|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 09 2013 08:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:25 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 08:12 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2013 08:06 Sermokala wrote:
Lets try a fun exercise.
What do you think "believing in creationalism" means in practice? Because unless we get this term defined correctly its impossible to continue this debate. It comes in various brands. There is the idea of the prime mover, that something cannot come from nothing and therefore there must have been some creator back when it all began. However what we're talking about here is biblical literalism in which the genealogy in the bible is a factual account of the historical figures, along with their ages, and can be used to calculate how long ago God created earth, roughly 7000 years ago. This is a belief which is demonstrably false, comparable to claiming that whales are a type of fish. Ok so this brand of creationalism isn't the one thats followed by all those scientists that study in the evolutionary fields. Creationalism is primarily about how god created the universe, how he did that is what is debated throughout the church. Just because you profess to a belief shouldn't mean that you get demonized as the lowest common denominator of that belief. its quite bigoted to portray every muslum as a terrorist as its the same to portray everyone who believes in creationalism as a young earth literalist. Nobody here is being bigoted. We're not talking about young earth creationism because we want to portray christians as dumb, we're talking about it because the post that started this digression is this one Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 14:44 sunprince wrote:On May 07 2013 05:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2013 05:11 Paljas wrote:
wtf 6% believe in Unicorns? Unless they also asked little kids, this is absolutly mind boggling.
In my opinion, this is also partly due to the education system not being centralized by the state.
I really think a uniform education system across a whole nation is superior to a regional system. I doubt 6% really believe in unicorns. Believing in unicorns isn't really that much stupider (if at all) than believing in Young Earth creationism. Considering that 46% of Americans believe in Young Earth creationism, I don't think 6% believing in unicorns is much of a stretch. which specifically states Young Earth creationism as the topic. We're not grouping all people who believe in a God with Young Earth creationists, we're talking about Young Earth creationists and you're then grouping them with other christians who don't believe that and asking why we're hating on the other christians who don't believe that when we're not and never were.
I was pretty sure we moved on from that to the
On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
See above - it depends on the context. I have no problem with creationism being a decidedly false belief in the context of a science class. Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful.
Line of debate in the thread.
|
Mohdoo isn't exactly wrong though; Christians who consider their belief system an "alternative science" are committing a grievous categorical error. Many creationists do not make this mistake however, so the complications likely stem from that distinction.
|
On May 09 2013 08:47 farvacola wrote:
Mohdoo isn't exactly wrong though; Christians who consider their belief system an "alternative science" are committing a grievous categorical error. Many creationists do not make this mistake however, so the complications likely stem from that distinction.
I'm pretty sure that the "alternative science" that mohodoo was referring to was creationalism and not the belief system that Christians use.
|
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?"
Source
|
Elizabeth Warren is awesome. That is all. 
|
I'm interested to hear how people will argue against her idea. Pretty ridiculous to let students crumple under crippling debt while giving banks great loans.
|
On May 09 2013 09:01 SnipedSoul wrote:
I'm interested to hear how people will argue against her idea. Pretty ridiculous to let students crumple under crippling debt while giving banks great loans.
It gives additional complications/mandates to the Fed. Currently, they are responsible for handling inflation and employment, and there's no real data on how extending those interest rates to the general population would affect either. Also, it's not like interest rates are going to stay at near-zero forever. We could, at some point, see 1978-1982 level rates, at 18-20%. I guess that would open up more room for private student loans, but it's a dangerous track regardless.
I think it's a great idea as far as inventive and in the right direction, but it's also playing with fire.
|
On May 09 2013 09:01 SnipedSoul wrote:
I'm interested to hear how people will argue against her idea. Pretty ridiculous to let students crumple under crippling debt while giving banks great loans.
This is America where people are more interested in scripted "Reality Television" than say people dying for lack of health care, we're the ultimate case of out of sight out of mind.
|
If prioritizing the financial well being of students amounts to playing with fire, perhaps something even more widespread and fundamental must be done.
|
On May 09 2013 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?" Source
Will these student loans typically be fully secured and paid back within 24hrs too?
Otherwise I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than rabble rousing to drum up support for student subsidies.
|
I agree entirely with her. The department of education already handles all student debt in america so there shouldn't be a reason for it to have any higher interest rate then what it costs to service the loans. Its an investment in the nations future and shouldn't be treated worse then the loans that banks get.
|
The fire isn't in the help, but in the method. If we add it to the slate of Fed responsibility, then there will be implementation conflicts with their current responsibilities (arguably for the first time ever).
|
On May 09 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?" Source Will these student loans typically be fully secured and paid back within 24hrs too? Otherwise I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than rabble rousing to drum up support for student subsidies.
Ok, forget lower interest rates, let's bailout a certain amount of student debt from each past recipient.
|
The Colorado legislature made history on Wednesday, becoming the first state legislature in the country to pass laws regulating recreational marijuana sales and use.
Wednesday morning, the state Senate approved two measures on taxes for marijuana and on rules for marijuana stores. The House later agreed with changes made in the Senate and sent the bills to Gov. John Hickenlooper, who is expected to sign them.
The votes came six months and two days after Colorado voters approved Amendment 64, which legalized limited marijuana possession and sales for those 21 and older and launched the regulatory effort that led to the bills.
House Bill 1318 would impose a 15 percent excise tax and a sales tax initially set at 10 percent on recreational marijuana sales. Voters this November would have to give their approval of the tax rates before they could take effect. The money would be used for school construction and for regulation of marijuana stores.
Many of the rules for those stores are spelled out in House Bill 1317, the second bill approved by the Senate on Wednesday. Under the bill, marijuana stores would need to be licensed by the state and owned by Colorado residents.
For the first nine months, only current medical-marijuana dispensary owners could apply to open recreational pot shops. The first recreational marijuana stores to open would have to grow what they sell, but wholesale growers and stand-alone retailers would be allowed starting in October 2014.
The Senate amended the bill to bar cities from operating pot shops, as Aurora had considered doing, and to ban incorporated marijuana collectives that would skirt pot-shop regulations.
The stores are authorized by Amendment 64, the marijuana-legalization measure that Colorado voters approved in November.
The effort to regulate marijuana legalization has been an arduous one at the Capitol. It began last year, when a special task force convened to recommend rules for recreational marijuana to lawmakers.
A special legislative committee then worked those recommendations into bills, which began the journey through the full legislature. House Bill 1317, alone, saw 132 proposed amendments.
Source
|
On May 09 2013 09:24 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?" Source Will these student loans typically be fully secured and paid back within 24hrs too? Otherwise I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than rabble rousing to drum up support for student subsidies. Ok, forget lower interest rates, let's bailout a certain amount of student debt from each past recipient.
A blanket bailout? I'm not sure that would be effective at relieving student debt overhang issues unless you let the program get really costly. You'd also be dredging up moral hazard issues going forward.
|
On May 09 2013 09:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 09:01 SnipedSoul wrote:
I'm interested to hear how people will argue against her idea. Pretty ridiculous to let students crumple under crippling debt while giving banks great loans. This is America where people are more interested in scripted "Reality Television" than say people dying for lack of health care, we're the ultimate case of out of sight out of mind.
It's a little disingenuous to take an extremely complicated issue and boil it down to "they don't care about people dying." In every system in the world people will die for lack of health care. That is an inevitability, since technology always outpaces our ability to pay for it for all citizens. So the question necessarily becomes: "How much death is ideal?" It sounds heartless and cruel, but for people who put reason before knee-jerk emotion, that is the necessary reality which must be faced. Refusing to accept that reality results in the kind of system where society slowly bankrupts itself trying to keep granny alive another month. Besides, its human nature to desire entertainment over of thinking about death, not just American culture.
On May 09 2013 09:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 09:24 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?" Source Will these student loans typically be fully secured and paid back within 24hrs too? Otherwise I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than rabble rousing to drum up support for student subsidies. Ok, forget lower interest rates, let's bailout a certain amount of student debt from each past recipient. A blanket bailout? I'm not sure that would be effective at relieving student debt overhang issues unless you let the program get really costly. You'd also be dredging up moral hazard issues going forward.
Not to mention the real problem here is the cost of education in the US. Subsidizing those high costs are only going to increase them. If your customers are having their bill covered by the government, why would you not rack up prices as high as possible?
Another example of this bastardized "half private/half public" system we are trying to pull off which only creates atrocious incentives for all parties involved.
|
On May 09 2013 09:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 09:24 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?" Source Will these student loans typically be fully secured and paid back within 24hrs too? Otherwise I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than rabble rousing to drum up support for student subsidies. Ok, forget lower interest rates, let's bailout a certain amount of student debt from each past recipient. A blanket bailout? I'm not sure that would be effective at relieving student debt overhang issues unless you let the program get really costly. You'd also be dredging up moral hazard issues going forward.
All I am saying is that the mounting cost of state higher ed, the reduction in graduate employment/income, and the increasing necessity for a college education in the labor marketplace relative to living wages are going to come to a head in a big way unless something dramatic is done to alleviate the situation.
|
On May 09 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:01 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 07:07 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:43 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 09 2013 06:29 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 06:25 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2013 06:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 09 2013 05:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 05:48 acker wrote:
[quote]
Under what circumstances would you consider the claim that the earth is literally 10,000 years old to be valid? If it's their personal belief and it makes them happy so be it. Doesn't harm me. It harms the collective capacity of the country to allow the perpetuation of falsehoods pertaining to science to go on. We're already a country slipping behind in academics and allowing "alternative science" to be viewed as another way of doing things is harmful. Don't be so fear mongering about it. We're never going to "catch up" to other countries because we educate proportionately more of out people then other countries do, that brings down our average and our scores. the resources being constantly used to crusade against "alternative science" is whats harmful to our country. Being a christian doesn't disqualify you from studying science nor does believing in creationalism disqualify you from studying evolution. It doesnt disqualify you to study it, but it disqualifies you to have an objective view on that matter. And thus, you shouldnt be taken serious when talking about it. News flash: nobody studies anything objectively. There are always preconceived notions and trying to prove "hunches." The competition of ideas weeds out most of the bad subjectivity. NEWS FLASH: Saying news flash makes you look like a pretentious fuck, please don't degrade TL by doing so. On topic, the believing in Creationism is a pretty hard discredit of everything you say and do, it's an absolute discredit of reason and logic for the belief in the illogical and unreasonable. You may study whichever but if you choose to believe hogwash then your opinions are generally, in relation, also hogwash. Don't use the phrase if you think so poorly of it. There are varying levels of "creationism" that people believe and use to reconcile their faith with scientific discovery. Reputable Scientists and clerics do this, and often they aren't faced with a professional question on reconciling any differences between what they believe through faith and what they discover through science. Discrediting the work someone may do on genetics or psychology because they might also believe God created everything 10k years ago and put everything in it's place like it is now is just as wrong as discrediting them for being gay. Now, if their research is bullshit from the start, then by all means criticize and berate them. If they can't subject their findings to proper peer review and other competing views, there ultimately isn't anything worth teaching or funding further. The fact you think being gay and being a creationist are somehow analogous to comparison I believe discredits you from a reasonable discussion.. Well thank Jesus Christ the Unicorn that Hitchens acolytes are not the arbiters of acceptable discussion.
Indeed, this is true, if that were the case then I fear acceptable discussion would be a more reasonable atmosphere to converse, a terrible outcome I'm sure, but you thank your Unicorn named Jesus Christ and we'll call it a day.
The comparison between homosexuality, a gender preference, and creationism, a lack of basic scientific understanding (the most apt definition I think anyone could come up with) is a terrible comparison. I fail to see how this is hard to grasp but different minds and all, perhaps you have some understanding of how these two relate that I fail to see.
On student debt etc:
As a student this is relatively a new place for me to be in but after living in the International building on my campus I learned how most European countries have free secondary education and they actually pay their students to go to school... I don't think debt is as much the problem as our structured education, similar to healthcare, privatized schools probably create the same gap privatized hospitals do with regards to GDP total per year (note the States having such high expenditures on Hospitals and now, a bit harder to see but coming up, you see a similar privatized industry crippling students).
Just my two cents, as I said it's all new and this is just my first thought when seeing it with my own eyes and having to work 2 jobs while going to class for 6 different courses per week trying to pay 16,000 per year (no small sum to me but I know others have to pay way more) while I should be focusing purely on my education.
|
On May 09 2013 09:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 09:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 09:24 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?" Source Will these student loans typically be fully secured and paid back within 24hrs too? Otherwise I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than rabble rousing to drum up support for student subsidies. Ok, forget lower interest rates, let's bailout a certain amount of student debt from each past recipient. A blanket bailout? I'm not sure that would be effective at relieving student debt overhang issues unless you let the program get really costly. You'd also be dredging up moral hazard issues going forward. All I am saying is that the mounting cost of state higher ed, the reduction in graduate employment/income, and the increasing necessity for a college education in the labor marketplace relative to living wages are going to come to a head in a big way unless something dramatic is done to alleviate the situation.
And there is the crux of the issue. If I'm not mistaken, education costs haven't increased much outside of inflation. However, wages aren't keeping pace. Workers have lost income since the recovery "began," while median income has risen less than 1% since 1990. The debt is an issue because people can't pay it down, and jobs don't make enough money to pay off school during the process. There is a REAL issue with wages, and it's compounding on everything else. Getting those up would probably solve 50-90% of our fiscal issues.
|
On May 09 2013 09:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 09:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 09:24 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?" Source Will these student loans typically be fully secured and paid back within 24hrs too? Otherwise I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than rabble rousing to drum up support for student subsidies. Ok, forget lower interest rates, let's bailout a certain amount of student debt from each past recipient. A blanket bailout? I'm not sure that would be effective at relieving student debt overhang issues unless you let the program get really costly. You'd also be dredging up moral hazard issues going forward. All I am saying is that the mounting cost of state higher ed, the reduction in graduate employment/income, and the increasing necessity for a college education in the labor marketplace relative to living wages are going to come to a head in a big way unless something dramatic is done to alleviate the situation.
There's certainly problems in higher education financing but I don't think the situation is that bad. US students still get a better deal (all in) than almost all other OECD students (source) so I think we have time to make careful and smart reforms.
Edit:On May 09 2013 10:24 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 09:53 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 09:24 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?" Source Will these student loans typically be fully secured and paid back within 24hrs too? Otherwise I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than rabble rousing to drum up support for student subsidies. Ok, forget lower interest rates, let's bailout a certain amount of student debt from each past recipient. A blanket bailout? I'm not sure that would be effective at relieving student debt overhang issues unless you let the program get really costly. You'd also be dredging up moral hazard issues going forward. All I am saying is that the mounting cost of state higher ed, the reduction in graduate employment/income, and the increasing necessity for a college education in the labor marketplace relative to living wages are going to come to a head in a big way unless something dramatic is done to alleviate the situation. And there is the crux of the issue. If I'm not mistaken, education costs haven't increased much outside of inflation. However, wages aren't keeping pace. Workers have lost income since the recovery "began," while median income has risen less than 1% since 1990. The debt is an issue because people can't pay it down, and jobs don't make enough money to pay off school during the process. There is a REAL issue with wages, and it's compounding on everything else. Getting those up would probably solve 50-90% of our fiscal issues. As an FYI for everyone - census definition of income doesn't include all income so things like health benefits, which have grown in value, aren't counted.
Also, debt payments are generally fixed so nominal wage growth matters as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
