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

[SixNein]

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.

 

[Pythagorean]

I see the grant as an investment capable of future returns, but then again, so is welfare, if it's managed properly.

Some investments are higher risk than others, of course.

 

[SixNein]

I see the grant as an investment capable of future returns, but then again, so is welfare, if it's managed properly.

Some investments are higher risk than others, of course.

I look at the pell grant in much of the same light, but they paint a picture of pell grants subsidizing only lazy students trying to avoid getting a job. Maybe the system is abused by some, but I still think its a good program. Perhaps I just don't understand people who call themselves conservatives. I certainly don't understand many of the people who commented on the article.

 

[talk2glenn]

I see the grant as an investment capable of future returns, but then again, so is welfare, if it's managed properly.

Some investments are higher risk than others, of course.

Pell Grants are awarded solely on need, and not merit. The drop-out rate amongst Pell Grant recipients in the United States is approximately 50%, the major-choice is predominantly liberals arts, and grades are about 20% below the class average.

By every metric, Pell Grants strike me as a terrific waste of money, not an investment. They contribute grossly to college price inflation and degree value deflation, in that they provide an incentive for students who otherwise would not attend to "try their luck".

The nation would be significantly better off if it got out of the business of financing college education altogether. At best, the government should retain the subsidized student loan business. Remaining aid should be handed out by the institutions, according to their own policies on need and merit. In any event, there are signs that the market will fix itself, if the government won't intervene. The government has traditionally responded to runaway tuition inflation by increasing the flow of free-money into the demand market. When austerity forces the government to tighten the purse strings - even a little bit - I expect a dramatic reversion to the mean.

EDIT: It's worse than I thought. According to one article I just looked up on Forbes, the estimated 4-year Pell grant graduation rate at University of Chicago is "about 2 to 3 percent". http://blogs.forbes.com/ccap/2011/03/07/for-whom-the-pell-tolls/

 

[Newai]

talk2glenn, is that 50% evenly distributed over the country, or are there parts where some people are making good use of it?

 

[Pengwuino]

I see them less as welfare and more of simple subsidies.

As far as abuse goes, yes, they are abused like mad. 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. I knew some girl who, the second she got her financial aid last semester, bought a new $2000 Mac when she already had a laptop. She also apparently isn't going to bother graduating and is now going to go to a community college and join a pre-nursing program to later go into another nursing program. So, well done tax payer, $100k out the window.

EDIT: I take that back. I don't know anyone under the age of 25 or so that doesn't abuse financial aid. People that are older and those who are under the GI Bill and things of that nature tend to really want to graduate and do well. Obviously, the older you are, the less appealing screwing around in school for years upon end becomes.

 

[drankin]

PELL grants are welfare. Just had to put my 2 cents in there.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

I see them less as welfare and more of simple subsidies.

As far as abuse goes, yes, they are abused like mad. 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. I knew some girl who, the second she got her financial aid last semester, bought a new $2000 Mac when she already had a laptop. She also apparently isn't going to bother graduating and is now going to go to a community college and join a pre-nursing program to later go into another nursing program. So, well done tax payer, $100k out the window.

EDIT: I take that back. I don't know anyone under the age of 25 or so that doesn't abuse financial aid. People that are older and those who are under the GI Bill and things of that nature tend to really want to graduate and do well. Obviously, the older you are, the less appealing screwing around in school for years upon end becomes.

I received the Pell Grant as my income the prior year to filing my financial aid was all non taxable, which still makes me eligible. In any case, I banked the few thousand dollars and now I am using it for additional courses not under my degree program so my normal aid will not pay.

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.

 

[Pengwuino]

I received the Pell Grant as my income the prior year to filing my financial aid was all non taxable, which still makes me eligible. In any case, I banked the few thousand dollars and now I am using it for additional courses not under my degree program so my normal aid will not pay.

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.

Better than the guy I knew who was getting a $5k/semester housing allowance (I forget through which financial aid type) but was actually living at home. He just flat out lied.

The really silly thing is how different universities and the government acts when it comes to enforcing any responsibility. Whenever I would go to conferences, I had to provide receipts of everything including the food I ate and had a strict limit on how much I could spend on housing. With people on financial aid, they just throw money at them.

 

[talk2glenn]

I received the Pell Grant as my income the prior year to filing my financial aid was all non taxable, which still makes me eligible. In any case, I banked the few thousand dollars and now I am using it for additional courses not under my degree program so my normal aid will not pay.

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.

Don't get me wrong; there are always useful exceptions. I myself never qualified for Pell grants undergrad (I had very little income, but it was all capital gains, which excepts me), but there are some quality students who do. I suspect people like you, though, would qualify for other institutional and private aid in the absence of the grants.

talk2glenn, is that 50% evenly distributed over the country, or are there parts where some people are making good use of it?

That ~50% is my best educated guess, given stats on graduation rates, academic performance of Pell Grant recipients, and proportional Grant population. Nationwide average. Unfortunately, to my knoweldge the government doesn't collect and publish graduation rate data for Grant recipients (deliberately, I suspect), so its an estimation game.

 

[Newai]

That ~50% is my best educated guess, given stats on graduation rates, academic performance of Pell Grant recipients, and proportional Grant population. Nationwide average. Unfortunately, to my knoweldge the government doesn't collect and publish graduation rate data for Grant recipients (deliberately, I suspect), so its an estimation game.

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.

 

[SixNein]

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

The undergraduate major is also very close between the two groups.

I would point out an interesting statistic:
Pell grant recipients borrowed more money in student loans: 18.5k pell vs 17k non-pell.
And were more likely to borrow money 86.8% vs 47.1%.

And obviously, were more likely to be financially independent.

 

[talk2glenn]

Exactly like that. You'll note that the governments report only examines the academic performance of Pell Grant recipients who graduated. Even amongst the graduating peerage of Grant students, we observe anemic performance. It wasn't in the report, but I suspect this weak showing comes despite disproportionate Grant population in low-tier schools and degree programs. The whole thing is a mess, but my favorite finding:

Moreover, 60 percent of Pell Grant recipients indicated that they planned to enroll in graduate school sometime in the future.

So despite generally weak academic performance, Pell Grant recipients are more likely than their peers to want to continue their schooling beyond undergrad. Perhaps because they aren't used to having to pay for it, and want the free ride to continue :)

 

[russ_watters]

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

You don't understand how someone could get upset about adding spending to a bill supposedly designed to cut it? Really?

...but they paint a picture of pell grants subsidizing only lazy students trying to avoid getting a job.

I'm not seeing that in the link. Could you post the quote, please.

Perhaps I just don't understand people who call themselves conservatives.

Agreed; There is nothing conservative about social programs. 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.

 

[khemist]

Certainly people abuse Pell grants, but anything with monetary value will be abused.

 

[russ_watters]

I received the Pell Grant...

I don't think that anything I did was wrong...

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

 

[Newai]

The federal government does not collect Pell Grant specific graduation rate data, despite spending over $28 billion on the Pell program in 2009-10.
...
This analysis found that 46% of Pell recipients had received a Bachelor's degree within 6 years, compared to 51% of comparable non-recipients at 4-year public institutions. At 4-year private institutions, 56% of Pell recipients had received a BA within 6 years while 68% of non-recipients did the same.

http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1884

The dropout rate is probably comparable then. Doesn't look too bad.

 

[khemist]

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

It is the governments fault for attempting to bribe low income students to continue in school? How atrocious...

 

[SixNein]

You don't understand how someone could get upset about adding spending to a bill supposedly designed to cut it? Really? I'm not seeing that in the link. Could you post the quote, please. Agreed; There is nothing conservative about social programs. 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.

"So you can go to college on Pell Grants — maybe I should not be telling anybody this because it’s turning out to be the welfare of the 21st century," Rehberg told Blog Talk Radio in April. "You can go to school, collect your Pell Grants, get food stamps, low-income energy assistance, Section 8 housing, and all of a sudden we find ourselves subsidizing people that don’t have to graduate from college.”

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.

As far as extra money to spend, the pell grant costs us about 36 billion, and we have a 14.7 trillion dollar economy even during this recession.

 

[Pengwuino]

http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1884

The dropout rate is probably comparable then. Doesn't look too bad.

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!

 

[russ_watters]

It is the governments fault for attempting to bribe low income students to continue in school? How atrocious...

Wow, that's a great propaganda sounbyte that misses the entire discussion of the thread! Congrats!

 

[russ_watters]

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.

And it could have cut more if it didn't add a completely unrelated piece of additional spending as a favor to buy votes, right? The entire concept of packing "earmarks" into a bill to buy votes is anathema to me.

As far as extra money to spend, the pell grant costs us about 36 billion, and we have a 14.7 trillion dollar economy even during this recession.

Understood - so why have they put this into the bill when it is clearly distracting us from discussing the issue of the bill? It's in there to buy votes, right?

...and, of course - if you go line by line in the budget, I'm sure you'll be able to find someone who uses exactly the same argument: it's not much money and it's for a good cause. But you know, a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money!

 

[SixNein]

And it could have cut more if it didn't add a completely unrelated piece of additional spending as a favor to buy votes, right? The entire concept of packing "earmarks" into a bill to buy votes is anathema to me.
Understood - so why have they put this into the bill when it is clearly distracting us from discussing the issue of the bill? It's in there to buy votes, right?

...and, of course - if you go line by line in the budget, I'm sure you'll be able to find someone who uses exactly the same argument: it's not much money and it's for a good cause. But you know, a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money!

There was no increase to the pell grant program grant awards; instead, it was appropriating money on expected increase in demand from more students entering school because of the recession. But aside from this detail, they also included cuts that would effect pell grant recipients by ending certain loan programs. Almost all pell grant recipients also end up taking out student loans. But yes, pell grants were included in the legislation as a gesture that they would not cut on pell grants too.

I personally view pell grants as infrastructure. At any rate, why should all of the cuts be targeting this specific group?

 

[drankin]

There was no increase to the pell grant program grant awards; instead, it was appropriating money on expected increase in demand from more students entering school because of the recession. But aside from this detail, they also included cuts that would effect pell grant recipients by ending certain loan programs. Almost all pell grant recipients also end up taking out student loans. But yes, pell grants were included in the legislation as a gesture that they would not cut on pell grants too.

I personally view pell grants as infrastructure. At any rate, why should all of the cuts be targeting this specific group?

I just tax dollars being doled out that we can no longer afford. It's that simple.

 

[talk2glenn]

There was no increase to the pell grant program grant awards; instead, it was appropriating money on expected increase in demand from more students entering school because of the recession. But aside from this detail, they also included cuts that would effect pell grant recipients by ending certain loan programs. Almost all pell grant recipients also end up taking out student loans. But yes, pell grants were included in the legislation as a gesture that they would not cut on pell grants too.

Nonsense.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility ACT, or SAFRA, was signed into law on March 30, 2010 by President Obama, and with it has come a number of significant changes to the Pell Grant. The most critical revisions have to do with the maximum EFC cutoff threshold, and the maximum Pell Grant amount, as both of these have been increased for the 2010-11 school year.

The maximum EFC cutoff threshold has been raised to 5,273 from 4,617, and will therefore make the Pell Grant available to thousands of more students during 2010-2011. Remember that this cutoff threshold is the maximum EFC value that you can exhibit in order to gain a positive Pell Grant eligibility status, and any student with an EFC that is lower than 5,273 will now be able to qualify for a Pell Grant.

The maximum Pell Grant amount has also been increased as a result of the SAFRA legislation, and now stands at 5,550 dollars for the 2011-2012 school year. It was already scheduled to go up from 5,350 dollars, to 5,500 dollars, so the additional fifty dollar increase isn’t much, but it is something.

http://pellgranteligibility.net/pell-grant-changes-for-2010-11/

 

[Evo]

Some of Evo Child's friends get Pell Grants. One guy comes from a home where his father is a brilliant mathematican turned homeless meth addict, his mother remarried an alcoholic turned crack user.

He's doing outstanding in school. The money allowed him to move away from his parents, and go to school, and he also works full time. It's really not that much money per student.

People that try to assign derogatory labels across the board to kids in need really disappoint me. Maybe Pell Grants should require that a certain GPA be maintained and if you drop out, you have to repay them.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

As far as extra money to spend, the pell grant costs us about 36 billion, and we have a 14.7 trillion dollar economy even during this recession.

Has a Bill been passed that has done these things? Thus far, we have a framework of general agreement - nothing more.

As for Pell Grants - IMO - the drop out rate could be improved if the funds were not available until a student demonstrates a level of responsibility and achievement. For instance, anyone that needs to take remedial classes should not be eligible until completed.

 

[drankin]

Has a Bill been passed that has done these things? Thus far, we have a framework of general agreement - nothing more.

As for Pell Grants - IMO - the drop out rate could be improved if the funds were not available until a student demonstrates a level of responsibility and achievement. For instance, anyone that needs to take remedial classes should not be eligible until completed.

We all want to support those that are really demonstrating a push to improve their circumstances. The federal government is not capable to distinguishing the difference between those with a genuine purposeful need and those that are looking for a handout. It's welfare. Interesting that we see the folks on here attach accepting welfare to doing something wrong! It's not wrong to accept welfare if you genuinely NEED it. That is the ACTUAL purpose of it. Unfortunately, it is abused more than not.

 

[Evo]

We all want to support those that are really demonstrating a push to improve their circumstances. The federal government is not capable to distinguishing the difference between those with a genuine purposeful need and those that are looking for a handout. It's welfare. Interesting that we see the folks on here attach accepting welfare to doing something wrong! It's not wrong to accept welfare if you genuinely NEED it. That is the ACTUAL purpose of it. Unfortunately, it is abused more than not.

Agreed. If Pell Grants can help kids get out of the destructive cycle that would put them on our wellfare rolls, it's worth it. I don't think it should be a hand out without qualifications though. That's what needs to be changed, attach some accountability to it. Given to the right students, it can mean becoming independent, responsible, educated adults and that means that their offspring will be less likley to be on our wellfare roles.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

Maybe Pell Grants should require that a certain GPA be maintained and if you drop out, you have to repay them.

I thought they do? (At least the GPA part)

 

[SixNein]

I just tax dollars being doled out that we can no longer afford. It's that simple.

I think this is a very simplistic view of our budget problems and greater economic problems.

 

[SixNein]

Nonsense.

Please read enough of the conversation to know what is being discussed.

We are talking about this:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12341

 

[SixNein]

Some of Evo Child's friends get Pell Grants. One guy comes from a home where his father is a brilliant mathematican turned homeless meth addict, his mother remarried an alcoholic turned crack user.

He's doing outstanding in school. The money allowed him to move away from his parents, and go to school, and he also works full time. It's really not that much money per student.

People that try to assign derogatory labels across the board to kids in need really disappoint me. Maybe Pell Grants should require that a certain GPA be maintained and if you drop out, you have to repay them.

I wouldn't mind seeing some modest GPA requirements on pell grants. I would also like to see a stop on federal funding of these online for profit universities / degree mills.

 

[lisab]

I just tax dollars being doled out that we can no longer afford. It's that simple.

I think this is a very simplistic view of our budget problems and greater economic problems.

Indeed. Before college I worked assembling electronics and wire harnesses - low wage positions.

I would not have been able to finish college had it not been for Pell grants.

Now I earn a good wage, and pay taxe$$$ on it. I've more than paid off the investment that government put into me. It was a smart investment. Education usually is.

 

[drankin]

Agreed. If Pell Grants can help kids get out of the destructive cycle that would put them on our wellfare rolls, it's worth it. I don't think it should be a hand out without qualifications though. That's what needs to be changed, attach some accountability to it. Given to the right students, it can mean becoming independent, responsible, educated adults and that means that their offspring will be less likley to be on our wellfare roles.

Honestly, Evo. I now give to young pre/adults to help them in their education. I'm finally doing well in life after growing up in "poverty" (the US equivalent) to be able to give back. For me it takes a couple of qualifiers. I have to get that they have the intent and character to improve their situation beyond where they are from. There is one young man I'm very excited to help. Great with his money and has the intelligence to break out of the "class" he grew up in.

And everything is based on performance. If this particular young man begins to struggle and decides it's not worth it, they I'm not going to financially back him.

The federal government absolutely does not have the resources to do a simple thing like this. What I can do with very little money would take our great federal government 5-10 times the BS&money to do.

 

[mege]

While Pell grants are a form of welfare, they have more stipulations attached to them and they're seen as a truly upward enabler, not a restribution. Also, the amount of money put into the Pell grant is far less than general welfare. Because of that - I don't group Pell grants with some of the other social programs that tend to perpetuate the conditions that they try to fix.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but people don't look at Pell grants and say 'well, maybe I'm better off not working so I qualify for a Pell grant' like happens with unemployement and general welfare.

 

[SixNein]

I thought they do? (At least the GPA part)

The GPA requirement is a 2.0.

 

[Evo]

The GPA requirement is a 2.0.

That's probably why I never heard them mention GPA, they are all way above that.

 

[Pengwuino]

I wouldn't mind seeing some modest GPA requirements on pell grants. I would also like to see a stop on federal funding of these online for profit universities / degree mills.

THIS is the biggest problem. I heard something like 90% of all federal funding in regards to financial aid goes to places like University of Pheonix and these other diploma mills. One of our former students worked at I think either UoP or ITT Tech and apparently most of his job was trying to get money for the university.

The GPA requirement is a 2.0.

Except isn't this pretty much most universities requirements for all students before they start kicking you out? At my university, I believe you can go below a 2.0 for a semester but after that, they may kick you out.

 

[SixNein]

THIS is the biggest problem. I heard something like 90% of all federal funding in regards to financial aid goes to places like University of Pheonix and these other diploma mills. One of our former students worked at I think either UoP or ITT Tech and apparently most of his job was trying to get money for the university.



Except isn't this pretty much most universities requirements for all students before they start kicking you out? At my university, I believe you can go below a 2.0 for a semester but after that, they may kick you out.

I'm not going to name any specific colleges, but yes there are diploma mills that are ******** and sucking up federal money. Humorously, conservatives seem to defend the practice.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/10/the-assault-on-for-profit-universities/

 

[talk2glenn]

I thought they do? (At least the GPA part)

No; the sole qualifier is financial need.

 

[khemist]

Agreed. If Pell Grants can help kids get out of the destructive cycle that would put them on our wellfare rolls, it's worth it. I don't think it should be a hand out without qualifications though. That's what needs to be changed, attach some accountability to it. Given to the right students, it can mean becoming independent, responsible, educated adults and that means that their offspring will be less likley to be on our wellfare roles.

Unfortunately it is quite easy to bs that you need the money, though the government should not revoke a program intended to help because a few people abuse the system.

Wow, that's a great propaganda sounbyte that misses the entire discussion of the thread! Congrats!

Thanks bro, just doing my part.

 

[SixNein]

No; the sole qualifier is financial need.

They also have to maintain satisfactory academic progress defined by the school. And at most places, the student is required to maintain at least a 2.0.

http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/aideligibility.jsp?tab=funding

 

[Pengwuino]

Humorously, conservatives seem to defend the practice.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/10/the-assault-on-for-profit-universities/

There is nothing wrong with for-profit higher education. TO me, the only difference between a for-profit school and a non-profit school is that at the end of the day, one needs to have spent all its money. Up until now, the reasons non-profit universities didn't stoop to such sleezeball tactics is that they didn't really need to. Now, combine government cuts with the recent surge in higher education attendance, non-profits are using their own tricks. You can easily find countless articles detailing how many universities have emphasized the social aspect and party lifestyle in universities and pushed the actual education quality aside so they can rake in more money.

Hell, look at the payroll at any public university. Administrators get more money than most CEOs get. I think higher education all around has become a racket.

Unfortunately it is quite easy to bs that you need the money, though the government should not revoke a program intended to help because a few people abuse the system.

Can you name any system in the world with 0 accountability and oversight that deals with these quantities of money that isn't heavily abused?

 

[ThomasT]

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

Me too. It really seems like a non-issue. Most of the money that's given to the poor goes directly into the general economy, and so is good for the country. Most of the money that's given to the rich doesn't go into the general economy, but rather stays in the financial sector, where it's hoarded or wagered in the financial markets.

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

 

[Pengwuino]

Me too. It really seems like a non-issue. Most of the money that's given to the poor goes directly into the general economy, and so is good for the country. Most of the money that's given to the rich doesn't go into the general economy, but rather stays in the financial sector, where it's hoarded or wagered in the financial markets.

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

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

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

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. 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.

Your idealistic dismissals should be rethought.

 

[SixNein]

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

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

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. 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.

Your idealistic dismissals should be rethought.

Your over estimating the value of those pell grants by a long shot. Even with the recent boost, the pell grants are only like 5k a year. People aren't exactly making out like bandits.

 

[Pengwuino]

Your over estimating the value of those pell grants by a long shot. Even with the recent boost, the pell grants are only like 5k a year. People aren't exactly making out like bandits.

Sure but these are order-of-magnitude estimates. There aren't only 5,000 students doing this per university (realistically it'd probably be a better estimate to go per year at a few thousand per year) and there isn't only 1 university in this country. You can easily go into the tens of billions of dollars per year.

This isn't spare change.

 

[russ_watters]

Most of the money that's given to the poor goes directly into the general economy, and so is good for the country.

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?

 

[Dickfore]

I see them less as welfare and more of simple subsidies.

I have not read through all of the comments, but this. As far as I know, the Department of Agriculture pays farmers to leave their land without any crop. But, then again, the majority of farmers tend to vote for the Republican Party, whereas the majority of students are pro-Democrat. The tea-party is, first and foremost, a wing of the Republican Party.