By Alexander Ajede
College students are known to be among the poorest people in society; this isn’t exclusively due to what they pay for college, but also to what they owe when they graduate.
In the presidential campaign, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama argue for opposing sides on the topic of economy: respectively (and in my opinion) one is in favor of the rich and the other for everyone else. Whoever wins, the outcome will have a drastic effect on the opportunities for people pursuing a higher education.
If Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, come into office, the immediate plan would be to end Pell grants and cut off Stafford loans. A Pell grant is money given by the government to help students who are financially in need, to a maximum amount of $5,500. Stafford loans come in two parts – one subsidized and the other unsubsidized, meaning students only pay back interest for the latter.
Romney and Ryan have voiced peculiar solutions for prospective students who lose these grants and loans. Romney in one of his orations suggested: If students don’t have money for school, borrow from their parents. As if this could be applied for everyone. Likewise, Ryan’s suggestion is to work three jobs in addition to being a full-time student. These ideas are unnerving and don’t really seem to have any forethought. College is a grand opportunity to do more than get an education. It is a time to meet new people and increase socializing skills by joining clubs and groups. Basically, it is to find one’s self and not feel so much pressure in rushing to choose a future. How can it be accomplished if students are constantly stressed about paying for school?
What Romney proposed was similar to Bush’s methods for restoring our economy and that was for giving tax breaks to the rich. As it stands, the middle-class and poor pay a higher percentage of taxes than the rich. Bush wanted to keep it so because he believed the wealthy would be more inclined to invest back into America if they kept their money. This would open more job opportunities for the future and lessen the unemployment rates. The thinking is flawed because there is nothing holding the wealthy accountable for restoring the economy. Romney’s ambitions would increase the number of jobs overseas and lessen the amount here because a lot Americans would not be able to meet the qualifications for these positions due to the lack of an education. It’s illogical because avarice (i.e. greed for money) is very real in America. Why would the rich feel the need to invest their money if it’s not going to make them richer?
Obama’s ideas for restoring America are a lot more feasible and make sense because as Bill Clinton explained, attesting for Obama, he plans to make a safety net for everyone whereas Romney says if you mess up then “too bad”.
Romney’s view for America is like a football player who always likes to take plenty of risks to make the win – he takes hits and injuries constantly, but doesn’t care so long as he can make it to the end of the field. However, by the middle of the season those injuries slow him down, putting him in pain. Instead of resting and focusing on healing those parts of his body, his trainer injects him full of cortisone (i.e. steroid hormone) and tells him to do more of the same. We go in this direction and soon enough we will be crippled, all except the top 1 percent of the richest.