Should student loan DEBT be Forgiven??!!
|
|
|||||
|
19 votes
|
|
12% | ||
|
119 votes
|
|
78% | ||
|
15 votes
|
|
10% | ||
As the media coverage of the student loan rate debate continues, Americans are becoming more opinionated over the subject. Not since the modern re-creation of the Department of Education in 1979 by Pres. Jimmy Carter, has there been so much scrutiny. Taking it one step further, there is now open discussion about the possiblity of students having their loans "forgiven" by the Federal government which guarantees those loans.
Advocates of student loan forgiveness draw attention to the overwhelming negative data regarding higher education. How 1/2 of college graduates are unemployed or underemployed. How the student loan bubble is nearing 1 trillion dollars and could mirror the housing market. And also, the inability to have these loans forgiven by bankruptcy protection.
It is in this climate of desperation that members of the Occupy movt as well as other organizations acclamate the federal govt to allow these citizens to have their student loans forgiven, in order to stimulate the economy. The 60-70 billion dollars in annual payments can go directly into the local economies and produce substantial growth.
Opponents of the measure cite that we cannot afford to add another Trillion dollars to our deficit and already MASSIVE national debt. They addd that in order to pay for this debt distribution taxes will need to be raised on all taxpayers. Furthermore, they claim it is unfair to those who worked hard and took responsibility for themselves.
In 1979 the avg undergraduate degree was around $5,000 compared to $25,000 or more today. With education costs out of control, and entitlement spending at 50% of the annual budget, many Americans are asking...
Should student loan DEBT be Forgiven??!!
Top Opinion
-
teigan 2012/04/29 19:55:35No, it should not be forgiven
+9No way, this only teaches that you don't have to be responsible for your debts. It's unfair to those that have struggled to pay off their obligations and future students that will be accountable to pay theirs off. College students that can't find jobs give a little more thought to who they will vote for in the next election. They fell for the hope and change and are now living with their parents because there are no jobs and no future for them. These are the same students that voted for what they are living through now.
approx 40% attain a degree in 4 years.
at 5 years, that rate increases to approx 56%
and at 6 years, total attainment by a cohort is approx 61%
40% of the cohort never complete.
Thus, twice as many complete in four years than the total attainments by years 5 and 6 combined. This is not much different than has been in the past. What has changed considerably is the sad decline in how well incomming students are prepared and the slackened admission criteria.
The four-year plan of study is just that, no misnomer. It is a plan which would allow one to complete a course of study and to become accomplished in a chosen field of study at the baccalaureate level. It is designed to provide an educational experience of reasonable rigor, culturally expansive and humanly enriching.
The cohort is the average incoming freshman class.
Of that class, 40% will attain a degree in 4 years.
an additional few member of the cohort will attain degrees in 5 years bringing the total attainment rate to 56% (i.e., 16% of the class will take 5 years) 40% 16% = 56%.
Then, an additional 5% of the cohorts will attain degrees in the sixth year of study bringing the six year attainment rate for the cohort to 61% (i.e., 56% 5% = 61%)
The remainder of the cohort, approximately 40% never attain a degree.
So in simple terms. just for you
years % attainment
4 __________ ~40
5__________ ~16
6__________ ~5
SUB total_____61%
----------------------------
never_______~40
__________________
Total________100%
Lastly you said the ""4-year degree" is a misnomer". I stated it was "no misnomer".
http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
The numbers prove me right.
so living isn't free.
I was referring to material goods and services. None are free including education. Do you expect the professors to work for free? Doesn't the colleges have buildings, lights, water, supplies, etc. to pay for? How is it going to be free if they have bills to pay?
The American Indians thought that too, go ask them how well that works when the government decides they want the land you're on.
"food cost"
"Only if you shop."
It cost even if you don't shop, unless you have found food that comes to you and jumps in your mouth. Labor is a cost and harvesting food requires labor.
Instead, you'll spend your life enjoying the rights and freedoms you've never earned, secure in the knowledge that they were granted to you through the sacrifice of better men and women than you could ever hope to be. You're a base, abject coward and little more than a leech on society.
But then again, maybe that is good enough for you, but not me.
BTW, my daughter-in-law is as bright as the day is long, is a terrific mom, and homeschooling my granddaughter who is smarter than both her mom and dad - but, then I am a bit biased when it comes to her.
induced to enroll for a day, sign the papers, get a small share of the potential money,
and never attend a class.
I suggest "clawing back" all of this money from these creations of "smart money" from Wall Street and forgiving the debt to the street people, who can't be found anyway and will never pay back a penny of the obligations.
Then, let the lenders absorb part of the write off of what remains, the Govy writing down the obligations by. perhaps, one-half. The debts represent in large measure the shifting of
society's obligation to the future of the Nation by placing the costs on the students, a clever
plank in the platform of what we knew as "Reaganomics" and the "conservative agenda".
a "somebody", a "conservative flipper".
worse. Romney agrees with it.
didn't need a loan. worked my way through...
maybe its just my higher expectations. buying votes is bad. even a democrat should be able to see that.