What is Ron Paul going to do about student loans?

[JimDude]

Is Ron Paul going to give out federal money to students? I believe its "FAFSA" that gives out student loans, grants and etc? Is he gonna keep this entity alive?

Without this government money, many students may go for private loans from private companies.

Private loans -- which are more expensive and less flexible than federal loans -- now make up a quarter of the whole student loan market. Amounts borrowed from private lenders soared 1,201% between the 1995-96 academic year and 2005-2006, according to the College Board, from $1.3 billion to $17.3 billion. The amount tripled in the past five years alone.
Federal student loans limit how much you can borrow, come with low rate caps and provide a variety of flexible payoff terms. Private student loans, by contrast, let you borrow far more than you may be able to repay, have variable rates that can soar as high as 19% and aren't as flexible with payoff terms.

Even though private student loans involve no government money or guarantees, lenders were able to convince Congress to make private loans nearly impossible to discharge in bankruptcy court -- the same treatment afforded federal loans.

The above is from this source: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.co...e/HowDidStudentLoansGetSoSleazy.aspx?page=all

So, whats your guys stand on this, should we be giving out student loans? and of course, what is RPS stand or what do you think he would say?

 

[steph3n]

hw about properly administrating schools and the costs go down?

 

[Zarxrax]

Well, I can certainly see the argument for the government providing student loans. Invest in your citizen's education now, turn them into well-educated and productive citizens in the economy, and then society as a whole will benefit.

However, on the other hand, I don't really think that this is a role for the federal government. States could offer the same kind of loans I would suppose... I don't really know.

Education is one of those things that I think everyone really ought to be able to receive. The whole "teach a man to fish" thing. On the other hand, I think our society probably places too much importance on having a college degree. These days, it's quite possible to amass vasts amounts of knowledge entirely on your own. The internet has been perhaps one of the most incredible inventions of all time, allowing all sorts of knowledge and information to be shared. I have personally become an expert on a few subjects entirely from knowledge gained online. Some prestigious universities even offer their lectures for free online. Today, you can learn everything that a college student would learn, without ever having to enroll in a university. Sadly though, just having the KNOWLEDGE doesn't get you far in our society, because we place more value on the little piece of paper that says you went to the university for 4 years, whether you actually learned much of anything while you were there or not. I've completely gone off topic here, sorry

 

[Van Damme]

In the absence of student loans I think the colleges would pick up the slack with their financial aid. Harvard has pledged complete financial aid to anyone that necessitates it.

 

[steph3n]

plus with the taxes gone, more money to pay for school!

 

[Corydoras]

RP is definitely against government student loans. He said so in his presentation at Google. Basically, the argument is that taxpayers should not be subsidizing a degree that will privilege the recipient.

 

[freedominnumbers]

No federal money may aid in putting an end to this myth that all kids need to go to college in order to be successful.

I have never once regretted skipping college. I have 4 more years of on the job experience than my competing colleagues who attended college which puts me far and away ahead as far as usefulness as well as debt free.

 

[plopolp]

plus with the taxes gone, more money to pay for school!

And at the same time, school will become cheaper without taxes!

 

[Corydoras]

In his stance on this, there's nothing against state universities lowering their tuitions, offering large numbers of select scholarships, and the like.

 

[F3d]

.......

 

[murrayrothbard]

What about the kids that are in a family that live on 15000 a year? That's what the aid goes to.

Hey troll, then you send them a check! Or hell, maybe they don't need to go to school? How about the kids get a friggin job.

 

[Paulitician]

There are many options beside federal student loans. If Ron Paul's ecomonic policies were actually enacted, there wouldn't be a need for them anyway like there is today (taxes would be down, inflation [ergo prices] would be down, and the country as a whole would be more prosperous.)

 

[F3d]

.....

 

[cjhowe]

The federal dollars that chase educational services is what causes the inflation in educational services. We have too many dollars chasing too few services.

 

[F3d]

....

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

the proper thing to do: eliminate it at the fed level and leave it to the states

 

[F3d]

....

 

[ClampIt]

So, whats your guys stand on this, should we be giving out student loans? and of course, what is RPS stand or what do you think he would say?

Ron Paul didn't even allow his own children to take out college loans. He is a physician, thus he's paid the dear price of earning academic credentials. Though it is not their only intent, the American Medical Association certainly controls the number of doctors (which controls the price through artificially introduced scarcity) and has gotten the license to do so from our dear friends of government. Ron Paul advocates broadening what other non-doctor health care professionals are permitted to do, despite being a member of the clique.

Before we rush out to borrow money to pay for education, it might pay to first examine whether or not we're getting a fair price.

Most state universities behave exactly like any other government created monopoly: they restrict access to their products to artificially raise their worth.

Universities ration access to knowledge and instruction and the license to use it. Though they are mostly funded with tax money (well over 70% of their budget) from the general population, they use tuition and largely irrelevant tests as a barrier to access this artificially guarded wealth of knowledge. The private ivy leagues are just as bad, since they rely on tax-free foundations, tax deductible gifts from private citizens and tax supported grants for most of their revenue. True private enterprise colleges thus have a hard way to go because they have a hard time competing with government subsidized state universities and super-subsidized ivy league schools. Although they too are indirectly funded by tax preferences, thus there is little free market to discipline the price and value of education anymore.

Thus the price goes up and the quality goes down.

Tax credits and tax-free status aren't worth anything unless there is a significant tax levy on everyone else. It is this unfair distinction that makes a "deduction" or "tax credit" valuable. Since this distinction is enhanced anytime general taxes on others is made higher, it provides an incentive for those who have an indulgence to enhance its value either by 1) acquiescing when others are being tax gouged (since it doesn't affect the tax free) or 2) overtly support more taxes on everyone else (Wall Street tax free securities, IRA accounts, newspapers, etc.). This is why these people should not be given much weight when it comes to tax policy because they should not be asked to judge in their own cause.

Ron Paul seems to have the pragmatic philosophy to take any tax relief whenever and wherever it is offered, so he's been for some tax credits. I disagree here, but only in method, not in principal.

The states have dusted off the wisdom of the blue laws against gambling and gone into the business of laying on a "fool's excise tax" (state lotteries) to finance higher education. The latter's merit seems to dovetail quite nicely with those that like fiscal responsibility because it finances public enlightenment by a tax on the ignorant. This has a self-balancing attribute of ways and means, since the more the public participates in the lottery the more it needs higher education and the more funds it makes available to higher education. Sort of like a tax on fuel to support highways, isn't it? But like any monopoly, it will not work unless you first establish that "gambling is illegal" (except when the government does it).

Wikipedia and Google have likely done a lot more in less time, at less cost, with far less resources to educate the general public and to provide access to information than any tax funded university institution. This behavior of the free market is the rule rather than the exception. Most scientific breakthroughs and nearly all (80% +) technological advancements come from decentralized, non-monopoly (government or industry) funded sources (see Booz Allen Hamilton study on R&D funding). Our colleges and universities do provide essential discipline for some advancement of science and arts and this needs to be safeguarded.

I believe our focus needs to be putting a limit on taxation. A state funded university tuition fee is a tax (because it funds government), not a price.

 

[Corydoras]

Professors make tons of money and that's 1 reason why colleges cost a lot. They can teach 15 units (about 13 hours a week) at a cc and make six figures. That's less hours than most jobs. If it's online, it's even less!

You are SERIOUSLY naive about how much time it takes to be a professor. Apart from business professors and some engineering professors, they are underpaid for their hours. This is not a reason why higher education is so expensive.

 

[Man from La Mancha]

Why does everybody bow to these stupid colleges way to riches. What a farce. If one took a fraction of the money for college and started a business, one would learn so much more. Even after 2-3 failures. Wayne Green says to quite high school and find a business one likes and work for free or little money as long as that business trains one and one signs a statement that one won't open a competing business so many miles away. Small businesses have a record of making more millionaires than anything else. Wayne has started many successful businesses. He vastly helped starting the cell phone, personal computer, and CD industries with his publishing magazines.

http://www.waynegreen.com/Awesome guy
http://www.waynegreen.com/wayne/says.html#makemoney

Wayne Quotes
Most people who want to get rich are doing it to compensate for an inferiority complex. But whether you want to be rich or not, there are virtually no benefits to being poor. And, once you know the secret it's not only easy, but it's fun making a lot of money.

The fact is that though you've been brainwashed by your family, your teachers, and the media, a college "education" is a ghastly waste of time and money. That's for suckers. The beauty of brainwashing is that the washee (you) doesn't know it happened. It's like post-hypnotic suggestion. 95% of high school is a waste of time, which is why I'm so enthusiastic about the Sudbury Valley School and the few others like it.

If you have worked for others for more than five years in your life you're a sucker. If you are commuting more than 10 minutes to work you're a sucker. If you aren't making enough money to travel around the world once or twice a year you're a sucker. If you are saving to put your kids through college your whole family are suckers.

Top of Article
I'm sure you'll get mad at me rather than finding out that I'm telling the truth. Hey, I was a sucker too. I did the college grind because there was no one out there to wise me up. As far as I know, and I've read an awful lot of books and listened to more talks than any human should, no one else I've ever found has wised up and is spilling the beans.

My booklet spills the beans. I should charge $5,000 for it and it would be a bargain, but I just want to cover my costs and have some left over to promote my books. At 80+ I only have maybe 25-30 or so years left to get the word out, with the hope of opening enough eyes to change our whole country.

But step one is to get you healthy and able to live a lot longer. Step two is to help you make enough money to be able to help me change our country. Step three will be to change our school system, our medical system, our legal and prison system, and the other things our corrupt Congress, Administrations and court system have screwed up.



.