• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College

Didn't Obama extend the Bush tax cuts?

Sort of. He has wanted to end the cuts for the rich and extend the cuts for the middle class all along. Republicans made it clear that they would prevent him from doing that unless he extended them for everybody. During the midst of a recession a tax hike on the middle class would have made things much worse, so the lesser evil was to extend the whole thing. I doubt they'll do that again though. The Republicans will need to choose between not extending it for anybody or just extending it for the middle class this time, since we're out of the recession.

Hasn't Obama signed in less regulatory acts than Bush?

No. Quite the opposite. Bush did everything he could to destroy regulation. He put the biggest polluters in charge of the EPA, he put lumber company executives in charge of the department of the interior, etc. He de-regulated like a mofo. Obama has been doing the opposite. The EPA in particular has been ramping up regulation considerably under Obama.

Didn't Obama give out a Bailout like Bush?

Sort of. Bush started the process of bailing out the banks, Obama didn't stop it. And then Obama bailed out the auto companies. It is worth noting that the bank bailout was a failure and the auto bailout was a success. The auto bailout resulted in all three auto companies paying it back in full and now all three are profitable. That one helped actual real life working people. The banks did not pay it back and they are still screwing us just as bad as before.
 
Sort of. Bush started the process of bailing out the banks, Obama didn't stop it. And then Obama bailed out the auto companies. It is worth noting that the bank bailout was a failure and the auto bailout was a success. The auto bailout resulted in all three auto companies paying it back in full and now all three are profitable. That one helped actual real life working people. The banks did not pay it back and they are still screwing us just as bad as before.
Wrong on many counts. Two companies received bailout money from the government (GM and Chrysler), not three. The auto bailouts started with Bush and continued with Obama - same as the banks. As of March, we were still short about $40 billion from GM and Chrysler - half of what they were given. Some of that can be recouped with stock, but not all of it. Of the money loaned to banks, the government has technically earned a profit - we've received more than we lent, even though some banks have still not paid back their loans. That's a bit misleading, though, because many of the banks paid back their TARP money using money from other programs. There's nothing to substatiate the "bank bailout was a failure and the auto bailout was a success" claim.
 
In California they're giving grant money to illegals........whatta country!
 
Sort of. He has wanted to end the cuts for the rich and extend the cuts for the middle class all along. Republicans made it clear that they would prevent him from doing that unless he extended them for everybody. During the midst of a recession a tax hike on the middle class would have made things much worse, so the lesser evil was to extend the whole thing. I doubt they'll do that again though. The Republicans will need to choose between not extending it for anybody or just extending it for the middle class this time, since we're out of the recession.



No. Quite the opposite. Bush did everything he could to destroy regulation. He put the biggest polluters in charge of the EPA, he put lumber company executives in charge of the department of the interior, etc. He de-regulated like a mofo. Obama has been doing the opposite. The EPA in particular has been ramping up regulation considerably under Obama.



Sort of. Bush started the process of bailing out the banks, Obama didn't stop it. And then Obama bailed out the auto companies. It is worth noting that the bank bailout was a failure and the auto bailout was a success. The auto bailout resulted in all three auto companies paying it back in full and now all three are profitable. That one helped actual real life working people. The banks did not pay it back and they are still screwing us just as bad as before.

Wrong on so many levels.
 
The biggest problem with the get educated now and pay for it later plan, is that the actual cost is no longer even considered, as pointed out in the article. If a student actually did the math, at the entering college level that should certainly be possible, they may decide that the future benefits are worth the expense, but in many 'specialties' that is not the case at all. While a BS degree in a 'hot' field may be a good bet, a BA degree in a 'slow or mediocre' field may not be. The most logical choice, IMHO, would be to start working, save some money and take classes, starting at a community college and then transfer to a state school to finish the degree program, working and paying as you go. This may make getting that degree take 7 or 8 years, but you are never over your head in debt, and are still fairly young upon degree completion. This plan has some other advantages as well; if you change your mind and decide on a different field of study, get married, drop out due to poor grades or find that 'good job' that requires no further educaton then you are still benefiting from the education that you did complete and the job experience that you have behind you but have no huge debt hanging over your head.
 
Last edited:
Sound advice. By living at home (rent free), working full time (even at a fairly low wage) and taking classes part time, only as many as you can keep up the study for and still have time to sleep and play a bit, you can get that degree in 6 to 8 years and still leave the nest fairly young, with a bit of savings accrued and work experience as well. I did not get to stay at home, since my father retired and moved out of state (during my 2nd year), but did the rest of that plan to get my college education. The whole concept of gambling on your future with a huge debt ahead of you, just to get that education done ASAP is foolish, except for possibly the best and the brightest of students that also choose to major in very high demand (high paying) fields of study.
 
Sound advice. By living at home (rent free), working full time (even at a fairly low wage) and taking classes part time, only as many as you can keep up the study for and still have time to sleep and play a bit, you can get that degree in 6 to 8 years and still leave the nest fairly young, with a bit of savings accrued and work experience as well. I did not get to stay at home, since my father retired and moved out of state (during my 2nd year), but did the rest of that plan to get my college education. The whole concept of gambling on your future with a huge debt ahead of you, just to get that education done ASAP is foolish, except for possibly the best and the brightest of students that also choose to major in very high demand (high paying) fields of study.

Good thing for me that the Navy needed smart guys to be electronic Techs and Nuclear power plant operators....
when I was 16, I was informed that I could plan on moving out right after high school, no living at home unless I paid room and board to mom.....well, I knew the quality of her cooking, not to mention her generally nasty disposition, and her price was way too high.

After my Navy years, I took night classes for 8 years, not that I needed them to make good money. But it is good to stay in the game, you never know when a career change will be thrust upon you, or an opportunity might present itself. It is also good to have multiple skills...
 
Sound advice. By living at home (rent free), working full time (even at a fairly low wage) and taking classes part time, only as many as you can keep up the study for and still have time to sleep and play a bit, you can get that degree in 6 to 8 years and still leave the nest fairly young, with a bit of savings accrued and work experience as well. I did not get to stay at home, since my father retired and moved out of state (during my 2nd year), but did the rest of that plan to get my college education. The whole concept of gambling on your future with a huge debt ahead of you, just to get that education done ASAP is foolish, except for possibly the best and the brightest of students that also choose to major in very high demand (high paying) fields of study.

IMO it depends what school you're at. If you are a school that is say not ranked in the top 100, I would agree with you're advice. Going to a school that isn't in the top 100 is still a good investment, but only if you're careful about how much debt you take on for it.

If you're in the 20-100 range, you want to graduate in four years. Your income after you graduate will be enough higher that it doesn't make sense to give up 2 years of that salary for 2 years worth of minimum wage working while you're a student. But, do be cost conscious. Live at home if you can, don't eat out, have roommates, do a work study job a few hours a week, etc.

Now if you're in a top 20 school, screw all of the above. If you're in a top 20 school, this is your chance to determine where the rest of your life leads. College is a branch in your fate and the stakes are extremely high. If you don't give it 100%, you'll spend the rest of your life kicking yourself for every little mistake you made. At this level, grades are far more important to your financial future than debt. You should not work at all and you should not live at home. All you should do is study. The debt is essentially irrelevant in comparison to the importance of your grades. An A average is worth $500k more than a B+ average to you.
 
IMO it depends what school you're at. If you are a school that is say not ranked in the top 100, I would agree with you're advice. Going to a school that isn't in the top 100 is still a good investment, but only if you're careful about how much debt you take on for it.

If you're in the 20-100 range, you want to graduate in four years. Your income after you graduate will be enough higher that it doesn't make sense to give up 2 years of that salary for 2 years worth of minimum wage working while you're a student. But, do be cost conscious. Live at home if you can, don't eat out, have roommates, do a work study job a few hours a week, etc.

Now if you're in a top 20 school, screw all of the above. If you're in a top 20 school, this is your chance to determine where the rest of your life leads. College is a branch in your fate and the stakes are extremely high. If you don't give it 100%, you'll spend the rest of your life kicking yourself for every little mistake you made. At this level, grades are far more important to your financial future than debt. You should not work at all and you should not live at home. All you should do is study. The debt is essentially irrelevant in comparison to the importance of your grades. An A average is worth $500k more than a B+ average to you.
The rich want us to live like children or hermits. They know this is unhealthy and self-destructive; that's why they give their children big allowances so they can have normal satisfaction of normal desires. The owners of the economy want to create a generation of wimps to be their well-paid workoholic flunkies willing to put up anything to make up for a lost youth. This bullying suppresses talent because without pride, talent chokes.
 
Those who would enslave the young are not just the rich. They are also the old who were once enslaved themselves.
 
Those who would enslave the young are not just the rich. They are also the old who were once enslaved themselves.

Also, to keep the young from growing up. The sheltering, babying, insulting, and condescending attitude that started in the 60s, causing a reaction that made the Boomers not fit into the childish program that the rich had designed for them.
 
Also, to keep the young from growing up. The sheltering, babying, insulting, and condescending attitude that started in the 60s, causing a reaction that made the Boomers not fit into the childish program that the rich had designed for them.


Is there some anual meeting, or convention, or even a drawn up game plan we could take a look at on this evil plan, of the evil rich?

j-mac
 
Is there some anual meeting, or convention, or even a drawn up game plan we could take a look at on this evil plan, of the evil rich?

j-mac
also the stupid poor, my mother ruined her youngest, my little brother, by clinging to him. Mom's mother did the same thing to her yuoungest, mom's little brother.
2 men who never married, and only worked for a few years....rest of the time they lived with, and off, mommy and daddy til they died....
My Uncle then went into a nursing home, my brother inherited a shack to live in.....a little VA pension keeps him from being on the street...
 
Last edited:
also the stupid poor, my mother ruined her youngest, my little brother, by clinging to him. Mom's mother did the same thing to her yuoungest, mom's little brother.
2 men who never married, and only worked for a few years....rest of the time they lived with, and off, mommy and daddy til they died....
My Uncle then went into a nursing home, my brother inherited a shack to live in.....a little VA pension keeps him from being on the street...


Man, that sucks Bill....Sorry to hear.

j-mac
 
Man, that sucks Bill....Sorry to hear.

j-mac
I will give little brother credit for at least never asking me for money.....but I have 2 other siblings who have....I used to send some to my sister just before Christmas, but little brother said she wasn't spending it on the kids.....so that stopped. Older brother wanted money, altho he didn't say it, it was to pay his gambling debts, like I wouldn't find out why he really needed the money, again, little brother is a good snitch.
I live far away from all of them, helps my sanity by maintaining some distance from the "kinfolk"...
 
The owners of the economy want to create a generation of wimps to be their well-paid workoholic flunkies willing to put up anything to make up for a lost youth.

It's not just the owners of the economy who "want" this. Aggregate consumer choice and the effects of technological advancement also move us in this direction. Consumers deal-seek, which incentivizes greater efficiency, which pushes out labor and/or sets the bar higher for it. This isn't just some Alex Jones elite conspiracy, it's the consequence of a more highly computerized and mechanized production process and the incentives created by the fact that BOTH consumers and producers have the individual incentive to cut their expenses.
 
Nobody said that, now did they? What has been said is that people should have the knowledge to figure out what the cost of school is going to run them in terms of monthly payments and how long, as well as they should put a little more thought into the whole thing in terms of cost to benefit ratio.

But I give you an A for effort to derail with falsehoods.

It's hard to predict something like that, and it depends on things like loan and consolidation options... monthly payments widely vary and I find it sad that people are attacking a college education. Getting a college degree in marketing should never be looked at or considered a bad decision, yeesh. This is sad.
 
Beyond what I have already said about higher ed, the other major major problem is...

How old are kids when they get out of highschool? 17-19, mostly 18, correct? Most colleges want or REQUIRE students to apply, get accepted, and enroll, right out of highschool, because that is when test scores are still relevant. Many won't allow non traditional students into their programs, without "warm up" classes, just to refresh them.

How many of you knew what you wanted to do, presumably for the rest of your life, or at the very least, for the next 20 years of your life, at age 18? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. 18 year olds don't know $hit about $****, haven't left the womb of their parent's house, many have never held full time jobs, etc etc. How in the name of jesus christ's left nipple ring can you POSSIBLY expect someone who has only been around for 18 years to know what they want to do 40-60 hours per week, for the next 30 years?

THAT'S why you see so many of what some of you call "soft" degrees, because, frankly, these kids don't know what's out there. I sure as hell didn't. They have absolutely no way of making an intelligent, informed decision on what sort of degree they want, what sort of career they wish to pursue. This is a decision people should not be making till they are 30.
 
Good thing I didn't wait until I was 30.

Indecision may be why you see so many soft degrees. Or they are easier. Its probably also why we have a 99%.
 
Good thing I didn't wait until I was 30.

Indecision may be why you see so many soft degrees. Or they are easier. Its probably also why we have a 99%.

Well, I'm happy you're so awesome. I'm glad that you were able to determine what you wanted to do with the rest of your life at age 18.

Not everyone else is so simple. Not everyone else is capable of knowing who they even really ARE, yet, at that age, let alone what they want to do with their lives.
 
Why, I knew exactly what I wanted when I was 18. No need to wait until 30 to decide what I wanted from life at all.

I wanted a car, and I wanted to get laid.
 
Is there some anual meeting, or convention, or even a drawn up game plan we could take a look at on this evil plan, of the evil rich?

j-mac
Mocking accusations that disturb you is just whistling in the dark. If you refuse to recognize the power of the powerful, that will give them even more power over you. But it is not in my power to cure the blind, or even my responsibility to do so. Go ahead and continue whistling along the dark road to becoming road kill, see if I care. Carry on, carrion!
 
Well, I'm happy you're so awesome. I'm glad that you were able to determine what you wanted to do with the rest of your life at age 18.

Not everyone else is so simple. Not everyone else is capable of knowing who they even really ARE, yet, at that age, let alone what they want to do with their lives.
Despite being a National Merit scholar, I knew I no longer wanted to live like a child at age 18. That's all college means. It's for people who are afraid to grow up and get a full-time job, a car, dates, etc. It's childish, depressing, unnatural, and insulting to the few people who really should be there in a productive economy rather than the exploitative, top-heavy, upside-down, and collapsing economy we have now. No matter how loudly the economic bullies preach it, sacrifice has no merit. It is merely brown-nosing and calls for a lack of self-respect.
 
Mocking accusations that disturb you is just whistling in the dark. If you refuse to recognize the power of the powerful, that will give them even more power over you. But it is not in my power to cure the blind, or even my responsibility to do so. Go ahead and continue whistling along the dark road to becoming road kill, see if I care. Carry on, carrion!


LOL....No really, I am trying to understand your rant...Tell me if there is some particular group, or membership society that you feel is colluding to keep you down?


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom