DescentBB

Interesting. On the other hand I see quality of thought being an issue this does nothing to address. We have a great moral problem in this nation. Perhaps if that were seen to, the problem of education which they say is so obvious would fix itself. What people need the most they do not, and would not be getting from schools.

Have you or silhouette man ever considered the stark difference in the behavior of say the Finnish and the coddled constituents here that shall not be named?
Of course they all see the wisdom in higher education...because for generations they have a peer system that compels them all to be very civilized and proper and obey the law and respect each other.

Here we let the fricken wannabe inmates run loose and tell them its not their fault when they implode or explode.

But you can't effectively ban morality from the common cause and then expect us to behave like the Finns can you?

Wait, so are Europeans better or worse than Americans? Because they all believe in that climate change BS. All snooty and elite with their free educations and crap.

My real estate taxes went up 400 bucks this year to pay for “free education”, and I really don’t mind paying for it but…I’d love to smack the face of every dropout and force their parents to repay every wasted dollar.

Will Robinson wrote:Have you or silhouette man ever considered the stark difference in the behavior of say the Finnish and the coddled constituents here that shall not be named?
Of course they all see the wisdom in higher education...because for generations they have a peer system that compels them all to be very civilized and proper and obey the law and respect each other.

Here we let the fricken wannabe inmates run loose and tell them its not their fault when they implode or explode.

But you can't effectively ban morality from the common cause and then expect us to behave like the Finns can you?

oh so suddenly this becomes a question of morality?

Will, Spidey, et al:you DO realize that was about HIGHER EDUCATION, not free public lower levels of eductation? They offer FREE FREAKING COLLEGE!!!! And yes, that might well incentivize those in the lower levels to acheive something in school, given that it won't cost them $220,000 in debt to pursue higher ed. THAT is the point. Now, care to discuss THAT?

I'm suggesting you could walk around America with a sack full of free higher education and find very very few takers for it.
Those that can't afford but are qualified to enter can usually get it free.
You need to move back on the timeline a little bit...

It is the behavior, life choices, etc that are made by the youth or made for them by their parents and/or social support group that keep them from having any desire to pursue higher education.

Will Robinson wrote:I'm suggesting you could walk around America with a sack full of free higher education and find very very few takers for it.
Those that can't afford but are qualified to enter can usually get it free.

you need to get out more. Sadly, you are deluded. The folks that are getting deterred are those who aren't from families that are dirt-poor, but the thousands who are forced into a 'student loan' scenario.

You need to move back on the timeline a little bit...

It is the behavior, life choices, etc that are made by the youth or made for them by their parents and/or social support group that keep them from having any desire to pursue higher education.

you REALLY need to get out more. The US is chock-full of potential contributors to our society who cannot afford to go to college. Note what the Scandanavians do: they pick up the secondary costs of books, housing etc that scholarships sometimes do not. That is FORWARD THINKING, something that is lacking in our nation, as the cartoon points out. You seem to be working towards focusing on a group you don't understand, and that you fear once again......just because you dance around it, we can smell the racism and bigotry percolating up in your argument again.

Stupid choices are made by all races. There is no racist bogey man lurking to blow up your conclusion that 'if we only poured money on the fire it would go out.' it is your lack of understanding that the problem is deeper and starts earlier than the moment when a person would or wouldn't go to college.

The "wannabe inmates" comment wasn't to highlight that group as the ones who made the bad choice and thus we are failing....it was to highlight the choice that those of us who could change the character of the culture choose to not do so....thus we produce a bunch of low achievers and parasites...of all races. It is the bad choices that we make, at the voting booth, at the family dinner table (empty), in front of the microphone or tv camera, or podium or pulpit, or campaign donor or lobbiest...etc.

the child is usually damaged before he gets into high school with no sign of a savior. Just false prophets offering false hope.

I'll agree that higher education is part of the whole but pointing just at that missing ingredient is in no way the discovery of the magic recipe. "It" isn't what's wrong with america. "It" is more of a symptom of what is wrong. silhouette man didn't nail anything, he merely scratched at the surface.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Interesting. On the other hand I see quality of thought being an issue this does nothing to address. We have a great moral problem in this nation. Perhaps if that were seen to, the problem of education which they say is so obvious would fix itself. What people need the most they do not, and would not be getting from schools.

So do the godless Scandinavians have better or worse morality than us?

Will wrote:I'm suggesting you could walk around America with a sack full of free higher education and find very very few takers for it.
Those that can't afford but are qualified to enter can usually get it free.

I suggest that you put your theory to the test!

I suspect that higher education opportunities vary considerably by state. In mine, we have a state lottery that provides funding for higher education. If you're graduating high school with a decent GPA, you can get free tuition at any state institution. This is good, but the catch is that the offer is only redeemable immediately upon graduating high school and only so long as you take classes full time for up to four years. So if you've missed the boat or are a part time student, you're ineligible. These restrictions seem unnecessarily prohibitive to me. I think that as long as you're getting good grades and making progress toward an in-demand degree, there should be more help available.

Will Robinson wrote:I'm suggesting you could walk around America with a sack full of free higher education and find very very few takers for it.

nope.

Those that can't afford but are qualified to enter can usually get it free.
You need to move back on the timeline a little bit...

After going into a stupid amount of debt.

It is the behavior, life choices, etc that are made by the youth or made for them by their parents and/or social support group that keep them from having any desire to pursue higher education.

again, nope.

Whether you like it or not, silhouette man is right. Have you ever considered going for higher education in the last ten years? By this response alone, i'd wager a no.

Take it from someone who knows, who did try go for higher education. I'm still paying off a 14,000 dollar debt. Did I get the job I was trying to go for? nope. Was the education worth the 14,000? no. not by a long shot.

Open your eyes for once. the truth is staring you in the face and introduced itself to you.

And stop trying to bring race into the picture for christs' sake. This has nothing to DO with race and everything to do with institutions increasing their tuition costs every year.

And why do they keep increasing their costs? It's not like the product itself they're selling costs more for them to supply. It's not like the textbooks suddenly become more expensive to produce every year. That money is going somewhere and it isn't going to supplies or costs of doing business.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...Those that can't afford but are qualified to enter can usually get it free.
You need to move back on the timeline a little bit...

After going into a stupid amount of debt.

What does debt have to do with my suggesting the roots of the problem precede the higher education years?

My comment was that slicks claim that silhouette man has identified "what's wrong with america" is 'lack of higher education' is incorrect because there are a lot of things that led to americans not prioritizing a highly educated populace (read:constituents),. A lot of bad choices as I laid out and you ignored.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It is the behavior, life choices, etc that are made by the youth or made for them by their parents and/or social support group that keep them from having any desire to pursue higher education.

again, nope.

Whether you like it or not, silhouette man is right. Have you ever considered going for higher education in the last ten years? By this response alone, i'd wager a no.

Take it from someone who knows, who did try go for higher education. I'm still paying off a 14,000 dollar debt. Did I get the job I was trying to go for? nope. Was the education worth the 14,000? no. not by a long shot.

Open your eyes for once. the truth is staring you in the face and introduced itself to you.

No, you are the evidence that, in your case, at least one bad choice was made. You weren't 'qualified' to use higher education to achieve the goal you set for yourself.

Why you made that series of miscalculations I don't know but it obviously wasn't due to an inability to get the higher education!
You got it and failed anyway.

Are the conditions you faced all your fault? Probably not, other than not recognizing the bad gamble on the education paying off the way you planned. But it seems clear that in the example of your situation there was no lack of higher education. Whether you paid for it or the government did, it still wasn't enough to get you what you wanted.
You chose a path where education was available, you failed anyway, so clearly that isn't "whats wrong with america" Or Canada, isn't that where you live?

Ferno wrote:And stop trying to bring race into the picture for christs' sake. This has nothing to DO with race...

Yea, that's what I said too. Apparently you didn't comprehend that even after I explained it. You were too easily distracted by slicks bullcrap.
Maybe that is a part of why higher education wasn't enough for you....you do have to know how to focus and implement these tools you know. You can't just learn to pass a test and then expect the real world to unfold like college course rubric!

callmeslick wrote:Will, Spidey, et al:you DO realize that was about HIGHER EDUCATION, not free public lower levels of eductation? They offer FREE FREAKING COLLEGE!!!! And yes, that might well incentivize those in the lower levels to acheive something in school, given that it won't cost them $220,000 in debt to pursue higher ed. THAT is the point. Now, care to discuss THAT?

Not going to engage in a discussion that starts from a false premise, for the same reason I won’t answer a loaded question.

Ferno wrote:I'm still paying off a 14,000 dollar debt. Did I get the job I was trying to go for? nope. Was the education worth the 14,000? no. not by a long shot.

$14,000? Oh, that's cute.

I'm chewing away at $60G, which is far less than most of my friends had paid. Totally wasn't worth the money. Every job I got in the last decade has been because of networking, not my degree or even my resume. Free education would be the best thing ever. If I could be back in school I would be doing homework right now instead of typing on this stupid forum. That reminds me, there are some free online classes I need to register for...

Will Robinson wrote:What does debt have to do with my suggesting the roots of the problem precede the higher education years?

My comment was that slicks claim that silhouette man has identified "what's wrong with america" is 'lack of higher education' is incorrect because there are a lot of things that led to americans not prioritizing a highly educated populace (read:constituents),. A lot of bad choices as I laid out and you ignored.

Why would I address something when you ignored what I said? I asked you if this was now a question of morality. you just glossed over it. you then suggest people don't take the free education that you believe is offered. Which I countered directly by saying people who get this 'free' education usually go into a stupid amount of debt.

Then you went completely vague and suggest 'life choices', and decided not to elaborate. Again, is this now a question of morality? Because from what I've seen, it's a question of opportunity.

Will Robinson wrote:
No, you are the evidence that, in your case, at least one bad choice was made. You weren't 'qualified' to use higher education to achieve the goal you set for yourself.

who the ★■◆● are you to judge how I'm qualified? You don't know a thing about what I went through. Do you seriously think you can just point the finger like this to every student out there with a crippling load of debt and say 'you aren't qualified to use the education you have'??

Why you made that series of miscalculations I don't know but it obviously wasn't due to an inability to get the higher education!
You got it and failed anyway.

Are the conditions you faced all your fault? Probably not, other than not recognizing the bad gamble on the education paying off the way you planned. But it seems clear that in the example of your situation there was no lack of higher education. Whether you paid for it or the government did, it still wasn't enough to get you what you wanted.
You chose a path where education was available, you failed anyway, so clearly that isn't "whats wrong with america" Or Canada, isn't that where you live?

Oh look at that, it's another 'bad choice' shot. Yeah, I totally knew they would stick me on a factory floor to sweep after training for a network admin. Way to go, got any more far reaching, generalizing and completely BONE-HEADED comments to make?

But I guess your fantasy world, everyone who gets an education can get a high powered job and live happily ever after because all they have to do is walk into an office, talk to the CEO and achieve the american dream. ★■◆● son, you'd make a great disney film writer.

insulting bull★■◆●

Here's the real story kid. At the job I'm at now, I'm one of the best. I work on top-of-the-line vehicles and the clients are happy. So you don't even get to tell me that I don't know how to implement the tools I have.

And before you even think of it, you made this ★■◆● personal. I'm just dealing with it.

Apparently you didn't comprehend that even after I explained it.

It's not that I didn't comprehend, it's that I just don't care.

Not stupid at all. Will has a point, and that's kind of what I was driving at too. Silhouette man would have us believe that free higher education would be the savior of America. That's a false promise and false hope. Meanwhile you boneheads get to perch up there on your high horse and think or say that we're somehow anti-higher-education. I think it's stupid how expensive higher education is. Young people entering into a difficult part of their life under such a financial burden is lunacy, IMO. It turns higher education into expensive job training, because you damn well better be gainfully employed when you get done unless daddy is paying the bill or you'll be making payments for years. If someone started a movement to encourage higher education and reduce cost, and there was a shred of moral fiber at its base, I would be all for it. The government doesn't have any place barging in without a solution. We don't need Obamacare for higher education. If people feel so strongly about this, then do something about it. Let's start seeing some real solutions for a change.

Ferno, you are the one who told me all I know about your situation.

You told me you went and got the higher education and it didn't pan out like you thought it would/should. All you got out of it was debt and a shitty job.

In a thread where I have challenged slicks declaration that 'What's wrong with America is we don't have free higher education.
You offer your situation up as proof that my challenge is wrong but your situation is proof I was right!
It doesn't matter who paid for it, or how much debt you carry from it because the education wasn't missing from your tool bag, you got it, and still didn't get what you want.
So if your situation is proof of something wrong with America ....a lack of higher education isn't it.

Does it cost too much? Sure. But that is irrelevant information, it is not 'evidence' to prove I'm wrong.

As for why, I had to guess.
And I could be totally wrong, but all I'm wagering is a guess so if I miscalculate you'll just tell me how wrong I am with details. As opposed to just tell me how wrong I am with only puffed up indignation...

I think you miscalculated. I don't think the decision to not hire you for the position you wanted was a sudden change of the job market and not predictable by you or your advisors before you sought the education. Choosing to go through years of schooling to get a particular job would, hopefully, include knowing the market for those skills can support your emergence into it at the scheduled completion of your studies. Its not rocket surgery....

Unless the job you sought was unique to one employer you should be able to find a similar position elsewhere assuming the education you have is truly what is needed for you to qualify for hire....assuming the field of study you chose is in demand. You didn't go get a degree in classical studies did you? Without the rich family that's useless...well, its useless either way but being rich means being useless is more time for fun.

So if its a case where, once you were denied your first choice, you won't move to where the jobs are...or if you sought this education knowing there was only one place that would hire some qualified individual and by the time you were educated properly they chose someone else...then you clearly miscalculated.

Does this apply to you and make you uncomfortable?
Maybe so.
But if it is true would you rather we all just throw a pity party and say 'Yea, it's what's wrong with America...that's why you didn't get hired' or should we ask a few tough questions that might lead you to a solution?

I'm not in a friendly, let me hold your hand, kind of mood so take it or leave it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Not stupid at all. Will has a point, and that's kind of what I was driving at too. Silhouette man would have us believe that free higher education would be the savior of America.

wrong. It is but ONE EXAMPLE of how we fail, as a nation, to think about LONG TERM BENEFITS. Investing in the future via education is but one topic.

Stupid comic:

1. We spend more on military because no other nato nation will match our spending. Way to go Canada, for backing us up! Don't worry, we'll build the weapons! Just sit back there and we'll give you some, when they're out of the oven.

2. You compare a tiny bland mini-nation to the biggest melting pot on the planet? This is like when South Koreans compare our crappy internet to their super fast internet: YOU'RE FROM A SMALL NATION. IT'S EASIER TO CONCENTRATE RESOURCES INTO SMALL AREAS, LIKE YOUR COUNTRY.

3. Spending on prisons has nothing to do with how much we spend on education. Why not say "Murca spends more on cars than on education!". "Murica spends more on burgers than on education". One has nothing to do with the other.

4. For your information, there are plenty of people that qualify for free higher education in the U.S.. Hell, I was one of them. Why does this get to be ignored? Add up all the people getting a free ride for higher education, here in the U.S., and it probably adds up to more people going to school in the mini nordic nations.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Not stupid at all. Will has a point, and that's kind of what I was driving at too. Silhouette man would have us believe that free higher education would be the savior of America.

wrong. It is but ONE EXAMPLE of how we fail, as a nation, to think about LONG TERM BENEFITS. Investing in the future via education is but one topic.

You are contradicting yourself there as well as your initial post where you attributed the silhouette man as having "nailed it".
He barely touched on "it".
Yes higher education is a component needed by many if we are to be top competitors but there are a ton of things that are wrong that lead us to a lower number of upper educated citizens and the cost of the schooling is only one of many. It is also relatively easy to fix compared to the others.

But it is the one that increases the size and scope of government, which is what these folks ultimately are after.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:But it is the one that increases the size and scope of government, which is what these folks ultimately are after.

Onoz, gubmint is bigger! Grab your torches and pitchforks!

Will Robinson wrote:I'm suggesting you could walk around America with a sack full of free higher education and find very very few takers for it.
Those that can't afford but are qualified to enter can usually get it free.
You need to move back on the timeline a little bit...

It is the behavior, life choices, etc that are made by the youth or made for them by their parents and/or social support group that keep them from having any desire to pursue higher education.

Wanna bet? I'll bet there would be quite a few takers for free higher education. I would sure beat the hell out of the indentured servitude most students now have to deal with just to pay off a typical student loan.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-1 ... -time-high

My 4 years of college only cost my parents $12,000 in 1978 because the state subsidized most of it. In fact, Linus Pauling went to Oregon State University in 1917 for FREE. All of his education was paid for by the state. This is what it costs NOW, per year, at Oregon State.

http://oregonstate.edu/financialaid/cost-attendance

Sergeant Thorne wrote:But it is the one that increases the size and scope of government, which is what these folks ultimately are after.

yep, it's all just a sinister plot to ensure our grandkids live in some sort of relative prosperity. Evil.

A lot of ★■◆●ing trolls under this bridge. It's so much fun to have to explain yourself after someone has amused themselves by doing their best to create a gross caricature of your statement.

Well I shouldn't have simplified the 'bag of free education' line of thinking. Certainly people will take free stuff. Look at all the college graduates who move back in with mom and tried to occupy Wall Street like hippies since they can't find jobs with all those diploma's.

So if you 'just hand out free higher education...you wont solve 'what's wrong with America'. And sure some people will make use of it etc. etc.
I never said higher education isn't useful or not needed for us to compete at a higher level.
But it isn't the panacea as slick and his blogger source seem to think. If all you do is hand it out and dont change other things you will be very inefficiently increasing the number of qualified graduates who find high paying employment and increasing the number of people who are over qualified to feed themselves.

Will Robinson wrote:Well I shouldn't have simplified the 'bag of free education' line of thinking. Certainly people will take free stuff. Look at all the college graduates who move back in with mom and tried to occupy Wall Street like hippies since they can't find jobs with all those diploma's.

the facts remain, the future will become ever more rosy for those with higher education, and ever bleaker for those that don't, given the trajectory of the past 40 years or so. As it is, despite blips on the radar such as you note, a college education repays the owner over a career around $400,000, more than the cost of virtually any college in the nation.

I never said higher education isn't useful or not needed for us to compete at a higher level.

fair enough....I didn't read you as saying such. I even highlighted the last part, because of how utterly crucial it will be in determining the winning and losing societies of the next century.

But it isn't the panacea as slick and his blogger source seem to think. If all you do is hand it out and dont change other things you will be very inefficiently increasing the number of qualified graduates who find high paying employment and increasing the number of people who are over qualified to feed themselves.

no, for the simple reason stated by you and highlighted above, you won't have an economy with which to be able to 'change other things', as the nation will be essentially 95% composed of people fighting for mere survival. Too late, then. Success will go to those who plan and prepare. The Scandanavians, on this issue, are prepared. Nations who are keeping military spending at efficient levels are planning for the real threats of the future. And so on. Do we have many other issues to address in our society? Sure, but few that I can think of are more essential to maintaining a civil society and top tier economy, all in one fell swoop.


edited aside: I would have thought that by now, you and others would at the very least get the fact that I'm not big on 'panacea'. Easy solutions are generally wrong solutions, and I tend to push the concept that this stuff is complex, and resists quick and easy walkbacks from mistakes and wrong paths. I've tried to consistently stick to that mindset when approaching any of this stuff.

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno, you are the one who told me all I know about your situation.

You told me you went and got the higher education and it didn't pan out like you thought it would/should. All you got out of it was debt and a shitty job.

In a thread where I have challenged slicks declaration that 'What's wrong with America is we don't have free higher education.
You offer your situation up as proof that my challenge is wrong but your situation is proof I was right!
It doesn't matter who paid for it, or how much debt you carry from it because the education wasn't missing from your tool bag, you got it, and still didn't get what you want.
So if your situation is proof of something wrong with America ....a lack of higher education isn't it

No, what the point of the comic was driving at was the fact that higher education costs are out of control. It's so obvious, it was laid out in point form. Slick understands it, I went through it, and others can see it. But you can't because you're so blinded by your own ideology and your high horse needed a kick in the balls.

And it DOES matter how much debt you carry. It matters so much, it actually dictates your life choices down the road. Like whether or not you can afford your first home. If you're stuck paying 600 a month for a student debt vs 200, do you think that you can just go out and get whatever you want? No. As for irrelevant information, it is completely relevant. It what lets you decide what you can do with your life for the next ten to fifteen years.

if I miscalculate you'll just tell me how wrong I am with details

Why? all you do is blow them off. So I'm not going to bite on this one.

You didn't go get a degree in classical studies did you?

Dude, I already told you. Network Administrator.

I don't want a pity party. I friggin hate that ★■◆●. What I want is you to pull your head out of the sand and see reality for what it is.


What I'm going to do now, if I can save up the money, is head to Norway, stay for as long as it takes to graduate, come back and have a different career. And probably send some of my money there as a thank you.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lot of ★■◆●ing trolls under this bridge. It's so much fun to have to explain yourself after someone has amused themselves by doing their best to create a gross caricature of your statement.

When is the last time you've actually explained anything of substance, Thorne? All you do around here is post these moralistic vagaries and non-sequiturs and thinly veiled insults, but I can't remember you ever sticking around long enough to back any of it up with solid debate points. The "woe is me" act gets old after a while: there comes a point where you need to put up, or shut up.

Top Gun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:But it is the one that increases the size and scope of government, which is what these folks ultimately are after.

Onoz, gubmint is bigger! Grab your torches and pitchforks!

Top Gun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lot of **** trolls under this bridge. It's so much fun to have to explain yourself after someone has amused themselves by doing their best to create a gross caricature of your statement.

When is the last time you've actually explained anything of substance, Thorne? All you do around here is post these moralistic vagaries and non-sequiturs and thinly veiled insults, but I can't remember you ever sticking around long enough to back any of it up with solid debate points. The "woe is me" act gets old after a while: there comes a point where you need to put up, or shut up.

You're a liar and a hypocrite, TG.

My statement was true. Simply put, it's not a question of if the "solution" to various societal problems will increase the size of government, because there is a thought-process at work which leads inevitably to bigger government and more control. This may be logical from a certain point of view, and even efficient, but ultimately it is not humanitarian. The classical American system of government is neither efficient, nor conducive to achieving the goals of any elite, and it was this way by design. I think people in our generation or the next will have to suffer because all of their "knowledge" did not allow them to take advantage of the lessons learned by those who conceived self-government.

'self government', as Jefferson et al designed it, was designed for an educated(to some extent) and engaged(to a great extent) voting populace. We currently have neither. Thus, the rubes get fleeced every couple years by slick commercials, finger pointing, etc, and you end up with a government that cannot plan long-term. Think of the era that made this nation truly powerful. Those were years in which the US invested in projects and acquisitions that took decades to bear fruit, and required vision. Lotsa luck finding that in the current US.

And the solution is... bigger government? (serious question) To avoid/prevent... ? To achieve... ?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And the solution is... bigger government? (serious question) To avoid/prevent... ? To achieve... ?

the size and scale of government have to expand to deal with the sheer size and scale of the nation. The bizarre notion that we should go back to the exact model of 1784 was NOT anyone's intent from the outset(Jefferson thought the entire Constitution should be re-written every generation). Why not? Because, that model was designed for a smaller nation, far more sparsely settled, largely agrarian, with no concept of corporations nor global interactivity. Frankly, the only model that works for the current global economic trajectory is some sort of global governance. Now, I don't see that as any sort of reality, given disparities and nationalism, but it is the only one I see as workable when globalization becomes ever more fluid and present in almost all aspects of life.
At any rate, the beauty of the framework created by the founders was that it is DESIGNED to be molded, changed and modernized. Few Constitutions have been so well designed to accommodate such change without violent upheaval, and for that we should be thankful.

It would be a convenient but very dishonest argument to suggest someone who calls for a smaller government is calling for a return to "the exact model of 1784"...
Sure the scope must change to adopt to the nations growth but the growth we have endured is fast and malignant. We could stand for a serious pruning and still be well prepared for the actual role our government is mandated to fill inspite of the nations growth.

Politicians are constantly 'growing' branches of legislation to curry favor with voting blocs and/or high dollar contributors with no concern for the viability of the budget. So much in fact that recently they just avoid producing a budget! I guess that is a precaution in case any 'journalists' run away from the plantation and remember what their responsibility is.

Honestly I don't understand how any intelligent person can support either Party. The premise they both bet on us believing, that they must defeat the other party and then they can make it 'right', is justification for the damage they do therefore you will stay on their side. It is complete bull feces.

The current system will never have one party reign supreme so that excuse, that illogical premise, will be in play forever, no one will ever 'make it right' and your party (which ever that is for you) will always put that party's best interest above that of the constituents.

The status quo of our representation is best described as the 'Let them eat cake' form of piss-down-your-back-and-tax-you-for-getting-rained-on government.

Will Robinson wrote:It would be a convenient but very dishonest argument to suggest someone who calls for a smaller government is calling for a return to "the exact model of 1784"...

as a blanket rule, yes, but some folks seem to call for just that.

Sure the scope must change to adopt to the nations growth but the growth we have endured is fast and malignant. We could stand for a serious pruning and still be well prepared for the actual role our government is mandated to fill inspite of the nations growth.

you realize that all growth has been seen by those less forward thinking as 'fast and malignant'. I would completely disagree with such a characterization.

Politicians are constantly 'growing' branches of legislation to curry favor with voting blocs and/or high dollar contributors with no concern for the viability of the budget. So much in fact that recently they just avoid producing a budget! I guess that is a precaution in case any 'journalists' run away from the plantation and remember what their responsibility is.

hogwash. Seriously, utter nonsense. A cursory glance at our history shows that politicians have ALWAYS done so, and the press is a tool for same.

Honestly I don't understand how any intelligent person can support either Party. The premise they both bet on us believing, that they must defeat the other party and then they can make it 'right', is justification for the damage they do therefore you will stay on their side. It is complete bull feces.

I agree to some extent, but the fact is that one has to make a lesser of two evils call, much of the time, and right now, one party is completely out of touch with reality and consumed with hate, with no plan for progress or the public good. That fact sucks, but time and elections will solve the issue.

The current system will never have one party reign supreme so the excuse that your party (which ever that is for you) will always put that party's best interest above that of the constituents. The status quo of our representation is best described as the 'Let them eat cake' form of piss down your back and tax you for getting rained on government.

as I've said countless times, the current status quo is designed to cause competition among folks who should have shared interests(the working people), and by dividing them with finger pointing, moral non-issues and hatred, keep them from uniting for the common good.

The founders also made the constitution hard to amend for a good reason.

I have no problem with the government being the proper size relative to the job, but where “I” draw the line is where the government goes beyond governance and takes control.

Spidey wrote:The founders also made the constitution hard to amend for a good reason.

true. That was to keep from foolish trendy thoughts becoming law. However, they made it clear that they WANTED it to be a changeable document, and that was part of the thinking around making the Bill of Rights as Amendments, not part of the main body of the Constitution.

I have no problem with the government being the proper size relative to the job, but where “I” draw the line is where the government goes beyond governance and takes control.

fair enough, but in any society, the individual has to cede some personal control to the larger group. That is the role of government, and the principle behind a society.

Yes that is true but, we not only have the individual yielding control to the larger group, but we also have the larger group yielding control to a smaller group, and if that smaller group actually did the will of the larger group…the theory would work.

But it doesn’t.

So... back on the OP:

I'll agree that generally "more education" is a good thing for societies. I don't think it's valid to conclude that everyone should go to "university." I'm also not convinced that college in the US is inaccessible to certain people. I was in the "college loans" group and chose a school whose price was relatively low to minimize those loans.

I'd tend to say that we need to focus on getting our society to generally value education more. I'd tackle the percentage of people that don't finish high school and the quality of our high schools before I started going crazy over free college educations. I've fairly recently reached the conclusion that there are a significant number of people out there for whom a traditional university education just doesn't fit. Lets focus on equipping those people with the life and vocational skills that they need to be successful - and I'd argue that those skills are ones that should be covered in a high school education, which is already "free" for all.

So, I'd say I generally agree with Will and Thorne: culture plays a big role. I think there's more out there in terms of economic choices and tuition assistance than our shadow man would lead you to believe... so my leaning is to support and improve what we have already.