So What Changes if Romney is Elected?

• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1211134 wrote:Did a poor person piss in your Wheaties?

  I don't hate the poor, I pity their ignorance. I don't sit here and expound about biology because I'm not an expert in biology. The poor think they taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage is the panacea for all the problems in America; when the reality is the opposite. It's a joke.
• jmog

  O-Trap;1211068 wrote: When compared to schools like Ashland, there are still far more affordable schools. Granted, this was back during the 2003-2004 school year, but I spent a year going to the U of Akron's Wayne Campus and was able to write checks for tuition. I lived at home. I had little social life, sans a few friends who would go out once a week, and I worked multiple part-time jobs.
  

  God forbid! I was the same way, I went to UofA main campus for both my of my BS's and my MS and stayed at home, worked multiple jobs, etc. I even got married as a sophomore in college and had a baby just before my senior year started.
  
  I managed to come out of my undergrad with just a couple 1000 in loan debt.
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1211188 wrote:God forbid! I was the same way, I went to UofA main campus for both my of my BS's and my MS and stayed at home, worked multiple jobs, etc. I even got married as a sophomore in college and had a baby just before my senior year started.
  
  I managed to come out of my undergrad with just a couple 1000 in loan debt.

  Oh, I've got a squat ton of school debt. A small fortune. But again, it's an investment. Other than that year, most of my schooling came a la student loans. I'm able to pay it monthly with the job I have, and which I probably wouldn't have gotten without "College Degree" on my resume.
  
  Long-term thinking, it was a better option.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1211068 wrote:Oh, I don't suggest that it's caring at all, but it's surprising how smart people get when being stupid is bad for their wallets.
  
  
  
  I've seen that as well, but eventually, 40 fewer employees affects the school's bottom line, which affects the profit potential for the administrator.
  
  
  
  When compared to schools like Ashland, there are still far more affordable schools. Granted, this was back during the 2003-2004 school year, but I spent a year going to the U of Akron's Wayne Campus and was able to write checks for tuition. I lived at home. I had little social life, sans a few friends who would go out once a week, and I worked multiple part-time jobs.
  
  Also, it isn't as though one cannot still get loans. They'd just be bank loans instead. Hell, MOST of my loans are bank loans. I don't like paying them, but they weren't unachievable, and they're not outrageous.
  
  And the higher the cost gets, the more drastic that drop in student enrollment is going to be. And admins will see that coming. Again, when it's going to affect your wallet, it's amazing how smart someone can be.

  First I had a decent amount of scholarships, and second, I know Ashland costs a shitload. That's why I no longer go there (I go to YSU now). There's not really cheaper schools than YSU.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1211213 wrote:First I had a decent amount of scholarships, and second, I know Ashland costs a shitload. That's why I no longer go there (I go to YSU now). There's not really cheaper schools than YSU.

  Fair enough.
• Con_Alma

  You surprised me there a litle bt IWP...going to a Christian school and all. It does't surprise me that you transfered, however.
• jmog

  O-Trap;1211204 wrote:Oh, I've got a squat ton of school debt. A small fortune. But again, it's an investment. Other than that year, most of my schooling came a la student loans. I'm able to pay it monthly with the job I have, and which I probably wouldn't have gotten without "College Degree" on my resume.
  
  Long-term thinking, it was a better option.

  Myself as well, but that was from the master's years...I had two kids by that time and was doing my MS full time.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1211228 wrote:You surprised me there a litle bt IWP...going to a Christian school and all. It does't surprise me that you transfered, however.

  Although rarely considered, there are private Christian colleges with non-religious academic programs that are excellent. As such, one may go without being affiliated in any other way.
• Con_Alma

  Of course there are. I wasn't suggesting he was in a religious academic program. The presence of a Christian environment is very evident at Ashland, however. It surprised methat would be a choice of his.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1211263 wrote:Of course there are. I wasn't suggesting he was in a religious academic program. The presence of a Christian environment is very evident at Ashland, however. It surprised methat would be a choice of his.

  Fair enough. I guess I just still remember several kids at my college (a very Christianity-focused campus as well) who went solely because the business program, and they weren't interested in any of the rest.
  
  Most of them transferred out as well.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1211228 wrote:You surprised me there a litle bt IWP...going to a Christian school and all. It does't surprise me that you transfered, however.

  I enjoyed Ashland, it's simply too expensive for me. I was in their business school though and the Christian school part of it literally never factored into my decision to attend there or to transfer out of there. It wasn't/isn't an issue.
  

  Con_Alma;1211263 wrote:Of course there are. I wasn't suggesting he was in a religious academic program. The presence of a Christian environment is very evident at Ashland, however. It surprised methat would be a choice of his.

  It is, but I never felt like it was pressed upon students or anything like that so I don't see why I wouldn't attend there because of it. If that happened it would have become an issue but it never did.
• fan_from_texas

  Con_Alma;1211031 wrote:This whole idea of going away to school and taking out loans to fund living expenses ...then crying about how much debt a person graduates with is ridiculous.
  
  College isn't too expensive according to the market. They have yet to reach the point of diminishing returns.
  
  I don't mind "helping" people seek out the credentials of a secondary education but there's a difference between helping and providing them a solution to cover their expenses. Maybe the service academies have it right.

  What do you think of earnings-indexed student loans? I believe Australia has (or is experimenting with) them. The basic idea is that the interest rate you pay is based on your income. I think there are some potential moral hazards vis-a-vis people going into low earning majors (art history, anyone?), but this is one way to take a bit of the risk off a 17 year-old.
  
  Don't get me wrong; I think people should be held accountable for mistakes. At the same time, it seems a bit unreasonable to take a 17 or 18yo student who follows the (terribly misguided) advice of their parents/guidance counselor/any Boomer to "go to college and study what [they] love", then ends up without a job and with a ton of debt.
  
  If we want to hold kids accountable for their decisions, shouldn't we either lessen the risk somehow or make sure they're getting better advice?
• O-Trap

  

  fan_from_texas;1211407 wrote:What do you think of earnings-indexed student loans? I believe Australia has (or is experimenting with) them. The basic idea is that the interest rate you pay is based on your income. I think there are some potential moral hazards vis-a-vis people going into low earning majors (art history, anyone?), but this is one way to take a bit of the risk off a 17 year-old.
  
  Don't get me wrong; I think people should be held accountable for mistakes. At the same time, it seems a bit unreasonable to take a 17 or 18yo student who follows the (terribly misguided) advice of their parents/guidance counselor/any Boomer to "go to college and study what [they] love", then ends up without a job and with a ton of debt.
  
  If we want to hold kids accountable for their decisions, shouldn't we either lessen the risk somehow or make sure they're getting better advice?

  My grandfather gave me what he called "the straight Joe Friday" about going to college ('just the facts'). I listened to him as he told me not to expect a decent job if I wasn't going to school in a valued field (as in, valued by the rest of the world ... my thoughts aside), and I thankfully turned out okay, but only because my goal was never getting my dream job because of my college education (worthless dregrees).
  
  It would be nice to hear a purely fact-based college prep. None of this "you'll regret it if ..." or "you'll be happy when ..." stuff. People aren't the same, so some might regret what others might not. It's not okay for a parent or guidance counselor to treat students as reflections of themselves.
• Con_Alma

  fan_from_texas;1211407 wrote:What do you think of earnings-indexed student loans? I believe Australia has (or is experimenting with) them. The basic idea is that the interest rate you pay is based on your income. I think there are some potential moral hazards vis-a-vis people going into low earning majors (art history, anyone?), but this is one way to take a bit of the risk off a 17 year-old.
  
  Don't get me wrong; I think people should be held accountable for mistakes. At the same time, it seems a bit unreasonable to take a 17 or 18yo student who follows the (terribly misguided) advice of their parents/guidance counselor/any Boomer to "go to college and study what [they] love", then ends up without a job and with a ton of debt.
  
  If we want to hold kids accountable for their decisions, shouldn't we either lessen the risk somehow or make sure they're getting better advice?

  I would be open to learning more and better understanding such a solution.
  
  I am more interested in work - study options and solutions. ...be they work part-time while taking a part time class load or one semester of full-time classes and one semester of full-time work.
  
  I don't see our responsibility as being lessening the risk. I do understand the benefits of providing better advice.
  
  In the end, accepting that the only route to an education is based on immediately going to school full-time and taking loans that are inclusive of covering living expenses lacks good financial sense unless the return on investment of a near certain vocation is significant. I can't for the life of me understand the rationale of deferring with interest the operating costs of life which are the living expenses. I can somewhat tolerate takng on debt to cover the services of educational development....but it should be minimally
• Terry_Tate

  

  Just read this whole thread and while I'm not near as extreme as sleeper, I do agree with most of what he says. My boss is in the 1% and pays a ton in taxes and you know how he got there? Working 40 hours a week through school while going to a cheap local school, getting a valuable major(Accounting), working 40 hours through law school, then franchising a small local pizza place to make a little bit of money and using that to move to bigger and better restaurants. There may be some in the 1% that don't work hard or didn't have to work hard to get there, but I'll bet most of them had a lot of long days and sacrifices to get to that point. I think the managers and workers at the new Waffle House or wherever are valuable and certainly deserve their share, but as sleeper said, if that Waffle House shuts down, all of them can go down to Jimmy John's, or B-Dubs, or Potbelly's and get a job. They don't lose a dime other than maybe waiting a week to get a job, it's the owners that are the ones that lose, so it certainly should be them that wins if it's successful. This could get into rewarding your employees as well which fortunately my company does well, but that's another topic.
• I Wear Pants

  Terry_Tate;1211447 wrote:Just read this whole thread and while I'm not near as extreme as sleeper, I do agree with most of what he says. My boss is in the 1% and pays a ton in taxes and you know how he got there? Working 40 hours a week through school while going to a cheap local school, getting a valuable major(Accounting), working 40 hours through law school, then franchising a small local pizza place to make a little bit of money and using that to move to bigger and better restaurants. There may be some in the 1% that don't work hard or didn't have to work hard to get there, but I'll bet most of them had a lot of long days and sacrifices to get to that point. I think the managers and workers at the new Waffle House or wherever are valuable and certainly deserve their share, but as sleeper said, if that Waffle House shuts down, all of them can go down to Jimmy John's, or B-Dubs, or Potbelly's and get a job. They don't lose a dime other than maybe waiting a week to get a job, it's the owners that are the ones that lose, so it certainly should be them that wins if it's successful. This could get into rewarding your employees as well which fortunately my company does well, but that's another topic.

  The problem is that the Republicans don't just think that hard work is a good thing (if that was it no one would disagree) they also don't want to punish those that cheat and ruin things for everyone else. Instead they want to reward them. And it's because they're paid by them (so are a lot of Dems).
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1211814 wrote:The problem is that the Republicans don't just think that hard work is a good thing (if that was it no one would disagree) they also don't want to punish those that cheat and ruin things for everyone else. Instead they want to reward them. And it's because they're paid by them (so are a lot of Dems).

  Enter those of us who won't vote for either, because at the end of the day, too many of them are paid by these private sector guys who prefer to cheat.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1211814 wrote:The problem is that the Republicans don't just think that hard work is a good thing (if that was it no one would disagree) they also don't want to punish those that cheat and ruin things for everyone else. Instead they want to reward them. And it's because they're paid by them (so are a lot of Dems).

  Rather than generalizing prove to me which individual candidates seeking office will turn a blind eye to cheaters for personal political power. They will not get my vote. As to institutionalized corruption our founders sought to thwart it by pitting government against government. Centralizing it only makes it easier for the corrupt to wield power in the name of the just over all 300+ million of us. The corrupt gravitate to power. The just many times are corrupted by it.
  
  Its the human condition. The framers divided power to combat the known human condition. The central government was to be divided equally three ways against itself. That power pitted against the several states and their local governmental authorities. Rendering it nearly impossible for corruption or totalitarian rule to ever pervade the nation as a whole. Temporal efficiency many times rules over the original intent of constitutional law.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1211850 wrote:Rather than generalizing prove to me which individual candidates seeking office will turn a blind eye to cheaters for personal political power. They will not get my vote. As to institutionalized corruption our founders sought to thwart it by pitting government against government. Centralizing it only makes it easier for the corrupt to wield power in the name of the just over all 300+ million of us. The corrupt gravitate to power. The just many times are corrupted by it.
  
  Its the human condition. The framers divided power to combat the known human condition. The central government was to be divided equally three ways against itself. That power pitted against the several states and their local governmental authorities. Rendering it nearly impossible for corruption or totalitarian rule to ever pervade the nation as a whole. Temporal efficiency many times rules over the original intent of constitutional law.

  I don't see where I said we need to centralize more shit at all?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  fan_from_texas;1211407 wrote:What do you think of earnings-indexed student loans? I believe Australia has (or is experimenting with) them. The basic idea is that the interest rate you pay is based on your income. I think there are some potential moral hazards vis-a-vis people going into low earning majors (art history, anyone?), but this is one way to take a bit of the risk off a 17 year-old.
  
  Don't get me wrong; I think people should be held accountable for mistakes. At the same time, it seems a bit unreasonable to take a 17 or 18yo student who follows the (terribly misguided) advice of their parents/guidance counselor/any Boomer to "go to college and study what [they] love", then ends up without a job and with a ton of debt.
  
  If we want to hold kids accountable for their decisions, shouldn't we either lessen the risk somehow or make sure they're getting better advice?

  I think that could work in conjunction with a real accounting of graduates' income and tie any monetary gain from universities from federal subsidies back to any "bail-outs" (for lack of better term) of forgiveness of student debt.
  
  The key issue, IMO, is that the cost of higher education has not only outpaced inflation, value of degree, etc., in the last 10 years or so, but also has done so in a multiple manner. We've created an education industrial complex based on funny money in guaranteed student loans, large entities that can't control their spending, and an ultimately diluted if not worthless product. Since this is the political board I can say this - I don't see much headway in the next few years since the academic industrial complex tends to heavily lean DEM.
  
  As most people that read my posts know, one of my alma mater's is a "state" institution that in my last year of school had an OOS tuition of about $19,500. That was 1998-9 year. Today that number is around $45,000 (I don't care to look it up). That is insane. Where is this money going? There have been improvements made to the physical plant, but not that much. The stock market/inflation hasn't kept up nearly with that - the job prospects aren't just worse, they are (again) a multiple of said worse. This makes no sense.
  
  The taxpayers are asked to subsidize a growing monster that could eclipse the housing bubble depression of the 2000's. This isn't just economics. Someone that lost $400,000 on an investment house in Las Vegas can foreclose. You can't foreclose on student loans. We have a growing young population that can't afford to even get their own apartment by age 30, let alone marry, have children, or otherwise be a productive adult. That just isn't an economic disaster, it is a sociological disaster.
  
  I'm not sure what the best answer is, but getting our (incompetent) federal government out of the student loan subsidization business might be a fine start.
• sleeper

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1211859 wrote:I think that could work in conjunction with a real accounting of graduates' income and tie any monetary gain from universities from federal subsidies back to any "bail-outs" (for lack of better term) of forgiveness of student debt.
  
  The key issue, IMO, is that the cost of higher education has not only outpaced inflation, value of degree, etc., in the last 10 years or so, but also has done so in a multiple manner. We've created an education industrial complex based on funny money in guaranteed student loans, large entities that can't control their spending, and an ultimately diluted if not worthless product. Since this is the political board I can say this - I don't see much headway in the next few years since the academic industrial complex tends to heavily lean DEM.
  
  As most people that read my posts know, one of my alma mater's is a "state" institution that in my last year of school had an OOS tuition of about $19,500. That was 1998-9 year. Today that number is around $45,000 (I don't care to look it up). That is insane. Where is this money going? There have been improvements made to the physical plant, but not that much. The stock market/inflation hasn't kept up nearly with that - the job prospects aren't just worse, they are (again) a multiple of said worse. This makes no sense.
  
  The taxpayers are asked to subsidize a growing monster that could eclipse the housing bubble depression of the 2000's. This isn't just economics. Someone that lost $400,000 on an investment house in Las Vegas can foreclose. You can't foreclose on student loans. We have a growing young population that can't afford to even get their own apartment by age 30, let alone marry, have children, or otherwise be a productive adult. That just isn't an economic disaster, it is a sociological disaster.
  
  I'm not sure what the best answer is, but getting our (incompetent) federal government out of the student loan subsidization business might be a fine start.

  Agreed. To summarize:
  
  
• gut

  But why should succesful graduates be forced to subsidize fellow students, maybe students who don't work as hard or pursue shit-paying fields of study?
  
  If successful, they will already be paying higher taxes. Why should they also have to pay higher interest rates on their student loans (which, by the way, are not deductible after you earn a certain amount)?
  
  I understand the idea and reasoning, I just feel like it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction between the have's and have-nots. But besides that, it's counter-intuitive, if not non-sensical, that the higher-risk grads would pay LOWER rates.
• Footwedge

  Wow. Manhatten Buckeye with a great post. Where's my meds?
• I Wear Pants

  http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/stop-the-drug-war-to-fight-aids
  
  That likely won't change regardless of the outcome of the election and it's a damn shame. If Romney were such a business minded fellow he'd be talking about the hundreds of billions he could save by ending the drug "war" and the added benefit of lowering the rate of AIDS infections as well as likely lowering opiate and heroin abuse. But fuck that right, we've got to be "tough" on crime.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1213119 wrote:http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/stop-the-drug-war-to-fight-aids
  
  That likely won't change regardless of the outcome of the election and it's a damn shame. If Romney were such a business minded fellow he'd be talking about the hundreds of billions he could save by ending the drug "war" and the added benefit of lowering the rate of AIDS infections as well as likely lowering opiate and heroin abuse. But **** that right, we've got to be "tough" on crime.

  The "Drug War" isn't a decision that's based on money...but we've discussed that before.