- Aug 3, 2011
- Reaction score
- Reed City, Michigan (Lower)
In my opinion, a big part of the problem is that it is very difficult (not impossible, but there's a high bar to qualify) to discharge student loans in bankruptcy court. Therefore, the student borrower assumes almost all the risk of student debt. Neither the school nor the lender has a stake in the borrower's ability to repay the loan; they couldn't care less if your income won't be enough to meet loan payments and still meet expenses, don't care if your degree makes you employable, etc..... if an industry won't police itself, it shouldn't be real surprised if the government comes in with a big hammer.
Do you mind asking what that program is called? I'm curious because I've seen nothing at all like this over here on the Left Coast. Honestly, it sounds like BS, but I've been surprised before!A great many community colleges and State colleges are built on this same model. Our last church secretary came to us from a local state university campus in which, according to her, fully half of the students attended only because the government a) paid their tuition and b) gave them a monthly stipend for books, etc. They were required to attend classes for at least three or four weeks to qualify for the stipend. Once past that mark, they collected their checks and went home. My daughter attends another school next door to that one and you can see it every semester. At the beginning of the term the parking lots are packed, but three or four weeks in they suddenly become half empty.
On the surface, I like this idea. I like everyone learning a trade, and I think the people in DC would be a lot less likely to start up wars if their kids might get sent to the front. That said, I have a couple of concerns:This just might be the wrong way to think, but...
I see my 13 year old son learning in school the last few years that I didn't get to in high school.
They are teaching much more advanced things to younger people. So what are they leaving out to accommodate this advanced learning?
I see an opportunity her to solve a few problems.
I see a lot of "it's the parents fault" for miss behaved, won't take responsibility, no respect issues.
So make everyone go directly from high school into a branch of the military of their choice for 2 years.
They will learn discipline, respect and learn a trade they choose equal to 2 years of college. High school drop outs go directly to special military school until they complete the equivalent of grade 12. (GED if you like)
No diploma is awarded after 12trh grade, but you get a trade certificate at the end of your 2 year military carrier which shows you have been trained by the best, for the best and have experience.
You can then choose to stay in the military (for a more acceptable wage) or go into the private sector. Or choose both by being in the reserves.
Or, you can go to college to further your degree. Military may have the option to pick up the expense as long as you sign a reasonable time of enlistment.
This will also insure, that when a terrorist makes a play, everyone is trained and knows on how to deal with the situation.
Also, this would ultimately in time, do away with concealed carry permits. Because, everyone has been trained right out of high school.
Instead of seeing a pistol handle sticking out of a guys pocket and freak out, you introduce yourself and compare your choices of fire arms.
Some may think this could be considered a military state. But I think not. Nothing will change except which I have mentioned above.
Well groomed, well trained, respectful and disciplined Americans ready to deal with just about any out of the ordinary situation that comes along in life.
Some will say that not everyone will be able to do that due to medical or physical disabilities.
I say EVERYONE. A person in a wheel chair can learn a trade, even a blind person gets along in life. Adaptation in the military for these and other disabilities must be instituted.
It's just my way of seeing a solution to so many problems and issues in our country today that just seams to get worse and worse.
Everyone will be educated on weapons use, the respect of, and the discipline of, which should take the fear out of all Americans.
BTW, my real name is John Adams. Vote for ME in November!:neener:
On the surface, I like this idea. I like everyone learning a trade, and I think the people in DC would be a lot less likely to start up wars if their kids might get sent to the front. That said, I have a couple of concerns:
#1: There are about 5-10 million 18-20 year olds in the US. That's a honking big standing army, and I'm not sure there would be plausible jobs for everyone where they could actually learn something. It's also a heck of a lot of money, even if you're just paying room and board.
#2: Are people who are going to be in for two years and then leave going to be useful in a modern technological military? I think that was an argument as the military switched from volunteer militias circa 1865 to a standing army circa 1910. It's obviously gotten more so since. It took my grandpa something like 18 months to go from enlistment to flying B-24s in WWII, although I'm sure the waist gunner had a much shorter training period. Is it worth it to the army to pay for a lot of useful training? On the other hand, it might take back some of the administrative work from the contractors that charge an awful lot of money for their services.
The idea I've had for a while is a required national service. It could be in the military, a reconstituted CCC, or whatever. Two years would be enough to learn a trade well enough to be useful as a craftsman. Even if people don't use those skills in a career, it gives them work experience (how many jobs ask for 1-3 year's experience?) and knowledge that will be useful later in life. It would also help clear out backlog of maintenance and other work needed in national parks, etc.