WTF? Govt rewarding bad behavior Part II
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I'm still confused about the OP's position. What are you mad about? |
Anonymous
|
OP, why aren't you just proud of the fact you make education a priority in your family and that you have been hardworking and fortunate enough to pay for it? I don't understand why anger directed outward trumps satisfaction directed inward.
As with all government programs, there will be those who abuse the system. But there will also be hardworking but less fortunate people who truly benefit from it. No matter how hard you work for something, there is always the element of luck. Some people have it, and some people don't. |
Anonymous
Jesus, this again? Yes, students with resources to pay for college (especially significant resources) will receive less need-based aid than students without those resources. How is this even remotely controversial? |
Anonymous
|
For crying out loud, I wasn't in favor of bailing out the banks either - talk about rewarding bad behavior - but it had to be done or else they would have dragged us all down with them. I think this is a time where some people need some extra help because - wait for it - if they don't get help, the economy will continue to stagnate and it will affect the rest of us, just like with the banks.
BTW my kid's college is being funded through our own efforts and I don't begrudge the help to others one bit! It's good for the young people and they're the ones who will be supporting the rest of us when we're old and drawing social security. This is in my best interest - even though I don't personally benefit from it. |
takoma
Member Offline
Member Offline
I feel a bit silly writing to state that I agree with something that should be too obvious to even need saying in the first place, but given what has come before, here's my "Amen!" |
Anonymous
| Students loans should be limited. Maybe 7k a year with a total loan amount of 35k? Now that would change things. The universities and colleges keep increasing fees and tuition in large part b/c they know the students take the loans. People are graduating with 100k in debit. |
Anonymous
You got to it before i could. Tuition keeps rising because the amount of subsidies and aid has drastically increased over the past 10 years. People asked what this has to do with the 'mortgage/banking crisis', etc. Well---it is a lot like it. Keep doling out people money that they will never have the ability to repay. Kids take the money without assessing options...perhaps they don't need to go to the most expensive private school...there is financial advice that says best bang is to transfer in from community for final 2 years, there is the option of state universities. Nobody really teaches a kid that taking out an $150k loan may not be the best for their future. Go up to off-topic and you will read numerous posts from parents stating they are putting nothing away for their kid's college educations even though they are in the top 1%. They'd rather keep up with the Joneses and live for today. The official student loan default rate, according to the government, is now seven percent. That rivals the default rate for credit cards (8.8 percent) and home mortgages (9.1 percent). Because the government is lending most of the money, every default leaves the taxpayers on the hook. ."The schools keep the money, the students keep the debt, and the taxpayers lose," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Education Committee. "There's a lot of similarities between what's happening with student loans ... and the housing crisis." "An increasing proportion of the cost of college education is paid for with federal aid, much of it in the form of student loans. Between 1999 and 2009, total federal aid to college students rose from $61.1 billion to $116.8 billion, according to the College Board. Including state aid, total government subsidies nearly doubled from $66.6 billion to $126.2 billion. Indeed: •The average amount of a federal student loan increased 180 percent from 1990 to 2008, after adjusting for inflation. •Students borrowed $1,637 in federal loans (in 2008 dollars) during the 1990-1991 school year, on the average. •By contrast, students borrowed an average of $4,585 during the 2008-2009 school year. As a result, during this period, the portion of average tuition and fees at a four-year public university financed by federal loans rose from less than 60 percent to about 75 percent. Rising government subsidies have increased the quantity of education demanded. This means that the rising cost of a college education is due in large part to the increased financial aid available rather than any general improvement in the quality of education." |
Anonymous
|
OP, when did you go to college? I think things have changed radically in just the last 5-10 years. Read this great post to get an idea of the costs of even a "cheap" in-state school.
http://persephonemagazine.com/2011/10/dont-even-get-me-started-mythical-bootstraps-college-student/ Even if you get a "real" degree, and actually find a job in your field, you are looking at a mountain of debt to pay off. It's a sad situation and I am concerned about my ability for me or my son (or both of us) to pay for his education in 15 years. |
Anonymous
It is a complete screw job for all of us. The more money they keep doling out, the more schools/universities charge to attend. This makes the cost of education increase exponentially for ALL of us.....even those of us socking away each year with hopes to be able to pay...the ball keeps moving in a drastic way. I think the measures announced today don't address the finacial aid system itself. Much like the mortgage lenders, the financial aid officers are trained to overlook existing debt and ability to repay..they will advise families/children to assume more and more loan. Yet another crisis looming in the future. |
Anonymous
American conservativism is based on greed, jealousy, and resentment. There's no rationality to it. Rather than a political philosophy it's become a fig-leaf for excusing the worst of our human vices. Want to give billions to bankers? That's a-ok! They're the hard-working winners of the world. Want to reduce unemployed people's mortgage rates? OUTRAGE!! It would be funny if it weren't so disgusting. Remember, they're the values voters, though. |
Anonymous
Read below. Because the way the federal aid/student loan programs have been operating...they will encourage individuals to take on larger and larger amounts of debt and tuition will continue to raise at the steep trajectory it has in the past 10 years because they will continue to provide student loans/financial aid to meet the demand. Financial aid officers are counseled not to advise students to think of applying to a cheaper school or assess their options. Their job is to encourage families to take on more and more debt. It is a business. A shady business. Therefore, those of us paying will end up paying a great deal more in total tuition in coming years as a direct result of these measures. |
Anonymous
|
When will the (we worked our way up from the bottom and earned every penny to join the) 1% stop resenting the 99%?
Give me 1/10 of the money you're saving in income taxes thanks to George Bush, and we'll call it even. (But I'll come out WAY ahead.) |
Anonymous
I don't think anyone is excusing the banks. However, some dude that bought a McMansion he couldn't afford in the first place, nah. For each single poor down-on-his luck guy--- there are a half-dozen educated people that got greedy and wanted it all. There were those of us offered very big loans in the early/mid 2000s that did our own math, went the conservative route and managed to still be able to pay our mortgage even with job loss. I had a guy bragging at work back in the day that he got qualified for a 1.5 million dollar house. He was a GS-14 like me. I distinctly recall saying "just because you Qualify doesn't mean you can afford it. Now you want me to bail his ass out too? Check what was in the driveways of many of those foreclosed Phoenix, Ftlauderdale houses.... Sure wasn't a 10-year old paid off Honda. Values. Old-fashioned. Don't buy what you can't afford. Work hard and save. Don't take the easy route. Personal responsibility. "they just were lucky". That's lazy talk, son. |
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Site Admin Online
I'm all for seeing the McMansion guy get foreclosed on, but the banks and the investment firms need to swallow the loss. As it is, McMansion's mortgage has been sliced, diced, whipped, and stirred, sold, and re-sold countless times. Nobody is sure who owns it anymore and anyone who might be left holding the hot potato is "too big to fail". So, tax payers get blackmailed to bail out the big guys, while the little guys and the McMansions get screwed. I think any "too big to fail" bank should be nationalized if it can 't afford its losses. |
Anonymous
|
Under the new version of Pay As You Earn, borrowers would pay 10 percent of “discretionary income,” defined as total income above 150% of the federal
poverty level (about $16,000 for an individual). After 20 years, the loan is forgiven. Assuming that a successful college graduate would earn, on average, $80,000 per year over the course of the 20-year obligation period, the repayment burden under the new plan will total somewhere around $4,500 per year, or $90,000 for the life of the loan. A less successful graduate who earns say $50,000 per year, on average over the 20-year obligation period, would have a repayment burden of just $1,500 per year, or just $30,000 over the life of the loan. For students anticipating an average income, Pay As You Earn provides an incentive to borrow heavily: If you’re only going to repay $30,000 to $90,000, why not borrow $200,000? Frugality will be for suckers. Colleges and universities will have no incentive to control costs. Why not build that new rock-climbing wall or performing arts center? Students will enjoy it and taxpayers will pay for it. Students have racked up $1 trillion in debt in an era when they thought they’d have to pay it back. Imagine how much they’ll borrow now that they won’t have to pay the full amount. In a way, Obama is turning higher education in to a third-party payer system (not too dissimilar from our current health care system – which is also characterized by outsized cost increases). Income-based repayment (IBR) is a “disaster” that could cost billions of dollars in the future. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates costs and revenues for a 10-year window: Since IBR’s costs kick in 10 to 20 years in the future, it’s being treated as free. This allows current politicians to claim to be helping students, while forcing future politicians to figure out how to pay for it. Needless to say, that is not a healthy way to make policy. If current politicians want to help borrowers, they should be the ones sacrificing other priorities to do so. |