More HOPE to go around this year because fewer students earned it in the first place. Time to consider need-based HOPE?
AJC reporter Laura Diamond is reporting that the slight rise in HOPE payouts this year is a result of fewer Georgia students receiving the scholarship as a result of state lawmakers making the award harder to earn and harder to keep.
I stand nearly alone on this issue here on the blog, but still contend that Georgia has to consider a need component to HOPE. On a personal level, I would love to see HOPE remain fully merit-based as I have twins who will be college bound in 2017.
But on a public policy level, I understand that Georgia must produce many more college graduates to remain economically competitive. And that means finding ways to prod more teens to consider going to college by making it economically feasible for them. (Research shows that finances play a significant role in preventing qualified kids from attending college.)
As it stands now, HOPE has a greater influence on where kids go to college rather than whether they go. Every economic forecast says that Georgia will not prosper without a surge in its college-educated population. You don’t get more college graduates by making it costlier to attend college.
Diamond writes in the AJC today:
Gov. Nathan Deal has touted good news for the HOPE scholarship — a proposal for higher award payouts and extra money for technical college students who study subjects in fields with worker shortages.
What isn’t being discussed is why Georgia can afford this. It’s because fewer students have HOPE.
During the 2011 fiscal year, 256,417 students received some form of the scholarship. A year later 202,906 students got it, according to the Georgia Student Finance Commission, which administers the program.
“I expect to see another decrease this year,” said Tim Connell, president of the agency. “And while we may see it rebound slightly, I don’t know if we will see those large numbers again.”
In some ways this was the goal when Deal and lawmakers from both parties overhauled the popular lottery-funded program in 2011. HOPE was on track to run out of money this year before lawmakers made changes to the program, such as reducing award payouts and tightening eligibility criteria to decrease the number of recipients.
Deal’s proposal is possible because of a strong year for the Georgia Lottery, which provided about $55 million more for HOPE and pre-k programs. The other driver is a drop in expenses because fewer students qualify, Connell said.
The largest declines are with the HOPE Grant, which is mainly used by students in the Technical College System of Georgia. In 2011, 141,887 students received the grant. There were 98,790 recipients in 2012. Only 81,008 are projected to get it this fiscal year — a 43 percent drop in two years.
Nearly 9,000 students lost the award because they were unable to maintain a 3.0 grade-point average, a new rule lawmakers set when they overhauled the program. That requirement was already in place for students in the University System of Georgia.
Some students dropped out or didn’t enroll because they couldn’t afford to pay what HOPE no longer covered, said Ron Jackson, the commissioner of the Technical College System. At the same time, the system’s enrollment dropped by about 24,500 students to 170,860 last year.
Jackson described the change as “stunning and unexpected.” But he said the scholarship remains a good deal and that lawmakers had to overhaul the program to keep it going. “I think we need time to see how our students adjust beyond this first year,” he said. “Our students may have to adjust to covering a gap.”
Deal shared his concerns about the drop-off with Jackson, said Brian Robinson, the governor’s spokesman. Robinson said the state needs to understand why this occurred and “develop an action plan if the study shows a need for it.”
Others say an action plan is needed now. Democrats filed House Bill 54 and Senate Bill 59 to return the eligibility requirement for the HOPE grant to a 2.0 GPA. While the bills have some support from GOP lawmakers, Deal has so far refused to undo the changes made to the program.
Sen. Jason Carter, D-Decatur, said the state’s economic health depends on the HOPE grant. Beyond harming students, the tighter requirements will leave businesses with fewer employees to hire and could make it harder for the state to attract businesses, he said. “To pretend this is a successful program is like pouring salt on the economic wound,” said Carter, who sponsored SB 59.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
130 comments Add your comment
Tea Party Patriot
January 24th, 2013
1:28 pm
Any way you cut, HOPE and its beneficiaries are socialist. Good parents don’t mooch off the government for their kid’s education–at a government school, no less.
Agent
January 24th, 2013
1:40 pm
Jarvis, that has to be the dumbest comment I have ever read. Use lottery money to buy things to help the poor but education ain’t it? No wonder this state is in such bad shape. Let me let you in on a little secret, 99.999% of all well-to-do people are well educated.
The HOPE should be merit based, period. Need based scholarships are called financial aid.
Amanda Brinks
January 24th, 2013
1:47 pm
There is already needs-based scholarhip money and plenty of it. Pell Grants are for needs-based students and they don’t have to have high grades to earn them.
Pell Grants are readily available. For students with financial needs, they will receive a Pell Grant.
HOPE is for hard-working students. They deserve it.
The issue with givig all HOPE scholarships to students with financial needs is that it often leaves out the lower and middle classes who cannot afford to pay for tuitionm, even in-state tuition. A tiny 50K salary leaves no room for college tuition for a family; yet, families earning 50K a year don’t qualify for Pell Grants. So the only way a middle class kid can attend college is to get a HOPE scholarship.
So, you see, middle class families NEED HOPE
This is the flaw in the argument that only needs-based students should get Hope.
It also underscores the reality of the purpose of HOPE. The purpose of HOPE is to keep educated students in the state of Georgia so they can create jobs. Sutdents who have a great deal of financial need (lower class) don’t create jobs; they fill them.
jarvis
January 24th, 2013
1:48 pm
@Agent, you think the guy in front of me at the CITGO buying smokes and the whole roll of scratch off tickets is fostering college going offspring?
He’s funding the thing mabye it would be more helpful to begin teachingg the next generation of his bloodline about personal responsibilities, birth control and breaking the cycle of jail ridden fatherless homes.
Those are just a couple of ideas of what to do with the money.
jarvis
January 24th, 2013
1:53 pm
Also Agent, couldn’t help notice that while calling me dumb, you didn’t refer to the the regressive economics question. That part was over your head?
HS Teacher
January 24th, 2013
1:57 pm
Can anyone tell me about the HOPE for Teachers? I believe this was ended some recent years ago due to budget constraints. Can we bring this back. I would love to get my masters but there is no way I can with out the financial help.
Agent
January 24th, 2013
1:57 pm
Jarvis,
For one, how do you know whether or not the guy buying scratch offs is fostering college going offspring? Are saying only poor people buy lottery tickets?
BTW, I didn’t say you were dumb. I said your comment was dumb. I guess reading and understanding my comment is over your head?
William Casey
January 24th, 2013
1:59 pm
HOPE should remain a merit based scholarship. The integrity of the program should be maintained by making the first semester a REIMBURSEMENT program. If the student meets the grade standard (3.0?), he/she is reimbursed for the full cost of tuition, fees and books (HOPE as it used to be.) If not, it’s own the student’s own dime. I’d like to see a study of how much HOPE money is wasted on “students” who: (a) are patently unprepared for college or (b) choose to party for a year. This cuts across socioeconomic lines.
Debby
January 24th, 2013
2:01 pm
College work has been dumbed down because it’s become the norm that everyone who leaves high school is expected to head to college. Many of these kids are totally unprepared for it. As far as I’m concerned college should be a right for those who can make it grade-wise. The HOPE scholarship should be merit-based only.
B. Killebrew
January 24th, 2013
2:11 pm
Twin Mom:
In the case of income and financial aid, I would hope they would take into account how many children a family has in college–all children under 24 or something like that. If not, this would be something to implement soon.
So, yes–in the case of twins, I see that as 50K instead of 100K.
Rhaegar Targaryen
January 24th, 2013
2:15 pm
jarvis:
The original HOPE limitation was actually $66,000…in 1993.
In 1994, they moved the limitation to $100,000. A few years later, they removed the income cap.
Amanda Brinks
January 24th, 2013
2:18 pm
Tea Party, HOPE is paid for with lottery sales. The lottery is a for-profit entity. It isn’t socialism.
old school doc
January 24th, 2013
2:20 pm
UGA used to be a safety school for an average student. Now it is quite competitive. THis is a direct result of HOPE– smart students, of whatever SES, are choosing to stay in GA.
Keep HOPE merit based!
Amanda Brinks
January 24th, 2013
2:20 pm
William Casey — there is a huge flaw in your idea that HOPE needs to be a reimbursement program. Kids don’t have 17K (in state at GA tech) to pay — they cannot just withdraw it out of their trust fund.
Think about it.
Amanda Brinks
January 24th, 2013
2:22 pm
HS Teacher — you can get loans. You don’t need HOPE.
Catlady
January 24th, 2013
2:38 pm
Michael: Your information is not true.
Astropig
January 24th, 2013
2:52 pm
“you think the guy in front of me at the CITGO buying smokes and the whole roll of scratch off tickets is fostering college going offspring?”
I. Don’t. Care. If the guy is that stupid, he deserves the screwed up life he’s living. Time somebody pointed that out.
Now, maybe his kid is cut from different cloth. Maybe his kid has ambition and smarts and wants to break the cycle of poverty.There should be help for that kid and there is. If the offsprung makes good grades and really wants to get ahead in life there are lots of avenues for him/her to go to school to mine their potential.If they are as smart as I outline,they know that great two year schools exist that offer a heck of a bang for the education buck (and with a Pell and some p/t work,they are a breeze to afford). And there’s no shame in transferring to a four year university to get those last two years. Nobody cares where you took the test,they just want to see your drivers license.
I personally think that having poor schmucks that play the lottery (where the odds are the worst of any legal gambling) is the fairest way to pay for any and all things educational.
Slick
January 24th, 2013
3:10 pm
We have needs based assistance already. They are called pell grants and stafford loans.
yuzeyurbrane
January 24th, 2013
3:14 pm
It is all part of the bigger cultural problem—there is no firm belief in affordable quality public education. Otherwise, how does one explain the unrelenting march over the last several decades to go from a virtually tuition free system to a high tuition system?
Prof
January 24th, 2013
3:35 pm
@ yuzeyurbrane. One significant factor: the perpetual annual cutting of budgetary funds to the USG system by our state legislature. Many think this is part of a larger national trend in which state legislatures shift the burden of the cost of higher education from the general taxpayers to those students who enroll in the colleges and universities.
anon
January 24th, 2013
3:37 pm
As someone whose kids would almost certainly fail to qualify for need-based subsidies, I support making Hope (and Georgia pre-K) need-based (at least in part). The public policy objections to the current system are sounds, and I believe that, from behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, we would design something different. I also object to the current system based on fairness. Since lotteries are effectively a tax on people who can’t do math, I suspect that most lottery funds are not coming from the 2% or even the middle classes. My suspicion is that, under a non-need-based system, the lower classes are effectively subsidizing the upper classes. But this is just conjecture. I would love to see some numbers.
Centrist
January 24th, 2013
3:37 pm
No, not time for yet another need based program. Merit based is just fine, and it was grade inflation that so improperly expanded recipients.
The Hope scholarship has been fixed and is back to a being an excellent example which other states are following. The majority of the electorate Georgia agrees – unlike the majority of liberal AJC readers and bloggers.
Please Pass the Info
January 24th, 2013
3:46 pm
I read th article about HOPE and Gov. Deal giving extra money to technical schools for students going into fields with shortages. One of gthe fields mentioned in the article was early childhood education. Please contact Gov. Deal and tell him there is no shortage of early childhood teachers. There are many, many recently gaduated, fully certified applicants who cannot find a job. I read an article yesterday stating tthere is a glut on the market of ECE teachers nationwide and colleges and universities should consider putting a cap on number of students they allow to enroll.
Inman Parker
January 24th, 2013
4:02 pm
I am utterly opposed to limiting HOPE to needs based students. With college tuition at already incredibly high numbers, many middle class kids will be left out as few middle class families will be able to show “need” to a government bureaucracy that sets arbitrary limits on income. Besides, when I voted FOR legal gambling on Georgia (the Lottery) my YES voye was predicated on a PROMISE from the state to use some or all of those funds for helping ALL families. Maybe you’re now willing to let the state go back on that promise. I AM NOT! Merit based is the way to go!
Jerry Eads
January 24th, 2013
4:06 pm
The question actually should be “Is it time to RE-consider needs-based scholarships.” The state created HOPE to make it possible for high-achieving students who couldn’t afford college to be able to go. When the needs-based criteria were dropped, because students with greater opportunity (i.e., $) tend to get higher grades, HOPE has turned too often into a means for higher income parents to buy their offspring a bimmer while the predominantly low-income folk who are suckered by lotteries pay for the kid’s college. IF Georgia wishes to realize the economic benefit of HOPE, it should be RETURNED to a needs-based system.
pull my other leg
January 24th, 2013
4:09 pm
I am not a fan of Hope. However, it needs to remain merit based. I graduated from KSU and most of the scholarships given were needs based. In addition the poor are given Pell grants. My daughter is now going to Auburn University because she was given a scholarship that pays more than anything that UGA had to offer, including the HOPE. If The University of Geargia system wants to achieve academic excellence, they need to make more merit-based scholarships available. There is enough needs-based scholarships.
homeschooler
January 24th, 2013
4:13 pm
Definitely should remain merit based. I have a nephew who qualified for both Pell and Hope. He lost his Hope money in the first semester as well he should have. He was not taking school seriously and will now have to earn back the Hope. Although unlucky to have been born to loser parents who lost custody of him when he was 11 (which is how he qualifies for Pell) he was very lucky to be born with a great personality and high intelligence that gives him great potential. He has been given every opportunity to meet his potential. Whether he will or not remains to be seen but no one can blame Hope, or the government. He will be the only one to blame if he fails. His extended family and the government have been good to him and have given all the building blocks to succeed.
the prof
January 24th, 2013
4:14 pm
very simply, NO.
Dewey Cheatham & Howe
January 24th, 2013
4:52 pm
” low-income folk who are suckered by lotteries pay for the kid’s college. ”
Nobody is making those people buy those tickets. It’s really a tax levied on people that can’t do basic math.
If your average lottery customer buys $5 worth of tickets a week,by the time his newborn is 18,he will have dropped $4680 into my son’s HOPE kitty (thank you!). Poor people that play the numbers could save that money for their kid and even at todays lousy interest rates,have enough to fund a couple of years of community college.(After which,with good grades,they can get the HOPE) .Get the kid a job mopping the floors at Krystal during high school and have him chip in $10 a week for a couple of years and he/she can see a better life for themselves.(If they transfer to a closeby university as a junior,they don’t have to live on campus-another saving)
Where there’s a will there’s a way.
Nutty Professor
January 24th, 2013
4:59 pm
In regards to a couple of respones above:
1. The 2.0 requirement will be for the HOPE Grant, which deals with technical college certificates and diplomas. This is entirely doable in my opinion. If the 3.0 requirement keeps people from becoming plumbers, welders, etc., then at least make them pass courses. I would actually find 2.5 a bit more palatable, but I understand lowering it for the HOPE Grant (not the HOPE Scholarship).
2. I do agree with William Casey to an extent. There is a bit of waste in money subsidizing students to spend their first year partying at a college. What I would consider is either a) making the first year a reimbursement plan or b) capping the first year to about $2000 per semester. Does that mean money has to come from the student or the student’s parents? Yes. But I can tell you if I pay part of my son’s tuition to go to UGA, Tech, Georgia Southern or elsewhere, you better believe I will be on him to keep his grades up and not be foolish his freshman year. Or, my son can go to a community or technical college for his core classes. Capping HOPE might keep it solvent and may encourage the universities to keep tuition costs low.
May not be a perfect thought, but it is a thought.
I Teach Writing
January 24th, 2013
5:49 pm
The most damaging pattern in any HOPE discussion is the one that sets up need- and merit-based models as opposites. They’re not. Hybrid models are possible. There are some drawbacks to avoid, but hybridity also offers a lot of policy benefit. The Miller Scholar program would stay intact as a purely merit-based program — get a 3.7 (which isn’t exactly difficult), and you get a free ride. HOPE, however, could become a hybrid. Here’s why:
The biggest threat to the long-term stability of the HOPE program is its inherent internal tensions. After all, you’re funding higher education with the proceeds of a gaming system whose most evident player determinant is education level: the more well-educated the person, the less likely she is to play the lottery. Since lotteries are an atrociously bad investment, statistically speaking, this inverse relationship between education and lottery participation makes tons of sense. If we want a better educated populace (something everyone says we should want), and we aim programs like HOPE at achieving that goal, then we should also be planning on continually decreasing lottery revenues. HOPE recipients, for example, are much less likely to pay back into the lottery system that funded their education.
None of that’s a bad thing, nor is it surprising, but it does mean that an increasingly well-educated populace with declining lottery revenues would either dilute HOPE funding significantly for each awardee OR lead to incremental restructuring — something we’ve seen already. Adding an incremental need component to HOPE in addition to the merit component seems like a logical solution. The higher one’s family income, the less needed is external financial aid. That doesn’t mean it’s not desirable on an individual level! But what you want for you may not be what’s good for the state as a whole.
A commenter above (apologies for not grabbing your name before I started writing this) proposed a stair-stepped HOPE system whereby the merit qualifications would remain the same but the percentage of tuition paid would drop at certain levels of income. It seems like a decent first draft, but I wonder why we’re using income instead of simply using Expected Family Contribution (EFC), which is already calculated by the federal government for every aid applicant AND already includes adjustments for multiple college attendees per family. Maybe four levels of funding? 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%? Whatever the cutoffs are, they should align more or less with wealth quintiles: bottom two (or 2.5?) get 100% funding, the middle quintile 75%, and the fourth quintile 50%, and the top quintile gets 25%. If that means a few more rich kids with mediocre grades go out of state for school, I think we can live with that. The Miller program will give an excellent incentive for the brightest to remain. And the HOPE/Miller program would become much more sustainable while simultaneously aiming to increase the number of college-educated workers in the state AND working to keep the very brightest Georgians at in-state schools.
Seems like a fair compromise to me.
Solutions
January 24th, 2013
5:51 pm
I reject “need based” anything, you either earn it or you do not get it!
I Teach Writing
January 24th, 2013
5:59 pm
@Solutions (5:51) — So you reject the idea of a more well-educated workforce, leading to more tech-centered, high-paying jobs, leading in turn to a better tax base and more high-level entrepreneurial possibilities? Because the state isn’t currently earning those things.
And that’s why it’s not bright to make policy decisions dependent on anecdotal examples.
Jerry Eads
January 24th, 2013
6:08 pm
HS Teacher – yes, a HOPE program used to be available to teachers in “high need” subjects who wanted to earn advanced degrees. It was dropped to maintain the open HOPE for all students a bit longer as tuition and fees and etc. costs accelerated faster than health care as the state de-funded education, effectively passing the costs on to individual students and their families.
bootney farnsworth
January 24th, 2013
6:11 pm
@ william
while I agree in principal about HOPE as a reimbursement program, the difficult truth is due to HOPE the costs of attending college in Georgia have skyrocketed to where the start up costs could easily be prohibitive.
in a perfect world, money would have been set aside. however, in a perfect world we would not be staggering through the worse economy in our lifetimes. I can’t speak for anyone else, but my reserves disappeared long ago.
any idea how to get around that?
bootney farnsworth
January 24th, 2013
6:14 pm
I suppose in the end it all comes down to what is the true purpose of HOPE.
if its to create a more educated Georgia, then it should be merit based, period. a reward for hard work and sacrifice.
if the point is another round of social engineering and entitlements, then….
bootney farnsworth
January 24th, 2013
6:19 pm
@ Maureen
its been a long time since I’ve been able to look at HOPE data. last time I did I was focusing on the downright scary amount of students who lose HOPE within the year.
have you seen any recent data which refers to how likely low income (ie needs based) student actually keep HOPE for the duration and graduate? and how it might compare to middle income HOPE students?
living in an outdated ed system
January 24th, 2013
6:20 pm
From the day I moved to Atlanta my position remains unchanged. The HOPE scholarship should be needs-based. We can give tuition discounts for in-state residents, but those who can’t afford it should get additional help.
bootney farnsworth
January 24th, 2013
6:23 pm
perhaps another way to approach this is by having a tiered fee system.
those with the best grades pay the lowest amount, the middle of the road students pay a higher amount, and the most likely not to succeed students pay the highest amount.
I Teach Writing
January 24th, 2013
6:28 pm
@bootney (6:14) – I don’t follow your logic. If the goal is to create a more educated GA, then merit-based awards going to students who would attend college with or without HOPE achieve nothing on the level of policy. If that were the sole goal, then the money should be spent to maximize the percentage of students able to finish with HOPE’s aid who would be otherwise unable to attend or finish school.
I think the goals of HOPE are more various (and maybe a bit murky). I also think you’re making the same category error that I’ve seen in many comments from other, less astute commenters: confusing policy goals with outcomes for individuals. Hard work and sacrifice are individual inputs that don’t even lead reliably to individual outcomes, and they’re hopelessly fuzzy as a basis for state-level policy.
bootney farnsworth
January 24th, 2013
6:30 pm
BTW: nothing is preventing those of you who favor needs based over merit from getting together and creating scholarships aimed specifically at low income students.
if you feel this passionately about it, do something.
bootney farnsworth
January 24th, 2013
6:33 pm
@ I teach
its simple. let me walk you through it.
reward and incentive for hard work. also, put the resources available to those most likely to succeed, and not toss the money down rat holes.
I worked at GPC for a long long long long time. I’ve seen both sides in action.
Truth in Moderation
January 24th, 2013
6:38 pm
13 year old gets $10 million Bat Mitzvah, teachers and taxpayers get THE SHAFT!
“David H. Brooks, the founder and former chief executive of DHB Industries, Inc., and Sandra Hatfield, the former chief operating officer, are accused of falsely inflating the value of the inventory of the company’s top product, the Interceptor vest, to help meet profit margin projections. Brooks also is accused of using the company treasury as his own private bank account, spending $5 million on unauthorized expenditures.
Prosecutors say Brooks splurged on six-figure parties and other extravagances, including a diamond encrusted belt buckle and a Bentley. Brooks also allegedly spent millions of company funds on his horse racing hobby and allowed his daughter to use the company jet to travel to a Halloween party in Wisconsin.”
It gets worse:
“Brooks and Hatfield also are accused of failing to report to the IRS more than $10 million in bonus payments they and other DHB employees received.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/dhb-industries-body-armor_n_435920.html
This CEO was raking in tax dollars through lucrative MILITARY CONTRACTS.
AND THE REST OF US ARE SUPPOSED TO GROVEL FOR SHRINKING “HOPE” GAMBLING DOLLARS?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
I Teach Writing
January 24th, 2013
6:40 pm
@bootney — If the goal is to reward hard work, using grades a(n ineffective) proxy for hard work, then your logic more or less holds up. But that doesn’t equate to “a more educated Georgia.” Reaching that collective goal requires targeting kids who wouldn’t afford to finish otherwise.
I don’t mind pondering different (or multiple) goals, but let’s not pretend they’re the same, okay? These conversations get sufficiently confusing without blurring categories.
bootney farnsworth
January 24th, 2013
6:54 pm
@ I teach
you seem to be assuming the lower income students will finish. that is not necessarily a solid ground to stand on.
the genuine low income scholar will have fiscal opportunities in abundance.
PSDad
January 24th, 2013
7:02 pm
Lower income children are being left behind because everyone in our school system is so focused on diversity and equality that they are ignoring the fact that low income and single parent households need support that goes beyond simply educating their kids from 8am to 3pm. Don’t lower the standards to reward mediocre kids, redirect that money toward programs that support these families with things such as early morning and after school enrichment programs and/or bilingual curriculums. Address each need at the local/neighborhood level where there are demographic and cultural needs that can be identified and addressed. Create opportunities for success by directing more resources at early intervention and assistance to kids and neighborhoods that need it. Then these kids will be positioned for success and we won’t need to have conversations about why low income kids are being left behind.
hssped
January 24th, 2013
7:16 pm
I can’t believe that Carter is supporting a bill to lower the standards. Nothing good ever comes from lowering the bar. Look at the housing issues…..lower the bar…more people “qualify” and then can’t handle it. Foreclosures everywhere, home values plummet…..we all suffer. Lowering the bar is never good.
Timmy
January 24th, 2013
7:39 pm
If it changes to a “Need Based”… change the name from HOPE, it will no longer only be helping “Outstanding” students.
LHamil
January 24th, 2013
7:55 pm
I was surprised that the standards were not always the same for students enrolled in technical colleges as the University System of Georgia. The requirements should have been the same from the beginning.
Educator K/12
January 24th, 2013
8:11 pm
Maybe just maybe some folks might need to stop expecting a handout and go to work. What a novel idea.
It is possible to earn the HOPE, do a joint HS/Freshman year of college, maintain a 3.5 GPA+, and work part-time. If my daughter could do it so can others. The HOPE was all she received because she wasn’t “poor”. She wasn’t poor because her father works 7 days a week and her mother is a teacher and we live within our means. So get off the couch, quit expecting others to do it for you, get a job and be responsible.
Need based–what a joke. There already are too many handouts.