Quote :

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

Not with their own money. Plenty of kids are supported by their parents until 21-22. Until then they don't spend a dime of their own money. Often times they leave the state they were educated in and never repay into that system at all.

1/27/2010 3:57:52 PM

Right, sometimes this is the case, but I don't know that I'd say many. That was what I taking issue with. Clearly that does happen, but even then the parents have paid a certain number of years worth of taxes before junior qualifies for in state tuition.

What your talking about does happen, but it's fairly uncommon.

1/27/2010 4:01:35 PM

Quote :

"DaBird : I pay for it, and do so my entire life. "

no you don't. you don't pay for the 85% of your education that is subsidized by public tax dollars. and you don't pay for the interest on your loans that is also paid for by public tax dollars.

you dont. ever. pay for that.

your doppelganger who went to Duke on his own family's money, comes out working a job making the same amount as you and pays the same amount of taxes his entire life as you. YOU have come out ahead, because you got your education and loans picked up by the state, whereas his was fully bought and paid for by his own family money.

He is out the cost of his education, and you got yours essentially for free. you never, ever pay that back. how are you not understanding simple economics?




[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 4:03 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 4:02:56 PM

Quote :

"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."

I entirely agree. Too bad this kind of person is the exception, not the rule.

1/27/2010 4:05:18 PM

Ehhh, depends on what kind of post college income you make. Some will pay quite a bit more over the course of their life than others. I'd wager I'm one such person, probably quite a few others on here as well.

1/27/2010 4:06:50 PM

Quote :

"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. "

I agree with DaBird. Comparing subsidized tuition to welfare is comparing apple and oranges. The former
can almost be considered an investment like buying a stock. The "tax payer" eventually breaks even due to the increased productivity
of an educated college graduate. Just like a stock though of course you will have some losers picks that do nothing
or move out of state (which is not necessarily a complete loss).

On the other hand putting money is like investing in a 1981 Buick LeSabre. The thing is a endless pit that will suck
your dollars dry; sure though every once in awhile you will find one that could be considered a "classic" and was fully
rebuilt and productive automobile.

Quote :

"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"

My parents sure loved paying Bob to build his NBA stadiums just to get charged $10 to park even when there is no BBall games
going on, paying $40 for tickets, and helping our buddy from BET fatten his wallet.

Quote :

"It's not the same thing. Public Universities are a service given to taxpayers, paid by taxpayers"

Exactly! My parents worked in NC paying taxes for 30+ years to fund my "subsidized" education and even funded "need" based
grant for those who actually choose to excel in life and not end up living on the system just as their mom did.

Quote :

"your doppelganger who went to Duke on his own family's money"

He CHOOSE though to forego an in-state tuition to some school in fucking New Joisey.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 4:17 PM. Reason : a]

1/27/2010 4:09:00 PM

Quote :

"My parents sure loved paying Bob to build his NBA stadiums just to get charged $10 to park even when there is no BBall games going on, paying $40 for tickets, and helping our buddy from BET fatten his wallet."

Hey, I don't like it either. Stadiums are an extremely iffy proposition. I personally don't believe the public should be roped into paying for them. It's just corporate welfare dressed up as a public necessity.

1/27/2010 4:12:39 PM

Quote :

"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."

I understand how complicated it is. I don't think there should be public universities, at least not in the sense that they get funding from taxpayers. Private companies and universities also spend a good deal of their money on research and development. That's a good thing. If you don't invest in research, you can't expect to stay competitive. When you look at where the ground breaking research is coming from, it's often from the Harvards and Dukes. Those schools aren't subsidized. I guess I'm not following your logic. Why can't we connect tuition with the service they're paying? Isn't that how it should be?

Quote :

"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."

I wouldn't say government intervention is natural. The intervention happened when the state began to fund universities with public money. One of my points is that if government would get out of the business of backing loans, tuitions would be much, much lower. Also, the actual subsidization of the schools results in a misallocation of resources, because tax money is taken from the people that could have been spent more productively. A family shouldn't have to put away 30k to pay for their child's college education. That isn't how it used to be. If we had a private education system, you could afford to go to school without a loan or huge savings account.

Quote :

"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."

This is essentially how I think it should be. A more efficient higher education system would result in a much stronger economy and a higher standard of living. I don't think it takes 4 years to learn how to do a job, or even a series of jobs. I don't need to take gym and 3 humanities to learn how to be a computer engineer. The entire process could be streamlined.

Quote :

"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."

Why should someone whose parents saved more have greater access to a nice house? Or better food? Or better doctors? Or a cooler dog? Or better cars? That's how it works, man. If you have a kid, you get to invest in that child's future, and that child gets access to the amenities that you purchase.

There will never be equality in education. You deserve what you can pay for. I think if we got the government out of it, we could increase access to higher education for the average person. I don't support government policies that attempt to force equality across the board. Those policies only serve to make the universities rich and drive up prices for everyone. The closest we're going to equality is letting the market work to lower prices. Automobiles started out slow, dangerous, and expensive. Now, almost anyone can afford one. In 1980, computers were many magnitudes slower than modern computers, and about twice is expensive, not adjusting for inflation (which has been substantial). Now, you can build a PC that runs MW2 flawlessly for about 800 bucks, or a computer that runs basic programs for probably about 150 bucks or less.

1/27/2010 4:17:08 PM

Quote :

"Exactly! My parents worked in NC paying taxes for 30+ years to fund my "subsidized" education and even funded "need" based grant for those who actually choose to excel in life and not end up living on the system just as their mom did."

schmoe is not grasping this.

maybe I wont pay ALL of the subsidized money back over the course of my life if you broke my taxes our proportionately...I am not even sure how you can even quantify that...I do, however, put a damn good dent in it, as well as contribute to all of the other things needed by the public.

more than can be said for the welfare queens out there, putting their energy into collecting government check,.

help a person, yes. make them dependent, no.

1/27/2010 4:20:30 PM

Well that person collecting Foodstamps IS providing a service to our community! I know exactly where to go the next time i need a dime bag or some black tar heroin.

1/27/2010 4:23:48 PM

Quote :

"HUR : Exactly! My parents worked in NC paying taxes for 30+ years to fund my "subsidized" education and even funded "need" "

yes, and hundreds of thousands of other people paid taxes for 30+ years, even though most of them dont have any children who went to a publicly-subsidized university. many of them didn't have any kids at all, but they paid for your education.

Now go tell your white trash welfare queen momma in her "trailor park" to put on her slippers and go thank all them kind people for funding her little Eddie's education -- even though she was too much of an incompetent whore to pay for her own child's proper upbringing.





[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 4:32 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 4:27:42 PM

but not income taxes, amirite?

1/27/2010 4:30:57 PM

i dont know that HUR's momma -- let's call her "Pam" -- ever paid a dime in income tax. I suspect she didnt because if Pam was a decent mother, she would have fully funded her childs education at a private university. but since Pam loves lapping up at the public welfare trough, of course she sent him to a state university so she could continue in her sloth.

because, like most other welfare queen whores, HUR's momma Pam would much rather sit in her "trailor" wearing her nightgown watching Price is Right, than getting out there and earning enough money to pay the proper market value of things for her family





[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 4:33:20 PM

I like how you skimmed over my explanation on the last page. If the government provides a free/cheap service, I'm going to take advantage of it. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing for them to do. If I was eligible for welfare, I would get it. I have no problem saying that, and in the next breath, saying that I don't think that there should be welfare at all.

1/27/2010 4:41:02 PM

Quote :

"Destroyer: [free govt. stuff], I'm going to take advantage of it. .... welfare, I would get it."

slut.

is there anything you WOULDN'T DO for a little extra cash? is there any principle you won't sell out for an extra buck?

lemme see, how about a dick?

will you suck a dick for some tuition assistance? $10K will go a long way...





[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 4:45:22 PM

^


[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 4:54 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 4:54:20 PM

No, and it has nothing to do with principles. See, the value of my labor in that situation far exceeds the value of the item I'm receiving, so it wouldn't be a good decision on my part.

Luckily, with welfare and state-subsidized education, I get a lot more out of the system than I put in. It allows me to steal from other people that have earned their money, and it's legal. You even said, the amount that I will pay in through taxes is much less than the tuition assistance I receive through the state. That is true. Why would I not take any free money from the government? Everyone else gets it. I have to pay taxes. I pay hundreds of dollars a month in Social Security and Medicare taxes that I will never, ever get back. That money is gone. We give 25%+ of our paychecks to the government, and they give us scraps back. I'm going to take back whatever I can, because it wasn't money they should have taken in the first place.

1/27/2010 4:56:32 PM

Quote :

"I suspect she didnt because if Pam was a decent mother, she would have fully funded her childs education at a private university"

Joe tickles my funny bone when he gets upset and goes on his aging hippy liberal douchebag rant.

1/27/2010 5:21:34 PM

HUR tickles my bone when he goes on his little Eddie Munster racist white trash douchebag rants

1/27/2010 6:05:15 PM

Quote :

"maybe I wont pay ALL of the subsidized money back over the course of my life if you broke my taxes our proportionately...I am not even sure how you can even quantify that...I do, however, put a damn good dent in it, as well as contribute to all of the other things needed by the public. more than can be said for the welfare queens out there, putting their energy into collecting government check,. help a person, yes. make them dependent, no."

So your perspective is that you feel it's acceptable to punish all people on welfare because a (less than majority? plurality? minority?) certain amount of people on welfare are "welfare queens" and thus will never, ever get a normal job and pay taxes?

And you're STiLL arguing your position isn't purely emotional...?

1/27/2010 6:12:08 PM

I think it's funny how everyone bitches about "welfare" (I'm guessing everyone means the food stamp and child nutrition programs). To put this in perspective, it's only $91 billion out of $3.5 trillion (with a T) in federal spending.

I think if you want to cut gov't spending, there are much easier ways to do it. Welfare is never going away. It gets trotted out once an election cycle (just like abortion) to fire up the bases. It's so retarded.

1/27/2010 6:36:42 PM

Slightly off topic from where the thread is now but just wanted to say that after reading a little more about Andre Bauer, im really not suprised by what he said. Hes an A++ politician.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Bauer

Quote :

"In 2008, Bauer supported legislation for a new state license plate containing the words "I Believe" and a "cross superimposed on a stained glass window.”[7][8] The legislation was approved by the South Carolina General Assembly; however, a temporary order by a judge in U.S. District Court blocked production of the plates.[9] On November 10, 2009, in a subsequent opinion and order on motions for summary judgment, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie declared the "I Believe" Act "in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America" and permanently enjoined the state from issuing the "I Believe" state license plates.[10] "

but more importantly:

http://watchdog.org/2010/01/27/bauer%E2%80%99s-transparency-initiative-a-bit-opaque/

Quote :

"Last year the South Carolina Policy Council investigated and reported on the Senior Center Permanent Improvement Program, which is operated by the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. At the time, Bauer’s office declined to turn over information about the program, which has paid out nearly $10 million since 2000, despite repeated requests for a detailed accounting of projects, collections and expenditures. After the story ran, a spokesman for the Lieutenant Governor’s Office said his agency was “still chasing down the numbers” for the Permanent Improvement Program “because we want to be absolutely certain we are right.” More than eight months later, the office has yet to turn over any additional information to the Policy Council. "

and

Quote :

"Also, in late July, the Policy Council sent a S.C. Freedom of Information Act request to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office seeking all state-related communication sent or received via private e-mail accounts on state-owned or leased property or equipment between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 1, 2009. Bauer’s office was among 10 state agencies the Policy Council sent such an open-records request to, in an attempt to ascertain how widespread is the practice of conducting public business on private accounts. The other agencies turned over the information requested free of charge, but Bauer’s office sought to charge the Policy Council $61 an hour to compile the e-mails, plus 3 cents for each page copied. "

I think the topic of welfare spending is an important one to discuss, its a pretty major part of government spending and therefore people's concerns need to be brought up. But before we throw the po' folks to the wolves, can we get rid of the crooked politicians that are also mindlessly spending money (with no accountability, similar to "welfare queens")?


carry on.

1/27/2010 6:55:37 PM

I love how people being able to voluntarily choose a license plate that they have to pay extra for is someone a violation of the 1st Amendment. what a crock of shit

1/27/2010 7:04:07 PM

i just noticed this on page 1



lol, look at that. sums up a lot doesn't it.

1/27/2010 7:07:32 PM

When I say welfare and entitlement programs I'm talking about food stamps, medicare, medicaid, and most of all social security. However, because the politicians running this country are more concerned with maintaining their positions of power they will never do anything that will cause short term unhappiness with the general populace even if it is a long term necessity.

Food stamps alone won't break the back of the US economy, but the continued growth of our entitlement programs and the resulting increase in the federal deficit may very well do it in the next 10-20 years. As a nation we absolutely MUST curb spending and start paying down the deficit. That means spending cuts and tax increases across the board, but especially from non-essential programs (ie. things that aren't the military, the judicial system, and other constitutionally mandated functions of government).

1/27/2010 7:10:20 PM

Quote :

"I love how people being able to voluntarily choose a license plate that they have to pay extra for is someone a violation of the 1st Amendment. what a crock of shit"

I believe it was for the new design. In 2008, SC replaced their old license plates with the new one that is on my car now. From the looks of it, "I Believe" would have been on the standard license plate with the stained glass window with a cross on it. I don't think it was for one of those specialty plates. But I'm not sure on that. I just know in 2008, SC introduced new license plates.

1/27/2010 7:59:40 PM

^^ that’s what O’Bama’s been trying to do but the republicans only care about partisan politics: http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=586568

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 8:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 8:05:51 PM

yeah. Obama isn't partisan. That's why he has stood up and denounced the backroom deals that the Democrats have been doing without allowing any Republican input or voices.

1/27/2010 8:35:26 PM

Quote :

"HUR tickles my bone when he goes on his little Eddie Munster racist white trash douchebag rants"

well golly gee. I must have struck a nerve with joe_schmoe by hitting close to home. I did not mean bro to talk shit on the programs that your family relied on growing up, or accidently inadvertently describe your current family situation in the trailer park of Seattle.

1/27/2010 8:41:59 PM

1/27/2010 10:08:11 PM

oh we're mad.

1/28/2010 8:24:12 AM

1/29/2010 6:40:43 PM

thanks for coming.

1/29/2010 10:25:51 PM

ok, sorry to dig this back up, but...

Quote :

"I liked the idea of making it legal to sell your children. That way, if someone is too poor to feed their children then they can sell them to someone that can afford them. Everyone's problem is solved, as usual, by increasing liberty."

is this guy a bot? i mean...has the disconnect from society most libertarians seem to have ("hunger is a good motivator! it will make people work hard!") grown that much?

yes, let's sell off a kid today to pay off some debt. hope we don't regret it. but hey, consequence of "liberty"...and i'm sure the kid won't mind because i'm sure there's something about property rights here that solves the initial view that this is fucking tragic. wtf...i can't be reading this.

i give up.

2/8/2010 2:33:50 AM

^ That would be up to the people involved. If they feel it is tragic, then it is quite tragic. But, if the individuals involved believe this is what's best for the child, who are we to make a bad situation worse by arresting both parties and throwing the kid into an orphanage?

2/8/2010 9:41:25 AM

Don't worry Lonesnark; there are plenty of people out there with the same views as you

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/conchita-s-sarnoff/selling-children-in-ameri_b_399974.html

Quote :

"A 2009 State Department Report confirmed that the United States is now the #1 destination country in the world for trafficked children. The reasons are clear: money and a high demand for underage children to be used for prostitution on "the streets" and online pornography"

2/8/2010 11:20:51 AM

just stop arguing with him. he's either a bot or a horrible loaner.

2/8/2010 11:32:19 AM

This is pretty much the soapbox:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

2/8/2010 12:10:34 PM

Quote :

"more than half of the students in South Carolina participate in a program that allows them to get their lunch for free, or at a reduced cost."

if half of your population can't afford to feed itself, you owe it to the nation to stop feeding them and see if they die off or start coming up with food on their own. That just seems like an outright abuse of the system, not a sign that over half of SC children live below the poverty line.

2/8/2010 12:50:44 PM

You're inhuman.

2/8/2010 12:52:39 PM

you're a moron.

2/8/2010 1:12:17 PM

I think the Lt. Goveronor has a valid point, but its political suicide. I think real entitlement reform is necessary, but simply cutting off the food supply just isnt an option. (might be one day though, once we are bankrupt)

2/8/2010 1:37:23 PM

Quote :

"if half of your population can't afford to feed itself, you owe it to the nation to stop feeding them and see if they die off or start coming up with food on their own. That just seems like an outright abuse of the system, not a sign that over half of SC children live below the poverty line."

We should definately subsidize schools, they end up making us more money in the long run, education isn't just beneficial to the person who gets it, but to the society as a whole.

2/8/2010 3:55:00 PM

^ there is a difference between providing an education and feeding kids. The later is something parents should be cutting back the cable plan, cancelling their 1400 min/month cell phone plans, and trading down their 07 Mustang for a 96 camry in order to provide.

Quote :

""more than half of the students in South Carolina participate in a program that allows them to get their lunch for free, or at a reduced cost.""

is this true????? holy fuck

2/8/2010 9:07:28 PM

Quote :

"there is a difference between providing an education and feeding kids"

Lunch would be part of the cost of going to school. The spending habits of their parents are irrelevant.

2/8/2010 9:16:50 PM

it is not "irrelevant" my parents had to make sacrifices to have food to pack me lunch everyday. How high has the bar risen where parents of even >20% qualify for school food subsidies. Last time I checked school lunch was not like eating out at olive garden. When i gradated I believe $2 got you a full meal from teh cafeteria. I am sure a budget strapped family could pack a lunch for less. If you can not spare that tall boy of Ice house to give your kid a lunch everyday then you should reconsider having children.

One thing is if a kids family is out of work; but from the stats i have seen many of these kids HAVE to be from normal working class income brining families.

2/8/2010 9:22:04 PM

Quote :

"it is not "irrelevant" my parents had to make sacrifices to have food to pack me lunch everyday."

Yes it is. The problem is bigger than you and your irrelevant family.

2/8/2010 9:42:00 PM

Quote :

"When i gradated I believe $2 got you a full meal from teh cafeteria"

Oh cool, you ate subsidized meals too! Guess your dad couldn't spare that tall boy of ice house, huh?

2/8/2010 10:31:03 PM

??

$2 was normal price. Their were not 4 tiers unsubsidized, subsidized, subsidized but redeuced, than finally a free lunch. Either you paid, you got reduced, or you got your shit free

2/8/2010 10:35:53 PM

the real question is, why are you shitting out kids if you cant feed them lunch?

this makes you a selfish, unrealistic, illogical, drain on the rest of us.

2/8/2010 10:47:13 PM