News Should scientific research be solely funded by the private sector?

[russ_watters]

Correct: this provision was inserted to buy democratic votes, while farm subsidies buy republican votes.

 

[Dickfore]

Correct: this provision was inserted to buy democratic votes, while farm subsidies buy republican votes.

Wow, your logic is flawless.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow, your logic is flawless.

? Its realism. If you disagree, please explain why you think this provision was added to a completely unrelated bill.

Or was there a bigger point to your post that I missed? If so, please clarify.

 

[Dickfore]

? Its realism. If you disagree, please explained why you think this provision was added to a completely unrelated bill.

Or was there a bigger point to your post that I missed? If so, please clarify.

Please explain how one buys a vote.

 

[jambaugh]

The tea-party is, first and foremost, a wing of the Republican Party.

I would rather say the tea-party is more closely aligned with the Republican Party's platform and so you see the majority of the members, especially members who successfully ran for office, are Republican in party affiliation. However, it is a true grass-roots political manifestation, not an astroturf creation of the Republican leadership, so I would contradict your statement there.

 

[Dickfore]

However, it is a true grass-roots political manifestation, not an astroturf creation of the Republican leadership, so I would contradict your statement there.

What does 'grass-roots political manifestation' mean? The only political organization in a Democratic society is a Political Party that runs on elections. Is it possible for a person to be a member of two different political parties simultaneously? Will the members of the Tea Party run on some elections under the Republican Party banner or the 'Tea-Party' banner?

 

[jambaugh]

And that's mostly a good thing, because welfare to the poor benefits the general economy and therefore the country.

I dispute this statement. I agree that assisting the poor does benefit the general economy and thus country but only if carried out through voluntary donations within the private sector. Enforced charity fails on three fronts.

Firstly as coerced redistribution of wealth it is not subject to the judgment of the individual donating the wealth and thus the recipient develops no sense of gratitude to the person who via his knowledge and character is able to produce that wealth. He does not seek to emulate the producer but rather is grateful instead to the politician who use the power of the state to transfer the wealth.

Secondly since the distributor of that wealth is not the one who had to produce it, he does not best understand the value of that wealth, what is required to produce it, and thus how best to distribute it in terms of who is most deserving. To prevent favoritism he must abide by an objective policy of distribution which in turn is subject to manipulation and corruption by the potential recipients. They will behave in a way to better qualify for the largess instead of behaving in a way to free themselves from the need for that largess. I recall a woman on PRN complaining about her inability to find a job with her "Masters of Women's Studies Degree". A find degree I am sure but not one conducive of producing the wealth she desires to keep her supplied with food clothing and shelter if she does not already have the means.

Thirdly since the producer of that wealth does not have any choice in its redistribution he looses some incentive to produce it and more importantly looses more incentive to "pay it back" through private sector organizations.

I'm surprised that those same people who argue that charity is necessary because it benefits all cannot also carry that logic through to recognized that the producers of wealth also recognize that fact (if true) and thus do not need to be coerced into doing what is in their best interest...that by coercing them you belie your belief in the truth of your words.

 

[ThomasT]

You say this as if universities are run by people that aren't rich.

What makes you say that?

Over here in California, San Diego State, in the middle of the biggest budget crisis in our states history, just appointed a new President with a salary of $400,000.

What's that got to do with whether Pell grants are welfare or are good for the economy?

And let's not even start talking about the actual chancellors of these state systems.

Ok. That would be off topic anyway.

Plus, imagine if 5,000 students at any decently sized university end up getting $100k over the course of their studies in financial aid and end up working at starbucks, that's half a billion dollars wasted, easily, at just one university. And that's NO exaggeration.

The Pell grant money that gets put into the general economy, and I assume that that would be a good portion of it, isn't wasted. It helps the economy, and, therefore, is good for the country.

I think the recent estimates are that 50% of students right now are going to leave college jobless. And when you finish college and aren't applying what you learned (if you learned anything), that knowledge slips away fast.

I agree that for lots of, maybe most, people college is more of a social than an academic thing.

Your idealistic dismissals should be rethought.

What idealistic dismissals? My point was that Pell grants are welfare, and that that welfare helps the economy whether the Pell grant recipients eventually land high level jobs or not.

 

[ThomasT]

I agree that assisting the poor does benefit the general economy and thus country but only if carried out through voluntary donations within the private sector.

I have to disagree with that for the time being. But I'll consider your points further, and if I change my mind then I'll post something wrt that. If you would like me to address your argument point by point then I'll do that when I have more time, and have thought about it some more.

 

[jambaugh]

What does 'grass-roots political manifestation' mean?

"Grass-roots" means organized from bottom up, i.e. a spontaneous organization of individuals with like minded ideologies. The civil rights movement began as a grass-roots political manifestation... individuals began protesting, then organizing their protests, then politicians latched on (a good thing, mind you) and now we have a new amendment to our constitution. "Political manifestion" means a manifestation (phenomena, happening, ...) within the arena of politics. Need I break it down further?

The only political organization in a Democratic society is a Political Party that runs on elections.

Within the Democratic party, itself a large body encompassing a broad range of ideologies, you have more specific organizations of individuals with specific goals on guiding the platform, you have the http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/" .

Is it possible for a person to be a member of two different political parties simultaneously? Will the members of the Tea Party run on some elections under the Republican Party banner or the 'Tea-Party' banner?

As yet the Tea-Party Movement is not a political party. It is more a caucus like my examples above working within the political parties. It has membership in both parties: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie" .

As far as party leaders are concerned, the Republican leaders are still trying to figure out how to deal with the Tea Party. Some of the Democratic leadership have tried to paint them as insignificant and as bigoted hillbillies but that has mostly failed.

 

[jambaugh]

I have to disagree with that for the time being. But I'll consider your points further, and if I change my mind then I'll post something wrt that. If you would like me to address your argument point by point then I'll do that when I have more time, and have thought about it some more.

Certainly, and it may go far afield of the OP so we should consider forming a new thread.

 

[ThomasT]

So what??! It's still spending borrowed money! You're advocating doing more of what this bill is supposed to start to FIX. That flawed thinking is why we're here, talking about an unsustainable debt!

Question: if spending money to help the poor is such a positive thing even in the face of debt, why don't YOU give all of your money to charity, then go borrow as much as you can so you can give more? Please answer, it's a serious question. If you're not doing it now, there must be a downside. What is it?

Our governments have wasted lots of money, and therefore we have a huge debt problem. But I don't think that Pell grants, and welfare to the poor in general, is part of that wasted money. The net effect of welfare to the poor is that it helps the general economy, which you seem to agree with. And anyway it's a relatively small percentage of the budget.

We're going to be spending borrowed money for a long time. This is primarily due to monetary waste due to inordinately grossly inflated costs of things that the government pays for. It has little to do with welfare to the poor such as Pell grants.

 

[russ_watters]

Please explain how one buys a vote.

I'm a little surprised at the push-back here and I'm not quite sure what the point of the push-back is - what exactly do you disagree with?

The issue I brought up is standard operating procedure in government:

-A guy from Party A introduces a bill, that Party B doesn't like.
-Party A inserts a provision (almost always costing money) in exchange for some votes from Party B.

There is, of course, a secondary effect, most often seen with "pork" or "earmarks", which is sending money to a specific district for a specific project. These provisions buy both the vote of the Congressman and the votes of his/her constitutents for him. That's one of the primary selling points of many incumbents - 'I bring $xxxxx back to the district!'

Also, while it's an agreement, it isn't a "compromise" (not sure if that's the preferred characterization, I'm just guessing...) because such provisions aren't relevant to the issue of the bill. If you don't like the phrase "buying votes" to describe it, please suggest an [accurate] alternate.

 

[WhoWee]

According to the hill, tea party members were upset about the spending on pell grants and some view it as welfare.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/174253-house-conservatives-angry-over-pell-grant-funding-in-boehner-debt-bill

I'm surprised anyone could get upset about pell grants.

Back to the OP - if financial aid for college isn't welfare - what is it?

 

[russ_watters]

Within the Democratic party, itself a large body encompassing a broad range of ideologies, you have more specific organizations of individuals with specific goals on guiding the platform, you have the http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/" .

I would also say that there are political organizations outside the political parties. The tea party is one, so is NOW, MoveOn, the NRA, etc.

 

[russ_watters]

Our governments have wasted lots of money, and therefore we have a huge debt problem. But I don't think that Pell grants, and welfare to the poor in general, is part of that wasted money. The net effect of welfare to the poor is that it helps the general economy, which you seem to agree with. And anyway it's a relatively small percentage of the budget.

All of that is fine and I agree with it, but it sidesteps the issue. The OP - a liberal - wanted to know why conservatives don't like this provision, though asked a pointed question not necessarily related. You can't seek to understand why someone thinks what they think if you won't even examine the actual reasons for their opinions!

We're going to be spending borrowed money for a long time. This is primarily due to monetary waste due to inordinately grossly inflated costs of things that the government pays for. It has little to do with welfare to the poor such as Pell grants.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that, but it sounds wrong: most of what we spend (besides interest on the debt) isn't for $90 mops, it's for social programs.

 

[SixNein]

I would rather say the tea-party is more closely aligned with the Republican Party's platform and so you see the majority of the members, especially members who successfully ran for office, are Republican in party affiliation. However, it is a true grass-roots political manifestation, not an astroturf creation of the Republican leadership, so I would contradict your statement there.

FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity both originated from a campaign called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which split in two in 2004. CSE was set up by businessman David Koch (Koch Industries).[3] Citizens for a Sound Economy merged with Empower America in 2004 and was renamed FreedomWorks, with Dick Armey, Jack Kemp and C. Boyden Gray serving as co-chairmen, Bill Bennett focusing on school choice as a Senior Fellow, and Matt Kibbe as President and CEO.[4][5][contradiction] Empower America was founded in 1993 by William Bennett, former Secretary of HUD Jack Kemp, former Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber.[6] In December 2006, Steve Forbes joined the board of directors.

It looks a lot like astroturf to me.

 

[WhoWee]

It looks a lot like astroturf to me.

Are you referring to comments made previously by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi - now IMO - the Speaker of the Hard Left in the House?

 

[rhody]

56% instead of 68% is a huge difference. Also, when they say "comparable", to me that means comparable as in similar numbers of risk factors such as those outlined in the thread already. This doesn't mean comparable to other students. This means compared to other BAD students. Also, a 50% graduation rate after 6 years is atrocious. It's fine if people want to spend their own money and not even graduate after so many years, but when it's tax payer money, that is ridiculous.

The worst part is that when you start looking at students who take 6-8 years to just get a BS in drama and theatre, these students are less likely to be investments in society. Most parents will even cut off their children after so many years!

Pengy,

Good, point, instead of getting rid of the grants altogether, could they be restructured, perhaps renamed to something other than grants, that would require a time limit, and a certain GPA to qualify and continue to get them ? Those requirements alone I am sure would result in substantial savings. It would separate those looking to scam the system to those who apply themselves and get their degree with a certain GPA in a reasonable time frame. The honor system does not work, resulting in many millions of dollars squandered and wasted, as you have said:

I don't know a single person who is on that form of financial aid that actually 1) uses it responsible or 2) does well in school.

The more I think about it, in the end it comes back to politics, liberal versus conservative, doesn't it, because each side will lobby for their "just" cause. It is too bad people can't put them aside and use some "common sense" for a change. Or is that taboo in today's society ?

Rhody...

 

[daveb]

Of course Pell grants are welfare. Only an idiot would dispute that. The real question is, is it a worthwhile welfare program?

(In answer to the, "Pell spending doesn't belong in this bill!" comments, I say, "Yeah, well just about every bill passed by Congress has portions unrelated to the crux of the bill, and that will probably never change. What's your point?")

Just because some abuse (i.e., game) the system doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Yes, some lie, and that should be prosecutable. But there are those who truly would be SOL without Pell grants. I didn't qualify for Pell grants, but I wouldn't have been able to finish my BS without loans, despite also working full time. In some areas with a high standard of living (such as Los Angeles where I was located), that little extra is needed.

Just because some people manage to work 2 jobs while going to school doesn't mean everyone can. The Pell grant recipient who works full time, is a single mom, but is still trying to better her and her children's life by getting an education might still need that little bit extra.

On the other hand, just because you can get a Pell doesn't mean you should. I've known students who moved out of their Malibu/Beverly Hills house to be "independent" so they could get the grants. They didn't need them, but got them anyway. Perfectly legal.

So, yes, the system isn't perfect. I don't think any system is perfect. Democracy isn't, dictatorships aren't, capitalism isn't, and socialism isn't. But each has its good points and its bad points. The more perfect we can make our systems the better we as a nation will become. But railing against Pell grants simply because they are welfare is just a knee-jerk reaction to what has become a dirty word.

 

[SixNein]

I dispute this statement. I agree that assisting the poor does benefit the general economy and thus country but only if carried out through voluntary donations within the private sector. Enforced charity fails on three fronts.

Why don't we end all government welfare for physicists, engineers, biologists, chemist, and other scientific disciplines? We could save plenty of money by shutting down NASA, NOAA, cutting the NSF, and other government facilities.

Why not let the private market fund all research?

 

[daveb]

Good, point, instead of getting rid of the grants altogether, could they be restructured, perhaps renamed to something other than grants, that would require a time limit, and a certain GPA to qualify and continue to get them ?

I could support this idea, with the caveat that those who don't yet have a gpa (i.e., first time students) get a 1 or 2 term pass on the gpa requirement.

BTW, I'm pretty sure in California Pell grants when I was there had a maximum number of terms you could get them for. Not sure if that's changed.

 

[daveb]

Why don't we end all government welfare for physicists, engineers, biologists, chemist, and other scientific disciplines? We could save plenty of money by shutting down NASA, NOAA, cutting the NSF, and other government facilities.

Why not let the private market fund all research?

There are those who would support these efforts. The Constitution Party's official platform for one.

"[URL Federal Aid"]Constitution Party Platform[/URL]

Under "Cost of Big Government"

Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded.

 

[SixNein]

There are those who would support these efforts. The Constitution Party's official platform for one.

"[URL Federal Aid"]Constitution Party Platform[/URL]

Under "Cost of Big Government"

I was just making a point by applying some of this logic to other topics.

If charity is so good at solving problems, why don't we allow charity to fund our military?

I bet a charity organization can raise a fine military without spending like the US government.

 

[Dickfore]

The Constitution Party

How many seats does it hold in the Congress, how many governors or state representatives does it have?

 

[BobG]

Like this? http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009156
"This report describes characteristics of college graduates who received Pell Grants and compares them to graduates who were not Pell Grant recipients."

This site summarizes the report: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/22/pell

In terms of specific risk factors that make it less likely a student will complete college, several are evident among Pell Grant recipients. More than 11 percent of them are single parents, compared to 4 percent of non-Pell recipients. Just under 60 percent are financially independent of their parents, compared to about one-third of other students. And more than 33 percent delayed enrolling in college after finishing high school, compared to 23 percent of other students.

Despite those risk factors, academic achievement, as measured by grades in the major, was only slightly lower for Pell Grant recipients.

Of course Pell grants are welfare. Only an idiot would dispute that. The real question is, is it a worthwhile welfare program?

Pell Grant recipients are more likely to have the risk factors that make it less likely to complete college - and the risk factors that make it more likely to receive other forms of welfare, such as Aid to Dependent Children, Food Stamps, WIC, Earned Income Credit, etc.

So, an analysis of their value has to factor in how Pell Grants affect other welfare programs, as well as compare the success rate of Pell Grant recipients to non-recipients.

That said, there should be some restrictions on what types of degrees Pell Grants can be used for. Handing out Pell Grants to students pursuing degrees that will be virtually worthless is as much a disservice to the student as to the taxpayers.

As a few others have mentioned, the colleges may not be as excited by their students' future job prospects as they are about receiving their students' tuition money, so they may not find it in their best interests to funnel students into degree programs where the demand already exceeds supply (simply expanding high demand degree programs isn't always a solution if the pay working in the field is better than the pay teaching college classes).

 

[daveb]

How many seats does it hold in the Congress, how many governors or state representatives does it have?

No idea, but that's not relevant. I was pointing out that there are a number of folks who would advocate stopping federal support for scientific research. I would guess a number of Tea Party folks are members of the Constitution Party, others are republican, and I'm sure there are even some democrats (I can pretty much be 100% positive there aren't any members in the Democratic Socialist Party, though). But SixNein's point, that there are programs not normally called welfare that by their very nature of being funded by the government should be called welfare, is still valid - that there are those who don't support welfare in the form of Pell Grants (as well as normal welfare, food stamps, etc.) but who would still say that scientific research should be funded.

 

[daveb]

That said, there should be some restrictions on what types of degrees Pell Grants can be used for. Handing out Pell Grants to students pursuing degrees that will be virtually worthless is as much a disservice to the student as to the taxpayers.

While I at first think this is a good idea, I hesitate telling an art student that they can't go to school (or rather, they won't be funded in school) because it isn't a valuable degree. How do we decide as a nation which degrees are valuable?

 

[SixNein]

Pell Grant recipients are more likely to have the risk factors that make it less likely to complete college - and the risk factors that make it more likely to receive other forms of welfare, such as Aid to Dependent Children, Food Stamps, WIC, Earned Income Credit, etc.

Well even that is a small minority of the pell grant recipients. Obviously, most are paying for their own room and board by looking at the student loan rates. Almost 87 percent take out student loans and have more accumulated debt after graduation than students who do not qualify for pell grants. Almost all of them are working either full time or part time. So I don't think these characteristics indicate people who are living in public housing, on food stamps, etc.

That said, there should be some restrictions on what types of degrees Pell Grants can be used for. Handing out Pell Grants to students pursuing degrees that will be virtually worthless is as much a disservice to the student as to the taxpayers.

As a few others have mentioned, the colleges may not be as excited by their students' future job prospects as they are about receiving their students' tuition money, so they may not find it in their best interests to funnel students into degree programs where the demand already exceeds supply (simply expanding high demand degree programs isn't always a solution if the pay working in the field is better than the pay teaching college classes).

I'm don't think the type of degree is as much of a problem as accreditation. These for profit degree mills are absolutely worthless, and we should require accreditation for schools before handing out any type of federal money.

 

[SixNein]

While I at first think this is a good idea, I hesitate telling an art student that they can't go to school (or rather, they won't be funded in school) because it isn't a valuable degree. How do we decide as a nation which degrees are valuable?

I agree

 

[mheslep]

I don't think that anything I did was wrong. Granted, I am extremely surprised that there were no stipulations on what I can use it on. At least, no checkable stipulations, the school simply forwarded the money along to me. I know for certain that many people are completely wasting this money.

There is nothing wrong with taking a gift someone offers you. Any fault for flaws lies in the person/entity giving the gift.

And it is not clear this is completely a gift in the real sense, since the recipient of their family may already have paid taxes going to the gift or may do so in the future.

 

[mheslep]

The bill did cut spending by almost a trillion dollars with locks in place to cut trillions more. So perhaps I fail to see the point.

There is no past or even present tense applicable to the law on the table. The law would require cuts in the future.

 

[SixNein]

There is no past or even present tense applicable to the law on the table. The law would require cuts in the future.

"would reduce budget deficits by about $915 billion between 2012 and 2021"
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12341

Do you think the bill should cut the 915 billion at once?

-edit-
I suppose I should start linking to the current CBO estimates for the latest round of agreements:
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12357&type=1

 

[Evo]

Back to the OP - if financial aid for college isn't welfare - what is it?

Funny, in the US, we consider financial aid to students to be welfare, while in countries like the UK, it's considered an obligation of the government to subsidize higher education.

 

[lisab]

Funny, in the US, we consider financial aid to students to be welfare, while in countries like the UK, it's considered an obligation of the government to subsidize higher education.

IMO, we should consider it an investment. We're creating higher wage earners, who will in turn pay higher taxes.

 

[drankin]

IMO, we should consider it an investment. We're creating higher wage earners, who will in turn pay higher taxes.

The federal government does not have a good track record when it comes to any type of financial investments. IMO.

 

[mheslep]

"would reduce budget deficits by about $915 billion between 2012 and 2021"
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12341

Do you think the bill should cut the 915 billion at once?

-edit-
I suppose I should start linking to the current CBO estimates for the latest round of agreements:
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12357&type=1

I think several hundred billion should have been cut on the front end, say at least a fifth of the current $1600B deficit.

 

[drankin]

While I at first think this is a good idea, I hesitate telling an art student that they can't go to school (or rather, they won't be funded in school) because it isn't a valuable degree. How do we decide as a nation which degrees are valuable?

As far as the government should be concerned, a degree has value when it equates to earning an income. Just happens to be my personal opinion too.

 

[ThomasT]

The OP - a liberal - wanted to know why conservatives don't like this provision, though asked a pointed question not necessarily related. You can't seek to understand why someone thinks what they think if you won't even examine the actual reasons for their opinions!

In post #14 you wrote:

Conservatives believe that people should do for themselves because it promotes the comptetitiveness required for a functional capitalist economy. More to the point, even if the cause is good, this is not one of the traditional functions of our government and good causes still cost money at a time when we don't have extra money to spend.

Ok, so assuming that conservatives find welfare to the poor objectionable, and insofar as Pell grants are welfare to the poor, then this would seem to be a fundamental reason why conservatives don't like the provision. Further, as you point out, the aim is to cut spending waste, not add to it. So, insofar as Pell grants are considered as such by conservatives, then it's logical for them to oppose the provision.

I, while agreeing that Pell grants are welfare to the poor, am disagreeing that they are money wasted, because they, as with welfare to the poor in general, help the general economy.

Along with the OP I think, there are many significant ways to cut spending waste. Even if one considers Pell grants to be waste, they are such a tiny portion of the total spending picture that one might wonder why such a big deal is being made about the Pell grant provision.

But as you noted 'a billion here, a billion there' ... and it accumulates rather quickly when dealing with something as large and complex as the US federal budget. And we have to start somewhere. So, I think I essentially understand the objections to the provision. I just disagree with them for the reasons I've stated.

I believe that people should do for themselves. The problem is that there are an increasing number of people who, for various reasons, can't. So, whether we consider it a traditional function of our government or not, and even though the various welfare systems are abused to a certain extent, the upside to aid to the poor, including Pell grants, is that it benefits the general economy and therefore the country as a whole. From my own experience, it (that is, aid to people who then bought or rented things with that aid) certainly helped a couple of businesses that I was involved in.

We're going to be spending borrowed money for a long time. This is primarily due to monetary waste due to inordinately grossly inflated costs of things that the government pays for. It has little to do with welfare to the poor such as Pell grants.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that, but it sounds wrong: most of what we spend (besides interest on the debt) isn't for $90 mops, it's for social programs.

I was thinking of the billions of dollars in cost overruns wrt various government contracts and contractors. But that's not the primary waste. It's just one of many, relatively smaller, ways in which federal money is wasted.

I agree that the overriding problems are the social programs: medicare, medicaid and social security retirement. I don't know enough about medicare/caid to propose how their costs might be effectively reduced. But wrt SS, there's a relatively simple fix. Just treat SS retirement as welfare for the elderly poor, and do means testing for inclusion. I'll bet this would cut SS retirement payments by a very significant amount (ie., upwards of $100B). In addition, the SS payroll tax can be increased by a point, and the $106K cap can be removed. Big turnaround. And I'm off topic.

 

[FlexGunship]

Funny, in the US, we consider financial aid to students to be welfare, while in countries like the UK, it's considered an obligation of the government to subsidize higher education.

A subsidy is kind of welfare, though. Right? It's the government using your money to make something cheaper to help you pay for it when you normally wouldn't. Subsidy money comes from your pockets anyway. Fundamentally there isn't a difference, except that higher education isn't a staple of existence (like food or shelter).

Financial aid for higher education is like a kind of frivolous welfare. A luxurious welfare. If there were no subsidies, and no one could afford to attend colleges and universities, you'd better believe that would drive prices down.

IMO, we should consider it an investment. We're creating higher wage earners, who will in turn pay higher taxes.

The problem is that we're creating those higher wage earners at the expense of the higher wage payers.

 

[Evo]

A subsidy is kind of welfare, though. Right? It's the government using your money to make something cheaper to help you pay for it when you normally wouldn't. Subsidy money comes from your pockets anyway. Fundamentally there isn't a difference, except that higher education isn't a staple of existence (like food or shelter).

Financial aid for higher education is like a kind of frivolous welfare. A luxurious welfare. If there were no subsidies, and no one could afford to attend colleges and universities, you'd better believe that would drive prices down.

The problem is that we're creating those higher wage earners at the expense of the higher wage payers.

The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.

 

[Andre]

The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.

That's exactly our system, also with a limit of 4 years and then get a degree or pay back.

 

[FlexGunship]

The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.

Sure, that's a decent system. I think it should address the other side, though. If you flood the market with degree holders all fighting for the same pool of jobs, you're going to drive the value of a degree down. So there should be an equal effort put on the other side to give new and existing businesses funds to grow and create new positions for these individuals to occupy.

 

[ThomasT]

Certainly, and it may go far afield of the OP so we should consider forming a new thread.

Ok, I started a new thread:
A reply to an argument against government aid to the poor

 

[Evo]

Sure, that's a decent system. I think it should address the other side, though. If you flood the market with degree holders all fighting for the same pool of jobs, you're going to drive the value of a degree down. So there should be an equal effort put on the other side to give new and existing businesses funds to grow and create new positions for these individuals to occupy.

Indirectly, the federal government does fund states, which can go to state small business grants, and the SBA subsidizes small business loans.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/smallbusiness/a/stategrants.htm

I don't think it's smart to encourage people to start their own business when they are doomed to fail either.

Off topic, but this all goes back to my personal belief that we have more people than we can realistically support economically. If we are in fear of too many people getting degrees, we have a problem, IMO.

 

[FlexGunship]

Indirectly, the federal government does fund states, which can go to state small business grants, and the SBA subsidizes small business loans.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/smallbusiness/a/stategrants.htm

I don't think it's smart to encourage people to start their own business when they are doomed to fail either.

Absolutely, Evo! I didn't mean to imply it wasn't already happening. I guess I was introducing the topic in the same way that others were creating a narrative that described Pell grants.

We should give money to help people pay for...
We should also give money to help business pay for...

I happen to think that encouraging entrepreneurs is a large part of what is missing in the U.S. and causing it to stagnate. We were once a country of risk-takers, up-all-nighters, hard-workers, and make-it-happeners. Now, because of how dangerous it is to fail, people tend to find stable jobs and just... survive...

 

[rhody]

The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.

Evo,

We are in agreement here. Your ideas are valid as are https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3430820&postcount=69". too bad too many following this thread resort to politics versus practical common sense. I am done here, so any rebuttals will go unanswered.

Rhody...

 

[Evo]

I happen to think that encouraging entrepreneurs is a large part of what is missing in the U.S. and causing it to stagnate. We were once a country of risk-takers, up-all-nighters, hard-workers, and make-it-happeners. Now, because of how dangerous it is to fail, people tend to find stable jobs and just... survive...

The problem is that the economy simply can't support everyone that wants to own their own business. If 10 businesses offering the same thing are struggling, giving money to someone (perhaps the same people that would have gone to school with a Pell Grant)to open yet another business in the same area is only going to cause more businesses to potentially fail. People can't just keep opening businesses, there has to be a demand, there has to be something that can assure they won't be out of business within a year, or less.

 

[SixNein]

Absolutely, Evo! I didn't mean to imply it wasn't already happening. I guess I was introducing the topic in the same way that others were creating a narrative that described Pell grants.

We should give money to help people pay for...
We should also give money to help business pay for...

I happen to think that encouraging entrepreneurs is a large part of what is missing in the U.S. and causing it to stagnate. We were once a country of risk-takers, up-all-nighters, hard-workers, and make-it-happeners. Now, because of how dangerous it is to fail, people tend to find stable jobs and just... survive...

The global structure of our economy really complicates the picture in regards to business.

 

[mege]

Pell Grant recipients are more likely to have the risk factors that make it less likely to complete college - and the risk factors that make it more likely to receive other forms of welfare, such as Aid to Dependent Children, Food Stamps, WIC, Earned Income Credit, etc.

So, an analysis of their value has to factor in how Pell Grants affect other welfare programs, as well as compare the success rate of Pell Grant recipients to non-recipients.

That said, there should be some restrictions on what types of degrees Pell Grants can be used for. Handing out Pell Grants to students pursuing degrees that will be virtually worthless is as much a disservice to the student as to the taxpayers.

As a few others have mentioned, the colleges may not be as excited by their students' future job prospects as they are about receiving their students' tuition money, so they may not find it in their best interests to funnel students into degree programs where the demand already exceeds supply (simply expanding high demand degree programs isn't always a solution if the pay working in the field is better than the pay teaching college classes).

This is a good idea - but it's implementation is rough. Encouraging 'good' degress is hard because of the long term impact - right now, in general, English degrees aren't worth the investment, but what about 15 years from now? It seems common conversation for some folks now to complain about the amount of old-established scientists because of the space race push for science, if the government does any more encouragement towards a particular field you'll just have these waves of individuals.

I have a few different friends whom have 'success' stories due to pell grants, and a few that... well.. I want my money back. A stricter academic requirement for university level courses may be in order, but can't pell grants also be used for certifications and technical programs (which will draw non-academically rigourous individuals to start)?