Tragedy at osu homecoming parade
-
@CTMcDonell: Fatalities reported at OSU homecoming parade after a car crashed through the crowd. Updates on @NEWS9 https://t.co/Nxh2SRa706
-
Look at this table above. Aren’t we doing good? Doesn’t it just make you feel all satisfied? We’re down from maybe 18,000 alcohol related traffic fatalities, to, oh, I don’t know, 13,000 a year. Hell, 13,000 dead Americans a year is nothing. Its like Harry Lime in The Third Man looking down from the Ferris Wheel on occupied Vienna after World War II selling bum antibiotics on the black market that were killing people and causing birth defects and saying to his old friend Hollie Martins, who was questioning his ethics:
"Hollie Martins: [on the ferris wheel] Have you ever seen any of your victims?
Harry Lime: You know, I never feel comfortable on these sort of things. Victims? Don’t be melodramatic. [gestures to people far below] Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax - the only way you can save money nowadays."
Its even possible fatalities haven’t fallen because fewer persons are driving drunk, too.
Its possible that fatalities have fallen because medicine has improved and so we are losing fewer of these accident victims.
Hmmm.
On my bad days, I look at these and other tragedies of drunk driving and our culture’s long term impotence to actually solve this vast problem, rather than just reduce it of late, and I cannot help but wonder if a complex (not a conspiracy) of interwoven investment in Big Auto, Big Insurance, Big Judicary, Big Addictive Substance, Big Insurance and Big Medicine might perpetuate it–MOSTLY JUST PASSIVELY DISCOURAGE IT FROM BEING SOLVED AND OCCASIONALLY ACTIVELY, ALSO. Big Auto, Big Addictive Substance, Big Insurance, Big Media and Big Medicine make vast short, medium, and long term revenues related to drunk driving. Let’s list some of the revenue centers in a far less than exhaustive way.
Big Auto (the constellation of the auto companies their suppliers and their dependent deal networks): Gets to sell tens, or hundreds, of thousands of new cars annually to replace the totaled cars. Gets to repair annually tens, or hundreds, of thousands of cars partially wrecked.
Big Insurance: Continually appears to use these accidents as a lever to raise premiums likely beyond actuarial necessities. Gets to sell more and more insurance at higher and premiums related to anticipating the risk of losing bread winners and loved ones to drunk driving injury and fatalities.
Big Judiciary: Lawyers make fortunes defending and prosecuting cases related to these accidents. Cities and Police use this issue to justify hiring huge numbers of patrol cars and motorcycles to issue speeding citations that are a key revenue stream for many cities and towns. Prisons make fortunes off housing these offenders.
Big Addictive Substance: I don’t need to master the obvious here.
Big Media: Gets a free steady stream of grisly media content ideal for keeping audiences stimulated and watching the horror of the evening news.
Big Medicine: It is almost incomprehensible how much money is made off alcohol related injuries and fatalities.
Step back and look at this list of players as an interdependent complex–economic ecology, if you will. Look at the amount of revenues involved to all of these large organizations growing out of these alcohol related auto deaths. And look at who ultimately pays for all these revenues: ordinary persons–both the sober ones and the drunks–with their lives and with their premiums, fees, etc.
The alcohol related death and Injury accidents have to form in aggregate a very significant economic sector of our domestic economy.
And we already know from Warren Buffet’s (reputedly controlling investor in Geico) reputed comments to investors about the problem of driverless auto technology that the auto insurance industry feels traumatized by the prospect of the anticipated reduction in accidents from imminent introduction of driverless auto technology. Buffet believes it will introduce a sharp reduction in accidents and he pulls no punches; that would threaten the solvency of the auto insurance industry if it were introduced too fast.
No conspiracy!
He comments on it matter of factly.
He’s just doing his job helping insure Americans profitably for his investors…and himself.
Its business. I believe Buffet has noting intrinsically against driverless auto technology. Probably even thinks its a good thing in some regards. Probably thinks it will generate new kinds of accidents that will need insurance. Just not enough of them to offset lost accidents, and so support the cost benefit model and actuarial stats the industry currently is structured around.
So: if driverless auto technology threatens the solvency of the auto insurance industry by reducing accidents, imagine what eliminating drunk driving would do to the bottom lines not only of Big Insurance, but Big Auto, Big Media, Big Addictive Substance, Big Medicine, Big Judiciary, etc., but to the whole global economy if it were allowed to happen.
Staggering.
Many in the complex of industries described above have probably known for a decade or more that drive by wire technologies embedded in highways could have sharply reduced the carnage on the nation’s highways. Many can guess the complex reputedly lobbied quietly against it, or at the very least passively resisted it–dragged their feet in layman’s terms.
Now, everyone knows driverless auto technology (a nexus of in-car computers, sensors, fuzzy algorithms, GPS, and wifi that eliminate even the need for in road wires) could end it. Who wants to bet the complex is lobbying quietly against the standards required to bring it to market, at least until the industry can restructure its sunk costs over, oh, say, the next 50 flipping years?
Killing humans is big business not only in war, but on the nation’s highways. There is lots of money to be made killing humans, or letting humans be killed. There are huge long term sunk costs in killing humans, and letting humans be killed, not just in war but, to be as annoyingly redundant as the killing itself, I will repeat, killed on the highways.
I don’t wish to demonize these folks. Its just business. Its just satisficing pursuit of profit in a rational cost-benefit activity. They have to kill who they have to kill. Or maybe a fairer way to say it is: they have to let be killed who they have to let be killed. They don’t really want to kill them. They just, well, they just have to do what they have to do. They are like zombies in George Romero’s Dead Movies. They don’t want to profit from killing, maiming, and eating the living; they have to. Its how it is. The Vampire LeStat would understand. Surely we can, too?
Truth be told, what used to be called the Merchants of Death, but which should now more aptly be called The Money Managers of Death, really aren’t very good at thinking of how to make money any other way than killing people. They are apparently go with the flow types. They are apparently conservers and growers of the status quo of sunk costs. They are proud of being this way. They think this is the right way to be–the only way really. Everything else leads to anarchy they seem to think. To them, just adding seat belts once upon a time seemed a threat to Western financial order.
These are good people. I view them as I view the zombies in Night of the Living Dead. They aren’t evil. They just have to do it. Thus, I want to understand them and be compassionate, same as I wanted to with Romero’s zombies.
They were kind of funny in their own way, when they weren’t threatening to eat someone at least. They stumbled around mindlessly bumping into each other in subdivisions, and shopping malls, and what have you. They were kind of the Keystone cops of death; that’s the way Money Managers are, too. They are so used to investing in death that they are numb to it. They actually stumble and bump into each other trying to find the next investment vehicle of death–the next new way to kill, maim, and eat persons. Like zombies, the part of them that might have been appalled has died.
I suspect the Money Managers of Death even view making money by killing people as a professionally necessary “diversification” in the investment risk management game; that’s the game they like to play, you know.
Oh, sure, they invest some, even a lot, in making goods and services that don’t kill people, but many good money managers know they eventually HAVE to diversify into the death business to diversify risk.
There are goods and services that nurture life, and goods and services that nurture death. Gotta invest in both. Gotta. Even in just a random walk down the yellow brick road of money management.
Gotta do it.
And, of course, life and death really are intertwined, aren’t they.
The world’s great religions have always understood this.
And Money Management is now one of the world’s great religions, isn’t it?
Killing people is essential to making so many of the other goods and services necessary. Now, I mean this with all due respect: contrary to the hype, the Money Managers of Death aren’t super good business men at all. They are rather one-trick death ponies; that is what they are.
I am not demonizing them here, nor am I suggesting that they are evil persons and conspirators in this. I am only describing them as they are, doing what they do, for the apparent reasons that they keep doing them. Its a job. There’s money to be made. Someone will do it. They aren’t really good at painting, or singing, or inventing the next iPhone, or visualizing heaven on earth, or ensuring plenty for all. They are just good at killing persons with money management to achieve a good risk-return matrix; that some of them are good at.
Why, they are not even murderers in the eyes of the law. They are shamans of risk management managing risk and return for themselves and their clients, and so for the good of us all, even if they kill, maim, or sicken us in the process.
A rational case could be made that their core business IS killing and injuring persons in order to make investment their in panoply of other goods and services necessary to all of us. Or maybe to be fair, letting persons be killed and maimed and sickened in this pursuit.
Its all about risk management, isn’t it?
They have to, I suppose, continually raise the risk to a lot of us of not buying their laundry list of goods and services by investing in death and injury, otherwise we might stop buying, or might not buy enough in a timely fashion.
Ya follow?
While its true that accidents happen regardless, the big taboo (not a conspiracy, just an under publicized fact really) of our economy is that accidents and the resulting injuries and deaths can be biased to happen more or less than they do. This is ability is within our feeble human grasp even on this mortal coil. Death, injury and sickness from goods and services produced generally CAN be modulated to varying degrees, and what’s even better (for the Money Managers of Death) is fear of death, injury and sickness can be modulated through mass media, too.
If you need to sell a little more car insurance, invest in Big Addictive Substances and sell more addictive substances, and show more effects of drunk driving on the evening news. Boom!!! If you need to sell more health insurance, invest in and sell more cancer causing products. If you need to sell more attack helicopters, guns, bullets, cruise missiles, helmets, uniforms, military vehicles, and ships, invest in terrorist organizations, then take them off the teat briefly, and watch them stir up enough trouble to justify a war, in a place with the resources you covet. These are the dynamics of designer death managed by the Money Managers of Death.
If we take death and injury away from cars, how will they replace that lost revenue? Sell more convertibles? I don’t think that will cut it, as unsafe as convertibles can be. Maybe take out the seat belts? Not likely; that’s a little heavy handed. What could the former Merchants and now Money Managers of Death do if death and injury were largely removed from cars?
They would have to invest in new ways to kill, injure and sicken us; that much we can guess. Its a question of diversification. They can’t get out of the death business. They have sunk costs after all. They have risk return dynamics to offset. They have historically shown little willingness to get out of the killing, injuring and sickening industries. IMHO, its not JUST the sunk costs. Its the risk diversification that keeps them doing what they do.
I suppose they might just invest more heavily in GMO food and engineer more foods and fluids that take us out in the short, medium, and long range by design, if such can be orchestrated by actuarial tables.
This is how it is, until human beings decide to get these intelligent, god fearing, honorable, skillful, parasites off our persons out of control of our economies and our body politic.
THERE IS SO MUCH MONEY TO BE MADE KILLING PEOPLE.
This NOT a conspiracy.
This is business.
P.S.: Did I say I am tired of persons I have known dying from drunk drivers?
-
Interesting to compare to the 12,564 gun related deaths in 2014. Almost exactly the same.
Doug Gottlieb is well known on twitter for mindlessly calling for more gun control every time there is a tragedy – “we have to try something else” – yet he was keenly silent when it was reported that the driver in question was drunk (which now maybe she wasn’t). No outrage about alcohol, nothing.
Anyway, guns protect law abiding citizens from thugs. Alcohol is basically for our pleasure.
Which has more value?
And holy crap, how many families are ruined by alcohol and alcohol related actions?
And of course there are 135,000 lung cancer deaths each year related to smoking.
The mindlessness of the gun control crowd is even more exposed.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Now write one about my favorite subject - TEXTING while driving.
-
I agree with you, to a point, but let’s ponder this.
Alcohol is regulated, although the rules get bent (and broken) far too often. Drinking age is 21, in many places you cannot walk around with an open container, even if you are of age. You must be licensed to sell alcohol, can’t serve to minors, must provide ID to purchase, etc. It’s illegal to drink and drive. If you do drink and drive, the penalties have increased in almost every state over the last decade, to the point that in most states you can have your license suspended for a year for a first offense.
Point being, alcohol, which as you correctly point out, is for pleasure, is somewhat regulated. Those regulations could be enforced better, but the framework exists.
With smoking, there are also concerns, but in most states, it is now illegal to smoke in most public areas. 20 years ago, you could smoke in almost every restaurant. Now, unless there is a separate room with separate ventilation, you cannot smoke in an indoor area. Have to be 18 to purchase cigarettes, etc. If you light up somewhere that prohibits smoking, you will almost certainly be told to put it out. It’s to the point that I very rarely see a person under the age of 25 smoking cigarettes. It’s just extremely rare in this country to see that today.
Again, smoking is pretty heavily regulated, and has seen regulation increase pretty heavily over the last 15 or so years.
So now guns. Yes, you have to be a certain age to buy a gun, but in most states, minors can also own guns if their parent or guardian okays it. If your parent or guardian okays it, a minor cannot legally drink or smoke.
In many states now, you can conceal and carry. Some states have even gone to open carry. In Kansas, you can conceal and carry in any public building without a license. You can’t smoke anywhere you’d like. You can’t drink anywhere you’d like.
DUI penalties have risen over the last 10-15 years in almost every state in the country. Restrictions on smoking have increased over the last 10-15 years in almost every state in the country. Restrictions on gun ownership have held steady or decreased over the last 10-15 years.
Bars, restaurants and liquor stores that serve or sell alcohol to a patron can be held civilly liable in court for a person that causes damage related to that alcohol. Cigarette manufacturers have been the defendants in many well documented lawsuits.
There are actually laws on the books that prevent gun shops and manufacturers from being held liable for damage or injury caused by guns.
So while I understand your point, there’s really not a good comparison here.
-
@justanotherfan The fact is, no matter how you dress it up, a vast, vast majority of gun deaths are committed by folks breaking the law – as opposed to an accidental shooting, etc. Laws say “don’t do it, you will be put in jail” and they do it anyway.
There is also a substantial and immoral violent culture that permeates urban America, and it is this violence that leads to a majority of gun deaths.
Hillary Clinton and President Obama stand there and decry guns, but each has armed security. It is the ultimate hypocrisy. Law abiding gun owners, who own them to protect themselves, become the enemy of those that rely on guns for their safety.
They want me to give up the ability to protect myself and my family, but have no answers on how to get the guns out of the hands of thugs – the ones that kill, rob, maim, and terrorize. It’s amazing how many country folks have guns, yet no one gets shot. Just amazing.
Why would a thug comply with any law banning guns? That’s the ultimate question that folks can’t answer.
But the same political party that decry guns are the same folks that avoid all discussion of personal responsibility anyway on a vast majority of topics, namely, the democratic-socialist party.
Abortion on demand? Sure, why worry about the holding a woman responsible for having sex?
Refusal to Work? Sure, why not extend unemployment benefits?
Urban violence? Sure, why not blame racism?
School shooting? Sure, why not blame the gun?
No skills? Sure, why not raise the minimum wage?
Parents Don’t Save for College? Sure, give them grants.
Rant over.
-
Guns
Owning a gun makes it more likely that you or someone in your family will die as a result of a gun. That article points out that over 16,000 commit suicide with guns each day (should say YEAR - h/t to @JayHawkFanToo for pointing out the error). The gun violence some need protection from is that of their own hand. Romantic arguments in gun owning homes end in shooting deaths at an alarming rate. However, these shootings are classified as homicides. Women that live in homes with guns are more likely to have that gun used against them. We have often been told that women who own guns are safer, but the truth is that often, attackers will use that gun against the woman it was meant to protect. Incidents of domestic violence turn deadly much more often.
As I posted here a month or so ago, we need to get the image of the shadowy figure in the alley or the random person breaking the window in the middle of the night out of our heads. That’s not how most gun violence starts. It starts with an argument between a husband and wife (or a boyfriend and girlfriend) and often leads to the woman being dead. Or its a child and a parent, or siblings. That’s a murder, but it’s not what we think of when we hear murder. And that isn’t even covering accidental shootings.
Minimum Wage
The number of people on minimum wage now with some college education is increasing. And for people that take low income jobs, it is very difficult to move out of those jobs. That’s a problem. It’s not that all people working minimum wage jobs are low skill. It’s that there are more low and minimum wage jobs now (as a percentage of the workforce) vs. pre-2008.
College Tuition
Many individuals are now caught in the student loan repayment web, meaning that because they took out loans for their own education, they are now in a position that they cannot afford to save for their own children’s education because they are still paying for their own because of stagnant wages (see above).
School Shootings
Many of the individuals that were involved in school shootings obtained their guns legally. The lack of mental health care plays a role in that, but that also shows that either the laws or the enforcement of the laws is inadequate that most of the time, the guns were obtained within the current bounds of the law.
Unemployment Benefits
Let’s ignore the fact that while companies are making record profits wages and overall job availability continues to hold at the same rate. Corporations are making more money under Obama than under any president in either of our lifetimes, percentagewise, while worker wages have slid. And that’s while some companies just aren’t hiring new people at all.
Urban Violence
The tragic truth of urban violence is that opportunities for education (see the link on student loans and rising college costs), jobs (that’d be the minimum wage link and the unemployment link) and other opportunities are limited in the urban core. There is a cycle of poverty. 30 years ago, you could get out of that cycle by taking on student loans and going to college (or getting the grants that you have decried). Now however, that just throws you into a separate cycle of poverty, meaning that, for the first time in 100 years, many in the urban core could see their children worse off than they were because they sought to escape poverty through education. Where there is no opportunity, violence rises - see any major revolution in the history of the world. Right now, that violence is contained in the urban core, but that will not remain the case if the opportunities in the urban core continue to be limited while corporations and CEO’s continue to rake in massive, record profits.
And then there’s the affect the “War on Drugs” has had.
Abortion
In all of my study, it requires both a man and a woman to have sex that results in a baby. Pointing at only the woman seems unfair.
-
I have to say that I mostly agree with all the point @HighEliteMajor made but more importantly…where in the world did you get this figure …“That article points out that over 16,000 commit suicide with guns each day.” ? A quick calculation adds up to 5.8 million suicide per year…really?
The main argument I have is that if you implement all the gun regulation you can possible have…how are you going to prevent the individuals that does not get their guns legally in the first place from having guns, particularly when they are the main cause of gun deaths?
Do you know what percentage of all deaths happen due to gang violence in the big inner cities? If you take guns away from lawful gun owners how are you going to prevent illegal gun owners from taking from law abiding but now defenseless people with impunity? See? The problem with laws is that lawless people don’t give a rat’s ass about them.
You know that our “president” and HRC are now talking about Australia and England as models for future model legislation; both countries confiscated most guns from their lawful owners. I have several Australian professional acquaintances and they all agree that the Australian experiment has been a huge failure…of course you will never hear this from the main stream press… Just sayin’…and with that, back to KU sports.
-
Guns: I’m curious if you have an answer as to how you get guns from the thugs and criminals? No liberal has that answer. Tell me how we get guns from thugs and criminals?
Minimum Wage: How can there be more low and minimum wage jobs now than pre-2008? I can’t believe Obama hasn’t fixed that. Really, folks are being paid the value that they bring to the table. What the $15 an hour minimum wage folks (socialists) don’t realize, and ignore, is that inflation will destroy any supposed benefit they get. Example - If KC raises it’s city’s minimum wage, what do you think will happen? The minimum wage workers live where they work. The price of groceries in KC will go up, restaurants, everything. Further, folks will lose their jobs. Businesses are in the business to make money, and paying some unskilled person that is easily replaced an artificially high wage will change how a business operates.
College Tuition: Don’t get me started. I saved for my children’s education. I pay our way. Yet folks that don’t save get grants. One of my daughter’s friends, her dad, is a lazy ass. Bounces from job to job. Lives off unemployment. Pockets cash without paying taxes from side jobs. And his daughter, because they don’t make much money, got a number of grants and her school basically paid for. It’s flat bullshit (sorry).
School Shootings: You miss the point. It is illegal to bring a gun to school. No gun zones – for everyone except the criminals. Where else would a person feel most comfortable doing such an act?
Unemployment Benefits: I know a few folks that work seasonal jobs, get laid off over the winter, claim unemployment, sit on their tails, and then cheat the system by working for cash. Unemployment benefits were meant to be temporary and transitional, not a way to make a living. And so what about record profits? That’s what companies are formed for. To make money. Workers wages have slid because workers are easily replaceable. High skill level isn’t easily replaceable. If someone will do the job for $10 an hour, why pay $15 an hour? Personally, I want the companies I invest in to either grow their business (stock prices), or pay me a dividend. I own my own business. I take all the risk. My employees get paid every paycheck. They have no risk in my business. If I falter, they leave. It is my skill that creates the income. Why should folks that are relatively unskilled make more? And that’s the key issue. Folks that don’t create money, want more money. The guy that works at the car wash doing a job anyone can do wants more money – when he can be replaced by literally anyone.
Urban Violence: Sorry, but the poor folks in the rural populations don’t murder, rob, and maim like the urban population. CEO’s and profits. Again, jealously. CEOs create value and profit. They do what the burger flipper can’t do. They create the job for the burger flipper – he or she buys the franchise, takes the risk, puts in long hours, and builds a business. The burger flipper has no job but for the risk of the entrepreneur. The problem in the urban core, with the black population most particularly, is the rate of unwed births. 73% of all black children are born out of wedlock. No fathers in the home, no guidance, no morality. The black family structure has disintegrated in our urban areas. The work ethic has disintegrated. And yea, the whole war on drugs was so unfair. Here’s a memo – don’t break the law. That’s a difficult concept for the liberals in this country to comprehend. It must be the evil CEO, or the evil business owner. Again, no personal responsibility. Drugs are nothing but a negative for our society. But then again, loosening the drug laws and limiting the number of felons in jail will continue to add the democratic voting block. Just make sure they don’t have to show ID because that is racist – you know, to prove who you are before you vote.
Abortion: My point was that women are treated differently. With men, the point of responsibility begins when the sex act is engaged. A man is then subject to the whim of the woman. She can unilaterally terminate the life of his child and he has no say. Further, she can of course keep the child and subject the man to years of financial responsibility (which is how it should be). The woman doesn’t have to be responsible with her sex act.
-
@JayHawkFanToo said:
I have to say that I mostly agree with all the point @HighEliteMajor made but more importantly…where in the world did you get this figure …“That article points out that over 16,000 commit suicide with guns each day.” ? A quick calculation adds up to 5.8 million suicide per year…really?
I mistyped. I meant 16,000 per year. I thought I fixed that when I edited, but must not have gotten it right on my phone. It’s 46 per day, 16,000 per year.
-
You have a position. I have a position. I can appreciate that.
Those positions do not agree, and there’s nothing that either of us can do to make that so.
Let’s go back to arguing about how many minutes Jamari Traylor should get this year.
-
@justanotherfan That’s a deal … I appreciate your thoughts as well.
-
Let’s go back to arguing about how many minutes Jamari Traylor should get this year.
Now…THAT is a can of worms…
-
@HighEliteMajor I’m calling you out on being a hypocrite in regards to grants for college considering your position on other stuff. The Pell Grant system was designed to help kids from lower income familes be able to afford to attend college. There are thousands of people out there (like me) who wouldn’t have been able to attend college without those grants. I came from a family where my dad died before I got to college and my mom made under 35k a year. I also went to community college first to lower the total cost of getting a degree. Should I have not received assistance because I came from a single parent family without a large income?
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 good job! Couldn’t have been easy! I bet your mom is really proud of you.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 First, maybe you’ll point out to me the hypocrisy.
No, I don’t think there should be any “grants”. I think you should be able to borrow the money and pay it back. That is much, much different, and is kind of the line I draw on government involvement. Thousands of kids work while in school and save up money working in the summer, and borrow money for school.
I know what the “grant’” system is designed to do. I don’t agree with it. Borrow the money, and pay it back. If you earn a scholarship like everyone else due to grades and ACT/SAT score, or financial contribution to the school, fine, more power to you. Though at a public university, I’m generally opposed to any scholarship that doesn’t pay for itself, or is not supported by donations.
Answer this, if you could – Why should I have to work and 1) pay for my kids’ college, and 2) deprive my family of money I have earned to subsidize your education; all while my kids can’t sniff a grant?
Listen to the sense of entitlement – you ask, “Should I have not received assistance because I came from a single parent family without a large income?”
Uh, no. Why should I – “we” – subsidize you with our hard earned money because your family doesn’t have a “large income”?
You think that because of that misfortune, you should get the government to pay your way through school? Please explain to me why that misfortune should entitle you a large government hand out?
I’m sorry for your loss. But one thing that I did before I really started saving for college for my kids was purchase cheap term life insurance so that if I died, my kids’ college costs were covered.
Because your parents didn’t take care of that, I have to help pay for your college?
You’ll have to explain to me why you should get my money, free and clear, and not have to pay it back.
-
@HighEliteMajor I believe you have xlaimed to be a Christian before, have you not?
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 How about if you fashion a guess as to how much I contribute to various charities each tax year? My favorite charity is St. Jude children’s hospital. That might address your false hypocrisy claim.
I would prefer to provide my money voluntarily, for example, to this endeavor, and other worthy charities – as opposed to the wasteful monolith that has become our government, simply so an overpaid federal worker can process my money, take some for their retirement, and in the process devalue my “contribution” – the charge for the government’s overhead.
So I take by that question that I should be forced by the government to contribute to your college education?
I simply believe that taxes should be used for necessities. Your college education is not a necessity.
-
This post is going to get into Christian theology so just a heads up to everyone who doesn’t believe or agree. Those who know my posting habits know I rarely get into the political and religious discussions that happen here because they are almost always unfruitful and turn ugly and personal. That’s not my intent here, but this is an issue I’ve felt passionately about and when I see a fellow Christian make statements like these, I do believe it is my responsibility to call it out when I see another Christian make comments that don’t line up with the Bible. Posts like these are very rare from me on sites like this because religion and politics are not the focus, but I feel convicted on this one so bear with me on this guys and it doesn’t mean I’m going to call out everyone on stuff like this because I know a lot of people on here aren’t professing Christians and don’t live by these standards.
@HighEliteMajor As a Christian, you are a hypocrite because all Christians are hypocrites, including myself, because we all fall short of the standard of perfections set forth by Jesus. Now let’s take a step back and look at the big picture, because I wouldn’t expect you to specifically help me because you don’t know me personally, but is that really relevant to the discussion.
In Mark 12, Jesus is asked to greatest commandment and Jesus responds with love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself, there are no greater commandments than these.
Now the question becomes who is your neighbor, which is exactly what a lawyer asked Jesus. The answer for Christians is in Luke 10 where Jesus tells a story of a man who was beaten and robbed to that lawyer. A priest and a Levite both pass the man and did nothing, but a Samaritan stopped and tended to the man’s wounds and brought him to an inn and paid the innkeeper and pays the innkeeper some money upfront and tells him if the charges are more he will pay the extra next time he’s back. Jesus tells the lawyer to be like the Samaritan because the Samaritan saw a need and helped that person without expecting to be reimbursed for said help. So according to these two passages, it can be determined that everybody is your neighbor regardless of whether or not they are same religion or have the same beliefs as you.
Acts 20:35 also says, "In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
Proverbs 19:17 says, “Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.”
Matthew 25:35-40 says, "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’
James 1:27 says, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
Philippians 2:4 says, “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.”
There’s plenty of more verses on the matter, but you get the point. It is the responsibility of Christians to help those in need as the need arises, not at our convenience or only when we have excess to give.
It is also well understood that America was established with Christian principles in mind. If a country was founded on Christian principles, then it becomes that country’s obligation to help those in need which is what many of these social welfare programs are trying to do. You brought up those who cheat the system and there are absolutely people who cheat the system, but where in the Bible does it say that you shouldn’t still help those people in their need? I would direct you to these pair of verses.
Matthew 5:42 says, “Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
and
Galatians 6:7 which says, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.”
It’s not your obligation to care about motive, if someone is cheating the system, they will answer for that at some point in the future.
You also say that my college education is not a necessity, I will disagree with that seeing as my profession I am currently training and studying for (teacher) requires a 4 year bachelor’s degree for admittance to an alternative training program since I didn’t major in education in college. Are/Were your kids teachers necessity to you? I ask this because I assume you would prefer your kids learn from someone who is certified to teach the subjects they were teaching your kids and to do that requires a bachelors degree at a minimum to get certified. Moving on from that, you say you own your small business which I assume means you deal with lawyers, accountants, and other white collar professionals on a regular basis. Were there educations a necessity to the operation of your business?
I don’t disagree that our government has many issues in regards to how it’s run, but that’s no different from how the Roman Empire was run and Jesus has some advice for that as well.
Mark 12:17 says, ““Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” And they marveled at Him.”
Jesus doesn’t say screw the government, he told people to pay the government what’s theirs without any qualifiers. The tax collectors and those who are responsible for the disbursement of those monies will answer to the actions, it’s not your job or mine to specifically tell them what their actions should be. If you don’t agree with their actions, vote them out of power and vote for someone who will do what should be done.
I’m not doing this to try and show you up on this issue, but it’s something that’s very personal to me because I was in construction for the past 4.5 years here in Houston before getting laid off because of the oil crash and dealt with many immigrants who came here seeking a better life and was convicted to do what I could to help them. I obviously didn’t make enough to help everybody with everything, but I did what I could to help and I couldn’t, I tried to direct them to places that could help their needs. Because there aren’t many new construction jobs opening up at my skill level and I’ve always enjoyed helping middle school and high school students so becoming a teacher was something I was led to move into.
The last passage that I think is relevant to this discussion is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
You may not like or agree some of these verses say, but if your truly want to be more Christ like and you beliefs don’t line up with what Jesus and the Bible teach, then you need to take a step back figure out how to figure out why your views and philosophies aren’t in line with what the Bible says because it appears to me that some of what your saying really doesn’t line up with what the Bible teaches people about social issues that are current hot button issues in this country.
I was called out by my former boss on this issue as well one day because I was complaining about illegal immigrants which is a huge issue in Houston because Houston is the primary corridor for them coming to this country from most of Mexico, Central and South America. We got into discussions on many of the points you brought up and the passages he showed me and we talked about really enlightened me on my personal views being in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches.
While you say my college education is not a necessity is technically true as far as I know, that statement along with your statements on the government’s responsibilities also reflects an attitude that is in direct conflict with what the Bible says, and when that happens, it should be pointed out so you can be better reflection of Christ to those you interact with.
I’m also saying this as a reminder to myself as well because I’ve been where you’re at opinion wise and got called out and rebuked on it by someone else who’s in basically the same position you’re in as a business owner with kids in school.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 You have quoted certain passages and provided your interpretation. Thank you.
Give to “Caeser what is Caeser’s”, as an example. I never have said “screw the government” in totality. I guess my suggestion would be that Caeser needs a lot less than Caeser takes.
How you can logically interpret tax payers footing your college bill based on bible passages discussing food, drink, and clothing – necessities of life – I will never know.
Your working awfully hard to justify tax payers footing your college bill.
i would suggest that you double your contribution to the government this year. Voluntarily. You might be able to help a number of worthy candidates.
Hard to argue against the Bible.
-
@HighEliteMajor I think you’re still missing the point here. I’m not using these examples to justify any one specific person covering my cost of attendance, but if you think a post secondary education (college, technical, or trade school) isn’t a necessity for many people in this culture, then I have some news for you.
I’m in no way advocating for our government to 100% foot everyone’s post secondary education, but it is absolutely in their best interest to provide what assistance they can if they want society to function in the future. There’s no possible way to prevent people from taking advantage of the programs such as these and Jesus says that and also that this people will answer for their actions.
I am curious as to why you don’t deem post secondary education to be a necessity in this culture.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 I’m going to keep my reply just like me - short and simple.
You’ve torn into me a few times and until I read your post just now, I would have been highly surprised to hear that you were a Christian. Make no mistake about it - I’m glad you are!! I think those of us who are Christians need to make a real effort to have our words reflect that (myself included).
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 “Necessity”? Think about that. You’re saying that college is a “Necessity.”
A necessity is, for example, food, water, shelter, and clothing. Something that you can’t live without, generally.
College may be a necessity, generally, to earn a better living. But that’s about it – and many folks earn excellent livings without it (exceptions not the rule).
And in reality, my suggestions stops no one from attending college. Pay for it. Borrow the money, or work, or some combination of that. Why is it written in stone that someone finishes college in four years?
A full semester of junior college at JCCC costs about $2500 full-time, or less. You can’t tell me that someone can’t work, borrow a little money, and pay for that. Then transition to a four year school where – even at KU, tuition is appx. $5500 a semester. This is incredibly affordable.
Millions of folks support their families without college. Your point of view is about standard of living. That is not a necessity.
Is it not a necessity to have car? Should the government buy everyone a car? And is a 1995 Buick enough? Shouldn’t it be a 2010 model at least?
You say that there is “no possible way to prevent people from taking advantage of the programs such as these.”
You are wrong on that – don’t have the programs.
The government creates these quasi welfare programs that bleed us dry.
A great example is the Postal Service. A bloated entity, always running a deficit, overpaying employees, excellent retirement – and doing a job that private companies can do better. And we keep it around so we can send a letter for 45 cents? And so business and mass market and fill our mail boxes with garbage?
Our nation is running serious deficits, and our debt continues to explode.
Unreal.
-
@HighEliteMajor Well, the reality is college, like anything in life, is as easy or difficult as you make it. This is kind of an aside from the central debate here, but I’m gonna refrain from that. With all the whining about how unfair and expensive college is, having been in it for far too long now, I’ve come to certain realizations…
College students typically complain about a bunch of problems that are so simply in their control. But how many of these problems are eliminated by simply getting a job? A lot of people work and go to school. It’s not that hard. In my opinion it’s irresponsible if you don’t. I worked two jobs while in school taking about 15 hours a semester, pulled a 4.0 and didn’t go into debt on my way. Parking problems? Ride the bus. Get a bike. These issues are not that hard. Dorms? Get a job, find an apartment. Transfer credit problems? Look at which credits transfer to your university before transferring. Lists are available, colleges and universities aren’t going to hold your hand to help you find them. It’s part of the “becoming an adult” process. No diverse groups on camps? All whites? I go to one of the largest schools in the world and almost 15% of our student body is Chinese. Having trouble getting into required classes? Plan ahead. Contact professors and departments to see which classes are going to be offered and when. Textbooks too expensive? Go on Amazon and buy them for a penny. Quite literally, a penny. And then sell them back on Amazon. There are so many mediums to do this stuff through. You can google “(textbook title) PDF” and find one. Seriously, just think. Copy of your transcripts…ya that one is lame. Scholarships are available. A lot of them. Schools aren’t going to advertise this stuff to you. They’re not going to turn down free money. It’s incumbent on students to find them. If you’re studying history with a 4.0, don’t be surprised when the kid studying environmental engineering gets it instead of you. This is, again, part of the “growing up” process. This is why people advocate college. Because it’s like anything in life, if you do it right, it’s going to pay off tremendously in the end. Things like this just perpetuate laziness. Do your research before choosing an institution. Go to the one that is going to benefit you the most, and make the right decisions along the way. Then, if you still find yourself in this same situation, JUST DON’T GO.
-
The issue with college now, and particularly with borrowing to pay for college, is that it is too expensive to borrow to go to college now, compared to what your earnings will be when you graduate.
Starting salaries have held steady at just about every position in the country since 2008. However, tuition has risen. That means that the average student is now coming out of school with more debt, but making the same amount of money. That was the point I was making to @HighEliteMajor the other day in my post. For the first time in history, we are approaching a point where, if you aren’t receiving scholarships, it is not a good financial decision to take out loans to go to college because you won’t make enough money to pay those loans back. That’s bad, particularly if you are already from a lower income background.
The other struggle with college is that, for the things that @MoonwalkMafia has pointed out, if you are a first generation college student, who is going to tell you those things? I had a friend when I was in college that was a first generation student. His parents were extremely proud and supportive and everything, but because neither of them had been to college, they did what they could, got him in the dorms, found out about academic advising and study help and left. They had no idea about how to switch majors, dropping and adding classes, transfer credits, etc.
They had never been to college before, so they had no idea what to do to help their son when he arrived.
That’s something that most people don’t realize. If you are from a family that has college graduates in it, it is hard to understand why people don’t know these things. But if you are outside the college world, it is something that happens all the time.
I have another friend that was a first generation college student. They did what @HighEliteMajor and @MoonwalkMafia have suggested - they worked during school, stayed at home to keep costs down, got a few scholarships along the way and, guess what - they still ended up several thousand dollars in debt. They took a teaching position here in Kansas and have struggled to stay afloat because the pay has stagnated. These are the realities of higher education now.
I realize that for some, they don’t see this side of things, but I come from a lower income area, I mentor some lower income students and I have a lot of friends from these kinds of areas. Quite frankly, college is different for first generation college students. My own father was the first in his family to graduate from college. He saved me from a lot of classic college student mistakes because he made those mistakes himself! That’s part of why I am passionate about this topic in particular, because too many people just don’t see the difference.
College for a lower income first generation student is like being dropped off in New York City for the first time with nothing but $20 and an address. You see cabs everywhere, but you can’t afford a cab with $20. You don’t know if you should take the subway, the bus, the train or just walk. You don’t know which areas are safe, which people to avoid, etc. Now, for those with more money, they can just hop in a cab and give the address and they are where they need to be. But for our guy, he’s in NYC with 20 bucks and no idea what to do next. None of his relatives or friends knows anything about the city. All he can see is skyscrapers and a million people in every direction.
I get that this isn’t everyone’s experience, but it is an experience, and one that should be understood rather than mocked. After all, chances are that first generation student has had to overcome quite a bit to even stand on that campus in the first place.
-
A conservative and a liberal were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. the conservative gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
The liberal was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the conservative‘s pocket and got out $20. He kept $15 for his administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.00…
It kind of sums up the on-going discussion. :d
-
@HighEliteMajor It cost me way more than $2500 a year at my community when the other costs if attendance were factored in such gas, and outside resources needed for projects not on class syllabus. Factor in those costs and it was about $4000 a year to attend. Grants covered those costs and when I transferred to KU, even with the grants, scholarships, and money saved from working, that still only covered a little over half the costs of attendance.
I drove a 1992 Isuzu Rodeo with a busted window, no heat or A/C, and no grill. You talk about being happy with old piece of crap car, I had one in college and they are not cheap to maintain, but it becomes a cycle to where it becomes impossible to actually save money because any extra money went into keeping my running so I could get to work, and get home. You give ideas on how to get college, I’ve been there, stacked classes in one day, up all night writing 10-15 page papers, getting 4-5 hours of sleep if I was lucky, wake up and work all day, get home, up all night finishing homework from the night before, a little bit of sleep if I was lucky, and back to class. I had a non-existent social life because I was either in class, at work, or in the stacks in Watson or Anschutz at night, and on the occasion I had a free weekend, I was in Junction City visiting a cousin and babysitting his kids and he’d pay me for that.
As others said, the vast majority of entry level jobs don’t pay enough to pay off loans in a timely manner and it’s almost better at this point to declare bankruptcy right out of college and deal with because it’s off your record before your done paying off student loans. There’s a reason why there’s a record number of people moving back in with their parents because they can’t afford their own place out of college and to pay back their loans on a current entry level salary.
I’m going to guess based on your previous posts that you’re about a generation or two older than myself, and from my personal experience, a common assumption among towards my generation is that we are lazy and unskilled and unwilling to learn. There’s definitely people that fit that description, but the vast majority are not lazy and not unwilling to learn. The unskilled part is partly true because people are expected to learn everything without solid foundation to build upon. When you’re thrown into a job and expected to have a high level of production and efficiency or lose your job, that’s not a positive environment. There’s too many businesses out there that don’t do new hire training and just throw people to the wolves.
I don’t know what kind of business you own or how many employees you have, but I do have a suggestion that would help out a lot of people that were in a position like me throughout college and coming out of college. I’m sure you have at least one position in your company that requires a college degree such as an accountant. It doesn’t specifically have to be an accountant, any position that requires a college degree. Find a person who has an interest or aptitude for that position in high school or early into college that you know, agree to hire and train them after graduation, and help them pay for their education. Set up conditions they have to meet while in school such as maintaining a certain minimum GPA, have to be a first generation college student, agree to work for you after graduation for a certain number of years so you see a return on that investment, or whatever conditions you want that are reasonable. I know people that have done similar deals in the past where it’s usually 2-3 years or for however long the student was in college at the time an agreement was made. It’s not necessarily something that happens every year, but once every 2-3 year cycle when those peoplemove on to better paying jobs up the corporate ladder. Doing something like this, you’re helping a person attend college who might otherwise be able to, you’re easing the financial burden on their family, and you’re providing a solid foundation for them to build their professional skills on once they start working for you and preparing them for their future jobs.
The government’s screwed up, nobody can reasonably deny this, but there’s absolutely stuff you can personally do to help ease that burden of others because you have means to do so. It’s absolutely a form of charity, but it’s also something that helps you out in the long run as well and has a CYB in it that protects you from someone trying to take advantage of the situation.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 It has been an interesting discussion … and I meant $2500 per semester at JCCC, not per year. Tuition, books, misc.
I do appreciate that you recognize the tax contributions for items such as student loan grants are a type of charity.
On your suggestion to set up an college degree program through my business, I probably won’t ever do that. Again, my choice is that I would rather take money that would otherwise come to me and provide it to what I see as a more worthy charity, such as St. Jude. If I have an employee I like, or I want to retain, I simply pay them more and they can do with the money what they would like.
@JayHawkFanToo – that’s pretty funny. One of my close friends is very liberal (masquerading as a “moderate Republican” for many years until 2008; you know, the “I’m liberal on social issues, but conservative financially” B.S. ), and I continue to prod him to send in more tax money each year as a contribution to the government. To date, I am quite sure he has not. Shocking.
-
I bet you and I are about the same age given your story, etc. I drove a 10 year old Honda throughout college, then got another Honda that was about 8 years old when I was in law school when the first car stopped running. I can definitely agree that keeping an old car running gets expensive very quickly. It bleeds you dry, $100 at a time.
The reason I think something has to happen with college is that I look at my story and realize that if I was a high school freshman right now, even with my academic credentials, I probably couldn’t afford to go to both college and law school, especially without grants. A kid that has the same dreams and potential that I had 20 years ago would be completely shut out of realizing that because of finances. That is an American tragedy.
Talent is not limited to upper income levels. The next great chemist, or attorney, or biologist, or whatever, may be sitting in some inner city or rural low income area right now, with all the talent and potential in the world to cure cancer, or reduce toxic emissions, or become a Supreme Court justice or just make a difference in the world right in their own community. That talent is sitting there, and it may not be cultivated because that kids parents don’t make enough money. That’s a waste.
And yet, too many people are content to let the greatest resource on this planet, God given talent, be wasted simply because that God given talent wasn’t born into a home with sufficient earthly resources.
Would the world be better off if the next kid like me doesn’t get to go to college and law school, and instead of becoming an attorney, and mentoring other kids, and working a job innovating the way things are done in the world, ends up working as a plumber, or electrician, or shift supervisor at the local grocery store?
I sometimes talk to people in admissions at different law schools. They have noted that there is a crisis not just in law schools, but in all graduate programs. Simply put, the programs are becoming cost prohibitive, to the point that many students with the credentials simply are no longer applying. As a result, the qualifications for many schools have begun to decline over the last several years, and some believe they will continue to do so because the question is not “Can you handle the work” but “Can you afford the cost”.
We are asking the wrong question. At some point, we will have a generation that has all the wrong answers as a result.
-
@justanotherfan Again, I think the point is missed here. Borrow the money. Pay it back.
There is a big difference between being given money vs. borrowing it.
What would have happened if you didn’t get grants would have been that you would have borrowed the money. Your standard of living would have been decreased a bit for the years you paid that extra money back. Life’s rough. But then again, I’m guessing you would have done just fine.
So some kid that wants to be doctor should be given our money, simply because of his financial circumstances, when an alternative is to borrow it and pay it back?
This mentality of expecting others to foot the bill astonishes me on one hand, but is not a surprise on the other. That’s how our culture has deteriorated.
One might wonder what is a more productive profession – Plumber, electrician, or attorney? Regardless, our country needs each of those professions filled. A smart kid that becomes an electrician can run his own company. You talk about electricians and plumbers as if they are inferior professions.
You mention that programs are “cost prohibitive.” So that’s my problem? I should have to pay my tax dollars because the cost is high? Perhaps there should be a focus then on the costs.
And remember, it’s supply and demand. If the cost is high, but the return is high, folks will pay the price – see med school costs. Paying back a $200,000 student loan for an orthopedic surgeon is a certainly reasonable. If the cost of the program is not worth the attendance cost, then folks won’t go – unless there is something artificially affecting the market.
But there is the key – unless there is something artificially affecting the market. There’s your answer. The government subsidizing education artificially affects the market. It increases the costs because this monolith is helping to fund the process. Thus folks taking the programs don’t feel the entire sting of the cost, and their market decision is affected. That leads directly to the rise in costs of college, because the colleges are setting their costs based on folks continuing to pay the price (and that includes their free money, or grants, on the backs of taxpayers).
Any questions?
-
With all due respect, your comments signal to me that you likely have not been in and around higher education in some time, so you are not as aware of the current issues.
And remember, it’s supply and demand. If the cost is high, but the return is high, folks will pay the price – see med school costs. Paying back a $200,000 student loan for an orthopedic surgeon is a certainly reasonable. If the cost of the program is not worth the attendance cost, then folks won’t go – unless there is something artificially affecting the market.
The reason that most every rural area in the country has a crisis (and why rural hospitals, dentistry practices, etc. can’t stay open) is that the pay can’t keep up with the cost of attendance. Sure in areas near metro areas it is easy to pay a doctor, dentist or surgeon enough money to make the cost of medical school worthwhile. But in a rural area, that’s not possible. I’m from the city, so it doesn’t affect me, but I have a friend from college that wanted to move back to their smaller hometown and open up a dentistry practice, but basically found it to be cost prohibitive because the earnings just aren’t there.
You can make enough, but only if you take certain jobs. That’s why its a constant struggle to find people to fill positions like public defenders, rural nurses and doctors, etc. The cost for going to school for a public defender is the same as if you take a job as an attorney at a larger firm. However, the pay is quite different.
There is an assumption that the market will regulate itself. Never in the history of ever has the free market regulated itself. Prices will always go up because the desire for profit will drive prices up, particularly for necessity items. We built up a thought in everyone’s mind that education is the way out of the poverty cycle, but as @Texas-Hawk-10 mentioned above, there are a lot of kids graduating from college with so much debt because they BORROWED that money that they can’t even afford to rent their own apartment while they work in a starting salary job.
Recently, the American Bar Association required law schools to stop publishing the mean starting salary for their graduates, and instead publish the median. This was because the mean was being dragged higher by a handful of high earning outliers, while the median remained 15-20% lower. The ABA determined that was deceptive as it gave students a false sense of what they could borrow in school due to a salary expectation that was unrealistic. This has happened just in the last two years!
Borrowing doesn’t work anymore, because borrowing restricts the jobs you can legitimately take, leading to the crises that I noted above.
-
@justanotherfan I have two kids in college right now. I thus have contact with multiple families – their friends – that have kids in college as well. Different income categories. One of my daughter’s roommates got a pell grant. She doesn’t work while in school right now, fyi.
And I know, the market isn’t perfect. Never is. And I never said the market will regulate itself and I didn’t say that is assumed. The market imperfection argument is always a safe refuge. But you don’t (and can’t) refute what I’ve said on the topic, because it is true. You said prices will go up because of the desire for profit. But you ignore the fact that prices go down because of the desire for profit. It’s called a price point.
If kids borrow too much money, and can’t pay it back, then they shouldn’t go to college. It’s not worth it. Likewise, I would not pay for my kids’ college if I didn’t think it was worth it, e.g., I wouldn’t pay for a degree in the fine arts, or philosophy. That’s a market decision.
But there is also risk with college. Every kid isn’t entitled to success simply because he/she goes to college and racks up debt. It doesn’t work that way. There is always risk.
You, apparently, think a kid (only if his parents can’t pay) should get free money from the government and not assume the risk? Makes no sense to me.
Why point out something that is obvious – a public defender getting paid less than an attorney at a large firm? Folks that need to work in the public defenders office either didn’t do well relatively speaking in law school. The bottom of the class. Couldn’t get a better job. Or they are just young and getting a foot in the door. They aren’t as marketable. It’s how life works.
Further, some choose to do that for a living because they want to. But like anything else, it’s more about supply and demand. Generally, the smart, motivated, and talented lawyers end up making more money.
You transitioned your discussion to the plight of rural America. The government has created incentives there I recall, loan forgiveness, etc., for medical fields. I don’t know the specifics. But isn’t that a more reasonable approach than just saying, “free money, you get a grant?”
“Borrowing doesn’t work anymore …”
If I grant you your point for the sake of argument, I would say that throwing our tax dollars at it in the form of grants, which creates no incentive for college costs to be decreased, is no answer.
Grants – the government paying for school – as I said before, is a large contributor to this and doesn’t permit the costs to come down closer to the real value of the education.
-
@HighEliteMajor said:
I would not pay for my kids’ college if I didn’t think it was worth it, e.g., I wouldn’t pay for a degree in the fine arts, or philosophy.
Wow. So money is the only measuring stick?
Some colleges and universities are called “liberal arts”, which long ago were opposed to “servile arts”. “Liberal arts” were / are things worth doing in themselves, not just because they were means to some other end.
Money is at best a means to an end: no intrinsic value.
I suspect players or handlers who treat college as just a stepping stone to monetary success will tend to choose UK over KU.
-
This comment really ticks me off.
Why point out something that is obvious – a public defender getting paid less than an attorney at a large firm? Folks that need to work in the public defenders office either didn’t do well relatively speaking in law school. The bottom of the class. Couldn’t get a better job. Or they are just young and getting a foot in the door. They aren’t as marketable. It’s how life works.
That shows an extreme lack of understanding regarding the legal profession. Some of the most talented litigators that I know are public defenders. The fact you think they are unskilled is disappointing. A guy I went to school with got a job at a decent firm even though he finished school at the bottom of the class. But he was guaranteed that job when he got into law school because he had a family connection. Assuming the people at big firms are more talented or more marketable is a joke, plain and simple, and to take a shot at individuals that are passionate about public service is, frankly, sad.
The sad thing is that a lot of individuals can’t pursue that passion because paying off their debt is more pressing than doing something they actually care about.
-
@HighEliteMajor Fields like the legal, medical, engineering and other white collar jobs often come down more to who you rather than what you know in regards to who gets hired at the higher paying firms. I’ve dealt with a lot of PE’s who didn’t have a clue what they were doing when they would design an element of a building and I would have to redo their design so.it could function in the real world. After dealing with an design firm across multiple projects, you start realizing which of their PE’s kniw their stuff and which ones don’t have clue what their doing. It also became a pretty common theme to find out those PE’s who were terrible at their jobs usually had a dad, uncle, or family friend in the industry that got them their job. A lot of those types of fields frequently have incompetent people who cruised through school in the bottom half of their classes and didn’t put in the work because of who they knew in that profession. There are many public defenders and small town laywers who are way better at their jobs than people at bigger firms, but are in that position because they didn’t know the right people.
Your views on issues like that are something you really need to take a step back from and reexamine because it is very flawed and distorted view from what reality is.
