Performance Boats Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,169 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here we go again.....
The student loan program in this country has been a part of the "private" sector for decades, if not more... The going rate of interest was/has been in the area of 6%.... So, the liberal pukes, in order to pay for some obamacare programs take it over to a gov't program, and project revenue from that loan interest to be 8.5 BILLION... (money the gov't borrows @ 2.4%, and loans out @ 6.8%).... BUT, the dims see a decline in obama's numbers with the "younger" Americans, and decide to re excite them with a student loan interest reduction to 3.4%.... AND pull part of that 8.5 billion back to pay the difference, the "pay for" now required on ANY spending, or revenue reducing measures... Hmmm...
Now that interest rate reduction is due to expire and return to 6.8% on July 1st.... So, now the dims want to extend it, but don't want to pay for it by eliminating the obamacare program that depended on those interest PROFITS for funding...(funding they cut in half the first time the rate was reduced)... Instead, the dims want to modify long standing tax laws and rules used by the small, and large, businesses to defer taxes until the business' profit has been actually received by owners/stockholders, and taxed as "income", and/or dividends....(dividends are taxed at a lower rate based on Capitol Gains)....
The GOP controlled House has passed a bill to extend the lower interest rate on student loans, but have paid for it by pulling back the "projected revenue" from the "preventive medicine" program of obamacare. A program ORIGINALLY projected to be "paid for" by the higher interest rate revenues!!!!!
So the liberal puke liars are once again trying to spin reality into some sort of "GOP student hating, discrimination against minorities that can't afford college"...Bullshit.....
Are ALL liberal politicians liars?? Boy it sure seems like it when you stand back and listen to facts vs BULLSHIT..... "Watch my left hand while my right hand picks your pocket and steals your watch"....
Ray
PS the Senate bill FAILED, so if the dims really want to keep the lower rate they only have ONE choice, the House bill and saying "Bye Bye" to one more of the now unfunded programs associated with obamacare...
 

·
Boatless Member :(
Joined
·
3,006 Posts
What is funny, all my private loans but one are below the federal 6% rate. All but two are over 4%. (I have like 11 loans)

The only nice thing about federal loans is that they don't aquire interest while in school. So really, a 6% rate is not the true rate when you adjust it for the time no interest is aquired but it is still above the rate in which the govenerment can borrow it.

Look at France. The takers have outnumbered teh producers. "Obamacare" is just another taker program where we'll be propetiually adding to the debt. Living like this is perfectly fine intil the consequences come. You can not fake wealth forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,115 Posts
What is funny, all my private loans but one are below the federal 6% rate. All but two are over 4%. (I have like 11 loans)

The only nice thing about federal loans is that they don't aquire interest while in school. So really, a 6% rate is not the true rate when you adjust it for the time no interest is aquired but it is still above the rate in which the govenerment can borrow it.

Look at France. The takers have outnumbered teh producers. "Obamacare" is just another taker program where we'll be propetiually adding to the debt. Living like this is perfectly fine intil the consequences come. You can not fake wealth forever.
France is going to be very interesting to watch now that they have elected a far left wing socialist. It will be a microcosm of what will happen to the US if Onumbnuttz is re-elected. The takers have outnumbered the providers. Will the last taxpayer please turn out the lights when you leave?
 

·
Marine Organism
Joined
·
12,743 Posts
Remember, zer0 just paid off his and the first wookie's college debt 8 years ago. Yea, right... :duh:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,729 Posts
Here we go again.....
The student loan program in this country has been a part of the "private" sector for decades, if not more... The going rate of interest was/has been in the area of 6%.... So, the liberal pukes, in order to pay for some obamacare programs take it over to a gov't program, and project revenue from that loan interest to be 8.5 BILLION... (money the gov't borrows @ 2.4%, and loans out @ 6.8%).... BUT, the dims see a decline in obama's numbers with the "younger" Americans, and decide to re excite them with a student loan interest reduction to 3.4%.... AND pull part of that 8.5 billion back to pay the difference, the "pay for" now required on ANY spending, or revenue reducing measures... Hmmm...
Now that interest rate reduction is due to expire and return to 6.8% on July 1st.... So, now the dims want to extend it, but don't want to pay for it by eliminating the obamacare program that depended on those interest PROFITS for funding...(funding they cut in half the first time the rate was reduced)... Instead, the dims want to modify long standing tax laws and rules used by the small, and large, businesses to defer taxes until the business' profit has been actually received by owners/stockholders, and taxed as "income", and/or dividends....(dividends are taxed at a lower rate based on Capitol Gains)....
The GOP controlled House has passed a bill to extend the lower interest rate on student loans, but have paid for it by pulling back the "projected revenue" from the "preventive medicine" program of obamacare. A program ORIGINALLY projected to be "paid for" by the higher interest rate revenues!!!!!
So the liberal puke liars are once again trying to spin reality into some sort of "GOP student hating, discrimination against minorities that can't afford college"...Bullshit.....
Are ALL liberal politicians liars?? Boy it sure seems like it when you stand back and listen to facts vs BULLSHIT..... "Watch my left hand while my right hand picks your pocket and steals your watch"....
Ray
PS the Senate bill FAILED, so if the dims really want to keep the lower rate they only have ONE choice, the House bill and saying "Bye Bye" to one more of the now unfunded programs associated with obamacare...
Ray, is it possible you are misinformed about the whole student loan subject? I guess you could say the student loan program used to be part of the private sector. The federal government used to give the money to the private sector through subsidies and then the private sector would loan this money to students. When the student repaid the loan, the private sector got to keep all the interest that was paid back. So the private sector made all the profit, but didn't take any of the risk (remember, they were lending government money, not private money). One of the provisions in the second of the health care reform laws to pass was a restructuring of the federal student loan program. Instead of giving money to the banks to lend to students, the federal government lends the money directly to the students. This way, the federal government gets the reward (interest) for the money that they are risking. The old way let the banks get the reward for the money the government is risking. Surely you will agree the new way is better.

Now the righties claim that the democrats don't want to pay for lowering the loan rate from 6.8 to 3.4. The government doesn't really have to pay anything because they are making money on this, not losing money. It does not cost them to lower the rates, because they are not paying more out with the lower rates. Funny how the righties are all up in arms about this saying the government has to pay to lower the rates yet they didn't see the need to find a way to pay when Bush decided he wanted to lower taxes two times. If you guys are so concerned about where the government can make cuts to things they actually pay, lets start with military spending; why don't we cut that 50%? The whole argument from the right about this is nothing more than politics as usual. That means obstructing anything democrats want to do that may help the economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,217 Posts
Now the righties claim that the democrats don't want to pay for lowering the loan rate from 6.8 to 3.4. The government doesn't really have to pay anything because they are making money on this, not losing money. It does not cost them to lower the rates, because they are not paying more out with the lower rates. Funny how the righties are all up in arms about this saying the government has to pay to lower the rates yet they didn't see the need to find a way to pay when Bush decided he wanted to lower taxes two times. If you guys are so concerned about where the government can make cuts to things they actually pay, lets start with military spending; why don't we cut that 50%? The whole argument from the right about this is nothing more than politics as usual. That means obstructing anything democrats want to do that may help the economy.
Ahhhhhhhhh I'd say you are a little missinformed also. Seems the left has already alloted the interest earnings at 6.8% to pay for provisions in the HC bill. By reducing it to 3.4% they are cutting the revenue by 50% meaning they will have a shortfall for said provision in the HC bill. Sure they will not be paying out more but they will have to stick it to the taxpayers to cover the loss's. But you think it won't cost the Gov anything. No it won't, but it will cost the tax payers. But you say reducing taxes cost's the Gov. Funny how the Lefties are all up in arms about reducing taxes. Same thing isn't it ? By reducing taxes the gov just won't bring in as much money. It doesn't make them have to spend more. If you really wan't to reduce spending where it really will help the economy why not start with a 50% cut in gov departments. The bottom line is this is not the Reps playing politics as usual. It's Dems playing politics as usual. They are in a bad way with the college demographics and are pandering for votes. They are willing to create a bigger deficiet with thier HC bill to try and win an election. Even if the HC bill is going to cost more than 100% more than they missled us it will. Bigger deficits creates more debt for the country, which is far worse for the country. It will be a moot point anyhow when the SC throws out the HC bill and the student loan provision with it returning it. :duh:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,975 Posts
Ray, is it possible you are misinformed about the whole student loan subject? I guess you could say the student loan program used to be part of the private sector. The federal government used to give the money to the private sector through subsidies and then the private sector would loan this money to students. When the student repaid the loan, the private sector got to keep all the interest that was paid back. So the private sector made all the profit, but didn't take any of the risk (remember, they were lending government money, not private money). One of the provisions in the second of the health care reform laws to pass was a restructuring of the federal student loan program. Instead of giving money to the banks to lend to students, the federal government lends the money directly to the students. This way, the federal government gets the reward (interest) for the money that they are risking. The old way let the banks get the reward for the money the government is risking. Surely you will agree the new way is better.

.
Correct me if I am wrong here.
But when the government gives/loans money to the finacial sector, and the finacial sector keeps the interest/interest differrence, isn't that called "government backed loans"?

When the government does this directly, isn't that called socilaized banking/communisim?
ram, do you know exactly what it is your endorsing? Of course you do you communist puke!
Its just another nail in freedom's coffin compliments of the progressive communist weak ass bastards of this country.
Lets see where we have come in 3 1/2 years due to these lazy weak ass pukes. Government take over of an major industrial giant and the single largest industry in the country, GM. socialist medicine at the hands of the government. And socialist money lending.
Whats next for you commie pukes?
Collective farming?




1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.




100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,169 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Kinda what I said....

Ahhhhhhhhh I'd say you are a little missinformed also. Seems the left has already alloted the interest earnings at 6.8% to pay for provisions in the HC bill. By reducing it to 3.4% they are cutting the revenue by 50% meaning they will have a shortfall for said provision in the HC bill. Sure they will not be paying out more but they will have to stick it to the taxpayers to cover the loss's. But you think it won't cost the Gov anything. No it won't, but it will cost the tax payers. But you say reducing taxes cost's the Gov. Funny how the Lefties are all up in arms about reducing taxes. Same thing isn't it ? By reducing taxes the gov just won't bring in as much money. It doesn't make them have to spend more. If you really wan't to reduce spending where it really will help the economy why not start with a 50% cut in gov departments. The bottom line is this is not the Reps playing politics as usual. It's Dems playing politics as usual. They are in a bad way with the college demographics and are pandering for votes. They are willing to create a bigger deficiet with thier HC bill to try and win an election. Even if the HC bill is going to cost more than 100% more than they missled us it will. Bigger deficits creates more debt for the country, which is far worse for the country. It will be a moot point anyhow when the SC throws out the HC bill and the student loan provision with it returning it. :duh:
I believe this is pretty much what I said. I KNEW I was informed quite well as I watched/listened to this all unfold ON THE SENATE FLOOR as it happened...However, I chose to NOT even attempt to argue with the UN informed liberal puke that is not here to inform, educate, discuss, or learn, but instead is here solely to argue, disrupt, and misinform, on subjects he plainly knows NOTHING about... I just consider the ignorant source of the misinformation and reach for the "ignore" button again...
It's funny, sometime people are away from the forum for a week or so and people ask about them, and then others can be gone for a month and nobody gives a shit....
Ray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,679 Posts
Now the righties claim that the democrats don't want to pay for lowering the loan rate from 6.8 to 3.4. The government doesn't really have to pay anything because they are making money on this, not losing money. It does not cost them to lower the rates, because they are not paying more out with the lower rates.
I keep reading these 3 sentences and wondering wtf. Dude, business classes. Look into them. Lemonade stand. Open one.

