H. Res 365

• believer

  

  While it is very true that many Americans carry heavy debt burdens for a multitude of reasons, it is equally true that when Big Government attempts to "fix" our problems, we almost always pay the price in one manner or another.
  
  I can't think of anyone who would object to the Feds waving a magic "debt reduction by fiat" wand to mystically reduce our personal debt loads, but the debt will not simply vanish without dire consequences somewhere down the economic food chain. SOMEONE ultimately pays the price.
  
  Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them. - Ronald Reagan
• I Wear Pants

  Glory Days;899358 wrote:now take this for what its worth, but one of my economics professors explained the reason for high tuition etc is because of the increases in student loans and other money out there. i am no financial guy, but somehow the schools arent making the same amount of money from a student who gets loans or other assistance compared to the student who pays cash so they have to increase it. atleast thats the way i remember it being explained to me.

  Remove student loans and such and I don't have any faith that the price of college will go down significantly. Publishers, schools, etc are too comfortable making insane amounts of money and probably wouldn't lower the price.
  

  majorspark;899342 wrote:Just to add to this the problem with the federal government is they do not want to be the referee. They want to be the coach.

  Fair point. Though I wish they'd step out of the stands and referee more sometimes and they should stop trying to be the parent who thinks they know how to coach.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Remove student loans and such and I don't have any faith that the price of college will go down significantly. Publishers, schools, etc are too comfortable making insane amounts of money and probably wouldn't lower the price."
  
  The availability of loans is the primary reason schools charge so much. Remove the subsidies and very few can afford upwards of $200,000 to attend school - no demand, price comes down. If the government guaranteed car loans at favorable rates don't you think car prices would skyrocket? What started out being (assumedly) a well-meaning program to let people attend college has turned into a monster. We shouldn't forgive student loans, we should stop subsidizing them.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;899437 wrote:"Remove student loans and such and I don't have any faith that the price of college will go down significantly. Publishers, schools, etc are too comfortable making insane amounts of money and probably wouldn't lower the price."
  
  The availability of loans is the primary reason schools charge so much. Remove the subsidies and very few can afford upwards of $200,000 to attend school - no demand, price comes down. If the government guaranteed car loans at favorable rates don't you think car prices would skyrocket? What started out being (assumedly) a well-meaning program to let people attend college has turned into a monster. We shouldn't forgive student loans, we should stop subsidizing them.

  Law of supply & demand. Capitalism at its finest.
• iclfan2

  

  Apparently personal responsibility in this country is at an all time low, and a joke. You don't want to pay a lot of student loans? Go to YSU! You don't want to pay so much in credit card interest? Don't spend the money in the first place. Your mortgage is too high? Make more payments, and buy a house you can freaking afford. Everyone is looking for a handout these days.
• I Wear Pants

  iclfan2;900111 wrote:Apparently personal responsibility in this country is at an all time low, and a joke. You don't want to pay a lot of student loans? Go to YSU! You don't want to pay so much in credit card interest? Don't spend the money in the first place. Your mortgage is too high? Make more payments, and buy a house you can freaking afford. Everyone is looking for a handout these days.

  I do.
  

  believer;899497 wrote:Law of supply & demand. Capitalism at its finest.

  Only works when people making decisions act rationally. Which doesn't always happen.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;900145 wrote:Only works when people making decisions act rationally. Which doesn't always happen.

  Hence the point of MB's post and my subsequent acknowledgment.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;901289 wrote:Hence the point of MB's post and my subsequent acknowledgment.

  I'm saying I'm not confident that prices would drop significantly even if we stopped giving FAFSA money.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  If prices don't drop, who could afford them? Without (cheap) credit the demand would fall significantly.
• I Wear Pants

  Manhattan Buckeye;902726 wrote:If prices don't drop, who could afford them? Without (cheap) credit the demand would fall significantly.

  And if the people running schools were rational then the prices would drop as well. What I'm saying is that I don't think they are rational.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I Wear Pants;903550 wrote:And if the people running schools were rational then the prices would drop as well. What I'm saying is that I don't think they are rational.

  Then they'll end up going out of business.
• I Wear Pants

  Writerbuckeye;903654 wrote:Then they'll end up going out of business.

  I think there is such collusion in the industry that it would limit that.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I Wear Pants;903672 wrote:I think there is such collusion in the industry that it would limit that.

  You can't force someone to purchase your product.
  
  If I (stupidly) decide to apply, get accepted and enroll in a toilet law school that charges $35,000/year, unless I have funding to service that amount there is no choice, collusion or not. The only thing keeping these schools above water is the federal guarantee of loans.
• I Wear Pants

  Perhaps. But how quickly would this change happen? It sure as hell wouldn't be instant and I can tell you that if I didn't have loans I'd not be able to go to school (even the cheapest school in Ohio) nor would scores of others. Simply yanking federal money is not the solution. Perhaps it could be part of it but it isn't the be all end all. Laissez faire isn't a magic salve that makes everything better.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  " Simply yanking federal money is not the solution. Perhaps it could be part of it but it isn't the be all end all. Laissez faire isn't a magic salve that makes everything better."
  
  One thing they can do is tie the guaranty to graduation rates and real employment statistics, not the fake ones that the universities report. It is amazing to me how much grief that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, etc. has taken (which is well deserved), yet the local college or state university over-exaggerates their stats and overpays every single administrator on the basis of government-backed loans. Higher education is a fraud.
• I Wear Pants

  How do you even get "real employment statistics"?
• BGFalcons82

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;903673 wrote:You can't force someone to purchase your product.

  When the SCOTUS decides to get off their duff, we'll get the definitive answer to your statement above. For those that think the mandate in ObamaKare is Constitutional, then what will stop the government from forcing people to pay for a college education, for example?
• FatHobbit

  

  Glory Days;899358 wrote:now take this for what its worth, but one of my economics professors explained the reason for high tuition etc is because of the increases in student loans and other money out there. i am no financial guy, but somehow the schools arent making the same amount of money from a student who gets loans or other assistance compared to the student who pays cash so they have to increase it. atleast thats the way i remember it being explained to me.

  That doesn't make sense to me. I took out student loans and the bank gave me a check. I then gave that check to the school. The school didn't give a crap where the money came from and it wasn't any less the quarters I paid for it out of my own pocket.
  
  But maybe I'm just dumb.
• I Wear Pants

  FatHobbit;904227 wrote:That doesn't make sense to me. I took out student loans and the bank gave me a check. I then gave that check to the school. The school didn't give a crap where the money came from and it wasn't any less the quarters I paid for it out of my own pocket.
  
  But maybe I'm just dumb.

  Theoretically if you reduce the amount of Federal student loans then less people would be able and willing to pay for college and this could drive the price down if the schools wanted to maintain the same level of student enrollment. However I worry that there would be a transition period to this lower price (IE giant institutions like that are oftentimes slow to react and as such the people who are in school or want to be in school during this transition would be screwed) and that perhaps they wouldn't react in a way that lowers price but perhaps raises it (IE fewer students but higher cost) resulting in only those of privilege getting an education much how it was in the 17th and 18th centuries.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;904207 wrote:When the SCOTUS decides to get off their duff, we'll get the definitive answer to your statement above. For those that think the mandate in ObamaKare is Constitutional, then what will stop the government from forcing people to pay for a college education, for example?

  Has anyone indicated they wish to make college education mandatory that has the authority to make that happen?
  
  If not then this is ridiculous speculation on "what if?" scenarios.
• FatHobbit

  

  I Wear Pants;904260 wrote:However I worry that there would be a transition period to this lower price (IE giant institutions like that are oftentimes slow to react and as such the people who are in school or want to be in school during this transition would be screwed) and that perhaps they wouldn't react in a way that lowers price but perhaps raises it (IE fewer students but higher cost) resulting in only those of privilege getting an education much how it was in the 17th and 18th centuries.

  Similar to how the post office charges more for stamps because less people are using them?