Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Cajun 11,705]

1 hour ago, Underdog said:

The pics of this Meg Tirrel chick isn’t showing up for me, anyone else having this problem? 

For science...

[wildcat09 29,352]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

What do you mean by "work"?

He can't. He's literally too stupid to have a real discussion with.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

In all serious, if she wants to be potus, she’s going to need a few crash courses in foreign policy/diplomacy.

That’s probably her weak spot because I have yet to hear her articulate her worldview of America’s role in the world.

It’s also the most challenging area of politics these days, scholastically speaking. 

So many competing forces expanding and contracting all at once right now. 

[Asithappens 974]

1 hour ago, Cajun said:

For science...

Looks a cross between Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis.

Not bad.

[Cajun 11,705]

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

Looks a cross between Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis.

Not bad.

She gives fantastic face.  Those cheekbones, that little overbite, the smile.

Unfortunately, it stops there.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

If she could get on the judiciary committee, that would be great. 

[Cajun 11,705]

Tom Brokaw is not pleased.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Cajun

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,101]

Not "cancelling" all debt, but yes addressing this ever increasing problem where higher education is unaffordable to many middle-class families.

And this is largely the case because of readily available, cheap student loans. It caused a bubble. Course, doesn't help when people get useless degrees for their 100 or 200k in loans.

[Atx71 146]

9 hours ago, Cajun said:

She gives fantastic face.  Those cheekbones, that little overbite, the smile.

Unfortunately, it stops there.

Because.....she speaks? How sad.

[Cajun 11,705]

Oh no, she speaks just fine.  Quite pleasantly, actually.  I'm just talking about the chasis, not what's under the hood.

You wanna go slumpbustin', be my guest Friendo.

[CooterBrown 18,007]

Vocal fry is very real but she doesn't have it. 

and yet, no one gave a shit about it until a year ago when it became a thing for who knows what fucking reason.

[Asithappens 974]

2 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

On 1/11/2019 at 11:02 AM, GSU&UT said:

Not "cancelling" all debt, but yes addressing this ever increasing problem where higher education is unaffordable to many middle-class families.

And this is largely the case because of readily available, cheap student loans. It caused a bubble. Course, doesn't help when people get useless degrees for their 100 or 200k in loans.

Cheap?

Student loans aren't cheap. 

[gmr548 16,576]

And this is largely the case because of readily available, cheap student loans. It caused a bubble. Course, doesn't help when people get useless degrees for their 100 or 200k in loans.

Myth. Tuition increases at public universities have generally been in line with reductions in state funding. I'm on mobile so I don't have it in front of me but I remember reading an interesting piece that really laid out the numbers. I'll link it later.

The main culpability student loans have are that politicians that want to cut ed can fall back on them as a funding source. They've filled the gaps but they haven't driven up the price. Not at pubic schools anyway.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,101]

Cheap?
Student loans aren't cheap. 

2-3% interest rates ARE cheap.

[jimmyjazz 45,907]

7 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Not at pubic schools anyway.

What kind of degree programs are offered at a pubic school?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,101]

Myth. Tuition increases at public universities have generally been in line with reductions in state funding. I'm on mobile so I don't have it in front of me but I remember reading an interesting piece that really laid out the numbers. I'll link it later.

The main culpability student loans have are that politicians that want to cut ed can fall back on them as a funding source. They've filled the gaps but they haven't driven up the price. Not at pubic schools anyway.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

There is that as well. It is also this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/569884/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/03/01/why-college-is-so-expensive-and-how-to-fix-it/amp/

[GSU&UT 1,798]

Please continue to lecture us that student debt is the fault of the students and not of a system that places entirely too much emphasis on obtaining a degree to increase your earning power. Also, save me any bs about technical school and skills gaps, that has largely been debunked as companies started offering those jobs to less skilled workers once the effects of the recession faded.

As far as worthless degrees? I got a STEM degree and couldn't find good work in 2010 and had to take temp jobs before I found a lab tech position that wanted a college degree to pay about 30k a year.

Edited January 23, 2019 by GSU&UT

[Js1 85,316]

14 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

In all serious, if she wants to be potus, she’s going to need a few crash courses in foreign policy/diplomacy.

She isn't even eligible for 6 fucking years, tap the brakes. 

[Captainant 27,659]

56 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

Cheap?
Student loans aren't cheap. 

2-3% interest rates ARE cheap.

Where are you finding 2-3% student loans?? My loans originated in the late aughts and early teens, and my lowest interest rate is 3.6% from a subsidized federal loan, of which is my smallest percentage of lent money. The majority of my loans are 4.5-6.6% interest. All through state of TX or through the federal loan system. And that was when interest rates were low.

[Cajun 11,705]

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

She isn't even eligible for 6 fucking years, tap the brakes. 

Mama Krump taps the brakes for no one biotch!

[Cajun 11,705]

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

 

and yet, no one gave a shit about it until a year ago when it became a thing for who knows what fucking reason.

 

To say no one had a name/label for it until about a yr ago = correct.

To say no one gave a shit until a yr ago = incorrect.

It's been grating for a long, long time.

[Asithappens 974]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Where are you finding 2-3% student loans?? My loans originated in the late aughts and early teens, and my lowest interest rate is 3.6% from a subsidized federal loan, of which is my smallest percentage of lent money. The majority of my loans are 4.5-6.6% interest. All through state of TX or through the federal loan system. And that was when interest rates were low.

Maybe the 2% rate was for students at Trump University?

[Beau Vine 54,215]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

Cheap?
Student loans aren't cheap. 

2-3% interest rates ARE cheap.

You can't get rates like that on student loans.  

[Js1 85,316]

Just now, Beau Vine said:

You can't get rates like that on student loans.  

You're god damn right.

I fucking wish mine were 2-3%. 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

21 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Please continue to lecture us that student debt is the fault of the students and not of a system that places entirely too much emphasis on obtaining a degree to increase your earning power. Also, save me any bs about technical school and skills gaps, that has largely been debunked as companies started offering those jobs to less skilled workers once the effects of the recession faded.

Old white guys: "Man I was such a dumb teenager I'm so glad social media wasn't around. I was dancing around shirtless in war memorials and hollering at every woman that passed. If a Native American was around, I was war-whoopin' and tomahawk choppin'."

Also old white guys: "Stupid teenagers today didn't make the super smart decisions I made about their educations."

[Asithappens 974]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Old white guys: "Man I was such a dumb teenager I'm so glad social media wasn't around. I was dancing around shirtless in war memorials and hollering at every woman that passed. If a Native American was around, I was war-whoopin' and tomahawk choppin'."

Also old white guys: "Stupid teenagers today didn't make the super smart decisions I made about their educations."

Old people have turned into a fucking scourge on American society. 

And yeah, let's blame the kids for the student loan mess. Jesus. The "get off my lawn" crowd has gone full retard. Or full Alzheimers. 

 

[GopherRock 1,765]

I consolidated my federal student loans in the mid 2000s at ~2%, but the remainder through the State of MN were at 5 to 7%.

What you should be getting mad at is the wholesale defunding of higher ed by state Legislatures. Not sure how it is at UT, but state funding at the U of Minnesota is half of what it was in 1996, both as adjusted dollars and as a share of total revenue. 

[wildcat09 29,352]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

2 hours ago, Asithappens said:

Cheap?
Student loans aren't cheap. 

2-3% interest rates ARE cheap.

Ah, good, another clearly uninformed poster we can all ignore. I love it when they give themselves away so obviously.

[pepper brooks 580]

the real uninformed seem to be those who somehow think college is going to be "free".  good lord.  

[safe sex 11,712]

No one thinks it's going to be "free." 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,101]

Ah, good, another clearly uninformed poster we can all ignore. I love it when they give themselves away so obviously.

And this is the reason I usually avoid this cesspool. Mine are all under 3%. Money was cheap for a long time. It is definitely part of the problem.

[jimmyjazz 45,907]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

She isn't even eligible for 6 fucking years, tap the brakes. 

. . . not to mention the youngest President ever was 42 (Teddy Roosevelt), and he wasn't voted in.  JFK was 43 when he was elected.  At that time, a man's life expectancy was 67 years.  It's now 76 years.  Scale the age at inauguration and it's fair to say that a 48 YO first term President would be "historically young".  (Or just use 43, I don't care.  Clinton was 46, Obama was 47.)

For some reason this has become a new right wing talking point.  "ZOINKS, a few libs have spoken about AOC and the White House!!!  They're all idiots!!"

Give AOC 15-20 years more seasoning and maybe we can talk.

[elfenix 34,236]

loan rates:

http://www.finaid.org/loans/historicalrates.phtml

though i was able to consolidate/refi with the department of education back in 2005 to fix my rates at ~2.75%.  generated a massive thread on slickdeals/fatwallet at the time. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by elfenix

[Dahobbs 17,534]

8 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Ah, good, another clearly uninformed poster we can all ignore. I love it when they give themselves away so obviously.

And this is the reason I usually avoid this cesspool. Mine are all under 3%. Money was cheap for a long time. It is definitely part of the problem.

Cheap loans contributed, although the period that they were 3% was really small. Even subsidized loans were north of 4% when I was in undergrad and law school. I think my loans averaged around 6% for the period of 2007-2010.  At any rate, I still think focusing on the pool of available money completely ignores the demand side of the equation. The simple fact is that employers started expecting college degrees for pretty much any entry level position. And, in concert with that, college education became expected for children across the country. I really don't understand why everyone ignores that when examining why the cost of education increases. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,869]

lulz, she got you guys talking student loans. guess her issues are important to people

[Fozzz 152]

MSNBC apparently aired this attack ad against AOC.

 

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,101]

Cheap loans contributed, although the period that they were 3% was really small. Even subsidized loans were north of 4% when I was in undergrad and law school. I think my loans averaged around 6% for the period of 2007-2010.  At any rate, I still think focusing on the pool of available money completely ignores the demand side of the equation. The simple fact is that employers started expecting college degrees for pretty much any entry level position. And, in concert with that, college education became expected for children across the country. I really don't understand why everyone ignores that when examining why the cost of education increases. 

It's all of these all together. It isn't just one.

[TwiceHorn 31,453]

5 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Cheap loans contributed, although the period that they were 3% was really small. Even subsidized loans were north of 4% when I was in undergrad and law school. I think my loans averaged around 6% for the period of 2007-2010.  At any rate, I still think focusing on the pool of available money completely ignores the demand side of the equation. The simple fact is that employers started expecting college degrees for pretty much any entry level position. And, in concert with that, college education became expected for children across the country. I really don't understand why everyone ignores that when examining why the cost of education increases. 

It's all of these all together. It isn't just one.

Yep.  And I think the administrative bloat that grew while states were cutting funding indicates that freely available money was a major factor.  It apparently is an issue at places other than UT with the PUF as a backstop.

Also, it isn't that the loans are cheap, it's that they are freely available.  Naive students and their families could get them easily, finance an entire education, and without due regard for the impact that the loans would have on post-education "liquidity."

Edited January 23, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,869]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

MSNBC apparently aired this attack ad against AOC.

 

 

we real sure about that 150M count?

[Dahobbs 17,534]

7 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Cheap loans contributed, although the period that they were 3% was really small. Even subsidized loans were north of 4% when I was in undergrad and law school. I think my loans averaged around 6% for the period of 2007-2010.  At any rate, I still think focusing on the pool of available money completely ignores the demand side of the equation. The simple fact is that employers started expecting college degrees for pretty much any entry level position. And, in concert with that, college education became expected for children across the country. I really don't understand why everyone ignores that when examining why the cost of education increases. 

It's all of these all together. It isn't just one.

Isn't that what I said? 

[TwiceHorn 31,453]

Like healthcare and it's "death panels" (that is more or less a real thing), "free" secondary/tertiary education will require some pretty draconian screening for admission, ala GCSE/A-levels in the UK.

[safe sex 11,712]

I mean, do we not already sort of have that with the college admissions tests? I know it's not quite as robust as the GCSE system, but plenty of people get rejected for schools because of poor ACT/SAT scores. 

[Fozzz 152]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep.  And I think the administrative bloat that grew while states were cutting funding indicates that freely available money was a major factor.  It apparently is an issue at places other than UT with the PUF as a backstop.

Also, it isn't that the loans are cheap, it's that they are freely available.  Naive students and their families could get them easily, finance an entire education, and without due regard for the impact that the loans would have on post-education "liquidity."

This may be hard for you to understand, as the idea of poor people having the opportunity to obtain a college degree must be abhorrent to you, but administrative bloat as a driver of tuition inflation is dwarfed by the decline in public expenditures.  

Quote

All of those trends add to the cost of college, but not by that much. At most, about a quarter of the increase in college tuition since 2000 can be attributed to rising faculty salaries, improved amenities and administrative bloat. By comparison, the decline in state support accounts for about three-quarters of the rising cost of college.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-main-reason-tuition-is-skyrocketing/

[Dahobbs 17,534]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Like healthcare and it's "death panels" (that is more or less a real thing), "free" secondary/tertiary education will require some pretty draconian screening for admission, ala GCSE/A-levels in the UK.

My preferred choice is an expansion of education scholarships/grants focused on merit/ability while retaining the ability of anyone else to apply for and pay for college on their own. 

[Guest Lobo]

If the GOP really wanted to have some fun, they'd just dig up the attack ads that Joe Crowley threw up at AOC during the primaries.  And he was by many informal metrics, the next most powerful Democrat in the House after Pelosi.  

[TwiceHorn 31,453]

1 minute ago, trauma babe said:

I mean, do we not already sort of have that with the college admissions tests? I know it's not quite as robust as the GCSE system, but plenty of people get rejected for schools because of poor ACT/SAT scores. 

It's going to have to be far more rigid than that.  Test scores can be compensated by grades easily.  Some school will take virtually anyone.  GCSE/A levels entirelydisqualifies whole swaths of students from university educations.

[TwiceHorn 31,453]

9 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

This may be hard for you to understand, as the idea of poor people having the opportunity to obtain a college degree must be abhorrent to you, but administrative bloat as a driver of tuition inflation is dwarfed by the decline in public expenditures.  

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-main-reason-tuition-is-skyrocketing/

Oh fuck you.  There's no value judgment in anything I am saying, just discussing the economics of education.  I actually see "privileged" white folks taking up space in mediocre majors at mediocre schools to be the biggest aspect of the devaluation of the degree, ie second or even third generation college students whose parents didn't consider providing a college education to be obligatory as an aspect of parenting, yet expected their progeny to go and graduate in something, no matter how trivial.

But if state spending is declining, where exactly are schools getting money to employ more people?

Edited January 23, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[alincoln 2,371]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's going to have to be far more rigid than that.  Test scores can be compensated by grades easily.  Some school will take virtually anyone.  GCSE/A levels entirelydisqualifies whole swaths of students from university educations.

GCSE/A levels are racist

[Hank Scorpio 17,729]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 Oh fuck you.  There's no value judgment in anything I am saying, just discussing the economics of education.  I actually see "privileged" white folks taking up space in mediocre majors at mediocre schools to be the biggest aspect of the devaluation of the degree, ie second or even third generation college students whose parents didn't consider a college education to be obligatory.

 But if state spending is declining, where exactly are schools getting money to employ more people?

It's almost like you were wrong, didn't read the article, and then doubled down.