SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Recent college graduates who borrow are leaving school with an average of $34,000 in student loans. That's up from $20,000 just 10 years ago, according to a new analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
In that report, out this week, the New York Fed took a careful look at the relationship between debt and homeownership. For people aged 30 to 36, the analysis shows having any student debt significantly hurts your chances of buying a home, compared to college graduates with no debt. The cliche of "good debt" notwithstanding, the consequences of borrowing are real, and they are lasting.
The report paints a mixed picture of how student borrowing has evolved over the last decade, since the financial crisis. There are some bright spots: For example, student loan defaults peaked five years ago and have declined ever since.
And repayment seems to have slowed down among high-balance borrowers —those who owe $75,000 or more. Meaning, after 10 years, they have paid down only one-quarter to one-third of what they owe.
On the face, this isn't necessarily good. But taken alongside the decline in defaults, Fed president William Dudley said in a press briefing Monday, it reflects something good. That is, graduate students, in particular, are signing up for government programs intended to help make payments more affordable.
Source: NPR
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:51PM (1 child)
The Democrats had the power to produce a true socialized system a few years ago, but instead they passed the "Affordable Care Act" which continues the problematic interactions with third parties in U.S. healthcare that end up ballooning costs.
I would suggest that a "true socialized system" would be unconstitutional. At least there is a very strong argument that it is not an enumerated power in the Constitution (although the Commerce Clause seems to be the catch-all so maybe not).
Therefore, the Democrats never had the power to produce a true socialized system. They had a first step in the process, but do you really think 2/3 of the states would ratify an amendment to grant the federal government this power?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:00AM
We haven't been living under enumerated powers since the late 1930s, since SCOTUS stopped striking down laws on that basis. (One or two outlier cases in the 1990s or whatever don't count.) The ACA is absolutely unconstitutional according to pre-New Deal jurisprudence, as would be 95% or more of the existing federal government today. So I'm not sure what your argument is -- do you seriously think the ACA would pass constitutional muster under the federalism doctrine of the Founders (or the first 150 years or so of U.S. history)? Please point to the enumerated power that authorizes the federal government to force people to buy health insurance (or to force people to purchase anything from a private corporation).
Enumerated powers are meaningless now, so I don't see how one can say the Dems didn't have power to make a socialized system when they didn't have power to make the one they did. (This was proven in SCOTUS cases around the ACA, where a majority of the court actually agreed it was beyond enumerated powers... Except Roberts came up with a tortured way to redefine the wording of the law to read it as saying something different.)