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

[Critter7r]

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that poverty is poverty, and welfare is welfare. If you're already below the threshold of needing assistance, it really doesn't matter if you need more assistance than someone else... either way, NEITHER of you can afford a fine!

Then keep the kids in school, and the benefits won't be reduced.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Then keep the kids in school, and the benefits won't be reduced.

At one point we began to discuss the merits of extending childhood to 18 (or beyond), thus making it illegal to not be in school, but for some reason the idea of a fine took hold and refused to die quietly. I would love to have the debate about just how far one is willing to go to ensure mandatory compliance.

 

[Critter7r]

At one point we began to discuss the merits of extending childhood to 18 (or beyond), thus making it illegal to not be in school, but for some reason the idea of a fine took hold and refused to die quietly. I would love to have the debate about just how far one is willing to go to ensure mandatory compliance.

I'm not talking about "mandatory compliance", I'm talking about reducing benefits if the kid drops out.

In our fictional family - single mom, two kids - the family keeps getting full benefits until the kids graduate or turn 18, whichever is later, provided they are in school. If the kid graduates in June at 17 years old, benefits continue till s/he's 18. If the kid turns 18 in January of their senior year, benefits continue until they graduate. Easy peasy.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

I'm not talking about "mandatory compliance", I'm talking about reducing benefits if the kid drops out.

But isn't the point of the benefit to increase social stability? In the previous 41 pages, this argument has revolved around the assumed necessity to provide a stable society by limiting the hardship the poor suffer under. If people can't afford to eat, they get rowdy and riot, that kind of thing, at least I assume that is the basis for the social stability argument. Anyway, this also assumes that the purpose of welfare is not to provide comfort, but only basic subsistence - food and shelter.

So, if we are already providing money toward basic subsistence - conditioned with a means test, as I have suggested from the first - then how does it serve society to push a family back under the "can't afford food" threshold with a fine or reduced benefits? That's the entire point of welfare, right? To get them above that threshold? So that they don't riot and society is stable?

If we allow that those who don't finish school are more likely to need welfare, it doesn't really matter WHEN this fine hits, if they are able to pay right then or not, because their entire lifetime earnings are reflected by such a choice; fine them now, and they will simply need benefits that much sooner.

If we allow that a reduction of benefits or a fine has a punitive effect that will definitely encourage people to make the choice to stay in school, then why don't we just reduce benefits across the board? Won't that have the effect of reducing the number of people on welfare?

 

[Critter7r]

But isn't the point of the benefit to increase social stability? In the previous 41 pages, this argument has revolved around the assumed necessity to provide a stable society by limiting the hardship the poor suffer under. If people can't afford to eat, they get rowdy and riot, that kind of thing, at least I assume that is the basis for the social stability argument. Anyway, this also assumes that the purpose of welfare is not to provide comfort, but only basic subsistence - food and shelter.

So, if we are already providing money toward basic subsistence - conditioned with a means test, as I have suggested from the first - then how does it serve society to push a family back under the "can't afford food" threshold with a fine or reduced benefits? That's the entire point of welfare, right? To get them above that threshold? So that they don't riot and society is stable?

If we allow that those who don't finish school are more likely to need welfare, it doesn't really matter WHEN this fine hits, if they are able to pay right then or not, because their entire lifetime earnings are reflected by such a choice; fine them now, and they will simply need benefits that much sooner.

If we allow that a reduction of benefits or a fine has a punitive effect that will definitely encourage people to make the choice to stay in school, then why don't we just reduce benefits across the board? Won't that have the effect of reducing the number of people on welfare?

The reality is, we have the best-fed, most-comfortable poor people in history, and we are providing them with more than just "basic subsistence". So the premise on which you are basing your argument is flawed, which is why this argument keeps going round and round in circles where I tell you my point and then you try to pick it apart on technicalities it doesn't contain.

If we actually were "providing money toward basic subsistence - conditioned with a means test, as I [Gonzo] have suggested from the first ", then they'd already be receiving significantly less money than they are now and we wouldn't need to be having this discussion.


