Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

STUDENT LOANS

124»

Comments

  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,182
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
    True for federal loans, but may or may not be the case if they are private loans.  
    Private loans are at market rates, and since they are unsecured and are usually loaned to individuals with shorter credit history, tend to have a pretty high interest rate.  You would never engage in a paydown strategy for private like you would for federal. 
    “Duh”. You said “your family has zero obligation to your debt”.  That is not always the case.  If you have private student loans, they can be attached to your estate.  Dankind didn’t specifically say “federal loan debt”.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,549
    tbergs said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    Wow, that is insane. Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with College education and a loan that is obviously not paying for itself professionally.
    what you see in default rates and income levels is that undergrad have the highest rate of return and the lowest delinquency of all student loans.  The worst performing loans are with those that did not graduate (no surprise).  After that it's doctorates (not medical) and then graduate. When you look at the data, you can see that as your degree is more advanced, the cost of the education is too high compared the income level that the degree earns.  So in terms of loan quality, it's bachelors - grad - doctorate - no degree. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,549
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
    True for federal loans, but may or may not be the case if they are private loans.  
    Private loans are at market rates, and since they are unsecured and are usually loaned to individuals with shorter credit history, tend to have a pretty high interest rate.  You would never engage in a paydown strategy for private like you would for federal. 
    “Duh”. You said “your family has zero obligation to your debt”.  That is not always the case.  If you have private student loans, they can be attached to your estate.  Dankind didn’t specifically say “federal loan debt”.
    It doesn't matter if it's private or public.  If the estate has a positive net worth, then a creditor MAY try to collect the debt, but that is very rare.  Creditors consider this non-contractual charge off and write off hundreds of millions each year.  Two biggest players in this industry (DCM and EIS) never collect aggressively on this debt.  It's all soft talk off.  If the estate is net negative, there is no mechanism to attach that debt to another family member.  There is zero obligation.  
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,101
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
    True for federal loans, but may or may not be the case if they are private loans.  
    Private loans are at market rates, and since they are unsecured and are usually loaned to individuals with shorter credit history, tend to have a pretty high interest rate.  You would never engage in a paydown strategy for private like you would for federal. 
    “Duh”. You said “your family has zero obligation to your debt”.  That is not always the case.  If you have private student loans, they can be attached to your estate.  Dankind didn’t specifically say “federal loan debt”.
    I still wouldn't call that as inheriting debt. It just means they take from your assets when you die before your kids get it. From my understanding, no one can inherit debt. You just won't inherit any assets or cash, that's not the same as inheriting debt. Its not like the kids now have to start paying off the debt out of pocket. The only exception is if they co-signed, and in that case it was their debt too, and not inherited.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,549
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
    True for federal loans, but may or may not be the case if they are private loans.  
    Private loans are at market rates, and since they are unsecured and are usually loaned to individuals with shorter credit history, tend to have a pretty high interest rate.  You would never engage in a paydown strategy for private like you would for federal. 
    “Duh”. You said “your family has zero obligation to your debt”.  That is not always the case.  If you have private student loans, they can be attached to your estate.  Dankind didn’t specifically say “federal loan debt”.
    I still wouldn't call that as inheriting debt. It just means they take from your assets when you die before your kids get it. From my understanding, no one can inherit debt. You just won't inherit any assets or cash, that's not the same as inheriting debt. Its not like the kids now have to start paying off the debt out of pocket. The only exception is if they co-signed, and in that case it was their debt too, and not inherited.
    Exactly correct
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,182
    edited February 12
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
    True for federal loans, but may or may not be the case if they are private loans.  
    Private loans are at market rates, and since they are unsecured and are usually loaned to individuals with shorter credit history, tend to have a pretty high interest rate.  You would never engage in a paydown strategy for private like you would for federal. 
    “Duh”. You said “your family has zero obligation to your debt”.  That is not always the case.  If you have private student loans, they can be attached to your estate.  Dankind didn’t specifically say “federal loan debt”.
    I still wouldn't call that as inheriting debt. It just means they take from your assets when you die before your kids get it. From my understanding, no one can inherit debt. You just won't inherit any assets or cash, that's not the same as inheriting debt. Its not like the kids now have to start paying off the debt out of pocket. The only exception is if they co-signed, and in that case it was their debt too, and not inherited.
    I mean, that’s true, it just gets taken from the estate.  Which is completely fair in my opinion.  If any property is jointly owned (married) couldn’t the surviving spouse still be liable for any of that debt whether or not they signed off on the deceased spouse’s loan?  That’s where my mind was going with this.
    Also, what if one of the assets is a business or property that is partly owned by the children?  In order to keep that business, could the children be responsible for part of that debt?  I really don’t know the answer to these.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,549
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
    True for federal loans, but may or may not be the case if they are private loans.  
    Private loans are at market rates, and since they are unsecured and are usually loaned to individuals with shorter credit history, tend to have a pretty high interest rate.  You would never engage in a paydown strategy for private like you would for federal. 
    “Duh”. You said “your family has zero obligation to your debt”.  That is not always the case.  If you have private student loans, they can be attached to your estate.  Dankind didn’t specifically say “federal loan debt”.
    I still wouldn't call that as inheriting debt. It just means they take from your assets when you die before your kids get it. From my understanding, no one can inherit debt. You just won't inherit any assets or cash, that's not the same as inheriting debt. Its not like the kids now have to start paying off the debt out of pocket. The only exception is if they co-signed, and in that case it was their debt too, and not inherited.
    I mean, that’s true, it just gets taken from the estate.  Which is completely fair in my opinion.  If any property is jointly owned (married) couldn’t the surviving spouse still be liable for any of that debt whether or not they signed off on the deceased spouse’s loan?  That’s where my mind was going with this.
    Also, what if one of the assets is a business or property that is partly owned by the children?  In order to keep that business, could the children be responsible for part of that debt?  I really don’t know the answer to these.
    Personal debt does not xfer to a business.  Business debt does not xfer to a person unless there's a personal guarantee. 
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,182
    edited February 12
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
    True for federal loans, but may or may not be the case if they are private loans.  
    Private loans are at market rates, and since they are unsecured and are usually loaned to individuals with shorter credit history, tend to have a pretty high interest rate.  You would never engage in a paydown strategy for private like you would for federal. 
    “Duh”. You said “your family has zero obligation to your debt”.  That is not always the case.  If you have private student loans, they can be attached to your estate.  Dankind didn’t specifically say “federal loan debt”.
    I still wouldn't call that as inheriting debt. It just means they take from your assets when you die before your kids get it. From my understanding, no one can inherit debt. You just won't inherit any assets or cash, that's not the same as inheriting debt. Its not like the kids now have to start paying off the debt out of pocket. The only exception is if they co-signed, and in that case it was their debt too, and not inherited.
    I mean, that’s true, it just gets taken from the estate.  Which is completely fair in my opinion.  If any property is jointly owned (married) couldn’t the surviving spouse still be liable for any of that debt whether or not they signed off on the deceased spouse’s loan?  That’s where my mind was going with this.
    Also, what if one of the assets is a business or property that is partly owned by the children?  In order to keep that business, could the children be responsible for part of that debt?  I really don’t know the answer to these.
    Personal debt does not xfer to a business.  Business debt does not xfer to a person unless there's a personal guarantee. 
    Even in a joint tenancy situation?  If looks like this may be a state by state thing.  Anyways, should probably get back to Biden before getting yelled at again :)
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 21,320
    Post your shit here.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,182
    So...about Biden, haha
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,466
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
    True for federal loans, but may or may not be the case if they are private loans.  
    Private loans are at market rates, and since they are unsecured and are usually loaned to individuals with shorter credit history, tend to have a pretty high interest rate.  You would never engage in a paydown strategy for private like you would for federal. 
    “Duh”. You said “your family has zero obligation to your debt”.  That is not always the case.  If you have private student loans, they can be attached to your estate.  Dankind didn’t specifically say “federal loan debt”.
    I still wouldn't call that as inheriting debt. It just means they take from your assets when you die before your kids get it. From my understanding, no one can inherit debt. You just won't inherit any assets or cash, that's not the same as inheriting debt. Its not like the kids now have to start paying off the debt out of pocket. The only exception is if they co-signed, and in that case it was their debt too, and not inherited.
    I mean, that’s true, it just gets taken from the estate.  Which is completely fair in my opinion.  If any property is jointly owned (married) couldn’t the surviving spouse still be liable for any of that debt whether or not they signed off on the deceased spouse’s loan?  That’s where my mind was going with this.
    Also, what if one of the assets is a business or property that is partly owned by the children?  In order to keep that business, could the children be responsible for part of that debt?  I really don’t know the answer to these.
    Personal debt does not xfer to a business.  Business debt does not xfer to a person unless there's a personal guarantee. 
    Even in a joint tenancy situation?  If looks like this may be a state by state thing.  Anyways, should probably get back to Biden before getting yelled at again :)
    getting yelled at by mickey is a rite of passage round these parts. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 18,693
    what about them?

    i had about 100k when I finished, but that was 20 years ago. i know it is much more expensive now.

    i had them for my undergrad degree. i got a graduate assistant position in grad school that took care of that tuition, but i had to take loans to live on because i could not live on the $600 per month stipend they gave me. my share of rent alone was 400.

    it took me the entire 10 years to pay off the undergrad loans and a maybe 5 to pay off the graduate school debt. i paid for both concurrently.

    i was fucked financially coming out of school because those loans had to be paid back and paid back on time. 
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,549
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    I have more than a quarter-million dollars in student loan debt that my children will inherit. My wife and I file separately. If we didn't, we would almost certainly, considering family size et al., be below the poverty line on a monthly income basis.

    First and likely last college-educated member of my family.
    So you know,  your family has zero legal obligation to your debt. 
    True for federal loans, but may or may not be the case if they are private loans.  
    Private loans are at market rates, and since they are unsecured and are usually loaned to individuals with shorter credit history, tend to have a pretty high interest rate.  You would never engage in a paydown strategy for private like you would for federal. 
    “Duh”. You said “your family has zero obligation to your debt”.  That is not always the case.  If you have private student loans, they can be attached to your estate.  Dankind didn’t specifically say “federal loan debt”.
    I still wouldn't call that as inheriting debt. It just means they take from your assets when you die before your kids get it. From my understanding, no one can inherit debt. You just won't inherit any assets or cash, that's not the same as inheriting debt. Its not like the kids now have to start paying off the debt out of pocket. The only exception is if they co-signed, and in that case it was their debt too, and not inherited.
    I mean, that’s true, it just gets taken from the estate.  Which is completely fair in my opinion.  If any property is jointly owned (married) couldn’t the surviving spouse still be liable for any of that debt whether or not they signed off on the deceased spouse’s loan?  That’s where my mind was going with this.
    Also, what if one of the assets is a business or property that is partly owned by the children?  In order to keep that business, could the children be responsible for part of that debt?  I really don’t know the answer to these.
    Personal debt does not xfer to a business.  Business debt does not xfer to a person unless there's a personal guarantee. 
    Even in a joint tenancy situation?  If looks like this may be a state by state thing.  Anyways, should probably get back to Biden before getting yelled at again :)
    The whole discussion presumes there is no co-obligor on the debt.  If there is, then the surviving person is fully responsible. 
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,633
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
    That's a con?   Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  
    I wasn’t talking about paying off your highest interest rates first, I was talking about using your student loans to buy stocks.  It’s borderline a con.  It’s a legal grey area that may get shut down if enough people abuse it.  From what I’ve read, the Department of Education may even sue you if they catch wind of the practice because it goes against the “intent” of the loan.  Mathematically, it is a sound thing to do, but morally and ethically...grey.  There are loans you can take out with no stipulations on how they are used, and ones that you can use specifically for investments.  
    I’m not saying “don’t do it”, but it really is just a loophole that may get shut down (all they would have to do is require receipts for loan $ used).  
    I sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a public forum....

    This reminds me....I used some of my student loan $ to buy a guitar :)
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,182
    edited February 12
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
    That's a con?   Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  
    I wasn’t talking about paying off your highest interest rates first, I was talking about using your student loans to buy stocks.  It’s borderline a con.  It’s a legal grey area that may get shut down if enough people abuse it.  From what I’ve read, the Department of Education may even sue you if they catch wind of the practice because it goes against the “intent” of the loan.  Mathematically, it is a sound thing to do, but morally and ethically...grey.  There are loans you can take out with no stipulations on how they are used, and ones that you can use specifically for investments.  
    I’m not saying “don’t do it”, but it really is just a loophole that may get shut down (all they would have to do is require receipts for loan $ used).  
    I sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a public forum....

    This reminds me....I used some of my student loan $ to buy a guitar :)
    Hahaha, a good guitar is an asset in college, so you are good.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,101
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
    That's a con?   Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  
    I wasn’t talking about paying off your highest interest rates first, I was talking about using your student loans to buy stocks.  It’s borderline a con.  It’s a legal grey area that may get shut down if enough people abuse it.  From what I’ve read, the Department of Education may even sue you if they catch wind of the practice because it goes against the “intent” of the loan.  Mathematically, it is a sound thing to do, but morally and ethically...grey.  There are loans you can take out with no stipulations on how they are used, and ones that you can use specifically for investments.  
    I’m not saying “don’t do it”, but it really is just a loophole that may get shut down (all they would have to do is require receipts for loan $ used).  
    I sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a public forum....

    This reminds me....I used some of my student loan $ to buy a guitar :)
    Exactly why if there ever is student loan forgiveness, there needs to be strict accountability. Prove tuition costs, and pretty much leave it at that. A person is going to have to live somewhere and eat if they are a student or not, so I don't see why we need to forgive loans that covered housing and other every day items...and guitars.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,633
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
    That's a con?   Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  
    I wasn’t talking about paying off your highest interest rates first, I was talking about using your student loans to buy stocks.  It’s borderline a con.  It’s a legal grey area that may get shut down if enough people abuse it.  From what I’ve read, the Department of Education may even sue you if they catch wind of the practice because it goes against the “intent” of the loan.  Mathematically, it is a sound thing to do, but morally and ethically...grey.  There are loans you can take out with no stipulations on how they are used, and ones that you can use specifically for investments.  
    I’m not saying “don’t do it”, but it really is just a loophole that may get shut down (all they would have to do is require receipts for loan $ used).  
    I sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a public forum....

    This reminds me....I used some of my student loan $ to buy a guitar :)
    Exactly why if there ever is student loan forgiveness, there needs to be strict accountability. Prove tuition costs, and pretty much leave it at that. A person is going to have to live somewhere and eat if they are a student or not, so I don't see why we need to forgive loans that covered housing and other every day items...and guitars.
    That would have been in 1987 or so....I know the federal loans now go directly to the university

    and I still have that guitar...a Westone Corsair
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,101
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
    That's a con?   Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  
    I wasn’t talking about paying off your highest interest rates first, I was talking about using your student loans to buy stocks.  It’s borderline a con.  It’s a legal grey area that may get shut down if enough people abuse it.  From what I’ve read, the Department of Education may even sue you if they catch wind of the practice because it goes against the “intent” of the loan.  Mathematically, it is a sound thing to do, but morally and ethically...grey.  There are loans you can take out with no stipulations on how they are used, and ones that you can use specifically for investments.  
    I’m not saying “don’t do it”, but it really is just a loophole that may get shut down (all they would have to do is require receipts for loan $ used).  
    I sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a public forum....

    This reminds me....I used some of my student loan $ to buy a guitar :)
    Exactly why if there ever is student loan forgiveness, there needs to be strict accountability. Prove tuition costs, and pretty much leave it at that. A person is going to have to live somewhere and eat if they are a student or not, so I don't see why we need to forgive loans that covered housing and other every day items...and guitars.
    That would have been in 1987 or so....I know the federal loans now go directly to the university

    and I still have that guitar...a Westone Corsair
    I didn't know that, I thought they still went to students. Still, When did that change? I would reconsider reimbursing for room and board even if that is pair directly to the school, you need that whether you're a student or not.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,633
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    One effect that I've seen is forcing married people that both have student loans to file separately.  Or if one has loans and the other doesn't.  

    A joint return causes the minimum student loan payment to be higher which forces a couple to file separately in order to keep their payments low.  I advise against this as much as I can but they tend to look at it from a monthly cash flow perspective rather than the overall savings perspective.  Of course those people probably read Dave Ramsey so getting through is difficult.
    So you advise people to pay down student loans as quickly as possible and so does Ramsey...You may have more in common than you think.
    Still not going to hire you, though.
    Federal student loans have subsidized interest rates.  It's likely not better to pay them down sooner than later.  Private student loans are not, so that may make sense.  That sounds like dubious advice and it's also too general for most people.  I'm not opining on how a married couple should do it, which makes my point even more.  Advice from a celebrity is terrible.  
    The sooner you pay them off the sooner they stop accruing interest and if you can lower the principal the amount of interest accrued goes down.  It’s a stupid system and absolutely it helps to pay it down quicker especially if you don’t want to be paying it for life.
    Yes, but you pay higher interest debts off first, that's the point.  Federal loans will be your lowest interest debt (unless you have some intro rate from another lender, but that would run out). Or if you have the discipline, you borrow the gov't money and invest on your own.  In other words if your student interest rate is 2%, don't pay that off.  Take that money and invest it in another way to earn a higher return. 
    Wow, you really are all about conning the system, ha. While this strategy is technically not illegal, I bet if people stat doing this in mass, lawmakers will put a stop to it.  Personally, I wish I didn’t have to pay any kind of social security because that money taken out of every paycheck could be invested and would earn so much more for retirement somewhere else.  
    That's a con?   Paying off higher interest debt first is a con to you?  You are seriously misguided.  Here's another example.  I could pay off my house in cash right now if I wanted to do so.  But that's stupid.  I have a 2.x% interest rate, so I'm borrowing money from Quicken dirt cheap.  Why would I pay that off?  I wouldn't.  I take excess cash and put that in the market and earn a higher return than what I'm paying in interest.  It's literally the most basic personal finance strategy out there.  
    I wasn’t talking about paying off your highest interest rates first, I was talking about using your student loans to buy stocks.  It’s borderline a con.  It’s a legal grey area that may get shut down if enough people abuse it.  From what I’ve read, the Department of Education may even sue you if they catch wind of the practice because it goes against the “intent” of the loan.  Mathematically, it is a sound thing to do, but morally and ethically...grey.  There are loans you can take out with no stipulations on how they are used, and ones that you can use specifically for investments.  
    I’m not saying “don’t do it”, but it really is just a loophole that may get shut down (all they would have to do is require receipts for loan $ used).  
    I sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a public forum....

    This reminds me....I used some of my student loan $ to buy a guitar :)
    Exactly why if there ever is student loan forgiveness, there needs to be strict accountability. Prove tuition costs, and pretty much leave it at that. A person is going to have to live somewhere and eat if they are a student or not, so I don't see why we need to forgive loans that covered housing and other every day items...and guitars.
    That would have been in 1987 or so....I know the federal loans now go directly to the university

    and I still have that guitar...a Westone Corsair
    I didn't know that, I thought they still went to students. Still, When did that change? I would reconsider reimbursing for room and board even if that is pair directly to the school, you need that whether you're a student or not.
    Not sure...now you apply for FAFSA online and tell them where to send the funds.  You then have to go into your student account to accept the funds, sign the loan docs, etc.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,553
    People over 40 tend to underestimate the burden of student loan debt on professionals and business owners or those who would like to be.
    The loans are higher, the interest rates are higher, and the income that pays them down is...not.


    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,553
    People over 40 tend to underestimate the burden of student loan debt on professionals and business owners or those who would like to be.
    The loans are higher, the interest rates are higher, and the income that pays them down is...not.


    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 21,320

    Opinion: No, needing a $1,400 stimulus check doesn’t mean you messed up.

    Image without a caption
    Opinion by
    Columnist
    Feb. 13, 2021 at 7:00 a.m. EST

    Politicians in Washington have argued for weeks over who should receive the next covid relief check. Should people with an annual income of $75,000 be eligible for the full amount? Or just those who in 2019 earned a more modest $50,000?

    Yet, according to Christian personal finance guru Dave Ramsey, a guest on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom” this Thursday, no one needs the extra cash. “I don’t believe in a stimulus check, because if $600 or $1,400 changes your life, you were pretty much screwed already,” he told Fox News hosts Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino. “You have a career problem, you have a debt problem, you have a relationship problem, you have a mental health problem … something else is going on.” Another stimulus check, Ramsey added, is “peeing on a forest fire.” Perino chimed in with “I imagine that that does not work,” and Hemmer and Ramsey laughed as the segment ended.

    Our pandemic economic woes are not a joke — good for a chuckle from a bunch of wealthy Americans. It’s not utterly hilarious that, according to a recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,11 percent of U.S. adults said that they did not have enough food to eat at some point in the previous seven days. Eighty percent of them said they couldn’t afford to buy it.

    It’s not amusing that 5 million Americans couldn’t pay their December housing bill, and that according to a survey released this week by the Mortgage Bankers Association, a majority of them said they would possibly get evicted or go into foreclosure within a matter of weeks if the situation did not change. It’s certainly not a knee-slapper that the jobs recovery is weak at best, and that weekly unemployment claims came in Thursday morning at 793,000. And it’s not laugh-out-loud funny that state unemployment systems remain completely overwhelmed almost a year into the pandemic.

    Almost a year into covid-19, many industries remain under severe strain. Poll after poll shows that a large majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, supports another four-figure stimulus check. Strangely enough, most of us don’t believe that hunger and pending homelessness is all that amusing, and we think it would be a good thing for the government to do what it can to help others out.

    A word about Ramsey: Many think of him as a well-meaning personal finance guru who can help people change their lives for the better. But actually, Ramsey uses his five-day-a-week, three-hour-a-day radio show to preach his conservative political philosophy, while at the same time promoting an unforgiving approach to personal finance.

    Since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, Ramsey has denied the reality of the economic pain it has inflicted. Last March, he told people experiencing pandemic-related financial woes to “go get you a part-time job” and “get some extra work,” as if that were an easy feat at a time when the economy was going into a deep freeze. More than 10 million filed unemployment claims in one month, and Ramsey appeared convinced many were voluntarily “quitting” their employment over coronavirus fears.

    None of this should surprise us. During the financial crisis, Ramsey — whose radio show simultaneously aired on Fox Business from 2007 to 2010 — claimed that people could choose to not participate in the recession, and cast doubt on the impact of inequality on people’s finances. He argues that most Americans run into financial trouble because they are “stupid,” a word he tossed around repeatedly on this Thursday’s Fox News segment.

    His Thursday afternoon radio show featured more of the same. Ramsey followed up on his Fox News remarks by telling listeners that anyone who wanted or needed a stimulus check is “looking to the government to save your life.” Well, yes, they are — and rightly so. Government exists to protect us, both physically and economically. The latter is a truth that right-wingers have denied and fought against for decades.

    No one believes that $600 or $1,400 will miraculously solve all their financial woes. Americans are most certainly not “stupid” because they failed to save up enough money to survive almost a year of un- or underemployment. They do think the extra money from the federal government will help them stave off eviction, feed their children or help them get by for another few weeks in a pandemic-fueled recession — or otherwise help them improve their lives. Last spring, many used their pandemic checks to pay down debt.

    A new $1,400 government stimulus check will buy Americans in need some time and some peace of mind. It’s horrible that hosts on a major cable network — even if that network is Fox News — would find any of this funny. People need help. They don’t deserve insults, contempt or laughter.


    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,540
    rgambs said:
    People over 40 tend to underestimate the burden of student loan debt on professionals and business owners or those who would like to be.
    The loans are higher, the interest rates are higher, and the income that pays them down is...not.


    Hear! Hear!  I love the”back in my day we only borrowed a small sum if any and paid for our tuition with our very fair minimum wage part time job” argument.  I think a lot of those over 40’s that are underestimating also came from middle class white backgrounds.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 27,092
    mickeyrat said:

    Opinion: No, needing a $1,400 stimulus check doesn’t mean you messed up.

    Image without a caption
    Opinion by
    Columnist
    Feb. 13, 2021 at 7:00 a.m. EST

    Politicians in Washington have argued for weeks over who should receive the next covid relief check. Should people with an annual income of $75,000 be eligible for the full amount? Or just those who in 2019 earned a more modest $50,000?

    Yet, according to Christian personal finance guru Dave Ramsey, a guest on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom” this Thursday, no one needs the extra cash. “I don’t believe in a stimulus check, because if $600 or $1,400 changes your life, you were pretty much screwed already,” he told Fox News hosts Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino. “You have a career problem, you have a debt problem, you have a relationship problem, you have a mental health problem … something else is going on.” Another stimulus check, Ramsey added, is “peeing on a forest fire.” Perino chimed in with “I imagine that that does not work,” and Hemmer and Ramsey laughed as the segment ended.

    Our pandemic economic woes are not a joke — good for a chuckle from a bunch of wealthy Americans. It’s not utterly hilarious that, according to a recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,11 percent of U.S. adults said that they did not have enough food to eat at some point in the previous seven days. Eighty percent of them said they couldn’t afford to buy it.

    It’s not amusing that 5 million Americans couldn’t pay their December housing bill, and that according to a survey released this week by the Mortgage Bankers Association, a majority of them said they would possibly get evicted or go into foreclosure within a matter of weeks if the situation did not change. It’s certainly not a knee-slapper that the jobs recovery is weak at best, and that weekly unemployment claims came in Thursday morning at 793,000. And it’s not laugh-out-loud funny that state unemployment systems remain completely overwhelmed almost a year into the pandemic.

    Almost a year into covid-19, many industries remain under severe strain. Poll after poll shows that a large majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, supports another four-figure stimulus check. Strangely enough, most of us don’t believe that hunger and pending homelessness is all that amusing, and we think it would be a good thing for the government to do what it can to help others out.

    A word about Ramsey: Many think of him as a well-meaning personal finance guru who can help people change their lives for the better. But actually, Ramsey uses his five-day-a-week, three-hour-a-day radio show to preach his conservative political philosophy, while at the same time promoting an unforgiving approach to personal finance.

    Since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, Ramsey has denied the reality of the economic pain it has inflicted. Last March, he told people experiencing pandemic-related financial woes to “go get you a part-time job” and “get some extra work,” as if that were an easy feat at a time when the economy was going into a deep freeze. More than 10 million filed unemployment claims in one month, and Ramsey appeared convinced many were voluntarily “quitting” their employment over coronavirus fears.

    None of this should surprise us. During the financial crisis, Ramsey — whose radio show simultaneously aired on Fox Business from 2007 to 2010 — claimed that people could choose to not participate in the recession, and cast doubt on the impact of inequality on people’s finances. He argues that most Americans run into financial trouble because they are “stupid,” a word he tossed around repeatedly on this Thursday’s Fox News segment.

    His Thursday afternoon radio show featured more of the same. Ramsey followed up on his Fox News remarks by telling listeners that anyone who wanted or needed a stimulus check is “looking to the government to save your life.” Well, yes, they are — and rightly so. Government exists to protect us, both physically and economically. The latter is a truth that right-wingers have denied and fought against for decades.

    No one believes that $600 or $1,400 will miraculously solve all their financial woes. Americans are most certainly not “stupid” because they failed to save up enough money to survive almost a year of un- or underemployment. They do think the extra money from the federal government will help them stave off eviction, feed their children or help them get by for another few weeks in a pandemic-fueled recession — or otherwise help them improve their lives. Last spring, many used their pandemic checks to pay down debt.

    A new $1,400 government stimulus check will buy Americans in need some time and some peace of mind. It’s horrible that hosts on a major cable network — even if that network is Fox News — would find any of this funny. People need help. They don’t deserve insults, contempt or laughter.


    Living in NY a 6 figure salary doesn't mean you've made it.  I would love that $1400 check but I'll never see it.  The parameters need to be opened up a little more.  If I made 100k in Florida I would be living high on the hog.
  • mickeyrat said:

    Opinion: No, needing a $1,400 stimulus check doesn’t mean you messed up.

    Image without a caption
    Opinion by
    Columnist
    Feb. 13, 2021 at 7:00 a.m. EST

    Politicians in Washington have argued for weeks over who should receive the next covid relief check. Should people with an annual income of $75,000 be eligible for the full amount? Or just those who in 2019 earned a more modest $50,000?

    Yet, according to Christian personal finance guru Dave Ramsey, a guest on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom” this Thursday, no one needs the extra cash. “I don’t believe in a stimulus check, because if $600 or $1,400 changes your life, you were pretty much screwed already,” he told Fox News hosts Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino. “You have a career problem, you have a debt problem, you have a relationship problem, you have a mental health problem … something else is going on.” Another stimulus check, Ramsey added, is “peeing on a forest fire.” Perino chimed in with “I imagine that that does not work,” and Hemmer and Ramsey laughed as the segment ended.

    Our pandemic economic woes are not a joke — good for a chuckle from a bunch of wealthy Americans. It’s not utterly hilarious that, according to a recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,11 percent of U.S. adults said that they did not have enough food to eat at some point in the previous seven days. Eighty percent of them said they couldn’t afford to buy it.

    It’s not amusing that 5 million Americans couldn’t pay their December housing bill, and that according to a survey released this week by the Mortgage Bankers Association, a majority of them said they would possibly get evicted or go into foreclosure within a matter of weeks if the situation did not change. It’s certainly not a knee-slapper that the jobs recovery is weak at best, and that weekly unemployment claims came in Thursday morning at 793,000. And it’s not laugh-out-loud funny that state unemployment systems remain completely overwhelmed almost a year into the pandemic.

    Almost a year into covid-19, many industries remain under severe strain. Poll after poll shows that a large majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, supports another four-figure stimulus check. Strangely enough, most of us don’t believe that hunger and pending homelessness is all that amusing, and we think it would be a good thing for the government to do what it can to help others out.

    A word about Ramsey: Many think of him as a well-meaning personal finance guru who can help people change their lives for the better. But actually, Ramsey uses his five-day-a-week, three-hour-a-day radio show to preach his conservative political philosophy, while at the same time promoting an unforgiving approach to personal finance.

    Since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, Ramsey has denied the reality of the economic pain it has inflicted. Last March, he told people experiencing pandemic-related financial woes to “go get you a part-time job” and “get some extra work,” as if that were an easy feat at a time when the economy was going into a deep freeze. More than 10 million filed unemployment claims in one month, and Ramsey appeared convinced many were voluntarily “quitting” their employment over coronavirus fears.

    None of this should surprise us. During the financial crisis, Ramsey — whose radio show simultaneously aired on Fox Business from 2007 to 2010 — claimed that people could choose to not participate in the recession, and cast doubt on the impact of inequality on people’s finances. He argues that most Americans run into financial trouble because they are “stupid,” a word he tossed around repeatedly on this Thursday’s Fox News segment.

    His Thursday afternoon radio show featured more of the same. Ramsey followed up on his Fox News remarks by telling listeners that anyone who wanted or needed a stimulus check is “looking to the government to save your life.” Well, yes, they are — and rightly so. Government exists to protect us, both physically and economically. The latter is a truth that right-wingers have denied and fought against for decades.

    No one believes that $600 or $1,400 will miraculously solve all their financial woes. Americans are most certainly not “stupid” because they failed to save up enough money to survive almost a year of un- or underemployment. They do think the extra money from the federal government will help them stave off eviction, feed their children or help them get by for another few weeks in a pandemic-fueled recession — or otherwise help them improve their lives. Last spring, many used their pandemic checks to pay down debt.

    A new $1,400 government stimulus check will buy Americans in need some time and some peace of mind. It’s horrible that hosts on a major cable network — even if that network is Fox News — would find any of this funny. People need help. They don’t deserve insults, contempt or laughter.


    Living in NY a 6 figure salary doesn't mean you've made it.  I would love that $1400 check but I'll never see it.  The parameters need to be opened up a little more.  If I made 100k in Florida I would be living high on the hog.
    If you lived in Southern Illinois, you could afford a second hog, and maybe a chicken or two.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 27,092
    mickeyrat said:

    Opinion: No, needing a $1,400 stimulus check doesn’t mean you messed up.

    Image without a caption
    Opinion by
    Columnist
    Feb. 13, 2021 at 7:00 a.m. EST

    Politicians in Washington have argued for weeks over who should receive the next covid relief check. Should people with an annual income of $75,000 be eligible for the full amount? Or just those who in 2019 earned a more modest $50,000?

    Yet, according to Christian personal finance guru Dave Ramsey, a guest on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom” this Thursday, no one needs the extra cash. “I don’t believe in a stimulus check, because if $600 or $1,400 changes your life, you were pretty much screwed already,” he told Fox News hosts Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino. “You have a career problem, you have a debt problem, you have a relationship problem, you have a mental health problem … something else is going on.” Another stimulus check, Ramsey added, is “peeing on a forest fire.” Perino chimed in with “I imagine that that does not work,” and Hemmer and Ramsey laughed as the segment ended.

    Our pandemic economic woes are not a joke — good for a chuckle from a bunch of wealthy Americans. It’s not utterly hilarious that, according to a recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,11 percent of U.S. adults said that they did not have enough food to eat at some point in the previous seven days. Eighty percent of them said they couldn’t afford to buy it.

    It’s not amusing that 5 million Americans couldn’t pay their December housing bill, and that according to a survey released this week by the Mortgage Bankers Association, a majority of them said they would possibly get evicted or go into foreclosure within a matter of weeks if the situation did not change. It’s certainly not a knee-slapper that the jobs recovery is weak at best, and that weekly unemployment claims came in Thursday morning at 793,000. And it’s not laugh-out-loud funny that state unemployment systems remain completely overwhelmed almost a year into the pandemic.

    Almost a year into covid-19, many industries remain under severe strain. Poll after poll shows that a large majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, supports another four-figure stimulus check. Strangely enough, most of us don’t believe that hunger and pending homelessness is all that amusing, and we think it would be a good thing for the government to do what it can to help others out.

    A word about Ramsey: Many think of him as a well-meaning personal finance guru who can help people change their lives for the better. But actually, Ramsey uses his five-day-a-week, three-hour-a-day radio show to preach his conservative political philosophy, while at the same time promoting an unforgiving approach to personal finance.

    Since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, Ramsey has denied the reality of the economic pain it has inflicted. Last March, he told people experiencing pandemic-related financial woes to “go get you a part-time job” and “get some extra work,” as if that were an easy feat at a time when the economy was going into a deep freeze. More than 10 million filed unemployment claims in one month, and Ramsey appeared convinced many were voluntarily “quitting” their employment over coronavirus fears.

    None of this should surprise us. During the financial crisis, Ramsey — whose radio show simultaneously aired on Fox Business from 2007 to 2010 — claimed that people could choose to not participate in the recession, and cast doubt on the impact of inequality on people’s finances. He argues that most Americans run into financial trouble because they are “stupid,” a word he tossed around repeatedly on this Thursday’s Fox News segment.

    His Thursday afternoon radio show featured more of the same. Ramsey followed up on his Fox News remarks by telling listeners that anyone who wanted or needed a stimulus check is “looking to the government to save your life.” Well, yes, they are — and rightly so. Government exists to protect us, both physically and economically. The latter is a truth that right-wingers have denied and fought against for decades.

    No one believes that $600 or $1,400 will miraculously solve all their financial woes. Americans are most certainly not “stupid” because they failed to save up enough money to survive almost a year of un- or underemployment. They do think the extra money from the federal government will help them stave off eviction, feed their children or help them get by for another few weeks in a pandemic-fueled recession — or otherwise help them improve their lives. Last spring, many used their pandemic checks to pay down debt.

    A new $1,400 government stimulus check will buy Americans in need some time and some peace of mind. It’s horrible that hosts on a major cable network — even if that network is Fox News — would find any of this funny. People need help. They don’t deserve insults, contempt or laughter.


    Living in NY a 6 figure salary doesn't mean you've made it.  I would love that $1400 check but I'll never see it.  The parameters need to be opened up a little more.  If I made 100k in Florida I would be living high on the hog.
    If you lived in Southern Illinois, you could afford a second hog, and maybe a chicken or two.
    I'd have a whole damn farm out there in them parts!
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,540
    .3% of student loan borrowers attend Ivy League schools, really takes away from the not wanting to help people that went to Yale and Harvard argument.  Also it’s just a plain stupid argument.  Wealthy people and people from wealthy families aren’t the ones taking out loans and struggling to make the payments.  
Sign In or Register to comment.