Slashdot Mirror
GOP Blocks Senate Debate On Dem Student Loan Bill
TheGift73 writes with this quote from an AP report:
"Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic bill Tuesday to preserve low interest rates for millions of college students' loans, as the two parties engaged in election-year choreography aimed at showing each is the better protector of families in today's rugged economy. The 52-45 vote to begin debating the legislation fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to proceed and stalled work on an effort both parties expect will ultimately produce a compromise, probably soon. For now, each side is happy to use the stalemate to snipe at the other with campaign-ready talking points while they are gridlocked over how to cover the $6 billion cost."
It is funny how many bills he tries to bluff through Congress. This and the millionaires tax are something the republicans are going to torpedo, but in the process, they make republicans look like they hate the small guy. Both parties are against the small guy, but public portrayal of Democrats helping the poor is the old school image that could help them in today's economy too.
God spoke to me
The Repubs look like the losers for putting it to the little guys. The Dems look like losers for continuing to support increased spending.
And of course we are the losers because were' stuck with both of them.
Why don't these students just ask their parents for money?
--M.R.
If either side really wanted to offer better protection for families, they'd kill student loans altogether. This would make education prohibitively expensive at going rates, and immediately pop the education cost bubble.
You can get better education, free or nearly free, in most of Europe, and yet the US youth just sits there, saddling itself with gazillions in student loan debt -- all of which it cannot default on, because it belongs to uncle Sam himself. Shudder...
Lets keep artificially inflating the cost of university education by subsidizing more gender studies majors!
Personally I am quite happy to halve the expense and just study one gender,
Republicans seem to vote against anything that Democrats propose. I'm 50 and I've never seen this in my entire life. Republicans either get every single thing they want or they hold their breath until they get their way. Without compromise there is no government only gridlock. If compromise is dead how are we different from every other banana republic out there? We used to rule from the middle but now we get our choice of extremes. Either the extreme right wing get their way or they threaten to bring the country to it's knees. They only amount to at the most a third of the citizens so since when do a third of the people call themselves a majority and demand we all obey them???? I don't like the Democrats but the right wing Republicans scare the hell out of me. The right wing and rich stole half the country during Bush 42's rule and now they are demanding the rest. If the rich get their way you better get used to a system that resembles feudal England. We'll all end up working for our rich masters. Don't believe me then in 50 years I dare you to tell me I'm wrong. In the last 10 years the rich got a LOT richer and the rest of us are struggling. The Republicans call it trickle down economics but I call it pissing down my neck and calling it rain!
Why did the price of housing go up and up? Sub prime loans. you can blame wall street for making it worse but the prices were ticking up for years before wall street got involved. The prices started going up with the cheap government loans.
What we can see from the universities that they're responding in the same way. The more you increase the loans the more the tuition goes up. The only way to bring tuition prices down is to reduce the amount of money that can be spent on education.
It's not like the universities are not going to fill seats. They have class rooms and teachers that cost them money regardless of how many students they have... so if you reduce what can be spent on education rather then causing kids not to get educations it will probably cause prices to come down.
Furthermore, the US is giving national tuition rates to foreign students. That's US tax dollars paying for someone's education that isn't even a citizen and isn't likely to stay. So what exactly is the point?
I don't know... I have a lot of problems with the current way we finance tuition. They're the only loans you can't escape by declaring bankruptcy and that strikes me as wrong. There is no legal obligation that you shouldn't be able to escape by declaring bankruptcy. Everything from child support to a student loan. And I know what people are saying, lowlifes will just ditch their obligations. Yes they will. Which is why you don't loan lowlifes money in the first place. As to single mothers getting screwed out of alimony... well, it's a reason to make your separations demands reasonable. If the alimony is so high that it becomes in his interest to declare bankruptcy then you're asking for too much. Pointblank.
Just a little house cleaning and a lot of these problems will go away.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Many moons ago, someone posted something like this here on Slashdot:
Dems - want a European type of capitalist/socialist type of economy with plenty of entitlement programs with the taxation to go with it.
Reps - want to turn the US into a Third World Shithole where you have 99% poor slobs with a 1% super wealthy fat cats with all the power.
It's pretty obvious who's winning contrary to what the Talk Radio and Fox News people say.
Does it have to be one or the other? I don't know. But if it does, I'll take the European model any day because I just don't have the connections to become a 1%'er.
And if one is naive enough to believe that all they need to do is work hard and they'll be a 1%'er; well, good luck with that.
This will not make any difference to those, who are getting the student loans, not at all.
In fact with the latest developments that the student loans are forgiven in 15 to 20 years and that the monthly payments cannot exceed 10% of so called 'discretionary spending', which starts at the yearly amount exceeding 2 minimum 'poverty levels' ($16,000 per person or abou 35K for a family of 4), it means that a person making 50K a year will have to pay maximum of 10% of (50K-32K) per year, or $150/month for 15 to 20 years. If the person makes 100K/year, this goes up to maximum of $567/month.
If the person gets a loan of 100K, just to pay the principal for a person earning 50K /year, it would take 666 month or 55 YEARS, and that's only principal, at that point the interest rates absolutely does not matter, because he'll stop paying after 15-20 years, so he'd pay less than half of just principle out in that time, the interest rate does not matter.
This is political nonsense, not reality, what is happening in gov't, the reality would include realisation that gov't shouldn't be in business providing any loans to anybody in the first place, so that with the decreased fake demand, the number of students would drop off and prices would go down dramatically.
Why is it a good thing for the number of students to drop off? Because how many students take these loans, adding to the national debt, while not working, adding to the national deficit, requiring this money to be printed or borrowed (and the real interest rates WILL go up eventually, and there is already over $1T of unpaid student debt out there). The huge numbers of students are only going to the colleges to get worthless sociology and literature degrees, or go into law, etc.
They shouldn't be paid to do that in the first place, who in their right mind would give a loan to a USA student going to major in sociology? WOULD YOU?
If you wouldn't personally, why would you want the entire system to do that?
Besides, rather than creating this false demand and forcing debt on the people, creating all this debt and worsening deficit, it would better for those very students to enter the workforce much sooner and without debt they'd be better off anyway.
Of-course the political elite on the left want to create this 'popular issue', which really only makes the situation for the students worse, and simultaneously this artificially decreases the work participation rate and thus artificially decreases the unemployment rate, so these student loans are handed out for political propaganda. OTOH the colleges and universities etc., are getting a sweet deal - huge numbers of gov't backed students, who don't actually CARE about the cost of education, as long as they get whatever loans is given to them, and those who can do basic math realise that it's in their best interest to go to the most expensive school.
In fact schools need to start including things in their curriculum that are as expensive as possible - how about trips all over the world as part of 'classes'? How about buying every student a house and an expensive car and all the furniture, electronics and clothing they want? Why not? If the system is on the hook for it and the students are capped at how much they will have to pay back anyway, it only makes sense, right?
Nobody sees this for what it is.
You can't handle the truth.
You'd be surprised how many people quickly turn from Dem to Rep once they're out of college and into the real world and have to pay taxes for all of the idealistic things they supported while in college.
Let's consider what college now means for many millennials:
1) Get a degree with minimal job applicability.
2) Go tens of thousands in dollars into debt to get it.
3) Get a job that requires no more skills than the degree imparted (and that pays ~$10/hour or less)
4) Find out that the federal government and private lenders put in all sorts of riders ranging from rising costs of holding the debt, to "we can arrest you if you are delinquent on your federal loan."
Anyone advocating making it easier to fall into the student loan trap is morally analogous to a drug dealer.
That's what you get for losing perspective on what is politically extreme and what isn't in the US.
A bunch of right wing extremists, who are spectacularly successful, because they've succeeded in making themselves look far more moderate and acceptable than they really are.
The U.S is deeply divided into two opposing camps, and the media encourage this by playing the two parties off like football teams.
Your party is not always right. The other party is not always wrong. Politics should not be a "my team's better than yours" shouting match.
I'm European. We used to have free college. A lot of my former colleagues are against free education.
They don't like to spend the money they make, on their nice jobs, that they got because they have a degree, that they got because of free education.
But now they have kids and the financial crisis is eating away on their salaries. They like free education again. But it's too late. Education has become a business, and a very, very lucrative one. It's gonna be hard to turn this back again.
Funny how politicians and corporations can manipulate people's lowest sentiments, like greed, so easily to turn them against their own interests. People are so fucking stupid.
So you say people become Republicans when money becomes more important to them than their ideals?
That is called greed.
It's been around forever. Humanity in general is a bunch fo selfish greedy pricks, and when given the opportunity, many will complain about paying to help others.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
ROTFL. Of course, this is a lie. The Republicans are not that crazy.
Ive been hearing republicans spouting that tired line since I was a child. The reality is that i havent been paying any higher taxes with Obama in office than I did with Bush.
And since the housing bubble/CDO explosion took place under the last Republican's watch, and he only had the decency to warn the American public shortly before he was out of office, it is going to be a long time before I want another Republican in charge.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Anecdotally, everyone I know from college still has the same political leanings they had.
More importantly, we're fooling ourselves to think the differences between the DNC and RNC are how much money they spend.
Well, if you can get a loan of any size that is capped either in absolute years of payment or only as a percentage of your earnings or both (as is the case here), then it makes absolute sense to get the biggest loan possible and to use it for all sorts of purposes that have nothing to do with education.
Why not buy yourself a house? You are already graduating with a mortgage anyway. Why not buy yourself a business? Then you can make the monthly payments without any problems at all.
Basically any sort of price control or wage control or interest rate control (which is price control on money) or any other artificial limitation only sets a level, above or below which weird things can then happen that were not anticipated (or were, but people didn't care).
Minimum wage, as an example, creates a bottom, below which people can't find work and below which it isn't possible to create jobs. At the same time it sets a bottom to the prices of goods and services that rely on the jobs at those levels.
With maximum interest rates, it absolutely makes sense to get loans that are huge and that can be used to make a spread, as the banks are doing right now - 'borrowing' from the Fed at 0% and 'lending' to the Treasury at 2-4%, so this makes a nice spread - easy money, but below the surface these banks are insolvent the moment real interest rates go above 2-4% and the Treasury is bankrupt as well, and the Fed obviously too (which can't in practice be bankrupt, but they can cause inflation and hyperinflation in worst case scenario).
Basically all wage and price controls create artificial consequences where there will be abuse, naturally, which is only to be expected, but somehow "nobody could see it coming", which is political nonsense of-course.
You can't handle the truth.
the loan forgiveness only applies to federal student loans.
- and this story only applies to the Senate and federally backed loans.
Second, the bank-supplied loans in particular are notorious for being cruel to those who took out the money.
- that's a nonsense statement, it has nothing to do with how banks operate. They operate within the limits created by the system, and the system allows them to give out loans with free money the banks get from the Fed and the system 'insures' these loans. There should be no surprise that banks use this to the maximum logical conclusion, it's not free market that operates here.
Interest rates are free to change at a moment's notice and some people have seen double-digit interest rate increases in single years.
- ah, but the US government and the Federal reserve cannot at this point allow the interest rates to go up, it will be politically difficult as the US economy would implode. So the artificial interest rates will be kept low in US dollars by the Fed printing all the money to buy all of the debt (and that is what is happening right now, the Fed is buying all new Treasury debt).
The REAL interest rates are already very high, that is exactly why nobody can actually get access to real investment capital through banks, the real interest rates that come out of real savings are extremely high, high double digits, maybe higher than triple digits, that's because there are no real savings and investments available with all this fake stuff going on.
Yes, I would. And I would wager that in reality, you would as well
- that's because you don't understand economics.
Providing loans to US students is exactly the same as providing loans to US housing market or buying US bonds or buying stocks in most US companies or buying State bonds or buying US municipal bonds, etc.
Why is that you ask? It's because all US debt now is the same, everything is on the US Treasury and Federal reserve, there is NO difference in buying US Treasury debt or US housing debt or US education debt, it all is the same stuff.
Who in their right mind wants to buy long term US debt? You think you can buy US bonds and save for your retirement decades from now? You think with the real negative rates of return and the Fed creating all this inflation you will be making money holding long term US debt?
See, dumb_register, that's why we are different - I can add.
You can't handle the truth.
Remember when Obama & the Dems wanted to let some of the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and they feverishly argued that it wasn't a tax increase, it was a return the the "normal" rate, that the law included a sunset for a reason?
Then remember when letting the rest of the Bush Tax Cuts expire was an unconcionable burden to place on working Americans?
These student loan rate cuts (passed while Bush was President, which makes me wonder why they aren't referred to as the Bush Student Loan Cuts, but I digress) went into law with a 5 year life, put there by the Democrats with the explicit purpose of expiring a few months before the 2012 Presidential election. Furthermore, President Obama submitted a budget proposal a couple months ago that let the student loan rate cut expire - why would he do that?
Finally, people are starting to warn that we have a "lost generation" - the current generation graduating from college and going years before finding work in their field of study - seems to me the President is trying to buy them off, hoping they won't notice the lack ofopportunities available to them...
Ken
Of course not everyone's upbringing is net subsidized. Accounting for how much paid in versus paid out is a zero sum game. But here's an interesting little bit: taxes pay for civilization. Civilization advances the entire social group. In other words, taxes provide more long-term benefits than you can get from not paying taxes. Yes, someone will receive less than they pay in. Congratulations, you discovered the cost of living in a society, where burdens are shared, and some pay more than others.
Really? Is this concept so fucking hard to understand? What the hell did you do in social studies, civics class or even history
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Oh? I've become more liberal since college and am willing to pay higher taxes to support said things.
Maybe that's a tired old cliche and it's not as true as you'd like to think.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Oh, also what's funny is what you said here:
if big business was actually buying regulation
- now that's hilarious.
40,000 new laws became laws in the beginning of 2012, who do you think write them? Government and big businesses are merged together tightly, they are creating all sorts of legislation together, because that's how they 'compete', by destroying any competition before it happens.
While Glass Steagall was ONE law, that was repealed, about 15000 NEW banking and finance laws were introduced in USA during Bush era. All of those are aimed at making sure that competition is impossible, that the existing monopolies are stronger and can get deeper into your pockets.
What is EXTREMELY HILARIOUS (very funny, just mind-numbingly funny) to me is that people think government is something that they control and that works for them and that's why they think it's a good thing and they want more of it.
This is just too amazing for me even to try and understand how much ignorance there is among the general public about this.
You can't handle the truth.
I am not familiar with this strange new definition of freedom you offer, where more power is concentrated in the hands of fewer people
Non sequiturs are irrelevant, by definition.
Calling a direct response non sequitur is itself non sequitur, at best.
Or you don't have a clue what a free market is
I am well aware of what a free market is.
could you at least learn the actual definitions of phrases, not what Big Brother claims?
That statement of yours is non sequitur to be kind, though to be more accurate it is complete bullshit. This has nothing to do with "Big Brother" or whatever you might think that phrase means.
There's no slavery, bondage, or war. It's just a market.
The market itself does not enslave, however the people who exploit it do. When you have a completely unregulated market, power will inevitably concentrate in the hands of those who are most adept at exploiting it. As a result a great number of people will be oppressed by the market because that is what those at the top need in order to retain their profit and power.
A free market creates great opportunity for a very small number of people, and results in the oppression of opportunity for the vast majority of the rest. There is no other way that a free market can work, any student of history can tell you that.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It means "does not follow" and refers to any argument
And when you use it as an excuse to not respond to a comment that was a direct response to something you said, you are using the term non sequitur in a non sequitur fashion.
I speak of free markets and you speak of completely unrelated stuff.
No, I am speaking of the consequences of a free market. It is directly related to the free markets of which you wish you speak. Just because you don't want to discuss the consequences of a free market - which is what I was discussing before you inserted yourself in to the conversation - doesn't mean that they are "completely unrelated stuff".
And trades happen because the trade is better than what the traders had. It's voluntary and mutually agreeable. So right there, we have a bunch of net positive actions among the many "oppressed", who use the market to their advantage.
You are discussing only the trade on the terms of those who are most directly involved in the trade. However in a completely unregulated free market there are many who are affected by the trade yet have no role in its terms. That is where the oppression and exploitation come from, when the people with the power to make the trading decisions are making decisions only for their own benefit, passing harm down to those who lack power.
A decent example of a working market that is fairly free is the stock market. It's worked well for centuries. Sure, there are bubble/crashes and other manifestations of social hysteria, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't deliver value to the majority of its participants. What it does mean, is that you do have to take care in what you purchase.
The stock market is also a good example of the powerful exploiting the powerless. The trades and deals that occur on the market have downstream effects that can ruin lives of the lower classes.
I think the problem here is that a certain part of society wants to suborn the role played by free markets
I have no intention to make a free market do anything unlawful. Indeed a better argument would be that people who want a completely unregulated market are likely interested in using such a thing to do unlawful (or at the very least immoral) things themselves.
Since they don't have a credible argument against them, they just make shit up.
At this point it looks like you are guilty of that more so than anyone else in this discussion.
Let's take a look at these historical examples of which you speak, and we'll see whether you have any legitimate case or not.
I see no reason to expect that you would actually consider any historical examples, but we could start with Somalia in its current state. We could more on to Afghanistan as well; and for that matter the Russian market has little actual control as well. if you want an older historical example look at feudal Europe and feudal Japan.
Unregulated free markets absolutely require an oppressed underclass and an immobilized middle class in order to generate the desired outcome of maximum profitability for the people at the top. Any other configuration is suboptimal for those aims.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Unregulated free markets absolutely require an oppressed underclass and an immobilized middle class in order to generate the desired outcome of maximum profitability for the people at the top. Any other configuration is suboptimal for those aims.
Nonsense. This is precisely what I called making shit up. If one looks at real markets that are as close to unregulated as they get, such as the stock markets, one doesn't see any of these features.
I did no such thing. Just because it does not fit your ideology does not mean it automatically qualifies as "making shit up".
Profit, which is what players in the market seek, comes when a commodity is sold below or above its cost. Profit is maximized only when people are exploited. If everything on the market sold strictly at cost then there would be no exploitation but also no profit.
And in order for there to be people to exploit (to maxmize profit) there needs to be distinct divisions of economic class. A free market that is optimized for profit is also optimized for exploitation of the under classes.
I don't know why you conflate markets with other social problems, but markets aren't responsible for class structures nor oppression of others. That's the domain of human beings who've been doing it longer than the idea of free markets have been around.
You are almost right on that matter. Of course, you likely either won't read this far in my reply or you will misinterpret what I just said. I already said that the market itself can't hurt people, but you conveniently overlooked it because you would rather focus on furthering your misinterpretation of my demonstration that your ayn rand / ron paul fantasy world would require oppression and exploitation.
,br> A market itself is just as agnostic towards the condition as a gun is agnostic towards a murder. Both can be used as instruments of destruction but neither is responsible on their own for the destruction. However much as a gun makes murder easier, a completely unregulated market accelerates exploitation of lower economic classes because that is what must exist to maximize profit.
If a completely unregulated free market truly presented equal opportunity for all, then profit would approach zero. As profit moves further from zero, so does exploitation, oppression, and destruction of opportunity.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.