Quantcast

Comments about ‘Senate defeats Democratic, Republican loan plans’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 6 2013 1:33 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tators
Hyrum, UT

With over a trillion dollars in outstanding student loans, subsidizing these loans has become a very expensive venture for the American taxpayers. There are now very few things the federal lawmakers won't try to subsidize with the unspoken agenda of trying to buy votes.

With a record federal deficit that has become basically out of control these past 5 years, we need to start making changes in many federal programs. It's really pretty simple. Those who reap the benefit of a program should pay the cost of it. It's not economic rocket science. It's actually called common sense. Anything that goes beyond that is simply another step toward socialism where people's money keeps getting redistributed. That path has a long term proven history of both social and economic failure. Unfortunately, it's also a path we've been embracing too much lately.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Tators
"With over a trillion dollars in outstanding student loans, subsidizing these loans has become a very expensive venture for the American taxpayers. "

Student loans are the one thing you can't get rid of in a default/bankruptcy. There's really no risk at all, the only people hurting are the people with large student loan debt due to interest.

JimInSLC
Salt Lake City, UT

One thing boomers may want to keep in mind, these students financially burdened with excessive student loan debt are the very same people we are hoping to be in the work force and paying into social security. This burden may not be on us now, but in 10 or 15 years we're going to find out that we are all in this together.

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

No rational person can argue that we need to be loaning money at rates lower than what the government pays to borrow it when we are broke and $16 trillion in debt.

At least make sure that the interest rate covers the borrowing and administrative costs, AND the losses from loans that are not repaid.

Of course, there is absolutely no justification for the government to be making student loans in the first place, other than to expand the dependency on "free stuff from the government" to the student class. Too many students should NOT be in college to begin with, and too many of those there are studying worthless courses that will unsurprisingly not result in jobs that will pay enough for them to pay off the loans.

Often, we taxpayers are best served when Congress fails to act, as what they do most of the time is harmful to our lives and the economy, despite any good intentions.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

atl134,
your argument misses the point - regardless of whether or not student debt can be discharged in bankrutpcty, there is still a cost to the federal government to subsidize the loan. IF the debt could be discharged, both the obligor (student) AND subsidizer (govt) would be relieved of the obligation.

JiminSLC,
those burdened with the debt should be in the work force, I applaud them for wanting to be there. Too bad we have such a hindrance in the WH who's policies are preventing so many of them from finding productive, well-paying places in the work force.

BTW, are you saying those who got loans before 2008 are less worthy of our respect since their rates are NOT as heavily subsidized? THEY are hardly boomers, yet they have disparate treatment.

Tell me how someone with a masters in sociology from NYU is going to repay his $200,000 student debt making $50k as a social worker. There should be some logical tie between the amount of debt a student is allowed to accumulate and the marketability of their field of study. We now require ability to repay for mortgage loans, why not for student debt?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments