|
On April 20 2012 03:26 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 02:16 seppolevne wrote:On April 20 2012 00:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 19 2012 22:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student. Child support is never income no matter what. Just throwing that out there^^. I think overall I just disagree with some notion that people are entitled to study at whereever they want. I've seen the argument so many times "well I can get a better education at an IVY league or private institution..." Well sorry, sure you can, but that doesn't mean you get to. If you don't have the money, then you simply don't have the money to go, you have to go to a public university instead. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. My school choice boiled down completely to the fact that I could commute to it in a 40 minute drive (no traffic) or 1 hour 10 minute drive (rush hour traffic), and that it was instate so it was much cheaper. If I wanted to save even more money, which I highly debated, I would have gone to a CC first. The biggest argument that gains sympathy from me though, that surprises me I haven't seen that much, is how tuition costs have surprisingly skyrocketed towards rates people couldn't really anticipate. When I started my undergrad in 2007 my first tuition payment was $2400. Expensive, but manageable. As I'm finishing my fifth year, my last payment was $4,600. It's pretty much doubled. Although I still don't understand how people (in in their undergrad) are accumulating 100k+ debt and think that it's a valid approach. If anything, it's an insanely huge gamble with your life. And I don't think that's questionable, or hard to forsee when you decide to go that route at age 18... you're not being misled, it's just common sense. tl;dr: I have far less sympathy for those who go to private schools or out of state when they don't have rich parents On April 19 2012 16:51 Macpo wrote:
What is crazy is the cost of universities that forces students to find a loan... like between 20 000 and 30 000 dollars a year !!
Do you guys know that some countries, it's free?
To come back on the issue of individual responsibility, the thing is that in the actual world, sociology has shown it, there is not "some individuals" who prefer to go to uni and get a loan; and "other individuals" who prefer not to. This is a kind of naïve story, but everyone knows that it's not the way it works.
What happens is that those whose parents (or social background) are able to pay for it without getting a loan do it; while those who can financially stand getting a loan to get at uni do it ; and those who have no opportunity at all, because of unfavorable social background, just don't go to uni.
We can say that this is a choice if it makes you feel better, but that choice is very awkardly distributed among social classes, to the point that we can predict the choices pretty efficiently before they are actually made. The rich have the choice to go to uni and get a good position; the others have the choice to be endebted, or to not go to uni.
Some people think it's good, because it relies on individual responsibility.
But this forgets about 3 things:
- Education is not only about pursuing individual career: there is a collective interest to get our society more educated as a whole.
- Are we responsible for the place where we were born? After all, the child will be majorly impacted by the parents situation, while it's hard to hold him/her responsible for that. Defenders of individual responsibilty should be scandalized to hear that students are heavily dependant on their family to make their studies! We touch here one limit of "individual responsibility". Is it normal that some students have to contract a loan while others just have their parents paying?
- individual responsibility for taking care of your budget very much hide inequalities in the repartition of income: the poor are not poor because they deal badly with money, but because they are not paid enough. (let's remind here that university will often be much more than 100 000 dollars for five years!).
People very often forget that their individual income is nothing but a part of a collective income that has been attributed to them. They forget, because they want to feel that "they deserve it"; it gives them the narcissistic impression that they had complete control over their lives (you know, the "if you really want it, you can have it" thing).
The point is that the repartition of such collective income is never obvious or justified. A business makes 100; his share holders make 25; the boss makes 25; hierarchy makes 25; blue collar workers make 25. Then, is there any reason for that? Not really in terms of justice, it is just "the way it is"; and power relations. Then, it's hard to defend that one "deserve" it.
Then the real question is: do you want this as your education system? At least you can be certain that choices are available on this issue, and that the american model is not the only one. France has its universities paid by taxes. and you have to pay something around 300 hundreds euros for uni + social security. Then, guess what: you don't have individual choice to pay taxes, but you don't start your life with a 100k credit on the back.
Many people, after getting their undergrad, work for a few years before going back to school. What do you think about high school grads working 2-3 years, saving up money, before attending uni, as well as going to a community college? If they do that, everything is completely manageable. I wonder if we'll move towards that in the future.... a ton of people do it already, although it's definitely a minority number. Just thinking. I'd rather have free education for everyone though than the system we have where certain people benefit significantly. Although this plan in itself isn't TERRIBLE, I simply don't agree with it... You didn't have the money to go to a good school, you had to commute a huge distance and eat like shit because school is too expensive. The government has a plan to reduce the number of people who have to have a shit time like you did through school (at least from what I can see), to improve the situation, and you think it is a bad idea? People should have to suffer like you did? Am I wrong somewhere? the question is not "do you want other people to suffer," it is "do you want to have your government incur more debt or increase taxes so that other people dont have to suffer?" people keep rephrasing the question and ignoring the real issues. You know, not shafting people is usually beneficial for the overall economy.
that is true. did you have a point to make, or are you just making random true statements for the sake of it?
|
On April 19 2012 06:14 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:53 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
Anyway, have you ever gone to college with other teachers (people pursuing degrees to teach)? You make it sound like they are infallible experts in every way. Have you ever even been to public school? Oboy. Here's the simple way I'm going to address this: you can no doubt give me numerous examples of poor public school teachers and I'm sure there are numerous examples of poor parents, homeschooling their children. Focusing on the individual exceptions, as you do when you say that On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
I'd love to meet all your past teachers. They must have been world class. Isn't an effective way of discussing whether or not homeschooling as a category is better than public schooling. I just want to clear that up right off. On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
You say "the reason why homeschool is awful [is]... ...there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child..."
You don't see a problem with that? Just because a parent can instruct their child on how to talk or walk doesn't mean the same pedagogy translates into situations in which the child needs to learn about basic plant biology. In most situations, actually, I'd wager that any given teacher, who has been trained in different methods of education, can instruct a child better in an academic area than their own parent.As somebody who's taken intensive courses on how to teach ESL students writing, I have to say that the lay population's ideas around how to teach others are grossly off-base. Even if the teacher is apathetic or awful in some other way, they at least have the training to be an effective teacher, whereas the parent does not. On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
I took your quote a little out of context, however, I believe I stayed true to your argument, which is basically, 'even if the parent knew the subject matter, it doesn't mean they know how to teach "effectively."' No, there's also a good chance they don't understand the subject material either. How many average parents could you honestly say can tell you whether a sentence was grammatically correct or not, and why? Even in language arts, or in english, parents can tell a child if a sentence is right or wrong, and how to make a wrong sentence right, but cannot instruct on why the wrong sentence is wrong. I think you grossly overestimate the background of most of these people. As a professional educator, I'm just going to tell you that you are wrong (as long as we are ignoring outliers, which we should) and you don't really understand how homeschooling works. Most people who homeschool their children are: a) very smart (as smart as, or smarter than the average teacher) and more than capable of teaching K-12 subject matter b) smart enough to know that they aren't smart enough to teach K-12 subject matter and so they seek outside help In both cases, the majority belong to co-ops, groups, learning associations, etc. that have access to a wealth of resources and professionals to bridge the gap. Studies show that homeschoolers, on average, outperform their public school counterparts in just about every area.
Cite your sources, and what you're saying isn't responsive.
|
On April 19 2012 15:06 FuGGu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 10:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2012 08:25 FuGGu wrote: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. We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling. you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works. kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin... edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did. Really? So according to you there is no loan crisis? You think the loan situation in this country is the same? ... Let me answers this for you: there is a new loan crisis. Student debt is near 1 trillion in this country. While your father's law school debts were pricey back in the day, he is a lawyer, and he is blessed with a high paying job that can do that. Nowadays, people getting four year undergraduate degrees (who don't make as much as lawyers) are paying exorbitant amounts of moneys and aren't getting jobs that pay like lawyers. Some are making 40,000 dollars a year after college....if someone went to the generic large public institution in my state and had parents who couldn't help them afford it they would be 88,000 dollars in debt. That will take a long time to pay off with a 40,000 dollar year job. (That's assuming they get a job - unemployment has been pretty bad recently with tumbling economy, you know? Not like 15 years ago.) Do you understand?
blessed with a high paying job, huh? yeah, he sure was blessed. had nothing to do with working hard and busting his ass. nope, it was all luck of the draw.
$40,000/yr with $88,000 of debt.
my parents had $65,000 of debt, with a $22,000/yr job, 3 kids with another on the way. my mom had to drop out of school and work two full-time jobs while pregnant and taking care of an infant. we had some pretty crappy times, but we got through it. took my parents 25 years to pay off their student loans. it will take them another 25 years to pay off the mortgage on the house, if they ever are able to.
so you'll forgive me if i'm not exactly sympathetic to someone who is going to have to pay less in proportion to their income than my parents did and most likely doesn't have kids. everyone in this thread seems to have some idea that life was just a breeze before 2008 and college was so cheap that anyone at all could just waltz in and get it, and that there was ninety jobs for every one college graduate. it's funny to hear the excuses.
"it will take a long time to pay off!!"
yeah. it will. you may be in debt for the rest of your life, if you weren't careful. and you know what? that sucks, but that's the way stuff works. you take out a loan, you have to pay it back. i don't care what excuses you have, because everyone has excuses: if you did not think you could or would pay back your loans then you should not have taken them. but you did take them. OK, that's fine, you'll have to be uncomfortable. but now you want all the people who did pay their debts, and who did keep their promises, to come in and save you from your own bad choices. you can give me any reason or excuse why we should that you want, but i'm not gonna buy it. earlier someone said, basically:
"what a depressing life! i wouldn't want to live like that!" in response to someone saying that they may have to take 20 years paying off their student loans. can i laugh or should i cry at that? so my parents, who took 25 years to pay off their debts, are supposed to now foot the bill so that you don't have to take 20 years to pay off your debt? so I, who am doing everything i can to keep my loans extremely low, have no entertainment budget whatsoever and have no car, am supposed to foot the bill for someone who took out over $100,000 in loans and spent every penny of it in 4 years or less? you want to talk about fairness? how is that fair to me? how is that fair to my parents?
no, but you see "lawyer" and you think that we're just swimming in money and we could totally spare some. never-mind that my parents are in huge debt themselves due to bad decisions in their lifetimes, but have not once asked for a handout or forgiveness, and won't get it even if they wanted it. never mind the fact that you made the choice to take out loans and you made the choice to pursue a degree in an area that didn't give you benefit, never mind that none of your debt is anyone elses responsibility. let's just force the responsibility onto other people so that you don't have to take a long time paying back your loans. let's just give everyone grants, because a loan that doesn't have to be payed back is a grant.
i have heard all the sob stories. i have heard all of the tales of woe about there being no jobs and no money and crushing debt. i have heard all of it and i sympathize, but at the same time, i don't care. taking care of you and your debts is not my job, is not my parent's job, and is not CEO Richy Rich's job either, and forcing that responsibility on us is not only unfair, it makes no economic sense. colleges will have no incentive whatsoever to lower tuition and costs, and working people who are driving the economy will have another burden added upon their already weighted shoulders.
if it sounds harsh and mean, it's because the world is harsh and mean. for the love of christ, how was that not taught to you people in college?
|
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
|
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
|
On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
|
On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
|
On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
Mmm fired instantly? You could always let them know layoffs will most likely be coming in the future. Depends how desperately needed the layoffs are and how suspect you are it will cause employees to shirk though.
|
On April 20 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though. that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
I know it was sarcasm. My response was meant to show that the USPS and education systems aren't comparable examples.
|
On April 20 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though. that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
Actually USPS has generally been heralded as a very successful example of a government run public service. Well at least according to my economic classes. I have very little experience since I've grown up with email and online statements.
|
On April 20 2012 07:14 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though. that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing. Actually USPS has generally been heralded as a very successful example of a government run public service.
so, the fact that they cant cope with technology; they are being outdone by private companies (UPS, FedEx, etc.); and they are going bankrupt heralds success? up until the 1980/1990s, they may have been great (mostly because there was less competition), but they dont innovate and now they die.
|
On April 20 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though. that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
http://i41.tinypic.com/10yfnk7.jpg
|
On April 20 2012 07:19 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though. that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing. http://i41.tinypic.com/10yfnk7.jpg
![[image loading]](http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif)
when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them.
edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing.
|
On April 20 2012 07:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:19 screamingpalm wrote:On April 20 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though. that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing. http://i41.tinypic.com/10yfnk7.jpg when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them. edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing.
Indeed. We can stat by cutting the bloated military budget. Then we can make sure we don't waste potential by forcing our "best and brightest" from Harvard to choose a field of study where they end up on Wall Street and robbing the rest of us when they get bailed out by the feds.
Pro-lifers always argue, "what if an aborted fetus turned out to be another Einstein or someone that cured cancer"?Considering the state of our education system, that's pretty funny.
|
On April 20 2012 07:29 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 07:19 screamingpalm wrote:On April 20 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though. that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing. http://i41.tinypic.com/10yfnk7.jpg when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them. edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing. Indeed. We can stat by cutting the bloated military budget. Then we can make sure we don't waste potential by forcing our "best and brightest" from Harvard to choose a field of study where they end up on Wall Street and robbing the rest of us when they get bailed out by the feds. Pro-lifers always argue, "what if an aborted fetus turned out to be another Einstein or someone that cured cancer"?Considering the state of our education system, that's pretty funny.
I don't get how we're "forcing" anyone to end up on Wall Street. Everyone who ends up working in finance chooses to do so. Also, most people I know who are either currently in finance or want to go into it were in fact against TARP. I agree that TARP was total bullshit, but I blame the government for choosing to do it, not Wall Street. Companies will always do whatever they think will make them the most profit. The government is supposed to keep that in line. The SEC is far more to blame for the crisis than anyone else, in my opinion.
This is coming for someone who wants to work in the industry colloquially known as Wall Street, so my opinion is probably worthless in your eyes anyways.
|
On April 20 2012 07:36 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:29 screamingpalm wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 07:19 screamingpalm wrote:On April 20 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though. that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing. http://i41.tinypic.com/10yfnk7.jpg when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them. edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing. Indeed. We can stat by cutting the bloated military budget. Then we can make sure we don't waste potential by forcing our "best and brightest" from Harvard to choose a field of study where they end up on Wall Street and robbing the rest of us when they get bailed out by the feds. Pro-lifers always argue, "what if an aborted fetus turned out to be another Einstein or someone that cured cancer"?Considering the state of our education system, that's pretty funny. I don't get how we're "forcing" anyone to end up on Wall Street. Everyone who ends up working in finance chooses to do so. Also, most people I know who are either currently in finance or want to go into it were in fact against TARP. I agree that TARP was total bullshit, but I blame the government for choosing to do it, not Wall Street. Companies will always do whatever they think will make them the most profit. The government is supposed to keep that in line. The SEC is far more to blame for the crisis than anyone else, in my opinion. This is coming for someone who wants to work in the industry colloquially known as Wall Street, so my opinion is probably worthless in your eyes anyways.
Have you not read the countless blame (even just in this thread) for people making "bad decisions" and picking "worthless majors"? Think about how much that stiffles creativity and innovation. We are supposed to accept less/lower standards. Students are being encouraged to go into a field of study that might not be their best subject, but rather to survive and pay back their loan.
|
I would agree that tuitition should be cheaper and more opportunities should be give to students with parents in the low economic bracket with grades to back it up.
|
On April 20 2012 07:41 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:36 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 screamingpalm wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 07:19 screamingpalm wrote:On April 20 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though. that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing. http://i41.tinypic.com/10yfnk7.jpg when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them. edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing. Indeed. We can stat by cutting the bloated military budget. Then we can make sure we don't waste potential by forcing our "best and brightest" from Harvard to choose a field of study where they end up on Wall Street and robbing the rest of us when they get bailed out by the feds. Pro-lifers always argue, "what if an aborted fetus turned out to be another Einstein or someone that cured cancer"?Considering the state of our education system, that's pretty funny. I don't get how we're "forcing" anyone to end up on Wall Street. Everyone who ends up working in finance chooses to do so. Also, most people I know who are either currently in finance or want to go into it were in fact against TARP. I agree that TARP was total bullshit, but I blame the government for choosing to do it, not Wall Street. Companies will always do whatever they think will make them the most profit. The government is supposed to keep that in line. The SEC is far more to blame for the crisis than anyone else, in my opinion. This is coming for someone who wants to work in the industry colloquially known as Wall Street, so my opinion is probably worthless in your eyes anyways. Have you not read the countless blame (even just in this thread) for people making "bad decisions" and picking "worthless majors"? Think about how much that stiffles creativity and innovation. We are supposed to accept less/lower standards. Students are being encouraged to go into a field of study that might not be their best subject, but rather to survive and pay back their loan.
people should go into whatever field they will be most happy working for the rest of their life. it is never a bad decision to study something that you want to do in your life. however, people should not take out loans that they have no ability to pay back. thats not terribly bright.
|
On April 20 2012 07:41 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:36 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 screamingpalm wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 07:19 screamingpalm wrote:On April 20 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 07:08 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote:
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed. exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies. The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly. There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though. that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing. http://i41.tinypic.com/10yfnk7.jpg when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them. edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing. Indeed. We can stat by cutting the bloated military budget. Then we can make sure we don't waste potential by forcing our "best and brightest" from Harvard to choose a field of study where they end up on Wall Street and robbing the rest of us when they get bailed out by the feds. Pro-lifers always argue, "what if an aborted fetus turned out to be another Einstein or someone that cured cancer"?Considering the state of our education system, that's pretty funny. I don't get how we're "forcing" anyone to end up on Wall Street. Everyone who ends up working in finance chooses to do so. Also, most people I know who are either currently in finance or want to go into it were in fact against TARP. I agree that TARP was total bullshit, but I blame the government for choosing to do it, not Wall Street. Companies will always do whatever they think will make them the most profit. The government is supposed to keep that in line. The SEC is far more to blame for the crisis than anyone else, in my opinion. This is coming for someone who wants to work in the industry colloquially known as Wall Street, so my opinion is probably worthless in your eyes anyways. Have you not read the countless blame (even just in this thread) for people making "bad decisions" and picking "worthless majors"? Think about how much that stiffles creativity and innovation. We are supposed to accept less/lower standards. Students are being encouraged to go into a field of study that might not be their best subject, but rather to survive and pay back their loan.
Well, I agree that tuition costs are beyond ridiculous and that it is a major problem in the US. I don't think that's Wall Street's fault, though. The tuition crisis is why I made a post earlier saying that I think the federal government should take over public education. I think the government could get public universities down to under $5,000 a year in tuition, most of it through cost cutting. Administrators are very overpaid; the president of my current university receives a 7 figure salary.
As for private universities (like Harvard), I don't see any feasible way for the government to get involved without causing a shitstorm. These universities don't want any government involvement whatsoever.
|
On April 20 2012 06:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 15:06 FuGGu wrote:On April 19 2012 10:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2012 08:25 FuGGu wrote: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. We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling. you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works. kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin... edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did. Really? So according to you there is no loan crisis? You think the loan situation in this country is the same? ... Let me answers this for you: there is a new loan crisis. Student debt is near 1 trillion in this country. While your father's law school debts were pricey back in the day, he is a lawyer, and he is blessed with a high paying job that can do that. Nowadays, people getting four year undergraduate degrees (who don't make as much as lawyers) are paying exorbitant amounts of moneys and aren't getting jobs that pay like lawyers. Some are making 40,000 dollars a year after college....if someone went to the generic large public institution in my state and had parents who couldn't help them afford it they would be 88,000 dollars in debt. That will take a long time to pay off with a 40,000 dollar year job. (That's assuming they get a job - unemployment has been pretty bad recently with tumbling economy, you know? Not like 15 years ago.) Do you understand? blessed with a high paying job, huh? yeah, he sure was blessed. had nothing to do with working hard and busting his ass. nope, it was all luck of the draw. $40,000/yr with $88,000 of debt. my parents had $65,000 of debt, with a $22,000/yr job, 3 kids with another on the way. my mom had to drop out of school and work two full-time jobs while pregnant and taking care of an infant. we had some pretty crappy times, but we got through it. took my parents 25 years to pay off their student loans. it will take them another 25 years to pay off the mortgage on the house, if they ever are able to. so you'll forgive me if i'm not exactly sympathetic to someone who is going to have to pay less in proportion to their income than my parents did and most likely doesn't have kids. everyone in this thread seems to have some idea that life was just a breeze before 2008 and college was so cheap that anyone at all could just waltz in and get it, and that there was ninety jobs for every one college graduate. it's funny to hear the excuses. "it will take a long time to pay off!!" yeah. it will. you may be in debt for the rest of your life, if you weren't careful. and you know what? that sucks, but that's the way stuff works. you take out a loan, you have to pay it back. i don't care what excuses you have, because everyone has excuses: if you did not think you could or would pay back your loans then you should not have taken them. but you did take them. OK, that's fine, you'll have to be uncomfortable. but now you want all the people who did pay their debts, and who did keep their promises, to come in and save you from your own bad choices. you can give me any reason or excuse why we should that you want, but i'm not gonna buy it. earlier someone said, basically: "what a depressing life! i wouldn't want to live like that!" in response to someone saying that they may have to take 20 years paying off their student loans. can i laugh or should i cry at that? so my parents, who took 25 years to pay off their debts, are supposed to now foot the bill so that you don't have to take 20 years to pay off your debt? so I, who am doing everything i can to keep my loans extremely low, have no entertainment budget whatsoever and have no car, am supposed to foot the bill for someone who took out over $100,000 in loans and spent every penny of it in 4 years or less? you want to talk about fairness? how is that fair to me? how is that fair to my parents? no, but you see "lawyer" and you think that we're just swimming in money and we could totally spare some. never-mind that my parents are in huge debt themselves due to bad decisions in their lifetimes, but have not once asked for a handout or forgiveness, and won't get it even if they wanted it. never mind the fact that you made the choice to take out loans and you made the choice to pursue a degree in an area that didn't give you benefit, never mind that none of your debt is anyone elses responsibility. let's just force the responsibility onto other people so that you don't have to take a long time paying back your loans. let's just give everyone grants, because a loan that doesn't have to be payed back is a grant. i have heard all the sob stories. i have heard all of the tales of woe about there being no jobs and no money and crushing debt. i have heard all of it and i sympathize, but at the same time, i don't care. taking care of you and your debts is not my job, is not my parent's job, and is not CEO Richy Rich's job either, and forcing that responsibility on us is not only unfair, it makes no economic sense. colleges will have no incentive whatsoever to lower tuition and costs, and working people who are driving the economy will have another burden added upon their already weighted shoulders. if it sounds harsh and mean, it's because the world is harsh and mean. for the love of christ, how was that not taught to you people in college?
Do not be too harsh to deal out debt and judgement, even the very wise cannot truly see the consequences of either. How about as fellow human beings Instead of ruining peoples lives we could forgive the debt.
Erase it all. Its nothing more than vast numbers on a sheet that will keep growing until the debtors revolt. Debt and the forgiveness of it has existed since the dawn of humanity and it has happened in both small and larger scales since that time. Either in the name of religion or in the name of charity. Would the world not have been better if your mother who was working two jobs to let your father stay afloat could have studied with him?
To the economist it is an impossible insanity, but to the humanist it is simply being human. This bill while not perfect is trying to amend a broken system that currently pains a lot of young people and you need to realize that its not about what happened in the past, but what will happen in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
