Posts tagged debt
Posts tagged debt
Too bad I was born a woman instead of a corporation :(
We’ve hit seven thus far today. 7:00 AM calls are against the law by the way…
And before anyone says, “Just pay your bill!” I am current. Until they figure that out, they’re gonna harass the shit out of me in the hopes that I toss them money. I’m documenting all these lovely calls and filing a complaint. If you’re in the same boat, you should document it as well.
That awkward moment when you look at your college degree and you wonder if it was actually worth all that time, blood, sweat, tears, but especially money.
I feel like this is something for which I must opt in, not opt out. The five phone calls a day aren’t enough? And if a person pays for texts, that is not a free message.
Before anyone asks, I replied stop. And I’ve asked numerous times for them to communicate by mail.
This is not mail, Sallie Mae. Fail.
Skillshare is giving away $5,000 to help pay off student loans. Enter by clicking the link above!
About time someone bailed at least one of us out…
This is an interesting read because the information from many surveys of Fox News viewers is collated into one article. It’s honestly stunning yet entirely understandable that viewers of The Daily Show in the latest study were actually more informed than Fox News viewers - and correctly informed.
Straight from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s study [Emphasis mine]:
NPR does the best job of informing respondents about the debt crisis: Listening to NPR is associated with a 26-point increase in the likelihood of correctly naming Germany as the bailer, and a 12-point decrease in thinking that the US is behind the Euro-bailout. Sunday morning talk shows, talk radio and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart have similar positive impacts. On the other hand, people who report watching Fox News are five-points more likely than those who watch no news at all, to incorrectly say it’s the US that is bailing out European countries.
Puts a new spin on the old cliche “No news is good news,” doesn’t it?
The young man standing next to the “Jail Sallie Mae, Cancel All Student Loan Debt” sign in Liberty Plaza last night could very well end up in jail himself – not for protesting economic injustice and marching on Wall Street, but for doing sex work to pay off his student loans. “My loans are $1,300 a month,” he said. “My rent is $1,300 a month. My salary is $2,600 a month. You can see the problem. So I work as a prostitute for food and utilities.”
Though he works a day job in the tech sector, it’s not enough to get by. “But it could be worse,” he continued. “I could have to do sex work for all of it.”
With the Department of Education estimating that outstanding US student loan debt will soon exceed $1 trillion and job growth stalled, students face the very real prospect that there’s no way to ever pay back their debts. As of this May, new graduates are leaving college with an average of $22,900 in debt each, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, makes the class of 2011 the most indebted in history.
I don’t even want to think about my student loans and what will have to happen for it all to get paid off. It’s because I don’t know how it’s all going to shake out. I fear that getting a law degree won’t be enough.
Sixty-two percent of Americans think the bill that raises the federal’s debt ceiling through the year 2013 and makes major cuts in government spending benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class, according to a CNN/ORC poll released on Monday.
Only 27 percent say that the debt ceiling deal treats all classes fairly and 11 percent have no opinion.
The poll (PDF) also found that 47 percent of Americans rate the economy “pretty badly” and 28 percent rate it “very badly.” Only 23 percent think the economy is going “fairly well” and a meager 1 percent say it is going “very well.”
In other words, 62 percent of Americans are starting to realize something in the milk ain’t clean.
Standard & Poor, explaining their decision to downgrade the credit rating of the US for the first time in history.
So let’s revisit this:
"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done." - Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnnell, on his party’s handling of the debt ceiling.
Was it worth it? You incorrigible bastards still wounded the hostage. And now, for acting like deadbeats, you all tarnished the full faith and credit others have in the US to make good on its obligations.
(Source: The Wall Street Journal)
The E-Trade baby loses everything…
"BOOM! I just bought some stocks. BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! … Hell, I don’t even know what half this stuff means!"
Former Sen. Alan Simpson told Lawrence O’Donnell it’s time to “peel all the layers of the onion” and figure out just why people seem to listen intently to Grover Norquist.
In an interview on The Last Word tonight, Simpson noted that Norquist had challenged Republican Sen. Tom Coburn on a $6 billion cut on ethanol subsidies he had called “tax increases,” which incensed Simpson greatly. “Grover and his happy band of warriors are trying to call that a tax increase– that’s a damn lie and he knows it,” he told O’Donnell. “And if he can get away with that, elect him President.”
Simpson continued to question Norquist’s power throughout the segment, arguing that “he can’t kill you, he can’t burn your house, he can defeat you in reelection,” and if a public servant thought the latter was enough to obey him, they didn’t deserve the spot.
He also told O’Donnell several times that “if Grover Norquist is more powerful than the President of the United States and the Congress, he should run for President” … On that note, Simpson called for an investigation. “Grover Norquist should be examined into– where does he get his money?” In times where people amass so much power, he argues, it becomes necessary to “peel all the layers of the onion.” “Anytime anyone gets this powerful,” he argued, “you want to dig in… who is he slave to?”
He clarified that he did not mean “salacious stuff and his personal life,” but how Americans for Tax Reform operated and why so many people in Congress feared him, because based only on his status as leader of an anti-tax group, “you must be chicken if you fall for that crap.”
I have a soft spot for former Sen. Alan Simpson. He’s part of the Reagan era, yes, and that’s where the accelerated sell-out of my generation began. However, he also has a streak of common-sense conservatism sorely lacking in the Republican Party. He’s pro-gay rights (including marriage) and pro-choice, which puts him to the left of nearly every Republican out there.
I agree with Simpson. Let’s find out where Grover’s getting his bucks.
Goddammit. Is every single session of Congress going to be like this? One day, we’ll say, “No, Mitch McConnell, you bitter, turtle-esque asshole. We know you won’t shoot the hostage.” And then one day, those batshit bastards are going to shoot.
I’m glad you learned a lesson. By flat-out stating the economy, plus the full faith and credit of the US are worth taking hostage for ransom, you have officially revoked your right to bitch when someone calls you terrorists. Who takes hostages again? Riiiiight… criminals and terrorists.
The US deficit reduction plan makes no sense – until you remember who’s behind the Tea Party movement.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 1st August 2011
There are two ways of cutting a deficit: raising taxes or reducing spending. Raising taxes means taking money from the rich. Cutting spending means taking money from the poor. Not in all cases of course: some taxation is regressive; some state spending takes money from ordinary citizens and gives it to banks, arms companies, oil barons and farmers. But in most cases the state transfers wealth from rich to poor, while tax cuts shift it from poor to rich.
So the rich, in a nominal democracy, have a struggle on their hands. Somehow they must persuade the other 99% to vote against their own interests: to shrink the state, supporting spending cuts rather than tax rises. In the US they appear to be succeeding.
Partly as a result of the Bush tax cuts of 2001, 2003 and 2005 (shamefully extended by Barack Obama), taxation of the wealthy, in Obama’s words, “is at its lowest level in half a century”. The consequence of such regressive policies is a level of inequality unknown in other developed nations. As the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz points out, in the past 10 years the income of the top 1% has risen by 18%, while that of blue collar male workers has fallen by 12%.
The deal being thrashed out in Congress as this article goes to press seeks only to cut state spending. As the former Republican senator Alan Simpson says, “the little guy is going to be cremated.” That, in turn, will mean further economic decline, which means a bigger deficit. It’s insane. But how did it happen?
The immediate reason is that Republican members of Congress supported by the Tea Party movement won’t budge. But this explains nothing. The Tea Party movement mostly consists of people who have been harmed by tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for the poor and middle. Why would they mobilise against their own welfare? You can understand what is happening in Washington only if you remember what everyone seems to have forgotten: how this movement began.
On Sunday the Observer claimed that “the Tea Party rose out of anger over the scale of federal spending, and in particular in bailing out the banks.” This is what its members claim. It’s nonsense.
The movement started with Rick Santelli’s call on CNBC for a tea party of city traders to dump securities in Lake Michigan, in protest at Obama’s plan to “subsidise the losers.” In other words, it was a demand for a financiers’ mobilisation against the bail-out of their victims: people losing their homes. This is the opposite of the Observer’s story. On the same day, a group called Americans for Prosperity (AFP) set up a Tea Party Facebook page and started organising Tea Party events. The movement, whose programme is still lavishly supported by AFP, took off from there.