
Sanders proposes canceling entire $1.6T in U.S. student loan debt - cyrksoft
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sanders-to-propose-canceling-entire-16-trillion-in-us-student-loan-debt-escalating-democratic-policy-battle/2019/06/23/1eed053a-9561-11e9-aadb-74e6b2b46f6a_story.html
======
ChrisLomont
Here [1] is what happened when Sweden tried a similar tax. Multiple other
countries have tried it Sanders style and obtained similar market destruction.

He really should check what his plans have done historically. They’ve all been
tried many times, and not made long term policy, for empirical reasons he
routinely ignores.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transactio...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax)

~~~
cyrksoft
Because he doesn't care about facts or economics. It's pure populism to
attract young people. This greatly damage the US economy.

~~~
lsllc
In the old days a politician just needed a single wealthy donor (say a George
Soros or one of the Kock brothers), now with crowd sourced fundraising, you
just need 1M people to give you $20 via your website or app.

So yes, all you need do now is to appeal to the masses! [much to the chagrin
of the wealthy -- see Schultz' attempted presidential run]. However,
representing the masses vs a few special interests is definitely a step toward
greater democracy.

~~~
ChrisLomont
>However, representing the masses vs a few special interests is definitely a
step toward greater democracy.

Unless the masses don't understand how/why some systems work and want to tear
them down. Many systems in modern life are complex enough that most don't
understand them, and such systems, if simply ran by popular vote, would make
life worse, not better, for the masses.

This is how we get rent controls (which ultimately hurt those it is supposed
to help), it's how we get anti-vaxxers, climate change denialists, those who
would tear down modern banking and replace it with a gold standard (despite
ample evidence this is a terrible idea), we'd block all sorts of medical
advances, we'd block human rights, and on and on.

The masses is not a very good deciding factor in running a modern world. They
should feel represented, and have some say, but certainly they need protected
from really bad decisions. I'm not sure the best way to do it, but it's pretty
clear the masses would run things terribly in many cases.

Sometimes having representatives try to get good advice from experts and
follow it is a much better solution.

Populists historically have appealed to the masses like this, and they have a
pretty bad track record.

An old quote has some truth to it: “The best argument against Democracy is a
five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

~~~
lsllc
I hear what you are saying (tyranny of the masses) ... but you can't have a
democracy when it's "all are equal but some are _more_ equal than others".

------
ethagknight
What about us fuckers who saved up and paid for their tuition up front?? Now I
get to pay for someone else’s tuition too?

~~~
ExDeveloper
I paid off my loans over a decade ago. I'd rather see a war on student loans
than a war against Iran. It would be a better use of tax money and a massive
economic stimulus.

~~~
ethagknight
It’s not a binary option unfortunately

------
pteredactyl
So if I paid off my loans do I get a check? Or does the dollar keep getting
devalued because of policies that sound good?

~~~
ExDeveloper
The dollar is already worthless. It because fancy Monopoly money after we
scrapped the gold standard.

------
mruts
This kind of populist pandering makes me upset. What about people who didn’t
go to college? Or people who killed themselves to pay off their student loans?
This is nothing more than wealth transfer to a specific demographic (young,
educated) to buy off voters. This isn’t how a democracy should function.

~~~
notacoward
> What about people who didn’t go to college? Or people who killed themselves
> to pay off their student loans?

I think you're misunderstanding the goal here. It's not to create equal
outcomes. It's to stop the _ongoing_ harm to students _and to society_ from
these abusive practices. Personally I think it would be better if these debts
were capped at some non-zero number instead of being erased entirely, with the
difference directed toward some of the other groups you mention, but at least
this starts the conversation. Negotiation 101: start with an offer that's more
favorable to you than where you expect to end up.

> This isn’t how a democracy should function.

This is _exactly_ how a democracy should function - with proposals, then
discussion, then votes. What about the back-room deals that have inflated
college costs and created special regulatory exemptions for student loans?
Anyone who complains about "populist pandering" without at least acknowledging
the anti-populist pandering that led to this is being a bit disingenuous.

~~~
cyrksoft
> I think you're misunderstanding the goal here. It's not to create equal
> outcomes. It's to stop the ongoing harm to students and to society from
> these abusive practices. Personally I think it would be better if these
> debts were capped at some non-zero number instead of being erased entirely,
> with the difference directed toward some of the other groups you mention,
> but at least this starts the conversation. Negotiation 101: start with an
> offer that's more favorable to you than where you expect to end up.

Which abusive practices are you referring to?

~~~
notacoward
Oh, where to begin? It's a complicated racket. Here are a couple of quick hits
illustrating the way that the government has made special rules for student
loans that make them unusually attractive to lenders.

