Lizzie And The Money Factory
Do you approve having the Federal government do as Elizabeth Warren wants -- spend $640 billion taxpayer dollars (nearly $2,000 for every person in the U.S.) paying off student loans for the people who voluntarily took them out?
I love her notion that we would "fix" the debt crisis by shoveling some people's money to other people who didn't earn it but spent a bunch of money on going to college.
Here, a bit from Warren's Medium post:
It's time for bold action to actually fix the debt crisis. Here's what my new plan would do:• It cancels $50,000 in student loan debt for every person with household income under $100,000.
• It provides substantial debt cancellation for every person with household income between $100,000 and $250,000. The $50,000 cancellation amount phases out by $1 for every $3 in income above $100,000, so, for example, a person with household income of $130,000 gets $40,000 in cancellation, while a person with household income of $160,000 gets $30,000 in cancellation.
"Cancellation."
Sounds better than forcible taking of money from one person to pay another's debt.
There are smart ways to go through college for not a lot of money, if you don't have money, and one of them is to go to community college for two years. Another is to do so well at community college that you get a scholarship for the other two years to a university.
And here's a bit more on how unfair this is from Robert Verbruggen at NRO:
Where to even start with this? With the fact that student loans are the result of borrowers' own decisions -- often good decisions that increased their earning power? With the fact that people who've been to college are generally more fortunate than those who have not? With the fact that this discriminates against people who paid off their loans early, as well as older borrowers who have been making payments for longer? With the fact it would subsidize even people making six-figure incomes? With the marriage penalty inherent in using "household income" to set the thresholds? With the fact that the student-loan "crisis" is dramatically overstated to begin with, with most borrowers paying less than 5 percent of their income each month?
Make your choices, and pay for them (as a Spanish proverb goes, best I can recall).
And below...well put:
Metaphorically speaking, Elizabeth Warren is that politician in the 4th of July parade, throwing candy off the float to the clamoring children.
— ann.on.a.mouse (@annonamouse4) April 22, 2019
Here's thread about this.
So as expenditures for education have exploded and administration has grown like cancer, teacher salaries are often same as ever, and student scores are flat. Right?
It's a shame that this happened to so many young people. But I think the people who need to pay are those in the industry of higher education, not taxpayers generally.
That is to say, we're screwed.
Crid at April 23, 2019 4:36 AM
A friend tweeted: "I propose that everybody who supports this initiative pay others college debts voluntarily."
Crid, can you post the link? I think you forgot it.
And yes, we're screwed.
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2019 6:10 AM
Remember, much of the Ivy League are hedge funds pretending to be tax exempt institutions of higher learning.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 23, 2019 6:27 AM
Warren isn't doing so well in current Democrat primary polls. She keeps floating around in the 3-6% range. Even Buttigieg a relatively unknown is getting 15%. A year ago Warren was doing much better in the 15-20% range. So she is trying to buy some votes.
Honestly Warren is in try something, anything mode right now. Her SJW stuff about how only a woman can run didn't turn out so good. It revved up a few people but the overt sexism turned off far more. Her fights with the Cherokee Nation hurt her. Right now her chances at getting the nomination look pretty small.
Ben at April 23, 2019 6:28 AM
Once the government got into the college loan business, college fees soared. Hmmm.....
KateC at April 23, 2019 6:36 AM
Elizabeth Warren must be a tranny, because she's stepped on her own crank so many times.
Note that this is a subtle further subsidy to the campus political indoctrination machines that have overrun the liberal arts. Were this to be implemented, after the leftists got done tinkering with the numbers and the eligibility rules, the people who qualify would mainly be those who are working at Burger King after having spent six figures getting a degree in XYZ Studies. If you have a degree in business, medicine or STEM, forget it.
(Then again, if you have a degree in any of those fields, you probably know enough to understand that one does not solve a debt problem by borrowing more money...)
Cousin Dave at April 23, 2019 6:40 AM
Is it really so easy to go from community college to a regular four year school? Never met anyone who did that in school... in fact even coming in from other comparable schools, very few of their credits were accepted.
NicoleK at April 23, 2019 6:50 AM
And other way to get through college is to avail yourself of the student grant benefits available through military service.
Patrick at April 23, 2019 6:54 AM
Is there a reason there aren't any federal universities? Other countries have them. You could control costs by not paying a huge salary to admin and coaches and things.
NicoleK at April 23, 2019 6:54 AM
In Florida (in the '90s) credits from the Associate of Arts degree program transferred readily to state universities as both were part of the state system and the programs were identical in course requirements. Credits from the various vocation-oriented AS programs did not always transfer. I imagine not much has changed.
Conan the Grammarian at April 23, 2019 7:05 AM
I don't think Warren fully understands how this government program works. Under Obama, the federal government started directly lending most, if not all, student loans.
As such, the government would not "pay off" student loans, it would simply forgive them, cancelling the debt. Older loans, held by private lenders and guaranteed by the federal government, would have to be paid off. I don't know how many of these are still outstanding.
I wonder how Warren proposes to address the concerns and objections of people who have already paid off their loans or who have been making payments for several years. She's buying the votes of younger voters with the money of older voters, the proverbial robbing of Peter to pay Paul. And Peter's gonna be pissed.
Not to mention that cancelling millions of dollars in debt today does nothing to address the inherent problems of the program going forward. It simply kicks the proverbial can down the proverbial road. Warren does not have solutions, just band-aids.
Conan the Grammarian at April 23, 2019 7:18 AM
> post the link?
> I think you forgot it.
Yes. Yonder.
Crid at April 23, 2019 7:46 AM
> You could control costs by
> not paying a huge salary to
> admin and coaches and things.
The least/least/least likely way to reduce the costs of typical college educations is to put them under the direct control of the United States federal government. Nic, c'mon.
> Other countries have them.
Name one... Whose national security (and probably fiscal security) isn't underwritten by the United States.
Also,
✔ KateC at April 23, 2019 6:36 AM
Crid at April 23, 2019 7:52 AM
I assume you were disregarding the following due to their military affiliations...
- US Military Academy (West Point, NY)
- US Naval Academy (Annapolis, MD)
- US Air Force Academy (Colorado Springs, CO)
- US Coast Guard Academy (New London, CT)
- National Defense University
...along with the various staff and war colleges each service runs.Not to mention the two Congressionally-chartered universities, both located in Washington, DC, Gallaudet University and Howard University.
Conan the Grammarian at April 23, 2019 8:36 AM
https://www.boredpanda.com/millennial-comeback-baby-boomer-military-free-education/
It's funny how they want to go to Yale but don't want to pay for the Ivy league tax.
Sixclaws at April 23, 2019 9:19 AM
NicoleK: Is it really so easy to go from community college to a regular four year school?
Yes, it actually is easy, and a lot cheaper. I and my (now-ex)-wife did it back in the 90's. Both of my daughters did it, also in the 90's, and they never even went to school before going to a community college. All of our credits were transferable to the universities we went to - wife and I to state universities; daughters to a private university with scholarships covering most of the tuition, fees, room and board. Seven of my nieces went to community colleges while working part-time, and then transferred to universities. Two of my nieces and a nephew are now working and going to community colleges with plans to transfer to four-year schools.
Credits for remedial courses taken at a community college, e.g. reading, writing, arithmetic and science at a level that should have been achieved before graduating from high school, don't transfer to four-year schools, nor do they apply towards the two-year Associates Degree granted by the community colleges and recognized by the four-year state schools. So whatever time you spend catching up to college level is in addition to the two years it takes to get the credits to transfer to a four-year college as a junior.
If you want to major in say business, computer science or medical technology at a four-year school, then you need to spend your time at the community college taking the math and science that are prerequisites for those programs, instead of pottery, drama, PE, multicultural dance and other fun things. Otherwise you'll spend extra years and a lot more money catching up at the more expensive four-year school.
It takes planning. You need to get as many prerequisites for your major as possible at the community college. Not all classes offered at community colleges are transferable to four-year schools, especially private ones. Courses intended for two-year technical or vocational degrees or certificates probably won't transfer. Just find that out ahead of time and plan accordingly.
Ken R at April 23, 2019 9:21 AM
Federal government interference in this market created this issue. Maybe these universities and there billions in endowments can take the hit. Many of these degrees are worthless or never completed and the university should be held to account. NOT the taxpayer. And what about the poor sap that payed his/her loans. What a mess.
Les Swamp at April 23, 2019 9:23 AM
I went to a state school. I helped my wife through community college and then a state school. We both chose majors that pay fairly well.
Why should I pay a penny to people who voluntary went to an expensive private school and decided to wrack up huge loans?
If you want you loan revoked, then your degree should be revoked.
Curist at April 23, 2019 9:24 AM
"Make your choices, and pay for them"
This is a nice notion in general, but there are times when folks find they are unable to pay their debts and as a result we created a system for wiping the slate clean with bankruptcy.
People and businesses do this all the time... the President for example declared bankruptcy on 6 separate occasions for his failing businesses.
If student loan debt had an avenue for bankruptcy then this likely would not have built up to the current state of affairs, however we as a society made a choice to treat student loan debt differently from any other debt... society made than choice, and as a result they have a different level of obligation than if someone can't repay a credit card bill.
Artemis at April 23, 2019 9:47 AM
Canceling all the debt is actually a bigger handout than "free" college. If instead of lending money to students it was paid directly to colleges to cover the cost of tuition, fees, room and board it would prevent students from spending the money on things like car payments, clothes, off-campus housing, parties, alcohol, cannabis, Cancun...
If college was free or student loan debt canceled a lot fewer students would go to community colleges before transferring to a four-year party school since canceling debt or making college "free" would end the cost advantage of community colleges.
Ken R at April 23, 2019 9:48 AM
NicoleK: my daughter did exactly that--2 yr community college then a scholarship the cut tuition in half, and lived at home the whole time. We got her whole degree for about $50k. To do this you have to check which credits will transfer where.
The entire dem platform seems to be giving away free stuff. When society is doing well, and welfare is already generous, you have to make outrageous promises to get noticed this way.
cc at April 23, 2019 10:21 AM
Curist makes a good point: college is an optional investment. Make a good investment. Often you can get a good education at a state school but if you choose to go to a pricey elite school, why should I be on the hook for your status symbol?
cc at April 23, 2019 10:26 AM
Rip the money out of the universities. The universities profited. Their charge is basically that the universities are engaged in unjust enrichment. When a merchant or class of merchant overcharges, the courts extract the money from them.
"Is there a reason there aren't any federal universities?"
The Morrill Land Grant Act was the solution to that problem when the federal government was small and it was seen as a state's job, over a century before Jimmy Carter made a federal Dept of Education.
"Is it really so easy to go from community college to a regular four year school?"
Yes, but you have to be someplace with articulation agreements. You will never see an articulation agreement with University of Phoenix. A for-profit business college is likely to have limited articulation on specific programs. What might have been called a "junior college" is likely to have articulation agreements with the 4-year and masters-granting public colleges in the same state. The AA/AS program should be able to provide the transferability/articulation agreement details - and if not, people should run away from them as they're degree mills not junior colleges.
El Verde Loco at April 23, 2019 10:28 AM
Is it really so easy to go from community college to a regular four year school?
Yes. So long as your AA degree is acceptable to the 4 year school you want to attend.
In Florida, by law the 4 year state schools must accept transfers from Florida based community colleges if you complete your AA. Tallahassee CC is a feeder to FSU/FAMU, Santa Fe CC is a feeder to UF, and I'm sure there are similar feeders for UCF, USF, and the other *checks notes* seven members of the State University System.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_University_System_of_Florida#Member_institutions
I R A Darth Aggie at April 23, 2019 11:24 AM
Federal government interference in this market created this issue.
Remind me again, where is it set forth in the Constitution that FedGov is permitted to stick it's long, camel-like nose into the tent of education?
I R A Darth Aggie at April 23, 2019 11:45 AM
> This is a nice notion in
> general, but there are
> times when
Your capacity for oblivious takes is supernatural. It's doctrinaire and reflexive, not expressive and reflective. Your mechanisms have an irreducible precision, but they do not grind.
You're a bot. A con, a joker. Not for real.
It's not much amusing, but you had me going for, what, five years?
Interesting achievement, but it's hard to imagine what good comes from your effort.
Crid at April 23, 2019 11:55 AM
A strong opinion.
Crid at April 23, 2019 12:01 PM
Arty, people used to be able to declare bankruptcy on student loans. I believe they still can on non-federal loans. It is when the government took over the business that people lost the ability to discharge these debts.
Ben at April 23, 2019 12:15 PM
"If student loan debt had an avenue for bankruptcy then this likely would not have built up to the current state of affairs..."
Doesn't really solve the problem, though. It may solve the problem for the student, but either way, someone else has to ante up the money that the student doesn't pay back. Since 2012, that someone else is the U.S. taxpayer.
However, I think that a student-loan jubilee is inevitable; it's just a matter of time. In another ten years, the Millennials and GenZ will have enough votes to out-vote GenX and what remains of the Boomers, and there will be a bill to mostly or completely wipe student loan obligations. By then, it may be about a $4T hit. An economic upset is certain to occur; of what type or severity, my crystal ball is not showing me that.
Cousin Dave at April 23, 2019 12:19 PM
It is when the government took over the business that people lost the ability to discharge these debts.
Barack says "hi, suckas!"
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-created-student-loan-crisis-with-1-trillion-in-loans/
I R A Darth Aggie at April 23, 2019 12:40 PM
Keep in mind that as of the Obama administration, the federal government directly lends the money in the student loan program.
Prior to direct lending, student loans were made by banks. Since banks were reluctant to loan money based on vague promises of future earnings and without collateral, the federal government stepped in and guaranteed the lender would be repaid.
The government even set up SLMA (Sallie Mae) to purchase student loans from the lenders so they'd have the liquidity to loan more money. Eventually, private loan purchasers were set up and started purchasing guaranteed student loans as investment vehicles - an almost-eerie foreshadowing of what happened with Fannie Mae and the mortgage bubble.
Strict guidelines were established for the servicing of student loans and even the slightest deviation from those guidelines voided the guarantee. As a result, most lenders and holders of student loans hired third-party servicing companies to service their portfolios. Any deviations from the servicing guidelines then shifted the liability to the servicing company, not the lender or the holding company.
I worked in a variety of departments for one of those third-party servicing companies for almost five years. We had to walk a fine line to stay within the guidelines and work with borrowers. Banks wanted us to treat even delinquent borrowers nicely so they would come back and get more loans from the bank, but the government gave us very little wiggle room on delinquencies. Deadlines were tight and had to be met exactly, even if the customer called the bank to complain of harassment (and they did).
As for student loans not being dischargeable by bankruptcy, they can now actually be discharged in bankruptcy. However, discharging them in bankruptcy is more difficult than discharging other debt.
"Since Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, both federal and private student loans are more difficult to discharge in bankruptcy than other types of debt. However, they can still be discharged if the borrower can prove the loan causes undue hardship." ~ US News (May 2, 2018)
Those who want to discharge their student loan obligations must pass the Brunner Test (Forbes):
- Based upon your current income and expenses, you cannot maintain a minimal standard of living for yourself and your dependents if you are forced to repay your loans.
- Your current financial situation is likely to continue for a big part of the repayment period.
- You have made a good faith effort to repay your student loans.
The third one trips up most delinquent borrowers.The federal government offers such a wide variety of debt relief programs (deferments, forebearances, IDR payment programs, et al) that the Brunner Test is difficult to pass in its entirety.
The idea behind making student loans difficult, or originally impossible, to discharge via bankruptcy is that with nothing tangible of value as collateral, lenders and guarantors feared people would run up large student loan debts and skip out on repaying them via bankruptcy. A degree and the knowledge obtained in earning it, cannot be repossessed. A flat panel TV bought with a credit card can be brought up in the bankruptcy hearing and, if still extant, be repossessed.
Conan the Grammarian at April 23, 2019 1:03 PM
That, in a nutshell, describes the problem with bankruptcy. Someone has to pay, if the bankrupt party does not.
People who do not understand finance don't get that. Bankruptcy is not a magic eraser that somehow erases the debt. It just shifts the obligation to pay onto someone else.
Conan the Grammarian at April 23, 2019 1:08 PM
Cousin Dave: "In another ten years, the Millennials and GenZ will have enough votes to out-vote GenX and what remains of the Boomers, and there will be a bill to mostly or completely wipe student loan obligations."
I dunno. I think that by that time, the older folks in those generations will have paid off their loans and will resent the idea that the youngins are trying to weasel out of paying theirs. Much like most of us feel now. I'm on the x/Millennial cusp- most of my friends and I either didn't take out loans back in the late 90's/early 2000's, or only took out a minimal amount. Of course, state universities were cheaper then, and it used to be normal to work to pay your living expenses versus including them in your loans.
ahw at April 23, 2019 2:06 PM
I also want to address the "Universal Free Public College" part of this nonsensical proposal.
If college (even if she ONLY means community college) is "free," are there going to be higher standards to get in? Because I foresee all colleges turning into substandard HBU-type institutions that primarily teach what people should have learned during their final two years of high school. 'Cuz once they're "free" people are going to start to complain that the more competitive State U's are still catering to the elite when Treyvon LowIQ can't get admitted...
I understand that community colleges are primarily funded by their local cities and counties and the states. Is Warren proposing that the federal government should dictate that local communities will no longer be able to charge the people that use the service? Right now, if I want to attend the CC in Austin or San Antonio, I have to pay more because I don't live in the taxing district. Am I going to be able to freeload off the people paying significantly higher taxes in the urban areas? This is just so... so... harebrained.
ahw at April 23, 2019 2:23 PM
Ben, when I worked in student loans (1987-1992), most of the student loans we serviced could not be discharged in bankruptcy. The government started the Stafford program in the '60s and allowed bankruptcy discharge for about a decade before applying constraints.
According to this write-up by an attorney on LInkedIn, "Prior to 1976 student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy without any constraints. [...] When the US Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 1978, the ability to discharge student loans was narrowed. ...with the enactment of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, private loans from all nonprofit lenders were excepted from discharge."
See my post at 1:03 PM for a breakdown of bankruptcy discharge requirements today - the infamous Brunner Test.
Conan the Grammarian at April 23, 2019 2:23 PM
Eliminate the middleman. No banks, no gov't just have the college themselves underwrite the loan.
If Cal State actually believes your degree is worth $80 k. They can loan the money. It will be less a hassle and paperwork than their financial aid office and alumni donation already is. It's just they will be on the hook when the flood of worthless degrees can't be hired.
On the plus side all talk of allowing bankruptcy will vanish.
Joe J at April 23, 2019 2:32 PM
I didn't finish college (and haven't regretted it a day), but I left owing $0 to anyone.
A student loan, as well as the cost of raising a child, should be borne by those who chose it.
The American obsession with marriage, children, college and homeownership as unalloyed positives has ensnared millions of people. If there was a way to communicate those costs as well as benefits to young people, I'd be all for it, but there's not.
So: you chose to play, you get to pay. Period.
Kevin at April 23, 2019 2:53 PM
Speaking of money shortages...
https://reason.com/2019/04/22/social-security-will-be-insolvent-in-16-years/
Quote:
"So we're probably only 15 years away from Congress deciding that's a big enough crisis to do something about it."
And:
"By that point, some parts of Medicare will already be unable to cover the full cost of benefits."
lenona at April 23, 2019 2:59 PM
Also:
• It cancels $50,000 in student loan debt for every person with household income under $100,000.
Cool story. Can I cancel $50K of my car loan? Because my car has proved far more useful and necessary than college. And since my car was only $21K, it's actually a bargain for the taxpayer.
Kevin at April 23, 2019 2:59 PM
Curist: "If you want you loan revoked, then your degree should be revoked."
yes! I so like that idea.
charles at April 23, 2019 6:50 PM
> Curist: "If you want you
> loan revoked, then your
> degree should be revoked."
There are serious things to like about this.
First of all, the higher-ed industrial complex probably wouldn't fight it too much... They'll still have their money, and might even have a few people re-enrolling to get their credentials restored.
Second, a lot of employers wouldn't insist on that re-certification, because they know that there'd be an enormous disruption as their workforce stepped away for a few years, only to return with the expectation of picking up their careers where they left off. The employers know perfectly well that the employees would demand tuition support, and God knows what else, during this interim… Continued access to day care for the kids? Insurance? Parking spots downtown? Use of the office which is suddenly not contributing to the bottom line? God only knows what the government would demand of corporate America in such a circumstance.
Third, and this is a big one: If companies DIDN'T insist that their employees re-certify, they'd be tacitly confessing that degrees are worthless.
Crid at April 23, 2019 9:19 PM
Topical factoids.
Crid at April 23, 2019 9:33 PM
A very chart-y chart.
Crid at April 23, 2019 9:55 PM
A very chart-y chart.
Crid at April 23, 2019 9:56 PM
Ben Says:
"Arty, people used to be able to declare bankruptcy on student loans. I believe they still can on non-federal loans. It is when the government took over the business that people lost the ability to discharge these debts."
Right, and the ability to discharge debts should be restored. It isn't reasonable to lock people into debts if/when it induces untenable financial hardship that would permit bankruptcy in other equivalent situations.
Artemis at April 24, 2019 1:06 AM
Cousin Dave Says:
"Doesn't really solve the problem, though. It may solve the problem for the student, but either way, someone else has to ante up the money that the student doesn't pay back."
That is the risk one assumes when making a loan. That is what justifies interest being collected on the loan.
If someone is unable to pay their debts and declares bankruptcy then the person who is owed money is sol.
If creditors have a true guarantee of repayment then the loans should be essentially interest free as there would be no risk. As it stands student loan debt brings in a profit without the associated risk of default associated with other debts.
Artemis at April 24, 2019 1:31 AM
Crid Says:
"Your capacity for oblivious takes is supernatural."
On the contrary, it seems to me I am quite aware of some arguments that you have conveniently forgotten.
It wasn't that long ago when you staunchly advocated for "clawing back" pension debt obligations because for that issue it wasn't necessary for you to pay for your choices:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2017/04/unsustainable-h.html
You even supported the idea of using state bankruptcy as a means of defaulting on promises to retirees after they had already committed a lifetime career that they cannot get back.
You said and I quote:
"This is going to require backbone from the public and integrity on the part of elected officials."
In other words, the government defaulting on debts to retirees is a matter of "integrity"... but if a 28 year old fails to repay a student loan debt suddenly this amounts to being "oblivious"?
The issue here is one of philosophical consistency.
You aren't the only one suffering from this problem by the way.
Others in that same thread (who are also commenting here) asserted that it was "ludicrous" to expect the government to fully pay their obligations and that someone who insisted otherwise "ignores basic financial truths".. yet here they declare that *not* paying debt somehow ignored basic financial truths that *someone* is paying for it regardless.
This is actually why I enjoy this blog so much, it is fun to see the same folks argue completely different principles depending on which principle happens to benefit them financially in any particular situation.
Philosophical consistency isn't difficult, but it does require awareness.
Artemis at April 24, 2019 1:47 AM
While there's some merit to this, it still leaves the lender with nothing tangible or valuable to sell to recoup losses from the default. A degree revoked hurts the defaulting borrower, but does nothing to help make the defaulted lender whole.
==================================================
One thing that has not been mentioned in the argument about allowing bankruptcy discharge of student loans is risk-based pricing.
Before the federal government started direct lending, student loan interest rates were subsidized by the government (taxpayers). The interest rates to the borrowers were pretty low because the government was paying a portion of the interest to the lender.
The government also picked up the tab for the interest while the borrower was in school. So, for 4+ years, the government was paying all the interest on the loan. Once the borrower started repayment, the borrower paid only a portion of the interest due.
If you're going to add the risk of the borrower defaulting, you're going to have to add a risk premium to the price of the loan. No more cheap money from student loans.
The alternative is that to keep the government guarantee on the loan. However, that brings us back to the question of preventing a run on the system through bankruptcy discharges.
That risk premium will be difficult to calculate on an 18-year-old with no credit score, the typical market for student loans. Since someone under the age of 18 cannot be legally bound to a contract, the 18-year-old will not have a history of meeting contractual obligations. With no FICO score (a quantified record of meeting financial obligations), it's difficult to estimate the risk inherent in loaning that person money.
Adding risk-based pricing to the student loan racket means some folks will get rejected, a political minefield for elected legislators; especially when the idea of the program is to enable people to pull themselves up with a college education.
Conan the Grammarian at April 24, 2019 4:58 AM
Actually, the government was in the college loan business from the start with the 1958 defense department loan program and the 1965 Stafford loan program.
It's when Ted Kennedy et al in the '80s augmented the program to include proprietary vocational schools that the problems started. Almost overnight, proprietary trade schools sprang up. The tuition just happened to be the maximum one-semester loan amount. Applicants were instructed to fill out a loan application with their school application and the box that disbursed the money in its entirety to the school was pre-checked on the application (as opposed to the other choices: a portion to the school or the entire loan to the borrower).
These schools provided no education of any value and shut down after a few years - before enough of their "graduates" could enter repayment and cause problems.
It went something like this: Joe and Bob would open Joe-Bob's Trade school, run for 2-3 years, and go bankrupt. Because Joe-Bob's no longer existed, any pro-rated portion of the tuition due to the borrower was unrecoverable. Joe and Bob would then open Bobby-Joe's trade school and repeat the cycle.
Universities caught on that there was free money to be had with high tuition and adjusted accordingly.
Parents caught on that they could send Junior to college on his own dime and keep their trip-to-Paris money, so they stopped saving for the entire college ride and told Junior that a portion of it was on him.
Free money changes behavior.
Conan the Grammarian at April 24, 2019 5:48 AM
"If someone is unable to pay their debts and declares bankruptcy then the person who is owed money is sol."
The problem is that "the person who is owed money" is me, the taxpayer. And since I had no say-so in whether or not to make the loan, I resent that I have to be responsible for the deadbeats.
Cousin Dave at April 24, 2019 6:22 AM
Except it does not eliminate risk. Inflation is always a big risk. The 40k loan today may be 80 k by the time it’s all paid back. Plus having to pay for.the work involved in making the loan, collecting, checking fraud etc. th n there is opportunity cost on if it had been loaned out elsewhere.
Taking back the degree is just another reason colleges should cover the loan. But frankly the degree gets you your first job or two, after that most places don’t care. How often does an employer actually check on degrees?
Joe j at April 24, 2019 6:49 AM
Cousin Dave Says:
"The problem is that "the person who is owed money" is me, the taxpayer. And since I had no say-so in whether or not to make the loan, I resent that I have to be responsible for the deadbeats."
I understand your frustration, but I think it is going a bit overboard to call an entire generation "deadbeats".
That being said, based upon the details of the policy proposal it is unlikely that you personally will have to pay anything.
The proposal is to pay for the student debt via a 2% wealth tax on estates valued more than 50 million dollars (and the first 50 million dollars doesn't get the wealth tax at all).
So unless you personally have more than 50 million dollars the proposal doesn't require you to pay anything.
Artemis at April 24, 2019 9:07 AM
Just to talk about something slightly tangential. Related to the student loan problem is what to do moving forward. We cannot change the past and younger folks who are drowning in debt will need some help even if older folks aren't enthusiastic about it.
I would prefer a system that didn't loan money to students, but rather garnished some percentage of a students future wages over many years.
Such a system would serve to align the interests of the university with the interests of the students and the economy. It would create a very strong incentive for job placement and also encourage students to enroll in programs that had a substantive financial future.
The current system as it exists decouples the economic interests of society from the educational interests of students, which isn't ideal.
Artemis at April 24, 2019 9:19 AM
> it seems to me I am
> quite aware
That's the most half-hearted egotistical pump we've had here in quite some time… It SEEMS you are QUITE aware of your OWN INTERIOR CONDITIONS. It's like you wear toilet water from a fancy ceramic bottle labeled I wasn't allowed to gambol with other little children on the playground…. We all recognize the scent.
But listen, none that matters now!… I'm in on your joke! I see where you're going with all this! Carry on!
Crid at April 24, 2019 9:29 AM
Crid Says:
"That's the most half-hearted egotistical pump we've had here in quite some time"
You never fail to amuse Crid. The following is a quote from you:
"People sometimes ask, 'Does it bug you being right about everything, ALL the time? …Across every known measure of time and space? Does it ever get old?'
No. No, it doesn't. YOU SHOULD TRY IT."
You don't seem to have issues with egotistical pumps... so is the problem that it wasn't over the top enough?
Don't you have something important to do? Like jerking off into a collectible F1 racing helmet or something?... or writing love poetry to your favorite drivers?
Artemis at April 24, 2019 9:35 AM
Another part of this debate is the true role of college. Is it to be regarded as a job-training program or an educational process?
If everything about student lending is hinged upon the graduate's ability to get a high-paying job with his degree, that means we're assigning the university the role of job trainer.
If, however, we expect the student to spend "four years prostrate to the higher mind," then a high-paying job may not be the required outcome of the process; an education by itself would be the desired outcome.
In either case, the product the universities are selling is knowledge and training. That product has only some bearing on why people are able to get and keep jobs. If I build and sell cars, the product on which I am evaluated is the car, not your ability to drive it safely. If I teach you a subject, your long-term or in-depth mastery of the subject is only partly a result of my teaching.
When the product is a college education the evaluative standard is different. The choice of degree is up to the student; and that degree factors in to the graduate getting a job and what kind of job he can get. Also factoring in on graduates getting (and keeping) jobs, raises and bonuses, promotions etc. are their work ethic, their ability to apply the lessons the college teaches them, their ability to learn new skills relevant to the job, their ability to get along with coworkers, their honesty and integrity, etc. Is the college responsible for all of these things? Should the college be held financially liable for the graduate's failure-to-launch post-college?
Conan the Grammarian at April 24, 2019 11:04 AM
"I understand your frustration, but I think it is going a bit overboard to call an entire generation "deadbeats"."
He didn't. Don't lie Arty.
"The proposal is to pay for the student debt via a 2% wealth tax on estates valued more than 50 million dollars (and the first 50 million dollars doesn't get the wealth tax at all)."
Such a tax is not constitutional. She will need an amendment passed to make it work.
Ben at April 24, 2019 7:13 PM
"Is the college responsible for all of these things? Should the college be held financially liable for the graduate's failure-to-launch post-college?"
I think you are getting lost in the weeds here Conan. A college education is an expensive speculative investment that is often today financed with borrowed money. Earlier this investment was mainly paid for by either parents or by the student themselves. Where it was paid for by borrowed money the lenders often were picky about who and for which degree they would lend. They had a reasonable fear of getting paid back. Students who were not making sound financial decisions were usually unable to find financing. As the federal government has taken over that filter went away. The federal government is not capable of properly assessing risk. This has lead to the current debt crisis which hurts both those who made poor financial decisions and the government who is likely to not get paid all it is owed. Hence the called for the federal government to get out of college education loans is a reasonable request.
If you assume the federal government is going to get out of the student loan business the question arises how will people pay for their education now? About 70% of college students financed their education with federal loans. If you just cut that money off you are wiping out most colleges in the US. The private lending market (banks and such) is unlikely to take this job to any significant degree. So colleges are one option for a replacement lender. If only for the simple fact that they will need to make these loans in order to have students and keep their business model moving forwards.
I appreciate the questions you are asking. But this is less of an issue of morality and best practices and more about actions necessary for schools to survive.
Ben at April 24, 2019 7:30 PM
> a quote from you
Keeping a tidy mental index of my thoughts is indeed a a worthwhile pursuit; but no warranty is offered with respect to the date of your eventual enlightenment. Read and memorize… Do your best.
Crid at April 24, 2019 8:24 PM
“If only for the simple fact that they will need to make these loans in order to have students and keep their business model moving forwards.”
College was a great deal better, and easier to fund when colleges didn’t think they had to have a Business model that relied on the Government/tax payers to cover their overhead operating losses, and ever increasing cost of student entertainment, coddling, diversity outreach, and remedial courses designed to extract big federal bucks for classes that should have been taken when these “college students” were in the 9th grade.
Isab at April 25, 2019 4:57 AM
"So unless you personally have more than 50 million dollars the proposal doesn't require you to pay anything."
Besides the fact that asset taxes in general are a absolutely horrible idea, we've seen plenty of times (exhibit A: the AMT) that, with this sort of thing, over time, the rate goes up and the threshold goes down.
Cousin Dave at April 25, 2019 6:43 AM
Ben Says:
"He didn't. Don't lie Arty."
Good grief Benji... this entire discussion is about student loan relief that predominantly impacts the younger generation.
So when I say that referring to that generation as deadbeats for trying to help them out is a bit overboard that is what I am talking about.
You are right that no one specifically mentioned a generation... but what do you think we are taking about here?... the 60 somethings with student loan debt?
We are talking about assisting young folks, there is no reason to refer to them as "deadbeats".
"Such a tax is not constitutional. She will need an amendment passed to make it work."
Elisabeth Warren is a law professor at Harvard and this is her proposal.
Can you please detail how and why you have come to a different conclusion than an expert in the field?
At best the discrepency suggests this would be an open legal question.
Even this article states that it probably is constitutional:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-30/elizabeth-warren-s-wealth-tax-is-probably-constitutional
How can you be so confident it isn't when the experts aren't certain but in general believe it would be?
Artemis at April 25, 2019 8:13 AM
Cousin Dave,
You are of course entitled to your opinion that a wealth tax is "in general" a horrible idea. However, that doesn't help us much in looking at this very specific implementation.
I don't really have a serious objection to it at this point based upon what I have read.
The point remains that nothing in the proposal would compel you to pay a single cent unless you were personally worth more than 50 million dollars... in which case congrats to you.
Artemis at April 25, 2019 8:21 AM
Crid,
It is not strictly possible to keep a "tidy" mental catalogue of your thoughts.
Your ideas/comments are scattershot, messy, and inconsistent.
That being said, you have a puppy-like quality in that while you may piss and shit all over the carpet, chew on the furniture, and create general chaos in your wake... I just can't be mad at you because you don't really know any better.
Artemis at April 25, 2019 8:26 AM
Good grief Arty you lie. Repeatedly. And obviously. If you want anyone to actually take you seriously try not lying.
Ben at April 25, 2019 9:05 AM
> scattershot, messy, and inconsistent.
You're being mean-sprited.
Crid at April 25, 2019 9:43 AM
It gets worse when you learn how these loans were doled out.
I know someone who completed a non-degree LPN/RN licensure program at a local community college. Her tuition, books, and commuting costs were paid by the Dept. of Job and Family Services because she had a minor disability. She was told student loans were available so she signed up for them. No financial aid form to show need - just a rubber stamp approval as long as she was in the program. She used the money for tropical vacations and the like. She's been paying on these loans for at least 5 years and her principal balance is almost $70K.
The taxpayers should take whoever approved these loans and tar and feather them. Given the amount outstanding nationally, it's a safe bet her experience was common.
bw1 at April 25, 2019 5:58 PM
"Elisabeth Warren is a law professor at Harvard and this is her proposal."
That and $4 will get her a cup of Starbucks finest product. You need to get out and read more if you somehow think everything politically active law professors say represents sound constitutional reasoning. "law professor" encompasses a broad range of specialties - would you expect the word of a podiatrist on brain tumors to be gospel?
bw1 at April 25, 2019 6:03 PM
"Is it really so easy to go from community college to a regular four year school? Never met anyone who did that in school.."
My first job was at a community college and that's where I learned their dirty little secret. Community colleges' get federal money based on the metric of what percentages of those who enroll earn a degree. As a result their counselors steer all students, regardless of their goals, into a program that awards an associate's degree. If you're planning to transfer to a 4 year program, this is terrible advice - it's a terminal program designed to teach a narrow occupational skill as quickly as possible. You learn to do things without understanding the foundations undelying them.
Say you want to become an electrical engineer. You spend two years learning how to manufacture/quickly troubleshoot various electronic devices using various tools. Meanwhile, your ostensive future classmates already at a 4 year university are learning the math, physics, chemistry - the theoretical foundation of their field, as well as the core liberal arts classes that will make them well-rounded culturally literate people. You transfer, and third year classes assume you know how to solve a partial differential equation or do perform a 3 dimensional surface integral, or understand how electron orbits interact in a given material, and all you know is how to troubleshoot cash registers.
If you want to transfer to a four year college, get that college's catalog, look up the courses their freshmen and sophomores are taking there, and sign up for those courses at the community college. The counselor will try to steer you otherwise, because there is no associate's degree for the first half of a meaningful baccelaureate program. Tell the counselor to shove it.
In the federal funding formula, someone who attends a community college, transfers to Yale, graduates top of their class, goes on to Harvard Law, again top of their class, becomes a multi-term US Senator and eventually Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but does not leave the community college with a degree, counts as someone the community college failed to save from welfare/prison.
Once again, the government touches something, and wrecks it.
bw1 at April 25, 2019 6:31 PM
In Florida that was not true. The AA (Associate of Arts) was, in fact, the first two years of your baccalaureate program. You took the same classes. The first 2 years at your 4-year institution were for taking liberal arts education to make you a well-rounded person and for taking any and all prerequisites for your upper division major.
An AS (Associate of Science) was the vocational training degree to which you're referring. The 4-year universities in the state program accepted the AA transfers from the state's community colleges, but not all AS degrees could transfer.
Conan the Grammarian at April 25, 2019 8:01 PM
Ben Says:
"Good grief Arty you lie. Repeatedly. And obviously. If you want anyone to actually take you seriously try not lying."
I don't trust your ability to discern truth from falsehood considering your history.
You are just being a troll here... and not a particularly clever one.
Just because you don't like what someone says doesn't make them dishonest.
Even in the context of this very thread the best you can declare is a possible misunderstanding between Cousin's Daves explicit statements and implied meaning.
If he had an objection he could have made it himself, but he didn't.
He doesn't need you jumping in and putting words into his mouth. He is an adult who is quite capable of speaking for himself.
Artemis at April 25, 2019 9:06 PM
Crid Says:
"You're being mean-sprited."
I think you are focusing too much attention on the wrong part of what I said.
I also said you were puppy-like... and who isn't fond of puppies?
Artemis at April 25, 2019 9:10 PM
You don't have to trust my opinion Arty. It is an obvious fact. You lied. There is zero deniability in that. No misunderstanding. No confusing of implied statements. You lied. Tart it up all you want. The fact is you lied. And you keep lying to try and cover that up.
Ben at April 26, 2019 9:24 AM
A proposal: Instead of financing college through public or private student loans (with a fixed amount owed), finance them privately, through a commitment to repay a fixed percentage of future earnings for a fixed number of years. Investors would buy shares in a pool, and the pool would invest the money in students. If the students were chosen well (as in STEM majors or law students with a high likelyhood of success), a modest cut of their pay after college would give reasonably high gains over, say, 25 years. Some would fail, but pools spread the risk, and the rates should be set for sufficient average gains. (There could also be a cap on the total payed-back; that would attract those that think they are the next Bill Gates, and enough .)
Students with lower likely earnings (e.g., literature and education majors) or a higher risk of failing college could still get in, but with a higher percentage of pay and a longer repayment period - investors would lose a little on the future career fast food employees, but make it back with high rates on the ones that turn out to be successful salespersons and corporate managers. And the students that no one will take under any terms need to either re-think their majors, find something more realistic than college, or perhaps get out in the world and create a track record that shows they will be good employees or successful business men. (Vocational training could also be financed the same way - .)
From the investor side, I think a series of such pools would make good investments for retirement. You get a return that starts out fairly small, but rises each year; it's also inflation-proof to whatever extent wages increase with inflation, and fairly predictable short of a massive economic collapse. (And where do you think the money for Social Insurance or any other pension would be coming from in an economic collapse? If it's the government printing money, you lose to inflation... But in partial compensation, what makes old age expensive is a need for service jobs that are difficult to automate, such as nursing home workers - and if the job market goes to hell, people will line up for those jobs at reduced pay, so your retirement costs will go down.)
No government guarantees are needed, just a little regulation against pool operators embezzling the cash (including bonds on the personnel to reimburse the pool for losses due to dishonesty). However, we do a tax law that avoids double taxation - make the payments from former students a pre-tax deduction on the pay stubs, and deductible on any even the simplest version of the 1040, so only the investors in the pool owe taxes. Also, these pools must be approved for investments by Roth and regular 401-K's, IRA's, and pension funds, so the share buyers get the same tax advantages as for other investments.
markm at April 26, 2019 10:00 AM
@Conan: "If, however, we expect the student to spend "four years prostrate to the higher mind," then a high-paying job may not be the required outcome of the process; an education by itself would be the desired outcome."
That does not describe colleges today, it doesn't describe any of the several colleges I've attended, and most likely the last institution it could describe was Socrates's stoa. Most college students just aren't that interested in intellectual questions. If they're not attending college for the credentials to a good job, they're attending it because otherwise their parents won't pay for their partying. A good college is one that either manages to create a place where the few that are interested in learning for its own sake can separate themselves from all the rest, or creates a program where one _must_ learn to earn some especially useful credentials. Law school and medical school are often examples of programs that require real learning.
For me, after wasted years in the wrong college, this was engineering, beginning with 800 students in one room, and the professor giving the "Look to your right. Look to your left..." speech. After the first 12-hour homework assignment, that room was noticeably less crowded. In the next semester, the classes were half as large. By the start of the second year, no class was over 200. The survivors were smart, good at math, and very, very hard working. They were both motivated to learn and very good at it - and the curriculum was designed above all to hone that skill, because half the graduates would be working on something that was too recently invented to be in the curriculum. One course was taught from handouts the professor gave us, of a textbook he was writing. In another, the most useful techniques were taught only in the lecture, because they were in NO existing text.
markm at April 26, 2019 10:46 AM
I decided not to post the following over on Bored Panda, because I would need either an account with one or the other of two actually evil, exploitative, privacy-invading companies, or to create one just for one post on that one sight:
For the millenials whining about how they can't get _more_ help with their college costs: Go back up and read the part about how government subsidies caused the cost of college to grow. Basically, every time the government gives or even lends college kids more money, the colleges figure out how to spend that money - and more - and it becomes even more difficult for the students or their parents to come up with the additional money they need above what the government allows.
If I tour a college, I see dorms that look like a luxury hotel - 45 years ago, they were pretty much comparable to Air Force barracks. I see cafeterias serving things I never even heard of before I was 50. I see buildings packed with administrators, in fancier offices than the headquarters of most of the companies I've worked for. I see a massive waste of money, just because it's there to spend.
So if you are a millenial trying to get through college, I feel your pain - but when you want to do more of the same thing that fcuked up college finances, I have to think you might be too stupid to benefit from college.
markm at April 26, 2019 12:04 PM
Markm. you hit the nail on the head.
Govt. financial aid is based on the difference between what you can pay and what the college charges. Thus when schools contemplate a tuition hike, they do it confident that it won't cost them any students. It creates completely inelastic demand. As a result, you get the bizarre situation of REVERSE competition - schools are actually in a tuition arms race, each one desperate to avoid the perception that they are the cheaper alternative than the next. It's like two gas stations across the street from each other vying to have the highest price per gallon.
Last summer we had an intern on our team - a guy from India getting his master's degree in computer science on a student visa. He'd been told by his employer that his BS from an Indian University had carried him as far as it was going to and he needed a degree from an American school to advance further. He applied to an American university, and once accepted, took his salary history, undergraduate transcripts, and information about the program to which he'd been accepted, along with letters of recommendation from past managers and professors, to a regular commercial bank in India, and applied for a personal loan to finance his studies. They evaluated his materials and decided that the likely return on investment was good, and approved the loan. No subsidies, no government guarantees - a business decision based on sound information. He said that if he'd gone in there with bad undergrad grades, or was planning on majoring in something like gender studies or medeival poetry, they'd have laughed in his face.
If people in India can manage to do it that way and American kids can't, maybe they deserve to have all the jobs move there.
bw1 at April 26, 2019 6:02 PM
Conan, keep in mind that I said MEANINGFUL baccalaureate program, which excludes the sort of BA programs students follow because they're terrified of math. which are typically the ones where an AA doesn't place one behind other juniors.
You can't fit the first two years of a worthwhile STEM baccalaureate into an associate's degree. There was a time when there were meaningful BA programs that flowed naturally from AA programs, but SJW's and "intersectionality" have destroyed most of them. Also, very few if any community colleges teach those core liberal arts courses at a level that would prepare one to excel in those meaningful BA programs that remain. Liberal arts classes depend heavily on subjective in class discussion - it's quite a gradient to go from discussing literature and philosophy with people who are just putting in their time to fulfill what they consider a bogus requirement to become an HVAC technician to discussing literature and philosophy with people who might go on to get a doctorate in one of those fields. One's classmates are often as important to one's education as one's teachers.
I developed one of the nation's first degree audit applications for a major community college. It's purpose was to run the transcripts of students who followed the advice I gave in my prior comment against the entire catalog to find some way to fit an associate degree requirements (well, that and to do the same for students who'd attended for six years only to get government benefits and had learned nothing.) They got upset when it failed to factor in course substitutions made to crowbar these transcripts into a degree's requirements. The reason? The substitutions were off the record and thus omitted from the transcript information input into the system - because. and I quote "If we recorded those substitutions in the transcript we'd lose our accreditation."
I spoke to a student who almost came to blows with an advisor who insisted he not take what he knew to be the first 2 years requirements of the architectural program to which he planned to transfer, but rather follow the curriculum for a building trades tech AS.
bw1 at April 26, 2019 6:26 PM
> the wrong part of what I said.
No one will ever love you enough to let you choose.
Where did you go to school? How far did you get?
Crid at April 26, 2019 8:14 PM
Ben Says:
"You don't have to trust my opinion Arty. It is an obvious fact. You lied. There is zero deniability in that. No misunderstanding. No confusing of implied statements. You lied. Tart it up all you want. The fact is you lied. And you keep lying to try and cover that up."
Good grief Ben... What on earth are you talking about? There is no attemped deception on my part.
You are pitching a fit over nothing.
Can you please specifically define your criteria for what constitutes a lie? and then tell me exactly where I committed the offense that meets your specificly defined criteria.
In order to lie someone has to know what they are saying is false. That is precisely why potential misunderstandings don't constitute deception.
That being said, the author never corrected my on my interpretation, so where do you get off saying I even got anything wrong?
I don't get the feeling you actually understand what truth and veracity are.
Artemis at April 27, 2019 11:41 AM
Crid,
You seem upset... did your favorite F1 driver reject your sexual advances or something?
Artemis at April 27, 2019 11:59 AM
bw1 Says:
"You need to get out and read more if you somehow think everything politically active law professors say represents sound constitutional reasoning. "law professor" encompasses a broad range of specialties - would you expect the word of a podiatrist on brain tumors to be gospel?"
This is a silly stance to take considering I never said anything was "gospel".
In fact I was quite clear that the general legal consensus appears to be that it is constitutional... but it remains an open question that would likely result in a 5-4 vote in the supreme court one way or the other.
Here were my exact words:
"How can you be so confident it isn't when the experts aren't certain but in general believe it would be?"
Lack of certainty amongst the experts doesn't translate into "gospel".
What I do know is that certainty amongst non-experts when the experts are split means the non-experts are talking out of their asses.
Your analogy for podiatrists and brain tumors isn't all that helpful either. There exists a hierarchy of knowledge here:
Neuro Surgeon > Podiatrist > Person with no medical expertise at all
I would be quite comfortable trusting a Podiatrists opinion on a brain tumor over than of an accountant... but less than a brain specialist.
The important thing to note here is that Ben is not a legal expert and Warren is.
Interestingly enough Warren's legal specialty is in bankruptcy law and finance law/regulations... so taxation isn't outside of her wheel house. It's not like she was a medical malpractice attorney now working on financial legislation.
As a result her opinion here is pretty close to maximum expertise in the area of interest. The only lawyers with a greater level of expertise might be those who specialize explicitly in tax liability... but then we are talking about the difference between a pediatrician and a neonatal specialist. The pediatrician is still quite qualified to have an informed expert opinion on the health of a new born... they just aren't necessarily going to be the ones in charge of the NICU.
Artemis at April 27, 2019 1:08 PM
No fit Arty. Just one simple fact. You lied. And you continue to lie trying to deny that.
Ben at April 27, 2019 1:18 PM
Ben,
The fact that you refuse to define criteria and just keep repeating the same BS line over and over is evidence enough that you don't even believe what you are saying.
Artemis at April 27, 2019 1:40 PM
"There exists a hierarchy of knowledge here: Neuro Surgeon > Podiatrist > Person with no medical expertise at all"
No, because I wouldn't trust a neuro surgeon's opinion on plantar fascitis. It's not a heirarchy, it's a horizontal matter of specialization. Both a podiatrist and a neurosurgeon are licensed to practice medicine, and both Warren and an ACTUAL constitutional specialist are law professors.
"The important thing to note here is that Ben is not a legal expert and Warren is. Interestingly enough Warren's legal specialty is in bankruptcy law and finance law/regulations... so taxation isn't outside of her wheel house."
Bankruptcy and tax law are not constitutional law. They deal with the intricacies of legislated laws governing those two areas.
"As a result her opinion here is pretty close to maximum expertise in the area of interest. The only lawyers with a greater level of expertise might be those who specialize explicitly in tax liability... "
Nope. Tax liability is a question of IRS regulation XYZ and some math. Bamkrupcty and tax lawyers argue the APPLICATION of existing legislation and regulations to a given financial scenario, not the constitutionality of that legislation and regulations. Constitutional law is a specialty unto itself distinct from "nuts and bolts" specialties like bankruptcy and finance law. Constitutional law is more like pure biomedical research where all the other specialties are clinical medicine.
Your points about differing opinions from other purported experts was more on target, although deeper analysis might show those to be more reflective of the biases of the experts than actual precedent and scholarship.
But forget all that - look at history. Politicians in general will tax ANYTHING they can. This is an entirely new category of tax. Ask yourself, why did it take 225 years for anyone to try it? Keep in mind that the last time the USA added an entirely new category of tax, the income tax, it took a constitutional amendment to do it.
bw1 at April 28, 2019 6:59 PM
Bw1,
I don't know what to tell you, but there are actually hierarchies of knowledge.
We don't like in a world where someone is either the worlds top expert or a know-nothing who should be ignored.
In general any lawyer will know more than an accountant about any aspect of the law.
The point is that the relevent experts have already stated that this isn't a clear cut issue, but they believe that it would more likely than not be found to be constitutional (I am sure you can find some expert who dissagrees, but that it why it is uncertain).
No matter how you slice it, you can't reasonably go from a state of uncertainty amongst the experts to a state of certainty amongst non-experts.
Artemis at April 28, 2019 8:08 PM
bw1 Says:
"Constitutional law is a specialty unto itself distinct from "nuts and bolts" specialties like bankruptcy and finance law. Constitutional law is more like pure biomedical research where all the other specialties are clinical medicine."
I don't think that you have a firm grasp on how all of this works.
All lawyers study constitutional law when they are in law school... All of them.
Also, a practicing physician is required to have an understanding of drug interactions and the biological mechanism of action for pharmaceutical drugs.
We don't have a system where podiatrists know about feet and only feet... if you were choking to death a podiatrist was the only personal available to save your life it would be silly to say that they can't help you because you aren't having a foot problem.
On a related note... if someone is a high energy particle physicist it doesn't suddenly mean they are ignorant of low temperature physics phenomena such as superconductivity. Before you specialize you need to learn about the field as a whole, your knowledge level is extremely broad before you take a deep dive into your specialty.
Artemis at April 28, 2019 8:20 PM
"Even in the context of this very thread the best you can declare is a possible misunderstanding between Cousin's Daves explicit statements and implied meaning.
If he had an objection he could have made it himself, but he didn't."
You clearly knew what the issue was back then Arty. You are lying again. Mainly to yourself. But the fact are simple and consistent. You lie and continue to lie.
Ben at April 29, 2019 10:53 AM
Ben,
I stand by my original interpretation of what he had to say and stand by my response.
When you say "I clearly knew the issue"... the only thing I was acknowledging is that the possibility exists my interpretation was mistaken... but that the author would have to tell me one way or the other.
You have a different interpretation of their meaning than I do... it is possible you are correct, it is also possible you are wrong.
That isn't how reasonable people define liars Ben.
Just to be absolutely clear though... if that is how we define liars, then you are lying because you have misinterpreted my words. I suppose by your own standards you must have done this on purpose.
I was willing to believe it was a mistake, but I judge people by their own standards.
Artemis at April 29, 2019 7:27 PM
Ben,
One thing further... your entire thesis about me being a liar hinges upon it being completely irrational and unreasonable to believe that when talking about student loan forgiveness we aren't having a discussion about assisting folks predominantly younger than 35:
http://fortune.com/2019/02/25/millennials-student-loans-debt/
However that is the demographic and generation with the student loan debt that would be getting the assistance.
As a result when someone refers to helping out people with student loans as helping out "deadbeats"... what population do you think we are talking about?
Such a characterization can very reasonably be referring to those folks predominantly from the generation younger than 35 as deadbeats.
You really are pitching a fit over nothing.
Furthermore, if this was really about principle for you, then you would have taken up your pitch fork against bw1 when they grossly misinterpreted my statement by asserting the word "gospel" when I was quite clear that the experts were uncertain.
You are just doing what you always do, jumping in to a conversation you aren't involved in to poison the well.
Artemis at April 29, 2019 7:48 PM
"In general any lawyer will know more than an accountant about any aspect of the law."
That's a false assumption. Law is highly specialized. There are areas of law where an accountant is very likely to have a better understanding than a lawyer whose area of specialization is far removed. But hey, if you're ever accused of murder. feel free to have a corporate counsel who writes contracts all day defend you. Good luck with that.
I'm an engineer who has a lot of lawyers among my family and friends, and at one time or another, they have ALL conceded that I schooled them on some aspect of the law. Also, generally speaking, the more progressive they are in their world views, the more such concessions they've made.
"The point is that the relevent experts have already stated that this isn't a clear cut issue, but they believe that it would more likely than not be found to be constitutional"
"Relevant experts" meaning those to whom the media has turned for answers. and given the media's bias, is it any surprise that many of their go-to "experts" offer a progressive spin on the question?
"All lawyers study constitutional law when they are in law school... All of them."
One, maybe two classes. In engineering school. I took three Civil Engineering classes but my area is electrical/computer engineering. The CivE's took a circuits class and probably 2 programming classes. Would you like me to design the bridge you cross on your daily commute or for them to design the microprocessor that controls your antilock brakes?
"Also, a practicing physician is required to have an understanding of drug interactions and the biological mechanism of action for pharmaceutical drugs."
Due to a family member's disability, I have a LOT of interaction with a LOT of medical specialists. I've seen them have to google something another specialist notated in the charts. Asking Warren about consitutional law is like asking a psychiatrist an oncology question. Did it ever occur to you that most legislators at all levels are lawyers, and yet laws they pass are constantly being found unconstitutional?
Like I said, for 100+ years, 535 smart people, most of whom are lawyers, most of whom would tax your breathing if they thought they could get away with it, have only managed to add one new category of taxation, and they needed an amendment to do it. But hey, just keep standing on empty credentialism and the media's handpicked leftist mouthpieces.
bw1 at May 2, 2019 7:21 PM
bw1,
I don't think you and I are having the same conversation.
Please reread what I said and pay special attention to the part where I said "in general":
"In general any lawyer will know more than an accountant about any aspect of the law."
You then proceeded to go into some very specific case where it is possible along the edges that someone who isn't a lawyer might know more than a lawyer about one very specialized aspect of the law.
But that isn't the general case.
I am talking about generalities and in response you are concocting unusual exceptions.
Please note that I never said that lawyers will *always* know more than everyone else about all aspects of the law... only that *in general* a lawyer will be more well versed in the law than people who aren't trained legal experts.
"I'm an engineer who has a lot of lawyers among my family and friends, and at one time or another, they have ALL conceded that I schooled them on some aspect of the law. Also, generally speaking, the more progressive they are in their world views, the more such concessions they've made."
Your anecdotal experience is irrelevant here.
For all I know the people in your family and your friends and very poor at their profession.
Or perhaps they just didn't want to have an argument with you at thanksgiving and so they "conceded".
This whole notion that the accuracy of their legal expertise is directly correlated with their political persuasion also seems dicey.
Can you give some specific examples of the legal matters they conceded to you on?... I would like to get a sense of this remarkable legal expertise you claim to have as an engineer that the lawyers in your family just can't seem to keep up with.
"In engineering school. I took three Civil Engineering classes but my area is electrical/computer engineering. The CivE's took a circuits class and probably 2 programming classes. Would you like me to design the bridge you cross on your daily commute or for them to design the microprocessor that controls your antilock brakes?"
Again you don't seem to be appreciating the concept of hierarchies of knowledge.
Let me try again.
If we are talking about designing a bridge the knowledge levels would go something like this:
Civil engineer > Electrical engineer > Optician
Do you follow why this would be the case?
You are putting yourself up against someone with greater expertise when the point is that you know more than the general population.
We aren't comparing a lawyer with one specialization against a lawyer with another specialization… we were comparing a lawyer against a non-lawyer.
So yes, I would have greater faith in any engineers design of a bridge over someone who has never taken an engineering course in their life.
This really shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.
Beyond all of this... you say you are an electrical engineer. Mind if I ask a few quick questions to gauge your knowledge level since we don't want to stand on "empty credentialism"? These will be really basic questions:
1 - What about band structure determines the mobility of holes?
2 - Why is bulk silicon a semiconductor, but a silicon atom isn't?
3 - Why are some materials insulators, some semiconductors, and others metals?... can you change this?... if so, how?
Artemis at May 2, 2019 9:29 PM
Artemis. thanks for demonstrating my point perfectly. At one point in my life, I answered all three of your questions on exams, but they are so far removed from what I do these days it's more time than I'm willing to spend to refresh myself, although the answer to #2 is that pure silicon is a dielectric, but compounding silicon with other elements and combining it with other impurities is how semiconductors are formed.
About a year ago, a great fuss was made about one of Trump's judicial nominees, who, when questined in confirmation hearings on the Daubert Test, a pretty basic component of trial law, despite being a very accomplished lawyer, became a deer in he headlights. A 2018 congressional candidate, again, a lawyer, was stymied in town hall event on Chevron deference, a pretty hot constitutional topic of late.
My assertion is that our society is full of well read lay legal hobbyists who are better versed on Constitutional Law than the average lawyer in a non-constitutional specialty, or a lawyer whose career has been spent primarily in politics, like Warren. It's an arcane specialty, and not one that typically helps pay off the student loans from law school. That's why legislatures composed primarily of lawyers pass laws that are overturned by the courts on a regular basis.
As for Progressives being weaker on legal knowledge, strong ideologues in general tend to confuse what the law is with what they believe the law ought to be, and ideologues whose entire world view centers on the need to remake society (and its laws) are more prone to that confusion than those whose world view centers on retaining the status quo or even rolling back changes. This is because law is about a fixed point of reference, not rampant change.
Finally, regarding the wisdom of putting faith in Warren's assertion that her proposal is Constitutional, I remind you that she made that claim as a politician campaigning to be elected, an activity that is almost synonymous with lying. Politicians on the campaign trail habitually open their mouths and spout crap, including every politician for whom I ever voted.
It's the nature of a system where we let idiots vote. After one of Adlai Stevenson's campaign speeches, a woman came up to shake his hand and said that he was certain to have the vote of every thinking person in the nation. His response was "I'm afraid that won't do it, ma'am, you see, I need a majority to win."
bw1 at May 10, 2019 3:57 AM
Leave a comment