CDZ The Jobs Ain't Coming Back

[Correll]

1. Unexplained and unsupported.

2. Agreed. What do you propose?

3. Unexplained and unsupported. What of past stimulus packages, means that we can't renegotiate bad trades deals, and thus see an increase in manufacturing jobs?

2) The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

If students are being turned into debt slaves, how is it that the govt is paying for their education?

In many ways.

The money streams from the governments to the colleges range from student loans, to research grants, to student aid, to direct funding, to numerous paths I'm sure don't even know about.

The ways that this stream of money gets and keeps students in college but does NOT result in usable skills and/or complete coverage of expenses are just as numerous.

The bias of regulation towards ever higher levels of certification, with little regard for expense is also a way the government contributes to the problem.

I'm pretty sure student loans have to be paid back and a lot of that is to private corporate lenders. Funding for research is not paying for kids to go to college at all, it is for research, and the govt is funding less and less of that over time than they used to. Ask any serious researcher who has to write grants for funding, it's seriously drying/dried up. I left a neuroscience drug discovery program at a major world renowned biomedical research university last April after 8 years there. They had partnerships with three major pharmaceutical companies and the Michael J Fox Foundation to fund their research. This is common. The big pharma industry has outsourced a lot of their early drug discovery efforts to university settings up to the drug development stage at which they then license the compound or molecule. I'm not sure how you came by the impression you have.

It's kind of difficult for me to figure out how we're supposed to be globally competitive with other advanced nations and societies that invest in their own societies when we won't. Other societies we would sneer "socialist" at make sure a college education is available to all. Other societies make sure health care is available to all. Because they hate our brand of predatory capitalism? Or perhaps because they understand that to be globally competitive they need an educated healthy population?

And how are our employers supposed to be globally competitive with foreign employers who don't have the healthcare costs of their workforce to contend with? And with much better healthcare outcomes for less cost?

1. Well over 17% of borrowers are in default.

2. Funding for research is money going into the university system.

3. My understanding is that most other advanced nations severely limit college education though tracking. That's way you get so much pressure for their version of SAT tests in Japan and South Korea for example, because their entire life will be determined by that one test, and the government standards/rules for college admissions.

4. NOT by funding degrees that should not be college degrees, nor by graduating large numbers of lawyers and social workers and art majors.

1. so what's your point?

2. where do you want research finding to go? I told you, a lot of that now is private corporate funding

3. germany for example does not.

4. private loans are business, they go where a lender sees a profit. universities are not tech schools.

1. The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

2. I want more accountability from universities on the ever increasing expense of education. And to find ways to stop or reverse it.

3. Germany has recently detracked. I'm still not aware that other nations have higher percentages of college admissions.

4. Sure, lenders go where they see a profit. That they managed to squeeze out a profit from the students they lend money to does not mean that having more lawyers or social workers is really helping the US compete.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I'm pretty sure student loans have to be paid back and a lot of that is to private corporate lenders. Funding for research is not paying for kids to go to college at all, it is for research, and the govt is funding less and less of that over time than they used to. Ask any serious researcher who has to write grants for funding, it's seriously drying/dried up. I left a neuroscience drug discovery program at a major world renowned biomedical research university last April after 8 years there. They had partnerships with three major pharmaceutical companies and the Michael J Fox Foundation to fund their research. This is common. The big pharma industry has outsourced a lot of their early drug discovery efforts to university settings up to the drug development stage at which they then license the compound or molecule. I'm not sure how you came by the impression you have.

It's kind of difficult for me to figure out how we're supposed to be globally competitive with other advanced nations and societies that invest in their own societies when we won't. Other societies we would sneer "socialist" at make sure a college education is available to all. Other societies make sure health care is available to all. Because they hate our brand of predatory capitalism? Or perhaps because they understand that to be globally competitive they need an educated healthy population?

And how are our employers supposed to be globally competitive with foreign employers who don't have the healthcare costs of their workforce to contend with? And with much better healthcare outcomes for less cost?

Do you know what GSL stands for?

Do you think that's where all of them come from? And what's the point anyway? Only the aristocracy should have access to education? Loan? As in pay back?

 

[Fenton Lum]

2) The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

If students are being turned into debt slaves, how is it that the govt is paying for their education?

In many ways.

The money streams from the governments to the colleges range from student loans, to research grants, to student aid, to direct funding, to numerous paths I'm sure don't even know about.

The ways that this stream of money gets and keeps students in college but does NOT result in usable skills and/or complete coverage of expenses are just as numerous.

The bias of regulation towards ever higher levels of certification, with little regard for expense is also a way the government contributes to the problem.

I'm pretty sure student loans have to be paid back and a lot of that is to private corporate lenders. Funding for research is not paying for kids to go to college at all, it is for research, and the govt is funding less and less of that over time than they used to. Ask any serious researcher who has to write grants for funding, it's seriously drying/dried up. I left a neuroscience drug discovery program at a major world renowned biomedical research university last April after 8 years there. They had partnerships with three major pharmaceutical companies and the Michael J Fox Foundation to fund their research. This is common. The big pharma industry has outsourced a lot of their early drug discovery efforts to university settings up to the drug development stage at which they then license the compound or molecule. I'm not sure how you came by the impression you have.

It's kind of difficult for me to figure out how we're supposed to be globally competitive with other advanced nations and societies that invest in their own societies when we won't. Other societies we would sneer "socialist" at make sure a college education is available to all. Other societies make sure health care is available to all. Because they hate our brand of predatory capitalism? Or perhaps because they understand that to be globally competitive they need an educated healthy population?

And how are our employers supposed to be globally competitive with foreign employers who don't have the healthcare costs of their workforce to contend with? And with much better healthcare outcomes for less cost?

1. Well over 17% of borrowers are in default.

2. Funding for research is money going into the university system.

3. My understanding is that most other advanced nations severely limit college education though tracking. That's way you get so much pressure for their version of SAT tests in Japan and South Korea for example, because their entire life will be determined by that one test, and the government standards/rules for college admissions.

4. NOT by funding degrees that should not be college degrees, nor by graduating large numbers of lawyers and social workers and art majors.

1. so what's your point?

2. where do you want research finding to go? I told you, a lot of that now is private corporate funding

3. germany for example does not.

4. private loans are business, they go where a lender sees a profit. universities are not tech schools.

1. The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

2. I want more accountability from universities on the ever increasing expense of education. And to find ways to stop or reverse it.

3. Germany has recently detracked. I'm still not aware that other nations have higher percentages of college admissions.

4. Sure, lenders go where they see a profit. That they managed to squeeze out a profit from the students they lend money to does not mean that having more lawyers or social workers is really helping the US compete.

My bad, wasn't aware only lawyers and social workers got student loans and that only legal and social worker degrees were offered these days.

 

[william the wie]

2) The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

If students are being turned into debt slaves, how is it that the govt is paying for their education?

In many ways.

The money streams from the governments to the colleges range from student loans, to research grants, to student aid, to direct funding, to numerous paths I'm sure don't even know about.

The ways that this stream of money gets and keeps students in college but does NOT result in usable skills and/or complete coverage of expenses are just as numerous.

The bias of regulation towards ever higher levels of certification, with little regard for expense is also a way the government contributes to the problem.

I'm pretty sure student loans have to be paid back and a lot of that is to private corporate lenders. Funding for research is not paying for kids to go to college at all, it is for research, and the govt is funding less and less of that over time than they used to. Ask any serious researcher who has to write grants for funding, it's seriously drying/dried up. I left a neuroscience drug discovery program at a major world renowned biomedical research university last April after 8 years there. They had partnerships with three major pharmaceutical companies and the Michael J Fox Foundation to fund their research. This is common. The big pharma industry has outsourced a lot of their early drug discovery efforts to university settings up to the drug development stage at which they then license the compound or molecule. I'm not sure how you came by the impression you have.

It's kind of difficult for me to figure out how we're supposed to be globally competitive with other advanced nations and societies that invest in their own societies when we won't. Other societies we would sneer "socialist" at make sure a college education is available to all. Other societies make sure health care is available to all. Because they hate our brand of predatory capitalism? Or perhaps because they understand that to be globally competitive they need an educated healthy population?

And how are our employers supposed to be globally competitive with foreign employers who don't have the healthcare costs of their workforce to contend with? And with much better healthcare outcomes for less cost?

1. Well over 17% of borrowers are in default.

2. Funding for research is money going into the university system.

3. My understanding is that most other advanced nations severely limit college education though tracking. That's way you get so much pressure for their version of SAT tests in Japan and South Korea for example, because their entire life will be determined by that one test, and the government standards/rules for college admissions.

4. NOT by funding degrees that should not be college degrees, nor by graduating large numbers of lawyers and social workers and art majors.

1. so what's your point?

2. where do you want research finding to go? I told you, a lot of that now is private corporate funding

3. germany for example does not.

4. private loans are business, they go where a lender sees a profit. universities are not tech schools.

1. The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

2. I want more accountability from universities on the ever increasing expense of education. And to find ways to stop or reverse it.

3. Germany has recently detracked. I'm still not aware that other nations have higher percentages of college admissions.

4. Sure, lenders go where they see a profit. That they managed to squeeze out a profit from the students they lend money to does not mean that having more lawyers or social workers is really helping the US compete.

2) The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

If students are being turned into debt slaves, how is it that the govt is paying for their education?

In many ways.

The money streams from the governments to the colleges range from student loans, to research grants, to student aid, to direct funding, to numerous paths I'm sure don't even know about.

The ways that this stream of money gets and keeps students in college but does NOT result in usable skills and/or complete coverage of expenses are just as numerous.

The bias of regulation towards ever higher levels of certification, with little regard for expense is also a way the government contributes to the problem.

I'm pretty sure student loans have to be paid back and a lot of that is to private corporate lenders. Funding for research is not paying for kids to go to college at all, it is for research, and the govt is funding less and less of that over time than they used to. Ask any serious researcher who has to write grants for funding, it's seriously drying/dried up. I left a neuroscience drug discovery program at a major world renowned biomedical research university last April after 8 years there. They had partnerships with three major pharmaceutical companies and the Michael J Fox Foundation to fund their research. This is common. The big pharma industry has outsourced a lot of their early drug discovery efforts to university settings up to the drug development stage at which they then license the compound or molecule. I'm not sure how you came by the impression you have.

It's kind of difficult for me to figure out how we're supposed to be globally competitive with other advanced nations and societies that invest in their own societies when we won't. Other societies we would sneer "socialist" at make sure a college education is available to all. Other societies make sure health care is available to all. Because they hate our brand of predatory capitalism? Or perhaps because they understand that to be globally competitive they need an educated healthy population?

And how are our employers supposed to be globally competitive with foreign employers who don't have the healthcare costs of their workforce to contend with? And with much better healthcare outcomes for less cost?

1. Well over 17% of borrowers are in default.

2. Funding for research is money going into the university system.

3. My understanding is that most other advanced nations severely limit college education though tracking. That's way you get so much pressure for their version of SAT tests in Japan and South Korea for example, because their entire life will be determined by that one test, and the government standards/rules for college admissions.

4. NOT by funding degrees that should not be college degrees, nor by graduating large numbers of lawyers and social workers and art majors.

1. so what's your point?

2. where do you want research finding to go? I told you, a lot of that now is private corporate funding

3. germany for example does not.

4. private loans are business, they go where a lender sees a profit. universities are not tech schools.

1. The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

2. I want more accountability from universities on the ever increasing expense of education. And to find ways to stop or reverse it.

3. Germany has recently detracked. I'm still not aware that other nations have higher percentages of college admissions.

4. Sure, lenders go where they see a profit. That they managed to squeeze out a profit from the students they lend money to does not mean that having more lawyers or social workers is really helping the US compete.

A slight criticism. Increasingly the Blue Wall is paying three times the yield of US treasuries. State bonds are tax exempt but Treasuries are not. These "investment" grade bonds, BBB or higher is investment grade, have an aftertax yield that is definitely in junk territory. It is not predictable when these bonds will default because of the massive short interest keeping prices higher and yields lower than they would otherwise be but social worker jobs will be hard to find in the near future and lessen that problem.

The number of lawyers and their prospective salaries is going the way of elementary school teachers as internet sites are eating up the revenue sources.

Otherwise an excellent post.

 

[Fenton Lum]

In many ways.

The money streams from the governments to the colleges range from student loans, to research grants, to student aid, to direct funding, to numerous paths I'm sure don't even know about.

The ways that this stream of money gets and keeps students in college but does NOT result in usable skills and/or complete coverage of expenses are just as numerous.

The bias of regulation towards ever higher levels of certification, with little regard for expense is also a way the government contributes to the problem.

I'm pretty sure student loans have to be paid back and a lot of that is to private corporate lenders. Funding for research is not paying for kids to go to college at all, it is for research, and the govt is funding less and less of that over time than they used to. Ask any serious researcher who has to write grants for funding, it's seriously drying/dried up. I left a neuroscience drug discovery program at a major world renowned biomedical research university last April after 8 years there. They had partnerships with three major pharmaceutical companies and the Michael J Fox Foundation to fund their research. This is common. The big pharma industry has outsourced a lot of their early drug discovery efforts to university settings up to the drug development stage at which they then license the compound or molecule. I'm not sure how you came by the impression you have.

It's kind of difficult for me to figure out how we're supposed to be globally competitive with other advanced nations and societies that invest in their own societies when we won't. Other societies we would sneer "socialist" at make sure a college education is available to all. Other societies make sure health care is available to all. Because they hate our brand of predatory capitalism? Or perhaps because they understand that to be globally competitive they need an educated healthy population?

And how are our employers supposed to be globally competitive with foreign employers who don't have the healthcare costs of their workforce to contend with? And with much better healthcare outcomes for less cost?

1. Well over 17% of borrowers are in default.

2. Funding for research is money going into the university system.

3. My understanding is that most other advanced nations severely limit college education though tracking. That's way you get so much pressure for their version of SAT tests in Japan and South Korea for example, because their entire life will be determined by that one test, and the government standards/rules for college admissions.

4. NOT by funding degrees that should not be college degrees, nor by graduating large numbers of lawyers and social workers and art majors.

1. so what's your point?

2. where do you want research finding to go? I told you, a lot of that now is private corporate funding

3. germany for example does not.

4. private loans are business, they go where a lender sees a profit. universities are not tech schools.

1. The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

2. I want more accountability from universities on the ever increasing expense of education. And to find ways to stop or reverse it.

3. Germany has recently detracked. I'm still not aware that other nations have higher percentages of college admissions.

4. Sure, lenders go where they see a profit. That they managed to squeeze out a profit from the students they lend money to does not mean that having more lawyers or social workers is really helping the US compete.

In many ways.

The money streams from the governments to the colleges range from student loans, to research grants, to student aid, to direct funding, to numerous paths I'm sure don't even know about.

The ways that this stream of money gets and keeps students in college but does NOT result in usable skills and/or complete coverage of expenses are just as numerous.

The bias of regulation towards ever higher levels of certification, with little regard for expense is also a way the government contributes to the problem.

I'm pretty sure student loans have to be paid back and a lot of that is to private corporate lenders. Funding for research is not paying for kids to go to college at all, it is for research, and the govt is funding less and less of that over time than they used to. Ask any serious researcher who has to write grants for funding, it's seriously drying/dried up. I left a neuroscience drug discovery program at a major world renowned biomedical research university last April after 8 years there. They had partnerships with three major pharmaceutical companies and the Michael J Fox Foundation to fund their research. This is common. The big pharma industry has outsourced a lot of their early drug discovery efforts to university settings up to the drug development stage at which they then license the compound or molecule. I'm not sure how you came by the impression you have.

It's kind of difficult for me to figure out how we're supposed to be globally competitive with other advanced nations and societies that invest in their own societies when we won't. Other societies we would sneer "socialist" at make sure a college education is available to all. Other societies make sure health care is available to all. Because they hate our brand of predatory capitalism? Or perhaps because they understand that to be globally competitive they need an educated healthy population?

And how are our employers supposed to be globally competitive with foreign employers who don't have the healthcare costs of their workforce to contend with? And with much better healthcare outcomes for less cost?

1. Well over 17% of borrowers are in default.

2. Funding for research is money going into the university system.

3. My understanding is that most other advanced nations severely limit college education though tracking. That's way you get so much pressure for their version of SAT tests in Japan and South Korea for example, because their entire life will be determined by that one test, and the government standards/rules for college admissions.

4. NOT by funding degrees that should not be college degrees, nor by graduating large numbers of lawyers and social workers and art majors.

1. so what's your point?

2. where do you want research finding to go? I told you, a lot of that now is private corporate funding

3. germany for example does not.

4. private loans are business, they go where a lender sees a profit. universities are not tech schools.

1. The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

2. I want more accountability from universities on the ever increasing expense of education. And to find ways to stop or reverse it.

3. Germany has recently detracked. I'm still not aware that other nations have higher percentages of college admissions.

4. Sure, lenders go where they see a profit. That they managed to squeeze out a profit from the students they lend money to does not mean that having more lawyers or social workers is really helping the US compete.

A slight criticism. Increasingly the Blue Wall is paying three times the yield of US treasuries. State bonds are tax exempt but Treasuries are not. These "investment" grade bonds, BBB or higher is investment grade, have an aftertax yield that is definitely in junk territory. It is not predictable when these bonds will default because of the massive short interest keeping prices higher and yields lower than they would otherwise be but social worker jobs will be hard to find in the near future and lessen that problem.

The number of lawyers and their prospective salaries is going the way of elementary school teachers as internet sites are eating up the revenue sources.

Otherwise an excellent post.

What do we want universities to be? Tech schools that role out workers for caplital seeking cheap labor elsewhere? Institutions of higher learning and query? Research centers? A for profit enterprise alone? All of the above? None of the above? A blend? Whas is their purpose? Or should they be left to chart thier own courses individually?

 

[alpine]

If you ask me, I am against all infrastructure projects.

I don't need roads, rail roads, bridges nor airports to transport my goods to the market. Why would I care...

If anybody need any infrastructure in this country, it is definitely not the "unnamed poor", meaning the American lower class...

Let em fall apart, and lets see who will suffer at the end...

Ah yes, if you blow enough smoke you can obfuscate your ignorance.

The question is not the need or lack of need for public infrastructure, the question is whether soaking the rich to fund infrastructure expansions is sound economic policy. Lord Keynes argued that it is foolish and in fact fallacy to do so.

Outside of Marx, or perhaps that moron Krugman, I know of no economist who would support such an absurd proposal.

Yup, walmart can suck my dick when they cry out: "we need roads to transport these junk to our stores"

If they want roads, they can pay for it. I will gladly drive on em, thats for sure

 

[Correll]

In many ways.

The money streams from the governments to the colleges range from student loans, to research grants, to student aid, to direct funding, to numerous paths I'm sure don't even know about.

The ways that this stream of money gets and keeps students in college but does NOT result in usable skills and/or complete coverage of expenses are just as numerous.

The bias of regulation towards ever higher levels of certification, with little regard for expense is also a way the government contributes to the problem.

I'm pretty sure student loans have to be paid back and a lot of that is to private corporate lenders. Funding for research is not paying for kids to go to college at all, it is for research, and the govt is funding less and less of that over time than they used to. Ask any serious researcher who has to write grants for funding, it's seriously drying/dried up. I left a neuroscience drug discovery program at a major world renowned biomedical research university last April after 8 years there. They had partnerships with three major pharmaceutical companies and the Michael J Fox Foundation to fund their research. This is common. The big pharma industry has outsourced a lot of their early drug discovery efforts to university settings up to the drug development stage at which they then license the compound or molecule. I'm not sure how you came by the impression you have.

It's kind of difficult for me to figure out how we're supposed to be globally competitive with other advanced nations and societies that invest in their own societies when we won't. Other societies we would sneer "socialist" at make sure a college education is available to all. Other societies make sure health care is available to all. Because they hate our brand of predatory capitalism? Or perhaps because they understand that to be globally competitive they need an educated healthy population?

And how are our employers supposed to be globally competitive with foreign employers who don't have the healthcare costs of their workforce to contend with? And with much better healthcare outcomes for less cost?

1. Well over 17% of borrowers are in default.

2. Funding for research is money going into the university system.

3. My understanding is that most other advanced nations severely limit college education though tracking. That's way you get so much pressure for their version of SAT tests in Japan and South Korea for example, because their entire life will be determined by that one test, and the government standards/rules for college admissions.

4. NOT by funding degrees that should not be college degrees, nor by graduating large numbers of lawyers and social workers and art majors.

1. so what's your point?

2. where do you want research finding to go? I told you, a lot of that now is private corporate funding

3. germany for example does not.

4. private loans are business, they go where a lender sees a profit. universities are not tech schools.

1. The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

2. I want more accountability from universities on the ever increasing expense of education. And to find ways to stop or reverse it.

3. Germany has recently detracked. I'm still not aware that other nations have higher percentages of college admissions.

4. Sure, lenders go where they see a profit. That they managed to squeeze out a profit from the students they lend money to does not mean that having more lawyers or social workers is really helping the US compete.

My bad, wasn't aware only lawyers and social workers got student loans and that only legal and social worker degrees were offered these days.

I find it hard to believe that you truly believe that that was what I was saying.

We have bloated educational system that costs to much and produces a lot of graduates that don't contribute much to society, ie lawyers and social workers for example.

Your response seems to be that we can't reform because we have to be competitive.

That is not much of an answer.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I'm pretty sure student loans have to be paid back and a lot of that is to private corporate lenders. Funding for research is not paying for kids to go to college at all, it is for research, and the govt is funding less and less of that over time than they used to. Ask any serious researcher who has to write grants for funding, it's seriously drying/dried up. I left a neuroscience drug discovery program at a major world renowned biomedical research university last April after 8 years there. They had partnerships with three major pharmaceutical companies and the Michael J Fox Foundation to fund their research. This is common. The big pharma industry has outsourced a lot of their early drug discovery efforts to university settings up to the drug development stage at which they then license the compound or molecule. I'm not sure how you came by the impression you have.

It's kind of difficult for me to figure out how we're supposed to be globally competitive with other advanced nations and societies that invest in their own societies when we won't. Other societies we would sneer "socialist" at make sure a college education is available to all. Other societies make sure health care is available to all. Because they hate our brand of predatory capitalism? Or perhaps because they understand that to be globally competitive they need an educated healthy population?

And how are our employers supposed to be globally competitive with foreign employers who don't have the healthcare costs of their workforce to contend with? And with much better healthcare outcomes for less cost?

1. Well over 17% of borrowers are in default.

2. Funding for research is money going into the university system.

3. My understanding is that most other advanced nations severely limit college education though tracking. That's way you get so much pressure for their version of SAT tests in Japan and South Korea for example, because their entire life will be determined by that one test, and the government standards/rules for college admissions.

4. NOT by funding degrees that should not be college degrees, nor by graduating large numbers of lawyers and social workers and art majors.

1. so what's your point?

2. where do you want research finding to go? I told you, a lot of that now is private corporate funding

3. germany for example does not.

4. private loans are business, they go where a lender sees a profit. universities are not tech schools.

1. The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

2. I want more accountability from universities on the ever increasing expense of education. And to find ways to stop or reverse it.

3. Germany has recently detracked. I'm still not aware that other nations have higher percentages of college admissions.

4. Sure, lenders go where they see a profit. That they managed to squeeze out a profit from the students they lend money to does not mean that having more lawyers or social workers is really helping the US compete.

My bad, wasn't aware only lawyers and social workers got student loans and that only legal and social worker degrees were offered these days.

I find it hard to believe that you truly believe that that was what I was saying.

We have bloated educational system that costs to much and produces a lot of graduates that don't contribute much to society, ie lawyers and social workers for example.

Your response seems to be that we can't reform because we have to be competitive.

That is not much of an answer.

You don't seem to be interested in reform (whatever that means), but you sure seem to have a beef with social workers and lawyers, for example. Would you like to see governmental regulations over what degrees other human beings have options to attain? Or just make it more difficult to go for those degrees? This should be imposed in our exceptional free society? You will decide what’s contributory? Every profit generating entity in this society has become bloated A healthcare system with really shitty outcomes for the most expensive system on the planet. A privatized for profit prison system that has returned us as a society to bondage for profit. Predatory lending that entraps students into debt peonage. Wall Street criminality that not only goes unpunished, but rewarded with socialism. I think it all needs to be questioned. I’m not sure what you’re advocating, but you sure speak of some entity exerting your will upon another human’s lives. As for an entire age demographic contributing nothing to society, that’s pretty telling, on you.

But it’s always the same isn’t it. When Americans speak of change, it is always change someone else must lift so that I can do as I please myself.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Sanders promote infrastructure development projects, financed by the rich, to create jobs. This is a proven technique, and would work.

Trump on the other hand, offer absolutely nothing, other than utter bs...

Think we alrdy tried that with summer of recovery

 

[william the wie]

Sanders promote infrastructure development projects, financed by the rich, to create jobs. This is a proven technique, and would work.

Trump on the other hand, offer absolutely nothing, other than utter bs...

Think we alrdy tried that with summer of recovery

We did, it failed and QE came in to rescue wealthy D donors.

 

[pwjohn]

Who pays when the rich leave? Have you noticed that the rich are leaving and are taking their companies with them? Remember when Obomb touted the shovel ready infrastructure bullshit? Ask Flint how well that worked.
Hitlery has already told you that in order to build up the Pacific Rim, that jobs would necessarily HAVE to leave our country.

So ask yourself, why are jobs a bad thing for America but a really good thing for Asia?

Welllllllll, because China still has 700 million Chinese living at, or, below the poverty level.

 

[PK1]

I don't give a shit where rich people keep their money. Taxing the rich to give to the poor is a pretense. It does not make the poor rich, it makes the rich poor. It is the loss of work that is crippling this country.

---
Taxing the rich to give back to society that benefits them is ethical & smart policy.
You don't throw tax money at the poor directly; you use the tax funds to build/maintain physical & social infrastructure, including education for poor families and assistance to upscale their ability to develop skills so they too can become productive citizens.

Everyone needs to adapt to the evolving job market, and learn skills that are becoming more valuable in the global economy driven by information technology.
.

 

[william the wie]

Who pays when the rich leave? Have you noticed that the rich are leaving and are taking their companies with them? Remember when Obomb touted the shovel ready infrastructure bullshit? Ask Flint how well that worked.
Hitlery has already told you that in order to build up the Pacific Rim, that jobs would necessarily HAVE to leave our country.

So ask yourself, why are jobs a bad thing for America but a really good thing for Asia?

Welllllllll, because China still has 700 million Chinese living at, or, below the poverty level.

If memory serves the labor force fraction in China began its collapse in 2013 and the lack of entitlement reform is really beginning to bite:

the constitutional right to a siesta is bad.

A female retirement age of 55 for women and 60 for men is a mess.

The taxes for single payer do not cover expenses and the two or three tiers worsen poverty and never have.

With out major entitlement reform poverty will just increase..

 

[Manonthestreet]

Who pays when the rich leave? Have you noticed that the rich are leaving and are taking their companies with them? Remember when Obomb touted the shovel ready infrastructure bullshit? Ask Flint how well that worked.
Hitlery has already told you that in order to build up the Pacific Rim, that jobs would necessarily HAVE to leave our country.

So ask yourself, why are jobs a bad thing for America but a really good thing for Asia?

Welllllllll, because China still has 700 million Chinese living at, or, below the poverty level.

and they need to stay there or they will destroy the planet with rampant consumerism...libs told me so

 

[Correll]

1. Well over 17% of borrowers are in default.

2. Funding for research is money going into the university system.

3. My understanding is that most other advanced nations severely limit college education though tracking. That's way you get so much pressure for their version of SAT tests in Japan and South Korea for example, because their entire life will be determined by that one test, and the government standards/rules for college admissions.

4. NOT by funding degrees that should not be college degrees, nor by graduating large numbers of lawyers and social workers and art majors.

1. so what's your point?

2. where do you want research finding to go? I told you, a lot of that now is private corporate funding

3. germany for example does not.

4. private loans are business, they go where a lender sees a profit. universities are not tech schools.

1. The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

2. I want more accountability from universities on the ever increasing expense of education. And to find ways to stop or reverse it.

3. Germany has recently detracked. I'm still not aware that other nations have higher percentages of college admissions.

4. Sure, lenders go where they see a profit. That they managed to squeeze out a profit from the students they lend money to does not mean that having more lawyers or social workers is really helping the US compete.

My bad, wasn't aware only lawyers and social workers got student loans and that only legal and social worker degrees were offered these days.

I find it hard to believe that you truly believe that that was what I was saying.

We have bloated educational system that costs to much and produces a lot of graduates that don't contribute much to society, ie lawyers and social workers for example.

Your response seems to be that we can't reform because we have to be competitive.

That is not much of an answer.

You don't seem to be interested in reform (whatever that means), but you sure seem to have a beef with social workers and lawyers, for example. Would you like to see governmental regulations over what degrees other human beings have options to attain? Or just make it more difficult to go for those degrees? This should be imposed in our exceptional free society? You will decide what’s contributory? Every profit generating entity in this society has become bloated A healthcare system with really shitty outcomes for the most expensive system on the planet. A privatized for profit prison system that has returned us as a society to bondage for profit. Predatory lending that entraps students into debt peonage. Wall Street criminality that not only goes unpunished, but rewarded with socialism. I think it all needs to be questioned. I’m not sure what you’re advocating, but you sure speak of some entity exerting your will upon another human’s lives. As for an entire age demographic contributing nothing to society, that’s pretty telling, on you.

But it’s always the same isn’t it. When Americans speak of change, it is always change someone else must lift so that I can do as I please myself.

1. I am interested in reform.

2. No beef, just using lawyers and social workers as examples of degrees that don't contribute much to society.

3. Your assumption that I wish to use force to choose what majors people take is incorrect.

4. It is not being for profit that leads to "bloating". It is being for profit and having much of the money coming from the government or lenders who don't care about R.O.I.

5. Entire demographic?

 

[Correll]

Who pays when the rich leave? Have you noticed that the rich are leaving and are taking their companies with them? Remember when Obomb touted the shovel ready infrastructure bullshit? Ask Flint how well that worked.
Hitlery has already told you that in order to build up the Pacific Rim, that jobs would necessarily HAVE to leave our country.

So ask yourself, why are jobs a bad thing for America but a really good thing for Asia?

Welllllllll, because China still has 700 million Chinese living at, or, below the poverty level.

That explains why jobs are good for them.

Why are they bad for US?

 

[Fenton Lum]

1. so what's your point?

2. where do you want research finding to go? I told you, a lot of that now is private corporate funding

3. germany for example does not.

4. private loans are business, they go where a lender sees a profit. universities are not tech schools.

1. The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

2. I want more accountability from universities on the ever increasing expense of education. And to find ways to stop or reverse it.

3. Germany has recently detracked. I'm still not aware that other nations have higher percentages of college admissions.

4. Sure, lenders go where they see a profit. That they managed to squeeze out a profit from the students they lend money to does not mean that having more lawyers or social workers is really helping the US compete.

My bad, wasn't aware only lawyers and social workers got student loans and that only legal and social worker degrees were offered these days.

I find it hard to believe that you truly believe that that was what I was saying.

We have bloated educational system that costs to much and produces a lot of graduates that don't contribute much to society, ie lawyers and social workers for example.

Your response seems to be that we can't reform because we have to be competitive.

That is not much of an answer.

You don't seem to be interested in reform (whatever that means), but you sure seem to have a beef with social workers and lawyers, for example. Would you like to see governmental regulations over what degrees other human beings have options to attain? Or just make it more difficult to go for those degrees? This should be imposed in our exceptional free society? You will decide what’s contributory? Every profit generating entity in this society has become bloated A healthcare system with really shitty outcomes for the most expensive system on the planet. A privatized for profit prison system that has returned us as a society to bondage for profit. Predatory lending that entraps students into debt peonage. Wall Street criminality that not only goes unpunished, but rewarded with socialism. I think it all needs to be questioned. I’m not sure what you’re advocating, but you sure speak of some entity exerting your will upon another human’s lives. As for an entire age demographic contributing nothing to society, that’s pretty telling, on you.

But it’s always the same isn’t it. When Americans speak of change, it is always change someone else must lift so that I can do as I please myself.

1. I am interested in reform.

2. No beef, just using lawyers and social workers as examples of degrees that don't contribute much to society.

3. Your assumption that I wish to use force to choose what majors people take is incorrect.

4. It is not being for profit that leads to "bloating". It is being for profit and having much of the money coming from the government or lenders who don't care about R.O.I.

5. Entire demographic?

1. The folk with concentrated wealth and power aren't interested in reform, this is working for them. Reform is a top down approach. How would you bring about reform and what reform?

2. What other degrees, professions and lines of work do you feel contribute nothing to society, and who will decide which to turn away from as a society?

3. Then what would be your choice of leverage in getting these people to select degrees you favor, and why do you think you should get to involve yourself in those decisions? If not you or the govt, who decides? You seem to be suggesting something other than "the markets". No?

