US Student Loan Forgiveness Act 2012 ???

[R_P_A_S]

I currently have student debt. Not soooo much... Unfortunately my parents also have some through a "Parent Plus" loan.. My dad has not been good with the payments and I can't always help him out. Combined we owe about $20K

For some ODD reason I don't know if I back this "act" or campaign. Even though some or most of the lenders are fucking sharks and making millions of students interest and late fees I just believe if you borrow something you should pay it back. Or at least reduce it or drop the interest rates to 1% . Not sure if this is a moral thing but HELP ME understand if this is doable and if we in fact are able to "forgive" the debt will anyone lose? I know what you are thinking.. yes the fucking predator lenders will lose, good! But don't people need to pay back the money to "keep things moving?" I feel like a real idiot.. I guess I don't get it.. here's what a friend said..

**So if those loans get forgiven what happens to that debt? That money is owed to someone or some institution.

and other friend replies:

*Money lend was never there to begin with. the loans are all just pieces of paper that say peeps owe others stuff.

**don't the loans go to cover tuition for the universities, books and whaat not? It doesn't say anything about what the loans were actually used towards, and specifically who they're owed to. It says things like private loans, and the government taking over that debt. There's that 10/10 plan, after which the debt gets erased, but does that mean the government is going to cover that debt? If so doesn't that mean it's going to eventually be paid back in taxpayer money?

*The banks were the only 1s how have ever claimed to have the money to lend. When they actually do not and we all know this.. for example Housing crisis.

[R_P_A_S]

Crap! I totally forgot that there's a link explaining this thing!!

http://tinyurl.com/7akydbk

[Lynx]

Debts that cannot be paid don't get paid. In this case the lenders are getting a 'haircut'. It happens all the time, a recent example being holders of Greek bonds.

[Prometeo liberado]

This is the rough draft of an article I wrote for a leftist zine. Might give you an insight into whether this industry is even capable of giving anyone a break.


As the major media outlets keep touting that the worst of the economic downturn is behind us it becomes all to clear that the residual effects are only just beginning to come to light. Case in point is the story of Stef Gray. An honors masters graduate from a public university, Stef took out student loans after all of her other options were exhausted. Though a working student whose parents have passed away she had very little avenues to turn to as rent, utilities and groceries bills mounted. Sallie Mae agreed to a student loan at 9.75 percent interest as she had no co-signer. As is becoming all to often many graduates are entering a job market that isn't what they expected. Low or non-paying internships, part time work with little or no benefits or as is the case most often, no jobs at all. Throughout all this the for profit lender Sallie Mae and others are using these crushing economic times to squeeze further profits from debt saddled student loan holders. As Stef Gray found herself a graduate unable to find work she asked Sallie Mae to work with her. The result was an added fee of $150 every three months!

SLM Corporation, commonly known as Sallie Mae; originally the Student Loan Marketing Association is a publicly traded U.S. corporation whose operations are originating, servicing and collecting on student loans.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Mae#cite_note-2) Managing more than $180.4 billion in debt for more than 10 million borrowers, the company primarily provided federally guaranteed student loans originated under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Family_Education_Loan_Program) (FFELP).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Mae#cite_note-3) It now provides private student loans. The Student Loan Marketing Association was originally created in 1972 as a government-sponsored enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_sponsored_enterprise) (GSE) and began privatizing its operations in 1997, a process it completed at the end of 2004 when Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) terminated its federal charter, ending its ties to the government. The company remains the country's largest originator of federally insured student loans. Through its specialized subsidiaries and divisions, Sallie Mae also provides debt management services as well as business and technical products to a range of business clients, including colleges, universities and loan guarantorsThe Student Loan Marketing Association was originally created in 1972 as a government-sponsored enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_sponsored_enterprise) (GSE) and began privatizing its operations in 1997, a process it completed at the end of 2004 when Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) terminated its federal charter, ending its ties to the government. The company remains the country's largest originator of federally insured student loans. Through its specialized subsidiaries and divisions, Sallie Mae also provides debt management services as well as business and technical products to a range of business clients, including colleges, universities and loan guarantors.


