Romney Advice on Affording College: Shop Around

President Obama will be speaking in Boulder today at the University of Colorado. Both Obama and Mitt Romney have addressed the rising cost of college and student loans. Obama's plan:

Obama would let the current $5,550 per year maximum Pell grant increase to $5,635 next year, as scheduled under current law. That figure has grown by more than $900 since 2008 for a program that is the largest source of federal aid for students, serving more than 9 million of them.

  • make the American Opportunity tax credit permanent (it was created as part of his 2009 economic stimulus program.) The credit provides up to $2,500 a year per student for college costs but is due to expire Jan. 1.
  • Tie some federal aid, including Perkins loans and subsidies for students' work-study jobs, to schools' abilities to curb tuition increases.

Romney says Obama's plans haven't worked. What is his advice? Get a better loan and shop around."

Romney replied that while it might be popular for him to answer that he would provide students with government money, "what I'm going to tell you is shop around."


Romney would put private lenders back in the business of issuing federally backed student loans, let companies compile data about lending and colleges for consumers and help families save for higher education.

Maybe Romney forgot that all those unemployed people he suddenly cares so much about don't have jobs, let alone money to save for their children's college expenses.

Romney falls short again.

Wouldn't it be great if Obama tomorrow came out for Amendment 64 which would legalize personal adult use of marijuana? What better place than Boulder? If he did that, word would spread so fast, he'd leave Romney in the dust. In November, the lines at the voting centers would probably extend from Boulder halfway to Denver. Chances of that happening: Less than zero. But Obama should keep in the back of his mind in case in mid-October he's running close in a swing state where marijuana is on the ballot.

Which reminds me to ask: Who would Mitt Romney pick as Attorney General? For four years during the Bush Administration, I was greeted at every federal prison and detention center by a trio of photos of Bush, Ashcroft or Gonzales and a mean looking Warden. The other day I noticed the pictures of Obama, Eric Holder and the mean-looking warden. That was when I realized this election makes a difference not just for social policy and preservation of Medicare, but for the 2+ million Americans we warehouse in jails and prisons.

A Mitt Romney presidency will keep and probably increase Reagan-passed mandatory minimum sentences, strip funds for rehabilitation of inmates to reduce their chance of recidivism and revert back to policies popular in the days of black and white TV (as Obama says) by creating more crime laws and and longer sentences, which of course will include the cost of building more prisons.

Romney is another four year disaster in the making.

< Time for A Gag Order in George Zimmerman Case? | President Obama Live in Boulder >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm sure it's on the horizon. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 05:22:06 AM EST
    Wouldn't it be great if Obama tomorrow came out for Amendment 64 which would legalize personal adult use of marijuana?

    It would.

    So what Mitt is saying is... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kdog on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 07:07:36 AM EST
    turn student loans into public assistance...for banks!  Private lenders issuing federally backed student loans means the public assumes the risk, while private lenders take the gravy.

    Common sense tells me if the public is gonna be left holding the bag, the public may as well issue the loans...why give the banks more free money?  Oh yeah, it's Mitt Romney...makes perfect sense;)

    As for Amendment 64, all you can count on from Obama is the full weight of the federal government working to destroy it.

    What we really need to shop around for is a real leader...not fascism and fascism-lite.  

    If Only Your Dad Was Mitt Romney (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by john horse on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 08:13:52 AM EST
    Lets not forget Romney's previous suggestion to finance higher education - just ask your parents for the money.  You've got to give credit to Romney.  His plan (shopping around and borrow form your parents) will actually work.  So long as your dad was a millionaire like Mitt Romney (sarcasm alert).

    "We don't need no education..." (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 09:04:17 AM EST

    So many bombs to buy and drones to fly.  Forward!

    This thread could (none / 0) (#1)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 04:38:01 AM EST
    Be a good one.  

    AG for Romney? (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 06:34:51 AM EST
    I'm surer it is one of those positions he had to promise to the ultra right. What about Florida's own AG Pam Bondi? She was half-seriously discussed as VP material.  Or someone from AZ.

    Sherrif Joe? (none / 0) (#4)
    by observed on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 07:06:02 AM EST
    Probably (none / 0) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 07:19:06 PM EST
    Governor finger wagger.

    Reagan era minimum sentences (none / 0) (#7)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 09:00:41 AM EST
    Credit where credit is due.  Thank Charlie Rangel and a Democratic Congress for at least an equal effort in making this possible.

    (The House) (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 09:10:24 AM EST
    Reagan was President (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    the Reagan legacy.

    The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986  was introduced in 9/8/86 by Rep. James C. Wright (D-TX) and had 301 co-sponsors the day it was introduced. It passed the House 3 days later on 9/11/86 on a vote of 392-16. It passed in the Senate on 9/30/86 by a vote of 96-2. After going to conference the amended version passed both houses on 10/17/86 and was signed by Reagan and became Public Law No. 99-570 on 10/27/1986.

    Why are you singling Rangel out? The only amendment I found by him was:

    An amendment to increase the authorization for state and local law enforcement grants from $100 million in FY 1987 and $200 million in FY 1988 to $660 million in FY 1987 and $695 million in FY 1988; and to reduce the matching requirements from 50% to 10%, and to permit the use of funds for non-federal prison construction.

    Credit where Credit is due (none / 0) (#38)
    by Rojas on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:30:07 AM EST
    Rangel was chair of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control from 83-93.
    He takes credit for creating the legislation in the 1989 article in Ebony magazine, "Charles Rangel: The Front-Line General in the War on Drugs"

    Good song J, (none / 0) (#10)
    by fishcamp on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 09:20:21 AM EST
    don't know how you remembered and found that one.

    Smokey Robinson and the Miracles (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 11:15:10 AM EST
    If you are J's age, as I am (almost exactly), you don't "remember" great Motown records, you just know them.

    It was a good month to be born (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    others that month: Bruce Springsteen, Barry Scheck and Twiggy.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Towanda on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    . . . and I knew that thee and me, Jeralyn, were born in the same year in the same month, but Peter G, too?  I am in good company.

    And anyone of our certain age not only knows this music by heart but also can sing the background parts.

    Doo-wop to both of you.


    What year? (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    shhhh (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    You can look it up but I'd rather not use the number here.

    Yes, thought of that after I posted (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 02:38:17 PM EST
    must need more coffee. I'm a Sept 29th baby myself :), that's why I was wondering the year.

    Hmm... (none / 0) (#33)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 03:43:42 PM EST
    ...and I'm the 30th...

    I'm going to have to plead the Fifth (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Towanda on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 02:10:22 PM EST
    yer honor, to honor the wishes of our blog host.

    However, we were born in the peak year of the baby boom.  So, many of Jeralyn's posts resonate as, once again in our lives, we are perceived as a problem for the rest of society.

    (We are, of course, but not in the ways that society so often thinks of us, as a critical mass.  Nope, our experiences as an oft-dreaded cohort have shaped us in many ways, I think.  I have read the popular literature at the times when we were going to start school, when we were going to start college, when we were going to start reproducing -- we didn't do so as scheduled, which freaked a lot of folks, until we finally got around to it -- and now when we are going to start Social Security and Medicare. . . .)


    I didn't say "same month" (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 02:29:52 PM EST
    I said "almost exactly."  Within two months, to be precise.  A smidge older I am, or so it seems when I "try to remember."

    Yes! I don't know how you hear the (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    phrase 'shop around' and NOT think of that song!

    There may be a world in which Obama (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 09:27:20 AM EST
    would announce his support for Amendment 64, but it's not the one we're actually living in.

    I mean, the GOP would flay him and the Dems alive on this issue, with the pushback taking every possible scary position there is, from "this is just the first step to your children being able to go into the corner store and buy heroin," to "can you trust that the parents of your child's friends aren't high when your child is in their care?"

    And those lines at the voting booth?  If you think the GOP wouldn't use this issue as a massive - and successful - GOTV campaign, you're kidding yourself.

    The day Obama installs someone as head of the DEA who isn't rabidly anti-marijuana will be the day I could start believing it might be possible for this country to move toward more sensible drug policy - but until then, I think we have to accept that that's just not where Obama is on this issue.

    As for the Attorney General issue, I don't think Eric Holder - acting, I believe, at the direction of or in accordance with Obama's positions - has exactly distinguished himself these past four years, has he?  From avid and vigorous defense of the state secrets doctrine that has made it possible for illegal surveillance to continue unabated, defense of indefinite detention, the nothing-to-see-here-move-along decision on Bush-era torture, to the utter failure to hold Wall Street and the banks accountable for the massive wrongdoings that almost sent us into the economic abyss, and the vigorous support for the foreclosure fraud settlement that let gave lenders and servicers a get-out-of-jail-free card - I could go on - about all we could say about a Romney DOJ is what we always say: it could be worse.

    I'm just so happy and relieved that 4 more years of Obama in the WH will mean we can further entrench policies and actions consistent with Democratic ideals that serve to strengthen individual rights and freedoms, shore up the foundations of democracy, hold accountable those who have demonstrated their disdain for those things, and truly be a positive example for the rest of the world.

    Oh, wait...nevermind...I must have been dreaming.

    I was (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 10:43:25 AM EST
    thinking that it wouldn't especially cheer me up to see photos of Obama and Holder on the prison wall... as if it represented a step in the right direction...

    Especially now, after reading a few days ago that Holder announced that it is definite and in cement that the torturers of the Bush era, who so proudly defiled America and its people, will be immune from prosecution.

    Marijuana smokers, however, will continue to be subject to incarceration.

    These are not my guys.
    Even next to Bush and Ashcroft.
    Not my guys.


    Don't be so sure. Maybe VP Biden (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    will announce his support for legal MJ and the Pres. will evolve.  

    It took (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    Obama about four years for him to evolve enough to acknowledge that gay people should have the same right to marry as heterosexuals.

    Four years it took him to figure that one out.

    So, no.

    I don't see him evolving on the issue of mj anytime soon...

    Unless --- unless --- someone gave him so really really good sh*t and he had an epiphany like Jim Ignatowski - Christopher Lloyd's character in "Taxi".


    It took Obama 4 years, (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    activists continual highly visible acts of civil actions and the very real threat that he would receive ZERO in campaign funds and little support from the community for him to evolve.

    IMO had they taken the position that "Oh well he is better than the Republicans." Obama would never have evolved.


    Shorter MO Blue: (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Towanda on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 02:11:23 PM EST
    Money talks.

    I agree. (4.00 / 1) (#37)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 10:42:22 PM EST
    Personally, I think that voting for someone under the premise that the other side is worse only legitimizes the farce that our democracy has become.

    Vowing to vote for a candidate who has violated your trust over and over again is the sure way to encourage them to keep doing it.

    A quote from Jonathan Turley;

    It is, in my opinion, no excuse to vote for someone who has violated core constitutional rights and civil liberties simply because you believe the other side is no better. You cannot pretend that your vote does not constitute at least a tacit approval of the policies of the candidate.

    If Obama hadn't been afraid of losing votes from the gay and lesbian community, and their financial contributions, he wouldn't have "evolved".

    Now, why can't the people interested in civil liberties, the constitution, the immediate end of the war in Afghanistan, do likewise instead of lining up like so many sheep to the slaughter, saying "thank you" all the while.


    because most of us are not (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 12:57:22 PM EST
    tenured professors living in an academic bubble but the real world in which practical issues that affect our daily lives and will affect the lives of our children for decades count too. and will be decided by this election.  Like who is on the Supreme Court, whether Medicare continues. If  Obama's opponent promised to reverse course and restore our civil liberties, the constitution, and bring about the immediate end of the war in Afghanistan, he'd have a point. Since he isn't, and a Republican Congress would be worse in those areas and every other, he's dead wrong.

    Staying home is not the answer. It's foolish. We have two choices. Pick the one you think is better for you and for the country. You get the Government you elect. You live in a democracy with the privilege to have your voice heard through your vote. Use it or lose it.


    The vote. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 05:32:40 PM EST
    You live in a democracy with the privilege to have your voice heard through your vote.

    I may or may not live in a democracy, but there is no way that my voice is going to be heard through a vote for either of these individuals at this time.

    If  Obama's opponent promised to reverse course and restore our civil liberties, the constitution, and bring about the immediate end of the war in Afghanistan, he'd have a point.

    Neither Romney or Obama have promised to reverse course and restore our civil liberties, the constitution and bring about the immediate end of the war in Afghanistan.

    I have no one to vote for.

    There is no way that my voice can be heard through my vote at this time. Others may feel differently and feel that issues that they care about are being addressed by one or the other candidate. They may also feel that one political party or the other is interested in their needs.

    In which case, they should vote for the person or party they feel represents their interests. No problem.


    have to agree with anne on this. (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 02:12:53 PM EST
    pot has always been a political/racial issue, and the GOPers loves them some racial issues. the romney campaign might not go as far as harry anslinger on ads (the pot crazed darkie attacking pure white women!), but i can see them cutting an awfully fine line. really, what would they have to lose, they're polling -0- with AA's right now, they can't go any farther down.

    let's be blunt, pres. obama would have fit comfortably in the 60's republican party, which simply shows how far to the right that party has swung, not how liberal/progressive obama is.

    as to the issue of student loans, romney should recognize the value inherent in investing in R & D (students), and want to promote that. unfortunately, he isn't really a very good businessman, in spite of his financial success. this explains his failure to recognize why supporting those students, with loans and grants, is good for the country, in the long run.


    You answered your own question... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 05:14:38 PM EST
    "...why supporting those students, with loans and grants, is good for the country, in the long run."

    Romney, representing those who don't need loans and grants, believes that 1% IS "the country."


    How is it a racial issue? (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:13:28 PM EST
    When whites tend to use (or have used) marijuana more than blacks or Latinos at a significant rate?

    How is welfare a racial issue (none / 0) (#42)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 06:57:02 PM EST
    when more whites than blacks or latinos receive cash assistance and food stamps?



    Republican Puritans: Wealthiness is next to (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 09:32:41 AM EST
    Daily Show :: Wealth Distribution Graphs (none / 0) (#13)
    by dead dancer on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 10:21:48 AM EST
    Shop around (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    Good advice for a nation selection a President, as well.  Thanks, Mitt.  BTW, you're, um, a tad pricey for us right now. Thanks for your time. Make sure and get your free t-shirt before you leave.

    selectING (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 01:40:17 PM EST
    yeesh. sigh...

    Can you imagine if Obama didn't mention... (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    ... or thank the troops in his convention speech like Romney just did. The election would be over.

    Romney's convention was a failure, and Obama has a chance to really open up a lead this next week with a focused error free convention. Obama's college tour preceding this convention is a nice set up to a big push by Obama. Looking forward to seeing how the Dems perform.

    And as for the marijuana issue, I can see Obama going for it if he is flailing by mid-October. But if things stay as they are, Obama won't risk it.

    I can't see Obama reaching (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by brodie on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    for the mj card even if things look grim in October.  No public discussion foundation has been laid and so it would look like a wildly desperate and transparent appeal to the youth voters.

    The Repubs would joke that he plans on opening a WH weed dispensary to go with his WH beer line of products.  I doubt if O would give them that easy card to play.