It’s the greatest crisis facing the country today and threatens not only the present, but the future as well. It’s not the national debt, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, health care, or any of the other issues Democratic candidates for president routinely ramble about, no. This is something far more serious – people making informed, really bad choices. And the Democratic Party is rallying to their defense.
Out of pure self-loathing, I watched most of the 5-hour lovefest on CNN Monday with Democratic candidates for president. One hour each for Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg. These back-to-back town halls featured pre-selected questions from a screened audience of college students looking to government to solve their problems. Of course, government can’t solve your problems, especially when your biggest problem is looking to government to solve your problems.
Still, it was a look not only into the minds of the candidates, it was a look into the minds of people who, someday, will be in elected office themselves. It was scary.
A day after more than 300 people were killed in a terrorist attack because of their faith, I don’t remember a single question or statement from anyone about it. There were, however, a lot of questions about student loans.
Judging by the amount of coverage student loan debt has gotten this year, you’d think there were loan officers hiding in bushes outside of high schools waiting to jump out and force college bound seniors to sign their lives away to big banks.
That’s not happening, of course, students are signing those documents willingly after actively seeking out loans for college. But you’d never know it by the way the candidates talk about student loans.
The issue isn’t so much an issue as it is an opportunity to pander. Candidates dangle varying versions of loan forgiveness and “free” college to students with more debt than many companies as a way to buy votes. It’s also a way for Democrats to advance an idea that is at the core of progressive politics: no personal responsibility.
So much of what Democrats are pushing this year is designed to insulate people from the bad choices they make – don’t worry about consequences, government is here to “fix” it. It’s the “let mommy kiss your booboo” of 2020.
Nothing captures this attitude like student loan forgiveness. Fully informed people making bad choices to borrow more money than their education will ever be worth, flocking to politicians promising to make it all better.
Rather than stealing from taxpayers to absolve people of their bad decisions, here’s an alternative that will serve the much more important purpose of teaching future generations about responsibility: tell the truth.
One questioner at Monday’s CNN event asked what can be done for her. According to her question, she’d amassed $25,000 in loans for just her freshman year of undergraduate studies at Saint Anselm College, which cost $38,000 per year in 2017. Rather than pander to someone like this girl, all candidates, and all Americans, should ask her why in the hell she chose to attend such an expensive school. Ask what undergraduate degree she thought could justify such a move. These people need to be taught that a degree in interpretive dance or 1940s bisexual polar bear studies might make you super-woke in your Young Socialists of America drum circle, but they aren’t viable for future employment.
Additionally, every student with a complaint about student debt should be asked the following:
1. Why go to an expensive school if you can’t afford it without taking on massive debt?
2. Why would your parents allow you to choose a school if you have to take on upwards of $100,000 in loans?
3. Do you understand the concept of a loan?
Knowing those questions had to have gone through their heads at some point, they should then be asked why they should be absolved of their debts when they willingly and knowingly made bad decisions?
They won’t have an answer, at least not a good one.
Candidates should pat them on the back, tell them they’re sorry but there’s nothing they can do for them. Not everyone is meant to lead a life of example, some people serve as cautionary tales – so let it be with these people.
Future generations can learn from the high self-esteem, snowflake generation whose parents should have but didn’t tell them “no,” so they can avoid their mistakes. Unless you’re going to be roommates with the next Mark Zuckerberg, no undergraduate education is worth $100,000 or more in debt. If you can’t pay for it with savings, scholarships, grants, and some moderate amount of loans, don’t go to that school. There are other options.
There should be no student loan forgiveness. It’ll be a tough lesson for kids to learn, but it’s one they need. Their parents failed them, their guidance counselors failed them, and they failed themselves. Let a group of liberal billionaires step-up, put their money where their mouths are and help, but don’t force an autoworker in Michigan or farmer in Wisconsin who’s helping their kid work their way through a state school or commuter college do it.
Choices have consequences, especially bad ones. At least they should. Government is supposed to protect people’s rights, not from themselves. And certainly not at the expense of everyone else. Let these people serve as an example of what not to do. It won’t help them, but it’ll do wonders for the next generation.
#1: misterwhite To: All (#0)
Well, more people are attending college, for sure. And … uh … that's about it. And the negatives? Oh, my.
College Tuition
With the government giving away money for college to anyone with a pulse, tuition has skyrocketed. Why not? Who cares? To the students it's all funny money. Some even spend it for spring break trips.
Students
Let's be honest. Many students in a four year college don't belong there. Either they're in a prestigious college for which they're not qualified or they don't belong in college at all.
In an attempt to survive, they major in programs which will give them a useless degree that the private sector will laugh at. Standards for admission and passing courses have been lowered so much that a degree in any major is questionable.
Useless Degrees
Here we are, looking to the H1B program for overseas technical workers because U.S. students are majoring in Queer Studies, Black Studies and Women Studies using taxpayer money that won't be paid back because their degree is worthless. If that's their choice, fine. Just don't do it with taxpayer money.
My solution is simple. The government should only "invest" student loan money in qualified students (ie., SAT>1200) who major in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) curriculum. Let the private banks handle the rest.
misterwhite posted on 2019-04-25 10:12:59 Reply Private Reply
#2: Willie Green To: misterwhite (#0)
Are they to be forgiven their role in supporting these government guarantees simply because they're greedy capitalists?
What kind of "simple" solution is that?
Maybe their ought to be a higher tax on predatory lenders & loan sharks to pay for all the loan defaults. Put those greedy bloodsuckers out of business...
Willie Green posted on 2019-04-25 10:13:38 Reply Private Reply
#3: misterwhite To: Willie Green (#2)
Nope. The competitive marketplace will set the lending rates.
But I will admit that if a student with a SAT score of 700 wants $100,000 to major in Queer Studies, they may encounter a high interest rate -- if they get a loan at all. If that sounds unfair, open your own fucking bank.
misterwhite posted on 2019-04-25 10:26:16 Reply Private Reply
#4: Stoner To: misterwhite (#1)
Stoner posted on 2019-04-25 10:34:23 Reply Private Reply
#5: Willie Green To: misterwhite (#3)
But it's the lobbyists for your banker buddy capitalists who get Congress to guarantee that bullshit...
And you "free market" morons don't want to punish them for that?
What kind of toe-tapping nonsense is THAT?
Willie Green posted on 2019-04-25 11:12:33 Reply Private Reply
#6: misterwhite To: Willie Green (#5)
Which is why I said the government should limit student loans to 1200+ SAT students who major in STEM studies.
misterwhite posted on 2019-04-25 11:51:23 Reply Private Reply
#7: Willie Green To: misterwhite (#6)
Willie Green posted on 2019-04-25 12:27:19 Reply Private Reply
#8: misterwhite To: Willie Green (#7)
The free market can loan to anyone they want.
I'm saying we should limit government loans to those who stand the greatest chance of a) benefiting from the education and b) repaying the loan.
misterwhite posted on 2019-04-25 12:54:18 Reply Private Reply
#9: Justified To: misterwhite (#0)
Why should we pay of their loans when I like most people and families have racked up many 10's of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars and paid them off?!?!?
Selfish shits need to grow the hell up!!!!!!!!
Justified posted on 2019-04-26 11:41:07 Reply Private Reply
#10: misterwhite To: Justified (#9)
But … but … they borrowed $50,000 to get a degree in Queer Studies and now they can't find a job!
misterwhite posted on 2019-04-26 11:51:37 Reply Private Reply
#11: Justified To: misterwhite (#10)
Justified posted on 2019-04-26 14:28:49 Reply Private Reply
#12: Liberator To: misterwhite (#1)
Myths die hard. Especially when they're scams perpetrated by "The Smartest People In The World": College Professors and The University Money Machine.
If we're really going to be honest, Colleges are no longer "Institutions of Higher Learning"; They are giant siphons of wealth and propaganda mills, designed by the Elites as a 2-fer to bury Western Middle Class youth and condemn them to life enslavement.
My solution is simple. The government should only "invest" student loan money in qualified students (ie., SAT>1200) who major in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) curriculum. Let the private banks handle the rest.
For an education system that's operated legitimately, yes, it makes sense....but how about ditching "tenure" for starters? And junk courses like Ghetto Culture 101 and awarding doctorates in 'White Privilege Demolition'?
Starting all over again from scratch is logically the only way to address what is a shattered system, but we know too many in the business of Academia profit from the current system of institutional chaos, incompetence and corruption.
The likely solution: THE Feral Reserve PRINTING PRESS.
Liberator posted on 2019-04-26 15:52:13 Reply Private Reply
#13: misterwhite To: Liberator (#12)
Liberal professors don't need tenure. Everything they espouse is supported by the system. Conservative professors do need tenure to protect them.
Colleges can keep the junk courses as long as the federal government does not fund them. Again, we want the federal government to help fund an education, not a degree.
misterwhite posted on 2019-04-27 11:26:29 Reply Private Reply
#14: Liberator To: misterwhite (#13)
Tenure has been in existence well before the Left hijacked Academia. ALL incompetent profs get cover via tenure. Tenure is the Ultimate Privilege (why don't we hear abut THAT??)
You may be right about existing Conservative professors, but there'll be no more conservative profs after the current few retire or pass away.
Colleges can keep the junk courses as long as the federal government does not fund them. Again, we want the federal government to help fund an education, not a degree.
Since the Left controls and defines all "Junk Courses" and "Education" via their agenda, the pro-Left/Globalist Feral Gummint WILL INDEED continue funding bogus-classes, ostensibly courses and degrees in Social Activism, tainted by a decidedly Globalist/Leftist perspective. All standards have changed radically. This isn't 20 years ago, MW.
Liberator posted on 2019-04-27 13:26:41 Reply Private Reply
#15: misterwhite To: Liberator (#14)
Although that general statement is true, that's not how tenure is being used. Tenure protects viewpoints, not incompetence.
Unlike high school, college students pick their professor. An incompetent professor soon has no one to teach. The system, for the most part, is self regulating.
misterwhite posted on 2019-04-28 10:26:17 Reply Private Reply
#16: misterwhite To: Liberator (#14)
After getting my degree, my employer had a program where they would funded grad school. But they had to approve the course, and they only paid if and when I passed (ie., an "A" or "B").
Many employers currently have such programs. The government could model their programs similarly.
misterwhite posted on 2019-04-28 10:38:31 Reply Private Reply
#17: Liberator To: misterwhite (#15)
Tenure actually indeed HAS and DOES protect, encourage AND cover for gross incompetence as well as unethical behaviors within the halls of Academia.
"Viewpoints"? Again, conservative viewpoints are being quashed (as they are systematically becoming extinct), greasing the tank treads of the Leftists who make up all the rules while controlling the "Kingdom" of Academia.
Unlike high school, college students pick their professor. An incompetent professor soon has no one to teach. The system, for the most part, is self regulating.
I have no idea where you're getting these myths from, but "incompetence" of Leftist Profs is the stuff of legend.
Liberator posted on 2019-04-28 12:58:59 Reply Private Reply
#18: Liberator To: misterwhite (#16)
Yes, but back when?? The 1970s??
Many employers currently have such programs. The government could model their programs similarly.
The Private sector is run totally different than the Public Sector. I assume you already know that.
We do agree on what could or should be within Academia (But in reality now isn't, nor won't ever be.)
Liberator posted on 2019-04-28 13:01:59 Reply Private Reply
#19: misterwhite To: Liberator (#18)
Yep. And I'm saying run the public sector like the private sector.
misterwhite posted on 2019-04-29 08:23:45 Reply Private Reply
#20: Liberator To: misterwhite (#19)
Yes. Maybe as of the mid-90s.
Today things aren't close. Private vs Public has completely flipped by every conceivable metric/measure.
THE single biggest reason for our national debt is paying telephone-type numbers to a gazillion gummint employees for salary and retirement bennies.
Liberator posted on 2019-04-29 10:19:14 Reply Private Reply
#21: misterwhite To: Liberator (#20)
No, I'm saying that if you want to solve the problem, run the public sector like the private sector.
If you want to respond that it's too late and it's impossible, fine.
misterwhite posted on 2019-04-30 08:23:26 Reply Private Reply
#22: Liberator To: misterwhite (#21)
Thanks for the clarification.
In theory I'd already agreed with you on resolving operational problems by using the private sector as a template. If that were the case, we'd still be a nation leading the world, with pride and integrity.
Unlike the Private Sector, since the 1970s, the Public Sector hasn't been about about being the best it can be, efficiency, profit, or problem solving, has it? That's because there is no competition. Gummit is a MONOPOLY.
The Public Sector has become nothing but self-serving mechanism with the goal of increase its RAW POWER exponentially in numbers, authoritah, budget, and over-officiousness. The result? it's drained the Private Sector and nation of its lifeblood like a giant vampire.
Liberator posted on 2019-04-30 13:52:49 Reply Private Reply