“Shut up and pay up, sucker,” she explained

 

The woman who would be matriarch of the new oligarchs was actually asked a real question by a CBS reporter. Let’s watch and listen together and then discuss.

First, credit as always to C-SPAN for getting the underlying video. Second, credit to the CBS morning news team for asking a real question in a fair manner to a leading Democrat, who is both a leading presidential contender and also a U.S. senator with a lot of clout, even in the Senate minority. A free press worked as intended by the Framers that morning.

So, there is real push back from people who paid off their debt or never got that government cheese loan, and who know that others subsidized their life chances and lifestyles with education loans under federally directed programs. Why are beauticians and plumbers on the hook for the consequences of magical evaporated debt, serious money tied up in promises when those same plumbers and beauticians can’t get such a loan on such easy terms to maybe buy their own truck, their own chair, to lease a small retail office space and equip it?

At the same time, we do have a real problem with college budget bloat, massive expansion of administrative staffs, and complete takeover of these non-teaching jobs by the radical left. We have massive debt on a portion of the rising generations, affecting their choices in housing, transportation, and employment. These debt serfs were force-fed lies about all of reality like ducks or geese being stuffed full of corn to swell their livers for foie gras.

A truly bold, non-WSJ /SJW response would be to leverage the current loan and federal grant system against the ivory towers, freeing students of crushing debt by coercing real cuts in costs, all out of the administration line items. Not one penny to be taken from any classroom. No shuffling of titles and programs, on penalty of fraud prosecutions. Stand up for students and teachers!

What do you suggest as a response to Warren’s proposal and to the underlying problems? What is feasible?

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 58 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I always try to mention this when this issue comes up – we already have a highly developed and well functioning debt relief system in this country – the Bankruptcy Code – which for some reason is rarely mentioned when people discuss this subject.

    Currently, as everyone knows, student debt cannot be discharged. A few minor changes to some of the bankruptcy code sections could change that, and could change it in a way that eases many of the legitimate fairness concerns people have in how to go about addressing the issue.

    For example, if you don’t like the idea of an immediate discharge, since it upsets the original bargain between borrower and lender, you could make student debt dischargeable only in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which is the kind that requires a monthly repayment plan. The debtor pays into the bankruptcy plan their monthly disposable income for a period of years. At the end of that plan, whatever debt they owe would be discharged. If that is still too radical a change, you could make student loans a priority debt, which means they will get paid ahead of other creditors in the plan. Or, you could make a student loan dischargeable only in a chapter 13 plan that pays a certain percentage of the debt back.

    My point is, we already have a very good system which balances these concerns for most other kinds of debt, just waiting to be used. The changes to the code would actually be pretty minor. A good bankruptcy lawyer could draft them up in a half hour. It would be a tiny piece of legislation, less than a page, but would go a long way toward resolving this issue. It would also be a gentle enough change so that the effects would trickle down over the years – gradually changing the way colleges and lenders do business.

    We’ve been there, done that, have the scars to prove it.  Your idea depends on lending concepts that simply aren’t true about student loans. First, lenders aren’t on the hook for any loss.  Student loans have to be government-backed for the simple reason that there’s nothing a lender can demand as collateral for such loans.  Kids straight out of high school have no reputation to back a signature loan, especially for tens of thousands of dollars (or more).  Government eliminated bankruptcy for student loans because the abuse was hitting taxpayers (the guarantors) in the teeth.

    And since Obama’s “reform”, private lenders aren’t offering these loans.  The whole system was nationalized.  Again, taxpayers would be on the hook.

    Allowing discharge in bankruptcy has already been proven to be a terrible idea.

    • #31
  2. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I always try to mention this when this issue comes up – we already have a highly developed and well functioning debt relief system in this country – the Bankruptcy Code – which for some reason is rarely mentioned when people discuss this subject.

    Currently, as everyone knows, student debt cannot be discharged. A few minor changes to some of the bankruptcy code sections could change that, and could change it in a way that eases many of the legitimate fairness concerns people have in how to go about addressing the issue.

