Jump to content
Sniper

Students Support Socialism... But Not With Their GPA

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SW9racer said:

Why are colleges so expensive now, they never used to be. They are run by liberals, so why are they are fleecing their own?

 

20 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Anything the government gets involved in becomes MORE expensive. But the Greendays of the country think we need government control of college, pre-school, healthcare, retirement, income, energy, food production, housing, etc. etc, etc... yep, it will be a utopian fantasyland.

I'll give you an excellent example of how tuition rates have increased.  Base tuition for my first semester as an undergraduate at Montclair State was $175.  That was also about the time NJ started the lottery which was initially was supposed to be used for education.  Two years later it was $350.  It doubled in two years with more state involvement.

A semester at Montclair is now about $12,000.  That's about a 6800% increase over what I paid my first semester.  My first teaching job after graduating paid $10,000 a year.  Not the highest in the state at the time.  Based on the increase in tuition teachers should be starting at $680,000 a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

 

I'll give you an excellent example of how tuition rates have increased.  Base tuition for my first semester as an undergraduate at Montclair State was $175.  That was also about the time NJ started the lottery which was initially was supposed to be used for education.  Two years later it was $350.  It doubled in two years with more state involvement.

A semester at Montclair is now about $12,000.  That's about a 6800% increase over what I paid my first semester.  My first teaching job after graduating paid $10,000 a year.  Not the highest in the state at the time.  Based on the increase in tuition teachers should be starting at $680,000 a year.

Ya but your squid ink used to freeze in its well back then.:rofl:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

 

I'll give you an excellent example of how tuition rates have increased.  Base tuition for my first semester as an undergraduate at Montclair State was $175.  That was also about the time NJ started the lottery which was initially was supposed to be used for education.  Two years later it was $350.  It doubled in two years with more state involvement.

Was it so cheap because you could double-park the horses?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sniper said:

Need something a lot stronger to deal with his (and the rest of his generation) idiocy.

Don't make the incorrect assumption that this is generational.. this attitude has been around since the development of modern government.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, voyager9 said:

Was it so cheap because you could double-park the horses?

There were no horses then.

3 hours ago, Zeke said:

Ya but your squid ink used to freeze in its well back then.:rofl:

We used charcoal on tree bark.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, fishnut said:

Hey, there is talk of trying to bring them back.   Two species have been sequenced from frozen tissue dug out of the permafrost, and putting the reconstructed genome into an elephant ova, and implanting that into an elephant’s uterus, might just yield something much like a genuine live mammoth, according to some scientists. 

Hollywood has shown us how a similar process yielded something much like a genuine live velociraptor, and that has worked out great through 5 movies. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 10X said:

Hey, there is talk of trying to bring them back.   Two species have been sequenced from frozen tissue dug out of the permafrost, and putting the reconstructed genome into an elephant ova, and implanting that into an elephant’s uterus, might just yield something much like a genuine live mammoth, according to some scientists. 

Hollywood has shown us how a similar process yielded something much like a genuine live velociraptor, and that has worked out great through 5 movies. 

Hollywood also has shown us the transporter. Beam me up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2019 at 12:20 PM, Greenday said:

No, it's not. The examples in this thread are of communism, not socialism. Socialism would be you pay for the class and the teacher gives extra attention to those who are struggling.

You’re being dishonest.

It’s a metaphor.   And it’s a very good one.  Socialism is taking from those who produce and giving it the those who don’t...OR WON’T.  Oh... and giving those in charge of the socialist government a HUGE cut.

So taking away the fruit of the labor of hard working students and giving it to student who just want to party their way through school IS a perfect representation of socialism.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just leave this here.

 
A Matter of Perspective 
 A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.  Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very  liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed.  Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in  school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew.  She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
 Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”
She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by.  All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA.  She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast.  She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even  show up for classes because she's too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0.  That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, “That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair!  I've worked really hard for my grades!  I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!  Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.  She played while I worked my tail off!”
 The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the conservative side of the  fence.”
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 3:36 PM, Greenday said:

Still not socialism.

Then define socialism. 

because you have marxist socialism, which is the step between capitalism and communism. 

Then you have the dictionary definition of socialism 

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

Well, if the grades are the goods, how does it not fit? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 9:41 AM, raz-0 said:

Then define socialism. 

because you have marxist socialism, which is the step between capitalism and communism. 

Then you have the dictionary definition of socialism 

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

Well, if the grades are the goods, how does it not fit? 

That definition does not describe, at all, all these dumbass examples. Socialism isn't spreading the wealth evenly. Socialism is sacrificing a little so the disadvantaged can get a chance to get themselves up without taking everyone's money and making them poor. If socialism worked that way, why do all these countries with high amounts of socialism still have rich people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Greenday said:

That definition does not describe, at all, all these dumbass examples. Socialism isn't spreading the wealth evenly. Socialism is sacrificing a little so the disadvantaged can get a chance to get themselves up without taking everyone's money and making them poor. If socialism worked that way, why do all these countries with high amounts of socialism still have rich people?

Any ‘rich’ people in those countries are the bureacrats, politicians and their favored, connected people.  

Your definition of socialism is complete crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Greenday said:

That definition does not describe, at all, all these dumbass examples. Socialism isn't spreading the wealth evenly. Socialism is sacrificing a little so the disadvantaged can get a chance to get themselves up without taking everyone's money and making them poor. If socialism worked that way, why do all these countries with high amounts of socialism still have rich people?

Did I say evenly? That 3.5 out of 4.0 means they are still at the top of the academic heap and get to keep their scholarship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kevin125 said:

Any ‘rich’ people in those countries are the bureacrats, politicians and their favored, connected people.  

Your definition of socialism is complete crap.

My definition is correct. We can tax the wealthy higher than we do now by a fair amount and they will still be drastically richer than the rest of us while there is a lesser burden on the middle and lower class. It's what America did in years past when the middle class was flourishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Greenday said:

My definition is correct. We can tax the wealthy higher than we do now by a fair amount 

I love this "fair" s**t you and your ilk spout. What is "fair"? Who determines it?

Can I come live in your house? I can;t afford my rent anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Handyman said:

I love this "fair" s**t you and your ilk spout. What is "fair"? Who determines it?

Can I come live in your house? I can;t afford my rent anymore.

That’s not fair! If you can live at his house I should be able to live there also. I can afford my rent, but I no longer want to pay it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zeke said:

That’s not fair! If you can live at his house I should be able to live there also. I can afford my rent, but I no longer want to pay it.

If you move into his can I move into yours?  After all fair is fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeke said:

That’s not fair! If you can live at his house I should be able to live there also. I can afford my rent, but I no longer want to pay it.

Hey, that's not fair. I work hard to pay my mortgage for what? If your getting a free ride I want one too. I'm going to stop working and move in with you guys. What's the point in working when I can have the same things for free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019 at 4:16 PM, JackDaWack said:

Don't make the incorrect assumption that this is generational.. this attitude has been around since the development of modern government.

Very true. This is why tax the rich has always been popular, because people vote to the extent that it effects them and those near them. Not many people have the foresight to vote on the outcomes that benefits society as a whole. If it affects them negatively, they are out. I'm a government employee, but if i see a candidate that wants to cut wasteful government spending and that means i dont get a bonus this year, then so be it, still has my vote. I'll adapt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Greenday said:

My definition is correct. We can tax the wealthy higher than we do now by a fair amount and they will still be drastically richer than the rest of us while there is a lesser burden on the middle and lower class. It's what America did in years past when the middle class was flourishing.

You know something? We have never had the middle class flourishing with high taxes while not being on the gold or silver standard. 

I will also point out that as a percentage of GDP,  payroll taxes and state income taxes have risen, and federal income tax remains about the same as it has been historically. So we are taking about the same percentage of money out the system, and that percentage a slice of a significantly larger pie. 

The middle class flourished not because they were being taxed to death, but because a larger chunk of that smaller GDP came from actual businesses doing things that employed people rather than coming from investment earnings and highly productive knowledge work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fishnut said:

Hey, that's not fair. I work hard to pay my mortgage for what? If your getting a free ride I want one too. I'm going to stop working and move in with you guys. What's the point in working when I can have the same things for free?

Ok. Fair enough. But if all of us are going in there I think the government should put an addition on for free. Then we’ll be happy citizens and it’ll be fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • I very seriously doubt this has anything to do with terrorism.    1) Harbor pilots are VERY seriously vetted, and highly trained. Not to mention extremely well paid. My experience knowing a few of them, and knowing how they are recruited and screened tells me that there is a slim to highly unlikely chance that a harbor pilot would have participated in anything like that.    2) Maintenance of foreign flag ships is well known to be dubious. Especially these days. These were NOT US flag, Jones act sailors. It was (to my understanding) a largely Indian crew on that ship, with a Ukrainian Captain. Indian crews are not exactly known for being stellar.    3) The bunkers (fuel) these ships use is ‘Bunker C’, which is a heavy, dirty fuel oil that can, and usually is, pretty contaminated. This stuff ain’t your car grade gasoline or diesel fuel. It’s nasty.   It requires nearly constant filter changes and maintenance to the engine/generators. The ship took on fuel prior to departing port, which would stir up all kinds of shit in the fuel tanks, which would contribute to particulates in the fuel lines/filters.    4) I’d say the posting of the chief engineer for Maserek above was pretty spot on as far as chain of events.    This was a shitty accident, with horrible timing and outcome. Not a terror attack. 
    • I saw Lara's interview on Bannon's War Room, and that gave me pause for thought. Her conjecture depends primarily on the veracity of her sources. Regardless, if it's not applicable in any way to this ship disaster, the methods described seem valid to me. And worthy of consideration for the future. As I said before, IMO something is coming. Death by a thousand cuts? Lara Logan Provides Comprehensive Baltimore Update: Experts in Behavioral Analytics, Counter-Terrorism, and National Security Analyze Recent Incident | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
    • Another big windfall for governments'. The 'winner'? Not so much. Mega Millions $1.13 billion winner is facing mega tax bill. The amount is staggering. - nj.com
×
×
  • Create New...