Bush Admistration hurts students with cuts to financial aid and other programs
POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Sunday, February 12, 2006 05:51
VIEWED: 4263
PAGE 3 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Doesn't matter, US companies buy the top talent from other countries to work for them. It's happened in the past, it's happening now and the way the US education system is going downhill under this and previous administrations, it'll happen even more in the future.
Heh. You won't have the money to do so, you're bankrupting yourself.
And ironically, our government has checks and balances that occur naturally whereas your system was always "honor based" but now that said word is out of favour with the Republicans, they're going to drive whatever agenda they want. Best of luck America. You're going to need it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Heh. You won't have the money to do so, you're bankrupting yourself.
And ironically, our government has checks and balances that occur naturally whereas your system was always "honor based" but now that said word is out of favour with the Republicans, they're going to drive whatever agenda they want. Best of luck America. You're going to need it.
Just want to clarify that I'm not actually American and pretty glad about it too (no offence to all you Americans on here). Anyway, US debt is in the trillions already and the companies are mostly still doing fine financially, so being able to afford employees isn't really an issue (not like foreign workers get paid more). There'll always be foreign talent in US companies, because most people want to work in the US and US companies need their expertise, so it's a win-win relationship.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually US companies won't "buy in talent" that's an inefficient and wasteful method of operating because you have to pay relocation for the worker, pay the worker close to US pay rates, deal with US government regulations and pay US taxes. What companies are increasingly doing is employing people in their own countries and taking advantage of costs and lower pay rates. The problem for the US is that very little of this shows up in taxes, US companies can keep profits overseas and foreign workers pay no US taxes.
It will also mean that less of that economic activity will take place in the US economy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sure, absolutely. Why would they pay to move a guy from india to new york where he would have to pay for new york rent, pay new york and american tax, etc., not to mention his family, when chances are the guy would prefer to remain in india where his salary of $10,000 makes him a rich man?
With the internet, especially, a company can be anywhere. I've actually been working on a solution to this which is radical. I have no objection to the hiring of indians, it helps balance the world economy, and so yay to everyone involved. Yay the corporations that outsource, yay the outsourced employees who take the jobs and do the work, and yay yay yay to the tax evasion which takes hands out of the govt. discretionary taxbase, 95% of which goes to agressive military spending. And yay capitalism and the global free market for making it happen. And even yay communist China for letting down its walls to take part.
The only snag I have is that it leaves America unable to compete, because we are overregulated and overtaxed. I don't think that anyone is really interested in a solution to this, so I'll skip it because some sort of partisan argument would ensue, unless someone really in interested, in which case we can start a new thread to discuss solutions. For my part I'm interested in solutions which do not put an end to outsourcing, and not interested in anything which is going to put up trade barriers and take these jobs out of the hands of the indians and chinese who work so hard to make our global corporations run. (It's because of those folks in india that I actually *do* get someone on the phone. If that ended, American companies wouldn't hire Americans, I would just get endless computer menus.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Also, I agree, it's not just Bush, but also Clinton. But then Bush and Clinton are the same clown with different hats.
HELLO!!!
This isn't the Clinton Administration..its the Bush Administration....
Clinton was far from perfect, but trying to bring him into the game at this late stage is ridiculous..you reps just don't want to take full responssiblity and acknowlege what a Colossal mistake you helped let cheat his way into office!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
HELLO!!!
This isn't the Clinton Administration..its the Bush Administration....
Clinton was far from perfect, but trying to bring him into the game at this late stage is ridiculous..you reps just don't want to take full responssiblity and acknowlege what a Colossal mistake you helped let cheat his way into office!!
This was funny. Every once in a while a post is funny. This one made me smile. They're so cute when they're mindlessly partisan.
Anyway, I don't think I shirked blame for Bush, that wasn't my point with the whole "wolfowitz is a socialist mole" rant. It's that the point. The point is to understand what kind of monster he is.
Sure, it's our bad, I think I said that at least six times. But still, there is little that Bush has done that Clinton didn't also do. So, to enumerate, here they are:
1. Clinton did not run up an enormous deficit. For this, he should be praised. It's probably the only thing he should actually be praised for.
2. Clinton did actually authorize torture. He can't get praise for this, because this is what you expect from a human. Bush must be something else.
That's about it.
3. Clinton did invade countries and attack them, yet fail to do so when there was not enough oil:
3a. Bush invades Iraq, Afghanistan, but not Darfur where help is much needed.
3b. Clinton bombs Iraq, invades Somalia, Haiti, and Yugoslavia, but not Rwanda or Burundi where help was much needed.
4. Clinton got caught doing illegal wiretapping and was forced to invent a new FISA law. Bush has been caught doing illegal wiretapping and will soon invent his own new FISA law.
But, Bush in some ways is not as bad as Clinton:
5. Bush has yet to kill 100,000 people, let alone 1 million, the estimated total of Clinton's serial wars.
6. Bush has actually not destroyed as much of the earth's forests as Clinton did.
7. Bush has never attacked an American community on American soil and murdered the American citizenry within, and later made up justifications rather than apologize.
8. Bush has never blockaded food or medical supplies from a country to starve the people out, or to death.
On the global scale, it's like comparing Tojo to Mussolini, so it may seem pointless, but objectively, if there was an election between Bush and Clinton, Bush would still get my vote, and arguably, Gore was a continuation of Bush, so we are lucky to have Bush. Again I would argue that Kerry, who wanted to open new war fronts, increase the troop levels in Iraq to 500,000 and institute a draft, we are still better off with Bush.
This doesn't touch on:
A) We are still not WELL off with bush.
B) All of this is not the point, the point is, Bush is Clinton, not because they are alike, but because they are both Cheney.
Cheney ran the Clinton Admin to a large extent, and now he runs the Bush Admin. Cheney is a friend of Clinton's, and together they created our new military industrial complex and the NWO serial war plan. It's not a long string of conspiracy, it just a simple step.
Any democrat who right now thinks that they will be stopping the Cheney Reign of Terror by voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the wife of the man who handed control of the military to Halliburton, and Cheney, it's CEO, and who fought wars for Halliburton, the wife of a man who allowed the US forces in the UN to be the break in an arms embargo in order to funnel arms to muslim militant widely believed to be part of Al Qaeda, anyone who thinks this, is sadly mistaken, and is about to help re-elect Dick Cheney to the position of emperor of America.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Quote:
HELLO!!!
This isn't the Clinton Administration..its the Bush Administration....
Clinton was far from perfect, but trying to bring him into the game at this late stage is ridiculous..you reps just don't want to take full responssiblity and acknowlege what a Colossal mistake you helped let cheat his way into office!!
This was funny. Every once in a while a post is funny. This one made me smile. They're so cute when they're mindlessly partisan.
Anyway, I don't think I shirked blame for Bush, that wasn't my point with the whole "wolfowitz is a socialist mole" rant. It's that the point. The point is to understand what kind of monster he is.
Sure, it's our bad, I think I said that at least six times. But still, there is little that Bush has done that Clinton didn't also do. So, to enumerate, here they are:
1. Clinton did not run up an enormous deficit. For this, he should be praised. It's probably the only thing he should actually be praised for.
2. Clinton did actually authorize torture. He can't get praise for this, because this is what you expect from a human. Bush must be something else.
That's about it.
3. Clinton did invade countries and attack them, yet fail to do so when there was not enough oil:
3a. Bush invades Iraq, Afghanistan, but not Darfur where help is much needed.
3b. Clinton bombs Iraq, invades Somalia, Haiti, and Yugoslavia, but not Rwanda or Burundi where help was much needed.
4. Clinton got caught doing illegal wiretapping and was forced to invent a new FISA law. Bush has been caught doing illegal wiretapping and will soon invent his own new FISA law.
But, Bush in some ways is not as bad as Clinton:
5. Bush has yet to kill 100,000 people, let alone 1 million, the estimated total of Clinton's serial wars.
6. Bush has actually not destroyed as much of the earth's forests as Clinton did.
7. Bush has never attacked an American community on American soil and murdered the American citizenry within, and later made up justifications rather than apologize.
8. Bush has never blockaded food or medical supplies from a country to starve the people out, or to death.
On the global scale, it's like comparing Tojo to Mussolini, so it may seem pointless, but objectively, if there was an election between Bush and Clinton, Bush would still get my vote, and arguably, Gore was a continuation of Bush, so we are lucky to have Bush. Again I would argue that Kerry, who wanted to open new war fronts, increase the troop levels in Iraq to 500,000 and institute a draft, we are still better off with Bush.
This doesn't touch on:
A) We are still not WELL off with bush.
B) All of this is not the point, the point is, Bush is Clinton, not because they are alike, but because they are both Cheney.
Cheney ran the Clinton Admin to a large extent, and now he runs the Bush Admin. Cheney is a friend of Clinton's, and together they created our new military industrial complex and the NWO serial war plan. It's not a long string of conspiracy, it just a simple step.
Any democrat who right now thinks that they will be stopping the Cheney Reign of Terror by voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the wife of the man who handed control of the military to Halliburton, and Cheney, it's CEO, and who fought wars for Halliburton, the wife of a man who allowed the US forces in the UN to be the break in an arms embargo in order to funnel arms to muslim militant widely believed to be part of Al Qaeda, anyone who thinks this, is sadly mistaken, and is about to help re-elect Dick Cheney to the position of emperor of America.
as usual you just can't face up to responssiblity!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
3a. Bush invades Iraq, Afghanistan, but not Darfur where help is much needed.
Actually there is oil in Darfur, but I won't labour the point because the British and American Govs are trying to get UN troops in there
.More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Maybe you were a genius at college, but most students who take their studies seriously struggle to cope with the workload they already have.
Well, there's your problem. Most students don't take their studies seriously. I didn't...till I got in lawschool and learned that if you don't study your totally screwed.
I graduated with a degree in Political Science and got into lawschool while rarely reading anything and missing half my classes.
In lawschool if you miss three classes, you fail. If you don't read, even for one class, you fail. I figured it out quick enough to keep that from happening, but a third of my fellow classmates left school by the end of the first year (a few more lingered till middle of the 2nd).
Shortly after I started lawschool I started a part-time job. I worked 16 hours/week as a weekend security guard on a loading dock. I also worked 10-15 hours/week as a volunteer intern for the local prosecutor (which led to a paid position after graduation). I took my lawbooks and read my assignments and briefed cases during those hours at the security job. I also used my laptop to compose my stirling examples of legal literary prowess in the form of papers, briefs, and law review articles. Without that job I don't think I'd have done nearly as well. After graduation I kept my part-time gig along with my new prosecutor job and worked 7 days/week for the first year to give myself a little boost.
So now I have my own condo, a new mustang, and have student loans half the size of my classmates. So while I sympathize with all the poor students out there who are watching their beer money disappear, as a taxpayer (one in favor of the war) I say, with all due respect, get off yer lazy asses and work for your education! I aint yer daddy, so I quit asking me to pay!
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Conservatives often view universities as propoganda meccas where arch lefties provide courses purporting to be culture history but really are retrospectives focusing on the lives of prominent and even obscure lefties for the purpose of making lefties out of the populous.
HEY! I had that class too!
The professor was a sixties thowback. Sandles with socks, peace symbol, socialism, drug abuse. I loved him. Percy was the most fair professor I ever had, he loved honost debate and was advisor for our College Republicans. Knew a hell of a lot about the law and every story started with "I knew so and so, he's (in jail, dead, in Canada)". Hmm...also had a prof who deducted points for sexist language (mankind and such). Only had one who could say "Ronald Reagan" without scowling. Had a buddist, jew, and a crapload of athiests...but not a Christian professor among them (although I've since heard that there was one in the Business College, but that was several years ago). Every freakin professor's office was a "pink zone", a safe area for the gays and lesbians to cry and complain and get it on (hey, who knows what went on when the doors were closed). Vegetarians...safest place for a cow these days in in a college classroom. Take back the night...from what I don't know (good place to meet chicks though). Four years and not a single conservative guest speaker or lecturer in class or through the campus lecture series. I was taken into custody once and "leaned on" by the administration because I announced my intention to attend a lecture by the lawyer who argued Roe v. Wade and my liberal professor overheard and assumed I'd cause a ruckus. One time my friends from the College Republcians and I joined the University Democrats. We flooded their organizational meeting at the begining of the year, paid our dues and promptly elected me President. I then refunded everone's dues and formally disbanded the club (forcing them to go through the reapplication process and lose all their school funding).
Good times, those undergrad days. Now I have money and send the University a note telling them how much I would like to donate but can't because I can't support institutions that are so intolerant of alternative ideas and free expression (ie conservatives). Instead I give that money to the RNC.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME