GatewayRedbirds.com

jim wrote:There is a stream by my house that is kind of weird. If you follow it from the bridge for about 150 yards it just disappears into a marshland. Most people stop walking there, but I know that if you slosh through the swampy stuff the stream "reforms". And it's loaded with brook trout. And almost nobody knows about it.

Sounds like you need to build another bridge...

Research 2000 Favorables for Palin:
Research 2000 Favorables of McCain:
Meanwhile, Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly of FOX News have all come out and called McCain, in so many words, a liar:

[/youtube]

[/youtube]

[/youtube]

PujolJunkie wrote:

[/youtube]

This guy's been dominated by Campbell Brown and now Megyn Kelly. I'm a little jealous.

Freed Roger wrote:I'm just saying, to get elected Obama needs to watch his broad rhetoric on these issues, or they will unfairly brand him him as a tax and spend liberal. they already are. If Obama wants elected, he needs to work the middle ground - and the middle ground is full of people that are obsessed against the concept of a welfare state, unfairness, and higher taxes and all it entails.

Tehe, reminded me of this cartoon I saw:



Should we start a funny political cartoon thread? No commentary, just funny cartoons about both sides?

There's actually been discussion today on how trickle-down economics works?

Richie Allen wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:Its for this reason, I wish Obama would drop his..."free education for all" language. Its just not realistic with our Bush bankrupted govt, and its not worth the backlash it causes amongst the angry mobs. It just adds fuel to their fire.. More realistic would be restoring the CHIPS program (health insurance for poor kids) and college aid to prior levels.

If I'm not mistaken, Obama's plan for helping people go to college is not "free education for all," but the opportunity to get $4000 (total) in exchange for 100 hours of community service. That $4000 might cover a year's tuition at a state school and would probably cover an entire associates degree at a community college but would barely make a dent for a semester at a private school. I'm not saying it wouldn't help, and I like the sound of it, but it's far from free school. $40 an hour for 100 hours of community service may sound like a lot but if it works it could be a win-win solution.

I really don't know how much this type of program would work. I guess I'd need to know more. It's pretty easy for a large number of kids to go to school for free for two years in Missouri an obtain an associate's degree (through the A+ program or through articulation agreements if attending an ACC in HS). But few take advantage of it compared to the number that could take advantage of it.

Is Obama's plan for four-year universities only? Is it a one-time "grant"? What happens if they don't perform the service, or do they have to prior to receiving the grant? Are we really wanting to send more people to four-year schools?

What I fail to understand about the university system is how quickly tuition rates are going up. I mean, it's doubled over the past 10 years, far outpacing inflation. I understand that schools need to be higher tech to keep up, but it doesn't cost *that* much more to educate an individual student now vs. 10 years ago. Especially with the escalating money coming in from NCAA sports as well.

Popeye_Card wrote:What I fail to understand about the university system is how quickly tuition rates are going up. I mean, it's doubled over the past 10 years, far outpacing inflation. I understand that schools need to be higher tech to keep up, but it doesn't cost *that* much more to educate an individual student now vs. 10 years ago. Especially with the escalating money coming in from NCAA sports as well.

I don't understand it either. I really don't know what enrollments have looked like at most schools, but I'd say most record pretty stable enrollments if not increases.

Maybe the universities realize that most students coming out of HS don't need to go that route and are trying to head off the eventual downturn of enrollments. Or maybe they're just greedy.

And really, in fairness, it does cost more due to less state aid being given. Take Missouri for example and look what state schools got in the 90's compared to now. Not that I'm taking a side, but it does cost more. (Did I just contradict myself?)

I can't remember where I read this, I think it was money magazine? Anyway, it was just last month they had a huge article about the skyrocketing cost of education.

They had university presidents admitting that when they increased their prices - admission applications went up. That the perceived value was greater when the cost was higher.

I believe that, too. They distance themselves from the community colleges who already have a negative stigma attached to them by many graduating HS seniors. It's a shame, really.