Quit hogging all the "A's" ...it's not fair...time to redistribute GPA's
-
Footwedge
Has nothing to do with skin color. If your net worth exceeds x, and or your combined income exceeds X, then you pay full ride. Oh sure, colleges will offer your kid a "standard schollarship" of some sort, but that's nothing more than a K Mart special smokescreen to make people think they're getting a deal.sleeper;1156623 wrote:You white?
Paying 18K a year is absolute rubbish in my book. But again, that subject deserves a thread of its own. -
Footwedge
And this bribery is the only way America can claim an all "volunteer" army. The pure definition of misnomer. Take away the GI bill and there would be no manpower for all the occupations we carry forth.Al Bundy;1156676 wrote:anyone can join the military and get the education benefits from it -
Footwedge
Oh just stop it with your "humanitarian nonsense" regarding outsourcing. Your whole love of outsourcing has to do with lining the pockets of the American Corporate traitors who circumvent human rights and labor laws. Tell me again how wonderful it is to see 13 year old girls forced into the sweat shops at a buck twenty an hour, breathing noxious gases and the like. Once again, you need to read a book or two on the subject before you spew. If you're so goddamned concerned about the plight of those workers, then you would 100% denounce this practive. Talk about phoney sanctimony....gut;1156668 wrote:A) fellow Americans aren't suffering, ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY if you are going to compare them to 95% of the people on earth.
B) Nationalism is a total cop-out. If you truly cared for the plight and suffering of man, you would support outsourcing. You don't get to play the noble moral superiority part when you it only extends to, in this case, an arbitrary border. It's hypocritical, and wreaks of self-interest.
C) In case you haven't figured out where I stand, outsourcing is win-win. Because I TRULY care about REAL pain and suffering, and outsourcing is lifting the lives of the truly desperate. -
dwccrew
That will never happen even if the government were out of the picture. The US population is one of the most charitable in the world. We would fee, cloth and shelter the poor as we do already. We'd be even more capable of doing it if the government didn't confiscate our money via taxes. Give me my tax dollars back so I can decide which charity to give it to instead of Uncle Sam doing it for me.isadore;1156498 wrote:What I find interesting is the degree of suffering you wish to inflict on your fellow Americans. You won't be happy until we see Sudanese starvation or at least Mumbai suffering for American poor.
I'm not so sure if the numbers are going down because it is being shrunk or that enlistments and recruiting is down as well. People do not want to enlist to go fight in unpopular and unwinnable wars with no clear mission.isadore;1156706 wrote:The military is being shrunk. I don’t know if that is a good idea but it is a fact. Rewarding people for their service is a good idea on its own. Providing Americans with a post secondary education is a good idea on its own for the people and for our economy. The GI Bill did both and that was great. But doing either on their own is also great for the people directly benefited and for our nation. Why don’t you quote where I said none of the poor make it. As compared to other developed nations the poor in America have less chance to rise.Some do but not enough. Some other nations do a much better job at providing for social mobility in their society. We can see a US success in that process with the GI Bill providing for post secondary education for a large portion of our nation. If that idea was extended it would even be better for our nation. -
Al Bundy
Giving someone an attractive benefit package to get him/her to take a job is bribery? It is just a function of supply/demand to attract employees. While our military does not pay much, the benefits of education, early retirement for career people, housing, food, and medical are much better than most other jobs that someone can enter after high school.Footwedge;1156719 wrote:And this bribery is the only way America can claim an all "volunteer" army. The pure definition of misnomer. Take away the GI bill and there would be no manpower for all the occupations we carry forth. -
Manhattan Buckeye"I'm not so sure if the numbers are going down because it is being shrunk or that enlistments and recruiting is down as well."
My guess is that it's a budget issue, there is no shortage of people going into the military when the possibility of employment is next to nothing in many areas in the country. We haven't had this type of cuts since the mid-90's when there was a purge (Marines were being cut for having too many tattoos according to one of my former co-workers who left the Corps to go to grad school).
As usual, Footwedge doesn't know what he's talking about. If the military took every able handed male regardless of age we'd have a surplus - many 34 year olds would rather serve and make money than sit on their rear ends waiting for the awful economy to turn around. -
Zombaypirate
Those kids get it. Mexico right now has the wealthiest man in the world. Carlos Slim Helu.HitsRus;1151938 wrote:The upper 10% are getting all the good jobs...it's not fair for the poorer student. Honors students need to contribute some of their GPA points to their lower ranked classmates.
Just when you think that youth is a lost cause....these guys get it!
http://cnsnews.com/blog/ron-meyer/students-sign-petition-redistribute-gpas-some-are-too-greedy-lower-their-grades
I am saving now to move to Mexico because they are obviously doing it the right way. Capitalism works!
http://topoflists.com/2011/09/05/richest-men-world/
Top ten list. -
dwccrew
I just read a few articles and it seems that in the middle of the last decade the recruiting numbers were up, not the numbers and recruiting goals are declining. I think it is a combination of people not wanting to enlist as much as they did 5 years ago (in part due to war fatigue) and also, as you mentioned, that the budget is being cut (which I believe it should, we still outspend the rest of the world by a long shot).Manhattan Buckeye;1156740 wrote:"I'm not so sure if the numbers are going down because it is being shrunk or that enlistments and recruiting is down as well."
My guess is that it's a budget issue, there is no shortage of people going into the military when the possibility of employment is next to nothing in many areas in the country. We haven't had this type of cuts since the mid-90's when there was a purge (Marines were being cut for having too many tattoos according to one of my former co-workers who left the Corps to go to grad school).
As usual, Footwedge doesn't know what he's talking about. If the military took every able handed male regardless of age we'd have a surplus - many 34 year olds would rather serve and make money than sit on their rear ends waiting for the awful economy to turn around.
I know for a while the military was lowering their standards and allowing ex-felons and others "less desirables" into the military because the recruiting numbers were down, I think the numbers then shot up after decreasing the standards. Now with budget cuts, it seems the standards have again improved and the numbers have gone down. -
Footwedge
Have you or your kids ever listened to a recruiters "pitch"? They are snake oil salesman. Maybe the term "bribery" was a stretch and perhaps innapropriate. But I stand firmly behind my statement that an "all volunteer army" is an absolute joke.Al Bundy;1156735 wrote:Giving someone an attractive benefit package to get him/her to take a job is bribery? It is just a function of supply/demand to attract employees. While our military does not pay much, the benefits of education, early retirement for career people, housing, food, and medical are much better than most other jobs that someone can enter after high school. -
Footwedge
It also helps when the unemployment bennies stop too doesn't it? Yup...the military....the most shovel ready government program alive. Gotta fill those positions of "fighting for our freedoms" in countries 6000 miles away...in countries that have mass destruction weapons of bayonnettes and pistols.=Manhattan Buckeye;1156740
As usual, Footwedge doesn't know what he's talking about. If the military took every able handed male regardless of age we'd have a surplus - many 34 year olds would rather serve and make money than sit on their rear ends waiting for the awful economy to turn around.
Recruiters==snake oil salesmen. -
isadore
The fact you want to avoid paying taxes is hardly a surprise. The expectation that private charity can alleviate the problems of poverty and need in America. When economic times get hard people cut back on their giving. During the severe economic decline from 1929 to 1933 charity spending and state payments both decrease as need increased. When the Great Recession hit again charitable giving declined. It is hardly likely that charity would be able in the future to alleviate the suffering of the needy.dwccrew;1156724 wrote:That will never happen even if the government were out of the picture. The US population is one of the most charitable in the world. We would fee, cloth and shelter the poor as we do already. We'd be even more capable of doing it if the government didn't confiscate our money via taxes. Give me my tax dollars back so I can decide which charity to give it to instead of Uncle Sam doing it for me.
I'm not so sure if the numbers are going down because it is being shrunk or that enlistments and recruiting is down as well. People do not want to enlist to go fight in unpopular and unwinnable wars with no clear mission.
Oh and on the reduction in the military, its because of the budget not because of a drop in desire to enlist.
“
With the country facing ongoing budget deficits and a ballooning $15 trillion national debt, Congress and the president agreed in August to cut projected defense spending by $487 billion over the next decade.
The defense budget slashes personnel costs by $6.7 billion as the military begins to cut its overall force size by about 100,000 troops over five years. The Army is to take the bulk of the reductions - about 72,000 soldiers.
T
he Army is expected to shrink by eight combat brigade teams; the Marines are to eliminate six battalions and four tactical air squadrons; the Air Force is to cut six tactical air squadrons and the Navy to retire seven of its older cruisers.
The Pentagon said force structure cuts would save about $50 billion over five years.
Cutting the Pentagon bureaucracy would save about $60 billion over the same period.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/us-usa-budget-pentagon-idUSTRE81A0IF20120213
-
Footwedge
So...if a country has the wealthiest man in the world, that proves that capitalism works? And by what definition are you using "capitalism"?Zombaypirate;1156753 wrote:Those kids get it. Mexico right now has the wealthiest man in the world. Carlos Slim Helu.
I am saving now to move to Mexico because they are obviously doing it the right way. Capitalism works!
http://topoflists.com/2011/09/05/richest-men-world/
Top ten list.
China is a capitalist country too by most definitions. The truth is....Mexico is a combination of capitalism and socialism....same as the US and probably 99% of the other countries.
As an aside....one of the worst economic treaties for the Mexican worker was the passage of NAFTA...the free trade agreement with the US. The standard of living and working conditions were set back multiple decades for workers and was the primary reason that the illegal immigrants from Mexico came across our boarders in droves. -
gut
Bull. You're a hypocrite. Either you sincerely care about the truly poor and destitute in this world or you just pretend to because it makes you feel better about yourself. Or perhaps your one of those limousine liberals, or maybe you're one looking for more milk from the gubmit teet yourself.Footwedge;1156720 wrote:Oh just stop it with your "humanitarian nonsense" regarding outsourcing. Your whole love of outsourcing has to do with lining the pockets of the American Corporate traitors who circumvent human rights and labor laws. Tell me again how wonderful it is to see 13 year old girls forced into the sweat shops at a buck twenty an hour, breathing noxious gases and the like. Once again, you need to read a book or two on the subject before you spew. If you're so goddamned concerned about the plight of those workers, then you would 100% denounce this practive. Talk about phoney sanctimony....
As for the 13yr olds in sweatshops, that's for their govt's to address. And we can, do and should try to get them to raise the bar, but at the end of the day it's not productive or good for the US to make it's companies uncompetitive and get undercut out of business. Liberals live in the bubble of their ideals while the more practical and pragmatic among us recognize the world isn't perfect and the path forward is every bit as critical as the end goal. And the "child sweatshops" is still better than what they had. So basically you're saying if you can't get them all the way there, just completely ignore them and let them starve? Very noble of you.
I don't have a horse in this race. I don't profit from outsourcing, aside from having cheaper goods to buy as a result. I just recognize the war on outsourcing is as hollow and misguided as any of the class warfare bs. Truthfully outsourcing is a win (company)-win (3rd world country)-win (consumer). That it's not perfect still leaves it significantly better than overpaying our unskilled workers and sending our companies on a path toward bankruptcy, which would be REALLY good for the economy. Besides, the idea that you can properly stop or disincentivize outsourcing is a whopper of a fraud. -
sleeper
Actually it has a lot to do with skin color. If you're daughter was black, you could get free tuition at Toledo U(and other colleges I'm sure) with mediocre high school grades and mediocre ACT scores.Footwedge;1156718 wrote:Has nothing to do with skin color. If your net worth exceeds x, and or your combined income exceeds X, then you pay full ride. Oh sure, colleges will offer your kid a "standard schollarship" of some sort, but that's nothing more than a K Mart special smokescreen to make people think they're getting a deal.
Paying 18K a year is absolute rubbish in my book. But again, that subject deserves a thread of its own.
I do agree though that its borderline fraud that the poor get all pell grants, the rich have don't care about the money, and the middle class gets no benefits despite having just about as much discretionary income as the poor.
Although, I'm all for getting the federal government out of subsidizing higher education. Get rid of pell grants and student loans and you will see the price of college plummet. No one could afford it. -
Footwedge
Good post...I definitely agree that government subsidy has contributed to the cost of college tuition rises. But I also think that the outsourcing of jobs has put a premium on people feeling the absolute need to go to college, when they are simply not college material. The higher the enrollment (demand), the higher the cost. Supply and demand thingy.sleeper;1156836 wrote:Actually it has a lot to do with skin color. If you're daughter was black, you could get free tuition at Toledo U(and other colleges I'm sure) with mediocre high school grades and mediocre ACT scores.
I do agree though that its borderline fraud that the poor get all pell grants, the rich have don't care about the money, and the middle class gets no benefits despite having just about as much discretionary income as the poor.
Although, I'm all for getting the federal government out of subsidizing higher education. Get rid of pell grants and student loans and you will see the price of college plummet. No one could afford it.
As for your allegation that skin color affects grant money, I'm in the dark....link a source for me. I knew that this existed back in the 70's whenever I went to college, but was unaware that that still exists today. -
Footwedge
Sanctimonious Gut rides a bike. Time to read it. LOLOL.gut;1156786 wrote:Bull. You're a hypocrite. Either you sincerely care about the truly poor and destitute in this world or you just pretend to because it makes you feel better about yourself. Or perhaps your one of those limousine liberals, or maybe you're one looking for more milk from the gubmit teet yourself.
As for the 13yr olds in sweatshops, that's for their govt's to address. And we can, do and should try to get them to raise the bar, but at the end of the day it's not productive or good for the US to make it's companies uncompetitive and get undercut out of business. Liberals live in the bubble of their ideals while the more practical and pragmatic among us recognize the world isn't perfect and the path forward is every bit as critical as the end goal. And the "child sweatshops" is still better than what they had. So basically you're saying if you can't get them all the way there, just completely ignore them and let them starve? Very noble of you.
I don't have a horse in this race. I don't profit from outsourcing, aside from having cheaper goods to buy as a result. I just recognize the war on outsourcing is as hollow and misguided as any of the class warfare bs. Truthfully outsourcing is a win (company)-win (3rd world country)-win (consumer). That it's not perfect still leaves it significantly better than overpaying our unskilled workers and sending our companies on a path toward bankruptcy, which would be REALLY good for the economy. Besides, the idea that you can properly stop or disincentivize outsourcing is a whopper of a fraud.
Typical responce from someone who supports the outsourcing of America. Study after study after study has proven without a shadow of a doubt that globalization has caused the most rapid separation of the upper class and lower class. The middle class continues to be stripped of living the dream. The inflation adjusted purchasing power has gone down the shidder...in direct correlation with outsourcing.
But koolaid drinkers will always lay claim that outsourcing increases jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth. -
isadoreIf Americans would just pay more taxes and help the poor more
“The chief cause of that increase was a dramatic
spike in tuition and fees at hundreds of public universities. Tuition at the average public university jumped 8.3% to $8,244.”
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/pf/college/college_tuition_cost/index.htm
The main reason tuition has been rising faster than college costs is that colleges had to make up for reductions in the per-student subsidy state taxpayers sent colleges. In 2006, the last year for which Wellman had data, state taxpayers sent $7,078 per student to the big public research universities. That's $1,270 less (after accounting for inflation) than they sent in 2002.”
http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2009/01/15/the-surprising-causes-of-those-college-tuition-hikes
“Low- and middle-income families are getting squeezed because many colleges and states have shifted financial aid dollars into "merit" programs to attract top students more likely to come from higher income families. “
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/pf/college/college_tuition_cost/index.htm
　
-
Manhattan BuckeyeIdiocy. The rise of college tuition is a result of the education-industrial complex. When universities have more white collared staff on the payroll than teachers/professors, there is a problem. Want to solve the high cost of education? Get rid of worthless deans, worthless majors, worthless administration aides, worthless people....It won't happen because our government is subsidizing the worthlessness.
-
dwccrew
It shouldn't be since I stated it in my post. Very good observation Captain Obvious.isadore;1156782 wrote:The fact you want to avoid paying taxes is hardly a surprise. -
isadoreThat is a comment on what you have said long term at this site. so the fact you said it this time was hardly a surprise as it would be hardly a surprise if sleeper, gut or al bundy had written the same thing.
-
Con_Alma
I want to pay income taxes. I want everyone to pay income taxes. I want everyone to pay the smallest amount possible to provide the very basic things we need provided by our government at all levels.isadore;1157414 wrote:That is a comment on what you have said long term at this site. so the fact you said it this time was hardly a surprise as it would be hardly a surprise if sleeper, gut or al bundy had written the same thing. -
Al Bundy
I agree that the cost of adminstrators is part of the problem, but a bigger problem is building new buildings every 5 minutes. Many of these multi-million dollar projects do very little if anything to improve the education.Manhattan Buckeye;1157394 wrote:Idiocy. The rise of college tuition is a result of the education-industrial complex. When universities have more white collared staff on the payroll than teachers/professors, there is a problem. Want to solve the high cost of education? Get rid of worthless deans, worthless majors, worthless administration aides, worthless people....It won't happen because our government is subsidizing the worthlessness. -
isadore
oh really, you want people living below or near the poverty level pay taxes from the small amount of income available to them. Yes and lets cut the military to the very basic things, the lowest possible pay possible, the lowest Quality and least amount of equipment possible. And what for the poor the minimum possible calorie intake of the most inexpensive foods, medical care at the most basic level to keep them alive with the cheapest housing. After all that is all they deserve.Con_Alma;1157500 wrote:I want to pay income taxes. I want everyone to pay income taxes. I want everyone to pay the smallest amount possible to provide the very basic things we need provided by our government at all levels. -
Con_Alma
Yes, everyone.isadore;1157514 wrote:oh really, you want people living below or near the poverty level pay taxes from the small amount of income available to them. Yes and lets cut the military to the very basic things, the lowest possible pay possible, the lowest Quality and least amount of equipment possible. And what for the poor the minimum possible calorie intake of the most inexpensive foods, medical care at the most basic level to keep them alive with the cheapest housing. After all that is all they deserve.
I agree. The military does need to be cut to a degree. -
isadore
That view on military spending has cost American lives at time of national emergency for over 200 years. Then you want to put income tax on poorest while decreasing the tax on those most able to pay. And then to provide those in need with the minimal for their survival. I was listening to guy talk about north korean gulags. How they could house, cloth and feed people at the minimal and still survive. Maybe you should check that out, it could provide those basic needs at a price you would be willing to pay.Con_Alma;1157521 wrote:Yes, everyone.
I agree. The military does need to be cut to a degree.