<p>if that's the case there's going to be a big gap between when short term ends and long term starts to begin... you need to start long term now so that it's in place when this short term is ending... IMO - i didn't exactly get the best grades in econ. ;)</p>
<p>so what is status of</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the stimulus pkg - law?</p></li>
<li><p>is money for college in or out?</p></li>
<li><p>what will be in for college help?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The status is that the stimulus bill in the Senate will be passed tomorrow (it passed the preliminary vote today). The House bill passed two weeks ago. Then since the Senate and House bills don't match, they will have to come to a single bill that both groups can agree on. Then the new bill will have to be passed in both houses of Congress again. Since the dollars to be spent in both bills are close, however, the changes should be minor, and the estimate is that it can be passed with the compromise by Friday (allowing Obama to sign it next Monday on Presidents' Day). </p>
<p>The financial aid and spending for colleges and universities varies by about 20 billion in the two versions of the bill. It is $49 billion in one bill and $69 billion in the other one. Obviously, therefore, the final number will be between these two totals.</p>
<p>My understanding is that most of the money is for financial aid purposes--or for funding for programs that would otherwise have been cut by the colleges. In addition, it will fund things like free breakfasts for kids in inner city elementary, middle, and high schools who would otherwise go without such meals. It is also supposed to fund the "No child left behind programs" that have been unfunded (or short-funded) up until now.</p>
<p>P.S. The big reason for the delay is that you have to get at least 60 votes in the Senate, since any new deficiit spending requires that many votes (as a result of a previous bill that was passed some time ago). Thus, while the Democrats had enough votes to push it through without any Republican votes in the House, they needed at least two Republican votes (and got three) in the Senate to pass it.</p>
<p>Look, economics 101 is that you need government to spend during a recession (to make up for the citizens who aren't spending, either because they lost their jobs--or are worried about doing so--and therefore saving their own money). </p>
<p>Conversely, the plan is that the government should run a surplus during the good times--in order to save for the periods during which times are tough--and because people are spending--and paying a lot into the tax base during these periods. </p>
<p>The problem is that during 27 of the past 28 years--most of which were good times, we have run a deficit. Now you can blame that on the Republican administrations (which were in office 20 of these 28 years), or on the Democratic Congress, which was in office for about 16 of these 28 years), or on both of them. But in any case, we've gone from having a total national deficit of 1 trillion in 1980 to having a total national deficit of 10 trillion earlier this year--and that will be going to 11 trillion after this bill is passed. Some blame the spending on the Republican Iraq war and defense spending and tax cuts for the rich--others blame the Democratic Congress for spending too much on social programs. Some will blame both groups for allowing the banks to create derivatives and credit default swaps that have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. I don't care--I only know what needs to be done now.</p>
<p>As I said above, economics 101 is that government should be spending when the country is in a recession--and this is certainly one of the worst recessions that has occurred in my lifetime.</p>
<p>This is another issue, those who recieve the benefits from pell grants probably populate jobs with the lowest job security so they are more likely to save.</p>
<p>I don't know... they still have to put food on the table... and aside from that, how many people really feel like they have job security right now.. higher income or lower income, people are getting laid off just the same.. I was recently talking about this with my mom, she's been worried that her place is going to go out of business. I mean, I feel really really lucky knowing that my job is safe and secure and not going anywhere. A lot of my friends have been very worried about losing their jobs as their companies are restructuring and things along those lines... I just hope everything turns out well in the end.</p>
<p>Those with Pell grants need the money to be able to go to college. This takes them off the low skilled job market and opens jobs for others. Those who are able to graduate then are able to find better paying jobs and are positive role models for their communities. Most with Pell grants end up paying a large part of college themselves through loans or other self help. I doubt there is any saving resulting from increasing Pell grants. It just helps more people afford college.</p>
<p>waterlogged, I agree with you completely. Frankly, I know it costs the taxpayer a lot for the Pell Grant program and we need it. I could not believe the big deal that they made out of the increase. You'd think that each recipient was going to get a huge increase. The increase is not in step with the increase costs of school, IMO. I think that the increase was frankly "a drop in the bucket". No, our children do not qualify for Pell Grants.</p>
<p>We are middle class. I don't think we are getting anything to keep up with the costs either.</p>
<p>I agree with you Northeastmom. Those billions that are being so loudly bandied are not going to help most of us. The increase in the Pell grants are not going going to make up with some of the cost increases, I agree. Also colleges are likely to hike up prices to make sure that this increase gets swallowed immediately. </p>
<p>That is a big problem with government money. The minute some is available there are many out there to gobble it right up so that the intended recipient does not get much advantage. There are schools near me that depend on the Pell money to exist as many of their students are on that program. They can now raise their charges to get the maximum reimbursement from the government. I don't see much help coming this way for us.</p>
<p>Which is why our higher education system needs to be changed, and changed in a big way. A Pell grant increase of about $500 is going help the kid at a CC. Once the student progresses to a 4 year state school it is not going to do too much of anything. Also, as you say, the 4 year schools are going to have their regular increases. They do this with or without extra gov. money. They still seem to get people to fund it somehow. I think we are now looking at the beginning of the end of this. Some small colleges had a sizable number of no shows. Those schools felt that where it hurts. We cannot keep having 6-8% increases at schools that cost 40k+. Nobody can keep up with it. Sunys just had the 2700 increase for OOS. To some that is the cost of monthly car payments for a year. Nobody is batting an eyelash about that, other than the middle class OOS family who is being asked to pay it. Look at the hoopla being made over a increase in Pell Grants for $500 by comparison. You'd think this were some kind of jackpot that was struck. This whole thing about stretching everyone but the very rich to pay for college sickens me. If something does not change quickly, we will have a nation of high school grads who came from poor to upper middle class families, and the college educated for only the rich.</p>
<p>The college education system has always been geared to the very rich--not just recently so. Why do you think that over 60% of those going on to Harvard come from families whose kids have been attending prep schools? The elite pay their $32,000 per year for private school in New York starting in 1st grade. They know that by doing so they are greatly increasing their chances that their children will end up at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Columbia, Georgetown, etc.</p>
<p>Sure there there are the few exceptions who get into the top schools and these schools like to make a big deal about these people and stress this fact in all their literature--but let's be blunt, one of the reason Harvard grads are prized down on Wall Street is not just the good education, but the fact that most of these kids are connected to monied parents, who will then invest with the investment bank that employs their child. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.</p>
<p>As far as fewer and fewer being able to afford college, the statistics actually show more attending college than ever before. But one has to look at the numbers to see the whole story. For example, here in California, close to 1,500,000 are in colleges across the state. But only 600,000 are in 4-year programs, and about 2/3rds of those are in California State Universities. Fewer than 200,000 are at University of California campuses or at schools like Stanford, Caltech, or USC. The reason is simple--the cost at Stanford, Caltech, and USC is over $50,000 per year, at the UC campuses around $20,000 per year, while at the Cal States the cost is $6,000 to 10,000 per year (this includes housing, and books), and the community colleges, costs run about $2,500 per year (which doesn't include housing since most of these students live with their parents). So one can get a college education for a lot less than the norm--just not at any of the "premier schools". </p>
<p>Does this limit upward class mobility? Probably--after all, I think most of the top colleges advertise the great salaries their students get upon graduation--while I haven't seen any such advertisements for the lesser-known colleges.</p>
<p>Saw our hair salon owner yesterday cuz S needed a haircut. Been feeling guilty because I haven't been there in a while. Well, she has two kids in community college, makes too much to get anything. lives in a 2 bedroom apartment that is not any great shakes with a S and a D who are really too old to be sharing a room. Had to buy a car so that they share as they go to college, to their jobs and home. That's a good $6K a year that is not reflected in COA. D now is ready to transfer to a 4 year school. SUNY costs have risen, couldn't find schools that give transfers money, stats not so great to get into schools that have a lot of scholarship, and can no longer share car with brother since she won't be going to the same college. </p>
<p>I don't see any relief for them either in this package.</p>
<p>CalCruzer: I am a conservative but I agree with most of what you said. The only thing I would add about WallStreet connections is that WallStreet blew up essentially last fall, the WMD"s of Finance (Buffett's words)....derivatives (CDO's and CDS's). The nuclear fallout is what we are all experiencing across the country now. WallStreet may not ever recover from its disaster. Investment banking firms have disappeared, others have merged but are still on shaky ground and frankly, nobody knows what the next "new age economy will bring" since NAFTA and the Internet boom gobbled up 100% of our manufacturing base and a sizeable portion of our technology boom as well. Stuff we did 10 years ago here, is being done in China and India now for 10cents on the dollar. I am talking HIGH technology stuff.</p>
<p>Nobody knows where we go from here. And that is the very scary part. Something will emerge from the ashes. We just dont know what yet.</p>
<p>590 TRILLION in worthless derivatives are unwinding. Who has that money? Nobody. Bernanke said today, "while interest rates are at zero we can expand the Fed's balance sheet at no cost to the taxpayer.....indeed we hope to make money on our investments eventually....but we have to be careful and be able to contract the Fed's balance sheet when the economy recovers, before we raise interest rates again, which we will have to do eventually."</p>
<p>Translation: they can print money now for a life preserver to banks. Eventually, they have to call those loans in, raise interest rates to prevent hyper inflation like they had in Weimar Germany. </p>
<p>Will they be successful? Maybe. Maybe not. And we just don't know who the survivors will be when the smoke clears.</p>
<p>David, are we going to see any of those billions?</p>
<p>We don't have the Cal State options in NJ. When you reside on an instate campus, it will cost about 21k per year, not just at Rutgers, but on other campuses as well. So the lady that cpt describes would have a hard time attending our instate publics as well, unless she lived on a bus line that stopped at the 4 year, or had a car and could commmute from her mother's home. That would still cost 10-12k in tuition, plus car costs/insurance/gas, plus cost of books, food, and walking around money. When mom is cutting hair while paying for 2 kids in college, well I do not need to say more.....</p>
<p>The system really puts middle and lower income families at a tremedous disadvantage. Here is a situation where it just is not affordable for kids to go to college without cutting into some essential living needs. The family now has two cars and will have to get a third with two young people on the insurance, not to mention gas, maintenance costs which really adds up (as my son discovered). The only good thing is that the girl has no loans as they were able to pay for the first two years out of pocket. Maybe they'll qualify for subsidized Staffords. But still, that is really a disgrace.</p>
<p>I agree. Would it be at least of equal cost for her not have the car and live on campus and let her brother have the car? Perhaps she would then get at least subsidized student loans and work/study if nothing else, and they would not have to look for a 3rd car.</p>
<p>This is the perfect example one reason that some kids do not graduate. They simply cannot afford all of this.</p>
<p>We are seeing a socio economic shift in higher education. Its always been elitist to some degree. Now it will become even moreso. I predicted this when the internet was unleashed on the world from a classified government domaine (Bill Clinton did that). Then with NAFTA we saw a complete evisceration of manufacturing and tens of millions of jobs. And now we learn that for the past 15 years or so, the greedmeisters and hubris filled bullies of wallstreet have fixed the game and filled their coffers with as much gelt as they could, almost as if they knew the end of the world was coming and "ye with the most gold at the end, wins". A sort of cruel version of musical chairs and monopoly.</p>
<p>So we are here. It is what it is. Its up to us to figure out what to do. We cannot rely on anyone else, except our own families to get us through this. Its daunting. </p>
<p>And many will have to decide to work for a year or so, pay for a year of college, work some more and go back......or, they can pick another line of work that doesnt require a college education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nobody is batting an eyelash about that, other than the middle class OOS family who is being asked to pay it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>False claim. An OOS family could easily attend they instate public uni.</p>
<p>And, yes, Rutgers does have a COA of $21k. BUT, Rutgers also offers merit money, including full rides. But nevertheless, the good Legislators in NJ (and their voters) choose NOT to fund the State University as much as California funds it's state Unis. That is the choice of NJ residents and its voters. Let's not make federal policy designs of a "system" based on the individual choice of one state's voters.</p>
<p>We're not going to see any of this money, are we? The high school class of '09, that is...</p>