If MIT is really that interested he won't have any loans. He shouldn't have any loans. These are the kinds of minds we need to give all the resources to. Let him see how far his potential can take him. Maybe he's the guy who makes clean energy and saves the planet. Who knows.>> ^vaire2ube:

show him the joy of work study and student loans, i bet he could have his own company by end of first year here

show him the joy of work study and student loans, i bet he could have his own company by end of first year here

This may be the case but it isn't what is going on here.

This initiative is buying distressed debt only, that is, the organisation who gave the loan has decided the cost of attempting to reclaim that loan or the chances of reclaiming a significant amount is futile. So they do sell the actual loan for cheap, to debt collectors, who employ more drastic measures than larger organisations want connected to them. (speculation, I'm not familiar with why these are more attractive to debt collectors).

Rolling Jubilee acts as the debt collector but doesn't collect, it buys the loan and cancels it. Then it hopes these people with cancelled debts, come back and donate a little, now that they have less burden.

That is the general idea, granted when people hear "loan", they think mortgage but this isn't the case here. Rolling Jubilee is unlikely (or never will) enter that area. They will be buying personal loans, medical loans etc. Smaller loans. It is already outlined how better performing loans, such as student loans, are off the table.

However from my understanding, it relies on the IRS remaining co-operative and for the regulations to stay within these bounds that keep it legal and charitable. So the cancelled loans are not counted as profit against Rolling Jubilee, at which point it all crumbles.

It has some merit but it also has a lot of downfalls and it also does jack shit to Wall St or banks, that is misdirected attention to garner support I gather.

(My understanding, could be incorrect)

P.S. Also it should be noted this is hardly for the 99%, it is for a much smaller percentage of the 99% who fail to pay their loans, good loans are not sold off. So really, this is the less troubled 99& bailing out the 99%'s further down on the scale. It basically boils down to a charity, it just abusing some loose regulations.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Granted, I know little about this and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're getting mortgages and mortgage-backed securities mixed up.
The mortgage is a loan. You owe 200,000 on the loan at 4% interest. This is debt.
The mortgage-backed security is a derivative; Theoretically it's a piece of paper whose value is derived based on that mortgage and the credit score associated with it. It's like stock in a company.
When they talk about doing away with debt, that's paying off the mortgage.
When they talk about buying 1,000,000$s worth of mortgages for 50,000$, they think they're also referring to the mortgage, but I'm pretty sure it's actually the leveraged mortgage-backed security. Buying those securities doesn't give you ownership of the loan. There is still 200,000$ that was lent by a bank out there. It doesn't just convert to 50,000$.

This is an excellent analysis of the sham that the capitalist market economy really is. It does indeed get the west the cheapest products and services. But the purse strings are being pulled by the banks, to whom we are all indebted in one way or another (through a mortgage, second mortgage, car financing, credit card(s), student loans.)

I feel like the system is crumbling, we're all going the way of Greece. Does anyone think the USA can pay its debt any better than the struggling Euro zone countries? If it does happen, who stands to lose out the most? The middle class, of course. The Romney's and Koch's of the world will come out of the collapse more powerful than ever.

To some extent I agree with you @choggie @chingalera, except Obama actually has made it easier for people to get and pay off student loans.

Take any one statement of Bill O'Reilly here (for example, "You can't be on top as long as the Fox News Channel has been on top, 'annnsell'-(slurred, cocktails @ 2pm) and sell a product that's inferior or dishonest, it's impossible in this country.")

What the fuck does that actually mean? Nothing. Anyone that has an I.Q. of 90 should see his blathering for absolute shit.
NOw...

Compare that statement to any statement taken out of context during a speech by either party's candidate to the presidency and you will hear he same rhetorical bullshit regarding fuck-all and who cares. FOR EXAMPLE:

"Are we going to make it easier for you to afford your degree and pay off your student loan debt? (Applause.) Are we going to build more good schools and hire more good teachers, so that our kids are prepared to attend colleges like Iowa State, and prepared for the 21st century workforce? (Applause.)"....to robots at Iowa State University,Barack Obama - August 28, 2012.

Meaningless phrases strewn together cliche', with positive verbal gestures and cued pauses inducing applause as to be rendered ephemeral as soon as they are uttered.
Now kids-Go back to your dorm rooms, remember to vote on Nov. 2nd for the Not-Mormon, and play some more Mario Cart for quarters.

All news channels in the UK and the U.S. are total, and complete, sheit....great for infotainment and a sort of barometer of our progress towards idiocracy.

She was not tricked. She did not pay attention.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

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.

And the really stupid thing about this. There is the work programs high school offer where people take half the day and go to a job at least 3 days a week and often 5. Or the career tech centers who replace the last two years of high school with job prep courses and what not instead of the classical classes. And there's nothing wrong with this, legally or otherwise, but it won't help you get into a top tier college like taking college level courses would.

So these guys are dropping a major portion of their class load to go work, and this girl is carrying a full class load, working TWO jobs, and gets punished.

They should be finding some way to alleviate her need for at least one of her jobs through student loans for her brother or whatever.

It'd be different if they caught her out tagging her name all over town. Really her parents need their asses kicked, not her.

Sweeping generalizations don't play any better than slippery slopes.

I'm sure someone has told you that government involvement always leads to higher costs, but it's simply not true. Maybe you're new to this argument, but there are tons of examples.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Most importantly, do you or do you not acknowledge the connection between a successful economy and education?

About GE specifically, they wouldn't exist as they do if it weren't for an educated populace from which to draw skills. Without university-educated engineers, chemists, managers, accountants, lawyers and so on they couldn't run the business they do. Where did all these educated people come from? Did GE pay for their education? Nope. The people themselves did. They make GE fantastically wealthy with their labour, and in return, they get crushing debt for years and years while GE reaps nothing but profits.

About sales taxes, I'm no expert, but I believe sales taxes are consumer taxes only, so GE doesn't have to pay them to suppliers, or they get credited back. I could be wrong.>> ^bobknight33:

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.

>> ^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.

Giant banks fund OBAMA more.

Why should the government have student loans in the first place?

If there were competition then there might be better savings.

But since this piece likes to cut out the middle man ( since government can do it better) then why stop at the banks. Why not let government take over every corporation / business. Then they would put a stop to greedy profits and those who pay no tax. Singe me up, I'm there baby.

Government run everything. Sounds great. Oh wait the USSR did that. How did that work out. Not to good. Ok then lets look at China, North Korea and Cuba They still got that total Government control thing going. They have a real utopia going on in those places.


I can't wait for USA to be under total government control. OBAMA 2102 all the way baby. Democrats all the way. Teach those stupid selfish Republicans and Liberty loving Tea Party fools that a government provided meager subsistence is way better than self reliance. For the life of me I can"t understand why any Cuban would risk life and swim from Cuba to Florida.