I went to college when not only could I pay as I went- it was that affordable- but I graduated with no debt. I went to a state land grant university, that was well-supported by government funding. The present situation looks a lot like what conservatives strive for - either preventing access to higher education, and/or burdening those who can least afford it with debt. An educated populace is good for the whole society, but probably not so good for getting conservatives elected to office.
It's not just dining halls and rec centers. It's not neoliberalism either. It's states underfunding higher education in general. The explosion in administrative salaries and personnel is also part of it. But the real issue is the substitution of state funding for student loans, especially those offered a guaranteed students loans through private lenders. Isms aren't doing this. Financial institutions with names, with CEOs with names, and lobbyists with names are doing this. People profit from this.
People in my generation who think that they paid their way are part of the problem. They are utterly unaware of how college finances have changed. Tuition at Texas A&M University was $4 per credit hour in 1985. I know because I actually "paid my way" through college and was part of student government when we were lobbying for a 300% increase (to $12 per credit hour) to avoid even more massive increases. When I checked in 2014, it was $176 per credit hour. That's not professor salaries or student advising, or even buildings, which are paid for by the Permanent University Fund, not student fees (utilities are). What's the difference? It's what happened to Sallie Mae: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Mae
You can't fight "neoliberalism" whatever that is, but you can fight Navient and its lobbyists. These people have names: Jonathan Witter is the CEO
I graduated in 1983 and it took about ten years for me to pay off my loans- and tuition was NOT as sky high as it has become now.
At the very least all interest should be zeroed out retroactively and applied to the principle- nobody should be making a profit from student loans.
But as to deferring payment to cancelling it. Politically cancelling it will KILL the Biden administration's ability to get re-elected because not only Republicans, but independents who are "paid their loans so why do these kids get a break" people will revolt. I just see that as political reality.
If I was advising Biden I would defer again until after the election and if re-elected then make bolder moves to eliminate this crushing debt from that generation
I went to college when not only could I pay as I went- it was that affordable- but I graduated with no debt. I went to a state land grant university, that was well-supported by government funding. The present situation looks a lot like what conservatives strive for - either preventing access to higher education, and/or burdening those who can least afford it with debt. An educated populace is good for the whole society, but probably not so good for getting conservatives elected to office.
It's not just dining halls and rec centers. It's not neoliberalism either. It's states underfunding higher education in general. The explosion in administrative salaries and personnel is also part of it. But the real issue is the substitution of state funding for student loans, especially those offered a guaranteed students loans through private lenders. Isms aren't doing this. Financial institutions with names, with CEOs with names, and lobbyists with names are doing this. People profit from this.
People in my generation who think that they paid their way are part of the problem. They are utterly unaware of how college finances have changed. Tuition at Texas A&M University was $4 per credit hour in 1985. I know because I actually "paid my way" through college and was part of student government when we were lobbying for a 300% increase (to $12 per credit hour) to avoid even more massive increases. When I checked in 2014, it was $176 per credit hour. That's not professor salaries or student advising, or even buildings, which are paid for by the Permanent University Fund, not student fees (utilities are). What's the difference? It's what happened to Sallie Mae: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Mae
You can't fight "neoliberalism" whatever that is, but you can fight Navient and its lobbyists. These people have names: Jonathan Witter is the CEO
This shows you who they bought off: https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/e-pac/C00331835/summary/2020
Universal programs are CHEAPER!
I graduated in 1983 and it took about ten years for me to pay off my loans- and tuition was NOT as sky high as it has become now.
At the very least all interest should be zeroed out retroactively and applied to the principle- nobody should be making a profit from student loans.
But as to deferring payment to cancelling it. Politically cancelling it will KILL the Biden administration's ability to get re-elected because not only Republicans, but independents who are "paid their loans so why do these kids get a break" people will revolt. I just see that as political reality.
If I was advising Biden I would defer again until after the election and if re-elected then make bolder moves to eliminate this crushing debt from that generation