Paul wants to phase out federal student loans.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


I think the larger question is why can't America, arguably the richest nation in the world, offer free or minimal cost post secondary education as many other nations do?

reply to post by ThaLoccster


thought he said he wont be doing it right away? and also whats wrong with getting a regular loan?

Originally posted by jaguarsky
reply to post by ThaLoccster

 

I think the larger question is why can't America, arguably the richest nation in the world, offer free or minimal cost post secondary education as many other nations do?

Agreed. A stated previously, I believe that students finishing high school should have to do at least 2 years of trade school or 4 years of military service. Basic college courses should be part of any trade school program (e.g. composition, speech, math, humanities)

If one does well enough in trade school, then they could attend college with credits earned from trade school and partial funding from a government grant. The nice thing is that the student already has the means to become gainfully employed immediately. And if one does 4 years military service, then they should receive discounted post-secondary education. There's already veteran's benefits and GI Bill to help with costs.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


I am a supporter of Ron Paul. I also receive food stamps and student loans. Due to the economy, going back to school was the only way to support myself. That being said, I understand why Ron Paul wants to end the student loan program.

Colleges are doing exceptionally well right now as people go back to school to retrain themselves to do a different type of job. Education costs are soaring right now, with colleges charging more and more for admissions. In effect, the beneficiaries of college loan programs are colleges. If the economy was truly capitalist and free market there would be far less emphasis on having a college degree to obtain a job. The value of a college degree would be far higher then in a society where everyone is entitled to obtain a college degree. If the federal government got out of the business of funding these college programs there would be no need to regulate colleges and would allow alternative and cheaper pursuits of higher learning. Being an apprentice used to be how a person learned a trade or skill, and it cost no money as free labor was supplied by the individual. Today, colleges now make you pay for any apprentice program.

If college loans were not funded by the government there would be a greater need for alternative and cost effective educations. However, this would destroy the status quo we currently have now. When attorneys cannot get loans to fund their education, the American Bar Association would have to provide alternative methods for obtaining a law degree, including challenging the bar exam without a degree. When doctors cannot get loans to fund their education, the Medical associations will need to work with alternative colleges to provide cheaper ways for people to become nurses and doctors.

While I personally need my loan money right now, I can also see the wisdom in taking that money out of the control of the federal government. We either want a free society, or we want one controlled by people who manipulate the rules to their advantage. In this case the colleges train workers for the corporations who elevate politicians to enforce their world view.

I would rather live in a free society, where decisions benefit people.

Ron Paul said he was going to relocate the student loan program to another department other than the department of education. This thread contains no direct quotes and therefore at best, is only a sad paraphrase of his actual words. Please read up on Ron Paul for yourselves. Www.ronpaul.com

People discuss this issue as if the option of continuing to indiscriminately fund the education sector, a statistical failure, is actually viable.

What incentive is there to keep throwing money at a government whose spending limit annually exceeds its revenue in the trillions?

reply to post by ExPostFacto


my husband was trained as a machinist through an apprenticeship program, he was paid for his labor while training...

I think of the programs worked that way, as you became more skilled the better pay you got, but you were paid...

welfare, at least in ny, at one time was staffed by the welfare recipients. they exchanged their welfare for a job, and were trained to do that job...
now, well, you need a college degree for just about any job within the social service sector, and as a result, the taxpayer is paying about $20,000 or so a head...

now days, if you believe what you hear from the talking heads on tv, you're gonna need a college education if you want a job that will pay enough to support yourself and maybe a small family!!! but, well, those welfare recipeints did a pretty good job in the 70's, without a degree, and there's many jobs out there that one would be insane to think that a degree was needed!! (although, some of those jobs still will require a degree for some reason), it's all just trying to inflate the bubble, get more into the schools, signing on the dotted line and building up a ton of debt, they don't care if it ever gets paid probably, because they are profiting from your debt on the sidelines, buying and selling the securities connected with that debt!

but well, someone who is starting out in life straddled to a student loan debt is gonna require more money when it comes to the paycheck than someone who doesn't have that debt, in the end, I think it's gonna inflate the cost of everything, since the wages will have to go up for these people to pay it off....

or, we could see another bubble burst!!!

He said phase off, not cut immediately, so I don't see what the problem is. That's the thing with social spending: once you start no politician can ever stop it in the future. He'll lose and some liberal will win.

This idea is just as bizarre as everything else he has proposed. I assume that the idea is that the free market will swoop in and save the day. I'm sure there are a few companies that would be interested in paying for the education of the best candidates. Of course the price would be virtual indentured servitude for several years.

As for the Universities, I suppose there are a number of places where they could trim their budgets. Of course one of those cuts would be in research. Since the universities are the only place that actual cures for disease are developed, I'm sure the drug companies would benefit a great deal. No cure for a disease means that their profits generated from "treating" illness, rather than "curing it", would be assured.

The only way that many people could even begin to pay for college tuition is through guaranteed student loans. Many parents who aren't credit worthy would never be able to get a bank to give them loans for their child's education. A kid working a full-time minimum wage job wouldn't even make enough money to afford community college, much less a university.

I'm sure there is a better way of providing a post-secondary education without saddling the future graduate with a huge debt. However, making such inane proposals as this without evaluating the consequences is meaningless. Unless there is something in place to provide a workable alternative, I see this as just another step in deepening the divide between the "haves" and the "have nots."

Dex

reply to post by followtheevidence

the same argument could be used to refute all the wars, or heck, paying the federal workers as much as we do....
there's no doubt that the gov't has to scale back, but well, there is disagreement as to just what it is that should be scaled back. to me, we should start with those rediculous expenditures, like airports in the middle of nowhere, bridges to nowhere, funding for the grammies or is it the emmies, and crap like that. and go on from there, eliminating crap that the majority of us could care less about, that the country wouldn't miss to begin with...

but, well, we all hear how we are a knowledge based economy know, so it seems to me, the people need to have a way to gain the knowledge needed to survive in this economy.....since there's no way obviously that the rich and famous are gonna allow their taxes to increase to take care of the people!!! well, a little bit of investment might be needed to overhaul the educational system and put it into a position where it can cost effectively train the masses of people!! something which we don't have now! and, it's the federal gov't that should be leading this charge, not 50 states, heading in 50 different directions, some succeeding, many failing....

If loans are harder to get, then enrollment for more expensive colleges will drop. Thus the more expensive colleges will have to either raise tuition even further or lower tuition and/or pay rates to increase enrollment or reduce costs.

In theory it should work, but unfortunately most people will only see the negative of not being able to "afford" higher education. It's simple supply vs demand, if people really understood how much having $100k+ in student loans costs them, i think a lot of people would either pick their majors much more carefully or simply not go to college.

Or perhaps maybe they'll reduce costs by getting rid of all the useless general education courses you have to take . Nothing like wasting 64 credits on useless 101 courses...

Official Campaign Announcement:
Ron Paul wants to Fix Student Loan Program--Not End It
www.ronpaul2012.com...

FYI ron paul is not ending student loans
www.abovetopsecret.com...

thx

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by Fitch303

 

So where are low income people supposed to live. I get section 8 and I do not come with crimes and drugs. I don't want to live in an area like that myself. Yet the reality is I don't make enough for a market rate apartment. If these programs ended I would be homeless and so would the 46 million americans who live in poverty.
That is a complete fallacy that low income housing brings drugs and crime. When i applied for section 8 I went through 2 screenings, several background checks. I have disturbing the peace(over the telephone); civil charge; that almost disqualfied me for low income housing. So you are really telling me that people with felonies get in to public housing. No they do not! I have a friend who has a mom who killed her husband in self defense; she had a bad lawyer and was charged with voluntary man slaugter and went to jail for 15 years. She gets out early for god behavior yet the only apartments that would take her were NON section 8 apartments! I have lived in luxery apartments before that had drugs and crime. I lived in a brand new fancy apartment that had a SHOOTING! I have been to low income apartments before and they had LESS problems. It is not HUD that is the problem; they have many strict regulations. It takes months up to almost a year to even get into most income based apartments!

Please take your stereotypes somewhere else!
By the way you mentioned it was a working class neigborhood. that is typically where section 8 apartments are located demographically speaking. Not everyone feels safe enough to live in the ghetto areas. Unlike current belief there are non section 8 or non low income apartments in the ghetto as well. In those areas rents are so low section is not needed. I personally believe all apartments should offer a certian percentage of low income units.

edit on 23-10-2011 by dreamseeker because: (no reason given)

How can you afford the internet? Personally I don't even believe in section 8 housing. Those projects always become a major eye soar and contrary to the non sense you spewed off earlier crime/drugs ARE a big problem in these places. Low income people can live with other relatives, under a bridge or in a forest for all I care. I am absolutely repulsed by able body adults in this country who can't even support themselves. I haven't had a job in 4 years and still get by without gov assistance.

So I link this thread to my baby brother, and this is what he gives me back: Ron Paul Right Again.

More and more respect for that man because he holds up under close scrutiny.

A 14 page thread based on a lie in the opening post!!!! Freaking hilarious!!!!!

Ron Paul is not proposing stopping student loans. Please educate yourself!!!!

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by BadNinja68
It amazed me when I learned that people actually live on these loans for decades.
Enough Van Wilders milking the system.

If I look back at my college career, that is exatly what I did. I only went back in, some semesters so I'd not have to pay back my student loans. I also took out more in loans than what I needed. I was foolish, and now I get to pay that crap back.

on your point. When I go back to actually get something more useful than a music degree (which I did not finish), I'm paying for it. No more loans!

I just checked and unemployment among college graduates is at 4.2%.

I was thinking that likely matches the number of college students who go for worthless degrees. I know in the early 1970's when I attended the "Van Wilders" would go for the easy stuff like communications, art, music, literature and the more cerebral for things like philosophy, none of which is useful to get work. Archaeology was also popular and lead to nothing unless it was to teach others to have a skill to not get a job.

Of course we or our parents had to pay for it then, not the taxpayers.

It might just be a good idea if the loans were restricted to courses of study that would lead to a real job. Right now they say there are 8 million open jobs because kids are not taking math and science related courses. So why loan them money for nutty degrees? That just makes it welfare in my mind. May as well call it what it really is.

reply to post by Fitch303


First of all blame the lack of affordable housing on the system. For a person on minuim wage he or she can not afford a market rate apartment.
That is very sick that you would even suggest someone like me live under a bridge or with my controlling parents? . This infuriates me that anyone can have the lack of compassion and decent humanity! I hope if you become disabled or lose a job there is something to help you through. Why would you rather see people suffer than help them out?
WHAT IS WRONG with you? Seriously? Are we even in the same country/world? What experiencs have you had that lead to you judge people so callously?
YOu make me sick!
Yes I am self employed, go to college and DISABLED. OH I am just so unworthy? This so called "nonsense" I spewed came from real world experience and knowledge. Where did your steorotypical veiws come from? If you don't have first hand experience you can't speak now can you? There are non section 8 apartments that take section 8 that may have crime in the NON section 8 units. Get your facts straight. Go call your local section 8 office and ask them about their criminal background checks. NO ONE IS allowed to recieve section 8 who has a felony or a drug crime whether it be a misdemenor or a felony!

Originally posted by jaguarsky
reply to post by ThaLoccster

 

I think the larger question is why can't America, arguably the richest nation in the world, offer free or minimal cost post secondary education as many other nations do?

Because rather than doing this for American CITIZENS, they're too busy trying to subsidize ILLEGAL aliens via the "Dream Act". U.S. Citizen pays full price. Illegal alien gets in-state tuition.