Breaking News Student Loan Payments to Resume

Bear Ribs said:
Yeah, but then when they're in power, somehow they never take advantage of it and the subject is quietly dropped... until they're out of power and can safely rant and rave about it again while knowing they won't have to actually follow through because they don't have the votes.
Click to expand...
Because fiscal conservatives are not actually IN power?

No, seriously, when were fiscal conservatives in power? Trump? Trump was explicitly a populist and NOT a fiscal conservative. W. Bush? Again, not a fiscal conservative. Reagan? House was controlled by the Dems, and the House makes the budget.

You know the ONE TIME fiscal conservatives actually controlled the House? From around 1992 to 2000. You know what happened in that period? Government spending as a percent of GDT DROPPED, budgets were actually being balanced, and it wasn't just because of the economic boom of the 1990s, that helped certainly, but it was also because fiscal conservatives in the House actually reigned in government spending like they said they wanted to.

In other words, the one time fiscal conservatives actually reliably had the power of the purse, they actually DID reign in spending. However, like so many other aspects of "conservatism" people just associate it with equaling "Republican" so when Republicans don't do something, conservatives are blamed, which ignores that Republicans are a big tend party with any type of conservatives being only part of that coalition, and the fiscal cons are the group most often sacrificed to compromise with other interests both within the Republican coalition, and without.
 
S'task said:
Because fiscal conservatives are not actually IN power?

No, seriously, when were fiscal conservatives in power? Trump? Trump was explicitly a populist and NOT a fiscal conservative. W. Bush? Again, not a fiscal conservative. Reagan? House was controlled by the Dems, and the House makes the budget.

You know the ONE TIME fiscal conservatives actually controlled the House? From around 1992 to 2000. You know what happened in that period? Government spending as a percent of GDT DROPPED, budgets were actually being balanced, and it wasn't just because of the economic boom of the 1990s, that helped certainly, but it was also because fiscal conservatives in the House actually reigned in government spending like they said they wanted to.

In other words, the one time fiscal conservatives actually reliably had the power of the purse, they actually DID reign in spending. However, like so many other aspects of "conservatism" people just associate it with equaling "Republican" so when Republicans don't do something, conservatives are blamed, which ignores that Republicans are a big tend party with any type of conservatives being only part of that coalition, and the fiscal cons are the group most often sacrificed to compromise with other interests both within the Republican coalition, and without.
Click to expand...
Maybe if the 'fiscal conservatives' had cared less about trying to slash budgets and programs, and more about some long term thinking about the long term effects of those cuts, as well as maybe being a little more forceful on the national security front, we'd still have decent domestic ship building capacity, less fucked infrastructure, and you know all those little 'fiscal' lapses of the 90's that gave us a temporary surplus but fucked us in other ways for decades.

'Fiscal' conservatism has very little power, because most people understand that a nation-state's finances do not work like a household's, and 'balancing the budget' means a shit load less when you can issue your own debt and currency. The 11+ carriers, nukes, and our arms industry also mean no international IRS can 'raid/audit' the US either.

Neo-con warhawks are less in denial of the true functionality of the US economy; money printer gonna go brrr, Warthogs gonna go brrrt, and the dollar will be worth however much the Federal Reserve wants its to be.
 
The Whispering Monk said:
Except all the banks that made these loans understood that they would be covered...which is just a dumb way to really run a business b/c then the risk calculation gets ignored. This leads to bad things down the road for many parties.

Student debts shouldn't just be cancelled, just like no debt should just be cancelled. Banks shouldn't be punished for doing it either. The government should be punished by removing their power and influence over our lives.
Click to expand...

The notion that debt should be permanent was one of the first ways Judeo-Christian civilization was subverted by modernism.

Captain X said:
They do offer part-time jobs, but like every other job a student can possibly get, there is no hope of them actually being able to pay off those loans.
Click to expand...

A lot of colleges intentionally take advantage of students who don't have vehicles by paying well below market rate in an area. This is how you end up with students making $7.25 when an equivalent job off campus pays $14 an hour. Literally no one at my college with a car worked on campus.

I'd also say that working a job doesn't make sense if it takes up so much time that you don't have proper time for studies and networking. I also found the people who prioritized working to avoid student debt to such an extent that they got Cs instead of As to be crazy. If you're not confident college is worth it, don't go to college!
 
49ersfootball said:
These colleges could also offer students part-time jobs in university departments, etc.,

Plus I've seen several of my college classmates working part-time jobs in order to paying off student loans.
Click to expand...
These days (and back when I went to college in the 2010s) a part time job wouldn't even pay for one class a semester.

If we consider JUST the average cost per credit hour, not additional fees, housing, etc l. Working minimum wage, which is what most on campus Jobs will pay, you're doing 7 weeks at 20 hours a week, JUST to cover JUST the per credit hour cost of one class. That's half the semester right there.

So if you had absolutely no other expenses whatsoever, you could pay for two classes a semester. But since you need to eat and afford a place to live, buy books, and cover the additional fees and transportation? It's virtually impossible.

You can basically only go to college these days if your parents have money, you qualify for scholarships, grants, or you take out loans. Or you can go part time if you already have a nice paying full time job.

The days of working part time, or grabbing a summer job to pay for college are long dead.
 
Last edited:
DarthOne said:
You've got a news source or something for that?
Click to expand...
www.propertyroad.co.uk

Are Intergenerational Mortgages The Answer?

To fix the housing market, the Government is looking into the possibility of allowing 50-year intergenerational mortgages. Is this the answer?
www.propertyroad.co.uk www.propertyroad.co.uk

What is the Intergenerational Mortgage? - The Mortgage Broker

Intergenerational mortgage may not be a term you are familiar with yet. However, this could be about to change. One mutual society that we know of is introducing a new type of loan that could help younger family members get onto the housing ladder for the first time. This loan is very different...
themortgagebroker.co.uk themortgagebroker.co.uk

They REALLY want to get it rolling.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
www.propertyroad.co.uk

Are Intergenerational Mortgages The Answer?

To fix the housing market, the Government is looking into the possibility of allowing 50-year intergenerational mortgages. Is this the answer?
www.propertyroad.co.uk www.propertyroad.co.uk

What is the Intergenerational Mortgage? - The Mortgage Broker

Intergenerational mortgage may not be a term you are familiar with yet. However, this could be about to change. One mutual society that we know of is introducing a new type of loan that could help younger family members get onto the housing ladder for the first time. This loan is very different...
themortgagebroker.co.uk themortgagebroker.co.uk

They REALLY want to get it rolling.
Click to expand...

Dear Lord.
 
Intergenerational Mortgage...as a way to reduce tax liability from the Death Tax...that's just dumb.
How 'bout you put the paid off home in a trust for the benefit of your family?
This is just a bad idea for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top