The rising cost of higher education continues to effect students each year, tuition goes up at a constant rate and forces students to not be able to receive the education they want because their family cannot afford it, and triggers an argument on why or why not it should be dealt with. College tuition is passing the rate of inflation and continues to be a huge problem for students. In the 1960's public funding for higher education was established and made it a lot easier for students to go to school. However, now we force universities to raise tuition year after year, which makes students take out loans. The expansion of university administration forces students to pay more to go to school, administration has increased by 60% from 1993 to 2009 (Lane). In addition, many people did not go to college in that time period, having a college degree in the 1960's wasn't as important as it is now. The federal government already spends enough money on financial aid each year to cover the annual tuition bill for every undergraduate and graduate public college student in the country. Last year, college students spent 61.8 billion dollars in tuition from pell grants, work-study, and student loans; which are all federal financial aid programs offered by the country (Clark). 

The argument on whether or not college tuition is that much of a problem continues to be a problem for students everywhere.  Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders argues the fact that students cannot receive the education they are capable of because it is too expensive for families unable to pay for it.  Sanders wants to pursue a federal tax that taxes the upper class and completely wipe out this college debt. However, what is argued about this is that people believe that this financial stake will force students to try harder in school because they do not want to waste their parent's money. Sanders wants 47 billion dollars provided to states and the federal government would cover 67% of the cost (Reynolds). No funding under this program would be allowed to be used to fund administrative salaries, merit-based financial aid, and the construction of non-academic buildings. In order to drop prices of college tuition the U.S. would have to strain public budgets and force taxpayers to pay more. Rationing is what will hurt the people who need it the most and that is what the writer is trying to display in the article (Clark). The pros and cons associated with higher education tuition can be argue entirely. Sanders states that his plan is to tax Wall Street speculation and have these huge corporations pay their fair share of taxes so students can receive the education they want. What that means is Wall Street is getting richer by the second and Sanders plan is to tax on the transference of stocks. Because he is a socialist, his goal is to raise money by taxing and that part of it is to have a strong child program and developing free health care for the country (Reynolds). However, we are a country with a population of about 319 million and in order for this to be developed; a lot of money must be borrowed. He wants to portray the fact that student loans limit student's chances of financial success. Some students may be in debt for over 10 years, which can be a huge problem for a lower or middle class family. An increase in financial aid shows an increase in college tuition each year (Clark). 

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's plan is to have increases in Pell Grants to help cover some of the costs. She also plans to take federal seed money, supplemented by communities and colleges. Both plans do not primarily focus on lowering college tuition costs but many people believe that we should not focus primarily on the issue of these costs. Clinton's proposal is not a solution, but very realistic in terms of the country. The differences associated between each candidate and what they want to pursue still both help with college tuition (Reynolds). Not only does it increase every year but as it continues to decrease a child's chances of continuing their education. Countries like Germany, Finland, Norway, etc., offer free college to their students and international students. This proves that the U.S. should at least find a way to incorporate a tax in which student's debt will be lowered. However, these countries do have a much higher income tax and Democratic national contenders are creating ways to help this cause. 

      The debate over creating a way for higher education to be affordable has been something the U.S. has wanted to propose for a while now. However, it is almost politically impossible to make it free because we would have to ask for a lot from taxpayers. It can give students the education they always have wanted though in regards to these proposals. Not every single family in the U.S. is going to be able to help or pay for their child's college. They take out these student loans and rely on the future in order to pay it off. 

Republicans are worried a lot more problems than just college tuition, only because with a population so big it would be almost impossible to cut down these expenses without taxing big corporations for a lot of their money, which would basically mean practically stealing it from them. Republicans want to limit the federal government so that federal student loans are erased; this would then provide private loans. Republicans believe strongly in an education system that will provide college education to those that deserve it. They want to limit the federal government's role in all education, therefore no longer issuing student loans (Kelly). Clinton's incentive to provide federal money to states that guarantee free four-year public university tuition and lower interest rates on student loans. Clinton would pay for the plan by capping the value of itemized deductions that wealthy families can take on their tax returns. Her proposal is more realistic than Sanders is because unlike him she is not focusing primarily on what the government is doing in terms of higher education. President Barack Obama also embraced his opinion on the student debt crisis in his final State of the Union address. Students should not have to say no to a great education just because they cannot afford it, much work hard enough for this to be not fair. Undergraduate tuition is excessively high for students to not be stressed over, being that much in debt worries college students in the future (Lane). Because some students cannot afford the education needed to succeed, it has a negative connotation towards huge companies. When someone is educated well, a company can thrive on that because it can make them more profitable based on their experience with a higher education in that subject. Some feel that this is something the U.S. should not focus on since there are more important problems in the country (Kelly). However, maybe if students were able to attend college they would be able to make some kind of difference in the world.

Sanders is a socialist democrat who pursues ideas that are almost impossible to be done politically. He also gives an example on how college graduation rates are lower because students cannot afford to finish what they started. Enrollment in public colleges dropped 750,000 students since 2010 and this explains the unstable increases in prices (Lane). Tuition has doubled at many colleges in the past decade, and at that rate enrollment rates will continue to decline drastically. If this debt crisis continues we may not be able to send kids to college and without a degree now, it is very difficult to get a job. Money received by college campuses is used primarily in faculty members and new programs to keep them stable (Sourmaidis). The annual growth rate of tuition is 7.4% each year; this is higher than the consumer price index of 3.8%, and health care of 5.8% (Halff). Future prosperity is the cost of all this debt though, but learning is not what gets them these jobs. The internships attained are what makes the student successful, because it actually teaches them their major requirements. Not only will students not be able to pay off this debt and not attend college, but also campuses will not be able to function properly without the public support. Most of what the college benefits off is what the people give them, and without decreasing these prices there is no way they can sustain a reliable education system.

Sanders says, "A college degree is equivalent to what a high school degree was 50 years ago". What this means is if he was to win the election he would tax Wall Street speculation and it should not matter what a family's income is in order for their child to receive a college education. Clinton explains, "The hardest thing about going to college shouldn't be paying for it". College students already have so much to worry about trying to receive a degree and the fact students have to pay so much is ridiculous in both democratic eyes. Studies show that half the state would not put a socialist democrat in the white house. U.S. student loan debt has reached an all-time high at 1.2 million dollars, and is the fastest growing form of consumer debt in the country. Sanders wants America to be like the other countries that have their education systems under control. Wall Street members are becoming incredibly wealthy off trading in stocks, and in order to make it affordable it can end speculation on our economy (Good). 

Corporations are making immense amounts of profit, and in order to make tuition free they must pay their fair share in taxes. The country is losing intellectual potential because students cannot pay for this higher education. However, in the election last November only 80% of young people voted and if that continues the country cannot succeed in this proposal. Students are paying 8% interest rates on their student debt today, which is more than most family's homes (Good). Education is the foundation that keeps a country stable; the higher education system should support Bernie Sander's legislation. Throughout these arguments, an ongoing quote is introduced at each debate, on why "higher education should be a right, not a privilege". Therefore, pursuing a college degree should not depend on how much income a family brings in. Even if a democrat does not win the general election doesn't mean we should put this issue aside, it continues to make students futures difficult to sustain properly. This is something we can't just ignore, within the next year's tuition is just going to continue to increase and will hit a peak that will force high school students to not attend a higher standard university. It's not fair for anyone that can't pay for an education, its not their fault they can't afford ridiculous prices. Therefore, if this isn't dealt with soon college will be hard to afford for even middle class households. School is a necessity for everyone, it shouldn't be based on whether or not you want to pay all those student loans. It worries college students that this debt will be turn up in the future and decide to go somewhere that's not as expensive. For example, a student that has the potential to go to Stanford but can't afford it so ends up at some cheap public university in-state so he or she doesn't have to deal with loans. 

In conclusion, this argument depicts the problem with student loan debt and each plan to make it affordable for lower and middle class households. We deny the fact that the country is losing the potential of young people getting jobs because not all families can afford higher education. The average amount a college student graduates with in student debt is around 29,000 dollars. However, the people who want this enforced must vote in order for it to be possible. Students embrace this idea because of how hard they work just so they do not have to put themselves into a deeper hole in the future. Even though no matter how much they work, they still end up with this debt because it continues to increase substantially. Taxing the higher class for their fair share may have to happen. In order to deal with this the United States has to make a lot of things happen. If this were to even happen, it wouldn't be proposed until like 2020 because of how higher education is 

