Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not everybody is cut out for college. The value of a college degree has been diluted because too many students these days are not college material. The cost has gone up and the quality has gone down. Government policy is largely to blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunya Business
College degrees are required for every mundane, pencil-pushing office job because employers can afford to be picky..
Make up you mind. Whose fault is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunya Business
Well, maybe those people should have studied harder in high school. If they were bright enough -- and serious enough students -- they would have received good enough grades to warrant merit-based scholarships. Those who slacked off in high school aren't without options, though. They can go to a trade school. They can join the military. They can get into truck driving. They can make a nice living working in the North Dakotan oil fields. They can start their own business. Or they can enroll in a community college, which is cheaper and less selective than most four-year schools. The beauty about America is that this is the land of opportunity and second chances. You make your own breaks here. Handouts aren't necessary for those willing to make something of themselves.
You are talking yourself into a box. You are now saying 75% of all high school students can study hard enough to get merit-based scholarships that are available for the exceptional and brightest students. Explain how that works.
Those community colleges and trade schools are only slightly cheaper, if at all, than the four-year state universities, when you tally up the total cost of spending a year in college, which is a great deal more than just the tuition fee. All you've done is to describe the 25% of the jobs that do not require post-secondary, and tell us that that is where the real money is. Right. Some kid with a low-income single mom in an inner city is going to graduate from high school "make his own breaks" by "starting his own business", and do just fine, competing with multinational corporations and huge franchises with billion dollar advertising budgets. even though he is not exceptional enough to earn a merit scholarship.
Well, maybe those people should have studied harder in high school. If they were bright enough -- and serious enough students -- they would have received good enough grades to warrant merit-based scholarships. Those who slacked off in high school aren't without options, though. They can go to a trade school. They can join the military. They can get into truck driving. They can make a nice living working in the North Dakotan oil fields. They can start their own business. Or they can enroll in a community college, which is cheaper and less selective than most four-year schools. The beauty about America is that this is the land of opportunity and second chances. You make your own breaks here. Handouts aren't necessary for those willing to make something of themselves.
Community colleges have had to make cutbacks and have also become significantly more expensive over the years. This article is one of many examples:
Your implication that people should just "study harder" or that people fail because they just slack off is another sweeping generalisation in the line of many that you've made over the half dozen or so pages of this thread. Not all kids are academically gifted, some are average, some are above average. There are smart (but not exceptional) kids that get lost in the system because they go to crappy schools or have crappy family lives. This is especially true of kids of low income families. You have to be exceptionally smart to get a scholarship too, not just smart, yet a kid from a rich family of average intelligence can have his parents buy his or her way into a top university. How is that fair?
Join the military? The military cannot be sustained as it is. You want to put MORE people on the public payroll. I thought you wanted to cut government spending, not increase it? Who do you think pays for the military? The rest...I guess they'll be heading for the North Dakotan oil fields!
As for second chances, I disagree. My wife would love to go back to school and change careers, but she can't because of crippling student loans. She is not the only one in that situation in America. It's a sorry-arsed state of affairs if you ask me.
Also, what happens when we have a system that punishes the most successful? Fewer people strive to become successful, that's what happens. This undoubtedly has an adverse effect on society, and EVERYBODY suffers. Fewer entrepreneurs mean fewer jobs created. Fewer tax dollars mean fewer services that can be sustained. Snap out of your liberal fantasyland and read Atlas Shrugged. You might learn something.
My desire to be successful has never been dampened by those who I perceive as "freeloading" off of me. And many of the more liberal countries you would deride have plenty of successful individuals and companies from which we are buying products today.
That said, I suspect you're just jerking some chains and aren't 100% serious.
Assumptions my friend, assumptions. Where did I say that "everyone should be taken care of from cradle to grave?". Believe it or not mate, I'm just as pro-hard work as you or the next person and have no sympathy for genuine freeloaders or dole dossers who make signing on a way of life. But the difference between you and I is that while you only see black and white labeling ALL welfare recipients and poor people as freeloaders, I opt for common sense which dictates that perhaps only a small minority of people genuinely refuse to work. Such people are actually not that hard to weed out and it's easy to tell the difference between someone who needs a hand up and someone who abuses a handout You do also realise that a lot of welfare recipients WORK for a livging; they are the "working poor" whose wages have stagnated, while inflation has put the general cost of living out of reach to them.
No able-bodied person should be entitled to squat. They should have to work for everything they get. Unless a welfare recipient is old or crippled, he is on welfare because he wants to be. There are plenty of jobs out there for those who want them. Thus, your assertion that only a small percentage of welfare recipients refuse to work is bunk.
The "working poor" shouldn't get any handouts either. It's not my fault if their skills (or lack thereof) only warrant $8/hr. in the marketplace. They will either have to improve their skillset or learn to live without. Survival of the fittest. It's time to weed out the weak, lazy, and stupid. I'm sick of supporting them.
Quote:
Yep, thanks for the lesson, but I'm aware of how governments collect money
Based on your responses, I assumed that you believed money grew on trees.
Quote:
Entirely another debate, but you could argue that American (and British) intervention in certain parts of the world, particularly the Middle East has been nothing short of disastrous and costly in terms of lives lost and money spent. You may value your military, but you cannot afford to sustain it at its current levels.
The price of freedom is high. However, the price of NOT protecting our freedoms is even higher.
Quote:
So the bottom line is, you would approve of genocide, if millions of people were forced to protest due to extreme poverty? Your scenario would make Tiananmen Square look like a picnic in comparison.
I would only use lethal force if absolutely necessary. The mobs would be given a choice to disperse or be detained. Only if they resist would there be any problems. What happens to them is entirely up to them.
Quote:
The northeast US is just as dense as anywhere in Europe. France may be relatively small in comparison to the US, but the TGV from Paris to Lyon is almost 300 miles. It's entirely feasible to connect many major cities here. The rolling stock would be operated by private companies, the track would be maintained by the government.
California is not really a good place for HSR anyway. It's one of the most car-centric states in the United States.
So basically, you're advocating a pork project which would benefit only one region of the country (the northeast), that would be paid by taxpayers in all 50 states. Gotcha.
Quote:
The funny part is, relatively short distance air travel may not be feasible in a few decades as oil supplies dwindle and foreign oil becomes increasingly expensive. Urban rail is something that many US cities should have either invested in our expanded existing systems many decades ago.
I'm not against roads either, but you have to look to the future. Oil is running out, foreign oil is too volatile of a commoddity to rely on. What do you do? Sit on your arses, be stubborn and make excuses for continuing the status quo, or look to the future and accept that many of us will be forced to change the way we get from A to B, whether we like it or not? The beauty of rail (rail in general, not just HSR) is that it's more fuel efficient, cleaner and is no more difficult to maintain than roads, if anything easier as they don't require as much policing and are statistically safer.
That's why we've got to drill baby drill. Obama is standing in the way of our energy independence.
.
Quote:
The US indeed in a quagmire of a situation, but your only solution seems to be to end welfare. If the poor are going to have to hurt, then so are the wealthy and the middle class. The poor are going to lose their safety nets, the rich are going to have to deal with tax increases. It's always the poor that seem to get the short end of the stick when times are tough.
My solution is to slash spending, cut corporate taxes, ease back on regulations, take on the unions, and eliminate the minimum wage. We need a more business-friendly environment in America if we want to compete with the rest of the world. You're right that America became a great country in a different era, when the rest of the developed world was recovering from WWII. Globalization has allowed the rest of the world to catch up, and even surpass the U.S. in some cases. Only if we create a more business-friendly environment will jobs return to America. This will never happen if workers expect unreasonable salaries, benefits, and pensions. Democrats and the unions have to realize that it's not the 1950s anymore. The world has passed them by. It's time to get serious about improving our business climate before we fall further behind.
My solution is to slash spending, cut corporate taxes, ease back on regulations, take on the unions, and eliminate the minimum wage. We need a more business-friendly environment in America if we want to compete with the rest of the world. You're right that America became a great country in a different era, when the rest of the developed world was recovering from WWII. Globalization has allowed the rest of the world to catch up, and even surpass the U.S. in some cases. Only if we create a more business-friendly environment will jobs return to America. This will never happen if workers expect unreasonable salaries, benefits, and pensions. Democrats and the unions have to realize that it's not the 1950s anymore. The world has passed them by. It's time to get serious about improving our business climate before we fall further behind.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that the road back means we should be more like, say, China than a wealthy, competitive nation such as Germany.
Globalization has allowed the rest of the world to catch up, and even surpass the U.S. in some cases. Only if we create a more business-friendly environment will jobs return to America..
The US has always had the most business friendly environment in the world, and countries with less business friendly environments have caught up with us and surpassed us. Obviously, our business friendly environment was not the right formula, and allowed us to fall behind, while other nations shot forward. Every nation that has surpassed us has done so with a far more liberal social policy than ours. And you have come to the amazing conclusion that only by revitalizing our failed policy can we reverse our course and regain the lead over nations that have passed us by rejecting our failed policy.
No able-bodied person should be entitled to squat. They should have to work for everything they get. Unless a welfare recipient is old or crippled, he is on welfare because he wants to be. There are plenty of jobs out there for those who want them. Thus, your assertion that only a small percentage of welfare recipients refuse to work is bunk.
Incorrect. In addition to unemployed people, many working people are on welfare because their full time jobs don't pay them enough to live. How are there plenty of jobs? Do you not know how to interpret unemployment rates?
Either show me statistical proof from a non-partisan website that the majority of welfare recipients refse to work, or it's just my opinion versus yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunya Business
The "working poor" shouldn't get any handouts either. It's not my fault if their skills (or lack thereof) only warrant $8/hr. in the marketplace. They will either have to improve their skillset or learn to live without. Survival of the fittest. It's time to weed out the weak, lazy, and stupid. I'm sick of supporting them.
It's not their fault that the work they do has been systematicaly devalued over time. I don't expect you to understand that though as such a notion clashes with your more sociopathic/Darwinistic views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunya Business
Based on your responses, I assumed that you believed money grew on trees.
Such wit. You should do stand-up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunya Business
The price of freedom is high. However, the price of NOT protecting our freedoms is even higher.
I would only use lethal force if absolutely necessary. The mobs would be given a choice to disperse or be detained. Only if they resist would there be any problems. What happens to them is entirely up to them.
Are you just blowing hot air, or have you actually thought this one through? Where would you "detain" these mobs exactly? Our prisons are already overcrowded. You want to cut government spending, remember? If it came to it, would you condone the decision to commit genocide against millions or "freeloaders" if it came down to it, if the mobs could not be controlled?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunya Business
So basically, you're advocating a pork project which would benefit only one region of the country (the northeast), that would be paid by taxpayers in all 50 states. Gotcha.
The federal government already transfers money to different states:
It's hardly "even" either. What's the difference? The goal is to reduce dependence on foreign oil that is in the NATION's interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunya Business
That's why we've got to drill baby drill. Obama is standing in the way of our energy independence.
Yep, nice long-term solution Sarah. Oil is still going to run out at some point whether you choose to address it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunya Business
My solution is to slash spending, cut corporate taxes, ease back on regulations, take on the unions, and eliminate the minimum wage. We need a more business-friendly environment in America if we want to compete with the rest of the world. You're right that America became a great country in a different era, when the rest of the developed world was recovering from WWII. Globalization has allowed the rest of the world to catch up, and even surpass the U.S. in some cases. Only if we create a more business-friendly environment will jobs return to America. This will never happen if workers expect unreasonable salaries, benefits, and pensions. Democrats and the unions have to realize that it's not the 1950s anymore. The world has passed them by. It's time to get serious about improving our business climate before we fall further behind.
Just one of many theories, nothing more. Your tunnel vision won't allow you to see beyond welfare, unions and minimum wage for the underserving poor as being the root causes of most, if not all of this country's ills. Ask yourself this: if welfare isn't necessary, why did all developed nations implement welfare states in the first place? Was it just a fun thing to do at the time to rob from the rich and give to the poor Robin Hood style, or were they implemented to help ensure more stable and fair societies, in which far fewer people ran the risk of falling into absolote poverty as we became more work/consumerist oriented and less family/community oriented?
Improve the system, streamline it and make it more of a "hand up" by all means, but don't get rid of it completely.
Last edited by dragonborn; 02-20-2012 at 03:04 PM..
Government policy is largely to blame for the oversaturation of college graduates in the labor market. The oversaturation of college graduates allows employers to be pickier than ever, even for the most mundane office jobs. Got it?
Quote:
You are talking yourself into a box. You are now saying 75% of all high school students can study hard enough to get merit-based scholarships that are available for the exceptional and brightest students. Explain how that works.
You're misinterpreting what I wrote. I simply stated that those who can't 1) afford college on their own, 2) achieve high enough grades and SAT scores to receive academic scholarships, or 3) take the risk of accepting student loans will have to do something else with their lives besides college.
Quote:
Those community colleges and trade schools are only slightly cheaper, if at all, than the four-year state universities, when you tally up the total cost of spending a year in college, which is a great deal more than just the tuition fee.
Well, if even community college is too expensive for them, they'll have to take out loans or get into something else. The military is always looking for people. After they have served their country, they can take advantage of the GI Bill. I support the GI Bill because, unlike regular handout programs, recipients will have actually WORKED FOR and EARNED their tuition assistance.
Quote:
All you've done is to describe the 25% of the jobs that do not require post-secondary, and tell us that that is where the real money is. Right. Some kid with a low-income single mom in an inner city is going to graduate from high school "make his own breaks" by "starting his own business", and do just fine, competing with multinational corporations and huge franchises with billion dollar advertising budgets. even though he is not exceptional enough to earn a merit scholarship.
The kid from a low-income family has plenty of options:
* Excel in the classroom and earn a free ride to college (academic scholarship)
* Excel in sports and earn a free ride to college (athletic scholarship)
* Take out a student loan that can be repaid after graduation
* Serve in the military and receive tuition assistance upon completion
* Get into truck driving, where there's presently a labor shortage
* Go where the jobs are (e.g., North Dakota where there's an oil boom)
* Learn a trade
* Start your own business
* Work your way up in an established company, starting from the bottom
Nobody said it would be easy, but it can be done. You'd rather make excuses for those unwilling to succeed, and ask ME to pay their way through life with my tax dollars. Get real pal. Some people need to suck it up and deal with the hand they've been dealt. We're no longer in the medieval times when social mobility wasn't possible. In 21st Century America, nothing's holding anyone back as long as you're willing to work hard, persevere, and take the occasional risk (e.g., taking out a student loan if you wish to attend college, for those who didn't come from privileged backgrounds). If you fail in this country, it's your own damn fault. I'm sick and tired of hearing excuses for these freeloading bums.
Last edited by Nunya Business; 02-20-2012 at 04:15 PM..
Your implication that people should just "study harder" or that people fail because they just slack off is another sweeping generalisation in the line of many that you've made over the half dozen or so pages of this thread. Not all kids are academically gifted, some are average, some are above average. There are smart (but not exceptional) kids that get lost in the system because they go to crappy schools or have crappy family lives. This is especially true of kids of low income families. You have to be exceptionally smart to get a scholarship too, not just smart, yet a kid from a rich family of average intelligence can have his parents buy his or her way into a top university. How is that fair?
That's absolutely fair. Those who don't come from privileged backgrounds, and don't qualify for scholarships, can take out student loans if they wish to attend college. Education is the great equalizer. If the "underprivileged" student majors in a relevant field and graduates at the top of his college class, he will be in great position to land a high-paying job after graduation. At that time, he will have worked his way out of a rough situation. A classic rags-to-riches story. The American Dream. All it takes is hard work instead of excuse-making. Nobody said it would be easy, but it can be done.
Quote:
Join the military? The military cannot be sustained as it is. You want to put MORE people on the public payroll. I thought you wanted to cut government spending, not increase it? Who do you think pays for the military?
We CAN reduce the federal budget without sacrificing national defense. Mitt Romney would do exactly that if elected President. In fact, Romney said he would INCREASE our military spending while reducing overall spending. It can be done.
Quote:
As for second chances, I disagree. My wife would love to go back to school and change careers, but she can't because of crippling student loans. She is not the only one in that situation in America. It's a sorry-arsed state of affairs if you ask me.
What is her profession? Just wondering because I bet I could come up with suggestions to help her get into a related field without having to go back to school.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that the road back means we should be more like, say, China than a wealthy, competitive nation such as Germany.
Germany will eventually go down with the rest of Europe. The current model is unsustainable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
