Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ron Paul Wants To End the Federal Student Loan Program

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 years ago | from the seems-about-right dept.

Education 1797

On the heels of declaring his intent to axe a few departments from the federal government, Ron Paul has revealed more plans should he become President. The_THOMAS writes "Ron Paul wants to end Federal student loans stating that the Government involvement artificially inflates the cost of a college education and that once the government is out of the situation, students will be able to work their way to a college degree. What do you think?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Ceyx (32388) | about 3 years ago | (#37816156)

First Post your way to a degree!

Re:FP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816216)

First Post your way to a degree!

Not with Ron Paul...

Ron Paul - Libertarian overlord, savoir of taxpayers, isolationist surpreme, preventer of first posts.
RON PAUL 2013 - EVEN WITH CTHUTULLU YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY TAXES !

Re:FP (3, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | about 3 years ago | (#37816282)

Not having worldwide military bases is "isolationist"?

Then I guess it is time we join the rest of the world in being "isolationist".

Re:FP (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816482)

Problem is, the rest of the world kind of sucks. America must be different. We do not suck, and thanks to being so awesome that we can't keep all the awesome on our own soil, we need to annex additional territory now and then to spread it out. What's wrong with that? If you want to live in an isolationist regime like, say, Finland, no one is stopping you. There are dozens to choose from, suit yourself!

Subsidies inflate pricing. (3, Insightful)

ZHaDoom (65485) | about 3 years ago | (#37816170)

Subsidies inflate pricing. I agree.

Re:Subsidies inflate pricing. (1)

ahow628 (1290052) | about 3 years ago | (#37816248)

Lots of rent seeking. I know a number of people who would have, a priori, been better off just heading straight into the workforce or finding a trade to do. I also know a number of people who got a degree and went into another field, either by choice or by circumstance (eg, not finding a job), and could have ended up the same place without college. I think in either situation, these people may have thought different about their choice to go to school based on the availability (or lack there of) of school loans.

A trillion dollars in student loan debts (3, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | about 3 years ago | (#37816448)

The education bubble [nwsource.com]

"students are borrowing twice what they did a decade ago after adjusting for inflation" and in the past five years total outstanding debt has doubled. That compares with falling debt on loans for houses and credit cards.

Remember, that's a trillion dollars of debt that can't even be wiped out by bankruptcy, unlike the previous bubbles of the dot-bombs and real estate.

Worse than that. The subsidies are debt based (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | about 3 years ago | (#37816486)

The students end up with a mortgage on their lives.

So...

Massive debt.
No Job.
No Collateral
No Bankruptcy protection. They can just about hound you till you drop.

Yeah sounds like a good deal to me. If i'm a University or, wait for it.. A banker.
 

Ron Paul should give away his money (4, Insightful)

loftwyr (36717) | about 3 years ago | (#37816174)

Maybe if he had to actually work for a living at a minimum wage job, he'd stop asking those with little to no money to give up their chance to be raised up.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816220)

This is good that he's suggesting these things. It shows how much of an unviable candidate he is.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (1)

metalgamer84 (1916754) | about 3 years ago | (#37816238)

Why is it the governments responsibility to pay those "with little to no money" way through college?

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (2, Informative)

Anrego (830717) | about 3 years ago | (#37816334)

We're talking about a loan here.. the idea is it gets paid back.

As to why.. I'd say educating people is generally a good idea. Even if the money was a direct give-away.. I'd rather tax dollars be spent education people so they can contribute something to society vice welfare.

I do think there should be a little more oversight to ensure people who get these loans are doing something with at least a reasonable chance of turning into a job. If you want to get a degree in liberal arts or music .. burn your own money.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816466)

We're talking about a loan here.. the idea is it gets paid back.

Well, if that's you're stance, I suggest macing the hippies of the Occupy Wall-street movement like us good Conservatives do - we finally have a common ground!

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (2)

Goaway (82658) | about 3 years ago | (#37816356)

Because the government wants an educated populace to carry the country's economy.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (2)

jythie (914043) | about 3 years ago | (#37816408)

Because the government has an interest in the overall economy and long term planning? Student loans came out of the discovery of the economic advantage of the GI Bill.. it increases the number of skilled people available to industry and helps get good people the skills to be useful rather then only the people with money. Emergent systems like pure capitalism only go so far, there are advantages to thought and planning when dealing with complex systems.

So it is less that they are 'responsible' and more 'it is part of their job and to the country's advantage'.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816474)

It's the government's responsibility to try to ensure that education is limited by what someone can learn, not by the size of his/her wallet.
Well, that's my view at least. Some things should be accessible to all, not only to those who can afford it.

(so in reply to parent: because it's the government's responsibility to ensure an educated workforce. That doesn't necessarily mean stipends, most anything that ensures that education is affordable is ok).

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 3 years ago | (#37816498)

Because without government education, you end up with a large uneducated class of people. When a bunch of uneducated people have voting rights, they will vote themselves so many government programs that you'll wish you'd bent your libertarian views just a smidgen. Venezuela is a good example.

I say this as someone who's ideology is based in libertarian, but with a hefty dose of pragmatism.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816510)

Because if it doesn't the majority of US population will not get college education. Consequently it will not be qualified to do most of the current jobs, and probably none in the jobs created in the next decade. The only job they could do is manual labor - low end farm work (in our day you do need a lot of skill to run a farm), janitorial and some mechanical jobs like changing oil and tires. The funny part is that to have even these jobs you actually need educated and well paid work force that can afford for somebody else to seep their workplace and change the oil on their cars.

In summary if you hinder access to education you end up with society mostly composed of subsistence farmers and ruled by thugs. I am not sure you would enjoy the transition to this.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (5, Informative)

tmosley (996283) | about 3 years ago | (#37816246)

He gives back his salary every year. He makes NO money off of being a Congressman.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816300)

He gives back his salary every year. He makes NO money off of being a Congressman.

Seems you miss the point entirely. The point is earned income versus unearned income. Because he gives away his salary doesn't mean he ever labored for any of his money. But way to answer a strawman!

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (2)

AmazinglySmooth (1668735) | about 3 years ago | (#37816340)

I've heard that becoming a medical doctor is easy.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816452)

He gives back his salary every year. He makes NO money off of being a Congressman.

Seems you miss the point entirely. The point is earned income versus unearned income. Because he gives away his salary doesn't mean he ever labored for any of his money. But way to answer a strawman!

Buzz! Try again moron. Dr. Paul - yes he has an MD from duke - actually worked and I believe still works as a medical doctor. He has delivered more babies then you have seen. He has worked for what he has earned and has refused those things he has not earned or finds hypocritical. Not only has he worked, he has worked hard.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816496)

OTOH, he makes plenty of money off being a pseudo-Libertarian pundit whose proclamations of a better way seduce those who want to believe!

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816256)

Wage-slave before college, wage-slave (with a higher wage and much more debt) after college. I don't see the difference. His proposal has at least a chance of popping the education bubble. The status quo does not.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816292)

1) He is giving away his money. When he becomes president he will lower the president's income from the $400,000 it is, to the annual income: ~$39k.
2) Maybe people that work minimum wage need to step up to move beyond the bare minimum standard of living. I worked minimum wage for years, then started freelancing on the side, and kept working at bettering myself, and now I make a nice income. Its about improving yourself, not expecting a hand out from the government.
3) He isn't screwing people with minimum money, if he had his way he would abolish the income tax. People work to make a little money, and the government takes a cut of it. Sounds screwy to me

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (1)

Rakishi (759894) | about 3 years ago | (#37816434)

1) He is giving away his money. When he becomes president he will lower the president's income from the $400,000 it is, to the annual income: ~$39k.

And so lower the salary for everyone else in the government if I remember my laws. Government by the rich for the rich, sounds like a real good idea.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (1)

jythie (914043) | about 3 years ago | (#37816472)

well yes, they take a cut.. and in return give us things like roads, police,... you know, the type of stuff that when left in private hands ends up not covering most people? If you want a system where the government doesn't do anything and everyone keeps the wealth they accumulate with no handouts or public spending, I hear Somalia is nice.

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816326)

He did say he would lower the president's salary to the median American wage, ~$35k

Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816450)

You're entirely missing the point. Its not that people shouldn't get to go to college. Its that the federal government should get their noses out of it and stop ruining it; student loan debt is up to a record high, above that of credit-card debt. College costs way more than ever, and education is more worthless than ever. Most of the graduating students in my class were pathetic. Classes didn't teach much; you either were going to learn most of it on your own already, or you aren't going to remember it. The federal government has slowly made college less and less efficient. Now you spend 5 years and take out huge loans so that... you can be unemployed. People tell me that once upon a time those with a college education had jobs, no question. Look how far we've come.

Why is this a problem? (-1, Troll)

trolman (648780) | about 3 years ago | (#37816182)

Where does it say that the Federal Government can give away my money to other people?

Re:Why is this a problem? (5, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 years ago | (#37816280)

Where does it say that the Federal Government can give away my money to other people?

Taxation is a valid function of government and has been since 1787. And if the government was going to spend the money you pay in taxes solely on you, then it would hardly need to raise taxes to begin with.

Acquaint yourself with American history. Some degree of redistribution of wealth has always been part of the operation of the federal government. Now, you may disagree on particular spending, and you have a right to choose representatives who might push for change -- it's taxation with representation, a just way of doing things. But your rhetoric is out of touch with American democracy even as the Founding Fathers conceived it.

Re:Why is this a problem? (0)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 3 years ago | (#37816516)

Taxation is a valid function of government and has been since 1787. And if the government was going to spend the money you pay in taxes solely on you, then it would hardly need to raise taxes to begin with.

Bingo!

Acquaint yourself with American history. Some degree of redistribution of wealth has always been part of the operation of the federal government.

Citation please. When did the federal government get involved in student loans? Plot federal involvement against college costs and draw conclusions (Do the same for medical costs.) Taxation is a valid function, redistribution is not. Traffic cops are not supposed to fill the gas tanks of poor people.

Now, you may disagree on particular spending, and you have a right to choose representatives who might push for change -- it's taxation with representation, a just way of doing things. But your rhetoric is out of touch with American democracy even as the Founding Fathers conceived it.

No, we have a tyranny of the majority.

Re:Why is this a problem? (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | about 3 years ago | (#37816304)

Where does it say the federal government can't?

That's what governments do- they take your money and give it to other people.

Don't like that? Well- then- let's abolish the police, the military, the judges... Wouldn't you just love to have all those positions run by private corps?

Government can take your money-because that's what governments do. Now, the money they take is supposed to be an investment- to improve life, to protect your life and make life for the citizens more profitable.

You can argue whether student loans do. There is no doubt in my mind that living in an educated America (tee hee) my chances to make more money are increased than if we were a nation of uneducated labourers and swine-herds.

I think the whole education system here in the US needs a complete overhaul- and the student loan system is flawed- but overall- I consider the US investing my money in the education of others does indeed make me wealthier in the long run.

I'll Hold My Breath (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816184)

I hope that he includes all educational benefits given to those federal employees who work in the military sector as well, for the sake of ideological consistency and deflating the higher education bubble of course.

Interesting (1)

spartacus_prime (861925) | about 3 years ago | (#37816186)

Would this include forgiveness of all current student loan debt from federal loans?

Re:Interesting (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 3 years ago | (#37816212)

ahaha You must be new here. No I'm sure it wouldn't.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816322)

Why in the world WOULD it?

Watch this video (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816188)

"College Conspiracy" released by NIA on YouTube

You will clearly see why we need to eliminate the federal government from student loans

"Free" money (4, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | about 3 years ago | (#37816194)

Subsidized student loans are "free" money that enslaves most for a lifetime, moreso today than at any time in living memory. There was a time when working part time over the summer would be enough to pay ALL college expenses, now you have to work some 35 hours a week during the semester plus full time in the summer and over breaks. This is outrageous.

Re:"Free" money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816260)

"There was a time when working part time over the summer would be enough to pay ALL college expenses,"

Bullshit. Let us see some numbers and sources if you are going to make such wild claims.

Re:"Free" money (2, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 years ago | (#37816394)

Subsidized student loans are "free" money that enslaves most for a lifetime.

I must agree. Look at young people in other Western countries: when they finish their education, they have the option of travelling for a while, or they can start to do seasonal work, save up their money and spend the rest of the year at leisure. Meanwhile, American students are frantic to find a job as soon as they graduate, because the demands for repayment come 6 months after their graduation date and there's no letup. By the time many have repaid their loans, they feel too old or are too burdened with a family to drop things for a little while and pursue whatever interest they have.

Re:"Free" money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816416)

The only time working a summer job would be enough to pay college expenses was when colleges had huge state subsidies that payed for most of the cost.

Once again Ron Paul spits out a simple, unworkable solution to a complex problem.

Re:"Free" money (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 3 years ago | (#37816462)

So perhaps it would be better to do what (some) corporations do for scholarships/tuition reimbursement. They pay at the end of the term if your grades are acceptable. After you graduate, you are obligated to work for them for X months per semester if they have an open position you qualify for.

I know a few folks that have paid for nursing school, nuke med, and radiology tech this way, starting out as janitors, nursing aides, or couriers working for a hospital (HCA before Columbia bought them out, Columbia continued the program after buying though). As bonus for the employee, the payments weren't taxed, and they had guaranteed jobs where they could continue on their retirement plan. As a bonus for the hospital, they had a guaranteed nurse coming in when nurses were in high demand.

Even better is that the program wasn't limited to health careers/degrees - they were willing to pick up my tuition when I was doing an AS in programming/systems analysis. I ended up refusing the first check and removing myself from the program due to the Columbia buy out and getting a job working at the college I was attending, but if I had stayed in I would have had a good job and be 5 years away from having my 30 years in...

Assuming government paid healthcare expanded, or even just staying wtih the current VA hospitals, the same could be done for all health care positions, as well as various finance/accounting jobs, IT stuff, etc.

Of course it does (4, Insightful)

Elros (735454) | about 3 years ago | (#37816202)

In a lot of ways, they do inflate the cost of education. However, the quality is also going down. The bigger problem is that the demand is being artificially inflated at the same time. Nearly every job requires a BS or BA...even if they don't care which subject. A University should be a place of higher learning and research, not a factory for just the next step in education.

I agree that eliminating the student loan program will help. However, there need to be a lot more changes then that.

Re:Of course it does (1)

webheaded (997188) | about 3 years ago | (#37816338)

I agree completely. There are WAY too many jobs looking for college now and it doesn't make any sense. Granted there are still a fair number that aren't...and fortunately a lot of them will take experience in a field over a degree...but still. It's just getting ridiculous. Not every person in the god damn country should have to go to college. That's why it's so expensive. Everyone is told they need to go and the demand is SKY ROCKETING.

Re:Of course it does (2)

Corporate Drone (316880) | about 3 years ago | (#37816428)

Nearly every job requires a BS or BA...even if they don't care which subject. A University should be a place of higher learning and research, not a factory for just the next step in education.

Umm... that's exactly the idea! The subject, in some ways, shouldn't matter -- after all, it's higher education, not technical school! If you spend the time working on a degree, regardless in which department, you've ostensibly grown in knowledge, in a "Renaissance 'man'" kind of way! It's precisely in its mission as "not a technical school factory" that the university exists!

Re:Of course it does (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816446)

However, the quality is also going down. (...) Nearly every job requires a BS or BA...even if they don't care which subject.

Exactly. High school education has become so terrible that employers now have to hire college graduates to find someone who can write a business letter with proper punctuation and grammar. This is why jobs are requiring a BS or BA.

Re:Of course it does (0)

brainzach (2032950) | about 3 years ago | (#37816490)

Eliminating student loans means only people coming from families with money go to college, instead of people going based on merit. It would make the quality of college education even worst.

Re:Of course it does (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 3 years ago | (#37816520)

A University should be a place of higher learning and research, not a factory for just the next step in education.

Where else are people expected to receive the education needed to be responsible members of our society? I do not know where you are from, but here in America a high school diploma indicates nothing about a person's literacy or ability to think. High schools are just a way to condition people to do as they are told, with a little bit of warm up for an increasingly likely stay in prison.

We need to revamp our high school education, so that someone who graduates high school can actually be expected to perform their job.

It's the fees, old fool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816204)

Anyone can work through a degree when it's only a few thousand a year, like it was 20+ years ago. Today college tuition is more than the average full time annual salary. Very few students are going to be able to earn enough to pay through college and study at the same time.

let's go private (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816208)

Yeah stop the feds making student loans so the private companies can have no competition in how they screw you.

Ron Paul is an idiot (1, Insightful)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | about 3 years ago | (#37816214)

Typical ideologue nonsense. Luckily he's got about the same chance of being elected as an iceberg has of showing up at the equator.

I wonder who he blames when his car doesn't start. (1, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 3 years ago | (#37816218)

Oh boy. What does Ron have as proof?

Re:I wonder who he blames when his car doesn't sta (3, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | about 3 years ago | (#37816358)

I guess the fact that higher education costs are spiraling out of control even as the jobs these degrees are supposed to help you to get have all but disappeared means nothing to you?

If you like indentured servitude so much, why don't you use your useless advanced degree to build a time machine and go back to 1720?

YES! (0)

LDAPMAN (930041) | about 3 years ago | (#37816226)

Get the federal government out my life and my wallet.

Re:YES! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#37816502)

Says the guy using the system created by the federal government.

I guess one of the benefits of a two-party system (1)

unsanitary999 (2482414) | about 3 years ago | (#37816230)

I suppose one of the benefits of the American two-party system is that people like Ron Paul won't be elected president. Even though he's running on the republican ticket, he's not "mainstream" enough for the GOP.

Free market fairy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816232)

Free market theory is like Communism. Sounds good on paper, but when you apply it to the real world, it's a disaster.

Re:Free market fairy (4, Informative)

tmosley (996283) | about 3 years ago | (#37816410)

Yes, like the last time it was applied, from 1875-1913 in the USA. You know, the time where the US went from being a colonial backwater to an industrial superpower.

Oh, or did you mean to imply that the disaster that is today's economy was caused by the free market? Well, you can't have a free market when the government is intervening every five minutes to keep some company from collapsing. Can't even have one when you have a central bank that sets interest rates. What we have now is a MIXED market. The MIXED market has failed us.

Let's be blunt (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 3 years ago | (#37816254)

Ron Paul would want to cut this even if there weren't an economic argument that it is inflating college costs. He just wants to cut things. The economic argument is an argument to get to his bottom line of cutting federal programs.

That said, there's an actual argument that such loans are increasing the cost of colleges in general, and there's a a whole cottage industry of for-profit colleges that have grown up which give bad educations and get most of their money off of federal loans. And the cost of college is increasing faster than the inflation rate. http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/20/pf/college/college_price.moneymag/ [cnn.com] Part of this is probably that more and and more people want to go to college and are willing to pay whatever it takes. Another issue is that some colleges are increasing their tuition prices while being much more willing to give out scholarships, effectively engaging in a form of price discrimination so they can charge different amounts based on how much people can afford.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination [wikipedia.org] . Also, some people go out of their way to go to named schools rather than local state schools for reasons of status and prestige even when the academics aren't substantially different. But some of this cost issue may be due to the student loan program, so it may make sense to actually revises or revamp the federal student loan program. However, the immediate result of cutting the loans won't be a correction of college costs, but rather simply an immediate screwing-over of the people who can't easily afford college.

Interesting... (3, Insightful)

bradgoodman (964302) | about 3 years ago | (#37816262)

Extremely interesting...

I'm no republican, and at first I was thinking "here we go again - another GOPer trying to take money away from the little guy" - but I think he has a valid point.

People would only be willing to spend a hundred-grand on education if there was someone standing right there willing to easily loan them a hundred-grand to do so. I've always thought there was some odd market force that was allowing the cost of education rise in such a bizarre way - this is probably it.

If if were really up the the "free market" - i.e. there were no "special" loans, scholarships, or free-rides, people would be willing (and able) to spend a LOT less. Schools would have to come *WAY* down in price to get people in. It would be a very different landscape.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816432)

You know Republicans have been making this exact point about Student loans for years. Now extend the same argument to welfare and social programs and you'll see why Republicans say that Democrat policies keep the poor poor instead of raising them up.

Of course (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 3 years ago | (#37816266)

Because deregulating financial matters always ends well.

Re:Of course (2)

goldspider (445116) | about 3 years ago | (#37816512)

Since when does "subsidy" == "regulation"?

Government artificially inflates it all right... (1)

garcia (6573) | about 3 years ago | (#37816268)

The government is definitely artificially inflating the cost of a college education but it's not just from providing loan dollars.

1. The government sets ridiculous graduation mandates for secondary schools. They mandates basically force everyone to graduate from an institution they probably should not have.

2. Once these secondary graduates, who have been coddled into believing they are successful and special enter a post-secondary institution starved for resources and cash by a system which mandates ridiculous reporting requirements and thus staff, they expect to do as "well" there as they did in HS.

3. Now that we have a bunch of loans given out to these undereducated by self and family-proclaimed geniuses, we are getting loud whines when they have to pay back their loans on an education they were never cut out for in the first place.

---

What needs to happen is a recentering of education in America. We need to reset our expectations for the vast majority (including business) and say that a HS diploma may be enough for a lot of jobs. We're already spending at rates higher than other countries and receiving far less.

Let these people fail HS and/or just barely graduate and permit colleges to turn them away at the door by simply saying, "you are not prepared in the least for post-secondary work," instead of taking them in and reeducating them with 90/900 level remedial coursework.

We have a lot of work to do and while I do not believe dumping the federal student loan program will solve it, beginning at the individual level, moving through the local and going up through the fed with a major redesign of how we handle education and its worth may be a start.

I learned the value of money by paying as I went.. (3, Interesting)

teambpsi (307527) | about 3 years ago | (#37816270)

I don't want to be "that old guy" -- but I didn't qualify for student loans in the 80's & early 90's because my parents were in that bracket where they were supposed to be able to contribute, but just couldn't.

I had up to three part-time jobs while doing my undergrad, and I definitely wanted the education -- I found that as "consumer" I demanded more from my instructors for my hard earned cash.

In the end it made me who I am, and I subsequently went on to get both an MS in Software Engineering and an MBA recently -- both paid for with cash that I earned and saved.

Sure it took a little longer to finish the degree's and barring Alzheimer's, the lessons learned all around will be mine for life!

Re:I learned the value of money by paying as I wen (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 3 years ago | (#37816424)

Sure it took a little longer to finish the degree's and barring Alzheimer's, the lessons learned all around will be mine for life!

The lessons obviously didn't include the correct plural of "degree". :-)

The Lost Generation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816276)

Maybe he is correct, but it would really suck to be one of the kids trying to go to college after federal loans end but before the market figures out the "correct" pricing. Also, what jobs does he think they will work?

Crackpot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816278)

I think he sounds more and more like a right-wing crackpot who has lost all touch with reality.

Fixing Student Loans (4, Interesting)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about 3 years ago | (#37816286)

Student Loans should include two things:

1. Fixed low-rate loan (2-3% even for private loans)
2. Allowed to be paid with pre-tax income (like money put towards retirement etc)

If they want to remove the government's involvement and make it private only, these rules should still be added. We should be helping student's get through school to make this country a better place.

Re:Fixing Student Loans (1)

theodp (442580) | about 3 years ago | (#37816500)

Agreed. Send this sensible suggestion over to the Occupy Wall Street crowd, too!

Loans vs. Grants. (2)

cs2501x (1979712) | about 3 years ago | (#37816288)

Perhaps the US should do what they do in the UK, Germany, Japan, and other countries that value education: It should include University level education for free to its citizens who demonstate themselves capable of such responsibility. I know these systems are not perfect, but it seems like education is a good way to start to resolve many of our greater social issues. I also think it beats the $100,000 debt that cripples people from building any kind of financial stability in their youth, and perhaps it will encourage folks to try harder to get into Universities.

Re:Loans vs. Grants. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816488)

Perhaps the US should do what they do in the UK, Germany, Japan, and other countries that value education: It should include University level education for free to its citizens who demonstate themselves capable of such responsibility. I know these systems are not perfect, but it seems like education is a good way to start to resolve many of our greater social issues.

It already does. It's called the military.

Re:Loans vs. Grants. (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 years ago | (#37816508)

It should include University level education for free to its citizens who demonstate themselves capable of such responsibility.

How do you get them to demonstrate that without letting them try first?

And if a person fails at it, how long before you let them try again, if ever?

If you can get a $60,000 loan for school (5, Insightful)

assemblerex (1275164) | about 3 years ago | (#37816290)

All of the sudden all the schools cost $60,000.

Not a news flash. (-1, Flamebait)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | about 3 years ago | (#37816298)

This just in -- Frederick Francissimo Franco is still dead, and Ron Paul is still stupid and insane. More of these breaking news bulletins as events warrant. Now back to you, Marsha.

Wouldn't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816306)

No one lowers the price of anything these days. Once its already that high it will stay that high. They have become accustomed to that money, and will not let it go now. The damage is already done.

They added corn to gas...the price didn't go down on gas, it just made the gas people more money and gas worse for people.

Thanks for trying to help by screwing everyone Government.

Mind the gap, Mr. Paul (2)

technomom (444378) | about 3 years ago | (#37816310)

He'd better have a plan for the huge bubble he's about to create in between the time when federal loans are cut off and colleges/universities actually lower their prices. It's easy to say these things on paper, but there's always a lag and that's where the problems start. See the Medicare "Donut Hole" for an example of that.

Re:Mind the gap, Mr. Paul (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 3 years ago | (#37816464)

Of course an easy way to avoid that would be to gradually lower the loans instead of cutting them off immediately.

I agree in principle (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 3 years ago | (#37816314)

I agree in principle, the government should not be granting student loans, and I think that its involvement in that process is largely responsible for the current pricing. All that available money has created a huge market distortion that is unfair to students.

These things have to be phased out though, in the practical sense. Its not as if schools can re-price their services instantly to reflect the new lack of cheap and easy money in the hands of recent highschool grads. They have an entire expense structure around the existing revenue structure that has build up over the past two decades or more. What the government should do is leave the existing programs largely intact but reduce the percentage of the loan they back each year until lenders rates reflect the real risk and their are fewer takers. That will gradually force students to find other options and force schools to re-organize around lower prices, in slow way.

Its kinda the same issue with the immigration reform. The current system is f*&!^ed up. You can't just all of sudden shut the board though. The market can't respond instantly, well it can but nobody would like the results. There are American's willing to do farm work, but the market has been distorted for decades, the people willing to that work no longer live near the farms. They need time unwind their current situations and move back to the country. You can't commute an hour to and from the city to earn a berry pickers wage. These things take time. You have slowly turn the heat up on illegals, and let the labor cost rise gradually, giving citizens time to relocate, and producers time to provide housing and such for them.

partly right (1)

ggpauly (263626) | about 3 years ago | (#37816318)

regulation of student loans is in poor shape.

example: student housing is inflated because loans cover dorms but not off-campus housing. dorms are now nice apartments instead of spartan (and affordable) rooms.

regulations should give correct incentives.

Ha! Okay, then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816324)

Dear Ron Paul:
I am a pharmacy technician, I make 9.00 an hour and work 30 hours a week. My rent is 450.00 a month, my car insurance is 102.00 a month, and my electricity bill runs roughly 120.00 a month. Factor in food and gas and after a year, even assuming that I don't go on dates or do anything fun at all or have anything break or have anywhere to go other than work, and the money that's left is about half of what a semester of university education costs for an in-state student.

I guess what I'm saying is, sure, I'll work at a gas station for the rest of my life. That's probably what's going to happen to all of us anyway.

Douche.

When I was a kid....a car cost a nickle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816330)

Remember when Barry Goldwater said "it was a persons own fault if he was poor", while standing in front of a department store left to him by his grandfather?
Yeah....
Poser..

TL;DR
    Ron Paul yells "get off my lawn" to fence posts when he forgets his meds.

Uh... no. (0)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 years ago | (#37816342)

I'm pretty sure that if student loans went away, the actual costs of going to school would stay about the same. The net result would be that only the rich would get higher education, thus creating an enduring class system.

While certain degrees of government involvement might be contributing to part of today's high tuition costs, I seriously doubt that getting rid of loans would make a significant difference. All I can see happening as an immediate result is massive numbers of layoffs of college and university professors, because there are not as many people going to school.

Most other first world countries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816348)

have student loan systems - making higher education somewhat easier for those who really want it but can't afford it - removing it will further speed the ride of America's decline

Vote Ron Paul ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816350)

Anyone who doesn't vote for Ron Paul is a traitor to America.

He's the only candidate that supports a return to the constitution - the *only* thing that made America a good idea.

End the wars, end the fed and get this eminently sane man in the white house.

Or face another decade of corporate fascism, the removal of the last of your rights, and the constitution being made into toilet paper.

Obviously he'll be another let down once in office but at least he's better than Barry Soetoro (Change ? What f'ing change ???)

WTF, Slashdot? (0)

ryanov (193048) | about 3 years ago | (#37816352)

I know I'm likely to get a "you must be new here," but when did the majority of people on Slashdot become uneducated morons who are little better than those pull-string dolls that can only say "Keep your government hands off my "? Perhaps people are already not going to college and lack critical thinking skills?

Short-sighted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816354)

Government involvement might have artificially inflated the cost of college over the past 30 years or so indirectly, but suddenly removing Federal loans and assuming it'll work itself out at the cost of the current and potentially next generation of college students is short sighted and ridiculous. Maybe some actual financial aid reform akin to the Australian or British system.

Government Monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816360)

If the government would end it's monopoly on student loans that would be enough for me. They swooped in "protecting" everyone who is now occupying Wall St. from "predatory" banks, but now I can't shop around for student loans anymore. It's the government's way or the high way.

At least banks can't send swat teams to my house if I fail to make payments...

ron paul is economically illiterate (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 3 years ago | (#37816362)

ron paul is to economics what creationists are to science: a deep and unshakeable blind faith in a fantastic lie

namely, that government involvement in the marketplace hurts it. ron paul and other libertarian idiots: left to its own devices, the market will naturally, i said NATURALLY, gravitate all power and wealth into the hands of a few. that this still might happen with government involved is a lesson in government being corrupted. so it is a reason to clean up government, not a reason to get government out of the way. getting government out of the way would accelerate the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, to create even more all of the abuses you worry about appearing in the marketplace. government is the only chance we have to keep the market fair and equal. left to itself, all by itself, NATURALLY, the market is abused by its largest players

why don't some of you idiots understand this? why do you persist in this complete insanity that an unregulated marketplace is somehow fair and equal and somehow it is the government screws it up? the government is the only tool we have to keep it regulated, policed, and therefore fair, where the large are prevented from using their entrenched position to cheat off the backs of the small

where does this pseudoreligious belief, in defiance of all economic history and simple logic and reason come from that an unregulated marketplace is somehow more fair?

Screw the poor and lower middle class! (3, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 3 years ago | (#37816370)

Of course, the best solution to the shrinking middle class is to not educate the poor and lower middle class. Let them be happy with their barely literate high school education and mind-numbing menial labor jobs (which by the way are in other countries now).

Do the Republicans have any sane candidates? It makes being and independent really tough.

We see it all over so it makes sense (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 3 years ago | (#37816400)

Every time the government or insurance (that is, large entities with deep pockets) pays for things, we see the prices of things increase as if by magic. "Milspec hammers" costing hundreds of dollars or so the fable goes. Healthcare costs are also out of control. And in states (which is pretty much all of them) the price of auto insurance has steadily increased as well.

These patterns should be obvious enough to all that it requires no proof or evidence. There are human factors and human causes [read: greed] which take advantage of human weakness [read: spending other people's money] and human need.

Re:We see it all over so it makes sense (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 3 years ago | (#37816478)

These patterns should be obvious enough to all that it requires no proof or evidence.

Sorry, but I don't mix economics with religion.

But Then How Would Google Build Robot Cars? (1)

theodp (442580) | about 3 years ago | (#37816402)

Google Robot Car Project Involves Large CMU Contingent [cmu.edu] :

And two years later, Carnegie Mellon's robotic SUV, Boss, won DARPA's followup race, the $2 million Urban Challenge.

As a graduate student and then a faculty member of Carnegie Mellon's Robotics Institute, Urmson played key roles on the groundbreaking "Challenge" teams led by William "Red" Whittaker, director of the Field Robotics Center. Now, on leave from the institute, Urmson again has contributed to a milestone for self-driving vehicles as a member of Google Inc.'s autonomous vehicle project. Its eight cars have logged more than 1,000 miles on public roads with no human intervention and more than 140,000 miles with only the slightest human help, an unprecedented achievement.

"The work we're doing out here is very exciting," Urmson said. It's an achievement he shares with a large Carnegie Mellon contingent on the roughly 15-member Google team. Eight members have current or past ties to CMU, a pioneer in autonomous navigation.

They include James Kuffner, an adjunct faculty member in the Robotics Institute; Don Burnette, a PhD robotics student on leave; Matthew McNaughton, a Google intern who has returned to finish his PhD in robotics; Nathaniel Fairfield and Michael Montemerlo, who earned PhDs in robotics in 2009 and 2003, respectively, and Philip Nemec, a 1995 computer science graduate. Sebastian Thrun, a former associate professor at Carnegie Mellon now at Stanford University, heads up Google's robot car project.

Sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816406)

Yes, the best thing for students and education would be to stop inflating the price of education by ending federal loan subsidies, but before you do that let's make it possible to bankruptcy your way out of student debt again, too. Otherwise you're still giving creditors federally guaranteed debt slavery over students. Risk is an intrinsic part of loans. If you take away that element by making it impossible to default, it's just corporate welfare.

Student Loans = Partying (0)

johno10661 (306768) | about 3 years ago | (#37816412)

I came from a family that had $10 a week for groceries. I worked my way through college without a single student loan. I now own a nice-sized business that supports 80 families and provides amazing benefits. It can be done. It is not easy - nor should it be.

Of all of my friends that made it through college with student loans - most are strapped with them their entire lives and actually used the money to party their way through college.

I prefer my tax dollars not fund partying.

Ah, inflation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816420)

Of course all subsidies should be cut off. But let's start with the important ones: agriculture, metal industries, etc. And with the money we save from those we can better finance educational institutions, so that education down;t cost that much, and students don't need to take any loans. Unless of course the idea is to cut education from those not so lucky to *have* money, so that only people *with* money can be educated. Flash back: it reminds me of what Europe used to be in the 18th and early 19th century. Lots of people with no education and no hope of actually enhancing their income, which created all that political unrest... and the rest is history, as they say.As they say, middle class is a luxury capitalism can no longer provide for.

Same goes for healthcare (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37816422)

The reason a broken leg costs so much to fix is that the doctor, nurse, and hospital administration are all paying student loans. On top of that doctors are having to pay for insane insurance coverage.

If getting an MD wasn't so expensive then healthcare wouldn't be so expensive. I hate that we're always talking about how we pay for healthcare instead of how to make it cheaper.

Student loans should be treated as any other (1)

bpeikes (596073) | about 3 years ago | (#37816468)

They should be dischargeable under bankruptcy like any other loan. While we're at it, how about making the university responsible for the 50% of the loan if it goes into default. If a university wants to get money through federal loans, then they should stand behind the education their giving. A mortgage is backed by the house you buy, an auto loan by the car. The current system just funnels federal dollars into the pockets of university administrators.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?