Democrats will be lowering the student loan rates. How do republicans feel about it?
Support it or not? Why?
amusing answers so far…colleges don’t receive the interest, so it won’t affect tuition. And I appreciate those of you who took this as an opportunity to attack a democrats education level. it shows the level of unity we can expect out of the republicans…
And it will only affaect those who take out subsidized loans…which are need based. Not for the rich.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when dems do something fiscally responsible, reps will despise them anyways. Amusing…
It’s fiscally responsible because I pay less interest, and therefore lower payments. And Bush started this when he cut the rates down to all time lows. And because it is secured debt, which means you cannot erase it with bankruptcy…so you must pay it back.
Related Posts
Tags: bankruptcy, bush, colleges, democrats, education level, fixed rate private student loan consolidation, funny answers, home equity loan lowest rate, republicans, subsidized loans, time lows, unity
I’m generally ok with it- but frankly, I’m not sure how it affects the lending market.
Many banks (etc.) are in the Student Lending business.
But given that tuition costs have really gone up in recent years, it should be a excellent thing to help students with tuition expenses. We have to reckon of it as an investment in the country’s future.
Those with college degrees typically make considerably more than those with HS only. Those who make more, pay more taxes, consume more goods, etc.
Plus, we do need to invest in skills necessary for our industries. There is a shortage in many tech and other skilled areas.
That’s excellent. Now maybe some more democrats can get an education.
THEY ARE NOT LOWERING IT THEY ARE SUGGESTING IT BE LOWERED.
STUDENT LOANS SHOULD BE INTEREST FREE.
go dems and libs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
its about time, 12 years…………….ahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They only support it on students who make more than 500,000 dollars per year. Must protect the voting base, you know.
It just means that your tuition will skyrocket. So I am against it.
Sure i support it. Any time the government is taking less than they already are is a excellent thing. I hope they don’t counter the loss tax revenue from somewhere else though (even though I’m sure that’s the plot).
yes but you wont be able to buy food or new clothes because they are going to raise taxes, which means slower economy and inflation increases
so you take your pick
yes they will lower it, and increase the percentage that goes to minorities thus discriminating against white people.
ohm, and they wont lower it, they will just try and maybe pass it in the house, but the senate and the president may have other thoughts.
I’m all for lowering it – but what REALLY needs to be lowered is the outrageous expense of attending college.
I don’t reckon it’s a excellent ideal to get loans when you can get grants, and scholarships. Loans have literally ruined people’s lives. Get all the grants, and scholarships you can, and work your way through college.
Well, I’m neutral on it. You do get a tax deduction on student loan interest, so that will be lower as well. It’s paying less now and having less to deduct later as a result.
I agree with MICHAEL N- Tuition will go up.
Only if made retroactive to when I went to school!
Seriously, I don’t know. I had read that the Democrats themselves may have to scale this back or place it on hold because of the cost. Interest rates are at historically low levels in any event.
Maybe a excellent thought would be to tie it to tougher enforcement against non-payers – but I reckon they addressed that already. Help the ones who need it, and go after the ones who abuse it. That would be a excellent "fiscal responsibility" measure, appealing to both sides and further eroding the image of Republicans being the ones keeping an eye on the pursestrings.
But I needed grants, scholarships and loans to get me through – my total family income was probably closer to my present monthly pay than to my yearly pay (we were poor!) – so addressing it is a excellent thought in principle.
I paid up to 12%. I reckon it’s at 7% now. Lower is always better, though – to the extent we can do it. (I’m paid off now!)
PS I cough up money to my alumni fund and other similar organizations when I can. Pay it forward!!!
PPS I’m not sure about bank subsidies. My guess is that cutting the profitability of this business would make the banks do less of it. But I would also guess that the "other half" of the interest being cut (the Democrats want to cut the interest in half) would somehow be paid by the government to the banks rather than the students to the banks, so the incentive to the banks would be the same. "Corporatre welfare" would be a excellent topic for a question in and of istelf!
50% of student loans don’t get repayed anyway.
Banks who participate in the student loan lending programs are heavily subsidized by the government, and their piece of the pie will be curtailed, as it were. The cuts wouldn’t really have an effect on lending, tuition rates, or on the average student’s access to loans. It would diminish the subsidy the government pays to banks. It’s called corporate welfare, and we should be working hard to eliminate that wherever possible.
The truth is, many people are against welfare payments to individual Americans, but seem to have no problem supporting hugely successful corporations, like banks, and huge oil, though they are hugely profitable, and truly have no need for government subsidies and tax breaks.
lower the loan rate equates to less money that will never be paid back anyway.looks excellent on paper-just more fell excellent legislature with no content; all the usual transparencies.
Republicans don’t feel, they reckon, where you been? Hey, don’t blast me, I am only repeating what republicans claim. Remember libtards feel, republicans reckon. Sounds pretty silly to me, and don’t forget to include the tax issues and higher costs in your not supporting the higher education of American students.
It is not a solution to any problem. Like most of government’s "remedies," politicans will exacerbate the very problem it seeks to address.
As money is made more readily available for students to go to the college/university of their choice, the costs will continue to rise. They have convinced everyone that college is essential to one’s success, although it is well known that one’s natural talents and abilities are the gretest factor in dertermining one’s success. School is a business and the Dems are doing exactly what universities want. They are making money more accessible and, therefore, providing schools with the opportunity to continuously raise rates even further.
Like any market, the price of higher education depends on the forces of supply and demand. Simple money equates to higher costs. Simple as that. People need to say that they are not going to take it anymore.
Maintain the rates and their spread over the market.
So, where is such spending authorized in the Constitution or Amendments? I keep missing the ‘education clause’, can you tell me where to find it?
You see, I have a problem with any government spending that is not authorized in the Constitution or Amendments, because that means the government is acting illegally. A renegade government is not a government that long protects rights and freedoms.
BTW: how is a lower loan rate considered fiscally responsible?
[...] Democrats will be lowering the student loan rates. How do … [...]