Student Loan

[CanadianBoy69]

I was wondering im applying for my student loan and it asks me if i own a vechile

and i do its a mazda3 but what my question is do i have to actually show that the vechile is on my name and is financed with my credit or can i ignore it entirely

[mo_money2supe]

When they look into your background via your SIN, they'll be able to tell that there's a $20k+ car to your name. In other words, tell the truth. It'll be harder on you if you try to cover it up.

[Xtrema]

Please leave the student loan to the people who still riding transits. If you can afford a new car, you don't need a loan.

[akumajack]

I always had a vehicle when I was a student, and I always said I didn't have one when I applied for student loan. I don't think they check that hard. Apply for as much as you can possible, and you'll get a lot of free money (bursaries).

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by akumajack
I always had a vehicle when I was a student, and I always said I didn't have one when I applied for student loan. I don't think they check that hard. Apply for as much as you can possible, and you'll get a lot of free money (bursaries).

they do, there was a guy in school who got 15 g's in loans and after a few months they found out he bought a new jetta and recalled his loans. He had 15 days to pay back 14 thousand some odd dollars.

just tell them the truth and if they dont want to give you a loan then I guess you will have to figure it out another way

[akumajack]

Hmm my car(s) were always paid off so maybe that was a different case?

[Dayclone]

I got a student loan and I drive a bimmer...

Plus government has a lot of money they just don't spend it wisely, so take advantage of this loan and plus it's no interest, and don't gotta pay back after 6 months outta school.

Great deal eh?

[akumajack]

Exactly.
Government rips your parents off, you rip the government off. Your gain.

[l/l/rX]

to make your chances even better, dont say you live with your parents. tell them you live with someone else, soo you'll have to change your address for all that shit to get mailed to and also inform your friend, because they'll most likely call n ask if you are living with them.

and also tell your parents that to, because they'll also call your parents and ask them if you are still living @ home or not.

[AhabTheArab]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Please leave the student loan to the people who still riding transits. If you can afford a new car, you don't need a loan.

umm he's probably financing the car. pretty much ANYONE can afford a 350 dollar monthly payment for a mazda 3. jease.

even working at friggin mcdonalds part time.

[Annoyingrob]

Originally posted by AhabTheArab


umm he's probably financing the car. pretty much ANYONE can afford a 350 dollar monthly payment for a mazda 3. jease.

even working at friggin mcdonalds part time.

Well, personally, If I were in a situation where I needed to take out a loan to go to school, I probably wouldn't be dumping over 4 grand a year into a depreciating asset, but that's just me. IMO, I would sell the car, put the money towards my education, then buy a car when I'm done.

My first 2 years of university, I didn't have a car at all. All my money went towards tuition.

[kongaj]

Student loans were changed this year.
HAving a car doesnt matter anymore, and they added 14% to living expenses.
Tell the truth and it wont matter

[dezmarez]

how long does the government loan process to take and all that before u actually get your money?

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by dezmarez
how long does the government loan process to take and all that before u actually get your money?

I did it online, and they said 1-2 weeks.

It ended up being 3 months. Fill out your application now, or months in advance. They aren't the quickest with your forms at the Gov't.

[dezmarez]

so its simple as that
filling out forms online?
because i have a student line of credit from a bank...
but if i could get a government loan and pay off the line of credit with that then i think that would be better then having the line of credit...

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

Student loans are the best :thumbsup: The better you do in school, the more they write off. It's wicked. I usually try to get as much as I can... I'm a student, and car or not, I'm gonna take god damned advantage of the government... :hitit:

[Supa Dexta]

you guys got it good, I had to hitch hike my final yr, 30kms each way... that really sucked..

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by Dayclone
..... plus it's no interest, and don't gotta pay back after 6 months outta school.

Great deal eh?

I earn 49 cents a day on my Canada student loan and 21 cents a day on my Alberta one before I paid it back. So why you think there is no interest is beyond me.

The nice thing about student loans (at least mine) was that they calculated the payment over 9 years as opposed to the traditional 3 years with a bank loan


Originally posted by Supa Dexta
you guys got it good, I had to hitch hike my final yr, 30kms each way... that really sucked..

up hill in the snow both ways even in May?

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Please leave the student loan to the people who still riding transits. If you can afford a new car, you don't need a loan.

Why should people who are able to budget their money and afford small luxuries be exempt from student loans and free money (grants)?

Student loans and grants should be made available to all students, regardless of their income level, to promote higher education. It's downright discriminations that people (or their parents) at higher income levels are forced to pay more for their school than their lower income counterparts.

[Neil4Speed]

Originally posted by TrevorK


Why should people who are able to budget their money and afford small luxuries be exempt from student loans and free money (grants)?



Your logic is flawed, if you have enough money for luxuries, why are you applying for loans? Grants for academic merit are different.

Why should people who work hard and budget to pay rent etc, not be able to collect welfare cheques?


Originally posted by TrevorK

Student loans and grants should be made available to all students, regardless of their income level, to promote higher education. It's downright discriminations that people (or their parents) at higher income levels are forced to pay more for their school than their lower income counterparts.

Higher income levels do not pay more, last time I checked, tuition is the same across the board.

[IncredibleToad]

Originally posted by TrevorK


Why should people who are able to budget their money and afford small luxuries be exempt from student loans and free money (grants)?

Student loans and grants should be made available to all students, regardless of their income level, to promote higher education. It's downright discriminations that people (or their parents) at higher income levels are forced to pay more for their school than their lower income counterparts.

I pay the same tuition as you and the kid next to you, and he lives in a cereal box.

No they are not 'exempt' from the grants, and it sure as hell isn't 'free money' because a lot of those grants require you to be active in the community, be involved with clubs and other extracurricular activities or satisfy certain criteria. (Although there are a few that mostly only look at financial need)

[IncredibleToad]

Originally posted by Neil4Speed



Your logic is flawed,
.


This Does Not Compute, I Am A Robot, I Am Stuck In An Infinite Loop Infinite Loop Infinite Loop Infinite Loop

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by akumajack
I always had a vehicle when I was a student, and I always said I didn't have one when I applied for student loan. I don't think they check that hard. Apply for as much as you can possible, and you'll get a lot of free money (bursaries).


They either check you very hard or not at all. It's called an audit, and they can do them randomly or whenever they suspect you're a sketchy case.

[the_fornicator]

honestly, if you can, just pay for your tuition up front. work your ass off during the summers and don't take loans out.

after you graduate, you're going to want bigger and better things. the $20K in student loans will be the last thing you want to pay off.

trust, you'll thank yourself. do that and you'll have an extra $350-$500 a month kicking around for the next X years (however long it takes you to pay it off) after graduation.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by Neil4Speed
Your logic is flawed, if you have enough money for luxuries, why are you applying for loans? Grants for academic merit are different.

The logic is not flawed.

Why should a person's economic standing have an effect on whether or not they are allowed a loan from the government? Shouldn't the government strive to make education accessible to all, and give everyone the same opportunities.

If someone works hard and makes $20K/year while in school why should they be disqualified from getting a student loan?


Why should people who work hard and budget to pay rent etc, not be able to collect welfare cheques?

Welfare is part of a societal safety net. Student loans are not.




Higher income levels do not pay more, last time I checked, tuition is the same across the board.

Higher income levels pay more because they are not eligable for student loans and grants. I know of many people who brag about all the grants/interest relief they are given, yet this option isn't as available for those that the government claims should be able to afford it on their own.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by IncredibleToad


I pay the same tuition as you and the kid next to you, and he lives in a cereal box.

The tuition costs of someone without a student loan are higher than those with a student loan on the sheer fact that the student loan is interest free until graduation whereas the person the government won't give a loan to is forced to pay up front (And in some cases take out lines of credit from banks to pay for tuition).



No they are not 'exempt' from the grants, and it sure as hell isn't 'free money' because a lot of those grants require you to be active in the community, be involved with clubs and other extracurricular activities or satisfy certain criteria. (Although there are a few that mostly only look at financial need)

A helping hand
Millennium bursaries of $1,000 to $4,500 are awarded each year to post-secondary students who face the greatest financial challenges. These bursaries help students focus on their studies, instead of their debt. Best of all, millennium bursaries do not have to be repaid.
As a sidenote, they distribute $285,000,000 every year so it's not as if it's a small group of people that receive it.

So, are we still going to pretend that all students are eligible for government-sponsored programs that subsidize your tuition?

I understand that privately-funded scholarships are going to favour one group of people (Engineers, woman, minorities, people in the community, etc....). But to have government-sponsored programs that basically state "You should have enough money because you choose to work while you go to school, so we have no need to help you out" seems a bit unfair to me.

[asifka]

if you show them you have a car, they might tell you to sell it and pay your tution.

Also, student loan is only interest free untill you are in school. once you are out, you will have six months grace period( you dont have to pay back but they gona charge you interest). After six month, you need to proof them you can't pay it back and they will stop charging you interest.

If you are going school for 2 years, then re-read the_fornicator post. trust me, student loan is the last thing you wanna think off once you come into professional life.


Originally posted by the_fornicator
honestly, if you can, just pay for your tuition up front. work your ass off during the summers and don't take loans out.

after you graduate, you're going to want bigger and better things. the $20K in student loans will be the last thing you want to pay off.

trust, you'll thank yourself. do that and you'll have an extra $350-$500 a month kicking around for the next X years (however long it takes you to pay it off) after graduation.

[slick2404]

if you tell them you live at home, do you say you pay rent to your parents?

I applied a few years ago, and it asked for their income from the year before....and then ended up rejecting me saying parents make enough and they should be able to support your studies....even though it didnt check how much debt they had

[TVG]

How do you guys afford nice cars in school? My car is paid for, but I have to sell it, because I won't even be able to afford the insurance + gas.

[CanadianBoy69]

Originally posted by TVG
How do you guys afford nice cars in school? My car is paid for, but I have to sell it, because I won't even be able to afford the insurance + gas.


financing over a longer period at a lower interest rate

then work during the semester on friday sat and sunday save 200 per month for payin the car early and use the rest on gas

[Toms-SC]

For the government loans how long does it take to get confirmed/the money? I filled out the online form and it says I'm good to get $5000. When should I expect word back?

[locust]

you should get a response within a few weeks or so.
usually takes about 2 weeks for me.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK
Why should a person's economic standing have an effect on whether or not they are allowed a loan from the government? Shouldn't the government strive to make education accessible to all, and give everyone the same opportunities.[/B] Um the whole point of student loans is to make education accessible to the financially disadvantaged.

If you can already afford to pay for tuition, why would you need student loans? So you can keep living like a baller (as if that's your god given right)

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Please leave the student loan to the people who still riding transits. If you can afford a new car, you don't need a loan.

I almost agree then realize that if the governemnt is stupid enough to give away tax payer money to anyone then why not apply?

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Um the whole point of student loans is to make education accessible to the financially disadvantaged.

If you can already afford to pay for tuition, why would you need student loans? So you can keep living like a baller (as if that's your god given right)

And free post secondary education is? Why should the government give away money? The whole student loan concept is lame, if people ned money to go to school then they should hit a bank and get a lona like everyone else. Why should mediocre students get discounted loans at my (the taxpayers) expense?

[Gainsbarre]

Originally posted by pinoyhero

Why should mediocre students get discounted loans at my (the taxpayers) expense?


But how is that any different from students who are not in financial need applying for student loans? You seemed to endorse student loans in your previous post, now you seem to be discouraging them...

[pinoyhero]

In my firt post I was simply exemplifying how dumb it was that this concept exists but defending the guy who's being resourceful and is going to try to use the system and keep his fancy car while claiming he can't afford an already heavily subsidized post secondary educatin.

Financial need or not a student should go the bank and get a loan simple as that.

[Skyline_Addict]

Originally posted by TrevorK


Why should people who are able to budget their money and afford small luxuries be exempt from student loans and free money (grants)?


Because then that would be a regressively based reward. Here in Canada, regressive programs (particularly taxes) are generally frowned upon in the public eye.

[pinoyhero]

^Unfortunatley its true, since the majority vote rules (which I dont agree with) and the majority feel entitled to things they have not earned, we are stuck in a socialist rut. It could be far worse ofcourse. As far as taxes, unfortunately those who make more money and are more productive members of society are taxed heaviest, funny how our tax system virtually disincents working harder.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Um the whole point of student loans is to make education accessible to the financially disadvantaged.

If you can already afford to pay for tuition, why would you need student loans? So you can keep living like a baller (as if that's your god given right)

Whether you believe in it or not, by not offering the same incentives to go to school based on income level (of yourself or your parents) is discriminatory.

How would you feel if you were denied a student loan because the government said your parents made enough money, yet your parents said they didn't? Then you walk into school, and see the free money (As shown in my posts above) being given away to those who qualify for student loans.

I'm not advocating taking the program away - everyone should have an equal opportunity to education, regardless of their financial status, based on their academic criteria. However, no group should be given free handouts (Again, see above for a simple example) because it is determined that their income level deserves it. They are already at an advantage because of their loans (interest free until 6 months after graduation), and then they get much, much more opportunity for free money?

Upon graduation the "poor" student and the "rich" student both have the same income and job potential. Yet, the "rich" student may potentially be saddled with more debt repayment while the "poor" student may have been given the ability to focus more on school while enjoying the loans.

[pinoyhero]

Well put, again a case of the more productive members of society (or in this case their kids) being discrimiated against in favor of the less productive. The only thing you've left out is that out post secondary education and the student loan program is subsidized/funded by, you guessed it, tax dollars, a larger amount of which (both in terms of absolute dollars and percentge income) is from the more productive.

[Amysicle]

Originally posted by pinoyhero


And free post secondary education is? Why should the government give away money? The whole student loan concept is lame, if people ned money to go to school then they should hit a bank and get a lona like everyone else. Why should mediocre students get discounted loans at my (the taxpayers) expense?

Not speaking for everyone, but in my situation, a government student loan is the only way to go for me.

In high school I was an average student. Marks were in the 70s and 80s, and although I probably could have qualified for some scholarships, I didn't apply for any because at the time, going to post-secondary was not an option for me, and did not seem like it would ever be in the near future. I didn't want to apply for scholarships and take funds away from people who could have put it to better use.

I've been working for the past couple of years, trying to save up for school but since I don't live with my parents, it's a little slower. I've been working on building my credit, but even now when I applied for a student line of credit and even just a simple bank loan, I was turned down. The banks will not give me a loan unless I get my parents to co-sign which is not a possibilty.

I realize going to school is not a right, it's a privilage and I also know that the government student loans are being funded by tax payers, and I do expect to pay every cent I borrow back. I do not see it as a free loan to play around with, and I definitely do not expect anyone else to pay for my education for me. I have enough saved to pay for tuition, but it's the living expenses that would kill me even as I try to work part time to try and live within my means.

I do understand and empathise with students that do live with their parents, and are denied a loan because "their parents make too much" and see that it is not enough to cover the cost of education. It's almost like being in the same boat as me, however, most of them have parents that are able to co-sign a loan for them. I also realize that some of you out there feel I don't deserve this student loan which makes it possible for me to go back to school. I just want you to understand that not all of us who rely on the government student loan are trying to scam the tax payers (myself included) or look for a free hand out.

[pinoyhero]

^Unfortunatley Amy, the loan program can't distinguish between legit user like yourself and others. The thread starter for example has a $30,000 car, brand new, but still needs a loan. I know of a whack of people out there either financed by banks, themselves or parents who are going to school and couldn't get a loan but sure as shit aren't driving fancy new cars. This is the reason Im against the program. I woud be for a program that held people more accountable, such as you would seem to be, but the government is too soft witht their handouts making a tax pyer like me just cringe. Lets follow this and see if the thread starter gets his loan, regardless given the info that you have provided and he/she has providede I would say its pretty easy to loan to you (which we know has already broken down) and not to him/her.

[lint]

Originally posted by TrevorK

Whether you believe in it or not, by not offering the same incentives to go to school based on income level (of yourself or your parents) is discriminatory.

So by this argument, should EVERYONE be entitled to social assistance programs, no matter what their income is? How does welfare fit in? I don't get to claim CCTB because our family income is a fair bit above the max limit. Should I feel entitled to this "free money" as well even though I know that the program is designed to help out parents who are truly in need?


Originally posted by TrevorK

How would you feel if you were denied a student loan because the government said your parents made enough money, yet your parents said they didn't? Then you walk into school, and see the free money (As shown in my posts above) being given away to those who qualify for student loans.


Your parents have an obligation to you and your education. If they have the means, they are responsible. Just like they were responsible for paying for your field trips in elementary, extracurricular activities in jr high and high school.

Having the means to fund an education for your children and choosing not to is no excuse for that child to become a burden to the state.

Funny sense of entitlement.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero


And free post secondary education is? Why should the government give away money? The whole student loan concept is lame, if people ned money to go to school then they should hit a bank and get a lona like everyone else. Why should mediocre students get discounted loans at my (the taxpayers) expense?

WTF? How can you call a student "mediocre" because they're poor? But to answer the question, POOR students get interest free loans from the government because the government wants to encourage post secondary education. An educated population makes for a wealthier nation. I thought that was obvious.

Originally posted by TrevorK


Whether you believe in it or not, by not offering the same incentives to go to school based on income level (of yourself or your parents) is discriminatory.

How would you feel if you were denied a student loan because the government said your parents made enough money, yet your parents said they didn't? Then you walk into school, and see the free money (As shown in my posts above) being given away to those who qualify for student loans.

I'm not advocating taking the program away - everyone should have an equal opportunity to education, regardless of their financial status, based on their academic criteria. However, no group should be given free handouts (Again, see above for a simple example) because it is determined that their income level deserves it. They are already at an advantage because of their loans (interest free until 6 months after graduation), and then they get much, much more opportunity for free money?

Upon graduation the "poor" student and the "rich" student both have the same income and job potential. Yet, the "rich" student may potentially be saddled with more debt repayment while the "poor" student may have been given the ability to focus more on school while enjoying the loans. Again, how exactly does said rich student have more debt? If he's rich, then he doesn't have to assume so much debt. If his parents won't help him with the bills, then that's his parents' fault for not fulfilling their obligations, not the governments.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero
Well put, again a case of the more productive members of society (or in this case their kids) being discrimiated against in favor of the less productive. The only thing you've left out is that out post secondary education and the student loan program is subsidized/funded by, you guessed it, tax dollars, a larger amount of which (both in terms of absolute dollars and percentge income) is from the more productive.

First you say poor people are mediocre. Now you say rich people are more productive. What is wrong with you man?




Originally posted by lint
Your parents have an obligation to you and your education. Yes exactly, thank you.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff


WTF? How can you call a student "mediocre" because they're poor? But to answer the question, POOR students get interest free loans from the government because the government wants to encourage post secondary education. An educated population makes for a wealthier nation. I thought that was obvious.
Again, how exactly does said rich student have more debt? If he's rich, then he doesn't have to assume so much debt. If his parents won't help him with the bills, then that's his parents' fault for not fulfilling their obligations, not the governments.

1. I didn't say the poor were mediocre students. I said that the mediocre shold get loans. For students that excel, rich or poor there are things caled scholarships as well as banks who will more willingly lend to those with great credentials as well as a paying job that they can pay the loan back with.
2. Higher education makes for a wealthier nation I agree, but as a tax payer I woujld far rather see students get money from a job or standard loan under standard terms rather than from my pocket.
3. A rich student all else being equal would have more debt because they would not get a interest free loan at the expense of their parents who are the ones paying more taxes and actually funding the free loans.
4. Funny part here is that some are claiming it is the parents obligation to fund their child's education. Infact they are funding education via paying taxes that go to subsidzing schools as well as interest free loans. Furhter why are you claiming that only rich parents have the obligation where poorer parents dont have the obligation and can rely on the tax payer to fulfill it for them.

I have an idea, why don't you donate more to student programs or to the poor and homeless and make that your life goal, to give away money ... that way you can feel good about yourself and the individualist can quit complaining.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff


First you say poor people are mediocre. Now you say rich people are more productive. What is wrong with you man?



Yes exactly, thank you.

1. See above post.
2. Why would you think the rich aren't more productive members of society? Is that not the measure we are talking about in this thread about money? Simply on the basis of taxes paid or money churned through the economy or not being a drain on the economy, the rich are more productive members.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero


1. I didn't say the poor were mediocre students. I said that the mediocre shold get loans. For students that excel, rich or poor there are things caled scholarships as well as banks who will more willingly lend to those with great credentials as well as a paying job that they can pay the loan back with.
2. Higher education makes for a wealthier nation I agree, but as a tax payer I woujld far rather see students get money from a job or standard loan under standard terms rather than from my pocket.
3. A rich student all else being equal would have more debt because they would not get a interest free loan at the expense of their parents who are the ones paying more taxes and actually funding the free loans.
4. Funny part here is that some are claiming it is the parents obligation to fund their child's education. Infact they are funding education via paying taxes that go to subsidzing schools as well as interest free loans. Furhter why are you claiming that only rich parents have the obligation where poorer parents dont have the obligation and can rely on the tax payer to fulfill it for them.

I have an idea, why don't you donate more to student programs or to the poor and homeless and make that your life goal, to give away money ... that way you can feel good about yourself and the individualist can quit complaining.

Do you think there's no relation between poorer people being less educated? It's easy for you to sit at your computer spouting off things like "oh well, poor kids can get scholarships" but have you ever considered that Johnny No Shoes might be working 2 jobs to help his family pay rent, so it's pretty much impossible to get scholarship grades? Or maybe Judy McTrash is trying to take care of her babies that resulted from some bad decisions as a teen, while still going to school to become a nurse. Are you asking those two people to go to the bank to get a standard loan??

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff


Do you think there's no relation between poorer people being less educated? It's easy for you to sit at your computer spouting off things like "oh well, poor kids can get scholarships" but have you ever considered that Johnny No Shoes might be working 2 jobs to help his family pay rent, so it's pretty much impossible to get scholarship grades? Or maybe Judy McTrash is trying to take care of her babies that resulted from some bad decisions as a teen, while still going to school to become a nurse. Are you asking those two people to go to the bank to get a standard loan??

There certainly is a relationship between being less educated and being poorer. Do you not know of anyone less advantaged that has done extrememly well and actualy built a solid financial picture? There are a ton of cases, you need not look further than google and look up the numerous rags to riches sotries out there, when people work hard they get paid off.

And as far as the jab at someone working two jobs so they can help pay their parents rent? In this city if a set of parents are working a total of 4 jobs, and as per our "labour crisis" they sure could, I would doubt that they need help paying rent of $1200 a month.

Judu McTrash ... so she made a mistake, why is it now the tax payer's responsibility to bail her out of that? Why should she get free money after making a mistake and those who didn't make that mistake not only are denied the hand out but are also charged with having to fund it? That being said there are certainly teen mothers who can work and go to school, I'm sure there are cases of it. Will it be ahrder for them, ofcourse, they made the mistake in the first place. Why do you think its up to the tax payer to correct the mistakes of others? As mentioned, if you think its not the mistake makers duty to clean up their own mess, the go find Judy and fund her education (so the tax payer does have to via student loans), take care of her kids (so the tax payer doesn't have to, via govt subsidies) and pay her rent (so the taxpayer ... well you get the idea).

Consider this, do you not remove the motivation to work harder and strive to succeed by giving away freebies? Look at a great deal of our homeless. They get free rent, free food and a some free money to go spend across from their 4 star hotel at BEERLAND. You think if you took those things away there would be as many homeless? And before you state that I'm a cold-hearted objectisivst, I do support programs for the mentally or physically disabled, our tax dollars should be going towards ensuring they are better off, no so the lazy and maintain their lifestlye.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero


There certainly is a relationship between being less educated and being poorer. Do you not know of anyone less advantaged that has done extrememly well and actualy built a solid financial picture? There are a ton of cases, you need not look further than google and look up the numerous rags to riches sotries out there, when people work hard they get paid off.

And as far as the jab at someone working two jobs so they can help pay their parents rent? In this city if a set of parents are working a total of 4 jobs, and as per our "labour crisis" they sure could, I would doubt that they need help paying rent of $1200 a month.

Judu McTrash ... so she made a mistake, why is it now the tax payer's responsibility to bail her out of that? Why should she get free money after making a mistake and those who didn't make that mistake not only are denied the hand out but are also charged with having to fund it? That being said there are certainly teen mothers who can work and go to school, I'm sure there are cases of it. Will it be ahrder for them, ofcourse, they made the mistake in the first place. Why do you think its up to the tax payer to correct the mistakes of others? As mentioned, if you think its not the mistake makers duty to clean up their own mess, the go find Judy and fund her education (so the tax payer does have to via student loans), take care of her kids (so the tax payer doesn't have to, via govt subsidies) and pay her rent (so the taxpayer ... well you get the idea).

Consider this, do you not remove the motivation to work harder and strive to succeed by giving away freebies? Look at a great deal of our homeless. They get free rent, free food and a some free money to go spend across from their 4 star hotel at BEERLAND. You think if you took those things away there would be as many homeless? And before you state that I'm a cold-hearted objectisivst, I do support programs for the mentally or physically disabled, our tax dollars should be going towards ensuring they are better off, no so the lazy and maintain their lifestlye. I don't think you're a cold hearted objectivist, I just think you're ignorant. Notice how dedicated you are to arguing your 1 sided view? That's the first sign of ignorance right there. Speaking from personal experience, the more educated I become, I find the less opinionated I am. In a way, I envy those who have a more simplistic view of life, because I can no longer argue many things with conviction. But I digress.

You know, they make movies about people going from "rags to riches." Do you know why? BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING FAIRY TALE. It doesn't happen often in REAL life all that often. Just because you've seen some shitty Will Smith movie and felt all warm and fuzzy inside doesn't mean that it's anything like that in reality.

Finally, try naming for us a single 4 star hotel where bums can stay for free. Have you ever even been within 100 meters of a homeless shelter? Maybe you've been staying in the wrong 4 star hotels. Or maybe you're full of shit.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by lint
Your parents have an obligation to you and your education. If they have the means, they are responsible. Just like they were responsible for paying for your field trips in elementary, extracurricular activities in jr high and high school.

Having the means to fund an education for your children and choosing not to is no excuse for that child to become a burden to the state.

Funny sense of entitlement.

The whole problem is that a person, at 18, is their own responsibility when it comes to everything but education. The system unfairly punishes those who's parents are deemed "rich enough" yet may not help them at all.

Many parents make enough to have their children denied student loans, yet do not save anything for their children's education. It may not be the way the government envisions it, but it does happen and very often.

Why are these children punished? They are denied grants/bursarys (As illustrated above) and are forced to seek private loans which tend to offer high interest rates (prime + 3.75 in RBC's case) upon gradiation, while accumulating interest during schooling.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK


The whole problem is that a person, at 18, is their own responsibility What the fuck.

Lint used the word OBLIGATION. Not RESPONSIBILITY.

He's eloquent and picked that word carefully, so don't destroy that by using a very different word to make your argument work.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Again, how exactly does said rich student have more debt? If he's rich, then he doesn't have to assume so much debt. If his parents won't help him with the bills, then that's his parents' fault for not fulfilling their obligations, not the governments.

Because I disagree with your statement of it being the parents obligation to finance their children's education, as I don't think it's the reality (Even though I wish it was).

I think it would be great if every parent could financially help their child through university, so they could focus on their studies and become what they want rather than what they can afford. Myself - I'll follow the lead of my friend who stashed away $20,000 for each of his children to pay for their education. I feel this will be the best for my future children, and will allow them the options many do not have.

The sad reality is, this isn't the case for many students.



So, in a perfect world, yes, the "rich" students have less debt. In our world, the "rich" students tend to have more debt.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
What the fuck.

Lint used the word OBLIGATION. Not RESPONSIBILITY.

He's eloquent and picked that word carefully, so don't destroy that by using a very different word to make your argument work.

Please read bolded section below, from Lint's post, indicating parents are "responsible"


Your parents have an obligation to you and your education. If they have the means, they are responsible.

I did not use a word he did not, he specifically said parent's are responsible if they have the means.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
I don't think you're a cold hearted objectivist, I just think you're ignorant. Notice how dedicated you are to arguing your 1 sided view? That's the first sign of ignorance right there. Speaking from personal experience, the more educated I become, I find the less opinionated I am. In a way, I envy those who have a more simplistic view of life, because I can no longer argue many things with conviction. But I digress.

You know, they make movies about people going from "rags to riches." Do you know why? BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING FAIRY TALE. It doesn't happen often in REAL life all that often. Just because you've seen some shitty Will Smith movie and felt all warm and fuzzy inside doesn't mean that it's anything like that in reality.

Finally, try naming for us a single 4 star hotel where bums can stay for free. Have you ever even been within 100 meters of a homeless shelter? Maybe you've been staying in the wrong 4 star hotels. Or maybe you're full of shit.

I agree the more educated one becomes the less ignorant they should be. That being said, often the more educated one bcomes the more they make and thus the more taxes they pay. It just is painful to watch the more productive members of society who worked their ass of in school to be so, get stuck with footing a larger share of the bil to take care of those who did not chose to endure the hardships of the path of getting an education.

OK fair enough I'm exaggerating about the brick homeless shelter on prime land on the river that was recenlty built but I challenge you to find one person who sees that building and thinks its a run of the mill shleter for the homless, most would think its far nicer than what is required.

FYI, the pursuit of happyness is a true story jackass, not a fairy tale.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by TrevorK


The whole problem is that a person, at 18, is their own responsibility when it comes to everything but education. The system unfairly punishes those who's parents are deemed "rich enough" yet may not help them at all.

Many parents make enough to have their children denied student loans, yet do not save anything for their children's education. It may not be the way the government envisions it, but it does happen and very often.

Why are these children punished? They are denied grants/bursarys (As illustrated above) and are forced to seek private loans which tend to offer high interest rates (prime + 3.75 in RBC's case) upon gradiation, while accumulating interest during schooling.

You have pointd out a greeat example of discrimination. The best part is that the rich parents are the one funding the loan for the poor parents child by paying more taxes.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by TrevorK


Please read bolded section below, from Lint's post, indicating parents are "responsible"



I did not use a word he did not, he specifically said parent's are responsible if they have the means.

LOL, ZING!

[lint]

Originally posted by TrevorK
The whole problem is that a person, at 18, is their own responsibility when it comes to everything but education. The system unfairly punishes those who's parents are deemed "rich enough" yet may not help them at all.

Many parents make enough to have their children denied student loans, yet do not save anything for their children's education. It may not be the way the government envisions it, but it does happen and very often.

If a parent has the means and choses not to help their children, then they fail as a parent. Between parents who want to help their children, but don't have the means or parents who have the means and chose not to help their children who should be punished?


Originally posted by TrevorK

Why are these children punished? They are denied grants/bursarys (As illustrated above) and are forced to seek private loans which tend to offer high interest rates (prime + 3.75 in RBC's case) upon gradiation, while accumulating interest during schooling.

How many poor kids whose parents CAN'T help them are there for every rich kid whose parents WON'T help them?

I find it amazing that you're arguing rich kids are more disadvantaged than poor kids when it comes to the accessibility of higher education.

[lint]

Originally posted by TrevorK
So, in a perfect world, yes, the "rich" students have less debt. In our world, the "rich" students tend to have more debt.

bullshit

[lint]

Originally posted by pinoyhero
You have pointd out a greeat example of discrimination. The best part is that the rich parents are the one funding the loan for the poor parents child by paying more taxes.

Wouldn't it be great if it was every man/woman/child for themselves? No social responsibilities to tie you down? Why should poor people have access to universal health care? Shit, not like they're paying anything for it. We need to maintain a clear split of the classes. Only those with the means should be able to have access to things like knowledge. Those wealthy philanthropists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet should be strung up for trying to make a difference in this world with their charity work. WTF were they thinking?

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by lint
If a parent has the means and choses not to help their children, then they fail as a parent. Between parents who want to help their children, but don't have the means or parents who have the means and chose not to help their children who should be punished?

Why should we punish anyone when it comes to education?

The socialist inside of me feels we should help all the children succeed, and that's what I've said all along. I don't support many socialist-type programs, however I feel that by having a well-educated society we are on our way to becoming a better society.

It's a loan, it will be paid back, with interest (in most cases).

We fix many, many other "failures" of parents (Fetal alcohol syndrome, etc...) so why not fix this as well?


How many poor kids whose parents CAN'T help them are there for every rich kid whose parents WON'T help them?

Neither one of us will be able to answer that question, so why bring it up? There are obviously people on both sides of the fence and that arguements doesn't help either side.

You're stating that we should sacrifice those that don't make the cut and write them off. They can fend for themselves, they're considered "rich".

Meanwhile, I'm stating that we should give everyone a chance to pursue their educational desires, regardless of their income level.


I find it amazing that you're arguing rich kids are more disadvantaged than poor kids when it comes to the accessibility of higher education.

"Poor" kids, as defined by the requirements to get a student loan have a distinct financial advantage in their education. There is no denying this, I've already illustrated above a single example of where hundreds of millions of dollars have been given away to "poor" students while the "rich" have little to no chance of ever getting it.

The facts have been outlined, you may not feel that "rich" kids are disadvantaged. However, the evidence I have provided clearly demonstrates that the "poor" have a distinct financial advantage over the "rich" because they easily qualify for loans, as well as grants/bursaries for free money that the "rich" can not.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by lint


bullshit

That's your opinion. Unfortunately, I see students daily who are forced to struggle because they don't qualify for loans and are forced to seek other means to fund their education.

It does exist, and to pretend it doesn't is ignorant.

In strictly a financial sense you can not argue with the numbers that the cost of education for someone who has to pay out of pocket/find alternative financing is lower/the same as someone who obtains an interest free (until after grad., sometimes longer) student loan and has a very good chance of receiving free money in bursaries/grants.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by lint


If a parent has the means and choses not to help their children, then they fail as a parent. Between parents who want to help their children, but don't have the means or parents who have the means and chose not to help their children who should be punished?



How many poor kids whose parents CAN'T help them are there for every rich kid whose parents WON'T help them?

I find it amazing that you're arguing rich kids are more disadvantaged than poor kids when it comes to the accessibility of higher education.

On your firts question, I vote, neither, who's being punished? In fact I don't think its a bad thing at all that parents with the means chose not to give their kids tuition and living money throughout their post secondary ed. There's nothing wrong with doing so but forcing your kid to struggling and teaching them that lesson at anearly age does not equal failure.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK


That's your opinion. Unfortunately, I see students daily who are forced to struggle because they don't qualify for loans and are forced to seek other means to fund their education. Since when are your views considered unbiased? Did Harry Potter lend you his objectivity goggles?

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by lint


Wouldn't it be great if it was every man/woman/child for themselves? No social responsibilities to tie you down? Why should poor people have access to universal health care? Shit, not like they're paying anything for it. We need to maintain a clear split of the classes. Only those with the means should be able to have access to things like knowledge. Those wealthy philanthropists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet should be strung up for trying to make a difference in this world with their charity work. WTF were they thinking?

What would be so wrong about it? Those who wanted to help out could and those who didn't wouldn't be forced to. Hand outs do not lead to people being pulled out of tough times they could argualby have the opposite effect.

I'll leave the health care isue alone as that is not the topic here.

Maintain a split of classes .. when has that ever been argued, all that has been argued against is a forced wealth redistribution synonomus with socialism.

I've already suggested that those who chose to donate should do so, it shoiuldn't be forced via taxes. What percentage of your net income have you donated this year?

[lint]

Originally posted by TrevorK


That's your opinion. Unfortunately, I see students daily who are forced to struggle because they don't qualify for loans and are forced to seek other means to fund their education.

It does exist, and to pretend it doesn't is ignorant.

I'd call it logic more than ignorance. Actually it's having an opinion. Just like it's your opinion that rich kids have more debt than poor kids. No evidence to support it, contradicts logic, but it's your position.

[pinoyhero]

Guys I think I'll bow out here, its been fun. Great arguments from both sides. Real problem is, from my end, the majority, the individualist, I'm seen as the devil and devil's don't win votes. Thus we live in a semi-socialist state but you don't see me moving.

So although I think in the long run we're not "cutting off the poor" but pushing back and putting them into a situation where they have no chouice but to struggle to get out of their bad situaion, my views will be seen as cold hearted and selfish. Sorry if I'm selfish but I just would rather keep what i've worked for rather than give it away to to those who have chosen not to.

Further I would like to reitterate for those who haven't read the thread that I am in full favour of supporting both with my tax and donated dollars those who can't work and truly need help.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero
I don't think its a bad thing at all that parents with the means chose not to give their kids tuition and living money throughout their post secondary ed. There's nothing wrong with doing so but forcing your kid to struggling and teaching them that lesson at anearly age does not equal failure. So if the parents chose to condemn their kids to debthood to teach them a life lesson, then how is it the government's fault anymore? :nut: :rofl:

You were so caught up in being antagonistic and stubborn to lint, that you just made a good point against your own argument. :rofl: :rofl:

I hope you're smart enough to see how stupid you are.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Since when are your views considered unbiased? Did Harry Potter lend you his objectivity goggles?

I've already provided proof for my claims, such as the bursaries that are available to "poor" students and not "rich" students.


I've yet to see a shred of proof of anything coming from you other than what you feel and what you think. Perhaps you should look towards yourself before coming after others when asking for things such as objectivity.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by pinoyhero
Thus we live in a semi-socialist state but you don't see me moving. Ignorantism rarely budges.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by lint


I'd call it logic more than ignorance. Actually it's having an opinion. Just like it's your opinion that rich kids have more debt than poor kids. No evidence to support it, contradicts logic, but it's your position.

The math is clear that "rich" kids are at a financial disadvantage when compared to "poor" kids.

You may feel there is nothing wrong with that, but it does not change the fact that it is true.

[Rav4Guy]

^ I'd like to see the math behind this one... quite interesting.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
So if the parents chose to condemn their kids to debthood to teach them a life lesson, then how is it the government's fault anymore? :nut: :rofl:


Our society revolves around helping those that make poor decisions, so why shouldn't we help those who's parents made poor decisions in terms of education?

For instance, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is completely preventable. Yet the government has programs in place to help treat those affect by it, affected by the poor decisions of their parents.

Hell, even look at McDonalds. A lady made a poor choice and spilled her coffee on her lap. Yet she was able to successfully sue McD's and state that the coffee when too hot, when common sense would dictate that you should be careful when handling coffee because it is assumed to be very hot and has the ability to cause burning?


I'm not against what you're saying - I wish completely that the parents who are able would fund their childs education. However, that is not always the way that it works out and I feel we need to do something for those affected by it.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK


I've already provided proof for my claims, such as the bursaries that are available to "poor" students and not "rich" students.


I've yet to see a shred of proof of anything coming from you other than what you feel and what you think. Perhaps you should look towards yourself before coming after others when asking for things such as objectivity. I feel you've missed what I'm getting at. You're saying that you see rich students inundated with debt. Well ok, how many? What percentage? Did you conduct a randomized controlled trial? I can say I see always see rich students with no debt - but what does that mean? Nothing. Anyone can sit and spout off what they've seen and pass it off as fact, but just because you happen know some friends with debt, doesn't mean it's the norm. You can't base your arguments on that.

As for me, well, I haven't really made any arguments at all. I'm just being critical of your arguments. And as I mentioned before, when you learn to see the world in shades of gray, it gets tough to pick black or white. I envy the people who can.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK
For instance, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is completely preventable. Yet the government has programs in place to help treat those affect by it, affected by the poor decisions of their parents. It also has programs in place to educate people on the risk on FAS, such as the commercials on TV. But y'know, a lot of the disadvantaged, the ones who experience higher instances of FAS, are probably less likely to own a TV. Ever thought of that?

And in the meantime, what are we supposed to do about all the FAS babies floating around? Leave them to a shitty life because their parents made some bad choices? Shoot them and post up pictures of dead FAS babies as a deterrent?

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by Rav4Guy
^ I'd like to see the math behind this one... quite interesting.

It relatively simple.

If a "rich" student is forced to pay $10,000 for school they are either paying it immediately, or seeking loans to pay it.

If they are paying it immediately they are forced to lose the use of their money, and the income it could earn. This is an issue because the "poor" student is able to access an interest free loan (until after grad.).

If the "rich" are getting a loan, then it's more obvious because they are forced to make interest payments on it while in school (I know RBC is like that, I'd assume there are none that charge 0% interest.), while the "poor" are getting it interest free.

Even ignoring the fact of all the bursaries/grants that the "poor" student has access to (Which puts them at a distinct financial advantage), we can see that the "rich" student, in a financial sense, comes out behind the "poor" student.


Some may not appreciate the first point above, however it is completely true.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
It also has programs in place to educate people on the risk on FAS, such as the commercials on TV. But y'know, a lot of the disadvantaged, the ones who experience higher instances of FAS, are probably less likely to own a TV. Ever thought of that?


1997

Canadian TV Ownership (Canada)

* Nearly all Canadian homes (99 per cent) have at least one TV set, and nearly two thirds (59 per cent) own more than one.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/research_documents/statistics/television/tv_viewing_habits.cfm

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK


It relatively simple.

If a "rich" student is forced to pay $10,000 for school they are either paying it immediately, or seeking loans to pay it.

If they are paying it immediately they are forced to lose the use of their money, and the income it could earn. This is an issue because the "poor" student is able to access an interest free loan (until after grad.).

If the "rich" are getting a loan, then it's more obvious because they are forced to make interest payments on it while in school (I know RBC is like that, I'd assume there are none that charge 0% interest.), while the "poor" are getting it interest free.

Even ignoring the fact of all the bursaries/grants that the "poor" student has access to (Which puts them at a distinct financial advantage), we can see that the "rich" student, in a financial sense, comes out behind the "poor" student.


Some may not appreciate the first point above, however it is completely true. That's funny, here's some even more simple math:

Rich student:

+10000 Bank of M+D
-10000 Tuition
=0

Poor student:

+10000 Government
-10000 Tuition
=0

And if the rich parents won't cough up a few bucks because they'd rather spend it on a trip to Hawaii...don't blame it on the government.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK


1997

Canadian TV Ownership (Canada)

* Nearly all Canadian homes (99 per cent) have at least one TV set, and nearly two thirds (59 per cent) own more than one.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/research_documents/statistics/television/tv_viewing_habits.cfm [/B] Come on, read between the lines here.

It's easy for you and I to watch an ad on TV about FAS and think about it, but for some poor teenage girl that's beaten at home and doesn't have money to eat 3 meals a day, and whose only fun in life comes from alcohol, the last thing she's going to care about is some ad on TV.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by pinoyhero


And free post secondary education is? Why should the government give away money? The whole student loan concept is lame, if people ned money to go to school then they should hit a bank and get a lona like everyone else. Why should mediocre students get discounted loans at my (the taxpayers) expense?

I'm a firm believer that Canada should institute a free post-secondary system. I haven't look up any other countries with free post-secondary, except I know in Finland it is free, and last year it had the worlds most competitive economy.

Free education, means pretty much everybody gets a higher education, which leads to better and more informed workers, which leads to a better, more competitive economy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p01s03-woeu.html

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
That's funny, here's some even more simple math:

Rich student:

+10000 Bank of M+D
-10000 Tuition
=0

Poor student:

+10000 Government
-10000 Tuition
=0

That's nice, but not nearly realistic for many. With consumer debt at the levels it's at in Canada, it's fairly safe to say that many parents don't pay entirely for the child's education. Feel free to do a survey on Beyond if you want proof.


And if the rich parents won't cough up a few bucks because they'd rather spend it on a trip to Hawaii...don't blame it on the government.

I don't care about laying blame, it's irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that it's the student that's immediately hurt.

As I've stated, I'd love for the parents to become ultimately responsible for their child's education, if their financial status supports it. However, that is not our reality and until it is we will continue to put those at a disadvantage who do not qualify for our student-assistance and are unable to secure funding from parents.




How do you propose we deal with the "rich" students who can't get funding from their parents and don't qualify for student loans, that will put them on the same playing field as the "poor" students that do? Or do you support the inequality remaining?

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK
The socialist inside of me[/B] Geez, this just kills me. What the hell do you know about socialism? Go read the works of Marx, Engels, even Lenin, then come back here and talk about socialism. Then go read Louis Althusser's works and learn about his views about the distinction between the rich and poor, and how the state affects social classes.

The socialist in you...gah.

[Rav4Guy]

Originally posted by TrevorK


That's nice, but not nearly realistic for many. With consumer debt at the levels it's at in Canada, it's fairly safe to say that many parents don't pay entirely for the child's education. Feel free to do a survey on Beyond if you want proof.

[/B]

That being said...

Wouldn't $50,000 from M+D enable that student to be furthur ahead and less in debt than the student without help? Assuming $100,000 tuition.

edit: TrevorK, I see that you assuming that both students are getting a loan but in reality a "rich" student wouldn't need that loan from the bank. These subsidized students come out of school with no debt whereas a "poor" student comes out with $XXX amounts of loans that they need to repay.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK
How do you propose we deal with the "rich" students who can't get funding from their parents and don't qualify for student loans, that will put them on the same playing field as the "poor" students that do? Or do you support the inequality remaining? [/B] Maybe you could start a bursary.

"TrevorK's fund for rich kids who come from baller families but somehow need more money"

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Geez, this just kills me. What the hell do you know about socialism? Go read the works of Marx, Engels, even Lenin, then come back here and talk about socialism. Then go read Louis Althusser's works and learn about his views about the distinction between the rich and poor, and how the state affects social classes.

The socialist in you...gah.

I'm finished with typing up responses to you filled with actual quotes, references, etc... and having you just come with with your opinion. I'm not going to waste my time answering your question on socialism, because then you won't have time to answer the real question of this debate, which you've already ignored:

How do you propose we deal with the "rich" students who can't get funding from their parents and don't qualify for student loans, that will put them on the same playing field as the "poor" students that do? Or do you support the inequality remaining?

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by Rav4Guy


That being said...

Wouldn't $50,000 from M+D enable that student to be furthur ahead and less in debt than the student without help? Assuming $100,000 tuition.

edit: TrevorK, I see that you assuming that both students are getting a loan but in reality a "rich" student wouldn't need that loan from the bank. These subsidized students come out of school with no debt whereas a "poor" student comes out with $XXX amounts of loans that they need to repay.

This is the issue I have - the government has a definition for a "rich" student that does not reflect the true financial wealth of their parents. Therefore, assuming that all students who do not qualify for the loan have mom and dad paying is false.


I'm not saying that there aren't students who don't get a free ride from their parents. I think this is of great benefit to the student, and wish that every parent who is financially capable would be able to do it.

However, in reality many parents do not possess the financial means to pay their child's tuition, when the government says they should.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Maybe you could start a bursary.

"TrevorK's fund for rich kids who come from baller families but somehow need more money"

The lack of being able to come up with a somewhat intelligent response to a simple question, which is the basis on most of your opinionated posts in this thread demonstrates the credibility that your opinion should be given.

[Rav4Guy]

Originally posted by TrevorK


...because then you won't have time to answer the real question of this debate, which you've already ignored:


this was tonights topic starter...

"So, in a perfect world, yes, the "rich" students have less debt. In our world, the "rich" students tend to have more debt." -TrevorK

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by Rav4Guy


this was tonights topic starter...

"So, in a perfect world, yes, the "rich" students have less debt. In our world, the "rich" students tend to have more debt." -TrevorK

I think that point has already been addressed and I haven't seen any evidence as to why the logic I have posted is incorrect.

So from that point forward, we move to what do you propose to fix the issue if you don't believe in handing out the same student loan to everyone.

[Rav4Guy]

Originally posted by TrevorK


This is the issue I have - the government has a definition for a "rich" student that does not reflect the true financial wealth of their parents. Therefore, assuming that all students who do not qualify for the loan have mom and dad paying is false.


I'm not saying that there aren't students who don't get a free ride from their parents. I think this is of great benefit to the student, and wish that every parent who is financially capable would be able to do it.

However, in reality many parents do not possess the financial means to pay their child's tuition, when the government says they should.

Your last paragraph is quite true... but is then again dependent on many factors such as financial history of M&D and culture.

The general public knows that parents who make over and above the disqualifying income are not eligible for student loans. USUALLY, parents who are in this category would be financially capable of supporting their children through school. Whether they want to or not, that's a different story. For example, children of Chinese families are usually supported by their parents throughout school. I feel that this is a part of our culture. I know several wealthy Caucasian families that refuse to pay for their children's education.

The government student loans are designed to help lower income students get a secondary education without having them work 4-5 years before going to school.

There are of course assumptions made by these policies but like they say... "can't please everyone".

Families, no matter wealthy or not, should be starting education funds such as a RESP, savings account, trust accounts, investment account... anything to set something aside.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK


The lack of being able to come up with a somewhat intelligent response to a simple question, which is the basis on most of your opinionated posts in this thread demonstrates the credibility that your opinion should be given. I've already plainly stated that I don't hold much of an opinion. Shades of gray, remember?

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by Rav4Guy


Your last paragraph is quite true... but is then again dependent on many factors such as financial history of M&D and culture.

The general public knows that parents who make over and above the disqualifying income are not eligible for student loans. USUALLY, parents who are in this category would be financially capable of supporting their children through school. Whether they want to or not, that's a different story. For example, children of Chinese families are usually supported by their parents throughout school. I feel that this is a part of our culture. I know several wealthy Caucasian families that refuse to pay for their children's education.

The government student loans are designed to help lower income students get a secondary education without having them work 4-5 years before going to school.

There are of course assumptions made by these policies but like they say... "can't please everyone".

This is where I disagree with some of the people in the thread - I think we can please everyone by offerring equal access to student loans based on a student's desire to go to school, rather than their (and their parent's) financial status.

I think it's sad when you hear of students forced to work 30-40 hours/week because their parents, who the government feels should support them, don't. I'd rather see the government help everyone rather than neglect the ones that are falling between the cracks.

[Rav4Guy]

^ so equal rights and access to public services. A extremely Socialistic view. That opens up a whole different thread that touches on topics such as "private vs. private education" and "why are we paying so much in taxes"

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TrevorK
I'm not going to waste my time answering your question on socialism, because then you won't have time to answer the real question of this debate, which you've already ignored This isn't a real debate if you don't know what you're talking about. Learn what socialism is before you apply it as a label. If you want to throw terms around like an intellectual, then do the reading so you know what you're talking about. It's also not a debate unless you have an opposition. I'm not opposing you, I'm just showcasing your arguments' fallacies. And I'm asking, no BEGGING, you to read! You are obviously interested in this sort of thing, so why not become versed in it? If you'd like, I can PM you the titles to some good articles and novels.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by Rav4Guy
^ so equal rights and access to public services. A extremely Socialistic view. That opens up a whole different thread that touches on topics such as "private vs. private education" and "why are we paying so much in taxes"

Unfortunately, it does seem to stray into it's own topic regarding equal access to education.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
This isn't a real debate if you don't know what you're talking about. Learn what socialism is before you apply it as a label. If you want to throw terms around like an intellectual, then do the reading so you know what you're talking about. It's also not a debate unless you have an opposition. I'm not opposing you, I'm just showcasing your arguments' fallacies. And I'm asking, no BEGGING, you to read! You are obviously interested in this sort of thing, so why not become versed in it? If you'd like, I can PM you the titles to some good articles and novels.

I'd love to see the information you've used to obtain your point of view, as it may actually change mine or at least open up new ideas. I have nothing but time in the evenings at work - so if you have any Internet-based resources send them my way.

If they are paper-based I'm sure our library at work has them and I'll look into checking them out when I'm there tomorrow.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
So if the parents chose to condemn their kids to debthood to teach them a life lesson, then how is it the government's fault anymore? :nut: :rofl:

You were so caught up in being antagonistic and stubborn to lint, that you just made a good point against your own argument. :rofl: :rofl:

I hope you're smart enough to see how stupid you are.

Well I thought I'd bow out on a diplomatic note, but since you want to engage in name calling I'll jump right back in and start by reitterating an original question:

How much or your income have you donated to the homeless/uneducated? I would guess very little, in fact less than I. However, you still love the fact that the rich who have worked for their money are legally obliged to donate via paying more taxes that you.

On the parents teaching their childern a valuable lesson, I don't think it should be the government's obligation. However if the government is infact giving away free money, then why should the childern of tax payer who contribute more taxes be discrimated against?

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Ignorantism rarely budges.

No, ignorantism makes the judgement that best suits, in this case Canada where the pro's outweigh the con's.

[pinoyhero]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
It also has programs in place to educate people on the risk on FAS, such as the commercials on TV. But y'know, a lot of the disadvantaged, the ones who experience higher instances of FAS, are probably less likely to own a TV. Ever thought of that?

And in the meantime, what are we supposed to do about all the FAS babies floating around? Leave them to a shitty life because their parents made some bad choices? Shoot them and post up pictures of dead FAS babies as a deterrent?

Are you seriously arguing that you need a TV to know that you shouldn't drink while pregnant. That is insane, anyone that doesn't know that has no right even thinking about sex or children for that matter, come on, its common sense.

I would argue that children affected by FAS are diabled and thus should recieve treatment of the tax payer. Their parents however, who made the error should be condemed to wage garnish and other such burdens to keep them responsible for the decision they've made.