the rich get richer

• Con_Alma

  gut;1573338 wrote:This is just laughable. A college student graduating with even $60k in debt should be able to pay that back within 5-6 years if it's a priority with good financial management.
  
  More laughable still is $60k is a mortgage for a lot of people, whom are considerably older than that college grad and making a lot less than that college grad - talking someone with 2-3X the earning power and their whole life ahead of them.
  
  With average starting salaries over $50k, $30k in average debt is really no big deal. For comparison sake, a gross income of $50k would easily qualify you for a $200k mortgage.
  
  This is nothing but bullshit class warfare, but the sad part is it really makes no difference rather the student pays for their education up front, or for someone else's on the back-end thru higher taxes. And effectively that's kind of exactly how a student loan works.

  
  IN addition, one can attend a college that will commit in writing to paying the students loans completely if they are not employed at defined income levels.
  
  Add that to the movement of certain Universities to develope degree programs that can be had for a 4 year total of $10,000 makes the cries for help appear politically and ideologically motivated. ...thats $2,500 per year for a full time student. That's less than I paid more than 2 decades ago.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1573355 wrote:Ican show universities that have lower costs today than I paid 20 plus years ago.....large, prominent universities.
  
  You are out of touch.

  now that would be another nice list
  all those universities that charge lower tuition today than they did 20 years ago.
  Please show us, it could be helpful to some needy student.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1573360 wrote:but it would be an act of possible charity to some poor young person reading this read. But of course, you got yours, so screw'em.

  Based on the informatin I have provided they can search the criteria presented already and they will find it. I did. Since they are viewing this they have the tools available to do such a search.
  
  You, on the other hand, have exposed your lack of credibility by spouting of declarations that you have no intention of following through on.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1573362 wrote:now that would be another nice list
  all those universities that charge lower tuition today than they did 20 years ago.
  Please show us, it could be helpful to some needy student.

  Texas A&M. Degree in Information Technology. You going to register there also??
• isadore

  gut;1573338 wrote:This is just laughable. A college student graduating with even $60k in debt should be able to pay that back within 5-6 years if it's a priority with good financial management.
  
  More laughable still is $60k is a mortgage for a lot of people, whom are considerably older than that college grad and making a lot less than that college grad - talking someone with 2-3X the earning power and their whole life ahead of them.
  
  With average starting salaries over $50k, $30k in average debt is really no big deal. For comparison sake, a gross income of $50k would easily qualify you for a $200k mortgage.
  
  This is nothing but bullshit class warfare, but the sad part is it really makes no difference rather the student pays for their education up front, or for someone else's on the back-end thru higher taxes. And effectively that's kind of exactly how a student loan works.

  gut wrote: Average
  debt among graduates is $29k and starting salaries was just over $44k.

  228#
  
  

  gut wrote:With average starting salaries over $50k, $30k in average debt is really no big deal. For comparison sake, a gross income of $50k would easily qualify you for a $200k mortgage.

  316#
  Gosh a ruddy those are interesting.
  Talk about laughable, or maybe just dishonest.
  But who are your “victims.” in your screw’em mind.
  
  

  gut wrote:This is nothing but bullshit class warfare, but the sad part is it really makes no difference rather the student pays for their education up front, or for someone else's on the back-end thru higher taxes. And effectively that's kind of exactly how a student loan works.

  The well to do kids and their families, they have it so rough. Who are these people from the down the economic hierarchy. Why don’t they just pull out their wallets and pay for their kids to go to college out of those declining incomes.
  “Let them pay for their education up front.”-gut
  “Let them eat cake” Marie Antoinette, acrophyal but descriptive
• gut

  isadore;1573375 wrote:228#
  
  316#
  Gosh a ruddy those are interesting.
  Talk about laughable, or maybe just dishonest.
  But who are your “victims.” in your screw’em mind.

  The only victims here are those who choose to be victims.
  
  But you fail to realize that a key difference between the US and other countries is a highly developed student loan market. And the ROI is higher which means they are more than capable of paying it back themselves without further burdening the tax payer.
  
  Also, what you don't seem to understand is it makes effectively no difference whether I pay $2k/yr per year back on my student loans or $2k/yr into a pot to provide "free" education to the future college students (all you're really advocating here is generational theft). College grads will pay the same no matter how you want to slice it (including if your parents pay for it, because that's still basically money gifted to you). However, there are two HUGE differences - "free" rides for everyone will lead to higher costs, further burdening the taxpayer. And the incentive is simply much better aligned with the student making the investment.
  
  There is simply no rational and logical justification for the need for MORE public support of college students. It's nothing more than class warfare from an administration with no ideas and no accomplishments. You SHOULD be much, much more concerned about bringing costs down rather than giving more money to students.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1573368 wrote:Texas A&M. Degree in Information Technology. You going to register there also??

  lol, not a real option for the large majority of poor students in this country
  ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
  To be eligible for a Texas B-On-Time student loan, a borrower must:
  • Be a Texas resident or be entitled to pay resident tuition rates as a dependent child of a member of the U.S. Armed Forces; and
  • Meet one of the following academic requirements:
  – Have graduated no earlier than the 2002–2003 academic year under the Recommended or Distinguished Achievement Program (or its equivalent) from a public or private high school in Texas;
  – As a dependent child of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, have graduated no earlier than the 2002–2003 academic year from a high school operated by the U.S. Department of Defense; or
  – Have earned an associate degree from an eligible institution no earlier than May 1, 2005
  http://www.tgslc.org/pdf/Texas-B-On-Time-Loan-Program.pdf
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1573381 wrote:lol, not a real option for the large majority of poor students in this country
  ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
  To be eligible for a Texas B-On-Time student loan, a borrower must:
  • Be a Texas resident or be entitled to pay resident tuition rates as a dependent child of a member of the U.S. Armed Forces; and
  • Meet one of the following academic requirements:
  – Have graduated no earlier than the 2002–2003 academic year under the Recommended or Distinguished Achievement Program (or its equivalent) from a public or private high school in Texas;
  – As a dependent child of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, have graduated no earlier than the 2002–2003 academic year from a high school operated by the U.S. Department of Defense; or
  – Have earned an associate degree from an eligible institution no earlier than May 1, 2005
  http://www.tgslc.org/pdf/Texas-B-On-Time-Loan-Program.pdf

  
  Florida is also adopting the same $10,000 degree approach. Other States are expected to begin following suit. The point is I have now given 2 examples backing up my claims that there are a variety on options, creative options emerging for students who truly want to seek a degree.
  
  You, on the other hand have made a declaration that you are not willing to full-fill decreasing your credibility.
• isadore

  gut;1573376 wrote:The only victims here are those who choose to be victims.
  
  But you fail to realize that a key difference between the US and other countries is a highly developed student loan market. And the ROI is higher which means they are more than capable of paying it back themselves without further burdening the tax payer.
  
  Also, what you don't seem to understand is it makes effectively no difference whether I pay $2k/yr per year back on my student loans or $2k/yr into a pot to provide "free" education to the future college students (all you're really advocating here is generational theft). College grads will pay the same no matter how you want to slice it (including if your parents pay for it, because that's still basically money gifted to you). However, there are two HUGE differences - "free" rides for everyone will lead to higher costs, further burdening the taxpayer. And the incentive is simply much better aligned with the student making the investment.
  
  There is simply no rational and logical justification for the need for MORE public support of college students. It's nothing more than class warfare from an administration with no ideas and no accomplishments. You SHOULD be much, much more concerned about bringing costs down rather than giving more money to students.

  If you live in a nation that truly cares about it young people especially those from families in need you do not need “a highly developed student loan market.” You provide your young people with free post secondary education. That will act as an engine for opportunity and social mobility. Obviously you see all money paid for education as generational theft. Well sir there is a benefit to all citizens to have an educated populous. And for our economy to have the human capital for future growth.
  We have seen that your heart truly only bleeds for those with resource, the well to do. Those who can put money on the barrelhead for a college education and the screw the rest.
  Well at least this time you did not make any numbers up. I guess that is something.
  　
  　
  Generational theft for social security, also theft from the able for the disabled, theft from adults for dependent minors, road building theft from non car owners for car owners., blah ,blah blah The constant refrain of the I got mine clique.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1573384 wrote:Florida is also adopting the same $10,000 degree approach. Other States are expected to begin following suit. The point is I have now given 2 examples backing up my claims that there are a variety on options, creative options emerging for students who truly want to seek a degree.
  
  You, on the other hand have made a declaration that you are not willing to full-fill decreasing your credibility.

  gosh a ruddy.
  the requirement eliminate even the large majority of instate students, so it is not really an option for all but a very small minority of students
  
  Free Post Secondary Education would simplify the process and help so many more than this pathetic patchwork of programs.
• gut

  isadore;1573387 wrote:If you live in a nation that truly cares about it young people especially those from families in need you do not need “a highly developed student loan market.”

  Sure you do. It's a fantastic system. It enables people to borrow against their future potential - nothing could be more simple or fair. And, sorry, but students who lack that potential shouldn't be borrowing and they certainly shouldn't be getting a taxpayer handout to take a 6-yr "spring break".
  
  Essentially all you keep doing is advocating generational theft and whining about how people who lack talent and ambition can't afford college. THAT'S THE WHOLE BEAUTY OF THE SYSTEM! - if college doesn't make sense for you, then you have plenty of incentive not to go.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1573389 wrote:gosh a ruddy.
  the requirement eliminate even the large majority of instate students, so it is not really an option for all but a very small minority of students
  
  Free Post Secondary Education would simplify the process and help so many more than this pathetic patchwork of programs.

  We aren't going to provide free education.
  
  The $10000 degree is a new program in one of the largest State's in the union that has also gained the interest of another of the UNion's largest States, FLorida. I have a college that's willing to contractually pay a students loans if they aren't gainfully employed. These types of programs are an example of the things being done to make education available to all...no matter the income level. Without walking in the door of a university and inquiring on the types of programs available, you won't know what can be done.
  
  That's what motivated people do. You on the other hand make declarations that you never intend to follow through on. That's jut sad.
• QuakerOats

  Here is the proof: the rich get richer, and richest, in democrat blue states:
  
  http://w3.phoenixmi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Phoenix-GWM-U.S.-Ranking-States-By-Millioinaires-Per-Capita-2006-13.pdf
  
  
  Of the top 20 states in millionaires per capita, 90% of them are democrat blue states.
  
  So, for all the bitching and moaning about the rich getting richer, look no further than the liberal policies of democrats, who continue to lie all the way to the bank, while they shackle their voters in the poor house. Gotta love it.
  
  This should end this thread!
• gut

  QuakerOats;1573411 wrote: So, for all the bitching and moaning about the rich getting richer, look no further than the liberal policies of democrats, who continue to lie all the way to the bank, while they shackle their voters in the poor house. Gotta love it.
  
  This should end this thread!

  My personal favorite was, I think it might have been SF Fed, study showed $3T+ in QE (nearly 20% of GDP) added a ginormous 0.2% to the economy...so what happened to the remaining $2.95T the fed printed?
• QuakerOats

  gut;1573420 wrote:My personal favorite was, I think it might have been SF Fed, study showed $3T+ in QE (nearly 20% of GDP) added a ginormous 0.2% to the economy...so what happened to the remaining $2.95T the fed printed?

  
  Underneath the mattresses of several million public sector union employees.
• isadore

  gut;1573394 wrote:Sure you do. It's a fantastic system. It enables people to borrow against their future potential - nothing could be more simple or fair. And, sorry, but students who lack that potential shouldn't be borrowing and they certainly shouldn't be getting a taxpayer handout to take a 6-yr "spring break".
  
  Essentially all you keep doing is advocating generational theft and whining about how people who lack talent and ambition can't afford college. THAT'S THE WHOLE BEAUTY OF THE SYSTEM! - if college doesn't make sense for you, then you have plenty of incentive not to go.

  What do you think gut? We have already seen you make up numbers to prove a point?

  gut wrote: The problem with college tuition is not the ability to pay, but rather the readily available loans at subsidized interest rates has contributed significantly to cost inflation. Universities are competing for the best students to fill their class, and unfortunately most of that is focused on non-academic amenities. Trim the subsidies and universities will trim the fat.

  Or

  gut wrote:Sure you do. It's a fantastic system. It enables people to borrow against their future potential - nothing could be more simple or fair.

  
  But gosh what do you really think, that only the rich who can pay for their education up front should be there. Screw the rest!
  

  gut wrote: This is nothing but bullshit class warfare, but the sad part is it really makes no difference rather the student pays for their education up front, or for someone else's on the back-end thru higher taxes. And effectively that's kind of exactly how a student loan works.

  316#
  Free post secondary education would be fair, opening up opportunity to all. Including older workers who had lost their jobs and needed retraining.
  
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1573398 wrote:We aren't going to provide free education.
  
  The $10000 degree is a new program in one of the largest State's in the union that has also gained the interest of another of the UNion's largest States, FLorida. I have a college that's willing to contractually pay a students loans if they aren't gainfully employed. These types of programs are an example of the things being done to make education available to all...no matter the income level. Without walking in the door of a university and inquiring on the types of programs available, you won't know what can be done.
  
  That's what motivated people do. You on the other hand make declarations that you never intend to follow through on. That's jut sad.

  We have in the past in this country had city and state education systems that provided free post secondary education. Hopefully we can see a return to that situation for benefit of this country and its people.
  The hodge podge of underfunded and over restricted scholarship and loan programs today leave too many hopefuls behind.
• gut

  isadore;1573431 wrote:What do you think gut? We have already seen you make up numbers to prove a point?
  

  I haven't made-up a single number in this thread - if you had basic math, finance and research skills you would know this. That's why I don't need a handout - I have a brain that creates value for my employer.
• isadore

  [h=3]4. The children of high- and low-income families are born with similar abilities but different opportunities.[/h]In examining the opportunity gap between high- and low-income children, it is important to begin at the beginning— birth. The evidence suggests that children of high- and low-income families start out with similar abilities but rapidly diverge in outcomes.
  At the earliest ages, there is almost no difference in cognitive ability between high- and low-income individuals. Figure 4 shows the impact of a family’s socioeconomic status—a combination of income, education, and occupation—on the cognitive ability of infants between eight and twelve months of age, as measured in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey. Although it is obviously difficult to measure the cognitive ability of infants, this ECLS metric has been shown to be modestly predictive of IQ at age five (Fryer and Levitt 2013).
  Controlling for age, number of siblings, race, and other environmental factors, the effects of socioeconomic status are small and statistically insignificant. A child born into a family in the highest socioeconomic quintile, for example, can expect to score only 0.02 standard deviations higher on a test of cognitive ability than an average child, while one born into a family in the lowest socioeconomic quintile can expect to score about 0.03 standard deviations lower—hardly a measurable difference and statistically insignificant. By contrast, other factors, such as age, gender, and birth order, have a greater impact on abilities at the earliest stages of life.
  Despite similar starting points, by age four, children in the highest income quintile score, on average, in the 69th percentile on tests of literacy and mathematics, while children in the lowest income quintile score in the 34th and 32nd percentile, respectively (Waldfogel and Washbrook 2011). Research suggests that these differences arise largely due to factors related to a child’s home environment and family’s socioeconomic status (Fryer and Levitt 2004).
  http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/06/13-facts-higher-education
• isadore

  Upward social mobility is limited in the United States. While social mobility and economic opportunity are important aspects of the American ethos, the data suggest they are more myth than reality. In fact, a child’s family income plays a dominant role in determining his or her future income, and those who start out poor are likely to remain poor.
  Figure 3 shows the chances that a child’s future earnings will place him in the lowest quintile (that is, the bottom 20 percent of the earnings distribution, shown by the green bars) or the highest quintile (that is, the top 20 percent of the distribution, purple bars) depending on where his parents fell in the distribution (from left to right on the figure, the lowest, middle, and highest quintiles). In a completely mobile society, all children would have the same likelihood of ending up in any part of the income distribution; in this case, all bars on figure 3 would be at 20 percent, denoted by the bold line.
  The figure demonstrates that children of well-off families are disproportionately likely to stay well off and children of poor families are very likely to remain poor. For example, a child born to parents with income in the lowest quintile is more than ten times more likely to end up in the lowest quintile than the highest as an adult (43 percent versus 4 percent). And, a child born to parents in the highest quintile is five times more likely to end up in the highest quintile than the lowest (40 percent versus 8 percent). These results run counter to the historic vision of the United States as a land of equal opportunity
  http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/06/13-facts-higher-education#
• isadore

  College graduation rates have increased sharply for wealthy students but stagnated for low-income students. College graduation rates have increased dramatically over the past few decades, but most of these increases have been achieved by high-income Americans. Figure 7 shows the change in graduation rates for individuals born between 1961 and 1964 and those born between 1979 and 1982. The graduation rates are reported separately for children in each quartile of the income distribution.
  In every income quartile, the proportion graduating from college increased, but the size of that increase varied considerably. While the highest income quartile saw an 18 percentage-point increase in the graduation rate between these birth cohorts, the lowest income quartile saw only a 4 percentage-point increase.
  This graduation-rate gap may have important implications for social mobility and inequality. Given the importance of a college degree in today’s labor market, rising disparities in college completion portend rising disparities in outcomes in the future.
  
  http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/06/13-facts-higher-education#
• isadore

  gut;1573433 wrote:I haven't made-up a single number in this thread - if you had basic math, finance and research skills you would know this. That's why I don't need a handout - I have a brain that creates value for my employer.

  are 44 and 50 the same number
  I am sure you have a brain that creates value for your employer at least until the auditor or comptroller checks.
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1573411 wrote:Here is the proof: the rich get richer, and richest, in democrat blue states:
  
  http://w3.phoenixmi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Phoenix-GWM-U.S.-Ranking-States-By-Millioinaires-Per-Capita-2006-13.pdf
  
  
  Of the top 20 states in millionaires per capita, 90% of them are democrat blue states.
  
  So, for all the bitching and moaning about the rich getting richer, look no further than the liberal policies of democrats, who continue to lie all the way to the bank, while they shackle their voters in the poor house. Gotta love it.
  
  This should end this thread!

  gosh all that shows is that these folks are less bitten by the I got mine philosophy than you guys. They prefer the lifestyle and the attitudes found in states whose inhabitants have a larger sense of social justice even if it might be more expensive to them.
• sleeper

  

  I went from making $0 per year to over 6 figures. Upward social mobility is possible if you aren't a dumbass.
• gut

  isadore;1573440 wrote:are 44 and 50 the same number

  Huh? I think you have trouble with basic reading comprehension, which would have to be a requirement to believe as you appear to in this thread. You misread or misunderstood a chart I posted 3 times, if not more, even after being corrected multiple times.