The Democratic Candidates

Meltdown99 said:

The High Price of a Free College Education in Sweden

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.

ikiT said:

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.

brianlux said:

ikiT said:

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?

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

https://youtu.be/6UkrDEnzIS8

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

The High Price of a Free College Education in Sweden

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.

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?

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/6UkrDEnzIS8

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/6UkrDEnzIS8

You should change your picture to a kettle

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

The High Price of a Free College Education in Sweden

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.

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.

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

The High Price of a Free College Education in Sweden

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.

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.