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.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.Two questions, WHO is paying off the ENTIRE loan upon graduation? And more importantly HOW?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
It will effect every one in one way or another.So this carbon tax malarchy. This impacts all O&G companies?
Or everyone?
I am fecked either way. My consulting is all around utilities!
That's not my point, I was referring to the importance of Pell Grants.You were the one who brought up the idea of companies paying off loans for employees upon graduation, based on talent. So you based on your own example, you could ask yourself the same question.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?
No, you allow companies to bid or draft on top students. They don't have to its just there only if they see value in students involved with the draft.That's not my point, I was referring to the importance of Pell Grants.You were the one who brought up the idea of companies paying off loans for employees upon graduation, based on talent. So you based on your own example, you could ask yourself the same question.
I believe EVERYONE is entitled to the best education possible, provided they are accepted into a given institution based on whatever criteria that institution has laid out for admittance, academic or otherwise. That is far different than comparing it to the crash of the housing market, where I agree certain loans should have never been provided in the first place to people who couldn't afford it. Now if you provide people who are "capable" based solely on the criteria of whatever institution they apply to (in other words not everyone), with easier access to an education, now you lift those people out of the bracket they are in, from where they should have never been qualified for a mortgage in the first place, to now effectively giving them the ability to compete for higher compensation employment, it's transitional and it works. That's a plan, as evidenced by my earlier example of a friend effectively doubling her salary and becoming a paralegal thanks to an education, courtesy of Pell Grants. And now she's a homeowner. That system works. She spends more now, than she did before which benefits business.
no, again, you selecting a single example and saying "it works" is contrary to the reality that more than 2/3 of the pell grants are going to students who never complete college, or get degrees in liberal arts things that have no fiscal value to the economy. You want to get a degree in classical violin? God bless you, enjoy, and pay for it yourself. If you want a degree in nursing, chemical engineering, etc it makes sense for the government to help you acheive that.Now if you provide people who are "capable" based solely on the criteria of whatever institution they apply to (in other words not everyone), with easier access to an education, now you lift those people out of the bracket they are in, from where they should have never been qualified for a mortgage in the first place, to now effectively giving them the ability to compete for higher compensation employment, it's transitional and it works. That's a plan, as evidenced by my earlier example of a friend effectively doubling her salary and becoming a paralegal thanks to an education, courtesy of Pell Grants. And now she's a homeowner. That system works. She spends more now, than she did before which benefits business.
If you read my earlier posts, then you'd realize I agree with the contention that liberal arts majors should not receive these benefits. I specifically highlighted areas like law, technology/engineering, accounting, finance, medicine etc. I've stated that numerous times. If you go to college to major in sociology, then you should plan on working the rest of your life at Kinko's as shift manager of the printer section. And there are many cases where parents cannot afford to send their kids to college, or even qualify for a loan. I've seen this firsthand. Now you have a bright 18 year old kid, who forfeits much of his/her future because he/she can't afford to pay for school, especially when these kids qualify at one school or another in those areas that I specified. What do you do with these kids? Continue the cycle? It is vitally important to foster those types of education, as they graduate, go out and compete for skilled labor and ultimately end up making higher than average compensation, it allows credit to go where it needs to go, homes, businesses etc. That benefits everyone.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.
Then we'll continue to fall behind in education and wasted talent. Talent is great, but it must be fostered and invested in. I don't mind my tax dollars going towards fostering that talent. (again in the areas that I specified above, so no one brings up liberal arts degrees)No, you allow companies to bid or draft on top students. They don't have to its just there only if they see value in students involved with the draft.
Everybody should be entitled to their own freedom. If a charity want to pay for someone's education or a company chooses to invest that's thei choice, but robbing of people's labor and income so others can get free things is morally wrong.
Well you can donate or start a charity today if you want (unless you have already.)Then we'll continue to fall behind in education and wasted talent. Talent is great, but it must be fostered and invested in. I don't mind my tax dollars going towards fostering that talent. (again in the areas that I specified above, so no one brings up liberal arts degrees)
If their parents can't afford to pay for school, then they should be able to get loans. Thats the way it works you know, the loans from the federal government are based on income. As are grants. Just the dollars need to be targeted dollars, not a giveaway to anyone.If you read my earlier posts, then you'd realize I agree with the contention that liberal arts majors should not receive these benefits. I specifically highlighted areas like law, technology/engineering, accounting, finance, medicine etc. I've stated that numerous times. If you go to college to major in sociology, then you should plan on working the rest of your life at Kinko's as shift manager of the printer section. And there are many cases where parents cannot afford to send their kids to college, or even qualify for a loan. I've seen this firsthand. Now you have a bright 18 year old kid, who forfeits much of his/her future because he/she can't afford to pay for school, especially when these kids qualify at one school or another in those areas that I specified. What do you do with these kids? Continue the cycle? It is vitally important to foster those types of education, as they graduate, go out and compete for skilled labor and ultimately end up making higher than average compensation, it allows credit to go where it needs to go, homes, businesses etc. That benefits everyone.
Do you know how much the average cost of those specialized degrees area? They are in excess at top tier schools ranging anywhere between 50-60k on average, and in some school even more than that. I'm not referring to community colleges or online universities. I'm referring to schools, where these kids gain admittance based on academics. I know of hundreds of kids who have used grants to pay for school, and couldn't qualify for loans because of credit history. What do you do with those kids? What do you say to them? Not invest in their academic talent? Continue the economic cycle for them that is so hard to break out of? I went to school with a kid who grew up without a father, he's now a doctor, thanks to the help he's received from numerous people, including coming from tax dollars. I'd say that's a worthy investment.
He can join the service and earn our tax dollars instead of stealing it.I'll go ahead and give the example of one of the occupy protestors, who went through 8 years of college on a combination of grants and student loans, who was there protesting for student loan forgiveness since he couldn't find a job. His degrees? the bachelors was in classical literature, and the masters was in something more or less equivalent to spiritual and paranormal literature of the 18th + 19th century.Seriously? Like he should have gotten the grants in the first place, but now he wants the rest of the taxpayers to pay for his dumb choice in majors?
Like medicine, the price will sky rocket. Plus taxes have to go up screwing people who choose not to fly.What does everyone here think about centralizing airlines?I always thought the Fed Govt needs to ground the pricing scheme on the airlines.
I will leave the pissing match to the rest of you all.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.
Great for you, but for every business that is created, there are 10 others that fail. Not everyone is equipped to run or manage a business. Investing in skilled employment through education leads to better pay, leads to more spending and ultimately benefits everyone. It's a difference in approach and philosophy as to how you grow the economy. You can say the supply side model should work in theory, less regulation, businesses keep more money in-house and reinvesting in their companies. If a company is publicly traded, they have a responsibility to shareholders, public investors to grow that business. But is that actually what they do? What was rate of growth on salaries during the periods when the supply-side model was in place? What were the rates of growth on investment returns? I'll tell you, they were poor. Management of these companies fared very well, however, their employees? Not so much. Everyone thinks they have the right idea to get the economy moving. Flat taxes, cutting spending (which needs to be done, but in reasonable fashion over a prolonged period of time). But they refuse to engage you in a an honest and open policy discussion. How deep are these cuts? And to what programs? What tax deductions do you want to see stripped? Mortgage deduction? See the devil is in the details, it's easy to say, cut, cut, cut, lower taxes, or take a balanced approached, with measured cuts over a set period of time, while still reinvesting in education, that leads to better jobs and more consumer spending.If people want to get an education they can go to the library and pick up a book.There are plenty of jobs in our system that don't require higher education.Anyone can start their own business. it's easy if you intelligent enough.Dont mean to show off but I started my own business when I was down to a 5lb protein container of change, and my college education has nothing to do with what I do.
the prolonged period of time can't be much longer than 8 years at the current point we are at fiscally and debt wise. As I showed with the numbers from the budgets and spending of the federal government, if we haven't stopped the rising debt within that time, we'll be hitting the "unsustainable debt" levels. The budgets put forth by either Romney or Obama didn't get anywhere close to that. So be ready for some pretty horrible crap to begin happening starting sometime around 2022-2025.Great for you, but for every business that is created, there are 10 others that fail. Not everyone is equipped to run or manage a business. Investing in skilled employment through education leads to better pay, leads to more spending and ultimately benefits everyone. It's a difference in approach and philosophy as to how you grow the economy. You can say the supply side model should work in theory, less regulation, businesses keep more money in-house and reinvesting in their companies. If a company is publicly traded, they have a responsibility to shareholders, public investors to grow that business. But is that actually what they do? What was rate of growth on salaries during the periods when the supply-side model was in place? What were the rates of growth on investment returns? I'll tell you, they were poor. Management of these companies fared very well, however, their employees? Not so much. Everyone thinks they have the right idea to get the economy moving. Flat taxes, cutting spending (which needs to be done, but in reasonable fashion over a prolonged period of time). But they refuse to engage you in a an honest and open policy discussion. How deep are these cuts? And to what programs? What tax deductions do you want to see stripped? Mortgage deduction? See the devil is in the details, it's easy to say, cut, cut, cut, lower taxes, or take a balanced approached, with measured cuts over a set period of time, while still reinvesting in education, that leads to better jobs and more consumer spending.
This is the problem with our flawed tax code. The mortgage deduction shouldn't exist at all. Can't afford a mortgage taxes? Rent. In fact, where shouldn't be one deduction available at all.Great for you, but for every business that is created, there are 10 others that fail. Not everyone is equipped to run or manage a business. Investing in skilled employment through education leads to better pay, leads to more spending and ultimately benefits everyone. It's a difference in approach and philosophy as to how you grow the economy. You can say the supply side model should work in theory, less regulation, businesses keep more money in-house and reinvesting in their companies. If a company is publicly traded, they have a responsibility to shareholders, public investors to grow that business. But is that actually what they do? What was rate of growth on salaries during the periods when the supply-side model was in place? What were the rates of growth on investment returns? I'll tell you, they were poor. Management of these companies fared very well, however, their employees? Not so much. Everyone thinks they have the right idea to get the economy moving. Flat taxes, cutting spending (which needs to be done, but in reasonable fashion over a prolonged period of time). But they refuse to engage you in a an honest and open policy discussion. How deep are these cuts? And to what programs? What tax deductions do you want to see stripped? Mortgage deduction? See the devil is in the details, it's easy to say, cut, cut, cut, lower taxes, or take a balanced approached, with measured cuts over a set period of time, while still reinvesting in education, that leads to better jobs and more consumer spending.
The hole is being dug so deep and the Fed keeps inflating the dollar.The fact is if we don't cut spending drastically now, by nature it will cut it for us.the prolonged period of time can't be much longer than 8 years at the current point we are at fiscally and debt wise. As I showed with the numbers from the budgets and spending of the federal government, if we haven't stopped the rising debt within that time, we'll be hitting the "unsustainable debt" levels. The budgets put forth by either Romney or Obama didn't get anywhere close to that. So be ready for some pretty horrible crap to begin happening starting sometime around 2022-2025.
8-10 to years is a reasonable approach. They need to compromise on a budget. Not one side saying cut EVERYTHING with expediency. And not the without the other side addressing spending. Three issues need to be incorporated into a bill that sets a period of time 8-10 years (economists have backed such plans), where cuts are made (within reason), spending is curtailed (budget) and revenue growth. All three must be addressed and in reasonable fashion. Now you can debate the plans that are floating out there, but cut, cut, cut, lower taxes shouldn't be the line in the sand. If every budget you present has tax cuts in it for the top earners, and you draw a line in the sand refusing to step away from that position, then the issue becomes inflexible. I agree cuts must be made, but done so in reasonable fashion, not slash and burn.the prolonged period of time can't be much longer than 8 years at the current point we are at fiscally and debt wise. As I showed with the numbers from the budgets and spending of the federal government, if we haven't stopped the rising debt within that time, we'll be hitting the "unsustainable debt" levels. The budgets put forth by either Romney or Obama didn't get anywhere close to that. So be ready for some pretty horrible crap to begin happening starting sometime around 2022-2025.
He's launching the death star, it's aimed at your bedroom window. Take cover behind the Tom Brady poster.How do you cut the budget within reason with an unreasonable deficit?
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama launched wwiii.
It worked the last ww. When countries are on the brink of collapse all desperate measures are on the table, and war works.He's launching the death star, it's aimed at your bedroom window. Take cover behind the Tom Brady poster.
What about for people who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for employment, but no one is hiring. Should the deductions be stripped away for them too? What about tax incentives for companies that open businesses in a given state, then turn around and outsource labor. Should those tax incentives remain in place? Or is that just considered "good" business?This is the problem with our flawed tax code. The mortgage deduction shouldn't exist at all. Can't afford a mortgage taxes? Rent. In fact, where shouldn't be one deduction available at all.
Want to save? Can chop about 30 "Departments" out of the Gov. Dept. of Edu is completely unconstitutional, and the DHS? Come on now. We already had that, it is called the military. "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" That was the first line of the oath I took to get in. At least the Constitution lends the power of protection to setup the criminal DHS.
The federal Gov. has expanded well beyond its enumerated powers in the Constitution that set it up. Little by little America has been complacent and allowing their freedoms to be taken in the name of security, or because the idea of Uncle Sam's new cradle to grave campaign.
Yes. There is nothing you can do.What about for people who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for employment, but no one is hiring. Should the deductions be stripped away for them too? What about tax incentives for companies to open businesses in a given state, then turn around and outsource labor. Should those tax incentives remain in place? Or is that just considered "good" business?
Lol. Government has chased out companies to other countries? Really? We don't manufacture anything! AT&T has been outsourcing jobs for YEARS, while still receiving tax benefits. Why should employees lose their jobs and their benefits as well, simply because they aren't a corporation. That's ridiculous. At our compliance firm, we could have chosen to outsource the IT/data systems to another country(it is far cheaper), but we chose to hire an IT graduate here, while offering him a competitive salary. The reasons these companies outsource jobs in the first place, is based on one reason and one reason only...cheap labor. That's where it begins and that is where it ends.Yes. There is nothing you can do.
A good in incentive for companies is when government starts leaving them alone. As you can see government has chased our companies to other countries.
Well, of course you can pick an example of a flourishing business in this country. Apple is flourishing, and although the iphones are designed in California, they are made in China.Lol. Government has chased out companies to other countries? Really? We don't manufacture anything! AT&T has been outsourcing jobs for YEARS, while still receiving tax benefits. Why should employees lose their jobs and their benefits as well, simply because they aren't a corporation. That's ridiculous. At our compliance firm, we could have chosen to outsource the IT/data systems to another country(it is far cheaper), but we chose to hire an IT graduate here, while offering him a competitive salary. The reasons these companies outsource jobs in the first place, is based on one reason and one reason only...cheap labor. That's where it begins and that is where it ends.
There was a point not long ago where it was all about global freezing....not long ago they changed it from global warming to "climate change" after the science lab leaks showing it was a ponzie scheme.How do people believe this climate change ****.
So company due to mismanagement, lays off thousands of workers, no severance payments with many losing their pensions in the process. Now they are forced to look for work, but no one is hiring, eventually they are unable to keep up with their mortgage payments and end up losing their homes. What do you say to these people? Sorry...you played by the rules but you're on your own. Meanwhile the company can sell off its debt and restructure, once again receiving benefits, while management walks away with massive bonuses. That's your idea of a plan? That's fair? Or are you simply marrying yourself to a philosophy, an ideal and opting to remain inflexible?Well, of course you can pick an example of a flourishing business in this country. Apple is flourishing, and although the iphones are designed in California, they are made in China.
There shouldnt be tax benefits, there should be no tax.
If an employee loses their job their benefits go bye bye. Who is going to pay for it? Its unfortunate but there is nothing you can do.
Its not just cheap labor, its also taxes and regulation. Throw in mandate benefits such as Obama care business are losing their incentives to keep full time employees. Its a bit more complicated than just picking on cheap labor.
Exactly. There was a day not long ago that if you needed medical treatment you can go to some small Church Hospital/Office and if you had no money they would just help you, or you gave what you can. After government meddles with health care costs skyrocketed and all these places went out of business.If the government trys to fix anything the price sky rockets
You have to learn self dependence and reliance. People should be smart enough to know this can happen to them at any time and should be prepared for it. Permanent dependence on a job to support you and take care of you the rest of your life can be a tragic mistake. After all your just statistic to them.So company due to mismanagement, lays off thousands of workers, no severance payments with many losing their pensions in the process. Now they are forced to look for work, but no one is hiring, eventually they are unable to keep up with their mortgage payments and end up losing their homes. What do you say to these people? Sorry...you played by the rules but you're on your own. Meanwhile the company can sell off its debt and restructure, once again receiving benefits, while management walks away with massive bonuses. That's your idea of a plan? That's fair? Or are you simply marrying yourself to a philosophy, an ideal and opting to remain inflexible?
All these Obamanoids I talk to in person supporting the mandate and that it will only help lower the premium...when I ask how much will it cost they never, never ever have an answer.Yea. The dictator claims that obamacare will lower cost. We all know how that not possible. How can they even say that. Technically they could set a price ceiling, but that would destroy private insurance companies
I really hope we can agencies like Delta. That place reeks of corruption.Like medicine, the price will sky rocket. Plus taxes have to go up screwing people who choose not to fly.
Hope you can what?I really hope we can agencies like Delta. That place reeks of corruption.
Yes, you should be self reliant, which also means remaining "adaptable" to the environment. Not blaming the government for all of your troubles. Ya know...SUCK IT UP. Create your own opportunities, see my other examples of people creating businesses harvested from good ideas.You have to learn self dependence and reliance. People should be smart enough to know this can happen to them at any time and should be prepared for it. Permanent dependence on a job to support you and take care of you the rest of your life can be a tragic mistake. After all your just statistic to them.
As far as mortgage payments...well they will just have to downsize, having a house is something you earn and not a right. Its not the fault of others that one didnt plan their life out right and spent money before they earned it.
What you tell these people is that they have to suck it up.
And all those who oppose it are equally unmatched in facts. There are numerous studies the convey quite the opposite of what is being posted here, saying that when it kicks in fully, it will drive down premiums for most.All these Obamanoids I talk to in person supporting the mandate and that it will only help lower the premium...when I ask how much will it cost they never, never ever have an answer.
If people get screwed illegally at a corporation then they should get together and sue, but Goverment can pay people's morgages and benefits.Yes, you should be self reliant, which also means remaining "adaptable" to the environment. Not blaming the government for all of your troubles. Ya know...SUCK IT UP. Create your own opportunities, see my other examples of people creating businesses harvested from good ideas.
A 1 stop flight from Memphis to Philadelphia costs 895 RT on DALIf the government trys to fix anything the price sky rockets
Can it , Bin it, Bog it.Hope you can what?
Here is this for a study...if it was sooo good why do you have to force people to buy it?And all those who oppose it are equally unmatched in facts. There are numerous studies the ones posted here, saying that when it kicks in fully, it will drive down premiums.
They will only be awarded with free Obamamoney for failure.I really really hope some s*it hits them once. FFS, I own their stock, but they deserve it.
Also drive down by how much? For how long? How does it correlate to inflation?And all those who oppose it are equally unmatched in facts. There are numerous studies the convey quite the opposite of what is being posted here, saying that when it kicks in fully, it will drive down premiums for most.