On June 29 2012 04:38 jdseemoreglass wrote: Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class.
Why don't you actually read the act, read the thread, and then revisit this post. If you can honestly repeat yourself, well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
I happen to think the cost of college tuition has more to do with the Federal Government getting involved in providing student loans than any effect inflation has had. A student with a bank account of $40,000 will be much more frugal in his buying habits than someone with a 'student loan' of $40,000. Therefore, students are willing to spend more for college tuition than they would have been before the government got into the student loan business. As a result, since colleges are businesses, with bills and salaries to pay, they increase tuition and pay professors more and more money. The voting segment of college students is 'educated' into the importance of a college degree and so the demand for college goes up. Another factor increase the cost of tuition. The fact of the matter is, the consumers, (students) are marketed a product ( college degree ) by the very institutions benefiting from these increased tuition dollars, that students will pay increasingly inflated tuition amounts, since they have 'student loans'. Fast forward to today, students realize they have been sold a bill of goods, they paid all this money to colleges and the value of the degree they received was inflated by the colleges themselves. Now, students are burdened with a bunch of debt that they probably (in many cases) shouldn't have taken out and paid to colleges and who's to blame ? Who else. Republicans, of course. Wall Street. Who do these OWS students vote for ? Democrats. Why ? Because they offer lower interest rate on the sucker (I mean, student) loans, so that these Democrats can keep pumping more money into student loans to suck the next generation of kids into massive debt, since now that everybody has a degree, they are mandatory, and you have no hope without one. So, they borrow and pay even more. Who benefits ? The only people benefiting are politicians and the colleges. They are a business and students are largely taken advantage of.
Want lower tuition ? Get the $$ coming from the federal government out of the business and since student will no longer be able to afford what the colleges want to charge, tuition rates will have to fall if they want any students in their classrooms.
But then, who am I but some ignorant, evil Republican who doesn't believe in educating our next generation...
On June 29 2012 04:41 TALegion wrote: As soon as a post uses the phrase, "Republicans," or, "Democrats," etc, without an adjective of quantity (i.e. "Most," "Some," "A lot of") before it, it loses all credibility. No, not all Republicans are selfish, white, rich, xenophobic, homophobic, militaristic Evangelicals. Likewise, not all Democrats are poor, lazy, pot smoking, hypocritical, pussified-Hippy socialists of foreign descent. Please, whether you are from here or not, or even if you're a government representative, don't think you're good enough to speak on behalf of millions of people.
We all have the same damn goals: Make the country better (Though some like to prefer thinking of making the whole world better). Some people like equality, some people like freedom. It basically comes down to that. You cannot have both, as they both are complete opposites in practice. Equality can only be achieved through enforced rules and regulations, because (I believe we can all agree...) we are not a perfect, tolerant, generous, peaceful species. Freedom is the lack of this political denial of a person's right to a private livelihood. I think it's kinda sad that, even though we have a common goal, we're so divided based on our means of accomplishing what we want.
Actually no, equality is quite objective measure, freedom is not. So it is quite easy to ensure good level of equality not violating freedom as that is subjective.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
I happen to think the cost of college tuition has more to do with the Federal Government getting involved in providing student loans than any effect inflation has had. A student with a bank account of $40,000 will be much more frugal in his buying habits than someone with a 'student loan' of $40,000. Therefore, students are willing to spend more for college tuition than they would have been before the government got into the student loan business. As a result, since colleges are businesses, with bills and salaries to pay, they increase tuition and pay professors more and more money. The voting segment of college students is 'educated' into the importance of a college degree and so the demand for college goes up. Another factor increase the cost of tuition. The fact of the matter is, the consumers, (students) are marketed a product ( college degree ) by the very institutions benefiting from these increased tuition dollars, that students will pay increasingly inflated tuition amounts, since they have 'student loans'. Fast forward to today, students realize they have been sold a bill of goods, they paid all this money to colleges and the value of the degree they received was inflated by the colleges themselves. Now, students are burdened with a bunch of debt that they probably (in many cases) shouldn't have taken out and paid to colleges and who's to blame ? Who else. Republicans, of course. Wall Street. Who do these OWS students vote for ? Democrats. Why ? Because they offer lower interest rate on the sucker (I mean, student) loans, so that these Democrats can keep pumping more money into student loans to suck the next generation of kids into massive debt, since now that everybody has a degree, they are mandatory, and you have no hope without one. So, they borrow and pay even more. Who benefits ? The only people benefiting are politicians and the colleges. They are a business and students are largely taken advantage of.
Want lower tuition ? Get the $$ coming from the federal government out of the business and since student will no longer be able to afford what the colleges want to charge, tuition rates will have to fall if they want any students in their classrooms.
But then, who am I but some ignorant, evil Republican who doesn't believe in educating our next generation...
This is utter nonsense with zero basis in the real world. Professors make lots of money? The only people who think this are the ones who've never even been to college. Having looked into employment in higher ed, professors/instructors on a college level are paid less than ever and the job market is horrible. The VAST majority of the national student debt is held in private loans, so the bulk of your post is little more than a Glenn Beck rant.
On June 29 2012 04:38 jdseemoreglass wrote: Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class.
Why don't you actually read the act, read the thread, and then revisit this post. If you can honestly repeat yourself, well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
If you keep making these vague and accusatory responses without actually bringing any real arguments up,
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
I happen to think the cost of college tuition has more to do with the Federal Government getting involved in providing student loans than any effect inflation has had. A student with a bank account of $40,000 will be much more frugal in his buying habits than someone with a 'student loan' of $40,000. Therefore, students are willing to spend more for college tuition than they would have been before the government got into the student loan business. As a result, since colleges are businesses, with bills and salaries to pay, they increase tuition and pay professors more and more money. The voting segment of college students is 'educated' into the importance of a college degree and so the demand for college goes up. Another factor increase the cost of tuition. The fact of the matter is, the consumers, (students) are marketed a product ( college degree ) by the very institutions benefiting from these increased tuition dollars, that students will pay increasingly inflated tuition amounts, since they have 'student loans'. Fast forward to today, students realize they have been sold a bill of goods, they paid all this money to colleges and the value of the degree they received was inflated by the colleges themselves. Now, students are burdened with a bunch of debt that they probably (in many cases) shouldn't have taken out and paid to colleges and who's to blame ? Who else. Republicans, of course. Wall Street. Who do these OWS students vote for ? Democrats. Why ? Because they offer lower interest rate on the sucker (I mean, student) loans, so that these Democrats can keep pumping more money into student loans to suck the next generation of kids into massive debt, since now that everybody has a degree, they are mandatory, and you have no hope without one. So, they borrow and pay even more. Who benefits ? The only people benefiting are politicians and the colleges. They are a business and students are largely taken advantage of.
Want lower tuition ? Get the $$ coming from the federal government out of the business and since student will no longer be able to afford what the colleges want to charge, tuition rates will have to fall if they want any students in their classrooms.
But then, who am I but some ignorant, evil Republican who doesn't believe in educating our next generation...
This is utter nonsense with zero basis in the real world. Professors make lots of money? The only people who think this are the ones who've never even been to college. Having looked into employment in higher ed, professors/instructors on a college level are paid less than ever and the job market is horrible. The VAST majority of the national student debt is held in private loans, so the bulk of your post is little more than a Glenn Beck rant.
Are those 'private loans' guaranteed by the Federal Government or not ? So, is your point that professors don't make enough money and tuition should be increased ?
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
I happen to think the cost of college tuition has more to do with the Federal Government getting involved in providing student loans than any effect inflation has had. A student with a bank account of $40,000 will be much more frugal in his buying habits than someone with a 'student loan' of $40,000. Therefore, students are willing to spend more for college tuition than they would have been before the government got into the student loan business. As a result, since colleges are businesses, with bills and salaries to pay, they increase tuition and pay professors more and more money. The voting segment of college students is 'educated' into the importance of a college degree and so the demand for college goes up. Another factor increase the cost of tuition. The fact of the matter is, the consumers, (students) are marketed a product ( college degree ) by the very institutions benefiting from these increased tuition dollars, that students will pay increasingly inflated tuition amounts, since they have 'student loans'. Fast forward to today, students realize they have been sold a bill of goods, they paid all this money to colleges and the value of the degree they received was inflated by the colleges themselves. Now, students are burdened with a bunch of debt that they probably (in many cases) shouldn't have taken out and paid to colleges and who's to blame ? Who else. Republicans, of course. Wall Street. Who do these OWS students vote for ? Democrats. Why ? Because they offer lower interest rate on the sucker (I mean, student) loans, so that these Democrats can keep pumping more money into student loans to suck the next generation of kids into massive debt, since now that everybody has a degree, they are mandatory, and you have no hope without one. So, they borrow and pay even more. Who benefits ? The only people benefiting are politicians and the colleges. They are a business and students are largely taken advantage of.
Want lower tuition ? Get the $$ coming from the federal government out of the business and since student will no longer be able to afford what the colleges want to charge, tuition rates will have to fall if they want any students in their classrooms.
But then, who am I but some ignorant, evil Republican who doesn't believe in educating our next generation...
This is utter nonsense with zero basis in the real world. Professors make lots of money? The only people who think this are the ones who've never even been to college. Having looked into employment in higher ed, professors/instructors on a college level are paid less than ever and the job market is horrible. The VAST majority of the national student debt is held in private loans, so the bulk of your post is little more than a Glenn Beck rant.
Are those 'private loans' guaranteed by the Federal Government or not ? So, is your point that professors don't make enough money and tuition should be increased ?
I think his point was that a lot of your statement was factually incorrect.
On June 29 2012 04:41 TALegion wrote: As soon as a post uses the phrase, "Republicans," or, "Democrats," etc, without an adjective of quantity (i.e. "Most," "Some," "A lot of") before it, it loses all credibility. No, not all Republicans are selfish, white, rich, xenophobic, homophobic, militaristic Evangelicals. Likewise, not all Democrats are poor, lazy, pot smoking, hypocritical, pussified-Hippy socialists of foreign descent. Please, whether you are from here or not, or even if you're a government representative, don't think you're good enough to speak on behalf of millions of people.
We all have the same damn goals: Make the country better (Though some like to prefer thinking of making the whole world better). Some people like equality, some people like freedom. It basically comes down to that. You cannot have both, as they both are complete opposites in practice. Equality can only be achieved through enforced rules and regulations, because (I believe we can all agree...) we are not a perfect, tolerant, generous, peaceful species. Freedom is the lack of this political denial of a person's right to a private livelihood. I think it's kinda sad that, even though we have a common goal, we're so divided based on our means of accomplishing what we want.
Actually no, equality is quite objective measure, freedom is not. So it is quite easy to ensure good level of equality not violating freedom as that is subjective.
You are usually one of the most nonsensical posters around but this really takes the cake. Equality is just as subjective as freedom is. Just to remind you of what you have inexplicably somehow forgotten, the simplest example of how equality is subjective: the contrast between equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity, and the disagreement between people who believe in the former and those who believe in the latter. Your reasoning is also atrocious. It is not quite easy to ensure a level of "equality" (whatever that means, as it is not objective) without violating freedom as freedom is subjective. How can you quite easily avoid violating freedom if you can't objectively measure it?
Anyway, Chief Justice Roberts took the easy way out by legislating from the bench and saying that the mandate is not really a mandate, it is a tax, so it's okay. So no, Congress cannot order you into commerce. That argument is dead. It's unconstitutional. Democrats may have said repeatedly that the mandate is not a tax, but Chief Legislator Roberts disagreed. Doesn't matter anyway. Millions if not tens of millions of people - not to mention a couple dozen state governments - will refuse to participate in Obamacare. It doesn't even really matter if it isn't repealed by a future Congress. Mass civil disobedience will render the whole thing unworkable.
On June 29 2012 04:38 jdseemoreglass wrote: Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class.
Why don't you actually read the act, read the thread, and then revisit this post. If you can honestly repeat yourself, well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
If you keep making these vague and accusatory responses without actually bringing any real arguments up,
I did and have been throughout the thread, hence my reference to a need to read the thread. Keeping in that vein, read the thread? This act will reduce costs for every party involved, except maybe insurance companies.
On June 29 2012 03:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no?
I'm not so much pissed at Roberts, but I do disagree with him. I thought the ruling was a bit bizzare, it was obviously a question of how to interpret the commerce clause. To side step that by declairing the individual mandate a tax is ignoring the entire issue.
And wasn't Citizens United about limiting political contributions to candidates from non-profit organizations and corporations? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
On June 29 2012 03:54 Doublemint wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:47 TheToast wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:39 farvacola wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote: [quote]
So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense.
Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty.
To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand?
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.
Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself......
Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions.
Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26.
Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers.
Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits.
Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead).
Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it.
In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly.
Which will just raise insurance premiums for everyone across the board and insurance companies will keep making money.
On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote: But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.
Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented.
There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product.
The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid.
What needs to happen to convince you then? Isn't the Supreme Court the "supreme" Court in your country which is based ( one might say very intelligently so) on checks and balances?
Man up and don't be a sore loser...
Personal responsibility all the way, even if one is on the losing side of a legal argument - no?
So, because the Supreme Court decided one way I can't disagree with it? I would point out there were four justices in disagreement with the majority ruling. So their opinion just doesn't count? If four highly intelligent, highly educated legal minds are arguing against the ruling, there is at obviously a legitimate argument to be made against the law. I would say you're being a sore winner with the attitude that all dissenting opinions are now invalid. That's rediculous.
The law may have been ruled constitutional by a plurality of justices, but I reserve my right to agree with Justice Kennedy and the other opposing Justices. If you don't like it, well that's too bad.
But the SCOTUS ruling struck down a STATE law.
So? That happens all the time.
Why does that make him a hypocrit?
because people use the argument that the government should not be able to do this and it is a state issue (healthcarewise) this is the main argument romney uses when he defends his state law that AFA is based off of. If you are going to use the argument that this should be left up to the states you are hypercritical when you say that CU was fine to strike down the state law.
now i am not saying that anyone here has used that argument mainly because i am not going to dig around post, but there are a lot of people who have used this argument
The precidence that SCOTUS gives final word on the constitutionality of both federal and state laws is long established. The court for instance passed rulings on matters such as segregation. Most people don't have a problem with that. So I don't see where hypocrisy is coming in. On the other hand many do take issue with congress passing laws over the states.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
I happen to think the cost of college tuition has more to do with the Federal Government getting involved in providing student loans than any effect inflation has had. A student with a bank account of $40,000 will be much more frugal in his buying habits than someone with a 'student loan' of $40,000. Therefore, students are willing to spend more for college tuition than they would have been before the government got into the student loan business. As a result, since colleges are businesses, with bills and salaries to pay, they increase tuition and pay professors more and more money. The voting segment of college students is 'educated' into the importance of a college degree and so the demand for college goes up. Another factor increase the cost of tuition. The fact of the matter is, the consumers, (students) are marketed a product ( college degree ) by the very institutions benefiting from these increased tuition dollars, that students will pay increasingly inflated tuition amounts, since they have 'student loans'. Fast forward to today, students realize they have been sold a bill of goods, they paid all this money to colleges and the value of the degree they received was inflated by the colleges themselves. Now, students are burdened with a bunch of debt that they probably (in many cases) shouldn't have taken out and paid to colleges and who's to blame ? Who else. Republicans, of course. Wall Street. Who do these OWS students vote for ? Democrats. Why ? Because they offer lower interest rate on the sucker (I mean, student) loans, so that these Democrats can keep pumping more money into student loans to suck the next generation of kids into massive debt, since now that everybody has a degree, they are mandatory, and you have no hope without one. So, they borrow and pay even more. Who benefits ? The only people benefiting are politicians and the colleges. They are a business and students are largely taken advantage of.
Want lower tuition ? Get the $$ coming from the federal government out of the business and since student will no longer be able to afford what the colleges want to charge, tuition rates will have to fall if they want any students in their classrooms.
But then, who am I but some ignorant, evil Republican who doesn't believe in educating our next generation...
This is utter nonsense with zero basis in the real world. Professors make lots of money? The only people who think this are the ones who've never even been to college. Having looked into employment in higher ed, professors/instructors on a college level are paid less than ever and the job market is horrible. The VAST majority of the national student debt is held in private loans, so the bulk of your post is little more than a Glenn Beck rant.
Are those 'private loans' guaranteed by the Federal Government or not ? So, is your point that professors don't make enough money and tuition should be increased ?
On June 29 2012 04:38 jdseemoreglass wrote: Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class.
Why don't you actually read the act, read the thread, and then revisit this post. If you can honestly repeat yourself, well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
If you keep making these vague and accusatory responses without actually bringing any real arguments up,
well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
I did and have been throughout the thread, hence my reference to a need to read the thread. Keeping in that vein, read the thread? This act will reduce costs for every party involved, except maybe insurance companies.
On June 29 2012 04:41 TALegion wrote: As soon as a post uses the phrase, "Republicans," or, "Democrats," etc, without an adjective of quantity (i.e. "Most," "Some," "A lot of") before it, it loses all credibility. No, not all Republicans are selfish, white, rich, xenophobic, homophobic, militaristic Evangelicals. Likewise, not all Democrats are poor, lazy, pot smoking, hypocritical, pussified-Hippy socialists of foreign descent. Please, whether you are from here or not, or even if you're a government representative, don't think you're good enough to speak on behalf of millions of people.
We all have the same damn goals: Make the country better (Though some like to prefer thinking of making the whole world better). Some people like equality, some people like freedom. It basically comes down to that. You cannot have both, as they both are complete opposites in practice. Equality can only be achieved through enforced rules and regulations, because (I believe we can all agree...) we are not a perfect, tolerant, generous, peaceful species. Freedom is the lack of this political denial of a person's right to a private livelihood. I think it's kinda sad that, even though we have a common goal, we're so divided based on our means of accomplishing what we want.
Actually no, equality is quite objective measure, freedom is not. So it is quite easy to ensure good level of equality not violating freedom as that is subjective.
Well, when I mean equality, I mean in the measured sense (mostly economically, as it's hard to enforce social laws). It's nearly impossible to have actual equality in a legitimate, 100% capitalism/free environment. There will be rich people, and there will be poor, because the cold hard truth is that not everyone's born equal. So, if you value equality among the people of your nation more than you value their right to freedom of choice, it is likely that will support something where the government takes care of helpless people through force.
And I don't think freedom is too subjective. Of course it comes in varying amounts, but it is pretty easy to recognize something as making you more or less free. The first and 9th amendment probably explain it best, as they basically write out that anyone has the right to do whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. This is not 100% upheld by the government, as it would be highly impracticle, but nonetheless outlines that the government will not become a totalitarian communist state.
Equality can only be achieved by force, so if you want it (which I would hope we all do...), you have to decide whether it's worth sacrificing personal freedoms for.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
I happen to think the cost of college tuition has more to do with the Federal Government getting involved in providing student loans than any effect inflation has had. A student with a bank account of $40,000 will be much more frugal in his buying habits than someone with a 'student loan' of $40,000. Therefore, students are willing to spend more for college tuition than they would have been before the government got into the student loan business. As a result, since colleges are businesses, with bills and salaries to pay, they increase tuition and pay professors more and more money. The voting segment of college students is 'educated' into the importance of a college degree and so the demand for college goes up. Another factor increase the cost of tuition. The fact of the matter is, the consumers, (students) are marketed a product ( college degree ) by the very institutions benefiting from these increased tuition dollars, that students will pay increasingly inflated tuition amounts, since they have 'student loans'. Fast forward to today, students realize they have been sold a bill of goods, they paid all this money to colleges and the value of the degree they received was inflated by the colleges themselves. Now, students are burdened with a bunch of debt that they probably (in many cases) shouldn't have taken out and paid to colleges and who's to blame ? Who else. Republicans, of course. Wall Street. Who do these OWS students vote for ? Democrats. Why ? Because they offer lower interest rate on the sucker (I mean, student) loans, so that these Democrats can keep pumping more money into student loans to suck the next generation of kids into massive debt, since now that everybody has a degree, they are mandatory, and you have no hope without one. So, they borrow and pay even more. Who benefits ? The only people benefiting are politicians and the colleges. They are a business and students are largely taken advantage of.
Want lower tuition ? Get the $$ coming from the federal government out of the business and since student will no longer be able to afford what the colleges want to charge, tuition rates will have to fall if they want any students in their classrooms.
But then, who am I but some ignorant, evil Republican who doesn't believe in educating our next generation...
On June 29 2012 04:38 jdseemoreglass wrote: Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class.
Why don't you actually read the act, read the thread, and then revisit this post. If you can honestly repeat yourself, well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
If you keep making these vague and accusatory responses without actually bringing any real arguments up,
well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
I did and have been throughout the thread, hence my reference to a need to read the thread. Keeping in that vein, read the thread? This act will reduce costs for every party involved, except maybe insurance companies.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
Increase in cost of tuition is clearly not related to inflation, at least, not enough for inflation to be really relevant. The increases over the past 20 years have far outstripped inflation.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
I happen to think the cost of college tuition has more to do with the Federal Government getting involved in providing student loans than any effect inflation has had. A student with a bank account of $40,000 will be much more frugal in his buying habits than someone with a 'student loan' of $40,000. Therefore, students are willing to spend more for college tuition than they would have been before the government got into the student loan business. As a result, since colleges are businesses, with bills and salaries to pay, they increase tuition and pay professors more and more money. The voting segment of college students is 'educated' into the importance of a college degree and so the demand for college goes up. Another factor increase the cost of tuition. The fact of the matter is, the consumers, (students) are marketed a product ( college degree ) by the very institutions benefiting from these increased tuition dollars, that students will pay increasingly inflated tuition amounts, since they have 'student loans'. Fast forward to today, students realize they have been sold a bill of goods, they paid all this money to colleges and the value of the degree they received was inflated by the colleges themselves. Now, students are burdened with a bunch of debt that they probably (in many cases) shouldn't have taken out and paid to colleges and who's to blame ? Who else. Republicans, of course. Wall Street. Who do these OWS students vote for ? Democrats. Why ? Because they offer lower interest rate on the sucker (I mean, student) loans, so that these Democrats can keep pumping more money into student loans to suck the next generation of kids into massive debt, since now that everybody has a degree, they are mandatory, and you have no hope without one. So, they borrow and pay even more. Who benefits ? The only people benefiting are politicians and the colleges. They are a business and students are largely taken advantage of.
Want lower tuition ? Get the $$ coming from the federal government out of the business and since student will no longer be able to afford what the colleges want to charge, tuition rates will have to fall if they want any students in their classrooms.
But then, who am I but some ignorant, evil Republican who doesn't believe in educating our next generation...
This is utter nonsense with zero basis in the real world. Professors make lots of money? The only people who think this are the ones who've never even been to college. Having looked into employment in higher ed, professors/instructors on a college level are paid less than ever and the job market is horrible. The VAST majority of the national student debt is held in private loans, so the bulk of your post is little more than a Glenn Beck rant.
Student loan debt is crazy because the government enacted laws and created agencies that made the student loan market vastly different from other loans. They are now artificially easy to get and artificially hard to discharge.
This has increased the cost of higher education, which has lead to more student debt which has lead to a sort of economic debtor's prison for many Americans.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
I happen to think the cost of college tuition has more to do with the Federal Government getting involved in providing student loans than any effect inflation has had. A student with a bank account of $40,000 will be much more frugal in his buying habits than someone with a 'student loan' of $40,000. Therefore, students are willing to spend more for college tuition than they would have been before the government got into the student loan business. As a result, since colleges are businesses, with bills and salaries to pay, they increase tuition and pay professors more and more money. The voting segment of college students is 'educated' into the importance of a college degree and so the demand for college goes up. Another factor increase the cost of tuition. The fact of the matter is, the consumers, (students) are marketed a product ( college degree ) by the very institutions benefiting from these increased tuition dollars, that students will pay increasingly inflated tuition amounts, since they have 'student loans'. Fast forward to today, students realize they have been sold a bill of goods, they paid all this money to colleges and the value of the degree they received was inflated by the colleges themselves. Now, students are burdened with a bunch of debt that they probably (in many cases) shouldn't have taken out and paid to colleges and who's to blame ? Who else. Republicans, of course. Wall Street. Who do these OWS students vote for ? Democrats. Why ? Because they offer lower interest rate on the sucker (I mean, student) loans, so that these Democrats can keep pumping more money into student loans to suck the next generation of kids into massive debt, since now that everybody has a degree, they are mandatory, and you have no hope without one. So, they borrow and pay even more. Who benefits ? The only people benefiting are politicians and the colleges. They are a business and students are largely taken advantage of.
Want lower tuition ? Get the $$ coming from the federal government out of the business and since student will no longer be able to afford what the colleges want to charge, tuition rates will have to fall if they want any students in their classrooms.
But then, who am I but some ignorant, evil Republican who doesn't believe in educating our next generation...
psychologically that may be correct but if you look at inflation since 1972 (the year we went off the gold standard) the value of the dollar is less than 20% and public tuition has also gone up by about 5x. Because income per person has not increased by 5x in the last 40 years the middle class is disappearing and the cost of tuition is not on parity with the median income.
Your last sentance is the reason why republicans constantly lose favor in discussions. You think you are clever but your not... BTW, I am a Conservative.
EPT
