I disagree with your premise. The AMA accredits Medical schools and has a level of control over them that doesn't appear in most other fields.
You didn't even try to look at the premise. The idea is that if you limit how many people can actually get into college, this will actually cause prices to go up. In the medical field, that's because the AMA exerts control. In other fields, it would be simply because people could not afford to go. Thus, they would have to increase prices for those that can, to make up the difference.
Remove the peg and rates will adjust accordingly.
You haven't shown that the "adjustment" would be in the downward direction. In fact, given the example of the AMA, if you limit the ability of people to go to school, that would make the costs go up.
They are not only accessible to the rich. They are also accessible to the intelligent, thanks to scholarships.
And you're a fool if you think there's remotely close to enough scholarship money to send all of the intelligent to school.
I see lots of people getting degrees in things they have no interest in, and no passion for, in order to follow the money (or where they think the money is, which is often not the same thing). Historically, this has resulted in a lot of bad doctors; around 2000, it resulted in a lot of bad programmers, and it's currently tilted toward resulting in a lot of bad lawyers. Whatever ends up being the next big ticket field, expect that 4 years later there will be a lot of bad whatevers, waving their shiny new union cards and giving the people who actually have a passion for the field a bad name.
Making it harder for people to get an education is not the solution to any of those problems.
Sigh... yes. Ron Paul is perfectly fine with states taking away your freedoms.
Stop listening to what other people -- supporters or detractors -- say and go right to the source. Follow that up with an analysis of what he has actually *DONE* over the years. You can see for yourself whether he does what he says and whether or not his actions are consistent with his words.
I have. Have you? What about his bill which would have banned Federal courts from hearing cases regarding the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans? You know, those very courts which are SUPPOSED to hear those questions? How about Ron Paul believing that the states shouldn't be limited by the Bill of Rights?
Face it, Ron Paul is nowhere near the "Champion of liberty" you think he is. He's just another politician.
He joined the Republican party to get votes so he could actually get elected.
So he's a huge hypocrite who really only cares about being elected, rather than about changing the system. Got it.
You are basically agreeing with everything I said. If he truly was for multiple parties, he would have put his money where his mouth is, and ran as one of the 3rd parties. Since he hasn't, that means he cares more about being elected than anything else.
Yet, you forget that we're talking about moving because of the educational system. Meaning that we're talking about families, with kids. It's not going to be cheap to move a family across country, no matter how you try and spin it.
if we were drilling for our own oil, prices would be lower.
WRONG. Do you honestly think that oil wouldn't also be sold on the open market, where countries like China could just as easily snatch it up? Not to mention the fact that those oil reserves are NOT ENOUGH TO COVER OUR ENERGY NEEDS.
and we let the market decide.
Which is a fucking awful idea, as the "market" would simply have us keep along with fossil fuels from the Middle East, based only on the idea that it's cheaper. Your precious market wouldn't have us energy independent, because it doesn't care about that. It cares about cheapness.
Yes, the government should be doing it, because that makes it cheaper for those that DON'T default. Otherwise, the interest rate and terms would make borrowing for school prohibitively expensive, meaning that almost no one who wasn't already rich would be able to go.
Enjoy giving the rich the only chance at higher education.
Because that's what happened with Medical Schools, right?
Why are you so confident that your way is what's going to happen? Is it not equally possible that most schools will actually INCREASE tuition, to make up for the lost students? Especially because now they know that the rich are the ones who are coming to the schools. They don't have to cater to the poor/middle class anymore.
Sometimes it takes a little brain power to see that the government isnt as great as they want us to believe.
And sometimes it takes a little brain power to see that removing government intervention isn't as great as people like Ron Paul want us to believe.
remove student loans schools know that they wont get "guaranteed money" from the student loans prices drop to a normal price instead of being artificially inflated due to the nowledge of the fact that the government will pay them people can afford to go to school, without taking out 100 grand in debt profit
Any ACTUAL evidence behind this? And not just your free market circle jerk. Something concrete that would show this would happen, and happen quickly enough so that we're not sacrificing the higher education and careers of an entire generation of poor and lower middle class people.
And his point is that removing these subsidies will reduce those prices, allowing people to get an education without putting themselves in debt for hundreds of thousands.
His "point" might be that, but it has absolutely no evidence to back it up, and giving it an attempt would mean that millions of poor and lower middle class students will be unable to afford college, and will not receive higher education. He's basically willing to sacrifice them in order to push his ideology on everyone else.
No, that doesn't work. If you're going to make the claim that they are the same, then you have to be the one providing actual evidence to back that up. I'm not going to make your argument for you.
Besides which there are still plenty of scholarship programs available.
No, there aren't. If there were enough scholarship programs available to cover the costs of education for everyone, then we wouldn't need student loans in the first place.
Ummm, no? You realize you have almost no actual evidence to support this, right? All you have are theories, and faith that things act like you think they do.
So in other words, Ron Paul is nowhere near the "Champion of Liberty" that his followers claim he is. Ron Paul is perfectly fine with government trampling all over your rights, he's just got a stick up his ass about which level is doing it.
Only for a couple of years, and its a nessecary evil.
Bullshit. Try telling people that making jobs LESS available for the next few years is a "necessary evil."
After a couple years, every university in the country will radically adjust their prices and cut waste in order to not cease to exist since no one will be able to afford the ridiculous cost anymore.
Based on what evidence? And furthermore, why the fuck should the poor and middle class have to suffer for your ideology? Why should the poor and middle class be cut out of college educations for the next few (more like 20-30) years?
Are you saying that a corporation(s) could not provide the same service as NOAA?
Are you saying they would provide it anywhere near as well? And with as few restrictions? Do you honestly think that they would not lock that data up so damn tight that if you were to even dare look at it without having thousands of licenses that you would be sued into oblivion? Whereas I can use NOAA data to do whatever I wish.
As to "science" and "research" - maybe it is time for a return to the days of philanthropy and corporate sponsorship?
No, not a chance. Science done by corporate sponsorship would likely be incredibly locked down, and patented to all hell. Meaning that the regular people would not be able to benefit from that science, as they can today.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with your premise. The AMA accredits Medical schools and has a level of control over them that doesn't appear in most other fields.
You didn't even try to look at the premise. The idea is that if you limit how many people can actually get into college, this will actually cause prices to go up. In the medical field, that's because the AMA exerts control. In other fields, it would be simply because people could not afford to go. Thus, they would have to increase prices for those that can, to make up the difference.
Remove the peg and rates will adjust accordingly.
You haven't shown that the "adjustment" would be in the downward direction. In fact, given the example of the AMA, if you limit the ability of people to go to school, that would make the costs go up.
Except you still haven't provided a lick of evidence that your plan would actually work. So no go.
however you can the that the cause of high prices are directly tied into the guarantee by the feds that schools would get paid.
No, you can't. Otherwise you would have done so.
You guys are the ones making the claim. Thus, it's up to you to back it up.
They are not only accessible to the rich. They are also accessible to the intelligent, thanks to scholarships.
And you're a fool if you think there's remotely close to enough scholarship money to send all of the intelligent to school.
I see lots of people getting degrees in things they have no interest in, and no passion for, in order to follow the money (or where they think the money is, which is often not the same thing). Historically, this has resulted in a lot of bad doctors; around 2000, it resulted in a lot of bad programmers, and it's currently tilted toward resulting in a lot of bad lawyers. Whatever ends up being the next big ticket field, expect that 4 years later there will be a lot of bad whatevers, waving their shiny new union cards and giving the people who actually have a passion for the field a bad name.
Making it harder for people to get an education is not the solution to any of those problems.
Sigh...no
Sigh... yes. Ron Paul is perfectly fine with states taking away your freedoms.
Stop listening to what other people -- supporters or detractors -- say and go right to the source. Follow that up with an analysis of what he has actually *DONE* over the years. You can see for yourself whether he does what he says and whether or not his actions are consistent with his words.
I have. Have you? What about his bill which would have banned Federal courts from hearing cases regarding the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans? You know, those very courts which are SUPPOSED to hear those questions? How about Ron Paul believing that the states shouldn't be limited by the Bill of Rights?
Face it, Ron Paul is nowhere near the "Champion of liberty" you think he is. He's just another politician.
If that's what the people in that state want, then who are you to say they're wrong?
Somebody who knows science.
He joined the Republican party to get votes so he could actually get elected.
So he's a huge hypocrite who really only cares about being elected, rather than about changing the system. Got it.
You are basically agreeing with everything I said. If he truly was for multiple parties, he would have put his money where his mouth is, and ran as one of the 3rd parties. Since he hasn't, that means he cares more about being elected than anything else.
Yet, you forget that we're talking about moving because of the educational system. Meaning that we're talking about families, with kids. It's not going to be cheap to move a family across country, no matter how you try and spin it.
if we were drilling for our own oil, prices would be lower.
WRONG. Do you honestly think that oil wouldn't also be sold on the open market, where countries like China could just as easily snatch it up? Not to mention the fact that those oil reserves are NOT ENOUGH TO COVER OUR ENERGY NEEDS.
and we let the market decide.
Which is a fucking awful idea, as the "market" would simply have us keep along with fossil fuels from the Middle East, based only on the idea that it's cheaper. Your precious market wouldn't have us energy independent, because it doesn't care about that. It cares about cheapness.
Yes, the government should be doing it, because that makes it cheaper for those that DON'T default. Otherwise, the interest rate and terms would make borrowing for school prohibitively expensive, meaning that almost no one who wasn't already rich would be able to go.
Enjoy giving the rich the only chance at higher education.
Because that's what happened with Medical Schools, right?
Why are you so confident that your way is what's going to happen? Is it not equally possible that most schools will actually INCREASE tuition, to make up for the lost students? Especially because now they know that the rich are the ones who are coming to the schools. They don't have to cater to the poor/middle class anymore.
That's exactly what he said. What happened with medical schools and the AMA will happen to just about every other field out there.
And private industry has largely failed at being able to provide affordable loans for students.
Which would have the effect of cutting off anyone who isn't already rich.
Sometimes it takes a little brain power to see that the government isnt as great as they want us to believe.
And sometimes it takes a little brain power to see that removing government intervention isn't as great as people like Ron Paul want us to believe.
remove student loans
schools know that they wont get "guaranteed money" from the student loans
prices drop to a normal price instead of being artificially inflated due to the nowledge of the fact that the government will pay them people can afford to go to school, without taking out 100 grand in debt
profit
Any ACTUAL evidence behind this? And not just your free market circle jerk. Something concrete that would show this would happen, and happen quickly enough so that we're not sacrificing the higher education and careers of an entire generation of poor and lower middle class people.
And his point is that removing these subsidies will reduce those prices, allowing people to get an education without putting themselves in debt for hundreds of thousands.
His "point" might be that, but it has absolutely no evidence to back it up, and giving it an attempt would mean that millions of poor and lower middle class students will be unable to afford college, and will not receive higher education. He's basically willing to sacrifice them in order to push his ideology on everyone else.
Ron Paul is wrong, simply because he thinks that education is something that should only be given to the rich.
No, that doesn't work. If you're going to make the claim that they are the same, then you have to be the one providing actual evidence to back that up. I'm not going to make your argument for you.
Besides which there are still plenty of scholarship programs available.
No, there aren't. If there were enough scholarship programs available to cover the costs of education for everyone, then we wouldn't need student loans in the first place.
This sounds like an awful, terrible idea. Worse than the idea of Mortgage Backed Securities.
Ummm, no? You realize you have almost no actual evidence to support this, right? All you have are theories, and faith that things act like you think they do.
I'd love to have inexpensive paths for bright but poor kids to live up to their potential but four years in ivy-covered halls might not be realistic.
Why the fuck not? Seriously, give me one good reason why those things should only be accessible to the rich.
So in other words, Ron Paul is nowhere near the "Champion of Liberty" that his followers claim he is. Ron Paul is perfectly fine with government trampling all over your rights, he's just got a stick up his ass about which level is doing it.
Only for a couple of years, and its a nessecary evil.
Bullshit. Try telling people that making jobs LESS available for the next few years is a "necessary evil."
After a couple years, every university in the country will radically adjust their prices and cut waste in order to not cease to exist since no one will be able to afford the ridiculous cost anymore.
Based on what evidence? And furthermore, why the fuck should the poor and middle class have to suffer for your ideology? Why should the poor and middle class be cut out of college educations for the next few (more like 20-30) years?
Are you saying that a corporation(s) could not provide the same service as NOAA?
Are you saying they would provide it anywhere near as well? And with as few restrictions? Do you honestly think that they would not lock that data up so damn tight that if you were to even dare look at it without having thousands of licenses that you would be sued into oblivion? Whereas I can use NOAA data to do whatever I wish.
As to "science" and "research" - maybe it is time for a return to the days of philanthropy and corporate sponsorship?
No, not a chance. Science done by corporate sponsorship would likely be incredibly locked down, and patented to all hell. Meaning that the regular people would not be able to benefit from that science, as they can today.