The Democratic Candidates

Spiritual_Chaos

Beto is back!

https://youtu.be/zDuYGY7T5og

Spiritual_Chaos

Who would vote for Jeff Daniels in 2020?

https://youtu.be/larZCdT_98o

brianlux

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Also,  a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website.  I don't understand how you are using it. 

You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.

First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall.  He's never written anything to that depth here before.  Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated.  Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively.  This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not.   Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance.  If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you.  Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state.  Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP.  It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare.  The same can be said for post secondary educations.  However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years.  It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference.  So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense.   But you have to finish.  The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.  

So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"

Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future.  It's the opposite of progressive economics.  If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that.  Healthcare is different because there is a human right element.  None such exists for college.  

Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.

It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".

Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from. 

I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up". 

Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.


Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.

The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?

For someone who sure hates the US patriotism...you sure as hell act the same way. 

Believe it or not, I've hated every kind of patriotism since mom bought the THE ROCK VHS in 1996/1997:

https://youtu.be/6UkrDEnzIS8

Patriotism is defined as "the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland."  Earth is my homeland so I guess that makes me an Earth patriot. 

Spiritual_Chaos

brianlux said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Also,  a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website.  I don't understand how you are using it. 

You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.

First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall.  He's never written anything to that depth here before.  Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated.  Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively.  This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not.   Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance.  If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you.  Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state.  Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP.  It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare.  The same can be said for post secondary educations.  However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years.  It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference.  So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense.   But you have to finish.  The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.  

So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"

Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future.  It's the opposite of progressive economics.  If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that.  Healthcare is different because there is a human right element.  None such exists for college.  

Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.

It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".

Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from. 

I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up". 

Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.


Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.

The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?

For someone who sure hates the US patriotism...you sure as hell act the same way. 

Believe it or not, I've hated every kind of patriotism since mom bought the THE ROCK VHS in 1996/1997:

https://youtu.be/6UkrDEnzIS8

Patriotism is defined as "the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland."  Earth is my homeland so I guess that makes me an Earth patriot. 

I'm a Universe Patriot. Guardians of the Galaxy opened my eyes.

Spiritual_Chaos

"... and the top ones are all socialist friendly places" 

"The right have a hard time understanding the concept that we don't want 'long-lines-for-bread'-socialism -- We want 'you don't have to win the lotto to afford brain surgery'-socialism"

"Happiness isn't only about what you have - but also what you don't have to worry about"

"All the top countries on the list are ones with some form of universal healthcare, all have free or almost free higher education, all have strong unions, pensions and social safety nets. Turns out freedom from, ending up in a tent below the overpass is a really great freedom"

"Conservatives like to push the canard that unfettered capitalism makes you more free, but actually it's the right kind of socialism model that make you the freest"




"In the US the maternal death rate is almost seven (7) times what it is in Finland, isn't that odd? They only pay 60 bucks to have a baby yet they don't die? It's almost as if our system kind of sucks."



*** SANDERS 2020 ****

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Also,  a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website.  I don't understand how you are using it. 

You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.

First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall. 

It's pretty damn clear - quote from me: "Moving towards a European model of not paywalling people out of education in the Twilight Zone of America is PROGRESS".

Are you being intentionally daft about the difference between progressive economics and socialism?

Why are you talking about sht that has nothing to do with you claiming you don't understand the context of which i used "paywalling" for? Which is the context of this discussion.

Another quote from me: Free college tuition - didn't you already have that  decades ago in the states (?). I don't see any reason why you should have a paywall to help rich people get better education (but maybe there is one). If Sweden, and other countries, can have "free tuition" and no paywall to get into a College and University - then I vote PROGRESS on that one. 

So, eh...  intentionally daft? who?

So yes, you don't understand the difference between the two.  And I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to PJ Soul.  I don't give a shit about your single misappropriated word.  

I used the word correctly to make my point. Don't go hostile because you have problems understanding text. Or read a word, and use 2% abstract thinking to understand, together with words and sentences around it - what it means.

And Sanders reforms wanting to turn the US from medieval times to mid-1900s Europe is progress for you guys. However you want to label it. Embrace becoming a modern country.

Sorry, just because you invented your own English nomenclature doesn't make it accurate.  Paying for tuition is not equivalent to a paywall.  Just like getting fired from a job isn't equivalent to a firewall.  

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Also,  a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website.  I don't understand how you are using it. 

You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.

First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall.  He's never written anything to that depth here before.  Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated.  Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively.  This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not.   Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance.  If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you.  Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state.  Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP.  It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare.  The same can be said for post secondary educations.  However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years.  It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference.  So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense.   But you have to finish.  The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.  

So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"

Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future.  It's the opposite of progressive economics.  If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that.  Healthcare is different because there is a human right element.  None such exists for college.  

Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.

It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".

Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from. 

I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up". 

Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.


Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.

The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?

Well this is interesting isn't it?  The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden.  US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10.  In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%.  Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US?  So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college.  Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.  

mcgruff10

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Also,  a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website.  I don't understand how you are using it. 

You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.

First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall.  He's never written anything to that depth here before.  Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated.  Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively.  This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not.   Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance.  If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you.  Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state.  Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP.  It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare.  The same can be said for post secondary educations.  However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years.  It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference.  So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense.   But you have to finish.  The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.  

So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"

Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future.  It's the opposite of progressive economics.  If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that.  Healthcare is different because there is a human right element.  None such exists for college.  

Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.

It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".

Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from. 

I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up". 

Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.


Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.

The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?

Well this is interesting isn't it?  The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden.  US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10.  In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%.  Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US?  So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college.  Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.  

You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.  

mcgruff10

Hey we are the sixth most educated country in the world, Sweden didn't even make the top ten list.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/the-10-most-educated-countries-in-the-world.html

Every year, institutions in the United States dominate rankings of the best colleges in the world.

Of the top 10 best universities in the world, eight are located in the U.S. But despite having some of the best educational institutions on earth, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranks the U.S. sixth for adult education level.

The OECD defined a country’s adult education level as the percentage of people between the ages of 25 and 64 who have completed some kind of tertiary education in the form of a two-year degree, four-year degree or vocational program.

Here are the 10 most educated countries:

6. United States

45.67 percent

1. Canada

56.27 percent

You go Canada!

mrussel1

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Also,  a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website.  I don't understand how you are using it. 

You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.

First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall.  He's never written anything to that depth here before.  Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated.  Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively.  This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not.   Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance.  If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you.  Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state.  Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP.  It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare.  The same can be said for post secondary educations.  However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years.  It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference.  So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense.   But you have to finish.  The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.  

So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"

Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future.  It's the opposite of progressive economics.  If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that.  Healthcare is different because there is a human right element.  None such exists for college.  

Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.

It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".

Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from. 

I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up". 

Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.


Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.

The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?

Well this is interesting isn't it?  The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden.  US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10.  In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%.  Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US?  So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college.  Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.  

You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.  

Oh and more shocking information, 70% of Stockholm residents under 24 HAVE attended university.  Outside the city, it drops to 17%.  Stockholm is one of the most expensive places to live in the world.  So now the rural folk of Sweden are paying to send the rich city folk to school.  Is that fair?  Doesn't seem to be.  

mcgruff10

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Also,  a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website.  I don't understand how you are using it. 

You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.

First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall.  He's never written anything to that depth here before.  Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated.  Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively.  This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not.   Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance.  If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you.  Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state.  Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP.  It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare.  The same can be said for post secondary educations.  However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years.  It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference.  So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense.   But you have to finish.  The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.  

So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"

Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future.  It's the opposite of progressive economics.  If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that.  Healthcare is different because there is a human right element.  None such exists for college.  

Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.

It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".

Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from. 

I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up". 

Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.


Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.

The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?

Well this is interesting isn't it?  The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden.  US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10.  In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%.  Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US?  So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college.  Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.  

You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.  

Oh and more shocking information, 70% of Stockholm residents under 24 HAVE attended university.  Outside the city, it drops to 17%.  Stockholm is one of the most expensive places to live in the world.  So now the rural folk of Sweden are paying to send the rich city folk to school.  Is that fair?  Doesn't seem to be.  

That definitely does not seem fair to me.  If college is free there then why don't the rural folk go?  

mrussel1

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Also,  a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website.  I don't understand how you are using it. 

You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.

First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall.  He's never written anything to that depth here before.  Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated.  Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively.  This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not.   Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance.  If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you.  Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state.  Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP.  It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare.  The same can be said for post secondary educations.  However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years.  It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference.  So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense.   But you have to finish.  The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.  

So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"

Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future.  It's the opposite of progressive economics.  If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that.  Healthcare is different because there is a human right element.  None such exists for college.  

Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.

It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".

Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from. 

I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up". 

Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.


Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.

The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?

Well this is interesting isn't it?  The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden.  US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10.  In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%.  Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US?  So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college.  Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.  

You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.  

Oh and more shocking information, 70% of Stockholm residents under 24 HAVE attended university.  Outside the city, it drops to 17%.  Stockholm is one of the most expensive places to live in the world.  So now the rural folk of Sweden are paying to send the rich city folk to school.  Is that fair?  Doesn't seem to be.  

That definitely does not seem fair to me.  If college is free there then why don't the rural folk go?  

My guess?  Inequality in the level of education Stockholm vs the rest of the country?  Seems sad.  I wish there was a Swedish band that was popular enough to have a website where I could float some observations and suggestions.

mcgruff10

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Also,  a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website.  I don't understand how you are using it. 

You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.

First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall.  He's never written anything to that depth here before.  Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated.  Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively.  This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not.   Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance.  If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you.  Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state.  Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP.  It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare.  The same can be said for post secondary educations.  However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years.  It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference.  So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense.   But you have to finish.  The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.  

So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"

Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future.  It's the opposite of progressive economics.  If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that.  Healthcare is different because there is a human right element.  None such exists for college.  

Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.

It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".

Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from. 

I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up". 

Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.


Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.

The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?

Well this is interesting isn't it?  The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden.  US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10.  In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%.  Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US?  So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college.  Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.  

You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.  

Oh and more shocking information, 70% of Stockholm residents under 24 HAVE attended university.  Outside the city, it drops to 17%.  Stockholm is one of the most expensive places to live in the world.  So now the rural folk of Sweden are paying to send the rich city folk to school.  Is that fair?  Doesn't seem to be.  

That definitely does not seem fair to me.  If college is free there then why don't the rural folk go?  

My guess?  Inequality in the level of education Stockholm vs the rest of the country?  Seems sad.  I wish there was a Swedish band that was popular enough to have a website where I could float some observations and suggestions.

My guess is that even though the tuition is free room and board are not and we know that it is expensive as hell to live in Sweden.

mrussel1

My guess is that even though the tuition is free room and board are not and we know that it is expensive as hell to live in Sweden.

So it's too expensive for the non wealthy to go to university because of the cost of living? That's morally wrong.  Further the rural are subsidizing the wealthy in Stockholm,  creating further economic inequality. 

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Also,  a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website.  I don't understand how you are using it. 

You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.

First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall.  He's never written anything to that depth here before.  Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated.  Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively.  This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not.   Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance.  If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you.  Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state.  Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP.  It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare.  The same can be said for post secondary educations.  However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years.  It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference.  So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense.   But you have to finish.  The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.  

So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"

Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future.  It's the opposite of progressive economics.  If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that.  Healthcare is different because there is a human right element.  None such exists for college.  

Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.

It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".

Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from. 

I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up". 

Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.


Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.

The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?

Well this is interesting isn't it?  The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden.  US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10.  In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%.  Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US?  So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college.  Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.  

What is a "College" in Sweden then? Did you gather that in your research, what's the equivalent? 

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

My guess is that even though the tuition is free room and board are not and we know that it is expensive as hell to live in Sweden.

So it's too expensive for the non wealthy to go to university because of the cost of living? That's morally wrong.  Further the rural are subsidizing the wealthy in Stockholm,  creating further economic inequality. 

Name one person who applied for the University in Stockholm, and did not attend because of the cost of living? No need to spin a yarn out of nothing.

Living in Stockholm compared to the rest of Sweden, I am certain differ less than lets say San Francisco/New York to smaller americans cities. And yes, I've lived in Stockholm, Gothenburg and a bunch of smaller cities here.

