Law School Discussion

Bush and Student Loans

jarvisa

Re: Bush and Student Loans
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2006, 10:01:54 AM »
Actually, no.  Do you realize how federally subsidized loans work?  They use tax payer money.  And, since many of us recognize the most taxed portion of America is the lower class, they take money from the poor and give to the future rich (I use rich in relation to comparative income to those taxed lower class).  "[P]aying scholarships out of the general tax fund is good policy because it lessens the incentive for poor people with intellectual potential to quit education prematurely".  What!?  Are you kidding me?  Providing low interest rates, not scholarships in the traditional sense, is the purpose of subsidized loans.  You presuppose that those who have intellectual potential will not attend college unless they receive "low" interest loans.  I would argue they would go to school regardless.  The primary factor limiting college education is much more convoluted.  For example, it is stated in a recent research article that 36.2 of respondents don't attend college due to "money issue".  However, 26.4 of the aggregate states that they can't afford college.  The other 10 % identified financial issues such as working to purchase something, wanted to save money, and working to save money, among others.  The really interesting fact is 28.3 polled stated they weren't interested in college and 24 % polled stated they were unprepared for college.  There are many more stats I could share, but you will undoubtedly find a way to marginalize these, and will support your position with others, as I have.  The point is that money is a factor; however, not THE ultimate factor.  Furthermore, as I stated previously, and the subsequent article pointed out, interest rates may or may not go up.  As a freemarketeer, I have believed they will hold the status quo, or possibly go down.  I do believe that supply and demand will play a large part in student loans now that the government has decided to exit stage left.

One final point, where in the world did your statement, "how many millionaire’s kids are in Iraq"?  Are you trying to say that only poor people serve in the military?  John Kennedy served in WWII, Pat Tillman served in Afghanistan, and John Kerry served in Vietnam. I am not sure the latter’s financial situation at the time; however, the former two were quite rich and powerful men, in their own right.  And the statement of Halliburton stock?  What in the world are you getting at?  Are you trying to marginalize my statements by asserting a relative correlation between the war in Iraq, and the recently passed budget?  F.Y.I, I am not a rich kid, but I am not poor, I have been to Iraq.  I served with many who were fairly financially sound, and were still serving in Iraq.


Isn't subsidized student loans Robin Hood in reverse?  Taking from the poor (taxes) giving to med students, law students, etc (low interest rates, actually PAYING interest accrued on loans).  I am personally a free marketeer (no, not a musketeer) if you believe in a free market, and its principles, then this might actually bring interest rates down. 

No, it's not like that at all.  In states like mine (Florida), where scholarships are supported by the state lottery, you'd have a valid argument.  Because lotteries are almost universally recognized as a tax on the poor (admittedly it's their choice but they are done in by poor education and lack of ability to understand concepts such as "odds"), it is something like a reverse Robin Hood.  However, in general, paying for scholarships out of the general tax fund is good policy because it lessens the incentive for poor people with intellectual potential to quit education prematurely.   How has India become such a world force, economically?  Because Nehru had the foresight to open the Indian Institutes of Technology.  A society that places an emphasis on education comes out ahead, and by making education more expensive, we are showing our priorities to be misorganized.

What is a reverse Robin Hood mechanism would be something that largely benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.  How many millionaire's kids are in Iraq?  And how's Halliburton's stock doing?

As of 2002, the top 5% of taxpayers paid 41% of all federal taxes, and between 56% and 59% of all income taxes, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (I found this via a Washington Post article).  So although Bush's policies have shifted the burden more toward the poor, the overwhelming majority of tax money is still from the upper classes.   So I guess an equally valid question is, do you understand how federally subsidized loans work?

Providing low interest rates is not fundamentally different from providing scholarships.  They both lower the effective cost of attending school.  And as a freemarketeer I am sure that you have considered that the choice of whether or not to attend college is a cost/benefit analysis.  The costs of attending school are opportunity costs of lost potential wages plus the tuition, fees, etc.  The benefits are the incremental increase in expected wages that one can expect to receive as an educated citizen versus an uneducated citizen with experience of however many years the education would have lasted.  So, we can expect that by raising interest rates, the costs of attending rise, and the number of those attending school will shrink.  But you already know that.

And you ignore that these loans are not just for us pre-law types.  There are people taking out $20,000 in loans to study history, or math, or other subjects that will not pay as well.  In order to make a decent living, you almost have to have a college education, and if 2/3 of those seeking a bachelor's degree have to take out loans to support it, that's a problem.  If I have to take out $180,000 in loans to pay for school, so be it, I won't starve.  But I am lucky, I got a scholarship for undergrad.  There are people who don't have that luxury, and we are saying, screw them.

And my question was not meant to marginalize your argument, it is a perfectly legitimate question.  Who is benefiting from the war?  And why do we remember that Elvis went to war?  Or Pat Tillman, or JFK?  Because it is so unusual to see someone who has so much to lose actually risking it for their countries.  And my point about Halliburton is that while Bush has cut pay to veterans and put thousands of men and women's lives on the line, Halliburton's stock has quadrupled (since March 2003), and Cheney and Bush have become much richer.  Coincidence?

ktcarlin

Re: Bush and Student Loans
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2006, 10:05:18 AM »
"The most taxed portion of the country is not the lower class."

Allow me to rephrase this, the majority of those taxed, are lower class.  Obviously upper class pays more in taxes; however, there are fewer of them.  I was referring to total payers, not total paid.


Actually, no.  Do you realize how federally subsidized loans work?  They use tax payer money.  And, since many of us recognize the most taxed portion of America is the lower class, they take money from the poor and give to the future rich (I use rich in relation to comparative income to those taxed lower class).  "[P]aying scholarships out of the general tax fund is good policy because it lessens the incentive for poor people with intellectual potential to quit education prematurely".  What!?  Are you kidding me?  Providing low interest rates, not scholarships in the traditional sense, is the purpose of subsidized loans.  You presuppose that those who have intellectual potential will not attend college unless they receive "low" interest loans.  I would argue they would go to school regardless.  The primary factor limiting college education is much more convoluted.  For example, it is stated in a recent research article that 36.2 of respondents don't attend college due to "money issue".  However, 26.4 of the aggregate states that they can't afford college.  The other 10 % identified financial issues such as working to purchase something, wanted to save money, and working to save money, among others.  The really interesting fact is 28.3 polled stated they weren't interested in college and 24 % polled stated they were unprepared for college.  There are many more stats I could share, but you will undoubtedly find a way to marginalize these, and will support your position with others, as I have.  The point is that money is a factor; however, not THE ultimate factor.  Furthermore, as I stated previously, and the subsequent article pointed out, interest rates may or may not go up.  As a freemarketeer, I have believed they will hold the status quo, or possibly go down.  I do believe that supply and demand will play a large part in student loans now that the government has decided to exit stage left.

One final point, where in the world did your statement, "how many millionaire’s kids are in Iraq"?  Are you trying to say that only poor people serve in the military?  John Kennedy served in WWII, Pat Tillman served in Afghanistan, and John Kerry served in Vietnam. I am not sure the latter’s financial situation at the time; however, the former two were quite rich and powerful men, in their own right.  And the statement of Halliburton stock?  What in the world are you getting at?  Are you trying to marginalize my statements by asserting a relative correlation between the war in Iraq, and the recently passed budget?  F.Y.I, I am not a rich kid, but I am not poor, I have been to Iraq.  I served with many who were fairly financially sound, and were still serving in Iraq.


Isn't subsidized student loans Robin Hood in reverse?  Taking from the poor (taxes) giving to med students, law students, etc (low interest rates, actually PAYING interest accrued on loans).  I am personally a free marketeer (no, not a musketeer) if you believe in a free market, and its principles, then this might actually bring interest rates down. 

No, it's not like that at all.  In states like mine (Florida), where scholarships are supported by the state lottery, you'd have a valid argument.  Because lotteries are almost universally recognized as a tax on the poor (admittedly it's their choice but they are done in by poor education and lack of ability to understand concepts such as "odds"), it is something like a reverse Robin Hood.  However, in general, paying for scholarships out of the general tax fund is good policy because it lessens the incentive for poor people with intellectual potential to quit education prematurely.   How has India become such a world force, economically?  Because Nehru had the foresight to open the Indian Institutes of Technology.  A society that places an emphasis on education comes out ahead, and by making education more expensive, we are showing our priorities to be misorganized.

What is a reverse Robin Hood mechanism would be something that largely benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.  How many millionaire's kids are in Iraq?  And how's Halliburton's stock doing?


people like alec384 are programmed to respond to any political issue by doing 1 or more of the following:  a) blame bush, b) complain about the military, c) add some psuedo-marxist garbage about classes.  if you can throw in some politically correct race-based complaints, that's also a bonus.

the most taxed portion of the country is not the lower class.



jarvisa

Re: Bush and Student Loans
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2006, 10:07:16 AM »
Actually, no.  Do you realize how federally subsidized loans work?  They use tax payer money.  And, since many of us recognize the most taxed portion of America is the lower class, they take money from the poor and give to the future rich (I use rich in relation to comparative income to those taxed lower class).  "[P]aying scholarships out of the general tax fund is good policy because it lessens the incentive for poor people with intellectual potential to quit education prematurely".  What!?  Are you kidding me?  Providing low interest rates, not scholarships in the traditional sense, is the purpose of subsidized loans.  You presuppose that those who have intellectual potential will not attend college unless they receive "low" interest loans.  I would argue they would go to school regardless.  The primary factor limiting college education is much more convoluted.  For example, it is stated in a recent research article that 36.2 of respondents don't attend college due to "money issue".  However, 26.4 of the aggregate states that they can't afford college.  The other 10 % identified financial issues such as working to purchase something, wanted to save money, and working to save money, among others.  The really interesting fact is 28.3 polled stated they weren't interested in college and 24 % polled stated they were unprepared for college.  There are many more stats I could share, but you will undoubtedly find a way to marginalize these, and will support your position with others, as I have.  The point is that money is a factor; however, not THE ultimate factor.  Furthermore, as I stated previously, and the subsequent article pointed out, interest rates may or may not go up.  As a freemarketeer, I have believed they will hold the status quo, or possibly go down.  I do believe that supply and demand will play a large part in student loans now that the government has decided to exit stage left.

One final point, where in the world did your statement, "how many millionaire’s kids are in Iraq"?  Are you trying to say that only poor people serve in the military?  John Kennedy served in WWII, Pat Tillman served in Afghanistan, and John Kerry served in Vietnam. I am not sure the latter’s financial situation at the time; however, the former two were quite rich and powerful men, in their own right.  And the statement of Halliburton stock?  What in the world are you getting at?  Are you trying to marginalize my statements by asserting a relative correlation between the war in Iraq, and the recently passed budget?  F.Y.I, I am not a rich kid, but I am not poor, I have been to Iraq.  I served with many who were fairly financially sound, and were still serving in Iraq.


Isn't subsidized student loans Robin Hood in reverse?  Taking from the poor (taxes) giving to med students, law students, etc (low interest rates, actually PAYING interest accrued on loans).  I am personally a free marketeer (no, not a musketeer) if you believe in a free market, and its principles, then this might actually bring interest rates down. 

No, it's not like that at all.  In states like mine (Florida), where scholarships are supported by the state lottery, you'd have a valid argument.  Because lotteries are almost universally recognized as a tax on the poor (admittedly it's their choice but they are done in by poor education and lack of ability to understand concepts such as "odds"), it is something like a reverse Robin Hood.  However, in general, paying for scholarships out of the general tax fund is good policy because it lessens the incentive for poor people with intellectual potential to quit education prematurely.   How has India become such a world force, economically?  Because Nehru had the foresight to open the Indian Institutes of Technology.  A society that places an emphasis on education comes out ahead, and by making education more expensive, we are showing our priorities to be misorganized.

What is a reverse Robin Hood mechanism would be something that largely benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.  How many millionaire's kids are in Iraq?  And how's Halliburton's stock doing?


people like alec384 are programmed to respond to any political issue by doing 1 or more of the following:  a) blame bush, b) complain about the military, c) add some psuedo-marxist garbage about classes.  if you can throw in some politically correct race-based complaints, that's also a bonus.

the most taxed portion of the country is not the lower class.



That's cute.  You know, the fact that you've heard the basic thrust of an argument before is not an indication that the argument is not valid.  In this instance it only shows you that the basic problems about which I am complaining have never been resolved.

jarvisa

Re: Bush and Student Loans
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2006, 10:09:09 AM »
"The most taxed portion of the country is not the lower class."

Allow me to rephrase this, the majority of those taxed, are lower class.  Obviously upper class pays more in taxes; however, there are fewer of them.  I was referring to total payers, not total paid.


Have you completely lost your mind?!

Last time I checked, student loans aren't subsidized based on how many taxpayers there are in the country.  The number of taxpayers is completely irrelevant to what you were trying to say.

ktcarlin

Re: Bush and Student Loans
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2006, 10:21:32 AM »
Ok, son, listen hear.  Are there more rich people then poor people?  Any moron would say no.  Let's move on.  Logically, more poor people pay taxes than rich people pay taxes right...of course right.  Therefore, the "majority" of tax payers, whose money is going towards subsidized loans, are poor people.  I am not arguing that rich people don't pay more tax's (aggregate dollars) than poor people.  What I was clarifying for KingofSpain is that there are more poor than rich paying taxes.

And to answer your pseudo question, no.  No, student loans are not subsidized based upon how many tax payers there are; however, if you take annually 500$ from a rich person and poor person, respectively, their funds go towards paying interest rates on student loans.
"The most taxed portion of the country is not the lower class."

Allow me to rephrase this, the majority of those taxed, are lower class.  Obviously upper class pays more in taxes; however, there are fewer of them.  I was referring to total payers, not total paid.


Have you completely lost your mind?!

Last time I checked, student loans aren't subsidized based on how many taxpayers there are in the country.  The number of taxpayers is completely irrelevant to what you were trying to say.

Re: Bush and Student Loans
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2006, 10:26:29 AM »
yes i understand all of this, i took out a stafford loan to finance an ma in history, and i will be taking out more loans to finance my law school education.  Although the new "locked in" rates for stafford loans will be higher, they may well be lower than they would have been if interest rates continue to rise in the future (which looks a good bet, at least in the short term). 
your other arguments prove you are well outside the political mainstream, the us armed forces are the finest in the world and they are all-volunteer.  if most of them come from lower and middle and class backgrounds all that proves is that people living in relative luxury are less willing to give that up than people living in lesser conditions- hardly an earth-shattering revelation.  having said that, there are sons of congressmen and senators in iraq, two of my friends from the upper-middle class neighborhood i live in joined after 9/11, they did so out of patriotism and not out of any sort of financial need.
it's one thing if you want to say new student loan rules are bad policy, but you lose credibility when you bring out tired catchpharses about bush/cheney/haliburton, or no sons of the rich dying in iraq- those aren't arguments they're just worn-out, deceitful cliches.

Re: Bush and Student Loans
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2006, 10:28:59 AM »
there are more poor/middle-class people paying taxes because there more of them.  the top 1%, 10% , 20% etc. of taxpayers pay the vast majority of actual dollars going into the federal treasury however.  the percentage depends on whether you are talking only about federal income taxes or also including soc sec taxes etc as well.

jorge

Re: Bush and Student Loans
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2006, 10:35:25 AM »
Many, if not most of the poor pay no federal taxes at all. The only taxes my wife and I paid this year were city and state taxes (income and sales)and social security. We got money back from the government because of the child tax credit and EIC. Now, we're above the poverty line and about 13 percent of the country isn't. I have read that as high as the 40th percentile effectively pay no federal taxes. That number is probably high, but I would guess the vast majority of the bottom 20 percent don't pay federal income taxes.

Re: Bush and Student Loans
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2006, 10:41:23 AM »
Huge student loans are obviously a huge burden. When you're living in debt, you have fewer choices about work/earning.

"whadda ya get?  Another day older and deeper in debt."

Just wait, Sallie May will open a company store...

 ;D

"V"

  • ****
  • 594
  • Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici
    • View Profile
Re: Bush and Student Loans
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2006, 11:14:43 AM »
No, Mr. Bush! Don't take away the magic free money that comes every year! These people say terrible things about taxes and repaying, but I know it's not true Mr. Bush, I know the magical free money never has to end.

Just three more years of it, please, then I won't need the happy, magical free money checks. But without them, I'm totally screwed!

*Crosses fingers*

C'moooon three more years of loans, I need ya baby, I need ya to get my earning power up!