    For example, if you don’t like the idea of an immediate discharge, since it upsets the original bargain between borrower and lender, you could make student debt dischargeable only in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which is the kind that requires a monthly repayment plan. The debtor pays into the bankruptcy plan their monthly disposable income for a period of years. At the end of that plan, whatever debt they owe would be discharged. If that is still too radical a change, you could make student loans a priority debt, which means they will get paid ahead of other creditors in the plan. Or, you could make a student loan dischargeable only in a chapter 13 plan that pays a certain percentage of the debt back.

    My point is, we already have a very good system which balances these concerns for most other kinds of debt, just waiting to be used. The changes to the code would actually be pretty minor. A good bankruptcy lawyer could draft them up in a half hour. It would be a tiny piece of legislation, less than a page, but would go a long way toward resolving this issue. It would also be a gentle enough change so that the effects would trickle down over the years – gradually changing the way colleges and lenders do business.

    We’ve been there, done that, have the scars to prove it. Your idea depends on lending concepts that simply aren’t true about student loans. First, lenders aren’t on the hook for any loss….

    Allowing discharge in bankruptcy has already been proven to be a terrible idea.

    You can certainly do nothing about the problem if you want. I don’t have any specific policy to suggest at the moment. My suggestion is only that the bankruptcy code is a useful, versatile tool for those who believe some action is necessary. Those who debate the issue tend to ignore it for some reason. 

    And federally backed student loans have been non dischargeable, with some tweaks here and there, for over 40 years. Given the problems we have now, I don’t think that is working well, partly because, as you say, the lenders aren’t on the hook. (In reality they are at risk of loss, just not enough, as much as other kinds of lenders.)

    • #32
  3. PedroIg Member
    PedroIg
    @PedroIg

    Regarding Senator Warren’s analogy of the student debt crisis to Social Security, I’m not sure if I follow (other than the standard agitprop talking point of “We’re all in this together”).  Were senior citizens in the first third of the 20th century racking up debt in order to survive and then expecting the government to pay it off, so they demanded a social safety net for it?  At its inception, Social Security was not envisioned as a loan but a benefit that everyone paid into expecting a benefit to be returned years later, one much richer than what the original payees paid into, but we won’t debate that.  Whatever its flaws, the Social Security system is not the same as the student loan debt program.  These are two different animals, and Warren’s cynical attempt to tie them together reveals one more reason to distrust her with the reins of power.  

    • #33
  4. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    TBA (View Comment):
    If she is to solve this conundrum Senator Warren might usefully return to the scene of the crime; she desperately needs to go back to school. 

    Her problem, and ours, is her adherence to the same malignant ideology that she learned and taught in the universities. She is a very well connected and highly skilled political operative who has experience in the administrative apparatus as well as the legislature. She has done and will continue to do serious damage to the USA. The more power she gets and the more her ideas become acceptable, the worse for we, the suckers it will be.

    Whether she is a political Madoff or a true believer, her power and influence come from her being perceived as a radical. She is all in on Obama’s total transformation, or maybe she and he serve the same masters.

    Her problem is not ignorance. 

    • #34
  5. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):
    How about we make the universities pay back the students loans out of their massive endowments?

    Or make them refund a portion of the tuition charged to all their past students. That would address the underlying fairness issue raised by the father’s question, in that case he would get some of his money back.

    Maybe, but a lot more are in my position. The Obama economy broke us. We went back too school because the Obama economy would not hire without advance decrees. We are in our 50s with ten of thousands of debt. Now the Democrats want to help and wipe it out. The GOP is all about go F yourself. Guess which one they feel affection for?

    Trump seems to have most of the BFYTW vote. The Democrats think they can manufacture or harvest enough votes so that Trump loses.

    Looks like another Flight 93 election coming up, folks. Buckle your seatbelts for now, though. It’s not time to rush the cockpit just yet; Trump has given people – maybe enough people – hope that despite the best efforts of the Democrats we might not be not in Claire Wolfe’s “awkward stage” just yet. Maybe. 

    • #35
  6. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Maybe, but a lot more are in my position. The Obama economy broke us. We went back too school because the Obama economy would not hire without advance decrees. We are in our 50s with ten of thousands of debt. Now the Democrats want to help and wipe it out. The GOP is all about go F yourself. Guess which one they feel affection for?

    Somehow I doubt the John Galt of Atlas Shrugged would accept such a government handout, let alone vote for it.

    You probably should have read the book better. Galt had given up on the government and actively worked to destroy it. This would be one step in that direction.

    Taking the money and running might be a good idea, in context. Look at Herschel Smith’s “What next” piece following the Richmond, VA rally and see if it translates to your home town and county. It doesn’t to mine, and that’s a big part of the reason I’m not here for much longer. 

    Also his Doing Damage Control After Richmond. Damage control being what the MSM and Democrats (but I repeat myself) have done since the much hoped for violence didn’t materialize. Sadly, the patriots in Richmond were better organized and disciplined than most people thought they were. Don’t worry, the Left will learn from its mistakes.

    Smith concludes:

    Listen.  The second amendment sanctuary movement is a God-send.  This provides structure.  This provides the ability to turn national politics into local politics.  Bloomberg wanted to go local.  Very well.  He’s won some of the battles.  But by going local and getting everyone on board with the 2A resolutions, that affects not only local, but national politics and policy as well.

    Do you understand?  This is your chance to become involved in local politics and have a national effect.

    That’s why the communists are scared of the movement.  They should be.  It’s grass roots.  It’s organic.  It’s local.  Most of all, it’s righteous.

    Whether it’s all over or whether there’s still a chance, local and grass roots are where most of us have a chance to have a say and make a difference in the future. 

     

    • #36
  7. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    TBA (View Comment):

    Are eighteen-year-olds of age to sign contracts? My understanding is that they are.

    They owe that money fair and square.

    Are schools guilty of making claims about their product that were false? My understanding is that they are.

    They should be paying back some of that money, because they charged more while delivering less.

    Is the government also culpable in this for propping up the whole enterprise? Yes, they are.

    But they aren’t going to make up that difference because they only have everyone else’s money. Any government bailout is good money after bad from the very same people – taxpayers – who had to pay for this idiocy from the beginning.

    The notion that the solution to this problem is tax money to pay these young adults for their bad choice based on bad advice and continue to prop up this system in perpetuity is only made more bizarre by its being proposed by a former professor – who cooperated with and benefited directly from the system in question.

    If she is to solve this conundrum Senator Warren might usefully return to the scene of the crime; she desperately needs to go back to school.

    These are our bright young people. One would hope they were too smart to be manipulated into taking on onerous burdens of debt. One would hope, but one’s hope would be lost. However, a 50% haircut on the freely incurred debt would be a huge boon to all these young people. That should be the responsibility of the colleges. They profited immensely from this racket. Let the colleges take the hit. As a former businessman, how fine it would have been had the gubmint guaranteed credit lines for my contractor customers. Come on in Joe the Plumber, buy all you want on open credit, the gubmint’s payin’. It wouldn’t have mattered how much I charged for those pipes, Joe ain’t payin’ anyway. This is the Democrat way. All heart, no brain.

    • #37
  8. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    This is like Elizabeth Warren explaining economics, only she’s actually serious:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag

     

     

     

     

    • #38
  9. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I always try to mention this when this issue comes up – we already have a highly developed and well functioning debt relief system in this country – the Bankruptcy Code – which for some reason is rarely mentioned when people discuss this subject.

    Currently, as everyone knows, student debt cannot be discharged. A few minor changes to some of the bankruptcy code sections could change that, and could change it in a way that eases many of the legitimate fairness concerns people have in how to go about addressing the issue.

    For example, if you don’t like the idea of an immediate discharge, since it upsets the original bargain between borrower and lender, you could make student debt dischargeable only in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which is the kind that requires a monthly repayment plan. The debtor pays into the bankruptcy plan their monthly disposable income for a period of years. At the end of that plan, whatever debt they owe would be discharged. If that is still too radical a change, you could make student loans a priority debt, which means they will get paid ahead of other creditors in the plan. Or, you could make a student loan dischargeable only in a chapter 13 plan that pays a certain percentage of the debt back.

    My point is, we already have a very good system which balances these concerns for most other kinds of debt, just waiting to be used. The changes to the code would actually be pretty minor. A good bankruptcy lawyer could draft them up in a half hour. It would be a tiny piece of legislation, less than a page, but would go a long way toward resolving this issue. It would also be a gentle enough change so that the effects would trickle down over the years – gradually changing the way colleges and lenders do business.

    I purely love this. 

    • #39
  10. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Is there anyone who didn’t see this coming when the government took over the student loan business? Skyrocketing tuitions (because when the government subsidizes something, naturally the cost goes up. See also: Healthcare), leading to agitators clamoring for debt forgiveness. The agitators also being the ones who welcomed government intrusion in the first place.

    (Which points toward a cynical Cloward-Piven strategy of purposefully destroying our economy with this, Obamacare, and other programs of nationalizing parts of the economy to usher in a glorious commie future.)

    • #40
  11. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I always try to mention this when this issue comes up – we already have a highly developed and well functioning debt relief system in this country – the Bankruptcy Code – which for some reason is rarely mentioned when people discuss this subject.

    Currently, as everyone knows, student debt cannot be discharged. A few minor changes to some of the bankruptcy code sections could change that, and could change it in a way that eases many of the legitimate fairness concerns people have in how to go about addressing the issue.

    For example, if you don’t like the idea of an immediate discharge, since it upsets the original bargain between borrower and lender, you could make student debt dischargeable only in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which is the kind that requires a monthly repayment plan. The debtor pays into the bankruptcy plan their monthly disposable income for a period of years. At the end of that plan, whatever debt they owe would be discharged. If that is still too radical a change, you could make student loans a priority debt, which means they will get paid ahead of other creditors in the plan. Or, you could make a student loan dischargeable only in a chapter 13 plan that pays a certain percentage of the debt back.

    My point is, we already have a very good system which balances these concerns for most other kinds of debt, just waiting to be used. The changes to the code would actually be pretty minor. A good bankruptcy lawyer could draft them up in a half hour. It would be a tiny piece of legislation, less than a page, but would go a long way toward resolving this issue. It would also be a gentle enough change so that the effects would trickle down over the years – gradually changing the way colleges and lenders do business.

    OK, I still love it, but my love is not as pure as I first thought. 

    Many college students are experts at living in tight spaces, eating the cheapest of food, and indulging in drink and drugs – and worse yet, they’ve read Kerouac. How do we avoid creating a virulent strain of hipster quasi-homeless who never even try to work off their debt? 

    Your primary debt idea would – well should – make credit card companies less likely to throw credit at students, car companies less likely to extend credit, and property rental companies more cautious about how they rent to students. But what can we get as a mechanism to make colleges sell fewer useless degrees? 

    • #41
  12. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    TBA (View Comment):
    But what can we get as a mechanism to make colleges sell fewer useless degrees?

    Well, when you pay for behavior you get more of it.

    Without extremely painful steps being taken, entitlements and other unfunded mandates will finish destroying the middle class. Unexpectedly, as the Elizabeth Warrens of the world (who are convinced that they will have a nice comfy chair when the music stops in this game of musical chairs) would have us believe.

    • #42
  13. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):
    But what can we get as a mechanism to make colleges sell fewer useless degrees?

    Well, when you pay for behavior you get more of it.

    Without extremely painful steps being taken, entitlements and other unfunded mandates will finish destroying the middle class. Unexpectedly, as the Elizabeth Warrens of the world (who are convinced that theywill have a nice comfy chair when the music stops in this game of musical chairs) would have us believe.

    Is it any wonder they want to confiscate the guns of the little people? 

    • #43
  14. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    TBA (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    ……….

    For example, if you don’t like the idea of an immediate discharge, since it upsets the original bargain between borrower and lender, you could make student debt dischargeable only in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which is the kind that requires a monthly repayment plan. The debtor pays into the bankruptcy plan their monthly disposable income for a period of years. At the end of that plan, whatever debt they owe would be discharged. If that is still too radical a change, you could make student loans a priority debt, which means they will get paid ahead of other creditors in the plan. Or, you could make a student loan dischargeable only in a chapter 13 plan that pays a certain percentage of the debt back.

    ……

    OK, I still love it, but my love is not as pure as I first thought.

    Many college students are experts at living in tight spaces, eating the cheapest of food, and indulging in drink and drugs – and worse yet, they’ve read Kerouac. How do we avoid creating a virulent strain of hipster quasi-homeless who never even try to work off their debt?

    Your primary debt idea would – well should – make credit card companies less likely to throw credit at students, car companies less likely to extend credit, and property rental companies more cautious about how they rent to students. But what can we get as a mechanism to make colleges sell fewer useless degrees?

    You are correct that, depending on the specifics, there is a risk that you allow someone to get away with something.  That is also true with the other kinds of debt dischargeable in bankruptcy.  And I agree that student loans – because they are generally unsecured and for very high amounts – have unique qualities that perhaps deserve a different treatment than your standard unsecured debt.  But, again, the Bankruptcy Code has evolved over the decades (or millennia, if you want to really trace it back to its roots) to encompass hundreds of little compromises between the competing interests. 

    Most all of these compromises recognize a certain moral issue on one side, and the need to address a practical problem on the other (can’t get blood from a turnip).  So, for example, back income taxes are also a special kind of debt.  They are not dischargeable in bankruptcy if they are recent.  But if they are for an income tax for a tax year more than 3 years before the bankruptcy is filed, and the return was filed more than 2 years before the bankruptcy, and certain other criteria are met, then you can discharge them.  So, there’s a compromise in there that works.  And by “works,” I mean that people can live with it and it allows everyone to move on, not that everyone wins.  So, I see no reason why the bankruptcy code couldn’t be modified to address the student loan issue.

     

    • #44
  15. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I always try to mention this when this issue comes up – we already have a highly developed and well functioning debt relief system in this country – the Bankruptcy Code – which for some reason is rarely mentioned when people discuss this subject.

    [trimmed for comment length limit]

    My point is, we already have a very good system which balances these concerns for most other kinds of debt, just waiting to be used. The changes to the code would actually be pretty minor. A good bankruptcy lawyer could draft them up in a half hour. It would be a tiny piece of legislation, less than a page, but would go a long way toward resolving this issue. It would also be a gentle enough change so that the effects would trickle down over the years – gradually changing the way colleges and lenders do business.

    We’ve been there, done that, have the scars to prove it. Your idea depends on lending concepts that simply aren’t true about student loans. First, lenders aren’t on the hook for any loss….

    Allowing discharge in bankruptcy has already been proven to be a terrible idea.

    You can certainly do nothing about the problem if you want. I don’t have any specific policy to suggest at the moment. My suggestion is only that the bankruptcy code is a useful, versatile tool for those who believe some action is necessary. Those who debate the issue tend to ignore it for some reason.

    {My bold} Excuse me? Seems to me your comment #26 is very much a policy proposal.  We aren’t ignoring the bankruptcy code for “some reason”.  We are discounting its utility for this case due to cold, hard experience.

    And federally backed student loans have been non dischargeable, with some tweaks here and there, for over 40 years. Given the problems we have now, I don’t think that is working well, partly because, as you say, the lenders aren’t on the hook. (In reality they are at risk of loss, just not enough, as much as other kinds of lenders.)

    There are policies that can fix this problem.  First would be to only guarantee student loans for associate and bachelor degree programs that have a proven track record (evaluated per school) for graduates obtaining jobs in that given field.  Loans must be limited according to the proven earnings potential of the degree.  Ideally, loan eligibility formulas would also include academic status after the first year.  Schools could underwrite their own loans for non-guarantee eligible students.

    Masters and Doctorate programs should never have been made eligible for student loans, and should be dropped from guarantees.  Those institutions that wish to offer those programs can underwrite their own student loans.

    Yeah, this would crush much of modern higher education.  But there is no workable policy that wouldn’t.

    • #45
  16. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Kozak (View Comment):

    How about we make the universities pay back the students loans out of their massive endowments?

    Harvards endowment is 41 billion.

    Yale has 25 billion

    Northwestern has 12 billion.

     

    Yes to this, plus requiring at least matching dollars out of endowments for every federal dollar going into an billion plus endowment college. Or something along those lines, placing policians on students’ side very publicly.

    • #46
  17. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I always try to mention this when this issue comes up – we already have a highly developed and well functioning debt relief system in this country – the Bankruptcy Code – which for some reason is rarely mentioned when people discuss this subject.

    Currently, as everyone knows, student debt cannot be discharged. A few minor changes to some of the bankruptcy code sections could change that, and could change it in a way that eases many of the legitimate fairness concerns people have in how to go about addressing the issue.

    For example, if you don’t like the idea of an immediate discharge, since it upsets the original bargain between borrower and lender, you could make student debt dischargeable only in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which is the kind that requires a monthly repayment plan. The debtor pays into the bankruptcy plan their monthly disposable income for a period of years. At the end of that plan, whatever debt they owe would be discharged. If that is still too radical a change, you could make student loans a priority debt, which means they will get paid ahead of other creditors in the plan. Or, you could make a student loan dischargeable only in a chapter 13 plan that pays a certain percentage of the debt back.

    My point is, we already have a very good system which balances these concerns for most other kinds of debt, just waiting to be used. The changes to the code would actually be pretty minor. A good bankruptcy lawyer could draft them up in a half hour. It would be a tiny piece of legislation, less than a page, but would go a long way toward resolving this issue. It would also be a gentle enough change so that the effects would trickle down over the years – gradually changing the way colleges and lenders do business.

    Well worth repeating, and Republicans, maybe President Trump at the SOTU, should lay this out in simple language. Since he is very familiar with debt and bankruptcy processes from commercial real estate, he can speak sympathetically.

    • #47
  18. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    Make the colleges and universities directly liable for a portion of any default by an attending student. They need to have some skin in the game.

     

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):
    How about we make the universities pay back the students loans out of their massive endowments?

    Or make them refund a portion of the tuition charged to all their past students. That would address the underlying fairness issue raised by the father’s question, in that case he would get some of his money back.

    I still think this type of thing is the only way to solve the issue long term. The costs and risks have to be aligned with the benefits.

    I learned in managing the finances and budget of a corporate department, and in setting up staff incentives, that if one group or system got a benefit but the costs and the risks were accounted to a different group or system, some really bad decisions got made.

    Currently (and in most proposals to have government pay for college) much of the benefit of widespread college attendance flows to the colleges and their faculty and staff, but those colleges bear almost none of the costs and risks of whether the students they enroll will benefit from such enrollment the appropriate students and of whether the students are getting their money’s worth.

    Exactly.

    • #48
  19. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I always try to mention this when this issue comes up – we already have a highly developed and well functioning debt relief system in this country – the Bankruptcy Code – which for some reason is rarely mentioned when people discuss this subject.

    [trimmed for comment length limit]

    My point is, we already have a very good system which balances these concerns for most other kinds of debt, just waiting to be used. The changes to the code would actually be pretty minor. A good bankruptcy lawyer could draft them up in a half hour. It would be a tiny piece of legislation, less than a page, but would go a long way toward resolving this issue. It would also be a gentle enough change so that the effects would trickle down over the years – gradually changing the way colleges and lenders do business.

