Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should Congress extend the low rates on student loans ? What are the consequences if they don't ? Is it worth funding ? What is the proper role of the federal government in funding access to higher education ? And what about the actual field of studies - should the government invest more in an electrical engineer, pre-med student, computer scientist vs. a liberal arts student ?
"Republicans have been grousing over the $6-billion cost to keep the loans at the 3.4% rate for another year. The legislation was first approved in 2007 and is set to expire July 1, which would result in a doubling of interest rates to 6.8% for about 7 million students."GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney this week threw his support behind keeping interest rates low, and Republicans appear to be reluctant to pick a fight in an election year over an issue that resonates with middle-class households.
“I don't think anybody believes this interest rate ought to be allowed to rise. The question is, how do you pay for it?” said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP leader. “How long do you do the extension?”
VerBoston,
Well, let's see... do we need people in this country who are educated or not?
That is the question.
Is it in the best interest of the USA to have people in this country
with college degrees?
Do we need them?
Mabey not. Mabey we can just import people to the USA in the future to fill jobs that
requires a college degree. Why not? We outscource jobs now.
That is the question.
It's not a matter of money, it is a matter of what is best
for the USA as a country and society. Period.
The rates should be such that the program, after inception, is self funding. As long as graduates are making their payments, and the loans prove to be low risk, the rates can be low. If, like any other loan, borrowers default, the rates need to increase to cover the costs associated with the delinquent payers.
I'd suggest, like insurance, that some form of "actuary" proces is set up to evaluate the repayment history for various majors. And that future loans and interest rates be based on that data. If you have history or art appreciation majors with, for example, a 90% default rate, they should be paying a higher interest rate than say an engineering or medical student with say a 10% default rate.
Sure, let's spend billions to bail out banks and oil companies. Plus throw money at complete waste projects like Sylindra. And billions on useless wars like Iraq. Oh, and bail out people upside down on mortgages. But let's jack poor folks with student loans. Sure. Makes sense to me. Especially now, when those folks can't get decent jobs.
Sure, let's spend billions to bail out banks and oil companies. Plus throw money at complete waste projects like Sylindra. And billions on useless wars like Iraq. Oh, and bail out people upside down on mortgages. But let's jack poor folks with student loans. Sure. Makes sense to me. Especially now, when those folks can't get decent jobs.
A bailout is a bailout. They are all one in the same.
I needed about 10k a year of Stafford loans to pay for college, now that I’m graduating this spring my school requires my department to take a internship course which is 12 credits. Since I already exploited my 4years (8 semesters) of Pell grants, I need to loan my total tuition for my internship, which is 5k. I attend a small state university that isn’t expensive as most big universities (about 16k yearly) so I’m not in as much debt as some people who went to the Penn States & University of Pittsburgh. So I have to take a 5k Stafford loan for my internship FML!!!
But anyways; sorry republicans I don't have an extra 5k in cash laying around maybe I should drop out and work at Wal-Mart! GOP you suck!
I'm not sure I quite understand McConnell's position of "how are we going to pay for it?" Unless the administrative costs of issuing student loans (plus the costs of loan defaults) exceeds that of interest income of all outstanding federal loans, I don't quite see how this is a cost center for the government. If interest is collected on Federal Student Loans, then theory suggests that there should be no "cost" to extending lower interest rates.
Someone feel free to steer me in the right direction if i'm missing something.
I needed about 10k a year of Stafford loans to pay for college, now that I’m graduating this spring my school requires my department to take a internship course which is 12 credits. Since I already exploited my 4years (8 semesters) of Pell grants, I need to loan my total tuition for my internship, which is 5k. I attend a small state university that isn’t expensive as most big universities (about 16k yearly) so I’m not in as much debt as some people who went to the Penn States & University of Pittsburgh. So I have to take a 5k Stafford loan for my internship FML!!!
But anyways; sorry republicans I don't have an extra 5k in cash laying around maybe I should drop out and work at Wal-Mart! GOP you suck!
Risk vs. Reward. It's all about the choices you make.
(For the record, I do support the extension of lower rates.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
