T1B

BSmack wrote: I am also in favor of reducing the size of industry deemed "too big to fail"

Mace wrote:Maybe I should check with KC Scott and then get back with you. :)

Mace wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:There were no other options than to go this route you fucking "know-it-all." None.

I've skimmed through this thread, AP, and maybe haven't read it closely enough, but why do you not qualify for a Direct Student Loan? Have you filled out a FAFSA? My son has student loans and my wife also has a PLUS loan to help with the $18,000 annual cost of a college education at the Univ. of Iowa. To my knowledge, everyone is eligible for the loans, minus a few exceptions that have already been mentioned in this thread, and all you have to do is fill out the FAFSA and wait to see how much you can get. If you've already done this and don't qualify for a loan, then so be it, but I find that to be very unusual. Of course, I don't know all of your personal information either. Maybe I should check with KC Scott and then get back with you. :)

BSmack wrote:

Mace wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:There were no other options than to go this route you fucking "know-it-all." None.

I've skimmed through this thread, AP, and maybe haven't read it closely enough, but why do you not qualify for a Direct Student Loan? Have you filled out a FAFSA? My son has student loans and my wife also has a PLUS loan to help with the $18,000 annual cost of a college education at the Univ. of Iowa. To my knowledge, everyone is eligible for the loans, minus a few exceptions that have already been mentioned in this thread, and all you have to do is fill out the FAFSA and wait to see how much you can get. If you've already done this and don't qualify for a loan, then so be it, but I find that to be very unusual. Of course, I don't know all of your personal information either. Maybe I should check with KC Scott and then get back with you. :)

My guess is that he used up all his loan eligibility while playing beach volleyball with Tom Cruise and tending to the needs of Barrry Swtzer's locker room.

SunCoastSooner wrote:AP doesn't have that much dope and guns does he?

88 wrote:You see, that is how it works BSmack. If you are a U.S. Senator or a member of the House, you get to vote "Yes" or "No". A one-word answer.

88 wrote:

BSmack wrote:Now what does any of this have to do with the contravention of original intent that is the inability to discharge student loans via bankruptcy?

The tie-in is the new Obama proposal (listen for it tonight) to the Democrat-controlled Congress to make all student lending come directly from the U.S. Government. No private loans at all. Maybe you ought to call your buddies and ask them to allow those government loans to be dischargable in bankruptcy (for the good of the nation and all). More bailouts?

SunCoastSooner wrote:

BSmack wrote:My guess is that he used up all his loan eligibility while playing beach volleyball with Tom Cruise and tending to the needs of Barrry Swtzer's locker room.

AP doesn't have that much dope and guns does he?

trev wrote:I've checked into this and a nursing education in California costs about $3800. That is total for everything including books. Pay it off ya dork.

Atomic Punk wrote:
BTW, I'm on the I-10 heading to South Florida to hook up with SunCoastSooner. I wanna see what a $950K house looks like over there. Hey, I went to OU for 2 years, and have lived in Pensacola, so he must have it all figured out. An OU grad that lives in Redneck, FL living in a $950k house. Marty, where is that "Niger and Please" pic?

Atomic Punk wrote:I didn't do the FAFSA thingy so my bad. Everyone here knows my past going from the lowest to getting it back and starting over.

I'm going to pay this off and will work double shifts to accelerate the process. Just throwing out the "What if?" to the peeps on this board that are actually educated and have clear understanding of my initial statement.

Atomic Punk wrote:

trev wrote:I've checked into this and a nursing education in California costs about $3800. That is total for everything including books. Pay it off ya dork.

Wow! What type of crack are you on? Jump out of this miss trev. $3800? Or are you talking about a CNA?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Compared with Monday, the measure won 58 additional votes -- 26 more Republicans and 32 more Democrats. After initially rejecting the bill by a 2-to-1 margin, House Republicans mustered 91 yes votes on the second try, while 172 Democrats supported passage. Voting no were 108 Republicans and 63 Democrats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01108.html

And it was signed by a Republican President and swiftly enacted by a Republican Secretary of the Treasury and benefited one of the most traditionally Republican constituencies in the Republic. Seriously 88, just STFU while you're behind.

Good job kicking your own ass, you stupid fucktard. Your link shows the measure was opposed by a majority of Republicans and supported by majority of Democrats with an able assist from Oneeger.

Sen. Barack Obama's outspoken support for the package proved critical. The influence of the Democratic presidential nominee, who spent the week dialing no voters, was cited by five vote-switching freshmen as a key motivator. Obama was particularly successful in persuading members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which was deeply divided Monday. Yesterday, 13 black caucus members switched to vote for the measure.

"What helped me is Barack Obama, who called and said 'We really do have to do this,' " said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.),

88 wrote:The only thing that BSmack "gets" is the fucked up notion that government should use force to take money from some of its citizens so that it can redistribute some of it to those citizens who, for small payments and a life of poverty, will vote to keep that government in power.

trev wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:

trev wrote:I've checked into this and a nursing education in California costs about $3800. That is total for everything including books. Pay it off ya dork.

Wow! What type of crack are you on? Jump out of this miss trev. $3800? Or are you talking about a CNA?

I am totally serious. $3800 for an RN degree. (Associates). If you paid $3800 for a CNA cert. you are really really really dumb and got taken. A CNA course is about 9 weeks and $300- $400. If you paid more than $3800 for the RN degree you also got taken. Big time. But good luck anyway.

trev wrote:I already stated what it is in my hood. I don't know about your hood. But AP is in my state. I know what college here costs and I know what it takes to get a nursing degree. I feel bad that AP is owing all this money. Bad choice.

Can't We At Least Get a Toaster?
by Ann Coulter
01/27/2010


In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle last week ("The other Boston Massacre"), President Obama adopted a populist mantle, claiming he was going to "fight" Wall Street. It was either that or win another Nobel Peace Prize.

Now the only question is which Goldman Sachs crony he'll put in charge of this task.

If Obama plans to hold Wall Street accountable for its own bad decisions, it will be a first for the Democrats.


For the past two decades, Democrats have specialized in insulating financial giants from the consequences of their own high-risk bets. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs alone have been rescued from their risky bets by unwitting taxpayers four times in the last 15 years.

Bankers get all the profits, glory and bonuses when their flimflam bets pay off, but the taxpayers foot the bill when Wall Street firms' bets go bad on -- to name just three examples -- Mexican bonds (1995), Thai, Indonesian and South Korean bonds (1997), and Russian bonds (1998).

As Peter Schweizer writes in his magnificent book Architects of Ruin: "Wall Street is a very far cry from the arena of freewheeling capitalism most people recall from their history books." With their reverse-Midas touch, the execrable baby boom generation turned Wall Street into what Schweizer dubs "risk-free Clintonian state capitalism."

Apropos of the Clintonian No-Responsibility Era, Goldman Sachs and Citibank became heavily invested in Mexican bonds after a two-day bender in Tijuana in the early '90s. Any half-wit could see that "investing" in the dog track would be safer than investing in a corrupt Third World government controlled by drug lords.

But precisely because the bonds were so risky, bankers made money hand-over-fist on the scheme -- at least until Mexico defaulted.

With Mexico unable to pay the $25 billion it owed the big financial houses, Clinton's White House decided the banks shouldn't be on the hook for their own bad bets.

Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, former chairman of Goldman, demanded that the U.S. bail out Mexico to save his friends at Goldman. He said a failure to bail out Mexico would affect "everyone," by which I take it he meant "everyone in my building."

Larry Summers, currently Obama's National Economic Council director, warned that a failure to rescue Mexico would lead to another Great Depression. (Ironically, Summers' current position in the Obama administration is "Great Depression czar.")

Republicans in Congress said "no" to Clinton's Welfare-for-Wall-Street plan.

It's not as if this hadn't happened before: In 1981, Reagan allowed Mexico to default on tens of billions of dollars in debt -- Mexico claimed the money was "in my other pair of pants" -- leaving Wall Street to deal with its own bad bets.

As Larry Summers expected, this led like night into day to the Great Depression we experienced during the Reagan years ... Wait, that never happened.

At congressional hearings on Clinton's proposed Mexico bailout a decade later, Republicans Larry Kudlow, Bill Seidman and Steve Forbes all denounced the plan to save Goldman Sachs via a Mexican bailout.

So the Clinton administration did an end run around the Republicans in Congress and rescued improvident Wall Street bankers by giving Mexico a $20 billion line of credit directly from the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund.

Relieved of any responsibility for their losing bets, Wall Street firms leapt into buying other shaky foreign bonds. Soon the U.S. taxpayer, through the International Monetary Fund, was propping up bonds out of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, then Russia -- all to save Goldman Sachs.

The IMF could have saved itself a lot of paperwork by just sending taxpayer money directly to Goldman, but I think they're saving that for Obama's second term.

Throughout every bailout, congressional Republicans were screaming from the rooftops that this wasn't capitalism. It was "Government Sachs." As Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) put it, the same rules that apply to welfare mothers "ought to apply to rich Greenwich, Conn., investors who are multimillionaires."

But Wall Street raised a lot of money for the Democrats, so Clinton bailed them out, over and over again.

Before you knew it, once-respectable Wall Street institutions were buying investment products even more ludicrous than Mexican bonds: They were buying the mortgages of Mexican strawberry-pickers.

Why shouldn't Wall Street trust in suicidal loans no sane person would ever imagine could be paid back? Time after time, when their bets paid off, they pocketed huge fees; when their bets failed, they sent the bill to the taxpayers.

With nothing to fear, the big financial houses bought, repackaged and resold investment products that included loans like the one issued by Washington Mutual to non-English-speaking strawberry pickers earning a combined $14,000 a year to purchase a $720,000 house.

