Which presidential candidate is better for education?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Randell1234, Jun 23, 2012.

Loading...
?

Which presidential candidate is better for education?

  1. Romney

    2 vote(s)
    11.8%

  2. Obama

    7 vote(s)
    41.2%

  3. Too early to tell

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%

  4. Neither

    5 vote(s)
    29.4%
Page 2 of 2
  1. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    That's handled at the state level, not the federal level. Even if Romney really were a free market kind of guy, he wouldn't be in a position to dictate state appropriations.

    He's said that he'd prefer banks were back in the action when it comes to student loans. Unless he means something very different from the previous system, that would be a scheme where banks make money whether students repay their loans or not -- a nauseatingly obvious subsidy to those who need it the least.

    I'd expect his administration to be less hostile to them than Obama's has, but that's a pretty low hurdle. Besides, remember that Republicans may talk about deregulation, but it was the Bush administration that gave us the Spellings Commission, a very meddlesome attempt to mess with the way accreditation works in the U.S.
     
    SteveFoerster, Jun 24, 2012
    #21
  2. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    In theory you are correct: the Feds don't directly dictate state appropriations. But in practice, the Feds can and have helped to bail out the states, when state education funding runs short. For example, Obama's Stimulus Act of 2009 included some $55 billion to shore up public education budgets. So there certainly can be Federal support for state universities, it's just indirect.

    The question is whether Romney would be equally inclined to bail out state education budgets (which in many cases are still hurting relative to pre-recession levels). My prediction would be "no".
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 25, 2012
    CalDog, Jun 25, 2012
    #22
  3. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Under the current rules, the banks make a killing on private loans. But the reference here is to the Federal student loan program. The Obama administration cut banks out of the Federal program, by eliminating their role as "middlemen". In theory, the cost savings funded more aid.

    Romney has proposed putting the banks back into the Federal lending business, so that the banks could make money on both Federal and private loans. The banks support this change, but it is not clear that it would necessarily be an improvement for student loan borrowers.
     
    CalDog, Jun 25, 2012
    #23
  4. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Did I understand correctly that graduate students no longer qualify for subsidized student loans? Does this mean that they have to make payments on their student loans while still in grad school? Who brought about that change?
     
    Ted Heiks, Jun 25, 2012
    #24
  5. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Subsidy and deferment are separate issues. It's true that as a grad student you can't get subsidized loans, but you still don't make payments while enrolled, it's just that eventually you will have to repay the interest that accumulates while you're in deferment.
     
    SteveFoerster, Jun 25, 2012
    #25
  6. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    In other words, deferring one's unsubsidized loans results in a substantial negative amortization. Thanx.
     
    Ted Heiks, Jun 25, 2012
    #26
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page