    We’ve been there, done that, have the scars to prove it. Your idea depends on lending concepts that simply aren’t true about student loans. First, lenders aren’t on the hook for any loss….

    Allowing discharge in bankruptcy has already been proven to be a terrible idea.

    You can certainly do nothing about the problem if you want. I don’t have any specific policy to suggest at the moment. My suggestion is only that the bankruptcy code is a useful, versatile tool for those who believe some action is necessary. Those who debate the issue tend to ignore it for some reason.

    {My bold} Excuse me? Seems to me your comment #26 is very much a policy proposal. We aren’t ignoring the bankruptcy code for “some reason”. We are discounting its utility for this case due to cold, hard experience.

    And federally backed student loans have been non dischargeable, with some tweaks here and there, for over 40 years. Given the problems we have now, I don’t think that is working well, partly because, as you say, the lenders aren’t on the hook. (In reality they are at risk of loss, just not enough, as much as other kinds of lenders.)

    There are policies that can fix this problem. First would be to only guarantee student loans for associate and bachelor degree programs that have a proven track record (evaluated per school) for graduates obtaining jobs in that given field. Loans must be limited according to the proven earnings potential of the degree. Ideally, loan eligibility formulas would also include academic status after the first year. Schools could underwrite their own loans for non-guarantee eligible students.

    Masters and Doctorate programs should never have been made eligible for student loans, and should be dropped from guarantees. Those institutions that wish to offer those programs can underwrite their own student loans.

    Yeah, this would crush much of modern higher education. But there is no workable policy that wouldn’t.

    You are walking by my basic proposal: compelled restructuring of universities’ current staffing to roll back the inflation without touching classrooms. What of that alone or with other policy tools?

    • #49
  20. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    You are walking by my basic proposal: compelled restructuring of universities’ current staffing to roll back the inflation without touching classrooms. What of that alone or with other policy tools?

    The staffing absurdities exists because of the availability of effectively unlimited government-backed loans for tuition, for any absurd degree program a starry-eyed high-schooler demands in order to “follow their passion”.  If you simply mandate a staffing change without reforming the finances that enable the status quo, the bureaucracy will simply transform into another way to spend on the same PC goals.  The absurdities in the funding of higher education have to be reined in before you’ll succeed at reining in the bureaucracies.

    • #50
  21. Roderic Coolidge
    Roderic
    @rhfabian

    Warren’s proposal isn’t feasible and won’t fly.

    I could agree with cutting tuition for future classes, especially for technical education and community colleges.  

    • #51
  22. Roderic Coolidge
    Roderic
    @rhfabian

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    You are walking by my basic proposal: compelled restructuring of universities’ current staffing to roll back the inflation without touching classrooms. What of that alone or with other policy tools?

    The staffing absurdities exists because of the availability of effectively unlimited government-backed loans for tuition, for any absurd degree program a starry-eyed high-schooler demands in order to “follow their passion”. If you simply mandate a staffing change without reforming the finances that enable the status quo, the bureaucracy will simply transform into another way to spend on the same PC goals. The absurdities in the funding of higher education have to be reined in before you’ll succeed at reining in the bureaucracies.

    Agree.  As in medicine the things you don’t like about education are due to the way the government regulates and interferes with it.  

    • #52
  23. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bethany Mandel (View Comment):

    This was a great video. I posted it a few days ago on the Ricochet Instagram account. I’m trying to get it more active on there! Follow us here.

    You might want to consider that the Dark Forces of the Internet might be keeping you from being followed more. For example, I follow you here on Ricochet, but it has been a long time since I’ve received notification about one of your posts. I learn about them by accident, if at all.   

    • #53
  24. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Unsk (View Comment):

    Warren won’t address the real problem with student loans- college has become way,way too expensive. She won’t address that problem because the huge inflationary increases we have seen in college tuition have funded many a left wing fantasy and a very luxurious lifestyle for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dyed in the wool Leftists.

    The easy availability of Federally backed student loans essentially gave our college system an endless pool of dollars from which they could leverage to raise tuition over and over again to the point that it is way past affordable because almost all loving parents want there child to go to a “good” college to get ahead and are willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money towards that end.

    This is the key point. The cost is so high now it is crazy. I could have paid for my kids no prob on the costs as they compared to purchase power back when I was in school. Now? Ugh.

    Further, having a BA or BS is a bar for many jobs that should not need it. But it is there.

    • #54
  25. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):

    Warren won’t address the real problem with student loans- college has become way,way too expensive. She won’t address that problem because the huge inflationary increases we have seen in college tuition have funded many a left wing fantasy and a very luxurious lifestyle for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dyed in the wool Leftists.

    The easy availability of Federally backed student loans essentially gave our college system an endless pool of dollars from which they could leverage to raise tuition over and over again to the point that it is way past affordable because almost all loving parents want there child to go to a “good” college to get ahead and are willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money towards that end.

    This is the key point. The cost is so high now it is crazy. I could have paid for my kids no prob on the costs as they compared to purchase power back when I was in school. Now? Ugh.

    Further, having a BA or BS is a bar for many jobs that should not need it. But it is there.

    I keep hearing how the higher education bubble is going to burst. It doesn’t seem to have “bursted” yet!

    • #55
  26. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    You are walking by my basic proposal: compelled restructuring of universities’ current staffing to roll back the inflation without touching classrooms. What of that alone or with other policy tools?

    The staffing absurdities exists because of the availability of effectively unlimited government-backed loans for tuition, for any absurd degree program a starry-eyed high-schooler demands in order to “follow their passion”. If you simply mandate a staffing change without reforming the finances that enable the status quo, the bureaucracy will simply transform into another way to spend on the same PC goals. The absurdities in the funding of higher education have to be reined in before you’ll succeed at reining in the bureaucracies.

    How? In Realsville, how? Not in the world as you would like it, not in an on-line forum discussion, but in the actual world of American electoral politics.

    Give me a pitch that wins Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, while holding the White House. To quote myself: “What is feasible?”

    • #56
  27. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    You are walking by my basic proposal: compelled restructuring of universities’ current staffing to roll back the inflation without touching classrooms. What of that alone or with other policy tools?

    The staffing absurdities exists because of the availability of effectively unlimited government-backed loans for tuition, for any absurd degree program a starry-eyed high-schooler demands in order to “follow their passion”. If you simply mandate a staffing change without reforming the finances that enable the status quo, the bureaucracy will simply transform into another way to spend on the same PC goals. The absurdities in the funding of higher education have to be reined in before you’ll succeed at reining in the bureaucracies.

    How? In Realsville, how? Not in the world as you would like it, not in an on-line forum discussion, but in the actual world of American electoral politics.

    Give me a pitch that wins Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, while holding the White House. To quote myself: “What is feasible?”

    We could save money by granting everyone a doctorate when they graduate high school. 

    • #57
  28. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    TBA (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    You are walking by my basic proposal: compelled restructuring of universities’ current staffing to roll back the inflation without touching classrooms. What of that alone or with other policy tools?

    The staffing absurdities exists because of the availability of effectively unlimited government-backed loans for tuition, for any absurd degree program a starry-eyed high-schooler demands in order to “follow their passion”. If you simply mandate a staffing change without reforming the finances that enable the status quo, the bureaucracy will simply transform into another way to spend on the same PC goals. The absurdities in the funding of higher education have to be reined in before you’ll succeed at reining in the bureaucracies.

    How? In Realsville, how? Not in the world as you would like it, not in an on-line forum discussion, but in the actual world of American electoral politics.

    Give me a pitch that wins Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, while holding the White House. To quote myself: “What is feasible?”

    We could save money by granting everyone a doctorate when they graduate high school.

    A nice illustration of degree or credential inflation.

    • #58
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.