If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   U.S. Department of Education drops the terms "mother" and "father" from its student aid forms. To be replaced by "MILF" and "Baby Daddy" most likely   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 118
    More: Stupid, U.S. Department of Education, financial aids, secretary of education, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, marital status  
•       •       •

3693 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 May 2013 at 9:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-11 07:55:27 AM
Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?
 
2013-05-11 08:42:58 AM
What about "Sugar Daddy?"

/We're important too!
 
2013-05-11 08:52:07 AM
I'm ok with this.
 
2013-05-11 09:10:41 AM

LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?


Be fair, now. Subby was perusing The Washington Times when he/she submitted this, which in itself demonstrates a fairly high level of stupidity. But to his or her credit, the headline contains no glaring errors or typos, and even the "its" is used correctly. Which is to say that there may still be some hope for subby. We need to be encouraging, here, not harsh.
 
2013-05-11 09:31:47 AM
Which parent will successfully earn the prize that is the Parent 1 slot? What shame will come to the runner-up and occupant of the Parent 2 line?
 
2013-05-11 09:37:49 AM
How is this stupid? A federal agency is recognizing non-traditional marriages as valid. If anything, I see this helping movements such as gay marriage.
 
2013-05-11 09:38:00 AM
www.turnoffyourtv.com
 
2013-05-11 09:39:22 AM

Krieghund: I'm ok with this.


lh3.ggpht.com
/me too
 
2013-05-11 09:40:47 AM
BTW, my last comment was the first thing I thought of based solely on the headline; DNRTA.  I have no problem with non-traditional marriages being recognized by a federal institution.
 
2013-05-11 09:43:00 AM
Makes sense to. Several of my students have single parent households, a few have same-sex couples as parents, and others are with grandparents, not to mention step-parents or foster families for many. Assuming the heterosexual, nuclear family structure is a stagnant view for educators or those involved in education policy.
 
2013-05-11 09:43:43 AM

aevorea: If anything, I see this helping movements such as gay marriage.


Um, that is exactly what the poutrage is about.
 
2013-05-11 09:44:26 AM
wait. when did it switch to XML?
 
2013-05-11 09:44:46 AM

zabdorff: BTW, my last comment was the first thing I thought of based solely on the headline; DNRTA.  I have no problem with non-traditional marriages being recognized by a federal institution.


But isn't that hostile to traditional marriage?  You know, because the two sides are 'support traditional marriage' and 'support gay marriage'. You can't do both.
 
2013-05-11 09:44:53 AM
Hopefully no one will get shot for teaching anyone's kids this is okay.
 
2013-05-11 09:44:59 AM
If you think about it this is probably going to "hurt" more kids in a non-traditional family than it helps.  If you have two income earners in that household it wont matter if its mom and dad or mom and mom's special friend, both are going to count against you getting some of that sweet, sweet student loan money.
 
2013-05-11 09:45:49 AM
I feel bad for you, Subby. The Washington Times is something normal people avoid. It's really only read by cult members.
 
2013-05-11 09:46:17 AM
Yeah, I loved that 'no help for you because your father has a lot of money' policy. Unfortunately there is no 'Yeah but he's a selfish dickhole and I'd still like to have a life someday' clause.
 
2013-05-11 09:46:29 AM
It's probably going to cost billions of dollars to re-print all of those forms.

/creatin' jerbz
 
2013-05-11 09:46:44 AM

Fizpez: If you think about it this is probably going to "hurt" more kids in a non-traditional family than it helps.  If you have two income earners in that household it wont matter if its mom and dad or mom and mom's special friend, both are going to count against you getting some of that sweet, sweet student loan money.


undo this gay marriage immediately! give me back my pell grant!
 
2013-05-11 09:47:43 AM

MNguy: It's probably going to cost billions of dollars to re-print all of those forms.

/creatin' jerbz


xml just update the dtd.
 
2013-05-11 09:49:32 AM
What about "Gold-digger" and "Walking Wallet"? :)
 
2013-05-11 09:50:03 AM

Fizpez: If you think about it this is probably going to "hurt" more kids in a non-traditional family than it helps.  If you have two income earners in that household it wont matter if its mom and dad or mom and mom's special friend, both are going to count against you getting some of that sweet, sweet student loan money.


Only in states where gay marriage is legal, otherwise they will just put one parent on the form.
 
2013-05-11 09:51:03 AM

A simple change is made to a form because it wasn't flexible enough.


shut

DOWN

EVERYTHING
 
2013-05-11 09:51:23 AM
Should women even be signing forms?
 
2013-05-11 09:52:53 AM
Heh. This is more about Ed catching more 'household' income in their calculation for grants and federal aid than it is recognizing non-traditional households, that's just a side benefit.

/Bitter with the system
//Have to submit verification that this year, I am still an over 24 independent student
///Because apparently the fact that I was a 39 year old independent student last year wasn't enough
 
2013-05-11 09:53:56 AM
...but they're still requiring some kind of parents' information even though some students really just don't have parents. I have to assume this is intentional since this is such an obvious problem, do they (whoever made the regulation, or law) really want 18-year-olds to have no chance at college if they recently had a family disaster?
 
2013-05-11 09:54:41 AM

Abox: Should women even be signing forms?


gotta make those sammich's SOMEHOW.
 
2013-05-11 09:55:00 AM
as if most high school graduates can read.
 
2013-05-11 09:55:27 AM
Many Islands, Low Fares
 
2013-05-11 09:58:09 AM

utah dude: Abox: Should women even be signing forms?

gotta make those sammich's SOMEHOW.


Just go iron my shirt batch!
 
2013-05-11 09:59:08 AM
Yo subby! Ever been to a school open house or PTA meeting? The last one I attended, there were zero, I mean ZERO MILFs in that bunch!
 
2013-05-11 10:00:02 AM
I'd think that even the readership of the Moonie Times would look at this and say "So?  Why am I supposed to be offended by this?"

But if you're reading the Moonie Times, you're probably inclined to think that anything coming out of the Fartbongo Administration is meant to establish Sharia law and force your kids to gay marry a blah person and then put you in front of a death panel.
 
2013-05-11 10:00:11 AM

utah dude: Fizpez: If you think about it this is probably going to "hurt" more kids in a non-traditional family than it helps.  If you have two income earners in that household it wont matter if its mom and dad or mom and mom's special friend, both are going to count against you getting some of that sweet, sweet student loan money.

undo this gay marriage immediately! give me back my pell grant!


Yes .. a liberal changes that cuts government spending. Will be an interesting call for conservatives.
 
2013-05-11 10:00:26 AM

FARK rebel soldier: ...but they're still requiring some kind of parents' information even though some students really just don't have parents. I have to assume this is intentional since this is such an obvious problem, do they (whoever made the regulation, or law) really want 18-year-olds to have no chance at college if they recently had a family disaster?


If the parents are dead, they don't have any income to count against the kid, do they?

And there's always the emancipated minor option for parents who are complete dickholes.

But yeah, as far as this form change?  Should have happened years ago.  Stupid tag is for subby.
 
2013-05-11 10:06:18 AM
Damn, i was SO hoping to interpret this as a whisper of things to come WRT marriage equality at the Federal level, but year, "better idea of household income" is probably at least as valid as a reason for the change.
 
2013-05-11 10:07:16 AM
It's simpler just to have the space marked "Parent(s)."

But we've got to have the outrage over "ZOMG! TEH GHEYS!!1!"
 
2013-05-11 10:07:39 AM
How about "Enabler" and "Passive-Agressive Guilt Machine"?
 
2013-05-11 10:15:03 AM

jamspoon: Yes .. a liberal changes that cuts government spending. Will be an interesting call for conservatives.


i swear i'm bi-political at this point - i'm attracted to both parties... please tell me there's a word/party/aaffiliation for that?!?!
 
2013-05-11 10:15:07 AM
content9.flixster.com
Where's the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in the box?
 
2013-05-11 10:18:05 AM
Progress is not always denoted by the deconstruction of that which you are trying to help progress.  Sometimes you're just breaking sh*t to accommodate those whom you have failed and have no motivations to aspire to anything more.
 
2013-05-11 10:19:41 AM

utah dude: jamspoon: Yes .. a liberal changes that cuts government spending. Will be an interesting call for conservatives.

i swear i'm bi-political at this point - i'm attracted to both parties... please tell me there's a word/party/aaffiliation for that?!?!


I feel this pain.
Is there a "real person" party?

/someday...
 
2013-05-11 10:20:59 AM

utah dude: jamspoon: Yes .. a liberal changes that cuts government spending. Will be an interesting call for conservatives.

i swear i'm bi-political at this point - i'm attracted to both parties... please tell me there's a word/party/aaffiliation for that?!?!


What in the Hell do you find attractive about the Republican party?  Their hatred of women, gays, and minorities?  Their Christian dominionist agenda?  Their tendency to explode debt and drive us into recession whenever they take control, and them do everything in their power to hamper economic recovery when they are out of power?
 
2013-05-11 10:24:09 AM

bunner: Progress is not always denoted by the deconstruction of that which you are trying to help progress.  Sometimes you're just breaking sh*t to accommodate those whom you have failed and have no motivations to aspire to anything more.


That philosophy degree is really paying off for you, I have no idea what the hell you just said. And I'm a lawyer. Hat tip!
 
2013-05-11 10:24:34 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: What in the Hell do you find attractive about the Republican party?  Their hatred of women, gays, and minorities?  Their Christian dominionist agenda?  Their tendency to explode debt and drive us into recession whenever they take control, and them do everything in their power to hamper economic recovery when they are out of power?


no those are the things i HATE about the republican party, dawg. i LIKE THE 'REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING'... agenda they half-push.
 
2013-05-11 10:28:14 AM

LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?


The government buys/prints forms in mass (even if the GPO does it, it costs money and gets charged by the GPO to the government agency getting the printing done). Wonder how many old forms are being trashed and what the cost of the new ones are? Yeah, stupid.
 
2013-05-11 10:29:25 AM

utah dude: LouDobbsAwaaaay: What in the Hell do you find attractive about the Republican party?  Their hatred of women, gays, and minorities?  Their Christian dominionist agenda?  Their tendency to explode debt and drive us into recession whenever they take control, and them do everything in their power to hamper economic recovery when they are out of power?

no those are the things i HATE about the republican party, dawg. i LIKE THE 'REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING'... agenda they half-push.


Yeah, that's unfortunately something to which they only pay lip service. They just want the government spending spent on things OTHER THAN human services and mass transit, basically
 
2013-05-11 10:32:43 AM
Our school district has been parent/guardian for as long as we've been here.
 
2013-05-11 10:34:36 AM
Feel the butthurt flow through you, young fundie.
 
2013-05-11 10:37:51 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

The government buys/prints forms in mass (even if the GPO does it, it costs money and gets charged by the GPO to the government agency getting the printing done). Wonder how many old forms are being trashed and what the cost of the new ones are? Yeah, stupid.


How do you know they are not just buying the new ones going forward? How do YOU know how many are being "trashed"?
 
2013-05-11 10:38:05 AM
The Moonie TImes?  No.
 
2013-05-11 10:38:35 AM

zabdorff: BTW, my last comment was the first thing I thought of based solely on the headline; DNRTA.  I have no problem with non-traditional marriages being recognized by a federal institution.


I don't either. There are, however, other criteria (such as the printing cost of the change). Seriously, choice of words on a form are critical to gay marriage being recognized? Seriously? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most monogamous gay couples have a "husband-wife" personality dynamic? The ones I've known have all had.

If you just have to, print an errata stub sheet to go with the form.

Printing costs are a sore point with me. Some years ago I did some accounting work for a local municipality. There was a very minor proof error (i-e transpo on one word) on an internal form they wanted 1,000,000 copies of, and the department in question shredded the 1,000,000.copies and had the entire run reprinted. I saw the bill for the new print job. Not pretty. Your tax dollars at work.
 
2013-05-11 10:39:50 AM

ravenlore: Yeah, that's unfortunately something to which they only pay lip service. They just want the government spending spent on things OTHER THAN human services and mass transit, basically


so... Libertarian-ism? Constitutionalism? what-to-do ?
 
2013-05-11 10:40:06 AM

utah dude: no those are the things i HATE about the republican party, dawg. i LIKE THE 'REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING'... agenda they half-push.


Describe the REDUCED GOVERMENT SPENDING agenda they pushed, half or otherwise, during the Bush administration.

/"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney
 
2013-05-11 10:41:39 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no those are the things i HATE about the republican party, dawg. i LIKE THE 'REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING'... agenda they half-push.

Describe the REDUCED GOVERMENT SPENDING agenda they pushed, half or otherwise, during the Bush administration.

/"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney


no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.
 
2013-05-11 10:41:52 AM

Abox: zabdorff: BTW, my last comment was the first thing I thought of based solely on the headline; DNRTA.  I have no problem with non-traditional marriages being recognized by a federal institution.

But isn't that hostile to traditional marriage?  You know, because the two sides are 'support traditional marriage' and 'support gay marriage'. You can't do both.


I support extra spicy marriages with ranch sauce.
 
2013-05-11 10:42:47 AM
The farking Moonies are defending "traditional marriage?"  The Onion couldn't make this shiat up.
 
2013-05-11 10:45:26 AM

utah dude: ravenlore: Yeah, that's unfortunately something to which they only pay lip service. They just want the government spending spent on things OTHER THAN human services and mass transit, basically

so... Libertarian-ism? Constitutionalism? what-to-do ?


Well, if you self-identify as Libertarian, you're going to get lumped in with Republicans or worse...

I dunno, man. i seriously don't. I happen to be a libby-libby-libtard. While I don't exactly share your quandary, i DO get where you're coming from. And I don't have an easy answer for you :-(
 
2013-05-11 10:47:12 AM

Vangor: Makes sense to. Several of my students have single parent households, a few have same-sex couples as parents, and others are with grandparents, not to mention step-parents or foster families for many. Assuming the heterosexual, nuclear family structure is a stagnant view for educators or those involved in education policy.


Wow, you work in the most diverse class ever, minus the statistical improbability. Can we worship you human being?
 
2013-05-11 10:48:25 AM

ravenlore: I dunno, man. i seriously don't. I happen to be a libby-libby-libtard. While I don't exactly share your quandary, i DO get where you're coming from. And I don't have an easy answer for you :-(


armed revolution against oppressive rich business owners?
 
2013-05-11 10:49:07 AM

Fizpez: If you think about it this is probably going to "hurt" more kids in a non-traditional family than it helps.  If you have two income earners in that household it wont matter if its mom and dad or mom and mom's special friend, both are going to count against you getting some of that sweet, sweet student loan money.


Not correct Mom's special friend does not count because he/she is NOT the child's LEGAL GUARDIAN.
 
2013-05-11 10:50:01 AM

utah dude: ravenlore: I dunno, man. i seriously don't. I happen to be a libby-libby-libtard. While I don't exactly share your quandary, i DO get where you're coming from. And I don't have an easy answer for you :-(

armed revolution against oppressive rich business owners?


That would be OWS if OWS grew a set.

i'mokwiththis.jpg
 
2013-05-11 10:51:51 AM

encyclopediaplushuman: Krieghund: I'm ok with this.

[lh3.ggpht.com image 379x214]
/me too


parents / guardians = goodly

This is getting perilously close to the place where people need to begin to think about the way they speak.
I can see a great deal of push-back coming.
Language, is in someways like children - everyone can, doesn't mean you don't have to watch them.
Language is the basis for our societys - when we speak it we enforce it's meanings and entrench the understandings of it.
When we stop using racial slurs (for example) it's the first step towards meeting on level grounds - we stop seeing the target at less than they really are.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

The government buys/prints forms in mass (even if the GPO does it, it costs money and gets charged by the GPO to the government agency getting the printing done). Wonder how many old forms are being trashed and what the cost of the new ones are? Yeah, stupid.


In my life I've met a fair amount of "Government Officials"  -have yet to meet one that is outright stupid though.  Have a minimum of faith.  It'll serve you well.
 
2013-05-11 10:53:39 AM

utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.


Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?
 
2013-05-11 11:07:25 AM
What the Fark? Showed up expecting a hot Milfy thread.... leaving disappointed.
 
2013-05-11 11:13:31 AM

ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]


Interesting picture. How about you post one that shows control of congress during those administrations
 
2013-05-11 11:16:24 AM

moothemagiccow: Which parent will successfully earn the prize that is the Parent 1 slot? What shame will come to the runner-up and occupant of the Parent 2 line?


To be resolved by thumb-wrestling.
 
2013-05-11 11:21:39 AM

leevis: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]

Interesting picture. How about you post one that shows control of congress during those administrations


Why does that matter? The budget process is initiated by the President.
 
2013-05-11 11:25:39 AM
We're not born of test tubes

Yet

How come our government is determined not to 'offend' the .0001% and to offend the 99%?
 
2013-05-11 11:27:26 AM
How about "donor" and "host"
 
2013-05-11 11:30:38 AM

thaylin: leevis: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]

Interesting picture. How about you post one that shows control of congress during those administrations

Why does that matter? The budget process is initiated by the President.


Initiated, yes. By the time it gets through congress it's not quite the same thing. Every member of congress has their own little pet project they want for their own state or district. How do you think the navy gets stuck with ships they don't want?
 
2013-05-11 11:31:00 AM

Clemkadidlefark: We're not born of test tubes

Yet

How come our government is determined not to 'offend' the .0001% and to offend the 99%?


This offends you?  You must have more sand in your vagina than a Berkeley Womyn's Group watching a Girls Gone Wild infomercial.
 
2013-05-11 11:36:25 AM
M-O-O-N.  That spells NGTRTFA.
 
2013-05-11 11:36:39 AM

leevis: thaylin: leevis: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]

Interesting picture. How about you post one that shows control of congress during those administrations

Why does that matter? The budget process is initiated by the President.

Initiated, yes. By the time it gets through congress it's not quite the same thing. Every member of congress has their own little pet project they want for their own state or district. How do you think the navy gets stuck with ships they don't want?


Clemkadidlefark: We're not born of test tubes

Yet

How come our government is determined not to 'offend' the .0001% and to offend the 99%?


So generic labels offend you? If so there is something majorly wrong with you.
 
2013-05-11 11:43:43 AM
When hasn't it been "parents/guardian"? Been that way here for the last 16 years, at least.
 
2013-05-11 11:43:47 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Their tendency to explode debt and drive us into recession whenever they take control, and them do everything in their power to hamper economic recovery when they are out of power?


wait, so rampant spending when republicans do it hurts the economy but when democrats do it, it helps?

ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]


congress makes laws and sets budgets.  Regan had largely liberal congresses.  Clinton had largely conservative congresses.
The only thing the president has control over in regards to a budget is putting his signature on it.
 
2013-05-11 11:50:23 AM
Mudda Fadda?
 
2013-05-11 11:52:02 AM

o5iiawah: congress makes laws and sets budgets. Regan had largely liberal congresses. Clinton had largely conservative congresses.
The only thing the president has control over in regards to a budget is putting his signature on it.


So why did fiscal conservatives biatch so much that Obama was going to destroy the economy? He should be irrelevant according to you.

And btw, Bush had a conservative Congress until 2007 but still racked up $4 trillion in debt in 6 years. So, are you going to admit you're wrong, or are you just going to throw Bush under the bus as a RINO?
 
2013-05-11 11:57:02 AM

Vangor: Makes sense to. Several of my students have single parent households, a few have same-sex couples as parents, and others are with grandparents, not to mention step-parents or foster families for many. Assuming the heterosexual, nuclear family structure is a stagnant view for educators or those involved in education policy.


Conservatives: "GOVERNMENT IS WASTEFUL AND INEFFICIENT!"

Dept. of Ed: "We updated this form.  There are a lot of students from non-nuclear families, and it's wasteful and inefficient having to give each of them special instructions on how to properly fill out the parental information section."

Conservatives: "CHANGE IT BACK!  THIS IS OFFENSIVE!"
 
2013-05-11 12:00:29 PM
At least they are taking care of the important issues concerning education. No doubt the person at the Dept. of Ed responsible for this enlightened and forward thinking decision has once again earned his/her/its exorbitant salary and benefits package by taking this swift, decisive and brave action to improve education. I can just see the student test scores ticking upwards as we speak.
 
2013-05-11 12:01:41 PM
See, this is what I like about Fark, there's no discrimination, even bigots get to have greenlights.
 
2013-05-11 12:11:39 PM

Vodka Zombie: I feel bad for you, Subby. The Washington Times is something normal people avoid. It's really only read by cult members.


Like my brother.   Family get-togethers can get interesting.
 
2013-05-11 12:12:01 PM

hasty ambush: At least they are taking care of the important issues concerning education. No doubt the person at the Dept. of Ed responsible for this enlightened and forward thinking decision has once again earned his/her/its exorbitant salary and benefits package by taking this swift, decisive and brave action to improve education. I can just see the student test scores ticking upwards as we speak.


So they aren't allowed to make a simple and effective fix to a form?
 
2013-05-11 12:12:38 PM
Well crap!

This will clearly destroy my traditional heterosexual loan applications!  I mean, how the hell am I supposed to know if I am parent 1 or parent 2!?  YOU ARE DESTROYING TRADITIONAL FORMS WITH THIS CHANGE!  I feel confused!

/ Moved to Sippi.  You KNOW I have to deal with poutrage daily.  
// You know the sort: small government and federal aid requests.  Religious freedom as long as it's Christian.  Anti-abortion and pro-capital-punishment.  They hate mainstream media and listen to Fox (who has pretty much the largest viewerbase... and so... cannot possibly get any more mainstream).
/// God I hate this state.  Hell, God hates this state.  It's why he sends a firey humid combo every summer... to encourage the wise to get the hell out.
 
2013-05-11 12:20:31 PM

AirForceVet: What about "Sugar Daddy?"

/We're important too!


DoE doesn't need to know about your stripper whore thong dollaz for education program.
 
2013-05-11 12:22:48 PM
Wait... What about people who have a third, fourth, or fifth parent? WHAT ABOUT THE POOR, OPPRESSED MORMONS?
 
2013-05-11 12:32:31 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: hasty ambush: At least they are taking care of the important issues concerning education. No doubt the person at the Dept. of Ed responsible for this enlightened and forward thinking decision has once again earned his/her/its exorbitant salary and benefits package by taking this swift, decisive and brave action to improve education. I can just see the student test scores ticking upwards as we speak.

So they aren't allowed to make a simple and effective fix to a form?


How is simple our effective?  How much for the new forms vs. simply keeping the old ones?  How do  "non-traditional" families now cope.  This is just meaningless  pandering that gets the squishy types feeling more squishy.  No doubt it will be described by some has brave and  and thoght deserving of a hero tag on Fark by some.
 
2013-05-11 12:34:26 PM

Abox: Should women even be signing forms?


Agreed. Although I do enjoy taunting you with the idea that I might take responsibility for my actions just this once.
 
2013-05-11 12:41:59 PM
I'm actually rather surprised that they still even have a paper FAFSA. It's so much less time consuming to just do it online, and you can link your IRS data directly from them so you don't even have to chase down last year's AGI and all of that other crap you'd need to fill out a paper form.

That and when you submit online, it's usually all processed within a day, and off to whatever schools you've entered. WHY would anybody do the dead tree version?
 
2013-05-11 12:55:44 PM
Parent #1_______________ Parent #2 _______________ Parent #3 _______________ Parent #4__________
 
2013-05-11 12:59:16 PM

pc_gator: Parent #1_______________ Parent #2 _______________ Parent #3 _______________ Parent #4__________



Parent(s)___________
 
2013-05-11 01:03:16 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

The government buys/prints forms in mass (even if the GPO does it, it costs money and gets charged by the GPO to the government agency getting the printing done). Wonder how many old forms are being trashed and what the cost of the new ones are? Yeah, stupid.



So, then, as long as they use up the old forms rather than destroy them, you're perfectly ok with them printing the new forms henceforth?  Your only concern is that the existing forms don't go to waste?
 
2013-05-11 01:06:34 PM
One of the El Paso news channels had this story on the other night:

http://www.kvia.com/news/el-paso-ranks-no-4-in-country-for-certain-m il fs/-/391068/20050856/-/kb17pnz/-/index.html

So then i had to explain to my visiting mother (and her friend too who came down from Denver) what a MILF was.  Thanks ABC!
 
2013-05-11 01:18:21 PM

hasty ambush: How is simple our effective?  How much for the new forms vs. simply keeping the old ones?  How do  "non-traditional" families now cope.


The identification of the parents/guardians in "non-traditional" families often falls through the cracks, because of the way the form is designed.  This allows, for example, an applicant to represent themselves as coming from a one-income household when in reality they come from a two-income household with a "non-traditional" family structure not represented on the form.

This is a simple and effective change to address that.  It does nothing to disenfranchise traditional families and recognizes non-traditional family structures where they need to be recognized.  Why are you so upset about this?
 
2013-05-11 01:44:47 PM
The form should be changed to read:

Number of Cocks: ________________

Number of Poons: ________________

Number of Aliens from Other Dimensions: ________________

Pretty much covers it, I would imagine.
 
2013-05-11 01:47:56 PM

leevis: thaylin: leevis: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]

Interesting picture. How about you post one that shows control of congress during those administrations

Why does that matter? The budget process is initiated by the President.

Initiated, yes. By the time it gets through congress it's not quite the same thing. Every member of congress has their own little pet project they want for their own state or district. How do you think the navy gets stuck with ships they don't want?


Then your argument still does not make sense. You would want to look at each starting budget and then the ending budget and see where they stood on each.
 
2013-05-11 02:14:56 PM

LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?


To be fair, they aren't really generic and replace one set of assumptions with a different set.  It assumes that both are parents of the kid.  What if one is a parent and the other is only a spouse of the other parent? What if they aren't parents at all but rather guardians?
 
2013-05-11 02:27:42 PM

Benjimin_Dover: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

To be fair, they aren't really generic and replace one set of assumptions with a different set.  It assumes that both are parents of the kid.  What if one is a parent and the other is only a spouse of the other parent? What if they aren't parents at all but rather guardians?



Merriam-webster.com

Definition of PARENT1a : one that begets or brings forth offspring b : a person who brings up and cares for anotherI am pretty sure that all your possibilities are still covered.
 
2013-05-11 02:28:03 PM

Benjimin_Dover: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

To be fair, they aren't really generic and replace one set of assumptions with a different set.  It assumes that both are parents of the kid.  What if one is a parent and the other is only a spouse of the other parent? What if they aren't parents at all but rather guardians?


Well, in that case you'd be splitting hairs.
 
2013-05-11 02:29:59 PM

thaylin: leevis: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]

Interesting picture. How about you post one that shows control of congress during those administrations

Why does that matter? The budget process is initiated by the President.


That is true.

Question:  Out of the 8 budgets that Reagan sent to the Hill, how many were announced "Dead Upon Arrival" by the crooks there?

Answer:  8

That should put a proper perspective on who is responsible for what.  Like it or not, Congress is pretty much responsible for pretty much everything that is financial.  I tell the same thing to the Conservatards that like to bash Obummer for the financial crap that is happening now.  His responsibility is pretty much limited to what he voted for when he was in office for those few days he was there.  AS president, not so much.
 
2013-05-11 02:39:42 PM
As long as it's politically correct, I'm cool with it.
 
2013-05-11 02:43:57 PM

thaylin: Benjimin_Dover: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

To be fair, they aren't really generic and replace one set of assumptions with a different set.  It assumes that both are parents of the kid.  What if one is a parent and the other is only a spouse of the other parent? What if they aren't parents at all but rather guardians?


Merriam-webster.com

Definition of PARENT1a : one that begets or brings forth offspring b : a person who brings up and cares for anotherI am pretty sure that all your possibilities are still covered.


Are you certain?

Scenario:
1. Two people get married and have a kid and they raise that kid for 17 years and get divorced.
2. The kid stays with one of the parents and that parent marries another person who moves in and is made a guardian of the kid.
3. The kid shows as a dependent on the Head of Household tax return of the spouse of the custodial parent.
4. The non-custodial parent retained parental status of the kid.
5. The kid goes to fill out the form 6 months later.

Who is parent#1 and who is parent #2?
 
2013-05-11 02:46:18 PM

A Shambling Mound: Benjimin_Dover: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

To be fair, they aren't really generic and replace one set of assumptions with a different set.  It assumes that both are parents of the kid.  What if one is a parent and the other is only a spouse of the other parent? What if they aren't parents at all but rather guardians?

Well, in that case you'd be splitting hairs.


I think the object is to get rid of the hairs all together so that no splitting is needed.  Replacing a problem with another problem is pointless.  I'm pretty certain there already exist some terms that can be used that would accurately label the two people that would need to be on the form.  Why intentionally avoid using them?
 
2013-05-11 02:52:28 PM

Benjimin_Dover: thaylin: Benjimin_Dover: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

To be fair, they aren't really generic and replace one set of assumptions with a different set.  It assumes that both are parents of the kid.  What if one is a parent and the other is only a spouse of the other parent? What if they aren't parents at all but rather guardians?


Merriam-webster.com

Definition of PARENT1a : one that begets or brings forth offspring b : a person who brings up and cares for anotherI am pretty sure that all your possibilities are still covered.

Are you certain?

Scenario:
1. Two people get married and have a kid and they raise that kid for 17 years and get divorced.
2. The kid stays with one of the parents and that parent marries another person who moves in and is made a guardian of the kid.
3. The kid shows as a dependent on the Head of Household tax return of the spouse of the custodial parent.
4. The non-custodial parent retained parental status of the kid.
5. The kid goes to fill out the form 6 months later.

Who is parent#1 and who is parent #2?


You are trying to prove you are right so much that you are not paying attention to what matters, or even what is being argued. Who is #1 or #2 does not matter. And all the extranious information does not matter. The form wants to know only about the household, so if parent #754453 does not live with them the only amount that is calculated is the amount added to the house hold in the form of things like alamony and child support. These issues are already taken care of in the old form
 
2013-05-11 03:50:13 PM

ImpendingCynic: And btw, Bush had a conservative Congress until 2007 but still racked up $4 trillion in debt in 6 years. So, are you going to admit you're wrong, or are you just going to throw Bush under the bus as a RINO?


so Democrats, who had the ability to filibuster and block his request for war spending did so?

Oh thats right - they didn't  They authorized it and supported the spending 100%
 
2013-05-11 03:53:25 PM

thaylin: Benjimin_Dover: thaylin: Benjimin_Dover: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

To be fair, they aren't really generic and replace one set of assumptions with a different set.  It assumes that both are parents of the kid.  What if one is a parent and the other is only a spouse of the other parent? What if they aren't parents at all but rather guardians?


Merriam-webster.com

Definition of PARENT1a : one that begets or brings forth offspring b : a person who brings up and cares for anotherI am pretty sure that all your possibilities are still covered.

Are you certain?

Scenario:
1. Two people get married and have a kid and they raise that kid for 17 years and get divorced.
2. The kid stays with one of the parents and that parent marries another person who moves in and is made a guardian of the kid.
3. The kid shows as a dependent on the Head of Household tax return of the spouse of the custodial parent.
4. The non-custodial parent retained parental status of the kid.
5. The kid goes to fill out the form 6 months later.

Who is parent#1 and who is parent #2?

You are trying to prove you are right so much that you are not paying attention to what matters, or even what is being argued. Who is #1 or #2 does not matter. And all the extranious information does not matter. The form wants to know only about the household, so if parent #754453 does not live with them the only amount that is calculated is the amount added to the house hold in the form of things like alamony and child support. These issues are already taken care of in the old form


I don't know that I am right.  This is a conversation to get at how it works.  Since you say the old form takes care of these other things, how is it handled on the form when the non-custodial parent is responsible for 50% of the college costs by decree?  Is HE/SHE the parent #2 on the form or is there someplace else where that goes so that it is subtracted from the calculations of the household?
 
2013-05-11 04:17:00 PM

Benjimin_Dover: decree?  Is HE/SHE the parent #2 on the form or is there somepl


The old form looks at just the household the kid lives in. It has the ability to substitute the father/mother with the stepfather/mother.

Lines:
86 Father's/Stepfather's 2011 Income Earned from Work
87 Mother's/Stepmother's 2011 Income Earned from work

Because of that a decree does not matter when factoring in the EFC (expected family contribution).
 
2013-05-11 04:50:38 PM
Was hoping for a thread full of hot MILF's.
Leaving soft.......
 
2013-05-11 06:10:47 PM

A Shambling Mound: Benjimin_Dover: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

To be fair, they aren't really generic and replace one set of assumptions with a different set.  It assumes that both are parents of the kid.  What if one is a parent and the other is only a spouse of the other parent? What if they aren't parents at all but rather guardians?

Well, in that case you'd be splitting hairs.




So is the D of E:

"All students should be able to apply for federal student aid within a system that incorporates their unique family dynamics," Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a statement


All does mean All does it not?
 
2013-05-11 06:30:57 PM
Why only two parents. if a sperm donor to two lesbos could potentially find himself paying child support should not his income factor in the financial support application? Of course in the interest of true equality a surrogate mom for two gay dads should face the same prospect of child support and college financing.

With the prospect of multiple step parents we could just go French with a numbering systems but then there is the debate of who gets to be parent #1, 2, 3 etc.
 
2013-05-11 06:43:25 PM

hasty ambush: Why only two parents. if a sperm donor to two lesbos could potentially find himself paying child support should not his income factor in the financial support application? Of course in the interest of true equality a surrogate mom for two gay dads should face the same prospect of child support and college financing.

With the prospect of multiple step parents we could just go French with a numbering systems but then there is the debate of who gets to be parent #1, 2, 3 etc.


It would, however it does not need to go into a category of a parent, it goes into the gross income of the household.
 
2013-05-11 07:00:40 PM

thaylin: Benjimin_Dover: decree?  Is HE/SHE the parent #2 on the form or is there somepl

The old form looks at just the household the kid lives in. It has the ability to substitute the father/mother with the stepfather/mother.

Lines:
86 Father's/Stepfather's 2011 Income Earned from Work
87 Mother's/Stepmother's 2011 Income Earned from work

Because of that a decree does not matter when factoring in the EFC (expected family contribution).


Thanks for the reply.  Having never applied for financial aid, I don't know how it works.  So, the form is factoring in income that won't be used to aid the applying student (in the hypothetical household) in his education? For example, if the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent are responsible for 100% of the kid's education and the spouse of the custodial parent has a decree against her/him to support another kid in another household from a previous relationship.  It sounds complicated to me and where it starts counting money twice.  No wonder the whole process is messed up.
 
2013-05-11 07:23:14 PM

Benjimin_Dover: thaylin: Benjimin_Dover: decree?  Is HE/SHE the parent #2 on the form or is there somepl

The old form looks at just the household the kid lives in. It has the ability to substitute the father/mother with the stepfather/mother.

Lines:
86 Father's/Stepfather's 2011 Income Earned from Work
87 Mother's/Stepmother's 2011 Income Earned from work

Because of that a decree does not matter when factoring in the EFC (expected family contribution).