What kind of circular-jerk reasoning is this??? ... "If we allow that a reduction of benefits or a fine has a punitive effect that will definitely encourage people to make the choice to stay in school, then why don't we just reduce benefits across the board? Won't that have the effect of reducing the number of people on welfare"

Jesus titty****ing Christ I hope you are trolling and not actually this dense. But just in case, I'll explain it .... It's not the reduction of benefits that encourages them to stay in school, it's the threat of a reduction that keeps them in school, and presumably reduces the chances of them becoming welfare kings and queens.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

The reality is, we have the best-fed, most-comfortable poor people in history, and we are providing them with more than just "basic subsistence". So the premise on which you are basing your argument is flawed, which is why this argument keeps going round and round in circles where I tell you my point and then you try to pick it apart on technicalities it doesn't contain.

If we actually were "providing money toward basic subsistence - conditioned with a means test, as I [Gonzo] have suggested from the first ", then they'd already be receiving significantly less money than they are now and we wouldn't need to be having this discussion.


What kind of circular-jerk reasoning is this??? ... "If we allow that a reduction of benefits or a fine has a punitive effect that will definitely encourage people to make the choice to stay in school, then why don't we just reduce benefits across the board? Won't that have the effect of reducing the number of people on welfare"

Jesus titty****ing Christ I hope you are trolling and not actually this dense. But just in case, I'll explain it .... It's not the reduction of benefits that encourages them to stay in school, it's the threat of a reduction that keeps them in school, and presumably reduces the chances of them becoming welfare kings and queens.

Fantastic. Finally, an argument examining premises and conclusions! You have no idea how exited I am about this.

Ok, I agree that welfare as it currently is provides beyond basic subsistence. Increases in spending of this variety always come with emotional arguments attached that make it more about compassion than survival.

This is why I advocated a means test several pages back (in lieu of a fine... Different arguments). Means testing would conditionally apply on a case by case basis. So, those 16 year old single moms aren't unduly punished at what is arguably the hardest time in their lives. People who drop out and find manual labor jobs that pay enough for them to get by (these do exist) and don't need welfare (or as much) don't take from those with a greater need. A fine doesn't address specific situations and is more akin to a bulldozer than a hammer.

Then again, I think welfare itself is an inherently wasteful program by nature. Unemployment insurance (limited) for hard economic times and disability for the (truly) disabled are the only two programs really necessary for social stability. I suppose social security is a necessity now, since multiple generations have come to rely on and depend upon it. That genie is already out of the bottle and there is no putting it back.

I part of your argument I don't understand, however, is how a threat can be effective without any teeth. It's actually the teeth... The stick, if you will.... That is the driver in such a scenario. Reduced benefits ultimately equal discomfort. Simply promise discomfort from the outset, for everyone, and won't that have the same effect on motivation?

Further, we are arguing under the assumption that the lack of education is the predictor for increased welfare need. I contend this is only a correlation and not a causation, as those who arent willing to put forth the effort to complete school are probably similarly unmotivated to apply themselves to any kind of professional development, measure of dependability, or any pursuit that would better themselves. In essence, it's not the lack of school that leads to welfare need, but rather a lack of motivation/ambition that leads to a lack of any kind of self betterment. And while a fine would serve as a specific motivator/stick for a subset of the welfare crowd, in a very specific scenario, the very mechanism that makes such a measure a motivator would also work on a mass scale, would it not? The solution of a fine does not address the underlying problem, but I have made several arguments for cases where a fine could make those problems worse.

 

[jaeger19]

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that poverty is poverty, and welfare is welfare. If you're already below the threshold of needing assistance, it really doesn't matter if you need more assistance than someone else... either way, NEITHER of you can afford a fine!

Come on, prove me wrong. Attack the framework I offered you earlier. Which part doesn't make sense? Which premises aren't reasonable? Which conclusions don't follow?

Lack of education ---> increased need for welfare
Increased need for welfare ---> lack of disposable income
Lack of disposable income ---> inability to pay fine
inability to pay fine ---> increased need for welfare

I challenge you are simply unable to deal with this argument, which is why you keep trying to force the issue of relative need between two poor hypothetical families. Prove me wrong. Test my argument. Which part doesn't work, specifically?

Sir.. you are the ones that's lost...

Welfare is not welfare.. poverty is not poverty. YOU already acknowledged that three people in a household able to work is not the same as three people in a household with two working and one in school.

Thus.. poverty is not poverty and welfare is not welfare.

Listen..I will address your argument.. but frankly... you simply don't understand what you are talking about.

Lack of education ---> increased need for welfare

This is the start of the problem... you don't understand what this means. When comparing people on welfare, It DOES NOT necessarily mean that lack of education means that the daily amount of assistance is greater.. it means that OVER TIME, they will be more of a drain on the system.

FOR EXAMPLE..

I will use Critters example:

Single mom with two kids.. one who is in high school.

Scenario one: Single mom with two kids and both in school? She needs more assistance at this time because there is one person working and the others are in school and there are increased associated costs.
HOWEVER.. that child staying in school means that over time.. its less likely that the child (now 18) will need assistance or as much assistance over their lifetime.. since education helps increase your ability to get a job and increases your earning potential.

Scenario two: Single mom with two kids both in school. The high school child decides voluntarily to drop out of high school. thus there is now another person of working age that is now able to add to the family and the associated costs with school are gone. Therefore assistance to the family should drop (a fine or penalty as it were).. NOW, the daily amount of assistance that they need will drop... HOWEVER, because of the lack of education of the child.. likely.. they WILL NEED HELP FOR A LONGER PERIOD.. since the economic opportunities are less for someone without education...

Now.. if the child drops out of school.. and the family finds out that its better for them to be in school... GREAT.

You.. would continue to pay the same amount.. regardless of need.. and thus.. no incentive to stay in school.

 

[Critter7r]

I part of your argument I don't understand, however, is how a threat can be effective without any teeth. It's actually the teeth... The stick, if you will.... That is the driver in such a scenario. Reduced benefits ultimately equal discomfort. Simply promise discomfort from the outset, for everyone, and won't that have the same effect on motivation?

How does it not have any teeth? it theoretical. It has whatever teeth I want it to have. Here's $500/month. If Johnny misses more than 30 days out of any rolling 90-day period, your payments will be reduced to $350. Boom. Threat of teeth keeps Johnny in school. And if it doesn't, well then we bite off $150 of their payments and give it to someone that is keeping their Joshua in school.

And your last sentence above is simply humorous. It's akin to "the beatings will continue until morale improves". And I hope you don't actually need that spelled out for you.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

How does it not have any teeth? it theoretical. It has whatever teeth I want it to have. Here's $500/month. If Johnny misses more than 30 days out of any rolling 90-day period, your payments will be reduced to $350. Boom. Threat of teeth keeps Johnny in school. And if it doesn't, well then we bite off $150 of their payments and give it to someone that is keeping their Joshua in school.

And your last sentence above is simply humorous. It's akin to "the beatings will continue until morale improves". And I hope you don't actually need that spelled out for you.

But your scenario promises that someone will catch a beating if morale drops. Isn't the beating the motivator/stick in both scenarios? And doesn't the beating ultimate counteract the purpose of the program anyway?

 

[Critter7r]

But your scenario promises that someone will catch a beating if morale drops. Isn't the beating the motivator/stick in both scenarios? And doesn't the beating ultimate counteract the purpose of the program anyway?

No, my scenario promises less money if the kids drop out of school. I likened YOUR scenario to the 'morale' quote, not mine.

I think that if you tell everyone on welfare that their payments are going to be reduced and there's nothing they can do about it (which is what you are suggesting in your comment that I likened to the 'morale' quote), you will get a much more negative response than you will if you tell everyone on welfare that they have to keep their children in school until graduation or their benefits will be reduced, if for no other reason than it affects fewer people.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

No, my scenario promises less money if the kids drop out of school. I likened YOUR scenario to the 'morale' quote, not mine.

I think that if you tell everyone on welfare that their payments are going to be reduced and there's nothing they can do about it (which is what you are suggesting in your comment that I likened to the 'morale' quote), you will get a much more negative response than you will if you tell everyone on welfare that they have to keep their children in school until graduation or their benefits will be reduced, if for no other reason than it affects fewer people.

But what is the negative response?

In your anology, the "beating" is a reduced benefit. In both of our scenarios, the reduced benefit is being used as the motivator to cause specific action. If the specific action is to get people to stay in school, for the purpose of reducing their dependence on welfare, how is that different than applying the reduced beneft to everyone (which, for the purposes of this argument, we agree are overrepresented by people who didnt finish school)?

The discomfort is the motivator for specific action. So why stop at only motivating one subset of the whole group? Even if that subset is arguably larger.

 

[jaeger19]

But what is the negative response?

In your anology, the "beating" is a reduced benefit. In both of our scenarios, the reduced benefit is being used as the motivator to cause specific action. If the specific action is to get people to stay in school, for the purpose of reducing their dependence on welfare, how is that different than applying the reduced beneft to everyone (which, for the purposes of this argument, we agree are overrepresented by people who didnt finish school)?

The discomfort is the motivator for specific action. So why stop at only motivating one subset of the whole group? Even if that subset is arguably larger.

Because not everyone with welfare is in the position to decide whether to go to school for free public education.. or not.

Duh..

by the way.. it doesn't stop there because for other situations.. in the case of people of working age capable of working,.. there already IS a work requirement.

According to your premise.. we should get rid of the work requirement as well. because it will cause society to become unstable.. even though it hasn't since 1997..

 

[Critter7r]

But what is the negative response?

In your anology, the "beating" is a reduced benefit. In both of our scenarios, the reduced benefit is being used as the motivator to cause specific action. If the specific action is to get people to stay in school, for the purpose of reducing their dependence on welfare, how is that different than applying the reduced beneft to everyone (which, for the purposes of this argument, we agree are overrepresented by people who didnt finish school)?

The discomfort is the motivator for specific action. So why stop at only motivating one subset of the whole group? Even if that subset is arguably larger.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about in this sentence, and neither do you.

It is different because the reduction doesn't apply to everyone, it only applies to those that drop out.

Your statement equates a reduction in benefits to the people that drop out of school with a reduction in benefits to everyone.

Are you implying that everyone on welfare is going to end up having their benefits reduced because no one on welfare finishes school?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

I have no idea what you're rambling on about in this sentence, and neither do you.

It is different because the reduction doesn't apply to everyone, it only applies to those that drop out.

Your statement equates a reduction in benefits to the people that drop out of school with a reduction in benefits to everyone.

Are you implying that everyone on welfare is going to end up having their benefits reduced because no one on welfare finishes school?

Apparently, the promise of reduced benefits is enough to encourage people to make different decisions. We agree on this point.

However, when it comes to applying this logic to everyone, you suddenly balk. If reduced benefits is enough to encourage some people (arguably, for the purposes of this debate, those most likely to need welfare throughout their lives...this is the driving fact behind all of the reasoning behind a fine, after all), then why not say most people? I get that your argument hinges around people forcing their kids to stay in school so that their benefits aren't reduced, but I call it a stretch to assume a sixteen year old in this situation is suddenly going to listen to their parents about school. Further, if the argument is that a dropped out kid suddenly has the ability to work and provide... then why are they getting welfare at all if they are able to provide?

Or is your contention that a fine/imposed hardship will force them into gainful work? If that's the case, that imposed hardship causes someone to seek more gainful work, then wouldn't that apply to everyone on welfare and not just those who need it because they dropped out of school? And again, isn't the argument that those who drop out of school are the majority recipients of welfare???

I just looks like you guys haven't really considered the efficacy of trying to fine people out of poverty. Just to be clear, I think our safety net is too robust as it is... I just don't understand why or how a fine would be a good idea. Means testing targeted at providing the absolute bare minimum needed for food and shelter? Absolutely. Mandatory schooling until the age of 18? Sure. But I don't see the use of imposing hardship on someone who has to pay for that hardship out of assistance money to begin with. They're just going to need more assistance to deal with the hardship. Assistance shouldn't provide any extra that can be used on a fine!

 

[jaeger19]

Apparently, the promise of reduced benefits is enough to encourage people to make different decisions. We agree on this point.

However, when it comes to applying this logic to everyone, you suddenly balk. If reduced benefits is enough to encourage some people (arguably, for the purposes of this debate, those most likely to need welfare throughout their lives...this is the driving fact behind all of the reasoning behind a fine, after all), then why not say most people? I get that your argument hinges around people forcing their kids to stay in school so that their benefits aren't reduced, but I call it a stretch to assume a sixteen year old in this situation is suddenly going to listen to their parents about school. Further, if the argument is that a dropped out kid suddenly has the ability to work and provide... then why are they getting welfare at all if they are able to provide?

Or is your contention that a fine/imposed hardship will force them into gainful work? If that's the case, that imposed hardship causes someone to seek more gainful work, then wouldn't that apply to everyone on welfare and not just those who need it because they dropped out of school? And again, isn't the argument that those who drop out of school are the majority recipients of welfare???

I just looks like you guys haven't really considered the efficacy of trying to fine people out of poverty. Just to be clear, I think our safety net is too robust as it is... I just don't understand why or how a fine would be a good idea. Means testing targeted at providing the absolute bare minimum needed for food and shelter? Absolutely. Mandatory schooling until the age of 18? Sure. But I don't see the use of imposing hardship on someone who has to pay for that hardship out of assistance money to begin with. They're just going to need more assistance to deal with the hardship. Assistance shouldn't provide any extra that can be used on a fine!

No sir.. the only person that hasn't considered the efficacy is you. Obviously we both have considered the efficacy of reduced benefits and keeping kids in school. That's why we know that it would be an incentive to stay in school. Does that mean that a "fine" or reduced benefits is going to work on everyone? Of course not... its only YOU that think that its either all or nothing.

You just stated you were fine with mandatory schooling until the age of 18. Okay sir... then you answer this... how do you enforce that?

Please detail exactly what you would do to enforce school till the age of 18.

(this will be good since you obviously haven't considered what you have suggested).

Have fun.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

You just stated you were fine with mandatory schooling until the age of 18. Okay sir... then you answer this... how do you enforce that?

How do we enforce it now? Depending on the state, compulsory education laws already extend to age 18. In some states it's younger. How does Canada enforce it? School is mandatory until 18 up there.

However, the debate Helix and I were originally going rounds with brought up mandatory diplomas. Not education, but finishing education. That is why I asked where the limit is. Prison camps? Don't let people out into society until they pass an arbitrary standard? This is the point where he brought up the fine for the first time.

And why won't a fine or reduced benefits work on everyone? If you agree the punitive aspect of it works, then it must surely work on most (or a plurality of) welfare recipients since your argument is based on the fact that a lack of education is the prime predictor of welfare dependence. If there is a punitive aspect to such an aspect.... why do you think it will only work on some?

 

[jaeger19]

How do we enforce it now? Depending on the state, compulsory education laws already extend to age 18. In some states it's younger. How does Canada enforce it? School is mandatory until 18 up there.

However, the debate Helix and I were originally going rounds with brought up mandatory diplomas. Not education, but finishing education. That is why I asked where the limit is. Prison camps? Don't let people out into society until they pass an arbitrary standard? This is the point where he brought up the fine for the first time.

And why won't a fine or reduced benefits work on everyone? If you agree the punitive aspect of it works, then it must surely work on most (or a plurality of) welfare recipients since your argument is based on the fact that a lack of education is the prime predictor of welfare dependence. If there is a punitive aspect to such an aspect.... why do you think it will only work on some?

I asked YOU.. how you would enforce it.

Again.. please answer.. you have a terrible habit of not answering a direct question.

And do you really need to ask why a reduced benefit won't work on a 94 year old lady in a nursing home? Now you are being absurd.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

I asked YOU.. how you would enforce it.

Again.. please answer.. you have a terrible habit of not answering a direct question.

And do you really need to ask why a reduced benefit won't work on a 94 year old lady in a nursing home? Now you are being absurd.

You have a terrible habit of asking red herring questions because you don't want to stay on topic. I hardly blame you, seeing as how none of you have been able to deal with the logical argument yet. Premises and conclusions and all that. It can be daunting, I know.

94 year old ladies in nursing homes have Social Security. 94 year old ladies in nursing homes don't have children in the home to take care of. 94 year old ladies in nursing homes have subsidized housing though Medicare as well as medical care. So, that's a pretty poor example.

But as long as we're taking specific slices of demographics... why would you fine a 16 year old single mother who left school to raise her baby? Do you think she can afford a fine? Do you think a fine is going to magically enable her to return to school? If a fine takes money out of her pocket, how, do you suppose, she is going to have enough money to raise her baby?

