ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What free stuff?More "free-stuff" from Obama and the liberals. More debt. What a jackass President.
What free stuff?More "free-stuff" from Obama and the liberals. More debt. What a jackass President.
What free stuff?
I'm still waiting for the free part. You've only shown a discount.Someone else has to pay for the education that they do not pay for now. After 10%. and 20 years, you no longer owe. Who's going to pick up that tab ?
I'm still waiting for the free part. You've only shown a discount.
Expecting someone else to pay for your car, your house, your kids, your education .... yeah, it irre****ingsponsible.
It's a blatant bribe for votes. That should outrage anyone.
Expecting someone else to pay for your car, your house, your kids, your education .... yeah, it irre****ingsponsible.
Your car and your house provide little or no benefit to anyone other than you. Your education and your kids (if they are well-educated themselves) do, and so it's not inappropriate for government to assist people with those things. If we went back to a society where only the rich could afford an education, there would be much less social mobility because the children of poor parents would never have the opportunity to use their abilities to become better off. Besides, no one benefits from a poorly educated society; it hurts the economy, which affects the pocketbooks of those at the top of the income ladder too.
Someone else has to pay for the education that they do not pay for now. After 10%. and 20 years, you no longer owe. Who's going to pick up that tab ?
In most cases, no one. Because, most people will have paid off their principle. The cuts will come in interest.
Further, if people consolidate with Direct Loan, the government no longer has to pay to subsidize private companies doing student lending - so there are efficiency savings that can be applied as well.
Finally, you have to be in good standing to take part in the program. SO if someone is currently in default, they could potentially get back in good standing (if they have income - I know several people who went into default when they were out of work, and simply didn't know how to get back into good standing when they had enough money) to take advantage of the savings; thus increasing revenues.
This will likely cost the taxpayer little if anything. And if the money leftover in people's pockets is spent and it helps even slightly spark the economy, then the increase in the tax revenues could offset those costs.
Of course, these are some of the same arguments that Republicans say would happen with tax breaks - but when Obama does it; those arguments automatically become specious to the right-wing mind.
Oh ! So you get an education so that you can go out and help other folks !! You make babies so as to help society !!
And what the heck ! If you got all kinds of loans to get all such degrees, and then weren't really all the help you thought to society, cause you can't find anyone to pay you for your societal talents, then since you meant to help society all along, let them pay for the education you got but couldn't put to good enough use !!
Those things do improve the economy, yes. GDP is a measure of productivity per person, times the number of people.
It's more an issue of encouraging people to get educated in the first place. If there is no safety net to help people with student loans, then fewer people will get educated. We need to reform the way that we handle student loans in this country, so that the government picks up less of the tab up front, but there is more of a social safety net. What I would suggest is that 1) The government continue to offer subsidized and unsubsidized student loans...but limit the amount to maybe 150% the cost of public universities. This would help private schools control their costs, 2) The government offers a new kind of loan where instead of paying a fixed dollar amount you pay a percentage of your future income, 3) States change the way that their public universities handle tuition; instead of charging a flat fee it should be related to the subject. There is no reason that an Art History degree should cost as much as an Engineering degree, since it provides much less value.
Individuals borrowing thousands more than they can pay back.What was irresponsible?
You Star doesn't read what others say, just interjects her own theory. Got it!Anything that could possibly help young people is a political bribe, got it.
Conservatives just bristle at the thought that someone might get something that they won't.
Change "Conservatives with "Liberals"
Change "won't" with "earned"
Individuals borrowing thousands more than they can pay back.
Change "Conservatives with "Liberals"
Change "won't" with "earned"
You Star doesn't read what others say, just interjects her own theory. Got it!
Expecting someone else to pay for your car, your house, your kids, your education .... yeah, it irre****ingsponsible.
As pointed out, no one is really calling for that. but we do in fact have a serious problem with debt occured for education. Like with the housing crisis we can ignroe it and wait for the crash, or we can show some foresight and plan on how to address the problem. Obama isn't doing that here, but based on reactions, i assume some would rather wait for the crash. Am I incorrect?