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.
Yep. He made me think. He always does.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
This is interesting. There is no such thing as FREE from the government unless you never pay taxes.
This is their conclusion:
"So why do Swedish students end up with more debt? It's pretty simple, actually. In Sweden, young people are expected to pay for things themselves instead of sponging off their parents."
What is the interesting part? That swedes are more independent? We should live off our parents more? Is that your takeaway?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
DAMN COMMIES - MOVING OUT OF THEIR PARENTS HOUSES AT TWENTY (20) YEARS OLD?
Are you actually attacking the swedish system, and its goal to be fair because kids move out and take the loans I described on the last page, instead of living at home having daddy and mommy pay?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
And...Just my opinion, those candidates better find some Unity fast.
Challenge Trumpito to individual debates. Make it about what a corrupt POS he is before they NEEDLESSLY turn on each other.
Sounds like a good plan! I have to admit to not following the Dem candidates much recently. Has the field narrowed any? We're still a ways off, but it might be time to start focusing a bit more, eh?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
And...Just my opinion, those candidates better find some Unity fast.
Challenge Trumpito to individual debates. Make it about what a corrupt POS he is before they NEEDLESSLY turn on each other.
Sounds like a good plan! I have to admit to not following the Dem candidates much recently. Has the field narrowed any? We're still a ways off, but it might be time to start focusing a bit more, eh?
I think it was at 24/25 candidates at one point. Too bad they would not get behind the one candidate that can beat Trump...and that appears to be Biden...but who knows...I would have thought a gnat could beat Trump.
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.
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:
This is interesting. There is no such thing as FREE from the government unless you never pay taxes.
This is their conclusion:
"So why do Swedish students end up with more debt? It's pretty simple, actually. In Sweden, young people are expected to pay for things themselves instead of sponging off their parents."
What is the interesting part? That swedes are more independent? We should live off our parents more? Is that your takeaway?
LMFAO. So now American kids sponge off their parents? And Swedish kids are the pinnacle of independence? Have I got that right? Well, I'm not American, but I have been a homeowner since 22, not a renter...and I'm pretty sure that parents who help their children do so with pleasure because they are fortunate enough to do so...so I guess Swedish parents are selfish and would rather the state determine who gets help?
This is interesting. There is no such thing as FREE from the government unless you never pay taxes.
This is their conclusion:
"So why do Swedish students end up with more debt? It's pretty simple, actually. In Sweden, young people are expected to pay for things themselves instead of sponging off their parents."
What is the interesting part? That swedes are more independent? We should live off our parents more? Is that your takeaway?
LMFAO. So now American kids sponge off their parents? And Swedish kids are the pinnacle of independence? Have I got that right? Well, I'm not American, but I have been a homeowner since 22, not a renter...and I'm pretty sure that parents who help their children do so with pleasure because they are fortunate enough to do so...so I guess Swedish parents are selfish and would rather the state determine who gets help?
IM QUOTING YOUR DAMN ARTICLE YOU USED FOR YOUR ARGUMENTATION (without even reading the article I take it?)
AND NOW YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THE DAMN ARTICLE YOU POSTED FOR YOUR ARGUMENTATION.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"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.
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:
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:
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:
This is interesting. There is no such thing as FREE from the government unless you never pay taxes.
This is their conclusion:
"So why do Swedish students end up with more debt? It's pretty simple, actually. In Sweden, young people are expected to pay for things themselves instead of sponging off their parents."
What is the interesting part? That swedes are more independent? We should live off our parents more? Is that your takeaway?
LMFAO. So now American kids sponge off their parents? And Swedish kids are the pinnacle of independence? Have I got that right? Well, I'm not American, but I have been a homeowner since 22, not a renter...and I'm pretty sure that parents who help their children do so with pleasure because they are fortunate enough to do so...so I guess Swedish parents are selfish and would rather the state determine who gets help?
IM QUOTING YOUR DAMN ARTICLE YOU USED FOR YOUR ARGUMENTATION (without even reading the article I take it?)
AND NOW YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THE DAMN ARTICLE YOU POSTED FOR YOUR ARGUMENTATION.
The poor swede is getting rattled...LMFAO. I missed the part where it says Americans sponge off their parents. Pretty damn good of you Swedes to move out by 30. Swedes are a fraud.
This is interesting. There is no such thing as FREE from the government unless you never pay taxes.
This is their conclusion:
"So why do Swedish students end up with more debt? It's pretty simple, actually. In Sweden, young people are expected to pay for things themselves instead of sponging off their parents."
What is the interesting part? That swedes are more independent? We should live off our parents more? Is that your takeaway?
LMFAO. So now American kids sponge off their parents? And Swedish kids are the pinnacle of independence? Have I got that right? Well, I'm not American, but I have been a homeowner since 22, not a renter...and I'm pretty sure that parents who help their children do so with pleasure because they are fortunate enough to do so...so I guess Swedish parents are selfish and would rather the state determine who gets help?
IM QUOTING YOUR DAMN ARTICLE YOU USED FOR YOUR ARGUMENTATION (without even reading the article I take it?)
AND NOW YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THE DAMN ARTICLE YOU POSTED FOR YOUR ARGUMENTATION.
The poor swede is getting rattled...LMFAO. I missed the part where it says Americans sponge off their parents. Pretty damn good of you Swedes to move out by 30. Dude, you are a fraud.
I thiught America sucked because we don’t have free college like Sweden? Yet Swedes have college debt and have to take a 25 year loan. How do you have debt from something that is free?
This is interesting. There is no such thing as FREE from the government unless you never pay taxes.
This is their conclusion:
"So why do Swedish students end up with more debt? It's pretty simple, actually. In Sweden, young people are expected to pay for things themselves instead of sponging off their parents."
What is the interesting part? That swedes are more independent? We should live off our parents more? Is that your takeaway?
LMFAO. So now American kids sponge off their parents? And Swedish kids are the pinnacle of independence? Have I got that right? Well, I'm not American, but I have been a homeowner since 22, not a renter...and I'm pretty sure that parents who help their children do so with pleasure because they are fortunate enough to do so...so I guess Swedish parents are selfish and would rather the state determine who gets help?
IM QUOTING YOUR DAMN ARTICLE YOU USED FOR YOUR ARGUMENTATION (without even reading the article I take it?)
AND NOW YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THE DAMN ARTICLE YOU POSTED FOR YOUR ARGUMENTATION.
The poor swede is getting rattled...LMFAO. I missed the part where it says Americans sponge off their parents. Pretty damn good of you Swedes to move out by 30. Dude, you are a fraud.
I thiught America sucked because we don’t have free college like Sweden? Yet Swedes have college debt and have to take a 25 year loan. How do you have debt from something that is free?
Come on now, you can keep it on a higher level than that.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
This is interesting. There is no such thing as FREE from the government unless you never pay taxes.
This is their conclusion:
"So why do Swedish students end up with more debt? It's pretty simple, actually. In Sweden, young people are expected to pay for things themselves instead of sponging off their parents."
What is the interesting part? That swedes are more independent? We should live off our parents more? Is that your takeaway?
LMFAO. So now American kids sponge off their parents? And Swedish kids are the pinnacle of independence? Have I got that right? Well, I'm not American, but I have been a homeowner since 22, not a renter...and I'm pretty sure that parents who help their children do so with pleasure because they are fortunate enough to do so...so I guess Swedish parents are selfish and would rather the state determine who gets help?
IM QUOTING YOUR DAMN ARTICLE YOU USED FOR YOUR ARGUMENTATION (without even reading the article I take it?)
AND NOW YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THE DAMN ARTICLE YOU POSTED FOR YOUR ARGUMENTATION.
The poor swede is getting rattled...LMFAO. I missed the part where it says Americans sponge off their parents. Pretty damn good of you Swedes to move out by 30. Swedes are a fraud.
That was the entire point and conclusion of the article.
So my guess is, you didn't read shit but just posted something based on the headline.
"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.
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:
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.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
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:
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.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
"... 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 ****
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
"So why do Swedish students end up with more debt? It's pretty simple, actually. In Sweden, young people are expected to pay for things themselves instead of sponging off their parents."
What is the interesting part? That swedes are more independent? We should live off our parents more? Is that your takeaway?
Are you actually attacking the swedish system, and its goal to be fair because kids move out and take the loans I described on the last page, instead of living at home having daddy and mommy pay?
When did I ever come with something like a "let daddy pay" argument to keep paywalling education?
JUMP IN THA FAJA
AND NOW YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THE DAMN ARTICLE YOU POSTED FOR YOUR ARGUMENTATION.
Spiritual_Chaos: Their conclusion is that the high price is that swedes are more independent and doesn't "sponge" off their parents
Meltdown99: "So now American kids sponge off their parents!?"
Well, your article says so... uses those exact words -- So you should know that is what it says..?
Did you read the article, or just post the first link you could find to defend paywalling poor kids from education?
So my guess is, you didn't read shit but just posted something based on the headline.
"... 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 ****
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:
45.67 percent
56.27 percent
You go Canada!