What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Populi!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

:rolleyes:

And you walked up hill both ways to school through three feet of snow in June, too, I'm sure...

Kids not wanting to work for peanuts doesn't mean they're lazy. It means the potential employers are tightwads that would make Scrooge McDuck seem generous.

Just calling it the way I see it. Most kids these days don't want to do "work" for their paycheck. High school kids have always worked for peanuts, but these days, they don't even want to put in an honest day's effort. I work with a kid in his early 20's, he's making almost double minimum wage, generous bennies, and all he wants to do is the least he has to and make his day as short as possible. Every 20 minutes, he's stopping to play with his phone. Works a four hour day in winter for a full day's pay, and can't even spend an extra 15 minutes to make sure everything's done right, just blows it off so he can get done even earlier, leaves it for someone else to do.

Course, at this job, you have to hustle, work, sweat a little. All things kids today don't want to do, no matter how much money they make. And thing is, he's probably a better worker than most of the other kids I see his age and younger.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

The (THE) major #1 issue is the costs colleges put upon themselves.

These are non-profit and do not pay taxes. Yet the admins pay themselves like outside real world companies. I don't even need to get into Pocahontas getting 400 large to teach one class, I can use silver at BU crying because he was given free housing as the schools pres, but complained that if he HAD bought a house in Brookline it would have appreciated to over a mill so the school gave him a mill mortgage at low low low rates (the story goes). Education is not an ROI industry and doesn't merit the salaries these folks are getting. Not to mention the arms race to build crazy new dorms and whatnot.
Frankly they get away with it because there is not a deep sticker shock.
Feds are more than happy to shovel grants and loans to the majority of consumers who take it and pass along to these schools. Then grant money flows from the other end to facilitate salaries and research et.al.

If these places had to compete for straight consumer $$$ they would have almost no customers (or all foreigners).

Again, Dems love to shape behavior via taxes. How about you cap tuition at .5x local median household income (all in tuition r/b etc). If a private school wants to charge more to citizens they lose property tax exemptions. They have to show and submit tax returns for income made. The whole works.
If they want to pay themselves as a corporation, they lose the tax benefits that educational entities have enjoyed historically.

They'd be a lot more cost conscious if they had more competition. Regarding our alma mater, if UMass was good state system not stocked with state govt refugees and other relatives of politicians, all the private local colleges would be in trouble, particularly places like Northeastern but even BU, BC and Tufts. I'd love to see a comparison of what private colleges charge in places like CA where they do have a solid public college system vs states where we don't.
 
I disagree with this.

I started at UND in the aviation program with a plan to be a pilot. First choice would be to fly for a major airline, but recognized there were other avenues I may elect to or be forced to choose.

I spent a fair amount of money flying planes. It wasn't cheap. I became disillusioned with my prospects primarily because of a few of my instructors. This was at a time when Vietnam War era military pilots were now back in civilian life and were clearly the more attractive job candidates. The instructors would talk about limited opportunities outside of flight school teaching, and it soured me on that career path.

But I've never regretted doing it. I always wanted to learn to fly, and I did. The flight school education has not benefited my current career in the least, but it also didn't restrict it.
My son just graduated from embry riddle. He is a pilot, flying right now for a mapping company in Arizona, just left california.
The amount of debt he has is staggering. He got scholarships, he graduated with distinction in 3 years, was in honors program but we are going to have to get 2nd mortgage to get him in a place where he can even finance a car. He got a good education as evidenced by him flying a twin engine piper aztec as his first job but it doesn't pay union truck driver wages. It's joke. He wants the left seat of a Boeing but it's going to takes years before that happens
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

I've taught at the CC level and I was impressed by the variety of students and their seriousness. It's not the four-year drinking binge of college. There are people of all ages, many with day jobs, and all there for urgent reasons. I think it's a far superior atmosphere for learning how to function with other adults. University as currently configured is a place where half the student population acts like they are still in high school.

What's needed is far more attention, funding, and appreciation for the CC system.

As a teacher in the CC system (MNSCU) I agree wholeheartedly!
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

It's now officially the greatest campaign in American history.

In reality TV you always have to top last week's episode. Trump is running out of ceiling unless he starts actually garroting members with piano wire.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

It's now officially the greatest campaign in American history.

In reality TV you always have to top last week's episode. Trump is running out of ceiling unless he starts actually garroting members with piano wire.

There is going to be an insurrection. If Drumpf thinks he can bully the Senate he is in for a rude awakening...
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

Then tD is doing what the general public shoulda done a long long time ago.....

Really? It appears that what he is doing is simple political bullying intended to benefit noone but himself, NOT holding senators responsible for policy making.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

Really? It appears that what he is doing is simple political bullying intended to benefit noone but himself, NOT holding senators responsible for policy making.

Yup. No problem berating Senators, but if its because they don't worship The Donald, well maybe mookie's cool with that but for the rest of us not so much...:eek:
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

Really? It appears that what he is doing is simple political bullying intended to benefit noone but himself, NOT holding senators responsible for policy making.

It's how he gets what he wants. He's a bully, it's all he knows. He wants their backing, and if they won't give it, then he's gonna bully and attack them until they cower into a ball and give it. See Chris Christie.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

It's how he gets what he wants. He's a bully, it's all he knows. He wants their backing, and if they won't give it, then he's gonna bully and attack them until they cower into a ball and give it. See Chris Christie.

Problem is he has nothing on them. The ones that arent up for re-election know he is politically dead come November and those that are know he will drag them down with him. He can bully the House but the Senate is out of his league.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

It's now officially the greatest campaign in American history.

In reality TV you always have to top last week's episode. Trump is running out of ceiling unless he starts actually garroting members with piano wire.

Say what you will, this will be an interesting convention. For comparison, though, seeing the a-bomb explode from 5 feet away was also technically interesting.

A similar article with more quotes: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/tru...urce=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

Another Republican in the meeting Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) told TPM that Trump was asked pointedly if he would defend Article I of the Constitution.

"Not only will I stand up for Article One," Trump enthusiastically stated,
according to Sanford. "I'll stand up for Article Two, Article 12, you name it of the Constitution."

Sanford said Trump's lack of knowledge about how many articles exist, gave him "a little pause." (The Constitution has seven articles and 27 amendments.)

Blake Farenthold (R-TX) dismissed the flub as little more than a small error.

"He was just listing out numbers," Farenthold said. "I think he was confusing Articles and Amendments. Remember, this guy doesn't speak from a TelePrompter. He speaks from the heart."

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said that Trump did a good job at the meeting "laying out a conservative agenda," but when asked if he still had fears about Trump's candidacy, Meadows said, "I got an interview I got to run to."
 
Last edited:
Blake Farenthold (R-TX) dismissed the flub as little more than a small error.

"He was just listing out numbers," Farenthold said. "I think he was confusing Articles and Amendments. Remember, this guy doesn't speak from a TelePrompter. He speaks from the heart."
Says the Trump wannabe who is grasping to Trump's coattails in a reelection year.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

My son just graduated from embry riddle. He is a pilot, flying right now for a mapping company in Arizona, just left california.
The amount of debt he has is staggering. He got scholarships, he graduated with distinction in 3 years, was in honors program but we are going to have to get 2nd mortgage to get him in a place where he can even finance a car. He got a good education as evidenced by him flying a twin engine piper aztec as his first job but it doesn't pay union truck driver wages. It's joke. He wants the left seat of a Boeing but it's going to takes years before that happens

This is precisely why I bailed on going to Bowling Green or Western for aviation between my sophomore and junior year of high school. My dad had the foresight to make me go out and talk to a few commercial pilots (one was a friend of the family), and that's where I learned about the minimum hours of commercial flying experience required just to apply to be a pilot for a major airline (and that certainly doesn't guarantee you'll be hired). One of my friends, who did end up going through BG's program, ultimately racked up the required hours by working as an instructor for his first year, and then fortunately landed a job flying RJs for ExpressJet, which he did for 7 years. He just moved up to United a couple of years ago, and now flies A320s. Despite graduating from BG in 2.5 years, it still took him 8 years out of school working for very modest pay and long hours, to make it to the majors. I do admire him for it, but call me lazy, I decided it wasn't worth it. :) I wish your son the best of luck.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

So when I am bored at work next, it's time to dig up some historical school budgets.

As I can see it, much of the tuition cost increase can be traced to reduced budgets from states as much or more than increased costs of doing work.

Both schools I pay close attention to have mentioned that funding has changed form 80/20 to 20/80 ( state/tuition ). One needs to look that up. And compare the budget expenses vs inflation.

I know there have been drastic cuts to state universities.

Clinton and sanders' proposals shift the state responsibility to the Feds. But the states are begging for it.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

This is precisely why I bailed on going to Bowling Green or Western for aviation between my sophomore and junior year of high school. My dad had the foresight to make me go out and talk to a few commercial pilots (one was a friend of the family), and that's where I learned about the minimum hours of commercial flying experience required just to apply to be a pilot for a major airline (and that certainly doesn't guarantee you'll be hired). One of my friends, who did end up going through BG's program, ultimately racked up the required hours by working as an instructor for his first year, and then fortunately landed a job flying RJs for ExpressJet, which he did for 7 years. He just moved up to United a couple of years ago, and now flies A320s. Despite graduating from BG in 2.5 years, it still took him 8 years out of school working for very modest pay and long hours, to make it to the majors. I do admire him for it, but call me lazy, I decided it wasn't worth it. :) I wish your son the best of luck.

Its what he wanted to do at 9 yrs old. I wanted him to do engineering, he had the first 2 semesters of calc done in High School. if you get Calc you are on your way to an engineering degree but he would have none of it. He hopes to be flying for a regional by this time next summer.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

So when I am bored at work next, it's time to dig up some historical school budgets.

As I can see it, much of the tuition cost increase can be traced to reduced budgets from states as much or more than increased costs of doing work.

Both schools I pay close attention to have mentioned that funding has changed form 80/20 to 20/80 ( state/tuition ). One needs to look that up. And compare the budget expenses vs inflation.

I know there have been drastic cuts to state universities.

Clinton and sanders' proposals shift the state responsibility to the Feds. But the states are begging for it.

That's a state-by-state issue, if it's actually happened at all. In Minnesota, growth in post-secondary spending always exceeded inflation. The screaming about cuts from MnSCU and Board of Regents were cries of budget increases being cut from the desired 8-10% down to roughly half that each year. The schools have then used those "cuts" as a way to justify the increases in tuition to students and the media.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIII: Clinton destrueretur est. Trump est destruetur. Vox Pop

It's happened in Idaho and Michigan. And bet it's more common than you think.

And one should read the budgets to check reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top