"Money that I pay to the gov't now, I'd go out and buy that entertainment center and TV with, maybe even another house. The money stays in the markets instead of being taken out."
In that scenario, borrowers would have simply gotten free school, while someand other individuals would not be getting paid back, which equates to paying for the borrower's eduaction.
There is no additional money "staying" in the market.
If someone gets the free ride, the service will still get paid for by some group of individuals. How that payment is covered negates the "stimulus" effect.
Yes, someone now unencumbered with repayment might run out and buy that flat screen TV. But the group now collecitvely incurring the loss of not getting paid back, will then collectively compensate by reigning in what THEY might otherwise have been able to spend from the principle and interest they were originally owed and expected.
But the group now collecitvely incurring the loss of not getting paid back, will then collectively compensate by reigning in what THEY might otherwise have been able to spend from the principle and interest they were originally owed and expected.
kurt, what you seem to be missing is that we are talking about forgiving federal loans. the group collectively incurring the loss is the federal government. therefore the money would be going back into the market because it is not going back into the government coffers.
and even so, if there's any group that needs to collectively reign in their spending it is them. ;)
so if one guy has 100k in loans and another guy has 40k in loans does the guy with 40k in loans get an extra 60k in forgiven loan money to stimulate the economy? or do they get a gratis diploma from a more expensive uni because they decided to go to a cheaper school so they wouldn't have to incur the same debt but maybe feel that their less expensive university is not quite as valuable? because i intentionally went to a cheaper school to incur less debt even though my superior intellect would have allowed me to attend a more expensive college.
no matter when anything like this would have been implemented, someone would be in that situation
so we all need to drop it, unless we want to say everyone, no matter what their status, gets X amount of dollars to do with what they please
if you have less debt, why cant anyone just be happy because they have less debt?
why is there the constant, oh poor me, i dont get as much from the government?
vado, i don't think what we are discussing has anything to do with the future of student loans. instead it addresses the exponential growth in student lending in the last 10-15 years and its effect on the economy. there is no doubt that funding for higher education in the u.s. must be changed, but i think that's another issue.
or if you are talking about the current situation, no, an individual with $10,000 in loans is forgiven for $10,000. an individual with $100,000 in loans is forgiven for $100,000. sadly, in this scenario, you can't retroactively take out more money.
if you willingly chose to go to a less expensive school, why on earth should you get money to compensate for student loans you dont have from a school you didnt go to?
and this whole discussion is the reason why this is not a realistic option
everyone and their mother would come out bitching and moaning that they arent getting enough back
well then what about those people who were smart enough to go to a cheaper school and dont have as much in student loans?
should they be compensated for the interest they would have incurred had they gone to a more expensive school?
that tears me apart too Archmed
i think that is actually a viable solution, at least on a temporary basis during this economic downturn
and before anyone jumps on that comment, yes i realize this will not save the economy by itself and yes i understand those people without student loans will not seem to get as big a break
deal with it
I went to a public school too that wasn't all that expensive and I still took in 60k of debt.
I think that they should just forgive the interest all together. and I think that they should further assist people who have lost their jobs. Instead they seem to be giving people a "tough shit" attitude.
i agree, the focus should be on those unemployed currently, rather than just giving out money
while throwing money around might stimulate the economy to the point where new jobs are made, a stimulus check helps someone who lost their job only so much
honestly, i have a little over 60k in debt from 7 years in school
i am fine paying that back because i still have a job and am somewhat secure with it, at least in regards to today's climate
throwing me a little bit of money wont change how i do things that much, which in turn, makes my impact on the economy virtually no different with or without any aid
throwing it at those without jobs, while better, doesnt change the fact that they dont have jobs
but i would say the focus should be on those without jobs, either to help them get new jobs, or to help them survive until they get a new job
I dunno about 'forgiveness' - but 'protection' certainly. In times like these I would be helpful to have an interest free forbearance with a 6month review period - if at that time you do not have the income to pay back your loan, you have another 6 months, etc. Maybe a max of 2 years protection?
I dunno about 'forgiveness' - but 'protection' certainly. In times like these I would be helpful to have an interest free forbearance with a 6month review period - if at that time you do not have the income to pay back your loan, you have another 6 months, etc. Maybe a max of 2 years protection?
this sounds more reasonable. I'm also for the fed increasing the cap on how much they loan so that students don't get stuck with private loans at a higher rate. If fed loans aren't enough to cover the cost of an education at a public university, something isn't right.
Theres only one stimulus - cut taxes, and cut spending, raise the value of the dollar.
Gov. stimulus is a tool used for majot things too big for any one industry - such as NASA, Hoover Dam Authority, Federal Highway program. The G gets it going and hands it off to the private sector.
But right now we dont have a big idea, a new technology to rally behind. So lets not get ecited and blow our collective wad just yet.
The stimulus is a welfare program disguised as an economic necessity that is filled with pork and earmarks. This will not create jobs and will not stimulate the economy. Everyone is looking to get paid because that is what Obama said he would do.
Cut taxes across the board, including corporate taxes from 35% to 15% and this economy will begin to take off. Let private individuals and private corporations, who will now have more money in their pockets, decide how to spend their cash instead of giving special interest groups who voted for the new admin their payoff.
Seriously - I got all hope and change to despite knowing what these Chi-town gangsters are really like, and while I still believe Obama is good for our international image and just may yet prove to be a centrist, more than likely his enormous union and educational industry debt, as well as medicade program parasitic companies, are about to get their juice loan paid back.
don't you guys watch Rachel Maddow? Tax cuts don't work to stimulate the economy
I can't remember exactly - but we only get 3 pennies back for every dollar spent on tax cuts or something like that - what does work is spending on food stamps - [special interest people! who are hungry]
Sorry my memory was wrong - I guess it's like 30 cents for corporate tax cuts. The point is still there, just not as dramatically - the economy is more stimulated by things other than tax cuts.
Why the Hell would you want to go to school when you can apprentice into the Profession? Save you a bundle of money...and tell me an employee i a firm is who has been there isn't worth more to a firm then some greenhorn just out of University.
you need a degree to ever get your license
if you dont have a B.Arch, and dont want to go and start completely over after having another degree already, you get a M.Arch
true that marms, but the idea that you have to get an M.Arch (which is getting increasingly popular as some assholes want to phase out the B.Arch) is so evil it makes my head spin.
That's a bunch of snake oil medicine La La. How the hell are those numbers calculated? I can make up a pretty pie chart that shows you the exact opposite scenario. Tell me what happens after this round of stimulus money is spent. Do we have another one in 3 months?
Just because YOU have no use for an MARCH doesn't make it a sham. Its necessary if you want to to Architecture; not necessary if you just want to do architecture.
i have never heard that, and if a firm demands you have an M.Arch, after already having an B.Arch, you probably dont want to work there
now having the B.Arch phased out and it just be an M.Arch? i think i have heard some things like that
so what, you just go to school 6-7 years vs 5 years?
kind of dumb, considering you dont learn that much more in the M.Arch
i guess there could be some merit though, as it would make all arch students that much more educated (thats going on the big assumption that the ciriculum would make good use of the extra required time for an M.Arch)
I have always found this thingy....about a Masters a bit wierd.
I can tell you, firms may say their looking for people with a Masters....but if they are worth a grain a salt....they can see
talent with either a bachlors...or someone coming from an apprenticeship or for that matter someone from the international sector. It is usually some pin head writting up the add, who isn't the one doing the interview.
I can say I have had my good share of Architectural Experiences and to this day I have never been with out a job for more than a week.
Yup no degree....just learned along the way. Been in my own private practice for 15 years.
show us your pie charts! ep you have pissed me off for the last time!!! this thread is the biggest whinefest in the world. forgive this forgive that. its your parents fault that they were unable to finance your dreams of architectural stardom. you should have realized early on when you were looking at the starchitects of the day. their first projects always seemed to be beach houses for their parents. and the fact that you came from some cul de sac in some nowhere suburb with the name lake, forest, elm, or hills in it and that your parents thought good architecture was whatever houseplan was featured in the local paper's home and garden section for the week should have been a warning light that you should have gone to med school or law school where your huge student debt load would have been manageable and you could still have a normal life and pay your bills rather than living in a studio apartment with four roomates working for somebody with a lisp and spray on pants. you fucked up. most of us did. get over it. or go do something else. go do something that is needed. go be a nurse or a teacher and get your loans forgiven. blame your parents. call them now or email them or maybe they are hip. text them. make them aware of your disappointment in them. not just the monetary shortcomings but the aesthetic shortcomings as well. let them know it is their fault that you are hamstrung by debt and a low paying career that is a pinata for this economy. tell them call them now. bring on the guilt. do it before dinnertime.
This is a retarded idea although I would love to figure out a way to get rid of my loans. We (most of us Id like to believe) knew what kind of crap we would be getting into if we took on loans.
Cancel Student Loan Debt to Stimulate the Economy
"Money that I pay to the gov't now, I'd go out and buy that entertainment center and TV with, maybe even another house. The money stays in the markets instead of being taken out."
In that scenario, borrowers would have simply gotten free school, while someand other individuals would not be getting paid back, which equates to paying for the borrower's eduaction.
There is no additional money "staying" in the market.
If someone gets the free ride, the service will still get paid for by some group of individuals. How that payment is covered negates the "stimulus" effect.
Yes, someone now unencumbered with repayment might run out and buy that flat screen TV. But the group now collecitvely incurring the loss of not getting paid back, will then collectively compensate by reigning in what THEY might otherwise have been able to spend from the principle and interest they were originally owed and expected.
if that is how we are going to look at it, then the only solution KURT is for everyone to get the exact same amount of money back
otherwise there will always be someone who can complain they didnt get as much as someone else
there will always be a group bitching about their "loss" of not getting paid for something
kurt, what you seem to be missing is that we are talking about forgiving federal loans. the group collectively incurring the loss is the federal government. therefore the money would be going back into the market because it is not going back into the government coffers.
and even so, if there's any group that needs to collectively reign in their spending it is them. ;)
so if one guy has 100k in loans and another guy has 40k in loans does the guy with 40k in loans get an extra 60k in forgiven loan money to stimulate the economy? or do they get a gratis diploma from a more expensive uni because they decided to go to a cheaper school so they wouldn't have to incur the same debt but maybe feel that their less expensive university is not quite as valuable? because i intentionally went to a cheaper school to incur less debt even though my superior intellect would have allowed me to attend a more expensive college.
no matter when anything like this would have been implemented, someone would be in that situation
so we all need to drop it, unless we want to say everyone, no matter what their status, gets X amount of dollars to do with what they please
if you have less debt, why cant anyone just be happy because they have less debt?
why is there the constant, oh poor me, i dont get as much from the government?
vado, i don't think what we are discussing has anything to do with the future of student loans. instead it addresses the exponential growth in student lending in the last 10-15 years and its effect on the economy. there is no doubt that funding for higher education in the u.s. must be changed, but i think that's another issue.
or if you are talking about the current situation, no, an individual with $10,000 in loans is forgiven for $10,000. an individual with $100,000 in loans is forgiven for $100,000. sadly, in this scenario, you can't retroactively take out more money.
if you willingly chose to go to a less expensive school, why on earth should you get money to compensate for student loans you dont have from a school you didnt go to?
and this whole discussion is the reason why this is not a realistic option
everyone and their mother would come out bitching and moaning that they arent getting enough back
"the group collectively incurring the loss is the federal government. "
Let's see...who funds the federal government coffers... hmm... ummm...
I LOVE that people here keep explaining to me what I'M missing.
whatevs, kurt, you can go on thinking what you want. i'm through with you.
so while it is fun to see it all get so testy in here, what is the idea that is better than this proposed student loan forgiveness plan?
its very easy to bitch about something and tear it apart, but its another thing to actually come up with a better solution
Some interesting philosophies about money around here. It's free!
A good solution is if they just forgave us from interest rates at least.
It tears me apart when I see 50k turn into 80k.
well then what about those people who were smart enough to go to a cheaper school and dont have as much in student loans?
should they be compensated for the interest they would have incurred had they gone to a more expensive school?
that tears me apart too Archmed
i think that is actually a viable solution, at least on a temporary basis during this economic downturn
and before anyone jumps on that comment, yes i realize this will not save the economy by itself and yes i understand those people without student loans will not seem to get as big a break
deal with it
I went to a public school too that wasn't all that expensive and I still took in 60k of debt.
I think that they should just forgive the interest all together. and I think that they should further assist people who have lost their jobs. Instead they seem to be giving people a "tough shit" attitude.
i agree, the focus should be on those unemployed currently, rather than just giving out money
while throwing money around might stimulate the economy to the point where new jobs are made, a stimulus check helps someone who lost their job only so much
honestly, i have a little over 60k in debt from 7 years in school
i am fine paying that back because i still have a job and am somewhat secure with it, at least in regards to today's climate
throwing me a little bit of money wont change how i do things that much, which in turn, makes my impact on the economy virtually no different with or without any aid
throwing it at those without jobs, while better, doesnt change the fact that they dont have jobs
but i would say the focus should be on those without jobs, either to help them get new jobs, or to help them survive until they get a new job
I dunno about 'forgiveness' - but 'protection' certainly. In times like these I would be helpful to have an interest free forbearance with a 6month review period - if at that time you do not have the income to pay back your loan, you have another 6 months, etc. Maybe a max of 2 years protection?
wow, beefeaters, thanks for posting that. best thing to come out of this thread.
this sounds more reasonable. I'm also for the fed increasing the cap on how much they loan so that students don't get stuck with private loans at a higher rate. If fed loans aren't enough to cover the cost of an education at a public university, something isn't right.
"so while it is fun to see it all get so testy in here, what is the idea that is better than this proposed student loan forgiveness plan?
Not forgiving loans.
"if that is how we are going to look at it, then the only solution KURT is for everyone to get the exact same amount of money back"
Yes, if you agree on zero as the amount.
economic problems of our country are solved
awesome
who knew it was a simple as rejecting this one idea
so do you think there should be no stimulus packages of any type?
I promise to incur more debt (ie. mortgage) in exchange for the cancellation of my existing student loan debt
then you will have everyone who was able to own a house while having a student loan crying because they didnt get that same exchange
wow, its so easy to find the negative in everything
Theres only one stimulus - cut taxes, and cut spending, raise the value of the dollar.
Gov. stimulus is a tool used for majot things too big for any one industry - such as NASA, Hoover Dam Authority, Federal Highway program. The G gets it going and hands it off to the private sector.
But right now we dont have a big idea, a new technology to rally behind. So lets not get ecited and blow our collective wad just yet.
The stimulus is a welfare program disguised as an economic necessity that is filled with pork and earmarks. This will not create jobs and will not stimulate the economy. Everyone is looking to get paid because that is what Obama said he would do.
Cut taxes across the board, including corporate taxes from 35% to 15% and this economy will begin to take off. Let private individuals and private corporations, who will now have more money in their pockets, decide how to spend their cash instead of giving special interest groups who voted for the new admin their payoff.
Seriously - I got all hope and change to despite knowing what these Chi-town gangsters are really like, and while I still believe Obama is good for our international image and just may yet prove to be a centrist, more than likely his enormous union and educational industry debt, as well as medicade program parasitic companies, are about to get their juice loan paid back.
don't you guys watch Rachel Maddow? Tax cuts don't work to stimulate the economy
I can't remember exactly - but we only get 3 pennies back for every dollar spent on tax cuts or something like that - what does work is spending on food stamps - [special interest people! who are hungry]
The government only gets back 3 penies, the people get more economic prosperity
i don't know
what about instead of spending investing it in green technology?
Sorry my memory was wrong - I guess it's like 30 cents for corporate tax cuts. The point is still there, just not as dramatically - the economy is more stimulated by things other than tax cuts.
Evilp, if im not mistaken, both I and Vado think the M.arch is a hustle.
I'm finishing my B.arch and then i'm going to business school to sell out and pursue an MBA in real estate development.
I hope i dindt anger Vado. I meant he was good wierd.
a M.Arch is a hustle if you have a B.Arch
if you dont have a B.Arch, and have another degree in something else, then an M.Arch is not a hustle at all
Why the Hell would you want to go to school when you can apprentice into the Profession? Save you a bundle of money...and tell me an employee i a firm is who has been there isn't worth more to a firm then some greenhorn just out of University.
you need a degree to ever get your license
if you dont have a B.Arch, and dont want to go and start completely over after having another degree already, you get a M.Arch
true that marms, but the idea that you have to get an M.Arch (which is getting increasingly popular as some assholes want to phase out the B.Arch) is so evil it makes my head spin.
That's a bunch of snake oil medicine La La. How the hell are those numbers calculated? I can make up a pretty pie chart that shows you the exact opposite scenario. Tell me what happens after this round of stimulus money is spent. Do we have another one in 3 months?
Just because YOU have no use for an MARCH doesn't make it a sham. Its necessary if you want to to Architecture; not necessary if you just want to do architecture.
i have never heard that, and if a firm demands you have an M.Arch, after already having an B.Arch, you probably dont want to work there
now having the B.Arch phased out and it just be an M.Arch? i think i have heard some things like that
so what, you just go to school 6-7 years vs 5 years?
kind of dumb, considering you dont learn that much more in the M.Arch
i guess there could be some merit though, as it would make all arch students that much more educated (thats going on the big assumption that the ciriculum would make good use of the extra required time for an M.Arch)
LOL @ silverlake!
Do you have any idea that many superb, capital A architects, even today, did not get a Masters in the field?
Tado Ando didn't even go to architecture school.
Did you know this house wasn't designed by an architect at all and yet its commonly referenced in academia?
I have always found this thingy....about a Masters a bit wierd.
I can tell you, firms may say their looking for people with a Masters....but if they are worth a grain a salt....they can see
talent with either a bachlors...or someone coming from an apprenticeship or for that matter someone from the international sector. It is usually some pin head writting up the add, who isn't the one doing the interview.
I can say I have had my good share of Architectural Experiences and to this day I have never been with out a job for more than a week.
Yup no degree....just learned along the way. Been in my own private practice for 15 years.
snook dude, please write a book for me to read
show us your pie charts! ep you have pissed me off for the last time!!! this thread is the biggest whinefest in the world. forgive this forgive that. its your parents fault that they were unable to finance your dreams of architectural stardom. you should have realized early on when you were looking at the starchitects of the day. their first projects always seemed to be beach houses for their parents. and the fact that you came from some cul de sac in some nowhere suburb with the name lake, forest, elm, or hills in it and that your parents thought good architecture was whatever houseplan was featured in the local paper's home and garden section for the week should have been a warning light that you should have gone to med school or law school where your huge student debt load would have been manageable and you could still have a normal life and pay your bills rather than living in a studio apartment with four roomates working for somebody with a lisp and spray on pants. you fucked up. most of us did. get over it. or go do something else. go do something that is needed. go be a nurse or a teacher and get your loans forgiven. blame your parents. call them now or email them or maybe they are hip. text them. make them aware of your disappointment in them. not just the monetary shortcomings but the aesthetic shortcomings as well. let them know it is their fault that you are hamstrung by debt and a low paying career that is a pinata for this economy. tell them call them now. bring on the guilt. do it before dinnertime.
that was badass to read vado
LOL
This is a retarded idea although I would love to figure out a way to get rid of my loans. We (most of us Id like to believe) knew what kind of crap we would be getting into if we took on loans.
Apurimac, those capital A architects you speak of were established before licensing regulations were changed..
I'd be interested in examples younger generation ones. Probably ain't many..
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.