Let's be honest,
- Thread starter Barbella
- Start date
degsme
Council Member
read an article today that College grauation is 56%................and a BD now takes 6 SIX years.........for many (guess after Partay'n first 2 is the reason).............it's even worse % in for profit colleges if memory is corret.
Let me guess how many of the students on college loans and drop-out..........NEVER pay a dime back in loans________________________________________
seems I use to always see them on those JUDGE TV SHOWS.........where they loaned they money to they bab daddy......and NOW.......wanting the money back due to baby daddy having more baby mama's......
Let me guess how many of the students on college loans and drop-out..........NEVER pay a dime back in loans________________________________________
seems I use to always see them on those JUDGE TV SHOWS.........where they loaned they money to they bab daddy......and NOW.......wanting the money back due to baby daddy having more baby mama's......
Was that your best effort?
Spamature
President
But doesn't the proposed health care law allow for those student to be included on the parent health insurance plans with thanks to the president now includes access to free contraception so there will be fewer "baby daddies" and baby mamas" in the future ? Also since they're now govt loans instead of private loans the likelihood that someone can dodge paying them back is severely reduced.
You actually said "let's be honest?" As though you even know the meaning of the word.
Spamature
President
6.6 million young adults have been given health insurance because of the ACA. How many of them are college students you suppose ? How many more may be included in the future because of that and other provision in the act ? After all that Medicaid expansion could include many of them especially in these hard economic times. Sounds to me like it's giving them more than the $8.7 billion in value the GOP is offering.
Nestor2
Council Member
I'd really like to know how much of the federal money sent down to Tenn. for Medicaid is actually used for that, and how much is used for other purposes. Dino pointed out an inconsistancy earlier where federal dollars intended for one purpose were used for another. I think if the medicaid funds were used for medicaid and not used to balance a state's budget, the difference would be dramatic and revealing.
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
Let's be honest,
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the invitation. Mine didn't include the date that this event will take place. I can't wait. I assume we'll be allowed to say "Bush" and "Romney" during this gracious window of opportunity that you disingenuously propose opening.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the invitation. Mine didn't include the date that this event will take place. I can't wait. I assume we'll be allowed to say "Bush" and "Romney" during this gracious window of opportunity that you disingenuously propose opening.
D
Doc
Guest
What is even SILLIER is that Barb actually asked a gaggle of PJ Democrats to be "honest...."
"Honesty" murders the Liberal Agenda......
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
Whose "honesty", whose "facts"?
"The allegations all stem from one essential fact: The for-profit college industry makes its money by recruiting students — overwhelmingly poor and working-class students — who must draw from the federal till to pay tuition. In many cases, as much as 90 percent of the revenue of a for-profit college company comes from the federal government, in the form of Pell Grants and student loans. The more students the companies enroll, the more federal money they get — and the more profit they make."
"This has led to a widespread view that the for-profits will do just about anything to get that federal money. Although for-profit colleges enroll 12 percent of the nation’s college students, they soak up about 25 percent of the federal government’s student-aid budget. Fewer than half the students who enroll in the four-year for-profit schools graduate. Roughly 47 percent of those who were paying back their loans in 2009 defaulted by 2010."
"The shadow of scandal has, in turn, done a lot to color the way the larger society thinks about the industry. No one is much willing to listen to its defenders, who point out, for instance, that higher default rates are inevitable given the higher-risk populations being served, or that state schools also receive enormous taxpayer subsidies that just don’t happen to be as obvious, or that the allegations hurled at the for-profit schools are sometimes overblown or unfair. Educating the poor and the working class is something that should be encouraged, rather than scorned, they say. Jeffrey Leeds, whose private-equity firm owns a big chunk of Education Management, says, “Our mission is straightforward, and one we are proud to take on — to help students, typically nontraditional students, successfully complete college programs with workplace skills that enable them to get good jobs in a tough economy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/why-we-need-for-profit-colleges.html?pagewanted=all
The article is actually about the need for a variety of types of schools, but brings up the issue of how to have them without people abusing government programs and a discussion of where the truth might actually be.
Is the drop-out rate comparable based on how it is figured? Yes, state universities get taxpayer subsidies, but are they truly the same as what the for-profits partake of? Unless you're Rick Santorum (educated in schools with taxpayer subsidies) are there many that would disagree with idea that people of all income should at least have a shot at a college education?? Of course that is a noble thought, but the odd thing is, many of the people bashing the government are the same people that are profiting from the government and in some cases abusing government programs designed for reasonably honest and fair people, not profiteers whose biggest priority is cashing in and maximizing profits in the relatively short term, not the mechanism they abuse to do so.
"The allegations all stem from one essential fact: The for-profit college industry makes its money by recruiting students — overwhelmingly poor and working-class students — who must draw from the federal till to pay tuition. In many cases, as much as 90 percent of the revenue of a for-profit college company comes from the federal government, in the form of Pell Grants and student loans. The more students the companies enroll, the more federal money they get — and the more profit they make."
"This has led to a widespread view that the for-profits will do just about anything to get that federal money. Although for-profit colleges enroll 12 percent of the nation’s college students, they soak up about 25 percent of the federal government’s student-aid budget. Fewer than half the students who enroll in the four-year for-profit schools graduate. Roughly 47 percent of those who were paying back their loans in 2009 defaulted by 2010."
"The shadow of scandal has, in turn, done a lot to color the way the larger society thinks about the industry. No one is much willing to listen to its defenders, who point out, for instance, that higher default rates are inevitable given the higher-risk populations being served, or that state schools also receive enormous taxpayer subsidies that just don’t happen to be as obvious, or that the allegations hurled at the for-profit schools are sometimes overblown or unfair. Educating the poor and the working class is something that should be encouraged, rather than scorned, they say. Jeffrey Leeds, whose private-equity firm owns a big chunk of Education Management, says, “Our mission is straightforward, and one we are proud to take on — to help students, typically nontraditional students, successfully complete college programs with workplace skills that enable them to get good jobs in a tough economy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/why-we-need-for-profit-colleges.html?pagewanted=all
The article is actually about the need for a variety of types of schools, but brings up the issue of how to have them without people abusing government programs and a discussion of where the truth might actually be.
Is the drop-out rate comparable based on how it is figured? Yes, state universities get taxpayer subsidies, but are they truly the same as what the for-profits partake of? Unless you're Rick Santorum (educated in schools with taxpayer subsidies) are there many that would disagree with idea that people of all income should at least have a shot at a college education?? Of course that is a noble thought, but the odd thing is, many of the people bashing the government are the same people that are profiting from the government and in some cases abusing government programs designed for reasonably honest and fair people, not profiteers whose biggest priority is cashing in and maximizing profits in the relatively short term, not the mechanism they abuse to do so.
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
I would say truth murders any agendas, of individuals or political parties. Those who search for the truth find something that represents it. Those that don't search for or seek the truth become apparent by those who do seek it out. There are lots of sources of information out there and for those they don't care to seek out the truth it is easy to be told by some with their own agendas what the truth is. It takes work and honesty to admit that all sides have agendas and all sides have people within them that are corrupt enough to skew, use half truths and outright lie for their "cause". It is up to those that might have even the slightest care about truth and honesty to call people on pictures that don't look right. That sometimes means calling one's friends on what they're trying to present that smells funny or is just plain loaded with obvious partisanship. Parties that require blind loyalty and unthinking followers are losing members to middle (independent) ground. If you have to be dishonest to win, you're not playng the same game as those who are honest and you might have won something, but not the challenge of winning and staying within the rules which are all part of the game.
I think some people have been and are rebeling against what they might feel as dishonest partisan agendas and not only becoming independent, but becoming independent within their own party's current "neo" agenda and "neo" philosophy as opposed to the old ones some seem to think needed to be replaced with "neo" (new) ones. "New" is not generally something associated with the definition of political conservative, but the old historical use of fear and disloyalty by any group or organization to demand blind loyalty, seems to have brought some around to the "neo" con agenda for all those that stayed away from it or have left it by sticking with the old or realizing the neo version may have had less interest in promoting the general welfare as promoting themselves and personal profit.
A few who haven't followed the blind loyalty command under threat of being called RINO.
http://conservamerica.org/
http://www.republicansforobama.org/
As you can see, we can all find that which will support what we hope to support, the question is, what really is closer to the truth and how do we establish that. It sure is a lot easier to just accept what something that agrees with us says, rather than investigate to see if actually might be true.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/20-of-republicans-leaning-to-obama/
Arkady
President
Please do. I'd love to hear some honesty from you. But, I'll give you a hint, if you include a patently false claim like ""[the president's] own health care policies are the principal reason that tuition and student debt are rising." People will just laugh at you. Tuition and student debt were sky-rocketing long before Obama even took office.
LeRoy_Was_Here
Senator
Arkady: Tuition and student debt were sky-rocketing long before Obama even took office.
Ronald Reagan: Facts are stupid things.
Ronald Reagan: Facts are stupid things.
YouCantHandleDaTruth
Governor
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
Let's also not forget what percentage of the "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)" has actually been implemented to date and what remains yet to be implemented.
Arkady
President
Yep. It's sort of a flip side of Welfare Reform. I remember that the Republicans used to like to cite Welfare Reform as the reason for the Clinton boom, notwithstanding the fact that none of it was even implemented until the boom was under way for years, and some of the key provisions didn't kick in until 2001, when the boom ended. Laws take a while to go into effect and take even longer to show their results. Well, in the same sense, you won't get far blaming Affordable Care for any negative trends of the last few years, since most of it hasn't even been implemented, and most of what has been implemented has been in place for such a short period that we wouldn't yet be gauging the impact in any meaningful way. In five years we'll have a better idea.
