People are ok with corporate debt forgiveness, but not student loans

What about my neighbor who paid off his student loans but has run up $50k in credit card debt? What about the one who bought an expensive house that dropped in value and he can't afford the payments but has his student loans paid off? Another neighbor has $200k in home equity and earns $150k per year and is making payments on his $50k of student loans. He is in the best financial position but the Government should give him $50k instead of the other two who are in bad shape?

trump, mcconnell and mnuchin all want trump to have a 1/2 trillion dollar bailout fund for trump to bail out any business trump chooses to bail out including some of trump's failing businesses. This is the issue holding up the U.S. Senate bailout package. How can you get yourself mad about the student loan issue but you do not mind trump, mcconnell and mnuchin all wanting trump to have $500 billion dollars to do what he pleases? Your example of someone who already paid off their student loans does not hold much water. I graduate with $2500 of student loans. I paid it off in six months. I would rather have tax payers pay off your student loans than U.S. set trillions of dollars on fire bailing out corporations.

Allen53 wrote:

Nonsense- quit apologizing for parasites. Get rid of the Wall St. bloodsuckers- problem solved.

And buckle up we're about to get another lesson in how there is in fact plenty of money for things like free education as another couple trillion is about to magically float over to the Wall St. parasites.

WTF is wrong with you? What did I say that was in any way favorable towards "Wall St. bloodsuckers"? I specifically pointed my finger at the fact that student loans are excluded from bankruptcy as the root cause of the current situation. Do you think I am supporting "Wall St. bloodsuckers" by saying that students who can't pay back their loans should be able to declare bankruptcy?

As for whether "there is in fact plenty of money for things like free education," you know absolutely nothing, zero, nada, zilch about economics. If you have a giant pile of cash--enough cash to buy everyone in the world a new car--guess what happens to the price of new cars. The price goes up. You may have enough money right now, but just wait until you open up the cash spigot and start paying for everything. The price will go up when there is no pressure or incentive to keep the price down. If you don't even understand this most simple and most basic principle of economics, then you really shouldn't even have any opinions about these topics.

Employers should be forced to pay off student loans. They are the freeloaders here, relying on other people to pay exorbitant prices to train their workforce for them.

You want to hire educated people, pay up.

I’m against full loan forgiveness. I would not be against abtuition only waiver or no interest if made 5 years of payments.

The price of college and medical need to be put in check. Something has to be done.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Employers should be forced to pay off student loans. They are the freeloaders here, relying on other people to pay exorbitant prices to train their workforce for them.

You want to hire educated people, pay up.

Stop smoking dope. It will only make you dumber.

Pappy wrote:

loanpayer, What do you consider low interest? My Daughters student loans I thought had interest higher than I like. When I took out a student loan in the 80's the interest was much lower.

You are a liar.

I took a GSl in the 80's the interest rates were 8-10%. Other loans were 12%.

Why? One kid chose a JUCO and then transferred to a state school and worked his way through to graduate with no debt while his best buddy chose an expensive school and graduated with $100k in student loans. They both got hired by the same employer on the same day to do the same job. If you want the employer to give one employee $100k, it is only fair that he gives the second employee $100k. Student loan debt is no different than a car loan or a mortgage loan or credit card debt to an individual. You earn money and you pay your bills. Only the most selfish think someone else should repay their debt while their friends and family and neighbors pay their own and pay yours through increased taxes.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Employers should be forced to pay off student loans. They are the freeloaders here, relying on other people to pay exorbitant prices to train their workforce for them.

You want to hire educated people, pay up.

Employers do pay off student loans. Most of them cut you a check every two weeks so you can pay off your student loans. That's how I paid mine off. That's how all my coworkers paid theirs off (or are currently paying them off).

Not in response to your post:

I do think it's funny that some people can't differentiate between a loan and a payoff. The Fed issues $4T in loans to banks. Those loans have to get paid back. The Fed doesn't just payoff the banks' debt. People comparing this to forgiving all student loan debt really seem to struggle with this concept for some reason.

Another thing people say is, "The Fed just created money out of thin air!" All banks do that all the time. I believe banks are required to hold 10% in deposits for every dollar they loan. So, every time a bank has $1 deposited in the bank, they can create $10 "out of thin air" by making a $10 loan.

Our government has always been trying to support business. Nothing bad in that, unless the business is contrary to national best interests. Some politicians act like they are clueless about that 'best interest' qualifier. They think it is just a matter of full employment.

We allow business to expense all sorts of business related things, like continuing education, licensing and certification, etc. Why not incorporate college education in to that pro business mindset?

Can't. Not all education is business related.

So, I propose that we allow free college so long as it fits in with our business interests.

If you want to promote free college for other things that fit in to other national interests, like green energy and governmental sustainability, then justify it within the budgetary considerations of those other activities.

dfa wrote:

Fed just announced a new facility to backstop corporate debt.

And yet this forum froths in their mouths when Warren brings up student loan forgiveness.

Discuss

One version of the bill was not about delaying payments but completely wiping them out. While I am not a fan of loan forgiveness, I think it is worth a debate just should not be included in this package.

Just as funding for NOAA should not be included in the House bill...

Actually, I'm not sure where I got the idea that banks only had a required LDR less than 1000%. I apologize. It looks like 80-90% LDR is more typical. Which means most banks are not creating money out of thin air. My mistake.

RyecorDone wrote:

Our government has always been trying to support business. Nothing bad in that, unless the business is contrary to national best interests. Some politicians act like they are clueless about that 'best interest' qualifier. They think it is just a matter of full employment.

We allow business to expense all sorts of business related things, like continuing education, licensing and certification, etc. Why not incorporate college education in to that pro business mindset?

Can't. Not all education is business related.

So, I propose that we allow free college so long as it fits in with our business interests.

If you want to promote free college for other things that fit in to other national interests, like green energy and governmental sustainability, then justify it within the budgetary considerations of those other activities.

Why are you conflating expensing a cost with having something for free? Those are drastically different.

Socialists do not understand the difference.

I don't like either, it's the tax payers paying for both. There is wasteful spending in both situations.

If a corporation has to be bailed out, the people with the highest salaries should take a hit and not get any bonuses.

If there's student loan forgiveness, then those people should have to pay a higher tax the rest of their life to pay it back once things are stable again.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Employers should be forced to pay off student loans. They are the freeloaders here, relying on other people to pay exorbitant prices to train their workforce for them.

You want to hire educated people, pay up.

If you tried that employers would just lower benefits or salaries/wages to compensate.

RyecorDone wrote:

Our government has always been trying to support business. Nothing bad in that, unless the business is contrary to national best interests. Some politicians act like they are clueless about that 'best interest' qualifier. They think it is just a matter of full employment.

We allow business to expense all sorts of business related things, like continuing education, licensing and certification, etc. Why not incorporate college education in to that pro business mindset?

Can't. Not all education is business related.

So, I propose that we allow free college so long as it fits in with our business interests.

If you want to promote free college for other things that fit in to other national interests, like green energy and governmental sustainability, then justify it within the budgetary considerations of those other activities.

We know U.S. historically supported agriculture industry and still does, initially with land grants, then subsidies. When U.S. and the rest of the world transitioned from whale blubber as a fuel to coal then oil & natural gas, we know of coal and oil & gas subsidies. We know of subsidies for weapon contractors, Military Industrial Complex. I cannot think of huge bailouts except 2008 & 2009 for U.S. banks and GM. Give us examples of other bailouts. This is not Business as Usual.

These loans were made in amounts that far exceeded the usual requirements for someone to get that kind of money. The lender knew there was no collateral but they liked the idea that the loans were guaranteed to be paid off by the student or his parents whether or not they had a realistic ability to do so.....it's like me trying to buy a $150,000 car but if I couldn't make payments the car was not to be used as collateral. Lenders more like drug dealers than real bankers.

math wizner wrote:

What about my neighbor who paid off his student loans but has run up $50k in credit card debt? What about the one who bought an expensive house that dropped in value and he can't afford the payments but has his student loans paid off? Another neighbor has $200k in home equity and earns $150k per year and is making payments on his $50k of student loans. He is in the best financial position but the Government should give him $50k instead of the other two who are in bad shape?

__________________________________________________

The credit card guy and the homeowner could declare bankruptcy if they had to... The student loan guy is NOT ALLOWED to declare bankruptcy. Yes, he shouldn't have take out that much in loans but also the lender should not have given such huge loans to people not earning any money. Who does that?