Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He was talking about student loans which, if you'd read the aforementioned article, come with the same problems.umm...you are the only one talking about free college here, his point was completely something else.
He was talking about student loans which, if you'd read the aforementioned article, come with the same problems.umm...you are the only one talking about free college here, his point was completely something else.
Like the housing crisis, "low-interest loans" are a double-edged sword. I understand the intent, but it's the results that concern me. I'm truly sorry you fail to understand this point.
Prices go up over time. That's natural.No, he was talking about increased student loans being a result of recession rather than cause of it.
Doesn't answer the question. How did the 40% of Americans that controlled 2/10 of a percent of the wealth manage to crash the economy?
They didn't. People like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, etc. did when they unconstitutionally took over the free market and injected it with mass quantities of idiot socialism.
Interesting hypothesis
Which "socialist bills" did Pelosi, Reid and Clinton pass which crashed the economy?
The free market operates flawlessly. Those that are stupid end up out of business and only they (and their employees in some cases) pay the price. With the idiot government-intervention socialism that libtards have forced upon us, all of society pays the price when idiots do stupid things.Doesn't answer the question. How did the 40% of Americans that controlled 2/10 of a percent of the wealth manage to crash the economy?
They didn't. People like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, etc. did when they unconstitutionally took over the free market and injected it with mass quantities of idiot socialism.
Interesting hypothesis
Which "socialist bills" did Pelosi, Reid and Clinton pass which crashed the economy?
Just to remind all our FRIENDS from the far left, the responsibility for this mess lies with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. AND WITH REPUBLICANS for backing off every time Barney Frank and his cronies played…THE RACE CARD! The housing bubble is what led to the downfall and that was driven by Democrats, starting with Jimmy Carter and hugely expanded by Bill Clinton. Here are the facts, once again, for you to ignore….
HUD TO FIGHT DISCRIMINATION, BOOST MINORITY HOMEOWNERSHIP AND WORK WITH URBAN LEAGUE TO FURTHER GOALS
August 5, 1997
HUD to Fight Discrimination, Boost Minority Homeownership and Work With Urban League to Further Goals - Free Online Library
New York Times - 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending -
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
President Bush’s and the Administrations Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs – Fannie and Freddie dating back to 2001
Just the Facts: The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
By Elliot Blair Smith,
USA TODAY
Fannie Mae to pay $400 million fine
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Franklin Raines was Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton and returned to Fannie Mae as its CEO in 1999. Raines is not a “chief” economic adviser for President Barack Hussein Obama but has advised the administration on mortgage and housing matters. Obama had hired another former Fannie CEO, Jim Johnson as a member of Obama’s V.P. search committee and who was forced to quit under fire.
Bloomberg News -
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis -
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Regardless of how crooked the higher ups in Fannie and Freddie might have been, student loans played little or no role in causing the recession. Defaults on student loans were fairly low until the recession was well under way in 2009. Also, 76% of student loans were subsidized which means defaults would have had little impact on the economy.
With ever recession, political forces on both sides of the fence attempt to throw the blame for the recession on programs, institutions, and legislation favored by the opposition.
When you start looking for causes of a recession there are always direct and indirect causes. The direct causes of the recession in the US include the subprime mortgage crisis and the housing bulb. There are many indirect causes such as balance of trade, US government housing policies, and limited regulations on non-depository financial institutions.
So the banks are responsible for some idiot's bad judgement now?
All any borrower has to do is meet some requirements to be qualified for a loan. If they meet them they get the loan
anything else is on the borrower not the bank
But that's the point. The banks weren't giving loans to people who qualified. They were giving people loans they knew they couldn't afford.
But being a horrible person, I'm sure that you take the side over greedy banks over working people.
Sorry but you're wrong
Those people qualified if barely
And really they buyers were the ones at fault for buying a home on a 5 year ARM interest only loan with no down payment.
They were just as at fault as the people who reupped their mortgages every time the value went up then whined that they were underwater when prices fell.
Whether there should or should not be student loans was not the question but rather their effect on the recession.
However, from a practical standpoint, no student loans would mean no college for many millions of young people and less college would mean losing a major competitive advantage in the global market place, a highly trained workforce.
College loans are certainly not free money. In fact, they are one of few loan types that are not discharged in bankruptcy. They follow you to the grave.Sorry, but that's ass-backwards thinking. As fucked up as Obamacare.Whether there should or should not be student loans was not the question but rather their effect on the recession.
However, from a practical standpoint, no student loans would mean no college for many millions of young people and less college would mean losing a major competitive advantage in the global market place, a highly trained workforce.
The solution isn't to provide "free" healthcare or "free" college, but to make both healthcare and college affordable. As the previous OP-ED I posted explained, all colleges loans and government grants have done is drive college costs up. Fix the causes of rising costs, not just raising taxes to hand out "free" money.
As would the quality of the education.Whether there should or should not be student loans was not the question but rather their effect on the recession.
However, from a practical standpoint, no student loans would mean no college for many millions of young people and less college would mean losing a major competitive advantage in the global market place, a highly trained workforce.
No student loans would mean that the cost of college would drop like a rock. There would also be many students who don't belong in college, finding other careers.
In my post I said, student loans played little or no role in causing the recession.Regardless of how crooked the higher ups in Fannie and Freddie might have been, student loans played little or no role in causing the recession. Defaults on student loans were fairly low until the recession was well under way in 2009. Also, 76% of student loans were subsidized which means defaults would have had little impact on the economy.
With ever recession, political forces on both sides of the fence attempt to throw the blame for the recession on programs, institutions, and legislation favored by the opposition.
When you start looking for causes of a recession there are always direct and indirect causes. The direct causes of the recession in the US include the subprime mortgage crisis and the housing bulb. There are many indirect causes such as balance of trade, US government housing policies, and limited regulations on non-depository financial institutions.
As you should know, student loans had nothing to do with the mortgage, financial, housing meltdown. Student loans were well spread around with various private banks as well as Sallie Mae. Now, ALL the student loans are government loans.
Student loans are now over $1.27 TRILLION. That's a LOT of debt for kids that don't even have a job coming out of college.
Just your opinion or do you have facts to back up the nightmare scenario you painted?College loans are certainly not free money. In fact, they are one of few loan types that are not discharged in bankruptcy. They follow you to the grave.
Even if college cost came down with lower attendance, they would still be priced way above the reach of the average family. If we abolish loans, college attendance would drop like a rock. Colleges would drop their prices, by laying off teachers, cutting off services to student, and degrading the curriculum, costing less but delivering less. If we are to bring back the economic growth to America that has escaped us in the 21st century we have got to have more and better educated workers, not less.
A Dr has no obligation to tell anyone to stop smoking and that Dr certainly cannot force anyone to do anything
The choice to smoke resides with the individual and it's none of your business
And FYI all the banks know about anyone's ability to pay is what they can find out on a credit score and from pay stubs
It's not up to them to counsel home buyers
Except the banksters didn't do that. They loaned to people they KNEW couldn't repay, figuring they could just foreclose and sell that house again.
And that if it fell apart, truly awful people would insiste they get their baillouts and their bonuses.
So the banks are responsible for some idiot's bad judgement now?
All any borrower has to do is meet some requirements to be qualified for a loan. If they meet them they get the loan
anything else is on the borrower not the bank
But that's the point. The banks weren't giving loans to people who qualified. They were giving people loans they knew they couldn't afford.
But being a horrible person, I'm sure that you take the side over greedy banks over working people.
Sorry but you're wrong
Those people qualified if barely
And really they buyers were the ones at fault for buying a home on a 5 year ARM interest only loan with no down payment.
They were just as at fault as the people who reupped their mortgages every time the value went up then whined that they were underwater when prices fell.
There were no first mortgages that were interest only.
The problem went back decades. Part of the problem was Congress requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increase the percentage of sub-prime loans in their portfolios. That required that they lower their standards. Since they had to lower their loan requirements for low and middle-income workers, they had to do it for everyone. People who had...difficulty verifying their income. Hence, the "no-doc" loan was born. You just had to tell the lender how much you made and you got the loan at a slightly higher interest rates. Fannie and Freddie were happy to buy the loans.
On top of that, some of the most popular TV "reality" was "Flip This House" which encouraged, even more, people to go in debt and play that Ponzi scheme. Not surprising, a lot of Realtors were among the hardest hit losers. Well more than half had not been in the business for more than five or six years and had never seen a down market.
Doesn't answer the question. How did the 40% of Americans that controlled 2/10 of a percent of the wealth manage to crash the economy?
They didn't. People like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, etc. did when they unconstitutionally took over the free market and injected it with mass quantities of idiot socialism.
Interesting hypothesis
Which "socialist bills" did Pelosi, Reid and Clinton pass which crashed the economy?
Just to remind all our FRIENDS from the far left, the responsibility for this mess lies with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. AND WITH REPUBLICANS for backing off every time Barney Frank and his cronies played…THE RACE CARD! The housing bubble is what led to the downfall and that was driven by Democrats, starting with Jimmy Carter and hugely expanded by Bill Clinton. Here are the facts, once again, for you to ignore….
HUD TO FIGHT DISCRIMINATION, BOOST MINORITY HOMEOWNERSHIP AND WORK WITH URBAN LEAGUE TO FURTHER GOALS
August 5, 1997
HUD to Fight Discrimination, Boost Minority Homeownership and Work With Urban League to Further Goals - Free Online Library
New York Times - 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending -
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
President Bush’s and the Administrations Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs – Fannie and Freddie dating back to 2001
Just the Facts: The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
By Elliot Blair Smith,
USA TODAY
Fannie Mae to pay $400 million fine
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Franklin Raines was Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton and returned to Fannie Mae as its CEO in 1999. Raines is not a “chief” economic adviser for President Barack Hussein Obama but has advised the administration on mortgage and housing matters. Obama had hired another former Fannie CEO, Jim Johnson as a member of Obama’s V.P. search committee and who was forced to quit under fire.
Bloomberg News -
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis -
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
There is plenty of blame to go around to but to deny Democrats offering tax money to back banks giving risky loans was part of the problem is pure partisanship.
Yes, the rich got richer but to ignore the Democrats who voted for legislation over the years using tax payer dollars to back risky bank loans is partisan blindness.I tend to follow the money
The blame goes to those who were speculating on an inflated real estate market while a complicit government looked the other way
I doubt many poor people were making a fortune during the real estate bubble
The free market operates flawlessly.
The free market operates flawlessly.
How can anyone take what this guy seriously after an insane statement like that? You know you aren't dealing with a thinking person in touch with reality. It's like a lefty saying something like "government operates flawlessly". You know no one is home and the winger-talk-radio was left on loud.
