7 votes

Young Turks Call Ron Paul A Boldface Liar

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Subsidies are malinvestments

Subsidies are the act of taking money out of the productive economy in order for the government to malivest it. It always leads to artificial demand, price inflation, and eventually collapse.

But besides that, it's theft.

i can see where you are coming from

But I COMPLETELY disagree.

the market takes care of this problem. Currently, because of "increased access", universities can charge insane fees for programs that lead to employment just as easily gotten before 50k went down the tubes.

If there is truly a lack of personnel in a field, companies will cherry-pick students, even from high school (I remember a couple of my high school friends in the 90's were into programming and somehow got offered like 80% coverage through school for programming if they agreed to work for a major IT firm for a few years afterwards). Not only that, but loans wouldn't be handed out just because someone was going to school.

The probability of repayment would be pretty easy to calculate. Just as fairly accurate risk assessments can be made by private insurers, so could probabilities of debt honor based on profession (likelihood of employment, salary, etc).

A bank would be very likely to lend to someone going through school for geology right now, since there is about a 5:1 rate of geologists retiring from the field as there are entering it (actual on-site geologists in oil, mineral discovery, etc.)

My parents both paid their way through school with cash. This is back in the 60's-70's, when school was actually affordable enough for a kid to work full time during the summers and be able to afford going to school through the winters, maybe picking up some part-time work for extra cash.

Any subsidization of anything is wealth redistribution - this is pointing a gun (the monopoly on violence) at the head of one group of people, and handing off that money to another group (regardless of the semantics, interest, etc.) This is 100% morally wrong.

Also, you are looking at education as a static structure. It is not. It appears so because of so much state intervention (how many breakthroughs have been made in trash pickup, sewage/sanitation, roadbuilding in the last 50 years?). But given unfettered markets' ability to compete to bring the best to the customer for the least possible amount, and education being such a staple product/service for success in many fields, you can bet your ass that education costs would plummet and the market would find a way to make a student way more prepared in less time or in a completely new way than we have thought of recently.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Progress is precisely that which the rules and regulations did not foresee. - Ludwig Von Mises.

As I mentioned before,

As I mentioned before, increased access is much more a part of society's overall growth than government intervention. Colleges can charge so much because there is a huge demand to go to college.

"If there is truly a lack of personnel in a field, companies will cherry-pick students, even from high school (I remember a couple of my high school friends in the 90's were into programming and somehow got offered like 80% coverage through school for programming if they agreed to work for a major IT firm for a few years afterwards)"

Firstly, they are cherry-picking studnets: in India and China (from India and CHina).

The IT bubble is a great example of a bubble that was mostly market-driven. People had such high expectations of the tech sector...

"The probability of repayment would be pretty easy to calculate. Just as fairly accurate risk assessments can be made by private insurers, so could probabilities of debt honor based on profession (likelihood of employment, salary, etc)."

Right. My point being that since relative to a year's earnings (of a college student), college fees are relatively small, and because factually 98% of loans are paid back with few problems, the vast majority of loans would have been accurately assessed as low-risk.

"My parents both paid their way through school with cash. This is back in the 60's-70's, when school was actually affordable enough for a kid to work full time during the summers and be able to afford going to school through the winters, maybe picking up some part-time work for extra cash. "

Hint: Federal direct spending as a % of GDP was higher in the 60s and 70s compared today...state direct spending is mostly flat, as if local spending. Yet college was so affordable, even throughout the 80s and 90s?

"Any subsidization of anything is wealth redistribution - this is pointing a gun (the monopoly on violence) at the head of one group of people, and handing off that money to another group (regardless of the semantics, interest, etc.) This is 100% morally wrong."

I don't debate the morality of it, because morality is much more complex. For example, no one is forcing you to live in the US and pay the taxes. You are free to live. Secondly, you can take the view that since everything you have is due to your luck and your genes, you have no right to anything, and morally, distributing it is the only moral option.

I mean, the government takes money from everyone to pay for the common defense. Is that also morally wrong?

"But given unfettered markets' ability to compete to bring the best to the customer for the least possible amount"

The problem with this view, is that education isn't like any other product. It isn't a bag of chips.

Consumers, the market, etc. are not always rational.

Nowadays, education is more like accreditation than anything. You get the same education for 200K at Harvard as you get for 20K at a state school, but the market values that degree from Harvard so much more. That perception is near-impossible to change. And people spend their dollars according to that perception.

Competing with universities is incredibly difficult, because the market, society, etc. has very strong respect for traditoinal academics. That is what makes it so hard for "innovative" academic techniques to break through. You need smart students willing to "risk" it going for some new approach, and many are understandbly hesitant to do so.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Yep, wins the prize for the

Yep, the anchor wins the prize for the most ignorant and loudest person I've come across today.

With education loans, no one,

With education loans, no one, not even RP mentions, that a huge bulk of the loans are those taken by doctors and lawyers. Those kinds of loans are going to be paid back....I mean, those loans are high, but the benefit is tremendous.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Do you have any concrete

Do you have any concrete numbers on this? I would suggest this is not true.

It was on CNN. Medical and

It was on CNN. Medical and law school debt for 2010 was 53 billion (out of 100 billion) according to the talking head; he extrapolated that number for the total school debt.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I was unaware of that. In my

I was unaware of that. In my personal experience, students of any subject who attend grad school for masters or doctoral degrees rack up just as much debt as doctors and lawyers. I do agree, however that doctors and lawyers have far greater earning potential (mostly doctors).

Geez...

Those TYT anchors are hard to watch!

Favorite quote "Government doesn't cause tuition inflation, it's the bureaucracy at these schools that's so expensive." - LOL

-Peace

♫♫ You say you want a R[ƎVO˩]UTION ♫ Well you know ♫♫

This is partially true.

As someone that works at a University, we could easily lay off 90% of the administrators making more than $50,000 a year and no less work would get done. In fact, it is my contention that the more money one makes in administration the less one knows or does, and usually causes more harm by having the power of authority with little accountability or responsibility. When these "leaders" are not there to make decisions, things usually run much smoother.

Most administration is concerned with making things look pretty ( landscaping, new walkways and buildings ) then worrying about academics. There is always plenty of money for out of town trainings for administrative staff and remodeling offices, but gosh, they just can't find extra money to pay the custodial or maintenance staff a livable wage.

Agreed...

I guess what I found funny was the fact that the Government involvement in tuition loans, grants, and 'higher education funding' is the exact cause of the bulk bureaucracy.

Cut those and the bureaucracy starts to disappear because you can't charge students enough to pay for it (nor will they pay for it). Then tuition prices would fall.

-Peace

♫♫ You say you want a R[ƎVO˩]UTION ♫ Well you know ♫♫

I Couldn't Stand Her Stupidity

She doesn't understand basic economics

student loan scam

tens of thousands of dollars in debt. collection agencies calling and mailing threatening letters, and no jobs available. sounds great! how do i sign up for that?

every day i worry about how i can come up with enough money to send my own children to college at the same time government is extracting money from me to pay for fighting unnecessary wars and for guaranteeing student loans for other people. forgive me for not liking that very much.

nr

WOW so much stupid in that video

WOW so much stupid in that video... had me cringing the whole time. Obviously the dude was just rambling, but I hope the girl host didn't actually believe her own logic.

The co-host in the yellow

The co-host in the yellow sweatshirt was trying to say the government is not on the hook if a student loan is not paid. He is making a “bold face lie.” That is exactly what the student loan program does. The government guarantees the loans, which makes them zero risk for the lender. Otherwise the 18, 20, 24 years olds would never be able to accumulate $10, $15, $20, $30, $40 thousand dollars or more in debt. If that yellow sweatshirt fellow really thinks the loans are completely private loans equivalent to credit card debt or auto loans like he claims, then there is no need at all for any government student loan program is there. He should have no objection to it because per his lie the loans are all private without any government guarantees.

Think about the student loan process. Who benefits? Cui bono? The advocates claim it is all for the benefit of the student. Are the pre-college people really the ones pushing Congress for continuation and continual expansion of the program? If anything they would be pushing for lower costs. Are 14, 15, 16, and 17 year old forming powerful lobbying groups walking the halls of Congress pushing for student loan programs and raising of the limits? Of course not. Who does lobby Congress for such programs? Answer that and you find who really benefits?

The ones that lobby Congress are the universities and schools themselves as well as lenders approved for the student loan program. The lenders like it because it is free guaranteed interest without any risk. That is of course a moral hazard. It’s just like the moral hazard of the housing bubble where lenders lent with little concern or willful ignorance over risk of default believing the loans guaranteed by the mystical “housing prices can only keep rising forever.” What was the result of moral hazard in the housing? Do the Turk hosts really believe the laws of economics somehow do not apply to student loans? The government guarantees student loans so the lenders really do not care about risk. They lend to all students. If a student enters default the government picks up the loan it guaranteed and the federal government. The lenders care so little about the risk of no-payment that the government had to write a law forcing student loan lenders to pursue a minimum amount of collection activities before they could turn to the government on the defaulted loans. Does anyone need to force lenders to pursue collections if a debtor defaults on a credit card or auto loan? Of course not. There is no guarantee by the government there and so the creditors begin collection very quickly and very fiercely. First internally, then with outside collection then to repossessions and judgments and garnishments. No one needs to pass a law to force lenders to pursue collections on defaults where the loans are not guaranteed by the government. Thus the lenders are big profit recipients of the student loan program and lobby for it. Student loans are just another corporatist program of using government power to distort the market and divert profits to large corporations (banks).

But there is another huge beneficiary of the student loan program. Who receives the loan funds? The colleges and schools do. The loan are deposited directly into accounts at the school. What is not spent directly on tuition, registration, student housing, fees, books is disbursed to the student who will spend a great deal more on student activities, student recreation, student restaurants, student unions, and student gear. The whole student loan program is huge money maker for the schools. The more a student can borrow, means the more the schools can make. Schools love the student loan program and lobby in favor of its retention and expansion for their own selfish interest.

Schools also work to “assist” students into going in debt. They find the means to provide one-on-one assistance in filling about financial aid applications to help student go into debt, meanwhile lecture halls can be filled with class sizes of 50, 100, 200, 300 or more students. It shows where their priorities lie. They tell “not gamble with their college education” and advise not to work if they can avoid. Take loans instead so you do not take focus away from your studies; meanwhile the schools are filled with distractions everywhere to do exactly that. They assist students in getting the maximum amount of loans.

Schools even have sales pitches saying it Is an investment and provide charts and tables to prove how much more over a lifetime a college graduate makes. That of course is skewed information. While the schools are not outright lying, they certainly are not telling the whole story and distorting what information they do provide. It borders on misrepresentation. They do not tell the 18 year olds where the data comes from. They do not tell them that students who get good paying jobs are overwhelmingly far more likely to report that back to their colleges then students who do not or who get low paying jobs. That skews the data. They do not tell them those high wages are heavily skewed to engineering degrees that most of the students will not be able to achieve. They also do not subtract the cost of the loan plus interest itself from the from graduates lifetime income. They also do not calculate the benefits of entering the workforce 4 or 5 years earlier and what that would at lower ages if a small portion is invested and the compounding advantages to those who do that. That would be some good financial advice to teach those students. The four or five years or more lost income opportunity cost. They do not advise students that their major is one that is not in high demand in the workforce. They say take any major. Art majors are just as good. They do not tell them that business majors flood the workforce and are a dime a dozen to find. Just get that degree. They do not tell political science majors that no one but schools are advertising for political scientists. That would all be some good advice to have. Then students could make more objective decisions. They do not really care about students. They more they can increase the student loan levels, the more they can increase their costs of education. It is a positive feedback system. They push to raise loan limits to keep up with costs. Then they can raise their costs. Then they can lobby Congress to raise the loan limits to keep up with the costs. Then they can raise the costs. The whole thing is a scam. If schools really cared about the students they would lower the costs now wouldn’t they. They can certainly find ways to do so. Remove some of the unnecessary frills and whistles. Here in Arizona the state schools are constantly undergoing new construction every single year. These big buildings are capable of lasting many decades probably well over a century. They are perfectly good buildings, yet the continually spend billions every year building new buildings and tearing down old buildings that have nothing wrong with them. There is a big savings right there. The whole system and the sale pitches they throw are geared to generating funds for the schools at the cost of pushing these inexperienced naïve 18-19 years on the road to lifetime debt servitude.

Imagine a big auction with lots venders offering lots of education products available. Now imagine many hundreds of thousands or millions of potential buyers there. Many of them have a few thousands of dollars available to spend, and others will have to find ways to earn additional money to spend on their purchases. What levels will the prices be of the ultimate sales? Now imagine that same situation but the government has just put credits cards into the hands every one of the potential buyers with $20 to $45 thousand dollars available told them they can only use that credit card in this shopping arena. Combine that with professionally designed sales pitches advising all those shoppers with newfound credit that every dollar of debt they accumulate is actually a great investment that will come back to them many fold. Don’t worry about the debt level and do not try to find other means to pay like work as that would just jeopardize your investment. No imagine what the prices on the sale will be and compare that to the first scenario. The differences are logical and predictable, and do not take a genius to figure out. Even The Young Turk host can predict what the consequences will be.

Ask graduates (or sometimes drop outs) a few years out who listened to the advice of college admissions and took out maximum loans to avoid or minimize working what they think and how they feel about it now. Would they have done it differently? A great many will advise to avoid loans at all costs. A great many would have done it much differently. A great many will say they were had by their schools, and talked into debt that was unnecessary. Many will even say they would not have gone to college at all.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

Wait a minute, though,

Wait a minute, though, federal student loans come from the federal government. That is what OBama is changing. He is preventing them from coming from the private sector.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

They totally miss the point that colleges can charge

whatever they want when students can defer the costs simply by borrowing whatever those costs are from the government.

OWS and these "experts" don't want to see the logic of how an overabundance of false liquidity is the root of the problem, if somehow they can benefit from reduced rate student loans, etc.

One trillion dollars in student loan debt is not a bubble? Please!!!

=======
RON PAUL 2012

how does the young turk girl...

say the vid is wrong, but then also agree with ron paul and the girl? lol

and LOL at the "lie"... it's easy money to pay for the "bureaucracy"

https://twitter.com/#!/Agonzo1

The public does pay for

The public does pay for student loans via inflation. Banks leverage loans off of deposits, which a lot comes from OTHER loans, which debases the currency. It also creates an illusion of this big wad of money in that people are free to take. Tuition rates have soared beyond “normal” inflation due to the incentive of “free money”. The Young Turks are wrong that federal student aid doesn’t increase tuition, they don’t understand the concept of incentive. When you offer “free money” there is a natural incentive to incrementally take more of it over time, after all, it’s “free money” and you don’t have to look a student in the eyes and take all their money. One of my profs paid about $65/semester at an average college (in the 60s). How do you explain the rise of tuition far and above the rate of inflation? There had to be an incentive somewhere to cause this, after all, the rates wouldn’t go up if there wasn’t an expectation that the money would come in. Who offered the expectation?

Student Loans are Banks subsidies.

Student Loans are Banks subsidies.

Federally insured mortgages are bank subsidies.

Mortgage interest tax deductions are government subsidies for the banks.

In fact, many of the laws passed by Congress come with some kind of subsidies for the banking cartel.

Students are too stupid to realize that the interest paid is an impatience tax. Clearly I wasn't the only one.

Free includes debt-free!

lol the black dude don't have

lol the black dude don't have a clue.. what does he think the bank bailouts of 2008 were?

The turks are missing the point

all this does is make debt-slaves out of students before they can even start their adult life.

Obama lowering interest rates simply provides additional incentive to take the plunge.

Many economists say tuition debt as the next bubble to pop. When it does, I suspect tuition will plummet across the board, like housing.

The girl in the video did an excellent job BTW :)

Government loans

can be dangerous to your health.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/swat-team-busts-in...

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Actually..

I would say nowadays with the internet, how could costs possibly keep going up?

Why can't they start teaching through videos and the like and dramatically reduce needs for books by offering cd's or thumbdrives of all necessary info?

One problem is, too many people are going to school for silly unnecessary subjects with mostly little overall value.

I wonder the statistics on how many worthless Psycology Degrees have been issued. (Just one example) I know of at least a couple. And I mean, the amount of people who actually used that degree to improve lives in that field versus how many acquired it for the sake of acquiring it.

Here is a big point though.

Throughout school life, teachers will not talk about money at all, for the most part. My history teacher said it was ok to get into credit card debt as long as one "stayed within certain limits" but never did we get a class into the finer details of anything monetary.

Then there was a two week school-wide campaign to entice kids into college.

So what did they bring? Huge stacks of cash....to manipulate all the kids by saying...look how much money a "college grad" earns compared to a "non-college grad". Never mentioning the fact that they will need that much money just to catch up with the lack of income during school and debts acquired during the same period.

The point is, they never spent one minute instructing kids that they are making a very important decision and borrowing money will affect the rest of their lives so they need to make sure what they are pursuing is worth the risk.

There was no balanced discussion, there was only manipulation. By the time high school is over, the kids have bought into the idea as if it was their own and it is completely natural to go into debt just as long as they could continue the game of "supposed eductation".

But, if kids were presented with the sober facts and compared the pros and cons of each sector , much less criticism would fall on public officals and the institutions we allow them to contruct.

But no, instead of that, they turn around and say look at all those evil kids who don't want to pay back the loans they took out to acquire a worthless education.

Look, if you have a college

Look, if you have a college degree, unemployment is 5%. IF not, it is 12%?

The world wants highly-skilled labor. China, India, and Europe are beating the pants off the United States. They have FREE (FREE!) or highly subsidized education, yet for some reason, can offer quality education with great access.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Is that because

we lack college education in this country? And plus, there are plenty out there who are brilliant and stifled at every turn by the bureaucracy.

That is what this is all about. Legitimate business that provides more responsible economically-environmentally sound stewardship etc etc is stifled at every turn while big corporations who are less economically-environmentally sound etc get the red-carpet treatment.

Pursuing policies that promote small businesses being crushed by the expense of large bankrupt companies (bailout) that will still continue to collapse into the future is a terrible business model.

And I say, let the third world come up. We absolutely need skilled workers globally, just not at the expense of our taxpayers. If companies in America required skilled-educated workers, we would have them.

I say...let's focus on quality and cutting costs

Think about learning guitar on the internet versus learning guitar through a teacher 20 years ago....huge price reduction, huge quality increase, video instructions but also live mentoring, learning many different styles etc

And are we to believe this cannot be accomplished in reading, writing, and arithmetic?

I would think through even integrating technical-educational school group video games (one idea) we could have young teens gradutaing college-level engineering school etc

We have put limits on kids for so long, I know I myself became very bored at school and felt like I wasn't learning anything even with "good grades"

Why not start them early on with "fun" "exciting" yet very powerful collaborative efforts?

Would it really cost that much more than printing up millions of textbooks that kids hardly use, full of plain, boring at best, distorted at worst "facts-figures" that were hardly ever structured into singular linse of reasoning?

Even if we have to continue to pay current levels of tuition costs, the very least that we can demand is for the quality to dramatically improve and classes that cannot pass a basic scrutiny of cost benefit analysis should be dropped.

They should focus more resoures on a powerful core-curriculum rather than just teaching a bunch of random classes full of random theories. Where have the trade schools gone?

If industry needs the workers, why can't they receive tax incentives to finance the education of their workers and their children?

This is just a generalization, of course, there are some great, very legitimate schools producing high quality education, but as a whole, there is much room for major improvement.

I don't think the problem is

I don't think the problem is the standard, but what people are specializing in.

The country has enough MBAs, bankers, psychology majors, liberal arts majors, etc. And no offense to anyone who majored in those things. This country needs people who specialize in other things. Public health. Engineering (so badly!). Nursing.

That is what the country needs, but people just don't go into those fields. Post-secondary, I think the quality of education is actually quite high. Our scientists, physicists, etc. can compete very, very well on an international scale. But we don't have enough of those people. A highly-trained, know-it-all history major is just not as useful as a middling engineer who can do some programming in today's economy.

In regards to "If companies in America required skilled-educated workers, we would have them."

That is why immigration from the 3rd world is still pretty darn high.

Also, pre-university education in this country is terrible. Not because of spending, but because of educational attitudes. And when pre-university education is so bad, it will limit access to a university.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Yeah it is hard to fit in everything...

but that is also my point. It is the overall education package and pre-college is dismal really.

If anything, high school scares kids away from actually learning and applying and teaches them how to float through.

I remember in English writing class desiring to write about subjects I found interesting, and yet being forced to write papers on subjects I care very little about like gay marriage or something.

Don't even get me started on what a waste sociology class was. Yeah, maybe I should've done engineering, but let's say I design an engine that runs on water.

What are my chances of getting the product to market without being "horizontalized"?

I'm the girl in this video

I'm the girl in this video getting attacked. I wish The Young Turks would've invited me to a lively debate instead of having a one-way argument with a YouTube video.

great job

Great job. Keep it up! If you ever make it down to NYC from Buffalo, you have free drinks from me waiting for you.

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt