Official Student Debt Cancellation Watch Thread

[Rawtid]

Imagine complaining about us being underrepresented at top schools and then punishing the ones who get it done.

Right. It’s the same with psychology degrees. We agree black people need therapy but make fun of those that get educated to provide it.

 

[King Kreole]

i'm moving on the assumption of 10-50k being forgiven, nothing about full forgiveness is on the board with this administration. i don't get why people keep having that conversation when it's clear that's not even on the board.

Ok sure, this is fair. My question still stands, how would you like to see the policy on the board be amended?

you do understand that those making 125k+ aren't just UG degree holders. i've admitted it's a small share of black people, but the cost of crossing the six figure mark was 2-5x more for most black folk than their counterparts who simply hold UG degrees. and splitting hairs between "most" at risk with black wealth is clown shyt. nothing about including all income levels or raising the income limit is about creating a policy to privilege anyone. it's about applying the policy to all. and no, i won't miss you with anything as i see day in and day out nothing is different for my friends who are doctors vs friends who are teachers/social workers/etc. higher income + higher debt burden + same familial economic b/g = ok, sure you may have a few nicer things and more savings, but you're no where near where you'd be coming from an upper income family, specifically white wealth.

Yeah of course, my assumption is that people making $125K+ are mostly coming from graduate degreed professions: lawyers, doctors, PhDs, etc. And of course it costs more to get a graduate/professional degree than to not get one. Where we disagree is that I don't view that bucket of people, black or white, as particularly hard done by and in need of privileging when it comes to designing policies.



I think refusing to "split hairs" and looking at a black person making $125K and a black person making $41K and treating them as being in the same boat is clown shyt. Including all income levels or raising the income limit is creating a policy. All policies have trade-offs. Politics is about who gets to have the trade-off work in their favor. If your doctor friends (mean salary of $300k) are in no different situation than your social worker friends (mean salary of $60K), I'd say either the doctor is doing something very wrong or the social worker is doing something very right. This is really not very different from conservative arguments about the burden of the wealthy, designed to elicit sympathy for millionaires because they have the added stress of making payroll and are higher leveraged than most. You kind of let the cat out of the bag when you admitted they have "a few nicer things and more savings". That's the point. If you have nicer things and more savings, you probably shouldn't be at the front of the line when it comes time for help from the government. This is the entire basis of the social welfare state and progressive taxation. And pointing to ever higher-income, white families as a reason why this admittedly small share of high-income black folk should be given special dispensation from the realities of their privileged relative-to-other-black-folk economic status seems...bad!

 

[King Kreole]

Yeah, because I’m a conservative....

The policy isn’t about helping those most at risk, it’s about correcting a mistake we made with education and the cost of it. It is essentially a reset.

Word, this is at least an honest argument. You're advocating for a racial/class equity lens to not be applied to this policy because you believe its origins were a relatively race/class neutral "mistake with education", downstream consequences be damned. I take issue with that because I do believe the student debt crisis is one with explicitly racist origins, but I can see your point.

 

[No1]

Word, this is at least an honest argument. You're advocating for a racial/class equity lens to not be applied to this policy because you believe its origins were a relatively race/class neutral "mistake with education", downstream consequences be damned. I take issue with that because I do believe the student debt crisis is one with explicitly racist origins, but I can see your point.

I didn’t say anything about a racial lens not being applied. I stated what it was. It was part of the budget cuts of the 80s under Reagan and the welfare queen phenomenon. The fact that is disproportionately affects black borrowers is a result of the fact that we had less to begin with. But the idea that because some of us achieved to the point where we could mitigate some of that, that we should be excluded seems to be (1) ignorant of cost of living differences and (b) the responsibilities of the few black people in this position, and (c) some sort of low key resentment because if you think student debt is immoral then someone’s current income shouldn’t have any effect on your belief of eliminating it. The idea of promoting this cut off as “fairness” seems like some sort of punitive action against anyone with a six figure income with six figure student loan debt. This is nothing like conservative arguments against taxation because that is literally funding society. What social good comes from not eliminating debt for people making above 125k, who you admit is a small group?

 

[Rawtid]

See, this is an honest argument. Student debt cancellation IS NOT reparations, just like Medicare For All or any other myriad of government programs that would give a disproportionate hand up to black folks aren't reparations. Reparations have to have a racial means test, which student debt cancellation does not. But that doesn't mean we cannot factor in the black-white wealth gap when designing policies. The vast majority of progressive housing policies do not have a racial means test but are designed to ameliorate the racial wealth gap and correct for the history of redlining. Just because something isn't reparations doesn't mean it can't be a good idea to pursue from the perspective of black economic benefit.

But I'm not even necessarily opposed to total student debt cancellation on the grounds that you mention; it's an American issue, and even though explicitly racist anti-black factors are what led to black folks being disproportionately targeted and harmed by the student debt industrial complex, non-blacks were harmed as well. I just think we'd also need to contend with the possibility of an unintended consequence of the expansion of the racial wealth gap if that's the policy being pursued.

I think trying to consider expansion of the racial wealth gap into every program that will benefit overall Americans, is too complicated of an argument. I think it's a useless statistic until it actually gets addressed through a specific reparations bill.

As far as housing goes, I don't know if it's to correct the wealth gap or discriminatory policies altogether. It's one thing to realize it's wrong to sabotage black families with the ability to afford home in white communities, solely because they are black and another to understand why more black families can't afford your neighborhoods. Then on top of that agreeing to financial compensation to mend the gap. Reparations has to be separate and I agree that race/lineage needs to be the litmus test. The Native American government has a model as to how I believe it could/would work.

 

[Rawtid]

Yeah, because I’m a conservative....

The policy isn’t about helping those most at risk, it’s about correcting a mistake we made with education and the cost of it. It is essentially a reset.

There definitely needs to be both; some type of forgiveness , but also something in place to make higher education affordable.

 

[No1]

There definitely needs to be both; some type of forgiveness , but also something in place to make higher education affordable.

Well, that’s easy. The federal government and states used to cover the vast majority of the cost of college and then Reagan and the Democrats in the 80s reversed course.

 

[King Kreole]

I didn’t say anything about a racial lens not being applied. I stated what it was. It was part of the budget cuts of the 80s under Reagan and the welfare queen phenomenon.

Not sure what "it" in the bolded is referring to. Student debt policy or the racial wealth gap? Because you specifically said of student debt cancellation policy that "the policy isn’t about helping those most at risk, it’s about correcting a mistake we made with education and the cost of it." which seems to me to be disavowing attempts to propose a means-test to the policy to target black and low-income borrowers (aka those most at risk).

The fact that is disproportionately affects black borrowers is a result of the fact that we had less to begin with.

That's part of the story but not the whole truth. Black students have been systematically targeted by for-profit colleges and predatory loans. Like housing or banking or business loans any of the other ways in which the citizenry interacts with the financial sector, there has been explicit and intentional anti-black racism baked into the system, along with the incidental harms that come along with having fewer assets.

But the idea that because some of us achieved to the point where we could mitigate some of that, that we should be excluded seems to be (1) ignorant of cost of living differences and (b) the responsibilities of the few black people in this position, and (c) some sort of low key resentment because if you think student debt is immoral then someone’s current income shouldn’t have any effect on your belief of eliminating it. The idea of promoting this cut off as “fairness” seems like some sort of punitive action against anyone with a six figure income with six figure student loan debt. This is nothing like conservative arguments against taxation because that is literally funding society. What social good comes from not eliminating debt for people making above 125k, who you admit is a small group?

Again, I must say, this rings of conservative dogma. The mitigation is the reward for the achievement. Being "excluded" from policies designed to help those who did not achieve isn't punitive to the achievers unless your operating model is HYON (aka conservative dogma). The social good that comes from progressive debt relief is a tightening of the equity gap. I'm sorry, I just don't believe that black folks going to elite schools and making $125K+ should be given the same policy handouts and benefits as the vast majority of black folks who are making far less than that.

Also, taxation isn't literally funding society, it's about regulating the flow of money in the economy. And these are the same style of arguments being made in tax cut/hike policy debates between conservatives and liberals. When you pick and choose an income level at which a tax cut or hike kicks in, it's the same general dynamic as picking and choosing an income level at which student debt cancellation kicks in. One is about how much money the government takes out of your income, the other is about how much money the government takes out of your debt. Both are subject to complaints from the well-off feeling they're being given the same benefits as the less well-off.

I do agree with you about a regional CoL adjustment, ideally that could be applied as well.

 

[King Kreole]

I think trying to consider expansion of the racial wealth gap into every program that will benefit overall Americans, is too complicated of an argument. I think it's a useless statistic until it actually gets addressed through a specific reparations bill.

Again, fair point. The complexity of means-testing, even in service of constricting the racial wealth gap, is a point in favor of universal forgiveness. Although I disagree that the racial wealth gap is a useless statistic unless tied to a specific and direct reparations bill.

As far as housing goes, I don't know if it's to correct the wealth gap or discriminatory policies altogether. It's one thing to realize it's wrong to sabotage black families with the ability to afford home in white communities, solely because they are black and another to understand why more black families can't afford your neighborhoods. Then on top of that agreeing to financial compensation to mend the gap. Reparations has to be separate and I agree that race/lineage needs to be the litmus test. The Native American government has a model as to how I believe it could/would work.

I've seen various housing policies with either/both explicitly in mind. Realistically, because of political constraints around the feasibility of direct, actual reparations, most policies I've seen from people with that goal in mind have been attempting to smuggle reparations-like effects into broader policies, such as housing or M4A or student debt cancellation. But I agree with your broader point, because imo a central component of reparations is precisely the specific acknowledgment of the unique harm done via slavery. It must be reckoned with, not swept under the rug and bundled into some other broader effort. The race/lineage litmus test is...difficult. What Native American model are you referencing?

 

[King Kreole]

There definitely needs to be both; some type of forgiveness , but also something in place to make higher education affordable.

Yep, I think higher education needs to be available for free moving forward for the 21st-century economy. Should be treated the same way we treat high school. That was the crucial other half of the higher ed reform policies that Warren and Sanders put out.

 

[Atlrocafella]

I have $6600 in student loan debt left that is currently on pause. I just need a Biden to come through with that $10K forgiveness and I’ll be good to go

 

[Rawtid]

Again, fair point. The complexity of means-testing, even in service of constricting the racial wealth gap, is a point in favor of universal forgiveness. Although I disagree that the racial wealth gap is a useless statistic unless tied to a specific and direct reparations bill.


I've seen various housing policies with either/both explicitly in mind. Realistically, because of political constraints around the feasibility of direct, actual reparations, most policies I've seen from people with that goal in mind have been attempting to smuggle reparations-like effects into broader policies, such as housing or M4A or student debt cancellation. But I agree with your broader point, because imo a central component of reparations is precisely the specific acknowledgment of the unique harm done via slavery. It must be reckoned with, not swept under the rug and bundled into some other broader effort. The race/lineage litmus test is...difficult. What Native American model are you referencing?

https://www.ncai.org/about-tribes

 

[FAH1223]

Biden Can Give Us Free College Without Congress. But Will He?

A new report explains how President Biden can use existing executive authority to make free college a reality.
BY MARCIA BROWN


DECEMBER 16, 2020


The Prospect has already documented how a president can use existing statutory authority to cancel nearly all student debt. For their part, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer have come out with a proposal for Joe Biden to use this authority to cancel $50,000 worth of debt.

But a new report out now from Michael Dannenberg, vice president of higher education policy at Education Reform Now, argues that Biden can do even more to transform the landscape of higher education. Debt, after all, is only one piece of the puzzle. Even if current debt is canceled, debt will keep accruing if the costs of college continue to rise. Dannenberg, a former senior aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, asserts that Biden can use existing statutory authority to forgive loans equal to average public-college tuition on a rolling basis for two- and four-year public colleges, effectively making college free. In essence, this is an idea that Biden can use to make his plan for tuition-and-fee-free college a reality—without Congress.

“I’m suggesting that there are multiple paths for the Biden administration to pursue without Congress that can make an up-front guarantee of tuition-and-fee-free public college a reality,” Dannenberg said in an interview with the Prospect. “It can be done through a negotiated rulemaking process that is grounded in the settlement and compromise authority to cancel a portion of student debt. It can be done through the use of the secretary of education’s experimental site authority to again effectively or immediately cancel a portion of federal student loan debt. It can even be done through an agreement with the Federal Reserve whereby it acquires and writes down student debt.”

Dannenberg previously wrote about the rising cost of college tuition for the Prospect in 2009, when he recommended treating “student loans as social insurance with limited monthly payments.” In 2013, Dannenberg added to this thesis, suggesting several options for combating debt for low- and middle-income families.

Now, Dannenberg says there are several ways the Biden administration could make free college a reality without Congress. The Higher Education Act, in addition to providing statutory authority to waive student loans, also provides the authority to waive legal requirements and regulations for “experimental sites” where the government tests ways to improve higher education. According to Dannenberg, there’s no limit on the size of such a site. In other words, the secretary could designate a public university such an experimental site, thus providing for debt forgiveness. This route, he added, would make it easy for the Biden administration to “leverage complementary college behavior.” To Dannenberg, this would be the cleanest executive action pathway to make the Biden higher education plan a reality.

With either model, it would effectively mean the government is paying a lot of tuition, and colleges might have incentives to raise costs, since students won’t be paying but the Education Department would. The government would have to guard against this, perhaps by limiting eligible colleges to a narrow band around the median tuition.


“There’s been a lot of energy to date with regards to executive action on the student loan issue, focused on current borrowers who have outstanding debt,” Dannenberg noted. “What I’m saying is that that same thought process can be applied to prospective student loan borrowers or to future students to effectuate the Biden tuition-and-fee-free college proposal.” He recommends making these loans—that would all be forgiven—equal in amount to the national average public-college tuition, currently around $10,000 annually for four-year public colleges and around $4,000 for two-year public colleges.

Though there is a debate about whether debt cancellation should be means-tested, Biden’s college plan answers that question: His proposal offers tuition-and-fee-free college to students from families earning up to $125,000. “I think in general one can and should reject the notion that college affordability plans must be limited only to poor families,” Dannenberg said. “But we should also recognize that additional resources for college and affordability are arguably limited. Better to provide a much larger progressive need-based package of college affordability and completion support than a small regressive package that’s available to all students.”

Biden’s proposal offers tuition-and-fee-free college to students from families earning up to $125,000.

Like other advocates for student debt forgiveness, Dannenberg pointed out that such a measure would also help close the racial wealth gap. Almost 50 percent of Black student loan borrowers default over a 12-year period. Worse, around one in four Black bachelor’s degree recipients will default. These two numbers, Dannenberg said, are the most obscene in higher education.

Politically, Dannenberg sees these executive actions as part of a strategy to put Biden in a position of strength when negotiating with congressional Republicans. Taking aggressive executive action to further Biden’s agenda could force the GOP to come to the table.

Dannenberg suggested that there’s even more Biden could do to level the playing field in higher education without Congress. For example, he could end tax-exempt status for colleges that “favor big donors, known as ‘development admits,’ and [admit] children of alumni via the so-called ‘legacy preference,’” programs that effectively discriminate against first-generation applicants.

“This is my big point. A 100 percent forgiven student loan is functionally the same as a grant,” Dannenberg said. “And current law authorizes student lending and 100 percent forgiveness. President Trump’s administration already made use of that legal authority to suspend student loan payments.”

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Astroslik]

Imagine complaining about us being underrepresented at top schools and then punishing the ones who get it done.

It’s insane.