Federal Government Takes Over Federal Program

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MyDesktopBroke, Mar 26, 2010.

  1. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #1
    Guys, we need to stop the takeovers. Now the government is actually taking itself over! This must be some kind of double socialism! Government run government programs-need I say more? Well, I'll let my good friend Republican senator Lamar Alexander do the talking from here.
    Double socialism is my new favorite term.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/politics/26loans.html?src=me&ref=us
     
  2. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #2
    Are you being sarcastic?

    I'm totally happy with this takeover. No cons in this one.

     
  3. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
  4. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #4
    I don't think I've laughed so hard all week!



    On a serious note, how can anyone be against this? $36 billion dollars that was going to line the pockets of billionaire bankers will now go directly to students for financial aid. How is that a bad thing?
     
  5. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #5
    Guys the OP was obviously being sarcastic, chill.
     
  6. bobertoq macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    #6
    Because it's socialism!!!!!!!

    I also don't understand how one could see this as a bad thing....
     
  7. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #7
    My problem with it was how it was done. They made it a rider on the Heath insurance act bill that just pass instead of having it be a stand alone issue.
     
  8. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #8
    And thats a problem why ?

    Putting riders in legislation has been going on for 200 years.

    By BOTH parties.
     
  9. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
  10. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #10
    and that makes it right? The old they did it too excuse. I have never like it. Got to love the senate because they put a lot off crap in on riders. It makes a already controvalsal issue even worse.

    I agree that this needed to be done. I just do not approve on how it was done.
     
  11. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #11
    Anyone who has ever dealt with Sallie Mae should applaud this. Anyone against this is a moron, you just saved urself a lot of tax money.
     
  12. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #12
    I agree. Back in the old days. The 70's. I got student loans from the Government not a bank and I paid back the government. If the Government pays the money and backs it up why should there be a 3rd party bank delving out the funds. I'm sure the program using banks has been full of corruption.
     
  13. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #13
    Loss of jobs? We're removing billions of dollars in loans from an already ailing loan industry. Not everyone in banking is a billionaire or even a millionaire, there are plenty of average or slightly above average paying jobs in banking.

    That said, they can lose their jobs if I'll save a grand or two in interest on the student loans I'll be taking in the fall.
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    Hasn't the student loans rider been rejected by the Republicans in the Senate?
     
  15. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  16. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #16
    Amazing how most liberals are completely defunct of any sort of historical context regarding what happens when power is centralized and availability of goods comes from a single source, especially the Federal Government. It's pretty clear that this will reduce options for students, result in the Fed having more control over collegiate courses, result in further redistribution of wealth, and the list goes on...

    It's quite sad really, absolutely no perspective for the failings of big government in the past. Absolutely no appreciation for the current availability of higher education (and a free market which fluidly values such education higher and lower depending on societal and market conditions) or for the freedom of institutions to teach what they felt best to teach.

    "Yeah! Fascism rules! Bring it on, get those damn greedy corporations out of the way! All they do is go after PROFITS." (never mind that profits are made by providing customers what they want at competitive prices) :( :eek:
     
  17. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #17
    This was discussed previously in PRSI and I agree with Zombie. Now the subsidies won't go to Sallie Mae. They had a sweet deal and they abused it.
     
  18. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #18
    So...the federal government needs to create another federal student loan program so it will have competition? And can you please explain your slippery slope statement?

    Exactly how does the government taking over a federal program result in them having control over college courses? Is that like the government taking over healthcare and having control over women by not funding abortion?
     
  19. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #19
    I don't see it as a bad thing, although I think that it does sidestep a major problem issue, which is the tide of for-profit "higher learning" institutions that have been aggressively going after funding for their students, but who don't actually provide quality education and whose students don't ultimately compete as if they had obtained degrees from proper institutions. The NYT talked about this issue earlier in the month...

    I don't think it was necessary to handle this issue at the same time as the (LOLz) re-federalization of this program, but I think it's an important issue. We're wasting tax money supporting students in these programs, and they're only getting poverty to show for it.
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    That definitely needs to be addressed. Lots of people are paying insane amounts of money for at best, very dubious "degrees". All these invented schools should have to show some relation between total cost of tuition and expected salaries.
     
  21. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #21
    Comedy gold.
     
  22. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
  23. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #23
    I think they ought to, but much more immediately, if they can't prove their results to the government, they should be stripped of all this federal student funding. They end up creating a downstream problem for students in regular universities and colleges sometimes, too.

    Even in my field, there's a similar problem -- psychologists in the US generally practice with one of two doctoral degrees. They can practice with either a doctor of philosophy (PhD) degree, which is usually granted from a research university, and which combines academics, clinical training, and research, or a doctor of psychology (PsyD) degree, which is usually granted from an independent "professional school" of psychology, and which usually combines only academics and some clinical training. The research universities enroll a limited body of students and provide them with high quality training. They also support all or nearly all of their students with research appointments, fellowships, etc. Some of the professional schools do so, too, but many of them operate like mills, trying to get as many students as they can, and having the students rely on loans to pay for their tuition.

    At the conclusion of a clinical psychology doctoral program, students go on a one year internship, which is essentially their first residency program (depending on their specialty, many must go to a second residency program, which is what I'm doing now). Now when students from my research university apply to these internships, they apply to maybe 10-14 of them. They are usually offered interviews at 90-100% of the sites to which they apply (I applied to 13 and interviewed at 12, I think), and they almost invariably match to a site. When students from the professional schools apply, it's not at all uncommon to hear about them applying to 25-30 sites, and getting 2-3 interviews! :eek: And then they frequently don't match on their first or even second tries, in many cases.

    The problem is that, ultimately, they provide a glut of people who are "technically" adequately trained to function as psychologists, but whom their peers clearly do not consider adequately trained. This is not only unfair to them, but it also is unfair to me, because federal loan money is being used to glut my job market with poor (because of their loans), undertrained individuals, who provide inferior patient care, but who may still be tempting to institutions because they represent low cost labor. I don't see any reason to be paying to shoot myself in the foot, you know?

    In the meantime, I do to some extent understand Alexander's (?) point that cost-savings incurred through this program ought to go, at least in part, to reduce interest rates assessed to participating students. But overall, this is an opportunity for the government to run more efficiently, and so I think it'll still be an improvement.
     
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    And what exactly is wrong with that?
     
  25. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #25
    I had no idea it was that bad. to be honest, I thought it was mostly trades, not professionals that were affected.

    One of Reagan's legacies. Privatize everything and watch the quality go rushing downhill.
     

Share This Page