[http://www.collegescholarships.org/research/student-
loans/](http://www.collegescholarships.org/research/student-loans/)
[http://www.healthcareadministration.com/college/](http://www.healthcareadministration.com/college/)

For a longer treatment, covering the schools' role as well, it would be hard
to beat Matt Taibbi's expose.

[https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-
features/the-...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/the-
great-college-loan-swindle-124484/)

My original comment was primarily directed at the lenders, but the other
parties deserve their share of calumny as well.

~~~
cyrksoft
The main problem here is people taking these loans. Why would anybody take out
150k to study something 'useless'? It's entirely their fault.

Of course the loans made education more expensive, nobody argues that. But the
main focus should be on people taking the money for the sake of taking it and
then realizing they screwed up.

~~~
notacoward
> Why would anybody take out 150k to study something 'useless'?

Who are you to say it's useless? Such hubris. They do it because they've been
led to believe it's necessary, and in some cases it actually is. Kind of hard
to become a doctor or lawyer without a degree. Even if that weren't the case,
that doesn't absolve the people who take advantage of them. Victims of fraud
are acting voluntarily, but that doesn't make it OK to defraud someone else.

> people taking the money for the sake of taking it

You can't even know others' motives, and yet you _choose_ to assume the worst
possible ones. That says more about you than them.

~~~
cyrksoft
> Who are you to say it's useless? Such hubris. They do it because they've
> been led to believe it's necessary, and in some cases it actually is. Kind
> of hard to become a doctor or lawyer without a degree. Even if that weren't
> the case, that doesn't absolve the people who take advantage of them.
> Victims of fraud are acting voluntarily, but that doesn't make it OK to
> defraud someone else.

That's why I wrote 'useless'. By that I mean degrees without real job
prospects.

> You can't even know others' motives, and yet you choose to assume the worst
> possible ones. That says more about you than them.

I'm not judging anybody. I know people who took 30k loans without needing them
just to pay for a new car, new computer and other non-necessities. They were
studying art at a community college. There are many people like that. That's
entirely their fault and their debt to pay.

~~~
notacoward
> I know people who took 30k loans without needing them just to pay for a new
> car, new computer and other non-necessities.

It's interesting that you know multiple such people, but what matters is the
_statistical_ reality. Do such "frivolous" loan-takers represent anything even
remotely approaching a majority of all who have loans, to justify a sweeping
generalization or affect policy?

~~~
cyrksoft
I never said everybody or a majority of people did that. I just wanted to
point out that those cases existed.

83% of student loan debts are lower than 50k. I don't see a problem there. If
you made a bad career decision or decided to go to a more expensive college
it's your burden to carry.

------
xfitm3
This is just another bad idea I can't get behind.

------
EricE
Yeah, because throwing tons of "cheap" loans with no accountability has worked
so well to this point. /s

I think the best proposal I have seen is instead of the US Taxpayer being left
to hold the bag, schools should have to guarantee the loans for students they
accept.

Force them to have some skin in the game. We might get some better discretion
about who gets "easy" money and schools might be more incentivized to keep
costs reasonable was well.

------
WomanCanCode
I think the problem is the high cost of education. There should be an
alternative way of getting the education you need without being seriously in
debt.

~~~
mruts
I mean, there are. Community college is super cheap. After two years transfer
to a state school. Work a part time job. I guarantee you that if you do all of
these things, you won’t have any debt.

------
jmpman
Can I take out a large student loan for living expenses and tuition right now,
pocketing everything I don’t spend on tuition? I’m confident that this is
ultimately going to come out of my pocket somehow, so might as well gamble on
my own enrichment.

------
Bubbadoo
Of course he could have started with some real-world solutions, such as
restoring the tax-deductibility of student loan interest lost in Trump's Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act. He could have gone a little further, proposing aggressive
tax credits for those who are paying their loans back or perhaps government
programs, where, in exchange for working in an 'at-risk' area, the government
makes your loan payment. No instead, Bernie promises something he'll most
likely never be able to deliver. This is almost as bad as the current guy in
the White House, who screwed all of the student loan borrowers with his tax
'act.'

~~~
notacoward
Those are great suggestions. Bernie loves to make big proposals, but turning
proposals into results is a skill he seems to lack. He has been in the senate
a long time and IIRC only sponsored _two_ bills that became law - one of them
something symbolic like renaming a post office. Some first-term senators
already have longer lists of accomplishments. We need more _realistic_
proposals to improve the situation going forward, not his mere primary-vote-
buying.

------
go_ruby
Does cancelling actually mean paying it off on behalf of the debtors?

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_Does cancelling actually mean paying it off on behalf of the debtors?_

A large percentage of student debt is so-called "direct loans". This is money
loaned by the US Department of Education. This money comes from the Federal
government, not from a bank or other private financial institution.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_States#Federal_loans)

For those loans, "cancelling" presumably means adjusting some ledger entries.

