Political Insider

By RJ

January 18, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this

Another example of the fact that this Republican voting block very seldom supports policies that enhance the lives of average working class citizens. The lending industry has them in their pockets.

The same thing that made them happy this last election cycle will make them cry after the next one. “Fool me one time shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”

By MrLiberty

January 19, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

I will never believe that the republican delegation from this or any state ever votes a certain way because of principles. It is not possible, since only Ron Paul - republican congressman from Texas - has any principles. That being said, I would like to think that our elected republicans voted against this measure because they saw if for the blatant vote-buying socialist/fascist scheme that it was.

First of all parents need to wake up and realize that one of the worst things that has ever happened to college education is the federally-guaranteed student loan. Before these loans, it was the responsibility of students and their parents to come up with the money for college costs. Scholarships, summer jobs, and conventional loans were all available. The key was that there were no guarantees that this money would be available - and the schools knew it. Suddenly the government stepped in, the parents cheered, and the schools licked their chops. Where before there was downward economic market pressure on the schools to keep costs down, now with federally-guaranteed loans, banks were willing to lend a virtually unlimited amount of money with the guaranty that all of us would pick up the tab if the recipient defaultedd. So what’s another $1000? Of course you add in lower than market interest rates and now you have taxpayer subsidized, cheap, guaranteed money for every college in the country. Is it any surprise that college costs have risen more since the introduction of these loans than they ever did before them?

So now the democrats are buying more votes with our money. I’m sure not surprised. I cetainly hope that nobody thinks that this law will force banks to make less money on the loan. What it means is that banks will charge half the interest they charge now and you and I will pay them the rest. The biggest problem with this approach is that it will likely cost far more to do it this way with all the paperwork etc. than it would have been to just give the student lender a rebate check when the loan closed to equal the interest rate charge. But see, something like that might have seemed to much like charity and we can’t have that. This way everyone thinks that the banks are evil and charging too much so the democrats have to come to the rescue.

As usual, its just democrats stealing more money and blinding the morons in the general public with the ususal smoke and mirrors.

By RJ

January 19, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Mr. Liberty, It would take up too much space to respond to all of your assertions, so I will hit a few.

First, voting according to principle is one thing, voting based upon the merits of a policy issue is another, i.e., economic soundness and societal benefit to name a few. “Too warm an embrace of one duty can lead to the neglect of others equally as important.”

Your argument that the rise in college tuition is solely attributed to the emergence of the federally guaranteed loan program fails to take into consideration other cost raising factors such as labor, electricity, printing, gas, and others that go with the operation of a college or university. Does society benefit more or less when college graduates enter the workforce less burdened with high interest loans?

The only thing I can figure is that you reached into the air to come up with the notion that ” the Deomcrats bought votes” in taking this much needed action.

If you will be so kind as to take off your partisan veil, the merits of this policy issue will become clearer.

By MrLiberty

January 19, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Voting on principle, especially the principles of limited government and personal responsibility would go a long way to making this country free again. How exactly does one vote on the merits of a policy without priciples against which to judge a policy.

First let me say that my partisan veil is libertarian, lest you think I bash democrats because I love republicans. Both parties are despicable if you ask me, and it wouldn’t surprise me if our republican contingent voted against the measure soley because it was being advanced by the democrats. If Bush put this forward I have no doubt those partisan suck-ups would have all voted in favor of it.

Yes, obviously college costs have gone up because of other factors, but the rise in costs far exceeds that of inflation. Virtually every business in america has been hit by all of these other factors, yet many iindustries have seen overall reductions in costs of goods and services. Some of these reductions have been a result of technological advances (something colleges have ample opportunity to enjoy as well), and others have been the result of active action on the part of businesses to reduce their costs through varying creative means. The reason this has been necessary has been because of the downward price pressure that results from competition and consumer demand. The point you obviously missed is that the ready availability of loan money for students to borrow works to eliminate that downward pressure from students and their parents. There is no way to ignore or deny this economic reality.

You ask whether society benefits more or less by have college graduates with lower bills to pay on their loans. This is an inappropriate question because the only way this happens is by stealing money from the rest of society in order to make this happen. Interest rates are not an arbitrary thing. The presence of the Federal Reserve in our country, constantly manipulating the money supply, constantly devaluing our currency, and constantly manipulating interest rates hurts everyone. There are real costs to money and borrowing. current rates already reflect the value of money to society. Society has alreay spoken on the subject.

What the democrats are saying is that they do not respect the value society has already placed on borrowed money but they value the votes they can buy through the artificial manipulation of these rates.

And yes, this gesture is intended to buy votes. And they will be bought with stolen tax money.

By Burdell

January 19, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Perhaps the headline should read: “Georgia: The Economics-Literate State”

Check out Jacob Sullum’s Column in Reason magazine.

This paragraph sums up the whole thing:

Advocates of increased aid worry that the average college student carries a debt of almost $18,000 when he graduates. But owing the cost of a Hyundai Sonata for a loan that yields an extra $20,000 or so in earnings every year does not seem like a bad deal. It’s certainly a better investment than the Hyundai.

By MrLiberty

January 19, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

Let me make it clear as well that I am neither knocking a college education, nor the decision to secure a loan to pay for it. What I am saying is that on principle, the act of providing guaranteed loans (loans that will be paid by the government if defaulted on) or subsidized lower interest rates must inherently involve stealing money from the rest of society to pay for them.

In deciding that such a program (or every government program for that matter) is a good thing, Ms. Pelosi and the other supporters are saying that they are in a position to decide for you and I that this program is more important than letting you keep your own money to pay for food, clothing, shelter, your own education, your kid’s education, etc. Whatever value there may be to society is irrelevant since the outcome is the result of the immoral act of theft. Really not government’s role to micromanage my money or the economy in general. That’s called fascism.

By John Konop

January 20, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

www.controlcongress.com

Adam Smith the father of free economics advocated PUBLIC EDUCATION. I would suggest you read his book Wealth of Nations and find out for out for yourself.

As a conservative the concept of borrowing money and paying it back for education is capitalism and a true free market system giving all an opportunity. It also falls into the concept of “Pursuit of Happiness”.

The hypocrisy of not voting for student loans and yet voting for corporate give aways like the Highway Bill is shameful.

By Burdell

January 21, 2007 12:35 AM | Link to this

John, borrowing money and paying it back for education is capitalism only if the lender is allowed a fair interest rate that reflects the cost of making the loan (what else he could do with the money) and the benefit of receiving the money (the student’s future earnings).

When Congress mandates a low interest rate that doesn’t reflect this opportunity cost, it is not a free market. It’s no different from mandating artifically low gas prices or artifically high sugar prices.

Voting against this sort of manipuation is not “voting against student loans”; the student loans would still exist. Rather, a vote against ridiculously low interest rates is a vote for the free market, lower education costs, and increased opportunity for qualified students.