GOP and Student Loans

[DontBeStupid]

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.

It doesn't matter if it's voluntary or not. If someone has less of their money to spend, per the GOP, that is bad for the economy. Period. Full stop.

Why then did the GOP vote in favour, twice, of raising rates? Why are they not championing the cause of lower rates to allow people more money to spend? None of you are even trying to address the economics of this. You're trying to make it some kind of bull shit emotional discussion. I don't care if you hate college graduates or hate students. Their money is just as good as yours and if they have less of it, they will spend less, and that is not good for the economy. Right?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

It doesn't matter if it's voluntary or not. If someone has less of their money to spend, per the GOP, that is bad for the economy. Period. Full stop.

Why then did the GOP vote in favour, twice, of raising rates? Why are they not championing the cause of lower rates to allow people more money to spend? None of you are even trying to address the economics of this. You're trying to make it some kind of bull shit emotional discussion. I don't care if you hate college graduates or hate students. Their money is just as good as yours and if they have less of it, they will spend less, and that is not good for the economy. Right?

Okay, I see your problem. You have to lie about what the GOP has said.

The GOP has said that if you have less money DUE TO TAXATION, it is bad for the economy. However, specifically, (context is everything for a rational person), they have said that businesses allowed to keep more of their money will invest that money and expand, thereby creating a demand for more jobs.

The GOP has NOT voted twice in favor of raising rates. They have voted against a bill that does not cut spending to offset the lower rates. A stupid position because the thread between spending and student loans are convoluted. Nevertheless, they are correct.

The Democrats refuse to vote for a bill that cuts spending, so they are the obstructionists. Meaning that the higher interest rates that they (Democrats) put into the bill will increase.

You seem to be equating something that has never occurred and trying to project it forward onto the GOP.

If wealth is confiscated, it IS bad for the economy and liberty.

If wealth is spent, and paying back a loan is spending money, the economy is stimulated.

Government should not be involved in student loans, but since they pretty much monopolize the industry now, students who wish to continue their education will have to agree to the higher interest rate. Of course, you do realize that the interest rate payments are deferred and have no impact on the current economy at all, right?

 

[Avorysuds]

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?

I'm still wondering where it's Constitutinal at all on the federal level, that socialist education system that seems to always fail... Prolly why the FF left power of the congress out of the constitution and all.

So once again you got things your way, then you get pissed when it falls apart and needs a never ending and growing supply of money. Don't you find it odd that the further we have moved away from the constitution the harder life has gotten? We have reached a point where 4 years of college is near meaningless. All that debt was made possible by DUN DUN DUN! The Government subsidizing people to go to school when there was no demand! Omfg! It’s starting to look JUST like the housing crisis only now the people don't even own a fucking house, they in fact don't own anything!!!

lol.

 

[blackhawk]

Here is a novel concept don't borrow more than you can afford to pay back. When I moved into my current house I qualified for bigger loans than the one I took I passed on those because I knew the payments would be a strain under ideal conditions much less if I hit hard times people should think about that kind of thing before taking any kind of loan.

 

[Trajan]

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?

the one with the student loan won't see their interest go up......thats 3 times you have been told.

 

[rdean]

I haven't seen a single policy from Republicans that promotes education. I seen plenty, that destroys it.

I said that Republicans want to destroy education and my favorite stalker has followed me constantly manically screaming "PROVE IT".

And Republicans argument on why they are dismantling education (which is the same as destroying it) is that it's not very good. That it's become rotten. Course, they could suggest ways to make it better.

They have suggested one in the form of "magnet schools" which we have found are much more expensive and do no better than public school. Course, Republican come from a place of "gut feeling" and not "data and study". Something school could remedy. Ooooh, maybe that's why they want to destroy education. So their wacky ideas can't be challenged? How loony.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It's amazing how many of you don't understand the basics of our economy.

 

[blackhawk]

It's amazing how many of you don't understand the basics of our economy.

I understand when one spends more than they bring in or borrows more than they can afford to pay back their screwed that applies to a Government or the individual.

 

[g5000]

It's amazing how many of you don't understand the basics of our economy.

Sez the guy who compares apples to oranges.

 

[Trajan]

I haven't seen a single policy from Republicans that promotes education. I seen plenty, that destroys it.

I said that Republicans want to destroy education and my favorite stalker has followed me constantly manically screaming "PROVE IT".

And Republicans argument on why they are dismantling education (which is the same as destroying it) is that it's not very good. That it's become rotten. Course, they could suggest ways to make it better.

They have suggested one in the form of "magnet schools" which we have found are much more expensive and do no better than public school. Course, Republican come from a place of "gut feeling" and not "data and study". Something school could remedy. Ooooh, maybe that's why they want to destroy education. So their wacky ideas can't be challenged? How loony.

charter schools, vouchers......nimrod.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's amazing how many of you don't understand the basics of our economy.

Don't be stupid.

 

[jillian]

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.

yeah, let's make sure there's no chance for advancement in this country.

 

[BillyV]

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?

The problem with this statement is that you see these two situations as mutually exclusive; they are not. You see, in order to reduce the loan interest on the person with the student loan, you must extract an extra tax from the one who does not. So they do not “both have less money to spend”. Government spending is a zero sum game; you must take from one to give to another. Taking from one to give to another does not benefit the economy. The reason there is a benefit to taking less from the producers of society is that their use of those funds in a capitalistic society are almost always more efficient than the government’s use would be. As a society, we must debate the merits of providing government largesse to benefit individual groups or initiatives, because we can’t support everything that seems to be a good cause. Once society has determined what initiatives are worthy of community support, you have to determine how to tax the producers to pay for those priorities. This is called a budget; it’s hardly surprising that this would be a novel concept, since we haven’t had one since 2007.

In any case, in the case of student loan interest subsidies, one could argue that easily available money at below-market rates have driven up the cost of higher education, and that reducing the supply of money by removing subsidies (and therefore the demand of customers for higher education) could reduce the cost (or reduce the rate of increase in cost) and have no effect on the ultimate price of education.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

Why then did the Democrats pen this legislation that miraculously lets rates go back up in an election year?

You're a fucking retard and a hack.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny, when the tax cuts were set to expire, liberal shit-for-brains said it wasn't a tax hike. Now that interest rates are set to go back to where they were, it is a rate hike.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

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?

I worked two Jobs to pay for my Schooling, never took a loan or a grant.... why are today's kids better than me and need a handout all the time??????

Liberalism and Mooching is a Disease