Video: Romney sides with Obama in supporting extension of low student-loan rates

posted at 4:41 pm on April 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

Remember that NYT piece last week wondering about friction between Romney and the House GOP as as he tacks towards the center for the general election while they try to hold the line on the right?

Here’s the first wisp of smoke.

“I fully support the effort to extend the low interest rate on student loans,” Romney said at a joint news conference with Florida Senator Marco Rubio. “There was some concern that that would expire halfway through the year, and I support extending the temporary relief on interest rates for students as a result of student loans, obviously, in part because of the extraordinarily poor conditions in the job market.”

In publicly breaking with his own party, Romney is taking away a potential wedge issue for President Obama’s campaign — and giving hope to Democrats that they may find new momentum for the legislation [to extend the rates]. The deadline for the current, low interest rates to expire is July 1…

Republicans oppose the bill in part on the grounds that it isn’t paid for…

Asked whether House Republican leadership would get behind Courtney’s bill, given Romney’s comments, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner was non-committal.

GOP Rep. Jeff Landry told the Times last week vis-a-vis Romney, “We’re not a cheerleading squad. We’re the conductor. We’re supposed to drive the train.” We’ll find out soon how true that is, but in the meantime read this Daily Caller piece from Friday explaining succinctly what a clever trap this was for Democrats to set. It’s not just that the extension isn’t paid for that bothers Republicans, it’s that lower rates keep the higher-education bubble inflated and keep the Democrats’ pals in academia flush with cash. But with the lower rates set to expire automatically in July, Romney was in a bind. If he sided with Obama, there’d be instant agita within the GOP that our “Massachusetts moderate” nominee is already going wobbly on spending. If he sided with House Republicans, Obama would spend the next week bashing him for hating kids and education and the middle class and all things good and true. In fact, The One actually organized a multistate trip and an appearance on Jimmy Fallon’s show expressly for that purpose.

Romney chose door number one because he thinks he has a shot at winning young voters, or at least at enough young voters to make Obama’s lift that much heavier in November. One out of every two new college grads is unemployed or underemployed; among 18-to-24 year olds, fewer than 50 percent say they’d like to see a second term for O. Romney’s not going to hand Obama an excuse to get an otherwise ambivalent core constituency excited, especially when the cost of extending the lower rate is “only” $5.6 billion this year. He can agree with him on this and then bash him on bigger spending items (I think/hope). Besides, Romney’s probably looking for a high-profile issue on which to distinguish himself from House Republicans. He’s already praised Ryan’s budget so he’s checked the “fiscal conservative” box; now he’s going to do something for centrists and independents by daring Boehner to undercut him. He likely figures that, with the primary set to unofficially end tomorrow night in Pennsylvania and the general election to start in earnest, the House GOP will be reluctant to kneecap him on a relatively small-ticket item. And if they do, that’s fine: Centrists will feel reassured that he won’t necessarily be led by the right and conservatives will turn out to vote for him against O in November anyway.

Exit question one: Romney will definitely man up and have that “serious conversation” with America about entitlement reform when the time comes, right? Exit question two: Does this mean, contra David Plouffe, that he really isn’t the, er, most conservative nominee since Goldwater?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

. You have to pick your battles heading into this election. Don’t sacrifice electoral success in favor of ideological purity, especially with the Presidency and Senate on the line.

Doughboy on April 23, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Wait, when did wanting a balanced budget and the government to actually pay for things become a purist or an ideological idea? If that is what Mitt supporters deem purist and ideological; we are in serious trouble.

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Will do..:)

Dire Straits on April 23, 2012 at 7:15 PM

well,
it does take it out of Obama’s hand as a weapon against Romney with the college students…..

Otherwise, WTF?

ProfShadow on April 23, 2012 at 7:16 PM

So, anyone else worried besides me?
upinak on April 23, 2012 at 4:56 PM

About Romney winning? No. Romney’s business experience reassures many that he can “fix” the economy. Most people recognize Obama as an utter failure.

About the survival of our country? Yes. Yes, I am concerned.

conservative pilgrim on April 23, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Checks email. Rmoney™ for the win !

Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Let him focus on the big stuff like repealing Obamacare, passing the Ryan budget, reforming entitlements, and reducing the size of government.

Doughboy on April 23, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Romney has already made it quite clear he has no intention of repealing Obamacare

He said flat out he would not repeal the individual mandate.

Bunch of yahoos.

sartana on April 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

ah, hahahahahahaha!!!

If they make a movie about the Romney campaign, it should be called “The Sting.” Just love reading the comments here by Willard’s “marks”.

james23 on April 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM

About Romney winning? No. Romney’s business experience reassures many that he can “fix” the economy. Most people recognize Obama as an utter failure.

Sorry business experience doesn’t instill confidence in me. Can you say Warren Buffet?

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Wait, when did wanting a balanced budget and the government to actually pay for things become a purist or an ideological idea? If that is what Mitt supporters deem purist and ideological; we are in serious trouble.

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 7:14 PM

They aren’t on your side. You’re just now getting that?

james23 on April 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

If you have to become progressive, in order to win, have you really won anything?

fatlibertarianinokc on April 23, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Buckshot Bill on April 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Yes, it would be helpful if we knew there was a solid core of policy/governing philosophy that would guide decisions and mark out goals with parameters to any compromises and lines in the sand beyond which a candidate would not go.
INC on April 23, 2012 at 6:17 PM

The main strategy seems to be to muddy the waters and trick precious moderates into voting for Romney and not to provide a clear difference or choice, just the ABO.

Dongemaharu on April 23, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Wait, when did wanting a balanced budget and the government to actually pay for things become a purist or an ideological idea? If that is what Mitt supporters deem purist and ideological; we are in serious trouble.

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 7:14 PM

They aren’t on your side. You’re just now getting that?

james23 on April 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

It isn’t even that. For months we have been told by Romney and his supporters that he is the only one who can fix the economic situation. That would be his strong suit. Given the first chance to make a statement that the government should be able to afford its programs; he capitualates. So apparently the economy and the debt doesn’t matter to them either.

Let’s review, we know they aren’t social cons, certainly don’t care about foreign policy experience, and now apparently the debt can go hang itself as long as Romney looks good. This party is in serious trouble. I didn’t like Romney, but I never bought that he was Obamalite. Now..

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM

If the majority of loaners barely, or do not have, the income to pay on the current rates, what good does it do to raise it?

You need to understand this market before falling into the “federal debt” reaction.

If a raise in other rates – captial gains, corporate taxes – will hurt the sectors, then the same applies to student loan repayment.

It’s the easiest argument for Barry to make – “see, they want to lower the corporate rates and raise your student loan rates”.

What Boehner/McConnell and Romney should do is say “We agree. But why don’t you offset it from that never-ending slush fund”?

If Barry says no, then they have a more recent example that Barry couldn’t balance a checkbook, let alone the national economy.

budfox on April 23, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Sorry, as long as the loans are being repaid I’m not seeing the problem. Someone may not be making as much off the loans, but the principal is still being paid.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Wrong. The problem is that the value of the dollar is lower now than when the loans were made. So, covering the principal means that the lenders are getting less dollar value. The lower interest rate barely covers the loss in dollar value. What’s wrong with paying the rate that was agreed upon when the loan was made?

chewmeister on April 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Don’t panic. Mittens will change his mind next week, and tell us all he is against it. No worry. BTW have you see the really big tent over there?

kringeesmom on April 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

I’m shocked, shocked to find out Mit is a RINO…shocked! Obviously, I’l hold my nose and vote for him since he is the lesser of two evils…what a f’in choice?

Doomsday on April 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Oh Allahpundit, you’re so hurt that Romney is the nominee. But ask yourself this, what does one do when all student loans are now government controlled? Romney wants the private sector to control the student loan process. He wants loans not guaranteed by the government but because we are in this student loan situation, what do we do?

I favor lowering the interest rate down for student loans to alleviate the crisis that Democrats have created and maybe, just maybe, we can negotiate tougher standards on higher education and private education who want that “government” money. I think that is doable. It is not all or nothing, because if you think that way, then you will get nothing and higher education will just remain broken and government controlled.

ConservativeLaw on April 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

It isn’t even that. For months we have been told by Romney and his supporters that he is the only one who can fix the economic situation.

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM

No one in his right mind ever actually bought that. Oh yeah – you got your Willard McDole Kiddies and you got Conservative Slaves who vote for GOP candidates who’ve sworn up and down for 50 years that they’d cut government.

They never have – never will, as long as the GOP establishment is in charge of the party. And – Willard McDole is a key member of that “establishment”.

Voting for him is USELESS – no it’s actually SUICIDE.

You should be able to tell – just from this one issue (but you can look at his past history for MANY others) – that he doesn’t have the balls to take on the tough issues and STOP SPENDING THIS NATION INTO DEBT.

He can’t fix the nation. And – since the next President will either fix the nation or crash it – he’ll crash it.

He’ll crash it – same as Obama would.

So now – your choice in November …

1. Do you vote for a GOP establishment candidate who CLAIMS he’s conservative but who will CRASH the nation and thereby reap the BLAME FOR IT on Conservatives?

or …

2. Vote for Obama – and then blame big government Socialism when the fall comes?

If you choose answer 1 – rest assured, Willard will destroy the Reagan legacy and put Conservatism in the dog house for a generation.

You can bank that.

HondaV65 on April 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

More trolls on this thread than any in HA history!

Thanks for the conceptual troll flypaper AP!

profitsbeard on April 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

and maybe, just maybe…

ConservativeLaw on April 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

“Maybe, Just Maybe” – that is the creed of the GOP establishment.

“Maybe” you have a hole in your head.

HondaV65 on April 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

If you have to become progressive, in order to win, have you really won anything?

fatlibertarianinokc on April 23, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Nope

HondaV65 on April 23, 2012 at 7:43 PM

I’m sorry ALLAHPUNDIT, but can you PLEASE STOP WORKING FOR THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND BASHING ROMNEY?

I am just so damned sick of it. Romney is going to be our nominee. Either get behind him or shut up or just start taking a paycheck from Obama and get it over with.

Anything you can find on Romney you bash him. First you are quoting silly MSM polls with insanely biased samples and now this. Just shut up already.

mitchellvii on April 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

I resent the ‘can only find work well below their skill level’ remark. I see young’uns all the time who have a piece of paper that mommy and daddy paid some college to give said young’uns… ‘Skill level’ should read ‘basic training’ level…
-
/Rant off… any Romney but Obama

RalphyBoy on April 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Levin just had him for dinner over it.

Plus, the lefties are eyeing your 401k/IRA accounts to eliminate the debt and pay for the ‘Affordable Care’.

Beware of the right more than of the left. YOU know the left. The right will deceive you every time, pretending not to.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Sorry, but as long as the govt is in the student loan business, they have no business charging a dime of interest, let alone the “low” rates they charge now. It defies basic economic principles to charge any interest- the loans carry zero risk. You can’t default on them short of death, so why should the borrower be charged as if there is any risk? The point of interest in this case (govt spending) would be to limit the risk to the entity doing the loaning. Since there’s no way to get out of paying the loans, no risk exists.

TheBlueSite on April 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

mitchellvii on April 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

You’ve got the sight set on the wrong target. Here’s a clue – direct it at Mitt and yourself.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

mitchellvii on April 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Just because the prince is the nominee…should AP blow powdered sugar up his azz, all day, every day?

Be critical while you can. Mitt will scroom you later.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM

mitchellvii on April 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Another one pizzing on the host’s floor.

katy the mean old lady on April 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM

chewmeister on April 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Umm, that’s the case with every transaction in history, minus any deflation, and there have been relatively few years in history where we had deflation thanks to the Fed.

TheBlueSite on April 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM

mitchellvii on April 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Why should people shill for a politician just cause he’s technically running as a Republican? Stupid policy moves should called out as such. No one is entitled to our support, whether in the form of votes or as praise.

Buckshot Bill on April 23, 2012 at 7:58 PM

how tell me again how Mitt is any different than Obama?

Soros was 100% correct:

‘Well, look, either you’ll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in,’ he told Chrystia Freeland of Reuters in a videotaped interview. ‘If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092958/George-Soros-says-isnt-difference-Romney-Obama.html#ixzz1suZb4SW0

the elites have seen to it that no matter who wins the election they win.

enjoy the socialism from the gop.

unseen on April 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM

This is what happens when folks go for personality above principles…

(And, in this case, pretty tepid personality to match the seeming tepidity of demonstrated principles.)

The federal government has NO business being involved in any sort of loans, student, home or otherwise…none…save for ensuring the strength of the dollar and the legality of the banking system overall.

coldwarrior on April 23, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Why should people shill for a politician just cause he’s technically running as a Republican? Stupid policy moves should called out as such. No one is entitled to our support, whether in the form of votes or as praise.

Buckshot Bill on April 23, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Yeppers, you want koolaid drinkers become a Democrat!

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 8:06 PM

‘So it won’t be that great a difference and I think there won’t be a great deal of enthusiasm on either side of the battleground. It will be more civilised than the previous elections have been.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092958/George-Soros-says-isnt-difference-Romney-Obama.html#ixzz1suaC4tRX

in other words the peasants won’t rise up like they did in 2010. Make no mistake the anger unleashed by the TEA party in 2010 sent the fear of god into the elites.

Look for Mitt to pick Portman as VP.

unseen on April 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM

I worked two jobs and yes I had the GI Bill back in 1972. I graduated with a Masters from Penn State with no debt. Stop sending tax money to the colleges. Watch the tuition drop. God is it difficult , you idiots? Have you seen the waterfalls and lounges these schools build. Stop funding them. BTW not everyone deserves to go to college… Duh!?

MNDavenotPC on April 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM

OT: anyone here about the Lockheed Martin Machinists striking at F-35 plants?

Count to 10 on April 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Well this is typical RINO activity. no one is going forgive the debt a family has to take on to survive just that little bit longer, just a pander.IMO

boogaleesnots on April 23, 2012 at 8:17 PM

chewmeister on April 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

So if someone buys a house at 6% interest they shouldn’t refinance at 4 1/2%? You think that everyone should just keep the 6% they originally agreed to to be fair?

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Umm, that’s the case with every transaction in history, minus any deflation, and there have been relatively few years in history where we had deflation thanks to the Fed.

TheBlueSite on April 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Hence, why they charge interest. To cover their assets. Simple.

chewmeister on April 23, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Another reason I won’t vote for him.

I’ve got about 30 grand in student loan debt. I’m paying it off. I will finish paying it off. You wanna do something, feds? Crack down on state universities that are doubling their tuition every give years.

MadisonConservative on April 23, 2012 at 8:39 PM

unseen on April 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM

We really thank you for your “concern”..:)

Dire Straits on April 23, 2012 at 8:40 PM

chewmeister on April 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

So if someone buys a house at 6% interest they shouldn’t refinance at 4 1/2%? You think that everyone should just keep the 6% they originally agreed to to be fair?

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 8:20 PM

This wasn’t a refinance. This was a temporary bailout. Plain and simple. Can you refi without any out of pocket costs? Didn’t think so. Somebody has to cover the difference in the rate reduction. That would be the taxpayers.

chewmeister on April 23, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Another good reason to write in Sarah Palin in November. She paid her own way through college.

joe_doufu on April 23, 2012 at 8:45 PM

I have two kids paying on student loans and another who’s going to start needing one in a year- there are actually some of us Romney voting conservatives who appreciate this decision.

BettyRuth on April 23, 2012 at 5:09 PM

“Conservatives” for Romney: we only support socialism when it directly benefits us.

Armin Tamzarian on April 23, 2012 at 5:18 PM

For saying this, you will now be considered a paranoid ABR misfit Obama voter trying to pass yourself off as a conservative. You are not alone.

Night Owl on April 23, 2012 at 8:46 PM

I don’t get the outrage. This isn’t a subsidy, it isn’t a handout, it’s not a bailout. Students take out loans vital to get an education, they pay a certain interest rate, period. Raising the interest rate would be done in the effort to raise MORE govt revenue…it’s not as if the current 3% rate is somehow taking money from taxpayers, because it’s not. It’s simply a case of not taking MORE from taxpayers.

So, to say it’s a matter of “costing the govt x amt of dollars” is a misnomer. It’s a situation where the govt is unable to weasel x amt of dollars MORE out of us.

I thought we conservatives were FOR smaller govt?

TheBlueSite on April 23, 2012 at 8:51 PM

All I was saying is Democrats will never allow for an entire departure from the current higher education funding system. That being said, what is the best option? We negotiate, lower the interest rate, which is not devastating in the aggregate and in return stop the free flow of money to the schools…

We need to stop the blank check public schools and a lot of private schools have with government money…but we also need to stem the crisis for current borrowers.

seems sensible to me, but if you want to stomp and say “NO NEVER!,” then fine.

I will gladly force the issue like Allahpundit suggests if Republicans can control both houses and the executive, with sizable majorities in Congress to make it happen….but it won’t sadly.

ConservativeLaw on April 23, 2012 at 8:52 PM

If you choose answer 1 – rest assured, Willard will destroy the Reagan legacy and put Conservatism in the dog house for a generation.
You can bank that.
HondaV65
 on April 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

You forget a third choice that people need to consider–especially since I just notice one commenter indicate that this straw just broke his back. The third party. At the rate Mittness is going, every other week or so, x number of people will throw up on him and look for an alternative to both Oboobi and Mittness.

I think most will wait and see what the next few months will bring, no later than right after the convention, before they start focusing on who might be the third party candidate to unify behind. Forty percent voting third party could actually win, along with the down ticket support. Even if we come up short, it denies a mandate to either prime parties. Win or lose, it won’t be just any shot across the bow, rather a direct hit to both parties, as the third party voters will come from even conservative democrats

AH_C on April 23, 2012 at 8:54 PM

mitchellvii on April 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

No decent? Lockstep? Your way or the highway?

Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 8:58 PM

decent=descent.

Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 8:58 PM

chewmeister on April 23, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Lowering interest rates is not a bailout, it is lowering interest rates. Similar to an adjustable interest rate. No wonder Republicans are seen as having no heart, they can’t even be flexible on something as sensible as this.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 9:00 PM

F@#$ Obama.

F@#$ Romney.

Midas on April 23, 2012 at 9:01 PM

We need to stop wasting our breath, people need to go read Cato, Heritage or a number of conservative thinktanks on “how” to deal with the student loan crisis in a free-market conservative way. The point is, the calculus changes when the socialists “won” on subsidizing all the student loans in the first place.

Get it? Get it? So, first step. Government controls loan process? Second step, try and reverse that through legislation. Third step, if that fails, which it will likely unless Congress goes super majority, then try and restructure the loans in a more free-market way.

Yes, ideally higher education should of never ever should of received government dollars in this way, but they did and Romney is actually trying to solve the problem in a sensible way. He has not embraced all of Obamatard’s plan.

Also, government loans are a monopoly and unlike the free-market there is not a lot of borrower options and refinancing the loans. This needs to change. Please, just research the subject. Obama sucks but lowering the rates is the first step to making the process somewhat sensible….then it is cutting off higher education or tying loans to employment statistics/eliminating stupid degrees.

ConservativeLaw on April 23, 2012 at 9:02 PM

No wonder Republicans are seen as having no heart, they can’t even be flexible on something as sensible as this.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 9:00 PM

It’s academic.

We’re no longer in position to entertain the “should we do this” question.

We can’t.

We. Don’t. Have. The. Money. PERIOD.

Which part of that don’t you idiots understand?

Midas on April 23, 2012 at 9:03 PM

how tell me again how Mitt is any different than Obama?

Soros was 100% correct:

‘Well, look, either you’ll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in,’ he told Chrystia Freeland of Reuters in a videotaped interview. ‘If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092958/George-Soros-says-isnt-difference-Romney-Obama.html#ixzz1suZb4SW0

the elites have seen to it that no matter who wins the election they win.

enjoy the socialism from the gop.

unseen on April 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Soros knew that at least a few idiots would buy his nonsense. It’s no surprise to me that you didn’t disappoint him. Remind me again how much money Soros is spending to get Obama re-elected.

Basilsbest on April 23, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Lowering interest rates is not a bailout, it is lowering interest rates. Similar to an adjustable interest rate. No wonder Republicans are seen as having no heart, they can’t even be flexible on something as sensible as this.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Except it is the government loaning this money which means it is the taxpayer. Obama changed the rules so that private banks no longer loan the money. You know the government who is debt to China. Where in the heck do you people think that money is coming, and how do you bleeding hearts think it is getting paid back by college students who can’t find a job? I could care less about heart. Student loans are just another way of government control and government inducement.

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 9:04 PM

It’s academic.

We’re no longer in position to entertain the “should we do this” question.

We can’t.

We. Don’t. Have. The. Money. PERIOD.

Which part of that don’t you idiots understand?

Midas on April 23, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Thank you!

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I thought we conservatives were FOR smaller govt?

TheBlueSite on April 23, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Lower, more attractive interest rates = more government-funded loans.

More government-funded loans = more taxpayer money being used to fund the loans.

Lower, more attractive interest rates = more taxpayer money being used to fund the loans.

Yes – I’m for smaller government; higher interest rates will lessen the desire for my tax dollars to fund someone elses government loan, a great percentage of which will never be repaid.

Midas on April 23, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Calling people idiots doesn’t win arguments. But I don’t expect better from most of you.

We are talking about loans that have already been made. People are trying to pay them back. Some of these people need a little help. This isn’t welfare where nothing is ever given back, these are loans.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 9:14 PM

I have two kids paying on student loans and another who’s going to start needing one in a year- there are actually some of us Romney voting conservatives who appreciate this decision.

BettyRuth on April 23, 2012 at 5:09 PM

What I hear you saying is “putting principles above personal gain is way too hard.”

Midas on April 23, 2012 at 9:15 PM

2

If you choose answer 1 – rest assured, Willard will destroy the Reagan legacy and put Conservatism in the dog house for a generation.

You can bank that.

HondaV65 on April 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Too late….W already set back the conservative momevent 20 years. He created new government agencies, created new entitlements without paying for them, started wars without paying for them, generated massive debt, began shredding the constitution, “deficits don’t matter”, and almost drove the economy into a depression. W created the enivronment for O’s election. Enjoy another 4 years of O for the sins of W.

ZippyZ on April 23, 2012 at 9:17 PM

This isn’t welfare where nothing is ever given back, these are loans.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 9:14 PM

At best the repayment rate is like 56% (private non-profit schools), and at worst about 36% (public for-profit schools).

Closer to welfare than not.

Midas on April 23, 2012 at 9:20 PM

We are talking about loans that have already been made. People are trying to pay them back. Some of these people need a little help. This isn’t welfare where nothing is ever given back, these are loans.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 9:14 PM

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a one-year freeze on the interest rate for subsidized Stafford loans would cost $6 billion.

A large percentage of borrowers who left college in the past four years made no principal payments on their federally guaranteed student loans in 2009, according to the Department of Education.

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Just for Rose who thinks we don’t have a heart..

Berkeley’s repayment rate is actually pretty good. The average repayment rate is 53.7 percent for all public colleges, 56 percent for private, nonprofit colleges and 36.4 percent at for-profit colleges, Kantrowitz says

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/25/BUNQ1F38BJ.DTL#ixzz1suuXFwhU

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I’m sorry ALLAHPUNDIT, but can you PLEASE STOP WORKING FOR THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND BASHING ROMNEY?

I am just so damned sick of it. Romney is going to be our nominee. Either get behind him or shut up or just start taking a paycheck from Obama and get it over with.

Anything you can find on Romney you bash him. First you are quoting silly MSM polls with insanely biased samples and now this. Just shut up already.

mitchellvii on April 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Why don’t you just stick to Romney2012.com if you can’t stand opinions other than your own? Do you spend all your time tracking down anyone who says anything critical of Romney? Hint: If he was actually a good Republican candidate, you wouldn’t have to do that.

Night Owl on April 23, 2012 at 9:32 PM

I’m sorry …….
mitchellvii on April 23, 2012 at 7:47 PM

You sure are.

LegendHasIt on April 23, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Stop the student loan program altogether, I don’t care. But the loans that are already out there need to be paid back, and raising the rates instead of helping those who are trying to pay them back is hardly a winning issue.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Oh, I don’t know how important any of this is right now. On the one hand, it could be smart for Mitt to do this.. right now. On the other hand, he’s being who he really is and is telling conservatives to go jump off a cliff, cuz he knows they crawl back up in November.

Time will tell. Maybe he’ll go this way, maybe he’ll go that way. Who really knows.

JellyToast on April 23, 2012 at 9:40 PM

What is the student interest payback rate? Stop, go look that up and then ask yourselves if you would be interested in increasing that number. Guess how, lower the interest rates, lower the defaults.

Gosh Obama is the biggest idiot in the history of the world, yet sometimes, we don’t understand the issues fully before blabbing about them.

ConservativeLaw on April 23, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Mark Levin is a brilliant lawyer, author, and talk radio host. He is not running for President. He hasn’t got a clue about how to actually win an election which requires, you know, getting constituencies to vote for you. O is incredibly weak now with the college vote and it is political suicide to say, “Yep, I’m going to raise the rates on student loans at the precise moment they can’t get jobs and O is trying to buy their votes.” Obviously I would prefer not to go this route because I understand the correlation with loans and rising tuition costs, but if it takes an issue away from the Marxist and allows us to win, fine, no harm no foul. Levin would hoist us on our own petard and hand the election over to O just so he could stand on principle on a very small battleground.

Buy Danish on April 23, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Mark Levin is a brilliant lawyer, author, and talk radio host. He is not running for President.

Buy Danish on April 23, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Which makes his point TOTALLY INVALID!!!!11!

/s

Dunedainn on April 23, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Stop, go look that up and then ask yourselves if you would be interested in increasing that number. Guess how, lower the interest rates, lower the defaults.

The current rate is 3.4 percent. EVEN if they raised it back to 6 percent; it is still lower than the banks who used to loan the money gave. Defaults don’t happen because of the interest rates. Defaults happen because people feel they are “owed” something by the government or they are out of work. Keeping our debt high is not going to help the economy.

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Which makes his point TOTALLY INVALID!!!!11!

/s
Dunedainn on April 23, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Why are you shouting and why did you use a sarc tag? There is a difference between what a pundit can say oh so bravely on the radio where he doesn’t actually have to be elected to anything, and the realities of a political campaign which is far more complicated.

Buy Danish on April 23, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Why should the interest rates on these loans be kept high when mortgage loans are so low? I really don’t understand the arguments for taking these rates back up. Fight to get the government out of the loan business, but don’t fight to force higher interest rates.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Defaults happen because people feel they are “owed” something by the government or they are out of work. Keeping our debt high is not going to help the economy.
melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Student loan defaults happen if you can’t get a job when you graduate. Suddenly deciding that college students are the problem is not going to help the economy. But hey, you keep demonizing them instead of focusing on, say, tenured college professors who are paid ridiculous salaries/benefits to do very little.

Buy Danish on April 23, 2012 at 10:03 PM

We are talking about loans that have already been made. People are trying to pay them back. Some of these people need a little help. This isn’t welfare where nothing is ever given back, these are loans.
Rose on April 23, 2012 at 9:14 PM

It is welfare. Taxpayers are once again subsidizing the delta between what students are repaying vs the loan rate with China and then compound that rate over the years, plus the defaults.

This is classic Mittness. When Perry spoke of a serious plan to reform SS, Mittness countered by scaring the elderly, from the left. No need to reform, reform. Just a little magical management of the financials. Now when the dems try to scare students by what the GOP might do, Mittness marches leftward in lockstep.

AH_C on April 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Buy Danish on April 23, 2012 at 10:03 PM

I don’t understand why the attack on these young people either. I understand there are many who would like a free ride, but others are working hard to pay these loans off. These kids don’t deserve to be treated like free loaders, and helping them by lowering the interest rates is not loan forgiveness.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM

but if it takes an issue away from the Marxist and allows us to win, fine, no harm no foul. Levin would hoist us on our own petard and hand the election over to O just so he could stand on principle on a very small battleground.

Buy Danish on April 23, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Farking brilliant! Look for Willard to rollover on Cap n Tax, the VAT and the Dream Act, brilliantly taking more issues away from the Marxist.

james23 on April 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM

If you all can’t see that this was all orchestrated by nationalizing student loans within Obamacare legislation, you have not been paying attention. This time, the Axelrod team boxed us into a corner. I am not Mitt fan, but he really has no choice.

sybilll on April 23, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Farking brilliant! Look for Willard to rollover on Cap n Tax, the VAT and the Dream Act, brilliantly taking more issues away from the Marxist.

james23 on April 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Shh! You’re spoiling his narrative!
Come on, it’s all he has.

Dunedainn on April 23, 2012 at 10:13 PM

I’d rather see an attack on welfare queens who take and don’t give back than see attacks on people trying to repay loans. Some of you pick battles poorly.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Why are you shouting and why did you use a sarc tag? There is a difference between what a pundit can say oh so bravely on the radio where he doesn’t actually have to be elected to anything, and the realities of a political campaign which is far more complicated.

Buy Danish on April 23, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Our principles have been sacrificed on the false altar of “political realities” for long enough, thank you. Stop excusing the inexcusable.

Dunedainn on April 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM

sybilll on April 23, 2012 at 10:12 PM

If Obamacare is thrown out, what happens to this aspect of it?

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM

I’d rather see an attack on welfare queens who take and don’t give back than see attacks on people trying to repay loans. Some of you pick battles poorly.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM

And some of you don’t seem to pick any battles at all.

Dunedainn on April 23, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Why are you shouting and why did you use a sarc tag? There is a difference between what a pundit can say oh so bravely on the radio where he doesn’t actually have to be elected to anything, and the realities of a political campaign which is far more complicated.
Buy Danish
 on April 23, 2012 at 9:55 PM

As INC quoted on the other page, “complicated” is Reagan accepting advice to weasel a path between being personally pro-life and being ambivalent on pro-abortion as a candidate. Reagan opted for simplicity, demand that pro-life be part of the GOP plank. That is how you campaign on principles. The only principles that Mittness has is whatever it takes to win.

Sorry, no dice. Unless he has a come to Jesus moment, and I don’t mean that Chicago jesus of a cur, he’s not get my vote for him or against Oboobi.

AH_C on April 23, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Student loan defaults happen if you can’t get a job when you graduate. Suddenly deciding that college students are the problem is not going to help the economy. But hey, you keep demonizing them instead of focusing on, say, tenured college professors who are paid ridiculous salaries/benefits to do very little.

Buy Danish on April 23, 2012 at 10:03 PM

You really must have a learning disability or you just can’t read. My post said: Defaults happen because people feel they are “owed” something by the government or they are out of work College students aren’t the problem. Easy access to low interest loans are. And how do you think college professors can make so much genius? Because the government will loan thousands of dollars to people who don’t have a proven credit rating to go to those overpriced schools. Take away the money supply and then people aren’t paying high prices.

BTW, I am a college student.

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Anyone who is seriously shocked by MR’s statements siding with Obama…

yhxqqsn on April 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Anyone who is seriously shocked by MR’s statements siding with Obama…

yhxqqsn on April 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Needs a nice padded cell?

Dunedainn on April 23, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Social issues are not the same. You cannot compromise on social issues because of the moral aspect of it.

An issue like student loan interest rates isn’t even in the same ball park as the slaughter of unborn humans.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 10:23 PM

I don’t understand why the attack on these young people either. I understand there are many who would like a free ride, but others are working hard to pay these loans off. These kids don’t deserve to be treated like free loaders, and helping them by lowering the interest rates is not loan forgiveness.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM

You people sound like fricking democrats. I don’t know Rose- but would you like to start the ‘war on young people meme now?”

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 10:24 PM

You people sound like fricking democrats. I don’t know Rose- but would you like to start the ‘war on young people meme now?”

melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Rose is a concern troll. Knew it!

Dunedainn on April 23, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Dunedainn on April 23, 2012 at 10:19 PM

The most important battles for me are the social ones. Those are the ones worth fighting.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 10:26 PM

I agree with Mitt…….

Rob Obama of the issue.

…..in fact, the gop is so incompetent why don’t they just punt on every issue

(oh wait………….THAT’S WHAT THEY’VE DONE for the last 15 months).

PappyD61 on April 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM

There are so many misconceptions in these posts that I could scream! Allahpundit, you really need to put more of the facts about what you are talking about in your posts. Some people even think the government is refinancing loans or is setting adjustable rates. They have not done that for years. Those old adjustable rate loans? They are the ones that didn’t go past 3 or 4%.

My oldest children went thru school with loans during the Bush years that were 3.5-4% and they had been that way for twenty years. Parents had loans at that time that are currently, 2.75%. Those are set every year, but are not the ones they are talking about.

The ones that are getting 3.4% interest instead of 6.8% are for current students in school, and they are usually not the loan that covers the whole bill for the whole year. Then you take out other loans. These are small loans however, which might cover an inexpensive college like community college. Usually they don’t let you have more than $1000-3,000. They are called Direct subsidized loans, because they USED TO BE subsidized so that the loan servicers did not take a bath providing student loans. Now I think the government must be subsidizing the 6.8 phony rate, and paying itself? Also, this rate is only for the Truly Needy according to FAFSA, everyone else is paying more. And paying more on the rest of the loans they have. All the loans should be the same as the 4% that the Obama’s claim they had a hard time paying back. Not just for the Pell grant recipients. The government is making this stuff up, they don’t need two different interest rates. The republicans think they are Paying For something? They are setting up a scheme to double pay the education department.

Now that Obama can make money on them he has jacked the rest of the loans up to6- 8.5%. A lot of people have these and you cannot change them to 3.4% But that used to be what the rates were when the private companies set them up for you.

This loan program is a mess, they had trouble running it and now they have Sallie mae, who laid off 100 workers when this program took effect, hiring back people to run this because the government office workers lost everyone’s paperwork couldn’t collect the payments, couldn’t initiate the payment plans, and couldn’t even transfer the loan successfully back to Sallie Mae. The loans were going into Limbo, yes, zombie land, but the interest was accruing, you just didn’t know who to pay!!!

This program will not help the out of work, out of school students with the 6.8-8% to 11% loans. It is not a refi or retro active. Those students have some forbearance or can pay interest only while they are unemployed, but no one is offering them 3.4% Those students that had those rates are in their late twenties or thirty years old.

So don’t make fun of Romney, this whole program needs an overhaul. And then you can all have your chance to have at some of the higher education reform that we need. Especially making some of these programs merit based.

And removing trade schools, technical schools and other programs, and setting them in a seperate program from other colleges and universities would be a start. And providing more money for students in the sciences or mathematics…whatever you like, currently the incentives have been to get loan forgiveness by becoming a teacher or going into government work. Blehk.

http://www.direct.ed.gov/student.html

Fleuries on April 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

I’ve been here longer than Ed Morrissey.

I am a social conservative who always votes Republican (starting with Reagan in the 80′s). I just do not think this is an issue that deserves the amount of outrage it is receiving.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM

I don’t trust Romney in any way but this “issue” is total AllahP bullshit. He grabs a sound bite and waves it before his audience to start a fight. He’s honed his skill to that of a carnival barker.

The fact is Mitt’s position is totally reasonable in every word he said. What he didn’t address was how to pay for it. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t nor that he won’t have a plan to pitch via the GOP congress when the time comes. Of course that doesn’t fit AP’s meme. He’s as anti-conservative as any media whore.

Hot Air is more a dog and pony show than a discussion board now days.

rcl on April 23, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Defaults happen because people feel they are “owed” something by the government or they are out of work College students aren’t the problem. Easy access to low interest loans are. And how do you think college professors can make so much genius? Because the government will loan thousands of dollars to people who don’t have a proven credit rating to go to those overpriced schools. Take away the money supply and then people aren’t paying high prices.
melle1228 on April 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Defaults happen because people can’t repay the loans. Some people default because they don’t care but they suffer the consequences to their ability to get credit so I doubt it’s done cavalierly unless the students are too stupid to understand the consequences of defaulting

College students who graduate and can’t get a job will default. It’s not their fault these colleges are grossly overpriced. And obviously students don’t have “proven credit ratings” if they just graduated from freaking high school. As for the issue of overpaid professors and overpriced schools, I already addressed that, “genius”.


Here’s
a history of the government/student loan mess. None of this addresses the cost of freeeeeee grants which are given to those with ‘lower incomes’. Are we only going to limit loans but keep giving federal freebees out? Don’t these freebees also raise the cost of college for everyone? If it were up to O all college would be freeeeeee. You want 4 more years of him?

Buy Danish on April 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM

I just do not think ….
Rose on April 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Thank you for your honesty.

LegendHasIt on April 23, 2012 at 11:19 PM

No wonder Republicans are seen as having no heart, they can’t even be flexible on something as sensible as this.

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Fluke you RINOs and GWB ‘compassionate conservatives’. You are really no different than Obama’s socialist capos. YOU have helped to ruin the land. May you and your progeny never recover from it. You will have done it to the rest too, those who toiled and saved.

Buy Danish I owe the students nothing. Obama owes them an economic environment in which to find jobs. We don’t owe them a penny beyond that. All other is socialist clap-trap. Every constituency wants the handout, from the left to the right. Like I said to Rose, the land deserves fully to go under. It’s self infliced by the whores from both sides, who are the voters. We blame the politicians but the harlots are US. This thread has proven it again, beyond a shred of a doubt.

As to your argument on “oh, but Mitt needs to get the votes”. See Reagan. He didn’t flinch. He stood for something and people from the left to the right voted for him, and against Carter. You are all pathetic and this season has exposed you like it did Obama in the last 3 1/2 years. I’m sick and schadenfreudig. May the destruction occur. The sooner, the better. No better is deserved.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Rose on April 23, 2012 at 9:00 PM

The Mitt adherents will call us heartless.

The Obama bots will call us racists.

Go to Hades, both gangs.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2012 at 11:26 PM

The Mitt adherents will call us heartless.

The Obama bots will call us racists.

Go to Hades, both gangs.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Have you moved into a “write-in vote” mindset, or are you going to vote for Mittens, however reluctantly?

Buckshot Bill on April 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5