Saturday, April 2, 2011

Attention Laurier Brant Students: Don't Vote for Phil

Phil McColeman has gone on record saying that he opposes giving grants to post-secondary students because it "could make some students ineligible for other loans and grants".

Let me get this straight. Phil opposes giving students money because then they won't be poor enough to qualify for high-interest loans. Of course, with education grants those students won't need said loans. Phil's reasoning makes perfect sense: it's better to keep students in debt instead of giving them tuition money up-front. Right.

8 comments:

Tobias said...

I can see why he might not want to give students money without responsibility because who knows what they'll spend it on but he doesnt have any better ideas

mauser98 said...

McColeman is the best MP Brant ever had. good riddance to the Trudeau luvin' St.Almand

Political Informant said...

how about instead of giving the students better loans or more scholarships, the government pays the whole tuition bill, like in France, then the students are left to deal with how they pay for their living expenses. And if they have to incur student loans to do that, it's up to them to deal with those issues.

fordian said...

Trudeau hasn't been in politics for over a quarter-century, dummy.

Food for thought: Derek Blackburn; Jane Stewart; Lloyd St. Amand; Phil McColeman. Which one of these things is not like the others?

Anonymous said...

I bet Phil was a real Party Machine when he was college age.

Anonymous said...

How about the inherent contradiction between your words, "giving them tuition up front", and using RESPs as delivery mechanisms? How about those that aren't fortunate enough to have parents who can pay for their education? REALLY, "fordian"?! You want to disqualify students from qualifying for grants (look up the definition of GRANT) and loans to pay for their education? I'm assuming you went to university, therefore I'm assuming you know that tuition and living costs are far and above what this "learning passport" provides. Not only that, but you are getting rid of the tax credit for textbooks. Again, I'm assuming that you went to university. Again, I'm assuming you know that students can easily spend upwards of $800 on textbooks.

Sorry, "fordian", maybe you better get your own party's policy straight. Oh wait, dear Leader couldn't even do that. Looks like you are just as confused as he is...

fordian said...

"My own party's policy" -- No, I was just pointing out how Phil will say anything as a partisan jab, even when it makes no sense. Let me clarify.

If, as you suggest, tuition expenses are still way above the proposed "learning passport", then students will still qualify for loans. Duh. In that case, Phil's concern is simply unfounded.

On the other hand, let us consider the students at the threshold between tuition loans and not becoming indebted. The "learning passport" may allow them to pay for tuition up-front, and not take on debt. Phil McColeman would criticize the "learning passport" as making that student not qualify for a loan. But that's because the student no longer NEEDS a loan!

To sum up: If the "learning passport" is not sufficient to cover a student's expenses, then that student will still qualify for a loan. That makes Phil's concern baseless. If on the other hand the "learning passport" does mean that the student doesn't need to take out loans, then Phil's concern is ridiculous because it's better to pay up-front than to take on debt.

Does this make sense? I hope so.

Sean said...

Until the poor have an equal opportunity to attain a post-secondary education, don't expect politicians to fight for their rights.

Post a Comment

All comments will be posted except for instances of profanity, spam, hate speech, defamation, etc.