Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 35,378
- 20,137
- 1,915
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.#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.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
#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?
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?