I'm curious why you hate private student loan debt. You post the chart like student debt is exploding but that's only federal debt.
The bill you referenced basically changed it from private debt guaranteed by the feds to debt administered by the feds. Then you list a fucktarded misleading chart.
Nice work.
The Congressional Budget Office's last estimate predicted that if both bills were passed into law in 2010, the net reduction in federal deficits would be $143 billion over the 2010–2019 period as a result of the proposed changes in direct spending and revenues. That figure comprises $124 billion in net reductions deriving from the health care and revenue provisions and $19 billion in net reductions deriving from the education provisions.[26]
Starting in 2009, Obama and a Congress under Democratic control shoveled hundreds of billions of more loans to kids for college. Now many of them have crushing debt burdens, which hinders their ability to buy their first house and participate fully (if at all) in their 401(ks) or their own IRAs. I'd also argue that their credit scores are lower (raising any financing costs across the board) which hurts their future efforts to start their own businesses (small businesses create most new jobs). Obviously the kids (and their families) bear some responsibility but I hold the Federal Government more so because it is taxpayer money.
So instead of trying to reform and right size the Federal Government, Bernie Sanders wants to double down on foolish policies and increase spending by $18 trillion? Royally screw things up, help put young adults behind the 8 ball, and then tell them you'll save them if they only vote for you.
Lol that's awesome. Yes totally Obama and Democratic Congress fault for more student loans.
While Bernie's plan is fucktarded, if you have too much student debt and can't get a job. Try sucking at life less.
Do you realize the 2010 law specifically ended the practice of the federal government giving subsidies to private banks to make student loans, and instead the DOE took over that entire process? So yeah, no shit your graphic shows that the federal direct student loan debt skyrocketed. That's quite a load of misleading bullshit you're spewing. The more intellectually honest thing to do (if you're capable of that) is to look at all student debt, not just the cherry picked stats on federal student loan debt that conveniently fits your narrative. Here's a handy graphic:
You'll notice that the student debt has been steadily rising every single year for decades now. Trying to paint this as a newly created Obama problem is just a flat out lie. Now you can of course criticize him and his administration for doing absolutely nothing effective in curbing student debt, and the fact that the federal government continues to run a multi-billion dollar profit every year from student loans is a fucking sham. But drop this nonsense you're peddling about Obama creating the student debt crisis.
The increases have happened under Obama because of the skyrocketing costs of tuition. When GWs and the R's were in charge, interest rates were 2 to 3x what they are now, so people borrowed less. Truth is that encouragement of heavy borrowing started under Bill Clinton. He erroneously called it "financial aid" and trumpeted the increase in student loan availability a good thing. He did some good things about student loans under Sallie Mae, transferring a bunch to the Dept of Ed, reducing default rates. But more money chasing the same thing resulted in inflation and more borrowing. Like with healthcare, nobody was addressing costs. It actually took a Republican legislator in WA to get our state college tuitions reduced, so the Dems have egg all over their face on this. Maybe if they understood economics, this wouldn't happen.
I stopped reading after this. Tuition is sky rocketing because it can. Because there is no cap on the availability of funds, evidenced by @TheChart (and common fucking sense)
You have all these predatory lenders telling pimply faced kids, "don't worry, catch us later." Then lobbing for laws that absolve themselves of the risk of lending to pimply faced teenagers.
If you were serious about real change in education affordability, you wouldn't just give it away for 'free' either. Somebody (the taxpayers) will have to pay for it and thus no cap on the availability of funds. If you wanted real change, you would change the laws so lenders share in the responsibility of bad loans.
Sure it would suck that not as many people would be able to go to college right away. But scholastic institutions would be forced to lower costs to get more students to attend. Then students would be able to afford to go whilst working a part-time job, sans the debt load that creates a lifetime of financial imprisonment.
I stopped reading after this. Tuition is sky rocketing because it can. Because there is no cap on the availability of funds, evidenced by @TheChart (and common fucking sense)
Tuition has skyrocketed the last 7 years because states cut funding for higher education and schools were forced to make up the difference through tuition.
I stopped reading after this. Tuition is sky rocketing because it can. Because there is no cap on the availability of funds, evidenced by @TheChart (and common fucking sense)
Tuition has skyrocketed the last 7 years because states cut funding for higher education and schools were forced to make up the difference through tuition.
This makes me think you didn't read a damn thing I wrote. The cost is being transferred to student's because there is no cap to available funds. The state is adhering to a budget, and lenders are happy to give loans that are un-pardonable. Why does higher education care to reign in costs if the money is constantly forthcoming?
Comments
The bill you referenced basically changed it from private debt guaranteed by the feds to debt administered by the feds. Then you list a fucktarded misleading chart.
Nice work.
The Congressional Budget Office's last estimate predicted that if both bills were passed into law in 2010, the net reduction in federal deficits would be $143 billion over the 2010–2019 period as a result of the proposed changes in direct spending and revenues. That figure comprises $124 billion in net reductions deriving from the health care and revenue provisions and $19 billion in net reductions deriving from the education provisions.[26]
You'll notice that the student debt has been steadily rising every single year for decades now. Trying to paint this as a newly created Obama problem is just a flat out lie. Now you can of course criticize him and his administration for doing absolutely nothing effective in curbing student debt, and the fact that the federal government continues to run a multi-billion dollar profit every year from student loans is a fucking sham. But drop this nonsense you're peddling about Obama creating the student debt crisis.
You have all these predatory lenders telling pimply faced kids, "don't worry, catch us later." Then lobbing for laws that absolve themselves of the risk of lending to pimply faced teenagers.
If you were serious about real change in education affordability, you wouldn't just give it away for 'free' either. Somebody (the taxpayers) will have to pay for it and thus no cap on the availability of funds. If you wanted real change, you would change the laws so lenders share in the responsibility of bad loans.
Sure it would suck that not as many people would be able to go to college right away. But scholastic institutions would be forced to lower costs to get more students to attend. Then students would be able to afford to go whilst working a part-time job, sans the debt load that creates a lifetime of financial imprisonment.