> conservashits
>>73598329
>occupy democrats
yes comerade.
>>73598329
Well no shit the kikes were fucking the economy up. The solution isn't to gas the economy with Communism or some other retarded kike ideology and neither gassing the CEOs will help pay the thousands of other company employees.
The simple solution is gassing the kikes. And killing all niggers with a race war, they need way too much gov. money.
Gassing the kikes is more important though, they created this system where niggers can breed freely without working.
>>73598988
So completely based that Hitler himself blessed you with those dubs.
>focuses on CEO pay
>ignores actors, athletes, musicians
Why?
>>73599249
Because CEOs are a scapegoat for their anti-capitalist agenda.
>>73599249
Athletes musicians and movie stars don't fuck over their employees benefits and pays to increase share holder profits maybe
>>73598329
A lot of that inflation is the result of our monetary policy.
>deport 20 million illegals
>wages sky rocket
>real unemployment drops down below 3%
>welfare is cut and they are forced to get jobs picking strawberries in the fields for $12 an hour
BUILD IT
>>73598329
8 years of obama
>sigh
>use nominal values (not adjused for inflation for everything but average household income
>get weird results
*tips fedora*
If CEOs earn that much why don't everyone become CEOs?
>>73598329
Recently, research has counterintuitively indicated a need to scale back the financial aid we offer prospective students since such policies have thus far made higher education LESS affordable. [1]
In response, there has been one main criticism to that research: "How in the world could increased college assistance have come BEFORE increased tuition costs?" "Go ahead," exclaim the skeptics, "look at the historic record. Tuition increases came first! They were not CAUSED by expansions in financial aid!"
We decided to fact check this critique by doing precisely what was asked; looking at the historic record.
[The following dollar figures have all been adjusted for inflation.] From 1971 to 1981, annual tuition and fees for higher education only rose $2 for a public two year facility. [2] You read that correctly. ONLY two dollars. For a public, four year state school, in state tuition and fees had actually DECREASED $190. For the same period of time, a private four year institution, ALSO decreased by $304. [2] This is very important to note. It means that the cost of higher education was NOT rising at an alarming rate at this point in history. Rather, it had actually decreased or, at most, broken even. (depending on the circumstance) Since that time, however, tuition unfortunately inclined sharply.
So then, what is the record on financial aid for higher education? Unlike the claims from the critics, expansions in financial aid programs DID come BEFORE the start of the tuition crisis. Federal financial aid had its start in 1958, with the National Defense Student Loan Program for low-income students, the precursor to the Perkins Loan Program, and soon after with the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1963 [a]. Note, however, these were relatively small programs and therefore didn't necessarily distort the market in any impactful way. They truly were helping low income individuals, and thus were not wide-scale programs.
>>73598329
>>73600281
It wasn't until later, in 1965, 1972, and 1978, when the financial aid that we recognize today began to take hold. In 1965, for instance, the precursors to the Pell Grant and Stafford Loans were created as part of the Higher Education Act. [3] At that time, a key change occurred in the way federal tuition loan programs were financed. "Instead of using government money directly, the loans would be made by bankers. But if students defaulted, the government guaranteed that IT would cover the tab." [4] Think about this perverse incentive for a moment. It meant that capital could be offered in the form of student loans under the presumption that profit from said loans could be kept privately, but if and when losses arose, banks and investors wouldn't have to lose their money since TAXPAYERS would foot the bill. Effectively, this was socializing losses while privatizing gains. It would take years for this perverse incentive to grow into a large scale problem, but it eventually did.
>>73598329
>>73600313
In '72, the precursor to the Pell Grant was created, but more importantly, Sallie Mae was created by Nixon and the Congress. Sallie Mae was a firm that received help from the treasury to buy student loans off of banks, freeing the banks to then offer even MORE federally insured loans. [4] From that point forward, banks had nothing to lose by offering loans since they - quite literally - could ONLY profit from the exchange. That meant a bank's sound underwriting reasoning, which typically would lead them to decline risky or unreasonable loan requests, was no longer present. If that weren't bad enough, the most important change came in 1978 with the Middle Income Student Assistance Act, which expanded federal student assistance programs to include middle-income students in addition to low-income students. [3] This is where everything changed. From this point forward, most of these financial aid programs were no longer limited to a minority of low income applicants, but instead became the norm for nearly the entire populace. Under this arrangement, loans would eventually be made to nearly everyone regardless of the requested price of tuition, and tuition would therefore be free to rise unchecked since no financial institution was saying "no." It should be no surprise, then, that this was the last decade our nation enjoyed relatively affordable tuition. Since that 1978 expansion, the cost of higher education increased more than 13 fold; about 1,225 percent. [5] To put that into perspective, in the same time period, ordinary inflation (CPI) had only increased 279 percent. [5]
>>73598329
>Liberals
Gimme, Gimme, Gimme YOUR money
>>73598329
>>73600334
CONCLUSION:
NO, massive and alarming increases in tuition did not occur PRIOR to expansions in financial aid. The expansions in financial aid occurred PRIOR to the tuition crisis. We have a legitimate problem on our hands, and it's important that it be properly diagnosed if we are ever to fix it.
Sources:
[1]
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13711.pdf
[2]
http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-and-fees-and-room-and-board-over-time-1
[3]
http://www.finaid.org/educators/history.phtml
[4]
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3622709
[5]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-18/college-tuition-costs-soar-chart-of-the-day (also the source of the graph)
>>73598329
>Implying inflation doesn't exist
>>73598329
if you want to get the same education and medical treatments and food quality people got 40 years ago it wont cost so much you fucking retard.
Pfftt, your food was too cheap anyway. You know that shit isn't free to produce right?
Considering most Americans want six cars, a mansion, and a new iPhone every week I'm not convinced people are that worse off.
>>73600414
This.
>>73598329
>there are problems
>it's conservatives
I enjoy your logic, it's very intelligent.
>>73598329
>make everyone go to collage
>collages can decide to charge whatever they want because of the massive demand
>???
>blame conservatives
I don't understand leftists at all.
>>73600414
Food has become less expensive against inflation. Tuition and medical care have become more expensive thanks entirely to government intervention.
>>73600596
This basically.
>>73600281
>>73600313
>>73600334
>>73600353
Interesting, thanks. Does this exist in more permanent form on a website somewhere? I might like to refer to it in future.
>>73600414
>implying there's been a 1120% inflation
The 1978 to 2016 inflation rate was 265.2% (so arguably food didn't get more expensive).
Btw I'm pretty sure the average income has gone up 6.9% in REAL dollars, so it's comparing nominal increases with real dollar increases. Can't trust libshits to get anything right, can we?
>>73600353
It seems almost every problem this country is facing is because of Liberal policies despite all the problems being blamed on Conservatives.
So when Liberal policies continue to fail and the Conservatives have been wiped off the political map, who is gonna be the scapegoat?
Duh white man.
We've got a dark future a head of us brothers. When a nation is going under a scapegoat is always found. Add racial tension and an increasingly hostile minority with strong clout in government and culture, and you have the ingredients for race war.
>>73598329
>>73600353
And OP your rebuttal? Or do you now accept the truth as is kindly presented by your anonymous brother?
>>73599249
Because we always ignore them.
>>73601502
When government policies fail, those who advocated them either blame those who opposed them for getting in the way of successful implementation or the individual implementing them for not doing so "correctly". It can never be the fault of the ideology. This is true even if those implementing the policies have total control and opposition is minimal or dead as seen in Communist paradises.
>>73601502
Stay strong brother, tomorrow we may not see the sun.
>>73598329
>College tuition has gone up
subsidized by the government
>Medical expenses have gone up
subsidized by the government
>food has gone up
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
b8/10
