So almost every republican voted today to double the interest on student loans. . . If we expect the workers of the 21st century to be well educated, how do we expect them to be able to afford such rates?
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/156517_10150857089201749_6815841748_9559038_210305988_n.jpg)
"Apparently, even the education of our children is now fair game in the never-ending political soap opera "
Republicans demand that money committed to programs they don't like be skimmed to cover the costs of any bill the Democrats might happen to support—no matter who gets hurt.
In the Senate, the Democrats had proposed that the rate freeze be paid for by removing a tax loophole that allows wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying their full Social Security and Medicare tax by categorizing money they receive as dividend income rather than cash income, thus avoiding FICA taxes.
The Senate Republicans remain insistent that the House bill, which takes money from important health programs, remain the quid pro quo for giving the Democrats what they want and what the public appears to support. The result of this approach would require that people whose lives could be saved by the cancer screening programs that would be eliminated, be put at risk in order to lessen the burden of student loan repayments." [the REAL death panel]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/08/student-loans-stuck-in-the-endless-senate-soap-opera/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/08/student-loans-stuck-in-the-endless-senate-soap-opera/)
Just for another perspective, the current rate for student loans is 3.8%. The Republicans voted to let that double to 6.8%.
In contrast, the interest rate at which an eligible financial institution may borrow funds directly from a Federal Reserve bank is 0.75%.
Sigh .... the rich get richer ....
it can be argued that the democrast voted to LET that double to 6.8%.
The republicans are in favor of keeping it low....they just differ on how they arrive at the same conclusion.
The dems want to raise taxes to pay for it.
The repubs want $6 billion cut from some where out the $1.4 TRILLION spending plan that they have.
It is ALL political...none really give a flip about the students.
I think we need to be logical, and reduce spending.....it is a fact we are spending TOO much money, we are wasting billions on frivilous progams....lets find a way to be smarter instead of throwing MORE money into the kettle.
There is one thing I wish for this coming election is. For the working and poor people in America to sit down and read all of the things the Republicans have pulled to protect the Super Rich and the Corporations from paying their fair share of the taxes that is need to run this great country. Keeping the poorer American from sending they children to college, plus making it to expensive. Like high interest on college loans. :@#%&:
Protecting the Rich at the expense of the American people and their children. Trying to make the people permanent serfs and wage slaves. :rant:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 09, 2012, 10:26:53 AM
it can be argued that the democrast voted to LET that double to 6.8%.
The republicans are in favor of keeping it low....they just differ on how they arrive at the same conclusion.
The dems want to raise taxes to pay for it.
The repubs want $6 billion cut from some where out the $1.4 TRILLION spending plan that they have.
It is ALL political...none really give a flip about the students.
I think we need to be logical, and reduce spending.....it is a fact we are spending TOO much money, we are wasting billions on frivilous progams....lets find a way to be smarter instead of throwing MORE money into the kettle.
Aren't you the one who took government money to put your kid through college. Like money from the Army. :rolleyes: :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 09, 2012, 10:26:53 AM
it can be argued that the democrast voted to LET that double to 6.8%.
The republicans are in favor of keeping it low....they just differ on how they arrive at the same conclusion.
The dems want to raise taxes to pay for it.
The repubs want $6 billion cut from some where out the $1.4 TRILLION spending plan that they have.
It is ALL political...none really give a flip about the students.
I think we need to be logical, and reduce spending.....it is a fact we are spending TOO much money, we are wasting billions on frivilous progams....lets find a way to be smarter instead of throwing MORE money into the kettle.
Let's stick to the issue at hand.
You say "The dems want to raise taxes to pay for it." When in reality, "Democrats had proposed that the rate freeze be paid for by removing a tax loophole that allows wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying their full Social Security and Medicare tax by categorizing money they receive as dividend income rather than cash income, thus avoiding FICA taxes." What is wrong with asking the wealthy taxpayers to pay their Social Security and Medicare taxes?
You say "The repubs want $6 billion cut from some where out the $1.4 TRILLION spending plan that they have." When in reality, the Republicans want to eliminate "preventative health and cancer screening program created in the Affordable Care Act." I ask you, Henry. Is this your idea of "frivilous progams?"
Quote from: Olias on May 09, 2012, 10:41:08 AM
Let's stick to the issue at hand.
You say "The dems want to raise taxes to pay for it." When in reality, "Democrats had proposed that the rate freeze be paid for by removing a tax loophole that allows wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying their full Social Security and Medicare tax by categorizing money they receive as dividend income rather than cash income, thus avoiding FICA taxes." What is wrong with asking the wealthy taxpayers to pay their Social Security and Medicare taxes?
You say "The repubs want $6 billion cut from some where out the $1.4 TRILLION spending plan that they have." When in reality, the Republicans want to eliminate "preventative health and cancer screening program created in the Affordable Care Act." I ask you, Henry. Is this your idea of "frivilous progams?"
I'm not saying THAT is a frivilous progam by any means...but we DO have frivilous programs out there...don't you agree?
I am also not opposed to cutting out ridiculous loop holes in our tax system...I believe we do.
All I am saying BOTH parties are playing games right now, at the expense of our kids TRYING to educate themselves.
I am tired of democrats acting like THEY give a sh!t about people when they don't...they are trying to BUY votes from the students right now.........
I wish both sides would get serious and come up with common ground that we ALL benefit from...and that, in MY opinion, comes down to leadership by the white house.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 09, 2012, 11:01:16 AM
I'm not saying THAT is a frivilous progam by any means...but we DO have frivilous programs out there...don't you agree?
I am also not opposed to cutting out ridiculous loop holes in our tax system...I believe we do.
All I am saying BOTH parties are playing games right now, at the expense of our kids TRYING to educate themselves.
I am tired of democrats acting like THEY give a sh!t about people when they don't...they are trying to BUY votes from the students right now.........
I wish both sides would get serious and come up with common ground that we ALL benefit from...and that, in MY opinion, comes down to leadership by the white house.
I agree. We do have many frivolous programs. So why do the Republicans choose to attack the preventative health and cancer screening program? I'll tell you why. They are so desperate to kill the Affordable Care Act that they think they can hide behind this ploy.
And if you agree with closing the tax loophole, why do you say the Democrats are playing games? It seems to me that they are taking the logical steps to pay for the student loan program, instead of adding to the deficit. The only game I see here is the Republican game of obstruction. And no amount of leadership from the White House is going to overcome this blind resistance at all costs by the knuckle-headed Republicans.
Democrats are not the ones who are holding the unemployed hostage, running rough-shod over women's rights, insisting on increasing taxation on the 99% while extending tax breaks to the 1%, insisting on the slashing of social safety net programs when they are needed most, doubling the cost of college education, and saying no to every single piece of proposed legislation.
This latest act further validates the fact that the repugnican party is nothing but a rich and corporation serving lapdog.
Quote from: Olias on May 09, 2012, 11:17:29 AM
I agree. We do have many frivolous programs. So why do the Republicans choose to attack the preventative health and cancer screening program? I'll tell you why. They are so desperate to kill the Affordable Care Act that they think they can hide behind this ploy.
And if you agree with closing the tax loophole, why do you say the Democrats are playing games? It seems to me that they are taking the logical steps to pay for the student loan program, instead of adding to the deficit. The only game I see here is the Republican game of obstruction. And no amount of leadership from the White House is going to overcome this blind resistance at all costs by the knuckle-headed Republicans.
Oh, Hank?
why do the Republicans choose to attack the preventative health and cancer screening program?
And if you agree with closing the tax loophole, why do you say the Democrats are playing games?
Quote from: Olias on May 09, 2012, 02:42:46 PM
Oh, Hank?
why do the Republicans choose to attack the preventative health and cancer screening program?
And if you agree with closing the tax loophole, why do you say the Democrats are playing games?
It is not as simple as closing a loop hole...it is a political ploy.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/05/student-loan-payroll-tax-increase-another-attack-on-small-business
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 09, 2012, 03:14:12 PM
It is not as simple as closing a loop hole...it is a political ploy.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/05/student-loan-payroll-tax-increase-another-attack-on-small-business
Indeed it is. By the Republicans.
"The bill would pay for the $5.9 billion loan rate freeze by preventing individuals with incomes exceeding $250,000 who file their taxes as a small business to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on some of their income."I ask you again, what is wrong with that?
And you ignored my first question ...."why do the Republicans choose to attack the preventative health and cancer screening program?"
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 09, 2012, 03:14:12 PM
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/05/student-loan-payroll-tax-increase-another-attack-on-small-business
One more thing ... the other day, I was castigated for using a liberal website as a source.
Are you the goose or the gander?
Quote from: Olias on May 09, 2012, 03:21:31 PM
Indeed it is. By the Republicans.
"The bill would pay for the $5.9 billion loan rate freeze by preventing individuals with incomes exceeding $250,000 who file their taxes as a small business to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on some of their income."
I ask you again, what is wrong with that?
And you ignored my first question ...."why do the Republicans choose to attack the preventative health and cancer screening program?"
I didn't say that the repubs wasn't playing games either..........they BOTH are. Why they choose to attack the Affordable Care Act, I'm betting it has something to do with the case on repeallng the "obama" care bill.
Again, if you can admit that the dems are not perfect angels and are "doing good" for the Ameican people, but rather trying to garner college votes for november.
THAT is what it comes down to....and YES, the repubs are dicking around too...I'm betting a bill gets passed, and student loans will stay the same.
Quote from: Olias on May 09, 2012, 03:31:25 PM
One more thing ... the other day, I was castigated for using a liberal website as a source.
Are you the goose or the gander?
I was just utilizing the opportunity to blast back what you guys have been throwing at me for years........the heritage foundation is one I will ALWAYS rely on for a conservative opinion....so, I'm not sure if I'm a goose or a gander. You pick.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 09, 2012, 03:36:32 PM
I was just utilizing the opportunity to blast back what you guys have been throwing at me for years........the heritage foundation is one I will ALWAYS rely on for a conservative opinion....so, I'm not sure if I'm a goose or a gander. You pick.
It wasn't you, it was your friend 'me' And in that case I will remember that the next time she starts blathering away. The Heritage Foundation is nothing more than a corporate mouthpiece.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 09, 2012, 03:34:01 PM
trying to garner college votes for november.
It has come to this for all parties involved. But what is important is what they do to us while they are fishing for votes.
The Republicans would kill the preventative health and cancer screening program.
The Democrats would stop the rich from playing an end run on the tax code to get out of paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Every single human being in the U.S. would benefit from preventative health and cancer screening.
Do you really want to take that away?
S corporations are nothing but a tax loophole; portraying this as an attack on small business when that small business is likely no more than a sole proprietor who should be paying income taxes on all of his income (like I had to) is a joke.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 09, 2012, 03:49:04 PM
S corporations are nothing but a tax loophole; portraying this as an attack on small business when that small business is likely no more than a sole proprietor who should be paying income taxes on all of his income (like I had to) is a joke.
John McCain's wife is pulling that tax con. Anything to get out of paying taxes and cheat the government. :yes: :rant:
Quote from: Olias on May 09, 2012, 03:48:32 PM
It has come to this for all parties involved. But what is important is what they do to us while they are fishing for votes.
The Republicans would kill the preventative health and cancer screening program.
The Democrats would stop the rich from playing an end run on the tax code to get out of paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Every single human being in the U.S. would benefit from preventative health and cancer screening. Do you really want to take that away?
Hank, while you're here ... have you had a chance to think about this?
Quote from: Olias on May 11, 2012, 09:40:54 AM
Hank, while you're here ... have you had a chance to think about this?
olias, I don't think any of the proposals are going to happen. I think both sides are playing games. I need to know more about everything involved with the repubs proposal of cutting into the health care....
the bottom line is the deal is dead for now....and they WILL end up keeping the student loans where they are.
I do know that things are not always as the seem to be....the media lets you know as much as they want you too...
Lets let this play out a little further before we get too excited either way...
I still think it is all a bs, political move, and the dems are not only wanting what is best for students, they want VOTES.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2012, 10:36:17 AM
olias, I don't think any of the proposals are going to happen. I think both sides are playing games. I need to know more about everything involved with the repubs proposal of cutting into the health care....
the bottom line is the deal is dead for now....and they WILL end up keeping the student loans where they are.
I do know that things are not always as the seem to be....the media lets you know as much as they want you too...
Lets let this play out a little further before we get too excited either way...
I still think it is all a bs, political move, and the dems are not only wanting what is best for students, they want VOTES.
They are playing games with the future of our children.
Speaking of playing games, did anyone hear what Nancy Pelosi said about Obama's announcement of 'support' for gay marriage? .....
"It was moving, it was historic, and it was a great day for our country."
Give me a break. :rolleyes:
It has been proved over and over that the Republicans will do anything, take health care, take money way from public schools, take money from college students, take money from Planned Parenthood and beat up and bully gays. Too keep from taxing the richest of the rich. :@#%&:
Political, YES. The Republicans want to kill the middle class. It's a proven fact. :mad: :rant: :angry:
:zoners:
Quote from: Olias on May 11, 2012, 10:44:22 AM
They are playing games with the future of our children.
Speaking of playing games, did anyone hear what Nancy Pelosi said about Obama's announcement of 'support' for gay marriage? .....
“It was moving, it was historic, and it was a great day for our country."
Give me a break. :rolleyes:
I say it is much ado about nothing...as far as Obama's remarks.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2012, 01:02:56 PM
I say it is much ado about nothing...as far as Obama's remarks.
I got to say this, the Republicans are all out to keep the middle class and the poor out of college so their dumbass children (George W.) can go to college. That also keeps them from spending the money to buy their kid in. (George W.) :yes: George W. Bush the worst president America has ever had and he has a degree from Yale. :haha: :haha:
All so if you look at what the Republicans are up to, they are wanting to cut head start, school lunches, food stamps, children health insurance and on and on and on. :angry:
When are the dumbass people who vote Republican going to wake up. :mad: :mad: :angry: :rant:
:zoners:
Quote from: The Troll on May 13, 2012, 10:24:25 AM
I got to say this, the Republicans are all out to keep the middle class and the poor out of college so their dumbass children (George W.) can go to college.
Soon only the rich 1%ers will be able to afford college; the next milestone in the dumbing down of the 99% in order to further oppress them.
can you say....Propaganda?
Can you say delusional?
The cost of attending college has risen nearly three times the rate of the cost of living, and could eventually put higher education out of reach for most Americans. . .
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-03/living/college.costs_1_family-income-college-affordability-higher-education-report?_s=PM:LIVING (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-03/living/college.costs_1_family-income-college-affordability-higher-education-report?_s=PM:LIVING)
A 2008 article that is even more applicable today!
another bubble about to bust...........government intervention strikes again.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2012, 11:44:35 AM
another bubble about to bust...........government intervention strikes again.
Republican induced surrounding government tuition rates to say the least.
The federal government historically has made college available to the average individual via it's low rate student loan programs, but it isn't the only way to obtain funding for college. One can obtain a loan from a bank and other lending institutions but be prepared for stringent credit guidelines and outrageous interest rates if you choose that path. Hence the federal government has been the most popular means of funding college.
But no more. . . with government doubling interest rates, yeah; the dumbing down of Amerika will continue!
How did you pay for your college education?
Quote from: Palehorse on May 21, 2012, 11:59:13 AM
How did you pay for your college education?
I paid for them, along with my current employer.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2012, 12:01:46 PM
The company I worked for paid for my education to receive my credentials.
Exactly. And had they not?
The reality is the lion's share of students leave high-school with no job and with no college fund from their parents available. So, the parents sometimes co-sign for a student loan to cover the expenses. And most, but not all parents, pursue the lowest interest rates in order to fund their children's college education. . . So do the kids.
Quote from: Palehorse on May 21, 2012, 12:05:53 PM
Exactly. And had they not?
The reality is the lion's share of students leave high-school with no job and with no college fund from their parents available. So, the parents sometimes co-sign for a student loan to cover the expenses. And most, but not all parents, pursue the lowest interest rates in order to fund their children's college education. . . So do the kids.
I'm not knocking students or the parents for taking advantage of this....but, the fact is, another Bubble is about the burst.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2012, 12:13:49 PM
I'm not knocking students or the parents for taking advantage of this....but, the fact is, another Bubble is about the burst.
And again, it is being induced by the conservative republican war on the middle class. This unreasonable doubling of the student loan interest rates amounts to funding of the rich on the back of the poor; because the poor are the only ones using the programs.
The financial administrators of these government programs will skim more cream off the top. The rich get richer and the poor continue to be oppressed.
I'm not going to go any further, but to say this. IF we would have just allowed private banks to determine the loans without government interference and let the people decide for themselves if they can afford it or not. If we would quit subsidizing the colleges and forcing them to mandate certain classes on all students...college may just have been affordable to the majority of families.
Comom sense no longer applies...but the mighty dollar does. I think it was good intentions by democrats to start subsidizing colleges to allow more people to attend college, but greed always wins out...and it is not just a republican thing.....it is the good intention of republicans to apply common sense back into our daily lives, and keeping government out of things....because history has proven several times the when they get involved too heavily, the common man gets screwed.
. . .Federal subsidies for higher education began in 1862 with the Morrill Act, which provided grants of federal land to the states. The states were supposed to use the proceeds of land sales to create colleges focused on agricultural and mechanical studies, but "many states squandered the revenue from this endowment."2 In 1890, a second Morrill Act began regular appropriations for the land-grant colleges.
In 1917, Congress passed the Smith-Hughes Act, which funded the salaries of vocational education teachers. The Act imposed a range of detailed rules on funded schools, which created an early precedent for today's huge burden of federal regulations on state and local education systems.
The first major subsidy for students in higher education was the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944—the G.I. Bill—which allowed World War II veterans to attend college at no cost. The G.I. Bill is widely admired legislation, but like all subsidy programs it led to substantial wasteful spending and abuse. Some colleges and universities used federal funds for extraneous purposes, such as swimming pools and stadiums, while others increased tuition rates charged to veterans.3 There were also cases of outright fraud by schools aimed at garnering extra federal funds.
In 1958, the National Defense Education Act was approved in response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, which spread fear that the communists were getting ahead of Americans in technical skills. The Act authorized funding for higher education loans and fellowships, vocational teacher training, and programs in the K-12 schools, including math, science, and foreign language activities.
The year 1965 was a landmark for federal expansion into both the K-12 schools and higher education. The Higher Education Act of 1965 is the basis for many of today's postsecondary education subsidies, including student loan and grant programs, college library aid, teacher training programs, and other subsidies.
Since 1965, the federal government has provided increasing amounts of funding for higher education as grant and loan programs have been expanded, and new programs added. Federal aid for higher education soared from $10 billion in fiscal 2000 to $30 billion in fiscal 2008.4
Of the total $30 billion in 2008, $2.3 billion went toward higher educational institutions, including large shares to Gallaudet College and Howard University. The remaining $27.6 billion went toward student aid: $5.5 billion for direct student loans made by the government, $4.9 billion for federally guaranteed loans made by private lenders, $15.7 billion for grants, and the rest for federal administration.5 Note that the figures for loans are the net amount of federal support, based on assumptions about loan repayments. The gross amount of loans is much larger—in fiscal 2008, the gross amount of loans was $110 billion.6
In recent years, Congress has expanded subsidies for higher education. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 cut interest rates on federally subsidized loans in half, thus encouraging more student borrowing. The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 increased the borrowing limits on certain student loans and gave the Department of Education new authority to fund student lending. In 2008, Congress increased Pell Grant maximums from $5,800 to $8,000 over time, authorized forgiveness of up to $10,000 in federal loans for people working in an area of "national need," and expanded other subsidies.
In 2009, President Obama proposed to eliminate all student loans through private financial firms guaranteed by the government, and thus make all federal loans "direct loans" from the Treasury. He also proposed to increase Pell grants and to budget for them as an "entitlement" program, thus putting spending on automatic pilot and not needed annual budgeting action from Congress.
Outside of the Department of Education, the federal government offers other aid programs for higher education, such as tuition assistance for military personnel in the Department of Defense. Also, the federal government funds more than $30 billion of research at the nation's universities through various departments. 7
Finally, a growing part of federal support for education comes through the tax code. In 1995, there were just 7 special breaks in the income tax code for K-12 and higher education. Today, there are 16 breaks, including the lifetime learning tax credit, Hope scholarship, education savings accounts, and education facility bonds. Politicians of both parties continue to offer more breaks, so the tax code will likely get more crowded with such giveaways.
. . .
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/higher-ed-subsidies (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/higher-ed-subsidies)
So it appears that the government has recognized the importance of higher education for over a century, and has been subsidizing it for the same amount of time. Moreover, the same party that cut student loan rates by 50% now wants to double them!
Quote from: Palehorse on May 24, 2012, 12:44:24 PM
So it appears that the government has recognized the importance of higher education for over a century, and has been subsidizing it for the same amount of time. Moreover, the same party that cut student loan rates by 50% now wants to double them!
that is propaganda and a fib!
Show me where they want to double them?.....Just because they didn't sign the last bill introduced?
The fact of the matter is the interest of the current student loan was nothing more than a political time bomb that our democrat controlled congress put into motion back in 2007 with an expiration date "conveniently' just before our election time, so the dems can make it a distraction from our economy, which is the REAL problem for our students who cannot find a job AFTER graduating. PURE politics by the dems.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 24, 2012, 03:02:46 PM
that is propaganda and a fib!
Show me where they want to double them?.....Just because they didn't sign the last bill introduced?
The fact of the matter is the interest of the current student loan was nothing more than a political time bomb that our democrat controlled congress put into motion back in 2007 with an expiration date "conveniently' just before our election time, so the dems can make it a distraction from our economy, which is the REAL problem for our students who cannot find a job AFTER graduating. PURE politics by the dems.
Bon voyage then!
Quote from: Palehorse on May 25, 2012, 12:08:52 AM
Bon voyage then!
Great answer!
(http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/Smileys3/default/rotfl.gif)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 24, 2012, 03:02:46 PM
that is propaganda and a fib!
Show me where they want to double them?.....Just because they didn't sign the last bill introduced?
The fact of the matter is the interest of the current student loan was nothing more than a political time bomb that our democrat controlled congress put into motion back in 2007 with an expiration date "conveniently' just before our election time, so the dems can make it a distraction from our economy, which is the REAL problem for our students who cannot find a job AFTER graduating. PURE politics by the dems.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/08/pf/college/Congress-student-loans/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/08/pf/college/Congress-student-loans/index.htm)
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/25/Student-loan-interest-rates-set-to-double/UPI-65771337932800/ (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/25/Student-loan-interest-rates-set-to-double/UPI-65771337932800/)
Seriously? I'm a liar now?
Please explain what portion of this is a lie:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 24, 2012, 12:44:24 PM
. . .Federal subsidies for higher education began in 1862 with the Morrill Act, which provided grants of federal land to the states. The states were supposed to use the proceeds of land sales to create colleges focused on agricultural and mechanical studies, but "many states squandered the revenue from this endowment."2 In 1890, a second Morrill Act began regular appropriations for the land-grant colleges.
In 1917, Congress passed the Smith-Hughes Act, which funded the salaries of vocational education teachers. The Act imposed a range of detailed rules on funded schools, which created an early precedent for today's huge burden of federal regulations on state and local education systems.
The first major subsidy for students in higher education was the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944—the G.I. Bill—which allowed World War II veterans to attend college at no cost. The G.I. Bill is widely admired legislation, but like all subsidy programs it led to substantial wasteful spending and abuse. Some colleges and universities used federal funds for extraneous purposes, such as swimming pools and stadiums, while others increased tuition rates charged to veterans.3 There were also cases of outright fraud by schools aimed at garnering extra federal funds.
In 1958, the National Defense Education Act was approved in response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, which spread fear that the communists were getting ahead of Americans in technical skills. The Act authorized funding for higher education loans and fellowships, vocational teacher training, and programs in the K-12 schools, including math, science, and foreign language activities.
The year 1965 was a landmark for federal expansion into both the K-12 schools and higher education. The Higher Education Act of 1965 is the basis for many of today's postsecondary education subsidies, including student loan and grant programs, college library aid, teacher training programs, and other subsidies.
Since 1965, the federal government has provided increasing amounts of funding for higher education as grant and loan programs have been expanded, and new programs added. Federal aid for higher education soared from $10 billion in fiscal 2000 to $30 billion in fiscal 2008.4
Of the total $30 billion in 2008, $2.3 billion went toward higher educational institutions, including large shares to Gallaudet College and Howard University. The remaining $27.6 billion went toward student aid: $5.5 billion for direct student loans made by the government, $4.9 billion for federally guaranteed loans made by private lenders, $15.7 billion for grants, and the rest for federal administration.5 Note that the figures for loans are the net amount of federal support, based on assumptions about loan repayments. The gross amount of loans is much larger—in fiscal 2008, the gross amount of loans was $110 billion.6
In recent years, Congress has expanded subsidies for higher education. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 cut interest rates on federally subsidized loans in half, thus encouraging more student borrowing. The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 increased the borrowing limits on certain student loans and gave the Department of Education new authority to fund student lending. In 2008, Congress increased Pell Grant maximums from $5,800 to $8,000 over time, authorized forgiveness of up to $10,000 in federal loans for people working in an area of "national need," and expanded other subsidies.
In 2009, President Obama proposed to eliminate all student loans through private financial firms guaranteed by the government, and thus make all federal loans "direct loans" from the Treasury. He also proposed to increase Pell grants and to budget for them as an "entitlement" program, thus putting spending on automatic pilot and not needed annual budgeting action from Congress.
Outside of the Department of Education, the federal government offers other aid programs for higher education, such as tuition assistance for military personnel in the Department of Defense. Also, the federal government funds more than $30 billion of research at the nation's universities through various departments. 7
Finally, a growing part of federal support for education comes through the tax code. In 1995, there were just 7 special breaks in the income tax code for K-12 and higher education. Today, there are 16 breaks, including the lifetime learning tax credit, Hope scholarship, education savings accounts, and education facility bonds. Politicians of both parties continue to offer more breaks, so the tax code will likely get more crowded with such giveaways.
. . .
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/higher-ed-subsidies (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/higher-ed-subsidies)
So it appears that the government has recognized the importance of higher education for over a century, and has been subsidizing it for the same amount of time. Moreover, the same party that cut student loan rates by 50% now wants to double them!
And where've you been, (which planet), surrounding the student loan interest rate doubling?
As far as education goes, I would like to see America do what India has done but 4 places and 4 times larger. India has a college that takes young people from all over India with the highest intelligence.
They take the young people, feed, cloth, feed and education for free. The only thing is they have to stay in India to work and provide new technology for India.
If we can have a West Point, have Annapolis, the Air force academy and a Coast Guard Academy why can't we have 4 civilian academy located in the North, East, South and the West.
I would like to see the brains and inventors these college would produce. :flag: Hell, while we at it let's make 5 Academies, one in the middle of the of America and let all taxpayers pay for it. IT IS FOR AMERICA and our future health. :4th3:
Quote from: The Troll on May 27, 2012, 05:52:25 PM
As far as education goes, I would like to see America do what India has done but 4 places and 4 times larger. India has a college that takes young people from all over India with the highest intelligence.
They take the young people, feed, cloth, feed and education for free. The only thing is they have to stay in India to work and provide new technology for India.
If we can have a West Point, have Annapolis, the Air force academy and a Coast Guard Academy why can't we have 4 civilian academy located in the North, East, South and the West.
I would like to see the brains and inventors these college would produce. :flag: Hell, while we at it let's make 5 Academies, one in the middle of the of America and let all taxpayers pay for it. IT IS FOR AMERICA and our future health. :4th3:
Ya, and you can live like the average person does who lives in India I know you'd love that. :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: me on May 27, 2012, 07:14:54 PM
Ya, and you can live like the average person does who lives in India I know you'd love that. :biggrin: :biggrin:
:me: Why would you give such a stupid return post. I can see that college wouldn't improve your intelligence. :sarcasm:
Quote from: The Troll on May 27, 2012, 05:52:25 PM
As far as education goes, I would like to see America do what India has done but 4 places and 4 times larger. India has a college that takes young people from all over India with the highest intelligence.
They take the young people, feed, cloth, feed and education for free. The only thing is they have to stay in India to work and provide new technology for India.
If we can have a West Point, have Annapolis, the Air force academy and a Coast Guard Academy why can't we have 4 civilian academy located in the North, East, South and the West.
I would like to see the brains and inventors these college would produce. :flag: Hell, while we at it let's make 5 Academies, one in the middle of the of America and let all taxpayers pay for it. IT IS FOR AMERICA and our future health. :4th3:
Quote from: The Troll on May 28, 2012, 08:26:39 AM
:me: Why would you give such a stupid return post. I can see that college wouldn't improve your intelligence. :sarcasm:
Quote from: me on May 27, 2012, 07:14:54 PM
Ya, and you can live like the average person does who lives in India I know you'd love that. :biggrin: :biggrin:
I think Troll's idea is not without merit. It would sure put some much needed competition into the tuition most of the institutions of higher learning are charging.
I'm not sure what he means.
We already have some excellent colleges all over our country, that gives scholarships out to the most intelligent high school students in our country. Why do we need the taxpayers to pay for it?
If any kid with a high intelligence can go to just about any university.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 30, 2012, 12:43:45 PM
I'm not sure what he means.
We already have some excellent colleges all over our country, that gives scholarships out to the most intelligent high school students in our country. Why do we need the taxpayers to pay for it?
If any kid with a high intelligence can go to just about any university.
Oh, there is some scholarships, but never a free ride. Never enough to go around and a lot of talent is lost. What is a poor brainy kid going to do with a $5,000 to $10,000 scholarship when he broke and a college education cost $80,000 with out food and board.
If you can send a kid to a military school to teach him or her to fight and kill in a war. Why can't we send our brightest young men and women to get an education which would be a help to all of America. Only the highest SAT's and scholarship and mental capability. If you don't have the brains, nobody can buy the kid in. No matter how rich you are. :yes: :biggrin:
I would bet in a short time these academies would set Harvard, Yale in the dust. :yes: :biggrin: Then maybe we could break the chain and lock that these big Eastern colleges has on Washington DC. :yeah: :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on May 30, 2012, 01:06:16 PM
Oh, there is some scholarships, but never a free ride. Never enough to go around and a lot of talent is lost. What is a poor brainy kid going to do with a $5,000 to $10,000 scholarship when he broke and a college education cost $80,000 with out food and board.
If you can send a kid to a military school to teach him or her to fight and kill in a war. Why can't we send our brightest young men and women to get an education which would be a help to all of America. Only the highest SAT's and scholarship and mental capability. If you don't have the brains, nobody can buy the kid in. No matter how rich you are. :yes: :biggrin:
I would bet in a short time these academies would set Harvard, Yale in the dust. :yes: :biggrin: Then maybe we could break the chain and lock that these big Eastern colleges has on Washington DC. :yeah: :biggrin:
In 2010, there were 20,000 full ride scholarships given to various private and state colleges.
United States Air Force Academy - 4,543 enrolled
United States Naval Academy - 4,494 enrolled
Massachusetts Maritime Academy - 1,117 enrolled
United States Military Academy (West Point) - 3,390 enrolled
All of these kids have to give 5 years military committment of Active duty, after they graduate.
If it was as you say troll, would these kids have to work (commit) for our government then for so many years? I think it would become too political.
I'm not 100% opposed to finding better ways to encourage kids to study and make something out of themselves....
My niece has a four year full ride scholarship to Ohio State because of her good grades. It covers everything except her transportation to the school and home again. She lives in the southwest. A friend's in-law had a full ride scholarship to AU that even included a stipend. I put this here as two examples that there are some very good scholarships out there in addition to athletic scholarships. You have to look for them.
That's true.
My granddaughter is on a full ride to Mercyhurst University -- not a dime from an athletic scholarship.
Carrying a 3.95 accum.
Do I sound like a doting grampa?????? :smitten: :smitten: :smitten: :smitten: :smitten:
Congratulations grampa! :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 30, 2012, 01:29:10 PM
In 2010, there were 20,000 full ride scholarships given to various private and state colleges.
United States Air Force Academy - 4,543 enrolled
United States Naval Academy - 4,494 enrolled
Massachusetts Maritime Academy - 1,117 enrolled
United States Military Academy (West Point) - 3,390 enrolled
All of these kids have to give 5 years military committment of Active duty, after they graduate.
If it was as you say troll, would these kids have to work (commit) for our government then for so many years? I think it would become too political.
I'm not 100% opposed to finding better ways to encourage kids to study and make something out of themselves....
WOW! 20,000 free rides. Let's see there is over 300 Million people here in this country. How many families are there out of this and how many children is there wanting to go to college? :confused:
Henry you're presenting a case where you won't have to pay to educate someone Else's kids. Even tho the government paid for your boy's education. In other words I paid for your boys education. Right? :yes: :yes: Cheap ass. :rant:
I didn't say they had to work for the government. I said that they have to stay in the country and pay taxes like any other middle class person. No matter how much they made or how many millions or billions they were worth. No 14.3% like Romney. Is that easier for you or many be you don't think they should pay taxes for the taxpayer paid for education. :rolleyes: :confused:
Quote from: The Troll on May 30, 2012, 06:36:01 PM
WOW! 20,000 free rides. Let's see there is over 300 Million people here in this country. How many families are there out of this and how many children is there wanting to go to college? :confused:
Henry you're presenting a case where you won't have to pay to educate someone Else's kids. Even tho the government paid for your boy's education. In other words I paid for your boys education. Right? :yes: :yes: Cheap ass. :rant:
I didn't say they had to work for the government. I said that they have to stay in the country and pay taxes like any other middle class person. No matter how much they made or how many millions or billions they were worth. No 14.3% like Romney. Is that easier for you or many be you don't think they should pay taxes for the taxpayer paid for education. :rolleyes: :confused:
I'm really not sure WHAT you just tried to say......as far as my boy, he gave took an oath to serve and protect our nation....he underwent some extensive training, and is ready to go to work at a minutes notice. That is part of our constitutional duties to provide a military.
On the other hand, I don't see anywhere in our constitution, where we are to provide free education to selective students.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 30, 2012, 06:44:27 PM
I'm really not sure WHAT you just tried to say......as far as my boy, he gave took an oath to serve and protect our nation....he underwent some extensive training, and is ready to go to work at a minutes notice. That is part of our constitutional duties to provide a military.
On the other hand, I don't see anywhere in our constitution, where we are to provide free education to selective students.
See, again a cheap ass. Also it doesn't say that we can't provide educations for selective students, what about the Peace Corp. The armed forces are very selective about who get in the services. It not like the old days when judges sent the bad boy to service. :yes:
What the hell is the difference, to give an education to serve America with brains not with your body as cannon fodder in war. :dead:
. Maybe the ones with the brains won't have to die in a foreign middle East country, like Romney wants to go to war in Iran and send troops to the new middle East rebellions. :doh: I sure hope your boy isn't sent over there and killed in another unneeded Middle East War. Try praying Henry. :pray: Remember you wanted him to go in the Armed Forces. :rifle: I sure wouldn't want my boy in danger, no matter how much I save on his education. :trustme: Scrooge McHawk. :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on May 30, 2012, 10:43:25 PM
See, again a cheap ass. Also it doesn't say that we can't provide educations for selective students, what about the Peace Corp. The armed forces are very selective about who get in the services. It not like the old days when judges sent the bad boy to service. :yes:
What the hell is the difference, to give an education to serve America with brains not with your body as cannon fodder in war. :dead:
. Maybe the ones with the brains won't have to die in a foreign middle East country, like Romney wants to go to war in Iran and send troops to the new middle East rebellions. :doh: I sure hope your boy isn't sent over there and killed in another unneeded Middle East War. Try praying Henry. :pray: Remember you wanted him to go in the Armed Forces. :rifle: I sure wouldn't want my boy in danger, no matter how much I save on his education. :trustme: Scrooge McHawk. :biggrin:
We need this to replace all of the people in Washington DC who has been to Harvard and Yale. :yes: :yes: