Hello fellow members of FSLDtoStE. Earlier today I was on a walk and was thinking about the proposal. It's a proposal I stand whole-heartedly behind. However, when I discuss this proposal as a means of stimulating the economy with others, they think it's patently unfair. "Even if," they say, "this proposal were to fix the horrible economy, it's not fair to me, when I paid for my children's college without having to take out loans." And it's true, isn't it? Support for this proposal, no matter how effective it may be, would always lag because it seems patently unfair. That hundreds of billions could be forgiven without those of us who benefitted from the loans having to continue repayment ruffles people. Well, I think there's a solution to this problem that deals with our accountability while providing us the forgiveness we need that would allow us to put money otherwise directed to large monthly payments directly into the economy.
Here's the idea laid out via my current understanding of the proposal, and my own situation.
So, after paying for graduate school and law school through federal and private loans, I have about $130,000 in student loans. If the balance of my loans is forgiven, the idea, so far as I have always understood it, means that the banks still get their money, since they'd be paid off using the forgiveness funds (and therefore would have more lending power in the present), and I have more spending power, because, instead of paying around $1000 per month in student loans to the government and my private lenders, I can take that money and spend it - on a home, car, food, etc. Under the original proposal, all student loans would be forgiven and that's the end of the game. But, as I've written above, people I've talked to, despite being sympathetic to the student loan situation, feel it's unfair that those who have been able to pay for their kids' college without loans then bear a burden, whereas someone like me, who took out loans, ends up with a free ride. Under the original idea, it's a tough sell to those not benefitting directly from the forgiveness, even if it would redistribute millions/billions of dollars into the economy, instead of to paying off interest on loans to banks.
Now, in my limited awareness of the federal bailout, many of those funds were to be recovered/repaid. But asking those of us who are bailed out of our student loan debt to repay the bailout/forgiveness would just end up looking like a zero-gain. Or would it? Here's where my idea comes into play:
Suppose my $130k gets wiped clean. My idea is to then classify me as "blue-funded." As someone who's "blue-funded," every subsequent financial transaction I make would be with my new "Blue card." Under this card, for every transaction I make (at the grocery store, buying a house, buying a car, taking cash out of my accounts) I would be paying a 10% tax that would go directly towards the principal of my "Blue-fund" account. So, that $130k used to bail me out? It's the amount owed on my Blue account. The idea is, while I'd be getting my loans wiped clean, and therefore escape years of $1000 monthly payments going towards interest, I'd still be making small, discrete payments towards the amount used to bail me out. So, e.g., say I buy merchandise for $100. WA state taxes would put that up to about $110. The Blue-tax would put that up to $120, with that new $10 going directly towards my Blue-fund account repayment.
To work, the Blue-fund account would likely have to supersede every other account of mine - a sort of Meta-account, so that I couldn't just "end-around" the system and never pay that 10% Blue-tax. But, notice. Let's say as a teacher next year I make $3600 a month in spendable income. Under the current system, if I were just paying my loans back, and I made all of my payments (both private and federal), I might be paying $1000, with very little of that going to principle. That leaves me $2600 for rent, groceries, car bills, utilities, etc. But that $1000 is over 27% of my spendable income after taxes. However, under the Blue-fund system, if I spend every dime of my spendable income for one month, 10% of everything purchased would still only be $360. The Blue-fund literally caps repayment at 10%, with all the collected funds being applied towards principle (no interest). If I only ever made enough such that 10% of my monthly spending equalled $360 paid back per month, my repayment would still be 30 years, which is where I am now. But instead of being absolutely hammered financially, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more in interest over 30 years, I'm consistently paying amounts that I can afford when I spend the money used to forgive my debt and put it directly into the economy.
Remember, the idea of being bailed out is to spend the money - to put that into the economy. So, under this plan, when you spend money, for the benefit of having had our loans forgiven, we become a unique sort of taxpayer, with a personalized Blue-tax. Thus, whenever you spend money, you pay this Blue-tax, until the amount you owe is paid back. Notice too, if I earn more money and spend more of what I earn, then I can pay off the blue account sooner.
For this idea to be viable and remain attractive to those of us who believe in forgiving student loan debt to stimulate the economy, I figure that the Blue-fund account would have to be something that is non-collectable. Thus, if I were to become unemployed, and was living on familial handouts and thus not spending any of my own money, the government couldn't collect on the owed Blue-fund dollars. There would thus be no minimum monthly blue-fund payments.
However, several other things would have to exist for this to be a viable option. Large scale purchases, say of homes, etc., would likely have to have capped Blue-fund payments. Either a flat cap, say, $5000, or something like 1 or 2%. Say I want to buy a house at $250,000. If I had to finance that with a loan, being charged an additional 10% towards the Blue-fund would make me have to pay a $25,000 tax, likely making the transaction prohibitive or meaning I'd have to take out an additional $25,000 to meet that fund's requirements. But that just shifts my payment burdens back to a bank who then makes interest off of it. Instead, for large purchases, the capping mechanism would be built in to prevent such prohibitions while still collecting a fair portion of Blue-fund dollars to pay back.
The other idea, which may be easier to effect (though it still has its issues), would be to slap 10% directly on earnings. Though, if someone is unemployed, they're not getting hit with the tax.
Perhaps this idea is not feasible, since it would require the formation of an oversight agency, etc. But, including a payoff option, in good faith, may be enough to encourage new support. It also keeps the responsibility of repayment in the hands of those who benefitted. In all, this method is a way to have our debt removed and replaced with something new and different, capping payments towards this debt, while encouraging the spending of the newly forgiven monies directly back to the economy.
The other major flaw I see as of now, is that people with small loan amounts and thus small monthly payments would need a smaller cap (say 3%). My wife, who owes about $18,000 in student loan payments, pays about $84 per month. But a 10% Blue-tax would be far greater than her current payment amounts and thus create a larger burden for her. With smaller Blue-taxes for those with smaller loan amounts, this problem could easily be addressed and managed.
Thoughts?
It really isn't the business of the people who are privileged enough to be able to pay for their childrens entire college tuition (i.e. therefore they are either in a higher than normal income bracket, which is unfair to lower income people, or they happen to be in a state that provides low tuition to local residents, which means their tuition is subsidized, and unfair to those who don't have those subsidies--or perhaps their child was either more academically gifted, or just more savvy on how to access scholarships, which is also unfair to those aren't.)
It's my opinion that a push for forgiveness should go alongside a policy of free college education for all from now on--that would be more "fair" and hopefully the self-righteous bitterness of some would be appeased by that. Otherwise, restore full bankruptcy protections, and leave it to the courts just like all other debts, not the random public. We live in an extremely unequal society, so if we are really looking for fairness, it is time to redistribute some of that wealth as concrete benefits for everyone; not just harangue people at the bottom of the economy for not paying toxic usurous debts. And let the banks, let sallie mae, fall and fail.
First of all, the lack of bankruptcy protections on student loans was due to corporate lobbying and the senate maneuvers of right wing politicians over decades; you might research that. I see below that you give your own story of how you were privileged enough, in circumstances unfair to others (if indeed you went to college in decades past, when tuition prices were significantly lower, that is also an unfair privilege in comparison to those of us who graduated more recently), to be able to graduate without student loan debt. I suggest you read of some of the student loan stories here; filled with real human tragedy, people that got sick and couldn't finish their degree but have many tens of thousands of undischargeable student loan debt anyways; people having their social security garnished whilst they are disabled and living in terrible poverty.
The banks should not be given further power to harass and own these people via the "blue card." Countries such as Australia don't bother with a special bank card, but have income contingent repayment--i.e. if you don't ever make it above a certain income bracket, you don't have to pay the loans back at all.
Guaranteeing everyone a college education is not a "free ride" any more than the public school systems here are. Should people be forced to pay for their kindergarten, elementary, and high school educations directly out of pocket, through high interest loans to private banks once they graduate? I also don't think that people should have to go through a miserable peonage of saving up money as a paperboy while growing up and then working a full-time job through college; unrealistic circumstances for everyone to undertake, and ultimately detrimental to the quality of student life in my opinion.
I can't pay my student loans, and they are in themselves unfair--both in interest, in amount, in terms, and because of the fact that they prevent me from having any kind of decent living from the employment I've found available--so I'm not going to.
Vaciam...I think you need to get off whatever high horse you think you're on. I know why bankruptcy protections on student loans don't exist. What I don't understand is your tone in this thread.
My story is one of privilege? Graduating from college in 2002, my masters program in '03, and law school in '07, with $130k in debt from graduate and law school, but because my single mother worked, went to night school, and supported 3 children, I worked from the time I was 10 - 17, then again in college, and was therefore just able to eek out no debt in undergraduate makes me privileged? If making it out debt free makes someone privileged, then your arguments beg the question. You can't work your logic backwards and expect to be taken seriously. I would caution though, that referring to the mere existence of student loan debt as unfair will unhinge the legitimacy of this movement. Robert's done great things here, but talking about it solely in terms of unfairness will make those we'd need to appeal to for mass support (which would be needed to enact legislation) turn their eyes. For example, saying that it's an unfair privilege for having gone to school in earlier decades, when tuition was cheaper, is ridiculous. Tuition was cheaper, cost of living was cheaper, inflation was less, but incomes were lower.
I've read stories here, and I know the stories of plenty of people personally. You don't need to act high and mighty, as if there's a range of crappy situations, and we're ranked, and we get points for being crapped on. I lost my job last October and substitute taught all last year while supporting my wife and son. Between unemployment and substitute pay (which is not very much), I was able to make payments on my private student loans while having my federal loans in hardship forbearance. The amount of my federal loans, in forbearance now for two years and going on three, is now more than when I started. So spare me this ridiculousness that I have no clue about how hard it is to make ends meet. This site isn't about making ourselves feel better by collecting our sob stories. This site is to generate the support needed to make the movement work. But it can't work if we look at the problem and say "here's the only way it can happen, and if it doesn't happen this way, then everybody sucks, and I'm taking my ball and going home." Waa waa. Cry me a river.
Would I love to have free college education in this country. Yes I would. But try selling that in the midst of this economy. You think anyone other than the most liberal members of Congress are going to support something like that? In the end, it doesn't matter how idealistic something is - what matters is whether you can get anything accomplished. Your lofty ideals of free college for all are great, but what are the odds of that ever passing in this country?
You've misunderstood my proposal, too. I never said this Blue-fund would be bank run. In fact, I said it would be agency run, as in, run by the federal government. Good for Australia - that'd be a good system. But if it never passes in America, if you can't get the legislature to buy into that and pass it, what good does Australia's system do us? None.
As for calling my personal circumstances peonage - lol - it's called working hard to accomplish things in life. Given the fact that college isn't free, student do have to work hard. Undermining the fact that many students bust their asses to save for college, only by calling it a peonage system, is disrespectful. I take it you graduated more recently than me? Part of this new generation of students that research is now showing have a greater sense of entitlement and less of a respect for the work needed to accomplish academic success?
I don't think anyone in their right mind believes the current system of student lending is particularly fair, but then, we didn't have to take out the loans, did we? We didn't have to go to school, and didn't have to get our degrees. Sorry you haven't found work...I've been there and it's a shitty place to be. But not taking responsibility for your debts isn't the answer. And barking up my tree for my having the gumption to brainstorm a potential fix to this mess is certainly not an effective means of accomplishing anything.
I'll leave you with this idea, supported by a fantastic article from Time Wise: having a college degree does not entitle you to any particular success or privilege. http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/of-collateral-damage-and-roosting-c...
Income was not lower in past decades; it was higher. Wages have fallen over the past forty years, while the cost of living, the cost of housing, of tuition, as well as corporate profits and productivity have gone up immensely. So indeed, it is unfair for people who, for instance, back in the sixties-seventies would have paid very little if they did have to pay out of pocket for a college education, to preach to those of us who had to pay 80,000 or 90,000 for an undergraduate degree and with interest rates and a predatory student loan system that didn't exist at that time. Being a paperboy wouldn't have provided that amount, and neither would any single mother have forked it over. But yes, indeed, you were privileged by having a parent who cared about contributing to college (not all do) and by the coincidence of lower tuition costs than some others have. You implied in your first post that you were talking about other people who are bitter about forgiving student debt, but now it sounds like you were talking about yourself.
And yes, everyone is entitled to guaranteed free college education, single payer health care, a living wage job with good working conditions and paid vacation. It's called human rights. I'm glad that young people are willing to stand up for themselves instead of falling for the scam of rewardless, no-benefits wage-slavery euphemised as "hard work" when differences really do come down to coincidences and privileges. You have a sense of entitlement yourself--thinking you are entitled to a higher income than anyone else because you were subjected to child labor.
Demanding what you actually want is a much better point to bargain and compromise from; and people actually afflicted by a problem demanding real justice is not "crying," it is rather immensely practical. The proposal is not the problem, the lack of real democracy in this country so that congress will actually listen and care to what the people want is. It is ironic that you accuse me of being impractical about bringing a proposal before the conservatives in congress when you miss the fact that those privatization-loving people, pumped full of bank-lobbyist money, would surely balk at running such a thing through a federal agency.
My tone in this post is because we don't need the support of miserable, bitter bystanders to get student loan justice--there are plenty of people already sympathetic to us, we just need a way of getting through to Washington.
Moving past your misapplication of economics...
Human rights doesn't mean paid vacation...human rights doesn't mean free college education...human rights doesn't even mean a single payer health care system. Human rights typically align with what we consider natural rights, and typically deals with things like having access to basic needs. Paid vacation is not a basic need. A free college education is not a basic need. A single payer health care system is not a basic need.
Your posts are high on divisive rhetoric, and short on justification. "Rewardless, no-benefits wage-slavery euphemised as 'hard work.'" Seriously - have you ever been anywhere in this world outside of the United States? Have you seen examples, first hand, of this world that are still examples of what life was like before the industrial revolution? The human condition, necessarily, is one that requires hard work to survive. What you're talking about is a free ride. And your freshman level communistic idealism belittles any credibility that Robert's movement has. There are not enough people sympathetic to this cause to get through to Washington. You need the vote of Congress to get this through, and spouting rhetoric like yours isn't helpful.
Subjected to child labor? I chose it. And I benefitted from it. And I don't sit in a position of privilege thinking I'm entitled to greater pay. I took a pay cut to forego the law to teach. You're just an angry, pretentious radical whose ideas are necessarily flawed. For example, you contend this country has a lack of real democracy - what would "real" democracy look like then? Of course conservatives would balk! This isn't a proposal for conservatives. This is a proposal that would require the backing of every liberal member of Congress. This isn't a conservative idea; it's a liberal one.
I know you'd like to think I'm some "miserable, bitter bystander," but I'm not the one decrying how inhumane this country is because not everyone has paid vacations. Your perspective is such a poorly thought out one, that, despite your ability to strand together complete sentences (which, in this day and age - kudos for that at least), the points you're making are just flat. For example - having a parent who loves you isn't a privilege. It has nothing to do with privilege. I know first hand that lots of parents don't care about their kids, but the base-line for parenting isn't neglect, such that, for any child who isn't neglected he's privileged. Such a distinction creates a false dichotomy. Rather, the base-line is that parents DO love their children, and for those who have crappy parents, it then becomes a burden. But being loved isn't a privilege, and your attempt to characterize it as such demonstrates your lack of understanding of the word.
Good luck getting your student loans forgiven when what you're preaching will turn off most people. There are effective ways to negotiate, but being a belligerent little shit isn't one of them.
Look up the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, drafted in part by Elenore Roosevelt, and educate yourself on the great tomes written since then on economic/labor rights and you will see that indeed, full employment with living wages, single payer health care, free college education are human rights that belong to everyone. In many northern European countries this standard of living is indeed seen as a right, because instead of focusing on hateful condescension and bitterness aimed at young people, they fought for and demanded a good economic situation for all people instead of letting a small elite swallow 90%+ of the wealth in their nations like what has happened to the US.
I stand by what I said; both you and the bitter burgeous losers you talked to who resent either student loan forgiveness or treating student loans just like any other debt, have elements in your own situations that are unfair and privileged when compared to other people; so you have no right to resent others getting relief. And that is the correct response to the pathetic egocentric losers, not selling other people out who really need and demand to have the debt cleared. You have no right nor basis from which to preach and attempt to interfere with the pursuit of student loan justice to replace it with a regressive sales tax.
I'm sure when people see how nasty you are, they won't bother responding to any of your other posts.
The legal foundations for human rights, the philosophical doctrines of human rights, and then let's talk. I'm familiar with the Universal Declaration, but that doesn't make it the end-all, be-all for what constitutes human rights. If you want to talk about rights, we can do that. Since you want to flout the fact that you've read other authors, why don't you start flouting your own ideas or understanding of the bigger picture when it comes to rights discussions, both the legal implications and the philosophical ones. Stating that something is a human right doesn't make it so. As I said before, human rights tend to flow from natural rights, and natural rights are rights that would exist necessarily from the human condition. Work, and employment, capitalism, vacation days, don't necessarily exist from the human condition. Thus, any talk of some sort of rights that would flow in regards to employment would not be natural rights, or necessary human rights, they'd be contingent, man-created rights. Rights such as these aren't necessarily less meaningful, but their application is more limited, since there are circumstances in which they wouldn't be applicable. For example, we tend to think of voting rights as inalienable, but that's because, despite what you might believe, we live in a country that values democracy. Try applying universal voting rights to the Masai, in Kenya, and you'll get looked at funny. Voting doesn't exist there, and thus, such a "right" doesn't exist. I know it's tough for a radical like yourself to distinguish between such concept, contingent and necessary rights, but you'll have to try. After this discussion, I'm having a hard time believing you have student loans at all - you don't sound very educated. You rely on ad hominem personal attacks, support your arguments with malice instead of reason, and expect to be taken seriously only because you have a passable vocabulary.
You can call me nasty, that's fine. You've already called me a burgeous (sic) loser. But you're just flat wrong when you insinuate that I have no interest in student loan forgiveness. I have a sincere interest in the passage of these reforms, but I'm also practical. Beating a drum loudly, insistent that the only way to forgive student loan debt is to wipe it from the map, with no concessions, isn't negotiating, it's just a presentation of demands. But, since you're not experienced in negotiation, it seems, take a tip from me: people who have the power to grant what you want don't like to give that power away for free; what's their motivation to give and not receive anything in return. Sure, you say, they forgive our loan debt and the economy improves itself because then student borrowers across the country have new, disposable income that they can put directly into the market place. But, c'mon - first, they'd have to believe that such a method would work, and second, they'd have to believe they could make it would AND not be punished at the polls. It's politics, but the practicality doesn't seem to matter to you. You'd rather yell about flat forgiveness, and never get it, than consider other means to obtain what you want. If you've paid attention at all the most basic premise of my post, it's that in offering to take on a 10% tax, student lenders would be out from interest rates, they'd be out from the threat of collection, they'd be out from the fear of not being able to afford college because this program would allow anyone who wishes it not only access to the funds, but the promise that the repayment would only ever be on principal, and would be capped at a mere percentage of your income.
The 10% model I've proposed is well and good for someone like me, with over $130k in student debt, but a more practical proposal would have borrows repaying at 1% per $10,000 borrowed, capped at either 10%, or pushed up an additional 2-5% per additional $100k borrowed. The idea being, there should be a correlation between student loan debt and income potential (i.e. the more you borrow, the more education you should have and thus, the greater probability that you would make more money - e.g. the only person I ever knew with $500k in student debt was a plastic surgeon, and he was making well over 6 figures).
