Pages

Jump to bottom

6 comments

1 KingKenrod  Fri, Apr 27, 2012 5:09:22pm

I paid 8% on my Stafford loans (taken out during the 90's), and this is to prevent rates from going to 6.8% on unsecured loans? Please. A $6 billion subsidy to this demographic (young, educated) seems like the wrong priority. Getting an unemployment/low earning forbearance on these loans is easy. Eventually these educated, above-average earners will be able to pay off their loans.

BTW, Democrats tried to raid the same preventive health fund earlier this year to support doctor's Medicare re-imbursements - another wealthy constituency.

2 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Apr 27, 2012 5:15:24pm
3 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 27, 2012 5:49:59pm

re: #1 KingKenrod

I too had to pay 8% on my Stafford student loans in the 90s, but to me, the bigger issue with student loans isn't the current interest rate that gets locked in, it's the fact that borrowers can't renegotiate the terms as with a mortgage. Once you're locked in, that's it. So, when interest rates dropped, you can't benefit - and the banks profit grows (regardless of what the subsidization is).

One way to deal with it is to cut/reduce the subsidy, but turn around and require banks to allow renegotiations/refinancing on student loans as with other long term loans. Allow them to charge a refinance fee (say $295), but allow the borrower to refinance to 10-20 years at the lower rates available (2-3 points over prime). That gets rid of the subsidies, but gives the borrower more freedom.

And for those who might be concerned when rates again rise, one could put in caps on the rates (which would in-turn become subsidies). However, it could mean significant savings for the foreseeable future - and reduce the debt burden for millions of students currently dealing with student loans and high interest rates.

4 moderatelyradicalliberal  Fri, Apr 27, 2012 7:14:23pm
In fact, preventative health care is something of a bargain since catching and treating ailments early can save money in the long run.

Not if it's your intention to let them die when they get really sick.

5 palomino  Sat, Apr 28, 2012 12:28:34am

But there's no GOP war on women, right?

6 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Apr 28, 2012 8:16:58am

re: #5 palomino

But there's no GOP war on women, right?

No, this is a general fund. It doesn't pay specifically for women's treatments. But any cut of a general fund hits women harder, because even childless women consume more healthcare services than men.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 38 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 94 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1