  Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1276 Registered: 05-2007 |
Obama has not specifically interfered with the held over $410B fy2009 omnibus spending bill. Obama has focused on the fy2010 budget and thereafter. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ news?pid=20601103&sid=aGcZFK6k DeQo&refer=us H.R. 1105, FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act http://appropriations.house.go v/FY2009_consolidated.shtml | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1247 Registered: 08-2006 |
AUDACIOUS 1.bold or daring; spirited; adventurous 2. reckless; or bold in wrongdoing; impudent and presumptuous -Syn. unabashed, shameless President Obama gave a audacious performance last night. With a straight face he told us that he intends intends to cut deficits in half over the next four years. Nevermind that he steered through the $785B Porkulus the week before. But that wasn't enough. Today, the House pushed through another $410 billion spending measure. "After persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects — a total of 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion""Among the earmarks was one sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who secured $200,000 for a "tattoo removal violence outreach program" in Los Angeles." "The legislation would provide increases of roughly 8 percent for the federal agencies it covered, about $32 billion more than last year." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 90225/ap_on_go_co/congress_spe nding | ||
Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1282 Registered: 05-2007 |
Didn't Obama author a book with a title using the term audacity? | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1249 Registered: 08-2006 |
We can't fault him for warning us. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4446 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Sure, let's just allow the federal government to shut down. How audacious that the House voted to fund operations of the federal government! Oladub, the right-wingers also laughed at Bill Clinton in the 1990s when he said he would balance the budget. George Junior could have easily done the same, but he decided that the surplus was best spent to subsidize the wealthy. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1251 Registered: 08-2006 |
Dan, Its audacious to crank out another $485B the day after the President was promising to halve the deficit and a week after he agreed to spend another $785B. No one suggested shutting down the government but cutting federal spending in half would get us somewhere near the spending level at the beginning of the Clinton administration. Good suggestion. Much better than funding the fat budget of George Junior that President Obama is expanding. | ||
Detroitej72 Member Username: Detroitej72 Post Number: 1271 Registered: 05-2006 |
Oladub, as far as I can tell, you are an inteligent person. Read some of the works by Grover Norquest. You'll see where the current Republicans get their policies of tax cuts to the weathy, spend like drunken sailors, ballon up the deficit, and leave it to the Dem's to raise taxes and balance the budget. This in turn makes the Democrat's look like a tax-happy party. Bottom line, when Clinton left, we had a surplus. After 8 years of W's neo-con policies, we are left with a HUGE defecit. Notice where the defecit, after Reagan, darling of the right, was when he left office. Do you see a pattern? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4448 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You're saying two different things here. The $485 billion bill funds operations of federal agencies (key word: "omnibus") for the current fiscal year, which started October 1, 2008. Without this bill, the federal government effectively shuts down. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1252 Registered: 08-2006 |
Detroitej72, I saw Grover Norquist speak at the Rally for the Republic this summer. I somewhat agree with what you are saying. Republicans have traded small government conservatism for the neocon alternative. I mentioned the other day that Nixon, actually Nixon and Johnson, set up Carter for a bout of hyperinflation. Clinton achieved a measure of his economic success by adjusting numbers such as the CPI,and unemployment rates. Dan, It's still another $485B of spending that alternatively could be offset with $485B of downsizing the government. Close the Department of Education ($63B annually), Bring our troops home from Europe, Korea, Iraq, and other countries and we would probably close the gap. President Obama should have applied the savings from leaving Iraq to this budget hole. Instead, he suggested applying the Iraq savings to new spending programs in his speech last night. He was sure silent about the $485B in his speech. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4450 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Maybe you can explain to millions of would-be college students why federal loans are no longer available for their education, then. | ||
Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1287 Registered: 05-2007 |
Intentionally silent on the $485B. Very much intentionally. Also, pioneers are typically audacious by nature. In this case that quality is being preponderated on America by choice. Therefore not rape. (Message edited by vetalalumni on February 25, 2009) | ||
Firstandten Member Username: Firstandten Post Number: 717 Registered: 05-2006 |
Didn't Obama author a book with a title using the term audacity? Be real quiet about that Vetal... don't let that get out cause the neocons will have a field day but actually he got that term from a Jeremiah Wright sermon. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1253 Registered: 08-2006 |
Dan, OK. The Federal DOE didn't even exist until 1980 but colleges, universities, and students survived none the less. Every state already has its own DOE so the federal DOE is largely redundant anyway. If states want to give away money for loans they may do so. To the extent they do, state taxes just displace federal taxes but my guess is that local governments are more accountable so there might be savings. State legislatures would be breathing down the backs of state universities if they were trying to stretch the state budget. Banks also provide college loans. If a state just paid the difference between what the federal government charges for loans and the banks charge for loans it would be a lot cheaper than foddering a bunch of bureaucrats in DC and the additional bank jobs would be largely at home instead of in Washington DC. I was raised by Belgians on Detroit's east side so I have no concept of why healthy people would want to take a loan anyway. I told my kid that if they wanted to go to college, they could go to any college they wanted. I would pay their room and board but they would have to pay for 100% of their tuition. They all won some academic scholarships and worked their butts off summers and while in school. Two graduated a year early. A lot of the work they did was career related and helped them get established in their careers. I would hate to see kids have to go off and do some stupid 'volunteer' work in return for their tuition. I acknowledge that two-thirds of the tuition at state colleges is already paid by taxpayers but loans were not a topic of discussion. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4452 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^Let me know when you have $40,000 a year to pay for a college education. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19058 Registered: 11-2006 |