4. You live in a representatice democracy, you are the govenment, you vote, right? If you wish to live in a society where familial wealth determines who will have a chance to be educated, posit that and voice the vision, no? I'm not sure we can be globally competitive with nations who invest in soceity by having an educated healthy population. If "the govt" is some entity out of your control and/or influence, unanswerable to "the people", who do you think it does answer to? Deadbeat college students getting legal, social worker and art degrees? Voiceless disenfranchised impoverished folk with no voice lining up for "free" stuff"? They did all this so they could be lazy and control the most powerful nation on the planet?

5. You've mentioned younger folks, consistently, no?

 

[Correll]

1. The federal government is funding the education of people who will not get skills that are in demand.but will get debts that persist.

2. I want more accountability from universities on the ever increasing expense of education. And to find ways to stop or reverse it.

3. Germany has recently detracked. I'm still not aware that other nations have higher percentages of college admissions.

4. Sure, lenders go where they see a profit. That they managed to squeeze out a profit from the students they lend money to does not mean that having more lawyers or social workers is really helping the US compete.

My bad, wasn't aware only lawyers and social workers got student loans and that only legal and social worker degrees were offered these days.

I find it hard to believe that you truly believe that that was what I was saying.

We have bloated educational system that costs to much and produces a lot of graduates that don't contribute much to society, ie lawyers and social workers for example.

Your response seems to be that we can't reform because we have to be competitive.

That is not much of an answer.

You don't seem to be interested in reform (whatever that means), but you sure seem to have a beef with social workers and lawyers, for example. Would you like to see governmental regulations over what degrees other human beings have options to attain? Or just make it more difficult to go for those degrees? This should be imposed in our exceptional free society? You will decide what’s contributory? Every profit generating entity in this society has become bloated A healthcare system with really shitty outcomes for the most expensive system on the planet. A privatized for profit prison system that has returned us as a society to bondage for profit. Predatory lending that entraps students into debt peonage. Wall Street criminality that not only goes unpunished, but rewarded with socialism. I think it all needs to be questioned. I’m not sure what you’re advocating, but you sure speak of some entity exerting your will upon another human’s lives. As for an entire age demographic contributing nothing to society, that’s pretty telling, on you.

But it’s always the same isn’t it. When Americans speak of change, it is always change someone else must lift so that I can do as I please myself.

1. I am interested in reform.

2. No beef, just using lawyers and social workers as examples of degrees that don't contribute much to society.

3. Your assumption that I wish to use force to choose what majors people take is incorrect.

4. It is not being for profit that leads to "bloating". It is being for profit and having much of the money coming from the government or lenders who don't care about R.O.I.

5. Entire demographic?

1. The folk with concentrated wealth and power aren't interested in reform, this is working for them. Reform is a top down approach. How would you bring about reform and what reform?

2. What other degrees, professions and lines of work do you feel contribute nothing to society, and who will decide which to turn away from as a society?

3. Then what would be your choice of leverage in getting these people to select degrees you favor, and why do you think you should get to involve yourself in those decisions? If not you or the govt, who decides? You seem to be suggesting something other than "the markets". No?

4. You live in a representatice democracy, you are the govenment, you vote, right? If you wish to live in a society where familial wealth determines who will have a chance to be educated, posit that and voice the vision, no? I'm not sure we can be globally competitive with nations who invest in soceity by having an educated healthy population. If "the govt" is some entity out of your control and/or influence, unanswerable to "the people", who do you think it does answer to? Deadbeat college students getting legal, social worker and art degrees? Voiceless disenfranchised impoverished folk with no voice lining up for "free" stuff"? They did all this so they could be lazy and control the most powerful nation on the planet?

5. You've mentioned younger folks, consistently, no?

1. Populist revolt at the damage these assholes are doing to our society.

1b How and what? NOt sure. First I'd like to see some hard questions asked on where this money is going and why costs are climbing so fast.

2. A lot of medical degrees have been artificially inflated. There should be some efforts to roll that back.

3. NOT subsidizing would be the big one.

4. Or we could demand our elected representatives start showing some responsibility or even oversight over how these bloated institutions are gouging US in general and students in particular.

4b Wasting money is not investing. Saying "competitive" is not an answer.

5. Someone was talking smack about young people. I was dismissing the idea that this generation of young people are inherently weaker than those that came before.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you think that's where all of them come from? And what's the point anyway? Only the aristocracy should have access to education? Loan? As in pay back?

GSL is guaranteed student loan. It means that the government backs the load to students. When (or occasionally if) the student defaults on the loan, the federal government makes good on it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yup, walmart can suck my dick when they cry out: "we need roads to transport these junk to our stores"

Comrade, aren't roads funded by fuel taxes? Isn't the diesel and gas used by the trucks and trains that deliver goods to stores already taxed heavily to pay for the roads?

If they want roads, they can pay for it. I will gladly drive on em, thats for sure

You already do.

You're just another greedy leftist, looking for others to pay your way.