Obamney 2012 - Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate

Page 18 of 26 First ... 1617181920 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Yes, this is the FairTax Act.

    Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson calls for Fair Tax while visiting New Hampshire business incubator

    You can read the details at fairtax.org

    The tax will be obtained at the register, and low income family's will get pre-bates that will lower their overall effective tax rate on necessity's.
    And that is a reasonable approach. However, we need to make more of an investment in higher education. That means extending things like Pell grants, not cutting them. Making access to education affordable and easier for adults looking to transition and compete for available jobs. Education is what allows someone to move from one tax bracket to another, obviously heavily dependent on what you're studying. I'm not referring to liberal arts majors. I'm referring to things like math and science. People need to adapt to the current job market, not the other way around. I'll give you an example, prior to the Dodd/Frank Act being signed into law, most investment firms handled their own regulatory compliance responsibilities in-house, which was a huge drain on resources and productivity. We saw this as an opportunity and created a compliance firm as an off-shoot of the business, subsequently, we've seen growth each year since we've been in operation. It's essentially five guys handling the compliance responsibilities for mid-level size firms. The point is you have to remain adaptive to the environment. I'm not saying it is perfect for everyone, far from it. But you can't cut people off at the legs with expediency.

    I also have a friend who works for Verizon Wireless corporate, he saw an opportunity where wireless companies could presumably outsource the testing of third-party devices/wireless attachments, so he created a company that does just that. Within a year, he now has contracts with all the major carriers. It went from three guys with an idea, to now 15 guys and he's only 29. He took advantage of the existing market and made it work for him. Those are things that help to boost the economy and create jobs, market opportunities.


  2. SP, im all for education but how do we pay for this stuff this day in age?
    This message was paid for by the Russians
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    I'm not lauding my education, I consider myself lucky.
    you are a ****ing liar, you constantly laud your education. You have stated that managing to get that paper is a mark of higher intelligence, even though somehow in your liberal lack of logic you can say the Bush's didn't count. I'd imagine that no conservative's degree counts as a sign of intelligence.


    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    However, for some to trivialize education and tag someone or rather institutions as being "elitist" is the height of ignorance. Education is what took me out of one tax bracket and life path, and put me into another.
    The education system is a system, and graduates too many liberally brainwashed tards like you. Your attitude about education is elitist, as you've repeated stated that people reporting on news who don't have a degree are meaningless, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Do I believe in unlimited handouts? NO. Do I believe that some people are lazy and game the system? Yes? Do I also believe that some people just want a chance to improve their lives and need assistance in doing so? Yes. So it's a bit more complicated than painting everyone with a broad brush and saying let's get rid of all entitlements. You can't make drastic and immediate cuts to programs that some people utilize as a lifeline.
    you hit the essence right here. nobody anywhere has talked about eliminating all entitlements. But NONE of the entitlements other than social security were meant to be a lifetime lifeline. They were meant to be short term assistance. They have instead become lifestyles. The war on poverty started in the 60s with those and has been a worse abject failure than the war on drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    You can't tell a kid, whose parents can't afford to pay for them to go to college that you're cutting or taking away their Pell grants.
    Why not? college isn't a right, spending other people's money isn't a right


    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Investing in higher education is investing in the economy (not referring to lib art majors).
    Sure, that makes sense. but the government doesn't understand investing. The government is a non-profit organization, made up of people who primarily act in their own self interest to increase their power base. The government doesn't look at ROI because they don't expect return. The low rate easy to get high balance student loans are bad enough honestly, they whether you believe it or not have contributed to higher education's cost growing at a rate faster than anything else's inflation. Its outpaced health care costs. If borrowed money was tighter and harder for students to get, schools would be forced to control their costs or more students would be going to cheaper online schools, and school price would start being part of a competitive model again. Right now with the grant and loan structure, what one college costs vs another is irrelevant in the decision process.

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Now we do have to make some cuts but it must be done over a prolonged period of time. I also think in order to escape a narrow perspective, people should travel and I'm not referring to taking a trip to Cancun. So many people offer opinions about the rest of the world, when they've never even owned a passport.
    Yes, travel to spain to see 25% unemployment. And see a couple who is a policeman and middle school teacher with 2 kids living in an 800sqft flat with one crappy 12 year old car and one nicer 7 year old car, because that is all they can afford. Try england, and walking through liverpool where we have families who have lived on the dole for so many generations they cant imagine working. Try greece, where they riot in the streets over haviing to pay property taxes.

    Yes, cuts have to be done over a length of time, but we don't have a lot of time to do them in since the kick the can game has gone on so long. We already have more foreign owed debt per person than any other country on the globe. we have to reach balanced budget somewhere in the next 4-8 years to not see a greece-like reaction begin to happen. We'll see credit downgrades as our debt goes higher, which will raise the interest we pay. As of the end of bush's 2nd term with debt at 11-12 trillion, interest was on the order of 220 billion, near 10% of what got take in in taxes. The department of defense only gets 672.9 billion. All the other government programs combined not counting social security, defense, medicare/medicaid and interest come to just over a trillion. If we see our national debt double from that 12 trillion, and our interest rate goes up, we'll easily see interest eclipsing the cost of defense. Reality states that the deficit and debt truly is a national security concern, and far more important in the national interest (and "common good" as is used for the excuse of many non-constitutional programs) than many of the other things we spend money on.

    As I'm not a republican I don't believe we can't raise rates however I believe they need to be raised across the board. The amount of the total us tax burden the upper end pays is the highest percentage its been since before Reagan, and the percentage that the bottom 50% pay is the lowest its been since before then too. The idea that also somehow with social security heading towards bankruptcy that maintaing the 2% lowered contribution is a good idea is also bat**** crazy.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    And that is a reasonable approach. However, we need to make more of an investment in higher education. That means extending things like Pell grants, not cutting them. Making access to education affordable and easier for adults looking to transition and compete for available jobs. Education is what allows someone to move from one tax bracket to another, obviously heavily dependent on what you're studying. I'm not referring to liberal arts majors. I'm referring to things like math and science. People need to adapt to the current job market, not the other way around. I'll give you an example, prior to the Dodd/Frank Act being signed into law, most investment firms handled their own regulatory compliance responsibilities in-house, which was a huge drain on resources and productivity. We saw this as an opportunity and created a compliance firm as an off-shoot of the business, subsequently, we've seen growth each year since we've been in operation. It's essentially five guys handling the compliance responsibilities for mid-level size firms. The point is you have to remain adaptive to the environment. I'm not saying it is perfect for everyone, far from it. But you can't cut people off at the legs with expediency.
    I disagree with the investment into higher education. The government interference has driven up the cost of education to an astronomical high, and then instituted federal student loans which drove it up even higher. Education cost only sky rocketed when government interferance stepped in saying everyone has a right to education (Just like they did with the community reinvestment act written by Carter and given real life by Clinton, which blew up the housing market).

    As for Frank/Dodd, that just gave more power to the Fed... I have more on that, but have a meeting!
    The Historic PES Legend

  5. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    And that is a reasonable approach. However, we need to make more of an investment in higher education. That means extending things like Pell grants, not cutting them. Making access to education affordable and easier for adults looking to transition and compete for available jobs. Education is what allows someone to move from one tax bracket to another, obviously heavily dependent on what you're studying. I'm not referring to liberal arts majors. I'm referring to things like math and science. People need to adapt to the current job market, not the other way around. I'll give you an example, prior to the Dodd/Frank Act being signed into law, most investment firms handled their own regulatory compliance responsibilities in-house, which was a huge drain on resources and productivity. We saw this as an opportunity and created a compliance firm as an off-shoot of the business, subsequently, we've seen growth each year since we've been in operation. It's essentially five guys handling the compliance responsibilities for mid-level size firms. The point is you have to remain adaptive to the environment. I'm not saying it is perfect for everyone, far from it. But you can't cut people off at the legs with expediency.

    I also have a friend who works for Verizon Wireless corporate, he saw an opportunity where wireless companies could presumably outsource the testing of third-party devices/wireless attachments, so he created a company that does just that. Within a year, he now has contracts with all the major carriers. It went from three guys with an idea, to now 15 guys and he's only 29. He took advantage of the existing market and made it work for him. Those are things that help to boost the economy and create jobs, market opportunities.
    again though, we don't need to spend more. We can spend even less than we do today, but spend it in a targeted way. Even keep the amount the same, but structure it as a loan that is automatically paid off at the end of graduation and only for certain degree programs, the ones that the economy actually needs. I'd be all for that. They change majors in their junior year from Electronic Engineering to Jazz Studies and the loan is no longer automatically paid off.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    I disagree with the investment into higher education. The government interference has driven up the cost of education to an astronomical high, and then instituted federal student loans which drove it up even higher. Education cost only sky rocketed when government interferance stepped in saying everyone has a right to education (Just like they did with the community reinvestment act written by Carter and given real life by Clinton, which blew up the housing market).

    As for Frank/Dodd, that just gave more power to the Fed... I have more on that, but have a meeting!
    Frank/Dodd like most legislation created by goobers in congress in both parties who have no understanding of economics or the industry they are trying to regulate just created more headaches, more cost to business with little real change for consumers.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    you are a ****ing liar, you constantly laud your education. You have stated that managing to get that paper is a mark of higher intelligence, even though somehow in your liberal lack of logic you can say the Bush's didn't count. I'd imagine that no conservative's degree counts as a sign of intelligence.




    The education system is a system, and graduates too many liberally brainwashed tards like you. Your attitude about education is elitist, as you've repeated stated that people reporting on news who don't have a degree are meaningless, etc.




    you hit the essence right here. nobody anywhere has talked about eliminating all entitlements. But NONE of the entitlements other than social security were meant to be a lifetime lifeline. They were meant to be short term assistance. They have instead become lifestyles. The war on poverty started in the 60s with those and has been a worse abject failure than the war on drugs.



    Why not? college isn't a right, spending other people's money isn't a right




    Sure, that makes sense. but the government doesn't understand investing. The government is a non-profit organization, made up of people who primarily act in their own self interest to increase their power base. The government doesn't look at ROI because they don't expect return. The low rate easy to get high balance student loans are bad enough honestly, they whether you believe it or not have contributed to higher education's cost growing at a rate faster than anything else's inflation. Its outpaced health care costs. If borrowed money was tighter and harder for students to get, schools would be forced to control their costs or more students would be going to cheaper online schools, and school price would start being part of a competitive model again. Right now with the grant and loan structure, what one college costs vs another is irrelevant in the decision process.



    Yes, travel to spain to see 25% unemployment. And see a couple who is a policeman and middle school teacher with 2 kids living in an 800sqft flat with one crappy 12 year old car and one nicer 7 year old car, because that is all they can afford. Try england, and walking through liverpool where we have families who have lived on the dole for so many generations they cant imagine working. Try greece, where they riot in the streets over haviing to pay property taxes.

    Yes, cuts have to be done over a length of time, but we don't have a lot of time to do them in since the kick the can game has gone on so long. We already have more foreign owed debt per person than any other country on the globe. we have to reach balanced budget somewhere in the next 4-8 years to not see a greece-like reaction begin to happen. We'll see credit downgrades as our debt goes higher, which will raise the interest we pay. As of the end of bush's 2nd term with debt at 11-12 trillion, interest was on the order of 220 billion, near 10% of what got take in in taxes. The department of defense only gets 672.9 billion. All the other government programs combined not counting social security, defense, medicare/medicaid and interest come to just over a trillion. If we see our national debt double from that 12 trillion, and our interest rate goes up, we'll easily see interest eclipsing the cost of defense. Reality states that the deficit and debt truly is a national security concern, and far more important in the national interest (and "common good" as is used for the excuse of many non-constitutional programs) than many of the other things we spend money on.

    As I'm not a republican I don't believe we can't raise rates however I believe they need to be raised across the board. The amount of the total us tax burden the upper end pays is the highest percentage its been since before Reagan, and the percentage that the bottom 50% pay is the lowest its been since before then too. The idea that also somehow with social security heading towards bankruptcy that maintaing the 2% lowered contribution is a good idea is also bat**** crazy.
    Obviously you and I will never see eye to eye on education, for rather obvious reasons. Of course in your small world educated people are brainwashed "tards," while uneducated individuals like yourself simply delude themselves.

    You can say I laud my education, however, I prefer to say I advocate education. You live in your tiny little bubble out there in the southeast and somehow think that applies to the rest of the country, sadly, this makes you think you're informed. Comedy. What's funny is because this part of the forum is one massive conservative/libertarian circle jerk no one questions you when toss out insults, presumably because they share the same ideology as you. But since we're trading insults, you should stick to reviewing fatburners, since that is clearly where you've peaked.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Frank/Dodd like most legislation created by goobers in congress in both parties who have no understanding of economics or the industry they are trying to regulate just created more headaches, more cost to business with little real change for consumers.
    But you have insight into different economic models, applications and real world practice? Oh please, enlighten us...

  9. But southpaw, lets say everybody goes to school and gets a degree, then what? We will have a bunch of college graduates washing dishes at a diner. Fact is why invest in higher education when right now we can't even hire them all?
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  10. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    again though, we don't need to spend more. We can spend even less than we do today, but spend it in a targeted way. Even keep the amount the same, but structure it as a loan that is automatically paid off at the end of graduation and only for certain degree programs, the ones that the economy actually needs. I'd be all for that. They change majors in their junior year from Electronic Engineering to Jazz Studies and the loan is no longer automatically paid off.
    And how exactly do you structure these loans to be paid off "immediately" upon graduation? You're a guy who likes to throw out a ton of ideas, yet you hardly offer ANY details on how to go about putting those ideas into practice. Let's see some...(in before a grown man writes "tard" and "goober" again)

  11. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    But southpaw, lets say everybody goes to school and gets a degree, then what? We will have a bunch of college graduates washing dishes at a diner. Fact is why invest in higher education when right now we can't even hire them all?
    Where are you coming up with this? I read one of your comments where you likened that example to what is happening in parts of Asia. However, what you fail to mention are that there are dominant industries there, like the tech sector. So you have thousands of people competing for the same industry. That IS NOT what I'm saying. You can invest in VARIOUS areas like economics/finance, accounting, technology/engineering, law etc. Those are areas that will continue to expand and see growth and create jobs. I cited some examples up above from personal first-hand experience.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    But you have insight into different economic models, their applications and real world practice? Oh please, enlighten us...
    Just to give you one of the simpler points that maybe even you can understand... One of the ways in which banks made profit was charges on the interchange system for handling atm and some other electronically processed transactions. Due to sensitivity none of that travels across the interenet, but across leased lines and a full separate network, which the banks maintained themselves. They'd charge __ cents per transaction, which was part of why using an atm other than your financial instution gets you charged a fee. Dodd/Frank cut + removed those charges with the goal of "lowering the cost to consumers". But that is moronic, as the banks to acheive profit need to have a certain level of income to overcome costs. So what do the banks do? they pass the charges for maintaining that network to consumers another way, not on those particular fees. So what Dodd/Frank "accomplished" with that part was to take charges that were being charged as direct usage charges for a system to the charges being spread over all sorts of things that had nothing to do with using that system.

    its the series of unintended consequences of people who don't truly understand a system manipulating it. The same was true with the law about not charging bounce fees on debit transactions that are allowed to go through taking an account negative unless the person opted in to that. There are many things that the politicians (both sides) do with good intentions that in the end don't particularly accomplish their goal and actually create new problems without particularly solving their initial goal.

    Part of the concept of Dodd/Frank was to help protect consumers, and lower banking costs for consumers. But as you noted, it added significant cost to FIs in terms of a lot of the compliance to the point where your company founded a profitable growing subsidiary on it. Did they not think that the added costs to the FIs would be just passed along to consumers? Its hard to imagine a bill that increases the costs of doing business to lower the cost to the consumer, but government officials seem to believe that magic is possible. It was evident with Clinton's HIPPA act as well. Part of its goal was to lower health care costs, while saddling health care providers and insurers with a huge mass of new cost complying with all the regulations. It never works to lower costs, only manages to raise them, while creating new federal level departments to oversee it.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    And how exactly do you structure these loans to be paid off "immediately" upon graduation? You're a guy who likes to throw out a ton of ideas, yet you hardly offer ANY details on how to go about putting those ideas into practice. Let's see some...(in before a grown man writes "tard" and "goober" again)
    It seems you don't particularly believe in contracts, at least not when its the constitution. But its all just in how the contract is worded. It could be a regular student loan till the person graduates or leaves being at least a half time student, that is fully paid (or some $ amount of grants are applied to the balance of) upon proof of graduation with a degree with a major selected from the list of ones that will help drive the economy forwards. Engineering, health care is also critical. Other hard math + science degrees as well. What goes in that list can easily be debated. But it would either reduce the cost of pell grants that we have today, or make them far more valuable to the economy and give the government some tangible ROI.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Where are you coming up with this? I read one of your comments where you likened that example to what is happening in parts of Asia. However, what you fail to mention are that there are dominant industries there, like the tech sector. So you have thousands of people competing for the same industry. That IS NOT what I'm saying. You can invest in VARIOUS areas like economics/finance, accounting, technology/engineering, law etc. Those are areas that will continue to expand and see growth and create jobs. I cited some examples up above from personal first-hand experience.
    see? here I totally agree with you. Hard science for research, biochemistry, technology. Right now there is a light shortage of tech workers, which gets worse year by year. Bill Gates I beleive projects having over 1 million technology related jobs that we can't fill in the US by 2020, due to the lack of people graduating with technology degrees. That is totally crazy, and is something that significantly holds back our growth as a service based economy.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Where are you coming up with this? I read one of your comments where you likened that example to what is happening in parts of Asia. However, what you fail to mention are that there are dominant industries there, like the tech sector. So you have thousands of people competing for the same industry. That IS NOT what I'm saying. You can invest in VARIOUS areas like economics/finance, accounting, technology/engineering, law etc. Those are areas that will continue to expand and see growth and create jobs. I cited some examples up above from personal first-hand experience.
    Yes china has too many college graduates and not enough job supply (real jobs).

    It becomes a matter of quantity decreases the value of the degree.

    Its already a big problem in the USA degrees aren't meaningful as much as they used to be, too many cant find jobs or work where they are overqualified.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  16. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    see? here I totally agree with you. Hard science for research, biochemistry, technology. Right now there is a light shortage of tech workers, which gets worse year by year. Bill Gates I beleive projects having over 1 million technology related jobs that we can't fill in the US by 2020, due to the lack of people graduating with technology degrees. That is totally crazy, and is something that significantly holds back our growth as a service based economy.
    I'm all for this I'm just saying you can't tax and pay for everyone to have an education it's impractical.Should be selective.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  17. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Just to give you one of the simpler points that maybe even you can understand... One of the ways in which banks made profit was charges on the interchange system for handling atm and some other electronically processed transactions. Due to sensitivity none of that travels across the interenet, but across leased lines and a full separate network, which the banks maintained themselves. They'd charge __ cents per transaction, which was part of why using an atm other than your financial instution gets you charged a fee. Dodd/Frank cut + removed those charges with the goal of "lowering the cost to consumers". But that is moronic, as the banks to acheive profit need to have a certain level of income to overcome costs. So what do the banks do? they pass the charges for maintaining that network to consumers another way, not on those particular fees. So what Dodd/Frank "accomplished" with that part was to take charges that were being charged as direct usage charges for a system to the charges being spread over all sorts of things that had nothing to do with using that system.

    its the series of unintended consequences of people who don't truly understand a system manipulating it. The same was true with the law about not charging bounce fees on debit transactions that are allowed to go through taking an account negative unless the person opted in to that. There are many things that the politicians (both sides) do with good intentions that in the end don't particularly accomplish their goal and actually create new problems without particularly solving their initial goal.



    Part of the concept of Dodd/Frank was to help protect consumers, and lower banking costs for consumers. But as you noted, it added significant cost to FIs in terms of a lot of the compliance to the point where your company founded a profitable growing subsidiary on it. Did they not think that the added costs to the FIs would be just passed along to consumers? Its hard to imagine a bill that increases the costs of doing business to lower the cost to the consumer, but government officials seem to believe that magic is possible. It was evident with Clinton's HIPPA act as well. Part of its goal was to lower health care costs, while saddling health care providers and insurers with a huge mass of new cost complying with all the regulations. It never works to lower costs, only manages to raise them, while creating new federal level departments to oversee it.
    The banks were experiencing issues with financial viability PRIOR to Dodd/Frank being enacted, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Wachovia is is prime evidence of that. Bank of America? Same issues, prior to Dodd/Frank, which was created with the intent of protecting consumer "investments." We all know who Madoff is, however there were many other IA's who cost their clients full pensions, investments, 401ks due to widespread abuses, fraud and mismanagement. How do I know this, apart from reading a headline? I work in the industry. I personally worked with two clients who defrauded their investors. Here is one -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Schrenker

    These consumer protections have ensured the viability of client accounts. Prior to Dodd/Frank, examine the number of complaints received by the SEC from investors versus what they are today. They are substantially lower than they were prior to oversight. As for healthcare, years ago, I was denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition. You know what the pre-existing condition was? High cholesterol. Since my body naturally produces higher amounts of cholesterol (rolled snake eyes on genetics), it meant that when shopping around for insurance policies, it would cost me as much as a small mortgage payment, because cholesterol is viewed as high risk for other health issues. That is unrealistic, in one of the ONLY industries that has experienced growth despite an economic downturn, do I feel sorry for insurance companies now having to absorb higher costs? Hell no. My premiums are lower today, than they've ever been....EVER BEEN. When an insurance company now has to worry to about competing with lower cost alternative plan subsidized by the government or not, we all win. They can either keep their premiums high, or forced to lower them by competing for business, and that is a good thing for consumers.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    It seems you don't particularly believe in contracts, at least not when its the constitution. But its all just in how the contract is worded. It could be a regular student loan till the person graduates or leaves being at least a half time student, that is fully paid (or some $ amount of grants are applied to the balance of) upon proof of graduation with a degree with a major selected from the list of ones that will help drive the economy forwards. Engineering, health care is also critical. Other hard math + science degrees as well. What goes in that list can easily be debated. But it would either reduce the cost of pell grants that we have today, or make them far more valuable to the economy and give the government some tangible ROI.
    Two questions, WHO is paying off the ENTIRE loan upon graduation? And more importantly HOW? And yes Pell Grants are vitally important to college students. I have a friend whose income jumped from early 30k to over 70k, as she earned her degree and became a paralegal at a law firm, all this as a direct result of Pell Grants. Now she spends more, which is a good thing for the economy. She just purchased her first home. Education and easier access to it, opens the doors to growth, both personally, and economically.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Two questions, WHO is paying off the ENTIRE loan upon graduation? And more importantly HOW?
    Its simple companies can compete for to sign or draft top students in the nation. Kind of like athletes but this is far more important.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  20. So this carbon tax malarchy. This impacts all O&G companies?

    Or everyone?

    I am fecked either way. My consulting is all around utilities!
    MEM->DCA->PHL->MEM

  21. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Two questions, WHO is paying off the ENTIRE loan upon graduation? And more importantly HOW? And yes Pell Grants are vitally important to college students. I have a friend who's income jumped from early 30k to over 70k, as she earned her degree and became a paralegal at a law firm, all this as a direct result of Pell Grants. Now she spends more, which is a good thing for the economy and just purchased her first home. Education and easier access to it, opens the doors to growth, both personally, and economically.
    You remove the pell grant system as it is, and use that funding (or more if necessary) to pay those loans off on graduation. I'm not sure what you mean as a how, this would be a specialized student loan program that is self paying at graduation. It effectively makes the grants only applicable if you study a needed area, and graduate.

    The same program would/should work for that woman you know, if the degree she was getting was something in the valuable category

  22. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Its simple companies can compete for to sign or draft top students in the nation. Kind of like athletes but this is far more important.
    Many companies will only cover a certain percentage of your tuition, or offer bonuses upon hiring you. That still does not come close to helping students pay off their debt faster and ultimately become more proactive as consumers.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    You remove the pell grant system as it is, and use that funding (or more if necessary) to pay those loans off on graduation. I'm not sure what you mean as a how, this would be a specialized student loan program that is self paying at graduation. It effectively makes the grants only applicable if you study a needed area, and graduate.

    The same program would/should work for that woman you know, if the degree she was getting was something in the valuable category
    Those are two different concepts, grants vs loans. What if your parents can't afford to co-sign for the loan? Pell Grants are designed to ease that burden.Colleges are setup to receive payment right away, not AFTER you graduate. The loans/grants cover immediate payment to the institution.In principle it sounds a like a good idea, in practical terms not so sure. In terms of what is viewed as a valuable degree, that is relative to financial compensation. She essentially doubled her salary, in addition to year end bonuses. Now she spends more which ultimately benefits businesses and the economy.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Many companies will only cover a certain percentage of your tuition, or offer bonuses upon hiring you. That still does not come close to helping students pay off their debt faster and ultimately become more proactive as consumers.
    Well that's what the job is for, you work and pay off your own loan. The job doesn't have to do anything other than send you a check that you earned.

    why should anyone help pay for someone's own personal decisions?
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  25. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Those are two different concepts, grants vs loans. What if your parents can't afford to co-sign for the loan? Pell Grants are designed to ease that burden.Colleges are setup to receive payment right away, not AFTER you graduate. The loans/grants cover immediate payment to the institution.In principle it sounds a like a good idea, in practical terms not so sure. In terms of what is viewed as a valuable degree, that is relative to financial compensation. She essentially doubled her salary, in addition to year end bonuses. Now she spends more which ultimately benefits businesses and the economy.
    I feel like you are disagreeing just to disagree. There isn't any reason a parent needs to cosign on a loan from the federal government. There isn't a reason we should offer grants (ie spend other taxpayer's money) for degrees that are not useful to the economy. That is not spending tax dollars for "the common good". Lets say you qualify for the max pell grant amount, $5500. you sign a federal loan for $5500, that is paid for at the time of your graduation by the $5500 pell grant so long as your degree is in areas valuable to growing our economy. No interest accrues inbetween you starting college and you either graduating or going below half time. Its not really that complex. But it changes from giving free money so someone can study basketweaving, or go two years then drop out because they don't get to only truly subsidizing useful education.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-05-2011, 11:21 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 07:54 PM
  3. Giving blood and workout out - not at the same time of course
    By TheNinja in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-11-2007, 01:36 PM
  4. Are they the same? Methyl-1-Test.
    By gorillaproject in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-09-2003, 10:47 AM
  5. Does 19Nor and 1, 4 compete for the same enzyme?
    By windwords7 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-21-2002, 09:50 PM
Log in
Log in