“Justice has always been a human ideal, but it is not fully compatible with mercy. Creative imagination and spontaneity, splendid in themselves, cannot be fully reconciled with the need for planning, organization, careful and responsible calculation. Knowledge, the pursuit of truth—the noblest of aims—cannot be fully reconciled with the happiness or the freedom that men desire, for even if I know that I have some incurable disease this will not make me happier or freer. I must always choose: between peace and excitement, or knowledge and blissful ignorance. And so on.
So what is to be done to restrain the champions, sometimes very fanatical, of one or other of these values, each of whom tends to trample upon the rest, as the great tyrants of the twentieth century have trampled on the life, liberty, and human rights of millions because their eyes were fixed upon some ultimate golden future?
I am afraid I have no dramatic answer to offer: only that if these ultimate human values by which we live are to be pursued, then compromises, trade-offs, arrangements have to be made if the worst is not to happen. So much liberty for so much equality, so much individual self-expression for so much security, so much justice for so much compassion. My point is that some values clash: the ends pursued by human beings are all generated by our common nature, but their pursuit has to be to some degree controlled—liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I repeat, may not be fully compatible with each other, nor are liberty, equality, and fraternity.
So we must weigh and measure, bargain, compromise, and prevent the crushing of one form of life by its rivals. I know only too well that this is not a flag under which idealistic and enthusiastic young men and women may wish to march—it seems too tame, too reasonable, too bourgeois, it does not engage the generous emotions. But you must believe me, one cannot have everything one wants—not only in practice, but even in theory. The denial of this, the search for a single, overarching ideal because it is the one and only true one for humanity, invariably leads to coercion. And then to destruction, blood—eggs are broken, but the omelette is not in sight, there is only an infinite number of eggs, human lives, ready for the breaking. And in the end the passionate idealists forget the omelette, and just go on breaking eggs,” – Isaiah Berlin, “A Message to the 21st Century.”
"Evidence of Popper’s conservatism can be found in his opposition to radical change. His critique of utopian engineering at times seems to echo Edmund Burke’s critique of the French Revolution. Burke depicted the bloodletting of the Terror as an object lesson in the dangers of sweeping aside all institutions and traditions overnight and replacing them with an abstract and untested social blueprint. Also like Burke and other traditional conservatives, Popper emphasized the importance of tradition for ensuring order, stability and well-functioning institutions. People have an inherent need for regularity and thus predictability in their social environment, Popper argued, which tradition is crucial for providing. However, there are important differences between Popper’s and Burke’s understanding of tradition. Popper included Burke, as well as the influential 20th-century conservative Michael Oakeshott, in the camp of the “anti-rationalists.” This is because “their attitude is to accept tradition as something just given”; that is, they “accept tradition uncritically” (Conjectures and Refutations, 120, 122, Popper’s emphasis). Such an attitude treats the values, beliefs and practices of a particular tradition as “taboo.” Popper, in contrast, advocated a “critical attitude” toward tradition (Ibid., Popper’s emphasis). “We free ourselves from the taboo if we think about it, and if we ask ourselves whether we should accept it or reject” (Ibid.). Popper emphasized that a critical attitude does not require stepping outside of all traditions, something Popper denied was possible. Just as criticism in the sciences always targets particular theories and also always takes place from the standpoint of some theory, so to for social criticism with respect to tradition. Social criticism necessarily focuses on particular traditions and does so from the standpoint of a tradition. In fact, the critical attitude toward tradition is itself a tradition -- namely the scientific tradition -- that dates back to the ancient Greeks of the 5th and 6th century B.C.E."
Brat wrote that “capitalism is here to stay, and we need a church model that corresponds to that reality. . . . The church should rise up higher than Nietzsche could see and prove him wrong. We should love our neighbor so much that we actually believe in right and wrong and do something about it. If we all did the right thing and had the guts to spread the word, we would not need the government to backstop every action we take.”
"When conservatives grumble against government it is against government that seems to them to be imposed from outside, like the government of an occupying power. That was the kind of government that grew in Europe under communism, and which is growing again under the European Union—softer, gentler, perhaps, but also unaccountable. And it is easy to think that a similarly alien form of government is growing in America, as a result of the liberal policy of regimenting the American people according to moral beliefs that are to a certain measure alien, leading them to denounce government tout court. But this would be a mistake, not just about the fundamental human need for government, but also about the American situation as compared with Europe. And because it is a mistake that so many conservatives make, it is time to warn against it." That describes our condition. Of course, to say as much is not to undermine the complaint against modern government, which has become too intrusive, too determined to impose habits, opinions, and values that are alien to many citizens, and too eager to place obstacles in the way of free enterprise and free association. htyythghBut those effects are not the result of government. They are the result of the liberal mind-set, which is the mind-set of a substantial and powerful elite within the nation. The business of conservatives is to criticize the ones who are misusing government, and who seek to extend its remit beyond the limits that the rest of us spontaneously recognize. Conservatism should be a defense of government against its abuse by liberals.
Another study that demonstrates the role of Wall Street in the 07-08 collapse. This should put an end to the Republican/conservative narrative the it was Fannie and Freddie who caused the debt crisis--but, of course, it won't because, like the Global Warming issue, many of these people simply don't have the intellectual integrity to see the truth: http://www.amazon.com/House-Debt-Recession-Prevent-Happening/dp/022608194X?tag=vglnk-c53-20 http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/house-of-debt/371282/
"There are lots of other economic theories out there and they get no attention because we have this dogma about economics in America." David Cay Johnstonhttp://www.salon.com/2014/05/22/bloodiest_thing_the_world_has_seen_david_cay_johnston_on_inequalitys_looming_disaster/
Now that we seem to be in a moment when the discussion of inequality has gone mainstream, how optimistic are you that this is a problem we’ll actually start to fix in the near- or medium-term future?
We’re still living in the age of Reaganism; that has not come to an end yet. But we now have 33 years of empirical evidence that what Reagan promised didn’t work. If it did, if what Reagan and George W. Bush promised us worked, we would be swimming in jobs today. And we’re not. So I’m afraid, in the short run, what we’re going to see is an effort to shift the blame for this from failed policies to us. The “it’s the 47 percent who are takers” argument that Romney put forth, rather than looking at the structure and the rules that create and reinforce inequality. But this must come to an end and we have to get some changes and what’s missing are leaders who can articulate a new path. A smarter, growth-oriented path that will make us all better off. So Elizabeth Warren, who I’ve known for 25 years, Elizabeth Warren could be that person, but I don’t think she’s going to do it. She wants to focus on fixing what she knows. But we need someone, multiple people, to arise who understands the structure and nature of the problem and can then put it in terms that ordinary people understand before we get real change.
Some colleges use financial aid for many more purposes than helping poor students attend.Glen Cooper/Getty Images
DON'T MISS STORIES.FOLLOW VOX!
Most financial aid isn't really about helping students pay for college.
Instead, it's part of an elaborate strategy colleges use to attract the students they want, admit the students they need and encourage others to stay away.
Federal grants overwhelmingly go to poor students. But scholarships and grants offered by colleges themselves — which account for 19 percent of all financial aid—are all over the map. Private colleges pioneered grants and financial aid offers to boost rankings and attract the wealthy, but in an era of shrinking state budgets, public colleges are increasingly likely to play the same game. And that's only the beginning of what colleges don't mention about financial aid.
Whether you need financial aid could affect whether you get into college
George Washington University made headlines this year for lying about its need-aware admissions policies.Astrid Riecken/The Washington Post/Getty Images
This is especially true for students who are teetering on the edge of admission, who end up on a wait list, or who are trying to transfer. Admitting students without considering whether they can pay is considered the gold standard of college admissions. It's how things work for in-state students at public colleges, which tend to have lower tuition. But at private colleges, it's rare, and getting rarer: Of the 1,600 private nonprofit colleges in the U.S., few admit students without considering family income at all.
Transfer students, wait-listed students and international students are the most likely to have financial need considered at some point. This happens even at selective, wealthy universities with huge endowments. Brown University and Vanderbilt University, to name two, both consider transfer students' financial need in admissions decisions.
It might be common, but that doesn't mean it's popular. When George Washington University said last year it had lied about taking students' need into account in admissions, it caused an uproar.
Admissions officers say financial need is rarely the determining factor and is most likely to affect students who would just barely make it in otherwise. (At George Washington, admissions officers said only a few borderline students will be affected this year.)
A college that promises to meet a student's financial needs isn't promising a debt-free education
Instead, they're promising a financial aid "package" — including grants, which don't have to be paid back, and loans, which do — that covers the difference between the price of tuition and the family's expected contribution. Even if colleges meet their full need, students whose parents are paying for college could still be required to borrow up to $31,000 in federal loans over the course of a four-year degree.
Federal loans do have to be paid back, with interest. But they're considered financial aid because they're handed out without a credit check and at lower rates than students would pay a bank or credit-card company.
Federal loans are the largest share of financial aid: $101.5 billion annually, dwarfing the $32.3 billion in federal Pell grants, $44.4 billion in colleges' own grants and scholarships, and $9.7 billion in state grants handed out each year.
Many colleges, though, don't promise to meet a student's full financial need. Like admitting students without regard to their financial situation, it's a promise many can't afford to make. Students at those colleges are likely to have to borrow even more. .
‘Merit' aid isn't just for the smart kids
Say a college has $30,000 to give away in financial aid. It can either use that money cover the full price for one low-income student, or flatter five with $6,000 "scholarships" who can pay the rest themselves. The latter is much better for the college's bottom line.
That's a big, unspoken role for aid not based on financial needs: enticing students to attend one college rather than another. Sometimes those awards are true scholarships, given to students with impressive achievements or who have high grades and test scores that will help a college raise its academic profile and climb in the influential U.S. News & World Report rankings.
The University of Rochester was unusually candid in a 2011 blog post on the factors that go into its merit aid program. The biggest bonus was, essentially, for just showing up: Students who had "serious" conversations and filled out all their financial aid paperwork received thousands of dollars more.
Some recipients of merit aid are below average academically. One in 5 college students with combined SAT scores below 700 — out of a possible 1600 — received "merit" aid in 2007, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. So did more than one-quarter of students with SAT scores below 1000. And so did one in five students with below a C average in college.
Some of those awards might recognize talents in areas other than academics (athletic scholarships, for example, often go to athletes with relatively low SAT scores). But many are small scholarships meant to attract students who can afford to pay the rest, writes the New America Foundation's Stephen Burd, who has studied the growth of merit aid at the expense of need-based aid.
"In a lot of cases, they are trying to get full-pay students," Burd said, calling the practice "affirmative action for the rich."
The goal of a financial aid package might be to persuade you not to come
John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images
In the world of college admissions and aid, this is called an "admit-deny," an enrollment manager told The Atlantic in 2005: Let a student in, but offer a financial aid package so meager they'd be crazy to accept it. Colleges can leave a wide gulf between financial aid offers and the price of tuition — far too wide to be filled with federal loans alone.
Admitting students without offering them enough aid to meet their need is common: 55 percent of all colleges, and 65 percent of private colleges, said they do so, according to a survey of admissions directors. (Two-thirds said they thought it was an ethical practice.)
In some cases, colleges expect families to take out additional private loans. In other cases, they expect that the poor financial aid package will dissuade them from coming at all. The problem is that not all families get the message, and end up taking on tens of thousands of dollars of debt each year.
The federal government helps high-earning families pay for college too.
But don't look for it on a financial aid award letter. Pell Grants go overwhelmingly to poor students: Most recipients come from families making less than $40,000 per year. That's led to criticism that the government doesn't do enough to help middle-income families, who are also worried about affording college.
Middle-class and wealthy families, though, benefit from tax credits and deductions for tuition payments and student loan interest. (There's also a tax advantage for college savings.) Total tax credits and deductions for higher education expenses will add up to about $34 billion this year — slightly larger than the Pell Grant program. There is some overlap between the two programs: Some students receive both Pell Grants and tax credits, particularly the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which is refundable.
The average benefit from tax credits is smaller than the average Pell Grant: about $1,330 per recipient, compared with more than $3,000 per recipient on average for a Pell Grant. But wealthier families benefit more. Families making between $100,000 and $180,000 get the most annually, an average of almost $2,500 in tax benefits, according to the College Board.
How much you take out in loans might not be how much you pay back.
Citing bank bailouts, student protesters call for student debt cancelations. The Education Department does forgive some loans through income-based repayment. David McNew/Getty Images
Here's a form of after-the-fact financial aid that doesn't show up before students enroll. The Education Department's income-based student loan repayment programs remain something of a well-kept secret despite an intense outreach campaign.
Those programs, which are available only for federal student loans, base monthly payments on borrowers' incomes. Borrowers pay for up to 20 years (10 if they work at a nonprofit or government agency). Either they pay back the amount they borrowed plus interest, or the remaining balance is forgiven.
That means if borrowers take on a lot of debt, then can't find a job or go into a low-paying career, their monthly payments are lower than they'd be under a standard repayment plan. If they're doing well, they pay off their loans quickly. (There's no risk that they will pay back more than they owe.) If they continue to struggle, the loans will eventually be forgiven.
There are two general types of loans: federal loans and private loans. Federal loans are issued by the Education Department. Private loans come from banks. Federal loans have some protection that private loans don't, including more flexible repayment options and the possibility of eventual loan forgiveness. Neither kind is dischargeable in bankruptcy.
The Education Department makes the vast majority of student loans itself, directly to students, so they're called direct loans. Since 2013, interest rates have been based on the 10-year Treasury bond rate, so they fluctuate from year to year.
Students are limited in how much they can borrow in federal loans. Dependent students can borrow no more than $31,000 during their college careers in direct loans, and no more than $23,000 of that amount can be subsidized. Independent students are limited to $57,500 total.
Direct Subsidized Loans for undergraduates. These loans are offered based on financial need and don't accumulate interest while the borrower is enrolled in college. Interest rate for 2013-14: 3.86 percent.
Direct Unsubsidized Loans for undergraduates. These loans are available to undergraduates regardless of financial need, but interest accumulates while borrowers are in college, making the loan more expensive in the long run. Most subsidized loan borrowers also have unsubsidized loans. Interest rate for 2013-14: 3.86 percent.
Direct Unsubsidized Loans for graduate students. Same deal as for undergrads, but at a higher interest rate. For 2013-14: 5.41 percent. Graduate students can borrow up to $20,500 per year.
Direct PLUS loans. Graduate students and parents of undergraduate students can borrow up to the cost of attendance, which includes living expenses, at a higher interest rate. For 2013-14: 6.41 percent.
Perkins loans. These loans for undergraduates are based on financial need and are administered by colleges. Interest doesn't accumulate while borrowers are in school. Interest rate for 2013-14: 5 percent.
Instead, they're promising a financial aid "package" — including grants, which don't have to be paid back, and loans, which do — that covers the difference between the price of tuition and the family's expected contribution. Even if colleges meet their full need, students whose parents are paying for college could still be required to borrow up to $31,000 in federal loans over the course of a four-year degree.
