Eeh I don't know about that one. I think it is the government's responsibility to make sure everyone has (somewhat) of a chance at becoming educated. Even though right now kids who come from poor neighborhoods don't have a fair chance they would have NO shot if the government wasn't involved.
IMO the government, over the years, has done more harm than good. I have no doubt that some policies have benefited some poor individuals, but overall these policies hurt the poor.
A few decades ago my home state of California subsidized the cost of its public universities to a much greater extent than they do today. Tuitions were kept low via the taxpayer. Did the poor benefit? Some did, but only the ones who went to college. Overall the vast majority of students were form middle, upper-middle and upper income classes. Very few poor students went to college. Therefore we had taxpayers helping those who were better off (and those that were going to be better off via their education) at the expense of the poor as a whole. Now its true that the upper income classes pay a larger share of taxes and therefore may deserve more support. But then you can't say that the whole point of taxpayer subsidized tuition is to benefit the poor. This effect has decreased over the years since california pubic universities have increased tuition amid decreased state funding and the increase in lower income individuals going to college, but it was the case for many decades.
In addition, many have made the argument that government loans have inflated tuitions in the first place by guaranteeing that the university will get the money one way or the other. Universities benefit from getting more money, politicians can benefit by claiming to "help" the poor, etc. But the students get screwed.
By blaming Republicans for changing student loan policies you are starting the story in the middle. Why did the government ever get involved in the first place? What effect has that had on tuition costs over the years? Who actually benefits from such a policy of providing government loans?
Also, think about mortgage tax benefits. Government tax policy actively encourages home ownership, at the expense of rentals, by providing tax benefits. This is sold under the guise that it helps the poor. It does. But only to the few that can actually afford a home with the help of the program. On the other hand the vast majority of middle/upper income individuals also benefit as well. And they had no need whatsoever.
It's Middle Class Welfare.
You have to look not at the surface of a particular policy, but the actual effects. IMO this is why liberal policies typically sound like good ideas at first glance. Government is going to help us pay for college? Great! The government is going to make it easier to get a home mortgage? Great! You got my vote! Instead, you should try to explore the possible implications of the policy.
We make so many assumptions that we often fail to think. For example, government welfare programs are sold under the idea that they help the poor. So hey, how can you be against it? Who doesn't want to help the poor? Part of the justification for welfare is that there are/were a large number of African-American single mothers who needed help (Moynihan report). Following that line of reasoning it is difficult to argue against welfare without appearing to be against helping poor single mothers. However, that line of reasoning fails to recognize or explain the fact that the epidemic of single parenthood and teenage pregnancy exploded only AFTER many of these programs were instituted. If programs provide more aid to single mothers than those who are married you will probably get more single mothers. Now im NOT saying that people are thinking to themselves "hmmm if I don't get married and instead just have a boyfriend I'll actually be better off". No I'm saying that if you subsidize a behavior (or anything for that matter) you will tend to get more of it somehow some way.
I'd go on but im getting tired. My main point is not about the merit of particular government programs and policies, but rather to encourage people to look beyond the surface and look at the implications of a policy.
Before I go heres a link to Milton Friedman making the case AGAINST Equal Pay for Equal Work. Regardless of your feelings on it, it is food for thought and does promote a point of view that I believe very few consider.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE
