Well fine, but it's still all theoretical criticism and casting government as the bogeyman.
My criticism isn't theoretical. I'm critical of what we've done and what it's wrought.
If you had it your way (ie, privatized everything)
I've never said we should "privatize everything." Hell, you just asked me if I'd have supported the GI Bill and I said I would. Is it really too much to ask that you accurately represent what I've said?
the sickest of us wouldn't have health insurance
??
and private banks would require such strict rules around educational loans that many of those seeking education would never attend in the first place.
Now, this is closer to something I've said. Have I mentioned that I think fewer, not more, people should be going to college? You're saying this to me as if it's necessarily a bad thing if "many of those seeking education would never attend."
A bad investment is a bad investment, regardless who picks up the tab.
If somebody wants to pay out of pocket for a degree that is worth less than what it costs to obtain, I'm not going to stand in their way. If a bank wants to lend money to somebody who wants to get a degree that is worth less than it costs to obtain, I'm not going to stand in their way. But when you throw that onto taxpayers, that's a different story.
Again, whatever problems you may have with how I think we should approach this, it's the approach you're defending that has us hurtling towards another massive financial disruption. Am I to assume that you're OK with this?
I envision banks requiring a student to selectively major in a handful of possible majors and perhaps even require service to the company following graduation.
Well, the latter "vision" is absurd. When have banks ever required people to work for them in order to secure a loan? An employer may lend an employee money for tuition with that condition. But that's already happening now and it's hardly the stuff of a social horror film.
As for the former, that's the glory of market competition. If one bank would only finance certain degrees, another might offer a broader range. Or maybe they offer different terms/rates for one major over another. Why shouldn't the disparity in risk be factored in? Maybe universities would price their varying degrees accordingly. Why not make lucrative degrees more expensive than those which carry little monetary value?
As to your other question about requiring military service for a federal loan, no of course not. For starters, the force must be voluntary.
The GI Bill was passed for returning veterans of WWII -- most of whom were conscripted.
Second, again, government investments in education for its citizens are an investment in the future.
You keep repeating that platitude. It's largely been an awful investment -- that's precisely why the government took it all over. They expect it to collapse. This wasn't done because it's an "investment in the future." It was done in the wake of the housing bust to preemptively contain the economic fallout from an anticipated wave of defaults.
What it means for the future is almost certainly more pain than gain.
If the degrees bought with all that money were worth what was spent on them, we wouldn't have to worry about defaults, Ranger.
Because the programs as currently written aren't optimal, you're back to your ACA plan which is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
No, as with the ACA, I'm for throwing out the bathwater -- and there's a lot more bathwater in the tub than baby.
I'm not saying that all kinds of federal spending on higher education should go away. I'm saying we need to apply some common sense instead of indiscriminately throwing good money after bad.
