Politics

[IrishinSyria]

Eminent domain is a completely legal and necessary power of the state. I literally see no problem.

 

[pkt77242]

So the question becomes: who owns the property and does the government have legal authority to do what they're doing? In any country, this is pure shit and I feel bad for the woman.

If the government has the legal authority is it pure shit?
If the owner is ok with it, is it pure shit?

I think that you are jumping to some conclusions. We don't have the knowledge to know if the government is acting within its powers and we don't know how the owner feels (I will admit that I have only read 2 articles on it, but only discussed her plight not the owners). I can feel bad for the woman without believing that it is pure shit. I would be more likely to feel that the owner of the building might have gotten screwed depending on what he/she is being compensated for the building (below market value, at market value, above market value). .

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

This is done all the time in this country. We build roads. rail lines, pipelines, buildings etc. and displace people who live on the land. I don't see why this is nearly as big a deal as you are making it to be.

That doesn't happen without local township/ state approval in our country. I don't know enough about German law to speak to theirs. And if it isn't that big of a deal I suggest you open your front doors to house and feed a family of migrants. If this is no big deal to you then citizenship is eroding.

And posting in the Politics thread during a game? Haha

 

[ACamp1900]

Not sure if this is fully political but this is the best place to put this without starting a whole new thread... I would love to hear the boards thoughts on this...

Some say Halloween display crosses a line - Cleveland 19 News|Cleveland, OH|News, Weather, Sports


To me Halloween was never about torn up limbs and knifes in throats, there is a way to tap into the heart of the holiday without making your lawn look like a snuff film. A big part of Halloween is trust and community, strangers knocking on strangers doors and sharing in community spoils... on that note you should also be able to trust your neighbors to NOT put out decor that can derail your child's innocence and development. I for one am a huge Halloween guy and have watched with disappointment as the holiday has slid further and further towards something resembling the Saw franchise over the past decade or so...

 

[Cackalacky]

Not sure if this is fully political but this is the best place to put this without starting a whole new thread... I would love to hear the boards thoughts on this...

Some say Halloween display crosses a line - Cleveland 19 News|Cleveland, OH|News, Weather, Sports


To me Halloween was never about torn up limbs and knifes in throats, there is a way to tap into the heart of the holiday without making your lawn look like a snuff film. A big part of Halloween is trust and community, strangers knocking on strangers doors and sharing in community spoils... on that note you should also be able to trust your neighbors to NOT put out decor that can derail your child's innocence and development. I for one am a huge Halloween guy and have watched with disappointment as the holiday has slid further and further towards something resembling the Saw franchise over the past decade or so...

This really boils down to forgetting and honoring the origins of the day IMO. Most cultures have a Day of the Dead or some other day that honors the dead. Unfortunately for America, it is another corporate wankfest to sell shitty Chinese goods and candy.

 

[Bluto]

This really boils down to forgetting and honoring the origins of the day IMO. Most cultures have a Day of the Dead or some other day that honors the dead. Unfortunately for America, it is another corporate wankfest to sell shitty Chinese goods and candy.

Present day America is all about the coporate wankfest over everything. Government, College Football, Christmas, Halloween, Cinco De Mayo.....

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What's behind the reversal of the gender gap in higher education?

According to the Census Bureau, U.S. women now lead men in educational attainment for the first time since the Census began tracking the measure in 1940. The headlines surprised me: I assumed we had passed that milestone already, since women have earned more than half of bachelor’s degrees each year since the early 1980s.

That women have grown more likely to graduate from college in the past few decades seems natural: We have access to a far wider range of careers than our great-grandmothers did, and the economy favors the well educated now more than ever. In light of the rising value of a college degree, it’s just strange that men haven’t prioritized their education as much as women have. Why haven’t they? Why do women increasingly outnumber men on college campuses?

In a new article in Family Relations, William Doherty, Brian Willoughby, and Jason Wilde provide evidence for a thesis not many have considered: Changes in family structure have contributed to the growing gender gap in college enrollment. Growing up with stably married parents makes children of both sexes more likely to succeed at school, even controlling for socioeconomic status, but father absence seems to hurt boys more than it does girls. Thus, as father absence becomes more prevalent, girls gain a relative advantage in the classroom.

Three cheers for the Sexual Revolution!

 

[Sureal]

Damn...ain't nobody watching the debate? I'm at work and have no clue on who is roasting who.

Sad that I use IE to keep track of such events due to my work schedule lol

 

[GoIrish41]

Damn...ain't nobody watching the debate? I'm at work and have no clue on who is roasting who.

Sad that I use IE to keep track of such events due to my work schedule lol

Presidential Horse Race thread!

 

[IrishinSyria]

What's behind the reversal of the gender gap in higher education?



Three cheers for the Sexual Revolution!

That would be concerning, if the total effect was that we were sending a smaller percentage of our population to college. But we're not. The increase in percentage of degrees earned by females tracks a similar course as the increase in the overall percentage of the population earning degrees. As a percentage of the total male population, more people are earning an advanced degree than ever before (source is the first graph here). So it's tough to see how -if % of the population with an advanced degree is your measuring stick- you'd detect any sort of negative change. A woman born today is far more likely to earn a college degree than a woman born 50 years ago. A man born today is significantly more likely to earn one. Seems like a big win/win scenario to me?


edit: tl:dr, who cares if women have a relative advantage in the classroom if both genders have an absolute advantage over any generation that came before.

 

[BGIF]

That would be concerning, if the total effect was that we were sending a smaller percentage of our population to college. But we're not. The increase in percentage of degrees earned by females tracks a similar course as the increase in the overall percentage of the population earning degrees. As a percentage of the total male population, more people are earning an advanced degree than ever before (source is the first graph here). So it's tough to see how -if % of the population with an advanced degree is your measuring stick- you'd detect any sort of negative change. A woman born today is far more likely to earn a college degree than a woman born 50 years ago. A man born today is significantly more likely to earn one. Seems like a big win/win scenario to me?


edit: tl:dr, who cares if women have a relative advantage in the classroom if both genders have an absolute advantage over any generation that came before.

But they don't enjoy an absolute advantage over even the immediate generation that came before.

We crank out more degrees for careers with little or no job prospects. Employers complain because many are not qualified to do the work available or the entitled degree holders find the work beneath them.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd in their Abercrombie & Fitch gear was protesting because their lack of advantage.

And Bernie and the Democrats want everyone to have that same great opportunity ... as they raise the minimum wage to $15/hr so the graduates can flip burgers and repay their student loans.

 

[Cackalacky]

But they don't enjoy an absolute advantage over even the immediate generation that came before.

We crank out more degrees for careers with little or no job prospects. Employers complain because many are not qualified to do the work available or the entitled degree holders find the work beneath them.

And Bernie and the Democrats want everyone to have that same great opportunity ... as they raise the minimum wage to $15/hr so the graduates can flip burgers and repay their student loans.

Agree with the above except you last. Bernie is not like the rest of the Dems. He does not want student loans at all hence his stance on free higher education. He also wants those of us saddled with the existing debt to free of it as soon as possible. No other Dems except the most progressive want that to be different. Hillary is not gonna do anything about it. She is to look cozy with Wall Street and Icdont believe a word she says regarding that.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Not sure if this is fully political but this is the best place to put this without starting a whole new thread... I would love to hear the boards thoughts on this...

Some say Halloween display crosses a line - Cleveland 19 News|Cleveland, OH|News, Weather, Sports


To me Halloween was never about torn up limbs and knifes in throats, there is a way to tap into the heart of the holiday without making your lawn look like a snuff film. A big part of Halloween is trust and community, strangers knocking on strangers doors and sharing in community spoils... on that note you should also be able to trust your neighbors to NOT put out decor that can derail your child's innocence and development. I for one am a huge Halloween guy and have watched with disappointment as the holiday has slid further and further towards something resembling the Saw franchise over the past decade or so...

Eh, I think people are just too sensitive these days. When I was a kid, there were numerous houses like this. One in particular, the homeowner dressed up like Jason and chased you out of the yard with a chainsaw after you got your candy. It was terrifying. But if you were brave, you got the goods.

Everything is a controversy today because someone, somewhere is offended by something, some person, somewhere did. It's annoying. There is a place for being politically correct and being sensitive to the rights of others. This isn't one of them.

It's like the people who bitch about fireworks waking their kids on the 4th of July. I seriously have friends who gripe about it every year when they hear fireworks going off and it's not even midnight, but their kids are asleep. "Have you no decency?!" they yell. I just laugh.

 

[IrishinSyria]

But they don't enjoy an absolute advantage over even the immediate generation that came before.

We crank out more degrees for careers with little or no job prospects. Employers complain because many are not qualified to do the work available or the entitled degree holders find the work beneath them.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd in their Abercrombie & Fitch gear was protesting because their lack of advantage.

And Bernie and the Democrats want everyone to have that same great opportunity ... as they raise the minimum wage to $15/hr so the graduates can flip burgers and repay their student loans.

Ok, but that''s a different set of issues than the one raised by the gender gap in higher Ed.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Agree with the above except you last. Bernie is not like the rest of the Dems. He does not want student loans at all hence his stance on free higher education. He also wants those of us saddled with the existing debt to free of it as soon as possible. No other Dems except the most progressive want that to be different. Hillary is not gonna do anything about it. She is to look cozy with Wall Street and Icdont believe a word she says regarding that.

Thought I read somewhere that Bernie's plan would not cover room and board. Is that true? If it is, that is a big distinction. Room and board makes up 70% of the total cost of 2-year programs, 52% of public in-state programs, 30% out of state public and 26% private. Considering that at least 7 out of 10 students are in-state at most public universities, and that 70% of students are enrolled in public universities, you are looking at 50% of all students enrolled in in-state public universities (2 year and 4 year). So, that means at least 50% of the money spent on higher ed is spent on room and board. If his plan indeed does not include room and board, I think some people will be very disappointed as it will not solve the whole problem.

https://secure-media.collegeboard.o.../2014-trends-college-pricing-report-final.pdf (page 10 has the numbers breakdown from above)

• U.S. college enrollment and forecast 1965-2024 | Statistic

 

[RDU Irish]

High school is free yet so many people still do not get degrees. Free college is only going to encourage crappy degrees and six years to graduation plans. There is positive ROI for college, especially if you pick a marketable degree.

Now if the average debt is $30,000 to attain a degree that would be $230/month for 20 years at 6.85% interest. $3000/year cost for a $20k improvement in income and unemployment rate cut in half versus just a high school diploma. Yeah, complete rip off.

If you are serious about "fixing" the college debt issue it is this easy: Colleges are on the hook for student debt. Kid goes bankrupt and the college doesn't get paid. See how quick they push kids to marketable degrees when their art majors are defaulting at incredible rates. Notre Dame complains that all the students want business degrees - well ND students are not stupid. They are chipping in a ridiculous sum of money and need something with potential for positive ROI in return. Philosophy ain't it.

 

[Cackalacky]

Thought I read somewhere that Bernie's plan would not cover room and board. Is that true? If it is, that is a big distinction. Room and board makes up 70% of the total cost of 2-year programs, 52% of public in-state programs, 30% out of state public and 26% private. Considering that at least 7 out of 10 students are in-state at most public universities, and that 70% of students are enrolled in public universities, you are looking at 50% of all students enrolled in in-state public universities (2 year and 4 year). So, that means at least 50% of the money spent on higher ed is spent on room and board. If his plan indeed does not include room and board, I think some people will be very disappointed as it will not solve the whole problem.

https://secure-media.collegeboard.o.../2014-trends-college-pricing-report-final.pdf (page 10 has the numbers breakdown from above)

• U.S. college enrollment and forecast 1965-2024 | Statistic

I think I mispoke in my previous post and apologize. I believe it is "tuition free" for public institutions so to my knowledge it does not include room and board, which i am assuming you mean on-campus housing provided by and maintained by the institution. That is a good point, though. I have not seen the details regarding room and board or meal plans or lab fees or book store prices or any of the other numerous charges universities charge their students. I would like to know more about that. But hey... Tuition is still a large part of the debt. If you can save $40k from tuition, then you have saved that plus 10-25 years of interest on a loan... so that is a good thing IMO and it will definitely be a good start. I am not sure he is intending it to be a panacea for debt and I don't think he has said that but I could be wrong.

Personally, I would like to see low interest rate loans for all school/education at a minimum. But I also place a high value on knowledge yet accept that a history major does not have the same economic impact from an investment standpoint as a STEM student.

The Sanders plan, which was released last May, would make all public colleges and universities tuition-free. It would eliminate the federal “profit” from student debt and would allow students to refinance at significantly more favorable rates. (Under current conditions the undergraduate student loan rate would drop from 4.29 percent to 2.37 percent.)

There would be no payment requirements for middle-class families, and no 10-hour workweek to add on to a student’s class load. Students would be able to use federal, state and institutional need-based aid to cover room and board, books and living expenses – all major contributors to student debt. It would triple the size of the federal work-study program, and offer significant relief to current student debt holders.

The Clinton plan is a step in the right direction. But it’s not debt free. The Sanders plan offers real solutions to the high costs of college tuition and student debt, and progress towards the building of a robust democracy.

The difference between the two plans seems to be the difference between Sanders' democratic socialist worldview and Clinton's neoliberal one. For Sanders, college is a right, just like K-12 education, or police and fire services. You will get it, fully subsidized, because it is an essential. For the Clinton campaign, college is still a privilege, something you have to pay for and work for, even while you are a student. It's a consumer good. The competing plans are a microcosm of the two candidates' approach to policy.

 

[RDU Irish]

Mid 2000s had student loan interest rates around 2%. Who was that evil guy that was running things at that time again? The good guy who took over for him raised them to the current 6.8%. Kind of like immigrants hating the party that presided over the last amnesty.

20 year $30,000 loan at 6.8% is $230/month. At 2% it is $150/month, fwiw.

 

[Cackalacky]

Mid 2000s had student loan interest rates around 2%. Who was that evil guy that was running things at that time again? The good guy who took over for him raised them to the current 6.8%. Kind of like immigrants hating the party that presided over the last amnesty.

20 year $30,000 loan at 6.8% is $230/month. At 2% it is $150/month, fwiw.

This is not accurately true. I had student loans under Bush at the end of his 2nd term and after Obama changed them back to federally provided instead of privately provided as they were under Bush. Private student loans were ranged from 5-8% from the private banks in 2006-2008 creeping up over Bush's last term and Obama made them government provided by them to a standardized 6.8 % even though he had a super majority at the time. He could have gone all in if he wanted to but he did not. So lets stop with this false dichotomy here and stop painting Obama worse that Bush....Wall Street profited off it under Bush. The government profited off it under Obama, mainly to bring the budget back in line. And now Bernie wants to stop the profit on education all together either from government or Wall street.

 

[RDU Irish]

I carry Stafford loans from graduate school at 1.25% amortized over 20 years which was done in 2005. My wife finished her doctorate six years ago and the Stafford loans were 6.8%. I don't recall when it went up but it seems to me it happened during her 2 year DNP program.

 

[Cackalacky]

I carry Stafford loans from graduate school at 1.25% amortized over 20 years which was done in 2005. My wife finished her doctorate six years ago and the Stafford loans were 6.8%. I don't recall when it went up but it seems to me it happened during her 2 year DNP program.

This is part of the problem here with privatized debt for education. Student loan rates in the late 1990s were on par with today. I know because that was my first stint in undergrad. They were provided by the fed government. After graduating I worked but wanted to do more. I went back to school in 2007. By this time Bush privatized student loans and the rates crept up every year so that by the time I enrolled I had loans that were in the 8% range and they were still climbing. Obama gets elected, federalize them and froze them at 6.8% which is better than what it was even though he chose to use that money to improve the balance of the budget. The rate increase happened when Bush privatized it and allowed the banks to manipulate them which has led to the major debt problem we have now along with increased costs of school. In my first stint the rates were so low and tuition cheap I paid off four years of college in three years.

I don't know if grad rates were considered less risky than undergrad rates at the time you are referencing. I am strictly speaking if undergrad loan rates.

 

[Cackalacky]

Timeline: The History of Federal Student Loan Interest Rates - NerdWallet

History of student loan interest rates
The tumultuous history of student loan interest rates is characterized by bipartisan indecision, delayed legislation and temporary solutions. Understanding the events is key to analyzing interest rates’ current trajectory. Here’s a summary of the last 20 years in student loans.

The following information is from the New America Foundation.

1992-93: (6.94%) Variable interests rates are introduced for federal student loans. Rates are determined annually by short-term U.S. Treasury bills plus 3.1% (maximum of 9%). Loans issued in the preceding 10 years retain an 8% to 10% fixed rate.

1993-94: (6.22%) Congress creates the direct loan program to gradually eliminate the need for bank loans. Beginning in 1998, variable rates are tied to long-term U.S. Treasury bonds rather than short-term bills. Rates equal what it costs the Treasury to borrow, plus 1%.

1994-95: (7.43%) The variable rate maximum drops from 9% to 8.25%.

1998-99: (7.46%) The interest rate change set to begin in 1998 is postponed another five years. Congress had predicted the direct loan program would replace private lenders by ’98, but private loans still account for 60% of all federal student loans. The interest rate change is declared untenable for private lenders and delayed until 2003.

2001-02: (5.99%) The scheduled 2003 alterations become a topic of debate. Student advocates defend the change, arguing it would provide lower interest rates for borrowers. Some loan industry representatives and lawmakers propose abandoning the plan and continuing with the current system.

2002-03: (4.06%) The 1993 rate change is canceled. The current variable rate remains in place. In 2006, loans will begin to carry a 6.8% fixed interest rate. The 6.8% rate is determined by predicting future rates using the 1993 structure.

2005-06: (5.3%) Over the last few years, the variable rate structure has consistently yielded a lower rate than the fixed 6.8% scheduled for 2006. A House proposal cancels the change. A Senate proposal maintains the change. Because fixed interest rates mean larger savings for deficit reduction, the Senate proposal is enacted, and the 2006 fixed rate remains in place.

2006-07: (6.8%) With the 6.8% fixed rate in place, Democrats launch a campaign pledge to cut student loan interest rates in half.

2007-08: (6.8%) Making good on the Democrats’ pledge, Congress passes a bill for a temporary interest rate reduction. The cut, which only affects subsidized Stafford loan, will last four years before reverting to the normal fixed rate.

2008-09: (6% for Subsidized Stafford, 6.8% for other loans) The rate reduction for new subsidized Stafford loans begins. According to Jason Delisle of the New America Foundation, interest rates would only have been 2.5% had the variable rate structure remained intact.

2010-11: (4.5% for Subsidized Stafford, 6.8% of other loans) During the third phase of rate cuts, Congress eliminates the bank-based federal student loan program. The direct loan program now issues all loans.

2011-12: (3.4% for subsidized Stafford, 6.8% for other loans) The fourth and final phase of the temporary rate cut further reduces rates. A budget bill makes graduate students ineligible for subsidized Stafford loans.

2012-13: (6.8%) The 2007 rate reduction expires on July 1, 2012. Rates revert to 6.8%.

April 27, 2012: The House of Representatives passes a bill to extend the 3.4% interest rate by redirecting funds from the Prevention and Public Heath Fund created by the healthcare reform law championed by President Obama. The White House promptly responds with a veto threat.
May 8, 2012: Senate Republicans block a Democratic bill that would have paid for the one-year extension by eliminating a tax break for S corporations (those that pass through profits and losses to shareholders, who number 100 or fewer). It would have forced high-earning stockholders to pay additional Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.
Who is affected? And how much?
Because subsidized Stafford loans were the only ones to receive the 2007 interest rate reduction, they are the only loans affected. Unfortunately for students, they account for a huge portion of financial aid. Subsidized Stafford loans are need-based, granted to mid- to low-income students. The “subsidized” part means the government will pay the interest while the student is in school or if he or she requests deferment.

Depending on the political agenda, the numbers can be spun to seem either cruel or inconsequential. Some say the increase will cost students an average of $1,000 more per year of school. Others say the increase is equivalent to a mere $6 per month. The amount isn’t huge (especially when compared with overall tuition costs), but it will certainly have some effect.

Is 6.8% interest fair?
If you’re looking to confirm a pre-established stance, we suggest you cease reading. The issue is not black and white. Here are some facts:

This is not a new interest rate increase. It is a scheduled return to the fixed rate structure that was in place four short years ago.
The increase will cost students more money. The amount of money is substantial but not reason enough to reconsider your entire education.
Had we kept the variable rate structure in place, student loan interest rates would be far lower. But … we didn’t. Oops.
According to one expert, another year of 3.4% interest will cost taxpayers $6 billion.
High graduate unemployment/underemployment rates exaggerate the challenges of paying back ever-increasing loan debts.
Republicans and Democrats would both like to extend the 3.4% rate. They can’t agree on how to fund the reduced rate, and thus 6.8% stands.
With the 2012 election season in full swing, it will be a battle before Congress comes to an agreement. The two parties will continue to politicize, which unfortunately helps no one but their own party interests. Everyone can agree that education is good, but how can we empower and enable students to make the best decisions for their future? This is the first of many higher education issues that must soon be addressed. College tuition continues to increase, substantially outpacing inflation. Other federal programs, such as Pell grants, remain underfunded. A generation of Americans is starting adult life firmly entrenched in a debt cycle. And I am not even going to touch the quality of education; I’ll leave that to another blog.

 

[RDU Irish]

It is clear as mud when I try to search on it. Nothing confirms Stafford loan rates I experienced for some reason.

Subsidized loans in the mid 90s for sure and I think mid 2000s meant you pay/accrue ZERO interest until six months after graduation. Now the subsidized means it accrues 3.4% interest while you are in school. That really adds up, consider someone geared toward medical school who is compounding that interest for almost a decade before they start working for a living.

Variable rates based on viability of degrees would not be popular with Sanders supporters. It would seem unfair that doctors and engineers would pay 1% interest while philosophers paid 12%. Doing these things upfront would go a long way toward directing students to viable degrees though.

 

[RDU Irish]

I saw the same piece you posted. It is incomplete given I am currently paying near 1% on a 20 year amortization locked in 2005 on Stafford loans.

End of the day, it is short of highway robbery for the government to pay less than 1% on its debt while charging 6.8% on student loans.

 

[Cackalacky]

It is clear as mud when I try to search on it. Nothing confirms Stafford loan rates I experienced for some reason.

Subsidized loans in the mid 90s for sure and I think mid 2000s meant you pay/accrue ZERO interest until six months after graduation. Now the subsidized means it accrues 3.4% interest while you are in school. That really adds up, consider someone geared toward medical school who is compounding that interest for almost a decade before they start working for a living.

Variable rates based on viability of degrees would not be popular with Sanders supporters. It would seem unfair that doctors and engineers would pay 1% interest while philosophers paid 12%. Doing these things upfront would go a long way toward directing students to viable degrees though.

Yeah... it is really tough to follow. Also when you remove all the political noise from this, the rates have not really changed that much since Clinton, just who controls the majority of the share or borrowers and who gets the profits. So HRC won't do anything any different. Mr. Sanders though....

 

[Cackalacky]

I saw the same piece you posted. It is incomplete given I am currently paying near 1% on a 20 year amortization locked in 2005 on Stafford loans.

End of the day, it is short of highway robbery for the government to pay less than 1% on its debt while charging 6.8% on student loans.

Right? There are some progressives who hold this same position. I think Warren wants loan rates as low as 0.1% or some such. Might as well be free.

Do you feel private banks should be kept out wholly or allowed to compete with the government? Becasue I don't think they do any better than 3.4%.

 

[RDU Irish]

I think colleges need to be attached to these things to keep them honest. Why shouldn't a college share in losses if their students are not financially able to repay?

Unforgivable in bankruptcy is an big issue that is largely ignored. At least cut it in half if someone goes through BK. To be burdened with this for life is ridiculous.

All the banks are doing is getting parents to co-sign so they have better collateral. I think it is irresponsible for parents to cosign their kids student loan and immoral for society to have that expectation. If the parents can't loan the money outright, are they really in a position to compromise their own financial well being? It just exploits emotions.

 

[ACamp1900]

Eh, I think people are just too sensitive these days. When I was a kid, there were numerous houses like this. One in particular, the homeowner dressed up like Jason and chased you out of the yard with a chainsaw after you got your candy. It was terrifying. But if you were brave, you got the goods.

Everything is a controversy today because someone, somewhere is offended by something, some person, somewhere did. It's annoying. There is a place for being politically correct and being sensitive to the rights of others. This isn't one of them.

It's like the people who bitch about fireworks waking their kids on the 4th of July. I seriously have friends who gripe about it every year when they hear fireworks going off and it's not even midnight, but their kids are asleep. "Have you no decency?!" they yell. I just laugh.

You had houses like THAT?? I've never seen anything like that before. I grew up with haunted house and people jumping out too... But nothing like this house. I also think part of the problem is it was put out almost a full month before Halloween... even the most gory displays I've seen aren't like that but those that I can reference were put out on Halloween day and not left out in the neighborhood for kids to walk past for weeks on end...

 

[Cackalacky]

I think colleges need to be attached to these things to keep them honest. Why shouldn't a college share in losses if their students are not financially able to repay?

Unforgivable in bankruptcy is an big issue that is largely ignored. At least cut it in half if someone goes through BK. To be burdened with this for life is ridiculous.

All the banks are doing is getting parents to co-sign so they have better collateral. I think it is irresponsible for parents to cosign their kids student loan and immoral for society to have that expectation. If the parents can't loan the money outright, are they really in a position to compromise their own financial well being? It just exploits emotions.

Agree. There is this perception that a government entity must not be allowed to fail. Obviously for things that involve the safety of the public and such that is obviously true. They must function at some level. I don't know if universities fall into this category or not. Historically State U's are very important to the local and state economies. But yet they also make football coaches the highest paid state employees so there are definitely some priority issues.

 

[Wild Bill]

Right? There are some progressives who hold this same position. I think Warren wants loan rates as low as 0.1% or some such. Might as well be free.

Do you feel private banks should be kept out wholly or allowed to compete with the government? Becasue I don't think they do any better than 3.4%.

Let them compete, IMO. I have both fed loans and private loans and they are about the same with respect to rates. In fact, the private loan has a lower rate than a few of my federal loans. Increased competition among lenders will only help the consumer.

I think colleges need to be attached to these things to keep them honest. Why shouldn't a college share in losses if their students are not financially able to repay?

Unforgivable in bankruptcy is an big issue that is largely ignored. At least cut it in half if someone goes through BK. To be burdened with this for life is ridiculous.

All the banks are doing is getting parents to co-sign so they have better collateral. I think it is irresponsible for parents to cosign their kids student loan and immoral for society to have that expectation. If the parents can't loan the money outright, are they really in a position to compromise their own financial well being? It just exploits emotions.

One of the worst things you can do is co-sign for these fucking loans. Completely agree.

I'm a proponent of eliminating the exception to discharge for student loans and letting them eat shit just like any other creditor but there would be consequences, i.e., increased rates and less access to financing for students. I know that would be an issue but it's the lesser of two evils, IMO.

I do not agree with Sander's approach to tuition. It's not a right nor is it wise to encourage everyone to go to college. Another poster, I believe it was Wooly, had a post a while back about this issue. I thought it was spot on.

There is just something inherently troubling about future white collar workers receiving tax benefits at the expense of blue collar taxpayers. I understand he plans on taxing trades to fund a portion but we all know the middle class will be paying a portion of the tab too. What does that accomplish besides increasing the disposable income of the educated? Why should a plumber pay a higher tax rate to send his neighbor's son to school to be an accountant? How much sense does it make for an electrician to pay for an attorney's tuition? I pay in excess of $1,100 per month for my student loans but I have my degree in hand. Of course I hate paying them. But why should taxpayers, who didn't have the opportunity to go to school on someone else's dime and who may make a lower wage, pay them? I just don't see how this closes the so-called income inequality gap.