That's like selling your lemonade for 50 cents and lowering it to 5 cents because it isn't costing you anything. Meanwhile, "Mom" is still buying lemons and wondering why she is enabling her mentally challenged son by spending 35 cents so he can make 5 cents.

You realize that the thousands of government workers that process these loans and run the program actually have to be paid right? And that money comes from......? 3.4 is also pretty close to average yearly inflation. Whoops there went all your profit. Now you are in the red. Your lemonade stand just went bankrupt.....along with the post office....


THIS is why the government is going broke and every American with it. I am SICK of helping cover the idiots of the nation. Every 3 months when I send in that check, it disgusts me where it's going. The % of waste in that check makes me angry. I wish I could send that money to a worthwhile charity rather than send it to be wasted by politicians that can't manage money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
The further left these Libs go ie: from Socialism to Communism, the more inept their arguements become.

Where does a 50% cut in military budget come from? Does Ram have inside knowledge of what our defense budget should be?

Just argue ideology, and let the drones follow, don't have to make sense.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,729 Posts
I keep reading these 3 sentences and wondering wtf. Dude, business classes. Look into them. Lemonade stand. Open one.

That's like selling your lemonade for 50 cents and lowering it to 5 cents because it isn't costing you anything. Meanwhile, "Mom" is still buying lemons and wondering why she is enabling her mentally challenged son by spending 35 cents so he can make 5 cents.

You realize that the thousands of government workers that process these loans and run the program actually have to be paid right? And that money comes from......? 3.4 is also pretty close to average yearly inflation. Whoops there went all your profit. Now you are in the red. Your lemonade stand just went bankrupt.....along with the post office....


THIS is why the government is going broke and every American with it. I am SICK of helping cover the idiots of the nation. Every 3 months when I send in that check, it disgusts me where it's going. The % of waste in that check makes me angry. I wish I could send that money to a worthwhile charity rather than send it to be wasted by politicians that can't manage money.
The whole point of my post was 1) to explain to Ray why federal student loans don't go through banks anymore and 2) to show how stupid the idea that tax cuts don't need to be paid for is and you helped me prove my point. Democrats want to keep the student loan interest rates low to "help the economy." In reality, I read that this lower rate would only save about $30 a month for the person that graduates with the average amount of student loan debt. That's not much and let's be honest, $30 a month isn't going to help the economy, but by lowering the interest rates we are decreasing the amount of revenue taken in by the government.

This is very similar to the idea put into action by Bush and the GOP with their tax cuts. They sent Americans a check for a few hundred dollars in the mail and said that would help stimulate the economy. They had to borrow money to send out those stimulus checks. But even more harmful, the tax cuts enacted at that time were never paid for, much like the lower interest rates that the GOP seem so concerned about now. Why wasn't the GOP concerned about the lost revenue from tax cuts then?

Let's be honest here for a minute, neither party is concerned about the deficit right now. They each want to spend money on things they want, while cutting spending on things the other guy wants. And in reality, as of right now, deficit spending isn't that bad of an idea. If the government was to make drastic cuts in spending the legs would be taken out from under this already shaky recovery. One only has to look across the pond at the economy of Great Britain and the recent austerity moves they have made to see where even moderate cuts right now would put our economy. If the righties don't like the economy now, they sure as hell wouldn't like it after government spending cuts have been made.

Now, let's look at your little diatribe about the government going broke, shall we? And let's look past any stimulus enacted during the recent recession because any President would have come up with a stimulus to help revive the economy whatever party they belonged to. The reason the government is going broke is because they spend more than they take in. You see, they provide all these services that people want. Is there waste? Sure, and guess what? There will always be waste because that's just the way things are. You are never going to be able to eliminate all the waste and to think you can is a pipe dream. Now getting back to spending more than they take in, that hasn't always been the case. The government was pretty responsible about spending untill some actor from California was elected President. He made huge cuts to taxes and increased the size of government and government spending so much that it incresed the national debt by about 20% during his time in office. This spending with lower tax rates continued through Bush 41s term where national debt was increased another 13%. Under Clinton, debt was cut by about 10%. Many say this was because of the dot com bubble, and that may be true. But at least the government was responsible enough to use the increased revenues to pay off debt. Then Bush 43 came to town and cut taxes and increased spending which led to a 27% increase in the debt. Now some people say his tax cuts spurred economic growth, but lets be real, the economic growth during his term was from the housing bubble. He could have acted responsibly and used that increased revenue to pay down debt but he didn't. Obama came to town facing an economic disaster that hadn't been seen in decades and had to do something to keep the US from falling into a depression. So he spent money, and he really had little choice in the matter because he had to do something.

What is the point of all this? Your taxes are going to go up. They have to if the national debt situation is ever going to be gotten under control. Since you were quick to recognize the flawed logic when I said that lowering the interest rates isn't going to cost the government money, I'm sure you will be able to see the flawed logic whenever the GOP wants to cut taxes without finding some way to pay for it. Since you have shown yourself to understand that national debt is caused by decreased revenues flowing into the government coffers, I'm sure the democrats and President Obama will appreciate your support whenever they want to raise taxes in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,679 Posts
I never said anything about democrats or republicans. I said politicians. The whole government. They are completely bipartisan when it comes to wasting huge sums of money. The only difference is the way they do it. I guess I could insert the shit sandwich metaphor here.

I for one am not going to make excuses for one party by using the excuse that the other side does it too just in another way. Both sides suck when it comes to fiscal planning. There are zero fiscal conservatives in the government. The only difference between the 2 sides fiscally is how they spend money they don't have.

As far as tax increases, that's fine. BUT, cost cutting comes BEFORE price increases. Simple concept really. Once they trim the fat, then we can talk about tax increases to cover the difference. But talking tax increases before cutting costs is just plain stupid. I'm also not necessarily for tax cuts. The 2% cut in employee FICA taxes was one of the dumbest things I've seen come out of congress in a long time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,679 Posts
Also, taxes do not automatically equal increased revenue.

Would you rather have 30% of $1,000,000 or 39.5% of $750,000? I'm sure everyone here can do the math.

How percentages work is one of the common sense things that is declining lately. I always have numerous customers complain that we give them a 50% discount from list price but our competitors give them a 66% discount from list price. They pay $2,695 for my product and $2,808 for competitor's yet they want a higher discount. Years ago I restructured parts pricing from 2 discount levels of 25% off and 40% off. I took the 25% off price and made it list price and changed 40% to 30%. People flipped shit because their discount went from 40% to 30% even though the NET pricing came out lower. The price they paid went DOWN but they threw a huge fit because their discount went from 40% to 30%.



Thus concludes my basic math rant....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,729 Posts
I never said anything about democrats or republicans. I said politicians. The whole government. They are completely bipartisan when it comes to wasting huge sums of money. The only difference is the way they do it. I guess I could insert the shit sandwich metaphor here.

I for one am not going to make excuses for one party by using the excuse that the other side does it too just in another way. Both sides suck when it comes to fiscal planning. There are zero fiscal conservatives in the government. The only difference between the 2 sides fiscally is how they spend money they don't have.

As far as tax increases, that's fine. BUT, cost cutting comes BEFORE price increases. Simple concept really. Once they trim the fat, then we can talk about tax increases to cover the difference. But talking tax increases before cutting costs is just plain stupid. I'm also not necessarily for tax cuts. The 2% cut in employee FICA taxes was one of the dumbest things I've seen come out of congress in a long time.
What we have is the worst possible scenario. Democrats would love to increase spending for social programs and raise taxes to cover the cost so they can get the support of the poor and working class. The Republicans would like to cut social programs and taxes to get the support of the rich (they don't need the social programs, and they want to pay less tax). So you get compromise where the end result is we spend money we don't have with reduced revenues. On top of that you have the defense contractors wanting a share of the budget and you have the military that wants to try out there new toys made by the defense contractors so we are in perpetual war.

You want cuts? Well then there are only three things that can be cut that will amount to anything: social security, medicare, and defense spending. Many elderly need social security to survive, and they have paid for this insurance their whole working lives. These same elderly need assistance with medical care as they age. Since our population is growing older, it is doubtful you can make cuts to these two areas and the politicians know this as I'm sure so do you. I agree the FICA tax cut was dumb but the politicians had to appease those crying about tax cuts, so they cut FICA collected but didn't cut expected future payments. If you remove the cap on maximum taxable earnings, this would probably fix the SS/Medicare funding problem with money to spare.

Now let's go back in time to when we did have a balanced budget. WHat was one of these three things that was cut to help balance the budget then? That's right, Clinton made big cuts to the military. Military spending is out of control. In 2011 we spent over $7.1 trillion not counting Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. The next biggest spender was China who spent a whopping $1.43 trillion. We spent 4.7% of GDP. They spent 2%. Why does there need to be such a huge disparity? Do you remember how the Soviet Union fared when they tried to match defense spending with the US when Reagan was in the WH? Their overspending on defense helped contribute to their downfall. If we don't cut defense spending, the same thing will happen to us. Big cuts in defense spending helped balance the budget when Clinton was in the WH, it helped balance the budget after WW2, and it would help balance the budget now. Try getting your GOP to go for that if you want cuts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,217 Posts
What we have is the worst possible scenario. Democrats would love to increase spending for social programs and raise taxes to cover the cost so they can get the support of the poor and working class. The Republicans would like to cut social programs and taxes to get the support of the rich (they don't need the social programs, and they want to pay less tax). So you get compromise where the end result is we spend money we don't have with reduced revenues. On top of that you have the defense contractors wanting a share of the budget and you have the military that wants to try out there new toys made by the defense contractors so we are in perpetual war.

You want cuts? Well then there are only three things that can be cut that will amount to anything: social security, medicare, and defense spending. Many elderly need social security to survive, and they have paid for this insurance their whole working lives. These same elderly need assistance with medical care as they age. Since our population is growing older, it is doubtful you can make cuts to these two areas and the politicians know this as I'm sure so do you. I agree the FICA tax cut was dumb but the politicians had to appease those crying about tax cuts, so they cut FICA collected but didn't cut expected future payments. If you remove the cap on maximum taxable earnings, this would probably fix the SS/Medicare funding problem with money to spare.

Now let's go back in time to when we did have a balanced budget. WHat was one of these three things that was cut to help balance the budget then? That's right, Clinton made big cuts to the military. Military spending is out of control. In 2011 we spent over $7.1 trillion not counting Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. The next biggest spender was China who spent a whopping $1.43 trillion. We spent 4.7% of GDP. They spent 2%. Why does there need to be such a huge disparity? Do you remember how the Soviet Union fared when they tried to match defense spending with the US when Reagan was in the WH? Their overspending on defense helped contribute to their downfall. If we don't cut defense spending, the same thing will happen to us. Big cuts in defense spending helped balance the budget when Clinton was in the WH, it helped balance the budget after WW2, and it would help balance the budget now. Try getting your GOP to go for that if you want cuts.
How come no federal agencies cut's ? Our Fed gov way over spends and over employes way more than we need. I agree defense needs to be cut but for the most part 4.7% of GDP for defense is not that outragous. And Clintons 1997 Balanced Budget Act was a sham. It increased the deficit by 21 bil in 1998 alone. Hell you want to talk about a balanced budget ? Let's start by getting the Senate to even pass a budget. Under the Dem's controll we have not had a budget in what, 3yrs ?
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top