3 pages

...of the usual inbred racist white trash from the trailer park.

1/26/2010 10:02:43 PM

^Aren't they usually the ones on welfare?

1/26/2010 10:17:29 PM

you know they are.

i seem 'em lining up for their government cheese. I see 'em hatin'

1/26/2010 10:19:15 PM

Quote :

"you missed the part where we said taking the hand outs is optional, therefore any requirements that come along with it are also optional."

And I still find it objectionable. Driving on public roads is also optional. So is using the government post office. It would be morally wrong to abuse the governments position as provider for it to start applying such nannyish restrictions. This is the government, it should stand up to a higher standard.

Besides, if it is right just and moral to provide welfare to those facing hard times, then how can it be right just and moral to deny welfare on the basis that you don't appreciate their lifestyle?

1/26/2010 11:41:08 PM

wow. NPR actually under-reported this issue this morning. I thought "hell, I know what he meant, but people are prolly just blowing it out of proportion..." Then I read "if you give people an ample food supply" and I was like And then the fucker kept talking. And it got worse.

I hope this guy doesn't follow the lead of Mark Sanford and start giving more press conferences. I mean, I still know kind of what he was aiming for, but DAMN.

1/27/2010 12:30:31 AM

Quote :

"We need a next generation first and foremost, I don't care where it comes from. As such, I say keep them breeding."

This confuses me. A "next generation" that is poor, undereducated, and raised in an environment conducive to crime is not a productive or helpful generation. Certainly there's a level of reproduction that needs to happen, but even sweeping birth control for those receiving welfare would not put us below that level. Non-recipients still have babies, and it isn't as though we don't have plenty of immigrants.

Quote :

"Driving on public roads is also optional. So is using the government post office. It would be morally wrong to abuse the governments position as provider for it to start applying such nannyish restrictions."

We require people to meet certain standards to drive on public roads. There are few requirements for using the post office, certainly, but the stakes are generally lower there as well.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 1:23 AM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 1:22:16 AM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r: This is taken from the other thread about the child tax credit"

You're more than welcome to address me there.

Making shit up about how I "believe that everyone has the right to 5 kids and the government should pay for all of them" is not welcome.

1/27/2010 2:26:08 AM

^^The post office is also entirely self funded through usage fees, just like any other legitimate business, which really makes it completely different than almost all other government entities.

Roads are paid for through taxation, usage fees, etc., and as has been pointed out we also require that drivers are insured and meet a minimum standard of ability before we allow them to use them.

Meeting certain requirements for welfare is hardly nannyish, in fact it's quite the opposite. It's no different than when your Mom and Dad told you, "as long as you're living under our roof and eating our food you have to abide by our rules. When you pay your own way you can do as you please." It's no different for people living off of entitlement programs.

1/27/2010 2:59:19 AM

Quote :

"And I still find it objectionable. Driving on public roads is also optional. So is using the government post office. It would be morally wrong to abuse the governments position as provider for it to start applying such nannyish restrictions. This is the government, it should stand up to a higher standard. Besides, if it is right just and moral to provide welfare to those facing hard times, then how can it be right just and moral to deny welfare on the basis that you don't appreciate their lifestyle?"

So what you are saying is its wrong for the government to give people a means to help themselves but instead should continue to live in their lifestyle that requires them to live off of you and I's money with no light at the end of the tunnel?

1/27/2010 3:26:04 AM

Quote :

" I would like to add another requirement being proof that you are actively seeking employment if you are unemployed."

I definitely agree with that, however it has to go further than the current system that observes people on unemployment benefits looking for work. The current system for that is an absolute joke. You can lie your ass off about looking for jobs and they don't even check you on it.

1/27/2010 8:29:15 AM

I don't really have room to complain because I did leave my prior job voluntarily but I can't tell you how immensely frustrating it is to be a highly qualified job-seeker who is working very hard to find a job and be ineligible for unemployment benefits while at the same time there are so many people gaming a flawed system...

(and I have no idea what the fuck this thread is about given the title but I just read the last post)

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 8:32 AM. Reason : x]

1/27/2010 8:31:40 AM

Quote :

"I would like to add another requirement being proof that you are actively seeking employment if you are unemployed"

I think they already do this. Although "proof" could be as simple as picking up a couple applications from walmart or harris teeter.

Quote :

"But mandatory drug testing and birth control and the like is just wrong"

Nothing is mandatory. No one is making someone take government assistance.

Quote :

"A "next generation" that is poor, undereducated, and raised in an environment conducive to crime is not a productive or helpful generation"

i think LoneSnark is trolling.

1/27/2010 8:47:44 AM

^

1/27/2010 9:09:08 AM

What if they made all students going to a public university go through mandatory drug testing, curfews, and limiting alcohol consumption? The vast majority of your education is paid for by the state, and considering how many people end up wasting the gov. money, it would be prudent to minimize the losses wouldn't it?

1/27/2010 11:39:40 AM

you're failing at making a correlation here.

1/27/2010 11:42:49 AM

Quote :

" I'm a strong supporter of providing the people with the tools and means to help themselves."

yes, and enforcing attainable goals that must be met to keep receiving said tools and means.

i.e...employment, education, birth control, etc....

help has to be finite. it cannot be endless because then it ceases to be "help" and becomes a way of life.

1/27/2010 11:54:16 AM

Current welfare benefits all require proof that the person is looking for a job or means of income.

1/27/2010 12:01:10 PM

Quote :

"What if they made all students going to a public university go through mandatory drug testing, curfews, and limiting alcohol consumption? The vast majority of your education is paid for by the state, and considering how many people end up wasting the gov. money, it would be prudent to minimize the losses wouldn't it?"

I don't think the state should be helping to pay for college tuition anyway. If the government would stop backing loans, then colleges wouldn't be able to charge the tuition they charge in the first place, and people wouldn't need to take out massive loans to go. In-state tuition is not an example of "government helping out." It's an example of government interferring in the market, distorting tuition costs, driving up prices, and then coming in to "save the day" by using tax money to offset rising prices.

I'm against welfare in the first place, but birth control for those that are on welfare doesn't seem like an awful idea. With welfare, we're already saying, "okay, so you can't provide for yourself or your current dependents, so we'll give you enough money to cover basic expenses." Are we then going to also say, "Not only will we give you enough money to cover basic expenses, but if you have more children, we'll pay for them too." Where's the incentive to cut back and get to the point where you don't need welfare anymore? This is the moral hazard I'm talking about. If the law is encouraging people to behave irresponsibly, lazy people (and let's be clear - some people are lazy, and this is not limited to a certain kind of person) will milk the system for all it's worth.

1/27/2010 12:04:00 PM

Quote :

"Current welfare benefits all require proof that the person is looking for a job or means of income."

yes, but it doesnt require that you actually try to advance yourself or even *gasp* stop making babies.

1/27/2010 12:05:20 PM

Quote :

"I don't think the state should be helping to pay for college tuition anyway. If the government would stop backing loans, then colleges wouldn't be able to charge the tuition they charge in the first place, and people wouldn't need to take out massive loans to go. In-state tuition is not an example of "government helping out." It's an example of government interferring in the market, distorting tuition costs, driving up prices, and then coming in to "save the day" by using tax money to offset rising prices."

Every now and then a post reminds me just how severely most people out there fail to understand the world.

Next class you go to, go talk to the professor afterward and ask him/her how much of their salary comes from tuition. Well, I'll admit some of them might not even have a clue.

Anyway, I'm very confident in saying that cutting off state assistance for tuition would not be something that causes the NC university system to make the deep institutional changes that you assume can happen in that post.

I find it a little bizarre to address a point that claims the government is distorting the education market when the government constitutes over 1/3rd of GDP already. You may not agree that research and education is a 'natural' niche for government, but if our federal governments and states stopped supporting higher education institutions then we would find ourselves in a very different world.

Our fiscal problems have nearly nothing to do with government programs aimed to advance society and create prosperity (you know, overlooking the fact that these have an insane amount of successes to list). Generally, they have to do with programs that commit the government to writing a check to someone on a regular basis. And for the most part, to old people.

1/27/2010 12:51:22 PM

Last I heard tuition makes up about 15% of NC State's budget.

1/27/2010 12:53:23 PM

Hi

I get a state-subsidized education, supported by tax dollars, and of the mere pittance that i do pay, i defer using a state-subsidized loan, supported by tax dollars.

and i shur hate them welfare peoples.

they all be breedin like strays, laqueesha and shaquina bitches poppin out little monkeys, and clogging up the lines at my favorite Wal*Mart.

1/27/2010 1:34:33 PM

intelligent rebuttal, bravo. I'm convinced. We should all empty our bank accounts and put our money into a pool where it is distributed equally among all. Women get credit for each child they have, and our shares drop for each new child.

There can be no middle ground.

1/27/2010 1:46:40 PM

Quote :

"Next class you go to, go talk to the professor afterward and ask him/her how much of their salary comes from tuition. Well, I'll admit some of them might not even have a clue."

I'm not talking about where tuition goes, I'm talking about how much tuition is.

Quote :

"Anyway, I'm very confident in saying that cutting off state assistance for tuition would not be something that causes the NC university system to make the deep institutional changes that you assume can happen in that post."

I don't assume that at all. Cutting state assistance would simply move the cost of education from the taxpayer to the student. Shouldn't the student be the one paying the full cost of the service they're receiving, anyway? The university ends up getting the same amount of money, so they don't care if you're in-state or out-of-state.

Quote :

"I find it a little bizarre to address a point that claims the government is distorting the education market when the government constitutes over 1/3rd of GDP already. You may not agree that research and education is a 'natural' niche for government, but if our federal governments and states stopped supporting higher education institutions then we would find ourselves in a very different world."

Yes, and it would be a much better world. Imagine if the government suddenly stopped backing student loans. You could no longer get a subsidized student loan with a fixed 2% rate. You'd have to get an actual loan, with something like a 6-7% fixed rate, maybe higher. The bank wouldn't loan you money unless they felt that the thing you were borrowing money to obtain (an education) would allow you to pay that money back.

I can tell you exactly what would happen in this scenario. Most people that currently can attend school would no longer be able to get loans. Enrollment in universities would suddenly plummet. The universities would then be put in a strange position, because in the current system, they can raise tuition every year, by as much as they want. They know that any student can get a loan, so there's no incentive to lower costs, improve quality, or increase efficiency. They just expand endlessly, pumping out increasingly worthless degrees, while also hiking tuition every year. So, they'd suddenly be looking at empty sections. How do you think they would react? Would they just keep tuitions where they were and watch as professors teach to empty classrooms? Of course not. They couldn't afford it. They would have to slash tuitions in order to get customers back. They would have to operate like an actual business that had to offer a quality service at a competitive price, rather than a tax-funded beast that can do and charge whatever it wants.

Quote :

"Our fiscal problems have nearly nothing to do with government programs aimed to advance society and create prosperity (you know, overlooking the fact that these have an insane amount of successes to list). Generally, they have to do with programs that commit the government to writing a check to someone on a regular basis. And for the most part, to old people."

I'm not sure that you could list the "insane amount of successes" that these government programs have had. We're talking about universities here, with a focus on student loans. When the government backs loans, it causes major distortions. It makes people get loans that wouldn't normally get loans, which can only result in higher prices for everyone, because the demand for higher education becomes artificially inflated. The people that get hurt here are the students, who are saddled with huge loans, and a degree that sometimes won't even allow them to find a better job than a certificate from a community college.

Yet another example of how government getting involved causes prices to go up and quality to go down. When the free market is allowed to work, the opposite happens.

Quote :

"I get a state-subsidized education, supported by tax dollars, and of the mere pittance that i do pay, i defer using a state-subsidized loan, supported by tax dollars. and i shur hate them welfare peoples."

I love this argument. I disapprove of state-subsidized education, yet I made use of it. That invalidates my point, right? I must be a hypocrite.

If the government offered to print a billion dollar bill for me, I'd take it and spend it. I, personally, would benefit from that, and I wouldn't even feel bad about it. I will almost always act in my own self-interest. That doesn't mean I would approve of the decision to give me that money. We're back to moral hazard. You can't expect people to not take advantage of government programs, if there's an opportunity there. We're fairly predictable creatures, in that regard. The trick is not have programs that can be "milked" in the first place. If there is ever a "community piggy bank," you can bet your last dollar that it'll be completely empty before the sun goes down.

1/27/2010 1:53:40 PM

^excellent post!

1/27/2010 2:16:46 PM

Quote :

"I love this argument. I disapprove of state-subsidized education, yet I made use of it. That invalidates my point, right? I must be a hypocrite. If the government offered to print a billion dollar bill for me, I'd take it and spend it. I, personally, would benefit from that, and I wouldn't even feel bad about it. I will almost always act in my own self-interest. That doesn't mean I would approve of the decision to give me that money. We're back to moral hazard. You can't expect people to not take advantage of government programs, if there's an opportunity there. We're fairly predictable creatures, in that regard. The trick is not have programs that can be "milked" in the first place. If there is ever a "community piggy bank," you can bet your last dollar that it'll be completely empty before the sun goes down."

The difference is that most people on welfare don't "choose" to be poor, it simply just happens. Just like you can't treat college kids as soulless slaves, it doesn't make sense to treat people on welfare as soulless slaves.

It's purely emotional reasoning that causes short-sighted people to calls for dumb ideas like mandatory birth controls.

And it does make you a hypocrite to take the cheaper state funded education. You're sitting here saying that's it's such a terrible system that is worse than it could be, when there is a good thriving private college system here too, that's too expensive for most people to go to. What would the state of the world or the country be if all schools were as expensive as the private schools? The higher ed system is very clearly a success for the government, and only someone completely delusional would try and deny this.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 2:35 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 2:32:36 PM

Quote :

"Yes, and it would be a much better world. Imagine if the government suddenly stopped backing student loans. You could no longer get a subsidized student loan with a fixed 2% rate. You'd have to get an actual loan, with something like a 6-7% fixed rate, maybe higher. The bank wouldn't loan you money unless they felt that the thing you were borrowing money to obtain (an education) would allow you to pay that money back. I can tell you exactly what would happen in this scenario. Most people that currently can attend school would no longer be able to get loans. Enrollment in universities would suddenly plummet. The universities would then be put in a strange position, because in the current system, they can raise tuition every year, by as much as they want. They know that any student can get a loan, so there's no incentive to lower costs, improve quality, or increase efficiency. They just expand endlessly, pumping out increasingly worthless degrees, while also hiking tuition every year. So, they'd suddenly be looking at empty sections. How do you think they would react? Would they just keep tuitions where they were and watch as professors teach to empty classrooms? Of course not. They couldn't afford it. They would have to slash tuitions in order to get customers back. They would have to operate like an actual business that had to offer a quality service at a competitive price, rather than a tax-funded beast that can do and charge whatever it wants. "

That doesn't really make sense. You're going to take away the public university's subsidies, and expect them to cut tuition as a result? How are they going to offer better services for less money?

Public universities already compete (successfully) with private ones. Taking away their subsidies is just going to turn them into private institutions with higher tuitions, and it goes against the whole point of having public institutions - to make secondary education viable for the poorer half of America.

1/27/2010 2:38:53 PM

Quote :

"It's purely emotional reasoning that causes short-sighted people to calls for dumb ideas like mandatory birth controls."

Voluntary != Mandatory. No one forces anyone to take welfare.

But beyond that, take a moment and let us know what is "short-sighted" or "dumb" about people on welfare also being on birth control.

1/27/2010 2:46:26 PM

Quote :

"That doesn't really make sense. You're going to take away the public university's subsidies, and expect them to cut tuition as a result? How are they going to offer better services for less money?"

No, I don't expect that. If you take away the university's subsidies, that's not going to cause them to cut tuition. Like I said, that just shifts the cost of the tuition from the North Carolina taxpayer to the student. The root cause of high tuitions still wouldn't have been dealt with. If the subsidy were removed, it would effectively triple tuition for North Carolina residents. However, they could still get loans, which would allow students to continue going to school, and universities could continue charging the same tuitions. Of course, some students would probably realize that they might as well attend a private university at that point, since they're no longer getting the dirt cheap subsidized rate. That may cause universities to lower tuitions some, as they actually would have to compete with private universities.

The root cause of high tuitions, though, is government subsidized loans, not universities. If anyone can get a cheap loan, that's going to drive up prices. Kind of like how anyone could get a cheap home loan in the first 6 years of the 2000s, and we had a housing bubble. The same thing is going on with student loans.

Quote :

"Public universities already compete (successfully) with private ones. Taking away their subsidies is just going to turn them into private institutions with higher tuitions, and it goes against the whole point of having public institutions - to make secondary education viable for the poorer half of America."

I hit on this before, but they only can "compete" because they're subsidized. Private universities have high tuitions for the same reason that public university have high (real) tuitions - student loans. The difference is that private universities never get subsidized, so they have to charge the real cost of their services. However, you can still get a subsidized loan for a private university, so those tuitions rise just as fast as public universities.

It's not magic that tuitions keep going up, but the degrees themselves are not going up in value. In this day and age, where we have access to vast amounts of information via the internet and advanced computer systems, there's no reason that tuitions should be going up every year. Institutions of higher learning should be no different than any other business. They provide a service, and students should pay for that service. All universities should be competing, in terms of the quality of the education they provide, and the cost of that service. Students should also be able to attend school without taking out a loan at all. A part time job should be enough to cover the cost of going to school.

1/27/2010 3:06:12 PM

so if people were saying "students shouldn't be allowed to drink" because public schools are "voluntary" you think the same argument holds water?

The same ideology that leads someone to think that the gov. should never even be in the welfare business (or the education business, or loan business, or mail business, or road business, etc.) doesn't rationally lead to the same idea that the gov. should also have the power to tell people that in order to use the services that they pay for (from sales and property taxes) or will pay for (or have paid for in the past... or that their family has paid for) they must also never have children.

If you think that the gov. shouldn't do anything, then why take the leap that says " if the gov. is going to do something anyway, they might as well be fascist about it!" That makes perfect sense, right?

If someone's choice is to starve to death, or live in squalor vs. uses the gov. to get a leg up, that doesn't give the gov a right to say they are essentially wards of the state at that point, because that's what they "chose."

If you think they gov. should be in this brand of social engineering, then it really is a very slippery slope. You have basically disavowed any right to criticize the gov. for being too intrusive. You're saying that it shouldn't be a problem then for the gov. to put cameras on every sidewalk, monitor your phone calls and internet communications, dig through your mail, dig through your bank account, for no other reason than you "choosing" to be a citizen here. This is an absurd position, and is literally what you're arguing.

The ONLY reason people in this thread are picking on welfare recipients vs other areas where we all "choose" to rely on the gov. is emotional. You feel, for some strange reason, that poor people are vermin, like stray dogs, that should be treated as such. It's your right to think this way, but you're delusional if you don't realize it's because you're being an emotionally arrogant dick with this line of thought.

I would also imagine it is unconstitutional to make mandates like that too.

1/27/2010 3:07:52 PM

Quote :

"I don't assume that at all. Cutting state assistance would simply move the cost of education from the taxpayer to the student. Shouldn't the student be the one paying the full cost of the service they're receiving, anyway? The university ends up getting the same amount of money, so they don't care if you're in-state or out-of-state."

The problem is that we do not have the ability to connect what students are paying for tuition to the service they are receiving. The structure of the modern state university is far more complicated that what you're giving it credit for.

Research subsidizes education which in turn subsidizes research. There is money flowing from all kinds of different sources. To properly frame what you're saying, we propose that the state of North Carolina stop its support to its universities. Essentially, our public universities go private since they will no longer have the implicit obligations to please the state government with their activities.

You've also not yet mentioned the reason that government intervention here is a 'natural' government activity. Equality. Education is best saved for by parents money for their children versus children paying off debts after the fact. People's glass ceilings are determined by their education, which is in tern determined by their parents. It makes sense to subsidize education.

Quote :

"I can tell you exactly what would happen in this scenario. Most people that currently can attend school would no longer be able to get loans. Enrollment in universities would suddenly plummet. The universities would then be put in a strange position, because in the current system, they can raise tuition every year, by as much as they want. They know that any student can get a loan, so there's no incentive to lower costs, improve quality, or increase efficiency. They just expand endlessly, pumping out increasingly worthless degrees, while also hiking tuition every year. So, they'd suddenly be looking at empty sections. How do you think they would react? Would they just keep tuitions where they were and watch as professors teach to empty classrooms? Of course not. They couldn't afford it. They would have to slash tuitions in order to get customers back. They would have to operate like an actual business that had to offer a quality service at a competitive price, rather than a tax-funded beast that can do and charge whatever it wants. "

I agree with your points here. We have created a beast through the way that subsidize education. So, I want to ask you - do you agree that public universities will become institutions like private universities with what you are proposing? There are things I don't like about private universities, but I admit, many of those things are because there's a specific niche they are filling right now by catering to the privileged. We would see NCSU and UNC CH turn into some mix between Duke and community college.

Quote :

"Yes, and it would be a much better world. Imagine if the government suddenly stopped backing student loans. You could no longer get a subsidized student loan with a fixed 2% rate. You'd have to get an actual loan, with something like a 6-7% fixed rate, maybe higher. The bank wouldn't loan you money unless they felt that the thing you were borrowing money to obtain (an education) would allow you to pay that money back."

The kind of institution you long for would be a real "get'er done" kind of college. A higher discount rate and more direct costs for education would cause classes and instructional methods to follow a very straight and direct track of introducing the material and aim to finish things up in as short of a time as possible. In response, industry and those who do hiring would begin to place greater weight on certifications. Degrees would become less general and "graduates" would be produced with more narrow sets of skills which are more strongly tailored to a specific job.

Incidentally, I think this is already happening.

Quote :

"I'm not sure that you could list the "insane amount of successes" that these government programs have had. We're talking about universities here, with a focus on student loans. When the government backs loans, it causes major distortions. It makes people get loans that wouldn't normally get loans, which can only result in higher prices for everyone, because the demand for higher education becomes artificially inflated. The people that get hurt here are the students, who are saddled with huge loans, and a degree that sometimes won't even allow them to find a better job than a certificate from a community college. Yet another example of how government getting involved causes prices to go up and quality to go down. When the free market is allowed to work, the opposite happens."

Address the equality in education topic for me.

Why should someone who's parents saved more have greater access to higher education? That's mostly the mandate for government intervention in this industry. The problem is that it's hard to leave market forces in tact while still providing equal access to education - and thus opportunities in life.

1/27/2010 3:10:47 PM

^ excellent post!

1/27/2010 3:18:15 PM

lol

but srsly - if there was an easy way to burf control welfare recipients, I'd be all for it.

1/27/2010 3:19:33 PM

Quote :

"so if people were saying "students shouldn't be allowed to drink" because public schools are "voluntary" you think the same argument holds water?"

I have no idea how you came up with this. People pay to go to public schools, it's a service that they pay for. People do not pay to go to welfare. They receive handouts from me and every other taxpayer because they are poor.

You're OK with the government mandating that they can't be doing drugs, that they must be looking for gainful employment, but not that they must be using some form of birth control? Why is this? Or do you think it's too intrusive that they shouldn't be using drugs?

The reason we care that people who are on welfare do not use drugs and seek gainful employment is the goal that they may one day get off of welfare. Having a child while on daycare is counter to this goal, just like using drugs and not seeking employment. I'm not talking about forced sterilization here. I'm talking about providing all birth control options for free to welfare recipients.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 3:21 PM. Reason : talking about daycare]

1/27/2010 3:20:18 PM

Quote :

"I have no idea how you came up with this. People pay to go to public schools, it's a service that they pay for. People do not pay to go to welfare. They receive handouts from me and every other taxpayer because they are poor."

ahhh, I see. Your opinion is based on ignorance, not stupidity (hopefully...).

The cost you pay for your education at NCSU is a fraction of what the total budget of NCSU is. The majority of what NCSU (or any public university) spends to educate you is paid for by the government.

See page 6 here: http://www.fis.ncsu.edu/rm/budget_central/documents/budgetforum_web.pdf

(it looks like only 4% of NCSU's funding comes from private donations)

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 3:27:53 PM

Where does the government get their money?

And who cares what the fraction is....the amount of money that I have paid someone to go to NCSU from 99-03 is > 0.

How much does welfare cost again?

1/27/2010 3:32:17 PM

this whole university parallel ignores the facts that;

1. people going to the university/pay for the tuition contribute to the taxes that support it.
2. people going to the university are clearing trying to advance themselves.
3. people taking government loans to pay for their tuition are going to pay them back.

if people on extended periods of welfare actually paid taxes to support it, were trying to advance themselves and/or were loaned the assistance and required to pay it back, I would have ZERO problems with it.

1/27/2010 3:32:34 PM

Ahh, the government. Which pays for it how exactly? Through a self funding endowment, via bonds, or is it ultimately paid for by the taxpayer with additional money kicked in from tuition?

So in addition to the tuition money that is charged and paid for by the attendee (via grants, loans, or money saved) he or she and/or their parents have already been paying for it through at least 18 years of taxation and will continue to pay for it as long as they remain in the state and paying taxes (incidentally, this is the reasoning behind in state vs. out of state tuition).

Still, if we made drug testing mandatory at state schools I wouldn't really have any issue with it. We already set certain standards for admission and continued use of the service. Why should we not do the same for welfare?

1/27/2010 3:34:08 PM

Quote :

"this whole university parallel ignores the facts that 1) <snip irrelevant comparisons>"

irrelevant. you're still taking money from the public trough.

the subsidies and interest is money you are taking from someone else. it doesn't magically appear from thin air. the public pays it for you, so you don't have to. Remember, "the public" includes people who don't go to college, and people who pay for their entire private university tuition out of their own funds.

what part of "it's not your money" do you not understand? why do you think everyone else should be compelled to pay for *your* educational whims?







[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 3:41 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 3:35:14 PM

wow, that was a pretty quick demolition of that argument.

1/27/2010 3:39:23 PM

Well fuck, I'd be all for providing free tax-funded birth control to college students as well. Give them a chance to earn their degree and contribute to society without fucking it up w/ a kid.

Oh snap, I'd go even further and provide free tax-funded birth control for anyone that wanted it. What now, bitches?

1/27/2010 3:39:41 PM

We already do that, sort of. As far as I know you can still pick up free condoms at health clinics. They also provide the BC shot at a steeply discounted price to those who want it as well (or at least it did back when I was in high school).

1/27/2010 3:42:38 PM

It's not the same thing. Public Universities are a service given to taxpayers, paid by taxpayers. This is not welfare, just like fire departments, bridges, libraries, sports stadiums etc. are not welfare.

1/27/2010 3:42:58 PM

Well, stadiums kind of are welfare, just the corporate kind because government believes (correctly or incorrectly) that the long term net positive to the local economy outweighs the taxpayer cost. Basically you take from the taxpayer to subsidize a private company (the team) that then charges the taxpayers a usage fee (tickets) to go to a place they've already paid for. Hopefully in the long run the out of towners who come to visit said stadium will pay back the cost of the stadium through hotel taxes, sales taxes, and income tax on the money the pump into local private business.

It's a risk reward proposition, which is why stadium bonds are sometimes very hard to push through.

1/27/2010 3:47:41 PM

Quote :

"Public Universities are a service given to taxpayers, paid by taxpayers."

Not necessarily. Many kids make it through college without ever paying a dime of tax money.

1/27/2010 3:49:16 PM

Quote :

"what part of "it's not your money" do you not understand? why do you think everyone else should be compelled to pay for *your* educational whims?"

I pay for it, and do so my entire life. What part of that do you not understand? the comparison to welfare is fucking laughable.

1/27/2010 3:49:55 PM

Quote :

"It's not the same thing. Public Universities are a service given to taxpayers, paid by taxpayers. This is not welfare, just like fire departments, bridges, libraries, sports stadiums etc. are not welfare."

It's the same thing.

People on welfare pay some form of taxes, they just, for the time being, get back directly more than they're paying in. Most people in general get back more than they pay in, for most of their lives.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 3:52:39 PM

Well, all these things fall under social services, but welfare could be considered unique in that the recipients are percieved as not having paid into the system.

1/27/2010 3:53:33 PM

Quote :

"Well fuck, I'd be all for providing free tax-funded birth control to college students as well. Give them a chance to earn their degree and contribute to society without fucking it up w/ a kid. Oh snap, I'd go even further and provide free tax-funded birth control for anyone that wanted it. What now, bitches?"

No one's talking about "providing" anything, they're talking about mandating.

The gov. has been providing free birth control for decades, which makes sense.

Mandating is a different story.

Quote :

"Well, all these things fall under social services, but welfare could be considered unique in that the recipients are percieved as not having paid into the system."

perceived by who? Most intelligent, rational people aren't of the perception that welfare has no benefits for its costs, or the people supported by it are worthless.

IIRC, Obama's mother used food stamps, at least, when he was younger. I'm sure there are a handful of other rich or powerful people where welfare programs worked as intended. I have an engineering friend in grad school, with a kid, that is also using gov. welfare programs as they are intended.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 3:54:50 PM

Quote :

"Not necessarily. Many kids make it through college without ever paying a dime of tax money."

Explain please. Do these kids somehow never purchase anything pre, during, or post college and then never pay income tax over the course of their lives?

There may be many who never fully repay the amount that they used, but whether you ever have children or not or whether you ever attend a public university you are still paying for public elementary schools and public universities. Take a look at your car's property tax breakdown sometime for a great example.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 3:56 PM. Reason : adsfasdf]

1/27/2010 3:55:42 PM