Sorry I had the wrong year and have been busy in responding.

In 2007, the Democratic majority in Congress enacted legislation to double interest rates on new federal student loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in 2012.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act was signed into law. In 2006, as part of their “6 for ‘06” campaign agenda, Democrats promised to cut student loan interest rates in half.


However, once gaining control of Congress in 2007, Democrats realized it was too costly to cut all student loan interest rates in half. Instead, Education & Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) and then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proposed temporarily reducing interest rates for undergraduate students receiving subsidized Stafford loans.



The College Cost Reduction and Access Act incrementally phased down interest rates for subsidized Stafford Loans made to undergraduate students over four academic years from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. Per the law, interest rates are scheduled to return to 6.8 percent on July 1, 2012.


As the expiration date crept closer, Democrats did nothing to address the impending interest rate increase during the 111th Congress, despite taking action to terminate the private sector federal loan program to help pay for the president’s government takeover of healthcare law.
.>> ^NetRunner:

7 years ago, Bush was in the White House, and Republicans had the majority in the Senate and the House.
And regardless of who you think set this up to happen, you still have Republicans voting solidly against extending the low rates now.
>> ^bobknight33:
The Democrats passed the law that set the doubling increase 7 years ago.

7 years ago, Bush was in the White House, and Republicans had the majority in the Senate and the House.

True, but not relevant to the Student loan thing. Sigh. I must - once again - step in and provide the actual facts for this issue.

The year is 2007. The Democrats control both the House of Representatives, and the Senate. This Democrat congress passed a law which implemented a phased decrease in student loan rates. Every year the percentage dropped from its ORIGINAL rate of 6.8%. So in reality, the 3.4% current rate has not even been "the rate" for a year. The law that the Democrat congress passed was written so that the rates would return to normal in 2012. For the record, Barak Obama was a Senator at the time of the vote, but did not attend the session to actually cast his vote because he was campaigning. The law as it is written was designed and passed by Democrats. Not the GOP. Also for the record, the CURRENT congress (GOP) passed a resolution to keep the 3.4% rate but the Democrats are threatening to veto it. Guess the 3.4% rate isn't THAT important to them...

As far as Obama on Fallon goes? Cool? Thrb. Only if you're a trained seal that has no intellectual capacity except to clap for your kippers. I watched the bit and the whole thing was awkward, stilted, and made all the participants look desperate rather than 'cool'. 'Cool' doesn't go out and try that hard to be cool. Cool is cool without having to slow jam. And Obama isn't cool. He's cold. If he wants to put on a clown nose, go on Fallon and do stupid human tricks in a desperate attempt to shore up his plummeting poll numbers in the youth vote then go ahead. He'd have done better to be less of a disaster for 3.5 years so he wouldn't have to play damage control today.

Parenthetically, this "College Bubble" has been coming for a long time. The value of a 4-year degree has been plummeting, while college costs have been going through the roof. Rather than redesign thier business model, colleges have - like the Post Office - desperately been trying to peddle student loans as a means of maintaining the status quo. Like the Housing Bubble, the Education Bubble cannot be sustained and is on the verge of popping. Let it blow now. Let the loan rates go back to where they were in the first place. Students should not be taking about loans to go to school anyway. I worked my way through undergrad school on part time jobs and living on Hamburger Helper for 5 years. I biked everywhere I went, and my only possessions were thrift store junk I picked up when I could afford it. When it wwas all over I graduated, got a job, and slowly worked my way up with hard work, diligence, and frugal living. That's how you get an education - and not just a 'college' education but a LIFE education. Who ever established the STUPID practice of telling students to borrow thier way through college? Yup. Democrats and Liberals.

She's probably got a $40,000 student loan to cover her glow stick degree. Probably pay off in spades.

I think a lot more people could figure out how to build things on their own if they didn't have to spend time otherwise paying down massive student loans/mortgage/rent etc...

Still, good on him to being self motivated.

Thanks for the insight in your replies.

It's kinda nitpicky, but in all the stuff I've read about the Finnish system (including the article in The Atlantic), the director of public schools describes the system as equity, not equality. There is the big difference between them and the US system. The US system is totally based on equality, i.e. No Child Left Behind. It's a huge cultural difference to support equity, not equality.
>> ^CreamK:

As a Finnish citizen and being in one the first to gain from the new system, i can say without a doubt that the main point here is not the way we teach: it's about equality!! Every kid has equal opportunity to educate them self for FREE in a schooling system where every school has the same resources and same level of teachers. No matter what color you are, no matter if your parents are rich or poor, you get the same chance in life.
For me, it's been always granted: everyone gets educated, in fact, here there is no chance of not getting educated. Everybody have to get 9 years of basic education, it's in the law. As a parent, you have to extreme lenghts to not get your kid educated. Our "No kids left behind" really means what it says. Literacy is close to 100%, everyone knows how to do basic math, know about the history, geography, all the basic knowledge we humans need to survive.
As for the cost of this system, well, it's cheaper than what US have. By a large margin too. Even when our teachers are considered to be in the upper middle class, one meal per day for free for kids in school, no tuitions until University, all the reading material is free for the first 9 years, you get pens and pencils, rulers and paper, all for free... As for University tuitions, they are not in the range of tens of thousands, it's in the range of hundreds. So by the time a person has got 16 years of education, his student loans are about 10 000€, living and eating here is not free but nobodys forced to do two jobs to pay up for tuitions or parents getting a mortgage to give their younglings a fair chance.
Did i say it's cheaper than what US have? How about treating your citizens truly equal and giving everyone the chance of that American Dream?

As a Finnish citizen and being in one the first to gain from the new system, i can say without a doubt that the main point here is not the way we teach: it's about equality!! Every kid has equal opportunity to educate them self for FREE in a schooling system where every school has the same resources and same level of teachers. No matter what color you are, no matter if your parents are rich or poor, you get the same chance in life.

For me, it's been always granted: everyone gets educated, in fact, here there is no chance of not getting educated. Everybody have to get 9 years of basic education, it's in the law. As a parent, you have to extreme lenghts to not get your kid educated. Our "No kids left behind" really means what it says. Literacy is close to 100%, everyone knows how to do basic math, know about the history, geography, all the basic knowledge we humans need to survive.

As for the cost of this system, well, it's cheaper than what US have. By a large margin too. Even when our teachers are considered to be in the upper middle class, one meal per day for free for kids in school, no tuitions until University, all the reading material is free for the first 9 years, you get pens and pencils, rulers and paper, all for free... As for University tuitions, they are not in the range of tens of thousands, it's in the range of hundreds. So by the time a person has got 16 years of education, his student loans are about 10 000€, living and eating here is not free but nobodys forced to do two jobs to pay up for tuitions or parents getting a mortgage to give their younglings a fair chance.

Did i say it's cheaper than what US have? How about treating your citizens truly equal and giving everyone the chance of that American Dream?

>> ^direpickle:

@NetRunner: Really, the for-pay university system in general is the problem, and the student loan system is a... really shitty offbrand bandaid that left all sorts of cotton and grit in the wound and got it infected. But sure. Call me a libertarian some more!


Sorry, I wasn't calling you libertarian, I know you're not one of those!

@NetRunner: Really, the for-pay university system in general is the problem, and the student loan system is a... really shitty offbrand bandaid that left all sorts of cotton and grit in the wound and got it infected. But sure. Call me a libertarian some more!

I'm not so sure one can blame student loans alone. I'm gonna put a disclaimer up front that I haven't really read any studies into the cause of college tuition inflation, but the "gubbiment loans make people who don't need/deserve a college education get one" sounds like a libertarian think-tank's conclusion, not a real answer.

Basically persistent price inflation has to be a market failure. All you do by giving a subsidy to college students looking to get an education is put upward pressure on the demand curve. If supply is fixed, sure, that will only lead to price inflation, but supply isn't fixed is it?

I mean are Universities facing increases in their costs? What costs do they have that would be increasing? Are professor salaries 7 figures now? Seems like that would encourage more people to train to be college professors, and drive that salary cost back down a bit.

What other persistent costs do universities have? Grounds upkeep? Keeping their facilities up to date? The latter can be quite costly, but which facilities would be both so necessary and so costly to update that it's forcing a massive spike in tuition across the board?

>> ^direpickle:

Tuition inflation is a huge problem, though, and it's definitely due to the fact that with loans now "anyone" can afford to go to college, and even with jacking up the prices there are record enrollment rates. This does need to be addressed. It's not because of Obama, though.

@direpickle
while i am with winston on some points.
ie:student loans being the next bubble and how a college degree has much less of employment/salary rate

i agree with with you that it is not something that should be set at obama's feet but i was unaware of the changes how the government dealt with those loans.
so i thank you for this new perspective.
seems i need to re-evaluate my position.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker: The only change with student loans since Obama has become president is that they've removed the middleman. The government was already requiring that certain people be able to get loans of certain values. The government was already guaranteeing these loans to the banks (they were NO RISK to the banks. The government would pay if the student defaulted, and the banks still got to collect the interest, from the government when subsidized and from the student with not). The only change is that the government gets the interest now instead of a bank that puts up no risk--this saves a lot of money.

So, the government simplifying the student loan business has not contributed to the tuition inflation, because there's not any extra loan money available--it's actually harder to get money (beyond the basic loans) now, from friends' experiences.

Tuition inflation is a huge problem, though, and it's definitely due to the fact that with loans now "anyone" can afford to go to college, and even with jacking up the prices there are record enrollment rates. This does need to be addressed. It's not because of Obama, though.

It is because a lot of people think a college degree is supposed to be job training--I'm sorry, it's not, unless you're getting an engineering degree. A liberal arts or humanities degree is not worthless, though. It's an education. In the US, a college degree is supposed to give you an expanded knowledge, context, and understanding for the world (this is why college graduates come out as liberals). This may help you in a job, but that's not its primary goal unless you're looking for a job specifically in that field.

So part of the problem is that everyone wants to get a four year degree now, because they think it's the only way they'll ever get a job, even when they have no intention or desire to work in a cubicle like most 'requires any 4 year degree' jobs. There ARE other forms of higher education, though. There are community colleges and trade/vocational/technical schools. In fact, Obama has explicitly said that he thinks some (many? most?) people should be going to those instead of four year schools.

That said, the way forward in the world for the US is an educated population. There is just not that much more call for unskilled labor (that Americans will do) here. Even in manufacturing, while we still produce an immense amount of goods, so much of it is made by machines in the US that those numbers aren't reflected in manufacturing employment. Building/selling/maintaining those machines is where manufacturing jobs go when it cranks up here, and that requires skill.

Snarky responses miss the point. One of the next bubbles on the horizon is the education bubble. Obama's takeover of the student loan racket has in essence created an environment of government subsidized college. That's bad. It is artificially inflating the cost of higher education to the point where even community colleges are overpriced.

Couple that with the widespread fact that colleges at all levels are underperforming and highly questionable in value. The ROI of a college education is plummeting to the point where an Associate's degree is worthless. A Bachelor's is rapidly reaching a point where its value is dubious at best - especially in the Arts & Humanities. The only Bachelor's really worth anything is a BS.

So why tell thousands of kids to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a year or two in college when it is overpriced and gives them no return? Just to say they did? A lot of them would be happier and get a better 'education' just by getting a job, or going to a technical school, interning, or some other option than just droning up and marching through college like a good little worker bee.

Wow, I am a bit taken aback by your soft and somewhat flattering response. When I first saw the email that said you had quoted me I braced myself for the typical QM "both barrels" response. Thank you for surprising me.

As far as what social economic system is better than another I would suggest that pure capitalism would likely also fail. History has shown us that when too few have too much and too many have too little the many take drastic steps to redistribute the wealth themselves. Look at the history of Europe.

The human element adds uncertainty and chaos to any system and subsequently all systems are inherently flawed. That is why there are regulating bodies that are meant to enforce the will of the people. When the regulations or those who enforce them are negatively interfered with, society either in part or as a whole, must fail.

I pay about 32% income tax and from what I can figure that number rises to more than 50% when you factor in property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, etc. Despite this burden I do very well so if a portion of these taxes are going to help some person from a poor household to get a better education or it provides care for an elderly person who has no means to support themselves, or even if it goes to the rehabilitation of a young prostitute with a meth addiction I am okay with that. Better roads, better schools, better hospitals, law enforcement, fire protection, it is in support of these socialistically supported things and more that I accept the reduction of half of my earned income.

There will always be people who get what they don't deserve but for the sake of those that do deserve our help I think that we must accept that.
<Insert the clichéd “bad apples” quote here.>

If my contribution can give one person the chance to change their future like I did it is worth it to me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
Rich people can be quite ignorant. Oprah is, and Obama, also rich, doesn't seem to know anything about economics.

As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.
I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?
I'm not advocating Lord of the Flies, I'm saying the left needs to get its head out of the clouds. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.
>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

>>

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.

Rich people can be quite ignorant. Oprah is, and Obama, also rich, doesn't seem to know anything about economics.

As for your quote...

The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.

That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.

Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?

I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.

Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?

I'm not advocating Lord of the Flies, I'm saying the left needs to get its head out of the clouds. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.










>> ^Deadrisenmortal:

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

>>

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.

As for your quote...

The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.

Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?

I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.

Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Have some compassion for me, I have to suffer these mean comments while carrying the burden of being One with the facts.

>> ^G-bar:
Ah, Mr. Mushroom, your'e such a foolish troll. You're always there, behind the scenes, spreading your lack of compassion and lack of knowledge.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Ah, Gates. Another zillionaire apparently unaware the wealthy already pay the most in taxes, and at higher tax rates.
It's the 'bottom' 50% presently paying no income tax but gobbling up plenty of "free services" that should be chipping in.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." ---T. Sowell