Which loan to pay off first....

Sonshine · #21 11/30/10, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

Two of you. Wow, I had no idea. I honestly thought that not paying back the SS fund was the republican way of taxing the elderly. I'm not being felicitous by saying that either. It really sounded like that's what was going on.

But the story doesn't end with Nixon. In the early 1980s it was discovered just how much raiding of the SS fund was going on. That news caused quite an upheaval. Working people didn't like the idea of paying into a retirement fund that was being raided by congress. Reagan had a near revolt on his hands over it.

In reaction to that, Reagan championed the Social Security Reform Act of 1984. Reagan promised us that the Act provided SS participants with an "iron clad" promise, and that no one, not even congress, could ever raid the fund again. Here's the speech where he told us that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-91W5LS0E8

Working America took him at his word.

The problem was that the only thing that the Act provided for was that if congress raided the fund that they had to issue an IOU (called a treasury bond) for the money. The truth was that the so-called treasury bond IOUs could not be traded publicly, so they have no market value. If congress refuses to make good in the IOUs there is no real recourse.

In other words, the SS Reform Act that Reagan signed in 1984 was a sham, and the "iron clad" promises that Reagan made when he signed it was a pack of lies designed to keep Americans paying into the system so congress could continue stealing it.

I haven't seen any one other than politicians on both sides of the aisle that thinks SS should be payed back, in fact, shouldn't have been taken to start with. Politicians have not listened to their constituents for a long time in this matter, which is why people on both sides of the political spectrum are frustrated with our government.

Forest · #22 11/30/10, 06:43 PM

what mistletoad said.

georger · #23 11/30/10, 09:04 PM

It might make more sense to get a consolidation loan and manage that instead. The person should talk to their banker about how to manage this debt, or perhaps they should talk to a credit counsellor.

Mavors · #24 11/30/10, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

Okay, perfect example of what I've been talking about. If all the money from loans 1, 2, and 3 has been spent, why are you suggesting that he pay any of them back? The republican logic is that if money is borrowed and it's already been spent, then it's absurd to suggest that it be paid back.

http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoung.../1/fBcQCLmC1fg

Why the sudden shift in logic?

Not that I mind a good political discussion, but it seems like Nevada turns every one of them into a D n R fight. Thought this was a questions about why you should pay one bill off before another.

Math wise I agree....pay off the higher interest loans first...., but as Dave Ramsey always says....if you were so good at math then why are you in debt.

I think you should pay off the bill you hate the most....motivation that sticks is the best way to pay off debt. Me....I hate all my bills...lol

Nevada · #25 11/30/10, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georger

It might make more sense to get a consolidation loan and manage that instead. The person should talk to their banker about how to manage this debt, or perhaps they should talk to a credit counsellor.

I doubt that the bank wants the debt, unless he offers collateral. That wouldn't be a wise move though. If things were to get worse for the OP he could lose his collateral, even in a bankruptcy. Keeping the loan as unsecured debt may cost extra interest, but if disaster strikes unsecured debt can be discharged.

**Kung** · #26 11/30/10, 11:04 PM

The question WAS (not sure if it still IS) purely one of financial expediency, not one of politics. Twisting words and throwing out red herrings doesn't change that fact.

Closing the thread at the request of the OP.