Cancel Student Debt

[AzogtheDefiler]

How would you be wronged by not getting something you no longer need just because someone else got something they could benefit from?

Because “cancelling” means the taxpayers pick up the tab. Debt doesn’t just disappear

Yup. We tax payers would be paying for it all.

I don't want to make my car payment. Maybe the tax payers would pick up the tab??

Its bullshit. If you want an education then YOU pay for that education. Not the tax payers of America.

Nothing is free. Ever.

Hey the .1% get bailed out. Why not the rest of us?

No one got bailed out, all the recipients of TARP paid back their monies with interest.

TARP was a bail out.
Companies had made bad investments, such as risky mortgages, poor car designs, etc., and they were bailed out.
Whether or not it was paid back is not the point, because the home owners who were forced into foreclosure should have been bailed out with loan guarantees instead, and those who lost their jobs should have been bailed out instead, by demanding auto makers not offshore.

It was a bailout but they did pay it back. In terms of the homeowners who took on too much debt, it is on them. No one held a gun to their head.

 

[Rigby5]

Define “rich” and “fair”.

Sure. What we had before Reagan fucked it up. That was fair.

I was not born then. Be more specific, old man.

Reagan drastically cut federal subsidies for health care, education, housing, etc.
He instead started the Space Defense Initiative, a spending war with the USSR.
This is when all the mentally ill ended up out on the street and our prison population started to balloon.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Define “rich” and “fair”.

Sure. What we had before Reagan fucked it up. That was fair.

I was not born then. Be more specific, old man.

Reagan drastically cut federal subsidies for health care, education, housing, etc.
He instead started the Space Defense Initiative, a spending war with the USSR.
This is when all the mentally ill ended up out on the street and our prison population started to balloon.

OK

I am sure the Reagan sycophants will have counterpoints?

 

[progressive hunter]

Define “rich” and “fair”.

Sure. What we had before Reagan fucked it up. That was fair.

I was not born then. Be more specific, old man.

Reagan drastically cut federal subsidies for health care, education, housing, etc.
He instead started the Space Defense Initiative, a spending war with the USSR.
This is when all the mentally ill ended up out on the street and our prison population started to balloon.

you mean reagan cut money to programs the feds had no right to be in???

OH THE HORROR!!!

 

[jc456]

Why not just pay off all home mortgages? What is the difference? Morgages are certainly a burden to people, so we can remove that burden. Who cares if you over-bought? Evidently, Democrats couldn't care less about personal responsibility anyway, plus, everythng is "free" from a Democrats point of view.

Bottom line is that people shouldn't take out loans that can't pay back. Don't get a 200k student loan and major in Middle Eastern folk art unless you know you have a path to a good paying job after graduation. Colleges have become too expensive. Ferrarri's are too expensive too, which is why I won't buy one even though it would be very fun to have one. Granted, student loans are given out for virtually any amount,. but that doesn't preclude the student from excercising a little common sense.

Good question. The two assholes W and O bailed out the extremely rich in the last recession and did nothing for the millions of homeowners who lost their homes.

Why are some Americans cool with socialism for the .1% and ruthless uncaring capitalism for other Americans?

people didn’t have an opportunity to request new loans ?

 

[WEATHER53]

No deadbeat kids begging for responsibility absolution during Regan

 

[Darkwind]

How would you be wronged by not getting something you no longer need just because someone else got something they could benefit from?

Because “cancelling” means the taxpayers pick up the tab. Debt doesn’t just disappear

Yup. We tax payers would be paying for it all.

I don't want to make my car payment. Maybe the tax payers would pick up the tab??

Its bullshit. If you want an education then YOU pay for that education. Not the tax payers of America.

Nothing is free. Ever.

Hey the .1% get bailed out. Why not the rest of us?

No one got bailed out, all the recipients of TARP paid back their monies with interest.

TARP was a bail out.
Companies had made bad investments, such as risky mortgages, poor car designs, etc., and they were bailed out.
Whether or not it was paid back is not the point, because the home owners who were forced into foreclosure should have been bailed out with loan guarantees instead, and those who lost their jobs should have been bailed out instead, by demanding auto makers not offshore.

They were defaulting on loans and you wanted them to be bailed out with more loans?

Seriously?

Companies that made bad investments should NOT have been bailed out, regardless of their ability to pay it back. But the key here is that the DID pay it back.

How would the homeowners who took out to large a loan and couldn't make the payments manage to payback to large a loan to bail them out?

The same with the students. There is an additional problem with student loans. It isn't that they can't pay back the loans, they just don't want to pay it back.

They whine, "I'll be saddled with this debt for decades!" That is the whine of a child who wanted what they wanted and doesn't want to have to pay for it.

They KNEW that they'd be saddled with the debt for decades, still, they chose to take the loan.

Payback the money. It does not get more moral than that.

 

[Rigby5]

Because “cancelling” means the taxpayers pick up the tab. Debt doesn’t just disappear

Yup. We tax payers would be paying for it all.

I don't want to make my car payment. Maybe the tax payers would pick up the tab??

Its bullshit. If you want an education then YOU pay for that education. Not the tax payers of America.

Nothing is free. Ever.

Hey the .1% get bailed out. Why not the rest of us?

No one got bailed out, all the recipients of TARP paid back their monies with interest.

TARP was a bail out.
Companies had made bad investments, such as risky mortgages, poor car designs, etc., and they were bailed out.
Whether or not it was paid back is not the point, because the home owners who were forced into foreclosure should have been bailed out with loan guarantees instead, and those who lost their jobs should have been bailed out instead, by demanding auto makers not offshore.

It was a bailout but they did pay it back. In terms of the homeowners who took on too much debt, it is on them. No one held a gun to their head.

The home owners did not take on too much debt.
That is proven by the many years they did pay the mortgage with no problem.
The housing collapse that started it was due to banks giving too many mortgages to landlords, not owner occupied.
And the mortgages were deliberately deceptive.
The adjustable rates were based on the LIBOR instead of prime rate, so when the economy went down, the mortgages went way up instead of down.

It would not have cost more to bail out the homeowners instead of the banks. In fact, it would have allowed a much faster recovery because allowing so many defaults flooded the market and depressed all the real estate holdings value. That prevented banks from being able to make loans, because they then suddenly no longer had sufficient holdings to back up their loan ability.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yup. We tax payers would be paying for it all.

I don't want to make my car payment. Maybe the tax payers would pick up the tab??

Its bullshit. If you want an education then YOU pay for that education. Not the tax payers of America.

Nothing is free. Ever.

Hey the .1% get bailed out. Why not the rest of us?

No one got bailed out, all the recipients of TARP paid back their monies with interest.

TARP was a bail out.
Companies had made bad investments, such as risky mortgages, poor car designs, etc., and they were bailed out.
Whether or not it was paid back is not the point, because the home owners who were forced into foreclosure should have been bailed out with loan guarantees instead, and those who lost their jobs should have been bailed out instead, by demanding auto makers not offshore.

It was a bailout but they did pay it back. In terms of the homeowners who took on too much debt, it is on them. No one held a gun to their head.

The home owners did not take on too much debt.
That is proven by the many years they did pay the mortgage with no problem.
The housing collapse that started it was due to banks giving too many mortgages to landlords, not owner occupied.
And the mortgages were deliberately deceptive.
The adjustable rates were based on the LIBOR instead of prime rate, so when the economy went down, the mortgages went way up instead of down.

It would not have cost more to bail out the homeowners instead of the banks. In fact, it would have allowed a much faster recovery because allowing so many defaults flooded the market and depressed all the real estate holdings value. That prevented banks from being able to make loans, because they then suddenly no longer had sufficient holdings to back up their loan ability.

Your comment makes zero sense. LIBOR is lower than PRIME? Many lenders did give homeowners a break but many owners chose to walk away as values dropped.

 

[WEATHER53]

Student debt deadbeats is the topic and not fifteen years ago home loans.

 

[Rigby5]

Because “cancelling” means the taxpayers pick up the tab. Debt doesn’t just disappear

Yup. We tax payers would be paying for it all.

I don't want to make my car payment. Maybe the tax payers would pick up the tab??

Its bullshit. If you want an education then YOU pay for that education. Not the tax payers of America.

Nothing is free. Ever.

Hey the .1% get bailed out. Why not the rest of us?

