Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand

[Ray From Cleveland]

Get out and do what? On 35 grand a year it would be tough. If they live at home for a few years they can save and not go into debt.

I have several tenants that make much less than 35K a year, and they are doing just fine.

Going out on your own teaches you responsibility. After all, your parents are not going to be there the rest of your life. I moved out of home at the age of 20 and never went back. Sometimes liberty is more important than saving a few bucks.

 

[initforme]

Okay so why are you in such a hurry to get them out of the house? Perhaps their parents want them at home. It doesn't hurt the nation in any way does it? As long as they work hard it has no effect on the country.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A lower cost workforce can't compete with the production our workforce can do.

That's just stupid. When was the last time you bought an American-made TV? Computer? Clothing?

If you can pay workers overseas $5.00 a day, compared to $20.00 an hour here, how will your company not make more profit?

 

[initforme]

But living at home for a few years can help a kid save and then they have a nest egg. Capitalism is all about the dollar. Kids want to make lots of money. Can we blame them? Our society is all about the buck.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Okay so why are you in such a hurry to get them out of the house? Perhaps their parents want them at home. It doesn't hurt the nation in any way does it? As long as they work hard it has no effect on the country.

It impacts the jobs of those who build apartments, build and sell cars, and provide everything they will need for that new place.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think kids today are resilient and hard working. American parents raise hard working kids.

Your idea of a kid, is probably someone about my age, in their late 50s. Is that what you mean by kids?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But living at home for a few years can help a kid save and then they have a nest egg. Capitalism is all about the dollar. Kids want to make lots of money. Can we blame them? Our society is all about the buck.

They don't save.

For someone who should be old and wise, you apparently are clueless as a libtard!.

 

[candycorn]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a fucking gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is fucking next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

Good post.

I think the winning position is to have a system like Social Security except in reverse....

If you want....you can go to school for the equivalent of 60 semester hours ( Associate's Degree) up front. This doesn't need to be at a formal college with a quad, study hall, etc... If you want to use it at UTI or University of Phoenix or at the local beauty academy...feel free. There will be a monetary value tied to it and you get that money up front to get some vocational training or have a college experience or whatever.

Then over the next 40 years of your life...you pay that back by having money taken out of your paychecks (not to exceed $100 per paycheck) plus a small percentage interest.

So if you're 18 and graduating tomorrow, you have the first 2 years (60 hours) of college/trade school paid for in advance. This includes tuition, books, fees (not housing or meals).

If you're a 26-40 y/o no-life loser doing nothing, you get 2 years (60 hours) of college/trade school paid for in advance. However, your payback is going to be accelerated since you likely won't have a 40 year work life in front of you.

If you've completed some college already, you can apply these funds to finish your studies or at least knock out a chunk of it.

If you're mid-career and are looking to make a change either to a new career or enhance your skills, you're able to use this program without the accelerated pay-back. So if you're a welder and want to learn underwater welding...you can do that and pay it back later. If you have a dead -end job in internal audit at a hospital (lol), you can perhaps take a nursing course and become more fulfilled. This would be based no your previous work history and track record...so the government isn't taking a really bad risk of you not paying off it's investment.

And for those who are late in their careers, there is an exception where studies will be either at a reduced costs or they will be tied to your SS payments thus far.

The good news is that it's something for everyone. If you want to take a course that doesn't tie directly into a career...you can but remember you're on the hook for the pay-back. If you want to take 60 hours of dodgeball...feel free...but you're on the hook for the payback. If you are using it for career advancement or technical training...you can certainly pay it back sooner and not have deductions per paycheck.

 

[initforme]

You are right.yep. but if they can't afford those apartments or cars what then? A worker is out there for themselves or family, not to help businesses. Imagine how little debt if every kid who is working spent 4 years living at home. No debt. Money saved. Nesteggs. Less unemployment. Will never happen but better than taking on debt.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Get out and do what? On 35 grand a year it would be tough. If they live at home for a few years they can save and not go into debt.

I make $50,000 a year now, and I am the supervisor! I have a newer car, 2000 square foot home on an acre of land, and I am doing fine.

 

[initforme]

Hmm. My kids saved.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You are right.yep. but if they can't afford those apartments or cars what then? A worker is out there for themselves or family, not to help businesses. Imagine how little debt if every kid who is working spent 4 years living at home. No debt. Money saved. Nesteggs. Less unemployment. Will never happen but better than taking on debt.

These people aren't living with their parents for 4 years. They are living with their parents until they are in their 30s.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay so why are you in such a hurry to get them out of the house? Perhaps their parents want them at home. It doesn't hurt the nation in any way does it? As long as they work hard it has no effect on the country.

It was a different time than it is now. You're my fathers age, so I'm sure you're familiar with the term Generation Gap. Don't get me wrong, I got along with my parents very well and still do. But we were raised that you take care of yourself once of age.

When I was young, having your first apartment or even owning a home was every kids dream. Today, kids live with their parents until their 30's or 40's, sometimes with a spouse and children.

I can understand living at home for a year or two. But after that, it's time to leave the nest. Humans are the only animal on earth that depend on their parents for a quarter or a third of their life. And we are supposed to be the most intelligent species on the planet.

 

[keepitreal]

Being a valuable worker is good. However a growing percentage of employers don't recognize their good workers. In fact they seek to undermine them..

I know I’m valuable, I know I’m a hard worker...
I recognize myself and so do others

I don’t have strong work ethics
so others will recognize me,
I have strong work ethics because that’s who I am

 

[initforme]

Glad you are doing well. A kid staying home for a year or two isn't a bad thing though. We have several young married working couples who didn't get married until they were in their 30s. They are not having kids but choosing g to travel and focus on nice cars, houses etc. I say good for them.

 

[initforme]

I'm not saying to live with them for a long long time. But a year or two isn't impactful on anyone. It provides a good start and a chance to save. It's not a nice society we live in. You don't pay bills you go under. Not good.

 

[keepitreal]

But living at home for a few years can help a kid save and then they have a nest egg. Capitalism is all about the dollar. Kids want to make lots of money. Can we blame them? Our society is all about the buck.

So they could save money
while their parents pay the costs

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Damn you're a simpleton....

It is the classic “guns vs butter” economic paradigm

Look it up

No thanks.
Where we keep a military presence is far more complicated than guns and butter.
You leftist are known for your short sightedness.

It is a case of priorities

Do we spend our revenue on public resources, education, healthcare, infrastructure or do we spend on having a military that is eight times more powerful than the next strongest country?

We all know where our priorities lie

Geopolitics laughs at your guns or butter theory.

No it doesn’t

Look at the social services Europe provides because our military protects them.

I got an idea!
Let’s build a wall!

Did you really just post that drivel?

 

[initforme]

Most parents love their kids and may feel like letting them live at home while they work is a way of helping them. Not a bad thing...family helping out.

 

[keepitreal]

I'm not saying to live with them for a long long time. But a year or two isn't impactful on anyone. It provides a good start and a chance to save. It's not a nice society we live in. You don't pay bills you go under. Not good.

I'm not saying to live with them for a long long time. But a year or two isn't impactful on anyone.

Sure it is, it impacts whoever their living off of

It provides a good start and a chance to save. It's not a nice society we live in. You don't pay bills you go under. Not good

It’s not a free society....nothing is free

Live within your means, no one owes you anything