Why have Congress when the President can rule by executive order?
Why would the House cryer be going anywhere, he loves all things Obama. Dems also love an impotent “leader” of the Republican party that they have wrapped around their finger. He’s not going anywhere.
That is true but the young skulls full of mush aren't getting an EDUCATION these days. They're being programmed by the communists in the DemocRAT Party. They do not have open minds. They protest against people like Condoleezza Rice speaking at their colleges and universities. They want to hear "Snooki". She's more on their level of intelligence.
Was watching Hannity tonight and he had on Bret Baier. Baier was saying that this whole thing was nothing but a show, because the EO doesn’t even go into effect until the end of next year. And, that there’s no way Congress can go along with it because of how much it’ll cost, not that money matters to those a$$clowns.
Nobody can compete with free ***t.
Hey stoopid kids, vote for me and get free ***t.
Works every time.
Another welfare program for Victim Studies majors and their leftie faculty who won’t get a real education for a productive job.
Obama is a specialist in “no-brainers”
Can I have some government cheese with that?
This will just provide more incentive to raise tuition.
There's income for these students in Obama's economy? Ten and fifteen percent of nothing is still zero.
A couple of thoughts -
1) How can the government today promise to forgive a loan in 20 years? Congress appropriates money annually and the money to pay off a forgiven loan will have to come from Congressional appropriations. How can the executive today take action that will obligate a Congress 20 years from now to appropriate the money?
2) This action promotes inequality and dependence. Consider two children of equal household income and intelligence, from the same middle class neighborhood, applying to expensive private schools and public schools. Sally is accepted to Harvard and borrows $240,000 to fund her Ivy League education. She then enters the workforce for 10 years, during which time she pays 10% of her income toward her student loans, and then quits work to stay at home and stops paying on her loan. Her $1,000,000 per year investment banker husband makes more than enough to allow her to stay at home raising the kids and doing charity work. During her working years she pays in an average of $7000 per year for a total of $70,000. The taxpayers pick up the remaining $170,000.
Contrast with Johnny, who applied to the same schools with the same qualifications. Johnny is rejected by the Ivy League schools (the white male quota is filled with the sons of prior graduates) so he goes to the state university. He works part time during school, his parents and grandparents help, and he takes out much smaller loans graduating with $20,000 in debt. He goes to work for a local contractor supply house making $25,000 per year and pays required $2500 per year, increasing each year as his income increases, paying off his loans completely in less than 10 years with no contribution from the taxpayer.
As this illustration demonstrates, loan forgiveness is a simply a trickle down subsidy to elite private schools from the federal government. The elite schools have no incentive to control costs and improve efficiency if the federal government will provide loans to students to cover their eructations, no matter the cost. Students benefiting from government subsidies have no obligation to pay the full amount so they will choose schools they cannot afford because there are no adverse economic consequences for doing so.
This is another example of government disruption of the marketplace. Students who make wise economic decisions and responsibly pay off their loans are penalized while students who make poor economic choices are bailed out by the government.
The escalation in higher education costs would stop today if federal government involvement in education was ended. Instead of raising tuition and fees 7-10% every year, the ending of federal involvement in college financing would force all colleges to cut costs and compete for students. “Prestigious”, tenured professors would actually have to spend 8 hours per day in the classroom instead of giving a couple of lectures per week. Bureaucratic overhead would be slashed and worthless degree programs, such as gender studies, would be ended. The construction of palatial classrooms and luxury hotel style dormitories would end. Plus, a huge burden would be relieved from the taxpayer.
All we need is for the Republican House of Representatives to use its power of the purse to end funding for the Department of Education and student loan programs. Simple isn’t it?