|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
Middle and upper class.* Today's bachelor's degree was last generation's high school diploma. It's absolutely expected that you go to college, and to become competitive in the employment market, you need additional experience and frequently a graduate (master's or higher) degree. Simply graduating college does not guarantee you a job, let alone a well-paying, relevant job... as nearly every recent college graduate will tell you (quite angrily, and rightly so). A large portion of college graduates can't simply start to easily pay off their student loans in a timely manner. Of course, we definitely shouldn't be denying benefits for the poor either, but there are plenty of other places we can cut from (e.g., military spending) that could provide the U.S. with the 60-70 billion dollars needed to make college 100% free for everyone.
This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity.
Then along with admission the students who are are judged most likely to become America's future upper class are also given subsidies to pay for the education that should help them become even more successful.
Meanwhile students who are deemed unlikely to succeed will be offered no admission and no subsidies, but in the unlikely event that are successful and despite a lack of support from the state, they will still be expected to pay the same high taxes to support those who are most likely to succeed.
|
Presidential candidate Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to filibuster the renewal of the Patriot Act, a Bush administration-era law that enables government surveillance.
The Kentucky Republican argued that the programs authorized by the 2001 law improperly constrict Americans’ rights and grant overly broad powers to the National Security Agency.
“There comes a time in the history of nations when fear and complacency allow power to accumulate and liberty and privacy to suffer,” he began. “That time is now, and I will not let the Patriot Act, the most unpatriotic of acts, go unchallenged.”
Source
Go Paul Go! haha. They are really not going to want him on that debate stage. Kudos for a legit filibuster, instead of the phoned in version republicans typically used.
|
On May 21 2015 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 02:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The age of multibillion-dollar bank fines with no admission of wrongdoing is over. The Justice Department announced Wednesday morning that five banks pleaded guilty to market manipulation, while also paying billions of dollars in fines.
Barclays, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and the Royal Bank of Scotland admitted to illegally distorting foreign exchange markets. The banks formed what they called "The Cartel" and aimed to set a key currency marker, known as "the fix," at mutually beneficial values.
The fix is set every day at 4 p.m. London time and is used in the more than $5 trillion currency market to determine the price of trades and the value of large institutional holdings. Traders at the banks used instant messaging chat rooms to discuss where to set the fix.
In addition to admitting guilt, the banks will also pay fines. Barclays will pay $650 million, Citigroup $925, million J.P. Morgan $550 million and RBS $395 million. Barclays will pay another $1.3 billion to New York State, federal and U.K. regulators.
The Justice Department said it was charging the banks' parent companies because the wrongdoing was pervasive, and that the banks' punishment was "fitting considering the long-running and egregious nature of their anticompetitive conduct." To put the fines in context, in 2014, Barclay's net income was $3.5 billion, Citigroup's was $7.3 billion, J.P. Morgan's was $21.8 billion and RBS' was $3.9 billion. Source Boom! About damn time they have to plead guilty! We've all known it for years but now at least part of it is official and on record as being guilty. Still no prison for the people responsible, but at least they had to admit they did it and not just pay their way out without admitting why they are paying.
And what does this admittance do? The bank doesn't care about reputation. They are to big for the financial world to not work with and the next guy in line will do the same thing because the punishment is not relevant.
When CEO's start doing multiple decades in prison I will consider thinking justice is being served.
|
On May 21 2015 03:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2015 02:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The age of multibillion-dollar bank fines with no admission of wrongdoing is over. The Justice Department announced Wednesday morning that five banks pleaded guilty to market manipulation, while also paying billions of dollars in fines.
Barclays, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and the Royal Bank of Scotland admitted to illegally distorting foreign exchange markets. The banks formed what they called "The Cartel" and aimed to set a key currency marker, known as "the fix," at mutually beneficial values.
The fix is set every day at 4 p.m. London time and is used in the more than $5 trillion currency market to determine the price of trades and the value of large institutional holdings. Traders at the banks used instant messaging chat rooms to discuss where to set the fix.
In addition to admitting guilt, the banks will also pay fines. Barclays will pay $650 million, Citigroup $925, million J.P. Morgan $550 million and RBS $395 million. Barclays will pay another $1.3 billion to New York State, federal and U.K. regulators.
The Justice Department said it was charging the banks' parent companies because the wrongdoing was pervasive, and that the banks' punishment was "fitting considering the long-running and egregious nature of their anticompetitive conduct." To put the fines in context, in 2014, Barclay's net income was $3.5 billion, Citigroup's was $7.3 billion, J.P. Morgan's was $21.8 billion and RBS' was $3.9 billion. Source Boom! About damn time they have to plead guilty! We've all known it for years but now at least part of it is official and on record as being guilty. Still no prison for the people responsible, but at least they had to admit they did it and not just pay their way out without admitting why they are paying. And what does this admittance do? The bank doesn't care about reputation. They are to big for the financial world to not work with and the next guy in line will do the same thing because the punishment is not relevant. When CEO's start doing multiple decades in prison I will consider thinking justice is being served.
Basically this. The CEO's and highest share holders and top management should all rot in prison until they die or are old and gray (2nd one assuming some are still young)
Letting them off with fines like that, which amount to so little compared to how much those companies make, and no personal fines or jail time for the individuals responsible, just sets precedent that if you're too big to fail you're also too big to go to jail.
|
On May 21 2015 03:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2015 02:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The age of multibillion-dollar bank fines with no admission of wrongdoing is over. The Justice Department announced Wednesday morning that five banks pleaded guilty to market manipulation, while also paying billions of dollars in fines.
Barclays, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and the Royal Bank of Scotland admitted to illegally distorting foreign exchange markets. The banks formed what they called "The Cartel" and aimed to set a key currency marker, known as "the fix," at mutually beneficial values.
The fix is set every day at 4 p.m. London time and is used in the more than $5 trillion currency market to determine the price of trades and the value of large institutional holdings. Traders at the banks used instant messaging chat rooms to discuss where to set the fix.
In addition to admitting guilt, the banks will also pay fines. Barclays will pay $650 million, Citigroup $925, million J.P. Morgan $550 million and RBS $395 million. Barclays will pay another $1.3 billion to New York State, federal and U.K. regulators.
The Justice Department said it was charging the banks' parent companies because the wrongdoing was pervasive, and that the banks' punishment was "fitting considering the long-running and egregious nature of their anticompetitive conduct." To put the fines in context, in 2014, Barclay's net income was $3.5 billion, Citigroup's was $7.3 billion, J.P. Morgan's was $21.8 billion and RBS' was $3.9 billion. Source Boom! About damn time they have to plead guilty! We've all known it for years but now at least part of it is official and on record as being guilty. Still no prison for the people responsible, but at least they had to admit they did it and not just pay their way out without admitting why they are paying. And what does this admittance do? The bank doesn't care about reputation. They are to big for the financial world to not work with and the next guy in line will do the same thing because the punishment is not relevant. When CEO's start doing multiple decades in prison I will consider thinking justice is being served.
Keep the people here from making the stupid argument that we don't know they did it because the plea deals didn't force them to admit guilt. Now we know for a fact that they did it. That they are responsible (at least in a more significant and clear way) for the financial collapse, and for the damage they caused.
So when Sanders/Warren are riffing on the banks now they can point to their admission of guilt, instead of a settlement certain people would claim isn't evidence of wrong doing as they have here several times.
Believe me I don't think it's enough and it's more evidence how there are at least 2 separate criminal justice systems in this country, but it is progress.
|
How does putting bank executives in jail help anyone?
|
On May 21 2015 03:40 IgnE wrote:
How does putting bank executives in jail help anyone?
Help today? It doesn't.
Help tomorrow by making people think twice about doing it again? Possible, which is a better message then is being sent now.
|
On May 21 2015 03:40 IgnE wrote:
How does putting bank executives in jail help anyone?
Presumably it would put some fear in others so that they thought there would be real consequences to committing crimes, like losing their freedom, instead of a couple months of profit.
It would also renew a bit of faith in the criminal justice system for minorities and poor people.
|
On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
Middle and upper class.* Today's bachelor's degree was last generation's high school diploma. It's absolutely expected that you go to college, and to become competitive in the employment market, you need additional experience and frequently a graduate (master's or higher) degree. Simply graduating college does not guarantee you a job, let alone a well-paying, relevant job... as nearly every recent college graduate will tell you (quite angrily, and rightly so). A large portion of college graduates can't simply start to easily pay off their student loans in a timely manner. Of course, we definitely shouldn't be denying benefits for the poor either, but there are plenty of other places we can cut from (e.g., military spending) that could provide the U.S. with the 60-70 billion dollars needed to make college 100% free for everyone. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity.
Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it.
|
On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
Middle and upper class.* Today's bachelor's degree was last generation's high school diploma. It's absolutely expected that you go to college, and to become competitive in the employment market, you need additional experience and frequently a graduate (master's or higher) degree. Simply graduating college does not guarantee you a job, let alone a well-paying, relevant job... as nearly every recent college graduate will tell you (quite angrily, and rightly so). A large portion of college graduates can't simply start to easily pay off their student loans in a timely manner. Of course, we definitely shouldn't be denying benefits for the poor either, but there are plenty of other places we can cut from (e.g., military spending) that could provide the U.S. with the 60-70 billion dollars needed to make college 100% free for everyone. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it.
So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone?
|
On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
Middle and upper class.* Today's bachelor's degree was last generation's high school diploma. It's absolutely expected that you go to college, and to become competitive in the employment market, you need additional experience and frequently a graduate (master's or higher) degree. Simply graduating college does not guarantee you a job, let alone a well-paying, relevant job... as nearly every recent college graduate will tell you (quite angrily, and rightly so). A large portion of college graduates can't simply start to easily pay off their student loans in a timely manner. Of course, we definitely shouldn't be denying benefits for the poor either, but there are plenty of other places we can cut from (e.g., military spending) that could provide the U.S. with the 60-70 billion dollars needed to make college 100% free for everyone. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone?
Depends on implementation. In Sweden it is centralised where everybody applies on a government site, are automatically compared, (if even randomised) and sent a question if they want to accept their position. Some schools and courses have places over after everybody has applied meaning that anybody could have gotten in. Others you need to be in the top 7% to get into, it varies.
The schools can choose if they want 100% to be that way or as low as 66% (I think). Applying to some schools you also have a test you have to take or can take for extra credits.
|
What are you even advocating for? It is really hard to tell.
From what i see, your argument is roughly "Not everyone can attend college because some people lack the necessary mental capacity/previous knowledge to understand the classes, thus making it free is a bad idea". Would you mind explaining if that is your point, if not what your point is, and if yes how you come to that conclusion as it appears to not make a lot of sense in my mind.
These are two completely different issues. Not everyone can attend every course, there are limited spots. Thus it is reasonable to screen attendants by ability. One can argue the details on how that is done, but the general principle is sound as long as there is a limited amount of places for that education available due to cost, available teachers or any other reasons.
However, currently in the US there is another screening for "parents money" which does not make a lot of sense, as someone whose parents have less money can still easily have the mental capabilities of completing a given course and use that earned knowledge for the betterment of society and himself.
If you think that those in the upper class should shoulder a higher weight in society, college tuition costs are the wrong place to try to do this. More progressive taxes solve the same problem more efficiently, elegantly, and without the added fallout of restricting education of the lower class.
Edit: The above was meant as a reply to meadbert.
|
On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
Middle and upper class.* Today's bachelor's degree was last generation's high school diploma. It's absolutely expected that you go to college, and to become competitive in the employment market, you need additional experience and frequently a graduate (master's or higher) degree. Simply graduating college does not guarantee you a job, let alone a well-paying, relevant job... as nearly every recent college graduate will tell you (quite angrily, and rightly so). A large portion of college graduates can't simply start to easily pay off their student loans in a timely manner. Of course, we definitely shouldn't be denying benefits for the poor either, but there are plenty of other places we can cut from (e.g., military spending) that could provide the U.S. with the 60-70 billion dollars needed to make college 100% free for everyone. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Then along with admission the students who are are judged most likely to become America's future upper class are also given subsidies to pay for the education that should help them become even more successful. Meanwhile students who are deemed unlikely to succeed will be offered no admission and no subsidies, but in the unlikely event that are successful and despite a lack of support from the state, they will still be expected to pay the same high taxes to support those who are most likely to succeed.
Colleges act mostly individually and each and every one wants to allocate their resources so that they educate the best people they can. Colleges will always want to get the best students because it makes the college look good and increases its desirability.
