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

[VictorCharlie]

There has been a reduction in federal money to universities since the 80s but it was in research not the general funds that run the university. And yeah us Libertarians like to tell our children how price will outpace inflation for highly subsidized goods as a boogie man bedtime story. I got to say I'm a little disappointed in your retorts lack of graphs. Come on Kirk you know I'm a simple Soldier. You got to give to me barney style.

I think you under estimate the American voter. Sure both the current candidates are too cowardly to mention significant reform to entitlement spending b/c no one wants to be the first to tell our seniors that the party is over. I'm not interested in another discussion with you about the sustainability of SS and Medicaire but if you believe that they are a major contributor to our debt/deficit and more importantly unfunded future liabilities then you have to agree something needs to be done to either better fund them, reform them or replace them. I think a candidate that was able to articulate the problem, a solution and then point out how complicit the major parties have been in kicking the can down the road would do quite well.

There's been massive underfunding and cutting of funding for state universities at federal and state level since the 1980s. For some reason the funding cuts co-incided with the increase in tuition costs. The words that do come out of your virtual mouth happen to co-incide the things the think tanks and individuals funded by corporations and billonaires have been propagating for the last few decades.

Social security and medicare are the third rail of American politics. Massive majorities of the public don't want to see cuts in these programmes. Any politician advocating scrapping them is dead in the water.

Social security doesn't really need to be reformed anytime soon. Solving Medicare cost growth problems would solve the long term federal deficit overnight and I already explained to you how easy it would be to do.

Also, too. Ron Paul and his ilk want to "reform" medicare and ss by scrapping them and leaving over 65s at the mercy of the private sector. This is, nationally speaking, a 48 state election-losing position to take.

Show me a source documenting the decrease in federal money allocated to state universities general fund since 1980. Not research money or grants but money that goes towards paying for teachers salaries and keeping the lights on directly from the Feds to the school.

I know how you like graphs. Here is one from the guys at Freakanomics

[Kirkland Laing]

There has been a reduction in federal money to universities since the 80s but it was in research not the general funds that run the university. And yeah us Libertarians like to tell our children how price will outpace inflation for highly subsidized goods as a boogie man bedtime story. I got to say I'm a little disappointed in your retorts lack of graphs. Come on Kirk you know I'm a simple Soldier. You got to give to me barney style.

I think you under estimate the American voter. Sure both the current candidates are too cowardly to mention significant reform to entitlement spending b/c no one wants to be the first to tell our seniors that the party is over. I'm not interested in another discussion with you about the sustainability of SS and Medicaire but if you believe that they are a major contributor to our debt/deficit and more importantly unfunded future liabilities then you have to agree something needs to be done to either better fund them, reform them or replace them. I think a candidate that was able to articulate the problem, a solution and then point out how complicit the major parties have been in kicking the can down the road would do quite well.

There's been massive underfunding and cutting of funding for state universities at federal and state level since the 1980s. For some reason the funding cuts co-incided with the increase in tuition costs. The words that do come out of your virtual mouth happen to co-incide the things the think tanks and individuals funded by corporations and billonaires have been propagating for the last few decades.

Social security and medicare are the third rail of American politics. Massive majorities of the public don't want to see cuts in these programmes. Any politician advocating scrapping them is dead in the water.

Social security doesn't really need to be reformed anytime soon. Solving Medicare cost growth problems would solve the long term federal deficit overnight and I already explained to you how easy it would be to do.

Also, too. Ron Paul and his ilk want to "reform" medicare and ss by scrapping them and leaving over 65s at the mercy of the private sector. This is, nationally speaking, a 48 state election-losing position to take.

Show me a source documenting the decrease in federal money allocated to state universities general fund since 1980. Not research money or grants but money that goes towards paying for teachers salaries and keeping the lights on directly from the Feds to the school.

I know how you like graphs. Here is one from the guys at Freakanomics

The federal government transfers money to state government for various reasons. Mostly Medicaid and similar programmes, but federal aid to states was generally cut back from Reagan onwards and one of the ways the states dealt with this was to cut state funding gor universities which meant the costs of education have been increasingly transferred to students.

[VictorCharlie]

Come on Kirk. You would never allow Lyle or myself to make a statement like that w/o supporting facts. So please show me a supporting document that describes the amount of federal money that a state was using specifically for their Universities/Colleges general funds and the amount it has decreased by since 1980.

[Kirkland Laing]

Come on Kirk. You would never allow Lyle or myself to make a statement like that w/o supporting facts. So please show me a supporting document that describes the amount of federal money that a state was using specifically for their Universities/Colleges general funds and the amount it has decreased by since 1980.

The fact is that since Reagan there have been massive cuts of federal funding to states and one of the ways that states have made up the funding gap is by charging higher and higher tuition fees :

Once elected, Mr. Reagan set the educational tone for his administration by:

a. calling for an end to free tuition for state college and university students,
b. annually demanding 20% across-the-board cuts in higher education funding,[2]
c. repeatedly slashing construction funds for state campuses
d. engineering the firing of Clark Kerr, the popular President of the University of California, and
e. declaring that the state "should not subsidize intellectual curiosity,[3]"



http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Reagan.html


So how about that. It turns out it's a conservative aim to end free tuition to state universities as part of the conservative war on education (Reagan having run on a platform of abolishing the Department of Education in 1980) and when they finally do succeed in passing the cost of tuition from the state to students they then turn round and say it's government subsidies that are causing the problem.





Also, too, a more detailed look at the whole thing :


http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/from-master-plan-to-no-plan-the-slow-death-of-public-higher-education

[VictorCharlie]

Come on Kirk. You would never allow Lyle or myself to make a statement like that w/o supporting facts. So please show me a supporting document that describes the amount of federal money that a state was using specifically for their Universities/Colleges general funds and the amount it has decreased by since 1980.

The fact is that since Reagan there have been massive cuts of federal funding to states and one of the ways that states have made up the funding gap is by charging higher and higher tuition fees :

Once elected, Mr. Reagan set the educational tone for his administration by:

a. calling for an end to free tuition for state college and university students,
b. annually demanding 20% across-the-board cuts in higher education funding,[2]
c. repeatedly slashing construction funds for state campuses
d. engineering the firing of Clark Kerr, the popular President of the University of California, and
e. declaring that the state "should not subsidize intellectual curiosity,[3]"



http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Reagan.html


So how about that. It turns out it's a conservative aim to end free tuition to state universities as part of the conservative war on education (Reagan having run on a platform of abolishing the Department of Education in 1980) and when they finally do succeed in passing the cost of tuition from the state to students they then turn round and say it's government subsidies that are causing the problem.





Also, too, a more detailed look at the whole thing :


http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/from-master-plan-to-no-plan-the-slow-death-of-public-higher-education

I only skimmed through the second article so feel free to show me where I am wrong but the only cuts in spending for the general funds of universities your articles mention were what Reagan did as Governor of California (your points A-E) not as President. There is no mention of cuts in federal money that was used for universities general funds. Again provide a credible source showing federal funds provided specifically for all states colleges' general funds across the nation decreasing since 1980 or concede.

[El Kabong]

GAME, SET, MATCH VC

[Kirkland Laing]

Come on Kirk. You would never allow Lyle or myself to make a statement like that w/o supporting facts. So please show me a supporting document that describes the amount of federal money that a state was using specifically for their Universities/Colleges general funds and the amount it has decreased by since 1980.

The fact is that since Reagan there have been massive cuts of federal funding to states and one of the ways that states have made up the funding gap is by charging higher and higher tuition fees :

Once elected, Mr. Reagan set the educational tone for his administration by:

a. calling for an end to free tuition for state college and university students,
b. annually demanding 20% across-the-board cuts in higher education funding,[2]
c. repeatedly slashing construction funds for state campuses
d. engineering the firing of Clark Kerr, the popular President of the University of California, and
e. declaring that the state "should not subsidize intellectual curiosity,[3]"



http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Reagan.html


So how about that. It turns out it's a conservative aim to end free tuition to state universities as part of the conservative war on education (Reagan having run on a platform of abolishing the Department of Education in 1980) and when they finally do succeed in passing the cost of tuition from the state to students they then turn round and say it's government subsidies that are causing the problem.





Also, too, a more detailed look at the whole thing :


http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/from-master-plan-to-no-plan-the-slow-death-of-public-higher-education

I only skimmed through the second article so feel free to show me where I am wrong but the only cuts in spending for the general funds of universities your articles mention were what Reagan did as Governor of California (your points A-E) not as President. There is no mention of cuts in federal money that was used for universities general funds. Again provide a credible source showing federal funds provided specifically for all states colleges' general funds across the nation decreasing since 1980 or concede.

I never said there was any direct link between federal aid cuts and the general funds of state universities. You're the first person to mention the general funds because you know there's no way I can make alink between the two things.

You're not going to find a direct link between cuts in federal aid to states and the general funds of state universities. What you do have is a general reduction in federal aid to states which has created a situation where the cost of tuition has been passed from the state to the student.

[VictorCharlie]

Come on Kirk. You would never allow Lyle or myself to make a statement like that w/o supporting facts. So please show me a supporting document that describes the amount of federal money that a state was using specifically for their Universities/Colleges general funds and the amount it has decreased by since 1980.

The fact is that since Reagan there have been massive cuts of federal funding to states and one of the ways that states have made up the funding gap is by charging higher and higher tuition fees :

Once elected, Mr. Reagan set the educational tone for his administration by:

a. calling for an end to free tuition for state college and university students,
b. annually demanding 20% across-the-board cuts in higher education funding,[2]
c. repeatedly slashing construction funds for state campuses
d. engineering the firing of Clark Kerr, the popular President of the University of California, and
e. declaring that the state "should not subsidize intellectual curiosity,[3]"



http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Reagan.html


So how about that. It turns out it's a conservative aim to end free tuition to state universities as part of the conservative war on education (Reagan having run on a platform of abolishing the Department of Education in 1980) and when they finally do succeed in passing the cost of tuition from the state to students they then turn round and say it's government subsidies that are causing the problem.





Also, too, a more detailed look at the whole thing :


http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/from-master-plan-to-no-plan-the-slow-death-of-public-higher-education

I only skimmed through the second article so feel free to show me where I am wrong but the only cuts in spending for the general funds of universities your articles mention were what Reagan did as Governor of California (your points A-E) not as President. There is no mention of cuts in federal money that was used for universities general funds. Again provide a credible source showing federal funds provided specifically for all states colleges' general funds across the nation decreasing since 1980 or concede.

I never said there was any direct link between federal aid cuts and the general funds of state universities. You're the first person to mention the general funds because you know there's no way I can make alink between the two things.

You're not going to find a direct link between cuts in federal aid to states and the general funds of state universities. What you do have is a general reduction in federal aid to states which has created a situation where the cost of tuition has been passed from the state to the student.

You said

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.

and

There's been massive underfunding and cutting of funding for state universities at federal and state level since the 1980s.

Now after you've done some research and realized that the Feds don't directly fund state schools you are trying to back track. The Feds do indirectly provide money for higher education through grants, research funds and student loans. This money has in fact increased since 1980. Even if we were to look at your new hypothesis that generic federal funding for states falling is the culprit for tuition increases this would not effect states across the board b/c each state's budget and higher education funds are unique to them. Each state would treat this differently with varying results. You will find graphs below supporting my statements and I will take my victory lap now. Score one for the good guy!!!

Hey no federal money mentioned


Hey we spend more federal cash on grants, research and student loans than in 1980