View Full Version : Cancelation of student loans
iris lilies
8-25-22, 1:01pm
President Biden announced his plan to cancel up to $10,000 of student loans.
I hope Ultralite comes in under this program.
I assume it is for loans that are federally held, he is not screwing over the business institutions that hold student loans. He can’t do that anyway, right?
Isn’t it great that people making $125,000 (individually! Not household) can delete this much debt, this in an era of high employment where anyone can get a job and has the means to pay their debt? /sarcasm
ApatheticNoMore
8-25-22, 1:16pm
Yes it's just federally funded student loans. My partner has private loans. It's completely ridiculous that only some lucky people who have public loans get forgiveness. I mean if they were going to do it at all they could not be out and out discriminatory and just forgive private student loans too. But no the Biden admin hates people with private loans, and the feeling is mutual at this point.
iris lilies
8-25-22, 1:24pm
Yes it's just federally funded student loans. My partner has private loans. It's completely ridiculous that only some lucky people who have public loans get forgiveness. I mean if they were going to do it at all they could not be out and out discriminatory and just forgive private student loans too. But no they hate people with private loans.
Well, I suppose Nanny Gubmnt could “forgive” those privately held loans by paying them off, that would be a legally tenable thing to do.Because money is no object, it grows on trees. And everyone is deserving of the graft. And etc.
As "socialist" as my thinking usually goes, I agree that if you sign up for a loan, it's your responsibility. No one put a gun to your head. When I realized belatedly that my daughter's federally-funded loan had an unpleasant repayment schedule (interest only for YEARS), I was upset, but mainly at myself for not reading the terms.
But in reality, I believe that $10-20k eases the pain for those who either started out needing help to go to college and/or for those who paid at least that 10k in interest in the early years of repayment..
It's an interesting political gambit I think. Forgiving some, if not all of roughly 43,000,000 student loans, and extending the moratorium to resume payments till after the mid-terms is bound to prompt some votes of gratitude from those who's debts are being transferred to the population at large. Of course it may also create a backlash from those who will ultimately be held responsible for those debts as well, but I'm guessing they think gratitude will win out.
Overall, I think the nation would have been much better served by working with educational institutions to help bring down the costs of education, but that wouldn't have much impact on upcoming elections so why bother? Since past student loan payors are left out, I'm guessing our 'equity and inclusion' administration is just paying lip service to that ideology. But, if buying votes this election season pays off, I'm guessing future borrowers will benefit in 2024 and beyond. Why mess with a winning strategy?
It's disgustingly regressive.
Does the thinking go that “rich people” take out private student loans and so they don’t need any help?
I think the government should be looking at the BANKS that charge outrageous interest on credit cards and it never ends. $25%= Loan Sharks! And the banks keep making money hand over fist. Credit card debt must be larger than student loan debt but I don't know. I realize one must take responsibility and the banks make it difficult to ever catch up.
frugal-one
8-25-22, 3:37pm
It's an interesting political gambit I think. Forgiving some, if not all of roughly 43,000,000 student loans, and extending the moratorium to resume payments till after the mid-terms is bound to prompt some votes of gratitude from those who's debts are being transferred to the population at large. Of course it may also create a backlash from those who will ultimately be held responsible for those debts as well, but I'm guessing they think gratitude will win out.
Overall, I think the nation would have been much better served by working with educational institutions to help bring down the costs of education, but that wouldn't have much impact on upcoming elections so why bother? Since past student loan payors are left out, I'm guessing our 'equity and inclusion' administration is just paying lip service to that ideology. But, if buying votes this election season pays off, I'm guessing future borrowers will benefit in 2024 and beyond. Why mess with a winning strategy?
I agree. I think this whole thing is ridiculous but not more so than the govt giving tax cuts to the rich!
I think the government should be looking at the BANKS that charge outrageous interest on credit cards and it never ends. $25%= Loan Sharks! And the banks keep making money hand over fist. Credit card debt must be larger than student loan debt but I don't know. I realize one must take responsibility and the banks make it difficult to ever catch up.
Exactly. It's outrageous increases in college costs--even with more and more TAs at the helm--and unregulated predatory lending practices that I would target. It's one thing to sign up for a loan; it's another thing for your lender to sell or manipulate your loan unfairly.
Waitresses, retail clerks, warehouse workers, truck drivers, plumbers, farmers, home health aides and the like are now paying the debts of lawyers, doctors, MBAs.
ApatheticNoMore
8-25-22, 5:32pm
Credit card forgiveness would benefit a less well-off class of people and so there is no push for it. But Biden couldn't just do it by an executive order either. The thing is credit cards are at least negotiable in bankruptcy. Student loans should never have been exempted from bankruptcy, it makes no sense to have one unique class of debt for which the usual rules don't apply.
iris lilies
8-25-22, 6:00pm
Credit card forgiveness would benefit a less well-off class of people and so there is no push for it. But Biden couldn't just do it by an executive order either. The thing is credit cards are at least negotiable in bankruptcy. Student loans should never have been exempted from bankruptcy, it makes no sense to have one unique class of debt for which the usual rules don't apply.
