Reply to WTF? Govt rewarding bad behavior Part II

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "WTF? Govt rewarding bad behavior Part II"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]PP You seem to be missing the point.  This plan will not curtail tuition costs.  In fact, it will drive costs up.  All it really does is shift the burden to the taxpayers down the road.  I don't see how providing what is in essence free tuition is going to help our society or guarantee that these same individuals will not end up on the public doll.  How many overpriced liberal arts majors, attorneys, etc do we need?

I paid my own way through school (working throughout the school year and 2 jobs in the summers) so under your scenario I do get to complain.  Under Obama's plan, I, as a parent, will have no incentive to help my child with tuition costs.  He/she can borrow heavily, pay back little and I can funnel the money that I would have otherwise used for tuition to help out in other ways.  The taxpayers will pick up the costs.  My DC will learn nothing of responsible choices and may or may not end up with a diploma that will enable said child to earn a living.  Good thing I will have that former tuition nest egg to bail the kid out.
[/quote]

My parents contributed under $1,000 of my education costs (I think they wrote a couple of deposit checks but otherwise it was my own scholarships + loans.) My wife was able to get a nice internship for a year, and paid for George Mason out of that. I feel like thumping my bootstraps some more now.

Now on to your central point. We're already giving out 13 years of education for free, we're sort of giving 4 more years for free with this program, it seems. It's not like life is going to be a picnic for our gay Chicano studies major, he/she will be paying what amounts to a 7% surtax for 20 years or choose to make under $16k a year.

I do agree, however, that financial aid counselors who don't explore how to reduce the overall cost are as unethical as sub-prime lenders who steered everyone to sub-prime mortgages (even those who would've qualified for better loans.) While caveat emptor can apply to some extent, those who do not provide good advice are in breach of a fiduciary duty.

I'm also going to agree that many jobs that industry (and even government) *thinks* needs a college degree, said college degree probably could be replaced by a halfway-decent high school degree (instead of the crapshoot that it is today) or a 1-2 year trade education (for things like accounting, IT, etc.)

The moral hazard you cite doesn't seem to have tempered dumbasses and animal-spirited entrepreneurs/bankers in the past, it does not now, nor will it in the future -- basically people and firms will make dumb decisions with or without government. It also assume you decide to abdicate responsible behavior completely, acting like what you envision welfare recipients as acting.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics