I have only heard that he opposes student loans from you. I will look into it. Student loans isn't something I am interested in at the moment. My kid will be someday, but thats several years away. Can you show me something from Ron Paul that says he is opposed to Student loans?
I know he wouldn't allow his kids to take student loans because they would have to pay them back, and that it would be better to pay as you go, than to borrow. But he also said his kids, could afford to go to college when they were of that age. Education is hugely exspensive today.
I know alot of people who could afford to pay for college 10 years or more ago.
But, being able to pay for their own college by working at the college, other jobs, and help from their dad, his kids did not aquire any student loan debts.

109th CONGRESS
1st Session


H. R. 401


To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make higher education more affordable by providing a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 26, 2005


Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make higher education more affordable by providing a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `Make College Affordable Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES.

• (a) Deduction Allowed- Section 221 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

`SEC. 221. HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES.

• `(a) Allowance of Deduction- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to the sum of--

• • `(1) the qualified higher education expenses, plus

• • `(2) interest on qualified education loans,

• paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year.

• `(b) Qualified Higher Education Expenses- For purposes of this section--

• • `(1) QUALIFIED HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES-

• • • `(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified higher education expenses' means--

• • • • `(i) tuition and fees charged by an educational institution and required for the enrollment or attendance of--

• • • • • `(I) the taxpayer,

• • • • • `(II) the taxpayer's spouse,

• • • • • `(III) any dependent of the taxpayer with respect to whom the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 151, or

• • • • • `(IV) any grandchild of the taxpayer,

• • • • as an eligible student at an institution of higher education, and

• • • • `(ii) reasonable living expenses for such an individual while away from home and attending such institution.

• • • `(B) ELIGIBLE COURSES- Amounts paid for qualified higher education expenses of any individual shall be taken into account under subsection (a) only to the extent such expenses--

• • • • `(i) are attributable to courses of instruction for which credit is allowed toward a baccalaureate degree by an institution of higher education or toward a certificate of required course work at a vocational school, and

• • • • `(ii) are not attributable to any graduate program of such individual.

• • • `(C) ELIGIBLE STUDENT- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `eligible student' means a student who--

• • • • `(i) meets the requirements of section 484(a)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(a)(1)), as in effect on the date of the enactment of this section, and

• • • • `(ii) is carrying at least one-half the normal full-time work load for the course of study the student is pursuing, as determined by the institution of higher education.

• • `(2) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION- The term `institution of higher education' is as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).

• `(c) Qualified Education Loan- For purposes of this section--

• • `(1) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified education loan' means a loan which is--

• • • `(A) made, insured, or guaranteed by the Federal Government,

• • • `(B) made by a State or a political subdivision of a State,

• • • `(C) made from the proceeds of a qualified student loan bond under section 144(b), or

• • • `(D) made by an institution of higher education.

• • `(2) LIMITATION- The amount of interest on a qualified education loan which is taken into account under subsection (a)(2) shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to such amount of interest as--

• • • `(A) the proceeds from such loan used for qualified higher education expenses, bears to

• • • `(B) the total proceeds from such loan.

• • For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `qualified higher education expenses' shall be determined without regard to subsection (c)(1)(A)(i)(IV).

• `(d) Special Rules-

• • `(1) NO DOUBLE BENEFIT-

• • • `(A) IN GENERAL- No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any expense for which a deduction is allowable to the taxpayer under any other provision of this chapter unless the taxpayer irrevocably waives his right to the deduction of such expense under such other provision.

• • • `(B) DENIAL OF DEDUCTION IF CREDIT ELECTED- No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for a taxable year with respect to the qualified higher education expenses of an individual if the taxpayer elects to have section 25A apply with respect to such individual for such year.

• • • `(C) DEPENDENTS- No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) to any individual with respect to whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which such individual's taxable year begins.

• • • `(D) COORDINATION WITH EXCLUSIONS- A deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for qualified higher education expenses only to the extent the amount of such expenses exceeds the amount excludable under section 135 or 530(d)(2) for the taxable year.

• • `(2) LIMITATION ON TAXABLE YEAR OF DEDUCTION-

• • • `(A) IN GENERAL- A deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for qualified higher education expenses for any taxable year only to the extent such expenses are in connection with enrollment at an institution of higher education during the taxable year.

• • • `(B) CERTAIN PREPAYMENTS ALLOWED- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to qualified higher education expenses paid during a taxable year if such expenses are in connection with an academic term beginning during such taxable year or during the first 3 months of the next taxable year.

• • `(3) ADJUSTMENT FOR CERTAIN SCHOLARSHIPS AND VETERANS BENEFITS- The amount of qualified higher education expenses otherwise taken into account under subsection (a) or (d)(2) with respect to the education of an individual shall be reduced (before the application of subsection (b)) by the sum of the amounts received with respect to such individual for the taxable year as--

• • • `(A) a qualified scholarship which under section 117 is not includable in gross income,

• • • `(B) an educational assistance allowance under chapter 30, 31, 32, 34, or 35 of title 38, United States Code, or

• • • `(C) a payment (other than a gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance within the meaning of section 102(a)) for educational expenses, or attributable to enrollment at an eligible educational institution, which is exempt from income taxation by any law of the United States.

• • `(4) NO DEDUCTION FOR MARRIED INDIVIDUALS FILING SEPARATE RETURNS- If the taxpayer is a married individual (within the meaning of section 7703), this section shall apply only if the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse file a joint return for the taxable year.

• • `(5) NONRESIDENT ALIENS- If the taxpayer is a nonresident alien individual for any portion of the taxable year, this section shall apply only if such individual is treated as a resident alien of the United States for purposes of this chapter by reason of an election under subsection (g) or (h) of section 6013.

• • `(6) REGULATIONS- The Secretary may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this section, including regulations requiring recordkeeping and information reporting.'.

• (b) Deduction Allowed in Computing Adjusted Gross Income- Paragraph (17) of section 62(a) of such Code is amended to read as follows:

• • `(17) HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES- The deduction allowed by section 221.'.

• (c) Conforming Amendments-

• • (1) The table of sections for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the item relating to section 221 and inserting the following new item:

• • `Sec. 221. Higher education expenses.'.

• • (2) Section 6050S(e) of such Code is amended by striking `section 221(d)(1)' and inserting `section 221(c)(1)'.

• (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2004.

END

"The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources."

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

OVERVIEW
The Department (ED) will provide more than $83 billion this year, about 60 percent of all student aid, to help millions of students and families pay for postsecondary education.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

Exactly, That is for public schools. And Why should I pay for schools in Washington D.C. or New York City.
Law makers in D.C. dont' know squat about my kids in E. Texas.

Post secondary education, a k a college. You want to leave the college financial aid up to the states? What if I want to go to a school that is not in my state? Is Wyoming going to give me money to go to school in Colorado? Is Colorado going to give me money if I live in Wyoming?

These are loans, you are not paying for them.

Can anybody tell me in all honestity Whats the diffrence?
To me they all have the "let me hold and kiss your baby,mamm, thing down", Ok i get it they have values they all have a stratitgy to save our country.
All past comander and chief's have had all of those qualities and look were they have taken us thus far. I have started to believe after the last 2 elections that it does not mater who we elect or don't elect because in the end they are all the same person.

Is it wrong to assume that anybody wanting to be president should be the last person elected? Because said person would have to have the ego and mind set that he is a god, i mean the title comandor in chief alone demands instant attenion and respect, never mind the fact that he/she is for a lack of a better pharse, the most powerful person in the world capable of ending the world at a moments notice.. One man/women has that much power.
That being said what has really changed since we were under british rule?
We are still being controlled my a goverment that, most did not vote for, we are still losing freedoms that we fought so hard for and swore we would never lose, but yet we do nothing to stand up or to stop it.
save, a few people who protest for our rights and are labled unamerican
by are leader's who by definition should be defending the very right for us to do so with there own lives, Is that to much to ask for? Ask JFK,RFK,ABE LINCOLN,MLK
And the thousand's of men and women who have died fighting for this and every other fredom we have. And worse yet when we try to get answers we are ignored by our leader's. A wise man once said "the only thing worse then evil perpatraited is for a good man to stand by and let that evil occur".

Is it to late to get back on track? Yeah i belive that it is, because the only way to win back our freedom is to fight for it, and we all know that the -average american is to fat and lazy to get out of they're own sunken in couch to turn the chanel, with there own cheeto covered hands. And know i am not a member of a miliita, I am not even that passionate about it. I am just wodering what others think.

The first electon i rember was in 92 I was in the fourth grade and my teacher mrs. hadley had us watch it, and from what i rember it was a
great thing and i could not waite till i could vote, And when i was able to i did,I voted straight dem for every election, falling on the words my great grandma told me "when the republicans are in ofice the people suffer".
After bush was elected i saw that hold true, and then the dems took the house and the senate and as i have watched, my great grandma's word's
began to loose their validity! In other words they have realy screwed the pooch. But then again today things are not as cut and dry as they were back in her day. We have a president who refuses to make concessions on any thing and as a result we have a country that is as divided as ever, even though just six short years ago we were united for the first time since world war two. What happened?
For that reason, and the voting screw ups of the last two election(the problems,not that bush is presidant. although that is a big problem)
I as an american refuse to be apart Of the bastardiztion of this country
Simply put i am not voting in this presidential election, I am confident
michigan will carry the dems, I am also confident that my vote along with million's of other's will not even be counted.....So why even bother!

Thats mostly why I support Ron Paul. Even though he has a Republican label, he has voted against most of what the Republicans have brought to the House floor. If it doesn't coincide with the Constitution, he votes no. He is known as Dr. No.
He is a veteran who has been married to the same woman for 50 years. He has never voted for internet restrictions, of Gun restrictions. Never voted for an unbalanced Budget, or a congressional pay raise. Every year, he returns part of his congressional pay to the Federal Treasury.

The man has a great voting record for the trucking industry, and hasn't Flip flopped on his votes.
And, he has always voted against NAFTA. And when he becomes president, he will end NAFTA. Which will put an end to the Mexican Truckers threat, and send the Canadians home.
If you agree with NAFTA or the Mexican trucks coming into America, then your either not a truck driver, or you just don't understand the impact the industry will take by having people who work for .05 cents (a nickel) per mile. (3,500 miles per week, at a nickel a mile = $200. $200 per week to someone who lives in Mexico is about the same as $1,000 a week here or more)

[yt="Live Free or Die"]IefKf5ElZIU[/yt]

Since I'm NOT a biased person concerning the Repub Candidates like several are here, just presented a candidate who looked 'good,' I would like to say this as the election is rushing forward:

Persona, without any 'Gotchas,' and compromised Conservative stances will win the Repub Nomination!!

That's the way I see it.

Keyes, forget it! Needs to stick with Black churches.

Again, Tancredo & Hunter dont have that persona to get the Nom.

McCain sounds too much like a political insider with his rhetoric and comes across as "too late."

Ron Paul is just too radical and devisive within the party to get the Nom.

Guiliani has his base, social compromiser, tough on defense/security, but lots of baggage and dont really think he'll make it!

Huckabee, altho has the likability factor, may not have the 'persona' and baggage is accumulating daily.

Thompson and Romney have the persona to get 'votes!' Thompson seems the most Conservative, but Romney has the 'Reagan Mystique' going for him!

So, as of today 12/12/7, looks like Romney if the attack dogs dont find anymore on him...

This is your brain

Jeri and Fred











Ann Romney











This is your brain on drugs........




~ Ron Paul