Student Loans and Forgiveness

 There is an issue I have wanted to tackle for a while, and it is an issue that has a very personal interest to me.  In the past couple of months, the Biden Administration enacted a student loan forgiveness plan that essentially reduces a maximum of $20,000 from a person's total education debt.  Naturally, this has stirred up a little controversy on both sides of the political spectrum.  The Left complains that it hasn't gone far enough, while the Right is complaining that they will be saddled with student debt of others.  However, are either of these a valid concern?  I want to now examine that in some detail and then I have a solution of my own to propose. 

With Biden in office and Democrats having the majorities in both chambers of Congress now, in all honesty the news is not good.  Biden's stupid energy policies as well as the crazy out-of-control spending has placed our nation on the edge of a recession it hasn't seen since Jimmy Carter was in office (Funny how one party causes a lot of financial chaos, isn't it?) .   And, this Ukraine conflict now has caused more issues with our economy.  Add to that the past two years of draconian COVID nonsense, and it is causing a bit of a predicament for most normal Americans.  So, in many ways, perhaps a little relief of student debt isn't such a bad idea.  But, as Republicans point out, eventually this is going to cost somebody, so that means more taxes if the Democrats have anything to say about it.  America is at a boiling point.  At a future point I am going to talk a little about the Ukraine conflict, but for now I want to focus on the student loan relief.

For many of us, student loans are a fact of life - I have been in school over 30 years now myself off and on, and in the pursuit of three degrees (I am in the process of finishing up a Ph.D. now, my terminal degree), and in that time I have amassed a student loan bill of over $200,000.  So, in all honesty, I welcome a little relief!  There are factors involved though which would probably put me at variance with those on both sides of the issue.  So, let me just talk a bit about that. 

There are two foregone conclusions that need to be stated to begin any discussion:

1. No one willingly chooses student loans - often they are an only option

2.  College education has been ridiculously priced for decades.

And, that leads to a third conclusion:

3. The standards and bars are set high for people to have qualifications for jobs, but too many of us don't even get considered by companies. 

Here is the thing.  For decades, college education was encouraged - parents encouraged it, the business community encouraged it, and of course aggressive recruiters at colleges encouraged it.  Many young people, fresh out of high school, were promised the moon on a silver platter if they got a college degree, but once they walk the aisle and can put a BA or BS after their name, often they end up unemployed for years after, and the career counselors at many of these colleges are frankly useless. So, then Corporate America ups the qualifications - good-paying jobs now require Master's degrees, so that means the poor candidate has to do more school and take out more loans to meet that criterion.  So, they walk the aisle again and receive an MA or MS, but the employers still don't call.  Instead, the poor candidate for a job is told they need training in this, or in that, and a professional certificate in this, that, or the other, and that is more money.  At this point, the hopeful college graduate has degrees, but also has amassed a hefty education debt of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but there are crickets when expecting responses from potential employers.  So, without income, the college debt becomes a burden to that person, who also has to eat and keep a roof over their heads and needs to do so often by accepting jobs they are over-qualified for.  Some very well-educated people even end up on the street too, which is tragic.  This scenario is where now I want to address my fellow conservatives who think student loan liability is the fault of the borrower.

While I am definitely a conservative politically, and am very unapologetic about that,  but that does not mean I accept everything conservatives stand for, and this student loan issue is one I have big differences with my fellow conservatives on.  To begin with, some conservatives blame the borrowers, as if they should be punished for going to school and trying to learn something useful.  Yet, the problem with that mentality is this - many people do not have student loan debt by choice, but often that is their only option to get ahead in life.   Many who work hard and excel in obtaining their degrees often do so with little or no support from extended family.  You don't see their families helping them to go to college, nor do you see even any moral support from family members a lot of times.  That makes things more challenging for a student at a university.  They were pushed all their lives to do their best, and they do, but then they get no support and often even outright opposition from family members just because they are trying to better themselves.  This is unfortunate, and unfortunately more so those holding "conservative" values are often the worst offenders.  Here is what they need to hear then - if you didn't invest any encouragement or support into helping someone achieve their dreams, then you need to keep your mouth shut about their student loans and other issues.  If you were not there for that student, you have no right to judge that student, simple as that.  Maybe if you had been, they would not have needed the student loans.   That is something that even some of you reading this now really need to understand and digest a bit.  

Now, let me move onto the employers.  Jobs often have high bars set for potential candidates, and while I understand that the company has a stake in investing in top talent to insure its own success, there is a serious problem.  In setting sometimes unrealistic goals for hiring, many companies screw themselves by looking past talented individuals who could be assets to them.  People who really want these jobs are working hard to get them - that is why they do all the degrees, certifications, and everything else asked of them.  But, after all that work and investment, the poor candidate never hears a word back from an employer, and that can really be crushing for someone.  So, to employers I say this - perhaps instead of treating people as commodities and mere means unto your greedy ends, maybe you should really get to know your candidates to truly assess their talents, and maybe it is the employer who needs to restructure what they do in order to allow talent to blossom and flourish.  If you as an employer set these high educational bars for your candidates, at least have the decency to not disrespect their efforts by throwing their resumes into a trash bin.  And, that being said, let me give one of my proposals for student loan forgiveness.  Big corporations in particular get a lot of tax incentives, so I believe it is time to take some of those away and maybe start charging the corporations penalties for lack of interest in qualified candidates, and these penalties can then be applied toward a better student loan forgiveness program.  Yes, I know - it sounds like a Democrat "tax the rich" scheme, but there is a clarification.  Only the biggest and richest corporations would be subject to such a penalty, and not the small mom-and-pop business endeavors - many of the latter are actually more likely to hire decent people than are the big corporations.  This proposal is not perfect, and this is more or less a draft version of it off the top of my head, but it would solve both the problems of student loan debt as well as employment statistics.  Definitely worth our politicians thinking about. 

I now want to address colleges and universities.  The cost of tuition is the primary impetus for student loans, and the problem is that colleges and universities often inflate tuition prices to ridiculous amounts, and in many cases they are designed to be ridiculously expensive just to qualify for Federal aid.  What is worse is that the students invest all this money, and then they are not even compensated for the education they worked for - employers do not hire them, and the jobs they do get are insufficient to cover the liability of their education costs.  College tuition is something that needs to be more monitored and regulated honestly, as it should be considerably less than what it is.  

Now that I have named the culprits, it is time to give a proposal for a solution.  For one, I believe student loan debt is necessary, but it should not be universal - for those with ability and income to pay their monthly payments, they should do so.  While there are things such as IBR and ISR programs that make payments more affordable and do provide eventual forgiveness, there needs to be something more.  What I propose is actually very common-sense and would more or less give concessions to both sides of the debate.  First, in reducing tuition costs at universities, the liability would be lessened that way.  Also, imposition of penalties upon large corporations for their hiring practices would ensure that graduates would get positions they are qualified for.   Third, for those graduating college, there is already a grace period in place of I believe 18 months maximum with no accumulated interest, and that is a good start.  However, I think an additional benefit should be implemented - if a graduate fails to land a job in that time that is comparable to their qualifications, then there should be an amnesty in place to forgive student loan debt if they are under a certain income threshold.  However, payment agreements should remain in place for those who are able, with a safety net for them as well in case an unforeseen circumstance impairs their ability to pay.  We do have currently in place deferments and forbearances, and those are good for temporary relief and should be still kept in place, but a more long-term solution should be implemented to help those who are really struggling.  This way then, there is not an excessive burden on the taxpayer, nor is there one on the student borrower either.  While there are details to work out on all this, I believe this basic plan will be a good thing for everyone involved. 

And, one final word on this.  The whole universal student loan forgiveness debate, the high cost of tuition at universities, as well as some bad and very inadequate indoctrination by leftist faculty, has caused college education to be viewed very negatively now by conservatives, and that is unfortunate.  I am a bit chagrined for instance at the flippant comments of some toward people who have degrees yet are not hired in jobs they trained for.   Comments such as "well, go flip burgers at MacDonald's to pay your bills" are not only ignorant and stupid, but they are also unrealistic on two levels. First, do you really think that someone who has graduated with honors is going to be happy flipping burgers when they possess either a Bachelor's or a Master's?  My guess is that person probably wanted to move beyond that in the first place, so why should they settle for that just to pay a stupid bill??   Second, do you think that MacDonald's is going to hire a person with a Master's in some field to dump frozen French fries into a basket and stick it into a deep fryer??  More than likely, the word "overqualified" will emerge, and the MacDonald's manager would end up hiring a high school senior or a retiree to do that job.  To suggest that to a college graduate is also simplistic and unrealistic.  I have even heard some prominent "Evangelical Christian" writers - one that comes to mind is a hack named Mary Hunt - say crap like this.  All that being said, let me just end on this note - do not knock people who have education, and also do not be so quick to dismiss higher education.  After all, the doctor that may do open-heart surgery on you one day will have a higher education, not to mention the attorney who may assist you in a legal issue, or the CPA doing your taxes, etc.  While those are more practical examples, we also need dedicated and educated people to preserve our civilization - good educators, clergy, philosophers, etc., are integral to civilization.  That is why we do not want to dismiss higher education in general.  While it is not meant for everyone, higher education is still integral, and it must be encouraged.  A way to encourage it would be to reform both the tuition system at universities and colleges as well as the whole student loan issue.  Thank you for allowing me to share. 

Review of Taylor Marshal, "Antichrist and Apocalypse"

 It has been a while since I have done a review on a book here, but I was sort of invited by the author to do so and I am mentioned in the acknowledgements of this book.  The book is entitled Antichrist and Apocalypse: The 21 Prophecies of Revelation Unveiled and Described (Colleyville, TX: St. John Press, 2022).  It is a well-written book overall, and I am honored to be one of the people Dr. Marshall chose to review it.  There are a couple of things to discuss about it, and I will get to those momentarily, but first let me introduce Dr. Taylor Marshall to you.

Dr. Marshall, a native of Texas, is a former Anglican priest who, in the early 2000s I believe, converted to the Catholic Church and has since become a very influential voice for the more traditional type of Catholicism - he is pro-Traditional Latin Mass, he is very conservative, and to be honest I hold many of the same convictions he does on so many things.  He has written several other books, most notably Infiltration, which is an update in many aspects of Michael Rose's 2002 book Goodbye Good Men.  He also has a podcast on YouTube and some other platforms, and much of what he says is actually quite informative but also somewhat concerning as he exposes a lot of weird stuff going on in the Catholic hierarchy. As a traditional Catholic writer, Dr. Marshall is actually very sound, is faithful to the historic Magisterium, and he also does not pull punches when tackling serious issues of concern to the Catholic faithful.  This latest book is essentially a study on the book of Revelation in Scripture, and it is sort of rare to see this type of book among traditional Catholics.  There have been other great studies of both Revelation and eschatology from sound Catholic writers (two of the best, in my estimation, are Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper and Desmond Birch's Trial, Tribulation, and Triumph), but this particular volume may strike a chord with potential converts from Pentecostal or Fundamentalist backgrounds, as it deals with issues they are more familiar with.  That being said, I want to talk at length about two areas in the book that caught my attention.

The first has to do with Dr. Marshall's identification of antichrist prototypes he notes in Scripture.  This one was actually quite puzzling to me, in that beginning on page 230, Marshall identifies King Solomon as a prototype of the Antichrist!  That was a new one for me, and I would respectfully disagree for reasons I will get into momentarily.  First though, what reasoning does Dr. Marshall use for this?  On page 231, he notes a few things that provide substantiation in his argument about Solomon: 

1. Jewish and a son of King David

2. Born of fornication (product of David's affair with Bathsheba)

3. Allowing idols and false worship

4. Building the Temple

5. Extent of kingdom

6. Some rabbinic traditions call Solomon a "magician" and "sorcerer."

7. The fact his tribute was 666 talents of gold

First, while most of these facts are true about Solomon, it in no way infers he was a typology of the Antichrist. Scripture is filled with examples of otherwise holy men falling into temptation and sin - it is called human nature.  The sin is not to be the focus of these examples, but rather God's plan and redemptive grace.  Another point that Dr. Marshall might consider is this - Solomon is credited with writing at least three books of Scripture (Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes).  Now, common sense will dictate that God is not going to use an antichrist to write his inspired Scripture!  That would be counterproductive honestly in God's sovereign plan.  Now, had Dr. Marshall said something like the Antichrist would imitate Solomon in some areas, that would have been different. Satan is said in Scripture to appear as an "angel of light," and he does corrupt certain things to deceive people, so I am not opposed to the idea that the Antichrist may mirror some of Solomon's actions, but it is very risky to call a traditional author of books of Scripture an "antichrist."  Now, was Solomon perfect?  Not at all - neither was King David, but God himself called David "a man after his own heart."  Neither was Moses - a simple act of disobedience kept Moses from entering the Promised Land.  And neither were the Apostles even - the disagreements between Saints Peter and Paul are well documented in Scripture, and they are there for people to read in plain language.  Were King David, Moses, and Saints Peter and Paul prototypes of Antichrist?  Not at all, and neither was Solomon.  Therefore, I would part company with Dr. Marshall on that one.  But, there is one prototype of the Antichrist in Scripture, and I noted that Dr. Marshall didn't even examine this, but I will briefly here.  

If one turns to Genesis 10:8-12, there is a description of an individual who almost looks superhuman, and Tradition holds there is a reason for that - he was probably a Nephilim.  He is described in the above passage as "the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord."  The person we are talking about here is called Nimrod in Scripture, and all traditional accounts of this individual suggest that he was the first leader of a vast empire.  The attributes given to this individual almost match those of the Antichrist in Revelation, more so than Solomon does. I dealt with this more in detail in my Genesis study I have on this site from a couple of years ago, but it bears mentioning here.  I personally believe the Antichrist will be some form of the same spirit that embodied Nimrod. While he may emulate some of Solomon's achievements, he will be no Solomon.  I think for those who read this section of Dr. Marshall's book, this should be kept in mind. 

Another area of interest here regards how Dr. Marshall interprets Gog and Magog, which are the subject of Ezekiel 38.  On page 103 of Dr. Marshall's book, he makes Gog and Magog the same as the Antichrist and his armies, based on the "red horse" passage in Revelation 6:3-4.  This whole Gog and Magog discussion has been one discussed in regard to eschatology for decades honestly, and most people get it very wrong. For years, as an example, many Fundamentalist and Pentecostal dispensationalists said that this was a reference to Russia, largely due to the Soviets during the Cold War, so it was politically motivated.  Some still carry on that mythos, now saying Putin is the identification of Gog and Magog.  I dealt with this issue several years back in an article I wrote in a magazine I briefly published, and there are a few clarifications to make.  First, "Gog" is a person, while "Magog" is a place.  Second, "Gog" is not a proper name, but rather a title that corresponds to the concept of chief or king.  Third, the location just does not correspond with Russia at all - as a matter of fact, it seems as if the location is east of Russia.  Fourth, many scholars and commentators of all Christian traditions have traditionally understood the Gog/Magog phenomenon is distinct from the Antichrist, and even preceding Antichrist.  With all that established, let me now give you my idea of what this possibly could be. 

I have researched this myself for many years honestly, both as a Protestant and after my own conversion to Catholicism in 2000.  I have read widely on this subject from a variety of sources, the most relevant to me being the late Greek Orthodox theologian Apostolos Makrakis, as well as medieval Armenian visionaries.  In reading these, there is one thing that sticks out prominently - people started writing about this topic between the years 1200 and 1500, and that corresponds with several things - the Mongol invasions, as well as the rise of the Seljuk and later Ottoman Turks.  There are countless references from these early writers that equate the "land of Magog" with the ancestral homeland of the Turks in central Asia.  In all honesty, that actually makes much more sense than both the Evangelical dispensationalist fixation with Russia or even Dr. Marshall's equating Gog/Magog with the Antichrist. And, given the recent souring of relations between the current Turkish dictator Erdogan and the nation of Israel, I am starting to think I may be proven correct as that is exactly what Ezekiel 38 talks about.  I am also honest enough to admit I could be wrong, and perhaps with further research I may discover something else, but in all honesty I have believed this for close to 25 years now, and no evidence has come forth to change my mind on it yet.  Therefore, while I appreciate what Dr. Marshall is proposing, at the same time the facts just do not add up on that.  

In all honesty, those were really the only two areas of disagreement I would have with Dr. Marshall's thesis, as for the most part I have been reading everything else he's written and it more or less does mirror my own conclusions on the issues.  Also, these two areas are not really something that are cardinal mistakes - Dr. Marshall just has a different conclusion, and although I do not agree with it I respect it because it shows he is studying what he says, and there is no fault in that at all.  I would strongly recommend Dr. Marshall's book, and it is definitely an important work for us as Catholics to examine at this juncture.  For too many years, the market was dominated with Fundamentalist and Pentecostal Protestant volumes on this topic, and to be honest, a lot of those were proven wrong - Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth, for instance, is now sadly outdated.  Even my distant cousin Perry Stone, who wrote that the Antichrist would be an Islamic Mahdi, was writing more about the political climate of the times (this was right after 9/11) than substantial Scriptural research over the centuries.  This is why in many aspects, even if one disagrees with the conclusions, Dr. Marshall's book is actually refreshing. However, if you are going to embark on a study of Revelation, it would be prudent to utilize his book alongside others such as Desmond Birch's or Scott Hahn's, keeping in mind the traditional four-fold hermeneutic - read for the Literal, Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical senses of Scripture, and understand that all four of these can be true at once.  Thank you, and may you be blessed as you go about your daily business.