Republican Judgement

[Tim]

It doesn't make sense to me.

Of course it doesn't because you long for a form of government that was never meant to exist.

 

[Accountable]

Of course it doesn't because you long for a form of government that was never meant to exist.

A government that defends its citizens against their enemies but otherwise leaves them alone to succeed or fail as they will? Of course it was meant to exist. Why wouldn't it?

 

[Accountable]

Of course it doesn't because you long for a form of government that was never meant to exist.

Why shouldn't the gov't provide basic necessities?

 

[Tim]

The founding fathers were very much aware that our nation and our form of government would never succeed without an educated populace. This is why they advocated for public school and higher learning...

 

[Kyle B]

Wouldn't that just be good for everyone?

If everyone who qualified was able to go to college, wouldn't it make sense for the government to make provisions for them to go?

I would love to hear the downside to such programs as you see it.

The up sides?

The average college graduate makes $1 million more over their lifetime than those who don't go. That translates to more taxes paid back to the federal government which actually covers the initial investment. People who earn more spend more, meaning the economy does better, everyone does better.

The people who have the benefit of higher education have less chance of being a burden on society.



So please, tell me where the downfall is.

The government subsidizes education here lots. You can go to college for relatively cheap if you choose a public institution. On top of that, you can also get grants. It's quite a good set up, many students wind up going to school for a relative low cost or free.

Only question then is, who should get a free education? Should the person who just flunks out after a few semesters be forced to pay the money back? Should you have to take test to qualify for this money?

 

[Johnfromokc]

The government subsidizes education here lots. You can go to college for relatively cheap if you choose a public institution. On top of that, you can also get grants. It's quite a good set up, many students wind up going to school for a relative low cost or free.

Define "relatively cheap". I'm in the process of paying college tuition for my daughter, and my son will be a HS senior this upcoming school year, and join her the year after next at a public university. What is this "relatively cheap" you speak of? My checkbook disagrees. Relatively cheap for one family might create severe financial hardship for another.

Only question then is, who should get a free education?

Anyone who can pass the college entrance exam.

Should the person who just flunks out after a few semesters be forced to pay the money back?

How would they pay it back? Garnisment of their minimum wage paycheck?

This could be worked out in some fashion - community service? Some people just can't handle college but need to at least try.

Should you have to take test to qualify for this money?

Yes. Addressed in the first question. Pass the SAT or ACT and meet the entrance requirements of the college or tech school. This will weed out 90% of those people who can't handle college.

 

[Kyle B]

Define "relatively cheap". I'm in the process of paying college tuition for my daughter, and my son will be a HS senior this upcoming school year, and join her the year after next at a public university. What is this "relatively cheap" you speak of? My checkbook disagrees. Relatively cheap for one family might create severe financial hardship for another.



Anyone who can pass the college entrance exam.



How would they pay it back? Garnisment of their minimum wage paycheck?

This could be worked out in some fashion - community service? Some people just can't handle college but need to at least try.



Yes. Addressed in the first question. Pass the SAT or ACT and meet the entrance requirements of the college or tech school. This will weed out 90% of those people who can't handle college.

By relatively cheap, I'm talking in comparison to private schools. In New York, we have two state systems, CUNY and SUNY. CUNY is cheaper. At their flagship school, it costs about $5,500/year in tuition. SUNY is a little more expensive I believe in some cases. However, I did a quick check and tuition at SUNY Binghampton, a large research oriented institution, cost about $5,800/year. Of course you also need to factor in room and board in some cases. At my school for instance though, over 3/4 of the school commutes. Private schools are obviously much more expensive. But I suppose it depends on your choice. Community college is cheaper, I paid 3k/year when I went.

SAT/ACT scores seem like an acceptable way of testing though, along with college acceptance etc.. I agree with you on that.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Imagine trying to pay even $3,000 per year tuition while trying to support yourself on $7.25 an hour Kyle. Millions of Americans are in that position currently.

 

[Kyle B]

Imagine trying to pay even $3,000 per year tuition while trying to support yourself on $7.25 an hour Kyle. Millions of Americans are in that position currently.

Yea, you're right, that would be difficult. Buying anything while supporting yourself on 7.25 would be virtually impossible.


My point was that you do have a choice between private and public. We may not have free education, but there are more affordable options. I was accepted into a college that cost 50k a year and was offered pitiful financial aid, so I didn't go.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Yea, you're right, that would be difficult. Buying anything while supporting yourself on 7.25 would be virtually impossible.


My point was that you do have a choice between private and public. We may not have free education, but there are more affordable options. I was accepted into a college that cost 50k a year and was offered pitiful financial aid, so I didn't go.

I ran the numbers on tuition, books, fees, et al for OSU's Associate of Applied Science in HVACR. That's my field and I work and teach in it, so I've got a little first hand knowledge of what it costs. By the time a student completes the entire program, the tuition comes to well over $12,000:

http://www.osuit.edu/academics/air_conditioning/acr_plan_of_study.php

I'm not finding any $3,000 per year tuition at public colleges here in Oklahoma - My daughters tuition at UCO last semester was almost $3K:

http://www.uco.edu/em/registrar/tuitionandfees.asp

So that's about $24,000 for a bachelors at a state school. Times two kids is $48,000. And that's with them living at home and commuting.

The bottom line is that it is not as cheap and easy as many may think to get a college degree today. The median houshold income in the United States is $51,914 - and that's pre- taxes and other living expenses. Imagine trying to pay $6,000 per year for tuition out of that income.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

 

[Minor Axis]

Whereas the dems have the much firmer position that the federal gov't can pay for everyone's college, give welfare to pauper and robber baron alike, expand concierge services to all, and all we need to do to pay for it is to take the billionaires' money .... well, not all the billionaires, just the repub ones .... unless they're also giving campaign contributions to dems. But those two or three that aren't so exempt, fuck 'em! Let them pay for it all!

It's not bullshit. I'm just pointing out that once someone draws a line the line can be moved anywhere.
You apparently think it is worthy to tax citizens to provide a service that could be provided another way. I don't understand why someone who thinks it's okay to tax people in order to pay for everyone's education, would not think exactly the same for even more basic things such as food, clothes, & shelter. It doesn't make sense to me.

The founding fathers were very much aware that our nation and our form of government would never succeed without an educated populace. This is why they advocated for public school and higher learning...

I'm for free education. It's something worth paying for through tax dollars, just don't let those pesky school districts add all sorts of extras to their budgets. BTW I'm not surprised to hear a Libertarian bemoaning paying for someone else's "free" education...

The government subsidizes education here lots. You can go to college for relatively cheap if you choose a public institution. On top of that, you can also get grants. It's quite a good set up, many students wind up going to school for a relative low cost or free.

Only question then is, who should get a free education? Should the person who just flunks out after a few semesters be forced to pay the money back? Should you have to take test to qualify for this money?

Performance standards should be required for college. Non-performing kids should not be passed up the ladder. However an effective school system is also required and I'm not sure what we should do about dysfunctional families who think teachers are supposed to functioning parents.

 

[Accountable]

BTW I'm not surprised to hear a Libertarian bemoaning paying for someone else's "free" education....

At most, that's 'libertarian' small l. I'm not surprised to see so many of y'all dodge my perfectly logical questions, either.

 

[Minor Axis]

What the hell? Why is it always Republicans? To think it, much less say it. Even if it is just symbolic, this is the kind of imagery the GOP relishes? Come on guys, defend this...

Huffington Post- Jay Townson, GOP Spokesman on Hurling Acid at Female Senators:

A spokesman for Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.) is facing criticism after advocating violence against female Democratic senators in a Facebook post.
Jay Townsend, the official campaign spokesman for the freshman representative, went on a vicious online rant on Saturday, which he began by taunting a constituent who voiced criticism about an earlier post on gas prices. "Listen to Tom. What a little bee he has in his bonnet. Buzz Buzz," Townsend wrote.
"My question today... when is Tommy boy going to weigh in on all the Lilly Ledbetter hypocrites who claim to be fighting the War on Women? Let’s hurl some acid at those female democratic Senators who won’t abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector."

 

[Johnfromokc]

What the hell? Why is it always Republicans? To think it, much less say it. Even if it is just symbolic, this is the kind of imagery the GOP relishes? Come on guys, defend this...

Huffington Post- Jay Townson, GOP Spokesman on Hurling Acid at Female Senators:

I have come to the conclusion after decades of observation and learning about politics that anyone who works for a living earning less than $250,000 per year, or any small business owner that supports Republicans is a fucking moron. Sorry - that's the way I see it. Don't like it? Well, enjoy a big bowl of fuck on me.

Republicans only represent the top 1%. It makes no sense for the remaining 99% to support Republicans and vote against their own best interests. Hell, I can see maybe some of the top 10% thinking they might benefit from right wing policies, but the rest are fucking deluded by the likes of right wing talk radio and FOX news.

Are the Democrats representing working class folk as they should? Fuck no they're not - but the Republicans sure as fuck are not and have never intended to - yet millions of working class Americans vote for them anyway. This speaks to our educational system in the United States and why things never change and why there is no viable third or fourth party to balance things out.

Libertarians? Working class Americans thinking themselves libertarians are even more fucking moronic than working class Republicans - talk about the ultimate political oxymoron.

Did I piss any of you conservo-libertarian-bots off? Yeah? Good - that was my intention. I've pretty much given up any reasonable debate because the shit just goes full circle and few, if any, ever change their minds. Therefore I conclude if you vote against your own families best interests, you are a fucking moron incapable of thinking for yourself.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Accountable]

I have come to the conclusion after decades of observation and learning about politics that anyone who works for a living earning less than $250,000 per year, or any small business owner that supports Republicans is a fucking moron. Sorry - that's the way I see it. Don't like it? Well, enjoy a big bowl of fuck on me.

Republicans only represent the top 1%. It makes no sense for the remaining 99% to support Republicans and vote against their own best interests. Hell, I can see maybe some of the top 10% thinking they might benefit from right wing policies, but the rest are fucking deluded by the likes of right wing talk radio and FOX news.

Are the Democrats representing working class folk as they should? Fuck no they're not - but the Republicans sure as fuck are not and have never intended to - yet millions of working class Americans vote for them anyway. This speaks to our educational system in the United States and why things never change and why there is no viable third or fourth party to balance things out.

Libertarians? Working class Americans thinking themselves libertarians are even more fucking moronic than working class Republicans - talk about the ultimate political oxymoron.

Did I piss any of you conservo-libertarian-bots off? Yeah? Good - that was my intention. I've pretty much given up any reasonable debate because the shit just goes full circle and few, if any, ever change their minds. Therefore I conclude if you vote against your own families best interests, you are a fucking moron incapable of thinking for yourself.

Have a blessed day.

Just saving this for the time when you pretend to actually want to converse.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Just saving this for the time when you pretend to actually want to converse.

You know it's a waste of time - you think you're a libertarian school teacher. Who could argue with that?

 

[Minor Axis]

You see it just takes enough prejudice/stupid voters for this tactic to work instead of him being boo'd out of the race.

Romney makes misleading statements- ABC. Let the lying begin! Wait, it all ready has...

Yesterday in California, Mitt Romney stood in front of the failed Solyndra factory and said “an independent inspector general looked at this investment and concluded that the administration had steered money to friends and family, to campaign contributors.”
In a TV ad focused on Solyndra, the Romney campaign makes a similar claim, saying the “Inspector General said that contracts were steered to friends and family.”
This isn’t true.

The Romney campaign cites as “proof” a book excerpt in Newsweek/The Daily Beast, which states that the Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman “has testified that contracts have been steered to ‘friends and family.’”

That isn’t correct.

What Friedman testified to, in March 2011, is: “We currently have 64 open investigations associated with the Recovery Act, nearly 25 percent of our current case load. Schemes under investigation include the submission of false information in applications for funding, fraudulent claims for rebates, claims for unallowable or unauthorized expenses, the directing of contracts and grants to friends and family, weatherization fraud to include mischarging, and other attempts to fraudulently obtain Recovery Act funds.”
You can read his testimony HERE.

And followup at The Daily Beast

Romney's Grotesque Solyndra Hypocrisy

The GOP candidate's ad has already lied in saying that stimulus funds were handed out to "friends and family". There is no evidence of such corruption or cronyism under Obama's stimulus. But maybe he was projecting, or using a classic Rove tactic of accusing his opponent of what he once did himself in Massachusetts:

 

[Alien Allen]

Not gonna argue the generalities of Romneys claim

You think Solyndra just magically got that money? You don't think there was a quid pro quo?

If the other side had done the same you would be bitching about it Minor

It fits under the guise of a friend getting a break. And a friend is anybody in politics who has a vested interest at getting money from the govt. like Solyndra did.

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Johnfromokc]