Cancel Student Debt

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Did it say that in the loan docs? Or did they read it online?

They were lied to and did not understand.

Sometimes stupid hurts.

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

Are you fucking kidding me?
Have you ever signed mortgage documents?
The basis is listed several times. Ignorance is no excuse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Eventually these same politicians lowered the Fannie and Freddie standards so that they could buy up the bad loans.

It's not that they lowered the standards for Fannie and Freddie, it's that they forced Fannie and Freddie to buy over half their portfolio from the subprime end of the mortgage pool.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So has compensation. Kids coming out of school now make six figures in Boston. I made $42k.

Not proportionate to the debt carried. And it causes problems. For example look at doctors. Because their education carries such debt, more are going into practice in higher paying specialties or urban areas that pay better. There is an overall shortage of general practioners and doctors in rural areas.

Starting compensation is not even close to 6 figures for most college graduates.

Class of 2017’s Overall Starting Salary Shows Little Gain

2 years out of date. Try harder!

Graduates need time to find and secure jobs.

2017 numbers were distributed in 2018.

Class of 2018 numbers are being calculated now and are not yet available (that I am aware of).

Class of 2019 has barely graduated and many don't have jobs yet.

Dotard.

My niece just graduated this May and had her job lined up 6 months before she left school. Ditto with my nephew, who graduated in 2018- offered and accepted employment before his commencement.

My nephew graduated in May. He had two jobs waiting and started the week after graduation. My daughter graduated in 2016 and had her job in 2015.

 

[gipper]

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.

Of course, but the government run propaganda has duped many Americans into thinking the criminals running big healthcare, big pharma, big insurance need more money.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

Yep, close 50% of the hospitals and make doctor payments based on Medicare price guidelines, of course healthcare spending would go down. That would provide two choices, either the individual pays the difference between what the doctor charges and Medicare pays or you find a doctor that can barely speak English. And the 25 people that still have jobs in healthcare should get a raise.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

Reduces the charges from providers....yea, not going to happen. Although it would reduce the amount paid by insurance to providers...dumbass.

 

[gipper]

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.

It is evident to some of us, that our central government has been completely captured by the billionaires and millionaires...the transnational capitalist class.

We have a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

When will all Americans realize this?

 

[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.

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.

#1) Historically this was the case. Dick Fuld believed it too. Lehman sank. It was an unusual time but the buyers still purchased homes they should not have. Again, no one held a gun to their head.

#2) You moved the goal posts. 18-year olds are adults. They died in WW2 as well. If you cannot pay the loan back don't take it and if you feel it is too expensive go to a state school or community college.

#3) Thank you.

 

[gipper]

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.

Yep, close 50% of the hospitals and make doctor payments based on Medicare price guidelines, of course healthcare spending would go down. That would provide two choices, either the individual pays the difference between what the doctor charge and Medicare pays or you find a doctor that can barely speak English. And the 25 people that still have jobs in healthcare should get a raise.

Go away. I kicked your ass to the curb. Now accept it and move on.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

Mortgages are fixed? Who gets a variable rate mortage? I don't follow your logic? If you're discussing ARMs then that is the risk borrowers took. ARMs always have risks associated with them.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

Eventually these same politicians lowered the Fannie and Freddie standards so that they could buy up the bad loans.

It's not that they lowered the standards for Fannie and Freddie, it's that they forced Fannie and Freddie to buy over half their portfolio from the subprime end of the mortgage pool.

Something that required Fannie and Freddie to change loan qualifications. That said, borrowers also share the blame here. They signed for these loans and many were engaged in get rich quick flipping schemes.

Meanwhile we fiscal conservatives did not engage in this insanity. We did not purchase more home than we could afford and did not take out 2nd mortgages and spend all our home equity on toys and stupid shit.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

But doctors make less.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

Yep, close 50% of the hospitals and make doctor payments based on Medicare price guidelines, of course healthcare spending would go down. That would provide two choices, either the individual pays the difference between what the doctor charge and Medicare pays or you find a doctor that can barely speak English. And the 25 people that still have jobs in healthcare should get a raise.

Go away. I kicked your ass to the curb. Now accept it and move on.

That's certainly one way to say ya don't got shit.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

It is evident to some of us, that our central government has been completely captured by the billionaires and millionaires...the transnational capitalist class.

We have a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

When will all Americans realize this?

I am not remotely rich and I like our Gov't? I am middle class. Modern home, two cars, wife, two kids. I don't have the life of Brad Pitt but I am happy with what I do have, not what I do not have.

 

[gipper]

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.

But doctors make less.

They should. They aren’t doing a good job.

Why American life expectancy is declining

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

It is evident to some of us, that our central government has been completely captured by the billionaires and millionaires...the transnational capitalist class.

We have a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

When will all Americans realize this?

Politicians in BOTH parties had but one goal, to super heat the economy so they could get re-elected. Look at me look how well the economy is doing under me re-elect me. As for the 'rich' without them people would be fighting in the streets for scraps of food. We can't blame it on the 'rich'.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

But doctors make less.

They should. They aren’t doing a good job.

Why American life expectancy is declining

Life expectancy is low because we are the fattest country and we have more auto accidents. It is not because of the doctors LOL.

 

[gipper]

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.

It is evident to some of us, that our central government has been completely captured by the billionaires and millionaires...the transnational capitalist class.

We have a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

When will all Americans realize this?

I am not remotely rich and I like our Gov't? I am middle class. Modern home, two cars, wife, two kids. I don't have the life of Brad Pitt but I am happy with what I do have, not what I do not have.

Antidotal.

Means ZERO.

I do question your sanity, when you state you like our government.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

#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.

It is evident to some of us, that our central government has been completely captured by the billionaires and millionaires...the transnational capitalist class.

We have a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

When will all Americans realize this?

I am not remotely rich and I like our Gov't? I am middle class. Modern home, two cars, wife, two kids. I don't have the life of Brad Pitt but I am happy with what I do have, not what I do not have.

Antidotal.

Means ZERO.

I do question your sanity, when you state you like our government.

You mean anecdotal? I just proved you wrong. If you don't like it then leave? LOL.

 

[gipper]

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.

But doctors make less.

They should. They aren’t doing a good job.

Why American life expectancy is declining

Life expectancy is low because we are the fattest country and we have more auto accidents. It is not because of the doctors LOL.

Wrong.

Name for me the top three causes of death in America? Let’s see if you are informed.