|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 14:50:54 GMT -5
Now I'm no expert on federal scholarships or US tax law so I'm not going to comment too much, but it seems to me that 'they could streamline the system' needs soem more detail; how could they streamline it? At present, filling out the FAFSA form (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) is akin to giving your identity and finances a body cavity search. They want to know how much money you have to your name - including frozen assets - down to the last penny. And if you're under 24, they want that same information from your parents as well. If you're broke but your parents have a nice nest egg they've been saving for retirement, then it sucks to be you because you'll have to tell your parents that the government wants them to fry that egg up and serve it to you first before you'll see anything. That's right: the amount a person gets in federal scholarship $$$ is based on a metric that includes both how much the person makes and how much their parents make if under a certain age. The idea is to make the person shell out as much as they possibly can first, which indirectly ends up screwing over a lot of college kids and their parents because it eats up their savings that way. Note that the full FAFSA form is about the size of a small magazine. And that's just the form itself, as the instructions for the FAFSA are seperate. The whole point of student assistance is to provide FAMILIES with the means to help their children to gain a degree. FAMILIES that have the wherewithal to pay more, should. The point of student assistance is to assist FAMILIES to pay. Expectations for deserving students with no or little ability to pay, is that they will go into massive debt to the government to pay. I think Obama's "pay with service" option is remarkably intelligent, unless one is too unpatriotic to serve one's country, or too rich to have to. Sky, join the military, or the Peace Corps, or register for volunteer work. The financial burden will then be paid. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and quit whining about the legislation that was "reformed" by the Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 15:22:25 GMT -5
Seriously Sky, war spending? Let's be honest, the biggest contribution on the part of America to the allied war effort was the resources it was able to suppluy. A country in a recession cannot expand an field an army in two theatres of war seperated by 6000 miles of ocean, let alone offer importatn financial support to other countries at the same time. The great depression was as near as damn it over by the time the USA entered the war, so either it was the New Deal or magic. I know which one I'd believe. Also, JonathanE, I understand what you mean about seriously debating his stupid points but simply flaming him only adds fuel to his persecution complex. If we actually react to him as if he had valid points and calmly and clearly disprove them with reasoned application of logic and citations then most of his question dodging techniques will be useless. So far the only reason he can still decieve himself that he's winning the arguments is because he's used the aggression and dismisiveness with which we treat him as a phsycological justification for ignoring our logic. If we don't give him the chance to dismiss us as over-aggressive and not worth talking to then he is going to find himself in a corner that even his own self-deception can't get him out of. God, I think THIS is the problem, the moment skyfire turns up on a thread not only do a thousand people make responses with varying elvels of politeness but some preachy asshat starts an argument about how to treat Sky. He has successfully derailed two political threads with ditto-head drivel. "Mission Accomplished"
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 5, 2009 16:16:51 GMT -5
The idea behind most modern minimum-wage jobs is that they're only supposed to be transitory at best. Instead of a salary, the ultimate goal is supposed to be job experience as a preparation for bigger and better things. That's part of the reason why some industries, such as fast-food, focus on hiring high school students and people in the early years of college despite the resulting high turnover rate: it's a large pool of potential employees who need the work. That's a completely unsustainable model, and it's being demonstrated in the real world. The American workforce did not just magically change into a body where we could fill those jobs merely with kids planning on moving up, nor did the demand for more skilled labor increase to the point where it mandated or could supply the number of jobs needed.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 5, 2009 16:32:03 GMT -5
Unfortunatley more and more jobs are becoming minimum wage service jobs.
Personally I believe minimum wage should be high enough to put a roof over your head, food on your table, and buy you a bus pass. If minimum wage had stayed in step with cost of living, it would currently be around $18/hour.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 5, 2009 16:38:09 GMT -5
Then we could start calling it a "living wage."
|
|
Pookie
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by Pookie on Mar 5, 2009 16:46:41 GMT -5
At the same time though, setting minimum wages can actually hurt the economy more than help it via inflation. The more money that an employer has to pay his/her employees, the more he's going to charge his customers (and this goes all the way down the line). The more things cost, the less a dollar is worth. Then, since things start costing more, minimum wage must be raised again if it needs to keep up with cost of living.
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Mar 5, 2009 16:49:59 GMT -5
It is getting harder for the GOP to find people who self-identify as Republican. The poll was interesting in that it shows the bankruptcy of GOP policies is finally being understood by voters. That is a great thing. Thanks George, Dick, Karl and the rest of the GOP bobble-heads in congress. Keep up the good fight! Yes. The republicans have taken all the maddest bits of conservatism and ditched the rest. Small government, in the sense of an administration that looks after infrastructure, welfare, defense, public health and fiscal policy with the minimum intrustion into the private lives of the people is essentially a good thing. You can see why neocons are clamouring because of the "dey be spending our money on social programs an sheeit", the "tax-cut" mentality stems from this. But these are the same neocons who supported Bush and his "faith based initiatives" and open financial irresponsibility. For them to claim to be fiscal conservatives is an absolute joke
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 17:11:50 GMT -5
The whole point of student assistance is to provide FAMILIES with the means to help their children to gain a degree. FAMILIES that have the wherewithal to pay more, should. The point of student assistance is to assist FAMILIES to pay. Problem is, the model has a number of flaws. The two big ones: [1] A sufficiently well-off student can skirt the system by waiting to file his paperwork until something has temporarily depleted his liquid assets. By filing the paperwork when the assets are low, it goes into the system that the person is poorer than they are. IE, if a person doesn't get paid until the first Tuesday of the month yet has their bills paid straight out of their bank account the previous Friday then if they do their paperwork over the weekend they can legitimately state the reduced amount is all they have to their name and simply pretend that the upcoming pay check doesn't exist. This defeats the entire purpose of asking about a person's assets. [2] If a student is under 24, then if for any reason their parents balk at providing the information on their finances - even for something as legit as privacy concerns - the student is out in the cold. This then forces the student and their family to draw down their assets, sometimes to critically low levels, until the student hits 24. This is assuming that the student can even afford college in the first place. Problem is, "pay with service" is also flawed. The biggest flaw is that it fails to account for the work load students might already be under with work and academic assignments; the numbers the administration set up are pretty much arbitrary. Bad heart. Ditto. The bulk of the local work here is religious, and there is sufficient bigotry to where if you're not of the same denomination as the people sponsoring the matter it ain't gonna happen unless you're dealing with one of the tiny handful of legit benevolent groups that still exist. Even Newborns in Need (which I did used to volunteer for as time permitted) ended up getting chased out of town because too many people turned their noses up at the church who was hosting it.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 17:15:18 GMT -5
At the same time though, setting minimum wages can actually hurt the economy more than help it via inflation. The more money that an employer has to pay his/her employees, the more he's going to charge his customers (and this goes all the way down the line). The more things cost, the less a dollar is worth. Then, since things start costing more, minimum wage must be raised again if it needs to keep up with cost of living. Don't forget that as the minimum wage workers get more $$$, the workers above them will want more $$$ in order to justify whatever it is (be it education, experience, talent, or whatnot) that got them a higher position in the first place. It does actually happen to where minimum wage increases can cause smaller firms to go under. There was actually a local restaurant that went under about 10 years ago when the previous wage increase was passed. The manager's margins were so thin to begin with that it was either cut servers or cut operating hours; neither one worked out and so he had to close up shop.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 17:22:22 GMT -5
The whole point of student assistance is to provide FAMILIES with the means to help their children to gain a degree. FAMILIES that have the wherewithal to pay more, should. The point of student assistance is to assist FAMILIES to pay. Problem is, the model has a number of flaws. The two big ones: [1] A sufficiently well-off student can skirt the system by waiting to file his paperwork until something has temporarily depleted his liquid assets. By filing the paperwork when the assets are low, it goes into the system that the person is poorer than they are. IE, if a person doesn't get paid until the first Tuesday of the month yet has their bills paid straight out of their bank account the previous Friday then if they do their paperwork over the weekend they can legitimately state the reduced amount is all they have to their name and simply pretend that the upcoming pay check doesn't exist. This defeats the entire purpose of asking about a person's assets. [2] If a student is under 24, then if for any reason their parents balk at providing the information on their finances - even for something as legit as privacy concerns - the student is out in the cold. This then forces the student and their family to draw down their assets, sometimes to critically low levels, until the student hits 24. This is assuming that the student can even afford college in the first place. Problem is, "pay with service" is also flawed. The biggest flaw is that it fails to account for the work load students might already be under with work and academic assignments; the numbers the administration set up are pretty much arbitrary. Bad heart. Ditto. The bulk of the local work here is religious, and there is sufficient bigotry to where if you're not of the same denomination as the people sponsoring the matter it ain't gonna happen unless you're dealing with one of the tiny handful of legit benevolent groups that still exist. Even Newborns in Need (which I did used to volunteer for as time permitted) ended up getting chased out of town because too many people turned their noses up at the church who was hosting it. Well, I guess yer screwed...
