[Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow ProgressMass on Twitter.]
Republican Scott Brown voted a little over a week ago to double your student loan interest rate. That is a fact and it is part of his record. However, he’s trying to cover his political backside with a gimmick bill that fails to actually accomplish anything other than giving Brown a misleading talking point.
Don’t let Republican Scott Brown shake his political Etch-A-Sketch and pretend like he never voted to double your student loan interest rate. Further, make sure all your friends, family, and neighbors are aware of Brown’s real record. Please click on the below graphic and Share it with your Facebook Friends. Use your Facebook Wall to inform your friends about Brown’s harmful vote and lousy record.
If you’re on Twitter, you can also Re-Tweet ProgressMass’ tweet of the graphic here.
All Massachusetts voters deserve to know Republican Scott Brown’s real record. You can help inform them.
thanks
Come on, he didn’t vote to double the interest rate, the rate is set to double because of previous legislation. He voted against a bill that would extend the low rate, but because it was part of a bill that raised taxes, which would take lots of investment money out of the market and lower the value of everyone’s investments. He opposed raising those taxes, not extending the low rate.
And where did this idea come from that we have to find $6 Billion to “pay for” keeping the rate low? Do we have a balanced budget amendment now? The can extend the rate without paying for it, but they are using the impending hike to try to achieve either cuts or tax hikes that they want to make anyhow. All they need is a political compromise that they can agree on, and Brown is pushing one. Sure it might not raise enough, but that discussion will go on, $6B is a drop in the bucket of our deficit.
I think we should let the rate double, and hopefully schools will get the hint that tuition is too expensive. The higher rate will only add $761 more over 10 years for most students (USNews) but it might have a culture-shifting effect on colleges. Or, we should start taxing tuition to achieve the same effect, because colleges would lower their tuition in order to keep students from choosing cheaper schools.
He just let the interest rate double. This is a distinction without a difference.
So that particular bill was not the only chance to extend the low rate, and voting against that tax increase is not voting to double the rate. I don’t know why they don’t just extend the low rate with a bill that does nothing but that, since they all supposedly agree they want to, and then we could say “he voted to double the rate.” Why does it have to be attached to a budget bill?
In order to please the Republican Party, which despises Massachusetts.
Bob, do you believe universities like Harvard, BU, BC, MIT, ect should Begin to pay property taxes, perhaps at a reduced rate? Do you think Harvard sitting on 32 billion in ther endowment fund, should make a small contribution to help bail out the MBTA?
I think a discussion about property taxes and educational institutions is a great and much needed idea. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic we’re discussing here, which is Scott Brown’s vote to further screw today’s college students. I encourage you to offer your own “diary” if you’d like to pursue the question of property taxes paid (or not) by private educational institutions.
The thread starter frames the dichotomy precisely: Senator Brown votes to continue enormous tax giveaways to Big Oil, then turns around and votes to slam poor- and middle-class students (students who can afford college to take out these loans).
Scott Brown continues his pattern of voting in lock-step with the right-moving GOP on every significant issue, while pretending that he is “independent” as he attempts to court Massachusetts voters.
Excuse me, we can’t broaden the conversation? I read about some pol screwing students, but it seems to me the taxpayers are being screwed, whether it is at the pump, Studio 38, Evergreen, and yes, since taking student loans, we are letting off the hook these very wealthy institutions called universities, but oil companies are bad, even though we NEED their product.
I am glad you agree with me on taxing colleges, b/c someone else told me he never agrees with me. imagine never agreeing with someone?
I feel as though I’m arguing with a dining room table.
I actually spoke to Barney Frank, thanking him for voting against the free trade agreements. Barney agreed with me that Obama is not fulfilling his 2008 promises of looking at these deals and making them better for the American workers in Mfg. Omg Barney would be considered a troll by some here for daring to criticize Obama.
The Commonwealth is an education-dependent economy. It is one of our largest employers. Brown just voted to open a trap door under the state’s economy and pitch thousands of jobs into the abyss. Why? Because he cares more about increasing profits to Wall Street banks than he does about the Commonwealth. He’s running scared, because he’s behind in the polls to Warren and he wants to raise even more money to attack her.
Bob, can u answer my question about taxing universities? If you cannot, I understand and won’t ask again.
“He opposed raising those taxes, not extending the low rate.”
Yet the bill is about lowering the rate, which he opposed by his vote. Instead he proposes shaking the change out of the club chairs in the senate lounge in order to do it.
According to you $6 billion is both “a drop in the bucket of our deficit” and would “take lots of investment money out of the market and lower the value of everyone’s investments”, investment money that is not being used for investment.
But $24 billion in tax subsidies to the oil industry does help lower the debt?
So the hope is to spur investment and shift the culture of colleges. Wow, quite a bill.
This one though, this one is priceless:
“And where did this idea come from that we have to find $6 Billion to “pay for” keeping the rate low? Do we have a balanced budget amendment now? They can extend the rate without paying for it, but they are using the impending hike to try to achieve either cuts or tax hikes that they want to make anyhow.”
Ah, well, I suggest you take this one up with McConnell and the rest of the republican mantra about no new spending that isn’t paid for. Where ya been? This is your fiscal policy. But I’ll take it and throw in a $500b stimulus package to boot, thank you very much.
1. I work in K-12. I’d love to see more low-income kids have a chance for college.
But big picture, college grads are the haves of the economy. Straight up.
Right now, private loans run around 12% for college. Really high b/c default rate is 20+%. So the 6% rate is the subsidized rate.
And then 3% rate is the super subsidized rate. For people who are likely to become the haves — not by the standards of 99 versus 1, but by standards of “who is doing relatively well in this economy, college grads or non college grads, which is most of USA.”
Hey let’s have a debate on $6 billion for middle class collegians who will do well relative to the average taxpayer, versus $6 billion in subsidy for poor kids.
But so far as I can tell, EVERY questionable nominally liberal federal expense is met with response of oil company perks. So then why not 0% loans. Why not -3% rate. All a drop in bucket compared to oil company perks.
2. There’s a second reason why I question the subsidized rate to all, instead of larger subsidy to poor college aspirants.
As someone who preaches college success as the best ticket out of poverty every day of the week, I’m also mindful that there IS a higher ed bubble. Many kids are duped into getting near worthless degrees and can’t shed the $500 to $1,000 per MONTH of debt. Why would we rail against homeowners tricked into bad loans, but celebrate collegians doing same?
Following decades of right-wing dogma, we have directed almost all of the income growth of our economy into a handful of our very wealthiest individuals — with the promise that this would create jobs. Instead of the booming job market that should have resulted were this dogma true, we have an economy that is barely sputtering.
An enormous number of the young people graduating with a college degree today are either unemployed or are working in jobs for which they didn’t need their degree. These students are not the ones who failed to act responsibly — they worked hard, they took on huge loans, and most of them (80%, by the numbers you offer) struggle mightily to meet their crushing obligations. It is those who promoted this dogma that have failed, miserably. Our government has given them the favored tax treatment they asked for, relying on their promises to “create jobs”. They have, as many of us expected, simply put the extra money in their collective wallets.
I tend to agree that, for now, student loans (for many or perhaps even most students) are a bad idea. Bad for the students, bad for the lenders, bad for the economy. I think the answer is to take back those massive tax benefits that were supposed to have created jobs and didn’t.
When our wealthiest 1% are paying their fair share of the costs of civilization, our young people will benefit in at least two immediate ways: (1) Government will have much more ability to support the higher education that is so crucial to our long-term national interest and (2) Consumers will have much more money to spend, which will create the jobs that allow graduating seniors to pay their loan obligations.
6% is not the subsidized rate, because the college loans kids take out at the 6.8% rate are not dischargable. You file for bankrupt, and you still have that debt. Given that the only way to not pay it back is to die, and given that 21 year olds don’t die with much frequency, that money is getting paid back — at far above the market rate of such a low risk investment.
Given that 10 year notes are under 2%, a loan for 3.4% is still profitable. It isn’t subsidized in the least.
As for your proposal for a -3% rate, I’m all for it. I don’t think that the gov’t — state nor federal — does enough to subsidize higher education.
So nobody is behind on their student loan payments, no collection activity???? Very interesting, actually defies logic
and their wages, mortgage payments, even SS can be garnished for repayment. In some cases they can file for bankruptcy, but the rules are complicated.
Basically, these loans are unsecured. The promise is that the loans will move students into careers where they will be able to repay the loan. As with all things, no job prospects mean no ability to repay. Doubling the rate won’t get blood out of a stone either.
You haven’t been around here a long time. When you pick a fight with stomv about money and math, you better be on very firm ground. You aren’t. Just saying.
I didn’t intend to start anything with stomv though; I thought I was supporting him. But you are right, I’m not on solid ground here.
I was replying to the comment from danfromwaltham, not you. You were supporting him.
Stomv said the only way not to pay back student loans is to die. I checked it three times and that is what he/she wrote. That, my friends, is total BS. K? Got it? There are defaults and collection activities on these loans, and not due to death. Man, I cannot believe he/she wrote that!!!!!
Thank you Demint for backing me up, and clearing up the slop Stomv wrote…Geez Loiuse, right? What planet does he/she live on think like that? I wish I was not the one to point out the that aggregous error in thought, some will complain I wrote a negative post and add it to my tally.
Try to find some courtesy. Please.
Are you old enough to be participating here? It doesn’t sound like you have much comprehension of financial and legal matters. What you don’t seem to understand is that if you take a student loan, and you default, the government will eventually find you and collect its money (plus interest and collection fees). That means that the government (ie the taxpayer) WILL get that money back, with interest.
There is Public Service Loan Forgiveness. I don’t know how often debtors take this route but it is available.
The conversation quibble stems from the wording “the only way to not pay it back is to die”. I read that to mean – “the only way to discharge the debt…”. I think DFW is arguing that some people default, which is true; but it doesn’t discharge the debt, which is why there is “collection activity”.
Fair enough. I’m not sure that program is designed or intended to be used by any significant percentage of the eight million Stafford Loan recipients.
It doesn’t sound like danfromwaltham understands very much about loan collection activity.
No.
“Hey let’s have a debate on $6 billion for middle class collegians who will do well relative to the average taxpayer, versus $6 billion in subsidy for poor kids.”
Hey, let’s really screw down on the class warfare, shall we? And keep handing taxpayer subsidies to industries that earned profits in excess of $1 trillion in the past 10 years.
It is very simple, you can try to keep student loan interest low – even through subsidies – or you can ignore this very simple legislation and demand changes to the collegiate industrial complex instead.
Why not both?
We all agree we must keep energy prices as low as possible, right? If we end the oil tax breaks, do we then allow keystone and drilling in Anwar and not push these companies to drill in depths equal to where the Titanic rests?
There you go again. The “energy prices” you speak of are by no means the total costs of our reliance on fossil fuels. Keeping those prices low has the effect of increasing the overall cost of using non-renewable energy.
So no, “we” do not all agree to that.
Ok, here is my independent thinking. I totally disagree, respectfully, keeping energy prices high. The boom in the 80’s and 90’s was also a decade of cheap energy. High energy prices means higher costs for food, clothes, and more money needed for welfare so those people can survive. It also impacts the consumption economy we live in.
This thread is about Scott Brown’s vote to double the student loan interest rate. We’re not talking about energy prices. We’re not talking property taxes.
We’re talking about Scott Brown’s vote to double the student loan interest rate. Please try and keep up.
Hey everyone, we r not talking about energy prices, but ignore the rig above Brown’s head.
What are those tax incentives for oil companies anyhow? Is there any reason to believe that if we took them away, the oil companies would continue to pursue the behavior that we are trying to incentivize them to do, and that they would just absorb the cost without passing it on in the form of higher energy prices?
And if it makes solar and wind cheaper in comparison, then that’s good. But still there must be some reason we incentivize what we do.
I didn’t mean to knockout somervilletom, but he had it coming. Just talked to another guy, he is for high energy prices.!!!!!!!!!! Weird, huh?
Looks like dont-get-cute has found a partner!
This is funny!!!!!!!! Nice job
Since neither the Democrats nor the Republicans (nor you apparently) to actually talk about energy prices, I have been paying attention to the title of the thread (“Don’t Let Scott Brown Etch-A-Sketch Away His Vote To Double Your Student Loan Interest Rate”). The lovely picture of the oil rig scrolled off my screen long ago.
So you’re absolutely right, there is a picture of an oil rig, alongside a dichotomy between Scott Brown’s support for huge tax giveaways to an already profitable industry and his vote to double student loans.
