johndylan1
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 375
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
GED's are nearly free at most community colleges.
I don't think you're understanding me. Unless you, and we, as a society are willing to let people starve to death because they made a stupid decision when they were a teenager, and didn't have parents that were worth a hill of ****, then you HAVE to either keep giving them the food and assistance for free, no strings attached as we currently do, or give them the education they need to qualify for the free stuff as you would like.
Expecting someone who can't afford FOOD to be able to afford to spend a couple grand (and a decent amount of time) on getting a GED is unrealistic, unless, again, we are all OK with letting them starve to death due to poor decision making as a teenager.
Poor policy, won't ever fly.
And even so, having everyone have a GED won't change ****. You don't NEED a GED to flip burgers, run a cash register, stock shelves, or push carts.
Why must all government solutions require more government force and more government expense to employ that force?
No one forces one to take a student loan. If the rates are too high, would the number of loans taken be as high as they are?
On the other hand, the whole idea of government finance for the university system through individual students is horrible. Less loans would equal lower tuition and more educational innovation to attract students. The idea that there should be no scarcity of dollars or students in the university system has done immense harm. Tuition is high, students are borrowing money for living expenses, grants are being squandered, the work ethic is low and the sense of entitlement high.
Irrelevant, at this point, though. Those people have a hard time finding a job not because they are unqualified for menial labor jobs (which are the most numerous these days), but because there are too few of them for the number of people that need them.
To put this another way, we had half the population in the 50s than we do now, and also half the automation in the 50s than we do now.
What does that spell?
kids shouldn't be allowed to drop out of high school, because that costs society (the society that you are a member of and benefit from) a lot of money. there is no good reason to let kids quit school. finish ****ing high school.
kids shouldn't be allowed to drop out of high school, because that costs society (the society that you are a member of and benefit from) a lot of money. there is no good reason to let kids quit school. finish ****ing high school.
Or simply continue to pay them later when they do not. What caused that cost to society other than letting HS drop outs collect public benefits in the first place? Your suggestion assumes that these folks will suddenly stop being drop outs from the labor force, start listening to their bosses and will accept entry level jobs that pay no more than the dole does. We now have millions of "undocumented" workers that also lack HS educations and have very poor English skills yet the vast majority of them survive, and raise children, without the need of federal "safety net" assistance. How is that possible when our own citizens are said to require public assistance simply to survive?
Yep. And we continue to play the game because, these days, you need a degree just to be a retail dept manager.
you pay for the health care of undocumented immigrants. you pay for public assistance and health care for high school drop outs.
there's no benefit in letting kids drop out of school. we can spend five pages on it, and there will still be no benefit.
We can spend billions on new federally funded stay in school nannies and we will still have folks that drop out and say they need the dole and medical care assistance. Even with PPACA "for all" we kept the EMTA and expanded Medicaid - stop with the we need more government programs and staff. We need folks that will voluntarily go to free public HS, learn what is taught, graduate and then work to support themselves (and their dependents) not more entitlement programs, more government nannies and a bigger government.
Nobody who hasn't been to college in the last five years, or at least the last ten years, should even think about pretending to be an expert on this subject. So if any of you have tried playing the "Back in my day, I was responsible and didn't rack up student loan debt," then kindly STFU before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
This is not part of the problem. This is THE problem. Tell me, why the hell does a plumber need to know calculus? Or an office manager need to know the history of Medieval Europe? Or anyone who doesn't work in the Vatican need to know Latin? It's stupid that corporations would expect their employees to possess that depth of niche knowledge just to get in. What about practical skills? Like how to amortize a loan? Or how to properly use gerunds? Or cultural knowledge of different groups and cultures just within the United States? These are the kinds of skills most of us need beyond a grade-school education. These are what will help our workers return our economic engine to the powerhouse that it was in the middle of the 20th century.
My student loans are locked in at almost 3%.
The way I understand the lending process to be, the riskier the loan, IE, if a bank feels that giving person A money is a higher risk than person B, then they increase the interest for person A.
With that in mind, student loans are the LEAST risky loans a bank can ever do, because there is no debt forgiveness on them. A student loan is with you FO LIFE, or until they are paid, period. Which means, low risk, which means...low interest...?
Nobody who hasn't been to college in the last five years, or at least the last ten years, should even think about pretending to be an expert on this subject. So if any of you have tried playing the "Back in my day, I was responsible and didn't rack up student loan debt," then kindly STFU before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
:rantoff:
This is not part of the problem. This is THE problem. Tell me, why the hell does a plumber need to know calculus? Or an office manager need to know the history of Medieval Europe? Or anyone who doesn't work in the Vatican need to know Latin? It's stupid that corporations would expect their employees to possess that depth of niche knowledge just to get in. What about practical skills? Like how to amortize a loan? Or how to properly use gerunds? Or cultural knowledge of different groups and cultures just within the United States? These are the kinds of skills most of us need beyond a grade-school education. These are what will help our workers return our economic engine to the powerhouse that it was in the middle of the 20th century.
No one forces one to take a student loan.
And the schools can pretty much always count on recooping their losses through Government subsidies as well, because no one wants to cut education funding.
It's a "too big to fail" cronyist racket, plain and simple. Prospective students are sold on an over-hyped product, which completely fails to perform as promised, and then charged through the teeth for it. Colleges, meanwhile, simply sit pack and rack in the dough while making absolutely no effort to cut costs, and double-dipping on whatever funding the Federal Government happens to toss their way.
Disgusting.
Yep. And we continue to play the game because, these days, you need a degree just to be a retail dept manager.
So let's see. A student, with little to no credit history, is provided loans into the $10's of thousands, based on no income, or at the very most, the hope of future income, and you consider 4.5% to 7.2% gouging?
It's difficult to know where to go with that.
Warren has tried to reduce the interest rates on student loans. Hasn't gotten her bill through yet.
Remember, these days govt is mostly doing student loans, not banks; therefore the govt is getting the profits. So if they cut the rates, they need to find some more revenue elsewhere. Or cut spending.
How in the hell can you not consider it gouging? The government pays zero percent interest to borrow money for a month, and at most 2.5 percent to borrow money for 30 years. However it forces parents to pay as much as 8.5 percent for a loan. Over and above that, they interest rates are set by the government, by Congress. It's total bulls***. It's nothing but gouging, no matter how you look at it.
Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates
https://studentaid.ed.gov/types/loans/interest-rates
Your "logic" assumes that the loans are repaid at or near 100% which is far from reality. The rates for unsecured loans (think credit cards) are set based on both the cost of funds (bank's best rate) and the default rate (rate of non-repayment). While it is true that those who do repay their student loans on time make the lender some "extra" money it is also true that a significant percentage do not repay those student loans at all costing the lender "extra" money. The lender must take into account the loan default rate and adjust the interest rate to cover that loss in addition to the cost of funds and a return on investment. That is why the interest rates vary based on the type of loan (e,g, home mortgage vs credit card) being made even though the cost of funds and return on investment remain the same - the loan default rates vary.
As the following link shows, the default rate for student loans varies considerably by educational institution yet the interest rates charged are fixed - this means that the "good" students at the "good" schools (low risk loans) must yeild enough extra interest to cover the "bad" students at tthe "bad" schools (high risk loans) when only one rate can be charged.
Background & Analysis
Fair enough. Not bad. I would buy that except I saw the type of thing that the government, through its empowered representative the Federal Reserve can do. The thing is this, the Fed has taken trillions of dollars in toxic debt from banks. It just sitting there on its books, and no one gives a damn about it. If they can do that for the banks, they don't have to gouge people who are taking out student loans.
Pretty good response tho. However, it didn't quite make it.
How in the hell can you not consider it gouging? The government pays zero percent interest to borrow money for a month, and at most 2.5 percent to borrow money for 30 years. However it forces parents to pay as much as 8.5 percent for a loan. Over and above that, they interest rates are set by the government, by Congress. It's total bulls***. It's nothing but gouging, no matter how you look at it.
Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates
https://studentaid.ed.gov/types/loans/interest-rates
Is that a fact? Who or what is holding it up?
Oh, I get it. Is that why they call some of them direct loans? So it's the government that's gouging people. Well I'll be damn!
While the legislative defeats represent a fractured and rigid Congress, there remains potential for passage through the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act. Currently sponsored and championed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, if this bill were to be signed into law, interest rates would fall even further to 0.75% annually. This bill is dramatically more progressive and daring than its defeated house counterpart, both in the size of the reduction and in the national conversation it has creates. Warren articulated the thought process behind her numbers as a reflection on our national priorities.
“Right now, a big bank can get a loan through the Federal Reserve discount window at a rate of about 0.75%. But this summer a student who is trying to get a loan to go to college will pay almost 7%...That isn’t right. And that is why I’m introducing legislation today to give students the same deal that we give to the big banks.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?