It would be inefficient for colleges to give more benefits to the less qualified. Also, the whole purpose of the public education system is that any individual pupil can get a great education. Obviously this isn't always the case, but it is true to a large degree. It doesn't make sense, when there are a limited number of available students able to attend a college, to reward those that did more poorly than their peers.
|
On May 21 2015 05:07 Simberto wrote:
What are you even advocating for? It is really hard to tell.
From what i see, your argument is roughly "Not everyone can attend college because some people lack the necessary mental capacity/previous knowledge to understand the classes, thus making it free is a bad idea". Would you mind explaining if that is your point, if not what your point is, and if yes how you come to that conclusion as it appears to not make a lot of sense in my mind.
These are two completely different issues. Not everyone can attend every course, there are limited spots. Thus it is reasonable to screen attendants by ability. One can argue the details on how that is done, but the general principle is sound as long as there is a limited amount of places for that education available due to cost, available teachers or any other reasons.
However, currently in the US there is another screening for "parents money" which does not make a lot of sense, as someone whose parents have less money can still easily have the mental capabilities of completing a given course and use that earned knowledge for the betterment of society and himself.
If you think that those in the upper class should shoulder a higher weight in society, college tuition costs are the wrong place to try to do this. More progressive taxes solve the same problem more efficiently, elegantly, and without the added fallout of restricting education of the lower class.
Edit: The above was meant as a reply to meadbert.
About 35% of American's have college degrees. Those 35% are on average MUCH wealthier than the remaining 65%. It makes no sense to force the public to shoulder the burden of educating the privileged elite above and beyond the level of education that is even offered to someone in the lower class. I say the future upper class can afford the cost of their own higher education.
As far as universal education designed for all people to attend (such as high school) I am much more supportive of the state paying, since this is a benefit going to everyone rather than just a privileged elite.
|
On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
Middle and upper class.* Today's bachelor's degree was last generation's high school diploma. It's absolutely expected that you go to college, and to become competitive in the employment market, you need additional experience and frequently a graduate (master's or higher) degree. Simply graduating college does not guarantee you a job, let alone a well-paying, relevant job... as nearly every recent college graduate will tell you (quite angrily, and rightly so). A large portion of college graduates can't simply start to easily pay off their student loans in a timely manner. Of course, we definitely shouldn't be denying benefits for the poor either, but there are plenty of other places we can cut from (e.g., military spending) that could provide the U.S. with the 60-70 billion dollars needed to make college 100% free for everyone. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone?
This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur.
Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer.
Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities.
|
On May 21 2015 05:18 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 05:07 Simberto wrote:
What are you even advocating for? It is really hard to tell.
From what i see, your argument is roughly "Not everyone can attend college because some people lack the necessary mental capacity/previous knowledge to understand the classes, thus making it free is a bad idea". Would you mind explaining if that is your point, if not what your point is, and if yes how you come to that conclusion as it appears to not make a lot of sense in my mind.
These are two completely different issues. Not everyone can attend every course, there are limited spots. Thus it is reasonable to screen attendants by ability. One can argue the details on how that is done, but the general principle is sound as long as there is a limited amount of places for that education available due to cost, available teachers or any other reasons.
However, currently in the US there is another screening for "parents money" which does not make a lot of sense, as someone whose parents have less money can still easily have the mental capabilities of completing a given course and use that earned knowledge for the betterment of society and himself.
If you think that those in the upper class should shoulder a higher weight in society, college tuition costs are the wrong place to try to do this. More progressive taxes solve the same problem more efficiently, elegantly, and without the added fallout of restricting education of the lower class.
Edit: The above was meant as a reply to meadbert. About 35% of American's have college degrees. Those 35% are on average MUCH wealthier than the remaining 65%. It makes no sense to force the public to shoulder the burden of educating the privileged elite above and beyond the level of education that is even offered to someone in the lower class. I say the future upper class can afford the cost of their own higher education. As far as universal education designed for all people to attend (such as high school) I am much more supportive of the state paying, since this is a benefit going to everyone rather than just a privileged elite.
Your reasoning is so backwards that it's amazing.
Those 35% are much wealthier precisely because they were able to go to college. Your reasoning assumes that the people that go to college are wealthy, and then college perpetuates their wealth to the exclusion of others. Making college free for everyone would do the exact opposite of this; it would open up college to those who don't have the financial resources to go to college.
You're coming to some bizarre, nonsensical conclusion where free college would retroactively benefit those that already have degrees and therefore have a better income. I already have a degree, and I'm sitting in tens of thousands of dollars of debt from it. Making college free now would in no way help me. Instead, it would help the poor people who are not yet in college be able to afford college and it would allow them to move up the socioeconomic ladder.
|
United States42673 Posts
On May 21 2015 05:18 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 05:07 Simberto wrote:
What are you even advocating for? It is really hard to tell.
From what i see, your argument is roughly "Not everyone can attend college because some people lack the necessary mental capacity/previous knowledge to understand the classes, thus making it free is a bad idea". Would you mind explaining if that is your point, if not what your point is, and if yes how you come to that conclusion as it appears to not make a lot of sense in my mind.
These are two completely different issues. Not everyone can attend every course, there are limited spots. Thus it is reasonable to screen attendants by ability. One can argue the details on how that is done, but the general principle is sound as long as there is a limited amount of places for that education available due to cost, available teachers or any other reasons.
However, currently in the US there is another screening for "parents money" which does not make a lot of sense, as someone whose parents have less money can still easily have the mental capabilities of completing a given course and use that earned knowledge for the betterment of society and himself.
If you think that those in the upper class should shoulder a higher weight in society, college tuition costs are the wrong place to try to do this. More progressive taxes solve the same problem more efficiently, elegantly, and without the added fallout of restricting education of the lower class.
Edit: The above was meant as a reply to meadbert. About 35% of American's have college degrees. Those 35% are on average MUCH wealthier than the remaining 65%. It makes no sense to force the public to shoulder the burden of educating the privileged elite above and beyond the level of education that is even offered to someone in the lower class. I say the future upper class can afford the cost of their own higher education. As far as universal education designed for all people to attend (such as high school) I am much more supportive of the state paying, since this is a benefit going to everyone rather than just a privileged elite.
You believe that the benefits of education are applied narrowly but the cost of education are applied broadly? The first is arguably nonsense, the benefits of an educated workforce apply across society, take doctors for an obvious example. And the second is definitely nonsense, the lower and middle classes don't actually pay that much in taxes and, as we saw a few pages ago, the proposal was to tax stock trading to fund higher education.
|
I will tell you one thing, what the government should NOT be doing is heavily cutting funding so basically all the departments on campus are all living in fear and tuition hikes for the incoming freshman classes because the state government (Illinois) wants massively slash funding to their universities.
|
On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
Middle and upper class.* Today's bachelor's degree was last generation's high school diploma. It's absolutely expected that you go to college, and to become competitive in the employment market, you need additional experience and frequently a graduate (master's or higher) degree. Simply graduating college does not guarantee you a job, let alone a well-paying, relevant job... as nearly every recent college graduate will tell you (quite angrily, and rightly so). A large portion of college graduates can't simply start to easily pay off their student loans in a timely manner. Of course, we definitely shouldn't be denying benefits for the poor either, but there are plenty of other places we can cut from (e.g., military spending) that could provide the U.S. with the 60-70 billion dollars needed to make college 100% free for everyone. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities.
The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where your parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare.
Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college.
The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." There will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not.
Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality.
|
United States42673 Posts
On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
Middle and upper class.* Today's bachelor's degree was last generation's high school diploma. It's absolutely expected that you go to college, and to become competitive in the employment market, you need additional experience and frequently a graduate (master's or higher) degree. Simply graduating college does not guarantee you a job, let alone a well-paying, relevant job... as nearly every recent college graduate will tell you (quite angrily, and rightly so). A large portion of college graduates can't simply start to easily pay off their student loans in a timely manner. Of course, we definitely shouldn't be denying benefits for the poor either, but there are plenty of other places we can cut from (e.g., military spending) that could provide the U.S. with the 60-70 billion dollars needed to make college 100% free for everyone. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality.
Again taxes disproportionately hit the rich. You seem to be ignoring this and presenting the tax burden as being shouldered by the people who didn't get into college. It's really not.
And again the benefits of the educated society affect the poor. It's not as simple as an efficient business manager or a great doctor simply increasing their own riches, their compensation is a reflection of the greater good they provide for the wider society including the poor. You're 0/2 on this argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
