This is a great article if you live in the land of pixie dust and fairies. It does not matter what O does or the next puppet of the united states. The next bubble to pop will be the education bubble. The only way out for most of the students coming out with useless degree's will be another government bailout. We all know how well that worked out for the lower and middle class when wall street and the banks were bailed out under O. All of the big boys of wall street still received their million dollar bonuses with our tax payer money. I would love for someone to name me one thing that O or his administration has done to make things better for the people of the USA. OK the challenge is on this should be good ..... I do not believe in personal attacks so don't start I will not respond.

OK, one thing. My 21 year old grandson can get insurance coverage under my daughter's plan. That definitely makes things better for him and a lot of others in his situation.
Alright, one more. The employees of GM and hundreds of auto suppliers would be much worse off but for the actions of the administration in bailing out the company.

There are more, but I don't have time right now.

There are multiple issues here. For one, the price of a university education has almost quadrupled in the last decade, far outstripping the overall inflation rate. Secondly, too many people are attending university, coming out with basically useless academic credentials and then working in a fast food outlet because there is no demand for degrees in Mayan Fabric Weaving or Medieval Communications ( I jest, but only a little). Third, it is not, in my humble opinion, the role of the Federal Government to subsidize tertiary education. This should be left to the individual states.

The hope for upward mobility where a disadvantaged child can move up into the middle class has been central to the American Dream. It is what has made this country great. And education is a key to the American Dream and a strong middle class. Your comment, Hugh McMichael, implies instead that only a privileged few should have access to the kind of education that makes upward mobility and the dream of a middle-class life possible. As college costs have risen, so have the barriers to this dream. Why should the government add another?

Hugh, good comments. Yes, university tuition is excessive. And there could be and should be criteria which would preclude subsidies for useless credentials. But take my grandaughter, for instance, a bright kid, long committed to being a veterinarian. Her (single) mother cannot help with finances and neither can I. She holds an almost full time job (in a veterinarian setting) and is taking a full course at UConn. Without student loans, she could not possibly do it. Do we say to all people like her, "sorry, you can't afford college, go do something else, only kids of wealthy families need apply".
Without arguing constitutional issues, it is clearly in the national interest to have an adequate supply of qualified veterinarians, doctors, business executives, teachers, etc. and if subsidized loans are the way to achieve that, it seems a reasonable function of the Federal Government. The hard fact is that some states might do it but many would not. And states have no assurance that students would stay in the state after graduation. BTW, 3.5% or so is not an unreasonable rate these days. Banks are writing mortgages under 5%.

I don't see any pixie dust in Ms. Ferrandino's article. If Willyone does not agree with it, that is ok, but what option does he think is available to see that the U.S. remains competitive in a very competitive world? It seems pretty clear. Compared to other developed countries we are falling behind in our graduates in technically demanding fields. Like scientists, engineers and computers as well as in other important fields. Mitt Romney and Republicans do not seem to agree with what seems obvious to me, but they have stated that all they care about is putting Obama down. So who knows if they have some other plan for creating more scientists and engineers. They have not told us. Maybe that is where the pixie dust comes in. I don't know. It is also clear that the states have never been able to support certain needs on a national level especially not now, and the federal government is the only way it is going to happen. If Willyone knows something I don't, he should call Mitt Romney and tell him.

Well said, Rita. By Obama's cutting out the middlemen (banks), the government will receive the same percentage of interest on these loans as it always has. Only the Republicans want to increase the rate on student loans so that they can cover their proposed budget--anything, just anything to preserve the tax cuts for the rich. The poor, the working class, the young...anyone but the rich must pay more. What a racket.

The plot to kill anything positive that Obama does now has the RepubliCants passing a bill that deprives women of health care in order to finance the student loan reduction. It will fail in the senate, of course, but it's sad that the GOP has extended its war on women and women's health to the college loan program. Have these fools no shame?.

As usual, Ms Ferrandino's statements are not exactly the whole truth: Let's look at the facts about Romney's actions on the Student Loans issue:

Published April 28, 2012

Associated Press
"The matter of student loan interest rates was on the back burner until barely a week ago when the White House elevated it to the top of its agenda. Obama pounded away during visits to university campuses in North Carolina, Iowa and Colorado, pivotal states in the November election.

Interest rates are scheduled to double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, on July 1 due to a quirk in a law Democrats muscled through Congress five years ago.

Romney on Monday endorsed the $6 billion move to forestall the interest rate increase, even before Obama had arrived at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Boehner quickly set a vote, using unspent money from Obama's unpopular health care law to pay for the plan."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/28/gop-follows-romney-lead-in-parrying-democrats/#ixzz1tMKwdQOh

Joyce, this is one of those many issues where Romney seems to be against something while talking to one audience and for it when talking to another. What to believe? And more recently, his advice to students was to "take a risk, and borrow money from your parents" -- assuming most parents had plenty to lend. A little out of touch with average Americans, I'd say.
Finally, the bill passed by the House would keep student loan rates at current levels, but at the expense of eliminating a preventative health program that mainly benefits women. How does the GOP expect to win women's votes if they keep slapping them in the face?

drd,
The Health Program does not seek to 'mainly benefit women' - that is a myth. Review its many pages and you will see it seeks to benefit those that cannot afford health insurance - mainly families with children who currently don't get health insurance benefits from their employers and secondly those that no longer are employed that don't get health insurance from employers. The money to pay for continuing the student loans at a 3.4% rate should come from decreasing waste in tax dollars that the current federal government spends. I won't go into the many ways. The Obama administration, as always, wants to keep the student loan rate at 3.4% by raising tax dollars. Continuing to keep student loan rates low, as well as Obama Care will increase tax dollars in big ways. And the truth of that is increasing tax dollars affects all of us in America - including women.

I'd love to see government waste sharply cut. For example, the US government could save a lot of money by not paying for ads for military recruitment at NASCAR events. Someone in Congress proposed that cut. However, NASCAR squealed that its races would be cut back if government ads were withdrawn. It's all a matter of priorities.

But yes, women are way over-represented among those who cannot afford the expense of the insurers' health-care premiums for themselves and their children. As a result, women as a demographic are the primary beneficiaries.

(My beef with our old health care system is that it's tied to employment. No other first-world country does this. It leaves out many who "fall through the cracks." For example, if you lose your job at say, 50, you don't qualify for Medicare. You're not covered by your employer after 18 months. Even if you are, the premiums are terribly expensive when you have to shoulder them 100%.--especially while unemployed! You might be able to find two or even three part-time jobs to cover basic living expenses. Yet, being "part-time," you most have no health care insurance through the employer(s). Trying to get health insurance as an individual is nearly impossible without some kind of universal health care system, even IF you have parents still living who have money to loan you. Should you become ill while still seeking permanent employment, you're screwed. Yes, I have close in this exact position. Sob.)