- Joined
- Oct 19, 2012
- Messages
- 12,029
- Reaction score
- 3,530
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Introducing_Bennett_Hypothesis_2.pdf
Where did I say I only want the rich to get an education? That is nonsense. What I want to see rather, is college costs restructured rather then throwing more money at the problem.
There is simply no reason for me to pay $700 for a 70 year old "professor" to read off wikipedia and show us movies because it is a "required Gen Ed." This was the case several times in my studies, and unfortunately that is several thousand dollars which I will never get back. If you really want to make college more affordable, get rid of teacher tenure.
Anyways, the second faulty assumption you are making is that this will lead to a more productive, trained workforce.
It should lead to one, but it won't if it just means we get more useless English and Art History majors instead of engineers. But, of course, that is a discussion for another time and place.
my point has nothing to do with conservatism, it has to do with republican government, and the people who would destroy it with their collectivism.
Elizabeth warren collectivist..........enemy of republican government
Elizabeth Warren's "You Didn't Build That Speech" as made famous by Obama [HD] - YouTube
I guess you didn't really read the link. It's a hypothesis that admits it hasn't been tested. So much for that.
But indeed, the hypothesis really reduces to the claim that if more kids go to college, tuition goes up. It has nothing to do with loans per se. It wouldn't matter if the college is paid by a rich daddy or by borrowing at exorbitant rates from private banks. What does matter is how that affects the students.
Frankly even if tuition does go up because more kids are getting college education (not necessarily a bad thing if it means better services), as long as the loans have low interest, it's still benefits overall productivity. And so this excursion hasn't made your case at all, but it does make mine: better educated people are more productive and produce economic growth and general prosperity more than unskilled uneducated workers. Every study shows that. So you now need to trot out another discredited hypothesis for me to shoot down.
I love the defense of knownothingism from the right.
Sure I can and do all the time. You splashing around at this point.
For instance, Warren's policy of making student loans more affordable results in more productivity and higher revenues, as workers get educated for jobs they are good at, rather than having to settle for lesser jobs because they lack the education.
See it's easy. Now you try to actually put together a conservative argument against student loan availability. Lots of luck.
Oh god it's another one of those people who thinks Obama was suddenly making a jab at small business owners in the middle of a populist speech.
So what do low interest student lows have to do with "collectivism" again?
For the most part, I thought she was pretty much right on with those sentiments.
unconstitutional.....the government are not venture capitalist.
no one .....big corp, small business, or people should get loans from government.
its is not a delegated duty of congress.
The SC disagress with you. You lose.
I love it when I finally pry a logical, and reasonable answer out of you.
Yes and no. College tuition increases are a complicated subject. The article uses previous research to show that college tuition does go up as a result of federal aid in certain circumstances, but the relationship is less then 1:1. Fair enough, it might have some of an impact, but its probably less then the savings as a result of lower interest rates. But as a college student myself, I absolutely hated having to pay >$700 for useless tenured old professors teaching required courses that weren't even a part of my major. Several thousand dollars, flushed down the toilet. Cutting the Gen Ed requirements would prove to be extremely beneficial to bringing down college costs, and raising productivity. Surely, you can't tell me that having another year of taking medical based courses wouldn't lead to me having a much higher productivity.
But as far as productivity and job filling goes, you're making the assumption that more student graduates will lead to more jobs being filled. Yes and no. Some professions that we need more of such as engineers, nurses, IT staff, finance staff, etc. do require job degrees. But other jobs short of talent don't, they require skills learned in trade schools. Increasing the number of English and Art history majors isn't going to do anything to fill those positions, or lead to economic prosperity. No, all it does is lead to a growth of the college system and college costs without any corresponding increase in private sector benefit.
more unconstitutional action by government unless you can show where it says they can give business and people money.
yet your one who complains when they give subsidies to business....go figure!
How is that working for the current 25% of unemployed college students or the huge supply of 4-year degrees working as baristas? .
While I don't think it's right to charge them the same rate as the discount window, I do think that access to the window ought to mean that student loans should have lower interest rates than 7% in this particular interest-rate environment. There should be some sort of formula for determining those rates depending on the rate of inflation with various other indices thrown into the pot. I think the rates ought to be adjustable every three years depending on that index.
Pssst: the procedure for determining constitutionality is to have a law case brought before the SC. Get used to it.
Not well. Bush's failed conservative policies caused massive unemployment, you might have noticed. And when the economy gets back on its feet thanks to progressive policies, the job market will pick up again.
This happens over and over again -- conservative trash the economy, caused recessions and progressive fix the problem.
But it is funny to watch conservatives try to destroy higher education because of their failed economic policies. Shock capitalism in action!
Same here. Warren gets it. She knows how to frame an issue. And that's 90% of winning a political battle. That's why the rightwingers hate her so much. She is the future of progressive Democrats in this country.
when you talk in terms of the group, and not to people as individuals ....your a collectivist.
our rights are individual, they are not group rights.
my property is mine, i dont share it with the community.
Why are you driving on roads that other people built, you filthy collectivist you?
(hint: Obama wasn't saying anything near what you think he was saying)
we are collectivist when be vote, when we create infrastructure for ourselves, that everyone uses.
however my rights are individual rights, they are not part of a group, you and members of a group ,who have a louder voice then i, dont get to determine my rights.
just as in my property, property is an individual right it not a group right, its mine, it not yours or members of the community, to tell me how it going to be run, according to your desires, and you dont dip your hands into my profits and get a share of them they are not yours.
So are you arguing against all taxes ever, or some particular point you think Obama was making, or what?
"The point is, that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
"You didn't build that." The word "that" referred to his previous sentence - roads and bridges. You didn't build those.
Is admitting that people do things together "collectivist," and if so do you disagree with the concept or oppose it?
Translated: your study didn't prove what you claimed it did, and I caught you in your lie, so now your dancing. Typical.
Ah, the knownothing meme -- "liberal arts are useless." Tea partiers never change their spots.
In a declining job market all areas have lost jobs, not just liberal arts majors. Go figure! The fact that conservatives used the dismal job market created by Bush's failed conservative policies to attack liberal arts shows how freakishly predictable conservatism has become.
The funny thing is companies keep complaining that they need more workers with better language and cognitive skills (read liberal arts). But of course facts don't stop conservatives from touting their love of knownothingism.
This is fine, but the folks that will qualify will dry up. Banks will just tighten their qualifications for student loans.
Rates are largely based on collective risk, and there is a tremendously high percentage of college loans that are never repaid. A TON of college loans go to people that never graduate. That's why the rates are so damn high.
The same reason 16-year-old boys pay higher car insurance than a 55-year-old man. Risk.
I like how you instantly went to Bush. I am making a nonpartisan statement on the state of higher education and how an excess of degrees is devaluing each individual degree. Can you please address the points I made instead of taking the first sentence and then blaming Bush? No one is trying to "destroy" higher education. The student loan bubble is due to easy money; I don't see the argument against that, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?