SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

mrussel1 said:

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. 

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

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

The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.

I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.

To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale.
Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create.
I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.

mickeyrat said:

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

mace1229 said:

cblock4life said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

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

The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.

I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.

To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale.
Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create.
I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.

Well everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.  I get what you’re saying.  I just think it will segregate us further.  And I do mean segregate.  If I’m black I’m moving into a neighborhood close to black businesses because why bother if my skin color allows you not to serve me.  That is segregation. 

I disagree.
For one, I think that right should only be reserved for those creating or making something unique. Like a website. I don’t think that is very common. I can’t remember the last time I had a business create something for me. Even my wedding I’m pretty sure we just got a standard cake and stock invitations, unless you count adding our name and date to it. And a refusal should require more than just race. How you enforce that part, or if you can, I don’t know.
And second, I know racism still exist, but I truly believe the majority of people are good. I may not always like their politics or how they think government should spend money, but I don’t think they are bad. If a business is known for openly refusing service based on race or other criteria, I think it would most often hurt them more than it helps. But if you’re a Jewish Bakery who refused to write “Jesus Lives” on a cake for Easter, I think most people would understand.

mace1229 said:

cblock4life said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

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

The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.

I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.

To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale.
Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create.
I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.

Well everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.  I get what you’re saying.  I just think it will segregate us further.  And I do mean segregate.  If I’m black I’m moving into a neighborhood close to black businesses because why bother if my skin color allows you not to serve me.  That is segregation. 

I disagree.
For one, I think that right should only be reserved for those creating or making something unique. Like a website. I don’t think that is very common. I can’t remember the last time I had a business create something for me. Even my wedding I’m pretty sure we just got a standard cake and stock invitations, unless you count adding our name and date to it. And a refusal should require more than just race. How you enforce that part, or if you can, I don’t know.
And second, I know racism still exist, but I truly believe the majority of people are good. I may not always like their politics or how they think government should spend money, but I don’t think they are bad. If a business is known for openly refusing service based on race or other criteria, I think it would most often hurt them more than it helps. But if you’re a Jewish Bakery who refused to write “Jesus Lives” on a cake for Easter, I think most people would understand.

curmudgeoness said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

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. 

I can be good to be wrong.  I stand corrected.  And good!  (But I still think college should be more affordable.)

I'd also love to see trade schools given a boost.  College isn't for every one and I don't know about other places, but in our area, good skilled trades people- carpenters, plumbers, electrician, general handyman and handywoman (now why is that not a word?!), etc are in great shortage.  We often have a hard time getting help doing the kind of work I am no longer capable of doing.

Brian, @mrussel1 makes some good points here. The system is messed up, and while Biden's plan was popular I don't know that it was the best way to fix things.

I think that people who are not in the thick of things and really trying to figure out how much college is going to cost for their child don't understand the disconnect between sticker price and actual price. And it really varies person to person, school to school. The same student can get six wildly different aid offers from six schools. Affordability is largely disconnected from whatever the cost of tuition supposedly is, depending a lot on the size of the school's endowment. 

I tend to believe that part of the reason for skyrocketing college costs is the ready availability of loans -- people aren't thinking about the cost in the present and it remains an abstract concept for them, so they borrow as much as they can -- kind of like an ex of mine who assumed that as long as cash was disbursed from the ATM when he inserted his card, he had plenty of money (ignoring his account's overdraft protection feature).

The LA Times ran a story yesterday about students "crushed" by this SCOTUS decision. One opted to go to Southern Oregon University  borrowing $30K per year and was upset because she would have to move back home, go to CC etc. This is insane. California's public university system is outstanding; she could spend two years at CC and transfer to a CSU school to complete her degree and have a "real college experience," and get a better education for much less money! Another student profiled wanted to use his cash to buy a camera and lights, because he's a "TikToker."

I can't comprehend these choices. I think one part of the solution would be better education of the students and their parents: perhaps, midway through eleventh grade, everyone gets a crash course in understanding how much college really costs for them, how to weigh the value of a particular school. Make it a mandatory class for college-prep track kids and their families.

But those loans: I am old, but back in the 80s the maximum amount I could borrow -- the total over four years -- was $10,000 or $12,500. That's it. Big loans and big debt were reserved for people going to law school or medical school, on the assumption that they would have the future income to repay the loans. When I read about people borrowing $30 - 40K/ year to go be a social worker, I wonder both about their ability to understand their future debt load and about the role those higher loan limits play in inflating the cost of college. It seems to me that the cost of college would not outstrip inflation if people were not able and willing to come up with the money, through loans or out of pocket, to cover those rising costs.