Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Biggest Fears of a Biden Presidency


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, jm192 said:

Sure.  

Wouldn't it be nice if the people that already made the mistake of paying off their student loans could put 50,000$ into the economy?  Or say...on a house?  

They can.  There are government loan programs for cheap money to help buy a house.  There are state and local programs in NJ at least where I can get you 27,000 in down-payment assistance towards a house that can be totally forgiven without making a single payment. 

But regardless, why was paying off the loan a mistake? I don't understand that point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 416
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Even though I am not a Trump "guy" I do have concerns. 1) The student loan forgiveness.   I just don't see that being a good idea.  I also think it will create quite a problem for those who have

LOL Let's have a serious conversation about concerns people have about Biden as POTUS. "Why, here's a great chance to remind everyone I think Donald Trump is awful.  There aren't enough thre

There were tons of ridiculous Hunter Biden stories in the social media sphere last summer. Should news outlets cover them all, even though they couldn’t verify any of the facts?  We are witnessin

11 hours ago, 36Kevon said:

It’s already happening, this year, even before he takes office.

Decapitalization.  

Companies shoveling back money to the shareholders before next years retroactive tax hikes. 
 

Thanks Joe. 

To be fair, this started happening in 2018 when the tax cuts were put in place and the companies had no other place to put their cash.  This isn't new and just more evidence of "trickle down" being a complete farce.  

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rockaction said:

there's an inherent unfairness about somebody that has worked or invested in a path of life only to see similarly situated people able to shirk understood responsibility and get away with it.

I don't understand how one person with a crapload of student debt can be considered "similarly situated" to someone that has already paid off their debts.  Maybe at one time long ago you were similarly situated (although to some degree I'd push back on that too).  But you're clearly not similarly situated now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Yankee23Fan said:

Full disclosure,  the argument that I paid my loans,  I'm personally still paying them,  so why should anyone get theirs forgiven,  is truly a non starter for me personally.  I don't personally consider it a valid argument worthy of my time. 

This seems like a really odd thing to say.  One of the best arguments in favor of the social safety net is that sometimes people just get unlucky -- bad things happen to them for reasons outside their control.  Somebody loses their job, gets sick, etc. and as a result they can't pay their bills.  In a case like that, yeah sure "I can pay my bills so why can't this guy pay his?" sort of misses the point.  

Student loan forgiveness is totally different.  Most people have no problem paying for college.  If they take out loans, they have no problem paying them back.  So what's the argument for blanket forgiveness?  And how would that argument not also apply to blanket auto loan forgiveness and blanket mortgage forgiveness?  

I mean, nobody ever makes the argument "Sure, I paid off my mortgage on time, but that doesn't matter.  Some people get unlucky and can't cover their mortgage, so therefore we should wipe mortgages off the books for everybody."  That would obviously be dumb -- you can help people who were unlucky without handing out windfalls to people who are doing just fine.  There's no reason why you couldn't do something similar with student loans.  Like, maybe we could have some kind of system where people who borrow and then later fall on hard times have some legal mechanism by which their debts could be erased on a case by case basis.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I don't understand how one person with a crapload of student debt can be considered "similarly situated" to someone that has already paid off their debts.  Maybe at one time long ago you were similarly situated (although to some degree I'd push back on that too).  But you're clearly not similarly situated now.

Replace the word "student" with "mortgage."  It's the same argument, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Correct, people with mortgages are not similarly situated to people who have paid off their mortgages.

Some people have a hard time paying off their mortgage.  Should the government therefore erase my mortgage?

(I don't actually have a mortgage, but it would have been nice to have my previous one paid off for me by the rest of you guys).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Correct, people with mortgages are not similarly situated to people who have paid off their mortgages.

What I mean by that is that similar people at around the same time took out similar loans. One pays it back, the other gets it forgiven because he/she could not or would not pay it back. The problem with fairness, of course for the sake of a safety net argument, is that the concept applies to people who simply would not. There's the rub. This shouldn't be that hard to explain to a person with an IQ of over 140 but damn if I aren't having the damndest time doing so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Some people have a hard time paying off their mortgage.  Should the government therefore erase my mortgage?

(I don't actually have a mortgage, but it would have been nice to have my previous one paid off for me by the rest of you guys).

The question of whether the government should ever help people struggling with their mortgages is a complicated one.  But what I would say is a very bad way of looking at it is "we can't help the struggling people because they are similarly situated to non-struggling people."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

What I mean by that is that similar people at around the same time took out similar loans. One pays it back, the other gets it forgiven because he/she could not or would not pay it back. The problem with fairness, of course for the sake of a safety net argument, is that the concept applies to people who simply would not. There's the rub. This shouldn't be that hard to explain to a person with an IQ of over 140 but damn if I aren't having the damndest time doing so. 

Let's take it to the other thread.   I'm writing up a short explanation of my thoughts, that might be helpful.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, timschochet said:

This is the part I tend to disagree with. I get the unfairness part and there’s no good argument to be made about that. It IS fundamentally unfair. 
 

But as to this part I take the opposite view: I think it’s potentially good policy. I look at it in the form of a domestic Marshall Plan; I think it will give these folks money to spend on the economy. My assumption is that they will eagerly do what their parents did, and grandparents: buy homes. Actually, as I’ve suggested previously, we could help that along by, instead of relieving the debt, allow them to transfer it to a home purchase.  
I think it would lead to an economic boom of gigantic proportions. 

Forgive my car and house loan and I'll do my part to make this economy go boom too

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, timschochet said:

This is the part I tend to disagree with. I get the unfairness part and there’s no good argument to be made about that. It IS fundamentally unfair. 
 

But as to this part I take the opposite view: I think it’s potentially good policy. I look at it in the form of a domestic Marshall Plan; I think it will give these folks money to spend on the economy. My assumption is that they will eagerly do what their parents did, and grandparents: buy homes. Actually, as I’ve suggested previously, we could help that along by, instead of relieving the debt, allow them to transfer it to a home purchase.  
I think it would lead to an economic boom of gigantic proportions. 

Forgive my car and house loan and I'll do my part to make this economy go boom too

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Let's take it to the other thread.   I'm writing up a short explanation of my thoughts, that might be helpful.

Gladly read it. Not sure what kind of response I can give, but I'll definitely read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

The question of whether the government should ever help people struggling with their mortgages is a complicated one.  But what I would say is a very bad way of looking at it is "we can't help the struggling people because they are similarly situated to non-struggling people."

But there are tons of people who paid off their student loans, and are struggling now due to Covid’s impact on the economy. But unfortunately since they paid off that particular debt, they don’t get any relief.  If they could have predicted the future and put that money into Something else, perhaps they would have two bills paid off now or three?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yankee23Fan said:

But regardless, why was paying off the loan a mistake? I don't understand that point. 

Sure you do.  If somebody pays off a $30K student loan, and then next week the government decides to erase student loans for everybody, the guy who paid off his loan essentially just set $30K on fire.  I'm 100% sure you understand why that was an error, why it would tick a person off, and why it creates perverse incentives for borrowers.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jm192 said:

But there are tons of people who paid off their student loans, and are struggling now due to Covid’s impact on the economy. But unfortunately since they paid off that particular debt, they don’t get any relief.  If they could have predicted the future and put that money into Something else, perhaps they would have two bills paid off now or three?

Well...at the moment hasn't there been relief during Covid extending to January (and likely to be extended) already?

I also think a difference between student loans and mortgages has been the predatory ways they (at least in the past) used to push student loans on what amounts to kids who don't exactly make the best decisions.  Vs. how Mortgages are marketed to people a bit older, more mature and with jobs.

Im not sure its the best thing to compare student loans vs. mortgages.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

I also think a difference between student loans and mortgages has been the predatory ways they (at least in the past) used to push student loans on what amounts to kids who don't exactly make the best decisions.  Vs. how Mortgages are marketed to people a bit older, more mature and with jobs.

Were you born in 2009?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

Well...at the moment hasn't there been relief during Covid extending to January (and likely to be extended) already?

I also think a difference between student loans and mortgages has been the predatory ways they (at least in the past) used to push student loans on what amounts to kids who don't exactly make the best decisions.  Vs. how Mortgages are marketed to people a bit older, more mature and with jobs.

Im not sure its the best thing to compare student loans vs. mortgages.

 

And those are great problems to fix on the student loan end.   I’m not sure “the predatory nature” means there should be blanket forgiveness for those who haven’t paid them off while those who have are just told tough luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jm192 said:

And those are great problems to fix on the student loan end.   I’m not sure “the predatory nature” means there should be blanket forgiveness for those who haven’t paid them off while those who have are just told tough luck.

Sure...and I don't think I have ever or would ever advocate for a blanket forgiveness of things either.  Im not all for a lot of it...just a difference in the nature of who is getting targeted for these loans and I don't think its that comparable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I also think a difference between student loans and mortgages has been the predatory ways they (at least in the past) used to push student loans on what amounts to kids who don't exactly make the best decisions.  Vs. how Mortgages are marketed to people a bit older, more mature and with jobs.

Earlier I mentioned the prefrontal cortex - what is its purpose?  when does it finish developing?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Sure...and I don't think I have ever or would ever advocate for a blanket forgiveness of things either.  Im not all for a lot of it...just a difference in the nature of who is getting targeted for these loans and I don't think its that comparable.

 

Fair point if that's not what you're advocating.  We agree on that.  I think THE problem is that the student loan programs are designed for 18 year old kids with no maturity, little or no long term thinking and no real gameplan.  A lot of kid's are just excited to make friends and party.  And we let those kids take out 10,000$ to 15,000$ loans for a year of partying.  

Does that mean no one should get relief?  No.  But since we've allowed this bad system to go on for decades--I'm not convinced the fix is to wipe out a bunch of it out this one time and lots of people are left wondering why they paid more than the minimum over 20 years.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I'm not in favor of school loan forgiveness but I do support government funding qualified students 2 years of community college or technical school.

I remember during the Primary debates:  this was the only thing that seemed reasonable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, whoknew said:

I don't think, "Because it sucked for you," is a good reason to have it continue to suck for future folks.

I agree, but what about the people and families who sacrificed to save and paid off their loans for the last 20 years?  Should they get a tax credit or reimbursed?   

What do you tell them? "Sorry..it sucks to be you"?

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I'm not in favor of school loan forgiveness but I do support government funding qualified students 2 years of community college or technical school.

I am on board with this idea.   Then the students could more easily afford 2 years at a university.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

To be fair, this started happening in 2018 when the tax cuts were put in place and the companies had no other place to put their cash.  This isn't new and just more evidence of "trickle down" being a complete farce.  

:lmao: No other place to put their cash. 
 

Companies like Costco didn’t give out special dividends 15 times their normal amount at any time during 2018.  Or anytime in 2019. Or before sleepy was put in a position to raise the tax rate for qualified dividends from 15% to being taxed as regular income. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 36Kevon said:

:lmao: No other place to put their cash. 
 

Companies like Costco didn’t give out special dividends 15 times their normal amount at any time during 2018.  Or anytime in 2019. Or before sleepy was put in a position to raise the tax rate for qualified dividends from 15% to being taxed as regular income. 
 

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I didn't think there were exceptions to almost every rule...there are.  And I say kudos to them :thumbup:  None of this changes the fact that this started happening after the tax cuts were implemented...this isn't new.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

45 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

I agree, but what about the people and families who sacrificed to save and paid off their loans for the last 20 years?  Should they get a tax credit or reimbursed?   

