Republicans Block Bill To Extend Low Interest Rates For Student Loans

[Rozman]

Once again, Republicans show us who they work for. Their hatred of this president and his landmark health care law seeps from their pores. They would rather gut preventive health care funds (part of the ACA) than ask a small percentage of wealthy people to pay a little extra in order to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling.

Student Loan Vote: Republicans Block Bill To Extend Low Interest Rates

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would have frozen student loan interest rates before they are set to double on July 1.

In a partisan vote of 52 to 45, the Senate failed to reach the 60 votes needed to begin debate on the Democratic bill. Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) was the lone Republican to vote "present." A Snowe spokesman told The Huffington Post her vote was related to her practice of voting "present" on legislation that contains the potential or appearance of association with the private business activity of her husband.

The vote wasn't much of a surprise: Republicans have been signaling they would filibuster the bill because of its cost offsets. Democrats would cover the $6 billion cost of keeping student loan interest rates at 3.4 percent for another year by raising Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on certain high-earners. By contrast, Republicans have called for nixing a preventive health fund to pay for it.

Ultimately, the vote gives Democrats another chance to try to frame Republicans as favoring the wealthy over the middle class in the midst of intensifying election-year politicking.

During debate on the bill, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Republicans were "afraid" to agree to let it come up for debate because they would be forced to choose between helping college students and protecting the rich.

I thought we were trying to get everyone to pay their "fair" share.... LOL

 

[Stephanie]

Once again, Republicans show us who they work for. Their hatred of this president and his landmark health care law seeps from their pores. They would rather gut preventive health care funds (part of the ACA) than ask a small percentage of wealthy people to pay a little extra in order to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling.

Student Loan Vote: Republicans Block Bill To Extend Low Interest Rates

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would have frozen student loan interest rates before they are set to double on July 1.

In a partisan vote of 52 to 45, the Senate failed to reach the 60 votes needed to begin debate on the Democratic bill. Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) was the lone Republican to vote "present." A Snowe spokesman told The Huffington Post her vote was related to her practice of voting "present" on legislation that contains the potential or appearance of association with the private business activity of her husband.

The vote wasn't much of a surprise: Republicans have been signaling they would filibuster the bill because of its cost offsets. Democrats would cover the $6 billion cost of keeping student loan interest rates at 3.4 percent for another year by raising Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on certain high-earners. By contrast, Republicans have called for nixing a preventive health fund to pay for it.

Ultimately, the vote gives Democrats another chance to try to frame Republicans as favoring the wealthy over the middle class in the midst of intensifying election-year politicking.

During debate on the bill, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Republicans were "afraid" to agree to let it come up for debate because they would be forced to choose between helping college students and protecting the rich.

I thought we were trying to get everyone to pay their "fair" share.... LOL

that was so yesterday

 

[usmcstinger]

Once again, Republicans show us who they work for. Their hatred of this president and his landmark health care law seeps from their pores. They would rather gut preventive health care funds (part of the ACA) than ask a small percentage of wealthy people to pay a little extra in order to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling.

Student Loan Vote: Republicans Block Bill To Extend Low Interest Rates

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would have frozen student loan interest rates before they are set to double on July 1.

In a partisan vote of 52 to 45, the Senate failed to reach the 60 votes needed to begin debate on the Democratic bill. Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) was the lone Republican to vote "present." A Snowe spokesman told The Huffington Post her vote was related to her practice of voting "present" on legislation that contains the potential or appearance of association with the private business activity of her husband.

The vote wasn't much of a surprise: Republicans have been signaling they would filibuster the bill because of its cost offsets. Democrats would cover the $6 billion cost of keeping student loan interest rates at 3.4 percent for another year by raising Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on certain high-earners. By contrast, Republicans have called for nixing a preventive health fund to pay for it.

Ultimately, the vote gives Democrats another chance to try to frame Republicans as favoring the wealthy over the middle class in the midst of intensifying election-year politicking.

During debate on the bill, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Republicans were "afraid" to agree to let it come up for debate because they would be forced to choose between helping college students and protecting the rich.

Screw the hand outs get a job to pay for college.

 

[rdean]

Republicans goal is to "undiscover fire". They want to take us back to a better time. A time when tools were stone and anyone could use them. No fancy shmancy edjamacation needed.

 

[Steelplate]

Once again, Republicans show us who they work for. Their hatred of this president and his landmark health care law seeps from their pores. They would rather gut preventive health care funds (part of the ACA) than ask a small percentage of wealthy people to pay a little extra in order to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling.

Student Loan Vote: Republicans Block Bill To Extend Low Interest Rates

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would have frozen student loan interest rates before they are set to double on July 1.

In a partisan vote of 52 to 45, the Senate failed to reach the 60 votes needed to begin debate on the Democratic bill. Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) was the lone Republican to vote "present." A Snowe spokesman told The Huffington Post her vote was related to her practice of voting "present" on legislation that contains the potential or appearance of association with the private business activity of her husband.

The vote wasn't much of a surprise: Republicans have been signaling they would filibuster the bill because of its cost offsets. Democrats would cover the $6 billion cost of keeping student loan interest rates at 3.4 percent for another year by raising Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on certain high-earners. By contrast, Republicans have called for nixing a preventive health fund to pay for it.

Ultimately, the vote gives Democrats another chance to try to frame Republicans as favoring the wealthy over the middle class in the midst of intensifying election-year politicking.

During debate on the bill, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Republicans were "afraid" to agree to let it come up for debate because they would be forced to choose between helping college students and protecting the rich.

Screw the hand outs get a job to pay for college.

How are loans "handouts"?.....loans that will earn interest, at that.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Soooooo..........neither party wanted to pay for it by maybe giving up pet projects, ending some foreign aid, cutting their own salary or benefits, or a myriad of other methods to cover 6 billion? Neither party even took their normal route of just writing it off to debt?

This is pure political theater, and watching you guys get your panties in a bunch over it is fucking hilarious.

 

[eflatminor]

Yup, your thinking is why the middle class was its most powerful from 1946 to 1976.

No GI bill, no NDEA, no Great Society that reduced poverty in five years from 26% to 18% (look it up).

Your opinion is wrong.

Let's make that single-parent head of family a taxpayer, not a welfare recipient, hmmm?

The middle class was most powerful after the war because we REDUCED central planning. We cut regulations and price controls massively and when JFK's tax cuts kicked in, the middle class really thrived. It was not due to any centrally planned scheme. This is my opinion, and that of Hayek, btw. From the 70's until today, we've done nothing but increase the size of government and their meddling in markets, which as not boded well for the middle class. It was great for the crony capitalists and those employed by the government...but overall, not so good. Have you read "The Road To Serfdom" or perhaps "The Fatal Conceit"? I would also recommend "The End of Prosperity" by Laffer and Moore, all of which deal with this issue extensively and convincingly. Worth checking out, IMO.

 

[JakeStarkey]

eflatminor ignores the highest tax rates of up to 90%, he inflates the supposed deregulation of business (which certainly did not affect commercial and investment banking), he ignores the GI Bill, the NDEA, the Great Society, the student loan programs, and so on and so on.

Son, you have to look at the entire picture.

Try again.

 

[eflatminor]

eflatminor ignores the highest tax rates of up to 90%, he inflates the supposed deregulation of business (which certainly did not affect commercial and investment banking), he ignores the GI Bill, the NDEA, the Great Society, the student loan programs, and so on and so on.

Son, you have to look at the entire picture.

Try again.

Yep, those 90% marginal rates in the 50s did hold the economy and middle class back. After JFKs tax cuts, the middle class thrived. I'm not ignoring the bills and programs you mentioned, just saying that such government expenditures, requiring capital to be first taken out of the economy, are not the panacea you think they are. Again, Hayek makes this case thoroughly. You really should read him. Lastly, if you had read "The End of Prosperity", you'd see the MASSIVE deregulation that took place after WWII and the prosperity that helped to foster.

My point is that I am looking at the entire picture. I believe you're just looking at the government programs without understanding that government services are funded through the compulsion of taxes with no market price attached. Without that price, we have no way of knowing the importance that free people place on those services and we cannot calculate how much wealth we lose when politicians allocate resources. You may believe the NDEA (or whatever) was a great program, but you have no ability to know if that money would have been used more efficiently if spent by individuals with choice, not compulsion.

Again, read Hayek. It will make for far more interesting debates! I suspect if you do, you'll come to realize that no central planners, regardless of their intentions, can spend money more efficiently than a free market. You'll come to understand the money spent on those programs you thought successful would have been far more beneficial in a free market...beneficial to the very people those programs were supposed to help.

 

[usmcstinger]

I see English was not your best subject in school. The default rate for student loans is close to 50%. If you can do the math, you might learn the impact of the 50% default rate.
Student Loan Default Rate Nearly Doubles - The Bay Citizen

 

[Claudette]

Yes, that whole keeping interest rates below what the market would charge has worked out so well for the housing industry, why not student loans?

Is there anything in which you wouldn't want the federal government to meddle? Anything?

Oh, and can you please point to the enumerated power in the Constitution that grants the federal government authority over student loans? I can't seem to locate it.

Non Sequitur. Try again or fail.

I disagree but let me be clear. I stand against the idea of asking "a small percentage of wealthy people to pay a little extra in order to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling". I stand against this because I do not believe the federal government has any business meddling in student loans. If you consider that a non sequitur...I don't know, get thee a dictionary.

I agree. If someone wants to attend college then let em get a loan from a bank.

Last I heard the Govt isn't a bank and shouldn't be using tax dollars as a loan dept.

 

[Claudette]

I see English was not your best subject in school. The default rate for student loans is close to 50%. If you can do the math, you might learn the impact of the 50% default rate.
Student Loan Default Rate Nearly Doubles - The Bay Citizen

Yup and thats why Bush I got the Govt out of the student loan business. They weren't paying the loans back.

Clinton came into office and started it back up again.

The taxpayers aren't here to pay for someones college education.

If they want a loan Let em go to a bank and get one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

eflatminor ignores the highest tax rates of up to 90%, he inflates the supposed deregulation of business (which certainly did not affect commercial and investment banking), he ignores the GI Bill, the NDEA, the Great Society, the student loan programs, and so on and so on.

Son, you have to look at the entire picture.

Try again.

Yep, those 90% marginal rates in the 50s did hold the economy and middle class back. After JFKs tax cuts, the middle class thrived. I'm not ignoring the bills and programs you mentioned, just saying that such government expenditures, requiring capital to be first taken out of the economy, are not the panacea you think they are. Again, Hayek makes this case thoroughly. You really should read him. Lastly, if you had read "The End of Prosperity", you'd see the MASSIVE deregulation that took place after WWII and the prosperity that helped to foster.

My point is that I am looking at the entire picture. I believe you're just looking at the government programs without understanding that government services are funded through the compulsion of taxes with no market price attached. Without that price, we have no way of knowing the importance that free people place on those services and we cannot calculate how much wealth we lose when politicians allocate resources. You may believe the NDEA (or whatever) was a great program, but you have no ability to know if that money would have been used more efficiently if spent by individuals with choice, not compulsion.

Again, read Hayek. It will make for far more interesting debates! I suspect if you do, you'll come to realize that no central planners, regardless of their intentions, can spend money more efficiently than a free market. You'll come to understand the money spent on those programs you thought successful would have been far more beneficial in a free market...beneficial to the very people those programs were supposed to help.

You are not looking at the Entire Picdture. You are looking at it as an Ideologue.

Do you even understand what "Central Planning" is?

Do you even undestand economics or finance?

You are talking a lot, and that is a lot of nonsense.

 

[eflatminor]

eflatminor ignores the highest tax rates of up to 90%, he inflates the supposed deregulation of business (which certainly did not affect commercial and investment banking), he ignores the GI Bill, the NDEA, the Great Society, the student loan programs, and so on and so on.

Son, you have to look at the entire picture.

Try again.

Yep, those 90% marginal rates in the 50s did hold the economy and middle class back. After JFKs tax cuts, the middle class thrived. I'm not ignoring the bills and programs you mentioned, just saying that such government expenditures, requiring capital to be first taken out of the economy, are not the panacea you think they are. Again, Hayek makes this case thoroughly. You really should read him. Lastly, if you had read "The End of Prosperity", you'd see the MASSIVE deregulation that took place after WWII and the prosperity that helped to foster.

My point is that I am looking at the entire picture. I believe you're just looking at the government programs without understanding that government services are funded through the compulsion of taxes with no market price attached. Without that price, we have no way of knowing the importance that free people place on those services and we cannot calculate how much wealth we lose when politicians allocate resources. You may believe the NDEA (or whatever) was a great program, but you have no ability to know if that money would have been used more efficiently if spent by individuals with choice, not compulsion.

Again, read Hayek. It will make for far more interesting debates! I suspect if you do, you'll come to realize that no central planners, regardless of their intentions, can spend money more efficiently than a free market. You'll come to understand the money spent on those programs you thought successful would have been far more beneficial in a free market...beneficial to the very people those programs were supposed to help.

You are not looking at the Entire Picdture. You are looking at it as an Ideologue.

Do you even understand what "Central Planning" is?

Do you even undestand economics or finance?

You are talking a lot, and that is a lot of nonsense.

I could talk about my lifetime of economic study, my advanced degrees in finance and economics...but this isn't about me. What is clear is that you have not read anything beyond Keynes...and that is too bad.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats tried to pull a fast one by inserting a poison pill. The interest rate would have doubled, but the subsidy to make up for the losses would come from Medicare. They thought no one would notice. Not so. Even some democrats noticed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, those 90% marginal rates in the 50s did hold the economy and middle class back. After JFKs tax cuts, the middle class thrived. I'm not ignoring the bills and programs you mentioned, just saying that such government expenditures, requiring capital to be first taken out of the economy, are not the panacea you think they are. Again, Hayek makes this case thoroughly. You really should read him. Lastly, if you had read "The End of Prosperity", you'd see the MASSIVE deregulation that took place after WWII and the prosperity that helped to foster.

My point is that I am looking at the entire picture. I believe you're just looking at the government programs without understanding that government services are funded through the compulsion of taxes with no market price attached. Without that price, we have no way of knowing the importance that free people place on those services and we cannot calculate how much wealth we lose when politicians allocate resources. You may believe the NDEA (or whatever) was a great program, but you have no ability to know if that money would have been used more efficiently if spent by individuals with choice, not compulsion.

Again, read Hayek. It will make for far more interesting debates! I suspect if you do, you'll come to realize that no central planners, regardless of their intentions, can spend money more efficiently than a free market. You'll come to understand the money spent on those programs you thought successful would have been far more beneficial in a free market...beneficial to the very people those programs were supposed to help.

You are not looking at the Entire Picdture. You are looking at it as an Ideologue.

Do you even understand what "Central Planning" is?

Do you even undestand economics or finance?

You are talking a lot, and that is a lot of nonsense.

I could talk about my lifetime of economic study, my advanced degrees in finance and economics...but this isn't about me. What is clear is that you have not read anything beyond Keynes...and that is too bad.

You could, and if you did, all we could do is shake our head and admit that sometimes advanced education can't help an ideologue.

You are a stuck little mind.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Free healthcare and education are "human rights"..........

When will republicans learn that there is never enough money that can be spent on these entitlements

It takes a village !!!!! lol

 

[eflatminor]

You are a stuck little mind.

Reverting to ad hominem attacks...wonderful. I understand that's just another way of saying you've not read much of anything beyond the talking points laid at your feet. How very sad.

 

[DiamondDave]

What I don't get is this......the students aren't getting free money. They are fucking LOANS! That means in addition to the principle, they are currently paying 3.?% interest on their debt. The government is going to collect that original money plus interest. There's no reason to raise taxes OR to cut to pay for this.

Yes...there are students who default.....but even if those people file for bankruptcy, those debts aren't eligible for forgiveness. They will get the money back eventually...they can even garnish wages to collect it.

And the federal government is supposed to be your personal loan officer? Your own personal bank??

Nah... don't think so

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are a stuck little mind.

Reverting to ad hominem attacks...wonderful. I understand that's just another way of saying you've not read much of anything beyond the talking points laid at your feet. How very sad.

Ad hominem is an attack on personality.

I am correcting your false assumption you know what you are talking about.

You don't. And here is the part you left out that demonstrates my point: "You could, and if you did, all we could do is shake our head and admit that sometimes advanced education can't help an ideologue."

__________________