O-Trap;1211068 wrote:... but I spent a year going to the U of Akron's Wayne Campus and was able to write checks for tuition. I lived at home. I had little social life, sans a few friends who would go out once a week, and I worked multiple part-time jobs.

...

Bingo. How dare we propose that be the norm for collegiate life.

"you want to help the poor? take away their welfare checks"

again, spoken like a cracker, sleeper. do u even know anybody on welfare? do u know how hard it is to get in this country in the first place? i dont know what to say to this, it's such social darwinism it's hilarious, but then again, it's easy to be a social darwinist while u sit on the internet.

"omg prices will go up omg"... GOOD. people dont need more shit. people need less shit, unless u think the purpose in life is for u to hoard and use as much shit as u want; the "divine right of a cracker" as i like to call this.

but hey, reality sucks, but ur winning so fuck it, why mess up the system where im the exploiter and not the exploited. also, plz tell me somebody didnt use "diminishing returns" in a debate about the price of a college education. if that doesnt show u what a for-profit diploma mill our education system has become, well, i don't know what will.

and lol, "why should working two shitty jobs at wal-mart while living at home to attend AKRON-WAYNE UNIVERSITY not be the social norm for college kids." this is basically, "i had a shitty collegiate life, so if i suffered through it, others can too" defense, which is the defense old people take up when they get older.

Sage;1211072 wrote:..
...also, plz tell me somebody didnt use "diminishing returns" in a debate about the price of a college education. if that doesnt show u what a for-profit diploma mill our education system has become, well, i don't know what will.

That's exactly the point. Secondary education providers are subsidized businesses.

sleeper;1211069 wrote:What the poor need is a dose of reality; take away their welfare checks and raise their taxes. We'll see this country right the ship almost overnight.

It's not all the poor. I know some poor people who are very hard-working. Things have just not gone their way.

And there are rich people that need a dose of reality as well. They need cut off from the federal tit, and forced to bail themselves out through better management and fight for their share of the market without becoming "strategic interest" groups and having the dealer stack the deck for a kick back.

Both your example and mine are human beings who rely on a federally funded safety net to keep them from misfortune. The poor aren't the enemy. Neither are the rich. The lazy, the cheaters, and the non-self-responsible are the problem children in our economy, and they are as diverse as the population itself.

ptown_trojans_1;1210151 wrote:Using your logic, then so is the rich conservative elite, with their influence to keep the insane tax system in place to benefit them.

Bottom line is, you cannot lay blame on rich or poor. It's a collective failure.

I'm trying to wrap my head around around the first part of your post. Almost half of Americans pay ZERO federal income taxes. That is an insane tax system. I'm trying to figure out why rich conservative elites would want to keep that system in place and how it would benefit them.

Sage;1211073 wrote:and lol, "why should working two ****ty jobs at wal-mart while living at home to attend AKRON-WAYNE UNIVERSITY not be the social norm for college kids." this is basically, "i had a ****ty collegiate life, so if i suffered through it, others can too" defense, which is the defense old people take up when they get older.

??? Nope. What makes you think that is a crappy college life?

I hope people have great collegiate experiences...ones that they pay for.

here's a riddle for u o-trap, why should u have to write checks to a public institution in the first place? isnt the fact you had to work 2 shitty jobs to attend the prestigious AKRON-WAYNE university show u what a joke our education system is? why should all the rich kids, who have already had tax dollars shifted in their support throughout their lives, be allowed the best schools?

hey, baby boomers, just because your naive asses fell for the okie doke doesn't mean we have to. there are other ways to go about things than simply greed, greed, greed, profit, profit, profit, profit, expansion, expansion, expansion.

The solution is to arrest the cheaters both rich and poor. But sleeper would have us only arrest the poor people because he hates them. Iceland has it right in that regard.

jhay78;1211076 wrote:I'm trying to wrap my head around around the first part of your post. Almost half of Americans pay ZERO federal income taxes. That is an insane tax system. I'm trying to figure out why rich conservative elites would want to keep that system in place and how it would benefit them.

l
olololololololololololololol this is such a half-baked conservative talking point it's hilarious.

Some of you seem to want to go back to the way education was quite a bit in the past since you think it was better since everyone paid for it on their own. Sure that sounds nice until you actually think about it. What actually ends up happening is less people going to school and those that do go to a quality of school based on how large their/their families bank account is. That's not progress.

I Wear Pants;1211084 wrote:Some of you seem to want to go back to the way education was quite a bit in the past since you think it was better since everyone paid for it on their own. Sure that sounds nice until you actually think about it. What actually ends up happening is less people going to school and those that do go to a quality of school based on how large their/their families bank account is. That's not progress.

People do pay for it on their own now. Its rare to find someone who doesn't pay for any of their education.

Sage;1211073 wrote:and lol, "why should working two shitty jobs at wal-mart while living at home to attend AKRON-WAYNE UNIVERSITY not be the social norm for college kids." this is basically, "i had a shitty collegiate life, so if i suffered through it, others can too" defense, which is the defense old people take up when they get older.

#1. The jobs weren't "shitty." Granted, I hated working so much, and they were jobs, but I made the best of them, and actually used them to network for when I got out of college. Novel idea, I know.

#2. Who said the experience itself was "shitty?" I spent a year at college, and at the end, I had no debt to show for it. I'd had some social life. I'd been able to earn some money working. Why is that shitty? What was I missing that was worth the righteous indignation over some perceived "right" to go to a more expensive school or have a different college experience when my circumstances didn't warrant it? I didn't "suffer" through it any more than I "suffer" through life today.

Moreover, it's logically coherent, which is what I always tend to lean toward.

#3. Whether people like to hear it or not, it's an example of how those in more difficult circumstances can still make it work. It's a solution that works NOW, during this time of higher cost for public education. If a student looks at that experience with contempt, or they assume it's "shitty" or somehow beneath them, how bad do they ACTUALLY want the education?

Again, who said getting an education was supposed to be a cake walk?

Con_Alma;1211085 wrote:People do pay for it on their own now. Its rare to find someone who doesn't pay for any of their education.

I know this. I currently am paying for mine. What I'm saying is it seems like you're suggesting that people don't pay for it or that they should pay for more of it on their own. Perhaps I misunderstood your comments them.

Sage;1211072 wrote:"you want to help the poor? take away their welfare checks"

again, spoken like a cracker, sleeper. do u even know anybody on welfare? do u know how hard it is to get in this country in the first place? i dont know what to say to this, it's such social darwinism it's hilarious, but then again, it's easy to be a social darwinist while u sit on the internet.

"omg prices will go up omg"... GOOD. people dont need more shit. people need less shit, unless u think the purpose in life is for u to hoard and use as much shit as u want; the "divine right of a cracker" as i like to call this.

but hey, reality sucks, but ur winning so fuck it, why mess up the system where im the exploiter and not the exploited. also, plz tell me somebody didnt use "diminishing returns" in a debate about the price of a college education. if that doesnt show u what a for-profit diploma mill our education system has become, well, i don't know what will.

It seems you are advocating the same that I am advocating just a different manner. Get the government out of giving free handouts to the poor and they will be forced to spend their money more wisely and not on useless junk that they don't need.

Of course I'm winning, I'm sleeper, and #sleeperwins.

Also, I'm not an advocate for social Darwinism. But I am an advocate for making the lazy people get off their ass, get to work, and pay their fair share like the rest of us.

I Wear Pants;1211091 wrote:I know this. I currently am paying for mine. What I'm saying is it seems like you're suggesting that people don't pay for it or that they should pay for more of it on their own. Perhaps I misunderstood your comments them.

They should expect to pay for it, yes. I am not the one advocating to rework the funding options. The greatest funding source are the students themselves. When you speak of reworking the funding of collegiate education this is the reworking I think of. It simply makes no sense to fund someones living expenses for them which is all too commonly lumped in as the cost to become educated.

O-Trap;1211075 wrote:It's not all the poor. I know some poor people who are very hard-working. Things have just not gone their way.

And there are rich people that need a dose of reality as well. They need cut off from the federal tit, and forced to bail themselves out through better management and fight for their share of the market without becoming "strategic interest" groups and having the dealer stack the deck for a kick back.

Both your example and mine are human beings who rely on a federally funded safety net to keep them from misfortune. The poor aren't the enemy. Neither are the rich. The lazy, the cheaters, and the non-self-responsible are the problem children in our economy, and they are as diverse as the population itself.

I agree for the most part. The difference is, the poor don't pay taxes. They straight up do not contribute.

Con_Alma;1211095 wrote:They should expect to pay for it, yes. I am not the one advocating to rework the funding options. The greatest funding source are the students themselves. When you speak of reworking the funding of collegiate education this is the reworking I think of. It simply makes no sense to fund someones living expenses for them which is all too commonly lumped in as the cost to become educated.

It seems to me that you think when I say "rework the funding" you think I mean "have more government funding". I don't. I mean utilize it in a different way.

I Wear Pants;1211098 wrote:It seems to me that you think when I say "rework the funding" you think I mean "have more government funding". I don't. I mean utilize it in a different way.

Why would you say that. I have clearly stated several times what I think, rework the funding means. I have not associated federal funding with any of your posts.

Can you expand on what you mean by "utilize it in a different way" because I tend to agree with that. If we agree that the majority of funding comes from the students themselves, how would you like to see it "utilized" or applied?

Sage;1211079 wrote:here's a riddle for u o-trap, why should u have to write checks to a public institution in the first place?

Why not? If public education is such an important thing to my future, then is it not worth such an investment?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question, but at the core, is this asking, "Why should you have to pay for something you want to use to invest in your future?"

As for the cost? Wages are always increasing. Hence the cost of that gets passed to the consumer, ie me, in this example.

So why should I have to pay that much for it? Because I felt it a worthwhile investment, and it was what they charged. If something is too expensive, I don't buy it.

Sage;1211079 wrote:isnt the fact you had to work 2 shitty jobs to attend the prestigious AKRON-WAYNE university show u what a joke our education system is?

Again, they weren't "shitty" jobs, and I actually got some good business contacts out of them.

As for the education system, I'd say the biggest problem is the diminished return of a college education. I don't think a four-year university really trains anyone to work, but I'm not sure that should be the point of it anyway. If someone wants an education solely for the job potential, and they don't care about increased learning in general studies, then why not a three-year school related to that field?

The problem lies in SO many more places than just the education system. It lies in the archaic hiring structure. It lies in the illogical expectations from students and their parents. It lies in the greed of some in school systems. It lies in the diminishing return of a dollar bill.

Fixing the schools won't fix the problem.

Sage;1211079 wrote:why should all the rich kids, who have already had tax dollars shifted in their support throughout their lives, be allowed the best schools?

Tax dollars get shifted across the economic gamut. I believe in making my own way if nobody hands me a silver spoon, and I'm still doing that, but I've already seen some level of success.

It just strikes me that anyone who isn't willing to even ATTEMPT the same doesn't actually want that opportunity as much as they want to know it can be given to them.

I Wear Pants;1211084 wrote:Some of you seem to want to go back to the way education was quite a bit in the past since you think it was better since everyone paid for it on their own.

Actually, in England, there have been private scholarship programs, as well as donors to students needing help, for a long time. Here, there is certainly a tax incentive for those who do it as well. Just because someone believes the Federal government shouldn't do it doesn't mean they don't believe ANYBODY should do it.

I Wear Pants;1211084 wrote:Sure that sounds nice until you actually think about it. What actually ends up happening is less people going to school and those that do go to a quality of school based on how large their/their families bank account is.

Honestly, I don't think our communities are THAT much more educated than they were back during that time. So many people with college degrees show a general apathy for learning. So I'm not convinced that the increased number of "educated" people since the time you referenced really has that many more "educated" people in its true sense. At that point, it's not about the money. It's about the value received in return. THAT is the problem I have with the educational system at the collegiate level.

I Wear Pants;1211084 wrote:That's not progress.

No, but as I say, I'm not sure we've progressed since then, either. I think we've simply exchanged one set of problems for another. We're no better off; we're just "different off."

sleeper;1211096 wrote:I agree for the most part. The difference is, the poor don't pay taxes. They straight up do not contribute.

Some of the wealthy pay little, if any, taxes either. You never hear of a poor person cooking the books or being charged with tax evasion. Those are examples, though, of wealthy people who have been caught doing what many others are NOT getting caught doing.

Again, it's not a rich-poor thing. There are assholes in all camps.

Okay we're different off with new problems. So we need to change to address those problems. Simply because our attempted solution didn't work well doesn't mean we need to go back to the original way with it's problems.

I'm simply suggesting we do something different than what we've been doing and that the something different isn't going back to the way schooling was done far in the past because that was a system designed only to benefit the rich.

I completely understand what you're talking about with truly educated people but that's a much bigger fish to fry. Frankly most people are simply not intellectuals.

O-Trap;1211111 wrote:Some of the wealthy pay little, if any, taxes either. You never hear of a poor person cooking the books or being charged with tax evasion. Those are examples, though, of wealthy people who have been caught doing what many others are NOT getting caught doing.

Again, it's not a rich-poor thing. There are assholes in all camps.

Key word "some". People were bitching because Warren Buffet "only" pays like 18 million in income tax per year. The poor(read the bottom 50% of this country) pay ZILCH in taxes. None. Zero. Raise their taxes before we touch the people actually funding this country rather than the one's that just take and want more.

sleeper;1211115 wrote:Key word "some". People were bitching because Warren Buffet "only" pays like 18 million in income tax per year. The poor(read the bottom 50% of this country) pay ZILCH in taxes. None. Zero. Raise their taxes before we touch the people actually funding this country rather than the one's that just take and want more.

Did a poor person piss in your Wheaties?

I Wear Pants;1211113 wrote:Okay we're different off with new problems. So we need to change to address those problems. Simply because our attempted solution didn't work well doesn't mean we need to go back to the original way with it's problems.

Oh, I agree, but I'd also suggest that if one facet of the change in our system has gotten worse, then we're not headed in the most advantageous direction.

Honestly, I would like to see a resurgence of trade schools. It appears that many students go to school for the sole purpose of getting a job when they get out. Many of them have voiced their opinion that general education studies are not why they're going to school, and they'd rather not take them.

Given the safety that such an attitude won't be conducive to learning anything in those classes anyway, AND given that their sole purpose for going to college is to get a job, I don't see why a trade school doesn't suite their needs, particularly if it was to branch out into "non-traditional" trades. A marketing school. A business administration school. An economics school. If a student is going to school just to get these sorts of jobs, and not for a well-rounded education, why not go to a school that focuses on their interest and likely saves them at least a year in tuition?

I Wear Pants;1211113 wrote:I'm simply suggesting we do something different than what we've been doing and that the something different isn't going back to the way schooling was done far in the past because that was a system designed only to benefit the rich.

Historically, nobody can argue with that, of course.

I Wear Pants;1211113 wrote: I completely understand what you're talking about with truly educated people but that's a much bigger fish to fry. Frankly most people are simply not intellectuals.

Nor are they interested in being well-rounded people or true contributors to society in my opinion (they don't want to be drains, either, to their credit).

sleeper;1211115 wrote:Key word "some". People were bitching because Warren Buffet "only" pays like 18 million in income tax per year. The poor(read the bottom 50% of this country) pay ZILCH in taxes. None. Zero. Raise their taxes before we touch the people actually funding this country rather than the one's that just take and want more.

I think the point of equal burden is relevant, but I'm willing to bet that our Federal government loses more from the few biggies that don't pay than even the bottom 50% that don't pay.