Since you really want to talk about energy prices (as opposed to Big Oil subsidies), please help me understand — given your claimed aversion to unsustainable booms — how you find yourself arguing for an unsustainable energy boom.
Unless you’re one of those crazies who argue that oil being continuously created deep underground by unseen and so far undiscovered subterranean bacteria, then surely you can agree that the world’s supply of petroleum is finite. The “replacement cost” of each gallon of gasoline is, therefore, the present value of the total investment needed to replace that gallon in the future from other presumably renewable source. The “high” energy prices you complain about are well below that replacement cost.
Another factor that you (and other right-wing apologists) consistently ignore is the portion of our staggering defense budget spent on preserving “secure” access to petroleum. If America was not addicted to petroleum, do you really think we would care who ran the various nations in the Middle East?
We really need to change our priorities and return to sustainable living, and that just does not include everyone flying around to colleges and wasting four years of everyone’s life doing shite. We should reduce college attendance by half, reduce college costs by half, and encourage more local sustainable socially responsible lives, where people don’t need to get their dignity from college degrees or careers.
Or there is an oil bubble, then that will pave the way for the alt. energies some desire. I do not believe keystone XML pipeline would be built with private money, if there would be just air flowing though it in a few years.
I don’t believe oil comes from dinosaurs either. Let the market decide the price, that is all. So, can we open Anwar?
That is why he’s trying to change the subject. But the more he comments, the higher the comment count on the thread goes, and the more people pay attention. And when they do, the message they take away is: Brown voted for Wall Street banks ahead of Massachusetts jobs. Which is the truth.
Yes, he is putting some pressure on Harvard and other schools to explain why their tuition is 350% what it was twenty years ago (that’s adjusted for inflation too!) 350% is a lot more than 3%? Where does it all go? Oh, does it go to Elizabeth Warren and her husband’s $350,000 salaries? Why yes, it does. What a coincidence!
I thought I read Bob teaches at Columbia Univ and I asked him twice if we should tax these rich universities, and he won’t answer me.
U know the MBTA is 8 billion in the hole, should the state aske the taxpayers for more money, or should Harvard, let’s say, with students and faculty who rely on the system, make a donation, since they are sitting on 32 Billion dollars. Just a thought. Also, do they call you a troll, don’t get cute?
They were able to get universities to divest from companies that did business with South Africa and that helped bring an end to Apartheid, why can’t we get people to sit-in the dean’s office and get them to invest in the MBTA? And it’d be an investment for them even if they just donate it, they definitely reap value from being served by the MBTA.
>Also, do they call you a troll, don’t get cute?
No, never! They call me a remarkably prescient creative thinker who helps them to see things in a new light and improves their lives tremendously.
The ’80s and ’90s was not A decade, it was TWO decades. Also, in the US, every decade is a decade of low energy prices. If you don’t believe me, ask a European.
Low energy prices means more and bigger automobiles, less emphasis on energy efficiency and alternative supplies, and increased health consequences for everyone. Your independent thinking is, once again, amazingly similar to a Republican talking point.
Well, when you have kids, dogs, crates, suitcases, etc, you expect us to pile into a clown car or take a bus? I own a big car due to necessity and safety.
When gas spiked under W, did you say “this is wonderful”? I guess we should go to a one child policy?
to an industry where the top 3 US oil companies made $80 b in profits and the top 5 made $137 b in profits last year reduce energy prices?
Are they making money because of the risks the are taking, due to the tax incentives? I would like to know the consequences not only to gas prices, but jobs, who may lose them, if any. Nobody is answering my balanced approach to this question regarding Anwar, keystone, etc.
“I am glad you agree with me on taxing colleges, b/c someone else told me he never agrees with me. imagine never agreeing with someone?”
When you say something I agree with, I’ll let you know.
Did not you agree with me about the govt regulating college tuitions? That was my idea.
A progressive tax on college tuition would lead colleges to cut their tuition and costs in order to keep their enrollment up (based on the assumption that they already set their tuitions as high as they can), and make students more sensitive to how much they are spending. Taxing the land also makes sense, that would stop schools from buying up so much and starving cities and state of revenue, and reward schools that were frugal with their real estate. The revenue from those taxes could be used to pay for better public education and scholarships.
On the subject of oil subsidies – you don’t know what you are talking about.
’cause you know, it’s not that obvious in his current proposal.
Just sayin’