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 5, 2009 17:36:29 GMT -5
Seriously Sky, war spending? Let's be honest, the biggest contribution on the part of America to the allied war effort was the resources it was able to supply. A country in a recession cannot expand an field an army in two theatres of war separated by 6000 miles of ocean, let alone offer important financial support to other countries at the same time. The great depression was as near as damn it over by the time the USA entered the war, so either it was the New Deal or magic. I know which one I'd believe. Also, JonathanE, I understand what you mean about seriously debating his stupid points but simply flaming him only adds fuel to his persecution complex. If we actually react to him as if he had valid points and calmly and clearly disprove them with reasoned application of logic and citations then most of his question dodging techniques will be useless. So far the only reason he can still decieve himself that he's winning the arguments is because he's used the aggression and dismisiveness with which we treat him as a psychological justification for ignoring our logic. If we don't give him the chance to dismiss us as over-aggressive and not worth talking to then he is going to find himself in a corner that even his own self-deception can't get him out of. God, I think THIS is the problem, the moment skyfire turns up on a thread not only do a thousand people make responses with varying levels of politeness but some preachy asshat starts an argument about how to treat Sky. Don't forget the war went within a whisker of bankrupting the USA, and raped everyone's savings in the name of war bonds. One reason for using atomic weapons on Japan was to escalate the end of the war before attrition really bit. Oh and Sky is incapable of making valid points, except by accident, or when he's shooting himself in the foot. And unfortunately, you'll find any solid refutations of his drivel will be ignored far more than the ridicule he takes pride in. Everyone started out doing it that way, and then just ended up screaming or laughing, or screaming in laughter at his dumbass~!
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 17:36:46 GMT -5
Unfortunatley more and more jobs are becoming minimum wage service jobs. Personally I believe minimum wage should be high enough to put a roof over your head, food on your table, and buy you a bus pass. If minimum wage had stayed in step with cost of living, it would currently be around $18/hour. This is the KEY problem with our economy now. Such a large number of high paying, union jobs have been "off-shored" that the average wage for workers has been drastically reduced, not even taking inflation into account. Not only that, many of the "new" jobs have been part-time positions or temporary hires. In the third world countries that our patriotic business owners and shareholders have off-loaded our jobs to, the average wage provides enough to FEED only one worker. Ya don't work, ya don't eat, hence child laborers, tent cities outside 3rd world industrial complexes and so on. This is naked capilatism, without regulation and/or accountability. It doesn't just exploit the workers in the 3rd world countries, it drives down wages worldwide, so you get a worldwide recession, harder to fix when workers can't afford to buy our way out of it. This is the message behind Obama's plans, that this has to change. It is the stated purpose of the stimulus package, and it is resonating with people, which is why Obama and the Democrats are so high in the polls and why the Republicans are reduced to their ditto-head "base". (Edit) By the way, thanks Julian, for explaining our reactions to Skyfire's horsehit. Eloquent and cogent, as always.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 5, 2009 17:40:55 GMT -5
....so when Bush throws gobs of cash at a problem, it's a solution. When Obama does the same thing, and attaches stuff like limiting spending by the bailed out coperations, capping CEO pay, and making them culpuble to goverment oversight(if anyone can tell me what word I was acutally trying to use that'd be a big help) it's just wasting money. Ironbite-or was that the gist of your points there Skybaby? Quoting myself so Skydumbass can answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Mar 5, 2009 17:50:23 GMT -5
In 3 - 4 years I should have my MBA; the state of Texas says you only need a master's to have a professorship at any public college, and so at that point I can go into academia if nothing else has panned out for me yet. Sky, Sky, Sky. I don't know what is sadder. The fact that you are taking the fastest track to a "professorship" that you can, the fact that there is an actual chance that you may attain such and be given instructorial status over live human beings, or the fact that you believe you can vault from a paper route to an executive position merely by 4-yearing an MBA. MBAs are a dime a dozen, and while I applaud your efforts to educate yourself, experience counts for more. A direct-track to an MBA is rarely the route to employment. Rather an already-employed individual persues the MBA for advancement. No one gets a position because of an MBA, especially since so many programs have become so watered down they don't even require real experience or a thesis. And as everyone here knows, Sky, you do not do real well with merely theoretical knowledge. Hell, you still believe that most municipalities have multiple print news outlets.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Mar 5, 2009 17:54:41 GMT -5
At present, filling out the FAFSA form (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) is akin to giving your identity and finances a body cavity search. They want to know how much money you have to your name - including frozen assets - down to the last penny. [...blah, blah, blah...] Isn't it interesting how Sky advocates the CPAC dittohead ideas of small government and pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps do-it-yourself American elbow grease....but also wants the Feds to hand him cash with no questions? Astonishing.
|
|