"Boy" is that Elizabeth Warren doing a great job !

  1. This post has been removed.

  2. This post has been removed.

  3. This post has been removed.

  4. This post has been removed.

  5. This post has been removed.

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from cookie-rojas. Show cookie-rojas's posts


    Actually, this has more to do with the fact that parents can no longer afford the high cost of college for their children.  They have no emergency funds, and the saving rate for America is at it's lowest ever.  all the result of our pathetic economy that fails to get any better.

    Lowering interest rates a few ticks isn't going to jask-shite for anyone, but nice try Lizzie.

    Lizzie, you're such a bear against those nasty big-banks, except the almighty one you behold to, the Democratic Party that paid your way to the Senate.


  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ImYourDaddy. Show ImYourDaddy's posts


    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:


    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:


    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:


    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:


    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:


    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:


    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



    Republicans can't stand that way of thinking.....



    LOL!!!!!!  Lizzy is 3 weeks late


    Today, the House Education and the Workforce Committee marked up and two measures on to improve college costs and data transparency. The committee modestly amended and approved HR 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act by a vote of 24-13, which ran largely along party lines. The amended HR 1911 would peg interest rates on all federal student loans, except Perkins loans, to the 10-year Treasury note rate plus 2.5 percentage points for undergraduate loans

    Tasty foot?


    Makes perfect sense, use the same variable rate loan scheme that caused the collapse of the housing market. What possibly could go wrong?


    The neo-con plan would cost borrowers thousands of dollars more in interest than if the current rates were allowed to double.

    This is why neo-cons shouldn't be allowed near anything involving basic math. Their 'solutions' always cost the average taxpayer more money.

    "Heck-uva job Brownie."


    On Wednesday, the nonpartisan CRS issued a memo analyzing the impact of the bill and described the additional cost that students would face if the proposal were to become law. The CRS outlined examples of the costs with different scenarios. It found, for instance, that students who borrow the maximum amount of $27,000 of unsubsidized and subsidized Stafford Loans over five years would pay $12,374 in interest under H.R. 1911, or $10,867 in interest under current law if rates are allowed to double to 6.8 percent, or $7,033 if rates stay at 3.4 percent.

    The new proposal would also impact borrowing fees for loans parents take out. The CRS estimates that a parent who borrows the maximum amount of $40,000 in PLUS loans for their child would pay $27,680 in interest under the Republican bill, more than the $21,654 in interest under the current law.


    Uhm, it ties it to T-notes, and those rates are dramtically lower.  It also caps, and BTW, mirrors President Obama's proposal, and dems are against it.  Warren is just late to the dance.




    Ya, makes perfect sense if you just abandon logic and basic math.


    Stafford loans issued today under the (House Republican) plan would have an interest rate of 4.3%, higher than the current 3.4% interest rate for subsidized loans.


    Considering that T-bills are only projected to rise, that discrepency between the neo-con rate and the current rate will only get larger.

    So your entire argument is predictably and hilariously wrong.



    The key word here is subsidized ...  meaning taxpayer footing the bill. Hey why stop at 3.4% lets make it 0% interest , is not your money right? Money grow on tree




    In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed that Congress stop the student loan interest rate from doubling in July 2012. Without Congressional intervention, the interest rate for Federal Direct Subsidized Loans for undergraduates will increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent beginning July 1, 2012. 

    Prior to the Obama's proposal, it may have seemed unlikely that Congress would intervene, due simply to the state of the U.S. economy, a continued push towards austerity, and an unbalanced federal budget. But, one day after the Presidents annual address, Rep. Bruce Braley, R-Iowa, introduced legislation to keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent indefinitely. 




    Obama had a chance but he only extended the subsidized rate for 1 year

    And guess what JULY 2013 is here, rate will revert back to 6.8% if not for the neo con's bill

    Congress appears set to pass a bill tomorrow that allows certain undergraduate students to borrow up to $5,500 for the coming school year at a fixed interest rate of 3.4 percent instead of 6.8 percent.  The president spent months making the case for the one-year, low-rate extension, and Congress spent almost as much time debating how to pay for it. The whole episode raises a lot of questions that students, reporters and policymakers should have been asking all along.

    For all the effort the president went to in arguing for the lower rate, why did he ask Congress for only a one-year fix? Did he think a longer extension would be too expensive at more than $6 billion a year?

    It looks that way: His 10-year budget request sent to Congress earlier this year included only the one-year extension. That is, when the president had his choice about where to set spending and revenue levels for every line item in the federal budget, he didn’t make room for more than a one-year interest rate extension. Why?






    What the heck are you babbling on about?

    The federal student loan program has always had a subsidized loan program. It pays the interest but not the principal while a student is in school. Everyone who has taken out a loan like this in the last 40 yrs had it subsidized.

    The Pres only asked for one year because the neo-nons wouldn't pass anything beyond that.

    Obama changed the loan program to a direct loan model saving $6 billion a year and yet the neo-nons still want to jack up the interest rate.

    Last time I checked, the Prez isn't a member of the HoR and doesn't get a vote so why are you crying like a schoolgirl?.

    How about this; why don't the neo-nons pass something and then if the Pres doesn't sign it you can then gripe to your little hearts content. Until you do that. then just shut the heck up.

    Typical of you mangy neo-cons, always trying to blame someone else for your lack of spine.

    In the history of students loan , there was time when rates were fixed and rates were floating.

    Law was drafted and the due date to for the rate to go back to the 6.8% july 2012

    Follow me so far?  ... THE LAW SAY RATES WILL GO TO 6.8% july 2012

    Obama ask and received an extension  till JULY 2013

    Still following??  now if congress has not acted just now (May 2013) the rate will go to 6.8 %

    in July 2013. 

    Now do you need me to explain to you the sudsidize part between using market rate (Tbill plus credit spread) and the 3.5% the current loan rate? 



    a little history

    In late 2001, after months of negotiations, lawmakers proposed a bipartisan compromise that would avert the pending rate change and make permanent the then-current interest rate formula for lenders. It also extended through 2006 the existing variable rate formula for borrowers but established fixed interest rates at 6.8 percent for Subsidized


    Unsubsidized Stafford loans made after July 1, 2006.[13]


    Lawmakers, higher education associations, and student advocate organizations championed the bill because the fixed 6.8 percent interest rate that would start in 2006 was lower than estimates of what borrowers would pay if Congress had maintained the variable formula.[14] In selecting a fixed rate, Congress and advocacy groups decided on 6.8 percent because it was approximately the average of the projected interest rates set to take effect in 2003 based on longer-term U.S. Treasury bills.[15] Supporters also cited the certainty that fixed rates provided over variable rates as a benefit to borrowers. The Senate passed the bill unanimously in December 2001, the House passed it with overwhelming support in January 2002, and the president signed it into law.


    Congress chose to delay the implementation of the fixed rates until 2006 – maintaining the existing variable rate formula in the meantime – to reduce the costs of the policy over a ten-year budget window. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that adopting fixed rates would reduce the rates for borrowers compared to then-current law, increasing costs for the government by $5.2 billion from 2007-2011.[16] It would have cost more if Congress had chosen to implement the change immediately.







  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts


    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    WDYWN: What is the job market like for a newly graduated law school student?


    If you put in 19 hours a day and graduated near the top of your class? Just fine.

    If you didn't work yourself nearly to death to ensure success? Awful.



    You might find this interesting.  



  9. This post has been removed.

  10. This post has been removed.

  11. This post has been removed.

  12. This post has been removed.

  13. This post has been removed.

  14. This post has been removed.

  15. This post has been removed.

  16. This post has been removed.

  17. This post has been removed.

  18. This post has been removed.

  19. This post has been removed.

  20. This post has been removed.

  21. This post has been removed.

  22. This post has been removed.

  23. This post has been removed.

  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts


    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:


    In response to miscricket's comment:


    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:



    Especially because academia doesnt do its job of really preparing students for the workplace....bachelor degrees are given out like trophies at kid's soccer matches...Their value has been cheapened. Kids major in "gender and women's studies" and other idiotic progressive propaganda, and wonder why they arent hired...





    As someone who just graduated with a bachelor's degree after devoting literally thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars...I take exception to your remark that Bachelor's degrees are handed out like trophies at kid's soccer matches. I don't know what your college experience was like..but most people work very hard to obtain these degrees.


    Your comment is very telling about how you value education. With only 30 percent of Americans holding an undergrad degree..it doesn't sound like they are "given out at random". These degrees are earned with hard work.

    I am sorry that you dislike some of the degree programs offered by major universities. These programs are created in response to a societal need and to prepare students for a global marketplace. A degree in Gender and Women's study may seem irrelevent in the US...but in many other countries around the world people with these degrees are extremely valuable.

    Perhaps you can provide us with a list of degree programs which you consider appropriate and relevent to an ever changing world.



    I don't think it is as easy as that. If your daddy is rich, who cares? Your cost/benefit is zero.  If you rack up 250k in debt for a degree in sociology, English or history, you are likely a fool.

    degrees worth having changes with the economy.  I think the most valuable right now would be a doctorate in biology, chemistry, or possibly physics.  A doctorate in sociology will make you the most interesting barista in your town, but that's about it.


    Skeeter..with all due respect..that is pretty much what I expect from you. You would be amazed at how many fields open up to someone with a degree in sociology. To start..major companies will hire people with sociology degrees or psychology degrees as part of their human resource departments. People with sociology degrees are often play intergral roles in marketing and marketing campaigns. Those are just a couple of examples. Other careers for people with sociology involve politics and education.


    It never ceases to amaze me just how narrow your world view is.

    Outside of ivory towers and government work, sociology degrees will get you a job as a receptionist, and that's being charitable.  Other possiblilies have to do with standing at a window that opens every so often and you hand people food.

    The jobs that require a sociology degree in corporation


    Look, I am not saying that this knowledge is not valuable, but not everyone can afford to broaden their brains on the backs of their parents to the tune of a quarter of a million and then go flip burgers.

    The truth is that the economy demands certain sets of skills from time to time.  Heck, the Globe produces these lists all the time.  I doubt sociology, english, or history make the list.  It is not a reflection on the high and noble learnings, it is a relfect on what society will pay for.


    That's all I meant.

    And, I agree my worldview is narrow.  It works better that way.  not everyone can afford to waste their time pursuing flights of fancy.

  25. This post has been removed.