Forum Post: Students and Others Should Tell Big Banks: "Hi!"
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 30, 2011, 2:11 p.m. EST by groobiecat2
(746)
from Brattleboro, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The other day, it was announced that student loan debt in the United States will exceed more than $1 trillion before the end of the year. That's $1,000,000,000,000 dollars in student loans. Why has this happened? Well, there are many detailed, technical reasons, but most analysis (including the mainstream one here) fails to mention that, ultimately it's because it's not a national priority. Unlike, say, most European countries. Like everything else in the United States, we have our priorities upside down: $2 - 4 trillion for war, government loan offers for students who pay exorbitant rates for higher education. This is more than all the credit card debt combined. According to NPR, "two-thirds of college students now graduate with debt, owing an average of $24,000. But some borrow far more and find this debt influencing major life decisions long after graduation."
So, what's an impoverished student, recent grad (or pissed off 99%e)r to do?
http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/10/filed-under-now-why-didnt-i-think-of.html
Remember this is a county where a city will spend millions build a new stadium for it's local team, but put more and more kids into a single classroom with sub-par textbooks.
In the NBA millionaire team owners and millionaire players are arguing about who gets the biggest share of the millions in concessions profit! So the players are on strike.
To end this nonsense maybe the concession profits go back to the city that funded the stadium so they could fund schools - and I am just talking about K-12. You need to get more children ready for this life not just push them through assembly line fashion.
Good points. If you havent' seen this, it's brilliant--and addresses exactly what you're talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
Groobiecat2- There are trolls here.
Join us in the forum.
We are working on this problem. Please join us (at the top of the page click on NYCGA- Education and Empowerment group). Especially Private (commercial) student lenders- they are predatory. They charge huge fees on top of every loan, and they just add it to the top, along with 10% to 12% interest.
We are looking into how to solve the problem from the inside (the educational institutions). But, the people who borrowed these loans need help. And, there are many professors who are siding with us.
Will do. Thanks, Christy. Agreed. Need to seek shelter from the trollish...
I ASKED when does the student loan revolt begin?? I OFFERED THE DATE 1/1/12.
What do yous want to do? Sit around and argue with eachother? Do you want your children and each other's children to have the same debilitating cancer that we have?
Oh, it's fair; it's not fair; who the f**k cares?
Are you Americans, or are you mice? Who's going to fight for your justice? Congress? Obama? What are you going to do? Keep dancing with the same abusive partner, or step out of the damned waltz? If you comply with your own demise, what is going to change?
I say to you, REVOLT. STOP JUDGING EACH OTHER. STOP LOOKING FOR REASONS TO NOT DO WHAT YOU SHOULD DO.
Let's do this thing. it doesn't matter what works or doesn't work in other countries. This doesn't work for us here and now. January first: a new year: a turning point. Are you up for it? If so, keep saying it. Spread the word.
1/1/12 1/1/12 1/1/12 1/1/12 1/1/12 1/1/12
The student loan bubble is going to be the next "mortgage crisis" if we don't do something proactive.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-college-heres-why/
When does the student loan revolt begin? How about January 1st, 2012.? It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.
Tryagain smells of either blue blood or stupidity.....possibly both.
Tryagain smells of either blue blood or stupidity.....possibly both.
the reason education is out of control is because the government serves 85%-95% of the student loan market and 100% guarantees student loans. know how reckless banks handed out easy money with weak lending standards and home prices inflated? that is basically going on with education, only the banks kind of cared if you could make payments, whereas sallie mae doesn't at all - they will get paid back by the government. you have a 2.3 GPA in women's studies at mediocre university and you are asking for 20k junior year, because the school asked for 20k instead of 19k like sophomore year? HERE YOU GO!
the government will keep making money available when more is asked for, and the lenders don't care about getting paid back so will shovel it over to you. the school can ask for ever increasing amounts (ding ding) and you end up with a bubble, with the cost of your schooling being far above what it really should be. this system benefits schools (who keep getting tons of money) lenders (who can't lose) and the government (who actually makes even more money if you default and they get to add a fee). it does not benefit students.
and the answer has nothing to do with making school "free" or taxing the 1% for your school. that is like looking at the height of the bubble and saying ooh, we should tax the 1% to pay for part of my house. no, the bubble should collapse and we should get good lending standards back again. for education, that means getting rid of the 100% guarantee on loans with taxpayer money.
You make some good points, but you don't understand my basic premise. Loans wouldn't be required if the schooling itself weren't exorbitantly expensive. Good lord, you people can't actually envision a country that actually subsidizes higher education--in a different way. Like they do in Europe. It's about opportunity costs, not about "loans are required and they're guaranteed by the government, ergo..." No. That's not the point.
But I agree that the system is fucked.
i think you are not totally getting mine - loans are what MADE it ridiculously expensive. (100% guaranteed loans.) it is like the housing bubble only worse - because lenders care even less, and the government keeps supplying the money. it's like a larger bubble that has yet to pop.
if you want to talk about opportunity costs, then following europe is a bad example. 17 million americans in 2010 had jobs that did not require college degrees. 428,000 of these alone were customer service reps, around 21% of that career. let's pretend it cost only 1k a year to go to school, and they all have bachelors degrees they got in 4 years - that is a SUPER conservative estimate of 1.7 billion dollars spent on degrees they didn't need to do their job. that could go to energy or transportation or communication infrastructure. you want to take my tax money so we can get what, 30% of that workforce having degrees they don't need? no thanks.
No, your assumption is wrong here: degrees that don't lead to jobs doesn't have to be the case. You could make cheaper education contingent on following certain curricula. And the reason that students don't have jobs in anything other than the service sector, is because the corporate sector is sitting on $2 trillion. People who can write and think analytically are useful and employable. College isn't just for math and science and tech majors. There are a lot of employment opportunities for english majors.
You prefer that people not develop themselves intellectually? And 1.7 billion would be a steal to educate kids. And it is a conservative estimate, too.
Education is inherently good. Period. You disagree with that premise, okay, that's cool. But without my master's degree--in a completely unrelated field to what I do today--I never would have learned to think logically or write cogently.
Cheeers.
www.groobiecat.blogspot.com
the sitting on $2 trillion in readily available funds is a myth. here is a good post on it. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/09/the-myth-of-cash-on-the-sidelines/
it is a poor argument anyway - they have a bunch of cash, so, you expect them to hire people? you don't hire people because you have cash, that would be a poor way to run a business. you hire people because you have demand.
as it so happens i have an english major friend who is a customer service rep. do you really need to spend a lot more than my estimated 4k to go to school 4 years to enhance analytic abilities? and are they actually doing that? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/45-of-students-dont-learn_n_810224.html
i can tell you that i can train any kid with reasonable talent and drive out of high school for a year to have the ability to make 40-65 to start, and 65+ by the end of a 2nd year. although they'd have these abilities they'd have to get past the initial stigma of not having a piece of paper of course.
yes there are a lot of employment opportunities for english majors, or women's studies majors - but there are also a lot more graduates. i know lots of people now that have gone back to school for more employable majors. you want my money to pay for the first round of whatever they want to study on a whim? even they wish they didn't go through that round!
that 1.7 billion wasn't a steal to educate anybody - if we use more realistic numbers (school was more than 1000/yr well before education costs became a bubble - and most of the CSR market is young people - the real number is much MUCH higher) - then we realize an even greater price (and loss.) how can you say this was a good investment, if the degree is unnecessary? another stat from that report as i recall was 19% of bartenders had 4 year degrees. would we somehow benefit with 50% of bartenders having them? i want all people to develop themselves intellectually. but i don't see any reason i should pay to educate people for jobs that require no college education. that is simply a waste of money. leave that cash in my pocket, or use it for something the government should be doing, like upgrading infrastructure to create an environment that creates more job growth.
If I was you I'd look at what kind of lending is going to schools for profit, such as Phoenix, etc. More loans go to people attending those schools than other schools. They'll let anyone in and sell hard. Look up the stats. We are subsidizing those schools for profit by allowing them to use the same govt assistance we get for public and private schools. That's why your numbers have gone up so much.
Good points. I'll check out that video. Thanks.
watch this when you get a chance. www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/
Live in your parent's basement and pay it off. You're a college graduate. Are you really this hapless? If so, move back in with your parents for some remedial growing up.
"TryAgain"- Troll Alert Here
Hapless rationalizing slacker alert
Or move to a country that values people, rather than profit. I'm a college graduate, and a former grad student. But I went to school when it was a lot cheaper. Today, it's insane; and completely unnecessary.
As for hapless, not sure what you're saying here. I'm doing really well. I have an amazing hom, and I'm pretty well set for retirement. I just think we're nuts for putting Wall Street greed over students and education. It's really rather simple. I don't think we should dismantle the system completely, but it does need to be retooled. It's really all or nothing for you people, isn't it?
Of course, you didn't address any of my points (natch), about opportunity costs--but I expect that from youse guys. Just ad hominem attacks and a lack of imagination.
As for "growing up," you should try knocking off the simple minded playground attacks and address the issues raised by opponents like me--or are you just a) too lazy or b) not intellectually capable?
It's one or the other, dude.
Peace.
Simple fuck.
LOL, I vote for B!
Sure, move somewhere else where they won't mind paying your bills and if you walk on your debts. Yeah, they'd love to have you.
Every student loan has something really special at the bottom... a borrower's name. Greedy banks want repayment. Borrowers that take the money and run... nah, that's not greed, that's justice.
Well, look, these countries do very well, indeed. And it's about priorities for them, not about empty adherence to ideology. They think we're nuts, basically, for going to wars that were completely unnecessary and doubling our debt to do so. They're proof that a hybrid system can work. That's the point.
Your point is that the system of "student loans" makes sense. It doesn't. We don't get "government involved" because that'd be some sort of horrible socialistic thing. Oh. Wait. That's the way it works in these other countries. And they're not under the boot of a government that has impoverished them through their taxes.
I'm saying schools shouldn't charge what they do for "higher education." The simple truth is that capitalism works in many ways--I've enjoyed its fruits as I sit in my expensive chair and type on my expensive mackbook in my bigass house. But when it comes to basic services, it doesn't work so well.
It's all about national priorities. That's all. Not Ron Lawl, or Michele Bachmann, or Barack Obama. It's about priorities as a country. Simple as that. We're talking about two different things.
We doubled our debt for a war? Huh, which war? The countries you're in love with have generally higher debts than us and worse prospects for paying them down given future demographic trends. Do you have any idea about any of that?
And socialism? Extremely rigid entitlement states in Europe are quaking starting with the peripheral countries. Heavy entitlement states like IL with their public union scandals are going down too.
Schools shouldn't "charge what they do". Government price controls to the rescue!
Well, two wars, actually. What do you think the cost of the wars was/is? Paul "I'm a fucking idiot" Wolfowitz said that the war in Iraq would be paid for by the Iraqi people with oil money. How has that worked out for us? As for doubling the debt, well, it wasn't just the war, it was the Bush tax cuts that Obama--inanely--extended. That decreased revenues, of course, and didn't lead to economic growth--surprise!
As for debts, I don't see too many countries in worse straits than the US. But in a down economy, one thing is certain: you don't follow contractionist policies. That's just insane. It leads to further contraction--and actually the TP and co. all know this--and that's what's being pursued to remove Obama from office.
You use no facts. No figures. Just statements of outrage. News flash: All of our allies are socialistic and you do know about all of that, right? Again, we have the money. We have the resources. It's just been concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. That's not only wrong, it's fucking stupid. How much is enough when the top 400 people own 50% of everything? The big lie is that it "translates into jobs." Apocryphal nonsense. It translates into gold plated bathroom fixtures.
Even the Economist--that mouthpiece for capitalism--agrees with this basic analysis: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america
As for schools charging what they do, well, quality education for all isn't a priority. You imply that it's evil if it's implemented by the government, but who do you think comprises the government? Hint: Not lifer fed employees alone--it's comprised of many contractors from, you guessed it, corporations. Also, corporations are just as inept as the government. Why? Because they're comprised of people. Just like the government. The biggest difference is that the government has no profit motive.
I've worked in all sectors. They all suck, but the "free market" is good at some things, but not others, same as the government. A pure free market is nonsense. Just like a pure government "welfare" state is nonsense.
But people want it simple and black and white. It ain't.
Peace.
Do a little math, would ya? The war(s) didn't double our debt. That's just a hyperventilating liberal talking point.
Government has no profit motive. Wow, must short-hand for compassion, responsiveness, flexibility, and efficiency, huh? But it isn't. You should know too that state schools have raised tuition markedly, mostly because of simply government-minded bloat.
If you haven't seen other countries with debt problems, you haven't been paying attention. Ever heard of the PIIGS. Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain? Pick up a newspaper sometime. They're at the center of Europe's financial crisis. Belgium and Japan's debts are dramatically higher than ours. Debts of Germany and France are also mounting and they don't have the demographic growth we have to back it up, so debt/capita looks increasingly hopeless.
You should join the Occupy movement in El Paso. They're against growing inequality too. That's why they're occupying the border. They know that every 6th grade educated immigrant will be poor and therefore increase income skew and inequality.
You have a point, they didn't double the debt--they contributed significantly to the national debt. I've done the math. I know what happened under Bush. About doubled: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Px-2L2o5HCQ/ToE06g9CVII/AAAAAAAAAZo/WRV0ouAxvrA/s400/national+debt+-+2000+-+2011.png
re: government has no profit motive. You didn't make a counter argument--you just expressed outrage. And "Huh?" doesn't count as polemic. But whatever.
State schools: Yes, state schools have been raising tuition--more than private schools, in fact. Again, not the point. The point is that education should either be subsidized, as it is in other countries. It's just common sense. Christ, does everything have to involve profit with you people? It's just an investment in your people, for fuxxake, as a priority.
And yes, I agree that the PIIGS are a serious problem. I'm not suggesting that the budget shouldn't be balanced, but I'm saying it's about opportunity costs--focusing on education and healthcare up front actually tends to lead to a more prosperous country on the backend. Germany and Finland are good examples. But everyone's debt has increased since the economy was destroyed by Wall Street's gambling schemes w/ "toxic assets."
But you equate debt with evil. I don't think that's true. I think some debt is needed--in fact, without it, we couldn't actually issue treasury bonds, right? Kind of a crucial international monetary instrument...
You conflate debt with meeting social priorities. They are not the same. It's a matter of flattening the system. Taxes were 90% under Eisenhower. That socialist, Ike. What was he thinking? We're not calling for that, but a more equitable distribution.
The basis of your argument--the premise--is incorrect. Your argument goes like this: If you pay for education and other "priorities" for people, you have to incur huge debt to pay for it. But you don't. You just don't allow 400 people to own 50% of everything. You have them pay a higher percentage of their "winnings" -- that sure, they've worked hard for. But that's how the system has worked--and worked really well, over all, until the deregulatory 80s. Until neo-liberalism came to define the distribution of wealth: http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485
Your last comments are, sadly, typical. Fearful, racist bullshit. Immigrants actually contribute to our economy. Ugh.
Putz.
You apparently missed the counter-aurgment. Being not-for-profit does not imply that something is better in any way. It doesn't mean that what would've been profit now goes to end users and it doesn't mean the entity is any more compassionate, responsive, or better at anything. Not-for-profit can simply mean that it has bloated its cost in such a way that there's now no difference between what something costs to put together and what people will pay for it.
Taxes were 90% under Eisenhower in name only. That rate then was readily avoidable. That's another liberal talking point comparing old tax rates with holes to today's tax rates which stick.
Fearful racist bullshit? You're just an idiot and incapable of seeing past your political correctness. Everything coming across that border contributes to income skew you dope. You're the one afraid of income skew. Too bad your too stupid to understand an important driver. Seriously, your 5th grade math teacher would shake his or her head in shame. What happens to an average when you introduce a whole lot of below average? Honest to God, smarten up.
Dude, you're a racist. You don't deserve my time. You're arrogant. Fearful. And don't use facts to make your points. Fear of diversity is at the core of the immigration fear, and in fact, immigrants actually help the economy, which I pointed out--and am tired of linking to data that support this well known conclusion.
Angry. Fearful. Arrogant. That sums up your approach to discourse. Oh, and ad hominem attacks--you rightheads are really big on that. "Idiot. Dope. Stupid." Jesus, you guys are so predicable.
Please, do us all a favor, and go to another forum. Why are you even on this board? You and your crazed fearful ilk should go play at the tea party forum, run by your heroes the Koch brothers.
Now run along...
You're irrational and emotional. Wheeling in giant numbers of 6th grade drop outs and then not expecting poverty is just plain dumb. It isn't a matter of race, it's a matter of skills and the income they can bring. Yours is the case based on race. Somehow if people are brown, the obvious consequences of not having an education are suspended.
Reduce poverty and inequality in America, occupy the border.
I am willing to be taxed (as a working individual who had to pay students' loans at an 8 percent interest rate--took 10 years) a little bit more, so you guys can be bailed out/debt forgiven--at least those of you who went to State Colleges & Universities. I have written the White House, Congress, and newspapers about this idea, to no avail. Am sure I am not the only one. It's only fair. If we cannot provide you with jobs when you graduate, who are we to ask you to pay back loans that brought you nowhere? Meanwhile, if we're willing to do this for you, remember us when we need you (Medicare) in our old age. It's called SOLIDARITY.
Thank you for your understanding and compassion.
II have my own experience with private (commercial) student loans. I know people that pay their loans instead of buying health insurance.
Private lenders are predatory. They are giving loans at 10% to 12% interest plus libor. And, the biggest lender, Sallie Mae, has lobbyists in Washington, on which they spend millions, to convince congress to pass laws that will help the banks make more money (the students are being exploited). There have been several suicides due to student loans.
Yes. I'm in that same boat--same loan payoff timeframe. I don't think it's unreasonable to unburden students from the ridiculous cost of education. It's all about opportunity cost. And if, say, we taxed the 400 people who make 50% of all the wealth in the country (let's say, they only get to own, oh, 40% of the wealth), that'd take care of that tab...
Agreed! But then you live in Vermont, have a reasonable Senator (Bernie Sanders), but how do you convince the others of the reasonableness of this proposition? Reasonable for the country, its economy, its competitiveness with European nations?
Good questions. I think part of it lies in changing the debate from one of ideology to one of priorities. So, the right thrives on fear. They are great at defining what's fearful, and socialism is the greatest fear of all, sitting right next to the fear of muzlims and immigrants. But if we changed the debate from "left/right" to priorities and opportunity costs (Hey, instead of wasting lives and trillions on war, we could have improved infrastructure, schools, healthcare right here in the US!) then we have a shot.
Until we change the narrative--as OWS is starting to do--we can't change minds...
Well, I would think you're right, but then again, I think we face the risk of being patronized again by a Do Nothing Congress (do you know where/how they spent their time voting on these days: to ensure that In God We trust is the official motto of the country! Plus, did you read this article fully showing that the Congress is definitely NOT the 99 percent. So, effectively, what it means is that ideology or priority, they don't want to know, they're simply not interested.
Nov 01, 2011 Report: Richest members of Congress get richer http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/11/richest-congress-members-michael-mccaul-/1
Saw that, and definitely the case for the majority. People like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders--they're people who can help, and definitely believe in the movement. The truth is that the system will still be used; just in a different way, and these kinds of people can definitely help...
Suck it up. No one said you had to go to college, it was an opion you choose because you figured the benifits would outweigh the costs. Free rides are for people to lazy to support themselves. You need to learn about debt. You will have it alot, when you buy a car, buy a house, use a credit card. Should people get a free ride when they buy any of those things?
No. People shouldn't have to suck it up just because people like you tell them to. Empty, arrogant bullshit. Today, the best resource is a country's population--and the more educated the population, the better. Our country is full of uneducated idiots, and our school system blows, generally speaking.
My point--which you clearly don't get--is that education should be a basic right, not something that only those with rich parents can afford.
I know about debt. I know about arrogance from people like you.
I own a house worth over 1/2 a million. I have a pretty solid retirement account set up. I make plenty of money. I probably make more money than you do.
You don't understand my basic points. You just want to lecture rather than address them. Good for you. People like you only make us grow stronger...
I agree, education should be a basic right.
Fine. Go to the library and educate yourself. Don't expect me to pick up the tab for 5 years of partying at Podunk U.
Is that where you went? Kinda seems like it. Education, like "taxes," has become a dirty word fo the dittohead right. I wonder why that is...
education is not a right. Not even basic education. people should be thanking god they live in a country were k-12 education is free and that's not even good enough for them. No, while the rest of the world struggles with illiteracy, you ass holes are demanding higer education like god came down and touched you and said "see those people in Africa? screw them, you can do better then that". You want education to be a "right" why don't you get the rest of the world on par with us and then we ca talk about higher education.
"education is not a right. Not even basic education."
Countries determine for themselves what a basic right is. There was a time in this country when black people couldn't vote because they looked different. Women couldn't vote either. That has changed, and they now have these basic rights.
Just because you don't think it should be a basic right--and why on earth wouldn't we want people to be educated, other than people who want the masses to remain uninformed and easily swayed--doesn't mean that the majority of the people agree with you. Apparently they don't. And they're getting sick of it.
Wow, where to continue here: first, "other countries" are way beyond us. Countries like India, China, and most of the Western European democracies. Africa? Who's talking about Africa? You seem confused with the whole give and take of polemic.
Here's a newsflash for ya, sport: We're no longer #1, okay? That doesn't mean I'm not fighting for my country. I've been blessed to do as well as I do. Well, it helps to be a white male with the inherent privileges that comes with that.
Man. Let's hope your side has better arguments other than ranting and name calling. But I'm guessing that's not the case...
Your rights are determined by god, life, liberty, and the persuit of happines. That mean that you have the right to live, a life to do what you want and a right to persue things that you want, and that none of these rights can be taken from you without just cause. There is a big difference between giving everyone equal rights adn giving everyone an additional "rights".
Those other countreis are worst off then us. We don't actaully have shanty town slums on the edges of our cities, we don't force our people to die in uranium mines becuase the government tells them to, we aren't having our counrty fall appart because of extream racial tensions. You think we are worse than that? then why don't you move to India or China or Europe and you try it out? You don't and you won't those. It's fine and dandy for you to say those countries are nice but if you had the option of going and living like the majority of their citizens, you rather put a bullet in your brain. Them on the other hand, would cut their own arm off to become dirt poor in America rather than staying in their own countries.
Why did I mention Africa? you people are bitch "I can afford my loan on a 300K home" "I can't afford higher education". People in Africa bitch about the land mine the litter their countries, about the waring parties of mercenaries that rape their people. You want justice for the 99%, shoot your self becuase in the grand scheme of things man, you are the 1%. You have to worry about where to send your kids to school and where to pick up a welfare check. NEWSFLASH, that's more than what most of the other 6,700,000,000 get.
You want to make a difference, go out and fight for the rights of the worlds 99%. For those people would can only dream of the freedoms and the wellfare that you get. If you can do that then maybe you guy will have a leg to stand on when you speak injustices. Till then, you might as well just be people bitching their caviar isn't right.
Troll Alert Here-
how about instead of lableing anyone who doesn't agree with you a troll, you do something productive and give an opinion