GOP supports government bailouts for failing firms.

[Beet]

There is an industry based on making loans so that certain types of poor, uneducated consumers can spend huge sums of money. The product they are buying is touted as an "investment" but in reality gives very poor returns. As a result, the default rates on these loans are astronomical-- 30, 40, 50, 60 percent or higher. This is a loan industry that would never exist under the free market of course. The loan industry only exists because of government- backed subsidies and guarantees. In the end, the taxpayer is left holding the bag.

Is it Fannie and Freddie? No. But the failures are the same as the failures of Fannie and Freddie, which the GOP has tried to use to blame the financial crisis on 'government'. Yet the GOP is behind this industry 100%. Which industry is it? You can probably guess.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is why all private schools need to be abolished.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vaguely related note: The House GOP also voted unanimously a few days ago to protect subsidies for oil companies.

'Cause.. you know.. deficit, and stuff..

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Remember those libertarians talking about how wonderful the House would be while GOP controlled and concerned with reducing deficits and all that?

[Associate Justice PiT]

This is why all private schools need to be abolished.

     I'm trying to think of a worse idea than abolishing private universities, but it's tough going. Of course there is a critical distinction to be made between for-profit ones & non-profit ones that you seem to have glossed over here.

[Beet]

This isn't really about public vs. private, IMO. This is about common sense regulations on real schools vs. taxpayer-funded diploma mills with a 22% graduation rate.

[President Mitt]

Remember those libertarians talking about how wonderful the House would be while GOP controlled and concerned with reducing deficits and all that?

Who said that?

I know I didn't expect much from them.

[Mechaman]

Remember those libertarians talking about how wonderful the House would be while GOP controlled and concerned with reducing deficits and all that?

Who said that?

I know I didn't expect much from them.

Ditto.
I expected the GOP to piss all over the grave of Eisenhower by defending to death military spending (which in my opinion should be the first thing cut if people were at all serious about reducing the deficit) and oil and gas subsidies.  There are some GOP politicians, like Rand Paul, who I'm expecting more out of but the vast majority?
No, not expecting principled opposition to wasteful spending.

[cinyc]

This isn't really about public vs. private, IMO. This is about common sense regulations on real schools vs. taxpayer-funded diploma mills with a 22% graduation rate.

Considering that those "common sense regulations" only apply to private, for-profit colleges, yes it is.  All supposedly taxpayer-funded diploma mills with a 22% graduation rate should be treated equally.  But the Obama administration isn't interested in equal treatment.  They are interested in kneecapping potential competition to their favored type of higher education.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So? Private schools shouldn't even exist.

[cinyc]

So? Private schools shouldn't even exist.

Fine.  We'll start by getting rid of Harvard and Yale.

[Beet]

Any non-profit private school that can't meet a 35-40% graduation rate in 6 years, at minimum, should not be eligible for federal student loans, and any public school that can't meet the same standard should have its leadership sacked and policies overhauled from the ground up.

Although, graduation rates shouldn't be the only standard. As the American Enterprise Institute points out, it's easy to pad graduation rates by lowering standards. A better indicator might be loan default rates-- that shows how many students actually see the degree pay off with an income that allows them to recoup their student loans. And that is precisely what is being blocked by these GOP Senators.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So? Private schools shouldn't even exist.

Fine.  We'll start by getting rid of Harvard and Yale.

A great start.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Any non-profit private school that can't meet a 35-40% graduation rate in 6 years, at minimum, should not be eligible for federal student loans, and any public school that can't meet the same standard should have its leadership sacked and policies overhauled from the ground up.

Although, graduation rates shouldn't be the only standard. As the American Enterprise Institute points out, it's easy to pad graduation rates by lowering standards. A better indicator might be loan default rates-- that shows how many students actually see the degree pay off with an income that allows them to recoup their student loans. And that is precisely what is being blocked by these GOP Senators.

Since the regulation is called "gainful employment," I assume that is the standard used rather than loan default, correct? 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vaguely related note: The House GOP also voted unanimously a few days ago to protect subsidies for oil companies.

'Cause.. you know.. deficit, and stuff..

Perhaps that think that removing incentives for energy production to be bad idea. Thats what these are. You can argue about their success, but there is a purpose behind them besides "a subsidy to big oil".

[tpfkaw]

Vaguely related note: The House GOP also voted unanimously a few days ago to protect subsidies for oil companies.

'Cause.. you know.. deficit, and stuff..

Tax credits, not subsidies.  I still disagree, but there is a difference.

Remember those libertarians talking about how wonderful the House would be while GOP controlled and concerned with reducing deficits and all that?

No, I don't.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This is why all private schools need to be abolished.

Why shoudl it be illegal to pay for something better than what the state provides? I'm not advocating propping up schools that can't provide education or whatever the heck this thread's subject is. I'm asking why it should be illegal to pay for an education that is better than what the state is in theory providing. Why should that be illegal?

[memphis]

Any non-profit private school that can't meet a 35-40% graduation rate in 6 years, at minimum, should not be eligible for federal student loans, and any public school that can't meet the same standard should have its leadership sacked and policies overhauled from the ground up.

Although, graduation rates shouldn't be the only standard. As the American Enterprise Institute points out, it's easy to pad graduation rates by lowering standards. A better indicator might be loan default rates-- that shows how many students actually see the degree pay off with an income that allows them to recoup their student loans. And that is precisely what is being blocked by these GOP Senators.

A lot of state schools aren't too much better. Thisis what happens when you tell everybody that they should go to college: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/feb/28/time-a-matter-of-degree-for-u-of-m-students/

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is why all private schools need to be abolished.

Why shoudl it be illegal to pay for something better than what the state provides? I'm not advocating propping up schools that can't provide education or whatever the heck this thread's subject is. I'm asking why it should be illegal to pay for an education that is better than what the state is in theory providing. Why should that be illegal?

Because it only benefits the upper classes and just lets them further entrench their status.

[tpfkaw]

I wonder if BRTD would favor private schools if they were called brothels.

Certainly would provide much more practical knowledge, no?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vaguely related note: The House GOP also voted unanimously a few days ago to protect subsidies for oil companies.

'Cause.. you know.. deficit, and stuff..

Tax credits, not subsidies.  I still disagree, but there is a difference.

There's very little functional difference.

Vaguely related note: The House GOP also voted unanimously a few days ago to protect subsidies for oil companies.

'Cause.. you know.. deficit, and stuff..

Perhaps that think that removing incentives for energy production to be bad idea. Thats what these are. You can argue about their success, but there is a purpose behind them besides "a subsidy to big oil".

Oh please. Aside from subsidies for alternative energy productive, any assistance to the oil companies makes no sense whatsoever. The oil industry is the most profitable industry in the history of the planet and needs no help to increase production. If we're in such a budget crisis, all money like this should be what we focus on first. Republicans voted against it because A) Democrats proposed it and B) Republicans get far more money than Democrats do from the oil industry.

If having enough energy was an actual concern there would be far better direct ways to make sure people get the energy they need. Like, say, not cutting home energy assistance programs to the poor. (Which saves far less money than this would, yet gets the priority on the chopping block.) Just throwing that out there.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is why all private schools need to be abolished.

Why shoudl it be illegal to pay for something better than what the state provides? I'm not advocating propping up schools that can't provide education or whatever the heck this thread's subject is. I'm asking why it should be illegal to pay for an education that is better than what the state is in theory providing. Why should that be illegal?

Because it only benefits the upper classes and just lets them further entrench their status.

so you want to make the public universities that much harder to get into or be more numerous and cost that much more in taxes?