Student Loan slash and burn
Hey students, how you all doin? Loving that change you voted for in 2008? I know lots of you voted for Johnny Key, you had gotten shitty with Aunty Helen and her 'dykeocracy' and her power saving lightbulbs and her water saving shower heads, you were well grumpy weren't you and didn't John look dapper? He promised 'change' and you all thought you would get what Labour gave you PLUS National's tax cut didn't you?
How's that worked out then? Legalizing whaling and mining conservation land huh? Didn't vote for those things did you, oh and now, we have your new Minister for Education, Steven Joyce about to screw your student loans, how does it feel students? Loving your change yet?
Govt may put 2-year block on student loans for new migrants
New residents and Australians may soon have to live here for two years before they can get student loans. Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce said the Government was considering implementing a two-year stand-down period before new permanent residents can borrow from the Government to fund tertiary studies here.
Steven also wants to cut back on under grad study to 6 years, but who exactly is Steven Joyce? Let’s remind ourselves what we know about the hollow brain from the hollow men….
In the week of the 16-20 May 2005, Steven Joyce had a formal meeting with the exclusive brethren who were organizing their despicable advertising campaign and Joyce met quietly with other pro-National lobby organizations telling them the two crucial messages were “change”. Change was the main theme the Exclusive Brethren ended up using, remember National weren’t officially having these meetings with the Brethren and Joyce was the hollow brain behind this.
Joyce also saw the draft pamphlets and advertisements from the Exclusive Brethren before they went out, remember National initially pretended they knew nothing about the Exclusive Brethren.
When confronted with allegations that this was a stitch up job, Joyce’s ‘response’ was that Stephen Win (the contact person on the EB pamphlets and advertising) wasn’t a National Party guy and it certainly wasn’t a National-funded campaign – that of course is a twisting of the facts after meeting with the EB and providing input and viewing all material about to be released by the EB, we can see how hollow Joyce’s response really was.
In 2005 Joyce wrote to electoral campaign committees saying that “in this election National is planning to go close to its legal limit for Party Vote campaign expenditure (meaning $2,240,000), That has not happened previously”. Interestingly when the donation declarations were delivered to the Electoral Commission not one name from National’s largest financial backers were declared after their donations had been washed through the National Party launderette, the ‘Waitemata Trust’ so that their political influence through financial donations remained invisible. Interesting side note isn’t it, Winston was crucified in the media for something the Electoral Commission, the Serious Fraud Office and the Police cleared him on, has National’s funding ever been given that level of scrutiny?
Steven Joyce was credited in the last election by National Svengali Peter Keenan for keeping on Crosby/Texter, the Australian spin Doctors who were so good this election at spinning the ‘change’ and ‘moderation’ con job.
The Hollow Brain went to Australia to meet with Crosby/Texter and on October 19th 2004 prepared the con job they would use to try and spin the election on, it is incredible how much of that con job was so similar to the con job the Hollow Brain used to win this election, let’s go through them…
1: Stop us going down the path to rampant political correctness.
2: Put an end to the grievance industry.
3: Make our community safer by locking away violent criminals.
4: Ensure your hard-earned tax dollars are spent on Education and Health and not wasted on Labour’s pet projects and bureaucracy.
5: Put in place economic policies that will lift all our incomes closer to those of Australians.
6: Tighten up Welfare and ensure that everyone that can work does work.
Note, none of this is policy, just focus meeting tested bigotry.
Interesting to note that when Joyce was challenged on whether or not Crosby/Texter was giving National advice in 2005, Joyce said there was ‘some’ advice but National had no plans of bringing them to NZ, which was a clear twisting of the truth because Joyce had been to see them in 2004, when challenged again Joyce fudged the issue and pretended to not know the depth of any Crosby/Texter relationship and advised Don Brash to claim he only met them in passing.
It seems if you attempt to warp democratic principle your reward can be a high party place ranking on the National list, and now he is your Minister of Education - hilarious.
posted by Bomber @ 7:30 am
24 comments
24 Comments:
I was a student, I got my degree in 4 years. This is a sensible policy; there is no way you can defend students who take 7 years to achieve an undergraduate degree which should take a maximum of 4 years. Stop complaining and see it for what it is: accountability and cost saving.
This is another policy which will have the support of voters.
If you think a 6 year BA is reasonable when you obviously don't know what the definition of reasonable is.
