<p>What will happen if Obama gives each student $4,000 to go to college, like he’s promised us?</p>
<p>Answer: Colleges will raise their tuition by $4,000! Guaranteed. Liberals love to give simple answers to complex problems. You can’t merely “give” everyone money and wish their problems away. It just ain’t that easy!</p>
<p>Indeed, it isn’t that easy. However, the vast majority of students go to two-year community colleges, or non-flagship state universities, where tuitions are either set by legislatures, or are set according to guidelines set by legislation. It would positively impact those who need it most (if it actually happened). As to the others? Tuitions are going to rise anyway.</p>
<p>I don’t think the colleges will all raise tuition by $4,000, because many of them are not run by conservatives.</p>
<p>you forget that the large majority of colleges & universities are non-profit.</p>
<p>tuition/housing only increases to keep up with inflation. and you can’t ignore the reality that the large majority of higher education institutions aren’t bloodthristy capitalists who love to exploit broke students.</p>
<p>it’s going to help in any case.</p>
<p>College costs will be raised either directly by an increase in tuition of $4000 or indirectly by a reduction in the amount of financial aid by $4000. It won’t be immediate, but it will happen. Colleges aren’t stupid. The cost of eduction at many colleges greatly exceeds the revenues from tuition even though students believe tuition is very high.</p>
<p>Why do people automatically assume that money fixes all problem? Do you all honestly believe that the reason the majority of kids don’t go to college because of the expense? That just isn’t true. While the cost of college can be expensive, the majority of kids can afford to go to school if they want. The average student doesn’t have to pay anywhere near the “LIST PRICE” for school There is plenty of money out there for school.</p>
<p>The problem with the larger universities; especially the prestigious schools, it how many students they can accept. For instance; Yale only accepted 9.9% of those that applied. hardvard wasn’t much higher at 10.3%. All giving more money to kids for education will mean is that more kids will apply to more schools. If a certain school is only going to accept 1400 kids; then that is all it’s going to accept. It doesn’t matter if 5000 apply or 25,000 apply.</p>
<p>Throwing $4,000 a a student and saying; “You can now go to college” will do nothing. If economically; because they didn’t have the grades for merit scholarship, private scholarships, grants, loans, etc…, the student is only able to make it to a community college or inexpensive state school, then $4000 extra isn’t going to get them to a better school. If the goal is to get them the money so they can go to AT LEAST A COMMUNITY COLLEGE, then that is naive. Just about every kid graduating school can get to a community college if they want to bad enough. It isn’t money holding them back. Those who “Can’t” make it into college usually is because of their grades.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I go to UChicago, which has been less than gracious with its financial aid. When I got a financial gift from the government, I got a letter in the mail saying “Everyone got a gift from the government, so guess what? We’re going to decrease the total monetary value of grants we’re giving you exactly the cost that you’re getting from the government.” So who profits in this case? That would be the rich people who have no gift aid from the university. The people with financial problems get nothing. This is in addition to the fact that my school ranks in the top 10 for endowment. I can imagine that other private schools act similarly, though Chicago seems to be the biggest money whore of them all.</p>
<p>Obama has NOT promised to ‘give every student $4000 to got to college". He is proposing a tax credit of up to $4000 for college tuition, just the same way as our government today gives thousands and thousands of dollars to individuals and businesses for all sorts of purposes. The idea of a tax credit is simply that the government is providing an incentive for the individual or business to engage in that activity. For example, businesses get lots of tax credits for capital investments, research and development, etc., because the government correctly believes that those investments will pay rich dividends down the road for the whole national economy. Obama thinks (and I agree) that young people should be given an incentive to make an investment in themselves by going to college, and that the national economy as a whole will benefit from having a well-educated populace. And if colleges can raise tuition without impacting students’ bottom lines then that will strengthen colleges in their mission to educate and to investigate. </p>
<p>It is pathetic that the Republicans have for very long been hostile towards education, science and the arts.</p>
<p>Why do you say this is a “Republican” problem? Bill Clinton had plenty of time with a Democratic house and senate to do a lot of things. You can’t blame this on republicans. You all really need to stop trying to place blame. You hate Bush so much that you don’t care to see what is good and what is bad. Basically, if it isn’t the idea of the “Democrats” then it’s not a good idea. It’s attitudes like that that make it so nothing gets accomplished in congress.</p>
<p>Clinton and the Democrats were friendly towards education, science and the arts. Clinton helped secure money for major advances in science- for example the budget for medical research was doubled under his Presidency. We all benefit from that research.</p>
<p>Bush in particular but the Republicans in general have been very hostile towards education, science and the arts. They are also hostile towards the environment. They are friendly towards the defense industry and faith-based organizations.</p>
<p>These are not partisan statements. I wish they were not true. But they are. </p>
<p>There are plenty of problems with Democrats too. But the last 8 years have been driven by the Republican agenda and many of us Independents have just had it with the Republicans. The Republican party needs to reform in a big way.</p>
<p>That’s right; you believe that the President has some special power that allows him to have anything he wants; and have it his way. There is a democratic congress in charge the last time I checked.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. I too believe that we have a lot of problems in Washington. I just happen to believe that the vast majority of problems are in the congress. There is barely anything the president can do; with the exception of things like a presidential pardon; that s/he can do without the approval or authorization of the congress. That is how our form of government is set up. The congress says yea or nay on just about every action in the country. And if it is a law that is disputed, we have the judicial branch to interpret for us. The executive branch probably has the least amount of power of all the government.</p>
<p>My point is; I don’t place blame and I don’t place credit for anything with the president when it comes to the internal social and economic health of our country. The president may have influence with foreign affairs and such, but the congress at any time can stop him in his tracks on just about anything. Whether they do or not is up to them. The majority of them are playing politics. They are doing what’s best for them strategically.</p>
<p>You want to FIX this country? I mean really fix it and not all this hypothetical debating on forums, barber shops, bars, etc… Then enact term limits for the house and the senate. Don’t allow a senator to stay in office for more than 3 terms. I think 18 years is enough. Don’t let a representative to have more than 6 terms. 12 years is enough. Give the president the ability to have a line item veto. If he line items a certain section; the congress can either accept it or take back the entire bill. Don’t handcuff the president making him sign a bill that is going to improve the nation’s energy independence, but force he to sign it when there’s a bunch of “Save the Peeble Mouse” amendments attached to it.</p>
<p>You really want to fix the government, then that is how you do it. It doesn’t matter if Obama, Clinton, or McCain gets into office. If you have a congress with members in it who have way over 40 years being there, then nothing will change. Obama can’t change anything. Neither can the other two.</p>
<p>In my world $4,000 is a LOT of money.</p>
<p>Currently I am borrowing money to attend community college-by taking out a Stafford loan. If I was getting a govt grant to attend college- it would be so much easier.
Students who are pressured by their parents or by life, to start work immediately, would have an incentive to pursue higher education with the grants/tax credit.
We see a lot of kids on the boards, whose families don’t qualify for aid, the students gets into a school that only meets need. No $4,000 isn’t going to make a lot of difference between $34,000 & $38,000. But it at least gives students options, when parents say they are not paying for diddly.</p>
<p>We already have term limits I agree with.
It is call using your vote.
You don’t like the politician? Vote them out.</p>
<p>No Christcorp, I don’t believe the President has all the power, but Bush did have a rubber stamp Congress for the first 6 years of his term, when they (Republican majority and Bush) did all the damage. For a few years before that, there was a Republican majority in Congress with a democratic President. The new Democratic congress has been a very important force that has started the job of getting the country back on the right track. Bush still has the all-important veto, which holds because of the Republicans. He has vetoed children’s health, stem cell research, Iraq funding bills that would have forced the Iraqis to make political progress, and he has vetoed bills to authorize necessary anti-terrorism surveillance programs just because he wants to protect the phone companies and cover up the anti-American actions of his administration. </p>
<p>There is plenty of blame to go around, but in recent years, the Republicans have been the problem far more than the Democrats. The Republicans, instead of getting defensive, need to fix their own party and marginalize the extremist wackos. Nominating McCain was a good start, I’ll grant that.</p>
<p>PS: I’m in favor of term limits for all politicians, I agree with you on that one.</p>
<p>“You hate Bush so much that you don’t care to see what is good and what is bad.”</p>
<p>I don’t know about others, but I didn’t originally hate him. It was all the stuff that was bad that led me to my current attitude toward him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet these colleges run by libs have steadily increased tuition so now, at most privates, it costs upwards of $40,000 a year to attend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you can’t even get the proposed policies right then why should we listen to your silly ‘answers.’ He’s proposed a tax credit not a tuition credit… there’s a huge difference.</p>
<p>“Why do people automatically assume that money fixes all problem? Do you all honestly believe that the reason the majority of kids don’t go to college because of the expense”</p>
<p>Yes. A lot of students who don’t go to college assume that college would be out of reach for them.</p>
<p>Even community colleges are expensive for low income students whose families may need their income. When I taught at a public university that attracted lots of low income students, some of the students whom I taught were selling blood to make ends meet, and also were sending money home to their families.</p>
<p>The people posting on CC, who in general are at least middle class, and who also include many who can afford to go without scholarships to the country’s most expensive colleges, don’t represent the majority of college students.</p>
<p>From the on-line site with info from the Lehrer news hour:
"PAT CALLAN, Center for Public Policy and Higher Education: At the very time when for individuals, college is more essential now than it’s ever been before, we’ve been making it more difficult for students and families to afford it, and then they’ve had to rely heavily on borrowing.</p>
<p>LEE HOCHBERG: The center’s just- completed study of the nation’s 3,500 colleges found tuition is rising faster than inflation. It’s rising faster than family income. Even at public colleges, where most American students go, a year’s tuition now consumes 12 percent of a typical family’s income, and 25 percent for low income families."
[Online</a> NewsHour: College Costs – June 5, 2002](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june02/costs_6-5.html]Online”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june02/costs_6-5.html)</p>