So, what should the Republicans cut?

Point of clarification. Medicare already has a substantial deductible that's why both me and my wife pay over $350/mo for supplemental insurance and Medicare part D. Plus we both pay over $100 each per month for Medicare Part B.

It's Medicaid that's breaking the bank....That's the free healthcare for the freeloaders and the truly needy.

 

Or those colleges could figure out a way to cut costs and stay in business. Plus, what NCT said is true, too. It's getting to the point that unless someone is going to make six figures, college is a horrible investment. And I don't buy that broadening ones perspective as something only college can provide; simply reading good books can broaden ones perspective - don't need a college degree to do that.

 

Stefan, the "new" house doesn't get sworn in until January 2011.

That's why it's called the "lame duck" session.

Until then the HoS is the same as it has been and Nancy Pelosi is still the speaker of the house until Jan 2011 as well.

That gives the Democrats the majority until Jan 2011.

Does it not work the same for the Senate?

http://www.webcpa.com/news/Lame-Duck-Session-Agenda-Tax-56227-1.html

They can do a lot of damage in 8 weeks.

HankD

 

I think that we can reasonably expect that... Many now in the House are going to be unemployed come January. They will want to enact all the retribution they can while they still have the super majority. Only our omnicient God knows what will be enacted, but the sky is the limit.

 

The Senate doesn't have the 60 votes in the lame duck session. Ever since Brown won in Massachusetts, the Dems have had 59.

Also, Kirk is going to replace Burris after the elections are certified for Illinois (it was a special election to fill the end of Obama's term), and this will drop the total to 58 until the new terms start.

 

And when you went to college, it didn't cost what it does now. This is unfortunate, but you can't fix tuition inflation by cutting off all federal aid.

I worked while I was in school for my undergraduate degree, and I am working while I finish my master's. I've used federal financial aid for both degrees.

 

Unfortunately, the "They'll figure it out" method won't work in this case.

An organization can't survive an overnight reduction in revenue like this would cause.

In order to run a college, one must have highly trained faculty to represent all of the areas of the curriculum. Additionally, the college must have sufficient supporting staff, security, etc. to function. Also, the college has the expenses related to facilities and upkeep.

What would you suggest they cut?

Also, regarding college as a bad investment...

Sure, if you don't make the best choices, you can spend way more than it is worth, but there are ways to get a reasonable education that will pay off in the marketplace.

In an economy with high unemployment, having only a high school education is not going to make you very competitive.

 

Before we answer that, what are the reasons for such rapid tuition inflation over the last few decades?

 

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/the-true-cause-of-college-tuition-inflation/

This post (and the comments below it) mentions many of the factors involved.

 

When libertarians talk about limited government they mean limited government, not just a mere slightly less big government than liberals want.

 

That being said, I strongly believe in financial aid reform. The government should be more judicious in the use of financial aid, but I do think it needs to be available for diligent students.

 

Thanks, that's good news Stefan.

HankD