Rep. Price Votes No on Helping Kids
Congressman Tom Price did not get big campaign donations from college kids so he tried to leave them in the cold with a break on their Student loans. I will remind you this was not a corporate give-away bill that Tom Price votes for in trade for campaign donations on a regular basis. This loan bill the kids actually have to pay the money back and Price gets nothing.
As a conservative the concept of borrowing money and paying it back for education is capitalism and a true free market concept, giving all an opportunity. It also falls into the concept of “Pursuit of Happiness”.
The hypocrisy of not voting for a break on interest rates on student loans and yet voting for corporate give a ways like the Highway Bill, Energy Bill…. is shameful.
I am sure Tom Price does not hear about this problem in his neighborhood with multi million dollar home or at the exclusive private School he sends his own kid.
What do you think?
Big Daddy Tom Price will teach those irresponsible naive college students who want an education a valuable real-world lesson: unless you own a corporation, you’re a superstar, or a politician, your future will be sold out to the highest bidder.
Gingrey voted Nay as well. Are you sure there wasn’t some poison pill in the mix?
Congress shouldn’t be subsidizing student loans anyway. Please show mean where this is a function of the federal government as mandated in the Constitution.
Most if not all of the Georgia Republicans voted against it…as did Jeff Flake (who is a hero of mine). I was shocked to see Ron Paul vote for it though.
As a conservative the concept of borrowing money and paying it back for education is capitalism and a true free market concept giving all an opportunity.
Uhhhh, no it’s not capitalism. Capitalism is using the free market for these types of issues…not government.
What are you talking about is statism.
Tom Price had some ridiculous moments on CSPAN last week! He’s a caucus soldier from a place called shill.
Jason
A student loan is not a give away. Because the student has to pay it back. They have very tight rules about the obligation. I look at this like SBA loans which have been a very successful program.
Tom Price voted for no bid contracts, unfair tax breaks targeted to multi-national corporations verse small business, highways to nowhere……and not an interest rate break for kids getting student loans?
BTW Adam Smith the father of free market economics was very supportive of Public Education.
Jason,
Where does it say in the capitalism playbook that banks get to charge interest?
John,
I don’t bow to everything Smith said. I’ve been influenced by Friedman, Rand and Hayek more than by Smith. I don’t even believe in public education.
I don’t agree with subsidies for big corporations or small business either.
I’m just saying that Price and others didn’t do anything wrong here.
Mad Dog,
I don’t know what you mean, but it’s a service and the bank should be able to charge for it.
Hey, Tom Price’s kids don’t need student loans, so why should anybody elses?
Maybe Congress should have called it the “Be More Like Tom Price” bill.
Jason
We are land known for giving opportunity for all. I do not agree with affirmative action, but all should have equal access. Do you want a place where the rich only get educated? We would end up creating a larger under class which at the end would hurt our economy.
Price supports No Child Left Behind which is a give a way to large publishing Companies at the expense of schools. This big government program has been a failure by any standard. Yet he does not support helping kids borrow money to go to college. It makes no logical sense other than kids do not have lobbyist like publishing companies that can help Tom “for sale” Price.
CNN did a special feature about Tom Price and a Democrat from Las Vegas being bought off by lobbyist.
Jason
FYI
THE TROUBLED ECONOMICS OF AYN RAND
The founder of modern economics, Adam Smith, takes a different approach by trying to incorporate both concepts in his “system of natural liberty.” Smith and Rand are in agreement about the universal benefits of a free capitalistic society. But Smith rejects Rand’s vision of selfish independence. He teaches that there are two driving forces behind man’s actions–in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, he identifies the first as “sympathy” or “benevolence” toward others in society, while in his Wealth of Nations, he focuses on the second, “self interest,” the right to pursue one’s own business. Smith believes that as the market economy develops and individuals move away from their community, “self interest” becomes a more dominant force than “sympathy.” But both are essential to achieve “universal opulence.” (Smith 1965:11)
Perhaps a true capitalist spirit can best be summed up in the Christian commandment, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matthew 22:39) Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises would undoubtedly agree with this creed, but apparently Howard Roark and John Galt — and their creator — would agree with only half. And that’s a great tragedy for the greatest novelist of the 20th century.
http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/0101aynrand.html
Jason
FYI
He owes a huge debt and he makes no claim for tremendous originality. Friedrich Hayek would be the first to tell you that. If Hayek were around, and you said that to Hayek, he would agree completely. As would Milton Friedman. Not about certain academic work that Friedman did — and ditto for Hayek. These guys did all sorts of stuff we don’t understand – about price curves, Phillips Curves, Phillips screw drivers and heavens knows what. But as far their stuff that any of us understand – The Road to Serfdom or Free to Be You and Me or whatever, they would be the first to say “Yes, we see so far. But we’re not even midgets standing on somebody’s shoulders. We’re head lice looking out from Adam Smith’s wig.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26320
Jason,
Good response to my baiting.
Banks are free to say no to joining the program.
Why should I guarenttee banks a profit?