Obamas Education proposal.. dont let this scam slip under our noses

If they're cutting private loan subsidies to put the money into federal loans, there's really nothing to complain about.
 
ib1yysguy said:
But if the government is offering an alternative, I find it hard to feel bad about that.
Click to expand...

so long as they dont attache a bunch of limits on how much you can borrow and who qualifies...
Example

40k a year education.
Current scenario: I get any grants, scholarships, and my 5500 of stafford govt loan.. The rest I can fund via a private subsidised student loan.

New scenario: I get grants, scholarships, stafford money, and then ????how much in govt loan?

My fear of course is they say well we can only give 5k per student per year ir ur income is over x$$..

This would leave some in a bind of how to get the rest of the tuition money without going out and getting 10% loans.
 
Chapdog said:
so long as they dont attache a bunch of limits on how much you can borrow and who qualifies...
Example

40k a year education.
Current scenario: I get any grants, scholarships, and my 5500 of stafford govt loan.. The rest I can fund via a private subsidised student loan.

New scenario: I get grants, scholarships, stafford money, and then ????how much in govt loan?

My fear of course is they say well we can only give 5k per student per year ir ur income is over x$$..

This would leave some in a bind of how to get the rest of the tuition money without going out and getting 10% loans.
Click to expand...

That would be a problem, yes. My guess: It's not going to happen. They'll probably cap the amount you can take out at the cost of school and not above like private loans do if their goal is to replace that market with a government run alternative.
 
Chapdog said:
i worked in the industry. im saying that. prove me wrong
Click to expand...

The burden isn't upon us to prove your unsubstantiated claims wrong. It would be proving a negative anyway. "Prove that they aren't going to reduce or eliminate private loan subsidies" is a task nobody can complete. You can, however, much more easily show us evidence that they're trying to do that.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Thank God. Private student loans are a huge racket. You can quickly get in over your head and you wind up not ever being able to get out from under the debt. If you declare bankruptcy, they increase your principle and make you pay even more since they're exempt from bankruptcy protection.

If the government can lend directly with lower rates, then the private college lending institutions will collapse because of COMPETITION from the government which can do this much better and more safely than the private institutions. They're not outlawing private lending.

I have a ton of private student loans. Last time I called to try to get my balance, they couldn't even find a record of my loans because Bank of America had sold them off to another bank and they couldn't tell me who the fuck to call to get the information I needed to get a statement faxed to me so my cosigner could complete his condo loan application.

This should have been done 9 years ago.
Click to expand...

Yep pretty much.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Democrats: "We can spend as much as we want and it doesn't matter, because Bush had a deficit too".......
Click to expand...

Unlike Republicans, Democrats are responsible with the money.

At the very least, it makes you guys hypocrites for not saying a fucking word during the last 8 years, so STFU again and let the adults govern.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Unlike Republicans, Democrats are responsible with the money.

At the very least, it makes you guys hypocrites for not saying a fucking word during the last 8 years, so STFU again and let the adults govern.
Click to expand...

Actually quite a few people spoke out against Bush and his spending during his term in office hence many independents and fiscal conservatives whose support Bush and the Republicans lost in '06 and '08. And both sides can correctly call the other side hypocrites. If you rightly criticized Bush for his spending during his term but are now saying its ok where does that leave you?

And Democrats are responsible with our money? I'll write that off as a partisan statement in the heat of an argument. I would be extremely impressed if someone could actually pass a polygraph test claiming anyone in our government is responsible with our money let alone an entire political party.
 
cawacko said:
Actually quite a few people spoke out against Bush and his spending during his term in office hence many independents and fiscal conservatives whose support Bush and the Republicans lost in '06 and '08. And both sides can correctly call the other side hypocrites. If you rightly criticized Bush for his spending during his term but are now saying its ok where does that leave you?

And Democrats are responsible with our money? I'll write that off as a partisan statement in the heat of an argument. I would be extremely impressed if someone could actually pass a polygraph test claiming anyone in our government is responsible with our money let alone an entire political party.
Click to expand...


I mostly agree with that. My only 2 exceptions are the current recession necessisates more spending for a bit.

And those republicans in govt still mostly voted for every cent of Bush's spending. I do say mostly because there were a handful of true fiscal cons in there.

And anyone who ever expected a dem not to spend is a bit off plumb.
 
cawacko said:
Actually quite a few people spoke out against Bush and his spending during his term in office hence many independents and fiscal conservatives whose support Bush and the Republicans lost in '06 and '08. And both sides can correctly call the other side hypocrites. If you rightly criticized Bush for his spending during his term but are now saying its ok where does that leave you?

And Democrats are responsible with our money? I'll write that off as a partisan statement in the heat of an argument. I would be extremely impressed if someone could actually pass a polygraph test claiming anyone in our government is responsible with our money let alone an entire political party.
Click to expand...

Uh, but he was reelected. So clearly not enough did. Clearly, the majority of Republicans who voted for him are tools.
 
We spend billions each year giving the middle man money. Just get rid of the middle man. The whole complicated private subsidized loan scheme is only there as a fancy accounting trick to make the government look smaller than it actually is.
 
ib1yysguy said:
If they're cutting private loan subsidies to put the money into federal loans, there's really nothing to complain about.
Click to expand...

About 2/3 of loans are handled under the direct loan program that Clinton started. Most colleges use it. This is ending the option for universities to choose the private option, because the direct option was so wildly successful. People like Chap won't even know the difference, because he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. He thinks that they're going to replace the student loans with Stafford loans only, which is an entirely different program. In fact, those student loans he was going to get were probably going to be handled by the direct loan program anyway.
 
TheHappyHippo said:
We spend billions each year giving the middle man money. Just get rid of the middle man. The whole complicated private subsidized loan scheme is only there as a fancy accounting trick to make the government look smaller than it actually is.
Click to expand...

By middle man you mean the subsidized interest rates? Cause the govt isnt giving them any other money.
 
TheHappyHippo said:
BTW, Chap, the private lenders aren't being replaced by the Stafford loan program. Federal loans are going to be expanded in the bill.
Click to expand...

Just what is the expansion? Will a couple making 200k a year qualify for the same amount and rate they could get with the DTC private loans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top