Got Millenials? Democrats Should Address the Student Loan Crisis Immediately

[alcibiades_mystery]

As a start.

You can't run around promoting college attendance when we have the loan numbers, the retention numbers, the years-to-graduation numbers, and the post-degree employment numbers that we currently have. Not only are you going to lose a key demographic (and that's just the electoral calculus), the actual policies are horrendous and destructive. Repealing any statute that restricts inclusion of student loan debt in a bankruptcy filing is an absolute priority. Increasing subsidies at the state and federal level is also crucial. The policies are feeding back into higher education as workplace as well, of course: the tightening of budgets due to lowered enrollments and subsidies is part and parcel of the adjunctification of higher education, which will in the medium to long run severely drain talent from American universities (at some point, people will simply stop working in these abusive conditions).

Of course, none of this will happen with GOP control of the Congress and state legislatures. But none of it was happening with Democrats either!

The Democrats are nowhere on this. Fucking NOWHERE. They need to put up a bill repealing the bankruptcy statutes on student loans EVERY SINGLE DAY. They need to be on teevee every single day trumpeting that bill and pointing to student loan debt as a drag on the economy, a drag on consumption, a drag on higher education itself, a drag on lifetime earning and incomes. People need to be able to discharge these loans if necessary, even if the government and the banks take a haircut. Here's the thing: most people WON'T. Most people do everything in their power to avoid a bankruptcy filing. But some people MUST.

And the Democrats are fucking NOWHERE on this.

Folks need to stop seeing non-voting as simple laziness or disengagement. It is often a very reasoned response to being totally ignored.

[SHRED]

1. It's obscene that higher education costs this much

[TheMastersNemesis]

2. Nothing Will Happen. The GOP Probably Wants To Increase The Interest Rate.

[hedgehog]

58. Exactly! That's why the Democrats have to grab this issue and run with it.

There is no way the Republicans will come up on the right side of this.

[Dopers_Greed]

81. Not only increase the interest rate

But blame the Dems for doing so

[workinclasszero]

160. Yup thats how the game is played

And the Democratic party runs and hides under the bed on election day!

[glinda]

161. And this is why we are in trouble as will happen on everything with their Media.

[QC]

3. Bravo!

You win DU today.

[Orrex]

4. Doing so would alienate the bitter Boomers & Gen-Xers

The ones who believe--as I've many times seen expressed--that they had to pay for education, so no one should get a break.

[Man from Pickens]

16. Boomers?

A lot of Boomers went to college for free, or at a cost low enough that they were able to work a part-time job to pay for everything.

Gen-Xers did pay for college but most got done before the real price inflation kicked in.

It's right after Gen X when things got ridiculous.

[Orrex]

27. That's kind of my point.

If you follow the arc of student loan discussions here on DU, there tends to be a contingent of Boomers & Gen Xers who love to scold and blame anyone who's suffering under student loans, as if the economic conditions of the 60s, 70s & 80s have any relevance to the current environment.

[deurbano]

63. I'm a Boomer, and I have 2 children headed for college (and 1 headed back to college).

So, even if I were so selfish as to not care about the younger generation (or other people's kids), it is in my OWN (very immediate) self-interest to care. Please don't generalize from the scolding/blaming of a certain contingent that all Boomers/Gen Xers think that way.

[barbtries]

85. thank you

i'm a boomer who received computer training while unemployed in the 90's, bringing my skills up-to-date and enabling me to earn a living wage. paid by the state. on the other hand i have 2 sons whose debt load is absurd. no alienation on my part to fix this mess.

[Ampersand Unicode]

153. At least you got job skills training

It's a waste of money to be sending millions of kids to school to study unemployable bullshit like French Literature and Postmodern Art.

I say this as a liberal-arts major myself who wishes I'd had better maths instruction in the primary grades. Read Balzac on your own time and your own dime. Stop funding this New Yorker-style bullshit and teach people skills for JOBS.

[Orrex]

90. Fortunately, I made no general claim about all Boomers or Gen Xers.

I explicitly spelled it out in my original reply and half a dozen times since then.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

178. Excuse me? I'm getting tired of one generation blaming another for - whatever.

I'm a Boomer, and yes, my college education wasn't anywhere near as expensive as it would be now. The college I went to now costs about $47,000 a year just for tuition. My tuition in the late '60s was $1,200. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $8,800 now, so even taking that into consideration it's vastly more expensive than it once was. And until the early '80s student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy. Therefore I am very aware that the cost of college in the '60s is not relevant to its cost now. Student loans are crushing students now, and this is very bad for all of us. It is a huge drag on the economy and it will only get worse unless something is done. I'm not so old and clueless that I don't care about this.

If the Democrats had any brains (and I'm beginning to wonder) they would make this a major issue for 2016. The rapidly accumulating student loan debt has the potential for creating as much economic damage for the whole system as the crash of '08.

[aspirant]

24. sharing boomer

How about the GI bill. Serve 2 years in the military and college is paid for. Plus tuition rates were so affordable, I worked the summer months at $3/hr and paid for a complete year. Federal and state subsidies to the universities helped to keep tuition rates down. I'm a boomer and have no problem with bankruptcy laws being changed or 1 or 2 years community service to get free education.

[Alittleliberal]

163. The military doesn't need any more people

[Le Taz Hot]

25. "Bitter Boomers?"

Wow. You know we're not all exactly alike, right? I've actually written two OP's about what it was like going through college in the70's and 80's when higher education in California was extremely inexpensive and you could work your way through college. In those same threads I lament that the same is not available to young people today. I am a supporter of Elizabeth Warren who has tried to bring legislation that begins to address this college loan insanity wherein young people are saddled with humongous student loans right out of college. I don't know what bitter people you've been in contact with but would you please be so kind as to not paint all of us with the same broad brush? Thank you.

[Orrex]

28. Well, if you're not bitter, then it doesn't apply to you, does it?

Similarly, if you're not a bitter Gen Xer, it doesn't apply either.

[Le Taz Hot]

73. Perhaps next time you can say something like,

"those among the Boomers who are bitter . . . " which would be more accurate.

[Orrex]

88. "Not All Boomers," in other words?

Hmm...

[Le Taz Hot]

150. Yeah, might be nice.

[unrepentant progress]

29. This Gen-Xer is still paying off his student loan

And yes, I'm bitter, but not because I want younger people to be saddled with even more debt than many of us were. And for the record, a lot of us Gen-Xers graduated into a jobs environment almost as bad as what younger people are facing today. There's a reason Clinton ran with the motto of "It's the economy, stupid."

Higher education should be free, end of story.

[Orrex]

40. That is exactly my view and my experience, alas.

[Enthusiast]

30. Bitter boomers? Where in the fuck did you get that concept?

[Orrex]

32. From bitter Boomers. If you're not bitter, then it doesn't apply to you.

Why in the fuck do you think I was talking about you?

[Enthusiast]

39. You say it as if it is a condition of boomers, being bitter. I assure you, it is not.

[Orrex]

43. If I say "I don't like crappy art," I'm not saying "All art is crappy and I don't like it."

I'm saying that I don't like art that is crappy.

If I refer to "Bitter Boomers and Gen Xers," I'm not saying "All Boomers and Gen Xers are bitter."

[Enthusiast]

55. Yeah?

Well, I have NEVER heard a boomer say, "That they had to pay for education, so no one should get a break."

Maybe you can provide us with some links where non-right wing boomers support high interest rates on student loans and high tuition.

[Orrex]

86. Yeah.

HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE, for starters.

There are others, but you get the idea.

[Enthusiast]

112. No. I do not "get the idea". This is your evidence that baby boomers as a group

feel, since they had to pay for education, so no one should get a break?

Laughable.

You are peddling a falsehood and trying to coerce others into believing the dastardly, greedy baby boomers are being unfair toward today's students. You provide us with a few posters as examples but we don't even know their motives, age or political bent. One of the posters even said they were in favor of tuition-free education. This is hardly evidence of complicity on the part of boomers.

Why don't you just drop the whole bash baby boomers thing.

[Orrex]

114. Why don't you just read what I wrote?

No. I do not "get the idea". This is your evidence that baby boomers as a group feel, since they had to pay for education, so no one should get a break?

That is not at all what I asserted; either you're lying or you're comically incorrect.

I made no claim about "baby boomers as a group," and your false insistence that I did so is fascinating.


Kind of a thin skin you've got there, if you assume--despite explicit assurances to the contrary--that a statement about a general group (to which you don't belong)--somehow applies to you.

[Enthusiast]

117. Why have so many of us gotten the impression that you were condemning boomers?

I read the thread. If I don't like being attacked I have a thin skin? I grow weary of attacks on baby boomers.

[Orrex]

118. You have a thin skin becase you insist you're being attacked when you're not.

As to why so many have misread a clear and explicit statement, I have no idea. See my "Not All Boomers" observation above, perhaps.

If you can cite my statement about Boomers-in-general, then I will happily recant and apologize. Since I made no such statement, I'm not worried.

[deurbano]

127. So, several of us have reading comprehension problems,

but that has nothing to do with the way in which you communicated your original message?

Because modifying an age cohort (or ethnic group, gender, racial group, etc.) with an unflattering adjective usually ends so well....

[Orrex]

130. Spare me.

It has been repeatedly shown on DU that a general reference to a group explicitly does not apply to all members of that group, just as a specific reference ot a subset of that group does not apply to the group as a whole.

Witness the "Not All Men" discussion, where it was clearly (and correctly) demonstrated that a statement about "men" does not apply to each and every man, even if a particular man finds the statement unflattering. If he's not part of the specific group being discussed, then it doesn't apply to him.

The same applies here. If you're not a bitter boomer, then I wasn't talking about you, full stop.

Not sure why you're so eager to make it about you, but that's your issue to resolve.

[deurbano]

133. Yes, it's all about all of us, not you.

You could just say sorry if you were misunderstood.... but would rather keep defending it.

[Orrex]

134. It's not about you at all, though you seem to want it to be.

I'm sorry that you misread it. Feel better now?

[deurbano]

136. Might want to work on that.

[LiberalEsto]

33. Please -- not all Boomers

We are baby boomers. My husband and I are paying nearly $600 a month on our two daughters' student loans because neither can afford to pay. This is money we would otherwise be saving for retirement and home repairs. Neither of out kids graduated.

At this point all I can hope is that we manage to pay them off before we die.

I would be extremely grateful for any relief, but unfortunately these were private loans and we co-signed them. There is no relief or forgiveness of any kind for private student loans.

[Orrex]

35. Again, my statement applies only and specifically to BITTER Boomers & Gen Xers

If you're not bitter, then it has nothing to do with you.

[dilby]

44. I am a Gen-Xer and I think tuition costs are rediculous.

When I graduated I had $20,000 in debt which I thought was a lot but I also landed a job shortly after that paid twice that. Today's kids are graduating with $40,000 in student loans and they are not landing jobs period except for minimum wage ones. Tuition and medical costs are the two things that will continue to rise in costs because you need them to survive.

[Orrex]

47. Similar story here.

I graduated with $20K in debt and paid off about $6000 of it, then lost my job and suffered a bad financial blow. As a result, my loans went into default and incurred huge penalties and fees.

Since then I've paid back an additional $9000 or so, and now I owe $22K. In other words, my $20K loan turned into $37K.


I am entirely sympathetic to the student loan disaster facing millennials.

[Nay]

83. As a boomer I was able to work part time and afford a tiny apartment

and pay for classes at a state university. Granted, I also had to take a semester off here and there because I had to build up some more money, but in general, boomers paid very affordable rates. I don't know any boomers who think what you have said they think.

[redruddyred]

101. I know some boomers who are republicans

who are stupid enough to think because they could do x,y,z in 1970 their kids can do the same.

it's extremely frustrating to argue with these people as you might imagine.

then again there's the minority of nam-protesting, flower-powering, acid-dropping awesome boomers. many of whom frequent this forum.

this millenial loves y'all, but still won't deny that there is a definite subset of "asshole boomers". I think this was whom the op was referring to.

probably no offense meant.

[Nay]

102. This is certainly possible, as I have a SIL who's a real asshole. I was just saying that

many boomers I know feel very sorry for college kids today because it's impossible to go to school the way we all did back in the 70s.

[redruddyred]

105. thanks

the boomers I volunteered with over this election cycle were also very sympathetic.

with occupy the student loan issue is finally getting a place in the spotlight, even my father, who is a staunch fiscal conservative, mentioned something about it last time he visited.

it may still take time to change minds tho.

[jeff47]

87. Wrong GenX

Political lines and the "generational lines" drawn by marketing people do not align.

Older boomers are liberal.
Younger boomers are conservative.
Older GenX are conservative.
Younger GenX are liberal.

Younger boomers and older GenX are the core of the current Republican party. As a result, you would see lots of older GenX whining about "We had to pay for our college!". But that isn't all of GenX.

Young GenX dealt with similar problems to older Millennials - massive college debt and mediocre-at-best job market. Instead of dealing with those problems when young GenX was starting out, we massively increased outsourcing and H1B visas. Instead, the party was focused on dealing with Older Boomer issues.

Result? Young GenX didn't see the point of voting. Our government did not address our problems no matter which party is in charge. So why bother voting when we only rate a sentence in a pretty speech? We still had huge loan payments, we had a mediocre job market to pay for it, and shredding the safety net if we couldn't make that job market work for us. And everyone in Washington was talking about Social Security and Medicare while making our problems worse.

Result? Young GenX still has terrible turnout. And Washington is still not talking about young GenX's problems (btw, they've changed from student loans and tuition, since we're now older. But Washington's still not trying to help).

So let's look at what we're doing today to deal with Millennial's problems: We did manage to engineer a massive decrease in student loan interest rates, compared to young GenX. However, we also engineered a massive decrease in grants, and a massive increase in tuition so that we could pay for tax cuts. On that job market front, we're still pushing hard for outsourcing, and just pushed through a massive increase in H1B visas.

Hey look! We're making the same mistake with Millennials that we did with young GenX.

[redruddyred]

104. yeah, but I think that all this is due to the general misconception

that young people are busy doing drugs and getting knocked up and committing crimes, therefore they don't deserve any political problem-solving. actually these problems have decreased massively in recent years; it was our parents who were pulling this shit and therefore this misconception is nothing but projection on their part.

as a young person, I honestly feel that older generations hate me, but for completely irrational reasons.

maybe it's always been this way. parents just don't understand!!11

[jeff47]

108. Take a look at what their responses are in this thread

More-or-less calling people younger than them lazy asses for not bothering to vote. Or calling us lazy since we aren't out marching, when it wasn't the marches that actually solved their generation's issues.

That's an example of why the party's attitude towards the young has hurt in getting the young to help. But that attitude is also part of why the party stays with older Boomer issues - since young GenX didn't get involved in the party, older boomers are still primarily running the party. Since people are most familiar with their own problems, the party naturally addresses older boomer problems.

We have to get involved with the party so that it starts addressing the problems of younger people.

[deurbano]

139. Not "their" responses...

Those couple of posters do not represent me (a Boomer) at ALL.

[redruddyred]

179. a lot of my friends feel really turned off by the way

politics is communicated during election seasons. they're confused by the ads.

I was too, before I made it a point to educate myself. which is a ton of work btw. a lot of people get it wrong and end up believing stupid shit, b/c they're stupid and gullible.

there's a communication gap, but the dramatists on faux snooze and AM radio are so much more entertaining.

[deurbano]

131. Well, I did get knocked up... didn't do many drugs... didn't commit crimes

(except for doing the few drugs I did, and I didn't get caught)...but I'm not projecting my history onto young people (including my own children). I don't hate my children (of course, my feelings for them are the opposite of that)... and I certainly don't hate your generation. (I'm really sorry that's what you are perceiving from older people) Besides love and affection, a major feeling I have for your generation is worry. (And this election only exacerbated that.)

[redruddyred]

174. thanks

I don't get that vibe from you either. or most people on DU for that matter.

[TM99]

109. Perhaps you are not around a lot of Gen-Xer's then.

I have countless friends and family members - all of us Gen Xer's - who still have mounds of student loan debt. Undergraduate degrees may have been more affordable in the 1980's, but graduate school in the 1990's was not!

Throw in an illness, divorce, unemployment as your job goes over-seas, and there are plenty in my generation that stand with Millenials on asking the Democratic party to actually do something about this very real issue.

[NCTraveler]

132. Boomers have kids in college.

They are educated on the changes from when they were kids. Many of them get it. Not saying your point doesn't have merit, it does. Just saying I think enough of them would warm over to this, and the younger generation would really like it, that we would gain in the end.

[Odin2005]

147. Gen-X is shockingly full of angry and bitter reactionary crybabies.

[myrna minx]

172. I'm child free Gen-x and it sickens me how much debt burden is forced upon our youth.

Tuition was expensive when we went to school - and the job prospects were dim - but paying it off was achievable in a a few years. I'd be delighted to support our youth to have affordable education. it's also why as a child free adult, I want strong public education for the nation's children and I'm happy to pay for it.

[badtoworse]

5. I do not believe the government has the power to retroactively change the terms of a contract

I would be very reluctant to give it that power. Going forward, we can make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy, but I would expect the interest rates would be much higher reflecting the increased risk to the lender.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. The ability to discharge a loan in bankruptcy is a policy issue, not a contract issue

The severe restriction on Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 student loan discharge is written into law, and it can be repealed.

If that increases interest rates, so be it. Since people cannot discharge the loans they currently have except in extreme situations, the lenders have been raking in billions under very little risk at all. That should also be looked at by Justice very closely.

[badtoworse]

11. So the loan agreement is silent on bankruptcy?

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. It doesn't matter if it is or not

You can't restrict in a loan agreement somebody's right to file for bankruptcy. If you could, there would be no such thing as a bankruptcy filing. The ability to file for bankruptcy is a right external to any particular lending agreement. The government through law can dictate the terms of the bankruptcy decisions by passing laws. But if I lend you money, I can't say "You can't file for bankruptcy on this loan."

[badtoworse]

15. Thanks for the clarification

[KingCharlemagne]

54. It's weird though, because in most bankruptcy settlements some liquidation of assets to

satisfy creditors in part occurs. In the case of student loans, the 'asset' is the 'education' and how does one 'liquidate' that asset? So the student gets to keep the asset but the liability is swallowed whole by the lender or guarantor?

Don't get me wrong. I'm a Socialist who thinks education should be free from pre-K through post-grad. I think every citizen should have a Guaranteed Annual Income, irrespective of employment, marital or educational status. But if you're going to have bankruptcy rules that require liquidation of assets, then what do you do with the asset the student loan secured?

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. If the banks don't want to make the loans, then they shouldn't

What we shouldn't have is a system whereby the government mandates perpetual repayment even when such repayment is impossible, and overly burdensome not only for individuals, not only for the economy, but for the advancement of knowledge and general social competitiveness itself, which is what's happening now. If the banks end up saying "Well, we won't make no collateral loans of that magnitude," fine. If they say "We're going to charge you 12% on these loans," fine. People will reject them, and an income stream will dry up for the banks, and perhaps we'll see a "correction" in the number and breadth of university programs, etc. But the solution thus far is obviously not working.

The trade-off has been this: debt peonage for education.

It is a fucking utter failure at all levels.

Very obviously, we should be subsidizing education through government channels. Impossible in this climate? Fine. But what we are doing right now is subsidizing banks and debt collectors and cutting the knees out of a whole generation - through bad law. It's a bad law. It is not solving the problem (expanded access to college for the purpose of increasing lifetime income) it was designed to solve. All it is doing is impoverishing people and enriching the banks. It needs to go.

[KingCharlemagne]

67. I agree with you 100% that the current system is rotten and needs to go. I was

only trying to point out that the bankruptcy process envisions some liquidation of assets to satisfy creditors but with student loans there is no asset that can be liquidated. Sorry if I was not clearer.

In my Socialist state, not only would education be free pre-K through grad school, but banks would be nationalized and publicly owned, so there would be no profiteering off the backs of youth.

[alcibiades_mystery]

69. Bankruptcy does not always satisfy creditors with asset liquidation

You can discharge plenty of debt without surrendering any assets. People discharge credit card debt all the time without liquidating anything. The interest rate is only justifiable because you might default.

The "penalty" is that it is harder to borrow in the future.

[KingCharlemagne]

72. True. Often creditors must settle for the proverbial 'pennies on the dollar' in

bankruptcy court settlements. The risk of default is one factor among several in determining what interest rate borrowers must pay.

BTW, I wanted to say a special 'thanks' to you for keeping this issue front-and-center. I once had a staff person whose gross pay was being garnished at 25% to pay off some obscene amount of SL debt to a friggin diploma mill\trade school. Staffer had signed on for the debt at the ripe old age of 19. It made me so pissed off when I found out about it that I actually contacted my Rep (Maxine Waters) to complain. Never heard anything back from her office beyond the perfunctory "we'll relay your concerns to Rep. Waters" shtick I usually get.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. If you want a trillion dollars to be discharged you'll collapse the banking system.

Banks don't have any money of their own, they get it from depositors. The depositors won't take a trillion dollar soaking without repaying it with a blood bath -- political or literal.

[alcibiades_mystery]

76. Yes, because if ordinary bankruptcy protection was available for student loans

Every single person with a student loan would immediately run out and file for bankruptcy.



I know when banker-types have no real argument when the scare-scenarios they dream up are so far from ordinary experience that a child would laugh them out of a room.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

107. OK, so how far would you like to see the door opened?

If it's any significant amount my original point remains. If it's insignificant -- why bother acting as if it matters?

I paid off my student loans before I turned 26. I am extremely fortunate in this regard; but I did so because I didn't want the bank to have that sword to hang above my head.

Debt is servitude. The best solution is to make education affordable, as in: reduce the ridiculous cost, not simply construct new and more enticing means towards servitude.

[liberal_at_heart]

6. Also the federal and state governments need to increase funding to universities and we need

politicians who will support a living wage, not a minimum wage. I agree with you. Democrats are nowhere on this issue. They're also nowhere on the issue of K-12 education. They are allowing the total destruction of the public school system and we're suppose to vote for them?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Nowhere?

Have you not followed the ongoing fighting between teachers and Arne Duncan? It's not 'allowing', it's 'helping along'.

If Dems want to start helping fix public schools, Arne Duncan needs to go NOW, and not be replaced by Michelle Rhee or another 'reform' huckster.

[Ampersand Unicode]

156. Pay for everything?

Even classics majors who spend 4 years reading 2,500-year-old speeches from Cicero and end up working at Little Caesar's?

Subsidize fields of study that have an obvious ROI and the hell with the arts and humanities majors. Nobody gets a real job majoring in interpretive dance or gender studies.

