Trump's Last Minute Plan for Student Debt

Hannah Finnie and Maggie Thompson,writers for the political blog site Think Progress, have co-authored a critique of Donald Trump's recently unveiled student debt plan. They start off by criticizing Donald for reveling his plan with only 26 days left in the election, accusing him of "...trying out another con on the American voters...." They explain that in a speech in Ohio, Trump proposed a relatively good plan, they even thought it sounded similar to Obama's reforms. Trump's proposal is to create an income-driven repayment plan that would place a cap on repayments dependent on the borrower's income. He is also suggesting loan forgiveness after 15 years. Although this sounds like a good idea, Hannah and Maggie are quick to point out that, "...Trump has said many times that he wants to shut down or reduce to shreds the Department of Education..." They note that the Republican Party platform even promotes the removal of the government from education. With this information, they argue that if Trump has his way, and eliminates federal student loans, students would be forced to go through private companies. Leaving the government to pay back billions of dollars of unpaid debt each year to those companies after the 15 year mark is up and the student loans have been forgiven. They declare that all of that money would go right to Wall Street as "...giveaways...." They also argue that interest rates would climb during those 15 years, from the 4.75% currently given to federal loan borrower's to 9.5-19% from private markets. This is especially troubling to low credit and low-income students whose payments, as claimed by the authors, could increase by as much as 78% over the life of their loan. This is assuming they were able to get the loan in the first place, as many banks would not consider them good borrowers to lend to. The coauthors provided a chart of how much more students would be paying over the life of the loan from each state. For an example, according the the table, in Texas alone students would end up paying $6,824-$22,744 more than they would with federal loans. I think it is really beneficial that the authors decided to include this graph because it really puts it into perspective how much damage this plan can cause students. I think they did a good job of not just presenting the facts, but explaining how they came to these conclusions as well. But Hannah and Maggie don't stop there, they describe how Trump, in a statement made last week, implied "...that he is considering the elimination of other programs to help borrowers, like Public Service Loan Forgiveness." They also call Trump out for using a discredited study to make his case to de-regulate schools. The authors declare that Trump's plan would only hurt students, and with time running out in the campaign, he has not provided anything more than "...empty rhetoric."

Hannah is a Senior Policy and Communications Associate with Generation Progress, and Maggie is the Executive Director of Generation Progress. Both work for the Millennial Engagement arm of the Center for American Progress. I believe this article is directed at college aged voters, as this plan would affect them the most. I find them both credible and reliable in their claims that Trump has created a devious plan that would have serious consequences for students. They offered not only their opinions, but accurate information and evidence to better uphold their thoughts, and I am inclined to believe them.

Neither Third-Party Candidates Deserve Your Vote

Washington Post opinion writer, Catherine Rampell, penned an article detailing just how unqualified the alternative candidates are for the presidency. Her opinion is made clear by the title of the piece alone, declaring, 'Both third-party candidates would be terrible presidents'. Catherine began by referring to some polling data showing how many young Americans are "...desperately seeking alternatives (to the main choices)..." , and about a third of young voters plan on voting for a third-party candidate. She provides quotes from President Barack Obama, as well as, Senator Bernie Sanders pleading with the American people to not vote for the alternates out of protest. Senator Sanders even goes so far as  to remind Americans that one of the two major party candidates will be elected, implying that a third party vote would be ineffective. She seems to be directing this article towards the younger voters in an attempt to sway their decision making during this upcoming election. Catherine argues that if these "underdog" candidates had a chance of winning, then by all means they should be voted for. However, she also contends that the choices we do have; Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Evan McMullin, are not worthy of our votes. She states that our options are, "...terrible, unserious..." and "...unfit for office."

Catherine then moved into the attack starting with Gary Johnson. She began the assault by pointing out his downright stupidity on foreign affairs and foreign policy knowledge. Using directly quoted evidence from MSNBC's prime-time event, wherein Johnson was given the chance to speak on his platform following the national debates. Catherine explains, "Johnson could not name a single foreign leader worthy of respect." She argues that his interview on MSNBC, as well as many other public flubs regarding foreign affairs indicates his, "...apparent disinterest in learning about the world around him..." and has, "...proven him unworthy of the presidency." Catherine makes a point to not only criticize his denseness in worldly affairs, but also his ignorance on current and past events within our own country. She recalls an incident recently, that when asked about the recent terrorist attacks in New York and Minnesota, Johnson seemed unaware of the dozens injured in those attacks by replying that he was, "...just grateful nobody got hurt." Catherine also mentions that in June, Johnson asked one of his aides,"Who's Harriet Tubman." She argues that his campaign managers try to spin his ignorance as evidence that he is "a real person", and while she agrees that he very much is an average person, Catherine believes that he is unprepared to be the president.

While Catherine wrote at great lengths to discredit Johnson, she makes quick work of criticizing Jill Stein and Evan McMullin. In her arguments against Stein, she points out that, "Despite being a medical doctor who knows better, she's pandered to anti-vaxxers; expressed strong stances on high-profile issues...only to abruptly reverse herself without explanation; and...trafficked in conspiracy theories, among other disqualification behaviors." Personally, I would have liked to see some of these points expanded on with the same detail allotted to Johnson. Least informative of all however, was her single argument against Evan McMullin declaring, "The most memorable thing he's done thus far in the election it to accidentally pick the wrong running mate." Again, I think some more background information, or expansion on the point she is making would be beneficial for the reader to make an educated opinion about the candidate. Catherine ends her article expressing her opinion that, because these third-party candidates haven't been under as much media scrutiny, Americans may "...think of them as the purer choices for the presidency." She believes that because of this, the candidates aren't "doing their homework" and that if Americans end up voting for them, "you haven't done yours either."

Catherine is a long time journalist of politics, public policy and economics. She has also won awards for her evidence-based journalism, so her statements are credible and reliable, and I for one believe her opinion is to be trusted and considered while making a choice this election season.