Lov'in the change.
Glad we've got someone to define "reasonable" now. Tossers!
yet another tory policy to screw the youth of this country. one way tickets to sydney are soooo cheap these days
i think (and hope) this is aimed at people who are abusing the system. It wont be aimed at parttime students who are working, students with disabilities and students who are doing conjoints etc . More aimed at the people who cant be arsed working to pass simple papers year after year. Failing once is acceptable, hell many people do it, repeating the same failure isnt acceptable and this should rightly be punished with no more funding. If at a later date, after working they wish to return to study, they should be allowed to so if they have satisfied the fact that they have 'picked up their responsibilities' just my 2c.
I took 4 years to get a three year undergraduate degree in the 90's and I paid for the lot myself - no student loan. It isn't that hard, I managed to fuck around quite a lot so I can barely comprehend how thick or useless you would have to be to take 5 to 6 years.
I paid for mine through scrimping and saving, working my arse off during the holidays and not buying new cars, stereos etc etc which so many of my peers did with student loans - I can see no reason why I should have to pay for someone else's loan as well as subsidise their degree.
Now that the poor little rich boy act on campus brigade have put in a couple of anonymous strokes, lets hear something from a few students that were besotted by the superficial idea of change but who are now confronted with yet more broken promises.
Before they do, they could also tote up the number of nanny state initiatives that occured under 'that dyke Helen' compared with the number instigaed or proposed under the ug-booted leapard skinned former recipient of the DPN and ALL its possible add-ons - the very same ones that as Mistress of Social Welfare she considers others are undeserving of.
"Glad we've got someone to define "reasonable" now. Tossers!"
As someone who has completed both arts and laws degrees I'd have to say that a BA is the most non-demanding degree out there both intellectually and coursewise.
If you can't complete it within three years while working part time then you're a retard who deserves to have their minimum wage pak 'n' save salary garnished for the next 30 years to pay off your loan.
My family member took 4 years for a 3 year BSC then took another 4 years for a masters, own fault probably. Poor family, white so no special grants, had to work part time (and live frugally) to eat.
Ended up late 20's with a big loan went to Asia for two years to earn money to pay it off - in full.
Can be done you just have to work hard and make sacrifices.
Took a while to get into a career (getting to old) but persevered and made it - life can be tough but those with the commitment can make it work.
LMAO - Really? All you anonymous posters have completed BA's and are here to tell us all how easy it is and how lucky students are? Really? Why would so many people with higher education qualifications be so terrified to put their own name to their posts?
I also think robbing refugees of their ability to get educated is so near sighted and obviously flawed, what are they supposed to do for 2 years? Languish? What about conjoint degrees that take longer than 6 years? And what about increasing medical fees when we know that will lead to more Dr's leaving.
National have never been a friend to students, and this flawed policy being pushed by someone as grubby as the Joyce is merely a trojan horse for hard cut backs in education if they win 2011.
"What about conjoint degrees that take longer than 6 years? "
What conjoint degrees take longer than 6 years - none - unless you are a complete moron and should pay for it yourself.
"I also think robbing refugees of their ability to get educated is so near sighted and obviously flawed, what are they supposed to do for 2 years? Languish?"
Yes, someone from Somalia is going to step off the plane and get a BCom/LLB. Are you on crack?
Maybe it's actually better for them to spend a couple of years learning english and getting use to our education system so they can academically succeed but obviously to you this is a stupid idea.
To be honest getting a BA was the worst mistake I ever made. Sure it was interesting but was nothing you couldn't get from reading a book.
What conjoint degrees take longer than 6 years - none - unless you are a complete moron and should pay for it yourself.
There are many reasons why some people would take a year or two longer to do their conjoint, to write them off as morons and then claim they should 'pay for it themselves' - which is exactly what they do by the way - suggests that you have limited the acceptability of who should get education and who should not to some dubious moral level where 'morons' shouldn't get educational funding. In short I think your position is utter bullshit.
Yes, someone from Somalia is going to step off the plane and get a BCom/LLB. Are you on crack?
That's right - it should be based on an educational standard shouldn't it? If the refugee can educationally gain access then they should get the bloody loan shouldn't they? Why discriminate against educated refugees simply because they are refugees? If they don't have the educational requirements to gain access to a course, then they won't gain entry. Your argument is so flawed I'm surprised you attempted it.
To be honest getting a BA was the worst mistake I ever made. Sure it was interesting but was nothing you couldn't get from reading a book.
What a very sad thing for you anon, to have misspent your education and wasted it without gaining any real insight or wisdom.
"Yes, someone from Somalia is going to step off the plane and get a BCom/LLB. Are you on crack?"
This may come as news to you.....but many people from Somalia speak English. If their language is up to speed, whats the problem?
Refugees offer NZ so much, they create a more vibrant multi-cultural society and come here to start a new life,
Having refugees bring outside views and knowledge will help counteract the self-centered and ignorant view that too many kiwis hold on to.
I started work at 15 (well at 11 actually while still at school) students give me the shits - the sense of entitlement.
Good luck if you go to university but why you think you are so special and entitled to a free ride is beyond me.
My kid is a grad, and pretentious little prick with it at times, but the sacrifice(s) has worked out for the most part.
Trade apprentices’ work hard (yes they WORK) for years for next to nothing, the smart ones realise the early sacrifice will be worth it.
It is a choice people could always choose to be a plumber or hairdresser if they think it’s a better option.
"Good luck if you go to university but why you think you are so special and entitled to a free ride is beyond me."
You're just destroyed the basis of Bomber's entire ideology of limitless entitlement.
Nothing on red alert or the standard regarding student loan limitation.
One can only gathering from their silence that Labour are in agreement with National.
Question is why arn't you following up on this Bomber?
You seriously can't be that much of a labour asslick theat you're willing to ignore their complicity so grow some balls and question why they're agreeing with Key on this issue.
"Good luck if you go to university but why you think you are so special and entitled to a free ride is beyond me."
Good luck if you ever need a service from an educated person.....they're all overseas paying off/avoiding their loan.
Education is a necessity for society to function, you can think of it as a free ride or an entitlement, I'd rather consider it an investment in NZ's future
I'm so glad you brought that point up, our anonymous right wing angry education hating friends seem to miss this VERY simple point. Charging people more for their education will do what? Force them to push their fees higher in order to pay of their debt. Everytime you use a lawyer, a Dr, an engineer, an accountant etc etc etc, each time you use them you will be paying their student loan off.
The whine from the right is 'why should I pay for your eductaion' - now the right don't actually give a toss about this issue other than to privatize education further, but they use this line to attract blue collar negative egalitarianism. What's never explained is those educated who get charged more will in turn charge higher fees for their services to pay those loans off - so our blue collar comrade gets charged twice, through taxes and then again when they access those services.
"What's never explained is those educated who get charged more will in turn charge higher fees for their services to pay those loans off - so our blue collar comrade gets charged twice, through taxes and then again when they access those services."
As a lawyer if I get funded from the public purse or not is pretty much irrelevant. I will charge what the market will bear.
Why: cos I can.
As a lawyer if I get funded from the public purse or not is pretty much irrelevant. I will charge what the market will bear.
Why: cos I can.
As do plumbers, builders...etc.
Face it bomber, professionals/tradesmen charge what the market allows, student loan or no student loan.
Your argument is fallacious.
Looks like you lost this debate bomber.
Market dictates price, not student loans.
Try again.
Yes the market decides and when everyone in that market has a student loan, the fees go up - its so obvious I'm embarrassed for you that you haven't realized yet - I thought all you reactive right wingers were experts in capitalism?
This is the great fallacy of student loans, and it drives graduates off shore to pay the loans off, those who remain have to charge higher fees to cover their loans. The people who get screwed by it are the very blue collar workers you are desperately pretending to stand up for, they pay through their tax to subsidize the education and they pay again when they use the service of that professional.
The only people who win are the banks who entrap the next generation into a life cycle of debt. Yammering on about why the working class should help pay for student loans when the working class are paying up front and AGAIN when the loan repayments are included into those fees shows you are simply attempting to create populist dissent against students, it reminds me of what Fox News did with ACORN.
"The key goal for us in Refugee Services and for the Government is that refugees move to economic independence as quickly as possible and so any barrier that would hinder that we would see as a major concern."
ISN'T CITZENSHIP NEARLY $500?
HOW DO YOU LIVE OFF $150, THEN UP 5 TO $155 AND NOW $160?
Post a Comment
<< Home