posted on March 3, 2005 05:49:11 PM new
Almost every day this White House goes back on what they promised its voters. Remember when our President said if reelected he would secure our borders. Remember when this White House said they were going to move quickly on the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. What this White House says and what it does are two different things.
I guess this White House doesn't respect American Citizenship very much if they continue to allow millions of non Americans in this country to provide cheap labor for industry.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Republican and Democratic lawmakers criticized President Bush Thursday for failing to hire enough agents to protect America's borders.
At a hearing of the House of Representatives subcommittee on immigration and border security, chairman John Hostettler noted that legislation passed by Congress last year authorized the addition of 10,000 new Border Patrol agents over the next five years.
"I was therefore deeply disappointed that his (Bush's) budget calls for an increase in Border Patrol agents of barely 10 percent of that called for by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act," the Indiana Republican said.
That legislation was based on the recommendations of the commission that investigated the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
Peter Gadiel, whose son was killed in the World Trade Center, said he and other family members of victims were shocked to read that Bush's budget proposal last month included funding for only 210 additional Border Patrol agents.
"We, who lost so much on that day, simply cannot understand why some in our government are still questioning the need for adequate resources, especially manpower, to control who is permitted to enter our country," Gadiel said.
The issue also came up on Wednesday at a hearing of a Senate subcommittee on homeland security, where Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, complained that not one additional agent would be posted to patrol the 4,000-mile-long border with Canada.
Agents tripled
Robert Bonner, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, acknowledged he could use more manpower, although the number of agents on the northern border had tripled since September 2001.
"We don't have enough agents; we don't have enough technology to give us the security we need. We need more agents and we need to do a smarter and a better job," he said.
At Thursday's hearing, Texas Democratic Rep. Solomon Ortiz said the southern border was under siege and there was a real possibility terrorists could exploit the holes.
"The Border Patrol will lose more than 210 agents to attrition -- the strength of the Border Patrol is dwindling," he said.
Just this week, Ortiz added, 24 agents were mobilized with the National Guard and sent to Iraq.
T.J. Bonner, a former border guard who chairs the labor union representing agents, said the Border Patrol stopped 1.2 million people last year trying to enter the country illegally.
"Front-line agents estimate that two to three times that number managed to slip by them," he said.
Bonner called the Bush budget proposal "shameful" and said morale in the force had never been lower.
posted on March 3, 2005 07:50:35 PM new
Bear, when you can't defend this White House you and others like you just blow a smoke screen. Its "shameful"
I would think a guy like you wouldn't want millions of illegals in the U.S. After all you are an all American kind of guy aren't you? But after thinking about it its guys like you that hire illegals for their cheap labor.
posted on March 4, 2005 05:04:48 AM new
Speaking of the budget, you've got to love the cut in education from a president who supposedly is all for strengthening education in this country.
Our borders are woefully protected. So much money has been poured into Iraq that there is nothing left to protect us here. Personally, I object to my hard earned tax money going over there. Yes, we're making life better for them. Yes, we're making life safer for them. But, what the hell about us? It is not safer here, nor if life getting any better here.
Bear
You are right about the White House. Now, there's protection.
But, we're just the little people. Should there be a threat here, all the top dogs will be wisked away to a safe place. After we're all gone, they can come up out of their hole and begin again. Only, who are they now going to govern? Oh, yes, the rest of the world.
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on March 4, 2005 01:38:32 PM new
Sorry Bear, I am only exposing to who ever reads this board the difference between what this White House says and what it really does. Your Right its too bad we all have to live with it. As far as I am concerned Kerry is history about ever becoming President. I am living in present day America and posting about what this White House says and does.
Now instead of BLOWING SMOKE. Tell us all what YOU think of the White House Budget for BORDER SECURITY. Maybe LindaK,Libra63,Yellowstone, and others would also like to give us their thoughts. We will all be watching for what they have to say regarding Border Security.
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on March 4, 2005 05:26:52 PM new
We certainly don't have enough time in each day to respond to the lies the left wishes to push as 'coming from the WH'. As I've said before the Presidents have always presented their budget suggestions to our Congress....who make the final decisions....not the WH nor the President.
And just to mention ONE incorrect/wrong statement peepa has made....President BUSH
has asked for $1.5 BILLION for including highschoolers in the NCLB program.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 5, 2005 10:26:03 AM new
Yes Linda this White House did submit this budget and its shameful Border Security part. What this White House says and what it really does is two very different things. Now you old fool you expect us to believe you don't have time HA HA HA. You really do need a better more truthful way of live and mind set.
posted on March 5, 2005 10:47:38 AM new
Linda K you forgot to mention that less middle class and poor kids will be able to go to College. Now that this White House has underfunded Pell grant and the no Child left behind programs. You like to throw figures around to confuse but forget Americans are paying more attention now and realize this White House is truly cutting not adding. Its like you need a 100 dollars worth of gas to get where you want to go. You buy only $50.00 dollars worth of gas. Yes you spent fifty bucks but it doesn't get you to where you want to go.
YES LINDA K, THERE REALLY IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THIS WHITE SAYS AND WHAT IT REALLY DOES.
posted on March 5, 2005 10:47:40 AM new
peepa - You're just a VERY sore loser who can't see the truth when it is put in your face.
I think you need to look into your OWN mirror to see who continues to distort and deny what's actually taking place in the real world.
Obviously you have a problem dealing with reality. And I DID give you the budget FACTS in the other thread. The fact that you choose NOT to look at them....doesn't make your lack of knowledge my problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 5, 2005 10:52:49 AM new
No, I didn't peepa. He's increasing the Pell Grants for the most needy. Putting the money where it will do the most good to the most needy.
He's stated he's proposed eliminating 150 line items that either haven't proved to be effective...or were duplicate Fed programs.
And besides don't you ever get tired of raging about the budget when last year he suggested 60-65 changes and only 4-5 were approved by the Congress? Maybe it would be more fruitful if you emailed/wrote your state senators/representatives since THEY'RE the ones who will be deciding what actually gets eliminated and what doesn't.
You're wasting all this HOT AIR for nil, imo, because the one you RANT at, over and over, ISN'T the one who makes the final decision.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 5, 2005 12:01:36 PM new
Linda It does not do any good to debate bigpeepa because he does not understand that all President Bush can do is suggest. Congress passes the bills.
Just wait. In a week or two gas will be going up to $2.50 a gallon and he will blame him for that instead of looking at the refineries that are going to increase their charges. He also doesn't look at the state where they impliment the gas tax. He just blames and blames but doesn't research.
I don't agree that the Canadian borders are not secure, but the mexican ones that is a different story. The mexicans will do anything, and I mean anything to cross that border and nothing short of death will stop them. Maybe we could build a wall like the great wall of china. Will bigpeepa like that?
I understand that 50 border crossings from Canada into the US now have the new computer generated thumb prints. Of course the data base will not pick up everyone but will pick up most.
posted on March 5, 2005 04:51:41 PM new
This is from a Christian newspaper. Think it says it all. Of course, if you just don't give a rat's ass about the poor, most of this won't interest you.
Bush's budget cuts would fall near Main Street
From fewer Head Start programs to outdated police gear, the proposed federal budget calls for spending cuts close to home.
By Ron Scherer | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
NEW YORK – Chief Joseph Estey in Hartford, Vt., won't be replacing the 15-year-old guns worn by his officers or buying new digital cameras for his police cruisers.
In New York, the Head Start program on the Upper West Side may have to start laying off staff members and eliminate the program for children with special needs.
In Seattle, the fire department, already constrained by a tight city budget, won't be getting federal funding to put more firefighters on each truck as it had hoped.
More than at any time in the four years of the Bush administration, Main Street will be feeling the impact of the federal budget if the president's spending plan is adopted.
From Altoona, Pa., where Amtrak stops, to the nation's congested airports, Americans could be looking at changes that will affect their everyday lives - everything from after-school programs to cotton harvests - as a result of bigger-than-normal cutbacks.
The Bush administration, for its part, argues that the reductions are needed to help keep the federal deficit - which, by its own estimate, will still hit a record $427 billion in fiscal 2005 - in check, while freeing up enough money to boost Pentagon spending and other select initiatives. Since almost 85 percent of the budget represents such items as interest on the debt, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the bulk of the cuts are coming in domestic programs.
The White House, of course, won't get all, or even many, of the cuts it wants, if history is any guide. Nonetheless, the proposed budget, as a starting point, is stirring concern in precinct houses and principals' offices across the country as another great lobbying war gears up over the nation's checkbook.
