Continuation The Biden Presidency (3)

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I'm sure you had the same concerns when Trump was issuing XO's, didn't you? Especially considering his own ex-cabinet members said they couldn't get him to read a damn thing and he had the attention span of a goldfish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_Donald_Trump

This is all very strange to me. Biden is manifestly unfit for anything, competely shot away, so to all intents you have no president.

But that's OK because he's not "literally Hitler", anything but him. No?

I have to question my own confirmation bias though - I find Trump to be a boor, intensely un-likeable, but not the absurd boogie-man you idiots have been hynotised into seeing by watching too much TV. I was, however, extremely grateful for his thwarting the plan to install the malignant, war-mongering globalist and general POS Hillary Clinton in 2015.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

This is all very strange to me. Biden is manifestly unfit for anything, competely shot away, so to all intents you have no president.

But that's OK because he's not "literally Hitler", anything but him. No?

I have to question my own confirmation bias though - I find Trump to be a boor, intensely un-likeable, but not the absurd boogie-man you idiots have been hynotised into seeing by watching too much TV. I was, however, extremely grateful for his thwarting the plan to install the malignant, war-mongering globalist and general POS Hillary Clinton in 2015.

Every accusation is a confession.

[IsThisTheLife]

Mind-read much?

[gnome]

Sadly, sometimes the most valuable work isn't flashy. But acknowledging that fact, I agree that getting behind legalization would be a game changer.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

We're going to get creamed in November.

And the party's dominant corporatists & Republiclones who brought this on us will claim it was because of those evil commie leftists with their evil commie goal of making people's lives better.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

That's the most damning list of faint praise I've ever seen... a BS little listicle of a hundred ways these tiny little incremental changes no one notices or cares about are actually really good ones.

It reminds me of what somebody at Disney put out after the first Star Wars sequel movie, in response to criticisms of the weak lazy writing and lame characterization. Somebody tried to defend what an awesome character Rose was with a list of important plot-crucial things she'd done, but there wasn't much of substance to list, so they had to include things like taking an inventory of supplies.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

If you want a single issue to sail into a cushy reelection on, legalize pot. Biden could do it today. Everyone in the joint would notice. You wouldn't need to refer to

It might reduce the coming shellacking to some extent, but he's sleepwalked too far in the wrong direction by now to make it all the way back on just one action for just one issue. Progressive commentators have come up with lists of between 5 and 20 things he could & should do, and digging out of the electoral hole they're in now would probably require doing more than half of what's on such lists.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

No he couldn't do it today. Making pot legal would require legislation, which means it involves Congress. (He could take other measures... Suspend enforcement, issue pardons for those with simple possession charge, etc.) but it would still not be "legal".

The law establishes how the government handles drugs in various categories called "schedules", but which drugs go in which category/schedule is an executive decision. All it would take is a reduction of the drug's schedule status or complete removal from all schedules.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I was going to reply to the rest of your post but the absurdity of saying "people won't vote for the party that does things they want" struck me dumb.

The more the party does things people want, the more they'd vote for it; the less the party does things people want, the less they'd vote for it. Doing one good thing, when they know there's about a dozen other good things they could do and don't, is still closer to the "less" end of that spectrum than the "more" end.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Delvo

It might reduce the coming shellacking to some extent, but he's sleepwalked too far in the wrong direction by now to make it all the way back on just one action for just one issue. Progressive commentators have come up with lists of between 5 and 20 things he could & should do, and digging out of the electoral hole they're in now would probably require doing more than half of what's on such lists.

I don't think it's quite that bad. Biden has been an okay enough President. Solid B+. But... this isn't an "okay" time. It's not enough to dribble out incremental progress on a handful of small issues and partially repair the damage from the previous administration. That's what I don't think people are understanding. The boring, safe, neoliberal status quo is gone. It's not coming back. GOP fascism is not a fad. It isn't going to blow over and let you get back to backroom dealing across the aisle.

For example, here's the final, triumphant conclusion to Aridas's "100 things Biden done got done" link:

Quote:

100. Finally, Biden returned us to normalcy
Thanks, President Biden, for returning radical normalcy to the White House

These are not normal times. Roe v. Wade is dead, Obergefell v. Hodges is next in the crosshairs, and Loving v. Virginia is on the list. Aside from the rapists and rabid fundamentalists on SCOTUS, the spouse of one of the justices was actively involved in planning to overturn the 2020 election and no one even cares anymore. This is not normal! An entire political party, all of them, to the last mouthbreathing throwback, has gone completely coo coo for cocoa puffs and are trying to break democratic systems at every level so they can rule from the chaos. That is not normal! "Normalcy," in this context, only means choosing to ignore that nothing is actually normal again or will be any time soon.

Biden is adequate. He has a great legacy ahead of him as one of the middle presidents that kids in elementary school have to memorize the names of even if they can't remember whether he was before or after Carter. He needs to be better, but not a lot better. He just needs to do something, so that when you ask a guy on the street what he's actually done, you get something other than a blank stare, a hasty google and a clickbait listicle to show for his time in office. Striving for "normal" isn't enough, he just needs to aim for something, anything, better.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

You were in an extraordinarily fortunate position and chose to be generous.

Good for you.

But this is still basically "I got mine, **** you."

No, I don't "got mine" because I could have told my daughter to take out loans and then not have to pay it back. I'd be 100 grand richer.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

This is all very strange to me. Biden is manifestly unfit for anything, competely shot away, so to all intents you have no president.

As evidenced by what exactly?

(cue edited videos and cherry-picked, out of context quotes)

Quote:

But that's OK because he's not "literally Hitler", anything but him. No?

Truthfully, I'd rather have a diminished Biden than a sociopathic Trump.

Quote:

I have to question my own confirmation bias though - I find Trump to be a boor, intensely un-likeable, but not the absurd boogie-man you idiots have been hynotised into seeing by watching too much TV. I was, however, extremely grateful for his thwarting the plan to install the malignant, war-mongering globalist and general POS Hillary Clinton in 2015.

What? No claims of HRC being a blood drinking, baby eating, child sex trafficker? That's what 'you idiots' usually fall back on.

[The Great Zaganza]

The coalition building for Ukraine against Russia far exceeds anything Obama ever managed to do, internationally. And that, right after Trump had pissed away all belief in US leadership globally.

It's beyond amazing; but American voters don't give a **** about that.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The coalition building for Ukraine against Russia far exceeds anything Obama ever managed to do, internationally.

How exactly did all that help the murdered Ukrainian civilians and destroyed cities? As they were shot, hands tied, were they thankful for sanctions and coalition?

If this does lead to a greater conflagration, I suspect history books will compare Ukraine 2022 with Poland 1939. That the world did not do enough when faced with naked aggression, and paid a much higher price down the road because of that failure of will. To think you answer atrocities with sanctions and “coalition building” is pitiful.

“Never Again” is just words without the will to back it up.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I don't think it's quite that bad. Biden has been an okay enough President. Solid B+.

Personally, I'd agree with that - with the note that's after GOP obstructionism and all around outright sabotage downgrades. Biden's being much better than I expected, either way.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

But... this isn't an "okay" time. It's not enough to dribble out incremental progress on a handful of small issues and partially repair the damage from the previous administration. That's what I don't think people are understanding. The boring, safe, neoliberal status quo is gone. It's not coming back. GOP fascism is not a fad. It isn't going to blow over and let you get back to backroom dealing across the aisle.

For example, here's the final, triumphant conclusion to Aridas's "100 things Biden done got done" link:

These are not normal times.

There's reason why the *only* candidate that I actually favored was Warren. With that said, Biden's pretty well living up to what he was sold as - a decent, albeit quite imperfect guy with acceptable competence and a good heart. Not the best fit for the moment, but fairly certainly not actually deserving of the lion's share of the criticism that's leveled against him. Especially on the frequent occasions when he's being criticized for not doing things that aren't actually under his control... such as a variety of things that boil down to "Why is he not single-handedly stopping the GOP as they engage in a many tentacled campaign to turn the US into an authoritarian country?"

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

.....
Why should people just have the loans they took out just written off instead of paying them back? Do credit card companies and banks allow that?
.....

Student loan debt is complicated. Some people borrow because it's the only way they can be the first in their family to go to college. Others borrow to go to an expensive private school when they could pretty easily afford a state school. Others borrow to go to law school or medical school, buying a ticket to a prestigious profession for life. Others borrow to get PhDs in fields that will never get them a teaching position and are useless for any other purpose. Grouping all student debt together is probably a mistake.

But I note that student loans, unlike almost all other consumer debt including credit cards, can't be discharged in bankruptcy. That's one of the reasons banks are willing to lend students more money than they can afford to pay back; they know students can't walk away.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

How exactly did all that help the murdered Ukrainian civilians and destroyed cities? As they were shot, hands tied, were they thankful for sanctions and coalition?

If this does lead to a greater conflagration, I suspect history books will compare Ukraine 2022 with Poland 1939. That the world did not do enough when faced with naked aggression, and paid a much higher price down the road because of that failure of will. To think you answer atrocities with sanctions and “coalition building” is pitiful.

“Never Again” is just words without the will to back it up.

And what, exactly, should Biden have done, given that his voters made it abundantly clear that they don't want US Boots on the Ground?
Biden does not represent Ukrainians, and the US has no protective treaty with Ukraine.

I really don't understand your expectations here: most commentators assumed that Russia would just take Ukraine and the West would do nothing.
But Biden has, IMO single-handly, saved Kyiv by providing Ukraine with weapons and intel and communications.

Why do Democrats have to do everything to have a shot a re-election, and Republicans just have to block everything to get back Congress?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

And what, exactly, should Biden have done, given that his voters made it abundantly clear that they don't want US Boots on the Ground?
Biden does not represent Ukrainians, and the US has no protective treaty with Ukraine.

I really don't understand your expectations here: most commentators assumed that Russia would just take Ukraine and the West would do nothing.
But Biden has, IMO single-handly, saved Kyiv by providing Ukraine with weapons and intel and communications.
.....

Biden has done great work. But there are responsible people who argue quite persuasively that the U.S. should have shipped more weapons, including high-altitude anti-aircraft missiles, to Ukraine before the invasion, and that if the U.S. had started to imposed sanctions before the invasion, it might not have happened.

Quote:

[From Feb. 19] Zelensky advised CNN’s Chief Worldwide Anchor in a one-on-one interview on the Munich Safety Convention that he disagreed with the stance that sanctions ought to solely be listed after a possible Russian invasion takes place.

“The query of simply making it public … simply the listing of sanctions, for them, for us, to know what is going to occur if they begin the struggle — even that query doesn’t have the assist,” he advised CNN.

“We do not want your sanctions after the bombardment will occur and after our nation can be fired at or after we may have no borders, or after we may have no economic system … why would we want these sanctions then?”

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

But, but, but....I thought Biden wasn't doing anything to help those with student loan debt!

Why should people just have the loans they took out just written off instead of paying them back? Do credit card companies and banks allow that? Hell, no. I paid about $100,000 for my daughter's university degree using my inheritance from my mother rather than keep it for my retirement (and I could use it!) instead of making her take out loans. Am I going to get that money back? Hell, no.

Actually, low-interest college loans, often with payments deferred until after graduation, might have been the smarter decision. An S&P index fund would have roughly tripled in the last 10 years. If she had taken out loans and you had invested your money, you could still have helped her out as appropriate, and you'd have more for your retirement.

And that's even if none of the debt was ever wiped out.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I don't think it's quite that bad. Biden has been an okay enough President. Solid B+.

Voters & potential voters in general seem more fed-up than you do. It will take more to bring them back.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Striving for "normal" isn't enough, he just needs to aim for something, anything, better.

He knows that's what people want; remember things like making up lies about his own past to try to make it sound more like Bernie's, putting a painting of FDR in some prominent location, and having his staff spread the word to their media mouthpieces that he was "the next FDR". The problem is that he just doesn't care.

Originally Posted by Bob001

But I note that student loans, unlike almost all other consumer debt including credit cards, can't be discharged in bankruptcy. That's one of the reasons banks are willing to lend students more money than they can afford to pay back; they know students can't walk away.

(...primarily because of who? The same guy who pushed for credit card companies, at least in his state which they all moved to, to be allowed to charge interest rates that amount to legalized usury, which primarily punishes the poor for the offense of being poor by making them poorer.)

Also, since what you were responding to was about banks & credit card companies forgiving debts: such debts do get forgiven/nullified/whatever in cases of scams like fraud & identity theft. And kids in this country are told that college is supposed to lead to more than enough income to pay it off and still have a bunch left over to make it worth it, then find out too late that that tends to not actually be the case. That's pretty scammy.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The coalition building for Ukraine against Russia far exceeds anything Obama ever managed to do, internationally. And that, right after Trump had pissed away all belief in US leadership globally.

It's beyond amazing

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

And what, exactly, should Biden have done, given that his voters made it abundantly clear that they don't want US Boots on the Ground?

The problem there isn't that he didn't do enough. He's done fine on that subject. But the over-the-top glorification of the perfectly ordinary at best is the kind of stuff you'd expect to get from somebody who's just joined a cult or is heavily drugged or possessed.

It just sounds like glorifying Rose for taking an inventory... or the way the crew of the Voyager was always gushing about what a great & wonderful captain Janeway was when we hadn't been shown her actually doing anything particularly good/great... or Jayapal holding a press conference to talk about her capitulation to Biden's capitulation to the Republicans with that creepy zombie grin on her face while she ran through such a long list of godlike titles for Biden that she even forgot some of the script and somebody else behind her had to shout part of it out for her... or the way Pelosi tried to get Democrats to go forth and proclaim what a great victory their latest capitulation was...

Democrats need to learn that simply claiming that something was wonderful & awe-inspiring & majestic doesn't really make people think so. And, on subjects for which there was something better they could have actually done instead (unlike Ukraine), that makes it no substitute for actually doing better.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Why do Democrats have to do everything to have a shot a re-election, and Republicans just have to block everything to get back Congress?

Republican voters are more reliable to actually vote. Part of that is their average age, part of it is living in places where polling stations have shorter lines or none, and part of it is because Republican politicians have shown more of a tendency to give them at least parts of what they want, while Democrat politicians have spent years spitting in their base's faces, kicking them while they're down, and then demanding to be thanked & rewarded for it.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Republican voters are more reliable to actually vote. Part of that is their average age, part of it is living in places where polling stations have shorter lines or none, and part of it is because Republican politicians have shown more of a tendency to give them at least parts of what they want, while Democrat politicians have spent years spitting in their base's faces, kicking them while they're down, and then demanding to be thanked & rewarded for it.

To add to this, for a bit more of a lighthearted poke - Republicans tend to act more like dogs and have more of a pack mentality. Democrats tend to act more like cats and... really don't have a pack mentality.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Delvo

...

Democrats need to learn that simply claiming that something was wonderful & awe-inspiring & majestic doesn't really make people think so. And, on subjects for which there was something better they could have actually done instead (unlike Ukraine), that makes it no substitute for actually doing better.

why not? Republicans do it all the time, without doing anything.

Many Democrat policies have long-term effects and thus don't show up in time for the midterms.
Should they not do them, then?

And what about KBJ? Didn't Biden do everything right here? Isn't playing a good Judge on the SC one of the most important and lasting things a President can do?
But that is already water under the bridge, no one cares, Biden is a loser, etc. etc.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Student loan debt is complicated. Some people borrow because it's the only way they can be the first in their family to go to college. Others borrow to go to an expensive private school when they could pretty easily afford a state school. Others borrow to go to law school or medical school, buying a ticket to a prestigious profession for life. Others borrow to get PhDs in fields that will never get them a teaching position and are useless for any other purpose. Grouping all student debt together is probably a mistake.

But I note that student loans, unlike almost all other consumer debt including credit cards, can't be discharged in bankruptcy. That's one of the reasons banks are willing to lend students more money than they can afford to pay back; they know students can't walk away.

My niece by marriage did exactly that; she just HAD to go to Stanford to get a secondary school level teaching credential in English. She's still paying on that loan after 10+ years while teaching high school English in Missouri. Teachers are paid BLEEP in Missouri. She'll probably qualify for getting some or all of her loan cancelled while I'm still out 100 grand.

Grouping all student debt together is definitely a mistake. I'm not against cancelling some student loans or portions of depending on the reasons they were taken out or the reason someone is unable to pay it back, but 100% across the board? Hell, no.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

My niece by marriage did exactly that; she just HAD to go to Stanford to get a secondary school level teaching credential in English. She's still paying on that loan after 10+ years while teaching high school English in Missouri. Teachers are paid BLEEP in Missouri. She'll probably qualify for getting some or all of her loan cancelled while I'm still out 100 grand.

Grouping all student debt together is definitely a mistake. I'm not against cancelling some student loans or portions of depending on the reasons they were taken out or the reason someone is unable to pay it back, but 100% across the board? Hell, no.

You'll pry the means testing from our cold, dead fingers.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

No, I don't "got mine" because I could have told my daughter to take out loans and then not have to pay it back. I'd be 100 grand richer.

You understand that this is a uniquely privileged position to be in, right? Not many people have the option to rely on windfall fortunes to pay their kid's way through school. Many other people have no option but to borrow in these situations.

You also understand that your problem and the problem of enormous student debt are closely related, right? The high cost of tuition is responsible for your inheritance getting wiped out and for huge swaths of the population being saddled with debt they can't pay off.

I really don't know what to make of it this country sometimes. Biden is arguably going to be running against an increasingly overt authoritarian fascist in 2024 and the party in opposition can't bring to do something obviously right and popular with young voters because it would irritate the "crabs in the bucket" older generations who benefitted from an objectively more generous society and did nothing to safeguard those benefits for future generations. America is a diseased place.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

No, I don't "got mine" because I could have told my daughter to take out loans and then not have to pay it back. I'd be 100 grand richer.

Accepting things are slightly different in the UK....We've paid most of the costs of putting our kids through Uni despite being urged to let them take out loans because 'they'll probably never have to pay them back'. Why? Because we can afford it, just about, by cutting back on a few things we'd like but don't absolutely need (running our cars into the ground rather than trading up, cutting back on holidays and other spending etc) and we don't want them to start their working lives with a huge debt. Should debts be cancelled here I won't regret that choice - it was our decision because we didn't want them having those debts. So what if others benefit when debts are cancelled? That doesn't cost me any more than I'd already decided I was willing to pay for my kids' education and helps out others who were in a less fortunate position than us.

Then again, I was the first in my family to make it to Uni and in those days got a full grant so perhaps I feel I owe the system...

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

.....
You also understand that your problem and the problem of enormous student debt are closely related, right? The high cost of tuition is responsible for your inheritance getting wiped out and for huge swaths of the population being saddled with debt they can't pay off.
.....

I may have an outlier opinion here, but I think the easy availability of loans for college has contributed a lot to rising college costs. Colleges can charge what they want, knowing that students will borrow what they have to. As recently as the 1980s, state college was affordable for a large percentage of people, and in some places, like California, it was basically free. Cutbacks in state funding resulted in big cost increases, and a whole new industry arose to finance college with loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. If college loans were treated like any other consumer debt, lenders would set tougher restrictions on how much anyone could borrow, which in turn would compel colleges to lower their costs and/or get more state funding if they want to stay in business.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

No, I don't "got mine" because I could have told my daughter to take out loans and then not have to pay it back. I'd be 100 grand richer.

Good we will ruin peoples chances of buying a house or things like that for your spite.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Student loan debt is complicated. Some people borrow because it's the only way they can be the first in their family to go to college. Others borrow to go to an expensive private school when they could pretty easily afford a state school. Others borrow to go to law school or medical school, buying a ticket to a prestigious profession for life. Others borrow to get PhDs in fields that will never get them a teaching position and are useless for any other purpose. Grouping all student debt together is probably a mistake.

Hey some people are successfull and get teaching positions for $40k a year and only had to take out $150k in debt to be qualified. We call that kind of idiot a teacher.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The coalition building for Ukraine against Russia far exceeds anything Obama ever managed to do, internationally. And that, right after Trump had pissed away all belief in US leadership globally.

It's beyond amazing; but American voters don't give a **** about that.

What coalition-building did he do, exactly? It doesn't seem like western Europe was sitting on its hands waiting for Biden to jump in and rally them. Rather it seems like there was broad agreement from the beginning that something needed to be done, and several countries just jumped in and started doing things. In fact Biden's message in early February was, "let's hang back and let Russia and Ukraine play this out themselves. Now you're giving him credit not just for going with the flow of support for Ukraine, but actually creating that flow. Where's the evidence of that? Where's the evidence he did anything that American voters should give a **** about, on this topic?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

My niece by marriage did exactly that; she just HAD to go to Stanford to get a secondary school level teaching credential in English. She's still paying on that loan after 10+ years while teaching high school English in Missouri. Teachers are paid BLEEP in Missouri. She'll probably qualify for getting some or all of her loan cancelled while I'm still out 100 grand.

Grouping all student debt together is definitely a mistake. I'm not against cancelling some student loans or portions of depending on the reasons they were taken out or the reason someone is unable to pay it back, but 100% across the board? Hell, no.

Hey we have been lying to whole generations that education is the way to a better future, eventually boomers will be called to account for that lie.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I may have an outlier opinion here, but I think the easy availability of loans for college has contributed a lot to rising college costs. Colleges can charge what they want, knowing that students will borrow what they have to. As recently as the 1980s, state college was affordable for a large percentage of people, and in some places, like California, it was basically free. Cutbacks in state funding resulted in big cost increases, and a whole new industry arose to finance college with loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. If college loans were treated like any other consumer debt, lenders would set tougher restrictions on how much anyone could borrow, which in turn would compel colleges to lower their costs and/or get more state funding if they want to stay in business.

Broad Student loan forgiveness without fixing higher education is certainly not a solution.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Hey we have been lying to whole generations that education is the way to a better future, eventually boomers will be called to account for that lie.

Well, it actually worked for a large period of U.S. history. Land grant universities and state teacher colleges were expanded in the late 1800s. Vets returning from WWII and Korea went to college in large numbers on the GI bill. State colleges were cheap, sometimes free, until the 1980s. That's when the Reagan Repubs started to cut back a lot of social spending, including higher education, and a huge profit-driven industry arose to finance college through loans. At the same time, college costs increased way faster than inflation because colleges could expect/require kids to borrow whatever they needed to enroll.

As is true of much of the past 40 years, it didn't have to be this way.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I may have an outlier opinion here, but I think the easy availability of loans for college has contributed a lot to rising college costs. Colleges can charge what they want, knowing that students will borrow what they have to. As recently as the 1980s, state college was affordable for a large percentage of people, and in some places, like California, it was basically free. Cutbacks in state funding resulted in big cost increases, and a whole new industry arose to finance college with loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. If college loans were treated like any other consumer debt, lenders would set tougher restrictions on how much anyone could borrow, which in turn would compel colleges to lower their costs and/or get more state funding if they want to stay in business.

I don't think this is that much of an outlier opinion. Much has been written about the adverse effects of decreasing public funding of these institutions and instead forcing them to rely more heavily on loan backed tuition.

Allowing lenders to be more discriminatory would probably lead to universities tightening their belts a bit, but it would also make college unavailable to huge swaths of working class and poor people who are, objectively speaking, high credit risks.

A more obvious way to exercise control over these institutions is to put them back under public funding, and thus public control, and reduce their ability to charge exorbitant tuitions. Like you say, examples like the essentially no-tuition UC system of yesteryear are proof that such high quality, high value education is possible.

Again, this goes back to my point about older generations whining about legitimate complaints coming from the younger generations caused by austerity policies that did not exist for older people. Older generations have gutted many of the systems that allowed them to prosper and now begrudge younger generations for failing to do well and are opposed to anything meant to address systematic problems facing them.

Deranged boomers will absolutely gnash their teeth if Biden made any large strides to relieve student debt, but the question is will their "crabs in the bucket" mentality outweigh the good will earned from younger voters.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Well, it actually worked for a large period of U.S. history. Land grant universities and state teacher colleges were expanded in the late 1800s. Vets returning from WWII and Korea went to college in large numbers on the GI bill. State colleges were cheap, sometimes free, until the 1980s. That's when the Reagan Repubs started to cut back a lot of social spending, including higher education, and a huge profit-driven industry arose to finance college through loans. At the same time, college costs increased way faster than inflation because colleges could expect/require kids to borrow whatever they needed to enroll.

As is true of much of the past 40 years, it didn't have to be this way.

I wonder how much of that has also changed with respect to it being good for your career prospects to go to a bigger name school. My wife got all kinds of bad advice about how going to a prestigious ivy league school would set her firmly on the course to be an comfortably middle-class academic. Hence the $200+k student debt for a full time job that pays $40k. But that is the price you deserve to pay if you listen to your teachers advice. Only an idiot believes their teachers.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

in some places, like California, it was basically free. Cutbacks in state funding resulted in big cost increases

Nitpick: Price increases, not cost increases.

The costs were probably already there.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I wonder how much of that has also changed with respect to it being good for your career prospects to go to a bigger name school. My wife got all kinds of bad advice about how going to a prestigious ivy league school would set her firmly on the course to be an comfortably middle-class academic. Hence the $200+k student debt for a full time job that pays $40k. But that is the price you deserve to pay if you listen to your teachers advice. Only an idiot believes their teachers.

I would ask who was giving that advice. I doubt those high school teachers went to Ivy League schools. Maybe it came from people who were already "comfortable middle-class academics" who went to college with family money. I continue to be astonished -- and I'm pretty old --at the degree to which people who grew up in comfortable circumstances have no idea what life is like for many/most of us.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I would ask who was giving that advice. I doubt those high school teachers went to Ivy League schools. Maybe it came from people who were already "comfortable middle-class academics" who went to college with family money. I continue to be astonished -- and I'm pretty old --at the degree to which people who grew up in comfortable circumstances have no idea what life is like for many/most of us.

That and had not appreciated how much the entire higher education landscape has changed. A lecturer position is about the best someone can reasonably hope for as it pays a lot better than the say $3K per class at best you get from adjuncting. Hell some big name school advertise for unpaid positions.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Nitpick: Price increases, not cost increases.

The costs were probably already there.

You're right. Price increases. All of the evidence is that the price of college has gone up considerably more than the rate of inflation.

Quote:

The average cost of attending a four-year college or university in the United States rose by 497% between the 1985-86 and 2017-18 academic years, more than twice the rate of inflation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengern...h=2929cbf2f98c

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

You understand that this is a uniquely privileged position to be in, right? Not many people have the option to rely on windfall fortunes to pay their kid's way through school. Many other people have no option but to borrow in these situations.

You also understand that your problem and the problem of enormous student debt are closely related, right? The high cost of tuition is responsible for your inheritance getting wiped out and for huge swaths of the population being saddled with debt they can't pay off.

I really don't know what to make of it this country sometimes. Biden is arguably going to be running against an increasingly overt authoritarian fascist in 2024 and the party in opposition can't bring to do something obviously right and popular with young voters because it would irritate the "crabs in the bucket" older generations who benefitted from an objectively more generous society and did nothing to safeguard those benefits for future generations. America is a diseased place.

What part of this in my post that you already responded to is confusing you?

"I'm not against cancelling some student loans or portions of depending on the reasons they were taken out or the reason someone is unable to pay it back, but 100% across the board? Hell, no."

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

What part of this in my post that you already responded to is confusing you?

"I'm not against cancelling some student loans or portions of depending on the reasons they were taken out or the reason someone is unable to pay it back, but 100% across the board? Hell, no."

How much money should be set aside to sort the worthy from the unworthy, and how many people are you willing to allow fall through the cracks that is inevitable in such means testing schemes? This kind of means testing isn't free you know.

Again, pry the means testing from our cold dead hands. There's nothing this country loves than wasting huge amounts of effort and money passing judgement on others rather than just doing the right thing.

[Tero]

I don't remember any of the social media during the Obama era, as I did not go much past FB and there I had little politics streaming in. Did the right wingers on Twitter etc. attack Obama as relentlessly (and boringly, it is just a repeat of 5 themes) as they do Biden now?

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Tero

I don't remember any of the social media during the Obama era, as I did not go much past FB and there I had little politics streaming in. Did the right wingers on Twitter etc. attack Obama as relentlessly (and boringly, it is just a repeat of 5 themes) as they do Biden now?

Yes. Once he wore a tan suit and you'd have thought the damn world was ending.