# Forgive Student Loan Debt



## BDBoop

Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.


----------



## SniperFire

I'm all for forgiving it, but I don't think the universities who robbed these kiddies have any intention of paying it back to them.


----------



## Artevelde

If after 23 years you haven't been able to bay back a student loan of 26,000 you are either:
-) very stupid
-) spending your money on all sorts of other things
-) a freeloader
-) all of the above


----------



## BDBoop

Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

That sign is bullshit.. you're telling me that with interest, a $26,400 loan turned into a $77,977 debt?  No fucking way.

With that said, you read the terms, you took the money, you pay it back.


----------



## Artevelde

BDBoop said:


> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.



Paying back 26,000 over 23 years comes down to a very easy schedule. Should be a piece of cake. Unless of course you choose to spend your money on other things first.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Artevelde said:


> If after 23 years you haven't been able to bay back a student loan of 26,000 you are either:
> -) very stupid
> -) spending your money on all sorts of other things
> -) a freeloader
> -) all of the above



No way $26k to turns into $78k unless you're fucking up royally.


----------



## G.T.

she's only paying $119 a month?


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



should we forgive all mortgages too then?


----------



## Conservative

BDBoop said:


> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.



do you have proof of those numbers, other than a picture at a website?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

More LOLberal finance understanding. Color me shocked.


----------



## SniperFire

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> should we forgive all mortgages too then?
Click to expand...


It would be for the _greater good_, you know!


----------



## BDBoop

Either educate yourself, or butt out. Your kneejerk reacting doesn't facilitate discussion.


----------



## Katzndogz

If it was a $23,000 car instead of a student loan, how long would it take to pay off the car?


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.



Not me, I worked and saved a shit load of money so that I could go to school without going into debt..


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> should we forgive all mortgages too then?
Click to expand...



Just wait....  as the election moves closer don't be surprised.


----------



## SniperFire

What does fellatio have to do with it, Betty?


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> Either educate yourself, or butt out. Your kneejerk reacting doesn't facilitate discussion.



If one takes out a mortgage one pays back approximately three times what one borrowed does one knot?


----------



## whitehall

How about forgiving my car payments?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

BDBoop said:


> Either educate yourself, or butt out. Your kneejerk reacting doesn't facilitate discussion.



Stop posting silly signs from websites then.


----------



## Artevelde

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> If after 23 years you haven't been able to bay back a student loan of 26,000 you are either:
> -) very stupid
> -) spending your money on all sorts of other things
> -) a freeloader
> -) all of the above
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way $26k to turns into $78k unless you're fucking up royally.
Click to expand...


I guess the OP is economically challenged.


----------



## G.T.

BDBoop said:


> Either educate yourself, or butt out. Your kneejerk reacting doesn't facilitate discussion.



They have a point. 

I'm not even sure the person who would pay $119 a month for 23 years and never up her payments and never refinance at a lower rate, and get herself into a situation where she'd be paying triple (what?), deserves any credence when talking finances.


----------



## Artevelde

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either educate yourself, or butt out. Your kneejerk reacting doesn't facilitate discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one takes out a mortgage one pays back approximately three times what one borrowed does one knot?
Click to expand...


Let's forgive all mortgages and see how that works out for the country's financial system.


----------



## SniperFire

Everything should be, like, free.


----------



## BDBoop

A couple of answers from kids (adults now) on the "How could you be so stupid" question.



> Answer: I love that question: why didn't you read the contract. Well, I was 17 on my first loan and about 19 on my second one. Didn't even have a checking account and never had a credit card at that time. Read the contract? yeah, I read it and "Trusted" that the government wouldn't give me the shaft. I mean how could they do that to me, I was just a kid and had big dreams. How did I know they would retroactively change the law after I took out my loan and that this loan would follow me to my grave. Oh yeah and I forgot to mention that no where in my contract does it say if I default that my interest would be capitalized. They sort of left that out for future use.
> 
> Answer: Nobody can follow when the government changes the rules in the middle of the game. They do it all the time. This is why we need reform, and we need to pass H.R. 4170, to restore some sanity and responsibility to the system. Consumer advocates back in the 80s reformed insurance company policies and forced them to write insurance coverage in understandable language. This is what we need now with student loans. Obviously this is proving to be true, as Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is beginning to listen to the people, and proposing these types of changes. And, as far as these perfect people, who read everything, I don't believe 99% of them. They would have to prove it to me first. If they are that perfect, good for them. But it's surely nobody I have ever met. How about you??


----------



## BDBoop

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not me, I worked and saved a shit load of money so that I could go to school without going into debt..
Click to expand...


What century was that in?


----------



## Full-Auto

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



Prove the sign!!!!!


----------



## auditor0007

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



You can't just throw up some picture of a sign that really makes no sense and expect us to all jump on board.  There needs to be and explanation as to how the debt could increase while payments were being made.  Either the person missed a lot of payments, or the sign is BS.


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not me, I worked and saved a shit load of money so that I could go to school without going into debt..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What century was that in?
Click to expand...


seventies and eighties.. wassamatter work is now unfashionable?


----------



## SniperFire

Full-Auto said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove the sign!!!!!
Click to expand...


Barack has just commissioned a million of the from them Gubmint Printing Office.



maybe


----------



## Artevelde

BDBoop said:


> Either educate yourself, or butt out. Your kneejerk reacting doesn't facilitate discussion.



It's tough when people point out you're spouting nonsense hey?


----------



## LogikAndReazon

The only thing the sign proves is that the retard carrying it did not qualify for that loan, and that anyone feeling sympathy for the fool is an even bigger imbecile................


----------



## Conservative

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



those numbers are bogus...


Student Loan Calculator - CNNMoney
according to the student loan calculator at CNN...

A loan of $26,400

at 8.5% 

monthly payment of $218...

would have the loan *paid *in the 23 years the OP image shows, with the paid interest being $33,842. PAID.. not still owing $45,000.


I call fraud.


----------



## Artevelde

Conservative said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those numbers are bogus...
> 
> 
> Student Loan Calculator - CNNMoney
> according to the student loan calculator at CNN...
> 
> A loan of $26,400
> 
> at 8.5%
> 
> monthly payment of $218...
> 
> would have the loan *paid *in the 23 years the OP image shows, with the paid interest being $33,842. PAID.. not still owing $45,000.
> 
> 
> I call fraud.
Click to expand...


Oh my God. That's just way too much critical thinking! Have mercy.


----------



## BDBoop

It was a joke. Sorry, didn't consider my audience.

/note to self: make better use of emoticons


----------



## BillyV

BDBoop said:


> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.





Soggy in NOLA said:


> That sign is bullshit.. you're telling me that with interest, a $26,400 loan turned into a $77,977 debt?  No fucking way.
> 
> With that said, you read the terms, you took the money, you pay it back.



Welcome to the world of "negative amortization". She has paid $32,700 over 23 years; that's about $118 per month. The monthly interest on $26,400 at a relatively benign 6.6% would create a monthly interest at the outset of $145, and after 23 years of paying this way you would owe much more money (in fact, about $45K). If this was the minimum payment that was arranged in the contract and that's all she paid, then she owes the difference. I would say, however, that she probably has a good case to sue the university for not teaching her how to add and subtract.


----------



## Conservative

BDBoop said:


> It was a joke. Sorry, didn't consider my audience.
> 
> /note to self: make better use of emoticons



Sure.. now that you're stupidity and fraud were called out, it was really just a joke


----------



## geauxtohell

For perspective, my principle is about $240K at 7%.  My current balance is about $270k.

These numbers are typical of med school.  On the other hand, my expected annual earning will be in the mid $100 - low 200k, also typical of most fields in medicine.

So the note is big (and the interest rate sucks), but it's money we'll spent as far as earnings are concerned.

The problem a lot of college students have is tat they are being sold a bill of shit about "do what your heart tells you to do" and devoting their time to unemployable occupations.


----------



## BDBoop

BillyV said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sign is bullshit.. you're telling me that with interest, a $26,400 loan turned into a $77,977 debt?  No fucking way.
> 
> With that said, you read the terms, you took the money, you pay it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to the world of "negative amortization". She has paid $32,700 over 23 years; that's about $118 per month. The monthly interest on $26,400 at a relatively benign 6.6% would create a monthly interest at the outset of $145, and after 23 years of paying this way you would owe much more money (in fact, about $45K). If this was the minimum payment that was arranged in the contract and that's all she paid, then she owes the difference. I would say, however, that she probably has a good case to sue the university for not teaching her how to add and subtract.
Click to expand...


Conservative, meet Billy. He'll be your guide for these festivities.


----------



## Trajan

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



because they borrowed it...its a LOAN. its their responsibility to honor their contract and word and not put it off on me or anyone else......see how that works?


----------



## auditor0007

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



Based on those numbers, the loan was taken out for approximately 54 years.  Who takes out a loan for 54 years?  People pay mortgages off in 15 to 30 years.  Also based on those numbers, the interest rate is barely above 5%.


----------



## Conservative

BDBoop said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sign is bullshit.. you're telling me that with interest, a $26,400 loan turned into a $77,977 debt?  No fucking way.
> 
> With that said, you read the terms, you took the money, you pay it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to the world of "negative amortization". She has paid $32,700 over 23 years; that's about $118 per month. The monthly interest on $26,400 at a relatively benign 6.6% would create a monthly interest at the outset of $145, and after 23 years of paying this way you would owe much more money (in fact, about $45K). If this was the minimum payment that was arranged in the contract and that's all she paid, then she owes the difference. I would say, however, that she probably has a good case to sue the university for not teaching her how to add and subtract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative, meet Billy. He'll be your guide for these festivities.
Click to expand...


that's nice. How does that negate the CNN Student Loan calculator data I provided???


----------



## Artevelde

Trajan said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because they borrowed it...its a LOAN. its their responsibility to honer their contract and word and not put it off on me or anyone else......see how that works?
Click to expand...


You mean you actually have to pay back money that you borrowed? My God!


----------



## M14 Shooter

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.


The sign is horseshit.


----------



## Trajan

geauxtohell said:


> For perspective, my principle is about $240K at 7%.  My current balance is about $270k.
> 
> These numbers are typical of med school.  On the other hand, my expected annual earning will be in the mid $100 - low 200k, also typical of most fields in medicine.
> 
> So the note is big (and the interest rate sucks), but it's money we'll spent as far as earnings are concerned.
> 
> The problem a lot of college students have is tat they are being sold a bill of shit about "do what your heart tells you to do" and devoting their time to unemployable occupations.



well said and good luck, seriously.


Just as a thought, I would add that maybe If you're down for it again, take a 4 year hitch, uncle sam may defray some of the principal or moderate the interest....


----------



## M14 Shooter

BDBoop said:


> Either educate yourself, or butt out. Your kneejerk reacting doesn't facilitate discussion.


Neither does your posting of what is clearly a lie.

-I- borrowed $32,000 for college.   Paid in 7 years.
What did the person with the sign do wrong?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Katzndogz said:


> If it was a $23,000 car instead of a student loan, how long would it take to pay off the car?


3-5 years.   Maybe 6.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BDBoop said:


> A couple of answers from kids (adults now) on the "How could you be so stupid" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: I love that question: why didn't you read the contract. Well, I was 17 on my first loan and about 19 on my second one. Didn't even have a checking account and never had a credit card at that time. Read the contract? yeah, I read it and "Trusted" that the government wouldn't give me the shaft. I mean how could they do that to me, I was just a kid and had big dreams. How did I know they would retroactively change the law after I took out my loan and that this loan would follow me to my grave. Oh yeah and I forgot to mention that no where in my contract does it say if I default that my interest would be capitalized. They sort of left that out for future use.
> 
> Answer: Nobody can follow when the government changes the rules in the middle of the game. They do it all the time. This is why we need reform, and we need to pass H.R. 4170, to restore some sanity and responsibility to the system. Consumer advocates back in the 80s reformed insurance company policies and forced them to write insurance coverage in understandable language. This is what we need now with student loans. Obviously this is proving to be true, as Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is beginning to listen to the people, and proposing these types of changes. And, as far as these perfect people, who read everything, I don't believe 99% of them. They would have to prove it to me first. If they are that perfect, good for them. But it's surely nobody I have ever met. How about you??
Click to expand...

translation:
Their fault, and no one elses.


----------



## Erand7899

BDBoop said:


> A couple of answers from kids (adults now) on the "How could you be so stupid" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: I love that question: why didn't you read the contract. Well, I was 17 on my first loan and about 19 on my second one. Didn't even have a checking account and never had a credit card at that time. Read the contract? yeah, I read it and "Trusted" that the government wouldn't give me the shaft. I mean how could they do that to me, I was just a kid and had big dreams. How did I know they would retroactively change the law after I took out my loan and that this loan would follow me to my grave. Oh yeah and I forgot to mention that no where in my contract does it say if I default that my interest would be capitalized. They sort of left that out for future use.
> 
> Answer: Nobody can follow when the government changes the rules in the middle of the game. They do it all the time. This is why we need reform, and we need to pass H.R. 4170, to restore some sanity and responsibility to the system. Consumer advocates back in the 80s reformed insurance company policies and forced them to write insurance coverage in understandable language. This is what we need now with student loans. Obviously this is proving to be true, as Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is beginning to listen to the people, and proposing these types of changes. And, as far as these perfect people, who read everything, I don't believe 99% of them. They would have to prove it to me first. If they are that perfect, good for them. But it's surely nobody I have ever met. How about you??
Click to expand...


Rule changes do not usually affect existing contracts.  If one is not paying enough each month to cover the interest charges and pay on the balance, the loan will grow as the unpaid interest is capitalized.  

Any college student who is incapable of figuring out the payoff on a loan, belongs in high school and not college.

A whole lot of student loan money is spent on cars, booze, girl friends, boy friends, trips to Europe, and spring breaks on sunny beaches.  You enjoyed spending the money, now enjoy paying it back.


----------



## BillyV

Conservative said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the world of "negative amortization". She has paid $32,700 over 23 years; that's about $118 per month. The monthly interest on $26,400 at a relatively benign 6.6% would create a monthly interest at the outset of $145, and after 23 years of paying this way you would owe much more money (in fact, about $45K). If this was the minimum payment that was arranged in the contract and that's all she paid, then she owes the difference. I would say, however, that she probably has a good case to sue the university for not teaching her how to add and subtract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative, meet Billy. He'll be your guide for these festivities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's nice. How does that negate the CNN Student Loan calculator data I provided???
Click to expand...


It doesn't. You just assumed, like any normal person would, that you would set up a loan where the payment would at least cover the interest on the loan. This person obviously didn't do that. If she had paid $218 a month "faithfully", she would have paid my hypothetical 6.6% loan off 7 years ago.


----------



## Conservative

Erand7899 said:


> Rule changes do not usually affect existing contracts.  I*f one is not paying enough each month to cover the interest charges and pay on the balance, the loan will grow as the unpaid interest is capitalized.  *
> 
> Any college student who is incapable of figuring out the payoff on a loan, belongs in high school and not college.
> 
> A whole lot of student loan money is spent on cars, booze, girl friends, boy friends, trips to Europe, and spring breaks on sunny beaches.  You enjoyed spending the money, now enjoy paying it back.



exactly. If your interest alone is X, but you only pay X-Y each month, the difference is added to your principle balance, which will go up instead of down.


----------



## Conservative

BillyV said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative, meet Billy. He'll be your guide for these festivities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's nice. How does that negate the CNN Student Loan calculator data I provided???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't. You just assumed, like any normal person would, that you would set up a loan where the payment would at least cover the interest on the loan. This person obviously didn't do that. If she had paid $218 a month "faithfully", she would have paid my hypothetical 6.6% loan off 7 years ago.
Click to expand...


fair enough. So, she fucked up. Why should my taxes cover her screw up?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Erand7899 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of answers from kids (adults now) on the "How could you be so stupid" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: I love that question: why didn't you read the contract. Well, I was 17 on my first loan and about 19 on my second one. Didn't even have a checking account and never had a credit card at that time. Read the contract? yeah, I read it and "Trusted" that the government wouldn't give me the shaft. I mean how could they do that to me, I was just a kid and had big dreams. How did I know they would retroactively change the law after I took out my loan and that this loan would follow me to my grave. Oh yeah and I forgot to mention that no where in my contract does it say if I default that my interest would be capitalized. They sort of left that out for future use.
> 
> Answer: Nobody can follow when the government changes the rules in the middle of the game. They do it all the time. This is why we need reform, and we need to pass H.R. 4170, to restore some sanity and responsibility to the system. Consumer advocates back in the 80s reformed insurance company policies and forced them to write insurance coverage in understandable language. This is what we need now with student loans. Obviously this is proving to be true, as Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is beginning to listen to the people, and proposing these types of changes. And, as far as these perfect people, who read everything, I don't believe 99% of them. They would have to prove it to me first. If they are that perfect, good for them. But it's surely nobody I have ever met. How about you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rule changes do not usually affect existing contracts.  If one is not paying enough each month to cover the interest charges and pay on the balance, the loan will grow as the unpaid interest is capitalized.
> 
> Any college student who is incapable of figuring out the payoff on a loan, belongs in high school and not college.
> 
> A whole lot of student loan money is spent on cars, booze, girl friends, boy friends, trips to Europe, and spring breaks on sunny beaches.  You enjoyed spending the money, now enjoy paying it back.
Click to expand...

This is a just another example of how liberals refuse to hold (most) people responsible for their actions - they place blame on someone else and then expect everyone to pay for it.


----------



## Katzndogz

M14 Shooter said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was a $23,000 car instead of a student loan, how long would it take to pay off the car?
> 
> 
> 
> 3-5 years.   Maybe 6.
Click to expand...


On it's face, this whole student debt story is BS isn't it?


----------



## BillyV

Conservative said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's nice. How does that negate the CNN Student Loan calculator data I provided???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. You just assumed, like any normal person would, that you would set up a loan where the payment would at least cover the interest on the loan. This person obviously didn't do that. If she had paid $218 a month "faithfully", she would have paid my hypothetical 6.6% loan off 7 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fair enough. So, she fucked up. Why should my taxes cover her screw up?
Click to expand...


Simple answer - they shouldn't. You can't bankrupt away student loan debt; that's because medical and law students in the 70's were racking up huge student loan debts, declaring bankruptcy shortly after graduation, and living with a bad credit rating for seven years while earning lots of money. There were plenty of examples in the 80's.


----------



## geauxtohell

G.T. said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either educate yourself, or butt out. Your kneejerk reacting doesn't facilitate discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a point.
> 
> I'm not even sure the person who would pay $119 a month for 23 years and never up her payments and never refinance at a lower rate, and get herself into a situation where she'd be paying triple (what?), deserves any credence when talking finances.
Click to expand...


Yeah.  Facilitating someone's poor economic decisions is where I part ranks with occupy.

Put on your big boy pants and pay your fucking bills.

Creating a system where there is no real economic risk and reward simply poison's the well.

Once these stupid motherfuckers get over their elation for shaming out of their obligations and join the work force, they will realize they have no proverbial country,

Short sighted jackasses.


----------



## BDBoop

Oh, yes. Short-sighted jackasses, who should have known the law would be changed mid-stream.

How about this one? The dad should keep working, right? That's my guess. His son's death should absolutely not affect the debt.

Bank relents on loan for dead S.J. student | Courier-Post | courierpostonline.com



> Bryski, a 25-year-old Rutgers University graduate, died in 2006 after suffering catastrophic injuries in a fall two years earlier. His father, Joe, who had co-signed private loans of about $50,000 for his son&#8217;s college education, then had to come out of retirement to make monthly payments on the debt.
> 
> The family, which tried for six years to have the debt discharged by Key Bank, said the Cleveland-based firm now has agreed to do that. The change came after Ryan Bryski, Christopher&#8217;s brother, began an online petition drive that drew 80,000 signatures in less than a week.
> 
> &#8220;When Christopher died, my family didn&#8217;t just lose a loved one &#8212; we inherited debt for an education that will never be used,&#8221; Ryan Bryski said in the online petitition.


----------



## geauxtohell

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> For perspective, my principle is about $240K at 7%.  My current balance is about $270k.
> 
> These numbers are typical of med school.  On the other hand, my expected annual earning will be in the mid $100 - low 200k, also typical of most fields in medicine.
> 
> So the note is big (and the interest rate sucks), but it's money we'll spent as far as earnings are concerned.
> 
> The problem a lot of college students have is tat they are being sold a bill of shit about "do what your heart tells you to do" and devoting their time to unemployable occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well said and good luck, seriously.
> 
> 
> Just as a thought, I would add that maybe If you're down for it again, take a 4 year hitch, uncle sam may defray some of the principal or moderate the interest....
Click to expand...


Thanks.  I was a finance major.  I knew this path was a good economic risk.  Regardless of what Wahington does, people need healthcare and any field where your start up overhead is around one years worth of salary, is a no brainier.

Purely economically speaking, the military isn't as good of a deal for physicians when you really crunch the numbers.  Plus, as a budding emergency medicine physician, I want to be in a department with civilian patients b/c that is where you will see the best pathology.


----------



## peach174

This is Obama's political ploy to get the college students to vote for him. That is all this is.
Same old Democratic ploy, vote for me and your student loans will be forgiven. Also add I'm the cool President vote for me.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Katzndogz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was a $23,000 car instead of a student loan, how long would it take to pay off the car?
> 
> 
> 
> 3-5 years.   Maybe 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On it's face, this whole student debt story is BS isn't it?
Click to expand...

Almost certainly.
If true, the issue stems from poor decision making on the part of the person who took the loan.


----------



## BDBoop

No, actually. Robert Applebaum is a friend of mine, and he got this ball rolling. Google him if you don't believe me.

http://www.forgivestudentloandebt.com/content/student-loan-forgiveness-act-2012-hr-4170-bill-text

Read the bill. Let me know what you find unacceptable about it.


----------



## Conservative

My son will finish college after 1 more year. I've been drilling into his head since high school that the first thing he does with each check when (if) he gets a job after college, is make a loan payment... and pay extra if you can manage it.


----------



## Katzndogz

BDBoop said:


> Oh, yes. Short-sighted jackasses, who should have known the law would be changed mid-stream.
> 
> How about this one? The dad should keep working, right? That's my guess. His son's death should absolutely not affect the debt.
> 
> Bank relents on loan for dead S.J. student | Courier-Post | courierpostonline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bryski, a 25-year-old Rutgers University graduate, died in 2006 after suffering catastrophic injuries in a fall two years earlier. His father, Joe, who had co-signed private loans of about $50,000 for his sons college education, then had to come out of retirement to make monthly payments on the debt.
> 
> The family, which tried for six years to have the debt discharged by Key Bank, said the Cleveland-based firm now has agreed to do that. The change came after Ryan Bryski, Christophers brother, began an online petition drive that drew 80,000 signatures in less than a week.
> 
> When Christopher died, my family didnt just lose a loved one  we inherited debt for an education that will never be used, Ryan Bryski said in the online petitition.
Click to expand...


Absolutely he should have to repay the debt.  He co-signed for it didn't he?  Did he promise to pay if his son did not?  Yes he did.  They did not inherit a debt.  It was always theirs.  The dad promised to pay. 

Be careful what you co-sign for.


----------



## Katzndogz

It's a teachable moment.  If you co-sign for a loan, get a life insurance policy to pay it off in case the primary borrower dies.


----------



## Conservative

BDBoop said:


> Oh, yes. Short-sighted jackasses, who should have known the law would be changed mid-stream.
> 
> How about this one? The dad should keep working, right? That's my guess. His son's death should absolutely not affect the debt.
> 
> Bank relents on loan for dead S.J. student | Courier-Post | courierpostonline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bryski, a 25-year-old Rutgers University graduate, died in 2006 after suffering catastrophic injuries in a fall two years earlier. His father, Joe, who had co-signed private loans of about $50,000 for his sons college education, then had to come out of retirement to make monthly payments on the debt.
> 
> The family, which tried for six years to have the debt discharged by Key Bank, said the Cleveland-based firm now has agreed to do that. The change came after Ryan Bryski, Christophers brother, began an online petition drive that drew 80,000 signatures in less than a week.
> 
> When Christopher died, my family didnt just lose a loved one  we inherited debt for an education that will never be used, Ryan Bryski said in the online petitition.
Click to expand...


as was pointed out to you, rule changes do NOT affect existing student loan contracts.

As for this story, sad, but has nothing to do with the OP, which is a bogus sign with bogus numbers, designed to gain sympathy for someone who doesn't think they should be responsible for their own decisions.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BDBoop said:


> Oh, yes. Short-sighted jackasses, who should have known the law would be changed mid-stream.


