|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 28, 2011 9:40:01 GMT -5
Wow! That is totally a fair characterization of what I said. About as fair as your WHARRRGHARBL responses peppered through out the thread. Also, way to completely disregard the remainder of my post, but then I'm not surprised. The rest of your post was completely irrelevant to my actual point, which I see nobody here is understanding (which is odd, because I've shared this thread with some other people and they understand my issues with it). |
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Oct 28, 2011 9:43:05 GMT -5
You had a point? Perhaps the reason no one else is understanding it is because you didn't present it in a comprehensive fashion. Just sayin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Oct 29, 2011 17:17:40 GMT -5
Yes, he has a point, and it was decently explained.
See, a small step to correct an issue (especially within a committee or other large group like congress) can actually be worse in the long run for fixing an issue. The reasons are pretty simple, so I'll do what I can to explain it. If nothing is done to correct the problem, then the problem will become larger, more noticeable, and seen as a more important problem to solve, which then leads to a larger measure to reduce or eliminate the problem. If only a small step is done, though, then the group feels that it has been dealt with and will ignore the continuing problem, thus prolonging it and causing more issues in the long run, until it finally gets to a state large enough that they can't ignore it; which, since it is based on the group's perception of the issue means it will have to get even larger in order to have the same difference in comparison.
This is especially problematic when the people who are in charge of fixing the problem benefit from the problem remaining, as it leads to a conflict of interest. Sadly this happens quite frequently with our politicians (and even military generals), who have ties to the corporations and banks that profit from such hardships. Quite frankly I'm surprised you guys didn't realise this problem when you've complained about the same type of situation when related to other things.
Hell, take a look at the invasion of Iraq over the falsified, bullshit excuses, and then remember that those who ordered the invasion had ties to oil companies and defence contractors, and thus made quite the profit from it. You guys have complained about this, and other such circumstances in the past, so why don't you see the similarity in conflict of interest and pandering that is going on now?
Oh, and your math about the amount saved is wrong. You didn't factor in that it's compound interest. This means that while you will save more than $1,600 from a loan that started at $40,000, there is still a lot of interest that accrues on top of it, making it an even smaller percentage of the overall cost of paying the loan. Now, if the government bailed out individual student loans like that did the banks and car companies (which I know they'll never do because it is not financially beneficial to them in their personal interests), even if it was for only part of the loans, would actually do a lot to benefit the economy. It would be that much more money a month these people would be able to spend on things, like a car, a house, better food, home appliances, or really anything from necessities to luxuries, which in turn means there's more demand, which means companies need to hire more people to produce and sell the goods and services they offer (which has been proven doesn't happen from tax breaks), which means more employment and more people with money to buy even more things.
But, but only doing a small measure that barely impacts the wealth of those who have student debt, those with student debt really don't end up with enough money to make any kind of noticeable dent in the economy. However, people will feel that there's been a change, and politicians will point and say "See, we passed a measure to do it, so it's solved!" like they do for a number of things, such as money for infrastructure, K-12 education, or pretty much any non flashy, killy, project that puts money into their personal bank accounts. This then means they won't do anything to alleviate the problem, so even more people will be taking out loans, and those with the loans will only go bankrupt (which doesn't eliminate student loans) slower, as real wages are still dropping and unemployment still isn't improving (even discounting underemployment, which does shit for paying off a degree far beyond what the job needs).
Or, in short, yes, it will help to alleviate a little bit of debt, but it was a measure that had already passed and really won't do anywhere near enough to help the current economic crisis the US is facing.
|
|
