How $138B in US Student Loans Were Cancelled - Roughly One-Third of Planned Amou...
source link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/03/09/0440246/how-138b-in-us-student-loans-were-cancelled---roughly-one-third-of-planned-amount
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
How $138B in US Student Loans Were Cancelled
Roughly $138 billion in U.S. student loan debt has now been cancelled, reports CNN. "That's about one-third of the $430 billion that would've been canceled under the president's one-time forgiveness plan, which was struck down by the Supreme Court last year."
It's 9% of all outstanding federal student loan debt, according to the article, "wiping out debts for about 3.9 million borrowers — by using a number of existing programs that aim to offer debt relief for certain groups of struggling borrowers..."
What President Biden has been doing — before and after the Supreme Court ruling — is using existing student loan forgiveness programs to deliver relief to certain groups of borrowers, like public-sector workers (through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program) and borrowers who were defrauded by their college (through the borrower defense to repayment program). His administration also made discharges for borrowers who are totally and permanently disabled. None of these programs expire, meaning they will help qualifying borrowers now and in the future. In some cases, Biden's administration has expanded the reach of these programs, making more borrowers eligible. And in other cases, it has made an effort to correct past administrative errors made to borrowers' student loan accounts by conducting a one-time recount of borrowers' past payments. This effort helps make sure people receive the loan forgiveness they may already qualify for by having made at least 20 years of payments in an income-driven plan, which calculates monthly payment amounts based on a borrower's income and family size, rather than the amount owed. The recount is expected to be completed by July... Last year, the administration created a new income-driven repayment plan. Known as SAVE, the new plan offers the most generous terms for low-income borrowers. Those who originally borrowed $12,000 or less will see their remaining debt canceled after making payments for at least 10 years... [The administration] is working on implementing another path toward a broad student loan forgiveness program, this time relying on a different legal authority in hopes that this attempt holds up in court. This proposal is currently making its way through a lengthy rulemaking process and has yet to be finalized.
-
Don't forget teaching 3.9 million people that they don't have to keep their commitments.
-
They did more of the same with PPP loans in Covid. I am against both. As a business owner I could have taken it but I did not. We stayed open and fired no one. All US based tech shop.
-
I would have taken it. You basically gave a bunch of shops that had every reason to perish instead an upper hand. With the PPPs you could have bought them out and expanded, or you could have provided better service, you could have trained your staff, you could have reached a new height.
Never reject something handed out to everyone for free. You rejecting it only means that someone who doesn't deserve it gets to one-up you.
-
So in your opinion then student loans are ok to forgive because you never turn down something thats free?
Both student loans and PPP were both designed to payback so you missed the point of what he was saying. Funny how all the complaints on this thread are about teaching responsibility yet may 1% actually paid back PPP.
-
It doesn't matter if they are paid back, or forgiven. If forgiven, they will recover it through taxes, (if the people that had student loans are able to work, and lead a productive life). Even if don't, we all could benefit from more people going to college. A highly educated population usually helps reduce crime, and corruption in all levels of society. The only bad part, is higher education institutions using it as an excuse to raise tuition fees.
-
How does any of this help anybody except for the people that currently have debt? How does this help future generations? How does this help my daughter that is 16 who wants to go to college in the future?
This effort to cancel student debt short term scam to buy votes. It doesnâ(TM)t solve anything except for some relief of a specific voting population. It is not a sustainable solution. Nor does it actually enhance the education of the citizens of the United States.
Ever since Oboma passed the healthca
-
-
-
Any company that didn't take it should probably fire their finance team. It was a no brainer with zero downside; all upside.
-
We should have let them perish. The bailout wasn't for mom and pop shops, it was for their landlords.
-
-
It's free for the recipient.
Sure, someone pays for it, but since when does the one getting it give a fuck?
-
-
-
-
we're teaching 3.9 million people that education is valuable and that their hard work should be rewarded. That the good they're doing in their community with their education has value and *is* valued by their community.
That's a less worth way, way more than $139 billion. Plus have fun in your 50s when you need surgery and can't find a doctor to do it because you don't like education.-
No, there is no debt cancellation. It was paid by tax payers. The colleges got their money already from the government when the person got accepted into college and signed the paperwork for the loan. The loan repayment program is supposed to bring money back into the program to pay for loans for others to go to college.
Have you ever researched these college Endowments? Harvard has over $50 BILLION endowment.
This supposed debt cancellation does not solve anything. It helps colleges hike their tuition up ev
-
-
When student loans get forgiven it's "teaching people that they don't have to fulfill their commitments".
When corporate entities get gigantic cash infusions to cover their frivolous debts it's called "bailing out firms that are too big to fail".
I can't believe Americans accept this crap. You people deserve the ass fucking your politicians give you because you keep crowing about how much you enjoy it.
-
-
OK, so that's not correct.
Blanket forgiveness is actually been ruled by SCOTUS to be not possible with an executive order, Congress would have to do it. Instead they're using existing loan forgiveness programs that are underutilized. Most of these forgiveness programs are complicated and many people may not even realize they qualify for them, so in essence his administration used the existing framework and reviewed federal borrower's loans for them and found where they qualified for forgiveness, they implemented it. This is the point about the Public Loan Forgiveness Program; that's been in place for public sector workers for some time now, but it would seem many didn't even know they could take advantage of it.
And the other part of this whole student loan equation is that there are (by one classification) two types of borrowers, those that take private loans and those that take Federal loans; remember the government is part of the student loan system too. He can only affect those that took government student loans; there is no forgiveness for private loans at all.
What you're saying would be true if they gave the private student loan companies a check to clear those debts on behalf of the debtors; that's not what's happening here. Instead they're clearing the debt off the government's books with tools they already have.
I'm rarely one to support any administration's efforts, but in this case this is a pretty good strategy, and no I don't think it'll affect the student loan issue with the private sector at all.
-
I haven't been able to find good information on this, but it seems to me that if the loan servicer accrues interest for 25 years, then the government steps in to pay the balance, the government is going to save money by just paying off the loans now and saving money on interest.
Assuming 100% of students will never pay off their loans, it would always be better for them to forgive your loan early than late.
-
-
That's not how any of this works. As long as you don't foolishly put right wing crooks in charge of your public universities then the universities will charge only enough to cover the cost of providing the education. Yeah there's been a few things going south in the red States especially as those red States transition into blue States and try to grab as much money as they can on their way out. But by and large universities don't charge more money just because they can. These aren't corporations their teache
-
Very little of that is true. University costs are mostly bloating from admin costs; an outsized portion of that cost stems from Title IX and DEI which are Democrat supported policies more so than Republican.
And no we do not need more educated kids. Credentialism is what allowed tuitions to bloat. Basic supply and demand dynamics. What we need is for employers to actually start developing human resources and hire qualified high school graduates.
-
University admin costs have been inline with inflation except for a small increase due to extra gear kids need to be trained on.
The fact that you're using the acronym "DEI" is worrisome. You do realize it's the new "woke" right? Which is just the new "SJW". Which was the new "PC". Which was the new "hippy BS", which was the new "beatnik", which was the...
If you're deep enough in the pipeline that you've heard of DEI you should start picking up on the patterns they use to manipulate you. They're laug
-
-
>"As long as you don't foolishly put right wing crooks in charge of your public universities then the universities will charge only enough to cover the cost of providing the education."
That is a ridiculous statement. It has nothing to do with "right wing", and of course they will charge to cover their "costs". And those costs include zillions of both useless and damaging "administration staff" and programs which go up continuously.
There is *ZERO RISK* to the universities with these government-backed l
-
yeah, the private ones are scams. Obama easily shut them down by making them adhere to strict job placement criteria they could never meet. That solved the problem, full stop. The only reason it came back is America put a crook who used to run a fake university in the White House. No shit that was a problem.
As for the public ones, they mostly operate at cost. There have been some rather nasty cases of Republicans (it's always Republicans) putting their cronies in charge and money being wasted. It looks-
>"There have been some rather nasty cases of Republicans (it's always Republicans) putting their cronies in charge and money being wasted. It looks like the University of Arizona is going through that right now, though I'm unclear on the details their governor, a Democrat, is cleaning up the mess. "
Everything with you is so clearly partisan, isn't it? You need to take off those glasses. BOTH parties and MOST politicians are corrupt.
>"Other than that Public Unis run at cost."
That means nothing. The "cost" is whatever they WANT it to be. We "need" to build a new useless diversity center- bam, $20 million more "cost."
>"The money coming in goes to the students."
A lot of it goes to useless fancy new buildings that aren't really needed, racist DEI curriculum, and administrative staff overload (which has vastly outpaced student enrollment). I know, I have been monitoring my alma mater for many years. An average of only 26% goes to instruction. Adjusted for inflation, the average tuition, nation-wide, has gone up from $2440/year in 1970 to $9.349 in 2020.
>"RESTORING THE SUBSIDIES US OLD FARTS ENJOYED WHEN WERE WERE IN COLLAGE"
What I got was exactly two $600 Pell Grants. THAT WAS IT. We were lower-middle class and I had to borrow the rest. And I started working 2/3 time in third year, so it took me 7 years but graduated with only $10K of debt, which I think I paid off in 3 years or so (early).
>" Sorry to shout, but JFC I'm sick of old people who had everything handed to them on a platter pretending they didn't get everything handed to them on a platter."
I can't speak for you, but I didn't have hardly anything handed to me. I worked my ass off. I never did anything social. I drove a crap car and lived in an even crappier studio apartment and missed only a single day of class/work (the one time I ended up in the ER).
These institutions should be held liable (at least PARTIALLY) on government guaranteed loans for both graduation rate AND productive employment AND defaults. Then they will not seek to enroll useless students and/or provide useless degrees to them. Instead, they would do whatever needed to make sure they are providing real value. Students who want to get their own traditional/private loans can do whatever they want. But banks are going to look carefully before forking over the dough.
-
>"And I started working 2/3 time in third year"
Clarification. I had been working continuously since age 16, part time (24 hours or so), saving. I continued THAT until third year of University, when I bumped it up to 2/3 for two years, dropping to a part-time student, and then later full-time work in the last 3 years.
-
-
-
-
I think budget reports from universities differ from you are saying, including universities in blue states like Harvard and MIT.
Universities never charge just what is required to cover the cost of providing the education. This is because they are only partly educational institutions, they are also organizations that conduct research, philanthropy, political lobbying, and public outreach. MIT conducts billions of dollars of research each year. According to their 2023 financials, about $1.9 billion of that research was sponsored, while the combined cost of providing education and conducting unsponsored research was less than $1.5 billion (unsponsored meaning it wasn't funded, it came from sources like student tuition). They maintained more than $30 billion in investments and more than $5 billion in real estate and facilities. On top of that they spent another $1.1 billion on administration and overhead. They didn't break out education expenses from unsponsored research, but the numbers mean providing education had to have been far less than a third of their costs.
Among other expenditures, Harvard is funding a huge sustainability initiative, building new programs on climate change and sustainability, buying electric buses and infrastructure, etc.
What we really need to do to cut costs is refocus universities on the job of education.-
you'd still be wrong.
Harvard isn't the benchmark here. Neither is MIT. Your local public Uni is. They got most of their funding from State & Federal subsidies right up until the early 2000s. I know. I was there when the funding was cut. Got in and out just before it. I remember reading about it in the college newspaper. Articles written with the help of the economics dept that predicted exactly what's happening right now, down to the penny.
They all said the same thing. Outsourcing and automation
-
-
-
the GOP and right wing extremists have been taking over the schools for some time. They recognize the threat education is to them. The problem is they're incredibly incompetent and corrupt. So they're quickly getting booted after wasting tens of millions of dollars. But they do a *lot* of damage before they go.
-
Would that be education like "there is no such thing as gender" and "boys can become girls" or "men can menstruate"? That kind of education?
Seriously.. What the actual fuck are you talking about?
-
-
-
-
Guess what, my country has exactly that system. Not as a bailout, but as, you know, how it works.
I pay for your degree. Well, provided you get one now. Just like someone else paid for mine. Sure, you pay a token sum to be inscribed (like IIRC 200 bucks a semester or something like that, just enough to make it uninteresting to be an eternal student so you get those student amenities like free bank account, free public transport around town and student food in the mensa. And yes, that is 200 dollars, Not 200,000). The rest comes out of my pocket, aka taxpayer money.
The result of something like this is, as you may guess, that EVERYONE wants to study. It's basically free. Which results in an enormous amount of people starting out every year. Which in turn means that nobody gives a fuck about whether you get anywhere with your studying or not. Nobody is holding your hand. Nobody's job is dependent on you being there. If anything, you're a nuisance to professors who'd prefer to do research rather than grading undergrad exams.
The dropout rates are insane. 70% is fairly normal, and 90% to 95% are not unheard of in much sought after degrees.
But what graduates is literally the top 5% of people who want to amount to anything in this field. A degree from my university pretty much means you're one of the best. And it reflects both in how these degrees are regarded and how much you get paid. Because employers don't give half a fuck about how much you paid for your degree. What they care about is whether you can earn them money, and that requires you to be good.
-
In the United States, banks do not issue lost student loans - the federal government does by printing money. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
-
The banks only serviced most of these loans, and the debt is held by the federal government. So taxpayers and future generations are on the hook either way. The only thing lost here is the recurring revenue lost by loan servicers who were doing nothing of value anyway.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK