Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM in reply to: Milking the system? $400,000 in student debt and not a single repayment. #424624July 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM in reply to: Milking the system? $400,000 in student debt and not a single repayment. #424694
ucodegen
ParticipantFYI, flu, Zeitgeist, did you really read the article?
I have dealt with student loan organizations. They are a real sleazy group. There is a limit on total percentage of a balance that they can charge as fees. The percentage is 36%. They routinely violate this. Any payments made are immediately applied to the fee portion of the balance before the principal. This way they can then immediately add more to the fees. If you want to pay the balance of an overdue in full, they will drag their heels.. claiming that the account is not ‘active’ on their system and they need time to get it ‘back on their system’. They then wait over 9 months, charging interest in the meantime, until they contact you. If you are out of contact (my case, on business travel out of the U.S.), they immediately forward it to a collection agency.. yet more fees.
This type of behavior started when the student loan companies lobbied congress and got a waiver around normal collection agency limitations. Normally, before garnishing taxes or attaching accounts, the claim has to go before a judge. The waiver is that student loan collection agencies no longer have to go before a judge to prove that the money is owed. If they collect improperly, you have to chase them down and sue them.. and they make that hard.
July 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM in reply to: Milking the system? $400,000 in student debt and not a single repayment. #424857ParticipantFYI, flu, Zeitgeist, did you really read the article?
I have dealt with student loan organizations. They are a real sleazy group. There is a limit on total percentage of a balance that they can charge as fees. The percentage is 36%. They routinely violate this. Any payments made are immediately applied to the fee portion of the balance before the principal. This way they can then immediately add more to the fees. If you want to pay the balance of an overdue in full, they will drag their heels.. claiming that the account is not ‘active’ on their system and they need time to get it ‘back on their system’. They then wait over 9 months, charging interest in the meantime, until they contact you. If you are out of contact (my case, on business travel out of the U.S.), they immediately forward it to a collection agency.. yet more fees.
This type of behavior started when the student loan companies lobbied congress and got a waiver around normal collection agency limitations. Normally, before garnishing taxes or attaching accounts, the claim has to go before a judge. The waiver is that student loan collection agencies no longer have to go before a judge to prove that the money is owed. If they collect improperly, you have to chase them down and sue them.. and they make that hard.
Participant[quote=DaCounselor]”Nice… 😉 Mello Roos: $5,482.28/Year”
___________________…and another $5K/yr in HOA dues – ouch.[/quote]
Don’t forget property taxes…
Participant[quote=DaCounselor]”Nice… 😉 Mello Roos: $5,482.28/Year”
___________________…and another $5K/yr in HOA dues – ouch.[/quote]
Don’t forget property taxes…
Participant[quote=DaCounselor]”Nice… 😉 Mello Roos: $5,482.28/Year”
___________________…and another $5K/yr in HOA dues – ouch.[/quote]
Don’t forget property taxes…
Participant[quote=DaCounselor]”Nice… 😉 Mello Roos: $5,482.28/Year”
___________________…and another $5K/yr in HOA dues – ouch.[/quote]
Don’t forget property taxes…
Participant[quote=DaCounselor]”Nice… 😉 Mello Roos: $5,482.28/Year”
___________________…and another $5K/yr in HOA dues – ouch.[/quote]
Don’t forget property taxes…
June 25, 2009 at 4:57 PM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420327Participantre: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
“We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.
This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under “The plots thicken”
This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.
By the way, I would recommend that you read down to “the plot thickens”.. “The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the ‘sweet point’ for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.
Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists– tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming – according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.
June 25, 2009 at 4:57 PM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420559Participantre: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
“We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.
This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under “The plots thicken”
This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.
By the way, I would recommend that you read down to “the plot thickens”.. “The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the ‘sweet point’ for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.
Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists– tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming – according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.
June 25, 2009 at 4:57 PM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420829Participantre: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
“We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.
This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under “The plots thicken”
This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.
By the way, I would recommend that you read down to “the plot thickens”.. “The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the ‘sweet point’ for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.
Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists– tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming – according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.
June 25, 2009 at 4:57 PM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420897Participantre: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
“We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.
This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under “The plots thicken”
This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.
By the way, I would recommend that you read down to “the plot thickens”.. “The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the ‘sweet point’ for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.
Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists– tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming – according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.
June 25, 2009 at 4:57 PM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #421058Participantre: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
“We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.
This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under “The plots thicken”
This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.
By the way, I would recommend that you read down to “the plot thickens”.. “The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the ‘sweet point’ for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.
Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists– tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming – according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.
June 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420312ParticipantLets try:
-That Global temperatures are increasing?
This one is incorrect. In fact the troposphere is much cooler than it should be if we are under a global warming scenario. In addition, satellite observations have shown that the ‘hockey-stick’ shape and recent claimed increases are incorrect. Additional problems are that the data used to justify the hockey-stick are produced under one person’s guidance and not subject to peer review. When there was a request for copies of the original sensor data.. it mysteriously disappeared/got lost. The data being presented is being adjusted for heat-island effect but the methodology being applied is not peer reviewed. The location of most temperature sensing sites are located in heavily urbanized and city environments.
Something from NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htmNOTE: Remote, non-contact temperature sensing is done by analysis of black body radiation spectra.
-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?
San Diego is also much cooler this year than it has been for a very long time. The one thing that much of the ‘pro’ camp forgets is that weather always changes. There are periods warmer and periods cooler.
An interesting and inconvenient occurrence for the IPCC..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/At one time, Britain was warm enough to grow grapes.. It hasn’t been that warm there for quite a while.
June 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420544ParticipantLets try:
-That Global temperatures are increasing?
This one is incorrect. In fact the troposphere is much cooler than it should be if we are under a global warming scenario. In addition, satellite observations have shown that the ‘hockey-stick’ shape and recent claimed increases are incorrect. Additional problems are that the data used to justify the hockey-stick are produced under one person’s guidance and not subject to peer review. When there was a request for copies of the original sensor data.. it mysteriously disappeared/got lost. The data being presented is being adjusted for heat-island effect but the methodology being applied is not peer reviewed. The location of most temperature sensing sites are located in heavily urbanized and city environments.
Something from NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htmNOTE: Remote, non-contact temperature sensing is done by analysis of black body radiation spectra.
-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?
San Diego is also much cooler this year than it has been for a very long time. The one thing that much of the ‘pro’ camp forgets is that weather always changes. There are periods warmer and periods cooler.
An interesting and inconvenient occurrence for the IPCC..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/At one time, Britain was warm enough to grow grapes.. It hasn’t been that warm there for quite a while.
-
AuthorPosts
