zoocrew

I can tell you that we don't hire from for-profit schools. It does matter what name is at the top. VERY much so matters. I've had to tell many that they simply don't meet the educational requirements with the non-accredited on-line degree. I also give preference to students who have demonstrated a propensity for classroom work over on-line degrees.

Nor is it 1880 where there are no consumer protection laws either. All I'm saying is that we have truth in lending in everything, except student loans? And there is no recourse nor protection in bankruptcy? That is wrong.

A person may only exercise true responsible decision making with truthful, full and accurate disclosure.

Which is why there needs to be some truth that is required in what these people are disclosing.

Go through one of the online travel sites since those are cheaper than the rental companies sites, generally. My last rental saved me $50 by using Orbitz but it also means I didn't get the Hertz Gold Club service either so I won't do that again. Just depends on what you're looking for.

I think you totally misread what I said. Let me post it again. I didn't say servers don't make minimum wage. What I did say is that it is unfair for the law to single out a certain class of people to be treated differently. The law, in effect, treats servers' wages different than it does cooks' wages or even a plumber, for the sole and arbitrary rational that tips are given? That is terrible unfair. Tips should be for their service above and beyond minimum wage. Just because they receive tips is not a reason to lower their minimum salary levels and have tips make up the difference.

We already have work/training requirements on welfare. There are already laws about fathers supporting their kids and garnishing wages or face jail time if the support is not paid. There is no way someone can earn more on "welfare" than they can working even a minimum wage job.

What the legislation effectively did was give the food industry a cost of living raise but kept servers at the poverty level. These are people that do an incredible job but have no retirement and no health insurance. So for the lower meals, we have taken advantage of a class of people. I think everyone agrees that servers have a choice whether to work in the industry or not, but what we should also recognize is that these people don't deserve to be taken advantage of by the law when everyone else gets a minimum wage. The targeting of one class of people is wrong, IMHO.

Sorry for the situation you guys are in. Scammers that use the legal system to get their claws in people are still scammers, even it is a "school." I'm kinda surprised that no one is wanting to at least try and stop the scams that take advantage of people.

No one is saying there were no bad decisions made. But when the decisions are made and part of the decision is based on the for-profit school lying, and the student then has no recourse, that is a problem. Informed decisions based on truth is all I'm saying. The kid makes a bad decision based largely on the school lying to him and now his life is permanently warped? That's wrong. He is now, for the rest of life, stuck without any options except to be permanently in debt, with low pay, bad credit and must pay the highest cost on everything. With thousands of people in that same boat, it hu

Exactly.

I read this story and realized that there are people behind those statistics. Sure, the kid should have thought this through but he is now in a permanent situation. I don't know the answer to these type of problems but I do know that schools making these sort of claims need to be held to a much higher standard. We even have truth laws about all sorts of things and maybe these for-profit schools need to be part of the same required truth for a change. My link

I'm ignoring a lot of people and their PMs too. Easier that way.

Such a great actress who left us far too young. My link

It's more than gardening. It is really going all out with Foodscaping. My link

I hate to agree with Solo but if we go somewhere and there is karoke, we don't go in. It is awful in Paulding. Too many people think their kids are Patsy Kline or Garth Brooks.

A nice 2009 Bethel Heights Pinot Noir with before dinner appetizers of crispy pickled beans and some cheese and crackers. Dinner is short ribs, kabobs, salad and grilled veggies. Will use a 2009 Bodega Catena Zapata Malbec for the this. Desert is cheese cake with blue berries.

The evidence is in and it seems the search and rescue was bungled because they dismissed the radio signals for help as hoaxes. And the physical evidence is that she and her navigator survived the crash atop an uninhabited knoll in the Pacific. My link

This is GREAT news! It is so difficult to find the veggies and fruits needed to do anything more than basic dishes. Thanks for the info!

No matter what anyone thinks of John Edwards, the legal system has found him not guilty (along with a mistrial). But the argument is being made that Edwards benefited from the confusing campaign finance laws that are cumbersome and often difficult for a layperson to understand. Perhaps it is time we make campaign finance much easier to understand, and much more plain. My link

If the attorney didn't know, he should have. OR he really didn't know and that would mean Zimmerman lied to him. For what it's worth, that's what I think but I'm sure there are a gazillion other opinions that are just as valid as mine.

Yes.

The reason I think the attorney knew is in the link you gave. Ok. So the attorney would have asked about the finances. Someone should have mentioned this. I can't believe the attorney wouldn't have known about this. I'm not sure what the definition of "misunderstanding" is in this situation, or exactly what the context of that statement was made. Still, the attorney would have told them, "Hey, if you've got family raising money for you, that counts as something we have to tell the court about." IMHO the attorney should have told Zimmerman of t

I'm all for the discussion. In this case, I think no one is going to change their minds until the evidence comes out, and even then most won't. The attorney should have known, I would think.

I doubt seriously if the assessments go up much, if any at all. There will always be a few but I suspect that will be a minority of less than 20% that go up. I also suspect that many will go down.