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.
I wonder if it passes, will probably be stopped by the repub house, would it be retroactive?
would love to have my remaining school loans at a .75% interest rate...
05-09-2013, 09:42 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
If you want tuition to go down, get rid of Government student loans.
When colleges start seeing that no one can afford them on their own dime, they will quickly lower tuition costs to attract students.
This is pure fantasy.
It costs money to run a university. The state won't fund it, so the students have to pay. The students don't have money, so they have to borrow. If you cut the student loans, what are you going to replace it with? Are universities simply supposed to operate on no money? Slash their enrollments and restrict access to only those whose parents are able and willing to pay for it?
I wonder if it passes, will probably be stopped by the repub house, would it be retroactive?
would love to have my remaining school loans at a .75% interest rate...
I'm sure you would. If the fed keeps printing up more money and handing it to banks to keep the interest rates down then that may well happen. What a great country eh??
Stopping the flow of student loans into for profit school with high drop out rates and even higher default rates would also go a long ways to fixing the student loan bubble. Also, actually funding state schools and community colleges at adequate levels would help too.
This one-year stopgap, while Congress works on a permanent solution, would solve several problems. In the near term, it would save money for students, perhaps relieving some of the burden that has led them to scale back their purchases and threaten overall economic growth. In addition, the Federal Reserve has a stated policy of lowering interest rates to spur economic activity, known as quantitative easing, but they have had difficulty extending the benefits of QE beyond Wall Street and the wealthy. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted as much last February, noting in a speech that while QE has helped housing and stock markets, difficulty in obtaining mortgage credit has meant that “the strong actions taken by the Federal Reserve … have had less effect on the housing sector and overall economic activity than they otherwise would have had.” If the Fed is looking for ways for Main Street to benefit from cheaper borrowing rates, they could hardly endorse a more appropriate policy than lowering student loan interest rates in the short term to what they give out to big banks.
In her interview with Salon, Warren noted that the federal government profits from student loans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the government will make $34 billion in 2013, in fact. Aside from that, the investment in helping a young person afford higher education is massive in terms of their future earnings and even overall economic growth. Evening out student loan interest rates and big bank discount window interest rates simply expresses the notion that educational opportunity is as crucial to the overall economy as a strong financial system.
I'm sure you would. If the fed keeps printing up more money and handing it to banks to keep the interest rates down then that may well happen. What a great country eh??
guess you forgot, Reagan and 'Reaganomics', which included one of the first modern iterations of controlling the money supply
Senators represent the state they are from. The "people" are represented by the House. Fauxcahontas Warren ran for the wrong job.
House members represent the specific district they're elected from. Senators, because they represent more diverse areas--entire states--are expected to be the more measured and deliberative body. Try again.
It costs money to run a university. The state won't fund it, so the students have to pay. The students don't have money, so they have to borrow. If you cut the student loans, what are you going to replace it with? Are universities simply supposed to operate on no money? Slash their enrollments and restrict access to only those whose parents are able and willing to pay for it?
Well then let's just stick to what we have. Outrageous loan amounts and slim prospects of a high paying job.
We'll make the interest rate lower so their monthly payments aren't as high considering they might be making min wage with that $$$$$$ 4 year degree.
Should we just ignore credit risk in pricing loans? Should we ignore the yield curve and price overnight loans at the same rate as 10-year student loans.
I love how everyone complains about having to personally bail out wall street banks. Hmm, how much did the gov't lose on its loans to wall street banks. Why no mention of the auto bailout? I mean, the gov't is underwater what, $80bn on that? Yeah, but that doesn't fit everyone's agenda.
Far too many people choose college as a right of passage. I went to an above average university. I was amazed sitting in one class we had the second semester of senior year. We went around the room the first day and discussed what we were doing when we graduated. I was absolutely shocked how many people were like, "ehh, had back home and relax a little bit, and figure things out from there."
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.
