the rich get richer

• Con_Alma

  isadore;1581959 wrote:your obvious ingratitude for me taking the time to answer your 8:57AM question, which anyone would consider the final form of your earlier question.
  And which I answered in detail.
  
  
  why do you hate public high school.

  Not just anyone would consider that a final form nor even any form at all for they were not the same question.
  
  Why would you assume I hate high schools or any school for that matter? Views on how schools should be funded do not indicate admiration nor hate.
  

  isadore;1581956 wrote:I just answered your recently asked question and all I get is attacked for it. No wonder no one wants to answer your questions. How about some gratitude for answering your question in detail.

  Con_Alma wrote:There are institutions willing to pay for student loans if the graduate is not gainfully employed. That means you don't pay unless you are able. There's no reason anyone can't get a degree if they want one.

  isadore;1573127 wrote:do you have a list? Of course there is, expense, expense, expense, lack of resources, lack of resources, lack of resources.

  Con_Alma wrote:If they are unable to pay an institution will pay. You just don't get it.

  isadore;1573128 wrote:list please

  Con_Alma wrote: What will you do with the identification of such an institution?

  isadore;1573143 wrote:register immediately

  Were you being disingenuous???
  
  What was it that you believed I was disingenuous about?
• Con_Alma

  Your credibility continues to wane because you shot your mouth off. That's unfortunate. You are better able to justify your views than you are able to divert by taking the tact of focusing on my not providing the word "post" when discussing collegiate educational funding or by not owning the fact that you stated you would register at an institution that offered such loan servcing options as previously described.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1581961 wrote:Not just anyone would consider that a final form nor even any form at all for they were not the same question.
  
  Why would you assume I hate high schools or any school for that matter? Views on how schools should be funded do not indicate admiration nor hate.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Were you being disingenuous???
  
  What was it that you believed I was disingenuous about?

  Con_Alma wrote: Were you disingenuous when you stated that you would register at the secondary education institute that commits to paying for up 100% of a graduates student loans?

  Obviously this was the latest form of your earlier question, which then I answered, completely. Then you disingenuously denied I answered the question.
  

  Con_Alma wrote: I oppose providing free secondary education to all.

  You are against public high schools so lets take away that little bit of opportunity we have.
  
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1581963 wrote:Your credibility continues to wane because you shot your mouth off. That's unfortunate. You are better able to justify your views than you are able to divert by taking the tact of focusing on my not providing the word "post" when discussing collegiate educational funding or by not owning the fact that you stated you would register at an institution that offered such loan servcing options as previously described.

  if you do it repeatedly, it is not a mistake, it is a choice. Unless you lack a basic understanding of what we have been discussing?
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1581970 wrote:if you do it repeatedly, it is not a mistake, it is a choice. Unless you lack a basic understanding of what we have been discussing?

  Do you lack an understanding on how to present a complete sentence??? You have not done so multiple times. I consider them mistakes as opposed to you lacking an understanding of how to do so.
  
  The above bold area is not a complete sentence. That doesn't necessarily mean you are not aware of how to comprise one even though you have made such a mistake multiple times.
  
  The real point is, if you have a basic understanding of the difference between secondary education and post secondary education, which I think you do, you are then well aware that you have never answered the original question I asked of you.
  
  Why would you state you would register at the institution unless you were simply being a smart ass?
• isadore

  Whether through sentences or phrases my ideas have been communicated successfully throughout this thread. The problem has been your ignorance or duplicity in the use of the term ‘secondary education.” You ask a question, it is answered satisfactorily based on what was asked, then you rave on about it. You have been shown the term post secondary you now claim applicable, you have quoted the term. But afterwards you have chosen to use “secondary education.”
  On 656# of this thread you quote me using “ free post secondary education.”
  . Most recently in our discussion you demanded that I should have the experience of registering for a secondary school whose graduates have complete forgiveness of loans. I had registered for a secondary school whose students owned nothing on their loans to receive their education. I had that experience. And I answered your question.
  You had repeatedly chosen to list your opposition to free secondary education.
  
  

  Con_Alma wrote:The only program I have expressed opposition to is free secondary education.

  9:32 AM #676
  
  

  Con_Alma wrote:I oppose providing free secondary education to all.

  Con_Alma wrote:Were you disingenuous when you stated that you would register at the secondary education institute that commits to paying for up 100% of a graduates student loans?

  9:57 AM #680
  
  and then you use a vulgarity, tsk, tsk, tsk, gosh I wish you wouldn't
• Con_Alma

  ...and it has clear that you never answered the original question which was posed so that you may clarify your intent as opposed to being viewed as a smart ass.
  
  adjective . 1. Also, smart-assed, smartassed. characteristic of a smart ass or wise guy. noun
  
  Me not addressing "post" secondary education correctly doesn't change that.
  
  It's unfortunate that you damaged your credibility. I appreciate your passionate position on ideologies that are often in opposition to mine. It would be wonderful if you would address for the first time if you were being disingenuous or not.
  
  What are the blank quotations of me you have listed above. Are they an indication of your lack of understanding?
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1582048 wrote:Whether through sentences or phrases my ideas have been communicated successfully throughout this thread. ...

  ...as have mine and yet each of ours have had imperfections in said communications. You, however, are choosing to rely upon such mistakes to avoid addressing your declaration of registering at an institution that provides loan relief.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1582051 wrote:...and it has clear that you never answered the original question which was posed so that you may clarify your intent as opposed to being viewed as a smart ass.
  
  adjective . 1. Also, smart-assed, smartassed. characteristic of a smart ass or wise guy. noun
  
  Me not addressing "post" secondary education correctly doesn't change that.
  
  It's unfortunate that you damaged your credibility. I appreciate your passionate position on ideologies that are often in opposition to mine. It would be wonderful if you would address for the first time if you were being disingenuous or not.
  
  What are the blank quotations of me you have listed above. Are they an indication of your lack of understanding?

  blank quotations?
  I appreciate your use of the English language and dogged but wrong headed support for various issues.
  You chose to use the term secondary education repeatedly. Based on your use of that term I answered the last question you asked me.
  Oh and the fact that there is a definition for the term you used, does not change the fact it is a vulgarity.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1582083 wrote:blank quotations?
  I appreciate your use of the English language and dogged but wrong headed support for various issues.
  You chose to use the term secondary education repeatedly. Based on your use of that term I answered the last question you asked me.
  Oh and the fact that there is a definition for the term you used, does not change the fact it is a vulgarity.

  
  Yes, I had empty quotations showing. I can see the information now. They are filled now.
  
  You may have answered the last question I asked you but it was intended to be a repeat of the first which you haven't answered...but I think you know that.
  
  Providing the definition of smart-ass wasn't intended to add to or reduce the vulgarity of term so I'm glad you've affirmed that it hasn't done so.
  
  I'd like to continue read more of your positions but simply being wrong and/or lying about registering at an institution that pays a students debt who isn't fully employed simple makes you ether wrong, a lier or as previously mention, a smart-ass. Take your pick.
• isadore

  could not possibly be wrong
  I am not a "lier."
  I have been called a "smart ass" on previous occasions
  but I find Visionary the most applicable.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1582109 wrote:could not possibly be wrong
  I am not a "lier."
  I have been called a "smart ass" on previous occasions
  but I find Visionary the most applicable.

  Thank you for clarifying.
  
  
  If you are not wrong and are not lying about your declaration of registering then when will you be doing so?
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1582110 wrote:Thank you for clarifying.
  
  
  If you are not wrong and are not lying about your declaration of registering then when will you be doing so?

  You chose to keep redefining your question. I answered one of form of that question. It makes little sense trying to answer another because you have demonstrated you will just redefine it.
• Con_Alma

  Redefined or in it's original text it remains that you declared you would register at an institution that pays the student loan of it's graduatesif they are under or unemployed.
  

  Con_Alma wrote:There are institutions willing to pay for student loans if the graduate is not gainfully employed. That means you don't pay unless you are able. There's no reason anyone can't get a degree if they want one.

  isadore;1573127 wrote:do you have a list? Of course there is, expense, expense, expense, lack of resources, lack of resources, lack of resources.

  Con_Alma wrote:If they are unable to pay an institution will pay. You just don't get it.

  isadore;1573128 wrote:list please

  Con_Alma wrote: What will you do with the identification of such an institution?

  isadore;1573143 wrote:register immediately

  You lied.
• isadore

  no I answered your question.
• isadore

  Why All Public Higher Education Should Be Free
  By
  Bob Samuels
  In his book The Price of Civilization, Jeffrey Sachs argues that the cost of making all public higher education free in America would be between fifteen and thirty billion dollars. While this may sound like a large sum, it could actually save money. First of all, the government is currently spending billions of dollars on for-profit schools and other colleges and universities that have very low graduation rates. In fact, what is going on in the state of California is that as students get priced out of the University of California, they either drop out or go to community colleges. Meanwhile as community colleges are defunded, they are forced to cut their enrollments and raise their fees, and the result is that students end up going to high-cost for-profit schools that have a very low graduate rate. In other words, in the current system, everyone pays more, and we produce fewer graduates.
  Currently, only 30% of Americans who start college or university
  end up graduating, and this represents a huge waste of time and money. If students did not have to work while in school, the graduation rate would improve drastically, and students at universities could graduate in four years instead of six or more years. In fact, the biggest reason why students drop out of higher education is that they cannot afford the high cost of tuition.
  Not only is higher education seen as a key to economic advancement, but if all 18-24 year olds were in college, we would reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million people, and fewer people would be in need of governmental assistance. Moreover, a federal program to fund higher education would relieve states of having to fund these institutions, which would free up money for other needed services.
  While the US has a free K-12 public education, its failure to fund higher education means that America's economy is unable to compete with other developed nations that have free universities. Furthermore, by removing the need for students to go into debt, the government would allow graduates to be more productive, and they would have more money to spend, which in turn would act as a stimulus for the economy.
  Of course, there are reasons beyond economics to provide free higher education. Not only do we need a more educated workforce, but we also need more educated citizens. It is also important to point out that people with higher education degrees report a higher level of health and happiness. In fact, societies with a high rate of degree attainment have lower crime rates and higher rates of social welfare.
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-samuels/why-all-public-higher-edu_b_1099437.html
  
• isadore

  By Mike Konczal
  ,
  Sarah Jaffe brought up how we subsidize student debt in a similar way to mortgage debt, that is, through allowing people to deduce the interest paid on this debt from taxes. According to Pew Charitable Trust’s website subsidyscope, the deductibility of student loan interest alone costs taxpayers $1.4 billion dollars. Instead of taking $1.4 billion dollars and directly making college cheaper, students take out massive amounts of student loan debt and we alter the tax code to make that debt $1.4 billion dollars cheaper.
  This is an example of what Suzanne Mettler calls “the submerged state,” a pattern where the government has, as she says, “shunned the outright disbursing of benefits to individuals and families and favored instead less visible and more indirect incentives and subsidies, from tax breaks to payments for services to private companies. These submerged policies…obscure the role of government and exaggerate that of the market.” Instead of directly providing public options, we subsidize the purchasing of private goods, often using the tax code.
  Let’s take the case of student debt and the tax code. How much would it cost to make public colleges and universities free? Rough estimates (quoting Jeffrey Sach’s latest book) put the price of free public higher education at $15-$30 billion, which fits other estimates I’ve seen.
  Now what are the costs of how we subsidize higher education through the tax code? There’s already the $1.4 from the interest exemption. Also from subsidyscope, there’s the exclusion of employer-provided educational assistance ($1.1 billion), exclusion of interest on student-loan bonds ($0.6 billion), exclusion of scholarship and fellowship income ($3.0 billion), exclusion of tax on earnings of qualified tuition programs: savings account programs ($0.6 billion), the HOPE tax credit ($5.4 billion), the Lifetime Learning tax credit ($5.5 billion), parental personal exemption for students age 19 or over ($3.4 billion), and state prepaid tuition plans ($1.75 billion). There’s also the stimulus’s American Opportunity Tax Credit ($14.4 billion) and some part of the deductibility of charitable contributions (education) ($4.9 billion).
  Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.
  Even without the last two, that’s $22.75 billion we are paying through the tax code to make college tuition and student debt more manageable. This amount is in the middle the range of the cost of just making public high education free. Now these aren’t equivalent — much of what is spent through the tax code will be biased more towards private and professional schools, which are more expensive. But this also isn’t anywhere near the full extent we subsidize student debt (a government creation from 1965).
  But there is a choice in how to provide mass higher education. We can either use resources to reduce the price of the good upfront — make college free — or to subsidize the purchase of the good — here through the numerous hoops of the tax code. The amount of money we take from the tax code to try and make student debts and runaway tuition more bearable could be used instead to just provide free public colleges.
  There are winners and losers in each case. When we subsidize through the tax code, people who are well off and pay more taxes benefit more. People who can afford support staff, such as accountants and lawyers, are also more likely to understand how to take maximum advantage of these benefits. These subsidies benefit private educational institutions over public ones, as they’ll make private education feel more “natural” while obscuring the role of the government in setting up these markets. They give public college a nudge towards corporatization and privatization. Much of these subsidies are likely captured either by the higher education institutions themselves or the debt lenders. These subsidies will make tuition and debt easier to deal with, but providing colleges free as a public option
  would likely do far more to contain costs (also see here).
  Most importantly, it breaks the link between citizenship and education. The subsidy approach replaces the claim to a necessary good to be full, participating citizens in our market economy with the claim of a consumer, whose claim is ultimately one of willingness to pay either through wealth or debt. The first kind is the place where progressives have the stronger argument about freedom, as opposed to those who see the market as the only source of freedom available.
  http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/could-we-redirect-tax-subsidies-pay-free-college
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1582127 wrote:no I answered your question.

  
  You lie again. You answered with regards to registering at a high school.
  
  You have not registered at the college that pays for students loans like you declared you would if it existed.
  
  You are a lier and you know it.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1582206 wrote:You lie again. You answered with regards to registering at a high school.
  
  You have not registered at the college that pays for students loans like you declared you would if it existed.
  
  You are a lier and you know it.

  You are being devious again.
  1. You know I answered your question about whether I registered.
  2. You keep claiming I am a “lier.” 707#, 715#
  And according to the definition of lier I would be one since I and everyone else is
  Lier-”
  One who lies down; one who rests or remains, as in concealment.”
  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lier
  On 709# I pointed out the spelling
  And of course based on the meaning of lie as
  .
  (of a person or animal) be in or assume a horizontal or resting position on a supporting surface.
  https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS385US385&q=lie
  You continued to use it, so you must understand the meaning.
  Now if you claim differently of course you being duplicitous and disingenuous again
  
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1582221 wrote:You are being devious again.
  1. You know I answered your question about whether I registered.
  2. You keep claiming I am a “lier.” 707#, 715#
  And according to the definition of lier I would be one since I and everyone else is
  Lier-”
  One who lies down; one who rests or remains, as in concealment.”
  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lier
  On 709# I pointed out the spelling
  And of course based on the meaning of lie as
  .
  (of a person or animal) be in or assume a horizontal or resting position on a supporting surface.
  https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS385US385&q=lie
  You continued to use it, so you must understand the meaning.
  Now if you claim differently of course you being duplicitous and disingenuous again
  

  
  You stated you would register at an institution that covers the loans of under/unemployed graduates. You haven't done it. It's that simple. You lied.
  [SUP]3[/SUP]lie
  
  verb \ˈlī\
  
  liedly·ing
  
  Definition of LIE
  
  intransitive verb
  
  1
  
  : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
  
  
  2
  
  : to create a false or misleading impression
• gut

  Con_Alma;1582206 wrote:You lie again.

  Surprised? Isadore lied about me lying because he can't do math.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1582498 wrote:You stated you would register at an institution that covers the loans of under/unemployed graduates. You haven't done it. It's that simple. You lied.
  [SUP]3[/SUP]lie
  
  verb \ˈlī\
  
  liedly·ing
  
  Definition of LIE
  
  intransitive verb
  
  1
  
  : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
  
  
  2
  
  : to create a false or misleading impression

  Unbelievable
  You repeatedly talk about opposing free secondary education and ask if I have registered for a secondary educational institution. I answer your question that I have.
  Your repeated chose to use the term “lier” to describe me and within that context the word “lie.”
  The leading meaning for the term lier is
  Li´er (lī´ẽr)Li´er (lī´ẽr)

  n.

  1

  One who lies down; one who rests or remains, as in concealment
  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lier
  And in that context lie means
  a person or animal) be in or assume a horizontal or resting position on a supporting surface.
  https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS385US385&q=lie
  　
  You chose the terms and now you try to weasel out of what you, yourself wrote. Now that is duplicitous.
  
• Con_Alma

  Con_Alma wrote:There are institutions willing to pay for student loans if the graduate is not gainfully employed. That means you don't pay unless you are able. There's no reason anyone can't get a degree if they want one.

  isadore;1573127 wrote:do you have a list? Of course there is, expense, expense, expense, lack of resources, lack of resources, lack of resources.

  Con_Alma wrote:If they are unable to pay an institution will pay. You just don't get it.

  isadore;1573128 wrote:list please

  Con_Alma wrote: What will you do with the identification of such an institution?

  isadore;1573143 wrote:register immediately

  You stated you would do something you haven't done. You lied.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1582651 wrote:You stated you would do something you haven't done. You lied.

  Then you decided to change it to

  Con_Alma wrote: Were you disingenuous when you stated that you would register at the secondary education institute that commits to paying for up 100% of a graduates student loans?

  Which I answered

  isadore wrote: Wow
  You oppose free public education.
  Sir I did register for a secondary education institute from which I did graduate as hard as that might be to believe. And at the time, no graduate owed a cent of debt to pay for that education.
  I have for all time answered your question completely.
  Now if we would just apply that to post secondary education opportunity in America would be greatly increased.

  and you even play word games with lie as the root for lier, which means to lay down.
  
• Con_Alma

  You lied about registering at an institution which covers student loans for under and unemployed alumni.