Democratic House Passes College Cost Reduction Act - Page 4

Rouger2 · 07-13-2007, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

they aren't?

I know I looked at the cost of education when I decided on a school, as do millions every year. I went where I got a scholarship and I could make it affordable, also taking into account their academic reputation etc.

I know that state schools charge about the same, no competition there, and do you think private schools actually compete with their rivals over the cost of their tuition

Rouger2 · 07-13-2007, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

That's nice ... Would you go back and answer the question I posed in that post now please? If you believed the product/service you provided was something people absolutely needed, but your boss said he could no longer pay you to provide that product/service, would you continue working for him without profit (pay)?

It believe I said the system would have to work to provide those products and services no matter what system was used or it would be changed because food and housing are absolutely needed in a society. You have to go with what works and I don't believe a system where I was not paid for my efforts would do that, but you never know.

thomez · 07-13-2007, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I know that state schools charge about the same, no competition there, and do you think private schools actually compete with their rivals over the cost of their tuition

state schools do charge about the same because they are... state schools, not working in the free market like a private institution... and subsidized by state budgets

yes, I do believe that private schools compete in terms of tuition, I believe that US News & World Report even have a section of their college book devoted to the best values in education

WickedLou9 · 07-14-2007, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

state schools do charge about the same because they are... state schools, not working in the free market like a private institution... and subsidized by state budgets

yes, I do believe that private schools compete in terms of tuition, I believe that US News & World Report even have a section of their college book devoted to the best values in education

Tuition is a factor but so is thier academic reputation. Colleges are strange animals in the market sense. If the demand increases, the price does not have to. The schools may simply become more selective in only choosing the best applicants. Some schools charge more than others and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with how good they are. When I went to college BU was about double the cost of Rutgers, but academically they are pretty much equals. It's a strange concept and I'm not sure that there is anything else like it to compare against.

thomez · 07-14-2007, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Tuition is a factor but so is thier academic reputation. Colleges are strange animals in the market sense. If the demand increases, the price does not have to. The schools may simply become more selective in only choosing the best applicants. Some schools charge more than others and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with how good they are. When I went to college BU was about double the cost of Rutgers, but academically they are pretty much equals. It's a strange concept and I'm not sure that there is anything else like it to compare against.

Yes, both academic reputation and tuition are factors when choosing a school. When you start looking at the value of a school, academic reputation vs tuition cost, you are talking about making an informed decision in the world of capitalism... what a beautiful thing. I know I went to the best school that would cost me the least money...

Thorgrim · 07-14-2007, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

It's extremely easy to lose money trying to collect on those loans when you are lending it out at well below prime rates to start with.

Untrue, I've already cited tons of cases of extremely poor but legally savvy defaulters who have been ordered by courts by my state to pay up, and that "getting out" of a loan even after you FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY is still nearly impossible

Thorgrim · 07-14-2007, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I hadn't heard about this bill either. it sounded great after Mots post. But Thomez, are you saying the government demanding the interest is so low that private lenders will be unable to get back their costs from it or turn a profit? So what happens when those lenders decide to not offer loans anymore? Aren't we right back to square 1 with people not being able to send their kids to college?

I need to read up on it some more I guess.

No, banks are not designed to suffer under this bill, they are lowering rates like they used to when banks were booming, the federal government picks up the extremely small tab...it's still money taxpayers pay, but compared to almost every other program its not just a bargain it's a great move

Thorgrim · 07-14-2007, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

The point is that when you start providing something below-cost and controlling the interest rates of private lenders, you have taken a step toward a state-controlled student loan system. Not only that, but it will almost guaranteed lose money, so it is another expense for the American people.

We are talking about already federal-guaranteed loans...the banks can't lose

The only thing this does is get people excited about a popular goverment program being even more helpful, and libertarians by their nature despise that

Thorgrim · 07-14-2007, 01:49 PM

Basically this thread seems to be people who want to scrap the entire "help people attend college" system we have, and is insanely popular and untouchable if anyone wants to get elected...

This thread seemed to be out how the Dem bill is better than the GOP's reign, and how the Democrats are doing something...not how we should scrap student aid to middle class working families and students

Thorgrim · 07-14-2007, 03:26 PM

http://majorityleader.house.gov/docU...%20Summary.pdf

Great summary

Now here is the roll call:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll613.xml

Where was your rep.?

It was only 9 VOTES away from being veto proof, damn

Every single Democrat, and about a quarter of Republicans voted for it

Joe_Cool · 07-14-2007, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't really see a problem in paying for this by cutting subsidies for lenders, they make a profit on what they do already, there's really no reason I see to pay them to run a profitable business..

I also think it's good that more people will have a chance to go to college, tuition is ridiculously expensive, even if worth it because of the earning potential of a graduate.

Question: Does the federal government have constitutional authority to offer grants in the first place?

Don't get me wrong, I used financial aid and was grateful for it, and in general I see this as a "good thing", but seriously, is it constitutional?

Thorgrim · 07-14-2007, 06:08 PM

The question is....is it unconstitutional

No, if you look at the Washington, Adams, Jefferson presidency, you had much more elaborate programs outside what the constitutional clearly stated, and there were no calls that "Washington is being unconstitutional!" from the founding fathers who just finished writing/debating it and were alive and well

This is a basic point and I hate to make it, but the constitution is intentionally vague to give breathing room for the then new government to adapt while holding on to core principles

There are no serious grounds to call this unconstitutional

thomez · 07-14-2007, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Untrue, I've already cited tons of cases of extremely poor but legally savvy defaulters who have been ordered by courts by my state to pay up, and that "getting out" of a loan even after you FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY is still nearly impossible

That does not mean that the loan is not losing money, even if they collect 100% of it back + interest. The cost of collection is also a factor, which you are ignoring.

thomez · 07-14-2007, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

We are talking about already federal-guaranteed loans...the banks can't lose

The only thing this does is get people excited about a popular goverment program being even more helpful, and libertarians by their nature despise that

When you keep knocking down the profit potential, they can lose... because it makes no sense to keep doing it for such little $$$ in return.

thomez · 07-14-2007, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The question is....is it unconstitutional

No, if you look at the Washington, Adams, Jefferson presidency, you had much more elaborate programs outside what the constitutional clearly stated, and there were no calls that "Washington is being unconstitutional!" from the founding fathers who just finished writing/debating it and were alive and well

That's plain wrong.

Thorgrim · 07-14-2007, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

When you keep knocking down the profit potential, they can lose... because it makes no sense to keep doing it for such little $$$ in return.

The reduced interest rates...you think this is costing banks? No, it's costing tax payers, there are some loops being closed to save money, but they would have been closed anyway...the direct change of loan rates has nothing to do with banks

So the little economic side-discussion here is off base

thomez · 07-14-2007, 08:58 PM

Yes, it is costing banks. Do you not believe there is competition for student loans? Of course their is, but a private company cannot compete with a federally subsidized loan in terms of interest rate, no chance. So this hurts banks and just puts them on the receiving end of a measly government paycheck for their services instead of working in a capitalistic market for student loans.

Thorgrim · 07-14-2007, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

That's plain wrong.

No, as we both know, it's a federalist document, and the bill of rights were edited and passed by federalists, and blah blah federalist

the anti-federalists lost, from sources I've looked at, it wasn't "oh this isn't constitutional" its "oh this isn't right" because it made no sense to argue with the dominating federalists who just wrote the constitution that they were violating their own beliefs...which were pretty clear...strong government which led to things like a national bank, the LA purchase, etc all sorts of big federal plans that are huge compared to giving money to banks so student loans are low

thomez · 07-14-2007, 09:01 PM

you said "there were no calls that "Washington is being unconstitutional!""

that's wrong

Thorgrim · 07-14-2007, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

Yes, it is costing banks. Do you not believe there is competition for student loans? Of course their is, but a private company cannot compete with a federally subsidized loan in terms of interest rate, no chance. So this hurts banks and just puts them on the receiving end of a measly government paycheck for their services instead of working in a capitalistic market for student loans.

This bill deals with federal loans...I have never met a soul in my life who turned down federal/state loans for a private loan

if that were the case there would be no need for federal student loans

I think what you mean is...there is competition AFTER you've dealt with all the federal/state loans and you still need money...well how exactly does this bill affect that?

This is affecting