[Vision2020] Pell Grants
Shawn Clabough
shawnc at outtrack.com
Sat Feb 8 10:34:28 PST 2014
Correct. In the late 80's, I claimed independent while attending WSU - after
my parent's had not claimed me for two years and I had a job.
Shawn
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Scott Dredge
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 4:20 PM
To: rhayes at frontier.com; viz
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Pell Grants
How is this 'total misinformation that [I've] posted]' considering that the
time frame we're discussing is during the Reagan years? Dependent /
Independent classification for Pell Grants was changed in 1993, well after
the Reagan's and shortly after George HW Bush's departures from the White
House. Read the CBO text of the 1992 amendment for yourself and make your
own call:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7524/93doc05
.pdf
Here is the section I lifted from page 13 (highlight in bold is my
emphasis):
The dependency status of students also influences their EFCs.
Students are classified as either independent or dependent. Under the
old Pell Grant program rules, independent students are those who meet
any of the following criteria: at least 24 years old; a veteran; married and
not declared as a dependent on their parents' federal income tax return
in the current year; having legal dependents other than a spouse; or
single, not claimed as a dependent on their parents' income tax return
in the previous two years, and having financial resources of at least
$4,000 in each of those years. Except in special circumstances, other
Pell applicants are classified as dependent.
About 65 percent of the program's recipients in the 1992-1993
school year are independent students.
-Scott
_____
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:44:54 -0800
From: rhayes at frontier.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Pell Grants
This is total misinformation you posted. I worked with financial aid for
years and years.
Students are granted independence at 24. Period. No way to get around that.
Students may be independent if they are orphaned (ward of the court). One
can't just say, this student is not a dependent.
Students may be granted independence if a court of law specifically
prohibits any contact with the child for an indefinite period.
Students are independent if they are married, but not divorced.
Students are independent if Both of their parents are deceased or in prison.
These are the conditions. Period.
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:26:33 -0700
From: Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
To: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
Cc: viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ronald Reagan at 103: Were He and Obama
"Liars"?
Message-ID: <BLU175-W434826ACA875844E16D031E4970 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Not knowing the specific details on that aspect, I wouldn't jump to
conclusions that Pell Grant funds being included as income subject to income
tax is necessarily a bad thing. I can attest that at least half a dozen of
the guys in my dorm from Idaho Falls received Pell Grants despite having
parents who working as engineers at INEL. The high schools during Reagan's
reign did a good job coaching kids to have their parents not claim them as
dependents starting their junior years such that when they graduated high
school they were considered 'independent' from their parents earnings.
Taxing Pell Grants for these situation would have essentially had no effect
curbing this type of abuse.
On the flip side, there were also kids who had parents that had no intention
of paying for any of their college and and yet also refused to give their
deduction to even give their kids a shot a getting Pell Grants.
In both cases the bad behavior was due to selfish parents.
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ronald Reagan at 103: Were He and Obama "Liars"?
From: thansen at moscow.com
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:30:35 -0800
CC: ngier006 at gmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
It was under President Reagan that funds received via the Pell Grant became
taxable.
Yes. Ronnie baby figured out how to increase taxes ON THE POOR.
Care to hear (I mean "read") more?
Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants
on)http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/> Tom
HansenMoscow, Idaho
"There's room at the top they are telling you still.But first you must learn
how to smile as you kill,If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
- John Lennon
On Feb 7, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:
I liked Reagan during the time of the Reagan years. There's not too much in
the examples given below that jump out to me as being overly egregious or a
dereliction of duty. More like 'business as usual'. Regarding the so
believed 'Reagan debt' and 'Clinton surplus', does Congress action or
inaction play no role in military spending and the overall budget??? From
my recollection, the 1993 / 1994 Clinton years with a Democratic Congress
were God Awful. Even with consolidated power, they were unable to pass
Universal Health Care back then. When the Democrats were annihilated in the
1994 mid-terms and Republicans swept into Congress for the first time in 40
years on a promise of the 'Contract with America', that's when everything
stabilize. Clinton signed most of the Contract with America legislation
into law, smartly took credit for it, and easily won re-election.
My sense is that the most optimal configuration for our system is a Democrat
in the White House and Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress.
Republicans will likely score big in the November mid-terms. 2015 & 2016
should be good years.
Back to Reagan - as much I liked him when he was in office, in retrospect,
he demonstrated an appalling lack of leadership during the AIDs crisis which
is something you've not mentioned below. In my opinion, Reagan's inaction
on that one issue in particular is unforgivable.
-Scott
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:52:18 -0800
From: ngier006 at gmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Ronald Reagan at 103: Were He and Obama "Liars"?
Dear Visionaries:
Every year on Reagan's birth anniversary I intend to continue to tear down
the wall that is the Reagan myth. The resources and topics are nearly
endless, so I will be busy for many years. If you don't want to read the
whole thing, I leave you with one conclusion: "Reagan was not a liar;
rather, he was just terribly confused."
I appended the full version that just appeared in the Daily News Los Cabos
(circualtion 10,000), the Daily News' totally unofficial sister newspaper,
filled with leads from Bloomberg News, the Washington Post, and many others.
My columns appear alongside the columnists from these news outlets.
I'm glad that my tenants have set up a heater in front of my kitchen sink,
as the wall to the outside is poorly insulated. It's 80 degrees here in
Cabo. Just thought I would mention it.
Keep warm,
Nick
RONALD REAGAN AT 103:
WERE BOTH HE AND OBAMA ?LIARS??
Make sure that I was telling you the truth.
?Ronald Reagan, February 25, 1983
We licensed his beguiling forgeries.
?Gary Willis, Reagan?s America: Innocents at Home
It would be more accurate to say that Reagan extended
or even reignited the Cold War at the cost of well
over $1 trillion in additional U.S. military spending,?Robert Parry
RR [is] totally lost, out of his depth, uncomfortable. . . . e did not
listen attentively, looking away or staring at the papers in front of him. .
. All
this?both the substance and human conflict?is above and beyond him.
?Richard Pipes, Reagan?s national security adviser
Those who criticize President Obama, sometimes with a hatred much more
intense than that directed toward George W. Bush (whom I pitied more than
disliked), focus on his many alleged lies. In what follows I want to argue
that, if Obama is a liar, then former President Reagan was a bigger, and
arguably, more dangerous one.
On Reagan?s 103st birth anniversary I want to examine his challenge to us
all: ?Make sure that I was telling you the truth.? As my main references, I
will use the thoroughly researched book There He Goes Again: Ronald Reagan?s
Reign of Error by Mark Green and Gail MacColl; and Will Bunch?s Tear Down
This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy has Distorted our Politics and Haunts Our
Future. His deceptions and misstatements run the entire gamut, but I will
focus on defense and foreign policy.
? At a press conference Reagan declared that the Soviets were
violating mutual agreements on nuclear submarines. Three week earlier the
White House released a statement that there were no such violations.
? During the 1970-8os, Reagan kept repeating that the Soviet Union
had attained military superiority. With Reagan?s approval (?Let her fly? in
a marginal note),Vice-President George W. H. Bush set up a special ?Team B?
intelligence group, because right-wingers had convinced them that the CIA
(presumably the A Team) was ?soft? on Communism. Team B?s false reports led
to the U. S. to initiate every major weapons system in the 1980s. There
were two major results: (1) the Soviet Union was bankrupted in trying to
keep up; and (2) defense appropriations increased to $ 1 trillion, much of
which was not necessary.
? In the presidential debate of October 28, 1980, Reagan claimed that
President Jimmy Carter had shut down major defense programs. Among those
weapons mentioned was the MX missile, which was actually under full
production, and the Trident submarine. The first Trident was launched on
April 7, 1979, during Carter?s term.
? On March 3, 1981, Reagan maintained that the U.S. had unilaterally
disarmed during the 1970s. Of course Presidents Nixon and Carter did no
such thing. Green and MacColl gives all sorts of evidence to the contrary,
but here is a significant fact: ?In 1970 the U.S. had 4,000 strategic
warheads. By the end of the decade it had 10,000.? This is obviously arming
a nation, not disarming it.
? On October 17, 1981, Reagan claimed that the Soviets, ?unlike us,?
believed that a nuclear war is winnable. Green and MacColl quote a Defense
Department manual, Reagan?s senior national security adviser, and Reagan?s
own 1983 budget as evidence that the U.S. believed that a nuclear war was
indeed winnable.
? On May 13, 1982, Reagan falsely and ignorantly claimed that
submarine launched nuclear missiles ?can be recalled.?
? Further mischaracterizing Carter?s achievements, Reagan charged
that he did not add anything to what Nixon had accomplished with regard to
China. The truth was, however, that Carter oversaw long and tough
negotiations for the 1979 agreement to normalize relations between the two
countries.
? In a radio address on December 6, 1986, Reagan said that the U.S.
was dealing with ?moderates? in Iran, but on July 29th of the same year he
had said that they were ?the most radical elements.? He authorized a deal to
sell arms to enemy mullahs in return for the release of hostages in Lebanon.
? In an interview with Time magazine (12/8/86) Reagan stated that
?another country was facilitating those sales of weapon systems to Iran.? Of
course the truth was that his own government did that. Repeatedly, he said
that he could not remember if Oliver North had told him about one of the
most cynical moves in American diplomatic history: selling arms to our enemy
Iran to finance the a war against the duly elected Nicaraguan government.
? On April 14, 1983, Reagan falsely reassured Americans that ?we are
not trying to overthrow the Nicaraguan government.?
? Early in 1987 Reagan declared that his administration would never
negotiate with terrorists. In an address to the nation on March 4, 1987,
Reagan admitted that he had lied: ?A few months ago I told the American
people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions
still tell me that?s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is
not.? Are we suppose to feel better when the leader of the Free World
confesses that he is a heart-felt liar, who is still reluctant to face the
facts?
Iran-Contra was arguably a far worse scandal than Watergate. The Reagan
administration devised an illegal plan, which circumvented the Boland
Amendment, by which Congress prohibited funding the Nicaraguan Contras.
William Bunch states that Iran-Contra ?made Nixon?s abuses seem more like
the ?third-rate burglary? that Nixon?s aides famously claimed it was.?
Fourteen Reagan associates were prosecuted for Iran-Contra crimes.
As early as January 1987, Democratic Senate leaders met to discuss the
possibility of impeaching Reagan. According to Bunch?s sources, they agreed
that that the president was ?too old? and ?did not have the mental ability
to fully understand what had happened.?House speaker Jim Wright, who would
later be forced to resign over a book deal, believed that impeaching Reagan
would be ?too divisive,? and he admitted that he ?may have bent over
backwards in error? in not finding an impeachable offense. Republicans had
no such qualms about dividing the nation when they impeached Clinton. Nixon
and Clinton were impeached for far less substantial reasons, and now Obama
haters want to try him for charges that are not impeachable offenses at all.
With regard to his promise that those with their own health insurance could
keep it, Obama should have qualified that statement with ?only if it met the
criteria of the Affordable Care Act.? Politifact made it the ?Lie of the
Year? only to balance out Mitt Romney's record number of ?Pants on Fire? in
2012.
Reagan?s First Motion Picture Unit edited some of the gruesome footage from
the Nazi death camps. Later Reagan, who had never been in the military, said
that he, in an army uniform, had taken the pictures on the spot. This man
was not a liar; rather, he is just terribly confused.
Under Reagan the national debt tripled, primarily because of unnecessary
defense funding; and, after wiping out Clinton?s surplus, Bush nearly
doubled it. Under Obama the national debt has increased 63 percent, but
much of that was due to the reduced revenues of the Great Recession and
irrational spending cuts of the sequester.
Reagan and Bush borrowed money at high interest rates to wage one cold and
two hot wars under false pretenses, but Obama saved the economy by borrowing
money at near zero rates. He has also reduced the annual deficit every year
and now it is at $514 billion, its lowest since 2008. And that?s no lie.
Nick Gier taught philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 years.
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140207/901e70fa/a
ttachment.html>
------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 92, Issue 42
******************************************
======================================================= List services made
available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140208/4c38c590/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list