Forum Post: People talking about student debt forgiveness, don’t get it.
Posted 12 years ago on April 24, 2012, 9:36 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Education should be free in the first place!
What the hell are we thinking; we don’t want the next generation to be able to take care of us? How stupid is that?
Higher education is free in Germany, Scotland, Swedan, Denmark, Finland, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Norway and Argentina. So many spoiled youngsters all over the world, thank God America still gives people the right to remain stupid unless they got a lot of money to waste on making themselves integellent
Uh oh, now those republicons will come in here yelling SELF ENTITLEMENT and defend the self entitlement of crooks at the same time. Republicons sure want to keep people uneducated and easy to manipulate.
Wow! You are a piece of work. You want a free education? I'll give you one - There is no such thing as a free education. That "free" education you people are talking about is actually paid for by someone. As long as it's not being paid for by you it must be free, right? How is it that so many of you can regard wealthy Americans as self entitled? There is a big difference between desiring money that you have done nothing to deserve and desiring to keep the money that you yourself have busted your ass to EARN. You want everybody in this country to be successful. That's great. So do "republicons." (DURRGH). Success can not be given away. It is worked for. What a bunch of lazy douchebags!
Now what do we have here.... a right-winged looney bin with foam in his mouth. Where in my statement did I state that I'm not doing anything to earn money? Or are you being a presumptuous douchebag?
"How is it that so many of you can regard wealthy Americans as self entitled?" Crooks taking taxpaper bailouts as bonuses for themselves aren't self entitled?
"desiring to keep the money that you yourself have busted your ass to EARN." Sorry, conning and exploiting people does not count as EARN.
"Success can not be given away. It is worked for." Captain Obvious.
"As long as it's not being paid for by you it must be free, right?" That is technically the definition of 'free'.
"That "free" education you people are talking about is actually paid for by someone." Captain Obvious part 2. This also is no excuse to not go for the route of Germany, Scotland, Swedan, Denmark, Finland, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Norway and Argentina. It's a much more prosperous future than the farce you Republicons are trying to drag American into.
I never said you didn't work. What I said was that there was a difference between desiring someone else's money (you) and desiring to keep the money that you have earned. (everyone else) Just because you work for a living doesn't mean that you have some god given right to the fruits of someone else's labor. You like to call me "Captain Obvious." If these concepts are so obvious, then why are you still so freaking ignorant? You are more than welcome to go the route of Germany. I'm pretty sure that planes and boats travel that route daily.
"Just because you work for a living doesn't mean that you have some god given right to the fruits of someone else's labor."
And you call me ignorant. You couldn't think for yourself if your life depended on it. Sorry but conning and exploiting others does not count as 'earn'. Go on, I'd like to see you justify tax payer bailouts. You are right about one thing and that is the 1%ers don't deserve the fruits of someone else's labor.
If you and the 1%ers who have their dick down your throat would just disappear from the Earth... even if only temporary. It will do the world so much good. There is no place on Earth for you and your kind, not Germany or anywhere else.
"wasting money to make yourself intelligent"... that does sound stupid. Just because education is free does not mean it is mandatory. I promise that you and your kind will never be forced to get some higher education. Education is clearly necessary for humanity to create a society that will perpetuate in a healthy peaceful way into the depths of time. We are destroying our environment and our economy is falling apart because our system is poor enough that people think it is ok for corporations to exploit everything, including you, without taking the time out of your partisan lifestyle. or maybe, hopefully, you are being sarcastic.
it was sarcasm
I think it's all but one of these, maybe we do have a great nation if we can overcome crap like handing out degrees based on who your daddy is.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html
[Removed]
It's not free in those places for everybody.
but more so than here, and they have done better when providing a "freer" education system through time
[Removed]
[Removed]
You know, sociology is a great major (if you don't take the easy route, and avoid the rigorous mathematics and computer science, which you need these days in all sciences, including the social sciences). I think a great requirement for police officers would be to mandate a bachelors in sociology (or some social science). So it's not that sociology isn't useful (it's a great science), it's just that we're not using it to its full potential (unfortunately). Moreover, there is demand for social workers and various types of counselors (just don't expect to get rich in that profession, unless you go to med school and become a full fledged psychiatrist) :)
[Removed]
Well Mr. Spock, these countries are able to provide free higher education to their youth because these countries produce wealth and that wealth gets taxed at a fair rate so those who have benefitted and gained the most can give back and help the less fortunate come up in life and have higher learning skills for any edeavor that proves useful to society. So that all people are given an equal chance at a good education, the government collects funds and distributes evenly to places of higher education.
And for your information, your logic seems to be a bit faulty. Education is not about making more money. Many subjects need to be studied that don't make money so that we can have a rich culture.Philosophy gives us a better understanding of our lives and our selves. Physics helps us understand the universe. The day hasn't come yet for the millionaire astronomer.
Back when people composed great music and created great art at the hight of western culture, there were patrons who took care of them. Today culture is at a low point because music and art sells in the market so is of the lowest monkey brain quality. No one can survive in the arts unless they produce garbage and sell to the masses. As our culture gets more market oriented, the worse it gets.
You probably have first hand experience in this, being that you like to call yourself Adulttime. I can just imagine how you like to spend your day
So they don't make it free, they take it from one group and then give it to another group making it seem free if you're a recipient not paying attention.
You don't need to be a millionaire astronaut, you simply need to make reasonable choices. It isn't much to ask before you go running for even more subsidy.
Education consumes resources. The system needs to have built in protections so that resources are respected. A system where everything is "free" blows that away and causes a lot of misinvestment. The best built-in protection is where the student experiences costs. That's what keeps students from carefree piling up costs that they stick to someone else for 6 years pursuing sociology or hispanics studies majors. The system needs to retain some discipline. Paying for it yourself does just that.
Our problem is too much indiscriminate spending. It's fueled inflation. Throwing more indiscriminate cash at it will only fuel more inflation. We're far better off if students simply start to make smarter decisions.
Both parties cater to the banks, in turning us into debt slaves.
There is only one other group in the country that lends money, knowing damn well it cant be paid back. The mob. And once that happens, they own you.
The GovCorp own us all at this point. And most dont care.
one party wants to raise the rates the other don't, these things are not so hard to figure out if you pay attention
Neither party is GOING to raise the rates, because if they do it will send 10's of trillions of derivatives into chaos....
Again, stop judging them by what they say, and start judging them by what they do.
cool so the dems balanced the budget in 1993, and the GOP screwed it up in 2001, so your all for the dems, good judge them on what they do, good ideal
I think they did a good job with that budget. There were some real cuts, along with putting the tax rates up. It is a shame that responsible book keeping is such a rare concept these days...
It is a shame Republicans get elected, by lying to people, we can do this all we need are fewer GOP.
If you think anything would change by getting rid of only one of them....I think we have had this conversation before.
yes we have and you continue to defend the GOP, but here it is again, we get rid of the GOP and and new party, not a thrid party is born, that's the way it always happens, we can have a new party but not a third one
because Dems never lie. Plant.
Sorry - Fail.
The MSM is an arm of the corrupt greedy that have bought influence in government. They use their propaganda machine to push their issues forward.
Currently the republicans in office seem to be the "most Visibly" in line with special interest ( the Greedy ).
Democrats are not immune but at the moment they are not as visible nor as completely infected as a party either.
Further proof. Look at this PDF and the individuals signed on in support:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CFTCPositionLimitsLetter.pdf
the Dems should be very afraid of what I am saying because once we push the R's out of the way we can form a real people's party and the Ds will be in trouble
I don't lie, what would you like to know?
No one owns you if you learn how to own your own mind. That is why people need to learn and practice critical thinking skills and have a diverse field of knowledge that they can compare and disect.
This is why higher education is important. A government that provides free higher education is either stabbing itself in the back or is creating freedom from ownership by freeing the minds of it's citizens to think for themselves
isnt that why it was against the law to educate slaves? and if so.. why are we tolerating this government?
I agree with you 100%, but I somewhat feel that we already have free higher education. If you have access to the internet, or to a library, then you pretty much have access to every bit of knowledge known to man. In the past year, I've read nearly 100 books. I'm finishing up Plato's Complete Works now as I type this. I've learned more on my own in the past year than I did in 4 years of college.
Sadly, I feel what's lacking in America is the desire to learn. It seems most of us have replaced true knowledge with cheap entertainment and consumer thrills.
Here's an idea. If you can't afford to pay it back, don't borrow it. It's obvious that common sense stopped short of this forum.
Here is a thought......stop outsourcing the jobs. Pretty simple stuff there.
Here's a free education. Outsourcing jobs keeps the products that you consume affordable. When it costs General Motors $78 an hour to employ just 1 United Auto Worker, the cost of that car goes up. People in this country want access to affordable products but few of them understand what it takes to make those products affordable. Hypocrites! Union members love to scream "buy American" but so few of them do. They would rather buy a product that is affordable. "Evil" corporations like Wal-Mart (2nd largest charitable contributor in the world) are doing what is necessary to bring those affordable products to Americans. If you honestly want those jobs to come back, you need to do more than just demand it. You need to change your way of thinking. Outrageous wages and sky-high corporate taxes are not the way to achieve this goal.
Here's a better idea: Get rid of the whole monetary system so we won't have to rely on an ancient invention to get access to what's most necessary in life
Get rid of the monetary system? How old are you?
I agree with what you said. And that is how I do things. But humanity has been showed to be persuaded into to some of the most absurd things imaginable.
Whether they deserve it or not, Im not sure.
If higher education is not to be free, it should at least be affordable. Right now, college administrators and financial institutions hawk student loans. Student loan debt exceeds credit card debt. Most students must take out loans to pay tuition, board, and other costs, if they hope to get a college education. The terms of the loans are onerous, to say the least. When students who graduate fail to get a job in their field or run into other financial difficulties, they are on the hook to pay the loans for the rest of their lives. All other debts can be forgiven if a person files for bankruptcy, except for student loans. And that includes government sponsored student loans. Why is that? It is because the powerful financial interests demanded that they get paid back, no matter what. Congress, beholden to the bankers who finance their political campaigns, agreed and enacted legislation that amounts to peonage.
I agree. Chancellors that make a million dollars a year, and, basketball coaches who make 2 million aren't really in keeping with the spirit of the whole thing, are they? But, nobody says you have to go to a private university that costs $30,000 a year. Public universities are heavily subsidized with taxpayer money, and at a community college (where the president sure as hell doesn't make a million a year), 90% of the costs are borne by the taxpayer. That's a pretty good deal.
All that said, students themselves are a big part of the problem. After you get out of school, nobody owes you a job. You need to have some valuable skill that they can use and are willing and can afford to pay for. That means you have to be able to contribute to the profitability of a business, or the mission of other organizations. A philosophy degree or English lit degree or creative writing or political science degree may be fun, but they're not much use to most potential employers. Jobs, to the extent they exist at al, are few and far between, and there are far more applicants than there are openings. If you got one of these because it's your passion and you didn't had a fallback plan, you were just plain dumb -- there are no job openings for professional philosophers, and probably two openings a year in the entire country for college profs. Or, maybe you're living in a fantasy land, like a friend of mine, who thinks the universe ought to just magically conjure up jobs to accommodate everyone's personal tastes in education and work. No soap. There's only a job when somebody needs something done and can pay to have it done. If you don't know how, you don't get it.
The other thing students do is mindlessly borrow every dime that's offered. There was a story in the paper the other day about a young woman who borrowed a quarter of a million dollars to get a sociology degree at an Ivy League school. Really dumb. A sociology degree is completely useless. The only thing it qualifies you for is the opportunity to spend another quarter of a million on grad school so you can get an MSW and work as a social worker for $30,000 a year for a non-profit. Getting it at an Ivy League school at absolutely top dollar compounds the foolishness, She could have got it elsewhere for a small fraction of the price. She'd still be unemployed and unemployable, but at least she and her parents would not be so far in debt.
Most people do things this, and ya'll know it. One semester I took my student loans and grants and went out and bought a really nice stereo. That sure didn't help my education, and it was a couple of thousand bucks or more, which in the 80's was a pretty good chunk of money. Friends of mine bought cars, took vacations and did all sorts of other nice stuff on student loan money too. I'll bet a lot of you have done the same things. If you did, don't bitch when you have to pay it back.
My thoughts here were even more radical, I believe many of the problems with educations stems from allowing people to pay tuition. If as a thought experiment, you think of why is prostitution illegal, (in most states), I could be wrong but I believe the general feeling is that to allow money to buy whatever, in this case sex, it diminishes “real relationships” I feel allowing people to pay their way in diminishes quality education. This raises the general question of, do we allow money too much power, because we have been convinced that money is freedom?
Very interesting stories. I agree. The best thing is to follow Shakespeare's advice: "Never a borrower, nor a lender be." It is more important now than ever before. Debt robs your freedom. Student debt really robs your freedom, if you don't pay it back, because the debt never goes away.
You make some very good points as the loans availability rose so did tuition and in many cases they were little more than mills. That is sort of at the core of "free" education, what I am saying we as a nation decide how much we want to spend, we levy the tax and give the education to the most qualified from top down, not everyone will make it, not everyone wants a PhD, MD, JD... but I think we will find a way for most who want to if we want to be competitive going forward. The current system is designed to pull more money from the people who do work to those who own the means.
The current national student debt is around a trillion dollars. More than two trillion dollars went "missing" at the Pentagon during the last administration.
Illegal invasions aside, if the country can afford to "lose" two trillion in what is deemed to be the "intelligence" centre of the world, why get all anal about paying to educate the people?
very good point
Your misleading facts need some fact checking. Not only is there no missing trillions you also blame the wrong administration.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44199
Are you calling your own admin liars? Take it up with them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
I do not have to prove anything when I link to the FACTS... The truth may cause pain and heart burn but it will lead to freedom or just correct the wrong thinking you have. Also check the time line on the facts.
An admission on film from the admin itself is enough for anyone to see the facts. Are you proposing that the film is fudged?
I did not say he did not say that. Problem one is you say it was the Bush Administration that lost it.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44199 " In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information."
I in no way am saying there is no waste. Just make sure you have all the facts.
All the facts is, Rumsfeld admitted to the missing trillions. What more should we all be seeking?
Except, of course, for better management of our taxpayer funds.
You seem to have a problem with facts. You said it was the Last administration that lost the money. The facts prove you wrong there. Just because Rumsfeld talked about it in 2001 and wanted to get to the bottom of the issue about a report from 1999 does not mean Bush lost the money, Nor did the report say the money was lost or missing.
Look at this from 3/3/2000 http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002hxm
A society has no greater asset that its people. Invest in that asset. Just conservative fiscally responsible logic. No brainer! But it will bring out the whackos. ;p
Was a little ahead of the front page on this, but they had more to say.
http://occupywallst.org/article/statement-occupy-student-debt-campaign/
just had to do it
I agree the debts should not be "forgiven" the debts should be REPUDIATED. Here is what should be free:
Housing, Health Care, Education, Transpiration, Child Care
I think jobs should pay eoungh to cover housing, transportation, child care, and a few other things at a mininum, health care should be fior those that need it, education for those that earn it, not that far off I guess.
http://coalitionofsocialmovements.blogspot.com http://coalitionforsocialchange.wordpress.com
Thank you for these links, they both start by talking about wages, “fair wages”, I have been playing with the words, “cover the cost of providing labor” by that I mean the cost of a place to live and a hot shower, a way to get to work and maybe a bit of food. I think that puts it in the small business owners words in a way, anyway try them out see how it feels.
no problem their my ideologies I have been working on sometime, i usually write a new one every week. Be sure to keep checking up on them because i will be covering more issues such as education , voting rights, and the privatization of prison, and healthcare.
The internet has provided a great place to publish; at last truly different opinions can be heard instead of just rewinding the same crap over and over like the lame stream corporate media does. I will be checking in, come here and post it’s a spirited environment but your voice is a good one.
Education is free already.
Nobody busts down your door because you're reading textbooks yet.
Nobody carries you away or fines you if you teach someone calculus without them paying a tuition to a college first.
A greater problem is the lack of ability to prove one's competency if they do not have the prestige of a college behind them, and the unwillingness to share knowledge among others for its sake.
But that's only part of it, the other part is you should not be able to buy it, just like you can't buy a kidney or child it cheapens the process, we must make education something that is earned, at least the kind you get credit for.
It isn't free anyplace. It's paid for with tax money. And the European countries that have excellent free higher education tax middle class and working class people at a much higher rate than in the US. Not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, but the European experience teaches that you're not going to squeeze it all out of rich people, no matter how desirable that might be. Take some time to study the Danish social welfare and taxation system. It's a good one, honestly and competently run and it provides excellent benefits, and it's solvent. It's very illustrative of the very substantial tradeoffs you have to make to make something like that work.
A big part of the problem is our very low personal tax rates overall and low inheritance especially. Of course roads and education are not free, what I am suggesting is that we talk about what things do we want money to be able to buy and what things should money not be able to buy, how much power do we give the score card?
On talking about it, we agree. Places like Denmark have a completely different social contract than we do here, and most people are willing to live with taxes that eat up pretty much all of their income. The problem here is that people have gotten used to free stuff, and they want more, and the theory is that somebody else will get taxed to pay for it. That just won't work, and talking some supermajority of Americans into a social compact that takes 70% or 80% of their income in income taxes (and a 25% VAT on top of it whenever you spend the rest) like in Denmark -- regardless of the benefits offered in return -- is a hard sell. People want the benefits, but they want them for free.
I don't know where you live but I don't know anybody that is used to getting "free" stuff.
I hadn't looked at Denmark lately, I remember Oprah going there and people were very happy with their lives as I recall, and the doctors and such had very nice standards of living even better than the US it looked to me, so I don't think the taxes were holding them back much. In any case some things should be based on need, health care, some things should be earned, education, and some things just need to be there, roads. After we levy tax enough to do that should be plenty left for the successful to feel good buying big houses and fast cars and stuff that money is really good at buying.
Lots of people think things are free. Tell them that social security is broke and taxes have to go up and they're up in arms -- all the math in the world isn't enough to get them to realize that what's paid out has to come in first. And the reason 75% area in favor of the other 25% getting a tax hike is because they don't want to pay for government services themselves. They want somebody else to. Pointing out that doing it that way won't raise enough money falls on deaf ears. They want to believe in it, like Santa Claus. That's why Obama is getting so much traction with his Buffett rule. Actual math and facts don't count.
Re Denmark, you're right -- people are very happy -- polls show that its the happiest country on earth. And they have terrific social welfare benefits and great infrastructure and health care and all the rest. But the tradeoff is that the great majority of everything you make whether you are rich or poor is taken in taxes. 50% to 60% or more in federal taxes, as much as 30% in provincial taxes, and a 25% VAT on every purchase you make. Go to the grocery store and spend a dollar on a potato, and your fully loaded tax rate on that dollar is around 90%. That's the price of their system. And there are other costs too: If you lose your job, you get great benefits and retraining, but the government decides on what you're retrained in, based on what's needed. And then you're put on an availability roster and you have to take the first job you're offered. Period. So you wind up in whatever job they thought you should have and you have no say so in it at all. Your inheritance would be non-existent -- nobody can accumulate that much wealth there. Once your income gets to a certain not-very-high point, pretty much all the rest goes to taxes. They have a hard time getting people to take promotions there for that reason.
Al that's great -- I like it -- but it requires a completely different social contract than we have in this country, and different expectations. Denmark as a society has decided its prepared to live with these tradeoffs, and make it work. But do you really think you could get a majority of Americans to go along with a taxation scheme like that one, or a jobless program like that? Personally, I doubt it. People like the idea of great benefits, but nobody wants to pay the bill. Impose a 75% tax rate on the middle class and there'd be riots in the streets.
The biggest believers in Santa Clause are the children of the rich who think they have a right to inherent all of daddy's money wait till they find out how this really gets fixed
How is paying taxes a trade off if your happy seems like being happy is reason people work why is paying taxes a trade off any more than paying a mortgage?
Did you write your theist on Denmark or something?
if you tell them Social Sercurity is broke, you would be lying no wonder they get up in arms, it has been used as a slush fund so the wealthy would not have to pay as much tax, but now that they are about to be ask to honor the contract and pay back what they took, they like to call it broke, but you can't blame people for getting upset when you start off lying to them
I'll agree with you about those rich kids.
Re tradeoffs, I'm not saying that more taxes is a bad tradeoff. I admire the Danish system. It works well. But everybody there buys into it or moves away, and most elect to buy into it. The problem is that in the US, you'd have a hell of a time convincing people to buy into it. They'd never agree to the taxes and other restrictions. They might be foolish in so doing, but assuming the a large body of people will collectively do the intellectually and factually correct thing is a big, and often bad, assumption.
re social security, right now it's broke. It's an accounting fraud, really. They've never put any money away anywhere, even dime is spent as soon as it hits the door.
Do the math, you can get the stats off of the IRS web site. Whatever the merits of taxing the wealthy more, it doesn't solve the problem. Social Security is getting too big too fast. Either everybody gets taxed more or you cut benefits. There's no alternative.
We got 60 trillion in this country you're just looking at income, I'm looking at trust funds, that's where the moneys at.
But yes almost everyone will and should be taxed more, I would like an exception for basic cost of living and a wage that covered the cost of providing the labor.
That is like saying the US bonds are worthless, wait that's not "like" saying it that is saying it. the only way SS is broke is if the US bonds are worthless, and if that's the case we don't own 15 trillion, we have no debt at all if SS is "broke".
The US bonds being used as collateral for social security can only be paid off by using tax revenue as it's collected in the future. The government collected the money, lent it to itself and wrote itself an IOU in the form of a treasury bond. No money was ever invested anywhere. Seriously. There's no money saved up there. Your grandma's social security check is paid for with tax revenue.
Try it yourself. Take whatever money you have, lend it to yourself, write yourself an IOU, then spend it. Do you really have any money "invested?" No. The only way to pay yourself off is to go get more money someplace. Your so-called investment isn't any such thing. The money's gone. In the case of the government, the place they get it is taxes.
The social security trust fund is a myth and every accountant and actuary knows it. So do politicians. They spend the money as soon as it come in the door. Faster even, since they're borrowing 40% of what they spend. That's why there's all the noise over social security -- those bonds can only be paid off by raising taxes because that's where the money to pay them off will come from.
The bonds aren't worthless, but they aren't backed by investments anywhere. They've backed by future tax revenue.
Blah, blah, blah. So you don't support SS? the alternative is American elderly will die starving in destitution, since our system don't value the elderly! Our system says fend for yourself! Survival of the fittest. I got mine you can go to hel!! OWS disagrees!.. Support the Elderly, support Social Security, Vote out anti Social Security republicans!!
Whether you care to admit it or not, or whether you have the depth of understanding to get it or not, the question of where the money will come from is a serious one, and no one has any good answers right now. The sort of spouting off that you do doesn't contribute to any solution. Throwing out a couple of simplistic slogans punctuated with exclamation points isn't an answer to anything.
Stand with the elderly. Support ows. vote out anti elderly republicans!!!!!!!
You're not worth bothering with any further. Come back when you actually have something to say.
Attacking me is irrelevant it just shows your inability to counter argue. Stand with the elderly. Support OWS. We fight for you. We need each other. Vote out anti social security politicians
I'm back. And I say STAND WITH ELDERLY.!!!! Have some compassion for your fellow Americans. Support OWS! Vote out anti Social Security republicans!
At this point I can only conclude that either you're an obnoxious adolescent playing with the computer without your mother's permission, or you're a jokester, pretending to be a rabid, but not-too-bright leftist, so you can jerk our chains.
If you're an adolescent, go outside and play with the other children. The adults are trying to have a conversation and your prattle is annoying us. If you're a jokester, ha ha. Great prank. You sure got us. Now go outside and play with the other children. The adults are trying to have a conversation and your prattle is annoying us.
I personally wish they would just let me keep it and invest it myself. I'm a hell of a lot better with money and management than they are.
I'm sure that you are. And lots of folks are getting the same feeling. There are issues with that though. What do you do if (or rather when) some folks make dumb investments and lose it all? Seems like there needs to be some sort of safety net, but it needs to be run by people that can count and do real math.
Investing in SS and the people who run it could be the dumbest move out there.
But yes, when you look at the 0% savings rate of the country, and their constant need to instant gratification, I don't think the majority could handle their finances well enough.
Which is really sad.
How is that different than any other bond issued?
But you do make the case for taking 15 trillion out of the saving accounts (ie trust funds of the .1%) and pay off the debt because we just owe it to ourselves no money would be lost just moved around and it's stupid for the taxpayers to be paying the children of the super rich interest forever when we could just pay off the debt at inheritance time with 99% over 5 million rule.
Actually, the accounting trick is a bit worse than I just described. They lend themselves the money, write an IOU, and spend the money. But, since the IOU is being treated like an asset, it's still on the profit side of the ledger. Meanwhile, the actual money has been spent on whatever, but since it's not being treated on the books as borrowed or spent money, it isn't counted against the budget deficit. So not only is the money gone, gone, gone, but the federal deficit number you see published are artificially low -- those IOUs are being counted against the deficit. If somebody in the private sector tried keeping the books this way, they'd be sent to prison for fraud. It is in complete and flagrant violation of every accounting principle there is.
If you're under 50, you should be worried about this. I'm old enough that I'll be retired or dead before the whole scheme collapses, but somebody's going to pay for it all, and that somebody is you.
I read in the Economist that Hollande of France, if he wins wants to tax the rich at a 75% rate and hirer more school teachers and play down 'austerity'
And he may well win. If he does, it'll be an interesting and useful experiment in seeing exactly what really happens when you raise tax rates that high. Will it boost the economy? Will all the rich flee to Lichtenstein or Monaco? Will it raise as much money as he thinks? It should be interesting.
I really dont mind paying for my education. No need to devalue the degree more than it already has been.
Allowing people to pay for it has devalued it, that's my point there should be more things that money can't buy....
[Removed]
Duh, yeh but our generation is not smart enough to figure that out ('cause education was not free.)
Free Information Society!!!!
not sure I got it, but I like it, good bumper sticker..
Education should absolutely not be free. You should not get to go to Harvard, Wash U, Yale, or Cornell for free. Also the kids that got the loan are the ones who agreed to pay it and the interest. They agreed to and that is it. Just because everyone starts bitching doesn't mean you get you're debt forgiven. You were given the money and you agreed to pay it back. Quit being a fucking pussy and just man up about it.
There is a great big bad world out there where higher education is being just given away for free! The bad countries include Germany, Scotland, Swedan, Denmark, Finland, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Norway and Argentina. So many spoiled youngsters all over the world, thank God America still gives people the right to remain stupid unless they got a lot of money to pay for an edoocashun
Hope you feel the same way about Social Sercurity, all that talk about not honoring the contracts that have been made. I mean on the one hand they're only rich bankers that might lose some money but if we don't honor our "entitlement" contracts a lot of little people who can ill afford it will be hurt, so I am glad to find an alley against those who would not honor contracts.
Now as far as student debt, I think we should try to work out something, say zero interest, or something like that, going forward Harvard should be for those that earn their way, not buy their way.
It is not about education rather improving the bankers wallet.
Americans want the best amary, why are we not as determined to have the best teaching core?
Your tax dollars are better spent and more profitable when given to the war merchants.Paying teachers does not help the bottom line.
Well they're not "my" tax dollars, they're "our" tax dollars, we should look into that and see which adds more to GDP long term.
I prefer teachers but what you and I want is irrelavant to DC.
Too many people saying "your" and "my" tax dollar, we need more who understand they're "our" tax dollars.
Are you kidding me? Education isn't a requirement for you to live your life. If you choose to take part in the services (Education or otherwise...) provided by a college then you have to PAY for those services. If you don't want to, then choose another career path because they DO exist.
Also, really, JadedGem, making this a topic about Christians? Nothing else that you say is credible because of that - if you want to make an argument at least make it relevant.
This is about what works, we build roads and let everybody use them for free because that’s what works.
We talk about why doesn’t our education system work, but do nothing about it. I believe it is because it is filled with those who can afford it not the best qualified, I’m not saying we spend more or less, i’m just saying we keep the seats for those who are best qualified, and we all pay for it because in the end that’s how we build a strong nation. I know there are those who are all concerned about the money scorecard, but to them I say tough, life ain’t fair.
Some countries have universities that are free, or almost free, such as Argentina. I think the reasoning is that educated people are of such benefit to society, that the government finances college education. I think some of the Scandinavian countries also have free university education.
In the US, a few decades back, university education was so cheap that it was almost free. I remember asking my dad about how he ever put three sons through college, thinking in today's terms, and he said that it was just really cheap back then, and I'm talking about the University of California.
So, I as a middle class taxpayer that chose to work after high school (rather than accumulate thousands of debt that will haunt me for years) should now pay for others that chose to go to college?
...So I would be paying for the guy that spent the last 8 years or so to go to medical school, gets out, gets a job making 2-3 times more than I do, and have no debt burden?
...Or I'm paying for the paying that goes to college, and spends most of his time smoking pot, drinking, and partying, and barely makes it through and joins the thousands of other college grads on unemployment, or drops out?
We should all be glad to pay for the most talented to go to school so the country will be made stronger.
What has happen in the past cannot be fixed now, only the future can be made better.
So you think that if college education is free for everyone, only the "most talented" would go to school?
You don't think that maybe, someone that doesn't have the focus, determination, (or maybe even the intellect), to make it through college--who in all likelihood wouldn't even normally attend college for the aforementioned reasons, wouldn't attend college, if we take away any sort of financial risk of him failing?
...You don't think that if college was free to everyone, that the degrees that lead to high paying jobs would get clogged with individuals that don't have what it takes to be a lawyer, or a doctor (or whatever), but are there simply because its free, and they aren't paying?
I think it should be competitive placement
That's already happening; it's been going on for decades. Because college IS essentially free to most students today - most middle class parents opt to pay their child's tuition, the end result is that there are fewer and fewer with any mechanical skills yet more and more that are essentially non-college material opting for college. This country now has more irresponsible educated retarts than at any time in its history; they have become a drain on society because we don't have the economy to support them.
That guy in your last paragraph? He gets a job on WallStreet making 100s of times what you do.
That does make sense for WallStreet hiring practice. Sorry to dump on the moderate weed toker but there does seem to be a very large drug abusing culture on WallStreet. Goes along with the rest of their abusive conduct.
Hhmmmmm.
I wonder...........If you hooked up a drug "addict" to a brain scan imager and you did the same with a WallStreet Exec.
And then you put the addicts drug of choice in front of it.
And you put a stock report of huge increase in front of the exec.
Would the display on the imager be similar?
They have done the brain scans and it's very similar.
It's in the same disease family.
They are both addicts was my round about way of putting it without stating it, just wanted others who might not have considered it yet to maybe want to start asking questions of their own. Just because it is not an addiction to a chemical substance does not mean it has different metabolic brain effects. Yes both addictions are both diseases.
Thanks.
So are you for or against the taxpayer funding of higher education? If you are for it, how would you fund it? You realize that by funding it, you are giving everyone a free ride, including those that could actually pay for it. I would not agree to fund it through taxpayers. It removes the necessary lesson of personal responsibility and accountability. IMHO most that pay realize they are not there to party but to work and learn.
Most of those pay with daddies money, or they wouldn't have it to party with.
It's the average guy taking anthropology, that isn't doing all the partying.
It's the ones that know they are, and will remain rich,no matter what.
You did not really answer my question.
We need to educate our population. It's the single. smartest thing we could do as a Nation.
The single most important thing.
And you want to argue about how it gets funded?
You think that's even a valid question?
Your argument against education, is that some of them party, some of the time?
Frankly, I don't care how it gets funded, just that it does.
It's not like the corporations are going to do it, in spite of the trillions of dollars they've made in pure profit from us.
So I guess that leaves it up to us.
It's the single most important thing we can do as a Nation.
Would you prefer stupidity?
You miss the point. I am not against funding education. Not sure how you come to conclusions you do. The best funding would be low or zero interest loans for college level education, but there has to be a better mechanism to insure payback. You can not just send everyone to college for free. College education is not a right. Higher level education is supposed to be hard, it is there to separate and distinguish those that really desire to go forward in life. If everyone went, it would become a watered down product. Some people are just not cut out for college requirements, that is just the way it is. As far as corporate profit, not sure why you mixed that in, as that is separate subject. But there are a lot of corporations, executives, shareholders that fund the endowments of universities which provide for a large amount of student assistance. You seem eager to leave that out. Try to leave the anger out of your writing style.
Actual jobs would insure the "loans" are paid off.
Somehow you missed that point entirely.
Where in the hell do you get the idea that education is a "product"?
It's your perception that's throwing your thinking off course.
Of course jobs would insure payoff. But people have to choose an education that makes them desirable to be hired, in other words, have some value to the company that actually hires them. I am not calling education a "product", that was only maybe wrong word, how about just "watered down". So calm down, I think you are intelligent enough to get the point rather than parse words. Anger is like a fog on clear thought. Your anger at corporations or anyone wealthy creeps into every discussion when it is not even the subject of discussion.
Gosh, and other highly overpaid people, "chose" to send millions of jobs elsewhere. Jobs, those folks had been working for years already.
Blink......gone, along with the job next door and the one next door to that.
Indeed, it was the same "investment houses", that just loved those sliced and diced derivatives, that led to the crash, that in some other department were DEMANDING those jobs be off shored for the benefit of those ever mysterious "investors", who are often just higher ups in the the same "investment house".
That's why , I say.
OccupyWallStreet!
Because, by and large, they created all of these problems.
Thought we were talking about education and funding?
I'm talking about education, and you're talking about training.
If it's for the training? Make the corporations pay.
The lotto aught to cover the rest.
Training? And lotto? Where are you going now? Can you read and comprehend and discuss without going so far off topic?
You're talking about training and how to fund it.
Let the corporations pay. That's who they're going to work for anyway. What's so hard to understand?
I'm talking about education and how to fund it.
That's what the fuck they said the lotto was for. So let's use it for that and keep it the out of the slush funds.
See? Easy peasy and right on topic.
When did I speak of training? And by the way, the corporations already pay for training once a person is hired. Where have you been? Basic education is paid for by the local taxpayers. Higher education is funded in a variety of ways, including the actual students. You want it for free. I would like some strings attached too insure some payback on the cost. I suggested some possibilities. As for the lotto, that is a state responsibility, in my state it is used for funding senior citizens programs, etc.
it's a shame, but you seem quite hopeless to have a decent discussion without going off topic and railing against corporations.
will there be any need of the next generation being able to take care of us? Thats not in the plan set out here by the UN to force most of the world population into poverty.
Among the new authorities being sought by the world body are global carbon taxes, wealth redistribution amounting to trillions of dollars per year, and a barrage of programs dealing with everything from poverty and education to health and resource allocation. Virtually no realm of human activity will be unaffected by the scheme, which analysts have described as a “mammoth exercise in global social engineering.”
the rest of this great article is on this link;
http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/11600-un-seeks-new-powers-to-remake-world-at-rio-sustainability-summit
Wealth is being taken from the workers who creat it and distributed to the holder of trust funds at an alarming rate, agreed.
As far as carbon taxes go they're that just stupid, we should just not allow people to spew stuff onto other people property, if you make it you keep it, it gets off your property you go to jail, then it stops anyway, problem solved.
i was referring to the parts saying that huge part of the population will be pushed into poverty.. no jobs in other words.. so what is the point of educating everyone when there will only be a handful of jobs for a few?
In this post I quote one the most respected economist of all time saying that the US public debt would be paid in full by 2011 in 2001, so I think they get it wrong sometimes.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/bush-tax-cut-deficit/
how can we pay for the military if universities are free. fucked up priorities to say the least. :(
war before school that is fucked up, imagine a Seal Team Six of science, unifying the fields, curing cancer, patching the black holes .......
Be careful that argument might just make me feel better about myself if i let my loans default. The connection you draw by that statement might just blow up in your face, figuratively of course. Send our troops home or we default. Now that is catchy, i'm thinking i got the hang of thinking like a one percenter. no?
Besides, are you not ashamed that our military is used as a corporate enforcer? tisk, tisk. lol :)
Nothing is free. I think what you are trying to say is that "Higher education should be provided for all citizens by the government." Someone has to pay for it.
true the roads are not free
[Removed]
[Removed]
Modern media conditioning is not education, even if attendance is compulsory or a graduated option. Greedia will crash something, soon, and this greedia is driven by the bogus educational system in the US and elsewhere, debt or not.
I think that accepting those who can afford it instead of those that deserve it have driven us down this road.
come on trolls let's trash this too
And you think a sociology or hispanics studies major will be able to do that? Lol
So your one of those who want the government to tell people what to study, humm.
[Removed]
I personally have no problem paying for something that is valuable. Problem is, high school education has turned into a joke. Used to be able to learn a few things there.
And first two years of college is nothing but a rehashing of high school stuff.
Throw in the "well-rounded" courses, and you really only get 1 yr of the training you wanted, for the price of 4.
I think curbing that disturbing trend would bring it back to reasonable levels.
I don't think the best should be for sale, I think you should have to earn your way there, and then on down the list, somewhere after state school, there would be a place for those who just buy their way in.
remember the gi bill - created the middle class as we know it and the basis for the baby boomers wealth today - they got much of it from their parents
Investment in education has shown to be one of the best any person or country can make, no doubt.
investment implies return.. if valid.. there would be no student loan debt.
so no company with any debt has ever made an investment, interesting perspective
a company is not a person. but even if they were: the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that nearly six in ten businesses shut down within the first four years of operation. follows that that a persons investment in the business of work will fail. but unlike companies.. the problem doesnt just go away once that happens. "If revenues take longer to ramp up than expected—as they nearly always do—you may find yourself handing the keys of your business over to your creditors." which isnt an option for a person. and seriously.. would any creditor shell out 25-100k to an 18 yr old for any other reason? would an 18 yr old attempt to borrow that much if they had not been indoctrinated into believing it would pay off? and if this society is lying to its children, shouldnt they pay for their mistake?
oh I see where you missed it I wasn't talking about a person either I was talking about the country
but it is true our current system of giving opportunity to those who are "well born" is not providing the best people to run our business we do have agreement there
How's that? If I invest $100,000 upfront and it produces $12,000 a year in returns, over time I recoup my investment, but how does this rule out debt at some point? Why is it a surprise to see debt just after you're done with the investing part and in the early years of the return part?
i could see that if. that was 12000 more return than without the investment. the problem is that the average uneducated person can make about 25k working factories or construction or what have you. soo to make that 100k return on investment the person would have to be able to make 25k plus 12k , if this was the case.. there would be no problem with paying off that debt. but it is not the case. welders make the same as IT experts w/ bachelors. thats the problem
[Removed]
So invest. But what we're seeing is people that invest and just don't want to pay for it. If you invest in an education that isn't worthless and use your brain about where you get ypur education, you won't have a problem. You like facts, so there's one for you.
Why should anyone be "forced" to pay for an education you claim is useless?
You where NOT forced to go to collage. You where NOT forced into a DEGREE. You choose both. You knew before you ever even went that it was not free and the price is high and getting higher. You choose to go an borrow money if you not have have it. So now you want to be a thief and not pay the money you borrow back?? In the end someone is paying. That teacher wants their money. They are not doing this for free. If we are really going to call education an investment then we all know that investments do not always work. You can lose everything you invested.
Ever tried to get a job without a degree?
Funny how most good paying ( starting pay ) jobs require a minimum of 2 yrs of college. Not necessarily looking for a degree or even an area of study. Just that you spent at least two years in college. WTF is up with that? Sounds like discrimination to me.
Well considering they refused to pay enough taxes to fund K-12 education and it became a matter of lottos. Are you really that surprised?
Lottos that were supposed to fund K-12 in perpetuity, have become nothing more the State slush funds, while they bitch about teachers unions and SCREAM for further cuts to K-12.
Not surprised - AT ALL. It is an ancient business tactic. They know that there are not enough college educated individuals to ever fill these jobs, especially when you consider a grad would qualify for way more than the offered position in the 1st place.
No it is just a terms of employment ploy so that when they hire that intelligent hard working High School Grad that the grad must surely understand that they will get less for doing the job.
Politicians can use their provided plausible dependability by saying well looky there - impetus for getting a college education. That will be good for our For Profit......I mean centers of Higher learning.
Welcome to the dystopian world of Neolibe(R)tarianism.
Where the only thing that matters, is how much money they can make off of you.
It's OK, 'cause Ayn Rand said so.
Was she pretty too? All heroines should be pretty.......do you think she is a pin-up girl in Ivy league Bathrooms?
Just in the (R)epelican't ones. It's a very private thing.
They don't anyone to know......yet.
OH - another secret...............shhhh....gotcha.........hey...did I mention....now this also secret so.......GWB smoked weed and drank like a fish.......shhhh......
Yep. i have one. It is not great paying but it is not minimum wage either. and i did have to get more education to get it. I have Certificates, but did not go to collage. I paid for my learning and I paid for my testing.I paid for it my working the crappy jobs. Fast food, busboy, retail sells, etc etc etc. My Favorite job I hated was scraping out a very large sewage storage tank for it yearly maintenance. I work with others that went to collage and got a degree that there are no jobs for, but they still have their monthly payments. Where am i going with this?? hell if i know.... ;)
Not too many years ago, you would have had a chance at a UAW auto factory. To get into management you needed "any" college degree, yepprz, even women's studies, or pottery.
WallStreet messed that up for you.
Aren't they nice for doing that?
Do you realize how stupid that statement is? You could get into UAW auto Factory Management as long as you had a collage Degree in anything. Dear God, that answers why they sucked so bad then.
They were profitable then, and they're profitable now.
So what's your problem?
What the hell does that have to do with getting into management simple because to have a degree in anything?
What you lack. Discipline.
Come on Shooz. The very FACT that they will take anyone into management because they have a degree and it does not matter what that degree is, just shows that you do not need a Collage education or a degree to get that job. But then there may be NO TRUTH in what you said and you could be just pulling my leg.
Right now, they aren't. But if the occutards get their way, then it'll be the taxpayers getting forced.
Just make better choices. Is it really a mystery that winding up some huge debt for a women's studies or sociology major is a bad idea?
Pretty good not answer the question and then insult an entire movement.
Looks like the only "tard" here is you.
In fact, I would advise you to refrain from using that term.
It shows a decided lack of education. I sure hope you didn't have to pay that shit.
It isn't a movement.
I guess it needs to be clearer. They shouldn't be forced too. Students obviously already aren't and now taxpayers shouldn't be either.
Education? When I went to college, I was enough of a grown up to understand that debt comes due and that if I use debt for school, i'd better think about how much and what the opportunity would likely be. Yeah, real tough. But now, we have whiners indiscriminately borrowing for soft major majors withou economic value. This truly is the dumbest generation of all time, and the most entitled.
But there's always the rationalization of why your bill should be sent to someone else. I get that part.
Why should education be based on "economic value", and what the hell is that anyway?
Who decides what "economic value" is? You?
What the hell is a "soft" major? Who decides that? You?
Now you've also "decided" that OWS isn't a movement.
Sounds to me that you overpaid for your education. You should sue someone, as you just don't get it.
College degrees that don't pay
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/pf/1008/gallery.low_paying_college_degrees/index.html
That could change before you graduate.
It also doesn't answer the question.
Is that wishful thinking there from you? it could change before you graduate? Look with 4 years of basic Collage degree you have from 65K-120K. You start owning a monthly bill and you still have all the monthly bills just to live. The price for education it going up. WHY?
Everything has to keep up with WallStreet.
It's true. All it takes is a little planning and a little acting like a grown-up. It takes a little judging borrowing against opportunity, something a genuine college student should be expected to be capable of handling. Oh, but that's asking too much say the occutards.
Change? Many of these dummies bet it all that things would change. The bet employers in four years would start giving a fuck about hiring hispanics studies majors before their bills came due. LOL.
The price of college is going because of indiscriminate and reckless borrowing that's throwing too much money at it. They've created inflation by being such bad consumers. Now, they want even more money to indiscriminately throw at it, this time, your money.
It should be based on economic value when you're asking taxpayers to pay for it. Personal enrichment? Your case for making someone else pay for it it what, exactly?
What's economic value? Are you serious? It's the degree to which it underpins income. That's hard? Who decides? If you're paying, you do. But if someone else is paying, and that's what occutards want, then the person with the wallet you're tapping decidez for you.
What's a soft major? Again, really? If it didn't exist before the 70's and it isn't a science, that's a good start. Lol. Who decides? Again, if you're paying, knock yourself out. But if you want to come bitching with $100,000 in debt for a women's studies major, don't mind us if we tell you to fuck off and that we told you so. Then, you might have a little more insight into what a soft major is all about.
No, I didn't overpay for my education. My IRR has been outstanding. It was a fabulous investment. I also learned enough not to be in a debt hole for an "education" no employer gives a fuck about. Wanna take classes for fun, at least have the brains not to do it with debt? This is hard for the dumbest generation?
Yes, I observed puny ows turnouts and i observed a bunch of whiners that won't grow up and I decided it wasn't a movement. On May 1st, I'll observe much of the same. Who decided it was?
Lot's of typing to not actually address the question.
Yeah, you over paid for your education.
Did you major in pointless bitching?
LOL damn that one I thought I was gonna split my gut.
Nope, I majored in something that helped me pay my own bills. Bitching, you must mean the whiners with the signs.
Truly, this is the dumbest generation ever.
They will never be as irrelevant as you, nor as miseducated.
You missed the balance somewhere down the line.
You should have minored in observational skills, or maybe empathy.
But I'm sure you make a fine robot at your workplace.
Sure, because the geniuses are all carrying signs whining about overborrowing for uneconomic majors and their own failed choices. Funny how it's the sociology majors and not the engineers crying for subsidy. Miseducated? That's the protesters.
Yeah, I shouldn't be a robot. I should live free at someone else's expense. I want to go to art school, you know, just because. Send me money.
This is the dumbest generation. The whining sense of entitlement is amazing. Honest to God, is life really this hard? Do we need to send you all back to be re-parented? How in the hell will you cope with the rest of your life? Must we simply assign you a guardian, at government expense, naturally? Lol.
We should invest as a nation and send the best so it won't be wasted.
[Removed]
But GIs actually did something to justify their entitlement. Now we just have some whiners that lack the brains not to debt-up for sociology majors and want someone else to pay to refill the punchbowl.
ah yes - thoughtful words from a grown up. as with most of the thugs and creeps on this site you missed the point but no surprise
Children often do get upset at a message of self-responsibility. Being a grown up can be hard, it's to just whine and demand.
If you want that major in Celtic Studies, be mindful of debt. Wow, toughie, huh? How can we be so mean? LOL
two swings two misses. first of all if you want to engage in these debates you must learn about money and debt - start with hudson on modern money theory and then read graeber on debt. that should take you some time but don't hurry. i will try again - your use of the word entitlement gives away your quisling for the rich mind set. the idea that society has the means to pay for something and that it is a public good is foreign to you. sorry but the concept is an important one even if you cannot grasp it. we are much richer than 1948 and need an educated population so - can you put two and two together - ah yes - you come up with 14 time and time again. must be that skull and bones education biff - i know your real name - thurston preston ascot howell the 4th - did i miss one - was it milton or pigshead
Grow up and pay your own bills. College provides a large income lift unless you fuck it up by your own choices. Asking non-college grads for more subsidy is wrong. Sure, take from plumbers and give to sociology majors in debt. Seems fair. LOL
You must agree that we should end mass immigration of drop-outs. Support having an educated public: occupy the border. Funny though how leftists tout education, but then smear anyone wanting to stop importing drop outs as racists
well if the shoe fits - yes you are a racist - your people come here then you want to close the border - very human of you! i wonder what the indians have to say about that? no i am not against immigrants but i am against rich white boys - i want to tax the shit out of them like we did during the "golden age of capitalism" - look it up since i know you don't understand what i am saying - well educated my ass. you don't understand history or economics. check it out and let me know the tax rates and the income inequality numbers. i do notice that when you have no good response to the point being made you switch subjects - i thought we were discussing the gi bill not immigration - i think that is strike three! you know what that means - you do don't you?
Of course, I knew it. We need an educated country, but we also need more drop-outs, if they're brown. LOL. Libtard.
libtard - is that a reference to liberals? well as i am sure you know the liberals gave us vietnam which killed 2 million or more. mr clinton gave us sanctions in iraq which killed 500k kids under 5 - should i go on? no i am not a liberal - and you? a conservative - and what might you be conserving - money, marriage, old fashioned values like slavery? do you want to go back to the 1950's or 30's or maybe the 1800's? land of the free and home of the brave - and fools like you!
Im pretty sure both sides have been perverted at this point.
It's a term used for liberals with especially weak reasoning skills. For example, complaining that we're in trouble because the nation is insufficienty educated while railing at people that want to limit immigration of drop-outs is something one hears from libtards.
and my point about liberals? did you miss it? and the answer to what you are conserving??? there is no logic to your point about education and immigration but go on spouting it if it makes you feel better - grownup - sure you are - they use names like libtard - sad little man - i assume you are a man - women are not so stupid.
[Removed]
So in your world, people need to risk their very lives in order to qualify for higher education. Weird. Never mind that the program was successful and worked and could easily work again (without the war thank you) if we had more grownups in this country with some common sense.
You want to stuff your neighbors with your bad education and debt decisions without any reason whatsoever. Really weird. Asking people to be smarter than to run up $70k in debt for a sociology major should come before asking your neighbor to pay for it. Radical.
Grown ups know about responsibly borrowing money.
You know something, you have a point. The only problem is...it's at the end of your pitchfork.
Live responsibly, then as a last resort go begging to your neighbor. A women's studies major with problems paying back student loans doesn't cut it. Grow up.
Investing in a program that makes higher education more accessible is responsible. The point you miss here is the correlation between the success of the GI Bill and this nation becoming the wealthiest nation in the world. But we don't really need a war to justify the qualifications behind that investment. You first.
But too often it isn't education, it just costs money. Rather than adjust choices, they want more access to their neighbor's wallet. Students have been reckless and won't accept what the debt problem is telling them. The number of people ending up at Starbucks (and this started well before the recession) is telling you that it too many case it isn't investment, it's misinvestment.
But the GIs earned it. Whining for entitlement isn't anything like the GI bill. Underwriting bad decisions won't now make the nation better off, it makes us worse off. Ever hispanics studies or celtic studies department in the country is praying for more subsidy. It's simply time for better decisions, not just yet more money.
I can put the dots out there for you, but I can't make you connect the dots. I can see where you're coming from about earning the right to higher education and all. It is the way things have been done and the accepted way of looking a higher education. It is something that must be paid for, but things change, situations change, and times change.
If making a national policy to invest in the education of future generations would lead to the same success as seen with the GI Bill, why would we not want to do that? The hollow statements I hear from you about neighbors not wanting to foot the bill for a program like that - well, it sounds a whole lot like the very whining you want to paint onto other people. Maybe, it is time for you to take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself - not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
Your last line is ironic because you're the one asking something of his country, not me.
Our problem isn't too little money for education. In fact, we've had too much money already recklessly thrown at it that it's started inflation. Inflation won't be solved by taking it even further. What's needed is better decison making. People with degrees showing up at Starbucks is a sign that we're miseducating people. Mases of miseducated people that piled up debt getting their non-educations is the heart of the problem, not insufficiet access to subsidy. Students need to start making better decisions with what they have.
I suppose this massive debt problem could be attributed solely to students needing to make better decisions. Still, saying kids are just stupid these days seems like an awfully convenient and over simplified explanation of a big problem in our society. Forgive me if I don't buy it. Maybe I'll go read up on that stuff flip suggested.
Good point. I guess you need to go enroll for a few semester to see what a teenage fantasy land it is.
Well, its pretty well known by the 20% that actually try that college has turned into a big joke. Like I said, if I wasnt just there, I wouldnt be speculating.
Sounds like a convenient scapegoat strategy to me. Much like when the rich demonize the poor for being to lazy to work and ignore the bigger picture.
Trust me, I got out of school only a few years ago. The students are pretty stupid. Most are only there to prolong high school. They are babied by their parents. They have no concept of saving. Its all very worrisome to watch on a first person basis, over the course of four years.
Trust you? But I hardly know a thing about you. Trust involves intimacy.
[Removed]
I have a masters degree in physics
My girlfriend of 4 years is working on the same thing! Very cool.
Great. That still doesn't ensure you won't blow up your llife with screwy attitudes about personal responsibility or that your investment was a wise one. But you have a much better shot than if you pursued one of the fradulent majors. Hopefully, you also weren't a debt dummy thinking only about repayment once you graduated.
study of human culture facilitates human relations
Great. Now have it "facilitate" an employer giving a shit if you borrowed money. Your neighbor's wallet, honest to God, shouldn't be the first resort.
more to being human that the exchange of goods and services
You're right, live as you'd like. Just be grown up enough to pay for it. You want some screwy major that adds nothing economically, then all we ask is that you pay for it. Live it up, but on your own dime. What used to pass for obvious is now argued by way too many 20-something whiners.
no..
Sorry, but you're going to have to. Growing up can be hard, but you'll be OK. Other generations managed it, you might be developmentally delayed, but you'll get there too.
grow ghrow growning up
grownup2 say growing up
the people they are children
face grownup2 pre arranged bargain
the reed breaks that goes not bend
did I mention growing up
Now you just need to do it. Tapping your neighbor's wallet needs a better story than you've got.
I ain't got no land
I know I can sell my labor
$1 to whip a nose
I can live with that. Except that the state schools are usually a rehash of highschool stuff. It is almost a waste of time, the first two years for someone like me (not trying to brag, just saying how I felt).
There is nothing more frustrated than having to sit in a class that you already know about, know all the stuff. I think this just further proves what a fraud the entire college thing is right now.
Unless you are going for, physics, most of this stuff can be learned on the job better than wasting four years in school. But we have trumped this stuff up so much that there is this big recognition about it.
Just thought of this, let me knoww what you think= If someone wants to hire say a marketing person, one has a four year degree, the other is straight out of school, I wonder if tying the one who does the hiring to the cost of schooling would sway the decision?
I'm thinking "school" is secondary?
Anyway, it may not seem that way at first but quality and method of entry payment are different but related topics, i believe as our schools learned to educate those who could afford to go the quality went down.
I like the ideal of every child in America wanting to get as far as posible in school, knowing that they will be paid more and have a better life the father they go, I want them all to know that the education would be available but not easy to get, that they would have to earn their way into each level, and daddy can't buy them in no matter how rich he is.
The rich can pay for private colleges but the public needs a free option. No one should be taking out 30 year home mortgages or student loans. People claiming they are Christians leave a lot to be desired. You aren't supposed to let people go hungry and you are not suppose to make them into debt slaves either. Even in Jesus' time they had rich and poor, there were however some things you just did not do to your fellow man.
I agree, there should be some merit system that provides a free college education. That isn't the same issue however as loan forgiveness. Average student debt for a graduate with loans is just over $25k. A lot of money, but no more difficult to handle then a car loan. The minority of students with debt equal to that of a mortgage walked knowingly into an agreement. They shouldn't be rewarded by debt forgiveness for being foolish.
There IS a merit system that provides free college educations. "Scholarships"
In the view of some that may be enough, academic scholarships only reach a very small number of students. There are also economic considerations, not academic ones that often eliminate middle income students from consideration for scholarships. That gets more into a separate issue from the topic in the original post.
Millions of dollars of available scholarships are not awarded every year simply because nobody applies for them. If students didn't have such an attitude of entitlement and would make an effort to research and apply for scholarships, they would reach a larger number of students.
The issue of scholarships becomes very complex. Many of the small scholarships have restrictions. For example, our teacher's union offered one for seniors going into teaching, if no one chose that major for a year it went unclaimed.
1779 Thomas Jefferson proposes a two-track educational system, with different tracks in his words for "the laboring and the learned." Scholarship would allow a very few of the laboring class to advance, Jefferson says, by "raking a few geniuses from the rubbish."
So much for Mr. Equality and his writings.
Obama proposed billions for job training programs at community colleges for the same reason.
Nobody's perfect. That's one of the reasons why letting a few people at the very top have all of the power is a very BAD idea...
I have always wondered why the college education was not included in the public education system.
I mean public education was instituted to see that everyone living in the USA is literate and has all of the skills necessary to function successfully in today's world. Why I have always asked has that concept never been carried forward to include a college education an education of any advanced learning and application?
Oversight?
I don't think that a college education is considered "necessary to function successfully in today's world" so I think it's very clear this is not an oversight. I know many successful people who do not have a college education - they do, however, have an excellent work ethic and have worked very hard to get where they are today.
I suppose like everything else money is at the heart of why government doesn't do the best job possible. Literacy was only part of the reason to make education compulsory, part of it was also to eliminate child labor. The very fact that you could drop out at 16 rather then when you finished high school shows even then lawmakers weren't overly concerned with education.
It has been ( always ) a give and take kind of thing - we need smart people but we ( business corporations military ) also need wage slaves - how do we find the right balance?
That's always been the hard part.
We must concentrate on issues and moving forward together in promoting and supporting health and prosperity for ALL.
No more smoke and mirrors - kick politics to the curb - and concentrate on uniting together in common cause for the health and prosperity of ALL.
You're looking at another difficult problem with that statement. Once you get down to specific items you can't get people to agree on what to spend on with limited funds.
There are priorities to assign the resolving of each should also be the aim of furthering health and growth to recover the economy as we move forward on other issues also to be handled as what is good and best for ALL individuals ( the population ) society ( also tied to the population ) and business ( subject to the health of the population/society/world ).
Examples of possible starting priorities:
OSTA - one subject at a time legislation.
Citizens United - End Corporate personhood.
Money out of politics - campaign finance reform - conflict of interest in ellected officials. Earmarks.
There is plenty more but those above I would say are key to a good start.
I don't agree with a lot that goes on around this forum - but the three examples you presented I do agree with. Sadly, there are many conservatives around that you will find agree as well. Too bad there is so much static and white noise around...
That is why I say fuck politics - and deal with issues - in issues we can plainly recognize common cause for all or it's absence. Most especially after tonight's episode of Frontline - I mean WOW.
I don't see too many people praising the public education system in the US. If college was free, it would be watered down and become even more useless than it already is. Not to mention the fact that local school systems are in dire need of resources - just to teach kids the basics - and we want to add 4 more years to that basic education?
We used to have the educational system that was the envy of the world. I was in school during those days. The height of the Cold War days. When The Powers That Be in this country feared for this country's survival. Not really they were concerned with maintaining their power and dominance. Now however they are worried about losing that power and dominance to the people who "ARE" this country. Hence the decline of the public education system. Smart truly critical thinking people are a danger to those who would dominate.
Bullshit. The reason our education has declined is not because the "powers that be" want to keep us dumb. It is because we have continued to lower our standards. This is the result of a number of different programs, the latest of which is No Child Left Behind. As a society, we would rather lower the standard than hold children - and their parents - accountable for education.
Who has lowered their standards? Those in charge of the system. Again we used to have the educational system that was the benchmark of the world. Who shot it all to hell and gone (?) - the system.
Who currently is in control of the system (?).
The People??????? NOT FOR A LONG TIME IF EVER.
It has Been Private Interests Private Money of The Corrupt Greedy.
Like everything else, apathy pays a big role in the dumbing down of America. We have allowed our system to be hijacked by the social workers, child psychologists, and other 'experts' who see such great harm in children failing. But when we make it so that children can't fail, it also inhibits other children's ability to excel. I was in school around the same time you were, it sounds like. Back then, if you didn't pass- you didn't pass, and that was it. While it did suck for that individual child, the system as a whole benefited. If you can imagine the education system as a foot race, the "No Child Left Behind" was supposed to speed the slower kids up so that they could run with the pack, instead, it slowed the pack down to the pace of the slower kids. That has an impact on the fastest kids as well.
All that being said - the reason this is happening is not because of big business or government big brother trying to control people.
Well truly - Back Then - really the only thing missing was giving the proper attention to those who were failing finding out why they were failing as well as putting them somewhere with closer supervision. Problems need to be understood and addressed by real activity and involvement. Not by trying to force the square peg into a round hole. They have not owned the fact yet that the peg is square and the basic hole is round. So they have not decided that being square is OK and just needs a different approach - no instead they ignore difference and maintain trying to force the square to be round. Not surprising they have poor results.
I think we have found a point to agree on. The way boys and girls are educated using the same methods is one simple example.
Yes and No there are differences in motivation perhaps or in some perception but I think that is also a matter of the few rather than the norm or majority. I believe it may be more how the information is offered/presented/targeted rather than differences of perception. Information can certainly be gender aimed as well as culture aimed as well as class aimed. Bottom line information can be aimed at audiences.
So in all I guess that I do mostly agree with your example. Sorry it took so long for me to get there.
Education should be provided on a completive basis to everyone equally the highest paid teachers in the country should work for these schools available equally to all based on tests/grades/actions ect we know how to do that part. Those with the money that couldn’t get in could go to one of the lesser private schools. Then we decide as a nation how big the best class can be.
"Christians" are now responsible for making sure everyone gets a college education? That is ridiculous. If you want to debate the religious people should do more to clothe and feed the poor - I'm good with that. But sending people to college? I'm sorry, but there are much more dire needs in the world than this.
Jesus didn't advocate force which is what progressives are all about.
Force?
You mean taking part in the process of government by the population instead of just the Wealthy & Wealthy Corporations/Business.
Somehow I do not think that Jesus was against following the society's rules as instituted by those governments - In fact I do believe one of the things he said was " Render unto Caesar all that is Caesar's". Or don't buck the system.
I really don't see how that applies here in the USA as that system is a government OF The People BY The People "FOR" The People.
Perceptions such funny things.
yea - give the govt what it wants. it doesn't mean the govt is right. you can try to confiscate whatever you want. it doesn't mean you will collect it. historically the federal govt revenue has been between 18 & 20% of GDP regardless of the tax rates. People change their behavior & hide there money. It's as simple as that.
Sounds like an enforcement issue that needs pursuit not the giving way to corruption and crime. Why is the government not right in wanting to collect everyone's full tithes to the support of the full society in which they live?
Many tax dissenters do so be cause of the example of the corrupt wealthy individuals who dodge supporting their society in full.
These wealthy dodgers are so visible and the amounts with-held so huge are the ones who promote this behavior by their apparent immunity/non-accountability approved lack of responsibility.
As for government being right? Only so long as it legally supports the health and prosperity of it's whole population and does not engage in the abuse of it's neighbors.
yea - the govt are the keepers of virtue - forgive me - I forgot. yea - give them more money.
Just what kind of an idiot are you????????
Troll tactic ( ancient troll tactic ) #6 (?) Act oblivious to the fact that OWS Occupy 99% and all movements against corruption and greed are aware that we need to regain our government and that that is one of our primary drives.
Can you shit heads not be original in any way?
hahahaha! now I've got you to lose your cool lol! I must be getting somewhere. good luck
No sorry wrong again. I have not lost control - I just calls em as I sees em.
And you gave all kinds of examples for dead head blind marching support of the greedy corrupt for anyone to miss.
I just thought it was time to talk to you in terms you might understand.
Thanks for playing please come again.
Gee, I guess there's nothing we can do about it, anymore than we can do anything about murder. That's been going on for as long as humans have populated the planet. Just throw up your hands and do whatever the governments wants. Seems like I've heard that before: "I was just following orders."
hahaha! so student loans are akin to murder now? this is why your movement has no credibility. So the government forced you to get into debt up to your eyeballs majoring in star gazing? tell me - are you responsible for anything in your own life? or is everything to be taken care of for you?
What type of force are you referring to?
progressive taxes used for redistribution, soc sec, medicare, public schools
soc sec, medicare, public schools are all supported by conservatives as well.
yea - out of political necessity. conservatives prefer choice in soc sec, vouchers for meidcare & schools.
More like monetary necessity. If they really opposed them they wouldn't cash the social security checks, pay their own medical bills, and send their children to private schools.
well - considering they paid in all their their lives - of course they will cash the check it's their money! given the choice to start over I'd prefer no govt forced social programs & public school vouchers.
The social security check is not their money. Their contributions were spent decades ago. They receive from current workers, about 3 supporting every one recipient.
same thing - they put in - now they take out. regardless of the timing - geezz! ok - lets end Soc sec. I'm all for saving my own money and living off it when I retire and leaving the balance to my heirs. see - problem solved. you dont force me into soc sec & the problem is solved.
I'd rather have control of the institutions through transparency
absolutely - is government transparent? how about thru competition?
government can be transparent
how about thru competition?
go find another gladiator
give me an example of transparent govt. oh wait - thats right - Obama promissed to be the most transparent president - so we must have it now lol!
one whose actions and publicly listed to the people
which one is that? your answer is not an example it is a description.
Please, how does one make education free? I know how to shift the cost to the other guy, but I am most interested in your idea of how it can be free. Haha. So typical.
roads are not "free" either, but somehow we use them without pulling out our wallets
That doesn't answer e question. You can answer a question, can't you? You like facts, maybe you have some to share to show how it's done.
Roads aren't free. I applaud you for knowing that. Maybe you mean that they don't get paid but pulling put of your wallet, but at least you seem to know it comes from somebody's wallet. That's about all we can ask on this board, I suppose.
Actually it does, are there no "free" schools in your area? none?
[Removed]
education free? nothing is free - someone pays. you just want someone else to pay your way. ridiculous. how about free food too. what else do you want for free?
roads
I guess we could not build any because people use them for free, but would that put the country in the best position to compete?
Where do you think roads come from - the road fairy? Roads are not free, and people do not use them for free. They are funded by taxes and fees associated with the driving privilege.
I drove to the store today, who do I pay?
Should be same for school, sure nothing is free, but some things look that way.
do you pay taxes? do you have a driver's license? is your vehicle registered? Then you have paid for the roads.
I think that could work for education. Do you have money? Is it yours because people with education say so? Then chip in some.
I do have money. And I do pay - I pay taxes. Those taxes go for a lot of purposes including roads, defense, public safety, and other government services. They also go towards food stamps, welfare and other social programs. My tax also goes to pay for the schools, where any child that chooses can attend 13 full years of public education. What you are asking is that I now pay for 4 more years of education.
Here are some questions for you:
Who determines the rate of payment? Do you just get to pick any school that you want to attend for free? If it is based on academic merit, is it fair that the government is paying for you to attend Harvard while I attend the Southern Vocational Institute? And is it fair that you get 'more' college than I do because I'm not as smart? If we go with a "public" college option - one that caters to the lowest common denominator - don't you think that employers are going to value private college degrees over public college degrees? Won't college get watered down just like public education has over the years - we'll basically end up with 17 years of schooling instead of 13.
It is so simple to just say "pay my college loans" or "free higher education" for everyone.
yes I am saying that it would be better for us to pay for the 4 or 8 if the person can make it, I am not saying unlimited, I am saying reserved for those who have earned it, not bought it, we let people use money to buy their way into everything we should not do it here, education should be for the best not the most blessed, I would hope that we would find a way to send most people to school certainly the very brightest at least, but our schools have to take those who can afford it not the best, we should fix that
we could not spend more on bombs than the next ten countries or so combined, that should free up some money if you’re worried
Now you are discriminating against people who aren't blessed with as much intelligence - is that fair? If public college is only for the people who can "make it" for four years, then the bar will just be lowered to make sure that more can finish. And who makes the determination of who is the 'best?'
I actually agree that the government should have funding to send the best and the brightest to good colleges. It is in all of our best interest. Of course, this is a far cry from your original post that education should be free for everyone, and your supporting arguments using the roads as an example.
Life ain't fair buddy get over it, life is tough and if we aren't going to get our asses kicked we need to stop being such wimps when it comes to money, it don't get you everything it's just a scorecard, get over it.
We decide on admissions every year nothing new about that just the rich kids will have to go through it too now. It’s not enough to let a few lucky bright kids in you got to keep the stupid rich ones out too. Make it free and competitive and then we can decide how much we can afford.
That's funny. The guy pushing for free education is telling me that life isn't fair and life is tough. I thought your whole premise was a lack of fairness because you have to possess or borrow money to go to college.
Now, you are asking for all college to be free and entry into college be competitive based on who is the smartest. Here is a another problem with your proposal. Kids from higher income families tend to have better grades and perform better on college entrance exams. I'm not saying that is the case for EVERYONE only that as a group, it holds true. It could be because of home life, access to resources, quality of instruction or any number of factors, but the facts are the facts.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/10/12/the-correlation-between-income-and-sat-scores/
So if it is going to be truly competitive, then you are going to provide free education to the most intelligent who students who may also be able to afford paying for school.
Then the rich kids won't have a problem.
What I'm pushing for is that we let the wealthy know their money don't buy everything, when they pay their tax big or small it's got nothing to do with fair, at least no more so than the decisions they make in the broad room.
Now I think you are starting to get it. Yes a level playing field. No money required to enter the lists - just real ability - equal and open to all on real merit.
If I had to pay for someone's college, I would certainly want it to be the person who is most likely to be successful.
I challenge your thought that this is a level playing field. Looking at the article I linked in the above post, they show a correlation between income and SAT scores.
Let me try to draw an analogy. The high school is holding tryouts for the varsity baseball team. The tryouts are open to anyone - it is a "level playing field." The teens that come to tryout, however, do not come all come from similar backgrounds. Some of the players played under shoddy coaches in the past, others have not had an opportunity to play at all before. A few may not have even had a father or father figure to teach them how to throw a ball. While not all of this is tied to income, there is a fair amount of it that could be related to socio-economic status.
I agree that there is more to a healthy educational system. I do believe that one step in the right direction would be to remove money as an issue for attendance. You bet - education to full potential needs a lot of work.
roads are used by everyone. how you make your livelihood is up to you. your way of thinking only leads to one thing. Soviet style Communism.
where you drive is your business too
ohhh "Soviet style Communism" better than having the fascist run the country how long till the GOP fires up the ovens?
hahahaha! I'd say the Nazi's were more akin to socialists as in their name National Socialist Party. Go read a history book now & then.
oh yeah forgot who I was talking to reading past the name would be hard for you, you know what if you get your number above 0, I'll go get some quotes from Hilter about unions, maybe put up next to say Scott's but I hate to do that sort of thing, fortunatly all the people who have read a book know how stupid you sound but too bad more people haven't.
Sorry really a wrong way to look at it.
Society pays for education as it is in "Societies Best Interest" to get the best educated people making up that society.
Who does this benefit?
ALL.
The Money Invested By Society in "their" Society "is" Returned to Society by the CONTRIBUTIONS of it's "Educated Population".
OH - AND - BTW :
Society also pays for the consequences of the uneducated in their population.
go to a state school then like I did. very affordable tuition. I worked my way thru & paid cash.
Is that why you sound so...daft? I see now, you are posting crap here even if no one will listen to you because you're bitter. Bitter that society never gave you a chance so you try to spread your misery. Miserable wingnuts like you sure bring the world down a notch.
hahaha! quite the opposite actually - I am trying to help you people see the light because I have & am living proof of how anyone can achieve happiness, success and a great life if you get away from the toxic liberal stew you are stewing in lol!
"because I have & am living proof of how anyone can achieve happiness, success and a great life if you get away from the toxic liberal stew you are stewing in lol!"
because you have & am living proof of how to become a bitter angry wingnut from being in the toxic righty stew that you are stewing in lol!
Fixed that for you angry, bitter one. Gee if you are truly serious about helping people here, you would remove yourself from here or atleast refrain from guzzling the 1%er's cum so hard over the internet. Do you really think people here like to listen to you preach about how much you enjoy taking the phallus of 1%er's?
You and your kind are a blight upon the world and without you, the world would be better for it.
hahahaha! thank you for ceding defeat. The nasty name calling is telling.
Thank you for admitting defeat. Your blatant deflection is the only thing you can do because you have no way to justify your flawed views. By the way, It's unlikely that someone like you would even get as far as a State school judging by your 'commentary'.
hahahaha! good luck to you ! you will need it.
Thank you for admitting defeat and fueling OWS to further take on your toxic rightwinged farce. Your angry, bitter looney bin mentality has no place in these forums or in this world.
hahahaha! good luck to you ! you will need it.
If we want the country to be the best, the best should go to the best, no matter how much money they have that should have nothing to do with it. Money doesn't make you smart, we only have so many seats in the best schools, and the problem with America is we let people buy their way into them.
"If we want the country to be the best, the best should go to the best, no matter how much money they have that should have nothing to do with it." Yea - it's called a scholarship.
Sure we can call it that everyone who goes to school will do so with a scholarship, good ideal, that's how we build consensus.
scholarships are awarded for the exceptional usually. Feel free to start your own scholarship fund for equal distribution just for the asking.
I'll call it the "In the US if you can make it, you can get it scholarship." pull accreditation from any school that don't partake, and it will be the new way, I love it, let's do it.
pull accreditation & funding. Plenty of paper mills out there right now. Those should be shut down as they have no accreditation - so no practical value - just a money making scam.
Exactly as well as Harvard if they want to keep letting in legacies instead of the top students.
OH - Hell. Letem have their private club. Just open-up all other institutions to students of merit and let "them" make the club look sick by comparison and lack of achievement of their grads when real students start hitting the streets upon graduation.
Maybe, point being we should consider those things money should be used for and those things that should be need/merit based.
Yes - the benefit of all in promoting a healthy and prosperous world for all. Things like fully funded public education for higher learning whether that learning is in college or a technical school should make no difference. Higher learning funded for all to the benefit of all - society being the largest beneficiary of a well and properly educated population.
that's the ideal, and even beyond that in a way I think we make education less effective in some cases because it becomes a source of money for some, they are motived to make money not build the nation, this affects the outcome at their schools, the same can be said for health care, many times we take for granted that people spend their money wisely when if fact most of our ecomony is based on convincing people to do exactly the oppsite
This is a major problem in communications. Communication of reality - things that are needed to promote health and prosperity. This is a start at the top and work your way down issue - to telling the truth and dealing with issues not politics or business special interests ( profit with no responsibility or accountability). We have to start making criminals pay - WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS - the most dangerous to society and the world.
Education can be effective again if you can properly inspire the students and show them that this will give them a good start in a good world.
what does that mean ? If you can make it?
you the usual grades test scores ect..
Which is all well and good for those with the means BUT IT IS NOT an ALL inclusive system.
So much wasted talent and intellect. Due to lack of means. Or exorbitant price of means.
we must end the concept that money should be the end all of power, it is but one form, when the people use money created through the work of its people, to educate the brightest of the people that will only make things better, those who say but why should I have to pay, I say to them because you have the money....
I say because it is your society/world too. We all benefit from the educated among us. And if we can motivate health and prosperity as a goal for all I think we can motivate studies in proper directions as well as support interest to succeed.
What you say is true, it’s not that I disagree, but I also say that when someone asks, “Why do I have to work?” and the answer is because daddy is not rich, everybody needs money. Then it is also just as fair, and simple to say you pay because you have the money, it really doesn’t matter how you acquired it, from the labor of your workers or your grandfather’s workers, the point is we have a system that puts the “money” there so that is where we go to get it. It really is simple, even if you don’t like society or something, it’s not about “you” it’s just that’s where the money is and we need to pay off some bonds right now, don’t worry if you hold bonds you will be getting the money right back.
Fair is fair. Some people just have a real hard time with the concept.
I want the rich to know it pains us to tax them, just as much as it pains them to lay people off, times are tough, hard choices must be made.
Yes - no one likes to do this. It is what is needed.
I do think the conparasion is a good one, when they talk about punishing the rich, they should answer if when closeing shops were they punishing the loyal workers or making tough choices? we need to change the words or get someone to at least ask the question, I wish the Obama team were half as good as the people on this site, but maybe they don't want these things out there as soon as the Rs are gone they got some splain' to do
Yes - all of this BS about punishing the corporations - that have outsourced business to places like China where the work is preformed in abusive shops so that the corporations can have even more unfettered profits - is just sick.
Oh the poor poor beset-upon wealthy corporations oh what ever can they do the poor darlings.
Since when was doing what needs to be done "punishing success", Orwell told how important the words are looks like the evil ones listened, but we can push back with truthful words and kick their lying asses.
Hey some shameless self promotion but see what you think of this one.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-biggest-myth-in-america-is-that-anybody-gets-j/
give me a break. $3,000 per semester now. work, financial aid, student loans. what a cop out. that excuse doesn't work anymore. you want free stuff thats all it comes down to. how about a free car? should we pay for that too? after all - you need to get to work or school somehow.
Free hell I'm saying if America can only afford to educate one person it should be the smartest person, not the one with the most money.
I'm saying everybody, no matter how much money daddy's got would have to work like hell to get what the country offered, and we would expect you to work like hell right back for the rest of your life, or till age 63, or whatever.
so you are jealous of your peers who come from wealthy families. get a life - life isn't fair. get use to it
I'm not jealous of anybody; they are wimps afraid to compete on even footing that's what's wrong with America bunch of silver spoons running the place.
It's the rich who fear those with brains they can't let their poor babies compete fairly.
And If they think taking their money to educate a smarter kid but not theirs isn't fair, well like you point out life isn't fair, they should remember that too when we come for the money to pay the debt too.
everybody seeks every advantage they can get even you. Some are just better at it than others. Stop whining.
Who's whining? I am just pointing out that I know where the mopney is and there is a bill due, now that does make some people whine, but not me.
Education should be reserved for the ones who earn it, not available for purchase at all.
Wow the free stuff argument/accusation.
I was waiting to see that come-up as it does on a regular basis.
No one here is looking for free stuff at least not the supporters against greed and corruption.
How is it looking for free stuff to want everyone engaged in supporting and making a healthy and prosperous world for all where all are given the education and training to make the most of their contributions to the society and then by extension to the world we all live in.
You have just made a repetition of one of the stupidest attacks on the movements against greed and corruption ever put forth by the greedy corrupt - keep it up.
when you dont want to pay your way - its called freeloading. you want everyone engaged - pay your own way and make your contribution to society any way you like. you say you are against greed & corruption - it's just as greedy to want handouts from the govt like free tuition.
Troll ( ancient troll ) tacitic #7 (?) deny benefit to society in supporting education of the full population blow-bye benefits to be realized in an educated populace and that population's possible contribution to society.
education is already really cheap - go to a state school. Or is it that you want your fancy private school education subsidized by the taxpayer too lol! you love the government so much I'd think you'd want to go to a state school no ?
Again you deny reality. You trolls are so boring with your rote talking points - though in a way you are a prime example of an inadequate education.
Did you drop out of school?
I worked my way through college & paid cash. So I have little sympathy for the whiny people who want a handout. No one owes you a living.
See? YOU should be outraged at the education you obviously did not receive.
My My My and here you are supporting greed and corruption after you have so clearly been abused by the system.
Huh.
Maybe there is something in the saying that those who are abused often grow up to be abusers.
Any way thank you for being an interactive example of some of what is wrong in this country.
so basically you aren't responsible for anything. everything should be taken care of for you. Thanks for the insult. It proves you have no case.
Some things are for buying, fast cars, nice dinners, some things are not kidneys, young girls, the right of society to decide that some things are for sale some aren’t, education and healthcare should fall into the can't be bought group, like promotions in the militarily it must be earned in one case and needed in the other.
how about car insurance?
Who ever said such a thing like that?
Oh - yeah - right "YOU".
No I believe in responsibility accountability consideration of others consideration of consequences of my actions and how they might affect others. You know all of the stuff that the greedy corrupt never seem to have been taught and apparently that you were not taught to recognize or appreciate.
Or were you spoon fed the notion that the people with money and power are never wrong and that when something bad happens it is the fault of those who do not run the system or systems that fail. Is that a metaphysical thing? Is that what you have been taught?
I mean if so - then I could understand your failure to grasp what happened to cause the economic meltdown.
Otherwise?
No not so much.
Just pay your loan back.
car insurance, if required by the state should be available from a state run non=profit insurance company that competes in the state for business with the privates, at no time should the government require me to buy something from a "for porfit"
If you are an example of the success of state school education, it is something to be avoided.
hahaha! so predictable.