# Mayhem in the streets...



## JWM1960 (Jan 23, 2009)

There is mayhem in the streets of the mother country...last night Tottenham, tonight Enfield and Brixton. Looting and burning, LA style. What the heck is going on?


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

JWM1960 said:


> There is mayhem in the streets of the mother country...last night Tottenham, tonight Enfield and Brixton. Looting and burning, LA style. What the heck is going on?


I wonder if it's the effect of cuts in UK gov't spending; which the poor bear the brunt of; that's causing these riots.


----------



## cockneykid1962 (Aug 5, 2011)

The first riot in Tottenham was apparently sparked by the shooting of an armed man in the area on Friday. Quite how the looting of stores and burning of a florist shop on Saturday night had any relevance to this is a little beyond me.

Having grown up in London for most of my life (I moved away ten years ago, leaving when I was 39), there has always been tension in these areas, most commonly motivated by social issues, but from what I can gather from friends who live in the Tottenham area, a lot of the trouble was coming from youths, some no older than 13, who looked up for a ruck with the police, rather than demonstrating against social inequality.

The similarities between these incidents and the recent student protests against education cuts is all too familiar...some legitamate concerns overtaken by kids wanting some time in the media limelight...

All my opinion, obviously.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Regillus said:


> I wonder if it's the effect of cuts in UK gov't spending; which the poor bear the brunt of; that's causing these riots.


They smashed up a Jobcentre so its not benefits they needed...

It has crept to Birmingham, my neck of the woods...


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Your brilliant elected officials have outlawed guns over there, haven't they? Now would be a good time to ask the insane politicians what they were thinking.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Didn't the OP comment..."Looting and burning,* LA style.*" and this is where guns are legal.

https://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-08/09/c_131036733.htm
_"Police said they had expected violence on Monday evening after *monitoring social network sites*. As a result, shops in Hackney were closed early and police moved into the area."_

Why don't they cutoff and block access to things like Facebook and Twitter? As it's more than likely how this civil unrest has been organised.



Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> They smashed up a Jobcentre so its not benefits they needed...


Not sure why they looted a Job Centre, it's not like there is anything in those places worth stealing. I did seen an Austin Reed store that had been done over. Looters with taste?



Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> It has crept to Birmingham, my neck of the woods...


Bristol will go next, my former home. Bristolians always love rioting, it's in our blood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Riots


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

From MSNBC:
"It's very sad to see ... But kids have got no work, no future and the cuts have made it worse. These kids are from another generation to us and they just don't care," said Hackney electrician Anthony Burns, 39.

Cuts to education and job training only make economic malaise worse. Now you see the results.


----------



## jeffreyc (Apr 8, 2010)

Like cockneykid1962, I was born in London (Fulham) and lived and worked until 10 years ago (45 years) - of course a lot changes in 10 years !
Whilst I agree that there are problems with the services and the damage that the reduction in spending might cause in the near future, the situation last night was an excuse to steal and cause damage. The police do not have sufficient resources to deal with it.
There are 2 football games due tonight that have been postponed and the England v Holland game is under discussion. We couldnt have 2-300 police at games and none on the streets.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

JWM1960 said:


> There is mayhem in the streets of the mother country...last night Tottenham, tonight Enfield and Brixton. Looting and burning, LA style. What the heck is going on?


Given our present day financial realities and the path we seem destined to walk, at this point in time, in perhaps six to eight months we (on this side of the pond) will unfortunately (likely) be providing a series of more current examples of "looting and burning, LA style," Chicago style, New York style, D. C. style, etc! Folks, in terms of our respective economies and bad news, we haven't seen anything...yet!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I was in Tottenham on Saturday evening, collecting my sons from the Spurs game; there was an unpleasant atmosphere about the place. Crowds of young men wandering around who were clearly not football supporters, obviously waiting for pre-arranged stuff to kick off.
Witnesses described "middle-aged" white males directing groups of hoody wearing youths to set fire to cars in particular places, and to break the windows of particular shops prior to looting them. Obviously concerted and arranged, if opportunistic, robbery, under the cover of unrest.
At least there haven't been any deaths beyond that of the man shot by the filth on Thursday. Turkish Cypriots reportedly defended their premises last night with cricket and baseball bats. Not actually hitting anybody, but standing with them in hand, as a deterrent. If hand-guns were legally available in Britain, I would suggest that there would have been deaths by now.
Part of the unrest is caused by a feeling of hopelessness. Cut backs in education and welfare services, near impossibility of getting a job, with house prices, for really basic houses in poor areas, far beyond any expectation to buy. For example, a 1 bedroom apartment goes for nearly £100,000, leasehold, not freehold, a 2 bedroom terrace house is about £200,000. For an unemployed young man how hopeful is the future going to be?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> From MSNBC:
> "It's very sad to see ... But kids have got no work, no future and the cuts have made it worse. These kids are from another generation to us and they just don't care," said Hackney electrician Anthony Burns, 39.
> 
> Cuts to education and job training only make economic malaise worse. Now you see the results.


Spend into default OR ELSE eh??

Typical.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Similar events in several cities now, but London, s far, seems to be improving. The events, whilst serious, are nothing like as bad as non-British news media would have you believe, having looed at that on-line. Friends in France and NZ, for example emailed me to see if I and my family were safe. It IS serious, but it isn't rioting, or revolution, or anarchy, it is small groups of robbers using arson to distract the police whilst they rob high value and easy to dispose of goods, using a pretext of "anger". Looting by disaffected members of society is taking place, but it is opportunistic, and is consequent and subsequent to the organised activities by what I can only describe as criminal gangs.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Spend into default OR ELSE eh??
> 
> Typical.


No that's not what I meant. There are almost certainly plenty of corporate tax breaks and loopholes to abolish - tax benefits that were obtained through thinly disguised bribery. Education and job training are always a small part of the gov't budget; in the U.S. and in the U.K. The tax code should be carefully scrutinized to see who's getting the most in terms of tax credits, tax deferrals etc. and then consider trimming or eliminating those (i.e. in the U.S.; corporate jets). In addition, in the social benefits programs; carefully examine who's getting exactly what, and then consider trimming or eliminating those that seem overly generous. For example: How many years must a U.K. gov't employee work to obtain full retirement benefits and just how generous are those benefits? At what age can they get full benefits?


----------



## jeffreyc (Apr 8, 2010)

Interesting discussion on the tv this morning. A professor who works with children in troubled areas talked about the wider issue of lack of moral standards in children. Many issues but with the decline in religion, role models of gangster rappers, pin up models and footballers who are usually on the back and front of newspapers, discipline outlawed at schools and home, the absence of the traditional nuclear family, I feel that these long term problems need more concentration than short term cuts.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

jeffreyc said:


> Interesting discussion on the tv this morning. A professor who works with children in troubled areas talked about the wider issue of lack of moral standards in children. Many issues but with the decline in religion, role models of gangster rappers, pin up models and footballers who are usually on the back and front of newspapers, discipline outlawed at schools and home, the absence of the traditional nuclear family, I feel that these long term problems need more concentration than short term cuts.


If a child's role model is any farther than the head of the dinner table, there's the real problem.

Sports players, musicians, and actors are not my child's role model. I am. And as for discipline, there's a reason I wear a belt. If I can't teach him proper morals, through example, then no amount of outside influence will.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Have we ever been presented with a better example of the long term effects of a societal entitlement mentality? Is it surprising that the participants in such public outrages feel no sense of personal responsibility for their criminal acts when the authorities condition them to expect cradle to grave benefits for doing nothing more than sitting on their collective a**es? I am reminded of the reaction of the masses on this side of the pond to well intended initiatives to require welfare recipients to perform actual work in return for the benefits they received! "You expect me to work for a benefit check? Just who in the hell do you think you are(!)?" ...and then we scratch our collective heads and wonder why. :crazy: As observed by Pogo, We have met the enemy and he is us!"


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Have we ever been presented with a better example of the long term effects of a societal entitlement mentality?


Or those compelled to make excuses for them??


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> Is it surprising that the participants in such public outrages feel no sense of personal responsibility for their criminal acts....





WouldaShoulda said:


> Or those compelled to make excuses for them??


Aren't you both overlooking something? Something that's long been known is that politicians routinely claim to represent "everyone" and then ignore the people at the bottom and sell their votes to rich individuals and big businesses in return for huge campaign contributions. In the U.S.; proof of this can be seen in the fact that some companies have so many tax credits available to them that once all the deductions are made they pay zero income tax. Even though the company makes millions if not billions of dollars.

Even Warren Buffett; no welfare apologist; has spoken out against this:

From The London Times; June 28, 2007:

"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner. Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: 'The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, _you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent_ [emphasis added].'"

So Buffett; a MULTI-BILLIONAIRE; pays less taxes than his CLEANER. There's something wrong with this picture.

And do the politicians feel that they've done anything wrong by giving the rich far more gov't help than the poor? No! Do the politicians feel any sense of "personal responsibility" at perpetuating the cycle of poverty when good education and job training would enable the poor to lift themselves out of poverty? No! The politicians aren't interested in improving living conditions for "everyone;" they're just interested in winning reelection. Doing that means giving rich individuals and big business preferential treatment in violation of the Constitutions Equal Protection clause, and the rights of the poor be damned.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> So Buffett; a MULTI-BILLIONAIRE; pays less taxes than his CLEANER. There's something wrong with this picture.


You contradict even your own sources in your own quote.

WB is a swell guy.

Just because he has a personal worth of $Billions+ doesn't mean he pays himself more than 250k a year. I noticed he doesn't want the wealth he accumulated taxed. Nor should he.

In fact, I'd like to hear him preach to the Government about living as modestly as he does!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> I am reminded of the reaction of the masses on this side of the pond to well intended initiatives to require welfare recipients to perform actual work in return for the benefits they received! "You expect me to work for a benefit check? Just who in the hell do you think you are(!)?" ...and then we scratch our collective heads and wonder why.


How about volunteering to work for the National Health or tutoring the less motivated to read??

NAH!! Busting out shops on High Street makes much more sense!!


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

Regillus said:


> No that's not what I meant. There are almost certainly plenty of corporate tax breaks and loopholes to abolish - tax benefits that were obtained through thinly disguised bribery. Education and job training are always a small part of the gov't budget; in the U.S. and in the U.K. The tax code should be carefully scrutinized to see who's getting the most in terms of tax credits, tax deferrals etc. and then consider trimming or eliminating those (i.e. in the U.S.; corporate jets). In addition, in the social benefits programs; carefully examine who's getting exactly what, and then consider trimming or eliminating those that seem overly generous. For example: How many years must a U.K. gov't employee work to obtain full retirement benefits and just how generous are those benefits? At what age can they get full benefits?


So lemme get this straight.

The UK, like the US provides these things called "schools". Now I understand that in the UK the terminology is reversed--public means that you (or more accurately your parents) have to pay, while private means the government pays. Or something like that.

Either way the UK government, like the US government provides this thing called "school" where kids--regardless of race, color or religion, can go to get a basic education.

Then (moreso in the UK than in the US) they have access, if they didn't drink, drug and diddle their way through their teens, to a college or university education. All the while there *are* some jobs out there, maybe not many, but some.

I know there are because since what, the 50s? the UK has has been importing labor from Pakistan, the Carribean and other places. So if you're importing labor, why do you have some many folks out of work?

And ultimately why is acceptable to go on a looting rampage, burning out OTHER PEOPLES PLACE OF WORK because you're too suking ftupid to figure out how to get a job?

The police shot and killed a member of a known crime family who had a gun on him.

Now, either the rioters were mad because the police killed a criminal before he had a chance to kill someone else, or they were mad because they've run out of other peoples money.

Either of those gives them the right to march up and down the street carrying signs with stupid slogans on them and blocking traffic. This is the penance we bear for living in a free society.

Neither of those gives them the right to burn and loot.

Load the cannon with grape and fire at will.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Do the politicians feel any sense of "personal responsibility" at perpetuating the cycle of poverty when good education and job training would enable the poor to lift themselves out of poverty?


Please provide data where education and job training are denied to anyone anywhere in the US.

Or the UK.

Thanks!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

petro said:


> The police shot and killed a member of a known crime family who had a gun on him.


That remains debatable, however, it does not deminish the remaining excellent points you made.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

Regillus said:


> Aren't you both overlooking something? Something that's long been known is that politicians routinely claim to represent "everyone" and then ignore the people at the bottom and sell their votes to rich individuals and big businesses in return for huge campaign contributions. In the U.S.; proof of this can be seen in the fact that some companies have so many tax credits available to them that once all the deductions are made they pay zero income tax. Even though the company makes millions if not billions of dollars.
> Even Warren Buffett; no welfare apologist; has spoken out against this:
> From The London Times; June 28, 2007:
> "Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner. Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: 'The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, _you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent_ [emphasis added].'"
> ...




No, he doesn't.

He pays a lower AVERAGE TAX RATE than his cleaner.

Because: 
1) He carefully structures his business and compensation to AVOID PAYING TAXES. 
2) (and this is the important one) YOU DO NOT PAY TAXES ON UNREALIZED GAINS.

Huh?

Works like this:

Let's say I buy (for example) 10000 shares of Foo's Stock for a dollar a share, and it's my total net worth.

Over the year that stock goes from a dollar to two dollars. How much doI owe in taxes? Not a damn thing, because he HAS NOT REALIZED THAT PROFIT. I still own the stock. On 3 January of then next year it could tank, leaving me with a loss.

The year after that it goes to 4 dollars a share. Still no TAX LIABILITY because there is no REALIZATION. My net worth has quadrupled over 2 years but I haven't (yet) made a dime.

In the 3rd year I sell a bit of stock (say 10 shares). At that point I have realized SOME profit (4-1=3 per share, or a profit of 30 dollars). Now is the part where things get shifty, but as near as I can tell if you hold an asset for 2 years you pay "long term capital gains" this is to incentivize investors to invest in a business for the long term, not the next quarter. This is something that (IIRC) Buffett makes a central part of his investment planning.

Now, I don't know how Buffett structures his business, mostly because I have the sort of envy for the wealthy that makes me want to be one, not the sort of envy that makes me want to tear them down, but it's my understanding that (like John Edwards and other prominent left wing hypocrites) he has structured his compensation package to minimize taxes.

And of course if he really thinks HE should pay more taxes, there is a mechanism to do so. Given that almost no one avails themselves of that mechanism, I can but think that these sorts of calls are for OTHER people to pay more taxes.

Which is what the left has always wanted. OTHER people to bear responsibility for their stupidity.



> And do the politicians feel that they've done anything wrong by giving the rich far more gov't help than the poor? No! Do the politicians feel any sense of "personal responsibility" at perpetuating the cycle of poverty when good education and job training would enable the poor to lift themselves out of poverty? No! The politicians aren't interested in improving living conditions for "everyone;" they're just interested in winning reelection. Doing that means giving rich individuals and big business preferential treatment in violation of the Constitutions Equal Protection clause, and the rights of the poor be damned.


According to the IRS, the top 1% percent (in the latest available numbers) made 20% if the (adujsted gross) income and paid 38% of the income taxes. I don't have data for England, do you?

In the US at least the Rich are paying their fair share. The poor (bottom 50%) IN TOTO earn about 12-13% of the AGI and pay less than 3% if taxes collected.

If you can do math, and aren't out on some stupid cosmic justice kick you'd start to think that maybe if you put a SMALL amount of tax on the roughly 69,980,290 (in 2008) in the bottom 50% you might get considerably more into the treasury. You'd also might get more people with skin in the game when it came to policing handouts and entitlement programs.

And yes, I would like to end stupid, counter productive crap like farm subsidies (https://www.nypress.com/article-21342-the-making-of-manhattans-elite-welfare-farmers.html) and other so-called "Corporate handouts".


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Please provide data where education and job training are denied to anyone anywhere in the US.
> 
> Or the UK.
> 
> Thanks!!


From: The Tech (MIT's student newspaper, Nov. 23, 2004).

By Marcella Bombardieri
THE BOSTON GLOBE
Nearly a quarter of low and
moderate-income college students
who currently qualify for federal
Pell Grants will see their awards
reduced or even eliminated under a
change in federal rules that Congress allowed in its new spending
bill passed over the weekend ,
according to an estimate from higher education analysts.
About 85,000 of the 5.2 million
students currently eligible to receive
Pell grants will become ineligible.
Another 1.2 million will get a smaller award under a new formula the
government will use to determine
how much families can afford to
pay for college, according to estimates from the American Council
on Higher Education. The change
will take effect for students starting
or returning to classes next summer
or fall.
Higher education ofﬁcials worry
that the change, estimated to save
the government about $300 million
in next year's budget, will hurt students already struggling to pay for
college.
"Nobody knows if the change
will actually lead anybody to abandon their plans for post-secondary
education," said Terry Hartle, senior
vice president at ACE. "The bestcase scenario is that families will
have to dig deeper to pay for college, perhaps by working more
hours or taking out more loans."
The effects could be much more
widespread than the council's estimates suggest. The same federal
formulas are used to calculate federal subsidized loans, state aid, and
grants colleges make to their own
students, said Brian K. Fitzgerald,
staff director of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance.
The change was first proposed
last year by the U.S Department of
Education. It was blocked at the
time by Congressional legislation,
but this year Republican leaders left
a new amendment to block it out of
the compromise bill approved Saturday by the House and Senate.
The new Department of Education aid formula was intended to
reflect a reduction in income taxes
in many states, but some analysts
say the tax burden is measured in a
ﬂawed way that doesn't reﬂect real
increases in taxes in the last several
years. The formula is supposed to
be updated every year, but it hadn't
happened in many years.
Some Republicans say that the
formula needed to be updated to
help deal with the Pell Grant program's $4 billion deﬁcit and to ultimately increase the maximum award.
Pell Grants, the main federal
program to help low and moderate
income families pay for college,
will cost will cost $12.5 billion next
year, according to American Council on Education estimates. Even
though the maximum grant of
$4,050 has been virtually frozen for
four years, about 1.2 million more
students have become eligible for
the Pell Grants in that time, leading
to the budget squeeze.
It is not clear yet which students
will lose their Pell Grants, but
Fitzgerald said it will most likely be
those with family incomes at the
higher levels of Pell eligibility, perhaps $35,000 to $40,000, Fitzgerald
said. These students are already
receiving far less than the maximum
grant. Many other students with
lower family incomes will see their
grants reduced by up to a few hundred dollars, Fitzgerald estimated.
Families will ﬁnd out if they are
losing grant money when they get
their aid packages for next year.
Meanwhile, the Pell Grant is
covering less of the cost of a college
education each year. The average
Pell Grant covered one-third of the
cost of the average four-year public
college in the 1980-81 school year.
Last year, the average Pell grant -
$2,466 - covered only one-quarter
of the cost, according to the College Board.

From: The Fort Wayne Indiana JournalGazette.net, Mar. 7, 2011.

As budget battles heat up both in Washington, D.C., and in Indianapolis, federal and state financial aid programs have been in the news. The goal of reducing deficits is wise, but the proposed cuts to federal and state aid come as students and families are already struggling through the economic downturn.
On Capitol Hill, the continuing resolution passed by the House would remove 1.7 million students from the Pell Grant program and significantly reduce funding for the students remaining. The maximum Pell award would drop by 15 percent. The same bill would eliminate funding for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant aid and would cut the federal LEAP program which provides seed money for state financial aid.
Meanwhile, the General Assembly is facing similar debates over student financial aid. The House Education Committee approved a measure that would allow state Freedom of Choice funds to be transferred for other purposes. This could reduce the amount of state financial aid available to students at Huntington University and all independent colleges and universities in Indiana. Nearly all our state financial aid awards were derived from Freedom of Choice Act funds this year.
Redirecting these funds would have the effect of redirecting students away from independent colleges. It would tend to limit the higher education choices available to Indiana students.
The measure also contained a provision that would impose additional - and potentially costly - reporting requirements on participating colleges and universities. The unintended consequence would be to increase the cost of higher education.
Over the past two years, Huntington University has felt the growing financial burden of assisting students. Previous cuts in state grant caps have required us to increase the amount of institutional financial aid by more than $2 million, consuming 8 percent more of our budgeted resources.
We understand that lean times require effective stewardship, and the university has reduced its budgeted expenses accordingly. However, further reductions in state and federal aid will be very challenging.
In the aggregate, the proposed cuts to federal Pell Grants would cost Huntington University students more than $250,000. The loss of SEOG would amount to another $100,000 per year. These changes would be implemented when the University - and our students - can least afford it.
Higher education is the best hedge against crippling unemployment and is the key to our nation's economic recovery. As you have opportunities to speak with your state and federal representatives, I urge you to speak up for vital financial aid programs for Indiana students.

G. Blair Dowden is president of Huntington University. He wrote this for The Journal Gazette.

From: Guardian.co.uk (29 MAY 2011)
Education spending cuts put the UK at risk of turning into "yesterday's country", the leader of the university lecturers' union has warned.
In a scathing attack on the government, Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), says the coalition is a "fundamental threat", undermining the work done in further and higher education.
In a speech to delegates at the UCU's annual conference in Harrogate, she will say that while all public services are facing cuts, universities and colleges have been "singled out for special treatment", with spending slashed by 17% over the next two years. and other staff.
"The cost to our country of this attack on education will be substantial," Hunt will say, adding: "When you weigh the cost of keeping kids on benefit versus giving them a chance in life, it is ignorance that is the expensive option, not education."
She will tell delegates the UK is at risk of losing its place as a world leader for education.
"Since the turn of the century, the UK's qualification rates have been overtaken by Iceland, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Japan, Ireland, Portugal, the US, Sweden, Denmark and Norway," she will add.
"It is possible that all those countries are wrong to be investing more in education and we are right, but I doubt it. A country equipped with yesterday's skills will soon become yesterday's country.
"If the legacy the coalition inherited was far from golden, what they have done in this area since May beggars belief.
"Last year, UCU showed that the only league table the UK tops is that of the most expensive place to get a public education in the world - and that was before the tripling of university fees and the axing of the education maintenance allowance.
"What an indictment of this government that, within six months, they had made it harder to go to college and more expensive to go to university.
"They claim their goal is to promote social mobility, but we must judge them by what they do, not what they say. In reality, coalition policy is about putting barriers up, not pulling them down."
The universities and science minister, David Willetts, said: "We agree that education is critical for social mobility and economic growth. That is why we are funding 250,000 more apprenticeships over this parliament, improving careers advice and transforming university finance.
"We estimate universities will receive 10% more teaching income by 2014-15. But, crucially, funding will follow the decisions of students so successful universities will thrive."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> "Nobody knows if the change
> will actually lead anybody to abandon their plans for post-secondary
> education," said Terry Hartle, senior
> vice president at ACE. "The bestcase scenario is that families will
> ...


Exactly!!

They may even take it upon themselves to explore equally effectice and less costly alternatives.

Oh the horror!!


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> They may even take it upon themselves to explore equally effectice and less costly alternatives.


Could you please specify what "equally effective and less costly alternatives" you're referring to. School costs money. Less gov't money available to cover the cost of school means fewer people will go to school and develop their full intellectual potential. Some people; who are intellectually capable of getting a Bachelor's degree will be unable to afford the cost and will attend a vocational school instead. So instead of getting an engineer we get an appliance repairman. Society needs those who are intellectually capable of becoming scientists and engineers to do so. It's from the discoveries and innovations that those people make that come new industries and the jobs that are created. Remember back in the sixties when solid-state electronics was the hot new thing? Televisions were made in America for years - people had jobs - before it all went overseas to Japan, Korea and now China.
Going to school on your own dime is very difficult. I know; I did it. When I attended the Nashville Auto-Diesel College ('76-'77) my parents could pay for tuition but I had to get a night job to pay for rent (I lived off-campus; the dorm room was just too small); food and general living expenses. I worked six days a week for $3.50 an hour. I was always tired in school; the teachers remarked on it, and being so tired interfered with my studying so my grades weren't as high as they could have been. These gov't cuts to education will make it more difficult for people to go to school and some will just give up on it and not go.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Going to school on your own dime is very difficult.


I think that everyone can aggree that going to school on your own dime is more difficult than going to school on someone elses dime.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Could you please specify what "equally effective and less costly alternatives" you're referring to.


Public vs. private.

Community instead of State.

People that "couldn't afford" college used to become electricians, plumbers and HVAC or Auto repair specialists.

What's wrong with that??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> These gov't cuts to education will make it more difficult for people to go to school and some will just give up on it and not go.


Some public High Schools have drop out rates that exceed 25%.

A funding problem??

I don't think so.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Sometimes the greatest benficiary of loans and grants are the for profit (as well as not for profits) diploma mills.

Article~For-profit colleges are facing a tough test: getting new students to enroll.
New-student enrollments have plunged-in some cases by more than 45%-in recent months, reflecting two factors: Companies have pulled back on aggressive recruiting practices amid criticism over their high student-loan default rates. And many would-be students are questioning the potential pay-off for degrees that can cost considerably more than what's available at local community colleges.

"People are just frozen or deferring, delaying decisions to go to school," said Inc. Chief Executive Daniel Hamburger in a conference call earlier this month. "The average person in the U.S. has become much more risk-averse and cautious when it comes to spending or committing to anything. It's unrealistic for us to think that education would be immune from this."

The specter of a hefty debt load dissuaded Jason Tomlinson from enrolling to study business at Berkeley College, a for-profit school with locations in New York and New Jersey. Mr. Tomlinson, now 25, said he would have had to pay more than $20,000 per year, for four years, for that school's bachelor's degree program.

On Mr. Tomlinson's $8-per-hour salary as a part-time sales associate at the Gap, "it just didn't seem realistic" he said. "I really did not want to go into that much debt."

Mr. Tomlinson enrolled in LaGuardia Community College, where he pays $3,600 per year for his full-time associate-degree program in business management and works at the school's fitness center to help cover expenses. A barber in his spare time, Mr. Tomlinson plans to open a high-end men's day spa after graduating with his associate's degree in business management this spring.

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904279004576524660236401644.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

If I were able bodied, 25 and working at the Gap, I'd consider enlisting and becoming a boilermaker or deisel mechanic in the Navy.

Or how about an x-ray or dental tech in the Air Force for young women??

Not exactly shabby vocations for the non-college bound I'd say.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> If I were able bodied, 25 and working at the Gap, I'd consider enlisting and becoming a boilermaker or deisel mechanic in the Navy.
> 
> Or how about an x-ray or dental tech in the Air Force for young women??
> 
> Not exactly shabby vocations for the non-college bound I'd say.


Hardest part about the ASVAB is staying awake. ANYONE can pass the ASVAB. Once in, 100% tuition reimbursement if you pass the class (they foot the bill in advance, you pay if you fail). 100% coverage for CLEP, DANTE, and Excelsior Exams, whether you pass or not. If you want a college degree and can't get your AS/AA within 4 years, it's because you haven't tried.

Honestly, the chances of ending up a "cook" or a "grunt" (the old throwaway specialties) are slim to none. The military wants to train you in something they can use, and they want to keep you around. It's cheaper to keep you than train your replacement in most cases.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> ....it's because you haven't tried.


And no amount of funding, loans and givaways can overcome that!!


----------

