Huge Increase in loan rates. Pulling up the ladder again.

[xiggi]

<p>“xiggie comments like that previous one show EXACTLY who you are”</p>

<p>Opie, first of all, if you insist on addressing me, check the spelling of name on CC. It is it not that hard X-i-g-g-i … five letters, and no “e!” </p>

<p>Secondly, how would you know who I am EXACTLY? Surely not from reading my posts, let alone understanding them. Your reaction on my comment to restrict the POLITICAL lobbying efforts of the NEA is telling. Debating the point at hand is a lot harder than hurling simpleton’s ad hominem attacks.</p>

[barrons]

<p>There is a role for teacher unions but blocking reforms and alternatives should not be among them.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>“There are plenty of things I wished our goverment would do to further the progress of education. Alas, most fall in the category of wildly optimistic to entirely unrealistic.”</p>

<p>Again, you are limited by your rigid adherence to conservative/libertarian ideology and lack of recollection of a more progressive era in US politics. Try not to rely so much on unsubstantiated claims that solutions to problems of educational access for example, which were more successful in our own country, perhaps even in the early days of your lifetime, are so “wildly optimistic or “entirely unrealistic”.”</p>

<p>In the same thread, I am found guilty of relying on historical data and displaying a lack of recollection “of a more progressive era in US politics” of the late 80s. In the meantime, there is not much I can do about remembering facts predating my birth, except reading about it in scholarly sources. While I do understand that someone may find a table of historical rates to be irrelevant, I am not sure when or where I criticized that era with unsubstantiated claims, or even addressed. </p>

<p>As far as adhering to a rigid conservative/libertarian agenda, feel free to speculate on what my positions really are, or criticize whetever you think they are. If you are basing your conclusion on my profound dislike for profiteers such as Reg Weaver or Randi Weingarten, so be it. I make no apologies for believing that their medieval feudalistic organizations do not represent the best interest of parents, students and their families, or even all teachers. I also make no apologies for espousing the ideas of Drs. Friedman, Witte, or Hoxby, and believing that a system of open competition should be given a CHANCE and not be fought tooth and nail by organizations unwilling to see the smallest of breaches in their absolute power and financial hegemony. </p>

<p>You tell me where being a progressive means fighting changes and being a staunch conservative means praying for the correct evaluation of alternatives.</p>

[rorosen]

<p>xiggiiiieeeee, so darn good you’re nearly bad,…</p>

<p>my man xiggi’s wicked smart,…
(name the film)</p>

[marite]

<p>At the local level, teachers union can differ enormously. Some years ago, I heard the high school principal complain that contract negotiations nearly broke down over the issue of scheduling. The head pointed out that the new schedule would mean one extra minute in the teachers’ workday, and he would not have it! Back to the drawing board. His successor, however, has been wonderful. He is a former student in the system as well as the parent of schoolchildren. He has worked closely with the superintendent and principal during a very complicated period of transition. Under him, the union has not been ideologically driven. My S’s teachers have been active in the union; they are also incredibly hard-working and committed. At the national level, however, things can be very very different. I do not know how much influence the NEA has on our local chapter.</p>

[returningstudent]

<p>Question—</p>

<p>Is there anything to be done if you have outstanding loans and didn’t know about the deadline? Other than just to say “@#$%^&”?</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>I think unions have done a lot for this country- but I also see the district bogged down with the various busdriver unions, the different agendas of the teachers in their union, the principals in * their* union, the painters and electricians, and the technicians, and groundskeepers, and security guards and all the various adults who are employed in teh district. There are more board meetings that are to discuss contracts and wages, and work conditions, and the various demands that the district has agreed to, but doesn’t have money for, that I am surprised any kids get educated at all!</p>

[texdad]

<p>Xiggi, actually I was not familiar with Witte or Hoxby. I base my opinion as to your ideology on other posts throughout a couple of years.</p>

<p>BTW we are talking about access to college education and though I challenged you, you still have not come up with one solution, while rejecting past solutions such as greater subsidized tution or student loans. You are still just declaring these previous solutions to be wildly unrealistic, yet claming to value access to college education. </p>

<p>Now you are trying to change the subject to vouchers or school choice. That is a different problem as primary or scondary education is already without charge to students. Why not take a more realistic way out and admit that some things such as perhaps lack of college education access due to lack of financial ability to pay market rates can only be solved by government-- again unless you can come up with some sort of certain non-government funded solution. Just declaring the problem difficult is no answer.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>“BTW we are talking about access to college education and though I challenged you, you still have not come up with one solution, while rejecting past solutions such as greater subsidized tution or student loans. You are still just declaring these previous solutions to be wildly unrealistic, yet claming to value access to college education.”</p>

<p>What? That is NOT what I wrote. Here is the correct version:</p>

<p>“There are plenty of things I wished our goverment would do to further the progress of education. Alas, most fall in the category of wildly optimistic to entirely unrealistic.” </p>

<p>and the Cliff’s notes:</p>

<p>“The things Xiggi wishes our goverment would do to further the progress of education fall in the category of wildly optimistic to entirely unrealistic.” </p>

<p>So, how do I declare “previous solutions to be wildly unrealistic?” The devil is in the details, isn’t? Could it be that you also missed the finer points of my libertarian/conservative ideology expressed in my years on CC? For instance, di you miss the posting of one of my wildly optimistic suggestions to wipe all student loans in exchange of a few months/years of public service in our class rooms or other education branches? </p>

<p>Further, in addition to rewriting my sentences, aren’t you rewriting the chronology of this exchange? I believe I did answer your questins, at least when I saw one. On the other hand, I believe that you never expressed what YOU really wanted to see in the DRA.</p>

<p>

@Xiggi

Yesterday at 1050 AM Texdad, there is the part I do not understand in this debate. You say you would agree to pay more taxes, but find the increases in loan rates unacceptable. Does this suggest, by extrapolation, that the increase in taxes should be directed at people who would not have to borrow, and what you really mean is that the richer should bear the burden of this revamped taxation?</p>

<p>Going back to the original post, could I ask WHAT we really want? Zero interests or a 50% subsidy (as proposed in Florida)? Do we want to expand the Pell to $6,000 or double the SEOG? What if we offered zero interest loans to all SEOG recipients, but increased the non-subsidized rates according to income bracket?

@Texdad

Xiggi, I agree the real issue is access to more affordable education.

@Xiggi

Texdad, the question you pose does not have any easy answers. We spend 500 billion a year on education and that does not seem enough to remain competitive among industrialized nations. While more money would help, I would prefer to see stronger accountability and competition in the system, especially at the K-12 level. On a personal basis, I DO support expanded taxation for specific programs.

</p>

[itstoomuch]

<p>Now you understand the “timevalue of money” and “opportunity cost”. What is not taught in college economics should be taught in the sixth grade. </p>

<p>Ignore emails, mailers and your loan contract, and all you can do, is say, “@#$%^&” !!!</p>

[itstoomuch]

<p>Why have a needs based system? </p>

<p>Why have a merit based system? </p>

<p>Best way to bring down college costs is to eliminate the government-taxpayer subsidies and let the free market determine who goes to college, who gets the awards, and what fields should be emphasized. </p>

<p>Constituencies be damned.</p>

[poetsheart]

<p>Texdad? Your turn.</p>

[poetsheart]

<p>Xiggi for President!</p>

[rorosen]

<p>and poetsheart for vice,…</p>

<p>although from the other thread you might want to think twice about ‘running’,…</p>

[texdad]

<p>“The things Xiggi wishes our goverment would do to further the progress of education fall in the category of wildly optimistic to entirely unrealistic.”</p>

<p>So, how do I declare “previous solutions to be wildly unrealistic?” The devil is in the details, isn’t?
+++++++++++++
Now instead of saying previous policies that employ government resources or any government policies Xiggi might like to insure access to college education are “wildly optimistic” or “entirely unrealistic” we have the generic truism that the " devil is in the details" and I guess therefore too complex. </p>

<p>Can you tell us what you want the government to do that is so unealistic, optimistic or detailed… Abolish all taxes or just have one tax rate for rich and poor, end the public school system and the public colleges and universities? Pray tell.</p>

[sarap]

<p>Ok, somebody define “more affordable education.” And tell me if all secondary education (public, private, 2yr, 4yr, grad) should be more affordable. Then tell me how you define who gets it…all students, or like many other countries with free or near free public systems, only the kids at age 12 who are deemed college material?</p>

<p>And if you decide to make it more affordable by subsidizing schools, can anyone go regardless of income, or will those schools be reserved for those who can’t afford to pay? Should the aid be dependant upon performance? If you want to subsidize the students themselves, will you use any criteria other than income, or can any student go? Should the loan rates be tied to completion?</p>

<p>If a family qualifies for aid, and one parent is not working, is that ok or do we require the second parent to go to work? Should students be required to work during school, or as another poster pointed out, do we make allowances for those who need the extra study time?</p>

<p>What do YOU want the government to do?</p>

<p>FYI, I would happily pay more tax for a public educational system at all levels if it A) worked and B) built in some accountability for both students and the system.</p>

<p>In the meantime, while it certainly isn’t great, based upon the experiences I’ve had with other countries sytems, it certainly allows much broader access (if not cheaper) at the post secondary level. </p>

<p>And many of the “wealthy” will keep subsidizing education… with donations, endowments, grants and the myriad of other ways schools currently receive private funds, despite tax disincentive to do so. And oh yah…paying their way.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Texdad, this is silly. </p>

<p>Why make such effort to deconstruct every one of my sentences to make points even you must know I am not making? If our political positions are so different and deeply anchored in ideology, why spend the time arguing about what is doable or not? Do you really want to see a list of suggestions that I call myself unrealistic or too optimistic in the current political and economic climate of 2006? What would the purpose? Deriding it with vigor or deconstructing it too? </p>

<p>This is not cowardly avoiding a challenge as I do not consider the mere exercise of providing a list of suggestions to be any kind of challenge. Typing up such list would take me a few minutes or borrowing one from the internet even quicker. To quench your thirst of seeing a few of my ideas -with IMHO the sole purpose of dismissing or ridculing them- I did provide you with one yesterday: the forgiveness of student loans in exchange of public service. There are many public jobs that cry for fresh faces and fresh ideas; it would only require the funding of this new type of Americorps. </p>

<p>Other ideas for the shooting gallery? What about establishing a minimum amount o salaries and maximum amount of time to repay the loans. Owe $23,000? If you do not make 40,000 within five year of graduation, the loan is forgiven. More, establish different classes of loans depending from the degree. Borrow to go into a lucrative profession such as medical school might carry a non-rebatable rate while students who opt for a teacher’s certificate or any other high priority job would be less. And lastly, it would nice to see quasi public institutions such as Sallie mae having to return the obscene profits they made by abusing both technical loopholes and delinquent students. If we considered the pay of a few NYSE executives such as Grasso to be unreal, how do we accept the sums paid to Lord and Fitzerald? FWIW, it would be nice to see the government capturing the guaranteed loan market and moving into a complete direct loan program. The companies that are currently choking on the size of the gravy train could be hired at a fraction of their current profit. Heck, if the government needs a lot of new employees, why not hire the freshly minted graduates with outstanding debt and pay then enough to retire their debts. </p>

<p>OK, enough! Since I do NOT plan to debate this issue ad infinitum, allow me repeat that the positions your are tying to ascribe to me are far from beig accurate. Inasmuch as I believe in a smaller and more efficient government, I also believe in a government that has a mandate to provide essential services. We know that defending our country is one such essential service. Our fore fathers made the decision to abdicate the education of children to the local level. I believe it to be unrealistic to believe that a reversal will be possible, at least in the form of a complete revolution. On the other hand, a slow but steady evolution is feasible, but it will nonetheless require the removal of very large and very vocal opponents who find solace in maintaining the status quo, especially in the secondary sector. Increasing the access to the tertiary level is extremely important and may require additional money. However, it is doubtful that, without oversight and accountability, expanding the money supply will deliver long term solutions. In many cases, expansing financial aid has simply provided the impetus of raising tuition even faster. Tuition and ancillary costs are climbing much faster than inflation and wages. Why does the cost of education climb faster than inflation and salaries should be at the center of every debate on the diminishing access to higher education.</p>

[texdad]

<p>I agree it has been silly. Peace.</p>

[OpiefromMayberry]

<p>xiggi,</p>

<p>Why worry about the spelling of xiggie? Is it your real name? Heck feel free to spell Opie any way you want… </p>

<p>And thanks for the simpleton crack. It hurt deeply… </p>

<p>Would you agree with my “Simple” statement that the government can fund and do anything it really wants to do even education? They just choose not to. </p>

<p>We can decide were going to the moon and we do it. We can decide on alternative fuels and we can do it. We can make a college education affordable without breaking the bank. </p>

<p>You have some valid points but you lose me when you have no expectations of your political party other than to maintain the status quo. </p>

<p>Again while I am not a union member I understand the need. Until we can treat all people fairly and honestly, there will be a need for collective barganing. The standard assumption that it is always the union that is corupt doesn’t really play out that way all the time.</p>