$200k of debt and here is your paper.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It was the same calling out your lies as before.

I knew it would not last. You just can't avoid making personal attacks.

Quote

Petroleum engineering is the only one close to 100k at graduation. There are several engineering disciplines that are in the 100-109 range midcareer.

Hey look, you are supporting MY claim.

Quote

random selections from that source: Even with a strict definition, there's no shortage of liberal arts majors averaging in the 75k-80k.

80k < 100k. Again supporting my claim.

Quote

Political Science and Chemistry are basically tied - how the fuck do you explain that?

There is money in politics.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Percentage wise, who pays more for roads - the government or businesses?

Point is they do. Your point that the govt does it more is valid... Just as my point that degrees in fields like engineering lead to better paying jobs than degrees in art history.

Quote

>No, from the general societies perspective it is better.

Based on your particular agenda. Your agenda includes lots of MP3 players, video games and Ipads instead of lots of art. That's fine; you can have any agenda you want. So can other people.

No from an ECONOMICAL agenda.

Quote

True. And Bill Gates didn't need a degree either! Therefore engineering degrees are worthless too.

And how many Bill Gates and your friends vs regular society?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

There is money in politics.

no there isn't
.
.
.
.
unless you're corruptible

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

no there isn't
.
.
.
.
unless you're corruptible

About 50% of Congress are millionaires....

"The number of Americans who are millionaires is pretty low — about 1 percent of the population. Members of Congress who are millionaires? Nearly 50 percent......Of the 435 members of the House, "244 current members of Congress are millionaires"

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140627334/millionaires-in-congress-weigh-new-tax-on-wealthy

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Maybe if student loans were like other loans, where there is some risk to the lender that the borrower will default, then lenders would be more diligent to ensure they don't get in too deep with students in majors that give a poor return on investment. The government distorts the market by protecting the banks in this case.

I agree. If student loans were treated like regular loans then the free market would actually work. It would be difficult to get a loan to go to culinary school since the job prospects are not great, but easier to get a loan for a degree in engineering if your grades were good.

Put the Govt has stepped in and tried to 'help' making loans easier to get and with lower rates than normal. So Banks knowing that they have to give out loans they would normally not want to give out.... Well they ask for SOME protection for their risk.

My choice would be to remove the protections AND the requirements and let banks loan what they want at the rate they want. But if the govt is going to force lower rates, etc... Then I can see some protections to the bank.

Another example of unintended consequences from well meaning legislation.

But but but - the govt. should not be picking winners and losers, right?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

But but but - the govt. should not be picking winners and losers, right?

Yep, please read it again, and pay attention to the part I put in bold.

I agree. If student loans were treated like regular loans then the free market would actually work. It would be difficult to get a loan to go to culinary school since the job prospects are not great, but easier to get a loan for a degree in engineering if your grades were good.

Put the Govt has stepped in and tried to 'help' making loans easier to get and with lower rates than normal. So Banks knowing that they have to give out loans they would normally not want to give out.... Well they ask for SOME protection for their risk.

My choice would be to remove the protections AND the requirements and let banks loan what they want at the rate they want. But if the govt is going to force lower rates, etc... Then I can see some protections to the bank.

Another example of unintended consequences from well meaning legislation.

I wish the govt would get out of it... But since they will not, I understand the banks when they are forced to do something to want some protections.

[billvon 2,400]

>Just as my point that degrees in fields like engineering lead to better paying jobs than
>degrees in art history.

In general, I agree. And if you feel the government should be picking winners and losers, your point is valid.

>No from an ECONOMICAL agenda.

Right, that's my point. The government often chooses to do things that are not economical. The rural doctors program, for example (helps doctors pay their medical school loans if they work in underserved areas) is not economical - but it gets rural communities doctors. Wars are not economical at all - but we still fight them. Veterans hospitals cost a lot of money to the US - but we support them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Petroleum engineering is the only one close to 100k at graduation. There are several engineering disciplines that are in the 100-109 range midcareer.

Hey look, you are supporting MY claim.

Quote

random selections from that source: Even with a strict definition, there's no shortage of liberal arts majors averaging in the 75k-80k.

80k < 100k. Again supporting my claim.

Let's remind you what your claim was, since you continue to lie about it.

Post 48: "Yep, and engineer will make 100k+, A Liberal arts major 30-40k *maybe* in most cases."

Just own up to the falsehood, already. There's a pretty big difference between 25% (80 -> 100) and 150% (40 -> 100).

If your math is that lousy, your suggestions for improving our budget should be ignored.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>Just as my point that degrees in fields like engineering lead to better paying jobs than
>degrees in art history.

In general, I agree. And if you feel the government should be picking winners and losers, your point is valid.

*I* don't. But the Govt and other individuals think it does.

My point is that if the Govt is going to meddle, it should make better more responsible choices.

Quote

Right, that's my point. The government often chooses to do things that are not economical. The rural doctors program, for example (helps doctors pay their medical school loans if they work in underserved areas) is not economical - but it gets rural communities doctors.

It sure is economical. Drs are needed in an area and this fulfills the need. We do not have an urgent need to get a piece of art out there.

Quote

Wars are not economical at all - but we still fight them.

Fighting a war sure can be economical. It was much better for the US to enter WW2 than let Germany take over all of Europe. The US Revolution had a gigantic piece of economics... Taxation without representation.

Quote

Veterans hospitals cost a lot of money to the US - but we support them.

As part of the total cost of war (which can be a good economic choice) includes taking care of the wounded.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

since you continue to lie about it

Yep like normal, you can't debate with facts so you insult and lie.

Quote

If your math is that lousy, your suggestions for improving our budget should be ignored.

And if the best debate tactic you can use is childish insults..... Your opinions should be considered to have the same weight as you give to a child when he uses the same tactics.

[kelpdiver 2]

I had hoped in 4 days you could have come up with a better dodge...what you're demonstrating repeatedly is that when getting worked over, the best tactic is to cry about being insulted. Certainly you can't address the facts around your claim.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I had hoped in 4 days you could have come up with a better dodge...what you're demonstrating repeatedly is that when getting worked over, the best tactic is to cry about being insulted. Certainly you can't address the facts around your claim.

What you have shown is the best you can do is insult. Because that is all you have done.

You are free to quit the insults whenever you like.

[kelpdiver 2]

Post 48: "Yep, and engineer will make 100k+, A Liberal arts major 30-40k *maybe* in most cases."

Liar, Liar, pants on fire!

[DaVinci 0]

You are free to quit the insults whenever you like. It weakens your argument and makes you look desperate.

Quote

Liar, Liar, pants on fire!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You are free to quit the insults whenever you like.

and you're free to explain post #48. I know you'd love to pretend you didn't say those words, but you did. So either you're being dishonest on this topic or you're really really bad at math, and either way you shouldn't be setting spending policy.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

and you're free to explain post #48

To quote you... "call it a rounding error"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

and you're free to explain post #48

To quote you... "call it a rounding error"

too bad for you a rounding error doesn't encompass a claim of a 150% differential when the reality in fact was 25%. That's being off by a factor of 6. I think Kallend remarked accurately on the math skills being demonstrated.

I hope you'll avoid such bad math when trying to defend our gun rights.

[DaVinci 0]

Is the best you can do personal insults.... Cause that seems to be the case.

I do understand that you do not want to own up to your mistakes and claim a "rounding error" instead of admitting you just were wrong.

Quote

too bad for you a rounding error doesn't encompass a claim of a 150% differential when the reality in fact was 25%.

25% is enough to not want to/want to invest in something. Instead of trying to play this silly little game, maybe you should focus on the point?

They call that a strawman argument.

Still if little personal jabs is the best you can do (and it looks like it is)... I see no point in trying to have a debate with you.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

25% is enough to not want to/want to invest in something. Instead of trying to play this silly little game, maybe you should focus on the point?

Are you sure you have a point anymore? To recap, you suggested as federal policy that humanities majors should not be eligible for subsidized student loans because they would at best make 40k, while engineering majors would make 150% more (100k). But reality is that it's 80k versus 100k, and anyone with a minimal understanding of distribution would see that there would be numerous cases of those liberal arts majors outearning their engineering counterparts. Thus making your proposal unsupportable.

I've been trying to get you to further elaborate based on those data points, but you'd rather talk about demeanor. I can't imagine why. Tell you what - since this thread has long bored everyone else, I'll let you have the last asinine word. Enjoy!

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

This is where cost/benefit comes in.

Kallend posted a pretty interesting link about what college majors pay the most and which pay the least. Let's say you are out of school at 23 with a degree in some form of engineering and $150k in debt. Assuming you obtain employment working for someone else, the debt load is manageable if you can start working at $50l per year.

But let's assume you graduate with a degree in Classics and $150k in debt. Now we're looking at something else entirely. The market for employees in classics is limited, and the higher paying jobs even more so. Thus, the person is left trying to find something else to do just to pay the bills and not be saddled with the debt that comes with it.

The price is rising because demand is, too. Eventually, the price will be high enough that people forego college. True, it does lead to college being paid for only by those who can afford it. But as the student rolls drop, the price will begin to drop to attract more people.

I note something else: it's not just private schools that are going through the roof. Public schools are also increasing their tuition/"student fees" at a remarkable rate. Why is that? Why isn't government keeping things inexpensive? My answer is - it can't.

$150K in debt is manageable if it's all FEDERAL debt. It's not... The cap on federal debt is $136,000, and the per year cap on federal loans is a lot lower, so if you're not making money (and we were prohibited from working more than a few hours a week while in law school), you HAVE to take private loans unless you have some other means to pay. And, the Feds don't take into account private loans when asking for their payments, and the private lenders don't take into account the borrower's federal debt.

My student loan payments this month:

$800 private loan
$700 private loan
$150 private loan

If I were making payments on my federal loans, that would be another $700. Instead, I am taking classes at a junior college to keep these payments deferred because I simply can't afford them.

I can't consolidate my private loans, because it would actually RAISE my monthly payment and RAISE the interest rate by almost 3%. So, that would be really dumb.

My take home pay is about $3000, as I have no dependents. If I were paying my federal loans, I couldn't pay housing expenses because even under income based repayment on my federal loans, the loans would total about $2350, leaving me with a little over $600 for food, rent, clothes, transportation, and everything else.

Going to law school was the stupidest thing I ever did.