An opinion unsupported by any cite.
You could possibly be correct, but we’ll never know until you give us a citation.
One more thing…
If I open another thread to discuss deficits, will you agree to stop hijacking this one so we can talk about the stupid liberal idea of the day?
Is that the 2009 fiscal year budget you’re talking about; the one that was submitted by Bush and passed the House in June of 2008?
Again, are we talking fiscal years here? Plus, it’s ridiculous to credit the decreasing deficit to just one half of the legislature, especially when that party spent like drunken sailors the last time they majorities in both houses and the presidency.
Zoid says we’re off topic(and we are), so I’ll stick to the stupid liberal idea of the day. Which is currently Liz Warren’s student loan “reform” bill, which simply lowers interest rates to make it easier for students to take on even more debt.
It would kill you to give a cite or a link so we don’t have to figure out what your point is?
It’s just common courtesy.
Damn those irresponsible students, borrowing money just to blow it on something frivolous like an education.
I haven’t read the link yet, but thank you for at least supplying a cite.
According to your own cite, that bill has nothing to do with students taking on more debt, it would just have allowed them to refinance their existing debt (issued prior to 2010) at the same rate as new student loans.
Don’t get your hopes up.
You are hilarious, and hilariously wrong. AGAIN. Don’t you ever tire of it?
The interest rate for current borrowers was lowered a year ago by Congress. What Warren’s proposed bill would do is allow those who borrowed before 2010 to refinance their loan at the lower interest rate, saving them money on their repayments.
Because Warren’s bill was aimed specifically at loans taken out before 2010, it is difficult to see how it would make it easier for students to take on even more debt. Congress passed bipartisan legislation a year ago to reduce the interrest rate on new loans, and Warren’s bill doesn’t change that at all.
Here’s the relevant quotation from your own source:
And here is a Washington Post story from last August:
Edit: Ninjaed by Robot Arm
So, once again, adaher is wrong.
I think that, along with the Stupid Liberal Idea and Stupid Republican Idea of the day threads, we need to resurrect this thread to keep track of adaher’s ongoing wrongness. It could soon surpass the other two threads in length.
I’d like to follow up on this a bit.
adaher, why did you choose to critique Warren’s bill in the way you did; what made you think it was about students taking on more debt? There’s nothing in your cite to even suggest it. Did you reach that conclusion on your own, or were you repeating a criticism of the bill that you heard from somewhere else (and if so, does that person still have any credibility with you)?
YOu don’t understand moral hazard apparently. When your debt load drops due to refinancing, it’s common to take on more debt. With student debt, this is particularly likely.
It’s economics 101: reducing the price of something causes demand to increase.
Why is it particularly likely with education? “Ooh, I’ve got two Bachelors and a Masters, but at these rates I’d be a fool not to get more!” Everyone I know in college and grad school is anxious to be finished with it and thinks of the debt as a necessary evil to get there. They aren’t looking to take on more debt just because they can.
Are college classrooms sitting empty right now? Lowering rates won’t increase demand if there aren’t enrollment spots waiting to be filled; lowering rates on auto loans won’t sell more cars if the factories are already selling all the cars they can make.
Not to mention that this only applies to loans taken out in 2010 and before. Those people, for the most part, will have graduated by now.
And if you think there’s a moral hazard argument to be made here, you should have made it yourself when you posted the link, not after we called you out that it didn’t say what you think it said.
You apparently don’t understand chronology and causation. Warren’s bill only applies to debt taken out before 2010, so it would not lead the people who benefit from the bill to incur more student loan debt. Mainly because most of them are no longer students.
As your own citation shows, and as the other article I provided also demonstrates, Congress lowered the interest rate for new student loans about a year ago, and did so in a bipartisan vote. So Warren’s bill does not do what you claimed it does, making you wrong, again.
It is worth noting, also, that last year’s legislation did not simply put in place a permanent reduction in student loans rates. What it did was tie those rates to the broader financial markets, meaning that if overall interest rates increase, student loan rates could also increase, possibly rising above their previous levels, unless Congress steps in to keep them down.
Its true. Watching Fox News really does make you dumber.
It’s so cute to listen to GOP operatives speak of “moral hazard.”
The poor people tricked into taking out mortgages they couldn’t afford need to be punished as part of a dog-eat-dog ethic. But big banks who consciously and deliberately made bets they couldn’t sustain are bailed out – they’re Job Creators™.)
(Yes, I know right-wingers of the [del]Rothschild conspiracy[/del] “libertarian” ilk opposed the bailouts – but their approach was wrong for even stupider reasons.)
Which came first…the Dumb or the Fox?