But the financial wizards on Wall Street were trading these preposterous loans as if they were bars of gold. They may as well have bet the entire U.S. economy on a dice game in an alley off 44th Street.

Every mortgage-backed security bundle was infected with suicidal, politically correct loans that had been demanded by community organizers such as Barack Obama -- as is thoroughly documented in Schweizer's book.

On the off chance that mammoth mortgages to people who could barely afford food somehow went bad, Wall Street firms could be confident that their Democrat friends would bail them out.

Even the Republicans would have to bail them out this time: They had strapped the dynamite of toxic loans onto the entire economy and were threatening to pull the clip. Wall Street had infected every financial institution in the country, including completely innocent banks.

But now Obama says he's going to "fight" Wall Street, which is as plausible as claiming he'll "fight" the trial lawyers.

As Schweizer demonstrates, whenever the Democrats "regulate" Wall Street, the innocent pay through the nose, while Wall Street swine lower than drug dealers and pornographers end up with multimillion-dollar bonuses so they can run for governor of New Jersey and fund lavish Democratic fundraisers in the Hamptons.

Republicans should respond the way they always have: Support the free market, not looters and welfare recipients on Wall Street, especially the Democrats' friends at Goldman.

Atomic Punk wrote:Sign me up for whatever 88 just posted. ATI NCLEX only $400? Are you fucking high? I'll take that fee right now! trev, my darling... what are you high on? Do you actually work? You 9 to 5'ers don't know what work is. Monday thru Friday and you assholes are broke also. Amazing what bullshit is posted here and not stomped upon.

trev wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:Sign me up for whatever 88 just posted. ATI NCLEX only $400? Are you fucking high? I'll take that fee right now! trev, my darling... what are you high on? Do you actually work? You 9 to 5'ers don't know what work is. Monday thru Friday and you assholes are broke also. Amazing what bullshit is posted here and not stomped upon.

It's right there babe. Bsmack put up a link to Fresno City College who has an RN program for about $3600. A typical cost for every community college in California. As I stated. The fact that you went elsewhere and are now in hock up to your granny panties is sad. You want to come on here and smack me? As a matter of fact, it would have cost since you even less since California has just recently raised the fees for all colleges.

That's 3,600 per SEMESTER.

ppanther wrote:

That's 3,600 per SEMESTER.

It's not even close to 3,600 per SEMESTER unless you're figuring in housing expenses. And then it might still not be 3,600, as it is Fresno.

BSmack wrote:

ppanther wrote:

That's 3,600 per SEMESTER.

It's not even close to 3,600 per SEMESTER unless you're figuring in housing expenses. And then it might still not be 3,600, as it is Fresno.

http://www.fresnocitycollege.edu/index.aspx?page=1434

I don't see housing broken out in that list of expenses.

ppanther wrote:

BSmack wrote:http://www.fresnocitycollege.edu/index.aspx?page=1434

I don't see housing broken out in that list of expenses.

"Current Students » International Students"

Did AP relocate abroad and return to attend Fresno CC?

Residents pay $20/unit, if that.

Goober McTuber wrote:http://www.fresnocitycollege.edu/index.aspx?page=606

Looks like 4 x $902. Around $3600 for 4 semesters. Point to the drunken hausfrau.

Brian, where did you get the $300 figure?

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:http://www.fresnocitycollege.edu/index.aspx?page=606

Looks like 4 x $902. Around $3600 for 4 semesters. Point to the drunken hausfrau.

Brian, where did you get the $300 figure?

A wayward google.

BTW: The drunken housefrau is not calculating books nor testing and licensing expenses. It's real easy to spend 300-500 a semester if you're pulling a full 15 credit load. And I'm sure the testing and licensing fees are not paid by the state. I'm sure I'm missing some other hidden costs as well.

•The 4-year BSN is the preferred entry-level nursing program by most nursing leaders because it provides the best opportunities in today's job market. If you look in the classifieds, you'll find that a BSN is a requirement for many positions. It is the entry point for professional nursing practice.

•The 2-year Associate Degree focuses more on technical skills than theory and is often a stepping stone to the BSN. It allows a student to become a registered nurse and earn money more quickly than a 4-year BSN program, so it works better for many students. It is the entry-level nursing degree for technical nursing practice. Find a 2-year associate's program.


A master's in nursing degree provides you with the background, skills and advanced training to deliver high-quality nursing care in a specialized area, such as advanced clinical training or research.

Nurses who graduate with an MSN are called Advanced Practice Nurses (APNs). These nurses deliver health care services that were previously delivered by physicians, and they typically focus on one of four advanced practice areas:

•Nurse Practitioner (NP)
•Certified Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA)
•Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS)
•Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM)

trev wrote:

Good one.

http://www.fresnocitycollege.edu/index.aspx?page=606