The Trump Economy

[SoCal Deek]

22 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...well, I do have the official "Italian Race Card" in my top drawer...should I?.....Uncle Nunzio promises to "support" me in his own ways.....

Me too! I'd say the last name, but everyone in WNY would know it.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Me too! I'd say the last name, but everyone in WNY would know it.

 

 

 

Paladino?......Ciminelli?.....don't say a word.......

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

 

Paladino?......Ciminelli?.....don't say a word.......

Shhhh!

[3rdnlng]

40 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Me too! I'd say the last name, but everyone in WNY would know it.

Cuomo?

[GaryPinC]

On 11/13/2019 at 8:30 AM, DC Tom said:

 

But you were punished for not paying it back.  Which is appropriate.

Punishment is certainly appropriate.  The degree of it is not.  Which was my point. 

 

You tell me how, after two months and two missed payments, there's $3000 worth of court costs because I couldn't find it.  And until you pay that off, all that interest keeps adding on to your principle and increasing the $ of interest you owe.

 

Keep in mind I had more loan $ then her and payed them all off in 8 years.   Her loan came due in '93 (she defaulted that year) and I married her in '99.  Money was tight, I calculated an appropriate payment and made double payments, especially after my loans were payed off in 2004.   November 2010, we finally faithfully paid the loan down to the original principle.  In 2012, excluding what she had payed before I knew her, I calculated we had payed off the entire loan amount + interest+ $2200.  But we still owed $8500 principle (out of $10,100 originally).

 

There are a lot of people and their parents saddled with paying a never ending loan.  The loan administrators are not willing to work with you or when in a good mood offer  to settle for cash payment $500 less than the outstanding principle.    I have a pristine credit score and am all for punishing irresponsibility but the degree of it is garbage for these loans.

 

 

[row_33]

16 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...well, I do have the official "Italian Race Card" in my top drawer...should I?.....Uncle Nunzio promises to "support" me in his own ways.....

 

only during the World Cup, that is if the Azzurri qualify 

 

 

[GG]

23 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

 

There are a lot of people and their parents saddled with paying a never ending loan.  The loan administrators are not willing to work with you or when in a good mood offer  to settle for cash payment $500 less than the outstanding principle.    I have a pristine credit score and am all for punishing irresponsibility but the degree of it is garbage for these loans.

 

 

 

Name another industry or sector where something like this would be possible.   They call this behavior predatory elsewhere, but here no one bothers to bring the universities in front of the CFPB

[row_33]

56 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Name another industry or sector where something like this would be possible.   They call this behavior predatory elsewhere, but here no one bothers to bring the universities in front of the CFPB

your health care system?

 

 

[GaryPinC]

2 hours ago, GG said:

 

Name another industry or sector where something like this would be possible.   They call this behavior predatory elsewhere, but here no one bothers to bring the universities in front of the CFPB

I think part of it is that who do you bring?  Universities, lenders, and federal government all play a role in this mess.  But ultimately, the laws regarding educational loans must be changed.

 

Of interest to me (from Wikipedia):  The schools with the highest amount of student loan debt are University of Phoenix, Walden University, Nova Southeastern University, Capella University, and Strayer University.

 

That isn't predatory, huh?

 

My ex actually worked at an independent higher education center and got an idea of how their predatory works:  They target lower income people, aggressively market the affordable higher educational dream to them and they pay for school strictly through federal loans.  These are people who usually are ill equipped with the habits to succeed at higher learning, and usually stick around 1 to 2 years before flunking out.  The school doesn't care as they have their money and the loans come due for the former students.  The school just keeps finding new students, their own Ponzi-type scheme.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 11/13/2019 at 11:06 AM, billsfan89 said:

 

Any universal program is going to have issues with individual examples. You have to look at the macro issue and not hypothetically one scenario. I don't really even like to bring up the people I know as evidence because that is anecdotal (I being them up to lend context to my perspective.)

 

As far as your questions about the people I know with student debt all but one aren't married (my friends wife got her masters in nursing while she was married) and none of them have kids. A couple do live at home but they have to help support their parents with rent. Of the few that live out of their parents home some of them do not have the option to live at home while one or two do but don't for good reasons (toxic environment.) They work in good fields (teaching and nursing mostly) and they live in a high income area but in the burbs where rent and cost of living is more affordable. Sadly they can't switch fields to something that would pay them more without taking on more debt and most like what they do.

 

As far as other frivolous spending I don't think anything they do is that frivolous. None take more than one vacation a year and many drive cars they paid off or bought used cars when they needed a new one (one leases a car every 3 years the only one I could say does that.) I am sure they have expenses that they could cut down on but nothing that isn't over the top or frivolous to the point where I could say their loans would be paid off of they just did X.

 

These people mostly make between 50 and 70k a year with solid benefits. They have 50 to 100k in debt trying to basically to get a practical job. I understand that the people I know is anecdotal evidence so it has zero to do with the policy but I feel many here feel like the only possible way you could be struggling with student debt is to have a degree in feminist dance theory. 

 

Would I be opposed to a means tested approach? Once again no, but I would prefer a universal one. 

Its about what I figured. Average salary per couple maybe $120k, leasing vehicles on avg prob $400 per month,$2-3000 vacation every year, $50,000 in loans that likely could have been much less, and the SYSTEM is the problem. Add to that cell phones for $1-200 per month, other non-essential stuff. 

 

If your friends are teachers in NYS, they get a pension that is phenomenal, will work 30 years and with life expectancy considerations are poised to earn worth far in excess of $1000000 in retirement each,  have incredible health care, have summers off and earn extra $$$ by proctoring sporting events. 

 

I don't begrudge them any of that, but I'm hard pressed to consider them victims here. Get a summer job, lease a Hyundai, work at night and cut back.  

 

At a minimum, for the love of God, don't teach math or civics. 

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[GG]

1 hour ago, GaryPinC said:

I think part of it is that who do you bring?  Universities, lenders, and federal government all play a role in this mess.  But ultimately, the laws regarding educational loans must be changed.

 

Of interest to me (from Wikipedia):  The schools with the highest amount of student loan debt are University of Phoenix, Walden University, Nova Southeastern University, Capella University, and Strayer University.

 

That isn't predatory, huh?

 

My ex actually worked at an independent higher education center and got an idea of how their predatory works:  They target lower income people, aggressively market the affordable higher educational dream to them and they pay for school strictly through federal loans.  These are people who usually are ill equipped with the habits to succeed at higher learning, and usually stick around 1 to 2 years before flunking out.  The school doesn't care as they have their money and the loans come due for the former students.  The school just keeps finding new students, their own Ponzi-type scheme.

 

They all fall under the strictest definitions of predatory lending (oxymoron in these contexts, btw).    For-profit colleges are the easy targets because their business model is built on the back of the federal loan programs.   Remove that, and you will see the business model change.  The other reason they're targeted is because they are competition to the traditional schools, so why not highlight the evils of your competitor and have the supplicant press and politicians ignore your equally bad behavior?

 

Even though students at for-profit schools may add up to the highest loan balances, they're still small relative to the overall student debt, which is dominated by traditional public & private colleges. 

 

Hopefully this mess will help to educate kids and parents about college choices - that essentially if you are not in the top 1%-5% of your class, you probably shouldn't be considering a liberal arts degree from a private college (at least straight out of high school).

 

3 hours ago, row_33 said:

your health care system?

 

 

 

Not really, unpaid medical bills are discharged in the same way as any other debt.   College loans have a special exception under US laws.

[row_33]

6 minutes ago, GG said:

Not really, unpaid medical bills are discharged in the same way as any other debt.   College loans have a special exception under US laws.

 

no, people cannot afford the basic medical treatment and die instead

[GG]

13 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

no, people cannot afford the basic medical treatment and die instead

 

That's not the subject of the conversation, but carry on with non sequiturs, as usual

[billsfan89]

4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Its about what I figured. Average salary per couple maybe $120k, leasing vehicles on avg prob $400 per month,$2-3000 vacation every year, $50,000 in loans that likely could have been much less, and the SYSTEM is the problem. Add to that cell phones for $1-200 per month, other non-essential stuff. 

 

If your friends are teachers in NYS, they get a pension that is phenomenal, will work 30 years and with life expectancy considerations are poised to earn worth far in excess of $1000000, have incredible health care, have summers off and earn extra $$$ by procuring spotting events. 

 

I don't begrudge them any of that, but I'm hard pressed to consider them victims here. Get a summer job, lease a Hyundai, work at night and cut back.  

 

At a minimum, for the love of God, don't teach math or civics. 

 

 

 

 

I think you are vastly overestimating their level of frivolity and the idea that because you can cut back on somethings that you thus are frivolous is silly. I don't know how much everyone pays for cell phones but cell phones are as close to a necessity in the modern era (And I know for a fact my close friend pays for Ting a very cheap service as he won't shut up about it.) All but one own a car (none of which are luxury cars) or purchased a modest used car (and the one that leases, leases a Ford for 300ish a month.) 

 

Also my friends are not teachers in a system that has a pension. and they have to work summers to make well above 50k while the rest are mostly nurses making 55 to 70k but they aren't couples making 120k in total as most aren't married. Just to clarify. 

 

They don't go on 2-3k vacations each year, most of their vacations are domestic or Canada or to visit family that lives overseas (thus having a place to stay and lowering costs a lot.) I think at some point you have to allow people modest indulgences now and again without deeming any sort of enjoyment of life a complete frivolity that disqualifies you from being deemed a responsible person. Paying for Netflix and a night out once or twice a month is not the difference between your student debt being paid off or not.  

 

My point in bringing them up isn't to say that they are poor victims (Although the inflated cost of the tuition was driven by systemic failures far larger and out of their control, I seriously think they probably owe tens of thousands more as a result of the factors that inflated costs) but rather that if you freed up the 400-800 dollars a month they spend on servicing their student loans that helps them spend more into the consumer economy and stop delaying their life. 

 

That money helps ease the burden off of people who aren't irresponsible morons who got degrees that they knew wouldn't get them employment. Just to be clear, it is completely anecdotal so I don't use it as larger examples to justify the policy. But rather Bring it up to show that this is my perspective. 

 

I think the larger studies as to who has and continues to service student debt show that many are employed and still have student debt limiting their ability to contribute economically. Some are underemployed and got useless degrees but I don't see how garnishing their social security checks when they retire to make those final loan payments is any good. I think you have to at least allow people to default on that debt and find a way to make that money up in the federal budget. 

 

I generally speaking prefer to have universal solutions as I think that means testing tends to screw over middle class people who still need economic veneration but if me and you are negotiating this then I would certainly take a means tested solution and a different type of tax to fund a debt program. But I think the solution of nothing ***** you pay it back proposed by many here is just stupid and bad economic policy. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by billsfan89

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I think you are vastly overestimating their level of frivolity and the idea that because you can cut back on somethings that you thus are frivolous is silly. I don't know how much everyone pays for cell phones but cell phones are as close to a necessity in the modern era (And I know for a fact my close friend pays for Ting a very cheap service as he won't shut up about it.) All but one own a car (none of which are luxury cars) or purchased a modest used car (and the one that leases, leases a Ford for 300ish a month.) 

 

Also my friends are not teachers in a system that has a pension. and they have to work summers to make well above 50k while the rest are mostly nurses making 55 to 70k but they aren't couples making 120k in total as most aren't married. Just to clarify. 

 

They don't go on 2-3k vacations each year, most of their vacations are domestic or Canada or to visit family that lives overseas (thus having a place to stay and lowering costs a lot.) I think at some point you have to allow people modest indulgences now and again without deeming any sort of enjoyment of life a complete frivolity that disqualifies you from being deemed a responsible person. Paying for Netflix and a night out once or twice a month is not the difference between your student debt being paid off or not.  

 

My point in bringing them up isn't to say that they are poor victims (Although the inflated cost of the tuition was driven by systemic failures far larger and out of their control, I seriously think they probably owe tens of thousands more as a result of the factors that inflated costs) but rather that if you freed up the 400-800 dollars a month they spend on servicing their student loans that helps them spend more into the consumer economy and stop delaying their life. 

 

That money helps ease the burden off of people who aren't irresponsible morons who got degrees that they knew wouldn't get them employment. Just to be clear, it is completely anecdotal so I don't use it as larger examples to justify the policy. But rather Bring it up to show that this is my perspective. 

 

I think the larger studies as to who has and continues to service student debt show that many are employed and still have student debt limiting their ability to contribute economically. Some are underemployed and got useless degrees but I don't see how garnishing their social security checks when they retire to make those final loan payments is any good. I think you have to at least allow people to default on that debt and find a way to make that money up in the federal budget. 

 

I generally speaking prefer to have universal solutions as I think that means testing tends to screw over middle class people who still need economic veneration but if me and you are negotiating this then I would certainly take a means tested solution and a different type of tax to fund a debt program. But I think the solution of nothing ***** you pay it back proposed by many here is just stupid and bad economic policy. 

You keep talking about moving chess pieces around like it's some grand economic plan that results in a wealth of riches all around. That's silly.  At best it's a redistribution scheme that can be sold to the masses because you bang the rich people but save people who by and large don't need saving, they simply need to prioritize. 

 

See, in my opinion you're already a lost cause because the sacrifice part of the equation is missing. A cell phone is a necessity. Travelling overseas is a modest indulgence.   Making the choice to pay back their loans as many, many, many people have done and continue to do is "delaying their life".  When you paid off your loans, did you sit around contemplating that you were "delaying your life"?  What does that even mean? You jumpstart your life when govt confiscates the money of others to pay for your decisions so you can get money you didn't earn and buy more ***** you don't need? 

 

 

Heck if you're going to reimburse to kickstart spending, reimburse the people who paid their debts because they seem a hell of a lot better with money. 

 

But we can't have that, we need couples making $120,000-$140,000 per year to cry for.  Perhaps they will send us a postcard from Tuscany to thank us for our tears, though don't envy them, they had to stay with family when they went. 

 

Madness. 

 

[billsfan89]

59 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You keep talking about moving chess pieces around like it's some grand economic plan that results in a wealth of riches all around. That's silly.  At best it's a redistribution scheme that can be sold to the masses because you bang the rich people but save people who by and large don't need saving, they simply need to prioritize. 

 

See, in my opinion you're already a lost cause because the sacrifice part of the equation is missing. A cell phone is a necessity. Travelling overseas is a modest indulgence.   Making the choice to pay back their loans as many, many, many people have done and continue to do is "delaying their life".  When you paid off your loans, did you sit around contemplating that you were "delaying your life"?  What does that even mean? You jumpstart your life when govt confiscates the money of others to pay for your decisions so you can get money you didn't earn and buy more ***** you don't need? 

 

 

Heck if you're going to reimburse to kickstart spending, reimburse the people who paid their debts because they seem a hell of a lot better with money. 

 

But we can't have that, we need couples making $120,000-$140,000 per year to cry for.  Perhaps they will send us a postcard from Tuscany to thank us for our tears, though don't envy them, they had to stay with family when they went. 

 

Madness. 

 

 

These are people who are paying off their loans to the tune of hundreds of dollars a month. They aren't delinquent and they do their best to pay extra on their loans if they can. They aren't welching or people I am crying for. I bring them up to illustrate that these are individuals who are having their consumption and economic power limited by onerous student loans to get them into professions that are economically viable. Thus if you did do a debt forgiveness program you would see more money being pumped into the consumer economy and cause a positive impact on demand (an area of the economy where you need more growth.) 

 

Just because they aren't living to the standard you think they should live by enjoying life in a very modest way (***** people for visiting their family once a year) doesn't mean they are delinquents. Is the 1,000 to 1500 dollar vacation the difference between them paying off a 50-75k student loan? This idea that if you have anything you can cut down on you are thus irresponsible and a delinquent is just silly and not in line with a reasonable world view.

 

Once again if you want to "punish" those who are unable to pay back allow them to default on their loans (thus dinging their credit), allow those who are able to pay back but have onerous loans a reduction on their loans or a restructure. Pay back people who have paid off loans the past 3 years. Those are all viable alternatives that depending on how they would be implemented I would support. But to say that well you have a cell phone while you owe loans for the education you got to get your job you should just cut that down and your loans will be manageable is just silly and not a serious take in my opinion.  

 

It isn't a scheme that results in riches all around but rather form of a tax cut aimed at younger consumers to help foster growth in consumer demand. My personal opinion is that we have oriented our economy for nearly 40 years around the idea of improving the stock market and capital markets. Yet we have record stock market numbers, record levels of corporate reserves, capital markets are flushed. And yet there exists a relative lack of investment due to a lack of growth in demand. The general economy is one that has yet to see a massive improvement for your average worker. Most companies are pumping up their stocks by buying back shares and issuing dividend increases. 

 

I think perhaps we should aim our resources at increasing demand and taking the burden off of the middle and working class while investing in infrastructure and longer lasting investments other than tax cuts that will often get funneled into international hands via dividends and buybacks. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

These are people who are paying off their loans to the tune of hundreds of dollars a month. They aren't delinquent and they do their best to pay extra on their loans if they can. They aren't welching or people I am crying for. I bring them up to illustrate that these are individuals who are having their consumption and economic power limited by onerous student loans to get them into professions that are economically viable. Thus if you did do a debt forgiveness program you would see more money being pumped into the consumer economy and cause a positive impact on demand (an area of the economy where you need more growth.) 

 

Just because they aren't living to the standard you think they should live by enjoying life in a very modest way (***** people for visiting their family once a year) doesn't mean they are delinquents. Is the 1,000 to 1500 dollar vacation the difference between them paying off a 50-75k student loan? This idea that if you have anything you can cut down on you are thus irresponsible and a delinquent is just silly and not in line with a reasonable world view.

 

Once again if you want to "punish" those who are unable to pay back allow them to default on their loans (thus dinging their credit), allow those who are able to pay back but have onerous loans a reduction on their loans or a restructure. Pay back people who have paid off loans the past 3 years. Those are all viable alternatives that depending on how they would be implemented I would support. But to say that well you have a cell phone while you owe loans for the education you got to get your job you should just cut that down and your loans will be manageable is just silly and not a serious take in my opinion.  

 

It isn't a scheme that results in riches all around but rather form of a tax cut aimed at younger consumers to help foster growth in consumer demand. My personal opinion is that we have oriented our economy for nearly 40 years around the idea of improving the stock market and capital markets. Yet we have record stock market numbers, record levels of corporate reserves, capital markets are flushed. And yet there exists a relative lack of investment due to a lack of growth in demand. The general economy is one that has yet to see a massive improvement for your average worker. Most companies are pumping up their stocks by buying back shares and issuing dividend increases. 

 

I think perhaps we should aim our resources at increasing demand and taking the burden off of the middle and working class while investing in infrastructure and longer lasting investments other than tax cuts that will often get funneled into international hands via dividends and buybacks. 

I understand your perspective.  I love my family, have travelled for nearly 40 years to visit them.  I’ve taken vacations, managed credit, screwed up on credit cards and dug out of the hole of my own making. I also made conscious decisions to forgo trips, visits, the newest tv and or any other disposable goods.  Throughout it all, I never convinced myself that my personal spending habits and personal choices superseded my obligation to figure $#@& out and meet my obligations.  
 

let me put it this way and then we can agree to disagree:

 

I agree 100% if the government forgives the debts of everyone with a college loan, by extension it frees up disposable cash for them to spend.  They may be able to upgrade the carpet, buy some new Jordan sneaks, go out to the movies or just stick the cash under the mattress for a rainy day. They also received the benefit of education, the experience of attending college, and in many cases a job commensurate with the education. 
 

The same argument can be made for those who went to trade school, self-funded their education, or went to work as a waiter or custodian or work at the local library.  You give them $800 per month and they have $800 per month to spend. 
 

There are definitely victims in your scheme, you just picked the wrong  group, 

 

I do, however, agree that it makes sense for people to renegotiate terms and interest rates, but that’s a whole different issue than what you’re proposing. 

 

 

 

[billsfan89]

18 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I understand your perspective.  I love my family, have travelled for nearly 40 years to visit them.  I’ve taken vacations, managed credit, screwed up on credit cards and dug out of the hole of my own making. I also made conscious decisions to forgo trips, visits, the newest tv and or any other disposable goods.  Throughout it all, I never convinced myself that my personal spending habits and personal choices superseded my obligation to figure $#@& out and meet my obligations.  
 

let me put it this way and then we can agree to disagree:

 

I agree 100% if the government forgives the debts of everyone with a college loan, by extension it frees up disposable cash for them to spend.  They may be able to upgrade the carpet, buy some new Jordan sneaks, go out to the movies or just stick the cash under the mattress for a rainy day. They also received the benefit of education, the experience of attending college, and in many cases a job commensurate with the education. 
 

The same argument can be made for those who went to trade school, self-funded their education, or went to work as a waiter or custodian or work at the local library.  You give them $800 per month and they have $800 per month to spend. 
 

There are definitely victims in your scheme, you just picked the wrong  group, 

 

I do, however, agree that it makes sense for people to renegotiate terms and interest rates, but that’s a whole different issue than what you’re proposing. 

 

 

 

 

I think we are just going to have to leave the conversation at agree to disagree as you stated (This isn't going anywhere as we can talk in circles.) And I really respect your opinion and your acknowledgement that the student loan issue is a problem and that there are many avenues that can be done to help the problem. And I just want to reiterate that if we are negotiating on this issue hypotheically the funding mechanisms, means testing, repatriation of recent payments, and defaulting vs. forgiveness are all things that I wouldn't oppose if a compromise had to be made. 

 

I do think that large scale forgiveness or default allowance has to be favored over interest reduction and restructuring because there are some who are far too foregone for those types of solutions to be viable and many who might eventually make a repatriation in 7-10 years whose issue is more massive principle than interest or monthly payment amount (If your principle is 75 k that's 625 dollars a month for 10 years to pay back if your interest is 0, if your principle is 50k that's 520 dollars a month for 8 years if your interest is 0.) 

 

I guess my main issue with your idea (or at least how I interpreted what you said) that if you have anything you can cut back on you are then being frivolous is devoid of how human beings operate or any nuance that there are various degrees of being modest. I think telling someone who is visiting their family once a year on a modest vacation (basically paying for a flight and some eating out while there as they don't have to pay for lodging) or someone who takes one modest domestic vacation  a year that their fiscal issues stem from those vacations and their lack of Metro PCS as opposed to the large inflated amount for their loans is sort of penny wise dollar stupid.   

 

Yes if someone lives a joyless life cutting down on anything fun or not an absolute necessity for many years they might be able to service more of their debt but that doesn't mean that if you do some moderate indulgences like visiting your family and going on a date now and again that you tow the line into being fiscally irresponsible. 

 

I think a lot of conservatives often times blame the struggles of the working and middle class on their frivolous habits they narrowly define as anything not a necessity as opposed to the major costs they are insuring in various avenues simply because it's easier to say hey cut down on X and you will be alright than actually trying to possibly address a larger issue such as loan debt or medical costs. 

 

Finally that's not to say that some people aren't frivolous or their own undoing fiscally. That would be dishonest to say that every poor person is vitreous. I do know people who made bad decisions fiscally and although they aren't struggling with student loans (mommy and daddy paid for their college) they continue to have limited prospects fiscally because they spend money way too loosely. However the sacrifices they would have to make to have a healthy savings and investment range aren't cutting everything and anything to the bone but just sensible live within your means type things like don't go on 3-4 vacations a year and go out to eat twice every weekend. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I think we are just going to have to leave the conversation at agree to disagree as you stated (This isn't going anywhere as we can talk in circles.) And I really respect your opinion and your acknowledgement that the student loan issue is a problem and that there are many avenues that can be done to help the problem. And I just want to reiterate that if we are negotiating on this issue hypotheically the funding mechanisms, means testing, repatriation of recent payments, and defaulting vs. forgiveness are all things that I wouldn't oppose if a compromise had to be made. 

 

I do think that large scale forgiveness or default allowance has to be favored over interest reduction and restructuring because there are some who are far too foregone for those types of solutions to be viable and many who might eventually make a repatriation in 7-10 years whose issue is more massive principle than interest or monthly payment amount (If your principle is 75 k that's 625 dollars a month for 10 years to pay back if your interest is 0, if your principle is 50k that's 520 dollars a month for 8 years if your interest is 0.) 

 

I guess my main issue with your idea (or at least how I interpreted what you said) that if you have anything you can cut back on you are then being frivolous is devoid of how human beings operate or any nuance that there are various degrees of being modest. I think telling someone who is visiting their family once a year on a modest vacation (basically paying for a flight and some eating out while there as they don't have to pay for lodging) or someone who takes one modest domestic vacation  a year that their fiscal issues stem from those vacations and their lack of Metro PCS as opposed to the large inflated amount for their loans is sort of penny wise dollar stupid.   

 

Yes if someone lives a joyless life cutting down on anything fun or not an absolute necessity for many years they might be able to service more of their debt but that doesn't mean that if you do some moderate indulgences like visiting your family and going on a date now and again that you tow the line into being fiscally irresponsible. 

 

I think a lot of conservatives often times blame the struggles of the working and middle class on their frivolous habits they narrowly define as anything not a necessity as opposed to the major costs they are insuring in various avenues simply because it's easier to say hey cut down on X and you will be alright than actually trying to possibly address a larger issue such as loan debt or medical costs. 

 

Finally that's not to say that some people aren't frivolous or their own undoing fiscally. That would be dishonest to say that every poor person is vitreous. I do know people who made bad decisions fiscally and although they aren't struggling with student loans (mommy and daddy paid for their college) they continue to have limited prospects fiscally because they spend money way too loosely. However the sacrifices they would have to make to have a healthy savings and investment range aren't cutting everything and anything to the bone but just sensible live within your means type things like don't go on 3-4 vacations a year and go out to eat twice every weekend. 

I swore I was done, but now you dragged me back in. You’re working so damn hard to convince yourself that your pals banging $135k per year are the victims of social and financial injustice, that you’re losing track of common sense. You’ve derided people who’s parents pay or assist with college because, *****, I don’t know, they are willing to sacrifice to help the next generation.  At the same time, while hitting the obligatory “mommy and daddy” reference, you’re advocating that you pals at $12,000 per month gross should line up in the governmental soup kitchen line because they can’t stay in a Marriott when they fly to Scotland once or twice a year?  Who are these people, and why are they working so hard at being victims? It’s stunning how soft some people are, and how others enable them in someone else’s dime. 
 

 

 

[row_33]

28,000

 

And every expert was screaming Black Tuesday in late October would cause a cratering below 20,000