Another Federal Program in the Red, . . .

Because a bunch of old guys wrote it into the preamble of the Constitution.

Boiler believes all should be able to attend school, given that the student achieves minimum standards along the way. For example, to be given a loan, the lender should expect to be paid back. Government does not expect this, because they are lending to bad, unprepared, uncommitted students who plan on studying within a field which is proven to produce valueless degrees.

Why lend money for something that is valueless?

Will Billy let us know where the Constitution demands a free college education. A cut and past would be nice, along with the Supreme Court's confirmation of the matter.

How is a guaranteeing a loan equal to free college? Try to at least stay in the realm of the conversation.

Billy, try to keep up. DD's original post is about college loans not being paid.

Giving a $100,000 loan to a poor student who plans to study history at Come Stain State is a loan near certain to never be repaid. That equates to "free college".

And this is what happens when you try to have a rational discussion with a moron.

Students with these loans can easily tack on more such loans to stay in school after completing undergrad work (or keep trying to complete it) and avoid the heavy lifting of working a job and paying back the initial loan before they tackle more classes.

In my day "professional student" referred to someone lucky enough to have parents that could/would continue paying their tuition from one degree to the next. Now they just get the student loans, no worries about paying them back.

Even Suze Orman (Ormand?) was advising callers to use the bankruptcy route to get their student loans off the books. If I understood her correctly, because I was totally dumbfounded at hearing this.

Once again, Billy can't present a logical argument explaining why he disagrees with Boiler's position. He has nothing left but insults.

Come on Billy, at least try.

I actually was trying, until your come stain state remark reminded me of who I was trying to have a discussion with.

These are two excellent questions.
And they are, not surprisingly, interrelated.

DonDiego substitutes the question: "Why is college tuition so high?" for the issue of affordability.
The short answer: supply and demand.
" . . . because most universities can only enroll a limited number of students, the demand for a college education is much higher than the available supply. Schools respond to this demand by raising the cost of tuition.
Believe it or not, government subsidies make matters even worse. You see, subsidies bring down the costs of a product or service. [in this case the transfer of Government money to the student does bring down his. And when things are less expensive [to the customer], demand rises. Higher demand means higher costs. [And, hence, college tuitions rise pretty much faster than jes' 'bout anything else in the last 40 years or so.]
Subsidy advocates like to point out that this type of government aid allows more students to attend college. But while this might seem like a good thing, many students still struggle to complete a college education: two-thirds of students don’t graduate in four years, and 40 percent of students drop out—many with substantial debt."
Ref: Information Station

So, the fact that the Government is subsidizing college education allows the schools to raise tuition, which in turn raises the need for a loan to those unable to afford college, which in turn allows the colleges to raise tuitions, ad infinitem.

Certainly those who can afford to attend college should be able to attend.
And if one cannot afford college, loans should be available.
But a competent lender will be mindful of getting paid back. Competent private lenders are.
The Government, on the other hand, is quick to dispense cash with little thought to getting paid back. Presently 43% of payments on Government student loans are not current.

But financing education is popular. People like it. "It's for the children."
Heckfire, it's not the money of the Congressmen or the President; it's only the money of the people, . . . and there's plenty more of that, . . . until there isn't. [DonDiego supposes that horizon is approaching more quickly than most folks think.]

Conclusion:
i. What is the Government's responsibility?
DonDiego proposes the Government's responsibility in this matter is a matter of opinion; the Constitution certainly does not specify Government responsibility for Education. DonDiego would suggest it is much less of a responsibility than, f'rinstance, Senator Sanders.

But for "we the people" to decide if it is a Government responsibility "we" need to consider lots more questions:
__What are the benefits the Government expects from college educations?
____Should everyone go to college? Who decides?
______If not, is it fair to tax everyone to pay for those who do. [Taxes eventually "pay for" defaults.]

__What are the likely effects of Government subsidies [whether through loans or grants] on raising tuition costs?

__Is a Government Loan Plan the correct way to go ?
____What are the real costs of such a program ?
____Is a default rate of 43% and rising [a very real cost] on student loans tolerable ? Or should the Government be more prudent in providing loans.
____Should the Government even allow students to default? If not, . . . what?

__If a Government Loan Plan is not the way to go should the Government just pay for a college education for everyone ?
____Or only pay for those "qualified" to attend ? And who decides that?

. . . and lots, lots, more questions.

DonDiego supposes as the USA proceeds down the road of evermore Government paying for higher education, the Government will eventually begin to supersede the plans [Dare poor, old DonDiego say "hopes and dreams"] of the citizens. The eventual [inevitable?] result is likely The Government taking over all costs but also making the decisions as to who gets to go to college, in what they will major, in what they will be employed, etc., etc., etc. [as is already the case in, f'rinstance, Switzerland.]
And "All for the Good of the People".

DonDiego prefers the Good Old Days of less Government intrusion.
DonDiego knows many others embrace Government intrusion.
Government itself regards Government intrusion very highly.