 

[jaeger19]

You have a terrible habit of asking red herring questions because you don't want to stay on topic. I hardly blame you, seeing as how none of you have been able to deal with the logical argument yet. Premises and conclusions and all that. It can be daunting, I know.

94 year old ladies in nursing homes have Social Security. 94 year old ladies in nursing homes don't have children in the home to take care of. 94 year old ladies in nursing homes have subsidized housing though Medicare as well as medical care. So, that's a pretty poor example.

But as long as we're taking specific slices of demographics... why would you fine a 16 year old single mother who left school to raise her baby? Do you think she can afford a fine? Do you think a fine is going to magically enable her to return to school? If a fine takes money out of her pocket, how, do you suppose, she is going to have enough money to raise her baby?

Well sir... you are too funny...

First off.. its you that refust to deal with the logic.

You stated you were for mandatory schooling up to 18. I have asked you how you would enforce it and you have twice avoided the question..

Again.. answer.. and stop prevaricating..

Now.. let me educate you on some things you obviously don't understand.

94 year old ladies in nursing homes have Social Security. 94 year old ladies in nursing homes don't have children in the home to take care of. 94 year old ladies in nursing homes have subsidized housing though Medicare as well as medical care. So, that's a pretty poor example

A nursing home costs roughly 7,000 A MONTH. Far.. far beyond what a senior citizen gets in social security. And Medicare does not pay for long term care. So the vast majority of seniors in nursing homes are subsidized by MEDICAID.. which is a welfare program.

You sir are dead wrong about that ... in fact.. most of our welfare actually goes to the elderly, disabled or children.. which makes sense... since 7,000 a month for nursing home care is a lot..

By the way.. I already answered the questions you posed... so answer mine.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

You sir are dead wrong about that ... in fact.. most of our welfare actually goes to the elderly, disabled or children.. which makes sense... since 7,000 a month for nursing home care is a lot..

Ah. This demonstrates perfectly why you should have answered my questions pages and pages ago. You see, with a series of premises and conclusions, we can pinpoint the exact spot in the argument you have an issue with. The point is, if A leads to B, and A is true, then B is true... if B leads to C, and B is true, then C is true... if C leads to D and C is true, then D is true.

Which part of this logical chain do you disagree with?

Lack of education ---> increased need for welfare <----- it appears you disagree with this right here.
Increased need for welfare ---> lack of disposable income
Lack of disposable income ---> inability to pay fine
inability to pay fine ---> increased need for welfare

You see, the point originally offered, pages and pages ago, by a different debater no less (that you've seemingly tried to carry), stated that a lack of education was the prime predictor of welfare dependence and spending, which is why we not only need to do something about the uneducated, but that if we made school mandatory that would cure dependence on welfare (at least for the largest demographic of welfare recipients). It seems now that we're actually talking about a different situation altogether. It seems you actually believe that being very old, very young, or disabled is the prime predictor for welfare dependence and spending, not a lack of education. If you had answered my pertinent question ages ago, we could have settled this all back then.

This is what happens when people jump in to champion someone else's argument without having read the preceding arguments. It seems you've jumped into the thread at a point beyond your own ignorance, made unreasonable demands that didn't matter toward this debate, and now you look like a fool.

 

[jaeger19]

Ah. This demonstrates perfectly why you should have answered my questions pages and pages ago. You see, with a series of premises and conclusions, we can pinpoint the exact spot in the argument you have an issue with. The point is, if A leads to B, and A is true, then B is true... if B leads to C, and B is true, then C is true... if C leads to D and C is true, then D is true.

Which part of this logical chain do you disagree with?



You see, the point originally offered, pages and pages ago, by a different debater no less (that you've seemingly tried to carry), stated that a lack of education was the prime predictor of welfare dependence and spending, which is why we not only need to do something about the uneducated, but that if we made school mandatory that would cure dependence on welfare (at least for the largest demographic of welfare recipients). It seems now that we're actually talking about a different situation altogether. It seems you actually believe that being very old, very young, or disabled is the prime predictor for welfare dependence and spending, not a lack of education. If you had answered my pertinent question ages ago, we could have settled this all back then.

This is what happens when people jump in to champion someone else's argument without having read the preceding arguments. It seems you've jumped into the thread at a point beyond your own ignorance, made unreasonable demands that didn't matter toward this debate, and now you look like a fool.

Again.. you won't even acknowledge that you didn't even understand the difference between medicare and Medicaid.. and you call me the fool. Again too funny.

The problem as always pointed out.

Yep.. lack of education is the prime predictor of welfare dependence and spending IN THE LONG RUN.

However, if you drop out of school, then during that period.. you have the ability to work instead of being in school.. so during that time.. the need for welfare drops. thus its appropriate to reduce payments or "fine" a person who voluntarily drops out of school.

Very logical....

You sir.. have jumped all over the place and have hung yourself many a time.. as you are now.

NOW.. why don't you answer the simple question... "how would you enforce mandatory education until 18"..

We still haven't heard your answer.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Again.. you won't even acknowledge that you didn't even understand the difference between medicare and Medicaid.. and you call me the fool. Again too funny.

I was going to let it go, but it seems you are a glutton for punishment.

What Part A covers | Medicare.gov

But you've demonstrated, time and time again, that you aren't really interested in discussion or debate. You're trying to score points, and failing. Miserably. You're trying to redirect a losing debate by fixating on stupid red herring questions that have nothing to do with the current topic that you clearly can't deal with. Plus, I've already answered your question (several states already have the mandatory age at 18, as do entire other countries... do what they do).

Oh, this is good fun. Just know that I'm not laughing with you... I'm laughing at you.

 

[Critter7r]

Guize, guize, guize .....

Ok, after further thought, I'm rescinding my agreement with the idea of reducing the welfare payments to parents of children that drop out of school.

And here's why: in order to do that, we'd have to impose a fine (an ACTUAL fine) on the non-welfare-receiving parents of children that dropped out of school, otherwise, it would be discriminatory.

So I'm going to sit back and watch.

 

[jaeger19]

I was going to let it go, but it seems you are a glutton for punishment.

What Part A covers | Medicare.gov

But you've demonstrated, time and time again, that you aren't really interested in discussion or debate. You're trying to score points, and failing. Miserably. You're trying to redirect a losing debate by fixating on stupid red herring questions that have nothing to do with the current topic that you clearly can't deal with. Plus, I've already answered your question (several states already have the mandatory age at 18, as do entire other countries... do what they do).

Oh, this is good fun. Just know that I'm not laughing with you... I'm laughing at you.

Yes this is good fun... you really don't know what you are talking about...

A little help.. you should read what you linked to..

Medicare does not pay the largest part of long-term care services or personal care—such as help with bathing, or for supervision often called custodial care. Medicare will help pay for a short stay in a skilled nursing facility, for hospice care, or for home health care if you meet the following conditions:
You have had a recent prior hospital stay of at least three days
You are admitted to a Medicare-certified nursing facility within 30 days of your prior hospital stay
You need skilled care, such as skilled nursing services, physical therapy, or other types of therapy

If you meet all these conditions, Medicare will pay for some of your costs for up to 100 days. For the first 20 days, Medicare pays 100 percent of your costs. For days 21 through 100, you pay your own expenses up to $140.00 per day (as of 2013), and Medicare pays any balance. You pay 100 percent of costs for each day you stay in a skilled nursing facility after day 100.

Medicare doesn't pay for grandma's long term care.. nor does it pay for subsidize your living expenses at home.

Sorry but you are wrong yet again.

I am definitely interested in serious debate.. its you who are not. Simple thing...

I have answered every question you have posed to me... you sir have avoided the questions that I have posed to you.

As far as laughing... again.. too funny.

 

[jaeger19]

Guize, guize, guize .....

Ok, after further thought, I'm rescinding my agreement with the idea of reducing the welfare payments to parents of children that drop out of school.

And here's why: in order to do that, we'd have to impose a fine (an ACTUAL fine) on the non-welfare-receiving parents of children that dropped out of school, otherwise, it would be discriminatory.

So I'm going to sit back and watch.

Actually it would not be discriminatory because they are receiving welfare. Putting conditions on welfare recipients is not discriminatory .

There is already requirement for work currently with TANF... so to receive benefits (for a healthy person) they have to show that they are working or certain other activities (such as job training etc). That's not been found to be discriminatory and the government is not going after people not receiving benefits and forcing them to work.

So no worries about reducing welfare payments to parents of children that drop out of school. Its not discriminatory.