Our subsidized loans are getting the axe

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
Elbowstoopointy said:
There is little point in arguing with you, because you assume that this situation was entirely unavoidable. Never mind how we got here (out of control spending by democrats...as well as spending too much money on wars. I'll even appeal to you and blame Bush to a large extent because its his fault too. Out of control spending for far too long).

The government has done little good for this country dude, regardless whether if it was a dem or repub administration. Your next argument will be "LOL well without gov't we'd have no mail and no public schools bla bla total anarchy!!". Of course we need government to a MINIMAL extent, but this has been far exceeded. The way I feel is the individual is the absolute most important thing in this country. Yes, I care about what happens to me and my family more so than what happens to yours. I fully admit that...it doesn't make me a bad person at all. This country is about the individual, not the group as a whole. People fall through the cracks based on poor life choices, laziness, drugs, and hell even dumb luck that isn't their fault. I feel bad for them and all, but it is not my responsibility whatsoever. If I want to help them out via charity, that is MY decision (and I DO donate...). Once the gov't decides to tax me and give away my money to other people, that is not charity- its forced redistribution of wealth (And this is why I am a huge fan of the fair tax)

Anyways I will never convince you to change your mind. That will happen when you wake up one day and realize you are sick of working hard only to get crushed and stepped on by other people.

No hate, seriously. I thought like you at one point in my life
Click to expand...

Over Bush's two terms, he increased spending 104%. That is absolutely ridiculous (Clinton only increased spending by 11% over his two terms).

http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush

All I am saying is that you should not be quick to blame the Democrats and Obama.

I agree that those in the medical field need to quit acting like they are martyrs and stop accepting the constant cuts coming our way. I also acknowledge the (****ty) fact that in politics, whoever has the most money has the loudest voice, and even though doctors don't have a strong enough lobby in Washington, they are the first to bear the brunt of the cuts because of "how wealthy" they are.

And taxes are necessary whether you like it or not. There will be some redistribution of wealth no matter what. Otherwise, the "MINIMAL extent" that you want the government to be present in your life would turn to "NO extent" which would be more disastrous than what we have now.

And this situation was avoidable, and I agree that the government really messed up by letting it get to this point. But I just have an issue where you put SO much blame on Obama when Bush played such a big role in our budget being so imbalanced (significant increase in spending coupled with a significant decrease in government revenue).

EDIT: But thank you for your disclaimer! I definitely understand that the Democratic point of view is the more idealistic one, but I simply feel as though more blame falls on the Republicans for this issue.

Another strong point is that if the Republicans weren't so stubborn in increasing the revenue with some tax reform in the recent Bill, maybe the spending cuts would not be as necessary and we may still have had our subsidized loans.
 
Last edited:
Elbowstoopointy said:
very interesting how the resident, who has worked his ass off in med school, agrees with me and thinks the gov't is screwing up, while the pre-med still is in love with Obama.

I'm not saying this to be insulting...but it just seems like clockwork that pre-meds and young med students are liberal, and then become wiser when they become docs

😉
Click to expand...

There's liberal attendings too... They're typically pediatricians for some reason. 😕
 
Dr Gerrard said:
Otherwise, the "MINIMAL extent" that you want the government to be present in your life would turn to "NO extent" which would be more disastrous than what we have now.
Click to expand...

Evidence please? Don't just say stuff without backing it up.
 
OncoticPressure said:
Evidence please? Don't just say stuff without backing it up.
Click to expand...

He was saying how it is not right to tax.

I was saying it is essential to run the public services the government offers.

If the government does not tax, it cannot run these services.

He said the services are essential and they are part of the minimal extent to which the government should be involved in our lives.

Without taxes, the services would not be possible and thus the government would not be involved at all in our lives.
 
Dr Gerrard said:
He was saying how it is not right to tax.

I was saying it is essential to run the public services the government offers.

If the government does not tax, it cannot run these services.

He said the services are essential and they are part of the minimal extent to which the government should be involved in our lives.

Without taxes, the services would not be possible and thus the government would not be involved at all in our lives.
Click to expand...

I can read.

I just don't see how it would be "disasterous" to have government out of our lives.
 
Dr Gerrard said:
Am I trying to argue with an anarchist?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be facetious. I just think the government has their hands in far too many things and is totally overextended. The whole "debt crisis" was government and their answer to it is more government. I get that we need services that cost money (defense, etc.)
 
OncoticPressure said:
I'm not trying to be facetious. I just think the government has their hands in far too many things and is totally overextended. The whole "debt crisis" was government and their answer to it is more government. I get that we need services that cost money (defense, etc.)
Click to expand...

Oh then I think we are on the same page here.

I was only responding to Elboystoopointy being very anti-Obama.

I definitely agree that the government spends way more than it should, and instead of cutting things like subsidized loans for students, they should quit overextending. I provided evidence for how Bush played a huge part in this huge spending problem our government has, and then I provided more reasons for why republicans are more to blame for our subsidized loans going away than democrats.

And it is a personal pet peave of mine when people say things about how they earned their money and the government doesn't have the right to tax them for it, because this is a broad statement that doesn't go against higher taxes but rather ALL taxes and I think that is a very naive point to try and say that people should not be taxed at all.

And everything else was saying that in the big picture, 6K isn't much, but it is still not acceptable when there are other ways to come closer to a balanced budget, either by reducing spending elsewhere or increasing revenue.
 
OncoticPressure said:
I'm not trying to be facetious. I just think the government has their hands in far too many things and is totally overextended. The whole "debt crisis" was government and their answer to it is more government. I get that we need services that cost money (defense, etc.)
Click to expand...

I can't wait for your follow-up with which essential services you think are completely unnecessary. Prisons? Education? Police? Courts? Go on. Pick your favorite unnecessary government expenditure. I like how you cite one of the most expensive components of government as necessary, though, as "defense" extends to the welfare state that defense contractors are permanently in, or how the military needs to buy hundred dollar lug nuts because the vendor can get away with it on a government contract.

The resolution to the debt crisis was more government? It sounded like more borrowing to pay for things that we're already on the hook for and in the future more cuts and/or tax hikes. In what interpretation is that "more government"? Is it because they're forming a committee to decide on the tax hikes and spending cuts?
 
Shazzbot said:
I can't wait for your follow-up with which essential services you think are completely unnecessary. Prisons? Education? Police? Courts? Go on. Pick your favorite unnecessary government expenditure. I like how you cite one of the most expensive components of government as necessary, though, as "defense" extends to the welfare state that defense contractors are permanently in, or how the military needs to buy hundred dollar lug nuts because the vendor can get away with it on a government contract.

The resolution to the debt crisis was more government? It sounded like more borrowing to pay for things that we're already on the hook for and in the future more cuts and/or tax hikes. In what interpretation is that "more government"? Is it because they're forming a committee to decide on the tax hikes and spending cuts?
Click to expand...

Funny, our founding fathers didn't believe the government should pay for education. Most of the stuff you cited is paid for with local, state and property taxes. I thought we were talking about federal government and federal taxes? 😕
 
OncoticPressure said:
Funny, our founding fathers didn't believe the government should pay for education. Most of the stuff you cited is paid for with local, state and property taxes. I thought we were talking about federal government and federal taxes? 😕
Click to expand...

You're unfamiliar with federal courts, policing that occurs at a federal level [FBI, ATF, NSA] and federal prisons?

The founding fathers also believed in slave ownership. You'll forgive me if I don't go to the founding fathers for all my decision-making. Coincidentally, the federal government doesn't pay for education, either, for the most part. At least not K-12 and not a lot for college, except in the way of providing loans [which is an interesting con job in that colleges frequently raise tuition to the level that stafford loans will cover, but I digress.]

The federal government exists to take care of a lot things beyond just national defense, you know. There are certain economic problems that a goodly number of states would face without federal spending.

I'm just curious which part of the federal government in particular you find to be unnecessary. Always remember, all government spending directly contributes to somebody's livelihood, and it turns out that someone thinks their ability to make a living is pretty important. Or is it the required obedience to federal regulation you find bothersome, and not the spending? Just elaborate for me what about the government you find to be wasteful, tyrannical, or both.
 
Dr Gerrard said:
He was saying how it is not right to tax.

I was saying it is essential to run the public services the government offers.

If the government does not tax, it cannot run these services.

He said the services are essential and they are part of the minimal extent to which the government should be involved in our lives.

Without taxes, the services would not be possible and thus the government would not be involved at all in our lives.
Click to expand...

I never once said it is not right to tax. I simply said the extent to which they do this is ridiculous, hence why I clearly said I support the fair tax system (Look it up if you are unaware...). So I appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

I clearly said we should only be taxed to the point where they can finance these minimal services.

How do you explain the government using our tax dollars to buy gov't employees expensive toys and private lier jet trips? Do you even realize how much stuff the president and his staff put on your tab? ALL presidents do this dude...The gov't spent over 100 million dollars on flight tickets they NEVER EVEN USED. Do you not realize the government is like a medical student who is having 100% of everything paid for by their parents? If they had some skin in the game, they would be conservative and rent a reasonable place, take the bus to save money. The kid who has everything paid for? He says screw it, buys a porsche because he can, gets a huge apartment he doesn't really need, but thats ok because he didn't pay for it anyways.


End rant. 🙂
 
Elbowstoopointy said:
I never once said it is not right to tax. I simply said the extent to which they do this is ridiculous, hence why I clearly said I support the fair tax system (Look it up if you are unaware...). So I appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

I clearly said we should only be taxed to the point where they can finance these minimal services.

How do you explain the government using our tax dollars to buy gov't employees expensive toys and private lier jet trips? Do you even realize how much stuff the president and his staff put on your tab? ALL presidents do this dude...The gov't spent over 100 million dollars on flight tickets they NEVER EVEN USED. Do you not realize the government is like a medical student who is having 100% of everything paid for by their parents? If they had some skin in the game, they would be conservative and rent a reasonable place, take the bus to save money. The kid who has everything paid for? He says screw it, buys a porsche because he can, gets a huge apartment he doesn't really need, but thats ok because he didn't pay for it anyways.


End rant. 🙂
Click to expand...

So your solution to excessive government spending is that elected officials should fly coach?

The $100m doesn't seem like that much in light of how much airline bailouts cost. At least government spending is money reinvested in the economy.
 
Elbowstoopointy said:
I never once said it is not right to tax. I simply said the extent to which they do this is ridiculous, hence why I clearly said I support the fair tax system (Look it up if you are unaware...). So I appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

I clearly said we should only be taxed to the point where they can finance these minimal services.

How do you explain the government using our tax dollars to buy gov't employees expensive toys and private lier jet trips? Do you even realize how much stuff the president and his staff put on your tab? ALL presidents do this dude...The gov't spent over 100 million dollars on flight tickets they NEVER EVEN USED. Do you not realize the government is like a medical student who is having 100% of everything paid for by their parents? If they had some skin in the game, they would be conservative and rent a reasonable place, take the bus to save money. The kid who has everything paid for? He says screw it, buys a porsche because he can, gets a huge apartment he doesn't really need, but thats ok because he didn't pay for it anyways.


End rant. 🙂
Click to expand...


Elbows, please tell us more about the services that you deem worthy of financing minimally. What services would you eliminate altogether? Who decides? :idea:
 
This is part of the reason we are in this mess. I am so tired of the blame game. It's always someone elses fault. Can we all agree, at least in 2012, to put differences aside (social, etc.) and vote for the person who will best cut spending long-term the right way?

Sadly, extremists on both sides will ruin things and we'll end up with another imbecile or greenhorn for another four years while we, as a country, continue to CTD.
 
Doctor4Life1769 said:
Obama can start by cutting his own salary, Biden's salary, the congressional salary, and cutting out that ridiculous presidential ball... if there's a congressional ball, hack that too. if we gotta live under our means, they should too.
Click to expand...

A bill calling for a cut in congressional salary was introduced in 2010 Rep. Ann Kilpatrick (D-Arizona). Congresswoman Gabriel Gifford (D-Arizona) revisited the issue in 2011 by introducing another bill to cut congressional salaries.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6266124-503544.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/8...esss-first-pay-cut-since-the-great-depression

http://giffords.house.gov/2011/01/house-democrat-wants-to-cut-congress-pay.shtml

To some degree.....been there, done that.
 
He is talking about how oncoticpressure believes the government is overextended and should play a less significant role in our lives.. but is complaining that the government will no longer step in and subsidize a small percentage of medical school loans.
 
Dr Gerrard said:
He is talking about how oncoticpressure believes the government is overextended and should play a less significant role in our lives.. but is complaining that the government will no longer step in and subsidize a small percentage of medical school loans.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about subsidized loans, unless you're refering to someone else.
 
OncoticPressure said:
I never said anything about subsidized loans, unless you're refering to someone else.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry I guess you are right.

I just figured you had somewhere since this topic is about subsidized loans, but that was my bad.
 
Dr Gerrard said:
He is talking about how oncoticpressure believes the government is overextended and should play a less significant role in our lives.. but is complaining that the government will no longer step in and subsidize a small percentage of medical school loans.
Click to expand...

Yes, that. Everyone likes to hate on "government spending" unless the spending is on some good stuff they want. Like cheap student loans and fat reimbursements. Benefits for poor people = wasteful nanny state; benefits for me = untouchable entitlement.
 
siliso said:
Yes, that. Everyone likes to hate on "government spending" unless the spending is on some good stuff they want. Like cheap student loans and fat reimbursements. Benefits for poor people = wasteful nanny state; benefits for me = untouchable entitlement.
Click to expand...

Cheap student loans. The government borrows money at less than 1% and gets 6.8% in return for it. Does that sound fair to you? :laugh:

Obama thanks you for your support.
 
OncoticPressure said:
Cheap student loans. The government borrows money at less than 1% and gets 6.8% in return for it. Does that sound fair to you? :laugh:

Obama thanks you for your support.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Obama actually went back in time (to when Bush was president) and set the interest for any Stafford loans borrowed after July 1st 2006 to a fixed 6.8%.

The Tea Party thanks you for your support.
 
Dr Gerrard said:
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Obama actually went back in time (to when Bush was president) and set the interest for any Stafford loans borrowed after July 1st 2006 to a fixed 6.8%.

The Tea Party thanks you for your support.
Click to expand...

Weren't the Dems in control of the House and Senate when this was passed in 2006? 😕
 
OncoticPressure said:
Weren't the Dems in control of the House and Senate when this was passed in 2006? 😕
Click to expand...


Oncotic, the dems took over both congressional houses after the November 2006 elections. I think this means they took over as of January 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2006


Current Stafford Loans interest rates were set by the 109th Congress.

http://www.henrywaxman.house.gov/Up...est_Rate_Reduction__Background_and_Issues.pdf
 
Just got an email from my school confirming that subsidized loans will be gone for 2012-2013 school year and beyond. 😡
 
Dr Gerrard said:
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Obama actually went back in time (to when Bush was president) and set the interest for any Stafford loans borrowed after July 1st 2006 to a fixed 6.8%.

The Tea Party thanks you for your support.
Click to expand...

Back in time when Bush was president I consolidated my loans at less than 2%.

I believe it was after 2006 when the democrats took control of congress that the rates jumped up.

Hows that hopey changey stuff working out for ya?
 
HondoCrouch said:
Back in time when Bush was president I consolidated my loans at less than 2%.

I believe it was after 2006 when the democrats took control of congress that the rates jumped up.

Hows that hopey changey stuff working out for ya?
Click to expand...

Please go up about 5 posts, read, and then post a retraction.

Anyways, my bigger questions is why are private medschool loans so freakin expensive (~8-10%)? You'd think that given the repayment rates and the current level of interest rates that they would be much cheaper then the unsubsidized federal loans.
 
grdnangel2 said:
Hondo, you need to check you claims for accuracy. The following link will assist you in doing so.

http://www.henrywaxman.house.gov/Up...est_Rate_Reduction__Background_and_Issues.pdf
Click to expand...

My claims are accurate. I didnt say that democrats were the ones that raised it. They were however in power while it was in effect and had ample power to change it.

When Bush was president I consolidated my loans at less than 2%. The rates increased in 2006. Democrats controlled the house and senate after 2006 and house, senate and whitehouse after 2008. They did nothing to alleviate the burden.
 
HondoCrouch said:
My claims are accurate. I didnt say that democrats were the ones that raised it. They were however in power while it was in effect and had ample power to change it.

When Bush was president I consolidated my loans at less than 2%. The rates increased in 2006. Democrats controlled the house and senate after 2006 and house, senate and whitehouse after 2008. They did nothing to alleviate the burden.
Click to expand...

You went from presuming that Democrats increased the rates to blaming them for not undoing it? I get the feeling that if they had, it would just end up on your list under bad things Democrats did because it was "redistributing the burden off of students and onto the wealthy job creators."
 
Shazzbot said:
You went from presuming that Democrats increased the rates to blaming them for not undoing it? I get the feeling that if they had, it would just end up on your list under bad things Democrats did because it was "redistributing the burden off of students and onto the wealthy job creators."
Click to expand...

I couldnt care less because mine are already consolidated. And your presumption is fallacious in any case as it's all borrowed money, neither students nor job creators are paying for it. There's no difference between the Repubs and Democrats in my eyes, it's just funny to see a democrat railing on Bush compared to Obama (Bush^2).
 
HondoCrouch said:
I couldnt care less because mine are already consolidated. And your presumption is fallacious in any case as it's all borrowed money, neither students nor job creators are paying for it. There's no difference between the Repubs and Democrats in my eyes, it's just funny to see a democrat railing on Bush compared to Obama (Bush^2).
Click to expand...

For the uninitiated into Fox propaganda, "job creators" = obscenely rich people. It's just their way of referring to them with some sort of adoration and devotion.

Jesus christ some people really are tools
 
womp said:
If you were going to take the full $34,000 ($8500 x 4) in subsidized loans, with the subsidy gone, it comes down to about $120 more per month in interest payment over the course of 10 years.
Click to expand...


Don't know how you're doing your math, but I'm coming out to be about $40 a month more.




(implicit in this post is that I trust my math a whole lot more)
 
HondoCrouch said:
My claims are accurate. I didnt say that democrats were the ones that raised it. They were however in power while it was in effect and had ample power to change it.

When Bush was president I consolidated my loans at less than 2%. The rates increased in 2006. Democrats controlled the house and senate after 2006 and house, senate and whitehouse after 2008. They did nothing to alleviate the burden.
Click to expand...


Hondo, the chart below provides average rates of interest paid on certificate of deposits in 2007.

http://www.jumbocdinvestments.com/historicalcdrates.htm

Historally, high return on CD's correspond with high interest rates attached to all types of loans. This is an anecdotal observation. I think this applies to the federal government as well. No one is giving out free money.
 
siliso said:
Yes, that. Everyone likes to hate on "government spending" unless the spending is on some good stuff they want. Like cheap student loans and fat reimbursements. Benefits for poor people = wasteful nanny state; benefits for me = untouchable entitlement.
Click to expand...

Not sure anyone would consider Medicare/caid reimbursements "fat". Nor would I call 7.4% interest cheap. 🙄
 
Yeah, it sucks, but remember, the government was offering us extra assistance by subsidizing those loans in the first place. If the government had kept the subsidized loan money in some sort of bank instead of lending it out, the government would have gotten to collect at least SOME interest on the money. In other words, by lending subsidized loans, the government was essentially GIVING UP that interest money. (When the government gives up money, it has to make up for it by cutting something or by raising taxes. Is it really right for the tax payers to have that burden?)

Sure, the government makes up the lost interest by having the relatively high, fixed interest rate of 6.8% after medical school, but still, a subsidy is essentially a gift. Now that the budget is tight, it totally makes sense that they couldn't continue to provide that gift anymore. It sucks that we'll end up paying an extra $15 grand as a result, and paying an additional $120 a month will make a difference in my quality of life as a resident, but it's better for the government to make this change instead of cutting the funding for other things.

But yeah, not looking forward to going 6 grand more in debt. I guess this'll give me an extra incentive to live cheaply and minimize my debt in other ways.
 
poorracerkid said:
Why is anybody surprised? Socialism doesn't exactly have a great track record of delivering on the promises proclaimed by it's faithful..
Click to expand...

Wow lol. It doesn't bother me if people don't know about political issues, but what scares me most is that future colleagues of mine are completely ignorant and still project their strong opinions to others.

HondoCrouch said:
I couldnt care less because mine are already consolidated. And your presumption is fallacious in any case as it's all borrowed money, neither students nor job creators are paying for it. There's no difference between the Repubs and Democrats in my eyes, it's just funny to see a democrat railing on Bush compared to Obama (Bush^2).
Click to expand...


If you read the rest of my posts, you would see that my purpose isn't solely to praise Obama and rag on Bush, but some posters above me were unfairly hating on OBama and I just wanted to set the record straight and tell them that more blame can be put on the republicans, not the dumb naive democrats.
 
Dr Gerrard said:
Wow lol. It doesn't bother me if people don't know about political issues, but what scares me most is that future colleagues of mine are completely ignorant and still project their strong opinions to others.

If you read the rest of my posts, you would see that my purpose isn't solely to praise Obama and rag on Bush, but some posters above me were unfairly hating on OBama and I just wanted to set the record straight and tell them that more blame can be put on the republicans, not the dumb naive democrats.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. I consider myself conservative, but it drives me crazy to see other conservatives mindlessly blame Obama for everything bad under the sun. Its bad enough to see this with random commenters on blogs and newspapers. In future doctors its downright scary. It demonstrates an inability to perform critical thinking, see past the talking points, and understand how government actually works (and how much policy is dictated by congress, not the president).

If there was such a thing as a socially moderate, fiscally conservative, rational republican candidate, they would have my vote.
 
The gov't was very quick to dole out blank checks to the big banks (who are now as profitable as ever) during the 'bailout' era and now are very quick to make significant cuts to services which are important to many Americans.

The current belt-tightening is nothing compared to what will have to be done. The Medicare and Social Security has not in the least been taken care of. The current spending cuts for the next ten years are all tentative and will likely be expanded.
 
DoctwoB said:
If there was such a thing as a socially moderate, fiscally conservative, rational republican candidate, they would have my vote.
Click to expand...

What, Bachmann getting upset about the switch to CFL bulbs, no good?
 
OncoticPressure said:
Cheap student loans. The government borrows money at less than 1% and gets 6.8% in return for it. Does that sound fair to you? :laugh:

Obama thanks you for your support.
Click to expand...

If you don't like it, get your face out of the government trough and go borrow your money on the private market instead. And good luck with that.
 
DoctwoB said:
Agreed 100%. I consider myself conservative, but it drives me crazy to see other conservatives mindlessly blame Obama for everything bad under the sun. Its bad enough to see this with random commenters on blogs and newspapers. In future doctors its downright scary. It demonstrates an inability to perform critical thinking, see past the talking points, and understand how government actually works (and how much policy is dictated by congress, not the president).

If there was such a thing as a socially moderate, fiscally conservative, rational republican candidate, they would have my vote.
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson. And pretty much every other mainstream libertarian. You may not agree with Ron Paul on abortion (I sure don't and think it should be universally legal) but he still wants it legal on a state by state basis. If it comes to supporting a militarist president waging war across continents (Obama and Bush) versus state by state abortion laws, I'm voting for Ron Paul every time.
 
I didn't see anyone mention this but it would go into effect July 2012 therefore at least this year isn't axed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

X0001234
Why are federal loans unsubsidized?
Replies
2
Views
699
LucidSplash
LucidSplash
AJS59
Are grad plus loans still a thing?
Replies
3
Views
2K
AJS59
AJS59
SurfingDoctor
The Student Loan Market
Replies
22
Views
3K
Nontrad_FL_LGBT
N
B
If someone doesn't match from the caribbean are there alternate career pathways?
Replies
10
Views
2K
SurfingDoctor
SurfingDoctor
N
4th year personal loan/relocation loans
Replies
1
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top