the rich get richer

• isadore

  gut;1580812 wrote:So what, it's their money, not mine. Very different from a free ride provided by the taxpayer. And, like it or not, those in the top quintile graduate at a far higher rate and it has nothing to do with money for college.

  it has everything to do with money. No need for a outside job. limited financial responsibilities toward the family. access to all types of aid, materials and tutoring. Home environment supportive of education. Less likely to suffer discrimination. All just to begin with.
• isadore

  sleeper;1580801 wrote:Poor people are poor because they make stupid decisions over time. No amount of tweaking the economic and political system is going to fix that. Time to grow up.

  Many are poor because they were not offered the opportunity to rise. And many of the rich have family money to cover their screw-ups.
• sleeper

  

  isadore;1580816 wrote:Many are poor because they were not offered the opportunity to rise. And many of the rich have family money to cover their screw-ups.

  The opportunity exists they are just too stupid to realize it. You can't fix stupid; these people get far more than they deserve and they are lucky.
• gut

  isadore;1580815 wrote:it has everything to do with money. No need for a outside job. limited financial responsibilities toward the family. access to all types of aid, materials and tutoring. Home environment supportive of education. Less likely to suffer discrimination. All just to begin with.

  LMAO...maybe if your dead beat parents worked harder then you wouldn't need an outside job to pay for college. A supportive home environment is now an unfair advantage? Hmmm, perhaps you are unintentionally starting to realize the problem is not the lack of a free college educaiton.
  
  But thank you for finally admitting college is entirely affordable if people are not lazy.
• gut

  sleeper;1580817 wrote:The opportunity exists they are just too stupid to realize it. You can't fix stupid; these people get far more than they deserve and they are lucky.

  Seriously. Isadore advocates setting these people back 6 years on their McD's career just to give them the opportunity to fail at college.
• HitsRus

  

  it has everything to do with money. No need for a outside job. limited financial responsibilities toward the family. access to all types of aid, materials and tutoring. Home environment supportive of education. Less likely to suffer discrimination. All just to begin with.

  Money helps, but even lots of that it no substitute for ambition and personal drive.
  It is sad to hear you make excuses and to realize that you have bought into the mindset that one's personal destiny is dependent on something other than your own personal drive, choices and responsibility. There are plenty of examples out there, where people whose situations likely were far worse than your's, have overcome those situations to become successful people. Those people to a man (or woman) will NOT credit any handout or free assistance.
  

  Home environment supportive of education.

  It doesn't require money to be supportive of education....only good family values.
  But you've touched upon a key point...the systematic destruction of family values that the liberal entitlement mindset has brought with it.
• gut

  HitsRus;1580873 wrote:Those people to a man (or woman) will NOT credit any handout or free assistance.

  Those same people are probably more offended than anyone by this sort of talk. I bet more than a few shudder at thinking what might have been if an easier path of govt dependence had been an option.
• isadore

  sleeper;1580817 wrote:The opportunity exists they are just too stupid to realize it. You can't fix stupid; these people get far more than they deserve and they are lucky.

  opportunity obviously is not there or social mobility in the United States would not lag behind so many of the developed nations. No we do our best to reward the wealthy at the expense of those in need.
• gut

  isadore;1580891 wrote:opportunity obviously is not there or social mobility in the United States would not lag behind so many of the developed nations. No we do our best to reward the wealthy at the expense of those in need.

  Then you should move there. You may find increased social mobility, and not be the poorest there....and, yet, still relatively poorer than you would be had you remained in the US. But because there will be more people poorer than you, perhaps you will feel better about yourself and your "improved" opportunity.
• isadore

  gut;1580830 wrote:LMAO...maybe if your dead beat parents worked harder then you wouldn't need an outside job to pay for college. A supportive home environment is now an unfair advantage? Hmmm, perhaps you are unintentionally starting to realize the problem is not the lack of a free college educaiton.
  
  But thank you for finally admitting college is entirely affordable if people are not lazy.

  gosh a ruddies let me explain families trapped in poverty do not have the resource to pay for their children's college. It does not make them deadbeats, it makes them victims of an economic system weighted against them.
  And loving poor families lack the money and time to provide money and resource that it is so easy for the rich to provide. Laziness has nothing to do with it.
• gut

  isadore;1580895 wrote:Laziness has nothing to do with it.

  Sure it does. You act as if thousands of kids don't graduate college every year with absolutely no financial assistance from mom & dad. Some of those kids even - GASP! - worked jobs while at college.
  
  What's so special about those kids that they are able to do it but other's can't (according to you)?
• isadore

  HitsRus;1580873 wrote:Money helps, but even lots of that it no substitute for ambition and personal drive.
  It is sad to hear you make excuses and to realize that you have bought into the mindset that one's personal destiny is dependent on something other than your own personal drive, choices and responsibility. There are plenty of examples out there, where people whose situations likely were far worse than your's, have overcome those situations to become successful people. Those people to a man (or woman) will NOT credit any handout or free assistance.
  
  
  
  It doesn't require money to be supportive of education....only good family values.
  But you've touched upon a key point...the systematic destruction of family values that the liberal entitlement mindset has brought with it.

  I am not making excuses. I am describing the situation of millions of Americans. You refuse to accept the fact that the deck is stacked against those in the lower wealth quintiles. It has produced a situation in which the United States lacking behind many of its allies in providing opportunity for all its citizens. Free post secondary education would be a major step in matching their efforts. It should be an entitlement for all American citizens.
• isadore

  gut;1580894 wrote:Then you should move there. You may find increased social mobility, and not be the poorest there....and, yet, still relatively poorer than you would be had you remained in the US. But because there will be more people poorer than you, perhaps you will feel better about yourself and your "improved" opportunity.

  I am an American, I want to improve the lives of American by bringing ideas that have worked so well in other nations to ours. In those nations you would not be poorer, your income is supplemented by superior health system and free post secondary education among other benefits. And a much better chance of bettering yourself than in the USA
• gut

  isadore;1580914 wrote:In those nations you would not be poorer, your income is supplemented by superior health system and free post secondary education among other benefits.

  Ummm, no, your wages (certainly disposable income) will be lower even if you take into account the other freebies. You do realize those countries average a 19% VAT and 22% FICA?
  
  I'm also not sure many Europeans feel their socialism has been nearly as successful as you believe it to be.
• isadore

  gut;1580897 wrote:Sure it does. You act as if thousands of kids don't graduate college every year with absolutely no financial assistance from mom & dad. Some of those kids even - GASP! - worked jobs while at college.
  
  What's so special about those kids that they are able to do it but other's can't (according to you)?

  And you act as though millions of young people each year are not denied the opportunity for a post secondary education that would open the door of economic opportunity for them. Every person’s situation is not the same but for millions economic and social circumstance denies them the chance.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1580815 wrote:it has everything to do with money. No need for a outside job. limited financial responsibilities toward the family. access to all types of aid, materials and tutoring. Home environment supportive of education. Less likely to suffer discrimination. All just to begin with.

  
  
  With not $1 to a person's name they can still get a secondary education...if they choose to.
• gut

  Con_Alma;1580918 wrote:With not $1 to a person's name they can still get a secondary education...if they choose to.

  This isn't even debatable. Isadore can't really believe otherwise, can he?
• isadore

  gut;1580915 wrote:Ummm, no, your wages (certainly disposable income) will be lower even if you take into account the other freebies. You do realize those countries average a 19% VAT and 22% FICA?
  
  I'm also not sure many Europeans feel their socialism has been nearly as successful as you believe it to be.

  Gosh a ruddies a large majority of northwest European very much like their welfare state, a higher levels than Americans approve of theirs.
  Now what would be nice is if instead of the 19% vat and 22% fica, we adopted a lower vat than that and a higher fica
  It would be great in America would be if the fica went on total income in the US, that would be a nice start.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1580918 wrote:With not $1 to a person's name they can still get a secondary education...if they choose to.

  not for millions. and that is why the number of poor in college in stagnating while the rich number is skyrocketing.
• HitsRus

  

  ....Ok....Let me indulge you( and I do hope you realize and appreciate the indulgence)....what would be the limits and the conditions of "free post secondary education"...or would there be none? Would I be free to study Beyonce at Rutgers at tax payer's expense and get credit? Could I get a bachelors degree in philosophy...or even a doctorate, and live off the public dole indefinitely while I fired off letters to the editor, and camped out on Wall Street picketing XYZ corporation? Or should the government pick and choose what you should study and what they will subsidize like the old Soviet Union?
  
  
  Thomas Paine had wise and immortal words considering 'free stuff'..... "What we obtain to cheap we esteem to lightly"
• isadore

  HitsRus;1580926 wrote:....Ok....Let me indulge you( and I do hope you realize and appreciate the indulgence)....what would be the limits and the conditions of "free post secondary education"...or would there be none? Would I be free to study Beyonce at Rutgers at tax payer's expense and get credit? Could I get a bachelors degree in philosophy...or even a doctorate, and live off the public dole indefinitely while I fired off letters to the editor, and camped out on Wall Street picketing XYZ corporation? Or should the government pick and choose what you should study and what they will subsidize like the old Soviet Union?
  
  
  Thomas Paine had wise and immortal words considering 'free stuff'..... "What we obtain to cheap we esteem to lightly"

  free post secondary education open to all
• gut

  isadore;1580924 wrote:not for millions. and that is why the number of poor in college in stagnating while the rich number is skyrocketing.

  Actual, you know, data indicates otherwise:
  
  http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
  
  In fall 2013, a record 21.8 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities, constituting an increase of about 6.5 million since fall 2000 ... The percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college also was higher in 2011 (42.0 percent) than in 2000 (35.5 percent).
  
  Over 40% of young people enrolled in post-secondary programs. And when thinking about how dumb the average person is, that would suggest there aren't too many qualified and capable students being denied an opportunity to get a college degree.
  
  Quite honestly that number is probably too high, as there are likely a good number of people wasting their time and money on college.
• HitsRus

  

  free post secondary education open to all

  Yes, you've said that before, over, and over.....but how does that work? Can I stay in school as long as I want ?,,,,study what I want....maybe study two things? Will my room and board be provided too? If I study Chemistry for three years, decide I don't like it, can i pursue an English literature major?
• isadore

  HitsRus;1580935 wrote:Yes, you've said that before, over, and over.....but how does that work? Can I stay in school as long as I want ?,,,,study what I want....maybe study two things? Will my room and board be provided too? If I study Chemistry for three years, decide I don't like it, can i pursue an English literature major?

  maybe something similar to the old California state system:
  In the 1950s, the state's legislators and academic administrators foresaw an approaching surge in University enrollment, due to the baby boomers (people born after 1945) coming of age. They needed a plan to be able to maintain educational quality in the face of growing demand. The underlying principles that they sought were:
  

  • that some form of higher education ought to be available to all regardless of their economic means, and that academic progress should be limited only by individual proficiency; and
  • differentiation of function so that each of the three systems would strive for excellence in different areas, so as to not waste public resources on duplicate efforts.

  Clark Kerr stated that his goal was to balance the competing demands of fostering excellence and guaranteeing educational access for all.
  The Plan laid out that the top 12.5% (1/8th) of graduating high school seniors would be guaranteed a place at one of the University of California campuses (Berkeley, Los Angeles, etc.); the top third would be able to enter the California State University (San Francisco State, Cal State L.A., etc.); and that the community colleges (Bakersfield College, College of the Canyons, etc.) would accept all applications. Previously the UC's admissions standards allowed the top 15% of the state to enroll, and the CSU would accept the top half. These percentages are now enforced by sliding scales equating grade point average and scores on the SAT Reasoning Test or ACT, which are recalculated every year. No actual rank of the students in high school are used as many schools do not rank students.
  Graduates of the community colleges would then be guaranteed transfer to the Cal State or UC systems in order to complete Bachelor's degrees. This practice was carried over from previous years before the Plan was enacted, with graduates from the CCC being accepted as third-year students at the Universities by virtue of their prior coursework. Finally, the Plan established that the University of California would be the sole portion of the system charged with performing academic research, and would award master's and doctoral degrees in support of that mission. The Cal State system, in addition to awarding master's degrees, would be able to award joint doctorates with the UC.
• isadore

  gut;1580931 wrote:Actual, you know, data indicates otherwise:
  
  http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
  
  In fall 2013, a record 21.8 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities, constituting an increase of about 6.5 million since fall 2000 ... The percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college also was higher in 2011 (42.0 percent) than in 2000 (35.5 percent).
  
  Over 40% of young people enrolled in post-secondary programs. And when thinking about how dumb the average person is, that would suggest there aren't too many qualified and capable students being denied an opportunity to get a college degree.
  
  Quite honestly that number is probably too high, as there are likely a good number of people wasting their time and money on college.

  given the change in the economy, that number is far from high enough. And the increase in numbers can easily be explained. As it can be easily shown why that number is no benefit to an increase in opportunity.
  College graduation rates have increased sharply for wealthy students but stagnated for low-income students. College graduation rates have increased dramatically over the past few decades, but most of these increases have been achieved by high-income Americans.
  http://www.brookings.edu/research/re...gher-education#
  "Per-student spending on public higher ed drops to 25-year low"
  The report, by the Boulder, Colorado-based State Higher Education Executive Officers, or SHEEO, shows that state and local financial support for public colleges and universities fell 7 percent last year, on top of a 9 percent drop the year before. And while enrollment also fell slightly—a result, the organization’s president said, not of lower demand, but of higher tuition—it’s still higher than in 2008, when the steep budget cuts began.
  
  Lingenfelter said that last year’s decline in enrollment, which has been previously detailed by The Hechinger Report, was a result of higher tuition and, in some states, enrollment caps imposed by institutions in response to lower legislative subsidies
  Other countries are rapidly improving the postsecondary education of their citizens,” said Marshall Hill, director of the Nebraska Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education and chairman of SHEEO’s executive committee. “If the United States falls further behind in either quality or the number of students who enroll and graduate it will not be easy to catch up.”
  http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/sho...t-richer/page9