Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 65
Thanks Tree7Thanks

Thread: Student Loans: The Next Bailout?

  1. #31
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3023

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrass View Post
    Education and healthcare are two things that should not financially disqualify someone: it's a moral issue. A free society does not consist of income-based access to basic human services, bottom line.
    Healthcare is corrupted by the fact that it's run by cartels. The government has a responsibility to break up that anti-competitive behemoth and clean up the market again.

    Education? We can handle that ourselves. Stop going. You can attend any number of smaller universities, colleges, and community colleges in your area and get the education required. If you want a big name you can do 2-3 years of small local college and transfer your 4.2GPA to Princeton for a year or two, live off-campus, do a lot of things to keep your debt down.

    Not to mention that, strictly speaking, you can get a great education at your local library for next to nothing. And many (most?) jobs you would be better prepared for with a training program, a certification of some sort, anything from IT to car repair. So you can take classes as you like at community colleges or local universities, and that'll answer your need to educate yourself for its own sake. You can join a book club and be a voracious reader and learn about history and study the human condition, become an Enlightened thinker... all while you earn a pile of Cisco certifications and head out into the world pulling in $100K working on networks. You're making a great living, you're learned... what exactly about the 4-year university are you missing?

    Granted, if you want to be a doctor or a lawyer, you'll need the schooling. But strictly speaking, looking at it as investment, unlike your average BA or BS, or even most master's degrees, picking up an M.D. is actually worth the investment. You borrow the money, you go on to a career as an anasthesiologist, you pay it back and you forget all about it.

    If a college degree won't pay you back, you don't need it. You don't need a formalized 4-year degree and a 4-year vacation dominated by sitting around smoking weed in order to become a well-rounded Liberal thinker. You need parents who educate you about the importance of learning, the importance of education (not to be confused with time spent in your average B.A. program), and you need the desire not to sound like an idiot. That, and a library card. And really, let's go ahead and get a nice computer and a kickass Internet connection, too. Memberships to some book clubs, that sort of thing. Classes taken at the local institutions, certificate programs. You can do a hell of a lot for yourself, and yes it'll cost you something. But relative to the cost of the entitlement program/4-year vacation Americans have come to regard as somehow necessary and something they're entitled to by Natural Law...a first-rate education can be had, in practical real terms, for a tiny fraction of what you'll spend on that. You could lay out over 4-5 years $25,000 on materials, memberships, computers, Internet, and classes, and turn yourself into a paragon of critical thinking and knowledge.

    Time to put the marketplace to work driving down those school costs.

    I'd like to know what it is that's driving those costs up so high. Because if I can get that education, if I can access those resources, if I can work with groups that have similar interests and pursue academic passions without spending anything close to what it costs to go to college, why do colleges cost so much?

    We can socialize our educational system if you want. Socialism isn't a bad word as far as I'm concerned. And educating citizens is an investment in the strength of the nation, plain and simple. It's not really a free market issue, for me. But unless we re-tool our entire system, we won't make any headway. The time I spent in school taught me plenty about how much waste goes on, how useless so much of it can be. Until we put into standard practice the methods that have been proven over and over again to work and get our kids where they ought to be (learning Algebra in 6th grade, if they're able), we'll have the same useless stupid wasteful system we have now, no matter how it's paid for.

    And I'm not eager to fund through taxes a system that right now I'm free to just avoid entirely by really using the market, by going to technical school, by tapping the adjuncts at community colleges, some of whom are fonts of wisdom and talent and hold keys to wonderful places in your community.

  2. #32
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21,780
    Thanks
    12034

    I'm so lucky I consolidated at the lowest ever rates, I am at 2.5% for the life of my huge student loans. If only the scumbag credit card companies and other loan institutes gave reasonable rates and not the loan shark rates many of them are at.

    I could imagine there are som paying much higher ones. If my student loans were credit card company rates of around 20% I would likely be dead before I paid them off.

  3. #33
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43,875
    Thanks
    26240

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrass View Post
    That's the mindset of diploma mills and corporate online "colleges" like University of Phoenix. A true education is not meant to be "practical", rather it's an environment where one learns how to think critically, creatively problem solve and effectively communicate through writing and other means. As well, many pursue a Master's.

    Being a cog in the wheel of industry isn't a good reason to be educated.
    Agree but sadly so many of today's employers weren't even look at your background if you don't have the right degree. They forget that back not that long ago most people didn't go to college, some didn't even graduate high school(parents, grandparents etc), yet they all held good jobs and made advancements in their careers basically being uneducated.

  4. #34
    Senior Member septimine's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    897
    Thanks
    177

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Healthcare is corrupted by the fact that it's run by cartels. The government has a responsibility to break up that anti-competitive behemoth and clean up the market again.

    Education? We can handle that ourselves. Stop going. You can attend any number of smaller universities, colleges, and community colleges in your area and get the education required. If you want a big name you can do 2-3 years of small local college and transfer your 4.2GPA to Princeton for a year or two, live off-campus, do a lot of things to keep your debt down.

    Not to mention that, strictly speaking, you can get a great education at your local library for next to nothing. And many (most?) jobs you would be better prepared for with a training program, a certification of some sort, anything from IT to car repair. So you can take classes as you like at community colleges or local universities, and that'll answer your need to educate yourself for its own sake. You can join a book club and be a voracious reader and learn about history and study the human condition, become an Enlightened thinker... all while you earn a pile of Cisco certifications and head out into the world pulling in $100K working on networks. You're making a great living, you're learned... what exactly about the 4-year university are you missing?

    Granted, if you want to be a doctor or a lawyer, you'll need the schooling. But strictly speaking, looking at it as investment, unlike your average BA or BS, or even most master's degrees, picking up an M.D. is actually worth the investment. You borrow the money, you go on to a career as an anasthesiologist, you pay it back and you forget all about it.

    If a college degree won't pay you back, you don't need it. You don't need a formalized 4-year degree and a 4-year vacation dominated by sitting around smoking weed in order to become a well-rounded Liberal thinker. You need parents who educate you about the importance of learning, the importance of education (not to be confused with time spent in your average B.A. program), and you need the desire not to sound like an idiot. That, and a library card. And really, let's go ahead and get a nice computer and a kickass Internet connection, too. Memberships to some book clubs, that sort of thing. Classes taken at the local institutions, certificate programs. You can do a hell of a lot for yourself, and yes it'll cost you something. But relative to the cost of the entitlement program/4-year vacation Americans have come to regard as somehow necessary and something they're entitled to by Natural Law...a first-rate education can be had, in practical real terms, for a tiny fraction of what you'll spend on that. You could lay out over 4-5 years $25,000 on materials, memberships, computers, Internet, and classes, and turn yourself into a paragon of critical thinking and knowledge.

    Time to put the marketplace to work driving down those school costs.

    I'd like to know what it is that's driving those costs up so high. Because if I can get that education, if I can access those resources, if I can work with groups that have similar interests and pursue academic passions without spending anything close to what it costs to go to college, why do colleges cost so much?

    We can socialize our educational system if you want. Socialism isn't a bad word as far as I'm concerned. And educating citizens is an investment in the strength of the nation, plain and simple. It's not really a free market issue, for me. But unless we re-tool our entire system, we won't make any headway. The time I spent in school taught me plenty about how much waste goes on, how useless so much of it can be. Until we put into standard practice the methods that have been proven over and over again to work and get our kids where they ought to be (learning Algebra in 6th grade, if they're able), we'll have the same useless stupid wasteful system we have now, no matter how it's paid for.

    And I'm not eager to fund through taxes a system that right now I'm free to just avoid entirely by really using the market, by going to technical school, by tapping the adjuncts at community colleges, some of whom are fonts of wisdom and talent and hold keys to wonderful places in your community.
    Well, it depends on what you want to be doing. If you want to teach in K-12, you need a degree. If you need a degree for a specific job, then yes, go. Those situations exist. What doesn't work is "I kinda like X and want to do something vaguely related to it". Not a good enough reason to pick that major. If you have a specific goal in mind -- say I want to be a geologist for an oil exploration company and I have a few such companies in mind -- college will pay. But you have to mind two things -- first, the relative value of the degree VS the debt (owing $100,000 and getting a $20K a year job is silly), and the odds of getting a job with said degree and your GPA. If you're a C student, I would personally advise you to do a skilled trade like welding or bricklaying or auto repair instead of a 4-year. A C student in college doesn't really stand out among the millions of other grads, so you'll get the debt, but spend a long time looking for the job -- so the odds aren't good. A 20% chance of your degree leading to a good job is a poor risk.

    But no one thinks this way because in general loans are seen as "free money" no one gets turned down, and no payments are made for four years. So it feels free. That retards the changes that need to take place. If students were spending their own money (or their parents were), much like in stocks i think things improve. When you buy with your money, costs and benefits matter. You expect a return, and will be more careful about where you invest. If I gave you $1000 to put in the stock market, you aren't gong to be as careful as if you earned that $1000. You might not do enough research and lose either way, but if you had to earn that money, you'd be more careful and reasearch a stock and a company before buying. Same here -- if the government simply gives you the money, you go to college, but you're not as worried about the payout. So English Lit sounds good, and why not -- not my money. But if it is your money, you might not be as keen to go into English Lit, because those people don't get good jobs, and you won't be able to pay back the loan.

  5. #35
    Veteran Member Chief's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    27,488
    Thanks
    8220

    From
    Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by mtm1963 View Post
    devil, the right didn't write the article or cause the problem.

    27% delinquency rate is really bad.
    It is for sure... but it brings forth a good question, which is: Is the price of a university education worth the training it provides? I don't think it's as worth it as it used to be. My Bachelor cost me about $25k... now people are spending twice that or even more... and for entry level jobs that don't pay enough for them to be self sufficient. I don't really know what the best answer is, but these education and the job market need to be realigned to work together better.

  6. #36
    King Obama is a traitor! michaelr's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    89,668
    Thanks
    2736

    From
    FEMA Region 10
    Quote Originally Posted by sparty View Post
    I am adamantly against this. Look where the last bailout got us. NADA.

    Surprise, liberals want free college for all.

    News Headlines

    "Our current system, in fact, has so failed that it may now be exacerbating income inequality (by saddling low-income students with high loan balances and shaky job prospects), economic malaise (by keeping would-be homebuyers stuck in costly rentals because of already high debt loans and/or poor credit histories, thereby damaging both the housing market and potential consumer spending), and long-term economic vitality (by hampering household and family unit formations with a higher share of 20- and 30-somethings currently stuck at home with mom and dad).
    This is what happens every time the "government" puts their nose where it doesn't belong.

    It must be nice for the banks, hand out loans when they know the students wont be able to pay for them. What do they care, the government, meaning you and I will. I am sick and tired of being the bankers blood bag.

  7. #37
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,564
    Thanks
    1

    Quote Originally Posted by Chief View Post
    It is for sure... but it brings forth a good question, which is: Is the price of a university education worth the training it provides? I don't think it's as worth it as it used to be. My Bachelor cost me about $25k... now people are spending twice that or even more... and for entry level jobs that don't pay enough for them to be self sufficient. I don't really know what the best answer is, but these education and the job market need to be realigned to work together better.
    Most school are now $25k a year.

  8. #38
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3023

    Quote Originally Posted by michaelr View Post
    This is what happens every time the "government" puts their nose where it doesn't belong.

    It must be nice for the banks, hand out loans when they know the students wont be able to pay for them. What do they care, the government, meaning you and I will. I am sick and tired of being the bankers blood bag.
    I think that's a major part of the problem, for sure. The people that hand out the loans have an interest in driving up the costs. Getting their hooks into you for decades of interest payments is good business for them. The problem in this country, once again, at least in part, appears to be that the bankers actually have the wealth and influence to reach out and do what they want to do in this case: drive up the costs. The power of bankers and other forces of concentrated wealth is a bane to our existance.

  9. #39
    Join, or Die nonsqtr's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    32,903
    Thanks
    4667

    From
    Vertiform City
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Maybe you people on the Right would have more credibility if you didn't favor keeping the huge tax cuts for the wealthy & the huge tax breaks for Big Oil?
    Wow, we should start a whole thread about this one.

    Let's see - the left favors individual welfare, while the right favors corporate welfare. But what's the diff, they're both welfare, they're both giveaways. There are equally good arguments to be made that society benefits from both individual health and corporate health. And, we get the downsides of each too, corruption and fraud are rampant in both areas.

    So, see, this is why I keep hammering so hard on this point: the Constitution is our mechanism for telling our government what we want them to do.

    Here's an example: why do we have so many people on welfare? It occurs to me, that our government could convert that whole entire operation into a temp labor pool, and make money in the process (or at least save a whole ton of it) - I mean, there is no reason in the world we have to be handing out free money to so many people. I'll betcha 90% of those on welfare could actually work, they could do something, even stuff envelopes in their own home. If they're in a wheelchair maybe they can still use a computer, that kind of thing. There ought to be something, and I mean, God knows our government could certainly find something for people to do, right? Something that needs doing? Ya think?

    in France, they have a "right to work" in their constitution (it has nothing to do with unions). The people of France want their government to provide jobs for them - I mean, the concept is something along the lines I just mentioned. So look, how about this: we set up a gigantic temp labor pool, and we state that everyone who can work, will. No more of this "wants to" crap, if you're physically able (and we'll send around our people to check), we'll find work for you to do. We'll pay you shit wages, the absolute minimum wage allowed, BUT, anytime you want work you can get it, and the low wage will encourage you to get out of that shithole temp labor pool and go find yourself a real job (and once you have a few bucks in your pocket you can actually do that!).

    Now, on the government side, all we really have to do is retrain a few of the people who are currently working on welfare payments, and other than the field officers there's not a whole lot of those. In the field, those who are able to administer can move into positions where they're organizing the work force for specific needs. Those who are good with people can place the workers into appropriate jobs based on their skills and capabilities. That kind of thing. I'm pretty sure there would be very few left over after that.

    So, I mean, this is just an example, we could apply the same logic in the corporate world. There, the equation is a little different because a lot of it has to do with regulation, and regulatory activity is an entirely different animal from administering a labor pool. Did you catch the videos Koios posted in the econ section? They're great, they're worth a thorough examination. It becomes clear that our government has "procedural" checks and balances in place, but they only cover certain areas and not others. The financial regulators end up having to be really smart, almost as smart as a Bernanke or something. But what emerges from those videos is there is a clear need for our government to be aware of "where the money is", and therefore any sizable concentration of wealth that's outside of the public's knowledge is a very dangerous thing. As we've just seen.

    What happens in our politics is, that the left and right oscillate back and forth, and one of 'em wants individual welfare and the other wants corporate welfare, so we end up getting both, 'cause it's a lot harder to reverse something once it's passed into law. So it seems to me, we really oughta take a step back and examine this situation in terms of a more general model. We like work, we don't like giveaways. We'll help you out, but we'll put you to work if you're able, heck we even have shelters and like that, we can give you a place to sleep and food to eat while you're earning money. That sounds like an excellent safety net to me. You?

  10. #40
    Join, or Die nonsqtr's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    32,903
    Thanks
    4667

    From
    Vertiform City
    Quote Originally Posted by mtm1963 View Post
    devil, the right didn't write the article or cause the problem.

    27% delinquency rate is really bad.
    Let me guess - who is the genius that decided to start repackaging student loans?

    Did you catch the videos Koios posted in the econ section? They're wonderful, great stuff. They suggest that an entire financial sector was unreasonably overconfident in the prices of housing, and if you know anything about real estate (probably, if you've lived longer than 30 years or so) you've seen the housing prices nation-wide go through some rather dramatic oscillations. And here were these guys selling twice- and thrice-repackaged mortgages with AAA ratings, and the video suggests they really believed it, they were that confident they'd spread the risk.

    You're right, it's not a left-right issue. It's a banker issue. It's a regulatory issue. And that ought to be non-partisan and entirely bipartisan, and the only reason it's not is because of the corporate money in Washington DC - get rid of that, and you've solved the problem.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed