• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Warren’s proposal: Offer college students the same interest rates as banks

http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Introducing_Bennett_Hypothesis_2.pdf

Where did I say I only want the rich to get an education? That is nonsense. What I want to see rather, is college costs restructured rather then throwing more money at the problem.
There is simply no reason for me to pay $700 for a 70 year old "professor" to read off wikipedia and show us movies because it is a "required Gen Ed." This was the case several times in my studies, and unfortunately that is several thousand dollars which I will never get back. If you really want to make college more affordable, get rid of teacher tenure.

Anyways, the second faulty assumption you are making is that this will lead to a more productive, trained workforce.

It should lead to one, but it won't if it just means we get more useless English and Art History majors instead of engineers. But, of course, that is a discussion for another time and place.

I guess you didn't really read the link. It's a hypothesis that admits it hasn't been tested. So much for that.

But indeed, the hypothesis really reduces to the claim that if more kids go to college, tuition goes up. It has nothing to do with loans per se. It wouldn't matter if the college is paid by a rich daddy or by borrowing at exorbitant rates from private banks. What does matter is how that affects the students.

Frankly even if tuition does go up because more kids are getting college education (not necessarily a bad thing if it means better services), as long as the loans have low interest, it's still benefits overall productivity. And so this excursion hasn't made your case at all, but it does make mine: better educated people are more productive and produce economic growth and general prosperity more than unskilled uneducated workers. Every study shows that. So you now need to trot out another discredited hypothesis for me to shoot down.

I love the defense of knownothingism from the right.
 
Last edited:
my point has nothing to do with conservatism, it has to do with republican government, and the people who would destroy it with their collectivism.

So what do low interest student lows have to do with "collectivism" again?
 
I guess you didn't really read the link. It's a hypothesis that admits it hasn't been tested. So much for that.

But indeed, the hypothesis really reduces to the claim that if more kids go to college, tuition goes up. It has nothing to do with loans per se. It wouldn't matter if the college is paid by a rich daddy or by borrowing at exorbitant rates from private banks. What does matter is how that affects the students.

Frankly even if tuition does go up because more kids are getting college education (not necessarily a bad thing if it means better services), as long as the loans have low interest, it's still benefits overall productivity. And so this excursion hasn't made your case at all, but it does make mine: better educated people are more productive and produce economic growth and general prosperity more than unskilled uneducated workers. Every study shows that. So you now need to trot out another discredited hypothesis for me to shoot down.

I love the defense of knownothingism from the right.

I love it when I finally pry a logical, and reasonable answer out of you.

Yes and no. College tuition increases are a complicated subject. The article uses previous research to show that college tuition does go up as a result of federal aid in certain circumstances, but the relationship is less then 1:1. Fair enough, it might have some of an impact, but its probably less then the savings as a result of lower interest rates. But as a college student myself, I absolutely hated having to pay >$700 for useless tenured old professors teaching required courses that weren't even a part of my major. Several thousand dollars, flushed down the toilet. Cutting the Gen Ed requirements would prove to be extremely beneficial to bringing down college costs, and raising productivity. Surely, you can't tell me that having another year of taking medical based courses wouldn't lead to me having a much higher productivity.

But as far as productivity and job filling goes, you're making the assumption that more student graduates will lead to more jobs being filled. Yes and no. Some professions that we need more of such as engineers, nurses, IT staff, finance staff, etc. do require job degrees. But other jobs short of talent don't, they require skills learned in trade schools. Increasing the number of English and Art history majors isn't going to do anything to fill those positions, or lead to economic prosperity. No, all it does is lead to a growth of the college system and college costs without any corresponding increase in private sector benefit.
 
Sure I can and do all the time. You splashing around at this point.

For instance, Warren's policy of making student loans more affordable results in more productivity and higher revenues, as workers get educated for jobs they are good at, rather than having to settle for lesser jobs because they lack the education.

See it's easy. Now you try to actually put together a conservative argument against student loan availability. Lots of luck.

How is that working for the current 25% of unemployed college students or the huge supply of 4-year degrees working as baristas? Face it, college is not what it used to be. Whether you keep loans at 2% or 7%, we don't have nearly the amount of jobs that require a college degree that can accomodate the supply of labor with college degrees.

The whole point of college being a pathway to success in the past was its rarity. When everyone has a degree, very few people stand out, and the only difference becomes that you have an pay an extra 4 years of opportunity cost and still end up with the same service job that requires no knowledge of art history.

All her policies will do is inflate the student loan bubble even further and drive up tuition prices even more. Students will take out more and bigger loans and colleges will laugh all the way to the bank with the institution of these "progressive" policies. So in reality students end up with a higher principal payment but lower interest rate, and the work force is no better off than it is today. We already have an unemployment and underemployment problem for college-educated students and our youth; this will not solve it.

Also, when you talk about a better educated society being better off, are you taking into account cost? An entire society of academics will starve to death. At some point, working is preferable to further education. Education is supposed to be a means to make individuals more productive and efficient. For example, a programmer who writes an algorithm to do a rote task over and over increases efficiency. An arts major student does not increase efficiency for 99% of jobs, so it is really just a 4 year sunk cost.
 
Oh god it's another one of those people who thinks Obama was suddenly making a jab at small business owners in the middle of a populist speech.

when you talk in terms of the group, and not to people as individuals ....your a collectivist.

our rights are individual, they are not group rights.

my property is mine, i dont share it with the community.
 
So what do low interest student lows have to do with "collectivism" again?

unconstitutional.....the government are not venture capitalist.

no one .....big corp, small business, or people should get loans from government.

its is not a delegated duty of congress.
 
unconstitutional.....the government are not venture capitalist.

no one .....big corp, small business, or people should get loans from government.

its is not a delegated duty of congress.

The SC disagress with you. You lose.
 
The SC disagress with you. You lose.

more unconstitutional action by government unless you can show where it says they can give business and people money.

yet your one who complains when they give subsidies to business....go figure!
 
I love it when I finally pry a logical, and reasonable answer out of you.

Yes and no. College tuition increases are a complicated subject. The article uses previous research to show that college tuition does go up as a result of federal aid in certain circumstances, but the relationship is less then 1:1. Fair enough, it might have some of an impact, but its probably less then the savings as a result of lower interest rates. But as a college student myself, I absolutely hated having to pay >$700 for useless tenured old professors teaching required courses that weren't even a part of my major. Several thousand dollars, flushed down the toilet. Cutting the Gen Ed requirements would prove to be extremely beneficial to bringing down college costs, and raising productivity. Surely, you can't tell me that having another year of taking medical based courses wouldn't lead to me having a much higher productivity.

But as far as productivity and job filling goes, you're making the assumption that more student graduates will lead to more jobs being filled. Yes and no. Some professions that we need more of such as engineers, nurses, IT staff, finance staff, etc. do require job degrees. But other jobs short of talent don't, they require skills learned in trade schools. Increasing the number of English and Art history majors isn't going to do anything to fill those positions, or lead to economic prosperity. No, all it does is lead to a growth of the college system and college costs without any corresponding increase in private sector benefit.

Translated: your study didn't prove what you claimed it did, and I caught you in your lie, so now your dancing. Typical.

Ah, the knownothing meme -- "liberal arts are useless." Tea partiers never change their spots.

In a declining job market all areas have lost jobs, not just liberal arts majors. Go figure! The fact that conservatives used the dismal job market created by Bush's failed conservative policies to attack liberal arts shows how freakishly predictable conservatism has become.

The funny thing is companies keep complaining that they need more workers with better language and cognitive skills (read liberal arts). But of course facts don't stop conservatives from touting their love of knownothingism.
 
more unconstitutional action by government unless you can show where it says they can give business and people money.

yet your one who complains when they give subsidies to business....go figure!

Pssst: the procedure for determining constitutionality is to have a law case brought before the SC. Get used to it.
 
How is that working for the current 25% of unemployed college students or the huge supply of 4-year degrees working as baristas? .

Not well. Bush's failed conservative policies caused massive unemployment, you might have noticed. And when the economy gets back on its feet thanks to progressive policies, the job market will pick up again.

This happens over and over again -- conservative trash the economy, caused recessions and progressive fix the problem.

But it is funny to watch conservatives try to destroy higher education because of their failed economic policies. Shock capitalism in action!
 
While I don't think it's right to charge them the same rate as the discount window, I do think that access to the window ought to mean that student loans should have lower interest rates than 7% in this particular interest-rate environment. There should be some sort of formula for determining those rates depending on the rate of inflation with various other indices thrown into the pot. I think the rates ought to be adjustable every three years depending on that index.

It's a tough call, but here is my thinking. I think a person who achieves the highest educational attainment they can is a boon to our economy and will pay back our investment into them many times over, so I would be good with having this rate applied to those that graduate.

Where I have difficulty is what to do about people who do not graduate, and more importantly, those that default.

I think we should adjust the rate up for those that don't graduate and garnish pay for those that default.

The main reason for different rates for different borrowers is the default rate. However, since the fed guarantees these loans and the banks can't lose (only the taxpayers can), I really don't see how giving guaranteed profits to banks on the backs of recent grads helps anyone except the banks.
 
Pssst: the procedure for determining constitutionality is to have a law case brought before the SC. Get used to it.

it does not take a lawyer, to see venture capitalist in not on the list.

how are those big corporation subsidies working for you?
 
Not well. Bush's failed conservative policies caused massive unemployment, you might have noticed. And when the economy gets back on its feet thanks to progressive policies, the job market will pick up again.

This happens over and over again -- conservative trash the economy, caused recessions and progressive fix the problem.

But it is funny to watch conservatives try to destroy higher education because of their failed economic policies. Shock capitalism in action!


I like how you instantly went to Bush. I am making a nonpartisan statement on the state of higher education and how an excess of degrees is devaluing each individual degree. Can you please address the points I made instead of taking the first sentence and then blaming Bush? No one is trying to "destroy" higher education. The student loan bubble is due to easy money; I don't see the argument against that, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
 
Same here. Warren gets it. She knows how to frame an issue. And that's 90% of winning a political battle. That's why the rightwingers hate her so much. She is the future of progressive Democrats in this country.

I couldn't agree more. I was proud to vote for her in 2012!
 
when you talk in terms of the group, and not to people as individuals ....your a collectivist.

our rights are individual, they are not group rights.

my property is mine, i dont share it with the community.

Why are you driving on roads that other people built, you filthy collectivist you?
(hint: Obama wasn't saying anything near what you think he was saying)
 
Why are you driving on roads that other people built, you filthy collectivist you?
(hint: Obama wasn't saying anything near what you think he was saying)


we are collectivist when be vote, when we create infrastructure for ourselves, that everyone uses.

however my rights are individual rights, they are not part of a group, you and members of a group ,who have a louder voice then i, dont get to determine my rights.

just as in my property, property is an individual right it not a group right, its mine, it not yours or members of the community, to tell me how it going to be run, according to your desires, and you dont dip your hands into my profits and get a share of them they are not yours.
 
This is fine, but the folks that will qualify will dry up. Banks will just tighten their qualifications for student loans.

Rates are largely based on collective risk, and there is a tremendously high percentage of college loans that are never repaid. A TON of college loans go to people that never graduate. That's why the rates are so damn high.

The same reason 16-year-old boys pay higher car insurance than a 55-year-old man. Risk.
 
we are collectivist when be vote, when we create infrastructure for ourselves, that everyone uses.

however my rights are individual rights, they are not part of a group, you and members of a group ,who have a louder voice then i, dont get to determine my rights.

just as in my property, property is an individual right it not a group right, its mine, it not yours or members of the community, to tell me how it going to be run, according to your desires, and you dont dip your hands into my profits and get a share of them they are not yours.

So are you arguing against all taxes ever, or some particular point you think Obama was making, or what?

"The point is, that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

"You didn't build that." The word "that" referred to his previous sentence - roads and bridges. You didn't build those.

Is admitting that people do things together "collectivist," and if so do you disagree with the concept or oppose it?
 
So are you arguing against all taxes ever, or some particular point you think Obama was making, or what?


i am arguing the point, when anyone talks of rights of the group or collectivist way, they are wrong.....rights are individual rights, and the founders say this over and over.

"The point is, that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

again.....my rights are not part of your thoughts, desires and what you want to do,



"You didn't build that." The word "that" referred to his previous sentence - roads and bridges. You didn't build those.

not correct, what she was saying is, no one got rich on their own"you created a company, you made money, good for you, but you used the roads, police, fire and other services the rest of us paid for paid for, as if the company is some how getting free road service, police, fire on the backs of the people,that's incorrect.

companies pay taxes like citizens for construction of roads, and services offered by the local government companies are not getting away paying nothing, they pay also.

i am not against taxes, i against people being collective to take money from other people or business, becuase they think they have "more than enough", government is supposed to work for all of the people, its suppose to treat every one equal.



Is admitting that people do things together "collectivist," and if so do you disagree with the concept or oppose it?

when it comes to rights ...yes, i oppose collectivism......becuase that is democracy, and america is not a democracy, ......their is no majority rule on rights...we have republican government..not democratic government
 
Translated: your study didn't prove what you claimed it did, and I caught you in your lie, so now your dancing. Typical.

Ah, the knownothing meme -- "liberal arts are useless." Tea partiers never change their spots.

In a declining job market all areas have lost jobs, not just liberal arts majors. Go figure! The fact that conservatives used the dismal job market created by Bush's failed conservative policies to attack liberal arts shows how freakishly predictable conservatism has become.

The funny thing is companies keep complaining that they need more workers with better language and cognitive skills (read liberal arts). But of course facts don't stop conservatives from touting their love of knownothingism.

One doesn't need to study liberal arts to have language or cognitive skills. I've met taken advanced level writing classes (for my own benefit) and was among the top students in the class on every graded paper. Despite the fact that I hadn't taken a writing class in two years and I spent 95% of my school time studying human physiology and organic chemistry II with Satan himself.

Also, if they are in such demand, then why do they have such abysmal employment levels at 9.8%. I thought one went to college to be able to get a job, not to flap around like a fish out of water with no job and a mountain of debt. I like how you also won't discuss teacher tenure on here, probably because useless professors make awfully useful Democrats, eh? The things I could have done with those several thousand dollars.

Back to my original point, I never claimed the relationship was exact, the study did show existing data supporting the hypothesis in certain scenarios. Translation: I wasn't wrong, it just isn't always the case. It is partially a contributing factor, but the real factor is useless professors who have thousands of students writing them a paycheck for garbage.


Disclaimer: Darn, you sort of got my hopes up that we would actually have a productive conversation here. Typical of you to fall back on your trolling ways.
 
This is fine, but the folks that will qualify will dry up. Banks will just tighten their qualifications for student loans.

Rates are largely based on collective risk, and there is a tremendously high percentage of college loans that are never repaid. A TON of college loans go to people that never graduate. That's why the rates are so damn high.

The same reason 16-year-old boys pay higher car insurance than a 55-year-old man. Risk.

Give me a statistic for this? Student loans is unforgivable debt. Also, the rates are high because the government set them that way. I think you should know by now that the government doesn't typically do things at a market rate.
 
I like how you instantly went to Bush. I am making a nonpartisan statement on the state of higher education and how an excess of degrees is devaluing each individual degree. Can you please address the points I made instead of taking the first sentence and then blaming Bush? No one is trying to "destroy" higher education. The student loan bubble is due to easy money; I don't see the argument against that, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

You must be new here (obviously). He's a troll, and likes to make a scene with absurdities rather then actually have a debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom