Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.

Ideological Hypocrisy! (I need an image gig of this phrase)

Funny how that works isn't it? Almost like they need uneducated people to keep them in power. Oh well, sure it's just a happy coincidence!

I would argue both parties need uneducated voters to keep them in power.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I would argue both parties need uneducated voters to keep them in power.

This. Don't get me wrong. While I decided long ago I'm just not a Republican, and I love to mock and poke fun at the many hypocrisies of the GOP, it's not like I think the Democrats are perfect. It's just that opportunities to mock them around here are a lot less frequent.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.

Rich? Financial aid put my arse in debt. Also, I do not work in a field associated with my degree so there's that.

What needs to be done (IMHO) is to reassess college tuition and bring it down to a more reasonable price level. Financial aid has played at least a small part in driving tuition up as universities see it as "free money" for them.

Personally, I'd like to see AA degrees pushed down to the community college system (yes, remove them from the 4-year schools entirely). Universities would handle advanced degrees such as Masters and above. A set of universal requirements for general AA degrees needs to be developed and all accredited universities forced to accept them regardless of where the student transfers in from.

This will free up the universities from dealing with early drop-outs and ensure their student body is there "for the duration" of their education requirements. It would also suck a hell of a lot of money out of the university system and cause them to reorganize into a leaner sponsor of knowledge.

The only question is, what to do about athletes who depend on the current university system for their continued careers? You can't really ask them to just skip two years of playing and you really don't want to start sports at the community college level since most aren't equipped to handle it.

 Breotan wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.

Rich? Financial aid put my arse in debt. Also, I do not work in a field associated with my degree so there's that.

What needs to be done (IMHO) is to reassess college tuition and bring it down to a more reasonable price level. Financial aid has played at least a small part in driving tuition up as universities see it as "free money" for them.

Personally, I'd like to see AA degrees pushed down to the community college system (yes, remove them from the 4-year schools entirely). Universities would handle advanced degrees such as Masters and above. A set of universal requirements for general AA degrees needs to be developed and all accredited universities forced to accept them regardless of where the student transfers in from.

This will free up the universities from dealing with early drop-outs and ensure their student body is there "for the duration" of their education requirements. It would also suck a hell of a lot of money out of the university system and cause them to reorganize into a leaner sponsor of knowledge.

The only question is, what to do about athletes who depend on the current university system for their continued careers? You can't really ask them to just skip two years of playing and you really don't want to start sports at the community college level since most aren't equipped to handle it.

Wait, Community should only AA? But University Masters and Up? Where does that leave Bachelors.
And wouldnt that just turn Community college into universities? And you think CC isnt equipped for Sports? Than they sure as heck arent for college fresh/soph.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I would argue both parties need uneducated voters to keep them in power.

This. Don't get me wrong. While I decided long ago I'm just not a Republican, and I love to mock and poke fun at the many hypocrisies of the GOP, it's not like I think the Democrats are perfect. It's just that opportunities to mock them around here are a lot less frequent.

Cause democrats have learned to keep their mouth shut and not say what they actually think. Republicans need to learn the same.

 Breotan wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.

Rich? Financial aid put my arse in debt. Also, I do not work in a field associated with my degree so there's that.

What needs to be done (IMHO) is to reassess college tuition and bring it down to a more reasonable price level. Financial aid has played at least a small part in driving tuition up as universities see it as "free money" for them.

Personally, I'd like to see AA degrees pushed down to the community college system (yes, remove them from the 4-year schools entirely). Universities would handle advanced degrees such as Masters and above. A set of universal requirements for general AA degrees needs to be developed and all accredited universities forced to accept them regardless of where the student transfers in from.

This will free up the universities from dealing with early drop-outs and ensure their student body is there "for the duration" of their education requirements. It would also suck a hell of a lot of money out of the university system and cause them to reorganize into a leaner sponsor of knowledge.

The only question is, what to do about athletes who depend on the current university system for their continued careers? You can't really ask them to just skip two years of playing and you really don't want to start sports at the community college level since most aren't equipped to handle it.

AA's-you mean associate degrees? Those are at the CC level.

 LordofHats wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.

Ideological Hypocrisy! (I need an image gig of this phrase)

The quickest and surest way to bring down the cost of tuition and force universities to focus on offering majors and classes that make graduates more employable is to stop the govt from giving out financial aid.

That's an interesting theory. What's that based on (evidance/research-wise) ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TBH, I like the public college sytem we have here in NY (SUNY). IIRC the combined cost of tuition, room, and board for me was $21k, still expensive, but no where as the equivalent for profit schools. And it's good education too.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I would argue both parties need uneducated voters to keep them in power.

Both need them, sure, but one exists almost solely by there existence at this. The GOP didn't used to be the party of the Idiots and Religious Zealots, but the inmates have taken over the asylum, so to speak.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.

Ideological Hypocrisy! (I need an image gig of this phrase)

The quickest and surest way to bring down the cost of tuition and force universities to focus on offering majors and classes that make graduates more employable is to stop the govt from giving out financial aid.

I might be going against the mainstream anti-intellectualism bent of the folks here at dakka, but I'm not sure getting universities to "make graduates more employable" is the way to go. As has been noted, philo. majors tend to make more than welders (check the actual facts despite what Rubio says). More and more hospitals and higher enigneering job postings are looking for people with a well rounded education. Like people with an undergrad in the arts. They don't want robots. They want people who can communicate with other people. There is a reason the top 12 CEOs out of the top 20 as far as income in the us were liberal arts majors.

Prestor Jon wrote:


The quickest and surest way to bring down the cost of tuition and force universities to focus on offering majors and classes that make graduates more employable is to stop the govt from giving out financial aid.

And there we go back to college education getting a beating. Has anyone insulted trade schools yet? Not seeing much demonization of trade schools in here. Rubio wouldn't lie to me!

As far as I'm concerned, post-High School education (trade school, job training, and college) should all be government funded. Education is a powerful equalizer for class inequality, and yes. It's fething expensive. But you know what, it's important not just to the economy but the security of democracy and a stable society. The government should take an active role in furthering a productive and powerful education system. Think about what you said for a second. Schools offering majors and classes that don't make students employable? Have you looked at employment statistics;



EDIT: And too expand;





And mom said that my education in 17th Century English Literature wouldn't make me any money.



Worst case scenario, you're no more employable after getting a Liberal Arts degree than before, but you're going to get paid a lot more so sounds like it's not a waste of time as long as you don't pay an arm and a leg to the University of Phoenix (which along with DeVry and other trash schools that prey on students probably throws these statistics off a little bit). Most Business and Education degrees are liberal arts degrees with an Education/Business certification.

Seems like college is a pretty good place to go if you want a job (whether or not you get a good job is another matter). Like seriously. How did this myth that college students aren't being taught employable skills ever get started in the first place? When has it ever been true (probably 1087 CE).

Further it's for-profit colleges that are primarily responsible for rapidly driving up the costs of tuition and student debt, so for that you can actually blame good old capitalism not the government.

 Breotan wrote:
Universities would handle advanced degrees such as Masters and above.

Uh, no. Community colleges can't handle taking on science/engineering/etc degrees without completely changing them to be the current university system with a different name. And I don't really see any point to moving the math/science/engineering departments across town to a new building.

In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


The quickest and surest way to bring down the cost of tuition and force universities to focus on offering majors and classes that make graduates more employable is to stop the govt from giving out financial aid.

And there we go back to college education getting a beating. Has anyone insulted trade schools yet? Not seeing much demonization of trade schools in here. Rubio wouldn't lie to me!

As far as I'm concerned, post-High School education (trade school, job training, and college) should all be government funded. Education is a powerful equalizer for class inequality, and yes. It's fething expensive. But you know what, it's important not just to the economy but the security of democracy and a stable society. The government should take an active role in furthering a productive and powerful education system. Think about what you said for a second. Schools offering majors and classes that don't make students employable? Have you looked at employment statistics;



EDIT: And too expand;





And mom said that my education in 17th Century English Literature wouldn't make me any money.



Worst case scenario, you're no more employable after getting a Liberal Arts degree than before, but you're going to get paid a lot more so sounds like it's not a waste of time as long as you don't pay an arm and a leg to the University of Phoenix (which along with DeVry and other trash schools that prey on students probably throws these statistics off a little bit). Most Business and Education degrees are liberal arts degrees with an Education/Business certification.

Seems like college is a pretty good place to go if you want a job (whether or not you get a good job is another matter). Like seriously. How did this myth that college students aren't being taught employable skills ever get started in the first place? When has it ever been true (probably 1087 CE).

Further it's for-profit colleges that are primarily responsible for rapidly driving up the costs of tuition and student debt, so for that you can actually blame good old capitalism not the government.

You're missing the point and creating a straw man. Mostly my fault because I didn't have time to elaborate earlier.

In a nutshell the system we have now is that colleges charge tuition and if students can't afford it the govt loans them the money to pay for it. The problem isn't capitalism its government. If the government stopped issuing loans to everyone in order to pay the ever increasing tuition costs colleges would be subject to market forces. If colleges, primarily private schools, want to keep raising the coat of attendance to the extent that virtually no one can pay it without govt loans then if the govt stops giving everyone student loans colleges have to find a way to educate for a lower cost or they won't have enough students to stay in business. If the govt is guaranteeing that students will pay whatever universities charge then there is no pressure for schools to keep costs down, they always get their money. Hence the increasing cost of college and the increasing burden of student loan debt.

There are private schools suffering from lower enrollments because people are realizing that the higher costs and debt burden aren't worth choosing a private school over a lower cost state university.

If students had to go to banks to get private student loans the banks would want to know what the students would study to get a degree that would have the earning power to allow them to pay off the loan. Currently the government doesn't carry what you study/major in and the schools charge the same regardless of your course of study. Different jobs offer different salaries and earning potential but the student loan burden is the same.

Since different degrees convey different amounts of earning potential it isn't efficient or equitable to charge the same for all of them but in our current system government loans remove any accountability or pressure to do so.

I am not opposed to people going to college and earning degrees. I am opposed to inefficient government interference that shields industries from market forces that would reduce costs. I am also opposed to one size fits all solutions because thats a myth, there's never a solution that fits everyone but that doesn't stop the government from trying to force it anyway. Not everyone should qualify for college loans and every undergraduate degree should not incur the same costs.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?

Offer any assistance the French may need.

Also, get serious against ISIS. No nation building crap... no pottery barn rule...

They want "war"? We'll... I'd argue that they truly haven't seen *WAR*.

Double post

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?

Offer any assistance the French may need.

Also, get serious against ISIS. No nation building crap... no pottery barn rule...

They want "war"? We'll... I'd argue that they truly haven't seen *WAR*.

Personally, if I was the POTUS I'd be calling up Putin and asking if he would like to Effiel Tower some ISIS targets tonight. We know the US and Russia have some targets. Give them some quick and inglorius ends. No fan fare on tv, a quick and strong answer to their actions.

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?

Offer any assistance the French may need.

Also, get serious against ISIS. No nation building crap... no pottery barn rule...

They want "war"? We'll... I'd argue that they truly haven't seen *WAR*.

That won't work.

Do you really think storming into the their territory, leaving a trail of death and destruction, before leaving the place in ruins will kill their ideology?

 BrotherGecko wrote:
In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?

Remember when the Russians steam-rolled Berlin? That. We need that. No more sitting on our arses waiting for something bad. We need to stop being reactive and start being proactive

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Do you really think storming into the their territory, leaving a trail of death and destruction, before leaving the place in ruins will kill their ideology?

Exactly. I mean, even if you magically develop some way of identifying every terrorist (PS: you can't) and kill them all, all you're likely to do is create the next generation of terrorists. If you want to stop terrorism and similar evils you have to fix the world they live in, not simply burn it to the ground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Remember when the Russians steam-rolled Berlin? That. We need that. No more sitting on our arses waiting for something bad. We need to stop being reactive and start being proactive

Ah, to be so young and naive again...

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


The quickest and surest way to bring down the cost of tuition and force universities to focus on offering majors and classes that make graduates more employable is to stop the govt from giving out financial aid.

And there we go back to college education getting a beating. Has anyone insulted trade schools yet? Not seeing much demonization of trade schools in here. Rubio wouldn't lie to me!

As far as I'm concerned, post-High School education (trade school, job training, and college) should all be government funded. Education is a powerful equalizer for class inequality, and yes. It's fething expensive. But you know what, it's important not just to the economy but the security of democracy and a stable society. The government should take an active role in furthering a productive and powerful education system. Think about what you said for a second. Schools offering majors and classes that don't make students employable? Have you looked at employment statistics;



EDIT: And too expand;





And mom said that my education in 17th Century English Literature wouldn't make me any money.



Worst case scenario, you're no more employable after getting a Liberal Arts degree than before, but you're going to get paid a lot more so sounds like it's not a waste of time as long as you don't pay an arm and a leg to the University of Phoenix (which along with DeVry and other trash schools that prey on students probably throws these statistics off a little bit). Most Business and Education degrees are liberal arts degrees with an Education/Business certification.

Seems like college is a pretty good place to go if you want a job (whether or not you get a good job is another matter). Like seriously. How did this myth that college students aren't being taught employable skills ever get started in the first place? When has it ever been true (probably 1087 CE).

Further it's for-profit colleges that are primarily responsible for rapidly driving up the costs of tuition and student debt, so for that you can actually blame good old capitalism not the government.

You're missing the point and creating a straw man. Mostly my fault because I didn't have time to elaborate earlier.

In a nutshell the system we have now is that colleges charge tuition and if students can't afford it the govt loans them the money to pay for it. The problem isn't capitalism its government. If the government stopped issuing loans to everyone in order to pay the ever increasing tuition costs colleges would be subject to market forces. If colleges, primarily private schools, want to keep raising the coat of attendance to the extent that virtually no one can pay it without govt loans then if the govt stops giving everyone student loans colleges have to find a way to educate for a lower cost or they won't have enough students to stay in business. If the govt is guaranteeing that students will pay whatever universities charge then there is no pressure for schools to keep costs down, they always get their money. Hence the increasing cost of college and the increasing burden of student loan debt.

There are private schools suffering from lower enrollments because people are realizing that the higher costs and debt burden aren't worth choosing a private school over a lower cost state university.

If students had to go to banks to get private student loans the banks would want to know what the students would study to get a degree that would have the earning power to allow them to pay off the loan. Currently the government doesn't carry what you study/major in and the schools charge the same regardless of your course of study. Different jobs offer different salaries and earning potential but the student loan burden is the same.

Since different degrees convey different amounts of earning potential it isn't efficient or equitable to charge the same for all of them but in our current system government loans remove any accountability or pressure to do so.

I am not opposed to people going to college and earning degrees. I am opposed to inefficient government interference that shields industries from market forces that would reduce costs. I am also opposed to one size fits all solutions because thats a myth, there's never a solution that fits everyone but that doesn't stop the government from trying to force it anyway. Not everyone should qualify for college loans and every undergraduate degree should not incur the same costs.

Dude... we know what college is for...
http://cavemancircus.com/2015/11/13/this-one-goes-out-to-all-those-who-need-motivation-to-go-to-college/



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?

Offer any assistance the French may need.

Also, get serious against ISIS. No nation building crap... no pottery barn rule...

They want "war"? We'll... I'd argue that they truly haven't seen *WAR*.

That won't work.

Do you really think storming into the their territory, leaving a trail of death and destruction, before leaving the place in ruins will kill their ideology?

Yup. Because you keep killing until they say "no mas".

Worked against Japan...

 Peregrine wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Do you really think storming into the their territory, leaving a trail of death and destruction, before leaving the place in ruins will kill their ideology?

Exactly. I mean, even if you magically develop some way of identifying every terrorist (PS: you can't) and kill them all, all you're likely to do is create the next generation of terrorists. If you want to stop terrorism and similar evils you have to fix the world they live in, not simply burn it to the ground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Remember when the Russians steam-rolled Berlin? That. We need that. No more sitting on our arses waiting for something bad. We need to stop being reactive and start being proactive

Ah, to be so young and naive again...

Can I just be mad at the bad guys, Peregrine? Its not an ironned out plan, clearly.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Can I just be mad at the bad guys, Peregrine? Its not an ironned out plan, clearly.

Sorry, I thought this was the "discuss politics as adults" thread, not the "RAR KILL ALL THE TERRORISTS" thread where we all compete to see who can come up with the best revenge fantasy.

 whembly wrote:
Worked against Japan...

In 2015, America is not willing to occupy (x middle eastern nation) for 30 or 40 years.

And of course, Japan didn't launch an insurgency; or have tons of foreign nationals coming into the country to continue the fight.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Can I just be mad at the bad guys, Peregrine? Its not an ironned out plan, clearly.

Sorry, I thought this was the "discuss politics as adults" thread, not the "RAR KILL ALL THE TERRORISTS" thread where we all compete to see who can come up with the best revenge fantasy.

Alright then, instead of saying "Grr Everyone else is wrong" why dont you go ahead and give your idea?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Worked against Japan...

In 2015, America is not willing to occupy (x middle eastern nation) for 30 or 40 years.

That's true.

And of course, Japan didn't launch an insurgency; or have tons of foreign nationals coming into the country to continue the fight.

Didn't that happen in the Philipines and other Pacific nations?

Point being, there are parallels... and we do have "a solution" for this.

But, we don't have the will.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?

Offer any assistance the French may need.

Also, get serious against ISIS. No nation building crap... no pottery barn rule...

They want "war"? We'll... I'd argue that they truly haven't seen *WAR*.

That won't work.

Do you really think storming into the their territory, leaving a trail of death and destruction, before leaving the place in ruins will kill their ideology?

We should help France gather intelligence to make targeted attacks. If there are people smuggling ISIS fighters (or whoever is responsible) into France we should help France identify the smugglers and transport method and then help destroy them. Likewise if there are individuals and locations within France where immigrants and French Muslims are being radicalized and encouraged to attack France those people and places should be dealt with, harshly. We can't eliminate the ideology but we can help make it much more difficult for zealots (either imported to or created within France) to plan, coordinate and execute their attacks. Keep the really dangerous ones out of France, that's the best way to protect French people.

 whembly wrote:
Point being, there are parallels...

The really aren't. Do you understand the difference between Japan, a nation that was defeated in a conventional war over territory, and a religious ideology that exists independently from any state or territory and does not fight a conventional war?

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Point being, there are parallels...

The really aren't. Do you understand the difference between Japan, a nation that was defeated in a conventional war over territory, and a religious ideology that exists independently from any state or territory and does not fight a conventional war?

Horse gak.

ISIS has a "captial" in Monsul.

They have "infrastructure".

They have sympathizers.

Go after them. Shock and Awe them so hard, that their messiah would go WTF.

At least you'd be fighting over there... instead of the street's of Paris or New York.