How much does the cost of living differ from SanFran and something like... Haddonfield or Springwood - compared to Stockholm and my hometown Trollhättan? You actually think it is bigger in Sweden than in the US?

Not saying Swedens situation when it comes to access to student apartments and living, and the levels of loans/grants is perfect. But we are not on a fundamental level paywalling poorer students out of schools. But you seem to like that system, because why care about leveling the playing field for, and helping your fellow citizens? Not a very american thing to do, it seems from this thread.

And taxes and trying to create a fair place to live, subsidizing is part of that. But if you'r favorite category on pornhub is "predatory capitalism" I guess that word will sting. 

"Why should my taxes go to helping things be more fair"

Spiritual_Chaos

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

My guess?  Inequality in the level of education Stockholm vs the rest of the country?  Seems sad.  I wish there was a Swedish band that was popular enough to have a website where I could float some observations and suggestions.

My guess is that even though the tuition is free room and board are not and we know that it is expensive as hell to live in Sweden.

"expensive as hell". Yes, we pay more VAT and a bit more taxes than you, but those taxes goes to things that help us all out.

Didn't we break down your pay as a teacher to my brother's here in Sweden, and I didn't recall you having more left at the end of the month than him? Might remember it wrong ofc.

Here you have an easy breakdown of SANDERS COMMIE HELL:

Spiritual_Chaos

Just want to add, that I dislike Sweden in many regards.

But the philosophy of helping each other (even though that is being slowly chipped away) is a lot better foundation for a country than "fuck everyone that isn't me". 

And Sanders seems to agree. So he will get my vote in the primary. Or maybe Warren. Or Buddaedgedge. Maybe Beto.

Spiritual_Chaos

Nevermind, I bow out of this discussion. If you want to keep the US a broken oddity when better options are on display then go for it. Vote for Trump 2020. Coal is coming back and don't forget to invade Iran. 

Now time to work. Pay that 25% in taxes on my pay. Some of that will help people get daycare for their kids, some of it will allow women to stay home after child birth, some of that will help kids that need it get glasses. Fuck me, for my taxes helping my fellow citizens out.

My boss is looking at my screen. Fuck. Have fun people! 

"YOU ARE" ROCKS.

benjs

mcgruff10 said:

Hey we are the sixth most educated country in the world, Sweden didn't even make the top ten list.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/the-10-most-educated-countries-in-the-world.html

Every year, institutions in the United States dominate rankings of the best colleges in the world.

Of the top 10 best universities in the world, eight are located in the U.S. But despite having some of the best educational institutions on earth, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranks the U.S. sixth for adult education level.

The OECD defined a country’s adult education level as the percentage of people between the ages of 25 and 64 who have completed some kind of tertiary education in the form of a two-year degree, four-year degree or vocational program.

Here are the 10 most educated countries:

6. United States

45.67 percent

1. Canada

56.27 percent

You go Canada!

I know this might be tangential to the debate at hand, but I don’t love the “most educated” as being a solid benchmark defining the skills of a nation. I went to university and studied structural engineering (steel/concrete-framed structures, bridge design, masonry, etc.). I did it because I hoped it would provide a rigour in learning and thinking logically, but I found my work ethic only really developed when I found something that interested me, dug my teeth in, and learned obsessively (i.e. at least five years after graduating). I also feel my desire to have logical rigour only developed when I had the accountability put on me that lacking it would cost others - those on my team. 

Hard skills I use from my education: torrenting learning materials, statistics (a high school course from prior to university)
Soft skills I use from my education: the concept of a minimally viable product - doing the least necessary to get the desired output
Skills developed since education: SQL programming, C/SIDE, sales system design, basic neural networks and machine learning fundamentals, business architecture, leadership frameworks and mentalities - any other thing I want to learn, because it’s all out there and accessible. 

Look at the hiring patterns of companies like Google. More and more, the value is put on the people with what I’ve seen described as ‘grit’ - the tenacity to persevere through failures; the people who chase that high of accomplishment regardless of their IQ or prior education through their own resourcefulness. Of course, in a metric-obsessed world, these intangibles are inconvenient when we mostly try to grow our populations through dangled carrots of high success rates, but I think it’s time to think differently about what really matters.