College Tuition Issue: Clark vs. Dean

[Indiana_Dem]

Since I have a 16-year-old I have questions about each candidates educational funding. Clark & Dean are my top choices right now so I've decided to compare them but I still have questions.

CLARK:
*Universal College Grant $6000/year for first 2 years for MOST students.
*For families who make up to $100,000/year
*Encourage Savings Programs
*Restrain Tuition Fees


DEAN:
*All 8th graders have access if they choose to go to college then of $10,000/year (all 4 years?)
*Mix of loans and grants which depends on family income
*States encouraged to frontload money in 1st 2 years of individuals college
*Can earn additional money by being in Americorps with a commitment of 2 years
*Repayment of loans no more than 10% of income--tax credits if more
*Public Service Corps save you more, too (career choices of higher demand)

I also wonder if any of this would apply to older adult students?
And I wonder when it would take effect?
Which do you think looks better?

[hellhathnofury]

1. I'm in the application process right now.

I like Dean's better money wise. Edwards has some good aspects too, more on the philosophical side though than $side.

The Dean debt relief will probably help me alot. I'm going into the hole big time prob.

[Indiana_Dem]

3. So tell me Edwards' plan? n/t

[hellhathnofury]

5. Courtesy of the LA Times...

Howard Dean

Would provide all higher education students with $10,000 a year in federal grants or loans, depending on family income level; would provide college loan relief for participants in an expanded AmeriCorps national service program; would limit loan payments to 10% of income after college and end loan payments after 10 years; would reduce loan payments further, to 7% of income, for nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters and others in public service jobs.

John Edwards

One year of free tuition in exchange for 10 hours a week of work during that year, preferably in a community service job; would urge an end to legacy admissions (that favor children of a college's alumni) and early decision programs; proposes saving money by streamlining the federally backed college loan system; would push states to put all high school students, other than those who opt out, in college prep curriculums.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-collegeaid5jan05,1,1246588.story?coll=la-home-politics

Free Registration Required

[Indiana_Dem]

7. Thank you.

It sounds like Edwards' program only provides for one year though.

[hellhathnofury]

9. Edwards doesn't get the money side like Dean.

His institutional reforms are great.

would urge an end to legacy admissions (that favor children of a college's alumni) and early decision programs...would push states to put all high school students, other than those who opt out, in college prep curriculums.

[AP]

18. Edwards's gets the principle down. Dean encourages students to take out

more loans, and ultimately pay way more in total, while giving all that interest income (profit) to wall st. Dean's plan is actually quite mad.

[AP]

15. Edwards's plan lowers your tuition costs by 25%...

...and it means you finance even less of your tuition if you use the money you make at that job to pay down your tuition principle.

It's a substantial program, and it cuts your tuition by a quarter whether you're going to NC State or Bennington or MIT.

Clarks is just worth a max of 24K over four years. Edwards's could be worth as much as 35K depending on where you go to school. Consider the interest you'd pay on that over a decade or so, and it's worth even more.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Clark's program

seems simple and realistic and love the word "universal"...aka, choice!

Since I have two children, one is 16 (a junior in high school) and a 13 year old (eight grade)...so this is personal. My oldest graduates in 2005....to Clark's timing is just right!

But, some might call me biased.

[Indiana_Dem]

4. Mine graduates in 2006 so this issue is VERY important

to me as well!

Kucinich's plan is the best but I don't think he is doing very well right now. He is my next choice.

[slinkerwink]

6. the problem is that Dean's college tuition program is better

[catforclark2004]

8. To whom?

[AP]

28. It's the best for Wall St and for people who want to reduce fed tax rev-

enues.

Usually those people like Republicans.

[Clark4VotingRights]

10. Just kicking this 'cause I think it's an important subject.

And I just saw Kucinich on ABC news talking about how he
had to work two full time jobs for two years to save money
for college. Admirable of him; shameful reflection of the US.

[hellhathnofury]

11. U of CA tuition just went up 10%, YAY!

[IndianaGreen]

12. Edwards has Clark and Dean beat, the issue: "legacy admissions"

Legacy admissions is when colleges grant additional points to student applicants, solely based on non-merit factors such as family being alumni, or more importantly, have given an endowment to the university.

This is why a low C-average GPA Dan Quayle can get admitted to Indiana University Law School, while a better qualified applicant gets the shaft. Or someone with Ds and Cs can be admitted to Yale (and get an MBA), like George W. Bush.

Here is the irony: The same people that defend legacy admissions, are the ones that criticize affirmative action.

[hellhathnofury]

13. I agree on that. Edwards has the best philosophical reforms.

Dean is best for me $wise though.

[AP]

16. Edwards's is best financially, philosophically, etc.

Read my post below. Dean's is a gift to Wall St. Edwards's is a gift to America.

[AP]

14. Edwards is best, and Clark is closest to Edwards.

Edwards and Clark are talking about reducing the amount of money students need to pay for education. If you take out loans, it means lower principle, wich means Wall St isn't getting a big chunk of change from the fact that people get educated.

Dean's plan is shameful. It's just another loan (as if students already don't have an easy time getting a loan) and it's guaranteed profit for Wall St, subsidized by taxpayers.

Furthermore, to benefit from Dean's tax break, you have to have a job. So, clearly, employers of people with student loans (people age 20-30) will drop salaries just enough so that people think calculate in the tax benefit.

So, with Dean, wall st and big business employers make money off you coming and going. They get their interest income from your loan, and they get to pay lower wages.

Dean is showing his Wall St roots with this program.

[hellhathnofury]

17. Actually I believe Dean's plans use government loans.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-collegeaid5jan05,1,1246588.story?coll=la-home-politics

"$10,000 a year in federal grants or loans."

I don't see how Wall Street gains from me taking government loans. The interest is alot easier to handle with gov compared to fed.

Edwards: "One year of free tuition in exchange for 10 hours a week of work during that year, preferably in a community service job"

I assume that is only public schools. I'd like to go to a liberal arts college and my state CA doesn't have any public one's. That isn't that much help, your basically working for it anyways.

[AP]

19. Nope. To whom do you think the government sells your loans?

The government hasn't been in the business of direct loans for a while. This plan will be managed just like any other student loan program -- they'll be bundled and sold as Wall St investments.

Even if they weren't, it'd still mean students paying huge amounts in interst (which then is taken out of the tax revenues).

It makes more sense for the government to pay the grants up front, then take the hit in tax revenues long run.

This is why the Republican have killed Pell Grants -- they made too much sense, didn't deplete tax revenues, and didn't make enough money for Wall St.

Clark and Edwards are the Democrats on this issue (GRANTS). Dean is the Republican (LOANS).

[hellhathnofury]

20. hhmmm...didn't know. At least Dean's plan will pass.

The more aid the better. Your going to have to pay someway no matter what. I doubt Clark's plan would get through Congress, there's no $ for it right now.

We all talk about repealing the tax cuts but with a Republican congress it might take awhile.

[AP]

21. Uh, why won't the others pass?

Of course Wall St is going to love Dean's plan. But there's no reason that Edwards's or Clark's plans wouldn't pass to. They're the plans that make sense.

[hellhathnofury]

24. Clark's plan appears to need 25-35 billion in new spending.

Where's the money for it?

"Edwards will provide one year of free tuition to public universities and community colleges."

-Public universities don't really give me what I'm looking for, a smaller school and frankly there are only a few public liberal arts schools in the nation. None in my state. Btw, I'm thinking of being a history prof.

I think it works for alot of people, it just doesn't help me at all. I think Edwards plan is much more likely to pass than Clarks. Edwards has a really great plan for alot of people.

Edwards has vision, Dean has pragmatism. Mix the two and it's gold.

[AP]

26. A 2000 dollar loan could add 8-10K in interest, depending on the loan

period and interest rate. If Clark gives grants worth 25 billion, and Dean gives loans worth 25 billion, with interest payments tax deductible, whose plan is more expensive?

Furthermore, Clark's plan keeps more money in the pockets of the middle class by not requiring them to finance their education to the same degree Dean's plan does.

Dean's plan further entrenches the hegemony of Wall St by giving them easy profits fianced by a reduction in government revenues (and, therefore, a reduction in the ability of the Government to provide a level playing field and adequately reguale marketplaces). That, in itself, creates a huge cost for society that Clark's plan doesn't create.

Overall, Clark's plan is much less expensive both in terms of ultimate cost to society, and in terms of creating a more productive economy.

Of course, for the reason I noted above, Edwards's plan is even better.

I can't believe people think Dean's plan has pragmatism. It isn't even a new idea. Students have absolutely NO problem getting college loans. That's all this is. It's another student loan, except this one drives down wages because it forces you to accept a job just to get the benefit of its tax break.

[Clark4VotingRights]

25. So by that logic, the worse a plan is for Americans, the more likely it is

That congress will pass the crappy plan, so we should back the
candidate with the worst plan?

The more I look at Dean's plan the more unhappy I am with it.
It seems to perpetuate the class trap that Americans are in.
Not everyone can qualify for loans.
Repaying them can last for years and years, and be a huge burden.

I don't think higher education should be so exclusive.
I prefer grants. I think Americans deserve to get something
from the gov't we pay all these taxes to.
Upward mobility should be possible for those who want it,
for themselves or their children. It should be an entitlement,
not an expensive luxury.

"It is true, however, that America was once a place of substantial intergenerational mobility: Sons often did much better than their fathers...
Now for the shocker: The Business Week piece cites a new survey of today's adult men, which finds that this number has dropped to only 10 percent. That is, over the past generation upward mobility has fallen drastically. Very few children of the lower class are making their way to even moderate affluence. This goes along with other studies indicating that rags-to-riches stories have become vanishingly rare, and that the correlation between fathers' and sons' incomes has risen in recent decades. In modern America, it seems, you're quite likely to stay in the social and economic class into which you were born."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040105&c=1&s=krugman

[AP]

27. Grants not Loans. Pell grants were a great thing. Any plan that reduces

principle on college loans is going to best for American and for the economy (because it'll reduce the power of the banks and Wall St to screw up the world and it will leave more money in the pockets of the middle class).

Edwards's plan goes farther than Clarks. It's really the best.

[hellhathnofury]

31. Pell grants are nice but have now been frozen.

"In the FY2004 budget, Pell Grants were frozen for the second year in a row, causing Pell Grant purchasing power to be less than the 2002 level. Today, around 4.5 million students depend on Pell Grants. According to the Public Interest Resource Group (PIRG), "Over 70 percent of Pell Grant funds go to students from families with incomes of $20,000 a year or less" and "the maximum Pell Grant award has declined from covering 84 percent of average public university tuition in 1976, to approximately 39 percent today."

http://www.mi-democrats.com/topics/news-minority-students-hurt.htm

You show me a Democratic Congress and administration and I'll back Edward's plan with glee. The pubs won't pass our entitilments.

I think a mixture of the two is really best though because not all of us want classes of two three hundred. I'm looking at 40000 in debt. Dean helps me alot more than Edwards.

[AP]

33. Edwards's plan has just the right tone to pass. An entitlement? Working

10 hours a week while you're going to school is an entitelment?

Furthermore, businesses are going to like the influx into the labor market of students. (And unlike Dean's 21-30 year olds at low-paying jobs, it's OK for college kids to work for 5 bucks an hour if there getting a free year of college out of the deal -- when they greaduate they won't be making 5 bucks an hour).

Pell grants were killed because they worked. It won't take America much to get on board with Edwards's plan.

Your last paragraph makes almost no sense to me. You think Edwards's plan is going to cause some crazy huge influx into colleges? You know the UC system has a new campus built and ready to go, but the Republicans have ruined the American economy so badly they can't afford to open it.

As for being in debt 40K, Edwards's plan was going to cut your principle by 25% (and, after paying interest on that for 10 years, it's a lot more money than the you think). Dean's just going to give you one more loan, and you're probably already getting tax relief on the interest you pay. And Dean's plan gives you that relief when you get your tax refund, so you've already paid that interest for a year, and you don't get the benefit until May of the next year. Furthermore, you have to be employed to get the benefit. If you can't find a job, you get nothing. And, psst, you can't get rid of your student loans in bankruptcy. That's a millstone you'll wear for a long time. And then you'll remember back to how Howard Dean lured you into taking out that one additional loan with the promise of tax breaks. You'll want to strangle him and you'll wish you had supported Edwards instead.

[hellhathnofury]

35. We'll see if Edwards plan catches.

"Your last paragraph makes almost no sense to me. You think Edwards's plan is going to cause some crazy huge influx into colleges? You know the UC system has a new campus built and ready to go, but the Republicans have ruined the American economy so badly they can't afford to open it."

You don't seem to understand how impersonal public universities have become. Your basically taught by TA's and left to fend for yourself otherwise. Merced construction is not finished and it still won't completely meet coming demand. They need another campus yet. I like options in my education. If Edwards would be willing to let you participate in the plan but apply the public tuition equivalent to the school of your choice, that would appease me.

There just isn't the money for free college. Anything I can get is good. I don't expect higher education to be cheap.

Edwards plan is finacially feasible in say 5-10 years once the Iraq costs are under control and the budget is in better shape.

[AP]

40. Why do you think public education is crumbling? Psst. Republicans.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but over the last 30 years the right wing has steadily won the battle to reduce the number and kinds of things that government do which are income redistributive -- ie, which help build up a strong, economically, politically, and culturally vital middle class.

Look at Prop 13 in California. That started off as an anti-business thing. The middle class wanted to cap their property taxes. Big business wanted the middle class to have big tax burdens so that they wouldn't. Big business caught on to what was happening, and they exploited race. They convinced people that their tax money was going to putting black people on welfare. What they got out of prop 13 was one of the most business-friendly, wealth upwardly-redistributive tax measures going.

Look at what Pataki is doing to the SUNY system for another example of the Republicans destroying public education. They're waging something they call a cultural war on education in NY. What they're really doing is shrinking the universities, and turning them into occupational training for whatever low-paying occupations industry demands from them.

Your educational experience is crappy becuase Republicans are devaluing education.

As for your last four sentences, I don't understand what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but edwards's plan is a federal grant paying for one year of tuition, regardless of the school you attend, if you work for a 10 hour per week job during the school year.

It generates FICA tax, and it reduces loans (which reduces the tax deduction for interest payments). And it'll graduate more middle class kids to higher paying jobs, which also good for the economy down the road.

This isn't "free" college. It's probably cheaper for the gov't to give grants, than it is to subsidize the interest payments with tax breaks. It's also better for the economy not to unleash millions of students on the job market with crippling student loan debt.

Edwards's plan isn't subjec to considerations of having money 5-10 years from now. We can't afford NOT to have Edwards's plan. The economy NEEDS something like this.

[hellhathnofury]

44. Yes they've been winning but before we can start we have to

balance the budget, fix the medicare bill, win back Congress and get out of Iraq. 5-10 years. I don't believe in deficit spending. I suppose you could include some incentives in an economic stimulus plan but the reality is that we have to act now on the economy and Edwards plan will likely take at least 1.5-2.5 years to get through Congress and enancted.

Education has been devalued, but I still put the economy and healthcare before it.

College For Everyone

Offer "College for Everyone"

Edwards will provide one year of free tuition to public universities and community colleges.

In return, students will be required to come to college academically prepared and to work or serve their communities for an average of 10 hours each week.
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/education_college.asp

[AP]

54. Look at UK: limited educational opportunity + health care for everyone

under Thatcher, and they still had wealth distributed upwards.

Health care isn't going to solve all the problems, and neither will college for everyone. However, College for Everyone is VERY smart, very good for the middle class, and (therefore, a Keynsian would say) very good for the economy as a whole.

[maxr4clark]

22. Is the question "What's in it for me", or "What is right?"

Personally, I think it would be a mistake to make college an entitlement, for two reasons.

1. Having taught at a college, I met a number of students who had no plan for their future, they just knew that Mom and Dad were paying for them to get a four-year degree. They were completely unmotivated, and as a consequence were learning next to nothing. In contrast, every good student I had was motivated to be studying what the class was teaching. They had a career plan, and almost always a budget to keep. Children need to invest in their own future at some point. I think age 18 is that point, and that's when college starts.

2. Not all lifestyles require or even benefit that much from a college degree. A government entitlement for a college education is likely to overburden our higher education system with students who really don't have much interest in or need to be there, they just know that the government will pay for it. The tax money could be better spent on elementary and secondary education, which IMO all citizens of this country should have--so that people like Bush don't keep getting elected.

[AP]

23. College education is one of the biggest correlatives for voting democratic

Furthermore, compare lifetime income for college graduates and for people who don't graduate from college.

A college education is worth a fortune.

College is obviously a huge tool for distributing wealth among the middle class. It should be encouraged.

I've no time for the argument that college is a resource more precious as access becomes more limited. College is something everyone who wants to attend should attend.

I'd like to see those lazy kids weeded out from the good schools at the admissions level, by having to compete with hard working children of the middle and working class. Once they find themselves in second or third tier schools they might realize the value of having to bust their asses.

[maxr4clark]

32. while I agree with a lot of what you say,

I'm not sure it would continue to be true if 90% of American children attend college for free. Correlations are tricky things. There is also a strong correlation between the amount of ice cream sold in Central Park and the number of rapes in Central Park, but that doesn't mean that giving out ice cream for free will have any effect on how many rapes there are.

Plenty of people live happy lives without a lot of money. Don't get me wrong; I believe in higher education, and have pursued it to the fullest; I'm currently finishing my PhD. I worked for a while before going back for my PhD, and the transition back to making less than $20K/yr taught me a lot about the difference between money and happiness. But there are, I believe, more jobs in the US that do not require a four-year degree than there are jobs that do.

[AP]

34. The more time you spend in college, the less likely you'll learn about...

...politics from Rush Limbaugh. The correlation is fairly obvious, don't you think?

More important than voting patterns is the fact that people go to college and develop skills which are valuable. And then they go out in the world and get paid more than they would have been had they not gone to college. A college education is an income redistributive thing. It spreads wealth down and out among the children of the middle and working class.

Why do you think Republicans try so hard to destroy it?

I don't care if plenty of people live happy lives without money. What I care about is that big businesses are padding their profits by creating a world of depserate, low paid workers. I care that people who want to get rewarded for their labors do, in fact, get rewarded fairly for the labors. You know who's never going trade money for happiness? The super rich. Why do they always pretend that that's a reasonable option for the people they want to accept low paying jobs so that they can increase their profit margins?

[Clark4VotingRights]

29. So let's back up. Do folks think higher ed should be an entitlement?

Available to all citizens, affordable or free?

Yes, no?

[AP]

30. Everyone who wants to go should be able to go, without having to consider

costs, and without the fact of their education being a guaranteed easy-profit maker for Wall St -- which is what the student loan business has become. Student loans make more money for fewer already rich people than the fact of educating yourself means for the person who sat through the classes.

So, more grants, and better, cheaper colleges, and real employment opportunities after graduation. Fuck student loans and low-paying jobs.

[Indiana_Dem]

36. Yes it should I believe

It gives people confidence, self-esteem and college education more than making a higher wage gives people the tools they need to think critically and reason and to be able to increase their intelligence which would in turn give people power to understand things like how governments and businesses operate and have more of an understanding of the bigger picture of life. High school doesn't always teach these things as they just teach to the testing requirements under designated curriculums. An educated country SHOULD be more repellent to governmental tyranny such as is beginning to occur right now.

[Clark4VotingRights]

53. I believe it should be an entitlement too.

But it never has been in the US.
It's been an expensive commodity, that puts people into debt
if they can get it. Welcome to the machine.

[Indiana_Dem]

37. On that note above-I have to go to sleep!! lol

Night night!

[Clark Campaigner]

38. Dean's plan is unrealistic

[hellhathnofury]

39. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and this is...?

Wesley K. Clark

Would provide a "universal college grant" of up to $6,000 a year for the first two years of public or private college, with the aid going mainly to families earning less than $100,000 annually; would establish a $20-billion state and local tax rebate fund dedicated to education and training to offset the pressure on states to raise tuition at public universities; would provide credits for low-income families that put savings into education IRAs.

Where are you going to find the needed 25-35 billion and still pay for healthcare and budget deficit reduction?

[AP]

41. Clark's up front grants are cheaper for the gov't than Dean's subsidizing

interest payments on college loans. Doesn't Dean's plan cost 70 bil a year, or something like that?

Also, Dean's plan constitutes a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to Wall St. That's NEVER good for the economy.

Grants are so much better (and more Democratic) than another taxpayer subsidized student loan program. It isn't even funny.

Why do you think we've gotten rid of Pell Grants?

[Clark Campaigner]

42. exactly

[AP]

43. (don't forget, however, Edward's plan is the best)

:)

[Clark Campaigner]

47. Yes, Edwards will make a superb VP

Though I also like the idea of Joe Wilson.
Just imagine him debating Dick Cheney on the CIA leak!
:evilgrin:

[AP]

48. If he'd make a superb VP, he'd make a phenomenal President.

When has there ever been a primary contest in which someone were sold as a great VP by the opposition as much as Edwards is? I think it's a sign (and not of an impending VP offer).

[Clark Campaigner]

50. Maybe it's just because

he looks and sounds sort of like AL Gore.

[AP]

52. He isn't a slow talker with a speech impediment. Gore never could have ...

...been a trial lawyer.

[Clark4VotingRights]

45. Yeah. I think student loans are perpetuating the same problems.

And keeping ordinary folk out of the club.

I truly think it's important that a society insure proper education
for its citizens. Otherwise, the concept of upward mobility is a joke.

[hellhathnofury]

46. Barring a massive federal grant program starting again.

I'm screwed. Night.

[AP]

51. Pell grants WORKED. They weren't a "massive" (in the perjorative sense)...

program. They paid for themselves, and were probably MUCH cheaper and less income upwardly-redistributive than tax breaks for loan interest.

They MORE than paid for themselves.

[AP]

49. What they do is put graduates on the hook with insupportable debt.

It forces people, in desperation, to limit their options, take fewer chances, and do other things which have net negative impacts on the economy.

[Clark4VotingRights]

55. I'm so glad you started this thread holyrollerdem

This is a very fundemental issue.
Can we afford to buy education and thereby better our lives, or not?

[AP]

56. And should education be used to spread wealth among the people or up

and down Wall St?

These are very fundemental issues.

[AP]

57. Kick. This thread was great. It analyzed the policies and the politicians

in the way we should be debating the issues.

[Clark4VotingRights]

58. Kick for a seriously important issue

n/t