Biden administration to forgive $5.8B student debt for 78,000 borrowers
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
The only way we should ever get rid of it is if we return higher education to affordability.
> Prior to Biden’s fixes to PSLF, just around 7,000 borrowers had received debt relief through the over 15-year-old program, according to the administration. Since 2021, it said, 871,000 borrowers have now had their debt canceled under the program.
This is a weird comparison that overlooks that the 10-year period begins at repayment, which is typically at graduation. If you entered college in 2007, graduated in 2011, and made 10 years of payments to become eligible for forgiveness, your first year of eligibility would’ve been 2021.
Also, Obama federalized student loans in 2010, vastly increasing the number of loans eligible for PLSF. Lots of people who got masters degrees or JDs starting in 2010 became eligible for PLSF since 2021.
The reason so few people were qualifying before the program and rules were streamlined was because the rules were confusing and obtuse. Also servicers misled people by telling them they were in the program when they weren’t.
The Dept of Ed under Trump’s secretary went out of the way to block loan forgiveness under another program. I say this to give an example of how bad things were run for some programs. Prior to the current secretary of Ed these things were a shitshow. They still are to some extent but much less so.
FWIW the current administration and Congress have done a historically slightly-above-average job of reducing the deficit, I won't call it good but it's at least not terrible. The current spending isn't the problem, it's stuff from a few years ago coming to bite us in the ass.
That's like saying the deficit is down post WW2 and taking credit for it.
Carter:
year|deficit|increase|deficit-to-GDP
1977 $54 $78 2.6%
1978 $59 $73 2.5%
1979 $41 $55 1.6%
1980 $74 $81 2.6%
1981 $79 $90 2.5%
1981 $79 $90 2.5%
1982 $128 $144 3.8%
1983 $208 $235 5.7%
1984 $185 $195 4.6%
1985 $212 $251 4.9%
1986 $221 $302 4.8%
1987 $150 $225 3.1%
1988 $155 $252 3.0%
1989 $153 $255 2.7%
1990 $221 $376 3.7%
1991 $269 $432 4.4%
1992 $290 $399 4.5%
1992 $290 $399 4.5%
1993 $255 $347 3.7%
1994 $203 $281 2.8%
1995 $164 $281 2.1%
1996 $107 $251 1.3%
1997 $22 $188 0.3%
1998 ($69) $113 (0.8%)
1999 ($126) $130 (1.3%)
2000 ($236) $18 (2.3%)
2000 ($236) $18 (2.3%)
2001 ($128) $133 (1.2%)
2002 $158 $421 1.4%
2003 $378 $555 3.3%
2004 $413 $596 3.4%
2005 $318 $554 2.4%
2006 $248 $574 1.8%
2007 $161 $501 1.1%
2008 $459 $1,017 3.1%
2009 $1,413 $1,885 9.8%
2009 $1,413 $1,885 9.8%
2010 $1,294 $1,652 8.6%
2011 $1,300 $1,229 8.3%
2012 $1,077 $1,276 6.6%
2013 $680 $672 4.0%
2014 $485 $1,086 2.8%
2015 $442 $327 2.4%
2016 $585 $1,423 3.1%
2017 $665 $671 3.4%
2018 $779 $1,271 3.8%
2019 $984 $1,203 4.6%
2020 $3,132 $4,226 15.0%
2021 $2,772 $1,484 12.1%Those 5 years were when the internet went mainstream and lifetime welfare was ended.
The rest of the time is occupied by bipartisan wars that we couldn't afford and lost anyway.
Due to (intentional) methodological flaws like hedonic quality adjustment, owner imputed rent and a basket of good arrived at by a team of economists rather than surveys of what households are actually buying, CPI is lower than what a household needs to increase its budget by in order to stay afloat, it's lower than inflation.
Therefore if the government engaged in deficit spending and that spending resulted inflation that would result in a better percentage of GDP than expected as a lot of the "growth" is just dollars becoming less valuable.
Started by Bush I and Bush II.
> There was what? 5 years in the past 50 that there wasn't a deficit?
My observation was in the rate of change of the deficit, generally since the 80s Democrats seem to work for lowering the budget deficit while Republicans increase it. Which is quite absurd given the demagogy coming from the GOP about public spending, "welfare queens", austerity and so on, they are mostly the ones responsible for pushing future administrations (and generations) the burdens of their overspending.
Bush started Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan?
And, better yet, then kept the wars up, for decades, despite several democratic majorities and no longer being in power himself?
Let me guess he also made them abandon the Bagram air base without any planning as well? Bush made them leave the humvees for the Taliban to use.
> GOP about public spending, "welfare queens", austerity and so on,
The only time the Democrats balanced the budget was the time they ended welfare queens and were tough on illegal immigration. Clinton from the 90's would be considered conservative today.
I thought you were talking about prolonged wars that drained the coffers like Afghanistan and Iraq requiring massive deployments of personnel and equipment. Your examples are not even in the same order of magnitude of spending (and probably not even if all are combined but it's hard to find figures on spending related to them directly). Also not comparable on the amount of human suffering caused by the US government compared to Iraq/Afghanistan.
> The only time the Democrats balanced the budget was the time they ended welfare queens and were tough on illegal immigration. Clinton from the 90's would be considered conservative today.
I don't think this is a point to what I said, if it worked for the Democrats then why the GOP with an even stronger rhetoric against welfare and immigrants cannot achieve lowering the deficit and, as the facts show, increase it every single time? Something about their policies and ideology doesn't help the budget, it's empirical.
> Let me guess he also made them abandon the Bagram air base without any planning as well? Bush made them leave the humvees for the Taliban to use.
Well, not Bush but definitely another Republican president:
> In February 2020, the Trump administration and the Taliban signed the United States–Taliban deal in Doha, Qatar, which stipulated fighting restrictions for both the US and the Taliban, and provided for the withdrawal of all NATO forces from Afghanistan in return for the Taliban's counter-terrorism commitments. The deal, and then the Biden administration's final decision in April 2021 to pull out all US troops by September 2021 without leaving a residual force, were the two critical events that triggered the start of the collapse of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).
> GOP with an even stronger rhetoric...
I look at action over words.
Under Bush illegal immigration was higher than Obama. Understanding Bush and Republicans of the time "pro business" mantra of the era that makes sense, businesses wanted to pay lower wages. Bush helped them out.
Obama needed to show economic recovery, particularly among the working poor, similar to how Clinton wanted to. So he built the 'kid cages'/youth detention facilities (name changes depending on who is in office) and enforced the immigration laws. This decreased the supply of labor available and allowed workers to catch up after 2008. As workers catch up they buy goods and services, this expands the economy and thus lowers deficit to GDP ratios.
[0] until Trump apparently. I'd credit Biden for the Afgan withdrawal but he refuses to accept it (like you have done in your comment here). Overall a disaster of a pull out is better than continuing a disaster of a war, for me whoever takes blame for one also deserves the credit for the other. He also is the first guy in my adult life to not start any new wars. I'd put together a version of the above deficit chart but with wars started by administration but I think you agree this comment has gone on long enough.
I don't see either of the parties in the USA having much difference in ideology about being pro-business, one is just more corrupt about it but both are pretty right-wing in the pro-business ideology. One just tries to pay lip service to the idea of being more socially-conscious but in the business arena it's just that, lip service.
> Obama was in Afghanistan longer than W. All 8 years vs what 6.5 for Bush? War is bipartisan. Who do you vote for if you object to the current wars for example? Who should you of voted for if you objected to any of the previous ones? The majority of the duration of these wars they lacked popular support, the vote to end them wasn't provided as an option.[0]
Completely agree, war is just another business for the USA.
Overall as an outsider the political landscape of the USA is a mess and pretty much undemocratic, two parties cannot ever represent the different interests of 340+ million citizens across a landmass spanning a continent. Since both parties are in cahoots with the military industry it doesn't really matter what citizens want or think about it, there's no other option, both will support it.
It's a sophisticated game of monopoly where select few players can coopt the productive capacity of the labor class.
From the perspective of a household (a cell), or a company (an organ), money (blood) are a limited resource, which constraints what you can do. If you don't have that resource, you will die.
But from the perspective of the state (the organism) or the government (CNS), money (blood) is just an accounting and distribution mechanism for real resources, which are things like energy, raw materials and labor (oxygen, minerals and sugar). From this perspective, amount of money/blood can be adapted to conditions (for example in emergency, money/blood can be redirected to vital industries/organs), and it is created or destroyed internally, in any amount required. So the amount of money (blood) is not a constraint, resources (oxygen, food) are.
I’ve been hearing doom and gloom about the deficit for 50 years. It primarily occurs when a Democrat is President and subsides when a Republican is President. This not a reference to OP. I state this to try to give some perspective to those who read this.
It is actually a great effort to forgive student loans. In US it is one of most debilitating factor for people who went to college (especially the private ones).
Why not do this earlier but wait for an election year? This just looks like a election campaign stunt to me.
All of this to avoid... free education for all with taxpayers money? Because that's socialism?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...