Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Thread: Student Loans

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,853
    Post Thanks / Like

    Student Loans

    What happens that are coming out of college and cant find employment. Who will pay their loans. Will this be another bailout?

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2882920]What happens that are coming out of college and cant find employment. Who will pay their loans. Will this be another bailout?[/QUOTE]

    Will never happen -- too many middle class kids have loans, not enough rich people.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Someone's bored today.
    Last edited by cr726; 11-26-2008 at 12:30 PM.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2882920]What happens that are coming out of college and cant find employment. Who will pay their loans. Will this be another bailout?[/QUOTE]

    We already do this -- subsidized federal loans. Man, a push towards a single payer system really kept costs down!

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    if a college student has loans and they come due but cannot find work they can get them deferred or ask for hardship renegotiation... it happens all the time.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2882950]We already do this -- subsidized federal loans. Man, a push towards a single payer system really kept costs down![/QUOTE]

    Oh yes, the deferment policy is so generous & the subsidized portion of the loan covers such a huge percentage of students' total costs. Pure socialism with no conceivable benefit to society.

    Also Britain spends about half of what we do (as percentage of GDP) on health care for superior outcomes and universal coverage -- that's cost savings anyone can understand.

    [url]http://www.angelfire.com/rnb//y/universal.htm[/url]

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2882976]Oh yes, the deferment policy is so generous & the subsidized portion of the loan covers such a huge percentage of students' total costs. Pure socialism with no conceivable benefit to society.

    Also Britain spends about half of what we do (as percentage of GDP) on health care for superior outcomes and universal coverage -- that's cost savings anyone can understand.

    [url]http://www.angelfire.com/rnb//y/universal.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
    No, it doesn't cover a huge percentage of the students' total costs. And it shouldn't. The student will reap the benefit of the degree, why should taxpayers pay for it?

    And it sucks that college costs are going up, but when you make money easier to access, schools know they can charge more.

  8. #8
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    848
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2882983]No, it doesn't cover a huge percentage of the students' total costs. And it shouldn't. The student will reap the benefit of the degree, why should taxpayers pay for it?

    [B]And it sucks that college costs are going up, but when you make money easier to access, schools know they can charge more.[/B][/QUOTE]

    exactly... students have more available funds (through easy to get government subsidized student loans) allowing colleges to raise tuition prices and still meet their enrollment quota... the same as how prospective homeowners had more available funds causing home prices to skyrocket... point being, the easy credit consumption binge the U.S. is on is the root cause of this problem and the way the credit was made so easy was the [B]lax monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.[/B]

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2882983]No, it doesn't cover a huge percentage of the students' total costs. And it shouldn't. [B]The student will reap the benefit of the degree, why should taxpayers pay for it[/B]?

    And it sucks that college costs are going up, but when you make money easier to access, schools know they can charge more.[/QUOTE]

    Because the taxpayers will benefit from having an educated society.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2883124]Because the taxpayers will benefit from having an educated society.[/QUOTE]

    I benefit from keeping my own money.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2883124]Because the taxpayers will benefit from having an educated society.[/QUOTE]

    The fact is, the total giveaway of unlimited education provided by the GI bill after WWII is considered one of the best public investments of all time. That generation led the greatest period of industrial/economic growth in history -- the taxpayers were repaid handsomely.

    Without the loans, middle-class persons could never attend top institutions in any kind of numbers. As we've seen with GW Bush, letting the children of the upper class waltz through an Ivy League education & given undeserved leadership positions will lead us to disaster.

    Also, if the argument is that we should do away with the subsidized loan program -- you create an incentive for students to only do the most economically rewarding jobs later -- rather than having the option of doing jobs with more social utility but smaller salaries. That would start the same kind of brain drain that occurred when women in the 1960's discover that they were no longer forced to be either a teacher or a nurse.

  12. #12
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2883288]I benefit from keeping my own money.[/QUOTE]

    Is this your investment policy as well? Good luck with that.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2883310]Is this your investment policy as well? Good luck with that.[/QUOTE]

    Which investment policy would that be?

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,786
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2883124]Because the taxpayers will benefit from having an educated society.[/QUOTE]

    I'm still waiting for that argument to bear itself out :rolleyes:

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2883124]Because the taxpayers will benefit from having an educated society.[/QUOTE]

    Funny, I've noticed alot of educated people screwing up alot of things lately.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2883309]The fact is, the total giveaway of unlimited education provided by the GI bill after WWII is considered one of the best public investments of all time. That generation led the greatest period of industrial/economic growth in history -- the taxpayers were repaid handsomely.

    Without the loans, middle-class persons could never attend top institutions in any kind of numbers. As we've seen with GW Bush, letting the children of the upper class waltz through an Ivy League education & given undeserved leadership positions will lead us to disaster.

    Also, if the argument is that we should do away with the subsidized loan program -- you create an incentive for students to only do the most economically rewarding jobs later -- rather than having the option of doing jobs with more social utility but smaller salaries. That would start the same kind of brain drain that occurred when women in the 1960's discover that they were no longer forced to be either a teacher or a nurse.[/QUOTE]Like ALL forms of consumer loans, whether subsidized or not, all that student loans achieve is to make college more EXPENSIVE for everyone, and thus LESS affordable to anyone.

    The second thing they have achieved is to make the ACTUAL education much less valuable (in terms of content), and as a consequence to make even the subsequent paper "degree" of minimal value in the marketplace.


    That is a simple fact of supply and demand. Consumer lending increases both the price and the quantity of the goods, but decreases the quality.

    College used to be dirt cheap -- the main impediment was NOT money, but rather the rigor and discipline that the (then solid and useful) studies required.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chicadeel;2883562]Funny, I've noticed alot of educated people screwing up alot of things lately.[/QUOTE]

    That's because college is a colossal waste of money. You can't teach common sense...

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    6,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Student loans get repaid. They don't go away from bankruptcy, delinquency, or anything else. You can defer them, or amoritize them out over 30 years if you wish.

    The benefits to the gov are that, in theory, someone who is better educated should be able to find a job that pays better, so that person will then pay more money in income tax over the next 40 years of their life. Therefore, the gov. gets that money back.

    Student loans also allow people who would never be able to afford to get an education to get one. In addition, very few people would be able through things like med school without some type of loans, as most 23 year olds don't have 120 thousand laying around waiting to be spent.

    While Plumber seems to hate people with a higher education, people can have common sense and get an advanced degree, and move further in their life. And while it may seem horrible to you, not everyone wants to work with their hands for their life.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chirorob;2884747]Student loans get repaid. They don't go away from bankruptcy, delinquency, or anything else. You can defer them, or amoritize them out over 30 years if you wish.[/QUOTE]

    The loans are NOT subsidies to students at all -- but rather are subsidies to the universities (including the most badly run ones). Such subsidies allow the organizations to AVOID the consequences and discipline of the marketplace -- rather than focusing on the things which actually "improve" the EDUCATIONAL experience of their students, they are allowed to expend money in a wholly unacountable and irresponsible fashion (a mere glance at the wasteful buildings of academia verus the efficient buildings of private (non subsidized) industry is immediate evidence of this). WIth the host of technological innovations of our information age (the much lower costs of printing alone, not to mention the web and computer networks) the costs of education should have been DECREASING relative to inflation for decades, yet instead they grow as exponentials OVER and above the rises due to inflation.

    [QUOTE]
    The benefits to the gov are that, in theory, someone who is better educated should be able to find a job that pays better, so that person will then pay more money in income tax over the next 40 years of their life. Therefore, the gov. gets that money back. [/QUOTE]

    In Reality, a large number of students never gain any such benefit at all, and now that the pyramid scheme is tipping fast, realize that they were scammed.

    BTW, the FACT that students are NOT able to default on those loans is prima facie evidence that your theoretical assumption is KNOWN to be false from the get go. If your theory were actually true, then the high rate of the return on such an "investment" would in fact lead to a very small rate of defaults, which would be worthwhile bearing for those doing the lending (and there would be absolutely no NEED for the government "guarantees" much less the laws that prevent defaults).



    [QUOTE]
    Student loans also allow people who would never be able to afford to get an education to get one. In addition, very few people would be able through things like med school without some type of loans, as most 23 year olds don't have 120 thousand laying around waiting to be spent.[/QUOTE]


    They do nothing of the kind. To begin with, "education" is NOT the same as "schooling." Most students REAL education only begins when they LEAVE school and enter the workforce.

    The costs of medical school have SKYROCKETED as a result of the student loan programs -- if your assertion were true, then:

    a) prior to such student loans there would have been either no doctors, or far far fewer docters as a percentage of the population (because how in the world could any of them have afforded it?)

    b) that subsequently -- AFTER such a program gets in place -- we would expect to see a) a vast increase in the number of doctors relative to the population, and therefore b) we would experience LOWER medical costs. In actuality neither of these "expected" results (a nor b) has happened, and instead the OPPOSITE has occurred.
    Last edited by BrooklynBound; 11-29-2008 at 08:45 AM.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Medical benefits is a big reason why college costs are rising.

    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2884979]The loans are NOT subsidies to students at all -- but rather are subsidies to the universities (including the most badly run ones). Such subsidies allow the organizations to AVOID the consequences and discipline of the marketplace -- rather than focusing on the things which actually "improve" the EDUCATIONAL experience of their students, they are allowed to expend money in a wholly unacountable and irresponsible fashion (a mere glance at the wasteful buildings of academia verus the efficient buildings of private (non subsidized) industry is immediate evidence of this). WIth the host of technological innovations of our information age (the much lower costs of printing alone, not to mention the web and computer networks) the costs of education should have been DECREASING relative to inflation for decades, yet instead they grow as exponentials OVER and above the rises due to inflation.



    In Reality, a large number of students never gain any such benefit at all, and now that the pyramid scheme is tipping fast, realize that they were scammed.

    BTW, the FACT that students are NOT able to default on those loans is prima facie evidence that your theoretical assumption is KNOWN to be false from the get go. If your theory were actually true, then the high rate of the return on such an "investment" would in fact lead to a very small rate of defaults, which would be worthwhile bearing for those doing the lending (and there would be absolutely no NEED for the government "guarantees" much less the laws that prevent defaults).






    They do nothing of the kind. To begin with, "education" is NOT the same as "schooling." Most students REAL education only begins when they LEAVE school and enter the workforce.

    The costs of medical school have SKYROCKETED as a result of the student loan programs -- if your assertion were true, then:

    a) prior to such student loans there would have been either no doctors, or far far fewer docters as a percentage of the population (because how in the world could any of them have afforded it?)

    b) that subsequently -- AFTER such a program gets in place -- we would expect to see a) a vast increase in the number of doctors relative to the population, and therefore b) we would experience LOWER medical costs. In actuality neither of these "expected" results (a nor b) has happened, and instead the OPPOSITE has occurred.
    Reply With Quote[/QUOTE]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us