Its amazing how many elitist pigs exist on this site.
So if a woman marries someone who turns out to be abusive and leaves her bringing her to need a safety net its the woman's fault? Or someone who works every day in a job with little or no health coverage breaks his or her back and is in poverty is to blame for their misfortune?
Has the GOP become so full of hate for US citizens to spill such vile hatred mired in racism?
Originally posted by badmoon Its amazing how many elitist pigs exist on this site.
So if a woman marries someone who turns out to be abusive and leaves her bringing her to need a safety net its the woman's fault? Or someone who works every day in a job with little or no health coverage breaks his or her back and is in poverty is to blame for their misfortune?
Has the GOP become so full of hate for US citizens to spill such vile hatred mired in racism?
And to add, natural disasters happen which take away all that one has, or has worked for.
I won't be asking for loans, as I'll be getting off my pick up ground and starting to walk again; but there are many who can't. Are they moralist morons and pathetic losers, as some have said?
Elitism is for the weak of mind, and the meek of mind.
It isn't just US citizens badmoon, the hatred spreads across many nations of selfish idiots in a growing industry of self attachment.
I've changed my mind. After reading more about this particular program, I no longer have a problem with it.. No1 is right (this time). This program isn't really a big deal.
Still, I have a visceral reaction when I see these screaming headlines about this group and that group and the other group getting a bailout with my tax dollars. I don't think the government should be giving away money just for the sake of it; but if they're going to do it, frankly, I want a bailout too. I don't have a ton of student loan debt (though I do have some) and I can pay my mortgage when it comes due, but I could use some help paying the utilities and the grocery bills and though I'm perfectly happy shopping at Walmart and Target for clothes, it still adds up quickly when there are three growing children in the family.
When the government spends money to put money back in the pockets of people solely because they belong to one class or another of people who have racked up debt, I do think that is inequitable. Again, I'm not talking about giving basic services to the indigent. That's a different ballgame. But if they want to give people money solely to stimulate the economy then give us stimulus checks.
Originally posted by sh76 I've changed my mind. After reading more about this particular program, I no longer have a problem with it.. No1 is right (this time). This program isn't really a big deal.
Still, I have a visceral reaction when I see these screaming headlines about this group and that group and the other group getting a bailout with my tax dollars. I don't think the governm ...[text shortened]... want to give people money solely to stimulate the economy then give us stimulus checks.
Maybe this always happened but it seems like the govenment is picking winners and losers more and more often -- whether it is this program, subsidies for ethanol or solar energy, bail out for certain institutions but not others. It seems to be both unfair and to increase uncertainty.
Originally posted by sh76 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-20125577/obama-to-outline-student-loan-relief-plan/?fb_comment_id=fbc_5006885752265_674079_5006886864265
I went to significantly "worse" schools (both college and law school) than I could have because of cost. I basically paid my own way through both with government loans but between college and law school, I racked up deb ...[text shortened]... water because I bargain hunted when I looked for a house? What do I get then, Mr. President?
Let's see. Moving some already scheduled loan relief starting dates earlier, allowing consolidation of loans, eliminating subsidies to banks: which part is a game changer or were you already against the federal laws he is applying (which were passed by congress)?
Student loan interest rates are due to double next July, by the way.
Originally posted by sh76 [b]. I don't think the government should be giving away money just for the sake of it; but if they're going to do it, frankly, I want a bailout too. I don't have a ton of student loan debt (though I do have some) and I can pay my mortgage when it comes due, but I could use some help paying the utilities and the grocery bills and though I'm perfectly happy shopping ...[text shortened]... arget for clothes, it still adds up quickly when there are three growing children in the family.
They have you right were they want you sh76.
Basically, the government wants to be in a position of giving money to everyone. That means giving money to the poor, the middle class, corporate giants and foriegn countries abroad. What do they care, its not their money they are using.
Of course, nothing is free, is it sh76? I guess they have found your price, however.
Originally posted by sh76 I've changed my mind. After reading more about this particular program, I no longer have a problem with it.. No1 is right (this time). This program isn't really a big deal.
Still, I have a visceral reaction when I see these screaming headlines about this group and that group and the other group getting a bailout with my tax dollars. I don't think the governm ...[text shortened]... want to give people money solely to stimulate the economy then give us stimulus checks.
Don't you make more than $7000 a month? You once claimed that people who make less than that don't contribute to taxes.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Don't you make more than $7000 a month? You once claimed that people who make less than that don't contribute to taxes.
When did I say that?
A person who makes $7,000/mo does pay federal income tax unless he really has enormous deductions.
Originally posted by sh76 I've changed my mind. After reading more about this particular program, I no longer have a problem with it.. No1 is right (this time). This program isn't really a big deal.
Still, I have a visceral reaction when I see these screaming headlines about this group and that group and the other group getting a bailout with my tax dollars. I don't think the governm ...[text shortened]... want to give people money solely to stimulate the economy then give us stimulus checks.
A program to stimulate the economy's main goal should be to: stimulate the economy. Rebate checks to everybody have been tried in the past; they don't work well. Too many people save them or pay off debt. I realize that it sounds perverse that normally laudatory behavior like this is "bad" in these types of cases, but such understandable practices don't have any stimulative bang.
People in the circumstances you outline get a lot of government help in the form of tax credits and deductions. That isn't as obvious as a government check or other direct aid, but the result is the same: in the end, you have more cash in your pocket because of them just like someone who does who gets his minimum payment cut by the measures discussed here. Moral outrage seems inappropriate for someone in your position.
Originally posted by sh76 If a private individual makes a deal with a private company, that's none of my business. I don't like the government mandating or subsidizing that lenient treatment.
Someone who has constantly defended TARP which bailed out private banks which made deals with other private individuals and institutions really shouldn't make such a categorical statement at least if by "don't like" you are implying opposition in principal. "I don't like" the concept either but I feel that certain measures embodying it may be necessary at times for the aggregate economic good.
I made one incorrect statement earlier when I referred to the program affecting "garnishments" which are deductions from a debtor's income to the creditor pursuant to court order after default. In fact, this program is not available to those either delinquent or in default of their student loan debt. The program is referring to an amount of minimum payment by those applying now or who received loans recently. This seriously undercuts any "moral hazard" arguments.
Why isn't it up to the colleges to solve this loan problem? Its really only in the last decade that average student loans owed went from 17k to 27k.(careful not to get sucked into the huge numbers people are recently quoting). College tuition vs cost of living has been increasing at like a 500% rate over that period of time. Colleges are setting there costs based on how much an individual can pay at the time....in that number is student loans,,,,so the more you can borrow ... the more your cost is. Don't protest the gov....its the colleges that are raking people over the coals....and raking the tax payer.
Originally posted by no1marauder Someone who has constantly defended TARP which bailed out private banks which made deals with other private individuals and institutions really shouldn't make such a categorical statement at least if by "don't like" you are implying opposition in principal. "I don't like" the concept either but I feel that certain measures embodying it may be necessary at times for the aggregate economic good.
I should set the record straight on my position on TARP:
I viewed and view TARP as a lesser evil to prevent a specific impending greater evil, not as a program that was laudable in a vacuum.
Originally posted by pete3246 Why isn't it up to the colleges to solve this loan problem? Its really only in the last decade that average student loans owed went from 17k to 27k.(careful not to get sucked into the huge numbers people are recently quoting). College tuition vs cost of living has been increasing at like a 500% rate over that period of time. Colleges are setting there co ...[text shortened]... the gov....its the colleges that are raking people over the coals....and raking the tax payer.
The government determines how much can be borrowed to pay for school, so it's entirely within the government's power to determine how much debt the student racks up.
Moreover, colleges have an intense amount of competition. They charge exactly what the market will bear. If the government cut the amount you could take in a Stafford Loan, colleges would have to cut tuition. You don't blame the free market enterprise trying to make as much money as possible. You blame the enabler that doesn't have to work within the limitations of the market economy.
I should have taken out more student loans
27 Oct '11 12:12
Back to Top