Giant Book Sale

Article Tools

Use the form below to share this article via email.

Your name:

Your email:

To email:

Message:

Possibly Related:

Obama taking steps to ease students' financial burdens

20 comments
Text size
Last updated: 09/10/10 12:58am

Editor,

At colleges and universities across America, students are heading into the classroom, many for the first time. You’re taking part in a journey that will not only determine your future, but the future of this country. We know, for example, that nearly eight in 10 new jobs will require workforce training or higher education by the end of this decade. And we know that in a global economy, the nation that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow. In the 21st century, America’s success depends on the education our students receive.
That’s why, soon after I took office, I proposed an ambitious goal: By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. And over the past year and a half, we’ve been putting in place policies to help us meet this goal.

First, we are making college more affordable. As students, you know why this matters. Over the past ten years, college costs have shot up faster than housing, transportation and even health care costs. The amount student borrowers owe has risen almost 25 percent in just five years. This isn’t some abstract issue to me. Michelle and I had big loans to pay off when we graduated. I remember what that burden feels like.

No one in America should be saddled with crushing debt simply because they sought an education. And no one should be denied a chance to make the most of their lives because they can’t afford it.

That’s why we fought so hard to win a battle that has been raging in Washington for years over how to administer student loans. Under the old system, taxpayers paid banks and financial companies billions of dollars in subsidies to act as middlemen – a deal that was very lucrative for them, but unnecessary and wasteful. And because these special interests were so powerful, this boondoggle survived for decades. But this year, we said enough is enough. As a result, instead of handing over $60 billion in unwarranted subsidies to big banks, we’re redirecting that money to upgrade America’s community colleges and make college more affordable for nearly 8 million students and families.

We’re tripling the investment in college tax credits for middle class families. We’re raising the value of Pell Grants, and we’ll make sure they increase each year to better keep up with inflation.

We’re making loan repayments more manageable for more than one million more students. Future borrowers can even choose an income-based payment plan so that you don’t have to pay more than 10 percent of your salary each month. And if you go into public service, and keep up with your payments, your leftover student debt will be forgiven after 10 years. As part of this effort, we’re simplifying financial aid forms, too, by eliminating dozens of unnecessary questions.

I’d also point out: one way we’re helping young people afford college is by helping them to afford health insurance. Because of the new health care law, young adults can stay on their parents’ health plans until they are 26 years old.

Second, a college education needs to be more than affordable; it needs to prepare graduates for the jobs of the 21st century. Community colleges – undervalued assets in this country – are well-positioned to lead this effort. That’s why we’re upgrading these institutions by tying the skills taught in classrooms to the needs of local businesses in growing sectors of the economy.

The third part of our higher education strategy is making sure more students complete college.

More than one third of America’s college students, and more than half our minority students, don’t earn a degree, even after six years. That’s not just a waste of money; it’s an incredible waste of potential that holds our country back. We don’t just need to open the doors of college to more Americans; we need to ensure that students walk back out of those doors with a degree in their hands.
Of course, that depends on students. You are responsible for your own success. But there is more we can do to remove barriers to finishing college, especially for those earning a degree while working or raising a family.

That’s why I’ve proposed a College Access and Completion Fund, to develop, implement, and evaluate new approaches to improving college success and completion, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

So we are making college more affordable, gearing the education you receive to the demands of a global economy, and taking steps to lift graduation rates. Because this is how we’ll retake the lead in producing college graduates. This is how we’ll help students like you to fulfill your dreams. And this is how we’ll ensure that America prospers in this new century, and that we harness the greatest source of our strength: the talents of our people.

President Barack Obama

Published September 10, 2010 in Letters, Opinion

Follow us

20 comments

Me

September 10, 2010 at 7:50 AM
Flag this comment

Sure, more redistribution of wealth. We pay for the students education by financing the low interest loans, then the students who have great earning potential because of their education, don’t have to pay us back. Yup, another great idea to make the money I earn pay for someone else, now to the point where I will no longer be able to support myself because the tax burden ends up 50-60% of my total income, which by the way my yearly income is about what year or two of what college cost. I say, you get the low interest loan, not a problem, glad to help. But pay it back, quickly, so the next student gets the same chance as you.

Floyd

September 10, 2010 at 8:04 AM
Flag this comment

To “Me”:

I agree that college is expensive. I’m about to start work on a PhD and am aware of the cost. However, much of the work done in colleges and universities eventually bears results that the rest of the country (and sometimes the world) benefits from, and is worth the cost.

Me

September 10, 2010 at 8:09 AM
Flag this comment

Floyd

Yes Universitys do great work and research, done with goverment grant money in most case. And where does the grant money come from? Taxpayers. Remember that 50% of the people in this country pay no taxes. The burden of supporting them falls on the other 50%. Is that fair?

Lawrence

September 10, 2010 at 8:55 AM
Flag this comment

Me: you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The “50 percent of Americans” is a widely misunderstood, distorted Internet “fact.” Try to get your facts straight.

Read more …

Do you like to watch TV? It was invented by a smart farm kid who got a scholarship to a state college. Just one example I thought you might be able to understand of how university research benefits society.

Oh, and in addition to learning how to distinguish fact from rumor, you might want to learn how to spell:

>> Universitys

Lawrence

September 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Flag this comment

How silly of me!

I overlooked the most obvious benefit of all.

Read more …

Me, here you are posting online messages on an Internet site. The Internet* — where did that come from? Who/where was it developed? Who paid for it?

See if you can use your Internet research skills and find out. Report due by noon today.

"Sell cocaine too."

September 10, 2010 at 10:26 AM
Flag this comment

“I was a street corner thug, okay community organizer, who sold drugs. Didn’t you read my book where I write “I was a heavy drug user.” Think about it dude! I had to sell drugs in order to support my habit!

Then in college, me and my roommate, who has disappeared by the way, sold drugs out of our apartment. How do you think I could afford to go to school? How do you think I was able to stay up, and I don’t mean staying awake like to study. I was a chick magnet. My smile got ‘em every time.

Read more …

I love looking at myself in the mirror and can do it for hours without a problem. I like seeing myself on TV everyday too and I’m sure you do too so I try to make a Live appearance everyday to satisfy the masses, and myself of course.

Now that I have access to endless funds, I will bribe you, oops, I mean give you money for college but you must vote for me and my fellow dupes, I mean Democrats, so we can continue to give you the bribes, I mean funds so you can get your degree and hopefully you get a Peace Studies degree or a Political Science degree. I’m sure all the professors sought out Marxist professors like I did and you will learn the virtues of my hero: Karl Marx.

So having read the above letter, I’m sure I fooled you stupid ass dupes enough so now go on my Facebook page and press ‘like.”

Oh, and your Lobos suck!

I like the ‘What is the LAST name of the current US president?’ That’s me. I even have the Lobo in my pocket!”

Me

September 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Flag this comment

Lawrence

Excuse my typing, but you are WRONG….and even if that “fact” is off by 5% , 20% or 99%, guess what, you are not entitled to anything you don’t earn. Certainly not any money I earn.
I guess this proves that there are too many entitlement thinkers coming out of colleges and universities. Maybe we taxpayers should stop funding the nonsense being taught at public funded schools. Besides, Al Gore invented the Internet…so he claimes.

Phillip Howel

September 10, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Flag this comment

An impostor must be afoot. LAWRENCE always does good quality research, as we would expect from a wordsmith. I cannot believe the 2 postings with his name are real. But here are the facts to show those postings lack facts.

Says, LAWRENCE: “ The “50 percent of Americans [not paying federal taxes]” is a widely misunderstood, distorted Internet “fact.” This is from the New York Times @ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
“Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer… By DAVID LEONHARDT,
“Forty-seven percent. That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole….The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years …have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.” This is Federal Income Tax. Social Security is a different issue. It is true, about half the population pay no Fed Income tax.

Read more …

2 men are credited with inventing television. Many people invented or discovered pieces of the puzzle that is TV. Neither of these two are the product of a community college.

The first is Philo Taylor Farnsworth credited with the invention of TV and holds the first patent for what is modern TV technology. He was educated at Brigham Young University (BYU, a scourge of UNM basketball), was a Mormon farm boy who in his boyhood demonstrated an understanding of the principles of electricity and mechanics. He is an Eagle Boy Scout and holder of 300 patents, both US and foreign. BYU in recognition of his genius awarded him an honorary PhD.

The other is “Vladimir Kosma Zworykin who was born in Murom, Russia, in 1888, to the family of a prosperous merchant…. He studied at the St. Petersburg Institute of Technology, under Boris Rosing. According to recently discovered accumulated personal correspondence of Zworykin, he helped Boris Rosing with experimental work on television in the basement of Rosing’s private lab at the School of Artillery of Saint Petersburg, Russia. Rosing had filed his first patent on a television system in 1907, featuring a very early cathode ray tube as a receiver, and a mechanical device as a transmitter.

“Zworykin earned his Ph.D. in physics at the University of Pittsburgh and wrote his dissertation on improving photoelectric cells. But electronic television’s development captured his attention, and in December 1923 he applied for a patent for the iconoscope, which produced pictures by scanning images. Within the year he applied for a patent for the kinescope, which reproduced those scanned images on a picture tube.” The preceding is from: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae408.cfm and http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=zworykinvla

The Encyclopedia Britannica offers this: “After education at the St. Petersburg Institute of Technology and the Collegè de France, in Paris, Zworykin served during World War I in the Russian Signal Corps. He emigrated to the United States in 1919 and became a naturalized citizen in 1924. In 1920 he joined the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Pittsburgh, and in 1923 he filed a patent application for the iconoscope, or television transmission tube.” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/658633/Vladimir-Kosma-Zworykin
Regarding the internet…The is from: http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/cerf.shtml which describes the internet from inception to today.
“A great deal of support for the Internet community has come from the U.S. Federal Government, since the Internet was originally part of a federally-funded research program and, subsequently, has become a major part of the U.S. research infrastructure. During the late 1980’s, however, the population of Internet users and network constituents expanded internationally and began to include commercial facilities. Indeed, the bulk of the system today is made up of private networking facilities in educational and research institutions, businesses and in government organizations across the globe.”

Me

September 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Flag this comment

Thanks Phillip.
I forgot to include in may last note to Lawrence:
The ARPANET , forerunner of Internet, was funded by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). Wonder where that money came from??? taxpayers…

damian

September 10, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Flag this comment

As with just about everything government touches, it continually diminish in value the more that they claim equality (even for those that don’t deserve it). Now the gobment will devalue higher education by making it accessible to all, even those that don’t want work for it. It’ll will be interesting to see the slow but gradual change of professors complaining about the devaluation of their jobs.

Also, private sector employers are ALREADY is looking past graduate degrees/PhDs…work experience is what what counts now. Not the “easily attainable” degree.

Read more …

I guess that I am glad that I am well into my career, not good for my kids though.

slowhike

September 10, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Flag this comment

Well sure, shouldn’t all the hard working self-supporting people who financed their own education appalaud yet another reverse discrimination federal policy. I mean we’re way past the “it’s impolite to say anything negative about minorities” and way past “it’s politically correct to support all minorities”, so why shouldn’t we all jump on the band wagon in support of special treatment and reverse discrimination where education is concerned.

I mean all of us who have jobs and educations just had them handed to us right? We didn’t have to save, or work two jobs or come home after work and fix dinner, care for the kids and then stay up and study until the wee hours of the morning. No! Look we need to make it easy for the minorities to succeed right, because they’re equal right. No because they wouldn’t need special treatment or want reverse discrimination if they were equal. This is not rocket science or a deep internet study project- it’s common sense.

G

September 10, 2010 at 3:04 PM
Flag this comment

Be honest, Philip. I’ll finish the thought for you regarding taxes:

“The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

Read more …

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and capital gains taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.”

Oh. Well, that is a little different, innit?

Conservative lying is certainly inventive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/apr/14/us-politics-taxandspending-the47percentmyth

Damian

September 10, 2010 at 3:16 PM
Flag this comment

Maybe you (or your bloggers) should actually read the Federal Tax Code before making such decisions, its only about 5.6 million words.

Let me know what you find out, k?

Lawrence

September 10, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Flag this comment

Thanks G., for pointing out the neocon errors, obvious though they are.

I told old Phil Howel a while back that I refuse to get sucked into his vortex of pseudo-arguments and non-logic. This is what he always does: you challenge him (or one of his like-minded fellows) on a point in his post, and he’ll paste a link, saying, “see I’m right.” But when one clicks on the link and actually reads (carefully and thoroughly) the source it proves the exact opposite of what he claims.

Read more …

One wonders if he cannot read and comprehend, or if he doesn’t care and just hope nobody actually goes and checks the source (the latter a technique used by liars, according to A Franken’s “Lies.”)

Then he nitpicks over some minor point, and you get hung up and go back and forth with him. He keeps arguing about specific leaves, missing the entire forest. He and I went back and forth, more than a dozens posts on several different blogs about whether a fetus can experience pain. 90 % of the sources Howel cites actually say the opposite of what he claims they do. Typical. Tiresome.

Looks like “Me” likes to play the same game.

As for Damian, he rails against all things government and publicly-funded education, even though he himself went to UNM. ‘nuff said.

Damian

September 10, 2010 at 7:34 PM
Flag this comment

Good argument Lawrence, is that really all you got? Don’t forget about the public roads or city parks that I use.

YOu just got your ass handed to you as well (by Philip, with facts), yet you really can’t write anything to refute. So, as usual, you resort to insults and smears, and claim to have some “higher knowledge” without really anything to show for it.

Read more …

As for me? I guess that you figured out a long time ago that your futile reasoning cannot stand up to an objective whooping.

Bravo. Proving the intellectual inferiority…give us something…anything, are you not capable?

Damian

September 10, 2010 at 7:54 PM
Flag this comment

Futthermore Lawrence,

I have no choice what my local university (the one that monopolizes funds from the taxpayers) decides to do. There is no choice for me. It is not to say that I should not fight to privatize universities, they continue to lose their value because of the same philosophies that you seem to advocate. I want there to be better for professors, and for education. The path is not the already failed one that we continue down, the path is one of capitalism and free choice. Only then will we see justice for American citizens in education. I must still use the public roads, use the subsidized education, but once I have the ability, with the power of reason, hopefully that will all change for the better for all of us. But then you would probably be out of a job, which is probably better for the students.

Phillip Howel

September 10, 2010 at 8:24 PM
Flag this comment

G, the error is in the NYT’s story. The Bush tax cuts significantly reduced the income tax burden on those earning less than $50/K. If those reductions are not extended, they will see their tax rate go from 10% to 15%. Big jump isn’t it?

The problem with the NYT’s is they cannot allow their ideology to allow facts that are at odds with group think. It was not Bush’s stimulus that reduced taxes on the poor but the dreaded ‘Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.”

Read more …

“Payroll taxes” is a euphemism for Social Security Tax- SS. I specifically said “Social Security is a different issue” to be clear I was only talking about income tax. Do you propose to take away the SS tax? I know everybody must pay state income taxes in the 43 states that have such a tax. But most, like NM, tie it to the Federal 1040 return and tax. And I know that everyone must pay the Federal Excise Tax on phone service. But G, the narrow is the percent of people not paying Federal Income tax. What does state tax have to do with that?

G, how was what I said a “lie?”

Phillip Howel

September 10, 2010 at 8:31 PM
Flag this comment

LAWRENCE, it is OK that you claimed a farm boy went to a “community college” on a “scholarship” when he went to Brigham Young University, and that only one person is responsible for the invention of the television when historical documents show otherwise.

The 50% number of non-payers of Federal Income tax is close to the hard truth.

obama bin farteen

September 11, 2010 at 10:18 AM
Flag this comment

Guys, really, what do you expect from a freakin’ looney lefty librarian with wealth envy? Like the typical idealogue that he is, if what larry as his oh so superior self says is not immediately accepted as gospel truth, because in his mind he is smarter that anyone—all libshits think this way, he wets his pants and cries like a baby and starts with the personal attacks and tries to shut down the opposing point of view instead of actually debating the issue on merits, facts and history. Fucking dipshit! Yes it is ironical.

slowhike

September 11, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Flag this comment

The kicker in how we compare tax payers is not restricted to which income earners pay tax or what the tax is based on income and credits. There are approx 300M people in the USA, and about 138M file income tax returns. Most resources agree that about 43M of these do not pay any income tax. This leaves 160M people not filing. This number is made up of kids and people that for one reason or another don’t file with the IRS. What’s interesting is that in 1950s only about 25% of filed tax returns owed no money to the IRS, that figure has risen to about 32%, not a huge increase by some standards.

83% of tax paying USA citizens are white

Comments are closed for this item.