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?

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.