Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He can’t do this. This is like his 15th impeachable act in a week.

He can do whatever he wants. That is what the country voted for. He could literally take you out if you don't like it and that would be that.

No, he cannot. This is America. And everyone needs to stop accepting that he’ll
always break the law and just carry on with their lives. Impeach him again and again and keep suing him in court.

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES

I live in a blue state and my representatives vote against him. WHAT DOES CALLING MY REPS DO??

Thank them! Let them know you’re paying attention and you appreciate their resistance.

So I should clog the line to say thank you and leave people with actual needs on hold while I pay myself on the back for calling and saying thank you? My vote isnt enough? Just checking.

Good, tied of so many kids getting into college and can't afford it. Acceptance rates are so low for non urm who end up needing all this aide

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That will probably lower college costs. Amazing how the cost of college has skyrocketed once the government got in on the loan business.

I’d consider this a win for future students who won’t be saddled with student loan debt.

They won’t have the means to pay for college either way. It only benefits the UMC who have additional disposable income to plow into 529 plans. It does not benefit students who require grants and loans because they are without family or parental financial support.

Without all those students using grants and loans, colleges will have to lower prices to keep that money flowing in.

The Ivies may continue to only be for the rich, but I could see state schools cut tuition to have higher enrollment.

VA Tech isn’t just going to only have 10,000 students attend who can afford full pay. Better to lower tuition to ensure full enrollment and a higher bottom line.

Deflation doesn't work like that. Sorry not sorry.

Please explain how it works then.


You’re right about housing and other large purchases. Why buy today when you can buy tomorrow? That type of deflation will wreck an economy by disincentivizing spending.

For many other consumer goods, deflation doesn’t have nearly the effect. As a basic example, TVs have decreased in price since they were invented. Consumers have benefitted, and still buy TVs. People buy eggs as they get less expensive.

If college costs decreased every year, I’ll still send my kids to college. Even if the price is less expensive the following year.

Where are the cost reductions? Will the professor salaries get cut, or services such as counseling, tutoring, student mental support etc get eliminated. It is my understanding that universities are finding it difficult to get students interested in the teaching profession, so they need to compete for people willing to instruct your dear Larla. How about housing, I guess they can go back to the shit hole dorm rooms that existed when I attended FSU. We didn’t have air condition in Tallahassee florid in some of the dorms. Yikes, just that memory is revolting. Will the cost of boarding decrease despite food prices increasing throughout the country. Bottom line is that the cost will not decrease, but more schools will close and/or consolidate; thus making the demand for those who can pay more in demand.

Every financial entity has a possible cost reduction.

Most schools don’t need football, especially the schools where it doesn’t make money.

Multiple rec centers? Nope.

Climbing walls? Nope.

Community college is inexpensive. Just build some dorms around them and charge the associated cost and you’ll have your model.

I appreciate your post. It wasn’t low effort. But my opinion is colleges aren’t operating a bare bones, minimum staffing model. There is bloat, and it’s costing consumers money.

DP.

He is cutting audio to community colleges as well.

Positive change is possible, and I agree that Democrats ( leadership) were not interested in actually changing anything. But Trump is not the answer. I hope that when his term is over, his voters can recognize that and take another shot with someone else.

Dp- the same idiots that voted for this crap are the same idiots that voted us into the Iraq war. They literally never learn. They will vote for the next terrible “conservative” next time. They never understand what the lesson is.

Hmmm? What?

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Clinton wasn’t the president dum dum

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That will probably lower college costs. Amazing how the cost of college has skyrocketed once the government got in on the loan business.

I’d consider this a win for future students who won’t be saddled with student loan debt.

They won’t have the means to pay for college either way. It only benefits the UMC who have additional disposable income to plow into 529 plans. It does not benefit students who require grants and loans because they are without family or parental financial support.

Without all those students using grants and loans, colleges will have to lower prices to keep that money flowing in.

The Ivies may continue to only be for the rich, but I could see state schools cut tuition to have higher enrollment.

VA Tech isn’t just going to only have 10,000 students attend who can afford full pay. Better to lower tuition to ensure full enrollment and a higher bottom line.

Deflation doesn't work like that. Sorry not sorry.

Please explain how it works then.


You’re right about housing and other large purchases. Why buy today when you can buy tomorrow? That type of deflation will wreck an economy by disincentivizing spending.

For many other consumer goods, deflation doesn’t have nearly the effect. As a basic example, TVs have decreased in price since they were invented. Consumers have benefitted, and still buy TVs. People buy eggs as they get less expensive.

If college costs decreased every year, I’ll still send my kids to college. Even if the price is less expensive the following year.

Where are the cost reductions? Will the professor salaries get cut, or services such as counseling, tutoring, student mental support etc get eliminated. It is my understanding that universities are finding it difficult to get students interested in the teaching profession, so they need to compete for people willing to instruct your dear Larla. How about housing, I guess they can go back to the shit hole dorm rooms that existed when I attended FSU. We didn’t have air condition in Tallahassee florid in some of the dorms. Yikes, just that memory is revolting. Will the cost of boarding decrease despite food prices increasing throughout the country. Bottom line is that the cost will not decrease, but more schools will close and/or consolidate; thus making the demand for those who can pay more in demand.

Every financial entity has a possible cost reduction.

Most schools don’t need football, especially the schools where it doesn’t make money.

Multiple rec centers? Nope.

Climbing walls? Nope.

Community college is inexpensive. Just build some dorms around them and charge the associated cost and you’ll have your model.

I appreciate your post. It wasn’t low effort. But my opinion is colleges aren’t operating a bare bones, minimum staffing model. There is bloat, and it’s costing consumers money.

DP.

He is cutting audio to community colleges as well.

Positive change is possible, and I agree that Democrats ( leadership) were not interested in actually changing anything. But Trump is not the answer. I hope that when his term is over, his voters can recognize that and take another shot with someone else.

Dp- the same idiots that voted for this crap are the same idiots that voted us into the Iraq war. They literally never learn. They will vote for the next terrible “conservative” next time. They never understand what the lesson is.

I get your point. But to their credit, they are looking for change. They may be looking in all the wrong places, but they are looking. What have Democrats done to reduce the cost of higher education? They keep giving more loans and the prices keep going up.

Higher education is largely liberal yet we went from 2 year law school programs to 3 year programs. We went from pharmacy training being 6 years away from high school to being 8. Other countries manage to train capable professionals in a shorter period. Yet we increased the years of training, there by increasing cost of attendance and delaying earning years for our professionals. All these fields have governing boards that are largely liberal. Don't they see the disaster that our cost of education is? Why haven't they shortened these programs? Why haven't they created work and train programs to reduce costs for students?

I hate that these people voted for Trump, but at least they're are trying to find change. Change is needed.

Exactly HOW are they trying to find change? Please be specific with links to examples of this change in action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That will probably lower college costs. Amazing how the cost of college has skyrocketed once the government got in on the loan business.

I’d consider this a win for future students who won’t be saddled with student loan debt.

They won’t have the means to pay for college either way. It only benefits the UMC who have additional disposable income to plow into 529 plans. It does not benefit students who require grants and loans because they are without family or parental financial support.

Without all those students using grants and loans, colleges will have to lower prices to keep that money flowing in.

The Ivies may continue to only be for the rich, but I could see state schools cut tuition to have higher enrollment.

VA Tech isn’t just going to only have 10,000 students attend who can afford full pay. Better to lower tuition to ensure full enrollment and a higher bottom line.

This is not wrong. Subsidize something and you get more consumption of the thing subsidized, basic market forces at work. If universities want more students, they have to price their services at a level where the value proposition is there. At present, federal educational subsidies allow universities to price themselves higher than they otherwise would be able to. There is an argument to be made that at least some of the revenues due to subsidies are spent on unimportant bloat in administration or other university functions which don't directly benefit students, at least in the minds of many people. There surely is a place for financial aid for some students, but the current system encourages students to choose universities they can't afford instead of making more pragmatic choices, and allows universities to charge higher prices than the free market would permit, introducing economic inefficiency.

I agree with everything you said. I'm a lib with relatives in Europe who pay almost nothing for their post-secondary education so you won't get any pushback from me. Higher ed is ridiculously overpriced in the US.

That being said, what makes anyone think that the Trump administration is the one to solve this problem?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That will probably lower college costs. Amazing how the cost of college has skyrocketed once the government got in on the loan business.

I’d consider this a win for future students who won’t be saddled with student loan debt.

They won’t have the means to pay for college either way. It only benefits the UMC who have additional disposable income to plow into 529 plans. It does not benefit students who require grants and loans because they are without family or parental financial support.

Without all those students using grants and loans, colleges will have to lower prices to keep that money flowing in.

The Ivies may continue to only be for the rich, but I could see state schools cut tuition to have higher enrollment.

VA Tech isn’t just going to only have 10,000 students attend who can afford full pay. Better to lower tuition to ensure full enrollment and a higher bottom line.

Deflation doesn't work like that. Sorry not sorry.

Please explain how it works then.


You’re right about housing and other large purchases. Why buy today when you can buy tomorrow? That type of deflation will wreck an economy by disincentivizing spending.

For many other consumer goods, deflation doesn’t have nearly the effect. As a basic example, TVs have decreased in price since they were invented. Consumers have benefitted, and still buy TVs. People buy eggs as they get less expensive.

If college costs decreased every year, I’ll still send my kids to college. Even if the price is less expensive the following year.

Where are the cost reductions? Will the professor salaries get cut, or services such as counseling, tutoring, student mental support etc get eliminated. It is my understanding that universities are finding it difficult to get students interested in the teaching profession, so they need to compete for people willing to instruct your dear Larla. How about housing, I guess they can go back to the shit hole dorm rooms that existed when I attended FSU. We didn’t have air condition in Tallahassee florid in some of the dorms. Yikes, just that memory is revolting. Will the cost of boarding decrease despite food prices increasing throughout the country. Bottom line is that the cost will not decrease, but more schools will close and/or consolidate; thus making the demand for those who can pay more in demand.

Every financial entity has a possible cost reduction.

Most schools don’t need football, especially the schools where it doesn’t make money.

Multiple rec centers? Nope.

Climbing walls? Nope.

Community college is inexpensive. Just build some dorms around them and charge the associated cost and you’ll have your model.

I appreciate your post. It wasn’t low effort. But my opinion is colleges aren’t operating a bare bones, minimum staffing model. There is bloat, and it’s costing consumers money.

DP.

He is cutting audio to community colleges as well.

Positive change is possible, and I agree that Democrats ( leadership) were not interested in actually changing anything. But Trump is not the answer. I hope that when his term is over, his voters can recognize that and take another shot with someone else.

Dp- the same idiots that voted for this crap are the same idiots that voted us into the Iraq war. They literally never learn. They will vote for the next terrible “conservative” next time. They never understand what the lesson is.

I get your point. But to their credit, they are looking for change. They may be looking in all the wrong places, but they are looking. What have Democrats done to reduce the cost of higher education? They keep giving more loans and the prices keep going up.

Higher education is largely liberal yet we went from 2 year law school programs to 3 year programs. We went from pharmacy training being 6 years away from high school to being 8. Other countries manage to train capable professionals in a shorter period. Yet we increased the years of training, there by increasing cost of attendance and delaying earning years for our professionals. All these fields have governing boards that are largely liberal. Don't they see the disaster that our cost of education is? Why haven't they shortened these programs? Why haven't they created work and train programs to reduce costs for students?

I hate that these people voted for Trump, but at least they're are trying to find change. Change is needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That will probably lower college costs. Amazing how the cost of college has skyrocketed once the government got in on the loan business.

I’d consider this a win for future students who won’t be saddled with student loan debt.

They won’t have the means to pay for college either way. It only benefits the UMC who have additional disposable income to plow into 529 plans. It does not benefit students who require grants and loans because they are without family or parental financial support.

Without all those students using grants and loans, colleges will have to lower prices to keep that money flowing in.

The Ivies may continue to only be for the rich, but I could see state schools cut tuition to have higher enrollment.

VA Tech isn’t just going to only have 10,000 students attend who can afford full pay. Better to lower tuition to ensure full enrollment and a higher bottom line.

Deflation doesn't work like that. Sorry not sorry.

Please explain how it works then.


You’re right about housing and other large purchases. Why buy today when you can buy tomorrow? That type of deflation will wreck an economy by disincentivizing spending.

For many other consumer goods, deflation doesn’t have nearly the effect. As a basic example, TVs have decreased in price since they were invented. Consumers have benefitted, and still buy TVs. People buy eggs as they get less expensive.

If college costs decreased every year, I’ll still send my kids to college. Even if the price is less expensive the following year.

Where are the cost reductions? Will the professor salaries get cut, or services such as counseling, tutoring, student mental support etc get eliminated. It is my understanding that universities are finding it difficult to get students interested in the teaching profession, so they need to compete for people willing to instruct your dear Larla. How about housing, I guess they can go back to the shit hole dorm rooms that existed when I attended FSU. We didn’t have air condition in Tallahassee florid in some of the dorms. Yikes, just that memory is revolting. Will the cost of boarding decrease despite food prices increasing throughout the country. Bottom line is that the cost will not decrease, but more schools will close and/or consolidate; thus making the demand for those who can pay more in demand.

Every financial entity has a possible cost reduction.

Most schools don’t need football, especially the schools where it doesn’t make money.

Multiple rec centers? Nope.

Climbing walls? Nope.

Community college is inexpensive. Just build some dorms around them and charge the associated cost and you’ll have your model.

I appreciate your post. It wasn’t low effort. But my opinion is colleges aren’t operating a bare bones, minimum staffing model. There is bloat, and it’s costing consumers money.

DP.

He is cutting audio to community colleges as well.

Positive change is possible, and I agree that Democrats ( leadership) were not interested in actually changing anything. But Trump is not the answer. I hope that when his term is over, his voters can recognize that and take another shot with someone else.

Dp- the same idiots that voted for this crap are the same idiots that voted us into the Iraq war. They literally never learn. They will vote for the next terrible “conservative” next time. They never understand what the lesson is.

Hmmm? What?

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

What's next? A purge of all the "intellectuals" and people with college degrees? Or only people with non-STEM degrees?

There is a long history of the persecution of the educated classes across time and across the world. It doesn't end well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoryersecution_of_intellectuals

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That will probably lower college costs. Amazing how the cost of college has skyrocketed once the government got in on the loan business.

I’d consider this a win for future students who won’t be saddled with student loan debt.

They won’t have the means to pay for college either way. It only benefits the UMC who have additional disposable income to plow into 529 plans. It does not benefit students who require grants and loans because they are without family or parental financial support.

Without all those students using grants and loans, colleges will have to lower prices to keep that money flowing in.

The Ivies may continue to only be for the rich, but I could see state schools cut tuition to have higher enrollment.

VA Tech isn’t just going to only have 10,000 students attend who can afford full pay. Better to lower tuition to ensure full enrollment and a higher bottom line.

This is not wrong. Subsidize something and you get more consumption of the thing subsidized, basic market forces at work. If universities want more students, they have to price their services at a level where the value proposition is there. At present, federal educational subsidies allow universities to price themselves higher than they otherwise would be able to. There is an argument to be made that at least some of the revenues due to subsidies are spent on unimportant bloat in administration or other university functions which don't directly benefit students, at least in the minds of many people. There surely is a place for financial aid for some students, but the current system encourages students to choose universities they can't afford instead of making more pragmatic choices, and allows universities to charge higher prices than the free market would permit, introducing economic inefficiency.

All of this is true.
And Trumps solution is to take a wrecking ball to the entire system. The republican solution is to vilify professors and discourage American Students from pursuing higher education.
Is this what we voted for?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That will probably lower college costs. Amazing how the cost of college has skyrocketed once the government got in on the loan business.

I’d consider this a win for future students who won’t be saddled with student loan debt.

They won’t have the means to pay for college either way. It only benefits the UMC who have additional disposable income to plow into 529 plans. It does not benefit students who require grants and loans because they are without family or parental financial support.

Without all those students using grants and loans, colleges will have to lower prices to keep that money flowing in.

The Ivies may continue to only be for the rich, but I could see state schools cut tuition to have higher enrollment.

VA Tech isn’t just going to only have 10,000 students attend who can afford full pay. Better to lower tuition to ensure full enrollment and a higher bottom line.

This is not wrong. Subsidize something and you get more consumption of the thing subsidized, basic market forces at work. If universities want more students, they have to price their services at a level where the value proposition is there. At present, federal educational subsidies allow universities to price themselves higher than they otherwise would be able to. There is an argument to be made that at least some of the revenues due to subsidies are spent on unimportant bloat in administration or other university functions which don't directly benefit students, at least in the minds of many people. There surely is a place for financial aid for some students, but the current system encourages students to choose universities they can't afford instead of making more pragmatic choices, and allows universities to charge higher prices than the free market would permit, introducing economic inefficiency.

Gee, why aren’t you a billionaire?

Most economists aren’t rich. I wish the pay was higher!

DP

I haven't been in college in a bit, but was the next disbursement coming up?

I have seen 3 separate social media vids from those in college wondering what it means for their next disbursement. One young lady is 2 months from finishing her Masters but won't be able to without her grant that she said was days away.

If so, that's super fked up. And I read this applies to section 8 housing as well. Rent is about to be due in 4 days. That's not enough time for people to hustle to make up the difference so they don't get evicted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That will probably lower college costs. Amazing how the cost of college has skyrocketed once the government got in on the loan business.

I’d consider this a win for future students who won’t be saddled with student loan debt.

They won’t have the means to pay for college either way. It only benefits the UMC who have additional disposable income to plow into 529 plans. It does not benefit students who require grants and loans because they are without family or parental financial support.

Without all those students using grants and loans, colleges will have to lower prices to keep that money flowing in.

The Ivies may continue to only be for the rich, but I could see state schools cut tuition to have higher enrollment.

VA Tech isn’t just going to only have 10,000 students attend who can afford full pay. Better to lower tuition to ensure full enrollment and a higher bottom line.

Deflation doesn't work like that. Sorry not sorry.

Please explain how it works then.


You’re right about housing and other large purchases. Why buy today when you can buy tomorrow? That type of deflation will wreck an economy by disincentivizing spending.

For many other consumer goods, deflation doesn’t have nearly the effect. As a basic example, TVs have decreased in price since they were invented. Consumers have benefitted, and still buy TVs. People buy eggs as they get less expensive.

If college costs decreased every year, I’ll still send my kids to college. Even if the price is less expensive the following year.

Where are the cost reductions? Will the professor salaries get cut, or services such as counseling, tutoring, student mental support etc get eliminated. It is my understanding that universities are finding it difficult to get students interested in the teaching profession, so they need to compete for people willing to instruct your dear Larla. How about housing, I guess they can go back to the shit hole dorm rooms that existed when I attended FSU. We didn’t have air condition in Tallahassee florid in some of the dorms. Yikes, just that memory is revolting. Will the cost of boarding decrease despite food prices increasing throughout the country. Bottom line is that the cost will not decrease, but more schools will close and/or consolidate; thus making the demand for those who can pay more in demand.

Every financial entity has a possible cost reduction.

Most schools don’t need football, especially the schools where it doesn’t make money.

Multiple rec centers? Nope.

Climbing walls? Nope.

Community college is inexpensive. Just build some dorms around them and charge the associated cost and you’ll have your model.

I appreciate your post. It wasn’t low effort. But my opinion is colleges aren’t operating a bare bones, minimum staffing model. There is bloat, and it’s costing consumers money.

DP.

He is cutting audio to community colleges as well.

Positive change is possible, and I agree that Democrats ( leadership) were not interested in actually changing anything. But Trump is not the answer. I hope that when his term is over, his voters can recognize that and take another shot with someone else.

Dp- the same idiots that voted for this crap are the same idiots that voted us into the Iraq war. They literally never learn. They will vote for the next terrible “conservative” next time. They never understand what the lesson is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He can’t do this. This is like his 15th impeachable act in a week.

He can do whatever he wants. That is what the country voted for. He could literally take you out if you don't like it and that would be that.

No, he cannot. This is America. And everyone needs to stop accepting that he’ll
always break the law and just carry on with their lives. Impeach him again and again and keep suing him in court.

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES

I live in a blue state and my representatives vote against him. WHAT DOES CALLING MY REPS DO??

Thank them! Let them know you’re paying attention and you appreciate their resistance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That will probably lower college costs. Amazing how the cost of college has skyrocketed once the government got in on the loan business.

I’d consider this a win for future students who won’t be saddled with student loan debt.

They won’t have the means to pay for college either way. It only benefits the UMC who have additional disposable income to plow into 529 plans. It does not benefit students who require grants and loans because they are without family or parental financial support.

Without all those students using grants and loans, colleges will have to lower prices to keep that money flowing in.

The Ivies may continue to only be for the rich, but I could see state schools cut tuition to have higher enrollment.

VA Tech isn’t just going to only have 10,000 students attend who can afford full pay. Better to lower tuition to ensure full enrollment and a higher bottom line.

This is not wrong. Subsidize something and you get more consumption of the thing subsidized, basic market forces at work. If universities want more students, they have to price their services at a level where the value proposition is there. At present, federal educational subsidies allow universities to price themselves higher than they otherwise would be able to. There is an argument to be made that at least some of the revenues due to subsidies are spent on unimportant bloat in administration or other university functions which don't directly benefit students, at least in the minds of many people. There surely is a place for financial aid for some students, but the current system encourages students to choose universities they can't afford instead of making more pragmatic choices, and allows universities to charge higher prices than the free market would permit, introducing economic inefficiency.

Gee, why aren’t you a billionaire?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That will probably lower college costs. Amazing how the cost of college has skyrocketed once the government got in on the loan business.

I’d consider this a win for future students who won’t be saddled with student loan debt.

They won’t have the means to pay for college either way. It only benefits the UMC who have additional disposable income to plow into 529 plans. It does not benefit students who require grants and loans because they are without family or parental financial support.

Without all those students using grants and loans, colleges will have to lower prices to keep that money flowing in.

The Ivies may continue to only be for the rich, but I could see state schools cut tuition to have higher enrollment.

VA Tech isn’t just going to only have 10,000 students attend who can afford full pay. Better to lower tuition to ensure full enrollment and a higher bottom line.

This is not wrong. Subsidize something and you get more consumption of the thing subsidized, basic market forces at work. If universities want more students, they have to price their services at a level where the value proposition is there. At present, federal educational subsidies allow universities to price themselves higher than they otherwise would be able to. There is an argument to be made that at least some of the revenues due to subsidies are spent on unimportant bloat in administration or other university functions which don't directly benefit students, at least in the minds of many people. There surely is a place for financial aid for some students, but the current system encourages students to choose universities they can't afford instead of making more pragmatic choices, and allows universities to charge higher prices than the free market would permit, introducing economic inefficiency.