NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON - House Republicans voted to cut student loan subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices as various committees scrambled to piece together $50 billion in budget cuts.

More politically difficult votes — to cut Medicaid, food stamps and farm subsidies — are on tap Thursday as more panels weigh in on the bill. It was originally intended to cut $35 billion in spending over five years, but after pressure from conservatives, GOP leaders directed committees to cut another $15 billion to help pay the cost of hurricane recovery.

President Bush met with House and Senate GOP leaders and said he was pleased with the progress. He also appeared to endorse a plan by House Speaker
Dennis Hastert's plan for an across-the-board cut in agency budgets, perhaps including the
Pentagon, by the end of the year.

"I encourage Congress to push the envelope when it comes to cutting spending," Bush said.

Dozens of issues are at play as Republicans in both the House and Senate cobble together the sprawling budget bill. The measure is the first in eight years to take aim at the automatic growth of federal spending programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.

In the Senate, the Budget Committee voted along party lines to bundle together the work of eight legislative committees into a bill that will be debated next week by the full Senate. The
Congressional Budget Office said the Senate measure would save $39 billion over five years — $4 billion more than the budget passed last spring.

Pressed to produce more savings than the Senate, House committees took more political chances in drafting the $50 billion House plan, which has become a rallying point for the GOP's conservative wing and its anxiety about hurricane relief worsening the deficit.

The House Education and the Workforce panel, for example, was told to generate $18 billion in savings over five years. On Wednesday it approved squeezing lenders in the student loan program and raising premiums to employers for government insurance of their employees' and retirees' pension benefits.

It also imposes new fees on students who default on loans or consolidate them and higher fees on parents who borrow on behalf of their college-age children. California Rep. George Miller , the senior Democrat on the panel, called the package a "raid on student aid."

The Ways and Means Committee approved on a party-line vote a plan by its chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., with so many difficult-to-swallow provisions that lawmakers and aides whispered about whether the intent was to make it hard for GOP leaders to win its passage in the full House.

It includes $3.8 billion in cuts to child support enforcement. Rep. Earl Pomeroy D-N.D., charged that Republicans were appealing to the "constituency of deadbeat dads."

The bill also would tighten eligibility standards for foster care assistance in nine states and delay some lump-sum payments to very poor and elderly beneficiaries of
Social Security's Supplemental Security Income program.

"It was abundantly clear that Thomas didn't want to do this stuff," said an aide to a Ways and Means Republican who spoke on condition of anonymity but cited meetings that occurred behind the scenes. House GOP leaders this month directed Thomas to produce $8 billion in savings, eight times the original target he was assigned.

The Ways and Means plan also would eliminate payments to industries harmed by unfair foreign trade practices. Those payments come from the proceeds of duties on foreign goods "dumped" into the U.S. market.

The House Resources Committee approved a controversial plan to raise $2.4 billion in lease revenues by permitting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Minority Democrats opposed virtually everything that was done, saying Wednesday's actions are part of a broader GOP budget blueprint that also calls for $106 billion in new tax cuts over the next five years.

"They are targeting programs for poor people to pay for tax cuts for rich people," said Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis. Once those tax cuts are passed, Obey added, deficits will be increasing again.

Yep, another excellent example of how Republicans can't balance their budget...(not like the Dems could do any better).

At this point America has accumulated so much debt and taken out so many loans from Europe, Saudi Arabia, and China respectivly that NO ONE has the means to balance America's Budget anymore (and giving all that money to the billionaries who didn't need it didn't help any either).

At this point America has accumulated so much debt and taken out so many loans from Europe, Saudi Arabia, and China respectivly that NO ONE has the means to balance America's Budget anymore (and giving all that money to the billionaries who didn't need it didn't help any either).
It'd be wasteful if you gave it to the poor, what really matters is that the government can't spend responsibly.

It'd be wasteful if you gave it to the poor...
That is, unless you’re really intent on boosting the Reebok industry…

That is, unless you’re really intent on boosting the Reebok industry…
How did you know? :eek:

That is, unless you’re really intent on boosting the Reebok industry…
LMAO! Sad, but that's the truth. :p

At this point America has accumulated so much debt and taken out so many loans from Europe, Saudi Arabia, and China respectivly that NO ONE has the means to balance America's Budget anymore (and giving all that money to the billionaries who didn't need it didn't help any either).

The national debt and the budget deficit are not the same thing.. I thought I'd mention it. Bush is in the process of balancing the budget.. where he cuts the fat is another issue..

This happens all while we're building highways in Alaska. Brilliant just brillaint :rolleyes:

Cutting student loans, medicaid, and food stamps? There's a snowball's chance in hell of that actually happening.

Hahahahaha. Dumbfucks.

I don't think this is so bad. Subsides should be cut for most things(Farming, sure), student college aid is a sadder thing to cut, but college's can start following the market more... if less people can afford to go, prices will inevitably start to drop.

I think its not good that we have cut taxes to the point where we need to cut these programs, but some of the programs themselves aren't in my mind great losses.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

Anyone who suggests that we shouldn't cut these programs clearly has no idea what kind of debts we've incurred trying to pay for them. It's time to get off our asses and make things for ourselves instead of expecting the government to do it for us. Imagine kids actually working their way through college! What a concept!

I'm sure everyone here already knows that if this happens [the chances of which--despite the necessity of these measures--is somewhat dubious since we're talking about politicians here], I will be very pleased. I think this proves that someone on Capitol Hill is finally starting to inch his head out of his ass. Hopefully, these voices will be heeded. If not, it's going to mean tax hikes across the board.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

Anyone who suggests that we shouldn't cut these programs clearly has no idea what kind of debts we've incurred trying to pay for them. It's time to get off our asses and make things for ourselves instead of expecting the government to do it for us. Imagine kids actually working their way through college! What a concept!

I'm sure everyone here already knows that if this happens [the chances of which--despite the necessity of these measures--is somewhat dubious since we're talking about politicians here], I will be very pleased. I think this proves that someone on Capitol Hill is finally starting to inch his head out of his ass. Hopefully, these voices will be heeded. If not, it's going to mean tax hikes across the board.

1: No, no, and no. Seriously, there are a lot of people who need these programs, and I (along with my brother and dad) happen to be one of them.

2: Imagine kids not being able to go to college, because the only jobs they can get are minimum wage jobs. Imagine kids not even being able to attend school, because their parents are in such a position that they can't afford it.

3: Watching your posts over the months, I have to congratulate you on your determination (granted, I'd do the same as you, but I'm in such a position that I have few options). However, I also have to say that you speak too soon for a lot of people who do need help from the government. It's almost as if you think they don't exist...

1: No, no, and no. Seriously, there are a lot of people who need these programs, and I (along with my brother and dad) happen to be one of them.

2: Imagine kids not being able to go to college, because the only jobs they can get are minimum wage jobs. Imagine kids not even being able to attend school, because their parents are in such a position that they can't afford it.

3: Watching your posts over the months, I have to congratulate you on your determination (granted, I'd do the same as you, but I'm in such a position that I have few options). However, I also have to say that you speak too soon for a lot of people who do need help from the government. It's almost as if you think they don't exist...

People shouldn't need the government at all. It should be there to help people, not be relied on.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!
NO NO NO Just to keep in the spirit of the post.:rolleyes:

Anyone who suggests that we shouldn't cut these programs clearly has no idea what kind of debts we've incurred trying to pay for them. It's time to get off our asses and make things for ourselves instead of expecting the government to do it for us. Imagine kids actually working their way through college! What a concept!
Yes because we all know that kids can pay for the exorbidant amounts of college tuition now with jobs that pay very little. We aren't expecting the government to pay off college tuitions only help ease the burden.

I'm sure everyone here already knows that if this happens [the chances of which--despite the necessity of these measures--is somewhat dubious since we're talking about politicians here], I will be very pleased. I think this proves that someone on Capitol Hill is finally starting to inch his head out of his ass. Hopefully, these voices will be heeded. If not, it's going to mean tax hikes across the board.
I'd rather see the massive amount of pork in the highway bill for alaska go to some good use then cut these programs.

People shouldn't need the government at all. It should be there to help people, not be relied on.

Yeah, people shouldn't need it, but with our current economic system, shit happens. It really shouldn't be that way, but it is, and that's why we have government programs to ease the pain.

NO NO NO Just to keep in the spirit of the post.:rolleyes:


Yes because we all know that kids can pay for the exorbidant amounts of college tuition now with jobs that pay very little. We aren't expecting the government to pay off college tuitions only help ease the burden.


I'd rather see the massive amount of pork in the highway bill for alaska go to some good use then cut these programs.

If a large number of people can't pay for college, then prices will go down for college's. Combine that with scholarships(not nessecarialy govt. ones, but some), and those who really want in should be able to get in.

3: Watching your posts over the months, I have to congratulate you on your determination (granted, I'd do the same as you, but I'm in such a position that I have few options). However, I also have to say that you speak too soon for a lot of people who do need help from the government. It's almost as if you think they don't exist...
I can’t speak for Melkor (none can) but for me its not that I don’t know that they exist, its that I don’t care.

If a large number of people can't pay for college, then prices will go down for college's. Combine that with scholarships(not nessecarialy govt. ones, but some), and those who really want in should be able to get in.

Ah, the great Capitalist lie. If a lot of people can't buy something the price will have to go down. :rolleyes:

I can’t speak for Melkor (none can) but for me its not that I don’t know that they exist, its that I don’t care.

And that, for the most part, is what's wrong with this country, and it's one of the reasons Bush was elected... Twice.

Yeah, people shouldn't need it, but with our current economic system, shit happens. It really shouldn't be that way, but it is, and that's why we have government programs to ease the pain.

Fine, let me reiterate.

People may need it, we shouldn't give it to them. While there should be some rock bottom support, if you can't afford some type of shelter, food for yourself, and clothing, then there is probably something wrong with you(There are few exceptions, and if you want to bring them up, I will argue their importance, but it would be easier to not try to argue for the minority exceptions).

If a large number of people can't pay for college, then prices will go down for college's. Combine that with scholarships(not nessecarialy govt. ones, but some), and those who really want in should be able to get in.

Except this kind of thing won't happen right away. It could take years potentially screwing over some people who want to go to college but can't because they have to wait for the price to go down. I'm okay waiting to buy a plasma tv until the price goes down because its not really necessary to me. But a college education is really a necessity now and you can't afford to wait for that price to go down.

Ah, the great Capitalist lie. If a lot of people can't buy something the price will have to go down. :rolleyes:

But it is true in the context of college. Especially when you consider that college is 90% useless, and a waste of time.

Also why is it that the left assumes that all corporations are greedy and exploit their customers; except for colleges? Colleges are some of the largest corporations out there.

Ah, the great Capitalist lie. If a lot of people can't buy something the price will have to go down. :rolleyes:

From your other posts, I can see you are in high school. I'm guessing you havn't taken economics yet? The law of demand. When there is less demand(whether people want it less, or cant afford it as much), price goes down. What do you have that can refute solid market economic theory?

Except this kind of thing won't happen right away. It could take years potentially screwing over some people who want to go to college but can't because they have to wait for the price to go down. I'm okay waiting to buy a plasma tv until the price goes down because its not really necessary to me. But a college education is really a necessity now and you can't afford to wait for that price to go down.

Depending on how big of a drop of students it is, the prices will lower more or less quickly.

Don't act like I'm detached, because I am a high school senior right now. I need scholarships, etc, to get into college. However, I will probably have to work, and take out loans, to supplement my college. I don't think the government should be taking away money from me for college(taxes), and then giving them back. I think the government should have scholarships, and if someone is willing and able to get these scholarships(through tests, etc), then they should be able to get into college with help.

1: No, no, and no. Seriously, there are a lot of people who need these programs, and I (along with my brother and dad) happen to be one of them.
And I need the money I earn. The government needs to stop hemorrhaging cash. Need means nothing to me in the face of complete financial destruction. The government is essentially lending money that it doesn't have, since it's probably safe to say we're running at something of a budget defecit at the moment. Would you reccommend one should go tooling around lending large sums of cash to strangers while he himself is in a staggering amount of debt? If not, why does a group of people gain that right?

2: Imagine kids not being able to go to college, because the only jobs they can get are minimum wage jobs. Imagine kids not even being able to attend school, because their parents are in such a position that they can't afford it.
First of all, the American public education system is not only staggeringly revisionist, but it's glorified babysitting. For example, it completely ignores the most intellectually productive times of our lives: sending us into groups to cut and paste construction paper whilst we're wasting away the years where learning is easiest for us. Cutting DoE education drastically wouldn't result in a 'humanitarian crisis' [although you're likely to cling to the idea regardless], so long as it was managed appropriately and the legislative framework necessary to support it were in place.

Also, if less people are going to college because they can't get loans or grants from the government, tuitions will go down. When tuitions go down, it will be easier to work and put yourself through college. I beleive there has been, in recent years, some degree of unfounded glorification to the institutions of higher education. On one hand, the Left loves to regale us with tales of the Glorious Working Man, and then in the next breath tell us that labor jobs are trash and that everyone deserves an education so as to avoid them. Seriously guys, I can point out a contradiction like this almost every time. It's really quite sad.

To bring us back to earth for a moment, I'd like to point out that in a lot of cases, attempting to educate certain people is just a waste of time. Anyone who's ever taught professionally will certainly attest to this. Granted, we all like to cling to the hope that there is potential for everyone. While I do believe this is the case, this potential cannot always be accessed by bombarding the mind with facts; and sometimes this potential has nothing to do with what you're trying to teach them anyway.

3: Watching your posts over the months, I have to congratulate you on your determination (granted, I'd do the same as you, but I'm in such a position that I have few options). However, I also have to say that you speak too soon for a lot of people who do need help from the government. It's almost as if you think they don't exist...
Apparently you haven't been watching them closely enough: I've lived in poverty. Granted, not for long, but its not like that lifestyle made me think I was entitled to a handout just because I needed one.

And it's not that I don't think they exist, it's that I don't give a shit. If I ever find yourself in your position, I'll work my way out or die trying. I do not "need" help from the Government, and I refuse to accept it when the option to refuse is granted to me [since I can't refuse to drive on roads].

Seriously, I can't believe you tried to use pity against me. If you've been watching my posts, then why did you think that would work?

And that, for the most part, is what's wrong with this country, and it's one of the reasons Bush was elected... Twice.
The people that elected Bush care all right. They just want to enforce a different version of morality on the populace than you. You want some sort of socialist morality, they want conservative Christian morality, for the most part. To enforce morality, you have to care about the people you are forcing it on. Me, I don’t want to force anything on anybody.

Fine, let me reiterate.

People may need it, we shouldn't give it to them. While there should be some rock bottom support, if you can't afford some type of shelter, food for yourself, and clothing, then there is probably something wrong with you(There are few exceptions, and if you want to bring them up, I will argue their importance, but it would be easier to not try to argue for the minority exceptions).

Oh, really?

