Executive Order to forgive $50,000 in student debt


Congratulations US Taxpayer, looks like you will get to pick up the $50,000 tab of irresponsible college students and families who took on more debt than they could handle because they felt entitled to go to private elite colleges 3 time zones away and concentrate their studies in useless majors that have no demand in the job market. These students and families who feel entitled to this have the audacity to say they have been “enslaved” or victimized by student debt.

Moving forward, there needs to be more controls in place to qualify students and their families towards state and local institutions and concentrations of study that yield good paying jobs.

Check your race cards and class warfare bullshit at the door.
---this should be being reported as one of the stupidest ideas ever--but it's not
 
With none of it being OK.

Maybe, but this is called learning from your mistakes which doesn't happen very often with Democrats. It all started with their desire to pander to their voters. It began as a snowball going down a hill. When it finally crashed at the bottom, it was 10 feet around. Did we learn anything? The answer to that is look who is entirely in charge of our federal government today.

Biden has a similar plan. He's been working on it with Booker since he got the nomination. The plan is to force nice middle-class suburbs to foster low income housing. Again, pandering to their voters. What that will do is take nice safe suburbs and turn them into crime infested ghettos. Stores will close down, schools will get dangerous for your children to attend, property values will be cut in half or more within a matter of time, police won't be able to keep up with the crime.

We are in another huge bubble. No one learns.
 
Bush did more than that. He made it easier to get loans and loosened regulations on the banks.

You see, the banks don't really want the people with GOOD credit. They want the people with more iffy credit, who they can charge a higher interest rate to. This is why "Sub-Prime" loans were such big business, not because the government "made them", but because they could make more money charging a higher interest rate to people with lower credit scores.

Utter stupidity. Banks only go by the guidelines established for house loans by Freddy/ Fanny. If they don't, they won't be able to find underwriters and be able to sell them off. The movement started under Bill Clinton. Banks could make everybody use an ARM if they wanted, but they only do that for less than par applicants, you know, people that don't have the money to pay higher interest rates.
 
How is praising people owning homes validation of Barney Frank’s egregious reduction of financial risk and credit worthiness? Is that the only path to home ownership?

Bush did more than that. He made it easier to get loans and loosened regulations on the banks.

You see, the banks don't really want the people with GOOD credit. They want the people with more iffy credit, who they can charge a higher interest rate to. This is why "Sub-Prime" loans were such big business, not because the government "made them", but because they could make more money charging a higher interest rate to people with lower credit scores.

If lots of people default on their loans, how much money is the bank going to make? Do you have any sense of business risk?
 
What huge bubble are we in? I see no bubble. The economy is terrible.

Funny how the economy became "terrible" the minute Trump left.

If lots of people default on their loans, how much money is the bank going to make? Do you have any sense of business risk?

I do. the banks clearly didn't. That was the point. Or they realized that the government would bail them out.

So we had a system of capitalizing reward and socializing risk.
 
Utter stupidity. Banks only go by the guidelines established for house loans by Freddy/ Fanny. If they don't, they won't be able to find underwriters and be able to sell them off. The movement started under Bill Clinton. Banks could make everybody use an ARM if they wanted, but they only do that for less than par applicants, you know, people that don't have the money to pay higher interest rates.

My first mortgage when I was on an E-4's salary was on an ARM. I couldn't get to a fixed rate fast enough.
 
What huge bubble are we in? I see no bubble. The economy is terrible.

Funny how the economy became "terrible" the minute Trump left.

If lots of people default on their loans, how much money is the bank going to make? Do you have any sense of business risk?

I do. the banks clearly didn't. That was the point. Or they realized that the government would bail them out.

So we had a system of capitalizing reward and socializing risk.

The banks did realize the government would bail them out when the government mandated that financial risk criteria and metric be relaxed in order for the government to reach it’s social goal. Ask yourself why would a bank engage in such risk without the government backing it up? There is no
Reward without the government assuming the risk. Absent government owning the risk and absent a reward, banks will not create such an instrument on its own. Why would they? Hence, the government created this, not the banks.
 
My first mortgage when I was on an E-4's salary was on an ARM. I couldn't get to a fixed rate fast enough.

Same with me. In spite of my excellent credit rating, savings, work history, because I was investing in income property, they still considered the loans high risk. But the interest rate was not 1% likely to go higher, it was 7% and likely to drop which it did. After successfully making payments for a year, I was able to refinance to fixed rate mortgages. To be honest, only one bank would actually give me the loans. All other banks rejected my application, and that was with a co-signer.

Back then, only very credit worthy people were able to get a home or investmet loan, and that's the way it should have stayed. We would have never had the housing bubble and bust if not for vote buying politics. But as I've said so many times, we unfortunately have this voting system that allows the stupid to vote, and that's why we are under Democrat leadership today. If only the informed were allowed to vote, we wouldn't have people voting for Obama money and free college. Vote buying would be nearly impossible.
 
My first mortgage when I was on an E-4's salary was on an ARM. I couldn't get to a fixed rate fast enough.

Same with me. In spite of my excellent credit rating, savings, work history, because I was investing in income property, they still considered the loans high risk. But the interest rate was not 1% likely to go higher, it was 7% and likely to drop which it did. After successfully making payments for a year, I was able to refinance to fixed rate mortgages. To be honest, only one bank would actually give me the loans. All other banks rejected my application, and that was with a co-signer.

Back then, only very credit worthy people were able to get a home or investmet loan, and that's the way it should have stayed. We would have never had the housing bubble and bust if not for vote buying politics. But as I've said so many times, we unfortunately have this voting system that allows the stupid to vote, and that's why we are under Democrat leadership today. If only the informed were allowed to vote, we wouldn't have people voting for Obama money and free college. Vote buying would be nearly impossible.

Careful with the term “creditworthiness”. Some might consider that to be racist.
 
The banks did realize the government would bail them out when the government mandated that financial risk criteria and metric be relaxed in order for the government to reach it’s social goal. Ask yourself why would a bank engage in such risk without the government backing it up? There is no
Reward without the government assuming the risk. Absent government owning the risk and absent a reward, banks will not create such an instrument on its own. Why would they? Hence, the government created this, not the banks.

I bet you go down to the Rape Crisis Center and tell those women they were asking for it by wearing sexy dressed.

The difference is, pre-Bush, the rules against making risky loans were enforced...

Not so much under Bush, who really saw the housing bubble as propping up his otherwise dismal economic performance.
 
The banks did realize the government would bail them out when the government mandated that financial risk criteria and metric be relaxed in order for the government to reach it’s social goal. Ask yourself why would a bank engage in such risk without the government backing it up? There is no
Reward without the government assuming the risk. Absent government owning the risk and absent a reward, banks will not create such an instrument on its own. Why would they? Hence, the government created this, not the banks.

I bet you go down to the Rape Crisis Center and tell those women they were asking for it by wearing sexy dressed.

The difference is, pre-Bush, the rules against making risky loans were enforced...

Not so much under Bush, who really saw the housing bubble as propping up his otherwise dismal economic performance.

bet you go down to the Rape Crisis Center and tell those women they were asking for it by wearing sexy dressed.

That is some sick-fuck mentality right there. We are having a seemingly healthy debate about banks, financial criteria, risk management and you lead in with this to drive home how much you want to blame Bush????
 

Congratulations US Taxpayer, looks like you will get to pick up the $50,000 tab of irresponsible college students and families who took on more debt than they could handle because they felt entitled to go to private elite colleges 3 time zones away and concentrate their studies in useless majors that have no demand in the job market. These students and families who feel entitled to this have the audacity to say they have been “enslaved” or victimized by student debt.

Moving forward, there needs to be more controls in place to qualify students and their families towards state and local institutions and concentrations of study that yield good paying jobs.

Check your race cards and class warfare bullshit at the door.

This didn't happen.
 

Congratulations US Taxpayer, looks like you will get to pick up the $50,000 tab of irresponsible college students and families who took on more debt than they could handle because they felt entitled to go to private elite colleges 3 time zones away and concentrate their studies in useless majors that have no demand in the job market. These students and families who feel entitled to this have the audacity to say they have been “enslaved” or victimized by student debt.

Moving forward, there needs to be more controls in place to qualify students and their families towards state and local institutions and concentrations of study that yield good paying jobs.

Check your race cards and class warfare bullshit at the door.

This didn't happen.

Not yet. Nor should it.
 
Student debt in the US accumulated in the past 20 years --$1.5 trillion.

Cost of pointless, endless wars in the Middle East and keeping 900 military bases
to police the planet for the last 20 years-- $10 trillion (and that's a very conservative estimate)

Just sayin.
 
That is some sick-fuck mentality right there. We are having a seemingly healthy debate about banks, financial criteria, risk management and you lead in with this to drive home how much you want to blame Bush????

It kind of stands. The only crooks here were the banks. Yes, Blame Bush for not enforcing the laws on the books, but at the end of the day, the Banks screwed working people because they KNEW THEY COULD.

Nobody MADE the banks give out bad loans, and then sell them as investments by misrepresenting their value. The Banks did that all on their own, because they thought the party would never end.
 

Forum List

Back
Top