Quote :

"The democrats are already spending $trillions in health care reform."

not really true

11/19/2009 8:12:53 PM

^^^^As usual, I would tax the rich.

And shut down most of the prisons and put the savings towards education.

And legalize drugs and use those revenues for schools. "Drugs for Schools," if you will.

Maybe eliminate farm subsidies and put that money towards schools.

I'll even go after small change. Shit, let's cut food stamp benefits and use that for schools.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 8:16 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 8:15:33 PM

Quote :

" UCLA senior Maritza Santilia, who participated in the protest, said she may have to take a third job to pay for the higher tuition. The regents' promise of more aid to students from low-income families won't help her because her family is considered middle income, she said. Her parents can't help with payments because their $40,000 annual income covers the mortgage and costs of raising three other children, Santilia said. "

FAFSA and all the financial aid programs are such bullshit. They grossly overly inflate the "estimated" parental support and offer no comfort for those whose parents leave them in the cold. If you are rich college is affordable, if you are poor there is more than adequate "need-based" programs. If you fall in the middle you are just shit out of luck. Supposedly my parental contribution was supposed to be "13K" a year. I saw only fraction of this money (none going for tuition) nor did I expect to see more. With their own retirement, other children, mortgages, and own life how does a university like NCSU expect a parent to contribute 15% of their pre-tax income to college.

Quote :

"Santilia was arrested and briefly detained by campus police Thursday morning after an officer saw her using a radio to let fellow students know where police were posted."

I did not know it was against the law to utilize your 1st amendment rights to communicate on police activities; assuming she obeyed the officers when they walked over to talk to her.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 8:28 PM. Reason : l]

11/19/2009 8:27:22 PM

I didn't even apply for financial aid because I wouldn't have qualified for any money. My parents have covered everything.

Maybe your parents should have thought twice before popping out babies on shitty middle class incomes, thinking the government would bail them out when college time came around. How's that feel?

11/19/2009 8:39:13 PM

my biggest problem is that if your parents have been laid off and are pulling out of their retirement to pay tuition that is counted as income. i was never eligible because my parents, despite neither of them having a job, had too high of an income while they were paying my tuition.

(and since ive been on my own my salary is too high )

11/19/2009 9:16:04 PM

I'm sympathetic to both your plights. It's a little silly that someone would complain that they don't qualify for enough because their parents make too much money (be it in salary or retirement funds). I mean, would you go back in time and grow up poor just so you could qualify for more financial aid?

But, still, you're right. They do expect people's parents to pay a lot when they determine financial aid. More money for college is always good.


But HUR should have been excluded from FAFSA altogether; whatever he got, I want it back. I can't believe his folks got access to a "'public option' for parents to get out of paying for pre-school college."

11/19/2009 9:30:59 PM

Quote :

"I didn't even apply for financial aid because I wouldn't have qualified for any money. My parents have covered everything."

I applied so i could get loans.

Quote :

"Maybe your parents should have thought twice before popping out babies on shitty middle class incomes, thinking the government would bail them out when college time came around. How's that feel?"

???
My parents did not expect the gov't to bail them out. Yet they pay rediculous taxes some of which goes to funding other kids educations which could otherwise pay for their
own. This goes with my whole anguish over your liberal mindset bridget. I should not have to work (paying taxes) to subsidize someone else's irresponsible child bearing.

Quote :

"my biggest problem is that if your parents have been laid off"

My dad getting laid off was the only reason that I even got a financial aid "need" based grant my final semester of school.
Basically the years before I was being "punished" for my dad having a job.

Quote :

" But HUR should have been excluded from FAFSA altogether; whatever he got, I want it back."

The loans that for 3.5 of my years that I'm paying back?????

Quote :

"I can't believe his folks got access to a "'public option' for parents to get out of paying for pre-school college.""

Your reverse psychological ad hominem attacks will not work Bridget. My parents paid taxes for many years; followed by me
paying NC taxes with a high salaried job then i would have had otherwise to get this "public school" option. The state merely
gambles on the tax money you are forced to pay anyway that your kids or yourself will stay in NC after getting your in-state subsidized education.
Either way I do not see the benefit of dishing out money for toddlers to go to school earlier versus increasing collegiate financial aid or
pumping up high school funds. Essentially it all boils down to if you can not afford to not work or pay for pre-school than
you should not be having children.

In the Bill of Rights there is no mention of your FUCKING right to bear arms children to an unlimited expense with the piece
of mind that other sympathetic tax payers will provide you with preschool, food, housing subsidation, cellphone, etc.

Liberals blabber about how all these social programs are so awesome in Europe. Honestly I think in Europe these
programs do work but in this country we are so full of stupid, irresponisble, and baby producing people that such system
is not feasible.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 10:01 PM. Reason : l]

11/19/2009 10:00:11 PM

Quote :

"It's a little silly that someone would complain that they don't qualify for enough because their parents make too much money (be it in salary or retirement funds). I mean, would you go back in time and grow up poor just so you could qualify for more financial aid?"

all i said was that i think that someone with zero income in the previous few years should qualify for financial aid, someone shouldn't be penalized because they are hemorrhaging money out of their retirement trying to pay tuition for 3 kids.


also i don't understand why there is a need for a totally redundant application process. the government already has my tax filings, why do i need to send in that information again?

11/19/2009 11:24:51 PM

because they want to penalize you b.c your parents are complete tools without lives and wants to take out a 2nd mortgage to fund your college tuition when at the same time they pay $1000's in taxes each year to fund welfare checks and "need based" grants for "underprivledged" children. Of course "underprivileged" could be like some kids i knew down the street who lived in the same middle class neighborhood in the suburbs that I did. Their single mother did not work, thus had 0 or minimal income, so they qualified for "need" based grants. How may you ask did their mom survive??????

Luckily she is a trust fund baby and daddy paid for 300K house; an ample allowance, as well as hooking up the grandkids.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 11:43 PM. Reason : l]

11/19/2009 11:42:50 PM

Quote :

"HUR: Essentially it all boils down to if you can not afford to not work or pay for pre-school than you should not be having children."

then, not than.

Can you make the connection between social programs like pre-K and breaking the cycle of poverty that causes people to have babies for whom they cannot afford pre-K?

And would you be willing to look at research that suggests investing in pre-K saves us money on high school intervention programs, welfare, food stamps, prisons, etc...in the long run?

It's not about the parents getting something they don't deserve. It's about their kids.

[Edited on November 20, 2009 at 1:01 AM. Reason : ]

11/20/2009 1:01:01 AM

[citation needed]
I couldn't find any hard data on what effect even the Harlem program had on poverty in Harlem.

[Edited on November 20, 2009 at 9:59 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 20, 2009 at 10:00 AM. Reason : zeig heil grammatick!]

11/20/2009 9:58:32 AM

bttt

1/21/2010 5:36:34 PM

2/20/2010 1:06:28 PM

source?

because the census apparently says it's less than half that (at least as of 4 years ago):

http://www.examiner.com/a-1315414~D_C__schools_rank_third_in_nation_in_per_pupil_spending__census_says.html

[Edited on February 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM. Reason : fixed link]

2/20/2010 1:50:49 PM

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wp-content/uploads/Coulson-DC-Ed-Spending-FY2009-Budget.xls
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/02/19/do-you-still-think-dc-spends-only-15000pupil/

Quote :

"School district budgets are so convoluted it’s almost as if they’re made to be confusing... DC has split up its education spending into seven different budgets, all of which go to k-12 public education, but only one of which is called “the DC Public School budget."

2/20/2010 2:31:47 PM

^ are they putting costs to build more classrooms to handle capacity into that?

2/20/2010 2:47:19 PM

I would suspect so. Which begs the question: does the $6k+ for vouchers include costs to acquire more classrooms to handle capacity?

Which is one nice thing about privatization: it puts a price to invested capital, which the government all-to-often considers free.

2/20/2010 3:07:39 PM

^ but it makes that comparison to harvard tuition very disingenuous.

2/20/2010 3:14:30 PM

harvard cost per pupil is a lot more than the tuition. Endowment folks...

2/20/2010 3:25:42 PM

I'm doubting those harvard numbers, a coworker of mine has a son who goes there and he has stated several times that he pays $50k in tution alone, then you have to add on books and lab fees and such. I'd guess that minus endowments and subsidies a Harvard education costs at least 3-4x the price listed here.

2/20/2010 3:41:18 PM

http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_FB2009_10_Sec03_Tuition.pdf

2/20/2010 6:10:13 PM

^ wow, that even makes it clearer that the harvard comparison is really dumb to make.

I think there is a definite point to be made that merely throwing money at schools is not going to fix the problem, but the CATO institute could at least try to do so honestly.

2/20/2010 7:15:05 PM