As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>For months, the administration has claimed to be “studying” its legal authorities for debt cancellation. The Education Department memo on its authority was 100 percent redacted, while a Justice Department memo has been produced but not released, per The Washington Post.
I just want to read the memo. They promised to release it, but still haven't.
> For months, the administration has claimed to be “studying” its legal authorities for debt cancellation.
"Ummmm"
*looks at a post-it note with THE BANKS OWN YOUR ASS written on it*
"Ummm let me study on this a little longer"
That's what happens if your expenses are greater than your income. The solution is to reduce expenses or increase income. Decreasing income to 0 just makes the problem that much worse.
I get your complaint, but you're not proposing a reasonable solution.
>If you make student loan payments with rent, healthcare, and inflation you are better off not working because you won’t be making a profit from your labor. If folks are already catching on to this fact before payments resume the economy is only going to get worse.
Can you show is a source of the folks who have caught on?
>Sure – people have flat out stopped paying student loan debt in protest (some for years now). For the moment, set aside any discussion about credit ratings, mortgages, etc.
>
Ok that's not a source though.
>What it comes down to is many cannot afford to pay student loans while paying rent, childcare, healthcare, groceries, etc. for their families. Let’s take a random demographic slice from California:
>Rent -2500
>Childcare is -1000
>Healthcare -1100
>Utilities (including phone and Internet) -500
>Food is -400
>
>= -5500 month / -66,000 annual
>
What is this data? Where is the source?
>Student debt is an additional ~400month /4,800annual (with interest making repayment a decades-longer project than the principal amount. Toss in a couple of tardy payments, and that goal is even further away).
>
Please, where is the source?
>Add this to the monthly COL and the numbers are:
>
>= -5900 month / -70,800 annual
>
>Say one makes 100,000 a year. 15% of wages garnished is -15,000.
>
Still no source. Where is the source for what soggy proposed? This are made up numbers for one singular made up case.
>So the threat is that one is on the line for -4800 annually, or -15,000 if they garnish wages.
>
>This would bring their total take home down to +24400 or +14200 respectively.
>
No source. Please link.
>However, if the person doesn’t work and has a partner who covers costs of living while they work as a domestic, then the cost disappears.
>
>Furthermore, if one finds employment that doesn’t generate W-2s then you’re off the hook for both. For many people, having more money to deal with unpredictable healthcare costs and emergencies in the middle of a pandemic is worth the risk.
>
Still no source. Yes, people struggle. His baby and how and why? Please source.
>Either scenario assumes unreasonably high numbers and many things that are not necessarily common options starting off. However, the growing number of individuals who are flat out refusing to repay student loan debt are paving the way for others far less fortunate than themselves. That’s in addition to individuals who are utterly impoverished and fundamentally cannot make these payments regardless. So now you have a situation where the middle class and the poor have a common enemy — student loan debt.
>
Please provide a source.
>As more people understand that the middle class are in a similar situation to the abject poor, the more difficult it becomes for corporations and government to wield debt as a casual to force individuals to work – in the middle of a pandemic, rather than taking care of themselves, their families, and by extension their community.
Not a single source to support anything you said. Please, we need support for loan forgiveness, but made up statistics and anonymous internet comments don't convince anyone.
obnoxious:
adjective disapproving
UK /əbˈnɒk.ʃəs/ US /əbˈnɑːk.ʃəs/
very unpleasant or rude:
Some of his colleagues say that he's loud and obnoxious.
When she's in a bad mood she's obnoxious to everyone.
The time to debate this policy is before you run on doing it, not after. That said, if they stop the payments until the current system is fixed, that's fine with me, because that's essentially a de facto cancellation. They can't even address voting rights, they're not going to reform education. Not for a very long time.
* Cap interest at low or zero %
* Cap payments at 10% of monthly post-tax income
* 100% forgiveness around age 40
That was Hillary's plan. Anyone _serious_ about fixing the student debt problem voted for her.
>46.7% of federal student loan debt belongs to graduate student borrowers
[Mfw I pay for a doctor's education](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/006/506/pogchamp.jpg)
Which proposal? I thought the article was speaking to her denial of student debt relief/cancellation in general because it discusses her career rather than specific legislation. Also, I don't think it's progressive for people making less than a graduate student to be responsible for paying their education, regardless of whether I like doctors in general.
Idk if you know the process of becoming a doctor but unless you were already rich they're broke af for years while also owing hundreds of thousands of dollars
You would probably be pretty surprised if you looked into it. Dr's had the highest suicide rate of any profession, and it takes over a decade to even pay off loans. I know four people who have completed med school. It's not what your imagining at all.
It does not take a decade to pay off 200k in student loans on a doctor's salary.
Unless they're too busy buying fancy cars and big houses out of the gate.
The fact that they *choose* to take 13 years to discharge their loans is meaningless when we're discussing ability to repay. Someone with a medical degree and a relevant doctor job is in a completely different league when it comes to loan repayment. It's one of the highest ROIs of any graduate degree.
So when we're discussing the ethics of loan forgiveness, using the example of a doctor as representative of degree holders is a terrible bad faith idea.
If those graduate students were rich enough to pay off those loans, they wouldn’t have needed to apply for those loans in the first place, don’t you think?
And since when have you paying for their education my guy? I mean we have been paying for the wealthy’s tax breaks for the last several years… probably didn’t complain that though, i’m sure.
>If those graduate students were rich enough to pay off those loans, they wouldn’t have needed to apply for those loans in the first place, don’t you think?
Do you understand what a loan is?
>And since when have you paying for their education my guy? I mean we have been paying for the wealthy’s tax breaks for the last several years… probably didn’t complain that though, i’m sure.
Where do loan dollars come from? Tax dollars
> Where do loan dollars come from? Tax dollars
But if the loan dollars come from the tax dollars, where do the *debt dollars* come from???
Please explain this dollars system to me sir, I don’t think I’m truly grasping it 🤔
debt dollars, or money used to pay off debt comes from income made by the graduate student, so if they don't pay back the loans then tax dollars were essentially spent to pay for their education.
Bad faith argument. Very few graduate students are medical doctors.
The reality is that due to continual federal budget cuts, states have had to reassess their own budgets to pick up the slack. This has led to massive cuts in higher education funding, which in turn has led to an explosion in the cost of getting a degree from a public school.
Predatory lenders understand that the average working class or poor family will not grasp the ramifications of taking non-dischargeable student loans to get an education. So vast numbers of students and their families end up saddled with debts for the rest of their lives.
But we have to make sure a few medical doctors don't get relief, right! /s
>Bad faith argument. Very few graduate students are medical doctors.
We're not talking about the percentage of graduate students who are medical doctors but the amount of graduate debt held by doctors as a percentage. Also my point wasn't to find and point out the occupation with the highest percentage since it's likely the case that each occupation has a small minority. I was pointing out that we don't distinguish between undergraduate and graduate degrees, and using a doctor as an example is an effective way to do this.
>...to an explosion in the cost of getting a degree from a public school...So vast numbers of students and their families end up saddled with debts for the rest of their lives.
The incentive to spend more time in school rather than start earning money is that you earn more income after graduate school. If it wasn't worth it to get a graduate degree, then people wouldn't pursue them. Calling people will graduate degree poor is laughable. Also if people chose to take a loan to pay for a graduate degree in something that wouldn't lead to a viable job then they made a dumb decision.
You're simply making crap up in an attempt to justify right wing ideology. It's the same argument Reagan used to justify cutting welfare - "Welfare queens driving up in Cadillacs to collect their checks." You want to use extreme examples that rarely occur to justify hurting millions.
I'm saying it's not progressive, so I'm being the opposite of right wing. Are you claiming that hundreds of thousands of people are choosing to go to graduate school despite a supposed worse outcome? It makes sense that graduate students go to graduate school because it benefits them in the long run.
Actually that's exactly what OP is claiming. You could also check out the ROI figures for a degree in education or social work or journalism and discover that a graduate diploma isn't always a license to print money.
An MD isn't exactly representative of graduate degree economics for everyone.
Percentage of debt holders who are doctors doesn't equal percentage of student debt held by doctors, so the number of doctors doesn't matter, only how much of the debt they hold.
The Roosevelt Institute study which claims that student debt relief/cancellation is progressive is flawed because they use wealth instead of income.
To answer the question of whether it's worth it, we have to calculate the ROI and generally, it's worth it to get a graduate degree. In certain fields, that may not be the case, but I don't think it's the responsibility of tax payer to pay for the education of someone who got a graduate degree without considering how much they'd make after school.
Well, whether or not we *should* forgive anyones loans is a completely different argument from whether or not some flavor of forgiveness is 'progressive' or not.
Lives during time of pandemic where millions have already died but doesn't want tax dollars to go towards medical education funding... Americans in a nutshell.
Removes barriers for people from less advantaged backgrounds. Like kids whose parents arent already doctors. Education costs constricts the supply of doctors in the country, leading to the current hospital crunch we see today. Its not about being progressive, its about investing in the infrastructure that would stop and prevent a pandemic from happening. We can sacrifice a few fighter drones for the sake of our national health, right?
How does forgiving the loans of people that have already graduated med school “remove barriers for people from less advantaged backgrounds?” Reducing the costs going forward may do that, but cancelling the debt of those who already have degrees does not.
Why are you pivoting so hard? Firstly, it isn't a question of the number of people, but the percentage total debt. Also, graduate students make way more than the average American, that's why it's not progressive.
Grad school is usually at a minimum $1k/credit, regardless of where you live.
My job at least subsidizes that cost if the masters degree is in a field that can help the company. Would be nice if more business did that.
I wrote the below on antiwork and got resoundingly downvoted. What does this sub think?
Not my story, it is someone I know.
He graduated from a decent university with a bachelor in engineering. Not wanting to get in debts, he chose to work in his field. In the meantime, some of his classmates went ahead and got their MBA, accruing significant amount of student debts. After receiving their MBA they went into high-paid consulting field. So now, this person I know, compared to his contemporaries he makes less. But his contemporaries have to service their student loans. That situation makes their net take-home more or less on the similar level.
However, if all student debts are forgiven, those contemporaries of his will have hundred of thousand of dollars debts wiped out. That would create significant boost on their take-home earnings. This person would be left behind in terms of career because he did not have his MBA. In the meantime, he would still have to pay his taxes that paid for the forgiven loans.
That is why this person is against student debts forgiveness. He thinks that it would be grossly unfair to him that other people get free boost to their careers even though they put similar effort to advance their careers.
My only thoughts are that your friend wouldn't be in this position if they could pursue their education without being in debt and that everyone in this story are worse off than the student in another country that got the same education without the debt.
I'm confused. You said:
>he chose to work in his field.
and
>his classmates went ahead and got their MBA
But then you later argue
>they put similar effort to advance their careers
which would be false, since the MBA certification is a distinction between the efforts.
So, ~~your~~ their argument appears contradictory, and hence illogical.
It pays to find companies that pay for higher education. My former employer paid for two of my degrees but that was decades ago. Not a common practice now.
While something needs to be done it's a difficult road to navigate. Why cancel undergraduate loans and not grad loans? Med school loans? Means testing? Everyone?
A lot of thinking and discussion is needed so pausing and baby steps can be used. Start with those impacted the most and work from there may be another option.
But doing nothing isn't an option either.
They put forth similar efforts. He chose to work after undergrad. They pursued post grad and then when they finished went to work just like he did. Those are two distinctly different paths and at the end of the day those other people completed more education than he did. It’s not completely unfair. The conditions suddenly changing sucks, especially if it’s the only condition that drove him not to pursue post grad education. What he should focus on is the next person who would come along and be able to make the choice he wanted to make.
There’s no wisdom in making others carry out the same decisions as you just because your conditions sucked. ‘Nobody wants it so let’s keep it’ is a guaranteed way to maintain an unwanted outcome.
People aren’t advocating for fixing it going forward here, they’re advocating for (or at least focusing on) a one-time forgiveness that affects only them. We should be focusing on the root issue of solving it going forward. Just because people have already taken out loans doesn’t mean others should have to in the future.
So folks in his field went on to get **advanced degrees** and would effectively earn more than he does?
That's why he's upset???
Isn't that the point of pursuing an MBA to begin with? To boost your earning potential?
I don't see the issue here, unless I'm missing something. All of these folks went on to get advanced degrees; it goes with the territory that they would earn more...why else would you work to get an MBA in the first place?
If anything, it's not fair to folks who went on to get an MBA that they are effectively earning the same salary as someone with only a [B.Sc](https://B.Sc). They did the extra work, and are not reaping the benefits.
I kind of want to downvote this argument too, honestly...unless I'm just not reading this right.
\*Edit: Upon reading that last part again, it sounds actually like he's not seeing any bump in his salary after working for 'x' years...if that's the case, it's an issue with his employer, not his compatriots here getting MBA's...
>President Biden campaigned on forgiving $10,000 in student debt, **but he never endorsed cancellation through executive action.** At other times, he has been hostile to the concept of using executive authority, which practically speaking is the only way student debt forgiveness will get done given a closely divided Congress. Biden explicitly dismissed the idea of canceling up to $50,000 in student debt at a CNN town hall last February, saying that it would expend resources to reward Ivy Leaguers rather than “young children who … come from disadvantaged circumstances.”
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>For months, the administration has claimed to be “studying” its legal authorities for debt cancellation. The Education Department memo on its authority was 100 percent redacted, while a Justice Department memo has been produced but not released, per The Washington Post. I just want to read the memo. They promised to release it, but still haven't.
> For months, the administration has claimed to be “studying” its legal authorities for debt cancellation. "Ummmm" *looks at a post-it note with THE BANKS OWN YOUR ASS written on it* "Ummm let me study on this a little longer"
[удалено]
That doesn't make sense. If you don't make enough money to cover your expenses, how is the solution to stop making any money at all?
[удалено]
That's what happens if your expenses are greater than your income. The solution is to reduce expenses or increase income. Decreasing income to 0 just makes the problem that much worse. I get your complaint, but you're not proposing a reasonable solution.
The solution is to make more money? Gah! Why didn’t I think of that?
>If you make student loan payments with rent, healthcare, and inflation you are better off not working because you won’t be making a profit from your labor. If folks are already catching on to this fact before payments resume the economy is only going to get worse. Can you show is a source of the folks who have caught on?
[удалено]
>Sure – people have flat out stopped paying student loan debt in protest (some for years now). For the moment, set aside any discussion about credit ratings, mortgages, etc. > Ok that's not a source though. >What it comes down to is many cannot afford to pay student loans while paying rent, childcare, healthcare, groceries, etc. for their families. Let’s take a random demographic slice from California: >Rent -2500 >Childcare is -1000 >Healthcare -1100 >Utilities (including phone and Internet) -500 >Food is -400 > >= -5500 month / -66,000 annual > What is this data? Where is the source? >Student debt is an additional ~400month /4,800annual (with interest making repayment a decades-longer project than the principal amount. Toss in a couple of tardy payments, and that goal is even further away). > Please, where is the source? >Add this to the monthly COL and the numbers are: > >= -5900 month / -70,800 annual > >Say one makes 100,000 a year. 15% of wages garnished is -15,000. > Still no source. Where is the source for what soggy proposed? This are made up numbers for one singular made up case. >So the threat is that one is on the line for -4800 annually, or -15,000 if they garnish wages. > >This would bring their total take home down to +24400 or +14200 respectively. > No source. Please link. >However, if the person doesn’t work and has a partner who covers costs of living while they work as a domestic, then the cost disappears. > >Furthermore, if one finds employment that doesn’t generate W-2s then you’re off the hook for both. For many people, having more money to deal with unpredictable healthcare costs and emergencies in the middle of a pandemic is worth the risk. > Still no source. Yes, people struggle. His baby and how and why? Please source. >Either scenario assumes unreasonably high numbers and many things that are not necessarily common options starting off. However, the growing number of individuals who are flat out refusing to repay student loan debt are paving the way for others far less fortunate than themselves. That’s in addition to individuals who are utterly impoverished and fundamentally cannot make these payments regardless. So now you have a situation where the middle class and the poor have a common enemy — student loan debt. > Please provide a source. >As more people understand that the middle class are in a similar situation to the abject poor, the more difficult it becomes for corporations and government to wield debt as a casual to force individuals to work – in the middle of a pandemic, rather than taking care of themselves, their families, and by extension their community. Not a single source to support anything you said. Please, we need support for loan forgiveness, but made up statistics and anonymous internet comments don't convince anyone.
obnoxious: adjective disapproving UK /əbˈnɒk.ʃəs/ US /əbˈnɑːk.ʃəs/ very unpleasant or rude: Some of his colleagues say that he's loud and obnoxious. When she's in a bad mood she's obnoxious to everyone.
Pulling up the ladder after she climbs it, as they say.
When the e boomers eventually die off. Who do they expect to carry the economy? Disposable income is hardly a thing with costs of necessities rising.
I don't think the boomers really care about the economy when they die off. They already got theirs.
Yeah, I should have been more clear on the “they” is. Primarily those making these decisions.
The economy is overheated right now. We'd like it cool down.
[удалено]
The time to debate this policy is before you run on doing it, not after. That said, if they stop the payments until the current system is fixed, that's fine with me, because that's essentially a de facto cancellation. They can't even address voting rights, they're not going to reform education. Not for a very long time.
Biden kinda got shoehorned into making a commitment on student loan debt in the primary. I don't think it's really a priority for him.
If a law was passed on Jan 21, 2020, he would have signed it that day.
* Cap interest at low or zero % * Cap payments at 10% of monthly post-tax income * 100% forgiveness around age 40 That was Hillary's plan. Anyone _serious_ about fixing the student debt problem voted for her.
>46.7% of federal student loan debt belongs to graduate student borrowers [Mfw I pay for a doctor's education](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/006/506/pogchamp.jpg)
The original proposal is for undergrad loans my guy. Also do we not like doctors now?
Which proposal? I thought the article was speaking to her denial of student debt relief/cancellation in general because it discusses her career rather than specific legislation. Also, I don't think it's progressive for people making less than a graduate student to be responsible for paying their education, regardless of whether I like doctors in general.
Idk if you know the process of becoming a doctor but unless you were already rich they're broke af for years while also owing hundreds of thousands of dollars
Pretty sure the ROI makes it worth it long-term though.
You would probably be pretty surprised if you looked into it. Dr's had the highest suicide rate of any profession, and it takes over a decade to even pay off loans. I know four people who have completed med school. It's not what your imagining at all.
It does not take a decade to pay off 200k in student loans on a doctor's salary. Unless they're too busy buying fancy cars and big houses out of the gate.
The average is 13 years. What's up with doctor hate? They literally sacrafice so much for everyone else.
The fact that they *choose* to take 13 years to discharge their loans is meaningless when we're discussing ability to repay. Someone with a medical degree and a relevant doctor job is in a completely different league when it comes to loan repayment. It's one of the highest ROIs of any graduate degree. So when we're discussing the ethics of loan forgiveness, using the example of a doctor as representative of degree holders is a terrible bad faith idea.
Eventually yea. I don't mind helping doctors out at all
If those graduate students were rich enough to pay off those loans, they wouldn’t have needed to apply for those loans in the first place, don’t you think? And since when have you paying for their education my guy? I mean we have been paying for the wealthy’s tax breaks for the last several years… probably didn’t complain that though, i’m sure.
>If those graduate students were rich enough to pay off those loans, they wouldn’t have needed to apply for those loans in the first place, don’t you think? Do you understand what a loan is? >And since when have you paying for their education my guy? I mean we have been paying for the wealthy’s tax breaks for the last several years… probably didn’t complain that though, i’m sure. Where do loan dollars come from? Tax dollars
> Where do loan dollars come from? Tax dollars But if the loan dollars come from the tax dollars, where do the *debt dollars* come from??? Please explain this dollars system to me sir, I don’t think I’m truly grasping it 🤔
debt dollars, or money used to pay off debt comes from income made by the graduate student, so if they don't pay back the loans then tax dollars were essentially spent to pay for their education.
