Drew, you'll never be more than the shrill Shrew you are now. I guess you just like being part of the dregs of society. You, Limpwilly, and Quantass are triplets.
The only FACT that Drew the Shrew can prove id that he, Limpwilly and Quantass are sisters in crime.
Fritzwilly (a.k.a.Limpwilly) tried to show off in front of his girlfriends i.e. Quantass, Kirk the Jerk, Drew the Deadbeat Shrew, and Dahn the Fawn. The girlfriends, however, made a big mistake. They laughed at Limpwilly's best efforts. Splat! Quantass didn't blink fast enough! The girlfriends might kick Limpwilly out of the treehouse if he can't follow the rule. It's not hard (pun intended). There's only one rule. If you want to stiff another girlfriend. don't make a mess!
Drew is a barrier to any kind of success. We all know that and we can work to overcome that. It is the first step of many necessary for this message board to recover.
Then there is no solution for the problems that plague all persons who read the ESI message board.. At one time there was hope. However I am but one man trying to reform a bad message board. I can not do it alone. Quantass pollutes everything she touches.
Still no 7 credible reasons from Limpwilly (a.k.a. freetzwilly). I guess he's too busy LOLing his limpness.
Limpwilly vomits more garbage. Try again Limp. You're the weak link in the human race.
"poor Quantass"? Quantass is poor because he ain't real bright. He doesn't pay his bills and expects to go though life on a free ride. If he isn't homeless now, he soon will be.
Maybe the 5 girlfriends (Limpwilly, Dahn the Fawn, Drew the Deadbeat Shrew, Quantass, and Kirk the Jerk) will get some intelligence and buy ESI for the coming price spike?
No, probably not.
1) They have no money.
2) They ain't real bright.
3) They are headed for homelessness.
4) They are full of bitterness which clouds their judgement, and
5) As stupid as it sounds, they have a plan which, if successful, gains them nothing.
As I said, they ain't real bright.
Obama is encouraging loan recipients to claim they were misled by colleges. Guess who will pay.
Last month President Obama announced the creation of a “Student Aid Enforcement Unit” that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars and reduce access to career training in the U.S.
The Student Aid Enforcement Unit will greatly increase the use of two little-known Education Department regulations, first enacted in 1994. The “borrower defense” permits students to claim they owe nothing on their student loans because they enrolled based on a school’s misleading assertions about job-placement and graduation rates. The “closed school” regulation relieves students from their debt when a school they are attending shuts down. Federal education loans that are forgiven become liabilities of the government, i.e., the taxpayers.
The Education Department is working on another regulation to let it recoup the discharged loans from the schools in which the student was enrolled. But few schools—career, public or private not-for-profit—could afford massive discharges, so it is unlikely that taxpayers will ever in effect be reimbursed for the forgiven loans.
Certainly, the federal government has a responsibility to protect students from bad schools engaged in deceptive practices, especially since the federal government provides over $100 billion in loans each year to students enrolled in public, private and proprietary college and universities.
In the past, however, colleges found to have questionable practices have been forced to discontinue false advertising and required to establish policies and procedures that produce accurate and verifiable documentation on job-placement rates and postgraduation earnings. This was the procedure followed in 2013, when the Education Department’s inspector general found that Arkansas State University had made employment claims that could not be justified.
The expansion of the application of borrower-defense regulations—from a handful of cases over 20 years to potentially thousands annually—has opened the door for any students, from any institution, nonprofit or for-profit, to claim they were lured to the school by deceptive practices. As the new Student Aid Enforcement Unit (which adjudicates the claims based on state laws) overflows with claimants alleging unfulfilled promises of employment, postgraduate education or a rewarding career, taxpayers will be left holding the bag.
First, here's the conclusion: "To summarize, an Obama pal is the day-to-day boss of a department that succeeds in destroying 90% of the value of a politically targeted company. Then he leaves government, buys the company at a fire-sale price and announces that the problems that attracted so much negative government attention are ending—just in time for a new Administration that might not hate for-profit education as much as this one. Government mediation sure can be a lucrative business model."
Here's the article: "President Obama’s Department of Education has been waging a seven-year war against for-profit colleges. So it’s a lesson in the self-interested ways of the modern regulatory state to see a veteran of that war now seeking to profit from education.
Check out last week’s proposed sale of Apollo Education, parent company of the University of Phoenix. When Mr. Obama was preparing to take office in January 2009, Apollo stock hit a multiyear high above $78 per share. Seven years later, after Washington’s regulatory onslaught that favored nonprofits over for-profits in doling out federal subsidies, the shares had recently fallen below $7.
The University of Phoenix was once educating close to half a million students but last month reported an enrollment below 180,000. And with Apollo recently trading below book value, it might be a real bargain—especially for an investor betting that the next Administration might go easier on for-profit colleges. Now comes news that Apollo will be sold to several private equity firms. And coincidence of all coincidences, after the sale closes the company will be run by a former top official in the Obama education department, the same outfit that led the attack on Apollo.
"Last year Tracey Flaherty, senior vice president of retirement strategies at Natixis Global Asset Management, was conducting yearly research on participation in retirement plans when a statistic caught her attention. Her research showed that one in four Americans--and one in three millennials--were not contributing to their company-sponsored retirement fund. The reason? They were using that money to pay down their student loans instead.
In December the company introduced a program in which it pays $5,000 toward employees' student loans once they work at the company for five years. They can receive an additional $1,000 annually for up to five years. In September, PwC (No. 53 on this year's 100 Best Companies to Work For list) announced that it will begin contributing $1,200 a year to its associates' student loans. That could happen if Congress passes the Employer Participation in Student Loan Assistance Act. Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) introduced the bill in the House in October, and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced its companion in the Senate.
The House bill seeks to extend the tax exclusion that currently applies to employer-provided tuition assistance--up to $5,250 per year--to include employer contributions to employees' student loans. It also provides incentives to employers to subsidize student-loan repayments.
"It's a win-win all around," Davis tells Fortune. And it seems as though members of both parties feel that way. The legislation, which is now in committee, has 20 co-sponsors--nine Democrats and 11 Republicans. Davis said the eight four-year colleges and universities in his district motivated him to introduce the measures, as did his daughter, who attends Illinois State University. She's facing the same questions as so many other college students, Davis says--how much is college going to cost, and how are you going to pay for it?"