Didn't Conservatives staple teabags to their faces because of this very thing?

[LV426]

The ones who never attend, attend infrequently, or fail the class are not scholars.

OK, but you don't know who among them are Pell Grant recipients ("scholars" was the wrong word to use, my bad) and who aren't.

That is my point, Flash.

My point is that you cannot generalize that Pell Grant recipients are less likely to fulfill their academic commitments than non-PG folks because you as a professor are not privy to their financial information.

I notice how you've slowly backed away from that over the course of this un-spooling of your unethical behavior.

Bad faith and manipulative of you to refer to them by that name. You are trying to picture them as something they are not.

You, as a professor, do not know which students in your class get Pell Grants and which do not.

There is no way you would know that information, and there is no way any Financial Aid office would divulge that information because doing so creates a conflict of interest and violates ethics rules, not to mention confidentiality of the students.

So you're bullshitting me that you knew who in your class got financial aid, Pell Grants, etc., and who did not.

WHY ARE YOU BULLSHITTING ME?

Are you so insecure that you have to bullshit anonymous people on a message board?

What gives?

 

[LV426]

I can't subject myself to that kind of anger and hatred for all 40+ posts that never seem to stick to the issues.

I only respond to what you post, Flash.

You're the one who keeps changing the direction of the debate; I'm just agile enough that I can keep up with those parameter shifts, just as I'm doing here with you and your unethical behavior while employed in an academic institution.

I've maintained, from the beginning, that tax cuts result in increased debt loads because deficits force spending cuts or freezes, yet costs continue to increase anyway.

So you freeze Pell Grants for 4 years, yet tuition costs grow 3-4% each year. So what does that mean? It means that student has to borrow more to make up for the gap. And if the student isn't borrowing, the family is. So you had tons of people during Bush the Dumber all dip into the equity of their homes to be able to send their kid to college as Pell Grants were frozen but tuition costs continued to rise.

Same thing for health care. You had cuts to welfare spending, you had clamped down Medicaid increases...Medicaid spending in 2006 grew only 1.5%, yet health care costs in 2006 grew by 6%. So what does that mean? It means for many folks, they had to dip into the equity of their homes to be able to pay their medical bills, or they entered bankruptcy.

Why do you think household debt levels skyrocketed and personal savings plummeted despite the second largest tax cut ever?

 

[Flash]

So I'm confused again because the only reason you invoked this was because you were trying to tie that into students who received Pell Grants.

I was inferring from your posts that you believed students who got Pell Grants were less likely to show up for class, thus proving the fraud and abuse claims in your argument against growing spending for programs like Pell Grants.

Was I inferring incorrectly? I don't think so...

Quit inferring. I never said students who got Pell Grants were less likely to show up for class. I said some students attend college only to get the grant money and if we wanted to save some money (to reduce the deficit, give more grant money to students who need it, etc.) we could eliminate some of those students after continued poor performance. Since 50% of those getting grants fail to graduate we could eliminate those who early career shows no effort. Many of those may come back later when they are older and more interested in an education but are reluctant to return because they have two years of mostly F's.

Your inferences are based on what you want to believe rather than what I said.

 

[Flash]

LOL!

Cognitive dissonance.

"It's an exception except that it's widespread".

So it's not an exception, then.

Also, this whole story of yours is suspect because of the obvious ethical problems that arose from how you told it; from violating your student's confidentiality, to making assumptions of them, to bullshitting me.

Enough. Stop.

Yes, it may be a relatively small number of students at each school (the exception) but they exist at a large number of schools that use the same loopholes to keep getting their money.

Come on LV426, certainly you can figure out how something can be an exception yet widespread.

People resort to insults and abusive language when they have nothing substantive left to contribute.

 

[LV426]

Quit inferring. I never said students who got Pell Grants were less likely to show up for class. I said some students attend college only to get the grant money and if we wanted to save some money (to reduce the deficit, give more grant money to students who need it, etc.) we could eliminate some of those students after continued poor performance.

Right, but you as a professor don't know who those students are.

You tried to lie to me and say you did know, but that was a lie, wasn't it?

No one from the Financial Aid office ever said anything like "they picked up their check" to you, did they?

You were bullshitting me.

Be honest. I can tell when you're lying.

 

[LV426]

Since 50% of those getting grants fail to graduate

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

Back up.

What is the source for this claim?

It's the 2013 "study" isn't it? Is that what you failed to source here?

An important note from the critique of that study:

But the study found that the average was being dragged down by institutions from which few students ever graduate. If they are taken out of the sample, the difference between the percentage of Pell students and other students who graduate narrows to less than 6 percent, it says.

So it's really only a 6% gap between Pell students and non-Pell students.

Why am I doing your homework for you????

 

[LV426]

Yes, it may be a relatively small number of students at each school (the exception) but they exist at a large number of schools that use the same loopholes to keep getting their money.

As it turns out, there is only a 6% gap in graduation rates between PG students and non-PG students.

People resort to insults and abusive language when they have nothing substantive left to contribute.

That's funny because people tend to resort to anecdotes when they have nothing substantive left to contribute.

My colorful language doesn't do anything to diminish the facts I'm dropping on you here.

In the telling of your story, you acted unethically.

You made assumptions of the financial status of your students and you received confidential information that you aren't privy to get...information that creates a conflict of interest for you, given your inherent biases.

You're an unethical shitshow.

 

[Flash]

I've maintained, from the beginning, that tax cuts result in increased debt loads because deficits force spending cuts or freezes, yet costs continue to increase anyway.

But you are obviously wrong. When the deficit and budget hit near record highs, we are borrowing more to cover the costs. They are not forcing spending cuts or the deficit would not continue to increase.

The $4.11 trillion federal budget in 2018 was up 3.2% from 2017 and is 20.3% of the GDP which is the 50 year average. So spending continued to increase and continued at the average rate. Subsidies for health care insurance purchased through the AAA increased 17%. Social Security increased by 5%, Medicare by 3%, and Medicaid by 4%. [CBO]

 

[Flash]

As it turns out, there is only a 6% gap in graduation rates between PG students and non-PG students.

That's funny because people tend to resort to anecdotes when they have nothing substantive left to contribute.

My colorful language doesn't do anything to diminish the facts I'm dropping on you here.

In the telling of your story, you acted unethically.

You made assumptions of the financial status of your students and you received confidential information that you aren't privy to get...information that creates a conflict of interest for you, given your inherent biases.

You're an unethical shitshow.

It is unethical for you to accuse someone of lying when it is something you invented because you dislike reality. You obviously know nothing about the subject and your only reaction was to accuse someone of lying.

Classless behavior and proves my point that both liberals and conservatives use the same tactics. Those tactics are sleazy when they resort to smears and lying to make an argument.

 

[Flash]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...


What is the source for this claim?

It's the 2013 "study" isn't it? Is that what you failed to source here?

So it's really only a 6% gap between Pell students and non-Pell students.

Why am I doing your homework for you????

It is only lower IF you eliminate part of the sample.

What kind of math computes an average by eliminating the lowest range of numbers? I don't want you doing my homework for me, I would fail.

Your math is worse (if possible) than any anecdotal evidence I presented.

Worse than your math is that fact that brought in a Straw Man argument by bringing up something I never mentioned. You compared the graduation rate of Pell grant students with non-Pell students after six years. I never compared the two groups and it is irrelevant to the discussion. There are many students who do not get grants whose parents are pushing them to attend and paying for their college who are just as unmotivated or lazy as students who do receive grants. I never compared the two groups or suggested one is superior to the other. The point was trying to save federal education dollars. You are inferring again and made a really bad faith comparison.

I did not use that study you referred to but a Brookings study that found "The average six-year graduation rate for Pell recipients in my sample was 51.4 percent, compared to 59.2 percent for non-Pell recipients." There was nothing wrong with your study except the suggestion that it eliminate the lower performing schools.

It is a long established generalization that only about 50% of students graduate from college, so those studies coincide with traditional data. The graduation rates vary considerably based on the college admission standards.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brow...ok-at-pell-grant-recipients-graduation-rates/

You should be ashamed for trying to prove me wrong about something I never claimed or believed. The schools your study suggested we eliminate because of the very low graduation rates are perfect examples of my point that a lot of Pell money is being wasted on students who will never graduate.

 

[Flash]

Right, but you don't know if those students got Pell Grants or not.

You tried to lie to me and pretend you did know, but it turns out you were just making assumptions of your students and embellishing the communication you had with the Financial Aid office.

No, I never made assumptions about whether they were receiving a grant. I said in many cases when I tried to find out about them I learned they were receiving a grant. I only found out this information when calling the student or financial aid to try to help the students. Most faculty figured it was none of their business if a student did not want to attend class and made no effort to contact them. But I had older students who told me they started college at 18 and had no interest and did not bother to drop their classes and have several semesters of poor grades. They were hesitant about returning to school with such a low GPA. So I attempted to drop or counsel students to drop if they were making no effort so they would not be in the same situation if they decided to attend later.

I was criticized by some faculty for dropping students because it was affecting our budget. But I only did it because I hated to see these students stay in school when they had no interest and fail their classes. I had one young lady (anecdote) who said she had to be a full-time student because that was the only way her mother's health insurance would cover an adult child.

 

[Callinectes]

I don't share your phoney baloney FAKE concerns over the debt and deficit.

Pointing out your hypocrisy on both doesn't mean I share your fake, phoney, false, and Bs posturing concern.

What hypocrisy? What “posturing concern”? I admit I used to be concerned about it, back when I thought it was manageable. But who gives a shit now? You leftards seem to be bitching about it now, so what are you gonna do? You CANNOT tax your way out of it, and bringing it up now isn’t good policy because of all the money you guys want to spend buying votes next year. Bad to talk about debt and deficits and raising taxes to pay for government health care and“free” college in the same sentence (oh, don’t forget dat green new deal!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LV426]

But you are obviously wrong. When the deficit and budget hit near record highs, we are borrowing more to cover the costs. They are not forcing spending cuts or the deficit would not continue to increase.

The $4.11 trillion federal budget in 2018 was up 3.2% from 2017 and is 20.3% of the GDP which is the 50 year average. So spending continued to increase and continued at the average rate. Subsidies for health care insurance purchased through the AAA increased 17%. Social Security increased by 5%, Medicare by 3%, and Medicaid by 4%. [CBO]

Here's how dumb this discussion has become solely because of you:

You: Spending causes deficits.

Me: Clinton raised spending 32% over 8 years and ended up with surpluses.

You: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[LV426]

But you are obviously wrong. When the deficit and budget hit near record highs, we are borrowing more to cover the costs. They are not forcing spending cuts or the deficit would not continue to increase.

The $4.11 trillion federal budget in 2018 was up 3.2% from 2017 and is 20.3% of the GDP which is the 50 year average. So spending continued to increase and continued at the average rate. Subsidies for health care insurance purchased through the AAA increased 17%. Social Security increased by 5%, Medicare by 3%, and Medicaid by 4%. [CBO]

Also, not sure why you keep insisting on using spending-as-a-percentage-of-GDP to illustrate your point when the facts are that spending-as-a-percentage-of-GDP declined through the 90's despite spending increasing 32% was because of the largest economic expansion in a generation, possibly ever. So of course spending as a percentage of GDP declined through the 90's but has remained somewhat stagnant since; the economy grew more and better following Clinton's tax and spending increases, then the economy grew less and weaker following Bush's Tax Cuts and erasing of the surpluses.

Using that percentage is pointless, particularly when you act in bad faith and refuse to place it in context of GDP growth.

 

[LV426]

It is unethical for you to accuse someone of lying when it is something you invented because you dislike reality

It's not reality, it's your perception and anecdotes of what you personally experienced that has shaped the bias that informs your positions here.

The problem is that no one can corroborate your accounts, so we are left with you filling in the gaps of your argument with bullshit of which only you can account for the sincerity and veracity.

Grow up.

 

[LV426]

No, I never made assumptions about whether they were receiving a grant..

OMFG, of course you did.

That was the whole impetus for this discussion!

You wanted to give the impression that people who get Pell Grants are more likely to cut your shitty class than those who don't. And you use that as your excuse for cutting -not expanding- Pell Grant programs in order to bring down the deficit...a deficit caused by tax cuts that you simultaneously support on principle, even though there is absolutely no empirical evidence in favor of tax cuts; no economic, fiscal, or academic argument. Only emotional ones. Hence, why you like them.

 

[LV426]

What hypocrisy? What “posturing concern”? I admit I used to be concerned about it, back when I thought it was manageable. But who gives a shit now? You leftards seem to be bitching about it now, so what are you gonna do? You CANNOT tax your way out of it, and bringing it up now isn’t good policy because of all the money you guys want to spend buying votes next year. Bad to talk about debt and deficits and raising taxes to pay for government health care and“free” college in the same sentence (oh, don’t forget dat green new deal!)

When Clinton took office, the deficit and debt were all-time highs after 12 years of Conservative economics. Yet, Clinton managed to eliminate the deficits entirely and produce surpluses that could have paid down the debt (and certain months, it did), while increasing spending by 32%.

Then you morons said "surpluses are bad" and cut taxes, which produced 4 record deficits in 8 years that nearly doubled the debt and collapsed the economy.

Then 10 years ago, to deflect from the fact that your policies all failed, you got so fake worked up about deficits you stapled a teabag to your face to convince everyone just how serious you were.

Now that your policies have expanded the deficit to record highs, suddenly you don't give a shit.

 

[LV426]

But you are obviously wrong. When the deficit and budget hit near record highs, we are borrowing more to cover the costs. They are not forcing spending cuts or the deficit would not continue to increase.

The $4.11 trillion federal budget in 2018 was up 3.2% from 2017 and is 20.3% of the GDP which is the 50 year average. So spending continued to increase and continued at the average rate. Subsidies for health care insurance purchased through the AAA increased 17%. Social Security increased by 5%, Medicare by 3%, and Medicaid by 4%. [CBO]

Here's more of how dumb this discussion became solely because of you:

You: Spending as a percentage of GDP declined through the 90's because of spending cuts.

Me: Clinton increased spending by 32% and the reason the spending-as-a-percent-of-GDP declined was because the economy was going through the largest economic expansion in a generation immediately following tax increases. Literally, "tax and spend" balanced the budget and led to record economic growth.

You: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[LV426]

But you are obviously wrong. When the deficit and budget hit near record highs, we are borrowing more to cover the costs. They are not forcing spending cuts or the deficit would not continue to increase.

The $4.11 trillion federal budget in 2018 was up 3.2% from 2017 and is 20.3% of the GDP which is the 50 year average. So spending continued to increase and continued at the average rate. Subsidies for health care insurance purchased through the AAA increased 17%. Social Security increased by 5%, Medicare by 3%, and Medicaid by 4%. [CBO]

FANTASY: Clinton was forced to cut spending by Gingrich who shut down the government over those spending cuts and it's because of those spending cuts that the budget ended in surplus and the economy grew.

REALITY: Clinton increased spending by 32% over 8 years while increasing taxes which resulted in both a record economic expansion, and record budget surpluses. Literally, "tax and spend". Conservatives said that the opposite would happen.

 

[LV426]

But you are obviously wrong. When the deficit and budget hit near record highs, we are borrowing more to cover the costs. They are not forcing spending cuts or the deficit would not continue to increase.

The $4.11 trillion federal budget in 2018 was up 3.2% from 2017 and is 20.3% of the GDP which is the 50 year average. So spending continued to increase and continued at the average rate. Subsidies for health care insurance purchased through the AAA increased 17%. Social Security increased by 5%, Medicare by 3%, and Medicaid by 4%. [CBO]

You: Cutting taxes doesn't create deficits, spending does.

Me: Clinton raised taxes and increased spending, and he left behind record surpluses that Bush the Dumber turned into record deficits after he cut taxes.

You: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