Student Loans: "more" education isn't always "better" education

[Gonzo Rodeo]

If she drops out of school. EITHER.. she can go to work (which means she needs less support than the girl in school)...

...but she will still need daycare in that situation.

I see.. so she is not working and she is not in school...

I went ahead and quoted the chain for you again, just so it's clear how badly you failed at reading. Maybe one of these times it will stick. One can hope.

 

[jaeger19]

So, when you said she can go to work if she drops out, and I said that would mean she would need daycare if she went to work, and then you replied that she's not working so she doesn't need daycare... what did you mean by that, exactly?

It's all quoted up above, nice and tidy. Take a good look.

Yes...you need to read a little.

IF SHE QUITS SCHOOL SHE EITHER can go to work OR she can stay home with the kid.

So, she can leave her baby home alone if she only works part time?

Dude.. are you working at being obtuse?

If she works part time.. then part of the time she is not working and can provide daycare... UNLIKE THE GIRL WHO IS IN SCHOOL!.

How much do you spend on school supplies during the typical year? And how much do you think the average person spends on transportation costs getting back and forth to work?

You have clearly lost this argument, several pages ago. Let it go, man. You are embarrassing yourself at this point.

Lets see...tons of money for supplies. AND there is transportation costs as well. (the transportation costs of the person working likely isn't more than what they are getting in pay.. soooo again.. they have more money than the person in school)

You sir have completely lost the argument.. and yet you continue to dig yourself in deeper. But its fun watching you.

 

[jaeger19]

I went ahead and quoted the chain for you again, just so it's clear how badly you failed at reading. Maybe one of these times it will stick. One can hope.

Yeah.. I think the problem is that YOU failed at reading comprehension...

But maybe one of these times you will understand... one can hope.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Yes...you need to read a little.

IF SHE QUITS SCHOOL SHE EITHER can go to work OR she can stay home with the kid.

And I clearly addressed both parts. She can EITHER go to work (in which case she needs daycare, and the job she's likely to get won't even cover the cost), or she can stay home (which means she needs income).

To the part of where if she goes to work and needs daycare, you responded like she I was claiming she was doing neither. You have to go so far out of your way, intentionally, to purposefully misconstrue my argument any other way. You are either being incredibly disingenuous, or you simply cannot read very well.

Which is it?

Dude.. are you working at being obtuse?

If she works part time.. then part of the time she is not working and can provide daycare... UNLIKE THE GIRL WHO IS IN SCHOOL!.

You clearly said she only needs daycare if she is employed full time. So, I'd like to know what your plan for the poor, hopeless girl is when she's at work part time.

You do realize "full time" school isn't anywhere close to 40 hours a week, right? Even your concocted school situation wouldn't fulfill your concocted full time daycare requirement. You are reaching so hard!

Lets see...tons of money for supplies. AND there is transportation costs as well. (the transportation costs of the person working likely isn't more than what they are getting in pay.. soooo again.. they have more money than the person in school)

Tons of money? A one subject notebook for each class, pens, pencils, a one-time expense for a graphic calculator... yeah, that is TONS of money. Not counting the calculator, I spend about $15 a semester on supplies. Totally comparable to a car payment + insurance, or even subway or bus fare.

You sir have completely lost the argument.. and yet you continue to dig yourself in deeper. But its fun watching you.

You still haven't thought this through. And the more and more points you try to bring up, the more and more it looks like you're just angry at defending a stupid idea and refuse to let it go.

 

[jaeger19]

And I clearly addressed both parts. She can EITHER go to work (in which case she needs daycare, and the job she's likely to get won't even cover the cost), or she can stay home (which means she needs income).

To the part of where if she goes to work and needs daycare, you responded like she I was claiming she was doing neither. You have to go so far out of your way, intentionally, to purposefully misconstrue my argument any other way. You are either being incredibly disingenuous, or you simply cannot read very well.

That's a bald faced lie. The problem here is that you don't realize that in EITHER case.. she needs less assistance than the girl that stays in school.

You clearly said she only needs daycare if she is employed full time. So, I'd like to know what your plan for the poor, hopeless girl is when she's at work part time.

You do realize "full time" school isn't anywhere close to 40 hours a week, right? Even your concocted school situation wouldn't fulfill your concocted full time daycare requirement. You are reaching so hard!

Already explained about part time. SHE STILL NEEDS LESS ASSISTANCE THAN THE GIRL THATS IN SCHOOL.

Tons of money? A one subject notebook for each class, pens, pencils, a one-time expense for a graphic calculator... yeah, that is TONS of money. Not counting the calculator, I spend about $15 a semester on supplies. Totally comparable to a car payment + insurance, or even subway or bus fare.

Lets see.. art pencils, instrument rentals music books, activity fees, calculator, laptop in many schools, OR computer at home or at least lots of trips to the library. Pens, colored pencils.. and that's not even talking about the money necessary for science projects, history projects etc.

But by the way.. totally comparable to a car payment and insurance? SO? She is not working... while the other girl not in school IS. If she is working, then you would expect that the cost of going to work ARE LESS than what she is getting in money. SO she is still needing less assistance than the girl who is in school.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

That's a bald faced lie. The problem here is that you don't realize that in EITHER case.. she needs less assistance than the girl that stays in school.

And in EITHER case, she still needs assistance. You'd see that if you read my argument. Instead, you call me a liar when I point out how wrong you are and embarrass you. I'll recap, once again. You're in blue, I'm in red:

YOU: If she drops out of school. EITHER.. she can go to work (which means she needs less support than the girl in school)...
ME: ...but she will still need daycare in that situation.
YOU: OR.. she doesn;t need daycare because she can be home with the kid.
ME: ...which means she still needs money to feed and shelter her kid.
YOU: I see.. so she is not working and she is not in school...

Try reading my argument. Just try it. I mean, right now, it looks like you're just not willing to deal with what is being said. I guess I understand that. It's hard to admit when we're wrong sometimes. I forgive you.

Already explained about part time. SHE STILL NEEDS LESS ASSISTANCE THAN THE GIRL THATS IN SCHOOL.

Person A has monthly expenses of $1,000 and only brings home $500;
Person B has monthly expenses of $1,000 and makes no money at all;
Which person has disposable income?

Lets see.. art pencils, instrument rentals music books, activity fees, calculator, laptop in many schools, OR computer at home or at least lots of trips to the library. Pens, colored pencils.. and that's not even talking about the money necessary for science projects, history projects etc.

You buy a calculator and a laptop every semester? Must be nice, Mr. Moneybags! Is your last name Kennedy?

But by the way.. totally comparable to a car payment and insurance? SO? She is not working... while the other girl not in school IS. If she is working, then you would expect that the cost of going to work ARE LESS than what she is getting in money. SO she is still needing less assistance than the girl who is in school.

In your continued bid to be right, you completely gloss over the very premise your argument is predicated upon. You are contradicting yourself in a major, fundamental way. At one point, you are saying that people who drop out of school need more welfare because they less desirable employees, while simultaneously claiming a 16 year old single mother needs less assistance because she now has employment opportunities when she quits school.

???

Which is it? Can a drop out get a job that pays the bills or not?

 

[jaeger19]

Try reading my argument. Just try it. I mean, right now, it looks like you're just not willing to deal with what is being said. I guess I understand that. It's hard to admit when we're wrong sometimes. I forgive you.

Nope... I understand your argument.. you just don't get it. Yep they need assistance. They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance.

Hey,, is that enough times repeating myself to get it through your skull. THEY BOTH NEED ASSISTANCE... BUT THE GIRL IN SCHOOL NEEDS MORE...

Thus it makes sense that if the girl DROPS OUT OF SCHOOL... she pays a "fine" or "penalty"... of losing some of that assistance.

Person A has monthly expenses of $1,000 and only brings home $500;
Person B has monthly expenses of $1,000 and makes no money at all;
Which person has disposable income?

Who said anything about disposable income. Who needs more assistance? I suggest that I person A has dropped out of school which is why she has 500. then she should be penalized by dropping her assistance.

You buy a calculator and a laptop every semester? Must be nice, Mr. Moneybags! Is your last name Kennedy?

People that are that poor generally buy their computers with a monthly payment that takes years to pay off. Maybe you should understand what you are talking about.

At one point, you are saying that people who drop out of school need more welfare because they less desirable employees, while simultaneously claiming a 16 year old single mother needs less assistance because she now has employment opportunities when she quits school.

You simply are not able to understand simple math... sorry for you.. but I have explained it.

The daily needs of the drop out are less than the kid that stays in school for the reasons already listed. So they need LESS PER DAY than the person in school.

However, over the lifetime.. the person in school will be more likely to get out of poverty (because of school) and thus need LESS PER LIFETIME of assistance.

its just that easy... I feel sorry for you that you can't understand that.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Nope... I understand your argument.. you just don't get it. Yep they need assistance. They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance They both need assistance.

I'm glad we agree that a sixteen year old single mother needs assistance whether or not she is at home, at school, or working.

But why do we agree assistance is necessary in the first place? Because, we have both agreed, that there is a societal need to provide assistance to those in poverty so as to provide social stability (again, for the purposes of this argument).

If this girl is on assistance already, that means there is minimum level of support she is unable to provide for herself, even if she is working (at, what we assume, is a minimum wage job in undesirable circumstances that only a dropout can get). So, when you say things like this:

Thus it makes sense that if the girl DROPS OUT OF SCHOOL... she pays a "fine" or "penalty"... of losing some of that assistance.
.....
Who said anything about disposable income. Who needs more assistance? I suggest that I person A has dropped out of school which is why she has 500. then she should be penalized by dropping her assistance.

...you are advocating that we replace some of the need that the socially stabilizing assistance is already working to reduce, i.e. increase her need. Assistance should only be enough to provide social stability, right? I am assuming that means basic needs (please correct me if this part is wrong).

So, if we are already topping up her income to provide for basic needs, in either situation as you readily agreed, then what purpose does it serve to fine her and put her back under her level of need? If the point of welfare spending is social stability through lessening individual need, wouldn't an increase in individual need lead to a reduction in social stability? If stability is the goal of the program in the first place, why would we want to directly counteract that goal?

 

[jaeger19]

I'm glad we agree that a sixteen year old single mother needs assistance whether or not she is at home, at school, or working.

But why do we agree assistance is necessary in the first place? Because, we have both agreed, that there is a societal need to provide assistance to those in poverty so as to provide social stability (again, for the purposes of this argument).

If this girl is on assistance already, that means there is minimum level of support she is unable to provide for herself, even if she is working (at, what we assume, is a minimum wage job in undesirable circumstances that only a dropout can get). So, when you say things like this:



...you are advocating that we replace some of the need that the socially stabilizing assistance is already working to reduce, i.e. increase her need. Assistance should only be enough to provide social stability, right? I am assuming that means basic needs (please correct me if this part is wrong).

So, if we are already topping up her income to provide for basic needs, in either situation as you readily agreed, then what purpose does it serve to fine her and put her back under her level of need? If the point of welfare spending is social stability through lessening individual need, wouldn't an increase in individual need lead to a reduction in social stability? If stability is the goal of the program in the first place, why would we want to directly counteract that goal?

Duh...

If she is in school. Then she has a higher level of need. When she DROPS OUT.. then she is "fined" or penalized.. to that lower level of need. RATHER than continue to pay her what a kid in school gets.

In the current system.. she gets basically the same benefits if she is in school or not in school. Thus she is incentivized to drop out. Don't have to worry about that schoolwork, and your assistance stays basically the same.

I and others propose that if she drops out of school.. she should be "fined" by losing some of her assistance as now she can work, or provide childcare. THUS there is less incentive to drop out of school and more incentive to stay in school.

Understand NOW????? :doh

 

[eohrnberger]

"more education isn't always "better" education"

Very true. Take the new high educational fad that's gripping US universities of late. 'Diversity' training.

Pointless and useless, and little more than venue for leftist political indoctrination. You want to save money on education, eliminate these stupid 'classes' (more like political reeducation sessions anyway).

• The University of Toledo - Diversity Training
• Diversity and Inclusion - Cornell University
• Santa Clara University - Office of the Provost -Diversity Training and Experiences
• Western Carolina University - Opportunities for Diversity Training
• Diversity Awareness Training - Monmouth University
• Division of Diversity and Inclusion - Purdue University

So tell me.
How many jobs are there in 'diversity' anyway?
Is there a rampant growing industry in 'diversity' (tongue in cheek here - 'cause it would seem there is)
Does this 'diversity' industry actually produce some sort of salable goods or services?

Yeah, axe the diversity requirement, and further, disqualify diversity studies from being eligible for student loans, as there's likely no payback for that training.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Duh...

If she is in school. Then she has a higher level of need. When she DROPS OUT.. then she is "fined" or penalized.. to that lower level of need. RATHER than continue to pay her what a kid in school gets.

In the current system.. she gets basically the same benefits if she is in school or not in school. Thus she is incentivized to drop out. Don't have to worry about that schoolwork, and your assistance stays basically the same.

I and others propose that if she drops out of school.. she should be "fined" by losing some of her assistance as now she can work, or provide childcare. THUS there is less incentive to drop out of school and more incentive to stay in school.

Understand NOW????? :doh

So, she could go to school (which is easier than work, and doesn't take as many hours per week as work), and receive as much as if she slaved away at a minimum wage job?

And you think she is incentivized to drop out?

Yes, I do understand now. This conversation is far beyond you.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

"more education isn't always "better" education"

Very true. Take the new high educational fad that's gripping US universities of late. 'Diversity' training.

Pointless and useless, and little more than venue for leftist political indoctrination. You want to save money on education, eliminate these stupid 'classes' (more like political reeducation sessions anyway).

• The University of Toledo - Diversity Training
• Diversity and Inclusion - Cornell University
• Santa Clara University - Office of the Provost -Diversity Training and Experiences
• Western Carolina University - Opportunities for Diversity Training
• Diversity Awareness Training - Monmouth University
• Division of Diversity and Inclusion - Purdue University

So tell me.
How many jobs are there in 'diversity' anyway?
Is there a rampant growing industry in 'diversity' (tongue in cheek here - 'cause it would seem there is)
Does this 'diversity' industry actually produce some sort of salable goods or services?

Yeah, axe the diversity requirement, and further, disqualify diversity studies from being eligible for student loans, as there's likely no payback for that training.

Thank you for the response. I am growing weary of the side tracked debate.

 

[jaeger19]

So, she could go to school (which is easier than work, and doesn't take as many hours per week as work), and receive as much as if she slaved away at a minimum wage job?

And you think she is incentivized to drop out?

Yes, I do understand now. This conversation is far beyond you.

Yeah... you don't get it...

She doesn't have to slave at work under the current system.. she can receive the same assistance and stay at home with the kid.. or work part time as a walmart greeter, to meet her TANF benefits if that's required (and she gets extra money in her pocket as well) . And she gets the same assistance as the girl in school.

You sir are so wrong.. but are incapable of admitting it.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Yeah... you don't get it...

She doesn't have to slave at work under the current system.. she can receive the same assistance and stay at home with the kid.. or work part time as a walmart greeter, to meet her TANF benefits if that's required (and she gets extra money in her pocket as well) . And she gets the same assistance as the girl in school.

You sir are so wrong.. but are incapable of admitting it.

Doesn't TANF provide money so she can eat? People who can eat don't riot as much as people who can't, or so I assume we agree.

So, what happens if she suddenly doesn't have enough to eat? Should we give her some more money so she can eat?

 

[jaeger19]

Doesn't TANF provide money so she can eat? People who can eat don't riot as much as people who can't, or so I assume we agree.

So, what happens if she suddenly doesn't have enough to eat? Should we give her some more money so she can eat?

Well... if she doesn't have enough money "to eat"...because she has dropped out of school.

She can return to school.. have enough to eat... AND get an education...


Why would she riot and risk being thrown in jail or worse... when all she has to do is go back to school?

 

[Critter7r]

Again, more of your red herring questions. And, again, I told you what I would do to enforce mandatory education. I said I would do as others have done, and then I even told you what those others have done. Do you want me to quote myself again? You're going to be awfully embarrassed...



Go ahead and quote yourself. Go on, do it. I dare you.

You see... you can't. Because you haven't answered anything before the Medicaid thing. This entire debate is predicated on the premise that welfare should only be given when necessary and in a necessary quantity, i.e. when it is a necessary benefit. So to deny that benefit, or dig into it with a fine, you are cutting into a necessary benefit which you agree is counterproductive!

This is where things go screwy for me ... This debate (at least my end of it) hasn't been predicated on that. I believe that point was made and agreed to, but then I shoved it back in the box, because it's not actually how the system currently works. Arguing the points of a potential change to a non-existing system are a couple of steps too far removed to even be a worthwhile debate. My points have been made as if they could be changes to the CURRENT system, and not the theoretical system that you seem to be arguing about.

So while I agree that there's too much welfare being given out and that it should be reduced overall to a more painful level, it is not currently being handled that way. And so the threat of a reduction in benefits would motivate many to work harder at keeping their kids in school. It's called a carrot: "Keep your kids in school, and you get your $xxx.xx / month, if one drops out, you get a $xx.xx reduction in payment". Simply reducing everyone's benefits will not produce the same 'carrot' effect on keeping kids in school.

If we agree with the premise that those who drop out of school are more likely to have a greater lifetime need of social spending, slapping this particular group with a fine is targeting the very people who are in need of the necessary benefit, making this group the most counterproductive group to fine!

If we agree that a fine, or an increase in hardship, is a motivator capable of affecting a change in behavior, we can surmise that an across the board reduction in direct payments should be a motivator on a wide scale, can we not? If we believe that sending people below their point of necessity (as in the case with the group most likely to be in need of welfare during their lives), then why wouldn't this work with everyone who receives welfare? If it's the case that some people on welfare got there through no decisions of their own, then we have to look at a responsible approach to direct spending on a case-by-case basis in the first place, do we not? What about the 16 year old girl who dropped out to raise her baby? Does she get the fine? And how does she afford it, especially at that most critical time of her life? All of this makes a fine for dropouts more of a shotgun than a flyswatter, thus invalidating your argument.

We would have already hashed all of this out like 10 pages ago, if you had simply answered a couple of simple questions. Each conclusion draws logically from the premise given. I asked you specifically if you agreed with the premises. I challenge you to show me which conclusion does not follow from its given premise or tell me why you don't agree with the premise itself.

No, we can not make that summation. It's not the sending of people below their current level of payment that makes them work at keeping their kids in school, it's the knowledge that their payment will be reduced IF their kids are not in school. So, keeping them in school keeps the money coming in.

The 16-year-old that has a kid is a situation that will be handled case-by-case. It's bad policy to base major societal infrastructure around relatively uncommon circumstances.


And Jaeger : Stop saying that someone in school has costs associated with going to school. Public schools don't charge for books, transportation or most of the activities that they offer, plus most offer free breakfasts and lunches to those in need. At least all of the public schools I've been involved with have had those traits. This theoretical 16-year old with a newborn isn't going to be attending college where she has to buy books and pay for tuition. At least, not in this discussion.

 

[jaeger19]

And Jaeger : Stop saying that someone in school has costs associated with going to school. Public schools don't charge for books, transportation or most of the activities that they offer, plus most offer free breakfasts and lunches to those in need. At least all of the public schools I've been involved with have had those traits. This theoretical 16-year old with a newborn isn't going to be attending college where she has to buy books and pay for tuition. At least, not in this discussion

Public schools now require kids to pay for paper. My children have to pay a "materials fee".. to help provide paper, and other supplies to the school. Almost all the public schools in a 110 mile radius (who we play) have a activities fee that you have to pay to play sports... plus you pay for your uniforms.. and some instances.. equipment. I doubt your school supplied every baseball player with a glove
Almost all public schools.. even the ones in NY that I went to do not furnish your musical instruments, nor your music primer books, or other supplies for band. I pay 100 a month for music rentals currently.

Not to mention the ancillary costs for materials for school projects.. example my son has a project to design a DNA strand. Foam balls, wire , paint.. are all costs born by the family and not the school.

Not to mention computers. The necessity of computers in and out of school is growing. Research for projects and paper are done on computer.. so you have to either have one at home, or you have to go to the library for one.. which means transportation costs usually. And that also means the cost of not only the computer but also for internet access.

So yes... school does have associated costs.

 

[Critter7r]

Public schools now require kids to pay for paper. My children have to pay a "materials fee".. to help provide paper, and other supplies to the school. Almost all the public schools in a 110 mile radius (who we play) have a activities fee that you have to pay to play sports... plus you pay for your uniforms.. and some instances.. equipment. I doubt your school supplied every baseball player with a glove
Almost all public schools.. even the ones in NY that I went to do not furnish your musical instruments, nor your music primer books, or other supplies for band. I pay 100 a month for music rentals currently.

Not to mention the ancillary costs for materials for school projects.. example my son has a project to design a DNA strand. Foam balls, wire , paint.. are all costs born by the family and not the school.

Not to mention computers. The necessity of computers in and out of school is growing. Research for projects and paper are done on computer.. so you have to either have one at home, or you have to go to the library for one.. which means transportation costs usually. And that also means the cost of not only the computer but also for internet access.

So yes... school does have associated costs.

Playing baseball or the tuba isn't something that's required of one to attend school. Now that you mention it, our school also had a list of items that every student had to bring in at the beginning of each semester. It was about $15 worth of stuff. Most of the stuff could have been found at Salvation Army or Goodwill significantly cheaper or nearly free.

Communicating with your child's teacher about the hardship of paying for materials for projects will almost always result in a positive solution that doesn't cost the welfare parents any money. Teachers can offer access to materials that have been donated to the school, or offer alternative projects that don't require those materials.

maybe I'm lucky, but my local library is within walking distance, so maybe I'm a little spoiled on the computer point. However, while computers make schoolwork easier, they are not often required to perform schoolwork. And again, communicating the lack of a computer in the home to the student's teacher goes a long way toward making things possible.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Well... if she doesn't have enough money "to eat"...because she has dropped out of school.

She can return to school.. have enough to eat... AND get an education...


Why would she riot and risk being thrown in jail or worse... when all she has to do is go back to school?

And if she does drop out, I suppose she and her baby should just starve. Splendid. I like the way you think.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

This is where things go screwy for me ... This debate (at least my end of it) hasn't been predicated on that. I believe that point was made and agreed to, but then I shoved it back in the box, because it's not actually how the system currently works. Arguing the points of a potential change to a non-existing system are a couple of steps too far removed to even be a worthwhile debate. My points have been made as if they could be changes to the CURRENT system, and not the theoretical system that you seem to be arguing about.

So while I agree that there's too much welfare being given out and that it should be reduced overall to a more painful level, it is not currently being handled that way. And so the threat of a reduction in benefits would motivate many to work harder at keeping their kids in school. It's called a carrot: "Keep your kids in school, and you get your $xxx.xx / month, if one drops out, you get a $xx.xx reduction in payment". Simply reducing everyone's benefits will not produce the same 'carrot' effect on keeping kids in school.

No, we can not make that summation. It's not the sending of people below their current level of payment that makes them work at keeping their kids in school, it's the knowledge that their payment will be reduced IF their kids are not in school. So, keeping them in school keeps the money coming in.

The 16-year-old that has a kid is a situation that will be handled case-by-case. It's bad policy to base major societal infrastructure around relatively uncommon circumstances.

This is a totally reasonable position. I agree wholeheartedly. This is why I created the logical framework stating premises and conclusions several pages back and asked for challenges to it. I don't believe you and I were heading down that rabbit hole, but I could be mistaken. This thread is so far off topic and with several different people jumping in an out to arguing other people's points, modify them, and then quit. jaeger flat out refused to even discuss the premises, though. I think he thought I was simply asking questions in order to control the debate, which is where he started asking red herring questions himself to that effect.

And Jaeger : Stop saying that someone in school has costs associated with going to school. Public schools don't charge for books, transportation or most of the activities that they offer, plus most offer free breakfasts and lunches to those in need. At least all of the public schools I've been involved with have had those traits. This theoretical 16-year old with a newborn isn't going to be attending college where she has to buy books and pay for tuition. At least, not in this discussion.

Good luck. jaeger isn't exactly interested in dialogue.

 

[jaeger19]

And if she does drop out, I suppose she and her baby should just starve. Splendid. I like the way you think.

So you think that rather than go to school.. have enough food.. get free education and get free childcare while she is in school...

She would instead decide to starve?

Come now...

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

So you think that rather than go to school.. have enough food.. get free education and get free childcare while she is in school...

She would instead decide to starve?

Come now...

People make decisions all the time that don't provide for their best interests long term. Dropping out of school is just one of those decisions. When we top up someone's income for the purpose of making sure they have food/basic needs met, we increase the stability of our society. We shouldn't be providing any more than basic necessity to begin with, so for people who currently receive support or will in the near future, there should be no money to take from them that we don't have a social obligation to immediately replace (again, given the agreed premises of our debate). Whether or not specific actions are taken by the receivers of said support do not matter in the slightest to their overall need for food and society's need for stability. A fine for a specific action is worthless when compared to an actual means tested system that only provides enough to satisfy the minimum to begin with. No one in this debate so far has argued that welfare should be comfortable.

This entire line of thought started with the idea to save the taxpayer money while providing a benefit to society. I started the thread to talk about specific courses of study and specific college degrees and which ones we should be paying for and why. When it morphed to direct payments, the idea still stood that we should save taxpayers money. Lowering assistance to the bare minimum with accurate means testing is going to save more money than any fine on a special subset of direct payment receivers would ever generate.

 

[jaeger19]

Playing baseball or the tuba isn't something that's required of one to attend school. Now that you mention it, our school also had a list of items that every student had to bring in at the beginning of each semester. It was about $15 worth of stuff. Most of the stuff could have been found at Salvation Army or Goodwill significantly cheaper or nearly free.

Communicating with your child's teacher about the hardship of paying for materials for projects will almost always result in a positive solution that doesn't cost the welfare parents any money. Teachers can offer access to materials that have been donated to the school, or offer alternative projects that don't require those materials.

maybe I'm lucky, but my local library is within walking distance, so maybe I'm a little spoiled on the computer point. However, while computers make schoolwork easier, they are not often required to perform schoolwork. And again, communicating the lack of a computer in the home to the student's teacher goes a long way toward making things possible.

With all due respect.. that's not true. Sports and music and art often play very big roles in the education of children especially the poor and lower middle class. Studies show that particularly for music.. those that participate in sports and music or art do better academically. In addition there are social aspects that cannot be ignored. Playing sports is a good way to keep kids out of other social activities such as drinking and drugs.

Then there are other positives of sports, and other curricular activities. Namely scholarships and advantages to getting into college from extra curricular activities.

As far as computers,. they ARE often required to perform schoolwork. My children have computer classes where they have to put together powerpoint projects. This started in 5 grade. Access to a computer is a must in a computer class!

The nearest public computer from my home is 20 minutes away. Its open 3 days a week. till 5 o clock

 

[jaeger19]

People make decisions all the time that don't provide for their best interests long term. Dropping out of school is just one of those decisions. When we top up someone's income for the purpose of making sure they have food/basic needs met, we increase the stability of our society. We shouldn't be providing any more than basic necessity to begin with, so for people who currently receive support or will in the near future, there should be no money to take from them that we don't have a social obligation to immediately replace (again, given the agreed premises of our debate). Whether or not specific actions are taken by the receivers of said support do not matter in the slightest to their overall need for food and society's need for stability. A fine for a specific action is worthless when compared to an actual means tested system that only provides enough to satisfy the minimum to begin with. No one in this debate so far has argued that welfare should be comfortable.

This entire line of thought started with the idea to save the taxpayer money while providing a benefit to society. I started the thread to talk about specific courses of study and specific college degrees and which ones we should be paying for and why. When it morphed to direct payments, the idea still stood that we should save taxpayers money. Lowering assistance to the bare minimum with accurate means testing is going to save more money than any fine on a special subset of direct payment receivers would ever generate.

Blah blah...

More of the same BS.

Means testing has nothing to do with school. So its not accurate.

Deciding to stay in school.. because you get more assistance.. versus dropping out of school and getting less assistance.. is not a "long term interest"...

Its a short term incentive. Stay in school = more money today.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Blah blah...

Fantastic rebuttal. Did you go to Dartmouth? Princeton? Which philosophy program did you attend, Professor?

This is all I've gotten from you our entire exchange. I still challenge you to attack any of the premises offered or conclusions drawn from them. You are clearly unable. I invite you to prove me wrong by actually addressing my argument. At this point you are simply pulling this crap out of your ass. You haven't offered a single shred of support for a single argument so far, just bold (and empty) proclamations. Your entire argument boils down to "nuh uh." I'm sure you're the smartest guy in your third grade class, but that isn't going to cut it with people who have studied logic.

Please, keep responding. This is my daily therapy, making you look stupid.