Warren: Student Loans Should Have Same Rate Big Banks Get

[Nbadan]

I want this documented...on this date May 8th 2013....Elizabeth Warren is the greatest threat to a Clinton 2016 presidency....

Source: Huffington Post


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.

With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.

"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."

The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/elizabeth-warren-student-loans_n_3240407.html


Barring some sort of Weiner scandal, could we be seeing Hillary-Warren ticket in 2016? Hillary better think about it...

[TSA]

I want this documented...on this date May 8th 2013....Elizabeth Warren is the greatest threat to a Clinton 2016 presidency....

Source: Huffington Post



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/elizabeth-warren-student-loans_n_3240407.html


Barring some sort of Weiner scandal, could we be seeing Hillary-Warren ticket in 2016? Hillary better think about it...That'd be a damn welcome break after the 60,000 in student loans I am currently paying off.

[baseline bum]

Biden is a way bigger threat to that stupid Clinton kunt.

[The Reckoning]

does that include loans already owed????

[TSA]

does that include loans already owed????That is what I was hoping for. If not, fuck em all. Same rates as me. :lol

[The Reckoning]

imagine how many votes theyd get if it included all federal student loans currently owed.

[baseline bum]

does that include loans already owed????

What does it matter? :lol

Nothing for the people ever makes it through Congress, unless it's for the boomers tbh.

[The Reckoning]

time to expat and declare bankruptcy :lol fuck the system

[symple19]

Great idea that will never happen, but also something she can point to come election time. (Which could be the real impetus behind the bill)

[Wild Cobra]

Fuck that.

If we return to the education schools of 50 years ago had, so many jobs could be filled by HS grads.

[LnGrrrR]

Fuck that.

If we return to the education schools of 50 years ago had, so many jobs could be filled by HS grads.

And if dinosaurs were alive, I'd have to purchase dinosaur insurance for my car.

[boutons_deux]

lenders say the higher student interest rate is because students are higher risks, but most these loans are govt guaranteed (no risk), so the lenders are lying, full of bullshit, justifying imprisoning students in debt prison for decades to extract wealth from them.

[spursncowboys]

So the bill makes banks give loans at a lower rate? Are they going to offset the difference or just make them lower their interest rates?
Is there a law already in place that banks have to accept loans for college?

[boutons_deux]

So the bill makes banks give loans at a lower rate? Are they going to offset the difference or just make them lower their interest rates?
Is there a law already in place that banks have to accept loans for college?

the lenders (financial sector), as we see in the housing fraud disaster ripoff, won't budge in any way that is significantly helpful to education debtors. They've booked the (toxic) student loans as revenue, just as they booked toxic mortgages as revenue. They won't change their books.

[boutons_deux]

Policymakers Take Action To Combat The Student Debt Crisis (http://thinkprogress.org/education/2013/05/09/1986511/elizabeth-warren-cfpb-student-debt/)


Total outstanding student debt has climbed past $1 trillion, more than total credit card debt, and a record number of people carry that debt (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/27/921441/record-student-loan-debt/), with the average load standing at $26,000, double what it was in 1995. Meanwhile, the rates on federal Stafford loans are set to double this summer from 3.4 to 6.8 percent.

On Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced her first standalone bill (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/elizabeth-warren-reignites-student-loan-interest-rate-battle.php) to address the interest rate hike. In a speech from the floor introducing the bill, she pointed out that banks get access to loans through the Federal Reserve discount window with interest rates at about 0.75 percent. If the government can afford to lend money at that rate to banks, she argued, it should be able to afford to do so to college students who are getting an education and learning skills, which benefits all of us in the long run:

Warren is not the only one looking to take action on the student debt crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a set of proposals on Wednesday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/cfpb-lays-out-options-for-repayment-of-private-student-loans/2013/05/08/7022466c-b7f1-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html) to ease the repayment of private student loans, which usually have higher interest rates and fewer protections than federal loans. It suggested that borrowers who pay on time be allowed to refinance to lower interest rates and that those who fall behind on payments have access to income-based repayment plans. It also urged policymakers to allow the holders of private loans to enter rehabilitation programs to help borrowers exit default and repair their credit that are available to those who have federal loans.


Help could not come too soon. The first three months of this year saw record numbers of Americans defaulting on their student loans (http://thinkprogress.org/education/2013/03/28/1791261/first-three-months-of-2013-were-worst-on-record-for-student-loan-defaults/), with 6.8 million federal student loan borrowers in default.

And the debt load that hangs over many young graduates has ramifications for the larger economy: Their homeownership rates have plummeted (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/16/1873391/student-debt-housing-market/), as many can’t qualify for mortgages (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/05/796421/report-student-debt-housing-recovery/) or afford the high down payments. In fact, the money spent on paying back student loans could instead be used to buy 155,413 homes (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/05/06/1968041/money-spent-on-paying-back-student-loans-could-buy-155000-new-homes/). Without such a burden, graduates might instead be able to help push along the housing recovery.

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2013/05/09/1986511/elizabeth-warren-cfpb-student-debt/

My bet is that the Repugs will OBSTRUCT any attempt at relief for borrowers.

[mercos]

Great idea, which means it has 0% chance of going anywhere. Hell, Congress is already trying to roll back the weak regulations they put on banks back in 2010. No way in hell they take any more shots at the banks in the near future.

[boutons_deux]

"Congress is already trying to roll back the weak regulations"

correction: not Congress, but Repugs.

[MannyIsGod]

Fuck that.

If we return to the education schools of 50 years ago had, so many jobs could be filled by HS grads.

Yeah, seriously. All we need is 1960s knowledge to develop the network engineers and biomedical professionals of the 2010s.

[MannyIsGod]

So the bill makes banks give loans at a lower rate? Are they going to offset the difference or just make them lower their interest rates?
Is there a law already in place that banks have to accept loans for college?

Banks do not give out government backed loans. The Dept of Ed does it directly now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Direct_Student_Loan_Program

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not in favor of this. Students are flat out a larger risk than the banks are which is why the interest rate is higher. Even if the government is the one handing out the loans (which are still at very low rates) no one can argue that a student is a larger risk. I might be in favor if they skew it toward certain degree plans: Mainly STEM degrees (although not all STEM equally). But frankly, I don't want to see extremely low interest loans made to students pursuing a degree in English, Psychology, or University Studies. Making it easier to get degrees that we are already graduating plenty for and do not reasonably help the nation going forward is not something I see a need for at all.

Honestly, this strikes me as really shitty political pandering that does not really address any current problem. Its a "hey look the banks are bad BUT I'M your friend" move to me. I don't really like it at all.

[Drachen]

lenders say the higher student interest rate is because students are higher risks, but most these loans are govt guaranteed (no risk), so the lenders are lying, full of bullshit, justifying imprisoning students in debt prison for decades to extract wealth from them.

There is only one lender now. The Dept. of Ed.

[MannyIsGod]

AFAIK you can still get a private student loan above and beyond what the Dept of Ed will give you but those are not backed by the government in any way shape or form.

[Drachen]

AFAIK you can still get a private student loan above and beyond what the Dept of Ed will give you but those are not backed by the government in any way shape or form.

That is right, plus those are not what this is referring to.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm not in favor of this. Students are flat out a larger risk than the banks are which is why the interest rate is higher. Even if the government is the one handing out the loans (which are still at very low rates) no one can argue that a student is a larger risk. I might be in favor if they skew it toward certain degree plans: Mainly STEM degrees (although not all STEM equally). But frankly, I don't want to see extremely low interest loans made to students pursuing a degree in English, Psychology, or University Studies. Making it easier to get degrees that we are already graduating plenty for and do not reasonably help the nation going forward is not something I see a need for at all.

Honestly, this strikes me as really shitty political pandering that does not really address any current problem. Its a "hey look the banks are bad BUT I'M your friend" move to me. I don't really like it at all.

:tu Agreed. It just seems like a program that would hurt just as many kids as it helps. For every graduate who benefits from lower interest rates on their student loans you probably end up with one or more who decides to take on a bunch of loans under the guise that the low interest rates make it affordable.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yeah, seriously. All we need is 1960s knowledge to develop the network engineers and biomedical professionals of the 2010s.

I don't think that's what WC meant. I agree with what WC said (assuming I interpreted it right), high school grads are completely useless now compared to the 50s/60s particularly in math/science related areas.

[boutons_deux]

There is only one lender now. The Dept. of Ed.

that's now, what about the $T before Barry de-privatized the Repug's privatization of student loans?

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not in favor of this. Students are flat out a larger risk than the banks are which is why the interest rate is higher. Even if the government is the one handing out the loans (which are still at very low rates) no one can argue that a student is a larger risk. I might be in favor if they skew it toward certain degree plans: Mainly STEM degrees (although not all STEM equally). But frankly, I don't want to see extremely low interest loans made to students pursuing a degree in English, Psychology, or University Studies. Making it easier to get degrees that we are already graduating plenty for and do not reasonably help the nation going forward is not something I see a need for at all.

Honestly, this strikes me as really shitty political pandering that does not really address any current problem. Its a "hey look the banks are bad BUT I'M your friend" move to me. I don't really like it at all.

Totally agree. And student loan interest rates are not bad considering they are totally unsecured. Hell, I'm doing a 500K loan that is completely 100% secured by real estate and the rate is 5.607%.

[Drachen]

Just sell stock in yourself.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/26/4031938/new-crowdfunding-platforms-let-you-sell-stock-in-yourself

[coyotes_geek]

Just sell stock in yourself.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/26/4031938/new-crowdfunding-platforms-let-you-sell-stock-in-yourself

:lol

Saw the guy who came up with this idea interviewed on Squawk Box a couple weeks ago.

[spursncowboys]

I'm not in favor of this. Students are flat out a larger risk than the banks are which is why the interest rate is higher. Even if the government is the one handing out the loans (which are still at very low rates) no one can argue that a student is a larger risk. I might be in favor if they skew it toward certain degree plans: Mainly STEM degrees (although not all STEM equally). But frankly, I don't want to see extremely low interest loans made to students pursuing a degree in English, Psychology, or University Studies. Making it easier to get degrees that we are already graduating plenty for and do not reasonably help the nation going forward is not something I see a need for at all.

Honestly, this strikes me as really shitty political pandering that does not really address any current problem. Its a "hey look the banks are bad BUT I'M your friend" move to me. I don't really like it at all.
Agreed. I think a seven year grace period interest free is a pretty good deal as is.

[Drachen]

Agreed. I think a seven year grace period interest free is a pretty good deal as is.

That would also be a pretty cool deal if they had it.

[Nbadan]

I'm not sure how some people here can claim that student loan debt isn't a problem..

Crushing student debt is not only killing dreams, it's hurting the broader economy.


The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is warning of the "potential domino effects" to the economy of high student debt. A just-released report from the consumer watchdog highlights the ways this debt can deplete savings, limit spending, and shape choices about a graduate's career path and where to live.

"College can open up many opportunities, and we do not want that college degree to become more of a burden than a blessing for those saddled with unmanageable debt in a tough employment market," said CFPB director Richard Cordray in a statement. "So we are concerned that unmanageable student loan debt may be harmful to recovering consumer markets and may be dragging down borrowers' lives."

The average amount of student loan debt for the Class of 2011 was $26,600, a 5 percent increase from approximately $25,350 in 2010, according to The Project on Student Debt.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100723709

[Jacob1983]

If liberals really want to stick to their guns on the whole taking from the rich to help the poor, then why not make rich people including hardcore liberals foot the bill on this shit? Let them pay for the student loan debt in America. Let's see if they are really true to the cause.

[spursncowboys]

That would also be a pretty cool deal if they had it.
Do they not?

[Drachen]

No interest accrues on the largest portion of it starting the moment that you take it out. The rest of it begins when you finish school

[Jacob1983]

College is a joke and scam in America. The same could be said for American society and culture. Sometimes, I'd honestly rather go live in a less populated but developed peaceful country than live in America.

[spursncowboys]

College is a joke and scam in America. The same could be said for American society and culture. Sometimes, I'd honestly rather go live in a less populated but developed peaceful country than live in America.
Bye

[Jacob1983]

You gonna pay for my plane ticket? A true tolerant and open minded liberal would foot the bill for an adventure out of America of my choosing.

[baseline bum]

Take the Greyhound down to Key West and then make a raft to get down to Habana. You won't get a good job there either, but at least you might lose your virginity since Cuban bitches are horny as shit.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why is Jacob lashing out at snc and accusing him of being a liberal?

[boutons_deux]

"If liberals really want .... taking from the rich to help the poor"

typical right winger, you have that backwards.

the 1% games the system, including moving business, profit-driven business managers into non-profit universities and running outright scams like for-profit shit like Kaplan, Phoenix, set up for=profit K-12 charters, to extract wealth from, impoverish the 99%.

[Jacob1983]

For the record, I believe both Republicans and Democrats steal from the poor to give to the rich. They're equally responsible. I was only calling out liberals because they are supposed to be tolerant, open minded, and about equality. They are also supposed to support Robin Hood and taking money from rich people to help poor people. If you claim to be a liberal but don't support Robin Hood, then you're a hypocrite.

[boutons_deux]

The 1% will game the system, independent of politics. It's not left vs right, it's 1% vs 99%

[Jacob1983]

Maybe so but can't you agree that both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed America?

[boutons_deux]

Maybe so but can't you agree that both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed America?

The VRWC/Repugs have actively fucked up America, while the Dems have passively allowed it to happen.

Bank regulation and Obamacare are progressive moves by the Dems for the 99%, but the Repugs are insistently gutting or killing both. Same with immigration reform. And probably the same with tax reform.

I simply don't buy that the Repugs and Dems EQUALLY share responsibility. You right wingers defend the Repugs by saying the Dems are just as bad (some defense!), but it simply ain't true.

[boutons_deux]

House Passes Student Loan Bill, Setting Up Showdown

The House on Thursday passed legislation to head off a doubling of student loan interest rates on July 1, instead tying rates to prevailing market trends and ending federal subsidies.

The bill, which passed 221 to 198, kicks off what is sure to be the next fierce showdown between House Republicans, Senate Democrats and President Obama, with a hard deadline looming in little more than a month. Republicans said they had a long-term plan that would get the government out of the business of setting interest rates.

“What the House is doing today is a responsible way to deal honestly with the issue of student loans,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio. “Can somebody politicize this on the other side of the aisle? Certainly they can.”

Democrats said House leaders were intent on raising the cost of already onerous student debt.

“It’s really stunning,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader.

At stake is a subsidized loan rate of 3.4 percent for more than 7.4 million students with Federal Direct Stafford Loans. That rate would jump to 6.8 percent if Congress fails to act; Democrats set the lower rate before Republicans swept to control of the House in 2011. Last June, Republicans buckled under political pressure and extended the subsidized rate for one year, just two days before its expiration.

This time, Republican leaders insist they will hold firm, but they face Senate Democrats who are dead set against their approach as well as a threatened White House veto.

“Who’s going to set interest rates, politicians here or the markets?” asked Representative John Kline, Republican of Minnesota, chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The House bill would allow student lending rates to reset each year, based on the interest rate of a 10-year Treasury note, plus 2.5 percentage points for Stafford loans. The Congressional Budget Office projected rates on Stafford loans would rise to 5 percent in 2014 and 7.7 percent in 2023. Under the legislation, Stafford loans would be capped at 8.5 percent, while loans for parents and graduate students would have a 10.5 percent cap.

Senate Democrats want to extend the current, subsidized rate for at least two years. The cost to the federal government, several billion dollars, would be covered by closing tax loopholes, said Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York and one of the Senate bills’ primary sponsors. Ms. Gillibrand would go further, allowing graduates with higher interest-rate loans to refinance at a subsidized 4 percent rate.

But President Obama has a different proposal that would fall somewhere between the House and Senate bills. He, too, would set student lending rates each year based on Treasury’s borrowing costs, but those rates would be fixed for the life of the loan, not reset each year. He would also cap student-borrowing costs at 10 percent of a student’s income.

The White House proposal has divided Democrats and given Republicans some hope that a negotiated solution can be reached in June. Ms. Gillibrand said the income cap should be set at 5 percent, and she still opposes setting rates by market forces, even if those rates are not allowed to fluctuate, as the president has proposed.

“The reason why the federal government has made the decision to subsidize education is because getting a college education is the gateway to the middle class,” Ms. Gillibrand said. “If you want to create a growing economy and to create long-term investment in our future, that means investing in our kids.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/house-passes-student-loan-bill-setting-up-showdown.html?from=homepage

[CosmicCowboy]

Maybe so but can't you agree that both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed America?

No, it's dumbasses like you that are destroying America.

So have you defaulted on your student loans yet?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

No, it's dumbasses like you that are destroying America.

:lmao something we agree on

[CosmicCowboy]

I have a niece that has been living for seven years now on student loans. Tuition, rent, food, gas, booze...the whole nine yards. Supported a worthless boyfriend that didn't work. Still a couple of years away from graduating with an associates degree. The system could definitely use some controls to keep stupid people from doing stupid things with student loans.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Student loan interest/limits should be somewhat based off someone's GPA/major/etc.. A political science major with a 2.5 GPA is a much higher credit risk than a petroleum engineering major with a 3.5 GPA.

[CosmicCowboy]

Student loan interest/limits should be somewhat based off someone's GPA/major/etc.. A political science major with a 2.5 GPA is a much higher credit risk than a petroleum engineering major with a 3.5 GPA.

X2

Liberals that disagree could start their own 501(c)3 to fund the liberal arts losers.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

X2

Liberals that disagree could start their own 501(c)3 to fund the liberal arts losers.
Yeah imo someone taking out 100k in debt for a liberal arts degree at a private school shouldn't even be a partisan issue, it's a common sense issue as something that both liberals and conservatives should try to stop.

The counter argument I hear a lot is, "If everyone was an engineering/math/technical major then we'd have the same problem with them fighting over a select few jobs!" which is a bridge we're nowhere near having to cross at least from personal experience. I've gotten at least 10 calls in the last months for accounting/finance related jobs from employers who somehow got my resume. Most of them were pretty mediocre entry level finance jobs I'd never take, but the point is the job market is still starved for college grads with actual technical/analytical skills.

[MannyIsGod]

Things have gotten tougher for everyone - and that includes STEM type majors - but STEM majors are still in much better positions than most people.

[Jacob1983]

Where is my handout, hypocritical liberals and war mongering neo-cons? Anyways, I had success with the IBR and got it applied to some of my loans which was nice and it's one of the few times I will give props to Obama.

[boutons_deux]

5 Ways Student Loans Hurt Middle-Class Kids
1. The $51 billion heist. As Washington prepares for another epic battle over keeping federal student loan rates at 3.4 percent rather than allowing them to double to 6.8 percent, an important fact goes overlooked: Federal student loans are already a significant profit center (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/obama-student-loans-policy-profit_n_3276428.html) for the feds. Indeed, these loans earn Uncle Sam some 36 cents for every dollar it puts out. Bottom line: the government will reap $51 billion in profit in 2013 alone.

So instead of arguing for weeks over whether we should hold the line on federal student loan interest rates, perhaps the debate is better focused on how we might cut them to a level sufficient to cover administrative costs and provide a slight cushion. That should help to make college more affordable for the middle class.


2. Student loans fund tuition inflation. Average college debt has grown from $9,188 in 1993 to $35,200 now.

Here's the dirty little secret why colleges and universities charge so much: Because they can. Their operating budgets are funded largely by student loans, which are repaid by students themselves. So why not pay your college president $3 million a year, spend $194 million to build or renovate a football stadium or "invest" $70 million in a pool?

Experts have suggested a panoply of solutions, including capping the maximum loan amount available to people who plan to pursue low-paying majors such as art history, or making student loans pay for education only, and not facilities like dorms, arenas or sports stadiums. (Credit.com contributor Mitchell Weiss explores more ideas along these lines (http://blog.credit.com/2013/05/higher-ed-overhaul-sell-the-buildings-lease-the-land/?utm_source=huffpo&utm_medium=content&utm_content=IB_3&utm_campaign=middle_class_students).)

Whatever the solution, we have to stop this crazy cycle before it shuts the middle class out of college entirely.

3. Till death do us part...really! You can never shake student loans, because unlike other types of loans they cannot be discharged in bankruptcy (http://blog.credit.com/2013/03/do-we-need-to-change-bankruptcy-rules-for-student-loans/?utm_source=huffpo&utm_medium=content&utm_content=IB_4&utm_campaign=middle_class_students) (with a few rare exceptions). It doesn't matter if you get laid off, are financially devastated by the illness or death of the family breadwinner or take up residence in your car. Student lenders will hound you until your last breath or they are repaid, whichever comes first.

This change to the bankruptcy laws was originally conceived to protect taxpayers, who otherwise would be on the hook if (and when) borrowers default on federal loans. After years of aggressive lobbying, private lenders eventually won the same benefit, i.e., they have the same risk of not getting repaid: Essentially zero. Yet they still charge a premium.

In addition to being a Credit.com contributor, Weiss is a finance professor at University of Hartford and says he regularly counsels students whose private loans (http://blog.credit.com/2013/04/trying-to-renegotiate-150000-in-student-loan-debt/?utm_source=huffpo&utm_medium=content&utm_content=IB_5&utm_campaign=middle_class_students) boast 12 percent or 15 percent interest rates. The same loan from the government costs a quarter of the price.

It's the cornerstone of credit that interest rates are based on risk: the higher the risk that a borrower won't pay a debt, the higher his or her interest rate. Private lenders flout this rule, pumping more money into the higher education system and driving tuition inflation.

Maybe it's time for private lenders to play by the rules. Lending means risk. If they are unwilling to accept that risk, perhaps they should open a chain of newsstands.

4. Limited tax benefit. When you get a mortgage, the federal government allows you to deduct the interest on your taxes to help incentivize homeownership. Having a well-educated population is no less important to our nation's future than buying a house. We should demand that student loans get the same tax treatment.

Currently, only people who earn below $75,000 can write off a portion of their student loan interest. That's a problem. If you graduated from an expensive school, you may owe $100,000 or more in student debt -- as much as many mortgages. But even if you get a good-paying job, you could face a crippling student loan payment every month. It's a slippery slope from there to a tepid economy, because if all of your money is going to pay rent and service student loan debt, you're not going to be in a position to buy a house, a car, and/or all the other things that put "consumer" into our consumer economy.

Let's change this, and give student loans the same tax benefits that apply to mortgages.

5. Forbearance = Tightening the Screws. Many people who are having trouble paying their student loans mistakenly assume that forbearance is just another word for free. Weiss says he works with students all the time who believe all they have to do is fill out a form, and their payments magically go away.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-levin/5-ways-student-loans-hurt_b_3328124.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=052413&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

[Rick Santorum]

Where is my handout, hypocritical liberals and war mongering neo-cons? Anyways, I had success with the IBR and got it applied to some of my loans which was nice and it's one of the few times I will give props to Obama.
I think you just answered your own question as to where your handouts are.

[boutons_deux]

Where is my handout, hypocritical liberals and war mongering neo-cons? Anyways, I had success with the IBR and got it applied to some of my loans which was nice and it's one of the few times I will give props to Obama.

Barry didn't make the loan, he didn't take it out, and he's not working for the loan servicers/collection agencies. GFY

[Ignignokt]

This is a stupid idea. This will worsen the tuition bubble, and we shouldn't give low interest rates to high risk people, that's stupid. There needs to be a market correction in the college market so that tuition can come down and we can see more reasonable lending practices.

[Ignignokt]

We should just eliminate interest rates and have the minimum wage at 25/hr. That will stick it to the rich!!!!

[rascal]

College is a joke and scam in America. The same could be said for American society and culture. Sometimes, I'd honestly rather go live in a less populated but developed peaceful country than live in America.

I'd rather live in Switzerland.

[boutons_deux]

This is a stupid idea. This will worsen the tuition bubble, and we shouldn't give low interest rates to high risk people, that's stupid. There needs to be a market correction in the college market so that tuition can come down and we can see more reasonable lending practices.

There's about $1T in student loans right now, they cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, not EVER (thanks to dubya's Repug Congress), very high unemployment in the post-college 21-30 segment. About 1/2 of young people with a degree who are working are in jobs that don't require a degree, aka, underemployed.

Tell us how your "correction" works.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

public education k-12 is free because of the societal benefit there is. a well educated workforce helps society as a whole including the retiring fucks that don't want to pay for anything.

[angrydude]

Student loan debt is bigger than the sub prime market was

You know what the correction will be? More wall street banks going down in flames. Not that that is a bad thing but it will fuck up the economy in the short term if it would be allowed to happen. Which it won't. Instead the fed will just print some more money. Then interest rates will rise and the us won't be able to service its debt. Or they won't rise and the dollar will be worthless.

[boutons_deux]

Elizabeth Warren's QE for Students: Populist Demagoguery or Economic Breakthrough?

Warren and her co-sponsor John Tierney propose that students be allowed to borrow directly from the government at the same rate that banks get from the Federal Reserve — 0.75 percent. They argue (http://billmoyers.com/groupthink/what-to-do-about-student-loans/the-bank-on-students-loan-fairness-act/):

Some people say that we can’t afford low interest rates for students. But the federal government offers far lower rates on loans every single day — they just don’t do it for everyone. Right now, a bank can get a loan through the Federal Reserve discount window at a rate of less than one percent. The same big banks that destroyed millions of jobs and broke our economy can borrow at about 0.75 percent, while our students will be paying nine times as much as of July 1.

This is not fair. And it’s not necessary, either. The federal government makes 36 cents on every dollar it lends to students. Just last week, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the government will make $51 billion on the student loans it issued this year — more than the annual profit of any Fortune 500 company, and about five times Google’s yearly earnings. We should not be profiting from students who are drowning in debt while we are giving great deals to big banks.


The Fed bought over $1 trillion in “toxic” mortgage-backed securities in QE 1, and reportedly turned a profit on them. It could just as easily buy $1 trillion in student debt and refinance it at 0.75%.


Which Is a Better Investment, Banks or Students?

Students are considered risky investments because they don’t own valuable assets against which the debt can be collected. But this argument overlooks the fact that these young trainees are assets themselves. They represent an investment in “human capital” that can pay for itself many times over, if properly supported and developed. This was demonstrated in the 1940s with the G.I. Bill, which provided free technical training and educational support for nearly 16 million returning servicemen, along with government-subsidized loans and unemployment benefits. The outlay not only paid for itself but returned a substantial profit to the government and significant stimulus to the economy. It made higher education accessible to all and created a nation of homeowners, new technology, new products, and new companies, with the Veterans Administration guaranteeing an estimated 53,000 business loans. Economists have determined that for every 1944 dollar invested, the country received approximately $7 in return (http://www.columbiatribune.com/business/saturday_business/gi-bill-created-generation-of-business-leaders/article_24848d9f-9988-58a0-9691-f633304028c8.html), through increased economic productivity, consumer spending, and tax revenues.

Similarly in the 1930s and 1940s, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation funded the New Deal and World War II (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/2006_10-19/2006-11/pdf/48-59_611_eco.pdf) and wound up turning a profit, without drawing on taxpayer funds. It’s an initial capitalization was only $500 million; yet the RFC eventually lent out $50 billion – the equivalent of about $500 billion today. It raised money by issuing debentures, a form of bond. It got all of this money back, made a profit for the government, and left a legacy of roads, bridges, dams, post offices, universities, electrical power, mortgages, farms, and much more that the country did not have before.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/17019-elizabeth-warrens-qe-for-students-populist-demagoguery-or-economic-breakthrough

[Winehole23]

Fifty-eight percent of likely Massachusetts voters said they don’t think Warren should run for president, according to a Suffolk University Political Research Center/Boston Globe poll.https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/09/20/elizabeth-warren-for-president-new-survey-shows-mass-voters-don-love-that-idea/eRMzdOVBxe2Bc0Jxk1v9nK/story.html

[DMC]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/09/20/elizabeth-warren-for-president-new-survey-shows-mass-voters-don-love-that-idea/eRMzdOVBxe2Bc0Jxk1v9nK/story.html


you guys are like baby birds, always dependent upon another stomach to digest your dinner.


:lol

[Winehole23]

Warren positioning herself for a 2020 run for president is newsworthy, so is the unpopularity of such a move in her home state.

[spurraider21]

1121058539634593794

[boutons_deux]

"That is what we are going to change."

nope, not gonna change, even if Dems take Congress and the WH. Too much damage, for too many decades.

The oligarchy, not the people, is the supreme power now and for forseeable future.