What would a candidate change?

• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1298233 wrote:Get the government out of the student loan industry and dump it all on private banks. The banks will do their due diligence before loaning $80k to an art major going to OUTMSC. The free market can solve the issue. If someone really wants to go to OUTMSC, then they can find the appropriate bank willing to take on the risk for a higher interest rate(my guess would be no bank would do this).
  
  Although, if you tried to implement this program, people would whine and complain that whoever started it hates education and women. This country has no hope.

  That's because unless you also have some other program to assist people what you're proposing is going back to a time when only the wealthy could afford education which was a time with very little upward mobility which is pretty much the basic premise of American culture.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1298433 wrote:That's because unless you also have some other program to assist people what you're proposing is going back to a time when only the wealthy could afford education which was a time with very little upward mobility which is pretty much the basic premise of American culture.

  Not necessarily.
  
  First, because that was the case, a college degree wasn't as necessary for a decent job. With the increase in people attending college, it has diminished the value to employers.
  
  Second, assuming the value of such an education, private loans are still available.
  
  Third, with schools the way they are today, a decrease in enrollment would require substantial cutbacks. Schools, for the purpose of their own survival, would be forced to EITHER find some way to provide unique value to offset the price OR find ways to reduce the price to students.
  
  The school president where I attended college stood in front of Congress a few years ago and argued for a three-year intensive Bachelors degree, saving students at least a year's worth of tuition.
  
  And that doesn't exclude privately funded grants and scholarships that would still exist.
  
  The thing about efforts to put everyone in the top half is that it's impossible. It just redefines the top half and waters down the distinction of the previous top half.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1298433 wrote:That's because unless you also have some other program to assist people what you're proposing is going back to a time when only the wealthy could afford education which was a time with very little upward mobility which is pretty much the basic premise of American culture.

  A poor person can't go into school majoring in engineering? If I'm a bank, I'd love that prospect.
• pmoney25

  

  Heretic;1298331 wrote:Good for him!
  
  Did you open the "Retarded Talking Points" handbook in response?

  
  Not sure where you are going with that. My overall point of College not being for everyone and nothing wrong with going to a tec/VOC school or even community college to start. I don't think that is a radical idea to have a skill and be a functioning member of society.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1298473 wrote:A poor person can't go into school majoring in engineering? If I'm a bank, I'd love that prospect.

  No you wouldn't. You'd look at this person as an 18 year old with no credit asking for $80,000 to do something that statistically he's only 55% likely to accomplish.
• I Wear Pants

  pmoney25;1298474 wrote:Not sure where you are going with that. My overall point of College not being for everyone and nothing wrong with going to a tec/VOC school or even community college to start. I don't think that is a radical idea to have a skill and be a functioning member of society.

  Who disagrees with this?
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1298480 wrote:No you wouldn't. You'd look at this person as an 18 year old with no credit asking for $80,000 to do something that statistically he's only 55% likely to accomplish.

  Well, no, I'd guess a banker would look at their grades, test scores, and school choice.
  
  You act as if no one was getting loans for school before the gubmit essentially took it over.
• pmoney25

  

  I Wear Pants;1298482 wrote:Who disagrees with this?

  I was just quoting heretic. I couldn't tell where he was going with his reply on my post.
  
  I do think there is a negative connotation on kids who do not go to a traditional university right out of high school and some feel forced to go to a traditional school when that may not be the best situation for them.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1298480 wrote:No you wouldn't. You'd look at this person as an 18 year old with no credit asking for $80,000 to do something that statistically he's only 55% likely to accomplish.

  So we should just have the taxpayers subsidize his potential failure? What a liberal fantasy land you live in.
• gut

  Footwedge;1298425 wrote:Are all unemployed people ditch diggers?

  I made an assumption that the vast majority of unemployed capable of college go back in droves (if they didn't have a degree in the first place) if it is a realistic option for them. It's not like their aren't plenty of schools out there and plenty of easy student loans to get.
  
  I'd still bet money that the vast majority of people you would involuntary send to college aren't capable. It's one of the very first options capable people choose when employment prospects vaporize.
• sleeper

  

  gut;1298483 wrote:Well, no, I'd guess a banker would look at their grades, test scores, and school choice.
  
  You act as if no one was getting loans for school before the gubmit essentially took it over.

  Exactly!
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1298483 wrote:Well, no, I'd guess a banker would look at their grades, test scores, and school choice.
  
  You act as if no one was getting loans for school before the gubmit essentially took it over.

  At the risk of taking this a different direction, same argument can very easily be seen in healthcare.
  
  But that's a different discussion for a different day.
• gut

  O-Trap;1298500 wrote:At the risk of taking this a different direction, same argument can very easily be seen in healthcare.
  
  But that's a different discussion for a different day.

  Pre-existing conditions are a problem. As it relates to college, the applicable pre-existing "condition" benefits both sides as a deal-breaker.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1298490 wrote:So we should just have the taxpayers subsidize his potential failure? What a liberal fantasy land you live in.

  Is it fantasy if it's currently happening?
  
  I think there definitely needs to be something done in regards to how college is funded in the US. But I do not believe that the answer is the magic "just privatize it fairy". Or at least not entirely. And if it was privatized when I was starting college (when the economy tanked) I probably wouldn't have got a loan and wouldn't have been in school. Much like most of my classmates.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1298483 wrote:Well, no, I'd guess a banker would look at their grades, test scores, and school choice.
  
  You act as if no one was getting loans for school before the gubmit essentially took it over.

  I don't have experience in that time frame. I know my dad didn't have loans available for him when he went to college though back then cost was much lower so he didn't need them since you could pay for college with your summer job. Or at least he and a few others I've talked to were able to.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1298527 wrote: And if it was privatized when I was starting college (when the economy tanked) I probably wouldn't have got a loan and wouldn't have been in school. Much like most of my classmates.

  That's actually a good point. During credit crunches students would be hurt. It's generally viewed as safe, easy money these days. But when you see 50% college unemployment the game changes. And just like with housing now, there's money but it's really tough to get (although I think that has more to do with regulations than anything).
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1298530 wrote:I don't have experience in that time frame. I know my dad didn't have loans available for him when he went to college though back then cost was much lower so he didn't need them since you could pay for college with your summer job. Or at least he and a few others I've talked to were able to.

  And you ever stop to think why college is so expensive? It's BECAUSE we subsidize college so heavily. Cut the funding and you'll see prices plummet.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants;1298530 wrote:I don't have experience in that time frame. I know my dad didn't have loans available for him when he went to college though back then cost was much lower so he didn't need them since you could pay for college with your summer job. Or at least he and a few others I've talked to were able to.

  You just answered your own question. When the government wasn't involved tuition was affordable to anyone who wanted it. Is it too much to ask that someone should have to work a part time job to pay for college if they can't get a loan or get help from their family?
• Heretic

  

  pmoney25;1298474 wrote:Not sure where you are going with that. My overall point of College not being for everyone and nothing wrong with going to a tec/VOC school or even community college to start. I don't think that is a radical idea to have a skill and be a functioning member of society.

  I was spoofing the post above mine that followed the "congrats to him" with asking if you told him that he didn't build that.
• Zombaypirate

  First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
  Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
  First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
  Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
  First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
  Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
  First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
  Ebenezer: Why?
  First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
  Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
  Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
  Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.
  First Collector: Many can't go there.
  Second Collector: And some would rather die.
  
  
  Scrooge the ultimate Republican conservative!
  
  I praise Scrooge he is the only one who has is right and fellow conservatives should bow to the wisdom of the almighty Scrooge!
• BoatShoes

  gut;1298491 wrote:I made an assumption that the vast majority of unemployed capable of college go back in droves (if they didn't have a degree in the first place) if it is a realistic option for them. It's not like their aren't plenty of schools out there and plenty of easy student loans to get.
  
  I'd still bet money that the vast majority of people you would involuntary send to college aren't capable. It's one of the very first options capable people choose when employment prospects vaporize.

  Going to school/learning a trade would just be one option amongst a choice of something like you said...community service, etc. Either way, it ends unemployment and even the remote possibility of welfare queens (even though those don't really exist) so it's hard to see why conservatives wouldn't be behind this.
  
  A stoner loser who gets fired from Taco Bell getting paid to cleanup a public park below a private sector minimum wage is still preferable to the current hodge-podge safety net. Some kind of program to learn a trade or accumulate human capital in addition would be even better.
• BoatShoes

  U.S. Ambassador to Japan is apologizing to the Japanese after U.S. servicemen are arrested for rape. Where is the strong willed leadership that we need? The global apology tour continues. Change we can believe in......
• Cleveland Buck

  

  v

  BoatShoes;1299233 wrote:U.S. Ambassador to Japan is apologizing to the Japanese after U.S. servicemen are arrested for rape. Where is the strong willed leadership that we need? The global apology tour continues. Change we can believe in......

  I'm just comforted knowing that we are still occupying Japan nearly 70 years after their defeat in WWII. Otherwise I would be terrified of Japs sneaking into my bedroom at night and getting me.
• O-Trap

  

  Zombaypirate;1299224 wrote:Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
  
  [...]
  
  Ebenezer: I help to support the establishments I have named ...
  
  Scrooge the ultimate Republican conservative!

  Silly sheep. A Republican would never support anything with "union" in the name.
• O-Trap

  

  Cleveland Buck;1299324 wrote:I'm just comforted knowing that we are still occupying Japan nearly 70 years after their defeat in WWII. Otherwise I would be terrified of Japs sneaking into my bedroom at night and getting me.

  I honestly LMAO at this. Reps.