Killing the American Dream
SewHard
of all the government intervention.. they are tired of minorities get all
the government handouts.. they are tired of affirmative action.. they are
tired of all the minority programs and the poor programs... they are too
stupid to realize that once the ball gets rolling everyone gets
squashed... all of the great society programs and the help programs... get
rid of them all.. let people get jobs and pay for their own education..
enough tax money for all of these programs......
Rich Travsky
>There is a bill that will in effect massively cut federal funding for
>higher education. It goes on the floor on March 1.
>
>This is not some set of small rinky dink cuts. It will basically
>eliminate funding for Stafford, Pell, Perkins, work study plus it will
>make tuition exemptions taxable. That is basically all the money that
>government gives to schools.
>
>What effect will it have? Not much, except for probably killing
>higher education in the US, getting rid of needblind admissions, and
>making almost impossible to go to grad school unless you happen to be
>very wealthy.
Yes, return with us to halcyon days of yesteryear, when it was mainly
the wealthy who had access to higher education. Ahh!
You working class wipers_of_other_peoples_bottoms got uppity once
you got educated...
> [...]
RT
Entropy, all is entropy...
Daniel Davidson
Since Newt and the gang have shown they are only interested in the social
welfare of *wealthy* Americans, I won't waste my time argueing that social
welfare of *all* Americans is critical to America's national security.
But there is, still, at least one *serious* problem with the Contract on
Education that even those dedicated to reactionary political correctness
might think of:
At present, despite straw man arguements against affirmative action,
US higher education is substantially concerned with excellence, ability,
rigour, competence, and depth of knowledge. The criteria for success in
US colleges is not ability to pay, but ability to *learn* and *produce*.
If the Republicans destroy the present system of meager financial
assistance for those who qualify, many students, despite their potential,
will not pursue their education goals.
Just because your family is wealthy does not mean that you will make a
good teacher, researcher, or physician. Like the present political
process, if we limit education only to those who can come up with 10 to
20 thousand dollars a year for 4 to 10 years, we will end up with a less
educated population. And because many with talent will fail to make it,
fewer people of high potential will be trained for important positions.
Now I know that *some* will always find away, but this does not justify
the Republican's higher education policy. Anyone can, in theory, run for
president. But in reality, and that is what I'm talking about -- reality --
despite any other qualities, only those with access to tens of millions
of dollars can seriously entertain the thought. This has caused severe
rot in US politics, where (for example) only those with PACs can get
any real action on the House and Senate floor.
Education should be available to *any* American with the strengths
necessary to succeed. Limiting education to only those with the money to
pay distorts the goals of the education process. It will not be good for
America's people, or for their security.
--
== Daniel Davidson ==
San Francisco State University
davi...@mercury.sfsu.edu
It is considered appropriate to sustain conditions which
are against the best interests of almost everyone.
Don Pajerek
writes:
>
>Education should be available to *any* American with the strengths
>necessary to succeed. Limiting education to only those with the money to
>pay distorts the goals of the education process. It will not be good for
>America's people, or for their security.
The Republicans used to say, with regard to welfare, "You shouldn't
give a hungry man a fish, you should teach him how to fish". With the
combination of welfare cuts, education cuts, and the proposed elimination
of the minimum wage, it seems clear that even this noble philosophy has been
renounced.
Don Pajerek
Standard disclaimers apply.
Billy Beck
Lynn,
>I am a 30-year-old white male.
>
>I had no money of my own to spend on my college education.
>
>I received a bachelor's degree in Computer Science paid for with government
>money...
Uhmm, excuse me, but that would be *stolen* money. Let's see if we can
keep this clear: the government *never* _ever_ gives anything away which it
has not _first_ taken from somebody else by main force or its immediate
threat...just like any common robber.
>...and a small amount of private scholarships.
I would commend this. It is the only ethically defensible way to go for a
man in your position.
>Between the interest on my government-guaranteed student loans, and my
>income taxes as a single wage earner near $50,000/year, I have more than
>paid back the government for my education.
Swell. Tell it to the parents of three children who didn't get _their_ money
back from the government.
>I contributed to American success in Operation Desert Storm, the space
>shuttle program, and my efforts support the gathering of intelligence
>on a daily basis by our national security agencies.
>Without federal aid to higher education, none of this would have happened.
So what? What's your point?
Is it that the whole enterprise was worthwhile?
TO WHOM, Lynn? ME? Let me tell you: I don't give a clap-ridden _fuck_ if
they are stealing money every April 15th in order to provide milk for starving
babies.
This is not to say that there are no "needy" people out there. The point is that
their "need" is not a claim on *my* property. Should these people be helped?
I would refer you to that seminal genius of libertarian thought (Robert LeFerve)
who goes un-noticed in these days when The Party is out there angling for their
shot at the big time like a herd of common whores:
"In a free culture, you will not be stopped."
Dig deep, Lynn. If you feel like helping, jump right in. I'll thank you to keep your
hands (and those of your agents) off my property. I swear you the same courtesy.
Billy
Herman Rubin
Billy Beck <bill...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Lynn,
>>I am a 30-year-old white male.
>>I had no money of my own to spend on my college education.
>>I received a bachelor's degree in Computer Science paid for with government
>>money...
> Uhmm, excuse me, but that would be *stolen* money. Let's see if we can
>keep this clear: the government *never* _ever_ gives anything away which it
>has not _first_ taken from somebody else by main force or its immediate
>threat...just like any common robber.
>>...and a small amount of private scholarships.
> I would commend this. It is the only ethically defensible way to go for a
>man in your position.
I am much older. Likewise, my parents had no money to spend on my
college education, at a time when it was much cheaper. I did go on
scholarships, and I resent that our financial status was a factor in
receiving those scholarships. There were no federal funds to speak
of for education at the time.
The private eduational system has always had scholarships for bright
children, less now because the government has made it harder by doing
many things. The state universities, if they were any good, had to
compete with the private schools. The private schools were largely
supported by endowment income, and they, together with the better
state universities, competed for students and faculty in the world
educational market. The good universities were all research institutions,
and while there were some rich kids there who might not have been
interested in learning, the rest were. There were good undergraduate
schools as well, and none of them would lower the standards of their
courses for weak students.
So what do we have now? We have a large number of bodies going to
the universities, most of whom could not meet the elementary school
graduation requirements of my time, and certainly not the college
preparatory requirements of that time. We have "students" who want
to get a degree, not to learn. We fire faculty who make an attempt
to educate students, and promote those who make them happy machines.
This was brought about by a particular school of education, but also
by the actions of the federal and state governments. We are really
stuck on the tar baby, and it will take years to extricate ourselves.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!a.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Bruce McQuain
>>I have no patience for tax protestors. Are you a tax protestor?
>
> That would be *such* a handy label for you, wouldn't it?
>
> I am a man who is determined to keep what I produce.
I'll pop in here and surprise Beck...he's NOT a "tax protestor".
Believe me when I say that as I've battled the man over many subjects
(taxes among them) for over three years. To pigeon-hole Beck as a "tax
protestor" is to VASTLY underestimate what he's about.
>>>>I contributed to American success in Operation Desert Storm, the
>>>>space shuttle program, and my efforts support the gathering of
>>>>intelligence on a daily basis by our national security agencies.
>>>>Without federal aid to higher education, none of this would have
>>>>happened.
>
>>> So what? What's your point?
>
>>> Is it that the whole enterprise was worthwhile?
>
>>Yeah, that is my point.
>
> Oh, yeah? Well, what if I was able to force *you* to pay for new
>exhaust pipes on my Harley? I mean, it would be worth it to me. What
>would you have to say about it?
Tis all about values, isn't it Lynn? Of what is of value to whom?
Where you feel it to be fine to expropriate money for those
things/programs YOU value (listed above), I believe Beck has called your
ethical bluff here. Why shouldn't he be able to use the power of
government to expropriate wealth for those things HE values from YOU?
>>> TO WHOM, Lynn? ME? Let me tell you: I don't give a clap-ridden
>>>_fuck_ if they are stealing money every April 15th in order to
>>>provide milk for starving babies.
>
>>Are you a person of influence? Or intelligence? Why should we care
>>what you think?
Excuse me, but are YOU a person of influence or intelligence? What an
incredibly arrogant dismissal in a venue established for discussion.
>>
>>> I would refer you to that seminal genius of libertarian thought
>>> (Robert LeFerve) who goes un-noticed in these days when The Party
>>> isout there angling for their shot at the big time like a herd of
>>> common whores:
>>
>>> "In a free culture, you will not be stopped."
>
>>Oh. You're a libertarian. That explains a lot.
Your rush to label has you miss the point here...in a free country,
you will NOT be stopped from helping whomever or whatever you deem
worthy of help. However, a *free* country does NOT expropritate wealth
at the point of a gun to fund those "projects" only a portion of that
society feel are worthy or of value.
As an aside, don't attempt to tag Beck as a libertarian
either...you'll have your most luck understanding him (if you MUST have
a label) as an anarcho-capitalist. Now he may disagree with me, but
that IS my opinion formed through those three years of discussion.
>>Sorry, but that's just not the way the system works.
Of course that's also the way the system of "armed robbery" works, but
I doubt that I'd see the same blase response if you were it's victim,
would I?
>>You live in this country, you make money, you pay some of it as taxes.
>>You also get the benefits of living in this country.
Now you've cut to the crux of my disagreement with Beck. But there is
a deeper discussion to be had here than that "like it or leave it" I see
rising on the horizon.
>>You don't have to like it.
That's correct, so our choices ARE?
>
> You don't know me, but lots of people do, and they would swear
>that I'm a good man who brings harms to no person.
To which I'll attest having actually met the man and having gone
further to understand him than a cursory attempt at labeling and
dismissing.
Have the courage to look UNDER the rock, Lynn...instead of saying the
rock's ALWAYS been there and we've just got to accept that fact.
Understand that the "system" has become STIFLING, that it has become a
means of social engineering and that it has created an intrusive
government that continues to get larger and more arrogant.
I ask you what the choices are above...I see them as change the system
WITHIN it's structure or outside of the structure...but I find the
alternative "leave it" as unacceptable.
> Remember this: on the day when they come to take me away and
>dispose of my life, they will do it in *your* name.
>
> I wouldn't have them do that to you in *my* name.
Which is, indeed the bottom line. Unless you're willing to put those
pipes on Beck's Harley because HE finds them of value to him and YOU
accept that government has the right to expropritate money in HIS name
to do so (think of the PRINCIPLE here, Lynn), then they will indeed put
him away in YOUR name.
Oh...hi, Billy...good to find you on here.
McQ
Billy Beck
Col. McQuain,
> I'll pop in here and surprise Beck...
`Ello, Brother-Man!
I just popped on to take care of some biz, and check out the buzz here.
It's good to see ya.
You might have noticed that I didn't comment on your "predictions" post at
The D!. I didn't have anything to say. You know why.
I won't hammer this nail at the moment (I'm working a large midtown
model under a tight deadline). I will, however, glance at it and probably get
back on tonight.
Cheers, Mate.
Billy
Raptor
>law...@xmission.xmission.com (Raptor) writes:
>>I am a 30-year-old white male.
>>I had no money of my own to spend on my college education.
>>I received a bachelor's degree in Computer Science paid for with government
>>money and a small amount of private scholarships.
>>Between the interest on my government-guaranteed student loans, and my
>>income taxes as a single wage earner near $50,000/year, I have more than
>>paid back the government for my education.
>>I contributed to American success in Operation Desert Storm, the space
>>shuttle program, and my efforts support the gathering of intelligence
>>on a daily basis by our national security agencies.
>>Without federal aid to higher education, none of this would have happened.
>I admire your success but I think you are incorrect in assuming that
>federal aid is the only way you would have been helped. In the absence
>of federal aid there would be other sources of aid. It is not possible
>to determine the behavior of complex systems by removing one variable, and
>you should know that. No question, it would be different, but you cannot
>say what the differences would be.
If you can guarantee to me that people in the position I was in will
continue to have the same level of access to college educations, then
I will consent to nearly any proposal.
However, cases like mine illustrate that at least in many cases, federal
assistance to higher education is a Good Thing.
My position on government spending is that the government should spend to
the point of positive return, and not spend beyond the point of diminshing
returns. Arguments based on Constitutional separation of powers do not
mean much to me, since the Constitution is a document written purposefully
vaguely, and personal interpretations are as varied as people.
If it works, don't fix it. Federal assistance to higher education works.
The system isn't perfect, as someone else has pointed out, but the problems
aren't inherent in the funding, but in the process. If freshmen aren't
capable of long division, then that's a problem with primary education.
If professors need to publish or perish, that's a problem with scholastic
standards at the higher level.
>Rhetorical arguments tend to pick the variable most important to the
>support of a viewpoint and assume that that variable is singly
>responsible for the outcome. All sides do this and it does not contribute
>much to discussions.
>Often such arguments spring from anger and the desire for a fast comeback.
>Before federal aid to higher education there was higher education for
>the non-rich. Work, scholarships, foundations, etc have all been
>available without the government.
In my case, they wouldn't have sufficed at the levels they were at then.
I would probably have not been able to attend college at least for several
years, and I would not have made the contributions I have. (I'm not
being totally altruistic about this - I make no bones about the fact
that I benefitted personally from student loans. The point is, I think
I've paid it back, and so have many other people.())
It would be very helpful if someone dug up default numbers for GSLs.
--
Lynn Wallace ||"I've said all along that this is not all written in
law...@xmission.com|| stone."
|| Newt Gingrich, on the Contract with America, Feb 13, 1995
"Then there's you, but you need therapy."
spa...@voyager.net
n
References: <3inme6$4...@vixa.voyager.net> <alan.79...@amdahl.com>
Distribution:
Alan Bomberger (al...@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:
: spa...@voyager.net writes:
: >grich,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
: >Followup-To: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt
-gi
: >ngrich,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
: >References: <3iikib$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>
: ><3ijbsh$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>: Distribution:
: >SewHard (sew...@aol.com) wrote:
: >: don't say anything... this is what Americans voted for .. they are tired
: >
: >
: > What I want to know is...all those white males earning $6/hr who
: >voted Republican...after the Republicans repeal the minimum wage and kick
: >people off welfare and cut back student financial aid for college...how
: >are they going to vote when all those people kicked off welfare start
: >coming after *their* jobs and the intense competition drives *their*
: >wages down to $4.25 or less per hour?
: Not so subtlely you have put your finger on an insidious problem.
: The middle class is also very dependent on the current government
: interference in the marketplace.
: The $6 worker is paying taxes to keep $4 workers ON welfare. This
: is a form of blackmail. Now in reality this practice can continue
: after the feds get out of the welfare business. The $6 workers may
: still find it useful to pay to keep $4 workers ON welfare but
: must no do so using state or local taxes. If they choose to
: do so, not much will have changed except the power center which moves
: closer to the voter. Even this is a great step forward (backward toward
: the system to founders designed).
:
: --
: Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
: Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
: It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
The power center will be closer to the *middle class* voter. The
power center will be no nearer the $6/hr or $4/hr voter than it is today.
Many states and local governments have regressive tax structures which
tax the working poor at higher rates than the middle class, presumably
because the working poor are removed from the state and local power centers.
Alan Daniels
(Raptor) writes:
[some deletion...]
>I would probably have not been able to attend college at least for
several years, and I would not have made the contributions I have. (I'm
not being totally altruistic about this - I make no bones about the fact
that I benefitted personally from student loans. The point is, I think
I've paid it back, and so have many other people.())
>It would be very helpful if someone dug up default numbers for GSLs.
The issue of defaulting on loans should be pretty simple to take
care of. There is already an automatic paycheck deduction system in
place for Social Security, unemployment insurance, and income tax. Why
not just have an automatic deduction system for education loan payments?
Alan Daniels.
a...@ix.netcom.com.
Dave Mandelin
Raptor <law...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
>
>>>I am a 30-year-old white male.
>
>>>I had no money of my own to spend on my college education.
>
>>>I received a bachelor's degree in Computer Science paid for with government
>>>money and a small amount of private scholarships.
>
>>>Between the interest on my government-guaranteed student loans, and my
>>>income taxes as a single wage earner near $50,000/year, I have more than
>>>paid back the government for my education.
>
>>>I contributed to American success in Operation Desert Storm, the space
>>>shuttle program, and my efforts support the gathering of intelligence
>>>on a daily basis by our national security agencies.
>
>>>Without federal aid to higher education, none of this would have happened.
>
>continue to have the same level of access to college educations, then
>I will consent to nearly any proposal.
>
>However, cases like mine illustrate that at least in many cases, federal
>assistance to higher education is a Good Thing.
Time for an Economic Reality Check. I think it would be fair to
characterize most of your argument as a cost-benefit analysis of
government education financing assistance.
It was certainly a good thing that you got to go to college, enjoyed
it, and subsequently got a job you like. It is also a good thing that
you became more economically productive as a result.
But you neglect to mention that either you took up a place in a
college that could have been used by another potential student,
which is bad for that student, or you caused economic resources
to be diverted away from other things to your education, which is
a little bit bad for a lot of people. Also, you weren't producing
very much while you were in school.
Until you can show that the "good" side of the ledger outwieghs the
"bad" side, you have not illustrated anything except for the fact
that the national government assistance helped YOU.
Notice that I completely ignored your tax contributions. This is
because in a sensible cost-benefit analysis, we want to know how
national gov assistance affects the nation as a whole, not the
national gov. Government taxation and spending just moves produce
around. It doesn't create any. But see below...
>My position on government spending is that the government should spend to
>the point of positive return, and not spend beyond the point of diminshing
>returns. Arguments based on Constitutional separation of powers do not
>mean much to me, since the Constitution is a document written purposefully
>vaguely, and personal interpretations are as varied as people.
Aha! Now you have destroyed your own argument. It is a theorem of
economics that "return" is maximized by a free market. So your
position is that the government should spend $0 on education financing
assistance.
My position is: if education is so great (which I believe it is) and
profitable, then no assistance should be needed. Students and their
families can apply for home equity loans and other bank loans. Another
idea, which I owe to Milton Friedman, is that of a student selling
equity in his education to an investor. The investor pays for the
student's education, and after the student graduates, he is obligated
to return a certain fraction of his income to the investor for a certain
amount of time. Defaults are then impossible. If there truly were a
shortage of college grads, employers would start paying for students
who promised to work for them upon graduation. The typical college
grad has over a $1 million lifetime income, so even the poorest of
students have a lot to offer investors.
These ways of financing education have several advantages: they don't
give free money to middle class families that don't need it (which
the current system does), equity investors will want students to
follow a program of study that will lead to a good job, and students
paid for by employers will automatically get/fill a job.
It would also probably cut down on the number of English majors, etc,
which is bad, because people do enjoy those programs, but I don't
see we should allow some people that privilege at everyone else's
expense. I think it would better match students to jobs, which is
good for students, employers, and consumers.
>If it works, don't fix it. Federal assistance to higher education works.
Not a very revealing statement if you don't say what "works" means.
Gary Weston
: On Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:54:23 -0700 in article <mwalker-2302...@mwalker.murray.novell.com>, Mel Walker wrote:
: > In article <3iikib$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
: > cam...@gauss.eecs.berkeley.edu (Mike Williamson) wrote:
: > > There is a bill that will in effect massively cut federal funding for
: > > higher education. It goes on the floor on March 1.
: > What is the designation of the bill, so that we can specifically refer to
: > it (should we wish to write)?
: And is cutting federal funds for higher education of necessity a bad
: thing? One need only look at the quality of posts from .edu sites to see
: what happens when *anyone* is able to get a college education,
: regardless of merit.
Yeah, and without federal funds for higher education Phil Gramm would
probably be a shipping clerk somewhere.
Hell, cutting federal funds for higher education may not be all bad.
--
Gary Weston vi...@crl.com |Nunca entra en disputas.
Petaluma, CA Pues, de vez en cuando...
asdf
(Billy Beck) wrote:
Gee billy, those are some brutal brutal words. Do you see any good in
government? Has the government given you any service? Has the government
so for managed not to park a soviet made intercontiental balistic missile
in you maggot infested livingroom?
You are not seeing everything. You see some of the inefficiencies of
government and say they are stealing STEALING your property. Nothing
personal but you are making a fool of yourself.
As far as I can tell, Freedom dosn't mean FREE. Many things in life can
be free like...picking you nose. Go ahead pick it. Its free.
PS Your sight of the problems in the government is off. Welfare is a
drop in the bucket in the Federal budget. A drop. DING. It dosn't
fucking hurt..it just hurts your eyes. What you dont see is the Billion
and Billion of dollars that is spent every year on the interest on the
National MUTHA FUCKin DEBT. That money goes to the rich. I don't hear you
complaining about that FUCHFACE.....FUCK THE "milk for starving babies"
QUICk give that money to the rich.
get you head out of you ass.
dre
Billy Beck
Yo,
>> Let me tell you: I don't give a clap-ridden _fuck_ if they are stealing
>>money every April 15th in order to provide milk for starving babies.
>Gee billy, those are some brutal brutal words. Do you see any good in
>government? Has the government given you any service? Has the government
>so for managed not to park a soviet made intercontiental balistic missile
>in you maggot infested livingroom?
I beg your questionable pardon? I wonder who you think you're talking
to. I suppose it'll be made clear as I proceed.
Before I do, however, I suppose I should answer your questions. I mean,
fair is fair, eh wot?
No: I do not see any good in government.
Your second question is largely irrelevant (however, the answer is: none that I
could avoid). The real question is: where do they get it before they give it away?
This is important, and I'd appreciate it if you'd try to answer it for me.
As for the Soviet ICBMs: you're talking to the wrong guy in the wrong tone. My
Dad seperated out of SAC in 1974. I grew up in the cross-hairs, and I know enough
to understand that the thrust of your question is arguable, at best.
>You are not seeing everything. You see some of the inefficiencies of
>government and say they are stealing STEALING your property. Nothing
>personal but you are making a fool of yourself.
Nothing personal, but yo, dumbass: the theft *preceeds* the inefficiencies, okay?
My point has nothing to do with "ineffiencies". (Frankly, I'm glad the goddamned
governments aren't *more* efficient than they are at what they do. If they were, the
rest of us would never get anything done.)
The rank fact of the matter is that they are stealing my property.
>As far as I can tell, Freedom dosn't mean FREE. Many things in life can
>be free like...picking you nose. Go ahead pick it. Its free.
Well, then...that's as far as you can tell.
>PS Your sight of the problems in the government is off. Welfare is a
>drop in the bucket in the Federal budget. A drop. DING.
You're absolutely correct.
I say: get rid of it all. Start lopping off whole departments with a chain-saw.
>It dosn't
>fucking hurt..it just hurts your eyes. What you dont see is the Billion
>and Billion of dollars that is spent every year on the interest on the
>National MUTHA FUCKin DEBT. That money goes to the rich. I don't hear you
>complaining about that FUCHFACE.....FUCK THE "milk for starving babies"
>QUICk give that money to the rich.
>get you head out of you ass.
Now you're blithering. You don't hear me complaining about the what?
Billy
laster scott
And we know that "theorems of economics" are always right, forever!!!
>
>My position is: if education is so great (which I believe it is) and
>profitable, then no assistance should be needed. Students and their
>families can apply for home equity loans and other bank loans. Another
>idea, which I owe to Milton Friedman, is that of a student selling
>equity in his education to an investor. The investor pays for the
>student's education, and after the student graduates, he is obligated
>to return a certain fraction of his income to the investor for a certain
>amount of time. Defaults are then impossible. If there truly were a
>shortage of college grads, employers would start paying for students
>who promised to work for them upon graduation. The typical college
>grad has over a $1 million lifetime income, so even the poorest of
>students have a lot to offer investors.
In other words: free markets fix everything. Even when companies facing
shrinking profits and tax laws that makes it cheaper to buy out and sell
off assets of smaller companies, they will be able to forget the short
term and invest in the long term education of the US population. Or maybe
"smart" companies will just move operations to the countries that do invest
in education. All the new free trade laws make it easier than ever.
Scott
Raptor
If I had not gone to college, chances are that I would not be
contributing nearly as much to the nation as I am now, either as
services or tax dollars.
You ignore the fact that college assistance is rendered on an equal-
opportunity basis, for the most part. (Since I am a white male, I
don't think you'd have much success arguing against it on Affirmative
Action grounds.) Therefore, your complaint about my "taking someone
else's place" is groundless, since a place should be available to
them.
As for comparitive worth, that's beyond my ability to assess. I know
in my case, I've given back a helluva lot more than what was spent on
me. In light of that, I find it hard to take complaints about the
spending of the money seriously.
>Notice that I completely ignored your tax contributions. This is
>because in a sensible cost-benefit analysis, we want to know how
>national gov assistance affects the nation as a whole, not the
>national gov. Government taxation and spending just moves produce
>around. It doesn't create any. But see below...
I believe it's almost an axiom of economics that an educated workforce
is a productive one.
You can ignore my tax contributions all you want. I think I'll ignore
yours and any claim you have over them. After all, it's just moving
money around. I hope you don't plan on complaining about college aid
because they're using your tax money without your permission...
>>My position on government spending is that the government should spend to
>>the point of positive return, and not spend beyond the point of diminshing
>>returns. Arguments based on Constitutional separation of powers do not
>>mean much to me, since the Constitution is a document written purposefully
>>vaguely, and personal interpretations are as varied as people.
>Aha! Now you have destroyed your own argument. It is a theorem of
>economics that "return" is maximized by a free market. So your
>position is that the government should spend $0 on education financing
>assistance.
How solid is this so-called theorem? What is "return?" The "free
market" is both mythical and non-magical. There are merely "more
free" and "less free" markets.
>My position is: if education is so great (which I believe it is) and
>profitable, then no assistance should be needed. Students and their
>families can apply for home equity loans and other bank loans.
What about students who don't have homes, or credit, but have talent?
Are we to waste that ability because someone didn't happen to have
money?
Another
>idea, which I owe to Milton Friedman, is that of a student selling
>equity in his education to an investor. The investor pays for the
>student's education, and after the student graduates, he is obligated
>to return a certain fraction of his income to the investor for a certain
>amount of time. Defaults are then impossible. If there truly were a
>shortage of college grads, employers would start paying for students
>who promised to work for them upon graduation. The typical college
>grad has over a $1 million lifetime income, so even the poorest of
>students have a lot to offer investors.
Been there, done that. The investor is called "the government" and
the indenture is called "taxes."
>These ways of financing education have several advantages: they don't
>give free money to middle class families that don't need it (which
>the current system does), equity investors will want students to
>follow a program of study that will lead to a good job, and students
>paid for by employers will automatically get/fill a job.
I wonder how much risk an investor would be willing to underwrite. The
government is willing to incur considerable risk because we call it a
"social program." Few private investors would be willing to spend money
on an inner-city minority child, I would think.
>It would also probably cut down on the number of English majors, etc,
>which is bad, because people do enjoy those programs, but I don't
>see we should allow some people that privilege at everyone else's
>expense. I think it would better match students to jobs, which is
>good for students, employers, and consumers.
What goes around, comes around.
>>If it works, don't fix it. Federal assistance to higher education works.
>Not a very revealing statement if you don't say what "works" means.
Positive return on the dollar is how I define it.
Rick Abrams
Finally, a conservative gets close to the end objective: a return to
slavery! Come on folks, get up on the auction block. What am I bid
for this strapping young computer programmer?
In just a moment, the treat I promised, a doctor, tops in her class.
(And not bad looking either. heh-heh-heh)
Pardon me, but I just gotta' run down to the local college and
check out the livestock^H^H^H^H^H^H^H graduating class.
>
>These ways of financing education have several advantages: they don't
>give free money to middle class families that don't need it (which
>the current system does), equity investors will want students to
>follow a program of study that will lead to a good job, and students
>paid for by employers will automatically get/fill a job.
>
>It would also probably cut down on the number of English majors, etc,
>which is bad, because people do enjoy those programs, but I don't
>see we should allow some people that privilege at everyone else's
>expense. I think it would better match students to jobs, which is
>good for students, employers, and consumers.
>
>>If it works, don't fix it. Federal assistance to higher education works.
>
>Not a very revealing statement if you don't say what "works" means.
--
rha
Fred L. Yaffe
(Billy Beck) wrote:
Billy
you don't know what you are talking about. Government is very
important. Without government you would be one fucked puppy. Without
government your property could never be protected. Of course if it were
up to you it would be every man for himself. Sounds Great. Why don't you
go live in the Jungle or sumthin: don't for get to write. HA HA HA!!!
dre
PS your a fool why don't you go fuck yourself. FAGGOT
dre
Mark Kauderer
Dave Mandelin <mand...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
Aha! Now you have destroyed your own argument. It is a theorem of
economics that "return" is maximized by a free market. So your position is
that the government should spend $0 on education financing assistance.
MK: First, though I am a hardcore anarcho-capitalist I know of no such
theorem. I suspect that any such theorem you may have invented is simply
a tautology from your (presumably ridiculous) definitions. While markets
do tend to be more efficient than nonmarkets over long periods of time
there is no guarantee of that in any specific market, to my knowledge. I
believe in free markets because they are MORALLY superior to government.
The economic efficiency is just an added bonus.
A better argument against government funding of higher education
is based on affirmative action. Affirmative action violates every decent
impulse. It judges people based on which (Government specified) group
that person happens to fall into according to the government. This is
ABSOLUTELY incompatible with respect for human rights. Thus government
funding should be prohibited to organizations such as universities which
have systematically judged people not as individuals but as automatons in
a grouping. The effect, of course, has been to get precisely those
individuals who do act just like mindless cogs in a wheel. They know
their career is indebted to the affirmative action bureaucrats that
picked them and will never thus bite the hand that feeds them. As someone
who taught at a state university for a while I can assure you that the
universities are being filled up with semi-incompetents who know only one
thing: the Government is always right and only the Government can solve
problems. Note that the individuals chosen by affirmative action are not
even the best candidates of the Government favored race. The bureaucrats
know that someone truly qualified doesn't need them. Thus the bureaucrats
will try to hire the LEAST qualified applicant of the Government favored
race, because those people will take orders more readily. For all these
reasons you can be sure there will be a huge cry of protest if and when
affirmative action is ever overturned-a whole generation of incompetents
stands to lose their livelihood. While I agree that taxation is never
justified, funding higher education is a fairly small sin were it not for
the odious policy of affirmative action and its destruction of the
American education system, which before such policies were implemented
was generally regarded as the top such institutions on the planet.
When the history of how the American dream was killed by statists
affirmative action will play a major role. It is the classic example of
a policy which has impoverished almost everyone and society as a whole
(not to mention its role in constantly reminding Americans every day of
what Government designated race they are and how that will effect the
rest of their lives).
Mark Kauderer
I hate democrats, republicans,liberals, conservatives, leftists, and
rightists. Aside from them I love my fellow human coinhabiters just
because that's the kind of guy I am.
Earl EVLETH p 74208
: Dave Mandelin <mand...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
: I hate democrats, republicans,liberals, conservatives, leftists, and
: rightists. Aside from them I love my fellow human coinhabiters just
: because that's the kind of guy I am.
Love'em all if only to end up not hating oneself.
Michael J. Edelman
: In article <3j7pst$7...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, bill...@ix.netcom.com
: (Billy Beck) wrote:
Hmm. English major, Sociology or EdD candidate?
--m
Caliban
: Billy
: you don't know what you are talking about. Government is very
: important. Without government you would be one fucked puppy. Without
: government your property could never be protected. Of course if it were
: up to you it would be every man for himself. Sounds Great. Why don't you
: go live in the Jungle or sumthin: don't for get to write. HA HA HA!!!
: dre
: PS your a fool why don't you go fuck yourself. FAGGOT
: dre
Well, thanks for your comments -- I always enjoy reading
anything that makes libertarians look good, even by comparison!
--
Caliban
cal...@gate.net
"Whoever dies with the most skills wins."
bab
> As for comparitive worth, that's beyond my ability to assess. I know
> in my case, I've given back a helluva lot more than what was spent on
> me. In light of that, I find it hard to take complaints about the
> spending of the money seriously.
Two comments. First off, you say you have "given back" more than you
took. Well, the problem is that it was stolen money to begin with. You
"gave it back" to the government, not to the people who created the
wealth that you used to finance your education. Those people probably
wanted to do something else with that wealth, which would have increased
*their* wellbeing, rather than yours and the politicians and bureaucrats.
Second, if getting a college education is such a profitable endeavor,
there should be no lack of private enterprisers who would loan the money
in exchange for a piece of future earnings. If we got rid of the
government financing programs, this kind of business would probably
become one of the popular ways of financing higher education. Of course,
this would probably not be much of an option for folks who want to study
some field that doesn't have much employment demand, but then they don't
pay much in taxes, either.
Raptor
> If I want to creep up on you and tear your fucking *heart* out with a pair
>of Vice-Grips, I will. I will simply wait until they're not looking (after all; they're easy
>to see, and nobody knows what I look like), and if you're grisly, gore-pumping end
>is what I really want, I'll have it. They won't stop me because they can't.
> If you don't believe me, go ask a cop.
You might get away with it once, or maybe twice, or maybe more. But the
chances are against your getting away with it more than once.
Because we have government and its protections.
So you're short-sighted. Don't feel too bad, we all are sometimes.
(Except me.)
Gregory S. Richardson
>You might get away with it once, or maybe twice, or maybe more. But the
>chances are against your getting away with it more than once.
>
>Because we have government and its protections.
^^^^^^^^^^^
sentences one and two disprove the claim made in sentence three.
government, or the police in particular, isn't able to protect anybody
from harm. the best they can do is catch and imprison somebody who
has already inflicted harm. imprisoning someone who has committed a
crime is a form of protection, since it disables that particular
criminal. but that's a secondary, after-the-fact sort of protection.
if i get away with ripping one person's heart out with vice grips,
government protection hasn't done that one person much good. and you
clearly state that doing it once is entirely possible.
the strongest practical argument for gun rights i know builds on this
inability of government to protect anybody before the crime. in
short, 1) they can't protect everybody anyway, and 2) even in a
situation where the police could have protected someone and failed to
do so, they can't be held responsible.
anyway, the original post (i've deleted his name) was right: if he
wants to creep up on you and rip your heart out with vice grips, no
governmental authority stands in his way *before the fact.* then when
you're dead (closed casket funeral, please!) maybe he'll get caught
and put in jail.
some protection!
Raptor
>In article <3jfpd0$g...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, sla...@umbc.edu (laster scott) wrote:
>>
>> Or maybe
>> "smart" companies will just move operations to the countries that do invest
>> in education. All the new free trade laws make it easier than ever.
>>
>> Scott
>I think this is what would happen also. As Ross Perot says "now Mexican
>labor is even cheaper than ever." Contrary to what people believe
>Mexicans are hard workers. Funny thing is they are also smart. American
>companies can go to mexico and find engineers that are just as good as
>engineers int he US, only they work for about twenty thousand a year.
>Peanuts. So as good old Ross says, ".....have little or no environmental
>controls, why would I ever build a company in the U.S.?" (Nightline).
Given that America's lead in many high-tech industry sectors is
unchallenged, it's clear that companies are not moving to Mexico to
take advantage of cheap labor.
There must be something besides labor costs happening here. Perhaps it's
the infrastructure and labor force as a whole.
Of course, there's the old standby response of, "If labor costs were all
that mattered, Bangladesh and Haiti would be the superpowers of the world."
Raptor
>In <3jlfgd$8...@xmission.xmission.com> law...@xmission.xmission.com (Raptor) writes:
>>bill...@ix.netcom.com (Billy Beck) writes:
>>> If I want to creep up on you and tear your fucking *heart* out with a pair
>>>of Vice-Grips, I will. I will simply wait until they're not looking (after all; they're easy
>>>to see, and nobody knows what I look like), and if you're grisly, gore-pumping end
>>>is what I really want, I'll have it. They won't stop me because they can't.
>>
>>> If you don't believe me, go ask a cop.
>>
>>You might get away with it once, or maybe twice, or maybe more. But the
>>chances are against your getting away with it more than once.
> This is completely beside the point. I recall that my interlocuter had a point
>to make about "protection"?
It is not only not beside the point, it is the point exactly.
The police can't provide protection against a first-time attack, it's true
that the citizen must protect oneself against random violence. But once a
crime is committed, the protections inherent in society and government come
to play. The criminal is typically apprehended and punished. If s/he
commits another crime after the punishment, then there is another victim,
but government takes up the issue again and protects against future attacks.
> Yo, Baby: being a little bit protected is like being a little bit pregnant. Either one
>is or one isn't. I'm not here to discuss odds or probabilities. The topic is protection
>and I'm here to tell you that there is *none*. It is the most gaseous illusion of modern
>times.
Well, stud, I think you're letting your balls do the talking. A little
bit too much testosterone.
>>Because we have government and its protections.
> Yeah.
> I recently had first-hand experience with it when the government "protected" me
>from a drunk driver. Then, they saw to justice in the matter.
> Funny thing, though: my Harley is still gone, the guy is still un-insured, but he's
>making monthly payments to the court on fines that he can't afford, after the
>prosecutor worked a plea deal with without even at glance at me.
And if the prosecutor/court did their jobs, the drunk can't drive legally
now. If s/he does anyway, then stricter measures will be taken, until
the drunk simply can't drive at all.
> I guess we have to finance these various deficits (including state ones)
>_somehow_ eh wot?
What does this have to do with anything? Hell, how did we start talking
about crime and punishment in this thread about financial aid?
asdf
(Billy Beck) wrote:
> >: I hate democrats, republicans,liberals, conservatives, leftists, and
> >: rightists. Aside from them I love my fellow human coinhabiters just
> >: because that's the kind of guy I am.
> >
> >
> >Love'em all if only to end up not hating oneself.
>
> Rank bullshit.
>
> I know precisely who I love, and why.
>
> Thieves don't qualify.
>
>
> Billy
them bones
them bones
....them bones, them prime ribbed bones.
Them theives
Them theives
.
.
.
Them theives, them prime ribbed theives.
Billy Prozac.........get it......need it......quick.
dre
asdf
> anyway, the original post (i've deleted his name) was right: if he
give credit were credit is deserved. Don't be shy. His name is Billy.
People are thrown in jail for saying things like that. Let him shoot his
little pecker off. With any luck he will email the President with a
threat and find the butt of a secret service agents Mr. NineMillimeter in
his skull.
dre
asdf
law...@xmission.xmission.com (Raptor) wrote:
> asdf (asdf) writes:
>
> >In article <3jfpd0$g...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, sla...@umbc.edu (laster scott)
wrote:
> >>
> >> Or maybe
> >> "smart" companies will just move operations to the countries that do invest
> >> in education. All the new free trade laws make it easier than ever.
> >>
> >> Scott
>
>
>
> >I think this is what would happen also. As Ross Perot says "now Mexican
> >labor is even cheaper than ever." Contrary to what people believe
> >Mexicans are hard workers. Funny thing is they are also smart. American
> >companies can go to mexico and find engineers that are just as good as
> >engineers int he US, only they work for about twenty thousand a year.
> >Peanuts. So as good old Ross says, ".....have little or no environmental
> >controls, why would I ever build a company in the U.S.?" (Nightline).
>
> Given that America's lead in many high-tech industry sectors is
> unchallenged, it's clear that companies are not moving to Mexico to
> take advantage of cheap labor.
>
Well if they are not going to move to Mexico, Corporations can use the
threat of moving to Mexico to lower wages. Fact of the matter is that the
real wages in America are declining. The reason is Free Trade. Americans
Cannot compete in a world full of cheap labor. I say cut defense spending
and use that money to persue a more national economic policy. Support R&D
and compete with better not cheaper produces. This alternative will raise
wages and not lower wages as the U.S. policies are doing today.
dre
NAFTA Sucks
Billy Beck
Bruce,
> It's ok if YOU are the beneficiary, but God help anyone who might
> see in what YOU advocate the very same thing you whine about below,
> huh...they can just "fuck off"...right?
> Brilliant argument.
Thank jesus. I thought it was just me.
> And while you're at it, Beck's still waiting on that check from you
> so he can put those pipes on his Harley...where the hell is it?
> Those things are as important to him as someone else footing the
> bill for your education was to you.
Hey, man...It looks like we might have to put this to the vote, and overwhelm this
guy. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work when things are in dispute?
Tell ya what: if you vote for my pipes, I'll vote for your...(psst! whaddya want out of
the deal?)...and we'll make *him* pay for it.
See ya at The Booth, Pal.
Billy
Billy Beck
Gregory,
>with regard to tearing hearts out with vice grips:
Quite, Sir.
>>You might get away with it once, or maybe twice, or maybe more.