Random Political comments...

[The Dark King]

I'm in student loan repayment cost hell right now, so any kind of student loan forgiveness would be GREAT.

As for free college, I haven't bothered to research how Europe (and anywhere else) pays for the college.

If the US were to have free college, who would be responsible for paying for it? The states? The taxpayers?

And if we had free college, would the quality of professors go down because their salaries would need to be adversely affected by that change?

On the flip side, I do think that salaries for college administrators are completely out of control.

Also, tuition and room and board are completely out of control. My undergrad alma mater, NIU, was total (tuition and room and board, etc) about $8K when I went there. It's now almost $26K.

I loved my college, but it's NOT worth $26K for in-state tuition.

Something NEEDS to be done about the cost of going to college. Maybe free college isn't the answer, but having it subsidized somehow and having caps on administrators' salaries (and compensations, as well as severance packages) would be ideal.


http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=820

What's wrong with free? And like I said before the money is definitely there the people need to be loud about where they want it applied. We don't need dozens of unused tanks and ordinances do we?

 

[Beasty]

Not really. The American High School provides as good of opportunities as other countries now if you want to get into why so Americans squander it...... don't know. The fact that I got college credits in High School and my sister is doing nursing in High School right now...

While you were enjoying your high school experience other high schools in the US were being neglected. This high school was neglected to the point that they actually allowed the roof to fall in. So I really don't think they had the latest up to date equipment and books or anything that could be useful to a higher learning experience. The place was actually not conducive to learning at all. So if this is what your decentralized education system looks like then what's the point of having one in the first place?



http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2001/05/16/36bond.h20.html


"The collapse last October of the roof over East High School's gymnasium sparked Cleveland leaders' effort to secure new money to repair district schools. While no one was injured at East High, the gravity of what could have occurred had a significant impact on the district and the community."

 

[Peach State Scholar]

I'm in student loan repayment cost hell right now, so any kind of student loan forgiveness would be GREAT.

As for free college, I haven't bothered to research how Europe (and anywhere else) pays for the college.

If the US were to have free college, who would be responsible for paying for it? The states? The taxpayers?

And if we had free college, would the quality of professors go down because their salaries would need to be adversely affected by that change?

On the flip side, I do think that salaries for college administrators are completely out of control.

Also, tuition and room and board are completely out of control. My undergrad alma mater, NIU, was total (tuition and room and board, etc) about $8K when I went there. It's now almost $26K.

I loved my college, but it's NOT worth $26K for in-state tuition.

Something NEEDS to be done about the cost of going to college. Maybe free college isn't the answer, but having it subsidized somehow and having caps on administrators' salaries (and compensations, as well as severance packages) would be ideal.


http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=820

A big reason why the cost of college keeps going up is because of damn-near unlimited federal loan money. Back in the day there were caps on how much you could take out in loans to cover tuition costs but these days not so much. Since students can borrow tens of thousands of dollars a year, a lot of schools have raised their tuition because they know the money is going to come in one way or another.

It wouldn't solve the problem completely but if there are ever limits set on how much people can borrow in one year and those limits are reasonable, schools would have almost no choice but to start lowering tuition.

 

[archangel]

I think it is the opposite manner. If they would cap how much the schools could charge then the loans would not be so much.

Look how the northeast's tuition is so much higher than the southeast yet both have the same federal loan requirements.

A big reason why the cost of college keeps going up is because of damn-near unlimited federal loan money. Back in the day there were caps on how much you could take out in loans to cover tuition costs but these days not so much. Since students can borrow tens of thousands of dollars a year, a lot of schools have raised their tuition because they know the money is going to come in one way or another.

It wouldn't solve the problem completely but if there are ever limits set on how much people can borrow in one year and those limits are reasonable, schools would have almost no choice but to start lowering tuition.

 

[Beasty]

You are correct, I am a liberal. But, I didn't start that way. Early on I sided more center right. Then, as I began really looking into the things Republicans were saying and doing, I began to drift more to the left. Facts drive my politics more than anything else. I try to divorce "feel good" emotion from my voting practices as much as possible.

1. Dems actually want to raise military pay. But, Republicans keep attaching items to bills that democrats cann't vote for and they know it. Then, when the bills get voted down they run to the media and yell, "The Democrats are against our troops!" and people believe it without checking the details. It's sad that the troops get caught up in the political thuggery, but it's the truth.

If someone comes to you and says, "I'll give you what you want. But, you have to steal this old woman's life savings." I'm guessing you wouldn't do it. Well, that's the game the Republicans play.

2. How are you sure that Dems set up welfare that way? If they did, why? Was it in reaction to abuse of the system and this was the best they could legally do? Was it budget cuts? Are republicans offering a better plan that would keep the father in the home? And, by better, I mean something other than gutting the social safety net? I'm not trying be a dick in anyway. But, we hear those things said and we just take it as gospel because it sounds like it should be true. We never question if what we're getting is the whole story when the words liberal, democrat and welfare appear in the same sentence.

Welfare is administered at the State level not nationally. So, that being true, it would only stand to reason that Republican led states would run welfare differently. And, they would allow fathers in poor families to stay in the home if that is their concern. Now, I'd be willing to bet, they pretty much do the same as democrat led states or worse. That's even if your original assertion is true.

In the end, you have to ask yourself, are you voting against something that does good, only to vote for something that does nothing?

3. Immigration, you know my views on that. Crack down on the employer. But, it's the republicans that don't want to do that because it disturbs their real constituency; businesses that employ illegals.

Also, illegal immigration is down under a democratic administration and Obama has been sending illegals back way more than any republican ever did. And, he's doing it because it's the law. So, if you want immigration handled effectively and in accordance with our laws then it would stand to reason you'd want to vote Democratic. Dems have proven what they will do. All republicans have done is talk.

4. I grew up with guns. As a former gun owner (I got rid of mine because I'm no longer able to fire it) and a liberal I can safely say that the majority of us don't want to take away your guns. But, good common sense legislation would be nice. Don't believe the hype from the right. Even Bernie Sanders, who's very left wing, is pro responsible gun ownership. That whole, "liberals want to take your guns away" thing is a right-wing boogeyman that doesn't truly exist in an real form.

5. Free public college is a good thing. Private colleges can still charge. No one is trying to stop that. You'll always be able to take the path you choose even if it's not a straight one.

6. And if you want student loans forgiven, do you really thing a republican is going to do that? I can tell you right now what there going to say, "We need to find a free market solution to the problem. Not government interference ...blah, blah, blah" Mark my words. ...lol



No he did not let us down. But, his personality could have just as easily been used to steer the country the other way. Personality is separate from political beliefs. But, it can help a politician sell his ideas no matter how wrong they are.

See Bush, the guy everyone wanted to have a beer with. We all know how that turned out.

1.) So this is why the dems NEVER get anything done for active duty military? Funny how they can get other things that they want badly enough.
They can get the affordable care act passed and can't get decent annual cost of living raises for active duty? Riiight.

2.) The democrats started the expansion of welfare and has always been for it while like most programs the republicans wanted to cut and do away with it.

The Dems provided the money for the programs at the federal level, the least they could have done was make laws to assure that the program would be administered properly.

You choose to absolve them of responsibility. According to that logic the people who fund terrorist activities are in no way responsible for terrorism.

The people who bring drugs into the country are in no way responsible for the destruction of thousands of communities because they were not the ones on the neighborhood block till 5 am.

The republican states administered welfare just as poorly as the democratic states but they didn't want the program at all to begin with.

3.) Props to Obama on this, but the constituency of the left could care less about this achievement.

4.) Have you paid any attention the the gun laws of New York, Cali, Washington D.C. and Chicago? That boogey man is real and the democrats created him.

5.) Based on what exactly? What would this system be modeled after??

 

[Beasty]

I'm in student loan repayment cost hell right now, so any kind of student loan forgiveness would be GREAT.

As for free college, I haven't bothered to research how Europe (and anywhere else) pays for the college.

If the US were to have free college, who would be responsible for paying for it? The states? The taxpayers?

And if we had free college, would the quality of professors go down because their salaries would need to be adversely affected by that change?

On the flip side, I do think that salaries for college administrators are completely out of control.

Also, tuition and room and board are completely out of control. My undergrad alma mater, NIU, was total (tuition and room and board, etc) about $8K when I went there. It's now almost $26K.

I loved my college, but it's NOT worth $26K for in-state tuition.

Something NEEDS to be done about the cost of going to college. Maybe free college isn't the answer, but having it subsidized somehow and having caps on administrators' salaries (and compensations, as well as severance packages) would be ideal.


http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=820

Good Idea

 

[Peach State Scholar]

I think it is the opposite manner. If they would cap how much the schools could charge then the loans would not be so much.

Look how the northeast's tuition is so much higher than the southeast yet both have the same federal loan requirements.

That's mainly because the northesast is where most of the prestigious Ivy League schools are located. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Penn, etc. can charge whatever they want to and people will pay it. You won't find a lot of that in the southeast or the midwest. But it's easier to limit the amount of loan money that students are eligible for than it is to freeze tuition rates, even more so with private schools.

 

[Beasty]

5.)

3.)Employers are already fined. It is that you can't really catch all the employers. I mean if an American needs someone to cut their lawn and they pay an illegal immigrant under the table.... How the heck is the USA suppose to catch that crap? Stand police at every American house to make sure it doesn't happen? It isn't realistic. It is like the speed limit. Sure you get fined for it but we all know that the police can't be every where at once.

All I'm saying is make a legitimate effort. Raise the fines. Use the money acquired from fines to hire more agents for the purpose of enforcing this law.

If money can be wasted on arresting pot dealers in the so called war on drugs. Then they can at least make an effort to catch people in the country illegally.

Federal Agents are smart, good at what they do and have a high success rate in almost every category of crime. Sooner or later they catch the people who they are after.

 

[archangel]

That's mainly because the northesast is where most of the prestigious Ivy League schools are located. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Penn, etc. can charge whatever they want to and people will pay it. You won't find a lot of that in the southeast or the midwest. But it's easier to limit the amount of loan money that students are eligible for than it is to freeze tuition rates, even more so with private schools.

There aren't that many ivy leagues to explain away the higher tuition. I think my point is more clear though. The universities will charge whatever they want. By capping the loan amount, you are simply stopping some students from going to the university. The university will just continue to charge as much as they can to the rich kids.


Also, New Jersey placed a cap on tuition rates. It can be done and doesn't hurt the students.

 

[Beasty]

My ideal pic for president and because it's up in the air for me I may end up voting for whoever he endorses.

 

[Satchmo]

Colin Powell? Excellent 'random political comment'!

 

[Satchmo]

A big reason why the cost of college keeps going up is because of damn-near unlimited federal loan money. Back in the day there were caps on how much you could take out in loans to cover tuition costs but these days not so much. Since students can borrow tens of thousands of dollars a year, a lot of schools have raised their tuition because they know the money is going to come in one way or another.

It wouldn't solve the problem completely but if there are ever limits set on how much people can borrow in one year and those limits are reasonable, schools would have almost no choice but to start lowering tuition.

I think you're on to something. Kind of like how carriers determine what they'll pay doctors and sho nuff the doctors accept it. The hospital charges "X" dollars and the insurance co says they will pay "y" and almost always the hospital says "ok deal"

 

[Satchmo]

Minus the take his kids part, if a woman is on welfare that's pretty much what she is limited too as far as relationships are concerned. Bm that made money under the table or from illegal activity were preferred because they didn't report their income. The left wing did a lot to create those conditions with welfare, yet bm get all the blame for not being in the household.

What really was happening in most cases was that bw determined that the government was a better financial partner in raising her kids than an actual father.

Bm was facing plenty of discrimination in the job market so that of course played into the picture.


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672

I see truth in all that you're saying. In vulnerable moments bm friends have told me that the "unreportable income biz" was more dignified than selling soda at the mall. They were saying that the choice that racism left them was both obvious and incompatible with the W9 American dream. This made sense to me.

The only 'solution' to this (apart from ending racism) seemed to lie in creating alternative opportunity, which points us to look at education. The problem I see with high schools is that they vary dramatically depending on the parish/county -- they seem to be tied to the property taxes of the neighborhood? What if public education wasn't tied to income levels? I don't know the ins-and-outs of school vouchers, but the basic premise begs the question as to why democrats are against it?

 

[Peach State Scholar]

I think you're on to something. Kind of like how carriers determine what they'll pay doctors and sho nuff the doctors accept it. The hospital charges "X" dollars and the insurance co says they will pay "y" and almost always the hospital says "ok deal"

That's pretty much it. If there's a lifetime cap on student loans of, let's say $60,000 then colleges at all levels are going to seriously have to consider how much tuition is going to increase from year to year. It's understandable that tuition is going to increase a little bit just because of inflation but the rate at which it's skyrocketed over the past few decades is unsustainable. The downside is that it would probably end up hurting poorer students whose families can't afford to pay for college so even if we fix that problem we'd end up causing another.

If I had to tell kids nowadays about whether they should go to college after graduation I would seriously be on the fence about it given the debt they would rack up and the fact that they may not be able to pay it off in any reasonable amount of time, not to mention pursuing an advanced degree like law or med or business school. If only 35 year-old me could go back and talk to 25 year-old me...

 

[Beasty]

I see truth in all that you're saying. In vulnerable moments bm friends have told me that the "unreportable income biz" was more dignified than selling soda at the mall. They were saying that the choice that racism left them was both obvious and incompatible with the W9 American dream. This made sense to me.

The only 'solution' to this (apart from ending racism) seemed to lie in creating alternative opportunity, which points us to look at education. The problem I see with high schools is that they vary dramatically depending on the parish/county -- they seem to be tied to the property taxes of the neighborhood? What if public education wasn't tied to income levels? I don't know the ins-and-outs of school vouchers, but the basic premise begs the question as to why democrats are against it?

I think the problem is less about how the high schools are financed and more related to the fact that people just don't care. People get away with stealing and misuse of government funds because it doesn't directly affect anyone. Try misusing the money of a corporation. It will get uncovered and you will get fired with the quickness. When people are directly affected and have something to loose like the stockholders for example, less bullshit is tolerated.

The way the state colleges are set up now you either have to work your ass off in order to get in without paying, in that case they can start making you pay as soon as your grades slip, or you will have to pay from the beginning. In either case you have to put forth the effort and have something to lose if you slack off.

The schools can't slack off or people will stop going and they will loose revenue. By saying fuck it and let everyone go free you take away the reason for people to care and you take away the reason for a school to stay on top of their business.

I think Bookworms idea is on the right track, people should generally have to pay for college, but the fees shouldn't be out of control like they are in the north.

That's pretty much it. If there's a lifetime cap on student loans of, let's say $60,000 then colleges at all levels are going to seriously have to consider how much tuition is going to increase from year to year. It's understandable that tuition is going to increase a little bit just because of inflation but the rate at which it's skyrocketed over the past few decades is unsustainable. The downside is that it would probably end up hurting poorer students whose families can't afford to pay for college so even if we fix that problem we'd end up causing another.

If I had to tell kids nowadays about whether they should go to college after graduation I would seriously be on the fence about it given the debt they would rack up and the fact that they may not be able to pay it off in any reasonable amount of time, not to mention pursuing an advanced degree like law or med or business school. If only 35 year-old me could go back and talk to 25 year-old me...

Now days MBA's are only good under one of these circumstances:

1.) If you are already at a company you want to stay with long term and you have opportunities with them to move up the ladder and they are willing to pay for it.

2.) You go to one of the top 20 US schools.

3.) You simply want to expand on your knowledge as a venture capitalist.

 

[The Dark King]

I think the problem is less about how the high schools are financed and more related to the fact that people just don't care. People get away with stealing and misuse of government funds because it doesn't directly affect anyone. Try misusing the money of a corporation. It will get uncovered and you will get fired with the quickness. When people are directly affected and have something to loose like the stockholders for example, less bullshit is tolerated.

The way the state colleges are set up now you either have to work your ass off in order to get in without paying, in that case they can start making you pay as soon as your grades slip, or you will have to pay from the beginning. In either case you have to put forth the effort and have something to lose if you slack off.

The schools can't slack off or people will stop going and they will loose revenue. By saying fuck it and let everyone go free you take away the reason for people to care and you take away the reason for a school to stay on top of their business.

I think Bookworms idea is on the right track, people should generally have to pay for college, but the fees shouldn't be out of control like they are in the north.



Now days MBA's are only good under one of these circumstances:

1.) If you are already at a company you want to stay with long term and you have opportunities with them to move up the ladder and they are willing to pay for it.

2.) You go to one of the top 20 US schools.

3.) You simply want to expand on your knowledge as a venture capitalist.

Not even. If you don't couple it with a JD or engineering don't bother. Most of that stuff can be learned in the real world for free

 

[Beasty]

Not even. If you don't couple it with a JD or engineering don't bother. Most of that stuff can be learned in the real world for free

Damn.........lol

 

[The Dark King]

Damn.........lol

Its too general everything is going toward specialization and a MBA doesn't really give you a skill set. What can you actually do at the end of it?

 

[Beasty]

Its too general everything is going toward specialization and a MBA doesn't really give you a skill set. What can you actually do at the end of it?

I don't know. The job market never really made much sense to me. Personally I look at the job market as a secondary reason for my education, because I don't understand it. Lol. Too much bias for my logical disposition.

 

[The Dark King]

I don't know. The job market never really made much sense to me. Personally I look at the job market as a secondary reason for my education, because I don't understand it. Lol. Too much bias for my logical disposition.

Yeah this entire thing is a game lol