Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!

[VictorCharlie]

Come on Kirk. You would never allow Lyle or myself to make a statement like that w/o supporting facts. So please show me a supporting document that describes the amount of federal money that a state was using specifically for their Universities/Colleges general funds and the amount it has decreased by since 1980.

The fact is that since Reagan there have been massive cuts of federal funding to states and one of the ways that states have made up the funding gap is by charging higher and higher tuition fees :

Once elected, Mr. Reagan set the educational tone for his administration by:

a. calling for an end to free tuition for state college and university students,
b. annually demanding 20% across-the-board cuts in higher education funding,[2]
c. repeatedly slashing construction funds for state campuses
d. engineering the firing of Clark Kerr, the popular President of the University of California, and
e. declaring that the state "should not subsidize intellectual curiosity,[3]"



http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Reagan.html


So how about that. It turns out it's a conservative aim to end free tuition to state universities as part of the conservative war on education (Reagan having run on a platform of abolishing the Department of Education in 1980) and when they finally do succeed in passing the cost of tuition from the state to students they then turn round and say it's government subsidies that are causing the problem.





Also, too, a more detailed look at the whole thing :


http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/from-master-plan-to-no-plan-the-slow-death-of-public-higher-education

I only skimmed through the second article so feel free to show me where I am wrong but the only cuts in spending for the general funds of universities your articles mention were what Reagan did as Governor of California (your points A-E) not as President. There is no mention of cuts in federal money that was used for universities general funds. Again provide a credible source showing federal funds provided specifically for all states colleges' general funds across the nation decreasing since 1980 or concede.

[El Kabong]

GAME, SET, MATCH VC

[Kirkland Laing]

In Finland's Footsteps

How high are their taxes?

The same as yours if you add on what you pay for healthcare, daycare and all the other stuff you have to pay for in America.

So higher then?

No, the same as you currently spend for the same services. Except your services are shit by comparison. Finland actually spends a lot less than America on healthcare and on education but their education system is one of the top two or three in the world while America is mid-table. Same thing for healthcare. There must be something good about those socialist systems, no?

NationMaster - Taxation stats: Finland vs United States

So higher then?

If you admit the services Americans get are "shit by comparison" why the hell would you want higher taxes to make the United States a welfare state like Finland when our services don't work well to begin with? Do you see the flaw in your arguments No I don't suspect you do....the welfare state can do no wrong in your eyes...I on the other hand like to take care of myself

If I'm saying that you should have higher taxes to be more like Finland because your current social services are rubbish how isn't that a coherent argument?

[Kirkland Laing]

Come on Kirk. You would never allow Lyle or myself to make a statement like that w/o supporting facts. So please show me a supporting document that describes the amount of federal money that a state was using specifically for their Universities/Colleges general funds and the amount it has decreased by since 1980.

The fact is that since Reagan there have been massive cuts of federal funding to states and one of the ways that states have made up the funding gap is by charging higher and higher tuition fees :

Once elected, Mr. Reagan set the educational tone for his administration by:

a. calling for an end to free tuition for state college and university students,
b. annually demanding 20% across-the-board cuts in higher education funding,[2]
c. repeatedly slashing construction funds for state campuses
d. engineering the firing of Clark Kerr, the popular President of the University of California, and
e. declaring that the state "should not subsidize intellectual curiosity,[3]"



http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Reagan.html


So how about that. It turns out it's a conservative aim to end free tuition to state universities as part of the conservative war on education (Reagan having run on a platform of abolishing the Department of Education in 1980) and when they finally do succeed in passing the cost of tuition from the state to students they then turn round and say it's government subsidies that are causing the problem.





Also, too, a more detailed look at the whole thing :


http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/from-master-plan-to-no-plan-the-slow-death-of-public-higher-education

I only skimmed through the second article so feel free to show me where I am wrong but the only cuts in spending for the general funds of universities your articles mention were what Reagan did as Governor of California (your points A-E) not as President. There is no mention of cuts in federal money that was used for universities general funds. Again provide a credible source showing federal funds provided specifically for all states colleges' general funds across the nation decreasing since 1980 or concede.

I never said there was any direct link between federal aid cuts and the general funds of state universities. You're the first person to mention the general funds because you know there's no way I can make alink between the two things.

You're not going to find a direct link between cuts in federal aid to states and the general funds of state universities. What you do have is a general reduction in federal aid to states which has created a situation where the cost of tuition has been passed from the state to the student.

[El Kabong]

If I'm saying that you should have higher taxes

Thank you, that's all I asked....was it THAT difficult to finally admit it Kirkland? Oh and I bet there are a thousand countries who want to be like fucking Finland, get the fuck outta here with that shit.

[Master]

If I'm saying that you should have higher taxes

Thank you, that's all I asked....was it THAT difficult to finally admit it Kirkland? Oh and I bet there are a thousand countries who want to be like fucking Finland, get the fuck outta here with that shit.

Why is the US obsessed with higher taxes? Tax the corportaion making billions fairly what is wrong with that?

[El Kabong]

If I'm saying that you should have higher taxes

Thank you, that's all I asked....was it THAT difficult to finally admit it Kirkland? Oh and I bet there are a thousand countries who want to be like fucking Finland, get the fuck outta here with that shit.

Why is the US obsessed with higher taxes? Tax the corportaion making billions fairly what is wrong with that?

Because companies have to make money somehow in order to grow. Some companies cut costs by shipping jobs overseas, some by hiring illegal immigrants to work, some by not giving out benefits to employees, etc etc...well if we tax less we might increase spending or get more companies to move their operations here and thereby get more taxes with a lower rate.

[Master]

If I'm saying that you should have higher taxes

Thank you, that's all I asked....was it THAT difficult to finally admit it Kirkland? Oh and I bet there are a thousand countries who want to be like fucking Finland, get the fuck outta here with that shit.

Why is the US obsessed with higher taxes? Tax the corportaion making billions fairly what is wrong with that?

Because companies have to make money somehow in order to grow. Some companies cut costs by shipping jobs overseas, some by hiring illegal immigrants to work, some by not giving out benefits to employees, etc etc...well if we tax less we might increase spending or get more companies to move their operations here and thereby get more taxes with a lower rate.

If it is not working now with lower taxes then it certainly will not work if you lower them further all it will encourage is the fat cats at the top to cream more profits.

[El Kabong]

If it is not working now with lower taxes then it certainly will not work if you lower them further all it will encourage is the fat cats at the top to cream more profits.

We don't have low corporate taxes

[Master]

If it is not working now with lower taxes then it certainly will not work if you lower them further all it will encourage is the fat cats at the top to cream more profits.

We don't have low corporate taxes

If you did then you think they would trickle down the profits to the workers?

[VictorCharlie]

Come on Kirk. You would never allow Lyle or myself to make a statement like that w/o supporting facts. So please show me a supporting document that describes the amount of federal money that a state was using specifically for their Universities/Colleges general funds and the amount it has decreased by since 1980.

The fact is that since Reagan there have been massive cuts of federal funding to states and one of the ways that states have made up the funding gap is by charging higher and higher tuition fees :

Once elected, Mr. Reagan set the educational tone for his administration by:

a. calling for an end to free tuition for state college and university students,
b. annually demanding 20% across-the-board cuts in higher education funding,[2]
c. repeatedly slashing construction funds for state campuses
d. engineering the firing of Clark Kerr, the popular President of the University of California, and
e. declaring that the state "should not subsidize intellectual curiosity,[3]"



http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Reagan.html


So how about that. It turns out it's a conservative aim to end free tuition to state universities as part of the conservative war on education (Reagan having run on a platform of abolishing the Department of Education in 1980) and when they finally do succeed in passing the cost of tuition from the state to students they then turn round and say it's government subsidies that are causing the problem.





Also, too, a more detailed look at the whole thing :


http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/from-master-plan-to-no-plan-the-slow-death-of-public-higher-education

I only skimmed through the second article so feel free to show me where I am wrong but the only cuts in spending for the general funds of universities your articles mention were what Reagan did as Governor of California (your points A-E) not as President. There is no mention of cuts in federal money that was used for universities general funds. Again provide a credible source showing federal funds provided specifically for all states colleges' general funds across the nation decreasing since 1980 or concede.

I never said there was any direct link between federal aid cuts and the general funds of state universities. You're the first person to mention the general funds because you know there's no way I can make alink between the two things.

You're not going to find a direct link between cuts in federal aid to states and the general funds of state universities. What you do have is a general reduction in federal aid to states which has created a situation where the cost of tuition has been passed from the state to the student.

You said

State universities have increased tuition costs because since the Reagan era their federal funding has been slashed so they've got to get the money from somewhere.

and

There's been massive underfunding and cutting of funding for state universities at federal and state level since the 1980s.

Now after you've done some research and realized that the Feds don't directly fund state schools you are trying to back track. The Feds do indirectly provide money for higher education through grants, research funds and student loans. This money has in fact increased since 1980. Even if we were to look at your new hypothesis that generic federal funding for states falling is the culprit for tuition increases this would not effect states across the board b/c each state's budget and higher education funds are unique to them. Each state would treat this differently with varying results. You will find graphs below supporting my statements and I will take my victory lap now. Score one for the good guy!!!

Hey no federal money mentioned


Hey we spend more federal cash on grants, research and student loans than in 1980

[El Kabong]

If it is not working now with lower taxes then it certainly will not work if you lower them further all it will encourage is the fat cats at the top to cream more profits.

We don't have low corporate taxes

If you did then you think they would trickle down the profits to the workers?

Yes in a couple ways actually.




Wow, VC FTW with charts & graphs....Kirkland is down for the count!!! CALL IT OFF REF, CALL IT OFF!!!

[Kirkland Laing]

If I'm saying that you should have higher taxes

Thank you, that's all I asked....was it THAT difficult to finally admit it Kirkland? Oh and I bet there are a thousand countries who want to be like fucking Finland, get the fuck outta here with that shit.

You're doing this on purpose, you can't actually be this dumb. If you add on what you spend on health insurance, daycare and education and what you pay for a decent pension to retire on to your tax bill then you'll discover that you're currently paying as much or more than Finnish people are for the services they get. And they get much better services than you do. What part of this don't you understand?

Also, too. You don't have a high corporate tax rate in America. The stated rate is high but nobody pays that. Over two-thirds of corporations don't pay corporation tax at all :

StoneMor Partners LP, the publicly traded firm that specializes in running cemeteries, expects to see handsome profits in coming years as baby boomers age and die. But unlike its largest rivals, its corporate tax bill from the federal government will be zero. StoneMor is among the many businesses organized so they don’t pay a penny in federal corporate income tax. And yet such firms don’t employ an army of accountants to shield profits in complex tax shelters. Their enviable tax position is perfectly legal and has been encouraged by Congress and state governments. Known as pass-throughs, these firms pass along profits to investors who pay taxes on those sums through their individual returns. This exception has been around for decades, and has been broadened repeatedly in recent years as a way to spur entrepreneurship. Millions of small businesses have organized this way, but so too have some behemoths like private-equity giant Blackstone Group LP, construction firm Bechtel Group Inc. and pipeline firm Kinder Morgan. The percentage of U.S. corporations organized as nontaxable businesses has grown from about 24% in 1986 to about 69% as of 2008, according to the latest-available Internal Revenue Service data. The percentage of all firms is far higher when partnerships and sole proprietors are included. Old-line U.S. public companies generally remain taxable, and many complain that they must pay higher effective rates than foreign competitors. They are eagerly seeking a cut in the 35% U.S. corporate-tax rate, now one of the highest in the world. But increasingly they find themselves at odds politically with the growing breed of nontaxable firms.

More U.S. Businesses Enjoy Tax-Free Status - WSJ.com

And the top 1% make as much as the bottom 50%. You just can't run an economy like that for any length of time without it fucking up as you're now finding out. And your reaction as you watch these guys rob your bank in front of your eyes is to run after them saying "wait, you dropped a bag of money, here, take it with you!"

[Kirkland Laing]

Come on Kirk. You would never allow Lyle or myself to make a statement like that w/o supporting facts. So please show me a supporting document that describes the amount of federal money that a state was using specifically for their Universities/Colleges general funds and the amount it has decreased by since 1980.

The fact is that since Reagan there have been massive cuts of federal funding to states and one of the ways that states have made up the funding gap is by charging higher and higher tuition fees :

Once elected, Mr. Reagan set the educational tone for his administration by:

a. calling for an end to free tuition for state college and university students,
b. annually demanding 20% across-the-board cuts in higher education funding,[2]
c. repeatedly slashing construction funds for state campuses
d. engineering the firing of Clark Kerr, the popular President of the University of California, and
e. declaring that the state "should not subsidize intellectual curiosity,[3]"



http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Reagan.html


So how about that. It turns out it's a conservative aim to end free tuition to state universities as part of the conservative war on education (Reagan having run on a platform of abolishing the Department of Education in 1980) and when they finally do succeed in passing the cost of tuition from the state to students they then turn round and say it's government subsidies that are causing the problem.





Also, too, a more detailed look at the whole thing :


http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/from-master-plan-to-no-plan-the-slow-death-of-public-higher-education

I only skimmed through the second article so feel free to show me where I am wrong but the only cuts in spending for the general funds of universities your articles mention were what Reagan did as Governor of California (your points A-E) not as President. There is no mention of cuts in federal money that was used for universities general funds. Again provide a credible source showing federal funds provided specifically for all states colleges' general funds across the nation decreasing since 1980 or concede.

I never said there was any direct link between federal aid cuts and the general funds of state universities. You're the first person to mention the general funds because you know there's no way I can make alink between the two things.

You're not going to find a direct link between cuts in federal aid to states and the general funds of state universities. What you do have is a general reduction in federal aid to states which has created a situation where the cost of tuition has been passed from the state to the student.

You said

State universities have increased tuition costs because since the Reagan era their federal funding has been slashed so they've got to get the money from somewhere.

and

There's been massive underfunding and cutting of funding for state universities at federal and state level since the 1980s.

Now after you've done some research and realized that the Feds don't directly fund state schools you are trying to back track. The Feds do indirectly provide money for higher education through grants, research funds and student loans. This money has in fact increased since 1980. Even if we were to look at your new hypothesis that generic federal funding for states falling is the culprit for tuition increases this would not effect states across the board b/c each state's budget and higher education funds are unique to them. Each state would treat this differently with varying results. You will find graphs below supporting my statements and I will take my victory lap now. Score one for the good guy!!!

Hey no federal money mentioned


Hey we spend more federal cash on grants, research and student loans than in 1980

Good to see you using facts and figues. See that "state support" bit of the pie chart? That's the bit that's been decreased since Reagan. And it's been decreased because there have been cuts in federal money transfers to states. The states have made up these cuts by transferring the cost of tuition to the student. I already explained this twice and then you changed the subject by prattling on about the general fund of state universities, something I never mentioned.

Also, too. If you look at your last graph you see a huge increase in federal subsidies to education in the past decade. How come tuition fees haven't seen a similar spike if government subsidies cause tuition cost increases?

[VictorCharlie]

The state support went down as a percentage but not as a value. Since some portions increased making the pie bigger somer parts decreased as a percent. I shouldn't have to explain fractions to you. The states have never used federal money to fund universities and colleges, so how much money they are getting from the feds now or then for other programs is irrelevant and even if this was the case it wouldn't be an across the board effect b/c as I mentioned earlier when I did address this point each state would deal with it uniquely.

Tuition has seen a spike in relation to the subsidies hence this entire thread.

Image Detail for - College_tuition_Graph

Pack it in Kirk. You got owned on this one.