Do you feel that “the saviors of America” is about the same as “an investment in the future?” You don’t agree you ramped up the hyperbole just a bit there? The realistic bottom line here is that while students have choices about where they go to college and how they pay for it, they don’t get a whole lot of choice in picking their loan rates and they have limited ability to prepare ahead for their rates to double. I don’t think a lot of people could afford that.
They funny thing is a lot of Obama fans actually think the man is cool. Yeah he seems lose next to John McCain and Romney but c’mon now the guy is stiff as hell and his gee whiz demeanor is straight corny.
R. Pizzle in 2016-izzle! End the Fizzle! 
We are talking about grown people here. Adults. Let them deal with the real world consequences of investment just like their fellow citizens who are paying their way.
No, I don’t find this kind of rhetoric persuasive or interesting. “They’re adults” is not an argument. We’re talking about people making important financial decisions at 17 and 18, which is a time they have limited experience with that type of decisionmaking, based on what they expect even further in the future without knowing what their career status or earnings potential is going to be, and in most cases, it’s people without much ability to absorb something like a repayment doubling.
That worked out great for the housing market. Certainly an explosion in the number of broke young people would be very helpful to the economy.
Ron Paul has been traveling campuses and has been seeing crowds of between 4,000 and 9,000. If popularity among youth is an indicator of coolness he is beating your boy right now. What progressives are drawing crowds like that?
Obama is not my boy, and Ron Paul is not going to be a candidate in the general election. I agree with you, actually, that Obama is only cool relative to other politicians. But the whole “the youth love Ron Paul!” thing has always been goofy.
Oh, some of them do. They’re mostly identifiable by their Ron Paul 2012/420 buttons and their extremely mellow demeanor.
Well John Boner got the bill to prevent the rate increase passed in the house.
Here, have another grape.
Or maybe it is a problem for him, which is why he’s trying to get a law passed to decrease it. Seriously, the reality-inversion field is strong here.
Obama could . . . Any sitting POTUS could, actually . . . But the only progressives who could are Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich.
How? The point of the policy is to get more young Americans college-educated, which it does; employment is the point of a completely different set of policies.
It is arguable whether 18 year olds are adults. We don’t let them drink, after all, because we don’t fully trust their judgement.
So, is it ok for a business to borrow money for capital investment? Is a college education a capital investment (“human capital”)?
If the answer to both questions is “yes”, then why can a business discharge its debts in bankruptcy, but a person with a student loan cannot? One could argue that subsidizing student loans merely lowers the risk premium to compensate for the inability to discharge the debt. Or the inability to discharge is compensation for the lower rates on the loans. Either way.
My preference would be for a lot more grant aid instead of loans, but that’s a non-starter in the current political climate.
-Rick
This response demonstrates the myopia of progressive policy. The policy is an investment for the country’s future. So we have a bunch of smart people serving us our food. How exactly did this particular investment pan out?
Ok do me a favor and let me know the next time this happens. Two men I have a lot of respect for but I don’t see them getting those types of crowds.
Encouraging more students to take on debt by keeping the rates lower decreases the total amount of student debt how?
I don’t understand this. Does every individual position need to turn a profit for an investment portfolio to be a successful one? On average, over the long term, a diversified portfolio does well, even if there are some losers.
How many entrepreneurs start multiple businesses before one succeeds? How many never succeed? Is the economy better in aggregate because lots of businesses get started, even if a lot of them tank? I think so.
An educated workforce will do better overall, eventually, even if some of them are underemployed at the moment.
-Rick
Wouldn’t it be more efficient if, instead of blindly throwing money to whomever wants it, people were forced to actually sit down and calculate the risk involved with borrowing money for a certain degree?
So your solution to increased government intervention in the form of subsidized education is increased government intervention in the form of only subsidizing certain degree programs?