- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced a bill on Wednesday that would give college students the same interest rates on their federal student loans as banks do when borrowing from the Federal Reserve.
“If the Federal Reserve can float trillions of dollars to large financial institutions at low interest rates to grow the economy, surely they can float the Department of Education the money to fund our students, keep us competitive, and grow our middle class,” Warren said.
According to The Hill,[FONT=georgia, palatino linotype, palatino, times new roman, times, serif] the Students Loan Fairness Act would call for the Fed to “float the money” to the department for one year, giving Congress enough time to enact a long-term agreement on student loan rates.[/FONT]
“Right now, a big bank can get a loan through the Federal Reserve discount window at a rate of about .75 percent,” Warren said. “But this summer a student who is trying to get a loan to go to college will pay almost 7 percent. In other words, the federal government is going to charge students interest rates that are nine times higher than the rates for the biggest banks–the same banks that destroyed millions of jobs and nearly broke this economy. That isn’t right.”
Read more and video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Warren’s proposal: Offer college students the same interest rates as banks | The Raw Story
[FONT=georgia, palatino linotype, palatino, times new roman, times, serif]Will any other congress man or woman please follow Senator Warren with common sense, morality, and here understanding of fairness? I hope so but i doubt anyone else comes forward.
[/FONT]I love this woman!
Correction needed *most people*.By god I love Elizabeth Warren. While I can agree with Maggie in a sense that rates could be adjusted based on other factors, it's actually nice to have someone in congress that campaigned on ideas and is actually sticking to it..... unlike some people...
By god I love Elizabeth Warren. While I can agree with Maggie in a sense that rates could be adjusted based on other factors, it's actually nice to have someone in congress that campaigned on ideas and is actually sticking to it..... unlike some people...
By god I love Elizabeth Warren. While I can agree with Maggie in a sense that rates could be adjusted based on other factors, it's actually nice to have someone in congress that campaigned on ideas and is actually sticking to it..... unlike some people...
Same here. Warren gets it. She knows how to frame an issue. And that's 90% of winning a political battle. That's why the rightwingers hate her so much. She is the future of progressive Democrats in this country.
Elizabeth warren collectivist..........enemy of republican government
Elizabeth Warren's "You Didn't Build That Speech" as made famous by Obama [HD] - YouTube
Wow, you called her a "collectivist". That's sassy!
I love how the tea party pretends their bizarre labels constitute arguments.
its very easy, when you say the community has claim to another persons property..your a collectivist.
when you believe rights come from the group, and there are no individuals...your a collectivist..her and obama
Read more and video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Warren’s proposal: Offer college students the same interest rates as banks | The Raw Story
[FONT=georgia, palatino linotype, palatino, times new roman, times, serif]Will any other congress man or woman please follow Senator Warren with common sense, morality, and here understanding of fairness? I hope so but i doubt anyone else comes forward.
[/FONT]I love this woman!
The original major goal of the federal loan and grant programs that began in earnest around 1970 was to increase the ability of lower income students of obtaining degrees. Yet government data suggest that the proportion of recent graduates coming from the bottom 25 percent of the income distribution is lower today than in 1970. The Law of Unintended Consequences is at work: well-intended programs are benefiting persons other than those they were designed to help.
Since nobody said this, one wonders why you fixated on this vapid meme. Oh, I forgot, you can't say anything on the merits of conservatism's failed policies, so you have to do this.
Since nobody said this, one wonders why you fixated on this vapid meme. Oh, I forgot, you can't say anything on the merits of conservatism's failed policies, so you have to do this.
And you can't say anything on the merits of liberalism's failed policies either, so you resort to talking about memes. Typical.
Wow, you called her a "collectivist". That's sassy!
I love how the tea party pretends their bizarre labels constitute arguments.
Sure I can and do all the time. You splashing around at this point.
For instance, Warren's policy of making student loans more affordable results in more productivity and higher revenues, as workers get educated for jobs they are good at, rather than having to settle for lesser jobs because they lack the education.
See it's easy. Now you try to actually put together a conservative argument against student loan availability. Lots of luck.
Elizabeth warren collectivist..........enemy of republican government
Elizabeth Warren's "You Didn't Build That Speech" as made famous by Obama [HD] - YouTube
Your assumption is that it would make it more affordable. That is quite false, as colleges will just raise their tuition to capture the difference, as they have done ever since the student loan program was put into place. Thus, this is really just welfare to the colleges' coffers (which are already quite full I might add) with higher tuition being the result placed on students.
Yes, yes, that tired meme. It has no basis in any study, it's just a rightwing talking point. When you find a study to support this bizarre claim, give us a call. Maybe you can explain for instance why colleges would increase tuition for payment made from loans, as opposed out of a rich daddy's bank account, as if the cash is different or something.
Meantime, even if true, all it would mean in any case is that colleges that accept students who have loans should face more rigorous regulation (as in fact they already do). Problem solved.
But of course you don't want to solve the problem. You only want the rich to get an education.
NEXT RIGHTWING MEME!
The main lesson from this first refinement is that aid targeted to low income students (such as the Pell grant and subsidized Stafford loans) kink the demand curve, while universal (or near universal) aid (such as unsubsidized Stafford loans and the education tax credits) shift the entire demand curve. These programs therefore have very different implications when it comes to their impact on tuition. For policy makers, the key point is that financial aid that is restricted to low income students is much less likely to be captured by colleges, and will therefore be more likely to succeed in making college more affordable and therefore accessible (for low income students). In contrast, universally available programs
are more likely to simply fuel tuition increases and therefore more likely to fail to make college more affordable.
To my knowledge the schools that accept federal loans do not have their tuition regulated by them. The fact is that tuition has been increasing drastically compared to inflation and salary increases. Part of the problem may be due to increased access to federal financing opportunities.
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?