0 members (),
132
guests, and
13
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Indeed. Just because increased access to funding meant that students could be charged more, doesn't mean they should be. That's fine for a private institution to be as nakedly capitalistic as they like, but for public institutions, they have a higher responsibility, and that was a significant moral failing on their parts.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423 |
I'll expect you to be a man of your principles, then, and cancel your insurance. As I previously stated, insurance is an optional service, taxation is not optional. The "how" here matters. For enlisted folks after their terms, the GI Bill is financed largely by other enlisted folks paying in their $1200 in the first year of their enlistment (when that makes up a huge proportion of their salaries), and also by the fact that they're accepting far below market value for their labors during the course of their enlistments.
For officers, the costs of their education is offset by the contractual obligation to serve for a specified period of time, also at a rate far below market value.
Either way, the beneficiaries are largely paying their own way. No argument on any of your points, none of those points counter anything I've stated. As I said previously, my only point in relation to the military and college funding is, it's a viable option for those seeking college funding....this making it more accessible. YES! The beneficiaries are largely paying their own way! They're adults, personal responsibility for one's own well being SHOULD be paid for largely on one's own! I do believe we're getting somewhere! By that I assume you mean you also pay your taxes, and interpret that as a social responsibility, and not something you're under threat to do. Actually what I meant was that I contribute of my free will generously to improvement of societal issues outside of taxes that I pay. I view that as what adults do. Wait, so you assumed that I'm a liberal (I'm not), that I believe social duties are solely the responsibility of the government (I don't even know any liberals who believe this), and somehow I'm the one making inaccurate assumptions? You'll noticed I had removed that reference prior to you posting as I realized that was an unfair assumption, it was only my perspective based on what you've posted. You have my apology for that assumption that I've corrected. I'm not sure what system of beliefs I've attacked, except the notion that people should enjoy the benefits of society without accepting the responsibilities that go along with them. I don't recognize that as a system of beliefs, but rather as a pathology. It would appear that what you mean is accepting the responsibilities that YOU deem appropriate to go along with them. I've agreed that people should accept the responsibilities that go along with them, as each person should do of their own free will rather than at the threat of punishment. In short, I don't get to decide what you deem as a social responsibility with what you own and the services you provide and you don't get to decide that for me with what I own and services I provide.
Last edited by Old Dad; 04/19/18 03:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
As I previously stated, insurance is an optional service, taxation is not optional. Of course taxes are optional. You can go live somewhere that you won't be taxed. A deserted island in the middle of the Pacific would do. Not much of a choice, right? Same goes for insurance - you either have it and receive services that can save or improve your life at a price that won't send you immediately into bankruptcy (medical debt is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US), or not. We can keep getting absurd and say that oxygen is optional, if you like. No argument on any of your points, none of those points counter anything I've stated. As I said previously, my only point in relation to the military and college funding is, it's a viable option for those seeking college funding....this making it more accessible. YES! The beneficiaries are largely paying their own way! They're adults, personal responsibility for one's own well being SHOULD be paid for largely on one's own! I do believe we're getting somewhere! It's not an option that can absorb the vast and growing number of people who are otherwise being pushed out of secondary education due to costs, because the military is not going to grow to absorb those folks. It's not an option for people with disabilities. Due to the hostile work environment, I'd strongly advise any woman to think twice. Not sure why you're patting yourself on the back about people paying their own way, because at no point in this discussion have I suggested otherwise. The problem isn't people paying, it's that the current price is distorted and completely untethered to fundamentals. It would appear that what you mean is accepting the responsibilities that YOU deem appropriate to go along with them. I've agreed that people should accept the responsibilities that go along with them, as each person should do of their own free will rather than at the threat of punishment. In short, I don't get to decide what you deem as a social responsibility with what you own and the services you provide and you don't get to decide that for me with what I own and services I provide. Actually, what you're presenting is the opposite, because you're suggesting that you should have full access to all of the benefits of society, but have the right to choose which responsibilities you accept, and which you can shirk. The social contract doesn't work that way. We don't get to pick and choose which rights and services you get to enjoy, and you don't get to choose which responsibilities you accept. It's a package deal. All, or nothing. A civilized society, or a deserted island. The process of deciding "what you deem as a social responsibility with what you own and the services you provide" is called "representative Democracy."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,258 Likes: 7
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,258 Likes: 7 |
you're suggesting that you should have full access to all of the benefits of society, but have the right to choose which responsibilities you accept, and which you can shirk. Dude, would you point us to the post(s) and phraseology in which you find Old Dad to be suggesting this?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1 |
At no point did anyone make the argument that any one individual should have a guaranteed right to a publicly-financed secondary education. That's what I understood to be aquinas' expressed view, here, as a Canadian inquiring whether there is universal aid for college tuition in the US. No, I've suggested there is a range that exists in which it is fiscally neutral to provide public funding for some students' post-secondary education. Universal aid for college tuition is quite a departure from that.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,258 Likes: 7
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,258 Likes: 7 |
At no point did anyone make the argument that any one individual should have a guaranteed right to a publicly-financed secondary education. That's what I understood to be aquinas' expressed view, here, as a Canadian inquiring whether there is universal aid for college tuition in the US. No, I've suggested there is a range that exists in which it is fiscally neutral to provide public funding for some students' post-secondary education. Universal aid for college tuition is quite a departure from that. I believe you have said both... (I may be unaware of the specifics of tuition aid in the US. If it is universal, please disregard.) There exists a spectrum of expenditure options which can, on a publicly revenue-neutral basis, provide some financial offset for the costs of post-secondary education for those who need it most.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1 |
At no point did anyone make the argument that any one individual should have a guaranteed right to a publicly-financed secondary education. That's what I understood to be aquinas' expressed view, here, as a Canadian inquiring whether there is universal aid for college tuition in the US. No, I've suggested there is a range that exists in which it is fiscally neutral to provide public funding for some students' post-secondary education. Universal aid for college tuition is quite a departure from that. I believe you have said both... (I may be unaware of the specifics of tuition aid in the US. If it is universal, please disregard.) There exists a spectrum of expenditure options which can, on a publicly revenue-neutral basis, provide some financial offset for the costs of post-secondary education for those who need it most. It's funny. You seem to be suggesting that you know my perspective better than I do. Why is that? The first is a question. The second is a statement of fact. The two are not incompatible.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,258 Likes: 7
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,258 Likes: 7 |
It's funny. You seem to be suggesting that you know my perspective better than I do. Why is that? I'm not suggesting anything, I'm pointing to the source... to facts... to statements which you have made, upthread in this discussion. (I may be unaware of the specifics of tuition aid in the US. If it is universal, please disregard.) There exists a spectrum of expenditure options which can, on a publicly revenue-neutral basis, provide some financial offset for the costs of post-secondary education for those who need it most. Please feel free to explain your meaning, if you believe you may have been misunderstood. In the meanwhile, to further clarify understanding of your position, may I ask: are you saying that you are NOT in favor of free tuition at US public universities?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1 |
are you saying that you are NOT in favor of free tuition at US public universities? I am in favour of quantitatively evaluating the externality (the value created outside the transaction) associated with post-secondary education within a needs-based framework. At a minimum, I am advocating for redirecting the expected savings from reduced government program spending rendered obsolete by additional post-secondary education to defraying tuition costs where needs-based testing thresholds are met. What share of total tuition costs of impoverished students that would account for is unknown- it could, theoretically, account for the full value of the tuition shortfall for attendance at public universities among this group of students.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1 |
The cost of a 4 year degree is too high and rising, I recognize this as a societal problem, but I want entitlement today and have my children, grand-children, and great-grandchildren pay for it in the future. This is a fallacious argument. There exists a spectrum of expenditure options which can, on a publicly revenue-neutral basis, provide some financial offset for the costs of post-secondary education for those who need it most. Sadly, political pressure to avoid even evaluating such options fosters continued, unnecessary poverty for a segment of the population that--under well-designed programs-- would cost the public NOTHING on net to remediate. Please elaborate, providing links and resources. Here are two accessible papers that provide an overview of the basics of the public economics debate around subsidized higher education. The works cited contain some good background reading on the public policy and evaluation frameworks used to evaluate the financial and non-financial benefits to needs-based partially or fully subsidized post-secondary education. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.3.288https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=studentThis is a good evaluation on the efficacy of various forms of financial aid, and of the barriers (short- and long-term) to accessing a post-secondary education. http://www.postsecondaryresearch.org/i/a/document/6963_LongFinAid.pdfNote, particularly, the quote below from the last document (pp.37). This is the reason why I'm hesitant to approach post-secondary access solely through the lens of affordability at point of tuition payment. The issue of affordability and access is better addressed--and more comprehensively so--by tackling the larger challenge of creating a social ecosystem, from birth, that allows children from impoverished families to prosper. Pricing of post-secondary tuition remains a challenge to address, but one which is then secondary. To what degree is the problem of college access due to short-term credit constraints versus the long-term influence of coming from a disadvantaged background? There is growing debate on this issue as some question whether financial aid is an effective policy for increasing access. For example, Carneiro and Heckman (2002) conclude that the long-term influence of family income and background is more to blame than short-term credit constraints in explaining differences in attainment. Additional long-run factors that might be important include primary and secondary schooling inputs. If so, then financial aid at the last minute is unlikely to completely address concerns about inequality.
On the other side of the debate, researchers point to successful financial aid programs. When critics point to programs that have not been successful, supporters of financial aid emphasize the important role of information. If few students are aware of the availability of such resources, then this could help to explain why financial aid has not always had much of an effect, and short-term resources could be important. Much more research is needed to contribute to the debate about the role of financial aid versus other factors in addressing inequality. This approach requires us to consider the needs of the child within a struggling family system as paramount. Ideologically, this means being able to step away from a purist view that requires all adults to be self-sufficient, and to accept responsibility (as taxpayers) for supporting the development of children where their families cannot sustain that burden, in part or in whole. Rawls had it right when he sought to address the welfare of the worst-off in society. Much of life is a lottery. Ex ante, behind the veil of ignorance, any one of us could have been subject to starting conditions which could have substantially hindered our development. Why accept that for our fellow humans, most especially for children, if we wouldn't want it for ourselves or our own families?
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|