- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Most student loan interest rates are at 7% or above. There has been some legislation introduced in congress that calls for student interest rates be lowered to below 4%. Do you support these rates?
I would tend to agree.Student loans are fairly high risk loans. I would not mandate rates be lowered.
I would tend to agree.
If they really want to help students more, skip right to grants instead of loans.
Most student loan interest rates are at 7% or above. There has been some legislation introduced in congress that calls for student interest rates be lowered to below 4%. Do you support these rates?
I believe that the student loan interest rates should be raised to 51% until after you graduate DemSocialist. :lol:
Once you're off campus, lower them down to 1.5%.
Student loans are fairly high risk loans. I would not mandate rates be lowered.
Most student loan interest rates are at 7% or above. There has been some legislation introduced in congress that calls for student interest rates be lowered to below 4%. Do you support these rates?
Most student loan interest rates are at 7% or above. There has been some legislation introduced in congress that calls for student interest rates be lowered to below 4%. Do you support these rates?
Most student loan interest rates are at 7% or above. There has been some legislation introduced in congress that calls for student interest rates be lowered to below 4%. Do you support these rates?
They're not risky at all, they cannot be discharged in bankruptcy or gotten away from in any other way. They will be repaid eventually unless the individual drops dead right after graduation.
Student loans are fairly high risk loans. I would not mandate rates be lowered.
• Of the 37 million borrowers who have outstanding student loan balances, 14%, or about 5.4 million borrowers, have at least one past due student loan account.
• Of the $870B-$1T in outstanding student loan debt, approximately $85 billion is past due.
(Source: FRBNY)
• Only about 37 percent of federal student loan borrowers between 2004 and 2009 managed to make timely payments without postponing payments or becoming delinquent.
• As of 2012, there are now more than $8 billion in defaulted private loans, or 850,000 distinct loans in default. (Source: CFPB)
That's not risky for the government, they make money on the past-due fees. That is, in fact, how the entire credit card market works.
Past due is not the same as never paid. There is no way to get out from under student loan debt.
Which, again, isn't the same as being a risky proposition for the government, they make even more money when the delinquent fees are paid.
Which, again, isn't in default, they are just late. The only way out of these debts is to die.
So where is the risk to the government, or to the private organizations who are guaranteed their money under the same rules again?
Funny, The stat says "default" and your reply "again isn't in default". Wow, how can you write that? Secondly, I was showing the nature of the risk. Risk isn't only measured in default, it is also measured in loss of revenue from late pay, loss due to forgiveness programs, as well as loss in opportunity costs. These loans are, as I initially stated, relatively high risk. Many never fully repay the loan. Nearly half are delinquent at some time in the life of the loan, that's risky.
Many people think "default" means you stop paying and never start again. It's like declaring bankruptcy, where you settle your debts and are no longer required to pay on them. That's not the case with government college loans. You can never get out from under them, they can never be erased, even if you stop paying for a while, they just get worse and worse and there is no legal relief. It's not like a credit card where you can declare bankruptcy and the credit card company writes the debt off. These debts can never be written off. That's the point.
Why should student loans have lower than market rates? Could you explain that?
Because the government should not punish individuals who want to get an education. Hell why should student loans be above level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks? Warrent introduced a bill that would set them at the same level last year.
Why should student loans have lower than market rates? Could you explain that?
As we've seen with the bankers, the American taxpayer takes the defaults.Who takes the defaults?
Why does our government give rich bankers sub market rate loans but not our students? Can you explain that?
As we've seen with the bankers, the American taxpayer takes the defaults.
Why does our government give rich bankers sub market rate loans but not our students? Can you explain that?
As we've seen with the bankers, the American taxpayer takes the defaults.
Yes. There is good reason.
-The situation with the banks was very dangerous for the population at large and needed a very quick and decisive solution. The government did a number of things to stop the meltdown and each of these measures would need to be looked at individually. When you say "give rich bankers sub market loans" it would be necessary to be more precise, what you mean.
First of all, the owners of banks like Citi lost practically their complete stake and the government got most of its investment back if it did not actually make a gain. The low interest rates being given now, are really too low. The main beneficiary is the US government, because it pays too little on its multi-trillion Dollar debt. The banks participate in this, because the theory is that increasing rates would slow economic growth, which it very probably would. This would mean fewer jobs, so the logic goes. And it is probably true that we would have more unemployed than we have, had the rates gone up a year or two ago.
-Studying is an essentially private with positive external effects. The external effects a very important and require a mechanism by which they can be attained. Scholarships for excellent students are good. If a student wants to study, but is not good at learning can do that with his own money loaned or other. This puts a break on inefficient investment in professions that will find no employment.
If the optimum level of external effect is not reached, then the government can make that transparent and an amount of money available to study the subjects from which the effects derive. If the student does not finish successfully, he should pay back the grant.
PS: But who do you mean by "rich bankers"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?