For all the big government losers on this site
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2012, 02:27 PM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(05-04-2012 02:23 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(05-04-2012 02:17 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  I am not that concerned about the person with kids trying to get an education. Sure she made some mistakes when she was young, but are you wanting to punish her forever? She needs to grow up and starting pumping out babies, sure, but I see no problem with helping her get an education to make her and her children's lives better.

As for how to reform education? I have no clue, but I would look overseas for an answer.


Look at this, £6,000 = $9494 USD

Oxford University is
planning to raise tuition fees to the maximum level of £9,000 per year -
balanced by a package of fee subsidies and bursaries. There will be reduced fee levels for students from families earning less than £25,000 per year.

Means-tested bursaries will also be available - so students will not have to take jobs during term time.

Oxford is the fourth university to announce that it intends to charge the maximum fee level from 2012.


Fee freeze for poorest
Under Oxford's fee plans, students from households earning
less than £16,000 per year would only pay £3,500 for their first year -
with the university subsidising the rest. Subsequent years would cost
£6,000 per year.


There will also be fee reductions for students from families earning up to £25,000 per year. A sliding scale of means-tested bursaries will also be on offer - up to a household income of £42,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12745611


Now compare that to say Harvard or one of our ivy league schools at roughly $50,000.
Its like night and day.
Does Oxford manage to fund itself with these tuition rates or are they federally subsidized? Why exactly is Harvard so expensive to attend? Is the university's overhead really that much or is it supply and demand dictating tuition? Why is any US school so expensive?
Dude, I honestly have no clue. All I know is that I am still paying off my huge college debt, and apparently that isn't a big problem in many other countries.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 02:47 PM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(05-04-2012 02:27 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  
(05-04-2012 02:23 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Does Oxford manage to fund itself with these tuition rates or are they federally subsidized? Why exactly is Harvard so expensive to attend? Is the university's overhead really that much or is it supply and demand dictating tuition? Why is any US school so expensive?
Dude, I honestly have no clue. All I know is that I am still paying off my huge college debt, and apparently that isn't a big problem in many other countries.
In state tuition at LSU is ~$5700. It's not a private university but still costs less than half of what Oxford costs.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...rouge-2010

I really don't know much about it either. I work for a small private college that graduates less than 400 people per year and still don't know why/how it all works.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2012, 10:19 AM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
Wow, I had no idea universities in the south have such a smaller tuition fee... In the midwest where the main colleges from big to small I've ever looked into, few were ever able to come up as respectable and be under 10,000 in-state.

Other countries from what I've always known or seen in media, have a whole different highschool structure and varied level of status making a difference course for where a kids education can be. A whole lot more of the hikes come at good highschool entries other than college. I don't know a whole lot on that in specific systems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 07:45 AM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(08-04-2012 10:19 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Wow, I had no idea universities in the south have such a smaller tuition fee... In the midwest where the main colleges from big to small I've ever looked into, few were ever able to come up as respectable and be under 10,000 in-state.

Other countries from what I've always known or seen in media, have a whole different highschool structure and varied level of status making a difference course for where a kids education can be. A whole lot more of the hikes come at good highschool entries other than college. I don't know a whole lot on that in specific systems.
Well LSU isn't exactly ivy league. Not bad but ranked near the top 100 in the world IIRC.

I'd personally like to see more high schools offering college basics to those that feel up to it. A person who could go straight from high school to grad school could be working in their field with a BA by 20 years old. If that became normal I think we'd see student loan and drop out rates plummet.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 09:09 AM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(08-04-2012 10:19 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Wow, I had no idea universities in the south have such a smaller tuition fee... In the midwest where the main colleges from big to small I've ever looked into, few were ever able to come up as respectable and be under 10,000 in-state.

Other countries from what I've always known or seen in media, have a whole different highschool structure and varied level of status making a difference course for where a kids education can be. A whole lot more of the hikes come at good highschool entries other than college. I don't know a whole lot on that in specific systems.
Just to be fair (I'm not including LSU because I just don't know their stats), southern schools lag behind on education. Education isn't at it's premium down here. I'm sure it stacks high enough to maintain but it still isn't top notch.

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 09:22 AM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(09-04-2012 09:09 AM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  
(08-04-2012 10:19 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Wow, I had no idea universities in the south have such a smaller tuition fee... In the midwest where the main colleges from big to small I've ever looked into, few were ever able to come up as respectable and be under 10,000 in-state.

Other countries from what I've always known or seen in media, have a whole different highschool structure and varied level of status making a difference course for where a kids education can be. A whole lot more of the hikes come at good highschool entries other than college. I don't know a whole lot on that in specific systems.
Just to be fair (I'm not including LSU because I just don't know their stats), southern schools lag behind on education. Education isn't at it's premium down here. I'm sure it stacks high enough to maintain but it still isn't top notch.
Been a long time since I saw numbers but last I recall LSU was like 100-125 globally. It's not bad but not worth bragging about. Ivy Leagues like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, etc and even Oxford and maybe Cambridge are always top 10.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes germanyt's post
09-04-2012, 05:07 PM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(04-04-2012 04:16 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(04-04-2012 03:41 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I am not complaining about the system, I am pointing out your generality of socialized services, and the perks of having said services.

You have commented on welfare before. Socialism is the main cause of all these free/assistance services, see Karl Marx.wiki.

Yes, and there are freeloaders without socialized medicine and welfare. I live in Europe and am from the U.S, I should know the repercussions of both.
But I have never indicated that I'm anti-welfare. My wife and daughter are on medicaid at the moment. I simply can't afford paying the 700 dollar premiums or 500/month in prescriptions. My wife had to go to a charity hospital to get a new insulin prescription (we were paying full price for scripts) because her refills were up and they required a check stub. I provided it and they told us we qualified. The difference is that when my wife starts working and we can afford it we will be on a group insurance policy and off medicaid. It's a goal of ours and too many people don't have that desire. I've even been approved for food stamps for 6 months because of 1 bad paycheck. Used the card for 1 month and cancelled it. No one but anarchists and hardcore libertarians are pushing for privatization of social programs like police and fire departments. I don't agree with that position. And welfare programs used properly are extremely beneficial to the economy overall by keeping people from going bankrupt.
For the last time. Ron Paul. Really?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2012, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 12-04-2012 07:55 AM by germanyt.)
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(09-04-2012 05:07 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(04-04-2012 04:16 PM)germanyt Wrote:  But I have never indicated that I'm anti-welfare. My wife and daughter are on medicaid at the moment. I simply can't afford paying the 700 dollar premiums or 500/month in prescriptions. My wife had to go to a charity hospital to get a new insulin prescription (we were paying full price for scripts) because her refills were up and they required a check stub. I provided it and they told us we qualified. The difference is that when my wife starts working and we can afford it we will be on a group insurance policy and off medicaid. It's a goal of ours and too many people don't have that desire. I've even been approved for food stamps for 6 months because of 1 bad paycheck. Used the card for 1 month and cancelled it. No one but anarchists and hardcore libertarians are pushing for privatization of social programs like police and fire departments. I don't agree with that position. And welfare programs used properly are extremely beneficial to the economy overall by keeping people from going bankrupt.
For the last time. Ron Paul. Really?
Yep. Why? Ron Paul isn't planning on ending welfare or social programs. He's interested in policy that would stop people from needing it.

Did a quick search for something on Paul's position regarding programs like this.

"[T]he message of freedom is important," was one of the first things Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul said to me during my private interview with him on Sept. 27. Nicknamed by many as the "Modern Thomas Jefferson," he has spent more than two decades in Congress doing his best to adhere to the limitations placed on the federal government by the Constitution. But the congressman quickly dismisses any credit for his positions, insisting that he's just following the rules and the principles of the founders.

A licensed ob-gyn and former captain and flight surgeon in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, Dr. Paul is regarded as the most consistent voter in the House of Representatives. That sounds like it might be campaign nonsense, but many things stand out about Paul that lend credibility to the hype: He has never voted to raise taxes, for an unbalanced budget, to raise congressional pay and has never taken a government-paid junket.

Paul has voted against the Patriot Act, against the Iraq War, against federal regulation of the Internet, and against increasing the powers of the executive branch. Paul does not even participate in the congressional pension plan, and he returns a portion of his annual budget to the U.S. Treasury each year. Consistent in his private life too, he's been married to wife Carol for 54 years.

I had the opportunity to talk to this celebrity of American politics for half an hour while he rode to the airport to catch his flight home. Thanking him for the chance, the congressman laughed, waved his hands in the air and joked, "But you're the meeeedia!" Paul has historically not been treated well by the media. He continued: "In all seriousness, I always encourage people to go into journalism. It's an honorable profession, and we need people to tell us what's going on and help keep the government honest."

I led off with some criticisms of the congressman that were printed in the Daily a few weeks ago and asked Dr. Paul to rebut the statements. Happy for the chance, he turned toward me, sliding his knee up on the seat and leaned back against the door, listening intently. I said this expositor was highly critical of his position on Medicare and Social Security, suggesting that Paul's philosophy on them is relevant only to those who are young and healthy. Congressman Paul has stated many times that he is against federal entitlements and people being hooked on government "from the cradle to the grave."

Paul grinned, chuckling a little and shaking his head, dismissing the accusation with a wave. "I hear that all the time. I've said before — earlier tonight I said it — that I don't want to get rid of services for people already dependent on them. I just — well first, I want to make it so we can afford it. Pretty soon we won't have any money to give anyway so it won't matter. But no, if someone is on Social Security or Medicare, I won't get rid of it for them, but we should work to gradually phase it out or reduce it." Paul went on, however, to suggest that, "there will always be people who need help."

I asked the congressman if the federal government played any role in helping those who he said would need help, or if it was a local issue. "It wasn't a problem when I was younger, before the government really got involved. Like with medical care: No one went without medical care that I knew about. I'm a doctor, and we never turned anyone away; we always seemed to work it out. And you know, churches and charities have always provided some of the best health care. Down in Texas, we've got the Shriners. They've got a great burn center there, and no one pays for treatment. So yes, I would say private organizations would better handle it, and the states could also do something too, and there's always the counties and the cities."

Ron Paul has gone on record as being in favor of an option for younger people to opt out of Social Security, and I asked him about it. "Oh yes, young people don't need to be tied into this, and I'm definitely in favor of letting them out of it if they want. The problem is Social Security needs you out there working to pay for it for people on it now, so like I said, we need to cut spending and make it so we can afford it for the people dependent on it."

Paul's belief, in short, is that we can no longer afford programs like Medicare and Social Security for everyone, but those programs will be safe under his presidency for those who are currently dependent on them. Further, philosophically and constitutionally, one's health care and retirement are private affairs, and if government is to be involved, it should be handled at the state and local levels because the people have more control at smaller levels of government.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2012, 08:32 AM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
Lets not mention the racist newsletters he wrote...or the fact that he will not honor any union contract and flat out admits he will segregate union workers from federal government work. He would ignore Davis/bacon. He supports equal time for creationism in schools. He will shut down the dept of education, and he personally dispises the civil rights act.
Imagine an america like the 1950's, but without a healthy middle class and a highly taxed 1% richest.

"Praise Sweet Baby Jesus!" - RevJ. Cool

My Sites: www.jesuschristarcade.com - www.facebook.com/jesuschristarcade - Twitter@jesusarcade
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2012, 08:42 AM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(12-04-2012 08:32 AM)reverendjeremiah Wrote:  Lets not mention the racist newsletters he wrote...or the fact that he will not honor any union contract and flat out admits he will segregate union workers from federal government work. He would ignore Davis/bacon. He supports equal time for creationism in schools. He will shut down the dept of education, and he personally dispises the civil rights act.
Imagine an america like the 1950's, but without a healthy middle class and a highly taxed 1% richest.
Didn't write the newsletter. Union workers cost too much for the same work. He may support equal time but has no intention of passing policy concerning creationism. The dept of ed is a failure and probably should be closed. And he doesn't despise the civil rights act. He opposes a company or business owner being forced to serve people that they don't want to serve. If anything he's a champion of individual rights.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: