2
   

Supremes to Colleges: Military Recruiter Bans Illegal

 
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:06 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
If a school feels that strongly about military recruiting, no one is telling them to accept federal funds. You can't have it both ways!


Why not? It's not the Fed's money, it's OUR money. We paid it in, to be used for our benefit!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:07 pm
Tommy Douglas gave a famous speech in 1944 which was recorded, and i have been lucky enough to find a transcript--i would tip my hat to Dys for the inspiration, but i never wear the damned things . . .

It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.

They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats.

Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of Canada for last 90 years and maybe you'll see that they weren't any stupider than we are.

Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws--that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds--so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.

All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.

Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said:"The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.

And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat.

You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.

Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up!"
(emphasis added)

-- Tommy Douglas,
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:09 pm
The court's opinion [PDF text] here.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:10 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
If a school feels that strongly about military recruiting, no one is telling them to accept federal funds. You can't have it both ways!


Why not? It's not the Fed's money, it's OUR money. We paid it in, to be used for our benefit!

Anon


There are lots of things that the federal government pays for of which I do not approve. Personally, I would rather pay much less taxes, pay privately for certain services, and have a much smaller government. But it is here, and for the time being, we are stuck with this system.

A school is not forced to accept federal funds. Let the colleges put their (own) money where their mouths are!
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:14 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
If a school feels that strongly about military recruiting, no one is telling them to accept federal funds. You can't have it both ways!


Why not? It's not the Fed's money, it's OUR money. We paid it in, to be used for our benefit!

Anon


There are lots of things that the federal government pays for of which I do not approve. Personally, I would rather pay much less taxes, pay privately for certain services, and have a much smaller government. But it is here, and for the time being, we are stuck with this system.

A school is not forced to accept federal funds. Let the colleges put their (own) money where their mouths are!


Weren't the Republicans supposed to be giving us smaller government?? One thing for sure though Phoe, my taxes are vastly less ... how about yours ??

Anon
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:17 pm
Quote:
Weren't the Republicans supposed to be giving us smaller government?? One thing for sure though Phoe, my taxes are vastly less ... how about yours ??


Yes, but they are spending money like they are printing it. (Maybe they are! Sad ) I would really like to know what the long term economic fallout from this administration will be!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:17 pm
Under the current Administration, Federal Education Spending has increased at levels all but historically unprecedented; only the Kennedy Administration approached the percentage-level increases affected under the Bush Administration. In the 1st 4 years of The Bush Administration, Education Spending amounted to 118% of the amount spent by the Federal Government during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:24 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
It's estimated that a 25 year old student will pay $500-$600 per month UNTIL RETIREMENT in order to pay off their student loan


I'd just like to point out that this is extrememly exaggerated. I graduated with higher than normal student loan debt and pay around $270 per month with an extrememly low interest rate. I probably will be paying for it untill retirement but it is still a far cry from $500- 600 that you are claiming.

Perhaps doctors or lawyers would come out with higher student loan debt and have 500 - 600 a month payments but their incomes should make up for that far before retirement age.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:27 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Under the current Administration, Federal Education Spending has increased at levels all but historically unprecedented; only the Kennedy Administration approached the percentage-level increases affected under the Bush Administration. In the 1st 4 years of The Bush Administration, Education Spending amounted to 118% of the amount spent by the Federal Government during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration.


It's not enough! The "leave no child behind" bullshit is still largely unfunded. Higher education has been torpedoed, especially at the graduate levels. Tuitions have skyrocketed.

The only thing that has had lavish treatment is the f..king military!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:38 pm
What is exagerated is the outrage professed by disgruntled, disaffected, and dispossed from power liberals who now are being forced to deal with the real world on real world terms. I easilly can understand their anger and frustration.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:57 pm
timberlandko wrote:
What is exagerated is the outrage professed by disgruntled, disaffected, and dispossed from power liberals who now are being forced to deal with the real world on real world terms. I easilly can understand their anger and frustration.


Try this on for size and see if it's just a liberal issue ...

Concerns mount over higher rates on student loans

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/06/MNGICHJ8391.DTL


Quote:
Washington -- The Republican-led Congress and President Bush are facing growing anger on college campuses as students and their parents prepare to pay higher borrowing costs because of new changes to federal student loan programs.

Congress narrowly passed a deficit-reduction bill last month that cut $12 billion from student loan programs, which was signed by the president. The new law will slash subsidies to lenders and raise interest rates on loans taken out by parents.

Lawmakers already had approved a steep increase in interest rates for Stafford loans, used by nearly 10 million students each year. Both rate increases take effect July 1.

Jessica Pierce, a senior at UC Santa Cruz who has Stafford loans, said she was outraged by the changes approved by Congress.

"They're trying to balance the budget on the backs of students," said Pierce, who chairs the university's student union assembly.

The higher interest rates come as many students and parents are already struggling to cope with rising tuition costs. Department of Education figures suggest that at least 400,000 qualified students do not enroll in four-year colleges each year because of financial barriers.

THAT'S 400,000 YOUTH THAT WILL NOT GET A HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE U.S. THAT'S CALLED BRAIN DRAIN, AND DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE!! THIS IS NOT ONLY A LIBERAL ISSUE

The average debt of college graduates has jumped by 50 percent over the last decade, according to the Project on Student Debt, a nonprofit advocacy group. But for the last several years, low interest rates have helped students cushion the blow and reduce their monthly payments.

Education policy experts said the new cuts in subsidies to lenders and changes to interest rates will result in greater borrowing costs for many students and parents.

Students with Stafford loans, the most common type of federal loan, who have locked in variable rates as low as 4.7 percent this year will face higher monthly payments when those loans shift to a fixed rate of 6.8 percent in July.

The move to a fixed rate was first approved by Congress in 2002 with bipartisan support and the backing of many lenders and student groups, who believed the change would shield students from even higher variable rates. But now many students and parents oppose the change, fearing it will increase their monthly payments.

Mike Rau, whose 20-year-old daughter, Lisa, is a sophomore at San Francisco State University, is worried she will end up paying thousands of dollars more in interest on her Stafford loans.

"When she gets out of school and starts making payments, instead of it taking four years to pay off her loans it will take five or six years," said Rau, who is helping his daughter pay for college. "It saddles them with more debt for longer in their lives."

Lisa Rau, who is studying creative writing, communications and philosophy, is trying to save a portion of each paycheck from her 18-hour-a-week work-study job. But she is concerned that higher monthly interest payments will limit her options after college.

"It might have an impact on whether I go to grad school," she said. "If I don't have the money and I'm trying to pay off a lot of these loans and the interest rates are going up, that might be out of the question."

Financial aid experts said the move to a fixed interest rate will be painful for many borrowers in the short term, but could help students if variable rates continue to climb. As recently as the 2000-2001 academic year, the variable rate for Stafford loans exceeded 6.8 percent.

"The argument for fixed rates is that they are predictable for students and predictable for the government," said Sandy Baum, a senior policy analyst for the College Board and an economics professor at Skidmore College. But at a time when rates are still relatively low, "the idea that students are paying a higher rate than the market rate is a very unappealing one," she said.

As part of the new bill, Congress also increased the interest rate on loans paid by parents. Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students, better known as PLUS loans, had been scheduled to rise from the current rate of 6.1 percent to a fixed rate of 7.9 percent.

But lawmakers, seeking greater savings in the budget package, boosted the rate even higher, to 8.5 percent. The change is likely to make the loans less attractive to many parents.

"The question for parents is: Is it better to take out a PLUS loan or is it better to take out a home equity loan?" Baum said. "They need to look at all their options."

The changes will have broad consequences for colleges in the Bay Area. At UC Berkeley, 8,400 undergraduate students and 3,500 graduate students have borrowed money to pay for college using Stafford loans. Parents of 2,100 undergraduates are receiving PLUS loans.

Cheryl Resh, UC Berkeley's director of financial aid, plans to e-mail students this spring with advice on how to cope with the changes. She is already urging students to consider consolidating their loans before July 1 to lock in a lower interest rate.

"I'm hoping that parents of students who are here right now are going to help their students take advantage of consolidating at a time when there are still some very good rates out there," Resh said.

Barbara Hubler, director of financial aid at San Francisco State University, said she and other college administrators were disappointed that Congress in recent years has not boosted funding for Pell Grants -- which are awards, not loans -- to help students struggling to pay for college.

"We know that across the (California State University system) more students are reaching the maximum on their federal direct loans and are having to take out more money from private lenders," Hubler said. "That is another drawback. Those are not subsidized by the government. ... It just means more money and another lender they will have to pay back when they get out of school."

Supporters of the new law said it contains some provisions to help students. Congress raised the Stafford loan limits to allow students to borrow more in their first two years in college, although the total they can borrow remains at $23,000. The measure also will phase out the 3 percent origination fees for Stafford loans, although some lenders already have been discounting the fees.

The bill was narrowly passed by Congress because of concerns over the $39 billion in cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, student loans and other programs. In December, Vice President Dick Cheney cast a tie-breaking vote to pass it in the Senate. The House passed the bill Feb. 1 by just two votes.

The new law has been a political liability for Republicans in Congress and the White House. During a question-and- answer session at Kansas State University in January, Bush was asked by sophomore Tiffany Cooper why the government was cutting $12 billion from student loan programs.

"I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our futures?" she asked.

Bush responded: "Actually, I think what we did was reform the student loan program. We are not cutting money out of it."

The $12 billion will come largely from trimming the profits made by lenders on student loans and raising the rates on parent borrowers, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Democrats said the money should have been used to lower interest rates and increase Pell Grants instead of being diverted to the federal Treasury. Student groups claimed the changes were mostly aimed at paying for $70 billion in tax cuts.
"Some people will describe it as paying down the deficit," said Luke Swarthout, a higher education associate for the Public Interest Research Group. "If you look at how the reconciliation process started, it becomes clear this is, in fact, a down payment on a series of tax cuts."



Anon
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:07 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
Weren't the Republicans supposed to be giving us smaller government?? One thing for sure though Phoe, my taxes are vastly less ... how about yours ??


Yes, but they are spending money like they are printing it. (Maybe they are! Sad ) I would really like to know what the long term economic fallout from this administration will be!


Oh, Timber can answer that for you. The economy is wonderful, the GDP is wonderful, everyone is making money hand over fist and there are no consequences for going a half a trill in debt per year! Interest rates will stay at historically low rates forever and no one will ever want us to pay them back. Right Timber??

Just remember Phoe ... think happy happy thoughts and keep that smile on your face while Bush blows that sunshine up your ass Smile

Anon
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:10 pm
What is clear is that personal responsibility is not accorded much respect by liberals, who want The Government to pay for more and more without in any way inconveniencing them. Don't work that way; ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and in the end, a free ride winds up going nowhere.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:16 pm
Straw man, Anon - there's much work to be done, much improvement needed. The difference between now and during the Democrats' heydey is that today the necessary work is being done and the needed improvements are being made. One place spending must be reigned in is entitlements ... get the freeloaders off the handout system and onto the production line.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:19 pm
You mean Halliburton and Bechtel are going to be obliged to earn honest livings ? ! ? ! ?

I'll believe that when i see it . . .
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:19 pm
Production line to what?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:19 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Nobody forces schools to accept Federal Funds - if they want the prize, they hafta pay the price their call.


They have to pay the price to spend their money ... yea, that makes sense.

Anon


I don't understand the argument here.

Is there something wrong with a career int he military? IS there something wrong with military recruitment on campus as opposed to say a LAW FIRM who probably has made no investment in the university.

Taxpayers support the military and support the colleges. Why should military recruitmers be discriminated against when I'M PAYING FOR BOTH?



What's wrong Woiyo, don't you think the Military is getting enough of our money at this point? While the military is on this monetary glut over the last 5 years, education, especially at the higher levels has taken a huge hit. Interest rates have just been raised making it even more expensive for todays student to get a higher education. It's estimated that a 25 year old student will pay $500-$600 per month UNTIL RETIREMENT in order to pay off their student loan, yet the fricking military is spending money hand over fist. All they have to do is ask, and we hand over billions, while we jack up our colleges.

Like Walter has mentioned, the forces each have their own academy, why isn't that enough ... we're paying for that!!

I'm just tired of seeing the war machine everywhere, and seeing the military guzzling money while we screw our youth. They have plenty of access, keep them off the fricking campuses.

Anon


Interest rates and the COST of an education have ZERO TO DO with this subject matter. As a matter of fact, with the size of some of the endowments at many universities, I am SHOCKED that they charge what they do.

Also, the military does offer college assistance that just might help some students with the cost of education.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:21 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Straw man, Anon - there's much work to be done, much improvement needed. The difference between now and during the Democrats' heydey is that today the necessary work is being done and the needed improvements are being made. One place spending must be reigned in is entitlements ... get the freeloaders off the handout system and onto the production line.


timber - You've got to know that corporate welfare is getting more than any ghetto welfare queens. And how do you justify Our government spending like a pubescent with their first credit card, and sloghing off the responsibility for that unto our grandkids? We are spending billions evrey week in Iraq - are you ok with that?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:25 pm
Corporate Welfare Information Center
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/


"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."

"After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." --Boston Globe series on Corporate Welfare



Does this mean we can send CEOs to Iraq???
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 01:38 pm
woiyo wrote:

Also, the military does offer college assistance that just might help some students with the cost of education.


Woiyo,

Of course, you're right that they offer some assistance, especially with loans and such. They rightfully ask for a piece of your life with that as well ... I have no problem with that! The Doctor (a woman) who got all my Gastroentology straightened out last year was an Army officer, and I believe was still in the reserve when she was working on me. I hear that an Army reserve unit out of SF just got called up for Iraq duty recently and found myself hoping she wasn't involved in the callup.

Anon
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 08:28:12