40K?? Sitting on your butt, not working to pay part of the way, and adding to the cost that of room and board maybe. Practical minded and hardworking folks can easily walk away at half that per year (at least). | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1256 Registered: 08-2006 |
Dan, You are paying too much. I arbitrarily picked Western Michigan to check current costs. Room and board is about $7,500/year. Tuition is about $8,000/year. Both costs were about $5,000/year each when my kids went to college not long ago. One of my kids did go to a private college in Iowa though with a $15,000 year school scholarship plus $6,000/year of academic scholarships from Doubleday book heirs and S&S Cycle. That brought the cost of his private college down to in state tuition at midwest land grant universities. The rest he paid off with campus computer jobs, working for a biologist summers, and repairing and installing computer stuff on the side. He had accumulated over one year worth of college credits before graduating from high school so he only had to spend three years in college. So there are ways of even affording private college. It was much cheaper a generation earlier when, as I recall, tuition was only $125-$175/quarter at Wayne State and $350/semester at MSU while I made $3.25/hour at unloading Greyhounds and $8/hr at Barton-Mallow as a laborer. Unfortunately, our dollar is collapsing and with the dollar our standard of living forcing up the relative costs of college. | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1749 Registered: 02-2005 |
Why is no one questioning why the cost of college has gotten so expensive? I recall reading something a couple of years ago stating that the average cost of tuition over the last 20 years increased about 6%/year, or twice the rate of inflation. I don't know if that included all the additional fees that one must now pay. There doesn't appear to be an easy mechanism available for holding colleges accountable for their costs. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1258 Registered: 08-2006 |
Jiminnm, Good question. Over the years one or the other of my kids were in college, I kept track of tuition increases. My numbers showed an average annual tuition increase of 7% per year. I have some partial answers. -Engineering, computer, and some science curriculums require a lot of expensive equipment that must be continually replaced. Dorms get wired for highspeed internet. -More services and help is provided students. One of my sons had ADD. He did great in computer courses but the University provided him with tutors in more people oriented courses. They even gave him a prescription of ritalin he stopped taking because, he said, it took away his creativity with computers. Such University provided services and scholarships for special need individuals and groups have to be passed on to other students. -The broad availability of scholarships and loans drives up prices by simple supply and demand. If the President gives $10,000 to everyone who does some 'volunteer' work, hundreds of thousands of new students will turn up and the colleges can raise their prices to thin demand. Expect nice pay increases for instructors and administrators. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4453 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Well, that's not your decision to make, is it? I non-arbitrarily picked the University of Michigan, where my tuition alone in 2000-2001 was $22,000. I don't regret my decision in the least, but it wouldn't have been possible without federal loans. I have a friend who will be $300,000 in debt when she graduates from medical school. For those of us who don't have trust funds, and who are committed to working our asses off to better ourselves, the DoEd is one of those pesky socialist government programs that's just going to have to hang around, whether you like it or not. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1260 Registered: 08-2006 |
Dan, It's my opinion not decision. You are talking to the wrong person about trust funds. My father did not have a high school degree and I have never been above the 15% income tax bracket and always worked blue collar jobs. I explained in the beginning of this conversation that I was raised by Belgians who would not understand healthy people taking loans. If there is anyone on this forum who has know settler Belgians on Detroit east side, they will affirm my perception. They didn't just pick up pennies, they filed them and sold the scrap metal. So, from my perspective, going deeply into debt to attain an undergraduate degree is a lifestyle choice. My daughter graduated from medical school with far, far less debt. Her tuition averaged about $19,500 times three years graduating from med school in 2002 I think. Figure in $36,000 of living expenses for three years plus $65,000 for tuition and supplies and we are talking $111,OOO. Even adding inflation, how could your friend amass a $300,000 debt unless she spent additional years acquiring a specialty? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4456 Registered: 10-2003 |
Oladub, I completely understand, especially with the wariness of the older generation of immigrants and first-generation Americans with regard to taking loans. This is the reality we face, though, especially as states cut back funding for higher education. If we don't have government programs like the Department of Education, among others, we resign ourselves to a permanent caste system, where advancement is only an option to those who already have means. I don't believe that's a scenario that most of us wish to see. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1261 Registered: 08-2006 |
There was no federal DOE until 1980 but I don't recall the US a being "a permanent caste system, where advancement is only an option to those who already have means" prior to that time. State DOE's are also capable of doling out money and probably more efficiently. President Obama is shifting even more of the loan work from banks across the country to Washington DC. "White House Plan Would End Subsidies to Student Lenders" http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02 /26/AR2009022603314.html It used to be that auto plants and furniture manufacturers would pick up their plants in Michigan and move them south. Now we have a President who moves jobs and decisions to Washington DC. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4460 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: In the 1970s, you could still graduate from high school, and get a good-paying job in a factory MAKING SOMETHING. Those jobs have since jumped ship to Mexico and Southeast Asia. College was also a hell of a lot more affordable at the time as well, for those so inclined. quote: State DOE's don't have the financial resources of the federal government, especially the small states. They also wouldn't be able to offer low interest rates as exists under the Stafford Loan program, because the lending pool would be far smaller. And what happens if you live in one state and attend a school in a different state? How do you figure states would go about student lending "more efficiently"? What does this phrase mean? quote: I suppose you'd rather keep throwing needless subsidies at private banks, huh? To me, the article you linked demonstrates that maybe the private sector isn't "more efficient" than government all the time after all.... If you were to go to college today, how would you pay for it? | ||
Det_ard Member Username: Det_ard Post Number: 45 Registered: 02-2009 |
College costs are way out of control. That needs to be addressed, but on a practical level here's how one student I know (nephew) went to college with no monetary help from mom and dad. The first two years were done a the local community college, while working full time to pay for living expenses, CC tuition and saving some for their next two years. He got very good grades (4.0) and transferred to UM-AA. He wanted to do a co-op engineering program, alternating semesters at school and at work but it didn't work out for him. He got some scholarship money and with his savings he paid for his Junior year. He also worked part-time during his Junior year. No loans, he was very motivated to avoid them. He had some money saved for his senior year but not enough so he took a year off and worked two jobs, one full-time and one part-time, to save money for his senior year. After that year he returned and completed his BSEE, again with savings, part-time work during the school year a a few small scholarships. About a year after he graduated he started taking classes for his MSEE, part-time. His employer pays half. That's one way to get a degree, with zero debt. Of course it required someone who was highly motivated (not going to college just to party), going to a lower cost college for the first two years, working, and going to an affordable yet excellent in-state school. Now if someone wants to go to a private university or out-of-state elite public university that's going to cost much more. It probably isn't easy to do that debt-free unless there are some very hefty scholarship dollars available. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1262 Registered: 08-2006 |
Dan, I just explained how my kids got through college without taking out loans. Academic scholarships, hard work, good spending habits, and pre-college savings were involved on their part. They paid for all their tuition. They graduated as recently as 2002. Only one took over than 4 years to graduate, 4.5 years, and that was because he was a full time employee of the University computer department through his senior year. He's the one with ADD. I wasn't talking about anything in the distant past. No, I wouldn't throw subsidies at private banks. That was Senator Obama who voted for Bush's Wall Street bailout. I wouldn't give any subsidy to any corporation. State's often have reprocicity agreements allowing thir students to go to each others' schools at in-state rates. I would guess that the $50-60B/year that the federal DOE costs is a much larger sum than the tiny percentage difference that the e.g. Wyoming DOE would have to pay for loan money and, as mentioned before, the Wyoming legislature can better control spending and policies at its own universities than at schools that the federal DOE sends money to. Hence, efficiency. It wasn't just bad luck that caused our jobs to be run out of the country and our dollar to lose its spending power. Those things were the fault of Democrats and Republicans. Applying bandaids on problems deriving from a cancerous government is not a solution. It is a temporary fix. I would cut out the cancer by slashing federal spending. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4462 Registered: 10-2003 |
It's a bit difficult to have a discussion with people who insist that THEIR WAY is the ONLY WAY, Oladub. I regret to tell you this, but the ideas of those who are set in their ways have been soundly rejected by the majority of the nation. Deal with it and prosper. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4463 Registered: 10-2003 |
This is in the article you linked above, Oladub: quote: Gee. I guess that's Obama's fault that the banks were receiving these subsidies, huh? So WHY should we spend an extra $4 billion a year for the same results? Oh, that's right. Because resenting government has no price. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1264 Registered: 08-2006 |
Dan, Please re-read my previous message. I advocated the that federal government spending be slashed, that state government could probably hand out money more efficiently, suggested from experience that the perceived need for giving and taking government goodies is exaggerated, and spelled out that, "I wouldn't give any subsidy to any corporation." I'm doubt whether Obama transferring banking jobs and decisions to Washington DC and then sending Porkulus to states to help out with their unemployment problems is logical or cost efficient. I would rather that the banking and DOE jobs, as necessary, be in my own state. Det_ard, Your family has a right to be proud of your nephew! | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4465 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You're talking about the educations of millions of students. "Probably" isn't good enough. quote: "Often"? To what degree is "often"? As far as I know, the only school that does this is Eastern Michigan University, in an attempt to gain enrollment from Ohio. There is no reciprocity. quote: Only problem is, Wyoming isn't the only state. There are 49 others. Tell me, how well has the Michigan Legislature controlled spending and tuition increases at places like UM and MSU? THEY HAVEN'T, because they Legislature doesn't have direct control of those universities' budgets. Again, "guessing" isn't going to cut it. | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1754 Registered: 02-2005 |
"It's a bit difficult to have a discussion with people who insist that THEIR WAY is the ONLY WAY, Oladub." Dan, this may your best post in the 4 years I've been here. Too bad you don't follow your own advice. |
