Pell Grants Response

from JoeUser Forums
Since I cannot comment on another user's blog about cutting Pell Grant funding (seems I was pre-emptively blacklisted), I would like to offer an opposing point of view.

While I commend anyone who rises above the difficulties life has dealt them, giving credit to government programs diminishes that person's achievement. I, too, came from a low-income family. College was not an option for me unless I earned it. Instead of applying for a government grant, I strived from my very first day in school to keep my grades up. Eventually, upon graduating from High School, I had full academic scholarships to several universities. In both my case and the example of the person who utilized Pell Grants, it was our tenacity and achievements that enabled us to receive a college education.

Having said this, let me clear up the "cut in funding for Pell Grants." This is a mistatement. Funding was not cut for Pell Grants. Pell Grants will have no less money than last year. The increase in the annual funding was lowered. The funding will still increase, just at a lower rate than some wanted and expected. Please see the below chart:





The President's proposal increases funding for the Pell grant program by $800 million and sets aside $3.7 billion in mandatory budget authority to eliminate the Pell Grant shortfall. However, it will keep the maximum grant award at $4,050 for the third consecutive year.

And for the first time, recipients of Pell Grants will be allowed to receive up to three grants a year. In the past, applicants only qualified for one grant a year.

Fiscal restraint is the mantra repeated by both sides of the aisle, but no one will ever agree on "things we really need" vs. "things we just want." In the new FY05 budget, some people were upset with the cuts in the National Science Foundation.
Federal air traffic controllers produced a scathing ad against Bush for proposing to cut some of their funding. Other education advocates immediately jump on Pell Grants. What about the environment? Global warming is a huge issue for some people.


Beware congressional leaders, in the spirit of fiscal restraint, cut too much and suddenly legistlators are lableled selfish, heartless, self-serving Republicans taking checks from Seniors, lunches from school children, destroying our environment, and denying minorities and low-income Americans educational opportunities.
politics
24,712 views 70 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
This reminds me of something my math teacher once said, lets hope I don't misword it too badly. "There has been a decrease in the rate of change, but there is still an increase in the overall value. The increase decreased, but the total is still increasing." Just paraphrasing, but then again this is a comment to a comment Pre-emptive blacklisting, what will they think of next
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
"There has been a decrease in the rate of change, but there is still an increase in the overall value. The increase decreased, but the total is still increasing." Just paraphrasing, but then again this is a comment to a comment Pre-emptive blacklisting, what will they think of next


Good paraphrasing and I think your teacher had the Cliff Notes' version of my article.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Considering this was something like 6 years ago I doubt it
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Considering this was something like 6 years ago I doubt it


Ok, well, I was trying to say that your teacher had a much more concise explanation of what I tried to convey in my article.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
heather: This topic is of particular interest to me as a portion of my education was paid for with Pell Grants (I had a combination of grants, scholarships, and loans).

While I do think that college assistance for worthy (meaning those with the drive and ability to obtain a degree) individuals is a good use of government money because it benefits society by expanding the ranks of educated professionals and is less expensive in the long run than welfare entitlements, I understand that the government cannot be all things to all people. Either some things will have to be limited (as in the case of Pell Grants) and some things will have to be cut, or taxes will have to be raised.

Fiscal responsibility is something that President Bush must work toward taking more seriously. I am personally not in favor of more tax cuts, but I am no economist (obviously) and so maybe the tax cuts are helpful. It doesn't seem wise in a time of war and insurmountable debt, but again, what do I know? Expenses need to be cut. That much is clear. Defense is one are where we certainly do not need to make cuts. I think there's a lot of wasteful spending out there that should be targeted first and foremost, and hopefully we will see the fat trimmed from the federal budget.

Thank you for taking the time to clear up the misunderstanding about the Pell Grant funding. There's quite a difference between what Dabe described as happening and what you have shown here to actually be the case. I will also agree with you that individuals who are determined enough will very likely be able to find a way to pay for their education, one way or another.

Having said that, I am very grateful for the assistance I received, and I hope that other deserving college hopefuls will be provided with the same opportunities I was.

Great article.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do think that college assistance for worthy


And so do I. I hope my article didn't come across as unsupportive of Pell Grants.

Either some things will have to be limited (as in the case of Pell Grants) and some things will have to be cut, or taxes will have to be raised.


Yes, this is so true. And in either case, people will be unhappy.

Fiscal responsibility is something that President Bush must work toward taking more seriously


I agree 100%. He needs to utilize his veto power. However, the blame does not fall solely on the Bush administration as so many like to say. Our elected Congress men and women need to answer less to PACs and other special interest groups.

will also agree with you that individuals who are determined enough will very likely be able to find a way to pay for their education, one way or another.


Yes, as you so demonstated with your own abition and drive to achieve your goals.

Having said that, I am very grateful for the assistance I received, and I hope that other deserving college hopefuls will be provided with the same opportunities I was.


Absolutely! I have been on government assistance before in my life. I would not ever advocate annihilation of welfare and government grants for education, but there has to be a limit.

Great article


Thank you. That is a wonderful compliment coming from someone I so highly respect.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
heather:
And so do I. I hope my article didn't come across as unsupportive of Pell Grants.


I don't think so at all.

Yes, this is so true. And in either case, people will be unhappy.


Excellent point. Compromise is a dirty word in politics.

I agree 100%. He needs to utilize his veto power. However, the blame does not fall solely on the Bush administration as so many like to say. Our elected Congress men and women need to answer less to PACs and other special interest groups.


Another good point. I guess I was a bit surprised that President Bush has been so willing to accept all the spending that has come his way, but you are right. It doesn't originate with him.

I would not ever advocate annihilation of welfare and government grants for education, but there has to be a limit.


I agree, and it's really refreshing to come across conservatives who are sensible about this and are not interested in gutting those things entirely.

That is a wonderful compliment coming from someone I so highly respect.


Wow. I feel the very same way about that statement. What a powerful compliment. Thank you.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
If your boss promises a $2.00 per hour raise each year, and then later on decides he can only afford that raise to be $1.00 this time around, he has NOT cut your salary....


In a simplistic sense that's true, but if inflation is at the point where that dollar extra per year fails to cover the effects then in real terms the employer has reduced your paycheck. He's just been very sneaky about doing it.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
First of all, heather, I never blacklisted you. I do not understand why you are not able to post comments to my blog. I'll look into this.

Secondly, I sure wish you could have posted this to my blog, as the information is interesting. Did you get the graph from a government site? I will also do a search on Pell Grant funding. Fact is, I really did respond to the New York Times article, and I did read it elsewhere, but I cannot remember where. Having said that, I do agree that fiscal responsibiltiy is imperative for this government to work well. However, cutting the Pell Grants will not make the difference at all. I am a major supporter of the grants, as they really did benefit me specifically, as well as many more. But, Pell Grants are not the total answer. They don't give you enough money to make it through school. They do, however, get your foot in the door. In addition to the Pell Grants, I worked, got student loans, and a needs scholarship.

Like LW, I also have arthritis, but nor rheumatoid. I have a close cousin of RA, called psoriatic spondyloarthropathy. I'm in a reasonable remission because of the new biologic drugs, of which I take Enbrel. But, I did not have this diagnosis when I went to school. I developed the pain in my hips when I was almost finished, and was diagnosed with RA at that time. Only recently did my diagnosis change to PSp.

In other words, my illness may have enabled me to get grants and government assistence, but not everyone is disabled. The Pell Grants enable those with financial disability, rather than physical disabilities, get a college education, even if it is only one tool in the toolbox. I do not agree that only disabled people should have federal assistence. Coming from LW, that sounds rather self-serving to me. Go figure.

Another argument - if you raise the grants by $2million, then reduce it by $1million, it should not be considered a cut. I offer a qualified disagreement. One must look into why the $2million was funded in the first place. Was the need there? Was it all spent? Or, was it reduced because it wasn't all spent? If it wasn't all spent, then you would have to wonder why not. Was it because there were not enough applicants? Or, because there were not enough administrators to make the grants? Were they not working? Why was the cut made. Yes, it is a cut, and yes, some cuts are good. But not when, on their face, and in the face of major corporate tax cuts, they'll ultimately hurt people. That's my point.

Kind of like how we're paying through the nose for gasoline these days, only reverse. Gas goes up to $2.10/gallon, when before the war it was maybe $1.50. That's a big hit to most people who have to drive to work every morning, not to mention the increases to heating oil, etc. Anyway, drop the cost of gas to $1.80, and now we're happy because it has been reduced? No. We're still pissed that we're paying $0.30/gallon more than before. It's really how you look at the "cut", and whether it is really a "cut".

Again, I'm sorry you were not able to post to my site. I'll get that fixed.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Im a prime example of wasteful government spending as far as education goes. Having recently qualified for disability due to acute rheumatoid arthritis, i've qualified to earn a B/A..(and even a Masters) at an online college, all compliments of Uncle Sam via the Social Security Administrations "Ticket to Work" program. I'll take advantage of the program, simply because ive wanted to get a degree for quite some time now, but i'll ask you this....will a B/A in criminal justice (the field ive chosen) lessen my disability at all?


As you point out here, even though you consider yourself "a prime example of wasteful government spending", you're going to spend it anyway. In other words, it will help you get your foot into the door to get the degree you've always wanted. I don't understand why you'd consider that wasteful, unless you spend the money, then don't work afterwards, knowing full well that is what you're going to do. Maybe you really are a prime example of a deadbeat. I dunno. You said it, not me. Then, you go on to state:

i see no reason for Pell Grants to exist at all, if they make it easier to get regular student loans.


Whaaaaa? That's the whole point, which obviously eluded you. As I stated, Pell Grants are a foot in the door, and some people really do need the boost up. What's so wrong with that? Some people are truly not deadbeats, who think that they'll just take the money, spend it, then not give anything back.

Maybe you didn't specifically say that only disabled people should have federal assistence, but you sure as shit implied it.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The following except from a Times article is a response to your article, heather, regarding what the increases/decreases actually mean to students. The article is posted here Link


"The grant amounts aren't growing because more people are seeking them. The number of students receiving Pell Grants has increased 37 percent in the last decade to more than 5 million, according to the College Board, which owns the SAT exam.

Meanwhile, Congress declined last weekend to block the Education Department from updating tax deduction tables used to calculate aid eligibility -- a move that angered Democrats and some higher education advocates.

If the Education Department updates the tables, it would cause about 1 million prospective Pell Grant recipients to have their eligibility reduced by an average of $300, according to Brian Fitzgerald, staff director of the Advisory Committee on Financial Assistance, which advises Congress. The update would save the Pell program about $300 million annually.

The impact would be felt largely by students from families earning between $35,000 and $40,000, Fitzgerald said. Poorer families don't generally benefit from the deductions, and more wealthy ones don't typically qualify for Pells.

About 84,000 students eligible for some award under the previous guidelines would get nothing, Fitzgerald said."
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #8 By: little_whip - 11/27/2004 8:18:24 AM

i knew dabe was fullocrap ......... , gee truth spoken at last, the aforemention creature also blacklisted me {my first} yesssssssssssss lol a large thank you to iamheather for speaking {writeing} the truth about how the lunitics from the left twist anything to suit there purposes most learing from this last election that lies and misstatements spin doctoring can keep the masses guessing... Good cleaning up of more lies from the FAR lefties
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
LW, my hatred of you is not blind.

I didn't mean to imply that life circumstances that prevent one from working, ie Texas Wahine's decision to stay home and raise her kids, is deadbeat. But, what you wrote is that you consider yourself to be a waste of government funding. Your words, not mine. You'd take the money, and not work. Instead, rather than saying, "I'm gonna fight this disease, go back to school on the government grant, get my degree, find a way to use it in a manner that maybe can accommodate my disability, great. If it turns out that I'm too disabled to work then, at least I tried." Hell, if you said something like that, I sure would have understood, and not fault you for wasting government money. The fact that you'd try is not a waste. But no. You call yourself a waste, then describe why. In fact, even though I initially read that you'd support grants for the physically disabled only, and I still believe that's what you stated, in fact now, what you seem to say is that all education grants should be disallowed, but if one is available to you, you'd spend it anyway.

No my disdain for you isn't blind. Your a freakin' hypocrite.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Heather, if you could please post a comment on one of my blog articles, I'd be able to tell if you are still having problems. I checked, and you're definitely not on my blacklist. Thanks.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not sure about the persective, here.

I understand the arguments, just not the overall philosophy.

The philosophies working here seem to be "increase productivity" and "balance our spending".

Here's Texas: "Expenses need to be cut. That much is clear. Defense is one are where we certainly do not need to make cuts. I think there's a lot of wasteful spending out there that should be targeted first and foremost, and hopefully we will see the fat trimmed from the federal budget."

Here's Little_Whip : "Im a prime example of wasteful government spending as far as education goes. Having recently qualified for disability due to acute rheumatoid arthritis, i've qualified to earn a B/A..(and even a Masters) at an online college, all compliments of Uncle Sam via the Social Security Administrations "Ticket to Work" program. I'll take advantage of the program, simply because ive wanted to get a degree for quite some time now, but i'll ask you this....will a B/A in criminal justice (the field ive chosen) lessen my disability at all?"

Again, your arguments work. But the philosophy confuses me.

Here's the question that certainly won't be answered now: Why do we have government? The side issue being: What do we pay "them" to do, "them" being elected officials, but also tax-funded programs. I understand that some people feel less is more, and others feel only more is more. But what do you want with the money you spend? Obviously security ranks highly on many people's lists, and in this election, security relates to defense spending. But take "security" and "productivity" and put them together, and the philosophy works out in a way where in order to promote economic growth, money continues to be spent and fear (I hopefully won't enter the legitimate or conspiracy type of fear debate, here) leads to more spending and producing. You build defense deeply into the capitalist system this way.

Now look at education and productivity. Education has become a ridiculously huge business-- and the business isn't going too smoothly, in many cases. I'm not sure the death knell has sounded, like many alarmists, but just consider the concept, the way we just explored defense. We fund education in several ways, and private business particpates in many ways, too. We have become worried that the k-12 system is falling below standard so we attempt a financial checks and balances mode of encouragement. Like defense spending, the drive for productivity tends to create growth, but not quality. The current purpose of defense seems to be about productivity (yeesh, I can already anticpate the response to that one--can we at least agree that the system is expensive, and often increases the likelihood of future conflicts, for whatever reason?). The current purpose of education seems to be the same thing: productivity.

Little_Whip comments that the money spent on her education is a waste, because her course of study will not lessen her the dependence implied by her disability. . .

So?

How amoral we have become! How businesslike, how uninspired! Maybe because we feel ideologically assaulted from all sides that we instinctively dig trenches and bunker in. Everything is about the race for supremacy! Everything is about supremacy for the sake of personal safety, and when we mean safety, we mean safety for the people existing between our coasts. Do we really identify so much more deeply with Americans who live 2000 miles away from us, than Canadians who may live 1/4 that distance from our homes? What about the human ideals?

Education's purpose is education and nothing else. I'm not talking about times-tables or how to spell "subpoena". In my mind, education is about evolving, expanding, improving and unifying through diversity. Pigeonholing the new generation into the production line isn't going to help us grow. And it really won't make us safer, or do you disagree? I think the concept of productivity is important, but when a society places it on the pedestal with morality, or equates productivity with growth, we're going to have some serious problems, financially-speaking, and serious problems with safety, security, morality, and peace.

TBT
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmm, lets pull Texas Wahine back into this conversation....she, (an admitted liberal) would fit your definition of a deadbeat then, because she too used loans and grants to go to school, but upon getting her degree, decided to stay home and raise her children. Its not for me to agree or disagree with her decision to do that, but hey, if youre going to start tossing the "deadbeat" label around, id love to hear HER input on this.


Personally, I don't want to be pulled into this and have people judging me today.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well tough, I'm judging you Texas Wahine, and I think your a wonderful person
oops, sorry iamheather, that was thoroughly off topic of me, delete my evil ways
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #9 By: cactoblasta - 11/27/2004 8:42:43 AM
If your boss promises a $2.00 per hour raise each year, and then later on decides he can only afford that raise to be $1.00 this time around, he has NOT cut your salary....


In a simplistic sense that's true, but if inflation is at the point where that dollar extra per year fails to cover the effects then in real terms the employer has reduced your paycheck. He's just been very sneaky about doing it.


He hasn't reduced your paycheck one bit. A promise to give you a raise once a year is just that a promise. It's not a grantee that you'll get one. That is unless it's in writing, then it's a contract. Been there had that happen, didn't like it.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #22 By: little_whip - 11/27/2004 3:24:52 PM
BITCH, you have no fucking idea what ive fought my way through in this life, though many that have been reading my blog for the past 6 months do. I dont expect you to bother. I dont expect someone as shallow and narrow minded as yourself to take the fucking time to ever see me as anything or anyone but the "enemy," since youve already stated as much in your " I hate the GOP leadership" thread.

The title of that thread is a LIE, btw, because youve made it more than clear that its not just the leadership you hate, its every freaking Republican in ths nation, and in JU. You run your mouth all over the damn place and then blacklist anyone who just MIGHT present a decent rebuttal to your hysterical bullshit.

Im gonna fight this disease? Hah, what have YOU fought, dabe, other than your own demons that make you think anyone not on your side politically is a waste of flesh?

Oh dear, you had a "shithead" husband....My heart bleeds for ya, i had one that cut my damn throat, cracked my ribs so bad he almost punctured my heart, and kicked half my teeth out of my face, hows that for a shithead? I endured for 15 years before i could make a break..have you survived sich a thing? I have.

Ever slept on the street, literally? I have.

Ever overcome drug addiction? I have.

Ever had to break the law to buy health care you required to save your freaking life, and paid the price for it? I have.

Oh man, imma quit before i truly lose it, but dont you fucking tell ME about fighting a goddamn thing. Eat shit and die.

(my apologies to both heather and the mods, if i get sent to my room, so be it, i just cant stand this utter bitch another minute.)


I can see *dabe* "still" hasn't learned to shut up!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Holy Shit, LW! You sure missed my point. But, ya know what? I'm not gonna bother going through it again.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Education's purpose is education and nothing else. I'm not talking about times-tables or how to spell "subpoena". In my mind, education is about evolving, expanding, improving and unifying through diversity. Pigeonholing the new generation into the production line isn't going to help us grow. And it really won't make us safer, or do you disagree? I think the concept of productivity is important, but when a society places it on the pedestal with morality, or equates productivity with growth, we're going to have some serious problems, financially-speaking, and serious problems with safety, security, morality, and peace.


Wow! TBT, it's totally impossible to disagree with you here. Truth is, I'm just hoping I understand you. So please, help me out. My concern originally is that I feel that it is so short-sighted to defund the Pell Grants. We have governments, and we pay taxes for exactly this type of service, a boost up when needed to hopefully get us out of the mire of poverty. I needed it. I used it. I am no longer living in poverty. Good for me.

But, if someone merely wants the education for the education sake, even if government pays for a piece of it, that's not such a terrible thing either, as long as the person grows and improves and aims to stay sharp. However, as I said, the Pell Grants are intended to be used to give people a boost out of poverty, not necessary to merely provide intellectual growth. Yeah, it's kind of a contradiction, and yeah, I know that all who take advantage of such grants will not succeed. But, that does not mean the money was wasted. Not every cent the government will spend will go towards successful things. We all know that.

The Pell Grants have nothing to do with K-12, obviously, and that's not what this original discussion was about. There is no question that K-12 is education for education's sake, to a point, and beyond that point, hopefully it would provide the basis wherein a student would use that basis to further his/her education towards a lucrative livelihood. Pigeon-holing education into a production line mentality, under the premise of No Child Left Behind, is bound to fail. It's not about education for education's sake. It's about passing tests to get federal funding, and those testing procedures are causing all kinds of misery for even the best funded schools. I base this statement on a conversation I had yesterday with a teacher from a very wealthy school district. And if they are having problems, then you can be sure poor schools that need funding the most are the ones who are likely going to lose it because their kids couldn't pass some pigeon hole test.

Maybe I'm a bit self-serving in my argument in support of full funding for Pell grants and any other education grants and scholarships and whatever it takes to get motivated people back into school, because I myself benefitted from the program, but I don't think so. I merely speak out of first hand knowledge.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Everyone's in a bad way, here, huh? The last few days I've seen a couple of burnouts.

I'm learning about this whole "thread hijacking" thing, and I hope I didn't do that with my earlier comments, heather, or with this one. Just let me know, okay? Your thread is interesting, which is why I have a bunch to say. I'll relocate if you'd prefer.

LW:
If im no longer able to put in 8 hours working for a mortgage broker, (which is what i did before last summer) how am i going to put in 8 hours doing anything else, like being a probation officer or other officer of the courts?


I feel bad that you have to think this way, LW. That's exactly my point. Why does education have to translate into productivity? Education is something that pays for itself in many ways, and does not need to translate into 40hr weeks.

Dabe:
My concern originally is that I feel that it is so short-sighted to defund the Pell Grants. We have governments, and we pay taxes for exactly this type of service, a boost up when needed to hopefully get us out of the mire of poverty. I needed it. I used it. I am no longer living in poverty. Good for me.


Yes, good for you, and you used the Pell exactly as it was intended.

But hold on.

Heather:
While I commend anyone who rises above the difficulties life has dealt them, giving credit to government programs diminishes that person's achievement


Why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why?
Why, again? What does education have to do with achievement? Everything. What does paying for education have to with achievement? Why?

I find it hard to imagine that there's much in this world or any other that is more important than education. Dabe wants to know whether she was justified using a Pell grant; LW feels like the money used for her degree was misspent tax dollars.

Why? Why does Dabe have to bother with Pell Grants in the first place? Why can't LW study for the sake of study? What is the point of productivity in the first place? Is it so we can wave flags and say "We're number one!" or is it so our children will live better than we do, be smarter than we are, see so much more of the truth than we do?

Pell grants: money for people who cannot afford education, for whatever reason. What a dismal, nauseous concept. Not the money; but that people can't afford education, or that education must lead to 8 more hours per week in the ole cubicle.

Hey Mr. and Mrs. So-and-So: What do you want most for your children? We want our children to live in a democratic free country where they are safe to produce 40, maybe 50, maybe 60 hr work weeks. God bless the USA and let freedom ring!

Productivity. It's good stuff, but it ain't no philosophy.

TBT
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pell grants: money for people who cannot afford education, for whatever reason. What a dismal, nauseous concept. Not the money; but that people can't afford education, or that education must lead to 8 more hours per week in the ole cubicle.


TBT, you hit the nail right on the head. The crux of the entire matter. If ever there was anything that should be a right, not a privelege, to the point of socialism, then educcation should be socialized. No one should ever be deprived of an education, yet most of our society really is, either because they can't afford it, think they can't acheive it, feel undeserving, too ill, not ill enough, whatever. The point is, if you want an education, it should be there for the taking. That simple. I'd go so far as to say the same thing about health care, but that's a whole other topic.

As for productivity, sure it ain't no philosophy. But productivity is....... well........ productive. Being able to support yourself, maybe even your whole family, is more than just productive, though. It's elevating. It contributes immensely to one's self esteem. Add to that the ability to maybe do some good in our society, either by healing a sick person, protecting an endangered species, or removing the trash from a city street, and then getting paid for one's contribution to society at large isn't such a bad thing, is it? Productivity really isn't a bad word. However, having to produce for 50, 60, maybe 70 hours a week just to make ends meet is counterproductive. It's like destroying the goose that lays the golden egg. But, that's what our society demands from us now. Yeah, let freedom ring, and ring, and ring, till you're all rung out, and hung out to dry.

TBT, I appreciate your insight.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
First let me thank everyone for the lively debate! I live for this type of free exchange of ideas. I am going to try to respond to everyone, now, but since I am still in considerable pain, I will probably keep it short. The only reason I am sitting in this chair now is because I just couldn't stand not being involved in this discussion.

LW
If your boss promises a $2.00 per hour raise each year, and then later on decides he can only afford that raise to be $1.00 this time around, he has NOT cut your salary....and this is whats going on with the Pell Grant situation. Reading dabes article, i found it quite ironic that someone who supposedly got a college education via these grants couldnt comprehend the difference, seems the taxpayer didnt get much for their money in her case, lol.


Hmm, so my R/A could go totally into remission (it does happen, for some) and i could be perfectly capable of working, but as long as im spending ADDITIONAL govt funds with one of these service providers, in addition to my monthly check, i could collect forever....damn, it might just take me 20 years to finish these college courses...hmm?


Thank you for pointing out the inherent abuses that can take place in the current structure of some government programs.

Dabe

Did you get the graph from a government site?


Yes, dabe, I did, as indicated by the words, "Prepared by the House Budget Committee." I deliberately tried to use non-debatable facts for my article as opposed to the subjective Times article you used. I prefer to draw my own conclusions and understanding from facts than to have the media or some rag interpret the implicaitons of a congressional action.

It's really how you look at the "cut", and whether it is really a "cut".


Perspective has nothing to do with it. A cut means less than before. All you have done is twist the facts to sound salacious and feed your anger.

Again, I'm sorry you were not able to post to my site. I'll get that fixed.


Thank you. I initially just wanted to add to the conversation, not hijack your thread and bring people here. I still wanted your article to receive traffic thus I linked to your article, so others would still read your thread.

. Maybe you really are a prime example of a deadbeat.


Dabe, this was completely unwarranted.

Maybe you didn't specifically say that only disabled people should have federal assistence, but you sure as shit implied it.


She neither said or implied any such thing. She just pointed to a loophole that some take advantage of.

heather, regarding what the increases/decreases actually mean to students. The article is posted here Link


Fascinating that you couldn't research and figure that out yourself by reading the actual legislation. Interesting too, that neither you nor the Times article addresses:
And for the first time, recipients of Pell Grants will be allowed to receive up to three grants a year. In the past, applicants only qualified for one grant a year.


Moderateman

a large thank you to iamheather for speaking {writeing} the truth about how the lunitics from the left twist anything to suit there purposes


Your welcome. That's my job!

Dabe

You'd take the money, and not work.


Maybe your hatred is blind for LW because that is not what she said. She mentioned that she would like to work and simply doesn't know when and if her RA will go into remission so that she may.

Heather, if you could please post a comment on one of my blog articles, I'd be able to tell if you are still having problems. I checked, and you're definitely not on my blacklist. Thanks.


Thank you, and yes I can now. I promise not to spout hatred and call people names on any of your articles. I like open-minded civil debate. I always learn something even if my views do not change.

drmiler

He hasn't reduced your paycheck one bit. A promise to give you a raise once a year is just that a promise. It's not a grantee that you'll get one. That is unless it's in writing, then it's a contract. Been there had that happen, didn't like it.


Exactly!

LW

my apologies to both heather and the mods, if i get sent to my room, so be it, i just cant stand this utter bitch another minute.)


No apology needed. Your comment was what I call "righteous indignation." Dabe had no idea to pretend to know what hardships you have endured. It was outrageous for her to insinguate that all you had to do was decide to fight the disease.

dabe

the Pell Grants are intended to be used to give people a boost out of poverty, not necessary to merely provide intellectual growth. Yeah, it's kind of a contradiction, and yeah, I know that all who take advantage of such grants will not succeed. But, that does not mean the money was wasted


Finally, something we agree on! As I said in an earlier comment, "Absolutely! I have been on government assistance before in my life. I would not ever advocate annihilation of welfare and government grants for education, but there has to be a limit."

Taboo

I hope I didn't do that with my earlier comments, heather, or with this one. Just let me know, okay? Your thread is interesting, which is why I have a bunch to say. I'll relocate if you'd prefer.


No problem. I love to just let conversations evolve wherever they go. I find it fascinating.

What does education have to do with achievement? Everything. What does paying for education have to with achievement?


I think you missed my point with that statement. I meant that why does the government have to get the credit for someone achieving their goal! Whatever that goal may be. In this case I was referring to someone's goal of an education. Receiving the education was the achievement in my statement.

Not the money; but that people can't afford education, or that education must lead to 8 more hours per week in the ole cubicle.


Wouldn't it be a nice "utopian" world if higher education were free! We could all go to college and get our degrees and do nothing else?Now our government provides free education for K-12, but that isn't enough for some people. Now they must pay for college. But you know, I don't just want a bachelor's degree. I want to enhance my intellect with a master's degree. It is my right as a human being. I want the government to pay for my master's degree too...(*sarcasm dripping from my lips*)

dabe

No one should ever be deprived of an education, yet most of our society really is, either because they can't afford it, think they can't acheive it, feel undeserving, too ill, not ill enough, whatever.


I will direct you to the above comment. I will again repeat, "Absolutely! I have been on government assistance before in my life. I would not ever advocate annihilation of welfare and government grants for education, but there has to be a limit."
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks, heather, for the objective information on this topic that was needed.

The only thing I would add relates to dabe's comment that no one should ever be deprived of an education.

Last I checked, education was mandatory to age 16. Our society provides every child the opportunity to earn a high school diploma, something that, in theory and if taken proper advantage of, would prepare an individual sufficiently to survive and thrive on their own. I suppose it would be nice if higher education were made available to all, but it would frankly piss me off a bit, considering how I had to work 3 part-time jobs and put myself 8 years behind the earning curve of my peers (my friends who had gone into the work force right out of high school had bought & sold 2 or 3 houses by the time I could afford my first) to get that higher education. I would not want that kind of education devalued by giving it away. Society should provide a basic education for all of us. From there, it is up to us. Fortunately, very few people who truly value and thirst for a higher education are denied one. Our society is a generous one that enables that, through both public and private means.

Cheers,
Daiwa