You are responsible for your actions and decisions.
If you aren't willing to keep up on your financial commitments, then you have no one to blame but yourself for the pile of shit you find yourself in.


----------



## Conservative

Katzndogz said:


> It's a teachable moment.  If you co-sign for a loan, get a life insurance policy to pay it off in case the primary borrower dies.



good point.


----------



## uscitizen

SniperFire said:


> I'm all for forgiving it, but I don't think the universities who robbed these kiddies have any intention of paying it back to them.



why forgive student debt?  That will really teach them personal and fiscal responsibility won't it?


Money management and the consequences of debt is a major lesson that students MUST learn in order to do well in life.


----------



## geauxtohell

peach174 said:


> This is Obama's political ploy to get the college students to vote for him. That is all this is.
> Same old Democratic ploy, vote for me and your student loans will be forgiven. Also add I'm the cool President vote for me.



When has Obama said he is going to abolish student debt?


----------



## peach174

BDBoop said:


> Oh, yes. Short-sighted jackasses, who should have known the law would be changed mid-stream.
> 
> How about this one? The dad should keep working, right? That's my guess. His son's death should absolutely not affect the debt.
> 
> Bank relents on loan for dead S.J. student | Courier-Post | courierpostonline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bryski, a 25-year-old Rutgers University graduate, died in 2006 after suffering catastrophic injuries in a fall two years earlier. His father, Joe, who had co-signed private loans of about $50,000 for his sons college education, then had to come out of retirement to make monthly payments on the debt.
> 
> The family, which tried for six years to have the debt discharged by Key Bank, said the Cleveland-based firm now has agreed to do that. The change came after Ryan Bryski, Christophers brother, began an online petition drive that drew 80,000 signatures in less than a week.
> 
> When Christopher died, my family didnt just lose a loved one  we inherited debt for an education that will never be used, Ryan Bryski said in the online petitition.
Click to expand...



Same thing with a car payment or house payment. Just because you die doesn't mean that loan should not be paid off.
You buy a new car, you wreck it, you still pay off that loan, even though you don't have the new car any longer.
When you co sign anything and something happens to the one who took out the loan. That loan still has to be paid off.


----------



## Conservative

geauxtohell said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Obama's political ploy to get the college students to vote for him. That is all this is.
> Same old Democratic ploy, vote for me and your student loans will be forgiven. Also add I'm the cool President vote for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When has Obama said he is going to abolish student debt?
Click to expand...


He didn't. However, when running for office in 2008, he never said he was going to pay peoples bills, yet people believed he would and voted for him...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1FCmfo2Ft4]obama will pay my bills!! - YouTube[/ame]

What's different now?


----------



## geauxtohell

peach174 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes. Short-sighted jackasses, who should have known the law would be changed mid-stream.
> 
> How about this one? The dad should keep working, right? That's my guess. His son's death should absolutely not affect the debt.
> 
> Bank relents on loan for dead S.J. student | Courier-Post | courierpostonline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bryski, a 25-year-old Rutgers University graduate, died in 2006 after suffering catastrophic injuries in a fall two years earlier. His father, Joe, who had co-signed private loans of about $50,000 for his sons college education, then had to come out of retirement to make monthly payments on the debt.
> 
> The family, which tried for six years to have the debt discharged by Key Bank, said the Cleveland-based firm now has agreed to do that. The change came after Ryan Bryski, Christophers brother, began an online petition drive that drew 80,000 signatures in less than a week.
> 
> When Christopher died, my family didnt just lose a loved one  we inherited debt for an education that will never be used, Ryan Bryski said in the online petitition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with a car payment or house payment. Just because you die doesn't mean that loan should not be paid off.
> You buy a new car, you wreck it, you still pay off that loan, even though you don't have the new car any longer.
> When you co sign anything and something happens to the one who took out the loan. That loan still has to be paid off.
Click to expand...


Absent a co-signer, death discharges student debt, as it should.


----------



## BDBoop

Guess all I can say is it's a good thing the bank is more humane than you lot.

The loan was forgiven.


----------



## Artevelde

BDBoop said:


> No, actually. Robert Applebaum is a friend of mine, and he got this ball rolling. Google him if you don't believe me.
> 
> http://www.forgivestudentloandebt.com/content/student-loan-forgiveness-act-2012-hr-4170-bill-text
> 
> Read the bill. Let me know what you find unacceptable about it.



Talk about a simplistic political gimmick.


----------



## Conservative

geauxtohell said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes. Short-sighted jackasses, who should have known the law would be changed mid-stream.
> 
> How about this one? The dad should keep working, right? That's my guess. His son's death should absolutely not affect the debt.
> 
> Bank relents on loan for dead S.J. student | Courier-Post | courierpostonline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with a car payment or house payment. Just because you die doesn't mean that loan should not be paid off.
> You buy a new car, you wreck it, you still pay off that loan, even though you don't have the new car any longer.
> When you co sign anything and something happens to the one who took out the loan. That loan still has to be paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absent a co-signer, death discharges student debt, as it should.
Click to expand...


but there was a co-signer in BD's story, and they became responsible. That's how it works.


----------



## geauxtohell

Conservative said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Obama's political ploy to get the college students to vote for him. That is all this is.
> Same old Democratic ploy, vote for me and your student loans will be forgiven. Also add I'm the cool President vote for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When has Obama said he is going to abolish student debt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't. However, when running for office in 2008, he never said he was going to pay peoples bills, yet people believed he would and voted for him...
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1FCmfo2Ft4]obama will pay my bills!! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> What's different now?
Click to expand...


So the fact that some people are fucking stupid is Obama's fault?


----------



## Conservative

BDBoop said:


> Guess all I can say is it's a good thing the bank is more humane than you lot.
> 
> The loan was forgiven.



And I am pleased that it was. However, that is between them and the bank.


----------



## uscitizen

geauxtohell said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes. Short-sighted jackasses, who should have known the law would be changed mid-stream.
> 
> How about this one? The dad should keep working, right? That's my guess. His son's death should absolutely not affect the debt.
> 
> Bank relents on loan for dead S.J. student | Courier-Post | courierpostonline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with a car payment or house payment. Just because you die doesn't mean that loan should not be paid off.
> You buy a new car, you wreck it, you still pay off that loan, even though you don't have the new car any longer.
> When you co sign anything and something happens to the one who took out the loan. That loan still has to be paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absent a co-signer, death discharges student debt, as it should.
Click to expand...


Once it gets all it can from the estate.


----------



## geauxtohell

Conservative said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with a car payment or house payment. Just because you die doesn't mean that loan should not be paid off.
> You buy a new car, you wreck it, you still pay off that loan, even though you don't have the new car any longer.
> When you co sign anything and something happens to the one who took out the loan. That loan still has to be paid off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absent a co-signer, death discharges student debt, as it should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but there was a co-signer in BD's story, and they became responsible. That's how it works.
Click to expand...


I agree, but if there is no co-signer, the bank eats it.

It's all part of the finance game and death is a risk that factors into interest rates.


----------



## Conservative

geauxtohell said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When has Obama said he is going to abolish student debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't. However, when running for office in 2008, he never said he was going to pay peoples bills, yet people believed he would and voted for him...
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1FCmfo2Ft4]obama will pay my bills!! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> What's different now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that some people are fucking stupid is Obama's fault?
Click to expand...


Did I say it was? No, I was simply explaining the other posters reasoning. I did not say I agreed with it.

Also, I was pointing out that stupid people believed it last time, stupid people might believe it this time as well.


----------



## clevergirl

geauxtohell said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When has Obama said he is going to abolish student debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't. However, when running for office in 2008, he never said he was going to pay peoples bills, yet people believed he would and voted for him...
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1FCmfo2Ft4]obama will pay my bills!! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> What's different now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that some people are fucking stupid is Obama's fault?
Click to expand...


BINGO!  Obama is banking on the support of stupid people in order to win the next election. The smart folks understand his policies are destructive and untenable.


----------



## geauxtohell

uscitizen said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with a car payment or house payment. Just because you die doesn't mean that loan should not be paid off.
> You buy a new car, you wreck it, you still pay off that loan, even though you don't have the new car any longer.
> When you co sign anything and something happens to the one who took out the loan. That loan still has to be paid off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absent a co-signer, death discharges student debt, as it should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once it gets all it can from the estate.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.


----------



## uscitizen

geauxtohell said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When has Obama said he is going to abolish student debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't. However, when running for office in 2008, he never said he was going to pay peoples bills, yet people believed he would and voted for him...
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1FCmfo2Ft4]obama will pay my bills!! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> What's different now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that some people are fucking stupid is Obama's fault?
Click to expand...


and some are stupid enough to think that all liberals are like that dumb woman.
Who is dumber?


----------



## Jarhead

BDBoop said:


> Oh, yes. Short-sighted jackasses, who should have known the law would be changed mid-stream.
> 
> How about this one? The dad should keep working, right? That's my guess. His son's death should absolutely not affect the debt.
> 
> Bank relents on loan for dead S.J. student | Courier-Post | courierpostonline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bryski, a 25-year-old Rutgers University graduate, died in 2006 after suffering catastrophic injuries in a fall two years earlier. His father, Joe, who had co-signed private loans of about $50,000 for his sons college education, then had to come out of retirement to make monthly payments on the debt.
> 
> The family, which tried for six years to have the debt discharged by Key Bank, said the Cleveland-based firm now has agreed to do that. The change came after Ryan Bryski, Christophers brother, began an online petition drive that drew 80,000 signatures in less than a week.
> 
> When Christopher died, my family didnt just lose a loved one  we inherited debt for an education that will never be used, Ryan Bryski said in the online petitition.
Click to expand...


this is a very sad story and the circumstances are unique.
But they are not unique of you change the circumstances...but having the same result...

For example.....you buy a used car for 15K. You cant afford the cash outright, so you dip into your heloc....15k loan.

Likewise, being a used car, you minimize the insurance on  it and only get what you legally need...liability.

The car is stolen. No insurance.

You are now paying off a Heloc without the car that the Heloc paid for.

Or how about this...you bought that car for your son who tragicly died in a car accident. No insurance.

Your son is dead and you are paying for a car he no longer can use...and the car no longer exists.

As sad as it all sounds....that is part of life...it sux...but it is part of life.


----------



## geauxtohell

clevergirl said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't. However, when running for office in 2008, he never said he was going to pay peoples bills, yet people believed he would and voted for him...
> obama will pay my bills!! - YouTube
> 
> What's different now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that some people are fucking stupid is Obama's fault?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BINGO!  Obama is banking on the support of stupid people in order to win the next election. The smart folks understand his policies are destructive and untenable.
Click to expand...


All politicians do that.


----------



## uscitizen

geauxtohell said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absent a co-signer, death discharges student debt, as it should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once it gets all it can from the estate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
Click to expand...

Ohh OK.  I expected it iwas like any other debt owed.


----------



## Jarhead

geauxtohell said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When has Obama said he is going to abolish student debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't. However, when running for office in 2008, he never said he was going to pay peoples bills, yet people believed he would and voted for him...
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1FCmfo2Ft4]obama will pay my bills!! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> What's different now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that some people are fucking stupid is Obama's fault?
Click to expand...


No...the fact that Obama PLAYED on the stupid so he can get their votes is what pisses me off.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BDBoop said:


> Guess all I can say is it's a good thing the bank is more humane than you lot.


Explain how a lender is responsible for the poor decisions its borrower and therefore should just give up the money it is owed.


----------



## geauxtohell

Conservative said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't. However, when running for office in 2008, he never said he was going to pay peoples bills, yet people believed he would and voted for him...
> obama will pay my bills!! - YouTube
> 
> What's different now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that some people are fucking stupid is Obama's fault?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say it was? No, I was simply explaining the other posters reasoning. I did not say I agreed with it.
> 
> Also, I was pointing out that stupid people believed it last time, stupid people might believe it this time as well.
Click to expand...


So what?  It's a pointless deflection.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Is "forgive" just the typical big gov't code word for "tax people different than me to pay for"?


----------



## Katzndogz

There's no way around it.  Democrats depend on people being so ignorant they can't possibly take care of themselves.

If you co-sign for a loan, get a little cheap term life insurance policy for the life of the loan.  If you buy a new car, spend two bucks extra for gap coverage so the loan is paid off if the car is wrecked and isn't worth as much as the loan balance.  

We are supposed to be stupid to advance the interests of a government that needs stupid people.


----------



## Conservative

geauxtohell said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that some people are fucking stupid is Obama's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say it was? No, I was simply explaining the other posters reasoning. I did not say I agreed with it.
> 
> Also, I was pointing out that stupid people believed it last time, stupid people might believe it this time as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  It's a pointless deflection.
Click to expand...


Hardly. I pointed out, like others just have, how Obama 'played' stupid people in 2008, and by trying to do something with student loans, is 'playing' people this time around as well.

Hopefully, people will not be as stupid as 2008.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Conservative said:


> My son will finish college after 1 more year. I've been drilling into his head since high school that the first thing he does with each check when (if) he gets a job after college, is make a loan payment... and pay extra if you can manage it.




My son also graduates next year.  In high school we made sure he understood he could study anything he wanted.  If it was an employable field, we would help.  If was something stupid, he was on his own.  He attended a local university instead of taveling away so lives at home.  He goes to school full time and works part time (and has since high school) and helps defray his expenses.

He'll graduate with $0 debt and about $20,000 in his bank account.

Whew - dodged the bullet on that one.



>>>>


----------



## geauxtohell

uscitizen said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once it gets all it can from the estate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohh OK.  I expected it iwas like any other debt owed.
Click to expand...


Not student debt.

It's fair.  Student debt is borrowed with earning expectation to repay.  Death effectively erases that expectation.

Student loans are a safe bet for lenders so it's not unreasonable that they assume that miniscle risk.

As I said, it's simply mitigated by others interest rates.


----------



## Oddball

M14 Shooter said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess all I can say is it's a good thing the bank is more humane than you lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a lender is responsible for the poor decisions its borrower and therefore should just give up the money it is owed.
Click to expand...

And where are all the complaints of "price gouging" by Big Edumacation?


----------



## geauxtohell

Jarhead said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't. However, when running for office in 2008, he never said he was going to pay peoples bills, yet people believed he would and voted for him...
> obama will pay my bills!! - YouTube
> 
> What's different now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that some people are fucking stupid is Obama's fault?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...the fact that Obama PLAYED on the stupid so he can get their votes is what pisses me off.
Click to expand...


Oh, Obama said he was going to pay their bills?

Four years after the fact and you jack nuts stillcan't figure out why we rejected McCain/Palin, can you?


----------



## Conservative

geauxtohell said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that some people are fucking stupid is Obama's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...the fact that Obama PLAYED on the stupid so he can get their votes is what pisses me off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Obama said he was going to pay their bills?
> 
> *Four years after the fact and you jack nuts stillcan't figure out why we rejected McCain/Palin, can you?*
Click to expand...


Now THAT is a deflection.

No, Obama did not say he'd pay anyones bills. He 'played' on the stupid people who thought he would, and they voted for him thinking he would help them in that way.

He played on their stupidity. He didnt have to lie and actually SAY anything. Just let them keep thinking he would.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

> Explain how a lender is responsible for the poor decisions its borrower and therefore should just give up the money it is owed.



You mean like with a lender of last resort?


----------



## peach174

geauxtohell said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Obama's political ploy to get the college students to vote for him. That is all this is.
> Same old Democratic ploy, vote for me and your student loans will be forgiven. Also add I'm the cool President vote for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When has Obama said he is going to abolish student debt?
Click to expand...


Obama wants student loans to be forgiven in 20 years, instead of 25 years. 
Wrong way to go. It doesn't make any student responsible to to pay the loans off. Just let them sit for 25 or 20 years and then you don't need to pay them.
How about he wanted an increase in pell grants.


----------



## geauxtohell

Conservative said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...the fact that Obama PLAYED on the stupid so he can get their votes is what pisses me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Obama said he was going to pay their bills?
> 
> *Four years after the fact and you jack nuts stillcan't figure out why we rejected McCain/Palin, can you?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT is a deflection.
> 
> No, Obama did not say he'd pay anyones bills. He 'played' on the stupid people who thought he would, and they voted for him thinking he would help them in that way.
> 
> He played on their stupidity. He didnt have to lie and actually SAY anything. Just let them keep thinking he would.
Click to expand...


Oh, okay...

Quantify how he "played" on stupid people.

Oh wait, you say he didn't actually say something?  

Thanks for playing.


----------



## Avatar4321

i dont believe that sign for a second. But then I _do_ understand compound interest.

I can tell you that forgiving my student debt would sure be beneficial to me and my family. But i borrowed the money. I need to pay it back. Why would I want to lose my integrity over it? Or set a bad example for my children by taking things i dont pay for?


----------



## geauxtohell

peach174 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Obama's political ploy to get the college students to vote for him. That is all this is.
> Same old Democratic ploy, vote for me and your student loans will be forgiven. Also add I'm the cool President vote for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When has Obama said he is going to abolish student debt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama wants student loans to be forgiven in 20 years, instead of 25 years.
> Wrong way to go. It doesn't make any student responsible to to pay the loans off. Just let them sit for 25 or 20 years and then you don't need to pay them.
> How about he wanted an increase in pell grants.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that extra five years of IBR is going to make all the difference.....



BTW, the loans don't "just sit" for 20 years.  That's the most absurd thing I have evader heard.  You have to make monthly payments on them based on your income.

You don't fully understand this issue, do you?


----------



## peach174

BDBoop said:


> Guess all I can say is it's a good thing the bank is more humane than you lot.
> 
> The loan was forgiven.



The loan was not forgiven. The payments were absorbed by the rest of the customers.
It still got paid off.


----------



## hilbert

Artevelde said:


> If after 23 years you haven't been able to bay back a student loan of 26,000 you are either:
> -) very stupid
> -) spending your money on all sorts of other things
> -) a freeloader
> -) all of the above



On the other hand, writing stuff like this shows you have never had to borrow money to go to college. Did you even earn a HS degree, Sparky?


----------



## Ernie S.

SniperFire said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> should we forgive all mortgages too then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be for the _greater good_, you know!
Click to expand...


The greater good of who? Certainly not me. I paid up front for my education and paid cash for my home.


----------



## BDBoop

WOW! That's impressive. Never happens, but it's impressive.


----------



## geauxtohell

Ernie S. said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we forgive all mortgages too then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be for the _greater good_, you know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greater good of who? Certainly not me. I paid up front for my education and paid cash for my home.
Click to expand...


If you require that for everyone, few would be able to obtain a higher education or a house.

The banks sure as hell don't want that system.


----------



## naturegirl

As I've said before.......Community Organizers bank on the fact that the people they are "organizing" aren't too smart.  The lead them to slaughter and then say, well I didn't "say" that I'd help.

Are those people of the South Side of Chicago in a better position than they were before they were "organized"??  Or are they still living off generational welfare??  The Community Organizer made sure they would be taken care of by the GOVERNMENT for the rest of their lives, their children's lives and their grand children's lives.  They haven't helped them do anything but become increasingly more dependent on government.  

Yay for those community organizers, the people get to vote for the guy that keeps them on welfare instead of giving them a helping hand to make it on their own.  WTG!!

Seems like someone misread the fact that some folks prefer to handle their own lives, whoops!!


----------



## clevergirl

geauxtohell said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that some people are fucking stupid is Obama's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!  Obama is banking on the support of stupid people in order to win the next election. The smart folks understand his policies are destructive and untenable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All politicians do that.
Click to expand...



LOL- OK, I guess that's a fair point~ Yet, I have never heard a conservative voter, claim that the GOP candidate is going to give them everything~


----------



## geauxtohell

clevergirl said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!  Obama is banking on the support of stupid people in order to win the next election. The smart folks understand his policies are destructive and untenable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All politicians do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- OK, I guess that's a fair point~ Yet, I have never heard a conservative voter, claim that the GOP candidate is going to give them everything~
Click to expand...


Conservative voters have different favors of equally stupid notions.

"Guns, Gays,and God".....


----------



## g5000

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



Wow.  This is perfect.  I have been thinking a lot lately about how badly our country needs an education in critical thinking.  And I have been trying to think of some exercises you could put to students to teach them how to think critically.

Thank you for providing a perfect example.





Katzndogz said:


> If it was a $23,000 car instead of a student loan, how long would it take to pay off the car?



Exactly!  Questions like that are the kind of critical thinking needed today.  Except it was a loan for just over $26,000 not $23,000.  

The woman was obviously in a massively negative amortization.  That is not the lender's doing.  She did that.  She should ask for a refund from the college that gave her such a bad education that she couldn't even figure out simple loan terms.


----------



## Stephanie

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



well for sure someone held a gun to this person and made them TAKE out the loan..

Hey, maybe we should all get together and demand they forgive all our car loans..


----------



## Oddball

g5000 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is perfect.  I have thinking about how badly our country needs an education in critical thinking.  And I have been trying to think of some exercises you could put to students to teach them how to teach critically.
> 
> Thank you for providing a perfect example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was a $23,000 car instead of a student loan, how long would it take to pay off the car?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!  Questions like that are the kind of critical thinking needed today.  Except it was a loan for just over $26,000 not $23,000.
> 
> The woman was obviously in a massively negative amortization.  That is not the lender's doing.  She did that.  She should ask for a refund from the college that gave her such a bad education that she couldn't even figure out simple loan terms.
Click to expand...

BDPoop isn't into critical thinking, just in finding ways to rationalize mooching.


----------



## Ernie S.

geauxtohell said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be for the _greater good_, you know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The greater good of who? Certainly not me. I paid up front for my education and paid cash for my home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you require that for everyone, few would be able to obtain a higher education or a house.
> 
> *The banks sure as hell don't want that system.*
Click to expand...


Nor would I. It would hammer my banking holdings.
I was fortunate enough to have a marketable skill while I went to school. I financed my first 2 homes my and paid the first off in 12 years and the second in 4. When I sold the second, I realized enough profit to pay for about half of the home I live in now. I lived pretty tight for about 6 years until I could jump on this house.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

BDBoop said:


> A couple of answers from kids (adults now) on the "How could you be so stupid" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: I love that question: why didn't you read the contract. Well, I was 17 on my first loan and about 19 on my second one. Didn't even have a checking account and never had a credit card at that time. Read the contract? yeah, I read it and "Trusted" that the government wouldn't give me the shaft. I mean how could they do that to me, I was just a kid and had big dreams. How did I know they would retroactively change the law after I took out my loan and that this loan would follow me to my grave. Oh yeah and I forgot to mention that no where in my contract does it say if I default that my interest would be capitalized. They sort of left that out for future use.
> 
> Answer: Nobody can follow when the government changes the rules in the middle of the game. They do it all the time. This is why we need reform, and we need to pass H.R. 4170, to restore some sanity and responsibility to the system. Consumer advocates back in the 80s reformed insurance company policies and forced them to write insurance coverage in understandable language. This is what we need now with student loans. Obviously this is proving to be true, as Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is beginning to listen to the people, and proposing these types of changes. And, as far as these perfect people, who read everything, I don't believe 99% of them. They would have to prove it to me first. If they are that perfect, good for them. But it's surely nobody I have ever met. How about you??
Click to expand...


Why would anybody that ignorant of finances borrow a bunch of money?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Oddball said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess all I can say is it's a good thing the bank is more humane than you lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a lender is responsible for the poor decisions its borrower and therefore should just give up the money it is owed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And where are all the complaints of "price gouging" by Big Edumacation?
Click to expand...


Because one cannot put a price tag on a PhD in Post Bolshevik Vagina Studies.


----------



## Jarhead

geauxtohell said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Obama said he was going to pay their bills?
> 
> *Four years after the fact and you jack nuts stillcan't figure out why we rejected McCain/Palin, can you?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT is a deflection.
> 
> No, Obama did not say he'd pay anyones bills. He 'played' on the stupid people who thought he would, and they voted for him thinking he would help them in that way.
> 
> He played on their stupidity. He didnt have to lie and actually SAY anything. Just let them keep thinking he would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, okay...
> 
> Quantify how he "played" on stupid people.
> 
> Oh wait, you say he didn't actually say something?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


lol...are you really that niave to not know how a politician uses the gift of gab to lead people to believe one thingt without actually saying it...so he can "go to the videotape" to show he didnt say it?

Like his little college campaign tour. Not ONCE has he said in his speeches that the GOP disagrees that the interest rate should be frozen.....yet if you ask any of those students, they will tell you that the denmocratic party wants to freeze the interest rates and the GOP does not.

