Should scientific research be solely funded by the private sector?

[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.