???

Well, to be honest Jane is the expert on loans in the Sanders family.

Am I doing this right? It was kilts wasn't it? Am I in the wrong thread?

It's washed, I promise.

Dude, your spin is making me dizzy.

Way to show you don't even GET IT! Jeeze Louise!

It will be a run ride from now on...that is for sure.

Like payday loan companies, education debt is outrageous and we simply should no longer tolerate it being done to us.

How have we become so fractured that good Democrats and liberals like yourself are taking these kind of shots at Bernie, someone we all desperately NEED if we want to win this election ESPECIALLY if he is NOT the nominee.

he's just using facially simplistic language to make that point.

If you meant to trot out facilely as the three-dollar word you wanted to use, it might pay next time to have some idea of what you're talking about. Clueless pedantry. What a combination.

on a tablet.

Perhaps, I should follow you around a word Nazi you ... that could be fun!

for God's sake. Bean counting and blind to the big picture, a major miss-

vicious attack of HILLARY here on DU for months now, and some folks here are so pissed about it that they are going to take cheap shots at Bernie as retaliation.

Understandable, but disappointing, and at the same time I really cant blame them.

At the end of the day when Hillary is attacked here ALL day long, then Bernie gets attacked, the RIGHT wins.

to try to portray Bernie as a financial naif, not. All part of the continual and devouring partisanship circus that comes with the turf, no matter how self destructive. Sheesh..

Lower cost colleges should spring up according to the laws of capitalism.

When you get down to it the refi deals were never really that good, at least in my experience.

Huge benefit to some, damaging to others, and a wash with some. Really individual.

zero in fees (waived when we asked and said we were going to walk away), $350/month in longer payments (that we continue to pay at the higher rate) ... so, while the clock re-started, we will have it paid off 8 years before (and $1,000s less than) the original note was scheduled to be paid off.

Cut the rate from 6% to 2 7/8. Cut 7 years off the payment (transition to a 15 from a 30) and my
Payment stayed almost the same. I'm gonna save over $100,000 dollars.

He simply mentioned refinancing existing student debt vs refinancing a home.

A good example of why presidential candidates shouldn't be tweeting economic policy.

Nobody who has student loan debt would misunderstand this.

Do you honestly think that refinanced student loans convey a higher risk to the lender? If the person intended to default, they wouldn't bother with the refi.

And since student loans survive bankruptcy, you are stuck with this debt essentially until you pay it off. Or die.

banks don't even want to foreclose because they accepted garbage for security.

You are shameful in supporting a shameful system designed to make students into lifelong debt slaves.

where they sit a hundred simians down at typewriters (OK, keyboards) - and let them tap away just to see what coherent thing they might - by chance - produce. If there's hope for their efforts, there's a chance for higher life forms to come up with a contention that makes sense here. Good luck!

Sorry, but it just isn't. I think the fact that student loans are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy is a disgrace, as is the fact taht tuition costs so much and a variety of other education-funding issues - but that still doesn't make them secured. That word has a specific legal meaning that's not subject to reinterpretation by you or me.

She introduced an amendment in March for people to re-finance their student loans at 3.9%. The Republicans blocked it.

She said, "Millions of borrowers are still stuck paying interest rates at 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent and even higher."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/236918-republicans-block-warrens-student-loan-amendment

Republications out of office.

they think that everything is 100% pure free market, the government should play no role in education, or anything else.

(By the way, this post is just a parody of the over-the-top disingenuous straw man style shown in the OP.)

Next question.

It really doesn't qualify as much of an argument.

didn't get their way then yes I don't want that.

I mean because you celebrate the banning of a DUer.

You can debate all you whether or not the ban was justified. Celebrating it is what assholes do.

follow the DU rules.

This isn't about Skinner. This is about you being a grave dancer.

Grave dancing makes DU suck. You should be ashamed.

but if it makes you feel good about yourself, then you should. Self-esteem is important, and I can see you don't earn a lot of it.

If you would like a long record of you making DU suck with more an more posts, I am happy to help you expose yourself as a net negative to DU.

Kicking thread to expose Cha for what it really is.

I will admit at least it makes your posts more interesting when you only use other people's work.

I hope Juror 3 takes the time to link the "multiple personal attacks."

It's really a shame. I have been on here since early in 2001. I've seen short-term celebrations. Meta was filled with them when there was a Meta. But the most I ever saw previously was the Iverglas thread that was multi-hundreds of posts long.

But Loonix? Thousands upon thousands of posts demonstrate that dark celebration daily. It's tragic that it's allowed. Many who practice the dance claim it shows support of Skinner. This is, at best, misguided because it hurts the environment of a board he runs (and makes income from).

If you think its awesome that people have been celebrating a long-time DUer getting banned for about 2 months now. Then you are part of the problem.

If you truly believe "Skinner Rocks~", why do you repay him by making his site suck?

I am merely pointing out your sig line. If you consider this an insult, you should also consider some personal reflection on your poor choices.

It enabled young people to afford college without a lifetime of debt. How is that difficult to understand? Or is your post just snark?

so that they can pass for idiots. Some ARE idiots, but that's a whole other problem...

and arguing for the same policies designed to screw regular folks.

Graduate School, it was 5% (1981) and not government insured.

You are quite correct, Matariki!

4.8% on 10k is manageable (my own debt), and was the norm as recently as the early 90's. Now average student debt is 3 to 4 times that, and plenty of degrees will run over 100k to get through. At some point, it doesn't really matter what the interest rate is; if you're starting out in life with a $100k debt hanging over your head, there's going to be some hard choices.

and/or to stock a 'volunteer' army.

Based upon his understanding of global finance, I wouldn't give the world 9 months of his proposals being enacted before complete global economic collapse

Fortunately, Democrats in Congress aren't stupid enough to attempt to enact his pie in the sky proposals.

...Democrats in the Senate are "stupid enough" to make him their Ranking Member on the Budget Committee.

Gee I wonder why? Because if he's as ignorant of economic facts as some of you seem to think, that does not reflect well on them either.

Never mind. In the question lies the answer -- a resounding "NO".

Apparently, Sanders supporters are not.

It's got to do with basic common sense. If you want an educated population you don't screw citizens over by doing things such as not letting them renegotiate student loan debt.

from the Weekly Standard:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/bernie-sanders-economic-illiterate/article/1046082

Has anyone explained to you the difference between secured & unsecured loans? Try repossessing a college degree.

Really??

Student loans is one of the few types of debt that one can not file bankruptcy against. If a student defaults on a student loan, the financial institution will get their money back one way or the other. Either the debtor will pay it back or income tax refunds will be taken. Social Security will also denied or withheld if one becomes disabled or retires before the debt is paid back.

So you see, there's no reason for you to be afraid of what you perceive to be Sander's ignorance. But feel free to dig for something else that scares you about Sanders.

Wasn't it yesterday that you were afraid of him reaching out to people other than democrats?

I was always told that it is etter to keep your mouth shut and have people wonder if you're an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt.

They're getting desperate.

Those are facts.

It is true that the financial institution will get their money back- the government will pay them, and pursue the borrower. Student Loans CAN be discharged in bankruptcy, but a much higher bar is set to discharge them.
To discharge a student loan, you have to show that payment would create an undue hardship. There is a three prong test:
-You would not be able to maintain a minimal standard of living if forced to repay;
-The hardship is likely to continue for a significant portion of the loan period;
-You made a good faith effort to repay the loans prior to seeking bankruptcy relief.

It is also not true that Social Security will be denied or withheld. The government can garnish Social Security, and SSDI*, (but not SSI), but cannot take more than 15% of the benefit, nor leave you with less than $750.00 per month. (If your benefit is $1000.00, they can take $150, leaving you $850. If your benefit is $800.00, they can only take $50.)

The student loan system is a bad system, and desperately needs reform. Spreading misinformation about it, however, only provides ammunition to its defenders.


*Student loans can be forgiven if you can show permanent and total disability- so a full disability rating from SSDI should suffice.

Mortgage rate was 9.75%.

As I recall, there was serious outrage at the mortgage rates (which dogged both the Ford and Carter administrations). So why is it okay to charge college students who haven't yet had the chance to build assets or credit (and with such massive student debts will not be able to) the high rate?

Perhaps the ones who don't understand economics are the ones throwing around terms like "imbecile" with such abandon.

The bs never ends.

according to your friends at Townhall.com

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2015/12/28/bernie-sanders-tries-and-fails-to-explain-economics-on-twitter-n2097564

secured by the property in question since the era of CDOs and swaps. The banks no longer worry about the homes and the homeowners ability to pay. Guess that explains why so many Thrid Way voters and Republicans don't understand how we all got screwed.

the purchasers of the CDO care very much about the homes and the homeowners' ability to repay the loan.

They aren't how housing loans were done in the past where the lender was on the hook for the original real property. Many lenders no longer had title but foreclosed on homeowners anyway. The traded securities were fraudulently passed to investors with AAA ratings.

and, I'll say again, the purchasers of the instruments, care very much about the home values and the home owners' ability to pay.

securitizations of money for real property whereby the lender still holds title. The traditional securitization chain was scrapped for creating tradable securities with higher interest returns than government bonds.

in question.

the break in, and clouding of, the title trail does not change that.

The only thing that remained the same was the initial loan qualification in terms of underwriting and the pledging of real property. Then the securitization chain was changed. I initially invested in real property when I was 18. I'm now 59. Later I became a real estate broker. The only loans still secured by property in a real sense are government loans. I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's just I've witnessed the changes in securitization and later was burned by the fraud by the rating agencies under pressure by the investment banks.

...when a bank made a home loan, the bank kept the loan on their books. It belonged to them for the life of the loan. Therefore they cared a lot about the soundness of the loan, before they ever made it.

Fast forward to the 2000s. Loans were made, then immediately divvied up into CDOs and sold to other institutions. Now the incentive for the originating bank was quite simple: make more loans. It really did not matter if the original loan was good, since it would be sold quickly anyway -- at which time the originating bank cashed out and no longer had to worry about it.

Sure the purchasers of the CDOs cared. But you had the ratings firms in on the scam, claiming that all sorts of bad paper was really "AAA". The corruption hit a lot of areas of our financial system.

It's all about the incentives. The incentives were just to make more loans. It was a giant and sophisticated game of musical chairs, really. A lot of the financial people knew what was going on, but what did they care, as long as they were able to skim off profits on their part of the cycle.

And we all know how well that turned out. Actually it turned out pretty well for the financial institutions, just not the rest of us.