Thanks for the reply.  Having never applied for financial aid, I don't know how it works.  So, the form is factoring in income that won't be used to aid the applying student (in the hypothetical household) in his education? For example, if the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent are responsible for 100% of the kid's education and the spouse of the custodial parent has a decree against her/him to support another kid in another household from a previous relationship.  It sounds complicated to me and where it starts counting money twice.  No wonder the whole process is messed up.


Its ok, I went back to school in 2009 after being laid off so I have been filling out this thing for the past 4 years (graduate over the summer with 2 degrees).

Is there is a spouse in the custodial parents home it is expected that they are contributing to the household. The goal of this is to get the ECF, or the expected family income. It goes off your tax records, shoot starting last year it is now connected directly with the IRS. Therefore it is possible if the family wanted to file separately they could avoid having the spouse's income put into that spot, and you may be able to get away with that, but if you get caught you will get into some major trouble.

This is general information, some schools will want additional information, and tax records.

With 2 working parents however it is really not going to matter all you will probably get is unsub student loans, unless you have lots of school aged kids. I made 13k the year before last and got 1200 in grants, half from pell half from NC Lottery money.
 
2013-05-11 09:57:48 PM
Probably to prevent black people from getting confused when they see 'father' on the form.
 
2013-05-12 12:06:00 AM
Because generic labels are easier than having people confused about what to put where, crossing it out and writing in their own labels, or bombarding the help line with questions about such an easily reparable issue.

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
 
2013-05-12 10:07:59 AM

LasersHurt: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

The government buys/prints forms in mass (even if the GPO does it, it costs money and gets charged by the GPO to the government agency getting the printing done). Wonder how many old forms are being trashed and what the cost of the new ones are? Yeah, stupid.

How do you know they are not just buying the new ones going forward? How do YOU know how many are being "trashed"?


Valid point. It is a general assumption, based on my accounting experiences in various companies (including printing firms), dealing as vendors for various government agencies over the years. Three reasons:

(1) There are, IMHO, few bureaucrats (to be fair, there are some) who are penny pinching enough to insist on using up the old stock first.

(2) In ANY bureaucratic organizational structure, government OR private, you generally get penalized with a smaller operating budget the next year if you do not use up your current one. Again, from my experience. And re-printing fire-drills seem to be a favorite method of using up excess bucks.

(3) Many bureaucratic organizational decision-makers are gun-shy these days about anything that smacks of political incorrectness, and are always on the lookout for things that can armor them up in the event of a kerfuffle involving their department. This particular issue is a perfect one to build up "street cred" in the PC department.

Still, an assumption, but I think I'm probably correct.
 
2013-05-12 10:17:14 AM

Marcintosh: encyclopediaplushuman: Krieghund: I'm ok with this.

[lh3.ggpht.com image 379x214]
/me too

parents / guardians = goodly

This is getting perilously close to the place where people need to begin to think about the way they speak.
I can see a great deal of push-back coming.
Language, is in someways like children - everyone can, doesn't mean you don't have to watch them.
Language is the basis for our societys - when we speak it we enforce it's meanings and entrench the understandings of it.
When we stop using racial slurs (for example) it's the first step towards meeting on level grounds - we stop seeing the target at less than they really are.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

The government buys/prints forms in mass (even if the GPO does it, it costs money and gets charged by the GPO to the government agency getting the printing done). Wonder how many old forms are being trashed and what the cost of the new ones are? Yeah, stupid.

In my life I've met a fair amount of "Government Officials"  -have yet to meet one that is outright stupid though.  Have a minimum of faith.  It'll serve you well.


LOL! You DO know the definition of faith, right? A belief not supported by evidence. Should I also believe in Yahweh or the FSM?

Actually, to be fair, yes, I've dealt with a lot of smart people at various levels of government. Working for the government is not a guarantee of being stupid. I've also dealt with stupid people in the private sector. The Bell Curve applies to any complex, aged organizational entity, particularly ones with tenure rules. Dilbert reigns supreme.

The difference is one of scope. A stupid person in a government position can generally (there are exceptions) do a lot more damage than one in a private company. Those exceptions usually deal with disasters (BP oil spill, etc.) Government stupidity causes more systemic damage.
 
2013-05-12 10:27:13 AM

ciberido: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

The government buys/prints forms in mass (even if the GPO does it, it costs money and gets charged by the GPO to the government agency getting the printing done). Wonder how many old forms are being trashed and what the cost of the new ones are? Yeah, stupid.


So, then, as long as they use up the old forms rather than destroy them, you're perfectly ok with them printing the new forms henceforth?  Your only concern is that the existing forms don't go to waste?


Correct. I've got no personal/political issues with whether someone is gay, transgender, is a furry, screws sheep (if the sheep is a consenting adult), or whatever.
 
2013-05-12 02:48:31 PM
This is not stupid. I've taught junior high and high school for years, and I'm very careful about how I talk to my classes about "parents". I always try to remember to say "parents or guardians" because many students are in non-typical family relationships. Always remember to look at things from the point of view of the youngest, folks. It's a simple matter of respect.
 
Displayed 118 of 118 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report