Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

[Joe Fan]

Education doesn't equal intelligence or even knowledge. ...

The college system has become a giant money laundering scheme.
I was reading the other day about the % of student debt now not being repaid. I cant recall exactly, but it has grown to a very large number. Unsustainable.

And, on top of that, it's become something of a widget factory that apparently produces graduates who think socialism is the answer.

 

[Brad Austin]

The college system has become a giant money laundering scheme.
I was reading the other day about the % of student debt now not being repaid. I cant recall exactly, but it has grown to a very large number. Unsustainable.

The student loan scam is an atrocity that parallels the mortgage scam of the past. They've done almost the exact same thing. It's some really crooked sh*t.

The gov made student loan collection guaranteed and shielded from bankruptcy. In default and repayment plans they allow withholding of wages.

Without risk of losing means of collection due to default like normal loans, the loaning institutions handed out loans like candy to everyone who applied.

In turn this allowed colleges to jack up prices because loans provided guaranteed means of payment for students.

They also packaged these loans in bundles and resold them countless times. Same deal they did with mortgages.

The amount of college grads I know with massive student loan debt is startling. Student loans were so easy to get that people stopped working their way through college.

 

[Joe Fan]

The student loan scam is an atrocity that parallels the mortgage scam of the past. They've done almost the exact same thing. It's some really crooked sh*t.....

Probably why La Familia Sanders went into one so hard

 

[Joe Fan]

Related to the earlier question?

 

[mchammer]

The student loan scam is an atrocity that parallels the mortgage scam of the past. They've done almost the exact same thing. It's some really crooked sh*t.

The gov made student loan collection guaranteed and shielded from bankruptcy. In default and repayment plans they allow withholding of wages.

Without risk of losing means of collection due to default like normal loans, the loaning institutions handed out loans like candy to everyone who applied.

In turn this allowed colleges to jack up prices because loans provided guaranteed means of payment for students.

They also packaged these loans in bundles and resold them countless times. Same deal they did with mortgages.

The amount of college grads I know with massive student loan debt is startling. Student loans were so easy to get that people stopped working their way through college.

Yep, they also made other lifestyle choices that they would never had chosen if it was their own money.

 

[Joe Fan]

"Spanish border enclaves under violent siege as increasing hordes of African migrants storm barriers"

"CEUTA, Spain — A knife attack by an Islamist fanatic at the border crossing between Spain and Morocco last week has highlighted concerns about terrorists infiltrating among the hordes of migrants who relentlessly press up against the flimsy barriers of Europe’s two land borders with Africa.

In a recurring pattern of Islamic State-inspired violence seen in Israel, Europe and the U.S., a Moroccan national shouting “Allahu akhbar” stabbed a Spanish police officer before being overpowered Tuesday along the entrance to Spain’s North African enclave of Melilla. Just 240 miles to the west, hundreds of migrants threatened to force their way into Ceuta, Spain’s other holding on Africa’s Mediterranean coast.

The pressures are increasing as Madrid and other European capitals struggle to deal with a surge in migrants fleeing wars and seeking economic opportunity. Over the past two years, the surge has divided the European Union, upended the domestic political landscape in numerous countries and sparked harsh criticism from human rights groups.

The Spanish Interior Ministry is projecting a threefold increase in the flow of immigrants from Africa this year, with more than 10,750 seeking to enter the country in the first half of 2017. The office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has predicted a drastic rise immigration to Spain, warning that it could soon face the same pressures that have plagued Italy, which has been swamped by 59,000 illegal immigrants since January....."​

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/31/africa-migrants-test-spains-barriers-tolerance/

 

[Joe Fan]

The total number is based on a new report out by the US Bureau of Prisons
A full 23% of all federal inmates are illegal aliens (42,034 of 187,855 total)
Only 7 of them have been granted relief from deportation

Here is the breakdown --
19,749 (46.9%) are aliens who have received final orders of removal.
21,121 (50.2%) are aliens who are under ICE investigation for possible removal.
1,157 (2.8%) are aliens whose cases are pending adjudication before an Immigration Judge in the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR)
7 (.0002%) are aliens who have been granted relief

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...-42034-saved-from-deportation/article/2630999

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

The student loan scam is an atrocity that parallels the mortgage scam of the past. They've done almost the exact same thing. It's some really crooked sh*t.

The gov made student loan collection guaranteed and shielded from bankruptcy. In default and repayment plans they allow withholding of wages.

Without risk of losing means of collection due to default like normal loans, the loaning institutions handed out loans like candy to everyone who applied.

In turn this allowed colleges to jack up prices because loans provided guaranteed means of payment for students.

They also packaged these loans in bundles and resold them countless times. Same deal they did with mortgages.

The amount of college grads I know with massive student loan debt is startling. Student loans were so easy to get that people stopped working their way through college.

My buddy was telling me about a mortgage client he had that had over $300,000 in student loan debt....a couple in their 50's....making $32,000 and $55,000 respectively. This money will never ever be paid back. How the heck do you lend this kind of money to people to go to school ?

 

[Brad Austin]

This money will never ever be paid back. How the heck do you lend this kind of money to people to go to school ?

It's a widespread issue with future fallout most can't even fathom at the moment. Barring student loan forgiveness legislation wiping out a heavy majority of debt, it pretty much guarantees millions will have little to no savings once they hit retirement age.

Not to mention most in this age range are far enough away from social security that it's very unlikely to still be around once they hit 65+.

Those who set up this scam knew exactly what they were doing. Guaranteed approval + guaranteed collection + sky rocketing college costs.

They basically schemed to create a new monster class of capable Americans that'll have no choice but be dependent on the state for survival in coming decades.

I can only hope the American people resist and demand loan forgiveness to stiff these f*cking thieves. Stealing the future financial freedom from the most promising young citizens is a total disgrace.

We all know who was behind creating these absurd rules. Doesn't take a genius to guess which side gains from increased numbers of state dependent voters. The same side who runs academia and makes a fortune off guaranteed payment of jacked up prices.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

It's a widespread issue with future fallout most can't even fathom at the moment. Barring student loan forgiveness legislation wiping out a heavy majority of debt, it pretty much guarantees millions will have little to no savings once they hit retirement age.

Not to mention most in this age range are far enough away from social security that it's very unlikely to still be around once they hit 65+.

Those who set up this scam knew exactly what they were doing. Guaranteed approval + guaranteed collection + sky rocketing college costs.

They basically schemed to create a new monster class of capable Americans that'll have no choice but be dependent on the state for survival in coming decades.

I can only hope the American people resist and demand loan forgiveness to stiff these f*cking thieves. Stealing the future financial freedom from the most promising young citizens is a total disgrace.

We all know who was behind creating these absurd rules. Doesn't take a genius to guess which side gains from increased numbers of state dependent voters. The same side who runs academia and makes a fortune off guaranteed payment of jacked up prices.

Mortgage companies (FNMA) are already starting to take actions to mitigate their exposure. They used to allow a 0(zero) to be counted for student loan payments in deferment, thereby letting the borrower get into more debt than they could really handle on the premise that the deferment was an obligation not currently due. Recently they have required that lenders start counting at least an income-based-repayment plan and in some cases require at least a 1% payment to be reflected in the ratios.

I want to find out how to "Big Short" these lenders because it is a house of cards....again.

 

[Crockett]

Education, like turn signals, isn't just for smart people anymore.

 

[Brad Austin]

I want to find out how to "Big Short" these lenders because it is a house of cards....again.

The similarities between the two scams are eerie and equally massive in the amount of people and funds caught in their net.

It's gotta come crashing down at some point, be interesting to figure out how to profit off the misery of the sharks.

 

[mchammer]

The similarities between the two scams are eerie and equally massive in the amount of people and funds caught in their net.

It's gotta come crashing down at some point, be interesting to figure out how to profit off the misery of the sharks.

Disagree. You can't walk away from your loan like a mortgage. You are obligated to pay, even if it means your pay is garnished for a fraction of the amount you owe. It's a slow moving disaster that will resolve itself via inflation and a slow write down of assets.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Disagree. You can't walk away from your loan like a mortgage. You are obligated to pay, even if it means your pay is garnished for a fraction of the amount you owe. It's a slow moving disaster that will resolve itself via inflation and a slow write down of assets.

You are correct. A student loan creditor is in a better shape than a mortgage creditor. First, as you mentioned, a student loan creditor doesn't have to fear bankruptcy court like a mortgage creditor does. And though the mortgage creditor has the power to foreclose on the house, if housing values are tanking as they were during the mortgage crisis, foreclosure isn't an adequate remedy. Furthermore, the debtor isn't completely without rights in a foreclosure proceeding. It was at least rumored that my Trusts and Estates professor in law school can tie up any foreclosure for 30 years if he wants to. I'm sure that's an exaggeration, but the point is that it's not always cut and dry.

Second, the student loan creditor doesn't need a bailout, because it already has one. If it can't collect from the debtor, the taxpayer will step in. So instead of the government having to fork out a sudden, massive, and politically controversial $700B bailout, the student loan creditor can quietly collect its bailout on a loan-by-loan basis - no need to bankroll favorable politicians, no media outrage or big story, no having to hire expensive lobbyists. It's still a trainwreck, but it's a trainwreck in extremely slow motion. In fact, it's slow enough to be unnoticeable at a given point in time, which makes it even worse in some ways.

 

[Brad Austin]

Disagree. You can't walk away from your loan like a mortgage. You are obligated to pay, even if it means your pay is garnished for a fraction of the amount you owe.

I'm in agreement with you here that this aspect is the big difference. I def stated many times that these loans are fully protected from default which led to gross abuse in other areas like sky rocketing college prices.

The eerie similarities I was referring to has to do with how they roped so many people in with easy approval for all, the huge amount of funds involved, and most importantly the widespread practice of bundling these loans for resale multiple times.

But yes to your point this scam is even worse due to 100% protection from default.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[mchammer]

I'm in agreement with you here that this aspect is the big difference. I def stated many times that these loans are fully protected from default which led to gross abuse in other areas like sky rocketing college prices.

The eerie similarities I was referring to has to do with how they roped so many people in with easy approval for all, the huge amount of funds involved, and most importantly the widespread practice of bundling these loans for resale multiple times.

But yes to your point this scam is even worse due to 100% protection from default.

Bottom line: giving free money to people is always a bad idea as they will inevitably do stupid **** with it.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Bottom line: giving free money to people is always a bad idea as they will inevitably do stupid **** with it.

I'd agree but found this article interesting. Zambia has literally been giving free cash to it's poorest citizens and the results have been positive. There are obviously a lot of differences between Zambia and some bloke in the projects of Chicago but these micro-experiments should be monitored.

 

[Mr. Deez]

FWIW, Milton Friedman favored a negative income tax, which is basically a guaranteed income.

 

[Seattle Husker]

FWIW, Milton Friedman favored a negative income tax, which is basically a guaranteed income.

As more lower income jobs get automated out of existence due to technology this is a serious issue to consider. Whether you give the money outright (i.e. a block grant) or fund it in the form of a social service there will be a subset of our population that literally won't have a role to play.

 

[mchammer]

I'd agree but found this article interesting. Zambia has literally been giving free cash to it's poorest citizens and the results have been positive. There are obviously a lot of differences between Zambia and some bloke in the projects of Chicago but these micro-experiments should be monitored.

I should clarify that I was assuming the money had to be repaid eventually. In that light, stupid stuff means not investing wisely.

 

[Mr. Deez]

As more lower income jobs get automated out of existence due to technology this is a serious issue to consider. Whether you give the money outright (i.e. a block grant) or fund it in the form of a social service there will be a subset of our population that literally won't have a role to play.

I first remember hearing the idea back in the late '90s in a course called "American Public Policy" that I took back in college, and my initial kneejerk response was to crap on it. However, we were required to study the policy justifications from both from Milton Friedman (who was following Friedrich Hayek's position) and Martin Luther King (who made it his top priority after the Civil Rights Act), and frankly both of them had strong arguments that made a lot of sense. Link. Since then, I haven't necessarily jumped on board, but I'm at least receptive depending on the specifics.

Frankly I'm surprised we didn't adopt it in the late '60s or early '70s, and had MLK lived, I think there's a good chance we might have. Democrats weren't very enthusiastic about it back then, because they had just launched the War on Poverty and wanted to keep the focus on expanding those programs. Furthermore, because the War on Poverty was a top-down, centrally-planned and controlled gaggle of welfare programs, which was somewhat in conflict with the core principle of a UBI, which was economic empowerment of the individual recipient.

However, after the 1968 election, Nixon (who supported a UBI) was in the White House, and though the GOP didn't control Congress, it had a bigger and more powerful minority than it had had in several years. Had MLK lived, he very possibly could have helped build a coalition of Northern and West Coast Republicans and black empowerment liberals to get it done. The opposition would have been Southern Democrats and academically-oriented liberals (who were the big force behind the War on Poverty programs), but they may not have had the numbers ot stop it. It would have been a close call.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I first remember hearing the idea back in the late '90s in a course called "American Public Policy" that I took back in college, and my initial kneejerk response was to crap on it. However, we were required to study the policy justifications from both from Milton Friedman (who was following Friedrich Hayek's position) and Martin Luther King (who made it his top priority after the Civil Rights Act), and frankly both of them had strong arguments that made a lot of sense. Link. Since then, I haven't necessarily jumped on board, but I'm at least receptive depending on the specifics.

Frankly I'm surprised we didn't adopt it in the late '60s or early '70s, and had MLK lived, I think there's a good chance we might have. Democrats weren't very enthusiastic about it back then, because they had just launched the War on Poverty and wanted to keep the focus on expanding those programs. Furthermore, because the War on Poverty was a top-down, centrally-planned and controlled gaggle of welfare programs, which was somewhat in conflict with the core principle of a UBI, which was economic empowerment of the individual recipient.

However, after the 1968 election, Nixon (who supported a UBI) was in the White House, and though the GOP didn't control Congress, it had a bigger and more powerful minority than it had had in several years. Had MLK lived, he very possibly could have helped build a coalition of Northern and West Coast Republicans and black empowerment liberals to get it done. The opposition would have been Southern Democrats and academically-oriented liberals (who were the big force behind the War on Poverty programs), but they may not have had the numbers ot stop it. It would have been a close call.

Canada experimented with universal income or what they called "mincome" in the 70's. Here's an easy read on how it worked out in Dauphne, a mostly immigrant community.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Bottom line: giving free money to people is always a bad idea as they will inevitably do stupid **** with it.

I'm not in agreement with this. I think smart policy for TEMPORARY/SHORT TERM free money is a good idea. I think accessible college loans are good policy, but the key is smart policy. I don't think anyone, ever, should be able to borrow more to go to college than they are likely to ever be able to pay back. How would I stipulate an amount? I would use some percentage of median income. For the rest of the balance, I would tell them "go earn it first, or get it from mom/dad/uncle/church, etc". For example, in Dallas median income is around $58,000. I would limit all student loans to a max of 25% of this number. That's roughly $15,000. That would get you 5 years of Collin County CC with some left over for books, etc. If you want to go to UT, Harvard or something more expensive....get a scholarship.

I would also suggest that there be a higher bar for academic preparedness for all institutions. And hold institutions accountable for drop out rate.

It's not right (or smart) that we sell college as the solution for everyone and then let these 18 year olds get fleeced by some of these colleges. If a kid is going to borrow money to pay for college they need to have a decent chance of completing it.

It's not the fault of many of these kids that their parents did squat to pave the way. There needs to be a viable path or we really need to give up on proclaiming ourselves "the land of opportunity".

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

As more lower income jobs get automated out of existence due to technology this is a serious issue to consider. Whether you give the money outright (i.e. a block grant) or fund it in the form of a social service there will be a subset of our population that literally won't have a role to play.

Completely agree. Which is another reason we seriously need to limit all immigration. Those jobs that are going away are largely in this population. It makes zero sense to invite people in that are likely to not have jobs in a decade. Or worse yet, invite people in so that existing US citizens won't have jobs in the future.

 

[iatrogenic]

Canada experimented with universal income or what they called "mincome" in the 70's. Here's an easy read on how it worked out in Dauphne, a mostly immigrant community.

Like all other giveaways, only those receiving the benefits are examined. If the people the money was taken from were examined, I am guessing the exact opposite result would be revealed.

Obviously, if you take $16,000 from your savings account and give it to me, I am better off. You, not so much.

 

[Joe Fan]

"Can anyone really justify the Wall?"

 

[Joe Fan]

"Can anyone really justify the Wall?"

 

[Joe Fan]

Can you guess who is now attempting to end “Irregular” Migration?

LOL

“Canada is an opening and welcoming society. But let me be clear. We are also a country of laws . .... There are rigorous immigration and customs rules that will be followed. Make no mistake.”​

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...5a71&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

 

[Joe Fan]

We built a wall in Yuma.
it works

".... For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.

It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.

The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.

We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.

Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing....."​

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ector-proves-it-elaine-duke-column/586853001/