|
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Why should you be able to have a cell phone when seniors didn't have them at a younger age?
|
I heard somewhere ( maybe over exaggerated ) that the government can hold money away from you in say a bank without your permission and you would never know about it unless you investigated it yourself... but the IRS comes and shits all over you and your future if you owe them money, make poor people completely destitute, i say we tax the fucking rich so much that they're only considered middle class. there all the money problems in the united states solved! :-)
|
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Your parents barely had any student loans in the first place. The cost of attending school has skyrocketed in the last 20 years. Tuition is going up by 10%+ each year and with the near necessity of having a college degree in today's market, you open the landscape up to predatory lending by any number of agencies.
To put it in perspective, in the '70s, you could get a medical education for about 15,000 in today's dollars. Now, it costs around 250,000 to get an education. You see the giant disparity?
|
While it's not entirely clear how much better a university education is than wikipedia/online lecture surfing, the thing that matters is that employers look at your degree and where you graduated from. You can't go into a job interview without a degree and say "well I'm qualified because I followed all those lectures online" even if that statement were objectively true. A student loan should be seen as an investment, but as with any investment, people should seriously consider whether the cost (including the opportunity cost of years that could have been spent earning money) is justified by the return.
|
This thread is extremely hard to read, it's sad to see how many people are willing to condemn those for a poor, probably misguided choice. Should the government bail them out 100%, No. But too say we shouldn't try to make it better is just plain wrong, especially those that say "I did it, why can't they".
Maybe I'm blinded, maybe I'm silly to think that a lot of our tax money is tied up in other areas, maybe we actually need all that military funding? I'm not talking about raising taxes here, I'm talking about making it easy on our young people. My brother is in university, has extremely good grades, but has paid in cash so far(mostly my mom's money). He's strongly considering going to community college instead of taking out 10000 in loans next semester because seriously, what the hell is the difference.
Just because you worked two jobs, and went to six classes a semester too finish school faster, and had a poor quality of life for two years doesn't mean all of our young people should do it, some of them doing it right now have read this thread, and probably are groaning at some of these comments, dreading all that $ sitting there gathering interest, knowing that if they cant succeed they are pretty screwed. A part time job and full time school is fine, doable, and reasonable, but depending on how many hours your putting in, too much work cuts into your school, and not everyone can do well in school without trying and taking time to study.
|
wrong time to be putting up this act imo. Maybe like 10 years later when the america paid back most of its debt.
|
I don't like it because a lot of people go to university just for going to university. Pick a stupid ass degree that they know they will have a hard time getting a job. Cry when they don't get a job. Go and get another degree. That is just poor planning.
Paying off student loans is an important part of most young peoples lives, as it forces them to go out and get a career, or deal and settle on a shitty job to pay the bills. It also leads them to learn "budgetting" which I have always known and done, mostly because of coming from a poor family, I didn't want to waste my money. There are plenty of students that even though they are "broke" will spend all there extra money on booze, or go on spring vacation when they really can't afford these things.
Experience: Currently in school probably 40k in debt. Student loan fucked up last semester and didn't give me enough money to live. Extreme budgeting was done, as well as borrowing a lot of money from my friends to pay off my semester, which I have since paid all back with almost 0 spending for myself during my work term.
That being everything would be so much better if university was free or I had a fucking scholarship. Lol. QQ
|
On April 18 2012 20:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 19:55 screamingpalm wrote:On April 18 2012 19:51 Wegandi wrote:On April 18 2012 19:42 screamingpalm wrote:On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote:On April 18 2012 19:23 Talin wrote:On April 18 2012 18:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 18 2012 18:19 Talin wrote:On April 18 2012 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote:Commence Rant/ Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America. [quote] source: http://www.infozee.com/usa/expenses.htmFor myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance. So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit. /End Rant i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately? It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days. One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness. It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?" You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it. It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies. It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will). All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong. It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning. And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society. To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort, unless someone wants to voluntarily subsidize you; that (Welfare - Entitlement) sort of system is parasitic and harmful. That's what a majority of people have a problem with. As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective. In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we? And I suppose only the rich shall be allowed to reproduce, etc. Now what about those of us who are disabled, and not just 'lazy'? Shall we aim low then (unfortunately my productivity isn't quite what it was in my prime)? Doesn't sound like freedom to me... serfdom perhaps. You still don't understand. The State enriches and enables the 'rich' whatever your definition is of it. Liberty is the most equalizing environment if you happen to value a more egalitarian society. There are no privileges, no immunities, no guarantees. Free to fail, or succeed, make money and lose money, innovate, compete, etc. Those 'rich' you don't like, well, they sure love the folks who write them competition crippling regulations, licensining, permits, monopolies, guaranteed income (Auto Insurance, etc.), etc. The entire regulatory environment was born out of the 'need' for a select few Industrials to destroy their competition that was making them become irrelevant. I don't like the parasites at the top, or the bottom, they're both thieves. I know it's antiquated, but, yes folks should have to work to consume. Anyone is free to reproduce, as long as you can afford it. That's common sense. Why should we be subsidizing a new generation of folk who only know Welfarism? That's dependancy on the State. Booker T. Washington is probably rolling in his grave. Ah I had you pegged all wrong... pro-choice then?  I never said I don't like the 'rich'. It's the greedy I don't care much for.  So since my disability keeps me from being able to work, I should just simply not consume? Nice to know. No, I'm not pro-choice, or pro-life. I'm pro-property rights, which puts me in the middle. The woman doesn't have a right to kill the unborn, but neither the unborn have a right to occupy a space which the mother doesn't want. So, the solution is the woman is free to induce early labor and 'evict' the child, and thus, put it up for adoption. This means that as technology progresses so too is the woman's ability to evict sooner. In any event, I don't mind greedy folk, I just don't like thieves, robbers, and the host of criminal folk. As far as your disability, my apologies, but that doesn't mean because you got a bad deal in life that some other sap has to work for you without a choice in the matter. Family is there to help each other out, and in the case you have bad luck there, you can search for help by other means, and in the case of disabilities only the severely disabled are unable to work at all. The Welfare State is no subsititute as a means of assistance, because it produces envy, avarice, and lethargy amongst society. It ain't limited to the folk who truly are in need of assistance. The Welfare State primarily benefits the extremely wealthy and the folk who only vote your property, as well as a whole host of societal engineering by meglomaniacs. No thanks.
I somewhat agree with you on the welfare state, but not entirely. Free market is NOT working the way it's supposed to. Yes, their should be income disparaties, but is it really fair for the some people to make 1000 times as much as someone else?
No, it isn't. Double is fair. 5 times is fair. Hell, I'm even ok wit 10, 20 or 50 times as much. But the current income disparity (espacially) in the US is ridiculous and isn't the sign of anything good. Sure, some of them earned it, but come on: a lot of people are ridiculously privileged because of something their parents did. Yes, that's what they worked for, but they way the US works right now, politically, academically and economically is drenched in nepotism and more reminiscent of middle-aged inherited titles than any kind of free market.
|
On April 18 2012 21:08 Mementoss wrote:
I don't like it because a lot of people go to university just for going to university. Pick a stupid ass degree that they know they will have a hard time getting a job. Cry when they don't get a job. Go and get another degree. That is just poor planning.
This is an important problem. People really need to consider what they are going to do in the future with their degree.
I think the real problem here is not paying back student loans. It is job planning and the cost of education.
Honestly, I really wonder where all the money is going in college. I have had my tuition money increased and increased every year for virtually no foreseeable benefit to myself? I think if the government took the money they were going to give to help pay off school loans with and gave it to universities, this would be the best way to start solving the problem (but then again the government is broke).
Also, job planning is ridiculous. I mean the economy is rough, and it is hard to get a job, especially for college graduates (in say.. basket-weaving) with little to no experience. People really need to choose between two priorities: "getting the degree they want" and "getting a degree that will give them a stable career."
Edit: response to this:
I somewhat agree with you on the welfare state, but not entirely. Free market is NOT working the way it's supposed to. Yes, their should be income disparaties, but is it really fair for the some people to make 1000 times as much as someone else?
No, it isn't. Double is fair. 5 times is fair. Hell, I'm even ok wit 10, 20 or 50 times as much. But the current income disparity (espacially) in the US is ridiculous and isn't the sign of anything good. Sure, some of them earned it, but come on: a lot of people are ridiculously privileged because of something their parents did. Yes, that's what they worked for, but they way the US works right now, politically, academically and economically is drenched in nepotism and more reminiscent of middle-aged inherited titles than any kind of free market.
I see your point. The reality is that this whole system isn't fair, but think about those people who really did earn their spot. This hurts them incredibly, and I am a firm believer that the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few. Thus, we shouldn't change from a system which allows a few people to earn their place (even if many do not).
Honestly, I think the only solution is to just work hard and try and make your way up the ladder. It is thinking other than this that got us to this point in the first place.
I hope I interpreted your point correctly ^^
|
On April 18 2012 20:48 sharky246 wrote:
wrong time to be putting up this act imo. Maybe like 10 years later when the america paid back most of its debt.
The last time the debt was paid was 1835. I wouldn't hold your breath.
|
On April 18 2012 21:26 Zoesan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 20:03 Wegandi wrote:On April 18 2012 19:55 screamingpalm wrote:On April 18 2012 19:51 Wegandi wrote:On April 18 2012 19:42 screamingpalm wrote:On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote:On April 18 2012 19:23 Talin wrote:On April 18 2012 18:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 18 2012 18:19 Talin wrote:On April 18 2012 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately? It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days. One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness. It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?" You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it. It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies. It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will). All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong. It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning. And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society. To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort, unless someone wants to voluntarily subsidize you; that (Welfare - Entitlement) sort of system is parasitic and harmful. That's what a majority of people have a problem with. As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective. In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we? And I suppose only the rich shall be allowed to reproduce, etc. Now what about those of us who are disabled, and not just 'lazy'? Shall we aim low then (unfortunately my productivity isn't quite what it was in my prime)? Doesn't sound like freedom to me... serfdom perhaps. You still don't understand. The State enriches and enables the 'rich' whatever your definition is of it. Liberty is the most equalizing environment if you happen to value a more egalitarian society. There are no privileges, no immunities, no guarantees. Free to fail, or succeed, make money and lose money, innovate, compete, etc. Those 'rich' you don't like, well, they sure love the folks who write them competition crippling regulations, licensining, permits, monopolies, guaranteed income (Auto Insurance, etc.), etc. The entire regulatory environment was born out of the 'need' for a select few Industrials to destroy their competition that was making them become irrelevant. I don't like the parasites at the top, or the bottom, they're both thieves. I know it's antiquated, but, yes folks should have to work to consume. Anyone is free to reproduce, as long as you can afford it. That's common sense. Why should we be subsidizing a new generation of folk who only know Welfarism? That's dependancy on the State. Booker T. Washington is probably rolling in his grave. Ah I had you pegged all wrong... pro-choice then? I never said I don't like the 'rich'. It's the greedy I don't care much for. So since my disability keeps me from being able to work, I should just simply not consume? Nice to know. No, I'm not pro-choice, or pro-life. I'm pro-property rights, which puts me in the middle. The woman doesn't have a right to kill the unborn, but neither the unborn have a right to occupy a space which the mother doesn't want. So, the solution is the woman is free to induce early labor and 'evict' the child, and thus, put it up for adoption. This means that as technology progresses so too is the woman's ability to evict sooner. In any event, I don't mind greedy folk, I just don't like thieves, robbers, and the host of criminal folk. As far as your disability, my apologies, but that doesn't mean because you got a bad deal in life that some other sap has to work for you without a choice in the matter. Family is there to help each other out, and in the case you have bad luck there, you can search for help by other means, and in the case of disabilities only the severely disabled are unable to work at all. The Welfare State is no subsititute as a means of assistance, because it produces envy, avarice, and lethargy amongst society. It ain't limited to the folk who truly are in need of assistance. The Welfare State primarily benefits the extremely wealthy and the folk who only vote your property, as well as a whole host of societal engineering by meglomaniacs. No thanks. I somewhat agree with you on the welfare state, but not entirely. Free market is NOT working the way it's supposed to. Yes, their should be income disparaties, but is it really fair for the some people to make 1000 times as much as someone else? No, it isn't. Double is fair. 5 times is fair. Hell, I'm even ok wit 10, 20 or 50 times as much. But the current income disparity (espacially) in the US is ridiculous and isn't the sign of anything good. Sure, some of them earned it, but come on: a lot of people are ridiculously privileged because of something their parents did. Yes, that's what they worked for, but they way the US works right now, politically, academically and economically is drenched in nepotism and more reminiscent of middle-aged inherited titles than any kind of free market.
The quandry you are having is seeing modern society and its economic system as free market when we haven't had anything close to it since about 1900 (and I'd argue even further back before Sherman and Clayton acts so around 1890), The system most prevalent around the world today is Corporatist or Fascist in nature. As far as what is fair, that's irrelevant. Fair is whatever someone is willing to pay another without any fraud, coercion, or violent interference. You are running to a State which produced our current society expecting them to fix what they created. That's lunacy my friend. The entire point of the State is to enrich those who either are 'good obedient sons' (intelligentsia), or who are in positions of power, or those of whom pay those people in power (Corporations). So, you see, you can't use a system of evil to do good, ain't workin'.
Furthermore I don't see how it fair to use violence to prevent folk from making what consensual parties agree to. That isn't fair.
|
On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 19:23 Talin wrote:On April 18 2012 18:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 18 2012 18:19 Talin wrote:On April 18 2012 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote:Commence Rant/ Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America. Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees
(annual in U.S. Dollars)
Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000
Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000
State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000
State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000
The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month
(you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY)
Groceries $ 100 per month
Utilities $ 100 per month
Phone $ 100 per month
Sundry $ 200 per month
So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries. source: http://www.infozee.com/usa/expenses.htmFor myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance. So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit. /End Rant i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately? It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days. One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness. It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?" You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it. It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies. It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will). All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong. It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning. And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society. To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort
But that just doesn't work. Because if you're putting in that amount effort, you're already not living a high standard of life because you're sacrificing other important aspects of your life and you're already suffering.
This is particularly bad if it takes place during your formative years (young adulthood) and coincides with your education, because experiences you have during this period will greatly affect your character and core personal values which in turn guide you to forming an opinion on important social and political issues.
The fact that on this very thread we have so many people who have this vision of the world where human life is essentially reduced to its economic value to me indicates that there is something inherently wrong with a system which seems to systematically imprint those values onto people.
On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote:
As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective.
Humans - all of us - have a very specific set of needs and prioritization of needs that is very uniform, and very well researched. This isn't about subjective opinions. It most certainly isn't about personal values.
Take sex for a very basic example. People need to have sex to be happy. If somebody claims they don't care about it or don't need it or are fine without it, that's not them expressing their opinion and personal value, it's them being WRONG - or more precisely, ignorant about their own physiology and psychology and unaware of how much it affects them (and by extension the people around them and their environment). Same is true for more complex needs, such as entertainment, safety, stability and an ethical social environment.
People who call the lot of us who spend too much time frequenting a gaming/esports website unhealthy are not expressing their subjective opinion, they are stating a fact that they can back up with evidence that you can not argue against. If you think you can just decide that spending 15 hours a day on teamliquid and SC2 streams is not unhealthy for you, you are very mistaken. The same is true for sitting at an office desk and working for 15 hours a day or studying for 15 hours a day (over a long period of time).
You can choose to suspend it or be convinced or convince yourself that certain things don't matter so much in life and you don't need them, but that doesn't change the reality of it, and ultimately you're only making your own life worse - or, like what you specifically are doing right now - advocating ideas that make other people's lives worse.
On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote:
In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we?
That is not freedom. That's an abusive, perverted interpretation of freedom that results in concept of freedom being skewed to the point of representing almost the exact opposite of what actual freedom is. Your idea of freedom inevitably results in the huge majority of people not being free and having little hope of ever being free of the oppressive and inherently exploitative society it encourages.
|
I don't like this. You know it's a loan when you sign up for it. If you arent comfortable with that then don't take out a loan. "But the system forces you to behave irresponsibly and take out a loan you might not be able to pay back!" then let's fix the system, instead of flooding it with more taxpayer money for the educational establishment to gobble up.
|
I think its fucked in the first place that students have to pay an interest above 3.4% as the bill suggests. Their loan are insured by the government, thefore the risk a bank takes with a student loan is de facto the risk that the US government will not pay back its loans. Last time I checked, T-bill went around for <2%.
Student loans should not pay a higher interest as the T-bills for similiar length, given that the US government insures them. Every percentage higher is simply handing out free cash to the financial sector at the expense of indebted students.
|
On April 18 2012 22:13 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote:On April 18 2012 19:23 Talin wrote:On April 18 2012 18:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 18 2012 18:19 Talin wrote:On April 18 2012 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote:Commence Rant/ Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America. Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees
(annual in U.S. Dollars)
Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000
Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000
State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000
State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000
The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month
(you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY)
Groceries $ 100 per month
Utilities $ 100 per month
Phone $ 100 per month
Sundry $ 200 per month
So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries. source: http://www.infozee.com/usa/expenses.htmFor myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance. So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit. /End Rant i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately? It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days. One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness. It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?" You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it. It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies. It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will). All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong. It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning. And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society. To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort But that just doesn't work. Because if you're putting in that amount effort, you're already not living a high standard of life because you're sacrificing other important aspects of your life and you're already suffering. This is particularly bad if it takes place during your formative years (young adulthood) and coincides with your education, because experiences you have during this period will greatly affect your character and core personal values which in turn guide you to forming an opinion on important social and political issues. The fact that on this very thread we have so many people who have this vision of the world where human life is essentially reduced to its economic value to me indicates that there is something inherently wrong with a system which seems to systematically imprint those values onto people. Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote:
As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective. Humans - all of us - have a very specific set of needs and prioritization of needs that is very uniform, and very well researched. This isn't about subjective opinions. It most certainly isn't about personal values. Take sex for a very basic example. People need to have sex to be happy. If somebody claims they don't care about it or don't need it or are fine without it, that's not them expressing their opinion and personal value, it's them being WRONG - or more precisely, ignorant about their own physiology and psychology and unaware of how much it affects them (and by extension the people around them and their environment). Same is true for more complex needs, such as entertainment, safety, stability and an ethical social environment. People who call the lot of us who spend too much time frequenting a gaming/esports website unhealthy are not expressing their subjective opinion, they are stating a fact that they can back up with evidence that you can not argue against. If you think you can just decide that spending 15 hours a day on teamliquid and SC2 streams is not unhealthy for you, you are very mistaken. The same is true for sitting at an office desk and working for 15 hours a day or studying for 15 hours a day (over a long period of time). You can choose to suspend it or be convinced or convince yourself that certain things don't matter so much in life and you don't need them, but that doesn't change the reality of it, and ultimately you're only making your own life worse - or, like what you specifically are doing right now - advocating ideas that make other people's lives worse. Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote:
In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we? That is not freedom. That's an abusive, perverted interpretation of freedom that results in concept of freedom being skewed to the point of representing almost the exact opposite of what actual freedom is. Your idea of freedom inevitably results in the huge majority of people not being free and having little hope of ever being free of the oppressive and inherently exploitative society it encourages.
Only someone so Orwellian would believe that a society bereft of institutionalized violence, thievery, and coercion is oppressive, unfree, and exploitative. You seem to have all the answers and know everything for everyone and what they should and shouldn't do. Perhaps you should become dictator to tell us nitwits how wrong we are living our own lives.
|
Studying should be free anyway. I don't get why people are not willing to support education. Cut down military and other nonsense and invest in education. So called human capital would help the development of a better future. I don't say everything else should be cut down drastically but education needs bigger attention. It's the future of every country. It is fucking important to have qualified persons.
|
Sounds like a godsent gift but you've got to be so blind to not see how this will not work.
|
On April 18 2012 09:51 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 09:49 Blindo wrote:
No ones forcing you to go to an expensive school. Just because people can't be responsible with their finances doesn't mean that they should have them all forgiven. I work and go to an instate college, I don't see why anyone should be rewarded for being financially irresponsible. How about a school that raised their prices 6,000 dollars in a couple of years? Mine did, after I decided to attend it based on the original price. It was still cheaper than the other schools I was willing to consider (quality reasons), so I had to suck it up.
Higher education in Belgium: 580 EUR/year, 100 EUR if you're eligible for a tuition. Entry fees for higher education are regulated by the state. Education should NEVER be a free market thing, it's way too important.
Then again, Europeans are filthy socialists (that somehow have way higher living standards than the average american citizen), right?
|
Dude... it's the government loans that allow the schools to raise prices every year..... free market brings costs down and quality up...... think cell phones or tvs or computers or anything else. Everything is supposed to be a free market thing. You trust retarded politicians to micro manage education? If they could do anything of value they wouldn't be politicians.
You might not think you are paying for it but you are. Look at the EU in shambles, some countries bordering on civil war, completely bankrupt. That is the price of allowing politicians and bankers to team up. If you didn't allow them such power it could never happen. The sad thing is America was founded on the principles of limited government and liberty. They knew thisshit and became the greatest country on earth as a result. Unfortunately with the passage of time all these lessons have been forgotten and the price they are going to pay will be staggering.
|
The bill is great for students in debt, but pretty bad for everyone else.
Voting for this is basically a litmus test for selfishness.
And I echo the sentiments of those saying this will just raise the cost of tuition. Its things like this that made college so damn expensive in the first place. If you artificially inflate demand while supply remains the same, guess what: price has to rise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
