<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Aug 12 2008, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Paying for school is one thing....they are giving me the difference in CASH! Thats the part that feels like stealing....nearly $2k just because Im pursuing an education....couple this with my normal tax return, which is nearly $3k even though I dont pay in a dime and the $2K I got for economic stimulus and Im into the government for about $7000 in cash this year, basically because Im considered poor(despite living in a 3/2 with a pool, owning 2 cars, and TV in every room with a premium cable package)....If an actual poor person found out that Im considered poor, they would shit, or atleast they would try to if they had enough nourishment to actually make feces....</div> perhaps an actual poor person will then pursue an education. I have no problem with the government subsidizing living expenses for students. You are obviously not a typical student, but those that are have to worry about room and board . . . not to mention school supplies and transportation/moving expenses . . . and you haven't indicated if the additional money is intended to go towards textbooks. If the grant program is intended to provide the necessary resources for people to get an education that would otherwise not be able to afford to, you have to award additional money above tuition. Maybe you could argue that the prospective student should be required to come up with that portion of the expenses, or that there should be more of a granular approach to identifying relevant costs. Of course, that latter approach would just result in growing the size of government, so it would be counter-productive to some extent.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Aug 12 2008, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Aug 12 2008, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Paying for school is one thing....they are giving me the difference in CASH! Thats the part that feels like stealing....nearly $2k just because Im pursuing an education....couple this with my normal tax return, which is nearly $3k even though I dont pay in a dime and the $2K I got for economic stimulus and Im into the government for about $7000 in cash this year, basically because Im considered poor(despite living in a 3/2 with a pool, owning 2 cars, and TV in every room with a premium cable package)....If an actual poor person found out that Im considered poor, they would shit, or atleast they would try to if they had enough nourishment to actually make feces....</div> perhaps an actual poor person will then pursue an education. I have no problem with the government subsidizing living expenses for students. You are obviously not a typical student, but those that are have to worry about room and board . . . not to mention school supplies and transportation/moving expenses . . . and you haven't indicated if the additional money is intended to go towards textbooks. If the grant program is intended to provide the necessary resources for people to get an education that would otherwise not be able to afford to, you have to award additional money above tuition. Maybe you could argue that the prospective student should be required to come up with that portion of the expenses, or that there should be more of a granular approach to identifying relevant costs. Of course, that latter approach would just result in growing the size of government, so it would be counter-productive to some extent. </div> Hah, yeah this is why I love some government programs. I have no problems with supporting starving/aspiring students.
It's basic Economics. The US are using Supply-side Policies. Subsidising students will encourage more to learn. Smarter people = Better paid and more complicated jobs. And Potential Employees become more Efficient. The problem is with America Presidents can serve 8 years Maximum. Thats it, They can't come back, They feel like they should leave a legacy. BUT, in the UK the Govt can stay in charge as long as it wants. Providing they get Voters obviously. This means they would rather implement Short-term policies to make it seem like they're doing a great job. The problem with Supply-side Policies is that in Beef's case he's going to school for i presume 3 years+. The normal person doesn't realise the long-term advantages in heavily Subsidising students. Instead we get massive loan debts of about £15000 all in all.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ Aug 12 2008, 12:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's basic Economics. The US are using Supply-side Policies. Subsidising students will encourage more to learn. Smarter people = Better paid and more complicated jobs. And Potential Employees become more Efficient. The problem is with America Presidents can serve 8 years Maximum. Thats it, They can't come back, They feel like they should leave a legacy. BUT, in the UK the Govt can stay in charge as long as it wants. Providing they get Voters obviously. This means they would rather implement Short-term policies to make it seem like they're doing a great job. The problem with Supply-side Policies is that in Beef's case he's going to school for i presume 3 years+. The normal person doesn't realise the long-term advantages in heavily Subsidising students. Instead we get massive loan debts of about £15000 all in all.</div> I think it's a lot cheaper and easier to go to school in France, where they certainly aren't using supply-side policies.
Nope. I go to Tulane. A lot of my family went to State though, so for the first 19 years of my life I was a State diehard, and I still pretty much am because no one at Tulane gives a shit about collegiate athletics. That's why I think my avy's perfect. Mo Pete, a Flintstone who played for State when I became a college basketball diehard, reppin New Orleans, my city.