I think the idea is that consumer debt is (somewhat) of a secured debt.Buy a tv on time payments, that can be repossessed.
you cannot reposess educational content in someone’s head.
Credit card forgiveness would benefit a less well-off class of people and so there is no push for it. But Biden couldn't just do it by an executive order either. The thing is credit cards are at least negotiable in bankruptcy. Student loans should never have been exempted from bankruptcy, it makes no sense to have one unique class of debt for which the usual rules don't apply.
Some say he cannot cancel student debt by executive order either, Congress has to. Expect court battles, but not until after the midterms. When it comes to buying votes timing is everything.
Somehow other first-world nations manage to offer free or nearly-free college to all.
Hellholes like Germany, Norway, Iceland, Austria, France, ...
They often have healthcare systems for all, as well.
Some say he cannot cancel student debt by executive order either, Congress has to. Expect court battles, but not until after the midterms. When it comes to buying votes timing is everything.
Yes, he's apparently basing his authority on the 'Heroes Act' which was authorized by the Congress in 2003. It gives the President authority to cancel debts during national emergencies, and the administration thinking is that he's authorized at this point due to the pandemic. The problem he's going to run into is that his administration just recently argued in Federal Court that the pandemic was over during their successful attempt to repeal Title 42 which allowed the Border Patrol to turn away asylum seekers in an effort to restrict communicable diseases.
They're playing both sides of that card to meet their political goals and I suspect that once challenged, this whole debt cancelation/vote buying scheme will go away. Of course it will be after the mid-terms, but no big deal, it will have achieved its purpose.
... I suspect that once challenged, this whole debt cancelation/vote buying scheme will go away. Of course it will be after the mid-terms, but no big deal, it will have achieved its purpose.
I'm wondering about the demographics of the people who will be getting this free cheese.
In the upcoming elections, would significant members of them have voted GOP anyways? Or is this just a reward for current supporters?
iris lilies
8-25-22, 8:05pm
I'm wondering about the demographics of the people who will be getting this free cheese.
In the upcoming elections, would significant members of them have voted GOP anyways? Or is this just a reward for current supporters?
It could be to get them to the polls at all. A lot of people are not excited about the .head Honcho of the Democratic Party so the more cheese the better from him.
I'm wondering about the demographics of the people who will be getting this free cheese.
In the upcoming elections, would significant members of them have voted GOP anyways? Or is this just a reward for current supporters?
I think it's a reward for progressives, who've been trying to accomplish this for years. It will undoubtedly motivate any demographic looking for more free cheese. And the cool thing is, if it's eventually reversed, they can blame it on the Republicans. I think it's genius level politicking.
I wonder if the people who intend to challenge the legality of this will include all the Republican congress people who applied for and received PPP loans and had their debt cancelled, several of them with cancellations of $100’s of thousands or even millions of dollars of debt.
I wonder if the people who intend to challenge the legality of this will include all the Republican congress people who applied for and received PPP loans and had their debt cancelled, several of them with cancellations of $100’s of thousands or even millions of dollars of debt.
I wonder why the White House didn't name the Democrats who benefited from the PPP loans while they were outing Republicans? Someone should look into that.
Oh, wait. Someone did. Firms tied to Democratic reps, their spouses got millions in PPP loans (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2020/07/09/firms-tied-to-democratic-reps-their-spouses-got-millions-in-ppp-loans/)
I wonder why the White House didn't name the Democrats who benefited from the PPP loans while they were outing Republicans? Someone should look into that.
Oh, wait. Someone did. Firms tied to Democratic reps, their spouses got millions in PPP loans (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2020/07/09/firms-tied-to-democratic-reps-their-spouses-got-millions-in-ppp-loans/)
Probably because the dems who did aren't whining about the 'evils' of debt cancellation?
I see it as a popular ploy to garner some votes, but not all that bad. It does nothing to make college more affordable without incurring massive student debt.
Possibly one of those walked to school through 3 feet of snow stories, but I don't remember my college friends even having student loans back in the day.
iris lilies
8-25-22, 10:23pm
I see it as a popular ploy to garner some votes, but not all that bad. It does nothing to make college more affordable without incurring massive student debt.
Possibly one of those walked to school through 3 feet of snow stories, but I don't remember my college friends even having student loans back in the day.
sure my generation was so virtuous that we didn’t have student loans!
Even though I’m sure some loan money was around because I vaguely remember it as an issue in grad school, in general people just weren’t offered credit at the rate that they are today.
That was back in the days when you couldn’t even get consumer credit easily. It took me a few years to get a general credit card.
I didn't have college debt because my state tuition was $125 a term. My part-time job easily covered all my costs. I wasn't even aware there was such a thing as education loans.
Working at a university, I saw first-hand that a lack of financial literacy led many students to take on loans they did not understand. DD took one out for living expenses while in grad school yet they called it financial aid (I was pretty mad at her for that but oh well). I thought the debt forgiveness for public service workers after ten years made sense but not sure there was any follow through.
I had an NDEA loan for my last 2 years of college. At the time $1200 covered tuition and room and board if you were in state. My parents moved out of state so the last 2 years I had to pay out of state which was about $3000. So I applied and got the NDEA loan. Because I was a teacher in a Title 1 school each year the loan principle was reduced by 10% and deferred. The interest was very low, too. I made $6900 a year teaching and worked in the summer. I only had to pay back $1500 and had 10 years to do it. I paid it fast and was grateful to have had the loan. Many people defaulted on the NDEA loan reducing the number of loans available to undergraduates. That irritated me as most of them went into higher paying professions.
As a vote buying transaction, this move would seem to leave a lot be desired. For the most part, it’s paying for votes the Democrats already own.
I would think that for each person getting a windfall there are several it will antagonize and insult: people who paid their debts, people who worked their way through school, people who didn’t go to college, people who earned GI Bill benefits, inflation hawks, people who resent wealth transfers from the less affluent to the more affluent, the far-left types who think it’s not enough, etc. The campaign ads pretty much write themselves.
It seems a lot of swing-district Democrats are hastening to distance themselves from this giveaway. I would think it’s right up there with “defund the police” as a political millstone.
iris lilies
8-26-22, 11:24am
In another forum I made the analogy of the student loan forgiveness program to the library Fine Forgiveness days some libraries once hosted. That would be back in the days when libraries actually charged fines.
Yes, on Fine Forgiveness day/week many good dobbie patrons were annoyed because they had worked to pay their fines or not racked them up to begin with. I remember one time for sure my library system held a fine forgiveness day or week, only one that I remember. It was a hotly debated topic in our library administration meetings.
The children’s librarians pleaded for these fine forgiveness days because their young audience didn’t have the means to pay big fines, and it was especially unfair when parents had racked up fines for their own adult materials on the kids’ account.
Evidently we decided Fine Forgiveness programs were not worth the fallout.
frugal-one
8-26-22, 11:32am
As a vote buying transaction, this move would seem to leave a lot be desired. For the most part, it’s paying for votes the Democrats already own.
I would think that for each person getting a windfall there are several it will antagonize and insult: people who paid their debts, people who worked their way through school, people who didn’t go to college, people who earned GI Bill benefits, inflation hawks, people who resent wealth transfers from the less affluent to the more affluent, the far-left types who think it’s not enough, etc. The campaign ads pretty much write themselves.
It seems a lot of swing-district Democrats are hastening to distance themselves from this giveaway. I would think it’s right up there with “defund the police” as a political millstone.
I don't remember you disparaging the tax cuts given to the rich by the republicans even though it was a way to get the wealthy's votes. So, it appears you would rather "giveaways" be given to the wealthy rather than the average Joe!!! Both, IMO, should not have been done but it seems hypocritical for you to complain now.
As a vote buying transaction, this move would seem to leave a lot be desired. For the most part, it’s paying for votes the Democrats already own.
Republicans don't go to college?
And I disagree that the democrats already have the votes of young people locked up. Young people are one of the demographics least likely to vote in midterms. Fulfilling a campaign promise that actually helps them seems like a reasonable way to counter that trend.
Republicans don't go to college?
And I disagree that the democrats already have the votes of young people locked up. Young people are one of the demographics least likely to vote in midterms. Fulfilling a campaign promise that actually helps them seems like a reasonable way to counter that trend.
How many Republicans do you believe will be so delighted by this latest handout that it will affect their vote?
While I can certainly agree there may be some inexperienced voters who may be moved from apathy to support for $10K, I would think that will be a much smaller number than the voters who will be moved by resentment of a wealth transfer from themselves to a more affluent group.
I don't remember you disparaging the tax cuts given to the rich by the republicans even though it was a way to get the wealthy's votes. So, it appears you would rather "giveaways" be given to the wealthy rather than the average Joe!!! Both, IMO, should not have been done but it seems hypocritical for you to complain now.
It’s less a complaint than pointing out a boneheaded political move on behalf of the President.
Whether taking less of someone’s income is a “giveaway” would seem to be a different discussion to me. It hinges on that amorphous “fair share” often spoken of but seldom quantified.
ApatheticNoMore
8-26-22, 12:53pm
I would think that will be a much smaller number than the voters who will be moved by resentment of a wealth transfer from themselves to a more affluent group.
yea that is annoying, but then I support wealth transfers to the actual struggling, not affluent people like this, much more than is done now, and Republicans aren't offering that.
I wonder if the people who intend to challenge the legality of this will include all the Republican congress people who applied for and received PPP loans and had their debt cancelled, several of them with cancellations of $100’s of thousands or even millions of dollars of debt.
I guess I don't understand why PPP loans are being brought into this discussion, except to try to rile up people.
The PPP loans were forgiven *under the terms of the initial loan*. They were not a windfall, by any means.
Several small local businesses I am involved with took PPP funds, and used those funds to keep staff hired, when the rational move for the business would have otherwise have been to lay people off and reduce services during the pandemic. The PPP funds saved hundreds of jobs in my community and kept some essential services functioning.
Fulfilling the terms of the PPP loan program, and then receiving the amount of forgiveness that was specified in the legislation seems to be somehow different than the student loan case.
frugal-one
8-26-22, 5:48pm
It’s less a complaint than pointing out a boneheaded political move on behalf of the President.
Whether taking less of someone’s income is a “giveaway” would seem to be a different discussion to me. It hinges on that amorphous “fair share” often spoken of but seldom quantified.
It wasn't taking less of their income but a tax cut...
It wasn't taking less of their income but a tax cut...
And when we cut people’s taxes we take less of their income.
frugal-one
8-27-22, 9:54am
And when we cut people’s taxes we take less of their income.
Again, read #30.
I guess I don't understand why PPP loans are being brought into this discussion, except to try to rile up people.
The PPP loans were forgiven *under the terms of the initial loan*. They were not a windfall, by any means.
Several small local businesses I am involved with took PPP funds, and used those funds to keep staff hired, when the rational move for the business would have otherwise have been to lay people off and reduce services during the pandemic. The PPP funds saved hundreds of jobs in my community and kept some essential services functioning.
Fulfilling the terms of the PPP loan program, and then receiving the amount of forgiveness that was specified in the legislation seems to be somehow different than the student loan case.
My mind is boggled by the idea that somehow people who knew their debt would be forgiven are somehow more justified in receiving that forgiveness than people who had no such expectation. How exactly does that mental process work?
My mind is boggled by the idea that somehow people who knew their debt would be forgiven are somehow more justified in receiving that forgiveness than people who had no such expectation. How exactly does that mental process work?
I think you simply don't understand the purpose of the PPP loans. They were designed to maintain payroll in businesses unable to continue business as usual due to the pandemic. There was no universal requirement for repayment.
I think you simply don't understand the purpose of the PPP loans. They were designed to maintain payroll in businesses unable to continue business as usual due to the pandemic. There was no universal requirement for repayment.
So that means that people who signed up for this government giveaway are more virtuous than people who took out student loans?
So that means that people who signed up for this government giveaway are more virtuous than people who took out student loans?
Probably not more virtuous, but that was never part of the equation. Government forced many businesses to either halt or drastically cut back on their operations during the pandemic. In return, they promised a way to keep employees on payroll rather than forced dismissals.
It's not at all like student loans.
I wonder what would have happened if we had just let those employees get unemployment benefits. I suppose that would have been too simple. Government does like to complicate things. Makes it easier to justify crappy student loans and the like. And even easier for old ****s to justify why it’s great that college costs way more than when they went to school.
frugal-one
8-28-22, 8:03am
Probably not more virtuous, but that was never part of the equation. Government forced many businesses to either halt or drastically cut back on their operations during the pandemic. In return, they promised a way to keep employees on payroll rather than forced dismissals.
It's not at all like student loans.
You’re right…. a double standard for republicans….
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-republican-critics-student-loan-cancellation-ppp-loan-forgiveness/
The White House then called out her (M Taylor Greene) and others who benefited from their own loan forgiveness through the Paycheck Protection Program.
Mr. Biden directly addressed Congressional Republicans on Thursday who are against student loan forgiveness.
"I will never apologize for helping America's middle class," he tweeted, "especially not to the same folks who voted for a $2 trillion tax cut for the wealthy and giant corporations that racked up the deficit."
ToomuchStuff
8-28-22, 10:15am
I wonder what would have happened if we had just let those employees get unemployment benefits. I suppose that would have been too simple. Government does like to complicate things.
Well, the feds had their hand in unemployment as well. What PPP did was keep your trained employees available, so when things get to normal, you operate at a higher rate then when you have to train new ones.
Edit to post:
And while it turns out you didn't need as much proof to get them forgiven, the requirements originally put forth, required a lot more paperwork/stuff to be saved. I had seven days to get all the stuff together, the week my boss passed, and his brother, the coowner was dealing with that, and the two of them with their diabetic issues, hadn't kept/made findable, anything.
iris lilies
8-28-22, 10:22am
I think you simply don't understand the purpose of the PPP loans. They were designed to maintain payroll in businesses unable to continue business as usual due to the pandemic. There was no universal requirement for repayment.
Apparently this comparison of student loan forgiveness to PPP loans is a talking point from the White House.
I couldn’t figure out why the two were conflated, but it’s part of the script.
Apparently this comparison of student loan forgiveness to PPP loans is a talking point from the White House.
I couldn’t figure out why the two were conflated, but it’s part of the script.
I think the Administration is counting on a significant level of historical and legal illiteracy in the media and general public in making this “comparison”.
The PPP was enacted by Congress and signed by the President for the purpose of mitigating the impact of government imposed shutdowns on employment. The terms were explicit up front.
Biden’s “forgiveness” decree was made based on a meretricious interpretation of a 2003 law intended to assist those directly affected by the 9/11 attack. Student borrowers had no reasonable expectation that the terms of their loans would be altered. Nancy Pelosi, for instance, said she didn’t believe the President had the power to unilaterally cancel loans.
To my mind, a US President capriciously shifting personal debts from a privileged group to the general debt on his own whim smacks of the kind of creeping authoritarianism people want to associate with the buffalo hat guy.
iris lilies
8-28-22, 12:39pm
I think the Administration is counting on a significant level of historical and legal illiteracy in the media and general public in making this “comparison”.
The PPP was enacted by Congress and signed by the President for the purpose of mitigating the impact of government imposed shutdowns on employment. The terms were explicit up front.
Biden’s “forgiveness” decree was made based on a meretricious interpretation of a 2003 law intended to assist those directly affected by the 9/11 attack. Student borrowers had no reasonable expectation that the terms of their loans would be altered. Nancy Pelosi, for instance, said she didn’t believe the President had the power to unilaterally cancel loans.
To my mind, a US President capriciously shifting personal debts from a privileged group to the general debt on his own whim smacks of the kind of creeping authoritarianism people want to associate with the buffalo hat guy.
I will confess that I, too, did not remember exactly what PPP was for, let alone what the 2003 Heroes act was intended for.
But we are in a New World where victim mentality causes us to think when anything bad and uncomfortable happens to us, we are Heroes the government should make feel better. Owing large amounts of money makes us uncomfortable and we feel bad. Nanny G should help us out.
And the creeping authoritarian ism is on both sides of the political spectrum and I hate it. I absolutely hate it.
ApatheticNoMore
8-28-22, 1:05pm
I wonder what would have happened if we had just let those employees get unemployment benefits. I suppose that would have been too simple. Government does like to complicate things.
I think the idea was to preserve jobs, just getting unemployment doesn't mean one has any job to get back to. But many people in the U.S. still lost jobs, the way Europe did it (money going directly to people kept out of work through employers) that initial huge surge in unemployment that happened in the U.S., didn't happen there.
The argument about it allowing business that were made close to continue, being made here, is being WAY overstated. So that it's more of a justifying narrative than anything, where PPP loans are just a fair compensation for being made to close. But that's not how it was. They weren't compensation they were macroeconomic policy in part probably to avoid a worse recession.
I mean yes it may have allowed a few closed business in states that did closures to continue, but a business did NOT have to be closed during the pandemic to collect PPP loans, the two were entirely unrelated. But some although not closed did take a financial hit from the pandemic that was maybe helped by that. But that was also entirely unrelated, a business could be one of those doing well in the pandemic and still get PPP loans.
Here we go with republicans redefining words again. There is no creeping authoritarianism on the democratic side of the aisle unless one creates a definition of authoritarianism that's as absurd as the republican definitions of commie and socialism.
Here we go with republicans redefining words again. There is no creeping authoritarianism on the democratic side of the aisle unless one creates a definition of authoritarianism that's as absurd as the republican definitions of commie and socialism.
That "communist" crap always makes me laugh. You could hold a meeting of the American Communist Party in a phone booth if you could find one--many of us remember shuddering at videos of Chinese citizens in their grim proletariat uniforms. And almost everything admirable in our society is socialist, from public libraries to public parks.
That "communist" crap always makes me laugh. You could hold a meeting of the American Communist Party in a phone booth if you could find one--many of us remember shuddering at videos of Chinese citizens in their grim proletariat uniforms. And almost everything admirable in our society is socialist, from public libraries to public parks.
I have been to a Carnegie Library. Next month I plan to visit Dog Mountain, a private park. It's not always that cut and dried.
I wonder if current students with no loan debt could run out tomorrow and secure $10 or $20k of free money. Is there a cut-off date?
iris lilies
8-28-22, 4:56pm
I have been to a Carnegie Library. Next month I plan to visit Dog Mountain, a private park. It's not always that cut and dried.
Most people have been in a Carnegie libraries since hundreds if them were built. That building program was a nice marriage of capitalistic success and government vision.
There is a whole lot of private funding of cultural institutions going on still.
There is no creeping authoritarianism on the democratic side of the aisle unless one creates a definition of authoritarianism that's as absurd as the republican definitions of commie and socialism.
Oh, I think they’ve compiled a pretty decent record there. They attempted to pass a law that would allow the government to monitor bank transactions for every account with at least $600 a year in activity. They created a Disinformation Governance Board that was promptly laughed into oblivion. The President said he would extend the eviction moratorium even though it was probably illegal. They’re still pushing for a law that would give the federal government de facto control over elections. The President has announced he will forgive hundreds of billions of debt based on the flimsiest legal authority.
Oh, I think they’ve compiled a pretty decent record there. They attempted to pass a law that would allow the government to monitor bank transactions for every account with at least $600 a year in activity. They created a Disinformation Governance Board that was promptly laughed into oblivion. The President said he would extend the eviction moratorium even though it was probably illegal. They’re still pushing for a law that would give the federal government de facto control over elections. The President has announced he will forgive hundreds of billions of debt based on the flimsiest legal authority.
Come back to me when we actually attempt to overthrow an election. Until then we’re at best, juvenile amateurs of authoritarianism when compared to your team.
Thinking more about the purpose of the PPP I’m still wondering if just extending/increasing unemployment was all that was needed. Given the ‘great resignation’ that occurred with the reopening of vast swaths of the economy the idea that the PPP loans served any particular purpose beyond lining the pockets of of business owners is questionable.
ToomuchStuff
8-28-22, 9:57pm
I wonder if current students with no loan debt could run out tomorrow and secure $10 or $20k of free money. Is there a cut-off date?
Miskatonic U, for you?
https://www.themiskatonicuniversity.org/
I wonder if current students with no loan debt could run out tomorrow and secure $10 or $20k of free money. Is there a cut-off date?
It’s a shame trump U isn’t still around. That seems like a perfect use of such a useless institution. Actually helping students in some way.
Come back to me when we actually attempt to overthrow an election. Until then we’re at best, juvenile amateurs of authoritarianism when compared to your team.
You're focusing on overthrowing the constitution instead, but some court rulings are pushing back. Recently in your state the right to freely exercise religion was upheld:
https://apnews.com/9df918cb3ac4039c6cdf1b6d090732f6
Meanwhile, have you noticed how overwhelmed the funeral homes are now that people are flying, holding festivals, reunions, sporting events, you name it, unmasked?
frugal-one
8-29-22, 5:16am
COVID definitely is not over!
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
COVID definitely is not over!
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
Ooh, I'm so afraid of a coronavirus aka common cold. Being that I'm in my eighties with four comorbidities and it can't be covid that kills me. That would be tragic. It has to be pneumonia or something else that's politically correct, or else I should be able to live forever, and maybe even join the ruling gerontocracy. Screw normality! Screw the kids! Screw the economy! Screw mental health! Screw education! Screw human connection! We must live in bubbles forever in my germaphobia world. Yeah me, me, me and my paranoia!
early morning
8-29-22, 1:04pm
Yeah me, me, me and my paranoia!
LMAO......
Meanwhile, have you noticed how overwhelmed the funeral homes are now that people are flying, holding festivals, reunions, sporting events, you name it, unmasked?
Actually, I've noticed that large gatherings are still spreading infection. My son's GF went to a bachelorette party in Montreal and was infected. A co-worker went to a shower in Albany and was infected. My DIL went to a business conference in SF and was infected. My DD's MIL, a flight attendant, finally got it. Frankly, it makes me want to continue to live in my little bubble. We don't know enough about COVID to be able to predict long-term effects. Maybe these folks who got it despite having been vaccinated now have another "booster" so to speak, but I'm not interested in casting my fate to the winds. But then again, as my son tells me, I'm a hermit, so maybe I just like an excuse to stay home.
However, interestingly enough, it seems some could have genetic "super-immunity." Probably there's a paywall for this article, but the idea is that some people may just have the genetic make-up for resistance to COVID.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/opinion/people-never-get-covid.html
Actually, I've noticed that large gatherings are still spreading infection. My son's GF went to a bachelorette party in Montreal and was infected. A co-worker went to a shower in Albany and was infected. My DIL went to a business conference in SF and was infected. My DD's MIL, a flight attendant, finally got it. Frankly, it makes me want to continue to live in my little bubble. We don't know enough about COVID to be able to predict long-term effects. Maybe these folks who got it despite having been vaccinated now have another "booster" so to speak, but I'm not interested in casting my fate to the winds. But then again, as my son tells me, I'm a hermit, so maybe I just like an excuse to stay home.
However, interestingly enough, it seems some could have genetic "super-immunity." Probably there's a paywall for this article, but the idea is that some people may just have the genetic make-up for resistance to COVID.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/opinion/people-never-get-covid.html
There's definitely a hard sell on long covid to benefit the covid industry (since more and more people don't want things like their tests - in LA they're trying to tell people to covid test their pets - got to sell the product somehow), and to cover up vax injuries by calling them long covid.
frugal-one
8-29-22, 3:14pm
The one poster here who complains about old people... is over 50. You are old too! Time to die, I guess... since that is your mantra.
The one poster here who complains about old people... is over 50. You are old too! Time to die, I guess... since that is your mantra.
Rather than live my life in fear ... today is a good day to die!
Rather than live my life in fear ... today is a good day to die!
So says the person who refuses to use any ATM because she might get held up by robbers at said ATM. :devil:
So says the person who refuses to use any ATM because she might get held up by robbers at said ATM. :devil:
I am more afraid of impoverishment than of death.
Teacher Terry
8-30-22, 2:42am
I am going to my stepson’s wedding Saturday and 120 people are coming. Since I had Covid 2 months ago I hope that conveyed immunity besides the vaccines.
I am going to my stepson’s wedding Saturday and 120 people are coming. Since I had Covid 2 months ago I hope that conveyed immunity besides the vaccines.
Relax and enjoy yourself.
littlebittybobby
8-30-22, 1:37pm
Okay---I'm not entering into a discussion of the ongoing chatter in which you kids split hairs and bicker. I'm just responding to the title of the thread. So---In no way do we have outright "cancellation of (all) student loans", as the title states! What we have is a partial campaign-promise fulfillment by Biden to discount the loan balances by $10,000, many of which amount to considerably more. The anti's are disseminating all kinds of cartoon memes purporting to be analogous to the situation, based on the hypothetical what-ifs of people who did not avail themselves of the public policy that enabled this debt pool. It's like: Billy became a plumber(instead of entering college and majoring in gender studies), and bought a HUGE pickup and is in default on his loan. Should the taxpayers also help him keep his truck? I made that up, but it's pretty close. The real issue is, Republicans primarily are interested in undermining Bidens' or any other Dems, chances next term. All it is. If they started dissing gummmint giveaways that are unfair and unequal that have little or no direct benefit to the body paying for them, the discussion would definitely cross party lines and go on quite a while. So, yeah-- It's really truly about buying votes or grabbing votes away. The bean-counters probably opine behind closed doors that a 10k discount to debtors won't hurt the system, much. It may even help. And so on. Yup. All it is. But yeah----Let's talk about old Packards, instead. Hope that helps you some.
littlebittybobby
8-31-22, 7:18pm
Okay---here's another thing to consider why "forgiving" up to 10k in a student loan balance might be considered just a retail discount, if you will. I did some checking, and the big state u over here was charging just $50 per credit hour, 30 years ago. Now, they are charging $400 per credit hour, for the same service(product). I read sometime back that tuition only covers about 25-30% of the cost of providing the service. But yeah---Big Education has become Big Industry. People don't just go to college to become Doctors, Lawyers, Architects, Engineers. No, they go 'cause their friends are going to get a Degree majoring in something they could just learn through experience, or could pick up in high school. So, yeah---if they go to school and rack up #50k in debt, majoring in child development or Spanish, the Government can well afford to "discount" the payoff of these loans, which were money for government-funded schooling at inflated prices, any way. All it is. Smoke and Mirrors. It's NOT a "giveaway" or "free" anything, because it was already funded by the taxpayers, and resold at an inflated price! Have I explained this clearly enough? Hope that helps you some.
Yes LBB many things could be learned on the job. In my state all teachers must now have a master's degree, and then they wonder why they have a teacher shortage. The extra debt is disproportionately problematic for the minority teachers they say they want to recruit, given the racial wealth gap.
littlebittybobby
9-1-22, 12:03pm
Yes LBB many things could be learned on the job. In my state all teachers must now have a master's degree, and then they wonder why they have a teacher shortage. The extra debt is disproportionately problematic for the minority teachers they say they want to recruit, given the racial wealth gap. But yeah---It does look like collusion between big gummmint and the higher education business to raise the bar to people entering the primary(free/compulsory)and secondary education field and make them more fully indoctrinated AND indebted(or should I say:indentured)by the time the graduate is employed in the field they chose. Yup.
ApatheticNoMore
9-1-22, 1:04pm
People don't just go to college to become Doctors, Lawyers, Architects, Engineers. No, they go 'cause their friends are going to get a Degree majoring in something they could just learn through experience, or could pick up in high school.
good luck getting hired learning it from experience or high school though. LOL. No your friends who go to college are the good positive influences your parents always wanted you to hang around (if they were good parents, I mean my parents were nuts, but never mind that).
The ever growing credentials for everything isn't just for teaching though so I don't consider a discussion just about teachers to be productive. It has two mechanisms:
1) employers using degrees (and even advanced degrees) as a screening device to sift through the number of resumes etc.. This has nothing to do with government really, it happens in the market as it were, the job market. It's almost pure market mechanism. Maybe helped by automated resume screening. Maybe aided by prejudice against those without as many credentials in general. But mostly employers can require more credentials and so they do.
As simple as that. And preaching about how employers should not do this isn't going to change anything.
2) Professional cartels increasing the requirements to enter a professional field. This is just pulling up the ladder behind them and protecting their existing privileges. That's all this is. And it might be teachers, but I could name at least several fields always increasing requirements. Landscape architects, registered dieticians etc.. Noone says these fields need no training, it's just training requirements keep increasing. This is the cartel at act protecting it's existing members. Even training requirements for massage therapists have increased and that's not a credentialed path.
There are many fields where the barriers have become so high you straight out need money to get in, like bf was looking at social work, and no you need to be rich to afford those classes, they are a fortune and the pay outlook not exactly making any sense economically. So you wonder why you can't seem to find a therapist when you want one and when you do they are some spoiled rich kid that doesn't seem to understand anything. Me and bf have both at times considered career change (in different fields), but the barriers are high and getting ever higher. Like as soon as you look at something and think: I could do that, you find out that they are now going to require a masters and not just a bachelors in the subject. So way to old for this ....
Some places are dropping degree requirements due to the labor shortage, but not in the public sector.
littlebittybobby
9-1-22, 2:42pm
good luck getting hired learning it from experience or high school though. LOL. No your friends who go to college are the good positive influences your parents always wanted you to hang around (if they were good parents, I mean my parents were nuts, but never mind that).
The ever growing credentials for everything isn't just for teaching though so I don't consider a discussion just about teachers to be productive. It has two mechanisms:
1) employers using degrees (and even advanced degrees) as a screening device to sift through the number of resumes etc.. This has nothing to do with government really, it happens in the market as it were, the job market. It's almost pure market mechanism. Maybe helped by automated resume screening. Maybe aided by prejudice against those without as many credentials in general. But mostly employers can require more credentials and so they do.
As simple as that. And preaching about how employers should not do this isn't going to change anything.
2) Professional cartels increasing the requirements to enter a professional field. This is just pulling up the ladder behind them and protecting their existing privileges. That's all this is. And it might be teachers, but I could name at least several fields always increasing requirements. Landscape architects, registered dieticians etc.. Noone says these fields need no training, it's just training requirements keep increasing. This is the cartel at act protecting it's existing members. Even training requirements for massage therapists have increased and that's not a credentialed path.
There are many fields where the barriers have become so high you straight out need money to get in, like bf was looking at social work, and no you need to be rich to afford those classes, they are a fortune and the pay outlook not exactly making any sense economically. So you wonder why you can't seem to find a therapist when you want one and when you do they are some spoiled rich kid that doesn't seem to understand anything. Me and bf have both at times considered career change (in different fields), but the barriers are high and getting ever higher. Like as soon as you look at something and think: I could do that, you find out that they are now going to require a masters and not just a bachelors in the subject. So way to old for this .... Okay----my bad. Maybe that doesn't read quite right. I was not meaning to say people don't need college to be doctors, lawyers & other professionals that require very high degree of ability and training. No. What I mean is that over here at State U there are a very high % of people who are there because its THE thing to do, and they're getting(or trying and failing to get) a costly degree in something not really very useful, on credit.. To put it bluntly. Those people are "consumers" of the greatly-expanded educational-guvmment complex. See? If you're in a high-demand occupation with lucrative salaries, paying off loans may not be a problem. But, graduates of the less in-demand skills may have trouble even finding a job in their exact field, and end up taking a job right alongside the people who didn't get a 4-year or 6-year degree program. So, they may have trouble making ends meet, much less making payments on a loan. Tuition costs have gone UP, and for decades the value of just ANY old college degree has been oversold----until this debt crisis thousands are facing. Hope that clarifies it some. Thank me.
iris lilies
9-1-22, 9:17pm
My brother got a four year degree in communications. Got a job right out of college doing that, and later got a health care tech degree.
The solid four year degree propelled him into management in the tech field. It was very useful and gave him a big step up over those who had only the tech degree.
Some places are dropping degree requirements due to the labor shortage, but not in the public sector.
So the public schools in Florida that will hire any knuckledragger aren’t the public sector? Interesting perspective.
any knuckledragger
Nice way to characterize our military veterans.
Some places are dropping degree requirements due to the labor shortage, but not in the public sector.
So the public schools in Florida that will hire any knuckledragger aren’t the public sector? Interesting perspective.
Nice way to characterize our military veterans.
So you admit that you weren’t just incorrect but were actively lying with your previous post. Thanks for confirming.
So you admit that you weren’t just incorrect but were actively lying with your previous post. Thanks for confirming.
Not in the public sector in my state, and I suspect not in yours either. All politics is local.
littlebittybobby
9-3-22, 10:22am
My brother got a four year degree in communications. Got a job right out of college doing that, and later got a health care tech degree.
The solid four year degree propelled him into management in the tech field. It was very useful and gave him a big step up over those who had only the tech degree.Uh-huh. Not trying to split hairs, BUT He got a job as an Ambulance Driver, right? An in-demand field simply because the VAST majority of people don't want to take those type of jobs. Nope.
iris lilies
9-3-22, 11:42am
Uh-huh. Not trying to split hairs, BUT He got a job as an Ambulance Driver, right? An in-demand field simply because the VAST majority of people don't want to take those type of jobs. Nope.
No my brother is not an ambulance driver. It’s quite a bit more complex than that. But thank you for playing.
Encouraging the thank me crap???
littlebittybobby
9-3-22, 4:33pm
Encouraging the thank me crap???Yup47954795479547954795
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.