Wouldn't the actual expenditures more accurately represent the monies spent than projections?
I Said This (To Get Elected), But of Course; Am Doing This!
- Thread starter Emperor
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Wouldn't the actual expenditures more accurately represent the monies spent than projections?
Wrong, not everybody gets TOPS, they have to maintain certain GPA and also meet a certain level on the ACT. There are also higher tier levels in the TOPS program, a lot of students bust their ass to meet those goals.
And allot don't. I personally have know many people that were given 2nd 3rd and 4th chances with their GPA. I have also know children of wealthy families awarded TOPS when their parents are driving luxury cars and living in 5,000 square foot house. Like I said the fat had needed to be trimmed for a long time. I didn't say every single student didn't deserve. But the whole program is full of holes. That's a fact.
And I didn't say everyone gets tops. Learn to read jack a$$.
Tops was an award based scholarship for students that stayed in state, and met certain requirements. I don't understand why you would say that the more fortunate families shouldn't receive the scholarship? So if I maintain my lifestyle, my child can't get a scholarship on his own merit due to MY income? Also, it's not like financial aid in which my child probably will not qualify for. So now a double whammy to keep my child from affording a decent education.
Unfortunately for those of us that are fortunate enough to make a decent living for ourselves end up paying the most for just about everything. The top 15% of the nation pays the majority of the taxes. And the bottom act like they pay taxes yet get receive the majority if not more back in a "tax refund".
I'm not anywhere near the "bottom" smart ass. And if it's a scholarship that's funded by tax dollars then it should go to extreme cases of performance and willingness to do great things. Not just a person who lives in state with a 4.0 in high school. There is nothing about that I should help pay for.
Vote for Bernie Sanders if that's the way yall feel about TOPS.
I never said you were near the bottom. I was referencing how similar it would be to not award students for working hard as to not awarding adults for their efforts also. Im not rich, but I do not like the redistribution of wealth... It's an endless cycle that will de-motivate people
Don't assume things so quickly and start with the name calling. I have zero idea of your financial status nor do I care. I was just stating how I felt in opposition to how you stated that the fortunate families shouldn't be awarded tops. I received tops out of high school, along with an academic scholarship, and my father was well off. But guess what? He didn't contribute a dime towards my tuition, and I still managed to rack up 100k in student loans. But that was then. I worked hard to pay it off. And I'm glad I had the tops Bc I probably couldn't qualify for all the loans I had to take out if tops and my tuition didn't take a portion out of what I needed
Last edited:
I'm happy things worked out for you. But I'm of the opinion that a scholarship granted to person from a university for academic or athletic performance is different than assistance provided from tax dollars. And yes I think that if you're parents had the means to pay for it then you shouldn't have received any assistance. And I don't mean any disrespect by that.
I guess lately with the presidential campaign and our governor I'm more agitated at what people say than normal. It's raining bull$hit these days.
My thoughts....regardless of family income, if the student earned the GPA and the ACT score, give them money for higher education. That's no brainier, cheap insurance for EVERYBODY that pays taxes on all sorts of levels.
It means that kid will get a good paying job and be a productive, contributing member of society earning an income which will be part of the future tax base....hopefully, within this state.
I would rather pay for four years of education than a lifetime of welfare....either way, both get passed down to future generations.
It means that kid will get a good paying job and be a productive, contributing member of society earning an income which will be part of the future tax base....hopefully, within this state.
I would rather pay for four years of education than a lifetime of welfare....either way, both get passed down to future generations.
Wait so the argument is "if you can pay for it, you don't have the same options as others"
So what determines if you can afford it?
Kid 1 makes the grade to attend LSU, his parents are middle income. They refuse to foot the bill. Doesn't qualify for aid.
Kid 2 makes the grade to attend Tulane, his parents are low income. Qualifies for aid.
Kid 2 gets to go to Tulane and Kid 1 gets to go to community college... huh?
What I have found when people bitch about being "fair" they mostly advocate for ideas that are very deliberately designed to be unfair.
So what determines if you can afford it?
Kid 1 makes the grade to attend LSU, his parents are middle income. They refuse to foot the bill. Doesn't qualify for aid.
Kid 2 makes the grade to attend Tulane, his parents are low income. Qualifies for aid.
Kid 2 gets to go to Tulane and Kid 1 gets to go to community college... huh?
What I have found when people bitch about being "fair" they mostly advocate for ideas that are very deliberately designed to be unfair.
^^^^^ The government's biggest, legalized discrimination ever conceived.
This also means that if you can afford it, you can also afford to pay for somebody else that can't afford it!
Aaaaarrrrggghhhhh!!!!!
Gets me fired up!
Last edited:
I know right.
You hit it out the park! This is how an why TOPS was formed. It was based on GPA and ACT scores. Income had no part. It's an investment the tax payer makes to get educated citizens to join the workforce and in turn improve the economy.
How come nobody ever mentions trade school? The world needs welders, plumbers and electricians. I think it is better for a guy to go to trade school for a couple of years and learn a trade than to go to college and graduate with $100,000 in student loans.
That's right. Not when it comes to tax dollars. If you're a fan of it then vote for Bernie. What he wants is basically TOPS for everyone.
I love how this is playing out. A prime example of "bias opinion this effects me or someone I know so this part is ok".
What are Bernie's qualifications, grade wise, for free college? Next to nothing?
Instead of TOPS we can let kids pay for their own education, leave the state pursuing better jobs, and never return due to the states failing economy or we can let them enter the workforce now and support them through more government handouts.
Instead of TOPS we can let kids pay for their own education, leave the state pursuing better jobs, and never return due to the states failing economy or we can let them enter the workforce now and support them through more government handouts.
Members online
- Martman300
- lashooter68
- Scully
- Arbiterk
- WhereIsIt?
- MrNorm60
- Matthewk1114
- Bigchillin83
- miscverb
- Easyt
- stinkysix
- cjt0311
- Savgun
- Mitch Dufour
- GunRelated
- k0k0m0
- L Vizinat
- D joiner
- 70mikenike70
- Ranslem9849
- gino70085
- Akajun
- usmc-nav
- Markrobichaux
- N4sir
- Gator 45/70
- 89944_S2
- SwampyDog
- mforsta
- Logan807
- davidd
- SMR412
- kz45
- larryp44
- Bam Bam
- cbecnel
- Finfish
- apso1857
- mikelee
- theway109
- HogHunter1203
- Nboazman1
- jerme
- critta
- tekkaman_tnt
- LA_Huntsman
- La26
- bryanbag
- Renegade
- CatCam
