SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
College Financial-Aid Loophole: Wealthy Parents Transfer Guardianship of Their Teens to Get Aid
Amid an intense national furor over the fairness of college admissions, the Education Department is looking into a tactic that has been used in some suburbs here, in which wealthy parents transfer legal guardianship of their college-bound children to relatives or friends so the teens can claim financial aid, say people familiar with the matter.
The strategy caught the department's attention amid a spate of guardianship transfers here. It means that only the children's earnings were considered in their financial-aid applications, not the family income or savings. That has led to awards of scholarships and access to federal financial aid designed for the poor, these people said.
Several universities in Illinois say they are looking into the practice, which is legal. "Our financial-aid resources are limited and the practice of wealthy parents transferring the guardianship of their children to qualify for need-based financial aid—or so-called opportunity hoarding—takes away resources from middle- and low-income students," said Andrew Borst, director of undergraduate enrollment at the University of Illinois. "This is legal, but we question the ethics."
Also At:
https://www.propublica.org/article/university-of-illinois-financial-aid-fafsa-parents-guardianship-children-students
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/7/29/20746376/u-of-i-parents-giving-up-custody-kids-get-need-based-college-financial-aid-university-illinois
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Shire on Tuesday July 30 2019, @02:37PM (44 children)
This isn't about kids who got out of high school and left their families. You don't need guardianship transfers for that. This about families that transferred guardianship for the sole purpose of deceiving the college tuition system for monetary gain. And that's fraud.
Regarding the rest of your socialist rant:
Who exactly is going to pay for this utopia of yours? this universal base income? this universal health care? this universal education? Someone has to pay for the doctors, the teachers, and the flat out cash handouts. Oh right - the government just prints money willy nilly - no need to actually account for the costs, just hand out the cash and everything will be just fine. And that universal income? Who needs to work now, the nanny state will take care of all your needs. Btw, Finland actually tried this and it failed. They scrapped the Universal Income trial last year. The cost was too high and it was unsurprisingly found that "A guaranteed government income takes away the incentive to work, and work is more than just an economic factor. It's a vital part of what makes a society work. It teaches responsibility, self-reliance, industriousness."
You cannot have a free society where the government takes care of its citizens as if they were all children. A thriving society is one where citizens take full responsibility for their own lives. Life is hard, it's meant to be hard, if everything is taken care of for you then you have no motivation to improve yourself. Huge chunks of the population just become dead weight that the rest have to carry on their backs.
The reason the US is the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth right now is not because everyone here gets handouts - it's because there is equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. If you want to improve your lot in life you CAN. There are no promises, you are not a child, if you want to better yourself then everything you need is out there for you. You can also choose to languish in poverty if you want. But no society can survive if it removes all incentives to work and grow, and that's exactly what a socialist nanny state attempts to do.
And for every nanny state full of citizens who have decided to be "children", there is a corrupt upper echelon who act as your "parents". You have no power, they do. You no longer control your life, they do. These places are available to you right now - North Korea and Venezuela are good examples of what that sort of life is like. I encourage you to go check them out.
Be glad there are processes in place to help those at the very bottom try to get back on their feet. Such systems are not universally possible. When you were unemployed the rest of us carried you until you got back on your feet. This benefits everyone. But it's just not possible to carry EVERYONE all the time.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 30 2019, @03:10PM
Lol, universal healthcare is treating citize s lime children? Get real chode.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday July 30 2019, @04:23PM (8 children)
I'm not saying I disagree with all of your points. There is incentive in working for success, etc. I'm NOT in favor a move to socialism in most areas (though the only reasonable -- and civilized and moral -- solution to healthcare in my opinion is to move further in that direction). However...
That I need to call BS on. If there's anything the recent college admissions scandals have taught us, it's that rich people play by different rules in the U.S. They can afford better educations, get into better schools (bribing or cheating their way in if necessary), make better social networks with other rich folks, and generally end up much further ahead in life than the average person.
I say all of this as someone born to blue-collar parents where no one on my family ever attended college before, and I managed to go to some elite schools. Yes, I was lucky enough that my intelligence got me through and allowed me to succeed. I also was lucky enough along the way to have a few friends and mentors who pushed me in the right directions. When I was a sophomore in high school, I started receiving lots of fliers from top colleges interested in recruiting me after my high performance on the PSAT. I hadn't even heard of many of them (seriously -- I was that ignorant), and it was only a friend who had (because he came from higher class parents who went to college and were engineers) that even made me look beyond my local area and think of applying to top schools.
When I was a know-it-all high school kid, I used to say stuff exactly what you do: "Everybody has equal opportunity! if they aren't doing well, let them pull themselves up by their bootstraps! Anyone can do it!" When a teacher once challenged me about the necessity of welfare, I reacted coldly -- "Too bad. No handouts." But as I've grown up and matured and seen the world, I've realize how damn lucky I was to have parents who tried their best to find some opportunities for me, and then friends and acquaintances and mentors who were lucky enough to cross my path -- otherwise I'd never had the path I took.
Instead, I'd be like most kids who don't have a chance at my path of schools and careers, not because they necessarily aren't smart, but because they don't have the resources around them and don't have the luck to be influenced by people who can expand their horizons. Meanwhile, rich kids with mediocre talent at best are funneled into these top schools and have a leg up in their careers. I know them all well. I went to school with them. I've taught them. I know very well all the opportunities they had that I could never have dreamed of as a child.
So, anyone who says "we have equal OPPORTUNITY" is full of crap. Sure, we don't have some sort of horrific caste system like India has historically dealt with, nor do we have aristocratic classes that make social mobility impossible. Social mobility does happen, but let's not pretend that it's easy or common in the U.S. to significantly move out of your class, compared to what would happen if everyone truly began with a "blank slate" and we had true "equal OPPORTUNITY."
(Score: 2, Troll) by The Shire on Tuesday July 30 2019, @05:06PM (5 children)
Totally not BS for a number of reasons. One is simply that Ivy League universities don't actually offer a better education than any other top university that you can get into and in fact they can be far worse. Ultimately it's what you do with your education that matters in terms of opportunity. It's pointless to obsess over the 1 in 5000 kid who managed to cheat the system, your competition is with the other 4,999. You can succeed simply by going to a trade school. You can excel by going to a community college. It's entirely about your level of drive and talent.
Don't confuse "Equal Opportunity" with "Equal Outcome". The first is always out there waiting for you, the second doesn't exist and never should. Opportunity is about improving your lot in life for yourself and your kids. It's not about having everything the next guy has.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 30 2019, @05:29PM (3 children)
One day you'll learn.
AK's comment did a big *whoosh* over your head because you're still in the younger mindset he described himself growing out of.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 31 2019, @01:10AM (2 children)
While I applaud your and AK's attempts to grow up, uninformed cynicism isn't any better. What rich people can do is not much different from what average people can do. Sure, it's a better start, but only if the person takes advantage of it. What gets missed is two things. First, a better start is only worth so much. Notice how the advantage is always phrased in potentiality. One can have an advantage. But there are also disadvantages to these things, such as missing out on valuable life experiences. Meanwhile ambition, talent, and experience (what is often termed "luck") can take you much further than the luck of being born to rich parents.
Second, I don't want to sound like sour grapes, but a lot of these wealth-related advantages (especially of the kind derived from cheating) aren't desirable to us. For example, maintaining your list of elite, rich friends is great for some things, but I haven't heard a lot of people around here who value that or would want to take up the considerable effort to maintain such connections. And of course, what do you really know, if you cheated to get into a school beyond your intellectual means? Much was said of mentors who would expand one's horizons. Being born rich doesn't give you any better access to that.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 31 2019, @03:53AM
Being born rich is such a terrible burden. We should make sure that doesn't happen to anyone ever again.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 02 2019, @07:25PM
Thank you for a clear and well-thought-out reply.
Let me just disagree on a few points:
While that is true, many average or poorer people don't even know what is possible. Or, because they have never known anyone who has succeeded in ways outside their community, they can't even imagine the possibilities, let alone have a clue about how to do it. It's true that with the growth of the internet today, it's easier to find information than when I was younger, but even then, you need to know what to search FOR.
That may be true, but that's not at all the point. Elite, rich friends get you other opportunities even if you don't want to be rich or "elite." You have more choices because of them. Someone who goes to an Ivy or other top school and mingles with the rich folk isn't just building up a list of buddies to play polo or squash with. (Aside: I don't play either.) It's people who know other people who know someone who can offer you a job or recommend you to your potential future boss or whatever.
Not to mention the sheer power of a resume with early opportunities on it. I've talked to admissions officers at Ivies (I've worked at them), and I know that if you went to one of the top private schools in the U.S. (where tuition prior to college can be upwards of $50k/year), chances are your applications will be "set aside" and given more review. I've taught at a couple of those elite private high schools, and I see the opportunities for kids have that very few public schools -- even the really good ones -- can match. And once your history of elite schools gets you into an elite college, you walk out into the workforce and hand someone your resume, and it says X Top-20 school or whatever. Again, your resume gets a second look. Maybe 5 or 10 years out from your degree, it doesn't matter as much, but it gets your foot in the door and gets you several more rungs up the ladder at the start. If you ever want to pursue a career change and need to convince someone to look at your resume again when you don't really have the expected qualifications, it doesn't help to have those colleges either (as I myself can attest to).
Lots of opportunities and doors open to such folk. Yes, you need to take advantage of them, but it's a lot easier to do so than to work your way up from nothing.
The heck it doesn't. My high school guidance counselor was a joke. The high school guidance counselors at the private schools I've worked with are fountains of resources on how to get a better edge in getting into elite schools. And most of my public school teachers were good folk who cared about their job as educators, but I rarely received the kind of attention I have seen fawned on kids who attend elite private schools. I've taught in a public high school in a reasonably poor community (lower middle class, I suppose). I've seen the difference of the kinds of teachers first-hand. I see the resources such teachers have to offer. I see the amount of time they can devote to kids -- when I taught in such a school I had to teach ~150 students per year. In an elite private school, the number is often ~50 or less at the high school level. You can devote a lot more energy and attention to individual students... in essence, you can mentor them.
And then you move on to college. You don't think a letter of recommendation from a top scientist in your field from a top research university will receive more attention than a random prof at a community college? You have better chances at getting a good position in the workforce or going on to grad school or professional school if you want. And it's easier to stay among those top schools for masters or doctorates if you're already at one.
I admittedly don't know much about your background, but I've seen my life change when I made a leap to the world of the "elite." And since then I've gone back and forth several times between those worlds in some ways in the kinds of positions I've had. So I've seen the poor student struggling to barely stay afloat as he works his way through a state school, while a rich kid coasts through an Ivy.
Again, I'm not saying social mobility is impossible or that people can't make use of resources to get ahead. And I'm not cynical about this either -- I'm realistic about the fact that rich people DO have more opportunities, more ways to find out about more opportunities, more ways to take advantage of those opportunities, etc. That's simply reality. It doesn't mean you can't be poor and pull yourself up by your bootstraps -- but it will usually take more than determination to do so. A lot of luck and a lot of people offering you opportunities you likely wouldn't find yourself helps.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Gaaark on Tuesday July 30 2019, @07:22PM
Yet a rich kid gets to make connections and do unpaid internships while the poor kid has to work two jobs just to STAY in school. Forget the 'old boys club's connections which are USUALLY the BEST way of getting ahead.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 30 2019, @07:00PM (1 child)
Agreed. An apple does not fall far from a tree.
For better or for worse, your opportunity is a combination of
1. what your parents set up for you (psychologically, financially, and/or intellectually)
2. what you expect of yourself
And #2 is often just based on #1. People often talk about about opportunities or "what they deserve", but your life generally just goes along the lines of what you expect it to be. Most of us are slaves of our circumstance and fool ourselves to think we have free will.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 31 2019, @10:16PM
1. I hated my parents and refused to take money from them. They make me wanna puke.
2. Coming up I heard so many times that I was a fucking moron who needed to clean the floor that I believed it. The only clue I had was encountering dumbfucks with success and comparing their past to my own.
I'm now more ok than ever to pay a lot more in taxes if it means that someone can tell their boss to shove it cause they're going to college.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 30 2019, @05:33PM (1 child)
You're a cake eating mother fucker if you had any real struggles and think it's important for others to eat the same shit sandwiches.
Go on tell us your toughest life stories like the time you mowed lawns and went to college. I'll tell you how thick the frosting is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 31 2019, @10:13PM
The cake eating mother fucker won't tell us how hard his life is.
Like there is some sort of secret he is hiding.
Like he knows people simply won't understand that even though mommy and daddy gave him cash... it was still so hardy wardie.
BEING RICH IS HARD U DO NOT UNDERSTAND!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday July 30 2019, @05:43PM (17 children)
Who exactly is going to pay for this utopia of yours?
The financial markets and their mafia of crony capitalists. Time for them to pay their taxes. They have many times more than enough to pay for everything. The "trickle down" from their rain canopy is insufficient.
North Korea and Venezuela, not that they aren't corrupt like all authoritarian regimes, are under economic attack by pirates who want to steal their resources.
The reason the US is the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth right now is not because everyone here gets handouts - it's because there is equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone.
Very funny!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 30 2019, @05:59PM (16 children)
Seriously, I hope we move past the brain washing soon. Every kid raised in the US is subject to some pretty serious brainwashing, some of us were more lucky than others at being exposed to more truthful sources. I remember being a teen and arguing with a wiser older person saying "no way it can be that corrupt, no way they could pull off such a thing, someone would speak up! The truth would come out!"
Ah the naivete of youth, not realizing just how many people will normalize doing bad things.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 30 2019, @09:40PM (13 children)
Yeas, the brainwashing is usually called propaganda, but that has become a loaded word, so we just call it PR now and there is a massive hugely profitable industry based on it.
There is a lot of money for your movie [zerohedge.com] from the US military, provided you tell the right story of course.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 31 2019, @02:03AM (12 children)
Brainwashing has been practiced since forever, the scary part of modern life is how good the puppetmasters have become: focusing their efforts on specific groups for maximum desired effect, delivering messages to those particular masses, and tailoring the messages to elicit the desired responses.
I don't think that particular Djinni is going back in the bottle, ever, but we can start stepping up the penalties and enforcement for spreading outright lies, and even half-truths, with particular enforcement focus on falsehoods aimed at manipulation of political elections.
We might also start holding our public officials to a higher standard of truth in their official speeches and press releases. I wouldn't mind at all if governors, congress critters and even the president got booted from office for standing up and deliberately delivering falsehoods to the masses.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 31 2019, @02:41AM (11 children)
I wouldn't mind at all if governors, congress critters and even the president got booted from office for standing up and deliberately delivering falsehoods to the masses.
You do that on election day. If there are difficulties during the term, a recall or impeachment process may be available.
What you don't do is tell people what they can and cannot say. It is upon the audience/voter to verify the facts.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 31 2019, @12:01PM (10 children)
As a mass group, maybe. Individuals are ill equipped to research / verify anything. When sly animal news agencies deliver a 24-7 barrage of misinformation and colored commentary to back it up, and "the other side" responds in-kind with more distortions of the truth... are we, as individual voters, expected to travel to the arctic to verify that the polar bears are drowning, to the remote corners of the great barrier reef to see the corals bleaching, to the war zones to evaluate what kind of atrocities are being perpetrated by whom?
As a public official, there should be some level of accountability for public statements. When a speech writer puts together a persuasive presser delivered in an official venue as an official statement, that text should be available online with references in perpetuity, just like their voting records.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 31 2019, @01:43PM (9 children)
Individuals are ill equipped to research / verify anything.
You're making excuses. You can pick up a phone, write letters, talk to your neighbors, there's a million ways.
As a public official, there should be some level of accountability for public statements.
Your interest and your vote are all that's needed. If you vote for, and worse, reelect liars, liars are what you will get. You won't ever get accountability without voting for accountable people.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 31 2019, @02:19PM (8 children)
Ain't nobody got time, nor connections, nor the critical thinking skills for that - the employment and education system guarantees it.
You're making excuses for the propaganda machine's legitimacy. It never was, and never will be legitimate, but maybe with modern tech it can at least be exposed through transparency and held to a higher level of accountability.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 31 2019, @02:33PM (7 children)
Well then, let's put an end to majority rule if people can't handle it.
You still have to vote for people that will change the rules to your liking.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 31 2019, @03:00PM (6 children)
You could take the Olympic swimming medalists from the last 3 games, toss them in the middle of the English channel in a winter storm and ask them to choose a shore to swim to, and they'd have no more chance of getting the outcome they desire than the voters do when mass broadcast of misinformation is not only legal, but made indistinguishable from referenced information from sources whose bias is at least known.
Yes, we have to vote in people who will do what we want, vote out those who do what we don't want, but when the information presented about the choices is more distortion and outright lies than truth, and the average voter has no tools to distinguish the two - that should be the priority, right up there with dismantling of Citizens United: another propaganda machine that skews election decisions toward money instead of people.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 31 2019, @03:20PM (5 children)
Sorry, you're wagging the dog. And you still failed to address the problem. You don't regulate speech. I will always fight against that. Citizens United was the correct decision, and the ACLU agrees. And your "swimmer" analogy stinks. Our situation is more like people in a yacht arguing about the decor while the thing is headed towards an iceberg.
that should be the priority
Still needs your vote, doesn't it?
The propaganda isn't the problem, the followers are. Deal with the desire, not the object.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 31 2019, @06:53PM (4 children)
No, you don't regulate speech. You do regulate dangerous falsehoods. If I put up a news agency that is presenting the Russian perspective on the world, I label it "RT" and anybody with two functioning neurons eventually clues in that R stands for Russia, the outlet plays by Russian rules whatever they may be. Same for Al-Jazeera, if you're looking for the middle eastern perspective on things.
For US based news sources, giving information on US issues that US voters should be exercising judgement over, we should be transparent in where the information is coming from. A story on the topic of global warming should be clear in whether or not it was sponsored by Greenpeace, Conoco Philips or the Kansas State University school of meteorology. When a "news story" on Facebook about race riots in Baltimore is sponsored by the Cambridge Analytica Alamo project for the re-election of Donald Trump, that should also be easily discovered by the viewer of the story at the time of viewing, not exposed in a documentary 3 years later.
When "free speech" is yelling FIRE in a crowded theater leading to loss of life, that gets curtailed.
When "free speech" is fake news, tailored to push specific demographics' buttons and stampede them into a particular political choice which ultimately is hurting themselves, I'm not saying it should be stopped, I am saying it should be clearly identified for what it is and who is backing its distribution.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 31 2019, @07:50PM (3 children)
Sorry, you don't regulate speech. That is absolute. You teach people to think for themselves instead of following the herd instead.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 31 2019, @11:13PM (2 children)
Transparency of sources is not regulation, it's enabling people to think for themselves instead of stampeding around in the dark killing themselves when someone scares them.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 31 2019, @11:20PM (1 child)
Even transparency isn't the issue. The problem is people choosing to stampede around in the dark killing themselves when someone scares them. I do not care how fake the news is. The choice to act violently, regardless of motivation, is entirely personal.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 31 2019, @11:48PM
Say what you want, that's your right.
What I think _could_ work, but likely will not happen, is that responsible reporting could start providing transparency of sources, transparency of funding, and a reasonable breakdown of the motivation of the producers of the content. If "official" sources of information provided this background with regularity, "fake news" would just be naked out there like cat videos on Reddit. Idiots will still respond to the naked imagery, but without some authenticity behind it, only the biggest idiots will be triggered in to self damaging actions by it.
The "source documenters" can debate back and forth about who is coloring what how, like Wikipedia more or less, if they care to, but just being able to have that expectation of occasionally easy to find backing documentation for stories that you care about deeply should enable many people to make better decisions.
When "free speech" was enshrined in the constitution Silence Dogood, Harry Meanwell, Alice Addertongue, Richard Saunders, and Timothy Turnstone were the epitome of slight of hand reporting - publishing pamphlets to make people think without tying their content to a particular preconceived positions. Most "speech" came from mouths that the listeners could physically see and hear, and judge at least the "face value" of its authenticity. More and more, "deep fake" video imagery is going to be used to change opinions, and if the standard of reporting continues to include little to no veracity of the sources - it's going to make it virtually impossible for the majority of people to make good decisions because of the difficulty in sorting the garbage input from the truth.
It will, however, give disproportionate control to those with the resources at their disposal to generate targeted messaging, whether using completely fake stories or just selective targeted messaging from the billions of stories available each day. Basically, those with the money can rule if they chose to, as it always has been. We have the opportunity to at least raise the cost through education and expectation, or we can continue to accept the typical output of PS103, Grover Cleveland High School, and your local community colleges and the terrific decisions they make based on Fox News and NPR - because those are the level of tools provided to the average voter, and they are woefully inadequate to make informed decisions from the "news" that's available to them today.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 31 2019, @12:42AM (1 child)
Careful what you wish for, the next step may be brain bleaching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday July 31 2019, @04:54AM
Nah, next step is to hang them out to dry.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 4, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 30 2019, @07:31PM
No, it's about people getting up in other people's business, determining who gets what based on "need" and let's give the full rectal exam to determine need before releasing a penny.
Let's start with a sound bite: Bernie's "insane socialist proposal" to forgive all student loan debt. It's cheaper than Trump's tax cuts for the rich were, it's far cheaper than the un-necessary Gulf War II was - the numbers don't lie, these are choices that our leaders are making for us, choices that "we the people" would make differently, if our system wasn't warped by the concentration money and power in the hands of a few.
BTW, on principle, I do not agree with Bernie's idea, you accepted debt, that's yours to repay. I do, however, fully endorse the numbers behind the proposal which are: tax cuts for the rich are not insignificant, and there's more than one way to inject "wealth" into the economy.
Historically "ground up" investments produce significantly more economic growth than "trickle down", per dollar invested.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday July 30 2019, @09:50PM (1 child)
Healthcare and college education for all is going to turn us into North Korea and Venezuela? Yeah, sure dude. Make sure you get your Alex Jones approved tinfoil hat tightly secured.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 31 2019, @02:06AM
So, the first places that come to mind when you say healthcare and college education for all is the European Union - they've been doing that for decades, long before unification, and I haven't seen the rise of a new Stalin or Mao yet.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 30 2019, @11:06PM (5 children)
I agree, mostly. But, what is our welfare state, if not another socialist program? We already hand out thousands to undeserving parasites. What's the big deal if we stop calling it welfare, and call it universal income? We end up with the same results - undeserving parasites contribute nothing to society, except more mouths to feed.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 31 2019, @12:52AM (1 child)
welfare states currently are and look for examples which work even today.
Yeah, right. A case of Nirvana fallacy - "best as the enemy of the good" and "always go for gold, even if bronze would have been more appropriate".
Look, mate, if you have an inefficiency (e.g. paying parasites) that is way smaller than the overhead to avoid them all together, isn't irrational to go with the "principled solution"?
The same kind of thinking led to "war on drugs" even if many other examples of "harm reductions" show better outcome at lower cost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 31 2019, @03:25AM
That depends on what the desired "outcome" was. War on Drugs has been very profitable for some.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 31 2019, @03:38AM (2 children)
That Greyhound uses socialist roads. Go build your own roads.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 31 2019, @02:25PM (1 child)
No, our highways are capitalistic. Greyhound, and all other commercial traffic pay huge sums of money to the states to keep their highways in usable condition. No socialism involved. Not every community good project is socialist.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 31 2019, @10:10PM
Wait it's not socialist when corporations pay taxes? Hmm interesting idea.
(Score: 1, Troll) by c0lo on Wednesday July 31 2019, @12:39AM (3 children)
Don't be an idiot.
Other countries manage to do all that without printing money, Germany is the first that springs in my mind, but there a many others [wikipedia.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 31 2019, @02:16AM (2 children)
But, Germany has some occasional sense of fiscal responsibility, a net positive trade imbalance, and they make actual stuff that other countries actually want.
Anytime since WWII the US has gotten anywhere close to a balanced budget the "tax cuts for the rich" come crawling out of the closet to ensure that we stay in deep debt so we "cannot afford" more social programs - social programs which often pay back their costs more than 100% in reduced expenses down the road...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 31 2019, @02:37AM (1 child)
True.
Just don't blame Germany (and many other countries) for showing that a better welfare state can actually work for the society even it it is suboptimal for the plutocracy's interests, and in contradiction to the plutocracy's propaganda (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 31 2019, @11:53AM
Germany's plutocrats are pussies, anyone with real power got out after WWII.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @02:27PM
I'm betting their UBI covered not just needs but a basic level of wants to
if it only covered needs the incentive to work would remain (for everyone not wanting to live like a monk)