Students Across the Nation are Planning Something Unprecedented to End Student Debt Forever

[dixiegrrrrl]

An ambitious group of young activists have decided to organize the first nationwide protest for free college tuition on November 12th, and they’re calling it the #MillionStudentMarch. They have already been endorsed by Noam Chomsky and have three concrete demands:

1: Tuition-free public college

2. Cancellation of all student debt

3. A $15 minimum wage for all campus workers

"Fixing the student debt crisis won’t start from within the broken two-party system, it will start in the streets,” said organizer Elan Axelbank.
And he’s right — as a result of protests, students around the world have successfully fought for affordable higher education.
After tens of thousands of students took to the streets to demand a rollback of a 75 percent tuition hike, the government relented, and tuition in Quebec remains the lowest in North America.
Chile’s student movement not only took over the streets, but got its leaders elected to parliament. Now, Chile is rolling out free college for its most vulnerable populations, and funding it by raising corporate taxes.

#MillionStudentMarch was introduced only one month ago, and there are already 36 declared actions in 33 cities. A list of local actions is available on the main #MSM website, and if you don’t see one at your college or city, organize one! Organizers stress that you don’t need to be a student to participate in the Million Student March, you only need to support the demands. Anyone can sign up to create a march on StudentMarch.org and RSVP to the national Facebook event page.

http://usuncut.com/resistance/students-are-organizing-the-nations-first-ever-protest-for-free-college/

[marym625]

1. K&R!

[smirkymonkey]

2. +1000

[libdem4life]

3. Bernie deserves a lot of credit for addressing this national issue loudly and

repeatedly. Things are shifting...even in other parts of the world. As usual, the US is behind, but Bernie will start the conversation, even if he doesn't win the war. It has to begin somewhere...Enough is enough!

[roguevalley]

24. I am with you, kids. I wish I could actually be there. :D

[Eleanors38]

4. Sounds like a good one to me.^^^

[mythology]

5. I'd want to see their plans for paying for this

Part of the increase in the cost of public universities is that states have slashed funding to the bone. I don't see Kansas changing that anytime soon. Also how would this work across state lines? Currently colleges like having out of state students who pay higher tuition.

If they cost the same across state lines, better schools will get a flood of out of state students and colleges in Kansas for example where the governor's budget hosed the state having an exodus of students which in the end will cause further harm to those schools.

Also without increasing funding, even more adjuncts would be used which is bad for students, the adjuncts and research in general.

It's a much needed debate as costs have soared for a variety of reasons (for example buying software licenses for students and staff and an ever increasing need for internet access is very costly). Simply increasing student loans won't cut it.

[mountain grammy]

17. The money is there and more is available

it's having the will to set priorities in taxing and spending.

[Enthusiast]

92. +100%!

[gratuitous]

21. Cancel the F-35

There. I just freed up a trillion dollars. I think that will cover it, and then some.

[klook]

67. + 1 trillion. (n/t)

[NJCher]

73. PDFS

(pretty damn f*&*ing simple)

And it's just that easy; it really is. What are our priorities? The mind or killing people?


Cher

[Enthusiast]

94. +1! Killing people for profit. Creating a new and never ending supply of enemies.

All for the profit of a few.

Beware the Military Industrial Complex!

[daleanime]

75. +1

[Enthusiast]

93. +100%!

[Live and Learn]

71. Here you go:

The socialist senator from Vermont and long-shot Democratic candidate for president just announced that he would introduce a bill designed to make state schools tuition-free for all, in part by passing a tax on financial transactions, including stock, bond, and derivatives trades. So, if he ever does get around to that government overthrow, we now know where the future of higher education lies.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/05/19/bernie_sanders_free_college_plan_make_wall_street_pay_for_higher_education.html

[ChisolmTrailDem]

76. ^^^ This right fucking here! ^^^ MAKE WALL STREET FUCKING PAY FOR IT! They

ultimately benefit in the long run by having a pool of educated people from which to draw their talent.

[Octafish]

99. Bring the Pentagon home from 135 countries around the world.

Keep the base in Diego Garcia, for the golf.

[d_legendary1]

129. Getting Corporations off of welfare is a start

Then slash the funding for the MIC. You'd be surprised at how many billions we can generate to put kids through college and fix our infrastructure.

[Xithras]

135. Educating our young is arguably the most important responsibility a society holds.

I'm sure we can find something less important to cut. Like the military. Or corporate welfare, or any of the countless thousands of other things that we spend trillions of dollars on every year while whining that we "can't afford to educate our kids".

[blue neen]

6. Cancellation of all student debt.

That is a worthy, but lofty goal. It could also cause a whole lot of resentment from those who have paid off their loans.

[Beartracks]

8. Sign me up!

Spousal medical problems kept me in deferment so long that the new capitalized total is insurmountably huge.

=============

[handmade34]

74. right there with you

I was care giver for years and not able to make enough to pay student loans... at least they will die with me

[Beartracks]

84. I was finally able to start repaying under the income-based plan...

... a couple years ago, but the payment I can afford doesn't even touch the interest.



But at least it's better than risking default, so there's that. lol

=====================

[angrychair]

10. All good and well

Unless you are looking, as I am, at having a $900+ a month payment until I am 68 and 69 years old. How do I do that? Continue to work full-time and hope my health holds up till I am at least 70? All the while living in a cardboard box eating at soup kitchens because all of my net income goes to my loan payments?

[WillowTree]

18. OMG! Can't even conceive of how much your debt must be. Frightening.

[angrychair]

48. Less than some

More than others...roughly $90,000 but I've deferred it for many years, unable to pay, all combined through dept of Ed. But now I cant hold it off anymore but still can't pay on a regular basis...I could pay it here and there but month after month, over a year, would leave me in tougher and tougher situation. Not to mention that payments now extend out till I'm 69...not working till I'm 69, I refuse.

[Beartracks]

88. Can you do Income-Based Repayment?

The payment amount is based on your income (and household size), and as long as you make payments on time for 20 years, the rest is forgiven.

=======================

[angrychair]

89. I appreciate the thought

But I'm in that weird spot where I make to much for IBR but to little to pay the loan and provide for my family. IBR is based on gross pay, not net. It is also not adjusted for regional cost of living. Not to mention that, at my age, 20 years of repayment would still leave me at 65+...if I repay non-stop for 20 years straight.
Thank you for the thought, it was very kind of you

[Yo_Mama]

12. The taxpayer made the majority of student loans outstanding. Who's going to pay for it?

This would be more than a trillion dollar loss to the federal government.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/student-debt-swells-federal-loans-now-top-a-trillion/

For estimates of federal student loans, the Bureau relies on the Department of Education’s federal student aid data. As of March 2013, these data indicate that there was $999 billion outstanding.

As of 2010, federal student loans are originated by the Department of Education through the Direct Loan program or by schools through the Perkins Loan program.

Based on the recent pace of origination, as well as the monthly estimates of outstanding consumer credit, the Bureau estimates that there was approximately $1.01 trillion outstanding as of May 2013.

There are a lot of persons with high-paying jobs who have those loans; much poorer persons would be subsidizing them if those loans were cancelled. At some point welfare for the rich becomes a social justice issue of no small importance.

[LiberalArkie]

20. What does come to, 1 less war to pay for. That would be hard to handle. On one hand we can a war

every few years or we can have free tuition like most civilized countries have.

[azurnoir]

25. and just how much of that debt is principle and how much is accrued interest?

[Jim Lane]

13. I agree about the resentment. The bigger problem is the creditors.

The government could not just unilaterally cancel duly incurred debts and tell the creditors "Tough luck." They would have to be compensated. Essentially this means that the taxpayers instead of the borrowers would be paying off all outstanding student loans.

Rethinking the financing of higher education so as to address future growth in student debt is comparatively easy. That big pile of debt that's already out there is a tougher problem.

[angrychair]

87. No problem at all

Yes, I am being somewhat simplistic but at the end of the day, by freeing up the student loan debt burden, it will allow more money to flow through the system and give many people a more stable economic future. More individuals with a stable economic future means a nation with a more stable economic future. We all benefit.

[Jim Lane]

90. You say it's not a problem from the point of view of the overall economy, but....

That doesn't answer creditors' objections.

The current debts are owed by, e.g., Gary Graduate to First Federal Exploitation Bank, N.A. How does that debt get canceled? If the government just declares the debt canceled, First Federal, which carries numerous student loans, is in effect being heavily taxed. A big chunk of its assets just went poof. That might not be constitutionally permissible, but even it is, it would be widely perceived as unfair. If you say that First Federal is rich, well, so are Microsoft and Merrill Lynch and GM and a bunch of other companies. There's no reason that a handful of companies should each take a big hit while most companies and individuals play no role.

The only fair thing would be for the federal government to buy these debts from the creditors at their fair market value (which might be less than face value, depending on prospects for repayment) and then cancel them. That would be hugely expensive.

[Recursion]

91. Except that's not how debts from a fractional reserve bank work

A bank that originates a loan does not loan existing money; it simply adds to the money supply with the loan's creation. When the debt is repaid, the principal is simply destroyed as the bank receives it, and only the interest is kept by the bank. The interest outstanding is a much lower amount than the principal outstanding (other than for payday loans, which is why non-banks to those), so the loss to the bank itself is much more modest.

The "hit" taken there, OTOH, is to the dollar. The money supply was grown when the loan was originated and should be shrunk back when the loan is paid off. However, if the loan is simply cancelled, the money supply grew without later shrinking; this is inflationary.

[Jim Lane]

103. I agree about the overall money supply but not about the individual bank

Suppose First Federal operates under a 20% reserve requirement. It takes in $10k from depositors, showing assets of $10k and liabilities of $10k. It holds $2k as reserves and lends $8k to Gary, now showing assets of $2k in reserves and a note for $8k plus whatever the interest is. If Gary repays, let us say, $8500, then assets are $10,500, liabilities $10k, and the $500 profit increases owner's equity by that amount. (If First Federal books the anticipated interest as income at the time the loan is made, then its assets go to $10,500 then instead of upon repayment, but the net effect doesn't depend on the bank's accounting practices.)

If Gary defaults on the note, however, and First Federal writes it off upon learning that he's died (and no one co-signed), then its assets are down to $2k but it still has liabilities to depositors of $10k. Its $8k loss decreases owner's equity by that amount.

I think you're analyzing the effect on the overall money supply. The effect on the individual lender is a different question, though. If a loan goes bad or is canceled without being repaid, the lender's owner(s) do take a hit. That's one reason why the housing bubble and its burst was a threat to the system. There was so much money in bad mortgage loans that widespread defaults would have threatened the solvency of several major institutions. On your scenario I don't see how any fractional reserve bank could ever go bankrupt, but the recipients of TARP money included several such banks.

[Recursion]

104. Why are you subtracting the $8k from the $10k?

The "subtraction" is from the high-power money it keeps in the reserve, which last I saw for most banks is at IIRC 40:1 or so right now. So if it holds $2k in reserve there's a notional $80k it can lend, and the $8k is subtracted from that. (For that matter I don't think you can use customers' deposits as reserve deposits, can you?)

Now, I mean, the bank might well have cash flow problems from the loan going away, but if the loan is cancelled then presumably the high-power reservation is reversed, and he can lend $40k again (or maybe not: that would solve the inflation problem but mean the banker is taking a pretty sizable hit...)

[Jim Lane]

122. I'm applying what I remember of double-entry bookkeeping.

When the bank makes the loan to Gary, he executes a note. The bank's assets will include "Notes Held" or "Accounts Receivable" or however it's titled, and this note will be there. It will be valued at at least $8K. I don't know bank's practice re booking interest income, whether it's all booked at the start of the loan or as it accrues along the way. The latter would make more sense to me but either way there's at least $8K in an asset account.

When Gary dies penniless or his loan is canceled or whatever, the bank must make the appropriate bookkeeping entries. The $8K note will be taken off the books. There must be an offsetting entry somewhere else; that's how double-entry works. The bank would credit the asset account of Notes Held and debit the income/expense account of Bad Loan Write-offs or whatever. Hence, in its results for that quarter, net profit would be lower or net loss would be higher by $8K. That would reduce Owner's Equity.

The fundamental equation is A=L+OE. If Assets go down by $8K, because a note that was deemed to be worth $8K is now worth zero, then either Liabilities must go down (no basis for that here) or Owner's Equity goes down.

Your view would seem to imply that the bank can merrily make as many loans as it wants, up a limit of 40x its reserves, with no regard for the borrower's ability to pay. If the borrower repays the principal with the interest, then the bank has made a profit in the amount of the interest. If the borrower defaults, then there's no out-of-pocket loss to the bank, merely a bit of disappointment at the forgone interest income. Nice work if you can get it, but I don't think student lending or any other form of bank lending can be heads-we-win-tails-nothing-happens. (A student loan that's co-signed by solvent parents or guaranteed by the federal government is of course significantly different, but that's only because it's less likely that the bank will have to write off the loan, not because the consequences of a write-off would be any less drastic.)

[Recursion]

123. But fractional reserve is specifically not double-entry; that's the whole point.

Originated loans are simply exnihilated, and principal repayment is annihilated. If they followed double-entry they couldn't grow the money supply like they do.

[Jim Lane]

128. I don't see any inconsistency

Fractional reserve banking is perfectly consistent with the principle that each bank uses double-entry bookkeeping for its own finances.

I just don't believe that major American banks don't use double-entry bookkeeping. I did a quick search and found nothing definitive, but my guess is that the omission is because nobody thinks it's a point that's at all in question.

Let me try to understand this by focusing on defaults. On your understanding, is there any adverse consequence to a bank that makes a loan that goes bad? It seems to me there isn't. If that were true, banks would delight in lending to, for example, high-risk-high-reward startups. Charge them 20% annual interest. The one that turns out to be the next Microsoft will pay you back and you make a juicy profit on that loan. When the rest go bust and default, no worries, you just write off the loan and lend the money again. I very much doubt that it works that way.

Can you provide a citation for the proposition that major banks don't use double-entry bookkeeping?

[Recursion]

131. Looking back, I wrote that really badly.

Last edited Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

On your understanding, is there any adverse consequence to a bank that makes a loan that goes bad?

Sure, they lose out on the interest they were expecting, for one.

If that were true, banks would delight in lending to, for example, high-risk-high-reward startups.

Sounds like a decent description of 2007....

Can you provide a citation for the proposition that major banks don't use double-entry bookkeeping?

Sorry, I realized I was saying that entirely wrong. They use it internally all the time. When they originate a $10K loan, they enter $10K to their assets (the loan) and $10K to their liabilities (the deposit account they put it in), so that sums to zero like everything else. That $10K account deposit becomes a car (or whatever) and so disappears from their liabilities pretty quickly; the $10K asset of the loan disappears as it is paid off (along with interest, which goes to the bank's capital). In this sense the principles of double-entry are violated, since they should go away at the same time, but AFAIK they still use it (and that "carrying" difference is where their assets come from). If the government were to cancel that asset (the loan), then that would be a loss to the bank, but it's (presumably) combined with a simultaneous cancellation of that hold on their reserves (ie, if the $10K loan is cancelled, the bank can now loan out $10K more than it could yesterday). The breaking of double-entry happens with their reserve account (because a $10K loan cancels $250 of reserve deposits, not $10K), not within the bank itself.

[Recursion]

137. Cash makes this complicated, so imagine a fully-electronic loan origination

The Bank lends Bob $10K for a car. The bank enters $10K as an asset for the loan and a liability for the deposit account they put it in.

Bob transfers the money from that deposit account to the car dealer. The bank transfers its deposit liability to the car dealership's bank, but both banks have both car buyers and car sellers as clients, and on the whole those transfers are a wash (if they ever stop being a wash for a long period of time, banks can have problems, which is why banks seek multiple sectors for deposit clients).

So the bank now has a $10K asset in the form of that loan. As Bob pays it off through direct deposit from his employer, the employer's bank gradually transfers liabilities to Bob's bank until the $10K loan asset is destroyed; meanwhile the bank can regularly add to its reserve deposits from the interest on the $10K.

So I'll say, yeah: in terms of the loan itself, the bank is not actually "hurt" by its being cancelled, because it was money it created and can now create again; canceling that asset by government fiat isn't substantially different than canceling it by transfers of liabilities from Bob's employer's bank. Though again obviously the ability to transfer interest to the reserve account over that time is something they would miss.

[Jim Lane]

138. I was thinking that cash made it simpler

Let's leave Bob for a moment and consider Ann, who takes an $8K loan and wants cash. The bank debits Notes Held and credits Cash. Ann then skips town. The cash is gone and the note the bank holds is worthless. Ann is up by $8K so the bank must have lost $8K. If the bank booked the anticipated interest income when the loan was made, then it should now also take a charge to earnings to recognize that that income won't be received, but whatever it does with the anticipated income, it also has a loss of $8K, representing the principal that won't be repaid.

Now back to Bob. He took his $8K loan in the form of a deposit to his checking account. Then he wrote a check to a car dealership, which deposited the check to its account at the same bank. Now suppose Bob jumps in his new car and he skips town. Again the bank has made a bad loan and is stuck holding a worthless note.

You seem to be saying that in Bob's case, because there was no cash involved, the bank suffers no loss except for the forgone interest income. I still don't see how that can be the case. The bank is still looking at a liability in the form of the car dealership's checking account, which has now grown by $8K. Even if Bob didn't want cash, the dealership might, or it might write a check on that account to the guy who fixed its broken air conditioner, and he then needs cash to buy groceries.

Your answer seems to be that "canceling that asset by government fiat isn't substantially different than canceling it by transfers of liabilities from Bob's employer's bank." I think it's hugely different. As I understand it, Bob's bank and his employer's bank each have an account at the Fed. The employer's direct deposit means that the Fed transfers the money from the employer's bank's account to Bob's bank's account. The employer's bank reduces the employer's account by that amount, and Bob's bank increases his account by that amount. Thus, the Fed and both banks all come out even. If the note is just canceled by fiat, however, then Bob's bank doesn't get the benefit of an increase to its account at the Fed.

I appreciate your taking the time to try to explain what you're saying, but I'm still not seeing it. The bank makes a loan, receives a note, and eventually, if all goes well, receives the principal plus the interest in exchange for surrendering the note. If all does not go well (borrower skips town, or government decrees the loan to be canceled), then the bank receives neither principal nor interest. In the latter case the bank is worse off. Hence, if the U.S. Government passed a law canceling all student loans and declaring it wouldn't pay a dime on the ones that it had guaranteed, and if the law survived the inevitable court challenge, then the lending banks would collectively be out a trillion dollars or so (not just the lost opportunity to earn interest).

[Yo_Mama]

127. Actually the taxpayers lent virtually all the money, and it's borrowed money.

So while the creditor is we the taxpayers, the problem is obvious.

We're busted. We are going to be cutting SS. We already have income-based repayment plans which for lower-income students will mean that many won't even pay the principal back, and very few will be paying all the scheduled interest.

That money comes directly out of the taxpayers' pockets, not some mythical bank.

What this plan really does is subsidize students who have high incomes and would therefore have to pay a lot of the interest and all of the principal, or even the entire scheduled loan. Thus it amounts to subsidizing the well-off.

It's not really a democratic proposal at all.

[dixiegrrrrl]

124. Any money that "flows thu the system" is grabbed by the 1% and never trickles down.

The Gov't spends any free money ( plus trillions of $$$$ of debt) on the war machine.

It costs billions now just to pay the interest on the Treasury bonds that the Gov't sells to go further into debt.

[abelenkpe]

16. I paid my loans

Would welcome student debt being wiped out for everyone else. It's an insane burden.

[Dems2002]

19. Ditto

I paid off over 20k nd it took me until 38. It is why I didn't go to grad school. It is an f'd up system.

[skepticscott]

29. If it's an insane burden

Then why take it on in the first place?

[Heddi]

59. Because it's a racket of a system

It's the only loan you'll be able to get without a credit check, and for many people, it's the only way they'll be able to improve their lot in life.

I got my loans when I went to nursing school. I had a guaranteed minimum salary when I graduated which made it very easy to pay off the loans. I also had a ridiculously low interest rate.

I had about $12k of loans left from a failed attempt at Cooking School a few years earlier when I started RN school, and I graduated with about 30k in loans. My husband and I would pay off some when we could even when I was in school and the loans were on hold (but still accruing interest), so that kind of helped.

When I graduated, I didn't use the 6 month grace period before repayment - my entire first paycheck went to the loans. My monthly payment was $125 but I would always try to make double payments when I could, and once my husband graduated from nursing school I was paying close to $500 a month just to get the fucker out of the way. WHen he was in school, we paid his tuition out of pocket.

It helps that we are incredibly frugal people, and even when neither of us were working and both in school, we always had at least 6 months of living money in the bank. We planned it, and we made it work for us.

We also don't have kids, and don't have any other debt -- no car payment, no mortgage, no medical debt. My husband worked and supported us while i was a FT student, and I did the same when he was in school. There was maybe 1 year or less when we were both in school at the same time and not working, but we had planned that as well.

This is not a common situation, and I don't begrudge people who can't do what we did. I grew quite tired of plain spaghetti, rice, or beans every night.

It is not as easy for someone with a degree in the humanities to walk out with a guaranteed $50k/year job like I was as an RN, either.

[skepticscott]

66. It sounds like it was not an "insane" burden for you

You worked hard and sacrificed in the shorter term to get some long-term benefit, and did it to get a job where employment and a good salary were relatively likely. Lots of people simply assume mountains of debt with no plan and no conception of how it is likely to be paid off, and then want to just hit a reset button (at someone else's expense) when their extravagant risk doesn't pan out. Too many people live their lives as if borrowed money is free, and I have a hard time mustering sympathy for that.

[Hissyspit]

108. Same here.

[Heddi]

57. I paid off my student debt -- I'm not resentful at all

I don't get food stamps because I don't need them and I don't qualify for them. I'm not resentful of people who do get them.

I don't get a front row parking spot like people with disabilities do. I don't need one, and I don't qualify for one. I'm not resentful of people who do, though.

I don't get Medicare or Medicaid because I don't need them, and I don't qualify for them. I'm not resentful of people who do, though.

I don't live in subsidized housing. I don't need to, and I don't qualify for it. I'm not resentful of people who do, though.

I don't get reduced fare on public transportation. I don't need to and I don't qualify for it. I'm not resentful of people who do, though.

When it's just me in the car, I don't get to drive in the HOV lane. I don't qualify for it. I'm not resentful of people who do, though.

When the airline boards, I don't get to board first because I don't require extra assistance. I'm not resentful of people who do, though.

When I am in school, I don't get grants. I don't need to and I don't qualify for it. I'm not resentful of people who do, though.

---

There are a lot of things that other people get that not everyone gets. The idea that we should prevent a benefit for some because it would not be a benefit for all is a ludicrous proposition.

When I graduated nursing school I had roughly $30,000 in loans. I paid mine off in about 5 years. No big deal. Other people have bigger loans, smaller paychecks, or life circumstances that make it hard or impossible for them to pay off their loans. That is a big deal, and they should get help for it.

I'm currently in school and my finances allow me to pay for school out of pocket. I don't have any more loans. Maybe I would need help if I did. I'm not going to turn down helping someone else because I don't need the help myself -- that's how Republicans think.

I don't see why this is such a debatable point.

[blue neen]

64. My husband and I are retired now. We live on a fixed income.

Out of that fixed income, we save out $300 a month just for property taxes that fund the local school district. We no longer have children in school; in fact, we only put one child through this school district. We also pay federal and state income taxes which help to fund all levels of education in our state------ Kindergarten through college. We pay, and have paid, more than our fair share but do not resent paying these taxes. We are definitely not "turning down helping someone else".

Both my husband and I paid our school loans off over a period of many years. As others have pointed out in this thread, those who get out of college now often are unable to find a job that pays a living wage. This was this case with our son. So, we helped him pay on one of his loans, which just finished up last month. This was occurring at the same time that I had 6 major orthopedic surgeries in 2 years. Our out-of-pocket expenses were over $15,000. We make hefty monthly payments on the medical bills, too. Again, we are not "turning down someone else".

The debatable point is, as others have mentioned, if the school loans are cancelled, how will they be paid? If that would fall on the taxpayers backs, there are many people in this country on fixed incomes who will not be able to handle it. Period.

As I mentioned in Post #6, cancelling student loans is a worthy cause. It's just not all that simple.

It is wonderful and admirable that you are not resentful of those who are less fortunate than you. That's the way it should be. It's just too bad that you can't carry that feeling over to a fellow Democrat, who stated her opinion in a polite and reasonable way on this open forum. It was really unnecessary for you to basically call me a Republican.

Good night and good luck. I have a great amount of appreciation for the job(s) that nurses do.

[ish of the hammer]

68. what a reasonable human being (not snark)

you sound like my wife!

[handmade34]

81. ...

[Enthusiast]

96. Huge +1! You are an example to us all. Seriously.

I have encountered a number of people on the internet that object to disabled parking if you can believe it. They seem to lack the empathy gene. Either that or their attitude has been cultivated by Fox "News" and the others.

[handmade34]

77. I also

"don't think he/she understands how bad it is on many levels"

student loan debt has ruined lives and caused many good people to be less successful than they could have been otherwise

[Enthusiast]

95. Unfortunately they will just have to feel their resentment.

We bailed out the GUILTY banks. Do the banks that didn't get bailed out feel resentment?

[Orrex]

100. That's a false obstacle

Any positive change is always resisted on the grounds that it will cause resentment in those who preceded the change. I might as readily complain that I only got my paltry $20k debt cancelled, while someone else got $60k. If we followed that logic, then we'd still have children working themselves to death in coal mines.

EVERYONE will benefit if student loans are eliminated. Some will benefit more, yes, but that would still be an improvement over the current disaster.

[Hissyspit]

105. That's no excuse for not doing it.

[WillyT]

7. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[1monster]

9. Good luck, kids!

Sincerely.

[leftofcool]

11. I guess I should never have paid off mine then.

[AZ Progressive]

27. "I suffered so everyone else should as well!"

That's basically what you are saying.

[leftofcool]

53. No, I am saying I pay my bills including my student loans and I am proud I did.

[rhett o rick]

34. So let's see if we can guess your point. You paid off your debt therefore all students should have

to pay off their debts. Well that's certainly what my right-wing brother in law says although he didn't even go to college.

I think H. Clinton probably agrees with you. She doesn't have much sympathy for those college grads in debt. I think her solution was to try to convince the states to hold down tuition. Maybe send them a memo.

[bunnies]

42. Your Republican imitation is teh awesome! nt

[Hissyspit]

109. Oh, for Christ sake's...

Maybe. Maybe not.

Has nothing to do with whether we should change the system now.

[SheilaT]

14. At the risk of sounding

somewhat callous, the main way to eliminate student debt would be to not borrow the money in the first place.

What really does bother me the most is that students (and their parents) don't quite understand what they're getting into when they borrow vast sums of money for college, especially if the degree being sought isn't one that necessarily leads to a decent job.

But public community colleges should be tuition free, or only a nominal tuition charged. Books and lab fees will still add up, but are much less than tuition.

Public 4 year colleges and universities should be a lot cheaper than they are. I first went to college (the University of Arizona) in the fall of 1965. I worked that summer at a sub-minimum wage job, and had two scholarships: one for $125/semester, the other $67.50/semester. The first paid my tuition and fees, the second my books. What I earned over the summer bought clothes, and various incidentals that first semester. I lived at home, so had no dorm/apartment cost. Secondary public education should be similarly inexpensive these days. I would much rather pay taxes for good schools than for one single more tank, aircraft carrier, soldier sent off to die in some hell-hole we have no business being in.

[skepticscott]

30. You're not being callous, you're being sensible.

Yes, it would be better if college costs were much lower, but people who currently have student debt were not forced to incur it. They chose to take on those expenses and should bear the responsibility for paying back the money which they borrowed in good faith (one would hope).

[rhett o rick]

35. It's always easy to blame the victims. Those people that use the payday loans should be

responsible also. We used to protect people from shysters. There use to be laws that prohibited loaning money at high rates. Corporations made hundreds of millions off easy loans to college students. Some fly-by-night colleges made millions from helping unqualified students get loans. Sickening. College should be free to those academically qualified.

[skepticscott]

44. Who are the "victims" here?

Are student loans being made at ridiculously high rates of interest? No. Is it illegitimate to charge interest for loans at all? No.

Yes, there are "colleges" that run active scams in cahoots with lenders and deliberately deceive students about their job and income prospects, and they should be shut down and punished, but the majority of people with high student debt are not "victims" of that sort. The chose to go to legitimate colleges and chose to take on debt, but did so irresponsibly, without taking proper account of what would be involved in paying back what they were borrowing. People who say now "I didn't know what I was getting into" have a hard time evoking much sympathy from me. KNOW what you're getting into when it involves money or don't do it. Life 101.

[rhett o rick]

58. That isn't a very empathetic feeling. We as a society have some responsibility to help

our children go to college. The banksters saw an opportunity to make big profits off our children. I assume you are as cold about the millions that lost their homes because they didn't read the fine print or didn't understand it if they tried. Buyer beware, right?

[skepticscott]

116. I'm sympathetic to people

who were lied to or deliberately deceived about the terms of their loans or who have suffered financial misfortune. Not so much to people who simply buy huge homes they can't really afford and then find themselves over their heads. Don't know about you, but I see LOTS of people living in far more home than they need, with their finances stretched to the limit every month, even in good circumstances.

[rhett o rick]

133. Do you think payday loan companies should exist? I don't. At one time it was against

the law to loan shark. Today the banks do it. College grads in debt that they never can repay, young families losing their homes, and seniors losing their retirements. Only in America.

[Tafiti]

115. Very black and white for a skeptic like yourself.

"KNOW what you're getting into." Okay, well, when I was 18 years old raised in a small, rural midwestern town by poor parents who didn't have much financial wherewithal, sure I was a smart kid, and I thought I knew what I was getting into, but guess what, I really didn't. Is that really that hard to understand that millions of other kids are in the same situation? That at 18, you might not have the wisdom and financial knowledge to know exactly what incurring college debt will really mean for your life? And that you might not have adults around you who know any better either? If you did, well congratulations, but to have a total lack of empathy for others who made an honest mistake (or even took a calculated risk and "lost&quot is pretty harsh.

Funny thing is, my undergrad debt was pretty small. I went to a very good, private liberal arts college, but I did well enough in high school that it was mostly paid for. Lucky me. But then in 2006, I decided to go to law school. And guess what I did? I did my research on the legal job market and the US DOL's reports said the industry outlook was very good and the job market was likely to stay strong. How responsible of me, eh? Well literally halfway through law school the economy collapsed and the legal job market plunged into depths not seen since the Great Depression. Hard to see that one coming. Now I have six-figure debt and, yes, I was very fortunate to get a job and I'm doing fine, but many, many others were not so lucky. It wasn't really possible for people in my situation to KNOW what they were getting into in this situation.

The moral of this story is, you shouldn't be so quick to judge and assume all people everywhere were just being irresponsible idiots when they borrowed money to take a chance on improving themselves and their situation. Sometimes you do the best you can with the information you have, but life has a way of fucking up best-laid plans sometimes.

Also, by the way, I think 7.9% interest on student loans is ridiculous, but maybe that's just me.

[skepticscott]

117. Does that make those people "victims"?

Were they all preyed upon, or did some of them knowingly accept risks that turned out badly, and some simply indulge their "dreams" with no thought to the concept that everything has to be paid for eventually?

[restorefreedom]

43. yes because it is soooo easy

to get a good job these days without a college education

[skepticscott]

46. And your point is what?

Are people better off with a lower paying job and no student debt, or the likelihood of a higher salary but with a big chunk taken out of it every month for decades?

You can say all you want that people shouldn't have to make that choice, but that's not the reality we live in right now, and the people with high student debt knew that going in. They made a free choice to borrow huge amounts of money, knowing the terms and the cost full well. If things worked out, they would have taken all of the benefits, but they want the taxpayers to underwrite the risk when they don't work out.

[restorefreedom]

47. my point is that once again,

greed ruins lives. these tuitions should never have been allowed to get this out of control to begin with.

and now that they have, we owe it to the generations that follow us to do something about it.

[skepticscott]

52. Is there any greed

in borrowing yourself into debt up to the hilt to finance the most lavish and expensive college education you can afford, thinking that it's free money? Because that's what some people do? And did you ever take account that one of the reasons that tuition rose out of control like it did is because so many people were paying for it with borrowed money, instead of what they could really afford?

[restorefreedom]

63. there certainly are some

who choose more expensive colleges over less expensive ones for various reasons. but the out of control tuitions and fees is a huge problem, the ginormous salaries of university presidents, the out of control sports spending, its all part of the problem.

[Hissyspit]

106. Oh, please...

Jeez...

[skepticscott]

120. That all you have?

If you care to make a real argument, feel free.

[Hissyspit]

121. Not all I have.

That's all it's worth.

[Blasphemer]

111. Schools begin with the assumption that you will take on debt

And this is based on my recent experience with a state university's financial aid. Though the state has programs available for low-income students/families, they figure loans into their financial aid calculations. If the federal loan allotment runs out, it is not supplanted with other aid, it leaves a hole that can only be filled by finding additional scholarships or working through school. The entire system is broken. It's extremely difficult to avoid student loans. And, as someone who worked full-time through school, that "solution" is highly flawed as well given the expectations held for student involvement outside of academics. The end result is poor health (especially mental health) for the most vulnerable/disadvantaged students.

[msongs]

15. dear ignorant students- nothing is "free" - somebody has to pay for your "free" schooling nt

[rhett o rick]

36. Doesn't sound like an empathetic Democrat. nm

[Taitertots]

40. That's why you oppose this? A pedantic concern over the definition of "free"

How about we call it fully subsidized tuition?

[leftofcool]

54. How about we make college affordable?

Nothing is free but you won't have to take out loans if college is affordable.

[Taitertots]

60. Affordable for many college students is cheaper than a box of ramen

At which point there is no practical reason for charging people.

[Scootaloo]

85. What, afraid the "undeserving masses" might achieve some parity?

[angrychair]

49. Funny

You have no problem benefitting from an educated society that is drowning in debt.

[Hissyspit]

107. Funny... Other countries have figured out how to do it.

[jtuck004]

22. Student loans were never an issue when people could get good jobs to pay them off.

So now march, march for free tuition without jobs to go to. Yay.

Maybe they should march out and start a new college instead of asking permission to make the old, dinosaur-designed training models free to all who have no place else to go.

[rhett o rick]

37. They should vote against Clinton that would ship more jobs overseas. We need jobs for

the college graduates.

[Taitertots]

41. oh, the good old days

Back when the real (economics definition) cost of college was significantly lower.

[zalinda]

23. One of the biggest problems of student loans

is the interest. If banks can borrow at 0%, so should students. If 0% is too low, how about 1 or 2%. Maybe 0% for state schools and 2% for out of state or private schools.

Something needs to be done. It has to be fair for everyone, those who owe, and those who paid their debt off.

Z

[smirkymonkey]

33. I borrowed less than $50k for grad school, I now owe over $135k.

Over $85k is capitalized interest. it's insane. I have no problem paying off what I owe, but my monthly payments, which are the absolute maximum that I can afford are barely making a dent in the accrued interest. I am screwed. I will never pay them off and I will never be able to retire.

[rhett o rick]

38. I remember when the mob made loans like that, now the banks do. And I am disappointed that posters

here have no empathy for those caught in the debt trap. Banks and fly-by-night colleges made millions off this scheme.

[AZ Progressive]

26. It is society's obligation to give adequate education to its citizens

so that they can get jobs. That's why high school was made free for everyone more than half a century ago.

Society should not be shirking its responsibility and putting all the risk and burden on its citizens. That's just cruelty, especially in these times when the needs of society are continually changing.

Don't give me this "personal responsibility" crap when it's impossible for everyone to be a genius in determining what is the right path to take and to possibly know what will happen in the future. Believing in such things is buying into the calvinist / puritan bullshit that was used as justification for racism in America in the past.

[skepticscott]

32. Sorry, but you don't have to be a "genius"

to bear responsibility for your finances. You don't have to be a genius to know that when you borrow money, you will eventually be required to repay it, with interest. You don't have to be a genius to know that if you borrow $100,000 for college, you will have to pay AT LEAST $5000 a year for the next 20 years (or the equivalent) to settle the loan. You don't have to be a genius to know that nothing in life is certain and that everything comes with a price tag.

But people don't give a fuck. They want a ridiculously expensive education whether they can afford it or not.

[angrychair]

50. Funny

You have no problem benefitting from an educated society that is drowning in debt.
Should high schools charge parents/children too? Charge you for the road in front of your house? The road to your job? The sidewalk? The city park? You don't pay for those things, individually, because why? Taxes. Why? Because we, as a society, all benefit from their existence. Same is just as true for college. Unless you want a doctor operating on you with only a high school diploma.

[skepticscott]

55. As I already pointed out

it's one thing to say that public college SHOULD be free for everyone that wants it (a concept I'm just fine with, btw), but that doesn't change the fact that when these people went to college that wasn't the reality, and they knew it. And I have no doubt that they all intended that they benefit far more than me from whatever education they borrowed themselves into oblivion for.

[Scootaloo]

86. Actually htey want education to cease being ridiculously expensive

Good lord, it's not terribly complicated. Performing economic mutilation against each successive year of colelge students is not healthy for our society.

[skepticscott]

98. No it isn't

So why do students and parents keep buying into the most lavish and expensive (i.e. prestigious) educations they can possibly get? What do you think motivates colleges to build hugely expensive, high-tech dorms, libraries, laboratories, etc? And how do you think those things get paid for? When people choose their college based on how extravagantly they've spent on facilities, and pay for the education with borrowed money, how does that not drive costs sky-high across the board?

[tblue37]

69. An educated populace is a public good. We used to know that. Now we are eating our

seed corn.

[handmade34]

78. ...

[Enthusiast]

97. Huge +1! Yes, we used to know that.

Education enhanced the general welfare. The general welfare is a concept corporatists would rather we just forget exists.

[JDPriestly]

28. That is just basic.

Even my dentist is on board with Bernie on this issue: college tuition should be free for all qualified students. Study hard; do well in school and on qualifying exams, and; you get to go to college without paying tuition.

This should apply to so-called "rich" students as well as to the poor.

Let's do away with the entire bureaucracy that decides whether students are poor enough to qualify for free tuition, this grant or that grant. We don't need it. That bureaucracy does not help anyone. It just costs money itself.

Tuition should be free for you in any college in your state.

Plus we should fund university and college research at much higher levels than we do. Students should not have to pay for the research that benefits us all.

[ileus]

31. #2 would save us 500 bucks a month.

[Dems to Win]

39. Excellent!

[Dont call me Shirley]

45. Higher education needs to be either free or low-cost. The bankers are already cash-bloated.

[upaloopa]

51. It is obvious to me that we need a new model

The work hard and get ahead model is no longer working. Either we make it work again or get something new. I am 69 and what really bothers me is that young people have a tougher time being successful than I ever did.

[ryan_cats]

56. When I started college

When I started college, California's community colleges were free. Then they charged parking, then minor tuition then more per unit.

The idea of forgiving student loans is typical of people who don't think or think they are entitled. Do I get mine back?

Tuition free, I want to go to MIT then.

Also, it's your fault if you pick a worthless major like ethnic studies, no sympathy from me.

It's supported by Noam Chomskey? Uggh.

[Utopian Leftist]

61. Culture is not worthless. N/T

.

[ryan_cats]

82. I agree which is why I chose the minor I did.

I agree which is why I chose the minor I did.

However, I can't pay the mortgage with 'culture'.

[dixiegrrrrl]

62. When I started college, they had special programs to help women get an education.

In the 1970's....
and tuition was cheap. Community College was something like 85.00 a Semester.
Lots of grants, and work study, even in University.
My total loan amount was only 900.00.
And my Master's Degree was in a very employable field.

A lot of people went to college in the last 10 years because of the Depression, hoping the economy would recover by the time they graduated.
I know some of them.
But the game changed, and no one but the banks and colleges won anything.

[ryan_cats]

83. Is an engineering degree now worthless?

Is an engineering degree now worthless?
When did this happen?

If you get a $100k loan to get a degree that pays, at most, $20k a year, whose fault is that?

I kid the ethnic studies majors but I assure you, the business majors love the ethnic studies folks as the business majors were who we laughed at back in the day when they whined about how hard calculus for business was. Now the business majors are up a rung.

If people think they don't have a future, that is their fault, there are trade schools where welding and auto mechanics are taught and they learn a valuable and profitable skill.

[SheilaT]

112. MIT is a private school.

So you'll still have to pay to attend that one.

[Logical]

65. If they cancel student debt my brother wants his money back also. nt

[Baitball Blogger]

70. No one believes in the broken two party system.

[tularetom]

79. They also need a MAXIMUM wage for. College administrators

$500 - $700k a year might be a bit excessive.

[progressoid]

114. Or millions for coaches

[hifiguy]

125. To be fair, boosters usually wind up footing the bill

for big-bucks coaches.

But administrators are far too numerous of often overpaid.

[RKP5637]

101. Better money spent than on wars and destruction. n/t

[meaculpa2011]

102. Students at NYU were protesting recently...

for affordable tuition.

NYU tuition and fees = $50,000 not including housing and meals.

Ten blocks north...

CUNY Baruch tuition and fees = $6,150 not including housing and meals and many students receive assistance.

But your parents won't be able to tell their neighbors how much they spend on tuition for their kids.

I was having a conversation about this with a long-time friend who is on a college search right now. Every institution of higher learning they have visited has yearly costs north of $60,000. When I suggested one of the very fine CUNY or SUNY schools he reacted as if I had suggested he dive into a cesspool.

"What would people think?"

Seriously?

My son's tuition at the local community college is less than $5,000 which he pays out of the fund we started for him when he was born. I made a deal with him that when and if he gets his AA I'll write him a check for the entire amount. He's not all that disciplined about attending classes so the odds are about 50/50 that I'll have to pay up.

BTW: Most of his friends receive tuition assistance.

[U of M Dem]

110. This just makes sense.

Tuition has consistently increased and the ability to pay tuition as a student or graduate has not budged.

I am lucky to have received a $8,500 per year merit based tuition scholarship in undergrad and lucky that I have parents that covered cost of living. Despite this, I left undergrad with $40,000 in debt, only to add on another $80,000 in graduate school.

I know I could have chosen a "cheaper school" or not gone to graduate school, however then I would sacrifice in my ability to find meaningful employment as a social worker (you need a masters degree in this field to do much of anything).

I carry over $120,000 in debt that I cannot pay off as a social worker.

My partner additionally has higher debt than me (did 1 year in law school and decided to become a social worker instead) which she cannot pay off as a social worker.

There are some loan forgiveness programs for social workers that we do not qualify due to the type of employer we work for (we work for the same organization).

The other loan forgiveness programs require you to pay the full loan payment, which is impossible (1/2 of monthly pay).

We both are using income based repayments which will burden us for the next 20 years.

We are both very frugal, have made sacrifices, and have leaned heavily on my relatives for support.

It makes no sense to me that school is this expensive, especially when you just want to find a way to channel your talents and intelligence into a meaningful way to give back to your community.

[Blasphemer]

118. This is one of the most egregious parts of the system

The loan forgiveness program for public sector work is highly flawed. Even if one doesn't believe in state-paid education, I would hope that we can all agree that those who do service work should be spared a two decade debt burden. It's ridiculous.

[U of M Dem]

132. I am hoping right along with you.

Lets nip this student debt debacle in the bud with free education and debt forgiveness for everyone.

How about a little pro / con analysis:

Pros:
+ More access to education.
+ Provides a stronger workforce.
+ Balances inherent structural classism.
+ Stimulates the economy.
+ Improves open-mindedness (through more access to critical thinking development).
+ Infuriates the billionaire class.

Cons:
- Have to convince others it is a good idea.

[dixiegrrrrl]

126. I got my AA, my BA and my Master's in Social Work

and had a total of 900.00 in student debt.
Colleges were not as greedy back in the '70's.
Gov't programs of grants were widely available.
And Soc. Work jobs paid a decent living back then.

It all changed in the 80's, when REagan applied "Reaganomics", and has been getting worse since.
Plus we had recessions in 1980, and again in the late '80s, then dot com bubble burst, then 2008, etc
which really crashed a lot of social service programs.

So not only has the cost of education enriched the Gov't hired loan sharks, and the colleges, but decade of slashing social service programs, and multiple recessions, has decimated the job market.
it is a perfect storm for those who were seeking a way to get a better education for a better job.

[U of M Dem]

130. I hear you!

The state of affairs for social workers is bleak! Let alone the plight of those we serve.

It is ludicrous that any social work degree costs a dime in my mind.

I would prefer if all higher education and vocational schooling to be free, but seriously, anyone in fields that are inherently not for profit / for the public good such as public service, social work, education, healthcare etc. should leave school debt free.

[allinthegame]

113. Sad to Say

Canceling student dent makes perfect sense in a society where people do not understand money/finance and how it works.
Students sign loan papers with no idea what they mean and the expectation is a free ride down the road.
As someone who paid every dime of their student loans I find this to be pathetic.
Man up....you knew what you were getting into and if you didn't you still are responsible.

[jwirr]

119. This is great but do they realize that it damned cold in a lot

of the USA on November 12?

[Bill USA]

134. funded by extra tax on Banking execs and Hedge fund managers - commutation tax

in lieu of prison sentences they should have gotten for the Banking disaster - and the continued gambling with Credit Default Swaps which they insist they must be allowed to do.

[MichMan]

136. How would free tuition be paid

I realize that these are laudable goals, but not sure how this would be implemented.

If the government is paying all tuition, how would students be allocated spots?. Why would anyone go to free community college if you could go to a prestigious free state school.

The tuition costs vary from one school to another; would they be able to charge what they want or would the government dictate a specific amount.

Also seems like a lot of students who really don't belong in college would be attending because it is free.