So if your loans doubled, and you get a job for $40k a year (which should grow annually), minus the federal tax deduction and any monies you're paying on your own already, how much would you owe monthly after graduation?

(I have a rough idea but I'm curious if you do.)

The reason I ask this is I'm wondering why the taxpayers should foot your bill if you're able to do so yourself?

It may surprise you, but I believe that Pell Grants are good investments, likely even in your case. More or less however, I'm wondering what the logic is for your reasoning behind that, beyond the immediate effect they have upon yourself.

It's nothing personal - I just believe that proponents of policies they directly benefit from at the cost to others should be challenged as to their reasoning.

Yeah, but you're not cutting the "0" multiplier out of the equation by reallocating or cutting back, and that's the government part of the equation.

The US government, through various means, has the power to tax, borrow, and print money in what is easily the wealthiest nation in the world, and it still manages to lose money at a staggering rate. It costs them more to print most money than bils than the bills themselves are worth. It costs more than $1 to tax a dollar in most cases of direct taxation.

Nothing you ever put through that labyrinth will ever generate a net gain. Even if you had the best budget reform the DoE had ever seen, and all the money was directed towards the best possible programs, and the reform somehow generated a break-even margin or even a profit, the end result would still be a net loss. Within a few years, the support mechanisms would be cannibalized by ailing programs or new programs, all with goals just as noble as education reform. Or at least goals that sound as noble as education reform.

Even if you tried to add up the economic net benefit to all students who got better jobs and had a better life because of the reform and then taxed it, the end result would still be a loss. Doubly so in the case of our education system.

The fail is in the government, Hap. I'd suggest looking at the question a different way: What you're really asking is how can we reduce the net loss to a level that is acceptable, yes? Well, you have my answer. Break up the monopoly. Break up the state monopoly or the union monopoly or preferably both, but you have to break at least one or all you'll get is more of the same. No amount of money, no matter what it is tasked with, is going to fix this problem. You might as well feed a Picasso to a paper shredder.
Should go to where? Better programs? Taxpayers? States? Some other agenda? A cut like that would hurt the DoE and encourage more state control by eliminating categorical grants, but it doesn't fix anything. There's still a DoE with federal power and a union with federal support, but now we have even less fuel for an already inefiicient machine.

And of course, I disagree, as I'm sure you're aware. For the record, I don't like Pell Grants, either. That should be a state matter, not a federal one. Fortunately, the cut would encourage more state-level proctiveness in scholarships and grants.


As I hope to have demonstrated, right where it has always been: In the mind-boggling inefficacy of the system itself.

Because everyone benefits from the higher standard of living that results from an educated workforce.

I'm at about half and half. it would put me somewhere over $6,000 more a year in dept if you got rid of my SEOG, Pell grant, and grant my school gives me. May I remind you I also payed about $2,000 a year out of pocket for books and left over tuition. I work 40+ hours a week in the summer to pay for this. Without these loans I'd be about 70K in debt instead of 50K (or somewhere around there).

Your generation was lucky to have college as cheap as it was. You guys all say you were broke, sure you were...but you were broke with your college paid for with little debt. My generation is broke with 20K+ of debt over our heads.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...esub_large.jpg

I'm not doubting any of that - it's not my point at all (my college education was free, actually).

I have a thing: I dislike it when people justify any expense to society through a gain to themselves. I believe it fouls the debate.

I actually agree with you that the government should help with these things. However, you're seeing it from your own standpoint which is "I need money and government is granting me money, ergo it's good." I agree that under the current system it is necessary.

But, because I'm not tied into that mindset of cost/benefit, I'm asking another question: why should the government have to give you as much money? Why can't it find ways to lower tuition instead?

We have several depts that could go. Why I believe is some standard federal regulations, control of schools should go back to states and principles.

Pay should be based on performance...not years or status, anywhere this has been tried the results have been great, even in povern ridden cities.

I think high school teaching should be redone. Over 70% in many states don't go to college, but are forced to take the same repetitive courses each year they'll never use. They should offer day courses on skilled trades, not a class here or there. The last two years need to be almost like a trade school.

Little of the subject, but we had one school in our area grow and farm their own veggies working with the local farmers market and trained chefs were brought in to create proper meals.
All the fast food brought in was out, drink machines..no soda. Facts show 90% of canned veggies used were gone to waste, only 30% of garden grown food went to waste.

While I agree any time money goes thru the hands of the feds, there is a loss involved, thats why the question was asked.

So Undersea, your in favor of totally defunding the DoE then?

Others who have contributed, what would you like to see the DoE as? What part of what it does do you keep, and to what extent should it be funded? What savings could be gained from this area?

I'm in favor of dismantling it entirely. There's no need for it. Even if we change nothing, there's no reason why education couldn't or shouldn't be a state-level responsibility, and the states could hardly do any worse than the DoE. I daresay it might even improve the situation, since states/districts with lousy schools could no longer lean on the rest of the country to support their continued existence.

Hmmmm - seriously I had no inside info on this. Seems Rand Paul agrees with me - keep Pell Grants and thats it.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...-spending-bill

http://www.randpaul2010.com/wp-conte...ion-cuts-2.pdf

Here is my wacky idea for the Senior Year in High school. All classes need to be practical.

Math class: Teach how to budget, balance a check book, establish and handle credit. How to apply for loans without being screwed, etc.

English class: How to write a business letter, how to write a resume, etc.

History class: How to read and evaluate a ballot, current events, how to identify biases in news reporting, How to tell when some political party is bull steining you, how to do actual current events research instead of relying on commentators, etc

Science class: How to cook, how to shop for healthy food, understanding food lables, ect

Manual Traning: How common things work and how to fix them, How a car works, how to buy "stuff" and know it is high quality, how not to get killed, etc.

Civics: The local, state and federal laws that have the most affect on our lives. There are many laws that adults are supposed to abide by but we never teach our kids about laws, how to read and understand laws, how to affect changes in laws, Who are their public administrators are and what they do, etc.

That's what I would like to see every senior in highschool to go through. K-11 is academic stuff, 12 is practical education in becoming a functioning adult. It is sad that we get kids with 4.0+ GPAs who don't know how to write a resume or balance a check book. Why don't they? Because no one ever taught them.

Just my wacky idea :doh: