J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I said nothing about $500k. Pay the really good ones $100k or so

---

What you said is that teachers should be the best paid profession in the country. I just gave you a number that would put them somewhere around the top 1%. If we took your suggestion as you wrote it, then what you are saying is that we should compensate teachers better than we compensate CEOs of the largest, most successful companies in the country. That would make their salary in the millions.

While your suggestion sounded nice, it was a silly suggestion after further inspection. And no, teachers should not be paid $100,000 either. They don't even work a full year.

---

Yes, the good ones should. That is how u entice quality people. And btw, they basically get a month off in the summer. And I said school should be year round. $100k ain't much these days

---

100k is still a damned fine living, depending on your lifestyle.

---

one can live just fine on $100k in most places.

---

Only $100k a year in California or New York puts you in the soup line. One of many reasons these folks are finding themselves another state.

---

Then again, everyone has a choice.

---

If one chooses to live in the Hood, then yes, you can stretch $100k a long way. This rule applies to most any state.

---

one can live in just about any Texas suburb well on $100K

---

It's been a while since you shopped for a house

---

I think I have a fairly good handle on RE in Texas. I recently sold one pre Rona. I'm not saying one needs to live in the $750K house in the relatively nice parts of Frisco, Southlake, Plano ect. May need to move out and increase your commute. Also, people don't need 5000 square feet for a family of 4.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I said nothing about $500k. Pay the really good ones $100k or so

---

What you said is that teachers should be the best paid profession in the country. I just gave you a number that would put them somewhere around the top 1%. If we took your suggestion as you wrote it, then what you are saying is that we should compensate teachers better than we compensate CEOs of the largest, most successful companies in the country. That would make their salary in the millions.

While your suggestion sounded nice, it was a silly suggestion after further inspection. And no, teachers should not be paid $100,000 either. They don't even work a full year.

---

Yes, the good ones should. That is how u entice quality people. And btw, they basically get a month off in the summer. And I said school should be year round. $100k ain't much these days

---

100k is still a damned fine living, depending on your lifestyle.

---

one can live just fine on $100k in most places.

---

Only $100k a year in California or New York puts you in the soup line. One of many reasons these folks are finding themselves another state.

---

Then again, everyone has a choice.

---

If one chooses to live in the Hood, then yes, you can stretch $100k a long way. This rule applies to most any state.

---

one can live in just about any Texas suburb well on $100K

---

It's been a while since you shopped for a house

---

If you can't live on 100k it's entirely a you problem. You might not have 2 brand new 50k cars or go to Disneyland on vacation twice a year but there's no reason you can't have a 350-400k house and a couple cars and some cash left over.

With no real deductions 100k should net you around $5,500/mo in post tax income, more in places like Texas or Florida with no state income tax.

100k is not rich but unless you have really poor spending habits it should be really comfortable in probably 90% of the country. You're not going to live in Park cities but you can find boatloads of places to live in DFW on 100k and be just fine.

Yea this whole 100K not being enough money is comical. That's on par with the average income of Allen, McKinney, Woodway (Waco is surprisingly expensive), and I'm sure several other prominent suburbs in Texas. All about priorities. Guns vs butter. Things that appreciate like your home vs things that depreciate like your fancy car that declines in value the moment you drive it off the lot. Too many people trying to have champagne taste on an ice tea budget.

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I said nothing about $500k. Pay the really good ones $100k or so

---

What you said is that teachers should be the best paid profession in the country. I just gave you a number that would put them somewhere around the top 1%. If we took your suggestion as you wrote it, then what you are saying is that we should compensate teachers better than we compensate CEOs of the largest, most successful companies in the country. That would make their salary in the millions.

While your suggestion sounded nice, it was a silly suggestion after further inspection. And no, teachers should not be paid $100,000 either. They don't even work a full year.

---

Yes, the good ones should. That is how u entice quality people. And btw, they basically get a month off in the summer. And I said school should be year round. $100k ain't much these days

---

100k is still a damned fine living, depending on your lifestyle.

---

one can live just fine on $100k in most places.

---

Only $100k a year in California or New York puts you in the soup line. One of many reasons these folks are finding themselves another state.

---

Then again, everyone has a choice.

---

If one chooses to live in the Hood, then yes, you can stretch $100k a long way. This rule applies to most any state.

---

one can live in just about any Texas suburb well on $100K

---

It's been a while since you shopped for a house

---

If you can't live on 100k it's entirely a you problem. You might not have 2 brand new 50k cars or go to Disneyland on vacation twice a year but there's no reason you can't have a 350-400k house and a couple cars and some cash left over.

With no real deductions 100k should net you around $5,500/mo in post tax income, more in places like Texas or Florida with no state income tax.

100k is not rich but unless you have really poor spending habits it should be really comfortable in probably 90% of the country. You're not going to live in Park cities but you can find boatloads of places to live in DFW on 100k and be just fine.

---

Zactly.

Always hilarious to hear the plethora of moral reasons the government shouldn't help people.

Conservative v liberal in a nutshell.

In a vacuum, I'd agree, the government doesn't need to be paying off student loans, but this isn't a vacuum, the government is directly responsible for the extent of these loans. Tuition needs to be 10-15k a year, not 40-100k.

Government does need to offer some assistance, and also limit what it will loan out, to some amount not debilitating for most college grads.

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I said nothing about $500k. Pay the really good ones $100k or so

---

What you said is that teachers should be the best paid profession in the country. I just gave you a number that would put them somewhere around the top 1%. If we took your suggestion as you wrote it, then what you are saying is that we should compensate teachers better than we compensate CEOs of the largest, most successful companies in the country. That would make their salary in the millions.

While your suggestion sounded nice, it was a silly suggestion after further inspection. And no, teachers should not be paid $100,000 either. They don't even work a full year.

---

Yes, the good ones should. That is how u entice quality people. And btw, they basically get a month off in the summer. And I said school should be year round. $100k ain't much these days

---

100k is still a damned fine living, depending on your lifestyle.

---

one can live just fine on $100k in most places.

---

Only $100k a year in California or New York puts you in the soup line. One of many reasons these folks are finding themselves another state.

---

Then again, everyone has a choice.

---

If one chooses to live in the Hood, then yes, you can stretch $100k a long way. This rule applies to most any state.

---

one can live in just about any Texas suburb well on $100K

---

It's been a while since you shopped for a house

---

I think I have a fairly good handle on RE in Texas. I'm not saying one needs to live in the $750K house in the relatively nice parts of Frisco, Southlake, Plano ect. May need to move out and increase your commute. Also, people don't need 5000 square feet for a family of 4.

---

I live in Woodway. I don't believe there is a house in this suburb that would go for $100,000.

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I said nothing about $500k. Pay the really good ones $100k or so

---

What you said is that teachers should be the best paid profession in the country. I just gave you a number that would put them somewhere around the top 1%. If we took your suggestion as you wrote it, then what you are saying is that we should compensate teachers better than we compensate CEOs of the largest, most successful companies in the country. That would make their salary in the millions.

While your suggestion sounded nice, it was a silly suggestion after further inspection. And no, teachers should not be paid $100,000 either. They don't even work a full year.

---

Yes, the good ones should. That is how u entice quality people. And btw, they basically get a month off in the summer. And I said school should be year round. $100k ain't much these days

---

100k is still a damned fine living, depending on your lifestyle.

---

one can live just fine on $100k in most places.

---

Only $100k a year in California or New York puts you in the soup line. One of many reasons these folks are finding themselves another state.

---

Then again, everyone has a choice.

---

If one chooses to live in the Hood, then yes, you can stretch $100k a long way. This rule applies to most any state.

---

one can live in just about any Texas suburb well on $100K

---

It's been a while since you shopped for a house

---

I think I have a fairly good handle on RE in Texas. I'm not saying one needs to live in the $750K house in the relatively nice parts of Frisco, Southlake, Plano ect. May need to move out and increase your commute. Also, people don't need 5000 square feet for a family of 4.

---

I live in Woodway. I don't believe there is a house in this suburb that would go for $100,000.

---

He's talking about living on 100k income. Not buying a house for 100k.

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I said nothing about $500k. Pay the really good ones $100k or so

---

What you said is that teachers should be the best paid profession in the country. I just gave you a number that would put them somewhere around the top 1%. If we took your suggestion as you wrote it, then what you are saying is that we should compensate teachers better than we compensate CEOs of the largest, most successful companies in the country. That would make their salary in the millions.

While your suggestion sounded nice, it was a silly suggestion after further inspection. And no, teachers should not be paid $100,000 either. They don't even work a full year.

---

Yes, the good ones should. That is how u entice quality people. And btw, they basically get a month off in the summer. And I said school should be year round. $100k ain't much these days

---

100k is still a damned fine living, depending on your lifestyle.

---

one can live just fine on $100k in most places.

---

Only $100k a year in California or New York puts you in the soup line. One of many reasons these folks are finding themselves another state.

---

Then again, everyone has a choice.

---

If one chooses to live in the Hood, then yes, you can stretch $100k a long way. This rule applies to most any state.

---

one can live in just about any Texas suburb well on $100K

---

It's been a while since you shopped for a house

---

I think I have a fairly good handle on RE in Texas. I'm not saying one needs to live in the $750K house in the relatively nice parts of Frisco, Southlake, Plano ect. May need to move out and increase your commute. Also, people don't need 5000 square feet for a family of 4.

---

I live in Woodway. I don't believe there is a house in this suburb that would go for $100,000.

---

He's talking about living on 100k income. Not buying a house for 100k.

---

What does $100k income get you qualified for in the mortgage line? $300k or maybe $350k max?

Carlos Safety said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I said nothing about $500k. Pay the really good ones $100k or so

---

What you said is that teachers should be the best paid profession in the country. I just gave you a number that would put them somewhere around the top 1%. If we took your suggestion as you wrote it, then what you are saying is that we should compensate teachers better than we compensate CEOs of the largest, most successful companies in the country. That would make their salary in the millions.

While your suggestion sounded nice, it was a silly suggestion after further inspection. And no, teachers should not be paid $100,000 either. They don't even work a full year.

---

Yes, the good ones should. That is how u entice quality people. And btw, they basically get a month off in the summer. And I said school should be year round. $100k ain't much these days

---

100k is still a damned fine living, depending on your lifestyle.

---

one can live just fine on $100k in most places.

---

Only $100k a year in California or New York puts you in the soup line. One of many reasons these folks are finding themselves another state.

---

Then again, everyone has a choice.

---

If one chooses to live in the Hood, then yes, you can stretch $100k a long way. This rule applies to most any state.

---

one can live in just about any Texas suburb well on $100K

---

It's been a while since you shopped for a house

---

I think I have a fairly good handle on RE in Texas. I'm not saying one needs to live in the $750K house in the relatively nice parts of Frisco, Southlake, Plano ect. May need to move out and increase your commute. Also, people don't need 5000 square feet for a family of 4.

---

I live in Woodway. I don't believe there is a house in this suburb that would go for $100,000.

---

He's talking about living on 100k income. Not buying a house for 100k.

---

What does $100k income get you qualified for in the mortgage line? $300k or maybe $350k max?

---

Depends on your other bills. If you have no other bills it would be considerably more than that, with no other bills and 20% down you would qualify for around 500k.

However 350k buys a pretty nice house in most places.

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I said nothing about $500k. Pay the really good ones $100k or so

---

What you said is that teachers should be the best paid profession in the country. I just gave you a number that would put them somewhere around the top 1%. If we took your suggestion as you wrote it, then what you are saying is that we should compensate teachers better than we compensate CEOs of the largest, most successful companies in the country. That would make their salary in the millions.

While your suggestion sounded nice, it was a silly suggestion after further inspection. And no, teachers should not be paid $100,000 either. They don't even work a full year.

---

Yes, the good ones should. That is how u entice quality people. And btw, they basically get a month off in the summer. And I said school should be year round. $100k ain't much these days

---

100k is still a damned fine living, depending on your lifestyle.

---

one can live just fine on $100k in most places.

---

Only $100k a year in California or New York puts you in the soup line. One of many reasons these folks are finding themselves another state.

---

Then again, everyone has a choice.

---

If one chooses to live in the Hood, then yes, you can stretch $100k a long way. This rule applies to most any state.

---

one can live in just about any Texas suburb well on $100K

---

It's been a while since you shopped for a house

---

I think I have a fairly good handle on RE in Texas. I'm not saying one needs to live in the $750K house in the relatively nice parts of Frisco, Southlake, Plano ect. May need to move out and increase your commute. Also, people don't need 5000 square feet for a family of 4.

---

I live in Woodway. I don't believe there is a house in this suburb that would go for $100,000.

---

He's talking about living on 100k income. Not buying a house for 100k.

---

I don't know about that

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I said nothing about $500k. Pay the really good ones $100k or so

---

What you said is that teachers should be the best paid profession in the country. I just gave you a number that would put them somewhere around the top 1%. If we took your suggestion as you wrote it, then what you are saying is that we should compensate teachers better than we compensate CEOs of the largest, most successful companies in the country. That would make their salary in the millions.

While your suggestion sounded nice, it was a silly suggestion after further inspection. And no, teachers should not be paid $100,000 either. They don't even work a full year.

---

Yes, the good ones should. That is how u entice quality people. And btw, they basically get a month off in the summer. And I said school should be year round. $100k ain't much these days

---

100k is still a damned fine living, depending on your lifestyle.

---

one can live just fine on $100k in most places.

---

Only $100k a year in California or New York puts you in the soup line. One of many reasons these folks are finding themselves another state.

---

Then again, everyone has a choice.

---

If one chooses to live in the Hood, then yes, you can stretch $100k a long way. This rule applies to most any state.

---

one can live in just about any Texas suburb well on $100K

---

You can live well in Fort Davis on half of that .

Osodecentx said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I said nothing about $500k. Pay the really good ones $100k or so

---

What you said is that teachers should be the best paid profession in the country. I just gave you a number that would put them somewhere around the top 1%. If we took your suggestion as you wrote it, then what you are saying is that we should compensate teachers better than we compensate CEOs of the largest, most successful companies in the country. That would make their salary in the millions.

While your suggestion sounded nice, it was a silly suggestion after further inspection. And no, teachers should not be paid $100,000 either. They don't even work a full year.

---

Yes, the good ones should. That is how u entice quality people. And btw, they basically get a month off in the summer. And I said school should be year round. $100k ain't much these days

---

100k is still a damned fine living, depending on your lifestyle.

---

one can live just fine on $100k in most places.

---

Only $100k a year in California or New York puts you in the soup line. One of many reasons these folks are finding themselves another state.

---

Then again, everyone has a choice.

---

If one chooses to live in the Hood, then yes, you can stretch $100k a long way. This rule applies to most any state.

---

one can live in just about any Texas suburb well on $100K

---

It's been a while since you shopped for a house

---

I think I have a fairly good handle on RE in Texas. I'm not saying one needs to live in the $750K house in the relatively nice parts of Frisco, Southlake, Plano ect. May need to move out and increase your commute. Also, people don't need 5000 square feet for a family of 4.

---

I live in Woodway. I don't believe there is a house in this suburb that would go for $100,000.

---

He's talking about living on 100k income. Not buying a house for 100k.

---

I don't know about that

---

yes, my contention is that folks can live just fine on $100K. I don't know about Waco, so much, but in Dallas, where i live , given current interest rates, there a many, many nice suburbs where $275K gets you a nice home. I give you Richardson, Prosper, Celina, Copell, Grapevine , Flower Mound ect. As, Nein said, better not have big bills, payments, debt, big car payments ect. It can be done. I know people who do it.

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I said nothing about $500k. Pay the really good ones $100k or so

---

What you said is that teachers should be the best paid profession in the country. I just gave you a number that would put them somewhere around the top 1%. If we took your suggestion as you wrote it, then what you are saying is that we should compensate teachers better than we compensate CEOs of the largest, most successful companies in the country. That would make their salary in the millions.

While your suggestion sounded nice, it was a silly suggestion after further inspection. And no, teachers should not be paid $100,000 either. They don't even work a full year.

---

Yes, the good ones should. That is how u entice quality people. And btw, they basically get a month off in the summer. And I said school should be year round. $100k ain't much these days

---

100k is still a damned fine living, depending on your lifestyle.

---

one can live just fine on $100k in most places.

---

Only $100k a year in California or New York puts you in the soup line. One of many reasons these folks are finding themselves another state.

---

Then again, everyone has a choice.

---

If one chooses to live in the Hood, then yes, you can stretch $100k a long way. This rule applies to most any state.

---

one can live in just about any Texas suburb well on $100K

---

It's been a while since you shopped for a house

---

I think I have a fairly good handle on RE in Texas. I'm not saying one needs to live in the $750K house in the relatively nice parts of Frisco, Southlake, Plano ect. May need to move out and increase your commute. Also, people don't need 5000 square feet for a family of 4.

---

I live in Woodway. I don't believe there is a house in this suburb that would go for $100,000.

---

He's talking about living on 100k income. Not buying a house for 100k.

---

I don't know about that

---

yes, my contention is that folks can live just fine on $100K. I don't know about Waco, so much, but in Dallas, where i live , given current interest rates, there a many, many nice suburbs where $275K gets you a nice home. I give you Richardson, Prosper, Celina, Copell, Grapevine , Flower Mound ect. As, Nein said, better not have big bills, payments, debt, big car payments ect. It can be done. I know people who do it.

---

I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were talking about a 100 K house, not 100K annual sa;lary.

My mistake

Oldbear83 said:

---

I would say loans should not be forgiven, but recommend the following changes:

1. No government loans - this is not a valid function of government, and it only made things worse

2. No bank can be punished for declining to offer a loan

3. Student loans can be included in bankruptcies if those bankruptcies are filed at least 3 years after leaving college

4. Public Universities are not allowed to charge tuition beyond an amount paid in full by at least 60% by a combination of payment not supported by loan - e.g. direct cash payment, scholarships, or grants

5. Universities may not charge interest on unpaid tuition/fees, regardless of age

---

So price controls is your small government solution?

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

---

#4is a price control.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

---

#4is a price control.

---

Since I referenced public universities, it's no different than what legislatures have always done.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

---

#4is a price control.

---

Since I referenced public universities, it's no different than what legislatures have always done.

---

#4 is price control

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

---

#4is a price control.

---

Since I referenced public universities, it's no different than what legislatures have always done.

---

#4 is price control

---

You should stop repeating things, hoping it will stick this time.

It makes you look fanatical.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

---

#4is a price control.

---

Since I referenced public universities, it's no different than what legislatures have always done.

---

#4 is price control

---

You should stop repeating things, hoping it will stick this time.

It makes you look fanatical.

---

This is what you said:
4. Public Universities are not allowed to charge tuition beyond an amount paid in full by at least 60% by a combination of payment not supported by loan - e.g. direct cash payment, scholarships, or grants

I interpret this to mean that government will limit all public university tuition to your formula.

That is price control.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

---

#4is a price control.

---

Since I referenced public universities, it's no different than what legislatures have always done.

---

#4 is price control

---

You should stop repeating things, hoping it will stick this time.

It makes you look fanatical.

---

This is what you said:
4. Public Universities are not allowed to charge tuition beyond an amount paid in full by at least 60% by a combination of payment not supported by loan - e.g. direct cash payment, scholarships, or grants

I interpret this to mean that government will limit all public university tuition to your formula.

That is price control.

---

1. Go find a dictionary

2. Look up "legislature"

3. Apply that new knowledge to the question of who decides tuition at public universities, and how

4. Note that this is not new

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

---

#4is a price control.

---

Since I referenced public universities, it's no different than what legislatures have always done.

---

#4 is price control

---

You should stop repeating things, hoping it will stick this time.

It makes you look fanatical.

---

This is what you said:
4. Public Universities are not allowed to charge tuition beyond an amount paid in full by at least 60% by a combination of payment not supported by loan - e.g. direct cash payment, scholarships, or grants

I interpret this to mean that government will limit all public university tuition to your formula.

That is price control.

---

1. Go find a dictionary

2. Look up "legislature"

3. Apply that new knowledge to the question of who decides tuition at public universities, and how

4. Note that this is not new

---

Texas deregulated tuition rates at public universities in the late 90s or early 2000s.

I see you've retreated to insults as an attempt to persuade.

Bye

---

You're the one who keeps ignoring the point.

If you take an effort at correction as an insult, that's all on you, son.

And by the way, where are your suggestions to address the issue? You get your feelings hurt so easy, but if you don't even try to offer a solution, you really should not be trashing the people who are offering ideas.

You may note that I have not attacked anyone here for their suggestions. Give that a try the next time you feel like virtue signaling.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

---

#4is a price control.

---

Since I referenced public universities, it's no different than what legislatures have always done.

---

#4 is price control

---

You should stop repeating things, hoping it will stick this time.

It makes you look fanatical.

---

This is what you said:
4. Public Universities are not allowed to charge tuition beyond an amount paid in full by at least 60% by a combination of payment not supported by loan - e.g. direct cash payment, scholarships, or grants

I interpret this to mean that government will limit all public university tuition to your formula.

That is price control.

---

1. Go find a dictionary

2. Look up "legislature"

3. Apply that new knowledge to the question of who decides tuition at public universities, and how

4. Note that this is not new

---

Texas deregulated tuition rates at public universities in the late 90s or early 2000s.

I see you've retreated to insults as an attempt to persuade.

Bye

---

You're the one who keeps ignoring the point.

If you take an effort at correction as an insult, that's all on you, son.

And by the way, where are your suggestions to address the issue? You get your feelings hurt so easy, but if you don't even try to offer a solution, you really should not be trashing the people who are offering ideas.

You may note that I have not attacked anyone here for their suggestions. Give that a try the next time you feel like virtue signaling.

---

I've given my solutions.

Your price controls are not on my list. The market does a better job when govt stays out of it. That was a core point in my solution. If you see "End federal loan guarantees" in a DNC talking point you quote it this time instead of imputing it.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

---

#4is a price control.

---

Since I referenced public universities, it's no different than what legislatures have always done.

---

#4 is price control

---

You should stop repeating things, hoping it will stick this time.

It makes you look fanatical.

---

This is what you said:
4. Public Universities are not allowed to charge tuition beyond an amount paid in full by at least 60% by a combination of payment not supported by loan - e.g. direct cash payment, scholarships, or grants

I interpret this to mean that government will limit all public university tuition to your formula.

That is price control.

---

1. Go find a dictionary

2. Look up "legislature"

3. Apply that new knowledge to the question of who decides tuition at public universities, and how

4. Note that this is not new

---

Texas deregulated tuition rates at public universities in the late 90s or early 2000s.

I see you've retreated to insults as an attempt to persuade.

Bye

---

You're the one who keeps ignoring the point.

If you take an effort at correction as an insult, that's all on you, son.

And by the way, where are your suggestions to address the issue? You get your feelings hurt so easy, but if you don't even try to offer a solution, you really should not be trashing the people who are offering ideas.

You may note that I have not attacked anyone here for their suggestions. Give that a try the next time you feel like virtue signaling.

---

I've given my solutions.

Your price controls are not on my list. The market does a better job when govt stays out of it. That was a core point in my solution. If you see "End federal loan guarantees" in a DNC talking point you quote it this time instead of imputing it.

---

Quash, unless you are using Oso as a sock puppet, my last post was not directed to you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

---

#4is a price control.

---

Since I referenced public universities, it's no different than what legislatures have always done.

---

#4 is price control

---

You should stop repeating things, hoping it will stick this time.

It makes you look fanatical.

---

This is what you said:
4. Public Universities are not allowed to charge tuition beyond an amount paid in full by at least 60% by a combination of payment not supported by loan - e.g. direct cash payment, scholarships, or grants

I interpret this to mean that government will limit all public university tuition to your formula.

That is price control.

---

1. Go find a dictionary

2. Look up "legislature"

3. Apply that new knowledge to the question of who decides tuition at public universities, and how

4. Note that this is not new

---

Texas deregulated tuition rates at public universities in the late 90s or early 2000s.

I see you've retreated to insults as an attempt to persuade.

Bye

---

You're the one who keeps ignoring the point.

If you take an effort at correction as an insult, that's all on you, son.

And by the way, where are your suggestions to address the issue? You get your feelings hurt so easy, but if you don't even try to offer a solution, you really should not be trashing the people who are offering ideas.

You may note that I have not attacked anyone here for their suggestions. Give that a try the next time you feel like virtue signaling.

---

I've given my solutions.

Your price controls are not on my list. The market does a better job when govt stays out of it. That was a core point in my solution. If you see "End federal loan guarantees" in a DNC talking point you quote it this time instead of imputing it.

---

Quash, unless you are using Oso as a sock puppet, my last post was not directed to you.

---

Oh please, snowflake, you routinely reply to my posts that were directed at others. It is exactly how public messages work. Don't get in a tizzy when your remarks draw comments from any other poster than the one you were speaking to.

Or post less.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's not price control, its interest ceiling, which has legal precedent.

---

#4is a price control.

---

Since I referenced public universities, it's no different than what legislatures have always done.

---

#4 is price control

---

You should stop repeating things, hoping it will stick this time.

It makes you look fanatical.

---

This is what you said:
4. Public Universities are not allowed to charge tuition beyond an amount paid in full by at least 60% by a combination of payment not supported by loan - e.g. direct cash payment, scholarships, or grants

I interpret this to mean that government will limit all public university tuition to your formula.

That is price control.

---

1. Go find a dictionary

2. Look up "legislature"

3. Apply that new knowledge to the question of who decides tuition at public universities, and how

4. Note that this is not new

---

Texas deregulated tuition rates at public universities in the late 90s or early 2000s.

I see you've retreated to insults as an attempt to persuade.

Bye

---

You're the one who keeps ignoring the point.

If you take an effort at correction as an insult, that's all on you, son.

And by the way, where are your suggestions to address the issue? You get your feelings hurt so easy, but if you don't even try to offer a solution, you really should not be trashing the people who are offering ideas.

You may note that I have not attacked anyone here for their suggestions. Give that a try the next time you feel like virtue signaling.

---

I've given my solutions.

Your price controls are not on my list. The market does a better job when govt stays out of it. That was a core point in my solution. If you see "End federal loan guarantees" in a DNC talking point you quote it this time instead of imputing it.

---

Quash, unless you are using Oso as a sock puppet, my last post was not directed to you.

---

Oh please, snowflake, you routinely reply to my posts that were directed at others. It is exactly how public messages work. Don't get in a tizzy when your remarks draw comments from any other poster than the one you were speaking to.

Or post less.

---

IOW, quash feels obliged to step in wherever, regardless of context.

And I wrote to you out of clarity. Your offended snit-post was far more redolent of 'snowflake' than anything I have posted in the last year.

As for posting less, you should consider that, sir. It would improve your image here.

jupiter said:

---

---

Bingo.

quash said:

---

jupiter said:

---

---

Bingo.

---

Look at the endowments. It's a symbiotic and systemic relationship between both entities.

And we have millions of voters that want (others) to pay for student loan cancellation?!

This is why I'm getting cynical.

Dnicknames said:

---

JXL said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

The student loan forgiveness argument is a straw man.

Neither party is proposing outright student loan forgiveness.

People get worked up over a policy that doesn't exist.

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/14/what-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-means-for-borrowers.html

---

Hope isn't a policy.

I've asked both Biden's campaign staffers and Democrat Hill staffers what a loan forgiveness policy would look like. Each said it is a talking point right now.

His transition team is focused on infrastructure. They want to eventually do a student loan reduction program that trades federal student loan buy downs for annual years of social service (teachers, social workers, public servants, etc); student loan forgiveness isn't high on their agenda right now though.

---

Posting this article to further a much discussed point on this board from six months ago:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/24/student-debt-forgiveness-reportedly-dropped-from-bidens-annual-budget.html

(1) Student Loan forgiveness isn't even being proposed in Biden's budget for next year. I know that was stated repeatedly last year, but now it is once again formally confirmed

(2) Biden's team has triangulated to the Department of Education to provide a formal note on the legality of loan forgiveness, but Biden's own political appointees at Education are making sure there isn't a liberal loan elimination proposal.

(3) Biden's staff never said student loan forgiveness was a policy agenda, and they have repeatedly beaten back their leftist colleagues on the Hill that want loans forgiven

(4) Don't get worked up about straw men built up by websites to attack, when they have no basis in reality

Dnicknames said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

JXL said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

The student loan forgiveness argument is a straw man.

Neither party is proposing outright student loan forgiveness.

People get worked up over a policy that doesn't exist.

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/14/what-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-means-for-borrowers.html

---

Hope isn't a policy.

I've asked both Biden's campaign staffers and Democrat Hill staffers what a loan forgiveness policy would look like. Each said it is a talking point right now.

His transition team is focused on infrastructure. They want to eventually do a student loan reduction program that trades federal student loan buy downs for annual years of social service (teachers, social workers, public servants, etc); student loan forgiveness isn't high on their agenda right now though.

---

Posting this article to further a much discussed point on this board from six months ago:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/24/student-debt-forgiveness-reportedly-dropped-from-bidens-annual-budget.html

(1) Student Loan forgiveness isn't even being proposed in Biden's budget for next year. I know that was stated repeatedly last year, but now it is once again formally confirmed

(2) Biden's team has triangulated to the Department of Education to provide a formal note on the legality of loan forgiveness, but Biden's own political appointees at Education are making sure there isn't a liberal loan elimination proposal.

(3) Biden's staff never said student loan forgiveness was a policy agenda, and they have repeatedly beaten back their leftist colleagues on the Hill that want loans forgiven

(4) Don't get worked up about straw men built up by websites to attack, when they have no basis in reality

---

Biden talked on the campaign trail about student loan forgiveness and even Tweeted about it.

Biden has considered an executive order on the issue. He could still be considering that, even if he hasn't put it in the budget that has been prepared for him.

Whether Biden wants it or not, if enough Democrats are pushing for it, it will happen in some form, even if it isn't a full student loan forgiveness.

I don't think you should be spiking the football just yet.