Greatest Threat to World Peace: A Gallup Survey

mattchuck2 wrote

PeeTex wrote

So are you saying there are not smart people going to HVCC?

Are you fucking joking with this question? You quoted what I said. Did you see me say there were no smart people that go to HVCC? I did imply that there are more brilliant people at Harvard than HVCC because that is unquestionably true.


I don't know if you know this, but I'm aware that just writing blank checks leads to cost increases. I'm not certain, but I'd be willing to bet that the Bernie people have thought of this, too. If you want to pass a law that says that grant money only goes to schools that don't charge tuition, be my guest, but I would suppose that all that policy would do would be to widen the gap between rich and poor schools and force many Poor schools that don't have the ability to write grants and lobby state congresses to close.

Isn't it better to just raise taxes and make all state schools and community colleges free? And make sure that state schools don't spend their money on stupid shit like needless administrators, brand new stadiums or multimillion dollar salaries for football coaches?

I am glad that you admit that there are smart and capable people at the non-Ivy league schools because you certainly insinuated they were not capable of intellectually competing. You also seem to miss the point that the "smart" people will follow the money.

As far as grants preparation goes, I have been envolved in Grant preparation that has run near $100k and yielded nothing and grant preparations which have cost less than $10k and won multi million dollar programs. Many grant decisions are politically motivated. I never said you need to pass a law, you just need a policy change.

If I interpret your proposal correctly you seem to be saying that the schools should be free to charge what they like, they are a business. It's ok because the tax payers will fund it all. I am in favor of getting universities to control costs and be incentivized to do so and to offer more opportunities, and I never stated that tuition cost is the only criteria for getting grant money, technical merit should always be #1, but academic opportunities should also be very high.

The driver in school costs is the federal student loan program. Since the loans and market are guaranteed, it makes it easy for the schools to hike their rates every year like it's free money. The banks don't care either because it's more interest for them. Students get it worse every year but it isn't a strong lobbying group because these people all go 'through' the system, they don't have to live in it forever like when we vote in a GW and have to pay for his endless wars for the rest of our lifetimes. Thanks, GW!

ml242 wrote

The driver in school costs is the federal student loan program. Since the loans and market are guaranteed, it makes it easy for the schools to hike their rates every year like it's free money. The banks don't care either because it's more interest for them. Students get it worse every year but it isn't a strong lobbying group because these people all go 'through' the system, they don't have to live in it forever like when we vote in a GW and have to pay for his endless wars for the rest of our lifetimes. Thanks, GW!

The student loan system is badly broken. Student loans become a drug for both the schools and the students. The banks love them because they are the only loan that you can't dissolve With bankruptcy, it stays with you for life. The banks are like loan sharks and in today's loan market, the interest rate is comparatively very high.

mattchuck2 wrote

God damn it. Do some research before talking out of your ass:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

This is a crazy assessment published by a left wing nut job paper - I challenge you to name one program run by the govt that actually reduced the total cost of the program vs the free market.  There is a huge infrastructure of costs that the govt brings with it.  Plus you, I and everyone reading this is going to be then asked to not just pay for our families health care plus the govt overhead plus all the others that cant or wont pay for themselves.  That 10k per year will quickly be 30k or more.

Paying for everyone's free college is also a huge mistake.  You have to want to get an education and if its free it will have less perceived value so less effort will go into it from the students.  Education costs have risen well beyond the inflation rate because the pool of debt allows colleges to make more money.  if it were free the costs would skyrocket.  

Not everyone should go to college. There are plenty of young recent college grads who would be so much better off if they went to trade school and became machinists or welders which are in hot demand and in very little supply.  

Coach - look at what comparable medical services cost in other countries and the lack of middlemen.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-healthcare-costs-in-us-far-exceed-other-countries-report-says-20140416-story.html

I would like to find a conservative outfit reflecting on the study that determined the relative costs but can't find any because they flat out ignored it.

Much like they ignored the conclusion of the economists piece about how Sanders' plan would save money.

more left wing nut job crap

www.economist.com/news/united-states/21645855-growth-americas-health-care-spending-slowing-will-obamacare-cut-costs

The word save is not in Bernies or any Socialists vocabulary.  They only know how to spend and then spend more.  But don't worry there tons of rich people to pay for it he says.  The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.

The ACA aka Obamacare was supposed to already of miraculously reduced health care costs.  Raise your hand if you have not seen an increase in your health costs.  Everyone's insurance has gone up not down and co pays and deductibles are higher as well.  My doc retired rather than deal with this steaming mess Obama created.  

This election will be a clear choice
Dump the ACA or pay even more for less quality health care.  Simple choice and one that when boiled down in the general election will not get crazy Bernie elected.  

Wow - so if we need less people to go to college because we need more machinists and welders, how come Germany absolutely SLAYS us in skilled trades and engineering, yet ALL of their colleges are FREE?

I seem to think someone has a very narrow definition of college.

Also I love how all these morons point out that free healthcare and college can't be done and doesn't work and other nations of the world (Canada and Germany) can make them work.  I feel like you are sitting here and telling me a the wheel won't roll because Pi is irrational while I watch bikes and cars zoom by.  I can tell you don't work in a tech industry because instead of solving problems you are preaching about how the Earth is flat.

If Trump wins you can look me up in one of those two, because that's where I'll be.

PeeTex wrote

I am glad that you admit that there are smart and capable people at the non-Ivy league schools because you certainly insinuated they were not capable of intellectually competing. You also seem to miss the point that the "smart" people will follow the money.

I said the plan is stupid, because we want our federal grant money to go to people that will make the most difference. If you really think HVCC has people who are competing with Harvard students, where the fuck are they? Zuckerberg and Gates went to Harvard, along with a ton of people we've never heard of that are making groundbreaking advances in Science and Industry. Surely you aren't saying that HVCC has as many luminaries or would be able to draw these people if only they got more grant money, right?  Because that would be a really dumb thing to say.

Many grant decisions are politically motivated.

That's what I said as another reason your plan won't work.

If I interpret your proposal correctly you seem to be saying that the schools should be free to charge what they like, they are a business.

Your interpretation is completely wrong, go back and read my last fucking post again.

I am in favor of getting universities to control costs and be incentivized to do so

I said they should control costs, I just disagree on your method of incentive because:

technical merit should always be #1, but academic opportunities should also be very high.

Which, getting back to what I said, will always put Harvard over HVCC.

Coach Z wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

God damn it. Do some research before talking out of your ass:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

This is a crazy assessment published by a left wing nut job paper - I challenge you to name one program run by the govt that actually reduced the total cost of the program vs the free market.  There is a huge infrastructure of costs that the govt brings with it.  Plus you, I and everyone reading this is going to be then asked to not just pay for our families health care plus the govt overhead plus all the others that cant or wont pay for themselves.  That 10k per year will quickly be 30k or more.

The Washington Post is a Left Wing paper? Okay....

The overhead costs of Medicare are about 5%. As part of Obamacare, the government had to require health insurance companies to keep their overhead at 20%, and the health insurance companies were whining that it would bankrupt them (unfortunately the CEO of United Health Care had to cut his pay 20% to $13 million). The good part about "socialized health care is that the system is already in place (Medicare). All they have to do is raise the Medicare tax and open it up to everyone. And if you don't think that would be cheaper than this convoluted system of paying insurance company middle men, then it's on you to figure out why other countries with single payer health care pay so much less per capita than we do (even after adjusting for the obesity of America).

Not everyone should go to college. There are plenty of young recent college grads who would be so much better off if they went to trade school and became machinists or welders which are in hot demand and in very little supply.

As far as the college thing, obviously not everyone should go to college (and you must have the same reading comprehension problem as PeeTex because I never said they should). And I agree that Trade schools are a better option for a lot of people. And apparently, under PeeTex's plan, trade schools would also get plenty of government money, because they are cheap to attend, while MIT would be fucked. Sweet.

I'd also like to note that Many European countries have free public universities (along with Private colleges), and they're doing just fine.

Coach Z wrote

The word save is not in Bernies or any Socialists vocabulary.  They only know how to spend and then spend more.  But don't worry there tons of rich people to pay for it he says.  The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.

The ACA aka Obamacare was supposed to already of miraculously reduced health care costs.  Raise your hand if you have not seen an increase in your health costs.  Everyone's insurance has gone up not down and co pays and deductibles are higher as well.  My doc retired rather than deal with this steaming mess Obama created.  

This election will be a clear choice
Dump the ACA or pay even more for less quality health care.  Simple choice and one that when boiled down in the general election will not get crazy Bernie elected.

It's cool that the republicans still get to wear the mantle of fiscal responsibility even though clinton is the only one to balance the budget.

and my health care costs are down. And that does not include the extra 15ish million people that didn't even have care. weren't the bush era republicans supposed to be the compassionate conservatives? where's the heart, stashed in the lock box at the bank? It really does depend on what kind of country you want to see to some extent, but I want one where people don't have to lose their homes when they get sick, or worse. basics like that.

it's not even that I enjoy spending other peoples's money, i just think the system is unfair, our priorities are totally out of whack, and we spend on the wrong stuff. And the evangelicals who put these chumps in power have no money anywhere, since they're a bunch of welfare queens.

California and NY (cough cough the rich part) are getting behind these guys and paying for it.

^ Yeah, we've gone from "compassionate conservative" to "fuck you, I've got mine". Republican Party in a nutshell.

mattchuck2 wrote

I said the plan is stupid, because we want our federal grant money to go to people that will make the most difference. If you really think HVCC has people who are competing with Harvard students, where the fuck are they? Zuckerberg and Gates went to Harvard, along with a ton of people we've never heard of that are making groundbreaking advances in Science and Industry. Surely you aren't saying that HVCC has as many luminaries or would be able to draw these people if only they got more grant money, right?  Because that would be a really dumb thing to say.

 
First of all I never said HVCC would get all the grant money, that was your interpretation - you should really learn to read what is said and not make shit up. What I said was that tuition costs should be a major factor in grant awards, not the only factor and not a litmus test. Secondly, Gates dropped out of Harvard after 2 years - not even relevant to your argument. Do you want a list of successful people who went to lower cost schools or didn't go top college at all - here's a list of 100: http://elitedaily.com/news/business/100-top-entrepreneurs-succeeded-college-degree/, that is one fucking dumb argument.  

Many grant decisions are politically motivated.

mattchuck2 wrote

That's what I said as another reason your plan won't work.

 
He says with no fucking supporting argument.

mattchuck2 wrote

Your interpretation is completely wrong, go back and read my last fucking post again.

I did read your fucking post

mattchuck2 wrote

Isn't it better to just raise taxes and make all state schools and community colleges free?

I said - and you ignored:

technical merit should always be #1, but academic opportunities should also be very high.

mattchuck2 wrote

Which, getting back to what I said, will always put Harvard over HVCC.

Which is because Harvard provides more academic opportunity than our community college system or our state college system? Oh yeah - your fucking couldn't read that part.  

You cite polarizing extremes, Harvard’s endowment is large enough to provide free tuition and that in no way would degrade the quality of the student they admit and I would contend it would make the competition even keener.  
You don’t like tuition rates as a criteria, well how about the overhead rates on research. You like to pull Harvard into this, at 62% overhead rate they are one of the most expensive places to get research done with only $0.38 of each dollar actually getting spent on research (Tuition: $62K/year). Texas A&M has an overhead rate of 31% and a tuition cost of $21K/year - oh but they are all dumb fucks in Texas and should not get any research grants.  Maybe they are just too dumb not to charge high tuition rates and gouge the taxpayers. Why don’t you pull your head out of your ass and do some research on your own.

I do like that you actually found some statistics that support your argument. And overhead rates on research is probably one good metric to use, but here's another: given the choice, and the grant benefits in your plan, would someone looking to be at the top of their field go to Texas A&M over Harvard (or Stanford or MIT or whatever)? Yeah, I guess if the field was "Animal Husbandry" or whatever the hell they teach at A&M, but Physics? Computer Science? I'd think that the majority would go to the school with the better academic reputation. (I agree, that cost would be a determining factor for me, but I don't think it is for a lot of kids).

And the reason that the political thing is important is that it's much harder to cut government funding to R&D at Harvard or Yale or some of the schools these politicians' kids attend than it is to cut money from Texas A&M or HVCC. Your plan would siphon more money to the schools that politicians don't give a shit about, making it easier to cut.

Also, saying Bill Gates doesn't count as representative of a Harvard student because he only went for 2 years is kind of weird. And linking to a list of "entrepreneurs" that includes Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin doesn't really support any kind of argument that you're making.

Also, Harvard would argue that yes, they have more academic opportunity than HVCC:

http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2013/11/08/harvard-initiative-to-attract-low-income-students-includes-free-tuition/

mattchuck2 wrote

I do like that you actually found some statistics that support your argument. And overhead rates on research is probably one good metric to use, but here's another: given the choice, and the grant benefits in your plan, would someone looking to be at the top of their field go to Texas A&M over Harvard (or Stanford or MIT or whatever)? Yeah, I guess if the field was "Animal Husbandry" or whatever the hell they teach at A&M, but Physics? Computer Science? I'd think that the majority would go to the school with the better academic reputation. (I agree, that cost would be a determining factor for me, but I don't think it is for a lot of kids).

And the reason that the political thing is important is that it's much harder to cut government funding to R&D at Harvard or Yale or some of the schools these politicians' kids attend than it is to cut money from Texas A&M or HVCC. Your plan would siphon more money to the schools that politicians don't give a shit about, making it easier to cut.

Also, saying Bill Gates doesn't count as representative of a Harvard student because he only went for 2 years is kind of weird. And linking to a list of "entrepreneurs" that includes Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin doesn't really support any kind of argument that you're making.

Now that we have ratchetted down the rhetoric and gotten back to the real reason you dislike the proposal. I agree that pushing universities which practice exclusivity pricing to lower their rates would not be popular with the 1%ers who want to promote that exclusivity for their children. But if you think that a Bernie Sanders plan of free tuition to all public institutions paid for by taxes is not ripe for cutting your kidding yourself. At least what I have proposed does not raise taxes but rather uses the money we are already spending to drive better behavior.

I am glad you read the list (one of many out there), you probably notice the plethora of modern people on that list as well. If you doubt Texas A&M is a quality school you should not travel to Texas, you might not make it back. They have an impressive list of research areas, everything from cardiac medicine to theoretical physics. I am not necessarily a T A&M supporter but rather using it as an example. Another example is Colorado School of Mines, one of the top engineering schools in the US, with a tuition of only $15K (in state). These are the types of schools we should be supporting and breaking up the "exclusivity" spiral of the name brand schools. Exclusivity should be based on ability to perform academically rather than your financial status.

You use the argument that schools like Harvard, Stanford, Yale or MIT produce the entrepreneurs, here is an interesting article from the WSJ: http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2013/08/15/vivek-wadhwa-if-you-want-to-be-an-entrepreneur-dont-go-to-harvard/ linking high tuition rates to the stifling of entrepreneurial growth.

mattchuck2 wrote

Also, Harvard would argue that yes, they have more academic opportunity than HVCC:

http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2013/11/08/harvard-initiative-to-attract-low-income-students-includes-free-tuition/

Yes - I was very aware of this, they have been doing it for years. Harvard is great this way, although the competition for these slots is very high as it should be.

Coach Z wrote

Raise your hand if you have not seen an increase in your health costs.

We have seen some incredible increases in our costs.

Our small company's effective healthcare increases the last five years in percentage: 13, 22, 27, 19, 2.

The 22 and 27% rises were actually less because we raised the crap out of deductibles both those years to save some money.  (We are looking at insane copays if you stay overnight in a hospital.)

I can't tell you why the last rise was small, but I can say that ACA didn't hurt us this year.

PeeTex wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

Also, Harvard would argue that yes, they have more academic opportunity than HVCC:

http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2013/11/08/harvard-initiative-to-attract-low-income-students-includes-free-tuition/

Yes - I was very aware of this, they have been doing it for years. Harvard is great this way, although the competition for these slots is very high as it should be.

One other college that deserves mentioning in this it Olin College of Engineering, up until a few years ago tuition was free (if you could get in - SAT scores 790 Math, 750 Verbal) but because of the down turn they had to stop that program in 2011 and now charge about $25K/year. It is schools like this that we should be funneling the research dollars to so they can keep the low/no tuition for the best academically qualified students.

All the Military academies would get infinite funding because they're free.

Listen, it's an idea. I just feel like you dismissed Bernie's plan out of hand, but put forth your own plan which has glaring problems that you just waved off. Now you say that your plan has some of the same problems as Bernie's plan. And you got all pissed that I had the gall to say that perhaps spending more money on cheaper schools isn't the best way to get quality research from quality students and quality faculty.

Bernie has a plan. You said it won't work because there are no cost controls, much the same way Martin O'Malley did:

“If you simply cut a check for tuition, you’re going to see tuitions go up and up and up, and eventually we all foot that bill,” Time Magazine quoted O’Malley saying. “So we have to do two things at the same time. We have to increase degree attainment and bring down costs.”

But O’Malley is wrong. The Sander’s plan does attempt to control the rising cost of college, at least for the federal government....

So here it is. Five years from now the Secretary of Education is required to figure out the average amount the federal government is providing states to pay to keep tuition free. Then the Department has five more years to cut the money going to states over that average until all states are under the 2020 average allotment. So basically, the Sanders’ plan cuts off federal funding for the program over a particular, but uncertain, amount.

And again, other countries have free college. Do they do it Bernie's way or your way? (I honestly don't know)

mattchuck2 wrote

All the Military academies would get infinite funding because they're free.

Good god there you go again, exaggeration – when you can’t make a reason argument you just make up a stupid one. Get it through your thick skull – this is not what I said, I said the weighting criteria would favor schools with lower cost admission policies.  What this means is that if two schools were close on qualifying for a grant the one with lower academic costs wins not that all money goes to the bottom.

mattchuck2 wrote

Listen, it's an idea. I just feel like you dismissed Bernie's plan out of hand, but put forth your own plan which has glaring problems that you just waved off. Now you say that your plan has some of the same problems as Bernie's plan. And you got all pissed that I had the gall to say that perhaps spending more money on cheaper schools isn't the best way to get quality research from quality students and quality faculty.

First of all – I did not dismiss his plan out of hand, I considered it, I like what he is trying to do but I don’t like the way he is going about it, and for the record, you have no idea whether I gave his plan any thought what so ever you just don’t like the fact that I am not fully behind what he is proposing. I have a plan, is it a big fucking deal I can formulate a plan without having to be spoon fed one by some politician. If you haven’t figured it out yet – I can think for myself, I don’t need Bernie to think for me. Was I pissed off that you disagree with me- I couldn’t give two shits whether or not you agree with me or not. I personally think you got your nickers in a bunch because I didn’t fall into line and think like the rest of the lemmings. Yes I think my plan has political problems, you think Bernie’s doesn’t? Every plan has political problems because there are a bunch of different sides to these issues.

mattchuck2 wrote

Bernie has a plan. You said it won't work because there are no cost controls, much the same way Martin O'Malley did.

Throwing money at colleges has not made the problem better. There are a lot of colleges just raising fees because they can, they use it as a sign of exclusivity, ask faculty members at RPI – you think they like what has been happening there? Let’s change the mentality of the administrators, if they want the research dollars and they want to be like the big boys they shouldn't do it on the backs of the students.