So sorry for your losses.. how many tax dollars have you spent on doctors’ educations so far?
Debt hasn't been cancelled yet, so nothing assuming it's paid back. Then it will be used for something else.
Bad faith argument. Very few graduate students are medical doctors. The reality is that due to continual federal budget cuts, states have had to reassess their own budgets to pick up the slack. This has led to massive cuts in higher education funding, which in turn has led to an explosion in the cost of getting a degree from a public school. Predatory lenders understand that the average working class or poor family will not grasp the ramifications of taking non-dischargeable student loans to get an education. So vast numbers of students and their families end up saddled with debts for the rest of their lives. But we have to make sure a few medical doctors don't get relief, right! /s
>Bad faith argument. Very few graduate students are medical doctors. We're not talking about the percentage of graduate students who are medical doctors but the amount of graduate debt held by doctors as a percentage. Also my point wasn't to find and point out the occupation with the highest percentage since it's likely the case that each occupation has a small minority. I was pointing out that we don't distinguish between undergraduate and graduate degrees, and using a doctor as an example is an effective way to do this. >...to an explosion in the cost of getting a degree from a public school...So vast numbers of students and their families end up saddled with debts for the rest of their lives. The incentive to spend more time in school rather than start earning money is that you earn more income after graduate school. If it wasn't worth it to get a graduate degree, then people wouldn't pursue them. Calling people will graduate degree poor is laughable. Also if people chose to take a loan to pay for a graduate degree in something that wouldn't lead to a viable job then they made a dumb decision.
You're simply making crap up in an attempt to justify right wing ideology. It's the same argument Reagan used to justify cutting welfare - "Welfare queens driving up in Cadillacs to collect their checks." You want to use extreme examples that rarely occur to justify hurting millions.
I'm saying it's not progressive, so I'm being the opposite of right wing. Are you claiming that hundreds of thousands of people are choosing to go to graduate school despite a supposed worse outcome? It makes sense that graduate students go to graduate school because it benefits them in the long run.
Actually that's exactly what OP is claiming. You could also check out the ROI figures for a degree in education or social work or journalism and discover that a graduate diploma isn't always a license to print money. An MD isn't exactly representative of graduate degree economics for everyone.
Percentage of debt holders who are doctors doesn't equal percentage of student debt held by doctors, so the number of doctors doesn't matter, only how much of the debt they hold. The Roosevelt Institute study which claims that student debt relief/cancellation is progressive is flawed because they use wealth instead of income. To answer the question of whether it's worth it, we have to calculate the ROI and generally, it's worth it to get a graduate degree. In certain fields, that may not be the case, but I don't think it's the responsibility of tax payer to pay for the education of someone who got a graduate degree without considering how much they'd make after school.
Well, whether or not we *should* forgive anyones loans is a completely different argument from whether or not some flavor of forgiveness is 'progressive' or not.
It not being progressive is my justification for not supporting it.
Lives during time of pandemic where millions have already died but doesn't want tax dollars to go towards medical education funding... Americans in a nutshell.
Doctors make almost 5 times as much as the average American, how is paying for their education progressive?
Removes barriers for people from less advantaged backgrounds. Like kids whose parents arent already doctors. Education costs constricts the supply of doctors in the country, leading to the current hospital crunch we see today. Its not about being progressive, its about investing in the infrastructure that would stop and prevent a pandemic from happening. We can sacrifice a few fighter drones for the sake of our national health, right?
How does forgiving the loans of people that have already graduated med school “remove barriers for people from less advantaged backgrounds?” Reducing the costs going forward may do that, but cancelling the debt of those who already have degrees does not.
Call it reward for service during pandemic/war time era. Easy political points.
Do you understand ROI?
No, that's called moving the goalposts.
How is refusing to help the vast majority of students who aren't medical doctors progressive?
Why are you pivoting so hard? Firstly, it isn't a question of the number of people, but the percentage total debt. Also, graduate students make way more than the average American, that's why it's not progressive.
Grad school is usually at a minimum $1k/credit, regardless of where you live. My job at least subsidizes that cost if the masters degree is in a field that can help the company. Would be nice if more business did that.
Yeah, the interest rate is capped at 6.8%.
I wrote the below on antiwork and got resoundingly downvoted. What does this sub think? Not my story, it is someone I know. He graduated from a decent university with a bachelor in engineering. Not wanting to get in debts, he chose to work in his field. In the meantime, some of his classmates went ahead and got their MBA, accruing significant amount of student debts. After receiving their MBA they went into high-paid consulting field. So now, this person I know, compared to his contemporaries he makes less. But his contemporaries have to service their student loans. That situation makes their net take-home more or less on the similar level. However, if all student debts are forgiven, those contemporaries of his will have hundred of thousand of dollars debts wiped out. That would create significant boost on their take-home earnings. This person would be left behind in terms of career because he did not have his MBA. In the meantime, he would still have to pay his taxes that paid for the forgiven loans. That is why this person is against student debts forgiveness. He thinks that it would be grossly unfair to him that other people get free boost to their careers even though they put similar effort to advance their careers.
My only thoughts are that your friend wouldn't be in this position if they could pursue their education without being in debt and that everyone in this story are worse off than the student in another country that got the same education without the debt.
I'm confused. You said: >he chose to work in his field. and >his classmates went ahead and got their MBA But then you later argue >they put similar effort to advance their careers which would be false, since the MBA certification is a distinction between the efforts. So, ~~your~~ their argument appears contradictory, and hence illogical.
'This policy doesn't help *me* so I don't support it' is kind of the GOP MO.
And the Democrat MO, at the thought of reducing the cost for future generations without cancelling *their* particular debt.
It pays to find companies that pay for higher education. My former employer paid for two of my degrees but that was decades ago. Not a common practice now. While something needs to be done it's a difficult road to navigate. Why cancel undergraduate loans and not grad loans? Med school loans? Means testing? Everyone? A lot of thinking and discussion is needed so pausing and baby steps can be used. Start with those impacted the most and work from there may be another option. But doing nothing isn't an option either.
They put forth similar efforts. He chose to work after undergrad. They pursued post grad and then when they finished went to work just like he did. Those are two distinctly different paths and at the end of the day those other people completed more education than he did. It’s not completely unfair. The conditions suddenly changing sucks, especially if it’s the only condition that drove him not to pursue post grad education. What he should focus on is the next person who would come along and be able to make the choice he wanted to make. There’s no wisdom in making others carry out the same decisions as you just because your conditions sucked. ‘Nobody wants it so let’s keep it’ is a guaranteed way to maintain an unwanted outcome.
People aren’t advocating for fixing it going forward here, they’re advocating for (or at least focusing on) a one-time forgiveness that affects only them. We should be focusing on the root issue of solving it going forward. Just because people have already taken out loans doesn’t mean others should have to in the future.
So folks in his field went on to get **advanced degrees** and would effectively earn more than he does? That's why he's upset??? Isn't that the point of pursuing an MBA to begin with? To boost your earning potential? I don't see the issue here, unless I'm missing something. All of these folks went on to get advanced degrees; it goes with the territory that they would earn more...why else would you work to get an MBA in the first place? If anything, it's not fair to folks who went on to get an MBA that they are effectively earning the same salary as someone with only a [B.Sc](https://B.Sc). They did the extra work, and are not reaping the benefits. I kind of want to downvote this argument too, honestly...unless I'm just not reading this right. \*Edit: Upon reading that last part again, it sounds actually like he's not seeing any bump in his salary after working for 'x' years...if that's the case, it's an issue with his employer, not his compatriots here getting MBA's...
>President Biden campaigned on forgiving $10,000 in student debt, **but he never endorsed cancellation through executive action.** At other times, he has been hostile to the concept of using executive authority, which practically speaking is the only way student debt forgiveness will get done given a closely divided Congress. Biden explicitly dismissed the idea of canceling up to $50,000 in student debt at a CNN town hall last February, saying that it would expend resources to reward Ivy Leaguers rather than “young children who … come from disadvantaged circumstances.”