AOC - can she get any dumber

Yeah, everything you said is true. Most states still do this, but what if there were no laws like this at all? Do you think dirt-balls would all the sudden pay their child support? No. So you have to do something.
I don't have a solution. No one does.
The court system is one giant insatiable machine and the only ones that win are the lawyers.

The stuff you wrote, it's only gonna get worse too. One of the stocks I follow keeps getting more and more contracts with cities across the nation. They provide software that ties into existing traffic and public safety cameras and their database has access to literally everything including all DMV, insurance companies, and the nationwide bench warrant system. In a nutshell, imagine a traffic stop where everything about you is checked, even the vin # and color of the car. Now imagine the depth of that traffic stop being conducted real-time at every intersection you drive thru by AI. Their system's even pick up erratic driving and although they don't talk about it, I'm sure they're using facial recognition where the various cameras permit.

The minute their system flags anything, even an expired insurance policy or a tag that doesn't match the car, that information is sent to nearby LE and it's game over for that driver. Every week this company does a press release heralding some new city that signed up. It's the way things are now I guess, you either play by the rules or you feed that insatiable pig, and yes it does ruin more lives by placing folks in deeper and deeper holes that they'll never get out of. I've seen plenty.

With child support we still garnish wages etc for arrears, that hasn’t changed. The punitive side is all that has changed.

As to the camera at lights etc, in NJ the police have license plate scanners. They know everything about you before they get out of the car.
 
Yes. This approach to American policy is directly from Calvinism. The concept that the poor and misfortunate were out of favor with the divinity. Thus poverty is treated as a crime in America, ie punish the poor for the circumstances of poverty.

* I should add that modern Calvinism dejected this philosophy some time ago and does not support a punitive approach to poverty however this is the legacy of a large amount of our legal system.

Maybe it's how it started but monetizing and keeping power by disenfranchising others is what kept it going
 
$8,000 in 1970 is worth $57,308.87 today

So, not as bad as first appears. What gets me is these stories of people making payments and their balances go up.

PJ Rivera of Texas is one of the borrowers not prepared to resume student loan payments. His initial student debt was about $80,000, but has increased with interest to $110,000, even though he makes payments of $1,000 a month.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/09/us-student-loan-crisis-payments

You can do forebearance or pauses which capitalizes the interest during periods of non payment. Also if you want to pay below the amortized amount the extra gets capitalized.
 
$8,000 in 1970 is worth $57,308.87 today

So, not as bad as first appears. What gets me is these stories of people making payments and their balances go up.

PJ Rivera of Texas is one of the borrowers not prepared to resume student loan payments. His initial student debt was about $80,000, but has increased with interest to $110,000, even though he makes payments of $1,000 a month.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/09/us-student-loan-crisis-payments
Has he heard about refinancing? :D
 
Almost all student loans are guaranteed by the U.S. government in one way or another. That's why banks have traditionally been happy to make these loans to 18 year-olds with no income and no assets. The bank bears no risk of default, and as a riskless loan it is very liquid. Great deal for banks! And because of this the 18-year-old gets a favorable rate (or should). Then the Bank will buy public service ads pointing out how they like to help students as part of their civic duty -- the ads don't, however, point out that the loans carry no risk for the Bank. So it's that taxpayers who should get pats on their backs for being good citizens. Some will say paying for well qualified students to get higher education is a good investment and in the public interest. I tend to think it is. But let's be honest, the banks don't get hurt when these loans go bad. Our Constitution might have been more accurate had it read: "...and secure the Blessings of Profits to our Banks and our Corporations ..."
 
Last edited:
Almost all student loans are guaranteed by the U.S. government in one way or another. That's why banks have traditionally been happy to make these loans to 18 year-olds with no income and no assets. The bank bears no risk of default, and as a riskless loan it is very liquid. Great deal for banks! And because of this the 18-year-old gets a favorable rate (or should). Then the Bank will buy public service ads pointing out how they like to help students as part of their civic duty -- the ads don't, however, point out that the loans carry no risk for the Bank. So it's that taxpayers who should get pats on their backs for being good citizens. Some will say paying for well qualified students to get higher education is a good investment and in the public interest. I tend to think it is. But let's be honest, the banks don't get hurt when these loans go bad. Our Constitution might have been more accurate had it read: "...and secure the Blessings of Profits to our Banks and our Corporations ..."
The solution is for the Universities to hold the paper
When they raise cost it creates more liability for themselves
They also would also work harder to get students educated in areas they can earn a living
They would help students graduate...currently 54% dont
 
The solution is for the Universities to hold the paper
When they raise cost it creates more liability for themselves
They also would also work harder to get students educated in areas they can earn a living
They would help students graduate...currently 54% dont
How 'bout we just nationalize banking and higher education? That ought to fix the problem too.
 
How 'bout we just nationalize banking and higher education? That ought to fix the problem too.
?????
I really never know if you are trolling or if these are serious ideas

You say to shift the risk to the Government, as Piezoe writes Government already carries the risk of student loans....
If I am a school its a nice deal....A school has no accountability to protect risks or maintain costs.
 
Almost all student loans are guaranteed by the U.S. government in one way or another. That's why banks have traditionally been happy to make these loans to 18 year-olds with no income and no assets. The bank bears no risk of default, and as a riskless loan it is very liquid. Great deal for banks! And because of this the 18-year-old gets a favorable rate (or should). Then the Bank will buy public service ads pointing out how they like to help students as part of their civic duty -- the ads don't, however, point out that the loans carry no risk for the Bank. So it's that taxpayers who should get pats on their backs for being good citizens. Some will say paying for well qualified students to get higher education is a good investment and in the public interest. I tend to think it is. But let's be honest, the banks don't get hurt when these loans go bad. Our Constitution might have been more accurate had it read: "...and secure the Blessings of Profits to our Banks and our Corporations ..."

To add to your statement: At any given time ~15% of student loans are in default and something like 5% are never paid back in their entirety- meaning interest AND principal. Which isn’t as bad as what is portrayed but is still pretty risky for the holder of the debt.

Also, the government makes a small profit of about $2-3 billion a year on loans. Technically, it’s not a “profit” but it is excess collection to disbursement.

Just some figures to wrap your minds around.
****

I will also add like anything else the key to efficiency is usually cutting out the middleman, in this case banks. There’s more than enough capital available in the program to in-house the debt servicing and reduce costs to the borrowers.
 
?????
I really never know if you are trolling or if these are serious ideas

You say to shift the risk to the Government, as Piezoe writes Government already carries the risk of student loans....
If I am a school its a nice deal....A school has no accountability to protect risks or maintain costs.


School just charges a price, no one puts a gun to your head to pay it. Why should a school take on the risk of the customer who is borrowing money.

When you buy a car from Acura and get financing from someone else, does Acura assume the risk of you defaulting on the loan??

You might want to think again about your thoughts haha
 
Back
Top