Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sneakey pete]

Nothing wrong with this. The government can actually afford (unlike financial institutions that are failing) to give out loans to students, and probably at a lower interest rate and for longer periods. This means that more people will be able to get a loan, meaning more people are able to go onto teriatry education, etc.
Good investment in the future.
(yes, I am biased. we have something  just like this here in Australia. and it works wonders.)

[ChairmanPoo]

True, but I mean government in general, not exclusively the federal government.
Bureaucracy seems to me to impair efficiency in almost every case.

And for some reason you think that private institutions aren't burocratized as well?

[redacted123]

-

[ChairmanPoo]

You're quite wrong, actually. Corporations seldom cut down on burocracy (and when they do, it seldom is for the best). And goverments are just as motivated to cut down on costs.

BTW: As Aquizzar pointed out: look at where the mantra of "Goverment bad. Private good" has brought us.

[Ampersand]

I find it unlikely that what the bill is claimed to be is what the bill actually is, and I further doubt it will end up the same after it leaves the Senate.

Furthermore, I think the primary reasoning behind this is that Banks in America deliberately target students with overpriced loans that they will spend their entire lives paying off, and with credit cards with unspeakable strings attached in an obvious attempt to exploit the naivety of young adults who have not had to deal with financial institutions on any appreciable level before.

Upon that, this is one of the many methods of unscrupulous investment that banks have used over the past several years in an attempt to maximize profits for their shareholders. I think it should be obvious where that got us.

[Croquantes]

I'm Canadian, and most student loans here are offered through government (federal and provincial). Banks do offer student loans, but I don't know anyone that's received a student loan through a bank even though they offer the same thing basically. Canadians have a weird inherent trust in our government, and an inherent distrust of our banks (you should see the outrageous fees they charge here).

I don't really know what the fuss is about. Government is able to provide some services better than the private sector, -because- the profit motive is removed.

[Leafsnail]

What private businesses save on bureaucracy  tends to be creamed off as "bonuses", "expenses" or "renumeration".  The New Labour government has failed to learn this the hard way after dozens of crap PFI schemes.  This is also one of the reasons why the American healthcare system costs about twice as much as the British one.

[ChairmanPoo]

What private businesses save on bureaucracy

and, again, they dont save on bureaucracy that much. Sure, they like to sell that trope around, but big private institutions are as burocratized as big public institutions. Sometimes more so.

[Zangi]

Nothing wrong with this. The government can actually afford (unlike financial institutions that are failing) to give out loans to students, and probably at a lower interest rate and for longer periods. This means that more people will be able to get a loan, meaning more people are able to go onto teriatry education, etc.
Good investment in the future.
(yes, I am biased. we have something  just like this here in Australia. and it works wonders.)

I just find that funny.  Looking at the debt...

[Leafsnail]

But they do have enough assets to cover said debts.

[Zangi]

But they do have enough assets to cover said debts.

What is the US gov't gonna sell off to cover said debts?  It would have been paid off already if it was possible, without crippling 'essential' stuff and/or drastic/unpopular changes which could potentially lose the Democratics their influence for years to come. (Republicans most likely would do the same.) 
And the budget runs on a deficit, which I don't see getting any better, what with all the 'investments' being made and going to be made.


Also, for high schools and stuff.  The federal government has a hand in it.  Blame is in no way just on the states and local gov't. 
'No Child Left Behind' and other federal funding is used to give monies if schools adhere to the federal gov'ts requirements.  A lot of public schools try to get those types of funding.  So yea.

I'd like to speculate that any of the levels of gov't like to give money to schools based on performance, self-defeating way to handle it...  But, I know jack about it.  So I'll leave it at that.

[Leafsnail]

You explained yourself.  Making cuts now would cause severe problems, and could allow the recession to hit harder.  Think 1929 - did Hoover's "Laisez faire" get America out of that one?

[Zangi]

You explained yourself.  Making cuts now would cause severe problems, and could allow the recession to hit harder.  Think 1929 - did Hoover's "Laisez faire" get America out of that one?

Either way.  The point was the US isn't able to cover its debt.  Not cause of all the money being thrown around.  A lot of it has little return in monies too.

[LegoLord]

Actually, back when Bill Clinton was president, the Government had a huge budget surplus that easily could have reduced debts (not eliminate them, but definitely reduce them).  But that wasn't what was done with the surplus; instead, there were heavy tax cuts and new programs that dried it up rather quickly.  Not to mention the unofficial "war" in the Middle East.

[Lord Dakoth]

I don't really know what the fuss is about. Government is able to provide some services better than the private sector, -because- the profit motive is removed.

I don't follow your logic.

Private businesses are motivated by profit. They get more profit by getting people to buy more of their goods/services. They can't force someone to buy, so they have to make their product better in order to attract customers. They don't provide a satisfactory product, people stop buying, the business either has to improve its product or shut down.

Private businesses also compete with each other. They want to make their product better than their competitors so that they can attract all the customers and make more money.

It is in their best interests to provide a product that customers like.

The government, however, does not work this way. If the government takes over a market (as is happening with student loans) there are no competitors. The government provides the only source of the product, and if it SUCKS, too bad. You're stuck with it, like it or not. Contrary to popular belief, the government does NOT have some holy, righteous desire to do the best for everyone. The government is run by profit-seeking humans, not stainless angels.

Furthermore, I think the primary reasoning behind this is that Banks in America deliberately target students with overpriced loans that they will spend their entire lives paying off, and with credit cards with unspeakable strings attached in an obvious attempt to exploit the naivety of young adults who have not had to deal with financial institutions on any appreciable level before.

What do you expect? These banks are firms are out to make money, not altruists who want to make sure that Joe Schmoe gets to go to college.

It's not the government's job to babysit ignorant individuals. It is the individual's sole responsibility to be aware that these banks are profit-seeking entities, and treat them as such. Know what you're getting into before you rack up $50,000 in credit card debt. If you step in front of a train, you're gonna get hit.