House Passes the College Cost Reduction Act

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jul 11, 2007.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    speaker.gov

    good news, certainly. i know i struggled as a college student, putting myself through by working full time for at least a couple years. such a program i would have greatly welcomed.

    but there's also this:
    video of those remarks and others here. he held up the following chart during the rant:
    [​IMG]
     
  2. iSaint macrumors 603

    iSaint

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    #2
    There are plenty of opportunities that students can take advantage of to help with college costs. This is just another example of the Dems wanting to spend (give away our tax money) so they can control people's lives. Plus, it's not so easy to get a Pell Grant. Someone like yourself probably wouldn't be eligible. Someone like yourself wanting to work yourself through college/earn it yourself/achieve things in life, etc.

    I went back to school mid-life to get a masters. I received no assistance other than scholarships after I had proven myself with two semesters of A's and B's. I also borrowed money since we hadn't saved and prepared for this change. We're saving for our children's education. I hope they work hard in school so they can earn scholarships (not from the government) and use the money we save for living and/or further investments.

    Just my 1/50 of a dollar. :rolleyes: :)

    BTW the government (Ted Kennedy) is also trying to take over the student loan business, a thriving free market entity, for their own good. Democratic Congress = Big Government = We Tell You What To Do so you adore and worship us! :eek::confused:
     
  3. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    rotflmao. "controlling people's lives?" wtf are you on about?

    and i shall assume you didn't actually bother to read the (very short) article, since it plainly states that a way was found to fully fund it w/o raising taxes.

    AND we're talking about only $18 billion over 5 years. that's less than we spend to keep going in iraq for only 2 months. "controlling people's lives." hrumph.
     
  4. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #4
    Rather than more loans to have to worry about paying off why not try to cut tuition costs.
     
  5. trebblekicked macrumors 6502a

    trebblekicked

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #5
    ummmm.....

    yr right, though. in order to qualify for the new grants, you have to swear fealty to karl marx and get gay married.

    the simple answer is, federal government doesn't set tuition costs, but does set limits to stafford loans and pell grants. but i'd like to see (at the very least) some debate on college tuition and how universities (especially public ones) must use their funding.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    How would you suggest doing that?
     
  7. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #7
    The major Universities are getting more then enough money from the NCAA corporate deals that Im sure could pay for enough kids to go to college.

    The college football and basketball TV deals are worth 100's of millions.
     
  8. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    So universities would use revenue that they already have to cut costs? How would that work?

    Major universities are billion dollar+ industries. Only a few universities have sports programs that generate that kind of revenue, and those programs don't come cheap.
     
  9. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    if congress enacted legislation to dictate to universities how much tuition they could charge, wouldn't you be complaining about federal interference?
     
  10. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    All Im saying is that every person should have the right to a higher education without having to worry about loans or mortgaging the house to pay for it. College should not be just for the rich.
     
  11. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #11
    First of all Im not so sure that Congress would even do that since the loan company lobby would not let them. Second I think everything in this country is too expensive as it is so I would be all for the government lowering costs.
     
  12. furcalchick macrumors 68020

    furcalchick

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Location:
    South Florida
    #12
    i went to a very small school, and trust me, smaller schools in d-2 and d-3 get little to no money in athletics. so using the sports programs to cut tuition costs may not work across the board.

    and an example of frugal accounting: uc san diego was at one time the only d-2 program not to give out scholarships to athletes. the ncaa told them they had to give out scholarships, so what does the school do? raise tuition by 78 bucks to fund the scholarships. don't believe me? it's all here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_San_Diego#Athletics
     
  13. benlee macrumors 65816

    benlee

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    #13
    I take it you are a republican. I hate it when someone of one political party totally dismisses something brought about from the opposite party with the sole reason being the fact that it stems from that party. how is this controlling anyone's life, by making more money available for poorer families. please reread this and rethink your argument.
     
  14. jng macrumors 65816

    jng

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    #14
    No, gettting a Pell Grant is not easy. And when you do, they're insignificant (at least they were for me). So it's not really about Pell Grants. And although the government is increasing aid by $18b, the benefits are diffuse. I doubt students will experience a significant impact on their higher ed bills.

    I see nothing wrong with getting scholarships after one has proven oneself. As far as I know, that's how business school will work, so time to save up...

    I disagree.

    College shouldn't be free.

    The problem is that mommy and daddy pay for some kids, who graduate debt free, whereas, other kids' parents mortgage their houses (after maxing out staffords etc) and other kids work full time while studying a public institution and possibly take longer than 4 years to graduate.

    Loans are important. They teach you responsibility. There's nothing wrong with graduating with up to 20k in loans in my opinion, depending on what kind of school you went to. There is something wrong with graduating with 50k+, however.

    Also FYI. College is expensive because giving you an education is expensive. I don't think anyone is sitting on a money tree, except maybe lenders....
     
  15. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #15

    What garbage. My school offers only a handful of scholarships and my department offers none, so you're assumption that scholarships are readily available is moot. The cost for my school is roughly $15,000 a year. The Pell Grant under the GOP was only $4000 maximum. The Federal Loans are at a maximum of $10500 per year. Guess what? The GOP raised the interest for those loans from 4% to over 6%. Luckily, the Dems have the morality to lower it. You would have me spend 9% or more on a private loan with fraudulant companies like Sallie Mae? For what? To make fraudulant corporations more money?

    How about you get off that smug-filled peak you're sitting upon and pay back $60,000 with 6% more intesrest. I wonder if you'll put your money where your mouth is and refuse Social Security.
     
  16. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #16
    Why not? k-12 school is free, why not college?

    I did my undergrad in the UK when tuition was absolutely free - plus I got a (small) grant each semester. They now charge a max of £1,000 per year (and I heard they were considering raising it by another 1000) - but that is means tested. I really don't understand why there isn't more means testing in the US. It's not bullet-proof, but it works more or less.
    I find it a shame that some of the brightest undergrads I've come across here are struggling with 2 jobs during the semester and 3 in the summer just so they can attend classes. Then there are those students whose parents buy them a brand new SUV beginning their freshman year...
     
  17. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #17
    I think any student demonstrating a sincere desire to learn should never be turned away for financial reasons.

    Our government squanders hundreds of billions every year on behind closed door deals.

    There's no excuse.

    Those demonstrating other less academic skills also need vocational training.

    If only they could learn to educate our children on the strength of their natural gifts.

    My daughter is working and borrowing her way through college and it's not easy.

    I have to sell some of my land to pay for her and her sister before the payments come due.
     
  18. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #18
    Yes, because easing the burden on the poor and middle class who want to get an education and improve their employment opportunities and chances for financial freedom is just another example of the overbearing nanny state.

    Yes, because making education more accessible will only weaken our workforce's competitiveness in the global economy.

    Yes, because forcing poor students to take on massive debt owed to private lenders with special rules disallowing bankruptcy protection is the opposite of controlling people's lives.

    Yes, all of this is true in some alternate universe somewhere where logic and reason don't apply.
    Back here in reality, you're just completely wrong.
     
  19. Edandlindz28 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #19
    Any help is a good thing to get more people educated.

    You will always have those who parents who pay for thier kids schools, those that can help out, and those students who do it all on thier own.

    Its hard for some easier for others. Work hard for what you want.

    I never wanted my parents to pay for my school. I worked hard, got a scholarship, worked a job, didn't live at home and graduated w/o having debt. I choose a less expensive school because I didn't want to have student loans.
     
  20. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #20
    Does anybody know if the lower interest rate is retroactive?

    Public universities should be free. K-12 already is, so I don't see any reason why children who want to continue their education shouldn't be able to. I guess it's that whole conservative idea of keeping the poor dumb.

    Private universities can still be available for all of you conservatives afraid of learning with the poor kids.
     
  21. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #21
    The curious thing to me is that their big reason to prevent free education is because big government = bad. Here's the interesting thing: Thomas Jefferson was also against big government, but (and here's the kicker) he was for eductaion for everyone! Not just the rich, not the well-connected, everyone. That's why he founded the University of Virginia. Unfortunately, the GOP lost their morals long ago and tell anyone that isn't able to afford college to pay even more via the private sector.

     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    Just another example of Republican hypocrisy. They constantly talk about how education is the most important thing in the world to succeed, and then of course want to make it as difficult as possible for people to get it. They sure can talk the talk, but they can't walk the walk.
     
  23. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #23
    The biggest problem with schools is cost tuition, fees, and book cost. Yes it is nice they are raising how much they give out and so on but one problem. The middle class are the ones getting screwed because they make to much to get a lot of the help out their but not enough to be able to afford school.

    College is quickly becoming for the rich only and it will be come a huge dividing line in this country because to really make it this world you need a college degree. With the way things are heading unless your parents have a degree the chances of you going to college are getting reduced at a very rapid rate because of the fact the parents can not afford it.

    Yes I can see some people getting bitter about the help because either A) they stuggled and think everyone should. B) they just do not understand the problem because they come from money.

    I am among the lucky few who have parents that can afford to pay for my college. I know they given up a lot for my brother, sister and me to pay for our school and for things we want/need. I know people are bitter about what I have and where I come from. I will be graduating college not only debt free but with money in my account.
    I know people do not like the fact that my parent bought me a new car in 2004. I do not pay for any of my bills.
    I know my parents pay a little over $15k a year for my books and living expensive. That $15k does not include the other things they pay for me. Like my auto insurances, cell bill, gas, my extracurricular actives and I know other unknown cost. My Dad best guess is I cost him over $20k a year when everything is added up.
    Yes I know I am lucky and I know I come upper middle/ lower-upper class but I do not like how that is become a dividing line in this country for school. America use to have the belief any one can go to college if they want to and it quickly becoming not true because money matters
     
  24. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #24
    Wow:

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf

    Look at page three. We've made no real advancement in the past 30 years at expanding access to education. 30 years ago, just under 30% of adults completed bachelors degrees and 85% graduated from highschool, and 55+% got some college experience. It's roughly the same numbers today.
     
  25. jng macrumors 65816

    jng

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    #25
    It shouldn't be free because higher ed costs much more than K-12. And in some places, K-12 public education SUCKS. I normallly avoid using the word "sucks," but in my opinion, it really does. I'm a product of the Boston Public School Systems (BPS) and although I made out fine since I went to one of the top public exam schools, I would still never put my kids through the BPS.

    College is more expensive because you have more qualified educators, room and board costs, more expensive books, nicer things like libraries and atheletic facilities, etc.

    Even if tuition were "free," living costs would easily top out at $10,000 a year.

    Speaking of "free" higher education, I got to experience the German system. And although there were things I liked, there were things I hated too. For one thing, kids are weeded out for college at a very early age, so many people lose the opportunity early. And although our schools in the U.S. are very expensive, we also have a wonderful and extensive scholarship and financial aid system in place so college is affordable even for the very poor (if you're bright enough and/or work hard enough to find the money). Many German kids I met relied solely on their parents for income. So kids who's families didn't have money - well, it wasn't easy (although the govt. does support some through Bafog).

    In principle free education is nice. But it was also often frustrating. The facilities in classrooms were not the greatest. Very few classrooms were equipped with functioning projectors. The technology in general in student labs was outdated and also far from the center of town. The library was only staffed 8am-8pm during school days and many books are in dept. libraries that are opened even less. I went to a specialized economics library twice only to find out that it opened MWF 9-12 (when there was a professor holding office hours or something who could staff it). It was just frustrating. And I ended up logging into my school's website all the time to get access to academic databases and journals, etc. Something the German University didn't have for the most part.

    That is the real problem. It's why many schools are fighting to adopt a need-blind acceptance policy. My school's trying and it's not easy. They too have bills to pay. If one is really smart though, Harvard, among others is need-blind.

    That's spoken without thought. Obviously, it's not a an issue of separating classes. The system just works that way. It's obviously more difficult for poor people to go to school. But it's not impossible and that's just the wrong attitude to have.

    You are absolutely right. And kudos to you for realizing how lucky you are. Don't just feel guilty. Work intead to change the system or aid those less fortunate.
     

Share This Page