Amazes me how the elites in this country think they have unlimited money. Why the fuck would you forgive debt for anything for a married couple making $200k/year income? Totally bonkers. It also seems bonkers that Biden could forgive over $300 billion in debt (which is the estimate for $10k forgiveness) without a vote in Congress.



President Biden is considering limiting student loan forgiveness to individuals who make below a specific income, three sources familiar with the issue told The Washington Post.

Officials are looking at limiting cancellation to those making below $125,000 or $150,000 as an individual or $250,000 or $300,000 for couples who file taxes together.

Quote:

Second point about expanding college.

It's largely true that a single person can better himself, relative to the crowd, by having a degree.

Therefore, we would all be better off if the crowd had a degree.


I can stand up at a baseball game and get a slightly better view. If everyone stands up around me, I do not have a better view.

I know that I am going to do a poor job on this point but, I think there is a corollary point to be made. This is especially evident for the non-bullshit majors.

It's largely true that a single person who is already ahead based on intelligence can even further distance himself, relative to the crowd, by having a degree.

Flap

----------

Here are my predictions for everyone to see:
S&P 500 at 320, DOW at 2200, Gold $300/oz, and Corn $2/bu.
No sign that housing, equities, or farmland are in a bubble- Yellen 11/14/13
Trying to leave

@Boredfree -- yep, i get it. Things do change, sometimes more quickly than one expects. Definitely agree that business skill as well as task skill trumps only book learning. It must be a balance. Sometimes the best business skill is knowing when to get out and see where one is on the food chain. Good business people, and to some small degree i was one of them, tend to be aware of other often overlooked variables and progressive trends and changes. They do not get tunnel vision and see the larger picture of where a society and their industry is going. Most importantly, they look outside of their industry for ideas and understanding.

I have friendships with mega-rich, mostly people for whom i worked. Can tell you this without hesitation. They can have particular tastes and require certain types of people to do things certain ways, however be forewarned that whatever amount of money is available to them, they get off on control and efficiency. These people are often impressed when one reports that even a minor expense is controlled or when one gives them high value pricing.

So, what is to say that some illegal employing operation or one without licenses and certs might not impress them by getting the same job done more efficiently or even better. Remember that they often make their own coin bending rules or downright ignoring them. It is a habit.

The Leopard does not change its spots, and the Scorpion will always be a Scorpion.

Whenever i was working for them i viewed it like having an exotic pet. Admire, know its needs and be careful. Funny thing is that i later found out that was the way that many of them thought of me, and why we are still friends.

----------

"This guy is fantastically annoying to listen to, but he has some interesting info..." -- Rangeisshot April 26, 2023

1. Anyone who submits a FAFSA is constructively participating in fraud.

2. Under no circumstances should the government get into the business of regulating/policing/QA-ing college credits, degrees, or transcripts. The offered solution of voiding credits and degrees due to bankruptcy is probably high on the list of the power-drunk already. This is one step beyond licensing, going into the transcript business and becoming the omnipotent authority.

3. Making college debt dischargeable in bankruptcy is a great idea for PRIVATE lenders. As long as the system operates as a government-backed operation, then discharge is a BAD idea.

Think of college lending and student outcomes in this way:

The government pays for the student to attend school, making (effectively, if not in fact) direct payment to the College. The College is compensated for the years of indoctrinating the vast majority of students. The typical affected graduate is now going to repay the note, but the government has already accomplished its goal: indoctrinated citizen. Repayment of the note only serves to lighten the cost burden of this goal. In a fiat currency regime, even that is a non-consideration, net/net. Discharge of debt is nothing but an admission that the tuition loan was never designed to be repaid.

It is a direct payment operation to the Progressives.

This is how 80% of college attendees make it to and through college. They would never get financing in a private, free market model. This is also what supports 80% of college staff. They would be working in livestock processing plants, textile mills, and agricultural pursuits in a private, free market model.

Meh @Evergreen.

Your "don't do anything that might force this to change and don't do anything to those who actively solicited fraud, that is, the so-called "students"" is flat-out BULLSHIT.

There is NO transaction in which you can borrow money, buy something and keep the something if you don't pay for it. The reason they can't repo most of what you buy on a credit card is that you likely ate, drank or already disposed of it. But if this is not true and you're sued and forced into bankruptcy for not paying, they sure as Hell will come and take every physical thing they can get their hands on that is not exempt, and very little (other than a primary residence in some states) is exempt.

Yes, the federalization of these loans was crooked bullshit and must stop. This doesn't change the fact that the "student" participated in the fraud and must NOT be allowed to throw that back on everyone else who did not, and further, must NOT be permitted to keep the ill-gotten gains.

----------

Can you put the link to this posting in the upper right corner along with the permanent fix for health care? I want to repost it from time to time on places like LinkedIn and Facebook for when the subject comes up.

----------

Its all in the mitochondria

I'll pin and exempt it for now, which will put it up there...

----------

Tickerguy,

The students who are the objective in this scheme are unaware of the mechanisms and purposes of the funding. They're 18 to 20 year-olds who largely cannot process the math to understand what a loan obligation truly amounts to in the first place. They are sheep headed for the shears. The government is precisely the evil villain in this scheme, so awarding said villain with extra powers to police and void degrees is signing up for an even more hellish and bizarre outcome.

Besides, the two objectives in all of this are 1) the Progressive college industry is fully funded, and 2) the college system indoctrinates the masses. If these objectives are met, then government achieved victory. If it gets its loans repaid, well, bonus, but the government undertook this without condition on full repayment.

For a private arrangement in which a college holds the note, awards a degree, and then is stiffed by the student borrower, then the college does maintain control of transcripts and can withhold them as well as send dunning notices to both student and his employer. Not too many employers want deadbeats on staff. So, natural remedies would exist if the private lender system were in play. But, so long as the government is the ultimate buyer of loans, it's a Progressive game in play. Granting greater powers of seizure to that government is a horrid thought.

To the point of seizing or nulling ill-gotten property/gains for the purpose of punishing fraud, there is no disagreement there. But, why would the Progressive government undertake to achieve non-Progressive measures? Student loans are at best nothing more than a really naive idea and at worst a contrivance designed to ensnare an entire generation in Progressive traps.

Government-backed loans were a BAD idea precisely because there is no clean, equitable remedy when the wave ultimately breaks. Debating over equitable solutions after that fact won't really result in one, because the whole system was designed to be inequitable in the first place.

@Evergreen -

Quote:

The students who are the objective in this scheme are unaware of the mechanisms and purposes of the funding. They're 18 to 20 year-olds who largely cannot process the math to understand what a loan obligation truly amounts to in the first place. They are sheep headed for the shears. The government is precisely the evil villain in this scheme, so awarding said villain with extra powers to police and void degrees is signing up for an even more hellish and bizarre outcome.

Excuse me, but at 18 you're a legal adult.

Now if you wish to argue fraud (and there was plenty) then fine -- let each of them who claims they were unwitting victims (of which I'm sure there are many) make THAT argument. Fraud vitiates ALL contracts, so if they can show it they can shove it back up the University's asshole. But, this is, I'm reasonably sure, a minority.

Further, what part of my original proposal did you not read? Specifically:

Quote:

The Federal Government gets entirely out of the college financing business. If colleges want to underwrite and carry the paper they can, at whatever price they want. Ditto for private lenders. The above two checks and balances will make very certain that nobody lends more than can, on a risk-adjusted basis across the pool of students, be paid and thus the price of the education will reflect the actual value in the marketplace.

I have a VERY low tolerance for people who claim to enter a debate around here and DELIBERATELY misrepresent what is under debate. I usually don't give warnings either.

----------

Quote:

Unspoken Question: How does govt manage to fuck up EVERYTHING?

They exist. Thats all it takes.

----------

When everything appears to be going in one direction, take a long, hard look in the opposite direction.

Any time you destroy price signal pushback you will fuck up whatever you were tampering with. It does not require intent (although that may be there); it is inherent in the destruction of the backpressure channel.

----------

@Tsherry "Unspoken Question: How does govt manage to **** up EVERYTHING?"

Because they can get away with it! The Executive branch has control over the Presstitudes, the Legislative and the Judiciary branches.

And the two parties take their turns for raking it in, for themselves.

The ends result is the government keeps getting more powerful, the politicians and corporations richer, and the people poorer due to a lot higher prices.

It has been as a giant racket in the US, for a long time, in most of the business sectors, and now getting integrated onto a worldwide scale.

Of course, as Karl pointed out, it is done by first destroying the price discovery mechanism as determined by normal supply/demand.

Quote:

Any time you destroy price signal pushback you will fuck up whatever you were tampering with. It does not require intent (although that may be there); it is inherent in the destruction of the backpressure channel.

Prices along with profits (losses) are why capitalism works so well. When you distort or destroy price signals and/or do not let individuals or entities keep their profits or eat their losses you are not just asking for trouble,

You are guaranteeing it.

It is not rocket science. People though make it out to be as a justification for their interference. They successfully bullshit the masses as they totally fuck-up everything they touch.

Flap

----------

Here are my predictions for everyone to see:
S&P 500 at 320, DOW at 2200, Gold $300/oz, and Corn $2/bu.
No sign that housing, equities, or farmland are in a bubble- Yellen 11/14/13
Trying to leave

18+ year olds are adults. Parents have responsibilities too. It should be rare to not have a working relationship with your children and hopefully you lead them down a sensible path. Mine are currently all in college but should graduate with skills that are worth the expense. All going to instate schools and no loans. It amazes me seeing how many friends of my kids are allowed to go to any school their precious hearts desire even out of state and Ivy League regardless of cost. These people don't appear to have any more money than me (if anything less). One kid even chose the expensive out of state school because of the quality of food on the meal plan.

Tickerguy,

To your first point about the age of majority and being able to enter into contracts...

At age 18, today, it is probably safe to bet that 80% of high school graduates cannot create a loan schedule from scratch. Being unable to do so, they demonstrate the inability to understand a loan amortization sufficient enough to contract around one. Ostensibly, most students are headed to college precisely to learn about what an amortization schedule is, so the hypocrisy surrounding student lending is off the charts, fundamentally so.

If the "policing" entities for student lending set about to prequalify students based upon their demonstrated ability to understand the concept and the obligation and explain their intended career prospects, then you'd have a competent-enough adult ready for signing such a contract. The fact that nothing like this exists is evidence that this fraud is by design and widely accepted by the industry. There should be room here for class actions--and successful ones at that. Talk about predatory lending...

Quote:

you revoke every credit-hour earned and thus the degree is revoked if a person files for bankruptcy and successfully throws off the debt. Congress can do this since Congress explicitly has the power to set uniform national bankruptcy law binding in all 50 states.

Quote:

That's it. Three simple steps, problem solved.

#1 and #2 are opt in for all current student debt.

Somewhere in the mix of those two quotes is a process in which the lender (for current debt, that would be the federal government) has the right and ability to extinguish transcripts. Although, as written it appears there would be no mechanism in which partial payment would equate to partial credit; e.g., half of debt paid up should result in half of credits (on some schedule) remaining valid. Any degree would be void absent payment in full, since it is the culmination of all credits.

It's a mess all around, and inviting government intervention into it for the purpose of penalizing ill-equipped students is fraught with peril.

There is no quibble with getting government out of the business of lending. There IS quibble with allowing the government to be a broker or arbiter of remedies. This is one instance in which the mere entry into the racket was the crime; trying to parse out equitable results in accordance with traditional bankrupty law is just going to be an unholy mess all the way around. There is merit in wanting to find a just solution for those (YT included) who played by the rules, straight and lawful all the way. But, in this instance, the whole game is fraud all the way around. The only viable option is a total exit--total.

Option 3 is arguably the only solution. #2 being opt-in would cause all hell, because the education process is not much different than physical conditioning: once your trainer has run you through the process, the gain is in the bag. In the case of education, the degree is the nut, but the knowledge is variably valuable, making a strategic default valuable to the student in certain instances.

Education, properly, is partial payment up front and remainder upon certification. The first payment is for the time under instruction, the student being the risk taker. The latter payment is for the degree after demonstration of competency. It is not amenable to a debt construct, because the value is largely temporal; i.e., entry into a career path.

As to misrepresentation, there has been none by intent and only by inferred omission; given the duality of the topic--equity among borrowers and lending as a political tool--there is an intertwining of threads that can make a forum discussion somewhat disjointed. To address that point en toto, the following is recommended: take the whole concept of education lending and BEGIN with fraud. If it is partially true that ill-equipped (contractually incompetent) students were induced to borrow, then that is where the solution, and the debate, starts. To progress to downstream solutions is jumping ahead prematurely.

If industry fraud vitiates the contract, then the student is arguably a victim, in which case there is cause for redress. Seizure of degrees is contractual remedy, but the contract is void. Whence the redress? The kid is out four years of his life plus expenses. Who pays? Government (taxpayer)? This goes all to hell no matter which way it's cut.

If ever there was a time to take it all down to the ground and walk away, this is it.

@Evergreen -

Quote:

If the "policing" entities for student lending set about to prequalify students based upon their demonstrated ability to understand the concept and the obligation and explain their intended career prospects, then you'd have a competent-enough adult ready for signing such a contract. The fact that nothing like this exists is evidence that this fraud is by design and widely accepted by the industry. There should be room here for class actions--and successful ones at that. Talk about predatory lending...

And? If you can make the argument bring the lawsuit.

Quote:

There is no quibble with getting government out of the business of lending. There IS quibble with allowing the government to be a broker or arbiter of remedies. This is one instance in which the mere entry into the racket was the crime; trying to parse out equitable results in accordance with traditional bankrupty law is just going to be an unholy mess all the way around.

Excuse me but the Constitution explicitly charges the government with PRECISELY that -- a uniform bankruptcy code.

Either you didn't read it or you don't give a fuck when YOUR PET CAUSE has it in the way. If the latter you're no better than the colleges, and you should get the same treatment.

Quote:

Option 3 is arguably the only solution. #2 being opt-in would cause all hell, because the education process is not much different than physical conditioning: once your trainer has run you through the process, the gain is in the bag. In the case of education, the degree is the nut, but the knowledge is variably valuable, making a strategic default valuable to the student in certain instances.

So what? The demand for the perfect is the enemy of the good.

In a huge percentage of these "professions" these are licensed and a degree is a requirement. If the credits and degree are revoked so is the license. Poof -- there goes the bar card, the MD, the PE, etc.

Does this solve ALL the problems? No, but it stops a HUGE percentage of the strategic defaults. You don't have to stop them ALL, you just have to make it unprofitable and it won't happen very often, never mind it going into the underwriting decision on a forward basis for loans.

Quote:

If industry fraud vitiates the contract, then the student is arguably a victim, in which case there is cause for redress. Seizure of degrees is contractual remedy, but the contract is void. Whence the redress? The kid is out four years of his life plus expenses. Who pays? Government (taxpayer)? This goes all to hell no matter which way it's cut.

Then sue. The kid has no degree because he didn't pay but the university owes him for the years of his life that he was rooked out of.

That's what due process of law IS.

On the other hand if in fact the "kid" (really an adult) entered into the agreement voluntarily, knew damn well there was no market for what he or she learned at the time or failed to do ANY sort of diligence (that is, they weren't misled, they took Gender Studies KNOWING there was no other job than teaching Gender Studies!) then THEY were willing co-conspirators in the scheme and in that case they get NOTHING. They can either pay the loans as agreed or go bankrupt and toss 'em, but if they do the latter they have no degree and no credits. They're owed nothing for their four or six or whatever years because they willingly engaged in the scheme.

That's the POINT of bankruptcy -- you willingly engaged, you were wrong, the other side had superior information (simply on volume) and gave you the loan anyway so you throw off the debt, they lose the money and you lose whatever property you allegedly "bought" but didn't pay for.

In this case, the credential AND CREDIT for the time in school.

In that case BOTH SIDES get fucked -- the lender AND the student -- but since both were willing participants that is equitable.

----------

A few more thoughts on the subject:

1. All lending has a risk of loss. Most people here have probably had to write off some bad debt owed to them at some point. Sucks, but it is part of the game. Underwrite better, its your risk management as the lender.

2. Partial credit cancellation or degree revocation would only be effective if it was tied to some type of professional licensure. Otherwise you'd likely already be in the industry, you could honestly say you had completed the degree, and they can't mind erase what you've already learned.

3. The loans in default that aren't going to get paid anyway have already made their inflationary hit.

Not sure what to do with the tar baby of existing loans, but clearly the solution going forward is to crush costs down to what can be paid out of pocket. There are so many resources out there for learning that are free or very cheap. You can even go to a number of free-to-you universities in Europe as an American if you look around.

I know a lot of people who used college loans to just fund 4+ years of partying between a few classes because they didn't want to get a job and didn't know what else to do that would give them an immediate cash infusion. It really is a stupid option.

Quote:

In that case BOTH SIDES get fucked -- the lender AND the student -- but since both were willing participants that is equitable.

Quote:

This is one instance in which the mere entry into the racket was the crime; trying to parse out equitable results in accordance with traditional bankrupty law is just going to be an unholy mess all the way around.
-----
Excuse me but the Constitution explicitly charges the government with PRECISELY that -- a uniform bankruptcy code.

Concur: gov't full exit educational lending.
Concur: gov't exists to establish Uniform Code.
Concur: existing lenders and students are going to be hosed.

Posit: Present national contemplation of wholesale debt forgiveness is ONLY possible because 2000-2022 era 18 year-olds AS A CLASS are contractually incompetent WRT 5- to 6-figure lending.

Along the lines of your thesis that society cannot tolerate more than a few % of citizenry not going along with a prescribed behavior, this education lending falls into the same class. That is, normal litigation and prosecution is designed for the exception, not the main: most people abide, the few break laws/contracts. In this instance, it is mainstream. Entire swaths of society are involved. That's the definition of breakdown. Higher education is broken, period.

Get gov't out, let the industries (lending and higher ed) collapse. Regular law will prevent their resurrection--"regular", meaning no special carve-outs. If carve-outs exist, then new law to remove those tweaks would apply, as would presumably be the case for Options 1 and 2.

No dog in this fight. Couldn't care less about the past; it's done and baked in. Going forward, though, if the citizenry wants to have a decent--not perfect--shot at viability of higher education, then removal of the government involvement in any regard apart from "regular" law is the baseline.

Redress, though, is going to be a cluster, to the degree it is attempted.

Flappingeagle wrote..

COVID has vastly accelerated the move to online education, which is mostly crappy BTW.

Can you elaborate a bit on why this is?

I've done some online classes and they have been all over the map. The good ones were high quality video lectures and the ability to ask questions, the bad ones were back before the high bandwidth era and were just audio lectures and submitting papers via email.

I realize that the quality of in-person learning is a wide range of quality as well. It is a real blessing when you get an instructor that has a passion for the subject and can communicate that to you. Then there are a large percentage of them that are basically phoning it in and look like they hate their life.

A lot of classes were, "read this chapter, do these exercises, test next Monday." It is nice to be able to have questions answered but it seemed that most of the learning was teaching yourself out of the textbook. Perhaps I just had a crap education.

One of our sons has an IT degree from Western Governor's University https://www.wgu.edu/. Their average yearly cost for a Bachelor's Degree is $7500. You pay tuition in 6 month chunks and it is a take as many classes as you can model. Classes are sequential and at least in the IT Degrees include things such as Cisco Certificate Testing.

Given all of the wasted spending and time involved with the traditional classroom approach I think this is a good option to get a degree for a reasonable price and maintain control of your time.

Indeed, schools do have the ability to withhold transcripts if loan not repaid upon graduation. Depends on the school. I saw such a case years ago with a young person who had obtained an internship while in school. The employer providing the intership intended to convert that person to full time with career path, when that person completed their degree, which had to be done in a timely manner.

Imagine that person's dismay when they discovered the post-graduation job wasn't going to happen due to transcript being withheld if loan not repaid upon graduation (transcript being proof of completion of degree, a primary condition per the prospective employer). The person in question appeared to be on the verge of losing the longterm employment opportunity for lack of funds to repay the debt. Fortunately for them, their parents were able to step forward and pay the debt on the student's behalf, releasing the transcript so the longterm plan could go forward, benefitting both the student and the employer who had invested intership time and resources in that person. Sometimes the concept actually works the way it is supposed to.

My sibling signed technical school loan for one and only son, put home up as collateral. This was many years ago now. private sector loan. Sibling almost lost their home when the lender came after the sibling's collateral, when the kid dropped out of school due to broken bone putting them out of work for an extended period, the job income was needed for living expenses to supplement the loan, without the job, couldn't make loan payments, defaulted.

Fortunately for sibling, our parents were willing and able to step in and cover student loan repayment, allowing sibling to keep a roof overhead. Hard lessons were learned there, errors never repeated by either sibling or their kid.

UK has an interesting way to repay student loans which are all provided by government not private companies. It is government policy to encourage college for pretty much everyone but that stupidity is pretty common. There is major drama now as the interest rate is based off RPI and not interest rates so everyone is going to get hit with close to 12% interest rate this next year when Bank of England interest rate is only 0.75%.




The important thing to remember is that the amount youll repay will be based on how much you earn, not how much you borrow.

Once you leave your course, youll only repay when your income is above the repayment threshold. The current UK threshold is 27,295 a year, 2,274 a month, or 524 a week.

If your income changes, the amount you repay will change too. But don't worry this happens automatically. If you stop working, or start to earn below the repayment threshold, your repayments will stop until you earn over the threshold.

Any outstanding loan balance will be cancelled 30 years after youre due to start repaying even if you haven't repaid any of it. How you'll repay depends on what you choose to do after your course:

If you start work, your employer will automatically take 9% of your income above the threshold from your salary, along with tax and National Insurance.
If you're self-employed, youll make repayments at the same time as you pay tax through self-assessment.

Interest is charged from the day the Student Loans Company makes your first payment to you or your uni or college, until your loan is repaid in full or cancelled.

The interest rate is based on the Retail Price Index or RPI, which measures changes to the cost of living in the UK. The interest rate is normally updated once a year in September, using the RPI from March of that year.

It's important to remember that the amount of interest you're charged doesn't affect the amount you'll repay each month.

Evergreen,

I dealt with a ton of youngsters who were considering what educational route to take by the hundreds. Parents too. As for the debt debacle, there are few innocents here.

It's not that they didn't understand compound interest (they didn't, but it would not have mattered anyway), it's not that they thought they were going to make millions (they didn't do that either, it's "not about the money"). Mostly they simply wanted something fun and exciting NOW and pay later. In the before times, no bank would loan a kid money for nearly anything, so you (and I) could not financially strangle ourselves.

That changed with the gov backstopping the loans. When calls were made to get the gov out, the hue and cry was "what about the minorities who cannot go!?" and some such. So the gov gave it to them. It's what they demanded.

And when you ask a typical lazy progressive (most worthless degrees fit those types) how much they think they will make, or is the degree worth it....it's "do what I love, money will follow". They wanted the glamorous, out-of-state, soft, lazy and easy majors. I have a relative now going to "art school" which costs $25K a year, pure insanity. But consequences be damned. It's what they want to do, not what they need to do. THAT is the problem.

But it's not just those getting worthless degrees. I distinctly recall talking to one young lady who was majoring in nursing, a good-paying field. Now you know you can go to a local community college and get a two-year degree while living at home, then get a job, and have your employer pay for your last two WHILE GETTING PAID. That is what I told her to do.

But instead of that, this girl went to Duke (private and VERY expensive) because.....wait for it....they offered her a trip to work with kids in Africa as a study abroad semester. Think of the selfies and Facebook posts!!!

She KNEW she was going 6 figs in debt when instead of making money while learning, and graduating debt free. She knew this debt was huge, she knew it would compound. She did it anyway.

Have no sympathy for these "kids". This "crisis" has been over 15 years in the making, and they knew it back then. They just didn't care. I saw it time and again. And I still do. Anyone you know majoring in sociology, poli sci, and so forth is a lazy child with shitty breeders who did not explain life to them. Simply looking for an extension of high school, this time with more dope and booze and spring breaks to Cancun. College today is mostly adult daycare. On our dime.

@Hapie: I stand by my statement.

Show me a single government throughout history that hasn't fucked their population in the end.

I'll wait.

----------

When everything appears to be going in one direction, take a long, hard look in the opposite direction.

I paid one of my employees student loans off this last year...gave him a goal, said he achieves it and I'll pay it off. He kicked ass and got it done....take this student loan forgiveness and shove it.

----------

2 + 2 =5