I have no resentment in others getting relief. Your spin is a mischaracterization of not only my point of view and proposal, but my intentions. I'd be all for widespread forgiveness with no give and take - but I'm pragmatic: the odds of it happening are not high.
Your insistence to demand your debt cleared, without taking any steps to resolve the matter on your own, and without your willingness to look at other avenues besides just widespread forgiveness are laughable - it's like someone who's retirement plan is winning the lotto. Good luck with that.
You can take a look in the mirror when you talk about nastiness. I'm offering up ideas, and you're offering up belittling commentary. If that's what passed for analysis at your university, then perhaps the fastest way for you to get your loans paid is to ask for a refund.
Grow up vaciam. Your belligerence is counter-productive, and it belies your sincerity, even if misplaced.
I'm not going to talk to you about rights any further; what I said stands. I along with many people are going to proclaim that these are human rights, and prosecute our claims to the highest degree; so oh well to you and all others who parade about their "bootstrap" stories as an excuse for severe economic inequality. I see that your definition of sounding educated is to be conservative, establishment-upholding. I disagree.
And we do not have democracy in this country; voting for a television advertised politician is not democracy; especially when our choices are severely limited by the people the media are willing to give time to, and most of all by how much money corporations and other super-rich entities are willing to give a candidate. So they buy their way into office, and then they carry out the corporate charter they've been given. Real democracy would mean that the citizens themselves would have a direct vote, a direct say in policy. That is what I stand for, and I really don't care what you think about it. Discussion over.
Your pathetic defensive tirade does not impress me in the least, and nor does your inability to grasp the argument I was making against what you revealed to be was your argument.
that I didn't grasp your argument, Vaciam, it's that I grasped it, evaluated it, determined it's not a successful argument, and set it aside, and you can't see that.
Proclaim whatever you want. You're the first person ever to call me a conservative, though. That's pretty funny.
The ideal you speak of is as impractical as libertarianism. The fact that you are so unabashedly in favor of uberDemocracy, because our, what did you say "television advertised politician"(s) don't constitute a real democracy, is cute. It's like you're writing a fiction novel about what the world could be like, if only there weren't assholes. Good luck with that.
I agree this discussion should end - I hate having to explain things to people whose level of discourse rests solely on points like "what I said stands," as if reiterating a point made it any more valid. Of course you shouldn't argue rights with me, I'm both a philosopher and lawyer. I'm trained to understand these subjects, to discourse and criticize these subjects, to evaluate and reevaluate these subjects. I'm also a teacher - so, you guessed it, I'm trained to teach these subjects, encourage critical analysis and thoughtful dialogue on these subjects.
My definition has nothing to do with being conservative. But being liberal is not the same as being radical. You, vaciam, are a radical. Your ideas have been thoroughly vetted in the annals of history and remain there. You can insist that what I've engaged in is a "defensive tirade," but you're writing is the one utilized, as I said before, ad hominem attacks, and other logical fallacies. Thanks for contributing to the discussion, but you can take your crackerjack polysci 101 and leave the problem solving to the big boys.
Cheers.
Jman - I'm by no means an expert on administrative efficiency or effectiveness, but I think the Blue-fund program could be run by a federal agency...perhaps even a new agency established specifically for this program. It would create federal jobs, too. In terms of where it starts and stops, I think it only applies to those people whose student loan debts were forgiven. Here's why: student loan borrowers, at least in theory, are in a drastically different position than any general debtor. When you have student loan debt, there should be, again - at least in theory - a corresponding level of income potential. Student loan debt is really, then, a special sort of debt, whereas general consumer debt can arise from many factors, but may not have a corresponding potential to pay off the debt. I imagine this is at least one reason by consumer debt is protected by bankruptcy, whereas student loan debt is not. Also, for some of the reasons you mention, you free someone with a student loan debt, and there's at least a fair assurance that the benefit of that forgiveness will result in money being spent, because the resulting monies that would've otherwise been used to pay off the loan, are now liquid; in general consumer debt, the forgiveness of the debt doesn't correspond as favorably to the idea that there is money otherwise available that the debtor could use to put back into the economy. Therefore, student loan borrowers would be the beneficiary of a program like this. The general consumer debt model has bankruptcy protections, which, rightly or wrongly, work a particular way. Under the Blue-fund model, I envision students alone to have their debt forgiven.
In terms of this meta-account, I would see it working like this: either I have a singular Blue card that I am required to use for all transactions, be it debit or credit, or, all of my other accounts, debit, credit, etc., become subsumed by a Blue rider of sorts, where I could still use those to pay for goods and services, but the Blue portion of the account would now incorporate that 10% tax on all purchases and put that reserved payment towards my Blue-fund account.
The fairness of this model can really only be talked about in terms of educational loan debt. Perhaps it's self-preservation kicking in, but the fight we're looking at under Robert's model isn't debt relief for everyone, consumers alike, but student loan borrowers. Thus, the question of fairness becomes one of "Is it fair that my loan is forgiven, while those who paid for college without taking out loans receive no such reimbursement?" I don't think being able to pay for college is simply the result of being in a higher income bracket, as was suggested by the other responder to this post; and I would disagree that even being in such a bracket is something that's unfair. I can say that I exited undergraduate with no college debt. My mother worked hard when I was young, as a single mother for many years, and saved money for my brothers and I. Not much, but some. Between that, a few small scholarships, money my twin and I saved as paperboys growing up, and working during college, we eeked out with zero debt. My debt came solely from graduate school and law school. I say this only because the question of fairness, whether we believe exists or not, or is justified or not, would ultimately become a PR battle. To garner political support for something like Robert's idea, there would likely need to be concessions. I can't see any conservative politicians getting behind a model that gives out hundreds of billions of dollars to student borrowers without any strings attached. Again, even if the idea works, sometimes politics doesn't care - we see often that the appearance of an idea can matter to people more than the results. And this Blue-fund model is one way to address those concerns.
Think about it - if I were to be Blue-funded, I would in effect be saying "Yes, I could use the help, and I guarantee that if my loans were forgiven, and thus I'm out from paying excessive interest rates, that the money that would otherwise go to making bankers money would go directly into the economy, buying the goods that promote business growth which in turn promotes hiring growth. And I take responsibility for having benefitted from my loans, which is why I'm willing to assume such responsibility in a new and different way by taking on what amounts to a personalized spending tax, which would exist until the balance of the principle for my Blue-fund still exists."
This is outside the box thinking. I've never heard of such a personalized tax. And too, by limiting the Blue-fund model to student loan forgiveness, you side-step the potential abuse of this program, which, if applied to debtors in general, could create an overt financial caste system. (E.g. You're blue-funded (bailed out of student loan debt), you're red-funded (bailed out of consumer debt), you're green-funded (bailed out of commercial debt), etc.)...
As a lawyer and teacher, I'm no financial mastermind; however, this idea seems to allow for student loan recipients to get out from under their burdensome obligations, while still requiring at least a minimal effort to repay the amount.
Vaciam, perhaps this idea of mine could be applied towards the movement to provide "free" college education to all. It's not uncommon in the world for a university education to be subsidized by the government. But in the States, for some reason, there is opposition to this. Whether it's fairness, or whether people don't believe in state subsidized higher education, I don't think the U.S. has ever been close to providing universal funding for those wishing to go to college.
But perhaps the Blue-fund would change that. I go to school, using Blue-fund dollars to pay for the education. Upon graduation, I'm now "Blue-funded," and repay that money via the Blue-card at the 10% rate (or perhaps lower, if the amount of the tuition/expenses is lower) until the loan is paid off. This basically amounts to a zero-interest loan by the government that is paid off, not in monthly lump sums, but in those discrete, daily transactions, that would never amount to more than a fixed percentage of net monthly income.
Whereas this doesn't amount to a "free" education, it eliminates the current system of banks profiting from our having gone to school. Think about that - others profit by our choice to better ourselves. Under this new system, no one "profits" from our decisions, but we don't get a free ride, either. We're responsible for the costs of the education, but not for any sort of "penalty," aka interest rates, that is the real culprit in student loan lending.