I'm poor. I deserve nice stuff like everyone else

[ivwshane]

I already gave other examples; here's one source if you want it:

http://studentresearch.ucsd.edu/_files/UCSDCollegeProfile.pdf

What is it you think you are proving here?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

The poor already have free college in America, if they can manage the grades/exam scores.

What? No, they don't... There are only so many scholarships to go around.

You are also claiming the people who are the most disadvantaged are capable of getting all, or even most, of the scholarships. That's not the case.

Some groups aren't the right skin color or gender to get scholarships either.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm not even counting scholarships; that only makes things even more affordable.

What is it you think you are proving here?

59% of students receive financial aid. The average award is a little over $22,000 a year. Annual costs minus room/board are $19,000 a year. That's a lot of free tuition.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Then where are you getting free college? You mean free community college? If you qualify for the most financial need, then you can go to CC for free. You aren't going to go to a four year school for free without a full scholarship, which are very rare.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Are you saying that UCSD (and many other large public colleges) are lying about the amount of financial aid they disperse?

 

[Slew Foot]

From "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."


to

"Gimme free shit!!"

The Dems have come a loooooong way since JFK.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

From "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."


to

"Gimme free shit!!"

The Dems have come a loooooong way since JFK.

Your interpretation of that quote is quite disturbing. The people don't serve the state, as if this is some communist regime! Taxes are collected from the people to improve our society as a whole, aka what can be done for our country. We as a society decided to look after the downtrodden among us, because it benefits us all as a society. That isn' people getting "FREE SHIT", but we as a society realizing people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and acting on those beliefs.

It's the people at the top of the pyramid asking govt what it can do for them! The people at the top aren't the least bit interested in what they can do for the country! They don't care the infrastructure is crumbling, the water
and air is being polluted, that healthcare cost are outrageous, that post secondary education cost are outrageous, etc.... They only care about what they can get from the country!


You might want to read the whole speech, it's quite good.

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/ask-not.htm

These are the words of a true democrat, I will give you that.

 

[cbrunny]

Pursuit of...Deserve has nothing to do with it.

Not everyone deserves to be happy?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Do career criminals deserve to be happy? How about the habitually lazy and worthless?

 

[BoberFett]

I would have that same attitude if I didn't spend 15 years of my life serving the .01% but I did and I've seen things. Amazing wonderful things. And I want them.

So you're part of the problem.

 

[BoberFett]

Not everyone deserves to be happy?

No.

If what would make me happy is for you to stop posting, do I deserve it?

 

[uclaLabrat]

I'm not even counting scholarships; that only makes things even more affordable.



59% of students receive financial aid. The average award is a little over $22,000 a year. Annual costs minus room/board are $19,000 a year. That's a lot of free tuition.

You think loans are free tuition now?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You think loans are free tuition now?

Oops, my bad, read off the wrong line. So it's actually 58% of undergrads receiving nearly $18,000 in grants/aid, which very nearly reaches all costs minus housing.

 

[ivwshane]

Oops, my bad, read off the wrong line. So it's actually 58% of undergrads receiving nearly $18,000 in grants/aid, which very nearly reaches all costs minus housing.

So no, it's not free for everyone (or all poor people who qualify). You are also using a california school, when california is not your typical state.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So no, it's not free for everyone (or all poor people who qualify). You are also using a california school, when california is not your typical state.

It's based on financial need. Where do you see that it's not available to all poor people that qualify? I'd imagine that fewer than 58% of the people that attend UCSD are from poor families, which means not only are poor people covered but so is the lower middle class.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Also, I don't know how things have changed since I was in undergrad, but everyone I knew had loans and that was it for the most part, maybe they got a grand or two in grants but I think my roommate was the only one I knew who had any kind of support like that. Granted, I was at a state school so my tuition in total was $960 per semester for full time, but room and board was substantially more expensive.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Maybe you associated with middle/upper class students. Maybe a lot of students take out loans in excess of necessities for school.

Room and board aren't a necessary part of college. Far more people in Europe live with their parents past 18 than do Americans; if Americans want a European system, they need to accept the costs as well as the benefits of that.

 

[highland145]

Not everyone deserves to be happy?

Nope. Make your way.

 

[ivwshane]

It's based on financial need. Where do you see that it's not available to all poor people that qualify? I'd imagine that fewer than 58% of the people that attend UCSD are from poor families, which means not only are poor people covered but so is the lower middle class.

There are many factors used to determine this, your blanket statement that all poor people can get free college is wrong.

This article covers some of the issues (it uses a state college as an example but talks about nationwide issues as well).

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article2087898.html

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There are many factors used to determine this, your blanket statement that all poor people can get free college is wrong.

This article covers some of the issues (it uses a state college as an example but talks about nationwide issues as well).

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article2087898.html

That website averages in-state and out-of-state tuition together, and it also fails to allow you to exclude the cost of rent, which means all the numbers given are going to be roughly at least twice as high as they really are.

 

[Paratus]

In thinking about the problem of poverty I like to go back to first principles and then ask myself what kind of society I would want to live in.

People have needs that must be met to stay alive and further requirements if we want to have a stable society.

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs is one way to approach this analysis:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

While not everyone agrees with his theory of needs I think most can agree that without meeting a societies physiological needs and safety that society is doomed to fail.

To meet the basic physiological needs, (water, food, air, shelter) requires a person to expend energy or work. In a primitive society this was energy expended hunting and gathering. Luckily for us we have technology which acts as a work multiplier and money which acts as a way to store work. Instead of expending energy to collect enough food for only ourselves technology, (farms and industrialization) allow the same person to create enough food for 1000's and store that work to trade for other necessities in the form of money.

Now, people's capacity to care for themselves and others generally falls along the form of a modified Gaussian distribution. If we substitute income (money) as a proxy for ability to work it looks something like this:

People on the far right are your Bill Gates, Warren Buffets, and other 0.01%'ers. They can not only meet the needs of themselves and their families, but entire towns. In the middle are those who can comfortably take care of their families, those who could take care of themselves but struggle to take care of a family. Finally on the far left are those who can't take of their own needs. For some, with outside help, they may be able to care for themselves eventually. For others due to their circumstances, impairments physical or mental, they will never be able to care for their own needs.

People who cannot meet their physiological needs have a few options:

• steal, trespass, break laws to get what they need
• simply die
• recieve outside support - charity, welfare or prison.

Societies that priorotize safety (law and order) but neglect basic needs are essentially saying the left most portion of their citizens need to die or be put in prison.

Those that prioritize both through safety nets and modern law enforcement allow the most numbers of their citizens to prosper.

Personally I support policies that try and shift the left most side right and move the bulk right even at the expense of slowing the richest down.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What basic needs are not being met among communities where crime is rampant?

 

[nickqt]

In thinking about the problem of poverty I like to go back to first principles and then ask myself what kind of society I would want to live in.

People have needs that must be met to stay alive and further requirements if we want to have a stable society.

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs is one way to approach this analysis:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

While not everyone agrees with his theory of needs I think most can agree that without meeting a societies physiological needs and safety that society is doomed to fail.

To meet the basic physiological needs, (water, food, air, shelter) requires a person to expend energy or work. In a primitive society this was energy expended hunting and gathering. Luckily for us we have technology which acts as a work multiplier and money which acts as a way to store work. Instead of expending energy to collect enough food for only ourselves technology, (farms and industrialization) allow the same person to create enough food for 1000's and store that work to trade for other necessities in the form of money.

Now, people's capacity to care for themselves and others generally falls along the form of a modified Gaussian distribution. If we substitute income (money) as a proxy for ability to work it looks something like this:

People on the far right are your Bill Gates, Warren Buffets, and other 0.01%'ers. They can not only meet the needs of themselves and their families, but entire towns. In the middle are those who can comfortably take care of their families, those who could take care of themselves but struggle to take care of a family. Finally on the far left are those who can't take of their own needs. For some, with outside help, they may be able to care for themselves eventually. For others due to their circumstances, impairments physical or mental, they will never be able to care for their own needs.

People who cannot meet their physiological needs have a few options:

• steal, trespass, break laws to get what they need
• simply die
• recieve outside support - charity, welfare or prison.

Societies that priorotize safety (law and order) but neglect basic needs are essentially saying the left most portion of their citizens need to die or be put in prison.

Those that prioritize both through safety nets and modern law enforcement allow the most numbers of their citizens to prosper.

Personally I support policies that try and shift the left most side right and move the bulk right even at the expense of slowing the richest down.

I agree. A society only exists when the majority of people realize that they can't go it alone and are willing to help everyone else out, knowing they'll get help if they need it.

That said, ever notice how the richest people in the solar system, with almost all of the money, never take more than their share of the "infinite pie", but somehow at the same time, the poorest people with essentially no money, are always somehow preventing the richest people in the solar system from getting as much from the "finite pie" that they rightfully deserve?

 

[Paratus]

What basic needs are not being met among communities where crime is rampant?

One example would be food insecurity.

I'm not sure of the overlap between crime laden areas and food insecure areas but it's probably significant.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

According to their study, "food insecurity" is the biggest problem in rural areas, which generally have much lower crime rates than urban areas. It also seems to be defined as an at-risk thing (e.g. occasional days of hunger every few months) rather than a long-term case of starvation and "simply dying". That the problem is also the biggest in the South, aka obesity land, I think the questions on a balanced diet tend to skew things as well.

I mean, if it's really a problem then fine, increase SNAP benefits, it's a trivial thing compared to most other welfare services, but pretty much no one is actually put into a steal or starve situation.