Ron Paul wants to phase out federal student loans

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/10/23/paul_wants_to_phase_out_federal_student_loans/

[RI]

Paul can go f**k himself.

[courts]

Well logically if the government didn't subsidize private college so extensively and make student loans basically inescapable, they'd be forced to cut tuition costs.. Or at least not increase them as drastically. Otherwise they'd quickly go bust. Unless as a country we're willing to pay for totally public universities that would seem to make more sense than pretending college for everyone is realistic (spoiler: we're not).

[Kaine for Senate '18]

And people say Obama hates America?

[Marston]

I know this isn't Paul's point but doesn't the government make a profit off of issuing direct student loans?

[tpfkaw]

Perhaps then we'd find that it's no longer necessary to get an MS to be assistant regional marketing analyst at Alamo Rent-a-Car.

[RI]

Makes sense. Logically if the government didn't subsidize private college so extensively they'd be forced to cut tuition costs, or at least not increase them as drastically. Unless as a country we're willing to pay for totally public universities college for all just doesn't make much sense (hint: we're not).

Cutting student loans puts public universities in a really terrible position. They have no ability to cut tuition, nor any incentive to, as their tuition not only pays for their operations but goes into general state funding. Killing the ability, at least in the near to medium term, for anyone but the rich and scholarshipped to attend a public university dries up that revenue, forces states to cut other funding and lay off a lot of professors, the untenured and most productive kind. Private universities wouldn't be in a better position, either.

You would also see a massive amount of college students suddenly forced into the larger labor market as they simply can't afford college without federal loans (the safest kind), which would put more strain on our economy, screw the students over for life, and in the long run make America a less educated, less innovative place.

The only upside is that for-profit universities die, but it's not worth it.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why should the Federal government be giving out loans. The states should be doing these programs.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why should the Federal government be giving out loans. The states should be doing these programs.

Why do conservatives/libertarians worship the 'states"?

It's not because of the Constitution, btw. There are plenty of parts of the  Constitution that conservatives and libertarians ignore/dislike.

[Averroës Nix]

Why do conservatives/libertarians worship the 'states"?

In this case, it's just Paulist dogma.

[courts]

Makes sense. Logically if the government didn't subsidize private college so extensively they'd be forced to cut tuition costs, or at least not increase them as drastically. Unless as a country we're willing to pay for totally public universities college for all just doesn't make much sense (hint: we're not).

Cutting student loans puts public universities in a really terrible position. They have no ability to cut tuition, nor any incentive to, as their tuition not only pays for their operations but goes into general state funding. Killing the ability, at least in the near to medium term, for anyone but the rich and scholarshipped to attend a public university dries up that revenue, forces states to cut other funding and lay off a lot of professors, the untenured and most productive kind. Private universities wouldn't be in a better position, either.

You would also see a massive amount of college students suddenly forced into the labor market as they simply can't afford college without federal loans (the safest kind), which would put more strain on our economy, screw the students over for life, and in the long run make America a less educated, less innovative place.

The only upside is that for-profit universities die, but it's not worth it.

All universities are essentially for profit under the current system, so that's a moot point.

Anyway, why is my tuition going up for Umass by thousands of dollars while we have such excellent courses as 'ecofeminism' kept on our (hilariously awful) COIN database? How many people are already being priced out of the system now because of that? How many people are stuck servicing old loans with no hope of ever leaving thanks to consumer protection being not only wiped out but special requirements instated (by the feds)? Why have tuition increases exceeded the rate of inflation so drastically the last 20-30 years? The answer to all of those should be pretty obvious. And Paul isn't even proposing an immediate end to the system, which frankly is where we're heading anyway since this is so obviously a bubble (like so many things the government subsidizes in this country).

[Marston]

Why should the Federal government be giving out loans. The states should be doing these programs.

Why do conservatives/libertarians worship the 'states"?

It's not because of the Constitution, btw. There are plenty of parts of the  Constitution that conservatives and libertarians ignore/dislike.

Because federal student loans isn't specifically authorized in the Constitution!!!!!1111

And usury is a sin, anyway!

[All Along The Watchtower]

Makes sense. Logically if the government didn't subsidize private college so extensively they'd be forced to cut tuition costs, or at least not increase them as drastically. Unless as a country we're willing to pay for totally public universities college for all just doesn't make much sense (hint: we're not).

Cutting student loans puts public universities in a really terrible position. They have no ability to cut tuition, nor any incentive to, as their tuition not only pays for their operations but goes into general state funding. Killing the ability, at least in the near to medium term, for anyone but the rich and scholarshipped to attend a public university dries up that revenue, forces states to cut other funding and lay off a lot of professors, the untenured and most productive kind. Private universities wouldn't be in a better position, either.

You would also see a massive amount of college students suddenly forced into the labor market as they simply can't afford college without federal loans (the safest kind), which would put more strain on our economy, screw the students over for life, and in the long run make America a less educated, less innovative place.

The only upside is that for-profit universities die, but it's not worth it.

All universities are essentially for profit under the current system, so that's a moot point.

Anyway, why is my tuition going up for Umass by thousands of dollars while we have such excellent courses as 'ecofeminism' kept on our (hilariously awful) COIN database? How many people are already being priced out of the system now because of that? How many people are stuck servicing old loans with no hope of ever leaving thanks to consumer protection being not only wiped out but special requirements instated (by the feds)? Why have tuition increases exceeded the rate of inflation so drastically the last 20-30 years? The answer to all of those should be pretty obvious. And Paul isn't even proposing an immediate end to the system, which frankly is where we're heading anyway since this is so obviously a bubble (like so many things the government subsidizes in this country).

The solution would be to have incentives to not get a college degree. Like higher wages in the industrial workforce.

[courts]

Why should the Federal government be giving out loans. The states should be doing these programs.

Why do conservatives/libertarians worship the 'states"?

It's not because of the Constitution, btw. There are plenty of parts of the  Constitution that conservatives and libertarians ignore/dislike.

Name some.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why should the Federal government be giving out loans. The states should be doing these programs.

Why do conservatives/libertarians worship the 'states"?

It's not because of the Constitution, btw. There are plenty of parts of the  Constitution that conservatives and libertarians ignore/dislike.

Name some.

4th Amendment
14th Amendment
16th Amendment
17th Amendment
Necessary and Proper Clause
Commerce Clause

[courts]

The solution would be to have incentives to not get a college degree. Like higher wages in the industrial workforce.

This is sort of like telling Al we should focus more on coal workers.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why should the Federal government be giving out loans. The states should be doing these programs.

Why do conservatives/libertarians worship the 'states"?

It's not because of the Constitution, btw. There are plenty of parts of the  Constitution that conservatives and libertarians ignore/dislike.

Because, the US is made up of 50 sovereign "states". "States". A state is a country, not a province. The logic behind the Federal government was to keep peace between the states and protect them as a whole. Not to pay for your higher education.

Tell me, what do Conservatives ignore in the Constitution, and dont use the PATRIOT ACT as an example, that is NOT Conservative.

[tpfkaw]

To elaborate a bit more, imagine there were some federal loan program to give out up to $20,000 of low-interest loans to every person who wants to buy a car.  Now, as it stands, nearly everyone who wants to buy a car can buy a car, and automakers are capable of making profits at current prices.  Now, what if you introduce this loan program?  What do you do as an automaker?  The answer is obvious.  You simply raise the price of every car you sell by $20,000 and pocket the differential.  Same exact thing happens with colleges.  "Not-for-profit" colleges literally have made more money than they know what to do with (and this after paying the college president $6 million).

In addition, government policy that aims to increase college attendance also decreases social mobility, since employers will simply start demanding additional qualifications of new hires.  When you think about it, there are almost no jobs, except doctors, lawyers, accountants etc. that really require a college eduation.  But an employer will still pick a more qualified hire if they have the chance, which is why you have the situation now where Ph.Ds are stocking shelves.  This also means that the very poorest in society, those who can't afford even a loan or to be away from home for four years, are completely shut out of the upper echelons of the labor market.

Why do conservatives/libertarians worship the 'states"?

In this case, it's just Paulist dogma.

Are you Ziggy, or is Link?  Or both of you?  I can't tell.

[RI]

Makes sense. Logically if the government didn't subsidize private college so extensively they'd be forced to cut tuition costs, or at least not increase them as drastically. Unless as a country we're willing to pay for totally public universities college for all just doesn't make much sense (hint: we're not).

Cutting student loans puts public universities in a really terrible position. They have no ability to cut tuition, nor any incentive to, as their tuition not only pays for their operations but goes into general state funding. Killing the ability, at least in the near to medium term, for anyone but the rich and scholarshipped to attend a public university dries up that revenue, forces states to cut other funding and lay off a lot of professors, the untenured and most productive kind. Private universities wouldn't be in a better position, either.

You would also see a massive amount of college students suddenly forced into the labor market as they simply can't afford college without federal loans (the safest kind), which would put more strain on our economy, screw the students over for life, and in the long run make America a less educated, less innovative place.

The only upside is that for-profit universities die, but it's not worth it.

All universities are essentially for profit under the current system, so that's a moot point.

Anyway, why is my tuition going up for Umass by thousands of dollars while we have such excellent courses as 'ecofeminism' kept on our (hilariously awful) COIN database? How many people are already being priced out of the system now because of that? How many people are stuck servicing old loans with no hope of ever leaving thanks to consumer protection being not only wiped out but special requirements instated (by the feds)? Why have tuition increases exceeded the rate of inflation so drastically the last 20-30 years? The answer to all of those should be pretty obvious. And Paul isn't even proposing an immediate end to the system, which frankly is where we're heading anyway since this is so obviously a bubble (like so many things the government subsidizes in this country).

There are a lot of factors that have produced the increase in tuition costs besides just the availability of federal student loans. Changing cultural norms have driven up the demand for a college degree significantly, which has also produced a changing economic need for a college degree for gainful employment. Additionally, states have increasingly looked at tuition as a way to raise revenue, partly because college students vote at low rates and because there aren't any real consequences for them to do so, electorally. The availability of federal loans has perhaps exacerbated this, but it certainly didn't cause tuition to rise.

Yes, the rise in cost is a problem, and yes, there are a number of colleges out there that insist on offering BS courses, but taking a systematic swipe at college students isn't going magically cure this. If anything, some colleges might recognize that they are only now catering to the rich and to welfare/affirmative action cases and raise their tuition to compensate.

Also, there is a functional difference between a bubble and the subsidized positive externality source, but, in this case, there may be some overlap.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why should the Federal government be giving out loans. The states should be doing these programs.

Why do conservatives/libertarians worship the 'states"?

It's not because of the Constitution, btw. There are plenty of parts of the Constitution that conservatives and libertarians ignore/dislike.

Name some.

4th Amendment
14th Amendment
16th Amendment
17th Amendment
Necessary and Proper Clause
Commerce Clause

Search and Seizure--PATRIOT ACT. The Patriot Act was supported by Neoconservatives, like Bush and Cheney, not Paul.

14th Amendment--Stop playing the race card. Birthright citizenship is something we oppose to people whose parents were not born in the US or are here illegally. Not the anchor baby thing either.

16th Amendment--Thats theft. Your taking from one person to help another. That, while not having a bad motive, is still theft.

17th Amendment--Granted, I don't know why anyone would oppose this.

Necessary and Proper Clause--Obama is just as bad with executive orders as anyone else is/would be.

[Averroës Nix]

Why do conservatives/libertarians worship the 'states"?

In this case, it's just Paulist dogma.

Are you Ziggy, or is Link?  Or both of you?  I can't tell.

Please state your point plainly.

[Simfan34]

Of course he does. Admittedly, it would certainly bring tuition down.

Why don't these people get to the point and just announce they want to go back to the Articles of Confederation?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Of course he does. Admittedly, it would certainly bring tuition down.

Why don't these people get to the point and just announce they want to go back to the Articles of Confederation?

Ok. I want to go back to the Articles of Confederation .

[Paul Kemp]

Of course he does. Admittedly, it would certainly bring tuition down.

Why don't these people get to the point and just announce they want to go back to the Articles of Confederation?

Ok. I want to go back to the Articles of Confederation .

It worked so well the first time!

[LastVoter]

Why should the Federal government be giving out loans. The states should be doing these programs.

Why do conservatives/libertarians worship the 'states"?

It's not because of the Constitution, btw. There are plenty of parts of the  Constitution that conservatives and libertarians ignore/dislike.

Because, the US is made up of 50 sovereign "states". "States". A state is a country, not a province. The logic behind the Federal government was to keep peace between the states and protect them as a whole. Not to pay for your higher education.

Tell me, what do Conservatives ignore in the Constitution, and dont use the PATRIOT ACT as an example, that is NOT Conservative.

LOLOLOLOL. Should we try the whole secession thing again?'
edit: somebody brought out his true colors before me