# Student Loan Crisis



## Elvira (Dec 1, 2011)

I'm curious about your opinions about the student loan crisis. It seems like in America, tuition keeps rising and rising, and students find themselves buried in debt by the time they graduate. State schools in my state are probably at least 10K per year to attend, and many students can't even wrap their mind around that kind of money. It the United States, we are fed this mentality that education is the solution to all of our problems, and that it is a great investment for out future. While I believe this to be somewhat true, there are so many students that get over their heads in student loan debt. 

Unemployment has improved slightly, but supposedly 1 in 2 college graduates can't find work. I've heard this statistic numerous times, but I'm not even sure if it takes into account people who are working jobs below their skill level (like a college graduate working as a barrista in Starbucks or a bag boy at Walmart). 

I understand that some people major in things that are fairly 'useless' (sorry for that word!) to the job market, like Women's studies, English, or History. I quite like liberal arts, but I can't imagine shelling out 50 K to get a paper that won't help me pay off all my debt. But even people in 'safe' majors such as business are really struggling to find work. And while they hunt for jobs, interest just keeps growing on their student loans. 

Some people speculate that student loans are the next big bubble (like the housing and auto bubbles-both of those markets crashed). I feel like something needs to change at the structural level of education so that we don't drown our generation in debt. I think it's great that some countries (like France and Denmark) pay for higher education through taxes (in Denmark, they actually _pay_ you to go to college!). However, other's speculate that the government's involvement in education has just made tuition soar, because students can take out however many loans they need to pay tuition. 

I also think that students need to be better educated about their options. For example, going to a trade school or getting general education requirements done at a community college might be a great option to save money (Trade school isn't for everyone though, but it might be a great fit for some people). Also, choosing state over public schools might be a good option as well. But then there's the issue of prestige...and I'm not sure how important that is in terms of getting a job with your degree.

What do you all think about this issue? I feel like something has to change sooner or later, because I think students will get fed up with the injustice of the system. Even responsible people who tried to live within their means while getting an education are drowning in debt.

Opinions? roud:


----------



## Impermanence (Apr 24, 2012)

It is a shame that this is happenning and it's not just in the US. The economy is still pretty bad in Canada as well and in college I made friends who were in their second year. Needless to say after spending a lot of money they are having a hard time finding a job in their field. I myself am having a difficult time to find a job, even that pays minimum wage! It's not like I don't have work experience, since I worked in a grocery store for over a year and did volunteering as well. I guess my point in the end is, what's the point in forking out all that money for school if you can't get a job? I'm not sure about the rate of employment for Canadians who graduated and ended up getting a job in their field, but I know a lot of people personally who were unsuccessful. We pay enough taxes as it is in Canada, so I don't think the government will pay for our post secondary schooling anytime soon. I think if you do go to college/university, then the best bet is to either apply for as many bursaries as you can, or work for a few years and bank as much money as you can, so you won't have to pay back as much afterwards. Although, I don't think it will make a huge difference, seeing as tuition at schools in the US is a HUGE rip off in my opinion. I can't believe tuition is $10K a year. I heard it can be closer to $10K a semester at the more prestigious schools. Here's prices for Harvard University. My jaw dropped...

Tuition and Fees 2011-2012 Handbook for Students 2011-2012

I believe that trades are under-rated and sometimes have a stigma associated with them too. At least if you get a trade certificate, you know that you'll still have a good chance at getting the job, and you will have probably spent a lot less money. Every time I watch tv on the US stations I see commercials for going to university in the US. So I can see what you mean about how it's drilled into your head as something that you should do.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

The student loan crisis and pretty much all of our other economic crises have the same root cause: the misallocation of financial risk.

Tuition has gone up largely because student loans are readily available. Schools increase tuition because they know that loans are easy to get and will cushion the sticker-shock of an expensive institution. Easily obtained student loans warps the risk assessment, because it puts the financial burden years into the future and makes it sound like it can be easily paid off over time. In my father's generation, it wasn't hard for someone to work and go to school and cover their own expenses. At some point, the government decided that they wanted more people to go to college and they wanted it to be easier to do so financially. Enter the student loan programs. In my view, student loan programs do more harm than good. For one, they hinder accurate financial planning by prospective college students by pushing the risk into the future instead of the present. This is really problematic because you are putting a *certain debt* into the future without a *certain means of payment*. It also increases the number of college degrees out there, which dilutes the earning power of any one individual's college degree. College degrees are the new high school degrees, and graduate degrees are the new college degrees, so to speak.

All this is happening without any appreciable increase in productive activity. Higher education is first and foremost an economic investment. Self-improvement is great, but honestly, you can learn all you want to learn without paying thousands and thousands of dollars of tuition for a college class. Higher education is best used to increase your earning potential, and flooding the market with endless college degrees burdened by crushing debt isn't going to achieve that goal. 

The end result: easily available student loans mean more college degrees in the marketplace. Higher tuition, due to higher student loans, makes the degree more costly. The first effect reduces the value of a college degree, the second effect increases the cost. Student loan programs are probably the worst thing to happen to the higher education system ever in the US.


----------



## Magentastraberry (May 27, 2012)

What I think is interesting is how students are pressured to enter college right after high school when many of them don't have the slightest idea of what career path they want, or they are still capable of going through a complete personal transformation. This is what happened to me... I entered college as a marketing major and two years later decided I wanted nothing to do with marketing and decided to become a science major. The thing is that I was head strong against science when I graduated high school, but within two years I acknowledged that science was a major interest of mine!

How can students cope with student loans and increasing tuition fees when they are experiencing changes such as what I did? Are students deciding to stick with a major simply because of financial pressure? The school system is a vicious cycle that I feel is a trap for many students.


----------



## sofort99 (Mar 27, 2010)

Elvira said:


> Student Loan Crisis...


Want to know the solution to this "crisis"?

People need to quit going to schools they can't afford.


----------



## Elvira (Dec 1, 2011)

sofort99 said:


> Want to know the solution to this "crisis"?
> 
> People need to quit going to schools they can't afford.


I understand that kids shouldn't be taking out loans to go to 50K/year liberal arts schools for a degree that won't mean much in the job market. But at the same time, at 18 years old, what school is affordable? Even tuition at community schools will put students in debt, despite working during college.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

This just sounds like a cop out, for not wanting to go to school.

Honestly, the people say "What's the point of going to school" and don't have anything going on for them at the moment IE any connections to a good job. Usually end up in retail and/or living with their parents. If you want my opinion, (and it's a good one), you are a complete moron if you don't go.


----------



## Elvira (Dec 1, 2011)

donkeybals said:


> This just sounds like a cop out, for not wanting to go to school.
> 
> Honestly, the people say "What's the point of going to school" and don't have anything going on for them at the moment IE any connections to a good job. Usually end up in retail and/or living with their parents. If you want my opinion, (and it's a good one), you are a complete moron if you don't go.


I know that was kind of directed to a general audience, but for me personally, I love school. I feel very lucky to have a full-ride scholarship as well. Life does seem better for college graduates, but at the same time, if you go to Starbucks, Verizon, or any restaurant, ask if the employees have graduated college. Many will say yes. One of the guys who sold phones at Verizon had a degree in business from a four-year-university. (When you talk about retail, I don't know if you're talking about graduates or non-grads)

When it comes down to it, I think that college is too da*m expensive for many people. :shocked: But that doesn't mean they shouldn't go to college. One problem is that I think that high school students aren't being informed at all about student loans and majors. If I had to have taken out loans at that age, I wouldn't know how to not get 'in over my head'. And a lot of students just major in stuff because 'they like it', but they don't do any research on it. I was really dissapointed in my college career counselor, because she recommended that my friend (who majors in Business Economics and Spanish) to major is sociology. _Sociology! _ And she recommended that another girl major in psychology (a really, really over-saturated field) instead of Education. 

Sorry, I'm kind of rambling...


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

Elvira said:


> I'm curious about your opinions about the student loan crisis. It seems like in America, tuition keeps rising and rising, and students find themselves buried in debt by the time they graduate.


It scary the cause of this is not obvious to every American citizen. Few people understand capitalism and the market mechanisms, I suppose... I wonder what colleges are for if they can't even teach something this basic? It's not just you, I'm sure our President will be totally oblivious to this fact as well, as his ideology forces him to.

How is college paid for?

The government gives students pell grants and low interest student loans. Loans, that under ordinary circumstances, they would be unable to secure. Thus the government has made it a policy agenda to have more people in college, and has backed this endeavor with money.

Thus, since the money is effectively "free" up front, anyone who can get into a college and wants to go, goes, irrelevant of whether it makes any real sense for their life. It doesn't matter because there is no cost, other than time dedicated on their part, and minor expenses such as travel. As such, colleges have seen a boon in attendance since such policies went into affect, thus forcing them to build more facilities and hire more faculty. Facilities all come with fixed expenses that must always be paid, while faculty can be trimmed based on demand. In order to pay for these projects, they have to raise tuition rates... yet to avoid this in the past, they would offset some of these costs with state funding.

Yet when there's a major economic downturn and a loss of employment, two things happen:

A) More people go into colleges since they're unable to find jobs. They hope that when they leave college, there will be better jobs available. This is possible only because the money to enter college is "free".

B) State tax revenues decrease, thus forcing the states to cut funding to colleges.

The effect on colleges is tighter budgets with more students attending, and more demand for faculty and facilities.

Yet the macro-effect over the long-run is that tuition rates are astronomical because it's a stated policy agenda to put more people into college. (Just as we had a stated policy agenda for housing which burst.) Thus to pay for the massive increases in attendance, tuition must remain astronomical. To affect cheaper pricing in college tuition rates, there is only one free market mechanism... that is to have declining attendance.

In a normal free-market system where the government did not actively distort college attendance, college tuition rates would be half or less of what they currently are... because even then very few people could afford it. Then also, there would be far fewer colleges. There would be a few universities, but there would also be a focus on community colleges which are affordable.

My father for example, grew up in the 1950's and 1960's. He worked a few summers doing odd jobs, and paid for his entire college education which began at a community college and finished at a university.

_*You see, back when college had to be affordable, it was affordable*_ because the free market mechanism dictated that it had to be that way. If a college was too expensive, they'd lose students. The only way the pricey model would work is if they're trying to attract students from rich families. Yet universities for the common person would not be able to charge the rich kid rates, and so, they'd be forced to charge whatever lower-middle class students could pay.



> Opinions? roud:


I think our country is doomed. Not simply because of what I'm talking about... the college bubble is a minor thing.

I'm talking about the belief that government can manipulate our macro-economic behavior through the giving of "free" money or regulation, and use their clout to cause all manner of economic bubbles. It caused the housing bubble as well as the up-comming student loan bubble... 

Yet, the money they dole out... well, it's not exactly free. It's borrowed from China or just "printed" which causes inflation, especially in areas where they dole the money out like student tuition rates. Then this disproportionate behavior is paid for by the rest of society that experiences inflation and devaluation of their currency.

If we had a strong dollar for example, gasoline prices wouldn't be so high.

This manipulation of multiple sectors within the economy that they're doing through the use of money printing is a bubble in and of itself. When this bubble breaks, it will make our last little recession look like child's play. 20%+ Unemployment is a good starting point. Yet it'll be worse than that, worldwide.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Working for Verizon as a sales rep isn't that bad, you make commission and get good benefits. Plus a business degree, and experience in sales looks good on a resume if he wanted to apply elsewhere.

No college counselor is perfect either, like anything else, there are good ones and bad ones. You don't have to take their advice. Education does have it's benefits, like summers off. Lol.


----------



## Elvira (Dec 1, 2011)

Razare said:


> In a normal free-market system where the government did not actively distort college attendance, college tuition rates would be half or less of what they currently are... because even then very few people could afford it. Then also, there would be far fewer colleges. There would be a few universities, but there would also be a focus on community colleges which are affordable.


I agree with you here; I just think that the implications would be difficult, unfortunately. Colleges would have to lower prices so that students could attend. But what would they cut? Would they fire numerous professors, who already make crap pay if they are not on the tenure track? So many students major in fields that aren't really applicable outside of academia, and the see the goal of becoming a college professor as the light at the end of the tunnel. If colleges had to scale back, I imagine there would be a lot of professors without a job, with no 'real world' skills for another job. (Side note- I actually contemplated becoming a Spanish professor, but eventually decided, _no way José_ because the field is so cut-throat!) But with that being said, I think that colleges oftentimes buy a ton of stuff that the don't _need._ New athletic facilities, big screen TVs, etc. There's a difference between this kind of spending and spending money on lab equipment. But it's a vicious cycle; tuition goes up partially because of these new 'improvements', but colleges create them in the first place to get a higher admission.

Also, I wonder what would happen if the government stopped Pell Grants and other types of aid. Even though there's evidence that the government's involvement in Education has made tuition soar, I wonder how we could develop a 'smooth transition' to the free market, since many students would have no financial aid. There would be a lot of students with no means to go to college while they waited for tuition to plummet. Perhaps I'm a bit extremist, but I think that higher education should be in the free market, or it should be completely paid for by the state or federal government (like in Denmark or France). Having education stuck in the middle of these two extremes has just caused more problems. 

Also, if college didn't cost the price of a mortgage on your house, would the value of college degrees go down?

I also think that the government's aid is a bit...misguided. For example, some of my friends who had a _ton _of siblings got a lot of her college for free through FAFSA. However, my other friend came from a 'ok' family financially-speaking, and she got _nothing._ But her parents weren't going to help her pay for college, so what difference did it make? It seems like you're kind of punished if your family is better off financially, because a lot of times, the amount of aid that the FAFSA gives trumps the amount of financial aid you get from your family. 

Also, I go to a college that has a 30% graduation rate. Yikes! Can you imagine all of the aid wasted by people who decided to go to college and then drop out? I'm not sure if it's a financial decision to postpone/drop out of college (which I understand), but there are also a lot of people who go to my school who aren't ready for college. I don't want to blame high school teachers because I believe they really try, but they can't just wave a magic wand and have students start to care about academia (I contemplated being one of those, too! LOL). But I think the community definitely has the 'everyone needs to go to college' mentality, when clearly, many students are ready.
_
Another thing- I almost forgot!
_I never really understood the point of general ed requirements. I mean, I understand that colleges want a well-rounded person, but they also want your money :tongue:! When I graduated high school, I wanted to get right into my field. But I had to take so many GERs that I didn't really get into it right away. I wanted to go into teaching, but with the way that the program is set up, you don't really even start getting hands-on classroom experience until your last year! Not to say that I didn't enjoy some of my GER classes, but they really aren't pertinent to my career field. I would like to see colleges move to a more 'specialized' route. 

I guess it wouldn't be so bad if tuition wasn't so high, but since it is, it costs _a lot_ of money to take classes that don't really matter in the long run. We're talking about a year or two years of GER classes, here!


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

Elvira said:


> Also, I go to a college that has a 30% graduation rate. Yikes! Can you imagine all of the aid wasted by people who decided to go to college and then drop out?


Now just imagine that same behavior applied to our healthcare system. If we want to see skyrocketing healthcare costs, we haven't seen the half of it yet.



> I guess it wouldn't be so bad if tuition wasn't so high, but since it is, it costs _a lot_ of money to take classes that don't really matter in the long run. We're talking about a year or two years of GER classes, here!


The problem is... as with much of our society, we're still using systems designed in the 1700's.

For many areas, technical certifications are probably a better route. This is how the IT field works... because it's a system that adapts to changing technology, and allows a person to focus in-depth on what they need to know, while forgetting the generalized areas of study.

Unless you're going to be a professor or teacher, very often the general classes we take are worthless. High School should teach us enough about history, for example, and we shouldn't have any classes on it in college unless it's related to our field. In many cases it is related, but there are some where it's not, for example, Accounting. There probably are many degrees that call for being well-rounded above having a specific knowledge base, but surely they're in a minority.



> I agree with you here; I just think that the implications would be difficult, unfortunately. Colleges would have to lower prices so that students could attend. But what would they cut? Would they fire numerous professors, who already make crap pay if they are not on the tenure track? So many students major in fields that aren't really applicable outside of academia, and the see the goal of becoming a college professor as the light at the end of the tunnel. If colleges had to scale back, I imagine there would be a lot of professors without a job, with no 'real world' skills for another job.


Precisely. When government shovels money at creating distorted outcomes in an economy, waste is the inevitable result. College professors, training an ever expanding amount of college professors is simply ramping up a system that's too large in the first place. Obviously so, since many people do not get jobs with their degrees, and the drop-out rates are excessive.

The "fix" to the problem and to revert to a more free market system is to let the bubble burst, and then scale back government subsidies after it's popped.

In reality, what the government prefers to do after something has burst, is to shovel more money at it. When the housing bubble burst, we didn't want to feel the crash... so we shoveled more money back into the system, propping up the bubble that has still yet to pop. 

Yet eventually, over a long enough period of time, economic realities always prevail and the market will correct back toward a free market balance. All governments can do is temporarily delay outcomes, making the market forces they're battling against even stronger.

This applies to student tuition rates, it applies to housing prices, and it applies to the currency itself.

Our currency is paper, and thus, only worth the paper it's printed on. Given enough time, such paper will revert back to its inherent worth as a piece of paper. Government distortions of the market are only temporary... they just happen long enough so people start believing economic fiction is fact.


----------



## snowbell (Apr 2, 2012)

donkeybals said:


> This just sounds like a cop out, for not wanting to go to school.
> 
> Honestly, the people say "What's the point of going to school" and don't have anything going on for them at the moment IE any connections to a good job. Usually end up in retail and/or living with their parents. If you want my opinion, (and it's a good one), *you are a complete moron if you don't go.*


I can see where you're coming and might agree (hesitantly) with your final point, but I feel that one should be more aware of the options: trades/vocations, gap years, military, perhaps, or something else. Even if it's doing 2 years at a community college then transferring that's another alternative. 

But this idea of "COLLEGE AFTER HIGH SCHOOL" I think is somewhat misguided. Not everyone needs to go to college, not everyone needs to go to college right away, and for some it may be worth taking time to explore other alternatives, which aren't necessarily bad or made known. If on the other hand you have no need/desire for a college education then why take the time and money? It is possible to survive without that piece of paper, but you have to be prepared for the risks that may come with. 

On their part, colleges (and the high schools) need to find some means of reducing dropout rates, improving quality, and making sure that people who attend actually want to attend. I don't understand how you can honestly be going to college and taking remedial maths/english/science courses, for example. That's a pipe dream, though, with the way the system is currently structured, IMO, for all the reasons @Razare eloquently stated.


----------



## Palaver (Jan 5, 2010)

Elvira said:


> I feel like something has to change sooner or later, because I think students will get fed up with the injustice of the system.


The stability of the current system is what interests me the most. If the tuition bubble bursts, the extent of the fallout should dictate the level of response. If the last crisis was an example, you can expect small patches to the system. Like America's failing infrastructure, people are going to keep crossing that bridge until it collapses.

That said, in the long run, the US government is going to take a massive haircut (debt forgiveness) on student loans. Graduates, as a whole, simple won't have the economic means to pay back their loans given the downward trend in their economic mobility, which means that college education will be practically free for those who get out last. This is rather ironic, I think. If college education was free to begin with, there wouldn't be the bureaucratic waste of administering those loans (both private and public).

But that is the process oriented American culture. Goals and outcomes get lost in the institutional maze until there is complete failure, after which the process is discarded for a strong hand (bailouts, executive orders, emergency resolutions, etc.). It would be comedy if it was not so tragic. Americans will continue run their society this way so long as they can afford it. America's idea of pragmatism is more reactionary than progressive. Culture is slow to change everywhere.

America today is the fool described by Machiavelli: "The wise man does at once what the fool does finally." This debt bubble will have to be addressed eventually. But when does "finally" come? Cleverness hurts the fool if it helps him avoid the problem. Americans are well educated, if only enough to reason incorrectly--no small achievement for any country. They are also clever, strong, and resourceful, which by themselves is a recipe for arrogance. Their greatest strengths often cloud out their better judgements and marginalize the minority of naysayers that often foretell their misfortunes. 

I am an American, but now I no longer live in America. There will be much suffering in America before we are finally humbled into doing what needs to be done.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

snowbell said:


> I can see where you're coming and might agree (hesitantly) with your final point, but I feel that one should be more aware of the options: trades/vocations, gap years, military, perhaps, or something else. Even if it's doing 2 years at a community college then transferring that's another alternative.
> 
> But this idea of "COLLEGE AFTER HIGH SCHOOL" I think is somewhat misguided. Not everyone needs to go to college, not everyone needs to go to college right away, and for some it may be worth taking time to explore other alternatives, which aren't necessarily bad or made known. If on the other hand you have no need/desire for a college education then why take the time and money? It is possible to survive without that piece of paper, but you have to be prepared for the risks that may come with.
> 
> On their part, colleges (and the high schools) need to find some means of reducing dropout rates, improving quality, and making sure that people who attend actually want to attend. I don't understand how you can honestly be going to college and taking remedial maths/english/science courses, for example. That's a pipe dream, though, with the way the system is currently structured, IMO, for all the reasons @Razare eloquently stated.


Eloquently? Ha! He basically implied the government should have turned their heads and let the banks fail and to cut loan funding. And is acting like the government shouldn't ever regulate the market and let things "balance themselves out". Distortion alright, I think he's got a distorted view on way markets work.  @Razare you know the government helps market outcomes sometimes right?


----------



## Voodo Chile (Jul 6, 2011)

Room rent for Harvard costs more than my years tuition!
Interest free student loans ftw!


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Student loans are still easy to get, and you don't have to pay them off till later. People don't need a huge house when they are 30 anyway. People are just greedy, I am not concerned with this at all.


----------



## snowbell (Apr 2, 2012)

donkeybals said:


> Eloquently? Ha! He basically implied the government should have turned their heads and let the banks fail and to cut loan funding. And is acting like the government shouldn't ever regulate the market and let things "balance themselves out". Distortion alright, I think he's got a distorted view on way markets work.  @Razare you know the government helps market outcomes sometimes right?


This is turning into a more politics-heavy discussion. 

The point isn't that government shouldn't at all regulate - regulation can be a good thing. The point is that the approach that's been done hasn't worked and has left a problem that needs to be rectified.

Throwing more money at the situation hasn't helped because the root issues are the same - children not being fully educated to a college entry level upon graduation at school, colleges don't need to focus as closely on providing a good product (education) because they can simply draw on people who will be using local/state/federal loans and so long as the college gets their money they don't really need to care about if the student can get a job to pay the money back. Add to that low exclusivity and poor awareness of options in the face of the "COLLEGE AFTER HIGH SCHOOL GET A DEGREE IN ANY RANDOM SUBJECT IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT" and that's how you have people stuck in the situation you have now. if you don't have to work for your money you won't respect it as much as money you have to work for and since people are young and don't immediately realize that that loan is something they could be paying for the rest of their life they don't respect it as much... That's also part of the issue. And the end result of this is that the degrees themselves have been diluted and are worth less than they are now. 

People like to refer to the 1950's as a time when things were better- although I disagree with that in parts, you'll notice one other thing - manufacturing was also really big back then. 

Do I think regulation could help here? Yes - increase the requirements of entry to college by changing the requirements of student loan debt. Instill higher standards of education perhaps, and I'd some of these predatory for-profit paper mill colleges fall by the wayside then so be it.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

donkeybals said:


> @_Razare_ you know the government helps market outcomes sometimes right?


Sometimes. The textbooks usually have to reference the oil-well boons of the early 1900's because they have trouble finding other instances. 

Oh! Eisenhower's investment into the Highway System.

So for every instance where it improves things, there are at least 100 instances of government implementing failure after failure. Is a 1% success rate at best, worth the other 99% of debacles?

Rather, I look to local and state governments to solve problems rather than the Federal one. Even there, it's hit or miss, but at least a person can move from one state to another, or switch counties.

Some people like failed policies too, and I think it's their right to be governed by them. Let's just cordon it off to certain areas so the rest of us can do better without them. Even at the Federal level I think it's appropriate to have some policies, but when they try to solve problems in one fell swoop, it always fails because their primary motivation is ideology, money, and power.

There's a difference between theoretically being able to implement policies for the good of the people and actually doing so. Often those that argue for policies are operating on theory, while those who oppose them are arguing on reality.

Still, something like a public healthcare system, I think is a great idea on paper. It can NEVER be implemented into our Federal government without becoming a terrible piece of legislation and causing more harm than good. There are certain policies, in order to succeed, those policies just have to be correct from the onset, executed cleanly and effectively, with all the problems already considered and resolved. Federal Democracy cannot enact such policies; rather each politician fights for their share of the pie within a bill, to get added what provisions their interest groups want. This sort of legislative method fails concerning complex policies like healthcare.

I disliked Obama's original healthcare proposal, but it would have been better than what actually passed. So you see my point. I could have picked almost any person in the country, and told them to write us a piece of healthcare legislation, and it would have been better than what actually passed.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

snowbell said:


> This is turning into a more politics-heavy discussion.
> 
> The point isn't that government shouldn't at all regulate - regulation can be a good thing. The point is that the approach that's been done hasn't worked and has left a problem that needs to be rectified.
> 
> ...


What is wrong with paying a loan for the rest of life? Don't we have bigger things to worry about, like people starving to death?


----------

