I still do not see why that is a 'democrat' issue. Firstly, the 60s had their own issues of morals going on without any type of 'intervention'. Secondly the Russian influence seems, to me, to be happening with the cooperation of the current Republican POTUS.

Last time I voted, I saw no such box. There has always been a 'they' and 'they' say a lot of things about other people,

I miss when objective/cultural/family standards were not railed against in favor of so called 'individualism'.

Bottom line for me is we do not live in caves. In society we live AMONGST others, so we DO in fact impact and are impacted by others.


I don't care for the labels because I feel they are used as emotional fear mongering tactics these days. It is like with 'religious values'. What is that? In the Bible it teaches not to steal or murder, so does that make those things 'religious values'? How do we pretend things fall neatly or squarely in one box, when instead there can be a GREAT DEAL of overlap between political ideas and values.


Arguing about 'concepts' does little towards discussing reality. For instance, the fist definition I find for 'socialism' is this:


a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


Nevermind that it deals with 'production' and not services. In political fodder, it is applied to both. And if we take a very 'American' concept of "of the people, for the people, and BY the people", it can be argued some form of 'socialism' is designed to be included in our American fabric. It can also be argued that public services (for the people) are also a part of that fabric.


So the idea that there should be no private property does not have to coexist with the idea that communities or 'the people' should own more of what they are contributing to. Workers contribute to profits. The idea they should be better represented for it is not a terrible one. Citizens spend a lifetime paying taxes. The idea that those funds should likewise be an available cushion for them when and if needed is also not a terrible one. If someone is innovative, they should be rewarded, but not at the expense of those who help them MAKE something profitable from that innovation. The innovator should be rewarded, but so should those who labor to help the innovator create more from their innovation than an idea.

There are levels. It is not all either/or. It is not all simply boxed and labeled.

I am a democrat who did not get the memo. What conversion and when did it happen?

but when they check a score, it does not include what you can 'afford', it is just a number. What you can afford is determined by your current income and bills.

I disagree. I stick by the fact that whether you pay 'as you go bills' such as the necessities of shelter, transportatation, utilities, et cetera CANNOT be determined by figuring in loans given for repayment at a much later date for and time.

They are different animals.

I suggest, not letting people off for paying debt, but not allowing outrageous interest and costs of student loans to be counted in such a significant indicator for a score that counts towards so many necessities in people's lives.

racism does not have to involve hate at all, much of it is ignorance, including 'preference' which requires one to make all individual in a group no longer distinct and unique but clones of each other.

You miss the point. If ALL That is being considered is a score, that is NOT an indicator of how you pay your BILLS, which are different than loans.


IF a person has no history of missing their car notes, rent, utitilies or other ongoing MONTHLY Expenses, that is more of an indicator that they pay their monthly bills than if they have outstanding LOANS.

Not when considering credit, no, unless it is a complimentary listing for informative only and not counted to the rating of your credit.

Not when considering credit, no.

They shouldn't allow history with student loan payments to be used as an accurate reflection of responsibility towards pay as you go services, like rent, utility, or car notes.

Because of their nature of being a payment for Use as it is used. Whereas loans for school are FUTURE payments for something predicted to be used, but often not useful after all.

I only disagree about the credit because in our culture that rating is applied to housing applications and car loans and other things that are entirely a different type of 'loan', due to those loans one applies for based on their CURRENT earnings and not an often miscalculated future one. I feel like should be used to consider like. Utility bills, car notes, rental history should be compared to past payments on utility bills, car notes, and rental history, not student loans.

Because it is very different. The amount of years and the interest rate are based on a perceived return, a career earning money that makes the payments affordable. Most are not getting careers in their degrees. And a student loan, which is often deferred for a much later time, is also different than normal bills that are being paid AS they are being used.

Student loans tell very little about whether a person will pay their rent or their car note or their utilities. Since many of these places use that score to qualify people, I feel the student loan should not be a part of that consideration of whether someone has or will pay ongoing, pay as you use, bills for rent or other services.

This would be a solution because people will still be held responsible, but these high interest loans will not have the same weight to be able to interfere with any and all of the other things they ARE able and likely to be responsible for.

College loans: Reduce interest, keep it seperate from credit and not present on credit reports.

If not for student loans, I would have perfect credit, because I otherwise pay any bills I have, from rent, to car loan, to utilities. Yet, moving is always a complication because of a credit score tied to student loans. I wonder how many other people in the country would have a real fresh start if they could clear the loans off of their credit scores.

No more senile old men, please!

I don't know how you can split up a family eating together. Adults have to choose the food, and that should be their choice as the adult what type of foods to buy. I do not want to be taken away either. Even those who are struggling should not have to split up how they eat with each other or have others choose what they eat.

I much rather prefer it as it is.

lol. It is not uncommon. Often times it is those afflicted with self hatred that are the favorite tokens of those who are bigots. They are the 'exceptions' and are quickly embraced to validate the views of the bigots outside of their demographic as proof that they are not REALLY being bigoted, but just 'honest'.

lol. It is not uncommon. Often times it is those afflicted with self hatred that are the favorite tokens of those who are bigots. They are the 'exceptions' and are quickly embraced to validate the views of the bigots outside of their demographic as proof that they are not REALLY being bigoted, but just 'honest'.