|
On October 03 2011 02:29 TranceStorm wrote:
An issue with providing free college education to students in the US is that it simply is unfeasible as the US doesn't have enough resources. Many colleges in the US are private institutions which have enormously high tuitions (many do offer financial aid though) - however, the US simply can't provide higher education for everyone. Whenever they do try to, the 'online' universities and the more shady universities benefit quite alot. If you do any reading on for-profit universities, they arose from the effort to provide more education for everyone.
Not everyone. Provide it based on ability - because right now, getting a post-secondary degree when you come from a family which lives at or just above poverty line is pretty much a lost cause. Eligibility for a meaningful amount of financial aid requires astronomical academic achievement - and A+ students aren't the only people who should be breaking out the ghettos.
Remember - they will pay the investment in them off, when they graduate, and start paying middle class taxes - instead of leeching off the system, by working a minimal wage night shift at McDonalds.
|
Oh occupy wall street, I liked you until I saw your ridiculous list of demands  .
I like how they have "open borders migration" and "end free trade" on the same list. Hurts my brain.
|
Nationwide protests going on, go find yours. www.occupytogether.org/
Plus there is word about a global protest going on on the 15th of October. Sounds exciting if you ask me :D
|
On October 03 2011 03:28 Drium wrote:Oh occupy wall street, I liked you until I saw your ridiculous list of demands . I like how they have "open borders migration" and "end free trade" on the same list. Hurts my brain.
yeah the funny thing about ending free trade is that that's more selfish than the so called 1% they are fighting. If you close down free trade you shut down the whole world economy and it would be way worse lol.
I can get some demands like free schooling but some of them are so ridiculous I don't see why people still support them.
|
|
|
A funny article about the 'Bridge Arrests"
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n-S0EhO8Xhs/TohW9Pw-llI/AAAAAAAAABk/PXmHAJFFiAI/s1600/Screen-shot-2011-10-02-at-5_13_18-AM.png)
Source
|
Uhh, am I the only one that realizes winter is coming? Wtf are they going to do then?
|
On October 03 2011 09:27 MK4512 wrote:
Uhh, am I the only one that realizes winter is coming? Wtf are they going to do then?
Hope that Dany comes with Dragons to save them?
|
On October 03 2011 09:27 MK4512 wrote:
Uhh, am I the only one that realizes winter is coming? Wtf are they going to do then?
I guess they feel that if nothing happens from this protest in another ~4 weeks they've already failed.
Or you can go back to the disorganized argument and say that they never thought this far ahead.
|
On October 03 2011 09:27 MK4512 wrote:
Uhh, am I the only one that realizes winter is coming? Wtf are they going to do then?
Start an Occupy Toronto on October 15th?
Oh wait... 
|
On October 03 2011 03:28 Drium wrote:Oh occupy wall street, I liked you until I saw your ridiculous list of demands . I like how they have "open borders migration" and "end free trade" on the same list. Hurts my brain.
If you had followed the scene more closely, you would know there is no "they". There are some people on street and most people there dont know what they want, and all of the rest have different opinions. When I say different opinions, I mean that people protesting there have every political opinion possible.
|
On October 03 2011 02:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 02:29 TranceStorm wrote:
An issue with providing free college education to students in the US is that it simply is unfeasible as the US doesn't have enough resources. Many colleges in the US are private institutions which have enormously high tuitions (many do offer financial aid though) - however, the US simply can't provide higher education for everyone. Whenever they do try to, the 'online' universities and the more shady universities benefit quite alot. If you do any reading on for-profit universities, they arose from the effort to provide more education for everyone. Not everyone. Provide it based on ability - because right now, getting a post-secondary degree when you come from a family which lives at or just above poverty line is pretty much a lost cause. Eligibility for a meaningful amount of financial aid requires astronomical academic achievement - and A+ students aren't the only people who should be breaking out the ghettos. Remember - they will pay the investment in them off, when they graduate, and start paying middle class taxes - instead of leeching off the system, by working a minimal wage night shift at McDonalds.
that's a load of bull, because those poor families are the ones that colleges love to get in to balance out their demos, and the govt throws money at anyone from that level that applies. You don't need to be a top notch student to get federal aid at all. It's far more rooted in your race, your family income and where you are from than anything else. You're non-white, you come from an quasi urban or city area and your parents both have to work, you get money if you're able to swing a low B in high school.
and it's not an investment that will pay itself off, even if you were to pretend that the country was in a position to afford such a massive expenditure (it's not). people with four year degrees now are having a hard time getting a job. a four year degree is not a ticket to a job by any means at all, and if you increase the amount of people getting four year degrees, it further devalues something that's been becoming more worthless with each passing generation. all it means is that you have to get more advanced degrees to stand out from the crowd, a trend which has been proving true for some time now. Beyond the whole job market, there's a whole bunch of very average students pursuing degrees like psychology, which is essentially worthless without an advanced degree beyond the bachelors
|
What exactly is the point of lefists, socialists, anarchists, fascists, communists, capitalists, liberals, republicans, democrats, objectivists and libertarians marching together for "something"?
Because even if anyone wanted to give in to these demands then they wouldn't have a clue as to where to start since there are a million and one demands, some even counter productive to others.
It's just a ton of people who have nearly nothing in common asking for whatever they feel like. What is the point behind this?
Protest all you like but is it really too much to ask to have a single message? Ooh but we aren't part of the elite, we are the ordinary people, we are all unique snowflakes and we all have our own views...yeah big deal go stay at home if that's the best excuse for being unable to even form a single demand.
It's just protesting to protest. There is no goal that they want to obtain. A protest without a goal, effective.
|
On October 03 2011 22:35 zalz wrote:
What exactly is the point of lefists, socialists, anarchists, fascists, communists, capitalists, liberals, republicans, democrats, objectivists and libertarians marching together for "something"?
Because even if anyone wanted to give in to these demands then they wouldn't have a clue as to where to start since there are a million and one demands, some even counter productive to others.
It's just a ton of people who have nearly nothing in common asking for whatever they feel like. What is the point behind this?
Protest all you like but is it really too much to ask to have a single message? Ooh but we aren't part of the elite, we are the ordinary people, we are all unique snowflakes and we all have our own views...yeah big deal go stay at home if that's the best excuse for being unable to even form a single demand.
It's just protesting to protest. There is no goal that they want to obtain. A protest without a goal, effective.
I think this is the result of people feeling like they're left out of the political process, or that the political process is too difficult to use to get their message out. So instead of trying to come up with a coherent message, they just march around angrily chanting random slogans (according to the OP they were supposed to come up with a reason why they were protesting later on, which is completely ridiculous!), probably for the sole purpose of letting of steam.
Its just a bunch of angry people, vaguely blaming different people or systems for their problems, and hoping someone else articulates what they mean, and then finds the solution for them. Its possibly the most incoherent protest in history
|
On October 03 2011 22:30 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 02:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On October 03 2011 02:29 TranceStorm wrote:
An issue with providing free college education to students in the US is that it simply is unfeasible as the US doesn't have enough resources. Many colleges in the US are private institutions which have enormously high tuitions (many do offer financial aid though) - however, the US simply can't provide higher education for everyone. Whenever they do try to, the 'online' universities and the more shady universities benefit quite alot. If you do any reading on for-profit universities, they arose from the effort to provide more education for everyone. Not everyone. Provide it based on ability - because right now, getting a post-secondary degree when you come from a family which lives at or just above poverty line is pretty much a lost cause. Eligibility for a meaningful amount of financial aid requires astronomical academic achievement - and A+ students aren't the only people who should be breaking out the ghettos. Remember - they will pay the investment in them off, when they graduate, and start paying middle class taxes - instead of leeching off the system, by working a minimal wage night shift at McDonalds. that's a load of bull, because those poor families are the ones that colleges love to get in to balance out their demos, and the govt throws money at anyone from that level that applies. You don't need to be a top notch student to get federal aid at all. It's far more rooted in your race, your family income and where you are from than anything else. You're non-white, you come from an quasi urban or city area and your parents both have to work, you get money if you're able to swing a low B in high school.
If only it were that easy. Apparently, despite race-determined financial aid (Which is also unfair to poor whites), native blacks and hispanics are still half as likely to finish college as whites. Unless you want to imply that they are incapable of doing so, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that your current aid does not in fact remove students' concerns over money from the equation.
and it's not an investment that will pay itself off
You sure? And here I thought that it was the middle class that carried America's tax burden. Every dollar you spend educating people will be returned again, and again, through taxes.
, even if you were to pretend that the country was in a position to afford such a massive expenditure (it's not).
$40 billion a year spent by the feds on education.
$689 billion a year spent by the feds on "defense."
You realise how silly that statement is... Right?
people with four year degrees now are having a hard time getting a job. a four year degree is not a ticket to a job by any means at all, and if you increase the amount of people getting four year degrees, it further devalues something that's been becoming more worthless with each passing generation.
We're also in the middle of a recession. People without one are having an even harder time getting one.
Either way, I don't suggest that so many more people need degrees. Instead, I suggest that ability should be the sole factor in determining who can get one.
Or, alternatively, America can forget about being the center of innovation, and turn into a giant service economy (With some people making bank from shuffling money.)
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 03 2011 22:35 zalz wrote:
What exactly is the point of lefists, socialists, anarchists, fascists, communists, capitalists, liberals, republicans, democrats, objectivists and libertarians marching together for "something"?
Because even if anyone wanted to give in to these demands then they wouldn't have a clue as to where to start since there are a million and one demands, some even counter productive to others.
It's just a ton of people who have nearly nothing in common asking for whatever they feel like. What is the point behind this?
Protest all you like but is it really too much to ask to have a single message? Ooh but we aren't part of the elite, we are the ordinary people, we are all unique snowflakes and we all have our own views...yeah big deal go stay at home if that's the best excuse for being unable to even form a single demand.
It's just protesting to protest. There is no goal that they want to obtain. A protest without a goal, effective.
Very good points.. well not really. First victory, would be to get such a wide variety of ideologies to work together on anything at all. Second is , this is a American Protest. You know, land of the brave, home of the cheeze whiz. It's not Egypt or Libya. I'm impressed they finally got out there at all,still about 4 years too late for my taste.
The point behind it? End Crony Capatalism, restore free market values? I didn't write their demands, nor sign it. I did not sign the constitution for the Feds, or my local state constitution, yet i find myself bound by it. Maybe the point is to get more involved and have a say in the rules by which the game is played. It is a game, you know. I need moar coffee!!!
|
On October 03 2011 22:46 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 22:35 zalz wrote:
What exactly is the point of lefists, socialists, anarchists, fascists, communists, capitalists, liberals, republicans, democrats, objectivists and libertarians marching together for "something"?
Because even if anyone wanted to give in to these demands then they wouldn't have a clue as to where to start since there are a million and one demands, some even counter productive to others.
It's just a ton of people who have nearly nothing in common asking for whatever they feel like. What is the point behind this?
Protest all you like but is it really too much to ask to have a single message? Ooh but we aren't part of the elite, we are the ordinary people, we are all unique snowflakes and we all have our own views...yeah big deal go stay at home if that's the best excuse for being unable to even form a single demand.
It's just protesting to protest. There is no goal that they want to obtain. A protest without a goal, effective. I think this is the result of people feeling like they're left out of the political process, or that the political process is too difficult to use to get their message out. So instead of trying to come up with a coherent message, they just march around angrily chanting random slogans (according to the OP they were supposed to come up with a reason why they were protesting later on, which is completely ridiculous!), probably for the sole purpose of letting of steam. Its just a bunch of angry people, vaguely blaming different people or systems for their problems, and hoping someone else articulates what they mean, and then finds the solution for them. Its possibly the most incoherent protest in history
I am certain that some people will attempt to twist it as such. Poor victims, ooh how people are always eager to be victims. Wether they live under god, wether they live under Kim-Jong-Ill or wether they live under Obama, people always feel like their surroundings are out to get them. Justified for some people of the world, but not so for western people.
The democratic system is extremely open, the problem is that people are too lazy or to cynical to actually go out and make use of it.
My town was one of the first smaller areas in my country to get a proper broadband connection because me and my brothers went out door to door and convinced all the people we could to sign a petition. We proved there was a demand for it and short after we got what we wanted. It took some effort, it took some time and it took some faith in the democratic system, but it did work.
This protest is the easy way out. Another chance to be cynical about a good system of government wich demands that it's citizens put some work in if they want to see change.
Walking down the street with a sign saying "free school" as a hell of a lot easier then to actually go out and make it happen. These people are too lazy to even construct a proper message for their protest.
They try to twist it like they don't want to rule over the protesters. Everyone is unique, everyone has their own demand. It's all nonesense. These people are too lazy to work the democratic system and now they have a protest on their hand that they are too lazy or incapable of controlling. A protest without a unified voice is pointless. It has no more meaning then the thousands of people that walk up and down the street of a metropolis every day.
I can understand that people are angry and upset with how things are going and if that's the case then they should protest against it. But what is this? They are just wasting their time. Feeling like they are the movers of the world whilst they can't even control their own protest.
This protest will achieve nothing and whilst they will blame the government and whoever else they can find, you would all do well to remember that their inability to create any meaningfull changes is their own fault. The only true question is wether they are lazy or incapeable.
|
Every single time someone tells me that this type of political activism achieves nothing and the causes are naive or unreasonable, I ask them why it is that corporate media is doing its best to discredit the movement in question (or to outright ignore it) and the police is so eager to use intimidation tactics and even brute force. The behaviour of those in power reveals their fears - and the more they fear the people, the better it's going to be for everyone.
|
On October 03 2011 22:51 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 22:30 Hawk wrote:On October 03 2011 02:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On October 03 2011 02:29 TranceStorm wrote:
An issue with providing free college education to students in the US is that it simply is unfeasible as the US doesn't have enough resources. Many colleges in the US are private institutions which have enormously high tuitions (many do offer financial aid though) - however, the US simply can't provide higher education for everyone. Whenever they do try to, the 'online' universities and the more shady universities benefit quite alot. If you do any reading on for-profit universities, they arose from the effort to provide more education for everyone. Not everyone. Provide it based on ability - because right now, getting a post-secondary degree when you come from a family which lives at or just above poverty line is pretty much a lost cause. Eligibility for a meaningful amount of financial aid requires astronomical academic achievement - and A+ students aren't the only people who should be breaking out the ghettos. Remember - they will pay the investment in them off, when they graduate, and start paying middle class taxes - instead of leeching off the system, by working a minimal wage night shift at McDonalds. that's a load of bull, because those poor families are the ones that colleges love to get in to balance out their demos, and the govt throws money at anyone from that level that applies. You don't need to be a top notch student to get federal aid at all. It's far more rooted in your race, your family income and where you are from than anything else. You're non-white, you come from an quasi urban or city area and your parents both have to work, you get money if you're able to swing a low B in high school. If only it were that easy. Apparently, despite race-determined financial aid (Which is also unfair to poor whites), native blacks and hispanics are still half as likely to finish college as whites. Unless you want to imply that they are incapable of doing so, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that your current aid does not in fact remove students' concerns over money from the equation. You sure? And here I thought that it was the middle class that carried America's tax burden. Every dollar you spend educating people will be returned again, and again, through taxes. Show nested quote +
, even if you were to pretend that the country was in a position to afford such a massive expenditure (it's not).
$40 billion a year spent by the feds on education. $689 billion a year spent by the feds on "defense." You realise how silly that statement is... Right? Show nested quote +
people with four year degrees now are having a hard time getting a job. a four year degree is not a ticket to a job by any means at all, and if you increase the amount of people getting four year degrees, it further devalues something that's been becoming more worthless with each passing generation.
We're also in the middle of a recession. People without one are having an even harder time getting one. Either way, I don't suggest that so many more people need degrees. Instead, I suggest that ability should be the sole factor in determining who can get one. Or, alternatively, America can forget about being the center of innovation, and turn into a giant service economy (With some people making bank from shuffling money.)
The discrepancy in the finish rates among races is pretty obvious if you take the time to think instead of race baiting. Who makes up the bulk of athletic programs at schools? Generally, minorities, most often from inner city areas who view sports as a ticket out of the hood. Your average athlete (any given race or upbringing) isn't exactly a scholar, especially if they're coming from a shitty inner city school with parents who aren't as invested in their child's education as a student from a rich community. So you have many people taking off for the pros before getting their degree, and the others, if they're no pro material, often run into the problem of not being able to keep up their grades to stay on the team and retain their scholarship/aid because a shit high school in no way prepares you for the challenge of college academics.
it's certainly not funding, especially since anyone can apply for a loan outside of aid and scholarships.
and no, it's not as simple as send kids to school, everything is fixed. The issue of the 4 year degree slowly losing its value predated the the recession and has been happening for a variety of different reasons. The solution isn't to churn out more shitty ass psychology students with no game plan how to turn that into a job other than being a social worker.
and yes, I am aware of the country's spending habits. The point still stands that it's an expenditure that the country cannot afford until that is changed. Changing education on a fundamental level is what you do after you unfuck that, not before. It's not a silly statement at all. It's one that's rooted in reality.
On October 03 2011 09:15 BioNova wrote:A funny article about the 'Bridge Arrests" Source
this is called updating your work to reflect the reporting—standard procedure. The claims about the police baiting them into going onto the bridge is entirely based off of an edited :14 video and a bunch of protestors perpetuating the event. The second is more accurate and, more importantly, neutral
|
On October 03 2011 22:21 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 03:28 Drium wrote:Oh occupy wall street, I liked you until I saw your ridiculous list of demands . I like how they have "open borders migration" and "end free trade" on the same list. Hurts my brain. If you had followed the scene more closely, you would know there is no "they". There are some people on street and most people there dont know what they want, and all of the rest have different opinions. When I say different opinions, I mean that people protesting there have every political opinion possible.
Whoa now... That isn't gonna work.
The Tea Party has no head, no organization, no platform, it's just a diverse group of people with different opinions, and yet that hasn't stopped everyone from calling them nothing more than nutjobs and racists. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Also, this is one of the few issues where both liberals and conservatives agree that something needs to be done about the government and business getting in bed together. The distinction can be found in which side they tend to focus on and blame more. The right wing will blame government, because they are the one's with the power to create laws and enforce them, and because when someone takes a bribe, you blame them for taking the bribe. The left wing focuses on blaming the rich and business and corporations for offering the bribes, and influencing public policy that way. The fact that they are protesting Wall Street, and the numerous statements many of them have made regarding the wealthy, suggest this is more of a left political protest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
