Examining Sanders' argument on student loans...and why he's wrong
Sanders is saying that housing and car loans have lower interest rates so we should lower the interest rates on student loans.
OK, he chose to make this argument and NOT "investing in students is good for society in the long-term as a mattter of public policy".
It's like saying "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!". Sure there may be good reasons to acquit and whether the glove fits isn't necessarily the best argument. However since you (Sanders) chose to focus on the glove, we shall examine your argument in light of your proposal (lowering student loans).
Firstly, interest rates on loans are set as a function of:
(1) term: the longer the loan the higher you want your interest rate to be
(2) risk free rate: since you could lend the government risk free, you always want a premium over the risk free rate if you are lending to a non-government entity
(3) likelihood of default: how likely is the borrower going to stop repaying the loan?
(4) recovery in default: what can you get back if the borrower defaults.
(5) credit score, taking into account your ability to pay
On #1, student loans can stretch out decades while car loans are only 5 - 7 years.
On #3, student loan defaults have been climbing very high.
According to one calculated number, 23% of student loans that are not in deferment are seriously delinquent (> 90 days late). This is far far higher than the equivalent numbers for housing and car loans.
On #4, many people have pointed out that federal loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. That's true but if you owe $100,000 you will never repay the principal even if the federal government takes your Social Security income and income tax refunds. So often many of these loans will never be repaid. Also there are other government programs (IBR) that result in forgiveness of loan principal. On the other hand, if you default on a car or housing loan, the borrower can just seize the underlying collateral. You can't repossess a degree.
on 5, most of the time you are lending to somebody with no income and no assets and not even the certainty of completing the degree
Now given all these can somebody explain why the interest rate on a student loan should be the same as a car or housing loan, assuming no public policy intervention (which isn't Sanders argument here)?
of first making higher education cost ANYTHING to the qualifying student (dont make me say qualifying again, please) let alone with costs and interests rates that are completely INSANE, just because you are angry at the pro Bernie crowd.
I am angry at most Bernie supporters myself, and I am a Bernie supporter.
I find many of them to be insufferable, but that is no reason to take these shots at Bernie who is ONLY trying to do the RIGHT thing.
There should be NO cost to a higher education if you can qualify and if there was there should be NO interest, at all.
You probably knew that, but would prefer to pimp the right wing counter arguments.
You want to shift the payment to somebody else.
There is the building the books the salaries all costs if education. You can't escape costs you expect someone else to pay them
His opponents will tell the whole story while you and Bernie will only talk about everything being free.
Single payer shifts the payment of costs also.
You will give people $15 per hour and take $5 of it back in taxes .
other countries educate their youth for little or nothing betting thst will upgrsde their society. We fail to do so at the risk that it will greatly hurt our society.
Sanders's basic premise is that post secondary education costs too much, and interest rates are a big part of it. I agree. But the problem is the subsidisation of those rates. The current paradigm is for the program to self-sustain, with some small "profit" to make more funds available for new students. That's forced on us by the Pukes, and I wished it wasn't.
Don't want us to pay for some crazy-assed shit that's going on in some colleges, but I would like us to make sure we educate our progeny without bankrupting them.
and just call themselves Republican. Maybe they could then make the Republican party moderate and relatively sane. It would be win-win for everybody.
so i guess today's post makes sense
That's it. $17 off per month for the next 20 years.
That isn't his argument here.
He is comparing to home loans at 3% and saying why are student loans at 6 - 8%
Sanders thinks that college should be tuition free. That means no loans, and no interest.
And, of course, he often makes the "investing in students" argument.
And, of course, your link does not take us to Sanders talking about student loans. When he does, he's talking about existing loans.
And this is the link for his plans for student loans:
Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates.
3. SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES.
Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%.
4. ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAYS LOW INTEREST RATES.
It makes no sense that you can get an auto loan today with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at todays low interest rates.
Clearly, he's looking at helping those who are currently burdened with a lifetime of debt to cover college costs as well as the students who will be entering college in the coming years.
The Obama administration extended help to strapped homeowners with the "making home affordable" program. I don't see a problem with extending that idea into the student loan arena for those already in debt.
it makes sense to me.
Of course, I see beyond that single quote to the larger picture he's presented, so maybe that's why. It seems to fit in the #3 and #4 I posted.
It makes no sense that you can get an auto loan today with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades.
This is a very bad argument.
taking it out of context.
Even so, why SHOULD auto loans charge a lower interest rate than student loans? The only good answer is that they shouldn't.
and any existing loans before the nation finally grows up and institutes fully funded 100% free public education at all levels ought to be non-profit and managed to the benefit of the students.
it's pretty damn obvious which posters are better described as staffers. Just sayin'.
Response to hedda_foil (Reply #16)
is, by definition, a troll. Unless they disclosed that fact.
...because of the overall benefit to the economy and ultimately to the tax base.