Budget compromise will cut education and science research, but not defense

You mean The Education Department is borrowing $$$ from the Chinks to "loan" to our students to take whatever courses they want, while they educate theirs 20 to 1 over ours in science and math, that leaves our grandkids having to pay back the Chinks.
You do know WE HAVE NO $$$ TO LOAN ANYONE.

What's the deal with the racist remarks? Do you believe that colleges should only teach science and math classes?

There is a difference between reasonable solutions and ones that are without merit.

You do not even know the definition of racism.
Racism is when one race believes they are superior to another.
Hell, if ANYTHING, my remarks make the Chinks LOOK SUPERIOR, NOT ME.
So your reasonable solution is to continue to borrow $$ to fund programs that our grandkids will have to pay for.
I do not want to make our grandkids live in a 3rd world nation.
Tell me, how do we pay all of this $$ back?
Student loan and Pell grants are a waste of $$$ as I have graduated 2 kids through college.
How?
 
I'm about to own you...

So... Modbert. What do you think the Dems reason for not trying to cut military spending over the last 2 years when they had the Senate/House and President all Dem?

Maybe it's because noobs like you make fucking retarded threads trying to make it out as if it's Republicans that don't wana cut defense.

The cool part about the "camp" that I'm in is that I can see all you partisan crazy hack fuckers out there so clearly... The sad part about being in my camp is knowing just how many of you hypocrites are out there pretending to care.

Next up, Gay rights! Oh wait, they did that one... And we know they are gonna avoid Illegal immigration because the 2 parties actually agree on that 1 and better to have the problem than actually fix anything!

:lol: "Own me"? :rofl:

Oh that was a good one. Many Democrats do want to cut the defense budget.

The Republican controlled House has no plans of cutting the Pentagon budget, in fact they want to raise it by $6 billion.

Maybe this little fact hasn't gotten through to you yet, but the Republicans don't want to cut the defense budget. They have not any sort of serious inclination as a party to do so.

I think the Democrats need to get a spine and say that defense cuts are going to be required. That's been my biggest problem with them for years.

However, for someone who is supposedly not a partisan hack, you certainly seem to be spending all your time criticizing the Democrats while defending the GOP.
 
You do not even know the definition of racism.
Racism is when one race believes they are superior to another.
Hell, if ANYTHING, my remarks make the Chinks LOOK SUPERIOR, NOT ME.
So your reasonable solution is to continue to borrow $$ to fund programs that our grandkids will have to pay for.
I do not want to make our grandkids live in a 3rd world nation.
Tell me, how do we pay all of this $$ back?
Student loan and Pell grants are a waste of $$$ as I have graduated 2 kids through college.
How?

Racism also includes prejudice. Either way you look at it, calling them "chinks" is wrong.

You don't want your grandkids to live in a 3rd world nation. Except if nobody but the rich can go to college, what kind of nation are you expecting?

Student loans aren't free money I hope you realize either.
 
So let's abolish the air force since it's not in the constitution.

Neither are the EPA, the USDoE, the FDA, Czars..

Actually, the USAF was a branch of the U.S. Army (U.S. Army Air Force) and an Army is specifically covered under the U.S. Constitution. Basically, all branches of the service are considered covered as the Marines fall under the Navy which is also, specifically covered in Article 1 Sec 8 as well.

Nope, I've heard you guys argue that since it doesn't EXPLICITLY state something in the constitution then it can't be constitutional. Since the air force is explicitly mentioned it is therefor unconstitutional. That's how this works, right? I guess that would also must mean we must abandon our nuclear weapons at once.

No, that's not how it works and nobody has argued that is how it works.
 
Eliminate education department and that is what, 100 billion in cuts?
Do it NOW.

You're off by 30%.

U.S. Department of Education Budget Office

Of course, the Department of Education budget also applies to money for giving out loans to students who are trying to go to college and pell grants.

ED currently administers a budget of $69.9 billion in discretionary appropriations (including discretionary Pell Grant funding) under the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution annualized level and operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and approximately 56 million students attending some 99,000 public schools and 34,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 15 million postsecondary students.

Why do you think Republicans are trying to defeat education? People who nurture an ability to "learn" tend to become Democrats.
 
You do not even know the definition of racism.
Racism is when one race believes they are superior to another.
Hell, if ANYTHING, my remarks make the Chinks LOOK SUPERIOR, NOT ME.
So your reasonable solution is to continue to borrow $$ to fund programs that our grandkids will have to pay for.
I do not want to make our grandkids live in a 3rd world nation.
Tell me, how do we pay all of this $$ back?
Student loan and Pell grants are a waste of $$$ as I have graduated 2 kids through college.
How?

Racism also includes prejudice. Either way you look at it, calling them "chinks" is wrong.

You don't want your grandkids to live in a 3rd world nation. Except if nobody but the rich can go to college, what kind of nation are you expecting?

Student loans aren't free money I hope you realize either.

Student loans ARE free money for a growing number:

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Monday that the overall student loan default rate in the 2008 fiscal year, the latest period for which data is available, was 7 percent, up from 6.7 percent the year before and 5.2 percent in the 2006 fiscal year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/education/14colleges.html?_r=1

I'm somewhat mystified as to why there isn't any way to repay a student loan through government service: Seems the Unconstitutional Air Force could use a few good defaulters until they pay-off their debit.
 
Last edited:
Republicans haven't figured out that if the only thing you spend money on is defense, soon, you will have nothing worth defending.
 
You do not even know the definition of racism.
Racism is when one race believes they are superior to another.
Hell, if ANYTHING, my remarks make the Chinks LOOK SUPERIOR, NOT ME.
So your reasonable solution is to continue to borrow $$ to fund programs that our grandkids will have to pay for.
I do not want to make our grandkids live in a 3rd world nation.
Tell me, how do we pay all of this $$ back?
Student loan and Pell grants are a waste of $$$ as I have graduated 2 kids through college.
How?

Racism also includes prejudice. Either way you look at it, calling them "chinks" is wrong.

You don't want your grandkids to live in a 3rd world nation. Except if nobody but the rich can go to college, what kind of nation are you expecting?

Student loans aren't free money I hope you realize either.

So if someone calls me a redneck hick they are a racist and they are prejudiced?:lol:
Come on man, I like your other comments but you make no sense on that.
I am neither. Hell, I support gay rights 100%.
You are right about student loans not being free $$.
But the fact is the more government backed loan $$$ there is the HIGHER the tuition goes.
Eliminate the student loan program and see how tuition increases start to drastically decline.
 
Student loans ARE free money for a growing number:

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Monday that the overall student loan default rate in the 2008 fiscal year, the latest period for which data is available, was 7 percent, up from 6.7 percent the year before and 5.2 percent in the 2006 fiscal year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/education/14colleges.html?_r=1

Except they have to pay back that money eventually somewhere down the line. If I remember correctly, student loans are the only type of debt that you cannot get rid of by declaring bankruptcy. Or something along the lines of that.

You're also making the assumption that everyone who is defaulting are simply trying to get free money and just cannot simply find a job.
 
Eliminate the student loan program and see how tuition increases start to drastically decline.

That's a strong assumption and the education of thousands if not millions of college students rely on such an assumption. Never mind the fact that the strong majority of students do pay back said loans. What's wrong with giving out loans that get paid back and helping to educate millions of Americans so this country doesn't become third rate at the same time?
 
Student loans ARE free money for a growing number:

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Monday that the overall student loan default rate in the 2008 fiscal year, the latest period for which data is available, was 7 percent, up from 6.7 percent the year before and 5.2 percent in the 2006 fiscal year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/education/14colleges.html?_r=1

Except they have to pay back that money eventually somewhere down the line. If I remember correctly, student loans are the only type of debt that you cannot get rid of by declaring bankruptcy. Or something along the lines of that.

You're also making the assumption that everyone who is defaulting are simply trying to get free money and just cannot simply find a job.

I made that assumption?

Arne Duncan says the default rate was 7% in the 2008?

You are the one trying to justify it.

I'm only wondering why defaulters don't join the US military to pay the loan to the US.
 
I made that assumption?

Arne Duncan says the default rate was 7% in the 2008?

You are the one trying to justify it.

I'm only wondering why defaulters don't join the US military to pay the loan to the US.

You said they're free money. It's not free money when they have to pay it back eventually.

Graduates saddled with debt, student loans can't easily turn to bankruptcy - USATODAY.com

Bankruptcy law allows for discharges of credit card debt, car loans and even gambling debt, but not student loans.

A student loan debtor must try to claim an "undue hardship" to seek bankruptcy protection — a claim that is successful at best about 50% of the time. Unlike a traditional bankruptcy filing, a hardship filing requires debtors to file a lawsuit against creditors. That pits the student against corporate lawyers and defense teams, and often requires an expert witness, which can cost the graduate thousands of dollars to arrange.

"We're talking about people who are in bankruptcy because they don't have money," says Rafael Pardo, associate professor of law at Seattle University and co-author of a recent research report about undue hardship litigation. "Yet we're asking them, 'If you want relief, you have to find a way to pay for a full-blown lawsuit.' "
 
Budget compromise will cut education and science research, but not defense - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

Congressional leaders from the Democratic and Republican parties are still attempting to negotiate a compromise on the federal budget that would avert a government shutdown this Friday. According to various reports, the current compromise cuts about $33 billion from the federal budget, though the Republicans claim that they are demanding even more. The current cuts will come from a large number of federal programs, including the National Institute for Health and Department of Education. However, there is one massive federal program that will actually receive a funding increase. Despite an agreement by the Pentagon to accept defense cuts, Republicans are actually planning on giving $6 billion more the Department of Defense.
In their defense the Republicans are not the only ones proposing an increase in defense spending. Last year the United States spent $508 billion on defense. In their proposed budget, the Obama administration proposed increasing funding by $5 billion to $513 billion. When Republican demanded cuts be made to the federal budget Senate Democrats came forward with a package that included $10 billion in cuts to defense spending. That proposal was “immediately” rejected according to Sam Stein of The Huffington Post. Now Republicans are demanding that $514 billion be spent on defense, a $1 billion raise over the Obama budget proposal, even while the GOP demands more cuts to other programs.
I said it before and I'll say it again. Those who want to have a discussion about the budget but are unwilling to cut the defense budget cannot be taken seriously.

Providing for defense is in the Constitution, education and science research isn't. Simple

Is tax cuts for billionaires in the Constitution?
 
I'm about to own you...

So... Modbert. What do you think the Dems reason for not trying to cut military spending over the last 2 years when they had the Senate/House and President all Dem?

Maybe it's because noobs like you make fucking retarded threads trying to make it out as if it's Republicans that don't wana cut defense.

The cool part about the "camp" that I'm in is that I can see all you partisan crazy hack fuckers out there so clearly... The sad part about being in my camp is knowing just how many of you hypocrites are out there pretending to care.

Next up, Gay rights! Oh wait, they did that one... And we know they are gonna avoid Illegal immigration because the 2 parties actually agree on that 1 and better to have the problem than actually fix anything!

:lol: "Own me"? :rofl:

Oh that was a good one. Many Democrats do want to cut the defense budget.

The Republican controlled House has no plans of cutting the Pentagon budget, in fact they want to raise it by $6 billion.

Maybe this little fact hasn't gotten through to you yet, but the Republicans don't want to cut the defense budget. They have not any sort of serious inclination as a party to do so.

I think the Democrats need to get a spine and say that defense cuts are going to be required. That's been my biggest problem with them for years.

However, for someone who is supposedly not a partisan hack, you certainly seem to be spending all your time criticizing the Democrats while defending the GOP.

I see you avoided the fact that the Dems never tried to cut when it would have been a 100% fo sho deal... making you ownd.

I’m a Ron Paul Republican, I know many Republicans don’t want to cut military spending while in fact wanting to expand it, just look at Obama, wait… he’s a Democrat…
 
Budget compromise will cut education and science research, but not defense - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

I said it before and I'll say it again. Those who want to have a discussion about the budget but are unwilling to cut the defense budget cannot be taken seriously.

Providing for defense is in the Constitution, education and science research isn't. Simple

Is tax cuts for billionaires in the Constitution?

Lolz… You lose.

Just ask Obama, he gave it to them lolz.
 
I see you avoided the fact that the Dems never tried to cut when it would have been a 100% fo sho deal... making you ownd.

I’m a Ron Paul Republican, I know many Republicans don’t want to cut military spending while in fact wanting to expand it, just look at Obama, wait… he’s a Democrat…

Except it's not a 100% for sure deal. You seem to think that the Democrats magically had every single vote in their pocket like the House GOP does. The Blue Dogs and several other Democrats are for raising the defense budget or not cutting it because it benefits their districts. The only ones who are really calling for cuts in defense (Liberal Democrats) don't have nearly enough votes to get any sort of major cuts passed.

Time and time again I've criticized the Dems for not having the spine or balls to cut the defense budget. And I'll criticize them again in this thread again and I'll have no problem with doing so.

As for President Obama, he is in many ways a 3rd term President Bush which has been more and more disappointing. I have no problem with admitting such a thing because it's quite obvious and I'm not a hack.

However, the lack of balls on the part of the Dems still doesn't change you pulling the "Mom, they did it too!" defense while trying to defend the GOP about their clear lack of fiscal responsibility in this case.
 
Eliminate the student loan program and see how tuition increases start to drastically decline.

That's a strong assumption and the education of thousands if not millions of college students rely on such an assumption. Never mind the fact that the strong majority of students do pay back said loans. What's wrong with giving out loans that get paid back and helping to educate millions of Americans so this country doesn't become third rate at the same time?

What about WE HAVE TO BORROW THE MONEY that we are loaning do you not understand?
The money is being loaned BY THE CHINESE (a/k/a Chinks).
What about the fact that WE HAVE NO MONEY TO LOAN?

How about addressing that fact.
How do we loan a nickel to anyone WHEN WE DO NOT HAVE ANY $$$$?
You are avoiding that fact like a monkey on fire.
 
I made that assumption?

Arne Duncan says the default rate was 7% in the 2008?

You are the one trying to justify it.

I'm only wondering why defaulters don't join the US military to pay the loan to the US.

You said they're free money. It's not free money when they have to pay it back eventually.

Duncan said the DEFAULT RATE WAS 7% in 2008.

So you think when people default on their loan, they eventually pay it back? With interest?

You are in default on most student loans if you fail to make payments for nine months. The entire loan balance becomes due once you default.

Why would you think that every loan is repaid by people who failed to make payments for 9 months?
 
The money is being loaned BY THE CHINESE (a/k/a Chinks).
What about the fact that WE HAVE NO MONEY TO LOAN?

How about addressing that fact.
How do we loan a nickel to anyone WHEN WE DO NOT HAVE ANY $$$$?
You are avoiding that fact like a monkey on fire.

What do you mean "we have no money to loan?"

Have we broken the printing press?:eek:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top