- Apr 13, 2006
- 28,947
- 16,384
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
Textbook case of "I got mine...too bad for them".
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Does this worry anyone?
- Thread starter rambot
- Start date
- Jan 16, 2019
- 23,152
- 19,342
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I’ve watched several videos on the negative impact of the shutdown continuing. Most of the comments are appalled or concerned about the innocents who will be hurt. More than a few acknowledged our hypocrisy of funding foreign entities while Americans suffer and that’s getting louder.
Most people aren’t advocating for healthcare coverage for illegals and as things tighten they’ll become more vocal regarding their opposition. The loss of benefits on November 1st for millions will be hard to support in deference to the other and that’s how they’ll see it.
This may up strengthening America first ideals and leading to greater discrimination against foreigners in the long run. They’re pushing against Israel, Ukraine and Argentina in addition to illegals. We’re nearing our breaking point on the subject.
~bella
Most people aren’t advocating for healthcare coverage for illegals and as things tighten they’ll become more vocal regarding their opposition. The loss of benefits on November 1st for millions will be hard to support in deference to the other and that’s how they’ll see it.
This may up strengthening America first ideals and leading to greater discrimination against foreigners in the long run. They’re pushing against Israel, Ukraine and Argentina in addition to illegals. We’re nearing our breaking point on the subject.
~bella
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,795
- 5,090
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
PROTESTS AGAINST THE SHUTDOWN
These are NOT to be confused with protest against Trump leading the country into autocracy.
The anti-shutdown rallies are very clear. They disagree with the laws passed by the House, the Senate and signed by the White House. They would rather the government be closed that have it do its job in enforcing the laws passed by Congress and the White House.
To be clear, they have every right to protest and disagree and to pressure Republicand and Democrats to end the shutdown AND make a change or two. They want much, much more.
Upvote
0
- Jan 16, 2019
- 23,152
- 19,342
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I made no mention of protests in my comment nor are the majority attending them. I addressed the feedback I’ve witnessed on content pertaining to the negative impacts of the government shutdown. The majority aren’t advocating continuance nor are they championing either side. We’re focused on the people not politics.
For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.
~bella
Upvote
0
to those complaining about this, can anyone remind me how many times the republicans threatened a goverment shut down during OBama's presidency because they didn't get their way? I know of one sucessful one but can't remember the ones where the deomcrats caved.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,795
- 5,090
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
fair enough
I should have recognized that you were sharing personal experiences and the experiences of those that you have met.
Upvote
0
Yes this worries me a great deal. I'm worried they may not abolish the Department of Education as they should.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,795
- 5,090
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
1) they can continue to have reductions in force once the government starts running again.
2) Elimination of the Department of Education will likely be included in the Spring 2026 BBB which again will require only 50 votes.
Upvote
0
Pommer
CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
- Sep 13, 2008
- 23,129
- 14,264
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Wasn’t the Department of Education instituted by the House of Representatives?
Shouldn’t the shut-down of such an institution be put to bed using the same process?
Why does the Executive Branch get to decide that our forebearers were incorrect in instituting this Department?
Upvote
0
When I said "they" I was just referring to the federal government, not to any one or any group in particular.
Upvote
0
GoldenBoy89
We're Still Here
- Sep 25, 2012
- 26,818
- 29,634
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
If republicans need democrats to pass their bill then they should stop fighting the democrats they need to help pass their bill. Neither side will get everything they want but at some point they need to compromise and get the government funded and I just don’t see any reason why the democrats should be the ones to give the majority whatever they want and get nothing in return.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,795
- 5,090
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The President can't abolish departments. That being said, he can reduce the number of employees at the Dept. to one employee or two.
Upvote
0
- Jan 16, 2019
- 23,152
- 19,342
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I saw this the other day but I didn’t have time to go through it. This is pretty significant when you consider the consequences realistically. I’m not advocating burdensome debt. But they’ve already proposed to get rid of other programs and the interest rates are higher for private loans. I don’t think it’s going to put “downward pressure” on tuition rates. It’s going to impact who can afford to go to college and schools can make up the difference with international students. Are we returning to pay to play for higher education? I’m putting everything in one place as an fyi and the links are in the title.
NOTE: The maximum amount an undergraduate student can receive from the Pell Grant program is $5,835.
Place Lending Caps on All Federal Loan Programs
In order to limit tuition inflation and insulate taxpayers from bearing the cost of student loan delinquencies, Congress should cap aggregate borrowing under the Direct Loan program at $30,000 for undergraduate students and $40,000 for graduate students.
Unrestricted access to federal student aid has been a significant contributor to the skyrocketing cost of higher education. Additionally, the federal government originates 90 percent of all student loans, crowding out private lenders and leaving taxpayers on the hook for defaults and loan forgiveness.
To drive down college costs and reduce taxpayer exposure to high levels of student debt, policymakers should place lower, strict borrowing caps on federal student loans. This policy would encourage colleges to offer competitive prices to students and allow the private lending market to emerge and offer more options to students. Additionally, an annual lending cap of $7,500 would help to prevent excessive lending and put downward pressure on tuition prices.
Allow Universities to Cap Borrowing
Congress should amend the Higher Education Act (HEA) to allow colleges to limit borrowing, helping students to exit schools with lower levels of debt.
Currently, colleges are legally barred from assessing a student’s likelihood of repaying a loan based on that student’s course of study or borrowing history, for example. Although these factors can predict a student’s ability to repay their loans in the future, colleges are not allowed to limit the amount of student loans a student borrows.
As the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators has suggested, schools should be able to help students borrow responsibly—assisting them to avoid delinquency and default—by being allowed to set loan limits below the federal cap and by restricting lending through school-determined criteria, such as enrollment status and chosen course of study.
Eliminate the PLUS Loan Program
The PLUS Loan program, which allows parents of undergraduate and graduate students to borrow from the federal government up to the full cost of attendance at a university, is a considerable driver of tuition inflation. Evidence suggests that virtually unrestricted access to federal student aid leads to tuition inflation.
PLUS loans enable students to borrow up to the cost of attendance, enabling colleges to raise tuition prices profligately. To bring down college costs and reduce dependence on federal student aid programs to finance higher education, policymakers should eliminate the PLUS Loan program.
Both graduate students and the parents of undergraduate students can borrow through the PLUS Loan program, which provides federal loans beyond the main federal lending programs. Ultimately, eliminating the PLUS Loan program will put downward pressure on tuition prices, discourage family-level debt, and create space for private lenders to enter the student loan market.
Remove Cap on Interest Rate for Student Loans
The federal Direct Loan program currently places congressionally determined caps on interest rates for student loans. As the Congressional Budget Office explains, “For undergraduate subsidized and unsubsidized loans, the interest rate is the 10-year Treasury note rate plus 2.05 percentage points, with a cap of 8.25 percent.
For unsubsidized loans to graduate students, the interest rate is the 10-year Treasury note rate plus 3.6 percentage points, with a cap of 9.5 percent. Finally, for PLUS loans, which are additional unsubsidized loans to parents or graduate students, the rate is the 10-year Treasury note rate plus 4.6 percentage points, with a cap of 10.5 percent..”
Federal Credit Reform Act estimates suggest removing this cap would save $4.8 billion over 10 years; fair value estimates suggest a savings of $3.5 billion over 10 years. The cap should be removed so that the market, not the government, can influence loan interest rates.
Eliminate GEAR Up
Eliminate the federal Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) program.
GEAR UP is a costly program that exists ostensibly to increase the number of low-income students enrolled in college and to help these students navigate the pathway from high school to higher education. GEAR UP adds to already high levels of higher education spending, and there is little evidence that it has met its goal of increasing college readiness for disadvantaged students.
Additionally, it is not the proper role of the federal government to provide taxpayer dollars to create a pipeline from high school to college. GEAR UP should be eliminated, and its functions should instead be handled privately or at state and local levels where policymakers are better equipped to increase college preparedness within their school districts.
End Student Loan Forgiveness
End the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.
Americans owe $1.7 trillion in outstanding student loan debt collectively. Unfortunately, when students cannot afford to pay off their student loans, American taxpayers end up with that bill because of federal loan forgiveness policies and borrower defaults. Students who take out federal loans can have their loans forgiven after 20 years of payments, and the loans of public service employees are forgiven after just 10 years under current law.
Not only does loan forgiveness transfer large amounts of student debt onto the backs of taxpayers, but it also encourages excessive borrowing on the part of students, confident that after a certain number of years their loans will be eliminated. To restore fiscal responsibility to higher education and insulate taxpayers from outstanding student loan debt, policymakers should eliminate existing loan forgiveness.
~bella
NOTE: The maximum amount an undergraduate student can receive from the Pell Grant program is $5,835.
Place Lending Caps on All Federal Loan Programs
In order to limit tuition inflation and insulate taxpayers from bearing the cost of student loan delinquencies, Congress should cap aggregate borrowing under the Direct Loan program at $30,000 for undergraduate students and $40,000 for graduate students.
Unrestricted access to federal student aid has been a significant contributor to the skyrocketing cost of higher education. Additionally, the federal government originates 90 percent of all student loans, crowding out private lenders and leaving taxpayers on the hook for defaults and loan forgiveness.
To drive down college costs and reduce taxpayer exposure to high levels of student debt, policymakers should place lower, strict borrowing caps on federal student loans. This policy would encourage colleges to offer competitive prices to students and allow the private lending market to emerge and offer more options to students. Additionally, an annual lending cap of $7,500 would help to prevent excessive lending and put downward pressure on tuition prices.
Allow Universities to Cap Borrowing
Congress should amend the Higher Education Act (HEA) to allow colleges to limit borrowing, helping students to exit schools with lower levels of debt.
Currently, colleges are legally barred from assessing a student’s likelihood of repaying a loan based on that student’s course of study or borrowing history, for example. Although these factors can predict a student’s ability to repay their loans in the future, colleges are not allowed to limit the amount of student loans a student borrows.
As the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators has suggested, schools should be able to help students borrow responsibly—assisting them to avoid delinquency and default—by being allowed to set loan limits below the federal cap and by restricting lending through school-determined criteria, such as enrollment status and chosen course of study.
Eliminate the PLUS Loan Program
The PLUS Loan program, which allows parents of undergraduate and graduate students to borrow from the federal government up to the full cost of attendance at a university, is a considerable driver of tuition inflation. Evidence suggests that virtually unrestricted access to federal student aid leads to tuition inflation.
PLUS loans enable students to borrow up to the cost of attendance, enabling colleges to raise tuition prices profligately. To bring down college costs and reduce dependence on federal student aid programs to finance higher education, policymakers should eliminate the PLUS Loan program.
Both graduate students and the parents of undergraduate students can borrow through the PLUS Loan program, which provides federal loans beyond the main federal lending programs. Ultimately, eliminating the PLUS Loan program will put downward pressure on tuition prices, discourage family-level debt, and create space for private lenders to enter the student loan market.
Remove Cap on Interest Rate for Student Loans
The federal Direct Loan program currently places congressionally determined caps on interest rates for student loans. As the Congressional Budget Office explains, “For undergraduate subsidized and unsubsidized loans, the interest rate is the 10-year Treasury note rate plus 2.05 percentage points, with a cap of 8.25 percent.
For unsubsidized loans to graduate students, the interest rate is the 10-year Treasury note rate plus 3.6 percentage points, with a cap of 9.5 percent. Finally, for PLUS loans, which are additional unsubsidized loans to parents or graduate students, the rate is the 10-year Treasury note rate plus 4.6 percentage points, with a cap of 10.5 percent..”
Federal Credit Reform Act estimates suggest removing this cap would save $4.8 billion over 10 years; fair value estimates suggest a savings of $3.5 billion over 10 years. The cap should be removed so that the market, not the government, can influence loan interest rates.
Eliminate GEAR Up
Eliminate the federal Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) program.
GEAR UP is a costly program that exists ostensibly to increase the number of low-income students enrolled in college and to help these students navigate the pathway from high school to higher education. GEAR UP adds to already high levels of higher education spending, and there is little evidence that it has met its goal of increasing college readiness for disadvantaged students.
Additionally, it is not the proper role of the federal government to provide taxpayer dollars to create a pipeline from high school to college. GEAR UP should be eliminated, and its functions should instead be handled privately or at state and local levels where policymakers are better equipped to increase college preparedness within their school districts.
End Student Loan Forgiveness
End the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.
Americans owe $1.7 trillion in outstanding student loan debt collectively. Unfortunately, when students cannot afford to pay off their student loans, American taxpayers end up with that bill because of federal loan forgiveness policies and borrower defaults. Students who take out federal loans can have their loans forgiven after 20 years of payments, and the loans of public service employees are forgiven after just 10 years under current law.
Not only does loan forgiveness transfer large amounts of student debt onto the backs of taxpayers, but it also encourages excessive borrowing on the part of students, confident that after a certain number of years their loans will be eliminated. To restore fiscal responsibility to higher education and insulate taxpayers from outstanding student loan debt, policymakers should eliminate existing loan forgiveness.
~bella
Upvote
0
Similar threads
