Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Wealth Redistribution Under Obama


  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#11 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,929
  • Reputation: 1,459
HUDDLER

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:10 AM

From the OP's link.

Neither major party offered a credible plan to reduce the student-debt burden.


I have an excellent plan to reduce student debt burden. Don't borrow money you can't afford to pay back. If you have to borrow money to go to college, then go to a college you can afford (like UNCC or App State). If you do decide to borrow a 160 grand to go to Wake or Duke, make sure you major in something that will allow you to repay the debt in a reasonable amount of time. Don't borrow a 160 grand to go to an expensive school to take political science or french literature.

Do your first two years in community college in a program that transfers to a 4 year college. Get a part time job in the summer to help defray the cost of college. Don't use the money for cell phones or a car. Take the bus. Buy your clothes at Walmart instead of the gap. Do as much as you can to save money for college. I realize that poor kids are less able to do these things, but most of the current college debt comes from middle class kids.

#12 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 16-May 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 954
  • Reputation: 79
HUDDLER

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:18 AM

Delhommey has a wife? That woman is a saint.

#13 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 13,704
  • Reputation: 4,443
  • LocationILM
Administrators

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:33 PM

From the OP's link.



I have an excellent plan to reduce student debt burden. Don't borrow money you can't afford to pay back. If you have to borrow money to go to college, then go to a college you can afford (like UNCC or App State). If you do decide to borrow a 160 grand to go to Wake or Duke, make sure you major in something that will allow you to repay the debt in a reasonable amount of time. Don't borrow a 160 grand to go to an expensive school to take political science or french literature.

Do your first two years in community college in a program that transfers to a 4 year college. Get a part time job in the summer to help defray the cost of college. Don't use the money for cell phones or a car. Take the bus. Buy your clothes at Walmart instead of the gap. Do as much as you can to save money for college. I realize that poor kids are less able to do these things, but most of the current college debt comes from middle class kids.

That requires personal responsibility.

#14 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,711
  • Reputation: 2,351
Moderators

Posted 23 November 2012 - 03:39 PM

Seeing as this article was about the government trying to reduce wasteful spending of taxpayer money in regards to student loans, I'm not sure why everyone's immediately snarling and stabbing at the strawman of debt relief.

The banks don't want to comply (the gov is offering to pay the FULL amount of the bond), because they don't want to get out of a system where the taxpayer takes on the risks, but the banks takes the profits.

But let's ignore all that and go after the real problem: young people trying to improve their lives.



#15 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 16-May 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 954
  • Reputation: 79
HUDDLER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:16 PM

I agree. Let's.

#16 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,128
  • Reputation: 2,951
  • LocationMontford
HUDDLER

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:40 PM

the govt is also good at creating a problem that only they can fix, then they will say come the next election, see, we "fixed" it. lol

but on the huddle, any sliver of criticism towards govt/unions et al=gun loving neocon uber nazi skinhead racist boston celtic loving ty cobb worshipping poster.

im optimistic these guys in dc figure it out. i mean they have so much skin in the game it only makes sense for them to solve the problems right?

#17 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,514
  • Reputation: 2,431
  • LocationWherever I May Roam
HUDDLER

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:01 AM

Any of you remember when free tuition was well within reach in California and was set to go nationwide by the late 60's and into the early 70's? The entire University of California system (UCLA, USC, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, UC Irvine, just to name a few) was to be free of tuition.

That was, until Ronald Reagan was elected Governor. By 1970 he was installing a $600 per year tuition...

http://lansingonline...bout-higher-ed/

Among other notable acts:
Once elected, Mr. Reagan set the educational tone for his administration by:


a. calling for an end to free tuition for state college and university students,
b. annually demanding 20% across-the-board cuts in higher education funding
c. repeatedly slashing construction funds for state campuses
d. engineering the firing of Clark Kerr, the popular President of the University of California, and
e. declaring that the state "should not subsidize intellectual curiosity

http://www.newfounda...dge/Reagan.html

http://www.nytimes.c...-education.html


Yes, there was a time when education was free....

#18 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,529
  • Reputation: 1,266
HUDDLER

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:53 AM

Seeing as this article was about the government trying to reduce wasteful spending of taxpayer money in regards to student loans, I'm not sure why everyone's immediately snarling and stabbing at the strawman of debt relief.

The banks don't want to comply (the gov is offering to pay the FULL amount of the bond), because they don't want to get out of a system where the taxpayer takes on the risks, but the banks takes the profits.

But let's ignore all that and go after the real problem: young people trying to improve their lives.


lol not a single one of these fuging republicans actually addressed FFELP or sherrod brown's legislation. 16 replies. not one.

#19 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,929
  • Reputation: 1,459
HUDDLER

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:20 AM

Any of you remember when free tuition was well within reach in California and was set to go nationwide by the late 60's and into the early 70's? The entire University of California system (UCLA, USC, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, UC Irvine, just to name a few) was to be free of tuition.

That was, until Ronald Reagan was elected Governor. By 1970 he was installing a $600 per year tuition...

http://lansingonline...bout-higher-ed/

Among other notable acts:
Once elected, Mr. Reagan set the educational tone for his administration by:




a. calling for an end to free tuition for state college and university students,
b. annually demanding 20% across-the-board cuts in higher education funding
c. repeatedly slashing construction funds for state campuses
d. engineering the firing of Clark Kerr, the popular President of the University of California, and
e. declaring that the state "should not subsidize intellectual curiosity


http://www.newfounda...dge/Reagan.html

http://www.nytimes.c...-education.html


Yes, there was a time when education was free....


So University staff were were willing to work for free? And the folks that make the books and equipment were willing to provide it for free? And the utility companies were willing to provide services to the school for free? And construction companies were willing to do work on the campuses for free? Wow, that would have been very nice of all of them.

Of course, if you were talking about the government/taxpayers paying for everything, then that wouldn't be free. If it is taxpayer funded, then thank god Reagan put a stop to it. The cost to the taxpayer would have been astronomical and the benefit of having a college education would have been significantly degraded. Even socialist leaning Europe hasn't been stupid enough to to do that.

#20 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,711
  • Reputation: 2,351
Moderators

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:47 AM

lol not a single one of these fuging republicans actually addressed FFELP or sherrod brown's legislation. 16 replies. not one.


And I even (rightly) placed blame on the Obama administration.

Why do you think I rarely put any factual information on here? You have to appeal to their emotional side.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users