Print

[ducksoup]

How nice of them.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked consideration of a Democratic bill to prevent the doubling of some student loan interest rates, leaving the legislation in limbo less than two months before rates on subsidized federal loans are set to shoot upward.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/politics/senate-republicans-block-bill-on-student-loan-rates.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

[sammy]

How nice of them.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked consideration of a Democratic bill to prevent the doubling of some student loan interest rates, leaving the legislation in limbo less than two months before rates on subsidized federal loans are set to shoot upward.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/politics/senate-republicans-block-bill-on-student-loan-rates.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

BUUUUT, we all want the Bush tax cuts expire, don't we?  The cold hard fact is, for every temporary break given, by whatever party, eventually them there ducks come home to roost. The politicians just hope they don't come home in an election year. In this case, they did!

[Frenchfry]

"The Least We Can Do Is Keep Student Loan Interest Rates Low!" Senator Bernie Sanders

[Monrover]

The fact is that the Democrat Party passed the law which doubles the interest on certain student loans.

The fact is that the Republican Party passed a bill in the House the reset the rate, attempting to rectify the wrong-headedness of the Democrats.

The fact is that the Senate Democrats and The Democrat President refused to pass the bill, continuing their obstinate and questionable stance.

The fact is that the Democrat Party is obstructing the interest rate move.

[ducksoup]

The fact is that the Democrat Party passed the law which doubles the interest on certain student loans.

The fact is that the Republican Party passed a bill in the House the reset the rate, attempting to rectify the wrong-headedness of the Democrats.

The fact is that the Senate Democrats and The Democrat President refused to pass the bill, continuing their obstinate and questionable stance.

The fact is that the Democrat Party is obstructing the interest rate move.

Wow, you do a great Faux news impression.  How about backing that up with something other than emailed distortions.

Yes, I give it that the House passed a bill, Tey wanted to cut funding for heath services to poor people to pay for it.  The Dems version cut some credit to dividends to pay for it.  Republican's filibustered the Senate and 52 Repugs voted "NO" not allowing the bill to go forward without the 60 votes to break the filibuster.  Effectively killing all version.  So, how is it that anything but rethugs killing and doubling the rate?

You need history lessons too.

[John Kopke]

From what I read my take is both the Dems and the Repukes want to maintain the current interest rate. Dems want to raise taxes on the rich to pay for it and the pukes want to slash money for programs benefitting the eternally poor.

[marilyn.monroe]

At least two years of college or skills training should be part of a public education. Students should also be given the opportunity to volunteer to credit student loans. How to pay for it? Cut the waste, fraud and frivolity from government!!

[livewire]

Did any of you actually READ the article?

No.


Republicans say they want to extend Democratic legislation passed in 2007 that temporarily reduced interest rates for low- and middle-income undergraduates who receive subsidized Stafford loans to 3.4 percent from 6.8 percent. But the Republicans would not accept the Senate Democrats’ proposal to pay for a one-year extension by changing a law that allows some wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes by classifying their pay as dividends, not cash income.


According to this, the Republicans were against the Democrats giving tax breaks to their wealthy buddies, as usual.

Keep spinning, you lefties!

[Baby Hitler]

Did any of you actually READ the article?

No.


Republicans say they want to extend Democratic legislation passed in 2007 that temporarily reduced interest rates for low- and middle-income undergraduates who receive subsidized Stafford loans to 3.4 percent from 6.8 percent. But the Republicans would not accept the Senate Democrats’ proposal to pay for a one-year extension by changing a law that allows some wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes by classifying their pay as dividends, not cash income.


According to this, the Republicans were against the Democrats giving tax breaks to their wealthy buddies, as usual.

Keep spinning, you lefties!

The law CURRENTLY allows the wealthy tax payers to NOT pay those taxes, and the Democrats wanted end that to pay for the rate cut.

So according to you the Democrats are against the Republicans from leaving tax breaks in place for their wealthy buddies, as usual.

Is that the "spin" you are talking about?

[marilyn.monroe]

Frack both parties. They squander so much money!

[Professor H]

Where is the record of the vote to double the loan interest?

From the slanted topic heading it must have happened...

or,

was there not a vote to extend the cuts - quit a difference in how it "reads".

I'm sure in the end there will be a compromise, it's how government works (most the time)

Paying for it is the tough part - "soak the rich" will only get so far,
and passing it on to our kids hasn't worked out so well either...

[Baby Hitler]

Where is the record of the vote to double the loan interest?

From the slanted topic heading it must have happened...

or,

was there not a vote to extend the cuts - quit a difference in how it "reads".

I'm sure in the end there will be a compromise, it's how government works (most the time)

Paying for it is the tough part - "soak the rich" will only get so far,
and passing it on to our kids hasn't worked out so well either...

The main discrepancy is that the Republicans want to fund it by eliminating a fund for preventative health care, and the Democrats want to fund it by ending tax loopholes on those receiving income by diverting it from regular pay and converting it into dividends.

Republicans have not always been so averse to closing the loophole that the Senate bill addresses. In 2004, when it emerged that John Edwards, then a vice-presidential hopeful, had classified himself as a “subchapter S corporation” to pay himself dividends rather than income, conservatives criticized him for avoiding payroll taxes.

[Professor H]

The main discrepancy is that the Republicans want to fund it by eliminating a fund for preventative health care, and the Democrats want to fund it by ending tax loopholes on those receiving income by diverting it from regular pay and converting it into dividends.

Will that fund be necessary under Obamacare?
Just curious,
and I don't see a problem with ending tax loopholes, other than more money likely ending up in a foreign country/company/corporation - as no one likes paying TAXES, and some have teams of people to assist in paying the least amount possible.

There is a level of taxation that above it actually decreases the revenues.

[John Kopke]

Seems to me we’re missing something by arguing about what interest rate should be charged. Here we have a situation where essentially teenagers, with zero credit history, negligible income and zero tangible collateral are allowed to borrow tens of thousands of dollars. We also have a situation where the cost of a college education has been going up at 2 to 3 times the rate of inflation for years.  Perfect storm. Charge a fortune to obtain a degree and make it work by turning college graduates into indentured servants. There is a problem with paying for college these days, but it isn't caused by the rate of interest on the loans.

[sammy]

As with the mortgage fiasco, let the buyer beware! Do we have a   huge population of the teenagers you describe who have no parents to guide their financial decisions, or are  there just too many people who will sign for any amount of debt because there is "pie in the sky"? Those indentured servants of whom you speak have had ample opportunity to opt out of said servitude, if they so chose. As a person who went to college "back in the day", I'm appalled by today's high tuition rates.  When I was in college, most could pay as they went. I don't recall any conversations about student loans. I'm REALLY old, am I not?!