Ron Paul Wants To End the Federal Student Loan Program 1797
On the heels of declaring his intent to axe a few departments from the federal government, Ron Paul has revealed more plans should he become President. The_THOMAS writes "Ron Paul wants to end Federal student loans stating that the Government involvement artificially inflates the cost of a college education and that once the government is out of the situation, students will be able to work their way to a college degree. What do you think?"
Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (Score:3, Informative)
We're talking about a loan here.. the idea is it gets paid back.
As to why.. I'd say educating people is generally a good idea. Even if the money was a direct give-away.. I'd rather tax dollars be spent education people so they can contribute something to society vice welfare.
I do think there should be a little more oversight to ensure people who get these loans are doing something with at least a reasonable chance of turning into a job. If you want to get a degree in liberal arts or music .. burn your own money.
Re:Free market fairy (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, or did you mean to imply that the disaster that is today's economy was caused by the free market? Well, you can't have a free market when the government is intervening every five minutes to keep some company from collapsing. Can't even have one when you have a central bank that sets interest rates. What we have now is a MIXED market. The MIXED market has failed us.
Re:"Free" money (Score:5, Informative)
Ahhh, yes. The old misconceptions about college!
College is not necessarily a free-for-all experience where you spend the weekends drunk/recovering and Thursday nights doing the pre-party for those who are suitcasing it that weekend.
No, college is about being an adult and making adult decisions. I've worked for colleges in a variety of roles over the last 10 years and two of those years were in admissions for a community/tech college.
Here in Minnesota you can go to college and complete your undergrad for very little money. You start as a PSEO student in HS and the state pays your way through many of your first two years of college undergraduate credit without your taking out any loans. They count towards your HS diploma AND your college degree.
If you don't choose to go that way (or even if you do) you can enter the state's community college system and live at home (working part time hopefully) while taking college courses at costs far lower than you'd spend elsewhere--especially out of state.
Then you move on to an in-state four year institution, preferably close to home so you don't have to pay many boarding expenses and ride mass transit or carpool to save on driving costs. Then you complete your degree with very few student loans and nothing hanging over your head.
---
However, most people instead have dreams of grandeur and take out ridiculous student loans to attend some out-of-state school or in-state private institution which sets them back far more than they could ever afford. Instead of checking the lists for the mid-life salary range for a graduate of one of these schools they instead check the Best Party Lists instead.
No, this doesn't apply to everyone--like those of us who had a scholarship or some other way of affording school without loans lasting forever--but it seems to be a growing trend of those complaining now.
You are a legal adult at 18 years of age and regardless of your (and your parents') poor choices for your future does not mean that you could not have chosen another path.
Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (Score:5, Informative)
He gives back his salary every year. He makes NO money off of being a Congressman.
You idiot. He has enough money so that he *can* give back his salary. He's not and never has been living hand-to-mouth. That's the entire point the original post was making!
Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (Score:4, Informative)
What a great talking point. Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? Because there are actual laws, regulations, and all sorts of other fun things (like the fact that this money has to be paid back and can't be wiped out by bankruptcy) that make what you're suggesting completely implausible.
It's a bit like the old "Don't help the homeless, they're really all rich and slumming it" meme that was going around when I was in high school. A fun way to distract ourselves from real problems.
Re:Free market fairy (Score:5, Informative)
Nah it's the "No True Scotsman" of economic theory. The closer you get to it, the fewer regulations, the worse things get.
Apologists always have 'reasons for it though', and it starts with not considering voters to be part of the market, and believing that regulation comes from an entity independent of the people. That's why they are currently trying to make people believe that they aren't represented by our representative government. They are working very hard online to convince people of this, too.
In any case, it's always 'No TRUE free market has (X)' or 'a TRUE free market would need (Y)' as an excuse as to why things get so much worse when 'free market' principles are applied. It's really amusing to hear adherents claim that no matter how hard their 'solutions' fail, they would have worked if it was a TRUE 'free market'. Its a matter of dogma, of faith with most of them. Finger-pointing is a way of life for the free-marketeer.
Almost as funny as the current ifn-yer-aint-fer-us-yer-agin-us meme that anyone against deregulation or for common worker representation at contract negotiations is Socialist/Communist scum trying to destroy the economy - when deregulation is what did it this time, around, and lack of regulation is what did it last time. And the ridiculous notion that we should trust 'market forces' and some magic invisible hand to adjust the market (while ignoring the fact that the people are the market, and the voice of the people is the 'vote', so gov regulation IS their invisible hand) as the only answer? That depends on all things being interchangeable, and there being an infinite job market not subject to supply and demand...
The 'Free Market' would seem to be a frail thing indeed - so frail it could never exist or last, even if it worked...
University 'market' is a con (Score:5, Informative)
See what is happening in the UK. They are on the route to a 'market' experiment in higher education. This has been launched by no other than lord Browne, the CEO of BP who had to resigned in 2007, and then named at the head of a commission to review higher education finances.
Academics are waking up to the meaning of a law that has been passed without the preliminary white paper, that is, without sufficient public discussion.
They are going to cut 90% of public financing to the universities, and harnessing the student with the resulting debt. They call that: "putting the student at the center of the reform".
Stefan Collini is the foremost critic of this idea and has just published a book about this. Read this article in The Guardian (free access) to get an idea of how the UK is on the path to destroying one of the finest higher education system: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/19/university-market-white-paper [guardian.co.uk]
An experiment of this sort has been carried on in New Zealand in the 90's. The result has been catastrophic. Proposals of this kind, all with a libertarian/market flavor, are being proposed in legislatures all over the world at the moment. It is as if the right had found its next target.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I learned the value of money by paying as I wen (Score:5, Informative)
I had it easier than you- 90% of my schooling was paid through scholarship and grants- of the remainder my parents paid some towards my school- and I worked 35hrs a week (just one job... but year round) for the rest of it. I emerged from University with no loans.
I HAD to complete it in 4 years because of scholarships- I didn't have the option of spreading it out over more time to spread the burden. So despite major scholarships I still worked full time in order that I could live a meagre existence of 50cent microwavable mini-pizzas and TJ Maxx clearance clothes- I hit the jackpot on super cheap rent- paying only $250 a month- a great place with free cockroaches and lead paint.
Had I not had the scholarships- I couldn't have done it. Had I not had support from my parents- I couldn't have done it.
This was over a decade ago- since when costs have skyrocketed.
College now costs more than what an uneducated full-time worker makes.
You might have been able to get by in the 80s working jobs to pay your way- nowadays kids don't have that option.
$1 trillion of student debt (Score:5, Informative)
Some points to consider:
Total outstanding student loan debt recently topped $1 trillion (e.g. see link [time.com]).
Student loan debt now exceeds household credit card debt (see link [www.good.is]).
It isn't possible to escape student loans via bankruptcy - they will follow you your whole life, no matter what. This puts them in a class by themselves.
Obviously, the current system is badly broken. Why should the federal govt be in the business of hooking young adults on these onerous loans? If the goal is social leveling (a goal I can get behind), then we should be talking about grants, not loans. What we're doing is creating a new class of indentured servants.
Re:Subsidies inflate pricing. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In a perfect world (Score:3, Informative)
1. Cut government funding
2. Let Citizens keep their money rather than paying taxes
3. Solve your own problems. It is the government, not your mommy.
He isn't selling any dreams to you. He wants everyone to understand that the government has NOTHING to do with your dreams. It should be there to serve few purposes. Everything else in your life should be up to you.
Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (Score:3, Informative)
And how EXACTLY do you figure that student LOANS are a part of the safety net? Notice these aren't GRANT programs he is calling to end. Or did you forget about the tens of thousands of dollars of non-dischargeable student debt that you are likely stifling under?
Re:In a perfect world (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Subsidies inflate pricing. (Score:3, Informative)
So, he's got his. Fuck the rest of us.
Ah, you understand the Republican philosophy perfectly.
Now, before anyone jumps in my shit and stirs, I'm not saying that the Democrats don't pull this kind of crapola too. They just don't tend to do it so overtly.
Re:Subsidies inflate pricing. (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, dear you almost had it right. Then you revealed that you also have acquired the False Equivalence Virus.
No, this is not a "both parties" problem. It is a one party problem and it is a right-wing problem.
Provide examples that "democrats" pull this kind of "crapola" too. ANY examples.
Re:Subsidies inflate pricing. (Score:3, Informative)
By that logic, the day that student loans end, all of the colleges will go bankrupt. No, obviously they will lower their prices until low enough that enough people can afford it that the college is solvent.
But the Federally subsidized student loan is a subsidy: the interest rate is artificially low, it can go unpaid for decades, the lender charges the government fees based on the amount of the loan, and the government guarantees at least part of the principal. Since the university and lender have incentive to increase the tuition cost, and the students have little incentive to find a lower price, the inflation occurs. It seemed to start in the 80s [inflationdata.com], but it would be difficult to determine the exact date it began based on this graph.
Also note that ending federally subsidized loans does not mean that there will be no student loans available. They may be more difficult to get, and they will have higher interest rates. But these will keep the tuition cost nailed roughly to the rest of the market.
Re:Subsidies inflate pricing. (Score:3, Informative)
what makes you think stopping them would make the price go down
Really simple, and its something you shouldn't need to go to collage to understand.
Supply and demand. Schools will either go out of business or lower prices to increase demand. The million dollar deans will soon become 100k deans, and as that trickles down through the organization, professors who spend more time doing their own shit and wasting university resources will have to put more effort into doing their job than getting a free ride on someone else's bill because they spend 75% of their time playing rather than doing what they were hired for.
Without student loans, the price will go down. Making less money is preferable to 0 money, assuming you can stay in business. These smart people certainly can figure it out, don't you think? If not, than they probably weren't our money in the first place and again, things will be better.
Re:Subsidies inflate pricing. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Subsidies inflate pricing. (Score:4, Informative)
A gov't GUARANTEED loan IS a subsidy.
It's a worst kind of subsidy, every gov't program that guarantees something only does so at the expense of everyone's savings - the Fed will print (inflate) and steal your purchasing power to pay the bad debt off (bail outs to banks, companies, home owners, eventually to students, etc.)
The prices will come down if gov't money is removed from making these guarantees and quality will go up. Right now quality is shit, because nobody competes on quality. It's not like fewer people will want to enter your facilities if your quality is not that great, because space is limited, but gov't guarantees are not.
Yes, if the gov't guarantees are cut the tuition prices will fall (as it should) and based on qualities a number colleges will fail and NOT as many people will go if they have to take a private loan and prove it's not a waste of time and money (and that's what you have to do, you have to prove that there is some value there, some asset, or that your degree will allow you to pay the interest and loan back).
But this is a GOOD thing. Not everybody should go to college, not by a long shot. Right now the number of sociology majors is ridiculous, who needs any of them? Nobody does, they are worthless degrees and they are given out like candy. It happens because of the money transfer from gov't to educational facilities and students are the collateral.
Students are collateral, money is given to universities, universities in their turn support the political system that gives them this money, and the vicious cycle continues and economy worsens and those degrees are not worth anything and the lie of Keynesian solutions grows as the Fed counterfeits further.
Re:Subsidies inflate pricing. (Score:4, Informative)
My final semester's registration fee, also at UCB: $2400
Granted, I took five years, but still, 400% change in four years is really something. The state pulled back funding, the universities increased their costs to make up for it (and more?), and yes, private U's probably do take advantage of the situation by raising their own bars.