This an almost no lose business. If a student can not get a job she or he will still have to make a payment on their interest accruing debt. If wages have to be garnished or tax returns seized then so be it. There is currently little to no recourse for a borrower to obtain any restructuring. And the cynicism of Sallie Mae doesn't stop there. The much touted Sallie Mae Fund, a charity that prepares families and students for college and provides scholarship funding that focuses on minority, low-income, and "first in the family" students. Since 2001, The Sallie Mae Fund has awarded $10 million in scholarships to help 4,000 students enroll in college. That is $1 donated for every $12,690 under their management. And for this they were awarded the coveted "100 best corporate citizens"....five times! Sallie Mae is not alone in their chicanery. Other corporations such as Nelnet have come under fire in the past for manipulating federal tax loopholes that enabled them to receive higher rates of interest and generating $278 million dollars from taxpayers and in excess of $1.2 billion in profits.

President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, which, together with the previously signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, forms what is now known as the health-care reform bills.

Tucked into the first bill was Title II, Sections 2101 to 2303, which concerned federal loan programs to college students. This might be of interest to the Princeton community.
Title II eliminated private-sector middlemen in the federal student-loan program to harvest an estimated savings of about $60 billion in administrative costs over the next decade. The bulk of these savings is to be redirected to more generous student loans and to additional Pell Grants. The latter are need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain post-baccalaureate students.


So why is Title II so controversial? Isn’t it efficient to harvest savings in administrative costs? The answer to this question can be found in this equation: Every dollar of government spending equals a dollar of someone’s income.
In this case, the potential savings in administrative costs represent the profits and salaries earned at small and large banks, such as Citigroup and Bank of America, and at SLM Corporation (known as Sallie Mae). All of them act as middlemen under the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which was established in 1965.
These private lenders have received a generous interest-rate subsidy from the government,along with federal guarantees that cover close to 100 percent of the loans made to students. In other words, to these lenders, the FFEL program has been a very profitable, virtually risk-free business.

Even with stellar profits the for-profit banks can not stay out of controversy:


On September 17, 2010 it was announced that Sallie Mae will acquire federally insured loans from Citigroup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup)-owned Student Loan Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Student_Loan_Corporation&action=edit&redlink=1) worth $28 billion

A 60 Minutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes) segment (originally aired May 7, 2006) examined Sallie Mae, including its business practices. A professor of law at
Harvard Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School), Elizabeth Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren), who is also an expert on bankruptcy and an outspoken critic of consumer lenders, questioned Sallie Mae's dual role as both lender and collector


On October 10, 2007, documents surfaced showing that Sallie Mae was attempting to use the Freedom of Information Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29) to force colleges to turn over students' personal information. The university involved, the State University of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_University_of_New_York) system, is expected to decline the request and be forced to defend its position in court.

A False Claims Suit was filed on behalf of the federal government by former Department of Education researcher, Dr. Jon Oberg, against Sallie Mae, Nelnet, and other lenders. Oberg argued that the lenders overcharged the U.S. Government and defrauded taxpayers of millions and millions of dollars. In August 2010, Nelnet settled the lawsuit and paid $55 million.

In December 2007, a class action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action) lawsuit was brought against Sallie Mae, alleging that the company discriminated against African American and Hispanic private student loan applicants by charging them high interest rates and fees. The lawsuit also alleged that Sallie

Mae failed to properly disclose private student loan terms to unsuspecting students. The lawsuit was pending in a Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut) Federal Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts). New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York) Attorney General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General), Andrew Cuomo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo), raised similar concerns about possible student loan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loan) redlining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining) in June 2007.

.
What does this mean t the average student borrower, co-signer or parent? While the current trend is to pay down the debt on credit cards and mortgages, tuition costs keep skyrocketing leaving little option but to seek more and larger student loans that once repayment begings the terms and conditions may be disengenuos to say the least. Student loan amounts are now twice what they were a decade ago, adjusting for inflation. In this atmosphere of education as a business, where the future of students are being crippled with debt by deceptive lenders such as Sallie Mae, Nelnet, Wells Fargo, Discover, EduCap and Citibank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citibank). The very gravity of these debts may be far graver than the sub-prime mortgage scandal ever was.


After the passage of the bankruptcy reform bill of 2005, even private student loans are not discharged during bankruptcy. This provided a credit risk free loan for the lender, averaging 7 percent a year.

Students are borrowing twice what they did a decade ago after adjusting for inflation, the College Board (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Non-profits,+Activist+Groups/College+Board) reports. Total outstanding debt has doubled in the past five years — a sharp contrast to consumers reducing what's owed on home loans and credit cards.

The student and parent are left with very little choices. The Obama administration refuses to reel in these for-profit lenders for fear of taking on the coming debt and the so called loss of jobs in the private sector. Caught up in all of this are those who want to do the right thing like Stef Gray: "I need every extra dollar I have to pay for rent, electricity and groceries," Stef says, "But Sallie Mae is preying on people like me and cashing in on the fact that we need more time to find work before we can repay our student loans."

In June 2010, the amount of student loan debt held by Americans exceeded the amount of credit card debt (http://www.fastweb.com/financial-aid/articles/2589-total-college-debt-now-exceeds-total-credit-card-debt) held by Americans. At that time, student loan debt totaled at least $830 billion, of which approximately 80% was federal student loan debt and 20%was private student loan debt. In October 2011, the total amount of money owed in student loan debt was said to exceed $ 1 trillion (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/story/2011-10-19/student-loan-debt/50818676/1).

[R_P_A_S]

This is the rough draft of an article I wrote for a leftist zine. Might give you an insight into whether this industry is even capable of giving anyone a break.



As the major media outlets keep touting that the worst of the economic downturn is behind us it becomes all to clear that the residual effects are only just beginning to come to light. Case in point is the story of Stef Gray. An honors masters graduate from a public university, Stef took out student loans after all of her other options were exhausted. Though a working student whose parents have passed away she had very little avenues to turn to as rent, utilities and groceries bills mounted. Sallie Mae agreed to a student loan at 9.75 percent interest as she had no co-signer. As is becoming all to often many graduates are entering a job market that isn't what they expected. Low or non-paying internships, part time work with little or no benefits or as is the case most often, no jobs at all. Throughout all this the for profit lender Sallie Mae and others are using these crushing economic times to squeeze further profits from debt saddled student loan holders. As Stef Gray found herself a graduate unable to find work she asked Sallie Mae to work with her. The result was an added fee of $150 every three months!

SLM Corporation, commonly known as Sallie Mae; originally the Student Loan Marketing Association is a publicly traded U.S. corporation whose operations are originating, servicing and collecting on student loans.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Mae#cite_note-2) Managing more than $180.4 billion in debt for more than 10 million borrowers, the company primarily provided federally guaranteed student loans originated under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Family_Education_Loan_Program) (FFELP).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Mae#cite_note-3) It now provides private student loans. The Student Loan Marketing Association was originally created in 1972 as a government-sponsored enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_sponsored_enterprise) (GSE) and began privatizing its operations in 1997, a process it completed at the end of 2004 when Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) terminated its federal charter, ending its ties to the government. The company remains the country's largest originator of federally insured student loans. Through its specialized subsidiaries and divisions, Sallie Mae also provides debt management services as well as business and technical products to a range of business clients, including colleges, universities and loan guarantorsThe Student Loan Marketing Association was originally created in 1972 as a government-sponsored enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_sponsored_enterprise) (GSE) and began privatizing its operations in 1997, a process it completed at the end of 2004 when Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) terminated its federal charter, ending its ties to the government. The company remains the country's largest originator of federally insured student loans. Through its specialized subsidiaries and divisions, Sallie Mae also provides debt management services as well as business and technical products to a range of business clients, including colleges, universities and loan guarantors.


This an almost no lose business. If a student can not get a job she or he will still have to make a payment on their interest accruing debt. If wages have to be garnished or tax returns seized then so be it. There is currently little to no recourse for a borrower to obtain any restructuring. And the cynicism of Sallie Mae doesn't stop there. The much touted Sallie Mae Fund, a charity that prepares families and students for college and provides scholarship funding that focuses on minority, low-income, and "first in the family" students. Since 2001, The Sallie Mae Fund has awarded $10 million in scholarships to help 4,000 students enroll in college. That is $1 donated for every $12,690 under their management. And for this they were awarded the coveted "100 best corporate citizens"....five times! Sallie Mae is not alone in their chicanery. Other corporations such as Nelnet have come under fire in the past for manipulating federal tax loopholes that enabled them to receive higher rates of interest and generating $278 million dollars from taxpayers and in excess of $1.2 billion in profits.

President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, which, together with the previously signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, forms what is now known as the health-care reform bills.

Tucked into the first bill was Title II, Sections 2101 to 2303, which concerned federal loan programs to college students. This might be of interest to the Princeton community.
Title II eliminated private-sector middlemen in the federal student-loan program to harvest an estimated savings of about $60 billion in administrative costs over the next decade. The bulk of these savings is to be redirected to more generous student loans and to additional Pell Grants. The latter are need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain post-baccalaureate students.


So why is Title II so controversial? Isn’t it efficient to harvest savings in administrative costs? The answer to this question can be found in this equation: Every dollar of government spending equals a dollar of someone’s income.
In this case, the potential savings in administrative costs represent the profits and salaries earned at small and large banks, such as Citigroup and Bank of America, and at SLM Corporation (known as Sallie Mae). All of them act as middlemen under the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which was established in 1965.
These private lenders have received a generous interest-rate subsidy from the government,along with federal guarantees that cover close to 100 percent of the loans made to students. In other words, to these lenders, the FFEL program has been a very profitable, virtually risk-free business.

Even with stellar profits the for-profit banks can not stay out of controversy:


On September 17, 2010 it was announced that Sallie Mae will acquire federally insured loans from Citigroup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup)-owned Student Loan Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Student_Loan_Corporation&action=edit&redlink=1) worth $28 billion

A 60 Minutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes) segment (originally aired May 7, 2006) examined Sallie Mae, including its business practices. A professor of law at
Harvard Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School), Elizabeth Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren), who is also an expert on bankruptcy and an outspoken critic of consumer lenders, questioned Sallie Mae's dual role as both lender and collector


On October 10, 2007, documents surfaced showing that Sallie Mae was attempting to use the Freedom of Information Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29) to force colleges to turn over students' personal information. The university involved, the State University of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_University_of_New_York) system, is expected to decline the request and be forced to defend its position in court.

A False Claims Suit was filed on behalf of the federal government by former Department of Education researcher, Dr. Jon Oberg, against Sallie Mae, Nelnet, and other lenders. Oberg argued that the lenders overcharged the U.S. Government and defrauded taxpayers of millions and millions of dollars. In August 2010, Nelnet settled the lawsuit and paid $55 million.

In December 2007, a class action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action) lawsuit was brought against Sallie Mae, alleging that the company discriminated against African American and Hispanic private student loan applicants by charging them high interest rates and fees. The lawsuit also alleged that Sallie

Mae failed to properly disclose private student loan terms to unsuspecting students. The lawsuit was pending in a Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut) Federal Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts). New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York) Attorney General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General), Andrew Cuomo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo), raised similar concerns about possible student loan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loan) redlining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining) in June 2007.

.
What does this mean t the average student borrower, co-signer or parent? While the current trend is to pay down the debt on credit cards and mortgages, tuition costs keep skyrocketing leaving little option but to seek more and larger student loans that once repayment begings the terms and conditions may be disengenuos to say the least. Student loan amounts are now twice what they were a decade ago, adjusting for inflation. In this atmosphere of education as a business, where the future of students are being crippled with debt by deceptive lenders such as Sallie Mae, Nelnet, Wells Fargo, Discover, EduCap and Citibank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citibank). The very gravity of these debts may be far graver than the sub-prime mortgage scandal ever was.


After the passage of the bankruptcy reform bill of 2005, even private student loans are not discharged during bankruptcy. This provided a credit risk free loan for the lender, averaging 7 percent a year.

Students are borrowing twice what they did a decade ago after adjusting for inflation, the College Board (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Non-profits,+Activist+Groups/College+Board) reports. Total outstanding debt has doubled in the past five years — a sharp contrast to consumers reducing what's owed on home loans and credit cards.

The student and parent are left with very little choices. The Obama administration refuses to reel in these for-profit lenders for fear of taking on the coming debt and the so called loss of jobs in the private sector. Caught up in all of this are those who want to do the right thing like Stef Gray: "I need every extra dollar I have to pay for rent, electricity and groceries," Stef says, "But Sallie Mae is preying on people like me and cashing in on the fact that we need more time to find work before we can repay our student loans."

In June 2010, the amount of student loan debt held by Americans exceeded the amount of credit card debt (http://www.fastweb.com/financial-aid/articles/2589-total-college-debt-now-exceeds-total-credit-card-debt) held by Americans. At that time, student loan debt totaled at least $830 billion, of which approximately 80% was federal student loan debt and 20%was private student loan debt. In October 2011, the total amount of money owed in student loan debt was said to exceed $ 1 trillion (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/story/2011-10-19/student-loan-debt/50818676/1).

thank you thank you! do you have a link of the actual article?

[Ostrinski]

So does this only go for students who are in debt now?

[R_P_A_S]

So does this only go for students who are in debt now?


Im a fool! I forgot to post the link to the petition!

http://signon.org/sign/support-the-student-loan.fb1?source=s.fb&r_by=1183087

[Prometeo liberado]

thank you thank you! do you have a link of the actual article?

Im looking for it. It was an internal Liberation article. I don't know if existed outside of the branch. You may want to look into the efforts of Change.org. I know that they have been on this for quite a while.

[Prometeo liberado]

Debts that cannot be paid don't get paid. In this case the lenders are getting a 'haircut'. It happens all the time, a recent example being holders of Greek bonds.

Unfortunately they can and do garner your wages, seize your tax returns and could freeze your bank accounts until they get what they want.

[Lynx]

Unfortunately they can and do garner your wages, seize your tax returns and could freeze your bank accounts until they get what they want.
Student loans are an exception to bankruptcy laws, yet the offer is there to forgive part of it. Maybe the government realizes that the current trend is unsustainable.

[Prometeo liberado]

Student loans are an exception to bankruptcy laws, yet the offer is there to forgive part of it. Maybe the government realizes that the current trend is unsustainable.



After the passage of the bankruptcy reform bill of 2005, even private student loans are not discharged during bankruptcy. This provided a credit risk free loan for the lender, averaging 7 percent a year.


I think the fact that these type of loans hold such special status also gives credence to anti-trust legislation.

[Lynx]

I think the fact that these type of loans hold such special status also gives credence to anti-trust legislation.
Administering student loans with a government agency was supposed to simplify the process for students, and to establish standards. Normally, a government guarantee would be sufficient to entice all lenders into the system.
Is the US alone in imposing debt servitude upon its students?

[Prometeo liberado]

Administering student loans with a government agency was supposed to simplify the process for students, and to establish standards. Normally, a government guarantee would be sufficient to entice all lenders into the system.
Is the US alone in imposing debt servitude upon its students?

If I understand your question correctly, does the private sector also enjoy the protection from bankruptcy laws? I am pretty sure they do as the big credit card company's and banks are also the biggest non-government lenders. Wells Fargo, Discover and a host of other "Student Loan only" lenders.

[Lynx]

If I understand your question correctly, does the private sector also enjoy the protection from bankruptcy laws? I am pretty sure they do as the big credit card company's and banks are also the biggest non-government lenders. Wells Fargo, Discover and a host of other "Student Loan only" lenders.
Are students able to obtain loans directly from those lenders?

A government loan guarantee does not require debt servitude from former students. There are other ways to fund losses in these programs. In Canada, loans over 7 years old can be discharged through bankruptcy. There are also deferments.

[Prometeo liberado]

Are students able to obtain loans directly from those lenders?

A government loan guarantee does not require debt servitude from former students. There are other ways to fund losses in these programs. In Canada, loans over 7 years old can be discharged through bankruptcy. There are also deferments.

First question, yes. Though often they require a co-signer as well as an attachment to an existing home loan I believe.

Government back or serviced loan losses as they stand now are attached to the borrower till death or repayment. Whatever comes first. There are of course other ways to handle this but so long as the 2005 bankruptcy act remains on the books there is no way out. Deferments are an option though they cost something between $50-100 a month.

[Lynx]

This is highly unusual from a Canadian perspective. Private transactions should not enjoy an exemption or be deemed risk free.

[Prometeo liberado]

This is highly unusual from a Canadian perspective. Private transactions should not enjoy an exemption or be deemed risk free.
The whole bank bail out was pretty much the same thing. The government loans cash to the banks then buys them back and services them. So under those circumstances it looks like the government is protecting their investment. You think it sounds crazy? Try living here.

[MarxSchmarx]

Okay so here's one thing you have to keep in mind and be very careful in proceeding on this issue.

The reason that student loan debts are treated differently than virtually any other form of debt in the United States and many other countries where non-public higher education institutions exist in significant numbers (like Japan and most of Latin America) is because if it weren't for these exceptions there is a very real risk that companies/banks will not lend to students to finance their education, or, at least, have no incentive to make loans on anything remotely approaching favorable terms. A consequence of this is that higher education may no longer be viable for huge swaths of the public.

This is I think a very real issue that anybody demanding fairness for student loan debts needs to confront head on. Of course, the logical response is to lower the cost of higher education, or otherwise still compel banks to lend to students even if these loans can be dissolved, and sure, abandon capitalism altogether.

But an important consideration is that there is a (relatively) progressive rationale for treating student loan debts differently. Banks can routinely deny housing loans and small business loans. This is because they can charge pretty much any old interest rates and selectively loan money in a fashion that allows to in a sense "cover" for their losses due to bankruptcy. A very substantial reason why student loan debts cannot be gotten rid of is because if they could, then lenders may restrict the supply of loans so much that it prevents people from pursuing higher educations. Thus banks that provide very regulated forms of student loans cannot deny applicants that meet certain conditions - the only way this works under capitalism is if the loans cannot be discharged.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There should be no student debt, period. Within certain limits, career-oriented post-secondary education should be treated by society as a whole as career training. That implies certain things re. the flow of money going one way vs. the other.

[[email protected]]

There are problems easily discernible to people of Radical, Keynesian and even Austrian outlooks.

From the perspective of a Keynesian economics (the dominant viewpoint that favors government interventionism but not outright socialism, a la Krugman), the problem is the secondary market, and various problems with tuition's ROI.

From a slightly more radical perspective the problem is 1) the existence of tuition 2) the fact people are paying it 3) the systematic exploitation of poor minorities by for-profit colleges

From an Austrian perspective, government intervention (backstopping the loans, federal loans etc) is causing the bubble.

Choose your own adventure.