mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

If student loans are a scam,  then by normal logic,  either college is a scam and/or the whole concept of loaning money.  Be interested to know which one. 

And Jason,  completely agree with your point about how this helps only those most likely to be high earners in the future. 

Well technically they both are tied together.

You can't get a private loan anymore for college because the banks screwed that up.

Colleges raise their tuition's now because they know everyone can get a loan for college.

The list goes on and on how colleges have scammed people.

Are colleges/universities privately run?

Yes.  Gov't doesn't run them.

That depends on your definition.  State universities are chartered by the state and the governor usually has some oversight and influence. 

Of course I'm talking about Canada, where private universities aren't really a thing, but I work at a public university, and the government has zero impact on the day-to-day operations of the schools, nor on tuition fees or other fees that students pay. What the government does is determine how much funding the universities get to do what they will with, and it also of course regulates student loans. Plus the universities ultimately answer to the tax payers in terms of how the government funding is spent, but that is not a constantly monitored thing. The universities keep that in mind in good faith, and of course are always aware of the possibility of a government audit. Keep in mind too, that public universities still work their asses off to get private donations and come up with a multitude of other ways to earn money on top of government subsidies. In all cases, though, that money goes straight back into the university.

I can't speak for every state, only states for where I've lived, and our state u's are basically run the same way.  Governors or the legislature rarely get involved unless there is some crisis or scandal.  I think they probably have some leverage to remove chancellors or presidents in certain situations.  
The universities set the tuition rates but I'm sure the gov't also has some guidelines they may set.  I do know that for example, UVA is the most expensive school, followed closely by William and Mary.  The prices are definitely connected to the perceived quality of the education.  

One thing our provincial government can do and has done in the past is freeze tuition rates. So the schools do determine them generally, but the province can make them not raise them anymore, for any period of time until they or the next government unfreezes them.... And such a freeze is how I paid my own way through university in the 90s! Of course the revolting, disgusting, piece of shit BC Liberal party (aka BC's conservative party) removed the freeze as soon as they come into office, and since then the tuition rates have more than tripled.

That's interesting.  So the provincial gov't has authority on the universities, not Ottawa?  I admit to being confused about where the province ends and central gov't begins.  I seem to default to it being almost purely central gov't, not federal.  

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

If student loans are a scam,  then by normal logic,  either college is a scam and/or the whole concept of loaning money.  Be interested to know which one. 

And Jason,  completely agree with your point about how this helps only those most likely to be high earners in the future. 

Well technically they both are tied together.

You can't get a private loan anymore for college because the banks screwed that up.

Colleges raise their tuition's now because they know everyone can get a loan for college.

The list goes on and on how colleges have scammed people.

Are colleges/universities privately run?

Yes.  Gov't doesn't run them.

That depends on your definition.  State universities are chartered by the state and the governor usually has some oversight and influence. 

Of course I'm talking about Canada, where private universities aren't really a thing, but I work at a public university, and the government has zero impact on the day-to-day operations of the schools, nor on tuition fees or other fees that students pay. What the government does is determine how much funding the universities get to do what they will with, and it also of course regulates student loans. Plus the universities ultimately answer to the tax payers in terms of how the government funding is spent, but that is not a constantly monitored thing. The universities keep that in mind in good faith, and of course are always aware of the possibility of a government audit. Keep in mind too, that public universities still work their asses off to get private donations and come up with a multitude of other ways to earn money on top of government subsidies. In all cases, though, that money goes straight back into the university.

I can't speak for every state, only states for where I've lived, and our state u's are basically run the same way.  Governors or the legislature rarely get involved unless there is some crisis or scandal.  I think they probably have some leverage to remove chancellors or presidents in certain situations.  
The universities set the tuition rates but I'm sure the gov't also has some guidelines they may set.  I do know that for example, UVA is the most expensive school, followed closely by William and Mary.  The prices are definitely connected to the perceived quality of the education.  

One thing our provincial government can do and has done in the past is freeze tuition rates. So the schools do determine them generally, but the province can make them not raise them anymore, for any period of time until they or the next government unfreezes them.... And such a freeze is how I paid my own way through university in the 90s! Of course the revolting, disgusting, piece of shit BC Liberal party (aka BC's conservative party) removed the freeze as soon as they come into office, and since then the tuition rates have more than tripled.

That's interesting.  So the provincial gov't has authority on the universities, not Ottawa?  I admit to being confused about where the province ends and central gov't begins.  I seem to default to it being almost purely central gov't, not federal.  

Ocasio-Cortez splits with Pelosi on border bill with fiery response

https://youtu.be/M4CrNQYNx3g

cincybearcat said:

I’m not a huge fan, so my opinion might be colored by that.

But I thought Jake nailed it by challenging her as to why she’s just a “no” vote. Seems like she did something, stood up for what she believed in, most people don’t agree with her and so they moved on without her. And now comes the tantrum. 

Its true though that the politics of it gets annoying. Using breaks to ram things through, etc. it has become the norm but it shouldn’t be. So it’s nice to see someone point it out. But I’m still waiting for someone in the controlling party to point it out when they have the power and it’s their leadership doing it. 

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

I’m not a huge fan, so my opinion might be colored by that.

But I thought Jake nailed it by challenging her as to why she’s just a “no” vote. Seems like she did something, stood up for what she believed in, most people don’t agree with her and so they moved on without her. And now comes the tantrum. 

Its true though that the politics of it gets annoying. Using breaks to ram things through, etc. it has become the norm but it shouldn’t be. So it’s nice to see someone point it out. But I’m still waiting for someone in the controlling party to point it out when they have the power and it’s their leadership doing it. 

I'm not arguing about your broader point of the arcane mechanics of bill movement, but she misrepresented the situation here. She's blaming McConnell but Democrats voted for the bill.  Now McConnell sought to use the advantage of the 8 or so Dem Sens in Florida to vote, but it still passes without issue.  She's spinning a narrative to suit her two "no" votes just like a good ole classic politician.  The WashPo had a fascinating article Sat morning about how this whole deal went down and how Chuck and Nancy are blaming each other for the failure to unite, giving Mitch the upper hand.  

I also found it interesting that she continues to defend her use of "concentration camp".  I'm glad she continues to get called out on the topic because I think it was a bomb throwing technique.  A lot of people bring up the academic piece, but the fact that she used "never again" in her original message is just too far. 

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

I’m not a huge fan, so my opinion might be colored by that.

But I thought Jake nailed it by challenging her as to why she’s just a “no” vote. Seems like she did something, stood up for what she believed in, most people don’t agree with her and so they moved on without her. And now comes the tantrum. 

Its true though that the politics of it gets annoying. Using breaks to ram things through, etc. it has become the norm but it shouldn’t be. So it’s nice to see someone point it out. But I’m still waiting for someone in the controlling party to point it out when they have the power and it’s their leadership doing it. 

I'm not arguing about your broader point of the arcane mechanics of bill movement, but she misrepresented the situation here. She's blaming McConnell but Democrats voted for the bill.  Now McConnell sought to use the advantage of the 8 or so Dem Sens in Florida to vote, but it still passes without issue.  She's spinning a narrative to suit her two "no" votes just like a good ole classic politician.  The WashPo had a fascinating article Sat morning about how this whole deal went down and how Chuck and Nancy are blaming each other for the failure to unite, giving Mitch the upper hand.  

I also found it interesting that she continues to defend her use of "concentration camp".  I'm glad she continues to get called out on the topic because I think it was a bomb throwing technique.  A lot of people bring up the academic piece, but the fact that she used "never again" in her original message is just too far. 

We're still on opposite sides of the coin on this one.

For one, I think when terms get linked with events, we can recycle the terms to distil the important features of a new event very quickly (Israel is an apartheid-like state, the borders are detaining people in concentration camp-like environments, etc.). It compels us to say "that's an embellishment - let's disprove that", until you look and see the similarities and understand the point the author is trying to make. 

For another, I've seen too much conflation from the pro-Israel lobby with respect to terms that are linked with the Holocaust but conveniently 'borrowed' to stifle pro-Palestinian sentiments (or really the justification of any extreme behaviours by Israel), to be bothered by a linguistically accurate statement. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Jews do not have and should not have a monopoly on guilt.

It's also worth mentioning that "Never again" is a 9/11 book by John Ashcroft, and I've seen it used numerous other times on the topic of 9/11. 

mrussel1 said:

^^ Thank you for supporting my point.  The phrase is connected to prevention and/or remembering a holocaust.  For her to use it in the context of the migrant camps, she's attempting to draw a comparison of the border situation to the intentional depriving of property, force removal from the home and subsequent extinction of a group of people.  As much as I despise Trump, equating the border situation with a holocaust is absurd.  

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

^^ Thank you for supporting my point.  The phrase is connected to prevention and/or remembering a holocaust.  For her to use it in the context of the migrant camps, she's attempting to draw a comparison of the border situation to the intentional depriving of property, force removal from the home and subsequent extinction of a group of people.  As much as I despise Trump, equating the border situation with a holocaust is absurd.  

That article and my comment does not support your point, much as you might like it to. You're really stretching here for some reason.