No one got bailed out, all the recipients of TARP paid back their monies with interest.

TARP was a bail out.
Companies had made bad investments, such as risky mortgages, poor car designs, etc., and they were bailed out.
Whether or not it was paid back is not the point, because the home owners who were forced into foreclosure should have been bailed out with loan guarantees instead, and those who lost their jobs should have been bailed out instead, by demanding auto makers not offshore.

They were defaulting on loans and you wanted them to be bailed out with more loans?

Seriously?

Companies that made bad investments should NOT have been bailed out, regardless of their ability to pay it back. But the key here is that the DID pay it back.

How would the homeowners who took out to large a loan and couldn't make the payments manage to payback to large a loan to bail them out?

The same with the students. There is an additional problem with student loans. It isn't that they can't pay back the loans, they just don't want to pay it back.

They whine, "I'll be saddled with this debt for decades!" That is the whine of a child who wanted what they wanted and doesn't want to have to pay for it.

They KNEW that they'd be saddled with the debt for decades, still, they chose to take the loan.

Payback the money. It does not get more moral than that.

Wrong.
They were not defaulting on the payments they had always been making for years.
These were ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgages), loans with balloon payments after 3 to 5 years.
And the reason they were defaulting is that they could not refinance to pay off the balloon and get onto a normal 15 or 30 year mortgage.
It was the refusal of the banks to refinance these honorable and consistent home buyers that forced them to suddenly default even though they had never missed a payment.

And with students you are wrong as well.
Students do not have the financial experience to know they would not be able to pay back the money being thrown at them. Interest is inherently deceptive and difficult for anyone to really understand, much less young students who have no experience with debt at all. On top of that the schools fill them full of false hopes and claims as to how much they are going to make.

The reality is the tuition is way too high.
It is unrealistic.
Tuition never used to be so high.
When I started at a state university, tuition was only $100 per semester.
And many states, like CA, had free in state tuition.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yup. We tax payers would be paying for it all.

I don't want to make my car payment. Maybe the tax payers would pick up the tab??

Its bullshit. If you want an education then YOU pay for that education. Not the tax payers of America.

Nothing is free. Ever.

Hey the .1% get bailed out. Why not the rest of us?

No one got bailed out, all the recipients of TARP paid back their monies with interest.

TARP was a bail out.
Companies had made bad investments, such as risky mortgages, poor car designs, etc., and they were bailed out.
Whether or not it was paid back is not the point, because the home owners who were forced into foreclosure should have been bailed out with loan guarantees instead, and those who lost their jobs should have been bailed out instead, by demanding auto makers not offshore.

They were defaulting on loans and you wanted them to be bailed out with more loans?

Seriously?

Companies that made bad investments should NOT have been bailed out, regardless of their ability to pay it back. But the key here is that the DID pay it back.

How would the homeowners who took out to large a loan and couldn't make the payments manage to payback to large a loan to bail them out?

The same with the students. There is an additional problem with student loans. It isn't that they can't pay back the loans, they just don't want to pay it back.

They whine, "I'll be saddled with this debt for decades!" That is the whine of a child who wanted what they wanted and doesn't want to have to pay for it.

They KNEW that they'd be saddled with the debt for decades, still, they chose to take the loan.

Payback the money. It does not get more moral than that.

Wrong.
They were not defaulting on the payments they had always been making for years.
These were ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgages), loans with balloon payments after 3 to 5 years.
And the reason they were defaulting is that they could not refinance to pay off the balloon and get onto a normal 15 or 30 year mortgage.
It was the refusal of the banks to refinance these honorable and consistent home buyers that forced them to suddenly default even though they had never missed a payment.

And with students you are wrong as well.
Students do not have the financial experience to know they would not be able to pay back the money being thrown at them. Interest is inherently deceptive and difficult for anyone to really understand, much less young students who have no experience with debt at all. On top of that the schools fill them full of false hopes and claims as to how much they are going to make.

The reality is the tuition is way too high.
It is unrealistic.
Tuition never used to be so high.
When I started at a state university, tuition was only $100 per semester.
And many states, like CA, had free in state tuition.

#1) That is the risk with ARMs...hence they are lower initially.

