Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 19159829)

There is one difference I've noticed between the two parties.

It's that liberals do at times vote for things which will not benefit them personally, they do it for the common good.

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19160077)

:1orglaugh

1) What my profession is has NOTHING to do with this debate, but thanks for being a hater and knowing so much about me. Unfortunately, I have no idea who you are or what you do.

2) Always a hoot to see someone throwing the moral stone in the porn business. Hypocrisy at its best. As if the girls I work with are any different than the girls anyone else works with. Everyone has a choice. They ALL do it for money.

But since you brought it up... before I worked in "poverty stricken" areas and exploited poor exploited sex slaves from Ebola infested areas, I produced in the USA for almost 10 years and shot MANY college students and even a few graduates, just as anyone else who produces porn has. So your argument is what again?

Look, the world will always need ditch diggers. That is just a fact of life. But because I do work in "poverty stricken" areas, I see people rise out of real poverty (something most Americans have no idea about) and find a way to go to school, then go to college, and have a good career. I know "poverty stricken" people who take a bus 2+ hours each way to go to work every day, working 12+ hours a day, so that their kid can go to a good school. So I could give two fucks about spoiled Americans who think they are entitled to anything, especially an education. They are not.

Everything in life comes with hard work, discipline, and more hard work. No excuses. Either you make it or you don't. A few make it on luck. If you can catch a break and get some money from the government, good for you, take it!!! If you can't, tough luck. Work harder or go dig ditches. This is life.

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 19160082)

my study didnt cost me a dime - besides books etc. of course

we do have student loans (with zero interest) for those whose parents are too poor to help them with accomodation etc. - but i didnt qualify for that. so i worked part time to pay my flat, car etc.

when i started studying i had already worked a couple of years and earned good money before. if i had known that at the end of my study i would be sitting there with $50k or $80k debt, i would have never studied at all.

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 19160086)

a society should try to find the smart people and help them - for their own benefit

and completely unrelated to the wealth of the parents

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19160110)

The wealth of the parents should never be an issue. If the kid doesn't measure up, go flip burgers or make porn. I don't believe in handouts for such reasons, but I do think everyone should be given a chance to prove their worth and have a chance to go for free based on their grades, achievements, and/or service to their community, not if they can afford it or not. That would be the most fair way to do it. You have to earn it. If you don't have what it takes, you don't go.

Originally Posted by astronaut x (Post 19159597)

Ryan wants to eliminate Pell Grants for more more than 1 million students. Ryan?s budget claims both that rising financial aid is driving college tuition costs upward, and that Pell Grants, which help cover tuition costs for low-income Americans, don?t go to the ?truly needy.? So he cuts the Pell Grant program by $200 billion, which could ?ultimately knock more than one million students off? the program over the next 10 years.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...ate-paul-ryan/

Originally Posted by pornmasta (Post 19160121)

the gvt paid my studies and now i'm an adult webmaster.
Sure studies are the road to success...

But anyway it is better to have an educated population. Only bigots need uneducated people.

Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 19159829)

There is one difference I've noticed between the two parties.

It's that liberals do at times vote for things which will not benefit them personally, they do it for the common good. Conservatives NEVER vote for anything that won't benefit them personally. That's why the whole concept of "trickle down" is so appealing to conservatives. Basically it says, make me happy and maybe things will work out for you, if it doesn't work out for you, at least I'm still happy and my advantage over you is probably even greater now.

It's the same way conservatives feel that the best way to get rich people to do the right thing is by giving them every tax break and opportunity they want and removing every regulation. On the other hand, they think the only way to get poor people to do the right thing is to take everything from them and putting stipulations on everything, then maybe they will realize they don't want to be poor anymore, as if it were a choice. Do you see how they treat rich humans and poor humans as two totally separate creatures? One needs to be nurtured and coddled, the other needs "tough love" and to be punished in order to yield the same result.

I'm not saying liberals always make the right choice, but they do at least sometimes vote outside their personal interest because they feel it's the right thing to do. Conservatives never do that, at least not anymore.

BTW, there is NOTHING wrong with voting for your own interests above all else, that's totally fine. But don't pretend it's for the good of the country or make up some rationalization that you are helping others but they just don't realize it yet. That's what the Ryan budget is, it fucks over a lot of people just to help a few who need no help at all.

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 19160144)

Just stop production of a few bombers and stop giving money to the most profitable and rich corporations the earth has ever known and oh by the way how about everyone pay a fair tax from rich to poor?

Originally Posted by pornmasta (Post 19160185)

no no, no
you need educated people to produce cheap bombers ;)

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19159605)

Sorry, but we can not afford to continue with some programs. Apparently, that is what Romney understands that Obama does not.

Originally Posted by pornguy (Post 19160175)

My ex wife had a Pell grant even though her parents had a combined imcome of more than 300k a year.

Her sister on the other hand went to school totally for free from scholar ships she found in some amazing places.

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19159659)

I didn't get hand outs. Sorry about their luck. Welcome to life.



QFT

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 19160176)

They always want to cut social programs that help the poor rather than end unneeded tax cuts and government subsidies. It's their way to rile up the low brows of their base.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19159603)

Why give away my tax money? Let the students take out loans like everyone else.

.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 19159715)

if tuition prices have been going up, and the jobs are there but the skills aren't, wouldn't it make sense to simply trying to lower the cost of tuition prices?

frankly, increasing the cost of education isn't going to save the USA and in extension the western world

decreasing it would, and it be something the rest of the world would refer to as an 'investment'

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 19160041)

education should not cost money for those who receive it - it's an investment of a society into its own future

(sorry for my socialist outbreak here)

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19160244)

I agree with you that education shouldn't cost anything, but do we really need more lawyers?

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19160236)

You're kidding, right.

1. It's not "given" it's loaned.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19160244)

I agree with you that education shouldn't cost anything, but do we really need more lawyers?

Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 19159829)

There is one difference I've noticed between the two parties.

It's that liberals do at times vote for things which will not benefit them personally, they do it for the common good. Conservatives NEVER vote for anything that won't benefit them personally. That's why the whole concept of "trickle down" is so appealing to conservatives. Basically it says, make me happy and maybe things will work out for you, if it doesn't work out for you, at least I'm still happy and my advantage over you is probably even greater now.

It's the same way conservatives feel that the best way to get rich people to do the right thing is by giving them every tax break and opportunity they want and removing every regulation. On the other hand, they think the only way to get poor people to do the right thing is to take everything from them and putting stipulations on everything, then maybe they will realize they don't want to be poor anymore, as if it were a choice. Do you see how they treat rich humans and poor humans as two totally separate creatures? One needs to be nurtured and coddled, the other needs "tough love" and to be punished in order to yield the same result.

I'm not saying liberals always make the right choice, but they do at least sometimes vote outside their personal interest because they feel it's the right thing to do. Conservatives never do that, at least not anymore.

BTW, there is NOTHING wrong with voting for your own interests above all else, that's totally fine. But don't pretend it's for the good of the country or make up some rationalization that you are helping others but they just don't realize it yet. That's what the Ryan budget is, it fucks over a lot of people just to help a few who need no help at all.

Originally Posted by woj (Post 19160156)

They try to achieve "common good" by different means...

Democrats want to achieve it by taxing successful people more and then using that $$ to provide benefits to less successful people...

Republicans on the other hand tend to support policies that benefit the entire economy...

like for instance, the proposal that OP brought up, clearly if implemented this policy will benefit everyone, $200B will be saved which will have positive impact on the entire economy...

one may counter that 1 million people less will get education, which seems like a negative effect, but is that really true? 1 million different people will probably get education instead, or those 1 million may instead choose to finance their education using different means...

so overall likely same number of people will get educated and we will all save $200B.. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by GregE (Post 19160280)

Well, you got a point there :winkwink:

Maybe Pell Grants for everything except law school?

All kidding aside, a college degree is the new high school diploma.

Back when the government first mandated grades 1-12 public education, that's all most people needed to make a decent living.

That's clearly not the case anymore and the government would do well for the country as a whole to act accordingly.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19160244)

I agree with you that education shouldn't cost anything, but do we really need more lawyers?

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 19160247)

supply and demand

Originally Posted by GregE (Post 19160305)

The problem with that argument is that lawyers have a tendency to become lawmakers whereupon they pass new laws which ensure an ever increasing demand for the services of their colleagues.

Kinda like dentists handing out free candy bars in the schoolyard.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19160334)

FYI: There are plenty of quality community colleges that are cheap enough you do not lead a government loan. If higher education is that important, get good grades, get a scholarship. There are lots of scholarships available through the private sector as well.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19160329)

What's really awesome, is that while we are trying to kill low priced higher education, we are simultaneously trying to kill trade unions. So, soon, if all goes as planned, teenagers won't be able to afford college and won't be able to apply for positions that include a real apprenticeship program. That way they can live with their parents until they are 30+ and bleed their family for cash. So, the middle class family with kids now gets the highest tax rate, the cost of supporting unemployable offspring and or the cost of 40K per year university bills while their children are enslaved by student debt that can not be discharged via bankruptcy and can not be paid back by underemployed grads for decades.

It's a really awesome system! For what exactly... I'm not quite sure.

Originally Posted by DamageX (Post 19160115)

And that's just about as realistic as true communism. :)

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 19160144)

Just stop production of a few bombers and stop giving money to the most profitable and rich corporations the earth has ever known and oh by the way how about everyone pay a fair tax from rich to poor?

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19160225)

I think you're just jealous and resentful.

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19160225)

A student loan is NOT a "hand out". It's a hand up! They must be repaid (and they WILL BE - there is no getting outta paying).

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19160225)

Jesus FUCKING Christ! This country is fucking doomed. When the people think eliminating access to higher education for the average person is a bad idea that's pretty much the end of the road. Higher education only for the Mitts of the world? "That's life"?

Originally Posted by GregE (Post 19160346)

There are those who will tell you that for America to survive in the global economy, wages and living standards here need to be pushed down almost to third world levels.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19160334)

FYI: There are plenty of quality community colleges that are cheap enough you do not lead a government loan. If higher education is that important, get good grades, get a scholarship. There are lots of scholarships available through the private sector as well.

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19160382)

Whatever gets the job done. :upsidedow



:2 cents:



Of what, your awesome God given American freedom? :1orglaugh




We are talking about Grants. Grants do not have to be paid back.

Perhaps if you went to college you would know the difference between a "grant" and a "loan." Just sayin. :winkwink:



Nothing wrong with the "average person" having their education paid for by the government so long as they have the grades to justify it. But the days of slackers getting a free pass are over. If you don't measure up, sorry about your luck. You should have tried harder.

The rest of the world is whipping America's ass now. That should be enough to tell you that the current educational system isn't working. So drastically change it or keep putting your heads in the sand while you chant, "we're #1!" Doesn't matter to me either way. My kids won't be going to American schools.