ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Jul 29, 2011 19:43:15 GMT -5
I know, college costs have gone up soooo much in recent years but so have salaries. No they haven't. Middle class wages have stayed the exact same on a real basis since the 80s (actually gone down ever so slightly). It's only the rich's wages have gone up. |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jul 29, 2011 20:01:51 GMT -5
I have a problem with my having to pay for someone else's college education. My mother and father paid for mine (and two siblings) even though they were very much lower middle class. My wife and I, through setting funds aside each month from my paycheck from the time my first child was born, accumulated enough for four children to attend college. I know, college costs have gone up soooo much in recent years but so have salaries. And one of the primary reason college costs have gone up so much is the fact that endowments and grants are covering so much - just like one of the primary reasons health care costs have gone up so much is they are covered by insurance. I'm sure college tuition was about $2000 per year when you attended. I'm also sure that someone much more motivated than I can find a graph showing how the cost to attend college has gone up much more than earnings. The fact is probably 75% of the people on this board who went to GU might not have been able to attend without grants and subsidized loans and the like. I think government is way overextend regarding the aspects of our lives in which it plays a role. However, I think there is a significant value to seeing more people able to attend colleges and universities. kc, I think someone hijacked your board id. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 29, 2011 20:07:22 GMT -5
In other news, the House bill did not earn enough votes in the Senate to secure passage. Can't say I find it upsetting in light of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster since Obama was elected.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 29, 2011 20:47:00 GMT -5
I have a problem with my having to pay for someone else's college education. My mother and father paid for mine (and two siblings) even though they were very much lower middle class. My wife and I, through setting funds aside each month from my paycheck from the time my first child was born, accumulated enough for four children to attend college. I know, college costs have gone up soooo much in recent years but so have salaries. And one of the primary reason college costs have gone up so much is the fact that endowments and grants are covering so much - just like one of the primary reasons health care costs have gone up so much is they are covered by insurance. I'm sure college tuition was about $2000 per year when you attended. I'm also sure that someone much more motivated than I can find a graph showing how the cost to attend college has gone up much more than earnings. The fact is probably 75% of the people on this board who went to GU might not have been able to attend without grants and subsidized loans and the like. I think government is way overextend regarding the aspects of our lives in which it plays a role. However, I think there is a significant value to seeing more people able to attend colleges and universities. There's a decent argument to made that a big cause in the massive jump in college tuition is the easy access to credit for student loans that the gov't helps provide. Not sure what the solution is, but the huge increase in tuition is correlated w/ the huge increase in gov't subsidization of tuition |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,911
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 29, 2011 21:40:30 GMT -5
There's a decent argument to made that a big cause in the massive jump in college tuition is the easy access to credit for student loans that the gov't helps provide. Not sure what the solution is, but the huge increase in tuition is correlated w/ the huge increase in gov't subsidization of tuition Tuition began its climb in the 1980's after federal funding available for education declined. Concurrent with that climb was that colleges discovered price elasticity, and soon found out that demand always (at least for now) drives price over supply, that the interest in leading colleges does not decrease as costs increase. An excerpt frtom a Cornell article also introuduces another factor: "In 1976-77, tuition and fees provided 27 percent of the university's revenue and government appropriations provided 28 percent; in 2006-07, tuition and fees provided 35 percent of the revenue while government support had shrunk to 10 percent. As a result, Cornell makes up the difference: It provided 81 percent of its students' grant aid in 2005-06, up from 62 percent in 1987-88. This academic year, 13 percent of the university's general operating expenses went to financial aid compared with only 9 percent in 1977-76. "For every tuition dollar we bring in ... about 16 cents on that dollar gets recycled to subsidize financial aid," Ainslie said."www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov06/tuition.so.much.sl.html |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 30, 2011 11:01:13 GMT -5
I'm sure college tuition was about $2000 per year when you attended. I'm also sure that someone much more motivated than I can find a graph showing how the cost to attend college has gone up much more than earnings. The fact is probably 75% of the people on this board who went to GU might not have been able to attend without grants and subsidized loans and the like. I think government is way overextend regarding the aspects of our lives in which it plays a role. However, I think there is a significant value to seeing more people able to attend colleges and universities. kc, I think someone hijacked your board id. ;D I must have forgotten to drink the Tea Party kool aid yesterday.  |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jul 30, 2011 11:22:42 GMT -5
I have a problem with my having to pay for someone else's college education. My mother and father paid for mine (and two siblings) even though they were very much lower middle class. My wife and I, through setting funds aside each month from my paycheck from the time my first child was born, accumulated enough for four children to attend college. I know, college costs have gone up soooo much in recent years but so have salaries. And one of the primary reason college costs have gone up so much is the fact that endowments and grants are covering so much - just like one of the primary reasons health care costs have gone up so much is they are covered by insurance. I'm sure college tuition was about $2000 per year when you attended. I'm also sure that someone much more motivated than I can find a graph showing how the cost to attend college has gone up much more than earnings. The fact is probably 75% of the people on this board who went to GU might not have been able to attend without grants and subsidized loans and the like. I think government is way overextend regarding the aspects of our lives in which it plays a role. However, I think there is a significant value to seeing more people able to attend colleges and universities. Well of course student aid is ok. We benefited from that. But those other programs that funnel money to other people—they're the ones that have to go. I agree that ensuring college educations is an important and valuable endeavor. But it's this "if it benefits me, keep it; if not, cut it" mentality that has to stop. Everyone thinks that their own programs are the really "good" ones. Maybe it means that, in the aggregate, they're all "good." Where does that leave us? Now if people want to be honest and admit that what we really need to do is prioritize, then that's fine. Getting kids educated is more important than providing for the unemployed/unemployable. Taking care of the elderly may be more important than educating kids. National defense may be more important than taking care of the elderly. Domestic law enforcement may be more important than defense. Ensuring that we have safe, clean food and water may be more important than that. OK, I may disagree with those priorities, but let's admit that we have to decide what matters most to us as a country. Because if the whole debate just keeps coming back to "mine = important; his = wasteful," we'll never get anywhere. And no one gets to say "the Government shouldn't be involved in any of it." The most hard-line conservatives still want money in the military, money in domestic law enforcement, etc. So that's prioritizing. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 30, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
I'm sure college tuition was about $2000 per year when you attended. I'm also sure that someone much more motivated than I can find a graph showing how the cost to attend college has gone up much more than earnings. The fact is probably 75% of the people on this board who went to GU might not have been able to attend without grants and subsidized loans and the like. I think government is way overextend regarding the aspects of our lives in which it plays a role. However, I think there is a significant value to seeing more people able to attend colleges and universities. Well of course student aid is ok. We benefited from that. But those other programs that funnel money to other people—they're the ones that have to go. I agree that ensuring college educations is an important and valuable endeavor. But it's this "if it benefits me, keep it; if not, cut it" mentality that has to stop. Everyone thinks that their own programs are the really "good" ones. Maybe it means that, in the aggregate, they're all "good." Where does that leave us? Now if people want to be honest and admit that what we really need to do is prioritize, then that's fine. Getting kids educated is more important than providing for the unemployed/unemployable. Taking care of the elderly may be more important than educating kids. National defense may be more important than taking care of the elderly. Domestic law enforcement may be more important than defense. Ensuring that we have safe, clean food and water may be more important than that. OK, I may disagree with those priorities, but let's admit that we have to decide what matters most to us as a country. Because if the whole debate just keeps coming back to "mine = important; his = wasteful," we'll never get anywhere. And no one gets to say "the Government shouldn't be involved in any of it." The most hard-line conservatives still want money in the military, money in domestic law enforcement, etc. So that's prioritizing. I'm not sure where I said "what's good for me" is all that matters, but if you want to continue to try and fit things into your narrative, that's fine. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jul 30, 2011 12:23:18 GMT -5
Well of course student aid is ok. We benefited from that. But those other programs that funnel money to other people—they're the ones that have to go. I agree that ensuring college educations is an important and valuable endeavor. But it's this "if it benefits me, keep it; if not, cut it" mentality that has to stop. Everyone thinks that their own programs are the really "good" ones. Maybe it means that, in the aggregate, they're all "good." Where does that leave us? Now if people want to be honest and admit that what we really need to do is prioritize, then that's fine. Getting kids educated is more important than providing for the unemployed/unemployable. Taking care of the elderly may be more important than educating kids. National defense may be more important than taking care of the elderly. Domestic law enforcement may be more important than defense. Ensuring that we have safe, clean food and water may be more important than that. OK, I may disagree with those priorities, but let's admit that we have to decide what matters most to us as a country. Because if the whole debate just keeps coming back to "mine = important; his = wasteful," we'll never get anywhere. And no one gets to say "the Government shouldn't be involved in any of it." The most hard-line conservatives still want money in the military, money in domestic law enforcement, etc. So that's prioritizing. I'm not sure where I said "what's good for me" is all that matters, but if you want to continue to try and fit things into your narrative, that's fine. When you said, "The fact is probably 75% of the people on this board who went to GU might not have been able to attend without grants and subsidized loans and the like," I assumed (maybe wrongly) that you were in that 75%. Regardless, you tied government spending to GU enrollment, and again I assumed (again maybe wrongly) that you have some personal interest in GU's student body—like that you consider it a "good" thing that the 75% of GU students who need assistance are at GU. Also, I'm not sure what about my point you find disagreeable. All I'm saying is that people who stake out the "CUT EVERYTHING" position actually mean "CUT EVERYTHING, except the two things I like." The debate would be much more honest and productive if everyone came to the table saying "Here are the things I like, and here's why I think they are more important than the things you like." Then, the national debate centers around the question of what really matters to us as a people, rather than this artificial "big government/small government" dichotomy that ignores the reality that most people want medium-sized government that just focuses on their own interests. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 30, 2011 19:20:49 GMT -5
I'm sure college tuition was about $2000 per year when you attended. I'm also sure that someone much more motivated than I can find a graph showing how the cost to attend college has gone up much more than earnings. The fact is probably 75% of the people on this board who went to GU might not have been able to attend without grants and subsidized loans and the like. I think government is way overextend regarding the aspects of our lives in which it plays a role. However, I think there is a significant value to seeing more people able to attend colleges and universities. Well of course student aid is ok. We benefited from that. But those other programs that funnel money to other people—they're the ones that have to go. I agree that ensuring college educations is an important and valuable endeavor. But it's this "if it benefits me, keep it; if not, cut it" mentality that has to stop. Everyone thinks that their own programs are the really "good" ones. Maybe it means that, in the aggregate, they're all "good." Where does that leave us? Now if people want to be honest and admit that what we really need to do is prioritize, then that's fine. Getting kids educated is more important than providing for the unemployed/unemployable. Taking care of the elderly may be more important than educating kids. National defense may be more important than taking care of the elderly. Domestic law enforcement may be more important than defense. Ensuring that we have safe, clean food and water may be more important than that. OK, I may disagree with those priorities, but let's admit that we have to decide what matters most to us as a country. Because if the whole debate just keeps coming back to "mine = important; his = wasteful," we'll never get anywhere. And no one gets to say "the Government shouldn't be involved in any of it." The most hard-line conservatives still want money in the military, money in domestic law enforcement, etc. So that's prioritizing. Strummer, maybe I'll ruin your reputation by saying this, but I agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jul 30, 2011 23:32:27 GMT -5
Well of course student aid is ok. We benefited from that. But those other programs that funnel money to other people—they're the ones that have to go. I agree that ensuring college educations is an important and valuable endeavor. But it's this "if it benefits me, keep it; if not, cut it" mentality that has to stop. Everyone thinks that their own programs are the really "good" ones. Maybe it means that, in the aggregate, they're all "good." Where does that leave us? Now if people want to be honest and admit that what we really need to do is prioritize, then that's fine. Getting kids educated is more important than providing for the unemployed/unemployable. Taking care of the elderly may be more important than educating kids. National defense may be more important than taking care of the elderly. Domestic law enforcement may be more important than defense. Ensuring that we have safe, clean food and water may be more important than that. OK, I may disagree with those priorities, but let's admit that we have to decide what matters most to us as a country. Because if the whole debate just keeps coming back to "mine = important; his = wasteful," we'll never get anywhere. And no one gets to say "the Government shouldn't be involved in any of it." The most hard-line conservatives still want money in the military, money in domestic law enforcement, etc. So that's prioritizing. Strummer, maybe I'll ruin your reputation by saying this, but I agree with you. Haha, it's bound to happen every now and again. Let's hope it's a sign that Congress will stumble upon some kind of agreement ASAP. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 31, 2011 9:55:29 GMT -5
I have a problem with my having to pay for someone else's college education. My mother and father paid for mine (and two siblings) even though they were very much lower middle class. My wife and I, through setting funds aside each month from my paycheck from the time my first child was born, accumulated enough for four children to attend college. I know, college costs have gone up soooo much in recent years but so have salaries. And one of the primary reason college costs have gone up so much is the fact that endowments and grants are covering so much - just like one of the primary reasons health care costs have gone up so much is they are covered by insurance. I see. You and your siblings and all of your children attend private schooling, never going to a public school or college or university? I assume you also decline to pay property taxes (and other taxes), which may pay for other people's children to receive public education. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 31, 2011 13:15:00 GMT -5
I have not followed the nuts and bolts of the negotiations, but the balanced budget amendment seems particularly ill-considered if not anti-capitalist. Many seem to forget that, but for government intervention a few years ago, we were on a steady path to economic collapse. At the margins, such an amendment could also prevent needed wartime spending to respond to attacks and the like. The proposal is even more comedic considering the source. For all of the reverence of the tea partiers' for who they believe the founders/framers to have been, perhaps it would pay to defer to them for once. The proposal has only been made now because the Republicans cannot railroad money to their sacred cows (via tax cuts and spending) like they used to under President Bush, and they want the money to be there when they can do that again. On Edit: An interesting chart that fact checks the conventional wisdom of the right on the sources of debt: cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/07/nyt_debt_by_prez_lg.jpg |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 31, 2011 14:10:15 GMT -5
I have not followed the nuts and bolts of the negotiations, but the balanced budget amendment seems particularly ill-considered if not anti-capitalist. Many seem to forget that, but for government intervention a few years ago, we were on a steady path to economic collapse. At the margins, such an amendment could also prevent needed wartime spending to respond to attacks and the like. The proposal is even more comedic considering the source. For all of the reverence of the tea partiers' for who they believe the founders/framers to have been, perhaps it would pay to defer to them for once. The proposal has only been made now because the Republicans cannot railroad money to their sacred cows (via tax cuts and spending) like they used to under President Bush, and they want the money to be there when they can do that again. On Edit: An interesting chart that fact checks the conventional wisdom of the right on the sources of debt: cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/07/nyt_debt_by_prez_lg.jpg1) You have an odd definition of capitalism if you think the balanced budget amendment is anti-capitalist b/c it might stop gov't intervention. Of course, w/o knowing the nuts & bolts of the amdt, how do you know it wouldn't be possible for Congress to pass a TARP if necessary? The proposed amendments usually have an exception for emergency wartime spending, I believe. 2) I don't think anyone on the right will say Bush doesn't deserve blame for the debt b/c of the gov't spending on his watch. If they do, they're wrong. Obama deserves blame as well. He's the one who advocated more spending, pushed through a massive entitlement program that will explode our debt, and has ignored his own commission's plan to address the looming debt crisis w/o providing any actual plan of his own. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 31, 2011 14:36:58 GMT -5
One of the bigger problems I see here is that while trying to have a discussion about how to pay our bills, we're honestly running down a path of NOT paying the debts we've incurred.
We've incurred the debt. Not paying them is simply wrong -- and stupid from a practical standpoint. Discussion about budget going forward is necessary. But we need to pay our debts.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 31, 2011 15:17:55 GMT -5
I have not followed the nuts and bolts of the negotiations, but the balanced budget amendment seems particularly ill-considered if not anti-capitalist. Many seem to forget that, but for government intervention a few years ago, we were on a steady path to economic collapse. At the margins, such an amendment could also prevent needed wartime spending to respond to attacks and the like. The proposal is even more comedic considering the source. For all of the reverence of the tea partiers' for who they believe the founders/framers to have been, perhaps it would pay to defer to them for once. The proposal has only been made now because the Republicans cannot railroad money to their sacred cows (via tax cuts and spending) like they used to under President Bush, and they want the money to be there when they can do that again. On Edit: An interesting chart that fact checks the conventional wisdom of the right on the sources of debt: cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/07/nyt_debt_by_prez_lg.jpg1) You have an odd definition of capitalism if you think the balanced budget amendment is anti-capitalist b/c it might stop gov't intervention. Of course, w/o knowing the nuts & bolts of the amdt, how do you know it wouldn't be possible for Congress to pass a TARP if necessary? The proposed amendments usually have an exception for emergency wartime spending, I believe. 2) I don't think anyone on the right will say Bush doesn't deserve blame for the debt b/c of the gov't spending on his watch. If they do, they're wrong. Obama deserves blame as well. He's the one who advocated more spending, pushed through a massive entitlement program that will explode our debt, and has ignored his own commission's plan to address the looming debt crisis w/o providing any actual plan of his own. A balanced budget amendment does not stop intervention. The government would have to intervene to ensure one outcome - that the budget was balanced (or in surplus) - when a free market is designed for many possible outcomes. A "no intervention" model, perhaps supported in some circles on the right, would involve no federal budget. In some cases, a balanced budget may require dramatic action which runs counter to accepted logic, particularly as it relates to deficit spending. You could pass a TARP, but what do you chop without creating serious harm elsewhere in the process of ensuring a balanced budget? There was energy behind chopping the Bush tax cuts, for example, and we all know how that turned out. Still, the measure rings hollow if there is an exception for wartime spending, particularly spending at the levels we've seen for Iraq and Afghanistan. Not that I think there shouldn't be an exception - just that you don't get anywhere if you don't address military welfare in these kinds of discussions. I do place some blame with Obama, but the degree of blame shifting on the right is bordering on the absurd right now, particularly when there is not a single Obama policy initiative of much significance to win widespread support among Hill Republicans, except the ill-considered renewal of the tax cuts. Time and again, Obama has bitten the bullet when it isn't popular, and Boehner and his friends have bitten their nails. What exactly has Boehner passed through Congress that we should applaud for its results? If Boehner likes the debt commission proposal so much...here's a suggestion...pass it, but criticism of Obama for not getting it through (as if he can) is beside the point until then. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 31, 2011 19:10:01 GMT -5
Everybody's to blame for the dire fiscal situation the country is in except Obama. It's the Bush tax cuts (oh, forgot, Obama extended them). It's Bush's war in Afghanistan (oh, forgot, Obama surged it). It's the Stimulus Plan (oh, forgot, that was Obama's plan). We appointed a debt commission and received its recommendations (oh, forgot, Obama discarded it). It's the Republicans' budget (oh, forgot, Obama's initial budget did not address the debt or deficit). But, darn it, he can really give a good planned speech. Yes he can.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 31, 2011 20:45:57 GMT -5
Oh boy, the long national nightmare is over. Can we now go back to important issues like who is third on the depth chart at power forward for Georgetown next season?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 1, 2011 8:25:39 GMT -5
I've been wrong before but I predict this agreement will not pass the House.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 1, 2011 8:52:13 GMT -5
Can we elect Marco Rubio as "person in charge of everything"?
I think I have a man crush.
If I am Barack Obama, I am thanking every deity in every religion that this man is not going to be running against me next year.
|
|