"If the cuts are put into place, the pain will be spread more broadly than in the past," says Stan Collender, an expert on the federal budget. "But I am sure they will not stand up."
In fact, many Americans would be right in feeling as if they were watching a television rerun. The president in past years has proposed budget cuts only to see Congress fund the programs anyway after intense pressure from groups facing the ax.
"This is a little like doing business in an Arab souk in Istanbul," says Bill Frenzel, a former Republican congressman, now at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "The President makes the first offer, they sip a little tea and make a counteroffer, then everyone goes for a walk before there are other counteroffers."
Yet this year is somewhat different because the president's economic advisers have warned him that the spiraling deficits may have ramifications for the US dollar and interest rates. "He's not really been tough about the budget, but now he is," says Mr. Frenzel. "Like Reagan in 1981, he's trying to get Congress to slow down the rate of increase."
Many of the 150 programs scheduled for elimination by the administration have been to the brink before. That's the case with Amtrak, which under the president's proposal would lose its $1.2 billion in subsidy.
In 2003, the Bush administration budgeted $521 million for Amtrak and, last year, increased that amount to $900 million, half of what the company requested. Congress increased the subsidy to $1.2 billion on both occasions.
For Altoona, Pa., a mountain town where many residents travel by train to Pittsburgh, the subsidy is watched closely."It [the budget proposal] is not going to do us any good," says Mark Geis, a city council member. "[We're] a train town."
Along the Northeast corridor, officials described worst-case scenarios. Acting Gov. Richard Codey of New Jersey warns that without rail transportation, he would have to add 600 miles of roadsto handle the extra traffic.
The nation's airports will also take a hit. The president is proposing to cut the Airport Improvement Program by $600 million dollars, reducing funding to $3 billion this year. That money goes to paying for expansions and infrastructure improvements at the nation's airports. In 2000, the Federal Aviation Administration estimated the nation needed to build 50 more miles of runways nationwide to prevent aviation gridlock.
The proposed budget also calls for a hike in airport security fee, from $2.50 to $5.50 on one-way tickets. If a flight has a layover, it jumps to $8.00 each way.
Some powerful groups will be making their presence felt in Washington. One of those is the farm lobby, which is facing a 5 percent cut which totals $5.7 billion over the next decade.
"Five percent in a big year wouldn't be much," says William Lovelady, a cotton farmer working 1,000 acres in Fabens, Texas, near El Paso. "But if you barely made it last year, a 5 percent reduction in subsidies could break you."
In fact, farm groups warn if the cuts are enacted there will be damage to crop plantings and rural real estate prices and rural unemployment would increase.
Arthur Ilse, the owner of Agri-Insurance in Hondo, Texas, understands that concept. "Anything cut or taken away from the farmers will have a trickledown effect, from the gas-station owners to the equipment dealers to the field hands," he says.
He also says when considering whether to grant a farmer a loan, banks factor in not only the income from the sale of their goods, but the amount of their government subsidies as well. "And if you go messing with subsidies, that could drive some farmers out of business."
Still, others warn that the cuts could imperil public safety. For example, the proposed budget would cut $1 billion from law enforcement. One potential casualty would be Edward Byrne grants which allow police departments to hire replacements for officers working on drug task forces. "I'm afraid a lot of those drug task forces will go out of business, and they are very effective," says Chief Estey, who is also president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Firefighters also warn that a 30 percent cut to the FIRE Act, which provides equipment, training, and staffing to local fire departments could harm public safety. In Seattle, for example, federal funds have provided protective "bunker gear."
"We need to maintain certain equipment and response levels," says Dennis Karl, executive secretary of the Seattle firefighters' union. "If that goes away it puts more strain on the men."
The tight budget may also take a toll on some family dinner tables.
About 300,000 working poor with children could be cut from the the food stamp program, according to Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities in Washington.
The program that provides heating assistance for low-income families during the winter would also be cut by $182 million to $2 billion even as heating costs rise.
"This is not the time to reduce assistance for families that already can't afford to heat their homes," says Ms. Dean.
• Staff writers Alexandra Marks in New York and Kris Axtman in Houston contributed to this report, as did Robert Tuttle in New York.
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on March 5, 2005 04:52:19 PM new
Bush's Budget Transforms the War on Poverty Into a War on the Poor
by Eric Garcetti
President Bush refers to himself as a wartime president, and he has shown resolve not to back down on the battlefield. But the budget he released this week waves a flag of surrender in another war, the 40-year "war on poverty."
The budget announces cuts of 28% — or $1.4 billion — from our arsenal of critical social programs. The largest and most vital to Los Angeles is the Community Development Block Grant. As more cities draw on poverty-fighting grants each year, Los Angeles' allocation has steadily decreased, from $88.6 million in 2003 to $82.7 million this year. Under the proposed cuts, our allocation would plummet by at least $15 million.
Alongside previously proposed cuts to Section 8 housing assistance, these reductions send a stark message to the country's poor, its elderly and its urban youth: You're no longer our problem.
In Los Angeles, these grants pay for after-school programs, home repairs for the elderly in blighted neighborhoods and intervention programs for youth on the brink of joining or already in gangs. They spur economic development projects and fund outreach to the homeless.
Now the president wants to cut these groups off from the prospects of economic recovery. That represents a radical departure from a nation's commitment to its most vulnerable citizens.
In the prosperous decades after World War II, the nation found too many Americans still without access to decent housing, education and economic opportunity. Later, from President Johnson's declaration of a war on poverty in 1964 to the expansion of federal anti-poverty programs under presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter, a national consensus emerged supporting the federal government's power and duty to alleviate disenfranchisement and powerlessness in our poorest urban and rural areas. Even President Reagan, a conservative hero, expanded block grants.
The programs Bush intends to cut enjoy bipartisan support in Congress: Conservatives often favor block grants, which allow local governments to set their own agenda to fight poverty. Federal officials have suggested that the cuts are intended to hold local governments "more accountable." The Department of Housing and Urban Development already conditions grants on oversight and meeting exacting standards.
Even more perverse, the president himself has called the country's attention to causes that his own budget abandons. His State of the Union address admirably underscored the fight against gang violence. But the organizations that struggle to do what Bush called "giving young people, especially young men in our cities, better options than apathy, or gangs, or jail" rely on block grant funds.
The president has also sworn to end homelessness in a decade, but block grants finance the city and county's homeless services and make up 20% of the city's Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
New ideas are welcome in the struggle against poverty. Fiscal discipline will be necessary to balance an overstretched budget. But this budget attempts neither. The war on poverty has suddenly become a war on the poor.
Eric Garcetti, who represents the 13th District on the Los Angeles City Council, chairs the city's Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee.
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on March 5, 2005 05:13:17 PM new
Yes, and the bush administration, and their supporters, also wants a "War" room for Social Security, wants to use "dynamite" on AARP members, and send dissenters to the front lines(wherever that is?) in Iraq.
Do you know they even said that AARP members were Un-American because they don't support the bush SS scam?
Yup, these people of AARP most of whom went through the war years, fought in wars and now their children (some of whom fought in wars)are in AARP, are called Un-American by the sleaze in Washington! You know, by bush, who was too drunk and afraid to fight in a war to defend his country!
They are a violent nasty breed of people those Republicans.
posted on March 5, 2005 06:01:14 PM new
cheryl - On your post about the educational cuts....doesn't this news surprise you at all?
[b]News from the
Committee on Education and the Workforce[/b]
John Boehner, Chairman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 7, 2005
CONTACTS: Josh Holly or
Dave Schnittger
Telephone: (202) 225-4527
States Returned More Than $66 Million in Unused Federal Education Funds to Treasury in 2004, Government Figures Show
WASHINGTON , D.C. – States collectively returned more than $66 million in unused federal education funds to the U.S. Treasury last year instead of spending it on students and schools, and they still have access to more than $6 billion in unused federal education funds dating back as far as the Clinton administration, official federal statistics show. Much of the returned money could have been used to implement federal laws such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The figures are among the highlights of an analysis of U.S. Department of Education data released today by the House Committee on Education & the Workforce, chaired by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH).
"As President Bush releases his budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year, it's only appropriate that we look back at how the money Congress has already appropriated has been used – or not used – over the past five years," said Boehner, who noted K-12 education funding will have increased by 51% since 2001 if the President's FY 2006 Budget is enacted.
Among the findings released today:
States collectively returned more than $66 million in unused federal education funds to the U.S. Treasury in 2004. Non-competitive "Formula" funds for initiatives such as Title I aid to disadvantaged students and IDEA accounted for approximately $42,199,680 of the returned funds.
"Discretionary" funds awarded to states, local school districts and schools on a competitive basis accounted for $24,049,951.
As of January 7, 2005, states collectively had access to more than $6 billion in unexpended federal education funds appropriated for their use in FYs 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. States had more than $325 million in unexpended funds originally appropriated under President Clinton (FYs 2000, 2001).
The total amount of federal education money unused by states is increasing, not decreasing. As of January 6, 2004, states had approximately $5.75 billion in unused federal education funds. As of last month, the total was $6.05 billion – an increase of more than $295 million.
# # # # #
Press Releases
http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press109/first/02feb/unspent020705.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 5, 2005 06:32 PM ]
posted on March 5, 2005 06:32:41 PM new
cheryl - On your post about the educational cuts....doesn't this news surprise you at all?
[b]News from the
Committee on Education and the Workforce[/b]
John Boehner, Chairman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 7, 2005
CONTACTS: Josh Holly or
Dave Schnittger
Telephone: (202) 225-4527
States Returned More Than $66 Million in Unused Federal Education Funds to Treasury in 2004, Government Figures Show
WASHINGTON , D.C. – States collectively returned more than $66 million in unused federal education funds to the U.S. Treasury last year instead of spending it on students and schools, and they still have access to more than $6 billion in unused federal education funds dating back as far as the Clinton administration, official federal statistics show. Much of the returned money could have been used to implement federal laws such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The figures are among the highlights of an analysis of U.S. Department of Education data released today by the House Committee on Education & the Workforce, chaired by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH).
"As President Bush releases his budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year, it's only appropriate that we look back at how the money Congress has already appropriated has been used – or not used – over the past five years," said Boehner, who noted K-12 education funding will have increased by 51% since 2001 if the President's FY 2006 Budget is enacted.
Among the findings released today:
States collectively returned more than $66 million in unused federal education funds to the U.S. Treasury in 2004. Non-competitive "Formula" funds for initiatives such as Title I aid to disadvantaged students and IDEA accounted for approximately $42,199,680 of the returned funds.
"Discretionary" funds awarded to states, local school districts and schools on a competitive basis accounted for $24,049,951.
As of January 7, 2005, states collectively had access to more than $6 billion in unexpended federal education funds appropriated for their use in FYs 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. States had more than $325 million in unexpended funds originally appropriated under President Clinton (FYs 2000, 2001).
The total amount of federal education money unused by states is increasing, not decreasing. As of January 6, 2004, states had approximately $5.75 billion in unused federal education funds. As of last month, the total was $6.05 billion – an increase of more than $295 million.
# # # # #
Press Releases
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
Wouldn't it make sense then to distibute these funds to the schools that need it? Take Cleveland for example. This district is millions in the hole as are a lot of districts in Ohio. What is done with this money that's returned? Does it go back into education? Somehow I doubt it.
Speaking of Ohio. We have the distinct pleasure of having a governor who has been named the worst governor in the country. Guess what folks? He's a republican.
Libra
It is about security. However, it was also about Bush's budget. Education is part of that budget. Think about it. The more educated we are, the securer we are. The security of this country will soon rely on our youth. I'd hate to think what will happen to a country that relies on a hoard of poorly educated youth.
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Mar 5, 2005 08:50 PM ]
posted on March 5, 2005 09:45:16 PM new
Well it will Cheryl if we get teachers that want to teach. The teachers are so protected by their union that they know they won't lose their jobs. Cutting the budget for No Child Left Behind does not mean the child will not learn. They will learn what they are taught.
_________________
posted on March 5, 2005 10:13:43 PM new
Linda K poor sick Linda K just posted another worn-out smoke screen. Cheryl's post lists a host of problems across this country. You find a tiny spot in her post to throw what you believe are confusing figures around to people you think are neophytes and will be impressed. That's right Linda K you only try to confuse people and cover for your own greed and your me and only me mind set. I find your type of person repulsive.
I am so glad that people on this board are concerned enough to become better informed as to what this White House is really doing. The poor and middle class are taking a beating. While with a lot of help from this White House the greedy self serving rich are getting richer and more powerful. I have nothing against wealth or compassionate wealthy people. I just don't like the greedy self-serving power grabbing rich.
Like I have said often before you don't have to believe Linda K or me. Personally I have much better things to do than lock horns with people like Linda K. Please, all I am asking is for you to take some time to find out for yourself what is really happening and believe yourself. Most of all middle class never forget where you came from and the efforts and sacrifices others have made for you. Be proud middle class, be proud and stand strong you are America's finest. You built this country don't let anyone take it away from you.
posted on March 5, 2005 10:26:58 PM new
Explain this statement bigpeepa
The poor and middle class are taking a beating You keep saying that but you never say why and I for one would like to know that.
What has this got to do with the NCLB? I think you need to look it up and read it completely to find out just what the NCLB act is really all about. It has nothing to do with funding education per-say. It is about testing to make sure our children get the education they are supposed to while in school.
posted on March 5, 2005 10:34:01 PM new
Here is the defination of a Pell Grant. You have to qualify for it no matter what income level you are.
This is for 2004-2005
Federal Pell Grants
What is a Federal Pell Grant?
Unlike a loan, it doesn’t have to be repaid. Generally, Pell Grants are awarded only to undergraduate students— those who haven’t earned a bachelor’s or graduate degree. In some limited cases, however, you might receive a Pell Grant if you’re enrolled in a postbaccalaureate teacher certificate program.
Pell Grants are usually a foundation of federal student aid, to which aid from other federal and nonfederal sources might be added. If you’re eligible for a Pell Grant, you’ll receive the full amount you qualify for.
How do I qualify?
We use a standard formula, established by Congress, to evaluate the information you report when you apply. The formula produces an EFC number. Your SAR contains this number, in the upper right portion of page 1. This number will determine if you’re eligible and how much you can receive.
How much money can I get?
The maximum Pell Grant for the 2004-2005 award year (July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005) is $4,050. How much you get will depend not only on your EFC but also on your cost of attendance, whether you’re a full-time or part-time student, and whether you attend school for a full academic year or less. You may receive only one Pell Grant in an award year, and you may not receive Pell Grant funds from more than one school at a time.
How will I be paid?
Your school can credit the Pell Grant funds to your school account, pay you directly (usually by check), or combine these methods. The school must tell you in writing how and when you’ll be paid and how much your Pell Grant will be. Schools must pay you at least once per term (semester, trimester, or quarter). Schools that don’t use formally defined, traditional terms must pay you at least twice per academic year.
Can I receive a Federal Pell Grant if I’m enrolled less than half time?
Yes, if you’re otherwise eligible. You won’t receive as much as if you were enrolled full time, however.
posted on March 5, 2005 10:50:35 PM new
bigpeepa said..
Most of all middle class never forget where you came from and the efforts and sacrifices others have made for you
I know where I came from. I am from a middle class family and my parents sacrificed for me and my two siblings. They made sure We were fed, clothed and went to school. They made sure we had the proper upbringing where we didn't depend on others for anything. We did the same for our daughter and I expect everyone else to do the same.
"Tell me who are others"
"I am tired of hearing someone owes me a living".
posted on March 6, 2005 04:33:55 AM newThe teachers are so protected by their union that they know they won't lose their jobs.
Libra this is so NOT true.
The district's money woes have led to more than 900 layoffs for Cleveland Teachers Union members and then a round of musical chairs to fill the gaps.
By the beginning of this school year, 400 of the district's approximately 4,100 teachers were reassigned to new schools. In November, 100 more teachers were transferred because of shifts in student enrollment, said Alan Seifullah, a district spokesman.
School officials had hoped to restore jobs and programs with money from a $68 million tax increase, but voters rejected the November issue. Now, officials say they must cut $28 million from the 2005-06 budget.
There are 32 students in Tiffany's first grade class and one teacher to teach them all. They are eliminating science and have already eliminated music and art due to the teach layoffs.
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on March 6, 2005 05:28:14 AM new
I agree Libra....getting bad teachers removed is like pulling teeth....VERY few are ever dismissed and the process of doing so is long and expensive to do.
Cheryl - The point of my link was to show there IS enough educational money if the states are sending back unused funds. It doesn't state which states are doing so...one could be Ohio for all we know. Mismanagement by the individual states would not surprise me one bit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
