General Bernie unveils student debt cancellation bill

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Tiiimmmaaayyy

First 100 ish
Jan 19, 2015
7,990
9,940
People are free to join the military if they want a paid education. A lot of people go that route and they don’t have student loans.
I really wish I would have gone that route. By the time I pay off my loans I will have paid more than 20 years on student loans. I always encourage kids to go the military route. See the world and have college paid for. Of course it would've been easier in my day when the world was more peaceful.
 

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
45,412
57,814
no, the money is not there. Just because we keep telling ourselves that the money is there and spending like the money is there doesn't make the money there.

It's not there. That's what debt means.
I understand. And I agree with you.
But it is curious how frivolous spending is justified for some things and not for others.

A tomahawk missile runs about $1.5 million each.
On a single day back in 2017 the United States unleashed 59 of those bad boys on Syria.
 

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
45,412
57,814
If I lived in a 1 bedroom shack and drove a piece of shit Yugo for 10 years so I could pay off my college loan, I would be fucking LIVID if the government decided to wipe the slate clean for everyone.
 

Never_Rolled

First 10,000
Dec 17, 2018
5,798
6,349
If I lived in a 1 bedroom shack and drove a piece of shit Yugo for 10 years so I could pay off my college loan, I would be fucking LIVID if the government decided to wipe the slate clean for everyone.
You would have been lucky to 3 years out of that Yugo.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
I understand. And I agree with you.
But it is curious how frivolous spending is justified for some things and not for others.

A tomahawk missile runs about $1.5 million each.
On a single day back in 2017 the United States unleashed 59 of those bad boys on Syria.
agree.

but the solution to stupid spending isn't more, even dumber, spending.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
If I lived in a 1 bedroom shack and drove a piece of shit Yugo for 10 years so I could pay off my college loan, I would be fucking LIVID if the government decided to wipe the slate clean for everyone.
if you lived in a Yugo for 10 years to pay off your student loans, it's because you got a useless degree.
 

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
45,412
57,814
if you lived in a Yugo for 10 years to pay off your student loans, it's because you got a useless degree.
Now those useless degrees will be free taxpayer funded. There's plenty of them out there.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
I'm not pushing the bootstraps and I sourced a national level paper with the fact that it is outliers, not the median, that cant pay their loans.

Rich kids don't need help. Middle class kids usually don't. Poor kids usually do and are also the most likely to not complete their degree, saddling them with debt and no skills. And with poor comes minority students most likely defaulting in these outlier amounts.

Another...

These are the students most crushed by the debt crisis


The student loan problem is yet another example of resources natural propensity to accumulate. Poor kids take bigger loans make worse decisions more likely to drop out more likely to default.
Rich kids take smaller loans more likely to graduate get a high income job pay off their loans.

What in that description sounds like bootstrapping it?

The reality is that the median amounts owed for those that graduate is not so high that they can't pay it off.

It is a minority of outliers that graduate with huge debt and people that do not graduate that can't pay their loans.

I have espoused plans that would continue payments and then forgive after some period of time. Such a plan would only benefit those outliers with abnormal high loan amounts and those that did not graduate. Those that took the usual loan and graduated and went to work would be able to pay off their debt. If I'm suggesting helping to cover those stuck in a debt cycle how is that bootstrapping? I also suggested holding schools accountable and not have the taxpayer guaranteeing bad loans, which includes not having the taxpayer guaranteeing loans to private for profit schools.
As usual Doc, you make yourself sound completely reasonable like this is a fair conclusion you've arrived at through careful analysis of a series of agnostic political economic facts and independently formulated an informed opinion. Your analysis of the problem is incomplete, however, and your recommendation for solutions hews almost verbatim to conservative orthodoxy. This suggests that your opinions on this matter have been shaped by op-eds and editorials as much as by analysis. You may not even be aware of this, as few of us are. My own opinions and everyone's on here are shaped in various ways by the editorializing we're exposed to by various sources with various agendas. So rather than pretend we're dealing in square straight talk, we can assume no one's position is ideologically pure.

The reason I say your angle is laced with bootstraps ideology in particular has to do with the problem your argument creates, the assumptions behind the data you use to support it, and the solution to the problem that you posit. Bootstraps ideology, as you know, is premised on the idea that we are generally atomized individuals, competing for resources in ostensibly free markets, and if we simply do what we're supposed to and work hard, we will be rewarded and find the means for social mobility.

So firstly, you say: "resources natural propensity to accumulate" explains why "poor kids take bigger loans [and] make worse decisions." You infer a causal abstract market mechanism as the reason why poor kids take bigger loans, as opposed to the much more obvious reason that they have greater financial needs beyond tuition and families often unable to sustain or support them while in college. I did college advisement among other things for years in the South Bronx and the biggest obstacle most families faced was inability to pay for all the incidentals that came along with having a child in college, especially if they were going to a private institution, which we unfortunately often had to steer them away from due to the costs, regardless of the improved quality of education. Some students worked while in school rather than carrying heavy loan burdens, particularly if their parents didn't have the credit to qualify for additional monies under Parent PLUS loans and doing so was often a gateway to leaving school as young kids who have rarely if ever enjoyed financial freedom suddenly having money in their pocket makes them quickly forget about whatever supposed long term investment college has to offer. I guess this is making "worse decisions," but it's a process brought on by material realities that make the immediate a more reliable indicator of what to expect than statistical forecasts.

The other obvious issue with your framing of the problem is that by the time a low income kid gets to college, there are a lot of barriers they're typically carrying with them, most notably a crappy elementary, junior high, and high school education that inadequately prepared them to do college level work. Low income students have been the fastest growing population in colleges and universities over the past 40 years and it's not inaccurate to say that colleges were ill prepared to receive them. There's been a spike in the need for remedial classes in junior colleges that serve low income populations and these remedial courses are often not eligible for financial aid, necessitating more loans. The inability to stay on track with peers, perform well in courses, and have enough money to sustain yourself are all reliable predictors of not completing college.

Now to your other assertion, which I've seen espoused by some in the GOP and the neoliberal shills in the "third way" think tank, has to do with making colleges "performance based" in order to solve part of this problem. This is your giving monies directly to colleges instead of students and rewarding them for "outcomes" scheme. In other words, it's proposing to transpose the failed ideals of No Child Left Behind onto post-secondary ed. As we've seen in the K-12 system since 2002, what this has mostly led to is an increase in standardized testing, increased pressure on teachers, and little to no discernible improvement in education. An army of analytics dorks and private consultants have had their wheels greased to provide "technical support" while we've done little to address the inequality that's at the core of bad education. One thing you and I have agreed on in the past is that throwing money at schools doesn't solve problems in and of itself, but the cost of education in low income areas sometimes tends to be higher because of the number of triage services required to even get down to the business of learning. The idea of kicking the can up to colleges now after the outcomes based programs have failed to deliver in K-12 wouldn't solve much of anything. Also, the burden would disproportionately fall on public colleges as opposed to private universities who can afford to be more selective in admissions. I do agree that there probably needs to be something to compel colleges to be a little less libertarian in their current "F you if you don't learn, it's your responsibility and research and donations are most of what we care about" approach, but the Fed taking the power to withhold funding based on graduation rates isn't it.

In sum, attributing structural issues to rational (poor) choices, or worse, vague market abstractions, blaming institutions for somehow not trying hard enough, and tying it all to a rationale to reduce public contributions to education is the essence of the bootstraps ideology. It relies on the mythology that everyone needs to somehow just do more work rather than taking the complex political economic forces in play into account and doing anything to address them. For what it's worth, I don't believe free college and blanket loan forgiveness is a silver bullet either, but Bernie's plan is aimed at modernizing the US to be on par with many of its OECD competitors and erasing debt obligations as a means of addressing inequality (not centralization as you suggest). I like Warren's more modest plan a little more, but in my view, neither are exactly necessary right now. What I'd prefer to see are more targeted loan forgiveness programs aimed at incentivizing high skilled people to move to distressed communities and provide public services. I'd also support your idea of direct federal funding of universities if they waive tuition for families making under $200,000 and have no strings attached. I'd also like to see federal financial aid extended to trade schools and vocational programs.
 

Never_Rolled

First 10,000
Dec 17, 2018
5,798
6,349
As usual Doc, you make yourself sound completely reasonable like this is a fair conclusion you've arrived at through careful analysis of a series of agnostic political economic facts and independently formulated an informed opinion. Your analysis of the problem is incomplete, however, and your recommendation for solutions hews almost verbatim to conservative orthodoxy. This suggests that your opinions on this matter have been shaped by op-eds and editorials as much as by analysis. You may not even be aware of this, as few of us are. My own opinions and everyone's on here are shaped in various ways by the editorializing we're exposed to by various sources with various agendas. So rather than pretend we're dealing in square straight talk, we can assume no one's position is ideologically pure.

The reason I say your angle is laced with bootstraps ideology in particular has to do with the problem your argument creates, the assumptions behind the data you use to support it, and the solution to the problem that you posit. Bootstraps ideology, as you know, is premised on the idea that we are generally atomized individuals, competing for resources in ostensibly free markets, and if we simply do what we're supposed to and work hard, we will be rewarded and find the means for social mobility.

So firstly, you say: "resources natural propensity to accumulate" explains why "poor kids take bigger loans [and] make worse decisions." You infer a causal abstract market mechanism as the reason why poor kids take bigger loans, as opposed to the much more obvious reason that they have greater financial needs beyond tuition and families often unable to sustain or support them while in college. I did college advisement among other things for years in the South Bronx and the biggest obstacle most families faced was inability to pay for all the incidentals that came along with having a child in college, especially if they were going to a private institution, which we unfortunately often had to steer them away from due to the costs, regardless of the improved quality of education. Some students worked while in school rather than carrying heavy loan burdens, particularly if their parents didn't have the credit to qualify for additional monies under Parent PLUS loans and doing so was often a gateway to leaving school as young kids who have rarely if ever enjoyed financial freedom suddenly having money in their pocket makes them quickly forget about whatever supposed long term investment college has to offer. I guess this is making "worse decisions," but it's a process brought on by material realities that make the immediate a more reliable indicator of what to expect than statistical forecasts.

The other obvious issue with your framing of the problem is that by the time a low income kid gets to college, there are a lot of barriers they're typically carrying with them, most notably a crappy elementary, junior high, and high school education that inadequately prepared them to do college level work. Low income students have been the fastest growing population in colleges and universities over the past 40 years and it's not inaccurate to say that colleges were ill prepared to receive them. There's been a spike in the need for remedial classes in junior colleges that serve low income populations and these remedial courses are often not eligible for financial aid, necessitating more loans. The inability to stay on track with peers, perform well in courses, and have enough money to sustain yourself are all reliable predictors of not completing college.

