Everyone making less then 25,000 per year

[Conservative65]

Couple of things. First, well kind of hard to work you way through college when tuition is so high. Perhaps you can blame those student loans for that. Of course, like damn near everything else these days, calling them "student" loans was NEWSPEAK. They were created and intended for the parents, the wealthy parents that had saved for college. The "student" loan allowed them to borrow the money for school and invest the money they had saved, hopefully at a better return than the student loan and especially with the government subsidizing the interest. Then, again like damn near everything else, it got out of hand. Now it has evolved into a massive wealth extraction system even including special garnishment rights that no other debt contains.

Your argument kind of reminds me of a certain ancient ass old Republican congresswoman in the neighboring district. Heard her moan the same question, why can't those students work their way through college. She did it. Worked in the summer and paid her tuition. Clueless bitch, her tuition, in the 1960's, was a whomping one hundred dollars. I went to the same school in the 80's, total cost, around seven grand a year, total cost. Today, two sons in the same state university system, twenty five grand a year total cost PER STUDENT. Which brings me to the second thing.

It can be done. I am mighty proud to say that the oldest one has been soloing it for the last two years. On is own accord, not because I couldn't help. But he has had to borrow a little bit, he has gotten some merit scholarships, and he has one of the best internship in the industry. The point is that it is damn hard to do and might near impossible to do it without borrowing money.

never heard of going to college part time ?

Yeah. About the only way to complete graduate work. But not a big fan of it at the undergraduate level.

doesn't mater at any level
besides since more than 40% of college freshmen do not graduate it's ridiculous to have financial aid pay for the first 2 years of college.
It should be that the first 2 years have to be paid for by the student then financial aid is for the people who make it to junior year

that way 40% of funding is not wasted

I've posed a similar situation to those pushing "free" college. I asked what about those to which the "investment" is provided that don't finish and the money is wasted. The response I've received is to the affect of all your personal investments don't work out do they. To which I reply, the difference is if I make a personal investment and lose, it was my choice.

The fallacy in your argument is that those that don't finish don't benefit from the experience.

The fallacy of your argument is that if they don't finish it's still a good investment. The argument for such a program is that those earning a high level of education will be contributors to society. If they don't get that higher level, they aren't meeting what you idiots say has to happen for them to be contributors.

If a high school graduate spends a year in college then drops out, when they apply for a job, they can only list high school as their highest level of education.

 

[depotoo]

Honey, the rich Dems are the ones occupying our local gated communities.

Anytime you have a capitalist system there will ALWAYS be those at the bottom of the triangle. Those at the top need to quit being assholes and realize that unless they do something to protect those at the bottom, they will disappear and then guess what... those at the middle will be at the bottom... and when those are gone... the next ones will be at the bottom... and so on.

The rich will be limited to gated communities within the next 100 years if the extreme conservatives ever get their way. They'll have to pay for their own roads, water infrastructure and schools as the rest of society will look like Haiti.

The rich won't be as rich either as there won't be the kind of demand a well paid population has to buy their stuff.

The rich are fucking themselves...Limiting themselves and being really stupid.

 

[Winston]

Gee, I thought going to school and taking classes is helping yourself.

You'd teach someone to swim by tying rocks around their legs and throwing them overboard.

No you moron. You teach someone to swim by getting them in the shallow end at a low wage because they aren't olympic swimmers yet. Then you teach them to put their face in the water and blow bubbles and give them a raise for that. Then you teach them to float, and they get a raise. Some will continue on to learn how to breastroke or butterfly and one or two will be world class and get paid accordingly. You want us all to finance everyone until they can win the 100 meter.

No you idiot. I want you to give them swimming lessons, not tell them to do it all themselves. If they could do that without assistance, they would already have done it.

That's the problem. You want people that, in no way, have an association with the one getting something to fund it while those that are associated with them to get a pass in doing that. If a kid's parents aren't willing to do for them when it comes to higher education, that kids isn't a good investment for me. When it comes to providing anything to a kid, it's their parent(s) responsibility not mine.

I live in North Carolina. My children have a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to a college education that is required by that same constitution to be FREE, as far as practical. So, in North Carolina at least, it is the STATE that is responsible for providing a higher education. To bad the state is not living up to it's constitutional responsibilities

Wrong, try reading the NC Constitution again. It says the State shall fund the University of North Carolina. It does not say access to higher education is not competitive.

I live in NC also. Or more applicable to this discussion, I can read ...

Who said it was not competitive. I said it was suppose to be FREE, at least as far as practical. Here, read it yourself, it is easy to find. Look under Article Nine titled "Education". Section 9

Sec. 9. Benefits of public institutions of higher education.

The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.

http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html

 

[Winston]

never heard of going to college part time ?

Yeah. About the only way to complete graduate work. But not a big fan of it at the undergraduate level.

doesn't mater at any level
besides since more than 40% of college freshmen do not graduate it's ridiculous to have financial aid pay for the first 2 years of college.
It should be that the first 2 years have to be paid for by the student then financial aid is for the people who make it to junior year

that way 40% of funding is not wasted

I've posed a similar situation to those pushing "free" college. I asked what about those to which the "investment" is provided that don't finish and the money is wasted. The response I've received is to the affect of all your personal investments don't work out do they. To which I reply, the difference is if I make a personal investment and lose, it was my choice.

The fallacy in your argument is that those that don't finish don't benefit from the experience.

The fallacy of your argument is that if they don't finish it's still a good investment. The argument for such a program is that those earning a high level of education will be contributors to society. If they don't get that higher level, they aren't meeting what you idiots say has to happen for them to be contributors.

If a high school graduate spends a year in college then drops out, when they apply for a job, they can only list high school as their highest level of education.

Oh shit, my bad. I thought you went to class and to school to learn. I keep forgetting it is just about a piece of paper.

 

[kaz]

No you moron. You teach someone to swim by getting them in the shallow end at a low wage because they aren't olympic swimmers yet. Then you teach them to put their face in the water and blow bubbles and give them a raise for that. Then you teach them to float, and they get a raise. Some will continue on to learn how to breastroke or butterfly and one or two will be world class and get paid accordingly. You want us all to finance everyone until they can win the 100 meter.

No you idiot. I want you to give them swimming lessons, not tell them to do it all themselves. If they could do that without assistance, they would already have done it.

That's the problem. You want people that, in no way, have an association with the one getting something to fund it while those that are associated with them to get a pass in doing that. If a kid's parents aren't willing to do for them when it comes to higher education, that kids isn't a good investment for me. When it comes to providing anything to a kid, it's their parent(s) responsibility not mine.

I live in North Carolina. My children have a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to a college education that is required by that same constitution to be FREE, as far as practical. So, in North Carolina at least, it is the STATE that is responsible for providing a higher education. To bad the state is not living up to it's constitutional responsibilities

Wrong, try reading the NC Constitution again. It says the State shall fund the University of North Carolina. It does not say access to higher education is not competitive.

I live in NC also. Or more applicable to this discussion, I can read ...

Who said it was not competitive. I said it was suppose to be FREE, at least as far as practical. Here, read it yourself, it is easy to find. Look under Article Nine titled "Education". Section 9

Sec. 9. Benefits of public institutions of higher education.

The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.

http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html

Swish. Valid point, but it doesn't contradict what I said. I said nothing said it can't be competitive. Saying it should be free still doesn't say everyone should be able to get it without competing for it

 

[Conservative65]

Yeah. About the only way to complete graduate work. But not a big fan of it at the undergraduate level.

doesn't mater at any level
besides since more than 40% of college freshmen do not graduate it's ridiculous to have financial aid pay for the first 2 years of college.
It should be that the first 2 years have to be paid for by the student then financial aid is for the people who make it to junior year

that way 40% of funding is not wasted

I've posed a similar situation to those pushing "free" college. I asked what about those to which the "investment" is provided that don't finish and the money is wasted. The response I've received is to the affect of all your personal investments don't work out do they. To which I reply, the difference is if I make a personal investment and lose, it was my choice.

The fallacy in your argument is that those that don't finish don't benefit from the experience.

The fallacy of your argument is that if they don't finish it's still a good investment. The argument for such a program is that those earning a high level of education will be contributors to society. If they don't get that higher level, they aren't meeting what you idiots say has to happen for them to be contributors.

If a high school graduate spends a year in college then drops out, when they apply for a job, they can only list high school as their highest level of education.

Oh shit, my bad. I thought you went to class and to school to learn. I keep forgetting it is just about a piece of paper.

You're assuming that those you support going for nothing actually learned something because they were there.

I did learn. I learned that if you don't finish you can't list that you did.

 

[depotoo]

How do you know they don't need that quarter for their own family? Or do you believe you have a right to dictate how they use their money?
I am all for being generous. Charitable giving is important to me, but I want to give where I know it is most needed and does not end up mostly in the hands of those administering. And giving should not be coerced.

Everyone making less then 25,000 per year should get $300 per month in food stamps and be allowed to take skill based classes at their local community college backed by the tax payers. Skill based is computer, business, or any classes that help them get a better job to boost their income upwards.

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

It's time people start helping themselves instead of demanding all their miserable lives that someone else do it for them.

I think you should go read Geraldine Belinda.

All I have to do is listen to what you bleeding hearts say and get the same excuses.

How about reading the Constitution and showing me where the responsibility to provide what the OP says should be provided by those that aren't the parents kids.

If a parent won't do for his own, that tells me his own isn't a good investment for me.

I repeat, go read Geraldine Belinda, about holding onto your quarter so hard that you lose it.

 

[Winston]

No you idiot. I want you to give them swimming lessons, not tell them to do it all themselves. If they could do that without assistance, they would already have done it.

That's the problem. You want people that, in no way, have an association with the one getting something to fund it while those that are associated with them to get a pass in doing that. If a kid's parents aren't willing to do for them when it comes to higher education, that kids isn't a good investment for me. When it comes to providing anything to a kid, it's their parent(s) responsibility not mine.

I live in North Carolina. My children have a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to a college education that is required by that same constitution to be FREE, as far as practical. So, in North Carolina at least, it is the STATE that is responsible for providing a higher education. To bad the state is not living up to it's constitutional responsibilities

Wrong, try reading the NC Constitution again. It says the State shall fund the University of North Carolina. It does not say access to higher education is not competitive.

I live in NC also. Or more applicable to this discussion, I can read ...

Who said it was not competitive. I said it was suppose to be FREE, at least as far as practical. Here, read it yourself, it is easy to find. Look under Article Nine titled "Education". Section 9

Sec. 9. Benefits of public institutions of higher education.

The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.

http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html

Swish. Valid point, but it doesn't contradict what I said. I said nothing said it can't be competitive. Saying it should be free still doesn't say everyone should be able to get it without competing for it

Well I got to wonder why you even mention "competitive" in regards to higher education in North Carolina. The Constitution specifically mentions the University of North Carolina. That could mean the whole system, there is a competitive entrance process at all state universities. But the flagship school would be the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, or the "Harvard" of public universities because of it's highly competitive admission process.

 

[kaz]

Yeah. About the only way to complete graduate work. But not a big fan of it at the undergraduate level.

doesn't mater at any level
besides since more than 40% of college freshmen do not graduate it's ridiculous to have financial aid pay for the first 2 years of college.
It should be that the first 2 years have to be paid for by the student then financial aid is for the people who make it to junior year

that way 40% of funding is not wasted

I've posed a similar situation to those pushing "free" college. I asked what about those to which the "investment" is provided that don't finish and the money is wasted. The response I've received is to the affect of all your personal investments don't work out do they. To which I reply, the difference is if I make a personal investment and lose, it was my choice.

The fallacy in your argument is that those that don't finish don't benefit from the experience.

The fallacy of your argument is that if they don't finish it's still a good investment. The argument for such a program is that those earning a high level of education will be contributors to society. If they don't get that higher level, they aren't meeting what you idiots say has to happen for them to be contributors.

If a high school graduate spends a year in college then drops out, when they apply for a job, they can only list high school as their highest level of education.

Oh shit, my bad. I thought you went to class and to school to learn. I keep forgetting it is just about a piece of paper.

Depends what you put into it. Obviously you don't have the "piece of paper" if you don't know that

 

[kaz]

That's the problem. You want people that, in no way, have an association with the one getting something to fund it while those that are associated with them to get a pass in doing that. If a kid's parents aren't willing to do for them when it comes to higher education, that kids isn't a good investment for me. When it comes to providing anything to a kid, it's their parent(s) responsibility not mine.

I live in North Carolina. My children have a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to a college education that is required by that same constitution to be FREE, as far as practical. So, in North Carolina at least, it is the STATE that is responsible for providing a higher education. To bad the state is not living up to it's constitutional responsibilities

Wrong, try reading the NC Constitution again. It says the State shall fund the University of North Carolina. It does not say access to higher education is not competitive.

I live in NC also. Or more applicable to this discussion, I can read ...

Who said it was not competitive. I said it was suppose to be FREE, at least as far as practical. Here, read it yourself, it is easy to find. Look under Article Nine titled "Education". Section 9

Sec. 9. Benefits of public institutions of higher education.

The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.

http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html

Swish. Valid point, but it doesn't contradict what I said. I said nothing said it can't be competitive. Saying it should be free still doesn't say everyone should be able to get it without competing for it

Well I got to wonder why you even mention "competitive" in regards to higher education in North Carolina. The Constitution specifically mentions the University of North Carolina. That could mean the whole system, there is a competitive entrance process at all state universities. But the flagship school would be the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, or the "Harvard" of public universities because of it's highly competitive admission process.

OK, stop making shit up and show the quote that says North Carolina citizens can all go there for free. It doesn't. Stop wasting my time

 

[Conservative65]

doesn't mater at any level
besides since more than 40% of college freshmen do not graduate it's ridiculous to have financial aid pay for the first 2 years of college.
It should be that the first 2 years have to be paid for by the student then financial aid is for the people who make it to junior year

that way 40% of funding is not wasted

I've posed a similar situation to those pushing "free" college. I asked what about those to which the "investment" is provided that don't finish and the money is wasted. The response I've received is to the affect of all your personal investments don't work out do they. To which I reply, the difference is if I make a personal investment and lose, it was my choice.

The fallacy in your argument is that those that don't finish don't benefit from the experience.

The fallacy of your argument is that if they don't finish it's still a good investment. The argument for such a program is that those earning a high level of education will be contributors to society. If they don't get that higher level, they aren't meeting what you idiots say has to happen for them to be contributors.

If a high school graduate spends a year in college then drops out, when they apply for a job, they can only list high school as their highest level of education.

Oh shit, my bad. I thought you went to class and to school to learn. I keep forgetting it is just about a piece of paper.

Depends what you put into it. Obviously you don't have the "piece of paper" if you don't know that

It's easy to discredit Winston's claim about learning because you're there. Many schools have remedial course in subjects like math because COLLEGE students can't score up to a certain minimum level on a placement test. We're not talking about high level math skills but the basics that people need to function in society. They had 12 years in school prior to someone deciding they qualified for college to learn them. So much for Winston's if they're there they'll automatically learn mindset.

 

[Conservative65]

I live in North Carolina. My children have a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to a college education that is required by that same constitution to be FREE, as far as practical. So, in North Carolina at least, it is the STATE that is responsible for providing a higher education. To bad the state is not living up to it's constitutional responsibilities

Wrong, try reading the NC Constitution again. It says the State shall fund the University of North Carolina. It does not say access to higher education is not competitive.

I live in NC also. Or more applicable to this discussion, I can read ...

Who said it was not competitive. I said it was suppose to be FREE, at least as far as practical. Here, read it yourself, it is easy to find. Look under Article Nine titled "Education". Section 9

Sec. 9. Benefits of public institutions of higher education.

The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.

http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html

Swish. Valid point, but it doesn't contradict what I said. I said nothing said it can't be competitive. Saying it should be free still doesn't say everyone should be able to get it without competing for it

Well I got to wonder why you even mention "competitive" in regards to higher education in North Carolina. The Constitution specifically mentions the University of North Carolina. That could mean the whole system, there is a competitive entrance process at all state universities. But the flagship school would be the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, or the "Harvard" of public universities because of it's highly competitive admission process.

OK, stop making shit up and show the quote that says North Carolina citizens can all go there for free. It doesn't. Stop wasting my time

Don't be shocked if Winston gives you something and says that what it MEANS. People like him have a tendency to read into something what they WANT it to say rather than looking at what it actually says.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The PROBLEM is what colleges are doing with OUR money. They are indoctrinating our young people with liberal garbage. I think they should be teaching REAL full curriculum history, and RRR, THEN they should teach manners, duty, respect and honor, Things liberals have removed from the education system in order to push their corrupt agenda on the people of this country. I will gladly pay extra tax for an education system that teaches, but I will not pay a cent for an indoctrination center.

First thing to do is allow every lecture to be taped or recorded by students paying for that product.

Then some of these Fascists might become more circumspect.

 

[sartre play]

No what happens is people living in more progressive areas get more progressive education, people living in more conservative areas get more conservative education.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No what happens is people living in more progressive areas get more progressive education, people living in more conservative areas get more conservative education.

Far from true.


Almost every university is populated by the same sort.

Every poll of professors shows the same bias.

The result is a body of graduates with knowledge, but without wisdom.

 

[Dragonlady]

Honey, the rich Dems are the ones occupying our local gated communities.

Anytime you have a capitalist system there will ALWAYS be those at the bottom of the triangle. Those at the top need to quit being assholes and realize that unless they do something to protect those at the bottom, they will disappear and then guess what... those at the middle will be at the bottom... and when those are gone... the next ones will be at the bottom... and so on.

The rich will be limited to gated communities within the next 100 years if the extreme conservatives ever get their way. They'll have to pay for their own roads, water infrastructure and schools as the rest of society will look like Haiti.

The rich won't be as rich either as there won't be the kind of demand a well paid population has to buy their stuff.

The rich are fucking themselves...Limiting themselves and being really stupid.

Take at look at what happened in South America in the 1970's when free market reforms were all the rage and supported by the Nixon Administration. Poverty, illness, and the wealthy living in gated enclaves while the people starved. Secret police took all of the left wingers away - they're referred to as the "Disparru", the "Disappeared". Anyone who criticized the government was taken away and "re-educated", because the "free market" can't function if the people expect more than what the elites deign to give them.

The US is certainly headed in this direction under TrumpleThinSkin who cannot abide anyone criticizing him.

 

[Dragonlady]

No what happens is people living in more progressive areas get more progressive education, people living in more conservative areas get more conservative education.

Far from true.


Almost every university is populated by the same sort.

Every poll of professors shows the same bias.

The result is a body of graduates with knowledge, but without wisdom.

You don't want people to have an education, because educated people are, by and large, liberal, and not just in the US. It's not because education has a liberal bias, it's because the history of the world is one of overcoming conservatives of the era, and pushing forward new ideas.

History is always the victory of the new over the old. Whether that's a good thing, depends on the circumstances.

The Founding Fathers were liberals because they refused to accept the status quo, and wanted freedom. Freedom is a liberal concept.

 

[Dragonlady]

No what happens is people living in more progressive areas get more progressive education, people living in more conservative areas get more conservative education.

Far from true.

Almost every university is populated by the same sort.

Every poll of professors shows the same bias.

The result is a body of graduates with knowledge, but without wisdom.

The result is a body of graduates who can think for themselves and reject your Ayn Rand notions of greed and selfishness.

 

[Preacher]

Common sense is not conservatives strong suit. They have ZERO problem letting their taxes be used for war and foreign aide etc but to improve their own country? PFT fuck that. Oh and depending on how many kids you have you get more than 300$ in FS every month if you make less than 25k. This country is fucked as long as conservatism and liberalism are allowed to run rampant both are asinine ideologies on opposite sides of the spectrum and do nothing but harm the people.For the CUNTservatives only HUGE corporations should get welfare while paying their workers shit wages...

 

[Preacher]

Everyone making less then 25,000 per year should get $300 per month in food stamps and be allowed to take skill based classes at their local community college backed by the tax payers. Skill based is computer, business, or any classes that help them get a better job to boost their income upwards.

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

and repubs say "LET THEM DIE!"

Nobody said let them die. We said let them improve themselves. Preferably on their own dime and time. Then they will appreciate what they have instead of looking to us for more when they fuck around and don't gain any education or job skills.

Making min wage,need welfare to pay for food and rent and you expect the poor to pay for college? Special kind of stupid huh?