What do you tell them? "Sorry..it sucks to be you"?

Not to mention the vets who sacrificed 4+ years of their life in exchange for GI Bill. 

When college is free there will be no educational incentive to join up and so bye-bye all-volunteer military. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I didn't think there were exceptions to almost every rule...there are.  And I say kudos to them :thumbup:  None of this changes the fact that this started happening after the tax cuts were implemented...this isn't new.

Exceptions to the rule. :lol: 

National Grocers $2.00. Camping World $1.00. Texas Pacific Land $10.00. Eaton Vance $4.25  Wing-stop $5.00. Haverty Furniture $2.00. Waterstone $0.30. Rifco $0.35. Qurate A $1.50. Fastenal $0.40 Investors Tile $15.00. Gamco $0.90. Tiger Brands $5.37. RLI $1.00. Mannatech $1.00. Source Capitol $0.65. National Beverage $3.00. Bancorp $1.00. Technology One TBD. Phoenix Media $1.30. Martin Transport $0.50. Harvey Norman TBD. Amerisafe $3.50. Winmark $3.00. NortonLifeLock $12.00. Devon 100m/shares. And on and on  

I’ll wait here for your laundry list of companies that paid special dividends to avoid paying taxes in 2018. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jm192 said:

But there are tons of people who paid off their student loans, and are struggling now due to Covid’s impact on the economy. But unfortunately since they paid off that particular debt, they don’t get any relief.  If they could have predicted the future and put that money into Something else, perhaps they would have two bills paid off now or three?

That is why this would be a disaster and cause much hostility among Dem voters.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I didn't think there were exceptions to almost every rule...there are.  And I say kudos to them :thumbup:  None of this changes the fact that this started happening after the tax cuts were implemented...this isn't new.

Yes...there were multiple times people discussed the stock buy backs after the tax cuts and how corporations were not "trickling down" income but using it in other ways.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2020 at 7:30 PM, TripItUp said:

List your biggest fears of a Biden Presidency here.

 

 

1) That Biden has dementia and/or some cognitive condition where he is no longer rational/capable/self aware and now has control of America's nuclear arsenal

2) If No#1 is in play, who is in charge? The POTUS position was never meant to be done by proxy by some unelected cabal. This complicates foreign policy as the POTUS position is designed to present strength and competence to foreign aggressors. Trump had his massive problems for sure, but Biden just looks weak. Whether it's cognitive  or a stutter, it looks weak, and this is just one job on Earth where you can't afford to look weak.

3) Being thrust into another war or de facto war with a largely "defunded by Biden" military.  Biden was always pro-Iraq war oriented and it's a cash cow for both DNC and RNC special interest cronies. America has enough problems already and don't need to embrace going out and sending our young to die for political talking points, pork and feeding special interests.

4) The economy. If the US economy collapses, the world economy collapses and we all die. Every last one of us, no matter our political viewpoints and our kids die too. Biden is projected, if he gets 8 years ( doubtful), to want to add 11 trillion in spending above our projected national budget. We could be looking at large permanent tax hikes with the wealth gap turning our society into some bizarre modified version of feudalism. What will Biden spend to maintain his voter base? Green New Deal sounds insane. Shifting away from fossil fuels in his timeline sounds insane. All the voting blocks he has to keep happy ( blacks, Latinos, gays, Asians, socialists, etc, etc) all require spending to buy those votes. I fear a system where Biden simply pushes for sweeping changes ( 15 dollar minimum wage, free college, loan blanket forgiveness, etc) that have long term economic hits based on short term purchase of votes. It's literally buying votes via public policy but no one wants to just come out and say it.

5) Doing absolute zero when the rioting/looting keeps happening. Police involved shootings are a statistical reality. Biden won't want to risk alienating the black/BLM voter base, so he won't stop the protesting that turns to rioting/looting. The destruction of the small business in America is the death of the "American Dream" in itself.

6) Packing SCOTUS. I don't agree with what happened to Merrick Garland. That was a violation of what was best for the American people. That being said, this ### for tat with SCOTUS is going to trend towards politicizing the court, which creates a pathway to legislate from the bench, which is dangerous for the Republic. The only way that you change the vote structure then is for fringe radical elements of BOTH the left and right deciding to cancel votes by targeting and bracketing Justices. Some radical Pro Choice advocate drops Clarence Thomas and you'll have open civil war on the streets.

7) Enabling government interference into people's homes. Biden doesn't want to lose his voter base, so he'll stand still as some school counselor convinces your 8 year old that they are transgender, then the government/education system one day decides your protests makes you unfit to raise your own children and then jack boots come to take your children from your home. This one issue will turn into a John Wick sequel. People will fight and die, down to the last bullet, before you take their children away. I don't care who you vote for or what political party you support, no one wants the government to walk into your house and tell you how to raise your kids.

8/9) Enabling the woke/cancel/silence culture and free speech suppression. Shame, dox, fire, persecute and list up anyone who thinks differently. This is in the current political playbook so how far will it go?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Commish said:

To be fair, this started happening in 2018 when the tax cuts were put in place and the companies had no other place to put their cash.  This isn't new and just more evidence of "trickle down" being a complete farce.  

To be more fair, the retroactive tax hikes were part of the Trump "tax cut" from the beginning, but since they'll go into effect after he's gone (gee, I wonder how he chose January 2021?), those that will get screwed will blame the administration in power, while McConnell will block any middle-class tax relief from coming to the Senate floor.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, the rover said:

To be more fair, the retroactive tax hikes were part of the Trump "tax cut" from the beginning, but since they'll go into effect after he's gone (gee, I wonder how he chose January 2021?), those that will get screwed will blame the administration in power, while McConnell will block any middle-class tax relief from coming to the Senate floor.

Not the thread to be getting into actual details my friend. Still waiting for the goalposts to be shoved around and land on a resting place before responding to some of the other stuff going on in here

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2020 at 12:20 PM, MAC_32 said:

I'm not going to get the details 100% right, but from a high level the feds already do this. There are annual limits students can borrow that escalate as they become upperclassmen - starts at $5500/year and tops out at $7500/year. Some students with unique circumstances can qualify for more, but it's exception; not rule. Where students generally get into trouble is when they pursue private loans beyond that. Every college is priced differently, but those limits are below the median cost of public school tuition.

Agree with your assessment. That was our experience as well when our son was registering for classes this fall. We had to go through all of the financial aid mularkey  even though our 529 plan was covering most of the cost. But its tempting to use those available loan funds to cover room and board. Having that loan availability might encourage a student to attend a school and live on campus as opposed to attending another school as a commuter. The available federal loan amounts are relatively small. But the private funding can be considerably more and its essentially federally backed as it cant be discharged either, to my knowledge. Removing the provision that prevents student loans from being discharged in bankruptcy proceedings would impact the student lending industry and by extension the cost of college. Colleges can essentially charge whatever they want right now because virtually anyone can qualify for loans both federal and private to cover the cost. there is no incentive for colleges to make tuition more affordable. Just the opposite exists right now as schools offer ever more amenities to students. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2020 at 7:54 AM, Godsbrother said:

I'm not in favor of school loan forgiveness but I do support government funding qualified students 2 years of community college or technical school.

Why does government need to provide additional funding? Government is already subsidizing Community College and Technical Schools. It costs $2500 a year to attend our local community college. I will grant you that we need more technical schools or we need an expansion of technical programs offered in the community colleges but based on my experience as a parent with a child in CC its pretty affordable as it is. Or is $2500 a year too big an ask? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Spanky267 said:

Agree with your assessment. That was our experience as well when our son was registering for classes this fall. We had to go through all of the financial aid mularkey  even though our 529 plan was covering most of the cost. But its tempting to use those available loan funds to cover room and board. Having that loan availability might encourage a student to attend a school and live on campus as opposed to attending another school as a commuter. The available federal loan amounts are relatively small. But the private funding can be considerably more and its essentially federally backed as it cant be discharged either, to my knowledge. Removing the provision that prevents student loans from being discharged in bankruptcy proceedings would impact the student lending industry and by extension the cost of college. Colleges can essentially charge whatever they want right now because virtually anyone can qualify for loans both federal and private to cover the cost. there is no incentive for colleges to make tuition more affordable. Just the opposite exists right now as schools offer ever more amenities to students. 

I agree with most of this, but not the conclusion. The higher ed bubble was going to burst and that timeline has escalated on account of the rona. You're right about the top schools, but the rest? That isn't what's happening. Expect to see a wave of school closures sometime this decade. There's lots of reasons to explain the unreasonably high costs and certainly a component of it was from trying to keep up with the joneses over the last couple decades, but most of these places are not printing money. I won't cite a number because I'd be making it up, but I'd be surprised if most are in the black right now.

Btw - you're right about private loans having the same bankruptcy regs as federal loans.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spanky267 said:

Why does government need to provide additional funding? Government is already subsidizing Community College and Technical Schools. It costs $2500 a year to attend our local community college. I will grant you that we need more technical schools or we need an expansion of technical programs offered in the community colleges but based on my experience as a parent with a child in CC its pretty affordable as it is. Or is $2500 a year too big an ask? 

Because an educated and skilled workforce is good for the country.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Godsbrother said:

Because an educated and skilled workforce is good for the country.  

Being educated and skilled is good for the individual first and foremost. Is $2500 a year too much to invest in ones self? Because education and skills training is an investment in yourself before it ever becomes good for the country. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MAC_32 said:

I agree with most of this, but not the conclusion. The higher ed bubble was going to burst and that timeline has escalated on account of the rona. You're right about the top schools, but the rest? That isn't what's happening. Expect to see a wave of school closures sometime this decade. There's lots of reasons to explain the unreasonably high costs and certainly a component of it was from trying to keep up with the joneses over the last couple decades, but most of these places are not printing money. I won't cite a number because I'd be making it up, but I'd be surprised if most are in the black right now.

Btw - you're right about private loans having the same bankruptcy regs as federal loans.

Its not only the top schools, although I will concede that its most glaring at the top schools. Other schools are adding amenities to both campus housing, dining and recreation in order to attract students and the dollars that come with them. There are a host of schools that have sprawling aquatic centers with lazy rivers and slides that rival the aquatic facilities at many resorts. Many of them are state schools. There is alot of expense in maintaining these kinds of facilities and the students bear the costs in either increased tuition rates or additional activity fees. Most student loans dont differentiate between tuition or room, board and fees. Interestingly enough the 529 plan we invested in for our kids does. It only covers tuition. 

If student loans were only for tuition then the cost of attending to college might be lower. No guarantee it will though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Spanky267 said:

Its not only the top schools, although I will concede that its most glaring at the top schools. Other schools are adding amenities to both campus housing, dining and recreation in order to attract students and the dollars that come with them. There are a host of schools that have sprawling aquatic centers with lazy rivers and slides that rival the aquatic facilities at many resorts. Many of them are state schools. There is alot of expense in maintaining these kinds of facilities and the students bear the costs in either increased tuition rates or additional activity fees. Most student loans dont differentiate between tuition or room, board and fees. Interestingly enough the 529 plan we invested in for our kids does. It only covers tuition. 

If student loans were only for tuition then the cost of attending to college might be lower. No guarantee it will though.

You're not wrong that some schools are spending frivolously and that those costs are being passed down to students, but you're over estimating how common this is across the industry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Godsbrother said:

Because an educated and skilled workforce is good for the country.  

I think this is a really interesting question and I don't know where I land.

When a person with no kids asks why some of their taxes go towards public K-12 education, it's easy to say it's because everyone is better if kids are educated.

But why does it stop at 12th grade? Tennessee is doing some free community college for instance.

But where is the line drawn? 

It's also good for the country to have surgeons. Should we make medical school free?

I don't really know where the line is. Right now, it's mostly 12th grade but I don't know it has to be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Spanky267 said:

Why does government need to provide additional funding? Government is already subsidizing Community College and Technical Schools. It costs $2500 a year to attend our local community college. I will grant you that we need more technical schools or we need an expansion of technical programs offered in the community colleges but based on my experience as a parent with a child in CC its pretty affordable as it is. Or is $2500 a year too big an ask? 

Govt. should subsidize K -12.  If you can prove your merit at that level, than you can get loans for college and pay them off like I did...nothing wrong with that.  I'm a 1%er and I'm not 50 yet.   I had no advantages.

I don't agree with free college or subsidized college so long as students have equal shots at public universities.   Private schools can obviously do whatever they want.

ETA:  Need to get rid of for profit schools preying on the lower class...no student loans for bull#### degrees or schools.

Edited by TripItUp
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I think this is a really interesting question and I don't know where I land.

When a person with no kids asks why some of their taxes go towards public K-12 education, it's easy to say it's because everyone is better if kids are educated.

But why does it stop at 12th grade? Tennessee is doing some free community college for instance.

But where is the line drawn? 

It's also good for the country to have surgeons. Should we make medical school free?

I don't really know where the line is. Right now, it's mostly 12th grade but I don't know it has to be. 

I've asked this question a billion times on this forum, though not in as nice a way.  I have never gotten a meaningful answer to it.  I've posed the question to all my educator family/friends and they at least acknowledge it's a completely arbitrary line that's being drawn.  In my view, we need to educate people to whatever level it takes for them to be competitive in our global economy.  That's the world we are forced to live in and I believe our country has a duty to help its citizens thrive in that environment.  We do it for multinational corporations, so we should do it for individuals.  If someone can make a cogent argument for why they believe that line is high school I'm all ears.  

ETA:  This is probably more suited for the Education thread :kicksrock: 

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I think this is a really interesting question and I don't know where I land.

When a person with no kids asks why some of their taxes go towards public K-12 education, it's easy to say it's because everyone is better if kids are educated.

But why does it stop at 12th grade? Tennessee is doing some free community college for instance.

But where is the line drawn? 

It's also good for the country to have surgeons. Should we make medical school free?

I don't really know where the line is. Right now, it's mostly 12th grade but I don't know it has to be. 

It’s an interesting question. K-12 was set up long ago, the world has changed, the resources required to field a competitive workforce have changed, why shouldn’t we change with it? K-14, reflecting the increased complexity of the world, makes complete sense to me, likely for the exact same reasons we decided on going to 12 in the first place, it met the needs of the workforce at the time. 

Edited by dwyadog
  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dwyadog said:

It’s an interesting question. K-12 was set up long ago, the world has changed, the resources required to field a competitive workforce have changed, why shouldn’t we change with it? K-14, reflecting the increased complexity of the world, makes complete sense to me, likely for the exact same reasons we decided on going to 12 in the first place, it met the needs of the workforce at the time. 

K-12 is mandatory. Should 13-14 be mandatory as well? 

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know school is mandatory through age 16 in most states, with varying regulations and carve-outs after that. It’s an interesting question and I would say that the funding of it should be mandatory and a diploma, or an equivalent, should be given at the end of 12 and of 14. If one wishes to stop attending, one can do so currently in a number of ways, even in states which nominally require going until 18, which is the minority of states. All should have access to publicly funded schools through grade 14, the cost for 7th grade would be the same as 14th in this construct. 

Edited by dwyadog
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...