Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul Wants To End the Federal Student Loan Program
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?"
He gives back his salary every year. He makes NO money off of being a Congressman.
Taxation is a valid function of government and has been since 1787. And if the government was going to spend the money you pay in taxes solely on you, then it would hardly need to raise taxes to begin with.
Acquaint yourself with American history. Some degree of redistribution of wealth has always been part of the operation of the federal government. Now, you may disagree on particular spending, and you have a right to choose representatives who might push for change -- it's taxation with representation, a just way of doing things. But your rhetoric is out of touch with American democracy even as the Founding Fathers conceived it.
Yes, like the last time it was applied, from 1875-1913 in the USA. You know, the time where the US went from being a colonial backwater to an industrial superpower.
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.
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.
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!
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...
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
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
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.
That's a bizarre claim. Take Finland, for example: same welfare state as its Nordic neighbours, including universal healthcare and no tuition fees. It's doing pretty well economically, so it's hardly "failing", and they have refused to join NATO and provide for their own defense, so the USA is hardly "bailing them out."
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.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Some points to consider:
Total outstanding student loan debt recently topped $1 trillion (e.g. see link).
Student loan debt now exceeds household credit card debt (see link).
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.
California had free higher education for residents paid by taxpayers(and it is set in the charter for higher education in the state, which all of the school systems now openly violate). From UCLA and UC Berkeley to Bakersfield Community College. Free. Over time this has changed while at the same time loans have been backed by the government and student debt has been increasing. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it's there, it happened