beebee from SCSU
Comment Posted: 1/18/2007 9:35:04 AM
This article is rife with contradictions.
First of all, it is obvious Bachmann has comprehension issues already (this early in the game??? *sigh) The bill would not affect me at all (a graduate who already has a job) as she asserts, but only those just beginning to take out loans. And being that most low-income students are forced to take out more loans that are unsubsidized than the more well-to-do individuals, I see this as a great step toward helping to make college more affordable, contrary to what Loncorich claims. And just what does the White House consider "future education expenses?" Um...I would think payingoff a stack of loans would be among them.
Proud Progressive from Your NeighborhoodComment Posted: 1/18/2007 11:38:18
AMBachman is not only a fool, but one who clearly does not represent the
students, aspiring students, or working class families in our district. This vote alone shows that she's in a tiny minority already, even among the remaining Republicans in the house. Her clock is ticking and I'll be glad to see her sent home in 23 months.
jotunheim from St. Cloud Comment Posted: 1/18/2007 12:02:28 PMBachmann,
get a clue! It would be, at the least, a step in the right direction even if it benefits priarily those already out of school. The rate hike should have never happened in the first place, so think of it as making up for past sins. I'm sure they taught you about that at Oral Roberts U., though maybe plain old logical reasoning works best in most cases.
UncommonSense82 from St. Cloud Comment Posted: 1/18/2007 12:46:52 PMI
don't see how cutting rates DOES NOT help lower-income students. I think saving a few thousand over the life of a loan is something that could be considered HELPING out those with lower incomes. As a recent graduate with a low income, I welcome the rate cuts and side with the 356 thinking representatives. Bachmann, you disgust me.
Mudduck from the Burb Comment Posted: 1/18/2007 12:47:53 PM
There seems to be some poor reporting here as this is what the sponsor of the bill HR7 said(unless we all got suckered where by the campaign promise does not fit
the final result) -
Sponsored by Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, the proposal would cut the subsidized federal Stafford loan interest rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next five years and help an estimated 5.5 million students. The loans are dubbed “subsidized” because the meter on interest payments doesn’t start until the student leaves school. But half of all Stafford loans are unsubsidized — meaning interest accrues while a student is in college — and those students wouldn’t see any relief under the plan, continuing to pay the current 6.8 percent interest rate. And it also wouldn’t change other problems experts say contribute to heavy debt — from sky-high repayment schedules for newly minted graduates making little money to stagnant Pell Grants, need-based federal aid that has a maximum annual limit of $4,050.
Let's hope people do not forget about the follies of Congresswoman Bachmann over the next 2 years...I'll do my part to make sure that does not happen.