Don't anyone give me that overused Jefferson quote about "I must study marble faucets" or whatever it is he said. It's the 21st century; you want to study marble faucets, get a trade in plumbing. You're not going to do much of anything studying Roman baths.

[upaloopa]

7. God I so hate posts like yours. Get involved

Make something happen. You think we sat on our butts in the 60's? Fuck no!
Where are you? Are you on the streets? Are you in the voting booth?
No you want the Dems to do something or you won't join the fight!
The Dems are screwed. They won't do anything for at least two years
12% of you bothered to vote!

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. Yes, nobody ever advocated and passed specific economic policies that would directly benefit Boomers

By the way, here's just a sample of what people are doing while you're sitting on your ass and sniping:

http://strikedebt.org/

http://rollingjubilee.org/

[upaloopa]

13. 12% voted 12 fucking percent !

[lonestarnot]

34. If they did all that, when would they have time to graduate summa cum laude? Time is a resource

to be used wisely.

[upaloopa]

37. It takes a few minutes to fill out a ballot. It also takes

being aware of the issues. I graduated with honors, was married, worked full time while going to school, tutored statistics and voted in every election since I was 18.

[deurbano]

138. Yes, as a Boomer, I can attest most people sat on their (political) butts in the 60's.

Even the ones marching were not necessarily that political. (It was cool to march...) I believe the OP is looking for reasons to better engage younger people, to get them involved and interested. Don't see how that warrants the hostility. I imagine the poster DID vote. Would you like to see others in his/her cohort follow suit?

[upaloopa]

142. What gets to me is the idea of

give me what I want or I won't vote. I heard that a lot this cycle.
Life doesn't work that way. Rarely do we get what we want but we still have a responcibility to not let the other side take over.
So will the repubs give them what they want? Of course not. Will they get screwed over more than if Dems were in charge yes! Why because they didn't vote!

[deurbano]

149. I don't think the OP was saying that.

I believe the intention was to suggest an issue (not the only issue) that might resonate and motivate that cohort to vote in much larger numbers. Just because people should do something doesn't mean they will (as we have just seen). I don't think it is so much "Give me what I want" as "I don't see a difference between the parties," or "I don't see that my vote will make any difference." So, the challenge for those of us who DO want them to become engaged and to vote is to find what might accomplish that. Obviously, there ARE differences between the parties, but there are also too many ways the parties are the same. We need to change that second part and better publicize the first part. It won't help just to trash nonvoters or give up on them. It's not about bribing people to vote, but giving them clear reasons to support Democrats. (I know it seems obvious to us, but we already vote.... and sometimes it doesn't feel like my vote matters much either.)

[upaloopa]

151. Well none of those things they want are going to happen.

I want more too. I am old enough to understand that it ain't going to happen so we play the hand we are dealt and make the best of it.
Waiting around for your wants to happen will get you nowhere.

[glinda]

162. +1!

[nilesobek]

12. General amnesty

for all student loan debt and credit card debt under 100,000$, now! It would cost about as much as it did to bail out the crooked bankers in this country. Who do we want to help? Sincere students or criminal bankers?

[KansDem]

48. You make a good point!

It would cost about as much as it did to bail out the crooked bankers in this country.

And think just how much money that would free up to spend in the economy. If a former student wasn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a month to repay a student loan, that money would go right back into the economy buying goods and services.

[Thinkingabout]

17. Just as 2/3 of voters was not to be found on Tuesday, this is the way it will be going until

eligible voters turns out in numbers to vote, don't complain about the old white men who hate who votes, complain about the Democrats which did not vote, complain about those who "refuse to vote for someone with a D" behind their name and allow GOP candidates to be elected.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Here's something President Obama can do TOMORROW, mostly through Executive Order

Get the fucking insane collection agencies off student debtor's backs:

http://www.studentloanborrowerassistance.org/new-nclc-report-pounding-student-loan-borrowers/


-----------------------SNIP------------------------------

Key Recommendations

Eliminate the use of private collection agencies and move toward a comprehensive and individualized counseling model. In deciding how to work with borrowers in default, the Department should study alternatives and create pilot projects with empirical research to test these options. The goal of this model should be to match the borrower with the right program based upon his or her circumstances, not just to collect the most money for the Department.

Reform the debt collection agency evaluation system so that performance is about more than dollars collected. The evaluation system should ensure that government contractors follow the law and act in the best interest of student loan borrowers.

Congress and the President should improve the Department of Education’s oversight of collection agencies and require the Department to make public information about how performance is tracked and the results. The Department’s Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office (along with Congress and the general public) should continue to monitor the Department’s oversight.

Improve transparency and provide public information about the private debt collectors’ performance, including complaints and any investigations or disciplinary actions taken against private debt collectors and the cost of outsourcing to them.

Improve the complaint system so that student loan borrowers can easily file complaints about collection agencies. The Department should follow the lead of federal agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and create user‐friendly complaint systems with easy to find instructions and contact information.

[yurbud]

122. get private contractors out of it altogether.

[hobbit709]

19. Like Biden did when he was a Senator?

[Dawgs]

20. So, the answer for Millennials is to let more Republicans get elected by not voting?

Last edited Thu Nov 6, 2014, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Brilliant plan.

Because we all know that Democrats hate government intervention and spending and Republicans love it. God, if we only had more Republicans. Maybe if no Millennials voted we could get Republicans elected everywhere and then we definitely would get student loan reform.

And, BTW, Democrats aren't "FUCKING NOWHERE" on student loans. Elizabeth Warren, A DEMOCRAT, has been fighting for student loan reform and has been pushing for a bill to address this just recently. BTW, with the help and support of President Obama.

Jesus, no wonder Millennials don't vote. They don't have a clue on that the Democrats are actually trying.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. From the OP

Of course, none of this will happen with GOP control of the Congress and state legislatures. But none of it was happening with Democrats either!

[Dawgs]

23. Thanks for ignoring the last part of my post. The part where I show that Democrats are trying.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/16/obama-pushes-elizabeth-warrens-student-loan-reform/

And, my point about the GOP is that not voting only ensures that Republicans will have MORE POWER.

[jeff47]

71. No. You get people to vote for you by solving their problems

The younger half of GenX is liberal.

Democrats failed to solve their problems - Instead, we were focused on problems faced by older Boomers, another liberal constituency.

Result? GenX doesn't think government can solve their problems. Voted for Clinton and college still cost $100k, and our student loan interest rates were astronomical (3x today's rates), while both parties are pushing outsourcing and crushing the job market.

So why vote? Why bother getting involved in the party? You're fucked either way. As a result, turnout among young GenX is low, and there's a very large gap in the age of our politicians - lots of boomers, lots fewer younger than boomers.

Meanwhile, Boomers yell at us for not marching in the streets, ignoring that 1) it didn't work back then either and 2) lousy job market + mountain of debt means marching isn't gonna happen. Gets in the way of affording food.

We're repeating the same error with Millennials, because the same people are in charge. That is why we need to get more involved in the party, and stop waiting for the party to solve these problems. The party's just going to make the same mistakes for the same reasons.

[alcibiades_mystery]

74. Yup

[Dawgs]

75. "We're repeating the same error with Millennials"

Yes we are. We're electing Republicans by not voting and expecting Democratic politicians to solve our problems when they're not in power.

Pretty dumb.

[jeff47]

80. No, we're saying "Boy, that job market sucks"

and then massively increasing the number of H1B visas to make it worse.

Saying "Boy, that job market sucks" isn't going to make up for actually making the job market suck more.

Want young GenX and Millennials to actually show up at the polls? Start actually working on their problems instead of just mentioning them in speeches.

[Dawgs]

82. So, how do they work on those problems when they're not in power?

And the only way to get back in power is to market to the people that actually vote?

You realize that young people don't vote IN ANY ELECTION, right? Any politician that expects this to change because they explain how they're going to fix student loans is a fool.

I don't disagree that Democrats have done a shitty job of governing and campaigning, but pretending that not voting and expecting that it will make some kind of difference is just fucking dumb.

[jeff47]

97. History didn't start today

First, talk about the stuff you did while you were in power that solved some of their problems. For example, Obamacare means a whole bunch of Millennials can now see a doctor instead of hoping the problem goes away. Unfortunately, the young are still immortal, so that specific example isn't going to be broadly-compelling to Millennials. Would help with young GenX though - hitting 40 means starting to break down.

What'd we do in this election? Democrats ran away in terror from Obama and his accomplishments. So instead of talking about the 14-year-low in unemployment and similar huge accomplishments that help these constituencies, we ran on.....what, exactly?

Second, you stop making their problems worse. For example, stop pushing for H1B visa increases. Stop agreeing to shred their safety net in order to "balance the budget" - only pundits actually give a damn about that.

Third, you push for bills that aren't going to actually pass, but address their problems - there's a reason Republicans tried to repeal Obamacare so many times.

Fourth, you go to places where you are in power - the blue states - and solve their problems. Use those successes to rebuild the national brand.

And the only way to get back in power is to market to the people that actually vote?

Then Democrats will lose every election from now on.

Older boomers are dying off, and the two groups that vote consistently, younger boomers and older GenX, are the tea party.

So instead of relying on actually solving their problems from DC, we're going to have to do something else. Which I mentioned above.

I don't disagree that Democrats have done a shitty job of governing and campaigning, but pretending that not voting and expecting that it will make some kind of difference is just fucking dumb.

They aren't expecting it to make any difference. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.

Job market sucks, policies that promote outsourcing pass, safety net continues to be shredded, slash infrastructure spending. Voting for Democrats doesn't change that. Voting for Republicans doesn't change that. So why bother voting?

They're not worried about Grandma's Social Security check because they haven't a clue about her finances. However, they are intimately familiar with their own finances, and there is no connection between those and the letter after their senator's name.

[Dawgs]

120. BS.

If voter turnout was greater than 70%, Democrats would have large majorities and the presidency. All of those things that you say Democrats don't do when Millennials elect them would get passed. Clinton couldn't do it because of a divided government, and either could Obama. Oh, except for when he did have Congress and he passed Obamacare..something you admit helps Millennials.

[jeff47]

123. Empty promises don't boost turnout. And not even making promises does worse.

If voter turnout was greater than 70%, Democrats would have large majorities and the presidency.

Yep. Why do you think Republicans work so damn hard at breaking government so it can't solve people's problems? And why Republicans work so damn hard to depress turnout?

So which Democrat ran on expanding ballot access? None. So it's a moot point when it comes to expanding turnout.

But hey, we've still got the filibuster! Say, which Democrat ran on Republicans using that to cripple government? Again, none.

Clinton couldn't do it because of a divided government, and either could Obama.

Both had Democratic Congresses their first two years. And in both cases, that Democratic Congress was utterly terrified of doing anything. "Obamacare" exists because of Pelosi. The White House plan was to leave it all up to Congress, and when Kennedy died they started running away from it. Again.

Democrats could do great things that would get young GenX and Millennials to the polls for the rest of their lives.
Democrats are absolutely terrified of doing so.

That's why this risk-averse third-way crap needs to be purged from the party.

[Dawgs]

124. Why are here if you think all politicians suck?

And why do you keep ignoring the fact that Democrats can't do anything if those that don't vote keep electing Republicans?

[jeff47]

125. Because this isn't a site about politicians.

This is a site about politics, not politicians.

We need to fix our politicians. This is a place to discuss how to do so.

And why do you keep ignoring the fact that Democrats can't do anything if those that don't vote keep electing Republicans?

I don't. You'll find that explicitly addressed upthread.

[deurbano]

128. I'm not yelling at you. (I'm a Boomer.)

[aikoaiko]

21. Income based repayment place should be enough for those in trouble

They could be reduced to smaller % of discretionary funds, but far too few students are taking advantage of this option for me to support no bankruptcy restrictions on student loans

I could see eliminating bankruptcy restrictions on loans over 15 years old.

[smirkymonkey]

159. I have an income based repayment plan and it is the maximum I can

afford. I am struggling to pay it. The sad thing is that I pay $700 per month on my $134,000 graduate school loan (I only borrowed $50k, but with compounding interest and periods of unemployment and not being able to pay the minimum, I had to go in to forbearance.) That $700 per month reduces the loan by about $50 per month due to interest. I will never pay this off as long as I live. I sometimes wonder what the point is.

I have never been in default, but I feel like it is only a matter of time as I am just barely scraping by to pay all my expenses plus this loan payment.

[Lee-Lee]

26. If you allwo bankruptcy you may as well just make them grants

Because all that will happen is every person who graduates with debt will "not find work" for a few months, file for bankruptcy, then go on with their life.

So don't beat around the bush, go all in.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. The risk you take when you loan money is that some people won't pay it back

You say all people won't. I say you're wrong.

Besides, if that's the bank's calculus on this, then they shouldn't make the loan. I'm sick of lenders pretending that they can reduce risk to zero. You don't like the risk, don't make the loan. Or, charge the interest relative to the risk. If that interest is too high for the borrower, they won't take the loan, and fuck you, Mr. Banker.

Oh, they yelp: but that will reduce access to higher education! That's a terrible social outcome!

It is not more terrible than the current social outcome, which is a trillion dollar mess that hurts everybody, including the universities. The current system doesn't solve the problem it was intended to solve: increased access to university education was supposed to increase lifetime incomes, not thrust a significant portion of the population in to debt peonage.

If banks don't like having ordinary bankruptcy rights attached to their loans, they shouldn't make them. Period.

[Lee-Lee]

65. Of course then you will have many people denied

And higher interest rates.

You will quickly see people with poor credit, families with poor credit and no assets begin to be denied.

You will see lenders start basing decisions and rates in majors, based upon possible income and ability to repay. Want to be a finance major and make big $$$? Have all the loans you want. Want to be an underpaid teacher? Sorry, you can't afford the payments.

Part of barring bankruptcy was that it made them willing to lend to almost anyone. End that and you will be blocking access to loans for those who need it most.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. As I said, the social outcomes this increased access was supposed to produce are not met

And cannot be met under this regime. Indeed, the student loan regime produces social outcomes OPPOSITE TO THOSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO PRODUCE. It does not merely fail to increase lifetime incomes, it actively produces outcomes in the other direction. The current social outcomes that were intended in the trade-off of "no bankruptcy protection" for "universal lending" have failed.

The whole theory of privatizing university education funding has failed. It is not increasing lifetime incomes "for those who need it most," but instead thrusting them into debt peonage.

It is a failed theory and a failed policy and it needs to be repealed.

[HoosierRadical]

31. Dems tried to address the issue, but guess what???

These millennials don't care enough to get their lazy asses to the polls, so they will have to endure the consequences of having the GOP in control.

[TBF]

51. That's a good way

to attract voters to your party.

[Dawgs]

78. What are you saying?

They said Democrats tried to address it and were blocked by Republicans. For their effort the Millennials stayed home and essentially got more Republicans elected.

How is that not a "good way to attract voters"? Why is it the Democrats fault for trying?

[TBF]

93. I'm saying blaming the voters

is not the way to address the problems we face.

[jeff47]

77. Failure does not attract votes.

These millennials don't care enough to get their lazy asses to the polls, so they will have to endure the consequences of having the GOP in control.

"Some of us tried to help" is not going to win any votes. Actually solving their problems does. If you can't solve their problems, they're not going to turn out because it doesn't matter which party is in charge. Their problems continue regardless of the letter after their senator's name.

You want those "lazy asses" to get to the polls, start actually solving their problems instead of saying "Oh, that lousy job market is bad. And here's a 5x increase in H1B visas to make it worse. I said the market was bad, why didn't you show up to vote for me?!?!"

Btw, the Democrats fucked this up with young GenX, a rather liberal constituency. Turnout among young GenX is bad. And when that just results in people calling us lazy asses instead of fixing our problems, it's going to remain bad.

[alcibiades_mystery]

79. Moreover, the "trying" was so tepid and half-assed that even success would get the side-eye

The Warren bill - as admirable and needed as it was - suggested refinancing for older, more expensive debt. A great thing for those borrowers, to be sure, but the very definition of a half-measure given the scope and severity of the problem.

[HoosierRadical]

143. Oh well, you are the one who will suffer the consequences of having the GOP

in charge. Whining over being label lazy isn't going to make your life any better.

[jeff47]

148. I get the same consequences either way.

Not much of a threat.

Yes, Democrats have dreams. Then when they get majorities, they're terrified of realizing those dreams.

We need to work with the party to overcome that fear.

[HoosierRadical]

164. No you don't, but you will soon learn the difference between

having a Democrat working to do what is right in a very hostile environment (i.e. Corporate money, well organized rightwing, disgruntled base with unrealistic expectations) as opposed to having some right winger who doesn't have the same limitations.

Your point about the Dems having majorities is misleading, because you know that the party includes Blue Dogs to the Progressive caucus, it is not like Pelosi had a majority house of Progressives, but given what she had to work with, she was able to get Health care through, same can be said of Reid in the Senate with the type of Senators he had to work with, the GOP leadership doesn't have that issue, because they are all rightwing loons, only some know how to tone it down so as not to scare the general public.

I agree we need to work with the party to overcome the fears, how we do that is by getting REAL progressives elected and standing with them when the likes of the Koch brothers' and other oligarchs use attack ads to mislead the public.

[jeff47]

169. Yes, I really do.

I'm not a kid who's just voted in my first election. I'm well aware of what Clinton and Obama both wrought with their Congressional majorities. Compared to what W wrought with his Republican majority. Or even what HW Bush and Reagan rammed through despite not having a Congressional majority.

Your point about the Dems having majorities is misleading, because you know that the party includes Blue Dogs to the Progressive caucus

You mean the people who are terrified of using their majority? As in the entire fucking point of the post you didn't bother to think about so you could hurl condescension?

You need to get off the high horse and realize that you won't get anywhere saying "Democrats could possibly do this someday". Because we've heard that story for decades, and they keep failing to remotely come close to it.

Expanded gun background checks? Wins at the polls. Democrats terrified of it.
Drug legalization? Wins at the polls. Democrats terrified of it.
Personhood bills? Loses at the polls. Democrats terrified of coming out against it.
Minimum wage increases? Wins at the polls. Democrats terrified of it.

It's really not hard to look at the results of referenda to get a look at how the electorate feels about an issue. The people running the Democratic party just will not do it. We get this false-wizened "Don't rock the boat too much" bullshit from them, while people such as yourself insist great things could come. Someday. Honest.

And then we all pretend to be surprised when turnout sucks.

Enough. It is time to replace the leadership with people who are not cowards.

[HoosierRadical]

170. Why the profanity?

Where do I dispute any of the policy issues? Nowhere. But people such as yourself will continue to whine instead of actually doing the hard work of getting real progressives elected, until than, the better funded candidates, which are normally the moderate to conservative Dems, will continue to get elected and when in office walk a tight rope. Making excuses for Non Voters is not going to do that.

[deurbano]

126. Way to stereotype a whole generation...

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. Funny ...

I was thinking this morning, while watching Moring Joe put on republican after republican state their going to "bring legislation to the body for votes ... (they're) going to break the legislative log-jam", that this is the perfect time for Democratic legislators to write and submit progressive legislation!

Warren should dust off her "Student Aid" bill ... Sanders should dust off his income inequality bills ... the Progressive caucus should dust off their "Peoples' Budget" ... and they should submit them and submit them and submit them until it is clear to every non-voter in America that republicans are full of sh!t.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. Agreed

Get it out there every day.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. I'd love to see ...

Democratic Press Conferences every Friday and TWICE every first of the month, providing an update on where each bill is in the legislative pipeline.

[ProSense]

42. Yup, these

Warren should dust off her "Student Aid" bill ... Sanders should dust off his income inequality bills ... the Progressive caucus should dust off their "Peoples' Budget" ... and they should submit them and submit them and submit them until it is clear to every non-voter in America that republicans are full of sh!t.

...should have gotten a lot more attention.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. There ARE lessons that Democrats could learn from republicans ...

the did, after all, unembarassedly, vote to repeal the ACA 50+ times; while, Democrats do the one and done thing.

[adirondacker]

49. While I agree with your tactic, WHO is to blame for the involvement of Private Debt Collectors to

become involved?


"Consumer Law Center’s Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project, finds that the U.S. Department of Education heavily favors high pressure student loan collection and debt collector profits to the detriment of millions of financially distressed borrowers seeking help.

Key Findings

The Collection Agency Contractor System Costs Taxpayers Billions and Sets Up Conflicts
The Department of Education estimates that in 2014, taxpayers and student loan borrowers will pay over $1 billion in commissions to private student loan debt collectors, growing to over $2 billion by 2016. Low-income borrowers are especially harmed because the government often seizes benefits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, that are aimed at promoting economic mobility. Additionally, the Department hires debt collectors not only to collect on student loan debt, but also to communicate with borrowers about options to help borrowers address and resolve the debt, creating a conflict of interest.

Government Incentives Drive Collection Agency Behavior
Changes made to the compensation system in July 2012 demonstrate that the options collection agencies offer to borrowers are driven by the fees the government pays, not by the law. Loan “rehabilitation” is an important way for a student loan borrower to get out of default. Before July 2012, the government paid a much higher fee to a collection agency that arranged for a loan rehabilitation that required payments that did not take the borrower’s income into account than for one that did. Even though borrowers have long been entitled to more affordable rehabilitation payments based on the borrower’s financial circumstances the government’s collection agencies almost never arranged them until the government equalized the fee structure in July 2012"

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. See my post #18 above

President Obama should sign an executive order immediately reforming the policy of debt collection at D of Ed. You're quite right that this is within the administrative purview and failing to rein in these insane debt collectors is part of the problem.

[myrna minx]

171. I think this is a great idea.

[joshcryer]

38. HAHAHAHA

Too late. It'll be two years, minimum, before it is even considered an issue to be addressed, unfortunately. The Republicans sure damn well won't address it.

[adirondacker]

110. That you consider this a laughing matter speaks volumes.

And as I asked upthread, WHO is responsible for this to have been implemented in 2012? Yeah Big Fucking Joke.

[joshcryer]

167. What's funny is the idea it could be addressed.

With the House still controlled by Republicans. In a lame duck session. It's so hilariously wrong that it's pointless to even consider it.

It is definitely a serious matter, but there is zero hope of anything happening for at least 2 years on the student loan crisis (which is worse than the whole housing sector going bust).

[TBF]

50. The Democrats are nowhere on this

because one of the main groups giving big campaign money to Dems are the bankers. No way are they giving up the interest rates that they profit from.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. I don't disagree with you: even the Warren legislation, trumpeted loudly above, is a half-measure

Refinance for older debtors, and whatnot. Nibbling around the edges.

Repeal the damn bankruptcy restriction.

[TBF]

57. Bankruptcy restriction -

repeal of that would be a very good start.

[cap]

59. Banks must write down their losses on student loans

It is a trillion dollar problem similar to that of the mortgage crisis. It is a drain on the economy. Kids are stuck paying off unproductive loans. These loans do nothing for the economy at large. The loans don't help other sectors buy and sell goods and services, unlike housing and auto loans.

the sooner we do a massive write down and yes, the banks will take a hair cut, the faster this economy will start moving for everyone. Kids will be buying stuff and moving out of the parents house.

I would advocate a few years of jubilee. Kids get employed in a work program paying a bit more than minimum wage and are trained in marketable skills and are doing stuff that needs to be done that benefits society, like rural broadband. After three years they can go get a job with their debt forgiven.
Also, a program needs to be set up for relieving boomers who are paying their kids debt and another program for retraining boomers so they can get another job after they are laid off and need to switch industries.

[ProSense]

60. The Republican Congress and student loans:

Banks Urge Investors To Buy For-Profit College Stocks Now That The GOP Is Taking Back Congress

The Republican resurgence on Capitol Hill makes for-profit education company stock a hot commodity, according to industry analysts who expect a GOP-controlled Congress to loosen oversight of both student lending firms and for-profit colleges.

Investment advisers from both Credit Suisse and BMO Capital Markets issued research notes this week connecting the Republican victories on Tuesday to an improved outlook for education companies. The analyses were based primarily on future legislative predictions. The Higher Education Act needs to be renewed, and BMO’s Jeffrey Silber argued that a Republican Senate will produce a bill that is much friendlier to the companies that run for-profit schools, according to Buzzfeed. Credit Suisse wrote in Barron’s that the “diminished regulatory risk characteristics of a Republican-controlled electorate” makes student lending company stocks likely to rise in value because “Republicans have historically fought detrimental legislation originating from Congressional Democrats.”

Stock in Strayer Education Inc., one of the largest for-profit college companies, was up almost 10 percent from Tuesday morning to Thursday morning. DeVry’s stock is up nearly 3 percent and Apollo Education Group’s is up over 2.5 percent.

Education policy observers seem to agree with the financial analysts’ prognosticating about how Congress might legislate in the future. Steps that the Obama administration has already taken through regulation — such as the recently-unveiled “gainful employment” rules that are designed to cut off federal education dollars to schools whose graduates can’t get jobs — may be safe from retroactive interference. Congress could attempt to cut off funding to enforce such rules, as Forbes’ James Marshall Crotty argued Tuesday, though legislation to do that could potentially face a veto threat. But more ambitious administration efforts to establish a broader ratings system for higher education institutions that would be tied to their access to the federal student lending system are much harder after Tuesday, according to Inside Higher Education.

<...>

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/11/06/3589728/gop-election-for-profit-colleges/

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. Luckily, the for-profit schemes are an enforcement issue

The GOP Congress can pass all they want on this. The President should veto their attempts to weaken enforcement.

[redruddyred]

96. oh yeah the lack of decent online programs is really a huge issue.

I have a serious chronic illness and have to study online. I just wish that the unis which offered these programs weren't complete hucksters. I also wish that unis would quit flaunting the ada. speaking of which, I gotta file a complaint.

also how hard is it to offer a math degree over the internet. my friend in germany is doing that.

what is tt?

[alcibiades_mystery]

103. tt = tenure track

[redruddyred]

106. oh yeah I had one of those guys yell at me in front of the entire class

for complaining about how he assigned homework.

nothing I could do.

[alcibiades_mystery]

115. Well

I am one of those guys, so...

[redruddyred]

175. I sincerely hope that you manage to refrain from being an abusive jerk!

[Vattel]

84. There will always be people willing to be adjuncts

Beyond that, I agree with your post

[alcibiades_mystery]

89. Agree in part

There have always been adjunct faculty and likely always will be. But the extreme exploitation of adjunct faculty is a relatively new phenomena - emerging alongside the other changes to higher education wrought by neoliberal structural adjustment and austerity. Perhaps twenty years old, and maybe younger, and we've already seen fairly significant pushback and resistance, which is only likely to grow. It is changing the face of higher ed, to be sure, but there is no power without resistance. It's not going to continue on in its current stage of hyper-exploitation, whatever else might happen.

[Vattel]

152. I doubt it, but you might be right.

In my experience (which is admittedly limited), most adjuncts are people that are only expecting part time employment as an adjunct. They don't expect fulltime pay or benefits. The increase in continuing non-tenure track positions is the real trend here. And those jobs do come with significant pay and benefits.

[redruddyred]

180. oh no university education has taken a real nosedive

I had tons of these so-called "professors". while one was a genius who went on to study at princeton institute of advanced studies the rest were real morons. this wasa 40k a year private school too so you do the math.

higher education is a colossal waste of money, esp considering that so many graduates just end up working retail or whatever.

quit after one year to become a lifeguard fuck that shit.

also read the salon expose if you're up to a quick google search.

[redruddyred]

91. I believe warren tried to pass a bill

with help from some congressperson from NY.

guess what happened to that shit.

clearly, we are not calling Rs on their bullshit loud enough.

[alcibiades_mystery]

94. That's for sure

The Warren bill is addressed numerous times in this thread.

[librechik]

92. Of course, who in their right mind would oppose that?

Oh, right. There isn't anybody like that in the Republican Party. Especially in the House--or the Senate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

95. Let them oppose it

Make them oppose it.

Over and over and over again.

Then again. And next Friday, too.

[librechik]

129. it's like throwing them in the briar patch, Uncle Remus. They love it.

we need new strategies they aren't prepared for.

[Zorra]

98. True. In order to do this, we must remove the Third Way cancer from the Democratic party. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. The sooner the better

[Orsino]

100. Immediately? Last summer, or last year would have been the time.

But it would indeed make a fine priority for a new Democratic Party platform.

[DreamGypsy]

111. Oregon Democrats tried to address the student loan problem this year ..

...with Measure 86. (from the Oregonian, one of the newspapers that "urged a "no" vote on Measure 86"; the Salem Statesman-Journal, the Eugene Register-Guard, Eugene Weekly, the East Oregonian and Willamette Week supported the measure.)

Oregon voters soundly defeated a measure that would have allowed the state to borrow money to endow a fund for college financial aid.

Measure 86 was championed by Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler, who proposed creating the endowment as an out-of-the-box way to help more young Oregonians afford college.

<snip>

Measure 86 was widely endorsed by business, labor and pro-student groups, and there was no organized opposition to the measure.

Steve Buckstein (LIbertarian), of the Cascade Policy Institute, emerged as the measure's most critical opponent and submitted the sole argument against the measure in the Voters' Pamphlet. He said he was not surprised by the voters' decision.

Oregon currently provides only about $250 a year of need-based financial aid per student enrolled in public universities and community colleges. That is 60 percent below the national average.

<snip>

With the measure's defeat, the Oregon Legislature will be left to fund college financial aid using money from the general fund, not by borrowing money and funding scholarships with the investment proceeds. Oregon's higher education commission has requested the state increase its spending on financial aid by 60 percent, or about $66 million, in the next two year budget.

Wheeler had hoped lawmakers would seed the fund with $100 million, to be repaid by Oregon taxpayers over the next 30 years. A $100 million endowment would generate $5 million a year worth of college scholarships, with investment returns above 5 percent used to grow the endowment, Wheeler has said.

The vote was 60% against, 40% for.

I think one of the big problems with Measure 86 was that it had to be framed as an Oregon Constitutional amendment. Some clause in the constitution (I haven't looked up the history) says that debt cannot be used to fund civil expenditures and the measure authorized the financing of this education fund via debt. My wife and I were initially very surprised by this condition and I expect other Oregon citizens were as well. I suspect some yes votes were lost because of this problem.


Oregon Democrats will be back trying to help within the state and at the federal level, since we returned all of our great Democratic Senators and Representatives, local and federal, to their positions.

[yurbud]

113. I would be happy with quantitative easing interest rates for student loans 0.075% or something like

that.

And make it retroactive.

[alcibiades_mystery]

116. The banks would get there if you could discharge

Currently, they have the federal government enforcing their loansharking schemes.

[bullwinkle428]

119. Ralph Nader just proposed the very same thing during an interview on

Thom Hartmann's show a little while ago...

Just for clarification, I'm board with this; hence, the earlier rec for this thread.

[geardaddy]

121. Al Franken ran on that this past election.

http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=news&id=2959

[MineralMan]

135. I was just about to post that. Thanks!

Notably, Franken won his re-election bid pretty handily.

[alcibiades_mystery]

137. Franken's bill was like Warren's: refinance for older, higher interest loans...it's a half measure

Obviously, it is a very important measure for those suffering under those loans. No question. Both the Warren and Franken bills are necessary. But they have to be paired with real repeal of the asinine and counterproductive deal we've made with the lenders: removal of bankruptcy protection in exchange for universal lending that would lead to higher incomes. The theory that supports that deal has failed. The deal itself has failed in practice. Nibbling around the edges of it is ludicrous. It does not produce the results it promised, and it needs to be repealed.

[geardaddy]

140. I agree wholeheartedly.

Pass the Franken/Warren bill for those already suffering and fix the system for those now in school and future students.

[myrna minx]

173. yep!

...and his message resonated.

[LittleBlue]

141. We could start by stopping H-1B visas

It's a scam to hire people at a lower wage and prevent them from taking another job.

[Autumn]

144. What were the Democrats doing on this before the republicans took over?

So now they should address it? Think maybe it's a bit to late now to address it, well maybe a nice speech and file it under oh shit we don't have the votes to do this because the republicans....... Vote for us, donate so we can get this done. Honest this time we mean it unless the next election is tight.


This is one thing of many. See why young people don't bother to vote.

[alcibiades_mystery]

145. Obviously it should have been addressed before now

It doesn't follow that it shouldn't now be addressed.

[Odin2005]

146. That would piss off their Wall Street donors, it WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

The Dems are incapable of appealing to us Millennials because what we want is completely at odds to what Wall Street wants, and the Democratic Party is owned by Wall Street.

[Doctor_J]

154. The bankers who own the government will never go for it

[libtodeath]

155. Education is a right and should be free.

[Ampersand Unicode]

157. Depends on what you study

I'm a liberal-studies major myself who actually feels guilty about taking other people's tax dollars to read Aristotle. The old "Good Will Hunting" quote about spending X thousands of dollars for an education I could have gotten for $2 in overdue library fees comes to mind.

What we really need to do is decouple employment from the sheepskin factor. We've made it such that people basically have to get that worthless piece of paper to even be considered for a job, even if that job is McDonald's. You get ahead of the guy who only has a GED or an associate degree. That isn't right, because how well you can interpret themes in Richard III says absolutely nothing about how well you can operate a Fryolator or do Excel pivot tables. That's stuff you learn on your own as a hobby. But no, you have to get a degree in something in order to be considered, and then you find out that you got the wrong degree for the job market and now can't do anything else but bag groceries at Aldi or deliver pizzas for Domino's. Meanwhile, the CS majors and the "lowly" trades-people are laughing at your pseudo-intellectual "prowess" as they give you a shit tip for bringing pepperoni to the door of their kickass house. Then you go home and read Sorrows of Young Werther as an instruction manual in your rat-infested Section 8 prison cell.

We need to 1) divert monies from useless classics degrees and the like into trades programs and 2) get rid of the idiotic sheepskin standard that shuts out anyone who didn't waste 4 years of their life pursuing worthless gen-ed material. Bring back on-the-job training and merit promotions that have nothing to do with "education." At this point I don't give a shit about being an interesting conversationalist with a "broad-based education." Why should I, if the only people I'm going to be talking to are people in the unemployment line who also don't give a shit about Shakespeare and are just worried about where their next meal is coming from?

[libtodeath]

158. It is not other peoples money

It is the wealth a society generates due to the combined efforts and talents of all.
No individuals should claim ownership of it.

[Ampersand Unicode]

181. Then divert the tax monies to libraries.

Not a lot of wealth is being generated by pizza deliverers and burger flippers with master's degrees.

I'm facing a serious crisis of self-worth right now because we as a society don't really have a way (outside of academia itself, which is basically a self-reinforcing envelope-stuffing scheme of learning liberal arts so you can teach liberal arts to people who learn liberal arts and then teach liberal arts...) for people who study things like political science and sociology to put bread on their table -- and I'm afraid/ashamed to be facing the prospect of ending up on welfare someday. I just don't have a "mathematical mind" and struggle to learn 21st-century job skills like computer coding and anything healthcare-related. Writing an English 201 paper comparing Dracula to Hannibal Lecter does not a good hematologist make.

What used to happen years ago is that someone with an English degree could still get an OK-paying job as maybe a bank teller or something in a respectable place like the local credit union. Otherwise, they could always get a government job or (last resort?) become a teacher. Now nobody wants to be a teacher because the pay is shit, the kids are out of control, and teaching has become a less-respected profession in America than drug dealer, hitman or prostitute. Virtually nobody is going to get fallback government jobs either, because the public sector is now officially on life support since Tuesday night, and there is no hope for private-sector jobs in "sociology" or "art history." Heck, there are more private-sector jobs in Scientology than there are in sociology. Nobody with an art history degree is going to get a job cataloguing Dubya's dogs-playing-poker-in-the-Situation-Room paintings at the Bush Family Ranch. Which basically means they're not going to get a job, period. Other than sandwich "artist" at Subway.

Americans are so in love with reality TV and superhero movies anyway, that if the Library of Congress burned to the ground like the one in Alexandria, probably no one would notice unless it showed up in a tweet. Probably only a tiny fraction of people in this country would bat an eye if the Smithsonian lost all of its artifacts. On the other hand... did you see how many people rejoiced that someone found the stash of "E.T." Atari cartridges buried 30 years ago?

[dflprincess]

177. No degree is useless

at the least it teaches critical thinking skills - and the American public seems to be seriously lacking in that area.

I was raised in a home where education was valued for its own sake, not just how much money it might help me earn.

But, I do agree with you that many jobs shouldn't be tied whether or not a person has a 4 year degree -- especially after they have some experience in whatever field they're working in.

[Ampersand Unicode]

182. It's not that I'm concerned about earning 6 figures.

I'm concerned about having to work 3-4 Dunkin' Donuts jobs just to make ends meet, like that poor (dead) woman from New Jersey.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/maria-fernandes_n_5732230.html

I'd be more than willing to have my mind go hungry as long as my stomach was full.

[JonLP24]

165. Warren would do well on this issue

She already mentions it and tries to pass legislation

Elizabeth Warren will 'keep hitting' at student loans

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/elizabeth-warren-student-loans-suze-orman-111046.html#ixzz3INjMK34F

[SoCalDem]

166. we can no longer do much of anything but remind those younger folks

how important it was for them to place responsible people in charge in numbers that could do something..and to suggest to them that the next election may be their opportunity to save themselves from permanent financial ruin..

[geek tragedy]

168. The ACA was the best piece of legislation millennials will ever get, more than just the

staying on the parents coverage, it also cut out the corporate profit takers from the federally guaranteed student loans.

Result: millennials hate Obamacare.

It's pretty much maturity, they think one election is going fix everything, and then when it turns out to be a long grind they lose interest and throw up their hands.

[still_one]

176. I agree, and these whinny threads from supposed millinials are really getting tiresome to me