English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i thought you supported the average middle class family.

do you think it helps the students, just like how you think the lack of social programs helps the poor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Direct_Student_Loan_Program

2007-09-28 10:14:29 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

14 answers

I'm not against it at all. In fact, I'm all for it. Perfect example of helping those who are willing to help themselves.

Now, I'm against government grants, as if the student drops out, all that money is wasted. But loans have to be payed back, encouraging students to stay in school, and/or getting jobs to pay off the loans.

2007-09-28 10:20:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

A loan is a loan. This is NOT a grant program and it must be paid back WITH interest. Once the student finishes his/ her education they will be paying taxes on the salaries earned in a much better job than they would have had without the education. The gov't will be farther ahead with more educated people.

I do not believe that the children of wealthy people should be the only ones allowed an education. I had such loans to get me through college and they have all been paid back with interest.

2007-09-28 11:03:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

So gov't LOANS are not from now on ok, yet daddy footing the invoice is? What about those persons whose mothers and fathers reduce them off at 18? many human beings are reduce off in intense college. Are they required to conflict through because their mothers and fathers made a foul determination? Gov't LOANS, no longer handouts help grant training for lots of the rustic. They then pay that funds decrease back with pastime. this methodology might want to pay for itself. Bush only dropped the pastime price on federal loans and also better the Pell provide. He replaced into hailed as a hero by utilizing his followers for it. sounds like you adult men only keep on with what they prefer you to without putting idea behind it.

2016-10-20 03:50:38 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The direct loan portion costs more than the current system of paying the difference to private lenders. This is why most of the federally backed student loans are done through third-party banks.

There are some federal direct loans under the Higher Education Act of 1965, but in most cases it isn't cost effective to let the government administer all aspects of the loaning process.

2007-09-28 10:24:54 · answer #4 · answered by freedom first 5 · 0 0

Because to them that is ridiculous spending. People should pay for their own college or get a loan. No grants please. People should also pay for their own healthcare. Yet what amazes me is that the hourly minimum wage rate is $5.85. Kinda hard to pay for these things with that slap in the face rate of pay. Maybe if we could try and help people out more to get a good education and increase the minimum wage rate substantially, more people will not have to get government assistant which the Repub's would be ecstatic about. I seriously think they want to keep people poor so they can have things more their own way when it comes to politics. Less smart people to get in their way.

2007-09-28 10:29:43 · answer #5 · answered by MadLibs 6 · 1 0

Since it is the Middle Class that ultimately pays all taxes, I see no contradiction between supporting the Middle Class and opposing yet another program to spend tax money on a program that a) increases the cost of education, b) promotes fiscal irresponsibility by teaching the young that having about $50,000 in unsecured debt is "normal", and c) promotes fiscal irresponsibility in government by spending money they don't have (see: "National Debt").

Here's a tidbit of information for you. It is still possible to graduate college without scholarships, without any form of government help including ROTC, without grants, without loans, without family money, and without borrowing any money at all. All you have to do is work.

2007-09-28 10:24:46 · answer #6 · answered by open4one 7 · 1 1

Hey I know. We could make everything free, assign people jobs, hand out equal amounts of bread every day. This sounds great. Sorry if it bothers you that things should be paid for my the individual who using that thing. Sounds horrible, huh? I shouldn't have to work 40 hours a week so some kid can get an interest free loan. How much money have you donated to colleges?

2007-09-28 10:23:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

I'm against it because it drives up the cost of colleges for everyone.

2015-08-07 08:24:23 · answer #8 · answered by Kyle 2 · 0 0

I guess some of them think it's OK to use our tax money to invade countries that pose no threat to us, but it's not OK to use it to provide medical care for the poor or to help the not-so-rich better themselves by getting an education.

2007-09-28 10:19:21 · answer #9 · answered by tangerine 7 · 4 0

The same reason they're against Healthcare for children. They're afraid it's going to cut profit margins.
Since Cons are always speaking for Liberals on this board, I thought that I would speak for cons.

2007-09-28 10:25:17 · answer #10 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers