GOP and Student Loans

[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.

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?

Since you can't seem to grasp a bit of critical thought, let Me rephrase the problem for you so that maybe you can begin to understand the problem better.

When a mortgage company offers you a variable rate loan for 30 years @ 3%, the terms of the loan can go something like this.

The first 10 years, you pay 3%, then there is an increase in the rate to 4.5%. 10 years after that, the rate increases to 5% and the last 5 years, the rate goes up to 6%.

So, who is at fault if the home owner is suddenly surprised that his interest rates went up and he can no longer afford his house payments?

 

[g5000]

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?

Waaaaaaah! My interest went up on my car loan! Make someone else pay it!

Waaaaaaah! My interest went up on my credit card! Make someone else pay it!

Waaaaaaah! My interest went up on my college loan! Make someone else pay it!

No stinking difference.

 

[uscitizen]

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?

Waaaaaaah! My interest went up on my car loan! Make someone else pay it!

Waaaaaaah! My interest went up on my credit card! Make someone else pay it!

Waaaaaaah! My interest went up on my college loan! Make someone else pay it!

No stinking difference.

You are sounding like the financial industry now.

 

[Trajan]

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?

NO it will NOT effect Loans existing now........The only borrowers/loans made that could be affected are on subsidized federal Stafford loans for undergraduates on loans taken out AFTER July 1.


YOU don't understand the topic....are you sane? really? truly? or are you posting from an asylum?

 

[rdean]

You have a gross misinterpretation of the facts of this issue.

Then please explain to us the facts of this issue.

The Constitution of the United States makes no specification of giving out the people's money to gold-diggers, regardless of age, color, orientation, or creed.

In other words, you wear a pointed hat, sit in a corner and drool.

 

[rdean]

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

I don't know what the Republican vision for this country is, but Republicans blackmailed the President threatening to cut off unemployment for millions of Americans whose jobs were lost due to Republican policies. Not all of the right wing approved of this evil doing.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

 

[Clementine]

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

So, the Republicans are running the show in Washington? They even got blamed when they were a minority in both the senate and house. The Democrats have no effect on anything at all and take no credit for anything despite having the majority starting in 2007.

 

[Qball]

Gotta love the Democrats. Whine about student loans going up 2.5%, continue to ignore the jobless rates.

 

[rdean]

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

So, the Republicans are running the show in Washington? They even got blamed when they were a minority in both the senate and house. The Democrats have no effect on anything at all and take no credit for anything despite having the majority starting in 2007.

Since 2007, Republicans held a historic number of filibusters. More than 360. Hoped that helped. If you don't know why that means anything, ask one of your friends how government works.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Education should be free, and unemployment benefits should last as long as anyone is out of work.............

For prosperity !!!!!!!!

 

[DontBeStupid]

#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?

Since you can't seem to grasp a bit of critical thought, let Me rephrase the problem for you so that maybe you can begin to understand the problem better.

When a mortgage company offers you a variable rate loan for 30 years @ 3%, the terms of the loan can go something like this.

The first 10 years, you pay 3%, then there is an increase in the rate to 4.5%. 10 years after that, the rate increases to 5% and the last 5 years, the rate goes up to 6%.

So, who is at fault if the home owner is suddenly surprised that his interest rates went up and he can no longer afford his house payments?

It's not about fault, as most of you want to make it. It's about what is good for the economy. In your example, the person with the mortgage, as the interest rate goes up, that person has less money to spend in the economy. Just as if their taxes had gone up. The GOP economic philosophy is that the more of your money you have to spend, the better. So why does that not apply to this situation?

That's my point here. However you want to phrase it, the GOP's inaction is going to cause people to have less of their own money. Why do "conservatives" support that with student loans but not with taxes on the top 1%?

 

[Trajan]

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?

Since you can't seem to grasp a bit of critical thought, let Me rephrase the problem for you so that maybe you can begin to understand the problem better.

When a mortgage company offers you a variable rate loan for 30 years @ 3%, the terms of the loan can go something like this.

The first 10 years, you pay 3%, then there is an increase in the rate to 4.5%. 10 years after that, the rate increases to 5% and the last 5 years, the rate goes up to 6%.

So, who is at fault if the home owner is suddenly surprised that his interest rates went up and he can no longer afford his house payments?

It's not about fault, as most of you want to make it. It's about what is good for the economy. In your example, the person with the mortgage, as the interest rate goes up, that person has less money to spend in the economy. Just as if their taxes had gone up. The GOP economic philosophy is that the more of your money you have to spend, the better. So why does that not apply to this situation?

That's my point here. However you want to phrase it, the GOP's inaction is going to cause people to have less of their own money. Why do "conservatives" support that with student loans but not with taxes on the top 1%?

the GOP's inaction is going to cause people to have less of their own money.

and, one more time, IF they cannot afford the loan, they don't have to take it...what about that don't you understand?

and in this situation, YOUR situation, it will not cause anyone to have any less of their money if...they don't get a loan.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

Since you can't seem to grasp a bit of critical thought, let Me rephrase the problem for you so that maybe you can begin to understand the problem better.

When a mortgage company offers you a variable rate loan for 30 years @ 3%, the terms of the loan can go something like this.

The first 10 years, you pay 3%, then there is an increase in the rate to 4.5%. 10 years after that, the rate increases to 5% and the last 5 years, the rate goes up to 6%.

So, who is at fault if the home owner is suddenly surprised that his interest rates went up and he can no longer afford his house payments?

It's not about fault, as most of you want to make it. It's about what is good for the economy. In your example, the person with the mortgage, as the interest rate goes up, that person has less money to spend in the economy. Just as if their taxes had gone up. The GOP economic philosophy is that the more of your money you have to spend, the better. So why does that not apply to this situation?

That's my point here. However you want to phrase it, the GOP's inaction is going to cause people to have less of their own money. Why do "conservatives" support that with student loans but not with taxes on the top 1%?

The point is, they took the loan knowing full well that the interest rates were going to go up unless Congress did something. The brunt of the responsibility for these loans is on the people who accepted the terms.

The GOP is willing to continue the lower interest rates. Why is it that you ignore that?

What does the top 1% have to do with student loans?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Good. The interest rates on student loans need to double and the amount of loan dollars available need to be greatly scaled back.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Three more posts and still no one address the issue.

Guys, this is not about blame, or fault or pointing fingers. It's not about whether the country should have student loans or whether students should drop out instead of taking them. This is purely about economics. Why do you refuse to see that?

Two people make $200K a year. One has a student loan and one does not. If you raise taxes on one and raise the loan interest on the other, they both have less of their own money to spend. Why do you vehemently oppose one and not the other, even when the economic outcome is exactly the same?

 

[Darkwind]

Three more posts and still no one address the issue.

Guys, this is not about blame, or fault or pointing fingers. It's not about whether the country should have student loans or whether students should drop out instead of taking them. This is purely about economics. Why do you refuse to see that?

Two people make $200K a year. One has a student loan and one does not. If you raise taxes on one and raise the loan interest on the other, they both have less of their own money to spend. Why do you vehemently oppose one and not the other, even when the economic outcome is exactly the same?

Really?

The one who has taxes increased has less income because it is confiscated from him. In other words, he has no choice and was given no choice in the matter.

The other fully understood that at this point in time, he would have to pay more for additional loans. He, or She, made the choice. It was strictly voluntary.

Please tell Me you understand the difference between entering into a contract and having government confiscate wealth?

 

[The T]

And WHY does the cost of these loans go up?

Simple...

The Government is subsidizing them at the expense of the taxpayer.

And is there any NEED to go to a first class college per expense for education?

None whatsoever.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Three more posts and still no one address the issue.

Guys, this is not about blame, or fault or pointing fingers. It's not about whether the country should have student loans or whether students should drop out instead of taking them. This is purely about economics. Why do you refuse to see that?

Two people make $200K a year. One has a student loan and one does not. If you raise taxes on one and raise the loan interest on the other, they both have less of their own money to spend. Why do you vehemently oppose one and not the other, even when the economic outcome is exactly the same?

Really?

The one who has taxes increased has less income because it is confiscated from him. In other words, he has no choice and was given no choice in the matter.

The other fully understood that at this point in time, he would have to pay more for additional loans. He, or She, made the choice. It was strictly voluntary.

Please tell Me you understand the difference between entering into a contract and having government confiscate wealth?

And please tell me you understand that in both situations the outcome is the same. A person has less of their own money due to something the government did.

So again, if the "conservative" position is that having less of your money is bad for the economy, why are the Republicans not supporting legislation that would allow people to keep more of their own money?

 

[The T]

Three more posts and still no one address the issue.

Guys, this is not about blame, or fault or pointing fingers. It's not about whether the country should have student loans or whether students should drop out instead of taking them. This is purely about economics. Why do you refuse to see that?

Two people make $200K a year. One has a student loan and one does not. If you raise taxes on one and raise the loan interest on the other, they both have less of their own money to spend. Why do you vehemently oppose one and not the other, even when the economic outcome is exactly the same?

Really?

The one who has taxes increased has less income because it is confiscated from him. In other words, he has no choice and was given no choice in the matter.

The other fully understood that at this point in time, he would have to pay more for additional loans. He, or She, made the choice. It was strictly voluntary.

Please tell Me you understand the difference between entering into a contract and having government confiscate wealth?

And please tell me you understand that in both situations the outcome is the same. A person has less of their own money due to something the government did.

So again, if the "conservative" position is that having less of your money is bad for the economy, why are the Republicans not supporting legislation that would allow people to keep more of their own money?

WHY is the Government involved at ALL?

 

[Darkwind]

Three more posts and still no one address the issue.

Guys, this is not about blame, or fault or pointing fingers. It's not about whether the country should have student loans or whether students should drop out instead of taking them. This is purely about economics. Why do you refuse to see that?

Two people make $200K a year. One has a student loan and one does not. If you raise taxes on one and raise the loan interest on the other, they both have less of their own money to spend. Why do you vehemently oppose one and not the other, even when the economic outcome is exactly the same?

Really?

The one who has taxes increased has less income because it is confiscated from him. In other words, he has no choice and was given no choice in the matter.

The other fully understood that at this point in time, he would have to pay more for additional loans. He, or She, made the choice. It was strictly voluntary.

Please tell Me you understand the difference between entering into a contract and having government confiscate wealth?

And please tell me you understand that in both situations the outcome is the same. A person has less of their own money due to something the government did.

So again, if the "conservative" position is that having less of your money is bad for the economy, why are the Republicans not supporting legislation that would allow people to keep more of their own money?

No, they are NOT the same. Taking a student loan out is a voluntary act. They cannot be compared because one is a turnip cart and the other is a radish.

I'll say this one more time. The GOP position is to continue the low interest rates. Why do you continue to lie about that?

The DEMOCRATS wrote the legislation that lifts the interest rate.

Your point is like saying that because I spent 100 dollars on a new cable service and the government raised taxes on a 1%'er to the tune of 100 dollars, that the outcome is the same.