Don't double the rate...

 

Hoping for a federal student loan to help pay for college? 

Beware, because the interest rates are set to double on July 1, unless Congress and the White House find a way to avoid what could be another looming political standoff.

In 2007, President George W. Bush signed a bill that cut in half interest rates on subsidized student loans until 2012. Those low rates will expire on July 1, going back to 6.8 percent from 3.4 percent, and, to prevent college from becoming even more unaffordable for millions of students, the obvious move is to renew them.

The White House is pushing for an extension of the current interest rate of 3.4 percent. Without it, the rate will climb to 6.8 percent for more than 7 million students across the country, and the average loan recipient would be an additional $1,000 in debt, according to White House spokesman Matt Lehrich.

Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/many-student-loan-rates-are-poised-to-double-if-congress-white-house-cant-agree/#storylink=cpy

“Let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.” – President Barack Obama, January 27, 2010

In his weekly YouTube address – posted to the official White House channel Saturday – President Obama sternly warned Congress to take action and prevent interest rates for a popular federally subsidized college loan program from doubling this summer.

Students are already struggling to keep up with rising tuition and living expenses and, if anything, the government should be working to make college more accessible to high school graduates.

As we work to get the economy back on track, no one is suggesting it would be a good idea to double interest rates on credit cards or home mortgages. Why then do some believe it's a good idea to double interest rates for students?

Cecilia Muñoz, White House domestic policy director, said Monday in a conference call with reporters: "We must keep rates low so more Americans get a fair shot, a more affordable education and a clear 'path to the middle class.' "

Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/many-student-loan-rates-are-poised-to-double-if-congress-white-house-cant-agree/#storylink=cpy

"Given the bleak job prospects that young Americans coming out of college face today, I encourage Congress to temporarily extend the current low rate on subsidized undergraduate Stafford loans," Romney said. "I also hope the president and Congress can pass the extension responsibly, that offsets its cost in a way that doesn't harm the job prospects of young Americans."

Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/many-student-loan-rates-are-poised-to-double-if-congress-white-house-cant-agree/#storylink=cpy

Although college certainly isn’t for everyone, rising costs and interest rates will dissuade many who would otherwise consider pursuing a college education. This will contribute to the erosion of the middle class and increase the strain on public assistance programs that are already struggling to deal with across-the-board budget cuts.

Now Congress has an important decision to make. Do they double interest rates for Stafford loans, or they keep interest rates where they are? This is not about politics. It's about doing right for America's students - and for our nation's economy.

Should we stay away from the two-party system...?

    After surfing through all of the classmates' blog, I find the post of Jay Herrin seems interesting.

I do agree that our two-party system has its flaw.And it's been flawed for many many years. It gives too much control to a small group of leaders and those leaders tend to dictate what those parties stand for. The primary voting system in the US is a ridiculous race to garner attention to one’s own state and forces candidates to campaign earlier and earlier, tailoring views to those primary states that get the most media coverage.

By its very nature, it allows a basis for only a maximum of two ideological viewpoints. The huge spectrum of beliefs, opinions, ideas, and values that are found in the U.S. need much more specialized representation than the current system can provide. If we look at many of the European countries, such as Germany or Sweden, we can see concrete examples of just how beneficial a multi-party system can be, in terms of making sure there is adequate representation of the governed, and that minority viewpoints are taken into account.

But some recent discussions about voting have started to sway my thinking. First, Intelligence Squared debated the idea of the two-party system and whether or not the US was becoming ungovernable because of it. I was one of the people who was swayed by none other than P. J. O’Rourke into believing the two-party system is the way to go for now.

And more recently, Cheap Talk pointed me to an article about the flaws of other voting systems compared to what the US has today. The concern with other systems is the use of tactical voting. That is, voting for a candidate you don’t like as much to help eliminate another.

    And yes, about Ron Paul. He's a Republican since he's in that particular party. As for his political views, he's actually a libertarian rather than a typical conservative Republican. Key elements is his hatred of the US military and wish to pretty much disband it. He repeats DNC lies such as the number of military bases we have in the world. The figure counts weather stations, envoys and even a couple unmanned facilities as military bases. 

Here is a genius video Paul just did opposing our occupation of foreign countries. Not just about Afghanistan, but military bases elsewhere. The video asks us to imagine a Chinese base in Texas.

I'm not going to raise a topic about "Is Ron Paul the best choice for president?" , "Will ron paul win 2012 election? ". But there are a few things that just don't sit well with me concerning him.

Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens.Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. He also wants to cut funding in some departments. While I concede that current funding isn't wisely used, I think that move would be closer towards destroying America rather than helping it. Cutting the funds of the FDA, the CDC, and Homeland Security just don't sit well with me.

The 2012 election is coming near and we all will soon know who will still be standing till the end.