Sanders proposes canceling entire $1.6T in U.S. student loan debt
beta.washingtonpost.com
beta.washingtonpost.com
He really should check what his plans have done historically. They’ve all been tried many times, and not made long term policy, for empirical reasons he routinely ignores.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transactio...
So yes, all you need do now is to appeal to the masses! [much to the chagrin of the wealthy -- see Schultz' attempted presidential run]. However, representing the masses vs a few special interests is definitely a step toward greater democracy.
Unless the masses don't understand how/why some systems work and want to tear them down. Many systems in modern life are complex enough that most don't understand them, and such systems, if simply ran by popular vote, would make life worse, not better, for the masses.
This is how we get rent controls (which ultimately hurt those it is supposed to help), it's how we get anti-vaxxers, climate change denialists, those who would tear down modern banking and replace it with a gold standard (despite ample evidence this is a terrible idea), we'd block all sorts of medical advances, we'd block human rights, and on and on.
The masses is not a very good deciding factor in running a modern world. They should feel represented, and have some say, but certainly they need protected from really bad decisions. I'm not sure the best way to do it, but it's pretty clear the masses would run things terribly in many cases.
Sometimes having representatives try to get good advice from experts and follow it is a much better solution.
Populists historically have appealed to the masses like this, and they have a pretty bad track record.
An old quote has some truth to it: “The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
I think you're misunderstanding the goal here. It's not to create equal outcomes. It's to stop the ongoing harm to students and to society from these abusive practices. Personally I think it would be better if these debts were capped at some non-zero number instead of being erased entirely, with the difference directed toward some of the other groups you mention, but at least this starts the conversation. Negotiation 101: start with an offer that's more favorable to you than where you expect to end up.
> This isn’t how a democracy should function.
This is exactly how a democracy should function - with proposals, then discussion, then votes. What about the back-room deals that have inflated college costs and created special regulatory exemptions for student loans? Anyone who complains about "populist pandering" without at least acknowledging the anti-populist pandering that led to this is being a bit disingenuous.
Which abusive practices are you referring to?
http://www.collegescholarships.org/research/student-loans/ http://www.healthcareadministration.com/college/
For a longer treatment, covering the schools' role as well, it would be hard to beat Matt Taibbi's expose.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/the-...
My original comment was primarily directed at the lenders, but the other parties deserve their share of calumny as well.
Of course the loans made education more expensive, nobody argues that. But the main focus should be on people taking the money for the sake of taking it and then realizing they screwed up.
Who are you to say it's useless? Such hubris. They do it because they've been led to believe it's necessary, and in some cases it actually is. Kind of hard to become a doctor or lawyer without a degree. Even if that weren't the case, that doesn't absolve the people who take advantage of them. Victims of fraud are acting voluntarily, but that doesn't make it OK to defraud someone else.
> people taking the money for the sake of taking it
You can't even know others' motives, and yet you choose to assume the worst possible ones. That says more about you than them.
That's why I wrote 'useless'. By that I mean degrees without real job prospects.
> You can't even know others' motives, and yet you choose to assume the worst possible ones. That says more about you than them.
I'm not judging anybody. I know people who took 30k loans without needing them just to pay for a new car, new computer and other non-necessities. They were studying art at a community college. There are many people like that. That's entirely their fault and their debt to pay.
It's interesting that you know multiple such people, but what matters is the statistical reality. Do such "frivolous" loan-takers represent anything even remotely approaching a majority of all who have loans, to justify a sweeping generalization or affect policy?
83% of student loan debts are lower than 50k. I don't see a problem there. If you made a bad career decision or decided to go to a more expensive college it's your burden to carry.
I think the best proposal I have seen is instead of the US Taxpayer being left to hold the bag, schools should have to guarantee the loans for students they accept.
Force them to have some skin in the game. We might get some better discretion about who gets "easy" money and schools might be more incentivized to keep costs reasonable was well.
https://discoverpraxis.com http://www.mikeroweworks.com
There are others. This myth that you are worthless if you don't worship at the alter of "higher education" is a false crisis.
A large percentage of student debt is so-called "direct loans". This is money loaned by the US Department of Education. This money comes from the Federal government, not from a bank or other private financial institution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_St...
For those loans, "cancelling" presumably means adjusting some ledger entries.