Some colleges would survive and some would not. The ones that are not delivering the "bang for the buck" would probably fold / consolidate.Ron Paul wants to end federal student loans.
In theory, he's absolutely correct. Federal loans drove the demand for college sky-high, resulting in massive hikes in tuition. The colleges don't care if the student can't pay, they're guaranteed the money from the government. Thus, they have no incentive to lower tuition.
I'm just concerned about how it would work in practice. I just don't trust that the colleges wouldn't just keep the tuition high anyway, and only the rich would afford college, making things even worse. In order to get the drop in tuition he's seeking, enrollment would have to drop off a cliff...which I suppose could happen in 5-10 years if the price stays high as more people begin to view college as overvalued.
I cannot tell you how glad I am this issue has been brought to the forefront. This is the next bubble to pop in this country. Mark my words.
Probably back when the unskilled factory jobs started going bye-bye was when college became a dominant factor in career placement.And when did the idea of everyone needs to go to college to succeed become gospel?
Only true if there's a significant gap in education and placement quality between the public schools and the private schools. I don't think such a gap exists right now, but maybe I'm mistaken.You'd still have private college loans, which would go to people wealthy enough to qualify for them. Tuition would still be high, but wealth would become even more self-reinforcing than it is already.
unless of course we want a dumber / less-skilled workforce/populace.
Ah, the open borders crowd.Well, some people do...
I'm talking about what happens if all government student loans were to end. My point is Paul's plan wouldn't be the end of loans, per se, but just loans as an instrument for moving up the ladder. That is basically the practical outcome of all well-meaning libertarian schemes: duplication of the existing order in each subsequent generation. Arguably, that is efficient (I doubt it) or "just" (depending on your definition of justice), but many of us think it's a very poor model for America. There are plenty of unapologetically oligarchical societies out there if that's your bag.Only true if there's a significant gap in education and placement quality between the public schools and the private schools. I don't think such a gap exists right now, but maybe I'm mistaken.
(Wait, are you talking about the Ron Paul plan or my suggestion?)
I'm talking about what happens if all government student loans were to end. My point is Paul's plan wouldn't be the end of loans, per se, but just loans as an instrument for moving up the ladder. That is basically the practical outcome of all well-meaning libertarian schemes: duplication of the existing order in each subsequent generation. Arguably, that is efficient (I doubt it) or "just" (depending on your definition of justice), but many of us think it's a very poor model for America. There are plenty of unapologetically oligarchical societies out there if that's your bag.![]()
Free education, free health care, free day care, and free senior care would eliminate the need for pretty much all other social programs. Means testing them would create a meritocracy without bankrupting the system. But we would have to face some unpleasant facts of life, so politicians will continue to take the easy way out.Taxing the poor is one thing. Making it so that its unlikely the poor can realize their potential is entirely something else.
Probably less interesting than the adjacent ad with a hot blonde that offers 'how to stay asleep', but....
Judge tells Tennessee to stop arresting Occupy protesters
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/31/us/tennessee-occupy-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I'm not totally on board with the ACLU...but a quote from them makes alot of sense to me:
"Political expression deserves the highest level of protection and it was unacceptable for the state to suddenly shut down protesters' speech and forcibly oust them from Legislative Plaza that has long been used as a place for peaceful expression," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director at the ACLU of Tennessee
Thats why there are permits. Its a non-issue if they had obtained one.
There were no permits required. The legislature raced to put permits and other restrictions in place once they realized that protesters were voicing their first amendment rights. From the Tennesean:
Before Thursday’s policy changes were announced, groups apparently faced no legal requirement to get permits before protesting at the Capitol. Organizers of 2009’s tea party protests said they typically obtained permits to guarantee exclusive access to the plaza on the day of the event. Permits also gave organizations the authorization to plug into the plaza’s electrical system.
The arrests began after Gov. Bill Haslam’s administration announced Thursday that it had imposed a 10 p.m. curfew on Legislative Plaza for safety and sanitation reasons. State officials also announced all groups would have to purchase liability insurance and take out a $65 permit for each day they want to assemble on the plaza, making official what had been an informal policy.
Implementing the new rules amid an ongoing protest may have violated the group’s rights of speech, assembly and petition under the First Amendment, some observers say.
And finally we need to reboot our whole system.
I refuse to accept that Western civilization is like some hopeless old version of Microsoft DOS, doomed to freeze, then crash. I still cling to the hope that the United States is the Mac to Europe’s PC, and that if one part of the West can successfully update and reboot itself, it’s America.
But the lesson of history is clear. Voters and politicians alike dare not postpone the big reboot. Decline is not so gradual that our biggest problems can simply be left to the next administration, or the one after that.
If what we are risking is not decline but downright collapse, then the time frame may be even tighter than one election cycle.
Probably less interesting than the adjacent ad with a hot blonde that offers 'how to stay asleep', but....
Judge tells Tennessee to stop arresting Occupy protesters
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/31/us/tennessee-occupy-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I'm not totally on board with the ACLU...but a quote from them makes alot of sense to me:
"Political expression deserves the highest level of protection and it was unacceptable for the state to suddenly shut down protesters' speech and forcibly oust them from Legislative Plaza that has long been used as a place for peaceful expression," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director at the ACLU of Tennessee
Do you ever have an independent thought? Or do you just parrot what you hear on Rush and Fox News?
I guess I shouldn't complain, at least I get to learn the talking points for the day from your posts.
Presumably Ms. Weinberg doesn't have these noisy, smelly, nasty pests disrupting her sleep or her business or diminishing her quality of life. And anyone so affected by these parasites just has to accept their "protected" political expression? Nobody else has rights but them? Or, more to the point, their rights are more important and more deserving of protection than anyone else's rights? Bollocks. Incidentally, this is exactly the position taken by "anti-war" demonstrators in the '60's. Their "higher" kind of rights led them, among other things, to repeatedly try to shut down speakers with whom they disagreed. I see where the parasites are talking about shutting down candidates' offices in the week before the Iowa caucuses. Another triumph for libtard "free speech." You've got to work at it to avoid noticing the parallels with the SA. On the other hand, these "new" requirements do strike me as ex post facto.
Folks are a bit touchy when it comes to items they believe are specifically spelled out in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Let's be accurate - there is no such thing as "free" - all labor and materials have a cost behind them, whether or not you are the one paying for the service. The word you are looking for is "subsidized", or if you would prefer a phrase, it would be "paid for by someone else".Free education, free health care, free day care, and free senior care would eliminate the need for pretty much all other social programs.
Let's be accurate - there is no such thing as "free" - all labor and materials have a cost behind them, whether or not you are the one paying for the service. The word you are looking for is "subsidized", or if you would prefer a phrase, it would be "paid for by someone else".