Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by RandyForRubio, Jun 24, 2019.
It's America, so nobody. Duh.
A variable that does not change can create a change?
She’s much grumpier today compared to yesterday because it is raining today. Rain always makes her sad.
But it was raining yesterday and she was happy.
People spent more money this year because of the tax cut
That tax cut took place 10 years ago
I post from a phone and am busy which makes it a bitch to write much of anything meaningful, you knob. Maybe you don't like what looks to you like an exceptional case because you love the reported averages and have never dug deeper than a headline. Look at the breakdowns: top quintile in wealth - $50k student debt. Bottom 4 quintiles: $3300 - $9500. The median is just $19,000 but the mean is $34,000. What does that tell you?
Student debt is just 7% of GDP.
THE STUDENT DEBT CRISIS IS A MYTH, FOOD FOR FOOLS WHO WILL GULP DOWN ANYTHING AOC OR WARREN SPOON FEED THEM.
Better? That's as snarky as I get these days Nice to see you around.
@One Brow I can't tell if you are questioning if you are questioning whether loan availability has increased costs or not, but there is plenty of stuff out there. The great thing about economists is they study every and anything.
I'm inferring based on your prior response, maybe I misinterpreted:
All your questions on this seem to keep missing a key point: rent cost and home ownership cost are in competition.
It seems so small when you divide it by such a large number. That is like saying "The great wall of china is only .0000000001% of the matter in the universe" (prove me wrong, haha!)
$1,520,000,000,000, or $1.52 TRILLION how puny. After all, this number only has 10 zeros, and zeros are nothing burgers. That is just ~$4,000 for every man woman and child in the country. family of 4, send your check for $16,000 and I'm sure there would be no economic impact. Tax every company at ~7% higher rates, no worries!
Be seriously, economists in the left right and center see the student loan crisis as a big issue.
AOC and Bernie's ideas are nuts, but let's try to be sensible and not trivialize a significant problem.
Questioning whether or not trump reduced taxes leads you to believe that taxes are perfectly correlated with revenue? I'm scratching my head on that one.
Fact is that Trump's taxes helped the uber rich and left the average Joe aside. If the tax cut was as ginormous and sweeping as he says, there would not have been an increase in revenue. Nothing is perfectly correlated, of course, there are many variables, including the fact that we are still on a 10-year upswing economic recovery/ growth period. Which regrettably is coming to an end.
People of all stripes are fretting about the world changing and clinging to the past? What's new?
It's 7% of one year of gross domestic product. The average debt is about as much as a cheaper new car. For most it's much less. I think we can manage.
The savings and loan crisis debt was only 0.4 trillion.
But I’m sure you are right and all those Nobel winning economists are wrong.
I have no clue what you're trying to say or imply here. The first sentence appears to be a bad attempt at a false analogy, and the second is barely the start of an incomplete thought.
first off, 7% is ****ing huge...
second, the vast majority of these debts have resulted in the lenders being paid back to a degree that most people would find very reasonable.
beyond that, in a huge number of cases, the original lenders aren't even the owners of the debt anymore. They've packaged and sold that debt to third parties who want to squeeze more dollar-for-dollar "promises" out of it.... They know that business model works because Americans are puritan suckers.... guilt-ridden. (Is this the time where I launch into the etymological and historical connection between the terms "debt" and "guilt"?)
Nice rant. Couple questions.
1. Does this degree that most people would find very reasonable understand time value?
2. Why does buying and selling a debt make the debt/value recieved any less owed? Sorry pensioners, you're out of luck?
1. Not sure I understand your first question well enough to respond. But I was speaking in terms of payments made against what was initially owed; and I was speaking with an air of forgiveness.
2. Let me turn this question around by asking another question (or three). If the initial lender has sold the debt to a third party for, let’s say, 60 cents on the dollar (note: they’ve done this because they’ve determined that THEY made some bad gambles on a wide set of borrowers + the productivity of economy the borrowers graduated [or not] into, and so they cut bait at that level of repayment + whatever the third party will pay), then why shouldn’t some level of debt forgiveness be bestowed on borrower? Why are borrowers stuck with a dollar-for-dollar match? Why are we allowing companies to see profit in these spaces/terms?
I’ve more than re-paid my initial loan amounts + a substantial amount of interest..... without missing a single payment.... but I still owe plenty. But I owe this amount to third parties who didn’t pay very much for my debt. On what grounds should I care if they get 100 cents on the dollar if they paid 60 cents? Moral grounds? To people I never struck an agreement with?
Can you, with a straight face, think that Jesus would approve of a government that emboldens structures that bankrupts families from usury? Let’s not be intellectual dishonest. You not doing it yourself is meaningless— your complicity still renders you guilty.
Again, this is a conversation absent from every church in America. Next time you go, ask your pastor why.
For the same reason we don't tax Amazon...
Is usury your word of the day to make you feel intelligent?
Cause buddy, a 5% loan on somebody who has no or limited credit history, no or limited financial funds, is not excessive, immoral, or irregularly high. In fact, for many people who take out these loans, it's substantially lower than what they could typically get. Credit unions, banks, private loaners, would offer a much higher interest rate than that if they were after a business loan rather than a student loan. I believe the standard business loan rates are something like 3-7%, depending of course on credit history, current funds, financial status, etc. So why would 5% be considered excessive? If you want to say you're being intellectually honest, you might want to know what usury actually means rather than using it as your talking point of the day.
Again, people aren't being forced to take these loans. If you can't afford it, don't. I've detailed how there are cheaper available options in every state. Still can't afford it? Join the army, navy, Marines. Join the national guard. Many schools have programs where if you go be a nurse or teacher somewhere rural or on a reservation for several years, your loans will be forgiven. There are avenues out there.
The Bible talks about helping people financially when they need it, does not outright say it's wrong to take out debt but to be wary, and calls those who don't pay what they borrow to be wicked. It also says those who cheat financially will be punished. As I don't think a 5% loan is excessive compared to normal, I don't think it really qualifies for what you're saying here. Again, these loans aren't being forced on anybody.
I think not taxing Amazon is stupid too.
I'm Muslim, Mr. "Intelligent". Go look up usury, Islam, and Islamic banking.
Usury is usury-- there is nothing in the bible about 5%. That's a subjective qualification you yourself are making. It's like saying a little adultery is fine. You have posts in this very forum talking about being fundamental with your piety-- you can't pick and choose what you read in the bible, you've said. Well....to me it sounds like you're currently picking and choosing.
Your lack of firepower in this discussion isn't your fault-- it's simply a line of attack that conservatives of Christian faith never receive. For the third and final time-- I encourage my American readers to question themselves as to why.