I'm surprised I'm gonna say this but I'm with Uzique here.
Well, I believe in neither democracy nor socialism so there you go.Uzique wrote:
i think you're being extremely unrealistic if you think that 'average' families that can't afford to educate 2-3 children are only in that predicament because they are frivolous with their luxuries. i think it's a convenient marginalisation of a social injustice that you apply so that you can ignore or dismiss the iniquities of the price-structured education system; the reason the joneses down the road can't send their 3 kids to private school isn't because they want a BMW for each day of the week. with some examples, certainly yes, but that is almost definitely not the rule. i'm not a parent myself but i would think it's reasonable to assume that a strong emotional priority would lie in providing for one's children, rather than pursuing material benefits of a holiday in the alps or a bigger television for the living room.
john i really resent your attitude about "being a drain on society, anyway". what you are basically advocating is the progressive stratification of society along socio-economic boundaries; you're giving a big thumbs up to 'class war' and the 'wealth gap', essentially. we've had that in england for the last 100 years and, trust me, it's not as fun as you think. cultural, social and political ideologies develop a power hegemony if you let structures like that exist; put simply, if wealth, education and privilege are kept to one group, that group are pretty quickly going to develop a stranglehold on the entire direction of the state/nation. cumulatively, this denies the possibility of 'democracy', and the whole structure fails. even the social assumption that uneducated, intellectually uninterested, blue-collar parents "won't care" for their children's own education is fucking LUDICROUS. insane. i know many friends that have parents that did not graduate or ever attend higher-education, and they are earnestly supporting their own children on their individual choices and aspirations. stop chatting shit to make things convenient.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
ok so you can use an example of a minority (and not a representative example at all) to conveniently sweep aside the entire rational argument.Ilocano wrote:
Come to Cali. I'll show you families living in the projects, six kids, but both mom and dad are driving Cadillac Escalades.Uzique wrote:
i think you're being extremely unrealistic if you think that 'average' families that can't afford to educate 2-3 children are only in that predicament because they are frivolous with their luxuries. i think it's a convenient marginalisation of a social injustice that you apply so that you can ignore or dismiss the iniquities of the price-structured education system; the reason the joneses down the road can't send their 3 kids to private school isn't because they want a BMW for each day of the week. with some examples, certainly yes, but that is almost definitely not the rule. i'm not a parent myself but i would think it's reasonable to assume that a strong emotional priority would lie in providing for one's children, rather than pursuing material benefits of a holiday in the alps or a bigger television for the living room.
john i really resent your attitude about "being a drain on society, anyway". what you are basically advocating is the progressive stratification of society along socio-economic boundaries; you're giving a big thumbs up to 'class war' and the 'wealth gap', essentially. we've had that in england for the last 100 years and, trust me, it's not as fun as you think. cultural, social and political ideologies develop a power hegemony if you let structures like that exist; put simply, if wealth, education and privilege are kept to one group, that group are pretty quickly going to develop a stranglehold on the entire direction of the state/nation. cumulatively, this denies the possibility of 'democracy', and the whole structure fails. even the social assumption that uneducated, intellectually uninterested, blue-collar parents "won't care" for their children's own education is fucking LUDICROUS. insane. i know many friends that have parents that did not graduate or ever attend higher-education, and they are earnestly supporting their own children on their individual choices and aspirations. stop chatting shit to make things convenient.
great job.
an anecdote doth not a rule make
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
it's rather funny that as soon as a GENUINE liberal principle comes under question, g@lt the "libertarian" and turq the "open-minded" all of a sudden becomes MISANTHROPIST, NIHILIST motherfuckers that abandon all political ideologies and all social idealisms for cold, pessimistic reality. jesus h. fucking christ, have you all been reading your schopanhauer and kierkegaard today or something? fucking turncoats, the lot of you. you have no conviction in the political beliefs you pretend to have. g@lt the libertarian, adhering to the classical virtues of european liberalism... thinking poor people are some sub-race, breeding lack of ambition in their children and deserving their raw deal.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, I believe in neither democracy nor socialism so there you go.Uzique wrote:
i think you're being extremely unrealistic if you think that 'average' families that can't afford to educate 2-3 children are only in that predicament because they are frivolous with their luxuries. i think it's a convenient marginalisation of a social injustice that you apply so that you can ignore or dismiss the iniquities of the price-structured education system; the reason the joneses down the road can't send their 3 kids to private school isn't because they want a BMW for each day of the week. with some examples, certainly yes, but that is almost definitely not the rule. i'm not a parent myself but i would think it's reasonable to assume that a strong emotional priority would lie in providing for one's children, rather than pursuing material benefits of a holiday in the alps or a bigger television for the living room.
john i really resent your attitude about "being a drain on society, anyway". what you are basically advocating is the progressive stratification of society along socio-economic boundaries; you're giving a big thumbs up to 'class war' and the 'wealth gap', essentially. we've had that in england for the last 100 years and, trust me, it's not as fun as you think. cultural, social and political ideologies develop a power hegemony if you let structures like that exist; put simply, if wealth, education and privilege are kept to one group, that group are pretty quickly going to develop a stranglehold on the entire direction of the state/nation. cumulatively, this denies the possibility of 'democracy', and the whole structure fails. even the social assumption that uneducated, intellectually uninterested, blue-collar parents "won't care" for their children's own education is fucking LUDICROUS. insane. i know many friends that have parents that did not graduate or ever attend higher-education, and they are earnestly supporting their own children on their individual choices and aspirations. stop chatting shit to make things convenient.
how very revealing.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
It doesn't have to be their lifes ambition to create a large pile of money. It's simply the prudent thing to do. Living paycheck to paycheck is not the correct way to live. It's just not. I don't care if you make $10k a year or $10M, a certain portion of that needs to be set aside for a rainy day or whatever else. Even something as simple as a car breaking down should be planned ahead for and not lead to the family getting evicted. That shit happens all the time and it's retarded. This whole living in the moment garbage is why people end up eating cans of cat food when they retire.Uzique wrote:
i think you're really missing the goddamn point.Ilocano wrote:
BTW, for those tenures, the kids would get a free ride at their Uni. I could get a job at USC or Cal-Tech, for example, and in a few years, my kids would have free tuition there. But then, I'd be making less than I make now.
some people don't make the pursuit of money/profit their sole life ambition. some people live for other things, that are just as worthy as aspiring to the next fucking tax bracket. these people, too, are also humans and also want the same, basic liberal rights for their own children. and it IS a basic, liberal right of every free person in a democracy to be entitled to education: it's an absolute foundation-stone of civilization. suggesting that somebody who, for whatever reason, doesn't earn much money but is STILL an earnest and hard worker, 'deserves' the lack of educational opportunity is... madness to me. there's more to life than wanting to make a shit load of money to bungle your kid off to the designer-handbag equivalent of a private university.
All me and ilocano are saying is that peoples definition of 'living within their means' needs to change and people need to budget in savings instead of living maxed out or beyond.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Apparently that happens here, too, according to my parents (my mom works in the school system and sees things like kids who get reduced/free lunch prices when the parents are rolling in a brand new Benz)Ilocano wrote:
Come to Cali. I'll show you families living in the projects, six kids, but both mom and dad are driving Cadillac Escalades.Uzique wrote:
i think you're being extremely unrealistic if you think that 'average' families that can't afford to educate 2-3 children are only in that predicament because they are frivolous with their luxuries. i think it's a convenient marginalisation of a social injustice that you apply so that you can ignore or dismiss the iniquities of the price-structured education system; the reason the joneses down the road can't send their 3 kids to private school isn't because they want a BMW for each day of the week. with some examples, certainly yes, but that is almost definitely not the rule. i'm not a parent myself but i would think it's reasonable to assume that a strong emotional priority would lie in providing for one's children, rather than pursuing material benefits of a holiday in the alps or a bigger television for the living room.
john i really resent your attitude about "being a drain on society, anyway". what you are basically advocating is the progressive stratification of society along socio-economic boundaries; you're giving a big thumbs up to 'class war' and the 'wealth gap', essentially. we've had that in england for the last 100 years and, trust me, it's not as fun as you think. cultural, social and political ideologies develop a power hegemony if you let structures like that exist; put simply, if wealth, education and privilege are kept to one group, that group are pretty quickly going to develop a stranglehold on the entire direction of the state/nation. cumulatively, this denies the possibility of 'democracy', and the whole structure fails. even the social assumption that uneducated, intellectually uninterested, blue-collar parents "won't care" for their children's own education is fucking LUDICROUS. insane. i know many friends that have parents that did not graduate or ever attend higher-education, and they are earnestly supporting their own children on their individual choices and aspirations. stop chatting shit to make things convenient.
Meanwhile, my parents struggling to put my brother and me through college when we both have academic scholarships (and he's a RA, too FFS). We've not gone on a family vacation in probably 10 years, kept the same car for 12 years, and live in a ~$210,000 house (when they bought it in '94). All of that and we still get told by FAFSA that my parents have too much money. I didn't even bother applying to any out of state or private colleges because there is no way we could have afforded it.
Last edited by DesertFox- (2010-11-03 18:51:38)
Well, they aren't liberal principles at all. Libertarianism is about personal responsibility. What you are advocating is society as a whole taking on the responsibility for raising kids. It's not something I'll ever agree with you on.Uzique wrote:
it's rather funny that as soon as a GENUINE liberal principle comes under question, g@lt the "libertarian" and turq the "open-minded" all of a sudden becomes MISANTHROPIST, NIHILIST motherfuckers that abandon all political ideologies and all social idealisms for cold, pessimistic reality. jesus h. fucking christ, have you all been reading your schopanhauer and kierkegaard today or something? fucking turncoats, the lot of you. you have no conviction in the political beliefs you pretend to have. g@lt the libertarian, adhering to the classical virtues of european liberalism... thinking poor people are some sub-race, breeding lack of ambition in their children and deserving their raw deal.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, I believe in neither democracy nor socialism so there you go.Uzique wrote:
i think you're being extremely unrealistic if you think that 'average' families that can't afford to educate 2-3 children are only in that predicament because they are frivolous with their luxuries. i think it's a convenient marginalisation of a social injustice that you apply so that you can ignore or dismiss the iniquities of the price-structured education system; the reason the joneses down the road can't send their 3 kids to private school isn't because they want a BMW for each day of the week. with some examples, certainly yes, but that is almost definitely not the rule. i'm not a parent myself but i would think it's reasonable to assume that a strong emotional priority would lie in providing for one's children, rather than pursuing material benefits of a holiday in the alps or a bigger television for the living room.
john i really resent your attitude about "being a drain on society, anyway". what you are basically advocating is the progressive stratification of society along socio-economic boundaries; you're giving a big thumbs up to 'class war' and the 'wealth gap', essentially. we've had that in england for the last 100 years and, trust me, it's not as fun as you think. cultural, social and political ideologies develop a power hegemony if you let structures like that exist; put simply, if wealth, education and privilege are kept to one group, that group are pretty quickly going to develop a stranglehold on the entire direction of the state/nation. cumulatively, this denies the possibility of 'democracy', and the whole structure fails. even the social assumption that uneducated, intellectually uninterested, blue-collar parents "won't care" for their children's own education is fucking LUDICROUS. insane. i know many friends that have parents that did not graduate or ever attend higher-education, and they are earnestly supporting their own children on their individual choices and aspirations. stop chatting shit to make things convenient.
how very revealing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What's ridiculous in the US system is that if you're 18 years old and live completely independently of your parents, you're still considered a dependent for financial aid. So if your parents don't want to pay for your college education at Harvard, you can't just file as being independent and get a full ride. You have to file using THEIR financial information, and you end up paying what THEY would pay even though you as an 18 year old certainly can't afford that. It's fucking stupid.
Utilitarianism is the closest thing I come to supporting as a consistent ideology.Uzique wrote:
it's rather funny that as soon as a GENUINE liberal principle comes under question, g@lt the "libertarian" and turq the "open-minded" all of a sudden becomes MISANTHROPIST, NIHILIST motherfuckers that abandon all political ideologies and all social idealisms for cold, pessimistic reality. jesus h. fucking christ, have you all been reading your schopanhauer and kierkegaard today or something? fucking turncoats, the lot of you. you have no conviction in the political beliefs you pretend to have. g@lt the libertarian, adhering to the classical virtues of european liberalism... thinking poor people are some sub-race, breeding lack of ambition in their children and deserving their raw deal.
how very revealing.
I just think we have too many people already and far too many families that put the burden of expenses on the rest of us -- especially on single people like myself. I don't have all the nice tax exemptions that come along with having kids and such, and I resent having to subsidize children that responsible people wouldn't have in the first place.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-11-03 18:52:51)
You can legally emancipate yourself. Just have to file the paperwork.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
What's ridiculous in the US system is that if you're 18 years old and live completely independently of your parents, you're still considered a dependent for financial aid. So if your parents don't want to pay for your college education at Harvard, you can't just file as being independent and get a full ride. You have to file using THEIR financial information, and you end up paying what THEY would pay even though you as an 18 year old certainly can't afford that. It's fucking stupid.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Not limited scope anecdote. They are all over the place. Many living beyond their means. Rims more expensive than the value of the car. Sending their kids to school hungry, their only full meal supplied by the school lunch program. Women who spend tons on cosmetic and hair stylist while working at minimum wage.Uzique wrote:
ok so you can use an example of a minority (and not a representative example at all) to conveniently sweep aside the entire rational argument.
great job.
an anecdote doth not a rule make
john i have always had the distinct impression that you have a rudimentary and reductionist understanding of 'libertarianism' as a political ideology, and a classical term. all i can to you really is "go read some more". if you reduce the entire school of thought down to 'personal responsibility' and fail to pay any attention to the communitarian and collectivist aspects, then you're simply a faux-follower. you're wrongly adapting an ideology that you misunderstand. libertarianism is a modern adaptation and reiteration of classical liberalist beliefs: proper liberalism has as much to say about the state and universal enlightenment principles as it does about the individual's inviolable rights.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, they aren't liberal principles at all. Libertarianism is about personal responsibility. What you are advocating is society as a whole taking on the responsibility for raising kids. It's not something I'll ever agree with you on.Uzique wrote:
it's rather funny that as soon as a GENUINE liberal principle comes under question, g@lt the "libertarian" and turq the "open-minded" all of a sudden becomes MISANTHROPIST, NIHILIST motherfuckers that abandon all political ideologies and all social idealisms for cold, pessimistic reality. jesus h. fucking christ, have you all been reading your schopanhauer and kierkegaard today or something? fucking turncoats, the lot of you. you have no conviction in the political beliefs you pretend to have. g@lt the libertarian, adhering to the classical virtues of european liberalism... thinking poor people are some sub-race, breeding lack of ambition in their children and deserving their raw deal.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, I believe in neither democracy nor socialism so there you go.
how very revealing.
if you identify yourself as 'x', don't be a 'y' on an issue and conveniently ignore the hypocrisies
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Now this... I agree with. But you know why this happened, right?Hurricane2k9 wrote:
What's ridiculous in the US system is that if you're 18 years old and live completely independently of your parents, you're still considered a dependent for financial aid. So if your parents don't want to pay for your college education at Harvard, you can't just file as being independent and get a full ride. You have to file using THEIR financial information, and you end up paying what THEY would pay even though you as an 18 year old certainly can't afford that. It's fucking stupid.
Certain assholes abused the system, and so they had to clam it up.
Basically, if you put something with good intentions into play, people will inevitably fuck it up. Essentially, "we can't have nice things" because of the freeloaders.
you're just using poor stereotypes now and minimizing the problem in your mind... it's bullshit. for every gangsta-ass nigga in compton that's not spending wisely on their kids that you can find, there's 5 middle-class white families out in suburbia, suffering silently. please, you seem more intelligent than this to just think that every iniquity boils down to some crass stereotype.Ilocano wrote:
Not limited scope anecdote. They are all over the place. Many living beyond their means. Rims more expensive than the value of the car. Sending their kids to school hungry, their only full meal supplied by the school lunch program. Women who spend tons on cosmetic and hair stylist while working at minimum wage.Uzique wrote:
ok so you can use an example of a minority (and not a representative example at all) to conveniently sweep aside the entire rational argument.
great job.
an anecdote doth not a rule make
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
well then get on with it mr. misanthrope and kill yourself.Turquoise wrote:
Utilitarianism is the closest thing I come to supporting as a consistent ideology.Uzique wrote:
it's rather funny that as soon as a GENUINE liberal principle comes under question, g@lt the "libertarian" and turq the "open-minded" all of a sudden becomes MISANTHROPIST, NIHILIST motherfuckers that abandon all political ideologies and all social idealisms for cold, pessimistic reality. jesus h. fucking christ, have you all been reading your schopanhauer and kierkegaard today or something? fucking turncoats, the lot of you. you have no conviction in the political beliefs you pretend to have. g@lt the libertarian, adhering to the classical virtues of european liberalism... thinking poor people are some sub-race, breeding lack of ambition in their children and deserving their raw deal.
how very revealing.
I just think we have too many people already and far too many families that put the burden of expenses on the rest of us -- especially on single people like myself. I don't have all the nice tax exemptions that come along with having kids and such, and I resent having to subsidize children that responsible people wouldn't have in the first place.
you're a drain on society as much as the next person. stop breathing already you're consuming valuable oxygen in this climate of change!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
This. My family was one of them.Uzique wrote:
you're just using poor stereotypes now and minimizing the problem in your mind... it's bullshit. for every gangsta-ass nigga in compton that's not spending wisely on their kids that you can find, there's 5 middle-class white families out in suburbia, suffering silently. please, you seem more intelligent than this to just think that every iniquity boils down to some crass stereotype.
No, there's simply different sides to libertariansm. Yes, there are some who believe in collectivism, and there are others like me who believe almost in anarcho-capitalism. We generally agree on social issues like equality, drug laws and the like, but we'll disagree vehemently on economic issues. We can live in harmony though because at the root of the ideology, people are free to practice whatever they want. If a group of communo-libertarians wished to set up a commune somewhere I wouldn't bat an eyelash. They aren't forcing me into their system and I'm not forcing mine on them. That last part is the key.Uzique wrote:
john i have always had the distinct impression that you have a rudimentary and reductionist understanding of 'libertarianism' as a political ideology, and a classical term. all i can to you really is "go read some more". if you reduce the entire school of thought down to 'personal responsibility' and fail to pay any attention to the communitarian and collectivist aspects, then you're simply a faux-follower. you're wrongly adapting an ideology that you misunderstand. libertarianism is a modern adaptation and reiteration of classical liberalist beliefs: proper liberalism has as much to say about the state and universal enlightenment principles as it does about the individual's inviolable rights.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, they aren't liberal principles at all. Libertarianism is about personal responsibility. What you are advocating is society as a whole taking on the responsibility for raising kids. It's not something I'll ever agree with you on.Uzique wrote:
it's rather funny that as soon as a GENUINE liberal principle comes under question, g@lt the "libertarian" and turq the "open-minded" all of a sudden becomes MISANTHROPIST, NIHILIST motherfuckers that abandon all political ideologies and all social idealisms for cold, pessimistic reality. jesus h. fucking christ, have you all been reading your schopanhauer and kierkegaard today or something? fucking turncoats, the lot of you. you have no conviction in the political beliefs you pretend to have. g@lt the libertarian, adhering to the classical virtues of european liberalism... thinking poor people are some sub-race, breeding lack of ambition in their children and deserving their raw deal.
how very revealing.
if you identify yourself as 'x', don't be a 'y' on an issue and conveniently ignore the hypocrisies
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Misanthropy involves hating others, not yourself. I'm not a nihilist.Uzique wrote:
well then get on with it mr. misanthrope and kill yourself.Turquoise wrote:
Utilitarianism is the closest thing I come to supporting as a consistent ideology.Uzique wrote:
it's rather funny that as soon as a GENUINE liberal principle comes under question, g@lt the "libertarian" and turq the "open-minded" all of a sudden becomes MISANTHROPIST, NIHILIST motherfuckers that abandon all political ideologies and all social idealisms for cold, pessimistic reality. jesus h. fucking christ, have you all been reading your schopanhauer and kierkegaard today or something? fucking turncoats, the lot of you. you have no conviction in the political beliefs you pretend to have. g@lt the libertarian, adhering to the classical virtues of european liberalism... thinking poor people are some sub-race, breeding lack of ambition in their children and deserving their raw deal.
how very revealing.
I just think we have too many people already and far too many families that put the burden of expenses on the rest of us -- especially on single people like myself. I don't have all the nice tax exemptions that come along with having kids and such, and I resent having to subsidize children that responsible people wouldn't have in the first place.
you're a drain on society as much as the next person. stop breathing already you're consuming valuable oxygen in this climate of change!
Besides, I don't hate everyone. I just hate a lot of people. So, I guess I'm not a true misanthrope.
Anyway, can you honestly tell me that you don't find it at least a little maddening when you look at how the stupid and the poor tend to breed the most often?
Rebuttal tomorrow. Gotta get home and help my kids with their homeworks.Uzique wrote:
you're just using poor stereotypes now and minimizing the problem in your mind... it's bullshit. for every gangsta-ass nigga in compton that's not spending wisely on their kids that you can find, there's 5 middle-class white families out in suburbia, suffering silently. please, you seem more intelligent than this to just think that every iniquity boils down to some crass stereotype.Ilocano wrote:
Not limited scope anecdote. They are all over the place. Many living beyond their means. Rims more expensive than the value of the car. Sending their kids to school hungry, their only full meal supplied by the school lunch program. Women who spend tons on cosmetic and hair stylist while working at minimum wage.Uzique wrote:
ok so you can use an example of a minority (and not a representative example at all) to conveniently sweep aside the entire rational argument.
great job.
an anecdote doth not a rule make
Turquoise wrote:
Misanthropy involves hating others, not yourself. I'm not a nihilist.Uzique wrote:
well then get on with it mr. misanthrope and kill yourself.Turquoise wrote:
Utilitarianism is the closest thing I come to supporting as a consistent ideology.
I just think we have too many people already and far too many families that put the burden of expenses on the rest of us -- especially on single people like myself. I don't have all the nice tax exemptions that come along with having kids and such, and I resent having to subsidize children that responsible people wouldn't have in the first place.
you're a drain on society as much as the next person. stop breathing already you're consuming valuable oxygen in this climate of change!
Besides, I don't hate everyone. I just hate a lot of people. So, I guess I'm not a true misanthrope.
Anyway, can you honestly tell me that you don't find it at least a little maddening when you look at how the stupid and the poor tend to breed the most often?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You have to meet one of these requirements to file as an independentJohnG@lt wrote:
You can legally emancipate yourself. Just have to file the paperwork.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
What's ridiculous in the US system is that if you're 18 years old and live completely independently of your parents, you're still considered a dependent for financial aid. So if your parents don't want to pay for your college education at Harvard, you can't just file as being independent and get a full ride. You have to file using THEIR financial information, and you end up paying what THEY would pay even though you as an 18 year old certainly can't afford that. It's fucking stupid.
" * Be 24 years of age or older by December 31 of the award year;
* Be an orphan (both parents deceased), ward of the court, or was a ward of the court until the age of 18;
* Be a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States;
* Be a graduate or professional student;
* Be a married individual;
* Have legal dependents other than a spouse;
* Be a student for whom a financial aid administrator makes a documented determination of independence by reason of other unusual circumstances."
That last one is incredibly conditional.
You just have to show that you have your own residence, pay your own rent and bills etc.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
You have to meet one of these requirements to file as an independentJohnG@lt wrote:
You can legally emancipate yourself. Just have to file the paperwork.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
What's ridiculous in the US system is that if you're 18 years old and live completely independently of your parents, you're still considered a dependent for financial aid. So if your parents don't want to pay for your college education at Harvard, you can't just file as being independent and get a full ride. You have to file using THEIR financial information, and you end up paying what THEY would pay even though you as an 18 year old certainly can't afford that. It's fucking stupid.
" * Be 24 years of age or older by December 31 of the award year;
* Be an orphan (both parents deceased), ward of the court, or was a ward of the court until the age of 18;
* Be a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States;
* Be a graduate or professional student;
* Be a married individual;
* Have legal dependents other than a spouse;
* Be a student for whom a financial aid administrator makes a documented determination of independence by reason of other unusual circumstances."
That last one is incredibly conditional.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
no, because everyone has a function in society. the people you look down upon operate some of the most basic instruments of society that you simply could not live without. if all those poor, ugly, unfortunate troglodytes that get up your nose and create a bad smell stopped breeding, who would fill in all the menial jobs and the positions 'lower' than your birth-given station? the noble petit-bourgeoisie with their history degrees from an ivy league? really? working my trash disposal route? wonderful. stop being such an unwarranted snob.Turquoise wrote:
Misanthropy involves hating others, not yourself. I'm not a nihilist.Uzique wrote:
well then get on with it mr. misanthrope and kill yourself.Turquoise wrote:
Utilitarianism is the closest thing I come to supporting as a consistent ideology.
I just think we have too many people already and far too many families that put the burden of expenses on the rest of us -- especially on single people like myself. I don't have all the nice tax exemptions that come along with having kids and such, and I resent having to subsidize children that responsible people wouldn't have in the first place.
you're a drain on society as much as the next person. stop breathing already you're consuming valuable oxygen in this climate of change!
Besides, I don't hate everyone. I just hate a lot of people. So, I guess I'm not a true misanthrope.
Anyway, can you honestly tell me that you don't find it at least a little maddening when you look at how the stupid and the poor tend to breed the most often?
what i do find maddening is the amount of people bred into middle-class luxury that think the people less fortunate than themselves somehow 'deserve' their hand-of-cards. so you've been fortunate enough to have some level of education, turq, it doesn't mean that your experience is the RULE and that everyone who hasn't succeeded or who has struggled with education is some sort of undeserving cretin. that's narrowminded bigotry down to a picture-perfect definition. people should be entitled to the education that they are CAPABLE of (i.e. academically or technically), without some arbitrary socio-economic shackle around their ankle.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Uzique... it's not about snobbery. It's about living within your means and planning for your future regardless of your income. Even the garbageman should be saving, even if it's meager in comparison to what others have the ability to put away. Putting away $167 a month towards each kids education shouldn't be an undue burden. It's about not having kids unless you can pay for them without burdening the rest of society.Uzique wrote:
no, because everyone has a function in society. the people you look down upon operate some of the most basic instruments of society that you simply could not live without. if all those poor, ugly, unfortunate troglodytes that get up your nose and create a bad smell stopped breeding, who would fill in all the menial jobs and the positions 'lower' than your birth-given station? the noble petit-bourgeoisie with their history degrees from an ivy league? really? working my trash disposal route? wonderful. stop being such an unwarranted snob.Turquoise wrote:
Misanthropy involves hating others, not yourself. I'm not a nihilist.Uzique wrote:
well then get on with it mr. misanthrope and kill yourself.
you're a drain on society as much as the next person. stop breathing already you're consuming valuable oxygen in this climate of change!
Besides, I don't hate everyone. I just hate a lot of people. So, I guess I'm not a true misanthrope.
Anyway, can you honestly tell me that you don't find it at least a little maddening when you look at how the stupid and the poor tend to breed the most often?
what i do find maddening is the amount of people bred into middle-class luxury that think the people less fortunate than themselves somehow 'deserve' their hand-of-cards. so you've been fortunate enough to have some level of education, turq, it doesn't mean that your experience is the RULE and that everyone who hasn't succeeded or who has struggled with education is some sort of undeserving cretin. that's narrowminded bigotry down to a picture-perfect definition. people should be entitled to the education that they are CAPABLE of (i.e. academically or technically), without some arbitrary socio-economic shackle around their ankle.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-03 19:16:25)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Who would fill those jobs? Mexicans. Most of them work harder, cheaper, and do a better job of it too.Uzique wrote:
no, because everyone has a function in society. the people you look down upon operate some of the most basic instruments of society that you simply could not live without. if all those poor, ugly, unfortunate troglodytes that get up your nose and create a bad smell stopped breeding, who would fill in all the menial jobs and the positions 'lower' than your birth-given station? the noble petit-bourgeoisie with their history degrees from an ivy league? really? working my trash disposal route? wonderful. stop being such an unwarranted snob.
The world has a nearly endless supply of cheap labor. That's what immigration is partially for.
We really don't need much "native" poor, to be honest.
I agree with socializing education. I've never argued with that. However, you asked earlier about what tuition levels should be.Uzique wrote:
what i do find maddening is the amount of people bred into middle-class luxury that think the people less fortunate than themselves somehow 'deserve' their hand-of-cards. so you've been fortunate enough to have some level of education, turq, it doesn't mean that your experience is the RULE and that everyone who hasn't succeeded or who has struggled with education is some sort of undeserving cretin. that's narrowminded bigotry down to a picture-perfect definition. people should be entitled to the education that they are CAPABLE of (i.e. academically or technically), without some arbitrary socio-economic shackle around their ankle.
Since you mentioned the idea of tuition rates serving as a population control, the idea appealed to me. I know you were being facetious, but in a way, it's a practical concept.
Say, your first child gets one rate, your next gets a slightly higher one, and so on. It would be a great way to keep poorer families smaller on average. That's a good thing.