‘Go Back to Auschwitz’ and ‘Go Back to Africa’ Yelled Outside Trump Rally

[TBoneTX 45,291]

20 ACT score in high school

A 20 on the ACT? One could sleep through hyskool and score that.

[Expat1 971]

You're a real treat. Like I said, if you don't like it, go kick rocks. Not my fault being a firetruck boy is more important.

Funny how you don't care, but keep commenting. Please one yourself with a hug or something.

Funny how you "avoid" people. WTH is a firetruck boy? Is that the dude who polishes the wheels and knobs? I'd say that if you picked polishing knobs as your life's work thats about as perfect as it gets.

[TBoneTX 45,291]

[Moderator hat on]

Folks, we have some choices:

1) Close the thread because of bickering;

2) Remove half a million posts because of off-topic assaults;

3) Do one or more of the above plus issue TOS actions.

We're heading toward the last. Please keep it from happening, starting now.

[Moderator hat off]

[Expat1 971]

A 20 on the ACT? One could sleep through hyskool and score that.

The standards are not high. A 2.5 gpa isnt an insurmountable challenge either. Although oil and gad has pulled the state budget down this program worked for 10 years. Something like this is not impossible nationwide, especially if you roll the squandared billions that are currently being distributed without question into the budget.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Expat1

[OriZ 3,157]

The standards are not high. A 2.5 gpa isnt an insurmountable challenge either. Although oil and gad has pulled the state budget down this program worked for 10 years. Something like this is not impossible nationwide, especially if you roll the squandared billions that are currently being distributed without question into the budget.

Throw in financial eligibility and we have a deal.

They would still, however, have to roll back cost so that everyone else doesn't end up paying so much, either. And there are ways to do this but that's for another "essay".

Edited March 18, 2016 by OriZ

[Expat1 971]

Throw in financial eligibility and we have a deal.

They would still, however, have to roll back cost so that everyone else doesn't end up paying so much, either. And there are ways to do this but that's for another "essay".

Throw in financial eligibility and we have socialism.

[OriZ 3,157]

A 20 on the ACT? One could sleep through hyskool and score that.

Well, it is Louisiana we're talking about lol

Throw in financial eligibility and we have socialism.

Not really. There are many programs that help the needy without this country being socialist. I never said the gov should never help anyone at all, ever. Bernie's plan to just make it free for all is socialism. I have no problem with helping those who seriously need a helping hand. However, to give money to those who can afford it anyway would be a waste of the state's funds. Moreover and as I pointed out in my long answer before, it would only lead to more competition among applicants, higher costs at private universities, disruption of university research and apathy among institutions that are supposed to maintain a high quality learning environment. Because, well, that is what socialism does.

I think overall the best plan would be one where -

1. There is academic criteria. The bar doesn't have to be set very high, just enough to reach with reasonable effort.

2. Effort criteria - Can only make so many changes, miss so many days, etc.

3. Financial eligibility criteria - you would have to be under a certain threshold to qualify. Obviously sometimes being a kid also means you don't necessarily pay all of your own bills, but in that situation there could be incentives offered to the family/parents such as tax credits. It would still be cheaper for the state than paying for your whole tuition.

4. Reduce to cost of tuition. This can be done in several ways, however I need a break before I write another long post. One way though would be to eliminate the need and/or make it harder to qualify for most student loans. Some of this will already happen via the aid, however, I believe this is a huge part of the problem to start with. Just like incredibly easy mortgage loans are hugely responsible for the real estate bubble and crisis, incredibly easy student loans are also responsible for the rise in tuition fees. Wherever there is government intervention(intervention, not aid) there are unintended consequences. They can either take the air out of this bubble slowly, or get ready to bailout colleges next.

5. This would have to cover BOTH private and public institutions, in order to avoid the competition mentioned before. The money that would be made available by not offering free tuition to those who can afford it(as opposed to Sanders' plan) would be enough to cover the private institutions. However, I believe the academic criteria should be higher for those(so that not everyone decides they should just go to a private institution if the state is paying for it and thus not only cost the state more money but also cause potential hardship for those institutions).

Edited March 18, 2016 by OriZ

[Expat1 971]

Well, it is Louisiana we're talking about lol

Not really. There are many programs that help the needy without this country being socialist. I never said the gov should never help anyone at all, ever. Bernie's plan to just make it free for all is socialism. I have no problem with helping those who seriously need a helping hand. However, to give money to those who can afford it anyway would be a waste of the state's funds. Moreover and as I pointed out in my long answer before, it would only lead to more competition among applicants, higher costs at private universities, disruption of university research and apathy among institutions that are supposed to maintain a high quality learning environment. Because, well, that is what socialism does.

I think overall the best plan would be one where -

1. There is academic criteria. The bar doesn't have to be set very high, just enough to reach with reasonable effort.

2. Effort criteria - Can only make so many changes, miss so many days, etc.

3. Financial eligibility criteria - you would have to be under a certain threshold to qualify. Obviously sometimes being a kid also means you don't necessarily pay all of your own bills, but in that situation there could be incentives offered to the family/parents such as tax credits. It would still be cheaper for the state than paying for your whole tuition.

4. Reduce to cost of tuition. This can be done in several ways, however I need a break before I write another long post. One way though would be to eliminate the need and/or make it harder to qualify for most student loans. Some of this will already happen via the aid, however, I believe this is a huge part of the problem to start with. Just like incredibly easy mortgage loans are hugely responsible for the real estate bubble and crisis, incredibly easy student loans are also responsible for the rise in tuition fees. Wherever there is government intervention(intervention, not aid) there are unintended consequences. They can either take the air out of this bubble slowly, or get ready to bailout colleges next.

A program that is not equal for all, based on the student's work performance in high school and college, is just one more way to redistribute. We have that in place now, including the income-capped "tax credit". The Louisiana TOPS program did not differentiate. If you were a good student your tuition was paid. I agree with that approach. Edited March 18, 2016 by Expat1

[OriZ 3,157]

A program that is not equal for all, based on the student's work performance in high school and college, is just one more way to redistribute. We have that in place now, including the income-capped "tax credit". The Louisiana TOPS program did not differentiate. If you were a good student your tuition was paid. I agree with that approach.

My problem with it is this - it's kind of like saying, if you'e sick, you should qualify for medicaid. Doesn't matter that you can afford your treatments on your own. I don't think I should pick up the tab for someone else who can afford it, nor do I want anyone to pick up the tab for me.

If you seriously need help - there should be help available. No one should be left to die on the streets, or locked out of college. However, if you can afford it, you should be on your own. That's not redistribution of wealth - it would just be heartless otherwise.

If we're trying to keep government smaller then we don't want government to pay for everyone who does well in school. We also don't want government to pay for everyone who wants to go to school. No, what we need is for government to pay for you only if you're doing well and putting the effort in AND can't afford it on your own.

Edited March 18, 2016 by OriZ

[ExPatty 502]

If you want to ignore the open displays of xenophobia and fascism, and pretend it's not there, you're the one giving the benefit of the doubt.

I have no problem giving someone the benefit of the doubt, but I tend to have an easier time doing that in circumstances where some doubt exists.

Phobia requires a fear to be irrational. A better phrase for trump is nationalist, you could even use jingoist.

Fascism I will certainly grant you, Trump has said some fascist things.

[Expat1 971]

My problem with it is this - it's kind of like saying, if you'e sick, you should qualify for medicaid. Doesn't matter that you can afford your treatments on your own. I don't think I should pick up the tab for someone else who can afford it, nor do I want anyone to pick up the tab for me.

If you seriously need help - there should be help available. No one should be left to die on the streets, or locked out of college. However, if you can afford it, you should be on your own. That's not redistribution of wealth - it would just be heartless otherwise.

If we're trying to keep government smaller then we don't want government to pay for everyone who does well in school. We also don't want government to pay for everyone who wants to go to school. No, what we need is for government to pay for you only if you're doing well and putting the effort in AND can't afford it on your own.

Higher education (well except for liberal arts) is an investment with a return, not necessarily comparable to sickness

[OriZ 3,157]

Higher education (well except for liberal arts) is an investment with a return, not necessarily comparable to sickness

I agree it is, and it is critical to get that return out of those who might otherwise end up in poverty on welfare or selling drugs on the street, not so much when it comes to those who would be able to afford it anyway. Helping those in medical need is also a sort of investment. If you help them when their problems are small you might not have to wait till they get much more critical. If you can get them back to work sooner(or at all) you can get more revenue, etc.

[Jacque67 7,328]

The ignorance here is stunning.

[OriZ 3,157]

The ignorance here is stunning.

Care to elaborate instead of just tossing around your usual useless one liners?

[Rob L 3,811]

Phobia requires a fear to be irrational. A better phrase for trump is nationalist, you could even use jingoist.

Fascism I will certainly grant you, Trump has said some fascist things.

love the eagle...

Care to elaborate instead of just tossing around your usual useless one liners?

Jack needs to keep it to one line so this group can get it