Free Republic

Yeah - we pretty much agree. You can have unsecured loans, such as credit cards, but then the interest rate must be high. I'd argue a student loan's interest rate should probably be even higher since it's tied to someone with no credit and no proven income stream.

I have no issue in general with the lending to students. The only problem is, these kids are fairly irrational. If they were making rational decisions, they would choose not to get a huge loan for a degree that has no value in the marketplace. Obviously, the empirical evidence does not provide much evidence of said rationality.

I don't disagree with you that easy lending has reduced school accountability, but this is a free market. Schools offer a product, banks lend, and students borrow and purchase the product. So long as I am not subsidizing anyone's poor decisions, I'm not sure why I should try to disrupt the free market. Of course, that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on the wisdom of these decisions. But I'm willing to grant others the freedom to make mistakes if they are willing to reciprocate! :)

I don't know what the current interest rate on student loans is, but that's irrelevant. There is absolutely no question that it is lower (much lower) than it would be without the provision that you cannot default on these loans. Common sense dictates that this is true.

Imagine you are a lender and you lend under two scenarios. In one, there is no collateral and the borrower has zero assets and the loan is default-able. In the second, the loan is not default-able under any scenario. Which loan would you charge the lower interest rate on?

I do not understand why “student loans” are treated differently than other debts.
The bankruptcy laws should not treat some debts differently than others.

It's pretty straightforward. Normal debts include in them an embedded "default" option, which borrows pay for via a higher interest rate. The USA has decided that the country benefits by having student loans with lower interest rates. I'm not expressing my personal opinion here -- I'm just making an observation. One way to achieve this is to subsidize the loans. Another way to achieve this is to remove the "default" option typically embedded in loans.

There is no reason why we cannot change the system (if that's what people want) to one where individuals can default on their student loans. If we did so, interest rates would be *much* higher. Further, you could imagine that those pursuing liberal arts degrees would pay higher interest than those pursuing medical degrees. There would be great informational content in student loan rates.

I haven't given too much thought to the issue, but I would probably favor the change. However, it is extremely clear to me why student loans are treated differently than other debts.

BTW - you could imagine a system where people can choose whether the default option is included. However, the signal via their selection would be extremely informative. Those who chose no default would have very low interest rates. Those who chose the loan with the embedded option would have extraordinarily high interest rates. For this reason, it isn't surprising that all loans are structured in the same way, and in this case, for whatever reason, our country has chosen the low interest rate no default version.

You are an idiot.

Ok, so the 10 pct not registered to vote may inflate the lead by a few percentage points. McCain’s on thin ice if he needs to count on the Bradley effect to win.

CBS-New York Times Poll... Ummmm.... CBS-New York Times Poll. Sort of like the square root of a negative 1....

Granted, but McCain is behind in every single national poll that I'm aware of. It's hard not to be concerned...

Are you serious? Almost 8 yrs and this is your first post? And you blew it!!! :) jk

:) - I've replied to other messages, but haven't posted an article before. I generally just enjoy reading all the comments.

Oops... my first article post. I didn’t realize it would put in the excerpt link automatically! :) Now I know.

I sincerely hope Palin is able to help turn this around tomorrow...

Socialism.

Normally, I would immediately agree with you. In fact, it was the first word that popped into my head.

But Alaska might be a special case. I could be mistaken, but I believe that there is no income tax and there is no sales tax in Alaska. In fact, I think everyone in Alaska gets a check from the state and that this money comes from Oil rights or something. In this circumstance and in this setting, is it really socialist to distribute state surplus in this manner? It would seem strange to distribute surplus proportional to income in this setting.

I guess, unless I'm mistaken about the setting, I wouldn't think such a plan is actually unfair.

This has to be an April fools joke. It just has to be. What’s scary is that it wouldn’t have surprised me if it were true.

Because it is bizarre and I am curious to know what is rotten at the core of the Romney men.

Is it bizarre to have several generations of men not have served in the military? I don't know the stats, but I bet a large percentage of our populace fit this profile.

Is someone rotten at the core if they do not serve in the military? If so, the supermajority of our country is rotten to the core. If not, then why does someone become rotten to the core if their father didn't serve? To me, its an absurdity to criticize someone for their parents' actions.

You do remember that his WWII era father was running as an anti war presidential candidate during the Vietnam war?

How is this relevant at all? His father could have been a mass murder and it would still have no influence on my opinion of him. It is just not fair to be a slave to a family history that you have no control over.

Now Mitt is running and it turns out that he doesn’t have a couple of daughters or a couple of sons, he has FIVE sons.

Then I start looking for any Romney man that has served America in uniform, but no.

First you blame Romney for the action of his lineage. Now you blame him for the actions of his children. Do his children have free will or are they Mitt's slaves? Whether his sons (five or two thousand) served American in uniform is an individual decision made by each child.

Romney is a mystery to most of us and this bizarre perfect record is unsettling for a Republican war time candidate.

Will you only vote for someone who has served in the military? It's a reasonable criteria, I guess. But it seems that would narrow the field quite a bit.

Something is strange about his family.

What's strange about this family? Doesn't seem out of the ordinary to me, especially for a wealthy family.

Yes, why has no Romney male in your line, in all of history ever worn the uniform of the United States Military?

*******************
This question is not fair at all. Ask him why he chose not to wear the uniform. Why should you denigrate him for the decisions of his father, grandfather, etc.? It is totally inappropriate to judge one for the actions, positive or negative, of their lineage.
*******************

BTW, do you support reparations for slavery?

Yes, why has no Romney male in your line, in all of history ever worn the uniform of the United States Military?

This question is not fair at all. Ask him why he chose not to wear the uniform. Why should you denigrate him for the decisions of his father, grandfather, etc.? It is totally inappropriate to judge one for the actions, positive or negative, of their lineage.

It’s common practice for these telcos to restart your service commitment term upon a change in the contract

I know this may be the case, but for a new contract, don't they need a new agreement? When we upgraded our phones and got the new 2 year contract, we had to sign an agreement - an explicit agreement to extend the contract. I don't understand how it can automatically extend without an agreement, when their own terms of service says that Sprint "may require you to accept a new Term Commitment". Without a written agreement, whose to say if they required an acceptance of a new Term Commitment and whose to say whether I agreed to such an acceptance?

You're right. Climb up the ladder of supervisors until you get satisfaction. Failing that, have a lawyer send them a letter telling them you're taking them to small claims court. If they don't respond in an appropriate manner, file a small claims court action. You'll go; they'll have to spend money to send a representative (if not, they'll probably lose the case); you'll meet with an arbitrator; there you'll tell your story and then show them the quote above about the different phones having different time frames of service. Against this clear description, their claims of your "not contesting" something that they can't show you ever saw, their claims that you agreed to something you never heard and of which they have no recording, and their claims that there is an implicit renewal will all look like the calculating screw-you-over ploy it actually is. The judge will probably find against them. But I bet they settle before going this far because their lawyers will be more expensive than giving in to you. They'll do what costs them the least. But you've got to provide the context and set the bar.

So at what point do I get the lawyer involved? Do I cancel, wait for them to bill me and then bring in the lawyer? This guy was the second guy up the chain of supervisors - maybe I need to go higher. I'd like to cancel immediately because I don't want to pay for service I'm not using. If its choosing between paying the early cancellation fee and continuing the service, it financially makes sense to continue the service (even if unused) until October.

I'm pretty ignorant about the law, but what do I take them to small claims court for? I'm not suing them for money, I'm just trying to prevent them from charging me for something I don't owe. How does this work?

Thanks for the link, its the type I was looking for. I’m still wondering if anyone can tell me what to expect going forward through the fcc? What kind of “fight” will I have or does the fcc just take over? Or does simply having the fcc involved scare Sprint into doing the right thing?

But how can they automatically renew? I thought in America a contract requires some sort of signature. I don’t believe the original contract states that the contract automatically renews with a 1-day grace period. And even if it does, if they can’t produce the original contract with my signature, then it doesn’t matter what the original contract says.

This is why we choose not to have insurance. When my oldest son cut his head open it cost us $75 cash at the doctor's office.

That's why you don't have insurance! What would you have done if god forbid your oldest soon had Leukemia? Taken him to the doctor for $75? People on this thread are unbelievable!