• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Can I Get an Amen?

I cared very much about the debt when George W. Bush was president, and I was dismayed that we added $4 trillion in the eight years of his administration. I never would have voted for Obama in 2008 if I knew that by comparison I'd look back on these numbers as the good old days!
 
How much has spending increased under Obama (discretionary, not the non-dicretionary, automatic stuff)?
 
ravdin said:
I cared very much about the debt when George W. Bush was president, and I was dismayed that we added $4 trillion in the eight years of his administration. I never would have voted for Obama in 2008 if I knew that by comparison I'd look back on these numbers as the good old days!
Click to expand...

I believe the knee-jerk reaction is because 'think of the debt' has degraded into a cudgel for some on the right to either dismiss subjects that don't have to do with the debt, or justify dismantling programs that they don't like in the first place regardless of if it's a good investment or not.

This of course is profoundly unfair to those trying to discuss either non-debt problems (recently it was women's reproductive rights), and to those who really are concerned about the debut but aren't using it as a pathos-laden scare yalp. Even when the debt is a valid niche of discussion on a given issue, one has a hard time bringing it up without accusations of just wanting to derail the issue. Hell, I bet this thread starts in on a derail about comparing Obama's debt increases to Bush's and who could have done what about it.

How much money does the government 'lose' on this program? What are the external returns on investment? Do those returns justify the 'loss' in dollars? These would be debt-related questions in regards to student loans that could be useful avenues of discussion that don't simply say, 'Think of the Debt!' and end the conversation. But even these might get attacked.

Of course the original subject of this thread may or may not be those student loans, as it appears it was about Obama's use of the word 'amen' in a speech.
 
tyr_13 said:
I believe the knee-jerk reaction is because 'think of the debt' has degraded into a cudgel for some on the right to either dismiss subjects that don't have to do with the debt, or justify dismantling programs that they don't like in the first place regardless of if it's a good investment or not.

This of course is profoundly unfair to those trying to discuss either non-debt problems (recently it was women's reproductive rights), and to those who really are concerned about the debut but aren't using it as a pathos-laden scare yalp. Even when the debt is a valid niche of discussion on a given issue, one has a hard time bringing it up without accusations of just wanting to derail the issue. Hell, I bet this thread starts in on a derail about comparing Obama's debt increases to Bush's and who could have done what about it.

How much money does the government 'lose' on this program? What are the external returns on investment? Do those returns justify the 'loss' in dollars? These would be debt-related questions in regards to student loans that could be useful avenues of discussion that don't simply say, 'Think of the Debt!' and end the conversation. But even these might get attacked.

Of course the original subject of this thread may or may not be those student loans, as it appears it was about Obama's use of the word 'amen' in a speech.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring it up to derail the thread. The relevance as I see it is that Obama is selling to these young people that he can help them with their personal debt if reelected, while at the same time the federal government is saddling them with an even larger debt. It would require a massive suspension of disbelief to cheer him on while he's making these empty promises.

As for the "amen" part, it's a cultural reference and I really can't see the problem with that word.
 
ravdin said:
I didn't bring it up to derail the thread. The relevance as I see it is that Obama is selling to these young people that he can help them with their personal debt if reelected, while at the same time the federal government is saddling them with an even larger debt. It would require a massive suspension of disbelief to cheer him on while he's making these empty promises.
Click to expand...
The tangible, measurable, value of keeping the loan interest rate from increasing is very very real and hardly empty. While ignoring (or hand waving away) the background for the increased governement debt, is empty rhetoric.
 
The problem is that this is essentially a gift to the colleges and universities, not to the students. By making it cheaper to borrow, you make it possible to borrow more.
 
DavidJames said:
The tangible, measurable, value of keeping the loan interest rate from increasing is very very real and hardly empty. While ignoring (or hand waving away) the background for the increased governement debt, is empty rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Obama's speech wasn't about loan interest rates, it was about the cost of tuition. The Fed has set interest rates near zero and has recently announced its intention to keep it there for the time being (which is nice for borrowers and not so nice for savers). It's not Obama's decision to make in any case, so if you're looking for him to make interest rates even lower I'm afraid you're in for some disappointment.
 
Brainster said:
The problem is that this is essentially a gift to the colleges and universities, not to the students. By making it cheaper to borrow, you make it possible to borrow more.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. It also makes it possible for schools like Harvard to entice one percenters like Elizabeth Warren with sweetheart interest free loans that are not available to struggling students.
 
Robert Prey said:
Why does the cost of higher education go up? Because the more loans and hand-outs given, the more the price of college is bid upwards. Colleges ask for 30, 40, 50 thousand a year because with all the handouts, that's what they can get. It is is mindful to note that it was the Dems who put in place the rise in interest rates for these loans. But the Pres. never had a course in Econ 101 and thus has absolutely no clue, not that it would matter for his election bid, if he did have a clue. Can I get an "Amen"??? Or how about an Um, Umm Ummm??
Click to expand...

Reading compehension much, or just blind hatered?

IF all these students are getting HAND OUTS how ar they LOANS HOW are all the students coming out of school with 10s if not 100s of thousands of dollars of DEBT!

Last I looked you don't go into debt from hand outs! Also, there was yet another story on NPR today talking about (just like in health care) It is NEARLY impossible to get an accurate and detailed assesment on how much school and student loans trully cost!

This of course IS done on purpose by the vulture (republican) lenders who run these loan companies who F&*^ people over just like they did with the mortgage loans. Then of course the already paid for repugnican schills will bail them out too.
 
I do not care if Obama/whoever increases the debt. Run it up to 30 trillion. Most of the time these increases go to infrastructure (highways, bridges, dams, etc), where I make lots of money!

DDWW
 
Good thing he didn't say "enshallah". The curiously silent Religious Right would be screaming themselves hoarse by now.
 
ravdin said:
Since Obama took office, the federal government has added another $5 trillion to our debt (which is now $15.6 trillion). We're adding another $4 billion today. Each American's share of the national debt is $50,000.

Can I get an amen?
Click to expand...
Dare you propose a plan that would've saved us from spending trillions to avoid a great depression? If you're going to spout off economic debt statistics you need to acknowledge the mitigating factors. Economist seem to believe the stimulus wasn't big enough to be substantially effective.
 
ravdin said:
Obama's speech wasn't about loan interest rates, it was about the cost of tuition.
Click to expand...
Except for the part where it was just about that. From the OP:
applecorped said:
"President Obama employed a little religious rhetoric today, speaking to students in North Carolina about his plan to lower interest rates for student loans.
Click to expand...
ravdin said:
It's not Obama's decision to make in any case, so if you're looking for him to make interest rates even lower I'm afraid you're in for some disappointment.
Click to expand...
Except about where congress can set the rate on subsidized student loans, and he can use his pulpit to push for exactly that.

Daredelvis
 
Sounds like the House is angling to go along with it at this point.
 
Magyar said:
Reading compehension much, or just blind hatered?

IF all these students are getting HAND OUTS how ar they LOANS HOW are all the students coming out of school with 10s if not 100s of thousands of dollars of DEBT!

Last I looked you don't go into debt from hand outs! Also, there was yet another story on NPR today talking about (just like in health care) It is NEARLY impossible to get an accurate and detailed assesment on how much school and student loans trully cost!

This of course IS done on purpose by the vulture (republican) lenders who run these loan companies who F&*^ people over just like they did with the mortgage loans. Then of course the already paid for repugnican schills will bail them out too.
Click to expand...

Oh, ye of little scholarship. It is Obama who has taken over the student loan business. And it was the Dems who put in place the increase in interest. Both loans and grants bid up the price of college. And that is why it is so expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom