Friday March 7, 2014
Jump to content
About this time last year Republicans and Democrats came together to pass a bill through Congress. Student loan rates were about to double; they punted the problem, into this non-election year by extending them one year.
President Obama is pressuring Congress to take action before rates double on July 1.
House Republicans have already moved a student loan bill. It does not lock in low rates for students, but it does allow them to rise each year if the 10-year Treasury note rates rise. The President doesn't like it because it amounts to a variable rate loan.
House Speaker John Boehner says that if the Democrats don't like it they should move on a bill of their own.
The President wants to add a clause that says that after they graduate students won't have to spend more than 10% of what they make paying back loans each year.
Chris Lindstrom, the Director of U.S. PIRG, a nonpartisan consumer advocacy group, says neither plan is worth voting for because with either one of them it would be better to just let the rates double because under either of the two plans they'll go far higher than that, and students would be better off if the current law expired and the rate went to 6.8%.
Plan A: GOP Plan, Plan A (Advantage: Banks make a lot of money and kids who really shouldn't be taking courses they don't need waste good money.)
Plan B: President's Plan. (Advantage: Banks make a lot of money and kids who really shouldn't be taking courses they don't need waste good money.)
Plan C: (Advantage: Banks make a lot of money and kids who really shouldn't be taking courses they don't need waste good money.)
Plan D: GO back to the old system, where deserving students with high grades apply for scholarships, and everyone else works his way through college, not through some phony program dreamt up to tap into government backed loans. (Advantage: The phony online schools and other baloney programs go broke, the government gets out of the loan business, and we get back to reality.)
Please vote for A, B, C, or D.
Back in 2008 I was finishing up a certification at a business college. What struck me was how some of the younger crowd were taking a do-nothing course during the summer just to continue to receive loans. Considering the loans put on hold/default, that will never be paid back, why continue the same system in place? Everyone can go to college if you have the grades. All you have to do it work for it. If you don't have the grades, a community college gets you in the door. Free education K-12 is a given. College is not an entitlement program. It should be up to the individual on how they go to college, not the government. The cream will rise to the top. The rest of us need to work for what we want and not expect the government/taxpayers to drop it in your lap with no intention of repayment.
Grade 1 thru 8 was free when I was in school. Not so now and hasn't been for quite a while. I don't know if you live in Payson and have kids in school, but it certainly isn't free here now. High school wasn't when I was here in the 50's.
It is hard to believe the list of things that the grade school students have to buy and take to school. Not all teachers teaching the same grade require the same things.
The sad thing is they aren't getting a good education.
When my oldest son started at Mesa Community College in 1970-71 his books and fees were less than when he was going to Westwood High School in Mesa. No they weren't do nothing classes.
In California, when I was in K-12, the only expense I had was for the mandatory phys ed uniform. I feel that the expanse being mandatory on the student was wrong. The California law says that kids must take phys ed, so, the state should pay for it. How does that compare with Arizona law?
Yes, I vote for plan D.
I can understand paying for PE uniforms. Think what a problem it would be getting right sizes for one reason. That would be a new cost every year for the school. The kids would take better care of them if they have to pay for them. All the classes were mandatory in grade school but you didn't pay for any of those supplies did you? How about paper, pencils, chalk, and books?
We were furnished most paper and and a certain amount of pencils. If we lost the pencils we had to buy our own in grade school. Once we got to high school we had to pay for it all, or the books could be handed down from other students. They weren't changed every year.
Pat, I'm not speaking of personal supplies for school. Our taxes pay for the buildings, teachers, desks, utilities, etc,. so really, education is not free. Every child is afforded a place to receive an education. It's the child and parent's responsibility to take full advantage of the learning provided.
Every August I shopped for school supplies, clothing, etc, for my sons. These things should not be the school's responsibility. Neither should discipline. Antisocial kids who won't behave should be sent home. Parents problem. This was how it was back in the day.
I live in Payson but do not have school age children.
How to solve the student college loan quagmire. Cease all Taxpayer funded Govt. Loans. Upon graduation of High School, issue each student the following. One hammer, one box of nails, one wrench, one pencil, one tape measure, and advise them to go out into the real world and build something. A realistic starting point that costs a lot less than granting a student loan that will probably never be fully paid back all while trying to figure out what they want to be when they grow up.
Susan, you are exactly correct in that you have put your finger directly on the worst part of the problem. It only takes one look at what happened after the ill-conceived student loan program was created to show what it did. Phony courses and even phonier schools sprang up like poison mushrooms.
Don is right. Kill the program. It is a terrible waste of money. I see people coming out of schools with so-called "certifications" for things that can be learned on the job in a few days. It's a national rip-off, and we need to end it.
As to the separate issue that was raised about kids buying things in school, the only things that parents should have to buy are clothes, period! Clothe the kid, fit him with a pen or pencil and get him to the school. If he needs paper, books, uniforms, or whatever they are issued. Uniforms are not the property of the kids; they belong to the school.
As for PE, I have said this many times before, but I'll say it again. I spent a long time in the school system of this nation, and anyone who teaches knows that PE exists for two reasons:
One, to justify hiring coaches instead of paying part-time coaches to work with kids in extra curricular sports programs after school, which are the only kind of sports programs we should have.
Two, voters don't have the brains to realize that the claims that kids need exercise, and that PE provides it, are pure horse hockey. There is no such thing as an "exercise program" in schools. If you can't remember how phony PE was when you went to school, go look again, remind yourself, and demand that it be ended. The result would be a 12%, across the board, cut in school budgets, the elimination of more than 90% of all school-day bullying, and a generation of kids who would be everlastingly grateful that we have at last listened to what they constantly tell us.
Be honest. What did you think of PE when you were in school? Would you, for example, have preferred a study hall where you could have gotten your homework done? How did you like all the bullying you saw? Were the coaches aware that it was going on? Did they ever do anything about it? Or did you always have a suspicion they agreed with the bullies? Did you ever learn anything--anything at all--in PE? Did you enjoy it? Did you get anything out of it? If you could have voted to get rid of it when you were in school, would you have done it?
Posting comments requires a free account