# Who should pay for YOUR education?



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

Just wondering about the opinions of people.

You

Your parents

Government

Or someone else

I vote YOU.


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

Too late, government did it.


----------



## Kathe (May 17, 2010)

My parents, if they did everything right.
If not, me.
Government (the taxpayers) should not have to pay for it.


----------



## Laith (Mar 20, 2009)

Kathe and the person below me should split the cost for my education.


----------



## SusanStorm (Oct 27, 2006)

Lol..Nooo :b

The government did it,but I still have to pay them so in the end it's going to be me.
I wouldn't have gotten much help out of my parents so I'm happy that the government is an option.


----------



## Jnmcda0 (Nov 28, 2003)

Are we talking just college or elementary, middle, and high school as well?


----------



## bezoomny (Feb 10, 2007)

I went private school until 8th grade, which my parents paid for with the help of my grandparents. I went to a public high school, which the state paid for. My grandparents set up a trust fund for college, and that's paid for my college. I'm going to be relying heavily on financial aid and grants for graduate school, because I'm nearly out of that money.


----------



## pita (Jan 17, 2004)

All of the above.


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

odd_one_out said:


> Too late, government did it.


Ditto


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

the plan is for the government to chip in and for me to slowly handle the rest.

seems okay to me. i have no problem with tax money going towards higher learning. i mean, i don't have an income to tax, but still.


----------



## Aloysius (Jul 16, 2008)

my mommy should


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

The government should do it, since I believe someone born into a poor family deserves an equal shot. In reality the government paid for my K-12 and my parents paid for university.


----------



## lonelygirl88 (Dec 25, 2009)

No one should have to pay to be tortured.


----------



## tlgibson97 (Sep 24, 2009)

I'm still paying for it, and will be for many many years.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

The taxpayer


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

I guess you could argue about it all day because you could argue that the taxpayer should flip the bill since they are in the grand scheme of things benefiting from your education since once you are working you will be providing your services to better improve a certain aspect of society (for lack of a better term).

That being said I don't believe it is a right to study and also with the amount of students out there who can never make up their minds and switch majors 24/7 and also never even end up working in an industry closely related to their field of study you could argue it would be like throwing money down the dunny (toilet for you non aussies).

So I think the bill should probably be sent to the person studying or at least their family and not placed on the tax payer because if nothing else, at least the knowledge that it will be you paying for your degree will make you put more thought into what you want to study and not just jump in all guns blazing without having done any real research beforehand.


----------



## sash (Nov 16, 2009)

I think those students who demonstrate excellence should go to school for free...maybe if you graduate with a 3.0 or 3.5 GPA and above. It would encourage other students to do better and possibly improve grades. I know there are plenty of scholarship programs but not all students who do well get them. A lot of great minds are falling through the cracks.


----------



## AlwaysOnTheOutside (Jan 11, 2010)

sash said:


> I think those students who demonstrate excellence should go to school for free...maybe if you graduate with a 3.0 or 3.5 GPA and above. It would encourage other students to do better and possibly improve grades. I know there are plenty of scholarship programs but not all students who do well get them. A lot of great minds are falling through the cracks.


I agree with this. Instead of de-valuing bachelor degrees with credentialism, we should make college much more selective AND affordable.


----------



## cakesniffer (Nov 11, 2003)

I paid for my own college education thanks to the nice settlement I received when I was in a car accident when I was 13. Had I not received that, who knows how I would have paid. Probably loans. Then you're in a debt for life. Thanks, America!

I'd like to see the government put every American through college (like Sweden, where my boyfriend's mom is from), but that'll never happen.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ultimately, I did pay for my education. I just did so indirectly.

I'm the product of public schools for K-12 and then I graduated from the University of Wisconsin that is heavily subsidized with taxes.

Wisconsin has notoriously high property taxes, with the bulk supporting schools, which my parents paid their entire lives. Last year the total property tax bills were $5,300, for example. Amounts like that really add up over the years.

Critics will likely argue that as a good libertarian I should outright refuse any money from government as I regularly criticize government policy including taxes and do not support such robust subsidies for public Universities.

Such subsidies mess with the free market and give us things like a herd of philosophy majors that that market simply doesn't need. Not good for the economy, nor for a liberal arts major who graduates only to find their degree qualifies them to work at Starbucks, with a $50,000 college loan hanging over their head, as they earn $8 an hour and live at home because they can't afford anything else. Just one example of how government intervention distorts the market, misallocating resources. As one economist put it: "a bachelors degree is the biggest ripoff in America." And I'd say it's very sad how many young people are sold this bill of goods -- just as I was decades earlier.

I can, as a libertarian, take government-sponsored (fully or partially) education without feeling that I'm somehow betraying my libertarian beliefs.

I look at it like this. My father paid a ton of property, income, and sales taxes to fund education over his lifetime. I (along with two brothers) inherited much of his estate when he died in 2005. Had he not been FORCED to support public education he'd have had more money for us to inherit. Thus, I can, quite justifiably, reason that I paid for my education with a smaller inheritance. Taking advantage of public education was effectively just a pay back of money government had taken.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sheri said:


> *I'd like to see the government put every American through college *(like Sweden, where my boyfriend's mom is from), but that'll never happen.


Where would the US government get the money to do that when we're already in a fiscal pit so deep we can barely see the light of day?

I remember when I was a teen and the United ***** College Fund ran frequent TV ads with the slogan: "a mind is a terrible thing to waste." (I assume this argument applied to minds of all races.)

It's been a very long time since I've heard that slogan, but what does that say to someone like an auto mechanic, plumber, electrician, etc. who lacks a college degree? You didn't go to college, thus you wasted your mind? Never mind the fact that you have a valuable set of skills that will earn you a decent living and that you have never had any college debt.

The assumption that a college degree is right for everyone is 100% BS. And the idea that any college degree is some automatic ticket to success is 100% pure BS as well.


----------



## laura024 (Aug 11, 2006)

I will be paying off student loans until I die.


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

UltraShy said:


> Such subsidies mess with the free market and give us things like a herd of philosophy majors that that market simply doesn't need. Not good for the economy, nor for a liberal arts major who graduates only to find their degree qualifies them to work at Starbucks, with a $50,000 college loan hanging over their head, as they earn $8 an hour and live at home because they can't afford anything else. Just one example of how government intervention distorts the market, misallocating resources. As one economist put it: "a bachelors degree is the biggest ripoff in America." And I'd say it's very sad how many young people are sold this bill of goods -- just as I was decades earlier.


Totally agree. People think that if government stops subsidizing Universities or colleges that the costs would sky rocket. Hate to break it to you, but that is already happening.

If schools were left to compete with eachother and bank loans were not as easy to come by then prices would drop. If a bank is going to give you a loan to go to school then the schools are going to charge you as much as they want. If government props up ill performing universities then they are going to charge you as much as they want. Unions have a lot to do with it too.


----------



## cakesniffer (Nov 11, 2003)

UltraShy said:


> Where would the US government get the money to do that when we're already in a fiscal pit so deep we can barely see the light of day?
> 
> I remember when I was a teen and the United ***** College Fund ran frequent TV ads with the slogan: "a mind is a terrible thing to waste." (I assume this argument applied to minds of all races.)
> 
> ...


Hence the "that'll never happen" part of my sentence. And vocational schools could be substituted for college, whatever the person wants. But, alas, only in a perfect world.


----------



## SusanStorm (Oct 27, 2006)

Sheri said:


> I paid for my own college education thanks to the nice settlement I received when I was in a car accident when I was 13. Had I not received that, who knows how I would have paid. Probably loans. Then you're in a debt for life. Thanks, America!
> 
> I'd like to see the government put every American through college (like Sweden, where my boyfriend's mom is from), but that'll never happen.


Well,we do the same in Norway.A small portion of it is a grant,then the larger portion of it is a loan.So even though all citizens in Norway and Sweden have the opportunity to go to college/uni it is still a loan which you have to pay back.
Only difference is that we pay it to the government.

Everyone having the opportunity to do higher education on the other hand is a good thing,but not all decide to go through with it.


----------



## cakesniffer (Nov 11, 2003)

Invisible_girl said:


> Well,we do the same in Norway.A small portion of it is a grant,then the larger portion of it is a loan.So even though all citizens in Norway and Sweden have the opportunity to go to college/uni it is still a loan which you have to pay back.
> Only difference is that we pay it to the government.
> 
> Everyone having the opportunity to do higher education on the other hand is a good thing,but not all decide to go through with it.


I feel rather silly for asking, but are you sure? I know my boyfriend's mom didn't pay anything back in the 70s. I just did some online research and it says it's free (no mention of a loan) and was even free for foreigners until recently.



> Free of charge for citizens of Sweden and EU/EEA states
> 
> Sweden has a long tradition of free higher education paid for by the taxpayer. Education gives people the opportunity to shape their own lives and to influence their situation, and is thus very valuable in itself. But higher education is also of strategic importance for our common future. Sweden's ability to maintain and develop welfare depends to a large extent on our country's ability to manage knowledge. A well-educated population is crucial for a country wanting to assert itself in the face of ever tougher global competition.


http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/12798

Is there something I'm missing?


----------



## SusanStorm (Oct 27, 2006)

Sheri said:


> I feel rather silly for asking, but are you sure? I know my boyfriend's mom didn't pay anything back in the 70s. I just did some online research and it says it's free (no mention of a loan) and was even free for foreigners until recently.
> 
> http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/12798
> 
> Is there something I'm missing?


If you read a bit further down on the page it says this:



> The study support system is based on repayment of study loans. Repayment starts at the beginning of the year following the completion of studies and normally continues for 25 years. Interest is immediately added to the debt. The interest rate is advantageous compared with other interest on loans and takes account of deduction rules in the tax system. Safety clauses are also built into the repayment system, which make it possible to take account of an individual's ability to pay.


http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2098/a/69849

Which is the same as in Norway.Education is not free.

However,some of it is a grant and I know that we in Norway can choose if we only want the grant so might this be the case?Or maybe they have changed their rules since the 70's.


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

I believe in a meritocracy so I think there should be public subsidies for education. It should not matter what economic class you're born into. Up to 18, there should be quality public schools. After 18, it still applies but they need to significantly raise the standards for those who get public support. There are too many people getting degrees today who don't need it or won't make use of it.


----------



## cakesniffer (Nov 11, 2003)

Invisible_girl said:


> If you read a bit further down on the page it says this:
> 
> http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2098/a/69849
> 
> ...


Ah, I should have read everything! (It's almost bedtime, and I'm lazy. :lol) But I still think she didn't pay anything back then, so maybe it was all grants or mostly grants. Must sort this out, and none of my Swedes are available to ask at this hour. Darn! :b

But in that case, they shouldn't say "free of charge." That part boggles my mind...


----------



## SusanStorm (Oct 27, 2006)

Sheri said:


> Ah, I should have read everything! (It's almost bedtime, and I'm lazy. :lol) But I still think she didn't pay anything back then, so maybe it was all grants or mostly grants. Must sort this out, and none of my Swedes are available to ask at this hour. Darn! :b
> 
> But in that case, they shouldn't say "free of charge." That part boggles my mind...


Lol..that's alright.

That might be it.

If only it had been free of charge lol.Then I didn't have to pay back my huge student loan :b


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

sash said:


> I think those students who demonstrate excellence should go to school for free...maybe if you graduate with a 3.0 or 3.5 GPA and above. It would encourage other students to do better and possibly improve grades. I know there are plenty of scholarship programs but not all students who do well get them. A lot of great minds are falling through the cracks.


While I agree this has merits, some people are simply not suited to the way in which tertiary study is conducted and are far better suited to practical on the job skills. In my opinion, a lot of the curriculum taught to students these days is theory theory theory with little to no actual pushing of utilising these skills in real world situations and on top of that exams do not teach you to understand the work, they teach you how to remember processes which are forgotten soon after the exam is over.

Anywho I am blabbing.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

I do not feel that anybody should be handed an education on a silver platter. If you want something you should have to work for it. One has a tendency to respect it more if you've earned it.


----------



## sash (Nov 16, 2009)

Ospi said:


> While I agree this has merits, some people are simply not suited to the way in which tertiary study is conducted and are far better suited to practical on the job skills. In my opinion, a lot of the curriculum taught to students these days is theory theory theory with little to no actual pushing of utilising these skills in real world situations and on top of that exams do not teach you to understand the work, they teach you how to remember processes which are forgotten soon after the exam is over.
> 
> Anywho I am blabbing.


I see the point of your blabbing :b I actually mentioned this same point to a friend the other day. They do require you to learn a lot of theory and a lot of people are hands on, visual learners (such as myself). I also find it quite boring to sit at a desk and listen to lectures and be forced to take classes that do not interest me or that I will not use in my career. I think this is all part of "let's squeeze out every dollar they have out of their pocket" plan. I think there should be more vocational/trade schools and still leave the traditional tertiary system for those who are more comfortable learning that way. Then maybe they could interview candidates to find out who is really passionate about the field or set up some kind of test and have people maintain excellence in order to continue going for free. I think it would work out great...as a taxpayer I wouldn't mind it because it would produce more professionals who would qualify for more jobs who would then be taxed and the money will eventually be recycled.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

Ospi said:


> While I agree this has merits, some people are simply not suited to the way in which tertiary study is conducted and are far better suited to practical on the job skills. In my opinion, a lot of the curriculum taught to students these days is theory theory theory with little to no actual pushing of utilising these skills in real world situations and on top of that exams do not teach you to understand the work, they teach you how to remember processes which are forgotten soon after the exam is over.
> 
> Anywho I am blabbing.


In your blabbing lies truth. Some people are smart and some people are just good at school. Good marks aren't a good reflection of what a person knows or is capable of. And grad school is more a reflection of persistence than intelligence in many cases.


----------



## Kathe (May 17, 2010)

Laith said:


> Kathe and the person below me should split the cost for my education.


That's fine with me.
Are you willing to learn what I have to teach you? I don't grade on a curve, and there ARE wrong answers. 
My money, my curriculum. 
Well, half of it is, anyway.


----------



## Hot Chocolate (Sep 29, 2008)

Government, followed by parents and then me.


----------



## lyssado707 (Oct 29, 2004)

Government. Everybody deserves a chance.


----------



## stylicho (Nov 8, 2003)

> Unions have a lot to do with it too.


Oh they do? We're all ears.


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

stylicho said:


> Oh they do? We're all ears.


Teachers getting tenure that don't deserve the tenure. (Education then lacks because they no longer have to compete, innovate and better the system)

Unions fighting for raises when the teachers don't earn them. (this doesn't raise costs in your opinion?)

If there is anything I am missing, please feel free to add.


----------



## JEmerson (Mar 25, 2010)

The government should absolutely pay for at least a large portion of it. Whether someone can get a college education should not be determined by the wealth of the family you're born into, and I don't believe it's a great idea to load college graduates up with tens of thousands of dollars of debt, which is what's happening right now. Can you imagine how much worse the situation would be if there were no pell grants? 

Bottom line, everyone deserves a chance. And I would add to that, people who go into career fields that don't necessarily pay as much as others (like teaching, or social work) should not be pushed away from going into those fields just because they won't be able to handle the large amount of debt from college. It's a serious problem when people feel they have no choice but to go into Engineering or Business just so they can pay off their loans afterward. That's one of the reasons why grants are so essential.


----------



## stylicho (Nov 8, 2003)

> Teachers getting tenure that don't deserve the tenure. (Education then lacks because they no longer have to compete, innovate and better the system)Unions fighting for raises when the teachers don't earn them. (this doesn't raise costs in your opinion?)If there is anything I am missing, please feel free to add.


How exactly are teachers going to compete? Standardized test scores of students? Teachers are required to pass proficiency tests in the area they have knowledge in. I assume very few people go to a college to learn from a specific teacher. How would you know if a teacher didn't earn a raise? Perhaps a harder proficiency test? How do you determine that a CEO deserved his raise? Because the company's stock is going up? Just because the stock is going up is an asinine reason but it happens all the time. Hell, CEOs get raises and golden parachutes when their stock plummets off a cliff. The magical free hand of capitalism that you have so much faith in doesn't even exist. And if it does you can count on one thing, that he's in your back pocket.


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

stylicho said:


> How exactly are teachers going to compete? Standardized test scores of students? Teachers are required to pass proficiency tests in the area they have knowledge in. I assume very few people go to a college to learn from a specific teacher. How would you know if a teacher didn't earn a raise? Perhaps a harder proficiency test? How do you determine that a CEO deserved his raise? Because the company's stock is going up? Just because the stock is going up is an asinine reason but it happens all the time. Hell, CEOs get raises and golden parachutes when their stock plummets off a cliff. The magical free hand of capitalism that you have so much faith in doesn't even exist. And if it does you can count on one thing, that he's in your back pocket.


What exactly are you talking about?

Have I ever said that CEO's compete and earn their golden parachutes? I didn't think so. If the stocks go up then yeah they get a raise. When stocks go up it means they are making a profit (ex: Apple). How is that asinine? Seems to me you like to live in a world with rose coloured glasses.

As for teachers competing, it really isn't that hard. Look at the test scores (Usually you have 3 exams in a class) and final grades in the class (overall outcome). If they do well they get a raise, if they slump then they don't. Is it really that difficult? How do you think Charter schools work (I know they are elementary/secondary, but the samething could be used in University or college). I already know what you are going to say though. It might go a little something like this "They couldn't do that! Classes are too big!" Correct, classes are too big. Everybody does not have to go to University or College to be something in life, but apparently over the last 30 yrs government has pounded it into people's heads that they need to. Everywhere the market is allowed to work, it works magnificantly. That you cannot refute.


----------



## stylicho (Nov 8, 2003)

> What exactly are you talking about?Have I ever said that CEO's compete and earn their golden parachutes? I didn't think so. If the stocks go up then yeah they get a raise. When stocks go up it means they are making a profit (ex: Apple)


That's incorrect. Stocks often go up when a company is losing money (ex: sirius radio) ticker symbol siri. And I sure don't hear you compalining about CEOs do I? Only complaining about unions and lower income people you deem are getting a free ride off the government. Comprende?


----------



## stylicho (Nov 8, 2003)

> Everywhere the market is allowed to work, it works magnificantly. That you cannot refute.


Yeah, like Somalia. We had laissez faire during the Gilded Age. It produced the same number of wealthy people as any totalitarian state.


----------



## Shauna The Dead (Jun 16, 2005)

Hoth said:


> The government should do it, since I believe someone born into a poor family deserves an equal shot.


I agree.


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

stylicho said:


> That's incorrect. Stocks often go up when a company is losing money (ex: sirius radio) ticker symbol siri.


How does that have anything to do with teachers unions? If people want to buy underperforming stock then go ahead. Just because a stock goes up does not mean it is good. This is why short selling is good for the market.



stylicho said:


> And I sure don't hear you compalining about CEOs do I??


I'm not going to complaon about CEO salaries because it is supply and demand. If the CEO is not performing then they will be dismissed. If a teacher is not performing they keep their job. Comprende?



stylicho said:


> Only complaining about unions and lower income people you deem are getting a free ride off the government. Comprende?


When have I complained about lower income people? Teachers are not lower income people.


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

stylicho said:


> Yeah, like Somalia. We had laissez faire during the Gilded Age. It produced the same number of wealthy people as any totalitarian state.


Such a bad, bad time. (Sacasm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_age

These guy's were awful as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morrison_Flagler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Rogers

Awful, awful people. (Note the sarcasm)


----------



## stylicho (Nov 8, 2003)

> Such a bad, bad time. (Sacasm)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_ageThese guy's were awful as well:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew...://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._RogersAwful, awful people. (Note the sarcasm)


Like I said, it produced the same number of wealthy people as any totalitarian state. As you can see pretty much all the wealth was in the hands of a very few. As for your links did you know Bill Gates has a foundation in his name also. Did you ever hear how Gates made his fortune. Just because people want everlasting fame in some vague trust doesn't mean they were good people. Hell, the gilded age railroaders "hired" the Chinese slave laborers to build the railroads. They had many on the job injuries and deaths but you can bet the railroaders did nothing to compensate the workers.


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

stylicho said:


> Like I said, it produced the same number of wealthy people as any totalitarian state. As you can see pretty much all the wealth was in the hands of a very few. As for your links did you know Bill Gates has a foundation in his name also. Did you ever hear how Gates made his fortune. Just because people want everlasting fame in some vague trust doesn't mean they were good people. Hell, the gilded age railroaders "hired" the Chinese slave laborers to build the railroads. They had many on the job injuries and deaths but you can bet the railroaders did nothing to compensate the workers.


So you want to live in a perfect world where nothing ever goes wrong? I don't think that is ever possible.

I provided the links because you make it sound like the wealthy just sit on their money and let people starve or just let them be poor. Sounds like a Marxist whining again.

Yeah Bill Gates made his fortune with Microsoft. Your point?

Have you heard of Warren Buffet? He likes to give his millions away, but I guess he is just some greedy man that needs to be taxed highly.

How about Howard Hughes? Most of his money went towards medical research. Who cares if their are rich people in the world. What do you want? Everyone can't be equal, it just is not in human nature.


----------



## stylicho (Nov 8, 2003)

http://www.academicamerican.com/recongildedage/index.html
The gilded age (aka the age of exploitation)


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

You/your parents.


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

stylicho said:


> http://www.academicamerican.com/recongildedage/index.html
> The gilded age (aka the age of exploitation)


So this is where you learn all of your "facts" lol.

So balanceed. I love how they paint Wilson and FDR as great in another section when in reality they were probably the worst presidents in your history.

They also don't even mention the 1920-1921 depression.

Really great site. Talk about stupidity.


----------



## mcmuffinme (Mar 12, 2010)

the government. if we just didn't keep ourselves in a perpetual state of war it wouldn't be such a tall order, really.


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

mcmuffinme said:


> the government. if we just didn't keep ourselves in a perpetual state of war it wouldn't be such a tall order, really.


Still wouldn't be able to do it. Does nobody understand that manipulation of the market by the government only leads to unforeseen consequences?

Geez! With all these University/College educated people you think they would pick up on it or see a pattern.


----------



## stylicho (Nov 8, 2003)

> So this is where you learn all of your "facts" lol.So balanceed. I love how they paint Wilson and FDR as great in another section when in reality they were probably the worst presidents in your history.They also don't even mention the 1920-1921 depression.Really great site. Talk about stupidity.


I don't have a computer to get facts right now. Its really difficult to produce good credible information with a blackberry phone. So I posted that link only to show what other names the gilded age goes by. All you have to do is look up the percentages of people in poverty and those who are wealthy. Even wikipedia, a site you put a lot of faith in, might be able to help you with that. Instead of questioning links just buy the book Corporation Nation. It gives detailed information, not conjecture, on what occured during the Gilded Age. Anyways, I will let you get the last word, or shall I say snide remark in since you apparently require this. I have to do the same thing with young children :lol.


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

stylicho said:


> I don't have a computer to get facts right now. Its really difficult to produce good credible information with a blackberry phone. So I posted that link only to show what other names the gilded age goes by. All you have to do is look up the percentages of people in poverty and those who are wealthy. Even wikipedia, a site you put a lot of faith in, might be able to help you with that. Instead of questioning links just buy the book Corporation Nation. It gives detailed information, not conjecture, on what occured during the Gilded Age. Anyways, I will let you get the last word, or shall I say snide remark in since you apparently require this. I have to do the same thing with young children.


I have already provided you a link to wikipedia's article on the gilded age. People were better off then then they were in decades past were they not? It's called progression. I will get to corporation nation after I am done the shock doctrine (sarcasm I must note).


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

myhalo123 said:


> Why stop at education? Not everyone can afford a BMW, vacation home, motorcycle, RV, dirt bike, dogs, cats, pigs, chickens - KFC or real, horses, cell phones, computer, internet access, and on and on.
> 
> I think since Obama is already adding trillions to the deficit, he and the democrats should peel off a few hundred billion and buy us all at least a new toaster.
> 
> Do you have a new toaster? I sure don't and I feel like some toast right now.


:haha


----------



## stylicho (Nov 8, 2003)

> I have already provided you a link to wikipedia's article on the gilded age. People were better off then then they were in decades past were they not? It's called progression. I will get to corporation nation after I am done the shock doctrine (sarcasm I must note)


No, "people" were not better. A very few people were better. And I guess my other post was deleted :stu. But like I said, concerning your other post, Gates stole intellectual property from Steve Jobs. As you can see its usually apple and rarely microsoft that innovate new items. Warren Buffett complained about his secretary paying more in taxes than he does.


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

stylicho said:


> No, "people" were not better. A very few people were better. And I guess my other post was deleted :stu. But like I said, concerning your other post, Gates stole intellectual property from Steve Jobs. As you can see its usually apple and rarely microsoft that innovate new items. Warren Buffett complained about his secretary paying more in taxes than he does.


Who was this for?

"The wealth of the period is highlighted by the American upper class' opulence, but also by the rise of American philanthropy (referred to by Andrew Carnegie as the "Gospel of Wealth") that used private money to endow thousands of colleges, hospitals, museums, academies, schools, opera houses, public libraries, symphony orchestras, and charities. John D. Rockefeller, for example, donated over $500 million to various charities, slightly over half his entire net worth."

I guess this was for the other rich people right?

or this

"During the Gilded Age, American manufacturing production surpassed the combined total of Britain, Germany, and France. Railroad mileage tripled between 1860 and 1880, and tripled again by 1920, opening new areas to commercial farming, creating a truly national marketplace and inspiring a boom in coal mining and steel production. The voracious appetite for capital of the great trunk railroads facilitated the consolidation of the nation's financial market in Wall Street. By 1900, the process of economic concentration had extended into most branches of industry-a few large corporations, called "trusts", dominated in steel, oil, sugar, meatpacking, and the manufacture of agriculture machinery. Other major components of this infrastructure were the new methods for fabricating steel, especially the Bessemer process. The first billion-dollar corporation was United States Steel, formed by financier J. P. Morgan in 1901, who purchased and consolidated steel firms built by Andrew Carnegie and others.[3]
Increased mechanization of industry is a major mark of the Gilded Age's search for cheaper ways to create more product. Frederick Winslow Taylor observed that worker efficiency in steel could be improved through the use of machines to make fewer motions in less time. His redesign increased the speed of factory machines and the productivity of factories while undercutting the need for skilled labor. This mechanization made some factories an assemblage of unskilled laborers performing simple and repetitive tasks under the direction of skilled foremen and engineers. Machine shops grew rapidly, and they comprised highly skilled workers and engineers. Both the number of unskilled and skilled workers increased, as their wage rates grew[4] Engineering colleges were established to feed the enormous demand for expertise. Railroads invented complex bureaucratic systems, using middle managers, and set up explicit career tracks. They hired young men at age 18-21 and promoted them internally until a man reached the status of locomotive engineer, conductor or station agent at age 40 or so. Career tracks were invented for skilled blue collar jobs and for white collar managers, starting in railroads and expanding into finance, manufacturing and trade. Together with rapid growth of small business, a new middle class was rapidly growing, especially in northern cities.[5]
The United States became a world leader in applied technology. From 1860 to 1890, 500,000 patents were issued for new inventions-over ten times the number issued in the previous seventy years."

So it's your turn to prove me "wrong".

On to the Gates and Jobs thing. True they wroked together and true windows borrowed things from Apple. If I am correct didn't Gates save Apple with some financial assistance? If so then would that give him the right to borrow some things from Apple since he saved them from going under? If he didn't then I chalk it up to just doing business.


----------



## TheDaffodil (Jun 20, 2009)

I think the answer varies from situation to situation, sometimes being a combination of the options. I do think that if you can pay for it yourself, you should, but let's say you qualify for a grant for some reason or another, hey, take advantage of that. Doesn't make you a bad person in my eyes.


----------



## stylicho (Nov 8, 2003)

rb1088 said:


> Who was this for?


If I quote a paragraph written from you one would assume it was directed at you if youre coherent.



> "The wealth of the period is highlighted by the American upper class' opulence, but also by the rise of American philanthropy (referred to by Andrew Carnegie as the "Gospel of Wealth") that used private money to endow thousands of colleges, hospitals, museums, academies, schools, opera houses, public libraries, symphony orchestras, and charities. John D. Rockefeller, for example, donated over $500 million to various charities, slightly over half his entire net worth."
> 
> I guess this was for the other rich people right?


What does that prove other than the wealth was in the hands of a few and those few wanted to maintain a legacy?



> or this
> 
> "During the Gilded Age, American manufacturing production surpassed the combined total of Britain, Germany, and France. Railroad mileage tripled between 1860 and 1880, and tripled again by 1920, opening new areas to commercial farming, creating a truly national marketplace and inspiring a boom in coal mining and steel production. The voracious appetite for capital of the great trunk railroads facilitated the consolidation of the nation's financial market in Wall Street. By 1900, the process of economic concentration had extended into most branches of industry-a few large corporations, called "trusts", dominated in steel, oil, sugar, meatpacking, and the manufacture of agriculture machinery. Other major components of this infrastructure were the new methods for fabricating steel, especially the Bessemer process. The first billion-dollar corporation was United States Steel, formed by financier J. P. Morgan in 1901, who purchased and consolidated steel firms built by Andrew Carnegie and others.[3]


I fail to see the relevance of predatory capitalism and innovation. If that were the case the US wouldnt have achieved so much success after FDR became president. The world was advancing at that time. The Europeans were creating many new things also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_history#Renaissance
The Industrial Revolution was a period in the late 18th and early 19th centuries when major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, and transport affected socioeconomic and cultural conditions in Britain and subsequently spread throughout Europe and North America and eventually the world, a process that continues as industrialisation. In the later part of the 1700s the manual labour based economy of the Kingdom of Great Britain began to be replaced by one dominated by industry and the manufacture of machinery. It started with the mechanisation of the textile industries, the development of iron-making techniques and the increased use of refined coal. Once started it spread. Trade expansion was enabled by the introduction of canals, improved roads and railways. The introduction of steam power (fuelled primarily by coal) and powered machinery (mainly in textile manufacturing) underpinned the dramatic increases in production capacity.[25] The development of all-metal machine tools in the first two decades of the 19th century facilitated the manufacture of more production machines for manufacturing in other industries. The effects spread throughout Western Europe and North America during the 19th century, eventually affecting most of the world. The impact of this change on society was enormous
I counter that innovation took place, in spite of not because of predatory capitalism.


> The United States became a world leader in applied technology. From 1860 to 1890, 500,000 patents were issued for new inventions-over ten times the number issued in the previous seventy years."
> 
> So it's your turn to prove me "wrong".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_%281865%E2%80%931918%29
*Labor and management*

Compared to the life of a present day American industrial worker, the life of a 19th-century U.S. industrial worker was not easy. Wages were about double the level in Europe, but the work was harder with less leisure. Economic recessions swept the nation in 1873 and 1893, further eroding industrial wages and producing high levels of unemployment and underemployment.
At the same time, technological improvements, which added to the nation's productivity, continually reduced the demand for skilled labor and increased the demand for unskilled labor. The pool of unskilled labor was constantly growing, as unprecedented numbers of immigrants-18 million between 1880 and 1910-entered the U.S., eager for work.
Before 1874, when Massachusetts passed the nation's first legislation limiting the number of hours women and child factory workers could perform to 10 hours a day, virtually no labor legislation existed in the country. Indeed, it was not until the 1930s that the Federal government became actively involved. Until then, the field was left to the state and local authorities, few of whom were as responsive to the workers as they were responsive to wealthy industrialists.
The "crony capitalism", which dominated the second half of the 19th century and fostered huge concentrations of wealth and power, was backed by a pliant judiciary, which consistently ruled against those who challenged the established system. In this, judges were merely following the prevailing philosophy of the times. As John D. Rockefeller is reported to have said: "the growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest." [_citation needed_] This "Social Darwinism," as it was known, had many self-serving proponents who argued that any attempt to regulate business was tantamount to impeding the natural evolution of the species.[_citation needed_]
Yet, the costs of this indifference to the victims of industrialism were high. For millions, living and working conditions were poor, and the hope of escaping from a lifetime of poverty was slight. Immigrant laborers lived in crowded and filthy tenement housing. That industrialization tightened the net of poverty around America's workers was even admitted by corporate leaders, such as Andrew Carnegie, who noted "the contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer." [_citation needed_] In spite of his often noble sentiments, working conditions in Carnegie's factories were no better than anywhere else. As late as 1900, the United States had the highest job-related fatality rate of any industrialized nation in the world. Most industrial workers still worked a 10-hour day (12 hours in the steel industry), yet earned from 20 to 40 percent less than they needed. The situation was only worse for children, whose numbers in the work force doubled between 1870 and 1900


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

stylicho said:


> If I quote a paragraph written from you one would assume it was directed at you if youre coherent.


The first sentence in my last post goes with the quotes. Does it really need to be explained?



stylicho said:


> What does that prove other than the wealth was in the hands of a few and those few wanted to maintain a legacy?


Do you not understand that when the economy is going well everyone does well. Who do you think all those hospitals, schools, libraries, etc were built for?



stylicho said:


> I fail to see the relevance of predatory capitalism and innovation. If that were the case the US wouldnt have achieved so much success after FDR became president.


The only thing FDR was innovating in was failure. The new deal was a flop.


----------



## rb1088 (Jan 24, 2008)

stylicho said:


> *Labor and management*
> 
> Compared to the life of a present day American industrial worker, the life of a 19th-century U.S. industrial worker was not easy. Wages were about double the level in Europe, but the work was harder with less leisure. Economic recessions swept the nation in 1873 and 1893, further eroding industrial wages and producing high levels of unemployment and underemployment.
> At the same time, technological improvements, which added to the nation's productivity, continually reduced the demand for skilled labor and increased the demand for unskilled labor. The pool of unskilled labor was constantly growing, as unprecedented numbers of immigrants-18 million between 1880 and 1910-entered the U.S., eager for work.
> ...


So you would have wanted to live in the dark ages where you had nothing and pretty much were a slave? To make money you have to work. To buy things you have to work. You can't tell me these people weren't better off then then they would have been if this time didn't happen (no industrial revolution or gilded age). When technology improves the work day improves to. Do they build cars the same way now then they did in the 40's? No. Work has gotten easier. Work was easier for them then it would have been if there was no innovation. You have to take your lumps (I know you are going to call me heartless now aren't you because I apparently don't "care" about people living in the gilded age right?)


----------



## Jnmcda0 (Nov 28, 2003)

Amocholes said:


> I do not feel that anybody should be handed an education on a silver platter. If you want something you should have to work for it. One has a tendency to respect it more if you've earned it.


To some degree, a person who graduates has earned it regardless of who is paying for it. They earned it through hard work and studying.

My brother just graduated from medical school and while he was in school, he was not allowed to work (not that he would have had time to, anyway).

I wonder what happens when people go to med school for several years, but don't obtain a degree. They'll have hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans and may not find a job making enough to re-pay the loans.


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

*


Jnmcda0 said:



To some degree, a person who graduates has earned it regardless of who is paying for it. They earned it through hard work and studying.

Click to expand...

*


Jnmcda0 said:


> > Whoa, everyone that works, should have a new house too, right? They've earned it. Everyone that works should be able to afford a new car, they should be able to afford new clothes every month, some should even be able to afford the luxory's such as food, I know people that have had to cut back on food, and you would think they earned it by working! In mind set I know what your thinking, but for me it just doesn't appear this way.
> >
> > This is a pet peeve of mine "I earned it I went through school" I had a sister in law, whose parents paid her way through State, paid for everything, her living, her social life, you name it they paid for it, then when she graduated college she got a brand new car "I EARNED IT." I've met a lot of people who think like this. Do I sound jealous, you bet!
> >
> > ...


----------



## Toad Licker (Nov 2, 2007)

Tax payers paid for mine.


----------



## Glacial (Jun 16, 2010)

I think scholarships are great. If a student shows great potential and interest in an area, but doesn't really have the funds to attend school, scholarships are money set aside to further educate those who demonstrate promise to a field of student and will be most likely to make positive contributions to that field (i.e. medicine) and society. 

I have no problem with the government paying for school but I do believe there should be strict guidelines such as the student must maintain a certian GPA so the government does not pay for someone who wants to attend college and just play and subsequently come away with nothing of value (knowledge).


----------



## lyricalillusions (Nov 29, 2008)

I have zero income, so I would have never been able to go to college to make something of my life if it were not for the government. In an ideal world, in an ideal life, I would pay for it myself, but this is not an ideal world & I definitely do not have an ideal life.


----------



## ktbare (Sep 13, 2009)

My parents should have paid for it, poor a-holes.


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

in this ugly country (for me!) th University pay for the students lol

not joking, it's an old system to make more and more young people att the University in the old good days when u could get a job with 9grade edu!!:clap

today, university students ((noraml schools =just in some poor parts of the country get money)))

it is 214US$/monthly for undergraduate, school of medicine last year students get 20.000US$ (was 40.000US$ years ago) no idea about the rest

the university in this city alone gets 800million US$ from the gov:afr ( I think the highest is the capital 1.5 billion US$ it's not a joke!) and they say: we don't have money,, and they force more and moe studens to pay!!!!!!:mum

half the stuff r in U.S. for research! & thieve is the right word for them

Nano Tech is all what they talk about !! what dose it mean??:no

----------------

those in scholarship abroad = if they r studying in the US get 1700US$/m ( and they say: it's not enough:afr:afr) don't know about the rest.

*Strasightarros* is not more than a big losser! didn't and can't get any of that !!!


----------

