93EXCivic wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: That doesn't count living expenses though.
It also doesn't count knocking out the first 2 years at community college, working, etc.
Where there's a will, there's a way. In my case, it took 6 years because I was working 30+ hours a week most of the time.
You'll have to pay the living expenses whether or not you go to school. 
It's not part of the value of the education.
In reply to 93EXCivic:
Alabama A&M, Mechanical Engineering, $29300 including R&B.
That's with grants and scholarships assuming your family is poor. Realistically probably closer to $40K.
Here's a pretty good link for education costs.
http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/collegecost/collegecost.jsp
Some of the places are just out of this world in pricing. 
SVreX wrote: You'll have to pay the living expenses whether or not you go to school.
that too. :)
Toyman01 wrote: In reply to Josh: You want to change it? Take the power away from the government. They can not abuse what they don't control.
You're not listening. The point is that we still need government (or some extra-economic entity) to do things that the free market has no mechanism to support. Private investment can't be relied upon to drive groundbreaking scientific research because the funding gets cut when the findings aren't supporting the investors' goals, or things just never get studied because nobody knows beforehand how they'll make money from the result. Or the investment necessary is too great for a private entity to take the risk (space exploration, particle physics...) even though the payoff might be immeasurable. Private investment won't create public artworks, because there's no mechanism to charge everyone who enjoys it. Private industry won't clean up a river because it's more profitable to dirty it up and leave it that way. I want a government that does all these things, because, hell, that's the point of government. To do the things we deem important that privately we can't or won't do. There's such a focus on money, tax rates, bickering over expenditures that sound huge but are tiny fragments of the total budget, that we've lost sight of the fact that the government is supposed to be for US, to do the things that WE as a public want to get done. Like the public health care that a majority of the actual public supports, for just one example. Increasingly, the people we elect aren't motivated to act for US, and the OWS protests are a reaction to that.
Maroon92 wrote:tuna55 wrote:I graduated high school in 2005. Over the course of my 4 year degree, tuition at my school increased 20%. Sorry bro, 2005 is not 2011.4cylndrfury wrote: How long ago was that? Im talking today, right nowReady for this? Get in the way-back machine. I graduated in...... 2005.
I realize this thread has taken an odd turn, what with the arts somehow being dragged in, but hey, I want to defend myself.
My school, Kettering University, charged 11 and change per term in 2005 and 14 and change in 2011. A change of 27%. A gallon of gas in 2005 cost about $2.25 and now costs about $3.42, a change of about 52% - inflation is a bitch? Sounds like 2005 is pretty much like 2011.
To Svrex's story, no, probably not every kid can do what his kids did (I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter, by the way) but not all should. Not all could. And that's fine.
Josh wrote: ... hell, that's the point of government. To do the things we deem important that privately we can't or won't do. There's such a focus on money, tax rates, bickering over expenditures that sound huge but are tiny fragments of the total budget, that we've lost sight of the fact that the government is supposed to be for US, to do the things that WE as a public want to get done. Like the public health care that a majority of the actual public supports, for just one example.
Who decides that that is the point of the government, you? Sounds a bit odd, that. Certainly not what my definition would be...
In reply to SVreX:
I shouldn't even bother, because I don't think you could be trying harder to miss my point and just argue with whatever I say (not only in this thread), but, well, you missed my point entirely. WHICH IS, not to say that google is wonderful or the government should adopt their business model, but that there is often immense value in doing things that don't have a direct obvious economic benefit. And like you said, we can't expect private companies to undertake such things because most don't have the massive resources that google does.
To suggest that our government doesn't "have the resources" to, for example, double NASA's funding is nonsense. NASA's budget last year was 18 Billion dollars. The federal reserve has loaned out 16 TRILLION dollars in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Trillion. With a T. Trillion. The National Endowment for the Arts, a favored whipping boy for government "waste" has a budget less than a hundredth of even NASA's, at 154 Million. The idea that we "don't have the money" for something like that is just beyond silly, and these arguments are made mostly to give the press and the less perceptive members of the public something to argue about so nobody notices the MASSIVE mounts of money they're really moving around.
Besides that, WE are supposed to be the ones who decide what resources our government is granted. If we made the decision that we wanted to go to Mars in 15 years, we absolutely could get that done, no doubt in my mind (or institute national health care, or give everyone free secondary education, or any number of massive goals). We could do any of those things if we wanted to. But we don't do it. Not because we can't. Not because it's impossible, but because we've bought the lie that some nebulous horrible thing would happen if we raised taxes just a little bit. Never mind that we routinely spend much larger sums of money on wars or handouts to the finance industry, without even bothering to raise taxes.
tuna55 wrote: Who decides that that is the point of the government, you?
Well, yeah! That's kind of the point! We're all supposed to decide what we want our government to be, and to have the ability to make it happen. That doesn't work when elected officials act in their own interests or the interests of donors instead of the interests of the people they are supposed to be serving. Hence why the OWS thing is resonating with so many people - who knows, maybe at some point, if this goes on long enough and disrupts the system enough, officials will start to listen to citizens instead of just donors and advisers.
Josh wrote:tuna55 wrote: Who decides that that is the point of the government, you?Well, yeah! That's kind of the point! We're all supposed to decide what we want our government to be, and to have the ability to make it happen. That doesn't work when elected officials act in their own interests or the interests of donors instead of the interests of the people they are supposed to be serving. Hence why the OWS thing is resonating with so many people - who knows, maybe at some point, if this goes on long enough and disrupts the system enough, officials will start to listen to citizens instead of just donors and advisers.
Josh, you're acknowledging that elected officials act in their interests and you simultaneously support the OWS movement. You're a smart guy so it shouldn't be so hard to see the self-deception.
Wall Street isn't the problem, it's the political enablers. OWS and it's supporters are focusing on the wrong people and protesting at the wrong places.
He!!, even those moronic Tea Partiers got that one figured out.
In reply to oldsaw:
If you get bit by a dog, are you going to sue the dog, or the dog's owner .
Josh wrote: In reply to oldsaw: If you get bit by a dog, are you going to sue the dog, or the dog's owner
And once again, you get things back azzward.........
In reply to oldsaw:
6 of one, half a dozen of the other. But if you really think congress has more control over wall street than vice versa I weep for ya.
Honestly though, Wall St and Washington are both to blame for where we are now, but I think focusing on Wall Street's abuses instead of showing up at government facilities was a pretty brilliant strategy. If they'd camped out at state houses or on the national mall, they probably would have been tossed out by armed guards long before the movement gained enough momentum to get much public support. Instead they picked a privately owned park near wall street without a curfew, and thus they couldn't get summarily removed before the movement built up any steam. The other advantage was that the non-government focus lent itself to all the sister protests in other major cities. More people are participating because they might have time to go downtown in their own city, but they wouldn't have been able to take time off work to trek to Washington. That's right, most of the OWS protestors have jobs, unlike the Tea Partiers 
.
Also, because they aren't being directly hostile to elected officials, it allows those who might become sympathetic to the cause to follow the protests from a distance, and maybe eventually show support instead of just forcing them to pick sides day one with an act of hostility. I don't know if it was really planned this well, but it's worked out about as well as the organizers could have hoped.
Josh wrote:tuna55 wrote: Who decides that that is the point of the government, you?Well, yeah! That's kind of the point! We're all supposed to decide what we want our government to be, and to have the ability to make it happen. That doesn't work when elected officials act in their own interests or the interests of donors instead of the interests of the people they are supposed to be serving. Hence why the OWS thing is resonating with so many people - who knows, maybe at some point, if this goes on long enough and disrupts the system enough, officials will start to listen to citizens instead of just donors and advisers.
Josh,
Your "vision" of a Utopian government that serves the desires of your heart is in conflict with the opinion of the majority of this thread. You keep accusing people of not listening but the fact is we are, and we don't want it.
You are kicking and screaming not because of the inherent wrongness of what others are saying, but because of the inherent rightness or what YOU are saying and your unwillingness to live by it.
OWS is far from the majority. Very far. The majority of people do not want health care as it has been presented, corporations do in fact fund public art and projects, and most people understand that we HAVE to make some budget cuts, whether we like it or not, even if it means cutting NASA or something else we like.
I'm trying to be nice about it, but you are wrong. And you've been seriously out-voted. And you don't like it.
That's all you are communicating at this point.
So try this. Since even a 4 year old can understand that you can't spend twice what you make year after year, tell us what you think is worthy of being cut. I see that you love the arts and science and think government money should be used for them. So, what are we gonna cut? Slash big. Entire programs. It's gonna take a lot.
You'll probably start with the military, but be careful. The base I live near is 2 years behind in hiring, because they've been cut to historic lows. They have mandatory overtime with no overtime, and recently stopped tracking comp time because no one will be allowed to claim it anyway. Clearly in conflict with Federal hiring practices. So, I think we should be careful about military cuts.
Sure there's excess. $200 toilet seats, $500 hammers. But they exist in EVERY facet of government (NASA is certainly a terrible offender). There is no government effort that is without excess. If you are unwilling to cut from the arts or NASA, you are unwilling to cut their excess.
Your suggestions are falling on deaf ears because they make no sense. Try offering some constructive ideas for change, instead of griping about your own pet projects or peeves.
SVreX wrote: You'll have to pay the living expenses whether or not you go to school.
Yes but when you have to live in the dorms and pay the overpriced dorms and food plan it does.
SVreX wrote: Sure there's excess. $200 toilet seats, $500 hammers. But they exist in EVERY facet of government (NASA is certainly a terrible offender). There is no government effort that is without excess. If you are unwilling to cut from the arts or NASA, you are unwilling to cut their excess.
You do realize the massive amount of technological advancements that have been made and is in the process of making? Plus the $200 "toilet seats" and $500 "hammers" are according to a number of people (that work in the DOD) I know just a way for the Pentagon to funnel money into black ops.
93EXCivic wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: That doesn't count living expenses though.
Why do people include the costs of being alive in the cost of college? If you don't go to college, can you avoid eating and living somewhere?
By the same argument, if I subtract all my living expenses from my salary, I am almost working for free.
93EXCivic wrote:SVreX wrote: Sure there's excess. $200 toilet seats, $500 hammers. But they exist in EVERY facet of government (NASA is certainly a terrible offender). There is no government effort that is without excess. If you are unwilling to cut from the arts or NASA, you are unwilling to cut their excess.You do realize the massive amount of technological advancements that have been made and is in the process of making? Plus the $200 "toilet seats" and $500 "hammers" are according to a number of people (that work in the DOD) I know just a way for the Pentagon to funnel money into black ops.
Way to miss the forest through the trees.
Otto Maddox wrote:93EXCivic wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: That doesn't count living expenses though.Why do people include the costs of being alive in the cost of college? If you don't go to college, can you avoid eating and living somewhere? By the same argument, if I subtract all my living expenses from my salary, I am almost working for free.
Also add in the cost of textbooks.
SVreX wrote:93EXCivic wrote:Way to miss the forest through the trees.SVreX wrote: Sure there's excess. $200 toilet seats, $500 hammers. But they exist in EVERY facet of government (NASA is certainly a terrible offender). There is no government effort that is without excess. If you are unwilling to cut from the arts or NASA, you are unwilling to cut their excess.You do realize the massive amount of technological advancements that have been made and is in the process of making? Plus the $200 "toilet seats" and $500 "hammers" are according to a number of people (that work in the DOD) I know just a way for the Pentagon to funnel money into black ops.
???
I think we are getting off topic though.
Not to pick on Josh here, but he is missing a few vital points that make his argument weaker. Most corporations I've been involved with pour millions and millions of dollars into local schools. They also fund charities, arts, and so much more. In fact, I would say they do far more good than the government does most of the time. The problems arise when the govt. intrudes so much on them that their profits fall and they cannot contribute as much. In fact, my previous employer went under mainly due to cuts by the current administration. While they were touting the stimulous package, they were cutting massive funding aerospace and defense. Almost every company in here took a big hit, many laying off engineers and scientists so we could fund people to build roads etc. With those cuts also came cuts in donations to charities and schools etc. Where is the upside to this?
For the most part the media paints corporations as big, evil organizations, but in reality there are very few of these. Most of the ones in this country are run by your neighbors, and others who support their community far more than you may realize.
When the govt. starts taking more money, they normally waste it and nothing gets done. Find me one instance when taxes go up and things get better? Who do they get better for, not the average Joe on the street.
The real problem here is not Wall Street, rich people, and not a lack of taxes, it is the mindset that the government must pay for everything and be our safety net as we go through life.
Otto Maddox wrote:93EXCivic wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: That doesn't count living expenses though.Why do people include the costs of being alive in the cost of college? If you don't go to college, can you avoid eating and living somewhere? By the same argument, if I subtract all my living expenses from my salary, I am almost working for free.
Yes. Of course, we should also be counting the opportunity cost of going to school. People going to school full time are not working full time. The cost of college is really: (Tuition)+(Books)+(How much you would have made had you not spent 4 years is studying). I sure couldn't have worked any kind of 9-5 job getting my BS in IOE.
93EXCivic wrote:SVreX wrote: You'll have to pay the living expenses whether or not you go to school.Yes but when you have to live in the dorms and pay the overpriced dorms and food plan it does.
So get out of it like I did, or pick a different college.
Here is my low cost plan -
Go to junior college for two years and take every class possible that will count towards your intended four year degree. After two years, transfer to a four year college. Finish your degree. Work part-time, maybe even close to full-time when you are going to junior college. Do all this really close to your parents' house so you can live at home and minimize transportation costs. Assuming you spent your high school summers making money, this plan might just leave you with zero debt and a nice degree.
DILYSI Dave wrote:93EXCivic wrote:So get out of it like I did, or pick a different college.SVreX wrote: You'll have to pay the living expenses whether or not you go to school.Yes but when you have to live in the dorms and pay the overpriced dorms and food plan it does.
This. There are options. You have to be the one to take them.
You'll need to log in to post.
