SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

brianlux

The trolls here can take their racist views and shove it.  I haven't the faintest clue how they became fans of Pearl Jam in the first place, and how they ended up here is just a bit strange.  Wrong fucking universe, people.

Bentleyspop

brianlux said:

The trolls here can take their racist views and shove it.  I haven't the faintest clue how they became fans of Pearl Jam in the first place, and how they ended up here is just a bit strange.  Wrong fucking universe, people.

Shhhh PJ has been loud and proud of their hippy liberal socialists beliefs for 30+ years.
If the QtRUmplicans want to keep paying to post their hateful ignorant beliefs, let them.

brianlux

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

The trolls here can take their racist views and shove it.  I haven't the faintest clue how they became fans of Pearl Jam in the first place, and how they ended up here is just a bit strange.  Wrong fucking universe, people.

Shhhh PJ has been loud and proud of their hippy liberal socialists beliefs for 30+ years.
If the QtRUmplicans want to keep paying to post their hateful ignorant beliefs, let them.

Haha!  Good point/perspective. 

So anyway, Jesus, I can't believe affirmative action is no more.  This country is going to hell.

Merkin Baller

Rooting for the status quo to continue seems beyond short sighted right now, but hey. as long as libz are owned, who gives a shit about the future of the middle and lower class in this country? 

#priorities 

cblock4life

brianlux said:

The trolls here can take their racist views and shove it.  I haven't the faintest clue how they became fans of Pearl Jam in the first place, and how they ended up here is just a bit strange.  Wrong fucking universe, people.

Bravo Mr. B.  We will be gone but soon a generation will see only white in our country.  

My advice to all minority college applicants is to legally change your names to Bill Smith, Bob Jones, Mary White.  Level the playing field.  Check the White/Caucasian box ALL THE TIME.  You’ve got to play as dirty as they do.  This won’t work for employment but I would try anything to get accepted.  I’m not being racist, but names say so much about who we are.  

Merkin Baller

cblock4life said:

brianlux said:

The trolls here can take their racist views and shove it.  I haven't the faintest clue how they became fans of Pearl Jam in the first place, and how they ended up here is just a bit strange.  Wrong fucking universe, people.

Bravo Mr. B.  We will be gone but soon a generation will see only white in our country.  

My advice to all minority college applicants is to legally change your names to Bill Smith, Bob Jones, Mary White.  Level the playing field.  Check the White/Caucasian box ALL THE TIME.  You’ve got to play as dirty as they do.  This won’t work for employment but I would try anything to get accepted.  I’m not being racist, but names say so much about who we are.  

Also, if you don't have the merits, just have a parent who went to that college. 

It's that easy, the poors just need to figure it out. 

mrussel1

TJ25487 said:

Another slap down for Joe Bribem! 

The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, ending a $430 billion debt writeoff that critics said had been a midterm election gimmick Biden knew was unconstitutional.

As Breitbart News reported last fall: “Over the summer, Biden announced his decision to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for Americans making less than $125,000 a year. The president announced details of his plan on social media, describing it as a “campaign promise” to give “working and middle-class families breathing room” on student loans.”

You're such an odd poster.  All of you right wingers are with the juvenile nicknames. 

At the end of the day, I think this is a good thing, but likely not for the reasons you do.  In my opinion, student loan forgiveness is actually a regressive policy, not progressive.  College graduates make significantly more over their lifetime than non-college grads (e.g. Trump supporters).  So you have a situation where the gov't is waiving debt on people who are most likely to be middle to upper middle to wealthy.  That's regressive in my book.  The core issue is the rising cost of tuition and for students to be wiser in what they borrow and where they choose to go to school.  Waiving loans does not accomplish that.

Because I'm at the age where my kids are in school, and my friends' children are going to school, I'm seeing firsthand the poor choices.  I see kids going to private schools or out of state publics when I know they can't afford 50-70k per year in costs.  It makes no sense.  I told my kids they are going in state, public unless they get scholarships.  There is no reason not to do so.  And if costs are even tighter, junior college to state university is the way to go.  I had to do that myself.  

cblock4life

mrussel1 said:

TJ25487 said:

Another slap down for Joe Bribem! 

The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, ending a $430 billion debt writeoff that critics said had been a midterm election gimmick Biden knew was unconstitutional.

As Breitbart News reported last fall: “Over the summer, Biden announced his decision to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for Americans making less than $125,000 a year. The president announced details of his plan on social media, describing it as a “campaign promise” to give “working and middle-class families breathing room” on student loans.”

You're such an odd poster.  All of you right wingers are with the juvenile nicknames. 

At the end of the day, I think this is a good thing, but likely not for the reasons you do.  In my opinion, student loan forgiveness is actually a regressive policy, not progressive.  College graduates make significantly more over their lifetime than non-college grads (e.g. Trump supporters).  So you have a situation where the gov't is waiving debt on people who are most likely to be middle to upper middle to wealthy.  That's regressive in my book.  The core issue is the rising cost of tuition and for students to be wiser in what they borrow and where they choose to go to school.  Waiving loans does not accomplish that.

Because I'm at the age where my kids are in school, and my friends' children are going to school, I'm seeing firsthand the poor choices.  I see kids going to private schools or out of state publics when I know they can't afford 50-70k per year in costs.  It makes no sense.  I told my kids they are going in state, public unless they get scholarships.  There is no reason not to do so.  And if costs are even tighter, junior college to state university is the way to go.  I had to do that myself.  

I agree with two years of community college then to wherever (not what my kids did).  

Once my son saw the cost of Michigan State he decided on a great in state school for his major, knowing that we were making the payments (unless they fucked up) until he got a good job so the balance would be his responsibility).  Started 2 weeks after graduating making 55,000, so here’s your loan sweetheart.  

Funny but neither of my kids were against it even though their student loans were all paid. 

Didn’t bother them at all.  

You’re correct.  The changes need to happen at all aspects of the college process.  Biggest ripoff next to funerals.  

tempo_n_groove

Gern Blansten said:

Bentleyspop said:

Supreme Court says Christian business owner can refuse to create same-sex marriage websites

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/supreme-court-303-creative-lgbtq-rights-colorado/index.html

So now we will see people refusing to serve transgender people, muslims, people with dark skin, etc., because they can fall back on their religion. 

You should have to consider their religious rights too.  It should be a two way street though, I don't think not serving someone that is Muslim or dark skinned would have ANYTHING to do with religion so like Mickey said, a lawsuit would cure that real quick.

Halifax2TheMax

TJ25487 said:

Another slap down for Joe Bribem! 

The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, ending a $430 billion debt writeoff that critics said had been a midterm election gimmick Biden knew was unconstitutional.

As Breitbart News reported last fall: “Over the summer, Biden announced his decision to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for Americans making less than $125,000 a year. The president announced details of his plan on social media, describing it as a “campaign promise” to give “working and middle-class families breathing room” on student loans.”

You really should review Brandon’s tax returns. They’re available, you know?

brianlux

cblock4life said:

mrussel1 said:

TJ25487 said:

Another slap down for Joe Bribem! 

The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, ending a $430 billion debt writeoff that critics said had been a midterm election gimmick Biden knew was unconstitutional.

As Breitbart News reported last fall: “Over the summer, Biden announced his decision to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for Americans making less than $125,000 a year. The president announced details of his plan on social media, describing it as a “campaign promise” to give “working and middle-class families breathing room” on student loans.”

You're such an odd poster.  All of you right wingers are with the juvenile nicknames. 

At the end of the day, I think this is a good thing, but likely not for the reasons you do.  In my opinion, student loan forgiveness is actually a regressive policy, not progressive.  College graduates make significantly more over their lifetime than non-college grads (e.g. Trump supporters).  So you have a situation where the gov't is waiving debt on people who are most likely to be middle to upper middle to wealthy.  That's regressive in my book.  The core issue is the rising cost of tuition and for students to be wiser in what they borrow and where they choose to go to school.  Waiving loans does not accomplish that.

Because I'm at the age where my kids are in school, and my friends' children are going to school, I'm seeing firsthand the poor choices.  I see kids going to private schools or out of state publics when I know they can't afford 50-70k per year in costs.  It makes no sense.  I told my kids they are going in state, public unless they get scholarships.  There is no reason not to do so.  And if costs are even tighter, junior college to state university is the way to go.  I had to do that myself.  

I agree with two years of community college then to wherever (not what my kids did).  

Once my son saw the cost of Michigan State he decided on a great in state school for his major, knowing that we were making the payments (unless they fucked up) until he got a good job so the balance would be his responsibility).  Started 2 weeks after graduating making 55,000, so here’s your loan sweetheart.  

Funny but neither of my kids were against it even though their student loans were all paid. 

Didn’t bother them at all.  

You’re correct.  The changes need to happen at all aspects of the college process.  Biggest ripoff next to funerals.  

The sad thing to me is that student loans are so much more necessary than the used to be.  Cost for tuition today are insane.

Using an inflation calculator, I calculate that my first first semester of full time (15 units) of college courses at the 4 year university I attended would today cost $427.... total... for all 15 units.  The actual cost of a full load of classes at that same college today is $7,522.  The discrepancy there is absurd.

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1674829511815315458?t=4QNQ6ttbirtwMgSksHUmmw&s=19

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1674786316268220422?t=bxS-I9AjdvMQ2RBlUQrQcA&s=19

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/srl/status/1674795201708314625?t=Yg3TkivC62F0UD5TJdpiqw&s=19

josevolution

lindamarie73 said:

mickeyrat said:

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:

hmm,

https://twitter.com/Strandjunker/status/1674433928361308160?t=3VvQIhOa-T0uXaKTwSzWeg&s=19

Biden has more or less stated that he’s not for expanding the court 

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1674510783676313637?t=Fs-DRlAvn5t1xpA0sHjE8Q&s=19

Nice to see Biden’s brains ain’t all full of shit….

Unlike the twice impeached who knows how many indictments Orange buffoon you so adore! I’ll take the senile old man and will vote for him again..

mrussel1

brianlux said:

cblock4life said:

mrussel1 said:

TJ25487 said:

Another slap down for Joe Bribem! 

The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, ending a $430 billion debt writeoff that critics said had been a midterm election gimmick Biden knew was unconstitutional.

As Breitbart News reported last fall: “Over the summer, Biden announced his decision to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for Americans making less than $125,000 a year. The president announced details of his plan on social media, describing it as a “campaign promise” to give “working and middle-class families breathing room” on student loans.”

You're such an odd poster.  All of you right wingers are with the juvenile nicknames. 

At the end of the day, I think this is a good thing, but likely not for the reasons you do.  In my opinion, student loan forgiveness is actually a regressive policy, not progressive.  College graduates make significantly more over their lifetime than non-college grads (e.g. Trump supporters).  So you have a situation where the gov't is waiving debt on people who are most likely to be middle to upper middle to wealthy.  That's regressive in my book.  The core issue is the rising cost of tuition and for students to be wiser in what they borrow and where they choose to go to school.  Waiving loans does not accomplish that.

Because I'm at the age where my kids are in school, and my friends' children are going to school, I'm seeing firsthand the poor choices.  I see kids going to private schools or out of state publics when I know they can't afford 50-70k per year in costs.  It makes no sense.  I told my kids they are going in state, public unless they get scholarships.  There is no reason not to do so.  And if costs are even tighter, junior college to state university is the way to go.  I had to do that myself.  

I agree with two years of community college then to wherever (not what my kids did).  

Once my son saw the cost of Michigan State he decided on a great in state school for his major, knowing that we were making the payments (unless they fucked up) until he got a good job so the balance would be his responsibility).  Started 2 weeks after graduating making 55,000, so here’s your loan sweetheart.  

Funny but neither of my kids were against it even though their student loans were all paid. 

Didn’t bother them at all.  

You’re correct.  The changes need to happen at all aspects of the college process.  Biggest ripoff next to funerals.  

The sad thing to me is that student loans are so much more necessary than the used to be.  Cost for tuition today are insane.

Using an inflation calculator, I calculate that my first first semester of full time (15 units) of college courses at the 4 year university I attended would today cost $427.... total... for all 15 units.  The actual cost of a full load of classes at that same college today is $7,522.  The discrepancy there is absurd.

There are so many factors that has caused it.  There are three key ones though:

1. States have reduced the funding provided to its universities, so the costs get passed on to the students
2. Amenities are night and day from when you went to college, to me in the 90s and now to today.  Went I went to school, it was very spartan.  AC was a gift.  My middle child is at James Madison University right now and the campus is beautiful.  Food court is amazing, library, gym, everything.  The state didn't pay for that, we did.  But students started making decisions based on these amenities and universities began pouring money into it.
3. Many students receive discounted/free tuition because they are disadvantaged.  That means the full tuition students are likely paying more than what they would pay if there was no discounted tuition.  I'm actually okay with this.  

My son's full load tuition for a semester is right at that 7500 number you quoted.  While I don't think it's cheap, I also don't think it's obscene.  One thing that is interesting is that books are no longer a big cost.  That would add several hundred dollars a semester when I was in school, but for my son, it's de minimis.  And he's on a pre-law track so lots of books, but they are all either free online or on Amazon.  So that's a bonus.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

cblock4life said:

mrussel1 said:

TJ25487 said:

Another slap down for Joe Bribem! 

The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, ending a $430 billion debt writeoff that critics said had been a midterm election gimmick Biden knew was unconstitutional.

As Breitbart News reported last fall: “Over the summer, Biden announced his decision to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for Americans making less than $125,000 a year. The president announced details of his plan on social media, describing it as a “campaign promise” to give “working and middle-class families breathing room” on student loans.”

You're such an odd poster.  All of you right wingers are with the juvenile nicknames. 

At the end of the day, I think this is a good thing, but likely not for the reasons you do.  In my opinion, student loan forgiveness is actually a regressive policy, not progressive.  College graduates make significantly more over their lifetime than non-college grads (e.g. Trump supporters).  So you have a situation where the gov't is waiving debt on people who are most likely to be middle to upper middle to wealthy.  That's regressive in my book.  The core issue is the rising cost of tuition and for students to be wiser in what they borrow and where they choose to go to school.  Waiving loans does not accomplish that.

Because I'm at the age where my kids are in school, and my friends' children are going to school, I'm seeing firsthand the poor choices.  I see kids going to private schools or out of state publics when I know they can't afford 50-70k per year in costs.  It makes no sense.  I told my kids they are going in state, public unless they get scholarships.  There is no reason not to do so.  And if costs are even tighter, junior college to state university is the way to go.  I had to do that myself.  

I agree with two years of community college then to wherever (not what my kids did).  

Once my son saw the cost of Michigan State he decided on a great in state school for his major, knowing that we were making the payments (unless they fucked up) until he got a good job so the balance would be his responsibility).  Started 2 weeks after graduating making 55,000, so here’s your loan sweetheart.  

Funny but neither of my kids were against it even though their student loans were all paid. 

Didn’t bother them at all.  

You’re correct.  The changes need to happen at all aspects of the college process.  Biggest ripoff next to funerals.  

The sad thing to me is that student loans are so much more necessary than the used to be.  Cost for tuition today are insane.

Using an inflation calculator, I calculate that my first first semester of full time (15 units) of college courses at the 4 year university I attended would today cost $427.... total... for all 15 units.  The actual cost of a full load of classes at that same college today is $7,522.  The discrepancy there is absurd.

There are so many factors that has caused it.  There are three key ones though:

1. States have reduced the funding provided to its universities, so the costs get passed on to the students
2. Amenities are night and day from when you went to college, to me in the 90s and now to today.  Went I went to school, it was very spartan.  AC was a gift.  My middle child is at James Madison University right now and the campus is beautiful.  Food court is amazing, library, gym, everything.  The state didn't pay for that, we did.  But students started making decisions based on these amenities and universities began pouring money into it.
3. Many students receive discounted/free tuition because they are disadvantaged.  That means the full tuition students are likely paying more than what they would pay if there was no discounted tuition.  I'm actually okay with this.  

My son's full load tuition for a semester is right at that 7500 number you quoted.  While I don't think it's cheap, I also don't think it's obscene.  One thing that is interesting is that books are no longer a big cost.  That would add several hundred dollars a semester when I was in school, but for my son, it's de minimis.  And he's on a pre-law track so lots of books, but they are all either free online or on Amazon.  So that's a bonus.  

Ronny Rayguns era cuts to states, led to states cutting higher education budgets and raising tuition. Also, lead some states to implement the two-tiered in-state/out of state tuition pricing and a reliance on X number of out of state students, which lead to in-state students having to go out of state because although qualified, no placement available, in addition to much larger class sizes, particularly survey and introductory courses. Added international students exacerbated this issue. Also, some state schools tried to offer programs for everyone and their interests, which lead to cost increases rather than sticking to their original core offerings. And let’s not forget that physical college campuses by their nature are expensive to maintain and operate, the deferred maintenance backlog costs are outrageous. Add a reliance on fundraising from alumni or corporations to build new or renovate old, aid tuition, etc. and the discrepancies in quality, ability to attract and sustain become even more apparent. 

Ronny Rayguns trickle down was supposed to level the playing field and reach down and lift up. Hardly.

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

cblock4life said:

mrussel1 said:

TJ25487 said:

Another slap down for Joe Bribem! 

The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, ending a $430 billion debt writeoff that critics said had been a midterm election gimmick Biden knew was unconstitutional.

As Breitbart News reported last fall: “Over the summer, Biden announced his decision to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for Americans making less than $125,000 a year. The president announced details of his plan on social media, describing it as a “campaign promise” to give “working and middle-class families breathing room” on student loans.”

You're such an odd poster.  All of you right wingers are with the juvenile nicknames. 

At the end of the day, I think this is a good thing, but likely not for the reasons you do.  In my opinion, student loan forgiveness is actually a regressive policy, not progressive.  College graduates make significantly more over their lifetime than non-college grads (e.g. Trump supporters).  So you have a situation where the gov't is waiving debt on people who are most likely to be middle to upper middle to wealthy.  That's regressive in my book.  The core issue is the rising cost of tuition and for students to be wiser in what they borrow and where they choose to go to school.  Waiving loans does not accomplish that.

Because I'm at the age where my kids are in school, and my friends' children are going to school, I'm seeing firsthand the poor choices.  I see kids going to private schools or out of state publics when I know they can't afford 50-70k per year in costs.  It makes no sense.  I told my kids they are going in state, public unless they get scholarships.  There is no reason not to do so.  And if costs are even tighter, junior college to state university is the way to go.  I had to do that myself.  

I agree with two years of community college then to wherever (not what my kids did).  

Once my son saw the cost of Michigan State he decided on a great in state school for his major, knowing that we were making the payments (unless they fucked up) until he got a good job so the balance would be his responsibility).  Started 2 weeks after graduating making 55,000, so here’s your loan sweetheart.  

Funny but neither of my kids were against it even though their student loans were all paid. 

Didn’t bother them at all.  

You’re correct.  The changes need to happen at all aspects of the college process.  Biggest ripoff next to funerals.  

The sad thing to me is that student loans are so much more necessary than the used to be.  Cost for tuition today are insane.

Using an inflation calculator, I calculate that my first first semester of full time (15 units) of college courses at the 4 year university I attended would today cost $427.... total... for all 15 units.  The actual cost of a full load of classes at that same college today is $7,522.  The discrepancy there is absurd.

There are so many factors that has caused it.  There are three key ones though:

1. States have reduced the funding provided to its universities, so the costs get passed on to the students
2. Amenities are night and day from when you went to college, to me in the 90s and now to today.  Went I went to school, it was very spartan.  AC was a gift.  My middle child is at James Madison University right now and the campus is beautiful.  Food court is amazing, library, gym, everything.  The state didn't pay for that, we did.  But students started making decisions based on these amenities and universities began pouring money into it.
3. Many students receive discounted/free tuition because they are disadvantaged.  That means the full tuition students are likely paying more than what they would pay if there was no discounted tuition.  I'm actually okay with this.  

My son's full load tuition for a semester is right at that 7500 number you quoted.  While I don't think it's cheap, I also don't think it's obscene.  One thing that is interesting is that books are no longer a big cost.  That would add several hundred dollars a semester when I was in school, but for my son, it's de minimis.  And he's on a pre-law track so lots of books, but they are all either free online or on Amazon.  So that's a bonus.  

Ronny Rayguns era cuts to states, led to states cutting higher education budgets and raising tuition. Also, lead some states to implement the two-tiered in-state/out of state tuition pricing and a reliance on X number of out of state students, which lead to in-state students having to go out of state because although qualified, no placement available, in addition to much larger class sizes, particularly survey and introductory courses. Added international students exacerbated this issue. Also, some state schools tried to offer programs for everyone and their interests, which lead to cost increases rather than sticking to their original core offerings. And let’s not forget that physical college campuses by their nature are expensive to maintain and operate, the deferred maintenance backlog costs are outrageous. Add a reliance on fundraising from alumni or corporations to build new or renovate old, aid tuition, etc. and the discrepancies in quality, ability to attract and sustain become even more apparent. 

Ronny Rayguns trickle down was supposed to level the playing field and reach down and lift up. Hardly.

Yes agreed, there are so many things at work that conspired to create this escalation.  I don't think just waiving student debt is the answer though.  Parents need to be more responsible in the decisions that they make, or allow their children to make.  I'll give an example.  The family across the street has four kids, and three of them are the same age as mine.  They all grew up together. They have always been single income home.  The boy, same age as mine, is going to be a senior this year at University of Richmond.  Both parents went there (as did my wife) so they are partial to it.  But it's like 60k a year.  It's private and a good school, but not Ivy.  So the boy goes there and he is going to be a teacher.  Good for him, we need smart teachers and he's a great kid.  But UR isn't a teacher's college or anything.  So he will have a quarter million dollar education and teach.  It doesn't make sense.  He won't make a dime more than if he would have gone to any of the very good teacher's colleges we have here in VA.  

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

cblock4life said:

mrussel1 said:

TJ25487 said:

Another slap down for Joe Bribem! 

The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, ending a $430 billion debt writeoff that critics said had been a midterm election gimmick Biden knew was unconstitutional.

As Breitbart News reported last fall: “Over the summer, Biden announced his decision to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for Americans making less than $125,000 a year. The president announced details of his plan on social media, describing it as a “campaign promise” to give “working and middle-class families breathing room” on student loans.”

You're such an odd poster.  All of you right wingers are with the juvenile nicknames. 

At the end of the day, I think this is a good thing, but likely not for the reasons you do.  In my opinion, student loan forgiveness is actually a regressive policy, not progressive.  College graduates make significantly more over their lifetime than non-college grads (e.g. Trump supporters).  So you have a situation where the gov't is waiving debt on people who are most likely to be middle to upper middle to wealthy.  That's regressive in my book.  The core issue is the rising cost of tuition and for students to be wiser in what they borrow and where they choose to go to school.  Waiving loans does not accomplish that.

Because I'm at the age where my kids are in school, and my friends' children are going to school, I'm seeing firsthand the poor choices.  I see kids going to private schools or out of state publics when I know they can't afford 50-70k per year in costs.  It makes no sense.  I told my kids they are going in state, public unless they get scholarships.  There is no reason not to do so.  And if costs are even tighter, junior college to state university is the way to go.  I had to do that myself.  

I agree with two years of community college then to wherever (not what my kids did).  

Once my son saw the cost of Michigan State he decided on a great in state school for his major, knowing that we were making the payments (unless they fucked up) until he got a good job so the balance would be his responsibility).  Started 2 weeks after graduating making 55,000, so here’s your loan sweetheart.  

Funny but neither of my kids were against it even though their student loans were all paid. 

Didn’t bother them at all.  

You’re correct.  The changes need to happen at all aspects of the college process.  Biggest ripoff next to funerals.  

The sad thing to me is that student loans are so much more necessary than the used to be.  Cost for tuition today are insane.

Using an inflation calculator, I calculate that my first first semester of full time (15 units) of college courses at the 4 year university I attended would today cost $427.... total... for all 15 units.  The actual cost of a full load of classes at that same college today is $7,522.  The discrepancy there is absurd.

There are so many factors that has caused it.  There are three key ones though:

1. States have reduced the funding provided to its universities, so the costs get passed on to the students
2. Amenities are night and day from when you went to college, to me in the 90s and now to today.  Went I went to school, it was very spartan.  AC was a gift.  My middle child is at James Madison University right now and the campus is beautiful.  Food court is amazing, library, gym, everything.  The state didn't pay for that, we did.  But students started making decisions based on these amenities and universities began pouring money into it.
3. Many students receive discounted/free tuition because they are disadvantaged.  That means the full tuition students are likely paying more than what they would pay if there was no discounted tuition.  I'm actually okay with this.  

My son's full load tuition for a semester is right at that 7500 number you quoted.  While I don't think it's cheap, I also don't think it's obscene.  One thing that is interesting is that books are no longer a big cost.  That would add several hundred dollars a semester when I was in school, but for my son, it's de minimis.  And he's on a pre-law track so lots of books, but they are all either free online or on Amazon.  So that's a bonus.  

1.  That's for sure.  Universities are not support by states as they once were.

2.  I only referenced tuition.  It's true though that housing was less expensive then.  From '71 to '73 three I shared a flat in San Francisco's upper Haight.  3 br, 1 bath, terrific view, use of roof as a deck, sole use of 1 car garage, shared backyard.  In today's money, our rent was the equivalent of $1480 a month.  That's a lot, but the same place today would be about three times as much.  Everything is more expensive today!

3.  Could be.

I still don't see why tuition should be over 17 times a high today.  Today, it's an elitist game.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

cblock4life said:

mrussel1 said:

TJ25487 said:

Another slap down for Joe Bribem! 

The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, ending a $430 billion debt writeoff that critics said had been a midterm election gimmick Biden knew was unconstitutional.

As Breitbart News reported last fall: “Over the summer, Biden announced his decision to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for Americans making less than $125,000 a year. The president announced details of his plan on social media, describing it as a “campaign promise” to give “working and middle-class families breathing room” on student loans.”

You're such an odd poster.  All of you right wingers are with the juvenile nicknames. 

At the end of the day, I think this is a good thing, but likely not for the reasons you do.  In my opinion, student loan forgiveness is actually a regressive policy, not progressive.  College graduates make significantly more over their lifetime than non-college grads (e.g. Trump supporters).  So you have a situation where the gov't is waiving debt on people who are most likely to be middle to upper middle to wealthy.  That's regressive in my book.  The core issue is the rising cost of tuition and for students to be wiser in what they borrow and where they choose to go to school.  Waiving loans does not accomplish that.

Because I'm at the age where my kids are in school, and my friends' children are going to school, I'm seeing firsthand the poor choices.  I see kids going to private schools or out of state publics when I know they can't afford 50-70k per year in costs.  It makes no sense.  I told my kids they are going in state, public unless they get scholarships.  There is no reason not to do so.  And if costs are even tighter, junior college to state university is the way to go.  I had to do that myself.  

I agree with two years of community college then to wherever (not what my kids did).  

Once my son saw the cost of Michigan State he decided on a great in state school for his major, knowing that we were making the payments (unless they fucked up) until he got a good job so the balance would be his responsibility).  Started 2 weeks after graduating making 55,000, so here’s your loan sweetheart.  

Funny but neither of my kids were against it even though their student loans were all paid. 

Didn’t bother them at all.  

You’re correct.  The changes need to happen at all aspects of the college process.  Biggest ripoff next to funerals.  

The sad thing to me is that student loans are so much more necessary than the used to be.  Cost for tuition today are insane.

Using an inflation calculator, I calculate that my first first semester of full time (15 units) of college courses at the 4 year university I attended would today cost $427.... total... for all 15 units.  The actual cost of a full load of classes at that same college today is $7,522.  The discrepancy there is absurd.

There are so many factors that has caused it.  There are three key ones though:

1. States have reduced the funding provided to its universities, so the costs get passed on to the students
2. Amenities are night and day from when you went to college, to me in the 90s and now to today.  Went I went to school, it was very spartan.  AC was a gift.  My middle child is at James Madison University right now and the campus is beautiful.  Food court is amazing, library, gym, everything.  The state didn't pay for that, we did.  But students started making decisions based on these amenities and universities began pouring money into it.
3. Many students receive discounted/free tuition because they are disadvantaged.  That means the full tuition students are likely paying more than what they would pay if there was no discounted tuition.  I'm actually okay with this.  

My son's full load tuition for a semester is right at that 7500 number you quoted.  While I don't think it's cheap, I also don't think it's obscene.  One thing that is interesting is that books are no longer a big cost.  That would add several hundred dollars a semester when I was in school, but for my son, it's de minimis.  And he's on a pre-law track so lots of books, but they are all either free online or on Amazon.  So that's a bonus.  

1.  That's for sure.  Universities are not support by states as they once were.

2.  I only referenced tuition.  It's true though that housing was less expensive then.  From '71 to '73 three I shared a flat in San Francisco's upper Haight.  3 br, 1 bath, terrific view, use of roof as a deck, sole use of 1 car garage, shared backyard.  In today's money, our rent was the equivalent of $1480 a month.  That's a lot, but the same place today would be about three times as much.  Everything is more expensive today!

3.  Could be.

I still don't see why tuition should be over 17 times a high today.  Today, it's an elitist game.

I don't know that I agree with your last statement.  If you look at college degree attainment rates in the US, they just continue to rise.  While this data doesn't go back to when you were in school, one would presume it was lower.  I doubt the curve is U-shaped.  So while I agree it's too expensive, I think in the past it was much more an elitist game.