Biden Wants Taxpayers to Pay Student Loans

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

8 hours ago, AUDub said:

It can. It’s toxic and there are as many dead ends as there are for an underwater basketweaving degree lol. 

I guess anything can.  Lawyering, for example, can be about as toxic as it gets.

But at least they make more money at the end of the day, even if it sucks just as bad.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

9 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Ps any society only improves with education.  It’s the foundation for… everything. Kindergarten all the way through.  And we’re getting dumber by the generation. When ANY presidential candidate can show a national passion and plan for fixing/transforming our full system, regardless of party, they’ll have my vote.

I had a long reply typed out to this and managed to lose it.  😂

I'll summarize here:

"Fixing" education in America starts with abandoning this model of forced mass government education.  First, I can't see how it's not unconstitutional to mandate that parents send their children to school.  Imagine the government coming up with some other program designed to improve society—say, an exercise program—and MANDATING by force of law that citizens participate in it.  We take it for granted because it's always existed during our lifetimes, but it's unconstitutional as hell (even if some court has ruled otherwise...if that happened they made a mistake.)

Second, we've got to reframe education as a privilege rather than a "right."  Many of the biggest problems we have are caused by these two things...forcing everyone to participate, and acting like everyone has a "right" to a "free" education.  It should be like the public library.  It's there for your use, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to, and if you act up in there you get tossed and lose your privilege.  They way we do it now is why 19% of high school GRADUATES (not drop-outs...they aren't part of this number) can't read.  And those students keep others from learning and place an undue burden on the system.

Third, the system itself is obsolete.  We still need direct, in-person teacher to student instruction in elementary school, but once you learn to read and do basic math, most of the rest could and should be online IMO.  Teachers could still be available, but they should function more like tutors to help students when they got stuck rather than going through the excruciatingly inefficient exercise of presenting all the material to them.  There's just no reason that that should be necessary for the vast majority of subjects. Students could work through the material at their own pace, and a whole lot more material could be made available to those who were able to move faster.  That's one of the problems with the current model.  Too often, students who could go much faster are held back by students who need more time just to master basic material.  In a mostly online model, students who could move faster could access more advanced material once they had completed the core material.

Fourth, such a model would truly standardize public education.  Because students all across the nation would be taking exactly the same courses and passing exactly the same tests (from a certain point on, at least).  It would easily identify problem elementary schools.  It would easily identify areas in which the courses were failing to prepare students, etc.  

The one thing I don't know how to tell you to fix is the fact that it would still be run by the federal government, so there would still be people constantly claiming that the tests and courses were biased, racist, whatever, and there would still be constant downward pressure to relax standard to accomodate those who couldn't perform.  I don't have an answer for that.  When you let politicians control something, that's what you always get.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

15 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The one thing I don't know how to tell you to fix is the fact that it would still be run by the federal government, so there would still be people constantly claiming that the tests and courses were biased, racist, whatever, and there would still be constant downward pressure to relax standard to accomodate those who couldn't perform.  I don't have an answer for that.  When you let politicians control something, that's what you always get.

Teacher unions control education.  The unions contribute heavily to government political campaigns and the ones that receive the funds allows the unions to run education.  Teacher unions are there to do one thing; make the union stronger.  They do this by increasing teachers and not fixing any problems.  If you want to look at why the standards have declined look no further than Cali and the teacher unions in that state.

If you can break the cycle of teacher union donations to a particular party and that party beholding to the unions you might be able to affect change.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Teacher unions control education.  The unions contribute heavily to government political campaigns and the ones that receive the funds allows the unions to run education.  Teacher unions are there to do one thing; make the union stronger.  They do this by increasing teachers and not fixing any problems.  If you want to look at why the standards have declined look no further than Cali and the teacher unions in that state.

If you can break the cycle of teacher union donations to a particular party and that party beholding to the unions you might be able to affect change.

Yeah, my idea would drastically reduce the number of teachers needed.  I didn't offer it as a viable solution—I know it won't ever happen—but it's what would NEED to happen if anyone got serious about improving education in America.

[homersapien 11,382]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I had a long reply typed out to this and managed to lose it.  😂

I'll summarize here:

"Fixing" education in America starts with abandoning this model of forced mass government education.  First, I can't see how it's not unconstitutional to mandate that parents send their children to school.  Imagine the government coming up with some other program designed to improve society—say, an exercise program—and MANDATING by force of law that citizens participate in it.  We take it for granted because it's always existed during our lifetimes, but it's unconstitutional as hell (even if some court has ruled otherwise...if that happened they made a mistake.)

Second, we've got to reframe education as a privilege rather than a "right."  Many of the biggest problems we have are caused by these two things...forcing everyone to participate, and acting like everyone has a "right" to a "free" education.  It should be like the public library.  It's there for your use, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to, and if you act up in there you get tossed and lose your privilege.  They way we do it now is why 19% of high school GRADUATES (not drop-outs...they aren't part of this number) can't read.  And those students keep others from learning and place an undue burden on the system.

Third, the system itself is obsolete.  We still need direct, in-person teacher to student instruction in elementary school, but once you learn to read and do basic math, most of the rest could and should be online IMO.  Teachers could still be available, but they should function more like tutors to help students when they got stuck rather than going through the excruciatingly inefficient exercise of presenting all the material to them.  There's just no reason that that should be necessary for the vast majority of subjects. Students could work through the material at their own pace, and a whole lot more material could be made available to those who were able to move faster.  That's one of the problems with the current model.  Too often, students who could go much faster are held back by students who need more time just to master basic material.  In a mostly online model, students who could move faster could access more advanced material once they had completed the core material.

Fourth, such a model would truly standardize public education.  Because students all across the nation would be taking exactly the same courses and passing exactly the same tests (from a certain point on, at least).  It would easily identify problem elementary schools.  It would easily identify areas in which the courses were failing to prepare students, etc.  

The one thing I don't know how to tell you to fix is the fact that it would still be run by the federal government, so there would still be people constantly claiming that the tests and courses were biased, racist, whatever, and there would still be constant downward pressure to relax standard to accomodate those who couldn't perform.  I don't have an answer for that.  When you let politicians control something, that's what you always get.

"forced mass government education"   

Edited April 10 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"forced mass government education"   

No, you're right, that's a mischaracterization.

Wait...what part of that is not accurate?

[arein0 959]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"forced mass government education"   

There was so much wrong in that post I could only shake my head and chuckle

[AU9377 4,950]

The student loan program has been used heavily by colleges and universities to fund everything imaginable.  This is especially the case for schools like Auburn and Alabama.  The student loan program has allowed schools to increase fees without concern.  If you want to see where it is most noticeable, look at the number of out of state students at Auburn and bama.  Then realize that the reason tuition has been jacked to the skies for these students is to provide a wind fall for the institution.

This is the problem in a nutshell.... failing to be able to pay these loans at one point, should not result in a lifetime scar.  Allow the students to file bankruptcy, like you can for every other debt, and provide them with something to work toward.

[homersapien 11,382]

51 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

No, you're right, that's a mischaracterization.

Wait...what part of that is not accurate?

Omission.  You left out the part about government "stealing our precious bodily fluids". 

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

41 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

This is the problem in a nutshell.... failing to be able to pay these loans at one point, should not result in a lifetime scar.  Allow the students to file bankruptcy, like you can for every other debt, and provide them with something to work toward.

Shouldn’t this problem be resolved before any talk of forgiving loans?  As it is Biden is incentivizing students to go to univierites and those universities to continue the escalating price if a hight education. 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

4 hours ago, arein0 said:

There was so much wrong in that post I could only shake my head and chuckle

It's a huge coincidence that "there's (always) so much wrong there, I couldn't even begin to tell you what."

If there was really something so wrong, you'd tell me what.  But logical appeals to ridicule shield you from having to actually defend whatever nonsense you might say, so...

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

4 hours ago, AU9377 said:

  Allow the students to file bankruptcy, like you can for every other debt, and provide them with something to work toward.

You forgot the most important part.

AND STOP ISSUING THE LOANS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If they will do that, I'm o.k. with everything else you said, just to close the door on a bad policy and run it through. 

But again, you (royal you) can't have it both ways.  It's either a bad risk and you need to stop doing it or it's an acceptable risk and the risk is on the borrower.  Which is it?

Edited April 10 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Omission.  You left out the part about government "stealing our precious bodily fluids". 

No, I said what I meant and didn't leave anything out.

What was not accurate about it?

That's what I thought.

[arein0 959]

13 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

It's a huge coincidence that "there's (always) so much wrong there, I couldn't even begin to tell you what."

If there was really something so wrong, you'd tell me what.  But logical appeals to ridicule shield you from having to actually defend whatever nonsense you might say, so...

 

Well the biggest flaw in your logic is that you want to fix our literacy rate by making school optional after elementary school. Making school optional will only lower our educational standards even more. You say that the bad students hold back the good students. Well most schools have gifted programs specifically for those individuals and once they get to middle school, the good but not gifted students will rarely if ever be in classes with the bad students. 

While I can see your point for online only classes, because as an introvert I would've thrived in that environment, there is more to going to school than just learning how to read/write. I think the biggest advantage for going to school is learning how to interact with people of different backgrounds, cultures, etc. Historically, most people met their spouses at school.

Another thing, they already have and use standardized tests regularly. That's how we are able to see which school districts are over/under performing.

I actually think the biggest problem with our education system is that it is drastically underfunded. My reasoning is that generally the best public school systems are in the wealthier counties because the parents put additional funding into their schools. They are able to get the best teachers because the teachers know that they will not have to pay out of pocket for any recourses they need for their class. Increase teachers salary so it is a competitive career path.

[AU9377 4,950]

51 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

You forgot the most important part.

AND STOP ISSUING THE LOANS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If they will do that, I'm o.k. with everything else you said, just to close the door on a bad policy and run it through. 

But again, you (royal you) can't have it both ways.  It's either a bad risk and you need to stop doing it or it's an acceptable risk and the risk is on the borrower.  Which is it?

Your either or choice is a false construct.  Even so, if the risk is totally on the borrower, the consequences should be the same consequences as any other default, nothing more.

You don't have to kill the program to make it better.  The program has provided an opportunity to hundreds of thousands of people that are attempting to better themselves and thereby the communities in which they live.  Education shouldn't be available only to the wealthy.

Edited April 10 by AU9377

[CoffeeTiger 5,111]

Not sending a child to school (public or private), OR homeschooling them through a real, certified homeschool program is child abuse plain and simple.

 

There is no good reason to not have your child officially educated in some way. 

 

[arein0 959]

8 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Imagine the government coming up with some other program designed to improve society—say, an exercise program—and MANDATING by force of law that citizens participate in it.  

 

You know, the more I think about this, the more good it will do for our society if we enacted an adult recess hour for say 2pm for the 8-5 workers and not sure about the night shifters. 

1. It will lower obesity levels for obvious reasons

2. Decrease depression as there is a strong correlation between happiness levels and working out.

3. Even though they lose an hour, employees will become more productive since they will be reenergized for the normal lull parts of the day.

[AU9377 4,950]

On 4/10/2024 at 9:20 AM, I_M4_AU said:

Teacher unions control education.  The unions contribute heavily to government political campaigns and the ones that receive the funds allows the unions to run education.  Teacher unions are there to do one thing; make the union stronger.  They do this by increasing teachers and not fixing any problems.  If you want to look at why the standards have declined look no further than Cali and the teacher unions in that state.

If you can break the cycle of teacher union donations to a particular party and that party beholding to the unions you might be able to affect change.

Teacher unions in the South are as impactful as a tit on a boar hog.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

13 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Teacher unions in the South are as impactful as a tit on a boar hog.

True, but those are not the ones that run education.  Look at Cali, NYC and Illinois.  Those are the ones that held their states hostage during Covid.

[AU9377 4,950]

On 4/10/2024 at 8:59 AM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I had a long reply typed out to this and managed to lose it.  😂

I'll summarize here:

"Fixing" education in America starts with abandoning this model of forced mass government education.  First, I can't see how it's not unconstitutional to mandate that parents send their children to school.  Imagine the government coming up with some other program designed to improve society—say, an exercise program—and MANDATING by force of law that citizens participate in it.  We take it for granted because it's always existed during our lifetimes, but it's unconstitutional as hell (even if some court has ruled otherwise...if that happened they made a mistake.)

Second, we've got to reframe education as a privilege rather than a "right."  Many of the biggest problems we have are caused by these two things...forcing everyone to participate, and acting like everyone has a "right" to a "free" education.  It should be like the public library.  It's there for your use, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to, and if you act up in there you get tossed and lose your privilege.  They way we do it now is why 19% of high school GRADUATES (not drop-outs...they aren't part of this number) can't read.  And those students keep others from learning and place an undue burden on the system.

Third, the system itself is obsolete.  We still need direct, in-person teacher to student instruction in elementary school, but once you learn to read and do basic math, most of the rest could and should be online IMO.  Teachers could still be available, but they should function more like tutors to help students when they got stuck rather than going through the excruciatingly inefficient exercise of presenting all the material to them.  There's just no reason that that should be necessary for the vast majority of subjects. Students could work through the material at their own pace, and a whole lot more material could be made available to those who were able to move faster.  That's one of the problems with the current model.  Too often, students who could go much faster are held back by students who need more time just to master basic material.  In a mostly online model, students who could move faster could access more advanced material once they had completed the core material.

Fourth, such a model would truly standardize public education.  Because students all across the nation would be taking exactly the same courses and passing exactly the same tests (from a certain point on, at least).  It would easily identify problem elementary schools.  It would easily identify areas in which the courses were failing to prepare students, etc.  

The one thing I don't know how to tell you to fix is the fact that it would still be run by the federal government, so there would still be people constantly claiming that the tests and courses were biased, racist, whatever, and there would still be constant downward pressure to relax standard to accomodate those who couldn't perform.  I don't have an answer for that.  When you let politicians control something, that's what you always get.

Some things require government structure. Without it, we would resemble Columbia more than the U.K.  The system can be modified without destroying the positive things that are often overlooked.  Students don’t all enter the educational system on equal footing. There are many factors that push the disparity wider and wider. 

I agree that the concept of no child left behind usually only holds bright students back. That should be eliminated. More basic trade school type training would be a great idea in some districts. The problem is that the needs are not uniform and the solution can’t be uniform. 
 

The goal of public education is to provide opportunity to kids regardless of income or their parents’ educational level.  That isn’t always possible, but is a critical  goal if we want to be a nation of opportunity.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Relative equality would help.  As inequality grows, society declines.

[auburnatl1 4,940]

On 4/10/2024 at 5:07 PM, arein0 said:

Well the biggest flaw in your logic is that you want to fix our literacy rate by making school optional after elementary school. Making school optional will only lower our educational standards even more. You say that the bad students hold back the good students. Well most schools have gifted programs specifically for those individuals and once they get to middle school, the good but not gifted students will rarely if ever be in classes with the bad students. 

While I can see your point for online only classes, because as an introvert I would've thrived in that environment, there is more to going to school than just learning how to read/write. I think the biggest advantage for going to school is learning how to interact with people of different backgrounds, cultures, etc. Historically, most people met their spouses at school.

Another thing, they already have and use standardized tests regularly. That's how we are able to see which school districts are over/under performing.

I actually think the biggest problem with our education system is that it is drastically underfunded. My reasoning is that generally the best public school systems are in the wealthier counties because the parents put additional funding into their schools. They are able to get the best teachers because the teachers know that they will not have to pay out of pocket for any recourses they need for their class. Increase teachers salary so it is a competitive career path.

improving education improves more lives and fixes more problems than the next 3 topics put together.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

As a taxpayer, I would prefer more money going into education than, continually spending ridiculous amounts on military hardware.

[E'Town4Bama 111]

12 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

As a taxpayer, I would prefer more money going into education than, continually spending ridiculous amounts on military hardware.

I agree but the ultra rich in the world know the money is in war and pharmaceuticals.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, E'Town4Bama said:

I agree but the ultra rich in the world know the money is in war and pharmaceuticals.

True.  Nothing changes without ending paid lobbying and, extreme campaign finance reform.  The government cannot be for sale.  It is even for sale to interests outside the country.

Partisan politics is the perfect diversion.  It amuses and confuses the masses.  Classic divide and conquer.  Ideological idiocy destroying reason, common sense, truth, justice, compassion,,, humanity.

We listen to people who justify policy by virtue of ideology.  We should be more concerned with principles.