• 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!

When should America discriminate?

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Surprise question, isn't it? Some people think never.

I don't, and here is why (from the National Center for Education Statistics) - Infographic:
Percentage distribution of associate's degrees and bachelor's degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2013–14
figure-ree-1.png


It is clear (to me) from the above infographic that we should indeed discriminate FOR all those ethnicities that do not have the same postsecondary graduation rate as whites! They need help and they should get it for no cost whatsoever to them.

Not to do so IS discriminatory in that we seem to think that kids who don't get a degree don't deserve one. And yet, without a public-education option at the Tertiary Level (vocational, 2- or 4- or more years) that is free, gratis and for nothing America is effectively incarcerating people in relative poverty. And at the moment that discrimination exists at the level of the colour of one's skin as seen from the above infographic.

Nobody except the south of the US questioned who should be "free" from the very beginning of the US. After 1864 that question we thought settled. And yet, the graphic above shows how much ethnicities are not free economically to obtain a work-skills offering postsecondary education.

And, why is this a key distinction? Because, as we exit the Industrial Age we enter the Information Age where higher educational skills will be key to finding decent jobs. And yet, today, it should be obvious to all that slapping products together in a production line is now at a level where robotics applied to virtually all product-lines extant in America has shown us the way.

So, for the future of our country and its racial harmony I suggest that Tertiary Education be made free, gratis and for nothing. Why do I know that's the right thing to do? Well, because I am a Yank who lives in France and I have seen personally what free-education can do here. I spent about $1000 per school year on a post-secondary education for my children here in France, because it is subsidized by the French government.

So, now you understand where Bernie got his idea for free tertiary-education. And why Hillary so willingly accepted it into her election platform that the Federal government should subsidize all Tertiary Education for families with an income below $100K annually. (Because 54K was the median income of American families in 2017 at election time, and so a family of four with two working parents typically had below $100K as total family income.)

That is the investment our country should be making for our young. Or, we'll simply have to pay the tab for the Unemployment that will afflict more and more of our fellow citizens who did not have the means to obtain a postsecondary degree under the existing conditions.

Today, only 46.1% of all Americans have a "post-graduate degree". That is not even half the population! And so, what are the other 54% of the population to do? Well, 14% of them are living their lives below the Poverty Threshold year after year after year.

Which is shameful of a country that could well afford to educate them free, gratis and for nothing.

We need to get our priorities right ...
 
Surprise question, isn't it? Some people think never.

I don't, and here is why (from the National Center for Education Statistics) - Infographic:
Percentage distribution of associate's degrees and bachelor's degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2013–14
figure-ree-1.png


It is clear (to me) from the above infographic that we should indeed discriminate FOR all those ethnicities that do not have the same postsecondary graduation rate as whites! They need help and they should get it for no cost whatsoever to them.

Not to do so IS discriminatory in that we seem to think that kids who don't get a degree don't deserve one. And yet, without a public-education option at the Tertiary Level (vocational, 2- or 4- or more years) that is free, gratis and for nothing America is effectively incarcerating people in relative poverty. And at the moment that discrimination exists at the level of the colour of one's skin as seen from the above infographic.

Nobody except the south of the US questioned who should be "free" from the very beginning of the US. After 1864 that question we thought settled. And yet, the graphic above shows how much ethnicities are not free economically to obtain a work-skills offering postsecondary education.

And, why is this a key distinction? Because, as we exit the Industrial Age we enter the Information Age where higher educational skills will be key to finding decent jobs. And yet, today, it should be obvious to all that slapping products together in a production line is now at a level where robotics applied to virtually all product-lines extant in America has shown us the way.

So, for the future of our country and its racial harmony I suggest that Tertiary Education be made free, gratis and for nothing. Why do I know that's the right thing to do? Well, because I am a Yank who lives in France and I have seen personally what free-education can do here. I spent about $1000 per school year on a post-secondary education for my children here in France, because it is subsidized by the French government.

So, now you understand where Bernie got his idea for free tertiary-education. And why Hillary so willingly accepted it into her election platform that the Federal government should subsidize all Tertiary Education for families with an income below $100K annually. (Because 54K was the median income of American families in 2017 at election time, and so a family of four with two working parents typically had below $100K as total family income.)

That is the investment our country should be making for our young. Or, we'll simply have to pay the tab for the Unemployment that will afflict more and more of our fellow citizens who did not have the means to obtain a postsecondary degree under the existing conditions.

Today, only 46.1% of all Americans have a "post-graduate degree". That is not even half the population! And so, what are the other 54% of the population to do? Well, 14% of them are living their lives below the Poverty Threshold year after year after year.

Which is shameful of a country that could well afford to educate them free, gratis and for nothing.

We need to get our priorities right ...

You do know that everyone in america has the ability to go to college and get a degree, they just choose not to. Right? Whats stopping them..... It's not the price of tuiton because you dont have to pay out of pocket for the tuiton cause you can get school loans. So it must be something else.
 
You do know that everyone in america has the ability to go to college and get a degree, they just choose not to. Right? Whats stopping them..... It's not the price of tuiton because you dont have to pay out of pocket for the tuiton cause you can get school loans. So it must be something else.

Oh come on.

Its not like giving free crap in mass hand outs has never gone wrong...

I doubt anyone is ever going to take advantage of this, at all. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Oh come on.

Its not like giving free crap in mass hand outs has never gone wrong...

I doubt anyone is ever going to take advantage of this, at all. :lamo
Its just like the work for welfare program. When lazy people were told they had to work in order to get their free money they got off welfare and decided to find a real job because at least it paid better.
 
Its just like the work for welfare program. When lazy people were told they had to work in order to get their free money they got off welfare and decided to find a real job because at least it paid better.

This OP has to be a hoax right?
 
You do know that everyone in america has the ability to go to college and get a degree, they just choose not to. Right?

No, wrong.

They are forced to choose not to go because it is so effing-expensive - even in a state-school postsecondary school where most cost between 9 and 17K dollars a year.

Which is why - like secondary-schooling - it should be free, gratis and for nothing.

Moreover, we could reduce the monstrously high DoD-budget to pay for the cost somewhat. That expenditure is consuming more than half of the entire Discretionary Budget - and it's a huge waste. We could do more with less.

It's a boondoggle for DoD Contractors who helped finance a presidential election. Yet another reason to make it illegal!

The poor have no real way to clamber out of poverty. They are literally incarcerated into it. And people like you think "it's just a matter of will and they wanna live that way".

So, you mean that they are ignorant like animals. They are not.

But perhaps YOU ARE if you cannot see that by subventioning their Tertiary Education there just might be not only lower unemployment levels but also lower crime rates and other societal anomalies that also derive from those who are permanently-poor ...

From here: Household Poverty And Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012, excerpt:
For the period 2008–12—
*Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).
*Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).
*The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks.
*However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.
*Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
*Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
*Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

'Nuff said ... ?
 
Last edited:
No, wrong.

They are forced to choose not to go because it is so effing-expensive - even in a state-school where most cost between 9 and 17K dollars a year.

Which is why - like secondary-schooling - it should be free, gratis and for nothing.

Moreover, we could reduce the monstrously high DoD-budget to pay for the cost somewhat. That expenditure is consuming more than half of the entire Discretionary Budget - and it's a huge waste. We could do more with less.

It's a boondoggle for DoD Contractors who helped finance a presidential election. Yet another reason to make it illegal!

The poor have no real way to clamber out of poverty. They are literally incarcerated into it. And people like you think "it's just a matter of will and they wanna live that way".

So, you mean that they are ignorant like animals. They are not.

But perhaps YOU ARE if you cannot see that by subventioning their Tertiary Education there just might be not only lower unemployment levels but also lower crime rates and other societal anomalies that also derive from those who are permanently-poor ...

From here: Household Poverty And Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012, excerpt:


'Nuff said ... ?

You obviously do not know that much about how it works. If you are poor, you will go to college for free. It's called Financial Aid. No money out of your pocket, they even pay for books and room and board, and you don't have to pay anything back. For the middle class, you can get education loans. You do have to pay it back though.

So your whole argument is wrong. The people you are talking about can go to college absolutely free.
 
You do know that everyone in america has the ability to go to college and get a degree, they just choose not to. Right? Whats stopping them..... It's not the price of tuiton because you dont have to pay out of pocket for the tuiton cause you can get school loans. So it must be something else.

One of the biggest debt generators in America is student loans, the other is healthcare.
 
You obviously do not know that much about how it works. If you are poor, you will go to college for free. So your whole argument is wrong. The people you are talking about can go to college absolutely free.

Very wrong yourself - only a bit more than a third have no debt (presumably due to full scholarships) upon completion of undergraduate studies (from here):
StudentDebtBreakdown.jpg


From USA Today (April 28, 2017):
It was big news when outstanding student loan debt surpassed credit card debt and then later exceeded $1 trillion for the first time. That shocking statistic keeps climbing, with no sign of slowing down: Americans now have more than $1.4 trillion in unpaid education debt, according to the Federal Reserve.[/QUOTE]

Ouch!

As with healthcare, tertiary-education costs are skyrocketing. Why? Because the markets for said services are imperfect. And, when that happens, it is HIGH Time that the government intervenes ...
 
Last edited:
Very wrong yourself - only a bit more than a third have no debt (presumably due to full scholarships) upon completion of undergraduate studies (from here):
StudentDebtBreakdown.jpg


From USA Today (April 28, 2017):
It was big news when outstanding student loan debt surpassed credit card debt and then later exceeded $1 trillion for the first time. That shocking statistic keeps climbing, with no sign of slowing down: Americans now have more than $1.4 trillion in unpaid education debt, according to the Federal Reserve.[/QUOTE]

Ouch!

As with healthcare, tertiary-education costs are skyrocketing. Why? Because the markets for said services are imperfect. And, when that happens, it is HIGH Time that the government intervenes ...


I am NOT wrong. The income level you have referred to, are eligible for Financial Aid.

I know about student loan debt. My daughter has almost $60k of it. If we were poorer, she would have went for free, no debt. If we were richer, she would have went for free, no debt. We are in the middle, so she has debt. As many kids do.
 
Today, only 46.1% of all Americans have a "post-graduate degree". That is not even half the population! And so, what are the other 54% of the population to do? Well, 14% of them are living their lives below the Poverty Threshold year after year after year.
Why isn’t that enough? Many careers don’t require a degree, being better suited to on-the-job training, apprenticeships or other vocational training. What’s more, having a degree, especially when so many other people do too, is no guarantee of a good job. Even some of those living in (relative) poverty will have a degree, they just don’t have the opportunity to make use of them for one reason or another.

A root problems here is the long-established idea that the default route should be through university to get an academic degree with any other option seen as lesser. In addition to the cost issue, that has also led to a growth in less rigorous degrees, a devaluation of true academic achievement and many young people feeling forced in to a degree course they don’t really want to do, hence increasing the risk of their failing and being even worse off than they would have otherwise been.
 
Why isn’t that enough? Many careers don’t require a degree, being better suited to on-the-job training, apprenticeships or other vocational training. What’s more, having a degree, especially when so many other people do too, is no guarantee of a good job. Even some of those living in (relative) poverty will have a degree, they just don’t have the opportunity to make use of them for one reason or another.

For your edification:
ep_chart_001.png


Meaning what? If you have one, you live better.

A root problems here is the long-established idea that the default route should be through university to get an academic degree with any other option seen as lesser.

Well, if Income is a prevalent preference for an individual, then, yes, getting a degree gets one further up the Revenue Ladder.

Btw, more intelligent people (yes, study makes you more intelligent) make better political choices. Donald Dork's election proves that point. He had preferential treatment by the less educated contingent of American people. The smart-people voted for Hillary.

Proof here (Pew Research):
FT_16.11.09_exitPolls_education.png


In addition to the cost issue, that has also led to a growth in less rigorous degrees, a devaluation of true academic achievement and many young people feeling forced in to a degree course they don’t really want to do, hence increasing the risk of their failing and being even worse off than they would have otherwise been

Interesting thought, but I cannot agree. (Of course! Or there would not be a debate!)

Smart-people vote for smart-candidates based upon an intuitively intelligent assessment of what the candidate says and how s/he said it. Which generates "trust". Donald Dork has made a lotta money. Wow! How mundane can a people get?!?

And that is what worries me about America. It seems a common thought stateside that you gotta have smarts to make a megabuck. You don't actually. (In fact, some of the smartest people are actually not at all rich.)

I cannot even imagine why anyone with a post-secondary degree would have voted for The Dork. His present predominantly Disapproval Rating - see that here - is indicative of those who are hard-core believers in the guy.)

(As the French say, "Des gouts et des couleurs" - meaning tastes and colors always generate arguable differences of opinion. ;^)
 
For your edification:
ep_chart_001.png


Meaning what? If you have one, you live better.
No, that just means there is a correlation between higher educational achievement and employment/pay (and high pay doesn't automatically mean better life). If we just gave everyone a Doctorate, it wouldn't magically halve unemployment and double the average wage. It also overlooks the exact point I was making; where are all the people with degree-equivalent vocational qualifications in that chart?

Well, if Income is a prevalent preference for an individual, then, yes, getting a degree gets one further up the Revenue Ladder.
Not automatically. Plenty of people with degrees have lower income and vice-versa. The idea that going to university will magically give you a better life is exactly the kind of myth causes all sorts of problems. The focus should be on hard work and finding the best path for a good career that interests you. That may or may not involve university or an academic degree.

Btw, more intelligent people (yes, study makes you more intelligent) make better political choices.
You don't need to go to university to study (and going to university doesn't mean a student studies!). Plenty of people will struggle in a university environment but excel in a different one. When those individuals don't have those alternatives available to them and feel forced in to a university course that doesn't suit them, they're set up to fail and find themselves at the bottom ends of those charts. If they're given the options and opportunities more suited to them, they'll have the potential succeed just as much as those who can make university work for them.
 
No, that just means there is a correlation between higher educational achievement and employment/pay (and high pay doesn't automatically mean better life).

I employ factual evidence and you resort to "not necessarily".

Moving right along ...
 
Surprise question, isn't it? Some people think never.

I don't, and here is why (from the National Center for Education Statistics) - Infographic:
Percentage distribution of associate's degrees and bachelor's degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2013–14
figure-ree-1.png


It is clear (to me) from the above infographic that we should indeed discriminate FOR all those ethnicities that do not have the same postsecondary graduation rate as whites! They need help and they should get it for no cost whatsoever to them.

Not to do so IS discriminatory in that we seem to think that kids who don't get a degree don't deserve one. And yet, without a public-education option at the Tertiary Level (vocational, 2- or 4- or more years) that is free, gratis and for nothing America is effectively incarcerating people in relative poverty. And at the moment that discrimination exists at the level of the colour of one's skin as seen from the above infographic.

Nobody except the south of the US questioned who should be "free" from the very beginning of the US. After 1864 that question we thought settled. And yet, the graphic above shows how much ethnicities are not free economically to obtain a work-skills offering postsecondary education.

And, why is this a key distinction? Because, as we exit the Industrial Age we enter the Information Age where higher educational skills will be key to finding decent jobs. And yet, today, it should be obvious to all that slapping products together in a production line is now at a level where robotics applied to virtually all product-lines extant in America has shown us the way.

So, for the future of our country and its racial harmony I suggest that Tertiary Education be made free, gratis and for nothing. Why do I know that's the right thing to do? Well, because I am a Yank who lives in France and I have seen personally what free-education can do here. I spent about $1000 per school year on a post-secondary education for my children here in France, because it is subsidized by the French government.

So, now you understand where Bernie got his idea for free tertiary-education. And why Hillary so willingly accepted it into her election platform that the Federal government should subsidize all Tertiary Education for families with an income below $100K annually. (Because 54K was the median income of American families in 2017 at election time, and so a family of four with two working parents typically had below $100K as total family income.)

That is the investment our country should be making for our young. Or, we'll simply have to pay the tab for the Unemployment that will afflict more and more of our fellow citizens who did not have the means to obtain a postsecondary degree under the existing conditions.

Today, only 46.1% of all Americans have a "post-graduate degree". That is not even half the population! And so, what are the other 54% of the population to do? Well, 14% of them are living their lives below the Poverty Threshold year after year after year.

Which is shameful of a country that could well afford to educate them free, gratis and for nothing.

We need to get our priorities right ...

I didn't read any of that but I agree... discrimination.
 
No, that just means there is a correlation between higher educational achievement and employment/pay (and high pay doesn't automatically mean better life). If we just gave everyone a Doctorate, it wouldn't magically halve unemployment and double the average wage. It also overlooks the exact point I was making; where are all the people with degree-equivalent vocational qualifications in that chart?

Not automatically. Plenty of people with degrees have lower income and vice-versa. The idea that going to university will magically give you a better life is exactly the kind of myth causes all sorts of problems. The focus should be on hard work and finding the best path for a good career that interests you. That may or may not involve university or an academic degree.

You don't need to go to university to study (and going to university doesn't mean a student studies!). Plenty of people will struggle in a university environment but excel in a different one. When those individuals don't have those alternatives available to them and feel forced in to a university course that doesn't suit them, they're set up to fail and find themselves at the bottom ends of those charts. If they're given the options and opportunities more suited to them, they'll have the potential succeed just as much as those who can make university work for them.

I employ factual evidence and you resort to "not necessarily".

Moving right along ...

Joe didn/t say necessarily once in that post. That is WRONG. Quoting a person incorrectly...
 
I didn't read any of that but I agree... discrimination.

Yes, that's the problem with America.

Everything must be made simple for simple minds.

Problem is, our lives are no longer simple ...
 
I am not in America...A simple concept...

Look at the title of this site. It's a "debate forum". Perhaps you'd feel more at home on a Message Board?

Some dorks absolutely must have the "last word". You've had yours.

Feel better now ... ?
 
Last edited:
Yes, that's the problem with America.

Everything must be made simple for simple minds.

Problem is, our lives are no longer simple ...

You erroneously think college is the end all be all, which is furthest from the truth. Not everyone is cut out for college and as noted from another poster, a tradesman (I know you thumb your nose at the "common" construction worker), generally makes alot more money than someone with a degree. Plus he is not saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in college loan debt which cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.
 
Look at the title of this site. It's a "debate forum". Perhaps you'd feel more at home on a Message Board?

Why would you insult America over a comment I said when I am not in America?

:lol:

Scooter... your "debating" is nothing that worries me.

Some dorks absolutely must have the "last word". You've had yours.

Feel better now ... ?

Incorrect. When you respond YOU have the last word. See? Your logic is ridiculous.

FREEDOM FRIES
 
Last edited:
You erroneously think college is the end all be all, which is furthest from the truth. Not everyone is cut out for college and as noted from another poster, a tradesman (I know you thumb your nose at the "common" construction worker), generally makes a lot more money than someone with a degree. Plus he is not saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in college loan debt which cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.

There are so many mistakes in the above comment, it is difficult to know where to start.

Any advanced education formulates better the mind and therefore the person. Most Americans think that getting an education is ONLY FOR THE MONEY! It isn't, even though that is also a direct consequence. But why?

Because basic-manufacturing has left both America and Europe - it high-tailed to the Far East!

(I teach MBA courses, and - believe me - there is no subject so boring as "business models".)

I also started out at the very bottom of the ladder. Not in construction, but moving things around in storage for companies. Very boring. People want an education not only because of the money, but because the jobs they can get are far more interesting.

America does very well in educating its young, but its costs are far too high:
5.jpg


But it could do better, because more than half of all high-school students today DO NOT GO ON TO A POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION that is becoming more and more indispensable for better-paying jobs.

No, by and large, tradesmen DO NOT make more money than someone with a degree. But, you misinterpret me. I frankly do not care what pay-scale differences exist. I care that Americans must pay through the nose to get a degree, regardless of the level. Even a trade-degree costs too much in the US. (Somewhere around $4000 per year, according to here.)

I asked my Dentist last week here in France how much his degree cost. It was $1100 dollars a year for four years! Because a Tertiary Education is considered in Europe as a "right" as is National Healthcare that also costs half as much per capita than it does in the US! ...
 
You do know that everyone in america has the ability to go to college and get a degree, they just choose not to. Right? Whats stopping them..... It's not the price of tuiton because you dont have to pay out of pocket for the tuiton cause you can get school loans. So it must be something else.

Another graph that we should draw, side-by-side, would be male versus female in education. Currently there are more females gradating high school, college and grad school than males. Does this mean that the education system is very sexist? Should the same left wing standards for race apply to the excess of females? Or is the dual standard in place?

This fall, women will comprise more than 56 percent of students on campuses nationwide, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Some 2.2 million fewer men than women will be enrolled in college this year. And the trend shows no sign of abating. By 2026, the department estimates, 57 percent of college students will be women.

The new minority on campus? Men.

If we use leftist approach, do we need to lower the standards for males; get 10 extra point at admissions, and place higher standards on women to make it fair? Or do we do like Conservatives preach and let the free market decide, since different people see things in different ways, and have different talents and wants. More women in college also means women will carry more average debt after college. Men plan differently and assume their family will have the best shot at life with less debt at startup.

If we look at the NBA this is dominated by black men. This appearance of racism is an illusion and is really due to free market forces which ends up this way due to the best talent. We can prove this if we tried to social engineer the NBA, so it looks like the mainstream of America. We need so many women and children as well as so many Asians and Caucasians. The new result will be a watering down of the sport, until it is boring. The highest quality of sport appears when natural selection rules, and left wing artificial selection is not part of the equation. This applies to all areas of life.

If we go to back to education, once the left used the sexist arguments to make the education system based on artificial selection, the cost of education rose. Why did the cost go up after the left made that change?
 
Last edited:
Scooter... your "debating" is nothing that worries me.

Well, it certainly contains damn few sarcastic "one-liners", which is about the only way Yanks know how to "debate".

The heart of any debate is the "exchange of content", which should be intelligent, factual and verifiable.

You get an "F" on all three counts. Try harder ...
 
Well, it certainly contains damn few sarcastic "one-liners", which is about the only way Yanks know how to "debate".

The heart of any debate is the "exchange of content", which should be intelligent, factual and verifiable.

You get an "F" on all three counts. Try harder ...

Are you French?
 
Back
Top Bottom