Politico Morning Education reported yesterday that the coronavirus legislation in Congress has been delayed because Republicans and Democrats disagree about including college student debt relief.
Of course, other issues between the parties have stymied an agreement, especially the $500 billion economic recovery fund that would be administered by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. Republicans want him to have broad discretion over where the money goes; Democrats insist on oversight, to ensure that he is not favoring Republican donors and underwriting Trump family properties, like Mar-a-Lago and Trump hotels. The latest speculation in the media is that the parties may reach agreement later today. Keep your eye on the Mnuchin fund.
REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS SPAR OVER STUDENT DEBT RELIEF IN STIMULUS BILL: Republicans and Democrats are fighting over how to structure relief for the nation’s tens of millions of student loan borrowers as part of the massive stimulus plan to address the economic havoc caused by the coronavirus outbreak.
— At the core of the student debt dispute: Republicans have largely embraced the idea that borrowers should immediately be able to put their payments on hold without accruing interest; Democrats say that’s an insufficient half-measure and want to see some amount of debt cancellation.
— The latest Senate GOP stimulus bill circulated on Sunday would require the Education Department to suspend payments on federally held student loans for six months without interest accruing — a modest expansion from an earlier bill that called for a three-month mandatory suspension with an additional three-month pause at the discretion of the department.
— Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was unable to advance the bill through a procedural vote on Sunday evening as Democrats objected. Among the many “major problems” with the bill, according to a senior Democratic aide, was that it doesn’t “provide adequate relief for the 44 million federal student loan borrowers.”
— The GOP plan follows the Trump administration’s executive actions to halt interest on federally held student loans and give borrowers a new forbearance option to pause their payments for the next two months. (Sen. Mitt Romney on Friday also proposed a longer forbearance of up to three years for recent graduates entering the job market.)
— But Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, are pushing a counter proposal: They want to cancel the monthly payments owed during the national emergency and guarantee each borrower receive at least $10,000 in loan forgiveness. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who campaigned on sweeping student debt cancellation, has pressed the issue with Schumer personally, including during phone calls last week, according to a Huffington Post report on Sunday.
— Biden, who has resisted calling for widespread student debt cancellation in his education plans, on Sunday backed the plan to forgive at least $10,000 in debt per borrower as part of the stimulus bill. “Young people and other student debt holders bore the brunt of the last crisis,” Biden tweeted. “It shouldn’t happen again.”
— In the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated she may start drafting her own stimulus bill, there’s growing pressure from progressives to include student loan forgiveness. A group of progressive lawmakers, led by Reps. Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar, urged House leadership to include loan forgiveness in the bill. The letter was signed by Rep. Jim Clyburn, the No. 3 Democrat in the House, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Rep. Maxine Waters, the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has also separately called for including $10,000 in student debt forgiveness in a coronavirus stimulus plan.
— Rep. Bobby Scott, the chair of the House education committee, hasn’t publicly backed any student loan forgiveness plan and it wasn’t included as part of his $3 billion coronavirus bill to address education rolled out last week. But a Democratic committee aide told POLITICO: “The Senate Democrats proposal is a step in the right direction.”
— Republicans, meanwhile, say Democrats are exploiting a crisis to enact their policy agenda. “Democrats are trying to reduce student loans by $10,000. What the hell has that got to do with the virus,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Fox News on Sunday. “I’m sure everybody could use more money, but I don’t want to give money to people who have a paycheck. I want to give money to people who have lost their jobs.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
NOW is the time the government steps up and tries to at least do something right by younger Americans. Best of luck to the people holding the line on this legislation in the Senate, and beyond.
While we are in an economic crisis, we should not hand a vulture capitalist a blank check. If we have learned anything from charter schools’ funding, it is that no accountability equals theft.
“Young people and other student debt holders bore the brunt of the last crisis,” Biden tweeted. “It shouldn’t happen again.”
Amen. It’ll be the second hit for a lot of them too. They got screwed in the 2009 financial crash and they’re fixing to get screwed again.
I don’t have any faith that the private contractor the US Department of Education uses to administer student loan payments will handle this properly. I hope young people don’t have to sue for service, like they did last time.
I accrued about 1500 in debt for an undergraduate degree when I was in school in the 1980’s. I paid it off in a year. It wasn’t that long ago. Why could the United States afford to subsidize my college tuition in the 1980’s but (supposedly) can’t afford to subsidize college costs anymore? What changed?
How it fair that so many of us older people got “free college” and younger people do not? Maybe we should all have to pay it back. We can pay it directly to young people.
The cost of college has exploded. It has become so much more expensive. In many majors the costs have far exceeded the earning potential of young people. Many of the smaller independent colleges are expected to close as a result.
The cost of a college education is now more than the cost of a house. We are trying to figure out what we can afford for our daughter next year. The costs are staggering!….and it’s not clear if our family will be employed in 2-3 weeks due to the virus situation. I would like to know the rules of the game, though….the cost is X amount of $ when they accept you, but then they send you a letter giving you a reduction in cost? Not one single parent I’ve talked to with kids in college can explain this. There is so much BS in the whole college wheeling and dealing that I hope they really take a hit with the current financial crisis (Karma!). Sorry….I’m feeling bitter and stressed. I’ve been unhappy with public ed K-!2 so why should the college thing be any different?
and thus t
he more students going without: citizens who are not taught to know or to think are so much easier to politically manipulate
Chiara,
College wasn’t ‘free’ (excepting California). However, with a summer job you could at least cover tuition.
City University of New York was tuition free, had entry standards, and excellent faculty.
““Young people and other student debt holders bore the brunt of the last crisis,” Biden tweeted. “It shouldn’t happen again.””
OMG the galling hypocrisy of the man! Biden was the chief Democratic architect of the bankruptcy bill that MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCHARGE STUDENT LOAN DEBT!!! Sorry for shouting, but people really need to understand who this man is that the Democrats are about to nominate. He can say all kinds of pretty words, but please, please, please look at his record!
I just can’t believe the world we’ve suddenly woken up in. Not only the pandemic and resulting economic crisis, but the way the Democrats are using it it hail and advance the man who has been intimately involved in nearly every policy that has brought us to this point and who has been all but in hiding for the last week (and who is suffer
g from obvious cognitive decline, but it would be rude to mention that, wouldn’t it?). Bernie, on the other hand, has spent his life fighting for all of the things that would ease this crisis – universal single-payer healthcare, worker protections, bank and corporate regulations, etc. And even now he has turned his entire campaign apparatus into a fundraising and advocacy apparatus for coronovirus relief. All while Biden dithers in his home with “low ceilings” where neither he nor his campaign staff can seem to manage a simple livestream! But do we hear about Bernie? No, we hear how Joe Biden was “presidential” as he lied his @$$ off at the last debate.
I know I sound like a ranting lunatic, but the reality is that if the Democrats nominate Biden it is GAME OVER for this country. Most likely it will ensure a Trump victory. Trump will have a field day with Biden and his inability to remember basic facts or speak off-teleprompter. But even if Biden manages a win, he won’t come anywhere close to enacting the sweeping changes this country needs. In fact, he’ll bail out the banks and the corporations to the detriment of the rest of us
Anyway, I’ve posted this before, but it needs to be read far and wide: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/democrats-you-really-do-not-want-to-nominate-joe-biden
GQ is not normally one of my go-to sources, but this article lays out Biden’s (R-Visa) history of unflagging support for the credit industry: https://www.gq.com/story/joe-biden-bankruptcy-bill
Money quote: “Unions, consumer protection groups, and the National Organization for Women all opposed the BAPCPA, but it had heavy support from the credit card industry. Delaware is essentially a domestic tax haven for corporations, and as a result financial institutions like credit card companies hold tremendous power in the state. As political writer Alexander Cockburn once wrote, “The first duty of any senator from Delaware is to do the bidding of the banks and large corporations which use the tiny state as a drop box and legal sanctuary. Biden has never failed his masters in this primary task. Find any bill that sticks it to the ordinary folk on behalf of the Money Power and you’ll likely detect Biden’s hand at work.””
dienne…
Delaware survives on corporate tax breaks. It’s the Bahamas of the United States. I keep telling my wife that Delaware has more corporations than people (a bit of hyperbole, of course).
And don’t forget, corporations are a legal fiction (construct) used by ‘owners’ to shield them from responsibility for their harmful actions and protect them from bankruptcy. Some small corporations are helpful. The giant corporations that park in Delaware, however, shield the excessive wealth of the top 0.01%.
There’s no way Biden could ever have been elected if he didn’t protect the money of those large corporate owners. Either he did it consciously, or he was naturally inclined in that direction.
I’m surprised so few people know why so many big companies decide to become incorporated in Delaware, a tiny State with less than a million people and a lot of tidal flats.
More details: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/02/joe-biden-student-loan-debt-2005-act-2020
Dienne77,
The difficulty with student loans is that if students simply declared bankruptcy upon graduation and discharged their debt, no one would lend students money. Yes, you might require them to give up all their assets to their creditors, but do the creditors really want some used textbooks and a few bits of IKEA furniture?
Do you remember when many states subsidized public higher education and the cost was either “free” or very low? I do. The City University of New York was free. So we’re community colleges in California. The states’ investment in higher education paid off with a better educated middle class.
Yes, Dianne…
Once (when we were young), the Country thought that an educated populace was an asset. As you know, we (you and I) were lucky because the Depression set the stage, and WWII scared the bejeezus out of a segment of the the wealthy who realized that Germany almost won. And, so, they supported education as a National Security necessity.
Those days are now gone, and that same ruling segment considers an educated citizen to be more of a threat than a foreign military or economic challenge. It’s now all about being ‘cost effective’ in the short term.
I’m reminded of the Ant and the Grasshopper. We are a country ruled by grasshoppers.
Most states used to subsidize public higher education. Since the Reagan era, they have shifted the cost to students, who are drowning in debt.
You are absolutely correct! We are screwed either way. It will be Biden vs Trump and then we are stuck voting the lesser of 2 evils AGAIN!! Really, the only way that change will happen will be from the bottom up, and that means electing Progressive Dems into Congress/Senate.
It’s a duopoly and it has always been thus for a very long time. Third parties amount to fringe parties, they don’t stand a chance and they always poll in the low single digits. In a way, I’m glad, because there are some very horrible far right wing, tea partyish and libertarian parties that would be just as bad as the GOP, if not worse. Biden has gotten the votes but I also fear that Biden will have some kind of cognitive meltdown in a debate with Trump who is an addle brained dotard as well. I wish Bernie would have won but it just didn’t pan out. As if this whole Biden situation isn’t bad enough, we have the plague to deal with. What if one of the candidates come down with the virus? How will the virus affect the voting process? Everything is up in the air.
In any case, vote for the D toothbrush in November, assuming the election hasn’t been cancelled.
And, Lisa, the only way the ‘bottom up’ resistance will ever happen will be if people turn off their corporate propaganda sources. A good start would be to assign Orwell (1984) and Huxley (Brave New World) as ‘required reading’ to our entire population.
Vote for blues, no matter whose
Vote for blues, no matter whose
Vote for Johnny Hooker’s booze
Vote for Elvis’ Blue Suede Shoes
Vote for anyone’s you choose
Just make sure you vote for blues
@Daedalus…..I think the younger ones are starting to wake up and take notice. I am hearing of more kids wanting to go into politics because they are fed up with the status quo. They are tired of being screwed over and ignored. Maybe the coming years will be a repeat of the “60’s/early 70’s”?
The Crossroads
When you deal with Satan
Always gonna lose
Satan’s into waitin’
Waitin’ for the blues
Here is The Economist’s recent suggestion about student debt. Unfortunatly you have to provide an email address to read the whole thing. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/02/20/how-the-next-president-should-fix-americas-student-loan-problem
I’m open to helping some student loan borrowers, but not all, and certainly not 100% forgiveness for the improvident young people who “followed their dreams” and majored in fields with few paying jobs and/or low salaries. Whenever you hear politicians advocating for forgiveness of all student loans and “free college”, try to remember those same politicians ever saying one word about the bloated administrative bureaucracies and student amenities that even many left-wing professors criticize. A Democrat who had the courage to call out the college-industrial complex for their hugely wasteful practices would receive few donations and votes from academia, but he/she would be very popular with people across the spectrum of mainstream public opinion (far Left excluded).
John,
I pursued a degree in Astronomy (no jobs other than defense industry, which I refused). Education is not the same as job training. An education serves a much broader purpose.
On the other hand, I lived in a time when I could pay my tuition by working summers in a steel mill (we don’t have them, anymore). I actually got paid to go to graduate school (physics). I didn’t live high on the hog, but I lived without debt. I eventually decided to leave a Medical School Biochemistry Dept. and (when I figured out what it was) ‘follow my dream’ (teaching High School). This was not a high-paying choice, but worth every penny I lost.
In other words, my education allowed me to live a happy life. It also served society at large because I both prepared my students for ‘the next step’ and designed courses so that almost all students passed through my classroom in an elective subject and felt a level of confidence and success at the end.
I’m not sure why college became so expensive. It certainly isn’t because of faculty salaries. Nor is it the cost of outfitting a lab. I don’t think a new ‘student lounge’ is a problem, either. Clearly, part of the problem is the ‘loan industry’. Without their ‘help’, many colleges would either adapt or close. Another, the de-industrialization of our society and the unavailability of reasonable wages for labor. And, of course, there’s the infestation and domination of ‘managers’ and ‘business principles’ that treat everything as if the goal is to turn a profit.
I don’t think you realize what a new ‘student lounge’ looks like. Faculty salaries may not always be up there, but how many tenure track positions are there now.? It seems to be there are a lot more adjunct faculty who are scurrying from campus to campus to make a living. Now, if you happen to be part of the bloated administrative track, you can be sitting pretty especially if you are good at attracting more money. Even professors are often close to just grant producing machines when their expertise can draw private industry dollars. I no doubt am oversimplifying, but I think college got so expensive when education became secondary to making money. Do I think it should be free? It doesn’t hurt to have a bit of skin in the game. Whether room and board does that depends on the student. My own kids took their education much more seriously because they had loans as well as jobs to help pay for college. Heck, we are still paying back parent loans more than ten years after the last bill.
Sped…
You sound as if you are a bit closer to the current situation than I (just a guess). Let me respond to a few points you make:
Faculty salaries were never great, and now they truly suck. Despite my pretty lousy pay as a High School teacher, it was always better then the typical college faculty person. I was shocked to find this to be the case. And, as you say, now there are ‘adjuncts’ (unheard of in the 1970s). They seem to make about the same per class as I did with a ‘teaching assistantship’, except I was a student! Times have changed.
The ‘administrative track’ is just remarkably bloated, and that is (for sure) one reason for rising costs.
There has, however, been a ‘publish or perish’ ethic for a long time. There were very few who could just make it by being ‘good teachers’ in most colleges. However, during my short time (early 70’s) in the Biochemistry Dept. of a Med School, I saw a transition. Until that time, most grants came from the government (NIH) and were based on the promise of your research as well as the quality of publications from you or your graduate students. Then, industry (the drug one, in particular, in the med school) began to rear it’s ugly head. Some of the least competent faculty began to bring in grants by simply trying to find a use for a company’s already patented drug. And, the more money they brought in, the higher they rose in the Dept. Disgusting. I left in about 1972 or so. My data is old.
I agree with the ‘skin in the game’ concept, but a student should be able to do that without taking out a loan. Tuition, housing and such should be within the means of a student (perhaps with a ‘scholarship’ if needed) if they worked during the ‘off season’. Most college kids can get a summer job (I think). It should pay enough to cover at least half of the expense of a year in school (ideally, all of it). There is no excuse for the current system, which teaches kids to accept debt as a normal way of life.
Sounds like we are pretty much in agreement.
Here is some information about who owes student debt and to whom it is owed: https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/who-owes-all-that-student-debt-and-whod-benefit-if-it-were-forgiven/
One glaring assumption in the Brookings report is that the difference in pay is due solely to the diploma. Without controlling for a vast host of other factors, the ‘study’ is worthless. Perhaps those factors were taken into account, however no mention of such an attempt was given in the article. What has been shown is a correlation between money ‘earned’ and college degrees, but the causal relationship was simply assumed without any evidence. This type of argument is called a ‘fallacy’.
Also, the assumption is made that ‘making more money’ is equivalent to ‘good’. No, it is not. Making more money may overlap with ‘good’, but it can be ‘bad’ to make more money as well. For example, ‘too much money’ in the hands of one person or group can be bad for another group or person. Currently, egalitarian societies appear to be ‘happier’ as a group. What is the purpose of a society? Whose ‘good’ are we talking about?
And, of course, there are many other ‘goods’ that an education can provide beyond ‘making money’. You’d never know it from this article. As a personal goal, isn’t being poor but happy better than being rich and miserable? If not, what is the purpose of wealth?
The Brookings report was so narrow and flawed that it makes one wonder about its purpose. Was this article and the Brookings thing written by bankers? [And, don’t forget, the Ecomomics Prize is given by the Bank of Sweden, not the Alfred Nobel Committee]. Debt, of course, makes bankers wealthier, but ‘good’ is an ethical term, and ethics involves a group. If we define the group as ‘bankers’, then the use of the term ‘good debt’ might make sense. But, for the rest of society?
I do note that you only offered the article as ‘data’, which I assume is correct. However reading the article lit my fuse. Don’t consider this an attack on your post, but rather an attack on the article and Brookings Report, just in case some readers might think that you were endorsing the entire thing.
Daedalus,
My primary reason to link to the post was to provide some factual information about the size and distribution of student debt rather than their analysis of whether or not graduating from college would allow students to service their debt payments. There has been, however, a great deal of research done on the impact of a college degree on earnings and other life outcomes, not necessarily flattering to higher education. The most provocative is Brian Caplan’s book “The Case Against Education”. You might be interested in reading it.
What I thought was missing from the discussion about student debt relief was about who would benefit from the debt relief. It would generally not be young people from poor households because the majority do not go to college, receive grants instead of loans, or drop out before they accumulate very much college loan debt. The folks that would gain are the students who graduated from college and are doing graduate work, especially those in professional schools like medical school or law school. For every dollar of relief going to an undergraduate student, loan forgiveness will give three dollars of relief to a graduate student. I am not sure that folks are generally aware of that.
However, graduate school is so much more expensive than undergraduate.
It’s only more expensive because society has chosen to make it that way. When I went to graduate school (physics), I actually got paid to do so. Free tuition plus a stipend to teach a pre-med class. That was in the late 1960’s.
So, the question is, “Why is a graduate education so expensive now, when this was not the case only 50 years ago?”
I had a Regents Scholarship and my undergraduate was free. My graduate school was $900. I attended SUNY at Buffalo and got a great education (early to mid 1970s).
When my daughters went to the same school in the 90s, it cost $7000 a year for their undergraduate schooling.
Graduate school has put my daughter into debt. It doesn’t matter why or how, it just matters that it impacts her financial security (and she has a decent job). She went to a private college to become a PA, but had to give up her dream because the debt she would incur to survive during the clinical years would mount to over $100,000.
The education you and I were lucky enough to get is not the same as the cost of education for our children let alone our grandchildren. Just because we could afford it, doesn’t mean they can. (Ergo all the debt).
When anyone complained about paying taxes for the education of other people’s children, my grandfather would say, “Someone paid for yours!”
Your grandfather was a wise man.
Human society always ‘paid it forward’. Stone Age food producers fed the next generation. They also fed their neighbors who where part of the community but, for some reason, not as ‘lucky’. To do otherwise is to be, well, inhuman.
Are you calling Republicans subhuman? (Thank you for the kind words for my grandfather. He was a man ahead of his times in many ways).
😉 Perhaps it is we who are falling farther and farther behind your grandfather. The ‘times ‘ may be in retrograde.
Higher education is more expensive today because the government is no longer subsidizing it like it had in the past. Plus people are greedy.
Well, I thought so, but just wanted to alert the readership (now probably down to two or three) that the source was pushing an unjustifiable position.
As usual, the ‘think tank’ starts with accurate data and then twists it into a fallacious argument. As they say, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure. And, they figure that there’s no more powerful lie than a half-truth.
Thanks for the tip on the Caplan book.
Keep posting. I’ll keep listening. You add to the conversation.
Thanks for the encouragement, Sped..
My time will soon be taken by my garden chores. I raise my own fruits and veggies, and that takes very little space but lots of time. This is particularly true since I’m at an ‘advanced age’ and use only hand tools. Today I made the first spraying of my asian pears (fire blight) and cleared about 90 feet for the komatsuna I have growing as seedlings in cups. I only have so much time to ‘post’, however my first love was (perhaps still is) teaching (with it’s fascination with learning, the way the human brain works).
This is (to me) the best ‘education site’ available. Dianne somehow knows how to sort the chaff from the grain.
I’ve been here before, but I’m not a ‘regular’ because of my other obligations. This thread hooked me in. I’ll be back.
I always enjoy your contributions. I am also looking forward to some time in the garden but am more confined by demands made by shade. At least my kids have managed to roost in sunnier spots.
Daedalus,
All of the PhD students in my department are paid by the university (or is some cases their home government) to get their degree as well. That has not changed since your day. It is true that medical school or law school students are not generally paid to attend medical or law school, and recent medical or law school graduates would be the largest beneficiaries of student loan forgiveness. I do not think young physicians and lawyers are the people in need of the most help in the country, but I suppose others might disagree.
I am interested in your concern about half truth. Do you have some information to dispute Brookings characterization of the nature and extent of student debt? If so, it would be very helpful if you could cite the correct figures.
Sadly I have no information to indicate that the initial data in the ‘report’ is inaccurate. I wish I could help. I did note that you only directed people to that initial data and not the ensuing argument, however by accessing the data people may very well come in contact with the report itself, and its fallacious argument (as did I). It’s not your fault that the ‘think tank’ product proved to have less than peer-reviewed accuracy. Presumably you knew this, but remember that not all readers are used to looking at one part of a report as accurate and then dismissing the rest as baloney.
As I said, my ‘fuse was lit’ because of the way the data was used to create a false narrative, not because the initial numbers were demonstrably wrong. I’m not about to delve into those initial figures. They seem reasonable to me (gut level), despite the absence of any error estimate, but I hope you continue your search into the origin of them. Good luck in your quest. I’m sorry that I can’t help.
Daedalus,
If you have no information that the Brookings information is false, perhaps you might consider the possibility that it is correct. I find delving into the figures to be extremely useful, most especially if it goes against your current beliefs about the world. It is good defense against constructing a false narrative for yourself.
In the very first paragraph of my very first response to your posting of the Brookings link, I stated (emphatically) that the problem with the report was the implication that a college degree caused a higher income. In that opening paragraph, I specifically said that the ‘numbers’ showed a correlation, but to show a cause/effect relationship a much more in depth study was needed. You question that position?
The argument that a college degree was ‘worth’ a certain amount of money simply because the degree-holder would make more money from it was based upon a fallacy, a confusion between correlation and cause.
At NO TIME did I ever say (or imply) the the Brookings numbers were wrong. Instead I attacked the implication of the report that by getting a degree one would necessarily make more money. GET IT!
And, so, the accuracy of the Brookings numbers has little to do with our discussion, does it? I assumed those numbers were accurate from the onset, but you seem to be attempting to put words in my mouth in order to present me as being in error. Why?
Look, I’ve read Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’ from cover to cover, and Smith was did us a great service by gathering numbers and attempting to relate them to human behavior. This was the age, 250 years ago, when many sciences were doing the same, and Smith was attempting to establish an understanding of wealth on the same quantitative basis. As you ought to know, Smith concentrated on European economies because those were the numbers to him that were available. His tome was a masterful, creative work.
However, Smith defined ‘wealth’ in a rather narrow manner. I would say he did so in order to set a ‘technical’ definition, just as any scientific jargon does, so as to narrow the language in order to (if we are lucky) gain some further insight. His work (often seen as the ‘founding’ of economics) was a masterpiece. Smith had no axe to grind other than that residing in him unconsciously due to his culture and genetics, and none of us can escape that, can we?
During the past 250 years, however, ‘Economics’ has failed to fulfill the promise of ‘becoming a science’, hasn’t it? Oh, sure, economists use calculus and models and such, but if I drop a concrete block from 6 feet over your foot, I can predict how it will fall, how fast it will fall at every millisecond, and when it will smash into your foot.
Perhaps you might respond, ‘well, economics is far more complex than physics’, at which point I might respond with the nature of quantum uncertainty, the attempt to describe matter at different levels, and so on. Physics is very complex, and never perfect. However it has introduced vast areas of ‘certainty’ to our experience, whereas Economics remains in its infancy after 250 years.
Perhaps the failure is due to the overly broad vision of Smith. Perhaps looking for a distinctly demonstrable cause/effect relationship in a tiny corner of human behavior might have been a better start.
But, I digress (clearly), so let me go back to basics. The implied logic (cause/effect relationship) of the Brookings report is the problem (as I said at the outset), not the accuracy of the numbers. Why do you find that so hard to agree with?
I’m no economist, but one can look at real life cases to test them”theory” which i find often, but not always true. Human nature what it is, some individuals are more ambitious, dedicated, and/or talented than others, but that variable is not a part of the equation. Plain old luck has a bearing, as well as connections (either through ones parents or by ones well connected classmates/friends – especially if one goes to an Ivy League school, such as Harvard or Yale).
My son in law has no college, but is making 6 figures as a computer analyst (all self taught) He makes the most of anyone in my immediate family.
His wife, my daughter, has a BA in Business Management and works at a bank where she also gets 6 figures. Both still have their jobs and work from home. They don’t qualify for the $1200 from the government.
My other daughter has a Masters Degree plus numerous additional course hours (the one who wanted to be a PA) and works at a hospital as a Nutritionist. She makes decent money, has a good pension, but she qualifies for the $1200. It’s her son we are babysitting.
My youngest daughter is an EMT studying to be a Paramedic. She has a Bachelor’s degree plus additional coursework necessary to be certified. She is the one out there in the field helping people in crisis at great risk to herself. Her salary is a little over minimum wage (maybe).
Those are my anecdotes. Do they match the study?
Flos56,
It must be a comfort to know that your daughter’s household earns more than 90% of Americans. My own children have not achieved that and it has taken me a doctorate and 30 years of adjunct teaching to now earn six figures.
My foster son, who earns less that $20,000 a year, has been furloughed from his job. I believe he will get his $1,200 and his unemployment and perhaps a bit more for the support of his children. He, of course, has no college degree and no college debt. He also, of course, pays taxes. How much of his income should go to pay for your children’s college degrees? Should it be 5% of his income or just 1%? If you want taxpayers to pay for your children’s college education, he has to pay something. What do you think is fair?
Tax the wealthiest. We have gross inequality in this country. Bernie was right when he said there should be no billionaires. I’m sure the Waltons could get by on $100 million each instead of $50 billion each.
Diane, those families making $200 – $250,000 a year pay a fortune in taxes. Probably way more than those billionaires because they don’t make enough to shelter their assets. It would be great if EVERYONE paid their fair share.
I paid for my children’s undergraduate degrees. They all went to a state school and I felt it was a good investment. My daughter with a good income lives modestly and she will pay for her daughter’s college education since she makes too much for financial assistance. Her daughter will also go to a SUNY school.
As a teacher my income was limited, but I felt college was important for my children. I’m retired, but in debt. It was worth it. It’s not always about the money. My children all had jobs, starting as paper girls when they were eleven. Nothing was handed to them and they are all hard workers. I’m proud of them all, not based on their income but because they are all a success – their yearly salary is not their defining characteristic.
My point was that a college degree doesn’t necessarily equate to a good paying job. That is only one factor.
Flo,…
There are so many reasons that a college education (forget the ‘degree’) expand one’s personal horizons. Almost none of them involve ‘making more money’.
‘Making money’ was never the goal of education. It might be a ‘side benefit’ for some students, however the goal was always the student’s self-realization. It didn’t even involve ‘happiness’ [remember, ‘ignorance is bliss’]. The object, the goal of anyone calling themselves an educator, is to awaken the latent potential in a student (while tempering those who are sociopaths).
I prefer a society of educated people. I enjoy the discourse. You gave your daughter that opportunity, and that’s the most we can do. It’s up to our children and students to respond. That’s what ‘education’ means.
We ALL need to call our local House reps phone numbers quickly before things get worse and even massive student loan debt seems like a minor issue. It is time for “government by the people” to act and not leave events on autopilot!
People in my community who trust their veterinarians are making donations to them for families who can’t afford pet food for their cats and dogs. Usually veterinarians work with the local SPCA’s/ humane societies/pet shelters so they have knowledge about families in need. A child shouldn’t be forced to give up his pet because his mom and dad are out of work.
Veterinarians are probably some of the most trustworthy and caring people around.
When my dog was bitten last summer by a coyote and had to be euthanized, the veterinarian seemed even more upset than I was.
Don’t forget to thank your neighborhood veterinarian for the invaluable service they perform for the community on a regular basis.
Agree.
I’m sorry about the loss of your dog.
Thanks Linda
My dog meant a lot to me.
Religion-
Liberty University students returning to campus this week will be affected by the college president’s opinion about the corona virus. (Talking Points Memo)
Jerry Falwell will pray for them all and the hand of God will be with every student. They will be spared this terrible disease…..until the whole school turns into a sick ward with very few medical staff to attend to the ill.
Liberty U. should be forced to pay for the medial care of students who develop Corona and for all those they infect.
I’m not in support of Liberty College, but they already have a lot of remote learning established prior to this pandemic (my brother teaches an online course). I don’t see why they can’t extend that practice with their on campus students and send them home.
money?
Give me Liberty, or give me death!
Should prolly be AND
Clever turn of phrase, Poet.
The political sleight of hand packaged as “liberty” by a PR machine, has, of course, been repurposed by Koch’s allies in the evangelical and Catholic churches. Politically, the right wing took away our votes through suppression and gerrymandering and the religious take away our secular rights.
Ohio’s Republican rulers found time to exploit the crisis to prevent abortions but, they couldn’t find the time to make the unemployment site work for the people who built America.
Liberty chose death
$10,000 would be nice, it would finish paying off my share of my daughter’s student loan (they’ve been making a fortune off of me for the past seven years). Even more important, they will give a little relief to my other daughter’s vast student loan debt when she attempted to become a PA at a private college before she realized she’d need to borrow over $100,000 to complete the clinical portion since she’d have to quit her job for two years. We sat down and did the math – it didn’t add up.
I think people need to recognize the ‘huge sucking sound’ is directed from the 99.9% toward the 0.1%.
In this case, that ‘free money’ is backed by the ‘full faith and credit’ of what? In theory, a dollar is supposed to represent a measure of the worth of a good or service. When you create dollars without increasing goods or services, you devalue the dollar. That’s what just happened. The product or service will become more expensive, so your daughter and you will pay, but in a different way.
But, it gets worse. Essentially, the value of bank stocks is going down because they took your interest payment in past years and spent it on ‘stock buybacks’ to raise the value of their stock (owned largely by top management and the richest of the rich) instead of keeping a cash reserve needed for something like this. Now, they are getting a ‘bailout’, again.
Some of their debts will be forgiven directly. Some will be covered by you and your daughter’s student loan payment using the ‘free check’ you get (money laundering). In either case, the money will flow to the bank management and ownership, and will once again flow to the 0.1%.
That sucking sound needs to stop.
In Democracy in Chains, James Buchanan was described as being put off by the students in California who demonstrated over some political thing. He left and returned to the east, where he became a part of the present conservative push to make everyone pay for things they use. He was sure the students would value their education when they had to pay for it.
I can appreciate his reaction to some extent. I sat in a lot of college classes with students who did not want to study or take an interest in their subjects. You would hear students grousing about having to take a year of American History enroute to their business degree. Meanwhile, I was milking cows and going to school full time. Working two jobs to pay what I now perceive as a meagre amount of the cost of my education stole education from me then and I knew it then. I have been struggling to make up the difference in learning ever since.
Now I have a daughter at a late age in life. Unless I am soon recognized as a literary genius or discover a cure for Covid 19, I am pretty much at the end of my earning capability. Will she have to borrow, should she have to borrow money to get an education? Like me, she complains that her follows at school are not interested. They do not take the songs seriously in chorus. They do not delight in the literature she loves. Are these children not taking an interest in their studies because their parents are not paying for it? Hardly. They are children. Many of their parents do not have an education, some nonwithstanding their college degrees.
If we do not invest in people like my daughter, we will create a society of people like many of her associates. They will not read. They will not think. We need to get rid of the student loan debt and invest in the future. The only people who can do this are the ones who are now making money under the present system.
It’s great that your daughter has a genuine interest in learning. However, the vast majority of young people in college are there first and last to secure the credentials to enter the professional work force, after which few of them will do much serious reading for the rest of their lives. But we’re living in the golden age of self-directed learning. The Internet, public libraries, and low cost books can provide a better education in non-science liberal arts than most college students get sitting in classes. I’ve read 700+ serious books since I graduated from college in 1981, and I’ve done a huge amount of other serious reading since then; that learning dwarfs whatever I achieved in college. Motivated people can do likewise without racking up massive amounts of debt.
It’s the entire college experience which shapes the child, not just the coursework. Learning should be lifelong, but the four years spent engaging with others, meeting a diverse group of people, gaining new ideas, etc., cannot be replicated just by reading books (and remember, I’m a librarian).
I particularly like your penultimate paragraph. A degree doesn’t necessarily indicate an education, which is sad.
But, I can’t say that I was an ‘avid student’ at her age. Instead, I found a ‘major’ that caught my interest (building on a pre-existing inclination), and was drawn out from there. I was also ‘educated’ by my new environment, its relative diversity. Maybe even ‘business majors’ offer that opportunity to an educator, although they are a tough nut to crack, particularly once they leave the ‘impressionable’ teens.
Your daughter’s love of music is a good start. Paul Simon never went to college. Making a living as a musician is very, very hard. And, yet, the inner peace music offers can be far more valuable that monetary ‘wealth’. Our society should follow your daughter, not the other way around.
Coronavirus profiteering
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/24/massive-scandal-trump-fda-grants-drug-company-exclusive-claim-promising-coronavirus
‘This Is a Massive Scandal’: Trump FDA Grants Drug Company Exclusive Claim on Promising Coronavirus Drug
“It is insane and unacceptable,” said Bernie Sanders. “We will not tolerate profiteering. Any treatment or vaccine must be made free for all.”
By the way, where’s Biden?
https://imgflip.com/i/334c2o
Following is from HOW THE SENATE PAVED THE WAY FOR CORONAVIRUS PROFITEERING, AND HOW CONGRESS COULD UNDO IT
Ryan Grim, Aída Chávez
“In 2000, Sanders authored and passed a bipartisan amendment in the House to reimpose the “reasonable pricing” rule [in place until it was removed in 1995 during the Clinton admin]. In the Senate, a similar measure was pushed by the late Paul Wellstone of Minnesota.
“Many in Congress find it hard to argue with Sanders’ line that ‘Americans must pay twice for life-saving drugs, first as taxpayers to develop the drug and then as consumers to pad pharmaceutical profits,’” Nature wrote at the time.
Then-Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware voted to table Wellstone’s amendment, and it was defeated 56-39.”
// End of quote
Biden’s busy praising Republican Governor Dewine on The View.
When’s the last time that Mitch McConnell sang the praises of a Democratic politician?
Joe says politicizing the pandemic is wrong. Once again, in a well-worn refrain, establishment Dems ignore telling the people the truth and provide cover for the policies touted by free market profiteers and, for the deplorable character and conduct of libertarians like Rand Paul.
America’s history demands a President like Bernie at this time.
Telling the truth is never “politicizing”.
People who imply that it is are the real politicizers.
Rare indeed is the politician as courageous as Bernie is and has been for his entire career (nothwithstanding the claim by some that he has not really accomplished anything) in advocating for ordinary people everywhere.
What a lost opportunity for our entire country.
Amen (and not sarcastically). As Pogo said, “We have seen the Enemy, and it is us!”