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

[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]

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.

Exactly. There are Ivy League guys with good degrees who can't get a job now. You're making my point for me.

[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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

If the government didn't give grants so that smart poor kids got to go to college it'd just open up places for thick rich kids to get in. If there was an oversupply of places then the worst academic places would cut the number of places they offer. The price of tuition etc nationally would remain exactly the same. All the main colleges have a massive oversubscription every year -- they get to pick and choose who they want. That isn't going to change if the government cut all funding, they're still going to be oversubscribed. If you go to countries where the state pays for everybodys' college education you find that the cost is a fraction of US costs. Why is that? Government funding of education is one of the best things it does and it doesn't do nearly enough of it. If I hadn't got government funding for my education I'd be a builder and my kids would have gone to the local state school with the expectation of being builders when they grew up.

Look mate, Ron Paul and the other fruit loop are so extreme that even GOP primary voters the most conservative group of voters you can find in America, completely reject them. Anybody campaigning on a platform of ending social security and medicare is going to lose 48 states. That's just a fact. I know it's difficult for you to accept that you're in a tiny minority but you are.

[El Kabong]

If the government didn't give grants so that smart poor kids got to go to college it'd just open up places for thick rich kids to get in. If there was an oversupply of places then the worst academic places would cut the number of places they offer. The price of tuition etc nationally would remain exactly the same. All the main colleges have a massive oversubscription every year -- they get to pick and choose who they want. That isn't going to change if the government cut all funding, they're still going to be oversubscribed. If you go to countries where the state pays for everybodys' college education you find that the cost is a fraction of US costs. Why is that? Government funding of education is one of the best things it does and it doesn't do nearly enough of it. If I hadn't got government funding for my education I'd be a builder and my kids would have gone to the local state school with the expectation of being builders when they grew up.

Look mate, Ron Paul and the other fruit loop are so extreme that even GOP primary voters the most conservative group of voters you can find in America, completely reject them. Anybody campaigning on a platform of ending social security and medicare is going to lose 48 states. That's just a fact. I know it's difficult for you to accept that you're in a tiny minority but you are.

Do you understand Libertarianism? I'm not being mean or condescending (unlike some people Kirkland). The part I bolded just doesn't make sense because on SOME issues yes Paul & Johnson are very conservative but on other issues they are extremely liberal, they also try to divorce themselves from pandering to the Evangelicals which IMO is the big reason they get 0 traction in the party. These guys are more Goldwater style candidates but with a few exceptions: they want isolationism (that's impossible, but hey whatever that's what they want), they want to bring 100% of the troops overseas home and close down military bases the world over, and they want to end the war on drugs. Some of the things they want to do are common sense, other things are a bit out there. I would vote for them if they were the main opposition to Obama but they aren't so I'm not worried about them this time. I'd rather have a choice between a Republican and a Libertarian than a Democrat and Republican because quite frankly Democrats are idealists and they want a permenant lower class.

As for education, I went to public school, I went to state university, and I can tell you they are both breeding grounds for LIBERAL thinking....not thinking in general, they are specifically liberal. The teachers they hire are liberal, the way they teach is liberal, and what does it get us? Smart kids? Test scores don't show that. Can our kids think on their own? Nope. Our kids are being taught to do exactly what was said in the movie 'Office Space': "just enough not to get fired"....permenant underclass, that's what the liberals want, that and some bookworms that want to get paid to go to school.

[Kirkland Laing]

If the government didn't give grants so that smart poor kids got to go to college it'd just open up places for thick rich kids to get in. If there was an oversupply of places then the worst academic places would cut the number of places they offer. The price of tuition etc nationally would remain exactly the same. All the main colleges have a massive oversubscription every year -- they get to pick and choose who they want. That isn't going to change if the government cut all funding, they're still going to be oversubscribed. If you go to countries where the state pays for everybodys' college education you find that the cost is a fraction of US costs. Why is that? Government funding of education is one of the best things it does and it doesn't do nearly enough of it. If I hadn't got government funding for my education I'd be a builder and my kids would have gone to the local state school with the expectation of being builders when they grew up.

Look mate, Ron Paul and the other fruit loop are so extreme that even GOP primary voters the most conservative group of voters you can find in America, completely reject them. Anybody campaigning on a platform of ending social security and medicare is going to lose 48 states. That's just a fact. I know it's difficult for you to accept that you're in a tiny minority but you are.

Do you understand Libertarianism? I'm not being mean or condescending (unlike some people Kirkland). The part I bolded just doesn't make sense because on SOME issues yes Paul & Johnson are very conservative but on other issues they are extremely liberal, they also try to divorce themselves from pandering to the Evangelicals which IMO is the big reason they get 0 traction in the party. These guys are more Goldwater style candidates but with a few exceptions: they want isolationism (that's impossible, but hey whatever that's what they want), they want to bring 100% of the troops overseas home and close down military bases the world over, and they want to end the war on drugs. Some of the things they want to do are common sense, other things are a bit out there. I would vote for them if they were the main opposition to Obama but they aren't so I'm not worried about them this time. I'd rather have a choice between a Republican and a Libertarian than a Democrat and Republican because quite frankly Democrats are idealists and they want a permenant lower class.

As for education, I went to public school, I went to state university, and I can tell you they are both breeding grounds for LIBERAL thinking....not thinking in general, they are specifically liberal. The teachers they hire are liberal, the way they teach is liberal, and what does it get us? Smart kids? Test scores don't show that. Can our kids think on their own? Nope. Our kids are being taught to do exactly what was said in the movie 'Office Space': "just enough not to get fired"....permenant underclass, that's what the liberals want, that and some bookworms that want to get paid to go to school.

I know they're very liberal on some issues. But social security and Medicare are the third rail of American politics. Anybody running on a platform of scrapping them is going to get slaughtered at the polls. Look at the current guys both saying they're going to save medicare and the other guy is going to destroy it.

And educated people generally are more liberal, while dumb angry white guys tend to vote GOP.

[VictorCharlie]

If the government didn't give grants so that smart poor kids got to go to college it'd just open up places for thick rich kids to get in. If there was an oversupply of places then the worst academic places would cut the number of places they offer. The price of tuition etc nationally would remain exactly the same. All the main colleges have a massive oversubscription every year -- they get to pick and choose who they want. That isn't going to change if the government cut all funding, they're still going to be oversubscribed. If you go to countries where the state pays for everybodys' college education you find that the cost is a fraction of US costs. Why is that? Government funding of education is one of the best things it does and it doesn't do nearly enough of it. If I hadn't got government funding for my education I'd be a builder and my kids would have gone to the local state school with the expectation of being builders when they grew up.

Look mate, Ron Paul and the other fruit loop are so extreme that even GOP primary voters the most conservative group of voters you can find in America, completely reject them. Anybody campaigning on a platform of ending social security and medicare is going to lose 48 states. That's just a fact. I know it's difficult for you to accept that you're in a tiny minority but you are.

Kirk you simply are incorrect. The government didn't always give grants and assistance out like candy and poor kids went to college by paying for it themselves. The sharp increase in higher education tuition can be directly tied to the increased amount of subsidies. There is a massive amount of college opportunities and in Texas if you graduate in the top 10% of your HS class every state school has to accept you. If you want to go to college there is a myriad of choices. There isn't enough rich kids out there to fill up all of the universities and colleges. Massive subsidies in college tuition have caused the price to far outpace inflation just like it has in other industries. Remove the subsidy and Universities will either lower the tuition fee or see their enrollments drop.

Paul and Johnson didn't get traction in the GOP b/c the party elite work against them and b/c where they are more fiscally conservative and small government geared than any of the GOP candidates they are too socially liberal for the party's religious right and neocons. I simply think your premise that not being favorable to GOP primary voters equates to not more favorable to the general populace is false. There is a reason that the two main candidates and parties work tirelessly to shut out people like Paul and Johnson b/c they know in a debate like forum their candidates will be embarrased. They know if one of these guys every gets to play on a even field that the monopoly is over.

[El Kabong]

Right you are VC. It is so easy to believe that American politics are binary. You're either Republican or Democrat, for abortion or against, for The Dream Act or against, for smaller government or against, for tax cuts or against, etc....but there's a lot of issues where voters can (and should) cross over. I am a registered Independent, I certainly support a great deal of Republican politicians but I long for the day where the Republican Party lets the social issues take a back seat for once.

[Kirkland Laing]

If the government didn't give grants so that smart poor kids got to go to college it'd just open up places for thick rich kids to get in. If there was an oversupply of places then the worst academic places would cut the number of places they offer. The price of tuition etc nationally would remain exactly the same. All the main colleges have a massive oversubscription every year -- they get to pick and choose who they want. That isn't going to change if the government cut all funding, they're still going to be oversubscribed. If you go to countries where the state pays for everybodys' college education you find that the cost is a fraction of US costs. Why is that? Government funding of education is one of the best things it does and it doesn't do nearly enough of it. If I hadn't got government funding for my education I'd be a builder and my kids would have gone to the local state school with the expectation of being builders when they grew up.

Look mate, Ron Paul and the other fruit loop are so extreme that even GOP primary voters the most conservative group of voters you can find in America, completely reject them. Anybody campaigning on a platform of ending social security and medicare is going to lose 48 states. That's just a fact. I know it's difficult for you to accept that you're in a tiny minority but you are.

Kirk you simply are incorrect. The government didn't always give grants and assistance out like candy and poor kids went to college by paying for it themselves. The sharp increase in higher education tuition can be directly tied to the increased amount of subsidies. There is a massive amount of college opportunities and in Texas if you graduate in the top 10% of your HS class every state school has to accept you. If you want to go to college there is a myriad of choices. There isn't enough rich kids out there to fill up all of the universities and colleges. Massive subsidies in college tuition have caused the price to far outpace inflation just like it has in other industries. Remove the subsidy and Universities will either lower the tuition fee or see their enrollments drop.

Paul and Johnson didn't get traction in the GOP b/c the party elite work against them and b/c where they are more fiscally conservative and small government geared than any of the GOP candidates they are too socially liberal for the party's religious right and neocons. I simply think your premise that not being favorable to GOP primary voters equates to not more favorable to the general populace is false. There is a reason that the two main candidates and parties work tirelessly to shut out people like Paul and Johnson b/c they know in a debate like forum their candidates will be embarrased. They know if one of these guys every gets to play on a even field that the monopoly is over.

The top colleges can charge what they want because wealthy people will pay it to get their kids in. It doesn't even stop there, they basically pay their kids' living expenses for a year or two after they graduate so they can intern and get a good job ahead of somebody who can't afford to work for free.

State universities have increased tuition costs because since the Reagan era their federal funding has been slashed so they've got to get the money from somewhere.

Blaming the rising cost on of tuition on government subsidies is just the conservative/libertarian way of explaining why it costs so much as it's as accurate as all the other crap they come out with, tax cuts increase revenues etc. etc.