Home

Does the Air Force offer any time of student loan repayment? Can the GI Bill be used to pay off student loans?

May 22, 4340 by cam | Posted in Military

Are there other options for the air force this issue?

Thank you.
I do not know if it would make a difference, but I'd try to OTS as I already have a 4-year degree.

The air pressure has a maximum $ 10,000 to repay the loan. They could not tell you but if you choose to repay the loan, you will not get the GI Bill. If you choose the GI bill they will take your $ 100 check every month for a total of $ 1,200.

Can a GI Bill be used to pay back previous loans for college?

Mar 12, 2009 by Toni C | Posted in Financial Aid

I was awarded the Army ROTC four year fellowship and I plan to use it for the university of tennessee in knoxville. However, it will not cover room board along with tuition which is enjoyable but I still can't afford it. My family makes 1 to 2k over the

Yeah, but why don't you discontinuation till you are in the Army,that way you can get tuition assistance to use for school rather than taking out loans and using your GI Bill. The GI Bill can be used after you get out of the army, but, the preparation

GI Bill Video - No Student Loans for Soldiers

studentloanwatcher.com Video that gives the recital of the GI Bill. This bill would make it possible for soldiers to get an instruction without ...

Watching the News

Good morning ladies and gentlemen.  Do you watch the news?  Read the papers?  And do you ponder what you see?  Really give it some thought to try to understand the DEEPER MEANING of it all?  Well, perhaps we shouldn’t.  Perhaps our lives would be better served by ignoring the news and concentrating on our own spiritual development.  Unfortunately I don’t seem to be wired that way.  And the news is pissing me off.

Sometimes the random order of stories on a newscast accidentally points to a larger truth.  Weird juxtapositions leading to even weirder conclusions.  And so it goes.  Let me show you what I mean.  Last night the nice news lady on some channel told me all about the 32% increase in Public University fees next year.  After some hand wringing, she moved on to a story about the elite rich town of Tiburon in Marin County and their decision to record the license plate numbers of EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO ENTERS THEIR CITY.  This brilliant plan will allow their police to immediately investigate every outsider if a crime is committed.  (As a quick aside, how the fuck can this possibly be legal?  Land of the free my ass.)

Here we have two seemingly unrelated stories.  Do you see the deeper pattern?  Well, I do.  And that’s why I’m the Reverend.  (And possibly because I’m crazy and paranoid.)  So here goes.  Before WW2, the GI Bill, and the affluence of the middle class, higher education used to be the privilege of the fairly rich.  It was an easy way to control the masses through ignorance.  During the last fifty years the chance to better yourself and your situation through a college degree was offered to pretty much everybody.  Rich, poor, dark or light skinned, immigrant, conservative or liberal.  Apparently this has become too much threat to the ruling squirrel elite and they are shutting it down.

The easiest way to keep people from advancing is to keep them out of school.  It’s no accident that inner city social dynamics insure that black men almost never escape through education.  And now the elite are bold enough to make it too expensive for another entire class of people.  Oh sure, in theory education will still be open.  But as Anatole France said “”The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”  And we’re letting them do it.

The official response to the protests around the fee hike was equally fascinating.  It seems that more money will be made available for student loans in order to help poorer students stay in school.  (Gee, where did that money come from?)  It’s estimated that a student using this program can expect to have about $100,000.00 in debt after graduation.  And that’s just for undergraduates.  Hope you don’t want an advanced degree.  When they used this kind of program for immigration it was called indentured servitude.  Is there much difference between “We’ll give you a ride on the boat to a better job but you’ll have to work for years to pay it off” and “We’ll get you a degree to get you a better job but…”

So let me get this straight.  The poor kids just can’t go to college any more and the middle class kids can go but will essentially be indentured servants when they graduate.  Meanwhile the rich kids still get to go to Stanford while daddy pays.  Is it any surprise that neighborhoods like Tiburon are beginning to feel like castles?  As the rich get richer and everyone else bends over to get fucked, it’s pretty clear why they’d want to keep track of who dares drive through their domain.  See, I told you these stories were connected.  The nice news lady might even have suspected it.  But what are we going to do about it?  Viva la Revolucion.  Vaya con Dios.  Amen.

Source: AVOIDING THE SQUIRRELS

Real Costs of Federal Aid to College

My first observation is that the increase in access to higher education in America largely came before massive federal involvement in student financial aid programs. Second, I would argue that the incremental or marginal students that we have gained through substantial federal programs likely have extremely poor records with respect to college completion, and probably shouldn’t have been in college in the first place. Third, I suspect that a student financial aid Laffer curve phenomenon is at work, whereby modest provision of financial assistance serves to increase the proportion of college graduates in society, but that a vast financial aid effort such as we’ve had in recent years has actually had a negative impact on that ratio. Fourth, and closely related to the third point, some of these financial aid programs have contributed mightily to the explosion in tuition fees in modern times. Finally, I echo the Spellings Commission’s charge that the current system is confusing and dysfunctional, with programs often working at cross-purposes. Now, let me elaborate a little. The rationale for government financial aid for students and higher education revolves around the argument that America is an egalitarian society that favors high social and economic mobility and promotes equal educational opportunity as a means to that end. Yet the large majority of the rise in higher education participation in America occurred before there was a major federal financial involvement. For example, in 1900, 23 out of every 1,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 went to college. Compare it with 324 in 1970. While the GI Bill did impact enrollments for awhile after World War II, in 1970, total federal financial aid programs, including grants and loans, amounted to less than $1.6 billion, or less than $200 per student enrolled. A fourteen-fold increase in college participation occurred without a major federal financial involvement, excepting for a brief period after World War II when the GI Bill assistance was quantitatively an important factor. It is worth noting that this is exactly what has happened throughout primary and secondary education as well. The vast rise of literacy in Great Britain before the Industrial Revolution and during the Industrial Revolution occurred without a pence of governmental financial support. And similarly, in our history, literacy was high in the United States in 1850 even though the majority of schooling was still privately funded. The notion that government funding was somehow necessary to promote high levels of educational access is simply historically untrue. To be sure, the vast growth in college enrollment in the first two-thirds of the last century does coincide with the rise in state governmental institutional support, and that no doubt had a positive enrollment impact. But the notion that the government must provide funds to students to promote college attendance was not widely accepted before 1970, the era of greatest university growth. In the 1990s, the proportion of the American population going to college fell by one measure for the first time in well over a century, and by another measure showed the smallest increase in modern times–smaller even than during the Great Depression. There was an extremely sharp slowdown in the growth in higher education participation. Yet the federal financial aid programs for college students grew dramatically during this period; financial aid went from $19 billion in 1990 to $63 billion in 2000. Aid for students more than doubled even after adjusting for inflation. We were in a period of sharply rising federal assistance, but a slowdown in enrollment growth. Moreover, the rise in enrollment says little about learning. There is a growing body of evidence showing that college graduates are less literate than previously. The National Survey of Student Engagement says that the average senior at an American university studies 13 hours a week, which when added to classroom hours, suggests work of 1,000 to 1,200 hours yearly–one-third to one-half less than the typical American worker. College students are inadequately challenged and grade inflation has reduced consequences of poor performance. Compounding all of this, nearly one-half the students entering college full-time fail to graduate within six years. College dropouts are a huge problem. We probably are over-invested in higher education, with the incremental students financed by increases in student aid largely ill equipped for college-level study. My eyeballing of the historical data leads me to conclude that we may well have overdone financial aid, even if our only goal is to maximize the proportion of adults who are college graduates. High levels of aid have contributed to higher tuition prices, forcing away some students. The recent trend towards shifting aid from a need to a merit base may have meant that most incremental funds have gone to students who would have attended college with or without aid. Moreover, some students getting aid stick around universities longer and often do not complete degrees. The rapid rise in student aid has occurred simultaneously with a slowdown in the growth of the proportion of Americans who are college graduates. When someone else is paying the bills, people want to buy more of the good or service in question at prevailing prices than when the customer pays the bills. This means a higher demand for higher education, and other things being equal, higher tuition costs. Some in the Academy deny this, of course, and people are writing studies trying to deny it. However, I believe that is simply wrong. There is little doubt in my mind–and I’ve run regressions to verify it–that the soaring financial aid, in part federally financed, has contributed somewhat to the escalation in college tuition costs–which have been going up since Aristotle, by the way. One estimate I did suggests that each one dollar in grant aid leads to tuition fees somewhere around 35 cents higher than would otherwise be the case. Just as third-party payments in medicine have led to escalating health care costs, so increased student financial payments have contributed to soaring tuition costs. When the feds created tuition tax credits in the late 1990s, I called it the “faculty salary enhancement act,” since colleges could capture much of the tax break by raising tuition fees and then used some of the money to reward their staff. Money moved as much from taxpayers to university staff members as to the pockets of student consumers. The Spellings Commission got it right when it said that the financial aid system was dysfunctional–actually, I picked that word out in my capacity as a member of that commission–although it recommended little in the way of changing it. There are close to 20 programs that help pay for college, and some are at cross-purposes to others. Compounding everything, the FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) form that parents must complete is confusing beyond belief, more complicated than the dastardly federal income tax form 1040. As Judge Richard Posner put it well in his blog with Gary Becker the other day, the intellectual justification for expanded federal student loan programs is extremely weak. It is not clear that higher education has major positive spillover effects that justify government subsidies in the first place, and the private loan market that can handle anything from automobile loans to billion-dollar government bond sales can handle providing financial assistance to students if necessary.[1] Indeed, colleges might consider using some of their own endowments for this purpose, going into the business themselves. It is striking how government programs often are at cross-purposes with one another. For example, 529 savings plans that get favorable tax treatment increase the demand for pricey private education among upper-middle class persons, almost certainly leading to tuition increases. This offsets some of the benefits from the modest annual increases in the Pell Grant program for lower-income persons. The professed goal of increasing college access may be thwarted by the interaction between seemingly unrelated programs. In short, I have a skeptical view of Democratic proposals to go on a spending spree for student financial aid. There is little or no evidence that this will do much of anything to improve college graduation rates, and will simply perpetuate a complex system that exists on dubious intellectual foundations. Now the so-called student debt crisis would not exist if the federal government had not made it easy for 18-year-old students to borrow. But it would also not exist if the cost of college rose at the same rate that other things have. The tuition explosion reflects a multitude of things. Let me mention 12 words or phrases that encompass most of its causes:

Source: How The College Cartel Works