What is your favorite form of government

Other - the one where scientists have all the power. Forgot how that was called.

@ArchoNils2: Three monkeys government I think.

It doesn't equate to socialist or communist in itself, as socialism is when government controls the means of production. Meaning all your factories, that doesn't mean "socialized" healthcare or education is a good thing either because we see the level of waste and fraud in everything the government touches, and guaranteed payment for a single entity for any of these things bring with it all the negatives that go whenever a single entity owns all of a particular industry. We call them monopolies when it's a corporation, because monopolies without competition allow the owner of that product or industry to set prices freely and there's nothing you can do about it. We break monopolies because we know that for a healthy capitalist system there needs to be competition. When two entities compete over the same customer, product quality goes up and costs go down.

Socialized anything is still a monopoly, just owned by the government and ruled by the corrupt politicians in government. Tell me, do you really want someone like Mitch McConnel and a republican controlled congress to dictate how much you pay and what education you get in return? All prices and curriculum at all universities being the same whether you like it or not? That's what socializing those industries will yield.

There's a reason American universities top the top 100 list. We have easily the best universities worldwide. A bigger concern to look into would be the waste and fraud that already exists in public education and healthcare. Ask yourself, why do they cost as much as they do, and how can we make them legitimately more affordable, instead of writing them a blank check signed for by the taxpayers. And there's a lot we can do to bring down the costs of education and make it a hell of a lot affordable without destroying the entire system.

What we can do to reduce costs? First, the moment government guaranteed student loans the cost of tuition and fees skyrocketed, why? Not because delivering education suddenly became more expensive, but because they simply could charge more, forcing you to take out loans to pay it while the school staff line their pockets and you go up to your eyeballs in college debt. Guaranteed payments have benefitted the teachers and college staff, that's why they brainwash so many college students into bagging for free college, they'll earn even more. Guaranteed grants and loans need to go, schools need to compete for students by lowering costs and improving quality.

Secondly, it needs to be streamlined. There is absolutely no excuse to force a student to pay extra money and take more time out of their lives they could be using to focus on courses that actually matter to their degrees, and working. Forcing students to take electives for example, does nothing but force you to pay more for something entirely useless to you. Why? Simple, more money for the school. If useless electives are eliminated, there are a lot of courses people simply wouldn't take because they're a waste of their time. The teachers in those courses can go find a real job or teach underwater basket weaving at a local community center where that crap belongs.

The costs of books are artificially inflated as well which is something else that can be looked into.

Online courses can be improved upon as well, there is no need to actually go to a classroom to learn a lot of the courses that people go for. In fact, there is so much I've taught myself out of college that would otherwise take up a classroom and money out of your pocket that you can learn online.

So to sum everything up, the problem with Colleges today is there is already a significant amount of waste and fraud in the system, and guaranteeing payment will only make that worse, it needs to be fixed, not have money thrown at it by taxpayers.

Similarly, there is a lot of waste and fraud in the healthcare industry as well that should be looked into and fixed, and again, not just have taxpayer money thrown at it.

@burntbyhellfire: You're utterly wrong on almost every front. ^

Would you like to discuss why, or are you just going to ignore this post too?

You wanted to discuss ways of making it affordable, do you have a better idea?

@burntbyhellfire: Sure, IMO I do have a better way to bring effective education to more people at a lower cost, and consequently decrease overall state spending on education and unemployment.

If you'll agree to stop with the Sniping and the constant imitation from multiple accounts, as well as the ignoring of my every response, I'd be happy to discuss. Deal?

I have other accounts? That's cute, which ones would those be?

People are only advocating the government step in and replace the insurance industry because too many Americans can't afford healthcare.

I agree that the current student loan system is bad. I am in favor of completely reworking it to only provide government loans to students attending public schools totaling no more than $10,000 per year with a cap at $50,000. Schools would work to become affordable to students at that loan rate.

I don't think the federal government needs to regulate state and private university curriculum.

High book cost is a product of private industry. I think universities could do a much better job of providing service to their students if they were to order books for professors and check them out to students each semester, much like a high school does. Build the cost into the tuition, but cutting out the book store middle man would greatly reduce costs.

I have taken online courses and I find the experience to be inferior, both from a learning perspective and an evaluation perspective.

@burntbyhellfire: So we've got the ignoring out of the way. Nice. Hi!

Tell you what... I'll make a thread on education reform tomorrow, and we can discuss your ideas and mine there, instead of clogging up this thread. It's something I've been meaning to do for a while anyway, and since I haven't created a topic since I set up this account, it might be a good opportunity to get my ideas down in long form.

Who knows, maybe we can even come to some constructive agreement, without all the gadflying and tribalism. It's a fairly centrist issue I think, and one that's quite close to my heart.

See you there.

As long as you have a suggestion that's a bit more thought out than the usual "let's make it taxpayer funded" copout that I usually hear.

That sounds pretty dumb.

No, like I say, I'm in favour of a fairly minimal state myself... lower overall expenditure, more effective services, in partnership with, but not reliant on the private sector. Again, basic education is, to me, essential infrastructure and so, ultimately, falls under the purview of the state. It needs to be effective and economical. But let's save this for there.

How do you plan to have a minimal state with a minimal private sector?

@burntbyhellfire: Find out.... tomorrow.

@burntbyhellfire: Wouldn't to live in the US, holiday no probs.
Don't need to live there to see how backwards it is on certain things.

Canada has what essentially amounts to free speech, without the hangups of allowing hate speech.

And its funny you say Canada, considering they are 18th out of 180 on the Press Freedom Index, 30 places higher than the US.

Press Freedom Index is a subjective poll based out of France. And if you actually read their statement on the US' score you'll see them whining because Trump called the MSM "fake news" and kicking Jim Acosta out of the WH after he got aggressive with a woman. Although, they didn't mention that last part, conveniently.

Honestly, I can't understand why you people put so much stock into polls. It's like you're afraid to have a thought or an opinion if you're not convinced it isn't popular.

https://rsf.org/en/united-states

So you don't have free speech. Got it.

It's good to know you support people being able to express hate speech towards others. Canadians are free to say whatever they want, so long as it does not defame or encourage discrimination towards others or other groups of people.

I love how you just glossed over the fact that Canada is much higher on the Press Freedom Index than the US, which is an aspect of free speech. Over 25% more countries in the world have a freer press than the US. But then again, you probably think everything that isn't FOX News is "fake news"

Define hate speech. And I pointed out how flawed and subjective the press freedom index is, you only cite it because it reinforces an opinion you already had.

@foxhound_fox: hate speech isn’t a real thing. Glad you confirmed you don’t have freedom of speech.

I support freedom over someone getting offended by something that can change on the fly and is purely subjective.

Oh, so now it is called "whining" when rhetoric from the highest office puts journalists life in danger.

Lmfao, nobody put journalists life in danger, certainly not by criticizing them.

From your own source.

Press freedom has continued to decline in the second year of President Donald Trump’s presidency. Rhetorical attacks from the government and private individuals alike grew increasingly hostile, and in June they became physical when a gunman entered the Capital Gazette newsroom in Maryland, killing four journalists and one other staffer in a targeted attack on the local newspaper.

Since then, President Trump has continued to declare the press as the “enemy of the American people” and “fake news” in an apparent attempt to discredit critical reporting.

I'm pretty sure my post, where this bit was taken out of context from, was discrediting this source in its entirety. Calling CNN "fake news" isn't putting their lives in jeopardy, and they are not exempt from criticism. If fake news doesn't want to be called fake news they should try being just a little less fake.

Are you seriously saying this is a credible news organization?