BTW SC, I’m going to bow out of this one. I hope someone else has the energy to play these games with you, and I hope I can develop the self-restraint to never play them again with you. It’s a joke to you and it shows.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Bernie's non-progressive values annoy the shit out of me.
In the US, it would impossible for his ideas not to be considered progress.
Socialist and progressive are not interchangeable terms.
So, please tell me in what way would tax funded health care not be progress in this country of yours?
I mean, how many years behind the rest of the world are you with that basic idea?
So yes, from where you stand as a country -- some social democratic values, that spread through more successful democracies decades ago, would be progress for you. Because you are Twilight Zone levels of behind in the name of capitalism and political corruption.
Progress is not synonymous with progressive. They may overlap from a terms perspective, but they are not the same, just like socialism is not always the same. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with the distinction I'm drawing between a progressive policy and socialist policy.
Okey. Well my point still stands.
So does mine. Bernie's policies, by and large, are not progressive. I don't like them.
list some policies of his you do not like?
Free college tuition and debt forgiveness. These are not progressive. They disproportionately help middle class white people.
Are there not college's that offer a good education that is affordable for many/most? I just always assumed the ones that drive people into extreme debt is Harvard's, Michigan, Usc type schools?
Yes absolutely. You can do two years of junior college and then transfer to a state university. People make bad choices and attend private and out of state colleges, substantially increasing their debt. And for those that are from truly disadvantaged backgrounds, there are plenty of federal grants. You can also do what my daughter is doing now. She took AP classes in high school so she had over 25 credits when she entered William and Mary, a public school. Then she maxed out each semester at 18 credits. The price was the same whether you do 12 or 18. So she will graduate a full year early, saving us a good chunk.
It sounds like there are plenty of options...no matter the income level.
Well there is a problem though. The cost curve has far outpaced any other normal inflation by a long shot. I think the root is a mixture of 1. cuts at the state gov't level for university funding (remember there are no federal schools), a massive increase in the investment of amenities at the schools and then students make poor choices about what they can afford long term. The availability of public and private money makes it easy to choose that small liberal arts school at 45k a year. We need reform, but just socializing it is not the answer.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,938
Bernie's non-progressive values annoy the shit out of me.
In the US, it would impossible for his ideas not to be considered progress.
Socialist and progressive are not interchangeable terms.
So, please tell me in what way would tax funded health care not be progress in this country of yours?
I mean, how many years behind the rest of the world are you with that basic idea?
So yes, from where you stand as a country -- some social democratic values, that spread through more successful democracies decades ago, would be progress for you. Because you are Twilight Zone levels of behind in the name of capitalism and political corruption.
Progress is not synonymous with progressive. They may overlap from a terms perspective, but they are not the same, just like socialism is not always the same. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with the distinction I'm drawing between a progressive policy and socialist policy.
Okey. Well my point still stands.
So does mine. Bernie's policies, by and large, are not progressive. I don't like them.
list some policies of his you do not like?
Free college tuition and debt forgiveness. These are not progressive. They disproportionately help middle class white people.
Are there not college's that offer a good education that is affordable for many/most? I just always assumed the ones that drive people into extreme debt is Harvard's, Michigan, Usc type schools?
Yes absolutely. You can do two years of junior college and then transfer to a state university. People make bad choices and attend private and out of state colleges, substantially increasing their debt. And for those that are from truly disadvantaged backgrounds, there are plenty of federal grants. You can also do what my daughter is doing now. She took AP classes in high school so she had over 25 credits when she entered William and Mary, a public school. Then she maxed out each semester at 18 credits. The price was the same whether you do 12 or 18. So she will graduate a full year early, saving us a good chunk.
It sounds like there are plenty of options...no matter the income level.
Well there is a problem though. The cost curve has far outpaced any other normal inflation by a long shot. I think the root is a mixture of 1. cuts at the state gov't level for university funding (remember there are no federal schools), a massive increase in the investment of amenities at the schools and then students make poor choices about what they can afford long term. The availability of public and private money makes it easy to choose that small liberal arts school at 45k a year. We need reform, but just socializing it is not the answer.
also need to talk about the possibility of vocational education as much as college education.
all the automated shit here now and coming in the future will require installation and maintenance as well as repair techs....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Bernie's non-progressive values annoy the shit out of me.
In the US, it would impossible for his ideas not to be considered progress.
Socialist and progressive are not interchangeable terms.
So, please tell me in what way would tax funded health care not be progress in this country of yours?
I mean, how many years behind the rest of the world are you with that basic idea?
So yes, from where you stand as a country -- some social democratic values, that spread through more successful democracies decades ago, would be progress for you. Because you are Twilight Zone levels of behind in the name of capitalism and political corruption.
Progress is not synonymous with progressive. They may overlap from a terms perspective, but they are not the same, just like socialism is not always the same. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with the distinction I'm drawing between a progressive policy and socialist policy.
Okey. Well my point still stands.
So does mine. Bernie's policies, by and large, are not progressive. I don't like them.
list some policies of his you do not like?
Free college tuition and debt forgiveness. These are not progressive. They disproportionately help middle class white people.
Are there not college's that offer a good education that is affordable for many/most? I just always assumed the ones that drive people into extreme debt is Harvard's, Michigan, Usc type schools?
Yes absolutely. You can do two years of junior college and then transfer to a state university. People make bad choices and attend private and out of state colleges, substantially increasing their debt. And for those that are from truly disadvantaged backgrounds, there are plenty of federal grants. You can also do what my daughter is doing now. She took AP classes in high school so she had over 25 credits when she entered William and Mary, a public school. Then she maxed out each semester at 18 credits. The price was the same whether you do 12 or 18. So she will graduate a full year early, saving us a good chunk.
It sounds like there are plenty of options...no matter the income level.
Well there is a problem though. The cost curve has far outpaced any other normal inflation by a long shot. I think the root is a mixture of 1. cuts at the state gov't level for university funding (remember there are no federal schools), a massive increase in the investment of amenities at the schools and then students make poor choices about what they can afford long term. The availability of public and private money makes it easy to choose that small liberal arts school at 45k a year. We need reform, but just socializing it is not the answer.
also need to talk about the possibility of vocational education as much as college education.
all the automated shit here now and coming in the future will require installation and maintenance as well as repair techs....
Very true. Engineers and maintenance techs are the future.
Bernie's non-progressive values annoy the shit out of me.
In the US, it would impossible for his ideas not to be considered progress.
Socialist and progressive are not interchangeable terms.
So, please tell me in what way would tax funded health care not be progress in this country of yours?
I mean, how many years behind the rest of the world are you with that basic idea?
So yes, from where you stand as a country -- some social democratic values, that spread through more successful democracies decades ago, would be progress for you. Because you are Twilight Zone levels of behind in the name of capitalism and political corruption.
Progress is not synonymous with progressive. They may overlap from a terms perspective, but they are not the same, just like socialism is not always the same. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with the distinction I'm drawing between a progressive policy and socialist policy.
Okey. Well my point still stands.
So does mine. Bernie's policies, by and large, are not progressive. I don't like them.
list some policies of his you do not like?
Free college tuition and debt forgiveness. These are not progressive. They disproportionately help middle class white people.
Are there not college's that offer a good education that is affordable for many/most? I just always assumed the ones that drive people into extreme debt is Harvard's, Michigan, Usc type schools?
In addition, there are universities with terrific co-op/intern programs. I had a 5 year program for engineering. However, that included 7 quarters (the equivalent of 2.3 years of normal college) of co-point...working for pay in the field of choice.
I did have a scholly that helped freshmen year, but after that I was able to pay for everything based on my own earnings, and this was without a job during the quarters I was at school. So there are some great options out there, but it still hard to argue that universities aren’t out of reach for many still. I’m not sure why more don’t consider community colleges...the system is in place there. I’d support some government funding for specific degrees at community colleges and trade schools...with much more limited support for 4 year schools unless targeted degrees.
Bernie's non-progressive values annoy the shit out of me.
In the US, it would impossible for his ideas not to be considered progress.
Socialist and progressive are not interchangeable terms.
So, please tell me in what way would tax funded health care not be progress in this country of yours?
I mean, how many years behind the rest of the world are you with that basic idea?
So yes, from where you stand as a country -- some social democratic values, that spread through more successful democracies decades ago, would be progress for you. Because you are Twilight Zone levels of behind in the name of capitalism and political corruption.
Progress is not synonymous with progressive. They may overlap from a terms perspective, but they are not the same, just like socialism is not always the same. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with the distinction I'm drawing between a progressive policy and socialist policy.
Okey. Well my point still stands.
So does mine. Bernie's policies, by and large, are not progressive. I don't like them.
list some policies of his you do not like?
Free college tuition and debt forgiveness. These are not progressive. They disproportionately help middle class white people.
Are there not college's that offer a good education that is affordable for many/most? I just always assumed the ones that drive people into extreme debt is Harvard's, Michigan, Usc type schools?
In addition, there are universities with terrific co-op/intern programs. I had a 5 year program for engineering. However, that included 7 quarters (the equivalent of 2.3 years of normal college) of co-point...working for pay in the field of choice.
I did have a scholly that helped freshmen year, but after that I was able to pay for everything based on my own earnings, and this was without a job during the quarters I was at school. So there are some great options out there, but it still hard to argue that universities aren’t out of reach for many still. I’m not sure why more don’t consider community colleges...the system is in place there. I’d support some government funding for specific degrees at community colleges and trade schools...with much more limited support for 4 year schools unless targeted degrees.
This is the same argument I've been making since Sanders came out with his free tuition. I would support juco then state u. for targeted degrees where the state or fed has a clear current or future need. There should be some sort of means testing as well, but I'd probably extend that into the middle class.
I hope I can develop the self-restraint to never play them again with you.
Okey. Will try to remember to let you know, if you find yourself getting lured back in.
If benjs is backing out of a conversation with you, you should probably think a bit about your posting. He is probably the most level headed person here.
Bernie's non-progressive values annoy the shit out of me.
In the US, it would impossible for his ideas not to be considered progress.
Socialist and progressive are not interchangeable terms.
So, please tell me in what way would tax funded health care not be progress in this country of yours?
I mean, how many years behind the rest of the world are you with that basic idea?
So yes, from where you stand as a country -- some social democratic values, that spread through more successful democracies decades ago, would be progress for you. Because you are Twilight Zone levels of behind in the name of capitalism and political corruption.
Progress is not synonymous with progressive. They may overlap from a terms perspective, but they are not the same, just like socialism is not always the same. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with the distinction I'm drawing between a progressive policy and socialist policy.
Okey. Well my point still stands.
So does mine. Bernie's policies, by and large, are not progressive. I don't like them.
list some policies of his you do not like?
Free college tuition and debt forgiveness. These are not progressive. They disproportionately help middle class white people.
Are there not college's that offer a good education that is affordable for many/most? I just always assumed the ones that drive people into extreme debt is Harvard's, Michigan, Usc type schools?
Yes absolutely. You can do two years of junior college and then transfer to a state university. People make bad choices and attend private and out of state colleges, substantially increasing their debt. And for those that are from truly disadvantaged backgrounds, there are plenty of federal grants. You can also do what my daughter is doing now. She took AP classes in high school so she had over 25 credits when she entered William and Mary, a public school. Then she maxed out each semester at 18 credits. The price was the same whether you do 12 or 18. So she will graduate a full year early, saving us a good chunk.
It sounds like there are plenty of options...no matter the income level.
Well there is a problem though. The cost curve has far outpaced any other normal inflation by a long shot. I think the root is a mixture of 1. cuts at the state gov't level for university funding (remember there are no federal schools), a massive increase in the investment of amenities at the schools and then students make poor choices about what they can afford long term. The availability of public and private money makes it easy to choose that small liberal arts school at 45k a year. We need reform, but just socializing it is not the answer.
I think the same can be said here Canada about the cost. Now, it's safe to assume when people talk free education, they are referring to tuition? Because I worked with a fellow who did not see free education as all that much help in the grand scheme of things...because his daughter had to attend school out of town, housing, books and daily living far outweighed tuition...or does free include all this as well? Don't get me wrong any help is appreciated, but either way, as he put it, it's still costing a good chunk of coin.
Bernie's non-progressive values annoy the shit out of me.
In the US, it would impossible for his ideas not to be considered progress.
Socialist and progressive are not interchangeable terms.
So, please tell me in what way would tax funded health care not be progress in this country of yours?
I mean, how many years behind the rest of the world are you with that basic idea?
So yes, from where you stand as a country -- some social democratic values, that spread through more successful democracies decades ago, would be progress for you. Because you are Twilight Zone levels of behind in the name of capitalism and political corruption.
Progress is not synonymous with progressive. They may overlap from a terms perspective, but they are not the same, just like socialism is not always the same. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with the distinction I'm drawing between a progressive policy and socialist policy.
Okey. Well my point still stands.
So does mine. Bernie's policies, by and large, are not progressive. I don't like them.
list some policies of his you do not like?
Free college tuition and debt forgiveness. These are not progressive. They disproportionately help middle class white people.
Are there not college's that offer a good education that is affordable for many/most? I just always assumed the ones that drive people into extreme debt is Harvard's, Michigan, Usc type schools?
Yes absolutely. You can do two years of junior college and then transfer to a state university. People make bad choices and attend private and out of state colleges, substantially increasing their debt. And for those that are from truly disadvantaged backgrounds, there are plenty of federal grants. You can also do what my daughter is doing now. She took AP classes in high school so she had over 25 credits when she entered William and Mary, a public school. Then she maxed out each semester at 18 credits. The price was the same whether you do 12 or 18. So she will graduate a full year early, saving us a good chunk.
It sounds like there are plenty of options...no matter the income level.
Well there is a problem though. The cost curve has far outpaced any other normal inflation by a long shot. I think the root is a mixture of 1. cuts at the state gov't level for university funding (remember there are no federal schools), a massive increase in the investment of amenities at the schools and then students make poor choices about what they can afford long term. The availability of public and private money makes it easy to choose that small liberal arts school at 45k a year. We need reform, but just socializing it is not the answer.
I think the same can be said here Canada about the cost. Now, it's safe to assume when people talk free education, they are referring to tuition? Because I worked with a fellow who did not see free education as all that much help in the grand scheme of things...because his daughter had to attend school out of town, housing, books and daily living far outweighed tuition...or does free include all this as well? Don't get me wrong any help is appreciated, but either way, as he put it, it's still costing a good chunk of coin.
In Sweden (as an example I know a little about) you do not pay for the tuition or to attend the University etc. This is free - and everyone has a "fair" shot, regardless of economic means. It's all about your grades when competing for a spot.
You do pay for books, housing, materials ofc though.
In Sweden you get a "subsidy/grant" for studying and you can also add a "state funded" student loan with "generous" terms . Which pretty much everyone does, if they do not choose to work instead or live at home.
Per week (for University and similar schools) at the moment it is: Subsidy/Grant: $85 Loan (100%): $195
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Bernie's non-progressive values annoy the shit out of me.
In the US, it would impossible for his ideas not to be considered progress.
Socialist and progressive are not interchangeable terms.
So, please tell me in what way would tax funded health care not be progress in this country of yours?
I mean, how many years behind the rest of the world are you with that basic idea?
So yes, from where you stand as a country -- some social democratic values, that spread through more successful democracies decades ago, would be progress for you. Because you are Twilight Zone levels of behind in the name of capitalism and political corruption.
Progress is not synonymous with progressive. They may overlap from a terms perspective, but they are not the same, just like socialism is not always the same. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with the distinction I'm drawing between a progressive policy and socialist policy.
Okey. Well my point still stands.
So does mine. Bernie's policies, by and large, are not progressive. I don't like them.
list some policies of his you do not like?
Free college tuition and debt forgiveness. These are not progressive. They disproportionately help middle class white people.
Are there not college's that offer a good education that is affordable for many/most? I just always assumed the ones that drive people into extreme debt is Harvard's, Michigan, Usc type schools?
Yes absolutely. You can do two years of junior college and then transfer to a state university. People make bad choices and attend private and out of state colleges, substantially increasing their debt. And for those that are from truly disadvantaged backgrounds, there are plenty of federal grants. You can also do what my daughter is doing now. She took AP classes in high school so she had over 25 credits when she entered William and Mary, a public school. Then she maxed out each semester at 18 credits. The price was the same whether you do 12 or 18. So she will graduate a full year early, saving us a good chunk.
It sounds like there are plenty of options...no matter the income level.
Well there is a problem though. The cost curve has far outpaced any other normal inflation by a long shot. I think the root is a mixture of 1. cuts at the state gov't level for university funding (remember there are no federal schools), a massive increase in the investment of amenities at the schools and then students make poor choices about what they can afford long term. The availability of public and private money makes it easy to choose that small liberal arts school at 45k a year. We need reform, but just socializing it is not the answer.
I think the same can be said here Canada about the cost. Now, it's safe to assume when people talk free education, they are referring to tuition? Because I worked with a fellow who did not see free education as all that much help in the grand scheme of things...because his daughter had to attend school out of town, housing, books and daily living far outweighed tuition...or does free include all this as well? Don't get me wrong any help is appreciated, but either way, as he put it, it's still costing a good chunk of coin.
I don't know if Sanders plan was intended to cover room and board. My daughter is going off campus next year and the cost to split an apartment with utilities and estimated food is cheaper than a dorm and meal plan.
Bernie's non-progressive values annoy the shit out of me.
In the US, it would impossible for his ideas not to be considered progress.
Socialist and progressive are not interchangeable terms.
So, please tell me in what way would tax funded health care not be progress in this country of yours?
I mean, how many years behind the rest of the world are you with that basic idea?
So yes, from where you stand as a country -- some social democratic values, that spread through more successful democracies decades ago, would be progress for you. Because you are Twilight Zone levels of behind in the name of capitalism and political corruption.
Progress is not synonymous with progressive. They may overlap from a terms perspective, but they are not the same, just like socialism is not always the same. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with the distinction I'm drawing between a progressive policy and socialist policy.
Okey. Well my point still stands.
So does mine. Bernie's policies, by and large, are not progressive. I don't like them.
list some policies of his you do not like?
Free college tuition and debt forgiveness. These are not progressive. They disproportionately help middle class white people.
Are there not college's that offer a good education that is affordable for many/most? I just always assumed the ones that drive people into extreme debt is Harvard's, Michigan, Usc type schools?
Yes absolutely. You can do two years of junior college and then transfer to a state university. People make bad choices and attend private and out of state colleges, substantially increasing their debt. And for those that are from truly disadvantaged backgrounds, there are plenty of federal grants. You can also do what my daughter is doing now. She took AP classes in high school so she had over 25 credits when she entered William and Mary, a public school. Then she maxed out each semester at 18 credits. The price was the same whether you do 12 or 18. So she will graduate a full year early, saving us a good chunk.
It sounds like there are plenty of options...no matter the income level.
Well there is a problem though. The cost curve has far outpaced any other normal inflation by a long shot. I think the root is a mixture of 1. cuts at the state gov't level for university funding (remember there are no federal schools), a massive increase in the investment of amenities at the schools and then students make poor choices about what they can afford long term. The availability of public and private money makes it easy to choose that small liberal arts school at 45k a year. We need reform, but just socializing it is not the answer.
I think the same can be said here Canada about the cost. Now, it's safe to assume when people talk free education, they are referring to tuition? Because I worked with a fellow who did not see free education as all that much help in the grand scheme of things...because his daughter had to attend school out of town, housing, books and daily living far outweighed tuition...or does free include all this as well? Don't get me wrong any help is appreciated, but either way, as he put it, it's still costing a good chunk of coin.
I don't know if Sanders plan was intended to cover room and board. My daughter is going off campus next year and the cost to split an apartment with utilities and estimated food is cheaper than a dorm and meal plan.
Yeah definitely. We all moved off campus junior year because it was so much cheaper.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,938
Bernie's non-progressive values annoy the shit out of me.
In the US, it would impossible for his ideas not to be considered progress.
Socialist and progressive are not interchangeable terms.
So, please tell me in what way would tax funded health care not be progress in this country of yours?
I mean, how many years behind the rest of the world are you with that basic idea?
So yes, from where you stand as a country -- some social democratic values, that spread through more successful democracies decades ago, would be progress for you. Because you are Twilight Zone levels of behind in the name of capitalism and political corruption.
Progress is not synonymous with progressive. They may overlap from a terms perspective, but they are not the same, just like socialism is not always the same. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with the distinction I'm drawing between a progressive policy and socialist policy.
Okey. Well my point still stands.
So does mine. Bernie's policies, by and large, are not progressive. I don't like them.
list some policies of his you do not like?
Free college tuition and debt forgiveness. These are not progressive. They disproportionately help middle class white people.
Are there not college's that offer a good education that is affordable for many/most? I just always assumed the ones that drive people into extreme debt is Harvard's, Michigan, Usc type schools?
In addition, there are universities with terrific co-op/intern programs. I had a 5 year program for engineering. However, that included 7 quarters (the equivalent of 2.3 years of normal college) of co-point...working for pay in the field of choice.
I did have a scholly that helped freshmen year, but after that I was able to pay for everything based on my own earnings, and this was without a job during the quarters I was at school. So there are some great options out there, but it still hard to argue that universities aren’t out of reach for many still. I’m not sure why more don’t consider community colleges...the system is in place there. I’d support some government funding for specific degrees at community colleges and trade schools...with much more limited support for 4 year schools unless targeted degrees.
This is the same argument I've been making since Sanders came out with his free tuition. I would support juco then state u. for targeted degrees where the state or fed has a clear current or future need. There should be some sort of means testing as well, but I'd probably extend that into the middle class.
didnt he float the idea of free community college for everyone last time around?
maybe I heard that elsewhere or more from state politicians .
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Bernie's non-progressive values annoy the shit out of me.
In the US, it would impossible for his ideas not to be considered progress.
