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

[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.