Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Plan is worth a closer look

July 8, 2013

The average U.S. college student walks off campus with about $26,500 in student loan debt, much of it in government-subsidized low-interest loans....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(43)

locomotive

Jul-09-13 10:46 AM

"Dusty...Blah,blah,blah!"

Veritas, your sophomoric side is showing. Not that you care, I suppose.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jul-09-13 10:50 AM

From whitehouse.gov/issues/education

“Let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.”

President Barack Obama, January 27, 2010

So no matter how this comes down, the administration apologists, like centerish, will never hold past or current Democratic members of Congress responsible for any of it, right?

Of course. That's how true partisanship works.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Jul-09-13 1:29 PM

Oh, good, Loco must have the Republican plan available. Probably just like the wingers health care plan-die. So, college loans should go up to higher than mortgage loans? Or, better yet, keep the subsidies for those big corporations and put the burden on the lower income people. Good plan , loco. More of your nonsense. Where is your plan? Again, the Republicans campaign for the affluent and take from those that can least afford it. And so the hate mongers continue to spout nonsense without any solutions...Oh, I suppose we could bring back Bush/Cheney??? I hear a Cheney may run for Senate again...What a calamity.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jul-09-13 3:14 PM

Talking points, with hyperbole included.

"Probably just like the wingers health care plan-die."

"...the Republicans campaign for the affluent and take from those that can least afford it."

So I found an article that looks at the history of, and Congressional actions taken on, student loan interest rates since 1992.

nerdwallet . com/blog/nerdscholar/2012/federal-student-loan-interest-rate-timeline-events/

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jul-09-13 3:15 PM

From nerdwallet article...

"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 4 years before reverting back 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 American Foundation, interest rates would have only been 2.5% had the variable rate structure remained intact."

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jul-09-13 3:16 PM

More from nerdwallet...

"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 1 July 2012. Rates revert back to 6.8%."

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jul-09-13 3:18 PM

One more from nerdwallet...

"27 April 2012: House of Representatives passes a bill to extend the 3.4% interest rate by redirecting funds for 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 of the bill. "8 May 2012: Senate Republicans block a Democratic bill which would have paid for the one-year extension by eliminating a tax break for S corporations that would force high-earning stockholders to pay additional Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes."

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Jul-09-13 3:30 PM

Two plans put forward by congress: ?27 April 2012: House of Representatives passes a bill to extend the 3.4% interest rate by redirecting funds for 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 of the bill. ? 8 May 2012: Senate Republicans block a Democratic bill which would have paid for the one-year extension by eliminating a tax break for S corporations that would force high-earning stockholders to pay additional Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Now, this is the Republican strategy: Lets pay for this by tapping into the health care fund. Lets protect the wealthy from paying taxes... That's how to pay for this--- Don't take it from the Billions in subsidies to Big oil, major corporations, Farmers????

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Jul-09-13 3:37 PM

By the way, there was a proposal to set the rate at the same rate that the government loans money to banks every day--- .75% for the short term then go up to 3.4% but still not a long term fix... That was defeated. So, how much interest is the government making on these loans? Oh, around $51 Billion a year!! But the Republicans want even higher rates and also more fees. Gotta pay for all the contributions from the big donors, ya know.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jul-09-13 4:29 PM

centerish, I surely hope you have been very vocal with these concerns to your own senators and representative(s). They really need to know.

I hope you don't spend ALL your time here on MDN, telling some people online exactly what you think or feel. How much good will that do?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jul-09-13 5:14 PM

"So, how much interest is the government making on these loans? Oh, around $51 Billion a year!! But the Republicans want even higher rates and also more fees."

Is it possible that student loans, as administered by the US government, shouldn't be considered a free gift (to be paid later) for one's higher education?

Why should taxpayers (from whom the government gets its money) have to be on the hook to essentially provide higher education for any and all students, some of whom might perhaps default on their loan payments?

Back to square one: I don't think the government should be in the business of administering student loans.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Jul-09-13 6:09 PM

And, I don't think the government should be in the business of giving sweet deals to the banking industry. Or, do you think that is fair? I would rather give the rate break to the people than to the corporations. But, then, the big corporate donations would not come in. It all comes down to keeping the money source flowing and the Republicans are very good at that. You wingers obviously have not figured that out yet.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jul-09-13 6:46 PM

"I don't think the government should be in the business of giving sweet deals to the banking industry."

I can agree with this.

"It all comes down to keeping the money source flowing and the Republicans are very good at that."

To imply that the Democrats are somehow not as adept in this activity is to be willfully naive.

They're all politicians who know on which side their bread is buttered.

opensecrets . org/overview/index . php

2011-2012 election cycle "based on data released by the FEC on 04/16/2013"

House: Dems $485,807,409 - GOP $615,698,976

Senate: Dems $303,637,298 - GOP $377,246,329

President: Dems $738,503,770 - GOP $625,415,940

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Jul-10-13 12:28 AM

Nice figures, loco, but did we leave out some small items that are attached to the spending? Anyway, the kochs, roves, and the vegas king spent around a billion dollars to further their ambitions of which 100% went to the big dogs of the far right wing. But, who is counting.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Jul-10-13 12:46 AM

Oh, and which side is protecting the big boys and trying to put the bite on those who can handle it the least. That is what you support. You must be proud.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Jul-10-13 12:49 AM

Take your paid comments elsewhere, hypocrite paid dusty. You are a disgrace to blogging.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jul-10-13 9:18 AM

"...which side is protecting the big boys and trying to put the bite on those who can handle it the least. That is what you support." centerish, one of the main talking points of the Democrat party is that they are looking out for the little guys.

Horse feathers. In reality, NO party is looking out for the little guys. Handing out money, subsidies if you will, is an elected official's power. "Votes For Gifts" is what JackAaah says.

Of course there are times where a hand up for individuals is needed, but the help should be limited somehow and not become a way of life. And I've said before on MDN that I'm not in favor of subsidies for businesses.

Wouldn't it be better for government to stay out of subsidizing and instead allow responsibility for oneself to be the goal?

Dependency on government isn't good in the long run for anyone, individual or business.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Jul-10-13 9:54 AM

It is painfully obvious that the Republican party is white, rich, and old. Those of you in the younger crowd swallow all the media garbage and don't even really know what the real Republican party was supposed to stand for. Plus, the right wing of the party is totally off their rocker. As to who supports the average person, it is the dems who give them the support by a wide margin. This la-la land that you bloggers here walk in is really entertaining to watch. The blind leading the blind.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MattRothchild

Jul-10-13 11:19 AM

I didn't realize that less than $22 a month was such a matter of fire-breathing vehemence.

You know, it's funny. Every time someone wants money spent on their pet project, they always try to sell it by telling us, "For less than the price of a <insert seemingly inconsequential expense here>..."

Yet we see similar terms used here and...

Tell me this thing isn't loaded up with partisan ambition.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Jul-10-13 12:51 PM

Obviously, Matt, you are not a worldly person if you truly believe that $22 a month is not significant loss of income for these people. But, we give money to banks at less than 1 % interest so why not give the same rate on student Loans?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MattRothchild

Jul-10-13 1:45 PM

And yet, when various other people come along with their pet spending projects, we're always told things like "We can't afford not to make this investment" and other such assorted nonsense.

And "we" don't give banks anything for 1% interest. You're referring to the Federal Reserve System and its member banks borrowing from something called the "Discount Window". If you think the Federal Reserve is somehow "us", you'd better go read some books...fast.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Jul-10-13 2:37 PM

Oh, my goodness, you have caught me. The money is loaned to the banks at less than 1% interest and directly or indirectly it comes from the government. No matter how you split your hairs, matt, the interest rate is significant to the students. But, why not take in some of the foreign aide we give out or better yet, big oils billions in tax breaks and subsidies. Oh, we could not do that, why it would be un American.. As you point at me needing help reading, remember that you have fingers pointing at you.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MattRothchild

Jul-10-13 4:02 PM

"The money is loaned to the banks at less than 1% interest and directly or indirectly it comes from the government"

Actually, that's not true either.

Seriously, you need to go read a book, a few that explain what, exactly, the Federal Reserve System is. Hint: it's not a government agency, as you allege, but is nevertheless the body that issues the currency of the UNited States.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MattRothchild

Jul-10-13 4:03 PM

Seriously, CF, you're way out of your league...and not in a good way.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jul-10-13 10:45 PM

"...the Republican party is white, rich, and old."

I'm only one of three on that description.

"As to who supports the average person, it is the dems who give them the support by a wide margin."

That all depends on how you define the word "support."

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 43 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web