A NECESSARY RANT: Here is why student loan forgiveness must be payback from parasitic corporations.

[egbertowillies]

President Joe Biden has extended the student loan payment moratorium for 90 days. Don't balk at students but the system.

https://egbertowillies.com/2021/12/22/a-necessary-rant-here-is-why-student-loan-forgiveness-must-be-payback-from-parasitic-corporations/

[MichMan]

1. Let's just say that there is student loan forgiveness

What happens to people borrowing money for college next year? When will their loans be forgiven?

No one addresses why it costs so much in the first place.

[egbertowillies]

2. Actually I do in the narrative.

[aggiesal]

3. When I graduated from college in 1984 ...

my education was subsidized by state & federal grants to the tune of 80% of tuition, while I paid 20% of tuition.

Now it's completely opposite due to (R) cutbacks. Now students have to cover 80% of tuition, while state & federal grants only cover 20% of tuition.

When I graduated, I had a $700 student loan to pay back.
Now the salary I make easily covers the grant money I received.

This should be framed as an investment, not just call it free college.

The GI Bill did the same thing. For each $1 the goverment spent on GI's education, the government got back like $2.50.

Cut the military budget in half, and we can invest in every student's college education.

[jimfields33]

4. We cannot cut the military budget until countries can provide

for their own defense. Are we going to leave Germany? Japan? Horn of Africa? Korea? And many others.

[aggiesal]

5. There are line items for equipment that the military doesn't want ...

The only reason the military budget doesn't get cut is that Congress knows that it will cut jobs in their district.
At least half is pork.

[MichMan]

6. College costs don't appear to be much lower in blue states than red states, however

Logic would indicate that if the cause was Republican cutbacks, you would see significant cost differences between states, but you don't

[aggiesal]

7. Not really, when this is caused at the federal level ...

Federal grants are underfunded and money's given to states for education are decreasing in all states.
So regardless if the state is run by (R)'s or (D)'s, (R) controlled congresses continue to cut grant money across the board to pay for the wealthy's tax cuts.

Grant money should be considered an investment.

[MichMan]

9. Education has almost aways been funded at the state level

The Federal government is responsible for only about 12% of K-12 education costs, The rest comes from state and local. Given that K-12 is a much bigger costlier system, why should colleges be any different?

States could tax their residents however they desire to fund the things they deem to be priorities.

[aggiesal]

10. I'm not referring to K-12 ...

I'm referring to government supplied grant money at the university level.
There are Federal grant money supplied directly to students like the Pell grant and there are Federal money supplied to the States, for State grant money to give to students.

Both have been severely cut since the 80's during (R) controlled congresses.

[MichMan]

11. Nothing prevents states from increasing funding of colleges on their own per their residents wishes.

Dollars from taxpayers don't have to be funneled through DC, just to be sent back to the states.

I know you weren't referring to K-12, but states fund K-12 directly. The Federal government doesn't collect property taxes and return them to the states to fund K-12; no reason why colleges shouldn't be funded through the states the same way.

If blue states like California, New York and New Jersey want to make education a priority, they can provide direct support or grants. Mississippi or Indiana can do the same as well. Residents can vote them out if they disagree.

People in blue states complain about being donor states compared to red states, yet we seemingly want more of it. I don't get it

[aggiesal]

13. They do, but they are also supplemented by Federal dollars as well, ...

and that money has be reduced by (R) congresses.

[MichMan]

8. I do not expect to see free college anytime in the near future

College costs have become exorbitant because students will borrow whatever it takes, regardless of the cost. Go to any major college campus; the amount of building projects, the layers of administration and the number of employees is staggering.

While free college is an admirable goal, I have one major reservation about a federal free college program that I don't see a good path forward for.

If you think of college as a logical extension of K-12, K-12 is almost completely funded and managed on a state & local level. Schools are not permitted to charge whatever they desire with the government paying the entire cost. Instead, they are provided a basic stipend for each student and are expected to provide a basic level of education for that amount of $$

Colleges all charge wildly different amounts for tuition, ranging from $4k a year for community colleges, $15k for state colleges, and up to $50k or more for private colleges. Would the Federal government say that anyone can attend the college of their choice at no cost? If so, why wouldn't a student always choose their expensive prestigious national brand dream school, since they themselves aren't paying anything? If anything, the more expensive the school, the more attractive it would be psychologically.

Not the greatest analogy, but what if the government decided that to combat climate change, everyone would get a free electric car ? Wouldn't everyone want a luxury Tesla, or a Mustang Mach E, instead of a Chevrolet Bolt or Nissan Leaf?

Example of three public colleges all in the same local area in my state. Washtenaw Community College has annual tuition of $4k, Eastern Michigan Univ $15k and University of Michigan $17k. If the costs were paid entirely by the government, there would need to be some form of cost controls. Otherwise, they could all just keep raising it higher and higher; the students don't care, because they aren't paying it anyway.

The only way that seems feasible is to provide a basic grant amount of let's say $10k, anything above that would still be the responsibility of the student. This however, would still mean that people would be taking out loans for the additional tuition costs, as well as room & board, books etc. Given tuition creep over time, cost increases could just eat up the $10k grants anyway.

Is it like single payer healthcare? Set a common fee per credit hour and either the colleges figure out how to provide it for that amount or shut down? Of course, the ultimate solution might be nationalizing all the colleges and making everyone a federal employee. That seems very unlikely to happen. What about private colleges?

[aggiesal]

12. I don't agree with most of your assessments and here is why ...

California had the education system that was the envy of the world, until Reagan became Governor.
Aerospace, high tech, ... you name it, they all came to California because of our education system.

Californian's got a free College education through PhD as long as you attend a state university or state community college (i.e. UC, or Cal State or any state community college), as long as you met the university entry requirements. You are not guaranteed a spot just because you're a California resident.
Then Reagan said, "Why should we pay for your education, when all you do is protest against everything I'm for?"
Not that it was too expensive for the state, but he didn't like that students were free thinkers. So he stop the free college program. How selfish was that?

Your state charges $4k for community college, my daughter paid about $2,800 for 2 years ($1,400/yr. 2017 & 2018 in California), and got accepted to every U of California school she applied to (not an easy university to get into). Her teachers also taught at UC San Diego & San Diego State using the same syllabus, we paid a fraction of that cost and she got the same education.

Also, the state would not pay for your child to attend the USC's, Stanford's or any other private university in California. Again, this only applied to state schools.

The state government controls the state university boards for both UC & CSU systems, so they can control the amount charged.

So don't say it can't be done, because it was already done, until Reagan.
I'm sure there are a lot of Californians that regretted voting for Reagan as Governor.

[MichMan]

14. It has been 45 years since Reagan was governor

45 years. There have been seven governors elected since he left office in 1975.

I have heard how popular it was with California residents. You would think someone in state government could figure out how to re institute such a popular program in all that amount of time.

If a state like California can't figure out how to have free college again after 45 years, that is why I said I don't expect to see it in the near future anywhere else either.

[aggiesal]

15. Sounds to me that you don't want college to be free ...

Am I right?

[MichMan]

16. On a state level, not federal

Until costs are controlled, it is just rewarding colleges that have already become way too bloated, wasteful and expensive.

As I stated, I see this as a state responsibility, not federal.

Community college, sure. Anything after that, not free, but grants to qualified individuals as a partial subsidy for in state schools. (Public or Private)

1) In order to be eligible for the state grants, students need to show based on past curriculum, grades and tests that they have a reasonable chance of success. Community college grades and transcripts could be used as well as HS.

2) Grants are good for a maximum of 4 years worth of college credits. Taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for someone who changes majors constantly or likes the life of being a lifetime student.

3) Students have to develop a plan with a path to earning an approved degree program that is tracked and monitored. People that are not making sufficient progress are no longer eligible. No for profit schools for things like Cosmetology, Truck Driving, Airplane or Auto mechanics. Free community college for those not interested or capable of a 4 year degree, so no reason the state should fund those for profit ones anyway.

4) Grants are a designated amount to be used at an approved accredited in state school of the student's choice. Students are still responsible for costs above and beyond the grants. Grant amount of $10k per year or perhaps the state average tuition?

5) If someone wants to attend an elite school with for example $40k a year tuition, they are responsible for the additional costs. Same for out of state schools.

6) Students are still responsible for room & board, books etc. Not right that people working for a living have to pay for food and rent, but someone in college doesn't. Same applies to those living at home and commuting.

Someone that attends free community college for 2 years, transfers to an affordable in state college for the remaining 2-3 years, and earns a marketable degree, while working part time, should be able to graduate with little debt.

[aggiesal]

17. It should be at the state level as well ...

In California, the problem we had, after Reagan got rid of the program, is that the money that was earmarked of college tuition got reduced and the remainder went to other programs that got use to those extra dollars that it was near impossible to take it back from them.

We are trying to get free community college to start.