Now to your other assertion, which I've seen espoused by some in the GOP and the neoliberal shills in the "third way" think tank, has to do with making colleges "performance based" in order to solve part of this problem. This is your giving monies directly to colleges instead of students and rewarding them for "outcomes" scheme. In other words, it's proposing to transpose the failed ideals of No Child Left Behind onto post-secondary ed. As we've seen in the K-12 system since 2002, what this has mostly led to is an increase in standardized testing, increased pressure on teachers, and little to no discernible improvement in education. An army of analytics dorks and private consultants have had their wheels greased to provide "technical support" while we've done little to address the inequality that's at the core of bad education. One thing you and I have agreed on in the past is that throwing money at schools doesn't solve problems in and of itself, but the cost of education in low income areas sometimes tends to be higher because of the number of triage services required to even get down to the business of learning. The idea of kicking the can up to colleges now after the outcomes based programs have failed to deliver in K-12 wouldn't solve much of anything. Also, the burden would disproportionately fall on public colleges as opposed to private universities who can afford to be more selective in admissions. I do agree that there probably needs to be something to compel colleges to be a little less libertarian in their current "F you if you don't learn, it's your responsibility and research and donations are most of what we care about" approach, but the Fed taking the power to withhold funding based on graduation rates isn't it.

In sum, attributing structural issues to rational (poor) choices, or worse, vague market abstractions, blaming institutions for somehow not trying hard enough, and tying it all to a rationale to reduce public contributions to education is the essence of the bootstraps ideology. It relies on the mythology that everyone needs to somehow just do more work rather than taking the complex political economic forces in play into account and doing anything to address them. For what it's worth, I don't believe free college and blanket loan forgiveness is a silver bullet either, but Bernie's plan is aimed at modernizing the US to be on par with many of its OECD competitors and erasing debt obligations as a means of addressing inequality (not centralization as you suggest). I like Warren's more modest plan a little more, but in my view, neither are exactly necessary right now. What I'd prefer to see are more targeted loan forgiveness programs aimed at incentivizing high skilled people to move to distressed communities and provide public services. I'd also support your idea of direct federal funding of universities if they waive tuition for families making under $200,000 and have no strings attached. I'd also like to see federal financial aid extended to trade schools and vocational programs.

Honest question. Do you really believe "most" kids from the hood raised by single mothers are going to somehow want to change how they are now? School is "actin white". Kids are looked down upon for being smart. There is a systemic problem in the poor black community that has nothing to do with school. It started a long time before they went to school. Without addressing the family situation first I am of the opinion it's mostly a waste of time. If people need remedial Ed. they shouldn't be in college. I understand you want to fix the problems before college but currently they aren't fixable.

Real life. I know several people that had the best intentions go into social work and I have told this before. This is in reference to bringing highly skilled people into these communities. Every single one of them left the field and went onto something else. They were discouraged by the lack of compliance from their clients. Not sure how much you know about med school but many are in urban areas. Most of those young docs have never been exposed to that environment before. For instance the ER at Johns Hopkins is affectionately referred to as the Knife and Gun Club. Many of those graduating docs based on their experience moved to for lack of a better term very white areas as they didn't want to ever be around that again. It's a different world. People are afraid to say these things in public but privately that's another story.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
As usual Doc, you make yourself sound completely reasonable like this is a fair conclusion you've arrived at through careful analysis of a series of agnostic political economic facts and independently formulated an informed opinion. Your analysis of the problem is incomplete, however, and your recommendation for solutions hews almost verbatim to conservative orthodoxy. This suggests that your opinions on this matter have been shaped by op-eds and editorials as much as by analysis. You may not even be aware of this, as few of us are. My own opinions and everyone's on here are shaped in various ways by the editorializing we're exposed to by various sources with various agendas. So rather than pretend we're dealing in square straight talk, we can assume no one's position is ideologically pure.

The reason I say your angle is laced with bootstraps ideology in particular has to do with the problem your argument creates, the assumptions behind the data you use to support it, and the solution to the problem that you posit. Bootstraps ideology, as you know, is premised on the idea that we are generally atomized individuals, competing for resources in ostensibly free markets, and if we simply do what we're supposed to and work hard, we will be rewarded and find the means for social mobility.

So firstly, you say: "resources natural propensity to accumulate" explains why "poor kids take bigger loans [and] make worse decisions." You infer a causal abstract market mechanism as the reason why poor kids take bigger loans, as opposed to the much more obvious reason that they have greater financial needs beyond tuition and families often unable to sustain or support them while in college. I did college advisement among other things for years in the South Bronx and the biggest obstacle most families faced was inability to pay for all the incidentals that came along with having a child in college, especially if they were going to a private institution, which we unfortunately often had to steer them away from due to the costs, regardless of the improved quality of education. Some students worked while in school rather than carrying heavy loan burdens, particularly if their parents didn't have the credit to qualify for additional monies under Parent PLUS loans and doing so was often a gateway to leaving school as young kids who have rarely if ever enjoyed financial freedom suddenly having money in their pocket makes them quickly forget about whatever supposed long term investment college has to offer. I guess this is making "worse decisions," but it's a process brought on by material realities that make the immediate a more reliable indicator of what to expect than statistical forecasts.

The other obvious issue with your framing of the problem is that by the time a low income kid gets to college, there are a lot of barriers they're typically carrying with them, most notably a crappy elementary, junior high, and high school education that inadequately prepared them to do college level work. Low income students have been the fastest growing population in colleges and universities over the past 40 years and it's not inaccurate to say that colleges were ill prepared to receive them. There's been a spike in the need for remedial classes in junior colleges that serve low income populations and these remedial courses are often not eligible for financial aid, necessitating more loans. The inability to stay on track with peers, perform well in courses, and have enough money to sustain yourself are all reliable predictors of not completing college.

Now to your other assertion, which I've seen espoused by some in the GOP and the neoliberal shills in the "third way" think tank, has to do with making colleges "performance based" in order to solve part of this problem. This is your giving monies directly to colleges instead of students and rewarding them for "outcomes" scheme. In other words, it's proposing to transpose the failed ideals of No Child Left Behind onto post-secondary ed. As we've seen in the K-12 system since 2002, what this has mostly led to is an increase in standardized testing, increased pressure on teachers, and little to no discernible improvement in education. An army of analytics dorks and private consultants have had their wheels greased to provide "technical support" while we've done little to address the inequality that's at the core of bad education. One thing you and I have agreed on in the past is that throwing money at schools doesn't solve problems in and of itself, but the cost of education in low income areas sometimes tends to be higher because of the number of triage services required to even get down to the business of learning. The idea of kicking the can up to colleges now after the outcomes based programs have failed to deliver in K-12 wouldn't solve much of anything. Also, the burden would disproportionately fall on public colleges as opposed to private universities who can afford to be more selective in admissions. I do agree that there probably needs to be something to compel colleges to be a little less libertarian in their current "F you if you don't learn, it's your responsibility and research and donations are most of what we care about" approach, but the Fed taking the power to withhold funding based on graduation rates isn't it.

In sum, attributing structural issues to rational (poor) choices, or worse, vague market abstractions, blaming institutions for somehow not trying hard enough, and tying it all to a rationale to reduce public contributions to education is the essence of the bootstraps ideology. It relies on the mythology that everyone needs to somehow just do more work rather than taking the complex political economic forces in play into account and doing anything to address them. For what it's worth, I don't believe free college and blanket loan forgiveness is a silver bullet either, but Bernie's plan is aimed at modernizing the US to be on par with many of its OECD competitors and erasing debt obligations as a means of addressing inequality (not centralization as you suggest). I like Warren's more modest plan a little more, but in my view, neither are exactly necessary right now. What I'd prefer to see are more targeted loan forgiveness programs aimed at incentivizing high skilled people to move to distressed communities and provide public services. I'd also support your idea of direct federal funding of universities if they waive tuition for families making under $200,000 and have no strings attached. I'd also like to see federal financial aid extended to trade schools and vocational programs.
As usual? That's a bit insulting to dilute the entirety of my thoughts to a trope.

You've made a ton of assumption and inference that I haven't stated or intended.

I'm literally as clearly as I can, while typing on a phone from South Beach, trying to point out that poor kids have barriers that come from being poor , and rich kids don't, that stop graduating and cost them to take larger loans. Resources lower barriers and build momentum. Lack of resources does the opposite. My reference to worse decisions is purely in the context of student loans, which by and large this group is less protected and less savvy directly and from their parents/peer advising to protect from predatory lending or bad loan advise. The numbers show it.

You've only repeated in a lengthy manner my entire point... But managed to tell me that I'm being coy or serving up sound bites that lack integrity somehow.

Only place we differ is that I don't believe the whole system needs to be thrown out to protect poor kids and outliers in large loans. Quite the opposite of your post, I want a smaller system but one primarily intended to forgive poor kids and outliers. Specifically I support loan forgiveness for people who fell through the cracks in the marketplace and owe loans but don't have the income for it... Basically exact opposite The bootstrapping it. No matter your description that I'm somehow pushing some conservative ideology, the numbers of what most students make after graduating and what most students owe shows they can easily afford their loans. Me promoting an income-based loan repayment system with forgiveness and you calling that trite conservative bootstrapping still seems very strange to me. I'm basically describing a safety net that's needed.

and tying it all to a rationale to reduce public contributions to education is the essence of the bootstraps ideology
You even got this 100% opposite of my statements. I have a problem with larger and larger loans. Unless you think it's great that we have increased loans by 100+% in 15 years... Those aren't public contributions beyond backing they become bigger and bigger without strings. The loan system at large should be discouraging bad debt creation and increased cost in the first place.

Without cost control, endless loans create endless demand and price increases. Anywhere else I have more dollars chasing the same product the price goes up. Anywhere else I want the price to go down as a public good I subsidized the product, such as corn for example. I don't like the idea of cost control as a primary fix due to quality concerns, so I'm hesitant to suggest endless loans while setting max college prices. So the natural point becomes, subsidize the product instead of the purchaser.

At no point did I suggest cutting funding. Instead I don't want to see more government incentives for students to take impossibly large loans, that someone else will pay in Bernie's plan, And then we try to cost control the school because we can't afford the system that we've created....

Instead I quite clearly stated that we should be funding the schools directly where such funding has gone down 25% in 20 years by real dollars...




My interest in seeing subsidizing going to the colleges instead of the students, is one of math not the picture you're describing.

You have taken all of that very different direction that I have not talked about at all.

not centralization as you suggest).

What is not centralized about federally funding all college via federal taxes???
Bernie isnt just suggesting a single pay off. He follows it with free for the future.

I'd still like to know from anybody, as I asked, since you don't want strings attached to anything and not any type of metric measuring (for some reason it's okay to measure outcomes in everything else in life but not in education)... What is the future plan to stop the system from being endlessly larger and more expensive? If you're going to pay all of the tuition based only on an acceptance, no strings attached as you state, wont you have to have cost control at some point? And if I'm accurate in that assumption, how will you maintain quality without pulling the top down (The better educated private college you referenced for example)?

What I'd prefer to see are more targeted loan forgiveness programs aimed at incentivizing high skilled people to move to distressed communities and provide public services.
Id easily support this kind of thinking. But that's an easily separate process after the fact and in the current system as well.



I'd also support your idea of direct federal funding of universities if they waive tuition for families making under $200,000 and have no strings attached. I'd also like to see federal financial aid extended to trade schools and vocational programs
I'm against it. It's an arbitrary line in the sand and it's an unneeded solution for the great majority of students.

My family is making a top 5% income and I need more money diverted to me? Why?
The money is better spent elsewhere and the system is better for having economic risk involved in the decision tree. Removing that economic risk for service in needed industries, areas, etc seems great as a scholarship idea. But as a blanket it is a heavy handed unneeded answer that I'm kind of shocked where we both land on this lol...Me espousing the rich kids need to pay more and you suggesting a 99% freebie.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
Honest question. Do you really believe "most" kids from the hood raised by single mothers are going to somehow want to change how they are now? School is "actin white". Kids are looked down upon for being smart. There is a systemic problem in the poor black community that has nothing to do with school. It started a long time before they went to school. Without addressing the family situation first I am of the opinion it's mostly a waste of time. If people need remedial Ed. they shouldn't be in college. I understand you want to fix the problems before college but currently they aren't fixable.

Real life. I know several people that had the best intentions go into social work and I have told this before. This is in reference to bringing highly skilled people into these communities. Every single one of them left the field and went onto something else. They were discouraged by the lack of compliance from their clients. Not sure how much you know about med school but many are in urban areas. Most of those young docs have never been exposed to that environment before. For instance the ER at Johns Hopkins is affectionately referred to as the Knife and Gun Club. Many of those graduating docs based on their experience moved to for lack of a better term very white areas as they didn't want to ever be around that again. It's a different world. People are afraid to say these things in public but privately that's another story.
This image you have of low income kids is part of a long established narrative called the "culture of poverty." It was pushed in the aftermath of a report by Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that basically cast black people leaving in ghettoes as suffering from a kind of pathology that was cultural in nature and required both federal investment and cultural interventions. But the thing is, Moynihan was incorrect in the conclusions he drew and unscientific about the way he drew them. The "culture of poverty" thesis still exists. Many people believe the "actin white" trope, which is definitely something people say in passing, but is not reflective of the beliefs of the vast majority of children or their families, as survey data and my personal experience confirms. The idea that there is a "systemic problem with the 'black community'" is the biggest issue because outcomes don't hold across class lines. Class, and familial instability, it turns out, is the single greatest determining factor of barriers to success.

I've worked in the trenches for years and I know how frustrating and disillusioning it can be working with clients, but part of the problem is that most of the outcomes are premised on "compliance" and control. We're usually asking people to buy into the bottom of a system that they already know is rigged. Still, at the end of the day, people seeking services do have a responsibility at least to honor their own commitments. Getting people into that habit is one of the hardest behaviors to modify. I will say I've worked with many social workers in 15 years in the Bronx and I've never known a single one who quit. They may have moved to different areas or populations, but I don't know a single one who left the field outright. I'm not sure how it goes down where you're at, but a large part of the reason for that is likely because of how robust the job market is for social workers in New York. It's easy to change setting. I can see how places with less elaborate social service apparatuses would have higher attrition.

I know very well that there are neighborhoods where people are out for blood. I've lived in a few. But failing to link that to the fact that there are neighborhoods with very wealthy people who never see any of the conditions you describe is missing a part of the picture. As a society we've decided to tolerate a certain amount of wealth and poverty. We've also created a set of conditions that theoretically can bring you from one side to the other, but the probabilities are very slim. We can increase those probabilities if we like, but we have to chose to do so by a deliberate political programme and education is a part of it, just like health care, transportation and infrastructure, labor rights, fair housing, and taxation are a part of it.

In a way, I agree with you. Families are the root of it, but it's not their lack of morality or decency or some irreversible condition that they'll never be cured from. It's the lack of resources and avenues to escape the circumstances of their birth that we can and should change. Then we can have an honest conversation about psychological conditions, cultural pathologies, and whether there is something more fundamental at play.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
This image you have of low income kids is part of a long established narrative called the "culture of poverty." It was pushed in the aftermath of a report by Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that basically cast black people leaving in ghettoes as suffering from a kind of pathology that was cultural in nature and required both federal investment and cultural interventions. But the thing is, Moynihan was incorrect in the conclusions he drew and unscientific about the way he drew them. The "culture of poverty" thesis still exists. Many people believe the "actin white" trope, which is definitely something people say in passing, but is not reflective of the beliefs of the vast majority of children or their families, as survey data and my personal experience confirms. The idea that there is a "systemic problem with the 'black community'" is the biggest issue because outcomes don't hold across class lines. Class, and familial instability, it turns out, is the single greatest determining factor of barriers to success.

I've worked in the trenches for years and I know how frustrating and disillusioning it can be working with clients, but part of the problem is that most of the outcomes are premised on "compliance" and control. We're usually asking people to buy into the bottom of a system that they already know is rigged. Still, at the end of the day, people seeking services do have a responsibility at least to honor their own commitments. Getting people into that habit is one of the hardest behaviors to modify. I will say I've worked with many social workers in 15 years in the Bronx and I've never known a single one who quit. They may have moved to different areas or populations, but I don't know a single one who left the field outright. I'm not sure how it goes down where you're at, but a large part of the reason for that is likely because of how robust the job market is for social workers in New York. It's easy to change setting. I can see how places with less elaborate social service apparatuses would have higher attrition.

I know very well that there are neighborhoods where people are out for blood. I've lived in a few. But failing to link that to the fact that there are neighborhoods with very wealthy people who never see any of the conditions you describe is missing a part of the picture. As a society we've decided to tolerate a certain amount of wealth and poverty. We've also created a set of conditions that theoretically can bring you from one side to the other, but the probabilities are very slim. We can increase those probabilities if we like, but we have to chose to do so by a deliberate political programme and education is a part of it, just like health care, transportation and infrastructure, labor rights, fair housing, and taxation are a part of it.

In a way, I agree with you. Families are the root of it, but it's not their lack of morality or decency or some irreversible condition that they'll never be cured from. It's the lack of resources and avenues to escape the circumstances of their birth that we can and should change. Then we can have an honest conversation about psychological conditions, cultural pathologies, and whether there is something more fundamental at play.
I hate to be the one to say this, but your argument contradicts itself several times.
 

Never_Rolled

First 10,000
Dec 17, 2018
5,798
6,349
This image you have of low income kids is part of a long established narrative called the "culture of poverty." It was pushed in the aftermath of a report by Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that basically cast black people leaving in ghettoes as suffering from a kind of pathology that was cultural in nature and required both federal investment and cultural interventions. But the thing is, Moynihan was incorrect in the conclusions he drew and unscientific about the way he drew them. The "culture of poverty" thesis still exists. Many people believe the "actin white" trope, which is definitely something people say in passing, but is not reflective of the beliefs of the vast majority of children or their families, as survey data and my personal experience confirms. The idea that there is a "systemic problem with the 'black community'" is the biggest issue because outcomes don't hold across class lines. Class, and familial instability, it turns out, is the single greatest determining factor of barriers to success.

I've worked in the trenches for years and I know how frustrating and disillusioning it can be working with clients, but part of the problem is that most of the outcomes are premised on "compliance" and control. We're usually asking people to buy into the bottom of a system that they already know is rigged. Still, at the end of the day, people seeking services do have a responsibility at least to honor their own commitments. Getting people into that habit is one of the hardest behaviors to modify. I will say I've worked with many social workers in 15 years in the Bronx and I've never known a single one who quit. They may have moved to different areas or populations, but I don't know a single one who left the field outright. I'm not sure how it goes down where you're at, but a large part of the reason for that is likely because of how robust the job market is for social workers in New York. It's easy to change setting. I can see how places with less elaborate social service apparatuses would have higher attrition.

I know very well that there are neighborhoods where people are out for blood. I've lived in a few. But failing to link that to the fact that there are neighborhoods with very wealthy people who never see any of the conditions you describe is missing a part of the picture. As a society we've decided to tolerate a certain amount of wealth and poverty. We've also created a set of conditions that theoretically can bring you from one side to the other, but the probabilities are very slim. We can increase those probabilities if we like, but we have to chose to do so by a deliberate political programme and education is a part of it, just like health care, transportation and infrastructure, labor rights, fair housing, and taxation are a part of it.

In a way, I agree with you. Families are the root of it, but it's not their lack of morality or decency or some irreversible condition that they'll never be cured from. It's the lack of resources and avenues to escape the circumstances of their birth that we can and should change. Then we can have an honest conversation about psychological conditions, cultural pathologies, and whether there is something more fundamental at play.

I would think the ones you worked with were from that community or lived around it. The ones I know were white kids raised in the burbs. They were never exposed to those conditions. It wasn't just poor blacks. One moved to the SW and dealt with poor whites and Indians. It's just culture shock if you have never seen it. The actin white thing is as real as it gets at least down here. I think the difference between us we both see the same problems. You believe they can be fixed. I do not. I see things here and I am sorry but I have to draw my own conclusions from what I observe and know to be fact. Our black population in Broward county is roughly 20%. Lets say males are about 10%. Our county jail and I am being conservative, is 95% black. We have what I call jail school. It's for kids that got expelled out of their home school. We have one not to far away. 135 kids, 125 black. This is a major crisis and the can keeps on getting kicked down the road. When even a black leader brings up the family dynamic he is chastised. Things like this lead me to believe there isn't going to be a fix at least any time soon and I believe from what I have personally witnessed, it's systemic. You must know if a man moves in with a woman who receives benefits she will lose some of them. The govt. has created a perfect storm. Before the late 60's blacks didn't live this way. I don't believe it was an evil conspiracy. It's the usual case of the govt. trying to fix something and making it worse. Out of wedlock rate is about 75%. Blacks pre late 60's were closer to where whites are now. Whites are also creeping up BTW.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
As usual? That's a bit insulting to dilute the entirety of my thoughts to a trope.

You've made a ton of assumption and inference that I haven't stated or intended.

I'm literally as clearly as I can, while typing on a phone from South Beach, trying to point out that poor kids have barriers that come from being poor , and rich kids don't, that stop graduating and cost them to take larger loans. Resources lower barriers and build momentum. Lack of resources does the opposite. My reference to worse decisions is purely in the context of student loans, which by and large this group is less protected and less savvy directly and from their parents/peer advising to protect from predatory lending or bad loan advise. The numbers show it.

You've only repeated in a lengthy manner my entire point... But managed to tell me that I'm being coy or serving up sound bites that lack integrity somehow.

Only place we differ is that I don't believe the whole system needs to be thrown out to protect poor kids and outliers in large loans. Quite the opposite of your post, I want a smaller system but one primarily intended to forgive poor kids and outliers. Specifically I support loan forgiveness for people who fell through the cracks in the marketplace and owe loans but don't have the income for it... Basically exact opposite The bootstrapping it. No matter your description that I'm somehow pushing some conservative ideology, the numbers of what most students make after graduating and what most students owe shows they can easily afford their loans. Me promoting an income-based loan repayment system with forgiveness and you calling that trite conservative bootstrapping still seems very strange to me. I'm basically describing a safety net that's needed.



You even got this 100% opposite of my statements. I have a problem with larger and larger loans. Unless you think it's great that we have increased loans by 100+% in 15 years... Those aren't public contributions beyond backing they become bigger and bigger without strings. The loan system at large should be discouraging bad debt creation and increased cost in the first place.

Without cost control, endless loans create endless demand and price increases. Anywhere else I have more dollars chasing the same product the price goes up. Anywhere else I want the price to go down as a public good I subsidized the product, such as corn for example. I don't like the idea of cost control as a primary fix due to quality concerns, so I'm hesitant to suggest endless loans while setting max college prices. So the natural point becomes, subsidize the product instead of the purchaser.

At no point did I suggest cutting funding. Instead I don't want to see more government incentives for students to take impossibly large loans, that someone else will pay in Bernie's plan, And then we try to cost control the school because we can't afford the system that we've created....

Instead I quite clearly stated that we should be funding the schools directly where such funding has gone down 25% in 20 years by real dollars...




My interest in seeing subsidizing going to the colleges instead of the students, is one of math not the picture you're describing.

You have taken all of that very different direction that I have not talked about at all.




What is not centralized about federally funding all college via federal taxes???
Bernie isnt just suggesting a single pay off. He follows it with free for the future.

I'd still like to know from anybody, as I asked, since you don't want strings attached to anything and not any type of metric measuring (for some reason it's okay to measure outcomes in everything else in life but not in education)... What is the future plan to stop the system from being endlessly larger and more expensive? If you're going to pay all of the tuition based only on an acceptance, no strings attached as you state, wont you have to have cost control at some point? And if I'm accurate in that assumption, how will you maintain quality without pulling the top down (The better educated private college you referenced for example)?



Id easily support this kind of thinking. But that's an easily separate process after the fact and in the current system as well.





I'm against it. It's an arbitrary line in the sand and it's an unneeded solution for the great majority of students.

My family is making a top 5% income and I need more money diverted to me? Why?
The money is better spent elsewhere and the system is better for having economic risk involved in the decision tree. Removing that economic risk for service in needed industries, areas, etc seems great as a scholarship idea. But as a blanket it is a heavy handed unneeded answer that I'm kind of shocked where we both land on this lol...Me espousing the rich kids need to pay more and you suggesting a 99% freebie.
There aren't any assumptions or inferences that I've made that what you wrote didn't establish. I'm not questioning your integrity at all. I have no idea of your psychological disposition or anything but the text I read on the screen. I'm not suggesting you're being coy. I'm suggesting that you've internalized certain logics and likely aren't even aware of them. I also mentioned that I likely have done the same and that everyone on here has. What I am trying to put across is that your straightforward, logical presentation of these ideas and even the data you're using to support your claims is part of a logic you've already imbibed. When I'm restating your claims, it's to draw attention to how the logic of what you're suggesting bolsters the bootstraps ideology, whether you truly in your heart of hearts feel it's the best route or not. Even the language of product and subsidies betrays the market logics that you've internalized when talking about an issue that's mostly political. The empirical support you're providing came from the opinion section of the New York Times operating in concert with the progressive Urban Institute. Conversely, some of my own talking points came from Forbes and The American Enterprise Institute. Hardly the informers either one of us would be likely to draw from. To make what I'm saying clear again, it may not be that you're "pushing" any ideology, but the language you're using to make your arguments, the assumptions that are built in, and the types of evidence you marshall to back your claims are laden with a certain ideology.

At the heart of it are a few fundamental ideas:

1) Post-secondary education should be outcome driven
2) Schools should be subsidized instead of students
3) Cost controls erode quality
4) Low income students make bad choices
5) Students who get degrees can afford to pay for them

My response was meant to address and complicate these givens, which I believe I did so won't repeat. I'll answer your last question though:

I'd still like to know from anybody, as I asked, since you don't want strings attached to anything and not any type of metric measuring (for some reason it's okay to measure outcomes in everything else in life but not in education)... What is the future plan to stop the system from being endlessly larger and more expensive? If you're going to pay all of the tuition based only on an acceptance, no strings attached as you state, wont you have to have cost control at some point? And if I'm accurate in that assumption, how will you maintain quality without pulling the top down (The better educated private college you referenced for example)?
It's not okay to measure outcomes in everything else in life. This is one of the greatest lies humans tell themselves over and over. It's not unique to capitalism as the so-called Communist governments of the last century were often even worse at this. In my view, there are some things in society that need to be loss leaders. Efficiency is a lie we tell ourselves to deal with the political consequences of resource scarcity. Education is one of them. Health care is another. Outcome driven evaluations are usually to maintain profits rather than quality. It's possible to have a system that is functional, but also has high levels of failure and waste. If policymakers were more honest about this, it might be possible to have sober conversations where we got down to root causes instead of shifting the blame to educators, students, and families. I also do believe in cost controls, however unappetizing politically they may be. Price fixing can cause economic problems, but letting prices spike "naturally" is its own form of fixing. I'm also not too worried about pulling the top down, whatever that means, as any plan being put forth could likely only logistically apply to public institutions. Having been at a large public institution and an elite private one, I find the quality difference negligible. All that's appreciably different is the resources.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
It's possible to have a system that is functional, but also has high levels of failure and waste.
Your position is...just throw money into the pot until everyone that gets into college goes to whatever dream college that is? And everyone else will pay for it? Waste is of such a minor importance in the bigger picture that it's impossible for schools to ever charge too much?


We are very far apart here.

. Having been at a large public institution and an elite private one, I find the quality difference negligible. All

This is my opinion as well and as such why I'm confused by the idea of the public funding educations that's are maybe 10% better for often 300%+ of the price.

1) Post-secondary education should be outcome driven
Rather...
Post secondary public funding should only go to good stewards of those funds.


Health care is another.
If you don't count, you don't know. There IS a finite set of resources.
I get quality bonuses for outcomes in healthcare. No I shouldn't be held accountable for the social fact that my patient is diabetic in the first place. Yes I should be held accountable for not putting them on proven meds they should all be prescribed or performing their yearly foot exam or microalbumin screen. I also should get some additional benefit for helping get my diabetics from an a1c of 9.0 to 7.0 at a greater rate than peers in my same community. No I shouldn't hire yet another hospital administrator just because someone will pick up the tab at the taxpayers expense.
There's some parallels to education somewhere in there. Yes those outcomes increase practice focus on those things and those things are evidence-based to lower mortality and more morbidity...which indirectly saves money... and lives. The incentives can align.
 

Never_Rolled

First 10,000
Dec 17, 2018
5,798
6,349
Your position is...just throw money into the pot until everyone that gets into college goes to whatever dream college that is? And everyone else will pay for it? Waste is of such a minor importance in the bigger picture that it's impossible for schools to ever charge too much?


We are very far apart here.




This is my opinion as well and as such why I'm confused by the idea of the public funding educations that's are maybe 10% better for often 300%+ of the price.



Rather...
Post secondary public funding should only go to good stewards of those funds.




If you don't count, you don't know. There IS a finite set of resources.
I get quality bonuses for outcomes in healthcare. No I shouldn't be held accountable for the social fact that my patient is diabetic in the first place. Yes I should be held accountable for not putting them on proven meds they should all be prescribed or performing their yearly foot exam or microalbumin screen. I also should get some additional benefit for helping get my diabetics from an a1c of 9.0 to 7.0 at a greater rate than peers in my same community. No I shouldn't hire yet another hospital administrator just because someone will pick up the tab at the taxpayers expense.
There's some parallels to education somewhere in there. Yes those outcomes increase practice focus on those things and those things are evidence-based to lower mortality and more morbidity...which indirectly saves money... and lives. The incentives can align.
kneeblock @Kneeblock means well but I suspect he's never signed the front of a check. All those things are nice if you only sign the back of a check. He is asking for for pie in the sky things that in the end everyone has to subsidize.

To this day I find it hard to believe but just repeating what a guy told me. A couple times a year a guy from Germany would fly in as he had a modest second house here. He's an Opel car dealer in Germany. We would play golf together really pleasant guy and I have no reason to think he's telling me a story but it's so bizarre. He swears he's taxed at 90% over there.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
kneeblock @Kneeblock means well but I suspect he's never signed the front of a check. All those things are nice if you only sign the back of a check. He is asking for for pie in the sky things that in the end everyone has to subsidize.

To this day I find it hard to believe but just repeating what a guy told me. A couple times a year a guy from Germany would fly in as he had a modest second house here. He's an Opel car dealer in Germany. We would play golf together really pleasant guy and I have no reason to think he's telling me a story but it's so bizarre. He swears he's taxed at 90% over there.


kneeblock @Kneeblock is smart enough to do anything and he knows what's he's doing and where money is or isn't. He'd go get paid if he wanted so I'll consider myself fortunate that I entered two fields I love (computers and medicine) that happen to pay well. That's doesn't make me more right or him more wrong.

But I still don't understand the criticism of my viewing setting policy on how to use a pool of money to solve a crisis about taking loans to pay for a school in terms of product resources and subsidies... I mean the state currently subsidizes school. That's the word. The goal is to make it cheaper. The current process doesn't make it cheaper. Somehow I'm encoded with conservative think tank for pondering why more loans aren't gonna solve this...and I'm a little bugged by the accusation as now I'm essentially a self aware NPC in a simulation. ;)

To this day I find it hard to believe but just repeating what a guy told me. A couple times a year a guy from Germany would fly in as he had a modest second house here. He's an Opel car dealer in Germany. We would play golf together really pleasant guy and I have no reason to think he's telling me a story but it's so bizarre. He swears he's taxed at 90% over there.

Top tax rate in the US has been like that in the past.
I'm okay with higher tax rates even while I argue the current poor use of those funds.
I've thought about this and decided its morally reprehensible to increase the tax rate above 50%. I shouldn't be working to mostly for everyone else. Thats my line in the sand. After that you'll need to include more of the lower brackets in the pain. At some point maybe you just can't have more public spending. I'm pretty sure I didn't read that on drudgereport.
 

Never_Rolled

First 10,000
Dec 17, 2018
5,798
6,349
kneeblock @Kneeblock is smart enough to do anything and he knows what's he's doing and where money is or isn't. He'd go get paid if he wanted so I'll consider myself fortunate that I entered two fields I love (computers and medicine) that happen to pay well. That's doesn't make me more right or him more wrong.

But I still don't understand the criticism of my viewing setting policy on how to use a pool of money to solve a crisis about taking loans to pay for a school in terms of product resources and subsidies... I mean the state currently subsidizes school. That's the word. The goal is to make it cheaper. The current process doesn't make it cheaper. Somehow I'm encoded with conservative think tank for pondering why more loans aren't gonna solve this...and I'm a little bugged by the accusation as now I'm essentially a self aware NPC in a simulation. ;)




Top tax rate in the US has been like that in the past.
I'm okay with higher tax rates even while I argue the current poor use of those funds.
I've thought about this and decided its morally reprehensible to increase the tax rate above 50%. I shouldn't be working to mostly for everyone else. Thats my line in the sand. After that you'll need to include more of the lower brackets in the pain. At some point maybe you just can't have more public spending. I'm pretty sure I didn't read that on drudgereport.
I get killed on payroll taxes. Nobody ever talks about those.

Rush said thanks for seeing him this week.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
kneeblock @Kneeblock means well but I suspect he's never signed the front of a check. All those things are nice if you only sign the back of a check. He is asking for for pie in the sky things that in the end everyone has to subsidize.

To this day I find it hard to believe but just repeating what a guy told me. A couple times a year a guy from Germany would fly in as he had a modest second house here. He's an Opel car dealer in Germany. We would play golf together really pleasant guy and I have no reason to think he's telling me a story but it's so bizarre. He swears he's taxed at 90% over there.
You'd probably be shocked by how fiscally conservative I am as management which is why I hate managing and won't do it again. What I'm calling for is a total shift of paradigm where there is no one person cutting or signing a check. A comprehensive political programme is all or nothing. I do believe it's a long long road to get there, likely past my lifetime, but today's pie in the sky is tomorrow's new normal.