|
Post by halfbreed on Nov 14, 2007 6:11:37 GMT -5
So we have to pay for their education AND health?? That's fair.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 14, 2007 8:05:06 GMT -5
So we have to pay for their education AND health?? That's fair. and welfare benefits ...
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Nov 14, 2007 9:27:37 GMT -5
So we have to pay for their education AND health?? That's fair. Why should we let people rot because they were dealt the wrong cards? Sure, there are some people that will squander their welfare money away on booze, but they're probably not even likely to seek an education if such is the case. Education makes people richer. If you give the tools for underpriviledged people to be educated, they WILL give back to society/you in the form of higher taxes.
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Nov 14, 2007 9:41:42 GMT -5
Couldn't afford....or unwilling to use student loans to pay for it? Student loans are pretty easy to come by. Interest rates are amazingly low, and deferrals and consolidation is super easy. If you ask me, the same people that can't "afford" student loans are the same people paying 18% on a credit card to buy that big screen tv they have always wanted. It's about personal choices. And I'm very ok with people choosing gratification rather than education. Just don't ask someone else to bail you out. Again, I am in FAVOR of using tax dollars for education, as I believe that an educated country is a strong country. But somehow we need to figure out when to say "enough is enough". You are talking to a guy that went full loans and some small grants from the start of his very long and expensive education. It CAN be done. The question is....does the person have the intestinal fortitude to make the commitment to education rather than other desires. A bunch of generalized statements, especially the credit card statement. Education should be free as long as it eventually leads to a job in a sector where there is demand. Sure it CAN be done. But why should a poor person have to work harder than some rich f**k? f**k that sh*t. It's all about freedom of opportunity. Financial aide levels the playing field and makes sure students from poor families don't have to work 2 jobs for their education. If it means some rich motherf**ker paying more taxes then be it. If that bitch has a problem paying taxes, then GTFO of the US and move to some anarchy like Mexico where you can do whatever you want. There's a reason why the top nations in the world are socialized...and why the emerging economies are pretty much hands free, all for out. A bunch of generalized, mostly angry statements, esp. the one about "rich f*cks". Clearly you have class/social status issues. That's fine, I did too. It's a type of inferiority complex. You'll recover from this when you get a good job and move next door to these "f*cks" and have to borrow a cup of sugar someday or borrow the phone when you lock yourself out of the house. Anyway, I stand by my statements, and no amount of swearing from you will change my mind. I will agree that some level of free/mostly free public education should be available to everyone. But at SOME point, no matter how smart the person is, they SHOULD PAY for their education. Whether they are rich and can pay for it up front, or poor, as I was, and have to pay for it later. Personal Responsibility A lost concept in this world of pass the buck excuse making panty waist griping.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 14, 2007 13:12:08 GMT -5
I believe in subsidized education post-high school. Gov't pays some and the student/family pays some, depending on the need, talent, etc. I agree, the swearing detracts from the topic at hand.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Nov 14, 2007 20:55:54 GMT -5
Why should we let people rot because they were dealt the wrong cards? But what does it have to do with us..? Like, yeah, you should want to help people.. but it should be a personal thing. One shouldn't HAVE to spend their income on other people if they don't want. Sure, there are some people that will squander their welfare money away on booze, but they're probably not even likely to seek an education if such is the case. Yeah, but just 'cause they don't seek it doesn't mean we stop paying for it. We'll become like plants that never stop generating elecricity even when no one uses any power. Education makes people richer. If you give the tools for underpriviledged people to be educated, they WILL give back to society/you in the form of higher taxes. Yeah, but then we ALL have to pay higher taxes..
|
|
|
Post by Ave` on Nov 14, 2007 21:16:30 GMT -5
Im all about, free education only for smart students.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 14, 2007 22:34:32 GMT -5
A bunch of generalized statements, especially the credit card statement. Education should be free as long as it eventually leads to a job in a sector where there is demand. Sure it CAN be done. But why should a poor person have to work harder than some rich f**k? f**k that sh*t. It's all about freedom of opportunity. Financial aide levels the playing field and makes sure students from poor families don't have to work 2 jobs for their education. If it means some rich motherf**ker paying more taxes then be it. If that bitch has a problem paying taxes, then GTFO of the US and move to some anarchy like Mexico where you can do whatever you want. There's a reason why the top nations in the world are socialized...and why the emerging economies are pretty much hands free, all for out. A bunch of generalized, mostly angry statements, esp. the one about "rich f*cks". Clearly you have class/social status issues. That's fine, I did too. It's a type of inferiority complex. You'll recover from this when you get a good job and move next door to these "f*cks" and have to borrow a cup of sugar someday or borrow the phone when you lock yourself out of the house. Anyway, I stand by my statements, and no amount of swearing from you will change my mind. I will agree that some level of free/mostly free public education should be available to everyone. But at SOME point, no matter how smart the person is, they SHOULD PAY for their education. Whether they are rich and can pay for it up front, or poor, as I was, and have to pay for it later. Personal Responsibility A lost concept in this world of pass the buck excuse making panty waist griping. No, they shouldn't have to pay for education especially if they earned it academically. The point of education is it is a competition of who is the smartest and who is the brightest. Money should not determine who gets placed in the best academic programs. If it does, than the nation suffers. The universities suffer. The pursuit of knowledge suffers. Poor people shouldn't have to have distractions of working 3 jobs while some rich f**k gets money from his parents who buy him/her a condo, and a Mercedes to school. Maybe rich people should take the personal responsibility of having to study harder when a poorer student is put in an equal playing field <gasp> I agree, the poor person should have to pay for it eventually. When they move up to higher brackets of the tax system and pay their taxes. If you think the US's partially socialized economy is so bad, move to Mexico. There you can laugh at poor kids who can't afford to get a high school education and tell them they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps...even if they couldn't afford bootstraps and lack the strength because of mal-nutrition.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 14, 2007 22:35:35 GMT -5
Sure it CAN be done. But why should a poor person have to work harder than some rich f**k? Why should rich f**ks have to support poor people? Because those poor people will execute those rich f***s if they see lack of opportunity like they have in the many uprisings throughout history.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 14, 2007 22:38:28 GMT -5
"There's a reason why the top nations in the world are socialized...and why the emerging economies are pretty much hands free, all for out."Hmm, I'm not sure I'm buying this one. Are we living on the same planet? "But why should a poor person have to work harder than some rich f**k?
f**k that sh*t. It's all about freedom of opportunity."Freedom of opportunity doesn't imply that the poor won't have to work harder to get ahead. Actually I think those on the opportunity side of equal opportunity vs equal outcomes debate are generally right-wing laissez-faire types.. But yeah.. how come all the hot, successful studs get all the finest trim, when all I get is a whole lotta rosie? Some rich people are pretty nice... edit: oh yeah, free education is a pretty thoughtful thing to give to the less privileged - I approve. What are the top nations where immigrants from poor nations want to go? The US and Europe. Why? Because in these nations, everybody is given the opportunity to succeed. Freedom of opportunity and equality does imply that. It implies that we are in an equal playing field for the opportunities to get ahead. That's why schools give scholarships to poorer students, so they can eliminate birth status privilege.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Nov 14, 2007 23:12:03 GMT -5
Why should rich f**ks have to support poor people? Because those poor people will execute those rich f**ks if they see lack of opportunity like they have in the many uprisings throughout history. It's not really lack of opportunity, but I'd say of advantage.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 15, 2007 2:26:24 GMT -5
Because those poor people will execute those rich f**ks if they see lack of opportunity like they have in the many uprisings throughout history. It's not really lack of opportunity, but I'd say of advantage. Sure there is lack of opportunity. In the US, we have AP courses in high school which are pretty much college level courses. Colleges favor students with more AP courses. Usually, schools in wealthier areas have AP courses. Many schools in low income areas don't. Therefore, kids in those areas lose the opportunity of attending a top college of their choice. And there is something wrong with lack of advantage. Nobody should have any advantage. It should strictly be based on merit, not whether your millionaire father can make a large contribution.
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 15, 2007 2:37:45 GMT -5
"There's a reason why the top nations in the world are socialized...and why the emerging economies are pretty much hands free, all for out."Hmm, I'm not sure I'm buying this one. Are we living on the same planet? "But why should a poor person have to work harder than some rich f**k?
f**k that sh*t. It's all about freedom of opportunity."Freedom of opportunity doesn't imply that the poor won't have to work harder to get ahead. Actually I think those on the opportunity side of equal opportunity vs equal outcomes debate are generally right-wing laissez-faire types.. But yeah.. how come all the hot, successful studs get all the finest trim, when all I get is a whole lotta rosie? Some rich people are pretty nice... edit: oh yeah, free education is a pretty thoughtful thing to give to the less privileged - I approve. What are the top nations where immigrants from poor nations want to go? The US and Europe. Why? Because in these nations, everybody is given the opportunity to succeed. Freedom of opportunity and equality does imply that. It implies that we are in an equal playing field for the opportunities to get ahead. That's why schools give scholarships to poorer students, so they can eliminate birth status privilege. Nothing that you said here suggests that poor people don't have to work harder to get to the same level as the rich in the US or Europe, or anywhere for that matter. You can have equal opportunity without welfare of any sort, at least that's how the debate is generally framed. Life isn't fair, have you heard that one before? Yeah, it's sad It's not really lack of opportunity, but I'd say of advantage. - I agree Would you be willing to pay for it, though? (you'd be getting nothing in return) - Yup, I pay my taxes like a good boy. Would I be willing to pay for the education I received if I could have had the money instead? I don't know.. I could have afforded a lot of 'educational experiences' if I had my hands on the kind of cash society's dropped on me. And half-breed.. am I mistaken in remembering you as the person who had the statements about making the world a better place and activism in your little profile? I had an image of you as super liberal, but you don't seem that way in this thread. Of course I know there's many ways to be activist and liberal... just curious if my memory serves me.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Nov 15, 2007 2:47:14 GMT -5
And half-breed.. am I mistaken in remembering you as the person who had the statements about making the world a better place and activism in your little profile? I had an image of you as super liberal, but you don't seem that way in this thread. Of course I know there's many ways to be activist and liberal... just curious if my memory serves me. That be me. Don't worry, I'm hardly fixed in my opinions. I'm waiting for someone to tell me that what I'm saying's wrong. I think I know it is, just not why.
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 15, 2007 2:54:25 GMT -5
^^ What exactly are you saying? Seems like you're just asking questions.. and yeah, like Zoff said, this is based on personal philosophy, whether that can be right or wrong is a heavy question
|
|