Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!

[VictorCharlie]

"Education.

Romney’s budget plan could cut more than $115 billion from the Department of Education over the next 10 years, cutting K-12 and special education funding by nearly $5 billion and leaving nearly 10 million students with $1,000 less each in Pell Grant funding. He plans to voucherize America’s public education system while offering no plan to fix failing public schools. And how does this create jobs over the next four/eight years exactly?"

The DoE should be done away with. The federal government should have no role in education and the states should do a better job of creating their own revenue for education. You can champion spending all you want but we have had a meteoric rise in education spending but our standardized test scores have stagnated. Money is not the problem. I am skeptical of anyone actually doing a voucher program but it is exactly what we need. We need education decisions put in the most local hands. Parents, school boards and at the most the state education departments. Create competition and creativity in education systems and give parents vouchers so that they can choose for themselves where their children go to school. The Democrats are horribly wrong in this area. The rich will always make sure their kids go to a good school but a voucher system is the only way impoverished and middle class families can do this. If the Democratic party was actually for helping the middle class and poor they would support vouchers whole heartedly but instead they take big payoffs from teacher unions.

Over the next century it's going to be the high infrastructure, high education countries that do the best. Cutting access to higher education is the single worst thing Romney could do but he's going to do it.

Education is not a federal role. States fund higher education and the price has gone out of control leading to large of amounts of student loan debt due to the states reducing funding but more importantly b/c of the obscene amount of subsidizing the federal government does. Remove the subsidies and the problem corrects its self.

[Kirkland Laing]

"Education.

Romney’s budget plan could cut more than $115 billion from the Department of Education over the next 10 years, cutting K-12 and special education funding by nearly $5 billion and leaving nearly 10 million students with $1,000 less each in Pell Grant funding. He plans to voucherize America’s public education system while offering no plan to fix failing public schools. And how does this create jobs over the next four/eight years exactly?"

The DoE should be done away with. The federal government should have no role in education and the states should do a better job of creating their own revenue for education. You can champion spending all you want but we have had a meteoric rise in education spending but our standardized test scores have stagnated. Money is not the problem. I am skeptical of anyone actually doing a voucher program but it is exactly what we need. We need education decisions put in the most local hands. Parents, school boards and at the most the state education departments. Create competition and creativity in education systems and give parents vouchers so that they can choose for themselves where their children go to school. The Democrats are horribly wrong in this area. The rich will always make sure their kids go to a good school but a voucher system is the only way impoverished and middle class families can do this. If the Democratic party was actually for helping the middle class and poor they would support vouchers whole heartedly but instead they take big payoffs from teacher unions.

Over the next century it's going to be the high infrastructure, high education countries that do the best. Cutting access to higher education is the single worst thing Romney could do but he's going to do it.

Education is not a federal role. States fund higher education and the price has gone out of control leading to large of amounts of student loan debt due to the states reducing funding but more importantly b/c of the obscene amount of subsidizing the federal government does. Remove the subsidies and the problem corrects its self.

The federal government subsidises higher education?

[VictorCharlie]

The federal government subsidises higher education?

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

[Kirkland Laing]

The federal government subsidises higher education?

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

[El Kabong]

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

....now this isn't my argument but I'm just going to say that the problem isn't so much with the "subsidising of higher education" as it is with the whole "college costs a fuck ton more than it used to and it isn't giving graduates the bang for the buck"

[Kirkland Laing]

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

....now this isn't my argument but I'm just going to say that the problem isn't so much with the "subsidising of higher education" as it is with the whole "college costs a fuck ton more than it used to and it isn't giving graduates the bang for the buck"

That's because of outsourcing and offshoring and various other methods of arbitraging graduate labour rates down to Asian levels.

[El Kabong]

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

....now this isn't my argument but I'm just going to say that the problem isn't so much with the "subsidising of higher education" as it is with the whole "college costs a fuck ton more than it used to and it isn't giving graduates the bang for the buck"

That's because of outsourcing and offshoring and various other methods of arbitraging graduate labour rates down to Asian levels.

....Now maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you need a college education to work for Dell's customer service phone line.

But hey, all these graduates are getting offered great jobs right? I mean I personally know 2 guys I went to high school with who are big in the whole Occupy Wall Street deal, smart guys one is even IVY LEAGUE educated and yet they are effectively unemployed. I wonder why that is, and then I've had talks with them and their senses of entitlement and general bellicose nature when it comes to ANY Liberal talking point issue gives me a decent idea of why these folks aren't getting jobs.

The problem once again is a culture of entitlement and the fact that kids are going to school and so much focus is put on school and grades that outside of that life doesn't exist. These people want to get paid to go to school....so cutting the cord (so to speak) would benefit everyone. You can learn on your own time, eventually you have to PRODUCE and these kids just aren't interested in being productive. It's a sad simple fact.

[Kirkland Laing]

The federal government subsidises higher education?

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

And I actually missed reading the last sentence. If Ron Paul was the GOP niminee Obama would win 48 states. These people are absolute nutjobs, completely unelectable. Extreme conservative platforms aren't ever going to win an election and that's why Romney is currently flip flopping on his primary-era policies and tacking to the centre. If he didn't he'd be unelectable too.

[VictorCharlie]

The federal government subsidises higher education?

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

Kirk, not too long ago a kid could pay his way through a state college. It wouldn't be easy and they would have to work their ass off both in the class and in their job but it could be done. It was somewhat of the norm at Texas A&M (my Alma Mater) in the 80s due to it having a big agriculture program and lots of farm kids attending. Even in 1997 when I started college I was able to pay a good portion of my tuition and living expenses from working construction all summer. This is just not possible today. Like everything that is highly subsidized the price far outpaces inflation. Remove the subsidy and the market will correct its self. Honestly it will cause some initial ass pain but the end result will be cheaper education and some much needed reform of higher learning.

I think you are seriously off the mark on what appeals to the American voting public. A candidate like Johnson or Paul would crush the President. Both are better on the budget/taxes/debt/economy than the President, both are not afraid to say we need a less interventionist foreign policy, both at more socially liberal than the President on issues like immigration, war on drugs and civil liberties. Both are honest and principled. It just isn't close. The GOP would vote for them b/c they hate the President and the large amounts of democrats dissatisfied with Obama's continuation of the Bush administration would break ranks. Johnson particularly has a tremendously more impressive record both in the private and public sector.

[Kirkland Laing]

The federal government subsidises higher education?

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

Kirk, not too long ago a kid could pay his way through a state college. It wouldn't be easy and they would have to work their ass off both in the class and in their job but it could be done. It was somewhat of the norm at Texas A&M (my Alma Mater) in the 80s due to it having a big agriculture program and lots of farm kids attending. Even in 1997 when I started college I was able to pay a good portion of my tuition and living expenses from working construction all summer. This is just not possible today. Like everything that is highly subsidized the price far outpaces inflation. Remove the subsidy and the market will correct its self. Honestly it will cause some initial ass pain but the end result will be cheaper education and some much needed reform of higher learning.

I think you are seriously off the mark on what appeals to the American voting public. A candidate like Johnson or Paul would crush the President. Both are better on the budget/taxes/debt/economy than the President, both are not afraid to say we need a less interventionist foreign policy, both at more socially liberal than the President on issues like immigration, war on drugs and civil liberties. Both are honest and principled. It just isn't close. The GOP would vote for them b/c they hate the President and the large amounts of democrats dissatisfied with Obama's continuation of the Bush administration would break ranks. Johnson particularly has a tremendously more impressive record both in the private and public sector.

There isn't any subsidy mate. Look, from the Cato Foundation, so it must be true :

The Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.

Higher Education Subsidies | Downsizing the Federal Government

So other than money to students to help them afford education the feds pay $2.3 billion, or less than one percent of all higher education spending, to "educational institutions" which I'm guessing are community colleges and similar to keep them going and providing the cheapest college eduction you can get. So there is no fucking subsidy unless you're claiming that less than one percent government money somehow distorts the market.

Look, Ron Paul was in the GOP primaries. Like the other candidates he was appealing to GOP primary voters who are a distinct subset of GOP voters. They're the kind of people who show up to rallies and phonebanks during election campaigns' knock on doors for candidates etc etc. They're much more conservative than GOP voters as a whole. They knew Romney was the most electable candidate but still didn't like him because he isn't seen as a real conservative. They looked at every other candidate and every one of them briefly led in the polls. Firstly Donald "we shall overcomb" Trump took the lead, then it was Michele "Corndog" Bachmann, then it was Newt "three wives, family values" Gingrich, then it was Herman "you want a job, don't you?" Cain. Even Rick "Frothy" Santorum got a last desperate look as literally the last man standing against Romney and even he briefly led in the polls. Actually I'm going to take this opportunity to post one of my favourite US political photographs, Frothy's concession speech the night the voters booted him out of the Senate :



But even though the GOP voters went through all these guys Ron Paul never got a look in. That's because even to GOP primary voters he's unelectable. Even they don't want to vote for him because they like their social security and Medicare. Even the teabaggers love Medicare although they don't seem to fully grasp how the programme works :




Ron Paul or the other fruit loop as the GOP candidate would leave Obama winning 48 states.

Back to Frothy. Whatever you say about him, and there's a lot you can say about him, you've got to give him and his wife full credit for having taken in that refugee from The Little House On The Prairie.

[VictorCharlie]

Kirk,

You just quoted and linked the same article I did earlier. You are focusing on the 2.3 billion that went directly to the institute and acting like the other 30 billion mentioned doesn't also go right to the univeristy from the student. Of course it is a subsidy. Any time the government is paying for a portion of the demand side it skews the actual price for the supply. I'm paying off 40k of my wife's student loans that more than half were federally backed. This is a subsidy no different than tax breaks for employer provided insurance or mortage interest. As long as we keep providing student loans the Universities will keep raising the price of tuition well in excess of inflation which then makes it even harder to pay for school w/o a loan and so and so on.

I feel like you are making my point for me on Paul. The GOP is for the most part a bunch of ass clowns that are not truthfully fiscally conservative and but tend to be socially reprehensible. So the fact that they went with a candidate that they did over the two and maybe 3rd in Huntsman that have genuine principles and ideas really supports the fact that if Paul or Johnson had been the nominee they would run roughshod over the President. The GOP is just stupid so I don't know why it surprising that they failed to recognize the best chance of defeating the President. The GOP is going to turn out to vote against the Dem's Messiah no matter what buffoon shows up but Romney and his ilk don't pull well outside of the base. A Paul or Johnson nomination would have challenged the President with truth, honesty and real substantive plans in all arenas of public policy. The GOP no longer has a real record of limited government and fiscal responsibility but Johnson and Paul do. Combine that with the fact that Johnson and Paul are even more socially liberal than the President and it really isn't close.