Hmmm, maybe I should be giving Bush more credit than I have been, considering that Perkin’s loans and any other form of government funding for education is illegal according to the constitution.
And before you falsely accuse me of being the “rich kid” who had her education paid for by her parents, let me assure you that is not the case.
I went through a couple of years of college, on Pell Grants and Stafford loans. I was ignorant at the time, and I am sure I am still ignorant on many issues. But, if these Pell Grants and student loans had not been available to me, perhaps I would have made more of an effort to earn my own way into college. I would have had a better understanding of working hard for what I desired back then. Now, I am stuck paying back these student loans that I never should have been given in the first place.
Still, my ignorant choice, and I am paying for it. You live, you learn.
With all due respec, Dio, if you wanted a real debate, why didn’t you start a thread in GD? Posting something like this in the Pit says right off the bat that all you want to do is rant. Don’t be surprise if some of it gets sent back your way.
There clearly is a legit debate topic here. But this isn’t the forum where that debate is going to flower.
I haven’t formed an opinion on the rest of the matter yet, as I haven’t really had the time to read what is being proposed, but somehow I don’t think that government funding for education is unconstitutional.
Manhattan, I’m not ssure if I’m making this clear. My Perkins loans were based on MY credit, not my parents’. Even I didn’t have BAD credit, I just had NO credit. I had never borrowed money before, I had never owned a credit card and I had never financed a car. I was starting from zero. My parents never entered the equation, ok.
No, I was only posting a rant. I expected opinions about the story and I expected the Bushies to take offense but Manhattans’ personal insult was a complete non-sequitur ad hominem which had nothing to do with my rant and was completely unprovoked.
Read Amendment X in the Bill of rights…here. bill or rights
If the people want to make the funding of public education legal, they have that right, by adding an amendment to the constitution regarding that. Otherwise, Amendment X of the original Bill or Rights stands.
Well, then we’re even. As a gesture of goodwill, <a href=“http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/appendix/edu.pdf”>here</a> is the Department of Education’s current budget proposals (which proposals are subject to lots of negotiation in Congress, as your story correctly noted). Yes, Perkins is going away. And total postsecondary education grants and loans are being cut. But the total number of grants, work-study subsidies and loans is going down by a grand total of (drumroll, please) 2,000.
Now do some damn studying of the thing and debate it like a human being rather than comparing a tiny reduction in a federal subsidy about which reasonable people can disagree to “ass-raping.”
Even if that were true, the Pit is specifically desinged for complete non sequitur ad hominems. All I’m saying is that if you don’t want to see any titty, don’t wander into the (clearly marked) red light district.
I don’t really have anything to add to the “debate”, since any reduction in federal education money is fine by me. If MN residents feel they need more college students, let MN residents pay for them to go to college.
Also note that subsidized Stafford loans are need based, while unsubsidized Stafford loans are not. Also, the parents’ income has no bearing on eligiblity if one is determined to be “independent”.
For whatever it’s worth, the colleges that I do financial aid technical support for haven’t given out a Perkins loan in at least 6 years. The bulk of their loans are Stafford (subsidized and unsubsidized), with a smattering of PLUS loans.
Shh! You’re talking to a guy who just described a conversion of loan funds to grant funds as an “ass-raping.” Don’t be confusing him with all those facts.
