Ron Paul to eliminate student loans if president

[TomCADem]

Source: KSL TV (Utah)

In his presidential campaign to "revolution(ize)" the country, congressman and former doctor Ron Paul attempts to end wasteful spending and the choke hold the federal government has on the American people.

Although it is Paul's third attempt at the highest office in the United States, his current campaign appears to be slightly different from previous attempts, with Paul's message resonating with more voters, albeit still a relatively small audience. His supporters range from younger voters to a more mature audience, with most of his voting bloc coming from the younger generations who rely upon the Internet and social media as an everyday tool.

Paul's libertarian approach to reducing the size of government in conjunction with his voting record in Congress has prompted several supporters to declare Paul as the Founding Fathers' ideal candidate, counting on his touted claim of never compromising to American principles.

Despite Paul's recent success and seemingly increased stake in presidential politics, the Texas congressman remains in the single digits of most national polls. Although the likelihood of Paul occupying the White House remains low, especially with the Republican Party keeping Mitt Romney in their sights, Paul's message is what will have an impact in national politics for years to come, whether good or bad.


Read more: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=757&sid=17800719

---

I guess the Republican presidential candidates are turning their sights on another cancer affecting American society as students mobilize in OWS protests throughout the Country. That's right, students. We have too many students with time on their hands. Mitt Romney has proposed getting the federal government and tax dollars out of education. Ron Paul wants to eliminate student loans. Afterall, if you want to go to college, you should save up or get your parents help. And, if they don't help you, well, then they must not love you. Yup, god forbid that we impose one cent of taxes on the beloved rich, er job creators.

[TwilightGardener]

1. LOL. That'll go over like a fart in church.

[liberal_mama]

36. LOL, that's for sure

There go his college student supporters.

[MADem]

2. Gee, wonder if that'll depress his Yee Haw College Kid base?

Surely Ma and Paw aren't writing the tuition checks for ALL those kids?

[young but wise]

3. Fucking clown.

[ellisonz]

56. Second.

Ron Paul makes me want to :rant:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Ron's fanboys, those pimply little Randroid college freshmen

who read a chapter or two of Atlas Shrugged and fancy themselves the second coming of John Galt will shit libertarian bricks all over their rank, smelly dorm rooms when they hear this.

[alp227]

27. Yeah, most of those young folks who slobber over RP are overprivileged narcissists

One writer at New Republic called the ideology "privilege for socially obtuse adolescent white guys."

[abelenkpe]

5. Paul to eliminate student loans

How many will hear that headline and think he means wiping out their debt?

Paul is crazy. He wants education to be only for the super rich.

[Turbineguy]

6. Somebody will make a fortune selling

"Don't blame me, I did not vote for Ron Paul" bumperstickers.

[newspeak]

49. so, only the wealthy are entitled to go to college

maybe he thinks if they dumb down enough plebes, he'll be president for life.

[ChromeFoundry]

7. He just eliminated his base. *POOF* n/t

[JDPriestly]

35. So true. His fans are mostly under 30. They are either amassing

student loans, struggling to pay them off -- or they are spoiled rich kids, and there aren't enough spoiled rich kids to elect Ron Paul.

[MrDiaz]

37. well

lol if he doesn't give anyone student loans, then nobody will be struggling to pay them off without a job out of college.

[Amonester]

IF president.

presient he will nevah bee.

a sure bet.

[former9thward]

8. Without student loans college tuition would drop like a rock.

Universities could not get away with their outrageous price increases. Students today just accept these huge student loans because they don't know the burden it is going to place on them for decades to come.

[ingac70]

10. It wouldn't drop that much.....

it will be just like the old days, when only the wealthy got educated.

[SixthSense]

16. sure it would

Education costs are driven by the government backing on loans and special "forever" terms on students. With that backing gone prices would have to drop to what people can afford.

And if universities have to stop endowing their funds and go back to providing education, that can only be a positive. The current situation has turned them into financial institutions with all the ethics of such organizations that we are used to.

[ingac70]

21. Yeah, because everyone got a chance to go to college before student loans.

:eyes:

[SixthSense]

29. If you really wanted to

I'm sure you could lend yourself out as an indentured servant for a period of time in exchange for that education... which is pretty much exactly how the situation is handled today. The people who really benefit from the situation are the bankers, who take the vast majority of the money paid in (as interest payments).

I'm not going to say I have a cure-all solution, but I will say that the current education financing system is broken. Look at the OWS signs, what do they talk about more than anything, debt debt debt, and no jobs to pay the debt. Whatever dreams people have going into college, after they get out they can forget them - debt owns the show thereafter.

[Selatius]

32. The universities are raising prices at the rate of inflation.

If a university is raising prices at 10% per year, then it's likely because the costs of operating (excluding executive/managerial salaries) has gone up at a similar rate.

Yet, people are supposed to be happy with a 2% raise on a yearly basis.

[SixthSense]

42. Not even close

Have you checked any time in the past decade? Education costs are rising even faster than health care costs.

[ingac70]

39. There is a program you describe. It's called work-study.

And it still isn't enough to cover all the bills.

I guess we can all skip college and pick tomatoes and blueberries.

[Erose999]

51. Work study is nowhere near enough. My assistants on FWS make minimum wage and are only allowed to

work 20 hours per week. So the most they make in a week is like $150. Thats not nearly enough to cover tuition and living expenses.

Fuck Ron Paul. Senile old bastard.

[sammytko]

50. I think it would drop some

I went to college back in the late 70s. I could go a full semester, books+room and board, tuition for under a thousand dollars. I did get a Pell grant and work study.

I'm back in school and I'm taking 6 hours - same university - just a different branch - over 2000 for 6 hours - not counting books or parking fees.

I know several ladies that are back in school just for the extra loan money. After they pay their fees, they usually get a couple thousand extra. They spend it on family needs and think about paying it back another day. They need the money now. That is the reason they go to school. Four off the top of my head that I can think of.

[ellisonz]

57. The colleges would go bankrupt.

[former9thward]

54. How many "wealthy" do you think there are?

Not even remotely close to the college population today. Colleges would be forced to lower tuition in order to stay in business and get customers.

[quakerboy]

11. Not likely

Without student loans, only the rich would go to school. That is where we are as a nation.

That asserted, Paul is not proposing the end of student loans. Only the end of publicly backed student loans at reasonable rates. Which is a massively different proposition.

[Dokkie]

18. You mean to tell me

that the 100s of facilities would rather close down than cut their tuition? My guess is a lot of waste from colleges would be eliminated. Costly sports program, smaller classes would be replaced by bigger once and instructors will take a pay cut.

Just like housing prices were inflated by mortgage deduction credits and all the other perks from the federal govt, tuition prices are also inflated by all the student loans. Lastly, I saw the Meet The Press interview where he was asked the question and and it transcript went like this

MR. GREGORY: They're borrowing to pay for college at record levels. Would you abolish all federal student aid?

REP. PAUL: Eventually. But my program doesn't do it. There's a transition in this. But...


MR. GREGORY: But that's your ultimate aim.

REP. PAUL: Yes, because there's no authority to do this. And just think of all this willingness to want to help every student get a college education. So they're a trillion dollars in debt. We don't have any jobs for them. The quality of education has gone down. So it's a failed program.

And here is the statement from the Ron Paul camp.

There are many headlines out there now stemming from his Meet the Press interview yesterday claiming that Ron Paul wants to end student loans. Well no, in fact, though he abolishes the Department of Education along with four other federal departments, the student loan part is taken out and handled elsewhere.

Everyone recognizes we have major problems with Social Security and Medicare, and yet when anyone attempts to address these problems, they are immediately accused of “ending,” “slashing” or “getting rid of” such programs. Ron Paul is not suggesting this for anyone currently reliant on these programs or for those who will be in the near future. In fact, Paul’s opt-out for Social Security in his budget plan is age 25—not exactly imminent doom for the program or those on it.

The same is true of student loans. To recognize that we are bankrupt and we must have drastic change in this country is not to say that certain programs Americans have come to rely on will be gotten rid of overnight. Paul is certainly saying no such thing.

But the costs must be addressed—and not simply what the government spends, but the massive debt incurred by those in this country who just want a college education. To be sure, the countless Americans who are now slaves to education-related debt can tell you there are substantial problems with our current system.

Ron Paul simply wants to fix them.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/10/24/ron-paul-is-not-ending-student-loans/

[jmowreader]

26. Which "costly sports program" are you referring to?

If you mean



THIS costly sports program, try again: football at one of the marquee schools is a major profit center.

[Dokkie]

28. lol, its only a profitable program

for the top schools, the fact is that majority of the school that compete in football end up losing money from their program. Then again, theres more to sports than football

[quakerboy]

30. Empty talking points

The paul camp is lying, and its right there in his statements. "Would you abolish all federal student aid? Answer: Eventually"

He has no intent to maintain these programs. Given the power he would make them vanish like dew on a hot morning. Which makes Paul a fool. Federal student loans are not the source of our budget issues, nor will removing them fix our situation. Much like making social security an option, which would lead directly to elders literally starving to death, his programs for education would lead to a few rich persons getting educations, and a large number of uneducated peons, just ensuring the economic demise of our country.

If Paul really had a desire to better the country economically, via education, the thing to do would be to remove the profit motive from education. Fully fund education. Up the availability of scholarships to qualified persons, as well as fully funding direct federal loans, without letting banks play middleman to take a cut. And work to regulate the private educational loan system. Given that you cannot default or take bankruptcy to get away from those loans, there is absolutely no reason private banks should be able to borrow cash from the US government at close to 0%, then loan to students 8% or more, with a guarantee of repayment.


As to your specific questions: There is not enough "overhead" in the education system to make what you propose a workable option. Unless you think that the educational system has enough power to deflate our currency. The money paid to staff is (at best) a fair wage, so dropping it only detracts from the likelihood of getting qualified/quality teachers. I have observed for myself that large classes tend to be less useful for learning. Large classes are not compatible with increased quality of education, except for a select group of people who are already A type and ready to make themselves seen.

But even if it was possible to run a college without paying teachers and other employees a fair wage, that is not what would happen, given Paul's proposal. What would happen is that private lenders would take over. Tuition would cost just as much, only now every student would be stuck with 20% interest instead of 3%.

[FarLeftFist]

14. Price drops would mean wage cuts to teachers/employees and state-of-the-art facilities

And education should be our #1 priority.

[DissedByBush]

20. Or maybe a better teacher/administrator ratio

The growth of management and administration has far outpaced the growth of teachers over the last couple decades.

University of California is a perfect example.

[krabigirl]

53. Yep.

[appleannie1]

9. Hmmm. Wonder how his younger facebook crowd feels about that.

[FarLeftFist]

12. Students AND parents will hate this idea!

[pauldp]

13. Ron Paul jumps the shark...again. nt

[FarLeftFist]

15. Exactly! He always has that moment every election where the public remembers how batshit crazy

He really is. Like a collective "Ohhhh, yeah. Now I remember why this guy never wins".

[pauldp]

23. Too bad really because the Repiglicans really need a credible anti-war voice.

But Paul is just too easy to marginalize.

[mvd]

17. He gets a few things right, but on many things is absolutely looney

This and ending FEMA relief are among his way out there (and bad) ideas. Loans still help students get educated. I believe going in the more public loans direction.

[DesertDiamond]

19. If I were a Ron Paul supporter, I wouldn't need any other reason to dump him.

[Riftaxe]

22. Is your children learning

worth the price? :evilgrin:

sorry could not resist :P

[Yupster]

24. How could he eliminate student loans?

If a bank wants to loan money to a student, Ron Paul would be the last candidate to get in the way and say no.

I think he means eliminate the federal government from loaning money to students.

That seems to make more sense in his strict Constitutional government idea.

[defendandprotect]

25. Student loans were gimmicked to bankrupt students -- and parents -- many paying 20 years and more!

[quakerboy]

31. Federal or private?

My federal student loans are quite reasonable. Its the private loans that are a major problem to my solvency. Same for every graduate that I know.

[defendandprotect]

48. Usury used to be 6% -- and there used to be a 6 year limit on student loans ....

if you're paying a higher rate, or for longer than 6 years -- it's been gimmicked.

And, certainly, we're all aware that student loans are a huge burden for students

and families?

[JDPriestly]

33. Ron Paul says college was cheaper when he went. He could

work his way through college and medical school.

Guess why it was cheaper? Because the rich paid higher taxes. Those taxes helped support inexpensive public universities. Private schools were somewhat more expensive than the public schools, but since they had to compete with the public universities for the best students, private schools were also cheaper than they are today.

Higher taxes for the wealthy are the key to solving many of our problems. One of them is the cost to our society of student loans.

[Dokkie]

40. But I thought nobody

ever paid those High rates. Btw we could still pay subsidize our colleges if we did not fight wars(conventional, terrorism and drug) every day, bail out failed banks to the tune of trillions of dollars and just pulled our 45k troops from Germany, and the 30-35k from Japan and South Korea respectively.

We can still do all these with the rates we have now, but why aren't we not doing it now. And yes the colleges would be a lot cheaper if not for the guaranteed govt loans. You don't really think anybody would fork out $13 for a semester of interior design course at Kaplan (just tuition). Yes, students may have to learn in biggfer class sizes, some sport programs will have to end, and tenure will be harder to get.

[JDPriestly]

55. Tenure used to be easier to get back in the days when universities were

not so expensive.

It's a matter of higher taxes to support state schools. We paid them back then. Nowadays, the wealthy have all the money and refuse to pay taxes high enough to support state universities.

Then of course, those same wealthy folks complain about the low level of education of American workers.

They get what they pay for. And right now, they aren't paying much.

[Erose999]

52. Probably "cheaper" in the sense of inflation too. Senile old bastards like Ron Paul have no concept

of value.

[GaYellowDawg]

34. Then student loans are safe, because that SOB isn't getting elected.

Who gives a fuck about what that fringe candidate says? There is no way in hell that anyone opposing the military-industrial complex as much as he does gets elected in this country.

[No Elephants]

38. Paul who? Who cares what he would do if he became POTUS?

I may as well worry about what Donald Duck might do if he became POTUS.

Seriously, the U.S. has much more likely things to worry about.

[Blue_Tires]

41. I thought he was going to eliminate the DOE entirely?

[Scuba]

43. College is for the children of wealthy parents. Children of the poor...

... are doomed to poverty. Hey, it's the American Way!

[Puzzledtraveller]

44. I joined the Air Force to pay for my college

back when it was AFFORDABLE! What my G.I. Bill paid each semester would'nt cover books today, sickening.

[Davis_X_Machina]

46. I tried to join the Coast Guard to pay for my college...

..and my eyes weren't up to snuff.

Thank God for college loans.

[LWolf]

45. I'm all for eliminating student loans.

I want a universal, fully public, fully FREE pre-school through trade or university education. College loans are then unnecessary.

I spent a day last weekend at a beautiful college campus; on breaks from various sessions, I wandered the campus and thought, "if I could go to school here, I'd never want to finish;" and, "This makes me wish I'd finished a doctorate. I could have spent a lifetime teaching in a place like this."

Then I picked up a pamphlet; it told me that tuition at this college is $42,000 a year.

I did my first 70 units at a CC in CA, for very little cost. I did the rest on student loans, at a satellite campus housed in an industrial building; there was no 4-year university within commuting distance, and I was working full time to support myself. By the time I was done, I had about $20,000 in student loans, which it took me 12 years to pay off.

My education didn't come with the beautiful setting, the small student-teacher ratio, or the excellent student-teacher ratio this college offers, but I got the whole thing for less than half of one year's tuition at this place.

[Javaman]

47. I guess idiot paul wants to eliminate a huge portion of his misinformed base. LOL

there are generally only 3 groups that support paul.

college students that don't have a clue about the realities of life, crazy old bastards who think their SS comes from some magic land but not from the government and lastly, crazy ass survivalists types who think they can go it alone and "don't need no gob't help" aka tax evaders.

so one of the 3 pillars of paul's moronic libertarianism is under attack by...paul. LOL

nothing worse than a self loathing libertarian.

:rofl:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. So in other words

Nothing is going to happen.