|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
03-31-2010, 07:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Can you argue that the Student Loan program wasn't in need of a complete takeover from it's current state? http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/cr...lted/19417573/ 
|
|
#2
03-31-2010, 08:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It such a good bill it should have been pass on its own - oh wait the Heath Bill needed the "savings" in the SL Program to make it pass the smell of deficit reduction. 
__________________
We've Gone Delirious
|
|
#3
03-31-2010, 10:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I guess some are angry the middlemen banks, who essentially have been making a rather generous profit for nothing much other than doing a bit of paperwork, are now cut out of the gravy train? The banks were taking no risk - they were loaning government money, the loans were insured by the government, and the payments went back to the government. They were simply a profit-taking middle man. Obama cutting government waste and streamlining a massive government program - that's something to get angry about or disagree with?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#4
03-31-2010, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I predict that the student loan deal will be a debacle, and people will wish that they could deal with a bank. In this case the middleman provided a service. The government can't even conduct a car sale last summer, or run a window caulking program without spending double or triple the estimate and taking much longer. you'd think after 100% of government programs either fail or go bust people would start to put 2 and 2 together. How about our department of energy. started under Carter in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil. at the time we imported 40% of our oil. now 30 years later we import 70% of our oil and this department has a budget of 26 billion and employs 16,000. a smashing success! I can't wait until they've worked their magic on the healthcare industry.
|
|
#5
03-31-2010, 01:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The banks did nothing except delay processing and confuse paperwork (my experience, thanks). The banks usually only had one person "trained" to do student loan paperwork, it was a nightmare. Thank goodness they are out of the picture.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#6
03-31-2010, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
so much for your efficiency and streamlining pipedream. the CBO says it will add $52 billion to the deficit. So triple that and you will be close to the reality. (CNSNews.com) -- The student loan overhaul legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama on Tuesday could add $52 billion to the deficit between 2010 and 2020 when the cost of the market risks and administrative expenses of the loans are taken into consideration, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported.
|
|
#7
03-31-2010, 04:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#8
03-31-2010, 01:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The bill was touted as saving $61 billion over 10 years yet that doesnt take into consideration the new $77 billion in spending that it calls for. Net loss. Then there is this... "CBO explained that "savings" estimates are artificially high because of government accounting rules that undercount the risks of default when the government is originating the loans, while the new spending estimates are artificially low. Many colleges oppose the government plan specifically because the feds don't make the same effort to prevent defaults that the private lenders do." and this... "Both the House-passed bill and the President's budget increase Pell Grants and also create automatic future increases, so individual grants will grow faster than inflation every year. Colleges will pocket the money by raising tuition, so we have yet another federal program ensuring that higher education costs continue to rise even faster than health-care spending. Mr. Obama's budget also calls for making Pell Grants a mandatory entitlement. At least now they are subject to annual appropriation and their growth can be slowed when tax revenues fall or other priorities rate higher." And of course there is this... "Various changes that the President proposes to the Pell Grant program would add another $0.2 trillion to the deficit between 2011 and 2020," CBO said Friday. That could turn out to be a very optimistic estimate if unemployment remains high and more people seize the educational opportunity to which they have just become entitled. Still another taxpayer trap will be sprung with the President's proposal to forgive some debt incurred by "overburdened" borrowers. And how exactly is this going to be a money saver? In addition, borrowers in the income-based repayment program who make payments for 20 years will be eligible to have the balance of their loan forgiven. Currently, graduates in the program are eligible for loan forgiveness after 25 years. Plus the public service exemption after 10 years are employed by any nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization; are employed by the federal government, a state government, local government, or tribal government (this includes the military and public schools and colleges); or serve in a full-time AmeriCorps or Peace Corps position have their debt wiped away So in effect we are "saving" money by taking federally backed loans away from the banks yet will wind up spending far more than saved since the Pell grant program has mandatory increases, we will be eating a whole lot more of the unpaid debt with the forgiveness program and the sure to be wasteful govt beaurcracy that adminsters this entire deal. Was the old system a good one? Probably not. Is the new system going to be cheaper or more efficent? Not a chance.
|
Hybrid Mode
