Biden/Harris Legislative/Policy Discussions - Now with a Republican House starting 2023

[PleaseBlitz]

17 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Fwiw, we essentially already have blanket forgiveness for walking away from much more debt (mortgages) though. And from what I recall, students loan debt cannot be walked away from as easily.

 

 

I think this goes way too far.  A mortgage is two agreements, a promissory note (where you agree to repay the loan plus interest) and a security instrument (where if you don't repay the loan, the "bank" takes the home and probably sells it to repay the loan).  Nothing is being "forgiven" in that scenario.

 

Student loans are unsecured.  So you are correct that they are basically impossible to "walk away from" but that has to be the case because if it wasn't, nobody would repay them (which means nobody would make them).

[tshile]

And of course the undertone of all of this is that we should strive for accountability and responsibility

 

but too often it seems that mostly applies to the borrower and not the lender; and for student loans, not the university

 

consensus would likely be easier if we felt the lender and universities were held accountable for not being responsible when it comes to their role in all of this. 

[Renegade7]

There is a sense of nervousness that comes with asking who has the right to say "no" and on what criteria.

 

I trust Department of Education with this more then private sector, but the second it feels like more then oversight people are going to fight back. 

 

Our country is so used to this "freedom" thing that any cap on that in certain topics can get a visceral reaction quick fast.

[Jumbo]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

And of course the undertone of all of this is that we should strive for accountability and responsibility

 

but too often it seems that mostly applies to the borrower and not the lender; and for student loans, not the university

 

consensus would likely be easier if we felt the lender and universities were held accountable for not being responsible when it comes to their role in all of this. 

 I worked on this matter for over twenty years, mostly with state legislators in Oly Wa.

 

Once I became thoroughly exposed to such processes as I began my second career, and having been in the business of high end audio stores for twenty years, including all the financial aspects of operating special retail outlets with very pricey inventory requirements, I was mortified to observe the complete lack of responsibility on the lender and university side. 

 

It should come as no shock to anyone here that I'm a big believer in personal accountability/responsibility in all of life's matters. So those who take out loans aren't immune from repercussions in my views and their choice to borrow, and how much, in such matters needs to be counted when evaluating these issues.

 

But the extensive and flagrantly, easily attainable fire hose flow of money from various lenders, and promoted so vigorously by schools just amazed me.

 

It reminded me of mob/racketeering/loan shark stuff. The best you could get in educating (warning) he consumer was brief introductory seminars held by schools about such loans when new sessions were starting.

 

As in individual I always held to the principle that if I loaned anyone money I'm ethically responsible for my end and I need to be confident that borrower has a life situation where they should be able to pay back without extreme distress. If I pick poorly on who I lend to and they can't repay, then some of that issue is on me, contract or not (morally/ethically).

 

Any institution loaning money for any usage should have to show that loan was made responsibly.

 

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I agree with most of the other things you've posted on this page.  The answer to your questions here are:  (1) loan pricing (i.e., interest rates) are a function of the risk associated with making those loans and not getting paid back, (2) the vast majority of student loans in this country are fully guaranteed by the government, (3) student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy and (4) therefore, the 7-8% rates on student loans are above well above market.  Further, since the government retains 100% of the risk, there is no reason for profit to be baked into student loans (which is why I would reduce the interest rates to 1% or whatever it needs to be to cover the costs of servicing, but otherwise require repayment in most cases).  In other words, people should pay back what they borrowed, but they shouldn't have to pay back double what they borrowed to get an education.   

 

But getting paid back and risks are related for every other loan.  If the loan is high risks, then the interest rate is higher because the likelyhood of getting paid back is lower.  And while the loan is guaranteed, we can think about it in terms of the risks of the federal government getting paid back.  Why shouldn't interest rates be set at least partially based on the risks of the loan so that the federal government gets paid back?

 

And since the federal government is running a deficit that it finances through selling Treasury notes, much of the money to the pay school was borrowed by the federal government which it is paying interest on.  At 1%, the federal government is going to take a loss.  Why does that make sense?

 

(I suspect the federal government is already taking a loss.  They are charging Treasury note levels of interest.  There is some defaulting on student loans.  And they are paying the loan servicer.  At 1% unless interest rates are really low, they'll be taking even more of a loss.  Does that even cover what they pay the loan servicer?)

 

You seem to think the servicer is making the money on the interest.  That isn't the case.  They get paid a negotiated fee per a loan by the federal government.

 

If student loans weren't competitively priced, people could pay for college based on personal individual loans.  But that isn't happening which tells me the current 7-8% interest is a real good deal.  That we already have heavily separated the risks (ability to get paid back) from the interest rate.  Taking it down to 1% just does so even more.

 

I don't see why that makes sense to do as compared to many other types of things the government could loan out money for.

Edited February 22 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I think this goes way too far.  A mortgage is two agreements, a promissory note (where you agree to repay the loan plus interest) and a security instrument (where if you don't repay the loan, the "bank" takes the home and probably sells it to repay the loan).  Nothing is being "forgiven" in that scenario.

 

Student loans are unsecured.  So you are correct that they are basically impossible to "walk away from" but that has to be the case because if it wasn't, nobody would repay them (which means nobody would make them).

 

@The Evil Genius

 

It isn't just too far.  It is garbage.  

 

No 18 year old with no collateral, no savings, no income, and not wanting to start paying the loan for 4 years is getting a loan.

 

Mortgages work because you start paying the loan right away and if you default, the bank keeps the money you paid and the home.  In the case of a student loan, they aren't getting paid for years and get nothing if you default.

 

(And you can essentially declare bankruptcy from student loans.  It is harder than other loans but possible.)

Edited February 22 by PeterMP

[PleaseBlitz]

23 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

@The Evil Genius

 

It isn't just too far.  It is garbage.  

 

No 18 year old with no collateral, no savings, no income, and not wanting to start paying the loan for 4 years is getting a loan.

 

Mortgages work because you start paying the loan right away and if you default, the bank keeps the money you paid and the home.  In the case of a student loan, they aren't getting paid for years and get nothing if you default.

 

(And you can essentially declare bankruptcy from student loans.  It is harder than other loans but possible.)

 

 

I don't think much of that is right either.

 

Yes, MANY 18 years olds with no collateral, saving, income, etc get loans.  More than a trillion dollars in loans, in fact.  Turns out loaning money to a cohort of people that are likely to make more money than average and where the loans are guaranteed by the federal government is good business. Plus the default rate on student loans is about 5%,not very different as mortgages. 

 

Mortgages work because they are secured by a tangible asset, but if you default the "bank" (it's usually not a bank any more but that is besides the point) forecloses on the home and then sells it, but only gets to keep what they are owed, the rest goes to the consumer or the consumer's other creditors. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

Looking around, it looks like the CBO projects the student loan program to run deficits of billions of dollars for the foreseeable future.

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56997

(I'm not claiming to understand the accounting lingo, but that's the impression from the numbers and news accounts.)

 

Given the government gets the interest, a cut in the interest rate means an increase in the government deficit (unless there a concomitant cut in the fee to paid to servicers which I don't know how practical that is or an increase in taxes).

 

It seems that 2019 was a switch.  Prior to that, the program was projected to make money and now it is projected to lose money.

 

https://about.bgov.com/news/student-loan-outlook-is-reversed-showing-31-billion-cost/

 

 

Reading more, I don't think that includes the costs to administer the program and going back further it was acknowledged that the college loan program was a negative cost.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2016/04/10/federal-student-loans-will-cost-taxpayers-170-billion/?sh=6db36b7462a9

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21018

https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/federal-student-loans-administrative-costs/

 

I suspect for most of its existence the federal college loan program has been a money loser for the federal government, especially when you take into the cost of running it.  The interest the government is not enough to offset the interest the government pays for borrowing money, to cover loans that to default, and the costs to actually run the program. 

 

We (tax payers) are paying for people to make what many people seem to acknowledge are in many cases unsound financial decisions.  I can't see how that makes sense.  And cutting the interest rates on the loans just makes the problem worse.

Edited February 23 by PeterMP

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

Another Biden crime scandal!

[Cooked Crack]

https://apnews.com/article/irs-tax-season-audit-back-taxes-77c891313f5233366fbe4f6fb5d896e8

 

Joe Brandon's goons are harassing hard working job creators 

[China]

Why a financial regulator is going after health care debt

 

When President Barack Obama signed legislation in 2010 to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he said the new agency had one priority: "looking out for people, not big banks, not lenders, not investment houses."

 

Since then, the CFPB has done its share of policing mortgage brokers, student loan companies, and banks. But as the U.S. health care system turns tens of millions of Americans into debtors, this financial watchdog is increasingly working to protect beleaguered patients, adding hospitals, nursing homes, and patient financing companies to the list of institutions that regulators are probing.

 

In the past two years, the CFPB has penalized medical debt collectors, issued stern warnings to health care providers and lenders that target patients, and published reams of reports on how the health care system is undermining the financial security of Americans.

 

In its most ambitious move to date, the agency is developing rules to bar medical debt from consumer credit reports, a sweeping change that could make it easier for Americans burdened by medical debt to rent a home, buy a car, even get a job. Those rules are expected to be unveiled later this year.

 

The CFPB's turn toward medical debt has stirred opposition from collection industry officials, who say the agency's efforts are misguided. "There's some concern with a financial regulator coming in and saying, 'Oh, we're going to sweep this problem under the rug so that people can't see that there's this medical debt out there,'" said Jack Brown III, a longtime collector and member of the industry trade group ACA International.

 

Brown and others question whether the agency has gone too far on medical billing. ACA International has suggested collectors could go to court to fight any rules barring medical debt from credit reports.

 

At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a broader legal challenge to the agency's funding that some conservative critics and financial industry officials hope will lead to the dissolution of the agency.

 

But CFPB's defenders say its move to address medical debt simply reflects the scale of a crisis that now touches some 100 million Americans and that a divided Congress seems unlikely to address soon.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

Biden says Medicare should negotiate prices for at least 50 drugs each year, up from a target of 20

 

President Joe Biden on Wednesday said the federal Medicare program should negotiate prices for at least 50 prescription drugs each year, up from the current target of 20 medicines. 

 

That’s one of several new health-care policy proposals that Biden will outline during his State of the Union address Thursday, according to a fact sheet released by the White House on Wednesday. Many of those efforts aim to expand parts of the Inflation Reduction Act that are geared toward making medicines more affordable for seniors and could take a bite out of the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Joe Biden to propose massive tax raid on super rich and corporate America in tonight's State of the Union address with sweeping hikes including minimum corporate tax up from 15% to 21% and a 25% rate for billionaires

 

President Joe Biden plans to launch a raid on the super rich, hiking taxes for corporations and billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

 

The Democrat president , 81, will make the announcement during his annual State of the Union address Thursday night.

 

He wants to raise the minimum corporate tax for big companies worth over $1 billion to 21 percent, up from the 15 percent he imposed earlier in his presidency. 

 

Biden will also call for a 25 percent tax for individuals with wealth of over $100 million. 

 

White House officials said the steps were part of a proposed 2025 budget to be released next week, and aimed at reducing the federal deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years. 

 

Most of Biden's tax proposals have little chance of enactment unless Democrats win strong majorities in both chambers of Congress in November, a sweep that polls suggest is unlikely. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Riggo-toni]

On 2/25/2024 at 12:25 AM, Cooked Crack said:

 

Another Biden crime scandal!

For the record, Trump's grandfather began the family fortune by setting up brothels during the gold rush (seriously).  So I guess involvement with sex workers gies back generations....

[Cooked Crack]

Jonathan Turley: Donald Trump comes from a long line of business men

[PleaseBlitz]

2 days ago the CFPB issued a rule capping credit card late fees at $8 (they average $32).  Today the CFPB was sued by an industry group trying to stop that rule from taking effect.

 

The Rule:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/05/cfpb-rule-caps-credit-card-late-fees-at-8.html

 

Quote

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unveiled a new rule on Tuesday that it said would cap the typical late fee that banks charge customers at $8 per incident.

 

By cutting late fees to $8 from an average of around $32, more than 45 million card users would save an average of $220 annually, the CFPB said in a release.

 

The new rule, long expected after an initial proposal was floated early last year, comes after the agency said it reviewed market data related to the 2009 Card Act. Regulations tied to that law granted card issuers the ability to charge ever-increasing amounts of late fees.

 

“For over a decade, credit card giants have been exploiting a loophole to harvest billions of dollars in junk fees from American consumers,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in the release. “Today’s rule ends the era of big credit card companies hiding behind the excuse of inflation when they hike fees on borrowers and boost their own bottom lines.”

The announcement is the latest salvo in President Joe Biden’s war against so-called junk fees.

 

The big banks that issue credit cards have been raising the cost of late penalties since 2010, and the fees exceeded $14 billion in 2022, according to the CFPB. The industry profits from customers with low credit scores, who rack up an average of $138 annually in late fees per card, said Chopra.

 

The rule, which applies to card issuers with at least one million open accounts, also ends automatic inflation adjustments on late fees.

 

Instead, the agency said it would adjust the fee if needed to cover collection costs, and that card issuers can charge higher fees if they prove they are necessary. The rule doesn’t directly affect interest rates, the CFPB said.

 

The industry lawsuit:

 

www.law360.com/banking/articles/1811445/breaking-cfpb-sued-by-banking-groups-over-credit-card-late-fee-rule

 

Quote

In its Thursday complaint, the Chamber and other industry groups allege the rule suffers from multiple procedural and substantive legal flaws that require it to be set aside. The rule is also invalid because the CFPB is itself unconstitutionally funded, the complaint claims.

 

"CBA and our member banks do not take litigation lightly," CBA President and CEO Lindsey Johnson said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the CFPB leaves us little choice but to challenge its rulemaking."

 

"The CFPB once again failed to follow the requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act and has not properly considered the costs to businesses or consumers," Johnson continued. "Not only will this rule drastically alter the credit card landscape, but it would potentially harm millions of Americans' long-term financial health as well."

 

The suit seeks to prevent the CFPB from ever implementing the rule, which is set to take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. To that end, the business groups ask the court to block the rule while their litigation proceeds.

 

[China]

Biden is spreading $442 billion across the US. The impact could be greatest where he’s least popular.

 

Two of Joe Biden's signature laws appear all but certain to have the most impact in rural corners of the country that are far from the President's likely base of voters this November.
 

To better understand where two laws are having the most impact, Yahoo Finance pored over the thousands of lines of detailed data recently released by the White House.
 

The federal government has spent about $442 billion thus far on President Biden’s signature laws — the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. 

 

But where that $442 billion (so far) will have the most impact are in places where voters are least likely to support Joe Biden in November, according to a new Yahoo Finance analysis of the latest White House data.

 

The largest recipients of funds approved by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act — when measured per capita — are four states that Biden himself lost by at least 10 points in 2020: Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

 

Of the 18 states where residents are set to benefit the most from the money on a per capita basis, 12 were won by Donald Trump in 2020.

 

This geographic quirk highlights one of President Joe Biden’s most persistent election-year challenges: Americans who aren’t feeling — or are simply unimpressed — by his signature accomplishments after three years in office.

 

In just one remarkable recent example, a Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll found that Donald Trump won by a tally of 42% to 38% on the question of whom voters most trust to handle infrastructure.

 

That’s even after Biden signed a landmark infrastructure bill into law in 2021 and after four years in office that saw Trump take no significant action on the issue.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, China said:

Biden is spreading $442 billion across the US. The impact could be greatest where he’s least popular.

 

Two of Joe Biden's signature laws appear all but certain to have the most impact in rural corners of the country that are far from the President's likely base of voters this November.
 

To better understand where two laws are having the most impact, Yahoo Finance pored over the thousands of lines of detailed data recently released by the White House.
 

The federal government has spent about $442 billion thus far on President Biden’s signature laws — the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. 

 

But where that $442 billion (so far) will have the most impact are in places where voters are least likely to support Joe Biden in November, according to a new Yahoo Finance analysis of the latest White House data.

 

The largest recipients of funds approved by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act — when measured per capita — are four states that Biden himself lost by at least 10 points in 2020: Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

 

Of the 18 states where residents are set to benefit the most from the money on a per capita basis, 12 were won by Donald Trump in 2020.

 

This geographic quirk highlights one of President Joe Biden’s most persistent election-year challenges: Americans who aren’t feeling — or are simply unimpressed — by his signature accomplishments after three years in office.

 

In just one remarkable recent example, a Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll found that Donald Trump won by a tally of 42% to 38% on the question of whom voters most trust to handle infrastructure.

 

That’s even after Biden signed a landmark infrastructure bill into law in 2021 and after four years in office that saw Trump take no significant action on the issue.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

 

Totally sad how these people have been brainwashed into believing right wing rhetoric to thier own detriment. You know if trump and other magats get in power they will reverse all these programs and the people most negatively impacted will cheer them on. What a stupid place we have gotten in our society. 

Edited March 11 by goskins10

[Simmsy]

43 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

Totally sad how these people have been brainwashed into believing right wing rhroric to thier own detriment. You know if trump and other get in power they will reverse all these programs and the people most negatively impacted will cheer them on. What a stupid place we have gotten in our society. 

 

That or the GOP will just take credit for the success of said legislation while doing everything to stop it from ever happening. 

[dfitzo53]

"When you're the GOP, they let you do it."

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

Biden proposes tax increase on fuel for private jets, casting it as making wealthy pay their share

 

President Joe Biden is proposing a huge tax increase on fuel used by private jets, portraying that as part of an effort to make the wealthy pay their share for services like running the nation's airspace. That's part of the president's budget, which was unveiled Monday. The White House wants $109.3 billion for the Department of Transportation, including the Federal Aviation Administration. One provision would gradually raise the tax on fuel used by private jets from about 22 cents per gallon now to $1.06 per gallon in five years.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

Another Biden scandal