[FloareTraurne]

I haven't seen any threads on this yet, so I'll go ahead and start one.

I'm not a fan of our current president, but when he does something right for us, I give him kudos for it. And this is such a case:

At Georgia’s Fort Stewart on Friday, President Obama signed an executive order to help protect military families and veterans from aggressive and deceptive recruiting by higher education institutions — especially for-profit colleges — seeking their military benefits.

The executive order will require colleges to provide more information about their student outcomes and financial aid, create a centralized complaint system and direct the Veterans Administration to trademark the term “G.I. Bill” to make it harder for colleges to create Web sites resembling official government sites or falsely suggest that they offer special access to veterans’ benefits.

“I’ve heard the stories,” the president said. “They harass you into making a quick decision with all those calls and e-mails. And if they can’t get you online, they show up on post. One of the worst examples of this is a college recruiter who had the nerve to visit a barracks at Camp Lejeune and enroll Marines with brain injuries — just for the money. These Marines had injuries so severe some of them couldn’t recall what courses the recruiter had signed them up for.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/ed...ecruiters.html

[sasaderesada]

"One of the worst examples of this is a college recruiter who had the nerve to visit a barracks at Camp Lejeune and enroll Marines with brain injuries — just for the money. These Marines had injuries so severe some of them couldn’t recall what courses the recruiter had signed them up for.”

^^That assclown should be thrown in jail. I have never heard of something that fucked up.

[discountviagraman]

I'm sure even Adolph Hitler appeared to have his good moments to the "Independent" voters of his day.

[furillo]

"One of the worst examples of this is a college recruiter who had the nerve to visit a barracks at Camp Lejeune and enroll Marines with brain injuries — just for the money. These Marines had injuries so severe some of them couldn’t recall what courses the recruiter had signed them up for.”

^^That assclown should be thrown in jail. I have never heard of something that fucked up.

I know. Douchebags like that are unbelievable. The only schools who protested this legislation were probably the ones abusing the system. If you're doing the right thing and not screwing people over, there's no reason you would be upset about a hotline to report GI Bill abuse.

[UHlVExs7]

More bureaucratic red tape... sounds about right.

The president's actions were likely more condescending faff than altruistic concern.
Ignorant, dim-witted GIs must be protected from evil banks, nasty recruiters, bullies on the playground stealing lunch money.
In his eyes, the military is little more than a million Downs afflicted men with guns.

His contempt for the military is transparent. He's an embarrassment to Americans everywhere.

[incizarry]

I'm sure even Adolph Hitler appeared to have his good moments to the "Independent" voters of his day.

A broken clock is correct twice a day. I don't want it hanging on my wall, though.

[PypeDeft]

More bureaucratic red tape... sounds about right.

The president's actions were likely more condescending faff than altruistic concern.
Ignorant, dim-witted GIs must be protected from evil banks, nasty recruiters, bullies on the playground stealing lunch money.
In his eyes, the military is little more than a million Downs afflicted men with guns.

His contempt for the military is transparent. He's an embarrassment to Americans everywhere.

Who in this story has more contempt for the military; the guy selling a product of dubious value to actual brain-damaged veterans, or the guy who wants the salesman to be more honest?

[pouslytut]

Interesting article but disrespectful title thread for our POTUS. You know better than that Marine.

[Karinochka]

More bureaucratic red tape... sounds about right.

The president's actions were likely more condescending faff than altruistic concern.
Ignorant, dim-witted GIs must be protected from evil banks, nasty recruiters, bullies on the playground stealing lunch money.
In his eyes, the military is little more than a million Downs afflicted men with guns.

His contempt for the military is transparent. He's an embarrassment to Americans everywhere.

Well, besides the fact the Marines in the article were LITERALLY brain damaged... you're a genius!

But no, GOD FORBID we regulate schools from screwing over vulnerable service members. Heck, if the GOP is going to declare corporations "people" with Constitutional rights... why not for-profit schools too?

Interesting article but disrespectful title thread for our POTUS. You know better than that Marine.

Don't make me call my boy Obeezy!!!

[Kvkcgktl]

A lot of bureaucratic intervention here, I'm not sure I like the approach, as I predict this will have a lot of unforeseen negative consequences that may make things worse rather than better (and likely more expensive) in the long run. Without more specific details of the EO, I wonder if this is a good plan, especially one not being vetted through Congress.

What I have been noticing is we're seeing quite a few "Executive Orders" surfacing as of late. One that targets a specific voting demographic (illegal aliens) and then another targeting another (veterans). I think we'll probably see some more between now and November. I do think election year politics is more than a little bit of a factor here.

Another consideration here is I think we're seeing a lot of hyperbole about the nature of the "problem". If Obama wants to tackle a problem that tends to screw over a lot of servicemembers, he'd be the first to attack loan agencies offering car loans with overblown interest rates. I've never heard in 15 years of smoke deck gossip complaints of predatory collegiate institutions suckering in servicemembers, and I've utilized benefits for both my graduate and undergraduate studies myself also.

Maybe well-intended, not necessarily well-executed, I guess I'll just wait and see.

[DouseAuthott]

A lot of bureaucratic intervention here, I'm not sure I like the approach, as I predict this will have a lot of unforeseen negative consequences that may make things worse rather than better (and likely more expensive) in the long run. Without more specific details of the EO, I wonder if this is a good plan, especially one not being vetted through Congress.

What I have been noticing is we're seeing quite a few "Executive Orders" surfacing as of late. One that targets a specific voting demographic (illegal aliens) and then another targeting another (veterans). I think we'll probably see some more between now and November. I do think election year politics is more than a little bit of a factor here.

Another consideration here is I think we're seeing a lot of hyperbole about the nature of the "problem". If Obama wants to tackle a problem that tends to screw over a lot of servicemembers, he'd be the first to attack loan agencies offering car loans with overblown interest rates. I've never heard in 15 years of smoke deck gossip complaints of predatory collegiate institutions suckering in servicemembers, and I've utilized benefits for both my graduate and undergraduate studies myself also.

Maybe well-intended, not necessarily well-executed, I guess I'll just wait and see.

1) What "red tape" would this produce? Schools already have all this information, now they'll just be required to provide it upon request.

2) Just using your GI Bill requires the school to stay on top of their own paperwork. If your benefits are delayed, but you did everything right, and the VA did everything right, but it was the school's financial aid department that screwed up, why SHOULDN'T they be held accountable?

3) As of now, there's no "complaint department" that I'm aware of for the GI Bill. If the school took your benefits money, but fail to provide the quality of service promised - why not hold them accountable?

4) You're right that there are a lot of unscrupulous companies that exploit military folks and veterans. But unlike, say, loan sharks, this is an actual government benefit that gets wasted - hence why this would be a high priority to keep accountability for.

[highattainlet]

1) What "red tape" would this produce? Schools already have all this information, now they'll just be required to provide it upon request.

2) Just using your GI Bill requires the school to stay on top of their own paperwork. If your benefits are delayed, but you did everything right, and the VA did everything right, but it was the school's financial aid department that screwed up, why SHOULDN'T they be held accountable?

3) As of now, there's no "complaint department" that I'm aware of for the GI Bill. If the school took your benefits money, but fail to provide the quality of service promised - why not hold them accountable?

4) You're right that there are a lot of unscrupulous companies that exploit military folks and veterans. But unlike, say, loan sharks, this is an actual government benefit that gets wasted - hence why this would be a high priority to keep accountability for.

I buy into the whole concept of the government ensuring it gets a valid return on its investment, no arguments here. The complaints system makes sense, no concerns there either. What is rather dubious is the timing, the level of necessity, and the "specifics" of the EO, which seems to have come out of nowhere.

The devil in the details is my biggest concern, and that 90/10 business quite frankly concerns me even moreso. I somehow doubt the for-profit institutions playing the system is an endemic, but if it is I would bet a month's paycheck you'll see quite a few tuition rates jump quite a bit to compensate for becoming "compliant" should there be significant problems.

Again, this thing, kind of like our little "indefinite detention" insertion in the last NDAA, seemed to pop up out of nowhere, no one has really vetted this thing and I have concerns that this little change will have some unintended consequences that are hidden behind smoke and mirrors.

[cokLoolioli]

1) Its a widespread problem in our whole higher education system, its "endemic" in the sense that Americans pay much more for college than pretty much anywhere else in the world (over a trillion dollars in American student debt) - its a deeply flawed system that needs a serious overhaul, but for now just ensuring the veterans are getting "bang for their buck" is a start. I actually wouldn't mind seeing this taken a step further and requiring all schools with students taking federal OR state aid be held accountable for how that money is spent.

2) As for tuition rates rising, to take a page from TJMAC's book, that's hyperbole (). Unless the "detail" can be cited showing why adhering to this law would cost more, I'm not losing any sleep over it. And even if true, Veterans are a tiny portion of the student population, its highly improbable that this would cause a hike in tuition. Also bear in mind that for-profit schools have already shown a willingness to lose profit from tuition to take in veterans. Why does the Yellow Ribbon Program exist? Is it because these schools have a big old soft spot for the vets? AWWWW, I JUST LOVE THE TROOPS SO MUCH *BIG HUG* - nope. Its a business decision. Its worth cutting a GI Bill student a good deal because he has a reliable income, courtesy of Uncle Sam, there's minimal risk of him dropping out from running out of money like a civilian. It's better to charge 10 people $4 a semester and 9 of them graduate, than to charge 10 people $6, but only 3 graduate. No doubt many of them are mad that now the Federal Government will be holding them accountable, but vets are still a gold mine worth exploiting, even if it requires a bit more caution.

3) Devil in the details... well, that's a legitimate concern for ANY new legislation. If I see a detail that's troubling, I'll show concern then. But opposing a bill just because there might be an unspecified detail somewhere that I don't like, well, that's not a particularly strong case against it.

[Snweyuag]

3) Devil in the details... well, that's a legitimate concern for ANY new legislation. If I see a detail that's troubling, I'll show concern then. But opposing a bill just because there might be an unspecified detail somewhere that I don't like, well, that's not a particularly strong case against it.

The point is, it's not a bill, it's an Executive Order, and from what I can tell, it's one that has the potential to massively exacerbate the very problems you just described.

Look at it this way, for-profit colleges are probably the closest things to "small businesses" in the world of academia. Massive universitities with over 30,000 students annually can probably afford to be a bit more "bloated" in the way they adminster their operations because they've got a pretty massive backing from the government and established reputations already and may have little difficulty being compliant with this 90/10 regulation just from the massive number of students paying tuition.

The for-profit institutions have a compulsion to be a bit "leaner" because it is necessary for survival in a competitive market (academia is extremely competitive, in case anyone hasn't noticed.)

What you read in the article seems very much like a surface description to me. It may in fact be no more complex then a complaints mechanism and simple enforcement mechanism, my gut tells me otherwise.

But back to the issue of being an Executive Order, has this concept even been floated into Congress? Some of these elements seem to be pretty common sense stuff, why automatically assume it would get lost in the process? When it's attached to an EO, it goes into the books as something the President has done, something self-serving. What about the specific details formulated in this EO are so controversial that it cannot be run through the legislative process? This is why I am skeptical, I don't even necessarily oppose some of the conceptual details, but the lack of appropriate vetting is a massive concern for me.

[Kokomoxcvcv]

Bobo is desperate. I hope he finds a nice home in Chicago. Maybe his snake cos can help. He was a bad experiment. But at least America got the Negro monkey off it's back. I go out drinking with a few scots and aussies and they're always sortof shocked America voted for a black.

And they always wind up saying what a bad idea it was just to get the monkey off your back. I can't disagree.

[JonDopl]

The point is, it's not a bill, it's an Executive Order, and from what I can tell, it's one that has the potential to massively exacerbate the very problems you just described.

Look at it this way, for-profit colleges are probably the closest things to "small businesses" in the world of academia. Massive universitities with over 30,000 students annually can probably afford to be a bit more "bloated" in the way they adminster their operations because they've got a pretty massive backing from the government and established reputations already and may have little difficulty being compliant with this 90/10 regulation just from the massive number of students paying tuition.

The for-profit institutions have a compulsion to be a bit "leaner" because it is necessary for survival in a competitive market (academia is extremely competitive, in case anyone hasn't noticed.)

