• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tweet of the Week: AOC’s “student debt”

jcgriff2 said:
My student loan debt total absolutely dwarfed her $17,000 student loan debt but I managed to pay every cent plus the accrued interest back, as did most of you, I presume.

Seriously, $17,000 is not really a huge sum these days that virtually anyone would consider it to be so high as to declare it unpayable over the next ~25 years, assuming retirement at ~60 years old - except for AOC, of course.

I had heard (no, I have no proof) that AOC recently bought a $130,000 Tesla EV. Perhaps a somewhat less flashy car along with a $17,000 check to pay off her student loans would have been a more prudent decision.

When will the IRS, New York State and New York City audit her and send bills for tax, penalties and interest for all of the bartender tips that she never declared as income? Or should the taxpayers foot that bill as well? (I guess they are doing so now or already have).
Click to expand...
the point wasn't that she has 17k in student debt....it is that she could not go to graduate school in order to not create more student loan debt. What is occurring is the wealthy are sending their kids to graduate school and the poor cannot afford to go.
 
Would being able to obtain compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State be better or worse for students as a class under our regime of capitalism?
 
reflechissez said:
That doesn't say ANYTHING about the "government loosening lending standards" which is what you asserted. Private financial institutions make their own underwriting guidelines.
Click to expand...
I’m not the one who made that claim; I merely chimed in.

The reason so much bad debt was issued is because there was a market for bad debt; i.e. there was a market participant willing to purchase loans that did not meet the customary (prime) standards of income to deb ratio, load to asset ratio, and credit score. They were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored entities that must adhere to direction from Washington.

They were given more aggressive affordable housing goals in the early 90s. The idea was that since many low income borrowers did not meet the standard (and time-tested) mortgage criteria, F&F were instructed to begin purchasing mortgages that were not prime loans; the program accelerated for the next 15 year to a point that on the eve of the crash in 2008 over 75% of all the non-prime mortgages in the country were on F&F’s balance sheets. That’s why F&F effectively failed and had to go into conservatorship.

Ultimately, government policy drove the mortgage bubble.
 
NatMorton said:
I’m not the one who made that claim; I merely chimed in.

The reason so much bad debt was issued is because there was a market for bad debt; i.e. there was a market participant willing to purchase loans that did not meet the customary (prime) standards of income to deb ratio, load to asset ratio, and credit score. They were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored entities that must adhere to direction from Washington.

They were given more aggressive affordable housing goals in the early 90s. The idea was that since many low income borrowers did not meet the standard (and time-tested) mortgage criteria, F&F were instructed to begin purchasing mortgages that were not prime loans; the program accelerated for the next 15 year to a point that on the eve of the crash in 2008 over 75% of all the non-prime mortgages in the country were on F&F’s balance sheets. That’s why F&F effectively failed and had to go into conservatorship.

Ultimately, government policy drove the mortgage bubble.
Click to expand...
The banks made the loans. Fannie and Freddie did not by subprime loans for 15 years.
 
HIP56948 said:
People see what they want to see. Czech Republic, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland pretty much pay for students going to college.
But of course, I doubt if they continually scream about "We're Number One!"
Click to expand...
Investing in your own society in a globally competitive world is so commie and socialist. Far better to turn future generations into debt peons so that when the "job creator" class is in such a tizzy because "no one wants to work", they don't have to consider attracting workers, but can rely upon economically insecure sharecroppers.
 
reflechissez said:
The banks made the loans. Fannie and Freddie did not by subprime loans for 15 years.
Click to expand...
Oh that? That's just business. Anything covered by "that's just business" is justified.
 
BirdinHand said:
$174K salary - paid for by taxpayers - and she can’t pay $17K in outstanding debt?
Click to expand...
I don't think that was the point she was trying to make, rather, trying to relate to your average Joe or Jane out there being crushed by student debt.

It's only fitting that after 13 years of primary school where children are forced to go and do work, yet they do not get paid, that we could convince them to pay us for the privilege of a higher education.

Really it is society that benefits the most the better people are educated, educated people create the products and services we enjoy, and find ways to deliver them to us cheaper and better.

I have no issue with my tax money going to their personal betterment.
 
nvflash said:
I don't think that was the point she was trying to make, rather, trying to relate to your average Joe or Jane out there being crushed by debt they fully agreed to and signed up for.
Click to expand...
FIFY.
 
Good socialists should avoid even the appearance of arbitrariness and capriciousness.

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.
Click to expand...
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
How would the unemployed be worse off in our at-will employment States with equal protection of the at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation?

In my opinion, we should have no homeless problem in our first-world economy.

Students should be able to have recourse to equal protection of the laws for educational purposes as well.

Better automatic stabilization is what our economy needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom