2016 POTUS Election Thread

[Smitty]

I knew you ere going to come in with that same bullshit econ argument again.

A government-backed student loan does not restrict market entry or set prices for goods or services.

A loan is a loan, please explain how they restrict anything in this process. they sure as hell do not restrict the price of colleges or demand these days.

Using your definition nothing is free market as long as the government is regulating interest rates through the fed.

And your argument is stupid anyway if you think a good college education is based on what you got in a econ class.

You are embarrassing yourself.

And yes, the Fed meddling is a great point about how everything liberals blame on greed or the free market is actually the Feds fault for fucking with interest rates i.e. the housing market bubble.

 

[L.T. Fan]

So just because you quite early it does not mean you don't pay a cent.

I didn't say everyone I gave a category that was problematic. Why do you always seem to be baiting or creating something that isn't there?

 

[Jiggyfly]

You are embarrassing yourself.

And yes, the Fed meddling is a great point about how everything liberals blame on greed or the free market is actually the Feds fault for fucking with interest rates i.e. the housing market bubble.

How am I embarrassing myself when you just agreed with me?

Either there is no such thing as a true free market or the gov can have a hand in something and it still is free market.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

How am I embarrassing myself when you just agreed with me?

Either there is no such thing as a true free market or the gov can have a hand in something and it still is free market.

There aren't any truly pure free markets. Like you just mentioned, the Fed manipulates currency which impacts basically all markets where currency is involved. Some markets are close to free then others though. For example, Obamacare is even less of a free market then what we saw before Obamacare. Although neither of them would really be considered a free market.

 

[L.T. Fan]

There aren't any truly pure free markets. Like you just mentioned, the Fed manipulates currency which impacts basically all markets where currency is involved. Some markets are close to free then others though. For example, Obamacare is even less of a free market then what we saw before Obamacare. Although neither of them would really be considered a free market.

One of the primary reasons the Fed has kept interest rates low is for the national debt. At the current rates the US is able to at least pay the interest on the deficit thereby avoiding a lowering of credit rating for instruments they issue to raise funds for the budget. There are other reasons but this is one you don't hear talked about much.

 

[Jiggyfly]

There aren't any truly pure free markets. Like you just mentioned, the Fed manipulates currency which impacts basically all markets where currency is involved. Some markets are close to free then others though. For example, Obamacare is even less of a free market then what we saw before Obamacare. Although neither of them would really be considered a free market.

So I guess we pretty much agree.

Yes college is tied to the gov more than most but there are still a lot of free market principles involved.

 

[Jiggyfly]

I didn't say everyone I gave a category that was problematic. Why do you always seem to be baiting or creating something that isn't there?

You gave a category that is not as problematic as the long term students who actually graduate and accrue much more debt.

You can only "pretend" to be a student for a short time.

It seemed you were making a blanket statement about people like Townsend not paying there debt being the biggest problem maybe i read it wrong, my bad.

And the none re payers reach across all demographics not just the people who get early money and get out.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

So I guess we pretty much agree.

Yes college is tied to the gov more than most but there are still a lot of free market principles involved.

But the exact reason people are bitching about education. That the costs are too high. Is caused by the government intervention. Colleges are able to rip people off because of what the government has done with student loans. That has nothing to do with free market principals. It has to do with government basically writing a blank check to colleges for people's education. In a free market fewer people would go to college and college tuition would be much lower. Now some people think that is a bad thing. They feel like everyone should go to college and have a right to college. Some people consider it a good thing because the only people who would go to college are the people who see likely future returns on their investment. And they wouldn't be buried in student debt because costs would be lower. Instead we currently straddle somewhere in the middle which is a shitty position where everyone can go to college but they leave with lots of debt and many of those degrees don't mean shit.

 

[L.T. Fan]

You gave a category that is not as problematic as the long term students who actually graduate and accrue much more debt.

You can only "pretend" to be a student for a short time.

It seemed you were making a blanket statement about people like Townsend not paying there debt being the biggest problem maybe i read it wrong, my bad.

And the none re payers reach across all demographics not just the people who get early money and get out.

You assumed all that. My statement was clear. There are some who are not really qualified to go to college but the system allows then to go via a loan program. At some point they are thrown out or walk away and they feel no obligation to pay. That's the long and short of it. I know this from first hand experience.

 

[townsend]

You assumed all that. My statement was clear. There are some who are not really qualified to go to college but the system allows then to go via a loan program. At some point they are thrown out or walk away and they feel no obligation to pay. That's the long and short of it. I know this from first hand experience.

i don't know what your experience is in what the repercussions of not paying student loans is, but it can be ruinous. This is a debt that can't be forfeited, not even through bankruptcy.

 

[L.T. Fan]

i don't know what your experience is in what the repercussions of not paying student loans is, but it can be ruinous. This is a debt that can't be forfeited, not even through bankruptcy.

I am aware of that and that is why I said the dillegence factor should be done up front before the obligation is made. You have already indicated that the education system doesn't do a proper screening process in fact just the opposite. They will likely encourage students to go into debt to obtain an education. That is why I think the process should be done by some disinterested entity.

The old fashioned qualifying factor is a tried and proven method for keeping prudent decisions for both borrower and lender. For students it should be both qualifying academically and counseling as to the seriousness of creating a liability.

 

[Jiggyfly]

You assumed all that. My statement was clear. There are some who are not really qualified to go to college but the system allows then to go via a loan program. At some point they are thrown out or walk away and they feel no obligation to pay. That's the long and short of it. I know this from first hand experience.

Feel better now.

I know about that from 1st hand experience as well and it's still not the biggest issue being discussed here.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Feel better now.

I know about that from 1st hand experience as well and it's still not the biggest issue being discussed here.

I'm not saying it's the biggest issue to be discussed but it is one issue the Townsend touched on so if it bugs you just ignore it. Did you work with student Loans?

 

[BipolarFuk]

 

[townsend]

I am aware of that and that is why I said the dillegence factor should be done up front before the obligation is made. You have already indicated that the education system doesn't do a proper screening process in fact just the opposite. They will likely encourage students to go into debt to obtain an education. That is why I think the process should be done by some disinterested entity.

The old fashioned qualifying factor is a tried and proven method for keeping prudent decisions for both borrower and lender. For students it should be both qualifying academically and counseling as to the seriousness of creating a liability.

I think the problem isn't the qualifying students, most people I've met with bachelor's degrees (or even lingering student debt after dropping out) were not dumb. As it turns out most drop outs are people who try and "work their way" through college, and end up quitting because that's impossible, and drops your grade a couple letters in the attempt.

The larger problem is fake educators. We shouldn't allow a dime of federal loans go to sham colleges. That have way higher tuition than real colleges, but their degrees are worthless. But like publicly funded sports stadiums, pyramid schemes, and homeschooling, for profit colleges have a lot of idiots willing to fight common sense tooth and nail to prevent the government from ever fixing it.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I think the problem isn't the qualifying students, most people I've met with bachelor's degrees (or even lingering student debt after dropping out) were not dumb. As it turns out most drop outs are people who try and "work their way" through college, and end up quitting because that's impossible, and drops your grade a couple letters in the attempt.

The larger problem is fake educators. We shouldn't allow a dime of federal loans go to sham colleges. That have way higher tuition than real colleges, but their degrees are worthless. But like publicly funded sports stadiums, pyramid schemes, and homeschooling, for profit colleges have a lot of idiots willing to fight common sense tooth and nail to prevent the government from ever fixing it.

How about fake degree programs? If I'm evaluating whether a loan can get paid back, I'd like to know if it is realistically going to lead to a job that pays enough for them to make the payments on the loan.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I think the problem isn't the qualifying students, most people I've met with bachelor's degrees (or even lingering student debt after dropping out) were not dumb. As it turns out most drop outs are people who try and "work their way" through college, and end up quitting because that's impossible, and drops your grade a couple letters in the attempt.

The larger problem is fake educators. We shouldn't allow a dime of federal loans go to sham colleges. That have way higher tuition than real colleges, but their degrees are worthless. But like publicly funded sports stadiums, pyramid schemes, and homeschooling, for profit colleges have a lot of idiots willing to fight common sense tooth and nail to prevent the government from ever fixing it.

I am not sure what your idea is of a sham college is but if they are allowed to be considered as a legitimate entity by students and their parents then the responsibility has to belong to someone for hooking up with this type of program. Especially if it is unreasonably priced. Where is the student responsibility for falling into this mindset? Where is the parental responsibility for not using common sense? All the blame cannot go to the sham school. They can only do what someone allows them to do.

My point remains that the time to deal intelligently with the education process is not somewhere down the road when one is in over there head but before program is engaged. That part of responsibility is apparently missing in a lot of the student loan population for both the sham and legitimate school. Having remorse and anguish could be avoided in many cases by being responsible before the fact.

You have already given an instance where someone is now in a serious bind over their debt. I don't know the circumstances involved but something went away. I wonder if there could have been a different outcome had the plan been approached differently at the onset. Maybe so maybe not but I feel the initial analysis in many cases could have revealed some different approaches rather than just dive head first into debt for an education. I don't think it is a difficult thing to use discipline to find answers to needed information. That is what is missing in many instances of acquiring debt in general.

 

[townsend]

How about fake degree programs? If I'm evaluating whether a loan can get paid back, I'd like to know if it is realistically going to lead to a job that pays enough for them to make the payments on the loan.

I don't think there are fake degree programs from accredited colleges. Just art degrees. Which aren't the same as shams, they just aren't really tracks for specific careers.

It's the difference between selling barren land over value, and selling the Golden Gate Bridge.

 

[townsend]

I am not sure what your idea is of a sham college is but if they are allowed to be considered as a legitimate entity by students and their parents then the responsibility has to belong to someone for hooking up with this type of program. Especially if it is unreasonably priced. Where is the student responsibility for falling into this mindset? Where is the parental responsibility for not using common sense? All the blame cannot go to the sham school. They can only do what someone allows them to do.

The biggest issue is colleges like ITT Tech and such sell you on their degrees, and your potential career. I'm not saying the people who get scammed aren't somewhat respinsible for being scammed, but that doesn't mean that kind of intentional deception (Which is to say, peddling a degree that turns out to be literally worthless and carries no accreditation or recognition from employers) should be lawful, and at the very least shouldn't be government subsidized.

My point remains that the time to deal intelligently with the education process is not somewhere down the road when one is in over there head but before program is engaged. That part of responsibility is apparently missing in a lot of the student loan population for both the sham and legitimate school. Having remorse and anguish could be avoided in many cases by being responsible before the fact.

You have already given an instance where someone is now in a serious bind over their debt. I don't know the circumstances involved but something went away. I wonder if there could have been a different outcome had the plan been approached differently at the onset. Maybe so maybe not but I feel the initial analysis in many cases could have revealed some different approaches rather than just dive head first into debt for an education. I don't think it is a difficult thing to use discipline to find answers to needed information. That is what is missing in many instances of acquiring debt in general.

so I have a VA mortgage, thanks to the government. To acquire that loan, I had to have an employer, and a decent credit rating. Most importantly, if the value of my home did not meet or exceed the asking price, they would not finance it.
I'm 30, and in this generation that's pretty damn young for a home owner. How is it that we're trusting 19 year olds to take out loans that are comparable to my mortgage (but at MUCH higher interest, for something of much less stable value) and have less controls in place? Is there another single situation where a kid who's never worked a day in his life can talk themselves into 5 to six figures worth of debt? That's irresponsible lending. That's selling cigarettes to babies, and tricking children into giving away the family cow for magic beans. It's predatory lending.

Ideally some snot nosed kid who doesn't know how to balance a check book could be a responsible borrower, but we'd never have another member of the infantry if young people weren't idiots that agree to things they don't understand.

 

[L.T. Fan]

The biggest issue is colleges like ITT Tech and such sell you on their degrees, and your potential career. I'm not saying the people who get scammed aren't somewhat respinsible for being scammed, but that doesn't mean that kind of intentional deception (Which is to say, peddling a degree that turns out to be literally worthless and carries no accreditation or recognition from employers) should be lawful, and at the very least shouldn't be government subsidized.

so I have a VA mortgage, thanks to the government. To acquire that loan, I had to have an employer, and a decent credit rating. Most importantly, if the value of my home did not meet or exceed the asking price, they would not finance it.
I'm 30, and in this generation that's pretty damn young for a home owner. How is it that we're trusting 19 year olds to take out loans that are comparable to my mortgage (but at MUCH higher interest, for something of much less stable value) and have less controls in place? Is there another single situation where a kid who's never worked a day in his life can talk themselves into 5 to six figures worth of debt? That's irresponsible lending. That's selling cigarettes to babies, and tricking children into giving away the family cow for magic beans. It's predatory lending.

Ideally some snot nosed kid who doesn't know how to balance a check book could be a responsible borrower, but we'd never have another member of the infantry if young people weren't idiots that agree to things they don't understand.

I don't disagree with you about the fringe college institutions but my point is that there needs to be a solution reached regarding how to be diligent about the education process before the fact not after the money has been spent. The borrowers need a disinterested source to review and determine whether the student is responsible and the school is worthwhile before it is approved.