He is saying....."I will do everything in my power to ensure your interest rates do not increase"

That IMPLIES there is resistance....yet there is not....

It is not what you say...it is how you say it.


----------



## Conservative

geauxtohell said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Obama said he was going to pay their bills?
> 
> *Four years after the fact and you jack nuts stillcan't figure out why we rejected McCain/Palin, can you?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT is a deflection.
> 
> No, Obama did not say he'd pay anyones bills. He 'played' on the stupid people who thought he would, and they voted for him thinking he would help them in that way.
> 
> He played on their stupidity. He didnt have to lie and actually SAY anything. Just let them keep thinking he would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, okay...
> 
> Quantify how he "played" on stupid people.
> 
> Oh wait, you say he didn't actually say something?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


when someone assumes something, and you allow that assumption to go unchallenged, knowing it is wrong but will benefit you, you are playing them.


----------



## geauxtohell

Jarhead said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT is a deflection.
> 
> No, Obama did not say he'd pay anyones bills. He 'played' on the stupid people who thought he would, and they voted for him thinking he would help them in that way.
> 
> He played on their stupidity. He didnt have to lie and actually SAY anything. Just let them keep thinking he would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, okay...
> 
> Quantify how he "played" on stupid people.
> 
> Oh wait, you say he didn't actually say something?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol...are you really that niave to not know how a politician uses the gift of gab to lead people to believe one thingt without actually saying it...so he can "go to the videotape" to show he didnt say it?
> 
> Like his little college campaign tour. Not ONCE has he said in his speeches that the GOP disagrees that the interest rate should be frozen.....yet if you ask any of those students, they will tell you that the denmocratic party wants to freeze the interest rates and the GOP does not.
> 
> He is saying....."I will do everything in my power to ensure your interest rates do not increase"
> 
> That IMPLIES there is resistance....yet there is not....
> 
> It is not what you say...it is how you say it.
Click to expand...


So....

You've got nothing.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## g5000

BDBoop said:


> A couple of answers from kids (adults now) on the "How could you be so stupid" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: I love that question: why didn't you read the contract. Well, I was 17 on my first loan and about 19 on my second one. Didn't even have a checking account and never had a credit card at that time. Read the contract? yeah, I read it and "Trusted" that the government wouldn't give me the shaft. I mean how could they do that to me, I was just a kid and had big dreams. How did I know they would retroactively change the law after I took out my loan and that this loan would follow me to my grave. *Oh yeah and I forgot to mention that no where in my contract does it say if I default that my interest would be capitalized.* They sort of left that out for future use.
> 
> Answer: Nobody can follow when the government changes the rules in the middle of the game. They do it all the time. This is why we need reform, and we need to pass H.R. 4170, to restore some sanity and responsibility to the system. Consumer advocates back in the 80s reformed insurance company policies and forced them to write insurance coverage in understandable language. This is what we need now with student loans. Obviously this is proving to be true, as Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is beginning to listen to the people, and proposing these types of changes. And, as far as these perfect people, who read everything, I don't believe 99% of them. They would have to prove it to me first. If they are that perfect, good for them. But it's surely nobody I have ever met. How about you??
Click to expand...


The bolded part is where she really exposes her stupidity.


----------



## Conservative

geauxtohell said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, okay...
> 
> Quantify how he "played" on stupid people.
> 
> Oh wait, you say he didn't actually say something?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol...are you really that niave to not know how a politician uses the gift of gab to lead people to believe one thingt without actually saying it...so he can "go to the videotape" to show he didnt say it?
> 
> Like his little college campaign tour. Not ONCE has he said in his speeches that the GOP disagrees that the interest rate should be frozen.....yet if you ask any of those students, they will tell you that the denmocratic party wants to freeze the interest rates and the GOP does not.
> 
> He is saying....."I will do everything in my power to ensure your interest rates do not increase"
> 
> That IMPLIES there is resistance....yet there is not....
> 
> It is not what you say...it is how you say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> You've got nothing.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


so, you're not smart enough to understand his point. Learn to play.


----------



## geauxtohell

Conservative said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol...are you really that niave to not know how a politician uses the gift of gab to lead people to believe one thingt without actually saying it...so he can "go to the videotape" to show he didnt say it?
> 
> Like his little college campaign tour. Not ONCE has he said in his speeches that the GOP disagrees that the interest rate should be frozen.....yet if you ask any of those students, they will tell you that the denmocratic party wants to freeze the interest rates and the GOP does not.
> 
> He is saying....."I will do everything in my power to ensure your interest rates do not increase"
> 
> That IMPLIES there is resistance....yet there is not....
> 
> It is not what you say...it is how you say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> You've got nothing.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so, you're not smart enough to understand his point. Learn to play.
Click to expand...


I am smart enough to recognize idiotic deflections that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Back to student loans....


----------



## clevergirl

geauxtohell said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> All politicians do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- OK, I guess that's a fair point~ Yet, I have never heard a conservative voter, claim that the GOP candidate is going to give them everything~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative voters have different favors of equally stupid notions.
> 
> "Guns, Gays,and God".....
Click to expand...



Hardly! Guns are a constitutional guaranteed right- Then let me see- oh yeah God...hmmm as if He has not held prominence as a national idea from our nations beginning and the leaders of that time...really a stupid notion belonging just to "conservatives"? So called "gay rights" are a matter of divided opinion-

Now free stuff is for the terminally stupid to believe in- though if this president has his way he will make it as free as possible to about 51% of Americans at the expense of 49% of others


----------



## Jarhead

geauxtohell said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, okay...
> 
> Quantify how he "played" on stupid people.
> 
> Oh wait, you say he didn't actually say something?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol...are you really that niave to not know how a politician uses the gift of gab to lead people to believe one thingt without actually saying it...so he can "go to the videotape" to show he didnt say it?
> 
> Like his little college campaign tour. Not ONCE has he said in his speeches that the GOP disagrees that the interest rate should be frozen.....yet if you ask any of those students, they will tell you that the denmocratic party wants to freeze the interest rates and the GOP does not.
> 
> He is saying....."I will do everything in my power to ensure your interest rates do not increase"
> 
> That IMPLIES there is resistance....yet there is not....
> 
> It is not what you say...it is how you say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> You've got nothing.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


wow...I got nothing?

Is it that you are niave, partisan or just plain stupid?


----------



## Jarhead

geauxtohell said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> You've got nothing.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so, you're not smart enough to understand his point. Learn to play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am smart enough to recognize idiotic deflections that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
> 
> Back to student loans....
Click to expand...


very pathetic defelction.

See? You have the gift of gab as well.

You admitted defeat...but never actually used those words.


----------



## Jarhead

Conservative said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol...are you really that niave to not know how a politician uses the gift of gab to lead people to believe one thingt without actually saying it...so he can "go to the videotape" to show he didnt say it?
> 
> Like his little college campaign tour. Not ONCE has he said in his speeches that the GOP disagrees that the interest rate should be frozen.....yet if you ask any of those students, they will tell you that the denmocratic party wants to freeze the interest rates and the GOP does not.
> 
> He is saying....."I will do everything in my power to ensure your interest rates do not increase"
> 
> That IMPLIES there is resistance....yet there is not....
> 
> It is not what you say...it is how you say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> You've got nothing.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so, you're not smart enough to understand his point. Learn to play.
Click to expand...


Nah....he is just too partisan to want to learn where he may be wrong.

Or maybe it is a lack of intelligence.

Or possibly a lack of maturity.


----------



## Conservative

geauxtohell said:


> I am smart enough to recognize idiotic deflections that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
> 
> Back to student loans....



apparently not.

In a thread essentially about getting someone else to pay your debt, this is a huge deflection... 



geauxtohell said:


> Four years after the fact and you jack nuts stillcan't figure out why we rejected McCain/Palin, can you?


----------



## geauxtohell

clevergirl said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- OK, I guess that's a fair point~ Yet, I have never heard a conservative voter, claim that the GOP candidate is going to give them everything~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative voters have different favors of equally stupid notions.
> 
> "Guns, Gays,and God".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly! Guns are a constitutional guaranteed right- Then let me see- oh yeah God...hmmm as if He has not held prominence as a national idea from our nations beginning and the leaders of that time...really a stupid notion belonging just to "conservatives"? So called "gay rights" are a matter of divided opinion-
> 
> Now free stuff is for the terminally stupid to believe in- though if this president has his way he will make it as free as possible to about 51% of Americans at the expense of 49% of others
Click to expand...


Oh, I see.

You are one of those stupid voters......


----------



## Conservative

Jarhead said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> You've got nothing.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so, you're not smart enough to understand his point. Learn to play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah....he is just too partisan to want to learn where he may be wrong.
> 
> Or maybe it is a lack of intelligence.
> 
> Or possibly a lack of maturity.
Click to expand...


or any combination of those.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Conservative said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am smart enough to recognize idiotic deflections that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
> 
> Back to student loans....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently not.
> 
> In a thread essentially about getting someone else to pay your debt, this is a huge deflection...
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four years after the fact and you jack nuts stillcan't figure out why we rejected McCain/Palin, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hahahahahaha, oh how I love internet hypocrites.


----------



## geauxtohell

Jarhead said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol...are you really that niave to not know how a politician uses the gift of gab to lead people to believe one thingt without actually saying it...so he can "go to the videotape" to show he didnt say it?
> 
> Like his little college campaign tour. Not ONCE has he said in his speeches that the GOP disagrees that the interest rate should be frozen.....yet if you ask any of those students, they will tell you that the denmocratic party wants to freeze the interest rates and the GOP does not.
> 
> He is saying....."I will do everything in my power to ensure your interest rates do not increase"
> 
> That IMPLIES there is resistance....yet there is not....
> 
> It is not what you say...it is how you say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> You've got nothing.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow...I got nothing?
> 
> Is it that you are niave, partisan or just plain stupid?
Click to expand...


Inability to meet a very simple requirement = nada, zero, zilch, zip, nothing.

By all means though, keep shucking and jiving.


----------



## SayMyName

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



If we can forgive the banks for 750 billion, we can forgive student debt.


----------



## geauxtohell

Conservative said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am smart enough to recognize idiotic deflections that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
> 
> Back to student loans....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently not.
> 
> In a thread *essentially* about getting someone else to pay your debt, this is a huge deflection...
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four years after the fact and you jack nuts stillcan't figure out why we rejected McCain/Palin, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You thought you were going to slide that one by me, didn't you?


----------



## geauxtohell

Jarhead said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, you're not smart enough to understand his point. Learn to play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am smart enough to recognize idiotic deflections that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
> 
> Back to student loans....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> very pathetic defelction.
> 
> See? You have the gift of gab as well.
> 
> *You admitted defeat...but never actually used those words*.
Click to expand...


Ah...  The  proverbial message board white flag.

It looks good on you.


----------



## KevinWestern

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.




Forgiving it? I don't think so, because it's not fair to the lenders. They're owed money, and they should be rightfully paid that money. It's not the lender's fault that the cost of education is extraordinarily ridiculous and overpriced. They're just fulfilling a market need. Perhaps we could get into the discussion of interest rates, but that's another topic...

Here's my idea: 

How about the government allowing students to pay back student loans (Federal and Private) *pre-tax;* what would be the harm in that?

It'd be an easy way for the government to reduce the default rate on lenders, and the payback burden on the students at the same time.


----------



## BDBoop

Oddball said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is perfect.  I have thinking about how badly our country needs an education in critical thinking.  And I have been trying to think of some exercises you could put to students to teach them how to teach critically.
> 
> Thank you for providing a perfect example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was a $23,000 car instead of a student loan, how long would it take to pay off the car?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!  Questions like that are the kind of critical thinking needed today.  Except it was a loan for just over $26,000 not $23,000.
> 
> The woman was obviously in a massively negative amortization.  That is not the lender's doing.  She did that.  She should ask for a refund from the college that gave her such a bad education that she couldn't even figure out simple loan terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BDPoop isn't into critical thinking, just in finding ways to rationalize mooching.
Click to expand...


I've got the power! You and Tragedy, just can't make it through a post without making it about me. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


----------



## Trajan

Oh goodie, you're babbling again, another meltdown...hang on folks....


----------



## g5000

SayMyName said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we can forgive the banks for 750 billion, we can forgive student debt.
Click to expand...


Where did you get the idea we have forgiven $750 billion?

The TARP money has to be paid back, with interest.  And much of it has already been paid back, with interest.


----------



## NYcarbineer

SayMyName said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we can forgive the banks for 750 billion, we can forgive student debt.
Click to expand...


Students don't own the government.


----------



## Dr.Drock

NYcarbineer said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we can forgive the banks for 750 billion, we can forgive student debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Students don't own the government.
Click to expand...


Rep'd couldn't agree more.

But in that post you acknowledge that the big banks own both parties, correct?


----------



## Jarhead

geauxtohell said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am smart enough to recognize idiotic deflections that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
> 
> Back to student loans....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> very pathetic defelction.
> 
> See? You have the gift of gab as well.
> 
> *You admitted defeat...but never actually used those words*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...  The  proverbial message board white flag.
> 
> It looks good on you.
Click to expand...


wow...you really are naive....and somewhat immature.

Hey...simple.....you asked...I gave an answer...and you said you wanted to go back to the original topic and not address my answer.

That, my friend, is admitting defeat.

Good luck to you!


----------



## NYcarbineer

Dr.Drock said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we can forgive the banks for 750 billion, we can forgive student debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Students don't own the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rep'd couldn't agree more.
> 
> But in that post you acknowledge that the big banks own both parties, correct?
Click to expand...


Of course but I would retain the lesser of 2 evils principle as the last distinguishing characteristic.


----------



## Dr.Drock

NYcarbineer said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Students don't own the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rep'd couldn't agree more.
> 
> But in that post you acknowledge that the big banks own both parties, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course but I would retain the lesser of 2 evils principle as the last distinguishing characteristic.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, I think voting for evil is what's gotten us into this mess but I appreciate your honesty.


----------



## geauxtohell

Jarhead said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> very pathetic defelction.
> 
> See? You have the gift of gab as well.
> 
> *You admitted defeat...but never actually used those words*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...  The  proverbial message board white flag.
> 
> It looks good on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow...you really are naive....and somewhat immature.
> 
> Hey...simple.....you asked...I gave an answer...and you said you wanted to go back to the original topic and not address my answer.
> 
> That, my friend, is admitting defeat.
> 
> Good luck to you!
Click to expand...


You're answer was a non answer.

But whatever gets your fragile ego through the night....


----------



## Avorysuds

FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!


You dumb ass thieving fucks need to stop believing this fucking this low life mentality of getting every fucking thing you want for free then dumping your debt on everyone else. 

HOW is it fucking fair that I can't take out a loan, start a business, buy porn, stick the money in a bank then demand I get the debt wiped off the fucking books regardless if I succeed as a business or not????? 


WHY do we have to pay for people to turn in old cars as for a "TAX CREDIT" so that the debt can be paid by everyone else that does not get a check for 2-7k or a new fuckin car????

WHY do people that took out loans to buy a home when they KNEW they couldn't afford it get tax payer money to help keep them in that house by lowering their payments while people that make their bills still have to pay the high rates they already pay????


Subsidize what you want more of, it's a fucking simple concept and its PROVEN on the level of EVOLUTION because it actually involves the very concept of evolution. If you want more people that can't afford homes to buy homes, PAY THEIR FUCKING BILLS WITH TAX PAYER MONEY.... If you want more people going to school for education that gives them NO JOBS when they graduate then PAY THEIR FUCKING BILLS WITH TAX PAYER MONEY. You will get more bullshit degrees that get people NO WORK and leave them with a shit ton of debt!

It's NOT fucking ROCKET SCIENCE, this shit has rang true since the first society was created on planet fucking earth. Import water, food and shelter to a random spot in the desert and watch as a town of animals and insects emerges take away the imports and watch as the animals and insects fucking DIE. Its THAT SIMPLE PEOPLE! 

All of this coming from a group of people that DEMAND FAIR! When fair would be to NOT pay off one persons debt with money they STOLE through taxes on another person that DIDNT take the risk. If you pay of a students 50k of debt you better give me 50 fucking thousand free and clear or you have the fucking opposite of FAIR.


You can only expect such dumb fucking threads from people like Rtard.


----------



## BDBoop

Wow. Meltage. They could close this thread right now, and I'd consider it a job well-done.


----------



## KissMy

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



There is no way she paid faithfully for 25 years & has that kind of balance. She obviously defaulted & the penalties hit her hard as they should. I have a good friend in the same situation. She was over here crying on my couch about it. The thing is I have known here every since she graduated. She has been partying, spending hundreds every couple of weeks on hair & nails, buying nice cars & house instead of paying off her loan. Now it is double. Not my problem.


----------



## Conservative

KissMy said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way she paid faithfully for 25 years & has that kind of balance. She obviously defaulted & the penalties hit her hard as they should.
Click to expand...


yeah. the numbers were already shown to be bogus.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Lot more information needed. Sorry but a poster is not evidence of a system gone wrong. I tell that to the tea-partiers and I'll tell it to the young lady in the photo. But at least she spelled her stuff correctly.


----------



## Wry Catcher

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not me, I worked and saved a shit load of money so that I could go to school without going into debt..
Click to expand...


LMAO.  If you paid more than .25 cents for your education you were totally ripped off.


----------



## Stephanie

Wry Catcher said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not me, I worked and saved a shit load of money so that I could go to school without going into debt..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO.  If you paid more than .25 cents for your education you were totally ripped off.
Click to expand...


wow, nasty


----------



## The T

*Forgive Student Loan Debt *

*NO!*


----------



## geauxtohell

Avorysuds said:


> FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!



Feel better!


----------



## bripat9643

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



The only problem here is that, like you, she's obviously a dingbat.

I paid off my student loans within 10 years.


----------



## bripat9643

SniperFire said:


> I'm all for forgiving it, but I don't think the universities who robbed these kiddies have any intention of paying it back to them.



Why should we forgive student loans?  No one forced them to take the money.  If I had to pay off mine, then why should anyone get out of paying them off?


----------



## g5000

NYcarbineer said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we can forgive the banks for 750 billion, we can forgive student debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Students don't own the government.
Click to expand...


The assertion was that TARP loans were forgiven.  It is incorrect. 

So, since the big powerful banks that own the government have to pay back the loans they took out, then to use NYcarbineer's logic, student loans should also NOT be forgiven.

Thanks for helping to solidify that point.


----------



## The T

Dr.Drock said:


> Is "forgive" just the typical *big gov't code word for "tax people different than me to pay for"*?


----------



## Zoom-boing

Fair share for thee but not for me.


----------



## bripat9643

BDBoop said:


> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.



Everyone isn't going through that.  I paid off my student loans after 10 years, and for most of that time I made the minimum payment.


----------



## bripat9643

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> should we forgive all mortgages too then?
Click to expand...


Let's forgive all tax debts while we are at it.


----------



## bripat9643

BDBoop said:


> Either educate yourself, or butt out. Your kneejerk reacting doesn't facilitate discussion.



You need to learn how to do simple math.  So does the woman in the pic.  Obviously, her math skills are the reason for the fix she's in.

Looks like she didn't get her money's worth.


----------



## Zander

Who forced these people to get loans? Oh that's right, nobody.   Tough luck kiddies, not my problem.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



She really sucks at math?

Do you have any idea how long it would take to turn $26,400 initial debt into $77,976.63 at 3.2% interest?


----------



## clevergirl

geauxtohell said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative voters have different favors of equally stupid notions.
> 
> "Guns, Gays,and God".....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly! Guns are a constitutional guaranteed right- Then let me see- oh yeah God...hmmm as if He has not held prominence as a national idea from our nations beginning and the leaders of that time...really a stupid notion belonging just to "conservatives"? So called "gay rights" are a matter of divided opinion-
> 
> Now free stuff is for the terminally stupid to believe in- though if this president has his way he will make it as free as possible to about 51% of Americans at the expense of 49% of others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.
> 
> You are one of those stupid voters......
Click to expand...


No, I am a definite informed ideologue. I know nothing is free- everything has a cost to someone. I know that no one owes me a living or even a leg up- especially not my government. I understand that government is uniquely unfit as a manager of any-ones livelihood. I believe that the smaller we can keep government the more freedom we actually have to pursue happiness. I believe that the poor will always be with us- and that this knowledge means as individuals we have a responsibility to support those organizations that actually are hands on in their aid to the truly poor- not the lazy; ungrateful and self imposed poor.

I recognize that though regulatory laws are necessary- I also believe that those laws should be left to states to legislate and enforce- not the feds (its that smaller government thingy)

For someone like you to equate that because I have a different ideology with regards to government then you- proves your intellectual ignorance- not mine.

The Obama supporter in the video is stupid- but she is merely the end result of your ideologies aim. This woman was likely born into a low income family where free (someone else besides her has to pay) is normal and expected. That's what government entitlement creates.


----------



## geauxtohell

clevergirl said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly! Guns are a constitutional guaranteed right- Then let me see- oh yeah God...hmmm as if He has not held prominence as a national idea from our nations beginning and the leaders of that time...really a stupid notion belonging just to "conservatives"? So called "gay rights" are a matter of divided opinion-
> 
> Now free stuff is for the terminally stupid to believe in- though if this president has his way he will make it as free as possible to about 51% of Americans at the expense of 49% of others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.
> 
> You are one of those stupid voters......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am a definite informed ideologue. I know nothing is free- everything has a cost to someone. I know that no one owes me a living or even a leg up- especially not my government. I understand that government is uniquely unfit as a manager of any-ones livelihood. I believe that the smaller we can keep government the more freedom we actually have to pursue happiness. I believe that the poor will always be with us- and that this knowledge means as individuals we have a responsibility to support those organizations that actually are hands on in their aid to the truly poor- not the lazy; ungrateful and self imposed poor.
> 
> I recognize that though regulatory laws are necessary- I also believe that those laws should be left to states to legislate and enforce- not the feds (its that smaller government thingy)
> 
> For someone like you to equate that because I have a different ideology with regards to government then you- proves your intellectual ignorance- not mine.
> 
> The Obama supporter in the video is stupid- but she is merely the end result of your ideologies aim. This woman was likely born into a low income family where free (someone else besides her has to pay) is normal and expected. That's what government entitlement creates.
Click to expand...


"Keep the government small and in the bedroom!"


----------



## chanel

Interesting discussion at lunch yesterday with some young teachers.  They were sharing stories of friends who use their "financial aid" checks to buy luxury items.   Apparently the govt. is giving students more money than they actually need for school.  

Their older, wiser colleague (me) interjected with "And this surprises you?"


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



Here's an idea let's just wipe all debt clean no back taxes no one owes anyone anything.


----------



## chanel

Here's an idea:  "Big Ed" can take a 3% cut.


----------



## Big Black Dog

That is what's wrong with this country now...  Everybody wants something for nothing.  There's no free lunch.


----------



## geauxtohell

chanel said:


> Interesting discussion at lunch yesterday with some young teachers.  They were sharing stories of friends who use their "financial aid" checks to buy luxury items.   Apparently the govt. is giving students more money than they actually need for school.
> 
> Their older, wiser colleague (me) interjected with "And this surprises you?"



You mean "lending" and not giving.


----------



## KevinWestern

chanel said:


> Interesting discussion at lunch yesterday with some young teachers.  They were sharing stories of friends who use their "financial aid" checks to buy luxury items.   Apparently the govt. is giving students more money than they actually need for school.
> 
> Their older, wiser colleague (me) interjected with "And this surprises you?"



Sure, you can take out Federal or Private loans to go on a European vacation, buy a car, whatever you wish, but all that money is going to need to be paid back. To do this is a foolish action on the part of the borrower, and not the lender, because the lender is going to be getting those $'s back plus interest. 

I doubt it was grant money, or scholarship money that was used to buy the luxury items...

.
.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



Liberals are bad at math. Really, really bad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BDBoop said:


> A couple of answers from kids (adults now) on the "How could you be so stupid" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: I love that question: why didn't you read the contract. Well, I was 17 on my first loan and about 19 on my second one. Didn't even have a checking account and never had a credit card at that time. Read the contract? yeah, I read it and "Trusted" that the government wouldn't give me the shaft. I mean how could they do that to me, I was just a kid and had big dreams. How did I know they would retroactively change the law after I took out my loan and that this loan would follow me to my grave. Oh yeah and I forgot to mention that no where in my contract does it say if I default that my interest would be capitalized. They sort of left that out for future use.
> 
> Answer: Nobody can follow when the government changes the rules in the middle of the game. They do it all the time. This is why we need reform, and we need to pass H.R. 4170, to restore some sanity and responsibility to the system. Consumer advocates back in the 80s reformed insurance company policies and forced them to write insurance coverage in understandable language. This is what we need now with student loans. Obviously this is proving to be true, as Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is beginning to listen to the people, and proposing these types of changes. And, as far as these perfect people, who read everything, I don't believe 99% of them. They would have to prove it to me first. If they are that perfect, good for them. But it's surely nobody I have ever met. How about you??
Click to expand...


*no where in my contract does it say if I default that my interest would be capitalized. They sort of left that out for future use.*

You defaulted? Thought you said you faithfully paid?


----------



## KevinWestern

The Love Monkey said:


> That is what's wrong with this country now...  Everybody wants something for nothing.  There's no free lunch.



Again, I think "loan forgiveness" is out of the question because it's not fair to the lenders (who are just serving a market need).

But I think we as a country need to meaningfully discuss the problem of extraordinarily high (and rising) college costs. If college was a luxury it would be one thing (just _choose_ not to go to college), but it's not - it's a necessity in many, many scenarios and career paths. 

College costs are rising on average at a rate of 4-6% _per year_. Compare that to an overall inflation rate of 2%. 

Do we want each of our new generations to enter into the real world with $50,000 in debt? Is the *negative impact on the economy* from generations of indebted 20 and 30 somethings (less likely to start a business, buy a house, invest, ect) worth it because all of the "things" they learn in college? I don't think so...

Personally, I learned a few things in college, but probably could have been just fine if my program was 2 years. About 90% of the skills I use in the workplace today have all been learned on the job. Sure, doctors and lawyers need 4+ years of college, but certainly not all of the business professions that seem to require it today.

Was it worth it to go to school? Absolutely, because I wouldn't be able to have the job I have without it (requirement of a Bachelor's degree from a 4-year University). But is our system flawed? I think so. 

.
.
.


----------



## Katzndogz

SayMyName said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we can forgive the banks for 750 billion, we can forgive student debt.
Click to expand...


That's not a bad idea, as long as we also revoke the degrees conferred by that student debt.  When a car loan is in default, no one gets to keep the car.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

SayMyName said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we can forgive the banks for 750 billion, we can forgive student debt.
Click to expand...


When did we "forgive the banks for 750 billion"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BillyV said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sign is bullshit.. you're telling me that with interest, a $26,400 loan turned into a $77,977 debt?  No fucking way.
> 
> With that said, you read the terms, you took the money, you pay it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to the world of "negative amortization". She has paid $32,700 over 23 years; that's about $118 per month. The monthly interest on $26,400 at a relatively benign 6.6% would create a monthly interest at the outset of $145, and after 23 years of paying this way you would owe much more money (in fact, about $45K). If this was the minimum payment that was arranged in the contract and that's all she paid, then she owes the difference. I would say, however, that she probably has a good case to sue the university for not teaching her how to add and subtract.
Click to expand...


Obama went to Harvard and he still can't add and subtract.


----------



## KevinWestern

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Paid back faithfully. That's what everybody is going through. You didn't know that, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sign is bullshit.. you're telling me that with interest, a $26,400 loan turned into a $77,977 debt?  No fucking way.
> 
> With that said, you read the terms, you took the money, you pay it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to the world of "negative amortization". She has paid $32,700 over 23 years; that's about $118 per month. The monthly interest on $26,400 at a relatively benign 6.6% would create a monthly interest at the outset of $145, and after 23 years of paying this way you would owe much more money (in fact, about $45K). If this was the minimum payment that was arranged in the contract and that's all she paid, then she owes the difference. I would say, however, that she probably has a good case to sue the university for not teaching her how to add and subtract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama went to Harvard and he still can't add and subtract.
Click to expand...


Actually, I'm pretty sure Obama can add and subtract quite well, as he's a really intelligent guy.

I may not agree with his political views and the way he's running the country, but he's certainly not a dumb person.



.
.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BDBoop said:


> No, actually. Robert Applebaum is a friend of mine, and he got this ball rolling. Google him if you don't believe me.
> 
> http://www.forgivestudentloandebt.com/content/student-loan-forgiveness-act-2012-hr-4170-bill-text
> 
> Read the bill. Let me know what you find unacceptable about it.



*(1) A well-educated citizenry is critical to our Nation's ability to compete in the global economy.*

It's not working.

*(6) Because of soaring tuition costs, students often have no choice but to amass significant debt to obtain an education that is widely considered a prerequisite for earning a living wage.*

They should pass a law cutting tuition by 70%.


----------



## peach174

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually. Robert Applebaum is a friend of mine, and he got this ball rolling. Google him if you don't believe me.
> 
> http://www.forgivestudentloandebt.com/content/student-loan-forgiveness-act-2012-hr-4170-bill-text
> 
> Read the bill. Let me know what you find unacceptable about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(1) A well-educated citizenry is critical to our Nation's ability to compete in the global economy.*
> 
> It's not working.
> 
> *(6) Because of soaring tuition costs, students often have no choice but to amass significant debt to obtain an education that is widely considered a prerequisite for earning a living wage.*
> 
> They should pass a law cutting tuition by 70%.
Click to expand...


Then how will teachers and their pensions be paid?
This needs to be reformed first, among other things, then tuition will go down.
Then students need to stop adding credit cards along with the student loans. They have more credit card debt than student loan debt.


----------



## Trajan

chanel said:


> Interesting discussion at lunch yesterday with some young teachers.  They were sharing stories of friends who use their "financial aid" checks to buy luxury items.   Apparently the govt. is giving students more money than they actually need for school.
> 
> Their older, wiser colleague (me) interjected with "And this surprises you?"



absolutely. My daughter told me she has a few friends that borrow at the max student availability, and use their work or mommy daddy money  ( since they get a grant and that and a few bucks pays their tuition)  to buy stuff on credit, run up their cards then use the loan money to pay it off, since the loan is given directly to them. 

when I went, and  took loans for my abortive college ed.,  citibank made the loan, they sent the check to me, but,  made out in the name of the college.  I had to send them a copy of my class schedule proving I was full time student. 

Now, the kids get the money direct and do with it what they wish, not realizing or caring ( becasue they are showered with messages of hey in a jam gov. will help you out of it) they are borrowing from their future and now we are supposed to pay for their spring breaks and shopping sprees? Uhm no.


----------



## Katzndogz

There really is only one way to deal with student loan debt.  It's the policy that Santa Monica Community College came up with.  Courses that really taught something cost more.  Courses that allowed skating by were cheaper.

Students who want a worthless degree should not have to pay as much as students who graduate with a marketable education.  Paying back a student loan is not as hard on someone who used their education to get a job.  Paying back a student loan is impossible for someone with a degree that will never get them a decent job.  That's the reallity.  Colleges and Universities are sitting on billions in endowments.  They build new sports stadiums, they give professors and administrators free housing, pay them outrageous salaries and found useless chairs.  They don't spend that money on helpling students.


----------



## chanel

KevinWestern said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting discussion at lunch yesterday with some young teachers.  They were sharing stories of friends who use their "financial aid" checks to buy luxury items.   Apparently the govt. is giving students more money than they actually need for school.
> 
> Their older, wiser colleague (me) interjected with "And this surprises you?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, you can take out Federal or Private loans to go on a European vacation, buy a car, whatever you wish, but all that money is going to need to be paid back. To do this is a foolish action on the part of the borrower, and not the lender, because the lender is going to be getting those $'s back plus interest.
> 
> I doubt it was grant money, or scholarship money that was used to buy the luxury items...
> .
> .
Click to expand...


I don't know if the money was borrowed or given, but it is still part of the "package" that was offered to dumb college kids who don't give a rat's ass about debt until it comes time to pay.  And right now they are arguing about raising the interest rate to 6.8% which is still a hell of a lot lower than a Visa card.  

Both candidates are trying to find a way to plug that $6 billion hole.  Obama wants to screw small business owners.  Romney wants to raid Medicare.  It's all bullshit. Let the students and the colleges work it out.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Trajan said:


> Now, the kids get the money direct and do with it what they wish, not realizing or caring ( becasue they are showered with messages of hey in a jam gov. will help you out of it) they are borrowing from their future and now we are supposed to pay for their spring breaks and shopping sprees? Uhm no.




My daughter is in college, her federal student loan was deposited electronically directly to the school, it was not deposited in her personal savings or checking account nor was she issued a check.

(Now there are ways around that if you want to know, but the money didn't go directly to her.)

>>>>


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KevinWestern said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the world of "negative amortization". She has paid $32,700 over 23 years; that's about $118 per month. The monthly interest on $26,400 at a relatively benign 6.6% would create a monthly interest at the outset of $145, and after 23 years of paying this way you would owe much more money (in fact, about $45K). If this was the minimum payment that was arranged in the contract and that's all she paid, then she owes the difference. I would say, however, that she probably has a good case to sue the university for not teaching her how to add and subtract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama went to Harvard and he still can't add and subtract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm pretty sure Obama can add and subtract quite well, as he's a really intelligent guy.
> 
> I may not agree with his political views and the way he's running the country, but he's certainly not a dumb person.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
Click to expand...


I keep hearing that "he's a really intelligent guy" but have yet to see any proof.
Have you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

peach174 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually. Robert Applebaum is a friend of mine, and he got this ball rolling. Google him if you don't believe me.
> 
> http://www.forgivestudentloandebt.com/content/student-loan-forgiveness-act-2012-hr-4170-bill-text
> 
> Read the bill. Let me know what you find unacceptable about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(1) A well-educated citizenry is critical to our Nation's ability to compete in the global economy.*
> 
> It's not working.
> 
> *(6) Because of soaring tuition costs, students often have no choice but to amass significant debt to obtain an education that is widely considered a prerequisite for earning a living wage.*
> 
> They should pass a law cutting tuition by 70%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how will teachers and their pensions be paid?
> This needs to be reformed first, among other things, then tuition will go down.
> Then students need to stop adding credit cards along with the student loans. They have more credit card debt than student loan debt.
Click to expand...


*Then how will teachers and their pensions be paid?*

Are you saying we need to think beyond the feel good soundbite and look at how our actions have consequences?


----------



## BDBoop

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama went to Harvard and he still can't add and subtract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm pretty sure Obama can add and subtract quite well, as he's a really intelligent guy.
> 
> I may not agree with his political views and the way he's running the country, but he's certainly not a dumb person.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep hearing that "he's a really intelligent guy" but have yet to see any proof.
> Have you?
Click to expand...


I have. But since you won't give him credit for jack, intelligence is just one item on the list of things you refuse to give him credit for.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm pretty sure Obama can add and subtract quite well, as he's a really intelligent guy.
> 
> I may not agree with his political views and the way he's running the country, but he's certainly not a dumb person.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing that "he's a really intelligent guy" but have yet to see any proof.
> Have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. But since you won't give him credit for jack, intelligence is just one item on the list of things you refuse to give him credit for.
Click to expand...


What's the proof?


----------



## Liability

Let's just assume for the sake of this discussion only, that the woman holding the sign in the OP is "speaking" the truth.

Did I put a gun to her head and say, "Damn your hide!  TAKE This fucking money ON these exact terms?"

Nope.

Who negotiated her loan agreement?  Did she negotiate at all?  Did she shop around?  Did she sign the agreement?

Let's assume, further, that she did sign it.  Did she -- before that momentous moment -- READ the terms of the (let's call it what it is) CONTRACT?

Who exactly is responsible for the consequences of HER conduct and her own decisions?


----------



## Amelia

KevinWestern said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the world of "negative amortization". She has paid $32,700 over 23 years; that's about $118 per month. The monthly interest on $26,400 at a relatively benign 6.6% would create a monthly interest at the outset of $145, and after 23 years of paying this way you would owe much more money (in fact, about $45K). If this was the minimum payment that was arranged in the contract and that's all she paid, then she owes the difference. I would say, however, that she probably has a good case to sue the university for not teaching her how to add and subtract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama went to Harvard and he still can't add and subtract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm pretty sure Obama can add and subtract quite well, as he's a really intelligent guy.
> 
> I may not agree with his political views and the way he's running the country, but he's certainly not a dumb person.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
Click to expand...



He actually doesn't seem very mathematically savvy.

Much carelessness and many rounding errors when his speeches and press conference/interview answers go in the numerical direction.  

More verbal intelligence than quantitative.


----------



## BDBoop

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing that "he's a really intelligent guy" but have yet to see any proof.
> Have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. But since you won't give him credit for jack, intelligence is just one item on the list of things you refuse to give him credit for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the proof?
Click to expand...


Graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, for one. You can't bullshit your way through that one. Top 10% of the class, and from what I understand, blind grading. So no favoritism there.


----------



## Liability

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. But since you won't give him credit for jack, intelligence is just one item on the list of things you refuse to give him credit for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, for one. You can't bullshit your way through that one. Top 10% of the class, and from what I understand, blind grading. So no favoritism there.
Click to expand...


Show me his transcripts.


----------



## BDBoop

Top 10% sunshine. Top 10%.

Harvard Law School.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing that "he's a really intelligent guy" but have yet to see any proof.
> Have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. But since you won't give him credit for jack, intelligence is just one item on the list of things you refuse to give him credit for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the proof?
Click to expand...


He graduated from Harvard Summa cum Laude, that, all by itself, somehow proves he is intelligent.


----------



## Liability

BDBoop said:


> Top 10% sunshine. Top 10%.
> 
> Harvard Law School.



Transcripts?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. But since you won't give him credit for jack, intelligence is just one item on the list of things you refuse to give him credit for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, for one. You can't bullshit your way through that one. Top 10% of the class, and from what I understand, blind grading. So no favoritism there.
Click to expand...


From what you understand? 

There has never been a system created by man that another man could not scam. Please note, I am not saying that Obama managed to scam the system, that would have taken a degree of intelligence I have not seen him exhibit. I am just saying that the system can be scammed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Liability said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10% sunshine. Top 10%.
> 
> Harvard Law School.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transcripts?
Click to expand...


Asking for transcripts is like asking a fanatic for proof God is real, you just have to accept it on faith.


----------



## Taylee

Why stop there?  Why not just forgive ALL debt?  Credit cards, home mortgages, you name it.  Hell, if you're going to start giving away freebies, might as well go all the way.

Of course, those folks that did NOT over-borrow, over-spend (go in over their heads with spending and borrowing) might think differently about it.  Especially since it'll be their tax money that is used to "blow off" all of that debt racked up by others.

But hey....it's a _one for all, all for one _utopian society evolving now under Obama.  

So what the hell.


----------



## BDBoop

> Though Obama didn&#8217;t blow anyone away during his two undergrad years at Columbia, he made history at Harvard Law School. He arrived there in 1988, at 27 years old, after working for four years as a community organizer in Chicago. He became a research assistant to Laurence Tribe, a renowned professor working on an article applying physics to the law. (Title: "The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn From Modern Physics.") By the end of his first year, Obama had won a position on the Harvard Law Review, widely considered the most influential and prestigious law publication in the nation. In 1990, Obama earned national recognition for the first time when he was elected the Review&#8217;s first black president. Obama graduated magna cum laude and moved back to Chicago to direct Project Vote, a grassroots voter-registration program. "I thought &#8230; his talents are such that there's no ceiling to what he could achieve &#8212; and that included becoming president of the United States," Tribe told New York. "He's the only student about whom I've ever had that thought."



Electopedia 2012 - How Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Did in Law School -- New York Magazine

We both know they're sealed. He graduated magna cum laude. You know what that means, and for some reason that makes no sense, you insist that apparently? It didn't happen. Even if it did. Obviously.


----------



## Liability

BDBoop said:


> Though Obama didnt blow anyone away during his two undergrad years at Columbia, he made history at Harvard Law School. He arrived there in 1988, at 27 years old, after working for four years as a community organizer in Chicago. He became a research assistant to Laurence Tribe, a renowned professor working on an article applying physics to the law. (Title: "The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn From Modern Physics.") By the end of his first year, Obama had won a position on the Harvard Law Review, widely considered the most influential and prestigious law publication in the nation. In 1990, Obama earned national recognition for the first time when he was elected the Reviews first black president. Obama graduated magna cum laude and moved back to Chicago to direct Project Vote, a grassroots voter-registration program. "I thought  his talents are such that there's no ceiling to what he could achieve  and that included becoming president of the United States," Tribe told New York. "He's the only student about whom I've ever had that thought."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electopedia 2012 - How Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Did in Law School -- New York Magazine
> 
> We both know they're sealed. He graduated magna cum laude. You know what that means, and for some reason that makes no sense, you insist that apparently? It didn't happen. Even if it did. Obviously.
Click to expand...


We know they're sealed.  We also know he can have that seal removed.  He chooses not to.  So, we don't "know" that he graduated with honors.  No matter how often you repeat it, that doesn't make it so.  

So, we take the words of some journalist absent confirmation?

No thanks.

HE might very well have graduated with honors.

But we have no confirmation.


----------



## Liability

Quantum Windbag said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10% sunshine. Top 10%.
> 
> Harvard Law School.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking fro transcripts is like asking a fanatic for proof God is real, you just have to accept it on faith.
Click to expand...


Forgive me, for I have sinned.

Actually, I suspect that there are other reasons he might not want us to see any of his college and law school records.


----------



## yidnar

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.


 hell !! why stop at student loans ??lets forgive all debts !! lets go back to barter system so lazy libbs can starve to death !!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. But since you won't give him credit for jack, intelligence is just one item on the list of things you refuse to give him credit for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, for one. You can't bullshit your way through that one. Top 10% of the class, and from what I understand, blind grading. So no favoritism there.
Click to expand...


That's great! He should release his grades.


----------



## BDBoop

Liability said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though Obama didnt blow anyone away during his two undergrad years at Columbia, he made history at Harvard Law School. He arrived there in 1988, at 27 years old, after working for four years as a community organizer in Chicago. He became a research assistant to Laurence Tribe, a renowned professor working on an article applying physics to the law. (Title: "The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn From Modern Physics.") By the end of his first year, Obama had won a position on the Harvard Law Review, widely considered the most influential and prestigious law publication in the nation. In 1990, Obama earned national recognition for the first time when he was elected the Reviews first black president. Obama graduated magna cum laude and moved back to Chicago to direct Project Vote, a grassroots voter-registration program. "I thought  his talents are such that there's no ceiling to what he could achieve  and that included becoming president of the United States," Tribe told New York. "He's the only student about whom I've ever had that thought."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electopedia 2012 - How Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Did in Law School -- New York Magazine
> 
> We both know they're sealed. He graduated magna cum laude. You know what that means, and for some reason that makes no sense, you insist that apparently? It didn't happen. Even if it did. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know they're sealed.  We also know he can have that seal removed.  He chooses not to.  So, we don't "know" that he graduated with honors.  No matter how often you repeat it, that doesn't make it so.
> 
> So, we take the words of some journalist absent confirmation?
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> HE might very well have graduated with honors.
> 
> But we have no confirmation.
Click to expand...


How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?

Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson



> Days before he launched his campaign for the presidency, Barack H. Obama gave Law School professor David B. Wilkins 77 a heads up: one of the professors favorite students might be heading to the White House.
> 
> But that favorite student wouldnt be Barack. Itd be Michelle R. Obama, his wife.
> 
> *The presidential hopeful graduated magna cum laude from the Law School* in 1991; his wife earned the degree three years earlier.
> 
> But the senator was still outstanding in his own rightbrilliant, charismatic, and focused, said Wilkins, the Kirkland and Ellis professor of law. The two forged a relationship after Obama became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.


----------



## BDBoop

Well my word, but it certainly got quiet in here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BDBoop said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electopedia 2012 - How Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Did in Law School -- New York Magazine
> 
> We both know they're sealed. He graduated magna cum laude. You know what that means, and for some reason that makes no sense, you insist that apparently? It didn't happen. Even if it did. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know they're sealed.  We also know he can have that seal removed.  He chooses not to.  So, we don't "know" that he graduated with honors.  No matter how often you repeat it, that doesn't make it so.
> 
> So, we take the words of some journalist absent confirmation?
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> HE might very well have graduated with honors.
> 
> But we have no confirmation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?
> 
> Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days before he launched his campaign for the presidency, Barack H. Obama gave Law School professor David B. Wilkins 77 a heads up: one of the professors favorite students might be heading to the White House.
> 
> But that favorite student wouldnt be Barack. Itd be Michelle R. Obama, his wife.
> 
> *The presidential hopeful graduated magna cum laude from the Law School* in 1991; his wife earned the degree three years earlier.
> 
> But the senator was still outstanding in his own rightbrilliant, charismatic, and focused, said Wilkins, the Kirkland and Ellis professor of law. The two forged a relationship after Obama became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I didn't see his grades in there. Maybe he'd release his test scores?


----------



## logical4u

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> should we forgive all mortgages too then?
Click to expand...


And owed taxes?????


----------



## BDBoop

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know they're sealed.  We also know he can have that seal removed.  He chooses not to.  So, we don't "know" that he graduated with honors.  No matter how often you repeat it, that doesn't make it so.
> 
> So, we take the words of some journalist absent confirmation?
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> HE might very well have graduated with honors.
> 
> But we have no confirmation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?
> 
> Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days before he launched his campaign for the presidency, Barack H. Obama gave Law School professor David B. Wilkins 77 a heads up: one of the professors favorite students might be heading to the White House.
> 
> But that favorite student wouldnt be Barack. Itd be Michelle R. Obama, his wife.
> 
> *The presidential hopeful graduated magna cum laude from the Law School* in 1991; his wife earned the degree three years earlier.
> 
> But the senator was still outstanding in his own rightbrilliant, charismatic, and focused, said Wilkins, the Kirkland and Ellis professor of law. The two forged a relationship after Obama became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see his grades in there. Maybe he'd release his test scores?
Click to expand...


Liability wanted proof he graduated with honors. I provided said proof.


----------



## logical4u

BDBoop said:


> A couple of answers from kids (adults now) on the "How could you be so stupid" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: I love that question: why didn't you read the contract. Well, I was 17 on my first loan and about 19 on my second one. Didn't even have a checking account and never had a credit card at that time. Read the contract? yeah, I read it and "Trusted" that the government wouldn't give me the shaft. I mean how could they do that to me, I was just a kid and had big dreams. How did I know they would retroactively change the law after I took out my loan and that this loan would follow me to my grave. Oh yeah and I forgot to mention that no where in my contract does it say if I default that my interest would be capitalized. They sort of left that out for future use.
> 
> Answer: Nobody can follow when the government changes the rules in the middle of the game. They do it all the time. This is why we need reform, and we need to pass H.R. 4170, to restore some sanity and responsibility to the system. Consumer advocates back in the 80s reformed insurance company policies and forced them to write insurance coverage in understandable language. This is what we need now with student loans. Obviously this is proving to be true, as Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is beginning to listen to the people, and proposing these types of changes. And, as far as these perfect people, who read everything, I don't believe 99% of them. They would have to prove it to me first. If they are that perfect, good for them. But it's surely nobody I have ever met. How about you??
Click to expand...


And these are the people you handed the country's "healthcare" to, on a silver platter?  How do you imagine it will be any different?


----------



## logical4u

BDBoop said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electopedia 2012 - How Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Did in Law School -- New York Magazine
> 
> We both know they're sealed. He graduated magna cum laude. You know what that means, and for some reason that makes no sense, you insist that apparently? It didn't happen. Even if it did. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know they're sealed.  We also know he can have that seal removed.  He chooses not to.  So, we don't "know" that he graduated with honors.  No matter how often you repeat it, that doesn't make it so.
> 
> So, we take the words of some journalist absent confirmation?
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> HE might very well have graduated with honors.
> 
> But we have no confirmation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?
> 
> Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days before he launched his campaign for the presidency, Barack H. Obama gave Law School professor David B. Wilkins 77 a heads up: one of the professors favorite students might be heading to the White House.
> 
> But that favorite student wouldnt be Barack. Itd be Michelle R. Obama, his wife.
> 
> *The presidential hopeful graduated magna cum laude from the Law School* in 1991; his wife earned the degree three years earlier.
> 
> But the senator was still outstanding in his own rightbrilliant, charismatic, and focused, said Wilkins, the Kirkland and Ellis professor of law. The two forged a relationship after Obama became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


How about if he releases the records claiming his "citizenship status" in college, as an "adult"?


----------



## BDBoop

logical4u said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know they're sealed.  We also know he can have that seal removed.  He chooses not to.  So, we don't "know" that he graduated with honors.  No matter how often you repeat it, that doesn't make it so.
> 
> So, we take the words of some journalist absent confirmation?
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> HE might very well have graduated with honors.
> 
> But we have no confirmation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?
> 
> Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days before he launched his campaign for the presidency, Barack H. Obama gave Law School professor David B. Wilkins 77 a heads up: one of the professors favorite students might be heading to the White House.
> 
> But that favorite student wouldnt be Barack. Itd be Michelle R. Obama, his wife.
> 
> *The presidential hopeful graduated magna cum laude from the Law School* in 1991; his wife earned the degree three years earlier.
> 
> But the senator was still outstanding in his own rightbrilliant, charismatic, and focused, said Wilkins, the Kirkland and Ellis professor of law. The two forged a relationship after Obama became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about if he releases the records claiming his "citizenship status" in college, as an "adult"?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't play birfer games.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



I found her sister!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?
> 
> Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see his grades in there. Maybe he'd release his test scores?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liability wanted proof he graduated with honors. I provided said proof.
Click to expand...


You think a student newspaper counts as proof?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BDBoop said:


> No, actually. Robert Applebaum is a friend of mine, and he got this ball rolling. Google him if you don't believe me.
> 
> http://www.forgivestudentloandebt.com/content/student-loan-forgiveness-act-2012-hr-4170-bill-text
> 
> Read the bill. Let me know what you find unacceptable about it.



This is no magic wand blanket discharge of debt for any that apply, there are specific provisions to be met whose requirements would be realized by a relatively small number of applicants. Much of the legislation concerns debt restructuring and regulatory measures. 

This legislation is perfectly reasonable. 



> Liability wanted proof he graduated with honors. I provided said proof.



Not that it will do any good, conservatives prefer the ignorance of their dogma and myths theyve contrived about Obama.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found her sister!
Click to expand...



Maybe before picking a major she should have decided on a field that had employment prospects.


When both my kids were in high school we sat down and had "THE TALK".  No not that one, we'd already had that one.  The one about going to college and how "we" (them included) were going to pay for it.  With two kids going to school at the same time we explained the realities of life.  We had purchased (i.e. saved) for two years for each at a state university, that was our share.  It was up to them to come up with the remainder - scholarships, grants, work study, part time job or loans.  Our son remained at home and took the two years at a university and stretched it out to 3 years by doing 2 at a community college and then transferring to the local university with an IT degree.  He works part time and will now graduate from college debt free and about $20,000 in his account.  Our daughter went to a school about 3-hours away and worked her ass off.  As a result she earned a full ride ROTC scholarship for tuition and books.  When she graduates next year with a highly marketable degree for a woman (mathematics) and she will have under $20,000 in debt and will own the Air Force 4-years.

The other thing we explained to them when we had "THE TALK" was that mom and I would help, but they would have to chip in.  TANSTAAFL.  But that was on one condition.  If Mom & I were helping to foot the bills, then they MUST choose a degree field with marketable skills.  If either wanted a sociology degree, Early Medieval English Literature, or Underwater Basket Weaving Degree - have at it, but they were on their own and Mom & I would cash out the college fund and go to the Bahama's.

Neither has had an easy run of it in college, they've had to work very hard.  I'm very glad of that...

.................. and very proud.



>>>>


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually. Robert Applebaum is a friend of mine, and he got this ball rolling. Google him if you don't believe me.
> 
> http://www.forgivestudentloandebt.com/content/student-loan-forgiveness-act-2012-hr-4170-bill-text
> 
> Read the bill. Let me know what you find unacceptable about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is no magic wand blanket discharge of debt for any that apply, there are specific provisions to be met whose requirements would be realized by a relatively small number of applicants. Much of the legislation concerns debt restructuring and regulatory measures.
> 
> This legislation is perfectly reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability wanted proof he graduated with honors. I provided said proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that it will do any good, conservatives prefer the ignorance of their dogma and myths theyve contrived about Obama.
Click to expand...


Conservatives prefer proof. Still haven't seen proof of his brilliance.


----------



## Liability

BDBoop said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electopedia 2012 - How Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Did in Law School -- New York Magazine
> 
> We both know they're sealed. He graduated magna cum laude. You know what that means, and for some reason that makes no sense, you insist that apparently? It didn't happen. Even if it did. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know they're sealed.  We also know he can have that seal removed.  He chooses not to.  So, we don't "know" that he graduated with honors.  No matter how often you repeat it, that doesn't make it so.
> 
> So, we take the words of some journalist absent confirmation?
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> HE might very well have graduated with honors.
> 
> But we have no confirmation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?
> 
> Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days before he launched his campaign for the presidency, Barack H. Obama gave Law School professor David B. Wilkins 77 a heads up: one of the professors favorite students might be heading to the White House.
> 
> But that favorite student wouldnt be Barack. Itd be Michelle R. Obama, his wife.
> 
> *The presidential hopeful graduated magna cum laude from the Law School* in 1991; his wife earned the degree three years earlier.
> 
> But the senator was still outstanding in his own rightbrilliant, charismatic, and focused, said Wilkins, the Kirkland and Ellis professor of law. The two forged a relationship after Obama became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Nope.  His transcripts.  You know: actual confirmation.


----------



## Liability

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?
> 
> Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see his grades in there. Maybe he'd release his test scores?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liability wanted proof he graduated with honors. I provided said proof.
Click to expand...


Where?  The Crimson doesn't qualify as "proof."


----------



## Liability

Liability said:


> Let's just assume for the sake of this discussion only, that the woman holding the sign in the OP is "speaking" the truth.
> 
> *Did I put a gun to her head and say, "Damn your hide!  TAKE This fucking money ON these exact terms?"*
> 
> Nope.
> 
> *Who negotiated her loan agreement?* *Did she negotiate at all?* *Did she shop around?* *Did she sign the agreement?*
> 
> Let's assume, further, that she did sign it.  *Did she -- before that momentous moment -- READ the terms of the (let's call it what it is) CONTRACT?*
> 
> *Who exactly is responsible for the consequences of HER conduct and her own decisions?*



Bumped -- with highlighting -- because I am curious why these questions get ignored in this "discussion?"


----------



## chanel

I'm a pragmatist. Suppose some shmuck who is shelling out 60K a year to send to 2 kids to college decides to let their kids take on that debt themselves, will BDboop's plan relieve the family of that debt next year? If Obama is re-elected, wouldn't it make financial sense for parents to stop footing the bill? Hmmmm.


----------



## BDBoop

Liability said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know they're sealed.  We also know he can have that seal removed.  He chooses not to.  So, we don't "know" that he graduated with honors.  No matter how often you repeat it, that doesn't make it so.
> 
> So, we take the words of some journalist absent confirmation?
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> HE might very well have graduated with honors.
> 
> But we have no confirmation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?
> 
> Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days before he launched his campaign for the presidency, Barack H. Obama gave Law School professor David B. Wilkins 77 a heads up: one of the professors favorite students might be heading to the White House.
> 
> But that favorite student wouldnt be Barack. Itd be Michelle R. Obama, his wife.
> 
> *The presidential hopeful graduated magna cum laude from the Law School* in 1991; his wife earned the degree three years earlier.
> 
> But the senator was still outstanding in his own rightbrilliant, charismatic, and focused, said Wilkins, the Kirkland and Ellis professor of law. The two forged a relationship after Obama became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  His transcripts.  You know: actual confirmation.
Click to expand...


The school stating it is proof enough. I'm kind of surprised you're doing this. I shouldn't be - but I am.


----------



## BDBoop

Liability said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see his grades in there. Maybe he'd release his test scores?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability wanted proof he graduated with honors. I provided said proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where?  The Crimson doesn't qualify as "proof."
Click to expand...


The school he graduated from with honors stating he did so doesn't qualify as proof? Why.


----------



## Trajan

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. But since you won't give him credit for jack, intelligence is just one item on the list of things you refuse to give him credit for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, for one. You can't bullshit your way through that one. Top 10% of the class, and from what I understand, blind grading. So no favoritism there.
Click to expand...


so? why didn't he graduate summa cum laude, if hes all that and a bag of chips? You do realize that at magna cum laude depending on how the grades shook out for the class honors wise overall, he could have had a C+ average, right? So no,  he wasn't the top 10%,  more like the top 20%.


----------



## syrenn

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



Do you think taking out a loan is free?


----------



## Annie

chanel said:


> I'm a pragmatist. Suppose some shmuck who is shelling out 60K a year to send to 2 kids to college decides to let their kids take on that debt themselves, will BDboop's plan relieve the family of that debt next year? If Obama is re-elected, wouldn't it make financial sense for parents to stop footing the bill? Hmmmm.



The kids will probably be denied according to FAFSA status. 

This does happen. Parents who have an income to contribute substantially to their children's education decide not to, yet keep claiming them on their IRS forms. Not a thing the kid can do. 

THAT should change. The parents should not be able to claim 'dependents' that are not.


----------



## Toro

We shouldn't forgive student debt.  The more educated people are - in general - the more money they make.  The educated are the biggest benefactors of student loans, because without the loans, their pay would be much less.  For individual situations where this isn't true, people should declare bankruptcy.  There should also be tough penalties against institutions who knowingly mislead job prospects for those who enroll in their colleges.


----------



## Liability

BDBoop said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?
> 
> Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  His transcripts.  You know: actual confirmation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The school stating it is proof enough. I'm kind of surprised you're doing this. I shouldn't be - but I am.
Click to expand...


The school isn't stating it.  The Crimson is not "the school."  It is a paper quotng some people about something about which they may or may not have actual knowledge.  

I am indifferent to your surprise, though.  Facts are still facts.  The FACT is:  we don't have his transcripts.  We DO know he went to Harvard Law.   We DO know he was the big cheese at their Law Review.  We DO NOT have a damn word he ever published in any law review.  We DO NOT have a single transcript of his law school or college academic career.

See those?  Those are facts.


----------



## Liability

BDBoop said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liability wanted proof he graduated with honors. I provided said proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where?  The Crimson doesn't qualify as "proof."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The school he graduated from with honors stating he did so doesn't qualify as proof? Why.
Click to expand...


The Crimson is not the school.


----------



## BDBoop

Toro said:


> We shouldn't forgive student debt.  The more educated people are - in general - the more money they make.  The educated are the biggest benefactors of student loans, because without the loans, their pay would be much less.  For individual situations where this isn't true, people should declare bankruptcy.  There should also be tough penalties against institutions who knowingly mislead job prospects for those who enroll in their colleges.



Student loans can't be included on bankruptcies.


----------



## BDBoop

Liability said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where?  The Crimson doesn't qualify as "proof."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The school he graduated from with honors stating he did so doesn't qualify as proof? Why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Crimson is not the school.
Click to expand...


It's their school paper. 

I get it. I'll drop it. You've gone to a hill you have to defend, and knowing you can't hear me is sign enough that you won't back down.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Annie said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a pragmatist. Suppose some shmuck who is shelling out 60K a year to send to 2 kids to college decides to let their kids take on that debt themselves, will BDboop's plan relieve the family of that debt next year? If Obama is re-elected, wouldn't it make financial sense for parents to stop footing the bill? Hmmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The kids will probably be denied according to FAFSA status.
> 
> This does happen. Parents who have an income to contribute substantially to their children's education decide not to, yet keep claiming them on their IRS forms. Not a thing the kid can do.
> 
> THAT should change. The parents should not be able to claim 'dependents' that are not.
Click to expand...



Dependency status for taxes and dependency statues for FAFSA are two different things.  It's true it's pretty hard for most children to get out of being classified as a dependent while under 24 and enrolled in a bachelors degree program or lower.

That is very different than dependency for taxes.  If a person is living independently from their parents and supporting themselves with over 50% of the expenses, then legally (IIRC) the parents cannot claim them as a dependent.  If they do, that would be fraud.  If the child wants to claim themselves on their taxes and the parents illegally claim them, then their is something that can be done about it as an adult person is always legally able to file their own taxes and take the personal exemption.  Now financially speaking, being able to claim the child as a depended will "normally" (but not always) have a greater return on the exemption claim as a function of taxes for the parent then the child would because of typically lower incomes for the child.

>>>>


----------



## Artevelde

hilbert said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> If after 23 years you haven't been able to bay back a student loan of 26,000 you are either:
> -) very stupid
> -) spending your money on all sorts of other things
> -) a freeloader
> -) all of the above
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, writing stuff like this shows you have never had to borrow money to go to college. Did you even earn a HS degree, Sparky?
Click to expand...


I studied and leant enough to understand basic economics, unlike the OP.


----------



## Artevelde

BDBoop said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> The school he graduated from with honors stating he did so doesn't qualify as proof? Why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Crimson is not the school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's their school paper.
> 
> I get it. I'll drop it. You've gone to a hill you have to defend, and knowing you can't hear me is sign enough that you won't back down.
Click to expand...


You really have a tough time dealing with your ignorance being demonstrated.


----------



## Toro

BDBoop said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't forgive student debt.  The more educated people are - in general - the more money they make.  The educated are the biggest benefactors of student loans, because without the loans, their pay would be much less.  For individual situations where this isn't true, people should declare bankruptcy.  There should also be tough penalties against institutions who knowingly mislead job prospects for those who enroll in their colleges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Student loans can't be included on bankruptcies.
Click to expand...


I know.  They should be.


----------



## Trajan

BDBoop said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?
> 
> Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if he releases the records claiming his "citizenship status" in college, as an "adult"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't play birfer games.
Click to expand...


then how about he unseals his transcripts period?


----------



## Trajan

Toro said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't forgive student debt.  The more educated people are - in general - the more money they make.  The educated are the biggest benefactors of student loans, because without the loans, their pay would be much less.  For individual situations where this isn't true, people should declare bankruptcy.  There should also be tough penalties against institutions who knowingly mislead job prospects for those who enroll in their colleges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Student loans can't be included on bankruptcies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  They should be.
Click to expand...


why?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Toro said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't forgive student debt.  The more educated people are - in general - the more money they make.  The educated are the biggest benefactors of student loans, because without the loans, their pay would be much less.  For individual situations where this isn't true, people should declare bankruptcy.  There should also be tough penalties against institutions who knowingly mislead job prospects for those who enroll in their colleges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Student loans can't be included on bankruptcies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  They should be.
Click to expand...



You think that someone should be able to go to school for 4-years and rack up 80K in debt and then declare bankruptcy after graduation?


>>>>


----------



## BDBoop

No. But I also don't think that the collectors tacking on another $30k "just because" and that being legal per an attorney, is okay either.

I think that all the late fees, finance charges, and all manner of crap that gets tacked on 'just because' is doing a literal shit-ton of damage to the students, and the economy by extension.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Annie said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a pragmatist. Suppose some shmuck who is shelling out 60K a year to send to 2 kids to college decides to let their kids take on that debt themselves, will BDboop's plan relieve the family of that debt next year? If Obama is re-elected, wouldn't it make financial sense for parents to stop footing the bill? Hmmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The kids will probably be denied according to FAFSA status.
> 
> This does happen. Parents who have an income to contribute substantially to their children's education decide not to, yet keep claiming them on their IRS forms. Not a thing the kid can do.
> 
> THAT should change. The parents should not be able to claim 'dependents' that are not.
Click to expand...


The only way you can claim a dependent is if you assert that you provide at least half of his income during the year. The IRS doesn't audit most people, but if you get caught lying it will get expensive really fast.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BDBoop said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> The school he graduated from with honors stating he did so doesn't qualify as proof? Why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Crimson is not the school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's their school paper.
> 
> I get it. I'll drop it. You've gone to a hill you have to defend, and knowing you can't hear me is sign enough that you won't back down.
Click to expand...


Actually, it is the student paper. There may, or may not, be faculty advisers, but all the boards are staffed by any student that wants to join them. The masthead doesn't mention a single faculty member.

Masthead | The Harvard Crimson


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Toro said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't forgive student debt.  The more educated people are - in general - the more money they make.  The educated are the biggest benefactors of student loans, because without the loans, their pay would be much less.  For individual situations where this isn't true, people should declare bankruptcy.  There should also be tough penalties against institutions who knowingly mislead job prospects for those who enroll in their colleges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Student loans can't be included on bankruptcies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  They should be.
Click to expand...


The reason they aren't is because they are guaranteed by taxpayers. If they were not, my guess is a lot fewer people would be able to get loans for ridiculous amounts of money to go to school forever.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BDBoop said:


> No. But I also don't think that the collectors tacking on another $30k "just because" and that being legal per an attorney, is okay either.
> 
> I think that all the late fees, finance charges, and all manner of crap that gets tacked on 'just because' is doing a literal shit-ton of damage to the students, and the economy by extension.



Interest does not compound on federally guaranteed student loans.


----------



## BDBoop

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Crimson is not the school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's their school paper.
> 
> I get it. I'll drop it. You've gone to a hill you have to defend, and knowing you can't hear me is sign enough that you won't back down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the student paper. There may, or may not, be faculty advisers, but all the boards are staffed by any student that wants to join them. The masthead doesn't mention a single faculty member.
> 
> Masthead | The Harvard Crimson
Click to expand...


Really. And you don't think a retraction would be printed if he HADN'T graduated with honors.

It's amazing how far y'all are willing to go in your effort to not concede a point.


----------



## American Horse

BDBoop said:


> A couple of answers from kids (adults now) on the "How could you be so stupid" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: I love that question: why didn't you read the contract. Well, I was 17 on my first loan and about 19 on my second one. Didn't even have a checking account and never had a credit card at that time. Read the contract? yeah, I read it and "Trusted" that the government wouldn't give me the shaft. I mean how could they do that to me, I was just a kid and had big dreams. How did I know they would retroactively change the law after I took out my loan and that this loan would follow me to my grave. *Oh yeah and I forgot to mention that no where in my contract does it say if I default that my interest would be capitalized. They sort of left that out for future use*.
> 
> Answer: Nobody can follow when the government changes the rules in the middle of the game. They do it all the time. This is why we need reform, and we need to pass H.R. 4170, to restore some sanity and responsibility to the system. Consumer advocates back in the 80s reformed insurance company policies and forced them to write insurance coverage in understandable language. This is what we need now with student loans. Obviously this is proving to be true, as Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is beginning to listen to the people, and proposing these types of changes. And, as far as these perfect people, who read everything, I don't believe 99% of them. They would have to prove it to me first. If they are that perfect, good for them. But it's surely nobody I have ever met. How about you??
Click to expand...


Interest was capitalized?  You mean just like it is on commercial loan notes that small business people take out and dutifully  pay off all the time?  If the interest was capitalized, then the loan amount grew by the interest on the capitalized debt, and she ignored it for a very long time.  I have no pity for  dead-beats, especially educated dead-beats.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. But I also don't think that the collectors tacking on another $30k "just because" and that being legal per an attorney, is okay either.
> 
> I think that all the late fees, finance charges, and all manner of crap that gets tacked on 'just because' is doing a literal shit-ton of damage to the students, and the economy by extension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interest does not compound on federally guaranteed student loans.
Click to expand...


I think it would if you failed to make any payments.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's their school paper.
> 
> I get it. I'll drop it. You've gone to a hill you have to defend, and knowing you can't hear me is sign enough that you won't back down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the student paper. There may, or may not, be faculty advisers, but all the boards are staffed by any student that wants to join them. The masthead doesn't mention a single faculty member.
> 
> Masthead | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really. And you don't think a retraction would be printed if he HADN'T graduated with honors.
> 
> It's amazing how far y'all are willing to go in your effort to not concede a point.
Click to expand...


How can they print a retraction? 
They don't have any actual information (because Obama won't release it).


----------



## mudwhistle

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



Who's gonna pay for it?

Let's make a list of all of the free shit Obama says you need:







Free Stuff
Drugs
Rubbers 
Birth Control Pills
Home Mortgages
Student Loans
Abortions
Cell Phones for the unemployed
PCs in the projects
Health Care
Food Stamps
New Cars
Weatherproofing their homes


Heck....why steal when you can get it from Obama.






links

Everyone Wants Free Stuff | The Buffington Post
Tea Party at Perrysburg: Obama reelection plan: free stuff for everyone!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's their school paper.
> 
> I get it. I'll drop it. You've gone to a hill you have to defend, and knowing you can't hear me is sign enough that you won't back down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the student paper. There may, or may not, be faculty advisers, but all the boards are staffed by any student that wants to join them. The masthead doesn't mention a single faculty member.
> 
> Masthead | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really. And you don't think a retraction would be printed if he HADN'T graduated with honors.
> 
> It's amazing how far y'all are willing to go in your effort to not concede a point.
Click to expand...


Can you prove they didn't print a retraction?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. But I also don't think that the collectors tacking on another $30k "just because" and that being legal per an attorney, is okay either.
> 
> I think that all the late fees, finance charges, and all manner of crap that gets tacked on 'just because' is doing a literal shit-ton of damage to the students, and the economy by extension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interest does not compound on federally guaranteed student loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it would if you failed to make any payments.
Click to expand...


Not to my knowledge. As far as I know, the worst that happens is it gets sent to a debt collection agency.


----------



## American Horse

Quantum Windbag said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interest does not compound on federally guaranteed student loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would if you failed to make any payments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to my knowledge. As far as I know, the worst that happens is it gets sent to a debt collection agency.
Click to expand...


It would because it is not a loan that can be written off.  
Regardless how long a person ignores their loan principle and negelcts payment, the interest must be added to that principle.  

Otherwise it would be just a loan in default and those types loans can't because they can only go away if forgiven by the government or on the death of the borrower.  That's what accounts for the interest due and being capitalized onto the loan principle.  

Should a loan that is not being paid simply become dormant for who knows how many years or decades with not interest being due and collectible?

That's what you get with an unforgivable education loan, and it's exactly as it should be.


----------



## BDBoop

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the student paper. There may, or may not, be faculty advisers, but all the boards are staffed by any student that wants to join them. The masthead doesn't mention a single faculty member.
> 
> Masthead | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really. And you don't think a retraction would be printed if he HADN'T graduated with honors.
> 
> It's amazing how far y'all are willing to go in your effort to not concede a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you prove they didn't print a retraction?
Click to expand...


Y'know. I think I'm just going to consider the source and drop this for good.



> And birtherism is only one of a number of racially charged conspiracy theories that have bubbled out of the right-wing swamp and have been allowed to fester by conservative elites. Those who have spent the last two years clinging to the notion that the president wasnt born in the United States, who have alleged that the president wasnt intelligent enough to write his own autobiography or somehow coasted to magna cum laude at Harvard law, are carrying on new varieties of an old, dying tradition of American racism. Similar accusations dogged early black writers like Frederick Douglass and Phyllis Wheatley, whose brilliance provoked an existential crisis among people incapable of abandoning myths of black intellectual inferiority.



An embarrassment to the country - The Plum Line - The Washington Post


----------



## Quantum Windbag

American Horse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would if you failed to make any payments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to my knowledge. As far as I know, the worst that happens is it gets sent to a debt collection agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would because it is not a loan that can be written off.
> Regardless how long a person ignores their loan principle and negelcts payment, the interest must be added to that principle.
> 
> Otherwise it would be just a loan in default and those types loans can't because they can only go away if forgiven by the government or on the death of the borrower.  That's what accounts for the interest due and being capitalized onto the loan principle.
> 
> Should a loan that is not being paid simply become dormant for who knows how many years or decades with not interest being due and collectible?
> 
> That's what you get with an unforgivable education loan, and it's exactly as it should be.
Click to expand...


I am specifically talking about compound interest, not accrued simple interest. The first is where the unpaid interest is added to the debt and interest is charged on the total. That does not happen with federally guaranteed student loans. It would take around 50 years someone to accumulate an additional $70,000 in debt on a $25,000 loan at 6% interest rate, which is about average for a student loan over the last 20 years, which is far back as I found data with my cursory search when I first responded to this thread. 

It would be impossible for it to happen if the person with the loan was making regular payments over the life of the loan, which is why I think the girl is lying. Either that, or she is paying off her grandmother's loan.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really. And you don't think a retraction would be printed if he HADN'T graduated with honors.
> 
> It's amazing how far y'all are willing to go in your effort to not concede a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove they didn't print a retraction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'know. I think I'm just going to consider the source and drop this for good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And birtherism is only one of a number of racially charged conspiracy theories that have bubbled out of the right-wing swamp and have been allowed to fester by conservative elites. Those who have spent the last two years clinging to the notion that the president wasnt born in the United States, who have alleged that the president wasnt intelligent enough to write his own autobiography or somehow coasted to magna cum laude at Harvard law, are carrying on new varieties of an old, dying tradition of American racism. Similar accusations dogged early black writers like Frederick Douglass and Phyllis Wheatley, whose brilliance provoked an existential crisis among people incapable of abandoning myths of black intellectual inferiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An embarrassment to the country - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
Click to expand...


I bet you could look all day and not find a single birther or racist post from me. 

I was just pointing out that your comment that, if it wasn't true they would have printed a retraction doesn't prove anything because it would mean you are saying they did not print one. Pointing out the obvious only makes me a nut if you don't like the obvious.


----------



## Annie

I've known people that used student loan money to buy a car. No reason to have one, on a walking campus. Sure a car is great, if bought and paid for before, but using student loan money?

I know people that have graduated with loans, that have said they couldn't 'afford' to pay them back, while partying, dating, getting engaged, and then married. They started paying it back when they went for mortgage and the government responded by garnishing their checks. Then they made arrangements. Once that was done, they did get the mortgage, kept paying the student loans, had kids, etc.


----------



## Liability

I forgive them for ASKING, but I would emphatically deny their request to cancel the debts.


----------



## logical4u

BDBoop said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about a confirmation from the Harvard schoolpaper, The Crimson?
> 
> Obama Left Mark on HLS | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if he releases the records claiming his "citizenship status" in college, as an "adult"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't play birfer games.
Click to expand...


Apparently, you don't care about "fraud" either.


----------



## logical4u

Toro said:


> We shouldn't forgive student debt.  The more educated people are - in general - the more money they make.  The educated are the biggest benefactors of student loans, because without the loans, their pay would be much less.  For individual situations where this isn't true, people should declare bankruptcy.  There should also be tough penalties against institutions who knowingly mislead job prospects for those who enroll in their colleges.



You mean to say they grow up and become part of those "evil" corporations?


----------



## OldManOnFire

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.



Did all of these people with student loans understand the terms of the loans they were given?  

If they understood the loan conditions, then they have a contract obligation to pay off those loans.

If they did not understand the loan conditions, then shame on them, and they have a contract obligation to pay off those loans.


----------



## enemigh

If you don't want to be in debt for the rest of your natural life, *DON'T GO TO COLLEGE!!!!!!* I live in South Dakota, and our governor is going to graduate this week. I guess she wants a college education so that she can make something out of her life. OH, WAIT, SHE'S THE GOVERNOR!


----------



## Skull Pilot

If you sign on the dotted line for a loan then you should have to pay it back.  Period.


----------



## logical4u

Funny, the O, isn't mentioning the "students' share of the 5,000,000,000 debt he is racking up (soon to be more).  He is only focusing on the naive children going to college, and telling them it is all about taking care of them, while he is slipping the yoke over their shoulders.  When he is done, they will pay for his debt for the rest of their lives (and if he is re-elected, their children will be born wearing yokes).  Wake up, America!


----------



## Katzndogz

The one thing that these outrageous student loans have done is cause a few people to start questioning liberal orthodoxy.  Maybe not everyone should go to college.  Maybe people shouldn't be getting worthless degrees.

A reasonable and logical solution would be to attach a real value to college degrees.  Degrees that will result in a good job and career can cost more and it should be easy to get these loans.   Charge much less for vanity degrees that produce a piece of paper but have no real value.  There should be no available loans, grants or scholarships for vanity degrees.


----------



## PredFan

4 years of college, then 3 years graduate school, no debt. The 4 years I did in the military paid for my 4 years in college, and I worked full time while going to grad school.

Two kids graduated from college, one in college, two in high school. No debt. Florida Pre-paid College Program paid for their college and what wasn't covered by that was paid for with Bright Futures.

Will be the same with the other two.


----------



## Liability

If Sen. John F'n Lurch Kerry and President George W. Bush can release their college records, then why the fuck can't The ONE do the same?


----------



## Katzndogz

Student loan debt will never be forgiven.  The burden of paying the debt will be shifted to the tax payer, but it won't be forgiven.  Suppose it was, a  $60,000 loan is forgiven resulting in windfall income to the student of $60,000 for one year that the student now owes taxes on.  Like any other debt that's forgiven.   The outrage now isn't to forgive the loan, but forgiven the taxes on the loan that has become unearned income.


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Forgive their Debt?

Why?

Are they saying they were too stupid to realize what taking out a loan was?

Everyone I know paid for their own college by working and/or paying their loans back

Why are today's students so special ?

Do they think they are better than their predecessors?

Do they think someone else owes them a living?


.


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Liability said:


> If Sen. John F'n Lurch Kerry and President George W. Bush can release their college records, then why the fuck can't The ONE do the same?



Because he is one big pile of lies...



.


----------



## KevinWestern

logical4u said:


> Funny, the O, isn't mentioning the "students' share of the 5,000,000,000 debt he is racking up (soon to be more).  He is only focusing on the naive children going to college, and telling them it is all about taking care of them, while he is slipping the yoke over their shoulders.  When he is done, they will pay for his debt for the rest of their lives (and if he is re-elected, their children will be born wearing yokes).  Wake up, America!



$5 billion is really not that hard to pay back.

And note, the children will be paying back BOTH Obama's and Bush's debt for the rest of their lives. The a Republican Party sucks too, you know.


----------



## KevinWestern

logical4u said:


> Funny, the O, isn't mentioning the "students' share of the 5,000,000,000 debt he is racking up (soon to be more).  He is only focusing on the naive children going to college, and telling them it is all about taking care of them, while he is slipping the yoke over their shoulders.  When he is done, they will pay for his debt for the rest of their lives (and if he is re-elected, their children will be born wearing yokes).  Wake up, America!



Plus, much of Obama's spending was reactionary due to the recession (unemployment - for example). If you really want to get mad at the government debt, you should start with the Bush years. During this time, the government stupidly thought that it made sense to uphold major tax cuts during a time when it needed to fund two major wars. Morons.

That's like a person who just got a 20% cut in pay thinking it's OK to drastically increase their spending habits.


----------



## OldManOnFire

Gremlin-USA said:


> Forgive their Debt?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Are they saying they were too stupid to realize what taking out a loan was?
> 
> Everyone I know paid for their own college by working and/or paying their loans back
> 
> Why are today's students so special ?
> 
> Do they think they are better than their predecessors?
> 
> Do they think someone else owes them a living?
> 
> 
> .



It's all political BS...pandering for votes...


----------



## KissMy

You must admit that college is a complete failure if it fails to pay for itself & we must forgive student loans.

I have a good friend who was over here crying on my couch about her huge student loan debt. The thing is I have known her every since she graduated. She has been partying, spending hundreds every couple of weeks on hair & nails, buying nice cars & house instead of paying off her loan. Now her student debt has double because she failed to make her required payments. It not my problem that she had had a good time on her higher than normal income thanks to her education instead of paying back the loan first.


----------



## Samson

KissMy said:


> You must admit that college is a complete failure if it fails to pay for itself & we must forgive student loans.
> 
> I have a good friend who was over here crying on my couch about her huge student loan debt. The thing is I have known her every since she graduated. She has been partying, spending hundreds every couple of weeks on hair & nails, buying nice cars & house instead of paying off her loan. Now her student debt has double because she failed to make her required payments. It not my problem that she had had a good time on her higher than normal income thanks to her education instead of paying back the loan first.



WWHAAAAAAAAT?!

Are you implying that there are those that would take advantage of an "it takes a village" social philosophy?


----------



## OldManOnFire

KissMy said:


> You must admit that college is a complete failure if it fails to pay for itself & we must forgive student loans.
> 
> I have a good friend who was over here crying on my couch about her huge student loan debt. The thing is I have known her every since she graduated. She has been partying, spending hundreds every couple of weeks on hair & nails, buying nice cars & house instead of paying off her loan. Now her student debt has double because she failed to make her required payments. It not my problem that she had had a good time on her higher than normal income thanks to her education instead of paying back the loan first.



On NPR this morning someone stated that the 'average' student loan amount at graduation is $25,000.  With or without employment at graduation, this is a lot of debt.

Using an Internet loan payment calculator, a $25000 loan, with a term of 10 years, at 3% interest, is about $241 per month.  At 6% it's about $278 per month.  This makes the total paybacks at $28920 and $33360.  

What is obvious assuming the math above is correct, in this scenario of a $25000 student loan, all this political BS about loan payments doubling is just that...political BS.  The difference between $241 and $278 is a lousy $37 which means this entire issue is meaningless political BS pandering for votes!

The real root issue is idiot college graduates taking on $25000 in debt then whining when they need to pay back that debt...if they were smarter and actually read/cared about the loan contract they signed, all of this would be a moot point EXCEPT for Obama pandering for votes...


----------



## Katzndogz

Part of the blame for tuition hikes does belong to the government.   Colleges and Universities hiked tuitions because the loans were so easy to get.  Professors got enormous hikes in salaries and the administrations were able to build new stadiums, new buildings, and enhance their images using this free money.


----------



## KevinWestern

OldManOnFire said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must admit that college is a complete failure if it fails to pay for itself & we must forgive student loans.
> 
> I have a good friend who was over here crying on my couch about her huge student loan debt. The thing is I have known her every since she graduated. She has been partying, spending hundreds every couple of weeks on hair & nails, buying nice cars & house instead of paying off her loan. Now her student debt has double because she failed to make her required payments. It not my problem that she had had a good time on her higher than normal income thanks to her education instead of paying back the loan first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On NPR this morning someone stated that the 'average' student loan amount at graduation is $25,000.  With or without employment at graduation, this is a lot of debt.
> 
> Using an Internet loan payment calculator, a $25000 loan, with a term of 10 years, at 3% interest, is about $241 per month.  At 6% it's about $278 per month.  This makes the total paybacks at $28920 and $33360.
> 
> What is obvious assuming the math above is correct, in this scenario of a $25000 student loan, all this political BS about loan payments doubling is just that...political BS.  The difference between $241 and $278 is a lousy $37 which means this entire issue is meaningless political BS pandering for votes!
> 
> The real root issue is idiot college graduates taking on $25000 in debt then whining when they need to pay back that debt...if they were smarter and actually read/cared about the loan contract they signed, all of this would be a moot point EXCEPT for Obama pandering for votes...
Click to expand...


I don&#8217;t know about you, but an extra $37/month for *TEN YEARS* is no petty amount! What sort of disconnected world are you living in?

And I disagree with your &#8220;root cause&#8221; assessment. The root cause of the whole situation is the fact that college costs are rising on average of 4-6% per year while the normal inflation rate is only at about 2%. It&#8217;s simply not sustainable. 

Sure, students have a &#8220;choice&#8221; whether or not to attend college, but it comes at a great cost. Most all management positions (and entry-level positions for that matter) where I work require a 4-year degree. I don&#8217;t think my company is alone on this policy.


----------



## KissMy

Obama is pandering because his economic / jobs policy has failed.

CNN: Boomerang kids: 85% of college grads move home

"Stubbornly high unemployment -- nearly 15% for those ages 20-24 -- has made finding a job nearly impossible"
.


----------



## KevinWestern

Katzndogz said:


> Part of the blame for tuition hikes does belong to the government.   Colleges and Universities hiked tuitions because the loans were so easy to get.  Professors got enormous hikes in salaries and the administrations were able to build new stadiums, new buildings, and enhance their images using this free money.



It's a lot easier to expand and build outward when the money's easy, than contract inward when the funds get tight. 

You see this sort of thing happen to the government itself, too

.


----------



## OldManOnFire

Katzndogz said:


> Part of the blame for tuition hikes does belong to the government.   Colleges and Universities hiked tuitions because the loans were so easy to get.  Professors got enormous hikes in salaries and the administrations were able to build new stadiums, new buildings, and enhance their images using this free money.



No matter if loans are difficult or easy to obtain, those taking out the loans should not be so stupid that they don't understand or care about the $25,000 in debt they are creating which must be repaid at prescribed terms and interest rates.  Every student who applied for a loan did so willingly with no gun held to their head!  Do not blame government for people not taking responsibility for THEIR actions...


----------



## OldManOnFire

KevinWestern said:


> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must admit that college is a complete failure if it fails to pay for itself & we must forgive student loans.
> 
> I have a good friend who was over here crying on my couch about her huge student loan debt. The thing is I have known her every since she graduated. She has been partying, spending hundreds every couple of weeks on hair & nails, buying nice cars & house instead of paying off her loan. Now her student debt has double because she failed to make her required payments. It not my problem that she had had a good time on her higher than normal income thanks to her education instead of paying back the loan first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On NPR this morning someone stated that the 'average' student loan amount at graduation is $25,000.  With or without employment at graduation, this is a lot of debt.
> 
> Using an Internet loan payment calculator, a $25000 loan, with a term of 10 years, at 3% interest, is about $241 per month.  At 6% it's about $278 per month.  This makes the total paybacks at $28920 and $33360.
> 
> What is obvious assuming the math above is correct, in this scenario of a $25000 student loan, all this political BS about loan payments doubling is just that...political BS.  The difference between $241 and $278 is a lousy $37 which means this entire issue is meaningless political BS pandering for votes!
> 
> The real root issue is idiot college graduates taking on $25000 in debt then whining when they need to pay back that debt...if they were smarter and actually read/cared about the loan contract they signed, all of this would be a moot point EXCEPT for Obama pandering for votes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont know about you, but an extra $37/month for *TEN YEARS* is no petty amount! What sort of disconnected world are you living in?
> 
> And I disagree with your root cause assessment. The root cause of the whole situation is the fact that college costs are rising on average of 4-6% per year while the normal inflation rate is only at about 2%. Its simply not sustainable.
> 
> Sure, students have a choice whether or not to attend college, but it comes at a great cost. Most all management positions (and entry-level positions for that matter) where I work require a 4-year degree. I dont think my company is alone on this policy.
Click to expand...


$37 per month is not enough money for Obama to make this college loan issue a national catastrophe!!  This is political BS.

Fact remains that every student with these loans has full knowledge about the interest rate agreement.  If they didn't pay attention or didn't care; well shame on them.  If they did pay attention, then instead of complaining figure out how to prioritize $37 per month from other stuff.

Most all colleges have more demand than supply.  This means the prices can go higher.  If enrollment dropped where supply was greater than demand then the prices will go down.  How can you find fault with this?

Bottom line is this entire issue is political BS pandering for votes...


----------



## Staidhup

Does that mean I get a rebate from the government after paying for my children's college? all right! bring it on, where do I apply?


----------



## OldManOnFire

KissMy said:


> Obama is pandering because his economic / jobs policy has failed.
> 
> 
> "Stubbornly high unemployment -- nearly 15% for those ages 20-24 -- has made finding a job nearly impossible"
> .



Two things I propose;

1. Every American receiving government support needs to perform some form of work; I don't care if this is volunteering.  I don't care if this is picking up litter from the roadways.

2. Instead of all the social programming and welfare which nets nothing, the government should be spending on projects which actually provide something for the USA; like infrastructure.  Transfer $200 billion from military spending, then add another $800 billion in stimulus money, and this $1 trillion will create 6.7 million jobs! 

At least...at a minimum...let's try to be productive...let's build stuff for the USA which benefits all citizens and creates employment.  If the private sector cannot grow enough to provide more jobs, then government needs to raise taxes on everyone in order to keep works-progress type projects going...


----------



## Katzndogz

OldManOnFire said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the blame for tuition hikes does belong to the government.   Colleges and Universities hiked tuitions because the loans were so easy to get.  Professors got enormous hikes in salaries and the administrations were able to build new stadiums, new buildings, and enhance their images using this free money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter if loans are difficult or easy to obtain, those taking out the loans should not be so stupid that they don't understand or care about the $25,000 in debt they are creating which must be repaid at prescribed terms and interest rates.  Every student who applied for a loan did so willingly with no gun held to their head!  Do not blame government for people not taking responsibility for THEIR actions...
Click to expand...


These kids were led to believe that they would get good jobs holding degrees in transgender pottery making.   Now that they find out they are holding worthless degrees they are understandably upset.   They are, in some ways, like the person who falls for some stock scheme and lured into investing into a worthless company.  These students were lied to from the very beginning.  Mostly lied to by the universities themselves.   These students bought easy classes and lots of drinking, drugs, sex and parties as the college experience.  They got what they paid for, they just paid too much for it.


----------



## Katzndogz

OldManOnFire said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is pandering because his economic / jobs policy has failed.
> 
> 
> "Stubbornly high unemployment -- nearly 15% for those ages 20-24 -- has made finding a job nearly impossible"
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things I propose;
> 
> 1. Every American receiving government support needs to perform some form of work; I don't care if this is volunteering.  I don't care if this is picking up litter from the roadways.
> 
> 2. Instead of all the social programming and welfare which nets nothing, the government should be spending on projects which actually provide something for the USA; like infrastructure.  Transfer $200 billion from military spending, then add another $800 billion in stimulus money, and this $1 trillion will create 6.7 million jobs!
> 
> At least...at a minimum...let's try to be productive...let's build stuff for the USA which benefits all citizens and creates employment.  If the private sector cannot grow enough to provide more jobs, then government needs to raise taxes on everyone in order to keep works-progress type projects going...
Click to expand...


Ahhh yes, the Soviet solution.  It didn't work there either.


----------



## OldManOnFire

Katzndogz said:


> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the blame for tuition hikes does belong to the government.   Colleges and Universities hiked tuitions because the loans were so easy to get.  Professors got enormous hikes in salaries and the administrations were able to build new stadiums, new buildings, and enhance their images using this free money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter if loans are difficult or easy to obtain, those taking out the loans should not be so stupid that they don't understand or care about the $25,000 in debt they are creating which must be repaid at prescribed terms and interest rates.  Every student who applied for a loan did so willingly with no gun held to their head!  Do not blame government for people not taking responsibility for THEIR actions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These kids were led to believe that they would get good jobs holding degrees in transgender pottery making.   Now that they find out they are holding worthless degrees they are understandably upset.   They are, in some ways, like the person who falls for some stock scheme and lured into investing into a worthless company.  These students were lied to from the very beginning.  Mostly lied to by the universities themselves.   These students bought easy classes and lots of drinking, drugs, sex and parties as the college experience.  They got what they paid for, they just paid too much for it.
Click to expand...


No one led any kid to believe they will earn (x)$ if they obtain a certain degree??  Don't make up stuff just to make some point which is not valid.

Degrees ARE NOT worthless!  First off, no matter the degree, this is better than 25 million other job seekers with no college.  Secondly, those with college degrees have an unemployment rate which I believe is like 2%!  

Your political bias has you believing someone lied to these kids which is absurd at best!


----------



## chanel

I'd be curious to know how many of these poor, indebted college grads have credit cards at 18 percent. My guess is quite a few. Paying a high interest rate for Victoria's Secret would be ok; but not 6 percent on a college loan. Insanity.

Drive a used car and pay the damn thing off for crying out loud.


----------



## OldManOnFire

chanel said:


> I'd be curious to know how many of these poor, indebted college grads have credit cards at 18 percent. My guess is quite a few. Paying a high interest rate for Victoria's Secret would be ok; but not 6 percent on a college loan. Insanity.
> 
> Drive a used car and pay the damn thing off for crying out loud.



What percentage of them spend more at Starbucks each month than the supposed monthly payment increase?  It's not about a lack of money; it's about prioritizing our spending to meet our legal obligations.

I'd like to see an accounting of those with college loans;  how many obtained a college degree, how many pursued unnecessary college credits as it pertains to a career, how many are unemployed or underemployed, how many are working but earn less than the median income of $55K?


----------



## KevinWestern

chanel said:


> I'd be curious to know how many of these poor, indebted college grads have credit cards at 18 percent. My guess is quite a few. Paying a high interest rate for Victoria's Secret would be ok; but not 6 percent on a college loan. Insanity.
> 
> Drive a used car and pay the damn thing off for crying out loud.



I think that you need to first take into consideration that there's a big difference between interest rates when it relates to (a) *a large sum of long term debt (college loans) * vs (b) a small sum of short term debt (credit card).

A $200 charge at Victoria's Secret will get paid off within a month (or a few months). The 18% interest will not have that big of an effect. But a $30,000 charge at 18% that's being paid off over the course of 10 years; well, that's a whole different story.


----------



## OldManOnFire

KevinWestern said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be curious to know how many of these poor, indebted college grads have credit cards at 18 percent. My guess is quite a few. Paying a high interest rate for Victoria's Secret would be ok; but not 6 percent on a college loan. Insanity.
> 
> Drive a used car and pay the damn thing off for crying out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you need to first take into consideration that there's a big difference between interest rates when it relates to (a) *a large sum of long term debt (college loans) * vs (b) a small sum of short term debt (credit card).
> 
> A $200 charge at Victoria's Secret will get paid off within a month (or a few months). The 18% interest will not have that big of an effect. But a $30,000 charge at 18% that's being paid off over the course of 10 years; well, that's a whole different story.
Click to expand...



Average credit card debt per household with credit card debt: $15,799

There are about 180 million credit card holders.

Student loans are not 18%.

Undergraduates are carrying record-high credit card balances. The average (mean) balance is $3,173.  Seniors graduated with an average credit card debt of more than $4,100, up from $2,900 almost four years ago. Close to one-fifth of seniors carried balances greater than $7,000.

Credit card debt is a big deal...


----------



## peach174

I was watching the Senate floor on c-span and Dem's have a bill up for vote, to take payroll taxes, out of SSI and Medicare payments to pay for these student loans from S Corporations.
Once again Dem's want to steal from Seniors retirement insurance and their health care to pay for lowering the interest rates for student loans.
Like they haven't taken enough out of Medicare, already.

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


----------



## KevinWestern

OldManOnFire said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be curious to know how many of these poor, indebted college grads have credit cards at 18 percent. My guess is quite a few. Paying a high interest rate for Victoria's Secret would be ok; but not 6 percent on a college loan. Insanity.
> 
> Drive a used car and pay the damn thing off for crying out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you need to first take into consideration that there's a big difference between interest rates when it relates to (a) *a large sum of long term debt (college loans) * vs (b) a small sum of short term debt (credit card).
> 
> A $200 charge at Victoria's Secret will get paid off within a month (or a few months). The 18% interest will not have that big of an effect. But a $30,000 charge at 18% that's being paid off over the course of 10 years; well, that's a whole different story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average credit card debt per household with credit card debt: $15,799
> 
> There are about 180 million credit card holders.
> 
> Student loans are not 18%.
> 
> Undergraduates are carrying record-high credit card balances. The average (mean) balance is $3,173.  Seniors graduated with an average credit card debt of more than $4,100, up from $2,900 almost four years ago. Close to one-fifth of seniors carried balances greater than $7,000.
> 
> Credit card debt is a big deal...
Click to expand...


Very interesting. Didn't realize the average credit card debt was that high (really?). I happen to use _Amex _almost exclusively, and then pay off the balance at the end of the month. It keeps you from living beyond your means. 

.


----------



## Staidhup

Hilarious posts by those that want it for nothing, I leveraged my home, and my kids had part time jobs while at college, worked and saved each summer, didn't have a car, and majored in a field that would serve them in getting a well paying job. All are employed, all live within their means, furthermore they all three helped me retire their college debt. So what your saying was they should have majored in a dead end field and waited for Sammy to pay off their debt so they could protest in a park? Right!


----------



## chanel

KevinWestern said:


> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you need to first take into consideration that there's a big difference between interest rates when it relates to (a) *a large sum of long term debt (college loans) * vs (b) a small sum of short term debt (credit card).
> 
> A $200 charge at Victoria's Secret will get paid off within a month (or a few months). The 18% interest will not have that big of an effect. But a $30,000 charge at 18% that's being paid off over the course of 10 years; well, that's a whole different story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average credit card debt per household with credit card debt: $15,799
> 
> There are about 180 million credit card holders.
> 
> Student loans are not 18%.
> 
> Undergraduates are carrying record-high credit card balances. The average (mean) balance is $3,173.  Seniors graduated with an average credit card debt of more than $4,100, up from $2,900 almost four years ago. Close to one-fifth of seniors carried balances greater than $7,000.
> 
> Credit card debt is a big deal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very interesting. Didn't realize the average credit card debt was that high (really?). I happen to use _Amex _almost exclusively, and then pay off the balance at the end of the month. It keeps you from living beyond your means.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yep. But credit cards (and loans) allow people to live beyond their means. And when you are in debt and crying about it you shouldn't buy expensive underwear. Chanel's tip for the day. Lol


----------



## OldManOnFire

peach174 said:


> I was watching the Senate floor on c-span and Dem's have a bill up for vote, to take payroll taxes, out of SSI and Medicare payments to pay for these student loans from S Corporations.
> Once again Dem's want to steal from Seniors retirement insurance and their health care to pay for lowering the interest rates for student loans.
> Like they haven't taken enough out of Medicare, already.
> 
> Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)



Everything about government today is so smoke & mirrors!!

If government wishes to implement some legislation, then if government does not have the balls to ask the taxpayers for some more taxes in order to fund the program, then the program should not be implemented!  

If government wishes to reduce other budget line items in order to pay for new stuff, then instead of just stealing the money...they must also reduce or cancel the program from where they stole the money.  

Regarding whether all of this smoke & mirrors government management is good or bad is up to the voter to decide at this next election...at all elections...


----------



## OldManOnFire

KevinWestern said:


> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you need to first take into consideration that there's a big difference between interest rates when it relates to (a) *a large sum of long term debt (college loans) * vs (b) a small sum of short term debt (credit card).
> 
> A $200 charge at Victoria's Secret will get paid off within a month (or a few months). The 18% interest will not have that big of an effect. But a $30,000 charge at 18% that's being paid off over the course of 10 years; well, that's a whole different story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average credit card debt per household with credit card debt: $15,799
> 
> There are about 180 million credit card holders.
> 
> Student loans are not 18%.
> 
> Undergraduates are carrying record-high credit card balances. The average (mean) balance is $3,173.  Seniors graduated with an average credit card debt of more than $4,100, up from $2,900 almost four years ago. Close to one-fifth of seniors carried balances greater than $7,000.
> 
> Credit card debt is a big deal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very interesting. Didn't realize the average credit card debt was that high (really?). I happen to use _Amex _almost exclusively, and then pay off the balance at the end of the month. It keeps you from living beyond your means.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


AMX is also my card of choice partially for that reason.

If the 'personal consumption' part of the US economy needed to be cash on delivery, the US will implode!  We abuse consumer debt and consider this abuse normal.  A person who earns $50K in cash each year can purchase $200K with debt, which IMO means this person is creating inflation at a $200K rate and not at a $50K rate.  Once we tie up all of our credit, and are forced into a cash world, not only does our consumption slow but what we are consuming is at greatly inflated pricing.  

Debt USED to be a nice concept in which most people saved at least 10% of their incomes, kept debt to income ratio low like 30-40%.  In this context debt consumption can be a good thing.  But the way we do it today is at best reckless and careless and stupid...


----------



## OldManOnFire

Staidhup said:


> Hilarious posts by those that want it for nothing, I leveraged my home, and my kids had part time jobs while at college, worked and saved each summer, didn't have a car, and majored in a field that would serve them in getting a well paying job. All are employed, all live within their means, furthermore they all three helped me retire their college debt. So what your saying was they should have majored in a dead end field and waited for Sammy to pay off their debt so they could protest in a park? Right!



Kind of hinges on that 'sense of entitlement' expectation doesn't it...with a heavy dose of not taking responsibility for one's actions.

This actually works just fine as long as this behavior represents .000001% of society.  But when it starts to approach 10% and 20% or higher it simply cannot be sustained by the 'few' who are asked to fund everything...


----------



## logical4u

Katzndogz said:


> Student loan debt will never be forgiven.  The burden of paying the debt will be shifted to the tax payer, but it won't be forgiven.  Suppose it was, a  $60,000 loan is forgiven resulting in windfall income to the student of $60,000 for one year that the student now owes taxes on.  Like any other debt that's forgiven.   The outrage now isn't to forgive the loan, but forgiven the taxes on the loan that has become unearned income.



Let me guess.... another $5,000,000,000 for the taxpayer (including the "students that actually get jobs), and yet, Obama doesn't say a single word about the debt he is placing on his children and our children for the "future".

Forward! Lemmings!


----------



## logical4u

KevinWestern said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the O, isn't mentioning the "students' share of the 5,000,000,000 debt he is racking up (soon to be more).  He is only focusing on the naive children going to college, and telling them it is all about taking care of them, while he is slipping the yoke over their shoulders.  When he is done, they will pay for his debt for the rest of their lives (and if he is re-elected, their children will be born wearing yokes).  Wake up, America!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $5 billion is really not that hard to pay back.
> 
> And note, the children will be paying back BOTH Obama's and Bush's debt for the rest of their lives. The a Republican Party sucks too, you know.
Click to expand...


My mistake: $5,000,000,000,000 plus what ever he is "promising" the "students, the taxpayers are going to pay for them too.  If the guy was genuine, he would be focusing on "making" an environment that would encourage job creation, not unemployment, and spreading the misery.


----------



## The Infidel

G.T. said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either educate yourself, or butt out. Your kneejerk reacting doesn't facilitate discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a point.
> 
> I'm not even sure the person who would pay $119 a month for 23 years and never up her payments and never refinance at a lower rate, and get herself into a situation where she'd be paying triple (what?), deserves any credence when talking finances.
Click to expand...


----------



## logical4u

KevinWestern said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the O, isn't mentioning the "students' share of the 5,000,000,000 debt he is racking up (soon to be more).  He is only focusing on the naive children going to college, and telling them it is all about taking care of them, while he is slipping the yoke over their shoulders.  When he is done, they will pay for his debt for the rest of their lives (and if he is re-elected, their children will be born wearing yokes).  Wake up, America!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus, much of Obama's spending was reactionary due to the recession (unemployment - for example). If you really want to get mad at the government debt, you should start with the Bush years. During this time, the government stupidly thought that it made sense to uphold major tax cuts during a time when it needed to fund two major wars. Morons.
> 
> That's like a person who just got a 20% cut in pay thinking it's OK to drastically increase their spending habits.
Click to expand...


That would fly for the first year, maybe the second.  We are now in the third year of his Presidency with no control on spending.  His budget told America just how he wanted to spend MORE.  The democrats were too embarrassed to even vote on it.
BTW, I was upset with how Bush turned his back to fiscal conservatism.
But the dems passed (they do control half the legislative and the executive branch) the bill keeping the "Bush" tax cuts in place, after the election.  If it was going to be that beneficial to the gov't, why didn't they allow them to end?  Why did they concentrate on passing an unpopular "mandate" to control "subjects"?  
Why are they talking about raising taxes on capital gains?  I will give you a hint and it doesn't include any Wall Street wealthy people....can you say mom and pop's 401K, that will have the taxes almost doubled on it?   The sad part is that the fools will vote for it, thinking they are going to be hurting the "wealthy", when all they are doing is giving congress permission to tax their retirement accounts into oblivion.  The next twenty years are going to make for some strange room mates: children that can't get a job and living at home/ parents that are wiped out from taxes allowing to their eventually employed student children to take over the house and then the parents moving into the basement, while the children are raising families in the same house.  People moving into together to make ends meet.  This man, the President is setting this country onto the path of becoming something it never was, a society of subjects, that looks to the gov't to show them how to think, eat, exercise, work, etc.  

Forward!  LEMMINGS


----------



## Katzndogz

OldManOnFire said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter if loans are difficult or easy to obtain, those taking out the loans should not be so stupid that they don't understand or care about the $25,000 in debt they are creating which must be repaid at prescribed terms and interest rates.  Every student who applied for a loan did so willingly with no gun held to their head!  Do not blame government for people not taking responsibility for THEIR actions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These kids were led to believe that they would get good jobs holding degrees in transgender pottery making.   Now that they find out they are holding worthless degrees they are understandably upset.   They are, in some ways, like the person who falls for some stock scheme and lured into investing into a worthless company.  These students were lied to from the very beginning.  Mostly lied to by the universities themselves.   These students bought easy classes and lots of drinking, drugs, sex and parties as the college experience.  They got what they paid for, they just paid too much for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one led any kid to believe they will earn (x)$ if they obtain a certain degree??  Don't make up stuff just to make some point which is not valid.
> 
> Degrees ARE NOT worthless!  First off, no matter the degree, this is better than 25 million other job seekers with no college.  Secondly, those with college degrees have an unemployment rate which I believe is like 2%!
> 
> Your political bias has you believing someone lied to these kids which is absurd at best!
Click to expand...


This is a rather old study.

The unemployment rate for 18-to-24 year-olds is 16.3 percent, according to the Pew Research Center&#8212;which used numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to compile its data. The number of employed college-aged Americans is the lowest since the government began keeping tabs in 1948.

Employment for college-aged students hit all time low - News - Indiana Statesman - Indiana State University

Lets use something newer.


53% of Recent College Grads Are Jobless or Underemployed&mdash;How? - Jordan Weissmann - Business - The Atlantic

53% of Recent College Grads Are Jobless or Underemployed

More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree, the Associated Press reported this weekend

That said, not all degrees are created equal. The AP reports that students who graduated out of the sciences or other technical fields, such as accounting, were much less likely to be jobless or underemployed than humanities and arts graduates. You know that old saw about how college is just about getting a fancy piece of paper? Not true. For an education to be worth anything these days, it needs to impart skills. 

When there were fewer graduates, a generic college degree used to be a valuable credential. Now that the market is flooded, diplomas count less, and specific skills count more. This means that, in many instances, associates and technical degrees may be more financially valuable than a liberal arts degree. After all, some of the fastest growing job categories are expected to be in so-called "middle-skill" positions such as nursing, which do not require a full, four-year education. It's one more sign that, for people seeking to fix America's employment picture, "college for all" is the wrong mantra. We need to be talking about "skills for all" instead.


----------



## BillyV

logical4u said:


> That would fly for the first year, maybe the second.  We are now in the third year of his Presidency with no control on spending.  His budget told America just how he wanted to spend MORE.  The democrats were too embarrassed to even vote on it.
> BTW, I was upset with how Bush turned his back to fiscal conservatism.
> But the dems passed (they do control half the legislative and the executive branch) the bill keeping the "Bush" tax cuts in place, after the election.  If it was going to be that beneficial to the gov't, why didn't they allow them to end?  Why did they concentrate on passing an unpopular "mandate" to control "subjects"?
> Why are they talking about raising taxes on capital gains?  I will give you a hint and it doesn't include any Wall Street wealthy people....*can you say mom and pop's 401K, that will have the taxes almost doubled on it?*   The sad part is that the fools will vote for it, thinking they are going to be hurting the "wealthy", when all they are doing is giving congress permission to tax their retirement accounts into oblivion.  The next twenty years are going to make for some strange room mates: children that can't get a job and living at home/ parents that are wiped out from taxes allowing to their eventually employed student children to take over the house and then the parents moving into the basement, while the children are raising families in the same house.  People moving into together to make ends meet.  This man, the President is setting this country onto the path of becoming something it never was, a society of subjects, that looks to the gov't to show them how to think, eat, exercise, work, etc.  Forward!  LEMMINGS



You do understand that the point of a 401K is that it grows tax free, right? And that distributions from 401Ks are not eligible for capital gains treatment, since the income was never taxed? An increase in capital gains tax will unevenly affect seniors more than others, but not because of their 401Ks; they often have other invested funds in addition to retirement portfolios.

The idea that student loans should be repaid by the government is ludicrous; the benefit most of these grads will see in increased earnings over a lifetime will more than cover whatever they paid, unless they were shortsighted enough to not only borrow funds, but also to use them to study things that are not marketable. Even so, a college degree in any discipline still makes you vastly more marketable than someone without one. According to the IRS, the median income of a household with a bachelors degree holder in 2010 was $82,109; with a high school degree, $38,976. That equates to $1.7 million over a 40 year career. Why should the taxpayers relieve them of their debt burden when they will be more than able to repay it?


----------



## chanel

That's simple.  To buy votes.


----------



## Katzndogz

Unfortunately most of the grads today with liberal arts degrees are going to be competing over jobs at the nearest Burger King.  There's no way around that inescapable fact.

Someone contemplating college today should spend their senior year in high school going to colleges on recruitment day.  Go visit the companies recruiting graduates for jobs and find out what they are looking for and what their propsects are really like.


----------



## Mad Scientist

BDBoop said:


> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.


I borrowed about 16,000 but it was at a real low rate. Looks like that person either borrowed from a bank or re-financed, or consolidated it later. Either way, not enough info there.

But yeah, Student Loans *should* be forgiven.

Anyone who was for the Bank Bailout should be for Student Loan forgiveness as well.


----------



## peach174

They aren't forgiving the student loans, they are keeping the low interest rate the same and spinning it to the college students that their loans will be forgiven.
It's nothing more than politics again in order the get the college kids to vote in November.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Mad Scientist said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the image and tell me why you think things are just fine as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> I borrowed about 16,000 but it was at a real low rate. Looks like that person either borrowed from a bank or re-financed, or consolidated it later. Either way, not enough info there.
> 
> But yeah, Student Loans *should* be forgiven.
> 
> Anyone who was for the Bank Bailout should be for Student Loan forgiveness as well.
Click to expand...


But the banks repaid the bailout loans.
I'd be for forgiving the student loans if the students also repaid them.


----------



## Katzndogz

There is no such thing as forgiving the loans.  The debt still exists, it is just paid for by taxpayers.  If students don't want to pay the debt, or can't, there should be at least a method where they don't get to keep the benefit, dubious as it is.  They should have the degrees revoked.  After all, if they buy a car and fail to make the payments the car will be repossessed.

If a student really is interested in shifting the payment of the loan to the public, their names should be removed from the list of graduates.


----------



## OldManOnFire

Katzndogz said:


> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> These kids were led to believe that they would get good jobs holding degrees in transgender pottery making.   Now that they find out they are holding worthless degrees they are understandably upset.   They are, in some ways, like the person who falls for some stock scheme and lured into investing into a worthless company.  These students were lied to from the very beginning.  Mostly lied to by the universities themselves.   These students bought easy classes and lots of drinking, drugs, sex and parties as the college experience.  They got what they paid for, they just paid too much for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one led any kid to believe they will earn (x)$ if they obtain a certain degree??  Don't make up stuff just to make some point which is not valid.
> 
> Degrees ARE NOT worthless!  First off, no matter the degree, this is better than 25 million other job seekers with no college.  Secondly, those with college degrees have an unemployment rate which I believe is like 2%!
> 
> Your political bias has you believing someone lied to these kids which is absurd at best!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a rather old study.
> 
> The unemployment rate for 18-to-24 year-olds is 16.3 percent, according to the Pew Research Centerwhich used numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to compile its data. The number of employed college-aged Americans is the lowest since the government began keeping tabs in 1948.
> 
> Employment for college-aged students hit all time low - News - Indiana Statesman - Indiana State University
> 
> Lets use something newer.
> 
> 53% of Recent College Grads Are Jobless or Underemployed&mdash;How? - Jordan Weissmann - Business - The Atlantic
> 
> 53% of Recent College Grads Are Jobless or Underemployed
> 
> More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree, the Associated Press reported this weekend
> 
> That said, not all degrees are created equal. The AP reports that students who graduated out of the sciences or other technical fields, such as accounting, were much less likely to be jobless or underemployed than humanities and arts graduates. You know that old saw about how college is just about getting a fancy piece of paper? Not true. For an education to be worth anything these days, it needs to impart skills.
> 
> When there were fewer graduates, a generic college degree used to be a valuable credential. Now that the market is flooded, diplomas count less, and specific skills count more. This means that, in many instances, associates and technical degrees may be more financially valuable than a liberal arts degree. After all, some of the fastest growing job categories are expected to be in so-called "middle-skill" positions such as nursing, which do not require a full, four-year education. It's one more sign that, for people seeking to fix America's employment picture, "college for all" is the wrong mantra. We need to be talking about "skills for all" instead.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should study this government data;  Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment

It is stupid to believe that a person has no advantage in job seeking if they possess a college degree?

If they possess a college degree in which the supply is much greater than the demand, then they will have more struggle finding employment.  But they can obtain more education, more skills, or change direction, whatever is necessary to chase the available jobs...


----------



## OldManOnFire

BillyV said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would fly for the first year, maybe the second.  We are now in the third year of his Presidency with no control on spending.  His budget told America just how he wanted to spend MORE.  The democrats were too embarrassed to even vote on it.
> BTW, I was upset with how Bush turned his back to fiscal conservatism.
> But the dems passed (they do control half the legislative and the executive branch) the bill keeping the "Bush" tax cuts in place, after the election.  If it was going to be that beneficial to the gov't, why didn't they allow them to end?  Why did they concentrate on passing an unpopular "mandate" to control "subjects"?
> Why are they talking about raising taxes on capital gains?  I will give you a hint and it doesn't include any Wall Street wealthy people....*can you say mom and pop's 401K, that will have the taxes almost doubled on it?*   The sad part is that the fools will vote for it, thinking they are going to be hurting the "wealthy", when all they are doing is giving congress permission to tax their retirement accounts into oblivion.  The next twenty years are going to make for some strange room mates: children that can't get a job and living at home/ parents that are wiped out from taxes allowing to their eventually employed student children to take over the house and then the parents moving into the basement, while the children are raising families in the same house.  People moving into together to make ends meet.  This man, the President is setting this country onto the path of becoming something it never was, a society of subjects, that looks to the gov't to show them how to think, eat, exercise, work, etc.  Forward!  LEMMINGS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You do understand that the point of a 401K is that it grows tax free*, right? And that distributions from 401Ks are not eligible for capital gains treatment, since the income was never taxed? An increase in capital gains tax will unevenly affect seniors more than others, but not because of their 401Ks; they often have other invested funds in addition to retirement portfolios.
> 
> The idea that student loans should be repaid by the government is ludicrous; the benefit most of these grads will see in increased earnings over a lifetime will more than cover whatever they paid, unless they were shortsighted enough to not only borrow funds, but also to use them to study things that are not marketable. Even so, a college degree in any discipline still makes you vastly more marketable than someone without one. According to the IRS, the median income of a household with a bachelors degree holder in 2010 was $82,109; with a high school degree, $38,976. That equates to $1.7 million over a 40 year career. Why should the taxpayers relieve them of their debt burden when they will be more than able to repay it?
Click to expand...


In BOLD above this is not true at all.  Pre-taxed 401K investments are not taxed again when cashed out.  Tax-deferred 401K investments must pay applicable income taxes when cashed out.  On both investments above, any gain on the original investment is subject to capital gains taxes when cashed out.  There is some risk in tax-deferred investments because no one knows the tax rates and personal tax situation 30-40 years into the future??  We also don't know what the capital gains taxes might be in a few decades...


----------



## OldManOnFire

peach174 said:


> They aren't forgiving the student loans, they are keeping the low interest rate the same and spinning it to the college students that their loans will be forgiven.
> It's nothing more than politics again in order the get the college kids to vote in November.



I just read in the news today, which I did not know until then, is that the interest rate increases by July 1, and it ONLY applies to NEW loans after July 1...it has ZERO impact on existing student loans.

The same article also said that on 'average', the students on new loans after July 1 will pay about $1000 more due to higher interest rates over a ten year period.  Even some college graduates can do the math and understand this is about $100 extra per year...mouse-nuts!

All of this issue is Obama pandering for votes...it is pathetic that he has gripped the nation on this non-issue...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OldManOnFire said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would fly for the first year, maybe the second.  We are now in the third year of his Presidency with no control on spending.  His budget told America just how he wanted to spend MORE.  The democrats were too embarrassed to even vote on it.
> BTW, I was upset with how Bush turned his back to fiscal conservatism.
> But the dems passed (they do control half the legislative and the executive branch) the bill keeping the "Bush" tax cuts in place, after the election.  If it was going to be that beneficial to the gov't, why didn't they allow them to end?  Why did they concentrate on passing an unpopular "mandate" to control "subjects"?
> Why are they talking about raising taxes on capital gains?  I will give you a hint and it doesn't include any Wall Street wealthy people....*can you say mom and pop's 401K, that will have the taxes almost doubled on it?*   The sad part is that the fools will vote for it, thinking they are going to be hurting the "wealthy", when all they are doing is giving congress permission to tax their retirement accounts into oblivion.  The next twenty years are going to make for some strange room mates: children that can't get a job and living at home/ parents that are wiped out from taxes allowing to their eventually employed student children to take over the house and then the parents moving into the basement, while the children are raising families in the same house.  People moving into together to make ends meet.  This man, the President is setting this country onto the path of becoming something it never was, a society of subjects, that looks to the gov't to show them how to think, eat, exercise, work, etc.  Forward!  LEMMINGS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You do understand that the point of a 401K is that it grows tax free*, right? And that distributions from 401Ks are not eligible for capital gains treatment, since the income was never taxed? An increase in capital gains tax will unevenly affect seniors more than others, but not because of their 401Ks; they often have other invested funds in addition to retirement portfolios.
> 
> The idea that student loans should be repaid by the government is ludicrous; the benefit most of these grads will see in increased earnings over a lifetime will more than cover whatever they paid, unless they were shortsighted enough to not only borrow funds, but also to use them to study things that are not marketable. Even so, a college degree in any discipline still makes you vastly more marketable than someone without one. According to the IRS, the median income of a household with a bachelors degree holder in 2010 was $82,109; with a high school degree, $38,976. That equates to $1.7 million over a 40 year career. Why should the taxpayers relieve them of their debt burden when they will be more than able to repay it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In BOLD above this is not true at all.  Pre-taxed 401K investments are not taxed again when cashed out.  Tax-deferred 401K investments must pay applicable income taxes when cashed out.  On both investments above, any gain on the original investment is subject to capital gains taxes when cashed out.  There is some risk in tax-deferred investments because no one knows the tax rates and personal tax situation 30-40 years into the future??  We also don't know what the capital gains taxes might be in a few decades...
Click to expand...


There is no capital gains tax on capital held inside a 401K, IRA or other tax deferred acount. Roth or otherwise.


----------



## BillyV

OldManOnFire said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would fly for the first year, maybe the second.  We are now in the third year of his Presidency with no control on spending.  His budget told America just how he wanted to spend MORE.  The democrats were too embarrassed to even vote on it.
> BTW, I was upset with how Bush turned his back to fiscal conservatism.
> But the dems passed (they do control half the legislative and the executive branch) the bill keeping the "Bush" tax cuts in place, after the election.  If it was going to be that beneficial to the gov't, why didn't they allow them to end?  Why did they concentrate on passing an unpopular "mandate" to control "subjects"?
> Why are they talking about raising taxes on capital gains?  I will give you a hint and it doesn't include any Wall Street wealthy people....*can you say mom and pop's 401K, that will have the taxes almost doubled on it?*   The sad part is that the fools will vote for it, thinking they are going to be hurting the "wealthy", when all they are doing is giving congress permission to tax their retirement accounts into oblivion.  The next twenty years are going to make for some strange room mates: children that can't get a job and living at home/ parents that are wiped out from taxes allowing to their eventually employed student children to take over the house and then the parents moving into the basement, while the children are raising families in the same house.  People moving into together to make ends meet.  This man, the President is setting this country onto the path of becoming something it never was, a society of subjects, that looks to the gov't to show them how to think, eat, exercise, work, etc.  Forward!  LEMMINGS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You do understand that the point of a 401K is that it grows tax free*, right? And that distributions from 401Ks are not eligible for capital gains treatment, since the income was never taxed? An increase in capital gains tax will unevenly affect seniors more than others, but not because of their 401Ks; they often have other invested funds in addition to retirement portfolios.
> 
> The idea that student loans should be repaid by the government is ludicrous; the benefit most of these grads will see in increased earnings over a lifetime will more than cover whatever they paid, unless they were shortsighted enough to not only borrow funds, but also to use them to study things that are not marketable. Even so, a college degree in any discipline still makes you vastly more marketable than someone without one. According to the IRS, the median income of a household with a bachelors degree holder in 2010 was $82,109; with a high school degree, $38,976. That equates to $1.7 million over a 40 year career. Why should the taxpayers relieve them of their debt burden when they will be more than able to repay it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In BOLD above this is not true at all.*  Pre-taxed 401K investments are not taxed again when cashed out.  Tax-deferred 401K investments must pay applicable income taxes when cashed out.  On both investments above, any gain on the original investment is subject to capital gains taxes when cashed out.  There is some risk in tax-deferred investments because no one knows the tax rates and personal tax situation 30-40 years into the future??  We also don't know what the capital gains taxes might be in a few decades...
Click to expand...


All contributions to a 401K plan prior to 2006 were before tax, meaning they were not included in your current income or taxed currently. When those contributions, and the income earned on them, are distributed, income tax is due at ordinary rates; there is no capital gains tax. Beginning in 2006, an alternative plan was offered called a Roth 401K (like a Roth IRA that debuted a few years before, although not as widely available as most employers did not offer them). A contribution to a Roth 401K is included in your income currently and taxed currently. The earnings in the plan grow tax deferred and, in most cases are distributed completely free of tax, therefore, again, no capital gains tax.  The main reason people choose a Roth plan is to avoid vagaries in the tax law 30-40 years into the future by paying tax on the income today; however, only a very small portion of mom and pops 401K would likely be in a Roth, because it is so new. In both cases, however, any gain on the original investment is not subject to the capital gains tax.

401(k) IRA matrix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DGS49

Kids have no sense about the value of money at 18 years old (when the major decisions are made).  Mention that these loans are going to have to be paid with "after tax dollars," and they look at you like a deer caught in headlights.  Parents want their kids to be happy, so don't bring the dose of reality that parents are supposed to provide.

The options to get a good education at a reasonable cost are out there, but nobody wants to hear about it.  Community college?  You must be kidding!  Commute?  Not me!  Go part time so you can work more hours to defray the costs?  I'm no slave!  Military service for the GI Bill?  Good Heavens, no!  Hell, employers have been known to assist with tuition, provided the courses have something to do with your job.

It can be done, but not many people have the maturity and determination at 18 years old.


----------



## Katzndogz

OldManOnFire said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one led any kid to believe they will earn (x)$ if they obtain a certain degree??  Don't make up stuff just to make some point which is not valid.
> 
> Degrees ARE NOT worthless!  First off, no matter the degree, this is better than 25 million other job seekers with no college.  Secondly, those with college degrees have an unemployment rate which I believe is like 2%!
> 
> Your political bias has you believing someone lied to these kids which is absurd at best!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rather old study.
> 
> The unemployment rate for 18-to-24 year-olds is 16.3 percent, according to the Pew Research Centerwhich used numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to compile its data. The number of employed college-aged Americans is the lowest since the government began keeping tabs in 1948.
> 
> Employment for college-aged students hit all time low - News - Indiana Statesman - Indiana State University
> 
> Lets use something newer.
> 
> 53% of Recent College Grads Are Jobless or Underemployed&mdash;How? - Jordan Weissmann - Business - The Atlantic
> 
> 53% of Recent College Grads Are Jobless or Underemployed
> 
> More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree, the Associated Press reported this weekend
> 
> That said, not all degrees are created equal. The AP reports that students who graduated out of the sciences or other technical fields, such as accounting, were much less likely to be jobless or underemployed than humanities and arts graduates. You know that old saw about how college is just about getting a fancy piece of paper? Not true. For an education to be worth anything these days, it needs to impart skills.
> 
> When there were fewer graduates, a generic college degree used to be a valuable credential. Now that the market is flooded, diplomas count less, and specific skills count more. This means that, in many instances, associates and technical degrees may be more financially valuable than a liberal arts degree. After all, some of the fastest growing job categories are expected to be in so-called "middle-skill" positions such as nursing, which do not require a full, four-year education. It's one more sign that, for people seeking to fix America's employment picture, "college for all" is the wrong mantra. We need to be talking about "skills for all" instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should study this government data;  Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment
> 
> It is stupid to believe that a person has no advantage in job seeking if they possess a college degree?
> 
> If they possess a college degree in which the supply is much greater than the demand, then they will have more struggle finding employment.  But they can obtain more education, more skills, or change direction, whatever is necessary to chase the available jobs...
Click to expand...


An argument that flies in the face of reality.  They can acquire more skills or even SOME skills.  Skills are something that grads don't get from vanity degrees.


----------



## logical4u

BillyV said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would fly for the first year, maybe the second.  We are now in the third year of his Presidency with no control on spending.  His budget told America just how he wanted to spend MORE.  The democrats were too embarrassed to even vote on it.
> BTW, I was upset with how Bush turned his back to fiscal conservatism.
> But the dems passed (they do control half the legislative and the executive branch) the bill keeping the "Bush" tax cuts in place, after the election.  If it was going to be that beneficial to the gov't, why didn't they allow them to end?  Why did they concentrate on passing an unpopular "mandate" to control "subjects"?
> Why are they talking about raising taxes on capital gains?  I will give you a hint and it doesn't include any Wall Street wealthy people....*can you say mom and pop's 401K, that will have the taxes almost doubled on it?*   The sad part is that the fools will vote for it, thinking they are going to be hurting the "wealthy", when all they are doing is giving congress permission to tax their retirement accounts into oblivion.  The next twenty years are going to make for some strange room mates: children that can't get a job and living at home/ parents that are wiped out from taxes allowing to their eventually employed student children to take over the house and then the parents moving into the basement, while the children are raising families in the same house.  People moving into together to make ends meet.  This man, the President is setting this country onto the path of becoming something it never was, a society of subjects, that looks to the gov't to show them how to think, eat, exercise, work, etc.  Forward!  LEMMINGS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that the point of a 401K is that it grows tax free, right? And that distributions from 401Ks are not eligible for capital gains treatment, since the income was never taxed? An increase in capital gains tax will unevenly affect seniors more than others, but not because of their 401Ks; they often have other invested funds in addition to retirement portfolios.
> 
> The idea that student loans should be repaid by the government is ludicrous; the benefit most of these grads will see in increased earnings over a lifetime will more than cover whatever they paid, unless they were shortsighted enough to not only borrow funds, but also to use them to study things that are not marketable. Even so, a college degree in any discipline still makes you vastly more marketable than someone without one. According to the IRS, the median income of a household with a bachelors degree holder in 2010 was $82,109; with a high school degree, $38,976. That equates to $1.7 million over a 40 year career. Why should the taxpayers relieve them of their debt burden when they will be more than able to repay it?
Click to expand...


I understand that "congress" made it okay for 401K to grow "tax free".  I have no doubt in my mind that if capital gains taxes are increased that "congress" will start the chipping away at the 401Ks (the ones that have built up the most, because it isn't "fair" that those people could invest money, even if it was a sacrifice, and others ..... just couldn't, so the "wealthy" should be taxed more, never mind that they planned to make it last, we will give them a "voucher"...).  If the entitlement society continues, it will be a full fledged raid on the 401K (some dems are already eying the 'piggybank'), and if you try to withdraw your money, the penalties will be severe (benefitting the gov't of course).  If you are not thinking about voting to protect your investments, 401K, future, then go ahead and vote for the Bernie Madoff in office now (how many promises did he make for investments that went belly up?).  He is just as big of fraud, people just haven't seen the Ponzi scheme trails that lead to him yet.

The student loans: just another Ponzi scheme that his lemmings will buy.  They will believe him to find out that they will be taxed the amount of "forgiveness" on income taxes (or some other similar bait and switch).  They will say how great he is, until the bill is due, and then, it will be too late.


----------



## logical4u

peach174 said:


> They aren't forgiving the student loans, they are keeping the low interest rate the same and spinning it to the college students that their loans will be forgiven.
> It's nothing more than politics again in order the get the college kids to vote in November.



Bernie Madoff is at it again....


----------



## logical4u

BillyV said:


> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You do understand that the point of a 401K is that it grows tax free*, right? And that distributions from 401Ks are not eligible for capital gains treatment, since the income was never taxed? An increase in capital gains tax will unevenly affect seniors more than others, but not because of their 401Ks; they often have other invested funds in addition to retirement portfolios.
> 
> The idea that student loans should be repaid by the government is ludicrous; the benefit most of these grads will see in increased earnings over a lifetime will more than cover whatever they paid, unless they were shortsighted enough to not only borrow funds, but also to use them to study things that are not marketable. Even so, a college degree in any discipline still makes you vastly more marketable than someone without one. According to the IRS, the median income of a household with a bachelors degree holder in 2010 was $82,109; with a high school degree, $38,976. That equates to $1.7 million over a 40 year career. Why should the taxpayers relieve them of their debt burden when they will be more than able to repay it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In BOLD above this is not true at all.*  Pre-taxed 401K investments are not taxed again when cashed out.  Tax-deferred 401K investments must pay applicable income taxes when cashed out.  On both investments above, any gain on the original investment is subject to capital gains taxes when cashed out.  There is some risk in tax-deferred investments because no one knows the tax rates and personal tax situation 30-40 years into the future??  We also don't know what the capital gains taxes might be in a few decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All contributions to a 401K plan prior to 2006 were before tax, meaning they were not included in your current income or taxed currently. When those contributions, and the income earned on them, are distributed, income tax is due at ordinary rates; there is no capital gains tax. Beginning in 2006, an alternative plan was offered called a Roth 401K (like a Roth IRA that debuted a few years before, although not as widely available as most employers did not offer them). A contribution to a Roth 401K is included in your income currently and taxed currently. The earnings in the plan grow tax deferred and, in most cases are distributed completely free of tax, therefore, again, no capital gains tax.  The main reason people choose a Roth plan is to avoid vagaries in the tax law 30-40 years into the future by paying tax on the income today; however, only a very small portion of mom and pops 401K would likely be in a Roth, because it is so new. In both cases, however, any gain on the original investment is not subject to the capital gains tax.
> 
> 401(k) IRA matrix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


If you vote for an increase in capital gains tax (thinking you are sticking it to the "wealthy"), 401K 'capital gains' can be taxed at a the same higher rate when you start withdrawing it.  The people that make the rules are playing "bait and switch".  They are holding out the "rich" to make you think you will be taking more from them, in reality, they will write loopholes (how many 'middle income' people do you think are in congress, seriously?) to protect the wealthy and the average 'subject' will lose most of their 401K gains and interest to the gov't.  And the ones that voted for it will be too embarrassed to open their mouths.


----------



## BillyV

logical4u said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In BOLD above this is not true at all.*  Pre-taxed 401K investments are not taxed again when cashed out.  Tax-deferred 401K investments must pay applicable income taxes when cashed out.  On both investments above, any gain on the original investment is subject to capital gains taxes when cashed out.  There is some risk in tax-deferred investments because no one knows the tax rates and personal tax situation 30-40 years into the future??  We also don't know what the capital gains taxes might be in a few decades...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All contributions to a 401K plan prior to 2006 were before tax, meaning they were not included in your current income or taxed currently. When those contributions, and the income earned on them, are distributed, income tax is due at ordinary rates; there is no capital gains tax. Beginning in 2006, an alternative plan was offered called a Roth 401K (like a Roth IRA that debuted a few years before, although not as widely available as most employers did not offer them). A contribution to a Roth 401K is included in your income currently and taxed currently. The earnings in the plan grow tax deferred and, in most cases are distributed completely free of tax, therefore, again, no capital gains tax.  The main reason people choose a Roth plan is to avoid vagaries in the tax law 30-40 years into the future by paying tax on the income today; however, only a very small portion of mom and pops 401K would likely be in a Roth, because it is so new. In both cases, however, any gain on the original investment is not subject to the capital gains tax.
> 
> 401(k) IRA matrix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you vote for an increase in capital gains tax (thinking you are sticking it to the "wealthy"), 401K 'capital gains' can be taxed at a the same higher rate when you start withdrawing it.  The people that make the rules are playing "bait and switch".  They are holding out the "rich" to make you think you will be taking more from them, in reality, they will write loopholes (how many 'middle income' people do you think are in congress, seriously?) to protect the wealthy and the average 'subject' will lose most of their 401K gains and interest to the gov't.  And the ones that voted for it will be too embarrassed to open their mouths.
Click to expand...


Yes, but you see, the point is that those withdrawals are _*already*_ taxed at ordinary rates, so an increase in the capital gains tax would not have any effect. If you're saying that Congress can and does change the rules of the game and could increase ordinary income tax rates, thereby affecting 401K distributions, you are correct. Given the debt we have amassed, I think it's very likely that ordinary rates _will_ go up. That just has no bearing on capital gains rates, sorry.


----------



## OldManOnFire

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You do understand that the point of a 401K is that it grows tax free*, right? And that distributions from 401Ks are not eligible for capital gains treatment, since the income was never taxed? An increase in capital gains tax will unevenly affect seniors more than others, but not because of their 401Ks; they often have other invested funds in addition to retirement portfolios.
> 
> The idea that student loans should be repaid by the government is ludicrous; the benefit most of these grads will see in increased earnings over a lifetime will more than cover whatever they paid, unless they were shortsighted enough to not only borrow funds, but also to use them to study things that are not marketable. Even so, a college degree in any discipline still makes you vastly more marketable than someone without one. According to the IRS, the median income of a household with a bachelors degree holder in 2010 was $82,109; with a high school degree, $38,976. That equates to $1.7 million over a 40 year career. Why should the taxpayers relieve them of their debt burden when they will be more than able to repay it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In BOLD above this is not true at all.  Pre-taxed 401K investments are not taxed again when cashed out.  Tax-deferred 401K investments must pay applicable income taxes when cashed out.  On both investments above, any gain on the original investment is subject to capital gains taxes when cashed out.  There is some risk in tax-deferred investments because no one knows the tax rates and personal tax situation 30-40 years into the future??  We also don't know what the capital gains taxes might be in a few decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no capital gains tax on capital held inside a 401K, IRA or other tax deferred acount. Roth or otherwise.
Click to expand...


This is true only for capital...


----------



## OldManOnFire

BillyV said:


> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You do understand that the point of a 401K is that it grows tax free*, right? And that distributions from 401Ks are not eligible for capital gains treatment, since the income was never taxed? An increase in capital gains tax will unevenly affect seniors more than others, but not because of their 401Ks; they often have other invested funds in addition to retirement portfolios.
> 
> The idea that student loans should be repaid by the government is ludicrous; the benefit most of these grads will see in increased earnings over a lifetime will more than cover whatever they paid, unless they were shortsighted enough to not only borrow funds, but also to use them to study things that are not marketable. Even so, a college degree in any discipline still makes you vastly more marketable than someone without one. According to the IRS, the median income of a household with a bachelors degree holder in 2010 was $82,109; with a high school degree, $38,976. That equates to $1.7 million over a 40 year career. Why should the taxpayers relieve them of their debt burden when they will be more than able to repay it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In BOLD above this is not true at all.*  Pre-taxed 401K investments are not taxed again when cashed out.  Tax-deferred 401K investments must pay applicable income taxes when cashed out.  On both investments above, any gain on the original investment is subject to capital gains taxes when cashed out.  There is some risk in tax-deferred investments because no one knows the tax rates and personal tax situation 30-40 years into the future??  We also don't know what the capital gains taxes might be in a few decades...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All contributions to a 401K plan prior to 2006 were before tax, meaning they were not included in your current income or taxed currently. When those contributions, and the income earned on them, are distributed, income tax is due at ordinary rates; there is no capital gains tax. Beginning in 2006, an alternative plan was offered called a Roth 401K (like a Roth IRA that debuted a few years before, although not as widely available as most employers did not offer them). A contribution to a Roth 401K is included in your income currently and taxed currently. The earnings in the plan grow tax deferred and, in most cases are distributed completely free of tax, therefore, again, no capital gains tax.  The main reason people choose a Roth plan is to avoid vagaries in the tax law 30-40 years into the future by paying tax on the income today; however, only a very small portion of mom and pops 401K would likely be in a Roth, because it is so new. In both cases, however, any gain on the original investment is not subject to the capital gains tax.
> 
> 401(k) IRA matrix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Well my 401K plan goes back a long way and all of my contributions were pre-taxed.  But within my 401K plan some of the investment was held in cash, and the rest in various stock positions.  I pay no income tax on the original investment because it was pre-taxed but paid capital gains taxes on all stock gains.

BTW; government can change the taxation policy on a Roth IRA or anything anytime so there are never guarantees that tax rates, etc. will be the same 30-40 years from now.

Thank you for the information...


----------



## OldManOnFire

Katzndogz said:


> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rather old study.
> 
> The unemployment rate for 18-to-24 year-olds is 16.3 percent, according to the Pew Research Centerwhich used numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to compile its data. The number of employed college-aged Americans is the lowest since the government began keeping tabs in 1948.
> 
> Employment for college-aged students hit all time low - News - Indiana Statesman - Indiana State University
> 
> Lets use something newer.
> 
> 53% of Recent College Grads Are Jobless or Underemployed&mdash;How? - Jordan Weissmann - Business - The Atlantic
> 
> 53% of Recent College Grads Are Jobless or Underemployed
> 
> More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree, the Associated Press reported this weekend
> 
> That said, not all degrees are created equal. The AP reports that students who graduated out of the sciences or other technical fields, such as accounting, were much less likely to be jobless or underemployed than humanities and arts graduates. You know that old saw about how college is just about getting a fancy piece of paper? Not true. For an education to be worth anything these days, it needs to impart skills.
> 
> When there were fewer graduates, a generic college degree used to be a valuable credential. Now that the market is flooded, diplomas count less, and specific skills count more. This means that, in many instances, associates and technical degrees may be more financially valuable than a liberal arts degree. After all, some of the fastest growing job categories are expected to be in so-called "middle-skill" positions such as nursing, which do not require a full, four-year education. It's one more sign that, for people seeking to fix America's employment picture, "college for all" is the wrong mantra. We need to be talking about "skills for all" instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should study this government data;  Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment
> 
> It is stupid to believe that a person has no advantage in job seeking if they possess a college degree?
> 
> If they possess a college degree in which the supply is much greater than the demand, then they will have more struggle finding employment.  But they can obtain more education, more skills, or change direction, whatever is necessary to chase the available jobs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument that flies in the face of reality.  They can acquire more skills or even SOME skills.  Skills are something that grads don't get from vanity degrees.
Click to expand...


Fact remains that the unemployment rate for those with college degrees is much less than those without college degrees.

Also this morning on the local news a statement was made that a person with a college degree and working in the Silicon Valley area earned 2-1/2 times as much compensation as a worker with a high school diploma...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OldManOnFire said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> In BOLD above this is not true at all.  Pre-taxed 401K investments are not taxed again when cashed out.  Tax-deferred 401K investments must pay applicable income taxes when cashed out.  On both investments above, any gain on the original investment is subject to capital gains taxes when cashed out.  There is some risk in tax-deferred investments because no one knows the tax rates and personal tax situation 30-40 years into the future??  We also don't know what the capital gains taxes might be in a few decades...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no capital gains tax on capital held inside a 401K, IRA or other tax deferred acount. Roth or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true only for capital...
Click to expand...


This is only true for the stuff inside your tax deferred account.
What's in there besides capital?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OldManOnFire said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In BOLD above this is not true at all.*  Pre-taxed 401K investments are not taxed again when cashed out.  Tax-deferred 401K investments must pay applicable income taxes when cashed out.  On both investments above, any gain on the original investment is subject to capital gains taxes when cashed out.  There is some risk in tax-deferred investments because no one knows the tax rates and personal tax situation 30-40 years into the future??  We also don't know what the capital gains taxes might be in a few decades...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All contributions to a 401K plan prior to 2006 were before tax, meaning they were not included in your current income or taxed currently. When those contributions, and the income earned on them, are distributed, income tax is due at ordinary rates; there is no capital gains tax. Beginning in 2006, an alternative plan was offered called a Roth 401K (like a Roth IRA that debuted a few years before, although not as widely available as most employers did not offer them). A contribution to a Roth 401K is included in your income currently and taxed currently. The earnings in the plan grow tax deferred and, in most cases are distributed completely free of tax, therefore, again, no capital gains tax.  The main reason people choose a Roth plan is to avoid vagaries in the tax law 30-40 years into the future by paying tax on the income today; however, only a very small portion of mom and pops 401K would likely be in a Roth, because it is so new. In both cases, however, any gain on the original investment is not subject to the capital gains tax.
> 
> 401(k) IRA matrix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well my 401K plan goes back a long way and all of my contributions were pre-taxed.  But within my 401K plan some of the investment was held in cash, and the rest in various stock positions.  I pay no income tax on the original investment because it was pre-taxed but paid capital gains taxes on all stock gains.
> 
> BTW; government can change the taxation policy on a Roth IRA or anything anytime so there are never guarantees that tax rates, etc. will be the same 30-40 years from now.
> 
> Thank you for the information...
Click to expand...


* I pay no income tax on the original investment because it was pre-taxed but paid capital gains taxes on all stock gains.
*

Untrue. If you buy stock for $30 and sell it for $40, in your IRA, you'll pay zero in capital gains tax.


----------



## starcraftzzz

logical4u said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In BOLD above this is not true at all.*  Pre-taxed 401K investments are not taxed again when cashed out.  Tax-deferred 401K investments must pay applicable income taxes when cashed out.  On both investments above, any gain on the original investment is subject to capital gains taxes when cashed out.  There is some risk in tax-deferred investments because no one knows the tax rates and personal tax situation 30-40 years into the future??  We also don't know what the capital gains taxes might be in a few decades...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All contributions to a 401K plan prior to 2006 were before tax, meaning they were not included in your current income or taxed currently. When those contributions, and the income earned on them, are distributed, income tax is due at ordinary rates; there is no capital gains tax. Beginning in 2006, an alternative plan was offered called a Roth 401K (like a Roth IRA that debuted a few years before, although not as widely available as most employers did not offer them). A contribution to a Roth 401K is included in your income currently and taxed currently. The earnings in the plan grow tax deferred and, in most cases are distributed completely free of tax, therefore, again, no capital gains tax.  The main reason people choose a Roth plan is to avoid vagaries in the tax law 30-40 years into the future by paying tax on the income today; however, only a very small portion of mom and pops 401K would likely be in a Roth, because it is so new. In both cases, however, any gain on the original investment is not subject to the capital gains tax.
> 
> 401(k) IRA matrix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you vote for an increase in capital gains tax (thinking you are sticking it to the "wealthy"), 401K 'capital gains' can be taxed at a the same higher rate when you start withdrawing it.  The people that make the rules are playing "bait and switch".  They are holding out the "rich" to make you think you will be taking more from them, in reality, they will write loopholes (how many 'middle income' people do you think are in congress, seriously?) to protect the wealthy and the average 'subject' will lose most of their 401K gains and interest to the gov't.  And the ones that voted for it will be too embarrassed to open their mouths.
Click to expand...


I see so you are such a  retard that you think raising taxes on capitals gains increases on yearly withdrawings of above 250,000 means higher taxes on withdrawing below that.
Plz get a brain dumbass


----------



## California Girl

sandystevees said:


> I am  forgiving it, but I don't think the universities who robbed these kiddies have any intention of paying it back to them.I think all the universities have done a free education loan who have not paid your fees.



The universities forced these 'kiddies' to attend? I think you'll find they did not.


----------



## KissMy

chanel said:


> I'd be curious to know how many of these poor, indebted college grads have credit cards at 18 percent. My guess is quite a few. Paying a high interest rate for Victoria's Secret would be ok; but not 6 percent on a college loan. Insanity.
> 
> Drive a used car and pay the damn thing off for crying out loud.



I personally know a few who have bought a new car, expensive clothes & shoes with their student loan money while attending college. 2 years after graduating & they still have yet to make any student loan payments.


----------



## OldManOnFire

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no capital gains tax on capital held inside a 401K, IRA or other tax deferred acount. Roth or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true only for capital...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is only true for the stuff inside your tax deferred account.
> What's in there besides capital?
Click to expand...


Thank you and never mind an old man talking...


----------



## OldManOnFire

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OldManOnFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> 
> All contributions to a 401K plan prior to 2006 were before tax, meaning they were not included in your current income or taxed currently. When those contributions, and the income earned on them, are distributed, income tax is due at ordinary rates; there is no capital gains tax. Beginning in 2006, an alternative plan was offered called a Roth 401K (like a Roth IRA that debuted a few years before, although not as widely available as most employers did not offer them). A contribution to a Roth 401K is included in your income currently and taxed currently. The earnings in the plan grow tax deferred and, in most cases are distributed completely free of tax, therefore, again, no capital gains tax.  The main reason people choose a Roth plan is to avoid vagaries in the tax law 30-40 years into the future by paying tax on the income today; however, only a very small portion of mom and pops 401K would likely be in a Roth, because it is so new. In both cases, however, any gain on the original investment is not subject to the capital gains tax.
> 
> 401(k) IRA matrix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well my 401K plan goes back a long way and all of my contributions were pre-taxed.  But within my 401K plan some of the investment was held in cash, and the rest in various stock positions.  I pay no income tax on the original investment because it was pre-taxed but paid capital gains taxes on all stock gains.
> 
> BTW; government can change the taxation policy on a Roth IRA or anything anytime so there are never guarantees that tax rates, etc. will be the same 30-40 years from now.
> 
> Thank you for the information...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * I pay no income tax on the original investment because it was pre-taxed but paid capital gains taxes on all stock gains.
> *
> 
> Untrue. If you buy stock for $30 and sell it for $40, in your IRA, you'll pay zero in capital gains tax.
Click to expand...


I didn't have an IRA...I had an old 401K plan in which I invested only after-tax contributions...


----------

