Supremes to Colleges: Military Recruiter Bans Illegal

If a school feels that strongly about military recruiting, no one is telling them to accept federal funds. You can't have it both ways!

Phoenix32890 wrote:

If a school feels that strongly about military recruiting, no one is telling them to accept federal funds. You can't have it both ways!

Why not? It's not the Fed's money, it's OUR money. We paid it in, to be used for our benefit!

Anon

Anon-Voter wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:

If a school feels that strongly about military recruiting, no one is telling them to accept federal funds. You can't have it both ways!

Why not? It's not the Fed's money, it's OUR money. We paid it in, to be used for our benefit!

Anon

There are lots of things that the federal government pays for of which I do not approve. Personally, I would rather pay much less taxes, pay privately for certain services, and have a much smaller government. But it is here, and for the time being, we are stuck with this system.

A school is not forced to accept federal funds. Let the colleges put their (own) money where their mouths are!

Weren't the Republicans supposed to be giving us smaller government?? One thing for sure though Phoe, my taxes are vastly less ... how about yours ??

It's estimated that a 25 year old student will pay $500-$600 per month UNTIL RETIREMENT in order to pay off their student loan

Under the current Administration, Federal Education Spending has increased at levels all but historically unprecedented; only the Kennedy Administration approached the percentage-level increases affected under the Bush Administration. In the 1st 4 years of The Bush Administration, Education Spending amounted to 118% of the amount spent by the Federal Government during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration.

What is exagerated is the outrage professed by disgruntled, disaffected, and dispossed from power liberals who now are being forced to deal with the real world on real world terms. I easilly can understand their anger and frustration.

Washington -- The Republican-led Congress and President Bush are facing growing anger on college campuses as students and their parents prepare to pay higher borrowing costs because of new changes to federal student loan programs.

Congress narrowly passed a deficit-reduction bill last month that cut $12 billion from student loan programs, which was signed by the president. The new law will slash subsidies to lenders and raise interest rates on loans taken out by parents.

Lawmakers already had approved a steep increase in interest rates for Stafford loans, used by nearly 10 million students each year. Both rate increases take effect July 1.

Jessica Pierce, a senior at UC Santa Cruz who has Stafford loans, said she was outraged by the changes approved by Congress.

"They're trying to balance the budget on the backs of students," said Pierce, who chairs the university's student union assembly.

The higher interest rates come as many students and parents are already struggling to cope with rising tuition costs. Department of Education figures suggest that at least 400,000 qualified students do not enroll in four-year colleges each year because of financial barriers.

THAT'S 400,000 YOUTH THAT WILL NOT GET A HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE U.S. THAT'S CALLED BRAIN DRAIN, AND DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE!! THIS IS NOT ONLY A LIBERAL ISSUE

The average debt of college graduates has jumped by 50 percent over the last decade, according to the Project on Student Debt, a nonprofit advocacy group. But for the last several years, low interest rates have helped students cushion the blow and reduce their monthly payments.

Education policy experts said the new cuts in subsidies to lenders and changes to interest rates will result in greater borrowing costs for many students and parents.

Students with Stafford loans, the most common type of federal loan, who have locked in variable rates as low as 4.7 percent this year will face higher monthly payments when those loans shift to a fixed rate of 6.8 percent in July.

The move to a fixed rate was first approved by Congress in 2002 with bipartisan support and the backing of many lenders and student groups, who believed the change would shield students from even higher variable rates. But now many students and parents oppose the change, fearing it will increase their monthly payments.

Mike Rau, whose 20-year-old daughter, Lisa, is a sophomore at San Francisco State University, is worried she will end up paying thousands of dollars more in interest on her Stafford loans.

"When she gets out of school and starts making payments, instead of it taking four years to pay off her loans it will take five or six years," said Rau, who is helping his daughter pay for college. "It saddles them with more debt for longer in their lives."

Lisa Rau, who is studying creative writing, communications and philosophy, is trying to save a portion of each paycheck from her 18-hour-a-week work-study job. But she is concerned that higher monthly interest payments will limit her options after college.

"It might have an impact on whether I go to grad school," she said. "If I don't have the money and I'm trying to pay off a lot of these loans and the interest rates are going up, that might be out of the question."

Financial aid experts said the move to a fixed interest rate will be painful for many borrowers in the short term, but could help students if variable rates continue to climb. As recently as the 2000-2001 academic year, the variable rate for Stafford loans exceeded 6.8 percent.

"The argument for fixed rates is that they are predictable for students and predictable for the government," said Sandy Baum, a senior policy analyst for the College Board and an economics professor at Skidmore College. But at a time when rates are still relatively low, "the idea that students are paying a higher rate than the market rate is a very unappealing one," she said.

As part of the new bill, Congress also increased the interest rate on loans paid by parents. Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students, better known as PLUS loans, had been scheduled to rise from the current rate of 6.1 percent to a fixed rate of 7.9 percent.

But lawmakers, seeking greater savings in the budget package, boosted the rate even higher, to 8.5 percent. The change is likely to make the loans less attractive to many parents.

"The question for parents is: Is it better to take out a PLUS loan or is it better to take out a home equity loan?" Baum said. "They need to look at all their options."

The changes will have broad consequences for colleges in the Bay Area. At UC Berkeley, 8,400 undergraduate students and 3,500 graduate students have borrowed money to pay for college using Stafford loans. Parents of 2,100 undergraduates are receiving PLUS loans.

Cheryl Resh, UC Berkeley's director of financial aid, plans to e-mail students this spring with advice on how to cope with the changes. She is already urging students to consider consolidating their loans before July 1 to lock in a lower interest rate.

"I'm hoping that parents of students who are here right now are going to help their students take advantage of consolidating at a time when there are still some very good rates out there," Resh said.

Barbara Hubler, director of financial aid at San Francisco State University, said she and other college administrators were disappointed that Congress in recent years has not boosted funding for Pell Grants -- which are awards, not loans -- to help students struggling to pay for college.

"We know that across the (California State University system) more students are reaching the maximum on their federal direct loans and are having to take out more money from private lenders," Hubler said. "That is another drawback. Those are not subsidized by the government. ... It just means more money and another lender they will have to pay back when they get out of school."

Supporters of the new law said it contains some provisions to help students. Congress raised the Stafford loan limits to allow students to borrow more in their first two years in college, although the total they can borrow remains at $23,000. The measure also will phase out the 3 percent origination fees for Stafford loans, although some lenders already have been discounting the fees.

The bill was narrowly passed by Congress because of concerns over the $39 billion in cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, student loans and other programs. In December, Vice President Dick Cheney cast a tie-breaking vote to pass it in the Senate. The House passed the bill Feb. 1 by just two votes.

The new law has been a political liability for Republicans in Congress and the White House. During a question-and- answer session at Kansas State University in January, Bush was asked by sophomore Tiffany Cooper why the government was cutting $12 billion from student loan programs.

"I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our futures?" she asked.

Bush responded: "Actually, I think what we did was reform the student loan program. We are not cutting money out of it."

The $12 billion will come largely from trimming the profits made by lenders on student loans and raising the rates on parent borrowers, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Democrats said the money should have been used to lower interest rates and increase Pell Grants instead of being diverted to the federal Treasury. Student groups claimed the changes were mostly aimed at paying for $70 billion in tax cuts.
"Some people will describe it as paying down the deficit," said Luke Swarthout, a higher education associate for the Public Interest Research Group. "If you look at how the reconciliation process started, it becomes clear this is, in fact, a down payment on a series of tax cuts."

Quote:

Weren't the Republicans supposed to be giving us smaller government?? One thing for sure though Phoe, my taxes are vastly less ... how about yours ??

Yes, but they are spending money like they are printing it. (Maybe they are! ) I would really like to know what the long term economic fallout from this administration will be!

woiyo wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

Nobody forces schools to accept Federal Funds - if they want the prize, they hafta pay the price their call.

They have to pay the price to spend their money ... yea, that makes sense.

Anon

I don't understand the argument here.

Is there something wrong with a career int he military? IS there something wrong with military recruitment on campus as opposed to say a LAW FIRM who probably has made no investment in the university.

Taxpayers support the military and support the colleges. Why should military recruitmers be discriminated against when I'M PAYING FOR BOTH?

What's wrong Woiyo, don't you think the Military is getting enough of our money at this point? While the military is on this monetary glut over the last 5 years, education, especially at the higher levels has taken a huge hit. Interest rates have just been raised making it even more expensive for todays student to get a higher education. It's estimated that a 25 year old student will pay $500-$600 per month UNTIL RETIREMENT in order to pay off their student loan, yet the fricking military is spending money hand over fist. All they have to do is ask, and we hand over billions, while we jack up our colleges.

Like Walter has mentioned, the forces each have their own academy, why isn't that enough ... we're paying for that!!

I'm just tired of seeing the war machine everywhere, and seeing the military guzzling money while we screw our youth. They have plenty of access, keep them off the fricking campuses.

Anon

Straw man, Anon - there's much work to be done, much improvement needed. The difference between now and during the Democrats' heydey is that today the necessary work is being done and the needed improvements are being made. One place spending must be reigned in is entitlements ... get the freeloaders off the handout system and onto the production line.

Also, the military does offer college assistance that just might help some students with the cost of education.