Warren: "Unfairness" of loan relief is like saying no to SS because prior generations didn't have it

[BeyondGeography]

Link to tweet

[cilla4progress]

1. Exactly

Exactly. Obscene, frankly.

Past generations didn't have penicillin, either.

[squirecam]

28. No, it's not

Everyone got social security once enacted. They didn’t give it only to college age students.

Everyone needs healthcare. They don’t give medicines only to young college aged people.

College is a ONE time thing. Unless Warren is now going to give everyone 10 free degrees...

It is nothing like medical care or social security.

[dawg day]

43. You don't get ss unless you're over 66.

Medicare at 65. Some benefits are targeted. And lower income students.... there are millions in community college and yes, they take out loans too... will benefit.

I'd rather have free community college tuition, but something would be good.

[MicaelS]

88. You are wrong about SS.

I just turned 62 and was able to take early retirement.

[dawg day]

93. I know... reduced rate before 66.

But it is for older people, and of course for children who lost a parent and the disabled... but it is limited by those. And you get it even if you're rich. I'm okay with that, as it's worth that to get it to us nonrich. But same thing for gree tuition or forgiven student loans.

More affluent people might benefit, but that's the price we might have to pay ... pay them off.

[dragonlady]

64. People who were 85 at the start of Social Security didn't get retroactive payments

[kcr]

67. And everyone will benefit from the debt relief as well

They will have the benefit of not having to choose between letting their kids drown in debt vs their own retirement security, for example. It is short-sighted, selfish thinking to let an entire generation drown and maintain the status quo based on an outdated view of how things were when they had to pay for college/pay for their kids' college in the past. The idea that we should never change anything because it isn't fair to people who couldn't benefit before is self-defeating, and that's the nicest way to put it. It causes needless suffering and everyone eventually loses.

[cilla4progress]

72. 'zactly

Revelatory.

[BlueWI]

82. Do you have any college age kids?

Relief for students is also relief for parents. And if would certainly help some family budgets.

[squirecam]

83. I do not

I have a niece who will be able to go to college in 2 years. Giving her free college would certainly help my sister.

And I’m against it.

Whether my family personally benefits or not is not the way I judge policy.

[BlueWI]

84. Having college age children is just a reference point.

Your previous post implied that the only beneficiaries of college access are the students themselves. I'm pointing out that there's a larger economic impact that is less likely to be acknowledged if one doesn't have to co-pay college tuition for adult children.

Whether one agrees with the policy or not, it should be universally noted that the policy's economic impacts go beyond the students.

[jimfields33]

45. I wish she hadn't used social security as an example

Once started everyone 65 and above got it. There was nobody left out and those that were are dead.

[squirecam]

47. It's a poor example....

Just like Medicare 4 all ISNT MEDICARE.

[jimfields33]

49. True.

[kcr]

68. It was a perfect example

The only people who can't grasp it are people who don't understand how time works.

[jimfields33]

74. Time will tell

Iowa will be deciding factor on this.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

85. Actually, once SS started, only those who paid into it got it.

It's not a simple universal benefit. Oh, and it was several years before SS payments actually started.

I've known people who are very smugly pleased with themselves that they've mostly been paid under the table. No taxes. And then, they reach retirement age and surprise, surprise! They don't get Social Security.

[guillaumeb]

2. Recommended.

And in 1900, no women were allowed to vote.

This father's nonsense argument will be used by the GOP to divide voters.

[LonePirate]

7. A whole lot of DUers agree with the selfish father. There was a huge thread on it last night.

They did not like it one bit when I refused to agree with the father and his right wing motivations.

[highplainsdem]

10. That's because he wasn't selfish.

[LonePirate]

11. Yes he was/is. He didn't want Warren helping other people obtain an education.

He was of the mindset that if he can do it, so can everyone else.

[highplainsdem]

12. It was clear from what he said that he didn't see why the government should pick up the

college bill for families that could afford to pay it.

That is NOT selfishness. It's pragmatism.

[guillaumeb]

15. He was selfish, and short sighted.

Unless some feel that children should be forced to borrow massive amounts for an education.

Our priorities, what we do with taxpayer dollars, tells the world what we really prioritize.

[highplainsdem]

23. No one forced those students to borrow massive amounts. The ones who borrowed the most did so

to attend elite schools they couldn't get scholarships to (even though those schools tend to hand out a lot of scholarships), or went to grad school, in both cases to make much higher incomes more likely.

It's a regressive plan.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/04/24/how-progressive-is-senator-elizabeth-warrens-loan-forgiveness-proposal/

[guillaumeb]

40. My son in law borrowed over 35,000.

He attended a state school. And my children know many people their age in similar circumstances.

[highplainsdem]

53. That's under $150/mo over 20 years, and I think the loan balance is forgiven after 20 years.

You don't think your son's degree is going to make him much, much more than $150/mo more than someone without a degree?

[guillaumeb]

60. My son in law and daughter had to wait to buy a house.

Having to pay back large loans depresses other spending by the affected students.

[highplainsdem]

62. People with lower incomes because they don't have degrees have to wait, too, if they can ever

buy a house at all.

College is an investment.

I'd like to see college costs brought down, and more subsidies. I think Biden's plan is a good one:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287443786

[kcr]

69. So, making college less affordable and accessible makes sense?

But, at least you're thinking of those without. That's the first step.

[highplainsdem]

70. Didn't say anything like that. I like Biden's plan:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287443933


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287443786

[kcr]

71. But, but, but. Wuttabout the public servants who did the right thing?

and paid for their college? Hmm.

[highplainsdem]

73. They don't have to watch others being given debt forgiveness for nothing. And I imagine if any

brought up reimbursement for earlier student debt, Biden would have a more reasonable, polite answer than "Of course not!"

[kcr]

75. Well, yes they do. They paid for their college. Their new colleagues don't.

So, now we're imagining what candidates would say. You imagine that Biden will have a plan to reimburse past college expenses? That's a bold prediction. I'm trying to imagine how much that would cost. Wow!

[highplainsdem]

76. Laughable.

See my previous reply.

[The Mouth]

66. I can see subsiding the cost of attending a state school

No problem with that.

I have a real problem with subsidizing people attending schools that cost more than that.

Tie the subsidization or credit to the cost of the closest state university. That would be fair.

[guillaumeb]

86. And that might be easier to accomplish. eom

[The Valley Below]

51. Only in tupsy-turvy world are those who pay their own way considered "selfish" and those

who expect others to float their boats considered "unselfish."

Do these people not own dictionaries?

[highplainsdem]

55. +1,000,000

[calguy]

54. I never thought I was being "selfish"

when we scrimped and saved to pay for our children's college. I don't think it's selfish to be a little bit pissed that EW is proposing that we did the wrong thing, since the debt we would have incurred could now be forgiven.
Foolish proposal if you ask me. And one that would b a sure loser in the general election.

[David__77]

3. I agree with her!

...

[pfeiffer]

4. This is going to be...

a bit tough for Ms. Warren.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. If Democrats support policies of virtuous cruelty and selfishness, they will lose in November nt

[LonePirate]

9. Bingo! If voters want cruelty and selfishness, 45 will win them over each and every time.

[Kurt V.]

77. +1

[Amishman]

14. Yup, extremely tone deaf on her part

Even if it's some kind of tax credit (retroactive deduction for principal payments maybe?) That has less benefit for those who paid theirs off, offering nothing will be very divisive.

Many people are selfish, if it costs money and they receive no benefit, they won't support it

[highplainsdem]

18. It will get much tougher as word gets out that her plan, like Sanders', provides most of the

benefits to people who are well off already or who'll earn much more because of their education, while providing only a small fraction to people who aren't well off.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/04/24/how-progressive-is-senator-elizabeth-warrens-loan-forgiveness-proposal/

[bigbrother05]

5. It's like the ones against free public tuition

Worrying that some rich kid will not have to pay to go to a state college or trade school. We have free K-12, but the rich still pay to get their kids in the elite private schools.

Any rich kid that goes to a public college will be better oriented to the world, so what's the loss?

The real issue is to make the tuition disappear as a factor for higher education and lower the need to take out loans.

[squirecam]

32. And the free education

Is fine in rich neighborhoods but there are several failing schools that need more funding in minority or poor neighborhoods.

Why don’t people fix that first, before spending $ on free college.

[highplainsdem]

8. No, it isn't. Social Security was never offering tens of thousands of dollars (or potenteially

hundreds of thousands, with Sanders' plan) in debt relief to individuals who might have little trouble repaying that debt.

Warren's plan is regressive, benefiting people with higher incomes more. Sanders' plan would be even more regressive.

Analysis by a Brookings Institiute senior fellow in economic studies who was Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Analysis during Obama's second term:


https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/04/24/how-progressive-is-senator-elizabeth-warrens-loan-forgiveness-proposal/

[Act_of_Reparation]

30. OK.

If that's the position we're going to take, then I don't want to hear another boomer whining about how stingy millennials are killing the economy by buying fewer screwdrivers.

