Rhetoric. I'm not picking on anybody. You perhaps haven't been around long enough to see my posts regarding the health care system. I'm not going to rehash it now...it would take way too much bandwidth. I just love how the left claims that thr right is picking on people whenever we question taking more money from the American people (particularly the middle class) and forking it over to government in hopes that they'll actually do the things they are claiming. Of course not. they paid into it. But to increase taxes in order to strengthen Social Security is a myth. Look at the rate of return on Social Security funds. Not good. Over a lifetime you'll do better in Treasury Bonds than you will Social Security. Not at all. You would rather attack the symptom (where to put kids). I'd rather attack the problem (why are these schools failing)...making these schools accountable and forcing them to come up to speed isn't going to be altogether that costly. That's just ludicrous. That has nothing to do with spending more money to pay for prescription drugs for the elderly. Personally I support legislation that would control prices for the elderly. The same legislation they have everywhere else which causes these companies to jack up the price in the US. If everybody went to college then a bachelor's would become what a high school diploma is today. You'd have thousands of bachelor's degreeholders working menial jobs. And then we'd talk about helping poor kids get a Master's so they can get off public assistance. The financial aid system needs a complete overhaul. I think the way it stands it is somewhat unfair to the borrower. But even still it shouldn't necessitate an increase in taxes. These problems will not be solved by confiscating more money from the middle class and throwing it at them. You have to look for creative solutions. If what we are doing now does not work, why keep it around? Why not totally overhaul it and make it better but at the same cost? Because that would take work...while throwing more money at it is so much easier. Thanks for the same scare rhetoric you've heard from Dem shills since 2000...sorry it just wasn't applicable.
Of course not. they paid into it. But to increase taxes in order to strengthen Social Security is a myth. Look at the rate of return on Social Security funds. Not good. Over a lifetime you'll do better in Treasury Bonds than you will Social Security. There is no "Social Security fund". Money comes in and gets spent. There's no trust fund just sitting there with cash in it collecting interest. If I remember correctly, any excesses are "borrowed" by the US Treasury, so the rate of return on the mythical SS Funds would be exactly equal to Treasury Bonds. I'm not positive on this part though. Thanks for the same scare rhetoric you've heard from Dem shills since 2000...sorry it just wasn't applicable. Yet you used the same old Republican rhetoric. "We need to fix these problems, but we can do it without spending money". Fine -- where are some specifics? It's easy to say "let's solve this without spending money". It's much more difficult to actually solve it. For example: <B>I'd rather attack the problem (why are these schools failing)...making these schools accountable and forcing them to come up to speed isn't going to be altogether that costly.</B> How? What do you do if they don't come up to speed? If you end up at vouchers, that costs $$$. <B>The financial aid system needs a complete overhaul. I think the way it stands it is somewhat unfair to the borrower. But even still it shouldn't necessitate an increase in taxes. </B> If you're going to improve the situation for the borrower without hurting the creditor, then it will cost $$$.
The interest from that debt goes to the purchaser of the bonds...not the SS fund. The first thing you do is ensure that all schools teach the same stuff using the same equipment. I think there is a lot of waste going on in certain school districts. I don't think vouchers are necesarily the answer. I think schools should be funded on a per student basis. That way districts with the same number of students will have the same money. Vouchers would be a way to bring competition in...if the schools fail they lose the money for that student and the money earmarked for that student goes toward a voucher. So the additional cost would be negligible. If a school or district refuses to come up to speed then you replace those in charge with people who are serious about fixing the problem. The entire system needs an overhaul to get it done. Bring in the experts to study what would be the optimal solution, keeping efficiency in mind. No...I advocate a situation which would help the borrower but hurt the government. Monies spent on student loan interest should be deductible PERIOD. Currently it is deductible subject to a phaseout at a middle class income level. The creditor still gets all of the Federal protections. If the borrower defaults the government will repay the loan and go after the borrower. All it does is decrease taxation.
The interest from that debt goes to the purchaser of the bonds...not the SS fund. Yes, but the SS Fund is the purchaser of the bonds. Basically, if I understand it right, let's say the SS Taxes generate $10 million in revenue this year. $6 million is paid out in SS payments. The SS Fund then buys $4MM in Treasury Bonds, so the interest rate on the SS Fund is whatever the treasury rate is. In effect, all $10 million is spent immediately (as part of the SS payments or the General Fund) and there's no money actually sitting in an SS Fund. The first thing you do is ensure that all schools teach the same stuff using the same equipment. How do you do this? You can either have good schools reduce their quality (bad idea) or make lower tier school raises the quality of their buildings / equipment ($$$). I think there is a lot of waste going on in certain school districts. I don't think vouchers are necesarily the answer. I think schools should be funded on a per student basis. That way districts with the same number of students will have the same money. 90+% of school funding is from local/state revenues. Different states have different resources - California can spend more per student than Mississippi. Then, local funding is from property taxes. If everyone gets the same net amount, the rich districts are simply going to lower their property taxes (since they aren't getting to keep the money). All you'll do is drag things to the lowest common denominator. This is one reason I am very much for more federal impact on education. The other problem with per-student funding is that there is overhead costs. A school with 500 students needs more than half of what a school with 1000 students needs due to overhead. If you set spending on a per-student level, small schools and rural areas will end with lower quality (if quality is correlated to funding). No...I advocate a situation which would help the borrower but hurt the government. Monies spent on student loan interest should be deductible PERIOD. Currently it is deductible subject to a phaseout at a middle class income level. The creditor still gets all of the Federal protections. If the borrower defaults the government will repay the loan and go after the borrower. All it does is decrease taxation. Decreasing taxation simply means you now have to cut programs elsewhere (fair enough - which ones, though) or build up a deficit. That comes back to haunt us in interest payments. Bottom line - it costs $$$, whether its an increase in spending or a drop in tax revenues. I agree there needs to be substantial reform. I think the first thing has to be the ability to fire teachers, evaluate teachers on a performance basis, and improve teacher pay.
