If you think college debt is bad, wait until you start paying off the national debt. it would seem that students should think a bit more carefully about how much debt they incur relative to the type of education they are looking for. A four year degree in sociology, journalism or fine art may not be the best investment. I speak from experience. Whining about debt however after agreeing to accept it, and then trying to gain sympathy for your plight by raising the spectre of "a war on youth", is ridiculous.

This is why we need bankruptcy reform for student loans. Currently, there's no bankruptcy option, and they can even go after your Social Security checks. People with massive amounts of student debt should be able to declare bankruptcy after 5-7 years of trying to pay.

Dear Neanderthal er, sorry, I meant Brianderthal,
Perhaps if you had learned basic economics in college you would understand that paying off the national debt is not the problem. Almost all reputable economists agree that keeping money in circulation is more important for the economy than the national debt, and that the education of our young people is absolutely crucial to that end. Please take your stick and beat some really fat heads like yours.

Today's kids are being handed a lot of debt, not only in education, but also by the policies of our politicians in Washington. The constant spending of money we don't have will need to be paid by today's youth. Obamicare will see our youth paying the most for the least. Yes, it appears there is a war on our youth and it is being waged by the very same people who claim to have the youth vote. They are being stabbed in the back and they will not realize it until it is too late.

Today's young adults go to college already schooled in a very important life lesson. Their parents raked up massive credit card, loan, and morgage debt to have the latest and greatest. Why shouldn't they do the same? It is the way American society has been progressing for the past two generations. Americans who survived the Great Depression and then WWII had a different outlook on money and debt. How did we get away from that? It seems we as a society are less likely to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions than we did in the past. I'm not blaming the kids for wanting the best education they can get - they should aspire for the best. But their parents no longer have the money is reserve to help pay for schooling like they did in the past.

Psychologists have shown that, once a person forms an opinion, he or she is unlikely to change it in response to facts that undermine that opinion. Rather, people integrate new facts to conform to what they already believe. Consider the comments above.
Ms Peterson wrote that college debt is both unavoidable and crushing to most people who want a higher education. Instead of responding with helpful suggestions to deal with this problem, writers have essentially confirmed Stephen Marche's "War Against Youth" thesis by discounting the problem.

College loans have always been a source of profit for those who write them. This very week the Senate voted against continuing the interest reduction now in place. More money for bankers. Fewer people able to afford college.

The Talmud says that a poor person cannot be truly free. Those Americans who believe in freedom will work to end poverty--the greatest hinderance, not only to an education, but to freedom itself. The "war" metaphor is obviously an exaggeration; but it points to the reality that our youth are entering adulthood with very bleak prospects for their future. I am guessing that the first concrete measure of this will be an increase in illegal and violent activity--tragically reversing recent decades of improving crime statistics. Von Clausewitz wrote that war is a continuation of politics by other means. Let's stop making war and go forward solving problems peacefully.

Dear mr Katz, you might want to try decaf there kid. Money in circulation is certainly great, especially in a consumer driven economy like ours, it creates jobs and tax revenue as it moves, but what happens as the value of the dollars in circulation deteriorate year after year? I'm sure you can remember when a hundred bucks in your pocket meant something. Its not as exciting as it used to be is it? The kids out there today are going to have decreased buying power, as well as student loan debt and no jobs. All the more reason to focus on your education and get your money's worth from whatever college you might go to. Perhaps a school costing 25 to 55 thousand a year isn't the best move for everyone.

Words and actions in conflict equals lie.

Actually one thing that inflation is GOOD for is paying off debt. You pay off expensive dollars with cheaper ones. So don't use inflation as an excuse to oppose students borrowing money for college.

Not so much a war as selfish neglect.

We isolate our youth from our society, out communities, prescribe a single path to "success" and then complain when they become saddled with debt and limited options. Speaking as both a parent and a grandparent, the modern myth of childhood to adulthood doesn't work very well. Why do we leave half of our youth potential behind? Why do we not provide many options for learning and technical learning, apprenticeship options for example, beyond the touted 4 year baccalaureate degree? Who is going to build the future? Bankers? Harvard and Yale grads?

No. It is our youth. Allow them real world options. Immerse them in the world and mentor them. Let them learn by mistakes which can be overcome. Don't provide one curriculum to success. That works for the very few. Remember how America was built. It was built by the average person who had to find their own particular path to succeed. It wasn't always pretty, but there were the hard lessons of opportunity. Look to youth for the answers, its their life, lives, immerse them in the real world, not hundreds of outdated "schools" which serve the myth from 8th on that a high school diploma followed by a baccalaureate is the only way to suceed.
Hard work and opportunities to try out one's own skills in the real world (mentored by the involved classrooom rather than instructed) is the way that has always worked and will continue if we give it the proper chance.

Richard Lane

I like what you have to say Richard, most of us can recall a teacher, mentor, friend or family member who gave us a chance to succeed and made a difference. What an important point! Johnathan, I don't recall saying that kids shouldn't borrow money for school. What they probably should do however is to be judicious with the money they borrow. Not all schools are worth the price, unless you're a social climber and just need a big name on your diploma.

The young will pay for our nation of government zombies. We are Greece, we just don't know it yet.

College costs and debt are out of control, but the students and parents who complain about it also greatly contribute to the problem. Their expectations have driven up the cost of college. It is no longer an education, it is an "experience." Colleges are competing with each other with building booms that contribute little or nothing to education. New apartment style dorms, fancy dining halls, recreation palaces and programs, gyms, pools, cable tv, technology, and social programs all drive the cost through the roof. The colleges are just responding to the marketplace. All college tours for perspective students emphasize this because this is what students want. They have to get away. Academics are secondary. The students choose to take the debt, and now don't want to pay it off.

Do we more need funding of public colleges? Yes, but what is it buying? Penn State may cost $25K, but you can cut that in half if you go to the local campus and commute. You can cut it even more if you start at LCCC and transfer to the local PSU campus. You can commute to Kutztown or your local State University.

The author misses Mr. Thomas' point completely. A house is more necessary than a college education. The size and location of the house are optional. An education is necessary, but the size and location of it are also optional. In addition, the truly needy get government grants. $60K and up of college debt is often a choice of parents and their spoiled students.

Coursera may be the antidote.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/cheaper-than-harvard-ivy-league-education-online-for-free.html

This debate boils down to "It's the economy stupid" and what to do about it...Suggestions abound, but for me, more government programs to help consumers amass resources to spend must be in place...State and local governments must be able to hire back teachers and other public workers through federal financing (more stimulus)...Private sectors could help out, too...With increase consumer spending comes creation of jobs, ergo, more jobs available for college graduates...Student loans should then be less of a worry because these can be paid off relatively easily.

Wilfredo, where do you think "federal financing (more stimulus)" comes from? Either the Fed prints more paper "money" which creates yet more inflation, or Washington borrows it by selling bonds which increases the national debt, or they hit up we the taxpayers for it. Does any of these options seem like a good idea?

Economic recovery is inching up though painfully slowly...This is no time to slow it down with austerity programs due to concerns about inflation...But a little bit of inflation would give some relief to the private sector burdened by debt from the recent financial debacle...Inflation tends to erode the value of this debt, therefore, encourage corporations to unleash the hoarded cash, go back to the market with investments and help with the recovery once again, and maybe job creation for our graduating class..This would be good for the unemployment numbers, too...As I said earlier, more money to the state and local government to bring back laid off public employees would be a prime source of revenue when these folks start spending their new found cash!..The problem with the initial stimulus program was it has been a half-assed execution, so it did not quite accomplish its purpose...Now austerity is not the answer either...This is not good for a slowly recovering economy (observe Greece, Italy, and other European countries who tried to impose this solution to their financial crisis).

Sorry, but a big help (gotta' say): gas prices!! May not be the core of the problem, however, drives up costs for everyone. 250 Russias just arrested in Red Square for protesting them. I'd hoped the U. S. would join in. Everyone deserves a profit, however, this is something the who world depends on, and as the world fights for economic life, Exxon-Mobil & Hess Oil are at the top of "Fortune 500." START, & KEEP PROTESTING !!

Interesting reading from all participants.
My feelings on this subject is this: If you sign papers and borrow money for a school loan (a popular figure was $60,000), YOU are obligated to pay it back.
Not just shrug your shoulders after 5-7 years (a time frame someone mentioned) and then have the debt waved. That's personal responsibility.

For example, my parents did not have the money to send me to school. I had to take out a loan and got a little bit of grant money on my own. I chose to go to a business school because I knew I did not have the money, nor did I want a large bill at the end of my schooling years. I ended up with a relatively small amount in school loans that has since been paid off. (BTW I don't think I've ever made more than $15,000 a year.) It is all about choices and responsibilities after you make your choice. Man or Woman up. Follow through on your commitments.

One more point I would like to make is this: We ALL have a share of the National Debt forced on us by our representatives that seem to like to spend more money than they know we take in as a nation. THIS has to stop. Everyone of us are burdened by our share which is over $50,000 a person. (Which by the way this is worse than I thought it was...I got the info from the US Nat'l Debt Clock http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ )

Thank you.

I had a friend once who said she never voted; she believed in anarchy. When I expressed surprise--assuming that anarchy meant "chaos"--she, a Greek major, corrected me. Anarchy is a social arrangement that means "no government." People just get along.

I would rather live in a society that pools some of its money to achieve collective goals that cannot be achieved individually--schools, roads, police, environmental and banking regulations, the funding of research that is necessary but which private companies are unwilling to do, protecting our food supply, caring minimally for those who are, inevitably, the losers in a capitalist economy...

But I understand that others don't believe in sharing some of their wealth for collective endeavors (i.e. government). That is what elections are for. If the Tea Party wins, my point of view will lose and my compatriots and I will continue to try to convince our neighbors of a more communitarian style capitalism.

In the meantime, it is clear that readers who agree with Margie Peterson's columns just nod their heads and get on with their lives while some others--a relative few--wait to attack, using whatever subject she writes about as an excuse to vent their anger and push their anti-government screeds. It is predictable and tiresome. And helpful ideas are reduced to such proposals as history majors not be required to learn anything but history to earn a BA degree. For that, one can go to a library--for free.

Patriot2--You hide your identity and publish the obscenity comparing Obama to Hitler. I don't recall hearing President Obama calling a group of Americans subhuman, vermin, insects, and turning the engines of government against them, to kill them all, with insecticide.
Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were "conservative" governments. Democratic Weimar, which the Germans voted to dissolve when they democratically handed Germany over to Hitler, was a liberal government.
You sound to me like a fool when you attack people with labels. College costs have skyrocketed because of market forces, not because administrators are liberal or conservative. Lafayette College is a bastion of conservatism producing the next generation of engineers and hedge fund managers. Their tuition, room, and board is as high as liberal Columbia's. The bookstore is now buying back textbooks from students for over $100 for a USED text--which they will then sell to next year's students for $185, 25% off the price if new. What has this to do with liberalism?
I'd be curious to know what you mean when you use that term, liberalism. Test your thoughts against George W. Bush's policies before you type anything about big government. But first, apologize for the Hitler analogy.

The name of a party does not tell you anything about the party. We are a republican form of government even when led by Democrats. National socialism was not a form of socialism.
And for the sake of intellectual honesty, make your case against Obama; don't just call him names. For a definition of fascism, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Finally, to say that Obama is better compared to a fascist than a Nazi is not an apology. You still owe Patch readers an apology. Obama is the elected leader of the greatest nation in the world. Feel free to disagree with him (and thus with the majority of Americans who elected him) but speak of him with respect because you
include America itself in your trash talk.

I apologize for confusing you with another anonymous writer hiding behind a made up name. I'm glad that you read the Wiki link for "fascism." I'm sorry that you didn't learn anything from it. President Obama is not using the military to expunge foreign influence from American political culture or to force his views on anyone else. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. It was not the result of an executive order or of a military coup. Try not to be a bad loser. The goal was affordable health care for most Americans. That is not an evil goal. And it shouldn't have precipitated the hatred for our President that it did. It is worth asking, "Where is that hatred really coming from?" To refer to the great collaborator--a man criticized repeatedly for being a compromiser, as a fascist is to show, at the very least, a disrespect for words and, more importantly, a lack of understanding of the current political scene.

Whilst the wikipedia article contains much good information, it also has much extraneous information about various corruptions of the original definition of fascism. I prefer the simple, uncomplicated definition from a dictionary which says that it's a philosophy that stands for an centralized, autocratic government with severe economic and social regimentation.

As a liberterian, I find Obama's approach to force churches to fund abortion by his unlegislated regulatory executive order to be an abomination, even though I support choice! That would be one specific example of his autocracy.

Likewise his approach to insurance for health care, no matter how one feels about its merits, is a centralizing usurpation of authority that is not authorized by the US Constitution, so it is a right reserved for the states or the people.

Finally, with regards to the broader economics, I could say that Obama is a tool of the banking cabal as much as any other of his predecessors. After all, along with Bush, Obama did back the original bailout that occurred just before his election, and they even twisted McCain's arm to join them after his initial reluctance. (look it up!)

I'll leave it at that.....

"Extraneous" information? Or information that undermines your calling Obama a fascist?
Obama did not require churches to fund abortion. He required employers (except religious institutions) to provide health insurance for their employees. Employers do not get to decide how we will use our health insurance. It's none of their business unless it's illegal and a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion is a right supported by the Supreme Court. A religious institution cannot take that right away.
Health care was voted in by Congress (are they then "fascists"?) not the President. And the Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate trade. Everyone agrees that that the economic impact of the health care delivery system is an interstate operation. The question is about the mandate. And the federal government has, in the past, mandated health insurance. You just don't hear that among the libertarians. Do you prefer the present system where any uninsured person can walk into an emergency room and demand health care for free? The mandate was a Republican idea to hold people financially responsible for their own health care. Otherwise YOU pay for their care.
Certainly Wall St. bankers have lots of power. But it was Obama--opposed down the line by Republicans--who sought to regulate the investment banks' risky behavior. Obama is trying to reign in the banks. Republicans won't let him.

Just an aside: if the banks went down, every American with a pension would have lost that pension. The banks are too big and too powerful but they had to be saved. It was an ugly solution but it was the best alternative among only bad options the government faced. That's what McCain was finally made to realize.

After reading all the comments, I must say to one degree or another all are making good points. However, we the people have forgotten one important thing. We have the ability to control it all. If you want college to cost less, then you stop attending the expensive schools and attend the less expensive and in many cases better schools for learning. If you want government to use our money more effectively then you with hold your payments until they listen. A consumer driven ecomony is just that...if you don't buy something they either change it or close. Colleges have closed, car models failed and were discontinued (the Pacer) and many more. We, the people who make purchases control the market. We just have to learn how to control ourselves.

Gene T. DiPalma, how exactly does one withhold payment of taxes to any government without serious consequences? I'm all for it if possible, don't get me wrong, I just don't see how it's possible. Unless everybody, and I mean everybody, decided to do it all at the same time.

Exactly, you don't like the way your school district uses your tax dollar then those in the district have to get together and do what is necessary to get their attention. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not pushing for a tax revolt, however we the people have the ability to control those who WE employ. We don't work to support those elected, they are suppose to work on our behalf.

Unfortunately, school districts get a substantial portion of their revenue from property taxes. If property taxes are not paid, the county sells your house, if you have one, out from under you. It's not really a viable solution. And, we could use another revolution by the way, I am advocating one, as anything short of one will only give us more of the unaccountable government we have seen for decades.

Again, I am not suggesting a tax revolt. You are correct, however you fail to remember this country was formed by people who stuck together for a common cause. If people were to band together to make a point the school district can't win against the numbers. EXAMPLE: If you have 2,500 home owners sign a petition saying they will not pay their taxes unless they agree not to spend 4M dollars on a new gold plated pool for the high school and build what was needed they can't take all 2,500 home owners on. You are noticed by the press, the elected officials and others. You deliver a message, we the people want access, reasonable decisions and spending. The overall message that is sent reaches far more than just the local school board. The main problem I beleive is people in general find it easier to complain than to take action. Think about all the products that were poorly made, people stop buying them, the product was replaced or the company went broke. The concept is the same. When you are unhappy or feel dissatisfied you need to have your voice heard.

Gene, I certainly agree that there is power in numbers, people banding together in a common cause have accomplished quite a bit. Getting them to all band together is another issue however. General complacency is a problem unless circumstances become almost unbearable, until then most everyone will go along with anything. Look at what's happening in this country, the bankers clearly control Congress, everyone knows it, the entire global economy is in trouble because greedy financial institution elite mismanaged risk and engaged in all manner of fraud, nobody has even been indicted for this much less gone to jail, we are fighting extremely costly undeclared wars in the Middle East which get us nothing and probably cause more terrorism rather than help with it, corporations are getting away with all sorts of fraud because they have 25,000 lobbyists in Washington working our "leaders" every day, the Postal Service is in a shambles for want of a few billion dollars yet the banks get trillions, American education is on the decline, unemployment is high, the list goes on, yet here we are, that vast majority is only concerned about Dancing With the Stars. The federal government is bungling everything, yet there are no consequences. And if you say that we can vote them out, sure, we can, but the next bunch will be no better. They are all puppets of big business, it doesn't matter which party they belong to.

Read what Mark Cuban has to say about the topic.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2012/05/16/mark-cuban-college-is-a-business-decision

Carol, I read Mr. Cuban's comments and though I did not expand on the topic nearly as much as he did I see we are in agreement. It is always nice to have things confirmed.