The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Werthless wrote: So if you want to go $160,000 in debt to be an art teacher, loan organizations will just say no.

Weren't you an econ major? Wouldn't your prospects out of college only be marginally better than someone with a teaching degree?

JFLNYC wrote:If we are at a point where we no longer accept as a given that we, as a society, have a basic and deeply-rooted interest in seeing that all our youth are well-educated and, more specifically to this argument, that we have an interest in seeing that our youth get a realistic shot at advanced education in engineering, the sciences and all things related to the information age, then all hope is lost. We might as well formally adopt a feudal system of feudal lords and fiefdoms, with a small noble class and an enormous, uneducated peasant class. Of course the problem with that approach is that, since we no longer live in a primarily agrarian world, the United States will fall hopelessly behind other, more educated nations.

td11 wrote:why does an art degree cost 160k?

The basic principals of this pension reform proposal are summarized below:.

• No changes are being proposed for current retired public school or state employees

• No changes will occur for any current employees any earlier than January 1, 2015. Additionally, the value of benefits accrued by employees will not be diminished..

• Changes to the retirement calculation will be effective for SERS employees on Jan. 1, 2015 and for PSERS employees on July 1, 2015. Specifically, the proposal:
o Reduces the multiplier in the formula used to determine future pension benefits by .5 percent for all employees that are currently locked into a multiplier above the 2 percent level, except for those who previously bought up to the higher multiplier. Current employees can still keep their higher multiplier by paying a higher contribution rate, which is yet to be determined.
o Caps pensionable income at the Social Security wage base, which is $113,700 for 2013.
o Caps pensionable compensation to 110 percent of the average salary of the prior 4 years when determining an employee’s final average earnings.
o Determines an employee’s final salary by averaging the employee’s last five years of compensation.
o For employees who choose to withdraw their contributions, pension payments will be based on the amount remaining in their pension account.

Graduating in a bad economy has long-lasting economic consequences. For the next 10 to 15 years, the Class of 2012 will likely earn less than they would have if they had graduated when job opportunities were plentiful.

Through meaningful pension reform, this budget will provide another $140 million dollars in pension savings for school districts across the state.

What we need to do, going forward from this time, is to create a new 401(k)-style retirement benefit for our future employees consistent with the retirement packages currently enjoyed almost universally by private sector employees.My plan also suggests some adjustment in the way future benefits are calculated for current employees in order to maintain the solvency of our pension system and guarantee all current and future employees a worry-free retirement.

Second, I am asking the general assembly to begin a five-year phase out of an artificial and outdated cap on the tax paid by oil and gas companies on the wholesale price of gasoline.

This cap was put in place at a time when experts assumed the price of a gallon of gas would never go beyond $1.25. It has gone to more than triple that rate in recent years.

This is not a new tax, nor am I proposing to increase the rate of the existing tax.

I am simply saying the time has come to apply it to the full value of what the company is selling. It is time for oil and gas companies to pay their fair share of the cost of the infrastructure supporting their industry.

Our most costly option would be to do nothing. It will cost us in repairs, it will cost us in rebuilding, and it could cost us in tragedies we might have avoided.

Today, I sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius advising her of our position.

We need to work together to provide access to greater and affordable health care for all Pennsylvania families.

However, Washington must provide a clear answer about what this expansion would cost the taxpayers of our state.

The federal government must authorize real flexibility and innovative reforms that empower us to make the program work for Pennsylvania.

We also should not permit the federal government to take away millions of dollars from our hospitals as leverage to implement their one-size-fits-all policies.

At this time, without serious reforms, it would be financially unsustainable for the taxpayers, and I cannot recommend a dramatic Medicaid expansion.

Werthless wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Werthless wrote: So if you want to go $160,000 in debt to be an art teacher, loan organizations will just say no.

Weren't you an econ major? Wouldn't your prospects out of college only be marginally better than someone with a teaching degree?

My prospects were good, both when I entered college as a biology major and left it with an economics degree with political economy and finance minors. I did not have to borrow the full amount, and likely would have chosen a different school if I had been forced to. I qualified for need-based aid in a mix of grants and loans, so my loan payments are very reasonable.

pacino wrote:corbett is such a terrible public speaker, btw. dont see him doing anything of note on the national level except a cabinet position if there is a republican prez. more weird block grant funding, first come, first serve, for education.

Through meaningful pension reform, this budget will provide another $140 million dollars in pension savings for school districts across the state.

and if it gets tinkered with, or falls by the wayside in negotations with the legislature?

What we need to do, going forward from this time, is to create a new 401(k)-style retirement benefit for our future employees consistent with the retirement packages currently enjoyed almost universally by private sector employees.My plan also suggests some adjustment in the way future benefits are calculated for current employees in order to maintain the solvency of our pension system and guarantee all current and future employees a worry-free retirement.

my dad sure enjoyed when his crashed like all hell

Second, I am asking the general assembly to begin a five-year phase out of an artificial and outdated cap on the tax paid by oil and gas companies on the wholesale price of gasoline.

This cap was put in place at a time when experts assumed the price of a gallon of gas would never go beyond $1.25. It has gone to more than triple that rate in recent years.

This is not a new tax, nor am I proposing to increase the rate of the existing tax.

I am simply saying the time has come to apply it to the full value of what the company is selling. It is time for oil and gas companies to pay their fair share of the cost of the infrastructure supporting their industry.

Our most costly option would be to do nothing. It will cost us in repairs, it will cost us in rebuilding, and it could cost us in tragedies we might have avoided.

it's a good idea, but to not call this a 'new tax' is pretty patently false. you broke your promise, a promise you shouldn't have stated in the first place.

Today, I sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius advising her of our position.

We need to work together to provide access to greater and affordable health care for all Pennsylvania families.

However, Washington must provide a clear answer about what this expansion would cost the taxpayers of our state.

The federal government must authorize real flexibility and innovative reforms that empower us to make the program work for Pennsylvania.

We also should not permit the federal government to take away millions of dollars from our hospitals as leverage to implement their one-size-fits-all policies.

At this time, without serious reforms, it would be financially unsustainable for the taxpayers, and I cannot recommend a dramatic Medicaid expansion.

so he's turning down free money to help his citizens. fuck this guy.

Roger Dorn wrote:Did Eric Holder really endorse the constitutionality of killing an American who poses as an imminent threat? Talk about a dangerous precedent to set...seems like an "imminent threat" will be defined by the government. Nothing bad can come of this...we need viable third party candidates in the worst way.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Werthless wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Werthless wrote: So if you want to go $160,000 in debt to be an art teacher, loan organizations will just say no.

Weren't you an econ major? Wouldn't your prospects out of college only be marginally better than someone with a teaching degree?

My prospects were good, both when I entered college as a biology major and left it with an economics degree with political economy and finance minors. I did not have to borrow the full amount, and likely would have chosen a different school if I had been forced to. I qualified for need-based aid in a mix of grants and loans, so my loan payments are very reasonable.

I have 18k per year in grants and scholarships. I'm still going to end up 100-110k in debt for my political science degree. I could have probably ended up saving 20-30 grand going to a state school but I think I benefited educationally and socially going to a smaller university.

I guess I take exception with the idea that I shouldn't educate myself because my parents make just enough money to not qualify for a lot of need based aid while also not having the ability to pay my tuition.

pacino wrote:

What we need to do, going forward from this time, is to create a new 401(k)-style retirement benefit for our future employees consistent with the retirement packages currently enjoyed almost universally by private sector employees.My plan also suggests some adjustment in the way future benefits are calculated for current employees in order to maintain the solvency of our pension system and guarantee all current and future employees a worry-free retirement.

my dad sure enjoyed when his crashed like all hell

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

What we need to do, going forward from this time, is to create a new 401(k)-style retirement benefit for our future employees consistent with the retirement packages currently enjoyed almost universally by private sector employees.My plan also suggests some adjustment in the way future benefits are calculated for current employees in order to maintain the solvency of our pension system and guarantee all current and future employees a worry-free retirement.

my dad sure enjoyed when his crashed like all hell

Did he enjoy the rebound?

JFLNYC wrote:To get to the other side.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:Did Eric Holder really endorse the constitutionality of killing an American who poses as an imminent threat? Talk about a dangerous precedent to set...seems like an "imminent threat" will be defined by the government. Nothing bad can come of this...we need viable third party candidates in the worst way.

I'm pretty much OK with the idea of drone strikes in principle, and I don't really care if the person is a US citizen or not if they're working with people to attack America. At that point you've renounced your citizenship in practice if not in name, and you shouldn't be allowed to wield your citizenship as a shield as you work to harm the US. If it's good enough for bombing Yemenis in Yemen, it's good enough for bombing Americans in Yemen. I continue to struggle with the concept of people being OK with blowing up entire traveling parties but being opposed to rendition and enhanced interrogation of high value subjects. But I think we've had that argument before here, and I've been told my moral compass is askew.

JFLNYC wrote:If we are at a point where we no longer accept as a given that we, as a society, have a basic and deeply-rooted interest in seeing that all our youth are well-educated and, more specifically to this argument, that we have an interest in seeing that our youth get a realistic shot at advanced education in engineering, the sciences and all things related to the information age, then all hope is lost. We might as well formally adopt a feudal system of feudal lords and fiefdoms, with a small noble class and an enormous, uneducated peasant class. Of course the problem with that approach is that, since we no longer live in a primarily agrarian world, the United States will fall hopelessly behind other, more educated nations.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

What we need to do, going forward from this time, is to create a new 401(k)-style retirement benefit for our future employees consistent with the retirement packages currently enjoyed almost universally by private sector employees.My plan also suggests some adjustment in the way future benefits are calculated for current employees in order to maintain the solvency of our pension system and guarantee all current and future employees a worry-free retirement.

my dad sure enjoyed when his crashed like all hell

Did he enjoy the rebound?

not especially since the money hasnt been returned and the amount of compounded interest lost was significant. have any other comments on a 40 minute speech?

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

What we need to do, going forward from this time, is to create a new 401(k)-style retirement benefit for our future employees consistent with the retirement packages currently enjoyed almost universally by private sector employees.My plan also suggests some adjustment in the way future benefits are calculated for current employees in order to maintain the solvency of our pension system and guarantee all current and future employees a worry-free retirement.

my dad sure enjoyed when his crashed like all hell

Did he enjoy the rebound?

not especially since the money hasnt been returned and the amount of compounded interest lost was significant. have any other comments on a 40 minute speech?

I'm not an investing guru and have a fake job at the moment, but my limited experience with 401ks was that you're generally more heavily invested in stocks/higher risk funds early in your career and as you get closer to retirement your portfolio shifts to more conservative positions so you are less likely to be negatively impacted by a short term significant downturn. To the extent your dad was/is still investing in equities it shouldn't have taken that large of a bite out of his 401k and the subsequent upturn in stocks should have mitigated the losses to a large extent if not erased them. Maybe that's just how it worked at my old place of employment.

I didn't watch the 40 minute speech but I read your post and commented on the aspect of it which I found interesting.

mozartpc27 wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Werthless wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Werthless wrote: So if you want to go $160,000 in debt to be an art teacher, loan organizations will just say no.

Weren't you an econ major? Wouldn't your prospects out of college only be marginally better than someone with a teaching degree?

My prospects were good, both when I entered college as a biology major and left it with an economics degree with political economy and finance minors. I did not have to borrow the full amount, and likely would have chosen a different school if I had been forced to. I qualified for need-based aid in a mix of grants and loans, so my loan payments are very reasonable.

I have 18k per year in grants and scholarships. I'm still going to end up 100-110k in debt for my political science degree. I could have probably ended up saving 20-30 grand going to a state school but I think I benefited educationally and socially going to a smaller university.

I guess I take exception with the idea that I shouldn't educate myself because my parents make just enough money to not qualify for a lot of need based aid while also not having the ability to pay my tuition.

Also, Werthless's idea essentially means that anyone interested in teaching pretty much anything will have to come from substantial means. No more teachers who come from the working classes; only those from priviliged backgrounds need apply.

That's a great way to reduce the quality of teaching.