>> ^kevingrr:

Tricked by credit cards? Fooled by student loans? Cheated on mortgages?
Seriously?
The only trick is that people want what they can't afford. Good consumers, bad savers.


So very, very wrong.

My mother was tricked by a credit card company. She thought she had an 18% interest rate--until I looked into it and found she actually had 30% interest because they tricked her by changing it.

FHA loans are good for a couple of reasons, the most important being that they allow people who can't qualify for a conventional loan to buy a home.

Specifically, FHA makes it possible by allowing two very important things: 1) you can use a 5% down payment instead of 20%, and 2) you can have a very high (~54%) debt-to-income ratio.

The downsides of an FHA loan are that you have to be buying an FHA-approved property (but this usually isn't an issue) and also you have to pay mortgage insurance.

The only reason not to use an FHA loan is that your debt-to-income is not an issue and you are able to put 20% down.

Good luck with the home purchase. Now's a good time to buy, especially with the 30-year-fixed FHA interest rate about 3.5%.

>> ^renatojj:

Bankers were given powers they shouldn't have and they abused them. They were given money they shouldn't have access to and they squandered it and rewarded themselves. Central banks were established with monopolistic power over the monetary system, and they're destroying the money supply and enabling massive debts with impossibly low interest rates.
When are we going to blame the bastards who gave them these powers in the first place?
Corporations = capitalism/evil
Government = the tool liberals need to accomplish socialism
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to find the real culprit, but liberals will go as far as blaming corporations and not look an inch further, because that would mean blaming government... no, that's not allowed.


that's a weird new username you got there, qm.

Bankers were given powers they shouldn't have and they abused them. They were given money they shouldn't have access to and they squandered it and rewarded themselves. Central banks were established with monopolistic power over the monetary system, and they're destroying the money supply and enabling massive debts with impossibly low interest rates.

When are we going to blame the bastards who gave them these powers in the first place?

Corporations = capitalism/evil
Government = the tool liberals need to accomplish socialism

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to find the real culprit, but liberals will go as far as blaming corporations and not look an inch further, because that would mean blaming government... no, that's not allowed.

>> ^bobknight33:

In 2007, the Democratic majority in Congress enacted legislation to double interest rates on new federal student loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in 2012.

By your own following statements, this is at best a misleading statement. Instead of letting it expire, they want to pass new legislation extending it. Republicans were opposing that.

>> ^bobknight33:
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act incrementally phased down interest rates for subsidized Stafford Loans made to undergraduate students over four academic years from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. Per the law, interest rates are scheduled to return to 6.8 percent on July 1, 2012.

So what they actually did was temporarily reduce them from 6.8% to 3.4%. The expiration of the law would return it to what it was before -- 6.8%. Democrats want to pass a bill extending the lower rates, Republicans opposed it. Their opposition would cause the rates to double.

>> ^bobknight33:
As the expiration date crept closer, Democrats did nothing to address the impending interest rate increase during the 111th Congress

Seems like they gave Republicans an easy way to come across like heroes by extending it. Why did they blow that opportunity and resist doing it?

And now that they've agreed to it, why did they decide to pay for it by cutting funding for a program that pays for breast cancer screening, rather than just closing a tax loophole for the rich the way the Democrats proposed?

And FYI, the much ballyhooed Paul Ryan budget doubles these rates too.

The government should not be in the education and student loan process at all.
The rate should be at fair market value.
Government involvement has helped caused such high tuition costs.

Government involvement always lead to higher cost, no matter what.
Healthcare cost are going up because government got involved.





>> ^messenger:

@bobknight33
Is the slippery slope argument the best you've got? Do you not understand the value to the economy of an educated public?
Further: the debate here isn't about whether the government should give out or regulate student loans; it's only about what the interest rate should be. Nothing more. Do you think the interest rate should be higher for students? Would the economy be better off with more educated people with lower debt and more free cash, or would it be better off with the banks holding more money? This is the only question raised in this video.

@bobknight33

Is the slippery slope argument the best you've got? Do you not understand the value to the economy of an educated public?

Further: the debate here isn't about whether the government should give out or regulate student loans; it's only about what the interest rate should be. Nothing more. Do you think the interest rate should be higher for students? Would the economy be better off with more educated people with lower debt and more free cash, or would it be better off with the banks holding more money? This is the only question raised in this video.

Sorry I had the wrong year and have been busy in responding.

In 2007, the Democratic majority in Congress enacted legislation to double interest rates on new federal student loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in 2012.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act was signed into law. In 2006, as part of their “6 for ‘06” campaign agenda, Democrats promised to cut student loan interest rates in half.


However, once gaining control of Congress in 2007, Democrats realized it was too costly to cut all student loan interest rates in half. Instead, Education & Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) and then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proposed temporarily reducing interest rates for undergraduate students receiving subsidized Stafford loans.



The College Cost Reduction and Access Act incrementally phased down interest rates for subsidized Stafford Loans made to undergraduate students over four academic years from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. Per the law, interest rates are scheduled to return to 6.8 percent on July 1, 2012.


As the expiration date crept closer, Democrats did nothing to address the impending interest rate increase during the 111th Congress, despite taking action to terminate the private sector federal loan program to help pay for the president’s government takeover of healthcare law.
.>> ^NetRunner:

7 years ago, Bush was in the White House, and Republicans had the majority in the Senate and the House.
And regardless of who you think set this up to happen, you still have Republicans voting solidly against extending the low rates now.
>> ^bobknight33:
The Democrats passed the law that set the doubling increase 7 years ago.

To be fair, borrowing from the Social Security was not the reason Clinton ran a surplus.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Borrowing from the Social Security trust fund was a wise move. It reduced the national debt, thereby saving interest on that money until the time it would have been needed for Social Security.

Not that the gov't should ever be run like individual finances, but it's sorta like if you had $50,000 in an emergency fund, but had $40,000 in debt. If you knew you didn't need $40,000 of that emergency fund for the next 15-20 years, should you keep it, or pay off that debt? Debt virtually always has a significantly higher interest rate than savings.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what things the government owes money on. The problem wasn't that Clinton raided the Social Security trust fund. The problem is that the Social Security trust fund was structured to become insolvent due to population aging patters, and how it is funded. It's also that the following president ran up massive deficits during a time of economic boom, and said deficits contributed to the economic bubble. Unfortunately, that bubble was so bad we find ourselves in an economy now where the deficit must take an unfortunate backseat to getting the economy back on track.

>> ^bmacs27:

To be fair Clinton's "surplus" has a lot to do with why we are scrambling to protect Social Security right now. He never should have borrowed the money, and just paid the political price.
>> ^heropsycho:
The last surplus was not under Clinton. I forgot when he claimed it was.

I agree to some degree with that. TYT are blowhards. That's sorta the problem with the financial meltdown. Now everyone is looking at the financial system and making prescriptions on how to fix it, even those who don't understand the system.

>> ^lampishthing:

Maybe. I'd nonetheless like to see a breakdown before freaking out about it. Maybe they're all interest rate swaps and the 44 trillion is counting notionals. Saying 44 trillion without further details doesn't really mean that much and TYT are just being reactionary about a large number.>> ^heropsycho:
If we learned anything from AIG, the answer is probably so much in overleveraged securities and credit default swaps it doesn't matter.
>> ^lampishthing:
But how much of it is hedged?

Maybe. I'd nonetheless like to see a breakdown before freaking out about it. Maybe they're all interest rate swaps and the 44 trillion is counting notionals. Saying 44 trillion without further details doesn't really mean that much and TYT are just being reactionary about a large number.>> ^heropsycho:

If we learned anything from AIG, the answer is probably so much in overleveraged securities and credit default swaps it doesn't matter.
>> ^lampishthing:
But how much of it is hedged?

If you're on a gold standard, you have to guarantee your money is convertible to gold. That means your central bank sets its interest rates according to how much gold is on hand. If you happen to be losing gold, you have to raise interest rates, reduce the amount of money in circulation, so you can stay on the gold standard.

If — just suppose — you're in an economic downturn, and people are pulling a bunch of gold out of the banks, then you raise interest rates and reduce the amount of money in circulation, which keeps you on the gold standard... but also is exactly the opposite of the monetary policy you want when people are losing their jobs. It stops economic activity dead.

In other words, this modern crying-out for a gold standard in the midst of an economic crisis is of a piece with all the other claims that we ought to adopt policies not because they will help, but because they're painful, and we deserve pain, don't we? We've been very, very naughty, or we must have been, to get into this kind of trouble, and we need to punish ourselves. Or at least, Ron Paul needs to punish you. And trust me, this will hurt you more than it hurts him.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ron-paul-gold-standard-bad-6654238#ixzz1o4oUit5j

@MonkeySpank

Every time you label things like "communist-founded ACLU," etc., you bring down the entire discourse to poop-hurling and name-calling.

Do you know why I "labeled" it communist-founded ACLU? Because it was!

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

--Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU in 1920, speaking in 1935

I'll ask you the following questions:

1) Do you believe in evolution?

>>> A Creator created evolution.

2) Do you think that government, a protocol of civil conduct, is always flawed; and therefore it should be minimized or eliminated?

>>> It's always flawed in the sense that it's run by humans, not angels. Corruption is the grease of democracy; the greater the size of the government, the more tyrannical.

3) Do you believe in the passage "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35; do you live by it?

>>> As much as possible, but I imagine everyone thinks that. Also, sometimes the best way to love your enemies is to end their karma in this lifetime.

4) Do you believe in divorce and interest rates? Would you oppose them if you could vote against them?

>>> No, but we pay a heavy price for each.

5) Do you believe in a non-profit Universal Healthcare, or something similar? Mark 3:10

>>> It doesn't work, so no. Do I believe in helping those who truly need help? Yes.

6) What countries do you like besides the United States?

>>> There are other countries? I like some aspects of some countries. Japanese ninjas, Canadian Shatner, etc.

7) Would you support a war against Iran?

>>> Yes, as needed. You really want to allow nutjobs to have The Bomb? Say goodbye to Nuked York.

Do you believe that Mexicans, the original owners of this land, are free loaders when we arbitrarily set a border south of AZ, NM, CA, and TX and decided to call their migration "illegal"?

>>> We won those states by winning wars with Mexico. We are all trespassers on dinosaur land.

9) What would be one good thing can you say about Obama, although I am not a fan of his, to show any lack of bias?

>>> He's an eloquent speaker.



1) Do you believe in evolution?
2) Do you think that government, a protocol of civil conduct, is always flawed; and therefore it should be minimized or eliminated?
3) Do you believe in the passage "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35; do you live by it?
4) Do you believe in divorce and interest rates? Would you oppose them if you could vote against them?
5) Do you believe in a non-profit Universal Healthcare, or something similar? Mark 3:10
6) What countries do like besides the United States?
7) Would you support a war against Iran?
Do you believe that Mexicans, the original owners of this land, are free loaders when we arbitrarily set a border south of AZ, NM, CA, and TX and decided to call their migration "illegal"?
9) What would be one good thing can you say about Obama, although I am not a fan of his, to show any lack of bias?

>> ^quantumushroom:


The communist-founded ACLU has taken upon itself to decide that all mentions of religion in the public circle are, in fact, establishing a government religion, which is rubbish.


Every time you label things like "communist-founded ACLU," etc., you bring down the entire discourse to poop-hurling and name-calling. A good argument is one that sits on the fence. I'll ask you the following questions:

1) Do you believe in evolution?
2) Do you think that government, a protocol of civil conduct, is always flawed; and therefore it should be minimized or eliminated?
3) Do you believe in the passage "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35; do you live by it?
4) Do you believe in divorce and interest rates? Would you oppose them if you could vote against them?
5) Do you believe in a non-profit Universal Healthcare, or something similar? Mark 3:10
6) What countries do like besides the United States?
7) Would you support a war against Iran?
Do you believe that Mexicans, the original owners of this land, are free loaders when we arbitrarily set a border south of AZ, NM, CA, and TX and decided to call their migration "illegal"?
9) What would be one good thing can you say about Obama, although I am not a fan of his, to show any lack of bias?

(top reddit comment) SixBiscuit 368 points 5 hours ago*

Predicting an Iraq war in April 2002 was not exactly difficult or limited to Ron Paul. The rest of the video has a certain amount of horoscope logic to it.

>> A major war... the largest since WWII.

Nope. Iraq is in no way larger than Vietnam even. -- http://www.lies.com/wp/2006/11/05/us-deaths-in-iraq-vs-vietnam-the-handoff/

>> The Karzai government will fail and US involvement will end in Afghanistan

Nope. -- http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/03/us-afghanistan-election-idUSTRE6320X220100403

>> An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States

Nope. -- http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/fed/key-interest-rates.asp

He is completely off on the scope of what he predicted. The video is manipulative. I'd really like to see a Paul supporter write these out and back them up.

For instance crude oil did shoot up to record highs but not because of an oil embargo. Does he get credit for predicting that? He's half right. Oil shot up because of instability in the region and speculation, not an embargo.

What about what he's left out. If he had such clever predictive powers why isn't Iran mentioned? Iran filling the power vaccum Iraq's destabilization left is something that could have been easily predicted but he doesn't.

Saying that the Arab Spring was the Islamic fundamentalist overthrowing their government is mischaracterizing what happened. Yes Islamic fundamentalist may end up in power in Egypt and Libya but they were not the instigators of the uprisings.

No doubt Ron Paul along with Hunter S. Thompson and a lot of people knew going into Iraq was a terrible fucking idea and would lead to ruin. That doesn't make him some sort of Cassandrian prophet. It means he was one of the few elected officials brave enough to speak out against it. Which is admirable but it hardly makes him alone. Powell believed it was a terrible idea at the time as well but was too chickenshit to stand up and stop it.