It's a not-funny cartoon, but it speaks volumes about how dysfunctional a country we've become when we send our future generations into crushing debt just so they can attain an education to keep up with the rest of the world.
The Problem
Starting July 1st, student loan borrowers face the potential of adding more than $5,000 to their already onerous federal student loan debt. U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) introduced the Student Loan Fairness Act to help ease the burden on graduates.
As you may know, total outstanding student loan debt in America has surpassed the $1 trillion mark. It has outpaced credit card debt, auto debt, and is second only to mortgage debt in America. In fact, a recent study shows that student loan debt is the only type of consumer debt in America that has actually increased during the "Great Recession" and the problem only continues to worsen.
As a result of these debts, millions of Americans are not buying cars, purchasing homes, starting businesses, or otherwise realizing the American Dream.
The Solution
We need a fair and simple federal student loan repayment system and which seeks to alleviate the financial burden of student loan debt on college graduates and support them as they begin their careers and lives.
By creating an equitable system to ease student loan debt we can lessen the financial impact on the next generation while jumpstarting the economy, creating jobs and promoting financial responsibility for higher education.
SOURCE
"...behind the GOP house committee on education statement there does seem to be a indication of agendas well beyond solving the interest rate problem. The statement of "moving toward a market-based interest rate for Stafford loans in a fiscally responsible manner" sounds very much like a policy intended to provide a entry back into the corporate sub loan model and also a disguised gift being sent out to the SLAB's sector.
Student lending should never have been a market based system and it would seem that after the generational disaster caused by allowing market forces into the lending model to even imply market forces will be beneficial in resolving the problem is very much the "March of Folly" effect.
Reality is if the GOP does get market based interests that will rise student loan payments beyond what many can sustain in the "Great Recession". Which will cause a definite increase in the already appalling default rates.
Concerning about how to pay for it...perhaps the issue needs to be discussed in terms of how to end the current debt for education model and end the adverse costs it had levied on our nation, economy, and millions of individuals. GOP emphasis on 'market-based' solutions is little more than a back gate re-entry for a system which has cost trillions and does not benefit the nation."
source
More HERE.
How the Student Loan Crisis Drags Down Home Prices
52 comments:
We should extend our tax payer education for all, to higher education. Where do we stop the line on mandatory education? How can we have a truant officer system for children driven by societies concern that all be educated for the betterment of the whole society, yet, send only those who can afford it through higher education? Again we accept that only those with money will get health care, justice in our courts, or a decent, necessary education.
I have an idea that will solve this issue. Just make the "rich" adopt a student and pay for his/her studies in some useless degree.
On a serious note, why should society, AKA the rich since they are the target, pay for someone else higher education. There is a thing call working your way through school or believing an education is worth the expense.
May a career in welding would be a better investment than a 150K degree in history.
We got away with this kind of system for most of our history because of lack of strong competition -- Asia and Russia hadn't modernized yet and Europe could be counted on to blast itself to rubble every few decades. Neither of those things is true any more, and our lead over the rest of the world in one field after another is gone or eroding. Unfortunately much of the country remains strait-jacketed by a mentality of "whatever way we've always done things is the best, and we have nothing to learn from anyone else", which blinds us to the simple reality illustrated here.
Skudrunner's comment is a useful shorthand illustration of the problem. If you want to know which societies will lead and progress the most in the future, just look for the societies which aren't thinking that way.
skudrunner: "why should society, AKA the rich since they are the target,"
Because the very, very rich can hire a team of lawyers to help them find loopholes in their tax returns, and because they can send their wealth to off-shore banks to avoid any taxes, we in the middle have to make up for the revenues lost from their avoidance of paying their fair share of taxes.
"There is a thing call working your way through school or believing an education is worth the expense."
I don't know what country YOU live in, but no student can work her way through college waiting tables anymore, as we did when we were young. The rate of tuition has outpaced the wages students can make in part time and summer jobs.
You are woefully out of touch with the real world.
No surprise there.
Clear from skudrunners writing he/she does not accept the idea that many things are communally paid for as a betterment to a better society. I wonder if he/she is against paying for police, fire people, or elementary education. Our founders, the intellectuals they were, understood the need for an educated society, which in their day meant could you read and write. Today's educational needs go beyond that just a little. Sounds like skudrunner is part of the Republican notion, that we would be better off living in the 19th century; denying education like Science, or Math. Their leadership and results of that leadership demand more education.
@ Shaw: "The rate of tuition has outpaced the wages students can make in part time and summer jobs."
Yes. Now, why is that?
College Costs are Out of Control
When will congress hold hearings and demand to know why Big Ed is gouging the American consumer?
@ Anon: " ...many things are communally paid for as a betterment to a better society. I wonder if he/she is against paying for police, fire people, or elementary education"
I love having police and firefighters, and I have no problem with my tax dollars going to pay for road a a utility network.
These are public goods. Paying people to get useless degrees is not.
You mention publicly-funded primary and secondary education.
CBS New York Reports:
Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.
I'd say government had done quite enough damage. If an enemy had done this to our education system, we'd declare war.
Skud and any other conservative... why can't the government offer, at least, no interest loans to students so they can study?
Is that bad? is helping students who need that help, a bad policy?
There is simply no way my son could have gone to college without loans. He went to a state school, yet even that cost was out of reach for me and my wife.
He worked all through college, yet still came out with substantial debt.
We can end all the government backed student loan programs and even increase the interest to 'market levels, but that will simply create another class of separate but unequal as many will not be able to attend college.
Shaw,
We agree that the tax code needs to be changed to stop the Rich from paying zero taxes. Have the elected elite change the tax code and eliminate the deductions that favor the rich. I haven't seen much put forth from either party to accomplish that.
As to students can no longer work their way through school. That is garbage. Students have the same opportunity to work their way through college today as they did in the 60's. Yes it costs more but you earn more. No you can't live high and yes you need to sacrifice, dirty work I know. Will you come out of school with some debt, probably. If you insist on going to an elitist school you will have a lot of debt.
But on the other hand, why should a student pay for anything when society will, right.
Skud, for many, the option of working through college is just not attainable.
If students do not carry a certain class load, they lose their health insurance. If they must work a full time job to pay for college, they lose study time, driving grades and future employment opportunities into the tank.
We need some reforms to be sure. 100% payment of college? probably not but there must be middle ground between no societal help, through our government, and a full free ride.
Why is it that we cannot get to even that amount of common ground?
Do we not desire to really look for attainable solutions?
Fine SF, then we will lose against China and other countries whose people are better educated. Of ourse you and the Republicans want no more taxes, thus no more investment in Americas future. That will help, NOT.
Student loans are not the problem. The problem is the high cost of education. Education, like healthcare, should not be a profit-making industry. Tie student loan payback to income tax payments, exchange one for the other. Income tax payments should be 100% credited to student loans.
Get the profit out of education and pay back student loans through your income tax payments and the problem goes away.
"That is garbage. Students have the same opportunity to work their way through college today as they did in the 60's. Yes it costs more but you earn more."
You need to get the facts.
And here's a state-by-state review of minimum wage laws and increases.
And here are charts on average costs of higher education.
And here're some explanations on why college tuitions are rising. As usual, the reasons are not simple.
Why college tuition keeps rising
1. From 2000 to 2010, funding per pupil at state universities fell by 21 percent - from $8,257 to $6,532 in inflation adjusted dollars.
2. Since 2008, when the recession hit, total public funding for higher education has declined by 14.6 percent.
3. Higher-ed support from states has varied dramatically. For instance, in 2010, the percentage change in public funding per pupil ranged from a negative 18 percent to a positive 16.7 percent. In California and New York, public funding declined by 11.6 percent and 7.5 percent respectively. The big winner was North Dakota, flush with energy money, which boosted its commitment to higher education by 16.7 percent, followed by Texas at 6.6 percent.
4. In every year from 2001 to 2011, at least a third of states experienced funding cuts and in more than half of those years, two-thirds of states did.
5. Real net average tuition at state universities, which is the price after grants are deducted, rose 33.1 percent ($3,415 to $4,546). In comparison, average net tuition at private institutions has risen 21.2 percent during the same period.
6. Before 2007, changes in tuition at public universities did not appear to be linked closely with public funding.
Tuition bottom line
What did economists at the Federal Reserve Bank make of these statistics?
They noted that federal funding, such as Pell Grants, is often blamed for driving up college costs. When low-income and middle-income students receive federal grants to attend college, the argument goes, the institutions simply raise their prices to reflect this aid.
The economists, however, suggest that there is "strong suggestive evidence" that decreases in state and local funding of public universities are linked to tuition increases, particularly since the recession. They find this troubling and suggest that college students will have to shoulder even more of the college cost burden in the future.
Shaw,
In 1980 the nominal income was 16500 and college costs were 6300. In 2011 the nominal income was 49100 and college was 15500.
38% of income in 1980 and 31% in 2011. Seems like the percentage of income as it relates to college costs have actually gone down.
All this boils down to taking personal responsibility, that's not swearing is it?
What we need is a system in which young people can enter some area of public service for one to two years and earn two years of higher education or technical training for each year served.
On top of that, we need to create a system of high-quality, high-tech, no-nonsense universities where people of any age can earn a college degree and advanced degrees at cut-rate prices. No high-cost athletics programs. No courses in comic books as pop literature. No professors who devote their time to advancing their careers and the institution's prestige by writing lofty papers on arcane topics, leaving teaching and grading chores to underpaid graduate assistants.
But just as much as that, we need to shore up public schools. We need to make classes in parenting mandatory for middle school, high school and college students. We need to ensure that every low-income parent has access to quality day care at affordable prices. And if you've got a poor single parent stuck in a low-wage job, that day care should be provided for free.
In truth, we're letting our young down at both ends.of their youth and a lot of the in between. The national debt isn't what's going to diminish their lives. It's the greed, selfishness, perverse Randian ideology and neglect that's doing them in.
What, pray tell, is "nominal income"? I'm familiar with the terms median income, average income, low, middle and high income. "Nominal" strikes me as a conveniently fudge-able term of art.
Shaw: Your answer to my question still does not get to the root. For, whether paid for by individual students, or by the state, it is till a cost and still must be paid for.
Government distorts, inflates and wrecks any market it penetrates: Health care, finance, college.
OK folks. Let's look at some real, referenced numbers, since skud brought up the subject but provided no backup for his figures.
My income figures come from here. They are household income and in current dollars.
My college costs come from here. They are the cost of all 4 year colleges ( public and private) and are also in current dollars.
1980-81 college cost = 3499
Income Level, Income Amount, Percent College
20, 7478, 47%
40, 14024, 25%
60, 21500, 16%
80, 31480, 11%
2010-11 college cost = 21657
Income Level, Income Amount, Percent College
20, 20262, 107%
40, 38520, 56%
60, 62434, 35%
80, 101582, 21%
For example, if your income in 2011 was at the 40% level (meaning that 40% of households earned LESS than you did), the average cost of a 4 year college has increased from 25% of your annual incone to 56% of your annual income.
"moving toward a market-based interest rate for Stafford loans in a fiscally responsible manner"
-------
Yes sir folks, the invisible hand of the market is looking to get into the collection plate again.
These dirt bags never give up. They just keep grabbing more, it's what they do, it's all they do and they will not stop.
They had a nice scheme going where private financial institutions issued the loans, slapped on some vigorish and HAD THEM FULLY GUARANTEED AGAINST DEFAULT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Yes sir, quite a little game.
To his credit, Obama put a stop to that nonsense. Once and a while you still hear some fringe right loon yacking about the evil government nationalizing the student loan system and causing these problems.
Best to ignore them.
Let's expand our public college system? You'll have the loons screaming "socialism!" and David "Big Hair" Gregory will have John McCain and Marco Rubio on talking about bipartisan private sector solutions.
We're cooked.
SWAnderson -- Nominal income is income not adjusted for inflation.
Watch out, a rant against the Fed is usually on the way and then they trot out von Mises.
Be on high alert.
Silverfiddle, what is a useless degree?
Mine is in Fine Arts. Useless?
This is a common meme from the right.
What you seem to be after is a culture of investment bankers, programmers and Wal-Mart greeters. That's the way things are moving as we march to the tune of Mr. Market.
Randian ideology, or Objectivism is like any other philosophy. It has good points as well as questionable.
And, there are those who will toss out the good along with the not so good. Reminds me of something said about babies and bathwater.
At any rate this issue is important, it needs to be addressed, and the driver must be Our Own Rational Self Interest as a nation. Lest we become a second rate (or third) country.
And Skudrunner, I am courious. What is the source of your information. I'm interested in umderstanding the data better.
Sadly Skud provides no link... SW nominal wages do not account for inflation...
A closer look would reveal that while wages have been relatively flat since 1980 Skud, as shown even in a nominal wage chart adjusted for inflation, college costs have tripled.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/sad-chart-day-college-tuition-v-median-wages-171625911.html
Institutions of higher learning need to change what they allow as majors in particular subject areas. A degree in media studies, women's studies, and history (just to name a few areas) do not result in the holders of that degrees getting good employment.
The past few years, I am hearing too much from my graduates and their families that students are forced into taking "useless courses" while, at the same time, many enrolled in the classes are woefully unprepared for college-level work.
Just a few weeks ago, a graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law told me that some 20% of those enrolled at UVA are having to take remedial courses. In English, for pity's sake! So, UVA has several remedial courses. These remedial courses are expensive and force students to go to college for "extra years."
I also think that too many now accepted into college aren't college material. They belong in careers such as plumbing, automotive repair, etc. Not everybody should go to college, IMO. We do need people with blue collar skills, you know.
BTW, when I say that not everyone should go to college, I include my beloved cousin "D." Really, he has a gift for mechanics. Yet, because he qualifies for the GI bill, he know has the crazy idea that he should get a degree in liberal arts. He's going to be miserable in that kind of atmosphere. "D" isn't stupid, but his skills lie in an area other than that of academia.
SF:
"Government distorts, inflates and wrecks any market it penetrates: Health care, finance, college"
Explain why PRIVATE colleges and PRIVATE insurance companies' cost of tuition and premiums increased as much as they did.
And then how wonderfully PRIVATE banking institutions plunged this country into a depression due to their plundering and certainly lawless practices.
And when you finish explaining how well the private sector runs things, be sure and tell our veterans what lousy jobs they did while being employed by the distorting, inflating, and wrecking gummint. The big brass who run our military ARE the government, don't forget. Oh wait. You were part of that organization (and duly proud of it, I'm sure).
Unlike libertarians, I don't see the government as the enemy of all, and neither is the private sector the friend of all.
You appear to have a wrecking-ball mentality where government is concerned. But the private sector has proved that without regulations, it will distort, inflate and wreck private markets as well.
Shaw: Government distorts it by inserting itself and creating rules that short-circuit market signals and distort gains and losses, creating perverse incentives.
Government is way up the wazoo of banking, college financing and health care, so much so that these (supposedly private *LMAO*) institutions design their rules and procedures around what the government policy and legislation is.
I want government to be the referee, not a player.
@ Ducky: "Silverfiddle, what is a useless degree?"
Good question. When everyone pays for his own and gets the degree he wants, there is no such thing as a useless degree.
However, when degrees are publicly funded, then it is rightly up to the judgement of the paying public to decide.
This is the downside of throwing our money and our liberties into a big collectivist pile. It causes us to fight over such questions.
Off topic, but I know how much you all love the president.
Since he's here in Colorado today spiking the ball in the face of his enemies, I thought it appropriate to bring forward that
WAPO just gave his gun claim three Pinocchios
Oh my! President Obama and his staff failed to update the data that he's been giving in his speeches in favor of background checks?
Good thing you're out there, SF, to alert us all on presidential Pinocchios, otherwise, we'd all believe everything a politician tells us. For example, that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and that we need to engage in a 10 year war that cost us billions in blood and treasure!
President Obama is stretching the truth to get his point across?
Nooooooooooooooooo!
What an eeeeevul man the president is for wanting better controls on background checks.
And how eeeeevul the American people, who overwhelmingly support this, are!
Thank you for alerting us to this horrendous and despicable deception!
The Sandy Hook parents are ever grateful for your diligence in keeping the Kenyan, Muslim, Commie, Socialist, Marxist, America-hating guy in the *ahem* White House *ahem* honest.
SIlver, I agree it is important that our presidents at least make the attempt to be honest, transparent, and accountable to the American people.
Sadly, Pres. Obama has not done as well as he promised, especially in regards to transparency.
Now, did he lie? Or did he have good intentions that he was unable to live up to?
The answer one has to that question will say a lot about someone.
This story about the GOP in North Carolina wanting an official religion is also telling about the state of the current Republican Party.
Not only are they seemingly the party of you're on your own, these supposed Constitution lovers have even found a way around the founders desire to prohibit a state religion.
Let's see if our connected conservative bloggers who decry President Obama for taking their religious rights will step up and condemn this blatant anti-religious freedom act.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/03/north-carolina-bill-allows-establishment-of-religion-by-state-government/
Dave,
Thanks for the link. I saw that earlier today, and shook my head in disbelief.
Many of these conservative states are doing an end-run around federal law--enacting prohibitive laws on abortion, making life miserable for the poor by forcing them to pee in cups for their welfare, imposing difficult rules for voter IDs, and now this, forcing one religion on everyone in their state?
And many of these people claim the president is "taking away their freedoms?"
Mr. Obama and his staff should have corrected the out-of-date data that he's been quoting in his speeches on background checks.
But I find that his out-of-date data are hardly in the same deceitful category as what Bush and his entire administration did to drag this country into war, which ten-year anniversary we just passed, and which had, to my knowledge, not one blog post on the conservative blogs I frequent.
Such is the state of this country at this time.
I like how everyone changed the subject when I mentioned WaPo giving Obama three pinocchios.
Still stuck on Bush, are ya?
Dave: I didn't call him liar. Take it up with WaPo
And Shaw, you know I have never attached those labels to our president, so why would you respond so?
I did like your emotional flourish as the end. When your short on logos, make it up with pathos!
You forgot to shriek about how it's "For the Childeren!"
Dave: Although I am against the concept, the constitution does not prohibit state religions.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
And the political team sport crap doesn't fly with me.
e.g. "Your party bla bla bla..."
Yes, I vote republican, but I don't represent the party, and I sure as hell don't agree with everything they stand for or do. I just disagree even more with the democrat party.
My political philosophy is constitutional libertarian.
Shaw, it's not as deceitful, but clearly, like other politicians, he has no desire to fix an issue as long as he is using it.
That troubles me. In fact, it makes me angry. But at least there are people on the left that call out Obama as these things happen.
Truthdig.com, the marvelous page of Bob Scheer has very on the ball as it relates to Pres. Obama not living up to the liberal agenda he promised. And, it should be acknowledged by all that the article Silver cites is a supposed left wing MSM site.
Did we see the right calling out Bush or Romney at any levels?
Are we expecting to see Rush, FOX, Drudge or Breitbart say these NC politicians are just stupid?
Of course we won't.
Obama has his faults. The left is not glossing over them. But it is the extreme right that is taking the GOP down a road from where they might not return.
Just another question to Silver, Anon, and Skud... what would the right be saying if Pres. Obama had proposed a state religion? And why aren't they saying it regarding their own party today?
Just as i thought... crickets!
I like how everyone changed the subject when I mentioned WaPo giving Obama three pinocchios.
Still stuck on Bush, are ya?
Dave: I didn't call him liar. Take it up with WaPo
SF: "And Shaw, you know I have never attached those labels to our president, so why would you respond so?"
All of my responses are not about you, personally, but they often refer to the con/tarian way of thinking, with an emphasis on the con.
SF: "I did like your emotional flourish as the end. When your short on logos, make it up with pathos!"
Yes. I thought it was clever as well. But somewhat short on pathos.
SF: "You forgot to shriek about how it's 'For the Childeren!' "
My bad. I should have qualified it and shrieked it was for Sandy Hook.
IMHO, we are NOT SHRIEKING enough on the subject.
Now let's get back to the subject of the post.
SW,
Agree with your assessment of education wastes. Non-profit hospitals have much the same philosophy when it comes to money. Take whatever "profit" or endowment and build monuments to ourselves.
Your question on nominal
1. Income unadjusted for the effects of inflation or deflation, and stated in the currency in which it is earned.
2. The part of a salary or wage paid out in cash not including benefits such as subsidized meals or transportation.
JC, one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive can be attributed to insurance. People accept no responsibility for their own bills because insurance pays it. The one area we don't discuss with our healthcare providers is costs. Why, because we don't have to pay it. Of course that only applies to the 87% who have health insurance.
Nominal Income
http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php
College costs
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
RN,
Thanks for the ad for Ayn Rand.
So what is your solution to financing higher education for our students?
SIlver, did I miss something? Both Shaw and I readily admitted that Obama has not been accurate with his handling of the numbers.
We did not change the subject to obfuscate. We agreed with the assessment and both expressed our dismay with Pres. Obama on this issue.
I also was not speaking of you and whether or not calling Obama is a liar is appropriate. You generally are of a different mould Silver, trying to chart a somewhat dignified middle right ground.
I do expect people who decry one political party, or person for a specific act or acts, in this case conservatives denigrating Obama as curtailing religious rights, to have the cajones to stand up and hit the other party when they are blatantly legislating to curtail those rights.
If that is playing the my party your party game, so be it.
I am sick and tired of conservatives slamming our President as a socialist, commie, fascist pig who gets up every morning with a desire to destroy America for doing the same things Presidents of both parties have done for years.
Golf, vacations, first lady causes, executive privilege, kids on spring break, etc. You name it and conservative bloggers and politicians have been disgusting.
And we've yet to see conservative leaders castigate their people for this type of boorish behavior.
Sadly, on most blogs, it is celebrated, until a lib joins in and then he or she is deleted.
As for states rights, didn't we already fight this war in the 1800's? If a state has a right to discriminate against some religions, why can't they also ban certain firearms?
AOW has a great point re: practical education.
Why is it assumed that everyone must go to college to get an education?
Why is there no inexpensive way for people to get practical training in things like plumbing, carpentry, etc? Why has society somehow devalued these pursuits as beneath certain people?
SF,
"one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive can be attributed to insurance." I agree. Most insurance companies take 20+% right off the top for profit. Take profit out of health insurance, and costs will drop.
"People accept no responsibility for their own bills because insurance pays it." That's a bunch of crap. Most people pay thousands of dollars per year for insurance - a big responsibility. Plus most people have some kind of co-pay - another responsibility.
Virtually nobody has free insurance that pays everything.
Oops! Sorry. The quotes in my latest comment were from skud, not SF. Sorry SF.
skud,
You are comparing college costs in constants 2009-10 dollars with unadjusted income. Your 6300 cost for college in 1980 is really about 2550, which means college cost in 1980 were about 15% of nominal income, not 38%.
Big difference!
JC
"Most people pay thousands of dollars per year for insurance - a big responsibility. Plus most people have some kind of co-pay - another responsibility."
I agree, that's a bunch of crap. Co-pays are a very small portion of the bill and if people had to be responsible for more of the costs they would think twice before rushing to the ER for a cold or negotiating the price of surgery. If you had more responsibility for the cost of tests you may question the validity and necessity of those tests but the sure go ahead because insurance pays for it.
Insurance companies should not make a profit neither should auto companies, food processors or grocery stores, pharma manufacturers. After all they all provide a product that most need.
To some profit is evil, to others it is an opportunity. But to some personal responsibility is an expectation to others it is a burden.
Shaw --- off topic but maybe you can help.
The sculpture of a seal in the Charter Street park, have you any idea about its history.
The park is already quirky but that seal really puts the cherry on the sundae.
A few random responses and thoughts.
Thanks to those who educated me on nominal income. It strikes me as an inadequate measure, but a legitimate term after all.
I have made the acquaintance of reporters and magazine writers, and know of others I haven't personally met, who have/had solid, satisfying and well-paying careers in journalism, broadcast media, public relations and advertising. These careers were made possible in part by their degrees in history, English, sociology and law.
Furthermore, anyone who thinks of a college education as purely utilitarian and undertaken solely for the purpose of landing a lucrative job misses an important point. Colleges aren't, and shouldn't be, functional equivalents of technical training schools. It's hard to justify the cost of a college degree in, say, philosophy, on the basis of what a great job the degree is sure to lead to. And yet, a few years ago I read an article about a guy who had had a great career as a college administrator and president. He didn't have a degree in education, administration or business. He majored in philosophy and minored in ancient history. He had learned how to think logically, to reason and how to go on learning. I'm sure his success was more attributable to those abilities than to his store of knowledge about Plato and the rise and fall of ancient Greece.
AOW has a great point re: practical education.
Why is it assumed that everyone must go to college to get an education?
------
Because like so much else in America, an institution which is supposed to be a public good has transformed to a profit generator.
Think back to when Blue Cross was non profit and single worker families could afford insurance.
College was a different then also.
Re: Obama's use of a weak statistic in making an important point. We don't know if he's been made aware of how weak that 40 percent stat is. He should've been. If he has been cautioned not to use it, he might simply have forgotten. Or, maybe a staffer slipped up and put that number in front of him amidst notes for his talk in Colorado. Whatever the reason for his using that number it was a mistake.
I said mistake but not a lie. Why? Because whatever your position on his politics, give the guy credit for being smart enough to realize how important credibility is to a president. Especially since he followed George W. Bush into the White House. By the early summer of 2005, polls showed a strong majority of Americans no longer afforded Bush much if any credibiity, and for good reason. Obama has no intention of making that happen to him.
Whatever the reason behind his use of a weak statistic, he should acknowledge it as such and refrain from using it again, or at least if he does use it explain that it's from a small, tenuous sampling.
All that said, does the weakness of the statistic invalidate the good sense of the change Obama is trying to bring about? Consider this:
A toddler is buzzing around a kitchen where an ironing board is set up. There's a very hot iron sitting on the ironing board. Mom has stepped out of the room to do something. Dad walks in and warns junior, "Stop running around and go play in the other room. That iron is plugged in and you could be electrocuted."
OK, the father said something wrong. There's virtually no chance the kids would be electrocuted, even if he knocked the ironing board over and came in contact with the iron. The father should've said the kid could get burned.
Still, does the fact the father got what could happen to the boy wrong invalidate the larger point that it was dangerous for the boy to run around in the kitchen under the circumstances? No, not at all.
Note to nit-pickers ever in search of a gotcha like this one: If someone sends you a note saying, "I'm going to kil(sic) you ded(sic)," you'd be a fool to let the author's bad spelling deter you from calling the cops.
Jerry is absolutely right about people not playing fast and loose getting medical care simply because they have insurance. Even relatively good policies have fees and copays to reckon with, and most people are well aware that running in for treatment every time they get a bruise or the sniffles can result in higher premiums ahead.
Also, Obama Care has a lot in it directed at reducing costs and unnecessary procedures on the provider end.
Very good points, SWA. I hope someone clues the president in on that incorrect stat he's been quoting.
Ducky,
That's one of my favorite parks here in the North End. I used to live on Unity Street, with a view of the Old North Church's steeple from my bedroom. I miss that apartment!
Anyway, The Charter Street/Greenough St. Park is at the end of Unity, and I used to go there to read, instead of the Prado, which was across the street from me, because the Charter St. park is quieter and cooler in the hot, humid summer months.
I've brought all the grandkiddies to see the seal, but I don't know the history of it. I will see what I can find out.
The apartments that ring the park are charming, and the whole setting feels like some quiet little tucked away spot in the heart of an Italian city. During the summer months, one of the apartments has a vineyard growing in its yard, along with tomatoes and other vegetables [and what looks like a fig tree].
Post a Comment