{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/21/2016 2:25:45 PM
23
you realize in 1960s-1970s the USA made far less money and produced far less products but actually had [b][i][u]FREE COLLEGE[/u][/i][/b] right?
so [b][i][u]why exactly [/u][/i][/b] when today we make more money and more products must we pay 1000% more for the same exact college education?
English
-
Because colleges and banks saw an opportunity to rip people off and make a profit.[quote]Everyone knows that college in the 20th century were just over glorified day-care centers. ~Futurama[/quote]
-
lmfao I forgot about that episode lmfao!!! so true too
-
Yeh free colage an weed man XXXDD
-
Bearbeitet von AurumPrimavera22: 6/21/2016 4:21:31 PMWell that's because the US govt decided to start subsidising education and artificially increasing the cost Why? No one knows Why I think? To make a way for the government to justify an expansion of power Oh, also know that the national debt still was increasing even under Clinton
-
Bearbeitet von DarthBrando: 6/21/2016 5:46:51 PM[quote][quote]i never said i supported any candidate just seriously thought I'ld remind everyone we used to have free higher education in this country back when we had less and made less money and now we have more, make more money, and same college education costs 40,000-180,000$ and if you go ivy league 250,000-750,000$ it's no flippin wonder our nation has dropped down to consisting of uneducated drug addicts and in-bread morons; only the top 10% of the country can afford to go to college and another 20% need to become slaves to debt to do so; oh an by the way if you took a college loan from 2006 to 2013; dept. of education discovered there was a 25% rate of default among all students who took loans during that period so out of nation's population NOW; 10% can afford to go to college 16% gotta take loans to go to college an then become corporate lackeys to pay debt off within 1/2 of their career 4% gotta take loans but will default on them within 3 years and end up in poverty and 70% of the nation is too poor to even go to college within their lifetime [b][i][u]so yea I'ld say those are some pretty damn big problems with for profit higher education [/u][/i][/b][/quote] yea greed that's literally making our nation poor and stupid[/quote] ^----> how is that good for the nation? 13.2 million ppl default on student loans every 3 years and are reduced to living in poverty for at least 7 years as a result, in 1960-1970s 0 ppl had that problem and 60% of the nation attended college. national debt increased by clinton admin?! [b][i][u]CLINTON WAS ONLY PRESIDENT SINCE 1965 TO HAVE A NATIONAL SURPLUS BUDGET [/u][/i][/b]
-
And people call me stupid for not wanting to go to college.
-
yea it's definitely not worth getting loans to do, if u get a scholarship or free ride tho go for it, you can actually learn some stuff at them
-
Sadly not the case for me. You know failed academically when you only get scam letters from organizations instead of colleges. But, I'm going to a trade school anyways so I'll have that paid off quickly.
-
you can still get GED then take SAT's an if you score high enough on SAT's you get free scholarship opportunities also if you qualify for Mensa you can get 100% free ride to most colleges n universities, you gotta take their tests an join up + pay member fees tho (altogether like 200-500$)
-
MENSA is actually annoying to get into. Most of it is just basic 3rd year "what number goes here?" shit and idk if an adult can still go into it?
-
1.) http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget No, Clinton didn't have a surplus. Clinton lied to you. 2.) https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf Get the government out of the colleges. They costs will skyrocket downwards. There, I fixed your problem and didn't spend a penny doing it. In fact, I saved money.
-
Bearbeitet von DarthBrando: 6/21/2016 5:51:10 PMstate universities are [b][i][u]paid for[/u][/i][/b] by [b][i][u]state taxes on education and federal subsidies for education[/u][/i][/b] been that way since 1775 why do we have to pay [b][i][u]private companies[/u][/i][/b] to attend universities paid for [b][i][u]by taxes[/u][/i][/b]? but touché on the clinton admin; too bad cato and the federal dept of treasury + federal reserve totally differ on that account
-
1.) And? Increasing federal subsidies increases government costs. The Fed govt even finds this. Decrease spending, decrease costs 2.) The Cato report shows how the Federal reserve and treasury supports the argument. Read the paper. Clinton just moved money and debt from the public eye to behind closed doors. The money is easily found, as Cato shows. Stop looking on the surface and saying "yup! That's what happened!"
-
Bearbeitet von DarthBrando: 6/21/2016 6:33:48 PM1) doing things behind the scenes is how the CIA, NSA and other private espionage and intelligence agencies work you can't just retroactively speculate the flow of currency saying one year currency spent by party A is acceptable and public record and currency spent by party B is not then 5-20 years later state that both parties are public record. 2) illegal actions such as Burnie Madoff's ponzie scheme or the illegal fraud perpetrated by lending companies since 1960s and their ties to national budget suddenly effect it after the fact on historical record. if the historical record is a lie fine, the historical record is a lie; it is still the historical record which was recorded at the time. from the end of clinton's presidency up until 2008 historical record via US treasury and federal reserve showed a surplus on the record. ever since the NSA's creation which btw pre dates the CIA, both intelligence organizations have operated outside and above the law using off the public record budgets to accomplish their objectives. as far as education and state universities go; costs of building and maintaining universities since the 70s have gone down 40% and attendance via national population has gone down 20%. so since its 40% cheaper to run the school and they now teach 20% less of the national student population; how then does it cost several 1000x more to pay tuition on a justifiable basis? that 1000x+ tuition increase has caused a total of 26.4 million people who attended college to default on student loans and become poverty level income citizens. that's 26.4 million more ppl than 1960-1979 as back then it was free an no one needed loans and no one defaulted. so as a direct result of for profit education system adopted in 1980s; 8% of the US population now live in border line poverty from defaulted student loans from 2006-2012 and universities have seen a 20% drop in student attendance. and yet it's cheaper to run a college now than it was in the 1960s or 1970s and less people go to them to boot.
-
I fail to see how you're equivocating spy agencies who have to work off the record because if any one of their agents is discovered, they're executed, and the Federal government. Also, did you just try and say that just because the government lied that we shouldn't attack the person who authorised the lie because it already happened and the lie has been recorded? Literally what? It doesn't matter that history recorded a lie. It. Is. Still. A. Lie. You seem to forget that we could fix the problem by getting rid of federal subsidies. They only hurt. Hell, the government throws money at schools for "better" education yet scores haven't improved for a long time. All of those 26m people wouldn't have been in this predicament, in vast majority, if the government got their nose out of the thing. Look at the costs of education before and after a flood of subsidies. See how the rate that was linear became exponential
-
Bearbeitet von DarthBrando: 6/21/2016 6:59:48 PMon the spy agencies and the illegal activities that tied into national budget but at the time were not recorded on it; the reason the historical record changed is entirely due to those 2 things. also the president is not in-charge of the treasury or federal reserve they oversee the actions and accounts of both parties but the treasury and reserve are two departments outside of the president's direct interaction. the federal reserve is comprised of US Treasury and the 13 regional federal banking systems across the nation yes the federal reserve and the treasury(which is part of the fed reserve but a slightly separate department) both lied on the historical record yes. they lied to cover up espionage and intelligence actions and to hide the fact that ponzie schemes and international fraud were totally sublimated and perforating the entire international economy. pointing out the historical record is a lie is totally fine but keep in mind laws do change over time and what is legal or illegal today could have been the opposite back then. in fact thanks to citizens united the entire funding portion of political office campaigning is now [b][i][u]totally off the public record[/u][/i][/b] so currently attempting to formulate a national budget which is true to actual budget is impossible as currently no one actually knows how much money or from where that money comes, that politician's are receiving in order to incentivize and further fund national policy. any way back to the point; historical record was a lie but it was still the actual stated public historical record. as far as government paying upkeep on state universities; it keeps the schools open and operational and allows free access to their programs with for profit privatized education we have factually seen: 20% of US population no longer gets to go to college (30% of US pop currently attends colleges) 8% of US population (26.4 million people) ended up in poverty from student loans. vs 1960s-1970s free tax paid college: 50% of US population went to college no one ended up in poverty from student debt as it did not exist. some of this is touched on here; http://m.imdb.com/title/tt3270538/ Noam Chomsky's Requiem for the American Dream on both education and government structure and actions
-
Firstly, the money was moved. That's it. There is no special reasoning needed and no tangent that you need to talk about. I don't know why you're going on this tangent. The government wanted to create a false surplus so they moved money into something that isn't reported on the surface. It was propaganda. There was no surplus during Clinton Nah, it isn't "for profit" that is the issue, it's the government. Also, only some colleges were free and even those free colleges had things called incidental fees. They went away because more people started going to college and the system wasn't working so they first opted for low tuition rates. That wasn't working so they changed to today's system Noice half view of history tho
-
Bearbeitet von DarthBrando: 6/21/2016 7:25:29 PM"more people started going to college" college attendance in USA % vs total USA population has gone [b][i][u]DOWN 20%[/u][/i][/b] the % of population who went to college has never been as high as it was between 1960-1979 it is entirely due to the baby boomer generation and the advent and use of the Montgomery GI Bill + the Draft, and the Vietnam and Korean War that college attendance during that time was so high. yes it was not 100% free for absolutely everything. and yes there were private schools back then. most Ivy League schools have always been private universities. however State University and State Technical schools from 1960-1979 were 100% free for class enrollment and tuition. with the Montgomery GI Bill people were able to also attend private Universities with for profit based tuition at no cost to them. US population 1979: 225.1 million people. % of population who attended college between 1960-1979: 50% 50% of 225.1 million is 112.65 million people in the year 1979. US population today; 330 million people % of population who attended college today 30% 30% of 330 million is 108 million people so a 8% less [b][i][u]PEOPLE[/u][/i][/b] from year of 1979 vs last year 2015 when you factor in 1960-1979 vs 2000-2013 you see a 20% reduction in over all US population who attend college which translates to colleges seeing 8-12% less physical people in their schools. no [b][i][u]more people are not going to college under for profit run tuition based systems, LESS PEOPLE ARE[/u][/i][/b] so no costs have not actually gone up. inflation has happened and US population has increased yes. less % of that population attends college and smaller numbers of students actually physically go to college.
-
[quote] yes it was not 100% free for absolutely everything. and yes there were private schools back then. most Ivy League schools have always been private universities. however State University and State Technical schools from 1960-1979 were 100% free for class enrollment and tuition. [b]And how much of the population went to State university? And no, even the majority of state universities were paid for. As the population in colleges grew, more and more switched because it became too expensive [/b] with the Montgomery GI Bill people were able to also attend private Universities with for profit based tuition at no cost to them. [b]Alright, and that's still a thing. Veterans don't pay. [/b] US population 1979: 225.1 million people. [b]Yes, because the entire US population went to college lol[/b] % of population who attended college between 1960-1979: 50% [b]That's horrible! What happened to the children and older people over 35?! [/b] 50% of 225.1 million is 112.65 million people in the year 1979. US population today; 330 million people % of population who attended college today 30% 30% of 330 million is 108 million people [b]So you assume that 100% of the population was of college age[/b] so a 8% less [b][i][u]PEOPLE[/u][/i][/b] from year of 1979 vs last year 2015 when you factor in 1960-1979 vs 2000-2013 you see a 20% reduction in over all US population who attend college which translates to colleges seeing 8-12% less physical people in their schools. no [b][i][u]more people are not going to college under for profit run tuition based systems, LESS PEOPLE ARE[/u][/i][/b] so no costs have not actually gone up. inflation has happened and US population has increased yes. less % of that population attends college and smaller numbers of students actually physically go to college.[/quote] In the 60's, there were about 35m college age adults http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/pop6097.pdf I consider from 19 to around 25 or 28 as college age. Any higher is going to be a minority that will hardly affect numbers. In 2015, there were about 68m college age adults http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/age_structure.html According to nces.ed.gov, the population in colleges is expected to be around 20.2m in total nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372 In 1965, there were, according to nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d99/d99t187.asp 2.7m people in college
-
It's greed mate
-
[quote]i never said i supported any candidate just seriously thought I'ld remind everyone we used to have free higher education in this country back when we had less and made less money and now we have more, make more money, and same college education costs 40,000-180,000$ and if you go ivy league 250,000-750,000$ it's no flippin wonder our nation has dropped down to consisting of uneducated drug addicts and in-bread morons; only the top 10% of the country can afford to go to college and another 20% need to become slaves to debt to do so; oh an by the way if you took a college loan from 2006 to 2013; dept. of education discovered there was a 25% rate of default among all students who took loans during that period so out of nation's population NOW; 10% can afford to go to college 16% gotta take loans to go to college an then become corporate lackeys to pay debt off within 1/2 of their career 4% gotta take loans but will default on them within 3 years and end up in poverty and 70% of the nation is too poor to even go to college within their lifetime [b][i][u]so yea I'ld say those are some pretty damn big problems with for profit higher education [/u][/i][/b][/quote] yea greed that's literally making our nation poor and stupid
-
Okay Mr. Bernie supporter. Your copy pastas are not needed, this is a JOKE.
-
i never said i supported any candidate just seriously thought I'ld remind everyone we used to have free higher education in this country back when we had less and made less money and now we have more, make more money, and same college education costs 40,000-180,000$ and if you go ivy league 250,000-750,000$ it's no flippin wonder our nation has dropped down to consisting of uneducated drug addicts and in-bread morons; only the top 10% of the country can afford to go to college and another 20% need to become slaves to debt to do so; oh an by the way if you took a college loan from 2006 to 2013; dept. of education discovered there was a 25% rate of default among all students who took loans during that period so out of nation's population NOW; 10% can afford to go to college 16% gotta take loans to go to college an then become corporate lackeys to pay debt off within 1/2 of their career 4% gotta take loans but will default on them within 3 years and end up in poverty and 70% of the nation is too poor to even go to college within their lifetime [b][i][u]so yea I'ld say those are some pretty damn big problems with for profit higher education [/u][/i][/b]
