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.
- Status
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Is college for everyone? And when did the idea of everyone needs to go to college to succeed become gospel?
Some colleges would survive and some would not. The ones that are not delivering the "bang for the buck" would probably fold / consolidate.
Is college for everyone? And when did the idea of everyone needs to go to college to succeed become gospel?
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
As far as areas to cut spending are concerned, the student loan program seems like one of the dumbest ones to gut - unless of course we want a dumber / less-skilled workforce/populace.
Probably back when the unskilled factory jobs started going bye-bye was when college became a dominant factor in career placement.
As far as areas to cut spending are concerned, the student loan program seems like one of the dumbest ones to gut - unless of course we want a dumber / less-skilled workforce/populace.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
(Wait, are you talking about the Ron Paul plan or my suggestion?)
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?)
P
Priceless
Guest
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
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.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Taxing the poor is one thing. Making it so that its unlikely the poor can realize their potential is entirely something else.
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.
Taxing the poor is one thing. Making it so that its unlikely the poor can realize their potential is entirely something else.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
And for that matter, who says the powerful want a true meritocracy? Competing on a level playing field with the entire population to keep their privileges? That looks like a lot of work...
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.
And for that matter, who says the powerful want a true meritocracy? Competing on a level playing field with the entire population to keep their privileges? That looks like a lot of work...
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
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
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
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Thats why there are permits. Its a non-issue if they had obtained one.
Thats why there are permits. Its a non-issue if they had obtained one.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
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.
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.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
All of which is not only apt commentary on the monocle-popping reaction by Republicans to the Occupy movement, but also wonderfully ironic since it elevated what would have been just another copycat protest in BFE Nowhere to something meaningful. Fun stuff.
All of which is not only apt commentary on the monocle-popping reaction by Republicans to the Occupy movement, but also wonderfully ironic since it elevated what would have been just another copycat protest in BFE Nowhere to something meaningful. Fun stuff.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...american-civilization-can-avoid-collapse.html
The payoff:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...american-civilization-can-avoid-collapse.html
The payoff:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
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.
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.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Whereas your posts are thoughtful, accurate and original? And not influenced by any libtard sources? And so modest, too.
Whereas your posts are thoughtful, accurate and original? And not influenced by any libtard sources? And so modest, too.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Folks are a bit touchy when it comes to items they believe are specifically spelled out in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Folks are a bit touchy when it comes to items they believe are specifically spelled out in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I think we've reached the point now where we can dismiss any claims that this mobocracy is in the slightest bit "spontaneous." Unions, hard left "organizers" and the whole libtard infrastructure is in on this one. And for one simple reason: they think it will help Deadmeat get re-elected. Who knows? Maybe they're right.
I think we've reached the point now where we can dismiss any claims that this mobocracy is in the slightest bit "spontaneous." Unions, hard left "organizers" and the whole libtard infrastructure is in on this one. And for one simple reason: they think it will help Deadmeat get re-elected. Who knows? Maybe they're right.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
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".
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Just about everything is "paid for by someone else." That's how the economy works. Wages at the supermarket are paid for by someone else when we buy groceries. The farmers are paid by the grocers. When I worked for Microsoft, I was paid because people paid for computers. Someone else is always paying. The question is, are you getting a value for the money you are paying. Hard to say education, health care and day care don't provide good return on the investment. Much better than, say, spending billions of dollars subsidizing an industry enjoying record profits...
Just about everything is "paid for by someone else." That's how the economy works. Wages at the supermarket are paid for by someone else when we buy groceries. The farmers are paid by the grocers. When I worked for Microsoft, I was paid because people paid for computers. Someone else is always paying. The question is, are you getting a value for the money you are paying. Hard to say education, health care and day care don't provide good return on the investment. Much better than, say, spending billions of dollars subsidizing an industry enjoying record profits...
- Status