#2) Students have parents. Don't take the loan if you don't think they can pay it back. 18-year olds die overseas, they can certainly add numbers.

#3) Tuition is too freaking high and lenders give money out stupidly for stupid majors. We agree there.

 

[Rigby5]

Hey the .1% get bailed out. Why not the rest of us?

No one got bailed out, all the recipients of TARP paid back their monies with interest.

TARP was a bail out.
Companies had made bad investments, such as risky mortgages, poor car designs, etc., and they were bailed out.
Whether or not it was paid back is not the point, because the home owners who were forced into foreclosure should have been bailed out with loan guarantees instead, and those who lost their jobs should have been bailed out instead, by demanding auto makers not offshore.

It was a bailout but they did pay it back. In terms of the homeowners who took on too much debt, it is on them. No one held a gun to their head.

The home owners did not take on too much debt.
That is proven by the many years they did pay the mortgage with no problem.
The housing collapse that started it was due to banks giving too many mortgages to landlords, not owner occupied.
And the mortgages were deliberately deceptive.
The adjustable rates were based on the LIBOR instead of prime rate, so when the economy went down, the mortgages went way up instead of down.

It would not have cost more to bail out the homeowners instead of the banks. In fact, it would have allowed a much faster recovery because allowing so many defaults flooded the market and depressed all the real estate holdings value. That prevented banks from being able to make loans, because they then suddenly no longer had sufficient holdings to back up their loan ability.

Your comment makes zero sense. LIBOR is lower than PRIME? Many lenders did give homeowners a break but many owners chose to walk away as values dropped.

Before the housing market collapse, the LIBOR and prime rate were about the same.
But after the collapse of 2008, the LIBOR went up, while the prime rate went way down.
That caused ARMs to almost double the monthly payment.
The home buyers did not default, but their payments were deliberately raised to an impossible increase.

No home owners walked away as you claim, because rents had also started to spike as well.
So they were better off staying, if the payment would have been reasonable.

U.S. Economy Reflation Challenge and LIBOR Deceptive Manipulation :: The Market Oracle ::

This shows how the LIBOR caused the defaults, not the home owners.

 

[Rigby5]

Student debt deadbeats is the topic and not fifteen years ago home loans.

Deceptive and abusive loan techniques is the topic, and home loans showed that around 2008.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No one got bailed out, all the recipients of TARP paid back their monies with interest.

TARP was a bail out.
Companies had made bad investments, such as risky mortgages, poor car designs, etc., and they were bailed out.
Whether or not it was paid back is not the point, because the home owners who were forced into foreclosure should have been bailed out with loan guarantees instead, and those who lost their jobs should have been bailed out instead, by demanding auto makers not offshore.

It was a bailout but they did pay it back. In terms of the homeowners who took on too much debt, it is on them. No one held a gun to their head.

The home owners did not take on too much debt.
That is proven by the many years they did pay the mortgage with no problem.
The housing collapse that started it was due to banks giving too many mortgages to landlords, not owner occupied.
And the mortgages were deliberately deceptive.
The adjustable rates were based on the LIBOR instead of prime rate, so when the economy went down, the mortgages went way up instead of down.

It would not have cost more to bail out the homeowners instead of the banks. In fact, it would have allowed a much faster recovery because allowing so many defaults flooded the market and depressed all the real estate holdings value. That prevented banks from being able to make loans, because they then suddenly no longer had sufficient holdings to back up their loan ability.

Your comment makes zero sense. LIBOR is lower than PRIME? Many lenders did give homeowners a break but many owners chose to walk away as values dropped.

Before the housing market collapse, the LIBOR and prime rate were about the same.
But after the collapse of 2008, the LIBOR went up, while the prime rate went way down.
That caused ARMs to almost double the monthly payment.
The home buyers did not default, but their payments were deliberately raised to an impossible increase.

No home owners walked away as you claim, because rents had also started to spike as well.
So they were better off staying, if the payment would have been reasonable.

U.S. Economy Reflation Challenge and LIBOR Deceptive Manipulation :: The Market Oracle ::

This shows how the LIBOR caused the defaults, not the home owners.

LIBOR was 4.59% in 2008 and PRIME was 6.50%. What are you talking about??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Rigby5]

Hey the .1% get bailed out. Why not the rest of us?

No one got bailed out, all the recipients of TARP paid back their monies with interest.

TARP was a bail out.
Companies had made bad investments, such as risky mortgages, poor car designs, etc., and they were bailed out.
Whether or not it was paid back is not the point, because the home owners who were forced into foreclosure should have been bailed out with loan guarantees instead, and those who lost their jobs should have been bailed out instead, by demanding auto makers not offshore.

They were defaulting on loans and you wanted them to be bailed out with more loans?

Seriously?

Companies that made bad investments should NOT have been bailed out, regardless of their ability to pay it back. But the key here is that the DID pay it back.

How would the homeowners who took out to large a loan and couldn't make the payments manage to payback to large a loan to bail them out?

The same with the students. There is an additional problem with student loans. It isn't that they can't pay back the loans, they just don't want to pay it back.

They whine, "I'll be saddled with this debt for decades!" That is the whine of a child who wanted what they wanted and doesn't want to have to pay for it.

They KNEW that they'd be saddled with the debt for decades, still, they chose to take the loan.

Payback the money. It does not get more moral than that.

Wrong.
They were not defaulting on the payments they had always been making for years.
These were ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgages), loans with balloon payments after 3 to 5 years.
And the reason they were defaulting is that they could not refinance to pay off the balloon and get onto a normal 15 or 30 year mortgage.
It was the refusal of the banks to refinance these honorable and consistent home buyers that forced them to suddenly default even though they had never missed a payment.

And with students you are wrong as well.
Students do not have the financial experience to know they would not be able to pay back the money being thrown at them. Interest is inherently deceptive and difficult for anyone to really understand, much less young students who have no experience with debt at all. On top of that the schools fill them full of false hopes and claims as to how much they are going to make.

The reality is the tuition is way too high.
It is unrealistic.
Tuition never used to be so high.
When I started at a state university, tuition was only $100 per semester.
And many states, like CA, had free in state tuition.

#1) That is the risk with ARMs...hence they are lower initially.

#2) Students have parents. Don't take the loan if you don't think they can pay it back. 18-year olds die overseas, they can certainly add numbers.

#3) Tuition is too freaking high and lenders give money out stupidly for stupid majors. We agree there.

1) buyers were told they would be able to cash in because the home would increase in value so much by the time the ARM ballooned. They were lied to and did not understand. They were not told the US prime was not the basis, so they did not know their payments would almost double if the economy went south.

2) Parents remember the way it used to be, when tuition was capped and reasonable. The fact 18 year old die over seas mean they CAN'T make decisions like this, because they don't have the experience. If they could make these sorts of decisions, they would NOT be dying over seas in stupid and absurd wars against countries that never harmed us.

3) but yes we agree lenders should not be handing out money so freely, and tuition is too high. And yes, some majors are stupid.

 

[gipper]

How would you be wronged by not getting something you no longer need just because someone else got something they could benefit from?

Because “cancelling” means the taxpayers pick up the tab. Debt doesn’t just disappear

So the trillion per year Trump is racking up in debt really bothers you? Let me guess….you’re not bothered at all by your blob’s reckless spending.

You’re so full of shit, you’re eyes are brown.

Trumps spending certainly doesn't bother me as much as Medicare for all, Free College and the New Green Deal....dumbass.

Why do go against your self interest and for the .1%?

If we must have a huge omnipresent expensive central government, why shouldn’t it help the majority of Americans rather than a tiny extremely wealthy minority?

Lordy, are you naïve. With Medicare for all estimated at $32 Trillion and the New Green Deal averaging $70,000 per person in the first year...yea, that will help the majority of Americans, dumbass.

It’s funny how many Americans think it perfectly okay to limit government benefits to the poor and middle class, but are fine with the ultra rich receiving huge sums of government money.

Medicare For All is CHEAPER than what we have now. DUMBASS!!! Get informed for once. Stop believing propaganda from the establishment.

KOCH-BACKED THINK TANK FINDS THAT “MEDICARE FOR ALL” WOULD CUT HEALTH CARE SPENDING AND RAISE WAGES. WHOOPS.

But despite that correction, the report actually yields a wealth of good news for advocates of Sanders’s plan — a remarkable conclusion, given that Blahous is a former Bush administration economist working at a prominent conservative think tank.

Blahous’s paper, titled “The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” estimates total national health expenditures. Even though his cost-saving estimates are more conservative than others, he acknowledges that Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan would yield a $482 billion reduction in health care spending, and over $1.5 trillion in administrative savings, for a total of $2 trillion less in overall health care expenditures between 2022 and 2031, compared to current spending.
Koch-Backed Think Tank Finds That “Medicare for All” Would Cut Health Care Spending and Raise Wages. Whoops.

 

[Rigby5]

TARP was a bail out.
Companies had made bad investments, such as risky mortgages, poor car designs, etc., and they were bailed out.
Whether or not it was paid back is not the point, because the home owners who were forced into foreclosure should have been bailed out with loan guarantees instead, and those who lost their jobs should have been bailed out instead, by demanding auto makers not offshore.

It was a bailout but they did pay it back. In terms of the homeowners who took on too much debt, it is on them. No one held a gun to their head.

The home owners did not take on too much debt.
That is proven by the many years they did pay the mortgage with no problem.
The housing collapse that started it was due to banks giving too many mortgages to landlords, not owner occupied.
And the mortgages were deliberately deceptive.
The adjustable rates were based on the LIBOR instead of prime rate, so when the economy went down, the mortgages went way up instead of down.

It would not have cost more to bail out the homeowners instead of the banks. In fact, it would have allowed a much faster recovery because allowing so many defaults flooded the market and depressed all the real estate holdings value. That prevented banks from being able to make loans, because they then suddenly no longer had sufficient holdings to back up their loan ability.

Your comment makes zero sense. LIBOR is lower than PRIME? Many lenders did give homeowners a break but many owners chose to walk away as values dropped.

Before the housing market collapse, the LIBOR and prime rate were about the same.
But after the collapse of 2008, the LIBOR went up, while the prime rate went way down.
That caused ARMs to almost double the monthly payment.
The home buyers did not default, but their payments were deliberately raised to an impossible increase.

No home owners walked away as you claim, because rents had also started to spike as well.
So they were better off staying, if the payment would have been reasonable.

U.S. Economy Reflation Challenge and LIBOR Deceptive Manipulation :: The Market Oracle ::

This shows how the LIBOR caused the defaults, not the home owners.

LIBOR was 4.59% in 2008 and PRIME was 6.50%. What are you talking about??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

You are saying nothing.
The point is that the LIBOR went from 1.5 to almost 6, very quickly just before the crash.
Likely causing the crash.

In comparison, the prime rate reflected the crash and quickly dropped.

If these home ARMs had been based on the US prime, then payments would have gone down instead of up, and most defaults then would have been avoided.

 

[Rigby5]

Because “cancelling” means the taxpayers pick up the tab. Debt doesn’t just disappear

So the trillion per year Trump is racking up in debt really bothers you? Let me guess….you’re not bothered at all by your blob’s reckless spending.

You’re so full of shit, you’re eyes are brown.

Trumps spending certainly doesn't bother me as much as Medicare for all, Free College and the New Green Deal....dumbass.

Why do go against your self interest and for the .1%?

If we must have a huge omnipresent expensive central government, why shouldn’t it help the majority of Americans rather than a tiny extremely wealthy minority?

Lordy, are you naïve. With Medicare for all estimated at $32 Trillion and the New Green Deal averaging $70,000 per person in the first year...yea, that will help the majority of Americans, dumbass.

It’s funny how many Americans think it perfectly okay to limit government benefits to the poor and middle class, but are fine with the ultra rich receiving huge sums of government money.

Medicare For All is CHEAPER than what we have now. DUMBASS!!! Get informed for once. Stop believing propaganda from the establishment.

KOCH-BACKED THINK TANK FINDS THAT “MEDICARE FOR ALL” WOULD CUT HEALTH CARE SPENDING AND RAISE WAGES. WHOOPS.

But despite that correction, the report actually yields a wealth of good news for advocates of Sanders’s plan — a remarkable conclusion, given that Blahous is a former Bush administration economist working at a prominent conservative think tank.

Blahous’s paper, titled “The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” estimates total national health expenditures. Even though his cost-saving estimates are more conservative than others, he acknowledges that Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan would yield a $482 billion reduction in health care spending, and over $1.5 trillion in administrative savings, for a total of $2 trillion less in overall health care expenditures between 2022 and 2031, compared to current spending.
Koch-Backed Think Tank Finds That “Medicare for All” Would Cut Health Care Spending and Raise Wages. Whoops.

Yes.
It is surprising how many people do not understand that single payer is the only way to fix the health care problem, because it reduces the charges from the providers. It is the ultimate in collective bargaining. And the result is that all people in total, would pay about half in health care costs compared to now. So there is no increase in spending. We all save money if we go single payer. No one pays more.

 

[BluesLegend]

No one got bailed out, all the recipients of TARP paid back their monies with interest.

TARP was a bail out.
Companies had made bad investments, such as risky mortgages, poor car designs, etc., and they were bailed out.
Whether or not it was paid back is not the point, because the home owners who were forced into foreclosure should have been bailed out with loan guarantees instead, and those who lost their jobs should have been bailed out instead, by demanding auto makers not offshore.

They were defaulting on loans and you wanted them to be bailed out with more loans?

Seriously?

Companies that made bad investments should NOT have been bailed out, regardless of their ability to pay it back. But the key here is that the DID pay it back.

How would the homeowners who took out to large a loan and couldn't make the payments manage to payback to large a loan to bail them out?

The same with the students. There is an additional problem with student loans. It isn't that they can't pay back the loans, they just don't want to pay it back.

They whine, "I'll be saddled with this debt for decades!" That is the whine of a child who wanted what they wanted and doesn't want to have to pay for it.

They KNEW that they'd be saddled with the debt for decades, still, they chose to take the loan.

Payback the money. It does not get more moral than that.

Wrong.
They were not defaulting on the payments they had always been making for years.
These were ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgages), loans with balloon payments after 3 to 5 years.
And the reason they were defaulting is that they could not refinance to pay off the balloon and get onto a normal 15 or 30 year mortgage.
It was the refusal of the banks to refinance these honorable and consistent home buyers that forced them to suddenly default even though they had never missed a payment.

And with students you are wrong as well.
Students do not have the financial experience to know they would not be able to pay back the money being thrown at them. Interest is inherently deceptive and difficult for anyone to really understand, much less young students who have no experience with debt at all. On top of that the schools fill them full of false hopes and claims as to how much they are going to make.

The reality is the tuition is way too high.
It is unrealistic.
Tuition never used to be so high.
When I started at a state university, tuition was only $100 per semester.
And many states, like CA, had free in state tuition.

#1) That is the risk with ARMs...hence they are lower initially.

#2) Students have parents. Don't take the loan if you don't think they can pay it back. 18-year olds die overseas, they can certainly add numbers.

#3) Tuition is too freaking high and lenders give money out stupidly for stupid majors. We agree there.

1) buyers were told they would be able to cash in because the home would increase in value so much by the time the ARM ballooned. They were lied to and did not understand. They were not told the US prime was not the basis, so they did not know their payments would almost double if the economy went south.

2) Parents remember the way it used to be, when tuition was capped and reasonable. The fact 18 year old die over seas mean they CAN'T make decisions like this, because they don't have the experience. If they could make these sorts of decisions, they would NOT be dying over seas in stupid and absurd wars against countries that never harmed us.

3) but yes we agree lenders should not be handing out money so freely, and tuition is too high. And yes, some majors are stupid.

Democrats and Republican RINO politicians forced lenders to lower lending requirements. Why? So people who could not get approved for a home loan due to their income and debt would now qualify for a mortgage. These lending standards were in place to both protect the lender and the borrower. Once removed this enabled millions to get approved for the worst types of mortgages and ultimately lead to massive home loan defaults.

Keep going...because these loans did not meet standard lending requirements none of the traditional secondary mortgage markets would buy the loans to hold long term. So all kinds of whacky 'investment' vehicles were invented to buy up the loans. Eventually these same politicians lowered the Fannie and Freddie standards so that they could buy up the bad loans. When the default wave hit this wiped them out.

So thank your politicians for sticking their nose where it didn't belong and screwing up yet something else that wasn't broken in the first place.