting a bachelor's anyway. My advice would be to do the hard work and effort right out of High School, and get it right when you're young, rather than play catch-up all the way through middle-life.

Maybe you're right, in the bolded. Sorry if I implied otherwise.

I can't speak to Warren "brainwashing", but there is a real need for trade programs and technical two-year degrees - without a doubt! And, I'm all for them.

And as stated in an earlier post, I'd make available two-years of publicly funded Community College available to every American. Let the trade-bound kids earn a profitable skill, let the college-bound kids get a two-year headstart on their degree at 1/2 the cost, and let those middle-aged displaced or uneducated/untrained workers get a second chance at better contributing to society and joining the middle (or better!) working classes.

Click to expand...

Her suggesting taxpayers pay off peoples college loans is going to reinforce the idea that people should go to college and finance it.

I wouldnt publicly fund community college though. We already fund 12 years of education (plus K, pre K, and pre pre K and daycare). Spend the last 2 on job training. So that when they graduate from high school, and are adults, they are no longer MY responsibility to pay for. If they want to spend more time in school, they can pay for it themselves, and the market will decide the price and value. Get govt out of post secondary education, period.

jonny5 said:

Her suggesting taxpayers pay off peoples college loans is going to reinforce the idea that people should go to college and finance it.

I wouldnt publicly fund community college though. We already fund 12 years of education (plus K, pre K, and pre pre K and daycare). Spend the last 2 on job training. So that when they graduate from high school, and are adults, they are no longer MY responsibility to pay for. If they want to spend more time in school, they can pay for it themselves, and the market will decide the price and value. Get govt out of post secondary education, period.

Click to expand...

I still like the idea, but I can certainly respect where you're coming from.