"Is college tuition smart money?"...a discussion of the one trillion dollars in student loan debt, and one way to pay some back

25 posts / 0 new

One of the stories on the 4/29/12 episode of CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Osgood was titled "Is college tuition smart money?" . This story talked about the high cost of a college education, sought to explain what is behind some of the recent increases in these costs, and asked if the debt is worthwhile for people in different economic situations. Also covered was the burden more than one trillion dollars in student loan debt places on students and their families. While I think they spent too much time discussing how families are 'struggling' to pay for the costs of sending their kids to some of the most expensive schools in the country (Snobs ! ... hee, hee, just kidding), the rest of the story was worth watching. I feel they should have spent less time talking about these 'elitist' schools, and more time on SponsorChange.org. They are a non-profit organization that links other non-profits with students who want to work off some of their student loan debt by volunteering. Watch the story, and see if you agree with me, that an organization like SponsorChange.org can help someone "pay it back" and "pay it forward" at the same time.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7406922n

Here is the web site for SponsorChange.org, the non-profit mentioned in the story. In the web site you'll find a description of who they are, and how the program works. I hope this information helps some of you cope with the stress placed on your shoulders by this debt burden.

http://www.sponsorchange.org/

SponsorChange.org (@sponsorchange) on Twitter

SponsorChange.Org - Organization - Pittsburgh, PA | Facebook

This is an article that was linked to by the SponsorChange.org web site :

Volunteer in Exchange for Student Loan Payments

http://loan.com/blog/2009/09/14/volunteer-in-exchange-for-student-loan-payments/

for more links on SponsorChange.org : http://tinyurl.com/cpodc3d

If you are interested in this program but SponsorChange.org is not yet in your area, try to help get a SponsorChange.org chapter started in your area. Otherwise, check to see if there is a similar organization near you, or a non-profit that will set up a position like that for you themselves. If not, maybe think about working with others to help start a new non-profit with the same mission. Then you too can help someone "pay it back" and "pay it forward" at the same time.

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am

Comments

If we let the Globalists have their Rothchild economy, where-as "We want a nation of workers not thinkers." then yes college will be useless cuz you don't need college to do simple service sector work.

However if we actually let individuals run the economy and use their college education to create jobs then yes college will be useful again.

Right now there are 12 million patents sitting at the patent office that could be getting used to create jobs and get Americans back to work. However instead corporations are outsourcing jobs at a very rapid rate and banks are getting bomuses by the FED not to make loans to American businesses. So if there is still any illusion that Obama is aiding in any form of economic recovery, it is a lie unless it is crony-capitalism under his administration.

You want the money paid back, create some damned jobs.

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 2:41 pm

Here is another angle on this problem of the high student loan debt : People are not getting hired or are getting fired from their jobs because their debt-to-credit ratio is too high. A recent blog post addressed this issue, and provides a link to a petition to protest this practice.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/telliottmbamsc/blog/2012/05/multi-gahzillionaire-penny-pritzker-obama%E2%80%99s-jobs-panel-helping-bus

here is the link for the petition :

http://www.change.org/petitions/transunion-stop-selling-credit-reports-to-employers?utm_campaign=robCuEFcsp&utm_medium=email&utm_source=action_alert

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am

Debt to credit ratio set by whom one of the tentacled organizations set up by the FED. Give me a break.

If you don't have a job how can you get oout of debt... duh !!!!!!!!!!!!

These rules are made by morons to keep Americans in debt slavery to the FED. That's all it is. Once Ron Paul takes the Presidency America will make like ICELAND and drive out these criminal banksters.

America has done it time and time before.

41 Facts About The History Of Central Banks In The United States That Our Children Are No Longer Taught In School The American Dream
Nov 12, 2010
Today, most American students don’t even understand what a central bank is, much less that the battle over central banks is one of the most important themes in U.S. history. The truth is that our nation was birthed in the midst of a conflict over taxation and the control of our money. Central banking has played a key role in nearly all of the wars that America has fought. Presidents that resisted the central bankers were shot, while others shamefully caved in to their demands. Our current central bank is called the Federal Reserve and it is about as “federal” as Federal Express is. The truth is that it is a privately-owned financial institution that is designed to ensnare the U.S. government in an endlessly expanding spiral of debt from which there is no escape. The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression and the Federal Reserve is at the core of our current economic crisis. None of these things is taught to students in America’s schools today.
In 2010, young Americans are taught a sanitized version of American history that doesn’t even make any sense. As with so many things, if you want to know what really happened just follow the money.
The following are 41 facts about the history of central banks in the United States that every American should know….
#1 As a result of the Seven Years War with France, King George III of England was deeply in debt to the central bankers of England.
#2 In an attempt to raise revenue, King George tried to heavily tax the colonies in America.
#3 In 1763, Benjamin Franklin was asked by the Bank of England why the colonies were so prosperous, and this was his response….
“That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.
In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”#4 The Currency Act of 1764 ordered the American Colonists to stop printing their own money. Colonial script (the money the colonists were using at the time) was to be exchanged at a two-to-one ratio for “notes” from the Bank of England.
#5 Later, in his autobiography, Benjamin Franklin explained the impact that this currency change had on the colonies….
“In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”#6 In fact, Benjamin Franklin stated unequivocally in his autobiography that the power to issue currency was the primary reason for the Revolutionary War….
“The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War.”#7 Gouverneur Morris, one of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, solemnly warned us in 1787 that we must not allow the bankers to enslave us….
“The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will… They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) government, keep them in their proper spheres.”#8 Unfortunately, those warning us about the dangers of a central bank did not prevail. After an aborted attempt to establish a central bank in the 1780s, the First Bank of the United States was established in 1791. Alexander Hamilton (who had close ties to the Rothschild banking family) cut a deal under which he would support the move of the nation’s capital to Washington D.C. in exchange for southern support for the establishment of a central bank.
#9 George Washington signed the bill creating the First Bank of the United States on April 25, 1791. It was given a 20 year charter.
#10 In the first five years of the First Bank of the United States, the U.S. government borrowed 8.2 million dollars and prices rose by 72 percent.
#11 The opponents of central banking were not pleased. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said the following….
“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution – taking from the federal government their power of borrowing.”#12 In 1811, the charter of the First Bank of the United States was not renewed.
#13 One year later, the War of 1812 erupted. The British and the Americans were at war once again.
#14 In 1814, the British captured and burned Washington D.C., but the Americans subsequently experienced key victories at New York and at New Orleans.
#15 The Treaty of Ghent, officially ending the war, was ratified by the U.S. Senate on February 16th, 1815 and was ratified by the British on February 18th, 1815.
#16 In 1816, another central bank was created. The Second Bank of the United States was established and was given a 20 year charter.
#17 Andrew Jackson, who became president in 1828, was determined to end the power of the central bankers over the United States.
#18 In fact, in 1832, Andrew Jackson’s re-election slogan was “JACKSON and NO BANK!”
#19 On July 10th, 1832 President Jackson said the following about the danger of a central bank….
“It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners… is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? … Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence… would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy.”#20 In 1835, President Jackson completely paid off the U.S. national debt. He is the only U.S. president that has ever been able to accomplish this.
#21 President Jackson vetoed the attempt to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836.
#22 Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot Andrew Jackson, but he survived. It is alleged that Lawrence said that “wealthy people in Europe” had put him up to it.
#23 The Civil War was another opportunity for the central bankers of Europe to get their hooks into America. In fact, it is claimed that Abraham Lincoln actually contacted Rothschild banking interests in Europe in an attempt to finance the war effort. Reportedly, the Rothschilds were demanding very high interest rates and Lincoln balked at paying them.
#24 Instead, Lincoln pushed through the Legal Tender Act of 1862. Under that act, the U.S. government issued $449,338,902 of debt-free money.
#25 This debt-free money was known as “Greenbacks” because of the green ink that was used.
#26 The central bankers of Europe were not pleased. The following quote appeared in the London Times in 1865….
“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”#27 Abraham Lincoln was shot dead by John Wilkes Booth on April 14th, 1865.
#28 After the Civil War, all money in the United States was created by bankers buying U.S. government bonds in exchange for bank notes.
#29 James A. Garfield became president in 1881, and he was a staunch opponent of the banking powers. In 1881 he said the following….
“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”#30 President Garfield was shot about two weeks later by Charles J. Guiteau on July 2nd, 1881. He died from medical complications on September 19th, 1881.
#31 In 1906, the U.S. stock market was setting all kinds of records. However, in March 1907 the U.S. stock market absolutely crashed. It is alleged that elite New York bankers were responsible.
#32 In addition, in 1907 J.P. Morgan circulated rumors that a major New York bank had gone bankrupt. This caused a massive run on the banks. In turn, the banks started recalling all of their loans. The panic of 1907 resulted in a congressional investigation that ended up concluding that a central bank was “necessary” so that these kinds of panics would never happen again.
#33 It took a few years, but the international bankers finally got their central bank in 1913.
#34 Congress voted on the Federal Reserve Act on December 22nd, 1913 between the hours of 1:30 AM and 4:30 AM.
#35 A significant portion of Congress was either sleeping at the time or was already at home with their families celebrating the holidays.
#36 The president that signed the law that created the Federal Reserve, Woodrow Wilson, later sounded like he very much regretted the decision when he wrote the following….
“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men … [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world–no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”#37 Between 1921 and 1929 the Federal Reserve increased the U.S. money supply by 62 percent. This was the time known as “The Roaring 20s”.
#38 In addition, highly leveraged “margin loans” became very common during this time period.
#39 In October 1929, the New York bankers started calling in these margin loans on a massive scale. This created the initial crash that launched the Great Depression.
#40 Rather than expand the money supply in response to this crisis, the Federal Reserve really tightened it up.
#41 In fact, it was reported the the U.S. money supply contracted by eight billion dollars between 1929 and 1933. That was an extraordinary amount of money in those days. Over one-third of all U.S. banks went bankrupt. The New York bankers were able to buy up other banks and all kinds of other assets for pennies on the dollar.
But are American students being taught any of this today?
Of course not.
In fact, it is a rare student that can even adequately explain what a central bank is.
We have lost so much of what is important about our history.
And you know what they say – those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
It is absolutely critical that we educate as many Americans as possible about what is really going on in our financial system and about why we need to make some truly fundamental changes.

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 2:41 pm

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Before I start my rant, I should probably fess up regarding where I'm coming from. One might say that I have NO SKIN in this game, as I graduated College with a BSEE in 1985, when it was semi-affordable. My wife and I sent our only child to a small, private (EXPENSIVE, for the time) college in Upstate NY, where he died in an accident, slightly before finals in his sophomore year of 2001.

Since then, Tuitions and other fees have escalated exponentially, and many sources of student financial aid have run dry. Graduates find there is little or no demand for them when they are ready to enter the job market, and student loan debt has now exceeded credit card debt.

I have a somewhat radical solution to suggest, but I'm gonna catch a LOT of flack for it. It is my opinion that High School seniors simply should NOT apply to college any more. If every college, nationwide, saw a massive falloff in the application rate, if incoming freshman class sizes start falling precipitously, if the DEMAND for what colleges have to offer these days takes a massive hit, then the tuition rates simply MUST fall.

Now i've heard the arguements about how if you don't go to college immediately after high school you never will, but that is baloney! Here's my college experience - upon graduation from high school, in 1971, with no earthly clue what I wanted to do with my life (honestly, how many 18-year-olds do?), I was accepted into Colgate University. It took them two years to toss me out on my ear. I learned how to party hearty, and little else, cuz that's what I was ready for at that age. I signed up for classes at my local community college, and got involved in the radio station, which got me interested in electronics. I took a few dead-end, physical jobs, met the girl that I've been married to for 40 years now, and we started a life together. I decided that sweating for a living was a very poor long-term plan, and enrolled in the technician's program at TCI, a trade school. When I graduated from there, in 1977, I took a job at a local high-tech firm and was there for 17 years, quadrupling my starting salary over that period. And, after our son was born in 1981, I returned to college, part-time, and completed my BSEE in 1985. LOTS of people return to college, DECADES after high school, and don't let anyone tell you different.

So - I suggest that the new crop of kids leaving high school should eschew college plans for a while. Find some kind of job - whatever you can manage at whatever they'll pay - tough it out for a few years until you have a REAL plan for your life. College is NOT the place to be figuring that out! One should not persue a higher education until one knows what field one wants to work in for the rest of thier life, and will therefore need to be educated in.

Another anecdotal example from my family - when my brother graduated high school, my father was treasurer of a credit union. He told my brother to study accounting, and come to work for him. I told my brother not to let dad map out his life for him, figure out what HE wanted to do, and take courses appropriate for that - heck, DAD will still hire you, whatever courses you take! He took Dad's advice over mine. During my brother's junior year, the FBI shut down the Credit Union, and Dad did a year in jail (another L - O - N - G story, for another time). So, my brother graduated with his accounting degree. Did I mention that he HATES math? Or that he hates spreadsheets even more? To say that he's miserable in his work is an understatement - he feels trapped, and hopeless. I've tried (in vain) to get him to go back to school or to do SOMETHING about learning anothert trade, but my advice still falls on deaf ears.

While I agree that our intellectual infrastructure is argueably our most critical resource, we have to find another way to do this. SO, again, if you, or someone you love, is graduating from high school this June, and they're planning to go to college and figure life out while they are there - STOP THEM! You've gotta figure out what you want to do BEFOREHAND! So don't apply to college just because you can't think of anything else to do. Wait until you have that answer, and let college applications fall off for a few years. See if, once you have some idea about how you'd really like to spend your life, the education you'll need for that endeavor has maybe become somewhat more affordable in the interim.

mstaggerlee's picture
mstaggerlee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This situation just keeps getting uglier.

Student loan battle looms as bill fails in Senate

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/salary-for-attending-sch...

is an interesting suggestion by Mitchell

pshakkottai's picture
pshakkottai
Joined:
Jul. 11, 2011 10:27 am

Look you wanna know the dirty secret to the reason that my generation has such high debt and unemployment after college? its that the culture we were raised in told us to go and study what ever we wanted to so people got majors in non marketable skills. I started out college in 2008 as an anthropology major wanting to specialize in biblical history, with the crash i realized what had been an already competitive market was almost impossible to penetrate. I switched to environmental studies and business because of the job demand in Texas with the oil and gas boom of fracking. I have 40k in private student debts and am well on my way to paying them off before im 30.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Quote CollegeConservative:

Look you wanna know the dirty secret to the reason that my generation has such high debt and unemployment after college? its that the culture we were raised in told us to go and study what ever we wanted to so people got majors in non marketable skills. I started out college in 2008 as an anthropology major wanting to specialize in biblical history, with the crash i realized what had been an already competitive market was almost impossible to penetrate. I switched to environmental studies and business because of the job demand in Texas with the oil and gas boom of fracking. I have 40k in private student debts and am well on my way to paying them off before im 30.

Let's see... you claim you're 22 making $40k... so ya, maybe you can afford $5k a year to pay off those loans in 8 years. If I were single, I might pull it off too. But what happens if you have a kid, need a bigger place, the car breaks down, someone in the family has medical bills, you lose your job?

You're not old enough to know anything about life. In fact reading your illiterate and ignorant posts I don't believe you're a day over 13. It's so easy to claim student loans are easy to pay off as long as you live in fantasy land.

I've asked this before with no answer.... if everyone got an MBA.... how would the market respond? We'd have MBAs cleaning toilets. It's easy to say we all need to find marketable jobs... but it's not as if they are always there for everyone.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Congrats to you, CollegeCon, for getting a clue, even if you didn't have one when you entered college.

I realize that I neglected to mention that when we sent our son to College, he did indeed have a plan - he was studying Electrical Engineering, and was looking at a career in the design of musical instruments and effects boxes (e. g., guitar pedals & the like). Well, OK - his REAL dream (and our dream for him, as well, I think) was to be a Musician (the last time we visited him at school, he was in 3 or 4 bands (in addition to the school's Jazz Band), and he told us that HE had won a recent "battle of the bands" ... the actual result was a tie, between one band in which he was the drummer, and another in which he played bass) - but this was the "backup plan".

And I think that Pierpont's point was quite similar to the one in my rant, or at least another arguement in favor of it - if you're gonna wind up with a job cleaning toilets, why GET that MBA?

mstaggerlee's picture
mstaggerlee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I had just posted a comment about this, but want to reiterate it as a reply to this comment. The conversation about the potential July 1 increase on some loans from 3.4% to 6.8% must include the fact that many people have student loans that already have interest rates of 6.8%. Three members of my immediate family have this rate on both "subsidized" (interest accrues after 6-month grace period following the end of full-time enrollment) and "unsubsidized" (interest accrues and capitalizes from the date of disbursement) loans. It would be great to REDUCE the rate on the 6.8% loans to match those lower rates and give underemployed students and graduates a much-needed break.

Additional difficulty arises for Indiana residents who, on 2011 tax returns, were hit with a "tuition credit add-back," meaning that they had to add back the federal tuition credit they may have taken retroactively to 2010 and pay taxes on those amounts. That is in place for next year, too, I believe.

lacornett's picture
lacornett
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Why not just bring back debtor's prison and let all those who "stupidly" did not major in Criminal 'Justice' suffer for not knowing where the jobs would be? The whole idea that college is about getting a job is so reductionist I want to barf. But the idea that it all has to be about making money and that the price to enter the game is to sell out to making money instead of doing things of value or being a citizen is central to the problem.

The people making money on this deal are those using our money to lend in the first place. They run no risk other than not getting free money if someone defaults.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

A lot of people end up in fields where their education is of no use, they just need a diploma to get in the front door. What a waste of time and money.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am

http://mynorthwest.com/11/675272/Why-college-counselors-dont-focus-on-ca...

An interesting article that relates to this.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am

I received an interesting email today from Mark Connelly of MoveOn.org Political Action, stating that college students are planning subtle protests at their coming graduation ceremonies :

Dear MoveOn member,

Graduation day is one of the proudest moments in a student's life.

But for so many people facing a mountain of student debt, it's also a time for entering an unfair world of loan collectors and limited job prospects.

That's where our friends at Occupy Graduation come in. They're giving students a way to take a stand together against a system that forces them to mortgage their future to get the education they need. At ceremonies across the country, students will wear a visible symbol of their student debt as part of their graduation outfit, such as their debt figure taped onto their cap.

The media always covers graduations—especially ones with big name speakers like President Obama, Mitt Romney, and even Oprah! It's a crucial time to make an impact in the media, because Congress is debating right now whether to extend reduced student loan rates, and it needs to feel the public pressure.

So when the cameras roll at graduation ceremonies across the country, we need to send a powerful message about the state of student debt. Can you take part?

Yes, I can take part or organize others!

No, but I can share this with students I know.

What does it mean to take part in Occupy Graduation (grading on a curve)?

  • F is for: Financial insecurity, if we don't act together to change the system.
  • D is for: Doing something—show where you stand by wearing a symbol of your student debt as part of your graduation garb.
  • C is for: Caring and sharing, by spreading the word about Occupy Graduation with the students you know.
  • B is for: Being an organizer on your campus, by getting a big group together to join in the action. On the Occupy Graduation site, go to "Organize Locally" on the Actions menu.
  • A is for: Awesomeness—do something big and bold, like a giant banner at your graduation ceremony that everyone can see.

Student loan debt has risen more than 500% since 1999, already topping credit card and mortgage debt.1 Enough is enough—it's time to take a stand together on the one day of the year when everyone is focused on students. Can you Occupy Graduation?

Yes, I can take part or organize others!

No, but I can share this with students I know.

Thanks for all you do.

–Mark, Victoria, Elena, Joan, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "Chart of the Day: Student Loans Have Grown 511% Since 1999," The Atlantic, August 18, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=274368&id=41176-21628053-MDYeyMx&t=8

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 7 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am

Maybe it's not a good idea to have kids and get married before finishing college.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 11:06 am

If ADM, Merck, et al need scientists, why don't they just set up their own academies?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The lending institutions want to raise the interest rates on student loans. They want to almost double it. Interest rates are just like taxes. It's money you have to pay for a service. What I don't understand is that the hard core conservatives and even some liberals protest any raise whatsoever in taxes, which goes to helping the entire country, but the conservatives are defending the doubling of interest rates on student loans, which goes into somebody's pockets.

The students took out a loan knowing what the interest rates were but not knowing what they would become. I would like to see fellow American conservatives stand up for their neighbors instead of defending the banks. If they don't then it's more proof that they've drank too much of the koolaid.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

The lending institutions want to raise the interest rates on student loans. They want to almost double it. Interest rates are just like taxes. It's money you have to pay for a service. What I don't understand is that the hard core conservatives and even some liberals protest any raise whatsoever in taxes, which goes to helping the entire country, but the conservatives are defending the doubling of interest rates on student loans, which goes into somebody's pockets.

The students took out a loan knowing what the interest rates were but not knowing what they would become. I would like to see fellow American conservatives stand up for their neighbors instead of defending the banks. If they don't then it's more proof that they've drank too much of the koolaid.

It is the government that subsidizes the reduced interest rates, not the banks. Tried to find out through my google machine on exactly how this works. Is it direct government loans or subsidizing private loan? Alas our less then adequate media is only obsessed with the politics of it and not reporting on the details of how this works. Does anyone have a link?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am

The Stafford and Pell funds are "our" taxpayer money. The banks charging interest on these loans are making money by lending our money and acting as if administering the loans was worth their charges.

In a sane nation, the education of the people to citizenship and vocation would be a fundamental investment or "free' to those being educated. It would be our investment in their education instead of being a way to get them into debt while paying off the parasites.

In a sane nation, we would want people to have their own narratives and callings instead of being trained to function as cogs; and we would gain the creativity and invention of a broad middel class instead of acting as if a few "geniuses of finance" were able to "create jobs" that would both provide the incomes needed for a citizenry and engage people in doing things of value. When the incomes are cut and the "jobs" only serve the wealth reapers instead of building a better world, tuition paid is only a hope to get paid for something "corporate' values.

It is difficult to blame those who have striven according to the instructions of the drill instructors who have "taught" them. The student loan fiasco and attendant debt is just another symbol of dysfunction.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote WorkerBee:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

The lending institutions want to raise the interest rates on student loans. They want to almost double it. Interest rates are just like taxes. It's money you have to pay for a service. What I don't understand is that the hard core conservatives and even some liberals protest any raise whatsoever in taxes, which goes to helping the entire country, but the conservatives are defending the doubling of interest rates on student loans, which goes into somebody's pockets.

The students took out a loan knowing what the interest rates were but not knowing what they would become. I would like to see fellow American conservatives stand up for their neighbors instead of defending the banks. If they don't then it's more proof that they've drank too much of the koolaid.

It is the government that subsidizes the reduced interest rates, not the banks. Tried to find out through my google machine on exactly how this works. Is it direct government loans or subsidizing private loan? Alas our less then adequate media is only obsessed with the politics of it and not reporting on the details of how this works. Does anyone have a link?

I get that but if you look at whats going on now, the government is trying to figure out how to pay for the increase in interest rates. Why is the government worrying about paying for the increase? Why does the government have to pay for any of it? The government gives money to students in the form of grants. The government loans were always interest free. When was there this big shift of more student loans through private banks with interest? I've been away from the whole college grant and loan thing for a long time and I must have missed something over the years. Is this all more about non government loans to students who don't qualify for help? I guess I have to start doing some research on this because I'm kind of lost.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Banks got into student loans because it was profitable to lend money at 9% while the govt guarenteed the loan so there was no chance of loss. Banks couldn't resist easy profit. With govt guarentees, they should have not been allowed to charge more than 3%. Then when they lobbied Congress to not allow BK on student loans, it cut losses even more. Colleges had no incentive for cost controls because they counted on govt to keep increasing grants and loans.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 11:06 am

Keep in mind the stats showing how much more college grads earn include the curve busting salaries of the Wall Streeters, hedge fund managers, tech CEOs, pro atheletes, etc. I'd be curious to see the stats if you take those exceptions out of the equation.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 11:06 am

Regarding the Huffington Post article mentioned during Friday night's interview with Anya Kamenetz:

In 1989, while enrolled in a Midwestern master’s program, I read a story in USA Today which predicted an excellent academic job market. Maturing members of the newest baby boomlet would soon fill universities and colleges and provide steady, lucrative employment for those seeking teaching positions in all academic fields. Years later I dropped out of my doctoral program and higher ed. altogether, but since hearing the figures you cited, my last regrets about leaving it have died in tranquil sleep.

What happened to that long ago happy prediction? Here’s my theory: Right-wing politics invaded the upper reaches of university government and ruined everything. All across the country the trustee chairs were taken over by business-minded free marketeers who ran non-profit universities as if they were for-profit corporations. The business suits nodded approvingly as public funding was cut; they decided to “run lean”, letting tenured professor’s die out while hiring intellectual day laborers to replace them. The suits furthermore converted the university into an industry which effectively compels customers to buy its product, debarring middle class earning potential to those who have not bought a “key”, the must-have degree, without which one has not the slightest chance of obtaining gainful employment.

Our faith in the transfiguring power of higher education survives despite all contradictory evidence, and this is no accident: The managers of that industry sell it and tout it every chance they get. Meanwhile, the earnings withheld from instructors, who should be doing much better, and the tuition dollars bilked from students, who have no choice but to enroll, are piled up in endowment funds, there to sit idle or be pumped into get-rich-quick investments, which oftentimes go sour.

The net result of all this greed, falsehood, and malfeasance is that a great opportunity to provide decades worth of rewarding, enriching work to a few hundred thousand well-meaning, thoughtful, potentially very productive people was wrecked by a few hundred pirates who worshipped nothing more ardently than money.

So that’s my theory, for what it’s worth. Maybe some enterprising grad will test it by means of a dissertation someday, in which case I wish them luck finding work on the strength of their research.

P.S. I also hear that the nation’s colleges want to hire M.A.-bearing dropouts like myself in order to undercut starving PhDs, who are more expensive to hire. This circle of cannibalism, it seems to me, is a product of base depravity, and as such is very, very ugly.

Carnot's picture
Carnot
Joined:
May. 14, 2012 12:18 pm
Quote lovecraft:

Keep in mind the stats showing how much more college grads earn include the curve busting salaries of the Wall Streeters, hedge fund managers, tech CEOs, pro atheletes, etc. I'd be curious to see the stats if you take those exceptions out of the equation.

"Median" average should reflect this, as opposed to "mean" average.

I think most statistics reported are reported as "median."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Can Democrats Set Out a New Path?

Democrats must embrace a pro-government platform, not run away from it.

Those were the sentiments of Senator Chuck Schumer today, in a speech given at the National Press Club. Talking about the reasons for Democrats’ losses on Election Day, Schumer said that those losses were proof that the American people and middle-class want a government that will work more effectively for them.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system