Tell me why Obama's student aid overhaul tonight was a bad idea.

[NRKF84]

Under the old system, banks made a profit from student loans, but if students defaulted, the government would take the hit as all the loans were backed by the government. Now the banks are cut out of the middle which saves students and the government money.

Had the old system strictly been banks->students, I could see the argument that today was just more government regulation, but that argument doesn't work.

[Vitalshok44]

Under the new system government will control all monies in regards to education, meeting the government will have far more influence on curriculums.


Do you want George Bush in charge of all school curriculums?

[NRKF84]

Under the new system government will control all monies in regards to education, meeting the government will have far more influence on curriculums.


Do you want George Bush in charge of all school curriculums?

You didn't even read the first post correctly since your response has nothing to do with student loans.

[nutsy54]

Well, for one thing... The simple fact that it was snuck into a massive Health Care Bill, using parliamentary tricks and legislative sleight of hand.

Why can't Obama's policies actually face the light of day on their own merits? And why is more and more Government meddling and control of our lives considered a Good thing? Do you think this will finally be the first massive Government program in history that works efficiently, delivers as promised, and stays within budget?

[NRKF84]

Well, for one thing... The simple fact that it was snuck into a massive Health Care Bill, using parliamentary tricks and legislative sleight of hand.

Why can't Obama's policies actually face the light of day on their own merits? And why is more and more Government meddling and control of our lives considered a Good thing? Do you think this will finally be the first massive Government program in history that works efficiently, delivers as promised, and stays within budget?

This doesn't answer the question of why the new system is better than the old one. It costs zero extra dollars as all the loan funds come from the government already. It just saves the government and students interest and origination fees.

[MAXIMUS#24]

Under the old system, banks made a profit from student loans, but if students defaulted, the government would take the hit as all the loans were backed by the government. Now the banks are cut out of the middle which saves students and the government money.

Had the old system strictly been banks->students, I could see the argument that today was just more government regulation, but that argument doesn't work.

Actually, this is a very good idea; glad that was in there. Now for the rest, only time will tell. The only branch of government that operates like it should is the military. Trusting that much of the economy to bickering idiots is scary.

[Vitalshok44]

You didn't even read the first post correctly since your response has nothing to do with student loans.

LOL do you really think that if government guarantees all student loans with taxpayer money that schools are not going to jack up tuition rates because they know they can get away with it?

Are you really that simple?

well it wouldnt be like that...they will have someone not like sarah palin,meaning qualified to run the education.

"It just saves the government and students interest and origination fees."
doesnt that alone make it better?

and if she became president, what then?

You see, this is where your little house of cards falls apart, your type, much like the OP believe that your side will always have power and thus the expansion of the leviathan i.e. the state is perfectly justified.

However, you seem to forget that when the opposition party takes power back. They then have access to those same things.

[Uncle Bob]

I guess if your loan was denied by one bank you could at least try another but if the government determines who is poor enough to need a loan or whatever criterea they use it will stink if you don't fit into it.

[NRKF84]

LOL do you really think that if government guarantees all student loans with taxpayer money

You do know they already do this, right? The government guaranteeing federal student loans isn't going to be a new thing under this law.

Are you familiar with the subject of this thread at all?

[NRKF84]

I guess if your loan was denied by one bank you could at least try another but if the government determines who is poor enough to need a loan or whatever criterea they use it will stink if you don't fit into it.

You'll still be able to get private loans from banks...

[NRKF84]

I would honestly like to hear an argument...ANY argument...for why the new system is worse than the old system.

Anyone?

[faxanadu]

Under the old system, banks made a profit from student loans, but if students defaulted, the government would take the hit as all the loans were backed by the government. Now the banks are cut out of the middle which saves students and the government money.

Had the old system strictly been banks->students, I could see the argument that today was just more government regulation, but that argument doesn't work.

Seriously ... have you actually verified any of this by reading the bill? Its obvious that continual government growth is okay to you ... so the fact that more government control on education is negative is a mute point to you.

Regardless, i would hope if you are going to support the legislation that you have actually taken the time to read it.

[markymark69]

You do know they already do this, right? The government guaranteeing federal student loans isn't going to be a new thing under this law.

Are you familiar with the subject of this thread at all?

No he is not....neither are most people on the R&P that have never attended college.

When I went to UF all the student loans issued (both subsidized and unsubsidized) were DSL loans.
https://www.dl.ed.gov/borrower/BorrowerWelcomePage.jsp

[Vitalshok44]

You do know they already do this, right? The government guaranteeing federal student loans isn't going to be a new thing under this law.

Are you familiar with the subject of this thread at all?

congratulations, you've just admitted that this does absolutely nothing except transfer the money that would have gone to the bankers to the salaries of school administrators.

After all, there have never been crooked school administrators that siphoned off taxpayer funds for their own devices

Congratulations

[markymark69]

Wow...there is major retardation going on in this thread.

1) ALL stafford loans are guaranteed by the federal government.
2) prior to the bill the federal government PAID private banks to participate in the program.
3) Individual colleges could run their stafford loan program either thru the DSL or thru a private bank.
4) If the stafford loan went thru a private bank either the student, the college or the federal government had to pay the origination fee.

[markymark69]

Seriously ... have you actually verified any of this by reading the bill? Its obvious that continual government growth is okay to you ... so the fact that more government control on education is negative is a mute point to you.

Regardless, i would hope if you are going to support the legislation that you have actually taken the time to read it.

Good god man....

The federal government already issues Stafford loans via DSL.
The only thing the bill did was:
eliminate the subsidies that were being PAID to private banks to do the EXACT same thing DSL was doing.
Banks are still able to issue college loans, but they will NOT receive a subsidy from the government nor will they be guaranteed by the government.
Prior to the bill we were PAYING banks to lend money guaranteed by taxpayers.

You guys are f&cking unreal.
For some reason you all are PISSED the government will NO LONGER PAY A SUBSIDY TO BANKS to lend money that is guaranteed by tax payers.

[NRKF84]

Seriously ... have you actually verified any of this by reading the bill?

I've read a summary of the key points on several news sites. If you find that something I've said is in error, I'd love to know.

the fact that more government control on education is negative is a mute point to you.

a.) it's "moot" not "mute" and
b.) I don't see how the new system of cutting out the middleman adds more government control on education than the old system. Please explain it to me.

congratulations, you've just admitted that this does absolutely nothing except transfer the money that would have gone to the bankers to the salaries of school administrators.

After all, there have never been crooked school administrators that siphoned off taxpayer funds for their own devices

Congratulations

This is just so completely unrelated to the thread topic...I am truly convinced that you genuinely don't understand what this thread is about.

[markymark69]

I've read a summary of the key points on several news sites. If you find that something I've said is in error, I'd love to know.

a.) it's "moot" not "mute" and
b.) I don't see how the new system of cutting out the middleman adds more government control on education than the old system. Please explain it to me.

This is just so completely unrelated to the thread topic...I am truly convinced that you genuinely don't understand what this thread is about.

You dont understand? I will help you understand:

Obama is president...so it must be bad.

With Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) it is preferable to have the government run DSL AND to pay banks to do the exact same thing as the DSL program.

With ODS is it preferable to pay banks to lend money that is guaranteed by tax payer dollars.

With ODS: Elimination of that subsidy and removal of the government guarantee is a product of backroom deals, bad for the economy, promotes communism and enhances the nanny state.

Do you understand now?

[faxanadu]

From: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/201...dent-loan-bill

Despite the many benefits that this reform will bring, the picture is not entirely rosy. The more direct process of giving federal loans opens the door to the bane of conservatism: regulation. In the past, the federal government has had the habit of putting many strings on money that it uses for educational programs. The No Child Left Behind program, which had the government giving money to high-performing schools, is an example. Now that the government will be the only agent giving out federal loans, it may be tempted to involve itself in the workings of the higher education institutions to which these loans will be given. This has a potential for disaster. Most universities in our country do an excellent job of educating, and the lack of regulation promotes the possibility of innovation and development that can make education even better. Should the government start putting strings on student loans to affect university policy, innovation will be cramped, and the quality of higher education could easily decline. But if the government resists that temptation, this could just be the best policy passed thus far in the Obama era.

... Government control ... hard concept to understand.

I wont get deep into the fact that increasing grants to low-income (Generally Democratic) individuals innately strokes the Democratic Party.

[Vitalshok44]

Elimination of that subsidy and removal of the government guarantee

Isn't happening to the best of my knowledge.

try again

[Geno]

Because nothing in the Constitution even hints at such nonsense.

[Geno]

Wait - many of you think I was for the government backing education loans in the first place. WRONG.

Infrastructure, defense and a very limited purpose of defending personal rights.

That's it. No more, no less.

Nothing is said about education.

[r0gue6]

Wait - many of you think I was for the government backing education loans in the first place. WRONG.

Infrastructure, defense and a very limited purpose of defending personal rights.

That's it. No more, no less.

Nothing is said about education.

I want an aristocracy too man, I really hate that poor people can have the same opportunity as me, it really ****s our country up.

[markymark69]

From: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/201...dent-loan-bill

Despite the many benefits that this reform will bring, the picture is not entirely rosy. The more direct process of giving federal loans opens the door to the bane of conservatism: regulation. In the past, the federal government has had the habit of putting many strings on money that it uses for educational programs. The No Child Left Behind program, which had the government giving money to high-performing schools, is an example. Now that the government will be the only agent giving out federal loans, it may be tempted to involve itself in the workings of the higher education institutions to which these loans will be given. This has a potential for disaster. Most universities in our country do an excellent job of educating, and the lack of regulation promotes the possibility of innovation and development that can make education even better. Should the government start putting strings on student loans to affect university policy, innovation will be cramped, and the quality of higher education could easily decline. But if the government resists that temptation, this could just be the best policy passed thus far in the Obama era.

... Government control ... hard concept to understand.

I wont get deep into the fact that increasing grants to low-income (Generally Democratic) individuals innately strokes the Democratic Party.

Once again because it is painfully obvious that neither you nor Rockl686 ever attended a day of college:
*edit*: Texas A&M has to be the sh!ttiest school in the nation.

Stafford Loans are already originated and serviced by DLS. The only thing the bill does is remove subsidies and guarantees provided to private banks. banks can still make loans for higher education purposes but they are no longer REGULATED by the Stafford Loan Amendment.
They are NOT grants they are LOANS.
Anyone attending an accredited higher education program is eligible regardless of income.

Get it? If a bank participates in the Stafford Loan program...they subject themselves to INCREASED REGULATION.

[Geno]

I want an aristocracy too man, I really hate that poor people can have the same opportunity as me, it really ****s our country up.

Read the constitution. I know it's long and boring but - pass on the Colin Powell thing and use your abilities.

[markymark69]

Now you know why he's on just about everyone's Ignore List.

Honestly...I think I could say the sun rises in the east and he would reply:

Isn't happening to the best of my knowledge.
try again

politics aside, I never thought people on here would flat out deny something that is a fact. Something that is widely published.
The Stafford Loan program has been around for decades. The program details, the subsidies, guarantees, origination fee's, the regulated interest rates, etc are all widely known facts.

And yet people on here want to call them grants (when they are loans). They want to deny that Direct Loan Servicing even exists. It blows my freaking mind...it really does.

[markymark69]

Link:
http://static.reuters.com/resources/...72_amndsub.pdf

Page 126+:
Elimination FFEL, FLAP insurance, interest rate buy downs,

[Vitalshok44]

Link:
http://static.reuters.com/resources/...72_amndsub.pdf

Page 126+:
Elimination FFEL, FLAP insurance, interest rate buy downs,

Meh, so I was wrong, not too big to admit it

Now you know why he's on just about everyone's Ignore List.

you confuse me with yourself

[reyalp]

well it wouldnt be like that...they will have someone not like sarah palin,meaning qualified to run the education.



"It just saves the government and students interest and origination fees."
doesnt that alone make it better?

Not according to Joe Biden. The more that private industry administers this, the more taxes that are paid. The more taxes you pay, the more patriotic you are. Thanks Joe.

[NRKF84]

Meh, so I was wrong, not too big to admit it

It only took you half a dozen posts of nonsense and unwarranted personal attacks to figure that out.

Figure it out sooner next time.