🚀 go-pugleaf

The sky IS NOT falling--contrary to what the DEMOCRATS want 
you to beleive.  Under the REPIBLICAN plan, there are cuts made, 
but they are to BANK PROFITS!  Isn't that GREAT!

The banks hold virtually zero risk with student loans because the 
government guarantees the loans, so why should they make a ton 
of money?  You would get in on a deal like this if you saw one.

Why should the GOVERNMENT be the lender?  I agree it is nice to 
fill out less paperwork and get the loan quicker, but reforms can be 
made under the bank-lending system to make IT better.  The 
government doesn't need any more debts.

Listen, this is a CAPITALIST society--NOT SOCIALIST. Grow up 
and earn your keep.  Quit WHINING!  The government is not your 
mommy.  

I am a student myself and have borrowed under direct lending and 
bank lending.  Of course I like the direct lending system better, but 
it is unnecessary and should be eliminated.  We all have to make 
sacrifices to make this country great.

David Lynch, University of Florida
dlynch@grove.ufl.edu

On 21 Nov 1995, David Lynch wrote:

Lets look at this a little closer.

> 
> The sky IS NOT falling--contrary to what the DEMOCRATS want 
> you to beleive.  Under the REPIBLICAN plan, there are cuts made, 
> but they are to BANK PROFITS!  Isn't that GREAT!
> 

For years the banks complained about the student loan situation.  Then 
the government proposed to take it away from them.  The truth is, the 
banks had no risk -- because the loans were GUARANTEED by the government 
-- yet the banks made PROFIT from the loans.  

THis is the ultimate in government waste -- a government HANDOUT, a 
FREEBY, to the banks.

So, ooh, the Republicans will give the loans BACK to the banks, still 
guarantee them, but the banks will have to settle for less of a profit!  

> The banks hold virtually zero risk with student loans because the 
> government guarantees the loans, so why should they make a ton 
> of money?  

Why should they make any?

> You would get in on a deal like this if you saw one.
> 

Sure, and if the government would buy thousand dollar hammers or 
paperclips from me -- I get in on that deal to.

> Why should the GOVERNMENT be the lender? 

Because when the government GUARANTEES loans -- it IS the lender -- the 
difference is, for years they allowed a middle-man to make a profit -- at 
no cost -- and now the government has begun to remove the fat, get rid of 
the middle man, and do it themselves.

> I agree it is nice to 
> fill out less paperwork and get the loan quicker, but reforms can be 
> made under the bank-lending system to make IT better.  The 
> government doesn't need any more debts.
> 

The government is not GAINING any new debts through direct lending -- 
that part of the system is the same.  It is just removing the PROFIT 
motive of guaranteed loans -- that provided NO services to the borrowers 
except improper disbursements, improper defaults, etc. etc. -- And it 
cost the borrower (actually, first the government who guaranteed the loan 
-- for if you remember, when you got your $1000 loan, before they gave 
you the check they took out a couple hundered dollars for a finders fee 
and processing fee! -- and you had to pay interest on that too).

Lets face it -- when the banks "handled" the guaranteed student loans, 
given by the federal governmetn, they were scamming both the students and 
the government.  They were making a bundle for doing nothing and with no 
risk.  It was free income.

Now that a good reform, getting rid of the waste of the middle-man, 
affects somebodies pocket book (because they dont get their government 
check) -- and that somebody is big bank owners -- the Republicans are 
coming to the rescue.

I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat -- but I am sick and tired of 
hearing how everything is the fault of one or the other of them.  Its 
both their faults.  And neither of them is truly attempting to resolve 
the problem of the debt -- they are simply seeking reelection.

> Listen, this is a CAPITALIST society--NOT SOCIALIST. Grow up 
> and earn your keep.  Quit WHINING!  The government is not your 
> mommy.  
> 

Now this is really a winning statement.  Lets face it, Senator McCarthy 
died quite a while back didnt he -- sometime after they let him out of 
the psychiatric ward wasnt it?

So why do people continue this red-baiting type stuff.  It is 
meaningless.  And, where in the Constitution of the United States does it 
say -- this is "a CAPITALIST" society?  I dont recall seeing it there.

Lets get over this nonsense.  Direct lending is neither socialist nor 
anti-capitalist.  If this is the type of argument used to defeat programs 
such as direct lending -- this country is in worse shape than it appears.

> I am a student myself and have borrowed under direct lending and 
> bank lending.  Of course I like the direct lending system better, but 
> it is unnecessary and should be eliminated.  We all have to make 
> sacrifices to make this country great.

First of all, some people CANT make the sacrifice to pay $400 plus 
interest to a bank -- simply because the government wants to award the 
bank that privilege.

Second, this country is not going to be great if the sacrifices come at 
the cost of quality education.

Third, by this same logic -- student loans are unnecessary and should be 
eliminated.  

The only unnecessary part of student loans guaranteed by the government 
-- is profit being made off of them.  Because this is the government 
guaranteeing the loans -- it is the people investing in themselves.  
There is no reason, nor justification, to artificially add an additional 
layer to the bureaucracy of student loans -- just so banks can take a 
bite out of the process and make an unnecessary profit.

Charlie
______________________________________________________________________________

Charlie Grapski			|	1125 S.W. 4th Ave. B1
University of Florida		|	Gainesville, Fl. 32601
cgrapski@grove.ufl.edu		|	(904) 335-4439

			Take a look at my WEB SITE:
			http://grove.ufl.edu/~cgrapski
	** Resources on Democracy, Proportional Representation, Government, 
	             Law, and more - take a look **
______________________________________________________________________________

On Thu, 23 Nov 1995, Simon Wagstaff wrote:
> 
> We certainly don't need another government program and another
> governemt agency and more government rules.  Give the money straight
> to the schools and let the schools lend it and collect it.  You
> have a different attitude toward lending money when it's your own!

That is what the direct lending program does.

Charlie

> 
> 
> .....................TEAR.ALONG.THE.DOTTED.LINE......................
> Under construction. Greek gnomes go here:  Gnothi seauton, Meden agan
>  Latin gnomes go here: Omnia vincit amor, Mens sana in corpore sano  
> 
> 
> 

______________________________________________________________________________

Charlie Grapski			|	1125 S.W. 4th Ave. B1
University of Florida		|	Gainesville, Fl. 32601
cgrapski@grove.ufl.edu		|	(904) 335-4439

			Take a look at my WEB SITE:
			http://grove.ufl.edu/~cgrapski
	** Resources on Democracy, Proportional Representation, Government, 
	             Law, and more - take a look **
______________________________________________________________________________

David Lynch wrote:
> 
> The sky IS NOT falling--contrary to what the DEMOCRATS want
> you to beleive.  Under the REPIBLICAN plan, there are cuts made,
> but they are to BANK PROFITS!  Isn't that GREAT!
> 

RRRRR!! Wrong answer! Thank you for playing!

For the correct answer to Mr. Lynch's issue, please refer to the Student 
Aid Crisis Web page at:

http://nagps.varesearch.com/Student_Aid/student-aid.html

There you will learn the sad truth about just how horrid the future of
student financial aid could be under the Republican visage....

Regards,

Anthony Rosati,
NAGPS Board of Directors

rosati@gusun.georgetown.edu says...
>David Lynch wrote:
>> 
>> The sky IS NOT falling--contrary to what the DEMOCRATS want
>> you to beleive.  Under the REPIBLICAN plan, there are cuts made,
>> but they are to BANK PROFITS!  Isn't that GREAT!
>> 
>
>RRRRR!! Wrong answer! Thank you for playing!
>
>For the correct answer to Mr. Lynch's issue, please refer to the 
Student 
>Aid Crisis Web page at:
>
>http://nagps.varesearch.com/Student_Aid/student-aid.html
>
>There you will learn the sad truth about just how horrid the future of
>student financial aid could be under the Republican visage....
>
>Regards,
>
>Anthony Rosati,
>NAGPS Board of Directors

I chcked out you site, Anthony, and was greeted by an article that 
spoke of the CBO scoring of the Balance Budget Bill, with the 
following introduction:

# Senate Budget Committee minority staff have helped me 
# understand  this stuff and I have borrowed words extensively.
#  (liberal text deleted)
#
# Thomas A. Butts
# Associate Vice President for Government Relations
# University of Michigan
# 202-554-0578, FAX 202-554-0582, tombutts@umich.edu

First of all, if you really want to understand this bill, call the aids to 
Rep. Kasich.  He knows what's in this bill and will tell you "like it is" 
rather than spew political nonsense like the Democrats.  

Second, I found this on the site:

# Today we received a press release from William Clay's Office (he's 
# the Ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Economic and 
# Educational Opportunities Committee).  The press release identifies 
# how the proposed cuts to student loans in the House may save the 
# federal government $3.75, but they cost the students nearly $8.31
# billion. This is due to accumulation of additional interest due over 
# the life of the loan.
#
# Kevin Boyer
# NAGPS Executive Director

Again, you are being fed Democratic liberal nonsense.  I'm not even 
claiming that the content of this is false.  I am critizising your source. 
 You do not speak of any Republican sources, nor list any Republican 
responses (on this page), rather you list them on a seperate page as 
a joke.

Concerning the last entry: I still don't see proof that this bill would 
make it PHYSICALLY HARDER  to get a student loan.  These cuts 
may make a difference in the amount of interest that accumilates, but 
DOES NOT keep a single student from receiving loans.

Should government subsidize interest payments while a student is in 
college?  Why? The student already gets the best rate anywhere, 
PLUS the government is already providing GUARANTEED FUNDS.  
Maybe the increase in interest will persuade the queasy from getting 
over thier heads in loans? 

I admit I use student loans (including direct loans), but I get half of my 
funding from a grant that doesn't need to be paid back.  (I am not even 
very needy, as I didn't qualify for a PELL GRANT, but I still got 
another grant because my parents aren't financing my education.)  I 
just don't see the need for our government to have to create A HUGE 
agency to keep track of these loans made from the federal 
government.  Comercial banks do a good job of keeping track of 
millions of individual loans and is in the spirit of capitalism that they 
get the business of student loans for a small fee.  The government 
simply OUTSOURCES the loans to someone who is more adept to 
handle them with the guarantee they will be paid for.

I can't believe that these IGNORANT students don't bother to check 
out the bill and see what it actually does.  It proves a little more 
inconvienent for them ("I got to fill out all of these extra forms!", says 
Jane.) but saves the national government money.

Your webpage is a waste of disk space.  Vote Republican in '96!

David Lynch
dlynch@grove.ufl.edu
University of Florida