Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by oragator1, Feb 17, 2020.
Obama caused high student loan debt - good one!
Never listened to Rush, but he appears to be a main focal point of your life...like the bank-hating Warren.
He encouraged kids to rack up student debt that he told them would later be forgiven.
"The reason we haven’t seen a similar slowdown in overall student debt is that borrowers are making less progress on their loans. And a lot of the time they’re doing it on purpose — because they participate in programs that were dramatically expanded during the Obama years, and that forgive debt entirely so long as the borrower first makes small payments for a set period of time."
noted previously in this space — the programs were structured in a way that encouraged their abuse by people with incredibly high debt levels, especially from graduate studies rather than two- or four-year degrees. As Delisle wrote,
Under current law, anyone who takes out a federal student loan today can enroll in IBR and have his payments fixed at 10 percent of his income, less an exemption of $18,700 (which increases with household size). . . . Then, after 20 years of payments (or only ten years for those working in any government or non-profit job), all of the remaining balance is forgiven, no matter how high it is.
He further points out, that, using the Department of Education’s own debt calculator, someone with $80,000 in debt and an income of $60,000 could receive $62,000 in debt forgiveness if he works for the government. Someone with $150,000 in debt and a $75,000 salary could pay for 20 years and still receive $82,000, more than half the initial balance. Meanwhile, as noted in the Moody’s report, the median amount borrowed is just about $17–18,000.
Income-based repayment is a giveaway to people who choose to spend abnormally large sums on higher education, often earning graduate degrees, but go on to make unremarkable middle-to-upper-middle-class salaries. It’s far less generous to someone with a modest debt, even if that person also earns a modest income. It’s simply not possible to wring $62,000 or $82,000 in debt forgiveness out of the system if you’re a normal borrower and didn’t take out anywhere near that much in loans to begin with.
All of this needs to be kept in mind as we ponder proposals to shovel even more money at people who carry student debt. College really does cost too much, but the costs seem to have finally stabilized. And those with incredibly high debt already have options for getting rid of it — overly generous options that many of them are enthusiastically taking advantage of, at taxpayer expense.
The concept of income-based repayment is not a bad one. Indeed, I think it would be an enormous improvement for more colleges to base the amounts they get repaid on the amounts students earn after graduating. But there’s no justification for structuring such a program as a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to people with graduate degrees.
My take is that she doesn't hate banks, she hates bank robbers. And as someone who spent his whole adult working career working for and with banks, I can say the biggest bank robbers are the bankers themselves, it is so obvious that Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder and even Ms. Warren can see it. But some people refuse to see, most likely because they benefit from it and possible might be bank robbers themselves. It's way easier to rob a bank with a suit and a tie than a gun and a mask. I know this for FACT. I've been in the closed door meetings, I've been to the happy hours, the business functions, the courtrooms and hell even the kids birthday parties. But according to DJT logic, I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about.
Why would I want to leave? I'm not the one complaining. I'm quite happy with life in the USA, we have a great POTUS, the economy is doing well. I feel safe here I live in a nice neighborhood and if something should happen I have my gun in the next room....Life is good in the old USA.
We'll have universal healthcare sooner or later. The minority can only stymie the majority for so long.
I see she has your vote then.
That's quite the extraordinary assumption based on extremely limited data (how's that for appraiser speak). I'll make up my mind when I have all the relevant data, have time to analyze the relevant data and then, and only then, will vote accordingly. You know, like in parallel with USPAP, an appraisal standard that I was required to comply with as a matter of state law for decades. That way, it's fully informed and unbiased, and not predetermined vote which results in the most reliable opinion. But what do I know Sargeant?
We would be better off if more people would use that approach to voting rather than have their favorite TV stars do their thinking for them. A guy can dream, can't he?
Kind of hard to call yourself a majority when the only thing you can agree on is impeach 45.
Polling is quite clear that the vast majority of Americans want universal healthcare.
Well the Dems need to mostly concentrate on CA and NY this. coming POTUS election to boost those numbers higher.
Most of the drugs on that pharmacy tourism list are the super expensive anti-inflammatory biologics Big Pharma is always whoring on their TV commercials. One of them even has a "first dose free" program. If that doesn't sound like a street dealer, I don't know what does.
60% in US say health care coverage is government’s responsibility
Six-in-ten Americans say it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, including 31% who support a “single payer” approach to health insurance, according to a new national survey by Pew Research Center.
Wonder what percentage of that 60% understand their taxes are going to go up to pay for it....Oh I know tax the rich. We will see how accurate that poll is come November.
Are we also going to tell them that their overall costs likely go down?
I'm pretty sure the quality will go down too.
Are the doctors going to get worse at their jobs?
If you were arrested for murder would you want a public defender to defend you or the best lawyer money can buy?
I'd add about 1/3 of part time workers are voluntary part time, which is to say (and to steal from climategate) you graph actually hides the decline
Basically the entire spike and decrease are involuntary part time workers since voluntary stayed steady during the recession.
Here's one that shows just involuntary: