GOP and Student Loans

[uscitizen]

heres a novel concept...they can NOT take the loans....woweee!!!!!

did I just blow your mind?

NO way last time you tried to blow anything of mine you flubbed it all up.

crass come back aside, I knew you'd be floored at the concept...

I am against living beyone ones means, always have been. Unfortuantely I had a couple of wives who did not agree with that concept.

 

[Trajan]

"Conservatives", help me out here. The GOP economic philosophy is that the more of your money you have the better off you are and the better off the country is. They said as much when demanding low rates for the top 1%. So why not allow people with student loans to have more of their own money? What's the difference?

I am happy to help.

That money the rich have? That's THEIR money.

That money the students borrowed? That was SOMEONE ELSE'S money.

That money the student is using to payback the interest, it's THEIR money!

Care to try again?

no actually its not there money,by the very same deluded construct you proposed yourself....keep digging.

 

[SniperFire]

The difference is that students do not have lobbyists and fund Pacs, the ones holding those student loans and profiting from the increased rates do have lobbyists and pacs.

heres a novel concept...they can NOT take the loans....woweee!!!!!

did I just blow your mind?

So your advice, is that students trying to finish school should just ... not. Not take out a loan. Not pay for school. Not finish.

That is an option.

Did somebody tell you everyone has a birthright to an advanced degree or something?

 

[g5000]

So the government got involved in student loans. There is the root of your problem. And now you want innocent third parties to pay for that mistake.

Hmmmm...

 

[uscitizen]

I think that parents or their adult should pay for ALL of their childrens education.

Where should socialized education stop? And why?

Actually I think that all excelling students should get a free college education all above the 90th percentile.
And long as they stay in the 90th percentile in college.

 

[g5000]

"Conservatives", help me out here. The GOP economic philosophy is that the more of your money you have the better off you are and the better off the country is. They said as much when demanding low rates for the top 1%. So why not allow people with student loans to have more of their own money? What's the difference?

I am happy to help.

That money the rich have? That's THEIR money.

That money the students borrowed? That was SOMEONE ELSE'S money.

That money the student is using to payback the interest, it's THEIR money!

Care to try again?

That's how loans work. Don't they teach that in the colleges these people borrowed money to attend?

Please explain why innocent third parties should pay for the mistake of the government getting involved in student loans.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Please explain why innocent third parties should pay for the mistake of the government getting involved in student loans.

You should stop now. You clearly don't understand the topic.

 

[g5000]

So on the one hand we have a kid who got to go to college and get a degree. As a college graduate, he will be a top earner. Maybe even a one percenter. If he goes to work on Wall Street after college, he's set for life.

On the other hand, you have some other guy who has no part in any of this. He has no say in the matter whatsoever.

And yet you want to force this other guy to pay for the future one percenter's loan?

Hmmm...

 

[Trajan]

The difference is that students do not have lobbyists and fund Pacs, the ones holding those student loans and profiting from the increased rates do have lobbyists and pacs.

heres a novel concept...they can NOT take the loans....woweee!!!!!

did I just blow your mind?

So your advice, is that students trying to finish school should just ... not. Not take out a loan. Not pay for school. Not finish.

Fantastic.

Oh, and you never answered the question. Care to try?

first, it wasn't a question it was a statement.....Jesus Christ, put the bong down.

second, what the hell does the rate they are paying to GET the loan to finish have to do with it? do you think before you write, seriously? wtf eh?

 

[DontBeStupid]

So on the one hand we have a kid who got to go to college and get a degree. As a college graduate, he will be a top earner. Maybe even a one percenter. If he goes to work on Wall Street after college, he's set for life.

On the other hand, you have some other guy who has no part in any of this. He has no say in the matter whatsoever.

And yet you want to force this other guy to pay for the other guy's loan?

Hmmm...

No.

Again, you should stop. You clearly do not understand this topic.

 

[Darkwind]

In late 2010, the GOP leadership announced they would allow taxes for everyone to go up and to cancel unemployment insurance money, unless the top 1% were able to maintain their low tax rates. There was zero talk of how to pay for these continued low rates.

In the coming weeks, interest rates on student loans will double, and the GOP not only voted in favour of letting it happen (link below) but they are adamant about finding a way to "pay for" the low rates.

"Conservatives", help me out here. The GOP economic philosophy is that the more of your money you have the better off you are and the better off the country is. They said as much when demanding low rates for the top 1%. So why not allow people with student loans to have more of their own money? What's the difference?

And also, isn't doubling the interest rate the same as a tax on those who have loans? Why then is the GOP now in favour of increased taxation?

Senate Republicans Vote To Hike Student Loan Rates They Oppose Hiking | TPMDC

#1. It is a mark of stupidity to make declarations like, "paying for tax cuts," the government has no right to an income. If income goes down, you pay for it with spending cuts. That alleged 1% are getting to keep more of THEIR money. If you don't understand how it works, just ask someone, I'm sure they can use small words.

#2. When the law was crafted, the DEMOCRATS put the expiration of the low interest rates (its called a sunset clause) into the bill. Why did they do this? needed to bribe people into supporting them. They should have written the bill to have a permanent interest rate of 3%. Interest rates on loans are NOT taxes. The rates were known and agreed to by the students who applied and received the loans. words, they understood what they were getting into.

 

[g5000]

Please explain why innocent third parties should pay for the mistake of the government getting involved in student loans.

You should stop now. You clearly don't understand the topic.

I understand it perfectly. You are the one who is confused. You think an overspender (the government) is writing checks to someone who pays the bills (taxpayers). You believe that because the guy who pays the bills doesn't want to have to pay for runaway spending that HE is the one costing money!

Amazing.

You also seem to believe the government belongs in the business of making loans but making third parties cover the interest.

I see the picture crystal clear.

 

[Rozman]

In late 2010, the GOP leadership announced they would allow taxes for everyone to go up and to cancel unemployment insurance money, unless the top 1% were able to maintain their low tax rates. There was zero talk of how to pay for these continued low rates.

In the coming weeks, interest rates on student loans will double, and the GOP not only voted in favour of letting it happen (link below) but they are adamant about finding a way to "pay for" the low rates.

"Conservatives", help me out here. The GOP economic philosophy is that the more of your money you have the better off you are and the better off the country is. They said as much when demanding low rates for the top 1%. So why not allow people with student loans to have more of their own money? What's the difference?

And also, isn't doubling the interest rate the same as a tax on those who have loans? Why then is the GOP now in favour of increased taxation?

Senate Republicans Vote To Hike Student Loan Rates They Oppose Hiking | TPMDC

Pretty amazing.
When the conservatives said that letting the Bush tax cuts expire was in effect a tax increase....All the brainy Libs said that was a stupid comment.
They said that allowing the Bush tax cuts expire were only letting the tax rates go back to what they were before.

Isn't that exactly what will happen to the interest rates on the student loans.
By the way the Dems set this up for the reduction of interest rates to expire....
Now they blame the Republicans.

 

[uscitizen]

So on the one hand we have a kid who got to go to college and get a degree. As a college graduate, he will be a top earner. Maybe even a one percenter. If he goes to work on Wall Street after college, he's set for life.

On the other hand, you have some other guy who has no part in any of this. He has no say in the matter whatsoever.

And yet you want to force this other guy to pay for the future one percenter's loan?

Hmmm...

Well he has to pay to put others children thru grade and high school doesn't he?
Where does this socialist education system end and why?

 

[DontBeStupid]

In late 2010, the GOP leadership announced they would allow taxes for everyone to go up and to cancel unemployment insurance money, unless the top 1% were able to maintain their low tax rates. There was zero talk of how to pay for these continued low rates.

In the coming weeks, interest rates on student loans will double, and the GOP not only voted in favour of letting it happen (link below) but they are adamant about finding a way to "pay for" the low rates.

"Conservatives", help me out here. The GOP economic philosophy is that the more of your money you have the better off you are and the better off the country is. They said as much when demanding low rates for the top 1%. So why not allow people with student loans to have more of their own money? What's the difference?

And also, isn't doubling the interest rate the same as a tax on those who have loans? Why then is the GOP now in favour of increased taxation?

Senate Republicans Vote To Hike Student Loan Rates They Oppose Hiking | TPMDC

#1. It is a mark of stupidity to make declarations like, "paying for tax cuts," the government has no right to an income. If income goes down, you pay for it with spending cuts. That alleged 1% are getting to keep more of THEIR money. If you don't understand how it works, just ask someone, I'm sure they can use small words.

#2. When the law was crafted, the DEMOCRATS put the expiration of the low interest rates (its called a sunset clause) into the bill. Why did they do this? needed to bribe people into supporting them. They should have written the bill to have a permanent interest rate of 3%. Interest rates on loans are NOT taxes. The rates were known and agreed to by the students who applied and received the loans. words, they understood what they were getting into.

You didn't answer the question.

If interest rates go up, people with loans will have less of their earned money to spend. This is EXACTLY the same as if taxes were raised and was the rationale used to extend low rates for the top 1%.

So I ask again ... why is the top 1% having more money to spend a good thing but student loan holders having more money to spend not a good thing?

 

[g5000]

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

That is the motto that should be on our money. In Latin, of course.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep colleges should not get any tax money either.

 

[g5000]

In late 2010, the GOP leadership announced they would allow taxes for everyone to go up and to cancel unemployment insurance money, unless the top 1% were able to maintain their low tax rates. There was zero talk of how to pay for these continued low rates.

In the coming weeks, interest rates on student loans will double, and the GOP not only voted in favour of letting it happen (link below) but they are adamant about finding a way to "pay for" the low rates.

"Conservatives", help me out here. The GOP economic philosophy is that the more of your money you have the better off you are and the better off the country is. They said as much when demanding low rates for the top 1%. So why not allow people with student loans to have more of their own money? What's the difference?

And also, isn't doubling the interest rate the same as a tax on those who have loans? Why then is the GOP now in favour of increased taxation?

Senate Republicans Vote To Hike Student Loan Rates They Oppose Hiking | TPMDC

#1. It is a mark of stupidity to make declarations like, "paying for tax cuts," the government has no right to an income. If income goes down, you pay for it with spending cuts. That alleged 1% are getting to keep more of THEIR money. If you don't understand how it works, just ask someone, I'm sure they can use small words.

#2. When the law was crafted, the DEMOCRATS put the expiration of the low interest rates (its called a sunset clause) into the bill. Why did they do this? needed to bribe people into supporting them. They should have written the bill to have a permanent interest rate of 3%. Interest rates on loans are NOT taxes. The rates were known and agreed to by the students who applied and received the loans. words, they understood what they were getting into.

You didn't answer the question.

If interest rates go up, people with loans will have less of their earned money to spend. This is EXACTLY the same as if taxes were raised and was the rationale used to extend low rates for the top 1%.

So I ask again ... why is the top 1% having more money to spend a good thing but student loan holders having more money to spend not a good thing?

That's the risk you take when you take out a loan. Why is it a good thing to make an innocent third party pay the interest on that loan instead of the borrower?

 

[g5000]

Yep colleges should not get any tax money either.

Probably not.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Why is it a good thing to make an innocent third party pay the interest on that loan instead of the borrower?

You're an idiot.