General politics

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yeah, I’m grumpy because I believe if someone signs their name to a bad contract, it isn’t my responsibility to bail them out entirely. I had the identical sentiment about the housing crisis. I wanted to see people get assistance but it wasn’t my responsibility to bail out a $60k/yr household that purchased a $500k house on an interest-only loan.

I will happily give someone a hand to get off the ground. I won’t pick them up and carry them if they are perfectly capable of walking.

We’re literally talking about trillions of dollars here. This kind of program comes at the expense of other programs. Budgets are a zero sum game.

A kid singing his name to a document is what makes you believe they should be held accountable, in spite of you implicitly acknowledging they don't understand the repercussions? Give me a break.  I'm kind of marveled by your stance and attitude on this issue. 

 

Again, the kind of maturity you had to go debt free from college is a privilege that most of either didn't have that maturity or didn't have that option. 

 

You've got little ones now, are you going to make them pay their own way to teach them personal responsibility or does that just work for other people's kids?

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

I mean, the maker of Oxycontin is likely to declare bankruptcy (somehow) to avoid lawsuits, but bankruptcy is not an option for student loans......

[Badsmerf]

Think of the billions of dollars in interest that banks have reaped, and the trillions that colleges have. All on the backs of 20-45 year olds....

 

Our country has systematically created this wealth gap that continues to rise. Education and access to top internships/contacts is only exacerbating the problem. I don't think bailing out student loans is the solution. I would have went to Stanford had I known I'd be bailed out in my 30's. Also would have gone to law school and piled up another $80k. That isn't fair, nor is it economically viable.

 

Better solution: I like the tiered approach. Instead of low earners paying less, have the government pay their loans until they earn an amount appropriate to pay these loans. Zero interest, or 2% to cover inflation. **** the banks getting rich off all these loans. Increased scrutiny on the cost of public universities, and provide some type of incentive for attending them vs. Private schools. Might even go as far to stop giving loans to private schools... And make public schools free. However, I can see this resulting in worse segregation than already exists.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Think of the billions of dollars in interest that banks have reaped, and the trillions that colleges have. All on the backs of 20-45 year olds....

Our country has systematically created this wealth gap that continues to rise. Education and access to top internships/contacts is only exacerbating the problem. I don't think bailing out student loans is the solution. I would have went to Stanford had I known I'd be bailed out in my 30's. Also would have gone to law school and piled up another $80k. That isn't fair, nor is it economically viable.

Better solution: I like the tiered approach. Instead of low earners paying less, have the government pay their loans until they earn an amount appropriate to pay these loans. Zero interest, or 2% to cover inflation. **** the banks getting rich off all these loans. Increased scrutiny on the cost of public universities, and provide some type of incentive for attending them vs. Private schools. Might even go as far to stop giving loans to private schools... And make public schools free. However, I can see this resulting in worse segregation than already exists.

 

I'm not sure how private schools are inherently bad, or whatever....it's not like they cost more than out of state tuition at public schools. Or are you saying everyone has to stay in state (which I doubt)?

 

I don't disagree with your stance that people would have acted differently, maybe worse, if they knew this was coming. I disagree that it is bad policy to help everyone.

 

Most of this board would agree that if people that struggle, or even don't struggle but make about 400 a month more than they "need" to break even, had more pocket money, the economy would really take off (compared to giving millionaires more money they will never spend)......so I'm surprised that just looking at it form that angle seems to be even a non-starter for some here.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

A kid singing his name to a document is what makes you believe they should be held accountable, in spite of you implicitly acknowledging they don't understand the repercussions? Give me a break.  I'm kind of marveled by your stance and attitude on this issue. 

 

Again, the kind of maturity you had to go debt free from college is a privilege that most of either didn't have that maturity or didn't have that option. 

 

You've got little ones now, are you going to make them pay their own way to teach them personal responsibility or does that just work for other people's kids?

Jesus. It's almost as if no one is paying attention that I'm literally offering to help shoulder the burden of hundreds of billions of dollars of debt I didn't take on.

 

Where I draw the line is when the "b" in billions is replaced by a "t". And yes, I believe that some kid who decided they just had to go to an out of state Big Ten school and racked up debt well into the six figures should not foist their burden on to me or the kid who went to Mankato State and has debt in the low five figures.

 

And none of you seem to give a damn about the expense of such a program. What about child care? Social programs? Healthcare? Why do a select few get to burden society so greatly at the expense of other programs we also desperately need?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Think of the billions of dollars in interest that banks have reaped, and the trillions that colleges have. All on the backs of 20-45 year olds....

Our country has systematically created this wealth gap that continues to rise. Education and access to top internships/contacts is only exacerbating the problem. I don't think bailing out student loans is the solution. I would have went to Stanford had I known I'd be bailed out in my 30's. Also would have gone to law school and piled up another $80k. That isn't fair, nor is it economically viable.

Better solution: I like the tiered approach. Instead of low earners paying less, have the government pay their loans until they earn an amount appropriate to pay these loans. Zero interest, or 2% to cover inflation. **** the banks getting rich off all these loans. Increased scrutiny on the cost of public universities, and provide some type of incentive for attending them vs. Private schools. Might even go as far to stop giving loans to private schools... And make public schools free. However, I can see this resulting in worse segregation than already exists.

Bolded: thank god someone else sees the inequity of the proposals being bandied about.

 

Rest of the post: See, now this is something I could get behind. Again, I want to help. I won't bail out everyone, especially the ridiculous fringe cases.

[Badsmerf]

For a long time, that $200-500 mark is where I lived. Barely enough to pay bills and eat without assistance. I know how much of a boom the economy would get, but where does the money come from? Higher taxes? Gutting the military?

 

Who gets the bailouts? Partners at law firms earning $200k? Only teachers and social workers?

 

To me, if the government invested in students that can't repay the loan, they should pay it themselves. I was in that group for a long time. Thankfully, I'm not now, and my education is finally paying off. People in my position don't need a bailout. I made it work. I'd love to have an extra $700 to put into the economy in different ways but can't say I deserve it.

 

My point is we can accomplish easing the burden without a lump sum injection of cash.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Jesus. It's almost as if no one is paying attention that I'm literally offering to help shoulder the burden of hundreds of billions of dollars of debt I didn't take on.

 

Where I draw the line is when the "b" in billions is replaced by a "t". And yes, I believe that some kid who decided they just had to go to an out of state Big Ten school and racked up debt well into the six figures should not foist their burden on to me or the kid who went to Mankato State and has debt in the low five figures.

 

And none of you seem to give a damn about the expense of such a program. What about child care? Social programs? Healthcare? Why do a select few get to burden society so greatly at the expense of other programs we also desperately need?

As I said up thread, this idea would only work if we are going to find another way to fund college.  Forgiving the debt costs nothing, but the pool of federal dollars for more loans could no longer be replenished from that repayment.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

As I said up thread, this idea would only work if we are going to find another way to fund college.  Forgiving the debt costs nothing, but the pool of federal dollars for more loans could no longer be replenished from that repayment.

Erasing trillions of dollars never costs "nothing". That money goes back into the budget for the government to spend.

[TheLeviathan]

 

For a long time, that $200-500 mark is where I lived. Barely enough to pay bills and eat without assistance. I know how much of a boom the economy would get, but where does the money come from? Higher taxes? Gutting the military?

Who gets the bailouts? Partners at law firms earning $200k? Only teachers and social workers?

To me, if the government invested in students that can't repay the loan, they should pay it themselves. I was in that group for a long time. Thankfully, I'm not now, and my education is finally paying off. People in my position don't need a bailout. I made it work. I'd love to have an extra $700 to put into the economy in different ways but can't say I deserve it.

My point is we can accomplish easing the burden without a lump sum injection of cash.

 

Taking back the Trump tax cuts would pay for it and it would be a one time expense.  I would bail out everyone as part of a total reworking of the system.  It's the government righting a wrong they caused.  

 

I'll survive without it, but the next generation of kids may not.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

For a long time, that $200-500 mark is where I lived. Barely enough to pay bills and eat without assistance. I know how much of a boom the economy would get, but where does the money come from? Higher taxes? Gutting the military?

Who gets the bailouts? Partners at law firms earning $200k? Only teachers and social workers?

To me, if the government invested in students that can't repay the loan, they should pay it themselves. I was in that group for a long time. Thankfully, I'm not now, and my education is finally paying off. People in my position don't need a bailout. I made it work. I'd love to have an extra $700 to put into the economy in different ways but can't say I deserve it.

My point is we can accomplish easing the burden without a lump sum injection of cash.

 

Higher taxes, yes. We are the lowest taxed nation around.

 

And, life isn't "fair", never has been, never will be. The question is, given this debt crisis and income inequality, what should we do about it....not, what is makes everyone in the nation get the same money out of this deal.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Jesus. It's almost as if no one is paying attention that I'm literally offering to help shoulder the burden of hundreds of billions of dollars of debt I didn't take on.

 

Where I draw the line is when the "b" in billions is replaced by a "t". And yes, I believe that some kid who decided they just had to go to an out of state Big Ten school and racked up debt well into the six figures should not foist their burden on to me or the kid who went to Mankato State and has debt in the low five figures.

 

And none of you seem to give a damn about the expense of such a program. What about child care? Social programs? Healthcare? Why do a select few get to burden society so greatly at the expense of other programs we also desperately need?

 

Handing a homeless vet $5 might be enough to pat yourself on the back too but it doesn't fix the problem.  What you and Smerf are suggesting is a patch, it's not a fix.  

 

Also, I believe that economically a student loan bailout (and subsequent reworking of the system to prevent it from happening again) would help fix a number of economic issues.  Far more than, say, 2 trillion going to rich people.  It would help many families pay for child care and health care.  

 

And it's not a long term social cost.  It's one time, wipe the slate clean, start over.  It's essentially a nation-wide bankruptcy.

 

Or, like I keep saying, let people declare bankruptcy like we do ALL OTHER FREAKING TIMES!!!!!

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Handing a homeless vet $5 might be enough to pat yourself on the back too but it doesn't fix the problem.

Good god. I'm on board with a massive handout and my opinion has been equated to opposing the $15 minimum wage and now handing a $5 bill to a homeless veteran.

 

Listen to yourselves. Honestly.

[ashbury]

Since part of the hopelessness of any large loan is the amortization schedule, where it feels to the borrower as though 99% of the first several years of payment goes only toward interest...

 

...would an eventual compromise solution be for the government to step in and cover the interest, in conjunction with some kind of a haircut on the amount of interest the lenders receive (in the name of avoiding worse measures like bankruptcy), but leave the principal to be repaid by the debtor?

 

No one's getting off scot-free, by that framework, but students as a group who were misled into loans (in multiple dimensions) should get some relief, letting their payments actually pay down the loan.

 

There was some mass-hypnosis about college, for a bunch of years, and it's not healthy for a society if an entire generational cohort lags financially. They were at fault, but... when everyone's at fault, you are unwise not to make allowances.

 

Of course something needs to be added in terms of not letting this continue to happen. I'm not sure what to suggest.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Good god. I'm on board with a massive handout and my opinion has been equated to being opposed to the $15 minimum wage and now handing a $5 bill to a homeless veteran.

 

Listen to yourselves. Honestly.

 

What you're suggesting does not fix the problem.  Since when are you about token efforts that sound good on paper but do nothing?

 

You ignore that what you suggest does nothing.  Nothing.  Fixes nothing.  Helps no one.  That's the point of my analogy.  You do something temporary, to make you feel like you're helping, but the problem persists.  That's not a solution.  And not the kind I'm accustomed to you advocating.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Since part of the hopelessness of any large loan is the amortization schedule, where it feels to the borrower as though 99% of the first several years of payment goes only toward interest...

 

 

There was some mass-hypnosis about college, for a bunch of years, and it's not healthy for a society for an entire generational cohort to lag financially. They were at fault, but... when everyone's at fault, you are unwise not to make allowances.

 

Well said on the last paragraph.  I would say to the first paragraph, it isn't just the "first several years", for most it's the first decade or more.  (But yes, a clear part of the problem)

[Badsmerf]

Higher taxes, yes. We are the lowest taxed nation around.

 

And, life isn't "fair", never has been, never will be. The question is, given this debt crisis and income inequality, what should we do about it....not, what is makes everyone in the nation get the same money out of this deal.

First we have to stop the bleeding. Stop these huge loans, stop the burden on borrowers, stop the outrageous tuition increases.

 

The system needs to be fixed before throwing cash at it. I might support a bail out if I thought gross misconduct wasn't going to continue to happen.

[PseudoSABR]

I don't know how you determine who are the good actors that deserve a clean and who are the bad actors that don't.   Should a person who choose to go to a really good expensive school be excluded from the debt forgiveness (or have only a small portion covered) because of their ambition/academic-excellence? That's crazy to me. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What you're suggesting does not fix the problem.  Since when are you about token efforts that sound good on paper but do nothing?

 

You ignore that what you suggest does nothing.  Nothing.  Fixes nothing.  Helps no one.  That's the point of my analogy.  You do some temporary, to make you feel like you're helping, but the problem persists.  That's not a solution.  And not the kind I'm accustomed to you advocating.

I'm not sure how handing individuals tens of thousands of dollars does "nothing". I'm literally talking about handing a young married couple roughly 25% of the purchase price of a suburban home ($25k per person).

 

Yeah, people are struggling. People pay interest-only for far too long because the system is broken.

 

If a person can't get past interest-only payments after someone hands them $25k (and remember, that was just a number I pulled out of my ass, not a line drawn in the sand), mistakes were made along the way. Big mistakes.

 

And I'm not generally a fan of shouldering the burden of other peoples' big mistakes, especially when it comes at the expense of other programs I want to see in place.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

...would an eventual compromise solution be for the government to step in and cover the interest, in conjunction with some kind of a haircut on the amount of interest the lenders receive (in the name of avoiding worse measures like bankruptcy), but leave the principal to be repaid by the debtor?

I was actually bouncing this concept around in my head this morning, thanks for reminding me of it.

 

I like this idea and would fully support it.

 

Again, I want to fix the problem but I'm not going to start throwing massive stacks of cash to every person, ignoring how good or bad their decision-making may be in the process.

[Mike Sixel]

 

First we have to stop the bleeding. Stop these huge loans, stop the burden on borrowers, stop the outrageous tuition increases.

The system needs to be fixed before throwing cash at it. I might support a bail out if I thought gross misconduct wasn't going to continue to happen.

 

that last part is on my mind also.....which is why ( I think) most of us in favor of some kind of relief have also said the system needs fixing overall (though I frankly have no idea how to do that).

[ashbury]

I would say to the first paragraph, it isn't just the "first several years", for most it's the first decade or more. 

A decade IS several years, Sonny. I remember well, staring in dismay at the amortization table on my first mortgage.

 

But I think your POV about it, being even stronger than mine, just makes the argument better, putting us in greater alignment, yes?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not sure how handing individuals tens of thousands of dollars does "nothing". I'm literally talking about handing a young married couple roughly 25% of the purchase price of a suburban home ($25k per person).

 

Yeah, people are struggling. People pay interest-only for far too long because the system is broken.

 

If a person can't get past interest-only payments after someone hands them $25k (and remember, that was just a number I pulled out of my ass, not a line drawn in the sand), mistakes were made along the way. Big mistakes.

 

And I'm not generally a fan of shouldering the burden of other peoples' big mistakes, especially when it comes at the expense of other programs I want to see in place.

 

25k on a 100k loan does what?  Means you pay it off at 50 instead of 55?  That's not a solution, no matter how much make-up you put on that pig.  

 

And that's for the current state of things, it will get worse.  The generational yoke we're under now is stifling the economy and that yoke is only getting heavier.

[TheLeviathan]

 

A decade IS several years, Sonny. I remember well, staring in dismay at the amortization table on my first mortgage.

 

But I think your POV about it being even stronger than mine just makes the argument better, putting us in greater alignment, yes?

 

Yes, I probably did a poor job framing that as adding to your point.  I think people have to understand it can be a decade or more before you are even hitting the principle on these.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

25k on a 100k loan does what?  Means you pay it off at 50 instead of 55?  That's not a solution, no matter how much make-up you put on that pig.

If you lop 25% off the top of a loan in one fell swoop, you probably lose about 40% of the payment term in the process... maybe even more with some of these interest-only problems people are having with student loans.

 

Your numbers are waaaaaaaaay off here.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm not sure how handing individuals tens of thousands of dollars does "nothing". I'm literally talking about handing a young married couple roughly 25% of the purchase price of a suburban home ($25k per person).

 

Yeah, people are struggling. People pay interest-only for far too long because the system is broken.

 

If a person can't get past interest-only payments after someone hands them $25k (and remember, that was just a number I pulled out of my ass, not a line drawn in the sand), mistakes were made along the way. Big mistakes.

 

And I'm not generally a fan of shouldering the burden of other peoples' big mistakes, especially when it comes at the expense of other programs I want to see in place.

 

I gotta say, I do think Brock is talking about a lot of help here, not "nothing".....

 

I don't agree with his second to last paragraph, because lots of stuff happens in life, but that's a quibble.

 

And, I agree with the concern raised in his last paragraph for sure. Now, if we just gave everyone Medicare for All, that would ease the burden on everyone, including those trying to pay off their college debts.....

 

 

[ashbury]

Yes, I probably did a poor job framing that as adding to your point.  I think people have to understand it can be a decade or more before you are even hitting the principle on these.

No, you didn't say anything wrongly. I was just riffing on, "young'uns, they think 10 years is a long time." I'm closer in age to Chief than to you.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Again, I want to fix the problem but I'm not going to start throwing massive stacks of cash to every person, ignoring how good or bad their decision-making may be in the process.

 

Let's back up a second - you can't post this paragraph and truly believe it.  You want to fix healthcare...but tons of money in healthcare are tied up in paying for the stupid decisions of people.

 

Child care?  Don't even get me started.

 

Social welfare?  

 

All major government programs come with the poison pill that ass-hats will benefit from their own stupid decision making.  That can't be a reasonable impediment.  Frankly, that's a crap argument.

[Mike Sixel]

 

If you lop 25% off the top of a loan in one fell swoop, you probably lose about 40% of the payment term in the process... maybe even more with some of these interest-only problems people are having with student loans.

 

Your numbers are waaaaaaaaay off here.

 

Ya, it cuts it by almost exactly 40% (just went to a site to check).

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Ya, it cuts it by almost exactly 40% (just went to a site to check).

And I did that math in my head!

 

i r smert