Free Post Secondary Education in Canada

[hitops]

First off I'm non conformist and I'm not political I'm apolitical, I'm not about people I'm about equal capacity. I am a libertarian minarchist, so I am the state, dealing with government whatever it may be is diplomacy

Whatever you are, you are absolutely not a libertarian. Free _____ for everyone is something a libertarian would never say. In fact your views are most consistent with socialism.

But your arguments have been refuted appropriately. The reason free education makes no sense is that it sets up incentives to be in the educational system forever, with no set goal. It also incentivizes the creation of more and more pointless educational programs, because every department and dean knows if they add more programming, they add more government dollars. Therefore there is no incentive to add useful programming, just any programming.

We already have hordes to students doing pointless degrees and wasting a lot of time, largely due to the massive access to capital for education through student loans. We 100% do not need to add more of this kind of thing.

If student loans were either abolished or handed out strickly on the basis of a proven need i n the economy, we could eliminate 50% of more of useless wandering and far more students would get focused because when the money is real to you, all of a sudden its makes sense to get something for what you are paying.

Regarding the value of arts etc, yes they have value. But.....and don't miss this part......that value is not for you, the state, or the university to determine. It is for the market to determine, if people want that stuff, then people will find jobs doing it. If there are jobs for it, then it makes sense to charge money to teach it. If there are not, then it does not. That is the best way to evaluate the need for those programs. The government, and by proxy the university, should never be in the business of determining what courses have value and which don't.

Otherwise we would just get an explosion of nonsense being taught, simply because the government is paying.

Edited March 19, 2013 by hitops

[shortlived]

Whatever you are, you are absolutely not a libertarian. Free _____ for everyone is something a libertarian would never say. In fact your views are most consistent with socialism.

But your arguments have been refuted appropriately. The reason free education makes no sense is that it sets up incentives to be in the educational system forever, with no set goal. It also incentivizes the creation of more and more pointless educational programs, because every department and dean knows if they add more programming, they add more government dollars. Therefore there is no incentive to add useful programming, just any programming.

We already have hordes to students doing pointless degrees and wasting a lot of time, largely due to the massive access to capital for education through student loans. We 100% do not need to add more of this kind of thing.

If student loans were either abolished or handed out strickly on the basis of a proven need i n the economy, we could eliminate 50% of more of useless wandering and far more students would get focused because when the money is real to you, all of a sudden its makes sense to get something for what you are paying.

Regarding the value of arts etc, yes they have value. But.....and don't miss this part......that value is not for you, the state, or the university to determine. It is for the market to determine, if people want that stuff, then people will find jobs doing it. If there are jobs for it, then it makes sense to charge money to teach it. If there are not, then it does not. That is the best way to evaluate the need for those programs. The government, and by proxy the university, should never be in the business of determining what courses have value and which don't.

Otherwise we would just get an explosion of nonsense being taught, simply because the government is paying.

Oh I definately AM a libertarian minarchchist my brand I call Social Humanist Libertarianism.

Principle 1. Force Nothing

Principle 2. People who use services pay for them

Principle 3. Make sure it works...

Principle 4. We must be progressive and insure that those in poverty are provided a means of being lifted from poverty.

Only those who use the service are paying for it, that is the key difference. Nothing in libertarianism says the government can't provide services requested by people.In the case of this education program, it is free, but you pay for it down the road. Libertarian principles are government non interference in the lives of individuals to the furthest extent practical. It also means social respect.

No socialism bills everyone, that is the difference, I don't propose billing everyone, just the people who want the services.

Of course the Humanist part means that in order to insure a just society we must insure those who are without are provided for, but that is only because we all get dividends from the land and collective knowledge. If we can't kill them we are morally obligated to take care of them. If I were a true socialist I would propose making Kibbutz. Part of the issue is that despotism is the enemy of a just society, and despotism will be enhanced by private ownership of land and concentration of the means of production and livelyhood in the hands of the few. So there must be governmental settlement engagements to distribute land to the people, not as collectively owned but as individually operated, in this case in northern areas. The gauge is simply people who come into conflict with the law because people in conflict of the law arn't in homeostasis with the social norms and standards, so they are the ones that need to be resettled in areas with land available for them to provide for their own autarchy.

Government work programs though recognize that some people arn't capable enough to make their own freedom of liberty so they must be trained and managed to be free. If everyone is free then there is no need for government program monopolies.

I think you are ignornant in advocating for less education, fact is school makes people less stupid, it exposes them to the world, where before there was only a blind worldview. We don't need slave labourers, education is a gateway to freedom and independence that is required for a free society.

Instituting program quotas is the capability of the institutions, if they wanted to limit the number of degrees to limit it, thats fine but its not the place of the government to control the schools, and its not the place of the schools to say what students can learn, they can learn it somewhere else. The students pick their programs and the schools pick their programs. Now what if they are unemployed.. well they are unemployed, the goal of education isn't to employ, it is to educate.

Employers who want specific trades skills should be training their own workers, if it is industry needs such as pipe fitters, apprentice people to be pipe fitters. They are two seperate issues. Education is for education, not for employment. Educations benefits arn't just related to employment. Sure it does have dividents those 90% of students who do fine work, is still much higher than the dropout rate, tons of jobs have bachelor level or higher requirements for employment. You ascertation that people should just perform unskilled labour is nonsense. People can make robots and dispensing machines to do that, its probably a waste of time and resources, not all of them but many of them. Program offerings are for the program facilitator to decide.

If employers want their pick of labourers they should be providing employment contracts like the Canadian Forces offering education as an incentive for taking a specific carear path. We shouldn't be forcing any carear path on anyone, that is limiting freedom.

Most of these self funding free programs have an ignition system but once it is going they fund themselves.

It removes the income taxes to do these same things, saving tax payers $20,000 each over their lifetime.

It removes red tape and administrative barriers, and delays.

It removes government from the lives of the individuals, connecting individuals with a fund as opposed to government.

It gives the money back to people when the program starts to have surpluses, which are guaranteed, meaning the taxpayers are refunded for the start up cost and given a dividend for life.

These are all important libertarian concepts, to reduce the level of government involvement in the lives of individuals, but still insure a functioning society.

Libertarians is not anarchy. You just can't pull the plug on society you have to give it a chance to live by making it healthy.

Edited March 19, 2013 by shortlived

[Pliny]

Oh I definately AM a libertarian minarchchist my brand I call Social Humanist Libertarianism.

Never heard of social humanist libertarianism. But from what what you say it sounds more like Proudhon or Bakunin post state anarchism.

Principle 1. Force Nothing

Principle 2. People who use service pay for them

Principle 3. Make sure it works...

Principle 4. We must be progressive and insure that those in poverty are provided a means of being lifted from poverty.

Are you going to force people who use the service to pay for them or force them to take the services you offer for them to choose?

Ok. You are a poor student living in poverty and have a student loan that is adding up and you want a means to be lifted out of poverty.

The means should be to use your head and take a look around at how you do that. If you are attending a university you are supposedly intelligent enough to be able to understand that you produce so you can demand. You don't just demand.

Before you get so political, demanding free education, you should take some basic economics courses.

Just as an example, your theory of people paying for their "free" education is based in a static economy where all things remain constant. There is no long term guarantee that society will ever recover costs for providing "free" education. Inflation alone eats away at recovered costs for loans that will leave a reduced purchasing value and society all the poorer. This is part of the reason that it makes sense to be in debt in our society, although people attempt to avoid debt. Young people should mortgage themselves to the hilt if they want to get ahead, not on frivolity of course but on things that will hold or accrue value over time. Fiat currencies lose value over time.

These are all important libertarian concepts, to reduce the level of government involvement in the lives of individuals, but still insure a functioning society.

Libertarians is not anarchy. You just can't pull the plug on society you have to give it a chance to live by making it healthy.

You seem to have a disconnect on what libertarianism is all about. If you like it because it serves a single issue purpose for you then that is not Libertarianism. I am a libertarian minarchist, you are are a student in poverty concerned about your accessibility to education.

Your thoughts on the abolition of private property also fall more along the lines of Bakunin and Proudhon post state collectivism.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Whatever you are, you are absolutely not a libertarian. Free _____ for everyone is something a libertarian would never say. In fact your views are most consistent with socialism.

But your arguments have been refuted appropriately. The reason free education makes no sense is that it sets up incentives to be in the educational system forever, with no set goal. It also incentivizes the creation of more and more pointless educational programs, because every department and dean knows if they add more programming, they add more government dollars. Therefore there is no incentive to add useful programming, just any programming.

We already have hordes to students doing pointless degrees and wasting a lot of time, largely due to the massive access to capital for education through student loans. We 100% do not need to add more of this kind of thing.

If student loans were either abolished or handed out strickly on the basis of a proven need i n the economy, we could eliminate 50% of more of useless wandering and far more students would get focused because when the money is real to you, all of a sudden its makes sense to get something for what you are paying.

Regarding the value of arts etc, yes they have value. But.....and don't miss this part......that value is not for you, the state, or the university to determine. It is for the market to determine, if people want that stuff, then people will find jobs doing it. If there are jobs for it, then it makes sense to charge money to teach it. If there are not, then it does not. That is the best way to evaluate the need for those programs. The government, and by proxy the university, should never be in the business of determining what courses have value and which don't.

Otherwise we would just get an explosion of nonsense being taught, simply because the government is paying.

Hope he sees the light. Enjoyed your post.

[GostHacked]

Making the claim it will cost taxpayers less, does not mean that the tuition is free.

Title of this thread is now wrong.

[Moonbox]

shortlived, on 16 Mar 2013 - 17:17, said:

It has nothing to do with the programs, it has to do with work available in those fields.

What a stupid thing to say. That's the whole point. The programs aren't training people for areas where work is available.

shortlived, on 16 Mar 2013 - 17:17, said:

Your argument is baseless and you have submitted to my fact that post secondary education has dividends,

I never 'submitted' to anything you said. Whether or not post-secondary education is worthwhile was never something I questioned. It's pretty funny that you're trying to imply otherwise.

shortlived, on 16 Mar 2013 - 17:17, said:

and that this program would be beneficial to the tax payer. Chances are there are probably just a lot of boomers that need to retire in those fields to make way, and/or they are fields people need to self employ in. Like writing etc...

No, it's not going to be beneficial to the tay payers, and no, it's not just a matter of boomers retiring. Some degrees just don't offer enough work-relevant knowledge for the average grad to compete in the job market.

shortlived, on 16 Mar 2013 - 17:17, said:

Oh and I can ... form.. a sentence just fine. You can't read free writing, perhaps you need to pull the cucumber .. out. Oh. Yeah. That is it. Right you know.

You can't do a number of things very well. Free writing explains your grade 7 writing level? Okay...sure. What about your broken logic, juvenile arguments and sad excuse for wit?

[shortlived]

Never heard of social humanist libertarianism. But from what what you say it sounds more like Proudhon or Bakunin post state anarchism.

Far from it. Spin away. I don't advocate for taking away personal liberties, I advocate for giving people freedoms, and insuring that those without are provided for. Private parties can opt to do the same, but we can't let the poor live in destitution if we hold all the resources. Minarchism isn't anarchism. It just means reducing red tape. There is way too much governmental bloat. I firmly believe the government should insure core services. Things like grants to private parties and social programs are just slush funds for partisan purposes. If its not important enough for the government to do itself, its a waste of money and partisan in character.

Are you going to force people who use the service to pay for them or force them to take the services you offer for them to choose?

In terms of the free education. No people can opt into it. It is their choice. people can get private loans if they don't want the free tuition. They may very well need private loans anyway. The government could provide a seperate loan service via a crown corporation, with interested members of the public acting as investors in that crown corporation, but I don't think the government should be giving away money when they can create employment or encourage employment. Student employment is beneficial. Too many students are out of touch with a solid work ethic. We need more co-op education programs though, that is the key, we need private public enterprise to provide students with income. To the furthest extent we can we should get companies and public services involve in employing students in co-operative education programs.

Ok. You are a poor student living in poverty and have a student loan that is adding up and you want a means to be lifted out of poverty.

Not at all. This program would never apply to my situation anyway. While I was attending I actually got many thousands of dollars in grants. This program isn't overly advantageous to me, I had free tuition....

The means should be to use your head and take a look around at how you do that. If you are attending a university you are supposedly intelligent enough to be able to understand that you produce so you can demand. You don't just demand.

Before you get so political, demanding free education, you should take some basic economics courses.

I know economics just fine. You really don't understand the program if you are questioning the viability of the program to create dividends. As stated it would remove tax payer requirement to pay taxes into post secondary education completely, and it would provide them a dividend for the initial program startup costs. It would save them atleast $20,000 over their lifetime. It would insure nation wide free tuition for citizens of Canada, and further it would cost less to the students over their lifetime provided steady enrollment into the program.

Just as an example, your theory of people paying for their "free" education is based in a static economy where all things remain constant. There is no long term guarantee that society will ever recover costs for providing "free" education. Inflation alone eats away at recovered costs for loans that will leave a reduced purchasing value and society all the poorer. This is part of the reason that it makes sense to be in debt in our society, although people attempt to avoid debt. Young people should mortgage themselves to the hilt if they want to get ahead, not on frivolity of course but on things that will hold or accrue value over time. Fiat currencies lose value over time.

No you are wrong, this is a PERCENT of income. Not an amount to pay back. See your system is flawed because of inflation. Mine is inflation nuetral because it is a value of income earned, a percentage that is constant.

You seem to have a disconnect on what libertarianism is all about. If you like it because it serves a single issue purpose for you then that is not Libertarianism. I am a libertarian minarchist, you are are a student in poverty concerned about your accessibility to education.

Your thoughts on the abolition of private property also fall more along the lines of Bakunin and Proudhon post state collectivism.

This is in no way collectivism, it does not force the common to pay. It is a private service provided by the government in which people can opt into.

You are nonsensical in your impression of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Social Humanist Minarchist Libertarianism -- believe in creating a system in which individualism are empowered to participate in the state through insuring a mechanism of advance based on qualification, and that qualification be available to those interested, without red tape and financial barriers. It means insuring people have equal rights in society. Free education is an essential part of that.

Edited March 19, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

Oh I definately AM a libertarian minarchchist my brand I call Social Humanist Libertarianism.

I don't think you have any idea who you are. Those things do not go together, and can by definition never go together. You are trying to hold every view at once. The de facto result is you are a socialist.

Principle 1. Force Nothing

Principle 2. People who use services pay for them

Principle 3. Make sure it works...

Principle 4. We must be progressive and insure that those in poverty are provided a means of being lifted from poverty.

Ummmm......huh? You principles are in complete contradiction to everything your education plan.

Principle 1: You want to force working people to pay for it

Principle 2: You want people who are already working to pay for the service, not those using it

Principle 3: The subject of this discussion.

Only those who use the service are paying for it, that is the key difference. Nothing in libertarianism says the government can't provide services requested by people.In the case of this education program, it is free, but you pay for it down the road. Libertarian principles are government non interference in the lives of individuals to the furthest extent practical. It also means social respect.

No socialism bills everyone, that is the difference, I don't propose billing everyone, just the people who want the services.

No, you propose billing people who used the services in the past, to fund those using them now. Huge difference.

Of course the Humanist part means that in order to insure a just society we must insure those who are without are provided for, but that is only because we all get dividends from the land and collective knowledge. If we can't kill them we are morally obligated to take care of them. If I were a true socialist I would propose making Kibbutz. Part of the issue is that despotism is the enemy of a just society, and despotism will be enhanced by private ownership of land and concentration of the means of production and livelyhood in the hands of the few. So there must be governmental settlement engagements to distribute land to the people, not as collectively owned but as individually operated, in this case in northern areas. The gauge is simply people who come into conflict with the law because people in conflict of the law arn't in homeostasis with the social norms and standards, so they are the ones that need to be resettled in areas with land available for them to provide for their own autarchy.

In other words, you are not a libertarian. You really need to check the definitions of these terms.

Government work programs though recognize that some people arn't capable enough to make their own freedom of liberty so they must be trained and managed to be free. If everyone is free then there is no need for government program monopolies.

A libertarian believes that if you are not capable of making your own freedom, you don't get your own freedom.

I think you are ignornant in advocating for less education, fact is school makes people less stupid, it exposes them to the world, where before there was only a blind worldview. We don't need slave labourers, education is a gateway to freedom and independence that is required for a free society.

I think you are ignorant in assuming university is the only way to get exposed to the world, other ways of thinking and gain independence. Hang on a sec.....let me check........yep it's the year 2013.

Instituting program quotas is the capability of the institutions, if they wanted to limit the number of degrees to limit it, thats fine but its not the place of the government to control the schools, and its not the place of the schools to say what students can learn, they can learn it somewhere else. The students pick their programs and the schools pick their programs. Now what if they are unemployed.. well they are unemployed, the goal of education isn't to employ, it is to educate.

That's fine but I don't want to pay for that. A libertarian would understand this. Right now I pay tax dollars for massive university subsidies. Getting 'educated' and finding yourself is fine. What I don't see is why I should be footing the bill. I can appreciate footing the bill for something that might have some downstream economic impact.

Employers who want specific trades skills should be training their own workers, if it is industry needs such as pipe fitters, apprentice people to be pipe fitters. They are two seperate issues. Education is for education, not for employment. Educations benefits arn't just related to employment. Sure it does have dividents those 90% of students who do fine work, is still much higher than the dropout rate, tons of jobs have bachelor level or higher requirements for employment. You ascertation that people should just perform unskilled labour is nonsense. People can make robots and dispensing machines to do that, its probably a waste of time and resources, not all of them but many of them. Program offerings are for the program facilitator to decide.

If employers want their pick of labourers they should be providing employment contracts like the Canadian Forces offering education as an incentive for taking a specific carear path. We shouldn't be forcing any carear path on anyone, that is limiting freedom.

What's even more limiting freedom, is forcing everyone else to pay for education with no purpose other that for it's own sake.

Most of these self funding free programs have an ignition system but once it is going they fund themselves.

It removes the income taxes to do these same things, saving tax payers $20,000 each over their lifetime.

It removes red tape and administrative barriers, and delays.

It removes government from the lives of the individuals, connecting individuals with a fund as opposed to government.

It gives the money back to people when the program starts to have surpluses, which are guaranteed, meaning the taxpayers are refunded for the start up cost and given a dividend for life.

These are all important libertarian concepts, to reduce the level of government involvement in the lives of individuals, but still insure a functioning society.

Libertarians is not anarchy. You just can't pull the plug on society you have to give it a chance to live by making it healthy.

Libertarians absolutely believe that the individual should not be forced to pay for a service if they do not want it. You want all people who graduated, to pay for those going through. Those are opposite things.

It will do nothing for income taxes. When gov taxes people, it rarely if ever weans itself off the addiction.

It will not remove red tape, it will add it. Lots of it. A whole new bureaucracy will need to be created just to administer the system, evaluate who is eligible, make sure working people are getting taxed for it properly, prevent fraud etc.

Removes government? lol Everything about this plan adds government into peoples lives. Who do you think will enforce the system? Who do you think will evaluate eligibility? There will be at least a dozen more official forms to fill out for anyone involved in such a boondoggle.

No money will come back from this. All that will happen is an explosion of programs with little employability Those people won't be able to pay later. You will have to use all kinds of resources and department to chase them down.

The useful side of university will diminish under your plan, and the useless side will balloon.

Edited March 19, 2013 by hitops

[shortlived]

I don't think you have any idea who you are.

This could get interesting.... must find script writer... I totally know who I am. I think the problem is, you don't know who i am.

Those things do not go together, and can by definition never go together. You are trying to hold every view at once. The de facto result is you are a socialist.

The defacto result is either you are attempting comedy or your skin is green.

I'm not trying to do anything. I'm a moderate, moderates arn't leaning. You'd like to pigeon hole me for whatever stupid reason, why don't you spend less time talking about me and more about actual reasons the plan won't work, rather than just writing nonsense with no evidence.

Ummmm......huh? You principles are in complete contradiction to everything your education plan.

Not at all you can't just pull the plug and expect dead people to recover, you need to nurse them back to health. Having self sustaining services that previously were tax payer funded is the first step to recovery.

Principle 1: You want to force working people to pay for it

Principle 2: You want people who are already working to pay for the service, not those using it

Principle 3: The subject of this discussion.

Not at all, they are lending the money for shares that will return the money to them and more. They will be paying for it if the plan isn't used, you must understand they are paying whether it is this plan or nothing, the difference is they get the money back with interest in my plan and they get nothing in your system. Also people don't need to pay, inflationary printing is there to make up any shortfall. It is peoples choices to contribute to the free education for Canadians fund or not.

No, you propose billing people who used the services in the past, to fund those using them now. Huge difference.

No, I don't propose billing them, I propose they contribute a portion of their income into a fund specifically allocated, and has no strings attached. 1. the money goes to those who request it in a given year, any excess goes back to the shareholders including those paying into it as members of the fund, which shares accumulate for life as a share of return on any investment each year. If they themselves want free tuition they should respect their contribution to help others have access to free tuition, it is pretty simple.

In other words, you are not a libertarian. You really need to check the definitions of these terms.

No I am libertarian, you are just slow.

A libertarian believes that if you are not capable of making your own freedom, you don't get your own freedom.

No, libertarians don't think that. Libertarians don't deprive from others. They maintain.

I think you are ignorant in assuming university is the only way to get exposed to the world, other ways of thinking and gain independence. Hang on a sec.....let me check........yep it's the year 2013.

Oh its not the only way but it is an effective means of skills accredation. It statistically shows many benefits. You can't be accredited without an accrediting authority, standards do matter for many things, and no university isn't the only form of post secondary education. But highschool curriculums fail miserably at preparing people for professional life.

That's fine but I don't want to pay for that. A libertarian would understand this. Right now I pay tax dollars for massive university subsidies. Getting 'educated' and finding yourself is fine. What I don't see is why I should be footing the bill. I can appreciate footing the bill for something that might have some downstream economic impact.

Then don't pay for it. Fact is you are being forced to pay for subsidies under the current regime yet under this plan there is absolutely no taxation.

What's even more limiting freedom, is forcing everyone else to pay for education with no purpose other that for it's own sake.

I'm not forcing anything you just don't got a clue.

Libertarians absolutely believe that the individual should not be forced to pay for a service if they do not want it. You want all people who graduated, to pay for those going through. Those are opposite things.

Totally agree to a certain extent, this isn't absolutely true, libertarians arn't anarchists you are confusing the two. But no only those who actually take the plan pay into it for life. People who fund through their own alternative means have no obligation to pay, people don't need to use it each term, they can select only part of a term and get a partial rate, rather than the full annual rate of 1%. This is for people who want to use the fund or don't have access to an alternate means of paying tuition.

It will do nothing for income taxes. When gov taxes people, it rarely if ever weans itself off the addiction.

It will not remove red tape, it will add it. Lots of it.

That is bull. You are just trolling. Removing 20 different programs and multiple agencies where there are no eligibility criteria other than citizenship and replacing them with one flat rate fund isn't making more red tape. You are being nonsensical.

A whole new bureaucracy will need to be created just to administer the system, evaluate who is eligible, make sure working people are getting taxed for it properly, prevent fraud etc.

Totally untrue.

Removes government? lol Everything about this plan adds government into peoples lives. Who do you think will enforce the system?

Although there are multiple ways, the citizens bank I propose to replace the CRA and public service, such as service canada and canada post and a few other staff organizations.

Who do you think will evaluate eligibility?

Citizenship is all that is required. It is paid direct to the institution not the individual.

There will be at least a dozen more official forms to fill out for anyone involved in such a boondoggle.

Nope.

No money will come back from this. All that will happen is an explosion of programs with little employability Those people won't be able to pay later. You will have to use all kinds of resources and department to chase them down.

No direct connection and it is pretty simple if people enroll in the program, multiple years only sustaining one year of enrollment will create excess funds. You can talk all you want but you can't demonstrate how a pyramid scheme can't work if more and more people support the top level.

The useful side of university will diminish under your plan, and the useless side will balloon.

That is nonsense. People already go to school on loans, grants and scholarships nothing changes it is still grades, people who want to go to school can, its just how much it costs the tax payer.

What you don't seem to understand is that the government can make its own money in Canada, and that can pay for any program or investment required of these sorts. No need for shareholders, and no need to force people to pay taxes.

Edited March 19, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

The defacto result is either you are attempting comedy or your skin is green.

I'm not trying to do anything. I'm a moderate, moderates arn't leaning. You'd like to pigeon hole me for whatever stupid reason, why don't you spend less time talking about me and more about actual reasons the plan won't work, rather than just writing nonsense with no evidence.

The stupid reasons.....are all the ones you've given. At least you admit you are a moderate and not a libertarian.

Not at all you can't just pull the plug and expect dead people to recover, you need to nurse them back to health. Having self sustaining services that previously were tax payer funded is the first step to recovery.

Not at all, they are lending the money for shares that will return the money to them and more. They will be paying for it if the plan isn't used, you must understand they are paying whether it is this plan or nothing, the difference is they get the money back with interest in my plan and they get nothing in your system. Also people don't need to pay, inflationary printing is there to make up any shortfall. It is peoples choices to contribute to the free education for Canadians fund or not.

By 'lending money', you of course mean being forced to lend the money. This is not what a libertarian believes in.

It is no people's choice in your plan, you explicitly said they are forced to pay from their future income.

No, I don't propose billing them, I propose they contribute a portion of their income into a fund specifically allocated, and has no strings attached.

Against their will.

1. the money goes to those who request it in a given year, any excess goes back to the shareholders including those paying into it as members of the fund, which shares accumulate for life as a share of return on any investment each year. If they themselves want free tuition they should respect their contribution to help others have access to free tuition, it is pretty simple.

I know its simple. It's very simply forcing them to pay from their salary. Not libertarian.

No I am libertarian, you are just slow.

No, libertarians don't think that. Libertarians don't deprive from others. They maintain.

You don't have a hot clue what the terms mean that you are using. Consult a political science textbook or wikipedia.

Oh its not the only way but it is an effective means of skills accredation. It statistically shows many benefits. You can't be accredited without an accrediting authority, standards do matter for many things, and no university isn't the only form of post secondary education. But highschool curriculums fail miserably at preparing people for professional life.

The reason people get better at personal life is because they grow up. Not because they go to university. All the non-grads get better with experience as well. Your argument is like brushing your teeth, watching the sun rise an then concluding that brushing your teeth made the sun rise.

Then don't pay for it. Fact is you are being forced to pay for subsidies under the current regime yet under this plan there is absolutely no taxation.

Stop deluding yourself. If somebody gets free education, then has to pay a $ of their salary to fund the same system, that's a tax. I'd love if you started using even a bit of honesty in your arguments.

I'm not forcing anything you just don't got a clue.

Yes you are. Free education? Forced to pay from your salary later. There's no choice, you MUST pay, assuming your working. Of course a far larger share wouldn't be working under your system.....so is this how they get out of it?

Totally agree to a certain extent, this isn't absolutely true, libertarians arn't anarchists you are confusing the two. But no only those who actually take the plan pay into it for life. People who fund through their own alternative means have no obligation to pay, people don't need to use it each term, they can select only part of a term and get a partial rate, rather than the full annual rate of 1%. This is for people who want to use the fund or don't have access to an alternate means of paying tuition.

That's still the same as a tax. It's still forcing people to pay if they accepted the service.

That is bull. You are just trolling. Removing 20 different programs and multiple agencies where there are no eligibility criteria other than citizenship and replacing them with one flat rate fund isn't making more red tape. You are being nonsensical.

Totally untrue.

The fact that you can't explain why that is untrue, tells me you haven't really thought about it. OBVIOUSLY somebody has to administer this system. It won't function by having magic pixies debit people's account. Somebody has to evaluate applications, even if that just means proving citizenship. They have to enroll them in the program. They have to document completion, or hours/classes claimed. Did they switch majors?, drop classes? switch universities? They have to track them for life, verifying anytime they start working. Not all work involves getting a T4 even, complicating matters because sefl-employment is much harder for gov or uni to keep track of. They have to register them into the payment system, and confirm the right percentage is deducted from their paycheck. They have to be aware anytime they switch jobs, or get a raise, or get fired. They have to prosecute people who don't pay. This is an entire new system requiring and entire new bureaucracy.

This fact could not possibly be more obvious, but you are missing it.

And a million other things I probably haven't thought of. You obviously have never worked in government, nor been involved with many government systems. And yes, it will be government run. Income data, tracking, prosecution and forcing payments which your system requires, cannot be done by a university.

Although there are multiple ways, the citizens bank I propose to replace the CRA and public service, such as service canada and canada post and a few other staff organizations.

Citizenship is all that is required. It is paid direct to the institution not the individual.

Nope.

You do not realize that to successfully execute this system, you need access to information and prosecution services extending far beyond any kind of new 'citizens' bank.

That is nonsense. People already go to school on loans, grants and scholarships nothing changes it is still grades, people who want to go to school can, its just how much it costs the tax payer.

We are not talking about whether they are worthwhile students in the program. We are talking about whether the program is worthwhile. You are a university. You realize that student enrollment means cash for you. You realize that suddenly a leviathan-sized government program has popped up providing for education funding for all. What is your incentive? To add more....of anything. It doesn't matter, just convince students to come take it and you get their dollars. This will lead to an EXPLOSION of pointless courses. I'm not sure how you don't see this.

Net results: More graduates, with a much higher percentage of graduates that have no marketable skills. They will never pay into this system, too poor. The projections suddenly don't work for lack of funding, and it runs in the red. Of course.....the taxpayers is expected to pick up the pieces.

Everybody else here seems to get this.

I think you don't realize that plenty of politicians have come up with 'dream' systems just like you think you have. They all think it will work great, just like you. Then they find out it doesn't work that way in real life.

The primary benefit of your system, will be in funding the salaries and benefits of those administering the system. We already have lots of those, no thanks.

Edited March 20, 2013 by hitops

[Newfoundlander]

So how do we get professors to work for free?

[Lwhispers]

This conversation seems to be getting off topic. Maybe I can lay out a few points that will bring us back.

Shortlived. I agree that post secondary should be free, but you are laying out the how to do this without adequately arguing the why.

WHY SHOULD IT BE FREE (or universal, something like our healthcare system maybe?)

1. The baby boomers are aging, and are going to be a huge drain on various social programs (healthcare, pensions, OAS, and welfare). The upcoming generations likely cannot handle the financial burden of these programs along with school debt, additional schooling (as going back to school multiple times becomes the new norm) and helping to pay for their children's education - remember that this smaller generation must make up for the consumption of the boomers in order to continue driving the economy, but the additional expenses beg the question of money spread too thin (how to pay for it all).

2. A growing number of boomers are not retiring. This is preventing the new generation from filling the gap of retiring boomers. Their incomes are lower and unemployment levels higher. They also face contract work, part-time work, no benefits and little job security.

3. Economies are changing rapidly these days. Continual schooling to adapt to the new markets is an essential. Having to take on significant financial debt every time that you go back to school is inefficient and a deterrent. Funding for these programs so that individuals can gain additional training and re-enter the workforce almost immediately get's them off government support and keeps them contributing economically.

These are primarily economic reasons for funding, not an ideological perspective (not socialist) ! ! !

To those that disagree.....

Please present a viable alternative ------ I don't care how its paid for, or what approach you believe will work.... but based on the coming problems (and those developing currently) what would you suggest?

[Bonam]

This conversation seems to be getting off topic. Maybe I can lay out a few points that will bring us back.

Shortlived. I agree that post secondary should be free, but you are laying out the how to do this without adequately arguing the why.

WHY SHOULD IT BE FREE (or universal, something like our healthcare system maybe?)

1. The baby boomers are aging, and are going to be a huge drain on various social programs (healthcare, pensions, OAS, and welfare). The upcoming generations likely cannot handle the financial burden of these programs along with school debt, additional schooling (as going back to school multiple times becomes the new norm) and helping to pay for their children's education - remember that this smaller generation must make up for the consumption of the boomers in order to continue driving the economy, but the additional expenses beg the question of money spread too thin (how to pay for it all).

2. A growing number of boomers are not retiring. This is preventing the new generation from filling the gap of retiring boomers. Their incomes are lower and unemployment levels higher. They also face contract work, part-time work, no benefits and little job security.

3. Economies are changing rapidly these days. Continual schooling to adapt to the new markets is an essential. Having to take on significant financial debt every time that you go back to school is inefficient and a deterrent. Funding for these programs so that individuals can gain additional training and re-enter the workforce almost immediately get's them off government support and keeps them contributing economically.

These are primarily economic reasons for funding, not an ideological perspective (not socialist) ! ! !

To those that disagree.....

Please present a viable alternative ------ I don't care how its paid for, or what approach you believe will work.... but based on the coming problems (and those developing currently) what would you suggest?

Anything that is "free" gets used inefficiently. If you offer people free houses, they'll take 5 just cause they can. If you offer people free hot dogs, they'll take a bunch and eat one or two and throw away the rest. If you offer people free education, they won't properly consider whether there is economic value to what it is studying, value enough to make the cost of it worth it. And meanwhile universities still have costs, so they'll still be charging money. But that money will be charged to the government administering the "free education" program. And the universities can then just raise the rates through the roof, since it won't actually deter any students from going there, since their education is "free".

No... education should continue to be paid for by students. Students who qualify based on various criteria already have access to various sources of financial aid, through scholarships, bursaries, and student loans. Everything indicates that Canada's system works quite well, as it has a high proportion of the population attaining post-secondary education. There is no need for drastic change. Don't fix what isn't broken.

As to your projected problems for the future, a few points:

1) You are talking about the burdensome costs of social programs. Ok, that's fine. But how does adding one more expensive program help that situation? You don't seem to have thought this through at all.

2) People not retiring is good. For one, people continuing to work means they are not a drain on the above-mentioned social programs. Secondly, older workers with decades of knowledge and experience can be immensely useful to the companies where they've accumulated all this knowledge, and can be great mentors for younger employees. Third, studies have shown that people who continue to work into their later years live longer and have a better quality of life. As for the younger generation, there are huge amounts of unfilled jobs with good pay and benefits, you just need to have the right skills for said jobs. And no, art history and English literature aren't the right degrees.

The way to address the cost issue of social programs for older people is to look realistically at the benefits offered. Most importantly, it must be realized that when government pension funds were implemented, the life expectancy was less than the retirement age. That means that less than 50% of people ever got to collect CPP/OAS, or in the US, social security. Today, life expectancy exceeds the retirement age cutoffs by 15+ years, meaning the vast majority of people are collecting from these programs for decades. The situation is clearly not sustainable. The only reasonable solution is to index retirement benefit age to life expectancy.

In short, the way to address problems with expensive social programs is by addressing problems with expensive social programs, not by drastically changing unrelated programs (education) that are actually working just fine.

[Pliny]

This conversation seems to be getting off topic. Maybe I can lay out a few points that will bring us back.

Well, it has drifted to economics and economic reality because of the word "free". so it hasn't really drifted off topic.

Shortlived. I agree that post secondary should be free, but you are laying out the how to do this without adequately arguing the why.

Bonam gives a cogent argument as to why it should not be free - nothing is ever free. Someone pays.and they pay because they see value. Already, the State in providing free public education has devalued education. I doubt parents would pay the exorbitant costs of public education for what they receive in return. It isn't worth it today. A real education doesn't prepare you for today it prepares you for the future, the truth is that the future is not determined but the way it is approached by government is that it has already been determined.

WHY SHOULD IT BE FREE (or universal, something like our healthcare system maybe?)

1. The baby boomers are aging, and are going to be a huge drain on various social programs (healthcare, pensions, OAS, and welfare). The upcoming generations likely cannot handle the financial burden of these programs along with school debt, additional schooling (as going back to school multiple times becomes the new norm) and helping to pay for their children's education - remember that this smaller generation must make up for the consumption of the boomers in order to continue driving the economy, but the additional expenses beg the question of money spread too thin (how to pay for it all).

Another "free" social program to add to the already "free" social programs that are for some reason a huge drain on the economy? How can it be?

How many people believe that health care is free?

2. A growing number of boomers are not retiring. This is preventing the new generation from filling the gap of retiring boomers. Their incomes are lower and unemployment levels higher. They also face contract work, part-time work, no benefits and little job security.

I will just add a thought to what Bonam has already commented on regarding this. If you have ever heard the expression that "whatever is taxed tends to disappear" then you will understand where responsibility lies in the growth of contract work, part time work with no benefits and little job security." Businesses are better off not hiring employees who make increasing economic demands upon them and whom government places increasing benefits to be paid. It works only so long as consumers will pay rising costs for the commodities they purchase.

3. Economies are changing rapidly these days. Continual schooling to adapt to the new markets is an essential. Having to take on significant financial debt every time that you go back to school is inefficient and a deterrent. Funding for these programs so that individuals can gain additional training and re-enter the workforce almost immediately get's them off government support and keeps them contributing economically.

These are primarily economic reasons for funding, not an ideological perspective (not socialist) ! ! !

Collective generational funding is a socialist concept and only serves to cement a future for later generations. A future that they may have some disagreements with even though everything is provided for "free".

To those that disagree.....

Please present a viable alternative ------ I don't care how its paid for, or what approach you believe will work.... but based on the coming problems (and those developing currently) what would you suggest?

Nowhere in your argument do you consider that University graduates should be independent, innovative or individual in their quest for a means to contribute to society. You consider they are being "prepared" for "jobs". I do not believe this should be the primary purpose of a secondary education.

It is called streaming and the appearance of there being choice belays the danger of tyranny.

If we lived in an ideal world then perhaps the future should be created the way you describe with free everything and nothing should change. Fortunately, we as individuals and as a species and as a civilization still have dreams and discoveries that will lead us to a future not yet determined.

Education should prepare us for that not for a "job".

[shortlived]

given. At least you admit you are a moderate and not a libertarian.

Not at all I did not say I was not libertarian you need to learn up your reading. I said I was moderate, which does not preclude Libertarian, on the contrary I am a moderate Libertarian.

By 'lending money', you of course mean being forced to lend the money. This is not what a libertarian believes in.

Who says libertarians can't lend money? You are being stupid. An investment is an investment, no reason libertarians can't invest.

It is no people's choice in your plan, you explicitly said they are forced to pay from their future income.

Nope. That is a lie.

I know its simple. It's very simply forcing them to pay from their salary. Not libertarian.

That is another lie.

You don't have a hot clue what the terms mean that you are using. Consult a political science textbook or wikipedia.

I think you are wrong and if you can't present some truth here you should put your head in the sand and count to infinity.

The reason people get better at personal life is because they grow up. Not because they go to university. All the non-grads get better with experience as well. Your argument is like brushing your teeth, watching the sun rise an then concluding that brushing your teeth made the sun rise.

Statistics don't show that.

Stop deluding yourself. If somebody gets free education, then has to pay a $ of their salary to fund the same system, that's a tax. I'd love if you started using even a bit of honesty in your arguments.

Its not a tax, loans arn't taxes, they are loans, a service fee is not a tax, it is a service fee, you don't pay if you don't use it. Pretty simple. Contracts are not taxes.

Yes you are. Free education? Forced to pay from your salary later. There's no choice, you MUST pay, assuming your working. Of course a far larger share wouldn't be working under your system.....so is this how they get out of it?

That is a lie. You only pay for the service if you opt into the service. Stop lying.

That's still the same as a tax. It's still forcing people to pay if they accepted the service.

Its not. I'm sorry but if you don't understand you need remedial education.

The fact that you can't explain why that is untrue, tells me you haven't really thought about it. OBVIOUSLY somebody has to administer this system. It won't function by having magic pixies debit people's account. Somebody has to evaluate applications, even if that just means proving citizenship. They have to enroll them in the program. They have to document completion, or hours/classes claimed. Did they switch majors?, drop classes? switch universities? They have to track them for life, verifying anytime they start working. Not all work involves getting a T4 even, complicating matters because sefl-employment is much harder for gov or uni to keep track of. They have to register them into the payment system, and confirm the right percentage is deducted from their paycheck. They have to be aware anytime they switch jobs, or get a raise, or get fired. They have to prosecute people who don't pay. This is an entire new system requiring and entire new bureaucracy.

What don't you understand. It is a fund. What don't you understand. It is paid to the fund. People opt into the fund, the money goes to their school for their tuition. Each term amounts to ~0.33%, of future annual income for life. It is pretty simple, available for full time students and part time students, with part time students getting 0.15% per term.

This fact could not possibly be more obvious, but you are missing it.

And a million other things I probably haven't thought of. You obviously have never worked in government, nor been involved with many government systems. And yes, it will be government run. Income data, tracking, prosecution and forcing payments which your system requires, cannot be done by a university.

No I have actually. Universities don't collect anything except from the government for those people who opt into the tuition plan. The money goes direct to the University. The fund collects the funds. People who don't pay breach the contract, and they can be collected from via available civil law recourses. Under the current systems there are layers of administration and private banks involved, it is a hodge podge of red tape delays and possible technical glitches and defaults.

You do not realize that to successfully execute this system, you need access to information and prosecution services extending far beyond any kind of new 'citizens' bank.

No that is false. You need to read on my citizens bank policies before you make such broad uninformed statements.

We are not talking about whether they are worthwhile students in the program. We are talking about whether the program is worthwhile. You are a university. You realize that student enrollment means cash for you. You realize that suddenly a leviathan-sized government program has popped up providing for education funding for all. What is your incentive? To add more....of anything. It doesn't matter, just convince students to come take it and you get their dollars. This will lead to an EXPLOSION of pointless courses. I'm not sure how you don't see this.

Programs are a completely different issue. Its not for the government to dictate what education is available, it is up to the accrediting agencies which the government recognizes to determine those things, this is not a socialist society. Post secondary education is generally free from state propaganda.

Net results: More graduates, with a much higher percentage of graduates that have no marketable skills. They will never pay into this system, too poor. The projections suddenly don't work for lack of funding, and it runs in the red. Of course.....the taxpayers is expected to pick up the pieces.

That is completely false, there is a market they just arn't striving in it in some cases. The skills do have a purpose.

Everybody else here seems to get this.

You are speaking for 'everybody now' ... no sorry try again.

I think you don't realize that plenty of politicians have come up with 'dream' systems just like you think you have. They all think it will work great, just like you. Then they find out it doesn't work that way in real life.

The primary benefit of your system, will be in funding the salaries and benefits of those administering the system. We already have lots of those, no thanks.

Not at all as stated which you are ingoring it reduces staffing costs and simplifies the system incredibly.

Edited March 21, 2013 by shortlived

[guyser]

hitops, on 19 Mar 2013 - 22:04, said:

Yes you are. Free education? Forced to pay from your salary later. There's no choice, you MUST pay, assuming your working. Of course a far larger share wouldn't be working under your system.....so is this how they get out of it?

That is a lie. You only pay for the service if you opt into the service. Stop lying.

From your OP.....so who is lying again?

Just have anyone who graduates using the free tuition pay out 1% of their annual income to the free tuition fund

[shortlived]

From your OP.....so who is lying again?

No hitops lied, demonstrate how his comments are true. Example how does free tuition change employment rates?

Also explain how this system is any different from free tuition on a student loan that you payback later? Aside from the absence of layers of red tape waiting lines and the uncertain terms on variable legislation that can change from year to yearand the current systems complex contracts and conditions like being able to be spied on and tracked by the government and have money taken from your bank accounts without your permission.

Personally I think my system offers advantages to students in need because it cuts the crap and the red tape and makes it simple doesn't have hidden terms like being spied on and tracked, and having money taken from your bank account by some stranger or a computer system that doesn't even try to contact you, as well as mounds of paperwork every six months or repayment rates that don't in any way reflect your actual available money. It also makes the repayment tied to income rather than a flat rate, and it accounts for out of work individuals as well as low income earners without the need for paperwork every 6 months.

Fact is a one line condition is much easier to follow than a four page contract that changes each year.

And it doesn't require an indemnity for the federal government to do anything with your finances and not be liable for damages.

I must say taking one sentence from my OP does not seem to explain your lack of understanding the depth behind that 1%. In no way would I expect every graduate to pay 1%, that is 1% per year (3 terms) for those who opt INTO the program, not those who do not opt for free tuition. This was explained very clearly.

Edited March 21, 2013 by shortlived

[guyser]

No hitops lied, demonstrate how his comments are true. Example how does free tuition change employment rates?

Read the quote I gave you. You said he lied, I showed you your own words.

You do the math

Also explain how this system is any different from free tuition on a student loan that you payback later?

English.....it works wonders when you get it right

If a free tuition is granted, why pay it back...its....um free?

Personally I think my system offers advantages to students

Of course you do, why else come on here and try to sell it?

However, not one person is buying it. Either the explanation sucks...or the idea sucks.

Which 'suck' you wanna go with?

[shortlived]

Read the quote I gave you. You said he lied, I showed you your own words.

Taking one sentence out of context on a five page thread is not "evidence" it is slander.

You do the mathEnglish.....it works wonders when you get it right

If a free tuition is granted, why pay it back...its....um free?

so are you for or against free tuition here guyser?

This plan will work it is based on a pyramid and mlm systems.

Of course you do, why else come on here and try to sell it?

Because it will make things better and fairer, and create a more free country that embraces good morals and philanthropy.

It will also help to remove the corrupt tax system.

However, not one person is buying it. Either the explanation sucks...or the idea sucks.

Which 'suck' you wanna go with?

Its your money, I'm the one getting free education here under the current system.

[guyser]

Taking one sentence out of context on a five page thread is not "evidence" it is slander.

Oh please.

They are your own words, , in context so whats the problem?

Against, nothing is nor ever will be free.

This plan will work it is based on a pyramid and mlm systems.

So you admit it is a scam. Guess we are done then right?

p;

>>r />Its your money, I'm the one getting free education here under the current system.

No you arent. Nothing is free.

You are not getting any value for your education either

Might want to reconsider this path you are on

Youll have to figure out which parts are which, this dumb ass system is screwing up again.

Edited March 21, 2013 by guyser

[shortlived]

No you arent. Nothing is free.

You are not getting any value for your education either

Might want to reconsider this path you are on

It is free when they get it. If they work they pay, if they don't work, they don't. If what you guys are saying is so true, it is free.

F--- you buddy. I've got tons of value from my time in post secondary studies.

Dude who the hell are you to say what I should do with my time, manage your own life prick.

Also the difference of them having most secondary studies will statistically increase their income by more than 40% a 3-4% cut of that 40% is an investment well spent.

Edited March 21, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

You are being stupid. An investment is an investment, no reason libertarians can't invest.

you should put your head in the sand and count to infinity.

Its not. I'm sorry but if you don't understand you need remedial education.

F--- you buddy. I've got tons of value from my time in post secondary studies.

Dude who the hell are you to say what I should do with my time, manage your own life prick.

And here is the depth of your responses. I think we've heard everything we need to.

Every single person here has tried to explain you the problems with your system. You seem to think it will operate magically, nobody needs to run it and therefore it doesn't require any staffing or bureaucracy. You repeatedly claim in one breath that the system is funded off the wages of working taxpayers, and at the same time that it does not force any money out of anyone. You say its funded by alumni of the system if they accepted the system, in other words mandatory. We then try to explain to you that it's mandatory, and you deny it. It's not really possible to converse with a person like that.

Tell you what.....never mind. You are so smart that absolutely nobody gets you. The reason not a single soul agrees with you is not because we are rational adults who recognize when a plan is brain-dead and unworkable. It's because....we all got together and decided in secret to conspire against you simply because we are part of a secret centuries-old society who's sole purpose in life is to recognize when anybody presents this one brilliant education idea and shut it down. Our wizard task-masters told us to do it. You've exposed us! How could we not see the brilliance of this system!

And now you're swearing at forum members. The funny part is you actually took time to edit your post.....and left the swears in. Thinking twice doesn't work for you. Your behavior shows you to be a troll and you should leave, you should also issue an apology.

Edited March 22, 2013 by hitops

[shortlived]

And here is the depth of your responses. I think we've heard everything we need to.

Every single person here has tried to explain you the problems with your system. You seem to think it will operate magically, nobody needs to run it and therefore it doesn't require any staffing or bureaucracy. You repeatedly claim in one breath that the system is funded off the wages of working taxpayers, and at the same time that it does not force any money out of anyone. You say its funded by alumni of the system if they accepted the system, in other words mandatory. We then try to explain to you that it's mandatory, and you deny it. It's not really possible to converse with a person like that.

Tell you what.....never mind. You are so smart that absolutely nobody gets you. The reason not a single soul agrees with you is not because we are rational adults who recognize when a plan is brain-dead and unworkable. It's because....we all got together and decided in secret to conspire against you simply because we are part of a secret centuries-old society who's sole purpose in life is to recognize when anybody presents this one brilliant education idea and shut it down. Our wizard task-masters told us to do it. You've exposed us! How could we not see the brilliance of this system!

And now you're swearing at forum members. The funny part is you actually took time to edit your post.....and left the swears in. Thinking twice doesn't work for you. Your behavior shows you to be a troll and you should leave, you should also issue an apology.

Yeah "you lose" a discussion you fill with lies and rhetoric then attempt to flame me to get a ban in place. You buddy suck plain and simple.

Trolls like you ruin the internet.

Further you devalue the forum by lowering the quality of discussion and attempt to prey on people of even lesser intelligence.

Turn yourself around you havn't died yet you have time to reform.

I edit for grammatical correctness due to at time typos appearing in my posts.

Using swear words would be inappropriate for this forum nothing was edited out, rather spelling was corrected where needed.

Get a life buddy.

Edited March 22, 2013 by shortlived

[hitops]

Yeah "you lose" a discussion you fill with lies and rhetoric then attempt to flame me to get a ban in place. You buddy suck plain and simple.

Trolls like you ruin the internet.

Further you devalue the forum by lowering the quality of discussion and attempt to prey on people of even lesser intelligence.

Turn yourself around you havn't died yet you have time to reform.

I edit for grammatical correctness due to at time typos appearing in my posts.

Using swear words would be inappropriate for this forum nothing was edited out, rather spelling was corrected where needed.

Get a life buddy.

Anybody else know what 'you buddy suck plain and simple' means?

Edited March 22, 2013 by hitops

[Guest Derek L]

Anybody else know what 'you buddy suck plain and simple' means?

No, but a quick search of past forum members login and William Ashley will shed some light on this and a great many other "topics".