I dont give a shit!

[Sky Dancer]

these bleeding heart libs really do get annoying. Where the hell does all the fricking guilt come from?

Those petty cons sure get annoyed easily. Where does all that frigging anger come from?

Habit.

I completely agree. Anger is a habit.

 

[Sky Dancer]

***** and moan threads sure are popular. Just pick some group to say "**** em" to, and off we go.

yep... and i am going to rant away.


I have a great idea. No more student loans. How about that. Nothing to pay back, no more debt to whine about.


works for me.

Rant away. Works for you. Enjoy being grouchy.

 

[Si modo]

So, to play devil's advocate here. We promote lower tax rates so that folks have more discretionary income to spend in the economy, which I think we can all agree, is better for the economy.

So, this, which is not really a forgiveness of default, is not much different. The government cuts their payments so that they have more discretionary income.

So, the difference is?

Lowering taxes only theoretically reduces the amount government will take from people who lawfully earned it and then spend it. It does not take money away from anybody who gainfully earned that money and give it to somebody else.

Letting one person off the hook so that the tax payer then has to pony up the cash to pay a debt is something quite different. The government guarantees the loan rather than provide them so if the government forgives the debt, somebody in the private sector will take the hit or the taxpayer will.

It's like me telling you that you are not obligated to pay off your car loan and the credit union will just have to eat what they are owed. Or those other people will have to pay it for you.

If the government provides the student loans direct from the public treasury it is the same thing. So long as there are strict guidelines for number of hours taken, passing grades, etc. in order to get or defer a loan, and enforced rules for repayment of the loans, that is more acceptable to me than a lot of government programs. But if the government then forgives the loan, that comes directly out of my pocket and I resent that a lot.

But, what Obama did is not really forgiving their loans. Yes, he has reduced their payments based on a percentage of their discretionary income, but their interest still accrues and they are still responsible for that and the principle. After a pretty long time, yeah, their loans are forgiven, but after that time period, the likelihood of them ever paying is probably zero. And, if they are already in default, I would hope that their wages are garnished as happens with all other federal government debts.

Out of principle - personal responsibility - I am against it. I would love to have the same payment plan for my debts.

Pragmatically, it makes sense. However, as I have little trust for this administration, I am not sure that he won't actually fully forgive these in a few months. He appeases the adoration masses with what appears to be forgiveness and desensitizes the opposition with non-forgiveness, then moves on from there. Only the observant notice at that point.

 

[uscitizen]

I give all my shits. I have not found anyone who would pay me for them yet.
Palin could probably sell hers though. It does not stink

 

[Sky Dancer]

At least you don't withold your shit, like some tight asses do.

(it's a joke, relax.)

I have no problem with President Obama's college loan plan. So, kill me.

 

[uscitizen]

At least you don't withold your shit, like some tight asses do.

(it's a joke, relax.)

Of course not, I do not want to fill up with it and become a politician.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Sorry.... **** them

Are home loans forgiven after 10 or 20 years.... oh hell no.


I don't care of the loan is for their whole lives.... they should be made to pay it back.

an a house, or car, or new nintendo is not an education. Education improves this country. Nothing else you've brought up so far does.

You think people make payments for 20 years aren't paying back loans? You think the taxpayers pick up the slack when ridiculous interest rates cause a $50k loan to become over $100k? OK let's say taxpayers are footing the bill for education. Again, this is what makes our country better. Why wouldn't we want to incentivize education?

 

[Si modo]

Sorry.... **** them

Are home loans forgiven after 10 or 20 years.... oh hell no.


I don't care of the loan is for their whole lives.... they should be made to pay it back.

an a house, or car, or new nintendo is not an education. Education improves this country. Nothing else you've brought up so far does.

You think people make payments for 20 years aren't paying back loans? You think the taxpayers pick up the slack when ridiculous interest rates cause a $50k loan to become over $100k? OK let's say taxpayers are footing the bill for education. Again, this is what makes our country better. Why wouldn't we want to incentivize education?

Not her point, but I am also not surprised that you imagined something that isn't there.

 

[Sky Dancer]

At least you don't withold your shit, like some tight asses do.

(it's a joke, relax.)

Of course not, I do not want to fill up with it and become a politician.

Or a rant poster.

 

[Si modo]

At least you don't withold your shit, like some tight asses do.

(it's a joke, relax.)

Of course not, I do not want to fill up with it and become a politician.

Or a rant poster.

Or a poster who does nothing but whine about other posters when others are discussing a topic.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Of course not, I do not want to fill up with it and become a politician.

Or a rant poster.

Or a poster who does nothing but whine about other posters when others are discussing a topic.

The topic is ranting, toots. Bash college students and bash Obama. Nobody interested in a serious discussion about the cost of a higher education these day.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, to play devil's advocate here. We promote lower tax rates so that folks have more discretionary income to spend in the economy, which I think we can all agree, is better for the economy.

So, this, which is not really a forgiveness of default, is not much different. The government cuts their payments so that they have more discretionary income.

So, the difference is?

Lowering taxes only theoretically reduces the amount government will take from people who lawfully earned it and then spend it. It does not take money away from anybody who gainfully earned that money and give it to somebody else.

Letting one person off the hook so that the tax payer then has to pony up the cash to pay a debt is something quite different. The government guarantees the loan rather than provide them so if the government forgives the debt, somebody in the private sector will take the hit or the taxpayer will.

It's like me telling you that you are not obligated to pay off your car loan and the credit union will just have to eat what they are owed. Or those other people will have to pay it for you.

If the government provides the student loans direct from the public treasury it is the same thing. So long as there are strict guidelines for number of hours taken, passing grades, etc. in order to get or defer a loan, and enforced rules for repayment of the loans, that is more acceptable to me than a lot of government programs. But if the government then forgives the loan, that comes directly out of my pocket and I resent that a lot.

But, what Obama did is not really forgiving their loans. Yes, he has reduced their payments based on a percentage of their discretionary income, but their interest still accrues and they are still responsible for that and the principle. After a pretty long time, yeah, their loans are forgiven, but after that time period, the likelihood of them ever paying is probably zero. And, if they are already in default, I would hope that their wages are garnished as happens with all other federal government debts.

Out of principle - personal responsibility - I am against it. I would love to have the same payment plan for my debts.

Pragmatically, it makes sense. However, as I have little trust for this administration, I am not sure that he will actually fully forgive these in a few months. He appeases the adoration masses with what appears to be forgiveness and desensitizes the opposition with non-forgiveness, then moves on from there. Only the observant notice at that point.

The amount they will pay from their income is capped at 10% of their discretionary income no matter how much they borrow however. So the cost of the education is no consideration at all. The student who manages to get into Harvard or Yale or Stanford without benefit of scholarship or private grants and racks up mega thousands in costs every year gets the same break as the student who lives at home and attends the local community college.

AND, if the student goes into certain kinds of government work, at least for a little while, any balance after TEN YEARS is forgiven. I don't believe there is any specification on how long the person must remain in that government job either. Just taking one gets the loan forgiven.

All I ask is that the government use my money with the same care and respect and integrity that I would.

 

[Si modo]

Or a rant poster.

Or a poster who does nothing but whine about other posters when others are discussing a topic.

The topic is ranting, toots. Bash college students and bash Obama.

Then you can't read, honey flanks.

So, piss off. Or contribute. But, I have yet to see you do much of anything but whine.

Put a pacifier in and deal with life.

 

[Si modo]

Lowering taxes only theoretically reduces the amount government will take from people who lawfully earned it and then spend it. It does not take money away from anybody who gainfully earned that money and give it to somebody else.

Letting one person off the hook so that the tax payer then has to pony up the cash to pay a debt is something quite different. The government guarantees the loan rather than provide them so if the government forgives the debt, somebody in the private sector will take the hit or the taxpayer will.

It's like me telling you that you are not obligated to pay off your car loan and the credit union will just have to eat what they are owed. Or those other people will have to pay it for you.

If the government provides the student loans direct from the public treasury it is the same thing. So long as there are strict guidelines for number of hours taken, passing grades, etc. in order to get or defer a loan, and enforced rules for repayment of the loans, that is more acceptable to me than a lot of government programs. But if the government then forgives the loan, that comes directly out of my pocket and I resent that a lot.

But, what Obama did is not really forgiving their loans. Yes, he has reduced their payments based on a percentage of their discretionary income, but their interest still accrues and they are still responsible for that and the principle. After a pretty long time, yeah, their loans are forgiven, but after that time period, the likelihood of them ever paying is probably zero. And, if they are already in default, I would hope that their wages are garnished as happens with all other federal government debts.

Out of principle - personal responsibility - I am against it. I would love to have the same payment plan for my debts.

Pragmatically, it makes sense. However, as I have little trust for this administration, I am not sure that he will actually fully forgive these in a few months. He appeases the adoration masses with what appears to be forgiveness and desensitizes the opposition with non-forgiveness, then moves on from there. Only the observant notice at that point.

The amount they will pay from their income is capped at 10% of their discretionary income no matter how much they borrow however. So the cost of the education is no consideration at all. The student who manages to get into Harvard or Yale or Stanford without benefit of scholarship or private grants and racks up mega thousands in costs every year gets the same break as the student who lives at home and attends the local community college.

AND, if the student goes into certain kinds of government work, at least for a little while, any balance after TEN YEARS is forgiven. I don't believe there is any specification on how long the person must remain in that government job either. Just taking one gets the loan forgiven.

All I ask is that the government use my money with the same care and respect and integrity that I would.

I understand that.

And, yes, I don't get the 10 year gift for someone decides to go into civil 'service' ('service' is an oxymoron there) and 20 years for all others.

 

[BDBoop]

Some of it is nature though, too. I'm the only one of my siblings (three sisters, no waiting) who has not much of a temper. My older sister's is practically spring-loaded. We're only 13 months apart, and sort of can't figure out why hers is so bad and mine is so 'meh.'

 

[geauxtohell]

I have no problem with student loans. I have no problem with the government guaranteeing the difference between the prevailing interest rate and a lower rate provided the government does not let people off the hook who default on their loans so that the risk to the taxpayer is minimal.

I have a HUGE problem with the government requiring me to put somebody else through college. My son and his wife are driving their old cars as long as they can, giving up vacations and other fun things, and cutting back on other expenses as much as they can so that their daughter, my granddaughter, will not rack up a huge debt while going to college. And she is also expected to carry a full class load, keep her grades up, and be willing to take whatever work is available during long recesses and over the summer. Hombre and I are not in a position to help a lot but we help as much as we can with that project.

Our just recently next door neighbor is a single mom who can't help a lot with college expenses so her daughter, a super neat kid, is living at home to save on expenses but is working full time to fund her night school classes.

To suggest that I should pick up the tab for people who don't give up anything or sacrifice anything to attend college is infuriating.

IBR was enacted to address the number of students defaulting on their debt. If you go to college and get out into a crummy job market and work three jobs but still can't meet your monthly payment, is that the fault of the graduate? They had no way of knowing what their paycheck was going to be. It's just a pragmatic response to a problem.

Secondly, you aren't "paying" for anyone else to go to school. Your tax dollars go into a pot and are giving out via student loans. A loan is a loan. If a student defaults on their loan, they can expect the same consequences as anyone else who defaults on a loan. It's not "free money" and you aren't personally cutting the check. As it stands there is an expectation of repayment with interest that is why it is called a loan.

And where is it stated you are guaranteed a job? You gamble on a job being there for you. You gamble when you take out loans.... any loans.

The wanted an education... and they got one. That is the ONLY point. Pay back what you borrowed for the education you got. Simple.

It's not. What's your alternative? No one takes out loans or go to college due to the fact that there isn't a "guarantee" of a job?

Hell, with my degree I probably have the most assurance of having a job on graduating and that is not even a guarantee.

The students are going to pay back their loans. This isn't the magical fairy tale you guys claim it to be. Stringing your loans out for 20 years is fiscally stupid and basically screws anyone that does that. You guys act like a person leaves college and spends 20 years on a fixed income and the only expense they have to worry about is their student loans. Eventually people want houses, cars, to put their kids into schools and to retire.

But again, rant away. I suspect this is less fiscal policy and more of the same hating.

 

[geauxtohell]

Lowering taxes only theoretically reduces the amount government will take from people who lawfully earned it and then spend it. It does not take money away from anybody who gainfully earned that money and give it to somebody else.

Letting one person off the hook so that the tax payer then has to pony up the cash to pay a debt is something quite different. The government guarantees the loan rather than provide them so if the government forgives the debt, somebody in the private sector will take the hit or the taxpayer will.

It's like me telling you that you are not obligated to pay off your car loan and the credit union will just have to eat what they are owed. Or those other people will have to pay it for you.

If the government provides the student loans direct from the public treasury it is the same thing. So long as there are strict guidelines for number of hours taken, passing grades, etc. in order to get or defer a loan, and enforced rules for repayment of the loans, that is more acceptable to me than a lot of government programs. But if the government then forgives the loan, that comes directly out of my pocket and I resent that a lot.

But, what Obama did is not really forgiving their loans. Yes, he has reduced their payments based on a percentage of their discretionary income, but their interest still accrues and they are still responsible for that and the principle. After a pretty long time, yeah, their loans are forgiven, but after that time period, the likelihood of them ever paying is probably zero. And, if they are already in default, I would hope that their wages are garnished as happens with all other federal government debts.

Out of principle - personal responsibility - I am against it. I would love to have the same payment plan for my debts.

Pragmatically, it makes sense. However, as I have little trust for this administration, I am not sure that he will actually fully forgive these in a few months. He appeases the adoration masses with what appears to be forgiveness and desensitizes the opposition with non-forgiveness, then moves on from there. Only the observant notice at that point.

The amount they will pay from their income is capped at 10% of their discretionary income no matter how much they borrow however. So the cost of the education is no consideration at all. The student who manages to get into Harvard or Yale or Stanford without benefit of scholarship or private grants and racks up mega thousands in costs every year gets the same break as the student who lives at home and attends the local community college.

AND, if the student goes into certain kinds of government work, at least for a little while, any balance after TEN YEARS is forgiven. I don't believe there is any specification on how long the person must remain in that government job either. Just taking one gets the loan forgiven.

All I ask is that the government use my money with the same care and respect and integrity that I would.

You are incorrect. The person has to remain in the job for 10 years. That is why the loan is forgiven in 10 years.

Like military service, that is deemed to be a good investment on the government's part. We need prosecutors and public defenders, but those jobs pay 1/2 or 1/3 of what a private firm job pays. It's the exact same logic as ROTC.

Furthermore, if you practice medicine in an undeserved area for 10 years, your loans can be forgiven too.

 

[geauxtohell]

But, what Obama did is not really forgiving their loans. Yes, he has reduced their payments based on a percentage of their discretionary income, but their interest still accrues and they are still responsible for that and the principle. After a pretty long time, yeah, their loans are forgiven, but after that time period, the likelihood of them ever paying is probably zero. And, if they are already in default, I would hope that their wages are garnished as happens with all other federal government debts.

Out of principle - personal responsibility - I am against it. I would love to have the same payment plan for my debts.

Pragmatically, it makes sense. However, as I have little trust for this administration, I am not sure that he will actually fully forgive these in a few months. He appeases the adoration masses with what appears to be forgiveness and desensitizes the opposition with non-forgiveness, then moves on from there. Only the observant notice at that point.

The amount they will pay from their income is capped at 10% of their discretionary income no matter how much they borrow however. So the cost of the education is no consideration at all. The student who manages to get into Harvard or Yale or Stanford without benefit of scholarship or private grants and racks up mega thousands in costs every year gets the same break as the student who lives at home and attends the local community college.

AND, if the student goes into certain kinds of government work, at least for a little while, any balance after TEN YEARS is forgiven. I don't believe there is any specification on how long the person must remain in that government job either. Just taking one gets the loan forgiven.

All I ask is that the government use my money with the same care and respect and integrity that I would.

I understand that.

And, yes, I don't get the 10 year gift for someone decides to go into civil 'service' ('service' is an oxymoron there) and 20 years for all others.

Because we need civil servants and with massive debts coming out of undergraduate and graduate schools means people can't afford to take those jobs.

Again, a pragmatic approach to addressing a problem.

Unless you want criminals to be turned out on the streets due to habius corpus when the PD docket is crammed because there are 3 PDs in the city.

 

[geauxtohell]

Sorry.... **** them

Are home loans forgiven after 10 or 20 years.... oh hell no.


I don't care of the loan is for their whole lives.... they should be made to pay it back.

an a house, or car, or new nintendo is not an education. Education improves this country. Nothing else you've brought up so far does.

You think people make payments for 20 years aren't paying back loans? You think the taxpayers pick up the slack when ridiculous interest rates cause a $50k loan to become over $100k? OK let's say taxpayers are footing the bill for education. Again, this is what makes our country better. Why wouldn't we want to incentivize education?

Hey man, you going to take advantage of that IBR? I know I am. It's free money dude! All these suckers are going to finance our education and we just have to drink beer and stonewall the government for 20 years and it all goes away!

In fact, I heard that Obama is actually going to give us the money in 20 years so we will vote for him!

Screw medicine, I am just going to hang out for 20 years so I don't have to draw an income and can have all my debt forgiven! I mean, the last four years sucked and now I have the opportunity to make a nice income, but screw that! I get my loans paid off for free, yo!

You wanna hang out on your street corner or mine?

 

[Si modo]

The amount they will pay from their income is capped at 10% of their discretionary income no matter how much they borrow however. So the cost of the education is no consideration at all. The student who manages to get into Harvard or Yale or Stanford without benefit of scholarship or private grants and racks up mega thousands in costs every year gets the same break as the student who lives at home and attends the local community college.

AND, if the student goes into certain kinds of government work, at least for a little while, any balance after TEN YEARS is forgiven. I don't believe there is any specification on how long the person must remain in that government job either. Just taking one gets the loan forgiven.

All I ask is that the government use my money with the same care and respect and integrity that I would.

I understand that.

And, yes, I don't get the 10 year gift for someone decides to go into civil 'service' ('service' is an oxymoron there) and 20 years for all others.

Because we need civil servants and with massive debts coming out of undergraduate and graduate schools means people can't afford to take those jobs.

Again, a pragmatic approach to addressing a problem.

Unless you want criminals to be turned out on the streets due to habius corpus when the PD docket is crammed because there are 3 PDs in the city.

I don't agree with that at all.

Someone becoming a police officer is very different than someone becoming another of the thousands of functionaires. And, cops are a very, very small percentage of civil "service" positions.

Just because someone works for government does not make them special by default compared to those in the private sector.