Posted by cccp1014 on 2/10/2019 11:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 9:46:00 PM (view original):
Firstly, with all due respect CCCP, the uncalled for insult adds nothing to the conversation and does nothing to enlighten people on truths. It creates an environment where they will disagree with simply because they don't like you without considering the rational of your post.

Secondly, your post has a lot of truth. Enron did not kill people. It was a terrible, corrupt company but it did far less harm than a tyrannical government. Once again, it's about risk management and protecting our intrinsic freedoms. Tang, used the term "micro freedom" in an earlier post. Freedoms are freedoms. There are no micro or macro freedoms. The word :freedom" doesn't need a modifier in the same way the words "justice" and "good" don't need modifiers (i.e. social justice).

To your second point, this is one reason that I think a college education is overvalued in the marketplace. I spent all of my adult life on college campuses. The point of college is to gain knowledge. This is the only point of college. There are many less expensive options to achieve these means. But way too many kids see college as a time to "have fun" before they must transition to the real world. This is why student loan debt will lead to the next recession and most of that debt was wasted by kids who got their degree in partying and drinking beer, but never received a degree in an actual useful major.

Well, not saying I agree with this, but here's a snippet of an article.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-problems-with-libertarianism_us_57c093efe4b0b01630de953f

The whole purpose of civilization should be to ensure that everyone is fed, clothed, housed and NOT to create the conditions so that the few can secure a substantially greater portion of resources while others are left with virtually none. In a libertarian society, who protects the unprotected, who defends the rights of the defenseless? Even libertarians acknowledge that a free market will drive a larger wealth disparity... Wealth inequality paired with deregulation creates an opportunity for haves to rule the have-nots. This is one of the many reasons for regulation ? to ensure that the rich few do not impose their will unjustly or destructively on the poor multitudes.

Another libertarian belief is the idea that the government should not be allowed to impose its will on the citizenry. However, in a truly free market that promotes freedom of contract and de-regulation ? employers have a right to force rules that would never be permitted in our current Democratic systems. Libertarianism is a rich man’s ideal. It ostensibly gives ultimate freedoms and choice to everyone at the cost of helping the helpless...

The core principles of libertarianism ? deregulation and a free market economy... will lead to an even bigger wealth gap [that] sounds like [a] dystopian future pic where classism runs rampant and the massive lower income classes rise against their small but incredibly wealthy oppressors.

You may see the poor or underclass as weak ? the “losers” in the giant meritocratic experiment that is the libertarian ideal, but weak as they are, there are going to be a hell of a lot more of them than there are of you. So in the hopes of avoiding the fate of the monarchy during the French Revolution, maybe it’s best to retain welfare and at least a modest social safety net...

In the end, libertarianism is similar to communism. On the face they’re both noble, but impossibly ambitious theories ? one has individual freedom as its core principle and the other, equality. However, in practice, both concepts lead to outcomes that aren’t as pure.

Debate away.

To the college point, fwiw I learned a lot in college about independence, maturity, and journalism, plus I got to put it to use.

Your learned to be a terrible writer and debater? You should demand your money back.

seriously, dude, do you have to continue to insult people. Every one here (including tangplay and BL) knows what you think of them. Constantly insulting them serves no purpose, except maybe to make you feel better.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/11/2019 10:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 10:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/10/2019 10:44:00 PM (view original):
If it permanently destroys your financial future by saddling you with $200,000+ of unrepayable debt, then the benefit is outweighed by the cost.

Most people are able to graduate college owing far less than that. Yeah if you go to Oberlin and don’t ever work and have to live off of loans, you’re in deep.

But if you go to a state school and work at least part time, you’re probably looking at a 60 or 70k debt. It’s a lot, but that’s manageable over 10 years.

I would wager that you could get out for much cheaper than that. You can go to a junior college for two years and work your way through this without any debt. You then can go to a state school where it will cost you about $20k/year. If you work part time while doing that, you are looking at 10-15 in debt per year for 2 years.

The probably is that this is not the reality of what happens in most cases. Every person in this forum has spent time in the real world and understands the value of the dollar. 18 year old kids have no clue and make stupid, irrational choices. Most kids will take out max loans and rationalize it as they need "spending money".

Ok, let’s say that all 18 year olds are really as clueless about life as you say.

If that’s the case, college really is the best thing for them. It leaves the most future doors open, exposes them to fields of study they they might otherwise have never considered, gives them time to grow up and learn about themselves and the world as a whole, and introduces them to people that they will probably rely on for the rest of their careers.

Deciding to go to a trade school that can be just as expensive as a private university is the last thing they should do.

I'll work ground up. I will guarantee that the most expensive tech school is exponentially cheaper than the cheapest private school.

I agree with your second paragraph in theory. The reality is that it is just not materializing in that manner. Students are racking up very expensive student loan bills to go for 3 semesters and then drop out. They have nothing to show for the $20k+ that they spent. These student loans then go unpaid and it is leading towards a very bad situation in America. The worst thing that could have happened was when the federal government took over the student loan business. I can't remember if this was Bush or Obama or if Bush started the process and Obama finished it, but either way it was a terrible idea.

We both know 18 year olds are clueless. We were all burdened with the curse of being 18 years old at one point. We were just as immature and clueless as today's crop.

Posted by wylie715 on 2/11/2019 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/10/2019 11:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 9:46:00 PM (view original):
Firstly, with all due respect CCCP, the uncalled for insult adds nothing to the conversation and does nothing to enlighten people on truths. It creates an environment where they will disagree with simply because they don't like you without considering the rational of your post.

Secondly, your post has a lot of truth. Enron did not kill people. It was a terrible, corrupt company but it did far less harm than a tyrannical government. Once again, it's about risk management and protecting our intrinsic freedoms. Tang, used the term "micro freedom" in an earlier post. Freedoms are freedoms. There are no micro or macro freedoms. The word :freedom" doesn't need a modifier in the same way the words "justice" and "good" don't need modifiers (i.e. social justice).

To your second point, this is one reason that I think a college education is overvalued in the marketplace. I spent all of my adult life on college campuses. The point of college is to gain knowledge. This is the only point of college. There are many less expensive options to achieve these means. But way too many kids see college as a time to "have fun" before they must transition to the real world. This is why student loan debt will lead to the next recession and most of that debt was wasted by kids who got their degree in partying and drinking beer, but never received a degree in an actual useful major.

Well, not saying I agree with this, but here's a snippet of an article.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-problems-with-libertarianism_us_57c093efe4b0b01630de953f

The whole purpose of civilization should be to ensure that everyone is fed, clothed, housed and NOT to create the conditions so that the few can secure a substantially greater portion of resources while others are left with virtually none. In a libertarian society, who protects the unprotected, who defends the rights of the defenseless? Even libertarians acknowledge that a free market will drive a larger wealth disparity... Wealth inequality paired with deregulation creates an opportunity for haves to rule the have-nots. This is one of the many reasons for regulation ? to ensure that the rich few do not impose their will unjustly or destructively on the poor multitudes.

Another libertarian belief is the idea that the government should not be allowed to impose its will on the citizenry. However, in a truly free market that promotes freedom of contract and de-regulation ? employers have a right to force rules that would never be permitted in our current Democratic systems. Libertarianism is a rich man’s ideal. It ostensibly gives ultimate freedoms and choice to everyone at the cost of helping the helpless...

The core principles of libertarianism ? deregulation and a free market economy... will lead to an even bigger wealth gap [that] sounds like [a] dystopian future pic where classism runs rampant and the massive lower income classes rise against their small but incredibly wealthy oppressors.

You may see the poor or underclass as weak ? the “losers” in the giant meritocratic experiment that is the libertarian ideal, but weak as they are, there are going to be a hell of a lot more of them than there are of you. So in the hopes of avoiding the fate of the monarchy during the French Revolution, maybe it’s best to retain welfare and at least a modest social safety net...

In the end, libertarianism is similar to communism. On the face they’re both noble, but impossibly ambitious theories ? one has individual freedom as its core principle and the other, equality. However, in practice, both concepts lead to outcomes that aren’t as pure.

Debate away.

To the college point, fwiw I learned a lot in college about independence, maturity, and journalism, plus I got to put it to use.

Your learned to be a terrible writer and debater? You should demand your money back.

seriously, dude, do you have to continue to insult people. Every one here (including tangplay and BL) knows what you think of them. Constantly insulting them serves no purpose, except maybe to make you feel better.

And dino. All deserve what they get. Sorry Wylie just how I feel. They can stop engaging me. But they won’t

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/11/2019 3:03:00 PM (view original):
I'll work ground up. I will guarantee that the most expensive tech school is exponentially cheaper than the cheapest private school.

I agree with your second paragraph in theory. The reality is that it is just not materializing in that manner. Students are racking up very expensive student loan bills to go for 3 semesters and then drop out. They have nothing to show for the $20k+ that they spent. These student loans then go unpaid and it is leading towards a very bad situation in America. The worst thing that could have happened was when the federal government took over the student loan business. I can't remember if this was Bush or Obama or if Bush started the process and Obama finished it, but either way it was a terrible idea.

We both know 18 year olds are clueless. We were all burdened with the curse of being 18 years old at one point. We were just as immature and clueless as today's crop.

Three points:

1) There’s a wide range in university tuition. Students don’t have to go to private school. Like I mentioned before, state schools are extremely affordable.

2) There are several trade schools that cost >40k a year.

3) The federal government has always guaranteed student loans. So when banks were issuing them, the banks were charging interest and profiting but taking zero risk because the feds reimbursed them for any defaults. The best solution was to cut out the middle man.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/11/2019 3:03:00 PM (view original):
I'll work ground up. I will guarantee that the most expensive tech school is exponentially cheaper than the cheapest private school.

I agree with your second paragraph in theory. The reality is that it is just not materializing in that manner. Students are racking up very expensive student loan bills to go for 3 semesters and then drop out. They have nothing to show for the $20k+ that they spent. These student loans then go unpaid and it is leading towards a very bad situation in America. The worst thing that could have happened was when the federal government took over the student loan business. I can't remember if this was Bush or Obama or if Bush started the process and Obama finished it, but either way it was a terrible idea.

We both know 18 year olds are clueless. We were all burdened with the curse of being 18 years old at one point. We were just as immature and clueless as today's crop.

Three points:

1) There’s a wide range in university tuition. Students don’t have to go to private school. Like I mentioned before, state schools are extremely affordable.

2) There are several trade schools that cost >40k a year.

3) The federal government has always guaranteed student loans. So when banks were issuing them, the banks were charging interest and profiting but taking zero risk because the feds reimbursed them for any defaults. The best solution was to cut out the middle man.

Define “extremely affordable”

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/11/2019 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/11/2019 3:03:00 PM (view original):
I'll work ground up. I will guarantee that the most expensive tech school is exponentially cheaper than the cheapest private school.

I agree with your second paragraph in theory. The reality is that it is just not materializing in that manner. Students are racking up very expensive student loan bills to go for 3 semesters and then drop out. They have nothing to show for the $20k+ that they spent. These student loans then go unpaid and it is leading towards a very bad situation in America. The worst thing that could have happened was when the federal government took over the student loan business. I can't remember if this was Bush or Obama or if Bush started the process and Obama finished it, but either way it was a terrible idea.

We both know 18 year olds are clueless. We were all burdened with the curse of being 18 years old at one point. We were just as immature and clueless as today's crop.

Three points:

1) There’s a wide range in university tuition. Students don’t have to go to private school. Like I mentioned before, state schools are extremely affordable.

2) There are several trade schools that cost >40k a year.

3) The federal government has always guaranteed student loans. So when banks were issuing them, the banks were charging interest and profiting but taking zero risk because the feds reimbursed them for any defaults. The best solution was to cut out the middle man.

Define “extremely affordable”

$7k a year in tuition.

My daughter’s preschool costs twice that.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/11/2019 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/11/2019 3:03:00 PM (view original):
I'll work ground up. I will guarantee that the most expensive tech school is exponentially cheaper than the cheapest private school.

I agree with your second paragraph in theory. The reality is that it is just not materializing in that manner. Students are racking up very expensive student loan bills to go for 3 semesters and then drop out. They have nothing to show for the $20k+ that they spent. These student loans then go unpaid and it is leading towards a very bad situation in America. The worst thing that could have happened was when the federal government took over the student loan business. I can't remember if this was Bush or Obama or if Bush started the process and Obama finished it, but either way it was a terrible idea.

We both know 18 year olds are clueless. We were all burdened with the curse of being 18 years old at one point. We were just as immature and clueless as today's crop.

Three points:

1) There’s a wide range in university tuition. Students don’t have to go to private school. Like I mentioned before, state schools are extremely affordable.

2) There are several trade schools that cost >40k a year.

3) The federal government has always guaranteed student loans. So when banks were issuing them, the banks were charging interest and profiting but taking zero risk because the feds reimbursed them for any defaults. The best solution was to cut out the middle man.

Define “extremely affordable”

$7k a year in tuition.

My daughter’s preschool costs twice that.

You’re rich. You should send her to a public or cheaper pre school and give her slot to a needy illegal. Oh wait. No you want someone else to do that. Your kids still get the best of the best....typical Democrat. The You problem party.

I know you’re being sarcastic there but I’m not rich and that’s just about the going rate for full time preschool in Southern California. $900 a month is about as cheap as it gets. The one we use costs $1200 a month but its hours are perfect and it’s close to the house.

No such thing as “public” preschool here.

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/11/2019 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/11/2019 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/10/2019 11:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 9:46:00 PM (view original):
Firstly, with all due respect CCCP, the uncalled for insult adds nothing to the conversation and does nothing to enlighten people on truths. It creates an environment where they will disagree with simply because they don't like you without considering the rational of your post.

Secondly, your post has a lot of truth. Enron did not kill people. It was a terrible, corrupt company but it did far less harm than a tyrannical government. Once again, it's about risk management and protecting our intrinsic freedoms. Tang, used the term "micro freedom" in an earlier post. Freedoms are freedoms. There are no micro or macro freedoms. The word :freedom" doesn't need a modifier in the same way the words "justice" and "good" don't need modifiers (i.e. social justice).

To your second point, this is one reason that I think a college education is overvalued in the marketplace. I spent all of my adult life on college campuses. The point of college is to gain knowledge. This is the only point of college. There are many less expensive options to achieve these means. But way too many kids see college as a time to "have fun" before they must transition to the real world. This is why student loan debt will lead to the next recession and most of that debt was wasted by kids who got their degree in partying and drinking beer, but never received a degree in an actual useful major.

Well, not saying I agree with this, but here's a snippet of an article.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-problems-with-libertarianism_us_57c093efe4b0b01630de953f

The whole purpose of civilization should be to ensure that everyone is fed, clothed, housed and NOT to create the conditions so that the few can secure a substantially greater portion of resources while others are left with virtually none. In a libertarian society, who protects the unprotected, who defends the rights of the defenseless? Even libertarians acknowledge that a free market will drive a larger wealth disparity... Wealth inequality paired with deregulation creates an opportunity for haves to rule the have-nots. This is one of the many reasons for regulation ? to ensure that the rich few do not impose their will unjustly or destructively on the poor multitudes.

Another libertarian belief is the idea that the government should not be allowed to impose its will on the citizenry. However, in a truly free market that promotes freedom of contract and de-regulation ? employers have a right to force rules that would never be permitted in our current Democratic systems. Libertarianism is a rich man’s ideal. It ostensibly gives ultimate freedoms and choice to everyone at the cost of helping the helpless...

The core principles of libertarianism ? deregulation and a free market economy... will lead to an even bigger wealth gap [that] sounds like [a] dystopian future pic where classism runs rampant and the massive lower income classes rise against their small but incredibly wealthy oppressors.

You may see the poor or underclass as weak ? the “losers” in the giant meritocratic experiment that is the libertarian ideal, but weak as they are, there are going to be a hell of a lot more of them than there are of you. So in the hopes of avoiding the fate of the monarchy during the French Revolution, maybe it’s best to retain welfare and at least a modest social safety net...

In the end, libertarianism is similar to communism. On the face they’re both noble, but impossibly ambitious theories ? one has individual freedom as its core principle and the other, equality. However, in practice, both concepts lead to outcomes that aren’t as pure.

Debate away.

To the college point, fwiw I learned a lot in college about independence, maturity, and journalism, plus I got to put it to use.

Your learned to be a terrible writer and debater? You should demand your money back.

seriously, dude, do you have to continue to insult people. Every one here (including tangplay and BL) knows what you think of them. Constantly insulting them serves no purpose, except maybe to make you feel better.

And dino. All deserve what they get. Sorry Wylie just how I feel. They can stop engaging me. But they won’t

they deserve what they get in your opinion. You can stop engaging them too, but you don't. there's no reason for name calling.

I am a bit confused. Public university cost has been brought up several times. What about the tuition cost of private universities? Are they not too high? I thought the idea behind progressive liberalism was equality and equal opportunity? If Cal-State Northridge cost 7K a year, why is there not an issue with Stanford or Cal Tech costing 40K a year (or whatever it is?) ...unless, everyone believes that Northridge gives the same exact education quality, the same exact job opportunities and the same exact salary potential throughout a lifetime...the only difference being some bourgeois prestige that really doesn't translate into any tangible advantage. I would think the elitist, multi-tier higher education system would drive liberals insane...that is, those who don't send their children to one of those private schools.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 5:59:00 PM (view original):
I am a bit confused. Public university cost has been brought up several times. What about the tuition cost of private universities? Are they not too high? I thought the idea behind progressive liberalism was equality and equal opportunity? If Cal-State Northridge cost 7K a year, why is there not an issue with Stanford or Cal Tech costing 40K a year (or whatever it is?) ...unless, everyone believes that Northridge gives the same exact education quality, the same exact job opportunities and the same exact salary potential throughout a lifetime...the only difference being some bourgeois prestige that really doesn't translate into any tangible advantage. I would think the elitist, multi-tier higher education system would drive liberals insane...that is, those who don't send their children to one of those private schools.

Wait, you’re asking why liberals don’t have a problem with some schools being cheaper than others?

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 5:59:00 PM (view original):
I am a bit confused. Public university cost has been brought up several times. What about the tuition cost of private universities? Are they not too high? I thought the idea behind progressive liberalism was equality and equal opportunity? If Cal-State Northridge cost 7K a year, why is there not an issue with Stanford or Cal Tech costing 40K a year (or whatever it is?) ...unless, everyone believes that Northridge gives the same exact education quality, the same exact job opportunities and the same exact salary potential throughout a lifetime...the only difference being some bourgeois prestige that really doesn't translate into any tangible advantage. I would think the elitist, multi-tier higher education system would drive liberals insane...that is, those who don't send their children to one of those private schools.

Wait, you’re asking why liberals don’t have a problem with some schools being cheaper than others?

Quite the elucidation...

Does anyone else wish to take a stab at it? Public schools won't give you the same education quality, won't give you the same job opportunities, won't give you the same lifetime earnings potential...but they are cheap(er!) From a liberal perspective, is this equality and equal opportunity or is this an elitist multi-tier higher education system?

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 5:59:00 PM (view original):
I am a bit confused. Public university cost has been brought up several times. What about the tuition cost of private universities? Are they not too high? I thought the idea behind progressive liberalism was equality and equal opportunity? If Cal-State Northridge cost 7K a year, why is there not an issue with Stanford or Cal Tech costing 40K a year (or whatever it is?) ...unless, everyone believes that Northridge gives the same exact education quality, the same exact job opportunities and the same exact salary potential throughout a lifetime...the only difference being some bourgeois prestige that really doesn't translate into any tangible advantage. I would think the elitist, multi-tier higher education system would drive liberals insane...that is, those who don't send their children to one of those private schools.

Wait, you’re asking why liberals don’t have a problem with some schools being cheaper than others?

Quite the elucidation...

Does anyone else wish to take a stab at it? Public schools won't give you the same education quality, won't give you the same job opportunities, won't give you the same lifetime earnings potential...but they are cheap(er!) From a liberal perspective, is this equality and equal opportunity or is this an elitist multi-tier higher education system?

I think your premise is flawed. Depending on your field of study, schools like UCLA, Cal, University of Michigan, University of Washington, etc., will put you in just as good of a position as Stanford. And a better position if we’re talking about generic private schools like University of Seattle or University of Whatever city.

Also, all Ivy League schools and Stanford give all students with household incomes below $150k, free tuition/room and board. And for students with incomes above that, there are discounts available.

But to answer your question, the reason why people don’t complain about state schools being cheaper than private schools is they understand that state schools are state subsidized. You aren’t paying the full cost to attend when you enroll. Private schools aren’t, by definition, state subsidized.

The state university system in Arizona has always been (is by state constitution) affordable. It is also excellent depending on your field of study.
Education? or Forestry? NAU.
Science or Medicine? U of A
Journalism, Partying? ASU lol