What you read in the article seems very much like a surface description to me. It may in fact be no more complex then a complaints mechanism and simple enforcement mechanism, my gut tells me otherwise.

But back to the issue of being an Executive Order, has this concept even been floated into Congress? Some of these elements seem to be pretty common sense stuff, why automatically assume it would get lost in the process? When it's attached to an EO, it goes into the books as something the President has done, something self-serving. What about the specific details formulated in this EO are so controversial that it cannot be run through the legislative process? This is why I am skeptical, I don't even necessarily oppose some of the conceptual details, but the lack of appropriate vetting is a massive concern for me.

1) Well again, if there's a problem this somehow exaberates, I would like to know what that is before I worry about it. You're right that right now all we have is an on the surface description, but the aims and goals of the thing seem pretty solid.

2) Whether or not a school is for-profit has nothing to do with size. A school can be for-profit and have hundreds of thousands of students across the country. Even a small one raking in 20 million in revenue a year would hardly be a "small business". Any kind of college isn't going to be a Mom and Pop's bar 'n' grill, its still a large organization with the possibility of waste and corruption.

3) Why he made it an EO instead of floating it to Congress -well it is a pertinent issue affecting millions of veterans, and if we take the argument of him serving as "commander in chief" to its logical conclusion, he does have an indirect responsibility to ensure to the best of his ability that his "command" doesn't get screwed over after separation. Though you're right this is no doubt self serving - but we can say that about almost anything any politician does.

Bobo is desperate. I hope he finds a nice home in Chicago. Maybe his snake cos can help. He was a bad experiment. But at least America got the Negro monkey off it's back. I go out drinking with a few scots and aussies and they're always sortof shocked America voted for a black.

And they always wind up saying what a bad idea it was just to get the monkey off your back. I can't disagree.

Wow, and I got banned for calling someone a "moron"!!!

[Lerpenoaneway]

1) Well again, if there's a problem this somehow exaberates, I would like to know what that is before I worry about it. You're right that right now all we have is an on the surface description, but the aims and goals of the thing seem pretty solid.

2) Whether or not a school is for-profit has nothing to do with size. A school can be for-profit and have hundreds of thousands of students across the country. Even a small one raking in 20 million in revenue a year would hardly be a "small business". Any kind of college isn't going to be a Mom and Pop's bar 'n' grill, its still a large organization with the possibility of waste and corruption.

3) Why he made it an EO instead of floating it to Congress -well it is a pertinent issue affecting millions of veterans, and if we take the argument of him serving as "commander in chief" to its logical conclusion, he does have an indirect responsibility to ensure to the best of his ability that his "command" doesn't get screwed over after separation. Though you're right this is no doubt self serving - but we can say that about almost anything any politician does.

The closest thing to small business, not necessarily a one-to-one match.

I'm not saying (and haven't been) that this whole proposal in principle is 100% positive or negative. With the combination of the elements involved, lack of urgency, lack of vetting, convenience of timing, etc. It brings one to wonder what we're not being told here.

The concept of tuition rates rising for institutions currently non-compliant being forcibly made compliant is fairly straightforward when we apply common sense to it. If an institution has to adjust its recruiting practices to meet certain wickets there is a potential for it to lose customers, so if it should wish to remain profitable it's best recourse is to raise the revenue it receives from existing customers, quite a few ways to skin the cat but it never looks pretty in the end. Most organizations don't deliberately opt towards failing

Again though, the combination of political elements involved and timing really should raise suspicion here, I grant you it's 100% possible I'm being overly cynical, but when it looks and smells like excrement, I don't automatically assume roses will grow from it.

[Colorostikse]

Naw, Bobo is done. Make all the faux accusations you like, he's a abject failure. He's an embarassment to Americans everywhere.

Here's a little gem for the Bobo nut-snugglers:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...t5JF2E4YrZcDZJ

Despite his ass-kissing, Arabs still hate Obama.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age1711315/pg1

Worst President Ever.

[mazabotman]

You have a problem with English? Perhaps you might prefer Kenyan?

[Cgnebksb]

Wow, and I got banned for calling someone a "moron"!!!

I refer to this as one of those instances we can choose not to engage!