Should just make the whole thing free, it would actually be cheaper than all the loans and grants the Feds give out already
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/barack-obama-free-community-college-114094.html
QuoteObama to propose two free years of community college for students
By Allie Grasgreen
1/8/15 6:48 PM EST
President Barack Obama on Friday will propose making two years of community college free for students.
In a White House video posted around 6 p.m., Obama said he wanted to offer "a little preview" of his plans for the Jan. 20 State of the Union address.
"What I'd like to do is to see the first two years of community college free for everybody who's willing to work for it," Obama said. "It's something we can accomplish and it's something that will train our workforce so that we can compete with anybody in the world."
Obama did not offer other specifics on what he plans to propose during a visit to Pellissippi Community College in Tennessee on Friday, but said he plans to highlight several education efforts by state officials there. Beginning this year, any state high school graduate is eligible for two years of free community college tuition under the Tennessee Promise.
Obama's plan may require approval from Congress, however.
"I hope we've got the chance to make sure that Congress gets behind these kinds of efforts to make sure that even as we rebound and grow in 2015, that it benefits everybody and not just some," the president said in the video.
Quote"What I'd like to do is to see the first two years of community college free for everybody who's willing to work for it,"
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: He wants a legacy soooooooo bad.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 07:31:03 PM
Quote"What I'd like to do is to see the first two years of community college free for everybody who's willing to work for it,"
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: He wants a legacy soooooooo bad.
You don't think Obamacare is going to cut it?
He won a Nobel Prize, what more does one need for a "legacy"? :huh:
He should also make everyone's first home and first car free.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 08, 2015, 07:33:57 PM
He won a Nobel Prize, what more does one need for a "legacy"? :huh:
For peace wasn't it. :P
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 07:32:20 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 07:31:03 PM
Quote"What I'd like to do is to see the first two years of community college free for everybody who's willing to work for it,"
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: He wants a legacy soooooooo bad.
You don't think Obamacare is going to cut it?
With the 47%...yes maybe.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 07:36:44 PM
For peace wasn't it. :P
Peace with Honor
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmorallowground.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fobama-nixon.jpg&hash=e2e35b8950c18213802bc9fe634fa98e7c6b3569)
Just more hating on higher education from the Languish Elite. And 11Bravo.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 08:02:15 PM
Just more hating on higher education from the Languish Elite. And 11Bravo.
The Languish Elite... that's like a contradiction in terms, innit?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 08:02:15 PM
Just more hating on higher education from the Languish Elite. And 11Bravo.
:P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 07:35:34 PM
He should also make everyone's first home and first car free.
Making public college tuition free would cut federal expenses on higher education.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/heres-exactly-how-much-the-government-would-have-to-spend-to-make-public-college-tuition-free/282803/
QuoteHere's Exactly How Much the Government Would Have to Spend to Make Public College Tuition-Free
And the grand total is...
Jordan Weissmann Jan 3 2014, 2:15 PM ET
A mere $62.6 billion dollars!
According to new Department of Education data, that's how much tuition public colleges collected from undergraduates in 2012 across the entire United States. And I'm not being facetious with the word mere, either. The New America Foundation says that the federal government spent a whole $69 billion in 2013 on its hodgepodge of financial aid programs, such as Pell Grants for low-income students, tax breaks, work study funding. And that doesn't even include loans.
If we were we scrapping our current system and starting from scratch, Washington could make public college tuition free with the money it sets aside its scattershot attempts to make college affordable today.
Of course, we're not going to start from scratch (and I'm not even sure we should want to make state schools totally free). But I like to make this point every so often because I think it underscores what a confused mess higher education finance is in this country. On the whole, Americans seem to want affordable colleges that are accessible to all. But rather than simply using our resources to maintain a cheap public system (and remember, public schools educate 75 percent of undergrads), we spill them into a fairly wasteful and expensive private sector. At one point, a Senate investigation found that the for-profit sector alone was chowing down on 25 percent of all federal aid dollars.
If that story sounds awfully similar the problems the U.S. faces with healthcare costs, well, that's because it is similar. Americans have an allergy to straightforward policy solutions involving the public sector. And for that, we pay a price.
Update—Friday Jan. 3, 3:45 PM: Just to clarify, because some readers have asked, making tuition free in 2012 would have required $62.6 billion on top of what state and local governments already spend subsidizing public colleges, as well as some of the federal spending that doesn't go towards financial aid. Again, you can find a detailed breakdown of how our colleges are funded in the Department of Education's data.
For anybody interested in reading more about the idea of making public college tuition free, and the vast array of economic considerations that would entail, here's a lengthy piece I wrote last year.
Update—Friday Jan. 3, 4:31 PM: One more update to answer another good question I've received. Technically, you could say the additional cost of making college tuition free would be even cheaper than $62.6 billion. How come? Because most Pell Grant money is already spent at public colleges. In 2011 - 2012, state school students received $21.8 billion in grants. So, if you subtract that from the total needed to completely eliminate tuition, it the sum would be closer to $40 billion. (Apologies for not teasing that point out earlier. I'd noted it in a previous article and didn't think to repeat it.)
It would also leave private universities very, very expensive Timmy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 08:20:06 PM
It would also leave private universities very, very expensive Timmy.
So what?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 07:35:34 PM
He should also make everyone's first home and first car free.
Working on it.
Quote
President Obama Explains How FHA's 3%-Down Mortgages Are Great For America - Live Feed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymAegF_1aZY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymAegF_1aZY)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-17/fhfa-said-to-plan-steps-to-ease-lending-to-riskier-buyers.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-17/fhfa-said-to-plan-steps-to-ease-lending-to-riskier-buyers.html)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 08:20:37 PM
So what?
Do you mean so what in the sense of fuck private universities and the people that attend them, or so what in the sense that you didn't catch the public university qualifier in the Atlantic piece you linked?
Quote from: citizen k on January 08, 2015, 08:23:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 07:35:34 PM
He should also make everyone's first home and first car free.
Working on it.
Quote
President Obama Explains How FHA's 3%-Down Mortgages Are Great For America - Live Feed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymAegF_1aZY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymAegF_1aZY)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-17/fhfa-said-to-plan-steps-to-ease-lending-to-riskier-buyers.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-17/fhfa-said-to-plan-steps-to-ease-lending-to-riskier-buyers.html)
It's deja vu all over again.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 08:25:57 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 08:20:37 PM
So what?
Do you mean so what in the sense of fuck private universities and the people that attend them, or so what in the sense that you didn't catch the public university qualifier in the Atlantic piece you linked?
There are countries that fund public universities in this way and people are still willing there to pay to go to prestigious private universities. Why would it be different here?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 08:05:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 08:02:15 PM
Just more hating on higher education from the Languish Elite. And 11Bravo.
:P
I know you're sore, since you had to pay for your first two years of community college.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 08:20:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 08:20:06 PM
It would also leave private universities very, very expensive Timmy.
So what?
Well, for one thing, the article is comparing apples to oranges. It claims that it would cost $62.6B to fund undergraduate tuition at public universities for those students currently attending them, compared to $69B the feds currently spend on higher education. But, that ignores that some of that $69B is going to students who are at private schools, or attending post-graduate schools, and the big fact that even if tuition were free, there are other expenses involved in attending college, so even with free tuition, college still wouldn't be free. I don't know what the current numbers are, but I know that when I was in school, tuition was less than half of the fees I paid directly to the school. I lived in a dorm, and the room and board for the dorm was considerably higher just by itself than the tuition was, and there were other fees and such we had to pay when we registered for a semester.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 08:05:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 08:02:15 PM
Just more hating on higher education from the Languish Elite. And 11Bravo.
The Languish Elite... that's like a contradiction in terms, innit?
The ones with the hoity-toity edumacations always seem to be the ones that poo-pooh concepts such as this the most.
I would think that the choice between free public university vs. expensive private college might actually force those private colleges to lower tuition or risk losing on-the-fence students to the freebie.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 08:52:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 08:05:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 08:02:15 PM
Just more hating on higher education from the Languish Elite. And 11Bravo.
The Languish Elite... that's like a contradiction in terms, innit?
The ones with the hoity-toity edumacations always seem to be the ones that poo-pooh concepts such as this the most.
I certainly have a hoity-toity edumacation alright. :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 08:47:49 PM
There are countries that fund public universities in this way and people are still willing there to pay to go to prestigious private universities. Why would it be different here?
Let me see if I've got this straight. You're in favor of shifting all federal financial aid away from private universities to public universities, and the argument you're putting forward to support this policy is at least some people would still be willing to go to private universities.
Is that right?
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 08, 2015, 08:54:08 PM
I would think that the choice between free public university vs. expensive private college might actually force those private colleges to lower tuition or risk losing on-the-fence students to the freebie.
I'm not entirely sure that they'd care.
Well, no, it's more nuanced than that. Probably some would care, some wouldn't. Also keep in mind that a lot of private schools provide financial aid to students above and beyond what the government provides anyway. If you are from a lower economic background but have the grades to get into an Ivy League school or the like, you might be getting a free ride anyway.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 08:56:03 PM
I certainly have a hoity-toity edumacation alright. :lol:
Hence the "And 11Bravo", Lunchpail Larry. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 08:25:57 PM
fuck private universities and the people that attend them,
I'm on board.
Anyway, they still have the option to attend a public uni instead.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 08, 2015, 09:10:44 PM
I'm on board.
Anyway, they still have the option to attend a public uni instead.
What does this accomplish?
Gives them a degree that they didn't have to pay for.
He's finally getting around to do some governing.
I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level? The problem, of course, is paying for it. "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs. No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job. That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 08, 2015, 09:15:41 PM
Gives them a degree that they didn't have to pay for.
It gives a bunch of kids who don't need the money a tuition free degree, takes it away from the poor kids who can't afford room and board, and ends up costing more because of the private school kids who switch to public.
Less private schools is a good thing.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 08:51:01 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 08:20:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 08:20:06 PM
It would also leave private universities very, very expensive Timmy.
So what?
Well, for one thing, the article is comparing apples to oranges. It claims that it would cost $62.6B to fund undergraduate tuition at public universities for those students currently attending them, compared to $69B the feds currently spend on higher education. But, that ignores that some of that $69B is going to students who are at private schools, or attending post-graduate schools, and the big fact that even if tuition were free, there are other expenses involved in attending college, so even with free tuition, college still wouldn't be free. I don't know what the current numbers are, but I know that when I was in school, tuition was less than half of the fees I paid directly to the school. I lived in a dorm, and the room and board for the dorm was considerably higher just by itself than the tuition was, and there were other fees and such we had to pay when we registered for a semester.
Agreed, the notion that loan programs would not be required if this expense doesnt make much sense.
But the question of better funding for public instutions tied to a reduction in tuition fees is a worthy topic of debate.
What does Obama mean by "work for it"?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 09:36:26 PM
Less private schools is a good thing.
I remember you making that argument before, but I can't remember why you take that position. So, no troll intended, why do you think that is a good thing?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 09:37:42 PM
What does Obama mean by "work for it"?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fc2%2Fc286f52c9dfa26ede381a90ae06d8bdd2c38e46a9160c4f5d5da2a650d26249c.jpg&hash=6e81d3e70ab7e40c367e652f7a425a1b2366da9d)
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:24:14 PM
I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level? The problem, of course, is paying for it. "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs. No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job. That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.
Again I agree with you. If tuition levels are reduced then funding has to come from government to make up the shortfall. The problem is that in every jurisdiction I know of where fee reduction/freezes have been put in place government does not fund the shortfall and education quality suffers signficantly.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 09:39:25 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 09:37:42 PM
What does Obama mean by "work for it"?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fc2%2Fc286f52c9dfa26ede381a90ae06d8bdd2c38e46a9160c4f5d5da2a650d26249c.jpg&hash=6e81d3e70ab7e40c367e652f7a425a1b2366da9d)
All I see is an X. Govmint comp.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:24:14 PM
I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level? The problem, of course, is paying for it. "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs. No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job. That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.
The non-financial argument against is not all jobs require a college degree.
Before: I would guess something like Vista or an equivalent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 09:43:50 PM
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:24:14 PM
I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level? The problem, of course, is paying for it. "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs. No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job. That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.
The non-financial argument against is not all jobs require a college degree.
Before: I would guess something like Vista or an equivalent.
Guess I'm being dense, but WTF is Vista. The windows program?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 09:47:17 PM
Guess I'm being dense, but WTF is Vista. The windows program?
Domestic Peace Corps, part of LBJ's Great Society.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 09:43:50 PM
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:24:14 PM
I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level? The problem, of course, is paying for it. "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs. No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job. That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.
The non-financial argument against is not all jobs require a college degree.
Before: I would guess something like Vista or an equivalent.
The non-financial argument for is:
having a highly educated public creates a better society;
greater social mobility requires access to higher education for those who would otherwise not be able to afford it; and
(one that will appeal to your market driven heart) a more educated work force is a more productive work force.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2015, 09:48:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 09:43:50 PM
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:24:14 PM
I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level? The problem, of course, is paying for it. "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs. No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job. That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.
The non-financial argument against is not all jobs require a college degree.
Before: I would guess something like Vista or an equivalent.
The non-financial argument for is:
having a highly educated public creates a better society;
greater social mobility requires access to higher education for those who would otherwise not be able to afford it; and
(one that will appeal to your market driven heart) a more educated work force is a more productive work force.
I'm not sure about Yi's non-financial argument against, anyway. I don't think we've said that everyone should go to college, just talked about how to pay for college for those that choose to attend. A lot of the people who I went to high school with had no desire to go on to college, even if it had been free.
B4: Vista:
Volunteers
in
Service
to
America.
Gotcha thanks. Yi/dps
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 09:57:21 PM
I'm not sure about Yi's non-financial argument against, anyway. I don't think we've said that everyone should go to college, just talked about how to pay for college for those that choose to attend. A lot of the people who I went to high school with had no desire to go on to college, even if it had been free.
There are signs that there is currently a glut of college grads, even without everything paid for by Uncle Sam.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 10:06:02 PM
There are signs that there is currently a glut of college grads, even without everything paid for by Uncle Sam.
There are signs that there wouldn't be a glut of college grads if companies and government were hiring for more positions and at a brisker pace, but they're not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:16:39 PM
There are signs that there wouldn't be a glut of college grads if companies and government were hiring for more positions and at a brisker pace, but they're not.
Neither would there be a glut if we all owned Star Trek food synthesizers, but we don't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 10:20:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:16:39 PM
There are signs that there wouldn't be a glut of college grads if companies and government were hiring for more positions and at a brisker pace, but they're not.
Neither would there be a glut if we all owned Star Trek food synthesizers, but we don't.
Synthesize your portfolio and fuck yourself with it, asshole.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 10:20:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:16:39 PM
There are signs that there wouldn't be a glut of college grads if companies and government were hiring for more positions and at a brisker pace, but they're not.
Neither would there be a glut if we all owned Star Trek food synthesizers, but we don't.
That would put millions out of work.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:22:53 PM
Synthesize your portfolio and fuck yourself with it, asshole.
You kiss your mom with that mouth?
I'm sorta in favor of a guaranteed basic income. :Embarrass:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:27:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 10:20:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:16:39 PM
There are signs that there wouldn't be a glut of college grads if companies and government were hiring for more positions and at a brisker pace, but they're not.
Neither would there be a glut if we all owned Star Trek food synthesizers, but we don't.
That would put millions out work.
Anime it Tim. I dare ya. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:27:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 10:20:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:16:39 PM
There are signs that there wouldn't be a glut of college grads if companies and government were hiring for more positions and at a brisker pace, but they're not.
Neither would there be a glut if we all owned Star Trek food synthesizers, but we don't.
That would put millions out work.
Freeing up more time for them to hang in holodecks. :punk:
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:30:12 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:27:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 10:20:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:16:39 PM
There are signs that there wouldn't be a glut of college grads if companies and government were hiring for more positions and at a brisker pace, but they're not.
Neither would there be a glut if we all owned Star Trek food synthesizers, but we don't.
That would put millions out work.
Freeing up more time for them to hang in holodecks. :punk:
:w00t:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Minuet
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:27:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 10:20:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:16:39 PM
There are signs that there wouldn't be a glut of college grads if companies and government were hiring for more positions and at a brisker pace, but they're not.
Neither would there be a glut if we all owned Star Trek food synthesizers, but we don't.
That would put millions out work.
So? There'd be far less need to work.
QuoteI'm sorta in favor of a guaranteed basic income. :Embarrass:
Same. I've moved that way anyway.
Ide just came.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:34:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:30:12 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:27:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 10:20:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:16:39 PM
There are signs that there wouldn't be a glut of college grads if companies and government were hiring for more positions and at a brisker pace, but they're not.
Neither would there be a glut if we all owned Star Trek food synthesizers, but we don't.
That would put millions out work.
Freeing up more time for them to hang in holodecks. :punk:
:w00t:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Minuet
Well no, I mean holodeck episodes are generally dreadful. <_<
We all know what really goes down in that holodeck :perv:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:42:48 PM
We all know what really goes down in that holodeck :perv:
Which is so problematic. :x
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:27:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 10:20:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 10:16:39 PM
There are signs that there wouldn't be a glut of college grads if companies and government were hiring for more positions and at a brisker pace, but they're not.
Neither would there be a glut if we all owned Star Trek food synthesizers, but we don't.
That would put millions out work.
That would be a good thing.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:59:02 PM
Officers shouldn't be kissing/crushing on holographic images.
Maybe you could give the computer an amorphous lump of organic matter to meld into the proper shape. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 08, 2015, 11:00:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:59:02 PM
Officers shouldn't be kissing/crushing on holographic images.
Maybe you could give the computer an amorphous lump of organic matter to meld into the proper shape. :hmm:
Still unseemly.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:59:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:42:48 PM
We all know what really goes down in that holodeck :perv:
Which is so problematic. :x
:unsure: Why?
Officers shouldn't be kissing/crushing on holographic images.
How puritanical.
^^^
That's unnecessary Wiggins, the holodeck isn't just a trick of light, it feels real.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 11:16:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:59:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:42:48 PM
We all know what really goes down in that holodeck :perv:
Which is so problematic. :x
:unsure: Why?
Officers shouldn't be kissing/crushing on holographic images.
How puritanical.
^^^
That's unnecessary Wiggins, the holodeck isn't just a trick of light, it feels real.
That's what
she said.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 11:16:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:59:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:42:48 PM
We all know what really goes down in that holodeck :perv:
Which is so problematic. :x
:unsure: Why?
Officers shouldn't be kissing/crushing on holographic images.
How puritanical.
Humans having relations with humans > humans having relations with...fantasies.
Frankly, I'm more interested in seeing kids not need college for all the bullshit jobs requiring it that really only need literacy.
That poor girl running the coffee wagon didn't need to waste all that time and money in crappy classes.
I mean, it's good to stop loading everyone up with debt, but the college shit has to go. Start working at 18.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 11:33:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 11:16:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:59:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 10:42:48 PM
We all know what really goes down in that holodeck :perv:
Which is so problematic. :x
:unsure: Why?
Officers shouldn't be kissing/crushing on holographic images.
How puritanical.
Humans having relations with humans > humans having relations with...fantasies.
How is it different from porn? I can't imagine you're in favor of banning that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 08:47:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 08:25:57 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2015, 08:20:37 PM
So what?
Do you mean so what in the sense of fuck private universities and the people that attend them, or so what in the sense that you didn't catch the public university qualifier in the Atlantic piece you linked?
There are countries that fund public universities in this way and people are still willing there to pay to go to prestigious private universities. Why would it be different here?
Attending a private American university was easier for me than attending a Spanish one, here's that. But the Spanish university system isn't really much to praise the lord for.
A big step in the right direction.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 09, 2015, 02:38:21 AM
Frankly, I'm more interested in seeing kids not need college for all the bullshit jobs requiring it that really only need literacy.
That poor girl running the coffee wagon didn't need to waste all that time and money in crappy classes.
I mean, it's good to stop loading everyone up with debt, but the college shit has to go. Start working at 18.
There's more to education than job training.
And given the declining need for labor anyway, delaying more people entering the workforce is not really a bad thing.
Based on what I heard on NPR, apparently the "work for it" part is getting good grades in HS.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2015, 09:14:20 AM
And given the declining need for labor anyway, delaying more people entering the workforce is not really a bad thing.
:huh: There is more demand for human labor today than at any point in human history, and the demand is growing.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 11, 2015, 09:04:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2015, 09:14:20 AM
And given the declining need for labor anyway, delaying more people entering the workforce is not really a bad thing.
:huh: There is more demand for human labor today than at any point in human history, and the demand is growing.
Per capita demand then.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 09:11:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 11, 2015, 09:04:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2015, 09:14:20 AM
And given the declining need for labor anyway, delaying more people entering the workforce is not really a bad thing.
:huh: There is more demand for human labor today than at any point in human history, and the demand is growing.
Per capita demand then.
I'd say the same.
The chance that a 12 year old is in school rather than putting in 14 hour days in a factory has improved a bit.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 09:42:12 PM
The chance that a 12 year old is in school rather than putting in 14 hour days in a factory has improved a bit.
The demand for child labor at low wages would still be there if not for child labor laws. It is why child labor laws are actually needed.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 09:42:12 PM
The chance that a 12 year old is in school rather than putting in 14 hour days in a factory has improved a bit.
As has the chance that a 70 year old is playing golf instead of tenderizing whale blubber or being dead.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 11, 2015, 10:03:34 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2015, 09:42:12 PM
The chance that a 12 year old is in school rather than putting in 14 hour days in a factory has improved a bit.
The demand for child labor at low wages would still be there if not for child labor laws. It is why child labor laws are actually needed.
What about the increase in the moral integrity of corporate leaders? :sleep:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 11, 2015, 09:04:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2015, 09:14:20 AM
And given the declining need for labor anyway, delaying more people entering the workforce is not really a bad thing.
:huh: There is more demand for human labor today than at any point in human history, and the demand is growing.
It takes a lot of effort to build and maintain robots, I guess.
Anyway, I'm conflicted about this. It seems far more like corporate welfare to the educational-industrial complex than anything needed by the people at large; on the other hand, I've always said that if we're going to need waiters to be educated in the reasons behind and the conduct of the Franco-Prussian War, might as well just fund the damned program directly instead of requiring said waiters to indebt themselves.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 12, 2015, 12:45:32 AM
Anyway, I'm conflicted about this. It seems far more like corporate welfare to the educational-industrial complex than anything needed by the people at large; on the other hand, I've always said that if we're going to need waiters to be educated in the reasons behind and the conduct of the Franco-Prussian War, might as well just fund the damned program directly instead of requiring said waiters to indebt themselves.
I don't think the Reasons behind and the conduct of the Franco-Prussian War is covered very much in the first two years of community college.
And it's "education-industrial complex".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 10:57:14 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 12, 2015, 12:45:32 AM
Anyway, I'm conflicted about this. It seems far more like corporate welfare to the educational-industrial complex than anything needed by the people at large; on the other hand, I've always said that if we're going to need waiters to be educated in the reasons behind and the conduct of the Franco-Prussian War, might as well just fund the damned program directly instead of requiring said waiters to indebt themselves.
I don't think the Reasons behind and the conduct of the Franco-Prussian War is covered very much in the first two years of community college.
And it's "education-industrial complex".
I find the Franco-Prussian War interesting and the accomplishments of the great Bismark should be taught in high school.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:03:58 AM
I find the Franco-Prussian War interesting and the accomplishments of the great Bismarck should be taught in high school.
I would have never guessed you would be for teaching the origins of the European welfare state in high school. :hmm:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:03:58 AM
I find the Franco-Prussian War interesting and the accomplishments of the great Bismarck should be taught in high school.
It would replace Algebra I in 11Bravo's new education initiative, the "No Child Left Behind Without Proper General Staff Officer Support" Act.
I studied the Franco-Prussian War in high-school. It was even part of the Spanish equivalent of the SAT.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:24:58 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:03:58 AM
I find the Franco-Prussian War interesting and the accomplishments of the great Bismarck should be taught in high school.
I would have never guessed you would be for teaching the origins of the European welfare state in high school. :hmm:
Hell, I'm for teaching basic financial and money management in high school.
Quote from: celedhring on January 12, 2015, 11:32:59 AM
I studied the Franco-Prussian War in high-school. It was even part of the Spanish equivalent of the SAT.
Was the American Mexican War on El SAT as well?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:37:53 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 12, 2015, 11:32:59 AM
I studied the Franco-Prussian War in high-school. It was even part of the Spanish equivalent of the SAT.
Was the American Mexican War on El SAT as well?
No, we pretty much ignore you. Serves you right for stealing our colonies.
Quote from: celedhring on January 12, 2015, 11:48:09 AM
No, we pretty much ignore you. Serves you right for stealing our colonies.
My crazy California Republican uncle has your back, dawg.
"All these fucking dirty Mexicans, blah, blah, blah, hate, hate, hate, Obama, etc."
"Um, it wasn't named 'San Diego' just to be rustic and quaint, you know. You realize they were there before you, right?"
"No, those were the Spaniards. Completely different!"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:58:53 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 12, 2015, 11:48:09 AM
No, we pretty much ignore you. Serves you right for stealing our colonies.
My crazy California Republican uncle has your back, dawg.
"All these fucking dirty Mexicans, blah, blah, blah, hate, hate, hate, Obama, etc."
"Um, it wasn't named 'San Diego' just to be rustic and quaint, you know. You realize they were there before you, right?"
"No, those were the Spaniards. Completely different!"
Though they were in the closet for the longest time, most of my family in Southern California are actually Republicans (well the older generation, my generation is mostly still liberal Obama-lovers <_<). Never was particularly racist though given that nearly all married other races (i.e. Mexicans). :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 11:58:53 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 12, 2015, 11:48:09 AM
No, we pretty much ignore you. Serves you right for stealing our colonies.
My crazy California Republican uncle has your back, dawg.
"All these fucking dirty Mexicans, blah, blah, blah, hate, hate, hate, Obama, etc."
"Um, it wasn't named 'San Diego' just to be rustic and quaint, you know. You realize they were there before you, right?"
"No, those were the Spaniards. Completely different!"
Guess I could emigrate there, then!
Good thing people who have sex with members of other races can never be racist. I've got a Get Out of Liberal Jail Free card for everybody but Latin Americans.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 12:00:56 PM
Though they were in the closet for the longest time, most of my family in Southern California are actually Republicans (well the older generation, my generation is mostly still liberal Obama-lovers <_<). Never was particularly racist though given that nearly all married other races (i.e. Mexicans). :D
What makes it even funnier is, since my aunt is of Portuguese decent, they're all up on the historic genealogy of Portuguese settlement of central California. But it doesn't involve Mexicans, so I guess that's OK. :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 12, 2015, 12:07:26 PM
Good thing people who have sex with members of other races can never be racist. I've got a Get Out of Liberal Jail Free card for everybody but Latin Americans.
:P
I think it would be weird to be married to someone of an ethnic group that you were racist about / that your children were members of. Possible but a bit more unlikely than your posited scenario.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2015, 12:11:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 12:00:56 PM
Though they were in the closet for the longest time, most of my family in Southern California are actually Republicans (well the older generation, my generation is mostly still liberal Obama-lovers <_<). Never was particularly racist though given that nearly all married other races (i.e. Mexicans). :D
What makes it even funnier is, since my aunt is of Portuguese decent, they're all up on the historic genealogy of Portuguese settlement of central California. But it doesn't involve Mexicans, so I guess that's OK. :lol
Portuguese ancestry? Well, even less so than your Irish symbolic side, so meaningless.
Why do people care so much about ancestry?
I blame it on the internet.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:37:25 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:24:58 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:03:58 AM
I find the Franco-Prussian War interesting and the accomplishments of the great Bismarck should be taught in high school.
I would have never guessed you would be for teaching the origins of the European welfare state in high school. :hmm:
Hell, I'm for teaching basic financial and money management in high school.
Thought that we did. At least we did in WV high schools in the late 1970s.
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2015, 12:41:55 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:37:25 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 11:24:58 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2015, 11:03:58 AM
I find the Franco-Prussian War interesting and the accomplishments of the great Bismarck should be taught in high school.
I would have never guessed you would be for teaching the origins of the European welfare state in high school. :hmm:
Hell, I'm for teaching basic financial and money management in high school.
Thought that we did. At least we did in WV high schools in the late 1970s.
We didn't in MA in the 2000s. :weep:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2015, 12:21:13 PM
Portuguese ancestry? Well, even less so than your Irish symbolic side, so meaningless.
Please explain.
We discussed Bismarck at length in history class. As a matter of fact, my teacher was quite the admirer of his foreign politics.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2015, 12:13:07 PM
I think it would be weird to be married to someone of an ethnic group that you were racist about / that your children were members of. Possible but a bit more unlikely than your posited scenario.
Yep.
Another gubmint entitlement payed by our taxes.
How many more jobs will the American people lose because of this one?
None. College has nothing to do with jobs, it's about learning for its own sake, which is valuable to human beings and can only be obtained within the hallowed halls of a university.
So goes the Languish indoctrination, anyway.
Quote from: celedhring on January 12, 2015, 11:48:09 AM
No, we pretty much ignore you. Serves you right for stealing our colonies.
Silly of us to let Cuba and the Philippines go, yet we kept Puerto Rico. :wacko:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2015, 07:49:38 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 12, 2015, 11:48:09 AM
No, we pretty much ignore you. Serves you right for stealing our colonies.
Silly of us to let Cuba and the Philippines go, yet we kept Puerto Rico. :wacko:
We just can't seem to get rid of that little island, can we?
Quote from: Siege on January 12, 2015, 01:26:38 PM
Another gubmint entitlement payed by our taxes.
How many more jobs will the American people lose because of this one?
Dude, you know that for poor kids it's already a thing, right?
Fill out a fafsa. Free moniez.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 12, 2015, 07:44:18 PM
None. College has nothing to do with jobs, it's about learning for its own sake
Then so many employers should stop demanding them.
QuoteSo goes the Languish indoctrination, anyway.
Only for the hoity-toity ones.