Student Loan

[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?

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

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.