I stand partially corrected. I could have sworn that I was credit checked for my own Stafford Loans (which I also got), but maybe I wasn’t.
I still remain skeptical that the Stafford increases will be enough to cover what will be lost from the Perkins cut.
I don’t know why Dio thinks he should be treated like anything other than a child. Children are the type of people who try to express opinions with insults and profanities. It doesn’t take an adult or a college education to scream obsenities at the President.
Grow up a little a bit and maybe you can be part of serious discussions. Otherwise just accept that fact that most rational people want nothing to do with a raving lunatic who wants to marginalize himself from the get go.
As for the Perkins loan program it’s being phased out over 10 years.
And in all honesty there is an excessive number of federal college aid programs. The more programs the more bureaucratic waste you will have. Trying to consolidate just makes sense economically.
That seems a bit of a reach. Can you provide some argument to justify your claim?
If it was unconstitutional (as opposed to illegal) I feel certain that someone, somewhere, would have managed an effective challenge.
Read the whole constitution next time. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the explicit authority to spend for the general welfare. This is a broad category that includes federal funding for education.
Maybe you should delete your OP until you have all the facts?
This can be economical, though. Diogenes can turn on C-SPAN and catch an episode of “Oz”, in his fevered brain.
The rest of us have to buy the whole HBO package.
I have the power to delete threads? Did somebody give me mod powers over night?
Naww…I think I have as many facts as I need. I said ass-rape, I meant ass-rape.
Nah, if that were true, I wouldn’t even want MN to pay for those college students.
Thanks for calling me a “sociopath”, though. Just goes to show what everyone here is saying-- you love to dish it out, but you cry like a baby when it comes your way.
I suggest you adopt this as your sig.
Regards,
Shodan
Given his fondness for the phrase “ass-rape,” might the “squeel like a pig” simile be preferred over “cry like a baby”? 
While I appreciate that a lot of people are bothered by the loss of a loan program, please allow me to note that the 5% fixed rate of Perkins loans is actually far worse than current rates for Stafford loans, and the Perkins program costs more to administer. Because Perkins loans are required to be underwritten by the school instead of private lenders, they’re also harder to manage for many smaller institutions. Very few people get Perkins loans (I never got one in my entire undergraduate career despite having zeros for financial contribution on virtually every FAFSA I filed); cancelling the program, even without an increase in the Stafford program, is not going to cut a lot of anybody out of going to college.
I don’t see any real harm in dropping the program as long as a compensatory increase in the Stafford program is made.
Let’s see…you re-worded what that section of the constitution states to fit what you want it to mean.
I quote: “to provide for the common defense and general welfare”
It does not say it will spend for the general welfare. It will provide. You are using the definition of welfare that fits what you want to believe, not as it was written.
As soon as you figure out how to provide something without spending any money to do it, let us know.
I know I did a hell of a lot better with Staffords than with Perkins. I got better interest rates, more money, and a lot less hassle consolidating when I graduated.
If the cut in Perkins is matched with an increase to the Stafford program, that’d be fine as I see it.
I was also no longer elligible for the Perkins once I’d changed my major and was in engineering instead of the pre-med neuroscience major.
And Pell Grants, those were a life saver. Even if he increased those by doing away with Perkins, that’d be wonderful for those students who are determined by the FAFSA to be in need of help paying for college.
Then how’d I end up with one considering that my credit score and my parents’ were both in the ‘perfect’ range?
I got Staffords every year I was in school, too.
I consolidated my Staffords and ended up with an interest rate of 4.25%. The quarter percent was knocked off if I agreed to pay online. This works out well for me considering I was repaying over 20K$ for 10 years.
Is this an example of the thinking you spoke of earlier?
Honestly, man, this sort of attitude only supports the view that you are a knee-jerk Bush hater, all sizzle, no steak. Even if the facts make this out as nothing more than a neutral (or positive) administrative change, harming nobody, you still want to call it ass raping, because Bush proposed it.
Your lack of interest in the facts makes your positions on topics like this weak. Why should anyone give a crap about your opinion, when it’s always whatever Bush doesn’t want?
My Ford loans (which are, in effect, Staffords, except that they’re underwritten directly by the Government rather than by a private lender) are currently being charged between 3.12% and 3.92%. Compared to a fixed 5% rate, that’s a major win.
The deferral, forbearance, and cancellation provisions for Staffords (and Fords) are also much better than with most Perkins loans. Frankly, I wouldn’t want one even if it were offered to me unless it was the only way to get enough funding.
Before we all jump on Dio too much, he is correct when he says that Perkins are better designed for the poor than their Stafford alternatives.
First, Stafford Loans have origination and guarantee fees, which amount to 4% of the loan value. This is paid up front (it’s usually taken out of the money disbursed).
Secondly, Dependent Stafford Loans have a lower maximum amount, with the assumption that the parents are paying for the rest. Independent Stafford Loans have a higher maximum, but are not available to your typical poor student who is fresh out of high school.
So, poor people have to come up with both the difference between tuition and the maximum loan amount, and also the fees, both upfront.
So, removing the Perkins loans hurts poor people, and additions to the Stafford program do not address all of the issues from what I’ve seen cited.
Hey, I got a Perkins loan!
What amazes me is that Bush had the nerve to say he was helping the poor go to college in his state of the union adress. I feel like America must be living some serious cognative dissonance because the more Bush does the opposite of what he tells us he’s doing, the more we like him.
Only unsubsidized Stafford loans have varying loan amounts by dependency status. And unsubsidized Staffords aren’t need-based, so these aren’t the ones that the poorer students are typically going to be applying for (except as additional loans, since one can obtain both a subsidized and an unsubsidized loan).