Take my situation for example: In 1997 (when I was 9 and my brother was 12), my dad had a major heart attack in conjunction with Hepatitis. He was hospitalised for two weeks and three days in Penrose St. Vincent hospital in Colorado Springs, Colorado. His doctor recommended we go back to our house (where I still happen to be living) and see one of the doctors here. More problems.

He was diagnosed with chronic kidney failure and an enlarged heart (it was three times as big as it was supposed to be). One of his doctors recommended a bypass operation. It was done, and it made things worse. A few months passed, and another, better doctor recommended a kidney shutdown operation. Two days after that, the rings that stopped the blood supply to his left kidney (the problematic one) were being grafted into one of his arteries, causing severe pain. A week in the hospital, and the rings were taken out.

Finally, in 1999, a Nephrologist suggested that the kidney be taken out entirely. It was done in... September, I think. He no longer has the severe pains from the bad kidney, but only 30% of his right kidney is working, his heart's running at 70% on average, and the medication he takes causes water build-up in his legs, and since he can't exercise, he gets gout.

He hasn't been able to work since 1997. I haven't been able to get a real job, because if I did, we'd be dropped from medicare *and* our food stamps. You see, I'm not even a high school graduate yet, so I can only get extremely low-paying jobs.

My brother can't get a job, either, because his college's financial aid strictly forbids it (it's complete aid, because we don't have the money to pay for any of his education).

Now, if we didn't have these programs, my dad would've been dead, and me and my brother would've probably been put in a foster home.

Is that how you like it?

From your other posts, I can see you are in high school. I'm guessing you havn't taken economics yet? The law of demand. When there is less demand(whether people want it less, or cant afford it as much), price goes down. What do you have that can refute solid market economic theory?

I know about that, but it doesn't always happen that way. It does happen, but not quite the way most of you say it does.

There are many, many businesses and corporations that take advantage of such an opportunity to widen their profit margins. While I can't say that all universities would do that, I'm sure a few would.

The people that elected Bush care all right. They just want to enforce a different version of morality on the populace than you. You want some sort of socialist morality, they want conservative Christian morality, for the most part. To enforce morality, you have to care about the people you are forcing it on. Me, I don’t want to force anything on anybody.

Uh, no. See, unlike said republicans, I don't want to enforce anything on anyone. Period. I think we'd all be a lot better off without any ruling bodies whatsoever, but that's another topic of discussion for another thread.

Uh, no. See, unlike said republicans, I don't want to enforce anything on anyone. Period. I think we'd all be a lot better off without any ruling bodies whatsoever, but that's another topic of discussion for another thread.
Then how can you support income tax, one of the most intrusive government policies ever?

Take my situation for example...
Heh. Too bad you weren't talking to me ;)

Oh, really?

Take my situation for example: In 1997 (when I was 9 and my brother was 12), my dad had a major heart attack in conjunction with Hepatitis. He was hospitalised for two weeks and three days in Penrose St. Vincent hospital in Colorado Springs, Colorado. His doctor recommended we go back to our house (where I still happen to be living) and see one of the doctors here. More problems.

He was diagnosed with chronic kidney failure and an enlarged heart (it was three times as big as it was supposed to be). One of his doctors recommended a bypass operation. It was done, and it made things worse. A few months passed, and another, better doctor recommended a kidney shutdown operation. Two days after that, the rings that stopped the blood supply to his left kidney (the problematic one) were being grafted into one of his arteries, causing severe pain. A week in the hospital, and the rings were taken out.

Finally, in 1999, a Nephrologist suggested that the kidney be taken out entirely. It was done in... September, I think. He no longer has the severe pains from the bad kidney, but only 30% of his right kidney is working, his heart's running at 70% on average, and the medication he takes causes water build-up in his legs, and since he can't exercise, he gets gout.

He hasn't been able to work since 1997. I haven't been able to get a real job, because if I did, we'd be dropped from medicare *and* our food stamps. You see, I'm not even a high school graduate yet, so I can only get extremely low-paying jobs.

My brother can't get a job, either, because his college's financial aid strictly forbids it (it's complete aid, because we don't have the money to pay for any of his education).

Now, if we didn't have these programs, my dad would've been dead, and me and my brother would've probably been put in a foster home.

Is that how you like it?

And you decided to get into exceptions.

Yes, children can get into a situation where they need it. And I am fine with government money going to orphans, etc, but only as to prepare them for being kicked the hell out at 18.

You are helping my point. Your dad has serious problems with him, and so cant work. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that people who cant work should be supported by the government, if they cant support themselves. The exception is for people who look like they have a decent chance of recovering, and providing something to society, in the long run.

Is that how I like it? Like has nothing to do with it. But its how it should be.

Heh. Too bad you weren't talking to me ;)

Feel free to knock on any points I miss ;)

I know about that, but it doesn't always happen that way. It does happen, but not quite the way most of you say it does.

There are many, many businesses and corporations that take advantage of such an opportunity to widen their profit margins. While I can't say that all universities would do that, I'm sure a few would.

You still havn't refuted the point.

If a large number of people couldn't pay for college, even if it meant a higher profit margin, it would mean a smaller profit and revenue. And thats bad for companies. Its in a company's best interest to get the largest profit they can, not the largest margin.

Prices would go down. It would probably have an inelastic drop, I'll grant you that, but the prices would drop.

Cut:
-Subsidies
-Military Spending (you don't need self-defence all over the globe)
-Homeland Security (you know how much it costs to keep 3-year olds from flying because they happen to have the name of a petty thief?)

Boost:
-Health Care: Granted, Canada has longer waiting lists for high-end procedures, but as far as everyday GP services are concerned, the US suxorz.
-Education: Remember that story about Toyota leaving Louisianna and going to Canada because the workers in the US couldn't read?
-Emergency Service Response: Well, terrorism does happen, but it's a much more efficient use of your money to invest it in being able to respond well.

The US military gets so much money that shrinking it would not only balance the budget easily, it would give y'all a big tax cut too.

Depending on how big of a drop of students it is, the prices will lower more or less quickly.
So how many kids can afford to just start not going to college because they want the price to lower?

Don't act like I'm detached, because I am a high school senior right now. I need scholarships, etc, to get into college. However, I will probably have to work, and take out loans, to supplement my college. I don't think the government should be taking away money from me for college(taxes), and then giving them back. I think the government should have scholarships, and if someone is willing and able to get these scholarships(through tests, etc), then they should be able to get into college with help.
Where the hell was I acting like you were detached? All I am trying to say is that what your suggesting will not occur overnight and will have a direct effect on people.

Uh, no. See, unlike said republicans, I don't want to enforce anything on anyone. Period. I think we'd all be a lot better off without any ruling bodies whatsoever, but that's another topic of discussion for another thread.
While we're at it, I'd be better off with wings and a lightsaber; maybe the ability to manipulate time too. You know, since we're obviously talking about some other universe here.

"Ruling bodies," such as it is, cannot possibly be removed from the nature of human dealings. Also, by forcing your life upon mine [by making me pay for the programs on which you claim to depend on], you're contradicting yourself wonderfully here. Only a leftist could sound like a uber-authoritarian and a blissful anarchist in the same page.

So how many kids can afford to just start not going to college because they want the price to lower?


Where the hell was I acting like you were detached? All I am trying to say is that what your suggesting will not occur overnight and will have a direct effect on people.

Does it matter? If you cant afford something, tough shit. I, and most people, go through this every day. Its better for the nation, its better for us in the long run, to allow people to have more of their money, and utilize it how they want. The short run will hurt some peoples education, the long run will help our education, and our kids education.

I wasnt saying you called me detatched, but bringing your personal example was a sort of way implying it, because you "need" the government to help you. I'm in a similar position, and I am calling for this. Its smarter for the nation, and for us.

Only a leftist could sound like a uber-authoritarian and a blissful anarchist in the same page.
That kind of is what being "left" is all about.
And it does make internal sense if you would accept the initial assumptions and interpretations of the world.
You don't, and I don't accept yours.

And Pragmatism becomes such a wonderful alternative!

Does it matter? If you cant afford something, tough shit. I, and most people, go through this every day. Its better for the nation, its better for us in the long run, to allow people to have more of their money, and utilize it how they want. The short run will hurt some peoples education, the long run will help our education, and our kids education.

I think it depends on what you can't afford that we can use the phrase tough shit. Can't buy an expensive car, tough shit. Can't get the latest fashions, tough shit. Can't afford to buy food for your family and kids, not tough shit. Can't afford to pay for college education totally, not tough shit. In the long run your not only going to be creating a group of people without marketable skills to use thereby depriving the job market of employees but your not going to be helping education. How does people not being able to afford to get a college education and us saying tough shit help education in the long run?

That kind of is what being "left" is all about.
And it does make internal sense if you would accept the initial assumptions and interpretations of the world.
You don't, and I don't accept yours.

And Pragmatism becomes such a wonderful alternative!
Pragmatism has its good points [as do many philosophies, actually; most get bits and pieces right and fuck up the rest gloriously], but my main concern with it is that it holds that we should evaluate the morality of an action after its results are observed--while I agree to some extent with this Pragmatism seems to subtly indicate that we should ignore theory and focus primarily on that thery's effect, which all too often are radically different things. It's like throwing out half your puzzle pieces and then going crazy trying to solve it. When applied to Government dealings, this means the door's open for all sorts of people to make ridiculous appeals like "we still don't know wha tthe long term effects of this program are, so let's increase funding" and, given the way people seem to think, will result in endless "trial periods" for laws, and endless committees chaired to review the "practical" application of their own laws.

In short, I think it's one of the less contemptable philosophies to hold on a personal level, but a Pragmatist-dominated Government would be even more of a red tape circus than it already is.

I think it depends on what you can't afford that we can use the phrase tough shit. Can't buy an expensive car, tough shit. Can't get the latest fashions, tough shit. Can't afford to buy food for your family and kids, not tough shit. Can't afford to pay for college education totally, not tough shit. In the long run your not only going to be creating a group of people without marketable skills to use thereby depriving the job market of employees but your not going to be helping education. How does people not being able to afford to get a college education and us saying tough shit help education in the long run?

If you cant afford to feed your kids, you made a bad choice to have them, regardless of the situation, and they should be taken from you. If there are extentuating circumstances like a depression, etc, its understandable, but you should be able to feed your family at all times, even if you have to other things, etc. Few people get so poor they cant feed their family(looking at the poverty statistics in america).

As for college, its not a nessecity. If you are smart enough, you can make it in, you don't need the government. Government handouts are not the way to do it.

It helps us in the long run because:

A. People have to work harder to get into college. It makes them want it that much more, and try that much harder.

B. Not taxing people for college means people get more money to spend. Having more money to spend fuels the economy. The economy growing helps everyone(even if it helps some less, it still helps, especially in the long run).

...means the door's open for all sorts of people to make ridiculous appeals like "we still don't know wha tthe long term effects of this program are, so let's increase funding" and, given the way people seem to think, will result in endless "trial periods" for laws, and endless committees chaired to review the "practical" application of their own laws.
Personally I've become something of a fan of econometric cost-benefit analysis with regards to specific policies.
There's pretty good methods these days to estimate most of the important considerations, and then it's just a choice of spending X dollars/"other unit of benefit" to get Y dollars/"other unit of benefit".

In short, I think it's one of the less contemptable philosophies to hold on a personal level, but a Pragmatist-dominated Government would be even more of a red tape circus than it already is.
There has been one...fascist Italy. :p
By the way, one day we might have to talk about Fascism and Nazism, because the two have the interesting aspect that they kinda work by appealing to the non-rationality of the individual (and Germany came pretty close to winning out, so they must've been doing something right).

If you cant afford to feed your kids, you made a bad choice to have them, regardless of the situation, and they should be taken from you. If there are extentuating circumstances like a depression, etc, its understandable, but you should be able to feed your family at all times, even if you have to other things, etc. Few people get so poor they cant feed their family(looking at the poverty statistics in america).
It was an example to ilustrate a point. Do I think we have a responsibility to take care of these people constantly no. I just think we should have a safety net so that we don't just go tough shit to people right away.

As for college, its not a nessecity. If you are smart enough, you can make it in, you don't need the government. Government handouts are not the way to do it.
Wow you've got to be kidding me on this point. If you don't get a college degree you will be severly hard pressed to find a good job let alone advance up the job ladder. Also there are plenty of smart people who do need these programs. Its not a matter of intellegence its a matter of economics. Sadly not everyone is rich and can't afford college on their own. They need scholarships/loans/grants to provide them with the opportunity to get an education to advance in life. Hell if we don't need them and only need to be smart enough I suppose you should be fine without them and I shouldn't be paying for you should I?

It helps us in the long run because:

A. People have to work harder to get into college. It makes them want it that much more, and try that much harder.
How much harder can they work? Get two jobs while going to highschool? Have their parents take out loans and go into debt for them? I mean this isn't an issue of a person studying hard to get into school. This is an issue of having the financial means to afford college.

B. Not taxing people for college means people get more money to spend. Having more money to spend fuels the economy. The economy growing helps everyone(even if it helps some less, it still helps, especially in the long run).
The problem with this is that sure there people will be spending more money but for only a while. Eventually there will be a group of people lacking jobskills and virtually unemployable for anything but the low level jobs. How are you going to spend money when you can't even get a job because you don't have a college degree.

Personally I've become something of a fan of econometric cost-benefit analysis with regards to specific policies.
There's pretty good methods these days to estimate most of the important considerations, and then it's just a choice of spending X dollars/"other unit of benefit" to get Y dollars/"other unit of benefit".
I want to minor in Econ but I'm not so certain about the math involved. I'm terrible at it. Still, my point stands: while many evaluative practices may in fact, turn out to be quite informative, it does nothing to terminate the possibility of endless [and costly!] "evaluative practices."

There has been one...fascist Italy. :p
By the way, one day we might have to talk about Fascism and Nazism, because the two have the interesting aspect that they kinda work by appealing to the non-rationality of the individual (and Germany came pretty close to winning out, so they must've been doing something right).
Fair enough, but people will start throwing things at me when I hold that Kant and Hegel [especially the first] were the ones that laid the "moral" framework for Fascism down in the first place.

It was an example to ilustrate a point. Do I think we have a responsibility to take care of these people constantly no. I just think we should have a safety net so that we don't just go tough shit to people right away.


Wow you've got to be kidding me on this point. If you don't get a college degree you will be severly hard pressed to find a good job let alone advance up the job ladder. Also there are plenty of smart people who do need these programs. Its not a matter of intellegence its a matter of economics. Sadly not everyone is rich and can't afford college on their own. They need scholarships/loans/grants to provide them with the opportunity to get an education to advance in life. Hell if we don't need them and only need to be smart enough I suppose you should be fine without them and I shouldn't be paying for you should I?


How much harder can they work? Get two jobs while going to highschool? Have their parents take out loans and go into debt for them? I mean this isn't an issue of a person studying hard to get into school. This is an issue of having the financial means to afford college.


The problem with this is that sure there people will be spending more money but for only a while. Eventually there will be a group of people lacking jobskills and virtually unemployable for anything but the low level jobs. How are you going to spend money when you can't even get a job because you don't have a college degree.

I can agree with safety nets, but not to the point where they are relied on.

With scholarships, and inventive solutions, any determined, intelligent person should be able to make their way. As for my situation, I will do well enough with private scholarships, if government ones arent available, though I support merit-based government ones.

As a caveat to my last paragraph, if it got to a point where so many people couldn't afford college, both college prices would go down, and you would start seeing the private sector investing in education, as they know its good for them in the long run, especially giving loans to people to do good in school and work for them after, etc.

Student loans and working a job should get you enough money to go to at least a CSU/Not californian equivilent, especially if you either have scholarships of some sort.

Jobs wont go away. They will be filled with less qualified people for a short amount of time, though education will grow in the long run, and them more qualified people will come out of that better education, and then we will all be doing better with a wealthier nation.

Very dumb move.

You people who are saying that if tuition funding goes down it will result in lower tuitions aren't actually looking at the economics.

Tuitions are the way they are now in order to pay for the various fixed costs associated with providing an education .. ergo, your professor's wages.

If they cut tuition to bring student enrollment levels back up to where they were before, they're still losing money. (Same number of students x less dollars/student = less money). Unlike other businesses that can make things like that up on volume, colleges can't, because most colleges/universities are operating at close to max capacity already, so to get more volume requires more professors and more class space. Building class space is expensive, and professors aren't cheap either. (Take a look at the demographics.. we're already going to be running into a severe educator shortage in the next decade or so. Expect tuitions to sky-rocket.)

So what *will* be cut are the wages being paid to professors, or, more likely, simply the number of professors. In either case, you're essentially jettisoning your most educated people. As these people probably aren't that unintelligent themselves, they'll pick up and move to a country that values them more. I'm sure those other countries won't mind at all having these minds work for them. Especially up here in Canada where we're starting to become particularly aggressive with promoting, fostering, and helping people to commercialize the innovations they come up with in our public post-secondary institutions.

And that's just on the college side.

For society as a whole, education is probably the single best investment a society can make. People with a better education are more likely to work more and hence require gov't income assistance less as well as being less likely to turn to criminal activity. They're more likely to get paid more and hence provide a larger amount to the tax rolls. They're more likely to have more money and thus also more likely to start a successful small business themselves (as most entrepreneurs use primarily their own savings and credit to start their firms), as a side benefit they're also more likely to take better care of themselves (go figure, more money means more time & less stress, which means happier people, which means less chance of ignoring physical ailments) which means less strain put on the health system, which in turn means lower insurance rates for the rest of us, etc. And to top all that off, it's a virtuous cycle. The most likely predictor of whether a person will undertake a post-secondary education is whether either or both of their parents have gone.

Someone said that corporations are likely to take up the slack. This is of course hogwash. What corporations are most likely to do is move to a country where there's no such slack to be taken up.

So, let's look at the net result of cutting back these subsidies.
Fewer students.
Fewer professors.
Fewer successful start-ups.
Fewer corporations.
More unemployment.
More crime.
More illness.
Higher insurance rates.
Lower doctor availability. (both through more use and less graduates)
Less innovation.

On the bright side, this will likely solve the military's recruitment problems.

Then again, maybe that's the whole point.

Well, it was obvious they were going to have to cut something, and Bush would be damned if anyone rich had to suffer. After all, which is more important? People born disadvantaged being given a chance to succeed in life, or the rich buisnessman getting $500,000 a year instead of $300,000? Don't you know how much he needs that money? SUVs don't drive themselves you know! Not to mention working behind an office desk is 20x harder work than the same amount of time on a factory production line.

The national debt and the budget deficit are not the same thing.. I thought I'd mention it. Bush is in the process of balancing the budget.. where he cuts the fat is another issue..
Bush in the process of doing just about everything. I wonder when he's going to finish any of it?

House Republicans voted to cut student loan subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices as various committees scrambled to piece together $50 billion in budget cuts.

More politically difficult votes — to cut Medicaid, food stamps and farm subsidies — are on tap Thursday as more panels weigh in on the bill. It was originally intended to cut $35 billion in spending over five years, but after pressure from conservatives, GOP leaders directed committees to cut another $15 billion to help pay the cost of hurricane recovery.

President Bush met with House and Senate GOP leaders and said he was pleased with the progress.
I thought Tom DeLay said there was no more fat to trim off? I guess it's only fat rather than meat when you're helping people who actually need the help.

Balancing the budget is all well and good, but it doesn't make sense to cut programs that people desperately need before cutting the ones they need less, like transportation pork.

/snip

Imagine kids actually working their way through college! What a concept!
/snip


Right.... cause how many part time jobs do you know can give you $10,000 year and require only a high school diploma?

Does it matter? If you cant afford something, tough shit. I, and most people, go through this every day. Its better for the nation, its better for us in the long run, to allow people to have more of their money, and utilize it how they want. The short run will hurt some peoples education, the long run will help our education, and our kids education.

I wasnt saying you called me detatched, but bringing your personal example was a sort of way implying it, because you "need" the government to help you. I'm in a similar position, and I am calling for this. Its smarter for the nation, and for us.
I don't understand why you care about the nation, or "us." I don't get your definition of "us." Yes, it is a common fault that social support programs go too far and can be exploited/corrupted, but their original purpose is to carry out the basic functions of society -- if society is understood as a large group of unrelated people inhabiting a territory, making combined/shared use of the territory's resources, and working together (by this or that means, varying according to the society) to make that use/exploitation possible for all members.

To me, it seems there must be a basic assumption that, if you qualify as a member of a society, then you automatically have the right to participate in using/exploiting its resources. That's what social support programs are for.

If you argue that there is no automatic right to access society's resources, but rather you have to earn that right by dint of having money (so that, if you don't have money, you have no right to ask for help from those who do), then what is the use of society, and by extension, what is the use of a nation, and who is this "us" that you say is being helped by cutting programs?

You seem to be describing an "every man for himself" situation, and if so, then I wonder why you wouldn't want to live by yourself on a private island anyway.

Chellis, have you ever been forced to decide between the priorities of feeding yourself, clothing yourself, housing yourself, getting medical help for yourself and educating yourself?

Somehow, I doubt it.

A society in which access to the basic necessities of life is denied to some merely because their income cannot support those basic necessities is a broken and unstable society. In such a society, you can expect to see "class warfare", and if it gets bad enough, possibly even revolution.

Besides, there's no question that we in the US can afford to provide such help to our own people. We just need to spend a little less on pork and ill-conceived military adventures.

When you or a family member has to consider going without critical medical care because you have to look out for your future ability to feed and house yourself, or have to eat cat food in order to stay under a roof and get your medical care, then maybe it makes sense for you to argue for cuts in social welfare programs. After all, you'd've had some experience with the issues.

If you cant afford to feed your kids, you made a bad choice to have them, regardless of the situation, and they should be taken from you. If there are extentuating circumstances like a depression, etc, its understandable, but you should be able to feed your family at all times, even if you have to other things, etc. Few people get so poor they cant feed their family(looking at the poverty statistics in america).

As for college, its not a nessecity. If you are smart enough, you can make it in, you don't need the government. Government handouts are not the way to do it.

It helps us in the long run because:

A. People have to work harder to get into college. It makes them want it that much more, and try that much harder.

B. Not taxing people for college means people get more money to spend. Having more money to spend fuels the economy. The economy growing helps everyone(even if it helps some less, it still helps, especially in the long run).
You're describing a society that has social support systems (otherwise who would be taking away poor people's children) but closes them to the poor. So who is using these systems then, the rich? Why do they need them if they get to keep all their money without being taxed? And if they don't pay taxes, then how would we have these systems? Are they fictional, just so you'll be able to tell the poor they can't have something?

Your entire vision is nonsensical because it is internally inconsistent. It sounds to me like you're just trying to justify keeping social privileges to yourself while denying them to others. That's not a social vision of self-sufficiency. It's just personal selfishness.

Right.... cause how many part time jobs do you know can give you $10,000 year and require only a high school diploma?
Lets say you make $6 an hour--contrary to poular belief most major employers do not pay minimum wage. For the most part, minimum wage is reserved for smaller businesses with very little overhead, although there are exceptions. For low-skilled jobs, the median wage is likely to be closer to $6 than $5.35 or whatever the minimum wage is.

If you work 40 hours a week, you'll net about $200 a week [hopefully] after taxes. This comes out to $10,400 per annum, not counting any bonuses you might get for working there for a certain amount of time. Most crappy jobs with low pay have incentives to stay because rehire costs are actually fairly substantial in most businesses. It's cheaper to pay a good employee an extra $.10 or $.15 an hour every few months than it is to shell out the rehire costs for another employee, who's likely to damage your productivity slightly while he learns the ropes. Ever work in a McDonalds with someone who's never had any foodservice training?

But I am forced to ask... why did you specify [i]part time jobs? Who in their right mind would only work part time to pay for tuition? If you're not in High School and you're not in college, then what the fuck are you doing with the rest of your week if you're only going to work part time?

Also, private loans will and should still exist. It's not like the Feds are your only ticket into college if you're from a poor family.

Finally, if you work full time, your tax return alone will be comparable to a good chunk of tuition, depending on your living conditions. Since it's generally more expensive to live on campus and get a meal plan, one could probably pay rent on his own place in the meantime too; unless you live in New York you should be able to save some cash and pay rent at the same time.

Then how can you support income tax, one of the most intrusive government policies ever?

Because, in this rather shitty system we happen to live in, it's necessary.

The Federal government can afford to grant loans to poor students at interest rates that would deter most private loan granters. The reason that's important is that more and more college students these days are graduating with such debt, they work for years and years without contributing to the capital market: they're paying off their debts and don't have the money left over to be making investments.

And you decided to get into exceptions.

Yes, children can get into a situation where they need it. And I am fine with government money going to orphans, etc, but only as to prepare them for being kicked the hell out at 18.

You are helping my point. Your dad has serious problems with him, and so cant work. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that people who cant work should be supported by the government, if they cant support themselves. The exception is for people who look like they have a decent chance of recovering, and providing something to society, in the long run.

Is that how I like it? Like has nothing to do with it. But its how it should be.

1: Well, of course. Why anybody would even want to stay in an orphanage past that age is beyond me.

2: Ah, so in so many words, "just fuck 'em", eh?

Nah, "Like" definitely has something to do with it. I sense some sort of twisted perversion here.

Chellis and all you other laissez-faire capitalists, pick up a book on Victorian London. Personally I reccomend The Victorian Underworld by Kellow Chesney.

Yeah, tha Laissez-faire really works to benefit the poor. And the workhouse (which is what you are proposing in essence) was great too, people starved rather than go in, what does that tell you?

Probably says it's the perfect system really.

Chellis and all you other laissez-faire capitalists, pick up a book on Victorian London. Personally I reccomend The Victorian Underworld by Kellow Chesney.

Yeah, tha Laissez-faire really works to benefit the poor. And the workhouse (which is what you are proposing in essence) was great too, people starved rather than go in, what does that tell you?

Probably says it's the perfect system really.
And when did any of us claim to be operating within the best interests of the poor? For all the not contributing they do for the rest of us, some people sure do seem hell-bent on keeping them around; even if the vast majority of them are massive economic liabilities.

Chellis and all you other laissez-faire capitalists, pick up a book on Victorian London. Personally I reccomend The Victorian Underworld by Kellow Chesney.

Yeah, tha Laissez-faire really works to benefit the poor. And the workhouse (which is what you are proposing in essence) was great too, people starved rather than go in, what does that tell you?

Probably says it's the perfect system really.

Yeah, and don't forget the guilded age, where nine-year-old children had to work in coal mines for thirty-plus years to support their families. Capitalism over all!

And when did any of us claim to be operating within the best interests of the poor? For all the not contributing they do for the rest of us, some people sure do seem hell-bent on keeping them around; even if the vast majority of them are massive economic liabilities.

So, you're better off having them dead?

Ah, that old scheme. "If you can't support yourself, then the only right you should have is the right to starve."

That'd be great, if it weren't for the fact that a society that works like that encounters various serious problems, such as the stage being set for violent uprisings. Also, you'd have monetary problems, even though your fiscal problems would be reduced. You'd have difficulty competing in the international economy, assuming other nations would still see fit to trade with you, if you so abused your population.

It's the job of those who have to help those who have not, whether by one means or another. Why else do we form cooperative societies? Why else are we neurologically hard-wired to do so?

Yeah, and don't forget the guilded age, where nine-year-old children had to work in coal mines for thirty-plus years to support their families. Capitalism over all!
And this age--where immigrants can come over here, have a giant brood of children and expect me to pay for them is any better? Slavery has existed in some form in nearly every political/economic system enacted by our patently irrational and ill-mannered politicians.

Besides, if you get to call the Industrial Age "Pure Capitalism" I get to call the Soviet Union Communist. Both of these systems have comparable differences to their supposed ideological leanings.

And this age--where immigrants can come over here, have a giant brood of children and expect me to pay for them is any better? Slavery has existed in some form in nearly every political/economic system enacted by our patently irrational and ill-mannered politicians.

Besides, if you get to call the Industrial Age "Pure Capitalism" I get to call the Soviet Union Communist. Both of these systems have comparable differences to their supposed ideological leanings.

1: You're paying for them? Good! They need all the help they can get.

2: Heh, this again? Not once did I call it Pure Capitalism. It's the closest our country's been to Pure Capitalism, and it wasn't pretty. Not at all.

Go ahead and call the Soviets "Communist". I'll just be laughing all the same.

So, you're better off having them dead?
Me, personally? Oh certainly. Does that mean I should make a decision to kill all poor people? Not quite. It does mean, however, that the people who are interested in helping them can and should get off their goddamn asses and help them with their own fucking time and money not mine.

Still, it'd be nice to see you try and answer a point for a change. I asked a question which you answered with another question; that's not how Q&A works. Instead of telling me why its worth it to keep 35 million people eating out of my pocket, you respond with this emotionalist query.

Keep up the good work.

The "unemployed immigrant child-factory" is one of the big myths these days. A ton of the people on welfare are the native-born poor. Most immigrants, as it happens, work their asses off. So do most poor people - at least, the ones I've had the honor to know.

How many immigrants do you know, by chance? Or poor people?

Ah, that old scheme. "If you can't support yourself, then the only right you should have is the right to starve."

That'd be great, if it weren't for the fact that a society that works like that encounters various serious problems, such as the stage being set for violent uprisings. Also, you'd have monetary problems, even though your fiscal problems would be reduced. You'd have difficulty competing in the international economy, assuming other nations would still see fit to trade with you, if you so abused your population.

It's the job of those who have to help those who have not, whether by one means or another. Why else do we form cooperative societies? Why else are we neurologically hard-wired to do so?
We're not neurologically hard-wired to "form cooperative societies:" if we were, there would be little or no opposition to any wealth distribution programs or what-have you. We are neurologically hard-wired to act within our own best interests, which is why society got started in the first place. People started to realize that by hanging out with other people, they were less likely to be eaten by mountain lions or ambushed by another tribe. Societies formed not based on a biological need for 'cooperation,' but on a biological need for mutual protection, survival, and the furtherance of the self's best interest [i.e. wanting to live].

The "unemployed immigrant child-factory" is one of the big myths these days. A ton of the people on welfare are the native-born poor. Most immigrants, as it happens, work their asses off.

How many immigrants do you know, by chance?

I'd like to ask this as well. Every single immigrant I've seen (and I've seen lots --- I lives in the Rio Grande valley) has been a very hard worker. And you know what? They work their fucking asses off, and they're still dirt poor.

So much for hard work.

The "unemployed immigrant child-factory" is one of the big myths these days. A ton of the people on welfare are the native-born poor. Most immigrants, as it happens, work their asses off.

How many immigrants do you know, by chance?
This makes precisely no difference to me; if you'd prefer I can edit it to say "a poor person can drop a brood of babies and they'd expect me to pay for them," the immigration part is certainly not integral to the point I was trying to make [and you obviously missed].

Seriously, I would like, for once, to have my actual points answered. All you two seem to be doing is asking me vaguely related questions or nitpicking my examples. Here's a hint: when I use an example, it serves primarily to illustrate a point. It is not difficult to understand what that point is by looking at the example. Sometimes, they're not completely accurate, as I think these things up on the fly. Still, it's not that hard to make the leap.

Me, personally? Oh certainly. Does that mean I should make a decision to kill all poor people? Not quite. It does mean, however, that the people who are interested in helping them can and should get off their goddamn asses and help them with their own fucking time and money not mine.

Still, it'd be nice to see you try and answer a point for a change. I asked a question which you answered with another question; that's not how Q&A works. Instead of telling me why its worth it to keep 35 million people eating out of my pocket, you respond with this emotionalist query.

Keep up the good work.

1: Well, keep hoping, because it's not gonna happen. Tax, tax, tax!

2: What it's worth? It helps keep them from dying. So many people can't work, and you fail to acknowledge this. 200,000,000 people paying a relatively small sum to 35,000,000 helps a lot, whether it's with food, healthcare, education, or all of the above. If they're not starving in some alley, that's better than nothing.

We're not neurologically hard-wired to "form cooperative societies:" if we were, there would be little or no opposition to any wealth distribution programs or what-have you. We are neurologically hard-wired to act within our own best interests, which is why society got started in the first place. People started to realize that by hanging out with other people, they were less likely to be eaten by mountain lions or ambushed by another tribe. Societies formed not based on a biological need for 'cooperation,' but on a biological need for mutual protection, survival, and the furtherance of the self's best interest [i.e. wanting to live].
I think you have a bit of psychology reading to do. There's bodies of research whose conclusions do imply the reason we're more social than, say, deer, has a bit more basis than just that we consciously realize it's best for us. We don't do well in isolation. People raised in isolation, in fact, have significant neurological deficits mirrored by strong structural differences in their brains as compared to your average fellow who grew up in a society.

We need the contact of our fellow humans, we crave it, and we become crazed without it.

Besides, you didn't address the rest of my post, which suggested some of the costs of cutting social spending to nil.

This makes precisely no difference to me; if you'd prefer I can edit it to say "a poor person can drop a brood of babies and they'd expect me to pay for them," the immigration part is certainly not integral to the point I was trying to make [and you obviously missed].

Seriously, I would like, for once, to have my actual points answered. All you two seem to be doing is asking me vaguely related questions or nitpicking my examples. Here's a hint: when I use an example, it serves primarily to illustrate a point. It is not difficult to understand what that point is by looking at the example. Sometimes, they're not completely accurate, as I think these things up on the fly. Still, it's not that hard to make the leap.

1: True, but it did have an overly-nationalistic tone to it.

2: This again? Seems like any time somebody makes a reasonable point you can't refute, they must not be answering your questions!

1: Well, keep hoping, because it's not gonna happen. Tax, tax, tax!
Actually, I'd be willing to bet that Libertarianism will be a mainstream political philosophy within my lifetime. I think the current budget situation will more or less force it to happen.

You keep thinking that though.

2: What it's worth? It helps keep them from dying. So many people can't work, and you fail to acknowledge this. 200,000,000 people paying a relatively small sum to 35,000,000 helps a lot, whether it's with food, healthcare, education, or all of the above. If they're not starving in some alley, that's better than nothing.
I must have missed that day in school where they taught us that two wrongs make a right.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that Libertarianism will be a mainstream political philosophy within my lifetime. I think the current budget situation will more or less force it to happen.

You keep thinking that though.


I must have missed that day in school where they taught us that two wrongs make a right.

1: Possibly. It's not out of the realm of probability.

2: Heh, look at what happens when somebody doesn't have a good argument.

Consider this.

Some guy is married, has kids in private school, he works hard, and he and his wife bring in several hundred thousand dollars a year. Then one day he gets into an accident and his spinal cord is badly damaged, leaving him dying slowly in excruciating pain. The procedures to keep him alive will cost him most of his money and will leave him paralyzed below the waist. Needless to say, he can't work for months. His wife's salary isn't enough to support him, herself and their children, given the extraordinary costs of health care.

Should he be left to die, or alternately, should his children be left to go hungry and unschooled? Defend your answer.

I'm offering this to everyone, by the way, not just to those who oppose social services.

Consider this.

Some guy is married, has kids in private school, he works hard, and he and his wife bring in several hundred thousand dollars a year. Then one day he gets into an accident and his spinal cord is badly damaged, leaving him dying slowly in excruciating pain. The procedures to keep him alive will cost him most of his money and will leave him paralyzed below the waist. Needless to say, he can't work for months. His wife's salary isn't enough to support him, herself and their children, given the extraordinary costs of health care.

Should he be left to die, or alternately, should his children be left to go hungry and unschooled? Defend your answer.

I'm offering this to everyone, by the way, not just to those who oppose social services.

Watch out for the "strawman, RAWR! ANSWERZ MAH ARGOOMENTZ!!" comment.

Watch out for the "strawman, RAWR! ANSWERZ MAH ARGOOMENTZ!!" comment.
Hm? This stands independent of the previous argument. I just want people to defend their positions.

Hm? This stands independent of the previous argument. I just want people to defend their positions.

I know, but my warning still goes.

I'm all for supporting the banged-up dude (yeah, injured guy sounds more intelligent, but surfer-speak is funnier), anyway.

Consider this.

Some guy is married, has kids in private school, he works hard, and he and his wife bring in several hundred thousand dollars a year. Then one day he gets into an accident and his spinal cord is badly damaged, leaving him dying slowly in excruciating pain. The procedures to keep him alive will cost him most of his money and will leave him paralyzed below the waist. Needless to say, he can't work for months. His wife's salary isn't enough to support him, herself and their children, given the extraordinary costs of health care.

Should he be left to die, or alternately, should his children be left to go hungry and unschooled? Defend your answer.

I'm offering this to everyone, by the way, not just to those who oppose social services.

Here we go again with the "What if $EVENT happens under $CIRCUMSTANCE" arguments. I've said this many time on the forum and before I die I'll say it many more times: emergencies being, by definition, emergencies and not the normal state of things, are not the appropriate place on which to base your metaphysics; and certainly not your morals.

This is a mutation of a common query from the Left, who ask us things like you just did or, alternatively, questions like "should you help a drowning man," "what do you do if you're in a lifeboat with another person but the lifeboat only holds one?" and so forth. Interestingly, these questions thrust morality at us in black-and-white terms, which I favor in principle but the rest of you seem to depise. In spite of this, moral subjectivists seem to be clinging onto some sort of 'gray' presence in the middle. If I had a dollar for every time I'd been asked, incredulously, "You surely don't think in terms of black and white do you!?" I'd be rich.

However, being that accidents like this generally don't happen to huge chunks of the population, I'd be better off putting food on my own table: what happens to a paralyzed guy next door or across the state isn't any of my concern. If it happened to me, likewise, I wouldn't expect it to be my neighbor's concern either, unless he wanted it to be. I plan on sorting out my own problems, and if later down the road that includes paralysis then so be it. I'm used to challenges.

And before you claim I didn't answer your point, take the time to reread the above paragraph. Slower this time.

To many kids in high school this is seen as a cantankerous action, and to people who already have jobs some of them see this as redoubtable it seems to me. How many are in favor of this and aren't

Too bad they can't cut ALL the programs in the budget, preferrably to 0% (except defense, which should be reduced to about 1-5% of what it is now).

Too bad they can't cut ALL the programs in the budget, preferrably to 0% (except defense, which should be reduced to about 1-5% of what it is now).

so do you not care for education?

Consider this.

Some guy is married, has kids in private school, he works hard, and he and his wife bring in several hundred thousand dollars a year. Then one day he gets into an accident and his spinal cord is badly damaged, leaving him dying slowly in excruciating pain. The procedures to keep him alive will cost him most of his money and will leave him paralyzed below the waist. Needless to say, he can't work for months. His wife's salary isn't enough to support him, herself and their children, given the extraordinary costs of health care.

Should he be left to die, or alternately, should his children be left to go hungry and unschooled? Defend your answer.

I'm offering this to everyone, by the way, not just to those who oppose social services.

Same thing as now; except that when he sells his structured settlement for an undervalue lump sum payment and invests it in his cousins pizza scheme, there won't be welfare for the fool.

Original Post of the Topic Which is way too long, so I edited it down.

All I can say is that it's about time that they actually start to try to balance the budget with the tax cuts. Unfortunately it's probably four years too late. Of course I wish some things that are to be cut could be, while things that are to not be cut could be. Things like the bridges in Alaska, which don't seem to be as important as some of the things on the list to be cut are. But thus is life, there will always be even the smallest problem in certain issues with everybody.

Even if this does go through, I still doubt that it will continue with the way things are.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that Libertarianism will be a mainstream political philosophy within my lifetime. I think the current budget situation will more or less force it to happen.

Well it depends on the definition of Libertarianism you mean, if you mean fully Libertarianism, then that is highly doubtful. Balanced budgets are one thing, but there will probably never be a mainstream party that actually runs the government with the philosophy a good percentage less. And it isn't the left's fault either, every side has a key contribution to keep things like spending somewhat around the percentages they are now.

While im not going to quote old ass posts, I will make this point, which seems to be generally needed.

Emotional arguments are pointless. Just because I've never been poor, doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed an opinion. If we only allowed people who needed help to vote to get it, what the hell do you think would always win, even if it seemed pointless to a vast majority?

On the other edge, I'm not going to switch my position because someone is in some accident, or children are starving, etc. Shit happens. Its unfortunate, but it happens. Instead of sustainance for them, I'd prefer advancement for the rest of us, which in the long run will help all of us.

While im not going to quote old ass posts, I will make this point, which seems to be generally needed.

Emotional arguments are pointless. Just because I've never been poor, doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed an opinion. If we only allowed people who needed help to vote to get it, what the hell do you think would always win, even if it seemed pointless to a vast majority?

On the other edge, I'm not going to switch my position because someone is in some accident, or children are starving, etc. Shit happens. Its unfortunate, but it happens. Instead of sustainance for them, I'd prefer advancement for the rest of us, which in the long run will help all of us.
Of course you're allowed your opinion. And others are allowed to pick it apart if they can and want to. Shit happens, right? That includes the unpleasant experience of people arguing with you. Don't pretend that, by saying the poor can go to hell, you're not acting like a bastard. There's no law against being a bastard, so go ahead and be one. Embrace it, own it, and accept the fact that others are going to get pissed off at you. If you don't care about the suffering of others, why should you care about the anger of others?

LIf you work 40 hours a week, you'll net about $200 a week [hopefully] after taxes. This comes out to $10,400 per annum, not counting any bonuses you might get for working there for a certain amount of time. Most crappy jobs with low pay have incentives to stay because rehire costs are actually fairly substantial in most businesses. It's cheaper to pay a good employee an extra $.10 or $.15 an hour every few months than it is to shell out the rehire costs for another employee, who's likely to damage your productivity slightly while he learns the ropes. Ever work in a McDonalds with someone who's never had any foodservice training?

But I am forced to ask... why did you specify [i]part time jobs? Who in their right mind would only work part time to pay for tuition? If you're not in High School and you're not in college, then what the fuck are you doing with the rest of your week if you're only going to work part time?

Why did I specify part time jobs? Quite simply by counting up hours: Basic college load (at least what I was taking) is about 4 hours a day, study is easily another 3 tending toward 4 if I wanted an A, and you want another 8 hours a day for work? Let's see, 8 for sleep, 8 for work and 7 for school... that's 23 (not counting commute or eating). Doable, but not a good way to keep mental health. That is wanting to finish in 4 years, if you go part time it is doable, but that would mean going about 7-8 years.


Finally, if you work full time, your tax return alone will be comparable to a good chunk of tuition, depending on your living conditions. Since it's generally more expensive to live on campus and get a meal plan, one could probably pay rent on his own place in the meantime too; unless you live in New York you should be able to save some cash and pay rent at the same time.

But where is this money for rent coming from? The $10,000 was just for classes at a non private school and $20,000-$25,000 at a private one. (I forgot the living expenses which bumps it up to another $6,000 easily on campus or 8 months times $500 a month rent for an apartment in a small Michigan city or Minnesota city (as low as I've seen there) plus $50/weeek food ($3.33 a meal) for about 40 weeks, or about $6,000 for off campus living)

If you think any of my estimations are wrong, tell me, but they come from personal experience.

Dear poor people of America,

Sorry but we have to screw ALL of you in order to pay for the poor people in Mississipi and Louisiana. We'd screw rich people too, but - you see - they.... vote.

And we know you are going to hate us for screwing you.... again. But, you see, the fact is that... you don't vote.

Yes, we've been spending money like drunken sailors lavishing gifts on business buddies and making rich people richer for years now. And I suppose if we hadn;t then we might not have to screw you over to pay for this stuff because we'd have had the room in the budget to do it.

But we didn't. And, when it comes right down to it the thing is that .... you don't vote.

Besides, don't blame us for being fiscally irresponsible idiots. And don't blame us for taking it out on you.

No, blame the poor folks in Louisiana and Mississipi for getting creamed by a hurricane. It's their fault. And God's for creating the damn weather in the first place!

Thanks for listening. Sorry again, but that's what happens when you .... don't vote.

Sincerely,
The government.

Stuff

We're talking past each other here. I was talking about working, saving one's money, and going to school once the money is procured. You're talking about working while attending school which is a slightly different situation.

So they're cutting student loans, medicaid, and food stamps?
Looks like the Bush admin want you to be dumb, sick and hungry.

So much for compassionate conservatism.

so do you not care for education?

Government meddling in education has done nothing but severely diminish the quality of it. Therefore, the abolition of the Department of Education, the cutting off of all federal funds for education, and the complete privatization of education are essential.

Government meddling in education has done nothing but severely diminish the quality of it. Therefore, the abolition of the Department of Education, the cutting off of all federal funds for education, and the complete privatization of education are essential.

Education is an ornament in prosperity and a refuge in adversity, and you degrade its penultimate potentials. It's essential for people to have education, because it constitutes more jobs too.