SandhillshuskerW

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

It’s ok to argue :p

 

 

Where do we stop increasing military spending? 5x as much as 2nd place? 10x? Where do we stop subsidizing junk food that’s increasing health care costs?

 

Right now our spending and revenue cuts seem to go in favor of helping out the wealthiest people, and when we talk about giving a little to normal people, or God forbid the poorest people, e.g. food stamps, the pissing and moaning is deafening. (Not saying you’re doing this).

I agree, I feel like we are spending way too much as a country in a lot of areas. I am just of the mindset that I don't want to add another area where we would have to spend more taxes. If we could find a way to get these funds without raising taxes, then by all means lets get it done. You might open up a whole deal with many other areas though that would look to get government funding as well. 

11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You don’t have to add any taxes. We’ve given examples of unneccesary spending that could instead go toward college education. I gave one in the post you’re replying to.

 

To be honest I’d be okay with taxes being raised though, back to pre Bush levels. Even going back to pre Trump levels we could afford this if we’re willing to let the debt increase at a pre-Trump pace. 

There are always places that you can cut taxes. This is never going to change. It all comes down to priorities, but where does it stop? What if we all were given free housing? What if we never had to pay for gas again?  I hope this is not coming off as me trying to argue, I'm simply trying to add to the conversation.

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

You should read some of the previous posts. We went over the costs already.

 

It would be $70 billion per year. We spent $28 billion on pell grants last year. We increased the defense budget by over $100 billion last year. We can afford free college. We just choose not to do it.

I would like to see what that works out to per household per month. I'm sorry, I just am not convinced that we could afford free education. We are barely making ends meet in our household the way it is and it is hard for me to say that I could easily pay an extra couple hundred per month in taxes for free education. It might be different for others, but we have a son in the house with special needs and we have many expenses. If you add more to our taxes each month from having to fund free education, it would be really difficult. 

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

That’s the case with all taxes though, and more people going to college would benefit us more than a lot of what we spend tax $ on.

 

Off the top of my head, why am I paying taxes to subsidize corn? So coca-cola can profit more from their sugar water? Why am I paying taxes to help car companies that make an inferior product? Why am I paying taxes on a military that gets quadruple (or whatever it is) the $ the 2nd biggest military spends?

I understand all of that, but I don't think anyone realizes just how much their taxes would have to increase to make college free for students. I have no idea what it would be either, but I have a feeling that it would be a huge jump. Free college sounds great to me because I have three kids at home that may go to college one day, but I just don't think it would be feasible. This is obviously just my opinion though.

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

As for as “needless” classes, I feel like part of the purpose of college is to create well rounded individuals. I think everyone should take sociology, everyone should take a class about a different culture other than their own, a different religion, a class related to art, a philosophy or psychology class, an economics class, and most important of all a statistics class.

I would agree with the economics class and possibly the statistics class, but I would have a hard time arguing for the rest of them. There is nothing wrong with wanting well rounded individuals, but it's hard to justify taking an art class in college to be able to work as a mechanic.

9 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don’t think the last part is much of an issue. States with more colleges have more people in them, so the individual taxes taken out for college probably wouldn’t be much different.

I think the main problem would be the fact that I would have to pay much higher taxes to send students to college for the rest of my life. I can't think of too many people that would willingly pay higher taxes for much, let alone for sending people to college. It would be great if college was free for students. It would give way more people access to college that currently can't afford it. That money has to come from somewhere though.

2 minutes ago, jaws said:

 

I don't think they would come down as much as people would like to think. I doubt there have been many faculty positions added because of "pointless classes".

I just meant that your individual costs as a student would come down quite a bit because you wouldn't have to pay for as many classes. I really can't remember how many credit hours I had to pay for that were outside my major, but I do know that it would have saved me quite a bit of money.

2 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

Regarding number 2, wouldn't the cost of college be reduced dramatically if some of the elements you mentioned in number 1 were enacted? I was a psych major, but had to take a slew of pointless classes like astronomy, geology, Latin American history etc. If folks aren't required to take those needless classes, wouldn't that effectively drive down the cost to something more reasonable? But also consider what having free, or significantly more affordable college would do for the workforce. Wouldn't we all be better off if everyone had access to a college degree? Wouldn't the cost in taxes result in a better society/populace? 

 Very much so in my opinion. College costs would come down quite a bit if you didn't have to take pointless classes. 

I agree that society would benefit if we all had access to a college degree, but where is that money coming from? It would obviously have to come from taxes. How are you going to figure out who pays taxes on which college? Would it be based on states, counties or the whole U.S.? If it was based on states, more people would probably move to states that didn't have many colleges because taxes would be lower there. Why would you live in a state like Texas if you have to pay taxes on all of those colleges?

I didn't read every single post in this topic, so I'm sorry if it has already been discussed or mentioned. I'm a high school math teacher and I am currently in my 18th year or teaching. I do make a decent wage, but mainly because I went and got my masters degree and I coach. I don't know how teachers can make a decent living if they don't at least get their masters, because that is usually a significant pay raise. Here are a few thoughts that I do have about college:

#1) I am a high school math teacher, but I had to take Science, History, English and other elective classes in college. College needs to be a place that you focus just on your chosen field. I took some interesting classes, but I don't know why I needed that information to teach math.

#2) I always see people claiming that college should be free. This is a terrible idea in my honest opinion. Where is all of that money going to come from to get students through college? More than likely, taxes. We will all have to pay much higher taxes so that students can receive a free education. I could see many people moving away from college towns if the taxes were based on location in the school district like elementary and high school is.

#3) Just because I don't feel that college should be free doesn't mean that I think it should cost as much as it does. There are many fees in college that are ridiculous. I went to Chadron, so my student loans were very easy to pay off after college. I couldn't even imagine what it would have been like if I would have attended a University or a private college. 

#4) I have discussions with students all the time about what they should be doing after high school. I feel that a lot of people my age went to college after high school because that is what you are supposed to do. I tell kids that they need to think seriously about what they want to do as a career and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with going to a trade school or 2 year school to get a degree that they will actually use. 

I don't have all the answers, but I really do feel like we need to rethink and revamp a lot of areas in high school and college and gear them more towards getting kids in to fields that they are interested in and will actually excel in some day. In the words of Judge Smails, "The world needs ditchdiggers too." Kids need to realize that they need to do what they like and what they are good at instead of what all of their friends are doing. It's ok to be a ditchdigger as long as you are good at it, enjoy it and make a decent living. 

Sorry for the long post, my students are taking a Geometry test right now and I had some time.

Picked up another crystal ball prediction on 247 from Timothy Verghese. I have no idea who that is, don't follow recruiting enough, but it's good that we are getting the predictions going in our favor.

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

So the whisperers are just dudes dressing like walkers?  Right?

It appears that way.

I think that the second half of the season is going to be crazy. It's just too bad we have to wait so long for it to be back on.

4 minutes ago, Minnesota_husker said:

The concern is the mental toughness and the ability to react when a team takes away what works. 

 

I felt like we looked better this year to start but the issues still showed up.

 

No reason to freak out on one game but lets not also ignore that the glaring issues from last night are not new:

Lack of offensive set/movement without the ball

Bad positioning for rebounds/giving up multiple second chances

poor shooting

Too much 1-1 ball

Sloppy turnovers(3 traveling calls against Roby)

Miles Technical foul at a bad time

 

I am not off the bandwagon on this team but last night showed the areas that killed us last year. We need a better non-conference start than last year so we need to grow up fast or we will be staring at losses to non-conference teams like Clemson, Creighton and Oklahoma State. 

I agree with everything that you said. I am just stating that it's crazy how a lot of people in here are ready to write this team off. I'm hoping that Miles actually makes adjustments and the team gets it figured out. I'm not ready to say that this team is a bust. If they end up missing out on the NCAA Tournament and falling short of expectations, then so be it. That remains to be seen though.

I didn't get to watch much of the game because we had a basketball game of our own. From the sounds of it, we didn't play very well. As a coach, I'm telling my athletes that there is a lot of season left to play and we need to continue to get better every day. I understand that Miles sucks at adjustments and other parts of the game, but I'm not going to write this team off because of one game. They got punched in the mouth by a better team that played more aggressive. I think I will withhold too much criticism until I see some more of the season played out.

On 11/17/2018 at 3:00 PM, 4skers89 said:

Spielman still needs 182

Morgan needs 77

Ozigbo got his.

 

Hope for better weather next week.

We obviously can't always pass to Morgan this week, but I really hope that we key on him quite a bit and get him to that 1,000 yards. It would be a nice way to send him out. I think he would have been a little closer to it if the weather would have been a little nicer on Saturday.

I grew up in Arthur, Nebraska which is about 150 people. I grew up on a ranch that was 20 miles away and I wouldn't change a thing about it. I currently live and teach in Broken Bow, Nebraska. I'm a big hunter and I love the opportunities that are here to do that.

3 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

Essentially, functionally, it's now a new show. Rick leaving ends the story they've been telling for 9 years or whatever more or less, and even though we still have some familiar characters this is a mini reboot that's telling a new story six years into the future (I think that's how long the timejump is). 

That would make sense. If they jump six years in to the future, are they going to have a lot of flashbacks to show what has happened in the last six years or are they just going to go there and pick things up? 

Just now, teachercd said:

Thanks!

 

So...they will pick up now with his daughter being like 8 years old?  

Yeah, I don't know where they are going with that. I'm not sure if next weeks episode will start with everything later down the road. It could be a very interesting episode. I have never read the series and I don't know anything past the current episode, but I'm excited to see how things progress the rest of the season.

31 minutes ago, teachercd said:

That wasn't the last episode of the season, was it?

No, I'm not sure how many more there are but it wasn't the last episode of the season.

3 hours ago, teachercd said:

So what are A and/or B?

I was wondering the same thing. I'm also curious as to where the helicopter is going. It can't be that far away or the radios wouldn't reach. It's one thing that probably won't be answered this season. I'm guessing Rick comes back down the road, because he looked like he was ok in the helicopter.

18 hours ago, The Dude said:

Weird episode, but I ended up being satisfied with that exit.  I was totally prepared to be outraged haha.

 

I was debating whether to even keep watching after Rick left, now I'm really hyped for the next 3 episodes.

I'm the same way. It was a weird episode and actually left it open for Rick to come back. I liked the teaser about the next three episodes and really can't wait to see them.

7 minutes ago, Warrior said:

 

I know at one time Some conferences (ACC) had a no transfer within the Conference rule.  I'm not sure if that still applies, but that would cut this list in half. 

If the ACC has this rule, then it would really narrow things down. Obviously there might be some other schools interested in him now that they have seen what he can do in college. I'm sure he won't have a problem finding a school that would take him.

1 hour ago, Warrior said:

With our lack of Depth at this position do you think a Kelly Bryant or Jalen Hurts might look into a move to the Mid-West?

I looked it up and these are the schools that originally offered Kelly Bryant:

Duke, Florida, Georgia Tech, NC State, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Virginia and Virginia Tech.

I know that things have changed a little bit in the last three years, but I'm not sure if any of those schools might show interest now. I agree that he will more than likely want to go to a school that he will be able to start for right away.

The Man Who Knew Too Little

I don't think it was his best movie, but it was pretty good.

I'm sorry if it's already been posted.