Democrats will be lowering the student loan rates. How do republicans feel about it?

Question

Support it or not? Why?

funny answers so far...colleges don't receive the interest, so it won't affect tuition. And I appreciate those of you who took this as an opportunity to attack a democrats education level. it shows the level of unity we can expect out of the republicans...

And it will only affaect those who take out subsidized loans...which are need based. Not for the rich.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised when dems do something fiscally responsible, reps will hate them anyways. Funny...

It's fiscally responsible because I pay less interest, and therefore lower payments. And Bush started this when he cut the rates down to all time lows. And because it is secured debt, which means you cannot erase it with bankruptcy...so you must pay it back.

Answer 1

I'm generally ok with it- but frankly, I'm not sure how it affects the lending market.

Many banks (etc.) are in the Student Lending business.

But given that tuition costs have really gone up in recent years, it should be a good thing to help students with tuition expenses. We have to think of it as an investment in the country's future.

Those with college degrees typically make considerably more than those with HS only. Those who make more, pay more taxes, consume more goods, etc.

Plus, we do need to invest in skills necessary for our industries. There is a shortage in many tech and other skilled areas.

Answer 2

Only if made retroactive to when I went to school! :)

Seriously, I don't know. I had read that the Democrats themselves may have to scale this back or put it on hold because of the cost. Interest rates are at historically low levels in any event.

Maybe a good idea would be to tie it to tougher enforcement against non-payers - but I think they addressed that already. Help the ones who need it, and go after the ones who abuse it. That would be a good "fiscal responsibility" measure, appealing to both sides and further eroding the image of Republicans being the ones keeping an eye on the pursestrings.

But I needed grants, scholarships and loans to get me through - my total family income was probably closer to my present monthly pay than to my yearly pay (we were poor!) - so addressing it is a good idea in principle.

I paid up to 12%. I think it's at 7% now. Lower is always better, though - to the extent we can do it. (I'm paid off now!)

PS I cough up money to my alumni fund and other similar organizations when I can. Pay it forward!!! :)

PPS I'm not sure about bank subsidies. My guess is that cutting the profitability of this business would make the banks do less of it. But I would also guess that the "other half" of the interest being cut (the Democrats want to cut the interest in half) would somehow be paid by the government to the banks rather than the students to the banks, so the incentive to the banks would be the same. "Corporatre welfare" would be a good topic for a question in and of istelf!

Answer 3

Why should this be a federal thing in the first place? Both of my kids went to school on money that I borrowed - from BANKS. I was able to shop these loans around and find the best offers. This is called "Competition". Small banks offered smaller loans with great rates in order to attract business in a different niche. Other banks that weren't interested did not. We got grants and scholarships, and my kids worked. The bottom line of all of this was that every hardship we encountered strengthened my kids' resolve to go to school and do well. It was far from a "free ride", far from an entitlement - there was some academic responsibility that was underscored with every uptick of interest rate. Then the government took them all over. My creditor is the US government, and the interest rate that I pay - as you so aptly point out in your question, is NOT a free market rate, it is NOT a competitive rate, it is a political rate. For those of you who so smugly assert that "Cons don't care about students ..." don't be so naive. NO ONE cares about students. Politicians care about votes. This was shown in the Community Reinvestment Act which was started under Carter, then continued until the housing bubble burst in the early 2000's. Politicians KNEW it was destroying the economy, politicians KNEW that Fannie and Freddie were insolvent, politicians KNEW that a bubble was being created and that people were going to suffer - But they didn't CARE. The bottom line was, "Under my administration, individual home-ownership has increased!". Now what they care about is bailouts - who can come out on top in the rush to show they care about the people who have been hurt by their own actions. The tragedy of this is that school has become an entitlement, not merit - and there are students in college who do not belong there, who have no idea what they want to study and no motivation to do well. The loans are cheap, and they will end up only with debt - and it will be taxpayer funded debt with no return.

Answer 4

Banks who participate in the student loan lending programs are heavily subsidized by the government, and their piece of the pie will be curtailed, as it were. The cuts wouldn't really have an effect on lending, tuition rates, or on the average student's access to loans. It would diminish the subsidy the government pays to banks. It's called corporate welfare, and we should be working hard to eliminate that wherever possible.

The truth is, many people are against welfare payments to individual Americans, but seem to have no problem supporting hugely successful corporations, like banks, and big oil, though they are hugely profitable, and truly have no need for government subsidies and tax breaks.

Answer 5

So, where is such spending authorized in the Constitution or Amendments? I keep missing the 'education clause', can you tell me where to find it?

You see, I have a problem with any government spending that is not authorized in the Constitution or Amendments, because that means the government is acting illegally. A renegade government is not a government that long protects rights and freedoms.

BTW: how is a lower loan rate considered fiscally responsible?

Answer 6

It is not a solution to any problem. Like most of government's "remedies," politicans will exacerbate the very problem it seeks to address.

As money is made more readily available for students to go to the college/university of their choice, the costs will continue to rise. They have convinced everyone that college is essential to one's success, although it is well known that one's natural talents and abilities are the gretest factor in dertermining one's success. School is a business and the Dems are doing exactly what universities want. They are making money more accessible and, therefore, providing schools with the opportunity to continuously raise rates even further.

Like any market, the price of higher education depends on the forces of supply and demand. Easy money equates to higher costs. Simple as that. People need to say that they are not going to take it anymore.

Maintain the rates and their spread over the market.

Answer 7

Well, I'm neutral on it. You do get a tax deduction on student loan interest, so that will be lower as well. It's paying less now and having less to deduct later as a result.

Answer 8

Republicans don't feel, they think, where you been? Hey, don't blast me, I am only repeating what republicans claim. Remember libtards feel, republicans think. Sounds pretty silly to me, and don't forget to include the tax issues and higher costs in your not supporting the higher education of American students.

Answer 9

I'm all for lowering it - but what REALLY needs to be lowered is the outrageous expense of attending college.

Answer 10

lower the loan rate equates to less money that will never be paid back anyway.looks good on paper-just more fell good legislature with no content; all the usual transparencies.