This thread is ridiculous.

Limit higher education to those who were fortunate enough to be born into wealthy families, and there simply isn't enough skilled workers to fill the jobs in our economy. Those jobs move overseas where higher ed. is valued. Call it socialism or whatever you want, but it's smart policy for countries looking to grow their GDP... Every economic decision is not a zero-sum game. I went to public schools, got a full scholarship through a public university, and now pay about 30k a year in income taxes. That was a good deal for the government and for me, and I'm glad to know that the taxes I pay can help fund opportunities for others.

(05-29-2013 09:25 AM)eagle9098 Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 09:22 AM)panama Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 08:57 AM)eagle9098 Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 10:34 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 07:55 AM)gsu2583 Wrote:  Actually I wouldn't have cared one way or another until "It's Me Again" said something. I'm not going to back down from a juicy opportunity like that.

Eh, I was kind of trying to push the conversation, which kind of worked.

(05-25-2013 07:40 AM)gsu2583 Wrote:  You posted a completely non-athletic related article in this forum, so I say it's fair game.

How about that part in the article where "retention grants" are now funded by a student fee? Take from the people that CAN pay for their education and give it to the people that can't pay for their education. I'm not a very conservative person but sounds like straight up socialism in higher Ed.

Really if it had been published by something like the Chronicle of Higher Education rather than a D.C. "think tank" I would lend it more merit.

As you mentioned it, i don't think it's wrong for me to follow it up.

Well, the first thing with this statement is it begs the question. Saying it sounds like "straight up socialism," well, first, what's the issue with that? And secondly, its using an imflammatory name (in this country) to describe a fairly common thing. It's the same system that things like banks, any type of insurance, the NFL, etc use. And in this, it's being called a good idea because it makes an easy way for people who wouldn't normally have that great of an opportunity to go to college to go, and it shouldn't take me telling you what the benefits of having an educated populace are. At the same time, this is essentially the same system that any scholarship or grant program works at any other level, it's just being implemented at the institutional level.

At any rate, I fail to see how these things would determine any type of political leaning, nor do I see how this source is any less reputable than any other.

Whats the issue with socialism? Well to start it doesnt work, and that has been proven time and time again. Taking from those who have and giving it to others who have not isnt fair to the have people nor to the have nots. If people want to give then thats great but it should be their choice shouldnt it? It also teaches people who dont have that they will be taken care of and that they dont have to work for it. One of the big reasons I think we are seeing this mentality of entitlement. There will always be folks who dont have, no matter what the savior Obama does for the country. Not everyone is made for college, and educated dummies dont change anything. If the people that want everyone to get an education think it so important then maybe they should be the ones that pay for it.

How is any of this even remotely relevant? Students pay fees for services that in some instances they do not use. You pay taxes fir services that in some instances you do not use. To take one part of an article and make that what the article is about and then to make the leap of logic to liken these universities to some sort of 80's style failed socialist states is ridiculous. Everyone on this subforum attended a university that exists because their home state recognized an educational gap that needed filling and therefore used money from the people of said state to create that school. Believe me, you don't want to live in a country where only the elite who can afford it get access to education.

Many people who can not afford it go to college every year because they work hard to achieve it or they get grants or scholarships.

Or like the majority work and take out tens of thousands of dollars in loans. But again, that wasn't the major point of the article.

(05-29-2013 09:30 AM)RowdyAlumni Wrote:  This thread is ridiculous.

Limit higher education to those who were fortunate enough to be born into wealthy families, and there simply isn't enough skilled workers to fill the jobs in our economy. Those jobs move overseas where higher ed. is valued. Call it socialism or whatever you want, but it's smart policy for countries looking to grow their GDP... Every economic decision is not a zero-sum game. I went to public schools, got a full scholarship through a public university, and now pay about 30k a year in income taxes. That was a good deal for the government and for me, and I'm glad to know that the taxes I pay can help fund opportunities for others.

Tell that to France, Itlaly, Spain, Greece, and so on. Socialism has killed those countries. There is much more to this debate than just paying for someones education. Its about what Socialism does to people. It creates mediocrity in people and a since of entitlement. In the big picture of it all it makes peoples work ethic poor.

(05-29-2013 09:33 AM)panama Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 09:25 AM)eagle9098 Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 09:22 AM)panama Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 08:57 AM)eagle9098 Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 10:34 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  Eh, I was kind of trying to push the conversation, which kind of worked.


As you mentioned it, i don't think it's wrong for me to follow it up.

Well, the first thing with this statement is it begs the question. Saying it sounds like "straight up socialism," well, first, what's the issue with that? And secondly, its using an imflammatory name (in this country) to describe a fairly common thing. It's the same system that things like banks, any type of insurance, the NFL, etc use. And in this, it's being called a good idea because it makes an easy way for people who wouldn't normally have that great of an opportunity to go to college to go, and it shouldn't take me telling you what the benefits of having an educated populace are. At the same time, this is essentially the same system that any scholarship or grant program works at any other level, it's just being implemented at the institutional level.

At any rate, I fail to see how these things would determine any type of political leaning, nor do I see how this source is any less reputable than any other.

Whats the issue with socialism? Well to start it doesnt work, and that has been proven time and time again. Taking from those who have and giving it to others who have not isnt fair to the have people nor to the have nots. If people want to give then thats great but it should be their choice shouldnt it? It also teaches people who dont have that they will be taken care of and that they dont have to work for it. One of the big reasons I think we are seeing this mentality of entitlement. There will always be folks who dont have, no matter what the savior Obama does for the country. Not everyone is made for college, and educated dummies dont change anything. If the people that want everyone to get an education think it so important then maybe they should be the ones that pay for it.

How is any of this even remotely relevant? Students pay fees for services that in some instances they do not use. You pay taxes fir services that in some instances you do not use. To take one part of an article and make that what the article is about and then to make the leap of logic to liken these universities to some sort of 80's style failed socialist states is ridiculous. Everyone on this subforum attended a university that exists because their home state recognized an educational gap that needed filling and therefore used money from the people of said state to create that school. Believe me, you don't want to live in a country where only the elite who can afford it get access to education.

Many people who can not afford it go to college every year because they work hard to achieve it or they get grants or scholarships.

Or like the majority work and take out tens of thousands of dollars in loans. But again, that wasn't the major point of the article.

Sorry I realize that I was just responding to some of the post in this thread.

(05-29-2013 09:38 AM)eagle9098 Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 09:30 AM)RowdyAlumni Wrote:  This thread is ridiculous.

Limit higher education to those who were fortunate enough to be born into wealthy families, and there simply isn't enough skilled workers to fill the jobs in our economy. Those jobs move overseas where higher ed. is valued. Call it socialism or whatever you want, but it's smart policy for countries looking to grow their GDP... Every economic decision is not a zero-sum game. I went to public schools, got a full scholarship through a public university, and now pay about 30k a year in income taxes. That was a good deal for the government and for me, and I'm glad to know that the taxes I pay can help fund opportunities for others.

Tell that to France, Itlaly, Spain, Greece, and so on. Socialism has killed those countries. There is much more to this debate than just paying for someones education. Its about what Socialism does to people. It creates mediocrity in people and a since of entitlement. In the big picture of it all it makes peoples work ethic poor.

So now we're bringing the global debt crisis into this? Just wow. Nothing to do with this article.

(05-29-2013 08:57 AM)eagle9098 Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 10:34 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 07:55 AM)gsu2583 Wrote:  Actually I wouldn't have cared one way or another until "It's Me Again" said something. I'm not going to back down from a juicy opportunity like that.

Eh, I was kind of trying to push the conversation, which kind of worked.

(05-25-2013 07:40 AM)gsu2583 Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 07:24 AM)panama Wrote:  Can we not do this today guys. There IS a smack board...for...um...SAT smack?

You posted a completely non-athletic related article in this forum, so I say it's fair game.

How about that part in the article where "retention grants" are now funded by a student fee? Take from the people that CAN pay for their education and give it to the people that can't pay for their education. I'm not a very conservative person but sounds like straight up socialism in higher Ed.

Really if it had been published by something like the Chronicle of Higher Education rather than a D.C. "think tank" I would lend it more merit.

As you mentioned it, i don't think it's wrong for me to follow it up.

Well, the first thing with this statement is it begs the question. Saying it sounds like "straight up socialism," well, first, what's the issue with that? And secondly, its using an imflammatory name (in this country) to describe a fairly common thing. It's the same system that things like banks, any type of insurance, the NFL, etc use. And in this, it's being called a good idea because it makes an easy way for people who wouldn't normally have that great of an opportunity to go to college to go, and it shouldn't take me telling you what the benefits of having an educated populace are. At the same time, this is essentially the same system that any scholarship or grant program works at any other level, it's just being implemented at the institutional level.

At any rate, I fail to see how these things would determine any type of political leaning, nor do I see how this source is any less reputable than any other.

Whats the issue with socialism? Well to start it doesnt work, and that has been proven time and time again. Taking from those who have and giving it to others who have not isnt fair to the have people nor to the have nots. If people want to give then thats great but it should be their choice shouldnt it? It also teaches people who dont have that they will be taken care of and that they dont have to work for it. One of the big reasons I think we are seeing this mentality of entitlement. There will always be folks who dont have, no matter what the savior Obama does for the country. Not everyone is made for college, and educated dummies dont change anything. If the people that want everyone to get an education think it so important then maybe they should be the ones that pay for it.

Wrong again. Did you not do the reading?

Socialism is where the community owns the means of production. Police is an example of socialism. Instead of you buying police or security protection, that community provides it for you. It can be government or it could be your neighborhood. If your HOA has a pool, that is socialism.

Your hangup seems to be on how you pay for it. That's fair, but it doesn't mean taking from others.

So disappointed in the intelligence level of this board. I thought at least college-educated folk wouldn't parrot the ten-second soundbite.

(05-29-2013 09:38 AM)eagle9098 Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 09:30 AM)RowdyAlumni Wrote:  This thread is ridiculous.

Limit higher education to those who were fortunate enough to be born into wealthy families, and there simply isn't enough skilled workers to fill the jobs in our economy. Those jobs move overseas where higher ed. is valued. Call it socialism or whatever you want, but it's smart policy for countries looking to grow their GDP... Every economic decision is not a zero-sum game. I went to public schools, got a full scholarship through a public university, and now pay about 30k a year in income taxes. That was a good deal for the government and for me, and I'm glad to know that the taxes I pay can help fund opportunities for others.

Tell that to France, Italy, Spain, Greece, and so on. Socialism has killed those countries. There is much more to this debate than just paying for someones education. Its about what Socialism does to people. It creates mediocrity in people and a since of entitlement. In the big picture of it all it makes peoples work ethic poor.

No it didn't kill anything. Believe it or not, they are primarily capitalistic countries that for years followed the Keynesian model. To keep it simple to understand, the government deficit spends during low economic cycles to stimulate growth while they collect a surplus during high cycles. In the end, the goal is a zero sum game. The problem is that all countries, including the U.S. deficit spent during the first part of the century, for different reasons. When the economy collapsed, as it always will because markets are imperfect and can not maintain equilibrium, there was nothing in the tank because almost all were already at the brink. That then exacerbated the markets effect, as the Keynesian model flattens the cycles, but since it couldn't flatten the bottom, we all fell further.

The U.S. has been buffeted somewhat compared to our European colleagues because the FED has taken an aggressive stance and the Euro counterpart has been far more reserved.

As I said before, there has never been one true example of capitalism, socialism or communism. So trying to lump countries into one example is futile.

(05-29-2013 09:56 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 08:57 AM)eagle9098 Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 10:34 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 07:55 AM)gsu2583 Wrote:  Actually I wouldn't have cared one way or another until "It's Me Again" said something. I'm not going to back down from a juicy opportunity like that.

Eh, I was kind of trying to push the conversation, which kind of worked.

(05-25-2013 07:40 AM)gsu2583 Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 07:24 AM)panama Wrote:  Can we not do this today guys. There IS a smack board...for...um...SAT smack?

You posted a completely non-athletic related article in this forum, so I say it's fair game.

How about that part in the article where "retention grants" are now funded by a student fee? Take from the people that CAN pay for their education and give it to the people that can't pay for their education. I'm not a very conservative person but sounds like straight up socialism in higher Ed.

Really if it had been published by something like the Chronicle of Higher Education rather than a D.C. "think tank" I would lend it more merit.

As you mentioned it, i don't think it's wrong for me to follow it up.

Well, the first thing with this statement is it begs the question. Saying it sounds like "straight up socialism," well, first, what's the issue with that? And secondly, its using an imflammatory name (in this country) to describe a fairly common thing. It's the same system that things like banks, any type of insurance, the NFL, etc use. And in this, it's being called a good idea because it makes an easy way for people who wouldn't normally have that great of an opportunity to go to college to go, and it shouldn't take me telling you what the benefits of having an educated populace are. At the same time, this is essentially the same system that any scholarship or grant program works at any other level, it's just being implemented at the institutional level.

At any rate, I fail to see how these things would determine any type of political leaning, nor do I see how this source is any less reputable than any other.

Whats the issue with socialism? Well to start it doesnt work, and that has been proven time and time again. Taking from those who have and giving it to others who have not isnt fair to the have people nor to the have nots. If people want to give then thats great but it should be their choice shouldnt it? It also teaches people who dont have that they will be taken care of and that they dont have to work for it. One of the big reasons I think we are seeing this mentality of entitlement. There will always be folks who dont have, no matter what the savior Obama does for the country. Not everyone is made for college, and educated dummies dont change anything. If the people that want everyone to get an education think it so important then maybe they should be the ones that pay for it.

Wrong again. Did you not do the reading?

Socialism is where the community owns the means of production. Police is an example of socialism. Instead of you buying police or security protection, that community provides it for you. It can be government or it could be your neighborhood. If your HOA has a pool, that is socialism.

Your hangup seems to be on how you pay for it. That's fair, but it doesn't mean taking from others.

So disappointed in the intelligence level of this board. I thought at least college-educated folk wouldn't parrot the ten-second soundbite.

Apples and oranges my man. We see it two different ways. I know what socialism is and what it does to people and countries. And yes I do think its taking from others in certain situations. Police and highways are things we have to have and everyone agrees. I probably should have known better than to even coment on this because people dont change their minds that I know for sure especially when it involves politics. I will stick to football in the future, that I know something about.

(05-29-2013 10:35 AM)eagle9098 Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 09:56 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 08:57 AM)eagle9098 Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 10:34 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 07:55 AM)gsu2583 Wrote:  Actually I wouldn't have cared one way or another until "It's Me Again" said something. I'm not going to back down from a juicy opportunity like that.

Eh, I was kind of trying to push the conversation, which kind of worked.

(05-25-2013 07:40 AM)gsu2583 Wrote:  You posted a completely non-athletic related article in this forum, so I say it's fair game.

How about that part in the article where "retention grants" are now funded by a student fee? Take from the people that CAN pay for their education and give it to the people that can't pay for their education. I'm not a very conservative person but sounds like straight up socialism in higher Ed.

Really if it had been published by something like the Chronicle of Higher Education rather than a D.C. "think tank" I would lend it more merit.

As you mentioned it, i don't think it's wrong for me to follow it up.

Well, the first thing with this statement is it begs the question. Saying it sounds like "straight up socialism," well, first, what's the issue with that? And secondly, its using an imflammatory name (in this country) to describe a fairly common thing. It's the same system that things like banks, any type of insurance, the NFL, etc use. And in this, it's being called a good idea because it makes an easy way for people who wouldn't normally have that great of an opportunity to go to college to go, and it shouldn't take me telling you what the benefits of having an educated populace are. At the same time, this is essentially the same system that any scholarship or grant program works at any other level, it's just being implemented at the institutional level.

At any rate, I fail to see how these things would determine any type of political leaning, nor do I see how this source is any less reputable than any other.

Whats the issue with socialism? Well to start it doesnt work, and that has been proven time and time again. Taking from those who have and giving it to others who have not isnt fair to the have people nor to the have nots. If people want to give then thats great but it should be their choice shouldnt it? It also teaches people who dont have that they will be taken care of and that they dont have to work for it. One of the big reasons I think we are seeing this mentality of entitlement. There will always be folks who dont have, no matter what the savior Obama does for the country. Not everyone is made for college, and educated dummies dont change anything. If the people that want everyone to get an education think it so important then maybe they should be the ones that pay for it.

Wrong again. Did you not do the reading?

Socialism is where the community owns the means of production. Police is an example of socialism. Instead of you buying police or security protection, that community provides it for you. It can be government or it could be your neighborhood. If your HOA has a pool, that is socialism.

Your hangup seems to be on how you pay for it. That's fair, but it doesn't mean taking from others.

So disappointed in the intelligence level of this board. I thought at least college-educated folk wouldn't parrot the ten-second soundbite.

Apples and oranges my man. We see it two different ways. I know what socialism is and what it does to people and countries. And yes I do think its taking from others in certain situations. Police and highways are things we have to have and everyone agrees. I probably should have known better than to even coment on this because people dont change their minds that I know for sure especially when it involves politics. I will stick to football in the future, that I know something about.

Great idea

Especially if you are going to try to use politics to bash anothers U.

(05-29-2013 03:02 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  


Especially if you are going to try to use politics to bash anothers U.

At least tell the damn truth. I never bashed anyones university, and I also said 2 (twice) that I was simply responding to some of the comments, not the article.

Ok so as hard as it was I read these articles. Very boring but ok. So I see the point in which you guys were making considering because my comments were way off what the article was speaking of. However I did point out that i was only responding to some of the posts. That being said I have no issue with what these schools are doing to promote education and grow their universities.