Why should one student have to pay back their loans and not another student? How is that even remotely fair? If they both get jobs after their education is complete, don't they both have the ability at that point to pay down those loans?
I absolutely cannot approve of arbitrarily picking winners and losers with this.
The Trump administration would dedicate no money to a fund for student support and academic enrichment that is meant to help schools pay for, among other things, mental-health services, anti-bullying initiatives, physical education, Advanced Placement courses and science and engineering instruction.
I might be mistaken, but I think mental health issues would best be undertaken outside of school.
What specifically do they mean by anti-bullying initiatives, other than systems that were always in place?
The administration is also seeking to overhaul key elements of federal financial aid. The spending proposal would maintain funding for Pell Grants for students in financial need,
I'm not a fan of the Pell grants, because it re-asks my question of why is it ok for one student to go into debt but not another. But it's staying put so that should be status quo, I guess. Still not a fan, but whatever.
take a first step toward ending subsidized loans, for which the government pays interest while the borrower is in school; and end loan forgiveness for public servants.
I think the government needs to stop subsidizing. It's been proven, and even some reasonable democrats such as reluctantly Biden admit, that the more government subsidizes - the more the price of tuition goes up. So I'm ok with this.
Those are the points that stick out to me and mainly bug me, as it should everyone.