[highplainsdem]

33. ???? Have never heard anyone whining about that.

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. Uh huh.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/millennials-industry-casual-dining-weddings-beer-razors-golf-motorcycles-fabric-softener-a8574281.html

[highplainsdem]

41. Still have no idea what you're talking about, since there's nothing in there about millennials and

screwdrivers.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. Your failure to recognize hyperbole notwithstanding...

...you do see the article describing multiple, non-related examples of millennials being blamed for the decline of certain industries, yes?

[highplainsdem]

46. You do see it's about changing tastes, don't you?

[squirecam]

34. To what

Are you referring to?

[The Mouth]

13. Would say forgive all debt equal to the cost of the closest, least expensive

State college.

Or subsidize the same.

Everyone should be able to go to their local, State, 4 year college without going into debt.

OTOH, if someone runs up $75K or some other huge amount because that option wasn't good enough for them, or they wanted to get away from the parents, or wanted to live in a frat or their own place at a much higher cost, and/OR go to a Stanford or Yale, they can pay the difference.

Yes, I stayed local, went to my closest 4 year university; I have no problem with anybody who wants to, and will actually get through it doing that without debt. The kid up the street who goes into deep debt to go to a fancy Ivy league or a U.C. 500 miles away, I don't feel like I should subsidize that.

[squirecam]

36. Right

No one is forced to go to an expensive out of state school.

If what you care about is learning...that can be done in state or at a community college.

If you care about the “experience” of not living with mom and dad, that’s your decision that the taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize.

[m-lekktor]

16. Yes, everybody knows where that talking point comes from. It is major CRINGE

when somebody who is supposed to be a democrat uses it!

[highplainsdem]

19. Obama admin Treasury official:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/04/24/how-progressive-is-senator-elizabeth-warrens-loan-forgiveness-proposal/

[BeyondGeography]

21. Trump Education Dept Official Urges Student Loan Forgiveness

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/24/student-loan-official-resigns-calling-for-massive-debt-cancellation.html

[highplainsdem]

26. Did you notice Johnson recommended that people who'd already paid their debt get a $50,000 credit?

When that father asked Warren if he'd get his money back, her response was a dismissive one: "Of course not."

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/watch-angry-father-confront-elizabeth-warren-on-selfie-line-people-who-paid-for-college-get-screwed/

Johnson's apparently aware off the unfairness of forgiving student debt without also considering those who scrimped and saved and paid already.

From your article:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/24/student-loan-official-resigns-calling-for-massive-debt-cancellation.html

Johnson proposes forgiving $50,000 in student debt for all borrowers, about $925 billion, according to the newspaper. For people who’ve already repaid their debt, he suggests offering them a $50,000 tax credit. The plan would be paid for with a 1% tax on corporate earnings.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Point is you're to the right of a Trumper

if your position is an absolute no on loan relief.

Plus, in arguing the fine print you are not responding to Warren’s basic point about the stupidity of grandfathering misery because it’s unfair to those who played by rules that need to change.

[highplainsdem]

35. No, I'm not to the right of a Trumper. I've never said I'm an absolute no on loan relief.

I think we should expand on the loan relief already available.

But Warren's plan is too regressive, and the Sanders plan even more so.

[BeyondGeography]

38. So you agree with Warren that we shouldn't avoid addressing the

the problem because...other people.

[highplainsdem]

56. Biden's plan makes much more sense than Warren's:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/10/10/biden-student-loans/#509da17f6bbf

[captain queeg]

17. When people get riled about this they really ought to stop and think about all the handouts to corps

And various wealthy types that’s where anger should be focused

[backtoblue]

44. +1 nt

[tiredtoo]

20. In similar condition

A cult45 member recently told me he is upset with all the people receiving Social Security who should not. When asked to clarify he said many people receive ssdi that should be working. Cannot totally disagree with this statement but it is probably minimal in comparison with the tax breaks given to the wealthy and corporations.

[The Mouth]

24. It is very hard to get SSDI

But for actuarial and accounting purposes, it should be a separate program.

It's too easy to confuse SSDI and SSI.

he latter you pay into, and could easily be made solvent by raising the cap and possibly the retirement age (the retirement age of 65 was set when the life expectancy of someone born that year was 58).

SSDI should be funded as a separate program, it's never going to be solvent, not should it have to be, it's insurance for the genuinely disabled. And it is *HARD* to get.

[tiredtoo]

50. Well ok

But i may question your term "HARD". 60 minutes had a segment on about how many lawyers are working on the Kentucky/West Virginia border getting SSDI for the folks down there.
Have an 86 year old neighbor who was a mason/bricklayer. He has had a few knee replacements and a few hip replacements since he went on disability at around 55 years of age. And he appears healthier than me. He works in his yard daily, he has built a shed in his yard, he has put a large brick patio in his yard, removed and planted new trees in his yard. Golfed frequently until he turned 80.
I also have two family members on SSDI. One had a debilitating stroke at 56 years. The other with autism.

[squirecam]

59. So you are

saying that people on disability are committing fraud?

If so, the govt should prosecute them.

[tiredtoo]

80. No that is not what i said.

I suggested that some are committing fraud. IMHO the vast majority really need it.

[The Mouth]

65. All I know is that it requires pretty solid medical evidence

and often multiple rejections and appeals.

I'm sure there are people on it who could work a full time job, or are scamming in other ways. But on the whole, would you really argue that most, or many people on it don't need it.

[tiredtoo]

79. No i think most of the people on SSDI need it

and some are scamming the system.
I agree with you.

[Happy Hoosier]

22. I'm a little split on this...

.... should I take out $50K of student loans for my daughter and hope Warren gets elected, or spend what I've saved?

So many decisions....

[highplainsdem]

29. I was listening to a financial-advice show last year where a parent asked if she should take

out a second mortgage to pay off her son's student debt, which is at a higher interest rate, so he could save money as he repaid her.

She was advised to just wait in case one of the candidates recommending debt forgiveness gets elected.

[Happy Hoosier]

57. Well she starts this fall....

so I need to make a choice this summer I guess. If I borrow the money for the first year, I could get it for "free"" instead of spending the 529 money I have saved up. What's the worst case.... I have to pay a little interest if it doesn't happen?

It's a toughie.

[Jose Garcia]

25. Social Security didn't exclude people who had already saved for retirement

[squirecam]

39. Exactly

The argument is nonsense and it doesn’t compare. Everyone needs lifetime medical care and social security.

[kcr]

78. No, but it didn't reimburse them either.

They still had to save more of their own money to equal that of those on SS. And everyone gets SS, even the wealthy. Everyone had to start chipping in for all, and if that hadn't been enacted because it wouldn't have been fair to those alive at the time who'd entirely saved on their own, would that have been the right thing to do? We wouldn't have SS today.

[redqueen]

27. K&R!

Exactly right, however I do think forgiving 100% of all loans isn't the best way to help.

[matt819]

48. You have to start somewhere

A few years ago a credit card processing company made a public announcement that they would phase in a $75,000 minimum annual salary for all their employees. The CEO's brother quit - or maybe he was the co-CEO - or at least threatened to. The CEO reduced his milion dollar salary to $1 for a period of time. Some of the higher-paid employees, who believed they were worth the $75,000-plus that they were paid, were pissed that lower-paid (and lower skilled?) employees would soon be at their level, decided to quit. (I may be a bit off on the quitting and pissed-offedness, and I don't know what actually transpired, other than that the company is doing very well, but you get the idea - people were pissed off.)

Well, you have to start somewhere. There's millions of students and ex-students in this equation, and well over $1 trillion in question. Then there's the added factor - and confusion - over federal loans and private loans. Some have been paying for years and gotten nowhere close to repaying. Some have been paying for years and paid off their loans or are close. Some loans were humongous. Some not. Some people got great jobs and had no problem repaying. Some not. Some students got screwed by their colleges and by banks. For others everything worked out fine. Some loan recipients turned out to be deadbeats.

So, yes, people will be pissed off. But you have to start somewhere to alleviate this crisis.

[Happy Hoosier]

58. Really bad argument....

I think a reasonable argument would be about tuition free college in the future. That would apply relatively evenly.

When talking about loan forgiveness, however, it does kind snub folks who sacrificed to save for their kids' college when their neighbors might have done otherwise.

I am in that position. My buddy has always bought the latest gizmo and gadget. Trades in his car every 5 years, etc. Me? I have been saving for college since my kid was a baby.

My buddy complains now about his student loans, but he is hopeful it gets forgiven. Me? I guess I get that warm feeling knowing I did the right thing? Kinda cold comfort.

Perhaps some kind of benefit for those who sacrificed to save?

And as a note.... if this doesn't get a universal support HERE, then how do you think it plays to the general electorate? (answer: Not great).

Maybe it's better to start with zeroing out interest? I'd be okay with that.

[The Mouth]

81. Although *CURRENTLY* the any 'wealth tax'

will only effect the rich, the same was initially true of the Income tax.

When the income tax rolled out it only applied to about the top 5 percent, and only really hit the one percent.

I have no confidence at all that a wealth tax that starts out going after those with 5 million or more rapidly becomes a tax on everyone who isn't actually in debt.

[Drunken Irishman]

61. This isn't a good argument.

Those prior generations were gone by the time SS rolled out. Her comparison only makes sense if SS rolled out only to those who hadn't currently retired yet. If that had happened, I doubt the program would have been viable. Instead, it rolled out, and expanded, to all those who qualified by age (65).

There's people who've already paid off their debt who won't be reimbursed by this program at all. Personally, I wouldn't mind but I also know a lot of people probably do, which makes the viability of this plan suspect.

[mike_c]

63. Everyone who NEEDS loan relief should get it, IMO.

That would exclude some people already wealthy enough to afford the cost of attendance, those who have already repaid their loans, and those who did not go to college at all. Don't forget that those people might still benefit going forward if they or their children enroll at a free or low cost university later. I went to college in my 30s, so if similar loan relief/ low cost public universities legislation had happened before I went to school I would not have benefited until later. That's not unfair. It's life.

Edit: And just because some people might benefit less than others, that doesn't mean we should not do what's best for those who will benefit.

[MichMan]

87. How does one define who actually "needs" relief ?

Those that can't pay ?

Those who can afford to pay, but don't want to?

Those who borrowed the max allowable and spent some of it frivolously?

Those who dropped out?

Those who selected expensive colleges?

Those who chose low paying fields of study?

[squirecam]

91. These are all good questions

That won’t be answered

[killaphill]

95. Just because the questions are difficult....

It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek to answer them. This is very similar to reparations for slavery. Of course they should be paid. And figuring out who would be eligible for what would be difficult. But it can be done.

[mike_c]

97. There seems to be a lot of people that you're mad at.

I prefer Senator Sanders approach of simply forgiving all student loan debts, in part because it sidesteps ethically perilous choices like who is deserving and who is not. As I understand Senator Warren's proposal it would limit loan relief over some threshold of personal income. But please understand that the entire student loan industry was predatory for decades. It had to be to attract private investors to unsecured education loans back in the 1980s and 1990s. So regardless of their ability to repay their loans, wealthy students were also harmed by the harsh terms of their loans. Those loans were unethical across the board, and no amount of personal wealth can change that.

So yeah, everyone with student loan debt needs debt relief AND we need to reform the way we finance higher education so that students in the future will not have to be saddled with a lifetime of debt at the very beginning of their lives.

[dsc]

89. That is totally absurd

No one got a windfall from Social Security. People paid in and then got money out. In this case, you have two people, one who worked hard, saved money, maybe raided his retirement fund so he could send his kid to school and not have the kid be in debt and another who did none of those things. You are now going to tax both of them, to give a six figure windfall to the second person and not one cent to the first.

[squirecam]

92. It will never pass

Nt

[mike_c]

98. life isn't always fair to everyone...

...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can for those we can do for. That is why everyone finances public schools whether they have school aged children or not. I would happily pay taxes to provide relief where we can, instead of endless wars for endless profits. The argument that we shouldn't have to help support people who we think made poor decisions is unworthy of Democrats, IMO.

[totodeinhere]

90. Doesn't Elizabeth's proposal have a means test? Won't the very rich be ineligible for student loan

debt relief? I actually support that idea myself. I think that my candidate, Bernie Sanders, wants to give it to everybody regardless of means. But I'm pretty sure that if Congress were to pass a law with a means test Bernie would sign it.

[Recursion]

94. No, the unfairness is that it's a lot of money going to some very well-off people

We generally don't like huge Federal programs that are regressive, and student loan relief is hella regressive. I know Americans hate when people call us out as not being poor, but college graduates pretty much universally are doing much better than non-college-graduates. (And if they're not, well, that's why there's income based repayment and time-based forgiveness.)

It would be much, much better for society and the economy to take that trillion dollars and expand Medicaid with it, or increase the number of bus routes and buses running on them, or expand SNAP.

[former9thward]

96. Actually she is wrong on the facts.

Previous generations before the law was enacted in 1935 did not get SS but they did not pay into it either. Social Security began taxing employers and employees in Jan 1937 but did not begin paying out monthly payments until Jan. 1940. The only people getting SS paid into it. Nobody got it for "free". Completely different than people who previously paid off their student debt.