White House proposes caps on student loan borrowing

[BotanyBoy]

Just a little financial reality into a system that by design is ripping off American parents and students for the benefit of colleges, universities, and their administrators. Many of these administrators and professors are paid 6 and 7 figure incomes for producing nothing of commensurate value to the end user, while at the same time saddling them crushing debt early in life that threatens to become a taxpayer liability.

(D)on't forget indoctrinating them to HATE the USA.

Democrat "education" at it's finest.

 

[Luk]

We should make the colleges themselves co-sign those loans so that they have some skin in the game, some responsibility for the success of the student and the market value of the degree they receive. Instead of churning out meaningless degrees and under educated youth who cannot compete, while stripping them of tens of thousands of dollars, universities would have some financial liability if they fail to produce a meaningful education. This would bring whole new standards into play about who qualifies for college, who gets to become an educator, and a higher rate of success for those who do graduate.

3rd time in 2 decades that I've agreed with vettebirther.

 

[HisArpy]

3rd time in 2 decades that I've agreed with vettebirther.

Do you think Emerson is pretending to be Vettebirther?

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

How government programs drive up college tuitions.

 

[BotanyBoy]

3rd time in 2 decades that I've agreed with vettebirther.

Luk is now racist too.

A white nationalist Nazi.

WHY do you hate people of color Luk??

 

[Luk]

Not often that I get 3 iggies in a row from 3 different people. Usually it's just DiZzyBo0by freaking out.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not often that I get 3 iggies in a row from 3 different people. Usually it's just DiZzyBo0by freaking out.

Oh luk is still cowering in his echo chamber.....not shocking

Stay scared lil hipster cuck.

 

[HisArpy]

Not often that I get 3 iggies in a row from 3 different people. Usually it's just DiZzyBo0by freaking out.

Seeing as it's you posting, I think everyone else is just refraining from commenting on the inanity.

 

[Rightguide]

(D)on't forget indoctrinating them to HATE the USA.

Democrat "education" at it's finest.

When, in a free country, all an economics degree produces is the New Green deal, you know people are getting ripped off, especially when a communist indoctrination is mistaken for a marketable education.

 

[SissySalina]

Does that mean there will be a limit on how much a college can charge then?

 

[chillywilly2]

Does that mean there will be a limit on how much a college can charge then?

They can only charge what they can suck out of your pocket and if the government give out fewer loans there is less to suck so I guess thats a yes

 

[BotanyBoy]

Does that mean there will be a limit on how much a college can charge then?

Essentially yes.

 

[Comshaw]

There are a lot of opinions floating through this thread, but the interesting thing is NO ONE has offered any kind of proof, fact or even an analysis from an economist that reducing loans and grants will reduce the cost of college. So, anybody got something? I can't see where it will work. As far as I'm concerned this idea is in the same category as "trickle down economics" and everyone knows how well that worked. So let's see some facts, or at least expert opinions on this issue.

Anybody?


Comshaw

 

[Salacious_B_Crumb]

We should make the colleges themselves co-sign those loans so that they have some skin in the game, some responsibility for the success of the student and the market value of the degree they receive. Instead of churning out meaningless degrees and under educated youth who cannot compete, while stripping them of tens of thousands of dollars, universities would have some financial liability if they fail to produce a meaningful education. This would bring whole new standards into play about who qualifies for college, who gets to become an educator, and a higher rate of success for those who do graduate.

Man this is seriously fucked up but I agree with old racist white dude with a scat fetish here. The other day I said Ish was right about something.
This might be the End Times.

 

[Que]

There are a lot of opinions floating through this thread, but the interesting thing is NO ONE has offered any kind of proof, fact or even an analysis from an economist that reducing loans and grants will reduce the cost of college. So, anybody got something? I can't see where it will work. As far as I'm concerned this idea is in the same category as "trickle down economics" and everyone knows how well that worked. So let's see some facts, or at least expert opinions on this issue.

Anybody?


Comshaw

Here you go: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

You are welcome.

If the "economist" that propped up the idiotic ideas of the Clinton administration and caused untold suffering doing the same for the malaise of the Obama administration had understood the basics about supply and demand in a market where principals are motivated by self-interest, he might have done better advising them and wouldn't have killed himself when the Trump economy refuted all of his advice.

I mean the guy actually believed that raising minimum wage does not impact the availability of jobs. He even has s study" that "proves" it.

Since you won't actually read something so simple let me explain it to you even more simply. In the face of unlimited government resources being made available in the form of easy money which will likely never be paid back we now have a 20 trillion-dollar student debt bubble. During this time where universities could easily plan and economize based on the unlimited number of students who would all be financed the rate of tuition continually outstripped the rate of inflation.

Take some time and think about that and when you come up with the reason why the tuition continually outstripped the rate of inflation you will have your answer.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The cost of tuition will not go down simply because tuition loans are capped. Capping student loans will once again return college to it's traditional status as an institution of higher learning that caters to the well-to-do.

In my opinion, one change that should be made is removing PRIVATE college loans from their current status as bankruptcy-proof. I understand the reasoning for PUBLIC (Federal) loans since the government is guaranteeing the debt.

Let financial institutions have some "skin in the game" for privately placed debt.

 

[Que]

The cost of tuition will not go down simply because tuition loans are capped. Capping student loans will once again return college to it's traditional status as an institution of higher learning that caters to the well-to-do.

In my opinion, one change that should be made is removing PRIVATE college loans from their current status as bankruptcy-proof. I understand the reasoning for PUBLIC (Federal) loans since the government is guaranteeing the debt.

Let financial institutions have some "skin in the game" for privately placed debt.

Oh sure. ASU is going to be able to find 80,000 rich kids to overcharge, along with all of the other players in the highly lucrative academic industrial complex.

That's every bit as dumb as your assertion that the price of gasoline dropped because of Obama's energy policies which had the stated goal of raising the cost of energy.

You also don't seem to know that the Affordable Care Act brought all of those loans under the government umbrella.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The cost of tuition will not go down simply because tuition loans are capped.

It will stop rising.

The only reason the are what they are now is because the government guarantees it.

They simply could not charge what they do otherwise.

Capping student loans will once again return college to it's traditional status as an institution of higher learning that caters to the well-to-do.

Not at all, that's what scholarships for those who achieve are for.

Military service is also an option for those who can't afford the cash outlay.

In my opinion, one change that should be made is removing PRIVATE college loans from their current status as bankruptcy-proof. I understand the reasoning for PUBLIC (Federal) loans since the government is guaranteeing the debt.

If the public is guaranteeing the debt then it's not a private loan, just a private broker.

Let financial institutions have some "skin in the game" for privately placed debt.

Already that way.

 

[Comshaw]

Here you go: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

You are welcome.

If the "economist" that propped up the idiotic ideas of the Clinton administration and caused untold suffering doing the same for the malaise of the Obama administration had understood the basics about supply and demand in a market where principals are motivated by self-interest, he might have done better advising them and wouldn't have killed himself when the Trump economy refuted all of his advice.

I mean the guy actually believed that raising minimum wage does not impact the availability of jobs. He even has s study" that "proves" it.

Since you won't actually read something so simple let me explain it to you even more simply. In the face of unlimited government resources being made available in the form of easy money which will likely never be paid back we now have a 20 trillion-dollar student debt bubble. During this time where universities could easily plan and economize based on the unlimited number of students who would all be financed the rate of tuition continually outstripped the rate of inflation.

Take some time and think about that and when you come up with the reason why the tuition continually outstripped the rate of inflation you will have your answer.

While I don't have the time right now to read the entirety of your link, I will. That being said, you will accept an opinion piece like this one by a journalist, Mr. Henry Hazlitt as gospel, but refuse to believe a study that proves a rise in the minimum wage does not effect job availability? Isn't that just a wee bit bias? Just a little maybe? A tiny bit? No? Yea I thought you'd say that.

The problem is that his book, while giving a broad view of economics in his opinion, doesn't explain, or uphold, the idea of doing away with loans and grants to stop the out of control growth of college costs. It does give those who read it a basis to form an opinion on economics and this the problem. However I would like a more balanced and intelligent one then yours, which I hold to be worth less then nothing, to judge this by.

it will stop many who have no other way to obtain a college education from going to college, but not all. It will however clear the field for those with money who can buy a diploma rather then earn it. So if this stays in effect you won't have to worry about things like the current college admission scandal, for it will be the common thing to buy a college spot while others who can't and are much more qualified won't get a chance.
Locking out intelligent, driven people for the lack of funds to acquire an education, while allowing those who have no other qualifications then oodles of money to fill the ranks of colleges, will be a poor choice for our nation.

I take it your opinion is that it was the governments fault for being free with student loans and the students (borrowers) by borrowing the money to get an education, but not the colleges for taking advantage of it? So you target those who have the least culpability in the student loan crisis, while ignoring those who have the most? Rather then take those who built a boat that sank to task, you shoot the passengers before they can drown? Figures.

Like I said earlier, this isn't going to stop the borrowing. Those who want to go to college will. The difference is that now they will have to go to private lenders and thus be subject to a higher interest rate. But that's what you want right? A return to supply side economics? That was tried if I remember right and failed, miserably. Trying it again isn't going to improve the results.

Comshaw

 

[Rightguide]

Man this is seriously fucked up but I agree with old racist white dude with a scat fetish here. The other day I said Ish was right about something.
This might be the End Times.

I'm not old, I'm not a racist and you can't prove otherwise, and I don't have a scat fetish, just an aversion to talking assholes and shitfaced posters.

 

[Salacious_B_Crumb]

I'm not old, I'm not a racist and you can't prove otherwise, and I don't have a scat fetish, just an aversion to talking assholes and shitfaced posters.

I read something once about cops and knowing when people are lying. They say things like "you can't prove it."

Just sayin

 

[von_Bismarck]

...talking assholes and shit...

I won't criticize your fetish. It's only slightly weirder than Que's panty sniffing fetish.

 

[Rightguide]

I read something once about cops and knowing when people are lying. They say things like "you can't prove it."

Just sayin

You're full of shit, You malign me without any evidence, you're a liar. You cannot produce a single post of mine that backs what you say. You buy into lying memes about who I am made by others who are equally ignorant and malevolent. Until you admit it, I have no further time for you.

 

[Luk]

You're full of shit, You malign me without any evidence, you're a liar. You cannot produce a single post of mine that backs what you say. You buy into lying memes about who I am made by others who are equally ignorant and malevolent. Until you admit it, I have no further time for you.

vettebirther was the laughing stock of this place but at least he admitted that he was vettebirther. We unequivocally know for a fact that you are vettebirther so if you admit to it now, we will at least give you the same respect we gave you as vettebirther. Deal?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I don't have a scat fetish, just an aversion to talking assholes and shitfaced posters.

Does this mean you're not gonna be buddies with Ish anymore?