This time Obama blames colleges for the result of government subsidies. Always someone else’s fault.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2013 10:11 PM GMT
    He is as derisive at the educators as the evil entrepreneurs.

    Obama State University
    The President blames colleges for the result of government subsidies.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324165204579028771723069750.html?mod=ITP_opinion_2

    President Obama recently concluded a five-year campus speaking tour in which he explained to students how his financing programs were making college more affordable. Then on Thursday he kicked off a new campus speaking tour to tell students that college is unaffordable, and that the financing program he has championed faces increasing defaults.

    "We've got a crisis in terms of college affordability and student debt," said Mr. Obama, without a trace of irony at the State University of New York at Buffalo. The same man who three years ago forced through a plan to add $1 trillion in student loans to the federal balance sheet over a decade said on Thursday, "Our economy can't afford the trillion dollars in outstanding student loan debt, much of which may not get repaid because students don't have the capacity to pay it."

    Naturally, the President blamed somebody else and demanded more authority over higher education.

    Mr. Obama specifically blamed colleges and universities for charging too much. "Not enough colleges have been working to figure out how do we control costs, how do we cut back on costs," he said. His solution is for the federal government to rate colleges on their effectiveness and efficiency, and then to allocate federal subsidies to the schools that Washington believes are providing the best education at the lowest cost.

    continued...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2013 10:13 PM GMT
    Particularly jarring for Mr. Obama's fans in the faculty lounge, he talked about them on Thursday in the same disrespectful manner that he normally reserves for entrepreneurs. "And I've got to tell you ahead of time, these reforms won't be popular with everybody, especially those who are making out just fine under the current system. But my main concern is not with those institutions; my main concern is the students those institutions are there to serve," said the President.

    Conservative readers may be tempted to chuckle here. And we concede that this latest Obama regulatory onslaught couldn't happen to a nicer bunch than the university elite who did so much to elect him. But while shifting control of universities from lefty professors to the U.S. Department of Education may seem like a transition between six and a half-dozen, it is not.

    As maddening as it can be to see how liberal academics spend the wealth created by hard-working citizens, Americans should think long and hard before allowing the federal government to dominate a system of higher education that is still by all accounts the envy of the world. If the feds are deciding what a quality education is in order to dole out billions in annual aid—in an era when most students can't afford to matriculate without some form of aid—Washington will certainly dominate. Tying aid to whatever the bureaucrats decide is the right tuition is a back-door form of price controls. Even more disturbing is the idea that a federal political authority will decide which curricula at which institutions represent a good educational value.

    Lest taxpayers think that Mr. Obama is simply going to protect their investment in education by demanding more accountability from schools, he made it clear on Thursday that he is not driven by a desire to protect the public fisc. He also called for an expansion of his "Pay as You Earn" program, which caps student-loan payments at 10% of a borrower's discretionary income, and then forgives the balance in 10 years if the borrower pursues a Beltway-approved job in government or a nonprofit.

    Mr. Obama is trodding a well-worn political path. Politicians subsidize the purchase of a good or service, prices inevitably rise in response to this pumped-up demand, and then the pols blame the provider of the good or service for responding to the incentives the politicians created. Think housing finance and medical care. Now President Obama is attacking colleges for rationally raising tuitions and padding their payrolls in response to a subsidy machine that began in 1965.

    That's when the feds launched a program to make college "affordable" by offering a taxpayer guarantee on student loans. Federal grants and loans have been expanding ever since and it's no coincidence that tuition prices have been rising faster than inflation for decades. This week the White House noted that since the academic year ending in 1983 tuition and fees at four-year public colleges have risen by 257%, while typical family incomes have advanced 16%.

    The better answer is to stop the increases in grants and subsidized loans that Mr. Obama has so greatly accelerated. Let educators, students and their parents decide which courses and campus amenities provide the most educational value. As fervently as many professors abhor the idea of free people operating in a free market, they may decide it's better than federal politicians running their universities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2013 1:48 PM GMT
    I read the article. The thread headline does not really reflect the content of the article.

    Obama actually blames the colleges for high costs of tuition.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2013 2:32 PM GMT
    Given you guys have a totally privatized post secondary system, I fail to see how the President exercises any control over tuition in the United States.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2013 2:59 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn saidGiven you guys have a totally privatized post secondary system, I fail to see how the President exercises any control over tuition in the United States.

    Every state has at least one state college that is much less expensive than private colleges. I'm most familiar with Indiana, which has four.

    This article is weird. It starts by blaming Obama for the trouble we're in. Then it ridicules Obama for trying to fix the problem. Then it accurately blames the problem on a program started in 1965. Finally, it concludes by recommending individuals do exactly what Obama proposes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2013 5:13 PM GMT
    Philibuster said
    Upper_Cdn saidGiven you guys have a totally privatized post secondary system, I fail to see how the President exercises any control over tuition in the United States.

    Every state has at least one state college that is much less expensive than private colleges. I'm most familiar with Indiana, which has four.

    This article is weird. It starts by blaming Obama for the trouble we're in. Then it ridicules Obama for trying to fix the problem. Then it accurately blames the problem on a program started in 1965. Finally, it concludes by recommending individuals do exactly what Obama proposes.

    So what control does the President have over state colleges?



    They should be blaming the weatherman.
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1492

    Aug 27, 2013 10:24 PM GMT
    Our great state university The University Of Wisconsin was found in an audit to have raised tuition on student so high that it has close to a 1 billion dollas slush fund. Thats not Obama's fault Its the corrupt University system that controls the price of tuition all the while crying poverty in the system and the need to raise tuition.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2942

    Aug 27, 2013 10:29 PM GMT
    Got any better ideas? The situation is critical, and the president is exploring ways to deal with it. GOPers of course will shoot it down rather than try to fix it; no need to read the whole speech - he said it, I don't believe it, that's all there is to it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2013 2:12 AM GMT
    Regarding the subtitle, I think the author's point was the subsidies led to higher tuition. A couple of reasons come to mind: 1. Subsidies enable more students to attend college, which means greater demand for a fixed supply leading to higher prices. 2. With the subsidies, students were able to get loans to a greater extent and were willing to pay (i.e. borrow) more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2013 7:36 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidRegarding the subtitle, I think the author's point was the subsidies led to higher tuition. A couple of reasons come to mind: 1. Subsidies enable more students to attend college, which means greater demand for a fixed supply leading to higher prices. 2. With the subsidies, students were able to get loans to a greater extent and were willing to pay (i.e. borrow) more.

    "fixed supply??" you mean to say there is only so much education to go around? icon_eek.gif False scarcity = failed argument.
  • DalTX

    Posts: 612

    Aug 28, 2013 8:51 PM GMT
    Philibuster said
    Upper_Cdn saidGiven you guys have a totally privatized post secondary system, I fail to see how the President exercises any control over tuition in the United States.

    Every state has at least one state college that is much less expensive than private colleges. I'm most familiar with Indiana, which has four.

    This article is weird. It starts by blaming Obama for the trouble we're in. Then it ridicules Obama for trying to fix the problem. Then it accurately blames the problem on a program started in 1965. Finally, it concludes by recommending individuals do exactly what Obama proposes.



    That's how it works, automatically blame Obama.

    Hell, more republicans in Louisiana blame Obama for the Katrina response and it happened 3 years before he was president. That's todays GOP.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Aug 29, 2013 2:58 AM GMT
    Well if the topic is up for discussion you have to ask why the students are defaulting on the debt? They are being graduated in a environment when the unemployment rate has been over 7 percent for 5 years. Underemployment is close to 20%.

    Remember the days of 6 unemployment and how the chuckle patch bemoaned that. The recession of 2002-2004?

    I dont blame Obama because its not his problem or the federal government's job to solve. Instead of some cryptic government college rating system , why not post the graduate employment rate of the college and department within the college.The government doesn't need to do it, US news indirectly does it. That the only thing that should matter.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2013 6:03 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    socalfitness saidRegarding the subtitle, I think the author's point was the subsidies led to higher tuition. A couple of reasons come to mind: 1. Subsidies enable more students to attend college, which means greater demand for a fixed supply leading to higher prices. 2. With the subsidies, students were able to get loans to a greater extent and were willing to pay (i.e. borrow) more.

    "fixed supply??" you mean to say there is only so much education to go around? icon_eek.gif False scarcity = failed argument.

    The number of universities, while not fixed, is fairly inelastic. Understand now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2013 6:21 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Upper_Cdn said
    socalfitness saidRegarding the subtitle, I think the author's point was the subsidies led to higher tuition. A couple of reasons come to mind: 1. Subsidies enable more students to attend college, which means greater demand for a fixed supply leading to higher prices. 2. With the subsidies, students were able to get loans to a greater extent and were willing to pay (i.e. borrow) more.

    "fixed supply??" you mean to say there is only so much education to go around? icon_eek.gif False scarcity = failed argument.

    The number of universities, while not fixed, is fairly inelastic. Understand now?


    That makes sense - to me at least. In all fairness to the liberal multitudes though, it is a concept that requires fair to good comprehension skills which many do not possess. But I'm sure our good friend the Upper Canadian understands your point now that you've spelled it out for him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2013 7:13 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Upper_Cdn said
    socalfitness saidRegarding the subtitle, I think the author's point was the subsidies led to higher tuition. A couple of reasons come to mind: 1. Subsidies enable more students to attend college, which means greater demand for a fixed supply leading to higher prices. 2. With the subsidies, students were able to get loans to a greater extent and were willing to pay (i.e. borrow) more.

    "fixed supply??" you mean to say there is only so much education to go around? icon_eek.gif False scarcity = failed argument.

    The number of universities, while not fixed, is fairly inelastic. Understand now?



    and they are all full? icon_rolleyes.gif
    nice try. failed again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2013 9:03 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    socalfitness said
    Upper_Cdn said
    socalfitness saidRegarding the subtitle, I think the author's point was the subsidies led to higher tuition. A couple of reasons come to mind: 1. Subsidies enable more students to attend college, which means greater demand for a fixed supply leading to higher prices. 2. With the subsidies, students were able to get loans to a greater extent and were willing to pay (i.e. borrow) more.

    "fixed supply??" you mean to say there is only so much education to go around? icon_eek.gif False scarcity = failed argument.

    The number of universities, while not fixed, is fairly inelastic. Understand now?



    and they are all full? icon_rolleyes.gif
    nice try. failed again.

    Do know the capacity statistics and do you assert the price remains independent of demand fluctuations? Actually don't bother trying to answer. You don't appear capable of a logical discussion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2013 10:04 PM GMT
    I am incapable of perceiving education as a finite quantitity, as you do.

    I believe in socialized education; not something that can be apportioned and sold to the highest bidder. We do not run out of education. Space expands and delivery systems evolve to allow wider dispersal of knowledge without having to physically accommodate them in one room.

    Education is not a zero sum game nor is it limited by borders.

    Thus I totally reject socalfitness' premise as merely another manifestation of greed clutching at an opportunity which should belong to all in order to maximize benefit to society.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2013 11:47 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn saidI am incapable of perceiving education as a finite quantitity, as you do.

    I believe in socialized education; not something that can be apportioned and sold to the highest bidder. We do not run out of education. Space expands and delivery systems evolve to allow wider dispersal of knowledge without having to physically accommodate them in one room.

    Education is not a zero sum game nor is it limited by borders.

    Thus I totally reject socalfitness' premise as merely another manifestation of greed clutching at an opportunity which should belong to all in order to maximize benefit to society.






    You miss the entire point. Let me spell it out to you:

    Education delivery systems are finite.

    Does that make more sense to you?