American Politics: Turnabout Trump

[Elwher]

If abortion is murder, as the anti-abortion people claim, then it should be handled as murder. Murder, and the definition thereof, is a state-level jurisdiction, not a Federal one, and abortion should be treated equally.

Ehh, murder is too big of a charge, but it should still be punished.

It should be up to the states to decide, not the Feds. That is the point I was making, who should have jurisdiction not the severity of the charge.

[Southglory]

I'm pretty sure there are community colleges.

This is very true, and they are amazing resources, but there is still issue that most of them don't have things like a law school or med school, and the problem remains the same(if thats your career path.) But yes community colleges should be a lot less stigmatized.

I wasn't aware they were stigmatized unless that's for reasons of prestige, plus that's really a bragging point of "look at the expensive college I went to". If it's a community college they aren't going to provide everything, not too mention they have different areas of expertise based on location.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Anyone who does not understand the meaning of loan as something they agree to pay back has no business being in college or out of the Home for the Terminally Confused.

Exactly. Can't afford loans? Don't take them.

Can't afford going to college? Don't go, or go to a public university.

This is why public healthcare is important, too. Can't afford a private hospital? Go to a public one. Of course it's going to be a lower quality, that's life, but don't try to buy thing you can't afford.

There is two halves of a loan equation.

Banks should not issue loans to people they don't think will repay them. Culpability is on the loan giver just as much as it is the loan taker.

If you don't hold the loan giver to account, then you get situations like in 1929 and 2008.

[United Calanworie]

Yes it literally is. Again, not my problem you refuse to read it. Good day.

Nah, bro, I literally read it. You are having a severe psychotic episode if you believe anything you said is there. Please take your meds if you are. I don't typically believe in medication but omfg.

*** 1 day ban for baiting ***

[The Terren Dominion]

This is very true, and they are amazing resources, but there is still issue that most of them don't have things like a law school or med school, and the problem remains the same(if thats your career path.) But yes community colleges should be a lot less stigmatized.

I wasn't aware they were stigmatized unless that's for reasons of prestige, plus that's really a bragging point of "look at the expensive college I went to". If it's a community college they aren't going to provide everything, not too mention they have different areas of expertise based on location.

Its more an issue that Community collages don't tend to have good resources and classes, and this makes it harder to go there and get the best possible education. now some people go to college and just have fun or only get a broad collage education, and those people would not have much reason not to go to a community college, but for someone like me with very specific interests and a desire to go into rigorous academia, community collages just don't cut it, and that's a shame.

The prestige thing is also important to keep in mind when job searching, but its not THAT important but it is unfortunate how many people see it as the be all and end all.

[Southglory]

I wasn't aware they were stigmatized unless that's for reasons of prestige, plus that's really a bragging point of "look at the expensive college I went to". If it's a community college they aren't going to provide everything, not too mention they have different areas of expertise based on location.

Its more an issue that Community collages don't tend to have good resources and classes, and this makes it harder to go there and get the best possible education. now some people go to college and just have fun or only get a broad collage education, and those people would not have much reason not to go to a community college, but for someone like me with very specific interests and a desire to go into rigorous academia, community collages just don't cut it, and that's a shame.

The prestige thing is also important to keep in mind when job searching, but its not THAT important but it is unfortunate how many people see it as the be all and end all.

I would say that's up to a petition to the state to devote more resources to education. We can't get everything we want, but we can still get close enough. Well the prestige is how those who say they got the best only hire the best into a certain feedback loop.

[Elwher]

Exactly. Can't afford loans? Don't take them.

Can't afford going to college? Don't go, or go to a public university.

This is why public healthcare is important, too. Can't afford a private hospital? Go to a public one. Of course it's going to be a lower quality, that's life, but don't try to buy thing you can't afford.

There is two halves of a loan equation.

Banks should not issue loans to people they don't think will repay them. Culpability is on the loan giver just as much as it is the loan taker.

If you don't hold the loan giver to account, then you get situations like in 1929 and 2008.

I agree, but the culpability is expressed by not getting their money back and, if that happens too often, going out of business.

[Finium]

There is two halves of a loan equation.

Banks should not issue loans to people they don't think will repay them. Culpability is on the loan giver just as much as it is the loan taker.

If you don't hold the loan giver to account, then you get situations like in 1929 and 2008.

I agree, but the culpability is expressed by not getting their money back and, if that happens too often, going out of business.

Student loans are a special loan which is not affected by normal bankruptcy, so in this case the lender does not actually face this risk at all.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

There is two halves of a loan equation.

Banks should not issue loans to people they don't think will repay them. Culpability is on the loan giver just as much as it is the loan taker.

If you don't hold the loan giver to account, then you get situations like in 1929 and 2008.

I agree, but the culpability is expressed by not getting their money back and, if that happens too often, going out of business.

That is not the case with student loans. They are insured by the force of the government. Bankruptcy is not allowed. Wage garnishment is allowed.

That is not an incentive for these lenders to behave responsibly. And they didn't.

And thus here we are.

[Benuty]

Anyone who does not understand the meaning of loan as something they agree to pay back has no business being in college or out of the Home for the Terminally Confused.

Exactly. Can't afford loans? Don't take them.

Can't afford going to college? Don't go, or go to a public university.

This is why public healthcare is important, too. Can't afford a private hospital? Go to a public one. Of course it's going to be a lower quality, that's life, but don't try to buy thing you can't afford.

Not many public universities are affordable these days unless you are so poor they take pity on you with a full ride scholarship (thats not many of them).

[Finium]

I think there's a relatively simple solution to the educational problem that we cannot achieve primarily because of bickering over the loan problem. I think we should guarantee a free college education to a percentage of graduating high school students based on their academic performance. This will allow us to make the vital investment in advanced education needed for doctors, lawyers, and poets laureate. We can increase and decrease the percentage of students based on a practical evaluation of demand and by doing this, we will get what we pay for. If we cut higher education, then our futures will be bleaker and poorer. If we fund it more, then our population will be more educated and probably wiser. Isn't this system better than transferring the responsibility to fund higher education to random people and their parents?

[Elwher]

I agree, but the culpability is expressed by not getting their money back and, if that happens too often, going out of business.

That is not the case with student loans. They are insured by the force of the government. Bankruptcy is not allowed. Wage garnishment is allowed.

That is not an incentive for these lenders to behave responsibly. And they didn't.

And thus here we are.

If they were not in that situation, there would not be any student loans. How responsible would a lender be to advance tens of thousands of dollars to an 18-year-old who had had one job stocking shelves at Wegmans?

[Daemonkin of Corn]

That is not the case with student loans. They are insured by the force of the government. Bankruptcy is not allowed. Wage garnishment is allowed.

That is not an incentive for these lenders to behave responsibly. And they didn't.

And thus here we are.

If they were not in that situation, there would not be any student loans. How responsible would a lender be to advance tens of thousands of dollars to an 18-year-old who had had one job stocking shelves at Wegmans?

Not true at all. Student loans often have a great value on return for both the lender and the borrower. Early on when University tuition was more reasonable (as little as ten to fifteen years ago in many situations) most of these loans were being repaid on time. College degrees have been for the most part a good investment on the part of the bank and the student.

But if a market is good for Paul it is good for Peter.. Then John.. Then Mark.. Then Tony... And so on and so forth the bubble expands.

The problem was not the concept of student loans, but the excess. The bubble took time to develop and now we are here.

[Southglory]

I think there's a relatively simple solution to the educational problem that we cannot achieve primarily because of bickering over the loan problem. I think we should guarantee a free college education to a percentage of graduating high school students based on their academic performance. This will allow us to make the vital investment in advanced education needed for doctors, lawyers, and poets laureate. We can increase and decrease the percentage of students based on a practical evaluation of demand and by doing this, we will get what we pay for. If we cut higher education, then our futures will be bleaker and poorer. If we fund it more, then our population will be more educated and probably wiser. Isn't this system better than transferring the responsibility to fund higher education to random people and their parents?

That would be nice but States would have to be held accountable.

[Galloism]

That is not the case with student loans. They are insured by the force of the government. Bankruptcy is not allowed. Wage garnishment is allowed.

That is not an incentive for these lenders to behave responsibly. And they didn't.

And thus here we are.

If they were not in that situation, there would not be any student loans. How responsible would a lender be to advance tens of thousands of dollars to an 18-year-old who had had one job stocking shelves at Wegmans?

It might be (and used to be), but they’d probably insist on the loans being in things where good investment on return is expected.

[Finium]

I think there's a relatively simple solution to the educational problem that we cannot achieve primarily because of bickering over the loan problem. I think we should guarantee a free college education to a percentage of graduating high school students based on their academic performance. This will allow us to make the vital investment in advanced education needed for doctors, lawyers, and poets laureate. We can increase and decrease the percentage of students based on a practical evaluation of demand and by doing this, we will get what we pay for. If we cut higher education, then our futures will be bleaker and poorer. If we fund it more, then our population will be more educated and probably wiser. Isn't this system better than transferring the responsibility to fund higher education to random people and their parents?

That would be nice but States would have to be held accountable.

I actually like this system partly because states could choose to adopt it independently. There's no reason to wait for the entire country to come to agreement on policy overhauls like this when you could start improving the system in your own household so to speak.

[Kernen]

Obviously he won't but let a man dream.

Everyones a libertarian until people start doing things they don't like
(i am no better)
This is joke

I oppose the state taking this action, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't derive joy from it if it magically occurred.

[Tarsonis]

There is two halves of a loan equation.

Banks should not issue loans to people they don't think will repay them. Culpability is on the loan giver just as much as it is the loan taker.

If you don't hold the loan giver to account, then you get situations like in 1929 and 2008.

I agree, but the culpability is expressed by not getting their money back and, if that happens too often, going out of business.

The US Government isn't going out of business anytime soon. So where's the culpability?

[Celritannia]

I think there's a relatively simple solution to the educational problem that we cannot achieve primarily because of bickering over the loan problem. I think we should guarantee a free college education to a percentage of graduating high school students based on their academic performance. This will allow us to make the vital investment in advanced education needed for doctors, lawyers, and poets laureate. We can increase and decrease the percentage of students based on a practical evaluation of demand and by doing this, we will get what we pay for. If we cut higher education, then our futures will be bleaker and poorer. If we fund it more, then our population will be more educated and probably wiser. Isn't this system better than transferring the responsibility to fund higher education to random people and their parents?

Academic performance in school does not determine your university abilities.

I was terrible in school, but excelled in university.

[Kernen]

The US Government isn't going out of business anytime soon. So where's the culpability?

"Too Big to Fail." Damn government always interfering with the free market.

[Finium]

I think there's a relatively simple solution to the educational problem that we cannot achieve primarily because of bickering over the loan problem. I think we should guarantee a free college education to a percentage of graduating high school students based on their academic performance. This will allow us to make the vital investment in advanced education needed for doctors, lawyers, and poets laureate. We can increase and decrease the percentage of students based on a practical evaluation of demand and by doing this, we will get what we pay for. If we cut higher education, then our futures will be bleaker and poorer. If we fund it more, then our population will be more educated and probably wiser. Isn't this system better than transferring the responsibility to fund higher education to random people and their parents?

Academic performance in school does not determine your university abilities.

I was terrible in school, but excelled in university.

I an just speculating, but I would guess that you under-performed in your younger years because of flaws in that schooling system which (a) should be fixed regardless and (b) should not prevent us from improving access to post-secondary education for everyone generally. One thing that I think I can say with some confidence is that your excellent performance at university is in not related to the student loan system.

[Tarsonis]

The US Government isn't going out of business anytime soon. So where's the culpability?

"Too Big to Fail." Damn government always interfering with the free market.

Can't interfere with a make believe concept

[Celritannia]

Academic performance in school does not determine your university abilities.

I was terrible in school, but excelled in university.

I an just speculating, but I would guess that you under-performed in your younger years because of flaws in that schooling system which (a) should be fixed regardless and (b) should not prevent us from improving access to post-secondary education for everyone generally. One thing that I think I can say with some confidence is that your excellent performance at university is in not related to the student loan system.

The schooling system was fine for what it is set up to do, which is regurgitate information and make a schools performance look good.

The education system is not cut out for critical thinking, adaptability, or problem solving.

[Finium]

I an just speculating, but I would guess that you under-performed in your younger years because of flaws in that schooling system which (a) should be fixed regardless and (b) should not prevent us from improving access to post-secondary education for everyone generally. One thing that I think I can say with some confidence is that your excellent performance at university is in not related to the student loan system.

The schooling system was fine for what it is set up to do, which is regurgitate information and make a schools performance look good.

The education system is not cut out for critical thinking, adaptability, otlr problem solving.

I am certainly open to other methods of selecting students than their GPA or test scores (although there's some recent discussion of test scores actually being better than we have recently assumed). Perhaps universities are actually pretty good at selecting students using their qualitative criteria; I would be fine with that. My main objective, and I like to think most people would agree with me here, is to decouple money from attendance as much as possible. I think the best way to do that is through free education for students.

There's another possibility which is that we don't need to limit attendance at all. People are pretty good at figuring out if they're going to be successful in an endeavor without massive loans. Perhaps we can make education free for everyone and they can figure it out on their own. Either way, the loan problem is gone.

[Celritannia]

The schooling system was fine for what it is set up to do, which is regurgitate information and make a schools performance look good.

The education system is not cut out for critical thinking, adaptability, otlr problem solving.

I am certainly open to other methods of selecting students than their GPA or test scores (although there's some recent discussion of test scores actually being better than we have recently assumed). Perhaps universities are actually pretty good at selecting students using their qualitative criteria; I would be fine with that. My main objective, and I like to think most people would agree with me here, is to decouple money from attendance as much as possible. I think the best way to do that is through free education for students.

There's another possibility which is that we don't need to limit attendance at all. People are pretty good at figuring out if they're going to be successful in an endeavor without massive loans. Perhaps we can make education free for everyone and they can figure it out on their own. Either way, the loan problem is gone.

The UK had free education for university throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s, then Thatcher removed that right.

Scotland has free education for all people born in Scotland, though, due tonthe devolution powers.