Markets

The invisible libertardian hand has its finger up your ass again. And you thought you could send your kids to college on that money. Sucker.

It’ll be that bankster’s kid going to the Ivy League school, not your kid, who will be lucky to pay $10,000 per to attend a de-funded land grant school.

So who’s waging class warfare in this country anyhow? And why are we supporting a party that is in on it?

Comments

  1. 2

    righton spews:

    You know, the more taxpayers support colleges, either via helping on tuition or by funding research, etc….the total costs soar even more; that is, were we to introduce some market factors we might have a better hope of actually making the good colleges affordable. Right now you try a top private school, and the tuition varies by trivial amounts; tell me they don’t price fix.

    then why should harvard and princeton w/ multibillion bank accounts get more government largess?

    I cannot fathom any government solution that would make college truly more affordable. I’m sure all you guys want to cap tuition at some 10k / yr amount for all but the to 5% of earners. I guess that would be good for me, but bad for the country; that is, just creating another monster deficit inducing program.

  2. 3

    Alki Postings spews:

    @2

    Er…are you just crazy. If we gov funded 1/2 or all of the college costs, it would be cheap to free. But we DON’T which is why they’re so expensive. Dude, get out and travel a little. See the world outside your country. There ARE countries where higher education is provided free or almost free, actually in most 1st world nations, just not ours.

    The “free market” has NOTHING what so ever to do with lowering college costs. Nothing at all. We’re not talking about selling “widgets” and whoever has the lowest cost one gets the most customers. Colleges are not “competing” to fill seats. I don’t know of any colleges, from community colleges to Harvard that offer coupons to advertise “discounts” to attract students. They have to TURN AWAY students because they all get MORE applications than they have spaces. The students aren’t “customers” they’re trying desperately to attract by lowering costs. Students go to colleges because of the reputation or degree programs and the students TRY to get in, the colleges aren’t BEGGING the students to join up. The market forces are the opposite of what you think.

  3. 4

    Alki Postings spews:

    @2 and FYI…Harvard and Princeton are PRIVATE schools. They don’t GET huge gov money. They might have deals for specific research projects or whatnot, but they’re funded only by the costs they charge their students AND (importantly) their huge fund raising efforts. It’s also why they’re SO CRAZY expensive.

    The UW on the other hand is a public school and SUPPOSED to be publicly funded and making higher eduction more affordable than Harvard. We don’t WANT a country where only the richest 1% can go to college. That would totally SCREW America and make us a 2nd tier nation.

  4. 6

    Troutski spews:

    30% reduction of budget + 30% increase in tuition.

    UW, the 2 year plan. We just finished year 1.

    So very short-sighted.

  5. 8

    delbert spews:

    Jon-

    Welcome to the Tea party.

    Less government means less government corruption, less incompetence, less graft, less bureaucracy, less attempts at managing other people’s lives. There is a role for government (infrastructure, national defense), but not at the levels we’re seeing.

    The health care bill added a nice little ‘fuck you’ to the tax code. Every transaction over $600 (or annual cumulative transactions in excess of $600) means a Form 1099 from the payer to the payee. If my business buys a laptop from Apple for $899, I have to send Apple a Form 1099-Misc.

    That’s the kind of government interference we do not need.

  6. 9

    Capt. Binghamton spews:

    re 9: In case you had not noticed, the past 40 years has been an exercise in divesting big business of all those pesky rules that hold them back.

    The interesting thing is that as rules decrease for big business, they increase for small business. Who do you suppose is angling for that?

    For instance: In the 1980’s, many small, young businesses used independent contracters as a labor force. Well, Reagan changed all of that — the only glaring exception being the insurance industry and their sales force. The reasoning? The insurance industry REALLY REALLY needed to keep their costs down.

  7. 10

    ArtFart spews:

    No doubt the author of @2 considers land-grant universities, like public schools, to be a failed social experiment whose elimination will make a better world for all of us…or at least for those of us who are, shall we say, “worthy”.

  8. 11

    correctnotright spews:

    @8: Poor Delbert

    Only the truly short-sighted have already forgotten how western civilization was lamost brought down by deregulation of the banking industry.

    In fact, anyone who was awake and paying attention to that should realize that the libertarian dreamers are really fools who are playing into the hands of big business. Less regulation means more profits for big business and a screwed economy for the rest of us.

  9. 12

    Ann Onnymous spews:

    “So who’s waging class warfare in this country anyhow? And why are we supporting a party that is in on it?”

    Basically, there is no party that’s not in on it.

  10. 13

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Hearts And Minds

    “According to a new ABC/Washington Post survey, 14 percent of Americans will volunteer, unprompted, that President Barack Obama was born in another country. On the surface, that suggests a win for ‘birthers’ and the unreality-based community …. A further follow-up question, however, reveals that this attack on the president isn’t entirely sticking …: A third believe that no matter where Obama was born, he’s doing a good job as president.

    “Meanwhile, a new Pew Research Center poll found that labeling the president and his supporters ‘socialist,’ a frequent tactic of his opponents, is not leading to the overwhelming public backlash that those flinging the s-word must intend. The results showed that Americans on the whole are ‘not so negative’ about socialism, with a relatively small majority regarding it negatively.
    But 18- to 29-year-olds like socialism as much as they do capitalism, with each term viewed positively by 43 percent of respondents in that age group.”

    http://www.aolnews.com/politic.....d/19468731

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: I wish that I could personally thank each and every one of the conservatives who have contributed their money, time, effort, and moral support to converting an entire up-and-coming generation of voters into socialists. I just wish you hadn’t made them so radical. After all, I’m a capitalist.

  11. 14

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    The market, god bless it, is creating tremendous buying opportunities in stocks.

  12. 15

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    The market, god bless it, is creating tremendous buying opportunities in stocks.

  13. 16

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    The invisible hand of the market, God bless it, is creating tremendous buying opportunities in stocks this week.

  14. 17

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Something’s fucked up with this website’s posting software. The CougarLife.com ads still work fine, though. But I’m getting so old I can’t even find Cougars anymore; they’re all dead.

  15. 18

    Bluecollar Libertarian spews:

    Jon if your are referring to libertarian ideas in your post then it is obvious you have not kept up with what has been said by libertarians. If libertarians had their way these banks would have not been bailed out. They would been allowed to fail and the scammers might be in jail.

  16. 19

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @18 “If libertarians had their way these banks would have not been bailed out.”

    That’s why libertarians should not be allowed to run our government or determine policy, because if these banks hadn’t been bailed out, we’d be in Great Depression 2.0 and unemployment would be 25% (or more). There’s a reason why both the Bush and Obama administrations bailed out the banks. They didn’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts. And, btw, the banks have paid back most or all of the bailout funds, and the government stands to make billions of dollars profit on its holdings of Citibank stock — a great deal for the taxpayers. Libertarians? Pooh! They’re wrong, wrong, wrong.

  17. 20

    delbert spews:

    Those damn libertarians – they want to take over the government and then leave you alone.

  18. 21

    delbert spews:

    @11

    Wrong.

    Deregulation didn’t cause the financial mess, BAD regulation did. The Community Reinvestment Act made the sub-prime loan market the trench of shit it is, supported by Freddie and Fannie and the left-wing community organizers that protested and sued banks to force lending. It wasn’t the Tea party types blocking lobbies and board meetings and the homes of bank executives.

    Barney Frank, Jamie Gorelick, and Hal Raines all fucked the economy like a cheap hooker.

    And somehow you still think _more_ involvement by these fuckwads, getting campaign money from the banks, will FIX the problem? They ARE the problem.

    Tar. Feathers. Politicians. Some assembly required.

  19. 22

    spews:

    The Community Reinvestment Act made the sub-prime loan market the trench of shit it is, supported by Freddie and Fannie and the left-wing community organizers that protested and sued banks to force lending.

    A totally batshit insane wingnut myth.. An utter falsehood that’s been debunked here many times.

  20. 24

    Politically Incorrect spews:

    Hey, it’s an excellent time to contribute to your IRA or your kid’s 529 plan. Buy low, sell high? Buying low is the first half of the equation, and the prices are low right now. My advice – make a purchase on Monday.