Socialist and progressive are not interchangeable terms.
So, please tell me in what way would tax funded health care not be progress in this country of yours?
I mean, how many years behind the rest of the world are you with that basic idea?
So yes, from where you stand as a country -- some social democratic values, that spread through more successful democracies decades ago, would be progress for you. Because you are Twilight Zone levels of behind in the name of capitalism and political corruption.
Progress is not synonymous with progressive. They may overlap from a terms perspective, but they are not the same, just like socialism is not always the same. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with the distinction I'm drawing between a progressive policy and socialist policy.
Okey. Well my point still stands.
So does mine. Bernie's policies, by and large, are not progressive. I don't like them.
list some policies of his you do not like?
Free college tuition and debt forgiveness. These are not progressive. They disproportionately help middle class white people.
Are there not college's that offer a good education that is affordable for many/most? I just always assumed the ones that drive people into extreme debt is Harvard's, Michigan, Usc type schools?
In addition, there are universities with terrific co-op/intern programs. I had a 5 year program for engineering. However, that included 7 quarters (the equivalent of 2.3 years of normal college) of co-point...working for pay in the field of choice.
I did have a scholly that helped freshmen year, but after that I was able to pay for everything based on my own earnings, and this was without a job during the quarters I was at school. So there are some great options out there, but it still hard to argue that universities aren’t out of reach for many still. I’m not sure why more don’t consider community colleges...the system is in place there. I’d support some government funding for specific degrees at community colleges and trade schools...with much more limited support for 4 year schools unless targeted degrees.
This is the same argument I've been making since Sanders came out with his free tuition. I would support juco then state u. for targeted degrees where the state or fed has a clear current or future need. There should be some sort of means testing as well, but I'd probably extend that into the middle class.
didnt he float the idea of free community college for everyone last time around?
maybe I heard that elsewhere or more from state politicians .
New Jersey is floating that idea around but the question always is: where is the money coming from?
What makes you think the us education system is failing? If anything at least around here it is better than ever. (New Jersey is ranked either 1 or 2 in the us) and remember, standardized tests are just a snapshot off the students year.
Performance of one state isn’t the same as performance of the country’s system, of course.
But since you asked, and at the risk of being slammed again,..... the US has some areas where it does well internationally in terms of education, but it has lower access to quality pre-K education, lower rates of high school graduation, and lower rates of college completion than most other comparator countries, plus doing only middle of the pack in the international testing in Math, Science, and Reading.
You guys have full day public pre-k education in the great white north? Some districts have it, others do not (at least in nj). We have it where I live and my son has done really well because of it. Kindergarten will be a breeze.
We do. We didn't up until fairly recently. It's definitely a good thing, but really because of child care needs, with most households being dual-income. I am not convinced it is more beneficial to the kindergarteners. Although I also don't think it's bad for the kids. It's fine for them either way IMO.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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.
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"
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
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".
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
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?
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?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
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.
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.
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?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
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.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Now I'm gonna try to listen to Metallicas first album (Kill em' all) and clean up a bit. Bought a new lamp, but doesn't really get how to construct it. SHould have bought one at IKEA instead.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I did have a scholly that helped freshmen year, but after that I was able to pay for everything based on my own earnings, and this was without a job during the quarters I was at school. So there are some great options out there, but it still hard to argue that universities aren’t out of reach for many still. I’m not sure why more don’t consider community colleges...the system is in place there. I’d support some government funding for specific degrees at community colleges and trade schools...with much more limited support for 4 year schools unless targeted degrees.
You do pay for books, housing, materials ofc though.
In Sweden you get a "subsidy/grant" for studying and you can also add a "state funded" student loan with "generous" terms . Which pretty much everyone does, if they do not choose to work instead or live at home.
Per week (for University and similar schools) at the moment it is:
Subsidy/Grant: $85
Loan (100%): $195
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/01/politics/john-hickenlooper-booed-socialism/index.html
Labeling people you're trying to impress will always make you sound douche-y.
Challenge Trumpito to individual debates. Make it about what a corrupt POS he is before they NEEDLESSLY turn on each other.
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?
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?
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.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the-high-price-of-a-free-college-education-in-sweden/276428/
This is interesting. There is no such thing as FREE from the government unless you never pay taxes.
I understand it shakes some of your foundations.
Now I'm gonna try to listen to Metallicas first album (Kill em' all) and clean up a bit. Bought a new lamp, but doesn't really get how to construct it. SHould have bought one at IKEA instead.